[sustran] Re: Hybrid cars- and Diesel Greenwash

[Daryl Oster]

> Original Message From: mpotter
> 
> Re the comments about  being tough on rail from the irate gentleman
> from Florida (bear in mind this is one of the most car-dependent places
> on the Planet).

I am sorry you think me to be irate; I am however like EVERYONE on this list
dependant on transportation, and also (like most people on this lis), the
car is my best transportation tool.

You are correct that Florida is mostly car dependant.  A hundred years ago
it was train dependant; then the car was invented and relieved the train
dependency -- but not transportation dependency --- that is inherent for ALL
humans.  

> I suspect that in the highly unlikely event that  rail should ever
> become as globally environmentally and socially destructive as the
> automobile, lots more people would be attacking rail.  

No one really needs to attack rail -- it has lived a very useful life, and
has faded away to the point of almost being forgotten for all but about 2%
of travel in the US (mostly in very densely populated cities).  



> The automobile attracts fire partly because of the scope and severity of 
> its consequences.

The train attracts little fire because most of the damage was in the past,
and the rail age is well past it's peak.  No need to attack something in
decline, unless people are spreading lies about it's resurrection.  The car
is attracting fire because the incremental value of continued expansion is
becoming marginalized by increasing costs.


> The reasons for the swift and generally effective
> counter reactions to the  suggestion that more environmentally sound
> alternatives to the automobile be encouraged can be found in the fact
> that the automobile, highway construction, petrol and allied industries
> butter far more peoples' bread  than do those  associated with rail.

I fully agree that environmentally sound alternatives to the automobile are
needed.  I dedicate most of my time and resources to achieving that.  I also
agree there are many virtues to bikes and trains - sustainable passenger
transportation for most people is NOT one of them.  

> RE advertising, rail advertising is almost non-existent in the US, and
> miniscule in most other countries(at least the ones that I've been to),
> while automobile advertising is nearly  ubiquitous every country  I've
> been to save Myanmar.

Railroaders were displaced from the passenger market 50 years ago.  The
market will only respond to lies in the short term -- value wins in the long
term;  so now instead of wasting money on useless train advertising,
railroaders focus their considerable resources on convincing governments to
implement rail system after rail system that (in the US) go mostly under
used - it is easyer to baffle public officials with reams of paperwork
"proving" the supposed virtues of rail, and sealing support with wining and
dining, and luxury trips to exotic places to see the latest rail
improvements.  In spite of the railroader lies, the car, by virtue of
greater passenger transport sustainability, continues to take the train's
share of passenger travel -- all over the world -- the efficient market
cannot be lied to in the long term.  

> That said, here in Fukuoka (pop 1.3 million, metro 3.5 million) rail
> and subway advertising, limited though it is, in some cases does
> (admirably) include CO2 output and passenger kilometer energy
> efficiency  comparisons with automobiles. The trains here are
> overwhelmingly electrified, which of course has an influence on CO2.


> For rapid transit vs the automobile, given the full subways and the
> endless AM procession of single-occupant cars here (about 92% one
> occupant), if anything the figures presented by rapid transit here seem
> understated. Adding to the environmental and social costs  the costs
> and consequences of paving over land for parking and streets would tip
> the balance even further in favor of rail here. 

 
Japan is the most transportation dependant nation on earth -- as a nation
mostly dependant on ships.  Domestic travel is still somewhat dependant on
the train, yet now 60% of passenger miles are by car - trains are fading
away in Japan too - because cars are more sustainable for MOST people there
too.  

> Rail does tend to be well utilized and  well-implemented here.  I.e., the 
> basic shopping and other needs of commuters are able to be met in the 
> immediate environs of the stations, high density neighborhoods with 
> limited parking frequently radiate out from stations.  This  makes 
> difficult direct comparison with countries like the US and Philippines, 
> for example, where rail implementations are sparse and frequently 
> abominable.

Your assertion that rail is underdeveloped in the US is ludicrous.  

http://www.crowlaw.com/history.htm says:

******************START QUOTE******************
...
>From 1870 to 1916, total track miles grew from 53,000 miles to 245,000
miles, an average of over 11 miles per day. 
...
>From 1920 to 1941, an expanding network of paved roads, development of the
automobile, and the depression shrank demand for the railroads. While World
War II increased rail traffic, profits continued a downward slide. The age
of decreasing rail miles had begun as total railroad miles contracted 7.6%
from 1920 to 1950. 
Following World War II, total railroad miles continued to decline. From 1950
to 1992 total miles decreased 39.2% to 136,000 miles. During this time
period, the railroad industry needed and received help from the government.
In 1971, the federally subsidized Amtrak was born as a way to help relieve
railroads of passenger service deficits. With federal assistance,
Consolidated Rail was established in 1976 to renovate portions of six
bankrupt railroads in the Northeast. 
...
>From a total of 23 miles of track in 1830, the U.S. rail network grew to
240,293 miles by 1910. During this period, railroads were the largest
employers in the United States ... 
******************END QUOTE****************** 

The ONLY reason passenger rail still exists in the US (outside of extremely
and unnaturally dense areas like NYC), is by government action secured by
the very powerful rail industry lobby.  The rail industry reached it's
zenith in the US in 1916.  Presently there are more miles of abandoned rail
ROW (245,000 - 136,000 = 109,000) in the US as exists in all of China
(75,000 miles).

> As for the notion walking or cycling are more environmentally
> destructive than automobile use, this is a self-evidently ludicrous
> proposition.  I spent 19 years in southern California as a driver, and
> am now on my sixteenth year as a transportation cyclist in Fukuoka, and
> I can tell the difference in both my bank account and my waistline.
> For envrionmental, financial and physical health, the bicycle is the
> clear winner.


Your personal testimony has failed to counter the proof I submitted to this
group a few weeks ago.  The HUGE majority in the US, Europe, and even Japan
disagree with you.  The rate of the bicycle market increase in China is
about 20% of the rate of increase of auto sales.  That said, it IS clear
that the car is reaching natural limits to sustainability -- and a major
paradigm shift is needed, and will occur - the shift will be progressive to
modes like ETT-- not regressive to trains and bikes.  


> 
> With fuel importing Japan spending 9% of GNP on transportation,
> transportation infrastructure, and assorted costs and the USA 18%,
> (figures from Holtz's Asphalt Nation)  the difference would seem to
> hold on a national level as well.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Mark Potter
> millennium3
> Fukuoka, Japan

According to: http://web-japan.org/stat/stats/01CEN2A.html 

In 2002
Japan had 337 persons per square kilometer
USA had 30 persons per square kilometer 

So your numbers actually help show that transportation in the US is more
efficient than in Japan.  The people in the US are much further apart and
must travel more by need.  

Japan has 11 times the population density, so they spend much more on
transportation than they should.  Please consider that it must not be true
what many of today's social planners are saying about the efficiency of
population density, and the virtues of trains and bikes for transportation.



Daryl Oster
(c) 2006  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3 at et3.com , www.et3.com>