[sustran] Re: Is E.B. patronizing, offensive, heavy handed and counter-productive? Re: Driving in Bangalore /India -

[Daryl Oster]

> Original Message From: Eric Bruun
> 
> Daryl
> 
> If I may interject here. I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't
> automatically dismiss concepts like the ETT.
> But until the financing is found for a demonstration project that
> proves the transportation value, I am on the side of agencies that
> continue to use proven technologies. This is the only responsible course.
> Most public agencies don't have a large research fund and look to higher
> levels of governments or NGO to do the proving.
> 
> Eric Bruun
>

Eric Bruun,

I did not consider that your initials are also E.B. -- I was referring to
Eric Britton, and not you.

Thank you for not being automatically dismissive of concepts like ETT.  Is
being dismissive for insubstantial reasons superior?  

Please consider a contradiction in your statement.  
On one hand you say: "I am on the side of agencies that continue to use
proven technologies. This is the only responsible course." 
And on the other hand you say: "Most public agencies don't have a large
research fund and look to higher levels of governments or NGO to do the
proving."

A contradiction is evident when one considers that for a given government
investment, roads provide more transportation to more people than rail, yet
government continues to subsidize the "proven" but failing in the market
rail mode to a greater and greater extent.  Rail continues to lose passenger
market share to car and motorcycle.  

If funds are limited, is it not prudent to spend them in a way that
generates the highest benefit for the majority of people?  Muscle powered
transportation was displaced by rail, and now cars have displaced rail
through the same natural market forces that respond to value.  The main
reason the existence of passenger rail is perpetuated is the millions of
lobby dollars directed to naive government officials by the world rail
industry.  This lobby investment lines the pockets of the rail industry with
billions from those who can ill afford it, and would rather use it to save
up for a motorcycle or car.  

The "proven technologies" excuse proffered by transit agencies is another
contradiction of the same level as 'the emperor's new suit of non-existent
clothes'.  Travel in an evacuated environment is the most highly proven form
of transportation known on earth -- every human who has ever lived travels
more than 100,000 km every hour through the evacuated environment of space,
and at virtually no cost per passenger km.  Yet most see ETT as "un-proven"
and trains as "proven", even though trains are a proven to be of less
transportation value for most people (not all people) than cars.  

Trains are "proven" this is true, they are proven to be: only accessible to
a small percentage of the population; the cost of accessibility is proven to
be at least an order of magnitude greater than road acessibility; the
recovery of capital cost of trains is proven to be untenable if in open
competition to roads funded with tax and fees collected from only those who
directly benefit from the road.  

Is not the "only responsible course" to spend public money so it is most
likely to produce the greatest benefit for the most people?

It is scientifically and physically proven than PRIVATLY FUNDED ETT
development offer sufficient improvement in transportation value to
naturally displace most car and jet use, thereby achieving the laudable
objectives of the anti-car proponents.  Why is it that our suggestion to
consider and endorse the merits of so resisted?  IMO, it must be that the
influential figures in the anti-car movement must have a financial stake in
rail implementation, or are somehow supported by the rail industry.  I ask
those responsible for spending public money to fully investigate the facts
of why intercity passenger rail market share has fallen from 90%+ in 1910,
to its present less than 1% in the US, and why this trend is repeating all
over the world.  

Just because I recognize the many value advantages of cars/roads compared to
trains, is not to say I am "anti-rail", or "pro-car", in fact there are some
niche markets where trains offer a better solution than cars do.  Just
because value of cars is improving for an increasing percentage of the
world's population, is not an indication that I do not see some problems
with cars, or the few advantages of trains.  

I am not anti-car, nor pro-car, or anti or pro-train.  I point out facts why
ETT is likely to produce far greater transportation value for more people
than cars and jets presently do.  All I ask is for those who are of an
anti-car mind set, to fully research and compare the reasons that ETT offers
far more chance of long term sustainability than do cars/roads and jets do;
and to consider that trains are PROVEN to be less sustainable than road
vehicles and jets for most people.  



We can supply facts showing:
* ETT is capable of 50 times more passenger kilometers of transportation for
a given energy input than trains, planes, or cars.  
* ETT requires less than 1/30th the material compared to elevated highway or
railroad.
* ETT with a design speed of 600km/h offers more than 10 times greater
capacity than a maglev train capable of 500km/h.
* A 100km of ETT guideway can be built for about 1/4th the cost of a 4-lane
expressway, and about 1/15th the cost of elevated HSR.  
* The electrical power supply requirements for ETT are less than 1/100th the
power supply requirements for HSR.  
* The world's population prefers to travel in randomly directable vehicles
accommodating family sized groups of 4-6 persons, and in reclined seated
comfort; instead of crammed into a much larger vehicle with hundreds of
strangers, often with standing room only.
* The cost of ETT is sufficiently low, and the benefit of ETT sufficiently
high that ETT has the potential to offer profit potential sufficient to
attract private investors (if it were not for the usual tendency for
government to punish transportation innovation, and subsidize outdated
modes).

For those transportation experts, and public officials on this forum who
take the time to fully investigate the facts; we at et3 challenge any of you
to show any engineering data, or scientific fact that indicate that muscle
powered vehicles, trains, cars, motorcycles, or jets are capable of
providing greater transportation value for a greater percentage of the
world's population than ETT is likely to provide if implemented.  

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of
> Eric Bruun
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 2:45 PM
> To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport; eric.britton at ecoplan.org;
> 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Is E.B. patronizing, offensive,heavy handed and
> counter-productive? Re: Driving in Bangalore /India -
> 
> 
> Daryl
> 
> If I may interject here. I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't
> automatically dismiss concepts like
> the ETT. But until the financing is found for a demonstration project that
> proves the transportation value, I am on the side of agencies that
> continue to use proven technologies. This is the only responsible course.
> Most public agencies don't have a large research fund and look to higher
> levels of governments or NGO to do the proving.
> 
> Eric Bruun
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Daryl Oster <et3 at et3.com>
> >Sent: Aug 25, 2006 11:47 AM
> >To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org, 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
> <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> >Subject: [sustran] Is E.B. patronizing, offensive,	heavy handed and
> counter-productive? Re: Driving in Bangalore / India	-
> >
> >
> >
> >> Original Message From: Eric Britton
> >> Subject: [sustran] Driving in Bangalore / India - patronizing,
> >> offensive,heavy handed and counter-productive
> >>
> >> No, not "excellent" at all. Sorry but I do not think this is very
> funny.
> >> It does no good and illuminates nothing useful
> >>
> >
> >Eric, the piece is a very good observation of reality, and I agree with
> you
> >that while good, it is not excellent.  The piece IS funny, and it is
> >illuminating, to be useful and therefore "excellent", there must be some
> >suggestions at possible improvement.  To point out a problem without
> >suggesting a solution is complaining.
> >
> >
> >> To the contrary I find it patronizing, offensive, heavy handed and
> >> counter-productive. (After all we are here for a reason, aren't we? Or
> is
> >> it all about guffawing at the feckless 'natives' for their primitive
> ways?
> >> Someone help me here.) .
> >
> >Complaining is a good start, you seem quite good at complaining about
> cars!
> >(and you forget they are hear for many good reasons) Your complaint of
> the
> >few problems of cars is a good start, AND you also suggest what you
> believe
> >to be a "solution".  IMO, the "solution" you suggest (car-free cities) is
> >"patronizing, offensive, heavy handed, and counter-productive ... <and
> is>
> >all about guffawing at the feckless 'natives' for their primitive ways".
> >
> >
> >> I do not think that this alpha, rather puerile and distinctly
> uncultured
> >> piece belongs here. I see it as a dinner piece for a group of hearty
> >> guffawing colonials after their fifth beer.
> >>
> >> (I guess that some of you are not going to invite me to your next white
> >> man's party, eh?)
> >
> >To you self incriminating list, we may now add "racist", and
> "presumptuous".
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Eric Britton (And here I am pleased to give anyone who does not like
> what
> >> I say here my full contact information so that you can mail, call or
> come
> >> here and look me in the eye and tell me what you think of me and my
> views.
> >> I live on the fifth floor, door to the right of the elevator.
> >> With all good wishes
> >> Eric Britton
> >
> >Eric,
> >One of the things I most respect about you is do not hide your contact
> >information; that is a mark of integrity often lacking in forums of this
> >type.  I hope you have the courage there in your fifth floor Paris
> apartment
> >to look yourself in the mirror and examine how your words and actions
> might
> >appear to the "feckless 'natives'" that you are attempting to cure from
> >"their primitive ways" from afar by taking away their cars, while you
> enjoy
> >yours.
> >
> >BTW, I thought Alan's comment about the lack of use of mirrors was
> >brilliant!
> >
> >My suggestion for improving the "problem" aptly pointed out in the
> >well-written and honest piece you object to is:
> >
> >The solutions are education AND strict enforcement of reasoned rules, and
> >this must be of vehicle users of all types AND pedestrians.  I believe
> (but
> >offer no proof) that if ALL traffic on a few representational streets,
> >alleys, sidewalks, etc. in the city were to be strictly and completely
> >enforced at ALL times to observe the law, that the users of the orderly
> >street would quickly learn that it is in their best interests to obey
> >reasoned rules even where they are not strictly enforced.
> >
> >Research shows that to reach a critical mass, it only takes about 1 or 2
> >percent adoption of a new way that is better for most people.  The
> problem I
> >see with your "car free" solution is that it seeks to go against what is
> in
> >the best interest of most people -- and this has already been proven, as
> >what you are really suggesting is to return to the old way of trains,
> >busses, and bikes that is no longer sustainable against the superior
> value
> >of car and airplane transportation.  What puzzles me, and many other
> >transportation experts is why you object to solutions (like ETT) that
> offer
> >greater transportation value than cars and jets, without their problems
> of
> >lack of energy and environmental sustainability; AND without the even
> >greater sustainability problems associated with muscle powered and train
> >transport.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >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
> >