[sustran] Re: rail vs road freight distribution

[Eric Bruun]

Daryl makes a lot of overgeneralizations and assumptions.

First, what is agriculture? Carrying grain and corn is one thing and highly suitable for
trains. Local fruits and vegetables is another. Here trucks make sense, but even here
the distances can be minimized by good land use planning.

Second, we don't all take current land use as a given. Sure, freight destinations have
dispersed and have become harder to serve by rail. But it is in our power to do something
to begin to reverse it. We can also promote intermodal truck/rail. Over time, we can shorten
the breakeven distance.

Third, it seems to be assumed that space is not an issue. It is physically impossible to
base large cities entirely on the automobile. In China or India or other extremely densely
populated countries, already at low levels of automobile use, cities start to become dysfunctional.

Smaller cities might function when based 100 percent on autos, but they are certainly not very appealing. Have a look at small town America -- boarded up downtowns with big box stores on the periphery surrounded by oceans of parking and without sidewalks. Even these smaller cities have lots of hidden pathology -- such as people stranded in their homes and totally dependent upon others if they don't drive.

I agree with Todd L. Show us what you have and most of us will try to see how it fits in with the existing
choices. But we don't automatically accept that it solves many problems.

Eric 

-----Original Message-----
>From: "D. Scott TenBrink" <scott at pedalsong.net>
>Sent: May 4, 2006 4:43 AM
>To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
>Subject: [sustran] Re: rail vs road freight distribution
>
>
>Todd makes good points here regarding rail vs road subsidy.  I also 
>agree that a
>basic network formula does not reflect the distribution patterns of 
>nodes of use
>and production, the responsive change of nodes and network to one another as
>well as other forces, or the potential for production and consumption nodes to
>be one in the same.  Yet I do notice a tendency on this list to say that rail
>will simply replace road as a freight distribution system without considering
>the difference between the two networks, and the impact of these 
>differences on
>distribution.
>
>Stripping the main point from Oster's argument (and disregarding the somewhat
>unsettling breast-feeding obsession), he points out that rail has fewer nodes
>than road and that this results in roads being more effective medium for
>transport for the produce farmer.  I see two reasons that it is better for the
>farmer: he can ship on his own schedule instead of timing his shipments with
>the train and making reservations for space, and the road goes right from his
>farm to the market with no need to transfer goods.
>
>Todd makes the point that people are not randomly distributed, but 
>clumped into
>urban areas.  However, farms are quite widely dispersed and supermarkets tend
>to be (somewhat) evenly distributed across an urban area.  Thus, it 
>seems quite
>obvious why the farmer would choose to support road over rail, and I 
>think that
>was the point of the original message.
>
>Are people arguing that rail can accommodate the farmer better, or that the
>farmer should not have such a large voice in the decision (or something else
>completely)?  I do agree with Oster that Sunny overlooks the difficulties of
>switching from road to rail shipping, particularly for payloads that have
>widespread production/consumption locations.
>
>I also found the reference to HIV and lorry drivers to be a bit off.  
>Certainly
>HIV is a concern that desperately needs to be addressed regardless of
>profession.  Eliminating freight transport by road would be quite a 
>round-about
>and isolationist way to address it. I don?t think our goal is to limit
>opportunities for human interaction.  I would advocate education and condom
>distribution over lorry elimination.
>
>
>-Scott TenBrink
>
>Quoting Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>:
>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Oster,
>>
>> I find your comments inappropriate. Nobody has ridiculed you or your 
>> ideas and it harms our discourse when you insult others. There is no 
>> reason to compare rail and highway investments with a simple 
>> mathematical formula - it is an economic problem. People are not 
>> randomly distributed over the landscape, we tend to congregate in 
>> certain area. On high-density corridors it costs less per 
>> passenger-mile in total (taking into account vehicles, vehicle 
>> operation, rights-of-way, and parking or terminals) to transport by 
>> rail than by automobile. Developing country cities have the density, 
>> financial limitations and other attributes that make it infeasible 
>> for a major portion of the population to rely on automobile 
>> transportation. In such conditions rail investments are likely to be 
>> more cost effective and equitable than highway investments.
>>
>> I think you are quite wrong to imply that railroads are receiving 
>> excessive public subsidy. Here in North America rail bear cost 
>> burdens, such as paying rent and taxes on rights-of-way, that 
>> automobiles do not, and railroads maintain their own terminals while 
>> automobiles rely on subsidized parking at most destinations. 
>> Similarly, a typical urban transit user receives less total per 
>> capita subsidy (including public expenditures on transit services, 
>> roads and parking facilities) than a typical motorist (see 
>> http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf ).
>>
>> I realize that you are an advocate of a new transportation technology 
>> (I suggest in future you spell out ETT, most readers have no idea 
>> what it means) which you believe is superior to alternatives. That's 
>> fine. If it proves to be as good as you say it will find its role in 
>> the overall transport network. But please don't think that deriding 
>> alternatives is an effective way of promoting your ideas. Simply show 
>> us independently-verified proof.
>>
>>
>> -Todd Litman
>>
>>
>> At 05:08 PM 5/3/2006, Daryl Oster wrote:
>>> Railroads were designed (optimized) to haul massive loads between two
>>> locations.  Their efficiency goes down considerably when they are called
>>> upon to service a high number of access points(nodes).
>>>
>>> It is well documented in network theory that the usefulness of a network is
>>> proportional to the number of nodes squared.
>>>
>>> The cost of servicing a transportation access point (node) with rail is more
>>> than ten times the cost of servicing it with a road; therefore the cost of
>>> accessibility of roads is more than a hundred times better than the cost of
>>> accessibility of rail.
>>>
>>> Of course, the proof of this is ancient history in the US and most of
>>> Europe; trains had a 95% share of the value of cargo transport in 1910 in
>>> the US, and now they have less than a 20% share, and even airplanes carry
>>> more cargo value than trains do.  The very high node access cost of train
>>> access (both money and time) is the main reason.
>>>
>>> There are many well intended do-gooders who mistakenly promote rail as
>>> having accessibility advantages over cars/roads - this view is proven false
>>> upon technical analysis AND in the vast majority of the many markets where
>>> it has been tested.  The false view that trains offer better accessibility
>>> is carefully fostered by the rail industry that has a huge vested interest
>>> in maintaining the grip on the mammary of government funding.
>>>
>>> The truth is that cars on roads provide much better access to transportation
>>> than trains, and those who seek equity for the poor would be better advised
>>> to build roads and provide cars than to provide trains.  This is why trains
>>> have been displaced to niche markets by the car in developed countries.
>>> Passenger trains only survive by firmly latching onto the mammary of
>>> government to prevent the birth and nurture of more sustainable
>>> transportation technology.  This is why most people in developing countries
>>> aspire to use motorcycles and or cars.
>>>
>>> Virtually all societies frown on a toothless grandpa or grandma nursing from
>>> their daughters mammary while the new born baby grandchild goes unfed.  Why
>>> is it that the rail industry is not admonished for doing the same thing??
>>>
>>> It is obvious that there are problems associated with the adoption of the
>>> car, and that a better form of transportation is needed.  Grandpa rail would
>>> have us believe that rail is better than cars, and with self serving lies
>>> railroaders promote government funded train transportation projects, and
>>> government funded rail operating subsidies.
>>>
>>> What IS needed to solve the energy and environmental sustainability
>>> limitations of cars is to implement transportation technologies like ETT
>>> that offer at least a ten-fold improvement in transportation value.
>>>
>>> Compared to trains, planes, and automobiles; ETT requires less than 1/50th
>>> as much fuel, and creates 1/50th as much pollution per passenger kilometer.
>>> The cost of providing ETT accessibility is about 1/4th the cost of providing
>>> freeway accessibility; and less than a tenth the cost of providing rail
>>> accessibility.
>>>
>>> For the task that trains were optimized for (moving tons of coal from mine
>>> to points of major use) ETT can be implemented and operated for about the
>>> same cost, leaving the ONLY advantage of trains to move loads that cannot be
>>> reduced to weighing more than the 400kg payload of an optimally sized ETT
>>> capsule.  Such loads represent less than 5% of cargo transported by rail.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> > Sunny
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:04 AM
>>> > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
>>> > Subject: [sustran] Re: "India is on the road to a transport revolution"
>>> >
>>> > Dear John,
>>> >
>>> > In my opinion if the problem is shipment then it can be fulfilled with
>>> > out building new road and by efficiently using the existing railway
>>> > network or by adding new goods/cargo trains, this can even generate
>>> > income and jobs thereby benefiting the jobless both at the source and
>>> > the destination, expanding our highways and bringing more larger and
>>> > multi-speed gear boxes will only be a burden as they have to be imported
>>> > and their number will be very small for an investment like increasing
>>> > the overall highway structure for which the large truck users might not
>>> > legally contribute anything. On comparison to Bangkok I have recently
>>> > been on road to Chiang Rai, the north of Thailand and to my surprise I
>>> > have not seen even one toll post charging the cars which I am familiar
>>> > with in India and my friend was driving never less than 100 kmph.
>>> >
>>> > Using the railway as I said earlier will reduce the unemployment and
>>> > also the travel time as there will be a pressure for quality on the
>>> > railways, better roads might be a good answer but roads built solely for
>>> > freight will not be a good answer, if anyone is familiar with HIV in
>>> > India it can be found that the HIV cases are more among the lorry
>>> > drivers. I would be thankful if anyone can throw more light on this
>>> > issue, I think Eric would be the one as I have seen him as a moderator
>>> > on GATNET.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Todd Alexander Litman
>> Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
>> litman at vtpi.org
>> Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
>> 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
>> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.