[sustran] Re: rail vs road freight distribution

[D. Scott TenBrink]

Daryl Oster said:

"With all the benefits available with ETT, why would anyone promote rail
infrastructure for new development, especially since cars/roads have displaced
passenger rail to ultra high density niche markets in developed countries."

For me, this statement leads to another question.  Considering the extensive
evidence that you have presented, why hasn't ETT made any progress in 
acquiring
funding or producing a test model?  I would be interested to hear what 
Mr. Oster
sees as the obstacles to implementation.

 From your previous posts is seems that you place significant blame on rail
advocates, which I think is misdirected.  Whether rail is subsidized or not, I
can't imagine that rail advocacy efforts can afford to put many resources into
actively obstructing ETT funding.  Do you see rail advocacy as the major
obstacle to ETT implementation?

-Scott



Quoting Daryl Oster <et3 at et3.com>:

>
>> Original Message From: K. Tsourlakis
>>
>> A little scrutiny can prove that motorways are an oxymoron per se. Indeed,
>> road transport has advantage over rail transport where there are scattered
>> movements (many sources and destinations with low loads). But motorways
>> are always built along corridors with concentrated movements (few sources
>> and destinations with high loads). So motorways are NEVER a good solution.
>
> I have presented ample data that shows that motorways have marginalized
> passenger rail to the point of having a 90% market share in 1910, to a less
> than a 2% market share today.  This fact appears to contradict the absolute
> terms of your supposition.  Please support you thesis with fact and
> historical data that proves your point.
>
>
>> Agricultural products are rarely transported directly from fields to
>> shops. Usually they are concentrated in warehouses near production areas,
>> afterwards distributed to warehouses near consumption centres (i.e.
>> cities) and from there distributed to the final consumption (stores). The
>> central movement (between warehouses - the long one) is a concentrated
>> movement, hence better implemented by rail.
> K. Tsourlakis,
>
> Good points about rail use for freight. It is true that most produce is
> moved using the most economical methods, and this is often a combination of
> truck and rail.  Please consider that a fully developed ETT network could
> transport produce a pallet at a time directly from the producer to retailer,
> -- without all the logistic gymnastics of trucks, containers, warehouses,
> distribution centers, trains, ships, etc.
>
> ETT (Evacuated Tube Transport) can achieve as high of a transport flux as
> rail, with less than a tenth of the per mile infrastructure cost.  ETT is
> also virtually silent (sound cannot be transported in a vacuum), and ETT is
> faster than jets.  With all the benefits available with ETT, why would
> anyone promote rail infrastructure for new development, especially since
> cars/roads have displaced passenger rail to ultra high density niche markets
> in developed countries.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ================================================================
> 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.
>