[sustran] Re: "India is on the road to a transport revolution"

[Eric Bruun]

Daryl

What was this about stating only "facts"? Cities far less dense than NYC and Tokyo that have
high uses of public transportation have far lower energy and land consumption than primarily
auto-based cities. Yet you keep trying to say that auto is more "sustainable" -- Maybe to you this
is a fact, but then you have some non-environmental definition in mind that is not shared by most
on this listserve.

Also, the idea that the "rail industry" is winning the developmental battle against the automotive
industry and forcing places to get rail instead of what they want, is ridiculous. 

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----
>From: Daryl Oster <et3 at et3.com>
>Sent: May 7, 2006 5:08 PM
>To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: "India is on the road to a transport   revolution"
>
>
>
>> Original Message From: Alan Howes
>> Thanks Todd.  I do rather feel that if Daryl spent as much time promoting
>> ETT as he does rubbishing rail that the former would be more advanced by
>> now.
>
>Alan,
>The vast majority of my time IS spent promoting ETT (Evacuated Tube
>Transport).  You accuse me of "rubbishing rail", yet if you look back over
>my posts on this group, you will see the only time I state rail FACTS are to
>counter rail lies.  
>
>Rail is touted by the rail industry as a more sustainable way to move people
>than cars, history has proven this to be false except for in ultra high
>population density locations such as Tokyo, and NYC. More than 90% of the
>worlds population do NOT live in the densely populated areas that are
>favorable to rail economics -- so the rail industry is promoting the
>creation of such unsustainable population density!
>
>
>> Just one or two quick points -
>> 
>> US Railfreight is growing rapidly at present (and US railroad stocks are
>> on the up and up).  Over long distances (the sort of distance we are
>> talking about in India) rail's modal share of TONS is high - I don't have
>> the figures to hand but I would guess something like 80% or more.
>
>I fully agree, rail was designed and optimized to move heavy loads at slow
>speed for very low ton-mile cost.  Rail is still very good at this, and low
>cost commodities that are not perishable are overwhelmingly moved by rail as
>it is presently the best mode for such need.  
>
>  
>> it's the tons that need the infrastructure, not the dollars.  Who would
>> even think of trucking coal from Wyoming to the Mississippi (let alone
>> airfreight!)? 
>
>Alan,  you admonishment for not promoting ETT indicates to me that you think
>I should supply more information.  This is a recent estimate of ETT for
>hauling 200 mega tons per year of coal from Wyoming 1200 miles to the east
>coast.  It is not available on the et3 website, so I am supplying it to the
>group to indicate that ETT can also do what heavy rail is capable of.  
>
>The double track through Nebraska that hauls coal from the powder basin in
>Wyoming has a frequency of 4 trains per hour, each train with about 100 cars
>of 100ton each.  That is almost a million ton per day, or about 50% more
>than the 200MT/year stated as the need.  
>
>For your comparison, the following rough estimates for using ETT to move
>coal:
>
>The cost of capacity for ETT is according to the cost of the tubes, the
>airlocks, and the capsules, and the energy.  
>
>Tube cost = $2M / mile for 1200 mile = $2.4B
>
>The capacity of one capsule is about 0.45 ton.  
>
>The cost of one airlock and branching switch is about $1M/airlock (assumes
>30 airlocks per branch).  The capacity of one airlock is two capsules per
>minute, or 0.9 ton / min = 54 ton / hour.  Assuming 350 days of operation
>per year, and 20 hours per day, the annual capacity per airlock is
>54*20*350= 378kT / year.  200MT/0.378MT= 529 airlocks One airlock is needed
>at each end, so the airlock cost is about $1.06B
>
>The minimum capsule is one capsule every 30 foot (2:1safety factor), and we
>have 1,058 capsules per min = 17.63 capsules per second, so the minimum
>design speed for one tube would be 17.63*30'= 529ft/sec = 361mph.  
>
>One trip for a capsule to cover 1200 miles would take 3.34 hours, = 6.68
>hours per round trip, plus a 15min dwell at each end, would take 7.18 hours.
>
>
>The number of capsules needed would be 1 capsule every 30' for 2400miles,
>plus 30 capsules dwelling at each airlock = ((2,400*5,280)/30)+(30*1058) =
>422,400 + 31,740 = 454,140 capsules.  Each capsule will cost about $20,000,
>so the cost is about $9.083B  
>
>Total cost for a design speed of 361mph = $12.5B
>Assuming the cost at 10%/year for capital and maintenance = $1.25B/year
>
>Each trip (0.45T) will take about 2kWh for acceleration, and about 5Wh/mile
>= 6kWh, for a total energy per load of 8kWh.  (assumes no elevation change)
>So the annual energy cost @10cents per kWh = (200M/0.45)*8kWh * 10cents =
>$356M energy cost, 
>
>Total cost of 200MT*1200mile = 240BT mile/year at a cost of $1.606B/year =
>0.67 cents per ton mile.  
>
>The cost of the capsules is much higher than the cost of the tube, so the
>design speed is not optimum, but considering energy cost is necessary too.  
>
>Increasing the design speed to 722mph will cut the number of capsules needed
>by 211,200 (the spacing goes up to one capsule every 60' and the safety
>factor increases to 4:1).  This will increase the tube cost by about $0.6B,
>and the airlock cost by $0.503B but decrease the capsule cost by $4.224B
>
>Total cost for a design speed of 722mph is likely to be $9.38B
>At 10%/year = $938M/year. 
>
>Each trip (0.45T) will take about 8kWh for acceleration, and about 10Wh/mile
>= 12kWh, for a total energy per load of 20kWh.  So the annual energy cost
>@10cents per kWh = (200M/0.45)*20kWh * 10cents = $889M energy cost, for a
>total of $1.827B/year.  
>
>240BT/yr @ $1.827B/yr = 0.76 cents per ton mile.  
>
>
>
>NOTES:
>
>This is a very rough cost estimate using the detailed estimates for
>passenger / general cargo ETT.  The present ETT design is optimized for
>passenger use, and consumer cargo that is mostly moved by truck and
>aircraft.  No profit or route specific costs (like ROW, and geographical
>related expenses) are included.  
>
>The energy required to return capsules was not considered, as there may be
>some other uses that would recover this cost, AND the value of energy
>recovery during capsule braking was not considered, this will tend to reduce
>energy cost.
>
>Further optimizing ETT for low value bulk cargo would be a major study.  If
>we get a request and funding from a licensee to do this, I will devote the
>time to do it.  My crude guess is that it is likely that the cost could be
>optimized to be as low as a half cent per ton-mile, (ideal conditions, flat
>route, no obstacles); but this would give a configuration that would not be
>as useful for passenger or other cargo needs.
>
>Generally:
>ETT capsule cost is very sensitive to capsule loading per foot of length.
>Tube cost is very sensitive to tube diameter (double the diameter increases
>cost by 8X), and somewhat sensitive to design speed.  Increasing the capsule
>loading would reduce the number of airlocks, and the number of capsules
>needed, but the cost per capsule would increase almost enough to offset the
>reduction in numbers of capsules.
>
>The tube cost assumes no tunneling.  The cost of underground tube guideway
>in a tunnel is triple the cost of elevated tube guideway.  If the route with
>a design speed of 361mph has 10% additional cost for tunneling, and if the
>design speed were increased to 722mph, the tunneling cost would likely
>increase to about 40%.  A design speed of about 2,000mph and over would most
>likely require full underground structure.  The maximum practical speed for
>ETT is about 4,000mph, and this is appropriate for very long
>intercontinental trips, the cost estimate for underground ETT at 4,000mph is
>a minimum of $10M/mile in ideal circumstance, and the airlock / branch cost
>will be increased by about the same factor.
>
>NOTE: using ETT to haul coal from the 4,000' to 5,000' altitude of the
>powder basin to sealevel would produce a significant amount of energy
>through energy recovery, and the energy cost would likely be zero if only
>empty capsules were returned.  
>
>
>> But US rail is also making inroads in markets such as
>> contracting to UPS, fruit and veg, etc.  Not to mention the huge flow of
>> containers from West Coast ports.
>
>As you can see from the above example, ETT ton-mile cost (even considering
>recovery of infrastructure cost) is favorable compared to rail.  One big
>advantage of ETT is that the access points can be distributed according to
>demand with a much finer granularity than rail. AND the speed is 361/14=
>25.8 times greater.  This is especially important in moving perishable items
>such as fruit.  
>
>The cost of trucking a ton-mile is 3 times greater than using rail, AND the
>speed is 3 times faster, so trucks are used more for moving time sensitive
>loads, and higher value items.   
>
>ETT combines the energy and labor efficiency of trains, with the time
>efficiency of aircraft!
>
>> In the UK at least, many inter-urban passenger rail services are now
>> genuinely profitable - a positive result of the involvement of the private
>> sector in operation (and again numbers are rising rapidly).  And that's
>> despite excessive track access charges under the UK's decidedly messy
>> "privatised" rail regime.
>
>I agree that existing railroad, if fully paid for, and if fully utilized
>(high use factor) is capable of recovering a little more than operating and
>renewal costs; AND it is also well proven that new rail expansion is
>incapable of recovering it's capital cost as well -- so the claim of
>profitability is false, as it ignores the extremely high route development
>and infrastructure capitalization costs.   
>
>
>> I claim limited expertise on Indian urban transport, and hardly any on
>> inter-urban and rural.  But I suspect that what is needed is a re-
>> invigoration of the rail system, which is government owned and run,
>> heavily subsidised, and I'll bet it takes a LONG time to get a box-car (or
>> the Indian equivalent) from (say) Mumbai to Chennai.
>> But what do Indians have to say on this?
>> Alan
>
>It is already proven that trucks and cars on roads are more than capable of
>marginalizing rail investment to just barely being capable of breaking even,
>and in most case, operating only through subsidy (paying people to use
>them).  If new infrastructure is to be built, it only makes sense to build
>using technology that is capable of the greatest benefit for the minimum
>cost (highest possible VALUE -- as is available with ETT.  ETT is capable of
>providing an order of magnitude improvement in transportation value over
>cars. Trucks, and aircraft, while retaining most of the advantages of 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> 
>
>
>
>================================================================
>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.