[sustran] Re: rail vs road freight distribution

[Carlos F. Pardo SUTP]

Mr Oster quotes:
"but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely
endangered."

This could have some relevance regarding transportation equity... I would
think that a quote from Machiavelli (and justifying the use of force!) is
difficult to apply to sustainability. But maybe that's just me.

Carlos F. Pardo 



-----Mensaje original-----
De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org at list.jca.apc.org] En
nombre de Daryl Oster
Enviado el: Lunes, 08 de Mayo de 2006 12:56 a.m.
Para: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
Asunto: [sustran] Re: rail vs road freight distribution



> Original Message From: 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.
> 

The company et3.com Inc. and the dozens of licensees around the world are
making significant progress toward implementation.  Models have been built,
as have virtual prototypes.  

Quote from "The Prince" by Machiavelli 1513:

*************START QUOTE*******************
And it ought to be remembered that there is 
nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or 
more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction 
of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all 
those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm 
defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises 
partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and 
partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new 
things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens 
that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they 
do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise 
that the [innovator] is endangered along with them.

It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter
thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves
or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate
their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the
first instance they always succeed badly, and never compass anything;
but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely
endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the
unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the
nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade
them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is
necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it
may be possible to make them believe by force.
*************END QUOTE*******************

Many (most) innovators view political barriers as the main obstacles to
implementation, I believe this is because they are content to "pray" or beg
for government to implement their innovation.  If one recognizes that
begging is a mostly ineffective way to truly advance, one must resign to
forcing the implementation of innovation.  To do this is a matter of
education and leverage through networking with potential allies who may have
a vested interest in the implementation.  Therefore (assuming sufficiently
great potential value of the innovation) the real barrier is one of
educating prospective alleys to the merits they might enjoy to the extent
they join in the collaboration to bring the innovation 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

I accept full responsibility for the fact that ETT is not yet implemented.  

I place no blame on rail advocates.  The rail advocates who work directly
for rail interests have a fiduciary obligation to seek sales of their
product for the benefit (profit) of the owners (shareholders), this loyalty
I understand and respect, though I believe many use dishonest methods to
secure rail system construction subsidies from governments.  

I also place no blame on those who have believed the lies and/or half truths
of the rail industry "experts", and thereby also advocate rail, as they are
likely just ignorant.  

AND I will continue to point out from time to time, some of the
misrepresentations of rail advocates that I am perceive to be in conflict
with the findings of my research on the topic of transportation
sustainability.  


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.