[sustran] Re: rail vs road freight distribution

[Daryl Oster]

> Original Message From: K. Tsourlakis
> 
> It seems you imply that informed consumers decide for rail or road
> transport prevalence. However this is a collective decision of the society
> mediated through politicians choices and actually shaped by lobbying
> (often a euphemism for corruption) and advertisement (i.e. mass
> brainwashing).

This may be true in a country that is not yet developed, however in the US
where cars were developed, cars displaced rail IN SPITE OF a very powerful
rail lobby, and a non-existent car lobby.  So, in the case of the first 14
years or so (from about 1907 to about 1921) Cars had no significant lobby
power compared to the lobby power of rail; AND cars won the US market anyway
biased on their relative merits and without any brainwashing needed.  This
also occurred in Europe, and then Japan. 

> I have of course many historical data of how this happened in my country
> (as you, I suppose, can find for yours - and everybody else for his/hers),
> but being on this listserv I find more proper to concentrate on what is
> happening in India concerning this process. 

It is clear that there is a fierce lobby battle for transportation mode in
developing countries.  Since the global car market is now mature, and has
displaced rail, they are starting to copy the sophisticated lobby efforts
the rail industry has been following for 50 years or more.  Unfortunately,
the lobby focus is not about safety or ecology, but only about market share
and doing things to generate sales.  

The developing countries are actually in a position of power, for since they
are unencumbered by existing infrastructure, and many advances have been
made since the invention of trains and cars, they could choose to adopt the
best leading edge transportation technology and avoid the costly technology
progression and market share transitions that developed countries have had
to pay for.  (China is doing this under their "National 863 Program".)

> Having seen these pictures from "Golden Quadrilateral Project" motorway, I

> was impressed of how empty it looked (as far as I know, as a rule of 
> thumb, a motorway has to have at least an average daily traffic of 10.000 
> cars to justify its expenses -does this happen in stretches far from the 
> cities?). 

Since ETT can be built for 1/4th the cost of a freeway, AND the operating
cost about 1/10th the minimum daily volume to justify construction is also
much less.  

> I also wonder if feasibility studies are carried out, and, if so, what 
> cost was assigned to the crossing pedestrians danger and delay, the 
> pollution, noise and other externalities, whether tolls are collected (and

> how much) etc. For the brainwashing my questions are less - the NYtimes 
> article document well this point.

Such studies are always carries out in the US.  The government conducted a
study comparing the demand and cost prediction accuracy of road with rail,
and found that railroad consultants lie much more frequently, and to a much
greater degree than freeway consultants do.  


> I am not sure if ETT (Evacuated Tube Transport) is a feasible solution,
> and I think we will never be sure until it is tried in practice. 
> Things in real world can be quite different than in papers - consider the 
> experience of Maglev.


Wheel operation is not observed in nature, wheels for transportation were
invented without natural example.  Even though bird flight was readily
observable, human flight was not manifest until thousands of years after
wheels were invented.  

Several forms of maglev have been built and proven in the last 40 years. In
my opinion, one reason that maglev experiments have always followed
predictions made in papers is that initial maglev development had no natural
analog to form the basis of the science, for magnetic levitation had NEVER
been observed in nature.  More than 4 types of Maglev are now well
understood, and very predictable, and there will likely be many more future
developments as predicted in current papers.  

ETT is not reliant on proposed or unproven forms of maglev or other
sciences.  Unlike initial maglev development, the main principals of ETT ARE
observable to everyone:  
* The perpetual motion of the moon around the earth, and the earth around
the sun, in the evacuated environment of space has been observed as long as
recorded human history.  
* Spacecraft in orbit produce the same perpetual motion as the moon and
earth do. ETT is just "space travel on earth".
* Pipeline transportation of liquids and gasses have been proven for more
than 1000 years, pneumatic (air propelled) tube transport of capsules has
been proven for 150 years.  The costs and practicalities are well known.  
* The forces of aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance of wheels are well
known, and accurately predictable.
* Vacuum technology far more advanced than required for ETT is in use all
over the world for more than 100 years.  
* Several Maglev technologies are well proven. 
* Linear electric motors and generators are in use in many industries,
including transportation.  
* Automation of transportation is well known, E.G. elevators and
manufacturing.  

> But I am sure that if it has any merit, companies looking after
> profit will make some attempts to experiment on it (even if use of
> "lobbying" and "advertisement" is required to promote it).

Automobiles and aircraft did not use or focus on lobby efforts to brainwash
policy makers in the early days of innovation.  The advantages of cars and
planes were immediately discernable to the market, and they were able to
quickly displace rail by offering more transportation value (a higher
benefit to cost ratio).  

ETT implementation will not need government funding or subsidy to be
implemented, for ETT offers far more transportation value than do the
present value leaders (cars and aircraft).   

We focus less than 1% of our meager recourses on lobby of government and on
advertising.  Our efforts are mostly focused on private implementation of
ETT, and we do make information on ETT available to governments that are
considering transportation infrastructure, as we believe that eventually
some public officials may actually insist on the highest possible
transportation value for the public they represent.  


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> >