[sustran] Re: rail vs road freight distribution and beyond to transportation economy

[mpotter]

Well said and most true.

Re economies (or lack thereof), despite  its complete dependency on  
imported petroleum, Japan's per-capita mobility costs are about 1/2  
what they are in the US-- 9% of the GNP as opposed to 18%.  A heavy  
dependence on well-implemented electrified rail is one of the key  
reasons.

And (though we're veering away from freight here), in cities where  
public transit and bicycle implementations are well-executed, the  
victory of the automobile is far from complete.  In Bogota, for  
example, the car's trip-share is down to 13% from 17% in 1998, before  
then-mayor Enrique Peñalosa's courageous (apparently he risked  
impeachment) measures against cars parking on the sidewalks and  
creation of bicycle-friendly infrastructure. Please refer to the  
encouraging article with the admittedly exaggerated title "Bicycle is  
king of the road as gas costs rise" from the May 5, 2006 International  
herald Tribune for more.

Mark Potter

On May 19, 2006, at 10:20 PM, K. Tsourlakis wrote:

>
> So, was advertisement illegal in US between 1907 and 1921? Or not yet  
> invented? If there was not any car lobby then, how did public  
> officials come to the decision to create car infrastructure (or even  
> allow the circulation of cars)? Do you consider them such bright  
> minded and influence immune? (at least you have good reasons not to  
> think so, since they haven't yet paid the attention you think it is  
> proper for the transport mode you advocate)
>
> But I think you missed the point of my remark. The point is that it is  
> not the market that decides about the modes of transportation, but  
> governing officials, acting under the pressure of several lobbies. It  
> is not a decision created by a (free and competitive) market but a  
> decision about the creation of a (controlled and biased) market. Even  
> you expect "some public officials may actually insist on the highest  
> possible transportation value for the public they represent".  
> Countries (either developing or developed) don't "choose" – it’s the  
> public officials who choose and they present to the public opinion  
> their choices as reflecting the general interest. The stronger lobby  
> wins. The lobby having more money at its disposal is stronger. The  
> solution that creates more profit has more money at its disposal. The  
> most wasteful solution creates more turnover and profit. Hence, the  
> most wasteful solution wins. This is also supported by empirical  
> evidence (that's why automobiles win ev
>  erywhere)
>
>
>>
>>>> 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> >
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________ 
> ______________
> http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail.
> http://www.superweb.gr ÏéêïíïìéêÜ êáé áîéüðéóôá ðáêÝôá web hosting ìå  
> áóöáëÝò Åëëçíéêü controlpanel
> http://wwww.domains.gr Ôï üíïìÜ óáò óôï internet ìüíï ìå 10 Åõñþ.
>
>
> ================================================================
> 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.