[sustran] Re: Reminder on sustran-discuss focus on low and middleincome countries

Daryl Oster et3 at et3.com
Sat Jul 21 00:20:45 JST 2007



> Original Message From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:24 AM
> WHAT is most interesting for me and what I think has global applications
> is the the extremely perverted way this threat to the railway has been
> created... that it is part of a very complicated landgrab and
> landswap... more, it seems, than bad transport policy in a rich nation.
> So, my feeling is that since that kind of stuff could happen anywhere
> some lessons could be learnt.... the transport thing is this sense just
> a "hook"...
> 
> .. BUT will there also be situations soon in the countries which are the
> main focus of this List where highways are next to railways and
> arguments start to widen the highway and lose the railway? (perhaps I am
> contradicting myself)... finally, if the hundreds of the people on this
> list show solidarity with the supporters of that railway project - I am
> going to see if World Carfree Network's Mobility Justice Campaign
> (which, by the way, as I understand  it, put pressure on World Bank and
> govt. in Dhaka to be more accepting of pedal rickshaws) will want to
> take this on - than, when there is another problem in the Global South,
> maybe the Washington State people would be able to return the favour, so
> to speak.
> 
> One planet.
> 
> - T 


Todd,

There is a perception that passenger rail transportation is more affordable
for low to middle income countries -- this is a fallacy for several reasons.

It is true that the ton-kilometer cost of bulk cargo railroad transportation
is about 1/4 the ton-kilometer cost of bulk cargo road transportation when
considering point to point transport between a source such as a mine, and a
destination such as a port.  It is also true that the ton-km cost of bulk
transport by water is less than half the cost by train.  

Why is it then that trains displaced canals for most bulk and passenger
transport?  The reason is that railroads offered much lower accessibility
costs for MOST people and goods -(not all people or goods), and on average,
building a railroad offered investors a better return on investment than
building a canal.  One reason canals were more costly is that they were far
more constrained by geography than railroads, and also relied on water
supply.  For a given investment, railroads offered far better accessibility
to resources and populations.  Trains quickly displaced most (not all) barge
travel, as trains offered lower total trip cost (in both time and money) for
most people.

If a country without any transportation infrastructure were to demand a tax
from all their citizens to make a transportation improvement, why would they
invest in a canal that may provide transportation for a very few at half the
cost of a railroad?  The reason is that a far higher percentage of the
population would derive direct benefits from a railroad than they would a
canal.  Many along a potential canal route would correctly make the case
that a canal would offer lower external costs of much less noise, less
pollution, less visual intrusion, etc, than a train track, but the bottom
line is the benefit to cost ratio for the train would typically be better
with the consideration of all the additional routes that trains could
provide accessibility to that canals could not.  The accessibility of a
transportation network is roughly proportional to the number of nodes
squared, so investing in a rail network would likely provide a far better
overall return than investing in a canal network.   

The governments of un-developed or underdeveloped countries must invest
their limited resources on infrastructure that offers the greatest benefit
to cost ratio transportation for the highest percentage of the population
they serve.  This offers the greatest transportation sustainability.  Since
undeveloped countries are unencumbered by existing transportation networks,
they must consider employing the transportation technologies that offer the
lowest possible transportation cost for the highest percentage of their
population when considering the likely fullest extension of the network in
the future.  



Daryl Oster
(c) 2007  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



More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list