[sustran] Re: Value of modes

[Daryl Oster]

> Original Message From Markus Sander; Friday, July 20, 2007 12:08 PM
> 
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Eric Bruun wrote:
> 
> > You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying
> > that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross
> > overgeneralization.
> 
> Of course it is. Daryl says it by adding "for most people" to his
> sentence. Don't forget that these "most people" didn't even try a
> different transportation mode.


Eric and Marcus,
Any statement that applies to a majority of the population is a
generalization.  
I said: "The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation
mode that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people."

Markus, as you point out, the language of my statement clearly indicates it
is general.  It is usually easy to point to specific instances that are
contrary to any generalization; if we are to have a meaningful discussion of
mode value, let us continue to remain general, and focus on how various
modes are able to meet transportation needs of "most people" in a developing
economy, as this is a core issue in determining true sustainability of a
transportation mode.  Don't you agree?


> > It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive
> > everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to
> > impoverish me.
> 
> Thats you (also my) point of view. Did you ever meet people that
> (seriously) laugh at you because your car has less than 100PS (horse
> powers)?

I have had people seriously laugh at me for: driving a car with too much
power, too little power, too big, too small, too expensive, too cheap, wrong
brand, wrong color, etc. -- and it was all the same car!  

Consistent with the focus and mission of sustran, let's not focus on me or
you, but continue to focus on "most people", and specifically most people in
developing economies who are desiring to improve their mobility.  

 
> > Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result
> > of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes.
> 
> That's exactly what I tried to point out with the subsidary-examples. Of
> course, a car is very handy when you live in an infrastructure that is
> desinged for cars. I would make car users pay for this infrastructure.

Eric and Marcus,

I am glad we agree that any mode investments should be paid for only by
those who benefit.  If one is concerned with planning and investing in
transportation infrastructure for a developing national economy, should not
the planners focus on comparing infrastructure investment alternatives
according to the required fees for the chosen mode being fully paid for by
those who use it? 

Should not the focus be to implement the mode that offers the greatest
percentage of the population the most transportation accessibility and value
for a given investment?

Is it not likely that since investments in roads have been more productive
than rail investments in developed nations (for most people) that the same
will hold true in developing nations (for most people)?  

One cannot expect a mode that offers lower relative transportation value to
displace a mode offering greater relative transportation value.  It is
prudent to note that road investments (like rail investments before that,
and canal investments before rail), are reaching the limits of
sustainability.  

There are new mode alternatives that offer the same likelihood of value
improvement over roads as railroads offered most people compared to canals.
The time is ripe to consider the new modes that offer improved
sustainability than roads when compared on a "total benefit to total cost
ratio" basis.    


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