<HEAD>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><BR><EM>Daryl</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>I have struggled over the last few years to develop a generic-enough methodology for analyzing major public transport projects to put in a textbook. I have to say that there is no perfect methodology and and that there is some merit to most approaches, including yours. Nevertheless, yours is still too simplistic to draw the conclusions that you do. I have a few comments below.</EM><BR><BR>-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Daryl Oster <ET3@ET3.COM><BR>Sent: Apr 4, 2006 4:09 AM <BR>To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' <SUSTRAN-DISCUSS@LIST.JCA.APC.ORG><BR>Subject: [sustran] Re: ground impacts of transportation <BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: > Sunny<BR>> Dear Daryl,<BR>> I appreciate your intelligent work with numbers. But if you see the<BR>> developing world the $15 you have assumed per hour is impossible to earn<BR>> by many people. <BR><BR>Sunny,<BR>I agree many earn much less than $15/hour, and that is why the sheet also<BR>shows the favorable payoff for those who have even zero value of time. I<BR>suggest that you play around with the sheet and plug in different time<BR>valuations, and food and lodging values to see how the market in your area<BR>really perceives and values the most obvious impacts of cars on bike and<BR>muscle transport. I am interested in seeing your modified sheet.<BR><BR>The sheet is not to show that bikes and walking do not have value and use,<BR>but only to explain reasons for automotive dominance in developed and<BR>developing markets. <BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>There is clearly no problem using the value of time for commercial travel. But using value of time for commuting and personal travel is problematic in several ways. Just a couple of examples: </EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>If value of time is based on income of persons along a corridor, then saving a few minutes for the wealthy is more important than saving a half-hour for low-income workers living along another corridor. I don't think this approach is morally defensible as public policy. Saving commute time in the long run doesn't really work anyway -- as travel speeds go up, people live farther away. Average commute time has been around 30 minutes for centuries. Sprawl and dispersion occur instead.</EM></DIV><EM></EM>
<DIV><BR><BR>> There are people living on a mere $1 a day or mostly<BR>> less than that. If car travel is encouraged more then these people will<BR>> slide into oblivion and if the earning member of such family is dead in<BR>> a car accident then the others in the family are financially orphaned,<BR>> in some cases but not everywhere these destitute folks might even turn<BR>> into anti social elements.<BR><BR>A tool is not worth much if it is not put to the highest and best use. The<BR>chart I submit to this group illustrates some of the main reasons why car<BR>use is growing at such a rapid pace - and it is not because people are<BR>pressured into ownership they cannot afford, but that most people will buy<BR>the best tools for living that they can afford, and that make their life<BR>less difficult. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><EM>This is a tautology that you are giving. People</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>can't choose options that don't exist. In most of the US there simply is no viable alternative</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>to the automobile. We don't know how many people will choose to bicycle, walk or use transit</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>if we don't try to improve them or create communities where they are more effective. But we shouldn't improve them because, allegedly, the consumer has already spoken. This kind of reasoning leaves us in a stalemate. </EM> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> <BR>> On the environmental side, I have visited you website and it is really<BR>> awesome tht your creative thinking has gone by leaps and bound far than<BR>> the others. <BR><BR>Thank you for your kind words. It is clearly proven that the car offers far<BR>better transportation value than the train and bikes for increasingly more<BR>people, even those in developing countries. The car will not be replaced by<BR>returning to ways that the car has displaced, going back to muscle powered<BR>transport and trains is less sustainable than moving to cars. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><EM>The value only stays high until too many people switch to cars. Then it</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>deteriorates both for the car user and for the other people who don't get the benefit </EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>of the car -- India is an excellent example. It is the non-motorized travelers who mostly</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>get killed and the far more numerous bus riders who get slowed down by the priviledged</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>car users.</EM></DIV>
<DIV><BR>It is well established that cars are NOT sustainable for the entire worlds<BR>population. What is needed is to progress to a new transportation paradigm<BR>that is far more efficient (offers far greater value) than cars do; ETT is<BR>purposely designed to offer the greatest transportation value possible for<BR>most people, especially those who are not now able to afford cars. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><EM>There is no transport mode that solves all problems. Nor is investment always the </EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>answer. Sometimes it is just changes in traffic rules, enforcement or pricing.</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>> But please allow me to show what actually is required for a<BR>> developing country in terms of transportation<BR><BR>Having lived in Chengdu China for several months, I have some exposure to<BR>non-US economies, and I observe that while some who buy a car do not derive<BR>value, most who are able to purchase a better transportation tool derive<BR>great value, and are able to greatly improve their living condition as a<BR>result of upgrading from walking to a bike, or from a bike to a car. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Many of us don't want to be "upgraded." This is a very biased way to state</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>the evolution. We are instead "forced" to use a car when our jobs relocate, when</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>conditions for bicycling become too scary, etc. My options of cities where I can live</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>in the US without being auto dependent are extremely limited.</EM></DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Fast - as it says fast but in terms of time, high speeds do not satisfy<BR>> this objective but steady speeds do.<BR><BR>Both speed and consistency are important in reducing travel time. ETT<BR>maximizes both. <BR><BR>> Convenient - is frequent, affordable to all the classes of the society<BR>> and comfortable i.e. not getting packed like a over stuffed DHL Parcel<BR><BR>I fully agree -- trains were designed to haul extremely heavy freight loads,<BR>and when used to haul people, they must be uncomfortably packed in like<BR>sardines to achieve reasonable load capacity. ETT is sized like the car --<BR>for human size loads, and high comfort. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><EM>There are capacity versus vehicle size curves that show that smaller vehicles</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>maximize throughput at slower speed than larger vehicles. If it is both high speed and</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>high capacity that you want, then trains are required. A busway can also have fairly high</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>capacity at reasonable speeds. I am very doubtful that there is any mode using vehicles the size of </EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>a car that can have meaningful capacity. This has always been the trouble with Personal</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>Rapid Transit (PRT) -- it combines the infrastructure costs of rail with the low capacity of</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>cars. Maybe ETT performs better than PRT but it can't possibly have the capacity/ speed</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM>combination of a train.</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Clean - Not letting our children face the consequences of the pollution<BR>> we do, the system can be environmentally benign when the demand for fuel<BR>> reduces and less fuel is burnt<BR><BR>Trains and busses in the US use more fuel and pollute more per passenger<BR>mile than do today's efficient cars and aircraft. ETT is designed to be<BR>super clean and efficient, providing more than 50 times more transportation<BR>for a given amount of energy use, (or pollution production). <BR></DIV>
<DIV><EM>This statement is ridiculous. </EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>Intercity train consumes more energy than an airliner </EM><EM>over a 500 km trip? Hardly. On a transcontinental trip, a fully loaded airliner might be competitive with </EM><EM>a car. But never with even a moderately loaded train.</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>By the way, what is efficient? </EM><EM>Cars have actually been getting less "efficient" by and large, some hybrids and small cars notwithstanding. These "efficiency" gains go into more power and weight for the same fuel consumption. If we really want efficiency, then fuel prices will have to be much higher in regions with affluent drivers.</EM></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>As for urban transportation, have a look at Kenworthy and Newman's data about energy consumption of cities. Don't confuse how a bus performs in low-density sprawl with the overall network effect of evolving cities in such a way to have an efficient urban form and efficient transit. Buses keep getting lower in productivity where sprawl worsens -- the solution is to stop the sprawl, not the buses. Even if ETT or other modes work as well as you say, they can't be everywhere. We are stuck with low efficiency of transit in sprawled regions as the people without drivers licenses or sufficient income will still need a minimum of mobility. We are also stuck with high volumes of driving, large amounts of school bus driving, large expenditures on water and sewers, and so on, as a result of sprawl.</EM></DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Safe - Less non-motorists being killed, weather is not a problem here<BR><BR>ETT is fully isolated from the traffic outside the tubes -- so it is<BR>impossible to strike pedestrians. Vehicles cannot leave the system, and<BR>people cannot enter it except at the stations. Stations may be disbursed<BR>along the tube according to demand. <BR></DIV>
<DIV><EM>You can say the same thing about rapid transit, or about grade-separated bicycle lanes.</EM></DIV>
<DIV><BR>> Achievable - The system should address the MDG and help in poverty<BR>> alleviation and reduce the vertical inequality.<BR>> If a developing country could achieve the above objectives with minimum<BR>> infrastructural investment then such a transportation would be suitable<BR>> for a developing country. And from my understanding I strongly believe<BR>> that cars can never be a solution even though they may come in any<BR>> different model or any paraphernalia. Please give me your comments on<BR>> this and I hope the others who read this will also comment on this.<BR>> Sunny <BR><BR>Transportation is the master key to survival, if we cannot get to food and<BR>water, or have food and water brought to us - we die. ETT can offer cargo<BR>and passenger transportation at one tenth the cost. A fully developed<BR>global ETT network will offer the ability for anyone to access the global<BR>market directly without non-productive middle men capturing most of the<BR>value from producers as they do now. <BR><BR>Daryl Oster<BR>(c) 2006 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"<BR>e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks<BR>of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River<BR>FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com<BR><BR>> <BR>> > This attached spreadsheet illustrates why cars are gaining in market<BR>> share<BR>> > in developing countries, they have far greater VALUE than muscle powered<BR>> > transport, and contribute LESS environmental impact.<BR>> ><BR>> > Even if you value your time at zero; if you walk and plan on traveling<BR>> more<BR>> > than 317 miles in your life (but less than 32,253 miles) it pays to<BR>> invest<BR>> > in a bike for favorable environmental impact reasons alone.<BR>> ><BR>> > If you walk, and plan on traveling more than 8755 miles in your life,<BR>> then<BR>> > it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact reasons<BR>> alone<BR>> > - even if you place no value on your time.<BR>> ><BR>> > If you travel by bike, and plan on traveling more than 32,253 miles in<BR>> your<BR>> > life, then it pays to invest in a car for favorable environmental impact<BR>> > reasons alone - even if you place no value on your time.<BR>> ><BR>> > If you place a $15/hour value on your time, then the bike takes only 91<BR>> > miles to justify the impact of production vs walking, and the car only<BR>> > 2,361miles. The car compaired with a bike is justified for those who<BR>> value<BR>> > their time more than $15/hour if they plan on more than 7275 miles of<BR>> > travel.<BR>> ><BR>> > NOTE -- this analysis ignores the added value obtained if the car is<BR>> used to<BR>> > transport it's full capacity of 5 persons -- the impact breakeven point<BR>> vs<BR>> > walking or biking is MUCH faster if the car is used to it's full<BR>> capacity.<BR>> ><BR>> > I hope that some of the experts on this list can provide numbers so I<BR>> may<BR>> > include air, bus, and train on this chart, and see the comparisons to<BR>> cars,<BR>> > bikes, walking, and ETT.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ================================================================<BR>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,<BR>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries<BR>> (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus<BR>> is on urban transport policy in Asia.<BR><BR><BR><BR>================================================================<BR>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.<BR></DIV></BODY>