<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C6589B.7B267190"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="time"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="date"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in'> <div class=Section1> Daryl,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Your post-hoc; propter hoc argument in favour of motor cars and against rail ignores completely the history of General Motors activity in the 30s to buy up and scrap municipal light rail lines all over the US.  The technical facts you provide are interesting in an "engineering" sort of way (and I speak as someone who spent 6 years at MIT).  They are not relevant to the real world. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The story about London-Edinburg travel by Diesel Passat as being less energy-intensive than the proposed new (very heavy) High Speed Train is also interesting, but beside the point. The world does not travel in Passats. Next, planes will get increasingly pricey as fuel prices rise; docking space at reasonable distances from city-centres will become more and more a dream-of-the-past.  Trains provide comfortable, seated – or sleeping – accommodation on a city-centre-to-city-centre basis with the simplest boarding and luggage arrangement.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I'm sorry; you do not carry conviction, and raising the pitch of your arguments ( 5 months in <st1:City><st1:place>Chengdu</st1:place></st1:City>) does not help.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> All the best when you wake up!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> J G Krishnayya<o:p></o:p> ---------------------------<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Prof J G Krishnayya<o:p></o:p> Director, Systems Research Institute,<o:p></o:p> 17-A Gultekdi, PUNE 411037, <st1:country-region><st1:place>India</st1:place></st1:country-region><o:p></o:p> www.sripune.org                 Tel +91-20-2426-0323<o:p></o:p> jkrishnayya@yahoo.com       Res 020-2636-3930<o:p></o:p> sri@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in       Fax +91-20-2444-7902<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+sri=pn1.vsnl.net.in@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: <st1:date Month="4" Day="5" Year="2006">Wednesday, April 05, 2006</st1:date> <st1:time Hour="8" Minute="53">8:53 AM</st1:time> To: 'Eric Bruun'; '<st1:place>Asia</st1:place> and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: ETT as a global solution<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > From: Eric Bruun<o:p></o:p> > Daryl<o:p></o:p> > I have struggled over the last few years to develop a generic-enough<o:p></o:p> > methodology for analyzing major public transport projects to put in a<o:p></o:p> > textbook. I have to say that there is no perfect methodology and and that<o:p></o:p> > there is some merit to most approaches, including yours. Nevertheless,<o:p></o:p> > yours is still too simplistic to draw the conclusions that you do. I have<o:p></o:p> > a few comments below.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> The sheet is not to show that bikes and walking do not have value and <o:p></o:p> >> use, but only to explain reasons for automotive dominance in developed <o:p></o:p> >> and developing markets.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > There is clearly no problem using the value of time for commercial travel.<o:p></o:p> > But using value of time for commuting and personal travel is problematic<o:p></o:p> > in several ways. Just a couple of examples:<o:p></o:p> > If value of time is based on income of persons along a corridor, then<o:p></o:p> > saving a few minutes for the wealthy is more important than saving a half-<o:p></o:p> > hour for low-income workers living along another corridor. I don't think<o:p></o:p> > this approach is morally defensible as public policy. Saving commute time<o:p></o:p> > in the long run doesn't really work anyway -- as travel speeds go up,<o:p></o:p> > people live farther away. Average commute time has been around 30 minutes<o:p></o:p> > for centuries. Sprawl and dispersion occur instead.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> A tool is not worth much if it is not put to the highest and best use. <o:p></o:p> >> The chart I submit to this group illustrates some of the main reasons why<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> car use is growing at such a rapid pace ...<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > This is a tautology that you are giving. People<o:p></o:p> > can't choose options that don't exist. In most of the <st1:country-region><st1:place>US</st1:place></st1:country-region> there simply is<o:p></o:p> > no viable alternative to the automobile. We don't know how many people <o:p></o:p> > will choose to bicycle, walk or use transit<o:p></o:p> > if we don't try to improve them or create communities where they are more<o:p></o:p> > effective. But we shouldn't improve them because, allegedly, the consumer<o:p></o:p> > has already spoken. This kind of reasoning leaves us in a stalemate.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >From 1850 to 1910, trains and bikes displaced animal transport to niche<o:p></o:p> markets by offering greater value.  Cities built in this time period were as<o:p></o:p> you describe - built approximately to the standards you are advocating.<o:p></o:p> Starting in the 20s, cars displaced animal transport, finishing the job<o:p></o:p> started by trains, and then much of the trains market also fell to the<o:p></o:p> greater value offered by the car.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Beat out of their market by cars superior value by about 1960, passenger<o:p></o:p> railroaders increased their efforts on creating a demand for their product<o:p></o:p> through political pressure, and lobby efforts to create unnatural conditions<o:p></o:p> so they could continue to milk their cash cow.  They also increased funding<o:p></o:p> of publications advocating urban planning favorable to their passenger rail<o:p></o:p> products.  In spite of this, and in spite of 30 times more government<o:p></o:p> expenditure for passenger rail passenger miles traveled (compared with<o:p></o:p> automotive passenger miles traveled), the rail industry continues to loose<o:p></o:p> market share against mostly privately funded automobile growth.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> We DO know that passenger trains had a 90% share of intercity passenger<o:p></o:p> travel in 1910, and now they have a 1% share, and it is not because of lack<o:p></o:p> of the option -- the miles of railroad peaked in about 1930, today there are<o:p></o:p> 80,000 miles that are abandoned and not used -- this is 10,000 miles more<o:p></o:p> rail than exists in all of China!  The ONLY reason passenger rail still<o:p></o:p> exists in the US is due to billions in subsidy - the people have soundly<o:p></o:p> rejected rail because other modes offer far greater value for most people<o:p></o:p> (but not all people).  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> It is clearly proven that the car offers far<o:p></o:p> >> better transportation value than the train and bikes for increasingly <o:p></o:p> >> more people, even those in developing countries. The car will not be <o:p></o:p> >> replaced by returning to ways that the car has displaced, going back to <o:p></o:p> >> muscle powered transport and trains is less sustainable than moving to <o:p></o:p> >> cars.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > The value only stays high until too many people switch to cars. Then it<o:p></o:p> > deteriorates both for the car user and for the other people who don't get<o:p></o:p> > the benefit of the car<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I agree that just as the incremental value of the rail network expansion<o:p></o:p> eventually failed to add incremental value and had to turn to subsidy due to<o:p></o:p> it's marginal or negative net value; so is the automobile network reaching<o:p></o:p> the limits of it's expansion, and the existing infrastructure is decaying<o:p></o:p> almost as fast as the rate of renewal.  The automobile age is close to a<o:p></o:p> plateau and the time is ripe for a new paradigm shift - the shift will<o:p></o:p> eliminate the use of trains for passenger transportation, just as cars<o:p></o:p> eliminated the use of animals for transportation.  Now horses are almost<o:p></o:p> only ridden for pleasure, and the same will soon be for passenger rail,<o:p></o:p> after ETT finishes what cars started.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > India is an excellent example. It is the non-motorized<o:p></o:p> > travelers who mostly get killed and the far more numerous bus riders who <o:p></o:p> > get slowed down by the priviledged car users.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As you say below, this is an issue of grade and mode separation - it is an<o:p></o:p> education, planning, and law enforcement failure, and the car is not to<o:p></o:p> blame.  The US proves cars can be safe, and at much higher speeds than<o:p></o:p> common in India and China.  (you are apparently forgetting that I lived in<o:p></o:p> Chengdu China for 5 months).  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> It is well established that cars are NOT sustainable for the entire <o:p></o:p> >> worlds population. What is needed is to progress to a new transportation <o:p></o:p> >> paradigm that is far more efficient (offers far greater value) than cars<o:p></o:p> >> do; ETT is purposely designed to offer the greatest transportation value <o:p></o:p> >> possible for most people, especially those who are not now able to afford<o:p></o:p> >> cars.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > There is no transport mode that solves all problems. Nor is investment<o:p></o:p> > always the answer. Sometimes it is just changes in traffic rules, <o:p></o:p> > enforcement or pricing.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I agree with you 100%, and you must admit that the car has won the world<o:p></o:p> transportation market, and trains and buses are in decline everywhere except<o:p></o:p> developing economies, and in developing economies, their use is<o:p></o:p> decelerating, while car use in accelerating.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Car use causes many problems this is true, and it is firmly established that<o:p></o:p> cars are not sustainable for all the worlds population to use. -- Forcing<o:p></o:p> the use of modes that are already proven to be LESS sustainable than the car<o:p></o:p> is NOT the solution.  Diminishing ones standard of living is counter to<o:p></o:p> basic human nature.  ETT offers environmental, energy, and social<o:p></o:p> sustainability for most people.  Just as trains and busses were displaced,<o:p></o:p> car and jet use will eventually be displaced to niche markets by the<o:p></o:p> superior value it will offer MOST people of the world (not all people).  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> most who are able to purchase a better transportation tool derive<o:p></o:p> >> great value, and are able to greatly improve their living condition as a<o:p></o:p> >> result of upgrading from walking to a bike, or from a bike to a car.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > Many of us don't want to be "upgraded." This is a very biased way to state<o:p></o:p> > the evolution. We are instead "forced" to use a car when our jobs<o:p></o:p> > relocate, when conditions for bicycling become too scary, etc. My options <o:p></o:p> > of cities where I can live in the US without being auto dependent are <o:p></o:p> > extremely limited.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I agree that SOME (clearly not "many") do not want to upgrade their life<o:p></o:p> with the mainstream, and yet their existence changes anyway.  -- most people<o:p></o:p> now use computers, some that I know did not do so by choice, and resisted<o:p></o:p> the change made by their boss for instance -- ask them now if they would go<o:p></o:p> back to using a typewriter - you will most likely get a strong "no way!!"  A<o:p></o:p> dear friend of mine is 86 years old, and is a wiz with his 50 year old<o:p></o:p> manual typewriter, and s-mail, he has refused to change (just as some Amish<o:p></o:p> people have refused to use cars).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> trains were designed to haul extremely heavy freight loads,<o:p></o:p> >> and when used to haul people, they must be uncomfortably packed in like<o:p></o:p> >> sardines to achieve reasonable load capacity. ETT is sized like the car -<o:p></o:p> >> for human size loads, and high comfort.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > There are capacity versus vehicle size curves that show that smaller<o:p></o:p> > vehicles maximize throughput at slower speed than larger vehicles. If it <o:p></o:p> > is both high speed and high capacity that you want, then trains are <o:p></o:p> > required. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This may be true for manually controlled vehicles, however ETT is automated,<o:p></o:p> and at a design speed of 600km/h (373mph), the capacity of one 1.5m diameter<o:p></o:p> ETT tube can safely exceed 200,000 passengers per hour, using 6 seat (car<o:p></o:p> sized) vehicles. And this assumes a 3:1 safety factor - the maximum possible<o:p></o:p> throughput would be more than 600,000 passengers per hour.  By contrast, a<o:p></o:p> HSR train (as in Japan) can achieve about 15,000 passengers per hour of<o:p></o:p> seated passengers, and if packed to an almost unbearable "crush load" about<o:p></o:p> 50,000 per hour.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > A bus way can also have fairly high capacity at reasonable <o:p></o:p> > speeds. I am very doubtful that there is any mode using vehicles the size <o:p></o:p> > of a car that can have meaningful capacity. This has always been the <o:p></o:p> > trouble with Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) -- it combines the <o:p></o:p> > infrastructure costs of rail with the low capacity of<o:p></o:p> > cars. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> You are more than a little out of touch with PRT.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > Maybe ETT performs better than PRT but it can't possibly have the <o:p></o:p> > capacity/ speed combination of a train.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> An 70mph design speed freeway can safely accommodate one manually controlled<o:p></o:p> car per lane every 2 seconds.  If each car were filled to full average<o:p></o:p> seated capacity of 5 persons per car, the through put of 2 lanes would be<o:p></o:p> 18,000 passengers per hour - or about the same as an assigned seat train. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Freeway traffic can occasionally sustain double this capacity, but not<o:p></o:p> reliably, or safely.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> ITS (automated cars) were demonstrated 10 years ago (California PATH<o:p></o:p> program) that could increase throughput of a freeway by a factor of 8. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> As speed increases, so does the distance between vehicles at a constant<o:p></o:p> frequency.  So at constant spacing, the frequency can double by merging two<o:p></o:p> streams that have been accelerated to double the velocity.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thus ETT achieves high capacity not through using large vehicles, but by<o:p></o:p> using high frequency made safely possible by leveraging automation proven in<o:p></o:p> industry to be much more reliable and precise than manual control.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This cannot occur with trains, because trains rely on a switch that must<o:p></o:p> physically move to transfer the train from one track to another.  This<o:p></o:p> "active mechanical switch", and the time it takes a train to stop, if the<o:p></o:p> switch fails is what limits train frequency, and therefore capacity.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The main advantage of large vehicles is that the labor cost and aerodynamic<o:p></o:p> losses per passenger is reduced.  If you do not have to pay the driver<o:p></o:p> (automation)and if air resistance is eliminated (ETT) the advantage of large<o:p></o:p> vehicles disappears.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The big disadvantage of big fast trains in an urban environment is the<o:p></o:p> massive amount of infrastructure required to elevate (or burry) the train<o:p></o:p> for full grade separation to ensure safety.  It takes about 18 tons of<o:p></o:p> material per meter of elevated double track to support a couple of 100ton<o:p></o:p> HSR (high speed rail)locomotives.  It only takes a half ton of material per<o:p></o:p> double tube meter of ETT guideway to support the capsules (never closer than<o:p></o:p> 15m spacing) that weigh less than one ton each fully loaded with 6<o:p></o:p> passengers.  ETT tubes can also be made using automated factory equipment,<o:p></o:p> further reducing construction cost.   <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> ETT guideway is reasonably shown to be capable of being built for less than<o:p></o:p> a tenth the cost, and have ten times the capacity.    <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>   <o:p></o:p> >> Trains and busses in the US use more fuel and pollute more per passenger<o:p></o:p> >> mile than do today's efficient cars and aircraft. ETT is designed to be<o:p></o:p> >> super clean and efficient, providing more than 50 times more<o:p></o:p> >> transportation for a given amount of energy use, (or pollution <o:p></o:p> >> production).<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > This statement is ridiculous.<o:p></o:p> > Intercity train consumes more energy than an airliner over a 500 km trip?<o:p></o:p> > Hardly. On a transcontinental trip, a fully loaded airliner might be<o:p></o:p> > competitive with a car. But never with even a moderately loaded train.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If you do not believe me about cars and aircraft now being more fuel<o:p></o:p> efficient than trains, here are some credible people that disagree with you.<o:p></o:p> (Also see attachment from the study)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> http://www.energybulletin.net/733.html <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p>  <o:p></o:p> > By the way, what is efficient? Cars have actually been getting less<o:p></o:p> > "efficient" by and large, some hybrids and small cars notwithstanding.<o:p></o:p> > These "efficiency" gains go into more power and weight for the same fuel<o:p></o:p> > consumption. If we really want efficiency, then fuel prices will have to<o:p></o:p> > be much higher in regions with affluent drivers.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I agree, and conventional oil production likely peaked mid December of 2005<o:p></o:p> - so we are in for a steady and accelerating increase in fuel prices until<o:p></o:p> the Canada oil sands reach the level of profitability (at about a 40%<o:p></o:p> increase in price).  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > As for urban transportation, have a look at Kenworthy and Newman's data<o:p></o:p> > about energy consumption of cities. Don't confuse how a bus performs in<o:p></o:p> > low-density sprawl with the overall network effect of evolving cities in<o:p></o:p> > such a way to have an efficient urban form and efficient transit. Buses<o:p></o:p> > keep getting lower in productivity where sprawl worsens -- the solution is<o:p></o:p> > to stop the sprawl, not the buses. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There is no such thing as sprawl!  The natural condition of people was<o:p></o:p> spread out and rural, cars favor this, but stats prove that urbanization is<o:p></o:p> the global trend, not the opposite.  Cities formed on transportation nodes,<o:p></o:p> as resource demands are changed by technology, so do transportation<o:p></o:p> patterns.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> > Even if ETT or other modes work as well<o:p></o:p> > as you say, they can't be everywhere. We are stuck with low efficiency of<o:p></o:p> > transit in sprawled regions as the people without drivers licenses or<o:p></o:p> > sufficient income will still need a minimum of mobility. We are also stuck<o:p></o:p> > with high volumes of driving, large amounts of school bus driving, large<o:p></o:p> > expenditures on water and sewers, and so on, as a result of sprawl.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Building costs, tax rates and their lack of fiscal sustainability without<o:p></o:p> subsidy in most dense cities prove that moderate density development is more<o:p></o:p> efficient than high density.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> >> ETT is fully isolated from the traffic outside the tubes -- so it is<o:p></o:p> >> impossible to strike pedestrians. Vehicles cannot leave the system, and<o:p></o:p> >> people cannot enter it except at the stations. Stations may be disbursed<o:p></o:p> >> along the tube according to demand.<o:p></o:p> > <o:p></o:p> > You can say the same thing about rapid transit, or about grade-separated<o:p></o:p> > bicycle lanes.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Ok Eric, shall we get back to your India [cars kill pedestrians]<o:p></o:p> observation, or is your contradiction now apparent?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thanks for your input and discussion, I hope you offer some suggestions on<o:p></o:p> improving the chart with the inclusion of bus and train with the same<o:p></o:p> methodology.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Daryl<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Daryl Oster<o:p></o:p> (c) 2006  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"<o:p></o:p> e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks<o:p></o:p> of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River<o:p></o:p> FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>