<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Mr Oster’s point of view reminds me of a vanguard movement during the two first decades of the XX century: futurism. I quote the manifesto:<o:p></o:p> “We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses.”<o:p></o:p> <a href="http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html">http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html</a> <o:p></o:p> Marinetti and his colleagues never had in mind the consequences of what they were saying, and they were quickly shown that speed was not the best way to go. We simply have to remember, as Mr. Chu has said, that transport is a means to an end, and that value and cost for human beings are beyond Excel spreadhseets and could be better measured by quality of life (perceived or “calculated”). As in conflict resolution theory, if it will be impossible to persuade Mr Oster to embrace these views, we might as well amuse ourselves with his opinions. I, for one, do not agree with him (as I guess many people in this list do). I ride a bicycle every day and believe in the virtues of human contact and moderately high population densities.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best regards,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Carlos F. Pardo<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org@list.jca.apc.org] En nombre de chuwa Enviado el: Viernes, 21 de Abril de 2006 04:01 a.m. Para: et3@et3.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Asunto: [sustran] "regenerative" value of human power transportation<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Daryl, I am refering to your earlier thread "ETT as a global solution" and this "Hybrid cars- article from IHT". But it's best to start a new thread. I am reading sustran because I am interested in the development of sustainable transport. To me the essence is the human and the environment need to be sustainable, not "transportation" itself. Transportation is a mean to an end, it is best to have as little negative ecological impact as possible. In this respect, I see no real contradiction between your position and many others. However, talking about total value verse cost, I can tell there is a fundamental value different when comparing human-powered transportation with motorized transportation. Appropriate level of exercise, like cycling (a human transport), has a "regenerative" value to the human body, while motorized transportation doesn't. In most of the developed society, where lack of physical exercise is a common root cause of "lifestyle disease (hyper-tension, diabetes, heart disease, colon cancer, you name it..), such regenerative value of human power transportation should be properly factored in. People are willing to pay BIG money to go to the gym. More people are more willing to pay MUCH more in hospital when attempting to "recover" some of their lost health. In less developed area, where exercise is necessary due to other daily chores, such regenerative value of human-powered transportation may be lower. I would be very interested to see this “regenerative” value reflected in your famous Excel sheet. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following is small attempt to provide a support for the “regenerative” value in Singapore, based on one disease (kidney failure): Potential medical cost saving for new kidney failure case alone can be S$245,000,000 in 15 years. (suppose 30% population opt for bicycle commuting) There are estimated 500 new cases every year and the cost of treating kidney failure patient is S$ 31,200 per man-yr (source: National Kidney Foundation, Singapore) Cost of new cases in 15 years (new cases from 2nd year onward) become: 500*0.5*(1+14)*14yr* S$31,200= S$1,638,000,000 Daily bicycle commuting reduce the risk of kidney failure by 50%*, therefore; new cases of kidney failure will be reduced by 30%(population)*50%(reduction rate)=15%. This equals to reduction of S$245.7 Millions in 15 years. * this 50% reduction can be deducted from the following: 1) regular exercise (incluidng cycling) helps to reduce diabetes by 50%: "a 50% reduction in the risk of developing coronary heart disease, noninsulin-dependent diabetes and obesity" http://www.euro.who.int/document/Trt/Booklet.pdf (World Health Organization) 2) a direct link exists between diabetes and kidney failure : "Diabetes is the single leading cause of chronic kidney failure in the U.S., accounting for about 35 percent of the new cases each year ..." http://www.kidney.org/general/aboutdisease/diab.cfm (National Kidney Foundation, Inc.) It's not water tight, but hopefully the idea is clear. Warm regards from Singapore, Francis Chu Senior Design Consultant, Philips Design Daryl Oster <et3@et3.com> wrote:<o:p></o:p> > Original Message From: Todd Edelman > Hi everyone, > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are presently the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give them a little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be greatly improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability of trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle powered transport). > Technical > information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the > facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for > example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last > century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl > has been challenged on that point before). Todd, Just what costs did I leave out?? NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the costs Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they have not been equally applied to bikes and trains. If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I submitted, please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and benefits of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world operates like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has dropped from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share today (in spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of people who ride trains). > This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him > off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction > except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be > used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives > besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just > confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and > it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great" > car but there is great about it. > Todd Edelman > International Coordinator > On the Train Towards the Future! > Green Idea Factory, > a member of World Carfree Network BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train list. It IS about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in the HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are contributing, but they are reaching the point of marginal value. Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards The Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, and social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this must be measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole and childish ridicule. 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@et3.com , www.et3.com ================================================================ 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>