<html> <body> Dear Mr. Oster, I find your comments inappropriate. Nobody has ridiculed you or your ideas and it harms our discourse when you insult others. There is no reason to compare rail and highway investments with a simple mathematical formula - it is an economic problem. People are not randomly distributed over the landscape, we tend to congregate in certain area. On high-density corridors it costs less per passenger-mile in total (taking into account vehicles, vehicle operation, rights-of-way, and parking or terminals) to transport by rail than by automobile. Developing country cities have the density, financial limitations and other attributes that make it infeasible for a major portion of the population to rely on automobile transportation. In such conditions rail investments are likely to be more cost effective and equitable than highway investments. I think you are quite wrong to imply that railroads are receiving excessive public subsidy. Here in North America rail bear cost burdens, such as paying rent and taxes on rights-of-way, that automobiles do not, and railroads maintain their own terminals while automobiles rely on subsidized parking at most destinations. Similarly, a typical urban transit user receives less total per capita subsidy (including public expenditures on transit services, roads and parking facilities) than a typical motorist (see <a href="http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf</a> ). I realize that you are an advocate of a new transportation technology (I suggest in future you spell out ETT, most readers have no idea what it means) which you believe is superior to alternatives. That's fine. If it proves to be as good as you say it will find its role in the overall transport network. But please don't think that deriding alternatives is an effective way of promoting your ideas. Simply show us independently-verified proof. -Todd Litman At 05:08 PM 5/3/2006, Daryl Oster wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Railroads were designed (optimized) to haul massive loads between two locations.  Their efficiency goes down considerably when they are called upon to service a high number of access points(nodes). It is well documented in network theory that the usefulness of a network is proportional to the number of nodes squared.  The cost of servicing a transportation access point (node) with rail is more than ten times the cost of servicing it with a road; therefore the cost of accessibility of roads is more than a hundred times better than the cost of accessibility of rail. Of course, the proof of this is ancient history in the US and most of Europe; trains had a 95% share of the value of cargo transport in 1910 in the US, and now they have less than a 20% share, and even airplanes carry more cargo value than trains do.  The very high node access cost of train access (both money and time) is the main reason.  There are many well intended do-gooders who mistakenly promote rail as having accessibility advantages over cars/roads - this view is proven false upon technical analysis AND in the vast majority of the many markets where it has been tested.  The false view that trains offer better accessibility is carefully fostered by the rail industry that has a huge vested interest in maintaining the grip on the mammary of government funding.  The truth is that cars on roads provide much better access to transportation than trains, and those who seek equity for the poor would be better advised to build roads and provide cars than to provide trains.  This is why trains have been displaced to niche markets by the car in developed countries. Passenger trains only survive by firmly latching onto the mammary of government to prevent the birth and nurture of more sustainable transportation technology.  This is why most people in developing countries aspire to use motorcycles and or cars.  Virtually all societies frown on a toothless grandpa or grandma nursing from their daughters mammary while the new born baby grandchild goes unfed.  Why is it that the rail industry is not admonished for doing the same thing?? It is obvious that there are problems associated with the adoption of the car, and that a better form of transportation is needed.  Grandpa rail would have us believe that rail is better than cars, and with self serving lies railroaders promote government funded train transportation projects, and government funded rail operating subsidies. What IS needed to solve the energy and environmental sustainability limitations of cars is to implement transportation technologies like ETT that offer at least a ten-fold improvement in transportation value.  Compared to trains, planes, and automobiles; ETT requires less than 1/50th as much fuel, and creates 1/50th as much pollution per passenger kilometer. The cost of providing ETT accessibility is about 1/4th the cost of providing freeway accessibility; and less than a tenth the cost of providing rail accessibility.  For the task that trains were optimized for (moving tons of coal from mine to points of major use) ETT can be implemented and operated for about the same cost, leaving the ONLY advantage of trains to move loads that cannot be reduced to weighing more than the 400kg payload of an optimally sized ETT capsule.  Such loads represent less than 5% of cargo transported by rail.  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 , <a href="http://www.et3.com" eudora="autourl">www.et3.com</a> > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [<a href="mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org" eudora="autourl"> mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org</a>] On Behalf Of > Sunny > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:04 AM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: "India is on the road to a transport revolution" > > Dear John, > > In my opinion if the problem is shipment then it can be fulfilled with > out building new road and by efficiently using the existing railway > network or by adding new goods/cargo trains, this can even generate > income and jobs thereby benefiting the jobless both at the source and > the destination, expanding our highways and bringing more larger and > multi-speed gear boxes will only be a burden as they have to be imported > and their number will be very small for an investment like increasing > the overall highway structure for which the large truck users might not > legally contribute anything. On comparison to Bangkok I have recently > been on road to Chiang Rai, the north of Thailand and to my surprise I > have not seen even one toll post charging the cars which I am familiar > with in India and my friend was driving never less than 100 kmph. > > Using the railway as I said earlier will reduce the unemployment and > also the travel time as there will be a pressure for quality on the > railways, better roads might be a good answer but roads built solely for > freight will not be a good answer, if anyone is familiar with HIV in > India it can be found that the HIV cases are more among the lorry > drivers. I would be thankful if anyone can throw more light on this > issue, I think Eric would be the one as I have seen him as a moderator > on GATNET.</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”   </body> </html>