"Tiroler Tageszeitung" No 19 of 01.20.2011 Page: 2 Division: Opinion Tiroler Tageszeitung
If the European Justice of the recommendation of the Inspector General is hereby, repealed the sectoral truck driving ban. That would be correct because Tirol has tried so to spare, despite their local truck emissions and the country to make cross-border, although in transit are the cleanest vehicles on the roads - saw through protectionism.
shifts Minister Bures the construction of the Brenner tunnel, because it is cost-prohibitive and unnecessary transport policy. Germany has recognized this and is therefore working out the route to the Swiss Gotthard line. In access routes to the BBT is not invested.
Thus Tirol has now unexpectedly the opportunity to move away from a gigantomaniac ancient project and a forward-looking transport policy for the people instead of for the construction industry. is to create an ecologically-oriented, dense public transport off the rails long-distance transport, which are relieved by local traffic, because it prevents the efficient transit of goods by rail. The same has to be agreed with the neighbors, be it stock rails up to an efficient corridor from Rosenheim Verona. A fast freight train can stand up to the truck and a better public transport pushes back the car traffic, which generates more pollutants than the heavy vehicle transit. In parallel, the truck traffic ban extended to all trucks that not the best category of contaminant.
That depends a lot cheaper than the BBT would be to implement faster and would relieve the environment. And Europe probably would not mind.
Dr. David Gulda, d.gulda @ berger-gruppe.com
This post contains some truths, in my view to the Tyrolean * Transport And so I quote him here. The writer, David Gulda is one of the leaders in the transportation industry, which have been proved often that they are outside the box a pure road-oriented transport policy . Look out
But Dr. David Gulda course, is a member of his profession (Berger logistics ) and accordingly in his views, some dogmas are hidden so well that you can not leave. Thus, for example, that a train at least 1,000 km in the piece must be: to the ones mentioned are before and up costs no doubt why so unattractive, as the State has invested 50 years only in the street - and now in railway holes (Both in the tunnel and on the map to explain the progressive attitude of the branch lines and sidings) shows take place in the area of the web presence.
Caution is therefore offered here:
to create "is an ecologically-oriented, dense public transport off the mainline tracks, which are relieved by local traffic, because it prevents the efficient transit of goods by rail. "
This is a diplomatic Kassandra statement. The following interpretations are possible:
1) We need each other if rail axis, for traffic management on the main routes that bring public transport to the passengers.
would This reading means that the train operating on the Brenner axis - (three tracks, for example) (which the best Modal has split in favor of regional traffic on the track) through the development of the Brenner route with freight transport must be coordinated. It also means that the meaning is the new Lower Inn Valley railway in the pure freight - because we can on the old route of the train and Regional services are handled undisturbed. For the urban areas it is exploiting that projects to a regional train in Innsbruck to be forced.
2) Passenger traffic is handled by the road so that the rail is free for freight.
This reading would mean that current advances - such as the Deutsche Bahn - also be set up long-distance buses to replace trains standard. Likewise, this means a "Verbussung" of the existing regional transport rail - be comparable to what is still up to the Gotthard base tunnel completion of the local plays.
to reading 2) the following observations:
It will be said though that a ecological transport on the main axes can not be implemented with buses , one must not forget however, that some with hair-raising Arguments statistics so rightly be bent that comes out, the road would be better than the web.
The key word in this battle of the "arguments" is the primary energy consumption. With the primary energy consumption can be hinbiegen much because the collection all energy consumption by end result the search for a world formula is equivalent (for example, one would have also forced modal shift from pedestrian to automobile traffic through the separating effect of peak structures and the resulting forced detours study)
When you are in a statistical the German Energy Agency DENA, for the driving coach (and aircraft) assumes 100% occupancy rate, on the railways, however, only 30%, it becomes clear why the long distance coach is suddenly cheaper than the train. Although the table annexed to explain - yet that's all right sneaky ...
 |
| Corrected table based on the following source: DENA |
is to be noted that at least if the Wikipedia entry ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Energie-Agentur) follows dena is biased in some way. Only I am not clear what the statistics are so taken arc, but since the railway also runs with power and the financiers of the DENA are provided in the electricity industry. The fact that buses and trams are on par, I can not imagine, as the rolling resistance of the various types of infrastructure is essential. A fully staffed tram rolls, even faster (and it was only 5km / h), during a power failure without any further until the next and the next stopping place. I therefore prefer to quote me and point to this comparison (although I limit myself to the final energy consumption, since it is what everyone can influence):
Who does not believe these proportions can see on the history of technology.
When was the car in traffic to its triumphant?
Not as in its invention in 1670 ( Cugnot steam car), but only at the time created through the web such surpluses of resources were that this could be safely consume (whether in war or in traffic). The fact that these surpluses are finite, has no apparent thought at that time.
If we had started the Western industrialization drive, we would probably already received about 1850 economic.
that extent the abyss to which we are moving to us now not only the slope in the "peak oil chart" but ultimately a waste of laboriously built up reserves of good infrastructure in terms of generations with a machine called the car to us pretends to be, we would save energy when moving. Whether this is an oil or electric car, is irrelevant to this issue.
