The Nature and Parks Authority and the Ministry of Environmental Protection offer an alternative to the most problematic section proposed by Natibi Israel on the railway route to Eilat - passing through areas that have already been mined and a long tunnel instead of cutting off and destroying ecological environments
Before it is as late as the train to Jerusalem, they should hear the opinion of the people in the area, regarding the proposed train route to Eilat.
A new high speed train line will be built from Be'er Sheva to Eilat. The length of the track is about 260 km.
According to the plan of the "Netivy Israel" company, the area where the track will descend from the actual area to the Arava road (about 40 km) will be irreparably destroyed. The railroads and labor camps will affect the right plain, Ma'ale Akrabim, Nahal Seif, Ein Tzin, and more.
The Nature and Parks Authority and the Ministry of Environmental Protection offer an alternative to this section.
In the proposed green alternative, the track will pass through an underground tunnel for 27 km, the work stations will be attached to the mining plants in Oron and Zin, and the area will not be damaged at all. The alternative of the tunnels is a little more expensive but includes environmental consideration and value vision with reference to the future of the Negev and the Arabah.
The film was produced by Bartov Productions, for the Nature and Parks Authority and the Ministry of Environmental Protection. Photography and editing: Eyal Bartov; Screenplay and narration: Tal Bartov; Music and Soundtrack: Israel Kasif, Clementina Studios; Animation: Ofer Shafir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYI5nkO-RbA
Environment and energy expert – the oldest green channel on the network
43 תגובות
The fact that privatization has failed does not mean that the idea of privatization is a failure -
It is usually the government's fault that privatization fails.
It goes without saying that the buying company wants to recoup the investment - and the level of safety is usually something they can't play with too much because the government shouldn't let them do it.
If a private company fails to maintain the railway even though it has a monopoly, it means that the railway is fundamentally problematic and that the government simply threw money into the hole that was not discovered until privatization.
All railway privatizations ended in failure, because the new owners wanted to quickly recoup the investment and lowered the level of safety. In the end in England they had to nationalize the train back.
Your basic argument and that of every supporter of a massive government fueling of the economy is that a government can see farther than the free market and respond accordingly - of course the delay shows that governments are usually unable to do this and no one will spend money on a project that will not pay for itself in the near future -
This is not true only in Israel but in most of the world.
First we need to streamline the train we have and privatize it and then we will see how and where, if at all, a subway is built.
These are indeed expenses that will not pay for themselves within ten or twenty years, but in the long term it is impossible to do without them. On Thursday I was at a smart transportation conference at Afka College (article coming soon). At the conference, the Chief Scientist at the Ministry of Transportation, Dr. Amir Ziv Av, said that the rate of increase in travel in Israel is increasing at a rate 3 times higher than the rate of adding roads.
The solution must be a transfer to public transportation, because although they will make all possible improvements to the roads, it will not be enough.
Are you implying that property tax money was able to build a subway?
Give numbers.
In Europe, and in particular in Germany, which I know well, the subways were established by the municipalities. They may be operated by a private or public entity specializing in public transportation, but were not established by those entities.
Dor Levy - Throwing concepts and gold constants is not an argument in a debate.
You can talk until tomorrow - but the infection can be treated in a different way -
A subway is something very expensive - and there may be a metropolis in the world that is not even particularly crowded that it pays to create a train system there that part of it goes through tunnels -
But it's probably not here - because then some private initiative would have already offered it.
It will cost someone a lot of money - government money is all of us' money - it does not go to the finance minister's yacht.
You have no idea what the technology will be like in a few decades when it comes to pollution from cars.
A subway - or a train to Eilat are probably unnecessary expenses that will never pay for themselves -
And that they have better alternatives - improving the roads to Eilat sounds more logical to me than building railroad tracks and running a train along this entire route.
Of course you don't see…
You don't see how much it cost.
You don't see how little time it will take, because the traffic jams are moving from place to place.
You don't see the costs and prices of environmental pollution:
For your information, the pollution of the environment dwarfs the victims of accidents, who by their side dwarf the victims of wars.
You don't see economic concepts like "public good", "the hitchhiker problem", "cost externalization".
You don't see what will happen in a few decades, that the Gehlopolis of Gedera-Hadera will be created and that it will merge with the cities of the north,
You don't see what will happen when it will no longer be possible to add roads, and there won't be any room for construction either, because of all the adjoining land.
Yes, there are many things you don't see.
We have had quite significant improvements in transportation in recent years in the Kiryat Haifa area.
It is not clear to me where another subway is missing here.
A subway will be efficient at best only during rush hours - which is a limited time during the day - the rest of the time a private car or bus will pay more.
It's an economic issue - it's a matter of money - a subway costs more than a bus or taxi ride -
So it is likely that this will not be a reasonable investment of public funds.
I don't have a problem with them building a subway here - as long as it's a mostly private business - it's a shame for them - but I don't see how such a project will return the investment.
PS I am also an economist by profession. The difference is that I studied with lecturers who taught me to think and did not let me fall asleep during parts of the lesson. I suggest you try the workshop given by Prof. Avia Spivak, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of Israel (read a taste online) on "The Danger of Introduction to Economics".
L. B. and his colleagues
You never let the facts confuse you, do you?
Once stood on a train station platform. See where the first passenger car stands, check where the last stands.
Compare the length of the train and the length of the platform.
After that, try to stand in traffic at the intersection of a railroad and a road and check the length of the train (a passenger train, yes? Because a freight train doesn't stop at stations.)
Go to the train's website, and check the types of trains that the train operates. A selection of quotes from there and the corresponding entry in Wikipedia:
Regarding the layout of the floors:
"The Israel Railways operates the Bombardier trains in an array of a locomotive + 4 traction cars + a power car. The power car contains generators, propulsion equipment and a driver's cab.
... The train is easily converted to electric drive using an electric locomotive.
With electric propulsion, the train can be enlarged and reach a configuration of an electric locomotive + 8 towing cars."
What is not clear here?
Note, a quote from Wikipedia:
"...for years, the train in Israel suffered from continuous neglect due to a preference for public transportation using buses.
In 1994, the railway management changed its budget policy - instead of asking the government for development budgets, which did not arrive, in order to make improvements to the railway system, it was decided to operate every line and every station that could be operated in order for the public to start traveling by train again and put pressure on the government to increase the budget. The tedious mass train from Tel Aviv to Haifa was filled to the brim. The public demanded a fast train to Haifa alongside a train from the intermediate stations to Tel Aviv. Other lines opened in these years were also soon filled with passengers, such as the line between Rehovot and Tel Aviv.
The increased demand did bring about a change.
And those who do not see where a subway brought a solution are welcome to look at all the major metropolises in the world.
Always, but always, the demand and need for the train is much greater than the "experts of looking through the hole in the dime" thought...
There will always be those who, on the one hand, see the incitement of the "Daily Capitalist" as their reading material, and on the other hand, will regret, after following the preaching of the privatized service, that the service was privatized.
And speaking of one last matter, as always you divert a matter-of-fact discussion like this one about the train, to the warm and comfortable field of slogans, originating from various stakeholders, about the economy and from there it slips into an electricity company. In the week when the Treasury finally admitted that the salary and management costs are negligible compared to the rest, you don't really want an electricity company to be privatized. Go read a little about Enron, about the corruption, about the initiated power outages aimed at extorting prices, about the collapse and all the privatization failures - also in the field of trains.
Although a flat city, Hanover has 600 inhabitants, less than Haifa and Kiryat. There are 15 light rail lines, which in the center of the city, for many kilometers, enter underground and leave at several different exits, and then the tracks split further into the suburbs on the surface of the ground.
They build at the expense of the public coffers and after it is already built and working and there is already income from it, they sell it cheaply to private hands.
We were already in this movie!
Such a scenario must not be allowed to happen!
Why do you think a subway is the best solution for the transportation situation in the big cities?
For starters, give me an example of a metropolis the size of Haifa with a widely used subway.
If there was a Carmelite in all the cities, and if they extended it in Haifa as well, it would be possible to solve a lot of problems in elite transportation. The heirs of the great ones simply did not know how to deal with the inheritance and avoided maintenance.
An electric company did get involved, but it is a company on an international scale, a little bigger even than today's Israel, and in terms of a plant it is a huge project. And again, this is a mistake of the successors who did not know how to take control of it properly and left it to the employees.
The electricity company is big and vacuumed - the Carmelite, who is it useful for?
This money is yours to spend-
This is not about human life - that's why looking through the "hole in the divorce" is the most logical thing to do.
It is an expense due to economic considerations, so it makes sense that it should be according to economic considerations.
If the train won't be cheaper than flying - then why would anyone get on it?
And if the state can subsidize the train - it can also subsidize the planes -
Public companies engage the public here.
Why let them enslave us even more?
The railway project is strategic for the country.
The passenger issue is extremely marginal.
The matter of moving the goods through the Eilat Gulf to Lim Tikhun by train and not through the busy Switz Canal to Ifa,
It is an extremely economic matter that will bring capital to the country and add many more jobs to the economy.
In addition, this weakens our Egyptian neighbor who controls the canal and strengthens our ties with countries that have a huge interest in reducing costs in transport from the East to Europe, countries like India and China (as far as I know, a Chinese company is going to build the track)
However, I think that the cypresses must be shaken in order to protect the southern nature's treasure.
5 billion dollars is a marginal amount compared to a project of this magnitude and the value of the nature that will be destroyed cannot be measured in money.
Please don't forget, the western US developed thanks to the railroad.
In view of the housing crisis and the housing protest, the time has come for a major project to be carried out by the State of Israel.
This is not a new project.
It's an old project that was shelved and now it must be realized.
This is the Negev development project.
I remember it was once called the "Ben Gurion vision".
This is not about the development of Eilat.
Not even the sparsely populated Arava region.
This is about developing an area that is not far from the heart of the State of Israel and is supposed to contain a large number of residents.
Since the upheaval, there are no more big projects. Note that in the XNUMXs they established the Electricity Company, in the XNUMXs the national carrier and the Carmelite, and today - the Big Brother is the biggest project.
With the same money, you can develop areas that are not so far away. This will bring revenue to the country no less than the development of the remote areas.
It has nothing to do with capitalism. The development of the Beer Sheva area is a public project.
The role of the state is to take care of the general public. And since the majority of the public is not in Eilat, there is no reason to invest public money specifically in Eilat.
You can do other things in Eilat that don't necessarily require a fast train.
This is a very narrow view from the hole of the divorced. And when you look at the divorcee's hole, you usually lose millions.
The development of the remote areas will give the state a lot of tax revenue, which is much more than the train fare. But that's how capitalists are, unable to support a public project. And if they approve, they are not willing to spend the extra two percent to minimize the damage to the environment because the environment in their eyes is worth nothing. And I say this from experience.
In the Daily Capitalist quite a long time ago there was a quite detailed explanation of why this thing will not pay off.
In general, such a large public project is in most cases a big waste of money - if it wasn't a waste of money - then the private market would have organized it somehow.
If they want a train to Eilat, let them put out a tender for the area under suitable conditions and see if any private company is willing to take on the project.
By and large from all kinds of considerations of labor organizations here and around the world - a train is not that efficient from a financial point of view - especially if it is not used a lot -
Since this is a net economic issue and not the packaging of an important welfare service that a welfare state is supposed to give to its citizens, I find it strange that the state should take care of this - people travel to Eilat mainly to vacation and the cost of the trip is relatively small compared to the recreation itself. If the train can't compete with the planes then there really is no reason in the world to build it.
In general, the public system can do many things - but profit is not one of them. - Is it really a correct use of public money to subsidize people's travel for their vacation?
In conclusion:
A fast train from Tel Aviv to Be'er Sheva is a desirable thing and will contribute a lot to the State of Israel.
No, a fast train to Eilat, which is a very undesirable thing because of the waste of resources and damage to nature.
He is what I said, a fast train to the Negev and not even up to Eilat will open the Negev.
How much did they invest in the territories? That in the end they will get back every last grain. How many trains could they have built with this money? The infrastructure for the train in the land structure that exists in the Negev is low, and also that no one should be compensated for their private land. Such a project also gives a boost to the economy and creates real jobs. They couldn't build the Negev, which is two-thirds the size of the State of Israel. And the social problem can be solved if young couples are given free land and infrastructure.
Besides the bus passengers to Eilat, there are car passengers 5 hours to Eilat.
The Nature Authority is doing everything to torpedo every hi-tech issue in the Negev, but nothing to fight the Bedouin takeover of the Negev. From the experience of Highway 2 to the north, creating a fast transportation artery to the Negev will help its development and perhaps save it for the democratic Jewish state.
After repeatedly reviewing the news that has been published to date on the subject of the train to Eilat,
And following Eyal Bar-Tov's video No. Comments:
Knowing the area and in terms of the map, I have objections to the vigorous resistance of the network
And I have a concern that the "green" route is no less offensive than the route proposed by the developer,
And yet something about the account and cost calculations:
The promoters claim that the change of the plan is according to the demands of the conservationists
will add NIS 5 billion to its cost,
And I claim that, as in many other cases, it's time for entrepreneurs to learn to calculate correctly
and calculate the "cost savings" against the environmental damage,
In the face of the harm to thousands of travelers and in the face of the harm to nature and the landscape,
Today there are economists who know how to do correct calculations, it would be right to help them,
It seems to me that it is possible to carry out the project so that the environmental damage of the track will be low,
The risk of landscape damage due to the "power poles" can be neutralized by moving the power line
under the track and the electricity supply to the train through the belly (and not through the roof),
Most of the route will be in the prairie, with agricultural fields to the east of the track
Therefore there is no fear or problem with the fence "blocking the movement of animals",
In places where there is indeed a problem, dedicated passages can be built,
The fear of damaging the "axis of the springs" is unnecessary
since the springs were dried up by boreholes that supply water for agriculture,
So that again, in my opinion, it will be possible to reach a compromise acceptable to the parties,
But the severe and main damage will be from the labor camps... how do you neutralize this damage...?
Another future injury will be when in the final stages of the track design
The demand to withdraw a clause for the Dead Sea factories will rise,
Although today there is a conveyor belt that transports raw material to factories in Apaa
But the quantities of minerals transported to Eilat are much larger,
A section of rail from the Hatzava area to the Dead Sea factories can pass through Nahal Ametsia... and destroy it
and later to add destruction to the proper salting of the square,
Or alternately pass through the hills of Hvar, which will cause unprecedented scenic destruction,
Of course the environmental preference will again be a tunnel and here again the issue of cost will come up....?
First of all, it seems to me that the conservationists will be joined by those who oppose the whole project,
It is difficult to see how transport companies and all the carriers that transport
Hundreds of thousands of tons of minerals per year in trucks
will give up their income.
So another vision for the time.
sparrow:
1) The trains are short because there are not enough passengers for a long train.
If there were enough passengers the trains would be longer. The technical problems it creates are very easy to overcome.
And hence: if the trains in the busy central area are so short. Surely a train to Eilat will be a very short train. In my opinion, once a day 5 crores will be enough. Of course my assessment is not tested. I don't have the tools to check this is just an estimate. But even if it is 10 kroner twice a day, it still does not justify the huge investment!
If they had invested this money in the development of the areas between Beer Sheva and Tel Aviv it would have given much better results.
2) For the distances in question, the duration of the trip by high-speed train will be approximately one and a half hours shorter than the trip by regular train. This is good, but it does not justify the huge investment in a high-speed train.
3) The question of what the passengers would prefer and not what the airlines would prefer. According to the data available in Israel, in my opinion the passengers would prefer to fly directly from Tel Aviv and not travel all the way to Eilat to fly.
The operating price for the airport in Eilat will also be more expensive!
4) Why only the Sea Canal? There are many issues that need to be addressed and they have not been mentioned here at all!
5) In the first step, there is no need for a fast train. This is an unnecessary investment. It will not lead to the development of the area.
On the other hand, a freight train will cause development along the entire length of the track. What's more, the cheap infrastructure designed for freight trains can also be used for regular passenger trains.
A few comments on the margins of the debate:
1. "The reasonable amount of carriages for one train is about 50 carriages."
Not true. Most passenger stations do not allow such trains.
Stopping a long passenger train at a station means shutting down the roads next to it, and even then the length of the platforms is not suitable.
Note that the length of a train in Israel is about 6-8 cars.
2. I don't know if the distances in Israel are suitable for a high-speed train of 250 kilometers, about TGV compared to an Israeli one of 110 kilometers.
Depends on how many stops in between.
3. Regarding diverting passengers to distant airports that are cheaper to operate. You can see how it works abroad.
For a nominal amount of landing fee, many airlines will prefer to land a little further away.
4. What I miss in the discussion is the combination of the matter with the Sea Canal.
If a version of the canal is chosen that connects along the steppe, between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea, then construction along the length of lakes for tourism, fishing, adventure sports sites, etc.,
So this should affect train planning.
5. The question is not a freight or passenger train. You can both…
praise:
You are talking about a fast train between Beer Sheva and Tel Aviv. That's another thing.
The infrastructure already exists between Beer Sheva and Tel Aviv. It is only natural that the next stage of development will be a high-speed train.
But here we are talking about a fast train to Eilat. This train does not have infrastructure nor does it have sufficient work volume. Therefore, the investment in such a train is not justified.
How many points:
* It is a mistake to take the number of people who travel by bus and say that it will be the number who travel by train. It is clear to any reasonable person that a train that travels in two hours to Eilat will generate demand, if only because of the time savings compared to traveling by car (including people who travel by private car, or people who fly).
*A railway is a profitable investment for many years, and I don't think there is any precedent in the world where the construction of a railway turned out to be an economic mistake in retrospect (perhaps except for the railway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but it is clear to everyone where the mistakes were made in this case).
*Regarding the route, there is indeed a lack of data, but it is not clear to me why not pave the track parallel to and adjacent to the roads that already exist, without running and building underground tunnels, after all, the road already separates habitats and harms the environment... for example, the mountainous section that goes down between the Dimona area and the Arava, I am sure that building bridges in this area adjacent to the road will solve the problem of the mountains and will not harm nature much more than the existing road already does... As for the damage during construction, this is damage that will be caused, but it is possible if proper planning and investment (with the help of the savings from eliminating the need for tunnels) it will be possible to restore the The area in just a few years…
http://www.israel.agrisupportonline.com/news/csv/csvread.pl?show=3627&mytemplate=tp2#.URVlxaXZbsY
A fast train on magnets could solve the housing problem for the young couples to find work and recreation wherever they want, only the state should give free infrastructure and land in the Negev. (In half an hour a person is in the center, how much time and money people waste in traffic jams)
Which will also lower real estate prices in the center. It is possible to build an airport in the Negev next to which a city will be built to serve it.
Build all the garages and train repair shops at the end of the track in the Negev and next to a city that will serve the activity. There is no need to build failing industrial areas near the settlements in the periphery. A person chooses his place of work. Regarding cost.
First of all, you have to understand that someone in their lack of vision in the past emptied the public coffers. Then you understand the advantage of a high-speed train. And if there is no space on the ground, they dig below, and if there is no space below, they build in the air. There is also a problem with what money is spent on in order to get the economy going, people need to be given jobs. But it is important to have national projects and not just burn money on toilets. And we talk about creating employment, economic security and social security.
We need to learn from the Americans first they built trains and the cities were built alongside them.
As a train passenger from Haifa to Tel Aviv I can assure you that not all trains stop there, Binyamina is a departure station for trains to Ashkelon and Be'er Sheva and usually they are used as collector trains, and if the train between Tel Aviv stops on the way then it is only at Binyamina so that the passengers can change trains to one of the other stations on the way . As a result of this operational need, a whole community of people was created who moved to live in Binyamina and continue to work in Tel Aviv.
In the same way, you can determine the father in Be'er Sheva, and those who want to go to one of the stations on the way should change in Be'er Sheva. Otherwise - let him continue directly to Eilat, because time is also important. In any case, the trains will travel on the same infrastructure and only at the stations will there be terminals for several trains at the same time.
1) It has nothing to do with capitalism. There is no claim that what is public is bad.
2) Passenger trains stop in Binyamina because it is between Haifa and Tel Aviv.
3) If you really want to develop the area then you have to take care of the entire chain of settlements and not just Eilat. A train that stops at several stations along the way will cause development in the vicinity of the stations. Therefore, the solution is actually a collection train. A fast express train is the last stage and not the first stage. It will cost a lot of money if they reverse the order of things. It may become a "white elephant".
All over the world, capitalists of various types and varieties make the claim that everything public is bad, and in the meantime, reality has proven them wrong. A small example - Benjamin, which developed thanks to being the father of passenger trains.
To my father:
1) One passenger train a day, in my opinion, does not justify building a track.
Small account:
A train car can hold as many passengers as two buses.
The approximate amount of carriages for one train is about 50 carriages. That is 100 buses. This is a very large convoy. I do not believe that bus convoys of this size go to Eilat.
2) People who come to spend time in Eilat can rent a car for several days. It seems to me that the end result of renting a car is cheaper than transporting the car back and forth by train.
3) On a regular train, the journey will take about four hours. There is no significant difference. There is no need for such a large investment in a high-speed train. Even a normal train is enough for tourists. An additional two hours on the way will not increase or decrease for a tourist who comes for a few days of recreation in Eilat.
4) It will be possible to divert flights, but the effort involved will be much greater than flying from Tel Aviv.
The customers will also prefer to board the plane at the airport and not travel to a distant airport in order to board the plane there.
5) Freight transportation is the reason why it might be worth investing in a train to Eilat. But in order to transport goods, you don't need to invest in a high-speed passenger train. A high-speed train requires a much larger investment than a regular freight train.
6) The logistical effort involved in loading and unloading cargo will mean that the use of the train will not be an alternative to the use of ships passing through the Suez Canal.
therefore:
If there is already a train then it should be a freight train. A slow and cheap train. A collector train that will stop at many points along the route and thus allow the existing settlements to transport loads with it. Only such a train will be worthwhile and will really cause the development of the area.
It should also be noted that apart from the daily bus at midnight, during the holidays and the summer months when there is time off from school, there are thousands of people who go down to Eilat and the number of buses increases
More, but that's not all the demand, if they add a trailer that will allow the car to be moved, it can help increase the demand from people who will save the fatigue of driving.
And in addition, the fact that it is two hours, the train will also compete with the planes because even today you have to be at least an hour before the flight at Sde Dov and by the time you fly and leave the airport in Eilat it is another hour. If the train stops at Netavg, it will also be able to provide service to tourists. It will also be possible to divert flights to the fact - for example the flights departing to India, Thailand and Africa to ease the pressure on Route: C - you will be able to transport the passengers between the terminals by train.
Such a train would also be able to transport freight instead of endangering the passengers on the Arava road, and last but not least - the rail could also be used as an alternative to the Suez Canal and then the economic justification is not in doubt.
how much is a caravan
About one train?
Every day at midnight a convoy of buses leaves from Tel Aviv and another convoy from Haifa, which also stops in Be'er Sheva.
And who will ride this train?
How many people travel from Be'er Sheva to Eilat (and back) in one day?
Is it worth investing in a train for this?
I'm definitely in favor of green alternatives, but I also don't want projects to inherit me and take years and years.
It would be good if they added data on a video that is entirely propaganda.
And for the avoidance of doubt, I definitely prefer and support the environmental route, but I'm missing information here that I think was intentionally omitted.