Posted on 06/20/2004 10:43:53 PM PDT by MadIvan
Encouraging travellers to switch from cars and airlines to inter-city trains brings no benefits for the environment, new research has concluded.
Challenging assumptions about railways' green superiority, the study finds that the weight and fuel requirements of trains have increased to the point where rail could become the least energy-efficient form of transport.
Engineers at Lancaster University said trains had failed to keep up with the motor and aviation industries in reducing fuel needs.
They calculate that expresses between London and Edinburgh consume slightly more fuel per seat (the equivalent of 11.5 litres) than a modern diesel-powered car making the same journey.
The car's superiority rises dramatically when compared with trains travelling at up to 215mph.
The Government is considering such a railway to provide extra north-south capacity in the next decade.
Assuming the continuing dominance of fossil fuel-based electricity, the study indicates that suitable French-style rolling-stock would require twice as much fuel per seat as a Volkswagen Passat, and more than a short-haul aircraft.
Prof Roger Kemp, who led the research, said that in its efforts to improve performance after privatisation, the rail industry had "taken its eye off the ball" environmentally.
Virgin's SuperVoyager rolling-stock is estimated to be 40 per cent heavier per seat than the ageing 125s it replaced.
Tilting Pendolino trains, due to come into full operation between London and Manchester in the autumn, are reckoned to weigh more per seat than the forthcoming Airbus A380 double-decker.
Roger Ford, of Modern Railways magazine, said one reason for declining energy efficiency was the impact of health and safety and disability access regulations.
The introduction of crumple zones, disabled lavatories and seating rules for trains travelling over 100mph had added weight and reduced capacity.
"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get."
The research casts doubt on the Government's conviction that boosting inter-city rail travel will help it meet its environmental targets.
It also undermines the case of those who oppose airport expansion in favour of improved high-speed rail links.
Friends of The Earth expressed surprise at the findings, which it said were not in line with previous studies.
Tony Bosworth, its transport campaigner, said: "Cars cause congestion, disrupt communities and are much less safe than trains.
"The main problem is not long-distance travel but the 25 per cent of car journeys which are less than two miles. Those are the least efficient and often the most polluting."
I would HOPE so!!!!
There is literally no room for roadway improvements, to say nothing of the parking situation. The issue isn't fuel efficiency, it's the actual space taken up by cars versus the train.
This is not to say that transit "utopian" types are right, just that there is a place for it.
"Cats are more fuel-efficient than trains, claims study."
Everybody knows that. For example, Angel and Fluffy are quite happy to spend the entire day napping, using hardly any energy at all. Snowball does like to prowl a little bit, though....
Actually, the type of fuel used matters a lot. All trains run on electric power today. If they were using centrally generated power (via a trolley or third rail) instead of generating their own electric power on board with diesel generators, they would be substituting coal or nuclear sourced power for petroleum, which is the more limited resource in the marketplace.
The US (and England) have very large supplies of both coal and uranium on hand, if they can find the courage to use them.
That is a PARKING issue and a road issue. For example driving in Athens is a major problem because the city layout was disigned 5000 years ago. There is next to no parking and streets that were made with animals in mind rather than automobiles.
In the USA we have a luxury of being able to design for automobiles. The problem in Europe is that until recent history they were not mandating designing with parking in mind.
What's to refute?
Under different sets of conditions, it's always possible to fabricate a scenario where one mode of transportation is more fuel efficient than another, no matter which side of the debate you're on. Heck, bicycles are more fuel efficient than either cars or trains.
The car's superiority rises dramatically when compared with trains travelling at up to 215mph.
This particular quote is just one illustration of the apples-to-oranges analysis presented in this biased article.
Does the car's "superiority" hold true if the car is ALSO traveling 215 mph???
Hmmmmmmm?
Doh! I don't think so!
That's silly.
What do you think the government's gonna do... create an armed Commuter Gestapo to forcibly herd people onto mass transit trains with cattle prods?
Baloney. Mass transit is simply about offering an alternative for people to choose from. Either because they can't afford their own personal vehicles, or they find some aspect of the mass-transit system to be more convenient.
No, there are many factors involved other than just fuel consumption. How much fuel and other raw materials did it take to make the transport in the first place? If a train requires 20 tons of steel and the equivalent number of cars required to replace the train weigh 40 tons, then you need to figure in the impact of getting all that steel. And, what about many roads required for cars, versus one train track? etc. etc.
bump
offering an alternative at the expense of people who will never use the alternitve.
Want mass transit? Pay for it all with user fees, not taxes.
No, they'll just do waht they always do - tax and regulate to get the desired behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.