Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


7

Rail Travel Pollutes as Much as Flying: Study

Share

(Newser) – Train riders might not actually have that much to lord over their jet-setting rivals as far as pollution goes, Scientific American reports. A new study shows that although planes emit three times more greenhouse gasses per passenger per mile than trains, the industrial emissions necessary to rail infrastructure makes the environmental damage equal.

On the East Coast, where the majority of electricity comes from coal, trains are a worse bet than planes if you’re into saving the environment. The study should not invite a crusade against rail travel, the lead author said, but consideration. “We’ve done a lot by going at the tailpipe of the car,” he said. “That’s good thing, but we should start looking beyond the tailpipe.”

An Amtrak train in New Orleans.
An Amtrak train in New Orleans.   (AP Photo)
A commuter train passes a cargo plane from the US based Kalitta Air company that crashed at the end of the runway in Zaventem near Brussels, Belgium.
A commuter train passes a cargo plane from the US based Kalitta Air company that crashed at the end of the runway in Zaventem near Brussels, Belgium.   (AP Photo)
Planes coming in to land at London's Heathrow Airport.
Planes coming in to land at London's Heathrow Airport.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
7 comments
VIEWING:
 
kokuaguy
Jun 8, 09 5:12 PM CDT
Eight years were lost when science was considered the enemy to an approach that wanted to maintain the status quo and cater to the vested interests. Let the research proceed and take us where it will. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
NutsInNY
Jun 8, 09 5:33 PM CDT
Took a 6 hour train ride from NYC to Vermont last month to give my 2-year-old son his first (non-subway) "train experience"... For the last handful of stops there were like 3 of us in our car of train -- didn't feel so green! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
shonangreg
Jun 8, 09 8:19 PM CDT
That is where the big payoff in trains lie. You can increase the ridership of a train line by thousands of percent, and then environmental impact is minimal. The trains are underused now, and so are the tracks. 98% of the day, the tracks just sit there empty. .............. The Scientific American article itself just a summary of the full article in Environmental Research Letters. The summary did not mention that train traffic can be increased with little need for new tracks.
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
IN RESPONSE:
NutsInNY
Jun 8, 09 9:22 PM CDT
Excellent points. And I found it a very low-stress, civilized way to travel... But jeez we Americans are addicted to traveling in our own little self-contained bubbles -- cars -- addicted to the idea of having "privacy in public". I guess "control" and "freedom" are issues too -- but on a long haul that means little more than having the freedom to choose McDonalds or Taco Bell or another junk food chain!
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Sauerkraut
Jun 8, 09 9:29 PM CDT
This article is irrelevant. They totally left the point of freight transport (Big Rigs, Lorries)out of the equation. If they did include it, trains would by far offset planes and trucks. If it will get those damn truckers off my freeways Im all for it. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.