This past Tuesday, British Greenpeace campaigners took a straightforward approach to encouraging alternative forms of travel: They set up booths at four British airports and offered free train tickets to airline passengers.
They were soon escorted out, and no one took the tickets.
The Greenpeacers were out to make the point that airplane travel is 10 times more polluting than train travel. Their stunt came on the heels of a report issued by the British Airline Pilots Association asserting that aviation has become a scapegoat for global warming, and that passengers should stop feeling guilty about flying.
Meanwhile, the study that supports Greenpeace’s “10 times more polluting claim” was put out by a European train company called Eurostar. It’s pretty clear that there are some competing interests here.
As the British travel site Ecotravelling considers the question, “Plane or Train?” they say that in the hypothetical situation of all air passengers becoming rail passengers, carbon emissions and nitrous oxides would significantly drop. But they add:
The real question is, is it realistic to think that railways can replace air travel in this way? Part of the answer depends on the economics – and whether carbon tax and the further consolidation of low cost carriers does eventually consign cheap flights to the history books, as some commentators have predicted. However, at least as important are the issues of convenience and conscience.
So which would you choose, given the option? Travel by train or plane?
I remember traveling by train regularly my first 20 years because we didn’t have nearby air travel in the area where I grew up. The train was reliable, comfortable and economic. I would gladly travel by rail again if our system were more efficient and cheaper. For me to travel from Texas to Ohio, I would have to stop over in Chicago, it would take over 40 hours (that doesn’t include layovers), and cost about $450 round trip. Now if I go by air, I would have to stop over Chicago, it would take 5 hrs 15 min (including layover), and cost $280 round trip. As long as the American rail system works this way, I don’t see how travelers will be convinced to travel them. How does running a train engine for 40 hours compare to running a jet engine for 5 hours and the amount of pollution produced?
So which would you choose, given the option? Travel by train or plane?
I’ve taken the train, and I liked it fine. However for where I need to be and how long I’ve got to get there - the train looses every time.
I live in the Midwest. There are unavoidable commitments on the West coast. I get on the plane Sunday, I’m there in the afternoon. Were I to take the train it’s what, two days of travel? That’s two days when all I’m doing is traveling - it’s non-productive.
Now - perhaps if they had a reliable wireless internet connection …
I personally love the train, it is a very neat way to travel. It’s classy, comfortable and the food is great. However, I must admit, it takes too long in the US to use the train. It takes 3 times as long and it is still expensive. Now, in Europe the Eurail is fast and cheap. So, I vote for air travel in the US and rail travel internationally.
I agree - the train is never going to be more convenient than a plane. And it is always surprising how expensive it is. The only time I’ve taken the train in the US is from Albany to New York City, and a round-trip ticket for a 3 hour commuter trip is over $150.
Amtrak has had a fascinating history, and Wikipedia has a very complete article about it. It implies that the government discouraged rail transportation while they were developing the highway system. Amtrak is federally subsidized, but it’s suffered under persistent budget cuts, and has had to cut down on services and destinations. If more people wanted to ride the train, Amtrack would probably become cheaper and have better service, but for now it’s stuck in a catch-22.
In Europe, traveling by train is already commonplace because of its geography and the economics which make it more feasable. After using the rail system in Europe you can conclude that traveling by train in the U.S. sounds pretty unrealistic. The complexity and reliability of their rail system would take decades to imitate.
I think the train is more convenient than a plane - but only for shorter distances, and only where commuter rail is available (like in Europe, Japan, or on the east coast).
There’s no way trains can compare in the U.S. for long distances (at least for convenience). When I was in college and had a month off for vacation I took the train from Austin to Chicago. It cost as much as flying and took two and a half days each way. I had a blast, but if I tried to do that now, my longest holiday is only 9 days - there’s no way I’d be willing to use 5 days of that riding on a train if there’s any alternative. Lisa was right that the food was good, but how many nicer places I could have eaten out for the same price in Chicago if I had gotten there two days earlier and could stay two days longer?
On the other hand, when you compare shorter commuter lines, rail can be more convenient and cheaper very easily.
Boston to New York on Amtrak is around $100 and takes just over three hours travel time. Flying is around $150 to $700 depending on how early you buy your ticket, what time you want to travel and which airport you want. It only takes an hour and a half - in the air. But then you add in the recommended two hours early arrival to the airport for security, and suddenly flying takes longer and costs more (possibly *much* more).
But then, anything extra would be a lot to pay to get there slower, without any liquid toiletries, after standing around barefoot while a stranger in purple gloves digs through your underwear.
Hi Lindsay!
I don’t know about trains versus airplanes, but I’ve had some experience with trains versus cars in the vicinity of New York City. Whenever I visit kith or kin in downstate New York or New Jersey (where they reside a few hours outside NYC), I know to take the train into NYC. It costs less to take the train round trip than it does to park your car in the big city. Plus, the train is an absolute delight. It’s scenic and comfortable and uncrowded, relieving you of all anxiety of having to drive and navigate through the congested traffic, and to search for a place to park. In NYC, I’ve found the train to be the freedom mobile, and the car about as fun as a ball and chain.
Bruce
Trains, Planes and Trucks. I live in Missouri where I-44 and the BNSF RR run side by side. Everytime I drive to St. Louis, I have to contend with many trucks that seem to disregard speed limits and act as if the road belongs only to them. The last comparison I read about TON MILES, the railroads beat the trucks about 4 or 5 to 1. Train travel from my home town involves driving at least 65 miles to an AMTRAK station in Jefferson City, but for 35 more mike I can be at the AMTRAK station in St. LOuis and make better connections. The time it takes the train from STL to Chicago is comparable to the driving time. The flight time to Chicago from STL is ONE HOUR. Both types of travel require a 2 hour trip to the starting point.
I really don’t see a solution to these problems until the public wakes up to the fact that we live in closed enviroment that we MESSED UP BIG TIME!!!!
Leland, what do you mean by “closed environment”? Does that mean that we don’t have the necessary infrastructure to make train travel convenient?
But back to the question of pollution. I wonder how all this car travel to get to the trains (especially if you have to sit in gridlock on your way to the metropolitan area station) factors into the overall picture.
I still stand by the catch-22. It seems we have so few options unless we’re willing to make major changes.
I would like to take a cruise ship to my destination instead of flying. I have taken a cruise ship to St. Thomas twice and once back but you have to pay for the whole trip and then when you get off three days early they charge you an extra $50 dollars a day for not being there. I would like to take a train to more places in the U.S. I do ride the train in the north east U.S. The trains have a hard time running on time beacuse freight has priority. We have done this to ourselves because we think that speed is the need. What if we took a little more time to finish projects. Compitition has gotten us into a consumption of raw matierial at an alarming rate. The part about standing barefoot in security at airports is the most demeaning to human life.
Yes, I think it’s pretty obviuos that we do not have the infrastructure nationwide. And where there is infrastructure, like the NE, there still seems to be problems. Now as far as making major changes to create more options, what major changes exactly are we proposing? Where do you start to build the infrastructure? First you need to invest, and who will invest? Seems that AMTRAK received subsidies not too long ago just to keep it running at it’s current innefficient level. I’ve traveled exensively by train in other countries, and yes I love it! it’s great! But if you live in the US in any place but the NE, you think of rail as a means of transportation for vacation… when you have all the time of the world to get to your destination and where the trip is part of the adventure. This of course if you can afford it.