Trains less "green" than cars?

I'm waiting to hear the other side, but the Telegraph is reporting that an academic study out of Lancaster University finds that trains no longer beat out cars and planes in terms of efficiency and environmental impact:

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. . .

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. . .

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.

The big question, of course, is if this is due to indifference on the part of train designers, or if trains can be built to carry passengers substantially more efficiently. The article notes that newer rolling stock is much heavier than the old, for multiple reasons:

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."

I'm a fan of train travel myself, but whenever it's more than just me, driving is so much cheaper. Some say it is just a matter of hidden subsidies. I'm not sure about that -- highway maintenance costs are hidden, to be sure, but so are rail subsidies. Will have to keep a look at Transport Blog for more.

Posted by David on June 22, 2004 11:36 AM