| Monday, June 21, 2004 |
15:35 - Buuuuurrned
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/21/ncar21.xml&sSheet=/n
|
(top)  |
Hoo boy:
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.
There's still the question of traffic congestion if everyone drives, and rail is still cheaper. But rail is also way slower, way less flexible, and (at least in places like, say, San Jose) you still have to drive to the station ten miles away, park, ride, work, ride back, get in your car, and drive home. Which I daresay would add a fair amount to the equation, yet more in favor of four wheels.
Diesel isn't all that widespread here, but it's not like it's impossible to find if you're that concerned about fuel efficiency. Plus there's always the Prius. Anyway, if these trends continue, even SUVs will be competitive before long...
Private ownership of your means of getting around—plus you're saving the environment! What's not to like?
|
|
Brian Tiemann
