Pollution: now cars set to be cleaner than rail

[thecityflyer]

I'm surprised nobody has picked up on this story featured on The Observer's website.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 41,00.html

[ianmacmillan]

What about the visual polution. Cars everywhere.

[UKTRAINSIM]

And noise pollution. Idiot boy racers in souped up Citroen Saxos everywhere

[yorkie2k]

What a load of ..

No figures provided at all. Why? because it simply does not add up.

They're probably comparing an unusually lightly loaded train with 4-person car sharing

[markw]

What a load of ..

Thank You Professor.

Actually this is not new, and in certain cases is already true. In a previous job I was a member of a national steering group looking at environmental impacts of new transport schemes, and drawing up guidelines. The key to which is the most polluting is the measurement used. The most obvious one is the amount of energy needed to get a person from their origin to their destination.

The car goes from point A to point B in one direction. Using peak occupancy rates of typical cities of about 1.5 people per car (based on observation) you divide the energy consumed by the number of people to get a specific consumption. Over the same journey, a car will consume more energy per head than even a half full train or bus. However, how many personal buses or trains do you see? Not many. They are all gathered in central parking areas called Depots, whereas most people are scattered far and wide, with a car on the doorstep. In other words, the journey by train or bus isn't just the origin to destination journey, it's the depot to origin to destination and back out again journey, and unless you have good contra-peak flows (which not all locations have) the outward journey from the depot will be empty, or nearly empty. Therefore, for a person leaving point A to get to point B, the car journey is A-B, one way, one lot of fuel consumption divvied up between the occupants. For a bus or train, it has to get out to the terminus first, which in some cases can double the journey, and probably carry a full load only one way. So in effect, the full load has taken double the energy consumption, and with older buses and trains, that can make a difference.

Sadly I can't remember the calculations, but we once had an objector to Midland Metro who claimed that for some journeys it would be cheaper and more fuel efficient to use a Rover Metro than The Metro. We of course didn't believe it until a couple of resident Mechanical Engineers did some calculations. Amazingly, load for load on lightly loaded journeys he wasn't far wrong. Don't forget, public transport only runs at full loads in the peaks, and that tends to be one way.

Of course, things are never straightforward and journey patterns more complex, which allows the pollution overhead of dead mileage to be shared out. Nevertheless, with many Provincial buses and trains carrying handfuls of passengers even in the peak, and hybrid car technology about to become mainstream with a new Hybrid Honda Civic and existing Toyota Prius, even with me running my diesel on Biodiesel (made from recycled chip fat which is carbon neutral) together with moves here in Norfolk to capitalise on the local sugar beet crop to make ethanol with EU assistance, there is a very real chance cars will become cleaner than public transport, unless buses and trains switch to renewable electricity or similar carbon-neutral fuel. Given the SRA's stance on electrification, that's not going to happen.

It will then be down to land take, life-quality and severence of community issues as to which is the most "environmentally friendly". These are still issues that can sway the balence, but public transport's green tint has been fading for years. Truth is it was never really there - no mechanised transport is green.

[alex2008]

Like Yorkie pointed out many figures can be changed to look good or bad or in favour of one thing rather than the other.

But as markw said its true trains are rarely full both ways and have to come from a depot etc. Even if public transport is not as green as it was seen to be it still cuts congestion, and in my opinion is a nicer way to travel and into cities its normally alot quicker. Even Derby a smallish city it can be quicker for me to walk to my local station take the train in and walk to the city centre than to drive in at a peak time.

[mattvince]

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Time for BR's 1970s mass electrification plan to be dusted off. Emissions from rail haven't dropped at a comparable rate over the last 10 years because of both cleaner cars and a lack of investment in electrification. Live Rails and OHLE is the railway's means of 'ace'-ing that argument: The equivalent of going to the Battle of Agincourt with an Uzi. Yes, it is dependant on Power Station policy: something which everyone is saying needs to be got right. But the one problem with short-term franchises is that there is no incentive to go for major infrastructure projects. I can only think of two electrification schemes in the last 10 years: Kidsgrove-Crewe and Heathrow Express (I'm ignoring CTRL). Roughly 30 route miles. The Marshlink and Uckfield schemes: cancelled, because of over-estimated costs.

Start going for electrification, and when the oil runs out, the trains will keep running.

[pepsipowell]

The noise pollution I think still favours rail. Every Wednesday this term I play school football at Wide Lane (right next to Southampton Airport Parkway). The road and rail run almost next to each other there (the road is about 10-20m or so closer). One lorry driving past will totally drown out a Virgin Voyager restarting from the station, and the 3rd rail electrics are also barely audible above the road noise. Even freight trains sometimes cannot be heard above the traffic.



Of course, the aeroplanes taking off are louder, but that is beside the point...

Jonathan