Eurostar vs. Planes: It's Not Just About the Green
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 09. 5.07
Eurostar, the operator running trains between London and Paris, and London and Brussels, is increasingly painting itself as the green alternative to flying. We’ve previously written about their study claiming 90% fewer emissions than equivalent flights, and we’ve also featured their ambitious goal of reducing these already meager emissions by a further 25% and offsetting the rest. Now it seems that they are competing with airlines on more than just greenness. Trains on the newly upgraded line look set to come in with a 20 minute shorter journey time than before, and they are even aiming to compete on price with their airborne counterparts. This from the BBC:
Richard Brown, chief executive of Eurostar, said he hoped that by 2010 10m people would travel by Eurostar each year. "Today marks Britain's entry into the European high-speed rail club." He said journey times to Paris, even for people travelling from Yorkshire, would be broadly the same as for those flying due to lengthier check-in times at airports. "It's as quick and more frequent... and we will be matching airline prices."
We welcome any moves to make trains more competitive with aviation, and while we are sure there is significant embodied energy involved in upgrading lines like this, the dramatic difference in operating emissions should make Eurostar the winning environmental choice for some time to come. ::Eurostar::via the BBC::
I completely agree with you Sami.
Not hard to beat a 216 mile flight. That translates into about a 250 mile drive, which a car can cover in 4 hours (or less). Factor in transfer times at both ends (transportation to and from the airports, waiting time, delays), then of course a high speed train can compete on time. Take a look at the DC-NYC corridor -- about the same distance, both popular destinations. Rail does very well on that route.
Stretch the distance out and make the corridor less popular, and there's no way a train can compete.
>"Not hard to beat a 216 mile flight. That translates into about a 250 mile drive"
You're forgetting that u can just drive the distance, there is the Nord-Sea u have to go across or in case of the Eurostar underneath.
I am french and living in London.
Eurostar is obviously the greenest way to travel between France and UK or Belgium and UK. I mean Brussels Paris and London.
But If you want to go further for instance west coast of France, and more precisely Britanny, Eurostar + other trains will be more expensive than a flight with Ryanair.
If you are concern by your carbon footprint and if you have money you wil certainly take the train! But If you don't want to spend lots of money in your travel ticket, the first choice would be: plane...
Well, for business, Eurostar is the greenest way to travel.
Unfortunatly, again "why green is always the mostexpensive alternative ?"
It seems that it is time for people to give up much of their leisure travel altogether. Quibbling over a few tons of carbon saved here and there isn't going to fix the worldwide problem we are seeing.
The time for baby steps seems far gone.
It seems that it is time for people to give up much of their leisure travel altogether.
Yes, the way to solve environmental problems is to take away the few things that give life true joy. Great plan.
Quibbling over a few tons of carbon saved here and there isn't going to fix the worldwide problem we are seeing.
Kind of contradicts what you just said.
In Germany the ICE highspeed train now competes quite effectively against air travel. Over distances up to 800km it is a much nicer way to travel, and although sligtly slower it is much more hassle free.
In China the new high-speed shanghai-beijing rail link is now open and is again competing agaist air travel.
And next month I will travel from Zürich - Paris on the new highspeed Basel-Paris TGV line. A trip I would have done by air just a few months ago.
I think rail has a great green future.
TH should really stop publishing anonymous comments.
In his book, 'Heat', Goerge Monbiot discusses the difference in emissions between aeroplanes and high speed trains and says that they are comparable. (He also discusses it toward the end of this article).
It seems that unless very fast trains are powered by 100% renewable energy, getting from Paris to London on the Eurostar would be just as bad, in terms of emissions, as flying. (Although it isn't quite as simple as that because aviation emissions at altitude are worse than emissions being released closer to the ground).
Either way, the point is that we shouldn't just accept that because a train is a train, it must necessarily be good. Slow trains emit far less than fast trains, and Monbiot argues that it we're going to meet massive reduction targets, we're going to have to get used to travelling more slowly (be it by train, road, sea, or maybe even air).
We should be careful about promoting fast trains as the golden solution to air travel and thinking that suddenly it is okay to travel as much as we like as long as it is by train. If we do want to travel fast, then we need to produce enough renewable energy to power all those fast trains in addition to powering up everything else (buildings, industry etc).
It seems that the solution for the time being at least needs to be less travel all together.
In his book, 'Heat', Goerge Monbiot discusses the difference in emissions between aeroplanes and high speed trains and says that they are comparable. (He also discusses it toward the end of this article).
It seems that unless very fast trains are powered by 100% renewable energy, getting from Paris to London on the Eurostar would be just as bad, in terms of emissions, as flying. (Although it isn't quite as simple as that because aviation emissions at altitude are worse than emissions being released closer to the ground).
Either way, the point is that we shouldn't just accept that because a train is a train, it must necessarily be good. Slow trains emit far less than fast trains, and Monbiot argues that it we're going to meet massive reduction targets, we're going to have to get used to travelling more slowly (be it by train, road, sea, or maybe even air).
We should be careful about promoting fast trains as the golden solution to air travel and thinking that suddenly it is okay to travel as much as we like as long as it is by train. If we do want to travel fast, then we need to produce enough renewable energy to power all those fast trains in addition to powering up everything else (buildings, industry etc).
It seems that the solution for the time being at least needs to be less travel all together.
Just a response to original gardener - I think the idea is for the prices on the train for onward journeys in Europe to come down a bit. In 2012 Railteam will come together fully (it's already started) and you'll be able to buy one ticket for different rail companies which should make it cheaper than buying them all separately. Although it wil still be more expensive than a flight! The train might become the luxury option!
TH should really stop publishing dumb comments.
"TH should really stop publishing dumb comments."
Which is, itself, a dumb comment.
You're forgetting that u can just drive the distance, there is the Nord-Sea u have to go across or in case of the Eurostar underneath.
I didn't claim that specific trip was driveable. It was simply for distance/time comparison purposes for a trip of that length -- hence my comments about NYC/DC.
That's your second dumb comment. Any comment on trains versus planes, or are you just here to howl at the moon?
"Any comment on trains versus planes, or are you just here to howl at the moon?"
Do you?
Yes. Planes are bad and destructive and annoying, like anonymous comments. Trains are good, like not having trolls all over TH.
I REALLY want to be greener with travel, so checked Eurostar for a trip to Paris in a few weeks. It will cost me (2 people) £432 from Newport at the lowest fare!! Flying from Bristol will be approx. £230.
I am not willing to pay an extra £200 so I can say I was "greener". Until the Train companies sort out their pricing and can actually compete with airlines, then I will fly.
P.S. It was more expensive to go from London to Paris than it was Newport to Paris (via London obviously). Figure that one out!