UK Conservatives Plan Trains not Planes - Not Everyone is Happy
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 09.29.08
Image credit: Stephen Fung – a typical high-speed train in Taiwan
UK Conservative’s Plan for Trains No Planes – Green or Not?
We TreeHuggers tend to be big advocates of the environmental benefits of trains vs. planes, so we should all be overjoyed that the UK Conservative Party, who are currently riding high in the polls, have announced plans to scrap a third runway at Heathrow and to instead build a £20bn (US$36bn) rail link between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. And according to The Guardian, the Conservatives’ radical rethink of transport policy has certainly received a welcome response from some environmentalists, including John Stewart, the chairman of Heathrow anti-expansion group Hacan:
“The Conservatives realise that business is not clamouring for a third runway. What they desperately want is a better rather than a bigger Heathrow. This announcement today is good for business, good for the environment and good for local residents.”
However, it’s not just business groups that are questioning the move (David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the move would “hold back British business in the future.”). According to seasoned transport commentator Christian Wolmar, the idea that high-speed rail would result in significant carbon savings is somewhat simplistic:
“Apart from the myriad practical details about the precise location of the route and so on, there is the question too of how green the line would be. It would be powered by electricity largely drawn from non-renewable sources, unless there were a transformation of the energy economy in the intervening decade. While there might be some carbon savings compared with the car, these would probably be more than offset by the extra travel that would be generated by the line.
There is an interesting example already on the existing high speed line. In order to increase usage of the line, the government decided to pay for the purchase of high speed trains that will bring in thousands of commuters from Kent. Indeed, housing is now being built in the Ashford area to accommodate them and therefore the overall effect is to encourage people to travel longer distances. The environmental case for high speed lines, therefore, is far from proven.”
Looks to me like the debate continues.
::The Guardian::via site visit::
More on Alternatives to Flying
Seat 61: Get There Without Flying
Eurostar to Cut Emissions 25% and Offset the Rest
Spain’s New High-Speed Rail Challenging the Airlines
High-Speed Rail Comes to the Americas
CA High-Speed Rail Initiative: “If We Don’t Pass This, We Will Never Have High-Speed Trains in the US”
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Try these Eco-friendly Trains for Your Next (and Future) Trips
- Will the Next New Deal be Transit-Based? Three Plans to Rescue the Economy and the Earth with Public Transportation
- Dongtan, China's Flagship Ecocity Project, R.I.P.
- London Mayor Pledges Funds to Fight Heathrow Runway
James Kunstler on Financial Crisis: There’s Another Tsunami Rising On The Horizon
|
Green Eyes on: Day of Decadence Done? Simplify.
|
The electric powered train will be powered mostly by non-renewables for now. However, in a decade or two, the UK could ramp up wind & tidal generation making their electric production portfolio much more green and the trains will still run. Trains like this have tracks designed to last 100 years. As for planes, they'll always burn oil or biofuel, being at best, carbon neutral.
Even without a change in generation, you're still more efficient at the plant level than in a jet engine. I don't know how much more, but I'd imagine quite a bit.
If they replaced their coal with nuclear they would be making a step in the right direction...ooh, but that is environmental heresy.
That's exactly what they have planned to do: restart encouraging nuclear power builds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5166426.stm
Check, check it out.
B
We have a clmate change bill going through parliament, this bill excludes aviation. Therefore, any switch to trains brngs more transport within the envelope of regulations and therefore encourages cuts in carbon emissions.
Exactly right JSDreyer. We're talking about an investment in transport which wouldn't even start operating until at least around 2015 or 2020 by which time I would hope that the grid will be a good deal cleaner than the current 0.562kgCO2/kWh. And it'll only go down from there until it's decarbonised while this rail line will be around for more than a century. The current carbonised state of the grid is no reason not to embark on this.
What I can't work out is why they're only planning to go as far as Leeds (apart from the cost of course). It would make much more sense to extend it up to Scotland where the bulk of domestic air traffic lies.
But British Airways and the City are spitting mad about this which puts a smile on my face :)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/30/theairlineindustry.britishairways
As long as they cannot power their planes with renewable energy such statements against high-speed rail are just retarded. Besides, train uses only a percentage of the energy the plane uses to carry the same amount of passengers and goods.
One thing to consider though is the carbon footprint of the infrastructure.
Whilst i don't agree with Heathrow expansion, i have to ask, how is this an alternative? Very few people fly from London to Leeds, Birmingham or Manchester. Whilst this is useful for inter-city travel, all this surely does is divert potential air traffic growth from London airports, redistributing them to the other large regional airports of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, which doesn't solve any environmental problems.
A cheap (competitively with flying), fast, Ryanair/Easyjet style train service is needed from London to various cities across Europe. That would curb a lot of flying, if only to the continent.