Rail is inherently more fuel efficient than road vehicles, due to less
friction from metal-to-metal than rubber to asphalt traction, and
efficiencies of scale. Energy consumption and pollution emissions are
generally 2 to 10 times lower per unit of transport for rail compared with
truck or automobile transport, depending on circumstances. Rail diesel
engines have been exempt from emission control requirements in many
jurisdictions, but that is changing, at least in North America and I would
expect in Europe, although train locomotives are durable so replacement
rates are slow. However, even with their high emission rates, rail is
usually less polluting per tonne-kilometer.
The economic benefits of rail are even greater when other costs are
considered: labor, congestion impacts, accident risk and land requirements,
although this depends a lot of specific circumstances, particularly load
factors. A number of studies comparing the costs of rail and truck freight
transport are summarized in the "Literature Review" chapter of my report
"Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis"
(http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca02.pdf). For discussion of factors to consider
when comparing rail transit and busways see "Evaluating Public Transit
Benefits and Costs" (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf), and various
references in it. Also see "Rail Transit In America"
(http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf) which identifies various benefits of rail
transit that are often overlooked by busway proponents.
If a rail system is underutilized, as many currently are, their cost
efficiency may be low, but that can be improved by implementing various
market reforms that encourage more economically efficient travel patterns,
resulting in shifts from road to rail, and therefore higher load factors
and increased system efficiency. See the "Freight Transport Management"
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm16.htm) and "Transit Encouragement"
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm112.htm) chapters of our Online TDM
Encyclopedia. This is not to say that rail is always better than road
transport, but I recommend a comprehensive analysis of benefits and costs,
and alternative management options when evaluating the value of converting
rail lines to roads.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 04:18 PM 4/19/2005 +0100, Wetzel Dave wrote:
>I have had this third-party quote sent to me in an e-mail:
>"I have done some work using the limited information available on the energy
>(fuel) used to transport people and goods by train and conclude that, taking
>account of all the costs, it would be cheaper and less polluting overall to
>concrete the tracks and use the space for dedicated clean bus and lorry
>tracks. But I shall probably be burnt at the stake for heresy before anyone
>is prepared to examine the case without blinkers."
>
>Has anyone studied the pollution effect of trains in comparison with road
>transport?
>In the UK diesel trains do tend to burn the dirtiest diesel.
>Dave
>Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
>
>
>***********************************************************************************
>The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and
>intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
>addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any
>liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and
>any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be
>advised that you have received this email in error and that any use,
>dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
>prohibited.
>
>If you have received this email in error please notify [log in to unmask]
>
>This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the
>presence of computer viruses.
>***********************************************************************************
|