Thanks Susan, for raising the question about train travel to the AAG.
I've spent many hours on the train here in Canada, largely as part of an effort to cut down on carbon-intensive air travel. The Amtrak line from Montreal to New York (which I took for last year's AAG) is a relatively comfortable 11 hour trip, though the wireless internet is extremely spotty through the Adirondacks.
Unfortunately, as others have hinted in their replies, long-distance passenger rail travel in North America is not very practical these days (mostly because it is extremely slow). What's worse, if you look into the figures, it turns out long distance rail travel can actually produce more emissions than air travel (at least this is the case with VIA Rail once you leave the Quebec City - Windsor Corridor; and I assume it is also the case with Amtrak's cross-country service). The problem stems from low occupancy on VIA's long haul trains and the archaic diesel-electric technology used. Whereas airplanes and buses cram as many people in as possible, the long distance trains in Canada typically feature numerous 'upper class' cars with 'spacious' cabins.
There is a very interesting table on page 167 of Volume 2 of the 1992 Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation by Louis Hyndman (here's a link to the publication record: http://publications.gc.ca/pub?id=13805&sl=0) comparing the per passenger emissions on various modes for both short haul and long haul trips. The table points out that within the Quebec City- Windsor corridor (where there are no 'upper class' cars), rail travel is quite efficient relative to automobiles and airplanes. Yet on a long haul trip, the train actually produces more Carbon Monoxide, Volatile Organic Compounds, Nitrous Oxides, and Carbon Dioxide than buses and airplanes. It even produces more Carbon Dioxide than an automobile trip of the same distance! Admittedly the data is from 1989, and fuel engines have become much more efficient since then. Yet this is the case across the modes (particularly where airplanes are concerned - as airlines are trying desperately to save on fuel costs). All this to say, depending on the scenario, it is quite possible that air travel to next year's AAG would be more efficient than rail travel (in terms of both time and fuel consumption). Perhaps the real question - as others have noted - is whether it is sustainable to travel such long distances for a conference in the first place?
|