It's taken a while to finally get this in peer-reviewed form, but here's my latest article comparing the carbon footprints of long-distance rail travel and commercial aviation in Canada!
dx.doi.org/10.1111/cag.12…
dx.doi.org/10.1111/cag.12…
Rail has a reputation as being a sustainable mode of transportation... and *usually* that's true (internationally, rail is the most energy-efficient mode). But long-distance passenger rail in Canada is, well, relatively terrible for the environment....
Flying by commercial aircraft across the country actually produces a smaller carbon footprint than taking the train. The article explains why that's the case, why it matters, and what the government can do about it!
Briefly though... it MATTERS because a) many Canadians *think* rail has a lower carbon footprint and increasingly some eco-conscious travellers have OPTED to take the train over flying on that false assumption - despite it taking multiple days and costing much more!
and b) it matters because some fairly simple changes can help make passenger rail much more sustainable. There's no need to be chugging down so much diesel per passenger!
Two final comments: 1) This was a bit of a side project started after two rail travellers shared unsolicited information with me which they had received from VIA Rail about their travel footprints. I thank those two "Good Samaritans" for reaching out to this unknown academic.
2) Important👉 The long-distance trains and 'Corridor' trains in Canada are not the same: Taking the train WITHIN the Quebec City-Windsor corridor (through Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) IS more efficient than flying. It's the trips to West and East Coasts that need improvement!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
