As all travel costs fail to take into account the externalities (i.e. pollution) of travel, it is no surprise at all that planes are cheaper than trains. To go to Madrid from London by train must take the best part of a day, while planes get there in a couple of hours - so the fixed asset in the case of the train is used up all day on one journey, while in the case of planes you can do two or three round trips in the same time. It's clearly going to be much more expensive to go by train.

If you're expressing surprise that the externalities are not factored into cost of travel, again I do not find this surprising as this approach to externalities has never been part of government policy (with the occasional exception in industry) and certainly won't happen through market forces (Fair Trade movement aside). Hopefully government will pay greater attention to this in future - a sensible approach to externalities will cure many of the problems in society today.

Finally - I don't think the aviation lobby has muddied the waters as much as you suggest. Their stance appears to be merely that they're being demonised as an easy target, which I think is a valid point. They may produce a lot of pollution - per one off event - but they by no means account for all of the environment's problems and in a way the planes are simply a strawman for people to blame as their environment collapses around them.

Posted by: Rick | June 19, 2007 12:40 PM

I think we can say with some confidence that whether train or plane is greener, what is greenest is to abandon our obsession with sleeping twenty miles from where we work and socialising somewhere else twenty miles yet further distant. Economising is never about giving up the occasional big ticket item: it's about cutting back on the unseen everyday expenses.

The environmental cost of an occasional holiday is an easy target because cutting back on luxuries feels like a sacrifice but is relatively easy to achieve (not least, I suspect, because as it becomes socially acceptable to give up flying on ostensibly environmental grounds incredible numbers of people are using it as an opportunity to confess that flying always terrified them and they are delighted to have the excuse to give it up).

If we were serious about cutting our emissions it would be the daily journeys we'd eliminate - but a daily round from home to school to work to tennis to restaurant back to home looks "essential" because somehow we've got used to lives that require us to travel dozens of miles every day.

Posted by: Seamus McCauley | June 19, 2007 1:08 PM

Seamus and Rick are right, of course, and planes are only believed to account for around 2% of global emissions - however, not flying is the single biggest difference an individual can make.

Some of the top-end high-speed trains are believed to have emission levels of a similar order of magnitude of planes (though still lower), though of course people can get on and off somewhat more easily, so average emissions per person are likely to be lower.

Another point about trains is that they give you the chance to experience a real journey through places (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Movement) rather than just bypass them; and they're a much more pleasant way to travel (well, alas not always in Britain...).

Posted by: Hatmandu | June 19, 2007 1:15 PM

Still, it would seem Ester Boserup was totally right and the mother of invention truly is population crisis (which I suppose is really what the environmental problem is all about). See, for example, the news today that scientists have developed viable plans for carbon-neutral planes which will require three times less energy than normal planes to fly (in part by abandoning heavy and inefficient 20th century mechanics in favour of sleek and modern electronics).

They use hydrogen fuel cells, of course, which present an entirely different set of problems, but at least it makes planes more manageable.

Posted by: Rick | June 19, 2007 1:40 PM

Surely it depends on the engines?

If the train is powered by burning nuclear power stations, while the plane is powered by gently cuddling consenting kittens, then flying is clearly the way to go.

Posted by: Another Rick | June 19, 2007 2:02 PM

Another Rick> Indeed it does - this is probably the biggest 'unknown' factor when you're comparing one mode of transport with the other. In much the same way, it also depends on what sort of plane you take, because (as Easyjet recently pointed out) Propeller plans are up to 50% less polluting than those with jet engines.

Train companies are becoming more transparent about their energy sources though. Eurostar, for example, are switching to EcoTricity, which comes from renewable sources. I've heard on the other hand that many trains in France, for example, are powered by nuclear.

Posted by: Abi | June 19, 2007 2:14 PM

"on the other hand that many trains in France, for example, are powered by nuclear"

What "other hand?" Nuclear power has by far the smallest carbon footprint of all (credibly scalable) energy sources. They're only a problem when they blow up and when it comes to dispose of the by-products. All we need, therefore, is a free market in where they are situated and where the waste is disposed so that only people who don't mind shorting those risks are bearing them.

Posted by: Seamus McCauley | June 19, 2007 2:54 PM

Sure, of course it's cleaner from that perspective.

I'm not saying otherwise - but it isn't generally accepted as being 'green', hence my use of that expression. Whether or not you disagree with that is, of course, open to debate.

Posted by: Abi | June 19, 2007 3:16 PM

It would be great if all of us could live within 20 minutes of entertainment or work. However, some of us do live outside of towns due to the fact that some of us are still farmers. Shocking I know, but someone has to grow the food. It is silly and narrow minded to believe that everyone is able to find public transportation or just pick up and move.

As to the issue at hand I actually prefer trains when I'm just going one state over, however, I'm still a little unsure of what I would choose to do if I were going a great distance farther. For some reason here in the states certain areas are no longer accessible by train, large areas particularly in the southern states.

Posted by: Abby Barr | July 16, 2007 3:48 AM