Rail travel is the best mode of transport for the future

Yes, yes, we all know, we should be switching the television off stand-by when not in use. And that we should be getting out of our cars and getting on trains, buses and bicycles to reduce global warming. It certainly is not easy, particularly when generations of today have become so used to modern conveniences, namely cars. As soon as an individual passes their driving test, many are unlikely to get on a bus again! But the reality is, using rail travel is much better for the environment. The Manchester Commute Challenge recorded that the train commuter produced 382 grams of CO2, the bus commuter 603 grams and the car produced 1123 grams(1). If everybody were to cut down how much they used their car, it really would make the world of difference for the future. Additionally, the creation of car parks uses land that could be used for more homes in Britain or maintaining a greener country. Imagine the amount of car parking space would be needed during a global event, such as at the Olympics in 2012.

(1) http://www.everydaycycling.com/edc/news/news2008/20080916_gtr_manchester_commute_challenge.aspx

With the ever increasing rise in fuel prices, it is difficult to tell when it will ever stop. Car users are shelling out more and more money to pay at the pumps for their petrol and feel bitter having done so. Travelling by rail means that you do not pay to fill up your car, only for your fare and do not have to concern yourself with where to park your car or bike and do not have to pay for the pleasure: particularly trying to park in London. Perhaps travelling by train makes us all better off in the long run.

For much of your journey, a train reaches a speed twice that of the limit allowed on roads. When travelling by plane, you have to get to the airport, check-in, endure the flight and then any onward travel to your destination. A train takes you from city to city efficiently: from London to Brussels in 2 hours 40 minutes; from London to Paris in three hours, saving us all plenty of much-needed time(1). Roads and motorways do get very congested and this is unlikely to happen on a train.
(1)
http://www.stvincent.ac.uk/Resources/Physics/Speed/rail/index.html

There can be no excuses: on the London Underground, trains do run very frequently. You are alerted to any delays online, in stations, or whilst you are on the train itself.

I think trains are a great form of transportation. Have you ever been to Japan?

That is THE mode of transportation. Cheap, easy, fast. Crowded? Yes for sure but it gets you from point A to B in a fast fashion.

It may not be ideal for traveling out of state, but going from city to city in a train is a great way for transportation.

Of course… it will probably cost A LOT of money and a LONG time if they got started now..
Ok you are totally wrong about fast, ever heard of the TGV?

Did you know that a CSX train can travel 500 MI on 1 gal of diesel? What if we applied that to passenger trains? Remember this is about the future. Which is more important the environment or you getting to work on time?

But what about the other rail networks? From personal experience, I travelled on a Virgin train from London Euston to Manchester and I was freezing. Or you can cycle and enjoy a nice breeze!

If trains were more widely recognised as a transport mode for the future, government would feel pressured to make some intervention on the train industry so they could provide more trains and so they would not be so crowded. If people are put off by it and simply drive, they are not helping the problem but hindering it.

This is manipulating statistics to the worst degree.

Of course a terrorist is not going to bomb a bicycle as its travelling along the road! But it is more likely a bike will be hit by a car than a terrorist planting a bomb on the train you are on. If we totalled up statistics, compared train accidents/bombings with car crashes and bike accidents I ma sure you would find that the train is a far safer mode of transport.

” Nowhere near as dangerous as they used to be, is the upbeat answer. Last year, 3,423 people were killed on the roads, two more than in 1998. (By comparison, 33 were killed on the railways.)
“(1)

(1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1076541.stm

Perhaps I speak for myself, but the idea of getting on a bike to dangerously wobble through traffic in lycra whilst huffing and puffing is possibly the most undesirable thought ever. You have to pass your cycling proficiency test to cycle; you pay out a lump sum for the bicycle itself and then have to negotiate heavy and often dangerous traffic whilst drivers tut at you. Fair play to those who do cycle a great deal: but, I doubt that a Britain that is supposedly getting fatter will all start cycling soon.

Well then as a one off, for holidays, people could use a car. This does not negate the fact that trains should be the main mode of transport for all people. that rail companies currently only provide limited luggage space does not religate rail travel from being the mode of transport for the future as rail transport could carry as much luggage as any sane person is likely to want to bring once more luggage racks were fitted. Or else if you happen to want to take more luggage with you than you can carry then the railways could do as they once offered and deliver it in a similar maner to the way airlines do now.

But germs will be everywhere. Your bike, an airplane, or a motorcycle. Face facts and accept that germs will be everywhere.