Infrastructure Study: Planes vs. Trains (and cars)

Recently, an in-depth study was released comparing the environmental impacts of different transportation options. The interesting part about this study is how closely it looks at the options, including the impact of the built infrastructure supporting the trains, airplanes, and cars. Often, you will see opponents of cars discuss how much they distort land use, but nobody has quantified and compared cars vs. other options. Until now.

The actual article is here: "Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains". The original article is a good read and the source for most of the discussion that has followed. There are many news organizations that have published their own take on the study, for example:

Fuel Emissions Focus "Too Narrow" (BBC News)

Planes, trains or automobiles? Air travel may be no worse for the environment than rail (Scientific American)

Train can be worse for climate than plane (New Scientist)

Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists (AFP)

That New Study That Shows Planes Are Greener Than Trains? It Does No Such Thing (The Infrastructurist)

My favorite part of this story is that the lead author is a good friend from college. The shorter article was based on many years of collecting data and building models, which have been cataloged online. This study has been needed in the infrastructure debate for a long time. An honest assessment of transportation, land use, fuel choice, and infrastructure without a hidden agenda. The common sense answer to the ultimate question, What's the most green transportation system?: "it depends". But at least, now we know what it depends on.