Why is it better for the environment to travel on a train than a plane?

Question

Planes are far worse polluters than trains, but if you fly on a plane that is going to be flying to your destination anyway, and your going on the plane does not mean that additional flights are necessary to accommodate everyone who wants to go to your destination, then how is that worse for the environment than going on a train?

Answer 1

The train uses far less fuel to transport a person for the same amount of miles. Give an equal amount of fuel for both the airliner and the train, say 10,000 gallons. Being more fuel efficient with it's diesel electric propulsion, the train could move many more passengers the same distance.

Now I'm sure that a very small plane like a 1 or 2 seater would beat a regular train. Then again, one could simply design a 1 or 2 seat train and win that fight as well.

Just my 2 cents.

* Yes, hoping on the plane that is leaving anyways is simply filling seats that would otherwise be empty. Don't get me wrong, I love flying. But by supporting the airline business by buying tickets, it contributes to the delay of quality commuter trains that might possibly be built heading to your destination that could haul both you and everyone else.*

Answer 2

The more weight a plane carries, the more fuel it uses. Thus even if it is a small difference, the emptier the plane is the more efficient it will be.

One reason the airlines are getting rid of in flight movies is because the equipment to show them weighs 500#. So they must consider that a savings.