While more people opt for travel by car and private transport, the number of passengers that trains and buses can carry has also been reduced to meet social distancing guidelines. This means that people from different households must keep one to two metres apart. So, once a seat is taken, surrounding seats must be left empty.
This has had a profound effect on the climate impact of train and car travel. When running at normal capacity, public transport is more environmentally friendly than travelling by car. Although a train or bus can produce more C0₂ than a car, they transport far more people, so emissions per person are lower overall.
But under social distancing conditions, and assuming that any unfilled seats correspond to a commuter driving to work instead, diesel-powered public transport produces more C0₂ emissions per passenger than a small car.
Can passengers be seated so public transportation can be more efficient than cars while maintaining social distancing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2020, @08:32PM
You can have your rabbit hutch.
I'm living in the 'burbs and you cannot take it away from me, and if you try, I will fight your efforts tooth and nail and will elect likeminded politicians. Sorry, not sorry.
P. S. My wife and I have also added more humans to the planet!
P.P.S. Population growth is only a problem in the Third World. Everywhere else, the reproductive rate is below replacement, i.e., not my fucking problem. You can eat insect protein to virtue signal; I'll eat real grass fed beef.