Hacker News Reader

Comment by nivenkos | Hacker News Reader

I'm sure it'll be at least 10x the cost of flights.

Train travel is just too expensive.

If just you look at flight vs train then sure the flight will win. But the train goes from the city centre, and includes a night of accomodation.

If you look at taxi + flight + taxi + night at hotel - the train will be attractive.

If we correctly price externalities (i.e. environmental cost) then the train should win hands down!

On the ends of the trip, the train often offers a night of accommodation that is required by the slower pace of the train travel.

For a business trip, I'll often leave on the first flight out Monday morning and fly back Thursday night or Friday night. If the train changes that into leaving Sunday evening and returning Friday or Saturday morning, the "included" nights of accommodation aren't an actual benefit as compared to the competitive mode of travel. Instead, they're a fix to a problem that the train created.

There are trips where I'd rather arrive the night before, so I'm fresh and unrushed for the first morning's meeting. In that case, the train could be better as I'm already taking a night away from the family for performance reasons.

I don't think you can always add in the price of a hotel night. If I'm flying from Paris to Copenhagen at 0900, arriving at 1100 and being in the city center by 1200, I wasn't expecting to have to pay for a night in Paris.

A train that leaves Paris the day before at 1347 and arrives at 0655 the next morning (current schedule) isn't as useful, unless what I really wanted was to spend all day in Copenhagen instead of half a day.

>A train that leaves Paris the day before at 1347 and arrives at 0655 the next morning (current schedule) isn't as useful

That's with several transfers. No way a direct train would take 17 hours for that connection. Most likely it'd leave late at night and arrive in the morning.

> If we correctly price externalities (i.e. environmental cost) then the train should win hands down!

I would not be so certain on that one. The downside of trains is the massive infrastructure requirements. I don't think there are any privately funded and profitable tracks anywhere in Europe. Government pays for this, of course. Of course, if you only account for carbon dioxide, things can look different.

In Europe, 60% of airports are government owned: https://simpleflying.com/how-airports-make-money/ From that page, Heathrow makes half its money from passengers from operating a train line into the city, car rentals, restaurants, retail, parking, VIP lounges. Is that saying, if you couldn't extract money from a captive audience for how inconvenient the airport is, it wouldn't make enough to cover its own running costs?

Surely, trains need less infrastructure than cars - a road to every building in the country? Government pays for this, of course.

https://greennews.ie/eu-airlines-propped-up-subsidies/ claims that small European airports are not profitable, and are propped up by government subsidies, which RyanAir uses to undercut competitor rates, and they essentially act as a subsidy to RyanAir.

Jet fuel is not taxed in the EU (same link), but diesel train fuel is taxed in the UK ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon_Oil_Duty#Trains ).

> Surely, trains need less infrastructure than cars - a road to every building in the country?

Trains need that too. It can be a road from the train station to the building, or it can be tracks. However in the end every building sometimes need something delivered.

Maybe the trains allows you to downgrade the road to gravel, but trains still need the road network for that last mile.

You could walk on a mud path to the train station. You could walk on a cobbled street, not wide enough or strong enough for cars, to the train station. It wouldn't be as convenient, but cars are useless without roads in a way that trains aren't.

A two-way road between every building, and space for on-road parking or space for off-road parking around every building, bloats out the space between buildings and lowers density in a way that makes cars more necessary. It's possible for thousands of people to live within a short walk distance of a train station without even resorting to residential towerblocks.

Which is great until you buy a new bed, your toilet breaks, or any other large service is needed in your house. Sure a plumber can carry everything to your house, but it is much more efficient when he drives a van with all the different pipe adapters that your might need instead of walking to the office. You won't get a heavy appliance down a mud path unless the delivery is scheduled for a few weeks after the last rain.

I agree we don't need large two-way roads everywhere. However we still need a lot of small roads everywhere because some things cannot be done well by humans walking.

In the context of this thread, can you say "it is much more efficient" to have every single house on the planet tarmac'd, on the off-chance that a plumber might need to carry more than one basket worth of stuff to your house?

The up front cost is enormous, the ongoing maintenance is huge regardless of usage.[1] says "deteriorating roads are forcing [American] motorists to spend nearly $130 billion each year on extra vehicle repairs and operating costs" and "The U.S. has [...] a $786 billion backlog of road and bridge capital needs. The bulk of the backlog ($435 billion) is in repairing existing roads, while $125 billion is needed for bridge repair, $120 billion for system expansion, and $105 billion for system enhancement (which includes safety enhancements, operational improvements, and environmental projects).", and of course the amount of people who die on roads, and the amount spent on motoring costs just because people have to run a car because everything is so far away because everyone has cars in a circular way.

Whereas if that wasn't such a convenient option, you'd be more likely to use parts which lasted longer, and not change them frivolously for fashion reasons, and standardise on pipe adapters, and have more local caches and stores instead of big central warehouses a long way away.

> "You won't get a heavy appliance down a mud path unless the delivery is scheduled for a few weeks after the last rain."

I'm not deliberately missing your point when I say this, but "it's impossible because that would require forward planning" does show society in a bit of an unfavourable light, doesn't it?

[1] https://infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/roads/

Where did I say anything about putting every single house on tarmac? I said several times that gravel is good enough for most roads. As you get into dense cities you will discover that tarmac is a better choice than gravel just because the large number of tasks that don't work well via mass transit makes the disadvantages of gravel show.

> "it's impossible because that would require forward planning" does show society in a bit of an unfavourable light, doesn't it?

Things break without warning. Or are you proposing we automatically replace our large appliances every few years even though they could probably last for 5 times longer? (even then you will still have random early failures). Not everything is worth repairing.

My original point was under "trains need more infrastructure than planes" to say "and less infrastructure than cars". You then said that trains need cars - which they don't. If you had mud paths, and wilderness between cities, and intercity train would be an improvement on that, so would a local metro. Cars wouldn't be an improvement - everyone getting a Honda Civic wouldn't be able to move on the too-small, too-muddy roads, it would be instant jam. So, trains don't need cars to add value.

I agree gravel roads at the end of a train journey with motorised vehicles would also add a lot of value.

Small-ish gravel roads for occasional supply vehicles to travel down isn't the original "road network" that I was arguing about efficiency of - small gravel roads in a world built around walking distances wouldn't be a world where everyone could run a Honda Civic and drive in two-way lanes of traffic. That is, by "cars" I didn't mean "motorised vehicles", but "everyone has a car and uses it for most journeys, and the road network to support that".

> You then said that trains need cars - which they don't. If you had mud paths, and wilderness between cities, and intercity train would be an improvement on that

All you needed to say was: the "wild west".

Trains provably added a lot of value for decades without cars, because cars didn't even exist yet.

"Massive infrastructure requirements" for trains. Compared to what though?

Planes.

It is actually rather simple. Airports are extremely expensive of course, but if you build three airports you have three connections. Four airports give six. Five airports ten... Each of these connections require dedicated tracks if you want to go by train.

The EU ETS applies to flights within the EU, so carbon externalities are already priced in.

Also the choice isn't between trains and poorly connected airports. You can build high speed rail connections between city centres and airports, and many cities do so.

I'm not sure how externalities should be priced, but it does seem like a good idea, especially in the age of climate change. It is likely politically and practically very difficult though.

France are I think effectively banning internal (non connecting) flights in return for the airline bailout. Most of the night trains are international, but the EU could ban short non connecting flights overall too at some point.

>but the EU could ban short non connecting flights overall too at some point.

First thing the EU should do is to finally get rid of the aviation fuel tax exemption for intra-EU flights.

Don’t most airlines already offer to buy carbon credits to compensate the flight at a minimal price? Accounting for all other externalities shouldn’t make flight much more expensive.

The article discusses the price:

Aumont was reluctant to give ticket prices, but said these would be competitive with that of a short-haul flight, including what he called the “hidden costs”.

“This includes what you would have to pay for baggage and things like taxis to and from the airport,” he said.

So it will cost more than a flight, but not by much.

>> Train travel is just too expensive.

Why do you say this? I travel through Europe by train a couple of times a year at least. It's certainly not "too expensive" and if you book early it comes out the same as flying.

> Aumont was reluctant to give ticket prices, but said these would be competitive with that of a short-haul flight

If I'm booking time off work and the price is the same I'm going to opt for a longer holiday

Good luck Aumont

Actually you have the same holiday but you're arriving at your destination in the morning after sleeping all the way, instead of waking up early to be at the airport 2 hours before the flight etc.

Sleeper trains go at night generally.

This, and also for many of us riding the train through picturesque European countryside is part and parcel of taking a holiday, though of course ymmv.

I mean, for me taking a holiday is time to slow down and enjoy the sights. I miss a hell of a lot of that when I fly.

Flying is just too cheap ;)

It's easy to say, but if you look at the environmental impact, it really is too cheap. If airlines would pay the same tax on fuel as cars and were expected to compensate for their pollution, they'd be a lot less attractive.

CO2 analysis of train travel needs to take into account the cost (and emissions) of building and maintaining the rail network.

The other factor is that air travel is consistently profitable in the EU, without subsidies. But the reverse is true of rail.

The simplest solution is just to impose a $100/ton carbon tax, and let the market figure it out. But EU bureaucrats seem intent on socialism and planned economies instead.

> But EU bureaucrats seem intent on socialism

Socialism isn't really a dirty word in Europe (or anywhere else in the world) like it is in the USA. 20% of elected representatives in the EU are socialists.

So it's less "EU bureaucrats intent on socialism" and more the European zeitgeist.

> Socialism isn't really a dirty word in Europe

Depends on which part of Europe. In former communist countries 'socialism' is associated with economic system of their communist past, while center-left politics is called 'social democracy'.

I feel like in the 21st century (at least in the context of parties with widespread support and elected officials), there's no practical difference between social democrats and democratic socialists.

But you're right, the Eastern European parties call themselves "social democrats" and the Western parties call themselves "socialists"

Where in the EU is air travel not subsidized in some way?

After the politically inevitable taxes on short-haul flights are brought in, it may not be. As Hebert Stein said (on a different subject): if it can't go on forever it will stop.

Railways also benefit from considerable cost economies of scale, similar to the post office, the internet and of course...short haul flights. I wonder what the cost of flying will be when passenger seat miles drop by a factor of 5-10.

Why do you think the taxes are inevitable? Not only are short-haul flights in Eastern Europe not heavily taxed, the building and running of the airports has been heavily subsidized. It has more than paid for itself by bringing tourism income to the region, and encouraging the diaspora to regularly revisit and spend the money they have earned abroad.

Higher per-mile carbon emissions. Paying for itself through tourism doesn't count the externality of climate change.

It depends. I've just been looking for (non-sleeper) tickets from Germany to Prague and back, found some for a group of five adults for 149€ one-way, three months into the future.

The last sleeper train I took was Berlin-Budapest and that was 39€ in a six-bed room, which I personally prefer to economy flights, where the cheapest option is usually somewhere between 10pm and 7am. I can't wait to take another NightJet train.

Of course, just going from any place in Germany _to Berlin_ for that sleeper train can cost you upwards of 100€ if you don't book in advance.

Realistically from what I've seen in Sweden, this isn't necessarily true. I'm sure it depends where you are going. I will be taking the night train this summer to go into Lapland from Copenhagen area and the round trip cost for my ticket was about $235 USD which includes a transfer in Stockholm. Similar plane tickets were priced roughly the same with long layover in Stockholm.

I suspect it will not be possible for the night train to ever beat a short haul point to point on a Ryanair bike seat halfway across Europe between two major cities. But for anything more remote the night train will probably be quite competitive. After all, the infrastructure already exists for the most part.

It really depends on where you're going. On the east coast going between DC and Richmond to visit my parents is <$100 and cheaper than driving or flying. Also airports really suck now and I'm happy to avoid them.

I envy those East-coast Amtrak routes. Amtrak's so damn much more pleasant than flying coach[0] but in most of the country the trains travel fairly slowly to begin with, which might be OK if they weren't also routinely subject to 50-100% increases in stated travel time due to having to yield to freight traffic, making them not just way slower than driving, but also extremely unpredictable (so, very inconvenient to anyone waiting for you on the other end)

[0] Of course, being stabbed with a hot poker is more pleasant than flying coach, but Amtrak's a lot more pleasant.

That's a bit of a false comparison though.

Alongside your flight, you also need to pay for a taxis/Ubers/trains to and from the airport on each side, and a night in a hotel.

That can easily add an extra 300 Euro to your trip (one way).

That hotel night might not be necessary when you take a plane, though. Maybe you just safe a day of vacation instead? In that case, how much money does the plane trip safe you?

In that case, you can take a plane.

You could even take the overnight train one way, and fly the other.

Amsterdam-Vienna has tickets available in August for €49,90 (per direction). Not bad.

What about the cost to your children?

Air travel is just too cheap.

My dad worked in DC three days every week (so that's two nights he wasn't home) and still managed to teach me and my siblings math (we were home schooled) and find time for fun with us. I don't want to sound harsh but being away for short periods of time isn't an excuse for bad parenting.

The OP meant destroying the environment for your children, not time spent with them I think.

The price globular is mentioning is surely regarding CO2 emissions. If it was about the time spend being away from children, the train would never win over the airplane.

If the problem with air travel is emissions then we ought to work on alternative fuels. That's the positive thing to do.

There is too much finger pointing, though. Globally, air travel accounts for only a small proportion of emissions, which means it gets a disproportionate amount of attention at the expense of more important things.

> If the problem with air travel is emissions then we ought to work on alternative fuels.

They don't exist yet.

> Globally, air travel accounts for only a small proportion of emissions

Air travel is 2% of all global emissions. This is huge for such a small sector.

They don't exist yet... Hence perhaps working on it and investing much more into R&D would be useful.

2% of global emissions is close to negligible. Certainly this does not warrant the constant media coverage against air travel on environmental grounds. This is the usual fluff while the real, hard problems are not discussed. Politics instead of pragmatism.

It's really important to go a such important problems in a pragmatic and systematic way, rather than following into PR and political games.

Can I have 2% of your paycheck then, if it's negligible?

This is about prioritising issues. If your boat is sinking you do not discuss what to do about the slow drip at the back, you try to solve the massive hole at the front first.

If air travel only accounts for 2% of emissions then whatever we do will have a very small impact overall. So do we really need to bother at the moment or at all? It's not targeted because it makes a difference but because it's politically easier for a number of reasons. People, especially on HN, should really see through this theatre.

For example in France they tried (very badly) to add further taxes on car fuel and that ended in riots. So now they say that they will ban air travel when a train alternative exists. That will make no difference on anything but they can claim that they are doing something (that seems to target the rich more than the poor, so even better).

>>>[mytailorisrich:] 2% of global emissions is close to negligible.

>>[bellyfullofbac:] Can I have 2% of your paycheck then, if it's negligible?

>[mytailorisrich:] This is about prioritising issues

Maybe de-prioritise your wardrobe then?

I think most people here understand profiling and starting with the big target first. But we can and should be doing multiple things at once and air travel is far enough up there to bother with.

Trains compete with cars, not with airplanes.

Bruxelles to Paris : 90 minutes, Zurich to Paris : 244 minutes, London to Paris 149 minutes

I could go on.

Show me where a car is competitive for any of those routes. In addition, not even plane is competitive if you consider the airport to city transfer and back.

It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG.

> It also saves you, at least in the case of Paris, Europes most ghastly airport experience, which is CDG.

Has it become noticeably worse recently? I flew into and out of CDG with my family in 2015 and I can't say it seemed any worse than most (admittedly not very many) airports I've been through.

Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos.

Compared with terminal 2F it's actually pleasant. 2F is a packed confused mess with no seating whatsoever. Well, there are some seats by my impression was 1 seat per 10 passengers.

My observation is that I'm livid in 100% of all cases flying from there once I'm boarding the plane. Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful.

Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage). Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience.

One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience.

> Terminal 1, which (partially) serves inter-European Star Alliance flights is just pretty bad in terms of seating, amenities, space, interior decoration and general chaos.

That must have been where we were. If that's "pretty bad", then no more so than any other European airport IME/AFAICR.

> Wait time and accessibility (by RER or unreliable bus) are just awful.

We took the RER both ways. Worked pretty well, I thought.

> Flying in is less bad (if you didn't check in luggage).

We did, and I can't recall any problem with that.

> Still, connectivity is pretty bad compared to other European airports. Just getting your ticket for the RER can be a frustrating experience.

IIRC we used the ticket-vending machines on the platform. Sure, the UI is usually somewhat cryptic on those anywhere -- did we overpay, again? Can't recall, but quite possible -- but no worse at CDG than anywhere else I can recall.

> One caveat: I never flew intercontinental or transferred there. It may be a better experience.

Me neither; Helsinki - Paris and back.

Either we had exceptional luck... Or maybe you've got a slightly irrational bee in your bonnet about CDG.

Depends on the route -- eurostar from London to Paris/Brussels knocked a lot of flights out. Vey few would choose to drive from Manchester to London when the cheap train (£45 return no time restrictions) is quicker and the fast train is half the time of driving, but people do fly because west london to west manchester is quicker than schelpping to Euston and out from Picadilly - at least until HS2 drops it to under an hour and connects with crossrail.

High-speed rail can absolutely compete with short-haul flights between (some) European cities.

Yes, but that's beside the point.

People take the train in the same situations when they drive a car, and travel time isn't always the most important criterion.

> People take the train in the same situations when they drive a car

Not always. I live on the south coast of the UK. If I had to get to Scottish cities such as Glasgow (450 miles) or Edinburgh in a single day's journey I would fly or take the train, but never consider driving - it would be an absolutely horrendous car journey (edit: at least 8 hours assuming perfect traffic).

It is the point. People in Europe very much do consider train vs. plane. I encountered this first hand in personal considerations, family vacation planning and in a policy handout in a big corporation.

Quite a few of my friends in Europe prefer not to fly for environmental reasons as well, which I don't see really discussed a lot here. Oftentimes flight is seen as a last resort mode of transportation.

Not in Eastern Europe and the Balkans where trains and rail infra are crap. If I were going from Austria to the Czech Republic, sure. Hungary to Greece? No way.

And some people take the train instead of a plane. And I did even in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com