3 ms·

OP likely meant that it is a very sad thing for the environment that we (as a society) privilege air travel instead of train travel for such a short distance an

OP likely meant that it is a very sad thing for the environment that we (as a society) privilege air travel instead of train travel for such a short distance and where there’s no need to cross a border. The train brings you in the middle of both city center, directly integrated with transit, you can show up about 10 min before your departure, etc. It’s just the actual rail that is the problem.

jhugo 4y ago
If there's no train, though, the turboprop plane is going to be better for the environment than all those people driving.
- rglullis 4y ago
  And an intercity bus will beat them both, while also avoiding the issues of getting in and out of the airport and into the city center.
  - jhugo 4y ago
    Mmm, maybe. Average occupancy of buses is usually only around 40%, which probably pushes them above the per-passenger emissions of a modern aircraft, and being typically diesels, they have other emissions than CO2 to worry about. On a personal note, I also hate bus travel with a passion — it's mind-numbingly slow, you have limited ability to move around, it's sometimes too cramped to work, when toilets are available they're tiny and awful, etc. I love train travel and will use trains whenever available, sometimes even for multi-day journeys, but I will take significant detours or even rearrange travel plans to avoid a bus.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      I agree that buses are cramped and that trains are way more comfortable, but I think we can also agree that whatever space you don't have in a bus, it will be even worse on a plane... Also, let's not forget that the experience of traveling by bus got worse mostly because of the popularization of low-cost short-haul flights, and that has killed the market for "premium" bus traveling. If short-haul flights were out of the picture, I wouldn't be surprised if someone started offering bus travel with larger seats (in 2-1 configuration) and even more sleeper buses for night travels [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0
      - jhugo 4y ago
        > I agree that buses are cramped and that trains are way more comfortable, but I think we can also agree that whatever space you don't have in a bus, it will be even worse on a plane... Depends which class you travel, and with which airline. Even in economy, the "legacy" European carriers are generally more comfortable than a bus. The ability to pay more to make the travel bearable is an advantage of air travel. > Also, let's not forget that the experience of traveling by bus got worse mostly because of the popularization of low-cost short-haul flights, and that has killed the market for "premium" bus traveling. If short-haul flights were out of the picture, I wouldn't be surprised if someone started offering bus travel with larger seats (in 2-1 configuration) and even more sleeper buses for night travels. You're right that air travel has made premium buses moot, but I think that's a good thing. Spending 12+ hours on a bus is not an improvement over a 2 hour flight, even if you have a bed on the bus. You can spend the night in your own bed and then get to the destination at the same time, having slept better and with less risk of accidental injury. The emissions gap between the two modes is narrowing rapidly, too.
        rglullis 4y ago
        > Spending 12+ hours on a bus is not an improvement over a 2 hour flight My argument is that there is no such thing as a 2-hour flight. We still need to factor the time to get to the airport, check-in/boarding, getting off the plane, waiting for luggage, and then getting from the airport to your actual destination. That easily transforms any trip into a 5- or 6-hour event. Factor in that if you are flying to a place where you need a hotel to "sleep on your own bed", suddenly even a very luxurious night bus might come out ahead in price and practicality. Granted, for an European context it makes a lot less sense to talk about intercity bus because we have a reasonably extensive rail network. But put your hate of buses aside for a moment and consider that buses can be better, so from a North American perspective it can make sense to consider it.
        jhugo 4y ago
        Yeah, I guess if cost is an important factor, trains are not available, and the airports are both sides are on the distant/large/inefficient side, then the bus could marginally make sense. That's not a combination of factors I've encountered in recent memory though (but I don't go to North America much), and it's so marginal that I think every time I'd go for the increased comfort of not being on a bus (no matter how "luxurious") for 12+ hours.

jhugo 4y ago

If there's no train, though, the turboprop plane is going to be better for the environment than all those people driving.

rglullis 4y ago
And an intercity bus will beat them both, while also avoiding the issues of getting in and out of the airport and into the city center.
- jhugo 4y ago
  Mmm, maybe. Average occupancy of buses is usually only around 40%, which probably pushes them above the per-passenger emissions of a modern aircraft, and being typically diesels, they have other emissions than CO2 to worry about. On a personal note, I also hate bus travel with a passion — it's mind-numbingly slow, you have limited ability to move around, it's sometimes too cramped to work, when toilets are available they're tiny and awful, etc. I love train travel and will use trains whenever available, sometimes even for multi-day journeys, but I will take significant detours or even rearrange travel plans to avoid a bus.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    I agree that buses are cramped and that trains are way more comfortable, but I think we can also agree that whatever space you don't have in a bus, it will be even worse on a plane... Also, let's not forget that the experience of traveling by bus got worse mostly because of the popularization of low-cost short-haul flights, and that has killed the market for "premium" bus traveling. If short-haul flights were out of the picture, I wouldn't be surprised if someone started offering bus travel with larger seats (in 2-1 configuration) and even more sleeper buses for night travels [0] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTzEJ8znL0
    - jhugo 4y ago
      > I agree that buses are cramped and that trains are way more comfortable, but I think we can also agree that whatever space you don't have in a bus, it will be even worse on a plane... Depends which class you travel, and with which airline. Even in economy, the "legacy" European carriers are generally more comfortable than a bus. The ability to pay more to make the travel bearable is an advantage of air travel. > Also, let's not forget that the experience of traveling by bus got worse mostly because of the popularization of low-cost short-haul flights, and that has killed the market for "premium" bus traveling. If short-haul flights were out of the picture, I wouldn't be surprised if someone started offering bus travel with larger seats (in 2-1 configuration) and even more sleeper buses for night travels. You're right that air travel has made premium buses moot, but I think that's a good thing. Spending 12+ hours on a bus is not an improvement over a 2 hour flight, even if you have a bed on the bus. You can spend the night in your own bed and then get to the destination at the same time, having slept better and with less risk of accidental injury. The emissions gap between the two modes is narrowing rapidly, too.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        > Spending 12+ hours on a bus is not an improvement over a 2 hour flight My argument is that there is no such thing as a 2-hour flight. We still need to factor the time to get to the airport, check-in/boarding, getting off the plane, waiting for luggage, and then getting from the airport to your actual destination. That easily transforms any trip into a 5- or 6-hour event. Factor in that if you are flying to a place where you need a hotel to "sleep on your own bed", suddenly even a very luxurious night bus might come out ahead in price and practicality. Granted, for an European context it makes a lot less sense to talk about intercity bus because we have a reasonably extensive rail network. But put your hate of buses aside for a moment and consider that buses can be better, so from a North American perspective it can make sense to consider it.
        jhugo 4y ago
        Yeah, I guess if cost is an important factor, trains are not available, and the airports are both sides are on the distant/large/inefficient side, then the bus could marginally make sense. That's not a combination of factors I've encountered in recent memory though (but I don't go to North America much), and it's so marginal that I think every time I'd go for the increased comfort of not being on a bus (no matter how "luxurious") for 12+ hours.