12 ms·

I understand the criticism but to be fair high speed trains are better in many cases: Paris - Lyon by airplane: 1h15 plus travel to and from airport, plus secu

by mojuba 4y ago

I understand the criticism but to be fair high speed trains are better in many cases: Paris - Lyon by airplane: 1h15 plus travel to and from airport, plus security, boarding etc Paris - Lyon by train: 2h30, city center to city center, no security checks. This might actually be faster! Personally when traveling between London and Paris I choose the high speed train. It's usually more expensive but just the fact it removes traveling to and from airports (especially in London!) adds so much comfort that you realize the extra £50-70 are totally worth it. The overall travel time is also comparable.

quentindemetz 4y ago
Paris-Lyon is more like 2h
throw_m239339 4y ago
It costs me around 60€ to go from France to Switzerland by plane. It costs me way more than 60€ to go from France to Switzerland by train. This why people are taking the plane, because it's less expensive that high speed rail, nothing more. Make high speed rail less expensive and people will take the train. Government induced free market distortion under pretense of ecology concerns is just what it is, bullshit, and a bad French habit. edit: I know France Switzerland trips aren't affected by these laws, it's just an example.
- amrocha 4y ago
  "under pretense of ecology concerns" Yes, the evil government is propping up BIG TRAIN because they hate planes!!!
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    > Yes, the evil government is propping up BIG TRAIN because they hate planes!!! Dude, instead of mocking me and sounding like an ass, learn your history. 20 years ago in that country, it was impossible to go from Region to region by bus, you had to take the train. You couldn't do Le Mans Paris by bus because bus operators were not allowed to sell inter regional trips. It's the EU that forced France to allow these. You're damn right the french government is once again rigging the game in favor of the SNCF.
    - sgu999 4y ago
      You know how these buses are casually named right? Yes, indeed, it's the same Macron as the current one in charge of the government. Not sure where you get your news intake from to believe for a second that the French government is favoring the national railway company over its competitors in any way. This instance is just a weak law intended for greenwashing purpose, nothing else.
    - JeanMarcS 4y ago
      And it's the EU laws that are retranscribed here in France so what's your point exactly ?
      - JeanMarcS 4y ago
        It seems I made a mistake here, my bad.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Why is train so much more expensive? Surely jets that cost $100s of millions, supported by massive airports, are more expensive? Seems like the market distortions are subsidies to airlines of some sort.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    Competition, and the subsidies are the other way around: many train companies receive them, and most airlines don't.
    - throwaway049 4y ago
      I'd argue that not pricing in the negative externalities of flying amounts to a subsidy.
      - qeternity 4y ago
        I’d agree with you except that EU airlines have to participate in the cap and trade system (ETS), whereas trains do not.
  - the_why_of_y 4y ago
    Jet fuel is tax free in the EU, a huge market-distorting subsidy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene_tax However, as of 2018, commercial kerosene consumption is currently tax exempt under the legislation of all member states of the European Union.
    - Tpt 4y ago
      Rail lines are massively subsidized and the French government is regularly bailing out SNCF (the national rail company). So imho it not clear that the global market distortion is in the favor of plane.
      - doikor 4y ago
- Freak_NL 4y ago
  Just taking a simple example like Lausanne (Switzerland) to Paris (France)¹ shows comparable ticket prices. For an arbitrary date a few months away like April 21st, that gives me a single train ticket for €65 on a direct connection to Gare du Nord, or a train ride to Genève-Aéroport (€8) plus a plane ticket for around €65 to Orly. Cheaper plane tickets exist, but not if you have even a single backpack. In terms of time, the train is a direct TGV that takes 3¾ hours, while the plane route means taking a train for ¾ hours, waiting at the airport for at least an hour because of security, flying for 1¼ hour, wait for another half hour at least to get out of the airport, and then spend at least half an hour getting to where you actually want to be in Paris. It takes just as long, but probably longer if you want a decent safety margin on the airport. And that excludes the simple fact that we all have a responsibility in reducing our carbon footprint, and that for most us who have the means to travel taking a route that may be (but isn't in this case) slightly more expensive and take slightly longer is the least we can do if it is the greener alternative by far. 1: Just an example of a journey I took myself, by train.
  - dorfsmay 4y ago
    > for most us who have the means That's a difficult personal choice to push on people when the super rich are traveling by private jets, fuel for international air travel isn't taxed (because bought in duty free zone technically), etc... People want legislation for all, not just fake moral that only applies to the middle class and lower. I believe the fact that this law will affect private jet trips is a reflection that politicians are aware of this and starting to feel the pressure.
  - throwaway049 4y ago
    "slightly more expensive" Reminds me of Caroline Lucas, when asked about her air travel, saying there should be a focus on taxing aviation fuel. What this all amounts to is travel should be restricted to the wealthy.
    - mantas 4y ago
      And taxing aviation fuel will make the rich pay trough the nose for their „privilege“. Which is good. What do you propose?
- einpoklum 4y ago
  > This why people are taking the plane, because it's less expensive that high speed rail, nothing more. This is often true. But - not always. Depends on which endpoints. Sometimes it's speed, sometimes convenience, sometime price. > free market distortion 1. Markets are not free. They are based on violent coercion of private ownership of land, factories, service providing corporations etc. 2. Markets are always "distorted", in the sense that they don't just occur naturally. 3. I can't say for certain whether this specific measure is appropriate or well-intentioned, but - emissions need to be reduced drastically over the next several years; and not just in one sector of the economy. So in _some_ way, people do need to change their habits in favor of using more carbon-frugal modes of travel.
- ulfw 4y ago
  What does France to Switzerland even mean? They border each other. You could walk.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    I would think it obviously means between significant cities (ones with airports, at least, clearly) in each... Paris to Zurich or whatever.
    - ulfw 4y ago
      Yea but the whatever part is what makes no sense. Sorry. Paris-Zurich is very different from Lyon-Geneva
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    You can cross the border by foot in the Geneva airport, or used to be able to before Switzerland was part of the Schengen.
- rsync 4y ago
  Forgive me, but your comment drops below any reasonable threshold of HN guidelines and I am forced to use strong language like “absurd” and “clownish” to describe what you’re asserting … The overriding market distortion, which trumps every other variable here, is the zero value given to any environmental externalities coming from air travel. In addition, both CH and FR have massive governmental subsidies for their national carriers and the operation of their airports. Which is to say: you’re swimming in free market distortions so deeply you’ll never come up for air … and you’re decrying this one ? Seriously: grow up.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    FR and Air France maybe, but Swiss Air is now owned by Lufthansa.
dorfsmay 4y ago
What about trips that don't involve Paris, say Nantes - Marseille?
- quadcore 4y ago
  Just insert Paris in between. Nantes - Paris - Marseille shouldnt be too bad really.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Sounds very French.
  - dorfsmay 4y ago
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but for reference, a quick google shows 6 hours by train vs 1.5 hours by plane.
    - quadcore 4y ago
      Ah unfortunately, you gota change station in Paris which almost doubles the time. It used to be that you had to be at the airport 2h in advance though.
  - bchanudet 4y ago
    Change at Lyon instead, it's way easier as it's all in the same trainstation.
thiht 4y ago
Agree, in France train is usually way more convenient. There are still issues though, for example Rennes-Toulouse is 1h30 by plane, and 7 (!) hours by train. I really hope this gets fixed, until then train is just not an option in this case.
varispeed 4y ago
> Paris - Lyon by airplane: 1h15 plus travel to and from airport, plus security, boarding etc Reminds of when someone says "this recipe only takes 20 minutes to make!" and they fail to mention you have to spend whole day shopping for ingredients, do some prep the day before and then spend half a day cleaning the kitchen afterwards... oh and then if you actually cook it for 20 minutes, chances are it will be barely safe to eat and would need much longer time.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  >Reminds of when someone says "this recipe only takes 20 minutes to make!" and they fail to mention.... Or, keep essential ingredients for good and favorite recipes on hand generally, clean pots and utensils in the middle of cooking (usually very possible during pauses and wait times) and cook properly. Most foods can indeed be cooked perfectly in 20 minutes and with a bit of practice it's easy to create great 20-30 minute meals without any of the hassles you describe,unless you're one of those people who barely bothers to ever cook or keep a thing at home and even scrambled eggs with toast require a trip to the grocery store and bakery first.
  - varispeed 4y ago
    I see your point, but that's a bit like "or live by the airport, where your most favourite airlines depart from".
    - helloworld11 4y ago
      Huh? How? Living by the airport (not recommended btw) is a whole huge question of moving house and home to a specific location. Having a few essentials at home and learning a few basics for cooking on the fly and really crafting 20-30 minute recipes requires a pretty minimal investment of time and effort. The two don't compare at all.
retinaros 4y ago
yeah only when its not on strike and then if it is that leaves you with no alternative. it also create a monopoly. train tickets will rise.
- retinaros 4y ago
  why am i downvoted for stating a fact? this year there were 43 days of strike. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gr%C3%A8ves_%C3%A0_la_SNCF https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gr%C3%A8ves_%C3%A0...
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Because train-loving Americans love the idea of France and you're harshing their mellow.
joking 4y ago
That’s correct if everyone traveled from city center to city center, but in my case, the airport is easier to get than the hsr station, has more long time parking options, and sometimes the destination is a layover, so I would have to go from the center of paris to the airport equally. I Would love to travel a lot more by train, or less by plane, but right now and at least in my case, it’s not a very good option.
- cauch 4y ago
  Laws should not be decided just based on what is good for you in particular, but in considering what is the most efficient in average. Sure, you may have an easy access to the airport outside the city centre, but people in the city centre, which constitute a bigger number, have a worst access. And people who are not in the city centre but on the other side also have a worst access to the airport than the city centre. The comment you answer to is still very relevant: it is true that in average using the train is not as disastrous as one could think (so the disadvantages are compensated by the advantage with regard to environment). The fact that it is not advantageous for every one is trivial and not really relevant.
  - osigurdson 4y ago
    Presumably if trains truly were better, there should be no need for a law. Perhaps they should focus their efforts on making trains an obviously superior service.
    - cauch 4y ago
      What do you mean by "better"? Planes are faster and more convenient, but they are polluting more, which has long term negative impact. If you want to know what is "better", you need to put everything in the balance. And the weight of each thing will also depend on subjective opinion (is it better to see 5 old people die 5 year earlier than otherwise or see 10% less investment from foreign investors?). Also, this should not be decided by the "market", because the market is crap as evaluating mid- or long-term consequences.
kkfx 4y ago
Meanwhile the entire world, France included for Nice-Paris, study flying taxis and "cars"... Oh, but such moves are not made to push some cohort of peoples out of traveling while pushing others to do so... https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... https://siecledigital.fr/2021/10/28/laeroport-de-nice-souhaite-lancer-des-taxis-aeriens-pour-2024/ https://siecledigital.fr/2021/10/28/laeroport-de-nice-souhai...
lzooz 4y ago
If it was better for you then the government wouldn't have to force you to do it.
Nifty3929 4y ago
If it’s better to travel by train, then no need to ban short flights, because people wouldn’t use them much. Empirically, since people ARE taking short flights instead of trains, the people who are doing so believe that flights are better for them. Why take away a choice from people?
- benhurmarcel 4y ago
  People take those flights because it's usually much cheaper.
wdb 4y ago
Only when you can plan ahead by a few weeks. Typically, flying is still cheaper than the train. Tried to book a trip from London to home for boxing day. Eurostar was double
- checkyoursudo 4y ago
  I have found that flying is often cheaper for many close-ish and middle-ish distances where I want to go. Why is this? These are the cases where I would most like to take the train, and it is hard to justify by ticket price.

by mojuba 4y ago

quentindemetz 4y ago

Paris-Lyon is more like 2h

throw_m239339 4y ago

It costs me around 60€ to go from France to Switzerland by plane. It costs me way more than 60€ to go from France to Switzerland by train. This why people are taking the plane, because it's less expensive that high speed rail, nothing more. Make high speed rail less expensive and people will take the train. Government induced free market distortion under pretense of ecology concerns is just what it is, bullshit, and a bad French habit. edit: I know France Switzerland trips aren't affected by these laws, it's just an example.

amrocha 4y ago
"under pretense of ecology concerns" Yes, the evil government is propping up BIG TRAIN because they hate planes!!!
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > Yes, the evil government is propping up BIG TRAIN because they hate planes!!! Dude, instead of mocking me and sounding like an ass, learn your history. 20 years ago in that country, it was impossible to go from Region to region by bus, you had to take the train. You couldn't do Le Mans Paris by bus because bus operators were not allowed to sell inter regional trips. It's the EU that forced France to allow these. You're damn right the french government is once again rigging the game in favor of the SNCF.
  - sgu999 4y ago
    You know how these buses are casually named right? Yes, indeed, it's the same Macron as the current one in charge of the government. Not sure where you get your news intake from to believe for a second that the French government is favoring the national railway company over its competitors in any way. This instance is just a weak law intended for greenwashing purpose, nothing else.
  - JeanMarcS 4y ago
    And it's the EU laws that are retranscribed here in France so what's your point exactly ?
    - JeanMarcS 4y ago
      It seems I made a mistake here, my bad.
alistairSH 4y ago
Why is train so much more expensive? Surely jets that cost $100s of millions, supported by massive airports, are more expensive? Seems like the market distortions are subsidies to airlines of some sort.
- qeternity 4y ago
  Competition, and the subsidies are the other way around: many train companies receive them, and most airlines don't.
  - throwaway049 4y ago
    I'd argue that not pricing in the negative externalities of flying amounts to a subsidy.
    - qeternity 4y ago
      I’d agree with you except that EU airlines have to participate in the cap and trade system (ETS), whereas trains do not.
- the_why_of_y 4y ago
  Jet fuel is tax free in the EU, a huge market-distorting subsidy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene_tax However, as of 2018, commercial kerosene consumption is currently tax exempt under the legislation of all member states of the European Union.
  - Tpt 4y ago
    Rail lines are massively subsidized and the French government is regularly bailing out SNCF (the national rail company). So imho it not clear that the global market distortion is in the favor of plane.
    - doikor 4y ago
Freak_NL 4y ago
Just taking a simple example like Lausanne (Switzerland) to Paris (France)¹ shows comparable ticket prices. For an arbitrary date a few months away like April 21st, that gives me a single train ticket for €65 on a direct connection to Gare du Nord, or a train ride to Genève-Aéroport (€8) plus a plane ticket for around €65 to Orly. Cheaper plane tickets exist, but not if you have even a single backpack. In terms of time, the train is a direct TGV that takes 3¾ hours, while the plane route means taking a train for ¾ hours, waiting at the airport for at least an hour because of security, flying for 1¼ hour, wait for another half hour at least to get out of the airport, and then spend at least half an hour getting to where you actually want to be in Paris. It takes just as long, but probably longer if you want a decent safety margin on the airport. And that excludes the simple fact that we all have a responsibility in reducing our carbon footprint, and that for most us who have the means to travel taking a route that may be (but isn't in this case) slightly more expensive and take slightly longer is the least we can do if it is the greener alternative by far. 1: Just an example of a journey I took myself, by train.
- dorfsmay 4y ago
  > for most us who have the means That's a difficult personal choice to push on people when the super rich are traveling by private jets, fuel for international air travel isn't taxed (because bought in duty free zone technically), etc... People want legislation for all, not just fake moral that only applies to the middle class and lower. I believe the fact that this law will affect private jet trips is a reflection that politicians are aware of this and starting to feel the pressure.
- throwaway049 4y ago
  "slightly more expensive" Reminds me of Caroline Lucas, when asked about her air travel, saying there should be a focus on taxing aviation fuel. What this all amounts to is travel should be restricted to the wealthy.
  - mantas 4y ago
    And taxing aviation fuel will make the rich pay trough the nose for their „privilege“. Which is good. What do you propose?
einpoklum 4y ago
> This why people are taking the plane, because it's less expensive that high speed rail, nothing more. This is often true. But - not always. Depends on which endpoints. Sometimes it's speed, sometimes convenience, sometime price. > free market distortion 1. Markets are not free. They are based on violent coercion of private ownership of land, factories, service providing corporations etc. 2. Markets are always "distorted", in the sense that they don't just occur naturally. 3. I can't say for certain whether this specific measure is appropriate or well-intentioned, but - emissions need to be reduced drastically over the next several years; and not just in one sector of the economy. So in _some_ way, people do need to change their habits in favor of using more carbon-frugal modes of travel.
ulfw 4y ago
What does France to Switzerland even mean? They border each other. You could walk.
- OJFord 4y ago
  I would think it obviously means between significant cities (ones with airports, at least, clearly) in each... Paris to Zurich or whatever.
  - ulfw 4y ago
    Yea but the whatever part is what makes no sense. Sorry. Paris-Zurich is very different from Lyon-Geneva
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  You can cross the border by foot in the Geneva airport, or used to be able to before Switzerland was part of the Schengen.
rsync 4y ago
Forgive me, but your comment drops below any reasonable threshold of HN guidelines and I am forced to use strong language like “absurd” and “clownish” to describe what you’re asserting … The overriding market distortion, which trumps every other variable here, is the zero value given to any environmental externalities coming from air travel. In addition, both CH and FR have massive governmental subsidies for their national carriers and the operation of their airports. Which is to say: you’re swimming in free market distortions so deeply you’ll never come up for air … and you’re decrying this one ? Seriously: grow up.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  FR and Air France maybe, but Swiss Air is now owned by Lufthansa.

dorfsmay 4y ago

What about trips that don't involve Paris, say Nantes - Marseille?

quadcore 4y ago
Just insert Paris in between. Nantes - Paris - Marseille shouldnt be too bad really.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Sounds very French.
- dorfsmay 4y ago
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but for reference, a quick google shows 6 hours by train vs 1.5 hours by plane.
  - quadcore 4y ago
    Ah unfortunately, you gota change station in Paris which almost doubles the time. It used to be that you had to be at the airport 2h in advance though.
- bchanudet 4y ago
  Change at Lyon instead, it's way easier as it's all in the same trainstation.

thiht 4y ago

Agree, in France train is usually way more convenient. There are still issues though, for example Rennes-Toulouse is 1h30 by plane, and 7 (!) hours by train. I really hope this gets fixed, until then train is just not an option in this case.

varispeed 4y ago

> Paris - Lyon by airplane: 1h15 plus travel to and from airport, plus security, boarding etc Reminds of when someone says "this recipe only takes 20 minutes to make!" and they fail to mention you have to spend whole day shopping for ingredients, do some prep the day before and then spend half a day cleaning the kitchen afterwards... oh and then if you actually cook it for 20 minutes, chances are it will be barely safe to eat and would need much longer time.

helloworld11 4y ago
>Reminds of when someone says "this recipe only takes 20 minutes to make!" and they fail to mention.... Or, keep essential ingredients for good and favorite recipes on hand generally, clean pots and utensils in the middle of cooking (usually very possible during pauses and wait times) and cook properly. Most foods can indeed be cooked perfectly in 20 minutes and with a bit of practice it's easy to create great 20-30 minute meals without any of the hassles you describe,unless you're one of those people who barely bothers to ever cook or keep a thing at home and even scrambled eggs with toast require a trip to the grocery store and bakery first.
- varispeed 4y ago
  I see your point, but that's a bit like "or live by the airport, where your most favourite airlines depart from".
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    Huh? How? Living by the airport (not recommended btw) is a whole huge question of moving house and home to a specific location. Having a few essentials at home and learning a few basics for cooking on the fly and really crafting 20-30 minute recipes requires a pretty minimal investment of time and effort. The two don't compare at all.

retinaros 4y ago

yeah only when its not on strike and then if it is that leaves you with no alternative. it also create a monopoly. train tickets will rise.

retinaros 4y ago
why am i downvoted for stating a fact? this year there were 43 days of strike. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gr%C3%A8ves_%C3%A0_la_SNCF https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_gr%C3%A8ves_%C3%A0...
- rayiner 4y ago
  Because train-loving Americans love the idea of France and you're harshing their mellow.

joking 4y ago

That’s correct if everyone traveled from city center to city center, but in my case, the airport is easier to get than the hsr station, has more long time parking options, and sometimes the destination is a layover, so I would have to go from the center of paris to the airport equally. I Would love to travel a lot more by train, or less by plane, but right now and at least in my case, it’s not a very good option.

cauch 4y ago
Laws should not be decided just based on what is good for you in particular, but in considering what is the most efficient in average. Sure, you may have an easy access to the airport outside the city centre, but people in the city centre, which constitute a bigger number, have a worst access. And people who are not in the city centre but on the other side also have a worst access to the airport than the city centre. The comment you answer to is still very relevant: it is true that in average using the train is not as disastrous as one could think (so the disadvantages are compensated by the advantage with regard to environment). The fact that it is not advantageous for every one is trivial and not really relevant.
- osigurdson 4y ago
  Presumably if trains truly were better, there should be no need for a law. Perhaps they should focus their efforts on making trains an obviously superior service.
  - cauch 4y ago
    What do you mean by "better"? Planes are faster and more convenient, but they are polluting more, which has long term negative impact. If you want to know what is "better", you need to put everything in the balance. And the weight of each thing will also depend on subjective opinion (is it better to see 5 old people die 5 year earlier than otherwise or see 10% less investment from foreign investors?). Also, this should not be decided by the "market", because the market is crap as evaluating mid- or long-term consequences.

kkfx 4y ago

Meanwhile the entire world, France included for Nice-Paris, study flying taxis and "cars"... Oh, but such moves are not made to push some cohort of peoples out of traveling while pushing others to do so... https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... https://siecledigital.fr/2021/10/28/laeroport-de-nice-souhaite-lancer-des-taxis-aeriens-pour-2024/ https://siecledigital.fr/2021/10/28/laeroport-de-nice-souhai...

lzooz 4y ago

If it was better for you then the government wouldn't have to force you to do it.

Nifty3929 4y ago

If it’s better to travel by train, then no need to ban short flights, because people wouldn’t use them much. Empirically, since people ARE taking short flights instead of trains, the people who are doing so believe that flights are better for them. Why take away a choice from people?

benhurmarcel 4y ago
People take those flights because it's usually much cheaper.

wdb 4y ago

Only when you can plan ahead by a few weeks. Typically, flying is still cheaper than the train. Tried to book a trip from London to home for boxing day. Eurostar was double

checkyoursudo 4y ago
I have found that flying is often cheaper for many close-ish and middle-ish distances where I want to go. Why is this? These are the cases where I would most like to take the train, and it is hard to justify by ticket price.