6 ms·

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 t

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.

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.