4 ms·
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 2
by 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 agoAnd taxing aviation fuel will make the rich pay trough the nose for their „privilege“. Which is good. What do you propose?
- throwaway049 4y agoNo. It's not good. It enables the rich to travel while locking out others. A fair system would ration access to a scarce resource based on need.
- midoridensha 4y agoPerhaps there should be a hefty aviation fuel tax that works inversely: basically, the more you buy at once (per plane), the lower the tax is, by a very large amount. So, if you're refueling an A380 super-jumbo or a 777, your fuel tax is very low, because those planes need a LOT of fuel. If you're refueling a 737, it'll be significantly higher, to penalize short routes. If you're refueling a small private jet, it'll be huge. Basically, big jets that carry hundreds of passengers will get the lowest fuel tax this way, and airlines will be forced to prioritize moving people as efficiently as possible.
- mantas 4y agoMore fuel is more pollution though.
- midoridensha 4y agoNo, it's not. Flying all those people on smaller planes would use far more fuel and cause more pollution.
- mantas 4y agoNot flying would be best :)
- 4y ago
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoI took the train (TGV) from Lausanne to Nantes once, the hardest part was the train station transfer via bus in Paris.