3 ms·
The issue is that you are neglecting inter-modal inefficiencies. It's (with rare exception) far more time efficient and less hassle to change planes in than it
by thereisnospork 3y ago
The issue is that you are neglecting inter-modal inefficiencies. It's (with rare exception) far more time efficient and less hassle to change planes in than it is to change to a train at a physically distinct location.
Also at a higher level view, the intercity flights presumably existed because some rational actors found them to be the best choice for their situation -- it shouldn't be a surprise that people are pissed off about being regulated into sub-optimality.
- dmarcos 3y agoYes. Thinking about what factors make people choose plane over train and address those would have been better. People will freely choose the better option.
- BulgarianIdiot 3y agoThey could've raised the price, and made the flights more rare (say not every day, but every 3 days, or not every 3 days, but once a week etc.). Unfortunately we're talking about primitive politicians, trying to virtue signal in primitive ways.
- dmarcos 3y agoI would have preferred to see the shortcomings of train addressed. There has to be some if people prefer flying e.g Make train cheaper, can take long distance train straight from airports, more frequency, can book an itinerary that includes plane and train, airline reward programs apply…
- alephnerd 3y ago> neglecting inter-modal inefficiencies The nodes are integrated in France. Regional rail lines, the TGV, and subways all have shared nodes to allow you to transfer between lines. As I pointed out in a couple other comments 1. This is a solved problem already - the downsides pointed out were already considered and optimized against in the 1970s-1990s 2. France =/= US. North American public transit experience cannot be applied to that within Europe and Asia.