4 ms·
The thing is, if you don’t have the train, people will fly. And the carbon emissions of flying is massively greater than that of taking a train. I would be in
by ryukafalz 3y ago
The thing is, if you don’t have the train, people will fly. And the carbon emissions of flying is massively greater than that of taking a train.
I would be in favor of banning flights between city pairs that already have an equivalently high-quality rail link between them, though.
- pipo234 3y agoUse train when you can. Trains are getting better and in Europe there is finally talk of prohibiting airlines on short-distance (<500km) flights. But making trains faster and faster will not improve things as they'll also compete with other forms of transportation (cars, slower trains). If the faster train now gets you 800km in 3 hours, people will travel 800k where previously they spent that time traveling only 500km. It's Parkinson's law.
- ryukafalz 3y agoMaybe. I wonder which effect dominates if there's already a faster form of transportation that you're trying to replace though.