5 ms·

Tickets for trains are on average twice as expensive as for flights

37 points by ushakov 3y ago

newprint 3y ago
why is it surprising ? You have to maintain thousands of miles railroad infrastructure, that includes r.r bridges, train stations, r.r. tracks and trains themselves.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  I suppose Airports take up quite a large amount of dead space and require air traffic control, staff working in the Airports etc. Planes are much more complicated machines and carry significant risks and therefore the manufacturing and ongoing maintenance requirements are significantly higher. I kinda do see myself surprised.
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    You can build an airport and accept flights from any nearby cities. If you build a train station you now need to build tracks to connect it to places and get land from someone to do so. Depending on where you are the size of this hurdle varies.
  - joecot 3y ago
    In the US, it's because of federal subsidies. Air travel is federally subsidized, to get airlines to maintain air travel to less populated areas. Otherwise the flyover states would literally just be flown over. Air travel is subsidized, airlines pay to use but do not pay for airports. Highways and gas are subsidized, drivers pay tolls, but drivers and car manufacturers don't have to directly pay for all road maintenance. Railways are subsidized, but nowhere near to the same extent. The Federal government has subsidized Amtrak 30 Billion over the last 30 years. It's subsidized freight rail some, and Amtrak and other services can use those rails, but freight trains have priority. It's subsidized air and highway travel by 1.89 trillion, including around 1 trillion to build most of the airports you see today.
- m463 3y ago
  I don't think this is the reason. I think it is that the tracks are monopolized. If you look at freight trains compared to trucking, trucking is less efficient, has higher fuel costs and is cheaper because of competition.
  - Scaevolus 3y ago
    Trucking also externalizes the cost of road maintenance to the entire tax base, despite the fact that road wear scales like weight^4.
hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
Funny, I just saw a headline how railway execs in the UK expense tens of thousands in flight tickets because they're cheaper than the rails they operate. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12330029/Network-Rail-spent-10-000-flying-staff-country-year-cheaper-paying-trains.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12330029/Network-Ra...
cempaka 3y ago
As someone who routinely travels every year between two fairly rural stops on the Empire Builder, this doesn't seem to hold true at all. In fact, I can generally travel by train for less than it would cost me to drive myself, and plane tickets would be far more pricey.
- javagram 3y ago
  I clicked on the article and it’s about European rail prices. FWIW, in the USA I thought the rural Amtrak routes are money losers subsidized by the northeast regional passengers. They only continue to run because politicians want them to, so the prices don’t necessarily make business sense or translate to other countries’ systems.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    That is at least partially because Amtrak has no revenue management to speak of. When I have tried to plan trips, rooms of all types are booked solid usually 6 months out, and nearly 12 months for holiday weekends. I’m not arguing to privatize Amtrak, but I think any private company would try to adjust prices such that the last room sells out the day before departure. And I think that would go a long way towards making Amtrak less unprofitable. But, fundamentally, it’s hard to see how these routes can compete with air travel when operating a train requires 4-5x more labor hours than a flight crew.
    - eek2121 3y ago
      I think the limited places Amtrak can go are one of the reasons for this. The low prices are CREATING demand, so they can't respond to it. I would love to have Amtrak here, I love riding on trains, I love traveling, and I like long trips (I took a bus across the country...twice back in the day just to enjoy the changing scenery), so I'd definitely use them if they were available. They are looking at ways to extend into my city, but no concrete plans yet. The railroad system in the US should have been bought out by the government a long time ago. We could have spent decades upgrading and expanding routes and things would have been great today. Instead, we are car/plane focused. This leads to huge amounts of pollution compared to what a modern electric train system would produce.
PeterStuer 3y ago
Yep. Because in the EU air did manage to lobby tax breaks and offloading externalities much more than rail. If all costs were internalized air travel would not exist.
nottorp 3y ago
Of course Greenpeace suggests making air travel more expensive, not train travel cheaper :)

37 points by ushakov 3y ago

why is it surprising ? You have to maintain thousands of miles railroad infrastructure, that includes r.r bridges, train stations, r.r. tracks and trains themselves.

NoPicklez 3y ago
I suppose Airports take up quite a large amount of dead space and require air traffic control, staff working in the Airports etc. Planes are much more complicated machines and carry significant risks and therefore the manufacturing and ongoing maintenance requirements are significantly higher. I kinda do see myself surprised.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  You can build an airport and accept flights from any nearby cities. If you build a train station you now need to build tracks to connect it to places and get land from someone to do so. Depending on where you are the size of this hurdle varies.
- joecot 3y ago
  In the US, it's because of federal subsidies. Air travel is federally subsidized, to get airlines to maintain air travel to less populated areas. Otherwise the flyover states would literally just be flown over. Air travel is subsidized, airlines pay to use but do not pay for airports. Highways and gas are subsidized, drivers pay tolls, but drivers and car manufacturers don't have to directly pay for all road maintenance. Railways are subsidized, but nowhere near to the same extent. The Federal government has subsidized Amtrak 30 Billion over the last 30 years. It's subsidized freight rail some, and Amtrak and other services can use those rails, but freight trains have priority. It's subsidized air and highway travel by 1.89 trillion, including around 1 trillion to build most of the airports you see today.
m463 3y ago
I don't think this is the reason. I think it is that the tracks are monopolized. If you look at freight trains compared to trucking, trucking is less efficient, has higher fuel costs and is cheaper because of competition.
- Scaevolus 3y ago
  Trucking also externalizes the cost of road maintenance to the entire tax base, despite the fact that road wear scales like weight^4.

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago

Funny, I just saw a headline how railway execs in the UK expense tens of thousands in flight tickets because they're cheaper than the rails they operate. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12330029/Network-Rail-spent-10-000-flying-staff-country-year-cheaper-paying-trains.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12330029/Network-Ra...

cempaka 3y ago

As someone who routinely travels every year between two fairly rural stops on the Empire Builder, this doesn't seem to hold true at all. In fact, I can generally travel by train for less than it would cost me to drive myself, and plane tickets would be far more pricey.

javagram 3y ago
I clicked on the article and it’s about European rail prices. FWIW, in the USA I thought the rural Amtrak routes are money losers subsidized by the northeast regional passengers. They only continue to run because politicians want them to, so the prices don’t necessarily make business sense or translate to other countries’ systems.
- labcomputer 3y ago
  That is at least partially because Amtrak has no revenue management to speak of. When I have tried to plan trips, rooms of all types are booked solid usually 6 months out, and nearly 12 months for holiday weekends. I’m not arguing to privatize Amtrak, but I think any private company would try to adjust prices such that the last room sells out the day before departure. And I think that would go a long way towards making Amtrak less unprofitable. But, fundamentally, it’s hard to see how these routes can compete with air travel when operating a train requires 4-5x more labor hours than a flight crew.
  - eek2121 3y ago
    I think the limited places Amtrak can go are one of the reasons for this. The low prices are CREATING demand, so they can't respond to it. I would love to have Amtrak here, I love riding on trains, I love traveling, and I like long trips (I took a bus across the country...twice back in the day just to enjoy the changing scenery), so I'd definitely use them if they were available. They are looking at ways to extend into my city, but no concrete plans yet. The railroad system in the US should have been bought out by the government a long time ago. We could have spent decades upgrading and expanding routes and things would have been great today. Instead, we are car/plane focused. This leads to huge amounts of pollution compared to what a modern electric train system would produce.

PeterStuer 3y ago

Yep. Because in the EU air did manage to lobby tax breaks and offloading externalities much more than rail. If all costs were internalized air travel would not exist.

nottorp 3y ago

Of course Greenpeace suggests making air travel more expensive, not train travel cheaper :)