9 ms·

Spain's plan to ban domestic flights where you can take a train in under 2.5 hrs

49 points by raybb 3y ago

palata 3y ago
I really wonder who takes the plane when a train does it in under 2.5 hours... It feels very, very hard to be faster than 2.5 hours with a plane to go pretty much anywhere (including going to the airport, check-in, security check, boarding, flight, and going to the city from the destination airport). So yeah, 2.5 hours seems ridiculous. 4h made much more sense, because many people consider that a 4h journey in the train is "very long" and won't do it. Spoiler: it is actually really fine, and it would have been good to force people to realize it.
- novia 3y ago
  It is often cheaper in the US to fly than to take the train. If it is the same in Spain, it might have been price conscious consumers.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    It’s not like the US passenger trains have the capacity to absorb those fliers though. I’m guessing Spain is the same…
    - vidarh 3y ago
      > I’m guessing Spain is the same… Spain has massively expanded a high-speed rail network in recent years, and now has the largest high-speed rail network in Europe, and second longest in the world after China. A lot of that has been built separately to the pre-existing rail network, and so has added a lot of additional capacity.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    The US often has cities spaced too far apart to make trains effective. The one exception is the Northeast corridor, which consequently does have a passenger rail line.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      Very few rail corridors in the US are so sparsely populated that they can't be as cost-effective as in Europe, with the caveat that this doesn't mean cheap - a whole lot of European routes are heavily subsidised. E.g. even the old closed Amtrak corridor through Southern Montana would today serve more people than some perfectly viable routes in Norway, over a similar stretch (and there is work underway to try to resurrect it). But flights are often cheaper in Europe too despite subsidies for rail. Outside of the busiest corridors trains works best in those places where it's competing with cars or buses, not planes.
      - theluketaylor 3y ago
        > But flights are often cheaper in Europe too despite subsidies for rail That's because intra-EU flights are also highly subsidized, especially around taxes for fuel. Decades ago the EU punted on the complex topic of charging taxes on avgas and that is a key contributor to the existence of cheap airlines like ryanair.
        redeeman 3y ago
        > That's because intra-EU flights are also highly subsidized, especially around taxes for fuel. okay, so by not taking money from them, we are... giving them money?
        novia 3y ago
        Why not just remove the subsidies for domestic flights that are 2.5 hours away by train instead of banning them?
        acdha 3y ago
        It’s not fast enough any more. The fossil fuel companies were successful at preventing action for decades and in the intervening half century multiple generations of people have grown accustomed to cheap air travel. Making it more expensive will gradually reduce usage but that’s a slow process and there are a number of companies which didn’t even exist back when the science denial campaign started who would be trying their hardest to slow it down.
  - beretguy 3y ago
    I’m from US. I didn’t know we have passenger trains.
    - mandeepj 3y ago
      > I didn’t know we have passenger trains. Amtrak
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    And much faster. It takes almost a full day to take amtrak from the west coast to denver. Not much has changed since the transcontinental railroad opened I guess.
- raybb 3y ago
  Barcelona to Madrid flights are around 10-20 euros and 1.5 hours (in the air). The train is 20-100ish euros and takes about 2.5 hours. Though many trains are a hair over 2.5 hours so maybe that's exempt from this plan. Wonder what leads to trains costing more than flights like that.
  - beretguy 3y ago
    That pricing feels backwards.
    - chgs 3y ago
      Airlines don’t pay their externalities
    - bsder 3y ago
      It may feel backwards, but it is real. While we never saw the 20 Euro airplane fares, for some reason the train fares were almost always more 20-50 Euros more expensive than the plane fares given the same lead times. It was quite irritating.
  - verzali 3y ago
    Speaking from experience, the 10-20 euro fares are not always available on flights. But then again, cheap fares are not always available on the trains either, especially at the times most people want to travel (Friday or Sunday evenings, etc). Also flying takes longer because the airports are not as central as the train stations, and you need to go through more luggage checks, board with more time to spare etc. I think competition has helped drive down flight prices, and since they opened the Madrid-Barcelona high speed line to competition prices have dropped a lot for the train as well. If you compare Madrid-Barcelona to Madrid-Sevilla for example, the price difference is really high and much more than the distance would imply.
  - georgeplusplus 3y ago
    Train systems are basically governement monopolies and thus run super inefficiently.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Keep in mind they're not leaving from or going to the same places - usually. Depending on where you live/travel relative to the aiport vs. train station the numbers can come out very differently. E.g. I live in London - a train or plane* going from the "wrong" station/airport both adds about 1h15m in travel compared to a train or plane going from the nearest station or airport, and that difference could be substantially bigger if I lived a little bit further south. Do that both ends, and suddenly that plane starts looking more attractive to a lot of people. I'd personally still tend to prefer the train in a lot of circumstances even when it's not the fastest option, because I do agree it's fine.
  - palata 3y ago
    > I'd personally still tend to prefer the train in a lot of circumstances even when it's not the fastest option, because I do agree it's fine. I now have gotten used to spend 10 hours on a train trip. I can work most of the time, so it's basically a work day. More than 10 hours starts to be a lot, though.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Private jet users routinely shuttle their planes a few dozen miles to more personally convenient airports in the area. The celebrity plane tracker accounts have put a lot of focus on this sort of usage.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Transfers... You're already in the airport, getting to the railway station will take time.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Many airports in Europe already have high-speed connections and reasonably short walking times to the gate, but the real issue is liability for missed connections: In Germany, Lufthansa and German railways have had a cooperation called "Rail & Fly" for many years now, and they even assign IATA "flight" numbers to some trains and (I believe) allow checking baggage through in some instances. But last time I used it, the ticketing conditions said that it was my responsibility to take an early-enough train and allow for three hours of buffer, or I'd risk having to pay for a lost connection out of pocket. That's compared to connections of as little as 45 minutes when changing planes in the same terminal. Airlines are incentivized to make that connection if at all possible, since they have to pay a compensation for any delays of more than three hours in the EU, including delays for missed connections.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      I mostly fly from Vienna, Prague and Budapest and none of them have fast rail connection. I think this is a hard problem, since the rail lines naturally converge in the city, at the airport you'll get one rail line at best and quite likely need to change in the city again.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Vienna airport is definitely serviced by Railjet trains (Austrian railways' high-speed product) stopping directly at the airport railway station. The same is true for Frankfurt am Main (one of the largest airports in Europe, serviced by ICE trains from all over Germany). The point here is to replace a shuttle flight from a hub to a satellite airport of an airline/alliance, and for that to make sense, there needs to be both high-speed rail infrastructure from a given city to such a hub airport, and a train station at the hub airport.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >I really wonder who takes the plane when a train does it in under 2.5 hours... People who know the plane is cheaper. Didn't use to be, but the cut-throat budget airlines and the greed and privitization of train networks made it so.
  - awesomeMilou 3y ago
    > People who know the plane is cheaper. And almost always on time. And won't get cancelled as often... People like flying because unlike railways services, it's a method of transport you can actually rely on.
    - noahtallen 3y ago
      Spanish high speed rail is incredibly reliable and normally on time. Not really a concern.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      I don't know how it in Spain (but I heard their rail system is good), but in my country it's the opposite. Trains sometimes have small-ish delays of 5-60 minutes, but longer delays are rare and there are usually other trains running the same route, so you can easily switch (for free if it's the same company). I've never experienced a cancelled train. With airplane, you often get these small delays as well, but there's also the risk of a very long delay. I had the pleasure of waiting 12 hours for a (connecting) 50 minute flight.
    - cafard 3y ago
      There have been summers in the US when "almost always on time" was a real stretch.
      - awesomeMilou 3y ago
        To clarify, I was talking specifically about domestic flights within EU countries. Here in Germany you're often paying about double for a train ticket, even if you book early.
  - 3y ago
- snicky 3y ago
  > It feels very, very hard to be faster than 2.5 hours with a plane to go pretty much anywhere Unless you are already at the airport, transferring.
- danielfoster 3y ago
  A bus is a reasonable alternative to a 2.5-hour train ride, but would be too long to really compete with a 4-hour train ride. If the law were extended to 4 hours, then trains would have a monopoly on these journeys and consumers would suffer.
  - palata 3y ago
    > then trains would have a monopoly on these journeys and consumers would suffer. Trains should be public, that's all.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  I don’t think that in Germany or Italy that’s even possible. Either travel times are longer, or you just don’t have any airport option. Spain is big though, and has a lot of smaller airports. Wonder how many flights this would affect, and what the actual potential impact in CO2 reduction is.
Tiktaalik 3y ago
Boy wouldn’t it be nice to take a train literally anywhere in my Province? We’re so far behind on infrastructure investment. The budget was announced the other week and no funding for any sort of inter city transportation to be found.
xhkkffbf 3y ago
Most of the energy cost is pushing the air out of the way. This is just as true for a train as a plane. I suppose the plane also has to spend some energy as lift, but my impression is that this sort of comes along as part of the cost of pushing the air out of the way. Has anyone done this calculation?
- silverquiet 3y ago
  My very basic understanding of the physics of air resistance is that it increases at the square of speed, so a plane that's going at 500 miles/hour must use massively more energy than a trane traveling at 100 miles/hour.
  - dividefuel 3y ago
    The air is thinner at cruising altitude, though of course thicker at takeoff altitude. I'm sure longer flights are much more efficient than shorter, but whether they ever overtake trains I'm not sure.
    - alwayslikethis 3y ago
      Fun fact once flights go above a certain length they get less efficient because all that fuel they are carrying actually requires more fuel to move, which in turn needs to be carried. I don't think it's the energy efficiency that's the issue here. Even if trains are less energy efficient, they can much more easily be powered off renewable sources.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I mean sticking with the assumption it takes the same amount of energy you still need to show that a jet engine is as or more efficient as a train engine. Which it seems to not be [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#US_Passenger_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...
  - dividefuel 3y ago
RecycledEle 3y ago
Given the number of people with private jets who want to ban my 24-year-old pickup truck, I support banning all civilian air travel until they can prove that their aircraft meet every safety and environmental standard my 24-year-old pickup has had to meet in its existence.
- gryn 3y ago
  those private jets are usually exempt from these kind of ban.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Not usually. Always.
alphadelphi 3y ago
This sounds like a very smart idea in a climate emergency era.
- palata 3y ago
  I would even say it is necessary. And we need to do much more than that. With the end of fossil fuels, aviation will look completely different. We need to start (re)building train infrastructure yesterday.
georgeplusplus 3y ago
Why? comes to mind. Why limit the options of consumers. This comes off as some sort of protectionism that will lead to a worse service for the end user and a worse product due to lack of competition. You can solve this problem without resorting to archaic overreach. Make the customer experience better for those taking 2.5 hour train rides. This should be the ideal case to take a train and if people still prefer to fly something is seriously wrong with your product.
- almatabata 3y ago
  It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. Some people might still prefer the plane but they will probably be the minority. With shrinking usage prices will go up to compensate and eventually airlines will reduce the amount of flights naturally.
  - palata 3y ago
    > It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. I believe it is slightly different. You assume that "superior" means "when given the choice, more people will choose it". But what if you say "superior" means that it uses less fossil energy? Then surely the train is superior, but people tend to choose the inferior solution because they find it more convenient. We need the ban to make sure that the superior solution is the one that gets used. And you could say "it's not fair if individuals are forced to do something they wouldn't do otherwise". But again it is relative. I find it unfair that I have to pay more and spend more time in the train because I care about the energy/climate crisis while my neighbours don't give a shit. Many people take the plane right now because everybody does, but are favourable to regulations: "I am find not taking the plane if I know that everyone else has the same constraint, but if everybody takes the plane, I don't see why I should not".
    - almatabata 3y ago
      I realize I should have specified that in this specific scenario if the train works reliably it will be quicker and more convenient than the plane for short distances. For the train: * I do not need to come at least 1 hour early to check-in * I do not have a limitation on the weight I can carry * I do not have any limitations on the things I can put in my bags * I have internet access the whole time If I give someone the choice between the plane and the train, same ticket price, same travel time, people will pick the train most of the time. Of course in some cases you have to ban stuff when convenient solution causes more damage. I would prefer though if they kept bans to when they have no other option. In this case they could just make a superior service and they would achieve a better result.
redeeman 3y ago
and of course also private jet trips of the same nature? oh...
- redeeman 3y ago
  i like how i get downvoted for pointing out that private jets are somehow all fine and dandy :)

49 points by raybb 3y ago

I really wonder who takes the plane when a train does it in under 2.5 hours... It feels very, very hard to be faster than 2.5 hours with a plane to go pretty much anywhere (including going to the airport, check-in, security check, boarding, flight, and going to the city from the destination airport). So yeah, 2.5 hours seems ridiculous. 4h made much more sense, because many people consider that a 4h journey in the train is "very long" and won't do it. Spoiler: it is actually really fine, and it would have been good to force people to realize it.

novia 3y ago
It is often cheaper in the US to fly than to take the train. If it is the same in Spain, it might have been price conscious consumers.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  It’s not like the US passenger trains have the capacity to absorb those fliers though. I’m guessing Spain is the same…
  - vidarh 3y ago
    > I’m guessing Spain is the same… Spain has massively expanded a high-speed rail network in recent years, and now has the largest high-speed rail network in Europe, and second longest in the world after China. A lot of that has been built separately to the pre-existing rail network, and so has added a lot of additional capacity.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  The US often has cities spaced too far apart to make trains effective. The one exception is the Northeast corridor, which consequently does have a passenger rail line.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Very few rail corridors in the US are so sparsely populated that they can't be as cost-effective as in Europe, with the caveat that this doesn't mean cheap - a whole lot of European routes are heavily subsidised. E.g. even the old closed Amtrak corridor through Southern Montana would today serve more people than some perfectly viable routes in Norway, over a similar stretch (and there is work underway to try to resurrect it). But flights are often cheaper in Europe too despite subsidies for rail. Outside of the busiest corridors trains works best in those places where it's competing with cars or buses, not planes.
    - theluketaylor 3y ago
      > But flights are often cheaper in Europe too despite subsidies for rail That's because intra-EU flights are also highly subsidized, especially around taxes for fuel. Decades ago the EU punted on the complex topic of charging taxes on avgas and that is a key contributor to the existence of cheap airlines like ryanair.
      - redeeman 3y ago
        > That's because intra-EU flights are also highly subsidized, especially around taxes for fuel. okay, so by not taking money from them, we are... giving them money?
      - novia 3y ago
        Why not just remove the subsidies for domestic flights that are 2.5 hours away by train instead of banning them?
        acdha 3y ago
        It’s not fast enough any more. The fossil fuel companies were successful at preventing action for decades and in the intervening half century multiple generations of people have grown accustomed to cheap air travel. Making it more expensive will gradually reduce usage but that’s a slow process and there are a number of companies which didn’t even exist back when the science denial campaign started who would be trying their hardest to slow it down.
- beretguy 3y ago
  I’m from US. I didn’t know we have passenger trains.
  - mandeepj 3y ago
    > I didn’t know we have passenger trains. Amtrak
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  And much faster. It takes almost a full day to take amtrak from the west coast to denver. Not much has changed since the transcontinental railroad opened I guess.
raybb 3y ago
Barcelona to Madrid flights are around 10-20 euros and 1.5 hours (in the air). The train is 20-100ish euros and takes about 2.5 hours. Though many trains are a hair over 2.5 hours so maybe that's exempt from this plan. Wonder what leads to trains costing more than flights like that.
- beretguy 3y ago
  That pricing feels backwards.
  - chgs 3y ago
    Airlines don’t pay their externalities
  - bsder 3y ago
    It may feel backwards, but it is real. While we never saw the 20 Euro airplane fares, for some reason the train fares were almost always more 20-50 Euros more expensive than the plane fares given the same lead times. It was quite irritating.
- verzali 3y ago
  Speaking from experience, the 10-20 euro fares are not always available on flights. But then again, cheap fares are not always available on the trains either, especially at the times most people want to travel (Friday or Sunday evenings, etc). Also flying takes longer because the airports are not as central as the train stations, and you need to go through more luggage checks, board with more time to spare etc. I think competition has helped drive down flight prices, and since they opened the Madrid-Barcelona high speed line to competition prices have dropped a lot for the train as well. If you compare Madrid-Barcelona to Madrid-Sevilla for example, the price difference is really high and much more than the distance would imply.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  Train systems are basically governement monopolies and thus run super inefficiently.
vidarh 3y ago
Keep in mind they're not leaving from or going to the same places - usually. Depending on where you live/travel relative to the aiport vs. train station the numbers can come out very differently. E.g. I live in London - a train or plane* going from the "wrong" station/airport both adds about 1h15m in travel compared to a train or plane going from the nearest station or airport, and that difference could be substantially bigger if I lived a little bit further south. Do that both ends, and suddenly that plane starts looking more attractive to a lot of people. I'd personally still tend to prefer the train in a lot of circumstances even when it's not the fastest option, because I do agree it's fine.
- palata 3y ago
  > I'd personally still tend to prefer the train in a lot of circumstances even when it's not the fastest option, because I do agree it's fine. I now have gotten used to spend 10 hours on a train trip. I can work most of the time, so it's basically a work day. More than 10 hours starts to be a lot, though.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Private jet users routinely shuttle their planes a few dozen miles to more personally convenient airports in the area. The celebrity plane tracker accounts have put a lot of focus on this sort of usage.
The_Colonel 3y ago
Transfers... You're already in the airport, getting to the railway station will take time.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Many airports in Europe already have high-speed connections and reasonably short walking times to the gate, but the real issue is liability for missed connections: In Germany, Lufthansa and German railways have had a cooperation called "Rail & Fly" for many years now, and they even assign IATA "flight" numbers to some trains and (I believe) allow checking baggage through in some instances. But last time I used it, the ticketing conditions said that it was my responsibility to take an early-enough train and allow for three hours of buffer, or I'd risk having to pay for a lost connection out of pocket. That's compared to connections of as little as 45 minutes when changing planes in the same terminal. Airlines are incentivized to make that connection if at all possible, since they have to pay a compensation for any delays of more than three hours in the EU, including delays for missed connections.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    I mostly fly from Vienna, Prague and Budapest and none of them have fast rail connection. I think this is a hard problem, since the rail lines naturally converge in the city, at the airport you'll get one rail line at best and quite likely need to change in the city again.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Vienna airport is definitely serviced by Railjet trains (Austrian railways' high-speed product) stopping directly at the airport railway station. The same is true for Frankfurt am Main (one of the largest airports in Europe, serviced by ICE trains from all over Germany). The point here is to replace a shuttle flight from a hub to a satellite airport of an airline/alliance, and for that to make sense, there needs to be both high-speed rail infrastructure from a given city to such a hub airport, and a train station at the hub airport.
coldtea 3y ago
>I really wonder who takes the plane when a train does it in under 2.5 hours... People who know the plane is cheaper. Didn't use to be, but the cut-throat budget airlines and the greed and privitization of train networks made it so.
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  > People who know the plane is cheaper. And almost always on time. And won't get cancelled as often... People like flying because unlike railways services, it's a method of transport you can actually rely on.
  - noahtallen 3y ago
    Spanish high speed rail is incredibly reliable and normally on time. Not really a concern.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    I don't know how it in Spain (but I heard their rail system is good), but in my country it's the opposite. Trains sometimes have small-ish delays of 5-60 minutes, but longer delays are rare and there are usually other trains running the same route, so you can easily switch (for free if it's the same company). I've never experienced a cancelled train. With airplane, you often get these small delays as well, but there's also the risk of a very long delay. I had the pleasure of waiting 12 hours for a (connecting) 50 minute flight.
  - cafard 3y ago
    There have been summers in the US when "almost always on time" was a real stretch.
    - awesomeMilou 3y ago
      To clarify, I was talking specifically about domestic flights within EU countries. Here in Germany you're often paying about double for a train ticket, even if you book early.
- 3y ago
snicky 3y ago
> It feels very, very hard to be faster than 2.5 hours with a plane to go pretty much anywhere Unless you are already at the airport, transferring.
danielfoster 3y ago
A bus is a reasonable alternative to a 2.5-hour train ride, but would be too long to really compete with a 4-hour train ride. If the law were extended to 4 hours, then trains would have a monopoly on these journeys and consumers would suffer.
- palata 3y ago
  > then trains would have a monopoly on these journeys and consumers would suffer. Trains should be public, that's all.
camillomiller 3y ago
I don’t think that in Germany or Italy that’s even possible. Either travel times are longer, or you just don’t have any airport option. Spain is big though, and has a lot of smaller airports. Wonder how many flights this would affect, and what the actual potential impact in CO2 reduction is.

Tiktaalik 3y ago

Boy wouldn’t it be nice to take a train literally anywhere in my Province? We’re so far behind on infrastructure investment. The budget was announced the other week and no funding for any sort of inter city transportation to be found.

xhkkffbf 3y ago

Most of the energy cost is pushing the air out of the way. This is just as true for a train as a plane. I suppose the plane also has to spend some energy as lift, but my impression is that this sort of comes along as part of the cost of pushing the air out of the way. Has anyone done this calculation?

silverquiet 3y ago
My very basic understanding of the physics of air resistance is that it increases at the square of speed, so a plane that's going at 500 miles/hour must use massively more energy than a trane traveling at 100 miles/hour.
- dividefuel 3y ago
  The air is thinner at cruising altitude, though of course thicker at takeoff altitude. I'm sure longer flights are much more efficient than shorter, but whether they ever overtake trains I'm not sure.
  - alwayslikethis 3y ago
    Fun fact once flights go above a certain length they get less efficient because all that fuel they are carrying actually requires more fuel to move, which in turn needs to be carried. I don't think it's the energy efficiency that's the issue here. Even if trains are less energy efficient, they can much more easily be powered off renewable sources.
lesuorac 3y ago
I mean sticking with the assumption it takes the same amount of energy you still need to show that a jet engine is as or more efficient as a train engine. Which it seems to not be [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#US_Passenger_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport...
- dividefuel 3y ago

RecycledEle 3y ago

Given the number of people with private jets who want to ban my 24-year-old pickup truck, I support banning all civilian air travel until they can prove that their aircraft meet every safety and environmental standard my 24-year-old pickup has had to meet in its existence.

gryn 3y ago
those private jets are usually exempt from these kind of ban.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Not usually. Always.

alphadelphi 3y ago

This sounds like a very smart idea in a climate emergency era.

palata 3y ago
I would even say it is necessary. And we need to do much more than that. With the end of fossil fuels, aviation will look completely different. We need to start (re)building train infrastructure yesterday.

georgeplusplus 3y ago

Why? comes to mind. Why limit the options of consumers. This comes off as some sort of protectionism that will lead to a worse service for the end user and a worse product due to lack of competition. You can solve this problem without resorting to archaic overreach. Make the customer experience better for those taking 2.5 hour train rides. This should be the ideal case to take a train and if people still prefer to fly something is seriously wrong with your product.

almatabata 3y ago
It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. Some people might still prefer the plane but they will probably be the minority. With shrinking usage prices will go up to compensate and eventually airlines will reduce the amount of flights naturally.
- palata 3y ago
  > It does seem like a tacit admission that they cannot create a superior system and they fall back to the ban to enforce it instead. I believe it is slightly different. You assume that "superior" means "when given the choice, more people will choose it". But what if you say "superior" means that it uses less fossil energy? Then surely the train is superior, but people tend to choose the inferior solution because they find it more convenient. We need the ban to make sure that the superior solution is the one that gets used. And you could say "it's not fair if individuals are forced to do something they wouldn't do otherwise". But again it is relative. I find it unfair that I have to pay more and spend more time in the train because I care about the energy/climate crisis while my neighbours don't give a shit. Many people take the plane right now because everybody does, but are favourable to regulations: "I am find not taking the plane if I know that everyone else has the same constraint, but if everybody takes the plane, I don't see why I should not".
  - almatabata 3y ago
    I realize I should have specified that in this specific scenario if the train works reliably it will be quicker and more convenient than the plane for short distances. For the train: * I do not need to come at least 1 hour early to check-in * I do not have a limitation on the weight I can carry * I do not have any limitations on the things I can put in my bags * I have internet access the whole time If I give someone the choice between the plane and the train, same ticket price, same travel time, people will pick the train most of the time. Of course in some cases you have to ban stuff when convenient solution causes more damage. I would prefer though if they kept bans to when they have no other option. In this case they could just make a superior service and they would achieve a better result.

redeeman 3y ago

and of course also private jet trips of the same nature? oh...

redeeman 3y ago
i like how i get downvoted for pointing out that private jets are somehow all fine and dandy :)