461
Train fares are up to 30 times more expensive than planes in Europe
(edition.cnn.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
461 points (96.8% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
3 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Don't wanna be that guy but this article is a tad bit misleading. 13 euros for a plane ticket is an anomaly and probably due to governments funding airlines to encourage tourism to their countries.
That said, a couple hours on a rickety Ryanair for <13 euros beats buying a bunch of train tickets and the stress involved. Downside is missing out on getting to stop in some cool places and see some pretty sights with comfy leg room. (Also trains are more efficient due to the amount of people boarding)
Booked a flight from Vienna to Tallinn for 16โฌ quite literally 5 minutes ago.
I think the discussion is just misdirected: There are distances, even within Europe, that are so large a train won't do it, no matter how cheap it is. Most people will not sit in a train for 10 hours when they can fly for 1 1/2. It turns out, going 800 km/h in a straight line is just more convenient. Who knew.
Now, do I think trains should be cheaper? Yes, most fares do not reflect at all the level of service you receive.
Do I think inter-european rail connections will ever catch on? lolno, bar the few train aficionados.
There are really only two options: Either we all stay within a radius in our lives that resembles that of let's say the 1960's - or we fly.
I'm not very bullish on long-term potential for passenger train travel, but I don't know if I'd reduce it to "flight or 1960s travel radius" either. A few points:
High speed rail doesn't push the radius out as far as air travel does, but it does extend it. The biggest issue for HSR, I think, is not passenger time, but cost -- if passenger train travel is already uncompetitive on price, faster train infrastructure is considerably more expensive relative to that. I am not sure whether that cost is fundamental or not -- maybe it's possible to find ways to build HSR infrastructure more-cheaply.
Self-driving vehicles. Some of the objections I've seen to use of sleeper trains -- one way to mitigate the issues of trains being slower than planes is by having travel happen when asleep -- is people who dislike having shared sleeping environments. Maybe it's possible to do, oh, a self-driving car with a sleeper trailer or something like that.
Well, 1960s had cars and people were using these for long distance travel due to the lack of other options. My dad, for example, drove his shitty car from Berlin to the south of Spain and back.
I think the issue may be split in two - for some, the younger and poorer, cost is the limiting factor - they are willing to put up with longer travel times but cannot stem the additional financial burden. For older and more settled people (which I am transitioning to slowly) and my parents are in, comfort trumps price at all times. They will take the fastest, most direct route. They would fly even if it cost 2-3x more (which, for them, it does since they will take the premium airlines over budget).
Going back to individual vehicles is, in my opinion, not a great solution. I am hopeful that we will find ways to have short distance air travel use more green options (electrical?) in the near-to-mid future, therefore eliminating the need to curb the undoubtably huge demand.