French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights • Hacker News Board

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#171

Post by dieortin » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #109

ajross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. In France. In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, 1-2 hour flights are routine and not really replaceable with other options. Infrastructure investment pays off for decades and decades, and Europe has done really well here. > However, if y…

In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, The U.S. has the world's best designed and maintained rail infrastructure. It's simply that, unlike every other country with a national rail network, America's rail system is designed for freight traffic, because now and historically passenger traffic in America has always been such a small po…

> The U.S. has the world’s best designed and maintained rail infrastructure

I don’t think you can really compare the infrastructure freight trains use with high speed rail. Designing and maintaining a rail network where trains go at up to 350kph is a much tougher job.

So, I’d argue the US rail infrastructure isn’t even close to being one of the best.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#172

Post by pyrale » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

xalava wrote: post #78

ajross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. In France. In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, 1-2 hour flights are routine and not really replaceable with other options. Infrastructure investment pays off for decades and decades, and Europe has done really well here. > However, if y…

The US is pretty exceptional in its lack of rails. There is also a Seattle-San Diego. Enjoyable as a tourist, but probably not suited for business purposes except in the last portions. In France some high speed trains go now directly to airports (CDG,LYO). So it is becoming possible to chain a plane and a train in a few scenarios.

> In France some high speed trains go now directly to airports (CDG,LYO).

... The trains departing from there are mostly low-cost trains rather than trains meant to be connecting with flights, and people taking them have to move to CDG instead of a better location.

It seems to be a service aimed at salvaging the infrastructure rather than an actual useful service.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#173

Post by Qub3d » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #46

underdeserver wrote: post #12

I'm not an economist, but wouldn't it have been better to tax the carbon emissions? If you could offset the carbon emissions for 10 EUR, maybe add 12 EUR to the price of a ticket and use that money to buy carbon offsets? That way those who still want it can still fly, and we're at net negative emissions.

Carbon offsets are not a structural solution though. Most offsets right now reduce emissions elsewhere, where it's either cheaper or technologically more feasible. However, eventually we'll run out of those, and offsets will actually need to capture carbon from the atmosphere. Since there's no feasible synthetic carbon sequestration process invented yet, practically that means you have to increase biomass, and ensure…

Well, then carbon offsets raise in price as it becomes more expensive to offset a given quantity of CO2. This makes various schemes relying on purchasing offsets more and more expensive, until they become unfeasible or are spending so much that really radical advanced techniques can be developed or become realistic to implement.

Economics is a powerful tool.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#174

Post by varajelle » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

jeromegv wrote: post #149

varajelle wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it might be better for the environnement to share a full plane than be alone in your car, for equal distances.

Quotation needed. All studies show the impact of flying as being much higher than driving, even when shared.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_avia...

> in 2018, CO2 emissions averaged 88 grams of CO2 per revenue passenger per km.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran...

> In Europe, the European Commission enforced that from 2015 all new cars registered shall not emit more than an average of 0.130 kg of CO2 per kilometre (kg CO2/km). The target is that by 2021 the average emissions for all new cars is 0.095 kg of CO2 per kilometre.

0.088 That said, the 88 grams figure might not be accurate for short flights. But we'd still be in the same order of magnitude as a car

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#175

Post by martinald » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #42

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #4

There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. However, if you're already arriving or leaving on a long distance flight, the whole overhead of getting to/from/through the airport disappears and those 1.5 hours start making a difference. I think forcing companies to advertise more honest flight durations and prices could make a huge difference. If the airline tells you that…

> There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. In France. In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, 1-2 hour flights are routine and not really replaceable with other options. Infrastructure investment pays off for decades and decades, and Europe has done really well here. > However, if y…

Sorry, this is totally not true in Europe either. Yes high speed rail is great for a few routes (I'm a huge supporter of it!). But outside of these key routes flying will always be better.

Europe has absolutely enormous levels of flying. The amount of city pairs in Europe which are a 1-2hr flight and more than 4 hours on trains are very high. Outside of maybe some routes in UK/France/Netherlands/Belgium/(western) Germany basically flying will always be vastly, vastly quicker going between different European countries.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#176

Post by aaron695 » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 10:06 PM UTC

How many people does it kill?

People are not using trains for a reason.

If they drive instead that's far less safe. It should kill a fair few people.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#177

Post by bluefirebrand » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 10:07 PM UTC

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #82

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #4

There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. However, if you're already arriving or leaving on a long distance flight, the whole overhead of getting to/from/through the airport disappears and those 1.5 hours start making a difference. I think forcing companies to advertise more honest flight durations and prices could make a huge difference. If the airline tells you that…

I used to regularly travel from Edmonton to Calgary for work. When you add up the extra time required for flying, it's about a three hour trip (45 minutes in the air, the rest is getting to the airport, checking in, etc). Coincidentally, it's also about a three hour drive. My reasons for driving vs flying were usually to do with how long I'd be there. If I was going for one day then flying was preferable since fallin…

Incidentally I think Calgary and Edmonton would be an ideal pair of cities to have some kind of high speed rail between. Would be a great alternative to air travel.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#178

Post by yakireev » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 10:10 PM UTC

pyrale wrote: post #166

ajross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason to fly short distance if you want to go from city center to city center. In France. In nations like the US (outside the DC-to-Boston corridor anyway) without a well-designed and -maintained rail infastructure, 1-2 hour flights are routine and not really replaceable with other options. Infrastructure investment pays off for decades and decades, and Europe has done really well here. > However, if y…

> That's an infrastructure problem too, though! There's no reason rail service directly to and from airports can't be integrated with the system. It's true in many places already, though I know nothing about France. That's an infrastructure feature. Trains are designed to serve city centers, and they do it well. Moving high speed train infrastructure to airports just for the sake of fliers would kill train experience…

> Trains are designed to serve city centers, and they do it well. Moving high speed train infrastructure to airports just for the sake of fliers would kill train experience for everyone else.

Would it?

If you ever visit Netherlands, take a note on how well Schiphol airport is integrated to the rail network. Its underground railway station, Luchthaven Schiphol, is just yet another station on the Rotterdam - Den Haag - Amsterdam main line, so for many trains (including the high-speed Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam line) the airport is just yet another stop on their route.

It is the best of both worlds.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#179

Post by GuB-42 » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

lovasoa wrote: post #144

publicola1990 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general though flying is much safer than highway driving. If one wanted to minimize risk, one would always fly.

Flying is actually much more dangerous than driving. The risk is to destroy the environment that sustains life on earth. This does not even compare with the risk of a car or plane accident.

If you are alone in your car, flying and driving are in the same ballpark when it comes to emissions.

Trains are much, much lower. Especially considering that in France, most lines are electrified and 70% of production is nuclear.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#180

Post by fredophile » Sun, Apr 11, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #177

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to regularly travel from Edmonton to Calgary for work. When you add up the extra time required for flying, it's about a three hour trip (45 minutes in the air, the rest is getting to the airport, checking in, etc). Coincidentally, it's also about a three hour drive. My reasons for driving vs flying were usually to do with how long I'd be there. If I was going for one day then flying was preferable since fallin…

Incidentally I think Calgary and Edmonton would be an ideal pair of cities to have some kind of high speed rail between. Would be a great alternative to air travel.

I'd agree in terms of distance and traffic between the two cities. However, the long, relatively severe winters would probably add some complications to high speed rail.