Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 361 posts

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#351

Post by valuearb »

presentation wrote: post #260
valuearb wrote: post #3

Is this also an attempt to shore up the train system finances, and reduce the money it’s hemorrhaging?

The value of transportation isn't ticket sales, but the economic value of the trip made possible as a whole. Just as people drive cars to go from point A to point B, few people ride trains just because they like trains so much - the value lies in the fact that you got to point B. So whether or not train companies run at a loss is largely irrelevant to their societal value.

If it’s ethereal value can only be realized by banning competitors, what is that really worth?

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#352

Post by gamblor956 »

ajross wrote: post #122
gamblor956 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can't put a 100mph high speed train on a freight line, and those freight lines don't cross with other transit arteries nor enter the urban cores where people are. What you say is true, but other than the fact that they are both "trains", it's not the same infrastructure we're discussing.

Speaking as someone who lives near a rail hub (and indeed, one of the busiest transshipment rail hubs in the world) freight rails absolutely do cross other transit arteries, and enter urban cores where the people are. Indeed, in the U.S., most passenger lines actually run on freight lines (including almost all of the Amtrack network excluding a few lines in the Northeast).

100mph is not a "high-speed" train. It's just a train. Freight engines are capable of going up to 80pm with cars, and over 100mph without (but don't for safety and operational reasons). Freight lines are designed for cost efficiency, not speeds, but generally unless your 100mph train is using specialized wheels, it will run just fine on a freight line, though it will need to slow down for turns due to the shortened turn radius on most freight lines.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#353

Post by gamblor956 »

fulafel wrote: post #301
gamblor956 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What kinds of things do you feel make it superior in design to eg central europe?

The U.S. rail system is different from Europe's rail: we chose freight over passengers, so it's difficult to make direct comparisons if (as other HN commenters are) your rubric for superiority is train speed.

But in a nutshell: (a) the US rail system is cheaper. The entire freight rail system costs less than what France pays for its significantly smaller system each year, (b) more throughput. Millions of tons of goods travel by rail every day. It's cheaper, faster, and more ecologically friendly to ship by rail than by air, water, or truck, (c) America's rail system is designed to withstand weather features that would obliterate most of Europe's rail lines, like tornadoes and hurricanes.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#354

Post by dopidopHN »

sofixa wrote: post #341
dopidopHN wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had jobs where I had to visit clients in Uk, France, Germany and Italy. It was often plan kinda last minute. I’m French and was living in Paris at the time. Of course, for all abroad stuff beside london ( Eurostar ), the plane was preferred. But for national travel, only one city was too far to reach with a early morning train ride. All other major cities are reachable by a 2 to 4h train ride ( city center to city…

> The city is question is Toulouse. It’s just take too long from Paris. I Had to fly for this one. Since last year ( or the year before that) via the LGV to Bordeaux, Toulouse is at 4h and ~10minutes from Paris.

Damn. Of course. Kinda game changer.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#355

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bildung wrote: post #291
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly not that people in the US drive worse, it's that people in the US drive more. Similar risk multiplied by more miles leads to more fatalities.

Sadly that isn't the case: The actual fatalities and accidents per billion km driven is higher in the US than many other industrialized countries, so it's not about more km/miles being driven in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

In terms of fatalities per billion km the US is between Belgium and New Zealand. Not really up there with Somalia.

And the ranking there is kind of misleading because the types of countries that collect fatalities per unit distance at all are the ones that tend to do really well on it. We don't have the data for Russia or China but guesstimating based on accidents per 100k vehicles, it's bad.

Whereas e.g. Germany does really well. But fatalities per unit distance for the US isn't even twice the number in Germany, whereas in terms of fatalities per 100k population, the US is 335% of Germany. Consistent with the bulk of the difference being explained in terms of more miles traveled.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#356

Post by ajross »

gamblor956 wrote: post #352
ajross wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't put a 100mph high speed train on a freight line, and those freight lines don't cross with other transit arteries nor enter the urban cores where people are. What you say is true, but other than the fact that they are both "trains", it's not the same infrastructure we're discussing.

Speaking as someone who lives near a rail hub (and indeed, one of the busiest transshipment rail hubs in the world) freight rails absolutely do cross other transit arteries, and enter urban cores where the people are. Indeed, in the U.S., most passenger lines actually run on freight lines (including almost all of the Amtrack network excluding a few lines in the Northeast). 100mph is not a "high-speed" train. It's jus…

How exactly do you propose running high speed transit and freight on the same tracks when one is moving 70+mph faster than the other? You know trains are on rails, right?

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#357

Post by mam2 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #337
s_gourichon wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDG (North of Paris) is on the railway that joins Brussels, Paris, Rennes, Tours, Bordeaux and a number of other major places in France. ORY has a connection with Paris suburban railway network, no direct access to one distance train.

Right. ORY is very close to Massy TGV (2 stops or so on the suburban train) which goes to the west (Rennes) and south (not sur if Bordeaux or Lyon or both).

There are really not many trains in Massy.. i can tell i used the station many times and my parents live in the west.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#358

Post by fomine3 »

crazygringo wrote: post #348
trainsplanes wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? No. I live in Japan and you absolutely do not need to book trains in advance, ever, for any reason. It's a good idea if you're planning to travel during peak hours on the first and last days of a major holiday period, but there is a free seating area that you can ride. The only downside is that you may need to wait a bit on the platform until you're squeezed onto the shinkansen. You're sacrificing some comfort…

> But that problem only occurs 3 weeks out of an entire year. Which is, of course, when you're statistically the most likely to be traveling. And the fact that a ticket is valid the whole day doesn't help much when your flight is delayed overnight or by a day. Some people tend to travel precisely when others are not, and might not run into this problem, seems like that might be your case. Other people travel precisel…

You may expect a situation in Japan to use both flight and shinkansen, but such use is rare for Japanese locals. Flight or Shinkansen + local train (or rent a car) is used in most cases, not both.

For a overseas tourist arriving by flight, anyway it's better to avoid the three weeks. I believe it's on May, August, and end of the year, but former two is Japanese local holidays so you can easily avoid. Then you don't always need reservation shinkansen because free sheets are available (but YMMV).

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#359

Post by nobodyandproud »

stordoff wrote: post #138
nobodyandproud wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had reduced mobility for months, many years ago. Even though I was already aware of just how difficult it would be to get around, living through it gave a shocking amount of perspective. Some of the disability accommodations (disability parking) were pure bullshit. Elevators and ramps were godsends. A large, standing shower without steps and room for a stool were musts. A taste of what’s to come, when I get older.…

I'm not sure what you mean about parking. I have a disability, and personally, parking is the most important adaptation.

My beef with it is that people who don’t need the parking manage to get it.

Meanwhile, I technically didn’t qualify for disability so I still had to move through the hard way once I was able to drive again.

It’s somehow an abused system.

Re: French lawmakers approve a ban on short domestic flights

#360

Post by Symbiote »

closeparen wrote: post #133
Symbiote wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aviation is simply much more efficient. Efficient, how? It uses much more energy, makes more noise and creates more pollution. The speed has very little to do with the funding model. Flights were still faster in the 1970s when many state-owned airlines operated, and trains are little different when private companies run them (see: several European countries).

Tying up capital equipment and personnel for much less time to serve the same journey. Consider San Francisco to Chicago, a route I have done both ways. The flight is 5 hours, the train ride 50 hours. A 737 is more expensive than the California Zephyr trainset, but not by 10x. I'm not sure what noise has to do with efficiency - I doubt that the energy expended on vibrating the air is physically or economically signif…

(Among developed countries I'm familiar with) it's only the USA that has the excessively loud train horns at level crossings, and a lot of crossings. In Europe, lights, bells (or a beeper thing) and automatic barriers are used instead, sometimes with automatic or manual infrared/visible cameras to confirm the crossing is clear of road vehicles.
Post reply on HN