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

France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

euronews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 149 posts

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#91

Post by [deleted] »

nraynaud wrote: post #15
bsaul wrote: post #5

Bet : How long until this completely absurd measure shows its first detrimental unexpected side effect ? We french are really kings for disturbing markets because of ideology. used to be socialism, now it’s eco-bullshit ( ) ( ) eco bullshit looks just like environmental activism, except it makes 0 environmental impact, is 100% about politics and can destroy economies in less than 10 years.

You know staying the 6th GDP in the world with a smallish population and no natural resources, we’re doing not too bad. There was no natural markets there anyways, the airports are paid for by local taxpayers, only really big airports make money.

[deleted]

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#92

Post by dorfsmay »

quadcore wrote: post #47
dorfsmay wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about trips that don't involve Paris, say Nantes - Marseille?

Just insert Paris in between. Nantes - Paris - Marseille shouldnt be too bad really.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but for reference, a quick google shows 6 hours by train vs 1.5 hours by plane.

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#93

Post by virtualritz »

osigurdson wrote: post #87
cauch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "better"? Planes are faster and more convenient, but they are polluting more, which has long term negative impact. If you want to know what is "better", you need to put everything in the balance. And the weight of each thing will also depend on subjective opinion (is it better to see 5 old people die 5 year earlier than otherwise or see 10% less investment from foreign investors?). Also, this shou…

If you don't think "the market" (aka people) should get to decide then you have probably have some authoritarian leanings. My argument is make the train service better so people want to use it instead of forcing them to do so.

If the market decides the planet/climate goes sideways.

'Better' doesn't make people want to use something if they can save money. The main reason airlines like EasyJet and RyanAir thrive is because they're cheaper, not better.

Traveling by train vs. via one of those planes with minimal legroom and non-relciming seats?

Always better for short haul.

But the prices of trains (or rather: the subsidizing of air travel) make this a non option for many people in Europe. It is literally twice as expensive.

For example, Berlin--Munich. This is a one hour flight. Average price when booking in time is less than $90, I'd say.

By train its over $180. Go figure.

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#94

Post by UncleMeat »

osigurdson wrote: post #87
cauch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "better"? Planes are faster and more convenient, but they are polluting more, which has long term negative impact. If you want to know what is "better", you need to put everything in the balance. And the weight of each thing will also depend on subjective opinion (is it better to see 5 old people die 5 year earlier than otherwise or see 10% less investment from foreign investors?). Also, this shou…

If you don't think "the market" (aka people) should get to decide then you have probably have some authoritarian leanings. My argument is make the train service better so people want to use it instead of forcing them to do so.

I cannot imagine a more authoritarian thing than a market that severely damages the world.

"Presumably if factories that don't employ children were better there should be no need for a law."

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#95

Post by jacooper »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #43
usr1106 wrote: post #28

This seems like making headlines for little real impact. If they did want to do something for the environment and fairer competition between transport modes they should tax aviation fuel and airline tickets. Regardless of distance and destination.

Aviation emissions are 1.9% of global emissions. [0] I certainly don't disagree with a jet fuel tax (which is obscenely tax free in most of the world). However, if we want to be impactful then we need to start building massive storage infrastructure and grow renewable sources so that we can curb down emissions from energy production using coal and gas. Everything else is a drop in a bucket comparatively speaking (eve…

100%, most for the climate rules in the Eu are just for show.

they pick the most miniscule and most visible / inconveniencing regulations so that they look like they care about the environment, while actually doing nothing.

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#96

Post by AustinDev »

osigurdson wrote: post #77
cauch wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws should not be decided just based on what is good for you in particular, but in considering what is the most efficient in average. Sure, you may have an easy access to the airport outside the city centre, but people in the city centre, which constitute a bigger number, have a worst access. And people who are not in the city centre but on the other side also have a worst access to the airport than the city centre.…

Presumably if trains truly were better, there should be no need for a law. Perhaps they should focus their efforts on making trains an obviously superior service.

Seriously. I tried to take a train this summer for my European vacation after landing on my direct flight from the US in lieu of a connection. 12 hours and 3 delayed / canceled trains later we were at our hotel which was a mere 189 miles from where we landed and they were both major cities...

If I would have just hung out in the airport for 4 hours and caught the 50 minute connection it would have been a much more pleasant experience.

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#97

Post by quadcore »

dorfsmay wrote: post #92
quadcore wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just insert Paris in between. Nantes - Paris - Marseille shouldnt be too bad really.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but for reference, a quick google shows 6 hours by train vs 1.5 hours by plane.

Ah unfortunately, you gota change station in Paris which almost doubles the time.

It used to be that you had to be at the airport 2h in advance though.

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#98

Post by cnelsenmilt »

osigurdson wrote: post #87
cauch wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "better"? Planes are faster and more convenient, but they are polluting more, which has long term negative impact. If you want to know what is "better", you need to put everything in the balance. And the weight of each thing will also depend on subjective opinion (is it better to see 5 old people die 5 year earlier than otherwise or see 10% less investment from foreign investors?). Also, this shou…

If you don't think "the market" (aka people) should get to decide then you have probably have some authoritarian leanings. My argument is make the train service better so people want to use it instead of forcing them to do so.

A democratic government (like the one they have in France) is also the people.

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#99

Post by halpmeh »

usr1106 wrote: post #28

This seems like making headlines for little real impact. If they did want to do something for the environment and fairer competition between transport modes they should tax aviation fuel and airline tickets. Regardless of distance and destination.

You could basically say that about any climate initiative. Cheap carbon-based fuels form the entire foundation of our society. Changing that is going to be a long, hard fight. You have to start somewhere.

As a personal anecdote. My family decided to drive instead of fly over Thanksgiving. We saved about 1200 kg of CO2 even though we had to drive 12 hours. Clearly some savings can be made by forcing alternate means of transportation.

Re: France bans short haul domestic flights in favour of train travel

#100

Post by xyzzyz »

BaseballPhysics wrote: post #88
osigurdson wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think "the market" (aka people) should get to decide then you have probably have some authoritarian leanings. My argument is make the train service better so people want to use it instead of forcing them to do so.

Surely you're aware of the market distortions that are a result of negative externalities. Markets aren't perfect and recognizing that governments exist to correct market distortions is hardly authoritarian. In this case France could alternatively levy a hefty tax so that your air travel costs fully reflect the environmental damage it causes. Would that be your preference?

How do you measure the externalities? In particular, how do you measure the environmental damage of air travel? Note that you must do it, as it is absolutely crucial for your entire argument. Otherwise, it might as well turn out that it is rail travel that’s more environmentally damaging, and we should tax it and promote air travel instead.

My suspicion is that you actually have not given any thought to this, have no idea about the actual cost of the externalities, and you don’t really care about that either. Instead, you just want to push your personal preference for trains over planes, while clothing this as if you were just appealing to objective facts and principles.

Post reply on HN