460
submitted 1 year ago by pizzaiolo@slrpnk.net to c/europe@feddit.de
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AvoidMyRage@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Booked a flight from Vienna to Tallinn for 16€ 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.

[-] tal@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] randomname01@feddit.nl 11 points 1 year ago

A couple of notes;

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.

Fair, but it’s not like passenger rail is uncompetitive when taking everything into account. Cars are subsidised far more, and both cars and planes have far more negative externalities (i.e. real future costs) than trains. Plus, there’s a very real cost to being dependent on oil states for the bulk of our transportation options, one that has somewhat been demonstrated by the war in Ukraine.

I do agree on your point about high speed rail compared to normal rail, although I do think there is a lot of value in them being top of the line services to make rail as a whole more attractive.

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.

Cars straight up suck and are less efficient than trains. Why you’d think of a car with a caravan but not, idk, private sleeping compartments in trains, is beyond me.

[-] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

All traffic is expensive.

Germany alone subsidises it’s flight sector with billions of € by making kerosene tax free, there’s no VAT on international flights, etc.

The total direct cost of German road traffic to the public are estimated at 70 billion € per year, of which only 25 are being paid by people driving cars.

[-] AvoidMyRage@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] iDunnoBro@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's the unfortunate side. Given the situation it makes way more financial sense for the consumer to take the plane ticket unless they enjoy the novelty of a long train journey.

Also had a situation recently where just a 1.5 hour train trip became 6 hours due to it breaking down in a town with few bus stops and no other trains, probably due to summer tourism. It would be nice if the rail infrastructure were even further expanded and tickets made cheaper to make it more competitive.

this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
460 points (96.7% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS