A new report by environmental campaign group Greenpeace says that air travel within Europe is up to 30 times cheaper than traveling by more sustainable trains.
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)
It was certainly a click bait headline. But still a fair point that train fare averages are double airfare. Although we have to question, did Greenpeace throw out the outliers before compiling the stats?
Nah, cheap flight tickets are not an anomaly. Not the norm, perhaps. But at any given time you could easily find plane tickets for less than 50 EUR, which is less than you’ll ever pay for an international train journey.
I mean it really depends on where you want to go and what kind of (how much) luggage you want to carry. A couple of years ago I flew to Stockholm from Berlin. Plane ticket plus luggage price was around 75€ or so. On the way back I took the train. 65€, unlimited luggage (I didn’t need to throw away my cooking gas) and a really nice landscape on the way back, including a ferry ride.
They’re just filling the seats at the last minute. THis has happened forever. Most of those seats would have been much more expensive, thought probably not as much as rail. I’ve never found long-distance rail travel to compete with air, which I suspect is a demand thing. Nobody wants to sit in a train for 12 hours when you can be there in 2 on a plane.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
13 euros for a plane ticket is an anomaly and probably due to governments funding airlines to encourage tourism to their countries.
Governments subsidizing airlines over rail is one of the criticisms levied in the article:
The group has urged governments on the continent to introduce long-term, affordable “climate tickets” for public transport, including cross-border ones. They suggest these should be funded by a “phase-out of airline subsidies and a fair taxation system based on CO2 emissions.”
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)
It was certainly a click bait headline. But still a fair point that train fare averages are double airfare. Although we have to question, did Greenpeace throw out the outliers before compiling the stats?
They definitely didn’t throw out the outliers for cheap airline flights.
€13 is cheap for Ryanair, but it’s not some absurd anomaly. I went from Ireland to Italy for €18, and took a bunch of other flights for <€30.
Nah, cheap flight tickets are not an anomaly. Not the norm, perhaps. But at any given time you could easily find plane tickets for less than 50 EUR, which is less than you’ll ever pay for an international train journey.
I mean it really depends on where you want to go and what kind of (how much) luggage you want to carry. A couple of years ago I flew to Stockholm from Berlin. Plane ticket plus luggage price was around 75€ or so. On the way back I took the train. 65€, unlimited luggage (I didn’t need to throw away my cooking gas) and a really nice landscape on the way back, including a ferry ride.
My point is that the cheapest flights are currently always cheaper than the cheapest train rides - not that plane travel is always less expensive.
They’re just filling the seats at the last minute. THis has happened forever. Most of those seats would have been much more expensive, thought probably not as much as rail. I’ve never found long-distance rail travel to compete with air, which I suspect is a demand thing. Nobody wants to sit in a train for 12 hours when you can be there in 2 on a plane.
Yeah 13€ for a flight is like my current cross Germany train ticket for 15.99€, super rare and not a honest discussion basis.
In my experience price is more between 20-60€ for flights in europe if you want to travel on a specific date and less if you’re free to choose.
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.
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.
A couple of notes;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Governments subsidizing airlines over rail is one of the criticisms levied in the article: