Public transportation is the backbone of a functioning economy. It doesn't need to be fully paid by riders precisely because the rest of society benefits from it multiple times over.
NYC "congestion" pricing (actually cordon pricing) is a good idea. Would be great to see more road use fees proportional to use (distance, weight^3, etc.).
From city center to city center by train vs airplane
Rough estimate for a flight:
- 36 min train from Gare de l’Est to Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport
- 90 min arrival before your flight (security, check-in, gate closes before flight leaves, ..)
- 100 min flight time
- 20 min getting out of the airport
- 30 min taxi to Berlin Hbf (assuming no traffic)
I think if you have large bags you can add an extra hour (max) even as check-in will take longer, and you'll have to wait for your bag.
Which makes it 8,5 hours vs 4.6 hours, or 5.6 hours with bags. (I added 30 minutes to the train as you probably need to be there a little early.)
Having done this a couple of times (Amsterdam to Berlin, which is about the same) with both modes of transport. I have to say I prefer the train if I have the time. Much more relaxed way of transportation. You can work the whole way there, and there are ok lunch options on the train.
The majority of the air travel time is spent in the airport, doing "administrative" things.
If air travel could be more streamlined (aka, no need for things like security, check-in, like how a train would be), then trains are absolutely uncompetitive on speed.
The only advantage of a train would be that you could more easily sleep in one - so an overnight trip is less tiring, and you save on cost of an extra night of hotel stay.
I also find all the interruptions while you're on the plane itself tedious. Waiting for all the luggage wrangling, the safety briefing, the welcome from the crew, the message from the captain, the announcement about food or drinks, another message from the captain, various seatbelt-related announcements, something about duty free, and on and on. And they're all in that verbose style, like ChatGPT. Makes using any in-flight entertainment miserable.
It is tedious but it doesn't cause delay. The briefing happens while the airplane is taxying. The message from the captain I'm flight. The food or drinks is a side business (also happening on some trains with wagonlit), same as with the duty free crap.
I agree I'd like more peace but this stuff isn't making it slower.
And there's more to see out of the window, and you can take breaks (leave the train for a couple of hours to explore a city along the way, then continue on the next).
And of course it's much better on CO2 emissions.
But trains need a lot of infrastructure and long delays are frequent.
This is quite common in Blighty; there is no need for another ticket (outside some time restricted fares where the ability to stop is limited). Indeed, it can be nice hopping off at a new city for a mooch around if you have time to do so.
(Only slightly off-topic; We have the phenomenon of 'split tickets', where it can be cheaper to buy two tickets from A --> B --> C rather than one ticket from A --> C even when the train stops at B anyway! You don't even need to get out of the train at B if you don't wish to do so. Our ticketing system is a mess.)
The UK is the odd exception here. But it also doesn't have real high speed trains, except from the one that leaves the country, where hopping off is impossible (unless you want to end up in a dark tunnel under the sea and be arrested afterwards).
Advances are also extremely common in/to/from England and sales are on the up. The government is working hard to replace off peak singles with advances.
Flexible tickets are becoming unaffordable for certain journeys such as those on the ECML with LNER (aka The Government)
Respectfully, I'm incredulous that you think trains need dramatically more infrastructure than aircraft. For that matter, I'd peg aircraft infrastructure as worse - the asphalt, the noise, the culling of all vegetation save scrubgrass, and all spread out over a massive area. At least a commuter train station can be (partially) covered and (IIRC from Germany) multi-layered
Notably, I say noise, and I suspect reasonable people will point out how not-quiet trains can be. I think the only argument I need to make for how much quieter they are than aircraft is pointing out on a map where the (commuter) train yards are (routinely city-center) vs airfields (typically the outskirts, far from where people live)
Aircraft require less infrastructure between points, but when you get there a rail yard doesn't require multi-kilometer runways (plural) and taxiways.
PS - My god, I hadn't realized how pro-train / anti-aircraft I was until I started on; even having previously worked in aviation, suggesting it was a damn good idea to leave. Aircraft may be an incredible feat of human engineering, but like the personal automobile, we as a society have taken it too far and used them in places that could do with fewer of them, IMO.
Well-maintained, electric (obviously) commuter trains aren't that noisy. It's less annoying than a moderately busy road.
In London complaints about noise from stations was more common at some point than from the train itself. ("The train now approaching platform 2 is the midnight forty-five South West Trains service to London Waterloo calling at London Waterloo only. This train is formed of eight carriages. If you see anything suspicious, call the British Transport Police on 1984. See it, say it, suck on it.")
The stations arent the hard part, it's the rails. Cities were built around the train tracks. Say we wanted to double them all for more capacity, that means tearing down a lot of expensive real estate to make room.
Doesn't this kind of argument work the other way around as well?
If we get rid of other considerations, and train travel could be more streamlined (strap a jet engine on a train, no need to gain altitude), then airplanes are absolutely uncompetitive on speed.
This was always the upsetting thing about Eurostar/Eurotunnel between UK and France. In my naive teens I dreamt of how wonderful it would be if we joined Shengen and could literally just hop on the train to Paris. But sadly we went the other way and completely left - and now it’s as bad or worse than any airport.
While the Eurostar pre-boarding times are not great, they are much better that an airport.
I usually arrive 40 minutes before the train starts moving, including large luggage (30 minutes before is the limit at which the ticket gates close).
There is no waiting for you luggage on arrival because you always have it in your hand.
This is also possible because the distance between check-in gates and the train is only around 50 meters in all 3 stops (London, Brussels, Paris). On those 50 meters you have the luggage scanners, passport control, and the waiting hall.
Compare that to kilometers of walking at Heathrow Airport.
that experience still exists flying private. You submit a passport photo the day before for prechecking then get a quick verify at the terminal. Its max 45 minutes from arrival to walking to plane and going. There is no reason we couldnt be doing that for all flights combined with marginally better pilot security. We arent because government has been (n the path of stupid for so long that it cant seem to change
This is usually a misunderstanding of risk. I think the last stats I read were that per 18,000,000 miles of air travel for 200 people, you'd expect 1 extra person to end up with cancer. Over a baseline risk of 25% of people getting cancer, that's negligible.
The night trains are great. It's quite comfortable, you get there in the morning allowing for a full day (after dropping off your bags at the hotel) of work/tourism, and I especially hope Nightjet and other night train companies converts all of their trains to the modern mini cabins[0].
Comfortable and comfortable. It's certainly much better than spending a night on a seat. But most people won't sleep well. It's noisy and either too hot or too cold. The bed is hard, narrow and often too short for tall people.
I have spent many nights on trains in various countries, seats, floor and berth. I will prefer a couchette or sleeper if the price is somewhat reasonable. But I won't live in the expectation to get something comfortable. Just less uncomfortable.
Doesn't work for all of us. I can peacefully fall asleep from the noise of a CFM on an Airbus. On a train, rickety being chucked around all the time and always too hot, nope.
I can do 10h on a plane fine. 3h on a train does me in every time.
Unfortunately more expensive than a plane+hotel and has to be booked well in advance. It's worth the experience, at least for me, but it's not a real alternative.
When you said night train you can sleep on I assumed sleeper cars. But to be fair, I always looked at trains to/from Vienna, maybe that's the exception in prices.
Coach is a sleeper car, you just share the cabin with up to 5 people on bunk beds. Although on newer carriages (which I think is the one that goes to Paris) those are sleeping capsules where you have more privacy.
I took the trip to Vienna in one of the old bunk bed cars for 60€ and it was fine.
I liked the experience of chatting with the fellow passengers in the cabin that you usually don’t have on a normal train ride.
Also, if you don't want to go to the bar in the train, you can totally picnic without having to pay airport level of extortion for drink and food. You can bring your own food on a plane but not drinks and if you are having lunch in the plane but it is just not that comfortable, better doing that in the terminal.
I used to go to Holland and Germany from France back when I was living there and even though at the time it would take longer (slower and less trains) the trip was totally worth it: I even met people who eventually became friends.
Now, when flying from Spain to France (every couple of years), even though the flight is less than two hours, the entire trip is more than four, and much less fun or enjoyable as far as I'm concerned. For the moment, it's just easier to take the plane but that's supposed to change... We'll see.
"I have to say I prefer the train if I have the time. Much more relaxed way of transportation."
Me too, but I worry a bit that it might change. A big part of the inconvenience of flying is the security checks[1].
I only see these ramped up for trains as well. Look at the EuroStar for a glimpse into the future. I am afraid it will only take one bigger attack and we will turn train stations into airports security-wise.
[1] The other big one is airports being far from centres.
That won't happen outside a handful of high-profile routes. Railway stations are far too small for security checks with the passenger volume they are handling.
Terrorist attacks on trains and railway stations are not that rare. The last major one was in November in Pakistan.
The Gotthard tunnel is also in Europe and some kilometers longer than the Channel tunnel. I think that one has security checks and the other not has nothing to do with one being under water and the other under rock. I'd be very surprised if their security measures will not harmonize in the long run.
Fires in the Channel Tunnel could weaken the tunnel and cause it to flood catastrophically. This came closer to happening than the engineers expected with an accident on a train carrying hazardous goods.
The security checks are fairly minor. They are mostly looking for gas canisters and explosives.
Same for Rotterdam - London, the planes don't fly to the city center + the Train is a premium experience (power, wifi, second class seats on train similar to first class on plane, little cafe to walk to and eat drink, arrives in the city center). All in all this make the time similar but the experience by train much better.
