France bans short-haul flights

bold move cotton...then again my sister has been there in Paris for 15 years and travels ALL THE TIME and never uses air...only rail.
 
I remember when this first came out it was only going to effect a super small number of flights. To be fair, I do wish rail was more of a thing in the U.S… I’d love it if they could figure out the whole high speed rail up and down California thing out.
 
JordanD said:
I remember when this first came out it was only going to effect a super small number of flights. To be fair, I do wish rail was more of a thing in the U.S… I’d love it if they could figure out the whole high speed rail up and down California thing out.
Click to expand...

People are not fans of the rails when they block the entrance to their sub-division or blows past their house doing 120-140 MPH.

It would cool if we lived in a smallish, squarish country with most of the cultural, governmental and/or industry located in the middle part, but yea, no.
 
HJB said:
www.bbc.com

France bans short-haul flights to cut carbon emissions

All domestic air routes are stopped where the same journey could be made by train in under 2.5 hours.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
That is very good news. We should all emulate, immediately. Smart regulation seems to be the only way to stop stupid greed. Houston to Dallas by plane! Really?!? WTMonkey, 'Murica?!?

For those of you too young to remember (which of course, we all are, and therefore, by which I really mean, for those of use who do not know our history) the really sad thing is that right here, in 'Murica (or at least some parts of 'Murica) we used to have world class interurban rail. Before greed literally ripped up the tracks. Then again, Drink Brawndo! It's got what plants crave. Live stupid. Then we can all die together with no FOMO.
 
Last edited:
SurferLucas said:
It’s a good thing they never, ever go on strike in France (rail or air)…thus they can put all their oeuf’s in one basket.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not like American, United, and SWA are threatening to do. Or is it ok to threaten, but not actually do? So très américain, those threats!
 
I ended up in the odd situation of flying RIC-IAD-RDU the other day for work, and it was dumb. I had taken the train from RDU to RIC to get there, and it was 4-hours of bliss. Driving would have been only 3-hours.
 
Richman said:
People are not fans of the rails when they block the entrance to their sub-division or blows past their house doing 120-140 MPH.

It would cool if we lived in a smallish, squarish country with most of the cultural, governmental and/or industry located in the middle part, but yea, no.
Click to expand...
Murdoughnut said:
I ended up in the odd situation of flying RIC-IAD-RDU the other day for work, and it was dumb. I had taken the train from RDU to RIC to get there, and it was 4-hours of bliss. Driving would have been only 3-hours.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of places where high speed rail makes all kinds of sense. Houston-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio would be a no-brainer. It’s either a 3.5-4hr drive between most of those (not aus-sat obviously) or you go to the airport 2hrs early, spend 1.25hrs on the plane for a 40min flight, then get through the airport to wherever you’re going.

A train could easily do it in 2.

A few years ago I went from Frankfurt to Aachen (165mi) via train and it averaged about 150, but got up above 190.
 
Yeh, the infrastructure in France makes sense. US/UK not so much though the NE Corridor is good.

Alex.
 
Rails are only as good as the maintenance affords.
As far as I know, there's still only one section north of NY where Acela can break 150, but otherwise the Northeast Regionals are just as fast - and by the time either get above 80mph (that's roughly 130km/h) the Regionals are slowing down for another station stop. Acela's real benefit was all-business, with some first-class services as well, but speed didn't really factor.

I'd agree, though: infrastructures between US and EU just makes sense for them on the rails. Good luck to our French allies across the pond.
 
Burrito said:
Rails are only as good as the maintenance affords.
As far as I know, there's still only one section north of NY where Acela can break 150, but otherwise the Northeast Regionals are just as fast - and by the time either get above 80mph (that's roughly 130km/h) the Regionals are slowing down for another station stop. Acela's real benefit was all-business, with some first-class services as well, but speed didn't really factor.

I'd agree, though: infrastructures between US and EU just makes sense for them on the rails. Good luck to our French allies across the pond.
Click to expand...

My experience is that trains can separate the time vs speed relationship in ways airplanes usually can't. I've told folks before that I prefer a five-hour train ride to a 2-hour flight. For that train ride, I invest 0.5 hours getting to the station and waiting on the train. I'm on a billable hours system at work, so I just need to get my 40-hours wherever and whenever I can. I'll end up with 4.5 hours of billable time working from the train, with 1.0 hours "wasted" typically. 81.8% efficiency.

For that 2-hour flight, I'll spend 1.0 hours in getting to the airport and going through security, and typically work 1.0 hours in the terminal. I'll say I average 0.5 hours being able to work in-flight between broke ass WIFI and having a seat that doesn't have enough pitch for me to see my screen. So 4.0 hours of travel, of which I was able to work 1.5. 37.5% efficiency.

All this to say, most of the time I don't really care how fast the train is going if I'm on it less than 8-hours, since it's all time that's essentially the same as if I were in the office.
 
Trains are good mmmkay. Even if Amtrack's plans to come to fruition it still isn't good enough in my eyes. Need moar & faster.

amtrakexpansionmap.png


Just spent a week riding the rails in Japan and the Shinkansen was super impressive. Not so much the speed which of course was great, but the fact you could get on said high speed train basically every 15 minutes or less. That's bonkers. We could build out an impressive route network here but that would require some serious changes on attitudes about personal transport.
 
The original idea for the CA High Speed Rail was so great, but its just turned into a complete disaster. Theyve spent a just absurd amount of money to build very little rail between Merced and Bakersfield, and that is not what we were sold, which was a High speed rail link from the Bay Area to LA. I think the current estimate is that the project would literally be $100B over budget if completed.

My understanding is that NIMBY's all over the Bay Area and SoCal loved the idea of High Speed Rail, until it was going to be near them. Palmdale was all on board with being on the route, but they could never get any part of Santa Clarita to stop suing to stop the tracks going down the 14, and the whole thing seems to have just died.

I work the ARTCC airspace that does the IRNMN into LAX, you should see the sheer volume of SFO/OAK/SJC/SMF to LAX/BUR/SNA/LGB traffic we have. There are times where almost every airplane I am talking to is a Bay Area-SoCal flight, its crazy. I really think High Speed rail could work, but not how were doing it here.
 
Burrito said:
Rails are only as good as the maintenance affords.
As far as I know, there's still only one section north of NY where Acela can break 150, but otherwise the Northeast Regionals are just as fast - and by the time either get above 80mph (that's roughly 130km/h) the Regionals are slowing down for another station stop. Acela's real benefit was all-business, with some first-class services as well, but speed didn't really factor.

I'd agree, though: infrastructures between US and EU just makes sense for them on the rails. Good luck to our French allies across the pond.
Click to expand...
What sucks in SoCal is pretty much the only somewhat high speed rail connection between San Diego and LA has had huge sections closed for a few months because the coast is eroding away where the tracks are and it isn’t safe. I’d love to take it sometime, I know some friends have taken the train up to Santa Barbara for the weekend, but even that is quite the haul with all the stops.
 
bike21 said:
Trains are good mmmkay. Even if Amtrack's plans to come to fruition it still isn't good enough in my eyes. Need moar & faster.

amtrakexpansionmap.png


Just spent a week riding the rails in Japan and the Shinkansen was super impressive. Not so much the speed which of course was great, but the fact you could get on said high speed train basically every 15 minutes or less. That's bonkers. We could build out an impressive route network here but that would require some serious changes on attitudes about personal transport.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a complicated comparison.
Like turboprops vs jets.
What is more economical over what distances.

As is flying vs train

Making trains economically viable for the USA does not only involve the (high quality) long distance rails, but making it compatible with regional and local infrastructure.
 
As I understand it; domestic French flights under 1 hour are rarely bought by French citizens from Paris anyway as trains get you there faster and much more hassle-free than navigating CDG\ORY. However, these flights attract a lot of connecting traffic. The reality of KLM and Air France trying to appease Green Peace by ending AMS/CDG-BRU and stuff like that is that Lufthansa, Iberia, British Airways etc will just steal the premium US to Nantes or Toulouse or whatever traffic and route the pax thru their own hubs. When I worked CS at SFO, there was rarely 1 local boarding on SFO-SMF per day out of 6-8 flights. But there were always, always people coming in after biz/first-class travel on UA/LH, etc connecting onto those flights. They'd just as soon route via SEA, PDX, LAX etc if that flight was not offered.

I don't agree with this as a good strategy for competing with the other EU legacy hubs. How many long-haul travelers would rather connect at CDG then navigate to a train station and change modes of transport vs hopping on a plane within an hour of clearing customs and going to their destination? Probably very few, the rest will just find another flight routing that avoids the French train option.
 
Last edited:
Amtrak can have high speed service to just about anywhere in the US that they want, they just have to pay for it, either through track usage agreements, or by spending the money to buy land and build a larger track and facility network than they currently own.
They rent usage rights from the rail owners on the majority of their route structure, and plenty of that track is not built for high speed rail. Also, in many cases the rental agreement gives them priority, but only in a certain window of their time schedule, so for it to work they have to be on time AND hope the freight trains don’t experience any delays on the main line.

High speed or even moderate speed rail in the US is a slopery slip… so to speak.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top