France proposes ban on short domestic flights

[Carrots]

90 mins for flight (being at aiport 30 mins before flight) vs 3 hours for bus (where you also have to be there 15-20 mins before departure but with a lounge).

You mean a lounge on the bus right?

 

[Spacetravel]

I'd actually support a compulsory carbon offset instead of voluntary on all flights in AU.

Same.

My only slight concern is reward seats, while I pay for it now on reward seats it's still my choice. I bet airlines would use it as an excuse to up the carrier surcharge for reward seats.

 

[Must...Fly!]

I am surprised at the amount of comments in support of this, at least in theory "If the train network was a viable alternative etc etc" on a FF forum. While I don't agree on this either, a better way would be to ban status runs, i'm sure status run aff'ers contribute a fair amount of emissions with "unnecessary business class flights". Personally I don't view the way to achieve things is through banning/ restrictions. Usually there is an economic solution to solve a problem. Without trying to get too political here, generally banning things outright have other consequences.

What I would be in favour of is subsidies or other things to encourage the development of highspeed rail along the east cost of aus. Help the rail to become so good people don't WANT to fly anymore and the market will decide. Like this comment:

Europe is in a unique position. They already have the expansive rail network and it is already heavily subsidised by the government through various means. They are now also back to effectively subsidising the airlines against the railways.

They have no infrastructure development to support but they are effectively encouraging the use of rail and efficient use of resources they are paying for.

If you want to look at it a different way, they are minimising the carbon footprint as well by reducing flying on routes that are already well served by other means.

As for the rails - well, it is far from carbon neutral. And for that matter, I would be personally cautious about encouraging the Australian government to invest in high speed passenger rail along the entirety of the east coast. My honest belief is that even Canberra to Sydney for high speed would be very difficult. We have a lot of wildlife that can cause a lot of destruction if it gets in to the corridor. I.E. proper fencing, likely 6ft+ steel to remove kangaroos and theft from the equation, required for the entire length. The cost of that alone would be simply astronomical.

I'd actually support a compulsory carbon offset instead of voluntary on all flights in AU.

No thanks.

 

[Vic]

Vic - don’t you mean ‘had’ the money?...

oh please. This type of thinking is precisely the problem. All this nonsense about not having the money.
Small minded thinking by small minded politicians. No vision, no gumption, time servers and rent seekers. a waste generation in politics

 

[Vic]

I'm slightly bemused by the conversation about rail sydney to canberra being judge by the current infrastructure. I don't belief any one has suggested the current 3 trains a day is acceptable.

Europe is in a unique position. They already have the expansive rail network and it is already heavily subsidised by the government through various means. They are now also back to effectively subsidising the airlines against the railways.

They have no infrastructure development to support but they are effectively encouraging the use of rail and efficient use of resources they are paying for.

If you want to look at it a different way, they are minimising the carbon footprint as well by reducing flying on routes that are already well served by other means.

As for the rails - well, it is far from carbon neutral. And for that matter, I would be personally cautious about encouraging the Australian government to invest in high speed passenger rail along the entirety of the east coast. My honest belief is that even Canberra to Sydney for high speed would be very difficult. We have a lot of wildlife that can cause a lot of destruction if it gets in to the corridor. I.E. proper fencing, likely 6ft+ steel to remove kangaroos and theft from the equation, required for the entire length. The cost of that alone would be simply astronomical.


No thanks.

Or build a raised track network. There is plenty of economic value to Australia in making this type of investment. Expensive? yes. But an investment in the future. Europe has their network, because they made a decision to invest.
No one has claimed rail is carbon neutral... However, train has significantly lower carbon emission. As much as 90% lower. CO2 emissions: Train versus plane

I am surprised at the amount of comments in support of this, at least in theory "If the train network was a viable alternative etc etc" on a FF forum. While I don't agree on this either, a better way would be to ban status runs, i'm sure status run aff'ers contribute a fair amount of emissions with "unnecessary business class flights".

Although I'd expect status runs to be about finding cheap seats, which means low demand.

Otherwise, yes exactly, provide an attractive alternative. destroy the paradigm that 85% of the population what to live in an urban jungle within 100 km of 1 of 3 CBDs.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Or build a raised track network. There is plenty of economic value to Australia in making this type of investment. Expensive? yes. But an investment in the future. Europe has their network, because they made a decision to invest.
No one has claimed rail is carbon neutral... However, train has significantly lower carbon emission. As much as 90% lower. CO2 emissions: Train versus plane

Raised track would be even more astronomically expensive. And the rail has to go to ground level at some point, where you would need adequate fencing. And if something got stuck on an elevated section - you'd have the line closed for hours, possibly more. Ever tried to catch a kangaroo?

However it is a given that lots of tunnels, or overpasses would need to be built. The environmentalists will not allow a fully fenced continuous rail corridor - how would the wildlife get from one side of the corridor to the other? Farmers would probably be similarly aggrieved if there are any along the route.

Also, I never acknowledged that anyone claimed rail was carbon neutral. But the problem with these comparisons are that they fail to take in to account any emissions or environmental impact associated with maintenance or construction.

 

[Vic]

Raised track would be even more astronomically expensive. And the rail has to go to ground level at some point, where you would need adequate fencing. And if something got stuck on an elevated section - you'd have the line closed for hours, possibly more. Ever tried to catch a kangaroo?

However it is a given that lots of tunnels, or overpasses would need to be built. The environmentalists will not allow a fully fenced continuous rail corridor - how would the wildlife get from one side of the corridor to the other? Farmers would probably be similarly aggrieved if there are any along the route.

Also, I never acknowledged that anyone claimed rail was carbon neutral. But the problem with these comparisons are that they fail to take in to account any emissions or environmental impact associated with maintenance or construction.

Well you know, railways as a barrier to wildlife is well known, and there are solutions. there are even textbooks on this stuff

An elevate railway allows livestock and wildlife to pass safely underneath. And the construction techniques are widely used for motorways now. Certainly, I understand you're just trying to create objections, that's your opinion. None of those issues are insurmountable, and the claim of astronomical expense is dubious at best.

Elevate some bits, fence some bits, tunnel somebits, lots of wildlife corridors - there are solutions.

As is the claim that emissions from maintenance and construction are not accounted. Certainly you did make the claim that rail is far from carbon neutral. Sure, nothing people do is carbon neutral, but at least emissions for rail are significantly lower than flying.
Still as I previously mentioned carbon emissions isn't the point, in my opinion.

 

[Spacetravel]

Raised track would be even more astronomically expensive. And the rail has to go to ground level at some point, where you would need adequate fencing. And if something got stuck on an elevated section - you'd have the line closed for hours, possibly more. Ever tried to catch a kangaroo?

However it is a given that lots of tunnels, or overpasses would need to be built. The environmentalists will not allow a fully fenced continuous rail corridor - how would the wildlife get from one side of the corridor to the other? Farmers would probably be similarly aggrieved if there are any along the route.

Also, I never acknowledged that anyone claimed rail was carbon neutral. But the problem with these comparisons are that they fail to take in to account any emissions or environmental impact associated with maintenance or construction.

Not necessarily, the Hills Metro is raised for a fair chunk and the rest is underground. It was expensive but not astronomical (actually delivered under budget, crazy, I know) and the platforms are also raised to avoid the train having to go to ground level for the stations.

There will be a cost and push back etc, doesn't mean it is impossible. The case could be argued a SYD > CBR train could reduce wild life injury as the realistic alternative right now is driving. Anyone that has been down the Hume Hwy would know the amount of animal carnage that is there on the side (or middle) of the road. A raised (or fenced, or underground) train would likely result in less animal injury than driving. Yes, even with a train people are going to drive and animals will still be injured. The hope would be freight might go by rail instead of road which I think a fair amount of the damage is done by trucks anyway, which would also have a positive impact on emissions.

Either way, the east coast train debate has been going for years and will continue to go for another life time without anything being done. I'm fairly young and I'll be shocked and pleasantly surprised if we have a modern highspeed rail down the east cost in my lifetime.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Elevate some bits, fence some bits, tunnel somebits, lots of wildlife corridors - there are solutions.

True there are answers to all of the problems - but would they be worth the investment for the payoff? Keeping in mind the government doesn't do a great deal (outside COVID) any more to subsidise airlines, but passenger rail is heavily subsidised by states and the federal level.

I'm not trying to just create objections. I work in the rail industry and I think the issues faced by rail operators in Australia today are not well understood by the general public. True high speed rail sounds fantastic, but once you start to engage with the necessary infrastructure and costs associated, your eyes start to water.

Not necessarily, the Hills Metro is raised for a fair chunk and the rest is underground. It was expensive but not astronomical (actually delivered under budget, crazy, I know) and the platforms are also raised to avoid the train having to go to ground level for the stations.

Are you referring to the new Sydney Metro network?

The whole project is about 110km of track, last I read the budget was out to $17 billion. With 1500v DC and infrastructure capable of running trains at 100km/h in a highly urbanised area. It is not really a valid comparison to the sort of build you would need between Sydney and Canberra.

 

[Vic]

True there are answers to all of the problems - but would they be worth the investment for the payoff? Keeping in mind the government doesn't do a great deal (outside COVID) any more to subsidise airlines, but passenger rail is heavily subsidised by states and the federal level.

I'm not trying to just create objections. I work in the rail industry and I think the issues faced by rail operators in Australia today are not well understood by the general public. True high speed rail sounds fantastic, but once you start to engage with the necessary infrastructure and costs associated, your eyes start to water.


Are you referring to the new Sydney Metro network?

The whole project is about 110km of track, last I read the budget was out to $17 billion. With 1500v DC and infrastructure capable of running trains at 100km/h in a highly urbanised area. It is not really a valid comparison to the sort of build you would need between Sydney and Canberra.

I realise it would be expensive. I just think there could be significant benefits that would be worth spending a big chunk of money. (of the order of $100+ billion).
I lament that government lack the vision to do so.
We certainly do not have the general population density of europe to support a large high speed network, but we do have pockets of population density, and travel demand.

anyway, enough of my ramblings.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I dunno. You visit somewhere like China and they seem to be able to build elevated railways at a rate of knots! Or the bridge from Hong Kong to the Pearl delta... every month they seemed to have built miles more.

Melbourne to Sydney could be done in three hours with something like a maglev. Until you have to build in all these stops along the way for regional inclusiveness and development!

 

[Daver6]

Simple question. If such an infrastructure project were to be built and open people were allowed to invest (lets call it a public company and you can buy shares), would you invest your hard earned today? Knowing that it would be many years before the project saw any revenue and probably decades before profitable.

Would you have invested in NBNCo at the start?

 

[33kft]

Would you have invested in NBNCo at the start?

Don't think they're one and the same - NBNCo would be a solid yes for me, how often do you get a chance to invest in a government instituted infrastructure monopoly, vs something like a fast rail system for a the south-eastern corridor, which has to compete with a lot of other forms of transport, including flights with a duration of 1 hour or less.

Unless the govt starts shutting down flight routes, I guess. That would certainly push it further into NBNCo territory.

Plus I did invest in NBNCo, several times over the past few years, around 1 July each year.

 

[Franky]

oh please. This type of thinking is precisely the problem. All this nonsense about not having the money.
Small minded thinking by small minded politicians. No vision, no gumption, time servers and rent seekers. a waste generation in politics

Vic - given it took Sydney something like $3B to build a light rail of only 20 odd kilometres just recently, where would you find the $ to build a HSR network(for the Golden Triangle only of course). I've said it here before that Australia is the size of Western Europe which has a population of 500M, plus millions of tourists to support their network, we have 25M. It's nothing to do with vision, gumption, time servers, rent seekers or politicians - it's called reality.

 

[ethernet]

What if you want to fly from CBR to DFW. Pretty bad having to book something separate and probably add another day's travel in that scenario.

Canberra to Sydney huh? 4.2 hours by Train. It is about 3.5 hours by bus, and 3.10 by car if you get a miracle run. Ever seen the M5 Carpark? Even seen the 20Km traffic backups from Cambelltown to Crossroads in holiday times, although if there is an accident on the M1, it may beat all if timed nicely.

I won't fly until the hire car shortage and exorbitant pricing issue is fixed. For Tassy, I believe there is a 2 week Hire car wait. So forget Tassy.

 

[wandering_fred]

There is some history on the train versus plane "contest"
And this is an OLD OLD link

Air travel has been so big that the route linking Madrid and Barcelona was the busiest in the world in 2007 with 971 departures per week.
That started to change in February when the government joined the two cities, which are 410 miles apart, with a high-speed line that cut travel time to 2 hours and 35 minutes.

Wired 2009

While airlines still schedule planes on the route, the train schedule is "quite frequent"... And I think the distance for SYD-CBR "fits"

This is the one train route in Australia that should a "no brainer"
Well maybe Sydney-New Castle


Sometimes creativity is required for wandering
Fred

 

[Spacetravel]

Are you referring to the new Sydney Metro network?

The whole project is about 110km of track, last I read the budget was out to $17 billion. With 1500v DC and infrastructure capable of running trains at 100km/h in a highly urbanised area. It is not really a valid comparison to the sort of build you would need between Sydney and Canberra.

Yes but specifically the already completed portion. The extension is "great" but I think the government just started to get excited splashing cash as it seemed a popular vote winner.

Also I wasn't referring to the entire setup to be copied like for like. Just that the physical track has been elevated and that portion of the project worked well. No reason the elevation portion couldn't be implemented in certain sections with either difficult terrain/ wildlife implications etc.

I work in the rail industry and I think the issues faced by rail operators in Australia today are not well understood by the general public. True high speed rail sounds fantastic, but once you start to engage with the necessary infrastructure and costs associated, your eyes start to water.

I'm sure there is a LOT involved in building a rail network. Its not as simple as slapping down some tracks and a way you go, I get that. It still doesn't mean the whole idea is insurmountable and not worth considering. I came on this thread to defend air travel, not promote rail! ha.

I do still think it has its place and proper east coast rail line's benefits could outweigh the costs. Just like how NBN was dragged around as the biggest waste of money when it came out, but coincidentally its roll out "finished" right when covid it and personally I think it saved lives. If we went through covid with pre NBN internet a lot more people would have had to physically attend work and be out and about to achieve daily tasks. With the economic benefit it has delivered during covid alone, I'd say in reduced economic damage to our country it "paid" for itself. I work in the telecom sector and I could tell you, the NBN roll out has had a LOT of challenges that the general public don't understand. However NBN has managed to get through it and despite some issues, overall has had a net benefit. I would see a rail line doing the same, we might not be able to see the benefit it will deliver now until after it occurs.

 

[Vic]

Vic - given it took Sydney something like $3B to build a light rail of only 20 odd kilometres just recently, where would you find the $ to build a HSR network(for the Golden Triangle only of course). I've said it here before that Australia is the size of Western Europe which has a population of 500M, plus millions of tourists to support their network, we have 25M. It's nothing to do with vision, gumption, time servers, rent seekers or politicians - it's called reality.

I'm not sure if I give you the sarcastic reply or not.

Who said anything about the golden triangle? Canberra Sydney is not the golden triangle.

But you definitely beat up your strawman. Just a shame it had nothing to do with what I wrote.

It is everything to do with vision, gumption and nation building. The time servers and rent seekers in parliament house wouldn't build the snowy scheme these days. But they're dead keen to sell it off.
Where would you find the money???? That's the typical banal question that besets the current tragic state of politics in Australia.
Poor fellow my country.

 

[Franky]

I'm not sure if I give you the sarcastic reply or not.

Who said anything about the golden triangle? Canberra Sydney is not the golden triangle.

But you definitely beat up your strawman. Just a shame it had nothing to do with what I wrote.

It is everything to do with vision, gumption and nation building. The time servers and rent seekers in parliament house wouldn't build the snowy scheme these days. But they're dead keen to sell it off.
Where would you find the money???? That's the typical banal question that besets the current tragic state of politics in Australia.
Poor fellow my country.

Vic, I mentioned the golden triangle, as others have included the HSR for the East coast in this conversation. And I thought you said you were giving up on your ramblings?

 

[harvyk]

So let's say a CBR-SYD rail link was built. You realize that Australian tax payer would have given something to "Canberra". We can't have that, why the people who live in CBR aren't even human beings.....




Note: CBR'n born and bread. It's amazing how much federal politicians will bend over backwards to NOT give us a cent (look at NBN technology maps for proof of that). NSW gov't wouldn't pay for it either (since we're not NSW tax payers, for proof of that look at the kings highway). So you can have the best most thought out idea in the world, if it involves something that's primarily benefiting CBR it's not going to happen.