France proposes ban on short domestic flights

[Franky]

There would be obvious carbon emissions for building such infrastructure. I wonder how many years worth of no flights on this sector would be needed for break even on carbon emissions for such a change?

Just proves the old adage, that nothing comes for free...

 

[dajop]

Geez you'd have to be pretty dumb to want to book a BNE- OOL by air...

That or someone doing a status run?

 

[Vic]

There would be obvious carbon emissions for building such infrastructure. I wonder how many years worth of no flights on this sector would be needed for break even on carbon emissions for such a change?

I'm really thinking of the vision. I'm not that interested in comparing carbon emissions. canberra sydney high speed rail isn't really a carbon emissions thing, as it would be in France. France has some of the lowest carbon emissions in europe, so using electricity to drive trains will have a much quicker pay off in emissions by removing planes. And someone also pointed to economics of subsidising airlines, vs providing the train service. Not the best idea for government to pay for two competitors, even for visionary reasons.

Anyway I can imagine real benefits in building real high speed rail in australia aligned with some high population density areas. It'd cost money, I wish we had government that was prepared to spend money on developing Australia.

 

[Franky]

I'm really thinking of the vision. I'm not that interested in comparing carbon emissions. canberra sydney high speed rail isn't really a carbon emissions thing, as it would be in France. France has some of the lowest carbon emissions in europe, so using electricity to drive trains will have a much quicker pay off in emissions by removing planes. And someone also pointed to economics of subsidising airlines, vs providing the train service. Not the best idea for government to pay for two competitors, even for visionary reasons.

Anyway I can imagine real benefits in building real high speed rail in australia aligned with some high population density areas. It'd cost money, I wish we had government that was prepared to spend money on developing Australia.

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

 

[Mattg]

I would love to see SYD-CBR banned

I would support this *if* there was a high-speed train which made it plausible to do the trip in less than the current 4 hours.

FWIW, BER-HAM is roughly the same distance as SYD-CBR. There are no flights because there are frequent, high speed trains. That's not due to any laws, it's just that there's no market for flying from Berlin to Hamburg because there are decent alternatives.

 

[Eastwick20]

That or someone doing a status run?

Fair point!

 

[Seat0B]

I would love to see SYD-CBR banned and whilst you're at it BNE-HVB, basically routes that can be driven or by train less than 300km.

Whilst we're at it some of the other routes in QLD that are serviced by electric rail could also be taxed (to make train fares cheaper) and finally it should be illegal to book a BNE-OOL ticket:
View attachment 245155

It’s 4 hrs by train from CBR to SYD and only 3 trains a day. That just doesn’t work.

 

[33kft]

It’s 4 hrs by train from CBR to SYD and only 3 trains a day. That just doesn’t work

Yeah, I know exactly how this would go if it happened, at my consultancy anyway - rather than Sydney-based consultants taking the train at some odd hour and spending hours in transit, we'd just rezone Canberra as northern VIC and fly Melbourne based consultants there instead. I am not sure how much a ban on SYD-CBR flights would ever solve.

 

[jakeseven7]

It’s 4 hrs by train from CBR to SYD and only 3 trains a day. That just doesn’t work.

You’d also end up just overnighting people = more cost. OH&S doesn’t allow for driving either.

So build the high speed rail, then we can talk

 

[Pushka]

But only for people who have vegetable based diets. For people who don't they must stay at home, due to excessive emissions in producing the fuel needed for walking.

Fuelling walking and cycling: human powered locomotion is associated with non-negligible greenhouse gas emissions - Scientific Reports

Reducing motorized transport and increasing active transport (i.e. transport by walking, cycling and other active modes) may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve health. But, active modes of transport are not zero emitters. We aimed to quantify GHG emissions from food production...

www.nature.com

But the ones who don't eat smoke instead! I've never read how much pollution smokers create? France is the land of the smokers. Especially thin young women.

 

[Spongbob]

It’s 4 hrs by train from CBR to SYD and only 3 trains a day. That just doesn’t work.

There is always the option of increasing the number of trains each day and/or the number of carriages with each train.

 

[Must...Fly!]

There is always the option of increasing the number of trains each day and/or the number of carriages with each train.

It is not as easy as that.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Given our rail infrastructure is not up to the job... perhaps there are alternatives to reduce the environmental impact?

For example, do we really need 15 minute frequencies between MEL and SYD at peak times? I think most businesspeople should be able to get up quarter or an hour earlier to avoid needing the 6.45am rather than the 6.30am.

Perhaps a tax on business/premium travel, which might promote online meetings rather than in-person?

 

[Lynda2475]

Pre covid, the 15 mins (10 mins on Monday) syd-mel were needed, as someone who flew this frequently rarely a spare seat to be had, and in slower periods they cancelled any underbooked flights and moved you 15 mins either way.

At the moment a bus Sydney (Central) to Canberra at 3 hours is faster than the train.

For me an uber to Central costs the same in time and $ as an Uber to the airport, so rail would never be considered, and bus vs flight depends on $ and time available. 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).

 

[dajop]

For example, do we really need 15 minute frequencies between MEL and SYD at peak times? I think most businesspeople should be able to get up quarter or an hour earlier to avoid needing the 6.45am rather than the 6.30am.

Perhaps a tax on business/premium travel, which might promote online meetings rather than in-person?

The 15 min frequencies weren't about getting up 15 mins earlier, that is immaterial. They were more about having the capacity. Perhaps weren't so necessary (and didn't have 15 mins frequencies then either) when widebodies were the backbone of peak operations between the two cities, now that 737's are the backbone they need(ed) 4 an hour to meet demand.

 

[Franky]

There is always the option of increasing the number of trains each day and/or the number of carriages with each train.

And making them go faster

 

[Seat0B]

You’d also end up just overnighting people = more cost. OH&S doesn’t allow for driving either.

So build the high speed rail, then we can talk

Yes, because it would be a minimum of 7 hours driving and more likely 8 hours with traffic for a day trip to Sydney from Canberra - for people who are not professional drivers and need to also do their day's work. When I travelled this route for work, fairly frequently pre-COVID, I would get a 7.00 flight, be at my post by 9.00, work until 4.00 or 4.30 and then get home by about 8.00 allowing for flight and commute from the airport. No way I would want to do that, plus drive both directions as well.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Pre covid, the 15 mins (10 mins on Monday) syd-mel were needed, as someone who flew this frequently rarely a spare seat to be had, and in slower periods they cancelled any underbooked flights and moved you 15 mins either way.

Fair enough. As per AFF's 'cost to fly a plane' it is actually cheaper to fly 2 x 737s than 1 A330 on the short east coast trunk flights.

 

[Spacetravel]

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:

There are no flights because there are frequent, high speed trains. That's not due to any laws, it's just that there's no market for flying from Berlin to Hamburg because there are decent alternatives.

I recognise air travel does have a carbon footprint, I purchase the carbon offset for my flights and try and cut back my carbon footprint in other areas where it makes sense, but I'm not really in support of "banning" people purchasing tickets. This will just drive up the costs for the connecting passengers who have to wear the additional operating costs that would be covered by people on a single leg ticket. Or the flight will just cease to exist, meaning someone coming from another sector will have to change modes of transport to get to this destination.

Also this worries me about the slippery slope argument, yeah this specific circumstance might not have any impact on us aus. But years from now 2.5hr could be stretched to 5hr etc (the article did mention they were aiming for 4 hours). Look its unlikely but I don't like the precedent it has set.

 

[jakeseven7]

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:


I recognise air travel does have a carbon footprint, I purchase the carbon offset for my flights and try and cut back my carbon footprint in other areas where it makes sense, but I'm not really in support of "banning" people purchasing tickets. This will just drive up the costs for the connecting passengers who have to wear the additional operating costs that would be covered by people on a single leg ticket. Or the flight will just cease to exist, meaning someone coming from another sector will have to change modes of transport to get to this destination.

Also this worry's be about the slippery slope argument, yeah this specific circumstance might not have any impact on us aus. But years from now 2.5hr could be stretched to 5hr etc (the article did mention they were aiming for 4 hours). Look its unlikely but I don't like the precedent it has set.

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