I have no idea how planes are the dominant form of transport for relatively short routes (like within the bounds of a large country or to an adjacent one) and how even in Europe the train networks can be a bit of a mess.
Like surely it’s easier to run a railway network when compared to the insane complexity to safely operate an airport and all the work that goes into plane maintenance and pilot training and so on.
You need a lot of infrastructure for trains (and a lot of it isn't even used all that much -- it's not like all rails have a train passing by every 5 minutes). You also can't get much use out of your rolling stock because the speeds are fairly slow. You also don't have the same flexibility as planes have regarding routes.
The upshot is that trains are a lot costlier than most believe think and most railway routes require state subsidies (with goods transport usually being an exception), whereas air traffic works so well it can be taxed heavily.
Air traffic is not taxed heavily compared to other modes of transport - on the contrary, it is very heavily subsidized (at least in Europe): Regional airports often strongly depend on state subsidies, airlines are exempt from petroleum taxes, flight tickets are VAT-exempt.
In Germany (and also e.g. Switzerland), long-distance trains are expected to run either at cost (or make a profit). Short-distance trains (regional transport) are usually subsidized.
Planes are faster, and there is actual competition keeping prices down. There is no competition on railroads, no accountability, no nothing. More importantly, railroads have to be managed centrally to work. And this makes them overwhelmingly complex, resulting in an ever-growing bureaucracy.
Air travel is decentralized, and while individual airports (cue: BER) can get screwed up, it doesn't cascade through the whole system.
We just need to add a bit of carbon pricing to reflect the true price of flights.
No amount of money will overcome the fundamental issue: monopoly.
Airlines are subject to market competition since any competitor around the globe can spot a poorly run route and buy their planes into those slots. If they can execute more efficiently than you, they can afford to lower prices (or increase the level of service) more than you, and thus put you out of business.
Trains do not work this way. No amount of investment can overcome the cushy institutional-rot, laziness, and demotivation that inevitably results from being a monopoly, as most train routes are not subject to competitive forces due to the real world constraints of the infrastructure needed.
France, Italy, Austria (and probably others) don't have monopoly on long distance train. For instance, you can take a DB/Renfe/Trenitalia train on french high speed line, or in Austria take a Westbahn train instead of ÖBB.
That said personally I much prefer the mostly fixed pricing (and no reservation required) of swiss network than the dynamic one of other countries.
It doesn't really work all that well. The "everything above the rail" model suffers from the fundamental problem that "everything above the rail" is just a minor component in the overall cost of rail.
I have no idea how planes are the dominant form of transport for relatively short routes (like within the bounds of a large country or to an adjacent one) and how even in Europe the train networks can be a bit of a mess.
Like surely it’s easier to run a railway network when compared to the insane complexity to safely operate an airport and all the work that goes into plane maintenance and pilot training and so on.
You need a lot of infrastructure for trains (and a lot of it isn't even used all that much -- it's not like all rails have a train passing by every 5 minutes). You also can't get much use out of your rolling stock because the speeds are fairly slow. You also don't have the same flexibility as planes have regarding routes.
The upshot is that trains are a lot costlier than most believe think and most railway routes require state subsidies (with goods transport usually being an exception), whereas air traffic works so well it can be taxed heavily.
Air traffic is not taxed heavily compared to other modes of transport - on the contrary, it is very heavily subsidized (at least in Europe): Regional airports often strongly depend on state subsidies, airlines are exempt from petroleum taxes, flight tickets are VAT-exempt.
In Germany (and also e.g. Switzerland), long-distance trains are expected to run either at cost (or make a profit). Short-distance trains (regional transport) are usually subsidized.
Another factor is that building new rail lines requires eminent domain and acquiring land across multiple jurisdictions etc.
Why not invest in a vast 24/7 high frequency electric bus network instead of the big infrastructure costs of trains?
2 replies →
Why?
Planes are faster, and there is actual competition keeping prices down. There is no competition on railroads, no accountability, no nothing. More importantly, railroads have to be managed centrally to work. And this makes them overwhelmingly complex, resulting in an ever-growing bureaucracy.
Air travel is decentralized, and while individual airports (cue: BER) can get screwed up, it doesn't cascade through the whole system.
We just need to add a bit of carbon pricing to reflect the true price of flights.
No amount of money will overcome the fundamental issue: monopoly.
Airlines are subject to market competition since any competitor around the globe can spot a poorly run route and buy their planes into those slots. If they can execute more efficiently than you, they can afford to lower prices (or increase the level of service) more than you, and thus put you out of business.
Trains do not work this way. No amount of investment can overcome the cushy institutional-rot, laziness, and demotivation that inevitably results from being a monopoly, as most train routes are not subject to competitive forces due to the real world constraints of the infrastructure needed.
France, Italy, Austria (and probably others) don't have monopoly on long distance train. For instance, you can take a DB/Renfe/Trenitalia train on french high speed line, or in Austria take a Westbahn train instead of ÖBB.
That said personally I much prefer the mostly fixed pricing (and no reservation required) of swiss network than the dynamic one of other countries.
It doesn't really work all that well. The "everything above the rail" model suffers from the fundamental problem that "everything above the rail" is just a minor component in the overall cost of rail.
China and Switzerland seem to do fine with trains.