We need to subsidise train travel. Train travel has the disadvantage that it's slower, but over medium distances not that much slower if one includes getting to and from airports and getting through security and such.

Trains have the advantage of being far more pleasant an experience, leaving from and arriving at more convenient locations, fewer restrictions on luggage, just generally less hassle.

But then trains are crazy expensive for some reason.

[–] NotAPenguin@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

100% agree, we need to focus heavily on trains.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trains require a lot more infrastructure on the ground than planes do. Also, the fuel for planes isn't taxed in Europe even though it should be.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

True, but it's always like, planes are more expensive in the long run.

It's more expensive to build a solar panel than burn coal. But after the coal has been burned, the solar panel still stays up.

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trains tend to be largely privatised. I can't speak to other countries but here in the UK, each train company covers different lines so it's effectively a distributed monopoly. They have no incentive to make tickets cheaper or their trains better because there isn't any competition. Trains should be nationalised or at least have more regulations.

[–] Dmian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Trains tend to be largely privatised

That’s mostly the UK. Germany has Deutsche Bahn, France SNCF, Italy SF/Trenitalia, and Spain has Renfe. All state owned. And I guess there are many other European countries with State owned Rail companies. Trains tend to be mostly state owned in Europe.

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I thought as much. The National Rail is a joke.

[–] riceandbeans161@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago

yup. I’m in a long distance relationship. Germany to England. I’d love to take the train if it wasn’t 3x as expensive and takes like twice as long with a hundred changeovers.

[–] honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Crazy expensive" doesn't really matter when you're a government and can borrow or print to make investments that have investment returns in the form of efficiency gains that go on to improve the economy, much like what corporations do to grow (borrow, reinvest profits gained from growth). There isn't really any good macroeconomic evidence that inflation is to blame because of said funding strategies, as explained by PhD Joeri Schasfoort in multiple of his videos[1], much to the behest right wing populist politicians who lie about not being able to invest in infrastructure. In the UK, Rishi Sunak is cancelling our HS2 railway falsely citing costs and even sabotaging it by sidestepping the democratically elected House of Commons by selling off gov. owned land so that the incoming Labour government will have a hard time un-cancelling HS2 - even our old conservative Brexit-causing PM David Cameron is criticising it publicly (ex-PMs rarely criticise their own party's contemporary government).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@MoneyMacro/videos

[–] burningmatches 5 points 1 year ago

Part of the problem is that many government’s don’t fund infrastructure investment themselves. By privatising utilities and other vital infrastructure they can appear to “cut spending”. Of course, in reality the cost is much higher (and/or the investment is much lower) because privatised entities need to make a margin and (by definition) have higher borrowing costs than the government.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/@MoneyMacro/videos

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.