On: How trains could replace planes in Europe

[pacificmint]

> fuel consumption per seat at 2.19 L/100 km. A mid-sized petrol-powered car consumes three times as much.

It seems like you are comparing fuel per seat for planes with fuel per vehicle for cars. At five seats, that would be equivalent to 11 l/100km, which almost all modern cars should beat. Even if you only count four seats for the car, it would still be 8.8 l/100km, which many cars can beat.

[HWR_14 → pacificmint]

I would expect planes to be usually almost full. I would expect passenger cars to average 2 people per car.

[Tepix → HWR_14]

If you want to compare a large passenger plane to a land based vehicle you should pick a train. Both the train and the plane can only go certain routes and are mass transit vehicles.

The emission of gases in the upper atmosphere by airplanes also worsens their climate heating effect by 300% (source: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umwelttipps-fuer-den-alltag/m...)

[dredmorbius → Tepix]

I'd agree on the basis of efficiency arguments.

If you want to discuss actual practice, though, 75% of European international ground travel is by private car, not train.

That said, we can simply state the per-passenger-distance efficiency of different transport modes and leave the "you shoulds" to others.

[HWR_14 → Tepix]

I agree, we should switch to trains where feasible. I'd like to see more long-haul trains set up with affordable sleeper cars. But most land transportation over long distance is still by car.

[lmm → pacificmint]

But what's the average occupation rate of the plane and the car?