France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights

[caravanman]

French lawmakers have moved to ban short-haul internal flights where train alternatives exist, in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.
Over the weekend, lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
Connecting flights will not be affected, however.

France moves to ban short-haul domestic flights

 

[Exvalley]

The headline packs much more of a punch than the actual law. Only 5 routes are impacted and apparently CDG is exempt.

This article explains it well: French Lawmakers Ban Short Domestic Flights, But... | One Mile at a Time

 

[flitcraft]

French lawmakers have moved to ban short-haul internal flights where train alternatives exist, in a bid to reduce carbon emissions.
Over the weekend, lawmakers voted in favour of a bill to end routes where the same journey could be made by train in under two-and-a-half hours.
Connecting flights will not be affected, however.

I'm confused--how will connecting flights not be affected? Presumably those flights will lose passengers that would have simply flown that shorter flight. So won't connecting flights have to be few and far between, then? (Otherwise they aren't saving carbon footprint...) It will be a pain to wait around for hours for a connecting flight to one's final destination after a long haul flight to begin with.

Maybe the thought is to increase train frequency and develop some kind of convenient shuttle or train service from airports to train stations?

 

[Exvalley]

I'm confused--how will connecting flights not be affected?

Well, CDG is exempt and were there really that many people connecting through Orly?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It will be a pain to wait around for hours for a connecting flight to one's final destination after a long haul flight to begin with.

Protected travel via routine train connections would be as good or better than a connecting regional flight. European trains are comfortable and relaxing while European regional flights are cramped and uncomfortable in my view.

 

[caravanman]

It seems like a start, if it does get voted in. France has the fast TGV network, so instead of just talking about global warming, etc, etc, this feels like a sensible first step. How things pan out in practice will be down to the willingness of all the vested interests to co-operate.

 

[jis]

Ironically, it is easier to access TGV service from CDG than from ORY.

The Orly Val runs only to RER-B Antony. I think the few TGVs that pass by that way stop at Massy, to which there is a local bus connection from Orly AFAIR. Not too suitable for connecting traffic, though as pointed out, there is possibly relatively little connecting traffic at ORY.

At CDG the Roissy-Chrles de Gaulle TGV stop is right at one of the terminals and accessed by an airport circulator from the other terminal AFAIR.

It should be interesting to see what the actual effects of this are, since I suspect a lot of the Paris originating traffic to the hinterland and vice-versa traffic is already on the rail network.

 

[MARC Rider]

Did they do an analysis of the actual amounts of greenhouse gases and other emissions that are expected to be reduced by switching people from air to rail? I know that most of the French system is electrified, but at least some of French electrical generation may produce GHGs or generate radioactive nuclear waste), and the faster trains go, the more electricity they use. (Aerodynamic drag increases power requirements as a cube of the speed.) I know there are additional complications, such as negative impacts from airplane emissions directly into the upper troposphere (300,000 ft.), etc. I'm sort of concerned this is just a sort of "feel good" measure that will let the politicians say they are doing something about climate change, but won't really have much of an effect.

 

[jis]

Fast Trains are Energy Efficient and Fast (IEEE)

 

[MARC Rider]

Fast Trains are Energy Efficient and Fast (IEEE)

Energy intensity is not quite the same as emissions performance. True, the petroleum based hydrocarbon fuels have similar energy intensities, so comparison of fuel consumption per distance traveled can be easily compared among travel modes such as diesel-powered trains, automobiles, aircraft and watercraft. Unfortunately, this article didn't cite any actual analyses of such fuel consumption figures. Of course, these have to be computed on the basis of consumption per passenger-mile (or passenger kilometer), which means that the real energy performance is highly dependent on the load factor of the vehicle. (So while you, the passenger, might enjoy an empty train with 2 seats in which to spread out, the energy efficiency, and thus the emission levels of that train maybe even higher than driving in a gas-guzzler SUV with only one passenger.)

Of course, true HSR requires electric propulsion, which is powered by a number of different ways, including fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, wind, etc. This makes calculating the greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per passenger mile) a bit complicated. Also, because of the relations between speed and aerodynamic drag, electric power needs increase at an exponential rate as speed increases. Thus, a TGV that has an average point to point speed of 200 km/hr will use a lot more electricity per kilometer than a Northeast Regional that has a point to point speed of 100 km/hr.

There are also other kinds of emissions besides greenhouse gas emissions. One issue we had with diesel engines was that there was a tradeoff between fuel efficiency and emissions of NOx and particulate matter. That was the whole deal about the recent Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal: Volkswagen (and presumably its customers) wanted its diesel cars to have good fuel economy and acceleration and wasn't able to do that without programing the engines to cheat on the emissions tests. Some of the tradeoff can be reduced by use of after treatment that increases the cost and complexity of running the engines. Nonetheless, it's still there, and needs to be accounted for when comparing the efficiencies of travel modes.

My point was to ask whether the legislators in France who proposed this bill had any kind of detailed technical analysis to back up the claim that exclusive use of HSR has such a significant environmental benefit that it justifies (limited) banning of domestic air travel.

 

[jiml]

European regional flights are cramped and uncomfortable in my view.

Even Euro Business Class on most carriers consists of simply a blocked coach seat next to you and a free drink/snack.

 

[jis]

Energy intensity is not quite the same as emissions performance. True, the petroleum based hydrocarbon fuels have similar energy intensities, so comparison of fuel consumption per distance traveled can be easily compared among travel modes such as diesel-powered trains, automobiles, aircraft and watercraft.

Sure, it does not answer your question. Neither was I trying to suggest that this artcile addresses your question. I was merely providing an interesting data point. ...

A mode that uses an order of magnitude less energy than another per unit of useful work (moving a passenger one km in this case), it would appear to be pretty unlikely for it to suddenly come out worse than the other even in emission performance.

Of course we don't have the details available. But unless you are claiming that an IEEE article is lying by an order of magnitude, it would appear that even if the TGVs all operated by electricity generated using jet fuel we'd still come out ahead for moving the same number of passengers the same distance, no?

 

[user 6862]

I think the announcement is a political statement of intent, there is a major election in France next year.

Personal view is it may put a smidgen of pressure on other world goverments, "If the French can do it why can't we?"

If this minor ban converts a few companies to send their people by rail then it's a first step, turning the world green is oh such an enormous task but someone somewhere has to start this off. Why not ask for data but applaude anyway?

 

[jis]

I think it is taking advantage of an opportunity presented by the misfortunes of AF-KLM to make a political statement and putting it into effect in a limited way.

Lufthansa is doing it on its own anyway as a business decision without the Green flim-flam, which is also worth applauding. Of course Lufthansa is in a worse competitive situation domestically than AF is in France due to better protection provided through various backdoor mechanisms by the same French Government, so their decisions tend to be driven more by actual financial considerations than AFs in general.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

My point was to ask whether the legislators in France who proposed this bill had any kind of detailed technical analysis to back up the claim that exclusive use of HSR has such a significant environmental benefit that it justifies (limited) banning of domestic air travel.

Even if we ignore low and zero emission renewables industrial power generation is more efficient than mobile platforms because it can be scaled up to pressures and temperatures that are impractical in a size and weight restricted design like a flying turbine. Industrial power generation is run near peak efficiency under controlled conditions rather than the widely varying conditions of a mobile platform. Industrial scale emissions can also be filtered, scrubbed, and reused for other productive tasks in a manner that is impractical for a mobile platform. If you viewed the fossil fuel industry through the same lens that you use to question green policy initiatives you might be more open to change.

 

[Exvalley]

Since CDG and connecting passengers are exempted it comes across as rather hollow.

In order for this to work for connecting passengers you need excellent rail facilities at the airport. We could not pull this off at JFK, LGA, ORD, LAX, BOS or even DCA. So I don’t see the trend catching on in the USA, at least as far as connecting passengers are concerned. For that matter, I don’t see it catching on for point to point passengers. The shuttle flights are safe until our infrastructure improves.

 

[jis]

Since CDG is exempted it comes across as rather hollow.

In order for this to work you need excellent rail facilities at the airport. We could not pull this off at JFK, LGA or even DCA. So I don’t see the trend catching on in the states.

I think this is primarily focused on French domestic travel which is by far much much larger than foreigners arriving in CDG and transferring to internal flights.

It is quite unusual for something that the French do to be adopted as a good idea by the US of late anyway, so that bit I suspect is a bit of non-sequitur?

 

[Exvalley]

I think this is primarily focused on French domestic travel which is by far much much larger than foreigners arriving in CDG and transferring to internal flights.

It is quite unusual for something that the French do to be adopted as a good idea by the US of late anyway, so that bit I suspect is a bit of non-sequitur?

Yes, I edited my post to clarify that.

 

[jis]

Here is some interesting info about French power generation. I did not realize that 10% of their actual generation is exported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France

 

[nullptr]

Energy intensity is not quite the same as emissions performance. True, the petroleum based hydrocarbon fuels have similar energy intensities, so comparison of fuel consumption per distance traveled can be easily compared among travel modes such as diesel-powered trains, automobiles, aircraft and watercraft. Unfortunately, this article didn't cite any actual analyses of such fuel consumption figures. Of course, these have to be computed on the basis of consumption per passenger-mile (or passenger kilometer), which means that the real energy performance is highly dependent on the load factor of the vehicle. (So while you, the passenger, might enjoy an empty train with 2 seats in which to spread out, the energy efficiency, and thus the emission levels of that train maybe even higher than driving in a gas-guzzler SUV with only one passenger.)

I realize your original question was "did they use it" as opposed to does the research exists but here is the results with UK data using the average load factor for each mode. Of course, France will be different, and "average load" may have changed even after covid is over, but still interesting



From here Which form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint?

 

[me_little_me]

I believe there was nothing that specifically referred to high speed rail. It would seem that if the cities were close enough that regular rail would meet the standard, then the flights would be prohibited. Thing Greenville, SC to Charlotte. There are 7 flights each taking about 1 hour scheduled time (not including security or boarding/deboarding time). Greyhound does it in 2 1/2 hours. Amtrak w/o freight interference would be faster than Greyhound. And w/o track improvements, I wouldn't guess they could do it faster than 90MPH so we're not talking HSR here.

 

[user 6862]

The French domestic flight ban has drawn this response in the UK, also gives a little more detail:

France’s ban on short flights should be a wake-up call for Britain

France’s ban on short flights should be a wake-up call for Britain | Leo Murray

 

[Seaboard92]

I believe there was nothing that specifically referred to high speed rail. It would seem that if the cities were close enough that regular rail would meet the standard, then the flights would be prohibited. Thing Greenville, SC to Charlotte. There are 7 flights each taking about 1 hour scheduled time (not including security or boarding/deboarding time). Greyhound does it in 2 1/2 hours. Amtrak w/o freight interference would be faster than Greyhound. And w/o track improvements, I wouldn't guess they could do it faster than 90MPH so we're not talking HSR here.

And the ultimate kicker here is there is an off mainline rail yard between two of the Charlotte runways. It would be the perfect place to locate an airport train station with it's own security entrance and tunnel under the runway/tarmac area.

Honestly I've been arguing for this blending of regional trains and airlines for a long time. And GSP to CLT is actually one of my biggest cases in my argument.

For those who aren't aware of this business simulation game it is Airline Empires where you manage an airline while playing against up to 300 competitors online. I've played it and developed various strategies to fill my planes using the traditional hub and spoke system with my game airline "Cascadia Airlines" and my new game airline "Trans Siberian Airlines" my bottom tier routes are all regional puddle jumpers I use a variety of the regional jets on. Right now my largest regional planes are CRJ700s that are mostly based out of OVB, SVO, CLT, PDX, TPA, and IAH. But when factor the price of the airframe, space at gates which at CLT in the game is 500,000 Dollars Per Month Per Gate. Factor in seven daily flights require 7 spaces at a gate and the game maxes you at 50 movements per gate. Factor in places like RDU, GSO, GSP, CAE, and AGS at seven flights a day on each route you're looking at at least one gate that is locked up with these short unprofitable moves. You have the expense of pilots, flight attendants, maintenance personal, and other associated support employees you are really starting to rack up a hefty price tag.

Then you look at how short some of these flights are like CAE to CLT is only 88 miles. On a jet capable of flying 500 MPH you really aren't getting any real time benefit because you won't reach that cruising speed. When you factor in taxi, boarding, check in, and security the train immediately becomes time competitive. The train also benefits because it is closer to the population than the airport. In the case of the Columbia metro a large portion of the population is in Richland county which is a bit of a drive from the airport. This would allow for a shorter drive with cheaper parking for passengers, and because it can make additional stops more cities added to the air network via train.

From playing the game I don't like wasting slots in my hub airports to the short regional hops because they end up costing more than they really are worth. Their only benefit is that the more gates I control it makes it harder for my competitors to muscle into my airports, and the connecting traffic helps fill my flights on competitive routes. I would much rather use the slots for more lucrative transcon, and intercon routes that make large profits. But imagine if we had a train service that was codeshared with the airlines allowing it to become a true interconnected transportation network.

The airlines benefit because they are able to operate with less aircraft, crews, fuel, landing slots, and gates saving money on their bottom line. While airline passengers benefit because train stations are easier to reach, cheaper parking, and more city pairs being added to the air system. While rail passengers benefit from multiple new corridors formed between regional cities that would allow connectivity between other rail corridors. While the whole region benefits from the economic activity of the interconnected rail system.

It makes too much sense not to do something along these lines.


By the way if anyone wants to play Airline Empires with me shoot me a message here and I'll send you a link to the site and tell you which world I'm in. I think it would be fun to play against some of you guys. Here are my two liveries I'm running with at the moment. Right now I'm the largest operator of B737-900ERs and B787-900s. I do have a few of the pictured B777s.