As Spaniard I wouldn't go that far.. but yeah they are good. But not all of them 😅 specially the shorter routes. Apart from some maintenance issues, It doesn't help that from time to time a line is down because they have stolen copper wires...
One tragic fact of life is that it doesn't really take that much to become world-class as far as trains go. The HSR network alone basically places you on the podium.
I know someone that works in the rail industry with building and maintenance.
It's apparently very important to electrify the wire as soon as you are done with whatever you were doing. Otherwise someone will know that it's not electrified and they will steal it. And the company/state will lose quite a lot of money in raw materials (the overhead wires are expensive as fuck), delays and further work.
Edit: This isn't in some third world country or anything either.
This is in a rich first world country that's in the top 10 in terms of HDI and at least top 20 of pretty much every other positive index.
The move to trains in Europe seems great! But still it costs me ~£300 short notice, ~£100 otherwise per person to get from London to Paris by train so for any trips it'll still need to be planes unfortunately. I dream of a day I can make an affordable night time trip to the Mediterranean on a train
The pricing and general operations on the Eurostar are pretty crap, which also annoys me to no end since I also use it semi frequently. Thankfully from what I've heard the high speed trains in Spain don't suffer from the same issues.
Sadly the law in France has been made specifically so that it applies to nearly zero flights. Macron is really good at communicating, but terrible at doing
PP member Guillermo Mariscal explained that he believes the initiative is “ineffective” because it would only result in a 0.06 per cent reduction in emissions according to data from the College of Aircraft Engineers (COIAE).
It says in the article, the number of flights this would affect might be very small. They originally wanted to ban flights with a train alternative under 4 hours, but that didn't get through.
Because he's from the college of aircraft engineers, who may have a vested interest in flight, and is therefore paid to make that number look as small as possible.
The article talks about a plan, which depending on what it includes would vary. In the article one optimistic prediction says 10% the other more pessimistic says 0.06%. Until more decisions are made the real number will be unknown.
It might be a low number, but then again this also seems like a initiative that will affect an even smaller number of people and is targeting something where a completely valid alternative exists, that has lower emissions.
It might not be the end it all solution, but there won't be one of those. So measuring it by that standard seems pointless to me.
I'd rather look at things like: Is there an alternative (and if so, what compromises does it make), what are the relative gains, and how easy is it to implement? And banning short distance flights seems to check those marks in my book.
I think every airport I've been to in Spain is connected to the rail network. Connection to rail and bus is pretty standard, in Western Europe at least.
Flights with a rail alternative that takes less than two and a half hours will no longer be allowed, “except in cases of connection with hub airports that link with international routes”.
The only trip that I know of that takes less than 2.5 hs by train is Madrid-Barcelona and Madrid-Valencia . But Madrid is an international hub with connections to most of the international routes. So, my thinking is that this would not apply. It might only make sense for private flights, which are already very minor, AFAIK.
Again, smokescreen law, from smokescreen leftist party.
Why would you take your car instead of the train in this case? If you were going to fly anyway then the train makes sense. A car would be slower, you have to drive it yourself, and deal with storing it at your location.