Affordability will be key to maximise rail travel in Europe, but some of the biggest operators in Europe have high prices which don’t result in better service. ÖBB and Trenitalia offer some of the best price-to-quality ratios in Europe, while Eurostar charges high fares but deliver subpar services. There is growing consensus about the necessity of improving rail services in Europe. It’s now up to operators, Member States and the European Commission to improve reliability, affordability and booking experience. See the full ranking ➡️ https://lnkd.in/e3PVDPzP
The answer is very clear in the image: for the Milan-Rome stretch there are two operators whereas Eurostar has a monopoly. Prices in Italy are lower thanks to competition and we see the same in Spain and for some trajectories in France. We need competition on the tracks (just like there is in the air) and mostly North-Western European member states must facilitate this.
Josef Petrák
1w
That’s a weak argument to mitigate the nonsense result. Maybe the higher price offsets necessary UK-EU border checks and additional border infrastructure. Maybe EST doesn’t compete with ultra lowcost flights but attracts passengers that would otherwise book 1st class or private flights… Is it bad to accommodate that in price? In the end, somebody has to pay all the costs - either passenger in fare price or tax payer in income tax.
Thomas ILHE
1w
Not a fair comparison considering that the operating costs of an international Eurostar journey are higher than those on domestic journeys in Italy: track user charges on the tunnel, HS1 and France are higher than in Italy, the cost for bilingual staff may also be higher for Eurostar. This sounds like a weak analysis by T&E. For sure there must be a positive effect of competition on prices (before vs after in Italy), but control for all variables if you do an international comparison.
Agree with much of this, particularly the lack of investment: 'Investing in maintaining, upgrading, and digitising the rail network as well as buying new rolling stocks will help trains arrive on time'. Yes, but we have to address the questions, who funds this and how we make the green transition just, given the resistance to higher fares or higher taxes. In other words T&E has to address social and economic questions in order to advance its environmental and transport objectives.
Rob H.
1w
I wonder if the bigger issue is the differential between rail and short haul flight? Trying to persuade people to take the train is hard when flights seem so much cheaper.
The study is very interesting, but unfortunately it does not take into account the great difference between the types of infrastructure crossed by the services. The management costs of the Eurostar infrastructure (Eurotunnel) are very different from the operating costs of a line like the Rome-Milan AV. It would be interesting to compare the costs of tickets with the operating costs of these two profoundly different lines. It could be a good starting point for T&E.
Hervé Loxq
1w
comparison of 2 different routes the cost of crossing the tunnel is more expensive
LLB, BA Phil.
1wThis does not seem to be a sound comparison. You are comparing international and domestic train travel, and you chose the London-Paris route as well, where Eurostar is subject to additional fees (they are a mere customer of the Chunnel). Naturally, such route would result in more expensive tickets than a domestic one in Italy. The fact that the route itself is shorter plays no key role in your argument, since it is, once again, a totally different itinerary that includes extra fees no matter if you travel by Eurostar or any other railway.