Banning short-haul flights: IELTS esse uchun g‘oyalar

It has been suggested that short-distance flights should be banned where a train service exists. I agree with this proposal to a large extent, because it would bring environmental benefits without causing great inconvenience.

The principal reason is pollution. Aeroplanes release far more carbon dioxide per passenger than trains, especially on short routes where take-off consumes a large share of the fuel. A journey between two cities a few hundred kilometres apart can produce several times the emissions of the same trip by rail, particularly if the train is electric. France has already acted on this principle by prohibiting domestic flights on routes that can be covered by train in under two and a half hours. Trains are also often more convenient than people assume. Stations are normally in city centres, so passengers avoid the long journeys to and from distant airports, and they do not need to arrive hours early for security checks. When these factors are included, the total time of a train journey is often comparable to flying, and the experience is usually more relaxing.

Nevertheless, a ban would work only if rail travel is a realistic alternative. Services must be frequent, reliable and reasonably priced, and at present tickets are sometimes more expensive than budget flights. Governments therefore need to invest in rail and subsidise fares before they introduce restrictions. Exceptions would also be necessary for connecting passengers who continue on long-haul flights, and for regions where the railway is not suitable.

In conclusion, replacing short flights with trains would cut emissions and need not waste time, provided that rail services are improved first. I therefore broadly support the proposal.