[emteycz]

Nope - I didn't ask to include train stations. You can include runways only.

I have no idea about the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if including building the railroads and maintenance would make plane and (electric) train equal. You don't want to know the amount of diesel smoke that's coming from the nearby railroad reconstruction.

I wonder where could one find this data

[Asraelite]

Why would you include railways and runways but not train stations and airports?

It's not possible to create a new destination, add additional capacity to an existing destination, or maintain existing capacity without additional costs to all major parts of the infrastructure, for both trains and planes.

[emteycz]

Because the machines don't care whether the humans inside are fed and warm, and won't emit more/less CO2 because of it.

These buildings are very similar. The major difference is that while a capital city train station handles around 10-40 trains at a time with short arrival-departure pause (e.g. Prague main station handles around 10-15 concurrent trains), capital city airports are often handling many dozens of concurrent flights (with longer arrival-departure pause and smaller groups per vehicle) -> the airport takes more area but isn't technically sophisticated at all; the train station is denser, but railroad switching at a station isn't easy. So let's just keep stations separate. Of course buildings required by the machines should be included.

It most definitely is possible to build an airport without any costs other than construction of the runway and a fuel pump, and a 2-4 km stretch of dirt is more than enough. If you want airliners landing there then simply pour asphalt or concrete over it, smaller planes can handle dirt. You'll want to bring fuel - a truck that already often drives nearby (to supply gas stations) will bring it to you, and nothing fancier than the simplest second hand fuel pump and a tank is needed.

It is also most definitely possible to add significant capacity to an existing airport with nearly zero costs and it is routinely done - every year from May to September hundreds of tiny airports all around the world start serving (sometimes) more flights than the country's capital city, bringing in thousands of people from dozens or even hundreds of different destinations all around the planet, with flights coming in every 30 minutes from 8 to 22. Usually a travel agency finds a place they like (that probably never had a single airliner fly over there before), they call it and make a deal, and it's done. They'll set up their own ground handling service if they have that many flights daily to improve efficiency - that's as easy as parking a few cars next to the airport and placing staff they already employ there, and it's not needed if it's just a flight per hour or so.

The thing that's hard about capital city airports is that everyone wants to go to a different destination and be there on time, everyone goes to the airport by their own means, the security theatre, etc. I don't know much train stations with numbers of car parking places comparable to airports, and these that do still don't like cars being parked for weeks there. The travel agency has it simpler because they're moving the whole group either by plane or by bus, and they can do whatever they like with the schedule. Many smaller cities have airports that handle few flights per week and that kind of airport is at most a single building next to the runway, nothing like FRA or the new BER.

Maintaining existing capacity - I already talked about the runway pour... That's about it. The fuel equipment will need a refresh every 20 years or so.

[Symbiote]

> strip of dirt

You have drifted so far from a reasonable comparison for long distance passenger travel that continuing the discussion is pointless.

[dash2]

I used to fly to Leipzig Altenburg. It was basically a shed plus a line of asphalt, in the countryside. The guy checking your baggage and the guy selling bagels looked kind of similar and I suspect they were brothers.

The airport eventually lost its Ryanair connection because - allegedly - one day the plane approaching called air traffic and got no response. The air traffic controller had slept in late....

[emteycz]

Sorry to make you so angry you stopped reading right at this word, though that means you might be positively surprised to see the sentence that immediately follows. ;-)

[loufe]

The thing is, the cost of building rails is amortized over, in some cases, well over a hundred years. Most of train travels emissions are fixed emissions, marginal emissions being much lower. On the flipside, air travel has a much smaller fixed emissions amount but drastically higher marginal emissions.

Also, it is not my particular field of engineering but there is likely no scenario where fuel efficiency of planes is better than trains. That you can find sources for pretty easily.