4 ms·
On a plane, you may have to get up extra early, or still lose half a day. Especially in Central/Eastern Europe, the prices aren't that high really. And, as GP a
by gpvos 3y ago
On a plane, you may have to get up extra early, or still lose half a day. Especially in Central/Eastern Europe, the prices aren't that high really. And, as GP already wrote, you save on one night in a hotel, which may offset the entire difference.
Also, there is the environment. If that were factored in properly in the prices (and that's being worked on), the train would be a lot cheaper.
- asdff 3y agoI don't think you can really consider the environment here as there are too many variables to consider in a reliable model. E.g. its not clear that replacing that entire planes worth of peoples trips with another routing would even net a gain, if people might have to do more circuitous routing that take more time and distance, or take different modes of transit that aren't a fully electrified rail that goes end to end, e.g. a lightly filled bus that has a much lower per passenger mpg than an airplane.
- gpvos 3y agoI understand that some comparisons with realistic assumptions have been made. Notably, high-speed trains cause significantly more emissions than classical trains, but are still better than planes.
- worik 3y agoAre high sped trains worth the extra capital and operating expense? I love trains.