• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The train takes you right in the city centre though. If you fly you usually have to buy an extra train ticket to get to your actual destination.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh yes, of course. You would think operating a train would be cheaper than flying if you excluded the initial capital investment costs of actually building the line.

    • FMT99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, but it doesn’t double the cost. We usually end up just driving which is even cheaper than flying, even including the crazy parking costs. And relatively low carbon compared to flying. Taking the train would make it very hard to justify the cost.

      • freebee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A car with most or all seats taken is usually not that bad in carbon footprint, it’s very different from the 1 person per car with 4 empty seats in a daily commute footprint. For me, longer distance, the train is just a lot more comfortable than a car (if you don’t have to switch trains too often).