Within Germany for example I would argue that a distance that can be covered in a train trip of less than 6 hours wasts less time than a plane trip to the same destination for people with a sufficiently high office work load to their job.
CO₂ has a cost, but people's wasted time has a cost, too. Those costs should be balanced This policy demands train for <6hr and prefers train for <8hr It will be interesting to see the reaction when it transforms what can be done in 1 day into a 2-3-day trip w/hotelhttps://twitter.com/CameronBrick/status/1471470170543734793 …
-
-
-
Let's do the math. I live in Berlin but my parents live in Basel. The direct train takes roughly 7:30 h. Time to station in Berlin: 20min. Buffer time: 10min. Time from station to my parents: 25min. Total door to door: about 8:30. Dead time of the trip: ca 1h. (excluding lunch)
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Signalling virtue apparently is a perpetual motion machine
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Train time is higher quality than plane time
-
it depends...
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Chupamedias of Oilers
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Competition will sort things out. Once those who take the trains notice losing clients, sales and income to those who take the planes, such policies will be reconsidered. It will take a while but eventually the cost will show up.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Predicting when their travel budget would be exhausted under this scenario would be a fun initial exercise in a cost benefit analysis exercise.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
You don't get it, do You?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.