I think it was much more popular before budget airlines became so big in Europe. When you can fly to most European cities for < €50 at anytime of the year taking lots of weekend breaks is affordable even for students.
For actual travel I've almost always preferred trains over flights in Europe. Much less hassle, you can take your favorite liquids, no idiot airline agents trying to steal your 8kg kg carry-on for being overweight, no security line.
I've travelled to almost every country in western Europe and several in Eastern Europe, not taking a single inter-Europe flight.
The only part I hate is after taking an overnight train, hotels aren't open for morning check in, and dragging luggage across cobblestone streets trying to find restrooms to take the obligatory 3 shit-sessions every morning due to my uncooperative butt is not fun.
One great "hack" I've discovered is that most hotels are more than happy to stow your luggage behind the counter, or even in a luggage room if you arrive before check in times.
This more or less completely eliminated my gripe with check-in times being later than I arrive to a city.
True, but I still need to shit an average of 3 times every morning and the arrivals are Poisson. Problematic in many European cities that don't have restrooms everywhere.
I don't think so, I lived the peak of budget airlines in the 00s and interrail was still quite popular.
I think young kids have just moved on culturally, I tried to convince a couple relatives to make use of the 18yo free trains opportunity and nobody wanted to pick it up, for various reasons.
All true. Also: Weekend holidays involving flights are a completely unsustainable and irresponsible form of tourism given the climate crisis. Not that anyone much cares.
Not always. For solo travel, flying can emit less carbon than driving an ICE vehicle, assuming a full commercial flight and depending on vehicle fuel efficiency. For EVs, hybrids, and group travel the calculation may be different.
Also, if you drive, it's likely that the flight you would otherwise have taken is going to make the trip anyway. So you've just added whatever carbon your car emits to the total.
If you're really concerned about it, the best plan is to not travel for pleasure, or maybe use a bicycle.
As you hint, the rule of thumb is that driving is (mile for mile) roughly as polluting as flying. But that's surely the point: nobody is going to drive across a continent to go the beach. The problem with flying is precisely the speed with which the damage is done.
>if you drive, it's likely that the flight you would otherwise have taken is going to make the trip anyway
This is a terrible argument, a straightforward (but surprisingly common) fallacy. The plane is leaving because of the price signal: people bought tickets for the flight. If they stop buying tickets, planes will very quickly stop leaving.
I agree that if we care about the environment then we should at least try to travel less, or less far.
>> I agree that if we care about the environment then we should at least try to travel less, or less far.
I disagree. Regular people have already made plenty of sacrifices. We should continue enjoying our lives so long as billionaires utilise their private jets, governments wage wars, and citizens in countries like the US continue to consume exponentially more resources than everywhere else.
Busses and trains get pretty good bang for the eco-buck. Oftentimes you can bring your bicycle with you for last-mile transportation at your destination city.
I've travelled to almost every country in western Europe and several in Eastern Europe, not taking a single inter-Europe flight.
The only part I hate is after taking an overnight train, hotels aren't open for morning check in, and dragging luggage across cobblestone streets trying to find restrooms to take the obligatory 3 shit-sessions every morning due to my uncooperative butt is not fun.