ODON Projects is open for submissions — tell us about your data engineering, storytelling, or education idea

story mobility sustainability environment

How Do You Get There?

Amsterdam to Vienna. Three modes. One service blueprint. The hidden system that explains why planes win — even when trains emit 14× less CO₂.

Published on · by Samreen Khan

Open in new tab ↗

Overview

This data story examines why aviation dominates European medium-haul travel — not because it is inherently better, but because the pricing and booking system was built to favour it.

Using the Amsterdam → Vienna route as a focal case (930 km — close enough for multiple modes to be genuinely viable), the story maps three options — flight, ÖBB Nightjet, and coach — through a service blueprint that reveals what the booking page hides: aviation fuel tax exemptions dating to 1944, fragmented cross-border rail ticketing, and the absence of any cross-modal aggregator at scale.

The story frames this as a UX problem with a known solution set, drawing on official data from Eurostat, the European Environment Agency, and Greenpeace’s 142-route analysis. An animated transport scene shows all three vehicles travelling simultaneously with a live journey clock. An interactive mode selector lets readers explore the full service blueprint — user actions, provider actions, hidden infrastructure, pain points, CO₂, and true door-to-door time — for each mode.

Methodology

No primary data was collected. All figures are drawn from official and peer-reviewed sources published between 2023 and 2025.

The Amsterdam → Vienna route was selected as the focal case because it sits at the threshold where multiple transport modes are genuinely competitive — making the trade-offs concrete and directly comparable.

A service blueprint was constructed for each of the three modes, mapping six layers: user actions, provider actions, supporting infrastructure, hidden system factors (tax treatment, subsidy structure, ticketing architecture), pain points, and real door-to-door time. CO₂ figures are per-passenger estimates from EEA, EcoPassenger, and Flightright, based on the Dutch and Austrian electricity mix for rail traction.

Visualisations were built as a self-contained responsive HTML page with an animated canvas transport scene (vanilla JS, requestAnimationFrame loop), an interactive mode selector, a Chart.js bar chart of EU air passenger growth 2022–2024, and a semantic accessible table as the comparative service blueprint.

Findings

  • On 61% of 142 cross-border European routes, flying is cheaper than the equivalent train — not due to operational efficiency, but because aviation fuel carries zero EU fuel excise duty while rail pays full energy tax. On UK–Europe routes, the gap averages 4× cheaper by plane. (Greenpeace 2024)
  • The Amsterdam → Vienna Nightjet emits approximately 6 kg CO₂ per passenger, versus 87 kg by flight — a factor of 14.5× — while arriving city-centre to city-centre and replacing a hotel night. (EEA / EcoPassenger / Flightright)
  • EU air passengers reached 1.1 billion in 2024 — up 8.3% year-on-year. Every EU country recorded growth. Aviation’s intra-EU modal share in passenger-km has grown from 5.3% (1995) to 9.6% (2019). (Eurostat / EEA 2024)
  • On 44 of 109 cross-border European rail routes, passengers cannot purchase a through-ticket in a single transaction — a structural barrier that persists independently of price. (Greenpeace 2024)
  • 750,000+ passengers have taken the ÖBB Nightjet between the Netherlands and Austria since its 2021 launch. The new-generation train (from May 2025) features private mini-cabins, Wi-Fi, and 520-passenger capacity — demonstrating viable demand when the product is designed well. (NS International 2025)
  • Amsterdam Schiphol handled 67 million passengers in 2024, the second busiest EU airport after Paris CDG. (Eurostat 2024)

Takeaways

The gap between flight and train on European routes is not natural — it is designed. Every structural advantage aviation holds (zero kerosene tax, no VAT on international tickets, subsidised airports, no cross-modal comparison on booking platforms) reflects policy choices that can be changed.

The booking experience is a UX problem as much as a policy problem. There is no Skyscanner equivalent for European cross-border rail. Google Flights shows carbon comparisons between flights, but not between flights and trains. That gap is a design brief.

The Nightjet data demonstrates what happens when rail competes on product quality as well as price: 750,000 passengers on a single route in four years, with market share on some overnight routes reaching 30%. The infrastructure exists. The demand exists. The remaining gap is one of policy clarity and booking system design.

Data Sources

Ratings use the ODON Open Data Maturity Model (ODMM).

Tools Used

  • HTML/CSS/JavaScript
  • Canvas API
  • Chart.js
  • Python/Playwright

External Links

License & Disclaimer

Published under CC BY 4.0 — free to share and adapt with attribution.

The views expressed are those of the author. ODON provides this publishing space as a neutral party and does not endorse any opinions or interpretations expressed.