When I think about places I might like to travel, the first things to occur to me are places I've never been. The world is so full of experiences I've never had and would like to have, places I haven't seen, things I haven't done.
But the idea of going to places I have been before is always tempting in a different way. For instance, I lived in Juneau, Alaska for five years, and it would be fun to see how it's changed (and how it hasn't changed), and to see people and places I remember, and miss, but haven't seen in years. There's an extra appeal in going places I've been but Siobhan hasn't so I can show them to her (though, having exhausted Long Island, I've all but run out of those; that factor's more prevalent in the case of places she's been she'd like to revisit and show me).
A dispassionate examination of the question always comes to the same answer: if I only have so much time and money I can spend travelling it would be better to see new places with it. If it would cost about the same to go to Juneau or to Italy (and it probably would), how can you even compare?
Is there some factor I'm not considering that explains why the familiar places retain some appeal in spite of this equation, or is the conclusion correct?