Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#21

Post by asdajksah2123 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #14
insane_dreamer wrote: post #12

Why not make public transportation free as part of the government's investment in combatting climate change (and lots of other benefits)

Because it's expensive but not necessarily effective. It also only benefits city-dwellers (see political impact of this by looking at, for instance, the yellow vest protests in France).

Making public transportation free would reduce demand for oil/gas in cities and would lower prices people in rural areas would pay relative to it not being free.

Of course, this assumes that public transportation is only available in cities, but that's not true at all. Many European countries have extremely effective rural public transportation.

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#23

Post by baohwang »

lgrapenthin wrote: post #5

Wrong. It flooded the network with vacationers who normally could not afford travelling at all, while workers had to resort to their cars again to reach their jobs in time. Counting everyone who "would not have travelled by train", meaning "likely not at all" as saved emission is not very convincing.

No post body was provided.

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#24

Post by insane_dreamer »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #14
insane_dreamer wrote: post #12

Why not make public transportation free as part of the government's investment in combatting climate change (and lots of other benefits)

Because it's expensive but not necessarily effective. It also only benefits city-dwellers (see political impact of this by looking at, for instance, the yellow vest protests in France).

it benefits city-dwellers more, but some (many?) European countries have rural rail/bus networks that are highly effective

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#25

Post by ramblezeus »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #12

Why not make public transportation free as part of the government's investment in combatting climate change (and lots of other benefits)

There was a recent discussion on the topic “Should Public Transit Be Free?” on Freakonomics Podcast

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/should-public-transit-be-fr...

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#26

Post by insane_dreamer »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #13
insane_dreamer wrote: post #12

Why not make public transportation free as part of the government's investment in combatting climate change (and lots of other benefits)

Generally the barrier to using public transit is not price, but rather deficiencies in the network, so the best way to increase transit use is to invest money in expanding the network or improving frequency and consistency of transit. This is definitely the case in North America, but still likely the case in Germany despite Germany having a much more robust transit system.

I'd say the barrier in N.America is both deficient networks in most cities, and price (it's actually quite expensive because there's such low usage). If it were free, or close-to-free, it would ostensibly increase ridership which would increase the impetus for further expansion (which right now is hard to advocate for when so few people use it; it's just not worth the cost even if you charge people for it).

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#27

Post by ipaddr »

asdajksah2123 wrote: post #21
mytailorisrich wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's expensive but not necessarily effective. It also only benefits city-dwellers (see political impact of this by looking at, for instance, the yellow vest protests in France).

Making public transportation free would reduce demand for oil/gas in cities and would lower prices people in rural areas would pay relative to it not being free. Of course, this assumes that public transportation is only available in cities, but that's not true at all. Many European countries have extremely effective rural public transportation.

Taxes raise in rural areas to pay for these systems.

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#28

Post by MildlySerious »

lgrapenthin wrote: post #5

Wrong. It flooded the network with vacationers who normally could not afford travelling at all, while workers had to resort to their cars again to reach their jobs in time. Counting everyone who "would not have travelled by train", meaning "likely not at all" as saved emission is not very convincing.

I am assuming a large part of that influx was from people who made extensive use of it because of its limited nature. If a similar option was always available, there would be a lot less pressure to squeeze every opportunity into such a short time frame.

If the 69€ ticket came to pass, it would still be more expensive than, or in the same ballpark as most one-off trips. People would make use of it, but the urge to take advantage of it while it lasts would be gone.

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#29

Post by pwdisswordfish0 »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #13
insane_dreamer wrote: post #12

Why not make public transportation free as part of the government's investment in combatting climate change (and lots of other benefits)

Generally the barrier to using public transit is not price, but rather deficiencies in the network, so the best way to increase transit use is to invest money in expanding the network or improving frequency and consistency of transit. This is definitely the case in North America, but still likely the case in Germany despite Germany having a much more robust transit system.

Yeah no, it’s definitely the price and the hassle of getting a ticket. I probably live in the best developed area in Germany, public transit wise. I could be in the next big city center in 10 minutes by train, but without the €9 ticket I frequently took the car (which I have to have for rural reasons), because apparently rather than paying €12.40 I preferred driving 30 minutes, finding and paying for parking, and not drinking. Because it’s not just paying 12.40, it’s figuring out what ticket to get, being shocked by the price, calculating a thousand and one fare options to try and penny-pinch myself to a clean conscience, dealing with their fucking ticket machines or their fucking app, begrudgingly committing to a time and a train… Hating every part of it and feeling hated back by Deutsche Bahn at every step of the way, knowing they’ll readily fuck me over if they find the tiniest excuse.

The €9 ticket got you around without playing stupid games. The same freedom is either unavailable otherwise, or comes at absolutely unjustifiable prices.

Re: Germany’s €9 train tickets scheme ‘saved 1.8m tons of CO2 emissions’

#30

Post by atwood22 »

valenterry wrote: post #18
insane_dreamer wrote: post #12

Why not make public transportation free as part of the government's investment in combatting climate change (and lots of other benefits)

There's pros and cons. On the con side: - When people get something for free, they often don't value it as much and treat it worse. E.g. more pollution. - public transportation being free also means that it will be used even in cases where it is both economically and ecologically a suboptimal solution. This is a problem because more usage means higher costs. E.g. someone now might take a bus instead of cycling. - Les…

> - public transportation being free also means that it will be used even in cases where it is both economically and ecologically a suboptimal solution. This is a problem because more usage means higher costs. E.g. someone now might take a bus instead of cycling.

That’s really reaching. Presumably people would do the thing that bear fits their circumstances after weighing the costs and benefits.

Post reply on HN