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

Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 181 posts

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#111

Post by jerlam »

smsm42 wrote: post #35
dukoid wrote: post #11

Why do we still allow drivers to externalize most of the costs associated with cars? There is existing technology to extract co2 from the atmosphere, and the current cost of this should be the free market-based price for co2 emissions.

Gas and cars are already heavily taxed. In California, for example, it's 61c per gallon now. I am not sure what's the situation in Switzerland, but last time I have been in Europe gas prices there was very significantly higher than in the US (even in California). Given as European gas doesn't seem to be a different product than US gas, I have to conclude Europeans already pay a lost of costs when buying gas. Same wit…

California doesn't even have the same kind of gas as other US states. Supply is limited due to only a subset of refineries that can produce it.

Gasoline is regulated both by federal, local, and state laws.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/fuels-enforcment-pr...

https://www.wearethepractitioners.com/index.php/topics/art-a...

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#112

Post by const_cast »

bluGill wrote: post #30
mvieira38 wrote: post #10

Public transportation should always be free in cities, with car commuters paying the operation costs. Not saying it can be implemented right away, but it should be a policy goal for cities. You have all the right in the world to prefer driving and chilling on your air conditioning and stereo if you can afford it, but it shouldn't be free if you're occupying the lane space 10 people would occupy in a bus, and making t…

> Public transportation should always be free in cities, with car commuters paying the operation costs Strongly disagree. There are too many perverse incentives that work against transit. If there are a lot of car commuters (which there will be - plumbers taking their tools to the job for example) they have inventive to pressure politicians to reduce that tax - any voting block will always be more powerful than the d…

As opposed to the automobile and petroleum industries, who famously have no perverse incentives.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#113

Post by jewayne »

qcnguy wrote: post #107
IshKebab wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your public transport is so popular that it's becoming infeasible to fund it from car taxes... mission fucking accomplished! That is such a wild and nonsensical fear. "But what if it's too successful?!"

Eh no, that is an actual failure mode. Germany is experiencing it right now. What it means is everyone ends up being forced to use horribly broken public transport and it screws up everyone's business and personal lives. It is possible for public transport to be too popular. It looks like overloaded, crowded and constantly broken lines that can't get better because they're starved of funding.

I don't know much about what Germany is experiencing, but even Germany's neighbors in the Netherlands and France seem to be having a renaissance predicated upon getting people out of their personal automobiles. Perhaps the problem is actually the outsized influence of the auto industry in Germany?

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#114

Post by const_cast »

qcnguy wrote: post #108
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You either spend the tax money on roads, or on public transit. Roads aren't free either.

Roads are much cheaper and more useful. They can be used for moving freight whereas good public transport keeps freight off the lines to avoid timetabling problems caused by blockage.

They're not cheaper, that's an illusion and lie sold by the automobile and petroleum industries.

The interstates in the US alone have costed more than 25 trillion dollars. That's just the interstates, no other highways or roads.

But none of that even considers cost of using said roads. In the US, on average 15% of gross income is spent on automobile transportation.

That's a 15% tax right off the top, before your other taxes.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#115

Post by juujian »

thmsths wrote: post #15

How effective do they expect a measure like this to be? Once a car and its insurance are paid for, the marginal cost of a single trip is quite low. I seriously wonder how many people woke up that day and thought "instead of driving I will take the train today because they are waiving the $3 fee" not many I bet. If we want to encourage people to take public transports we need to keep them competitive against the car a…

We often think of everyday behavior in terms of cost-benefit, but that's not all it is. Waiving the fee is a signal to indicate that taking public transit is socially desirable. That could be an effective nudge for many who are indecisive.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#116

Post by const_cast »

IshKebab wrote: post #103
kccqzy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's absolutely not cheaper to drive your family into the city. You said owning+driving a car; did you really take into account ownership costs (maintenance, insurance etc) and driving costs (tolls, parking)? Just the cost of parking alone dwarfs the cost of the train.

Sure but most families need a car anyway, and once you have one the costs of ownership, maintenance, insurance etc. are irrelevant to the costs of individual trips.

Most families in NYC do not need to own a car, and in fact most don't.

But even then we have to consider marginal costs. Owning one car is better than two or three. Here in Texas, it's not uncommon to see households with 4 or 5 cars.

That's expensive.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#117

Post by baggy_trough »

const_cast wrote: post #114
qcnguy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roads are much cheaper and more useful. They can be used for moving freight whereas good public transport keeps freight off the lines to avoid timetabling problems caused by blockage.

They're not cheaper, that's an illusion and lie sold by the automobile and petroleum industries. The interstates in the US alone have costed more than 25 trillion dollars. That's just the interstates, no other highways or roads. But none of that even considers cost of using said roads. In the US, on average 15% of gross income is spent on automobile transportation. That's a 15% tax right off the top, before your othe…

That spending pattern means that automobile transportation is very valuable compared to alternatives.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#118

Post by const_cast »

theappsecguy wrote: post #28
dukoid wrote: post #11

Why do we still allow drivers to externalize most of the costs associated with cars? There is existing technology to extract co2 from the atmosphere, and the current cost of this should be the free market-based price for co2 emissions.

This is a very naive take. For one, we don't do this because a lot of people in a lot of places have no other choice. Not everyone lives in a developed European country, good luck living without a car in Texas.

The reason we have so many cars in Texas is because we don't pay the costs.

Source: I live in Texas.

Part of the problem of automobiles is that we put the industry on such extreme welfare that it makes no sense to do anything else. If we remove that welfare, the industry will be forced to shift.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#119

Post by const_cast »

ferguess_k wrote: post #78
insane_dreamer wrote: post #19

Not sure it will make a difference to people's travel habits; I think those inclined to take public transport already do so. But it does highlight the fact that we subsidize private transport (our taxes pay for the roads, traffic police, etc.), so why not public transport?

What do you mean "subsidizing private transport"? I'm sorry but "your tax" also includes the tax paid by people who drive private cars. And since most public transit companies don't break even anyway (at least in Canada), it is the private drivers that are paying for the public.

The people who drive said cars pay a tiny fraction. The costs are just externalized.

I mean, you cant honestly believe 20 cents per gallon covers the 25 trillion in Interstate costs, right?

Or the over 1 trillion dollars in damages in Texas alone due to oil drilling.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#120

Post by const_cast »

baggy_trough wrote: post #117
const_cast wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not cheaper, that's an illusion and lie sold by the automobile and petroleum industries. The interstates in the US alone have costed more than 25 trillion dollars. That's just the interstates, no other highways or roads. But none of that even considers cost of using said roads. In the US, on average 15% of gross income is spent on automobile transportation. That's a 15% tax right off the top, before your othe…

That spending pattern means that automobile transportation is very valuable compared to alternatives.

Or it means oil and automobiles are lucrative industries with huge amount of influence.

The reasoning of "we spend a lot of money so it must be good" is just bad. No, we spend a lot of money on stupid shit all the time. Both historically and currently.

Post reply on HN