Germany's 49-euro ticket resulted in significant shift from road to rail

Post by jdietrich » Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 9:59 PM UTC

V__ wrote: post #93

jdietrich wrote: post #76

Providing these €49 tickets requires an annual subsidy of around €3bn, on top of already substantial subsidies for the rail industry. If we accept that it reduces carbon emissions by 6.7 million tonnes per year, then that works out to €447 per tonne. That really isn't good value - most carbon abatement methods cost well under $100 per tonne. I do recognise that modal shift towards rail may have other positive externa…

> already substantial subsidies for the rail industry Though to be fair, there are also substantial subsidies for the whole road network.

Post by kortilla » Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 10:04 PM UTC

ccppurcell wrote: post #97

jdietrich wrote: post #76

Providing these €49 tickets requires an annual subsidy of around €3bn, on top of already substantial subsidies for the rail industry. If we accept that it reduces carbon emissions by 6.7 million tonnes per year, then that works out to €447 per tonne. That really isn't good value - most carbon abatement methods cost well under $100 per tonne. I do recognise that modal shift towards rail may have other positive externa…

I find the word subsidy to be a possible weasel word here. I don't know all the details but a railway system has certain costs (fuel, personnel, water, upkeep, the trains themselves and so on) and takes in a certain amount of revenue (fares and subsidies, also food etc). It might be true that the government increased the subsidy in order to support the cheaper tickets. But that's not the same as "requires". Perhaps I…

Post by clhodapp » Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

spacebanana7 wrote: post #160

PlunderBunny wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget too that the cost of proving roads is also ‘subsidised’ in most countries, but we’re tend to be a bit blind to that. (This is not an argument against rail - I just find that subsidies are often mentioned with respect to rail but not with roads).

Calculating the subsidy associated with state maintenance of roads for private vehicles is difficult. Some basic level of signage and hazard prevention (potholes, ice etc) is necessary for emergency vehicles and other government operations. Thereafter, although there is some maintenance cost associated with the road wear from private vehicles and the additional infrastructure required for higher traffic volumes, we d…

Post by kortilla » Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 10:09 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #16

geraldwhen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is smaller than California. The United States is very, very large place, mostly unpopulated. It’s hard to apply whatever Germany, a small, densely populated country does to the US, which is largely empty land.

Why do we have to pretend that routes between Montana and South Dakota have to come up when discussing ways of improving rail usage in the US? We could treat routes between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis like Germany. We could treat high speed rail in California or the Northeast like Japan. Choosing to live in an extremely rural area shouldn't just be a "well it doesn't help" me trump card to defeat things that…

Post by tourmalinetaco » Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 10:13 PM UTC

moffkalast wrote: post #154

jdietrich wrote: post #76

Providing these €49 tickets requires an annual subsidy of around €3bn, on top of already substantial subsidies for the rail industry. If we accept that it reduces carbon emissions by 6.7 million tonnes per year, then that works out to €447 per tonne. That really isn't good value - most carbon abatement methods cost well under $100 per tonne. I do recognise that modal shift towards rail may have other positive externa…

Well it's not just a carbon credit, it also provides subsidized public transport to everyone, reduces congestion, improves city air and likely cuts road deaths. Arguably tax dollars extremely well spent.