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

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

mcc-berlin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 910 posts

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

#201

Post by threeseed »

jdietrich wrote: post #171
V__ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Road vehicles are heavily taxed in European countries. I don't have the figures for Germany, but the UK spends £12bn per year on roads, while it collects £25bn in road fuel duty and £7bn in vehicle excise duty. https://www.statista.com/statistics/298675/united-kingdom-uk... https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/... https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/...

There are also deaths caused by road accidents and health issues caused by pollution.

Those have real economic impacts which aren’t being reflected in the true cost of cars.

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

#202

Post by Arainach »

treflop wrote: post #197
clhodapp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the very patterns of development be different (and more amenable to rail) if the state didn't spend oodles of money building nice roads to make sprawl livable?

Sprawl happens when there is available undeveloped land. Roads are just a symptom. People build outwards first and then upwards.

There is plenty of undeveloped land that people don't move to because there are no roads to get to.

We have more than a century of data showing that roads are subject to induced demand. If you build more roads, people move and sprawl (and take more trips in general) until traffic is once again unbearably bad.

If you build more lanes, more people move further out. Roads create sprawl.

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

#204

Post by DoreenMichele »

ericd wrote: post #119
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…

The only carbon capture/sequestration method I’m aware of without significant tradeoffs outside of price is direct air capture, and last I saw, that clocked in at $600-1200/ton (Climeworks). So maybe not such a terrible deal?

Wetlands do a better job of carbon sequestration than trees.

Globally, we've lost 85 percent of our wetlands since the 1700s.

Maybe we should restore them.

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

#205

Post by threeseed »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #189
barrkel wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars also have a huge subsidy in the form of roads

There are generally taxes (e.g., car or gas taxes) that cover the costs. I don't know about Germany's situation, but it is not impossible to make that net zero.

In Australia, petrol tax raises ~18bn.

Cost of road infrastructure is ~36bn.

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

#206

Post by 2-3-7-43-1807 »

jdietrich wrote: post #102
2-3-7-43-1807 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Providing these €49 tickets requires an annual subsidy of around €3bn and how was this number actually calculated?

https://urban-mobility-observatory.transport.ec.europa.eu/ne...

just around 2 billion

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

#207

Post by xg15 »

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…

Also bridges and tunnels, which seem to be very expensive to maintain.

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

#208

Post by verall »

Discordian93 wrote: post #194
PlunderBunny wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the same thing in Hong Kong - the rail company practically creates new towns when they add a new station or extend a rail line.

I was under the impression Hong Kong was one big urban area already, is there really empty land new towns can be built on?

Most of the new territories is not highly developed. Kowloon and hk island are both entirely urban.

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

#209

Post by oxfordmale »

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…

This analysis is too simple. Roads need to be maintained, road accidents are a burden on the national health service and air pollution has a long term negative impact on people's health

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

#210

Post by epolanski »

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…

Why do you need to price them?

Also, there are countries out there where the average tax payer subsidizes car drivers a lot too.

Post reply on HN