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

301–310 of 910 posts

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

#301

Post by abdullahkhalids »

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 cost of carbon capture is not equal to the value it provides to humanity. In fact, not emitting CO2 that you could have, is even more valuable than CO2 you remove later from the atmosphere.

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

#302

Post by OJFord »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #192
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).

People don't think of it as a subsidy because they are not charged per use a la toll road.

I don't really follow that, a toll is a way for it not to be (or to be less) subsidised?

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

#303

Post by klipt »

kortilla wrote: post #173
ccppurcell wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s not a weasel word, it’s a word used to describe any program provided by the government that does not bring in enough revenue on its own to pay for itself. The same word applies to roads that do not pay for themselves through gas tax and/or tolls. If the government pays for something through a general fund from income/property/corporate taxes, it’s subsidized. It’s important to call these out whenever they are be…

Most of the value created by public transit goes into the land near the stations. Employers want offices near stations and employees want homes near stations.

You can recover as lot more money from taxing the land than from fares.

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

#304

Post by contravariant »

moffkalast wrote: post #168
hankchinaski wrote: post #157

Would be interesting to see if the subsidy is covered by additional economic activity to cover the shortfall. If not it won’t last long, money doesn’t grow on trees

On the other hand the Bundeswehr burns through 50 billion a year to do fuck all, so apparently it does indeed grow on trees.

Military spending is a bit of an odd one. It's basically expensive by design and ideally doesn't have any real effect.

It's not far off from a proof-of-work system. Especially given how there are many cheaper options to get rid of an enemy, but those have been outlawed such that the only options remaining are costly in people, money and goods.

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

#305

Post by smcl »

kortilla wrote: post #173
ccppurcell wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s not a weasel word, it’s a word used to describe any program provided by the government that does not bring in enough revenue on its own to pay for itself. The same word applies to roads that do not pay for themselves through gas tax and/or tolls. If the government pays for something through a general fund from income/property/corporate taxes, it’s subsidized. It’s important to call these out whenever they are be…

> The same word applies to roads that do not pay for themselves through gas tax and/or tolls.

It’s very weird how people talk about roads as a sort of universal public good whose construction and maintenance needs to be financed by local authorities and taxation. Yet rail is expected to not just stand on its own two feet but to yield a profit. Both facilitate commerce and improve a regions productivity (rail inarguably does so with greater efficiency, especially when integrated into a public transport system) - why is rail treated so differently?

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

#306

Post by nisa »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #287
k__ wrote: post #120

It's pretty awesome, but it gets more expensive all the time. First it started as 9€ ticket for 3 months. People loved it, and the government talked about doing a permanent 29€ ticket. But now we pay 49€ and it's already planned to become 59€. Really sad, as it isn't affordable for poor people anymore.

Doesn't Germany have an extremely large social safety net? Who are these poor people that don't have 49€ for a month of transportation, and how are they possibly surviving without that much money - given the cost of everything else in Germany?

Well you'll usally have 563€/month as a single or 506€/month if living with a partner. State pays health insurance and rent (up to a certain limit in size of the flat). In most cities it's further subsidized (25-29€ for the 49€ ticket).

If that's enough depends a lot where you live, if you have family or not and your livestyle.

You have to pay your energy bills (40-70€/month) and internet / cell-phone (40-50€/month) for yourself.

If you are a healthy single it's perfectly fine if you life a simple life. But you can't really put aside any savings.

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

#307

Post by thrance »

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…

Roads, highways and gas are massively subsidized, much more per kilometer travelled than rail. I think if you factor in spared road maintenance alone, from travellers using the train instead of their cars, you might see the operation is actually saving public money.

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

#308

Post by jahnu »

tantivy wrote: post #213
ggernov wrote: post #203

The reason nobody uses public transit in America is it's always packed with transients or dangerous people. I took public transit all the time living in Melbourne since it was clean and silent nearly 98% of the time. Same in the Netherlands.

Hundreds of thousands of people use public transit daily in America. Long headways, poor coverage, and lackluster maintenance budgets are a much more important problem than what you're describing.

I take your point but the reality is millions use it daily. Also where it is better more use it. Which is the important point lost to many.

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

#309

Post by lagrange77 »

manquer wrote: post #297
lagrange77 wrote: post #283

Am i a communist when i prefer a government to operate and provide basic services like the public transport system, the postal system, the telecommunication/internet service or prisons either paid by taxes or by fees, that don't generate profit beyond paying the costs, instead of using taxes to rescue bankrupt banks and companies? EDIT: Oh and hospitals!

> Am i a communist Even if you were, is that really a bad thing? Why do we demonize communism (and socialism ) so much ? Poor implementation in Soviet Union or in PRC that is only seen through the color of propaganda with the inherent cultural and ideological biases is hardly a good basis for judging a movement that was a response to centuries of extreme worker exploitation in direct result industrialization and rais…

> Even if you were, is that really a bad thing?

I noticed, that it sounded like that after i submitted the comment. Was not intended.

> Are there really bad ideas in socialism ? yes of course, there are bad ideas in late stage capitalism or in any free market system or any system.

I totally agree.

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

#310

Post by thrance »

londons_explore wrote: post #106
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…

> requires an annual subsidy of around €3bn I suspect the key is to find ways to run railways cheaper. It has been a long time since railways were under severe cost competition encouraging people to look for efficiencies. I think the main one would be to find a way for railways to operate with no staff. Just like a typical road operates most of the time with no staff. That means you need to redesign everything that c…

Opening the railways to competition has utterly ruined the UK's rail network. Ticket price has skyrocketed while service quality has fallen.

In the 30s, French rail companies begged and lobbied the government to nationalize them, so they could exit the burden that was maintaining a rail network.

Rail just isn't profitable, but is vital to society, and will become even more so as gas becomes increasingly expensive/lacking. Some things should just never be opened to competition.

Post reply on HN