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

591–600 of 910 posts

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

#591

Post by chomskyole »

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…

If you recognise that there are other positive impacts that you haven't allowed for, then why stating that your incomplete assessment shows that it isn't good value? Does that show bias?

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

#592

Post by finikytou »

andrepd wrote: post #566
Happily2020 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention subsidised parking spaces. Free and even paid street parking is highly subsidised by the city and by other tax payers. There's also the environmental cost of not having that land be a park or nature and instead have it contribute to being an urban heat island with all its asphalt.

Absolutely. Next time you see a free parking spot mentally calculate the rent of ~10m² on that part of the city to understand how much of a subsidy that is. Then multiply by 50 parking spots in a street. Then think how many thousands there are all over the city...

do you have free parking? cities are making money out of parking spots. a lot of money. so much than one would say they have an incentive to reduce parking space to increase price and reduce expenses

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

#593

Post by RobinL »

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…

In the short run, the trains are running anyway, so you might as well fill them up.

This is something that particularly frustates me in the case of buses the UK. They're ridiculously expensive (well, except for the temporary current £2 scheme), and empty. There seems to be a political consensus that we should have them, so it would make far more sense for them to be free in all instances, except when demand is so high they're full (e.g. rush hour)

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

#594

Post by chomskyole »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #336
jordanb wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"These things aren't important unless you can wedge them into my spreadsheet" is the time of consultant-brained nonsense that got us the world we're living in.

Nobody said that. But if you're gonna spend the public money, you need some way of determining "how much are we willing to pay for this good thing".

Yes, that is right. Opinion building is a thing in a democracy.

The problem with op is that he attaches a strong value statement ("isn't good value") to an incomplete assessment. Now that's doing politics! Isn't that what we want to get away from? Don't we want to have it all objective and fact based?

So here is the question: How should we make decisions? Is it possible to use $ as a neutral decision making data point? Or do we have to discuss things broadly, and include elements that haven't been broken down to the cent, to reach a consensus about how we want to organise society?

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

#595

Post by throw0101c »

jansan wrote: post #589
throw0101c wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've commuted both on trains and in cars, and when comparing transportation methods near the saturation point, cars win when it comes to personal comfort. Note that if you're at the saturation point of both modes, you're moving a lot more people with (light/heavy) rail: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passenger_Capacity_of_dif... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity Also worth considering that while…

That is like saying that with pig factory farming (aka intensive pig farming) you can produce far more meat per square foot than with organic pig farming and therefore it must be better.

> […] and therefore it must be better.

Yes, it is better from a capacity point of view.

If you have a linear path that is x metres wide, and you want/need to move a certain number of people, not-cars will move more people:

* https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Corridor...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis–Mogridge_position

Or, from another perspective, you have a budget of $/€ y for transportation, what mode of transportation will allow you to move the most people for that money? Unless you believe in MMT, government budgets are a finite resource, so how do we get the most bang for our buck?

Certainly you need some roads as vehicles such as trucks (UK: lorries) are very handy for society in running the economy. I myself own a car, a motorcycle, a bicycle, and have a transit pass (though I can use debit/credit tap-to-pay) and use each mode when appropriate. But the overemphasis on automobiles—specifically for private transportation—is suffocating the availability for other options.

To go back to your analogy: if you have a starving population, then factory farming is better because you can provide more calories to more people (and probably at lower cost). In that case organic is worse because you may be sacrificing people's well-being by not having enough capacity. Once you solve your first problem (enough calories/capacity), then you have the luxury of other considerations.

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

#596

Post by pimeys »

artemonster wrote: post #105
Glawen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because waiting im Stau (traffic jam) is so much better.

Because missing important appointment (Termin) that you have arranged 3 fucking months before by waiting in a phone queue for 30 minutes because your Sbahn was cancelled because of a nonsense signal-related reason is so much better.

I kind of agree and disagree with you. My main train lines in Berlin are U8 and Ring and it can be annoying sometimes.

And I will still probably never get a driver's license. Been going without for 40 years already. Just being able to jump into any train, bus, tram or ferry anytime is really nice. I could pay double the monthly price for this privilege.

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

#597

Post by carrja99 »

server_man3000 wrote: post #2

Didn’t this start as unlimited anywhere for 9 euros no strings attached? I LOVE the German transit system (although Denmark wins in cleanliness). However, Germany is a bit predatory with this new system. You can ONLY purchase this ticket as a subscription model. If you’re a tourist, you must cancel before the 10th of the month or you get auto rebilled. Additionally, there are so many apps that resell the ticket as so…

As a tourist, the cost was well worth it. Used buses and rail to get everywhere, booked one DB train from Berlin to Bamberg but otherwise travelled all over Germany during my time there.

Just had to remember to cancel.

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

#598

Post by manmal »

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…

One other positive externality could be this: The health effects of tire abrasion in cars are not clear yet, not least because tire manufacturers don’t disclose their ingredients. For all we know these fine particulates could be as bad as PFAS.

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

#599

Post by pjmlp »

dgellow wrote: post #569
pjmlp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but doesn't make the Bahn more punctual, or reduce those comute times from 3h down to the 1h that is possible by car, not having to jump across four connections, with related delays and dropped connections.

3h, that’s like Hamburg-Berlin, and would not be covered by the Deutschland ticket anyway

I wish, more like 80km, with the luck to jump between bus, two connecting trains, plus bus on the destination, and better not lose any of those connections.

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

#600

Post by throw0101c »

nine_k wrote: post #455
Aeolun wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course a car does, but does that mean you should ignore all the benefits brought by bicycles? And if we go that far, should we overlook our own muscular locomotion? It all enables the same mobility after all.

Cycling at 110F ambient temperature can be outright hazardous (speaking of Texas). Cycling at 80F is okay as long as you have a shower at the destination. (Most offices don't.) Also, cycling in a city, when you cycle for 2-3, maybe 5 miles, is fine. Cycling for 20 miles is pretty taxing and time-consuming, but in a low-density, car-oriented environment 20 miles correctly qualifies as "nearby".

> Cycling at 80F is okay as long as you have a shower at the destination. (Most offices don't.)

1. Shower at home.

2. Have a change of clothes.

In the Before Times (pre-COVID) I cycled to work five days a week and never showered there (even though available). (And believe me: people I worked with would have told me if it was a problem. )

Sweating does not make you stinky. Sweat is not stinky. It is bacteria that causes the stinkiness. If your skin is (relatively) clean, there would not be any (food for) bacteria and you won't stink.

Also:

3. How much you sweat depends on your exertion level: take it easy and you don't sweat as much, at least in the morning when it's cooler. (I'm in Toronto, where summer afternoons are sometimes >30C, and I've cycled home in 35C weather; high-ish humidity too.)

Post reply on HN