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

Post by thatfrenchguy » Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 1:53 PM UTC

itronitron wrote: post #416

danaris wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has never been significantly true, and becomes less true every year. The probability that any given child will be kidnapped or otherwise threatened by a stranger is minuscule compared to the chance that they will be abused, kidnapped, or killed by a family member.

It's a low probability, high impact event in a country with limited public access to affordable health care and very limited access to therapists.

Post by m1n7 » Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 2:02 PM UTC

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…

Post by CydeWeys » Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 2:07 PM UTC

finikytou wrote: post #590

looofooo0 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare cost also decline, and people become less sick because you have to walk some amount to get to the train.

in Paris (and pretty sure that applies to pretty much any big western city, new york for instance is worse in a few of the criterias ill reference) subway increase stress, frequent delays(if you have 2-3 train as part of your commute you will experience it daily), pollution down under is high, virus/covid transmission is high, pickpockets are everywhere if not worse, bedbug, pee smell, junkies. Id take a car any day.

Post by CydeWeys » Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 2:09 PM UTC

PaulRobinson wrote: post #603

finikytou wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Cities and councils should not be making decisions based on how to raise revenue. They should be making decisions based on how to improve quality of life for residents. Parking should exist where public transport is not a viable option. Ideally the work to make public transport an option should be prioritised over the work to making parking exist. Cities and councils can make money from public transport too, it'll wo…

Post by ciceryadam » Sun, Oct 13, 2024, 2:15 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #639

PaulRobinson wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a fundamentally different model of the social contract to me. We're unlikely to ever agree. However... I believe that relying on individual purchasing power ("utility"), to improve the average quality of life is an experiment (often referred to as "Reganism" or "Thatcherism"), that after 40+ years of trialling has shown to be net negative to social mobility, overall net happiness and other factors important…

You can't have a car parking space and a children's park in the same place: you must make a choice. They also provide utility. If you remove parking spaces near a children's park less children can/will visit. You need a balance.