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

Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#71

Post by ferguess_k »

komali2 wrote: post #23
mvieira38 wrote: post #10

Public transportation should always be free in cities, with car commuters paying the operation costs. Not saying it can be implemented right away, but it should be a policy goal for cities. You have all the right in the world to prefer driving and chilling on your air conditioning and stereo if you can afford it, but it shouldn't be free if you're occupying the lane space 10 people would occupy in a bus, and making t…

> and making the traffic slower for the bus in doing so. Strong agree except here, busses should have their own lanes at all expense to cars - even if this means entire roads are now no longer available to cars. The private car should be the slowest, least convenient way to get where you're going.

Agree with dedicated bus lanes. But your attitude is problematic. You sounds like private cars are your enemies. Private car drivers, in a whole, are also public (just not public services). If you count them as your enemies, they will vote against you.

If you have this attitude, please never ever get into a private car. Good luck!

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#72

Post by mtalantikite »

mvieira38 wrote: post #41
mvieira38 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that first paragraph is a compelling political economy argument against this policy that I hadn't really thought of. Your model seems to take the assumptions that the trade industries can't reorganize to optimize car usage, and that transit operators have only one stream of income (the car tax). Both are untrue, IMO, and in the desired steady state the car tax is in fact near zero, substituted by higher taxes on…

It's also false that transit prices are small, by the way, at least globally. Where I live (third world), taking the subway daily to and from work amounts to 14% of minimum wage

Here in NYC the transit fare is about 35% of the minimum hourly wage for a round trip. I'd guess it's still cheaper than owning and maintaining a car though.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#73

Post by lucb1e »

SilverElfin wrote: post #70
dukoid wrote: post #11

Why do we still allow drivers to externalize most of the costs associated with cars? There is existing technology to extract co2 from the atmosphere, and the current cost of this should be the free market-based price for co2 emissions.

Why single out cars? I may like using cars to get to destinations. Maybe you walk but do other things that have various environmental impacts like having kids or buying trendy clothes or pick something else. It seems unfair to let some people externalize their life’s costs but charge others.

Nobody said to not apply the same elsewhere...

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#74

Post by lillecarl »

striking wrote: post #52
lillecarl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a different product, across the world. In Sweden you can't buy anything below 95 octane whereas I've seen 89 in Australia and 87 seems to be common in USA according to Claude. Editorialized: US "gas" is cheap crap

> An octane rating, or octane number, is a standard measure of a fuel's ability to withstand compression in an internal combustion engine without causing engine knocking. The higher the octane number, the more compression the fuel can withstand before detonating. Octane rating does not relate directly to the power output or the energy content of the fuel per unit mass or volume, but simply indicates the resistance to…

It means we can run higher compression in our engines without engine knock, which means we can run our turbos and timing harder on a smaller dispacement engine without ruining it, meaning more efficient engines.

Cleetus McFarland ran a car on brake-clean which has really low octane rating so sure anything works if you care about nothing. https://youtu.be/0hYOgGYQ_c8

American big block naturally aspirated engines will be tuned for crap fuel, if you've got a modern efficient turbo engine you should buy premium fuel to not ruin your engine.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#75

Post by lclc »

sofixa wrote: post #31
dfxm12 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments do a lot of wildly unpopular things. I can't speak specifically for Switzerland, but one recent example is UK's Online Safety Act 2023. Even related to drivers, speed cameras are enabled despite being unpopular.

Unfortunately, that's not how Switzerland operates, because it's a very direct democracy where the status quo and the will of the majority takes priority over common sense and long term thinking. Full franchise (women being allowed to vote) didn't happen in all cantons until the 1990s (after it being made possible in the 1970s), because the existing voters (men) just voted against it.

Yes, how horrible when people get to have a say. Where will this end? In the case of Switzerland, it's ending up as one of the wealthiest countries, with a median wealth of $182,248 per adult.

Also, since when is a political ruling class known for long-term thinking?

Besides, cars are already taxed based on weight/power (what you considered common sense).

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#76

Post by ferguess_k »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6

OK, imma just say the quiet part out loud here: There would be less need for daily transportation commutes if companies allowed 100% WFH wehre applicable and the government would force/incentivise this on companies for the positions that can be done remotely in order to save the environment. Especially given that Geneva labor market skews heavily towards specialized office jobs like diplomats, banking and pharma wher…

> OK, imma just say the quiet part out loud here: There would be less need for daily transportation commutes if companies allowed 100% WFH wehre applicable and the government would force/incentivise this on companies for the positions that can be done remotely in order to save the environment.

Exactly. On the contrary, the politicians everywhere are pushing for return to office, or at least not promoting WFH. And then some people on HN just complain that private cars are enemies of the public service.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#77

Post by lucb1e »

theappsecguy wrote: post #28
dukoid wrote: post #11

Why do we still allow drivers to externalize most of the costs associated with cars? There is existing technology to extract co2 from the atmosphere, and the current cost of this should be the free market-based price for co2 emissions.

This is a very naive take. For one, we don't do this because a lot of people in a lot of places have no other choice. Not everyone lives in a developed European country, good luck living without a car in Texas.

> a lot of people in a lot of places have no other choice. Not everyone lives in a developed European country

Then let's start with the people from developed European countries who can afford this and built it out from there. "I have no choice but to pollute your planet" is a bit of a thin argument to me, surely we can (as a society) find a way to make that not necessary. Collect funds, build the system we want, use it. That's the point of a government, it doesn't exist just because we like to pay taxes

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#78

Post by ferguess_k »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #19

Not sure it will make a difference to people's travel habits; I think those inclined to take public transport already do so. But it does highlight the fact that we subsidize private transport (our taxes pay for the roads, traffic police, etc.), so why not public transport?

What do you mean "subsidizing private transport"? I'm sorry but "your tax" also includes the tax paid by people who drive private cars. And since most public transit companies don't break even anyway (at least in Canada), it is the private drivers that are paying for the public.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#79

Post by dotancohen »

bondarchuk wrote: post #34
dotancohen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even disregarding your quip about when women got the vote, your post reads like another anti-Western agenda post that has become very popular in the past two years.

It's true though, quite amazingly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...

Why do you double down on this when I specifically disregarded that aspect of your comment from my post?

And why is pointing out anti-Western agenda posts always met with multiple simultaneous downvotes, whereas my other unpopular opinions are downvoted one by one?

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#80

Post by aaronmdjones »

deepsun wrote: post #58
aaronmdjones wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, VED is based on the vehicle's CO2 emissions per kilometre traveled under prescribed driving conditions. This means the registered keepers of EVs (and some hybrid ICE/EVs) pay nothing. There are talks about scrapping this system as more and more of the country transitions to EVs, and taxing them by vehicle weight instead (the same way driving licences are classed). This would reverse the current status quo,…

Just tax fuel/electricity instead of car.

We also tax those already.

EDIT: There is a fixed VAT charge of 5% on electricity, as well as a currently 16% levy on electricity to cover various environmental and social benefit schemes. Which is hilarious, as the UK is moving away from fossil fuels for its electrical generation mix, while taxing electricity consumption much more than it taxes gas (5% VAT and 5.5% levies). This punishes those using electricity for heating and incentivizes people to continue using gas at home. This is on top of the fact that currently, gas is much cheaper (in unit rate, per kWh) than electricity. It's like they can't make up their mind on what they want to accomplish. For fuel, the tax is currently just under £0.53/L with 20% VAT added on top of the total as well.

Post reply on HN