By - Verhofstadt
This just proves again that demand for train travel could be much higher if we only gave the rail companies the same kind of subsidies we give to airlines. If we want to achieve climate targets that depend on rail adoption we need to either lower train ticket prices or cut the subsidies that artificially reduce airline costs.
not sure how one can read this as “demand for train travel” lets just call it demand for travel? if it was the gas prices going down to 9 cents per liter, people would start renting cars to travel
Public opinion manipulation is imho one of the biggest necessities in slowing, stopping, then reversing climate change. (Edit to add) Saying train travel is becoming the trend → train travel trends → higher demand for train travel → rinse → repeat.
Anyhow, it’s still demand for train travel as it is this particular mode that got overcrowded/overcapacity, not another.
You are missing the 'increase capacity' part in your cycle.
Highways were still overcrowded and full of traffic jams because...well... It's a long weekend and everyone travels.
So it's not just trains that were overcrowded - but the ticket surely made it "worse".
Well look why flying is so cheap.
They are not paying taxes on fuel, the airport are would not live without constant bailouts.
Even with fuel costs as high as they are, they're not really the main costs with vehicles. If I rent a car for a day it's still far more expensive than a bus ticket, disregarding fuel costs. Costs aside, the whole process of car renting is still a much greater pain than just booking a ticket and getting into the train or bus and being delivered to your destination.
Personal cars are just inefficient across the board, about the only sensible uses for them are travelling to places that otherwise have poor connections, or if you need to transport a bunch of stuff over significant distances.
> if we only gave the rail companies the same kind of subsidies we give to airlines.
Rail travel is much more subsidised than flights. The economics are just purely better for flying.
Wait what? Check your facts man. Kerosin has basically no tax on it. Airports have huge losses.
The answer is not giving subsidies to badly run mainly state owned rail companies, but rather opening the rail market to competition. Just like intercity bus market was liberalized in early 2010s
But... DB was so much better and more efficient when it was fully state run, and has only become complete ass eversince it was partially privatized?
Same goes for the Telekom btw, or the German postal service, and many other things...
Some things just shouldnt be privatized - and thats mainly concerning things that serve the public if you ask me.
Infrastructure should not be privatized. Simply because profit maximizing is the enemy of proper maintenance.
From transport over water to gas. Critical infrastructure should not be run profit oriented.
Transportation and energy are the blood of our society and the cost of profit maximizing for the owner is on an economy level so high. External effects. It simply does not make sense.
Or did anybody believe giving water to Viola was a good decision in the post perspective?
Oh no, not state run! How will the rich people make money off of the labour of others if they cant take a profit from people's basic right to transportation!
Do private rail companies not exist in Germany? Romania recently opened the rail to private companies (for a usage fee paid to the state company of course) and its the best thing that happened to rail in the past 10 years. You can choose state run or private run, so many options! Why not do that in Germany?
Is the infrastructure also in private hands? Wait ten years and then see you private trains run late all the time, because the tracks and switches are not maintained properly because of profit maximizing.
No, it's not. The state owns 100% of it. The private companies (as far as I am aware) pay "rent" to the state for using the rail network.
It could never be privatised imo. Romanian rail is incredibly wide and expansive, some villages in bumfuck nowhere are exclusively accesibile via train. Someone has to maintain those rails to ensure those villages don't become isolated from the world. Naturally, no private investor would be interested in those routes - that is why I think the rail state company (CFR) is so vital and will never go extinct. Many, many routes are important for people, while at the same time being financial black holes.
> Do private rail companies not exist in Germany?
There are in fact several private train companies. Also, technically Deutsche Bahn is private too.
The demand is there, but because of the automobile lobby there has been no interest to invest money into it.
The German state, as well as the states themselves, invests billions in the DB and it's rail network every year.
The problem is what DB does with the money - just look at Stuttgart21. 3 local projects to improve rail networks in the rural parts of north-eastern BaWü were completely scrapped in favor of this complete failure of a project, one of which was to bind Schwäbisch Hall to Heilbronn via the KVV (Heilbronn being an industrial epicenter for the smaller cities like Schwäbisch Hall around it), or the restauration of the Kochertalbahn which would have reconnected some crucial smaller cities to the important rail network between Schwäbisch Hall and Öhringen (specifically very important for people that go to work in Schwäbisch Hall or Öhringen from Künzelsau, all these cities are around 25k population, which lots and lots more people living in villages around them, completely dependent on their cars).
The current subsidies to mitigate fuel price peaks have a higher budget than what is allocated to rail infrastructure construction.
Yes there's mismanagement but infrastructure is also not getting a lot of money by comparison.
>The current subsidies to mitigate fuel price peaks have a higher budget
This is an emergency measure, that has an immediate effect though - nonetheless much needed for the working force in more rural areas, because nobody wants to destroy their work-life balance by having to go 2.5hrs by train and bus vs 40mins by car to work.
Building (rail) infrastructure isn't. The DB does get billions from both the Bund as well as the states to build their rail network and maintain it, but in the end it's essentially their own choice how to waste that money most efficiently.
I have no doubt that they wouldn't give a shit with money either. The S-Bahn is so fucking terrible where I'm from that I only go to university when I absolutely need to. I'm so fed up with the abhorrent reliability for the price I'm paying. I apologize for my negative attitude, but just pumping more money will solve absolutely nothing. I don't see how it could.
They also created part of the problem themselves by clearing a good portion of the railway network. I think it's been something around 5000km in the past 25 years. Not to forget the abhorrent management under Mehdorn.
According to the book "Schaden in der Oberleitung: Das geplante Desaster der Deutschen Bahn" by Luik and Arno, the entire situation is even worse than one might image. Money could never fix the mismanagement of die DB.
yes, we make it fully state run again, after all the reason it was screwed was to make it interesting for investors, and a lot of that works through rationalization and flashy projects
I dont think it matters that much, if its state run or not, as long as chimps are making the decisions.
Switzerland has a state owned railway company and japan a privatized one. Both work just fine
What do you mean with "make it fully state run again"? DB is 100% owned by the German state.
DB is heavily underfunded compared to the autobahn network. And I'm not talking 10-15% budget increase. The budget must double or triple at least. All talks about how DB is not profitable is BS. This is infrastructure, it makes other things profitable, and will cost taxpayers a shitton of money to maintain. It makes no sense to set prices in such a way that you maximize profits. Instead, you have to maximize ridership, which will lead to people spending their money within the economy but also to losses for the business. The railway is a natural monopoly and cannot operate as a regular for-profit company, nor does it have to.
Well, the issue is that it currently is being run by a for profit company because for some reason the conservatives and liberals figured that'd be more efficient.
> the conservatives and liberals figured that'd be more efficient
"Commies bad" mentality at its finest
EDIT: also, why not make all autobahns private. I think there is a good buck in there
Yup, I’ve missed many flixbuses because the S-bahn had issues and I even left a 1,5 hour buffer in case something went wrong.
But still, I enjoy the €9 ticket because fare dodging is anxiety inducing and €3 for a one way trip is just way too expensive. I don’t mind to wait a bit longer when the prices are fair, but before the €9 ticket the tickets were just too expensive for the ride.
My ICE trips always have 1-2 hours delay as well.
Remember that the number of rail lines in all of Europe is many, many times higher than the numper of rail lines in the States.
Quintessential r/Europe post dragging the US into an unrelated issue.
Thousands of Americans didn't have their weekend travel plans canceled because of ridiculously incompetent train planners.
Japan's Tokyo-Kansai shinkansen lines operate almost every 5 minutes, its prices are not cheap but they are profitable. With good design and investment rail can be mainstream.
It's profitable because Tokyo is a city of 37m people and it's a single route hitting all the big cities along the east coast. Millions of people either coming from Tokyo or traveling to Tokyo.
Germany has 100s of medium sized cities evenly spread around the country and the rail network is designed like a fishing net, touching all of them. A traveler from Stuttgart(less than a million people) is just as likely traveling to Hamburg, Berlin, Cologne, Munich, Frankfurt, Dresden, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Prague, Madrid, Barcelona or any other city in between and vice versa.
Germany has almost double the length of rails, but only a quarter of the passenger-km. People don't use the trains more often because they have too many stops along the way, or no direct connection and highspeed rails are too expensive because the population is to spread out for high volume routes.
It is not really the population amounts, but the fact that private transport is not subsidised. We spend an enormous amount of public money on parking. In Tokyo you pay for parking yourself and if there is no demand no parking is built.
The solution is to design some cities as major hubs (like a major hub in each land and non-stop fast trains ~300km/h in between) Shinkansen stops only in major cities (Nagoya and Yokohama iirc) and other passengers just transfer to regional trains afterwards.
Again, the shikansen network was a massively expensive undertaking that only works because of Tokyo's massive population. It's the concentration of those people that make it profitable. If you connect a city with 1m people to a city with 700k people you spend the same amount of money for every km of rail, but you only get a fraction of the passenger numbers. To create a similar effect in Germany, Berlin would've to grow by 500% to about 25m people, but even then it would be a lot more expensive to operate the network because Germany isn't a narrow Island(s) with a single line running along the eastern shores of japan.
Yes, I got that. What you don't get is that Tokyo (the 39M population one) is also a conglomeration of cities (like Yokohama, Shinagawa and so on) interconnected with regional rail, a "major hub" that links multiple prefectures to the shinkansen network. NRW similarly will have 1-2 HSR stops (Köln&Frankfurt maybe?) and other than that the trains won't stop.
The whole of germany has only twice the population of tokyo, and spread out over the whole country. The comparison just doesn't add up. How would you separate these networks that serve these major hubs (and then implement highspeed tracks between the hubs) without depriving an enormous number of germans of efficient train transport?
A high percentage of the population lives between these hubs and under your system would need to travel all the way to their "nearest" hub and then travel to the other hub and then to wherever they wanted to go which might not even be far from where they live but it just happens to be part of the other hub's network.
There's a reason it's a fishnet, like the other commenter explained very well. It's the same in neighbouring countries Belgium, Netherlands etc.
>How would you separate these networks that serve these major hubs (and then implement highspeed tracks between the hubs) without depriving an enormous number of germans of efficient train transport?
Adding extra tracks for HSR. In Japan most stops have non-stop passage tracks and tracks with platforms.
>A high percentage of the population lives between these hubs and under your system would need to travel all the way to their "nearest" hub and then travel to the other hub and then to wherever they wanted to go which might not even be far from where they live but it just happens to be part of the other hub's network.
That's exactly how it is in Japan too. There are kaiten trains ("every stop" trains) and there's shinkansen. If your destination is really close kaiten would work better, as it gets further going to Nagoya for a shibkansen transfer may be better.
I'd say a HSR line like München, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Köln, Hamburg would benefit a lot (and direct Berlin connection to Köln or Frankfurt). In total the main line makes about 850km and with a 300-320km/h train it would be crossed in under 3h, including stops. (Münich-Stuttgart 30 min, Stuttgart-Frankfurt 30 min, Frankfurt-Köln 30 min, Köln-Hamburg 75 min, Frankfurt-Berlin 1h30min roughly)
At the end *even though* the distance is longer, Berlin-Münich is reduced to 3 hours - which is faster than the present ICE afaik.
Yes, I see your point... I guess as you get to the practical implementation of it, it just doesn't sound that different from the current implementation, except you are of the opinion that adding HSR tracks on select routes (as a sort of next step up from ICE trains) would be beneficial. And then it's just a numbers game really... And I'm not convinced it's in favour.
I do wish it would be, a trans-european HSR net would be amazing. Eurostar and Thalys have enabled me personally to travel and see much more than would be otherwise feasable :) good trains are great!
That's all fine and dandy, but I don't think public transit should have to be profitable, it is **public** transit after all, I think we should treat as a societal/economic loss leader that the government just flips the bill for.
Hencewhy complete privatization never made any sense for public transport if you ask me.
Won't somebody think of the corrupt politicians
If you don’t expect people to pay for their own consumption, don’t come complaining about the environment afterwards.
Expensive AF as well!
>Japan's Tokyo-Kansai shinkansen lines operate almost every 5 minutes, its prices are not cheap but they are profitable
I guess it isn't cheap but it isn't expensive either... it's still under 15000 yen iirc.
It is quite costly to travel in Japan, so it is like the opposite of this policy. I don’t get why subsidising consumption is good for the environment? Seems like hocus pocus economics to me.
Subsidizing rail network and enabling people to live without the need to own a car is quite good for the environment. Even electric cars are not innocent because of the batteries when compared to rail.
Obviously more consumption is not green.
Obviously fossil fuel consumption is anti-green.
So don’t subsidise it.
Subsidies for rail are anti-subsidies for cars.
No. It just lowers cost of consumption for both cars and trains under its true cost. How anyone can think this is an environmental policy is beyond logic.
Who is writing €9 instead of 9€? o.O
Rip for the downvotes, but I also thought that was a $ thing as well
The funny thing is that now it’s at +21 upvotes from -19 downvotes or so when you commented. Reddit …
It's normal in the Netherlands. I thought it was a 'euro' thing i.e. that every country that uses the euro would write it like that, but apparently not?
Edit: I looked it up and seems like it's an English, Irish, Maltese and Dutch language custom to put the euro symbol first.
Everyone except the French?
In German you very much write "9€" too, you would rarely see it the other way around in German texts.
Oh, that's embarrassing considering I learned German in school 😅 In Dutch you just write €9
Dont worry about it, I often times write „9$“ or „9£“ completely forgetting that the English people do it the other way around, too. Its a very minor rule to be fair. :)
Americans. The $ goes in front.. so the do the same with every other currency symbol.
Question not on the subject. Why is everyone in the picture wearing a mask? I thought it was no longer mandatory in Europe
You have to wear a mask inside public transport, but many people think this applies to the station too, so a lot of people wear them while waiting for the train.
>think this applies to the station too
Because it did, up until recently. There were constant public announcements on it, coming from someone who regularly has to take the train to work, haha.
seriously? in my country all measures have long been canceled. I haven't worn a mask since march .
Edit : Why do people vote me down 🤔🤔🤔 I just said what the situation is in my country
In Bavaria and two other German states you even have to wear FFP2-masks in public transportation. In the other German states a normal mask is enough.
In Germany, face masks are still required on public transport (including stations and platforms). They are also required at hospitals and doctors' offices and that's about it when it comes to requirements. People are of course free to wear then elsewhere too if they want. Many Germans still wear them even where they aren't legally required to do so.
There's no "Europe" policy on this matter. It varies by country, sub-country administrative division, or even by company (companies can set their own house rules).
>including stations and platforms
[Berlin Morgenpost](https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article234855041/BVG-Corona-Regeln-in-U-Bahn-Tram-und-Bus-im-Ueberblick.html) says that the Berlin public transportation system doesn't require masks at stations anymore. You're only required to wear them inside the public transportation vehicles (S-Bahn, subway, tram, bus).
Edit: [Deutsche Bahn](https://www.bahn.de/info/corona_startseite_bahnde) says the same: in general there is no mask mandate on train stations although individual states may enact different rules. You are required to wear one in trains and encouraged to wear one at stations.
I see, this must be a relatively recent change. Last time I travelled with the S-Bahn the announcement mentioned trains and platforms.
I wish we had this kind of problem in the U.S.
Finally some tangible progress in the fight for Corona /s.