Slashdot Mirror
Germany Considers Free Public Transport in Fight To Banish Air Pollution (theguardian.com)
"Car nation" Germany has surprised neighbours with a radical proposal to reduce road traffic by making public transport free, as Berlin scrambles to meet EU air pollution targets and avoid big fines. From a report: The move comes just over two years after Volkswagen's devastating "dieselgate" emissions cheating scandal unleashed a wave of anger at the auto industry, a keystone of German prosperity. "We are considering public transport free of charge in order to reduce the number of private cars," three ministers including Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks wrote to EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella in the letter seen by AFP Tuesday.
That's the ONLY reason? I'm also dissuaded by the fact that my car starts and stops closer to where I want to be.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Here's the thing: It costs billions and billions, and billions to make and maintain those roads. That's considered a worthy service built by shared effort of the society. The additional cost of running buses across those roads is much less, basically a small percentage of cost to increase the the capacity and utility of those roads more.
It makes the overall society more efficient, since those tax dollars are saving millions of individuals much more money over time, usually folks who actually spend money in the economy instead of the savings/investment classes that tend to shelter their activities from the economy at large.
Ad described, at least, makes sense to me - and would be nice to use if I ever visit there.
Ryan Fenton
That's certainly true, but I think the GP's point is that anybody who can afford to drive will still do so, because the car runs on exactly your schedule, and goes exactly where you want to go. The route can be changed at any moment and offers much more comfort and a more pleasant experience.
Apart from this, even if parking is sparse, it will usually be much faster to drive. It depends on the city, but most people value less time spent commuting over all else.
Roads receive "investment", public transport (including rail) receives "subsidy". As if a layer of tarmac is somehow going to earn money on its own if only enough were spent on it.
Politicians love to play these verbal sleights of hand to fool the stupid and unfortunately it works a lot of the time.
Some cities such as Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, etc. are so spread out that providing reasonable public transportation, even if people are paying, is impossible. Europe has dense urban cores in their cities, and even car-centric German cities haven't spread out so much that providing transportation is a problem. A place like Dallas with zero natural boundaries has spread out to hundreds of square miles. In cities like that, public transportation isn't generally used as a way to get to work...it connects low-income housing with places of employment, hospitals and shopping areas because that's where the limited funds are best spent.
Other US cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Washington are at least candidates. Metro NY has a decent regional transportation system...there are 3 commuter railroads and several suburban bus lines, and a good amount of development has grown up around the rail lines. And of course, the city itself has subways and buses. Unless they absolutely need their cars to get around during the day, or are super-wealthy and don't care about parking costs, most people who are working normal-schedule jobs take the train or bus into the city. In other cities, you'd need way more than free fares to get people out of their cars.
Fare revenue from public transportation doesn't come anywhere close to paying for the real cost of running the system. Getting rid of it would make it even harder to run, unless everyone decided that it was a public good and should be paid for with taxes or reduced spending on roads. Also, people would have to understand that they can't externalize the cost of living on a 3-acre lot in a super-far flung suburb...making bigger roads just encourages more sprawl-based development. And that's a lifestyle change I don't think most Americans can handle.
6km is a pretty easy walk or a 15 minute bike ride.
You are forgetting that roads are also heavily subsidized. So, each time you drive to work you are taking money from a neighbor who cycles, or walks, to work. https://frontiergroup.org/repo...
"Aside from gas taxes and individuals’ expenditures for their own driving, U.S. households bear on average an additional burden of more than $1,100 per year in taxes and other costs imposed by driving. Including:
An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair.
Between $199 and $675 per household per year in additional tax subsidies for driving, such as the sales tax exemption for gasoline purchases in many states and the federal income tax exclusion for commuter parking benefits.
An estimated $216 per year in government expenditures made necessary by vehicle crashes, not counting additional, uncompensated damages to victims and property.
Approximately $93 to $360 per household in costs related to air pollution-induced health damage."
This is only a small snip from the article that I provided the link to.
Apart from this, even if parking is sparse, it will usually be much faster to drive. It depends on the city, but most people value less time spent commuting over all else.
The first claim is far from true for many European cities. When I moved to Munich (1995), I sold my car after it stood useless and rusting for 18 months. Going by subway, it took me about 10 minutes to get to work (and the subway ran every 10 minutes). Going by bicycle was 20 minutes. Going by car was unpredictable, but never less than 20 minutes, even with private parking at home (so no searching). Now I live in Stuttgart, and while going by car might be nominally a bit faster with no traffic, we cannot have any meetings at 9 in the morning, because during rush hour, my colleagues travel time goes up by an hour or so. The public transport system in most of the US is (intentionally or not) crippled. Try Singapore, Hong Kong, Munich or even Paris to see what it can be like.
Stephan
Germany is still the largest coal user in Europe. The mining unions are very powerful there, cars are a drop in the bucket as far as pollution, the thing is they are visible, not many people like to live next to large power plants. If Germany had not shut down there nuclear plants they would have easily met the EU mandate.
If they really cared about emissions they would keep their nuclear plants running. They care more about appearance.
Death by hobo and death by car crash are both very very very low probability events. If one is ten or a hundred times more likely than the other, they're both still inconsequential. Inconvenience of wasted time in public transit relative to car, on the other hand, is a near certainty outside of dense city centers with dense transit networks that are well-run.
Here in the US, there are maybe a half-dozen places where having a car is less convenient than driving, all dense city centers where a distinct minority of the population resides. Everywhere else, even in those same metro areas, all the subways and buses and commuter trains could be free, and they can run twice as frequently, but that'll make almost no dent in driving rates. Maybe Germany is dense enough for free transit to be of some real benefit to people, but my guess is that anyone who can take transit already does.
US cities were built around mass transport then General Motors came in a paid cities to rip out the infrastructure and replace it with buses - this is the way America works it is owned by big corporations and public transport is not in their interest - and most people in America don't get it - somehow America can't have trains, public transport or healthcare because it is special - and it is - it is special but not in the way they think - it is because it is wholly owned by corporate interest and its people are too stupid blaming immigrants, liberals, gay people and minorities for their problems - instead of blaming the fucking banks, big box stores, auto companies, and insurance companies who are just fine with the way things are