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.
The only reason I drive rather than commute by train is that it's a lot cheaper for two people to drive than it is to get the train.
Free doesn't mean free. It means now every time your neighbor gets on a bus you have to pay a fractional cent. Paying it for them motivates them to use it more. Now it means all your neighbors.
That might work there, but where I live the bus sucks so bad I couldn't use it if it were free. It takes a minimum of three hours to get to where I want to be, less than one to drive.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
There's lots of people who commute every day that don't actually need to be in the office every day.
But the company decides it's more convenient and they aren't paying for the commute so they make everyone come in.
I could do 95% of my job from home, but no, I have to come in, because it's easier to yell across the office than it is to pick up the phone.
If there is only 1 bus every day, even if the bus is free, I will not take that bus.
I live 6km from my work, there is a bus that stop just in front of my house every hour. I still take my car to go to work. Why?
By car it take me 15-20min to go to work in the morning and 8-10min to go back in the evening.
By bus with a change for a metro it take me ~20min in the morning and between 45min and 1h15 in the evening.
Even if the bus and metro were free, I still value the time lost way higher than the price of riding with my car.
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
...if it's free, then people abuse it (taking it for granted)...
Abuse it? Are you suggesting that people are going to start taking public transportation just for fun without anywhere to go?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
You do know how taxes work, don't you?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Yes, because busses are warm and the outside is cold.
or because they don't want to walk 200m to where they are going, but wouldn't reasonabyl need a bus.
I can't believe that all these AC libertarian comments on this article are for real. Nobody can be as dumb as this post is. It has to be trolling, right?
Also, it's "vicious" not "virtuous", you dope.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Can confirm I took the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka and Back just because I had a rail pass that meant it was "Free".
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.
So it wont be free then. The tax payer will be paying for it.
Careful services provided by the government for the people paid for by their taxes sound like socialism! The Nazi's were socialists it's in their name! /s
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.
I work for a municipality (in a different country) and made the same suggestion about a decade ago. I suggested that public transportation should be free. I reasoned that being free, many times more people would use it. The reduced wear and tear on roads and thus the savings on road maintenance, the reduced air pollution and resulting slight health improvements, less traffic congestion and thus time savings for everyone would offset the cost of funding the transportation. The idea was dismissed as being ridiculous by some. I didn't do a cost analysis, but I thought it should have been at least looked at. I'm glad to see there's some forward thinking types in Germany at least considering it. Hopefully it work out. The reduced air pollution would probably also net some savings for countries that have publicly funded healthcare (I don't know if Germany has this or not).
Then it isn't free, is it? Lets obfuscate the cost, and then nobody really knows how much anything really costs.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Well that's one affirmative to the question I asked, so I guess recreational use of public transport exists. I'm still not sure I'd use the word "abuse" or worry about it becoming a major problem. If seats taken by sight-seers displace people trying to get to work, it'll be a concern.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I was both in California and in Germany. I understand what you mean, however, in comparison with Germany there is no public transport in California.
In Germany pubic transport is rather clean and efficient.
Depends where you are, but I can definitely foresee buses full of homeless people in the city centre areas in the winter. Of course that may serve to shed some light on a different problem and get some attention there.
"Cruising" was a popular thing to do when I was in high school, but it was exclusively in private vehicles. "Cruising" in a bus seems even sillier than doing it in a car.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
So what... the bus is driving that way anyway...
So literally regular passengers won't get on a squalid bus that homeless people have taken over.
There's a downtown shuttle here. It was free for awhile. It got taken over by the homeless and normal commuters stopped using it just about entirely. They finally started charging a quarter to ride and made everyone get off when it reached the end of the line and the bus went "out of service" for fifteen minutes. Suddenly there weren't really any homeless people riding it just to pass the time anymore, and their regular ridership actually did go up, people didn't mind paying a quarter because it was far cheaper than paying for parking along the central route.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You are confounding a homelessness problem with a transportation problem.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
There is no such thing as free. Governments are not a source of revenue. Anytime anyone says the government will provide something for "free" they'd be much more accurate if they'd instead say "paid for by someone else that is compelled by the government under threat of force and/or imprisonment."
I'm sure this will get down-modded repeatedly because we're at a point where over 50% of people are receiving "free" stuff from the government.
A major reason is due to air pollution, aka taking care of your citizens health. Also known as not permitting car companies to externalize costs, i.e. having some one else cover the cost of people sickened by your product.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Exactly, just like they currently pay for the roads that the cars are driving on now.
From a strictly cost standpoint you'd have to see if the reduced maintenance on infrastructure for cars, as well as the reduced costs to the healthcare system from lower pollution and fewer collisions offsets the cost to provide the public transportation system. There's also a likely GDP boost as cost of getting to work is no longer an impediment to the working poor.
Of course there may be other benefits that don't show up on your budget statement, such as increased happiness of your citizens, cleaner air, safer streets, etc.
Oh boohoo. I'm not that young either and I do all of that. Your just too lazy to get entitled miserable ass into shape and buck up. You should see some of the college women I've met on the bus. They don't need a Mustang, just someone who knows how to talk to them.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
There's really no telling whether or not this would improve the poor bus service. Once something becomes a pure cost on a balance sheet, with no offsetting profit, it's really hard for politicians to justify pouring more money in to it.
At the moment, you justify increased bus service based on profitable routes. If a route is running at capacity, it generates a profit from ridership and you can justify increasing the number of busses on that route. But if increased ridership does not equate to increased profit on the route, why would you spend more money to put another bus on?
(and yes, I know that overall most transit systems lose money rather than make money, but that's primarily because many routes do not run anywhere near capacity, those are also not the routes that would be considered for increased capacity. The routes that DO operate full do make a profit and hence tend to get increased capacity)
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.
I didn't even consider the homeless. Now I feel bad - That's definitely a concern. Agree that if it caused a problem, it may initiate efforts to give the homeless a better option to stay warm than the bus. Could be a positive depending on your position on letting the poor freeze..
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Perhaps you should consider what the real problem is? Is the problem the homeless taking over the bus, or that you have a society where is so little social security that many end up homeless? Germany doesn't have anyway near as many homeless as the US, just FYI.
Same for a Bus or a Train, Dirty, Smelly, NASTY!
Have you ever been to Germany and used the public transport here?
If not, how can you judge?
I'm using public transport here in Berlin daily. And while there is room for improvement, the buses and trains usually are not dirty or smelly.
I saw a story that the local bus systems spends 10 bucks for every buck it gets in fares. So how far are we from free as it stands. Europe may be different but in the US the mass transit brand is pitiful except for a few cities. People already pay a significant premium to drive.
I hear much of the rail lines in California were bought out long ago by the gasoline companies, and shut down to passenger transport.
It's as if they've all been bought off.
It would appear like that right until you look at the ownership history and the Shareholder laws regarding Volkswagen. You see for the government to fine VW they would have to first admit that they themselves were to blame as a significant share holder of the company and as a passer of a law that gives the government voting veto rights over any shareholder decision.
Fining or suing yourself isn't as appealing as it sounds.
I hear much of the rail lines in California were bought out long ago by the gasoline companies, and shut down to passenger transport.
They were bought out by a combination of automobile companies, gasoline companies, and tire companies, and there was plenty of other money involved as well. Trains are just too damned efficient for America.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Bullshit!
I live in the ruhrgebiet, which has the highest population density of not only Germany, but in western Europe.
Believe it or not, most people around here do not work in Düsseldorf or even Köln. They work in places like Ratingen, or Essen or even Duisburg.
Personally, I happen to live a mere 16 KM from my office. Very short by standard of this area of Germany.
Now, normally I leave for work at about 6:30 and it takes me about 25 min to get to work. On the way home, at 16:30 it normally runs about 35 min. If I leave at 5, it takes about 1 hour or more.
How long does it take with the train? Hard to say, since there is no train. There are hardly any trains around here.
What about the bus you ask?
I tried that once. 2.5 hours. No fucking thanks.
My eBike? About 50 minute, no matter that time I leave.
In the summer I only take my ebike. I would love to take a train or a bus, but it is literally impossible to use public transport to get to and from work where I live. So... I drive. There has never been a situation where I could not park either.
I could not care less if the bus was free. It's like giving out free chocolate covered shit bars. Sure, they are free, but it's still a shit bar.
I'd say that the problem is the with homeless taking over the bus, thanks.
I'd say the problem is with a system that creates homeless people so that some already-rich people can get richer, thanks.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Germany, along with other 1st world polluters, should stop exporting/outsourcing their "recylce services" to africa, where the afrikaner are burning pcbs, wires, coils, e.t.c. to extract metals like copper.
The only one who cares is some California grade citizens that drive a prius to reduce "smug", but send their trash to be burnt in 3rd world countries.
Green energy and environmental friendly investments is the easiest excuse to burn E.U. money without others asking questions.
...that most of the comments posted for this story are from people who haven't spent much time travelling in and between German towns and cities. Unless you live somewhere really small and remote, German public transport is comprehensive (synchronised trains, trams, buses, and metro), safe, clean, reliable, frequent, and convenient. Also, European cities were designed and built long before the car was a thing, so most things are within walking distance from each other. Town and city centres are also pleasant, green, lively places to be; to go to (pavement) cafes and bars, go shopping, buy groceries, the cinema, theatre, etc., or just hang out downtown and watch the people go by and maybe bump into someone you know. It's a very different way of living compared to the north American towns and cities I've been to.
BTW, I remember being stopped and asked by a couple of German students in Canada who wanted to know where the local supermarket was (in a town of over 100,000 residents). They were shocked when I told them there were no downtown supermarkets.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Since all roads lead to Ausfahrt, I'll just wait for that bus. Then I will be sure to get there.
Like people driving on subsidised roads for fun? Your argument needs some work :)
Are you seriously pretending that people don't understand that things which are free at the point of use might still cost money? Are you also suggesting that the financial reports from public transport bodies are somehow invisible to the human eye? Your argument would be very convenient if it were at all based in reality!
So office workers running errands and government employees using the shuttles to visit other departments are now rich people?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'd say the problem is with a system that creates homeless people so that some already-rich people can get richer, thanks.
So office workers running errands and government employees using the shuttles to visit other departments are now rich people?
Did you have to work on that, or did saying something that dumb come naturally to you? Those people aren't the largest beneficiaries of the system. The worker's share of profits has been declining since forever.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
But it's never free. And people will waste that which they do not believe they are paying for.
And so they will take the handout not realizing it diminishes them and their prospects.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And your comment is very, very close to correct. Closer than you intended.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And so governments' difficulty in solving real problems is exposed.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The JR Rail Passes (I assume that is what he used) are an interesting thing. For less than the cost of a single round trip on the abovementioned Shinkansen, tourist* can ride anything that says JR, except for the fastest Shinkansen train (the local Shinkansen are also in the 'included' category), for one full week. They will get the same choice of seats that could have gone to paying customers. I believe they are limited to selecting their seat on the day of departure, so they usually get the scraps such as middle seat, or unreserved seating. The high speed trains run every 5-10 minutes between Tokyo and Osaka (similar distance as NY to DC), so there's usually room for everyone.
*They know you're a tourist because you must have a foreign passport to purchase, and until recently could only purchase the pass in advance outside the country for the specific week desired. Presumably a dual citizen could go to their "other" country, buy the pass, and come back, but the flight costs are probably a lot higher than whatever savings could be had from the pass.
In high school NYC, we'd bum around on the subway after school to go to some random place. Student MetroCards have 3 free rides + 3 transfers each weekday. You need one to go to school and one to go home, so that third ride meant a free trip from school to the mall, Coney Island, museums, ball games, whatever. If it were free for everyone all the time, holy hell would it get crowded. They'd deploy extra cops (some posing as homeless to blend in) to ticket students using the pass on holidays, since it wasn't allowed and the computer system is too primitive to handle the concept of a holiday. A giant yellow light comes on on the turnstile to make it obvious to anyone up to 200' away that a student card was used. I later learned a red light would come on for disabled, and a green one for employees and the aforementioned cops. Good times.
Homeless have shelters. Problem is, shelters do not allow alcohol, or weapons. Neither does public transit, but they're not checking you at the door. Homeless thus elect to stay "outside" on public transit. In NYC there's one subway line which is 100% indoors, runs 24/7, and does not kick people out at the end of the line - the E train. It is a rolling homeless shelter at night with 2-3 "residents" in each car. Some of them very, very stinky. There's at least 10 stops along the way with restrooms, for the few that still have enough self respect to opt to use them.
If you want to make shelters more attractive, let them bring all of their possessions with them, and do NOT let them ride for infinite amounts of time on public transit.