3 ms·

I'm not sure how Germany organizes their rail systems, but I'm guessing the rail companies profit from increased property values like in much of the world. This

I'm not sure how Germany organizes their rail systems, but I'm guessing the rail companies profit from increased property values like in much of the world. This makes free public transport potentially workable (and even profitable) at least in the subway aspect. The US does not exercise a system like this in the vast majority of cases. Of course, there's also the fact that if you have a well-designed system, free transport should encourage a lot more economic activity that'll pay back into the funding of the system. That's another thing many cities in the US lack.

thesimon 9y ago
Not really, the infrastructure is state-owned and separated from the rail companies.
- taoistextremist 9y ago
  I'd be interested to see how they intend to make this plan successful, then. There's no other avenue for the rail to collect revenue in that case, unless its economic benefit is already a significant net profit for the government. It may be, for all I know, it allows higher population density and encourages market participation, both of which increase taxes collected. It is hard to see how it'll really convince many people not already taking public transit to use it, though. Cars are pretty expensive to have anywhere in Europe with the price of gas and typically more discouraging laws for car ownership (not sure what they're like specifically in Germany), I can't imagine it's a large cross-section of the population that drives because it's cheaper.
  - thesimon 9y ago
    >There's no other avenue for the rail to collect revenue in that case They already get paid around $9 billion/year, so I guess the government would just pay more.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    Marginal cost, I would guess. When you have a car, but you don't have a transit pass, the cost of completing a particular trip by car is (or at least appears to be) cheaper than doing so by public transit. For example, if I have to go to the city center and back by tram, the cost for two one-way tickets is € 4,60. The cost of one liter of gasoline is somewhere below € 2,00. Public transit only becomes cheaper than going by car if you use it regularly and thus purchase monthly or yearly passes.
walshemj 9y ago
Much larger public subsidy than say the Uk has.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>free transport should encourage a lot more economic activity that'll pay back into the funding of the system Exactly! People say you shoudln't add lanes, build more rail stops, or otherwise subsidize travel because QoS does not improve. The trains are still crowded, the highways are still backed up. It's about capacity, not QoS. If you can't make the pipe faster you can make it wider. The system doesn't even need to be very well designed (though that's certainly a helpful) because people will automatically load balance based on personal preferences (cost vs time vs inconvenience vs whatever).

thesimon 9y ago

Not really, the infrastructure is state-owned and separated from the rail companies.

taoistextremist 9y ago
I'd be interested to see how they intend to make this plan successful, then. There's no other avenue for the rail to collect revenue in that case, unless its economic benefit is already a significant net profit for the government. It may be, for all I know, it allows higher population density and encourages market participation, both of which increase taxes collected. It is hard to see how it'll really convince many people not already taking public transit to use it, though. Cars are pretty expensive to have anywhere in Europe with the price of gas and typically more discouraging laws for car ownership (not sure what they're like specifically in Germany), I can't imagine it's a large cross-section of the population that drives because it's cheaper.
- thesimon 9y ago
  >There's no other avenue for the rail to collect revenue in that case They already get paid around $9 billion/year, so I guess the government would just pay more.
- majewsky 9y ago
  Marginal cost, I would guess. When you have a car, but you don't have a transit pass, the cost of completing a particular trip by car is (or at least appears to be) cheaper than doing so by public transit. For example, if I have to go to the city center and back by tram, the cost for two one-way tickets is € 4,60. The cost of one liter of gasoline is somewhere below € 2,00. Public transit only becomes cheaper than going by car if you use it regularly and thus purchase monthly or yearly passes.

walshemj 9y ago

Much larger public subsidy than say the Uk has.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

>free transport should encourage a lot more economic activity that'll pay back into the funding of the system Exactly! People say you shoudln't add lanes, build more rail stops, or otherwise subsidize travel because QoS does not improve. The trains are still crowded, the highways are still backed up. It's about capacity, not QoS. If you can't make the pipe faster you can make it wider. The system doesn't even need to be very well designed (though that's certainly a helpful) because people will automatically load balance based on personal preferences (cost vs time vs inconvenience vs whatever).