5 ms·

That seems wrong. New high speed lines are being built and have recently opened (e.g. Berlin-Munich, soon Stuttgart-Ulm). The number of passengers using high sp

That seems wrong. New high speed lines are being built and have recently opened (e.g. Berlin-Munich, soon Stuttgart-Ulm). The number of passengers using high speed trains (ICEs) is steadily increasing: from 75 million trips in 2009 to 99 million trips in 2019. To increase the number of trips like that, lots of investment in rolling stock / signalling / lines is needed. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/162877/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/162877/

Etheryte 4y ago
The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita it's moved from ~0.91 trips per person per year to ~1.19 trips per person per year. Not to say there is no progress, but rather that the number of trips is low to begin with. If you contrast the money spent with the end result of roughly one trip per person per year, things are not that rosy.
- Goronmon 4y ago
  The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita it's moved from ~0.91 trips per person per year to ~1.19 trips per person per year. I mean, if the goal is to make the smallest number, why stop at "per person per year"? If you instead reflected the number as "per person per second" then you would see that the improvement is barely measurable.
  - Etheryte 4y ago
    Per capita is a standard way to contextualize things in statistics and since the original measure is per year, per capita per year. The point is not to "make the smallest number". 99 million trips per year alone doesn't tell us anything. If it was made by 1 million people, the scale is big, if it was made by 100 million people, not so much. That's why contextualizing per capita is important.
  - noirbot 4y ago
    But that seems like a reasonably understandable number? For all that everyone talks about how amazing trains are in other countries, I'm a little surprised to learn that I take Amtrak more in the US than the average German citizen takes DB, which is generally a much better system. That said, that seems like a pretty good improvement, percentage-wise, but a lot of folks talk about trains in Europe as if it's so amazing that everyone is taking it all the time. I'd be curious of that number relative to the number of flights taken per year per capita.
    - DominikPeters 4y ago
      Looks like in 2019 there were 200-250 million airplane trips starting or ending in Germany. So maybe the surprise is how little average people travel rather than how little they rail.
      - ascar 4y ago
        Also all international trips are irrelevant for comparison as the ICE traffic is national.
        noirbot 4y ago
        Give or take. There's plenty of trains between countries in Europe that would also be within driving distance. In my mind, the optimal realistic situation is to have rail for longer distances (1-8 hours), but not trans-oceanic obviously, and then either ICE or local light rail for smaller trips
        ascar 4y ago
        The relevant point is that there are no (or very few) international ICE trains. Cross-border are usually slower Euro-city trains that shouldn't be included in the ICE statistics.
      - noirbot 4y ago
        Yea, that doesn't seem like that useful of a number, since Frankfurt is a fairly major layover airport for international travel. I guess the more specific question would be how many Germans fly to elsewhere in Germany or Central Europe vs. taking a train. I generally have to either do a long car trip or a flight to get around in the US outside of some specific corridors. Presumably most of Europe has the option to take the train instead, but are they?
  - luciusdomitius 4y ago
    Well it could be per capita in decade for a ten-fold increase, but given that a human career lasts around 4 such periods, this metric would not be too useful.
- ascar 4y ago
  > The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita... Which is still an absolute number. Just in another context. It's a relative improvement of 32% which is approximately 3% per year. Not ground breaking, but a nice steady improvement. ICE usage is also much higher (~6x ) than in-country plane usage to give another point of context. [1](percentage of domestic flights) [2](total air passengers) I think trips per capita is misleading as a high percentage of the population isn't doing much in-country long distance travel to begin with. [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/06/PD21_N037_46.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/06... [2] https://knoema-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/knoema.com/atlas/Germany/Number-of-air-passengers-carried?mode=amp&amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16497153936848&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s https://knoema-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/knoema.com/atlas/G...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    32% is a remarkably large change in a demographic behavior. Of course the majority make no trips, and a relative few take it frequently. More meaningful numbers would be how many use it 5 times or more in a year, and how many miles they traveled. Anybody who doesn't use the train at all doesn't really count, unless there was a likelihood of enticing them aboard.

Etheryte 4y ago

The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita it's moved from ~0.91 trips per person per year to ~1.19 trips per person per year. Not to say there is no progress, but rather that the number of trips is low to begin with. If you contrast the money spent with the end result of roughly one trip per person per year, things are not that rosy.

Goronmon 4y ago
The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita it's moved from ~0.91 trips per person per year to ~1.19 trips per person per year. I mean, if the goal is to make the smallest number, why stop at "per person per year"? If you instead reflected the number as "per person per second" then you would see that the improvement is barely measurable.
- Etheryte 4y ago
  Per capita is a standard way to contextualize things in statistics and since the original measure is per year, per capita per year. The point is not to "make the smallest number". 99 million trips per year alone doesn't tell us anything. If it was made by 1 million people, the scale is big, if it was made by 100 million people, not so much. That's why contextualizing per capita is important.
- noirbot 4y ago
  But that seems like a reasonably understandable number? For all that everyone talks about how amazing trains are in other countries, I'm a little surprised to learn that I take Amtrak more in the US than the average German citizen takes DB, which is generally a much better system. That said, that seems like a pretty good improvement, percentage-wise, but a lot of folks talk about trains in Europe as if it's so amazing that everyone is taking it all the time. I'd be curious of that number relative to the number of flights taken per year per capita.
  - DominikPeters 4y ago
    Looks like in 2019 there were 200-250 million airplane trips starting or ending in Germany. So maybe the surprise is how little average people travel rather than how little they rail.
    - ascar 4y ago
      Also all international trips are irrelevant for comparison as the ICE traffic is national.
      - noirbot 4y ago
        Give or take. There's plenty of trains between countries in Europe that would also be within driving distance. In my mind, the optimal realistic situation is to have rail for longer distances (1-8 hours), but not trans-oceanic obviously, and then either ICE or local light rail for smaller trips
        ascar 4y ago
        The relevant point is that there are no (or very few) international ICE trains. Cross-border are usually slower Euro-city trains that shouldn't be included in the ICE statistics.
    - noirbot 4y ago
      Yea, that doesn't seem like that useful of a number, since Frankfurt is a fairly major layover airport for international travel. I guess the more specific question would be how many Germans fly to elsewhere in Germany or Central Europe vs. taking a train. I generally have to either do a long car trip or a flight to get around in the US outside of some specific corridors. Presumably most of Europe has the option to take the train instead, but are they?
- luciusdomitius 4y ago
  Well it could be per capita in decade for a ten-fold increase, but given that a human career lasts around 4 such periods, this metric would not be too useful.
ascar 4y ago
> The numbers seem large when they're in absolutes, but per capita... Which is still an absolute number. Just in another context. It's a relative improvement of 32% which is approximately 3% per year. Not ground breaking, but a nice steady improvement. ICE usage is also much higher (~6x ) than in-country plane usage to give another point of context. [1](percentage of domestic flights) [2](total air passengers) I think trips per capita is misleading as a high percentage of the population isn't doing much in-country long distance travel to begin with. [1] https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/06/PD21_N037_46.html https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/06... [2] https://knoema-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/knoema.com/atlas/Germany/Number-of-air-passengers-carried?mode=amp&amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16497153936848&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s https://knoema-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/knoema.com/atlas/G...
- ncmncm 4y ago
  32% is a remarkably large change in a demographic behavior. Of course the majority make no trips, and a relative few take it frequently. More meaningful numbers would be how many use it 5 times or more in a year, and how many miles they traveled. Anybody who doesn't use the train at all doesn't really count, unless there was a likelihood of enticing them aboard.