4 ms·

The big question here is by how much the use accelerated the depreciation of the public transport infrastructure in comparison tothe CO2 save, which unfortunate

The big question here is by how much the use accelerated the depreciation of the public transport infrastructure in comparison tothe CO2 save, which unfortunately the article does not even attempt to answer.

Arnt 4y ago
Insignificant. The trains were full but there weren't many extra trains — I can't remember hearing of any at all, in fact. Trains are generally depreciated by time and by number of km driven, not by now full they are. And extra energy use is very close to zero for mostly-level railways (steel wheels on level steel tracks have that advantage). Train seats are worn out by passengers, of course, but that's a very small part of a train.
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  I guess the real question is could the €2.5 Billion have been better used to reduce CO2 and the impact of more expensive fuel bills on the public.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    Indeed. And related, can a cheaper similar scheme be designed with much the same effect? I have the impression that a lot of people are studying the effects of the scheme and trying to find answers to both.
  - mamonster 4y ago
    Did it cost 2.5 billion? I haven't looked at carbon capture in ages, but last figures I saw for direct from air capture were about 200 USD a tonne. I know people dislike carbon capture but here it looks like a 2x at least
    - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
      This Guardian article said it would cost €2.5 billion https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public-transport-boost-9-euro-month-ticket https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public... But it should be said the aim wasn't to reduce carbon - it was to reduce use of fuel and ease the cost of living due to rising fuel costs.
      - Arnt 4y ago
        That has been stated, but I don't think it's really true. Government has been frank that there are several reasons, but pushed the impression that reducing cost of living was the biggest reason. I think the biggest reason was to try an experiment and find out what would happen with radically cheap railway tickets. This summer was a good time to try. €2.5B is only about twelve times what the major roadworks close to my home cost. As an experiment in shifting traffic from roads to rails I think that's a justifiable one-time cost.

Arnt 4y ago

Insignificant. The trains were full but there weren't many extra trains — I can't remember hearing of any at all, in fact. Trains are generally depreciated by time and by number of km driven, not by now full they are. And extra energy use is very close to zero for mostly-level railways (steel wheels on level steel tracks have that advantage). Train seats are worn out by passengers, of course, but that's a very small part of a train.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago
I guess the real question is could the €2.5 Billion have been better used to reduce CO2 and the impact of more expensive fuel bills on the public.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Indeed. And related, can a cheaper similar scheme be designed with much the same effect? I have the impression that a lot of people are studying the effects of the scheme and trying to find answers to both.
- mamonster 4y ago
  Did it cost 2.5 billion? I haven't looked at carbon capture in ages, but last figures I saw for direct from air capture were about 200 USD a tonne. I know people dislike carbon capture but here it looks like a 2x at least
  - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
    This Guardian article said it would cost €2.5 billion https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public-transport-boost-9-euro-month-ticket https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/20/germany-public... But it should be said the aim wasn't to reduce carbon - it was to reduce use of fuel and ease the cost of living due to rising fuel costs.
    - Arnt 4y ago
      That has been stated, but I don't think it's really true. Government has been frank that there are several reasons, but pushed the impression that reducing cost of living was the biggest reason. I think the biggest reason was to try an experiment and find out what would happen with radically cheap railway tickets. This summer was a good time to try. €2.5B is only about twelve times what the major roadworks close to my home cost. As an experiment in shifting traffic from roads to rails I think that's a justifiable one-time cost.