4 ms·

I don't see how it can be termed a disaster if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money and the population received a higher (if temp

by Bakary 4y ago

I don't see how it can be termed a disaster if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money and the population received a higher (if temporary) standard of living. This also increased the probability of decreased reliance on cars in the future and increased investment in such infrastructure, increased public support for those investments. I mean, we might still die in the climate wars in twenty years, but the 9 euro tickets won't be among the reasons why.

iggldiggl 4y ago
> if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money Ha. If you literally mean infrastructure companies, then no, there wasn't any direct money in it for them. Okay, a few extra trains ran, so the infrastructure operators got to charge for those additional train paths, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't make much of a difference. And if you actually meant the transport operators actually operating the vehicles – if the federal government mandates massively lower fares in order to score political brownie points, somebody still needs to pay for the operating expenses during that time. If you subtract that loss of income, I doubt that there was that much extra money left over, especially given significant increases on the cost side of things (rising fuel and electricity prices, staff demanding higher wages due to general inflation).
wh33zle 4y ago
I guess it depends a lot on what you think a government should spend money on or what its role is. IMO the 9€ ticket was a great idea because it was simple and unconditional. Social security laws and subsidies are usually riddeled with exceptions and rules on when you qualify which require more people (meaning more expenses for the government) to check them. In a society that is constantly chasing for even more convenience, reducing as much friction as possible for taking public transport seems like a good idea and far from a disaster?

by Bakary 4y ago

iggldiggl 4y ago

> if the end result is that infrastructure companies received more money Ha. If you literally mean infrastructure companies, then no, there wasn't any direct money in it for them. Okay, a few extra trains ran, so the infrastructure operators got to charge for those additional train paths, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't make much of a difference. And if you actually meant the transport operators actually operating the vehicles – if the federal government mandates massively lower fares in order to score political brownie points, somebody still needs to pay for the operating expenses during that time. If you subtract that loss of income, I doubt that there was that much extra money left over, especially given significant increases on the cost side of things (rising fuel and electricity prices, staff demanding higher wages due to general inflation).

wh33zle 4y ago

I guess it depends a lot on what you think a government should spend money on or what its role is. IMO the 9€ ticket was a great idea because it was simple and unconditional. Social security laws and subsidies are usually riddeled with exceptions and rules on when you qualify which require more people (meaning more expenses for the government) to check them. In a society that is constantly chasing for even more convenience, reducing as much friction as possible for taking public transport seems like a good idea and far from a disaster?