> 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

> 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).