5 ms·

I think they learned from the German 9€ ticket - people made more trips due to the ticket. With the spanish system, only people that really have to commute long

I think they learned from the German 9€ ticket - people made more trips due to the ticket. With the spanish system, only people that really have to commute long-term (job, uni, etc.) will benefit, without setting an incentive to take "recreational trips".

GekkePrutser 4y ago
But I thought the whole point of the German thing was to give everyone a little something? This seems very targeted at one specific group (those commuting regularly) that is only a small part of the population affected by the cost increases. In fact train tickets have not increased anyway. It seems a bit strange giving one group so much and the rest nothing.
- pooper 4y ago
  > It seems a bit strange giving one group so much and the rest nothing. I think it makes sense if we can encourage people who would have otherwise traveled by car to try out the train. I mean that's the whole point, right? If we want to "give everyone a little something", we should increase capacity as well.
- mtmail 4y ago
  > It seems a bit strange giving one group so much and the rest nothing. In parallel there was a 0.30 Euro subsidy on petrol ("Tankrabatt") and a 300 Euro one-off payment for employees (in September I think). Plus subsidy on gas for heating is being discussed. Taken together a lot was given, not only to one group.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Yes I meant the Spanish discount, not the German one.
cmarschner 4y ago
In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak. If you create additional mobility then everybody loses. People should have an incentive to do fewer car and plane trips - and maybe substitute some of them for train trips since they are the least damaging option. Which leaves a question of the long-term effect - will people who typically had not considered taking a train for, say, going on vacation will do so next year?
- sandworm101 4y ago
  By extendion, they need disincentives to make any trips, trains included. The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made. Tourism, long trips for no better reason than recreation, can never be made completely green.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    "Never" is a long time.
  - Swenrekcah 4y ago
    It can be made close enough by train travel. There are other factors to consider than just carbon emissions, the most carbon reducing action would simply be to wipe out humanity but we probably don’t want that.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made The most carbon-neutral consumer is 6 feet under. Or, better yet, processed into biogas. I don't think this is the kind of logic we should be engaging in
- jkukul 4y ago
  > In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak I don't think this measure is primarily meant to fight carbon emissions. I think the primary goal is to help people who were mostly affected by inflation, i.e. lower and middle class so people who take regular commuter trains.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Macha 4y ago
Wasn't the german goal to replace car (and therefore oil) usage in general? I'm not sure someone taking a train to the beach town instead of driving there because the train was cheap is a failure in terms of the policy goals?

GekkePrutser 4y ago

But I thought the whole point of the German thing was to give everyone a little something? This seems very targeted at one specific group (those commuting regularly) that is only a small part of the population affected by the cost increases. In fact train tickets have not increased anyway. It seems a bit strange giving one group so much and the rest nothing.

pooper 4y ago
> It seems a bit strange giving one group so much and the rest nothing. I think it makes sense if we can encourage people who would have otherwise traveled by car to try out the train. I mean that's the whole point, right? If we want to "give everyone a little something", we should increase capacity as well.
mtmail 4y ago
> It seems a bit strange giving one group so much and the rest nothing. In parallel there was a 0.30 Euro subsidy on petrol ("Tankrabatt") and a 300 Euro one-off payment for employees (in September I think). Plus subsidy on gas for heating is being discussed. Taken together a lot was given, not only to one group.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Yes I meant the Spanish discount, not the German one.

cmarschner 4y ago

In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak. If you create additional mobility then everybody loses. People should have an incentive to do fewer car and plane trips - and maybe substitute some of them for train trips since they are the least damaging option. Which leaves a question of the long-term effect - will people who typically had not considered taking a train for, say, going on vacation will do so next year?

sandworm101 4y ago
By extendion, they need disincentives to make any trips, trains included. The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made. Tourism, long trips for no better reason than recreation, can never be made completely green.
- ben_w 4y ago
  "Never" is a long time.
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  It can be made close enough by train travel. There are other factors to consider than just carbon emissions, the most carbon reducing action would simply be to wipe out humanity but we probably don’t want that.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > The most carbon-neutral trip is the one never made The most carbon-neutral consumer is 6 feet under. Or, better yet, processed into biogas. I don't think this is the kind of logic we should be engaging in
jkukul 4y ago
> In the end it only makes sense if you replace trips that are more carbon-heavy - and the evidence that this happened in the 3 months seem pretty weak I don't think this measure is primarily meant to fight carbon emissions. I think the primary goal is to help people who were mostly affected by inflation, i.e. lower and middle class so people who take regular commuter trains.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Macha 4y ago

Wasn't the german goal to replace car (and therefore oil) usage in general? I'm not sure someone taking a train to the beach town instead of driving there because the train was cheap is a failure in terms of the policy goals?