> 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

> 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.