2 ms·

Ecological? You can be sure companies would somehow exploit ut for their services. It should cost at least enough to cover the energy expenses.

by cromka 4mo ago

vel0city 4mo ago
If the train was going to run regardless, and there isn't that high of a demand on this level of off-peak, adding the weight of a person or two is practically nothing to the rolling of the train.
- cromka 4mo ago
  You make a lot of assumptions here and it's pure speculation: - demand absolutely rises with free services, as evidenced by other cities that did that, costs do go up - who said "off-peak" in this context? we're talking free service, not "sometimes free" - "adding the weight of a person or two" - again, you don't know that. Also, it's not the weight, it's the demand vs capacity, which inevitably increases the frequency of the service. I am all for good public transport but a nominal price is better than free. It's a similar issue with public health system: a completely free one gets abused.
  - vel0city 4mo ago
    > You make a lot of assumptions here and it's pure speculation Both of us are in both of our comments. > demand absolutely rises with free services Its not free, its 49 euros a month. > "adding the weight of a person or two" - again, you don't know that. Also, it's not the weight My response was to the "It should cost at least enough to cover the energy expenses" part, which the energy cost is practically entirely the weight of the passengers and their cargo. Which for a whole train the marginal energy cost of a person riding a train that was already going to go on that journey and probably already had capacity on board is miniscule. We're talking about a train that weights hundreds of tons and you're adding like <100kg to it for some fraction of a $49 euro monthly pass. I don't doubt it will increase the demand that much, but at the same time its "off-peak". That inherently means there's extra capacity. If a massive amount of people shifted their schedules to meet this new "off-peak" ridership time I'd imagine the "off-peak" schedules would update...otherwise they wouldn't really be on and off peak schedules anymore by definition would they?

Ecological? You can be sure companies would somehow exploit ut for their services. It should cost at least enough to cover the energy expenses.

by cromka 4mo ago

Ecological? You can be sure companies would somehow exploit ut for their services. It should cost at least enough to cover the energy expenses.

vel0city 4mo ago

If the train was going to run regardless, and there isn't that high of a demand on this level of off-peak, adding the weight of a person or two is practically nothing to the rolling of the train.

cromka 4mo ago
You make a lot of assumptions here and it's pure speculation: - demand absolutely rises with free services, as evidenced by other cities that did that, costs do go up - who said "off-peak" in this context? we're talking free service, not "sometimes free" - "adding the weight of a person or two" - again, you don't know that. Also, it's not the weight, it's the demand vs capacity, which inevitably increases the frequency of the service. I am all for good public transport but a nominal price is better than free. It's a similar issue with public health system: a completely free one gets abused.
- vel0city 4mo ago
  > You make a lot of assumptions here and it's pure speculation Both of us are in both of our comments. > demand absolutely rises with free services Its not free, its 49 euros a month. > "adding the weight of a person or two" - again, you don't know that. Also, it's not the weight My response was to the "It should cost at least enough to cover the energy expenses" part, which the energy cost is practically entirely the weight of the passengers and their cargo. Which for a whole train the marginal energy cost of a person riding a train that was already going to go on that journey and probably already had capacity on board is miniscule. We're talking about a train that weights hundreds of tons and you're adding like <100kg to it for some fraction of a $49 euro monthly pass. I don't doubt it will increase the demand that much, but at the same time its "off-peak". That inherently means there's extra capacity. If a massive amount of people shifted their schedules to meet this new "off-peak" ridership time I'd imagine the "off-peak" schedules would update...otherwise they wouldn't really be on and off peak schedules anymore by definition would they?