Germany’s ultra-cheap train ticket saved 1.8M tons of CO2(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Germany’s ultra-cheap train ticket saved 1.8M tons of CO2
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/germany-s-ultra-cheap-train-ticket-saved-1-8-million-tons-of-co2
58 comments
The regular ticket system is a prehistoric hassle, if you do not rely on DB-Citytickets. They actually still have those forms from 1990 if you want to close a abo in many places, almost none of them have a webshop, its a embarassing nightmare.
And very expensive to use without monthly tickets.
To be fair it’s expensive to use with monthly tickets also. I saw an interesting discussion today on /r/de with people having to ride 1 to 3 stops and having to pay 90 to 120 euros per month.
You have to be in a very privileged position to receive affordable tickets. I am lucky to work for a huge employer that offers a JobTicket which costs me 69 euros and they also subsidize half of that. Who doesn’t work at a company that has JobTickets can buy the same for 220 euros per month
You have to be in a very privileged position to receive affordable tickets. I am lucky to work for a huge employer that offers a JobTicket which costs me 69 euros and they also subsidize half of that. Who doesn’t work at a company that has JobTickets can buy the same for 220 euros per month
> people having to ride 1 to 3 stops and having to pay 90 to 120 euros per month.
Stops aren't really a good measure of distances. Three stops by a regular all-shacks city bus? Three stops by rapid transit-type rail? Three stops on a semi-fast regional train? Three stops by long distance-express train? Those different modes of transport all result in massively differing distances as measured in kilometres (and also time).
Stops aren't really a good measure of distances. Three stops by a regular all-shacks city bus? Three stops by rapid transit-type rail? Three stops on a semi-fast regional train? Three stops by long distance-express train? Those different modes of transport all result in massively differing distances as measured in kilometres (and also time).
I'm commuting about 50km to work and pay about 170€ per month. Tickets are quite expensive here.
It really feels like a socialist state run company, were the customer is just a nuissance. They want to deal with companys, large entitys, the transported person is more of a afterthougth.
Also expensive to use with monthly tickets. 80 EUR/month just to get around the medium-sized city I live in.
It'd be interesting to dig further into the details. There are "car trips" that I don't take that are instead replaced by Walmart or Amazon or someone sending a truck to my house to deliver a package.
If there was "free" or "low cost" way to "get into town" perhaps some of those would occur, not replacing a car trip but replacing a delivery.
If there was "free" or "low cost" way to "get into town" perhaps some of those would occur, not replacing a car trip but replacing a delivery.
Was in Germany, can confirm many locals were opting for trains. Not to say many small towns were getting long needed boosts in tourism after Covid downturn.
I don’t know how small compared to overall German government balance sheet to withstand to support a program like that indefinitely but it was definitely a pleasant surprise for me coming from North America where train services are generally pretty bad. It was difficult to get seats in regional trains over the weekends though but overall trains were clean and right on time.
As much as I think this is a great model for Germany, it is not optimal to apply for places like US and Canada. I remember we took a regional train from Nurnburg to Leipzig and it took us close to 6hrs. For less than 200km distance. Now imagine US where that distance can quadruple depending on the state you are driving to.
I don’t know how small compared to overall German government balance sheet to withstand to support a program like that indefinitely but it was definitely a pleasant surprise for me coming from North America where train services are generally pretty bad. It was difficult to get seats in regional trains over the weekends though but overall trains were clean and right on time.
As much as I think this is a great model for Germany, it is not optimal to apply for places like US and Canada. I remember we took a regional train from Nurnburg to Leipzig and it took us close to 6hrs. For less than 200km distance. Now imagine US where that distance can quadruple depending on the state you are driving to.
It's a common myth that Canada is not a good fit for train, yes it is large and low density at a country level but it has pockets of very high density.
Almost half of Canadian population is within the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (which includes Toronto and Montreal), which is just about 1100 km. You can definitely have a viable train considering the millions of people that live there and the many dozens of daily short flights that happen in that corridor.
Almost half of Canadian population is within the Windsor-Quebec City corridor (which includes Toronto and Montreal), which is just about 1100 km. You can definitely have a viable train considering the millions of people that live there and the many dozens of daily short flights that happen in that corridor.
The current GO Expansion to turn the greater Toronto area commuter rail into a true regional rail is a great project, and is using knowledge and expertise from the German rail network. It will electrify the trains and provide all day frequent service throughout the network that will mean not really needing to bother checking the schedule. It also flies in the face of statements that say european style rail isn't possible in north america, since the basic plan is modelled on German S-Bahn.
Just this weekend I drove 1 hr to the edge of Toronto, then got on the subway to downtown for a Blue Jays game. Once GO expansion is done I'll be able to make that same trip on a single train in less time then it takes to drive.
High speed rail from Quebec City to Windsor is a project we should absolutely be funding as the population and travel patterns of the corridor would easily support it. Start with Toronto->Montreal with a spur to Ottawa, then as phase 2 extend to Windsor and Quebec City.
Just this weekend I drove 1 hr to the edge of Toronto, then got on the subway to downtown for a Blue Jays game. Once GO expansion is done I'll be able to make that same trip on a single train in less time then it takes to drive.
High speed rail from Quebec City to Windsor is a project we should absolutely be funding as the population and travel patterns of the corridor would easily support it. Start with Toronto->Montreal with a spur to Ottawa, then as phase 2 extend to Windsor and Quebec City.
Yup. Both US and Canada are good fits for mass transit. The Bos-NYC-Phil-Was-(Rich-Raleigh-Atlanta?) corridor represents around 30% of the US population (well over 100 million for those counting).
The distance between those US cities represents maybe less than half the high speed rail network in France but easily almost double the French population.
The distance between those US cities represents maybe less than half the high speed rail network in France but easily almost double the French population.
> Nurnburg to Leipzig and it took us close to 6hrs
The 9 euro ticket only worked for regional trains. With the ICE, the high-speed intercity trains, that would have taken 2 hours and 6 minutes if you leave right when I write this comment
EDIT: cost is important of course: DB says that would cost about 80 euros, which is a crime IMO. [0]
Taking the car would take about half an hour longer and currently cost about 44 euro in fuel [1]
[0] https://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/dn?S=8000284&Z=8...
[1] https://www.anwb.nl/verkeer/routeplanner?area1=EU&area2=EU&d...
Also: hot damn, ugly URLs
The 9 euro ticket only worked for regional trains. With the ICE, the high-speed intercity trains, that would have taken 2 hours and 6 minutes if you leave right when I write this comment
EDIT: cost is important of course: DB says that would cost about 80 euros, which is a crime IMO. [0]
Taking the car would take about half an hour longer and currently cost about 44 euro in fuel [1]
[0] https://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/dn?S=8000284&Z=8...
[1] https://www.anwb.nl/verkeer/routeplanner?area1=EU&area2=EU&d...
Also: hot damn, ugly URLs
DB is very expensive when travelling spontaneously and really cheap if planning well ahead. I regularly go from Berlin to Frankfurt for 20 Euros, which is around 500km. Often times, they offer me first class upgrades for 10 Euros, too.
Huh, did not know that. How well ahead is well ahead?
At least 2 months in advance. If it is later, the first or last connection is often times really cheap still, too.
> it took us close to 6hrs
That's just the regional trains, though. The Intercity Express from Düsseldorf Hbf to Frankfurt Airport is 1h 15 mins (for more than 200 km).
China has nearly the area (9.6m km^2) of the US (9.8m km^2), and has plenty of railroad.
That's just the regional trains, though. The Intercity Express from Düsseldorf Hbf to Frankfurt Airport is 1h 15 mins (for more than 200 km).
China has nearly the area (9.6m km^2) of the US (9.8m km^2), and has plenty of railroad.
Karlsruhe - Hamburg (~600km) -> 5 hours with ICE (the Basel - Hamburg connection) or 6 hours with an IC.
Karlsruhe - Paris (~550km) -> 2.5 hours with TGV (and it's mostly cheaper than traveling with DB).
Karlsruhe - Paris (~550km) -> 2.5 hours with TGV (and it's mostly cheaper than traveling with DB).
Out of curiosity I checked it a bit deeper - The ICE has 6 stops, while the TGV only stops once.
Spiegel also has an article about these exact two trains[0]. To summarize, in Germany the trains have a couple dozen kilometers where they're allowed to go faster than 160kp/h, in France the TGV travels at around 320kp/h for quite some time.
Considering all this it's not that surprising that the TGV is that much faster.
Apparently the problem is that the fast trains in Germany have to share the tracks with the slower trains, in France and Japan as an example they apparently have their own tracks.
[0] https://www.spiegel.de/reise/deutschland/ice-versus-tgv-waru...
Spiegel also has an article about these exact two trains[0]. To summarize, in Germany the trains have a couple dozen kilometers where they're allowed to go faster than 160kp/h, in France the TGV travels at around 320kp/h for quite some time.
Considering all this it's not that surprising that the TGV is that much faster.
Apparently the problem is that the fast trains in Germany have to share the tracks with the slower trains, in France and Japan as an example they apparently have their own tracks.
[0] https://www.spiegel.de/reise/deutschland/ice-versus-tgv-waru...
France operates on a "periphery-to-Paris-and-back" model, so the goal is quite clear – you build a radial line towards Paris and voilà, you've sped up that relation. "periphery-to-periphery" traffic is mostly ignored, so you get the somewhat curious situation where the geographically direct connection between two cities might be slower (or only marginally faster) than going all the way into Paris and back out again.
Germany on the other hand doesn't have a single city that's as extremely dominant as Paris, so to capture a similar amount of traffic on your high speed network you need something more like a mesh, where any single route might only capture a smaller fraction of the total traffic, rather than the simply radial star you can get by in France.
Of course that's not the only reason for the differing evolution of high speed rail between France and Germany, but it definitively is one of the reasons behind that difference.
Germany on the other hand doesn't have a single city that's as extremely dominant as Paris, so to capture a similar amount of traffic on your high speed network you need something more like a mesh, where any single route might only capture a smaller fraction of the total traffic, rather than the simply radial star you can get by in France.
Of course that's not the only reason for the differing evolution of high speed rail between France and Germany, but it definitively is one of the reasons behind that difference.
tokyo - osaka 500km -> nozomi shinkansen 2.5hrs, hikari shinkansen 3hrs, ~EUR 100-150 one-way
[deleted]
The normal trains are two hours from Nürnberg to Leipzig. The thing is, the 9€ ticket was limited to regional trains, which stop in every village on the way. Munich/Berlin is 4 hours by train, hard to beat by car, and if you go centre to centre even by plane.
2 hours is ICE which isn't a "normal" train to me, but even with regional trains it should only be around 4 hours. I'm not sure if the OP took the scenic route.
200km was also a very optimistic guess, it's 300km. It looks close on the map but even in a car it will take you 3 hours. It's actually faster to go from Dresden.
200km was also a very optimistic guess, it's 300km. It looks close on the map but even in a car it will take you 3 hours. It's actually faster to go from Dresden.
> I remember we took a regional train from Nurnburg to Leipzig and it took us close to 6hrs. For less than 200km distance. Now imagine US where that distance can quadruple depending on the state you are driving to.
Pretty sure the distance from Nurnburg to Leipzig, or 'less than 200km', would not quaruple in the States, or indeed anywhere else.
Pretty sure the distance from Nurnburg to Leipzig, or 'less than 200km', would not quaruple in the States, or indeed anywhere else.
practical or not, the size of a country (which, should that be reminded, is a man-made construct) should not have a say on whether or not some can be “pardoned” to fly.
If your country is poorly equipped in efficient rails, how would that give you the right to fly for convenience? This question comes from everyone in every other country.
If your country is poorly equipped in efficient rails, how would that give you the right to fly for convenience? This question comes from everyone in every other country.
20 miles per hour sounds like a great model for 1880.
Its a local train making many stops, the technology of the train makes no difference to how long it would take to do the schedule. I imagine almost no one rides the full length, they'd take an express train instead.
Because it's local trains with multiple stops. It's like comparing an average speed of car trips inside a city with multiple intersections (around 12-20 km/h) to a motorway average speed (100+ km/h) and saying that cars driving in the city are from the 1920s...
living in Germany: replaced my remaining car trips with train+bike (bike - train bike) - still sucked, but at least it was cheaper than going by car. I do everyday tasks tasks entirely by bike.
There is a significant risk that you couldn't enter, because there are too many people. Sucks if you have to take multiple trains in a row, then strand somewhere in the middle of the route, and the next train will not drive for an hour or even not before the next day
The trains drive quite slowly (100 km/h?). Overall trip time 2-3 car trip time.
Trains were almost always late. You had to pray to be on time for the follow up train despite 10+min gaps. Often the follow up train was late too, which ironically helped.
Extra bike tickets were necessary, with local rules and tickets.
You don't know if you get a seat let alone a table or WiFi, so productivity is close to zero.
There is a significant risk that you couldn't enter, because there are too many people. Sucks if you have to take multiple trains in a row, then strand somewhere in the middle of the route, and the next train will not drive for an hour or even not before the next day
The trains drive quite slowly (100 km/h?). Overall trip time 2-3 car trip time.
Trains were almost always late. You had to pray to be on time for the follow up train despite 10+min gaps. Often the follow up train was late too, which ironically helped.
Extra bike tickets were necessary, with local rules and tickets.
You don't know if you get a seat let alone a table or WiFi, so productivity is close to zero.
Living in Germany as well and I can confirm that 100% of this is true and matches my experience.
This should be done in permanence also for long distance travels, where currently airplane is cheaper.
In a similar vein, in November 2021, a law was passed in France to disallow some domestic flights where the same destination can be reached by train in 2.5 hours or less.
No idea what it did concretely. There's a big carve out for flights that are taken mostly by people traveling to further destinations.
No idea what it did concretely. There's a big carve out for flights that are taken mostly by people traveling to further destinations.
The cost to pax payers per saved ton of emitted CO2 was EUR 1388 (about the same in USD). That seems very steep.
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-9-ticket-is-it-here-to-stay/a...
The federal government is footing the bill, propping up state and municipal transport companies with an additional €2.5 billion ($2.53 billion).
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-9-ticket-is-it-here-to-stay/a...
The federal government is footing the bill, propping up state and municipal transport companies with an additional €2.5 billion ($2.53 billion).
If CO2 reduction was the only goal, then yes, that would be a very steep number. That's obviously not the case though.
The cost to tax payers isn't a hit to the overall economy though. The government spending replaced fees that would ordinarily be payed by taxpayers and tourists.
If saving CO2 were the only goal, sure.
Right. I wrote that in the context of the linked article.
So don't think of this scheme as a reasonably efficient way of saving CO2 emissions (there are other much more economically efficient ways); at most it's a bonus.
It follows that it doesn't make sense to justify the scheme on the CO2 emissions benefit. I've seen a lot of that on European subreddits.
So don't think of this scheme as a reasonably efficient way of saving CO2 emissions (there are other much more economically efficient ways); at most it's a bonus.
It follows that it doesn't make sense to justify the scheme on the CO2 emissions benefit. I've seen a lot of that on European subreddits.
To;dr: Train travel in Germany was a complete mess for business / long distance travellers in the last three months.
The other side of the coin is: the ultra cheap train ticket exposed the deficiencies in Germany’s rail system. For years, investments have been delayed and critical rail tracks have been reduced to the bear minimum of bandwidth. Regional trains and high-speed long-distance trains were sharing the same tracks. The former completely overcrowded, running late most of the time, and therefore affecting the latter. trains were running late most of the time, cancellations were frequent. Or even worse: Elderly people and small kids were stuck in standing, overheated trains (bonus: air con was defective) with no water, or possibilities to sit. A logistical failure.
I’m paying for a flat rate for all trains in Germany, not only the regional ultra cheap category. I’m using this to travel frequently from the north or the south of Germany for business matters. The service and information policy was abysmal. I had to take the cab about 10 times for long-distance travel, and checked on multiple times in hotels to stay overnight. Who pays for that? Answer: the taxpayer.
The Deutsche Bahn (German train company) was and is not prepared for this kind usage pattern.
The other side of the coin is: the ultra cheap train ticket exposed the deficiencies in Germany’s rail system. For years, investments have been delayed and critical rail tracks have been reduced to the bear minimum of bandwidth. Regional trains and high-speed long-distance trains were sharing the same tracks. The former completely overcrowded, running late most of the time, and therefore affecting the latter. trains were running late most of the time, cancellations were frequent. Or even worse: Elderly people and small kids were stuck in standing, overheated trains (bonus: air con was defective) with no water, or possibilities to sit. A logistical failure.
I’m paying for a flat rate for all trains in Germany, not only the regional ultra cheap category. I’m using this to travel frequently from the north or the south of Germany for business matters. The service and information policy was abysmal. I had to take the cab about 10 times for long-distance travel, and checked on multiple times in hotels to stay overnight. Who pays for that? Answer: the taxpayer.
The Deutsche Bahn (German train company) was and is not prepared for this kind usage pattern.
The ETS cost per ton is 90€ [1]. Apparently the budget cost of this program was 2.5 G€[2]. 2500M/1.8M gives 1400 €/ton. The article doesn't seem to comment anything about this poor ratio, did I count wrong or did the article just ignore the 20x efficiency delta to market rate emission reductions?
(Of course free train travel is great and being able to do it while reducing emissions instead of icnreasing them is excellent in itself, but still the reduction headline would call for analysis)
[1] https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewe... [2] https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-9-ticket-is-it-here-to-stay/a...
(Of course free train travel is great and being able to do it while reducing emissions instead of icnreasing them is excellent in itself, but still the reduction headline would call for analysis)
[1] https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewe... [2] https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-9-ticket-is-it-here-to-stay/a...
I don't have a horse in this race, but how many extra trips did it encourage vs. staying home?
How would we know? For the sake of the economy, more trips is typically better than less.
But at the end of the day, would you rather for the only choice to be cars or have a proper sustainable/scalable way of transport?
But at the end of the day, would you rather for the only choice to be cars or have a proper sustainable/scalable way of transport?
While fares shouldn't be outrageously expensive, and better national-level through-ticketing would be nice, beyond that I'd rather have better (more frequent) and reliable, rather than simply massively cheaper service with no further service improvements.
In general extra trips are "good" until the operators have to put more trains on the rails (as the marginal costs of an extra rider are nearly zero when the train is already scheduled).
The price per ticket was 9 Euro, but the cost for the taxpayers was billions. This ticket was pure subsidization.
Tons of CO₂ is maybe the most meaningless unit.
OTOH, it is a nicely hidden subsidy for the train operators. Because for every ticket sold, they get to claim a certain amount from the federal government. Luckily it is capped (per ticket) otherwise who knows what they would claim
Some say it is also most beneficial to richer people as they could afford train tickets but get then for the same low price and government subsidized as everyone else. Not sure I can buy that argument, richer people pay the vast amount of Germany’s federal budget via ridiculously high income tax.
From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster. A popular one, though.
Some say it is also most beneficial to richer people as they could afford train tickets but get then for the same low price and government subsidized as everyone else. Not sure I can buy that argument, richer people pay the vast amount of Germany’s federal budget via ridiculously high income tax.
From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster. A popular one, though.
> From an economic perspective the 9 Euro ticket was a disaster.
How so exactly?
subsiding public transit is not inherently a bad thing. If done well, the resulting transit can result in more economic growth in the area than would have otherwise occured, with that growth leading an increased tax base that outweighs the expenditure. And even without reaching that point, it is possible that the net value to the people as a whole exceeds the expenditure making it a reasonably good idea, despite being a net drain on budget. (Most government expenditures fall into this category, and the fact that is a subsidy rather than say a social security program is not necessarily especially relevant.)
But obviously it is equally possible to create poorly thought out subsidies that don't even come close to producing value equal to the spend. I'm assuming you are asserting this one falls into this later category?
How so exactly?
subsiding public transit is not inherently a bad thing. If done well, the resulting transit can result in more economic growth in the area than would have otherwise occured, with that growth leading an increased tax base that outweighs the expenditure. And even without reaching that point, it is possible that the net value to the people as a whole exceeds the expenditure making it a reasonably good idea, despite being a net drain on budget. (Most government expenditures fall into this category, and the fact that is a subsidy rather than say a social security program is not necessarily especially relevant.)
But obviously it is equally possible to create poorly thought out subsidies that don't even come close to producing value equal to the spend. I'm assuming you are asserting this one falls into this later category?
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.
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.
> 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).
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).
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?
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?
> OTOH, it is a nicely hidden subsidy for the train operators. Because for every ticket sold, they get to claim a certain amount from the federal government.
Well, if the government wishes to massively lower existing fares (including refunds for season ticket holders who already bought their tickets), it also needs to pay for it of course. 9 € per month for the whole of Germany is so low a price that additional ticket sales will never make up the loss of the regular fare income during these months, and in the meantime salaries, fuel/electricity and other operating expenses still need to be paid.
Well, if the government wishes to massively lower existing fares (including refunds for season ticket holders who already bought their tickets), it also needs to pay for it of course. 9 € per month for the whole of Germany is so low a price that additional ticket sales will never make up the loss of the regular fare income during these months, and in the meantime salaries, fuel/electricity and other operating expenses still need to be paid.
> richer people pay the vast amount of Germany’s federal budget via ridiculously high income tax.
It's true that the top 10% are responsible for 50% of the income tax, but income tax itself only brings. ~30% of the budget. So at the end, those rich people's income is responsible for only 15% of the budget.
It's true that the top 10% are responsible for 50% of the income tax, but income tax itself only brings. ~30% of the budget. So at the end, those rich people's income is responsible for only 15% of the budget.
It's debatable whether it's a subsidy (many operators claim that to them it was a loss), but if it is a subsidy, it's got to be the most visible subsidy of all time.
One thing I heard was though is that most of the additional transit trips were not replacing car trips but were trips that would not otherwise have been taken at all. Which is not a bad thing in itself, but it would have been nice to displace more car usage.