Inconvenient truth: It is a bad use of taxpayers' money to highly subsidise train tickets when (1) people can afford to pay more (2) huge structural investments are needed in the country, (3) economic growth has stalled for years.

▲

bionade24 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> huge structural investments are needed in the country

The D-Ticket is completely independent of any (rail) infrastructure financing, those have distinct budges on federal level, since any project has to be approved by the legislature individually. The D-Ticket is eating away the budget of the states and their transit authorities, causing a reduction of services..

▲

drunner 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Wait till you hear about how we fund roads and how much it costs to drive on most of them, lol.

▲

mytailorisrich 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's a fallacious argument because roads are the universal, basic transportation infrastructure. You cannot have no roads. Your point has some relevance regarding motorways, which are not free in every countries and may be considered part of the universal road network, too. So mentioning the cost of roads is trying to deflect via "whataboutism" without addressing the point.

▲

lukan 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

One can have a roadnetwork as primary means of transport .. or a railnetwork. With roads mainly for the last mile.

Where society here and now should invest, what direction to go from from here, is totally up to us. What makes the most sense - preferably in the long run.

Cars are pretty shitty for long distances. Rubber tyres wear down the road and create unhealthy dust, way more friction and noise than metalwheel on rail. And they can be directly powered with electricity.

Not carry a heavy battery around and waste energy with charging and discharging.

Or well, have the noise and dirt of combustion engines.

Those are all pretty strong arguments to invest at least equally into a well functioning train network.

Every car that can be replaced with a train (in the simple often case of a person riding the train not moving his vehicel for himself) is a net profit for society. Cleaner air. Less or allmost no pollution.

(The electric trains here next to my home are really silent and still fast)

	▲	mytailorisrich 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Note that I did not claim that we shouldn't invest in train networks. I questioned the use of taxpayers' money to make train tickets extremely cheap or free when there is no affordability issue to begin with, both in itself and when compared to everything else that public money could be spent on, and the overall situation in many European countries. Personally I think this is having our priorities very wrong. (I also think that rail as a primary mean of transport over roads is totally unrealistic and impractical, but that another issue)

▲

mothballed 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You can definitely have no publicly owned or maintained roads though. There are none in my area of town and $0 tax/public funding. It's private property all the way down. The only reason why public roads look like barely competed against monopolies is that you can't compete with "free" (at the point of use), which creates the illusion that the public element of roads are more crucial than they are. But if you just shit-can all the public transport private transport will emerge organically.