> Feld said it was clear more people were using public transport “but it was almost exclusively additional demand — there was no shift in traffic from road to rail”.
> “So environmental goals were not achieved,” he said.
That's just one person's opinion - an adviser to a pro-business group - and that article clearly says it's disputed. I wouldn't take that as a firm conclusion.
The data behind the 1.8MTCO2 figure comes from a survey that explicitly asked about how people changed habits [1] and the CO2 figure is "Based on the journeys shifted from cars to buses and trains" [2] not total usage.
It's also correct to read Feld's statement and view it as a net positive.
From what I've seen, this additional demand is a net positive for the economy and environment.
Most trains in general are already scheduled. There is close to zero marginal cost for an additional person to take the train.
There are additional emissions when more schedules are added, and this has almost certainly been the case in some of the more popular routes.
If someone is to travel, you will almost always want them to take a train. In addition, emissions from a single flight a person takes basically is more than emissions on multiple train rides on additional trains.
It's possibly also overall driven up domestic tourism, which is a positive for the economy and towns that depend on it.
The best way to see this would be that this 9 euro ticket has chipped away at the margins - primarily on the factors that people use to decide what mode of travel to use.
I've written a longer reply above based on my experience. It's not just the cost, though this is the primary factor.
I think the 9 euro ticket was absolutely what was needed when it was introduced.
I would not support continuation at that price - it's not sustainable as the train network itself can't handle the demand.
Maybe the demand will taper off if people realise it's permanent but also, I guess funding the rail network at 9 euro nationwide may be a bit optimistic
> From what I've seen, this additional demand is a net positive for the economy and environment.
Economy yes. But how is it a positive for the environment?
> Most trains in general are already scheduled. There is close to zero marginal cost for an additional person to take the train.
That's a good point but that's true for flights too.
I believe marginal emissions from an additional person taking the train is significantly lower than a flight. Given the option, you'd want someone to take the train [1].
The caveat here is that a lot of these travellers would not have travelled if not for the ticket. So I have to concede that any of the extra schedules were from purely artificial/incited demand.
There is also the possibility that many travelled because they knew the tickets would not last, and so they aimed to take advantage of it while they could.
If the price change was permanent, maybe most of the new demand would be more spread out.
That's why I'd argue that the outlook is not so clear-cut.
I personally view it as a successful experiment but an unsustainable one at that price.
The data behind the 1.8MTCO2 figure comes from a survey that explicitly asked about how people changed habits [1] and the CO2 figure is "Based on the journeys shifted from cars to buses and trains" [2] not total usage.
[1] https://www.vdv.de/bilanz-9-euro-ticket.aspx
[2] https://www.vdv.de/presse.aspx?id=df893fc7-1759-497b-9488-ce...