Comment by quitit
1 year ago
For context German trains over the last few years have become increasingly delayed. To the point that it is now the norm.
Official Deutsche Bahn figures are likely underreporting the extent of the problem as the reported times and actual timetables are -aggressively- out of sync (to the frustration of many riders).
It's hard to dissect the true source of the problem as there are various factors at play. However the central cause is starving the system of funds. This presents a strong warning for countries that are trying to encourage the use of public transport in order to meet their climate goals.
Some detail is available here: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-whats-wrong-with-the-deutsche-...
The problem with the legislature about funding is that regular maintainance of the railroad network would has to be paid by Deutsche Bahn itself, whereas creation of new infrastructure or complete rebuilding of completely degraded railway infrastructure is to be paid out of the federal budget. Taking preventative/regular maintainance also is at the discretion of the Deutsche Bahn as a corporation. Of course this incentives the executives of the Bahn to let the railroads rot.
I have a hard time imagining that the perverse incentives in the system have not been obvious to those in power at its inception.
I didn't do a deep dive into the issues as there are many - but a contributor to the tardiness is the decommissioning of track switches/overtaking lanes. While this allowed for a short term economy, it harmed the reliability of the network and causes flow-on traffic.
I include this detail as the source of the largest problems are not necessarily about creation of new infrastructure (although that of course would be the solution), but the deletion of existing infrastructure.
I agree except for your „central cause“ hypothesis.
What happens if you throw tons of money on something as dysfunctional and lacking a business model? You get Die Bahn.
Calling for “more money” as a central cause is part of the problem.
"The network is simply overloaded," said Böttger. In contrast to Luxembourg and Switzerland, which invested around €575 (about $625) per capita and €450 per capita in rail infrastructure respectively, the figure in Germany is just €114.
Source:
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-whats-wrong-with-the-deutsche-...
Does Germany spend less on its trains than Switzerland?
To quote the article I linked:
"The network is simply overloaded," said Böttger. In contrast to Luxembourg and Switzerland, which invested around €575 (about $625) per capita and €450 per capita in rail infrastructure respectively, the figure in Germany is just €114.
What is the warning? Don’t starve the system of funds?
Last time I was in Germany (a few months ago) I almost missed my flight because my train was delayed by over half an hour. I was shocked.
Last fall I almost missed my ferry because my train up to Hamburg was so delayed that it missed my connection to Kiel, and my backup connection pulled out just as my arriving train was stopping.
I knew things were getting bad in Germany so I had planned for enough time for a secondary backup. It left on time, but kept getting slower and slower. Then they announced that due to rail works, there was a bus from Neumünster to Kiel.
At Neumünster, I instead got a taxi, which (thanks to all the taxes going to the Autobahn instead of rails, I presume), got me to the ferry with a peak speed of 150kph, and 10 minutes before loading ended - some four hours after I had planned to be there.
Climate goal and public transport is also more of a joke than scientifically sound.
For example, the gear for the participating teams at the latest EM in Germany was transported in parallel by the empty buses the teams usually use.
The whole VIP travel caused a lot of additional cars on the street.
Don’t confuse means for an end. There is a lot of marketing and money involved - especially in green energy.
These 3 reputable, scientifically backed, sources disagree with your anecdote:
United Nations:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2021/10/trans...
US Department of Transport:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/climate-challenge
WRI:
https://www.wri.org/insights/current-state-of-public-transpo...
Ideology and science do not mix well. The "UN Sustainable Development Goals", the current Biden/Harris-led DOT and the WRI are ideologically driven and use "Science" - in quotes because the term does not denote use of the scientific method but rather the institutional credibility, whether the scientific method was followed or not - to justify their targets and actions. Keep that in mind when you refer to these (and similarly ideologically driven) institutions as 'reputable, scientifically backed, sources'.
Do I need to add that the opponents of these organisations and institutions can also be ideologically driven? I hope not, that should be clear. Check your sources for ideological bias - no matter whether you happen to agree with that bias or not - and take that into account when you use them to defend or oppose a viewpoint.
If you question something like public transportation being climate friendly as being scietific sound, maybe you should bring up some evidence or data to back this up.
Also some anecdote about how buses where used at some major event does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about public transportation in general.
Also "there is a lot of marketing and money involved - especially in green energy" is a rather general polemic statement, which could also some clarification.
These commenters exist (usually as bots) simply to sow a false narrative for political reasons - the views they extoll are not based on measurement or research. When active as bots, they present a idea of discord and doubt - this is a common tactic to give the appearance of the matter not being long-settled. It's also not uncommon for them to cite an unsourced anecdote which other than being irrelevant, most likely never even existed.
Rather telling is that the same user had also commented twice nearly simultaneously. These types of replies are typical for comments that mention climate or government spending.