This initiative gets a nice public discussion going with most people seemingly in favor. The best argument I’ve read against this initiative so far is that it may disadvantage rural folks. The idea is: tax money goes into urban transport hence further benefiting people in cities while giving little back to those cut off the transport networks. Personally, I believe it is the best for the environment if most people move into the cities - so I’m not convinced by that point; but still always good to know the opposite side
> The best argument I’ve read against this initiative so far is that it may disadvantage rural folks
Rural folks are already heavily subsidized in Germany, e.g. commute expenses being effectively tax free no matter the distance, very much unlike the increased rent you pay for living closer to work. If anything it would be evening things out a little.
But of course that won't keep them from shouting this down for this very reason, completely ignoring the fact that drivers would be the most immediate beneficiaries of less congested streets. If this free transit idea would ever be realized (which I doubt) it would most definitely have to be defended at constitutional court level against stubborn "not with my tax money" resistance.
The pilot is taking place in cities but the article isn’t clear on whether this might be expanded to regional rail lines as well if the pilot is successful. Many small/rural towns in Germany have rail service.
It is not. Germany has a much higher population density, from pretty much any point within the country it's no more than 2 miles to the next village. And those tend to be larger than rural US villages, often 3,000-5,000 people. So public transport doesn't work as well in rural areas but there's generally some service for most of the population.
There are many so called "Hidden Champions", which are often located in these areas. Farming and so on is not very typical for German villages. A village with 3,000 people has perhaps one to three farms employing at most 10 - 20 people.
That depends on how taxes are collected. It might be true or not depending on the city.
As an example of why it can be bad, argentina has subway in Buenos Aires, and it used to be federally owned. That meant taxes from all the country paid for subway in the city.
OTOH if you have income taxes (i think they do), as a renter, you will pay a tax that goes to build a subway that makes the rent where you live higher.
My concerns of free public transportation would be that it would encourage very strange discentives. For example, a postmates company can say that all deliveries are done on public transport, which means basically the state will be subsidizing some kinds of businesses, to the detriment of others (whole sale retailers for example).
Also free transport will make people extend their commutes, because now a very long trip doesnt matter if its costly. This happens in argentina.
