Some people in the German government don't want to keep spending money on the country's famous roadways. Is this visionary or rather a failure to recognise they key to German success in recent decades?
Not sure the greens would agree with your characterization that they believe the primary goal of gov is to restrict people’s choices. But rather perhaps a securing a habitat for future generations? By your own logic, isn't a government that invests in auto industry and infrastructure over mass public transport also “controlling” choice by making transport by car easier and more comfortable?
Hi Tucker, I'd say that their primary aim is to restrict choice for the purpose of securing habitat for future generations/ other ecological goals. The difference that I believe holds is that the one party responds to an obvious demands where the other attempts to induce demand where it doesn't obviously exist. On cars for instance, building new roads is unquestionable a response to congestion. No one has ever suggested that we build a road in order to encourage people to drive. Subsidising cheap rail is an attempt to induce demand by manipulating the price vs. driving. The aim is an understandable one, but the weakness is also that it is fighting against where demand actually exists.
The problem is that even if the Greens win and DB gets the billions it needs the required upgrades will take years to get done resulting in delays and cancellations - and as happening now - people will choose to drive/fly
Second point is more challenging - the more lanes you add the more traffic you get
Not sure the greens would agree with your characterization that they believe the primary goal of gov is to restrict people’s choices. But rather perhaps a securing a habitat for future generations? By your own logic, isn't a government that invests in auto industry and infrastructure over mass public transport also “controlling” choice by making transport by car easier and more comfortable?
Hi Tucker, I'd say that their primary aim is to restrict choice for the purpose of securing habitat for future generations/ other ecological goals. The difference that I believe holds is that the one party responds to an obvious demands where the other attempts to induce demand where it doesn't obviously exist. On cars for instance, building new roads is unquestionable a response to congestion. No one has ever suggested that we build a road in order to encourage people to drive. Subsidising cheap rail is an attempt to induce demand by manipulating the price vs. driving. The aim is an understandable one, but the weakness is also that it is fighting against where demand actually exists.
The problem is that even if the Greens win and DB gets the billions it needs the required upgrades will take years to get done resulting in delays and cancellations - and as happening now - people will choose to drive/fly
Second point is more challenging - the more lanes you add the more traffic you get