this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
260 points (95.8% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de 75 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (22 children)

This is the wrong statistic! It doesnt matter how often you take the train, but how far you go. There is something called a passenger kilometer. Someone traveling one kilometer by train makes one passenger kilometer, 6 people on a train going 10 kilometers makes 60 passenger kilometers. The same can be done for other modes of transportation. The modal split (the right statistic) then shows how much each mode of transportation is actually used. Here you can find the statistic for each country of the EU: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/passenger-transport-modal-split-2#tab-chart_1

A few examples why modal split is better than frequencies:

  • Environmentally CO2 is emitted per kilometer. Someone may bike a short distance everyday to work, but visits his parents who live far away every weekend by car.
  • On the way to work someone could take the car and the train on the same commute.
[โ€“] yata@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 year ago (9 children)

It isn't necessarily wrong, it's just two different metrics meant to measure two different concepts.

[โ€“] julianwgs@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Thanks for your comment. Not wrong in the sense that the data is wrong or faked, but that the metric is not useful. Especially when better metrics are readily available for that region. Can you name me one prediction or result which you can infer from the frequency of train travel other than โ€žfun factsโ€œ? (I am actually really curious :) ). With the modal split you can for example calculate CO2 emissions or estimate needed capacity increases if you want to replace one mode with another and much more.

[โ€“] kraxelkatze@feddit.de 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the number of trips says a lot about the role trains play in people's everyday lives, maybe even more than the kilometers travelled. Sure, that's not a "metric", but it does give us an idea if people use trains just for vacation a few times a year, or for their commute to work or other daily trips. For someone taking a train just once a year, even if that is for hundeds of kilometers, we know that they will use a different means of transportation for most trips.

[โ€“] Jajcus@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Some trains may have the same function as buses or trams in other places (and metro... is metro a train here?), so the everyday commute of people in city A may not be that different than commute in city B, when first uses trams, and the second one has a local rail network with light trains. Actually the trains would probably have bigger negative impact on environment and life conditions in this scenario.

[โ€“] nicetriangle@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The environmental impact is gonna depend a lot on how the trains are powered. Some European countries are nearly 100% electric now. Others way less.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)