> 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.
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.
reply