Month: March 2021

Boom and Bust | Australia vs. Facebook

Tony looks at who won the Australia vs. Facebook saga and why it matters. He is joined by David Clement and Dr. Sinclair Davidson.

Watch the video here.

Una estación de tren española entre las 50 mejores de Europa

La estación de Madrid Atocha ocupa el puesto número 31 en el Índice Europeo de Estaciones Ferroviarias 2021, elaborado por Consumer Choice Center

La crisis del coronavirus ha restringido la movilidad y los largos viajes en tren se han convertido en un recuerdo para la mayoría de los ciudadanos. Sin embargo, a medida que avanza el ritmo del vacunación aumenta la esperanza de recuperar la libertad de viajar de cara al próximo verano. Para aquellos que vean en el tren el medio de transporte ideal,  Consumer Choice Center ha elaborado, por segundo año consecutivo, un estudio con las 50 mejores estaciones de tren de Europa inspirándose en dos índices, el European Consumer Airport Index y el European Train Station Index 2020.

Originally published here.

The Commission’s organic ambitions will be paid by consumers

Consumers will foot the bill for extravagant organic goals…

As I’ve previously explained on this website, the EU’s organic ambitions are seriously misled, because contrary to popular belief, organic food is neither environmentally friendly, nor better for consumers. Research has established that moving all current farming to organic farming would increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 70%. Researchers analysed the hypothetical move of Welsh and English farm production to organic and found that reduced crop yields in organic farming increased the need to import food from overseas. Including the GHGs emitted growing that food abroad — a part of the equation often ignored advocates of organic agriculture — total GHGs emitted would increase between 21% in the best-case scenario to an astounding 70%, depending on how much natural habitat and forest had to be cleared to make up for the decline caused by England’s and Wales’ switch to organic production.

The recently released Organic Action Plan of the European Commission explains how exactly Berlaymont wants to boost organic production from the current 8 per cent to 25 per cent. On top of that, the Commission seeks to respond to the concerns of farmer’s unions, who remarked that if consumer demand does not match the supply, then they could be affected by serious price instabilities.

Two points in ‘Axis 1’ of the plan strike me:

  • promote organic canteens and increase the use of green public procurement;
  • reinforce organic school scheme

In essence, the Commission is trying to boost organic demand by forcing public institutions to adopt them in their canteens. This point remains vague, better it’s expected that the EU will adopt further subsidies for organic agriculture:

  • promote organic farming and the EU logo

Once again, consumers will be asked to foot the bill for agricultural ambitions of the EU. 

That said, the Organic Action Plan also includes the very necessary fight against fraud in the organic sector.

In its 2019 report titled “The control system for organic products has improved, but some challenges remain”, the European Court of Auditors found structural problems with the control system of organic food trade, despite controls being implemented in 1991. In a section on the communication on non-compliance, the ECA writes: 

“In Bulgaria, we found that some control bodies notified the competent authority about certain types of non-compliances only through their annual reporting. The competent authority did not notice this during its supervisory activities. In Czechia, we found that on average control bodies took 33 days in 2016 and 55 days in 2017 to report a non-compliance affecting the organic status of a product to the competent authority.”

The report also notes that non-compliance communication delays are 38 calendar days on average in the European Union, while existing regulations stipulate that reporting should happen without delay. This means that non-compliant organic products, i.e. fraudulent organic trade, continue a month on average in the legal circulation of the European single market, before being flagged to consumers.

The ECA also notes that member states were delayed in their reporting to the European Commission by an average of 4 months and that 50% of all analysed reports were missing information. China is the largest exporter of organic food to the European Union (based on weight, 2018 figures, from ECA report, see below). With significant difficulties concerning quality control of a large range of products originating from China, the EU institutions must prioritise the authenticity of these food imports

Overall, the Commission’s Plan is compiled of the problematic implementation of its organic ambitions at taxpayer’s expense, and the necessary fight against fraudulent imports. So we get the good, the bad, and once we get the stage of the directives, I fear we might see the ugly.

Originally published here.

Wiens Hauptbahnhof gehört zu den besten Bahnhöfen Europas

Im Ranking der passagierfreundlichsten Bahnhöfe Europas hat es der Wiener Hauptbahnhof auf einen Spitzenplatz geschafft

Noch kann von uneingeschränkten Reisen innerhalb Europas keine Rede sein. Aber wenn es wieder losgeht, dann kann dieses Ranking für all jene nützlich sein, die den Zug dem Flugzeug vorziehen. Unter dieser Prämisse hat die internationale Verbraucherschutzorganisation Consumer Choice Center für seinen zweiten jährlichen European Railway Station Index die 50 größten Bahnhöfe Europas in Bezug auf das Fahrgasterlebnis, angefangen bei der Belegung der Bahnsteige und der Erreichbarkeit bis hin zur Anzahl der Ziele und der Sauberkeit bewertet. Auch unter anderem die Gastro und frei verfügbares Wifi wurden in der Bewertung berücksichtigt.

Die Goldmedaille geht an den Leipziger Hauptbahnhof. Und dass obwohl man von ihm aus gar nicht direkt ins Ausland reisen kann. Wohl aber zu den meisten innerdeutschen Zielen. Eine Reihe von Geschäften und Restaurants runden das Angebot ab. Genutzt wird er von vielen verschiedenen Bahngesellschaften, was ihn deutlich von anderen Bahnhöfen abhebt, wie es im Index heißt.

Größe ist nicht alles

Auf Leipzig folgt auch schon der Wiener Hauptbahnhof auf Platz zwei. St. Pancras in London kommt auf den dritten, Amsterdam Centraal und Moskau Kasaner Bahnhof gemeinsam auf den vierten Platz. Zwei weitere deutsche Bahnhöfe erreichten den fünften Platz: die Hauptbahnhöfe in Frankfurt am Main und München. Der Rest der Top 10 besteht aus Moskau Kursker Bahnhof (sechster Platz), Milano Centrale (siebter Platz), Birmingham New Street (achter Platz, vorher elfter Platz), Roma Termini (neunter Platz) sowie Paris-Montparnasse und Bologna Centrale (gemeinsamer zehnter Platz).

Man sieht: Im European Railway Station Index sind vor allem nordeuropäische Bahnhöfe in den Top 10. Roma Termini und Mailand Centrale sind die einzigen beiden südeuropäischen Bahnhöfe unter den zehn bestplatzierten Bahnhöfen. Moskau Kazansky wiederum ist der einzige osteuropäische Bahnhof in den Top 10.

Noch etwas fällt auf: Die Größe eines Bahnhofs bedeutet nicht unbedingt mehr Komfort oder bessere Infrastruktur. Einige der größten Bahnhöfe wie Paris Gare du Nord, Madrid Atocha oder Châtelet-Les Halles schafften es in Bezug auf das Fahrgasterlebnis nicht einmal unter die besten zehn. (max, 30.3.2021)

Originally published here.

L’audace piano climatico di BIDEN non dovrebbe vietare la plastica

Riteniamo interessante riportare l’analisi che David Clement, del Consumer Choice Center per il Nord America, fa dei primi passi di Biden sul fronte della politica climatica e delle probabili decisioni sulla plastica.

Il presidente Biden ha subito riaffermato l’adesione degli Stati Uniti all’accordo di Parigi sul clima confermando le aspettative che vedono nella nuova amministrazione un deciso difensore dell’ambiente. Gli ambientalisti hanno applaudito le prime azioni del presidente, e stanno spingendo per fare di più. Greenpeace vuole che Biden dichiari guerra alla plastica e il comitato editoriale del Los Angeles Times ha sollecitato restrizioni sulla plastica monouso in tutte le future politiche.

È assai probabile che l’amministrazione Biden metterà la plastica nel mirino, ma ci si dovrebbe chiedere se i divieti sulla plastica sono, nel complesso, positivi per l’ambiente e il clima. Molte delle ricerche e delle esperienze di altri paesi ci indicano la direzione opposta. Quando la Danimarca ha preso in considerazione la messa al bando delle borse di plastica monouso per la spesa, le ricerche condotte hanno dimostrato che queste erano migliori rispetto alle alternative. I danesi sono arrivati a questa conclusione basandosi su 15 parametri ambientali, tra cui il cambiamento climatico, la tossicità, l’esaurimento dell’ozono, l’esaurimento delle risorse e l’impatto sugli ecosistemi. Hanno calcolato che i sacchetti di carta dovrebbero essere riutilizzati molte volte per avere lo stesso impatto totale di un sacchetto di plastica. Lo stesso vale per i sacchetti di cotone. Se l’ambiente è la nostra preoccupazione, vietare i sacchetti di plastica è un fatto negativo. 

Ricercatori svizzeri, esaminando i contenitori per alimenti destinati ai bambini, hanno concluso che l’uso della plastica rispetto al vetro ha ridotto le emissioni grazie al peso inferiore e ai costi di trasporto più bassi. Questa stessa metrica si applica anche a molto altro, dagli imballaggi alimentari ai beni di consumo quotidiani. Limitare la plastica spingerebbe senza dubbio i consumatori verso alternative ad alto impatto, andando così contro gli obiettivi di sostenibilità e riduzione dei rifiuti.

Questo non significa negare il serio problema dei rifiuti di plastica mal gestiti. Se Biden vuole agire per rimuovere i rifiuti di plastica dal nostro ambiente, dovrebbe considerare pratiche di riciclaggio innovative che si stanno dimostrando efficaci, come la depolimerizzazione chimica. Ci sono progetti innovativi in corso in tutto il Nord America guidati da scienziati e imprenditori, che partendo da semplici plastiche, alterano i loro legami chimici e le ripropongono in pellet di resina, piastrelle per la tua casa e persino asfalto stradale. Questo approccio permette all’innovazione di risolvere i rifiuti di plastica, crea posti di lavoro e lo fa con un impatto ambientale minimo.

Ma per coloro che riconoscono il potenziale di questa innovazione, rimane ancora il problema delle microplastiche, che spesso finiscono nelle nostre fonti d’acqua. Fortunatamente, gli scienziati hanno una risposta anche qui. Utilizzando l’ossidazione elettrolitica, i ricercatori sono riusciti ad “attaccare” le microplastiche, scomponendole in molecole di C02 e acqua, il tutto senza altre sostanze chimiche. L’amministrazione Biden potrebbe abbracciare la scienza che rende queste tecnologie scalabili e sostenibili.

Se il presidente Biden vuole ascoltare la chiamata alla difesa del clima, ha tutti gli strumenti a sua disposizione per farlo. Ma invece di approvare costosi e inefficaci divieti sulla plastica, dovremmo guardare agli innovatori e agli scienziati che stanno offrendo una terza via sui rifiuti di plastica. Questa sarebbe il vero endorsment della scienza per il 21° secolo.

Originally published here.

Der zweitbeste Bahnhof Europas steht in Österreich

Der erste Platz geht nach Deutschland.

Die Corona-Pandemie hat die Reisefreiheit in Europa massiv eingeschränkt. Längere Zugreisen sind dadurch momentan eher die Ausnahme als die Regel. Nichtdestotrotz hat es sich Plattform “Consumer Choice Center” (CCC) nicht nehmen lassen, Europas 50 größte Bahnhöfe etwas genauer unter die Lupe zu nehmen und im Rahmen des “European Railway Station Index” die fahrgastfreundlichsten Bahnhöfe auszumachen.

Die Bahnhöfe wurden dafür nach unterschiedlichen Kriterien bewertet. Darunter finden sich Parameter, wie etwa, ob es ausreichend barrierefreie Zugänge gibt, wie überfüllt die Bahnsteige sind oder wie viele Destinationen sowohl national als auch international angefahren werden. Die maximale Punktzahl die ein Bahnhof dadurch erreichen kann, sind 133 Punkte. Den ersten Platz mit 116 Punkten konnte sich der Hauptbahnhof in Leipzig (Deutschland) sichern. Schon auf Platz 2 folgt der Wiener Hauptbahnhof mit 108 Punkten. Komplettiert wird das Stockerl vom Bahnhof St. Pancras in London (Großbritannien).

Das sind die Top 10

1. Hauptbahnhof Leipzig (116 von 133 möglichen Punkten)
2. Wien Hauptbahnhof, Österreich (108 Punkte)
3. St. Pancras in London, Großbritannien (106)
4. Moskau Kazansky, Russland (101)
4. Amsterdam Centraal, Niederlande (101)
6. Hauptbahnhof Frankfurt am Main (96)
6. München Hauptbahnhof (96)
8. Moskau Kursky, Russland (95)
9. Mailand Centrale, Italien (93)
10. Birmingham New Street, Großbritannien (91)

Drei von den vier letzten Plätzen der 50 Bahnhöfe, die bewertet wurden, befinden sich übrigens in Paris. So landet der Bahnhof Haussmann–Saint-Lazare mit 40 Punkten auf dem 47. Platz. Auf Platz 48 – ex aequo mit der Norreport Station in Kopenhagen (Dänemark) – ist der Bahnhof Châtelet–Les Halles mit 38 Punkten zu finden. Mit gerade einmal 33 von 116 möglichen Punkten landet der Bahnhof Paris Magenta auf dem 50. und letzten Platz. (as)

Originally published here.

Fake products create real hardships

Protecting brands is not just about economics, it is also about human rights…

The hardships in factories around South-East Asia aren’t new to European media consumers. Thousands of workers all around the continent are affected by adverse living and work conditions — particularly in those factories that make counterfeited goods. In 2016, counterfeited goods amounted to 6.8% of EU imports from third countries, according to the OECD and the European Intellectual Property Office EUIPO. China remains by far the largest producer of fake goods in the world, all while having amongst the worst human rights records.

“Dotted around China’s industrial heartland, well-connected consultants are helping factory owners flout labour laws to churn out goods that end up on the shelves of well-known Western stores”, writes the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post in a piece that outlines the corruption and abuse that surround the counterfeit goods market.

In Europe, there is a mechanism that allows for oversight and accountability of production sites. No, I’m not talking about political committees or government institutions, but: brands. Brand recognition and corporate responsibility allows Western democracies and its consumers to keep an eye on the products and services they want to support with their hard-earned Euros. If a tech-company is found to produce microchips in factories that accept child labour, inhumane work hours, or unsafe work environments, they will be reprimanded by public opinion, media coverage, and the loss of their customer base. As a result, corporate decisions are made to seek to prevent this from happening in the future. However, counterfeit marketers forgo this accountability, often by tarnishing the reputation of an existing brand.

This is why brands play an essential role in distinguishing good actors from bad ones. In Europe we regularly have conversations about labelling, ignoring that first and foremost, brands are labels in themselves. Trusted brands build a reputation on responsibility, something that they rightfully intend to protect. When it comes to fighting counterfeiting, consumers, producers, and government actors ought to be on the same side.

While rooting out fake products will not eliminate injustice, it is a crucial stepping stone in the fight against organised crime. Outside of the situation of factory workers, counterfeit goods are often linked to criminal organisations of the worst kind. A 2015 report by the French Union for Industrial Production points to the fact that 20 percent of illicit cigarette sales finance international terrorism (according to the French Centre d’analyse du terrorisme in 2015). This number has been filtered out of a total number of 75 international prosecutions involving large-scale counterfeiting of tobacco products.

Actionable items to consider are vast, but first and foremost, we need to put fighting counterfeiting high on the agenda list of trade agreements around the world. If we seek to fight organised crime, we need to do so with our trading partners not against them. It’s important to note that this is not a one-way street — fighting these bad actors also means opposing the parasitic nature of corruption and fraud that plague the host countries of these organisations as much as they do those that import the goods.

Lastly, fake goods represent an active health threat. The EU is inundated with fake consumer products. According to an annual report by the European Commission, there were 2,253 alerts of dangerous products on the EU market in 2020, 10% of which were COVID-19 related, so like for instance masks and hand sanitizers. In a comical way, Commission Didier Reynders held up a stuffed animal monkey at a press conference in Brussels, to underline that fake children’s toys also represent a significant health threat to the most vulnerable in society: children.

Counterfeiting has no place in a mature market place. The EU ought to step up its game to find more allies in its approach to root out fake products, so that less consumers are defrauded or put in harm’s way.

Originally published here.

Menilik Sejarah Perkembangan Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia

Perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual merupakan instrumen yang sangat penting untuk menjaga hak seseorang atas karya yang dibuatnya. Melalui perlindungan atas hak kekayaan intelektual, seseorang tidak bisa mencuri ide atau karya yang dibuat oleh orang lain dengan susah payah, yang tidak jarang memakan waktu dan tenaga yang besar.

Tanpa adanya perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual, seseorang dapat dengan mudah mencuri ide dan karya orang lain untuk keuntungan dirinya sendiri. Hal ini tentu bukan hanya telah melanggar hak dari pembuat karya tersebut, namun juga berpotensi besar akan mengurangi insentif seseorang untuk berkarya karena mereka tidak bisa mendapatkan manfaat dari karya yang dibuatnya.Untuk itu, perlindungan atas hak kekayaan intelektual juga sangat berkaitan erat dengan inovasi dan kreativitas. Bila hak intelektual seseorang atas karyanya dilindungi, maka seseorang akan memiliki insentif yang besar untuk berkarya dan berlomba-lomba dengan orang lain untuk membuat karya yang terbaik dan dapat membawa manfaat bagi masyarakat.Di Indonesia misalnya, kita sudah memiliki kerangka hukum yang melindungi hak kekayaan intelektual. Hal ini tertuang dalam berbagai produk undang-undang (UU), di antaranya adalah UU No. 4 Tahun 2001 tentang Paten, UU No. 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta, UU No. 15 Tahun 2001 tentang Merek, dan UU No. 31 Tahun 2000 Tentang Desain Industri (laman web izin).

Perkembangan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual di Indonesia sendiri merupakan hal yang baru dan memilki sejarah yang sangat panjang. Sejarah perkembangan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual di Indonesia bisa ditarik hingga pada masa Kolonial Belanda di abad ke-19.Pada tahun 1885, Pemerintah Kolonial Belanda yang berkuasa di Indonesia memperkenalkan aturan pertama terkait dengan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual. Pemerintah Kolonial Belanda mengundangkan Undang-undang Merek di negeri kita, yang pada saat itu dikenal dengan nama Hindia Belanda. Hinda Belanda juga merupakan anggota berbagai kovenan internasional yang melindungi hak kekayaan intelektual. Beberapa kovenan internasional tersebut di antaranya adalah Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property pada tahun 1888 dan Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works pada tahun 1914 (laman web Unwir, 2018).

Setelah Indonesia merdeka pada tahun 1945, peraturan yang dibuat oleh Pemerintah Kolonial Belanda tersebut masih berlaku dan tidak dihapuskan, kecuali peraturan yang terkait dengan paten. Aturan tersebut tidak lagi berlaku karena berkaitan dengan keterangan bahwa pendaftaran tersebut didaftarkan di Belanda, yang kemudian diganti di Jakarta. Pada masa-masa selanjutnya, Pemerintah Indonesia juga merevisi berbagai produk hukum tersebut, di antaranya adalah melalui UU No. 21 Tahun 1961 tentang Merek dan UU No. 6 Tahun 1982 tentang Hak Cipta (laman web Unwir, 2018).Tidak hanya merevisi produk undang-undang terkait dengan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual yang dibuat oleh Pemerintah Kolonial Belanda, Indonesia juga meratifikasi berbagai perjanjian internasional mengenai perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual. Pada tahun 1994 misalnya, Indonesia meratifikasi perjanjian Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) dari World Trade Organization (WTO) melalui pengesahan Undang-undang No. 7 Tahun 1994 tentang Pengesahan Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization (antara, 2006).

Dengan panjangnya sejarah perkembangan perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual tersebut, seharusnya Indonesia diharapkan sudah bisa mengimplementasikan peraturan tersebut untuk melindungi para inovator di negeri kita agar ide dan karya mereka tidak dicuri oleh pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggung jawab. Dengan demikian, insentif mereka untuk terus berkarya dan berinovasi juga akan semakin besar karena mereka bisa merasakan manfaat dari hasil karyanya. Namun sayangnya, penegakan hukum untuk mengimplementasikan undang-undang tersebut masih sangat jauh dari maksimal, dan belum terlalu kuat. Berbapai praktik-praktik pembajakan karya misalnya, merupakan hal yang sangat umum terjadi di Indonesia, dan dapat kita jumpai dengan sangat mudah di berbagai tempat.

Bila kita pergi ke berbagai tempat pusat perbelanjaan misalnya, atau ke berbagai pasar yang tersebar di banyak daerah di Indonesia, dnegan mudah kita bisa menemukan berbagai produk bajakan ilegal yang dijual dengan bebas. Berbagai produk-produk ini, mulai dari karya sastra seperti buku, software komputer, DVD, dan CD bajakan, hingga produk-produk pakaian dan fashion seperti baju, sepatu, topi, dan tas dijual dengan harga yang sangat murah jauh di bawah produk aslinya, untuk menarik para pembeli agar membelanjakan uangnya untuk barang-barang tersebut.Selain itu, seiring dengan perkembangan teknologi, kita juga dapat semakin mudah menemukan berbagai konten-konten bajakan yang dicuri dari platform aslinya. Hal ini tentu merupakan hal yang sangat merugikan para pembuat karya tersebut, karena mereka tidak bisa mendapatkan manfaat dari karya yang mereka buat. Semoga, perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual di Indonesia akan semakin membaik di masa yang akan datang.

Originally published here.

Die besten Bahnhöfe Europas: Mässige Noten für Zürich und Bern

Eine internationale Konsumentenorganisation hat die Rangliste der attraktivsten Bahnhöfe in Europa erarbeitet. Auf Platz 1: Leipzig.

Die Schweizer Bahnhöfe sind knapp mittelmässig: Das deutet jedenfalls eine Studie an, welche das Consumer Choice Center erarbeitet hat. Die Konsumentenorganisation in Washington nahm 50 grosse europäische Bahnhöfe ins Visier und mass sie nach 13 Kriterien aus – zum Beispiel Rollstuhlgängigkeit, Auswahl an Shops, Wifi-Angebot, Lounges, Gastronomie, ferner die Anzahl an nationalen und an internationalen Verbindungen.

Am Ende kürte der «European Railway Station Index 2021» den Hauptbahnhof Leipzig zur attraktivsten Anlaufstelle Europas. «Der Bahnhof bietet die grösste Auswahl an inländischen Destinationen und eine grosse Auswahl an Shops und Restaurants», heisst es unter anderem in der Begründung.

Auf die folgenden Plätze gelangten der Wiener Hauptbahnhof, der Channel-Endbahnhof St. Pancras in London und Amsterdam Centraal. Mit den Bahnhöfen von Frankfurt und München (ex aequo auf Rang 5) konnte Deutschland zwei weitere Stationen in die Top Ten bringen.

Die SBB-Bahnhöfe landeten dagegen eher in der Durchzugs-Kategorie: Zürich findet sich auf Rang 21, nach Napoli Centrale und gleichauf mit dem Hamburger Hauptbahnhof. Der Bahnhof Bern kam bei insgesamt 50 untersuchten Stationen auf Rang 40. Zur Einordnung: Das ist ein Platz vor den Bahnhof Zoo in Berlin.

Originally published here.

European Railway Station Index 2021: Leipzig is Europe’s best train station

The Leipzig main station is not the most visited of the German train stations either, nor is it in a European comparison – and yet the more than hundred-year-old building came in top position. It was chosen as the best train station in Europe in a ranking that focuses on the passengers’ view.

“Even if you cannot travel abroad from Leipzig Central Station, the station offers most domestic destinations and a large number of shops and restaurants,” say the authors of the European Railway Station Indizes. It “is used by several railway companies, which makes it one of the top five.”

The international consumer protection organization took for the index Consumer Choice Center 50 stations under the microscope. Evaluation criteria included the number of national and international destinations approached, access to the platforms – also for wheelchair users: inside, the range of lounges and the quality of the shopping and dining options. Especially train stations in Northern Europe made it into the top ten.

Vienna Central Station followed Leipzig in second place, St. Pancras in London came in third, Amsterdam Centraal and Moscow Kazaner Bahnhof together in fourth place. Two other German train stations took fifth place: the main train stations in Frankfurt am Main and Munich. The rest of the top 10 consists of Moscow Kursk Bahnhof (sixth place), Milano Centrale (seventh place), Birmingham New Street (eighth place, previously eleventh place), Roma Termini (ninth place) as well as Paris-Montparnasse and Bologna Centrale (joint tenth Place).

Among the 50 train stations tested were a few more German ones: Düsseldorf, Hanover and Stuttgart came 12th out of a total of 26th places, Hamburg came 14th, Cologne, Berlin-Hauptbahnhof and Nuremberg came 15th, Dortmund came 16th. , Essen and Bremen on the 19th, Berlin-Ostkreuz on the 22nd, Berlin-Zoologischer Garten on the 23rd and Berlin-Friedrichstrasse on the 24th place.

The authors’ conclusion: “Starting a journey at one of the top ten train stations promises a more comfortable journey to the train station and a good to very good passenger experience at the train station.” The size of a train station does not necessarily mean “more comfort or a better infrastructure” . Some of the largest train stations such as Paris-Nord, Madrid Atocha or Châtelet – Les Halles in Paris would not even have made it into the top ten.

The Consumer Choice Center, based in Washington DC, created the index for the second time. For their assessment, the auditors used, among other things, data from the train station websites and online statistics.

Originally published here.

Scroll to top