Klimaticket: All public transport in Austria with a single ticket for 1095 EUR/y(klimaticket.at)
klimaticket.at
Klimaticket: All public transport in Austria with a single ticket for 1095 EUR/y
https://www.klimaticket.at/en/
298 comments
I still think it should be cheaper. The rail card thing is just a scheme to overcharge casual riders and tourists. It's reasonable for people who regularly go by train, but for people like me who do just one or two trips a year it feels like a rip-off.
Especially if I want to take my kids, I need to get a different rail card for families, and when you add it all up it's a lot more expensive than taking my car.
For some reason, public transport is always priced in a way that makes it really expensive for occassional usage. If you go everday, then an annual pass is a good value.
If you only ride on public transit occasionally, and you have a car, then taking the car is almost always cheaper. It shouldn't be like that.
Especially if I want to take my kids, I need to get a different rail card for families, and when you add it all up it's a lot more expensive than taking my car.
For some reason, public transport is always priced in a way that makes it really expensive for occassional usage. If you go everday, then an annual pass is a good value.
If you only ride on public transit occasionally, and you have a car, then taking the car is almost always cheaper. It shouldn't be like that.
> really expensive for occassional usage. If you go everday, then an annual pass is a good value.
That probably makes sense. If your goal is to increase ridership / reduce emissions, you want to appeal tho those traveling every day. Each person you convert gives you 500+ trips a year. And of course people are most price sensitive to something they do every day.
On the flip side, if I travel a few times a year, on one hand I am "less important" because capturing my business won't lead to that many trips and on the other I am less likely price conscious. If I do something once a year, I might chose to drive regardless of train cost, just cuz I want to drive. Or, I may want to avoid driving so I am happy to pay the higher ticket cost anyway.
That probably makes sense. If your goal is to increase ridership / reduce emissions, you want to appeal tho those traveling every day. Each person you convert gives you 500+ trips a year. And of course people are most price sensitive to something they do every day.
On the flip side, if I travel a few times a year, on one hand I am "less important" because capturing my business won't lead to that many trips and on the other I am less likely price conscious. If I do something once a year, I might chose to drive regardless of train cost, just cuz I want to drive. Or, I may want to avoid driving so I am happy to pay the higher ticket cost anyway.
That's one way to look at it. Another way:
Every sunday hundreds of people drive from all over Austria to visit the zoo in Schönbrunn. They take the car because the train is way too expensive. If taking the train was cheaper then some of those people would take the train.
Yes, for each of those families it's just one trip. But in aggregate it's also a lot of people.
Why is it more important to get one person to use public transport for 500 trips rather than getting 500 people to use public transport for one trip?
Every sunday hundreds of people drive from all over Austria to visit the zoo in Schönbrunn. They take the car because the train is way too expensive. If taking the train was cheaper then some of those people would take the train.
Yes, for each of those families it's just one trip. But in aggregate it's also a lot of people.
Why is it more important to get one person to use public transport for 500 trips rather than getting 500 people to use public transport for one trip?
> They take the car because the train is way too expensive
OEBB (Austrian Federal Railways, the state train operator) does offer a family railcard ("Vorteilscard Family"), and it's hardly expensive:
"The Vorteilscard Family offers you a particularly inexpensive option to travel together with children. For only €19 a year, up to 4 children under the age of 15 can accompany you for free."
OEBB (Austrian Federal Railways, the state train operator) does offer a family railcard ("Vorteilscard Family"), and it's hardly expensive:
"The Vorteilscard Family offers you a particularly inexpensive option to travel together with children. For only €19 a year, up to 4 children under the age of 15 can accompany you for free."
It sounds cheap, and it's probably a good deal if you ride long distances or frequently.
But when I recently planned a trip from Linz to Vienna for our family it would have cost around 120€ for the train (not including tickets for bus or subway to get to/from train station). Driving costs around 40€ for gas (not including parking fees).
But when I recently planned a trip from Linz to Vienna for our family it would have cost around 120€ for the train (not including tickets for bus or subway to get to/from train station). Driving costs around 40€ for gas (not including parking fees).
I suspect you'd get a different picture if you include the additional depreciation/wear on the car.
It's 184 km one way. German tax authorities assume 30 cents per km (~110 EUR for a round trip), Austrian tax authorities use 42 (~154 EUR for a round trip). Now, the actual marginal cost may be lower if you already have the car, but it's far from obvious once those hidden costs are considered. Especially as you have to actively drive for those 4 hours instead of reading a book, watching a movie, ...
It's 184 km one way. German tax authorities assume 30 cents per km (~110 EUR for a round trip), Austrian tax authorities use 42 (~154 EUR for a round trip). Now, the actual marginal cost may be lower if you already have the car, but it's far from obvious once those hidden costs are considered. Especially as you have to actively drive for those 4 hours instead of reading a book, watching a movie, ...
Sure but cash in hand always trumps hidden costs for a majority of the people (if you're on HN, you're likely not working class majority - people who make below median income). If the European governments were actually serious about climate change vs mostly theatre, they'd figure out how to make public transportation cost less. The pricing of trains in Europe has always felt stupid to me
[deleted]
> The rail card thing is just a scheme to overcharge casual riders and tourists. It's reasonable for people who regularly go by train (...)
At least for me, one return trip at the reduced rate pays for the price of buying the railcard (which is valid for 12 months).
It's not like one has to sit down with Excel to figure out where the break-even point lies! If I don't make any additional rail journeys in Austria over the next year, I'm still not out of pocket...
At least for me, one return trip at the reduced rate pays for the price of buying the railcard (which is valid for 12 months).
It's not like one has to sit down with Excel to figure out where the break-even point lies! If I don't make any additional rail journeys in Austria over the next year, I'm still not out of pocket...
If you do only one trip a year, then that trip costs 140€ (37 * 2 + 66)
If you do the trip 10 times a year then it costs 81€ per trip (37 * 2 + 66 / 10).
So in this case the occasional rider pays 59€ more per trip than the regular rider.
If you do the trip 10 times a year then it costs 81€ per trip (37 * 2 + 66 / 10).
So in this case the occasional rider pays 59€ more per trip than the regular rider.
> For some reason, public transport is always priced in a way that makes it really expensive for occassional usage. If you go everday, then an annual pass is a good value.
At €1.32/l for gas in Vienna and 10l/100km this trip would cost you €63 in gas alone with an ICE car. This doesn't account for wear and wasted time so it's actually not that unreasonable at all and actually pretty cheap if you're going by yourself. With a family, I agree, it's more expensive. Although I'm starting to see the appeal that traveling by train has with a family, being able to walk around, entertain the kids more easily, etc.
At €1.32/l for gas in Vienna and 10l/100km this trip would cost you €63 in gas alone with an ICE car. This doesn't account for wear and wasted time so it's actually not that unreasonable at all and actually pretty cheap if you're going by yourself. With a family, I agree, it's more expensive. Although I'm starting to see the appeal that traveling by train has with a family, being able to walk around, entertain the kids more easily, etc.
I (used to) do commuting by train, one hour door to door, and 45 minutes out of that was pure work time - reading emails and newsletters and doing documentation and such. If I did that ride by car, I would have to stay at work 1.5 hours more. How should I quantify this?
I have a family of 6, and with that it's almost always going to be cheaper to drive than to take any other form of transportation. Before kids, the math was very different.
Do you actually live in Austria? Because I've seen comments about family tickets. I only know Switzerland - where your kids under 6yo will travel with you for free and your under 16yo half price.
Kids under 6 are free on almost all public transport in Austria.
For older kids there are a lot of discounts, but many of them are only cheap if you use public transport regularly. (eg. rail card family from the ÖBB for 19€ a year, or upper austria regional tickets for school children for 77€ a year, etc.)
One problem is that it's not just train tickets, but you also need tickets for bus/tram/subway, and every city/region has different systems, so for every trip I spend about 15min trying to figure out which tickets to buy.
For older kids there are a lot of discounts, but many of them are only cheap if you use public transport regularly. (eg. rail card family from the ÖBB for 19€ a year, or upper austria regional tickets for school children for 77€ a year, etc.)
One problem is that it's not just train tickets, but you also need tickets for bus/tram/subway, and every city/region has different systems, so for every trip I spend about 15min trying to figure out which tickets to buy.
Well at least in CH you only have one ticket for everything (yes including regional rail providers, buses, ships, even many cable cars), so maybe AT could follow the idea. Plus you have that nice little feat called "EasyRide" (initially from a startup) where you enter that you start the ride and who accompanies you, and it will compute your final ticket costs only when you say "checkout". 90% of the cases it comes cheaper than I would have thought when buying the tickets by myself (the rest 10% of time the price is the same as estimated)
Better to have full cars using the roads and all of the otherwise solo drivers in their largely empty cars attracted to public transport.
There'll be various reasons why a large family can't take a train, but drastically fewer reasons why a person or a commuter travelling alone cannot (or, a group of friends, or a couple, etc.)
Maybe one day that'll change again, but at least now it helps reduce the amount of pointless traffic on the road.
There'll be various reasons why a large family can't take a train, but drastically fewer reasons why a person or a commuter travelling alone cannot (or, a group of friends, or a couple, etc.)
Maybe one day that'll change again, but at least now it helps reduce the amount of pointless traffic on the road.
Here in the US, a shorter trip of NYC to Boston (~364km/226mi) is about 4.5 hours to drive or a little faster by train (faster train "acela" is 3h45m, regular is 4h20m). I'm assuming a "walk-up fare" is just day of, when you arrive at the station. That's generally not something we can do here as trains sell out, but for tomorrow tickets are $170 for the longer train, and between $140-$220 for the faster train (depending on departure time). Prices are one-way. Flying is often cheaper even at these distances, which is infuriating to me.
I'd love to have that $85 full walk-up fare you're getting. I really wish we cared about rail travel here, it's far preferable for me to flying or driving on trips at this distance.
I'd love to have that $85 full walk-up fare you're getting. I really wish we cared about rail travel here, it's far preferable for me to flying or driving on trips at this distance.
One aspect of train travel that is particularly interesting in Germany is that ticket prices do NOT include seating.
That is to say, the fact that you bought a ticket does not imply that you can expect to sit during your ride. You have to buy a numbered seating reservation if you want to have a guaranteed seat, which is not necessarily offered for all lines.
A trip of 364km should not take 3h45 or 4.5 hrs. 2 hours should be expected on a route like that. The train would go at 185 km/h average speed. That is not even Japan or Chinese style high speed - just a well maintained railway infrastructure. With a 2 hour trip time you could get many people to switch...
[deleted]
Even during the lockdowns there were times of no checkpoints on the borders again. It was such a relief to finally see them gone. I hope they aren't back again.
But yes that is amazing value and travel by train is just nicer.
But yes that is amazing value and travel by train is just nicer.
> Even during the lockdowns there were times of no checkpoints on the borders again. It was such a relief to finally see them gone.
Unstaffed, or actually gone? :)
Last time I drove into Austria from Germany there were no border guards there to actually check anything, but all the traffic calming measures, warning signs and speed restrictions were still there ("cars use left-hand lane, larger/freight vehicles right hand lane").
As one might expect from Homo sapiens behind the wheel, the frantic changing of lanes by vehicles approaching the (unmanned) checkpoint caused an enormous queue and resulting delay almost as bad as if there had been border guards actually checking every single vehicle.
Unstaffed, or actually gone? :)
Last time I drove into Austria from Germany there were no border guards there to actually check anything, but all the traffic calming measures, warning signs and speed restrictions were still there ("cars use left-hand lane, larger/freight vehicles right hand lane").
As one might expect from Homo sapiens behind the wheel, the frantic changing of lanes by vehicles approaching the (unmanned) checkpoint caused an enormous queue and resulting delay almost as bad as if there had been border guards actually checking every single vehicle.
Just the usual slow down to 60km and 80km which are always there if I remember correctly.
The border between Germany and Austria near Salzburg is a special case. Since the refugee crises there are regular big controls.
Locals avoid it whenever possible, even thought this is the most direct way for many connections.
Avoid taking a bus over that border, and if you do don't panic when they enter with dogs and machine guns and expect a 2 hour delay
Locals avoid it whenever possible, even thought this is the most direct way for many connections.
Avoid taking a bus over that border, and if you do don't panic when they enter with dogs and machine guns and expect a 2 hour delay
I think your car is completely flexible too? It can also leave and arrive anywhere you want.
Cost may be a bit higher though. You’re liable to burn through 30ish liters of fuel at a price of around €50.
Cost may be a bit higher though. You’re liable to burn through 30ish liters of fuel at a price of around €50.
Prices for travelling by car should contain way more stuff than just gas. There's taxes, insurance, repair and all that nasty stuff that really makes very high costs per mile or kilometer if you do the math.
Though if one already have a car, then it might make sense to use it to get better value from tax and insurance
I'm not sure if I'd agree. This might as well be another mutation of sunk cost fallacy.
Anyway, the sooner you sell your car, the higher the price. (ignoring really old and valuable cars here)
Next stop: Just make public transport free for all reasonably permanent residents (for example, you could get a free ticket for next year when you file your taxes).
Anyone who rides public transport instead of expensive and polluting cars is doing a service for the environment.
Anyone who rides public transport instead of expensive and polluting cars is doing a service for the environment.
Just remembered another consideration. When Ken Livingstone introduced free transport for school age children in order to remove cars from the school run, it simply meant a load more children who would have traditionally walked or cycled didn't need to because the bus was free.
Commuters were angry as anything that they couldn't get on the buses any more that were picked with children.
Societies are very different around the world and I'm not sure how much this is factored into ideas that could work really well in some places and not so much in others.
Commuters were angry as anything that they couldn't get on the buses any more that were picked with children.
Societies are very different around the world and I'm not sure how much this is factored into ideas that could work really well in some places and not so much in others.
I lived in London when Livingstone did that, and I do not recall that being the reaction of commuters. The afternoon school "rush" doesn't really overlap with commute hours either. Lots and lots of kids in London had travel passes at that time anyway, because the UK has never had a separate school bus system.
The alternative: They get delivered by their parents in the fat SUV, congesting curbsides in front of schools.
[deleted]
Maybe introduce a gradual shift instead over 50 years or so: with each next year taking the originally expected profits of public transport and gradually add those as taxes for cars while at the same time also reducing the current public transport ticket prices?
At the end of those 50 years public transportation could be free and the stubborn car owners or businesses would simply help subsidize more efficient ways of transportation.
Maybe allow reduced taxes for electric vehicles at the same time.
In the end, it wouldn't be much different than the subsidized meat production with artificially lowered meat prices in the US, nor would anyone care much about small increases like that on a year by year basis.
At the end of those 50 years public transportation could be free and the stubborn car owners or businesses would simply help subsidize more efficient ways of transportation.
Maybe allow reduced taxes for electric vehicles at the same time.
In the end, it wouldn't be much different than the subsidized meat production with artificially lowered meat prices in the US, nor would anyone care much about small increases like that on a year by year basis.
Except we don't have anything like 50 years!
Disagreed!
Private individuals are becoming less and less able to afford cars in the first place (not even talking about real estate). If legislation around predatory lending schemes would be tightened, the demand for cars would decrease.
If at the same time you'd invest aggressively in actually making sure that there is enough public transportation in place (as is the case in many European countries already but not the US), then it'd help with displacing them in the background as well.
Couple that with a remote working culture, a few decades of employee pushback and quitting their jobs if they're asked to return to the office in careers where that's not necessary, better postal services and ride sharing apps, food delivery apps or a push for cooking meals at home and you'd see even more significant changes. Even more so if the road networks and infrastructure cannot support rush hour traffic with most of society living in a single shift mode, rather than morning and afternoon shifts.
In contrast, if any initiative comes out today that calls for immediate and drastic change, it will get shot down. Real change takes a lot of patience and dozens if not hundreds of compounding factors over decades.
Either that or going out into the streets with guns in hand, but that has historically worked out horribly time and time again and humanity should be past that savagery. Protests could happen, of course, since that's a bit different.
Regardless, with more initiatives to limit heavy industry, global shipping of goods that could be locally manufactured and an overall push for less consumerist lifestyles, humanity might even have a few hundred years left to kick around on this rock before the long term environmental consequences actually start becoming visible!
Edit: phrasing
Private individuals are becoming less and less able to afford cars in the first place (not even talking about real estate). If legislation around predatory lending schemes would be tightened, the demand for cars would decrease.
If at the same time you'd invest aggressively in actually making sure that there is enough public transportation in place (as is the case in many European countries already but not the US), then it'd help with displacing them in the background as well.
Couple that with a remote working culture, a few decades of employee pushback and quitting their jobs if they're asked to return to the office in careers where that's not necessary, better postal services and ride sharing apps, food delivery apps or a push for cooking meals at home and you'd see even more significant changes. Even more so if the road networks and infrastructure cannot support rush hour traffic with most of society living in a single shift mode, rather than morning and afternoon shifts.
In contrast, if any initiative comes out today that calls for immediate and drastic change, it will get shot down. Real change takes a lot of patience and dozens if not hundreds of compounding factors over decades.
Either that or going out into the streets with guns in hand, but that has historically worked out horribly time and time again and humanity should be past that savagery. Protests could happen, of course, since that's a bit different.
Regardless, with more initiatives to limit heavy industry, global shipping of goods that could be locally manufactured and an overall push for less consumerist lifestyles, humanity might even have a few hundred years left to kick around on this rock before the long term environmental consequences actually start becoming visible!
Edit: phrasing
Longer you wait more generations are getting used to it slower.
I agree with the other commentir: let's stop talking let's start doing.
I agree with the other commentir: let's stop talking let's start doing.
I like this, but let's make it 50 days instead of 50 years. Or maybe weeks. I could see 52 weeks.
Free public transit for people who file taxes makes so much sense. The time and money costs of collecting fares is far to high.
In the UK, most people who are employed do not file taxes, they are handled by the employer. Other people whose only income is benefits also do not file taxes.
I think it's safe to assume that GPs suggestion includes people who are paying taxes via the employer or receiving benefits. Also, in lots of countries employers already subsidize public transportation costs.
It's also possible the suggestion is based on the concept of a country where 'filing taxes' is some optional or culturally odd thing so people need to be incentivised to do it at all. Or perhaps it's more thinking along the lines of 'someone who is a citizen' and measuring that by using tax filing as proof.
I read it as a "reward" and incentive for filing taxes in places like the US where everyone has to do it so it wouldn't translate to somewhere that taxes are paid via the employer or people on benefits because then there is no reward.
Adjust it based on the country’s tax system, but in Canada it would work because the employed and those on benefits tend to file taxes.
If you go that far, why stop there? What's the reason to have all the expenses and effort of fare collection if you're only going to collect fares from the occasional users of the system and not the daily users?
If you're going to make it free for all residents, you might as well just make it free for everyone.
If you're going to make it free for all residents, you might as well just make it free for everyone.
That would indeed cut quite a cost (monetary and environmental) due to barriers, tickets, validation machines, selling points, controllers...
I don‘t think the cost is so high here, we have covert ticket inspectors, none of those fancy electric gates.
Tickets may be cheap and somewhat eco-friendly if made from whatever recycled paper and a drilling machine like in the old days. But i doubt that's the case, so you have to account for the financial and ecological costs of all the electronics and magnetic tapes, and all the replacement parts you need to keep that system of control operating. Also, if your tickets are sufficiently unsophisticated to be eco-friendly, then they may well be very easy to forge.
That is, without mentioning that controllers have to be paid without providing any service. If you additionally take into consideration the social cost of the criminalization of something as banal as using public transports when you don't have money, the benefits of doing away with these systems of control arguably are even more evident.
That is, without mentioning that controllers have to be paid without providing any service. If you additionally take into consideration the social cost of the criminalization of something as banal as using public transports when you don't have money, the benefits of doing away with these systems of control arguably are even more evident.
Aren't inspectors more expensive than gates? You don't have to pay a salary to the gates.
Well, gates need people to install/maintenance them. And they're also pretty pointless unless you have controllers, too.
Fun fact from history: here's a photo of former French president Jacques Chiraq jumping the metro https://cdn.radiofrance.fr/s3/cruiser-production/2019/09/904...
Fun fact from history: here's a photo of former French president Jacques Chiraq jumping the metro https://cdn.radiofrance.fr/s3/cruiser-production/2019/09/904...
And if you're prepared to spend that much money, I'd rather prioritise spending it on improved service first.
Fully unionized with a (publicly funded) pension?
Ass soon as you see a human it costs a fortune.
Ass soon as you see a human it costs a fortune.
"a fortune" is very relative. Railway workers are not exactly known to earn a fortune. From what i could see in France (quick search), they earn between 1500 (close to minimum wage) and 2500€ per month, before taxes.
Also around here i've never heard railway unions ask for better compensation, because as you have pointed out they already have a good pension and some transport-related privileges [0]. However, they have been relentlessly asking for better working conditions in order to provide a better service, and that the government stop to try and privatize railways.
Of course the managers, directors and private contractors earn a lot more and that's how our corrupt overlords get away with siphoning much public money into private pockets. But these people, we could well do without, and unions would certainly support a move like that.
[0] Personally, i would strongly approve better compensation for those people we now call "essential workers". It appears in a capitalist system, those who work the most and provide the most services (railway/construction/food/cleaning/health workers) are those paid the less and with the most grueling working conditions. That's a shame.
Also around here i've never heard railway unions ask for better compensation, because as you have pointed out they already have a good pension and some transport-related privileges [0]. However, they have been relentlessly asking for better working conditions in order to provide a better service, and that the government stop to try and privatize railways.
Of course the managers, directors and private contractors earn a lot more and that's how our corrupt overlords get away with siphoning much public money into private pockets. But these people, we could well do without, and unions would certainly support a move like that.
[0] Personally, i would strongly approve better compensation for those people we now call "essential workers". It appears in a capitalist system, those who work the most and provide the most services (railway/construction/food/cleaning/health workers) are those paid the less and with the most grueling working conditions. That's a shame.
Railway ticket selling and checking/enforcement are only essential jobs if rail isn't free.
The easy way is to make it legally free for residents and charge tourists but don’t actually enforce it. Just put up ads in the airport and all over the tourist hotspots, run a few fake stories in the media of tourists being fined etc.
You get your money for nothing and your travel for free
You get your money for nothing and your travel for free
It seems you'd still need tickets, ticket machines, ticket scanners, ticket sellers, people to put more tickets in the machines, fix the ticket machines and scanners, people to pick up the discarded tickets, etc.
Having laws or rules you intentionally don't enforce at all can't be good for society. Why would people conditioned to steal from the state in one way not be expected to eventually steal from them in others as well?
In Europe, a tourist bed tax is collected from commercial establishments that cater to tourists.
Just increase that bed tax by 2-3 eur daily and use those 2-3 eur towards the public transport budget. Then let anyone use public transport for free, locals or not.
You will miss some people who will seek out couchsurfing opportunities at their friend's home, but you will still earn a lot from all the hotels, pensions and legal AirBnBs.
Just increase that bed tax by 2-3 eur daily and use those 2-3 eur towards the public transport budget. Then let anyone use public transport for free, locals or not.
You will miss some people who will seek out couchsurfing opportunities at their friend's home, but you will still earn a lot from all the hotels, pensions and legal AirBnBs.
I like this idea better than most local government UBI proposals. E.g., instead of suggesting UBI in NYC just make the trains free. It's not straight currency but it's unlimited transportation on high capacity, environmentally nice(r) systems. Then people can argue over who can make the experience nicer vs who is going to raise the fares. Ridership-wise, many heavy users already have unlimited cards.
(Still, however, not a UBI fan in general).
(Still, however, not a UBI fan in general).
That and free education and dare we mention the topic - free health care. Then we don't need UBI.
We have something like those already. Primary and secondary education are free (and compulsory) and one cannot refuse treatment to individuals in the emergency room.
The appeal of free public transportation, to me, is that it allows more people to take advantage of public spaces and works and, marginally, allows people to bring home more money for the same amount of time worked.
Free public transportation fare incentivizes participation not tuning out like I feel many UBI proposals do. No one is going to look at, effectively, a free metro card then think "Sweet! I don't need to work!"
The appeal of free public transportation, to me, is that it allows more people to take advantage of public spaces and works and, marginally, allows people to bring home more money for the same amount of time worked.
Free public transportation fare incentivizes participation not tuning out like I feel many UBI proposals do. No one is going to look at, effectively, a free metro card then think "Sweet! I don't need to work!"
When I visited Germany, they had cleverly ditched most "gateline staff" like you say but then had a reasonable number of ticket inspectors who would check you had a ticket and it was stamped for the current day. Best of both worlds?
Italy does this and I've always wondered how much they must lose over it. Even as a tourist, every time I saw a ticket agent get on the bus/tram, a good number of people would instantly get off.
I do like the system better, it's faster in every way. But lost fares would definitely be a concern.
Also not sure how that has anything to do with making public transit free honestly.
I do like the system better, it's faster in every way. But lost fares would definitely be a concern.
Also not sure how that has anything to do with making public transit free honestly.
I've lived in a place with a system like this. The people who jump off were mostly students and people for whom tickets represented a significant expense.
The lax rules and clearly uniformed agents were seen partly as progressive price discrimination, giving free access to public transport to those who really need it.
The lax rules and clearly uniformed agents were seen partly as progressive price discrimination, giving free access to public transport to those who really need it.
The ticket usually covers only a fraction of the true price while the rest is subsidized anyways, so it shouldn't matter much
As far as I remember, in the bigger cities in Germany farebox recovery ratios are usually somewhere in the 30 to 80 % range, in some cases even higher. (According to https://www.vdv.de/vdv-statistik-2019.pdfx#page=35, the average might actually be around 75 %, it seems.)
So completely abolishing fares would mean a considerable, definitively non-trivial increase in spending requirements on public transport for cities – and if you're seriously prepared to spend that much money (or create some sort of additional tax to raise that money, or whatever), I'd rather prioritise spending it on service improvements first, because even in big cities there are enough examples of service offerings that are only borderline attractive.
They actually did some (admittedly smaller-scale) experiments in that direction recently, and as I understood it, the takeaway was that service improvements were indeed somewhat more effective in generating additional passengers than lower fares.
So completely abolishing fares would mean a considerable, definitively non-trivial increase in spending requirements on public transport for cities – and if you're seriously prepared to spend that much money (or create some sort of additional tax to raise that money, or whatever), I'd rather prioritise spending it on service improvements first, because even in big cities there are enough examples of service offerings that are only borderline attractive.
They actually did some (admittedly smaller-scale) experiments in that direction recently, and as I understood it, the takeaway was that service improvements were indeed somewhat more effective in generating additional passengers than lower fares.
In Berlin, they usually enter the train in groups of 3-4, so they are able to check every person in one wagon in between two stops. You also see them pretty often at a station collecting the details of someone who didn't have a ticket.
I think both of those factors push most people in Berlin to buy a ticket. With a fine of 60 EUR the staff already pays for itself if they pick up ~2 people/hour, which sounds very realistic. If they then on top also have the effect of increasing the percentage of paying riders by a tiny amount, the whole program is quickly turning a profit.
I think both of those factors push most people in Berlin to buy a ticket. With a fine of 60 EUR the staff already pays for itself if they pick up ~2 people/hour, which sounds very realistic. If they then on top also have the effect of increasing the percentage of paying riders by a tiny amount, the whole program is quickly turning a profit.
You forget the cost it incurs when someone gets caught (and sometimes jailed!) for chicken-shit like this.
Edit to add some context:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/haft-nach-schwarzfahren-u...
Consider this article from Berlin where a sizeable number of people in jail are there for riding without a ticket. The cost of that needs to be taken into account here.
Edit to add some context:
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/haft-nach-schwarzfahren-u...
Consider this article from Berlin where a sizeable number of people in jail are there for riding without a ticket. The cost of that needs to be taken into account here.
In germany, they'll put you in jail for fare evasion? I've always seen it done as a fine and they kick you off the train at the next stop.
It's extremely rare that that happens. It's typically considered a criminal offence if you are caught twice in two years, but rarely anyone is following up on that. Only really frequent repeaters are really prosecuted.
That is what I see as well. Not sure why they just don’t give free passes to students and people with low income instead.
The downside is that visitors who are unfamiliar with the system--especially if they don't speak the local language--can end up riding illegally by mistake.
I’m convinced that many transit/rail systems give
Minimal thought to the use of the systems by occasional users some of whom may not speak the
language natively.
Portland, Oregon has free light rail in the downtown area. Feels great just casually stepping onto a train.
If you're referring to Fareless Square that was discontinued in 2012.
With the way the MAX stops are designed, it's still very possible to just hop on without paying.
With the way the MAX stops are designed, it's still very possible to just hop on without paying.
If you really want to charge tourists for the use of public transport, you could perhaps find ways of charging that at the border of the country. A daily tariff, either on entry, or on exit.
This isn't tenable in the EU due to the freedom of movement across borders.
This is already done today. A lot of touristy cities already charge a daily fee per night you stay there. Hotels bill you for it so compliance is complete too. Between that and taxes for residents there's really no point to charging separately for public transport.
Here in Berlin the idea floating around is to make yearly tickets very cheap (365€), while keeping prices for single travel (2.80€) or daily tickets (9.50€) more expensive. That's probably the easiest, least bureaucratic route to go.
For poorer households, the yearly ticket will still be subsidized, but the public transport companies (fully owned by the state) will still have direct income to maintain a corporate-like structure.
For poorer households, the yearly ticket will still be subsidized, but the public transport companies (fully owned by the state) will still have direct income to maintain a corporate-like structure.
It would be much easier and less bureaucratic to just make it free and adjust taxes for residents and overnight fees for turists accordingly. Just the savings on all the ticketing and compliance systems and staff should be significant.
Considering that single travel tickets cost 3€ at the moment, and yearly ones 730€, that would be a godsend. One can also hope that one day they'll allow traveling on a single ticket for the full two hours, not just for one journey. However, it's unlikely the BVG will ever budge on pricing.
Earlier this year, there were rumors of a cheaper "Homeoffice-Ticket" which would only be valid on certain days, and in the end nothing came out of it either.
Earlier this year, there were rumors of a cheaper "Homeoffice-Ticket" which would only be valid on certain days, and in the end nothing came out of it either.
SaaS pricing infiltrates real life
Tom Scott did a great video on Luxembourg's switch to free public transport. They were already covering 90% of the cost, so upping that to 100% was easy. London's network, on the other hand, gets roughly 50% of its funding from fares.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feCQPD9DSOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feCQPD9DSOA
The area of Luxemburg is 2500km2 and the estimated population is 633k. For comparison: the area of London is ~1500km2 with population of 8m+. Do you think that Luxemburg’s system can be scaled up?
Luxembourg resident here. Free public transport is a game-changer. You don't have to think about it, you just step on the bus, or tram.
This also means the bus driver doesn't have to worry about checking tickets. There aren't guards to check if people are jumping over turnstiles, etc. Moving to 'totally free' eliminates all kinds of overhead.
There is no reason it couldn't scale.
And the question of scaling hides an interesting assumption: what is the purpose of charging fares?
If it is to reduce usage (to thus ensure that the system isn't used past capacity), then why do you want to limit the usage of public transport? If people don't take public, they will take private transport (cars, etc) which have much higher social cost (you can move many more people by bus than by car).
If it is to 'raise revenue to pay for the system', does the same argument apply to use of roads? What is a fair road tax, given that this method of transport has such high social costs?
This also means the bus driver doesn't have to worry about checking tickets. There aren't guards to check if people are jumping over turnstiles, etc. Moving to 'totally free' eliminates all kinds of overhead.
There is no reason it couldn't scale.
And the question of scaling hides an interesting assumption: what is the purpose of charging fares?
If it is to reduce usage (to thus ensure that the system isn't used past capacity), then why do you want to limit the usage of public transport? If people don't take public, they will take private transport (cars, etc) which have much higher social cost (you can move many more people by bus than by car).
If it is to 'raise revenue to pay for the system', does the same argument apply to use of roads? What is a fair road tax, given that this method of transport has such high social costs?
> why do you want to limit the usage of public transport?
> If people don't take public, they will take
> private transport (cars, etc)
This ignores two elements:
- congestion differs by time of day, and
- capacity is constrained differently by mode
In London:
- it's cheaper to take a bus than to take an underground train, and
- there are ticket types that are only valid after the morning rush hour
Both of these decrease peak congestion on the transport system.
The differential pricing would not push people to private transport, but might push them to buses (whose capacity can more easily be increased) or to postpone their journey to later in the day.
You know what might push people to private transport? Severe congestion on the underground. If you are not fit and aggressive, then trying to get on a Central Line train in the morning might mean waiting for 2-3 full trains to pass before you can get on one.
This ignores two elements:
- congestion differs by time of day, and
- capacity is constrained differently by mode
In London:
- it's cheaper to take a bus than to take an underground train, and
- there are ticket types that are only valid after the morning rush hour
Both of these decrease peak congestion on the transport system.
The differential pricing would not push people to private transport, but might push them to buses (whose capacity can more easily be increased) or to postpone their journey to later in the day.
You know what might push people to private transport? Severe congestion on the underground. If you are not fit and aggressive, then trying to get on a Central Line train in the morning might mean waiting for 2-3 full trains to pass before you can get on one.
Yes, there are also weekend tickets, zone 1, 2, up to 6 tickets. It’s pretty complex.
Increasing bus capacity might not be easy either. That requires more busses, more staff, more service, more whatever the source of power is for the busses. It all costs ££££.
Increasing bus capacity might not be easy either. That requires more busses, more staff, more service, more whatever the source of power is for the busses. It all costs ££££.
Shouldn't it be easier in London due to higher density?
I was considering this but higher density also means more transportation is required, more people have to employed and so on. It gets very expensive very fast.
In theory population size 12x of the population of Luxemburg would make it easier to distribute the cost of free transport. But this glosses over the fact that London is huge and only zone 1 and maybe 2 are a pain to drive. Not everyone in London works in zone 1 / 2.
I wonder if there’s anyone here able to give an answer if free transport in London would be financially realistic.
In theory population size 12x of the population of Luxemburg would make it easier to distribute the cost of free transport. But this glosses over the fact that London is huge and only zone 1 and maybe 2 are a pain to drive. Not everyone in London works in zone 1 / 2.
I wonder if there’s anyone here able to give an answer if free transport in London would be financially realistic.
San Francisco city council voted in favor of making public transit free, even Muni was on board. Total cost was something like $20 million a year (city budget is measured in the Billions) to get rid of fares completely, forever. That happened about two months ago.
Mayor vetoed it, on the grounds that "it would be too popular and overtax muni's capacity". I'm not sure I buy that, my guess is that the local tour bus/tourist bike rental industry disapproved, but that's just speculation on my part. I would personally use Muni about 50% more but I have a chicken-and-egg problem; I don't use it enough to justify a monthly pass, and since I don't have a monthly pass, most times I'd rather just walk than catch a bus.
Mayor vetoed it, on the grounds that "it would be too popular and overtax muni's capacity". I'm not sure I buy that, my guess is that the local tour bus/tourist bike rental industry disapproved, but that's just speculation on my part. I would personally use Muni about 50% more but I have a chicken-and-egg problem; I don't use it enough to justify a monthly pass, and since I don't have a monthly pass, most times I'd rather just walk than catch a bus.
> most times I'd rather just walk than catch a bus
Which honestly is probably the best outcome any way, at least from an environmental and personal health perspective.
Which honestly is probably the best outcome any way, at least from an environmental and personal health perspective.
God, that's so infuriating, particularly given that for many people I know, the concern with Muni/BART is that it's oftentimes too empty, which can be a little freaky particularly as a woman.
This would not cover BART, which is not an SF run system. It would not cover SAMTRANS. This is just SF muni (busses and a handful of trolley lines) -- I think trolleys also were excluded as these are for raising money from tourists.
Honestly they rarely bother even to ask for fares. The problem with SF Muni is that the buses are dirty, smelly, and travel along at an average speed of about 8 miles per hour. This, combined with the fact that the buses always appear at random times and can never be ontime creates a very unpleasant experience that is only marginally better than walking.
Honestly they rarely bother even to ask for fares. The problem with SF Muni is that the buses are dirty, smelly, and travel along at an average speed of about 8 miles per hour. This, combined with the fact that the buses always appear at random times and can never be ontime creates a very unpleasant experience that is only marginally better than walking.
Because it doesn't necessarily solve the problem of car journeys but costs a load. It might be fine for e.g. London but where I live, there is no public transport between my house and work (well, perhaps over about 3 hours compared to 30 minute drive) but even though my wife lives on a bus route, the times are less than hourly so she can't get to work for the right time, would get there an hour early or an hour and a half later!
If people still need to use their cars, it doesn't really work.
If people still need to use their cars, it doesn't really work.
[deleted]
I've been saying this for a while. I used to live in queens and would take a practically empty bus down a traffic packed metropolitan ave to a coworking space in bushwick. There was no way the bus was breaking even with the 5-10 people that would get on during my trips.
Instead NYC spent $250 million to crack down on fare evasion [1] and installed huge ticket machines at a bunch of bus stops that probably cost >300K each to install.
[1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/11/14/mta-will-spend-249m-o...
Instead NYC spent $250 million to crack down on fare evasion [1] and installed huge ticket machines at a bunch of bus stops that probably cost >300K each to install.
[1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/11/14/mta-will-spend-249m-o...
The simplest way is to do what my city (Missoula) did years ago and make the public transportation zero fare for everyone. No more tickets, no more swiping cards, no more concern over who "doesn't deserve" to ride a public resource. This succeeded so well they've even upgraded a number of their buses to be zero-emission as well.
Did it come with a tax increase? Was everyone happy about that? If it didn't come with a tax increase then what funding was cut for this public transport? It's easy to look at a success when you're only looking at the beneficial side, but don't look at the cost.
> It's easy to look at a success when you're only looking at the beneficial side, but don't look at the cost.
Which is why part of the "funding" for such systems comes from the reduction in the cost caused by private vehicles (on the roads, on the atmosphere, on the neighborhood and more).
Which is why part of the "funding" for such systems comes from the reduction in the cost caused by private vehicles (on the roads, on the atmosphere, on the neighborhood and more).
Good luck with that as long as our society is based around subsidizing the fuel cost of those polluting cars (not to mention the externalized cost of pollution), and any politicians that tries to change that will lose their next election..
Our economic system ensures that we keep the gas pedal to the floor both figuratively and literally.
Our economic system ensures that we keep the gas pedal to the floor both figuratively and literally.
> our society is based around subsidizing the fuel cost of those polluting cars
I think you mean being subsidized by the fuel cost of the cars?
I think you mean being subsidized by the fuel cost of the cars?
From what I've read about similar experiments in various cities, in fact it's not an unmitigated good thing. Most augmentation in public transport usage comes not people switching from driving, but people that used to walk or bike.
making intercity public transit free or cheaper - as per here 100% will augment public transit as very few people walk or cycle more than 10 miles each way.
Why should public transport cost anything at all? I mean, what's the point? You might say the service costs money. It does. The ticket prices never cover that so you're already running at a loss. You spend money on enforcement, payment and ticket machines and you reduce usage of the service.
But here's the more important point: cars are already subsidized to a huge degree pretty much everywhere through roads, parking, etc.
Let's also start by removing free street parking from any area reasonably serviced by public transport. Or just removing it entirely.
But here's the more important point: cars are already subsidized to a huge degree pretty much everywhere through roads, parking, etc.
Let's also start by removing free street parking from any area reasonably serviced by public transport. Or just removing it entirely.
Free public transport means worse service. In the long term, subsidies < subsidies + fares, so there would be less money to fund the operations. At the same time, many people who would otherwise walk/cycle or not take the trip at all would be using public transport, and the reduced service would be crowded. Because the quality of public transport would be low, people who can afford it would prefer driving. That in turn would lower the subsidies, because people are always looking for ways to lower taxes and reduce public spending in services they don't need.
Sometimes the fares are also higher than costs to discourage using public transport, because capacity is limited and increasing it is effectively impossible. London zone 1 is a good example of this. People who won't use public transport will walk/cycle or not take the trip at all. They won't switch to driving in any significant numbers, because that would be physically impossible.
Sometimes the fares are also higher than costs to discourage using public transport, because capacity is limited and increasing it is effectively impossible. London zone 1 is a good example of this. People who won't use public transport will walk/cycle or not take the trip at all. They won't switch to driving in any significant numbers, because that would be physically impossible.
Because people don't value free things.
It's why public restrooms are always disgusting.
It's why public restrooms are always disgusting.
> It's why public restrooms are always disgusting.
Not really. It's not a question of value that causes public restrooms to be less pleasant, but simply one of cleaning frequency.
Most people clean their own private restrooms/bathrooms/toilet (or have them cleaned) reasonably frequently. Increase the usage load for a public facility and you'd expect it to need to cleaning more frequently than a private one.
And so, one does indeed find public facilities with sensible cleaning intervals that are often no worse and sometimes better than private ones.
Most humans also have a somewhat instinctive distaste for urinating or defacating in a context where they can smell another human being (even one's own family!). Without very good ventilation, it's hard for a well-used public facility to avoid this, and that adds to the sense of "eergh, it's disgusting!" This is an issue, but again not one of "valuing free things".
The worst public restrooms I can think of tend to be the most lightly used, where it's hard to justify the cost of sufficiently regular cleaning, and things just get unpleasant, again without any question of values or cost-of-use.
Not really. It's not a question of value that causes public restrooms to be less pleasant, but simply one of cleaning frequency.
Most people clean their own private restrooms/bathrooms/toilet (or have them cleaned) reasonably frequently. Increase the usage load for a public facility and you'd expect it to need to cleaning more frequently than a private one.
And so, one does indeed find public facilities with sensible cleaning intervals that are often no worse and sometimes better than private ones.
Most humans also have a somewhat instinctive distaste for urinating or defacating in a context where they can smell another human being (even one's own family!). Without very good ventilation, it's hard for a well-used public facility to avoid this, and that adds to the sense of "eergh, it's disgusting!" This is an issue, but again not one of "valuing free things".
The worst public restrooms I can think of tend to be the most lightly used, where it's hard to justify the cost of sufficiently regular cleaning, and things just get unpleasant, again without any question of values or cost-of-use.
I remember having an electric car when they were new.
Some places offered free electric car charging, and there was always someone parked there abusing it.
Meanwhile with only the most nominal cost, people would make better use of the resource allowing it to become available to others.
Some places offered free electric car charging, and there was always someone parked there abusing it.
Meanwhile with only the most nominal cost, people would make better use of the resource allowing it to become available to others.
> Why should public transport cost anything at all? I mean, what's the point?
Because by subsidizing public transport, you are discouraging people from options that save the resources used by transportation even more: for example partial home-office, riding to work by bike, or moving closer to work || working closer to home.
Because by subsidizing public transport, you are discouraging people from options that save the resources used by transportation even more: for example partial home-office, riding to work by bike, or moving closer to work || working closer to home.
> The ticket prices never cover that so you're already running at a loss.
London Underground usually runs at a profit. Not entirely from tickets, but also including other sources like advertisement. But ticket revenue is an important part of the income.
Public transport also includes privately-owned transport that is run for profit, like private buses and trains, which also make a profit (or go bust).
London Underground usually runs at a profit. Not entirely from tickets, but also including other sources like advertisement. But ticket revenue is an important part of the income.
Public transport also includes privately-owned transport that is run for profit, like private buses and trains, which also make a profit (or go bust).
That's what Luxembourg did. Works great!
how do you keep people from just riding the train perpetually?
why would you keep people from doing that? are so many people going to be doing that as to actually cause a problem?
In my area people will ride the commuter train (without paying) for hours and sleep on it. There isn't enough fair enforcement or will to remove them. Makes the train pretty unattractive for its actual purpose. I imagine that issue becoming even worse if it's just free.
People do that in my city too — they're homeless people who don't have anywhere else to go. The solution is to give them housing and jobs. Until that happens, I'm okay with them sleeping on the train if they need to.
and for that reason I'll keep my car. The solution to homelessness is not to degrade the living standard for everyone else.
No one said it was. You asked how to prevent homeless people from sleeping on trains — the answer is to give them places to sleep.
no. it’s to enforce the rules on the train. there are some homeless that will refuse government provided housing no matter what.
That's just not true. The problem is that government housing is so terrible that sleeping on the street is preferable to some.
Public housing in Austria is high quality, cheap and plentiful, with two-thirds of Viennese residents living in it. Coincidentally, homelessness is a non-issue in Austria compared to the US (based on my experience living in the Bay for 10 and in Austria for 20 years).
See this video for what government provided housing could be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE
See this video for what government provided housing could be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DBKoWbtjE
Looks like one development you need to be super connected to get into…
Again, 2/3rds of Vienna lives in things like those. The City of Vienna is the largest landlord in all of Europe.
Better things are possible if we stop standing in the way with selfish cynicism.
Better things are possible if we stop standing in the way with selfish cynicism.
Some context here: previously there was no single ticket you could get for public transport in Austria like you could in Switzerland. There was a yearly ticket for the national rail services but that was it.
With this ticket you can hop into any public transport now from long distance rail to local city trams.
With this ticket you can hop into any public transport now from long distance rail to local city trams.
Just to clarify : In Switzerland, one can buy a CA Travelcard (for CHF3860 a year, approximately $3850). With this card, one can travel on (nearly) all public transports in Switzerland (trains, coaches, subways, trams, etc.) free of charge. Since the public transportation system is very good, it's a good way to travel.
Ok, so the Austrian version costs less than a third of that for a considerably larger country. And the public transportation system is pretty good in Austria too...
In Germany it's also around 4k. EUR 4,027 for the BahnCard 100. We're much bigger than Switzerland, though.
https://www.bahn.com/en/offers/bahncard/bahncard_100-conditi...
EDIT: I can't find info on whether the German one covers city transportation... maybe it doesn't! - EDIT2: It does according to reply!
https://www.bahn.com/en/offers/bahncard/bahncard_100-conditi...
EDIT: I can't find info on whether the German one covers city transportation... maybe it doesn't! - EDIT2: It does according to reply!
It covers most local transportation, but not all.
> The BahnCard 100 is also valid within the City-Ticket zone of all towns and cities covered by the City-Ticket offering
City ticket coverage: https://www.bahn.com/en/offers/tickets-for-local-transport
> The BahnCard 100 is also valid within the City-Ticket zone of all towns and cities covered by the City-Ticket offering
City ticket coverage: https://www.bahn.com/en/offers/tickets-for-local-transport
Oh that's actually a much better deal, then. A Berlin monthly ticket is 86 a month (ok... or 63 with a 1 year commitment), which is already 1/4 (or 1/5) of the 4k...
I maintain my car for for < 1000€ a year.
Given, I have a "car dude" that repairs and sells me used cars in good condition (I don't drive much at all), but even if you would spend a bit more, it isn't as competitive as it needs to be.
But other than that, cars are almost essential today. Have family you need to take care of? Good luck doing that with public transport. Doable perhaps if you quit your job...
Given, I have a "car dude" that repairs and sells me used cars in good condition (I don't drive much at all), but even if you would spend a bit more, it isn't as competitive as it needs to be.
But other than that, cars are almost essential today. Have family you need to take care of? Good luck doing that with public transport. Doable perhaps if you quit your job...
> I don't drive much at all
Then why are you comparing your €1000 expense to this €4000 ticket? This ticket is for people who travel multiple times a week by train.
There are still normal tickets available in Germany, you don't have to pay 4000 a year for the privilege of taking a train once in a while.
Even city tickets are for people who travel every day.
Then why are you comparing your €1000 expense to this €4000 ticket? This ticket is for people who travel multiple times a week by train.
There are still normal tickets available in Germany, you don't have to pay 4000 a year for the privilege of taking a train once in a while.
Even city tickets are for people who travel every day.
... it's Switzerland. Everything is 3x more expensive and salaries are 4x higher. Just don't travel there.
... and only a third of the salary deductions you have in Ausria. Plus, you can choose your own health insurance. Seriously, don't travel there.
I mean, when I was in the area in 2005-2007 pretzels cost USD 2.50 in Germany and USD 7 in Switzerland ...
There were also steep discounts for students and youth for almost everything -- I got a public transit pass for 50% off because I was under 23 at the time.
There were also steep discounts for students and youth for almost everything -- I got a public transit pass for 50% off because I was under 23 at the time.
I love the Brezel example. A freshly baked Brezel at the Trainstation Bern is like 3$. However if you need a human to cut it open and spread butter on it it costs $8.
Products ain't that much more expensive here, human time is.
Products ain't that much more expensive here, human time is.
The rail network appears to be only 20% larger in Austria than Switzerland (5000 vs 6000 km Google tells me). Then the salaries of the people operating those transports are also higher in Switzerland. The GA is a pretty good deal already.
As Austrian living in Switzerland there definitely is a x3 value given here. It's unfair to directly compare given the price difference, but Austrian public transport is simply not on the same level in terms of: quality, speed, timing, connections, reliability (dozens of backup tracks), ..
Is there a bus to every tiny village the way there is in Switzerland? The long distance stuff is all well and good, but I suspect the expensive part is the rural last-mile which is heavily subsidized by the denser (heavier used, cheaper to run) city transit.
Switzerland has a very strong currency which is a factor here. If the ticket alone doesn't make you poor, the coffee might.
And for comparison, the Swiss equivalent costs around USD 4k a year per person 2nd class
> from long distance rail to local city trams.
That's the part that makes a system like this subjectively unfair.
If my daily commute is a handful of bus stops and that guy's is a train for an hour from another city, then I am basically funding his commute by overpaying for my pass... even if it's cheaper to ride my bus with a pass than to buy a ticket for every ride.
Edit - I read the website as saying that this is going to be the only pass available in Austria. It looks like it's not, which, of course, makes far more sense in comparison.
That's the part that makes a system like this subjectively unfair.
If my daily commute is a handful of bus stops and that guy's is a train for an hour from another city, then I am basically funding his commute by overpaying for my pass... even if it's cheaper to ride my bus with a pass than to buy a ticket for every ride.
Edit - I read the website as saying that this is going to be the only pass available in Austria. It looks like it's not, which, of course, makes far more sense in comparison.
>If my daily commute is a handful of bus stops and that guy's is a train for an hour from another city
If your daily commute is a handful of bus stops for instance in the Vienna metro, then you can buy a yearly ticket just for the Vienna public transport for 365€.
https://www.wienerlinien.at/web/wiener-linien/jahreskarte
If your daily commute is a handful of bus stops for instance in the Vienna metro, then you can buy a yearly ticket just for the Vienna public transport for 365€.
https://www.wienerlinien.at/web/wiener-linien/jahreskarte
I mean this is Europe, and there's much less "this is unfair" versus "we are in this together".
Maybe compared to America, but really, no, there's still a LOT of individualistic thinking here
People living far from city centers usually live in bigger house/flats and less dense districts. That's usually what pull people to move to the suburbs. Some do this because of the cost of renting/buy a big place in inner city but it's the same argument.
The problem is, living in a large place and sparser environment has a HUGE social cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Effects which is a major contributor to the ongoing biodiversity collapse (which is at least as big of a threat as climate change).
"We are in this together" but not just to get people to drop private cars. We must commute much less (however clean your mode of transport) so how is it compatible with cheap transport in the long term?
Or we put hard limit on urban sprawl but that will increase the cost of living in suburban/rural places even further than having people pay for their commute distance.
The problem is, living in a large place and sparser environment has a HUGE social cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Effects which is a major contributor to the ongoing biodiversity collapse (which is at least as big of a threat as climate change).
"We are in this together" but not just to get people to drop private cars. We must commute much less (however clean your mode of transport) so how is it compatible with cheap transport in the long term?
Or we put hard limit on urban sprawl but that will increase the cost of living in suburban/rural places even further than having people pay for their commute distance.
Even on public transport, longer commutes are relatively environmentally unfriendly when compared to shorter commutes (in the medium-to-long run). So regardless of individualism, it would generally be a public benefit to encourage shorter commutes.
Yes, but it's not exactly that you have a lot of choice for where you work, for example.
I suppose it depends on the job and the market, but many people do have a lot of choice where they work (and where they live).
I think we disagree on the "many". I would say "some" instead. Most people i know don't have a choice: they're employed in a shop somewhere or work from specific offices. Of course, the HN crowd may be more exposed to work-from-home, but that's still alien to a great part of the population, especially those who work the most precarious jobs.
I'm not sure how it is in Austria, but here in the US, people on the more "precarious" end of the spectrum (non-management retail and hospitality workers) have a quit rate of (very roughly) ~50% per year. So generally they do seem to be aware that they can choose a different place to work. Do you live somewhere very rural?
Yes i reside in a less populous area (south France) where you can be happy to find a job at all, if that's what you're looking for in life. But from my understanding of bigger agglomerations: there's a high turnover rate in precarious jobs, but just because you can afford to find another precarious job elsewhere doesn't mean you get the privilege to choose where precisely. I hear in suburbs of capitals like Berlin or Paris it's not uncommon for people to travel 2-4h daily to work and back. Chances are if you switch jobs, you might have the same travel times, but to a different location.
Hm yes, my perspective is probably quite non-representative. Thank you for the insight!
Thank you for asking, that was a very pertinent question!
I mean, yes, but that's like saying "all you can eat" buffets are unfair.
The only "fix" would be to never offer fixed-rate pricing.
It's a strange complaint, to me.
The only "fix" would be to never offer fixed-rate pricing.
It's a strange complaint, to me.
If there's a buffet that serves a caviar and I only eat unpeeled cucumbers, then I'm not likely to go to that buffet.
Agreed. Many consumers will still pay-as-you-go. I fail to see the problem.
I am pretty sure that you still can get a monthly/yearly ticket for your local area. These are usually between 50-100 € in Germany. In Vienna you pay 1 € per day, so around 350 € for a year.
The idea here is that you have one ticket that can be used everywhere in the country, so you probably would only get it if you travel more than a local commute on a regular base.
The idea here is that you have one ticket that can be used everywhere in the country, so you probably would only get it if you travel more than a local commute on a regular base.
If your daily commute is only a few bus stops, you'll find it way cheaper to get a pass from the local transportation company.
This is for people who are travelling a lot (like commuting between cities on a daily or weekly basis).
> If my daily commute is a handful of bus stops and that guy's is a train for an hour from another city, then I am basically funding his commute by overpaying for my pass...
In that case you would not buy this pass, instead opting for a local or regional pass or one tailored to that specific commute.
In that case you would not buy this pass, instead opting for a local or regional pass or one tailored to that specific commute.
I've never been to Austria, but I suspect this more limited pass you prefer has been available for a long time in all relevant locales. Certainly that is my experience with other public transit systems.
A look at this classic Viennese ticket machine would convince most people that paying more to never touch it again is not only fair but necessary and effectively a discount:
https://live.staticflickr.com/1096/1427525859_9f6fcf046f_k.j...
https://live.staticflickr.com/1096/1427525859_9f6fcf046f_k.j...
But if you only require local travel, why would you buy a national pass?
It sounded like it's going to be the only pass available in Austria. I must've read the site wrong.
Hmm, I wonder what I am 'overpaying' by having close to 1/2 of the land area of my town dedicated to cars instead of trees and grass, just so other people can live in the suburbs.
[deleted]
Pretty much all local city transport networks in Europe offer yearly subscriptions. If you just need that, that's already an option.
If the Kilmaticket is not the only pass now available in Austria, then it makes far more sense.
I'm an American who studied abroad in France for a bit a decade ago and did a little traveling around Europe, including to Austria. The Austrian train system was the best by far even without Klimaticket. Specifically, you bought a ticket that entitled you to a set number of kilometers and you could use it any time in the month. Moreover, the trains actually ran on time and customer service was helpful. By comparison, under the French system, the trains were often late, the customer service was almost hostile, and your ticket was for a specific train and if you missed it for whatever reason you were out of luck.
This was a really big deal for me because the French government had just reneged on their commitment to pay my ~650 euro/month rent just a week or two before I arrived and consequently I chose to skip meals to save up a bit to make a couple of trips to Austria to Austria to visit my then-girlfriend-now-wife (I went from 175lbs to an unhealthy 140lbs over my 5-month stay).
As a parenthetical, when I was planning to fly to Austria from Paris, I put my luggage in a 24-hour locker in Gare du Nord the evening before the early-morning flight, but the room the locker was in was closed from 10pm to 6am and the flight left CDG at 7am, so I was devastated when I had to eat the cost of the flight ticket. I begged the staff to unlock the door for me in my best, most polite French, but they would invariably say "c'est impossible" (in my experience, this is what almost all French employees would say to any request which wasn't strictly in their job description, including asking for directions which made it all the more shocking when I would ask an Austrian employee in English for some help and they were positively eager to assist, even if their English was not very good).
This was a really big deal for me because the French government had just reneged on their commitment to pay my ~650 euro/month rent just a week or two before I arrived and consequently I chose to skip meals to save up a bit to make a couple of trips to Austria to Austria to visit my then-girlfriend-now-wife (I went from 175lbs to an unhealthy 140lbs over my 5-month stay).
As a parenthetical, when I was planning to fly to Austria from Paris, I put my luggage in a 24-hour locker in Gare du Nord the evening before the early-morning flight, but the room the locker was in was closed from 10pm to 6am and the flight left CDG at 7am, so I was devastated when I had to eat the cost of the flight ticket. I begged the staff to unlock the door for me in my best, most polite French, but they would invariably say "c'est impossible" (in my experience, this is what almost all French employees would say to any request which wasn't strictly in their job description, including asking for directions which made it all the more shocking when I would ask an Austrian employee in English for some help and they were positively eager to assist, even if their English was not very good).
> As a parenthetical, when I was planning to fly to Austria from Paris, I put my luggage in a 24-hour locker in Gare du Nord the evening before the early-morning flight, but the room the locker was in was closed from 10pm to 6am and the flight left CDG at 7am, so I was devastated when I had to eat the cost of the flight ticket. I begged the staff to unlock the door for me in my best, most polite French, but they would invariably say "c'est impossible"
Hm, was in a very similar situation at a Greyhound station in Merced when I returned from a hike through Yosemite. I had parked half of my luggage in a locker at the bus station when I took the shuttle serve to the park (which ended up with me having to put the snow chains on the shuttle bus since the driver had never performed that task...). When I returned to the station and wanted to retrieve my luggage to take the Greyhound which would eventually take me to the airport so I could catch my flight back to the Netherlands the station was closed, and would remain closed until past my bus department time. There was a cleaner in the station who I eventually managed to persuade to open the door... otherwise I would have missed the bus, which would have made me miss my flight. Since then I have made sure to check opening times on buildings containing luggage storage to avoid these problems.
Hm, was in a very similar situation at a Greyhound station in Merced when I returned from a hike through Yosemite. I had parked half of my luggage in a locker at the bus station when I took the shuttle serve to the park (which ended up with me having to put the snow chains on the shuttle bus since the driver had never performed that task...). When I returned to the station and wanted to retrieve my luggage to take the Greyhound which would eventually take me to the airport so I could catch my flight back to the Netherlands the station was closed, and would remain closed until past my bus department time. There was a cleaner in the station who I eventually managed to persuade to open the door... otherwise I would have missed the bus, which would have made me miss my flight. Since then I have made sure to check opening times on buildings containing luggage storage to avoid these problems.
Luggage check in most places (other than hotels with 24 hour desks) is pretty hit or miss. Even if I’m traveling light as I usually am I have a large enough carryon that I can’t easily schlep it around a city especially if I want to go into a museum or something like that.
Just as a counter-anecdote to "c'est impossible", when I was young and naive I went on a cycle tour from La Rochelle to Toulouse, thinking I could just book a train ticket with a bike from Toulouse to Paris and put my bike in the luggage carriage as you could at the time in the UK. In fact, technically, you had to take apart and box your bike before they'd allow you to put it on board. I arrived on the platform with my bike and spoke to the guard who told me what the rule was, looked up and down the mostly empty platform, and gestured towards the guard's van. Sometimes you get a Gallic shrug rather than "c'est impossible". (The difference may also be to do with Paris vs the rest of France, as tends to be the case with capital cities vs everywhere else in a country).
My experience from living in Paris is that "non, c'est pas possible" isn't "no, that's against the rules", it's more of a "that sounds like it requires effort on my part, please go away".
One of my first experiences when moving there was before I got my travel card and was using the paper tickets, but all the ticket accepting machines on a metro entrance where closed. I asked a staff member what to do, he looked up and down the barriers and just shrugged and said "jump".
One of my first experiences when moving there was before I got my travel card and was using the paper tickets, but all the ticket accepting machines on a metro entrance where closed. I asked a staff member what to do, he looked up and down the barriers and just shrugged and said "jump".
> My experience from living in Paris is that "non, c'est pas possible" isn't "no, that's against the rules", it's more of a "that sounds like it requires effort on my part, please go away".
This captures my experience as well.
This captures my experience as well.
Thanks for the counter-anecdote. I certainly don't think that all French employees are difficult, but the distribution of difficult employees certainly seems to vary from country to country. FWIW, I was studying in Rennes, not Paris, although I had bad customer service experiences in both locations.
I'm sorry for your experience in France. French people are not really friendly to strangers (not in a racist way, more in a "i don't even know what language this stranger is talking"). I'm 50% sure the locker staff didn't even understand what you wanted from them and just reacted with stress.
But Paris have the reputation to be pretty hostile, even to the rest of french population. Our other cities are much more open and friendly. Our countryside is also pretty friendly but don't expect anyone there to understand you but at least they'll friendly try to fake that they can.
But Paris have the reputation to be pretty hostile, even to the rest of french population. Our other cities are much more open and friendly. Our countryside is also pretty friendly but don't expect anyone there to understand you but at least they'll friendly try to fake that they can.
> I'm sorry for your experience in France. French people are not really friendly to strangers (not in a racist way, more in a "i don't even know what language this stranger is talking"). I'm 50% sure the locker staff didn't even understand what you wanted from them and just reacted with stress.
To be clear, I was speaking French, and by that time my French pronunciation was good enough that everyone could understand me without extra effort (probably no longer true). In my experience, the French were quite warm when they weren't "on the job". For example, my French classmates (even those I didn't know well) were happy to help me navigate campus and answer questions and so on.
> But Paris have the reputation to be pretty hostile, even to the rest of french population. Our other cities are much more open and friendly.
It could definitely be regional, but most of my experiences were actually in Rennes and Nantes (not Paris)--although on one visit to Nantes, there was a big protest by farmers over the construction of an airport which probably had people a little more aggravated than normal: the farmers were deliberately blocking traffic with their tractors, including dumping large piles of dirt in certain intersections which was an interesting sight to behold until some anarchists came and started setting fires and otherwise behaving dangerously.
> Our countryside is also pretty friendly but don't expect anyone there to understand you but at least they'll friendly try to fake that they can.
My school was actually in rural Rennes (ENSAI) near the village of Bruz--I only spoke French because I had quite a few experiences where people would be angry or annoyed if I asked if they spoke English. Almost every time I tried to call and order a taxi in English (when I first arrived, before my French was very good), we would make the appointment, but the taxi wouldn't show up (very stressful because I was poor and very worried that I would miss a train or flight because the taxi didn't show up). One of my English classmates suggested I start making the appointments in French, and then the taxi showed up every time!
But in general I didn't mind having to speak French--I know if you walked up to an American and started speaking French they would probably be annoyed as well, and generally I feel like if you're living in a country you should make every effort to speak the language (and I wanted to learn the language better anyway--that was one of my goals for studying abroad).
Even though I had bad experiences, I still like France and the French, and my wife and I have since gone back and visited Paris once because we now have "fuck you" money (which is to say, we don't have to beg and plead for help, we can afford to miss a flight here and there). We also ate breakfast at a charming little cafe near our AirBnB in the 17th every morning, and contrary to my other anecdotes, the staff were very friendly. :)
To be clear, I was speaking French, and by that time my French pronunciation was good enough that everyone could understand me without extra effort (probably no longer true). In my experience, the French were quite warm when they weren't "on the job". For example, my French classmates (even those I didn't know well) were happy to help me navigate campus and answer questions and so on.
> But Paris have the reputation to be pretty hostile, even to the rest of french population. Our other cities are much more open and friendly.
It could definitely be regional, but most of my experiences were actually in Rennes and Nantes (not Paris)--although on one visit to Nantes, there was a big protest by farmers over the construction of an airport which probably had people a little more aggravated than normal: the farmers were deliberately blocking traffic with their tractors, including dumping large piles of dirt in certain intersections which was an interesting sight to behold until some anarchists came and started setting fires and otherwise behaving dangerously.
> Our countryside is also pretty friendly but don't expect anyone there to understand you but at least they'll friendly try to fake that they can.
My school was actually in rural Rennes (ENSAI) near the village of Bruz--I only spoke French because I had quite a few experiences where people would be angry or annoyed if I asked if they spoke English. Almost every time I tried to call and order a taxi in English (when I first arrived, before my French was very good), we would make the appointment, but the taxi wouldn't show up (very stressful because I was poor and very worried that I would miss a train or flight because the taxi didn't show up). One of my English classmates suggested I start making the appointments in French, and then the taxi showed up every time!
But in general I didn't mind having to speak French--I know if you walked up to an American and started speaking French they would probably be annoyed as well, and generally I feel like if you're living in a country you should make every effort to speak the language (and I wanted to learn the language better anyway--that was one of my goals for studying abroad).
Even though I had bad experiences, I still like France and the French, and my wife and I have since gone back and visited Paris once because we now have "fuck you" money (which is to say, we don't have to beg and plead for help, we can afford to miss a flight here and there). We also ate breakfast at a charming little cafe near our AirBnB in the 17th every morning, and contrary to my other anecdotes, the staff were very friendly. :)
This should be the preferred way to ride all local transit systems. One price for the whole family, ride as much as you want for the month (I think month is better then year - easier to budget, and if you move you are not out as much). If people aren't willing to pay for the pass, your system isn't useful and you need to fix that. Because it is unlimited rides people are less likely to think about using the car for trips that could go either way.
Note that I said local. For trips to other cities it might (or might not) make sense to charge a different price - such trips are not as common.
Note that I said local. For trips to other cities it might (or might not) make sense to charge a different price - such trips are not as common.
Depends, I used to have a flatrate, high speed train about for commuting for a couple of years. I needed to city abos on top. Monthly costs were around 300 Euro, still cheaper / on par with a car (fuel only). That Austrian offer is the way to go, IMHO. I would even consider it for private purposes only for that price.
Hmmm, problem is if it would be the dominant way of buying tickets the transport organisation would loose even more incentive to be customer oriented. Many public transportation companies, for instance Deutche Bahn, are awful and rude. They are often semi-public and semi-monopolistic, imagine paying them a year budget up front, would make things even worse.
DB already offers something similar in the form of yearly discount cards with three different levels: 25%, 50% and 100%.
The latter being pretty much the same thing as the above mentioned card (although 4x as expensive).
People do have options, if service is bad enough they can buy a car. (I don't want them to, but they can). Or vote for politicians who will do something about it (I'd prefer transit was entirely private, but for a number of reasons that isn't possible anymore)
> One price for the whole family
Why not make it free? It's a public service after all, and it's hard to "abuse" transportation like one can use "too much" free water/electricity.
Why not make it free? It's a public service after all, and it's hard to "abuse" transportation like one can use "too much" free water/electricity.
Because then politicians will rob the budget for whatever their pet project is. Fares should at least cover all operating costs (including maintenance), so that politicians can't slowly kill the system via neglect (they will kill it by others means, but at least budget won't be one)
How is that so? Politicians have a way to destroy/privatize public service whether it's self-funded or not, just like they destroy/ban private associations doing too much of a job for social justice (such as armed bands expropriating the bourgeoisie to feed popular districts, which was common throughout the 60-80s).
Famously, french social security (healthcare), unemployment and pensions are more or less self-funded (they all have their own line/column on taxes papers), yet the previous 3-5 governments have been relentlessly reforming those essential public services in order to render them useless. It's also important to note that in most instances of such reforms, the government will point out some money is missing to fund the service, which :
- is only partially true, as insane amounts are spent for their disserving bureaucracies, managerial class, and control apparatus, all of which we would do better without
- is still partially true, but benefits fraud represents in all cases less than 1% of participation fraud, where the biggest companies are the ones evading to pay their dues... so if law enforcement were to crack down on big corporations fraud instead of political dissent, the problem would be solved very easily
Famously, french social security (healthcare), unemployment and pensions are more or less self-funded (they all have their own line/column on taxes papers), yet the previous 3-5 governments have been relentlessly reforming those essential public services in order to render them useless. It's also important to note that in most instances of such reforms, the government will point out some money is missing to fund the service, which :
- is only partially true, as insane amounts are spent for their disserving bureaucracies, managerial class, and control apparatus, all of which we would do better without
- is still partially true, but benefits fraud represents in all cases less than 1% of participation fraud, where the biggest companies are the ones evading to pay their dues... so if law enforcement were to crack down on big corporations fraud instead of political dissent, the problem would be solved very easily
You are correct, but if the service is self funded via operational fees it is better able to stand for longer - which gives a chance that whoever is harming them will be voted out and someone else will do better. Though we have ample experience in the US of long term neglect from both parties, the more you are self funded the harder it is to do that. If you are not self funded as soon as someone cuts your budget you have to cut service, but if you are self funded you can ride out those winds better. (though COVID like things will harm you no matter what)
There is no great answer here, but I still believe that self funding of operating costs is the best answer.
There is no great answer here, but I still believe that self funding of operating costs is the best answer.
Every passenger wears on the system. It is fair that you pay a part of things you use.
Re the other reply: this'll vary by country, but the UK effectively charges a road-usage tax (fuel duty) that nets about twice as much (20Bn) as the annual spending on roads (warning - source = two minutes of googling)
Every road user also uses roads paid for by every tax payer so there's that.
In .cz, we have gasoline taxed heavily, with the rationale that it pays for roads. Additionally, highways have toll (for all cars) and major roads have tolls for heavy cars (as they damage more). And a tax is paid for every car used for business purposes (company car, contractors etc.).
All of this combined indeed almost covers the expenses of building and maintaining roads. Unfortunately, it does not cover any negative externalities, such as the environmental ones.
All of this combined indeed almost covers the expenses of building and maintaining roads. Unfortunately, it does not cover any negative externalities, such as the environmental ones.
Well that's good, isn't it? I mean if i had to choose between my taxes financing public roads/trains, and my taxes financing cops to beat up my neighbors and silence political dissent, i would without any form of hesitation choose the former.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy so there's not exactly a choice beyond what brand/color of corrupt overlord we'd like to see ruin our lives for the next 5 years.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy so there's not exactly a choice beyond what brand/color of corrupt overlord we'd like to see ruin our lives for the next 5 years.
But everyone uses roads, driver or not. The food in the store was not grown there, your mail was probably brought along the road at some point…
[deleted]
Most public transit systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services. Making it free will most likely not increase ridership and will almost definitely make the quality of service lower.
As you have pointed out, public subsidies are already the main financing source for public utilities. If you're worried about bankruptcy, you may be worried that ticketing/controlling equipment and personnel has a substantial cost for transportation agencies (also: environmental cost).
French law already has obligation for your employer to pay (at least parts of) your travel fees. You could also have a tax on hotel rooms and airbnbs for tourists to help finance it. There's already cities across the globe practicing free public transport and so far i haven't heard any complaining or finding unexpected difficulties.
Also, specifically about quality of service, we could argue having a service orientation driven by workers and users (a sort of coop if you like) would yield better results than what David Graeber refers to as "manageurial feudalism" sucking public services dry through dehumanizing micromanagement techniques, absurd salaries for the higher-ups, and various forms of corruption such as "private-public partnerships".
French law already has obligation for your employer to pay (at least parts of) your travel fees. You could also have a tax on hotel rooms and airbnbs for tourists to help finance it. There's already cities across the globe practicing free public transport and so far i haven't heard any complaining or finding unexpected difficulties.
Also, specifically about quality of service, we could argue having a service orientation driven by workers and users (a sort of coop if you like) would yield better results than what David Graeber refers to as "manageurial feudalism" sucking public services dry through dehumanizing micromanagement techniques, absurd salaries for the higher-ups, and various forms of corruption such as "private-public partnerships".
> Most public transit systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
Hold on, this is a pretty odd way to frame a public service. By this logic, you could equally say:
- Most road systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
- Most schools are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
- Most fire departments are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
Hold on, this is a pretty odd way to frame a public service. By this logic, you could equally say:
- Most road systems are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
- Most schools are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
- Most fire departments are already bankrupt and have to be propped up by taxes collected from other services.
Many people use the transit system associated with the local city on a very occasional basis. Cost has nothing to do with it. It just doesn’t go where I normally travel day to day and the commuter rail is just too infrequent and to slow to use outside of commuting hours.
In Germany the "Bahncard 100" has been available for years. It costs 4,027 Euro/yr (2. class) or 6,812 Euro/yr (1. class) for infinte train rides with Deutsche Bahn and a lot of local transport associations.[1] Since Germany is about four times as big as Austria the price is comparable to the Klimaticket, if one is really travelling a lot of long distances.
For smaller areas the situation is very complicated. Almost all local transportation associations have yearly tarifs of their own. Sometimes they are valid in adjacent destinations, sometimes not or only for a limited time (such as during the summer school holidays). More consistency would be desirable here.
[1] For a list see: https://www.bahn.de/angebot/bahncard/vorteile/verbuende (in German)
For smaller areas the situation is very complicated. Almost all local transportation associations have yearly tarifs of their own. Sometimes they are valid in adjacent destinations, sometimes not or only for a limited time (such as during the summer school holidays). More consistency would be desirable here.
[1] For a list see: https://www.bahn.de/angebot/bahncard/vorteile/verbuende (in German)
Not really the same scale, but I loved having an annual travel card when I lived in London. It was so freeing knowing I could basically get on anything or go anywhere without having to worry about getting the right ticket or making sure I had enough money on the Oyster card. Plus the ticket gave a third off travel outside London.
It was expensive-up front, but ended up saving so much money, especially as I could buy it via salary sacrifice before tax. Definitely recommended.
It was expensive-up front, but ended up saving so much money, especially as I could buy it via salary sacrifice before tax. Definitely recommended.
I really want this to exist for Belgium. Right now the public transport prices are absurd here... An all year pass for just the train in all of Belgium ranges in the 10k eur/year, and there is no national metro+bus+tram access (just Brussels is 700 EUR / year for that with no access to other cities).
It's absurd and caused by fragmentation of services between Flanders, wallonia and Brussels with no coordination between them.
It's absurd and caused by fragmentation of services between Flanders, wallonia and Brussels with no coordination between them.
> ranges in the 10k eur/year
That's brutal. But I just visited (out of curiosity) www.belgiantrain.be and it says 3286 Euro for an "Unlimited Season Ticket" that "can be combined with other transport networks (STIB, TEC and De Lijn)" (I guess those are the local transport networks).
That's brutal. But I just visited (out of curiosity) www.belgiantrain.be and it says 3286 Euro for an "Unlimited Season Ticket" that "can be combined with other transport networks (STIB, TEC and De Lijn)" (I guess those are the local transport networks).
Season ticket is newish and it’s just a few months iirc.
Stib is the Brussels bus service, de lijn is Flanders, TEC is Wallonia.
Stib is the Brussels bus service, de lijn is Flanders, TEC is Wallonia.
I completely agree. I used to live in Liege and would travel to NL, Brussels and Hasselt regularly.
The juggle between different public transport subscription was difficult on top of the constant outages.
As an American I had always heard that public transportation was super inexpensive in essentially all of Western Europe. Is that not the case generally?
It's hard to answer, it depends on a lot of variables, but it is rarely "super inexpensive", just usually cheaper.
On a trip basis, i.e. no fixed costs included, no reduction; public transports are often the most expensive form of transportation (when compared to car or plane for longer distances). However, few people pay the full price, especially not those taking the train regularly, and cars have massive fixed costs. So if you can do everything with public transports and don't have a car, you can save a lot of money. If you still need a car for whatever reason but want to use public transports for some trips, then it can become the worst of both worlds (high fixed costs of the car plus high per trip cost of public transportation).
The car has one big advantage (in term of price), is that it can scale to a few people with basically no extra costs, whereas public transportation is usually linear. If you put four friends in your car and drive a few hundred kilometres to go on holidays abroad, the price of public transports will be ridiculous in comparison.
On a trip basis, i.e. no fixed costs included, no reduction; public transports are often the most expensive form of transportation (when compared to car or plane for longer distances). However, few people pay the full price, especially not those taking the train regularly, and cars have massive fixed costs. So if you can do everything with public transports and don't have a car, you can save a lot of money. If you still need a car for whatever reason but want to use public transports for some trips, then it can become the worst of both worlds (high fixed costs of the car plus high per trip cost of public transportation).
The car has one big advantage (in term of price), is that it can scale to a few people with basically no extra costs, whereas public transportation is usually linear. If you put four friends in your car and drive a few hundred kilometres to go on holidays abroad, the price of public transports will be ridiculous in comparison.
> whereas public transportation is usually linear
With "usually" being an important proviso: In Germany, there are weekend tickets for up to 5 people. A student ticket (covering the entire state, included in the tuition fee of around 700 EUR/year) often allows the holder to take someone along after 7pm or on weekends.
With "usually" being an important proviso: In Germany, there are weekend tickets for up to 5 people. A student ticket (covering the entire state, included in the tuition fee of around 700 EUR/year) often allows the holder to take someone along after 7pm or on weekends.
Yes, and plenty of countries have some family stuff as well.
You're getting lots of different answers but as someone who's lived and traveled in several different countries in Europe, i can tell you that it simply depends.
In Belgium, it's obscenely expensive. In some others, it's super cheap. It depends how much the country cares about making their public transport accessible. Either way it's very inconsistent across Europe but yes there are countries where public transport is highly subsidized and truly cheap and accessible. Which IMO saves a lot of costs elsewhere, it's the right way to do it.
In Belgium, it's obscenely expensive. In some others, it's super cheap. It depends how much the country cares about making their public transport accessible. Either way it's very inconsistent across Europe but yes there are countries where public transport is highly subsidized and truly cheap and accessible. Which IMO saves a lot of costs elsewhere, it's the right way to do it.
It used to be cheap. But prices have increased massively in the last decades. For example, in Stockholm the inflation-adjusted price has increased by over 200% since 2000. The price has increased much more than the price of gas which drivers complain about all the time. Politicians in Stockholm motivate raising prices with "well, it's still cheaper than in other cities so be happy!" But I suspect politicians in other cities use the exact same argument to raise their prices.
700€/year is about 60€/month, which is fairly typical for a regional monthly public transport pass. Considering we pay around 7 USD/gal for fuel (1.6€/l), if your work is more than about 30 car-minutes away it's cheaper to commute by public transit (assuming you park for free). And that's not even considering that you might be able to have fewer cars in the household: just owning the car is a lot more expensive than the transit pass.
That seems pretty cheap TBH. Boston is something like $90 per month. Adding commuter rail or ferry would add several hundred dollars plus parking.
Train travel in the UK is absurdly expensive unless you're willing to book a few months in advance and travel off-peak. Train travel in Spain is much better and cheaper. AFAIK in terms of price it mostly has to do with how much governments are willing to subsidise rail transport.
Oh it's more complicated than that for cheap tickets and most tips covered here: https://www.which.co.uk/money/money-saving-tips/getting-a-gr...
Sadly when there was a plane option instead - that always tended to be way cheaper (London to Scotland for example).
Personally I'd subsidise it more on less used routes just to push people out of cars more, sadly London commuter routes have kinda hit the wall in capacity ad legacy limitations of the old layout/station platform lengths, rail gauge, bridge heights etc of which much was planned for in an era 100 years ago.
Sadly when there was a plane option instead - that always tended to be way cheaper (London to Scotland for example).
Personally I'd subsidise it more on less used routes just to push people out of cars more, sadly London commuter routes have kinda hit the wall in capacity ad legacy limitations of the old layout/station platform lengths, rail gauge, bridge heights etc of which much was planned for in an era 100 years ago.
No, not really. Public transport in the cities in the US that I've been to that had public transport (NYC, Chicago, DC, Seattle) cost about the same or less then I would expect to pay in most major European cities.
It's cheap relative to $2/liter fuel, huge taxes and registration fees on vehicles, parking, and so on. It's still scaled to the relative cost of living which can be high in major cities.
It may not be much cheaper in absolute terms, but the service you get for that is usually much better (more lines shorter intervals and such)
Er... sounds good, but first they say "All public transport in Austria with a single ticket", and later "...in a specific area for a year: regional, cross-regional and nationwide". And after that, there is only one price (with various rebates) listed for the "Klimaticket Ö". Are there cheaper versions planned which are limited to e.g. one ("regional") or two ("cross-regional") states (Bundesländer)? I checked the German version, it's not a translation mistake.
EDIT: Ok, found out myself, thanks Wikipedia! All but one (Kärnten) states already have a yearly public transportation ticket, with prices ranging from 365€ (Vorarlberg and Vienna) to 695 € (Oberösterreich). I guess these will be called "Klimaticket" too in the future. Might have made sense to mention this in the FAQ though...
BTW the introduction date, 26.10.2021, is the Austrian National Day.
EDIT: Ok, found out myself, thanks Wikipedia! All but one (Kärnten) states already have a yearly public transportation ticket, with prices ranging from 365€ (Vorarlberg and Vienna) to 695 € (Oberösterreich). I guess these will be called "Klimaticket" too in the future. Might have made sense to mention this in the FAQ though...
BTW the introduction date, 26.10.2021, is the Austrian National Day.
I spent one year (gap internship) in Vorarlberg, the yearly price was about €400.
They had a 50% discount if you were under 26
And a (cumulable) 50% first-time only discount if you already had a driver license
I ended up paying €100 for a card that allowed me to ride any train or bus in the region for one year, whenever I wanted. I ended up biking most of the time, but I did commute by train for a while. In the end I didn't use it that much, but buying it was a no-brainer.
I should also mention that some of the train lines you could take crossed the Swiss and German borders.
They had a 50% discount if you were under 26
And a (cumulable) 50% first-time only discount if you already had a driver license
I ended up paying €100 for a card that allowed me to ride any train or bus in the region for one year, whenever I wanted. I ended up biking most of the time, but I did commute by train for a while. In the end I didn't use it that much, but buying it was a no-brainer.
I should also mention that some of the train lines you could take crossed the Swiss and German borders.
The original idea by our green party was a "1-2-3 Ticket" which means 365€ for one state, double for two states, and triple for all states (per year for all public transport).
They just renamed the "3" ticket to climate ticket when they introduced it, meanwhile work on "1" and "2" is still ongoing in some places afaik.
They just renamed the "3" ticket to climate ticket when they introduced it, meanwhile work on "1" and "2" is still ongoing in some places afaik.
If it's really also for long distance rail, that's a lot of value. For comparison, the German Railway has something similar (but I think only for the railway) and it costs easily 3x as much. It's a bigger country but regardless. I live and work in a smaller city where I don't really need public transport, but when I was working in a city near me, the monthly ticket for the two cities was more than this. I don't know much about living in Austria, but in my mind it should be a no brainer for a lot of people.
Deutsche Bahn's BahnCard 100 [1] is around 4k euros per year and gives unlimited access to all DB trains as well as a city pass to around 110 towns in Germany. The city pass does't help if you have to commute to a suburb, but it's still pretty useful (though pricey) IMO.
>but when I was working in a city near me, the monthly ticket for the two cities was more than this
I commute between Cologne and Aachen, and the monthly ticket would have been around 288 (per month) euros if I had to fund it myself. My employer got me a "job ticket" that made the cost of this commute to around 98 euros per month. However, for your employer to apply for a jobticket they should employ a minimum number of people who would avail that offer (15 in Aachen, if I remember correctly). I have no idea why a regular person can't apply for this ticket if they really do commute the same route daily.
[1] https://www.bahn.com/en/offers/bahncard/bahncard_100-conditi...
>but when I was working in a city near me, the monthly ticket for the two cities was more than this
I commute between Cologne and Aachen, and the monthly ticket would have been around 288 (per month) euros if I had to fund it myself. My employer got me a "job ticket" that made the cost of this commute to around 98 euros per month. However, for your employer to apply for a jobticket they should employ a minimum number of people who would avail that offer (15 in Aachen, if I remember correctly). I have no idea why a regular person can't apply for this ticket if they really do commute the same route daily.
[1] https://www.bahn.com/en/offers/bahncard/bahncard_100-conditi...
I live in a city way smaller than Cologne or Aachen and my commute was only 20 mins so it's not surprising that the price was much cheaper in my case. I've never heard of the job ticket so it maybe doesn't exist everywhere or at least not back then.
But anyway that's one of the things that annoy me, all these options that I need to know. I went with my son, we got normal tickets and then somebody told me to get ticket X instead which is more expensive, but I can take kids for free.
So this type of a ticket would solve a lot of problems and make it real easy for people to just ride.
But anyway that's one of the things that annoy me, all these options that I need to know. I went with my son, we got normal tickets and then somebody told me to get ticket X instead which is more expensive, but I can take kids for free.
So this type of a ticket would solve a lot of problems and make it real easy for people to just ride.
The BahnCard 100 is 3000 EUR in Germany, giving you full access to all trains.
Austria is 1/10th the size of Germany. By this logic, the ticket price should be 300 EUR, not 1095 EUR.
Austria is 1/10th the size of Germany. By this logic, the ticket price should be 300 EUR, not 1095 EUR.
You could argue: If it's 1/10th the size, then it's about 1/3 the length and width. So, average distance (if you pick two points uniformly randomly) will also be around 1/3. By this logic, it should be around 1000 EUR.
Not that it changes much, but the BC100 is 4000€ for second class, not 3000. Both is too much to make it really popular, while I'd say Austria's pricing is extremely attractive even if the country is smaller. I pay more than half of that just for public transportation in my city in Germany.
All trains plus many local transit options as well. It's usually valid in most bigger cities. My ex-ex-employer had given me one and I've used it many years. Incredibly liberating when you have the ability to hop onto any train and just sit. Reservations were sometimes problematic because popular trains had little amount of not-reserved free seats but Bahn.Comfort seats usually saved the day.
And Switzerland is also small but way more expensive, but, that's not how things work. That's not how anything works.
Since most public transport is pretty localized the difference should be negligible - you're rarely going to travel a significant distance in relation to the size of the country as that would be unfeasible for a daily commute.
In practice it's not much different from a yearly local transport ticket plus the occasional long distance trip included
In practice it's not much different from a yearly local transport ticket plus the occasional long distance trip included
I'm not sure I understand that logic -- Germany has far more potential customers than Austria. And it's not like the average German travels ten times as many miles by train as the average Austrian. Also, the BahnCard can only be used for some, but not all local transit options, which looks like a hassle.
1/10th of the size doesn't mean 1/10th of the costs/usage/maintenance/&c
Long journeys are rare, everyday journeys have short distances. A larger area therefore only causes a small jump in costs.
[deleted]
Size is irrelevant.
Interesting. The "family supplement" feels like it could use some work though. You pay €110 extra, and up to 4 of your children (<15 years old) can travel with you. But your partner isn't included...they would also have to pay the extra if they ever planned on being with the kids, and without you. And the kids have to buy a ticket if traveling alone. It's not expensive per se, but it seems like a narrow set of uses.
Impressive. It's like the care-free feeling when having a city pass and using whatever transit whenever needed, but scaled to a whole country.
In Germany you can buy a Bahncard 100 for roughly 4k, which allows you to take any Deutsche Bahn train at any time.
Not sure if the cost should scale with size of counrty, but I guess 4x is roughly reasonable between Austria and Germany. Austria probably is more expensive to build railroad in, since it's mostly mountains.
Not sure if the cost should scale with size of counrty, but I guess 4x is roughly reasonable between Austria and Germany. Austria probably is more expensive to build railroad in, since it's mostly mountains.
Just for comparison: For commuting 40km to a city in Germany including public transport in the city, I have to pay around 1.800,- EUR per year. It is expected that the Austrian 'Klimaticket' will include also the public transport in the whole Eastern region (i.e. Vienna and all surroundings). This is much better than what you could get in Germany at the moment.
The Bahncard 100 doesn't include all public transport though. Austria also invests about twice as much (per capita) into rail infrastructure as Germany.
Which is a bit silly, but more a theoretical problem, right? I'd assume (I can't actually find a map of the coverage), that people for whom a BC 100 makes sense travel mostly by train, thus live near a train station with a good connection. Which will then be in one of the 130 cities that include the public transport with the City Ticket.
Everybody I know who has a Bahncard 100 uses it for commuting. While they generally live "close" to a train station they need public transport on both ends of the journey and buy additional tickets, e.g. another ~60€/month for a Berlin ticket.
Holy shit that’s cheap. The same thing in the Netherlands costs me €4500. And that’s a much smaller country.
I see a detrimental incentive here. Let me explain, and then someone please show me what I'm not getting.
We're trying to incentivize public over private transit because the former emits less carbon (in general).
However, public transit still costs carbon, so taking less trips total seems to be better for the environment (the "reduce" part of "reduce, reuse, recycle" - kind of). If the marginal cost to a public transit user per trip is zero, then that incentivizes taking small, useless trips (e.g. "I could wait until the weekend to pick up a few small groceries, but transit is free, so why not go now").
Wouldn't it be better to add a *small" fee per trip, e.g. 1 EUR (much smaller than private transit), to incentivize people to make fewer trips in the first place?
We're trying to incentivize public over private transit because the former emits less carbon (in general).
However, public transit still costs carbon, so taking less trips total seems to be better for the environment (the "reduce" part of "reduce, reuse, recycle" - kind of). If the marginal cost to a public transit user per trip is zero, then that incentivizes taking small, useless trips (e.g. "I could wait until the weekend to pick up a few small groceries, but transit is free, so why not go now").
Wouldn't it be better to add a *small" fee per trip, e.g. 1 EUR (much smaller than private transit), to incentivize people to make fewer trips in the first place?
Well, presumably the bus is going to go its route whether you're on it or not.
If there's an increase in utilization of public transport, to the point where they need to run each route more often, or introduce additional routes, that'll be seen later on, when the impact of the ticket is evident. At that point, it can be weighed against any changes in private transport behavior.
It's probably premature to take upfront action against overutilization of public transport.
If there's an increase in utilization of public transport, to the point where they need to run each route more often, or introduce additional routes, that'll be seen later on, when the impact of the ticket is evident. At that point, it can be weighed against any changes in private transport behavior.
It's probably premature to take upfront action against overutilization of public transport.
The enlightened big brain politically impossible is to internalize as much as possible. For example, everyone could have a device on their car that records how much carbon they emit and reports it to the government so they can be taxed. The amount they should be taxed is not trivial to determine, but an upper bound would be the cost of offsetting or capturing the same amount of carbon they emitted. (you don’t actually have to spend it on that, the point is just to incentivize people to avoid emitting carbon)
Then increase train fare so it’s at least as expensive per-carbon-emitted as driving. Since trains emit much less carbon, it will end up being cheaper to get from point A to point B by train.
Driving or taking the train has another cost, congestion. (more drivers means it takes everyone longer to get to where they’re going, more riders means some people might not be able to fit on the train. that second one used to be a common occurrence to me.)
Now that might seem hideously unfair to poor people. The solution is to take all the revenue collected this way and redistribute it throughout the jurisdiction where the law is enforced. The poorest would actually see an increase in their purchasing power. That’s because poor people emit less carbon on average, so if e.g. a poor person emits 1 ton per day and the average is 2 tons per day (making up numbers), they would pay the tax cost of emitting 1 ton but receive the tax cost of emitting two tons. The money would come from wealthy people who emit 3 tons but only receive the cost of emitting 2. That way everyone is incentivized to emit less without it unfairly burdening the poor.
Then increase train fare so it’s at least as expensive per-carbon-emitted as driving. Since trains emit much less carbon, it will end up being cheaper to get from point A to point B by train.
Driving or taking the train has another cost, congestion. (more drivers means it takes everyone longer to get to where they’re going, more riders means some people might not be able to fit on the train. that second one used to be a common occurrence to me.)
Now that might seem hideously unfair to poor people. The solution is to take all the revenue collected this way and redistribute it throughout the jurisdiction where the law is enforced. The poorest would actually see an increase in their purchasing power. That’s because poor people emit less carbon on average, so if e.g. a poor person emits 1 ton per day and the average is 2 tons per day (making up numbers), they would pay the tax cost of emitting 1 ton but receive the tax cost of emitting two tons. The money would come from wealthy people who emit 3 tons but only receive the cost of emitting 2. That way everyone is incentivized to emit less without it unfairly burdening the poor.
The amount of carbon emitted by a car is directly proportional to the amount of fuel used, so what you really are talking about are fuel taxes which are very common already
That's the best way to make people switch back to cars imho. Not only does constantly paying a fee increase friction significantly, the same is not the case if you were to use a car you only need to refill every other week or so.
At the end of the day the total number of trips are probably not very elastic, because the price (if it isn't a very high one) usually isn't even a consideration if you want to go somewhere (if it's not that far away anyways).
At the end of the day the total number of trips are probably not very elastic, because the price (if it isn't a very high one) usually isn't even a consideration if you want to go somewhere (if it's not that far away anyways).
Taking a trip on public transit to pick up groceries (or any similar task) still consumes time and is not convenient. I used to live in Manhattan, go to the shop on foot, and carry my groceries home. I would absolutely buy as much food as I could carry and use, because it was 45 minutes out of my night that could be used for something else, whether I bought 4 days of food or a single head of lettuce. People don't generally joyride public transit unless they have no other options.
In fact, having lived both ways, I'd say you're far more incentivized to do this in a suburban setting with a car, since you're sitting in a private bubble with your own music and climate for every part of the trip except the store itself.
In fact, having lived both ways, I'd say you're far more incentivized to do this in a suburban setting with a car, since you're sitting in a private bubble with your own music and climate for every part of the trip except the store itself.
> People don't generally joyride public transit unless they have no other options.
I think this really depends of the network you are talking about. In some European cities, public transit networks are a blast to use. If frequencies are high enough, and modalities are well connected, you can "ride" the city as easily and naturally on a metro/tram/bus as you would have done by walking. I've took a lot (a damn lot) of bus/trams just because they were there, passing by, and allowed me to save 3 or 4 minutes (with my annual ticket, price was never my mind).
(But I'm lucky enough to live in one of the lowest CO2 emitting countries in terms of energy mix.)
I think this really depends of the network you are talking about. In some European cities, public transit networks are a blast to use. If frequencies are high enough, and modalities are well connected, you can "ride" the city as easily and naturally on a metro/tram/bus as you would have done by walking. I've took a lot (a damn lot) of bus/trams just because they were there, passing by, and allowed me to save 3 or 4 minutes (with my annual ticket, price was never my mind).
(But I'm lucky enough to live in one of the lowest CO2 emitting countries in terms of energy mix.)
Fair, not every city has public transit as "gritty" as NYC.
I do remember an UberPool trip I took. We got another passenger along the way. The driver ended up having to go 8 blocks out of our trip's path to pick up the passenger. She went 1 block and then got out. At least when you take a bus or tram out of convenience you are not being so wasteful.
I do remember an UberPool trip I took. We got another passenger along the way. The driver ended up having to go 8 blocks out of our trip's path to pick up the passenger. She went 1 block and then got out. At least when you take a bus or tram out of convenience you are not being so wasteful.
Nope, for most ppl the 1EUR is negligible anyway, and also people values its time, so, it's not free to go now, it costs time. the only thing you want to punish is to be poor, as in that plan, only poor people would have to minimize movement for economic reasons.
I think that your consideration is a good one, but I think it comes down to numbers. Will a no-additional-cost-per-ride pass increase the "unnecessary" load on the system so much that they need to start using additional transit vehicles, thus increasing emissions? What percentage of trips are "unnecessary"? Will the growth of the system for "necessary" trips be able to handle the "unnecessary" load anyway?
Aside: for "unnecessary" trips, I'm setting aside the possibility of other options, such as "I already own a car and will now use that instead of paying 1 EUR".
Aside: for "unnecessary" trips, I'm setting aside the possibility of other options, such as "I already own a car and will now use that instead of paying 1 EUR".
But the public transit lines would already be running, you are just hopping on a bus that is already going to be spewing some climate change gasses. Adding a car for a small trip would be detrimental because that car isn't already on the road spewing.
NOW you are correct though, better for all would be for people to walk to their local shops and stuff and only grab transit when they need to go beyond the 2-4 mile radius that is considered walkable, and that would pull some of the public transit off the road/rails.
NOW you are correct though, better for all would be for people to walk to their local shops and stuff and only grab transit when they need to go beyond the 2-4 mile radius that is considered walkable, and that would pull some of the public transit off the road/rails.
> But the public transit lines would already be running, you are just hopping on a bus that is already going to be spewing some climate change gasses.
At least in Prague, they put more buses on the line, use larger buses, use streetcars with two cars, and they even build new underground lines (very expensive) in directions where the capacity of buses is not enough. So no, by hopping on a bus "that is already going", you are contributing to this.
At least in Prague, they put more buses on the line, use larger buses, use streetcars with two cars, and they even build new underground lines (very expensive) in directions where the capacity of buses is not enough. So no, by hopping on a bus "that is already going", you are contributing to this.
Yes it would. But fees incurs overhead for managing tickets and is a hassle for passengers. A lot of European cities have good mass transit systems but people are lazy so they still drive which causes pollution and congestion. So the first priority must be to make mass transit as convenient as possible to motivate people to stop driving.
The marginal cost is basically zero per additional public transit user, no? If a city bus runs every 15 minutes, the ridership volume changes nothing up until some critical point is reached where another bus gets added to that route, or a new route is added.
Yes, from that point of view it would. Maybe not better from all points of view, but not travelling, or travelling by foot or bicycle is better than travelling by public transit, from CO2 point of view.
[deleted]
As miserable as public transit is for us in the US, I could actually see this kind of deal succeeding in New York (and neighboring areas of Connecticut and New Jersey). Those in the city are constantly perplexed by the various county-run transit lines and costs, but some kind of single pass would actually make bus lines approachable to visitors (whereas they are only used by those who can't afford a car today).
Also, could this model be a response to a decline in ridership due to COVID? I don't know how these commuter lines fared in Europe, but I can only assume there were less folks traveling to a different area due to lockdown/remote work.
Also, could this model be a response to a decline in ridership due to COVID? I don't know how these commuter lines fared in Europe, but I can only assume there were less folks traveling to a different area due to lockdown/remote work.
This ticket (in Austria specifically) is not a response to covid-19, it has been in the works by our green party for many years now (2013 I think) and negotiations for the country-wide ticket have finally been concluded.
I like what Montpellier (France) is doing, which is a phased approach towards all public transportation free. For now it's for under 18 yo and 65+ yo, and all weekends for everyone, with a phase 3 total gratuity in 2023. I prefer to choose and accordingly pay for my long distance travels, but in the city trips consume a lot of money, on a personal / family level, which is nice to see reduced. And who doesn't want to travel with the nicest tram in France and for free??
>but in the city trips consume a lot of money
I'm a big proponent of affordable public transport, but I don't understand the benefit of gratuity.
As far as I know, the threats of the ongoing biodiversity collapse are bigger threat than that of climate change (see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/climate/biodiversity-coll...).
It's crucial to both increase density (to limit urban sprawl, which requires that people travel less) and leave the individual ICE car area.
Gratuity of public transport incentivizes taking the bus/train, but it also removes the cost barrier of long-distance transport when deciding where to live and work. If it costs the same to commute:
1. 15 min by foot from work if you live in a small flat
2. 40 min by public transport if you enjoy in a nice little home
We may get more people in buses but we'll eat the Earth faster. Destroying/framgmenting natural habitats will have to bear a market cost, or we must put a hard limit to urban sprawling (which ends up having the same impact on people's finance as it will increase the cost of living far from city center).
I'm a big proponent of affordable public transport, but I don't understand the benefit of gratuity.
As far as I know, the threats of the ongoing biodiversity collapse are bigger threat than that of climate change (see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/climate/biodiversity-coll...).
It's crucial to both increase density (to limit urban sprawl, which requires that people travel less) and leave the individual ICE car area.
Gratuity of public transport incentivizes taking the bus/train, but it also removes the cost barrier of long-distance transport when deciding where to live and work. If it costs the same to commute:
1. 15 min by foot from work if you live in a small flat
2. 40 min by public transport if you enjoy in a nice little home
We may get more people in buses but we'll eat the Earth faster. Destroying/framgmenting natural habitats will have to bear a market cost, or we must put a hard limit to urban sprawling (which ends up having the same impact on people's finance as it will increase the cost of living far from city center).
I like what Luxembourg is doing, which is all public transport free for everyone, across the whole country. No phased approach, they just did it.
When the San Francisco Bay Area tried to move to a single means of payment, a digital card Transit-Link or whatnot, it was delayed more than a year by BART due to arguements over who holds the cash payments from ticket sales, and when those funds are released, exactly. The funding of MUNI, BART, Alameda County Transit and others, have different histories and cash control, so they fought about it.
source: public news story at the time
source: public news story at the time
They are different systems. Bart is a regional transport agency funded by ticket sales and sales taxes in the Northern CA bay area. SF has regional bus lines but a few bart stops. SamTrans is the San Mateo bus system but they go all the way to Marin County and have a few stops in SF. Caltrain is a completely separate agency and funding unit that runs down the peninsula but also has two stops in SF.
You can say they should all be consolidated but these are overlapping areas - BART can't have SF running it in the one area, Oakland running it in another area, etc. So consolidation means moving upward -- e.g. the state of California would run it. But no one wants to lose local control of services they are funding. Why would the city of SF cede control of its bus system to the state? So the control is where the funding is, and you have these overlapping and competing transit lines, all of which operate in San Francisco, but do not accept each other's ticket or payment systems.
You can say they should all be consolidated but these are overlapping areas - BART can't have SF running it in the one area, Oakland running it in another area, etc. So consolidation means moving upward -- e.g. the state of California would run it. But no one wants to lose local control of services they are funding. Why would the city of SF cede control of its bus system to the state? So the control is where the funding is, and you have these overlapping and competing transit lines, all of which operate in San Francisco, but do not accept each other's ticket or payment systems.
I lived in Austria for a couple of years in the late 2000s. They had an under 25 years of age ticket that was similar to this, but was very inexpensive. I think less than 50 Euros. It may have only been during the summer months though. Either way I traveled all over Austria and it cost me almost nothing. Wish I could be 25 again just for that.
Yes, it was/is for only the duration of the summer (school) break.
Has some very weird constraints regarding borders when combining with the eurorail/interrail though.
Has some very weird constraints regarding borders when combining with the eurorail/interrail though.
I recently discovered that there was such a plan for TER ("slow" regional trains) in France.
https://www.ter.sncf.com/nouvelle-aquitaine/offres/cartes-ab...
29€/month, for july and august. Not sure if they offer it every year, or if that was a 2021 special.
I also recently turned 26...
https://www.ter.sncf.com/nouvelle-aquitaine/offres/cartes-ab...
29€/month, for july and august. Not sure if they offer it every year, or if that was a 2021 special.
I also recently turned 26...
I am commuting from Germany into Austria on a daily basis. It is 4 stations in Germany, last station in Austria, around 30 km. The yearly ticket is 1.200 EUR. Germany has absolutely crazy high ticket prices, but cheap diesel cars ;-)
I used to live in Austria before Covid without a car and travel to my home country by train on weekends.
I have the feeling they are doing this because they lost a lot of passengers during the epidemic. Maybe I'm wrong...
I have the feeling they are doing this because they lost a lot of passengers during the epidemic. Maybe I'm wrong...
They are doing this because the green party is in the government now. This is a long-standing demand of the green party to lower CO2 emissions. They first did this in Vienna a few years ago, when they were in the city government. Now they are in the federal government and are rolling this out for all of Austria, since it was a huge success in Vienna, car travel was dramatically reduced.
You are wrong, the idea is much older and the idea for the current version (initially called 1-2-3 Ticket) was suggested by the green party in 2013 already.
More Infos in the history (in German): https://kurier.at/politik/inland/gruene-spoe-oder-oevp-wer-h...
More Infos in the history (in German): https://kurier.at/politik/inland/gruene-spoe-oder-oevp-wer-h...
Thats how it worked in Chicago: everyone stopped riding due to sars-cov-2, the Transit Authority started selling 1/3 price passes, ridership picked right back up.
If the UK ever had such a thing I bet it’d be at least £15,000/year. Many annual tickets to commute in to London alone are £4-7,000.
Leasing a car is going to be at least twice that plus you have to pay for gas, parking, etc.
Meanwhile in the UK: yearly train season ticket for 1+ hr journey: only GBP 5600.
With random delays, strikes and a selection of standing room in which you can share body warmth - all thrown in upon some commutes (no luck involved).
Not sure I'm a fan. Certainly very interesting and I'm happy to see a significant country run the experiment, it's going to be a useful data point.
But at the end of the day, what does it solve? And what does it leave unsolved?
A single public transport marketplace is of course great, but many countries have those without the 'single ticket' system. For example, in the Netherlands I use one public transport card for bus, train, tram. I don't have a single ticket with one annual price, but I don't have different subscriptions or different cards for different transport methods (e.g. bus vs train), nor for different providers of the same transport method (e.g. two bus companies), it all happens on one card.
So what does it solve? Admissions checking? No, you still need to present your single ticket. The thing it solves is billing, from individual subscriptions or individual tickets, to a single annual payment.
But billing doesn't seem to be that big of a deal in modern systems, and it doesn't seem like it attacks the biggest issue in billing.
For example in the Netherlands I'm simply billed by use. If I go 5x as far, I pay roughly 5x as much. That's all done automatic, once a month. I don't have to load prepaid money on my card, I just use the card and it's billed after at the end of the month. Really no different to a variable-usage mobile phone subscription.
By introducing a single (e.g. average) payment amount per year, you're overcharging everyone who uses less than average, and undercharging power-users. Usage-based billing seems a much more fair approach. And the billing tech isn't all that complex.
Moreover, the fact a substantial number of people will get a single-ticket (e.g. say it's 60% of the users), doesn't change the fact you'll still need to upkeep billing infrastructure for the other 40%. It doesn't allow you to make billing/admissions infrastructure redundant.
It also doesn't allow you to differentiate at all in pricing and operators. I don't think this is a very big issue because I like public (i.e. not private) transport to be very egalitarian. But there's something to be said for allowing differences in quality/convenience etc in public, transport, too. e.g. business workers ride trains in the Netherlands in 1st class and do an hour of work on their laptops in quiet, comfy chairs, and pay extra, such that non-business users can ride cheaper in 2nd class. Having a single ticket removes any room for such differentiation, which can be useful to a point.
Very interested to see the results and I'm happy they're trying, but not convinced yet.
But at the end of the day, what does it solve? And what does it leave unsolved?
A single public transport marketplace is of course great, but many countries have those without the 'single ticket' system. For example, in the Netherlands I use one public transport card for bus, train, tram. I don't have a single ticket with one annual price, but I don't have different subscriptions or different cards for different transport methods (e.g. bus vs train), nor for different providers of the same transport method (e.g. two bus companies), it all happens on one card.
So what does it solve? Admissions checking? No, you still need to present your single ticket. The thing it solves is billing, from individual subscriptions or individual tickets, to a single annual payment.
But billing doesn't seem to be that big of a deal in modern systems, and it doesn't seem like it attacks the biggest issue in billing.
For example in the Netherlands I'm simply billed by use. If I go 5x as far, I pay roughly 5x as much. That's all done automatic, once a month. I don't have to load prepaid money on my card, I just use the card and it's billed after at the end of the month. Really no different to a variable-usage mobile phone subscription.
By introducing a single (e.g. average) payment amount per year, you're overcharging everyone who uses less than average, and undercharging power-users. Usage-based billing seems a much more fair approach. And the billing tech isn't all that complex.
Moreover, the fact a substantial number of people will get a single-ticket (e.g. say it's 60% of the users), doesn't change the fact you'll still need to upkeep billing infrastructure for the other 40%. It doesn't allow you to make billing/admissions infrastructure redundant.
It also doesn't allow you to differentiate at all in pricing and operators. I don't think this is a very big issue because I like public (i.e. not private) transport to be very egalitarian. But there's something to be said for allowing differences in quality/convenience etc in public, transport, too. e.g. business workers ride trains in the Netherlands in 1st class and do an hour of work on their laptops in quiet, comfy chairs, and pay extra, such that non-business users can ride cheaper in 2nd class. Having a single ticket removes any room for such differentiation, which can be useful to a point.
Very interested to see the results and I'm happy they're trying, but not convinced yet.
and I live in Austria and will get it soooon. Actually for 699€ for people under the age of 26!
What if you lose it?
Very expensive. AFAIK it's under €150/y in the neighbor Czechia (but it doesn't include inter-city trains).
I'm not here enough (and not travelling around enough) to be interested in the Klimaticket, but here's how public transport vs car stacks up:
Innsbruck to Vienna is 476km (~300mi) by road.
It takes about 5 hours to drive, assuming no delays. The way the world is right now, there will certainly be delays.
On the fastest route you exit Austria just after Kufstein and enter Germany at Kiefersfelden, drive through Germany on the A93, then on the A8 towards Salzburg, then cross back into Austria.
Pre-2015 you'd typically have crossed both those international borders at standard motorway speed(!), but since the refugee crisis, and even more since Covid, it's checkpoints (=delays) galore.
By train the journey is scheduled at ~4h15m. The train also enters Germany but doesn't stop there, so no border checks.
A standard ("2nd class"/economy) walk-up train fare is €74 ($85), but if you buy an annual railcard for €66 ($76) that's halved, so €37 ($43). This is a completely flexible ticket valid on any service that day, so if you are late (or early) you just get on the next train, and there's basically one every hour pretty much throughout the day. The railcard pays for itself in the first return trip.
Maybe it's just me, but €37 for a 300mi journey, with a completely flexible ticket, just seems like amazing value.