4 ms·

I don't know specifically about the Dutch railways, but government operated utilities usually are subsidized by the taxpayers. It's certainly true in Seattle, w

I don't know specifically about the Dutch railways, but government operated utilities usually are subsidized by the taxpayers. It's certainly true in Seattle, where the government transportation network operates at massive losses made up by the taxpayers.

Scarblac 8y ago
In the Netherlands it's a bit complicated. The rail infrastructure company (ProRail) is subsidized (just like e.g. highways), but the national railway company (NS) that runs most of the passenger trains on it actually pays for the privilege and isn't subsidized. But this sponsorship just makes sense as marketing for them, they want to be seen as a way to travel that can be combined with reading a book, since you can't driving a car. That is not "massive subsidy".
mcv 8y ago
The NS is government owned, but not government operated. They privatised and liberalised the public transport market during the neoliberal privatisation wave of the 1990s, despite trains obviously being a natural monopoly in their own market. It later got split into the railway infrastructure (ProRail, which owns the tracks) and railway operation (NS, which runs the trains and competes to a limited extent with other train companies). NS runs at a profit, though may receive subsidies to run non-profitable lines, though other operators can also bid on those lines, and particularly in less densely populated, and therefore less profitable, parts of the country, some of these lines are run by other companies (usually either foreign owned or set up by bus companies). Personally I think the real profit of a good public transit system should not be in money, but in public mobility. More people using the train also means less cars on the road and therefore less traffic jams. And being run for profit makes the NS care less about that aspect. For that reason, I'd prefer if they'd kept it state-operated and run specifically as an alternative to cars.

Scarblac 8y ago

In the Netherlands it's a bit complicated. The rail infrastructure company (ProRail) is subsidized (just like e.g. highways), but the national railway company (NS) that runs most of the passenger trains on it actually pays for the privilege and isn't subsidized. But this sponsorship just makes sense as marketing for them, they want to be seen as a way to travel that can be combined with reading a book, since you can't driving a car. That is not "massive subsidy".

mcv 8y ago

The NS is government owned, but not government operated. They privatised and liberalised the public transport market during the neoliberal privatisation wave of the 1990s, despite trains obviously being a natural monopoly in their own market. It later got split into the railway infrastructure (ProRail, which owns the tracks) and railway operation (NS, which runs the trains and competes to a limited extent with other train companies). NS runs at a profit, though may receive subsidies to run non-profitable lines, though other operators can also bid on those lines, and particularly in less densely populated, and therefore less profitable, parts of the country, some of these lines are run by other companies (usually either foreign owned or set up by bus companies). Personally I think the real profit of a good public transit system should not be in money, but in public mobility. More people using the train also means less cars on the road and therefore less traffic jams. And being run for profit makes the NS care less about that aspect. For that reason, I'd prefer if they'd kept it state-operated and run specifically as an alternative to cars.