8 ms·

Luxembourg makes all public transport free

27 points by tomerbd 7y ago

londons_explore 7y ago
One pays for transport in both time and money. Sometimes there are options of different transport methods trading off time Vs money. Luxembourg has subsidized the money component to zero, but transport still has a significant time cost.
- mratsim 7y ago
  Luxembourg saves on the barriers/checkpoints/controls that people actually paid for their tickets. That said, it's a very small country and so the infrastructure cost are very contained. Also it's balance/budget is probably in the positive as well.
  - ptah 7y ago
    yes it is more like a city. it will be interesting for other cities to see if this works on this scale
    - yostrovs 7y ago
      It's more like a village.
    - jmiskovic 7y ago
      As I recall Estonia has free public transportation for its residents. They started with the capital several years ago and expanded to whole country. I guess it worked out well for them.
- travisporter 7y ago
  But you could say the same for building roads, if you’re comparing to cars. Unless you’re implying they reduced the number of buses/trains to compensate, this is surely a very positive thing for the citizen.
- lm28469 7y ago
  > One pays for transport in both time and money. Have you visited any big european cities ? I live in berlin and to reach anything in a 5km radius (and I very rarely need to go further than 2) the fastest way to travel is bicycle, the next is public transportation, the last is car. Ranking these by cost gives you the same order.
dcabrejas 7y ago
Or anotherway to put it: Now everyone pays for transport through their taxes, even those who do not use it.
- melling 7y ago
  Well, drivers will benefit if traffic starts moving. Build more roads, make them wider roads, but traffic is still horrible. What to do? It’s funny how bad things need to get before some people will fund mass transit.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Public transportation is a public good you receive benefits from even if you don't directly use it; cleaner air, less congestion reducing transit times, and a happier populace.
  - masonic 7y ago
    cleaner air Only if it displaces more pollution than it contributes itself. Running mostly empty trains and buses worsens both congestion and pollution.
- pcurve 7y ago
  The current ticket sale only covers 8% of total cost. "Luxembourg's public transport system covers the whole country and costs $562 million (€508 million) per year to run. Each year, it generates around $46 million in ticket sales, according to the ministry." $46 mil is still a lot given the gov't tax revenue is only $25 billion / year, but I'm sure they also calculated plenty of upsides when they made the decision.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Let's be realistic, everyone uses transport. In Europe, you might use a car if you're out in the country, but you still use transport. Historically car transport was subsidised anyway - because it makes sense to do so. The number of people who walk everywhere is minuscule (and even then you're using maintained footpaths).
- 7y ago
Joker_vD 7y ago
I remeber reading an anecdote that once upon a time, in the 70s, I believe, the same was done in the Soviet Union. After a rather short time, the decision was reverted, and not because of the economical costs: the public transport never was profitable or even self-sustaining to begin with, and dropping the 4 copecks price of a ticket didn't really changed much. No, the reason was that the amount of pickpocketing in the public transport skyrocketed: apparently, having to pay 4 copecks on every boarding really did inconvenience the pickpocketers a lot. A useful reminder that every public policy change can have completely unforeseen consequences.

27 points by tomerbd 7y ago

One pays for transport in both time and money. Sometimes there are options of different transport methods trading off time Vs money. Luxembourg has subsidized the money component to zero, but transport still has a significant time cost.

mratsim 7y ago
Luxembourg saves on the barriers/checkpoints/controls that people actually paid for their tickets. That said, it's a very small country and so the infrastructure cost are very contained. Also it's balance/budget is probably in the positive as well.
- ptah 7y ago
  yes it is more like a city. it will be interesting for other cities to see if this works on this scale
  - yostrovs 7y ago
    It's more like a village.
  - jmiskovic 7y ago
    As I recall Estonia has free public transportation for its residents. They started with the capital several years ago and expanded to whole country. I guess it worked out well for them.
travisporter 7y ago
But you could say the same for building roads, if you’re comparing to cars. Unless you’re implying they reduced the number of buses/trains to compensate, this is surely a very positive thing for the citizen.
lm28469 7y ago
> One pays for transport in both time and money. Have you visited any big european cities ? I live in berlin and to reach anything in a 5km radius (and I very rarely need to go further than 2) the fastest way to travel is bicycle, the next is public transportation, the last is car. Ranking these by cost gives you the same order.

dcabrejas 7y ago

Or anotherway to put it: Now everyone pays for transport through their taxes, even those who do not use it.

melling 7y ago
Well, drivers will benefit if traffic starts moving. Build more roads, make them wider roads, but traffic is still horrible. What to do? It’s funny how bad things need to get before some people will fund mass transit.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
Public transportation is a public good you receive benefits from even if you don't directly use it; cleaner air, less congestion reducing transit times, and a happier populace.
- masonic 7y ago
  cleaner air Only if it displaces more pollution than it contributes itself. Running mostly empty trains and buses worsens both congestion and pollution.
pcurve 7y ago
The current ticket sale only covers 8% of total cost. "Luxembourg's public transport system covers the whole country and costs $562 million (€508 million) per year to run. Each year, it generates around $46 million in ticket sales, according to the ministry." $46 mil is still a lot given the gov't tax revenue is only $25 billion / year, but I'm sure they also calculated plenty of upsides when they made the decision.
esotericn 7y ago
Let's be realistic, everyone uses transport. In Europe, you might use a car if you're out in the country, but you still use transport. Historically car transport was subsidised anyway - because it makes sense to do so. The number of people who walk everywhere is minuscule (and even then you're using maintained footpaths).
7y ago

Joker_vD 7y ago

I remeber reading an anecdote that once upon a time, in the 70s, I believe, the same was done in the Soviet Union. After a rather short time, the decision was reverted, and not because of the economical costs: the public transport never was profitable or even self-sustaining to begin with, and dropping the 4 copecks price of a ticket didn't really changed much. No, the reason was that the amount of pickpocketing in the public transport skyrocketed: apparently, having to pay 4 copecks on every boarding really did inconvenience the pickpocketers a lot. A useful reminder that every public policy change can have completely unforeseen consequences.