Passenger Trains > If Luxembourg Can Do It Why Can't We?

Oh my, those radical European socialists are at it again!  Effective this summer all public transit
in Luxembourg will be without fares which is already the case for all riders under age 20.  To put
things in context Luxembourg's population is just under 600,000 and the longest rail journey you
can make(from Bettembourg in the south to Troisvierges in the north) is about 55 miles. From
today's IRJ:
https://www.railjournal.com/regions/europe/luxembourg-to-abolish-all-public-transport-fares/

In case you are curious the current price of petrol in Luxembourg is €1.24/litre which converts to
$5.33/gallon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/18 14:20 by milepost20.

I’m sure if you want socialism stuff like free everything is good

But don’t complain about taxes and be happy when you miss capitalism and the ability to make money with a unique idea

Posted from iPhone

milepost20 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To put things in context Luxembourg's population is just
> under 600,000 and the longest rail journey you
> can make(from Bettembourg in the south to
> Troisvierges in the north) is about 55 miles.

Very important context - population of 600,000.

So much easier to enforce accountability and accomplish tasks when the country has a population less than San Francisco. I don't think the form of government (socialism or not) matters too much here, especially since California has been accused of such, yet we don't even have "free" bridge tolls that other states and countries have. Not that I'm promoting socialism - mere mention of the word can cause panic here.
 

let's be real, some of our cities can NOT afford a public transit revenue loss.................

66

What reasons could Luxemboogers possibly have to go from Bettembourg to Troisvierges?

Look up Luxembourg. It's a constitutional monarchy (Grand Duchy) with a democratically elected government that has chosen to implement what some call "socialist" policies in regard to public transportation. Personally I'd rather pay higher taxes for better government. If, under whatever you want to call the government of Luxembourg, I don't like what they are doing as a citizen of said Grand Duchy I can vote them out of office. In the US if I don't like what big oil (or any other big capitalist corporation) is doing to my, and world's, quality of life there is little or no accountability. And, yes I am a socialist, philosophically speaking. 

John Webb
Trinidad, CA

If there's no fare or box to collect it, how do you measure fare box recovery?

Luxembourg is like Delaware, but with better beer. They collect taxes and fees from absentee corporations. Delaware also collects a huge toll for I-95.

Posted from Android

>>>>Personally I'd rather pay higher taxes for better government.

What on earth would lead one to conclude that paying higher taxes would necessarily lead to better government?  One might actually expect to get the opposite result.

Gee, the same can be said of capitalism....paying more does not guarantee getting a better product.

SpeederDriver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>Personally I'd rather pay higher taxes for
> better government.
>
> What on earth would lead one to conclude that
> paying higher taxes would necessarily lead to
> better government?  One might actually expect to
> get the opposite result.

No fare transit: Cons

Many transit systems may not be able to accommodate the demand

No fare transit: Pros

Would reduce amount of time that buses and on-street rail vehicles (where money is collected at the farebox) are stopped when passengers are boarding
Eliminates the huge expense of handling cash
Disputes over fares sometimes escalates to violence against drivers.  Doing away with the need to collect fares eliminates this source of conflict
Some people avoid using transit (particularly if they are traveling to another place) because they lack knowledge of the fare system.  This would eliminate that barrier.

In 2017, fares accounted for about $16 Billion in revenue for America's transit systems. (Source: American Public Transportation Association).  By comparison,  the costs of injuries and property damage resulting from motor vehicle incidents was estimated to be $416 Billion (Source: National Safety Council, Injury Facts).



 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/18 19:01 by RuleG.

I think Denver experimented for awhile with making public transit free and about the only thing it accomplished was making public transit vehicles homes for the homeless.  

Seattle, Salt Lake City, Baltimore, and maybe Denver have "free" bus or rail services in the downtown core.

Posted from Android

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No fare transit: Cons
>
> Many transit systems may not be able to
> accommodate the demand

another con would be the TAX INCREASES needed to operate any transit system that did not charge fares........... 

> No fare transit: Pros
>
> Would reduce amount of time that buses and
> on-street rail vehicles (where money is collected
> at the farebox) are stopped when passengers are
> boarding
> Eliminates the huge expense of handling cash

> Disputes over fares sometimes escalates to
> violence against drivers. 
>Doing away with the
> need to collect fares eliminates this source of
> conflict

people should expect to PAY transit fares and not expect to ride for free (unless disabled/handicapped or seniors).  if not, a transit system collecting fares is NO excuse for violence against drivers.  but hey, that logic wouldn't get many votes........ 

> Some people avoid using transit (particularly if
> they are traveling to another place) because they
> lack knowledge of the fare system.  This would
> eliminate that barrier.
>

some people ALSO avoid using public transit due to the potential for violent encounters or people that want to disrupt/disturb other riders.  the answer to those 2 problems also wouldn't get many votes........  
 
> In 2017, fares accounted for about $16 Billion in
> revenue for America's transit systems. (Source:
> American Public Transportation Association). 

if that $16 billion is accurate, it is needed to operate our transit systems.....

> By  comparions,  the costs of injuries and property
> damage resulting from motor vehicle incidents was
> estimated to be $416 Billion (Source: National
> Safety Council, Injury Facts).

stricter enforcement of unlicensed and uninsured motorists (jail time), DUI, along with increased traffic patrols would decrease those costs but again, that would not get many votes.......

66

 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/18 18:22 by goneon66.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seattle, Salt Lake City, Baltimore, and maybe
> Denver have "free" bus or rail services in the
> downtown core.

Denver has the "free mall ride" in the downtown area, but to get there is not free, either filling up gas or paying fare on public transit. Visitors and tourists who take advantage of that service don't stay free in downtown hotels, and in fact they pay some sort occupancy tax, so even if indirect, they might be paying for it.

Seattle ended their free fare zone several years ago, and I can vouch for that after my visit to the Emerald City last year. Los Angeles also experimented with "free" fare for the Red/Purple Line trains many years ago, but no more. Utilizing drug pusher tactics to bait people away from automobile addiction - that's what it is.

If anyone thinks a socialist system is better than ours, please visit any Eastern European country and see first hand the damage such as system has done over the years. Some like Poland and Czech Republic are just starting to recover. Others like Ukraine not so much. I am quite happy not to have the government give free stuff to those who don't want to work. 

CA_Sou_MA_Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Denver experimented for awhile with making
> public transit free and about the only thing it
> accomplished was making public transit vehicles
> homes for the homeless.

Denver's 16th Street Mall shuttle bus does not require fare payment.  It is not an "experiment" as service continues to be provided without riders having to pay fares.  During several visits to Denver, the most recent of which is last year, when I rode the shuttle, nearly all times it was very well used by local residents and out of town visitors.  If there were issues with homeless people, I never saw any.

In other metro areas where fares are required to use transit, homeless people will ride buses and trains and hang out in stations and stops.  But homeless people also use highway infrastructure such as bridges.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am quite happy not to have the government give free stuff to those who don't want to work. 

The problem is, with overpopulation contributing to the problem from one side, and job-killing automation contributing to the problem from another side, we're probably at the point where there are way too many people commensurate to the number of jobs that are available.  If we're not there yet, we soon will be.  

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there's no fare or box to collect it, how do
> you measure fare box recovery?
>
> Luxembourg is like Delaware, but with better beer.
> They collect taxes and fees from absentee
> corporations. Delaware also collects a huge toll
> for I-95.
>
> Posted from Android







f y i - Last I knew, Delaware had no sales tax - thanks for the most part to the absentee corporations.  State Hwy 1 is also a toll road for some distance.

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > Disputes over fares sometimes escalates to
> > violence against drivers. 
> >Doing away with the
> > need to collect fares eliminates this source of
> > conflict
>
> people should expect to PAY transit fares and not
> expect to ride for free (unless
> disabled/handicapped or seniors).  if not, a
> transit system collecting fares is NO excuse for
> violence against drivers.  but hey, that logic
> wouldn't get many votes........

There is no excuse for violence against transit operators, period.

The vast, vast majority of voters are not inclinded to commit violence against public transit employees. You've grossly trivialized an issue facing drivers all over the country. 



> > By  comparinos,  the costs of injuries and
> property
> > damage resulting from motor vehicle incidents
> was
> > estimated to be $416 Billion (Source: National
> > Safety Council, Injury Facts).
>
> stricter enforcement of unlicensed and uninsured
> motorists (jail time), DUI, along with increased
> traffic patrols would decrease those costs but
> again, that would not get many votes.......
>
> 66
>
Yes, more enforcement is needed, but viewing motor vehicle accidents as a problem to be solved primarily through enforcement is simply out of touch with reality as many crashes (i.e. due to weather) are not caused by people violating laws and police departments do not have the staff to provide a level of enforcement which would significantly reduce the number of crashes.

There is also strident opposition to electronic enforcement (red light cameras) from organizations such as the National Motorists Association.

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/18 19:45 by RuleG.

My friend,retired German Railways, gets a duplex for free, free education, free medical from crib to grave--no copay, plus 6 weeks vacation and 2 weeks extra vacation for looking after the old folks and keeping them out of an old-age home which would cost the gov. more money. The oldsters get two weeks vacation from their kids too, at a spa. Yes, he pays about 50% plus in taxes, but he wouldn't trade his life for the average American, and he has lived in the USA and even mustered with US troops in Germany.  Few folks have the smarts, the money and/or inginuity to become self-made millionaires in the USA (POTUS started with $200,000 a year at age 1)  but the US system is geared for those lucky few not the average Joe. The rest of us are always worrying about what might happen next. My friend just shakes his head and thinks Americans are the dumbest folks around for believeing the so-called "American Deam" is real. 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/18 22:41 by RRBaron.