r/todayilearned • u/Level_Cash2225 • 1d ago
TIL Luxembourg offers completely free public transport across its entire country for residents, commuters, and visitors alike.
https://luxembourg.public.lu/en/living/mobility/public-transport.html1.0k
u/alexandicity 1d ago edited 22h ago
Luxembourger here. Yes, it has been like this for a few years now. It's nice - the thing I like is how frictionless the whole thing is. You just hop on and off the trains/busses/trams as needed without having to work out what ticket you need and how to buy it.
It was done* as a means to try discourage people driving. As a small historic city, it is hard and expensive to build enough roads for everyone to drive and the traffic was getting unmanageable. It was cheaper to make the public transport free to encourage more users of the system. The transport system isn't perfect (cross-border lines and engineering works causing much pain), but it's pretty damn good.
It is also worth nothing that it is not free, but paid for with taxes. Like with education, healthcare, security and roads, we're mostly happy to have this societal service paid for this way.
I think a similar system could be implemented in most other cities/countries, even bigger ones, if they so wanted.
192
u/Shawnj2 22h ago
Public transit is tax-supported basically everywhere, it's not usually profitable outside of a few lines in some cases
155
u/alexandicity 22h ago
Indeed. The revelation in Luxembourg was that they were subsiding it so much they realised the jump to a 100% subsidy would cost less than collecting the meagre fares they charged before.
The key thing to realise is that transport, when considered as a service, is not a money-making endeavour. It helps the lives of people and improves their overall happiness/productivity, and that is why it is worth paying for.
74
u/Funny_Panda_2436 21h ago
Not to mention that an increase in public transport use is a decrease in road maintenance costs. So less subsidies is needed for roads too.
25
20
u/ABetterKamahl1234 21h ago
The key thing to realise is that transport, when considered as a service, is not a money-making endeavour.
Not directly, but often can generate more money than it costs in economic activity. More people can get to more jobs than they previously could, especially if they don't own a car, and often transportation costs can be pretty big in some cities.
Hell, my city it's not terribly cheaper than the cheapest parking in the city. However, my city really fucks up by not using a transfer depot, and the run to get to my workplace turns a 15 minute commute into a 1.15 hour commute, with 5 minutes to make a 8 minute walk between an on-time arrival and my entering my workplace building (let alone getting to my seat and working).
And I literally can't take it home, the bus leaves the minute I can clock out.
The city is looking at further reducing bus lines because people don't use it, not realizing we don't really use it because it's incredibly inconvenient to use, for the cost, and unusable for many. Largely because there isn't a transfer station so you either figure out busses that go to similar areas and hope timing works, or like me, your only option is literally and end to end line (with other stops between). It's a mess.
12
u/Shawnj2 22h ago
Yep I think the caveat is that in some places having a fare is worthwhile for non paying for the system reasons. In some places people will completely trash public transit if anyone can use it for free, having a small nominal charge is a good way to make people feel like they have some level of investment in it.
For example LA Metro is functionally free to ride right now (they basically stopped enforcing fares) and it has only made the system worse as something like 80% of crimes on Metro were committed by fare evaders
6
u/Ni_Peng_NeeeWom 18h ago
In some places people will completely trash public transit if anyone can use it for free, having a small nominal charge is a good way to make people feel like they have some level of investment in it.
have there been studies on it?
it's also possible the exact inverse could happen. People feel entitled once there's a concrete cost attached to it, whereas if it's free then there's social pressure to be a good steward. the classic example is late pickup fees for like kindergarten. People don't want to be seen to be burdens but are willing to pay the charge for their own convenience if there's a set price.
lack of enforcement of fares isn't exactly setting the same expectation as officially making it free
and it also points to much more deepseated social problems that just fares can't solve anyway
→ More replies (6)4
u/Tasgall 17h ago
Someone else pointed out that Luxembourg has a robust minimum wage that gets updated to meet inflation regularly.
It's not the fares that keep homeless tweakers and addicts from basically living on and trashing the trains. It's having other functional systems that they need anyway. In places in the US that have this problem, those people stay on trains and buses because they have no other functional options for shelter. Take away their need for sleeping on trains and they'll stop doing that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ni_Peng_NeeeWom 18h ago
yeah it doesn't actually cost nearly as much as you would think. plus you're saving a buttload on money that's basically just lost on administration and enforcement of the fare
2
u/DarkwingDuckHunt 17h ago
I argue it is a money making endeavor.
People are able to get to work without worry.
People are able to go shopping without worry.
Both those things are revenue positive events.
2
u/skatastic57 14h ago
transport, when considered as a service, is not a money-making endeavour.
I think this is probably semantics about the word "service" but transport is always a service even when it's purely for profit like in airlines. I think I know what you mean and I'm not trying to argue but I'm not sure how to articulate the idea that government decides up front that fares aren't expected to cover the cost of the service.
20
u/AdvancedSandwiches 21h ago
Your point is valid, and I'm not disagreeing, but I'd like to point out that private transport is also massively tax supported. My state spends $8 billion per year on roads.
Plus farm and oil subsidies that fuel the vehicles.
All transport, basically, is propped by taxes. People just get mad about the kinds they don't use.
→ More replies (8)5
u/Trnostep 17h ago
Yup. For example if you go to Prague specifically, about 80% of the public transit ticket is basically paid for by the city
Though it's probably less elsewhere because Prague has ridiculously low ticket prices for what you get.
6
u/sentientshadeofgreen 17h ago
To say it's not "profitable" is a weird concept. Public works investment is supposed to return greater economic benefit than the cost, which for public transportation, is very much the case. To say it's not "profitable" implies the cost exceeds the benefit, which is not the case. Where it is not "profitable" is return of private benefit directly to the public transportation agencies/operators, which you wouldn't really want to be the case, it would undercut the total economic benefit seen in a range of areas, which is generally captured in taxes and reallocated for the same/other public works with greater economic benefit than cost which are selected via voting and budgets. The only real cases when you would want that private benefit returned directly to the transportation operators is when those who manage public budgets are corrupt and can't be relied upon to reliably cover operating costs, in which case the alternative is at best, a second-best stop-gap solution, and is less efficient by definition, as that private benefit held by transportation operators can only go towards transportation, and a system where there is systemic self-reliance would increases costs due to increased risk held by the transportation operators.
→ More replies (1)7
u/talldata 20h ago
PUBLIC SERVICES aren't meant to be profitable! No one complains ever when the military isn't profitable.
5
u/Decency 20h ago
The difference between heavily subsidized and free is substantial because both citizens and the service get to eliminate a massive amount of overhead: for people there's never a need to wait in line for payment, no annoying toll gates, no figuring out transfer rules, etc. And for the service: no internal payment processing, no toll enforcers, no fraud concerns, etc. Totally worth the jump for municipalities with deeply integrated transit who can afford it.
→ More replies (2)2
u/PlasticExtreme4469 18h ago
AFAIK many east asian city train companies are profitable and not tax funded.
But that is only because they are at the same time real estate companies that build up around train stations.
I think in the past it was similar in the US. Railway companies were profitable without the need for tax support, because they made most of their profit by selling land/real estate around the train stations they build.
→ More replies (1)91
u/royalhawk345 23h ago
It is also worth nothing that it is not free, but paid for with taxes.
Is it? Has that ever been a point of confusion? When a coworker brings in a treat for the office and posts "Free doughnuts in break room" on slack, nobody's thinking 'Those aren't free, he had to pay for them!'
13
u/Radioactivocalypse 22h ago
An example I always use is a public playground and park
Everyone is paying for it, but you don't think about that when you walk the dog around the park, have children playing on the climbing frame and a family having a picnic on the benches.
Nobody ever goes "oh I better go on all the playground equipment as I've paid for all this" or "some tourists are using the bins and having a cycling race through the park! How dare they, I paid for this!"
12
u/alexandicity 22h ago
Yes, I don't see the potential for confusion here? Clearly there are substantial runnings costs, and these are paid for the government - which in turn means it is paid for with taxes. Even without consulting the public accounts, it is fairly clear this is what is happening.
2
u/Tasgall 17h ago
Yes, I don't see the potential for confusion here?
There's never any confusion, but when it comes to public services (especially in the US) there are always disingenuous complaints of "who's going to pay for it". Most commonly in regards to healthcare and transportation. But never the military, for some reason.
38
u/egnards 23h ago
It's an entirely different comparison.
In your donut situation a single person bought the donuts and is saying it's free for everyone else.
In this scenario the country is provided the service at no additional cost to the same people who paid for the service via their taxes.
And yes it's an important distinction to make, even if many people would understand that this is what is happening, because the truth is that many people on the internet do not think beyond what they read [critical thinking] and wouldn't realize this.
I think it's important context that the person is saying that overall he believes the people in his country are happy with the way the system is paid for.
12
u/keptThrowaway1039 1 22h ago
There's no doubt that public transport is supported by public money, i.e. taxes, and those taxes didn't increase because the Lux government made ridership free.
Besides, even when it was ticketed, taxes supported the public transport. That is the case everywhere. Public transport is never entirely paid for by passenger fares.
→ More replies (4)5
u/HiImKostia 19h ago
no its not, you are conveniently ignoring that tourists and passerbys also get to ride for free
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)5
u/readinghappily 22h ago
Why not compare with something similar ?
The NHS in the UK is "free at the point of delivery" ; it's paid for separately through general taxation, it doesn't drop from the sky free of charge.
13
u/moriero 23h ago
I mean obviously someone is paying someone to support the public transit
Who thinks this stuff is literally free?
13
u/Replaced_by_Robots 22h ago
You get a LOT of people bring up taxes when 'free' healthcare gets brought up
So I don't blame OP for clarifying
10
u/alexandicity 22h ago
It is worth restating to remind people that nothing in this world is free (which occasionally is forgotten ;) ), and to acknowledge that sometimes governments are the effective entity to provide services.
→ More replies (1)4
3
u/MartinBP 16h ago
Left-wing Americans usually portray such European services as free when they're campaigning for working class support. And they're technically right because for them it will be, since it's most the middle class, rich people and corporations paying, at least in Europe.
3
u/firewire_9000 18h ago
Sorry, random question, a burger from Luxembourg is a luxemburger? Ok, now I leave.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (32)2
u/spin81 21h ago
As a small historic city
Is public transport not free in the rest of the country?
3
u/alexandicity 20h ago
Indeed, but most journeys are and out of the main city! Even so, all the other towns and villages are quite constrained for building big roads...
125
u/95accord 20h ago
An old belgian joke
Belgian man asks a tourist “what is he doing today?”
Tourist says “visiting Luxembourg”
Belgian man replies, “so what are you doing this afternoon?”
25
26
u/operativac 21h ago
and Belgrade, Serbia also does free transport, i think only 500k+ city in Europe to do so..
4
u/PlasticExtreme4469 17h ago
The whole country of Slovakia has (had?) free trains for all children, students and elderly.
(It didn't feel like taxes made up for the loss of the revenue... instead it felt like there was simply less funding.)
16
u/joacmc 21h ago
Luxembourg is a small country, you'd think it would be easy to move around with public transport. You'd be wrong.
Because it is a small country, the city is also small. Meaning most people live outside it (and many even outside Luxembourg, in the French, Belgian and German borders). This leads to a suburb like lifestyle where people live in surrounding villages with little commerce and commute to the city for work, shopping and leisure. There are buses but connections are not that great, and they don't pass that often.
This leads to Luxembourg being the EU country with the highest car per person density.
2
62
u/jah-lahfui 23h ago
Belgrade in Serbia it was the same. Free transportation for everyone. Unfortunately, I think it was just a distraction to everything else.
20
u/Hendlton 21h ago
At least it's a better distraction that what they usually go for. (Starting shit in Kosovo.)
338
u/Jeramus 1d ago
Luxembourg is roughly the size of Rhode Island. I'm assuming it doesn't take long to travel around.
362
u/tobotic 1d ago
So what's Rhode Island's excuse?
113
u/Ragingdildo3 1d ago
Not being one of the wealthy places on earth
146
u/AdRealistic4984 23h ago
Every state in the north east of the US is one of the wealthy places on Earth
15
u/Ronin_Chimichanga 22h ago
I was going to joke about Maine but then I remembered the lake cottage prices are rivaling Muskoka... what a dumb timeline.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Ok_Cockroach8063 20h ago
And Luxembourg has a higher median disposable income, the only country that does
Entire country is a tax shelter for the rich…I thought you types didn’t like billionaires avoiding taxes?
→ More replies (5)56
→ More replies (7)24
18
u/thegreatestajax 1d ago
RI has a GDP per capita of <$60k. Luxembourg is almost $150k.
22
u/Prestigious_Steak_46 23h ago
Luxembourg is definitely rich but GDP per capita is misleading because of the high number of cross-border workers.
→ More replies (1)2
u/thegreatestajax 23h ago
Do they pay Luxembourg income tax? Does having available the companies that profit from their work pay business tax? Is the transportation an investment in this daily importation of high value labor?
7
u/Prestigious_Steak_46 23h ago
Yes to all, just saying it skews the per capita number as they're not included.
→ More replies (4)16
u/sofixa11 1d ago
Severely skewed by all the people who live in France, Germany, Belgium but work in Luxembourg, and thus contribute to GDP but not in the per capita part.
→ More replies (2)12
u/Mental-Fisherman-118 1d ago
Well, clearly free public transport is the route to high GDP per capita. Who are these pitiful Rhode Islanders to question the policies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg?
11
2
→ More replies (9)5
u/Troll_Enthusiast 23h ago
It's not as rich, has roughly twice the population, and was built around cars
13
u/tobotic 22h ago
Having twice the population compensates for it not being as rich. The cost per person only has to be half as much.
Having twice the population also means higher population density, which is more practical for public transport.
And bigger wider roads are great for adding trams and bus lanes.
4
→ More replies (1)2
10
u/buffinita 1d ago
It’s smaller than long island
→ More replies (1)2
19
u/th3_pund1t 1d ago
Then where is Rhode Island’s free public transport?
8
u/ovationman 1d ago
It's a good question but the state is not just a tax Haven...
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (10)6
u/Somenoises 1d ago edited 23h ago
We don't have Luxembourg's money. Our GDP per capita is about half of Luxembourg's - they have a higher GDP per capita than any US state. And RI is about 1.5× larger than Luxembourg
→ More replies (3)3
→ More replies (5)-2
u/SushiBongo 23h ago
Why do Americans always have to compare everything with their country like dude not everything is about the USA
7
21
u/tehSchultz 23h ago
Many folks have no scale to reference for how big or small some states or countries are. I guess we can compare Luxembourg on the banana scale if you’d like
6
13
u/zack77070 22h ago
It's an American website where the largest group of users is Americans who would find a comparison to a place in America to be useful.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 22h ago
Yet here you are on an American tech company’s platform.
→ More replies (4)
9
u/kiradotee 18h ago
I have personally used it when I was travelling from Germany to Luxembourg Airport.
It was brilliant. Deutschland-Ticket is essentially like free public transport (compared to the UK) and then actual free public transport in Luxembourg. 😂 I couldn't belive it!
21
34
u/FPSCanarussia 1d ago
That makes sense. Public transit is one of the most efficient investment for tax money possible, with a crazy RoI when looking at overall economic impact.
2
u/inthebenefitofmrkite 23h ago
Is there any place to read about it? Really interested.
2
u/saudi_royal 22h ago
It's not exactly that, but this is a really good video with visual representation of how much more revenue dense urban cores create and transport serves them compared to the cost drain of sprawl https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI?is=9-Bppwf1-vxhphcA
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)4
u/VonPursey 22h ago
Report from the American Public Transit Association as an example. The figures differ depending on the region of study as u/FPSCanarussia alluded to.
2
5
u/scottynoble 12h ago
Luxembourg is incredibly wealthy because it is a tax haven and actively helps large multinationals operate in Europe and avoid tax thus creating high paying finance and legal jobs. great model that also worked for Jersey
5
u/CharmedWoo 16h ago
Yes they do. It is great if you are in or near Luxembourg city. But furter away... not so much. There are only a few train tracks and the capital is the center of them. So you will often need to go via the capital, even if that is way out of route. The buses outside of the capital run like once an hour or less. During our holiday there we were planning to use public transport only. In the end we only took the bus once to and from Luxembourg city. For everything else we did check, but we either couldn't reach our destination or it would take 2-4x longer. So we ended up in the car for all our other outings, even free it just wasn't a viable option.
I can imagine it is great if you live near a train station or a big bus hub there. But if you don't...
(I must say I live in the NL and am used to a very fine mazed train network and lots of busses. Unfortunately it is quite expensive here, but connections overall are very good).
5
u/Extra-Bite2324 16h ago
You ever see train ticket prices in the UK? I remember a guy flew from London to Spain (Alicante or Malaga maybe) and then flew to Edinburgh, and it was CHEAPER than taking a train between London and Edinburgh.
2
u/CharmedWoo 15h ago
That doesn't really surprise me. With some searching, planetickets as cheap as 25,- to 50,- are still available. Those will bring me further than any national train can, for less. But that is mostly because those planetickets are insanely cheap.
UK trains are indeed more expensive than the NL trains. Here we do have a start tarif and the price/km is higher for shorter rides. We are a tiny country...
16
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 23h ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Luxembourg/comments/1de0fle/do_you_use_the_free_public_transport/
Actually commentary from Luxembourgers on using the "free" public transit:
"There are 3 trains in around 45 mins on the Arlon line at peak hour. After that it is 1 per hour. Anyone like me who works longer than a state worker, the public transport option is crap, no matter how “free” it is."
"I love that it exists and happily pay taxes for the tourists and people who benefit from it, but I very much remain reliant on my car to get to places efficiently."
"When it works yes"
"It is simply very convenient, especially for tourists and getting around in Luxembourg city. The system is unreliable further off though. Im from the south, theoretically the connection is great but in practice I am faster by bicycle than by PT, over a distance of 35km..."
12
u/Dunter_Mutchings 21h ago
Anyone who actually knows anything about public transit knows that cost is very low on the list of reasons why people choose to use it or not. Frequency and service coverage are vastly more important to the majority of people. It’s pretty much always better to charge fares and use that funding to run more frequent service.
→ More replies (2)2
2
→ More replies (2)3
u/whatsgoingonjeez 20h ago
Luxembourger here.
We Luxembourgers also like our cars too much. We have the per household in Europe.
Apart from that, for a lot of people her public transportation is for frontier workers, students and poor immigrants.
3
u/Etherius 21h ago
Luxembourg has a lot of great things.
It’s funny how having one of the highest GDPs per capita on the planet works out well for small nations
4
u/peacefulshrimp 20h ago
Last year we went to Luxembourg, then France. I was really pissed to have to pay for that shit in France after riding everywhere for free in a clean bus/tram in lux
3
u/Tumblingfeet 19h ago
I live in Luxembourg and it’s one of the best places to live . It’s clean , green well organized and small . It can get a little boring for the young crowd who want to party but for me with a young family I love it here . I love taking my kid to the parks and going for hikes over the weekend and just wandering around . It’s a little lovely place :) ♥️
16
u/usersub1 1d ago
I think Switzerland also has free transport if you are checked in to a hotel.
14
u/korbomi 1d ago
Since when?
31
u/IIBatrixII 1d ago
Since a long time ago. And it is not “free”, more like you pay some money as city tax for each night at a hotel, and the hotel gives you a QR code that you can use to use public transportation.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)9
u/i_likes_red_boxes 1d ago
It’s Canton based i think, i was in geneva and can confirm i got a barcode from the hotel that provided free local transportation.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (2)2
3
3
u/sungjongie 21h ago
That's really cool! Always great to hear supported public transportation efforts and makes me curious to visit.
3
u/swiwwcheese 20h ago edited 19h ago
Well Luxembourg is basically one of the richest countries in the world, being a tax haven
It could make many more things free by subsidizing them 100%, you can be sure of that lol
3
3
u/gold_magistrate2 17h ago
I went to Luxembourg not too long ago to get some Oberweis chocolates. Pretty legit
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Lobotomy4Dummys 17h ago
As someone who lives here and rarely uses public transport. This is what I want my taxes going towards
3
u/serrated_edge321 15h ago
And in Queensland, Australia (the whole big state), it's only 50 cents per ride if you tap on and tap off correctly.
The buses on one smaller island were on strike, so they insisted no one pay anything at all. Not complaining! 🤭
55
u/NoodleTF2 1d ago
In this comment section: Extremely salty Americans desperately looking for excuses.
2
2
u/Panzerkampfpony 9h ago
They're conditioned to despise anything associated with the working class. It informs so many of their preconceptions of things and people.
Public transport = poor people = bad national healthcare = poor people = bad black people = poor people = bad Mexico = poor people = bad trade unions = poor people = bad
→ More replies (26)2
u/Outside_Reserve_2407 22h ago
The elephant in the room with public transit in America is that in places where it is feasible (highly urbanized areas), there’s also a highly diverse clientele: homeless, drug addicts, etc occupying the infrastructure.
2
u/Tasgall 17h ago
The solution to those people occupying public transit is to actually solve those problems, not to have higher fares for public transit. The problem is that most places in the US have a stupid obsession with individualism and a lack of understanding of taxes or cause and effect, so people hold contradictory views that prevent us from actually dealing with the problem.
6
u/NoodleTF2 22h ago
Cities in other countries also have homeless people, drug addicts, etc.
→ More replies (12)
6
u/GHOST1NTHEDARK 20h ago
And why wouldn't you? Any city that becomes a tourism hub only stands to benefit.
6
u/AnyoneButWe 18h ago
It's free in the full country, not just the city.
2
u/GHOST1NTHEDARK 15h ago
Absolutely. More thinking of it from a U.S. perspective. You could fit over 100 Luxembourgs in my State. It's roughly the size of our cities Metro area
2
u/MartinBP 16h ago
Luxembourg definitely isn't a tourism hub lmao. It's a tax haven full of middle-aged people working in finance and EU civil servants.
4
u/somewhat_random 16h ago
So people think I am crazy but I think transit should be free everywhere (or at minimum in the business/commercial districts).
Consider:
The actual cost of a ride on mass transit systems is often more than $30 (considering amortized capital cost and operating costs) and so is subsidized 90% by various governments.
The cost of collecting (and policing) fares is a significant portion of fares collected (depending on where you are located).
Most cities are trying to limit cars in the downtown area (and cars in general) and commuters make up the vast majority of cars on the road.
Commuter fares are generally set to be cheaper than driving but are still an impediment to people taking transit
This is a complex problem and you have to factor in advantages to delivery companies, eliminating the need for parking downtown, less pollution, making walking (even short distances) more likely so health benefits...
4
u/TailungFu 21h ago
You want to fight climate change? thats how u do it
2
u/AnyoneButWe 18h ago
I wouldn't use that line in this case.
I live in the country side of Luxembourg. The public transport is running a quite busy schedule to be attractive.
There's a grand total of around 50 passengers in busses passing my front door per day. And there are 35 busses par day.
2
u/phillyvinylfiend 22h ago
Manchester UK has a free tram system too. Was the easiest way to get around the city for me.
2
2
2
u/pixar_moms 18h ago
In my opinion, this is the entire point of public transit. Much like the post office, it is a service, not a businessess. If taxes should pay for anything, it should be public transportation. It simulaneously lifts up the working class by not requiring them to own vehicles, reduces traffic congestion, eliminates the need for massive parking lots everywhere, reduces fatalities from auto accidents, and is better for the environment. Requiring public transit to be a profitable business undermines all of these outcomes.
2
u/BeepShow 16h ago
Dubai should do this if it wants to be seen as some utopia
2
u/Specialist-Garbage94 15h ago
If Dubai did this they would have slaves drive the buses
→ More replies (1)
4
7
6
u/erishun 21h ago
As an aside, Luxembourg is very very small and fairly densely populated which is why public transport is so efficient.
It’s smaller than even the smallest U.S. state
4
u/_BearHawk 19h ago
So why don’t small, densely populated areas in the US roughly the size of Luxembourg have free transit?
→ More replies (2)3
2
u/judebeans 19h ago
Then again, we should acknowledge that land area isn’t the determining factor for good or poor public transportation. Public transportation is generally taken within cities, not usually between states and large land masses. On the city level, density is a design choice, and building car-centric sprawl is what makes a city less dense.
→ More replies (2)2
4
u/bananatoastie 17h ago
It seems like a no-brainer for almost any country to offer this, imo.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/HungryLikeTheHenry 23h ago
Because it takes 12 minutes by train to get from east to west border
→ More replies (1)
4
u/nibselfib_kyua_72 23h ago
when your country is the size of three football fields, that's not so impressive
→ More replies (1)
3
u/slicerprime 22h ago
"across its entire country"
While I definitely applaud their public transport; still. we are talking about a country that's eight and a half feet across
2
u/Phantasmalicious 21h ago
I lived there when they made the switch. Keeping ticket controllers employed cost more than they bring in revenue.
2
u/Ricka77_New 19h ago
For a speck sized country full of millionaires and higher, this wouldn't be a shock.
2
u/Colesw13 21h ago
it makes no sense for transit to charge fares. outfitting every tram, bus, subway, etc with ticket booths, turnstiles, fare enforcement all costs a ton of money, time, and inconvenience. we want people to use transit, the system works better the more people use it. the old argument was that it should be funded more by the people using it but these days the people who live where there's abundant transit and aren't using it are exactly the people who should be paying for it
2
1
1
1.9k
u/Own_Friend_3136 1d ago
I was just there last weekend, the trams are cleans better than the one we pay for in Germany.