Even at that price, the British mind cannot comprehend such good a deal. An equivalent pass in the UK would be easily 10x that to even cover just a much smaller region than The Netherlands.
For sure. I currently live in the US (fairly rural) and I would kill to have my transportation-related costs reduced to about $150/mo. But where I live, I simply need to have a car to do any basic thing since the moment I step off my driveway, there aren’t even footpaths.
I live in the Netherlands and have absolutely no need for this ticket. When I need to go somewhere, I just walk or bike there, never takes more than 20 minutes. I cannot even imagine living in American suburbia
I moved here from The Netherlands in 2004, and have now lived in Florida, California, and Mississippi and stayed for prolonged periods in many US cities for my job. I wouldn’t feel safe riding a bicycle anywhere here considering the speed of traffic, the size of the vehicles, and lack of dedicated biking infrastructure. It’s a completely different world when you share the road with angry F150 drivers blasting past you at 80 MPH. No, thank you.
That you clearly value other things the US offers over the transit situation. If the transit matters that much, making the US such an unlivable hellscape, why stay?
I think that's probably the point they're trying to make.
IMO that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to make the transit better, but some people think its somehow related. A lot of people think the "success" of the US is strongly correlated to this suburbia design somehow.
Right, I assumed the same argument. I've spent over half my life here, so it's obviously not that important to me, nor was it a factor in my decision to move here. Yet it's an observation I can make, having two distinct perspectives to compare, not a judgment on America. Ugh. It's the whole "yet you participate in society" meme, or the "well, if you don't like it, why not go home?" argument, which could well both be logical fallacies I don't know the names of.
Anyway, more public transit for the people and all that.
I live in American suburbia and that's how I live. I can walk or bike whenever I feel like it, drive if it suits me. I sometimes wonder what the average European assumes American suburbia to be. Endless tract homes? Such places do exist, true. But that is far from universal.
I'd be curious what metropolitan area you live in for this to be true! If you're not comfortable sharing for privacy reasons, that's all right. But it seems like this is the case in inner-ring suburbs in the Northeast megalopolis.
Of course you can walk. But can you walk to your workplace, your kid’s nursery, your local bakery/supermarket, your doctor, your dentist, the pharmacy?
It has reasonably good biking infrastructure, for the US, but suffers badly from sprawl. There's also the summer heat.
San Francisco is hilly (tough riding), but quite compact. It's generally possible to avoid the worst climbs with modest detours.
Sacramento's sprawl means that it has roughly 1/4 the population density of Sacramento. Travel distances are correspondingly longer, and much commercial development (office, retail) is in suburban hubs / malls / office parks, rather than either downtown or in neighbourhood shopping districts, as with SF.
The issues would generally be 1) traffic (a genuine hazard) and 2) bike parking. Many locations have few, if any, bike racks, and often other street furniture (signage, posts, fences) is poorly-suited to securing a bike.
Downtown / midtown areas are often far more amenable than outlying locations, particularly at malls and office parks.
This isn't to say that you cannot bike places, or take risks (collisions, theft), but it's additional friction. As I said, the infrastructure, by American standards, is actually pretty good. I'm just highlighting the limitations / caveats.
In most of my jobs in Europe(Austria specifically) I couldn't walk to my workplace because most tech companies in my current city put their offices in ugly concrete industrial techno parks outside the city where I don't want to live, meaning driving to work mostly as public transportation there is slow busses only every 30 minutes or one hour of biking. Similarly my GF needs to drive 40 minutes to work outside the city, to one of the few employers in her field. Not everyone lives and works in the city center to be able to walk to work.
So walking to work is such a weird and subjective metric since not all companies in everyone's' area of work will be clustered in your vicinity of your house unless you're lucky or you make active efforts to keep moving close to work which might be in undesirable areas for living.
>your doctor
My current one yeah, but she's terrible and to change her, the only one I found that accepts new patients is on the other side of town so no walking there either, unless I like walking for an hour each direction every time.
MY point is Europe can be highly spread out as well, with people and businesses fleeing inner cities due to space constraints and rent costs, leading to commute distances too long to walk economically. That's why you see traffic jams at highway ramps at rush hour. It's not like those people were too stupid to realize they could walk to work instead of driving if that was an option.
It is though, like, 90-95% of suburbia, and why the US has close to 100% of car commuters ( https://vis.csh.ac.at/citiesmoving/ ). Even small cities like Rennes (or even Clermont-Ferrand, which has objectively mediocre transit) have less car commuters than NYC, which is insane.
I mean even just perusing around a lot of metro areas on Google Maps its by far the norm. I know its by far the norm for just about every metro I've spent more than a week or two in.
Definitely not universal, no. And in some place the "norm" can be pretty different, even in somewhat surprising locales. But generally speaking? Yeah, pretty terrible experience for a lot of pedestrians and cyclists in US suburbia.
I mean, most places I've visited traveling around the US suburbia, bike lanes were practically non-existent, there was zero notable public transit at all, and sidewalks were usually an afterthought if they existed at all.
I already have the NS Flex free weekend subscription (with 1st class addition) and it's the only way for me to travel longer distances. It's also just about the only available public transport in the neighbourhood because I live in a polder.
Nearest train station is a 35 minute walk, nearest supermarkets are almost an hour walk. One advantage, before Covid and I had groceries delivered, mandatory walking back and forth three times a week to the village did wonders for losing weight.
That means you never leave your town of residence. I am Dutch too, and I walk and cycle (of course), but I have friend and family elsewhere too, want to visit other nature, cities and countries as well.
I mostly use a car since it's so much cheaper and faster than public transport, but I bought this ticket in order to do some longer distance journeys as well. I don't really like driving.
I work with a guy from holland. There, he lived in a condo. Here, he owns 40-acers, a couple horses and is trying to grow his own corn. He can play out his rural lifestyle dreams and still work a desk in a city, something that isnt an option without personal transportation. (I would say "car", but he rides an R1 to work most days.)
To be a little provocative, yes British train prices are very expensive in comparison but they perhaps also show that heavy subisidies to make tickets dirt cheap may not be the most useful use of resources: People can pay and will pay more than a few tens of euros per month. As long as that holds true what is the case for more subsidies?
As a resident of the UK, and reasonably well off, I can definitely attest that the price definitely changes my usage.
I will always get the slow 2 hour train into London rather than the faster 1.25 hour train because it's 1/2 to 1/3 the price. The peak hours slow train is approximately double the price, the peak hours fast train is about triple the price compared to off peak.
The local train to the next city (20 miles away) is £7.50 return if you want to arrive any time before 7.15pm. After that it's £3.50 for the same journey.
Almost every time I travel on British trains, it feels like I'm being ripped off. And then to add insult to injury, probably 50% of the times I travel, there's some problem that causes the trains to be delayed or cancelled. Or then there's often the first off-peak train of the day that is so full, it's not only standing room only, it's so packed you can't even move in the aisle. It's just 2 hours of standing, hoping that the train doesn't break down again and that the aircon keeps working.
And then you go abroad, everything seems to run on time, everything is cheap - often priced by kilometre of track travelled regardless what time of day it is, and the experience just feels pleasant.
As long as that happens what is the case for reaming the customer for as much as they can afford to pay, possibly forcing some customers to choose not travel at all even when there are plenty of empty seats?
> I will always get the slow 2 hour train into London rather than the faster 1.25 hour train because it's 1/2 to 1/3 the price. The peak hours slow train is approximately double the price, the peak hours fast train is about triple the price compared to off peak.
So you still take the train?
Fast trains into London (which are indeed very expensive, I won't dare state the price not to shock our European friends) are completely packed at rush hour and busy all the time, in my experience.
My point is that there is quite a bit of elasticity, especially for commute so that as long as people can afford the tickets and do use the service then subsidies to lower the price drastically probably aren't a productive use of resources when taxpayer's money could be put to better use because nothing is actually free ("because cheaper tickets" is not a valid justification for subsidies).
There may be a sweet spot but I really think that beyond a certain point taxes and subsidies to reduce prices are just a waste and don't make any differences, and I think we are in that territory in a number of locations in Europe.
I think seeing it as a market introduces the kind of biases and distortions that make the British system so incredibly expensive, and now also unreliable.
This is not the market for some fruit or some generic consumer good, with competition at all levels and a very flexible incentive structure that will move resources around to make the product as good and as cheap as possible, creating even different grades where demand justifies it.
This is more a piece-wise single provider structure that only has incentives to extract as much money as possible from the user, and substitute services are also pushed up indiscriminately by the government/regulators hierarchy, that sees them as a politically manageable way to fund massive pressure groups.
The NHS works under similar incentives and is also way out of hand by now.
Internally, the incentive to improve processes and infrastructure is much diminished by the fact that money isn't allocated on value or even perceived value, but established budgets that actually get locally lost if they are not spent, so oftentimes spending more for the same is better. Any improvement or extra budget allocation is a power struggle between localities and political pressure groups.
Trying to introduce competition has also been a massive failure. You have companies outsourcing as much of the maintenance as possible to the infrastructure regulator, squatting lesser profitable lines with skeleton-crew service, and actively impeding the entry of other operators.
It's not a matter of subsidies, sweet-spot for prices and passenger capacity. It's much deeper than that.
The Dutch system is primarily public and primarily operated by NS which is a public operator. The Japanese system is primarily private and operated by private companies, and the regulator has a tight control over it. The British system is hard to even categorise. It's a flailing mish-mash of public/private operation that goes back and forth and that is incompetently regulated.
My point is not related to seeing it as a market (although in most cases it is broadly one because it "competes" against other means of transportation).
It is a question of how to pay for the cost of things, allocation of resources, subsidies, best use of taxpayers' money, not least when public finances are under high strain and/or huge structural investments are needed in many countries.
but that is a market you are describing, one for the allocation of resources
it isn't really, the resources are created by the structure commercialising the service, and incidentally the other means of transportation are also made expensive by a connected structure
owning and operating a car in the UK is very expensive, esp. if you need to regularly park it near the most important economic centres, and this is also by design
more than a market, it's engineered scarcity and tax collection running this service and that is what they're maximising for, instead of economy of transportation which is perhaps the implied real metric of what would work as a market
> "the resources are created by the structure commercialising the service"
So you mean selling tickets, not subsidies?
Building railways and operating rail services cost money, a lot of it, actually. Is it a good allocation of resources, especially taxpayers' money, to make it free/almost free when people can afford to pay for it via tickets and funding/investments are needed elsewhere and (as the case may be) public finances are in a bad shape?
That's the way it is. Resources are always finite and thus there is always an issue with allocating them.
there is not a set number of tickets that either get bought by the consumer or subsidised, that is so far departed from the issues it's pointless to even consider
Yeah. Yesterday I had to go in for a meeting with my client. I went "off peak" which meant not getting there before 10am. The alternative is "super off peak" which is only for trains arriving after 1pm. That "off peak" was already double the price of "super off peak" and the train wasn't close to being empty, but there were spare seats. If I'd needed to get there for a 9am meeting, it'd have been about double the price again.
If I compare this to China (just because I travel on the trains there quite a lot whenever I visit), they have a simple price structure - it's all per kilometre (and so weirdly, the quickest trains are often slightly cheaper as they've gone a shorter route), and have 4 set prices - first class (very comfortable, lots of room), VIP (even more space and only the front 8 seats of the train), second class (about the same standard as UK trains) and standing. Occasionally there's also a business class seat too.
An example of the prices, I just checked the app online. For Shenzhen to Guangzhou (136km), the next train is a 90 minute journey. The price of the standing seat and the second class are the same, first class is 25% higher, VIP seat is first class plus 50%, business seat is VIP plus 100%. If you pay for a seat, you get allocated seating and nobody would dream of sitting in your seat and not moving. The base price in this example is second class at about £8 for the journey, the most expensive ticket is about £28.
There is a bullet train half an hour later that takes 30 minutes for the same journey, because it goes a more direct route, it's cheaper and the second class ticket is under £5. This also has sleeping cabins (not useful on this route as it's between 2nd and 3rd stations on a very long journey) which is about £24.
Standing tickets used to be priced at a discount, but they seem to be the same as the second class tickets nowadays. I guess this discourages people from getting them (there are over 10 trains per hour for this route, so you'd just pick a different train) but it means your expectations about sitting or standing are made up front when buying the ticket and if you absolutely have to get on the train and don't mind standing, you can. But most people would wait for the next train.
Obviously, the peak time trains can sell out quickly, so people book earlier or later as required for a train with availability. Normally, tickets go on sale exactly 2 weeks early, but even on the day there's usually seating availability on one of those "local" services (like this one that's just under 100 miles) within the hour, and for the long distance ones there's usually some availability same day, maybe just at an inconvenient time. But the prices are the same whenever travel, so it's about choosing a ticket that works right for you.
Also, because the prices of all the tickets are the same, even though you have pre-booked tickets, there's more flexibility. Every ticket can be changed for free once before you travel, so if you get to the station early and there are seats available on the train you want, you can cancel yours and get those seats without penalty. Even more amazingly, if you miss your train, you can still cancel it and rebook a later train with only a 20% penalty, as long as you do it within 24 hours of your scheduled departure.
Yes, Chinese trains are subsidised, but it's a wonderful service. Delays do happen, but nowhere near as bad as the UK, on a 4-5 hour journey over 1000+ kilometers I've sometimes been a few minutes late.
Mind you, aviation in China is also amazing. I remember deciding one day while travelling to bail on a city because the weather forecast was another week of rain. I got a ticket for a 1500 km flight (2.5 hours) the day before the flight for £100, which is comparable to the cost of a train but about twice as fast (I think it would have been 7 hours). The airlines aren't subsidised, but these do sell out around busy periods like public holidays and the prices can balloon at those times.
But anyway, the elasticity in China is done on seat availability, not pricing. If a train is full, you book another one, so if a specific time is important to you, you book further in advance. But whenever you book, if you have a ticket, at least it's going to be a pleasant journey and reasonably priced. Sometimes if a train is unexpectedly sold out, about an hour or two before departure they'll add an extra carriage or two to increase capacity, and again this tickets are priced at the standard price.
Note that 128€ is the monthly price for 100% discount, but 6€ is the monthly price for 40% discount. It brings the prices of rail travel in the Netherlands from "fucking ludicrous" to just "reasonably expensive".
Kids under 12 free, too. I don't look forward to having to pay for both of them. Utrecht to Amsterdam round trip for a family of 4 is €80 for a family of 4, or €48 with the discount.
> It brings the prices of rail travel in the Netherlands from "fucking ludicrous"
Haha I can't help but feel the Dutch firmly believe rail should be completely free
Isn't it fairly common for your employer to pay half to all of your commuting cost too...? (Almost unheard of in the UK for comparison, with people regularly paying £2,000-£10,000/year to commute)
And the Netherlands is like 10th in Europe for on-the-day return costs per km
Though to be fare I think it's some shorter journeys that are quite expensive right? Eg Utrecht to Amsterdam is 20 EUR return which is pricey. But paying €6/mo to save 40% seems a pretty good deal if you travel a lot off peak
Well that's exactly the trip I had in mind. 20€ return for a 35km trip just sounds crazy expensive to me. That's over 25€/100km; driving a car (even at the high gas prices of the Netherlands) should be 10-15€/100km. The balance just seems out of whack.
But then again I'm not Dutch :) I come from a much lower cost-of-living country so that may skew my perspective a bit.
> paying €6/mo to save 40% seems a pretty good deal if you travel a lot off peak
Not really if you "travel a lot", it's just a no-brainer deal if you travel at all. In that one return trip Amsterdam—Utrecht it's already worth it for the entire month :) Plus you can take 3 more people with you and you all get the discount!
Nice pass. Would be perfect for my wife and I since we don't commute for work. There is something similar here in Switzerland but not as good.
Funny fact: there are cities here that have tried to make public transport free. But the constitution says public transport must have a "reasonable charge". It's obvious that law was created to not overcharge but the courts have ruled that it also means that there can't be no charge. So no free public transport.
My understanding of that ruling is that, the intent of the constitutional clause is not only to prevent ticket prices from being raised unfairly, but also to prevent ticket prices from being so low that they no longer cover the cost of running the network, which would shift that cost to the general taxpayer.
Still frustrating (if the taxpayers want it, might as well let them have it), but not purely a semantic technicality.
Neither is road infrastructure basically anywhere in the world... Here in Australia we have a fuel tax and each state has registration fees but combined those don't even cover half of what is spent by Government and local councils maintaining existing roads and investing in new road infrastructure, and that's before even thinking of the hidden costs of traffic enforcement, ambulances responding to accidents, etc.
It's the same case for basically everywhere around the world, driving ends up being quite heavily subsidised too.
Just out of curiosity, are these the lines to Bretagne/Normandy? I find the prices on southbound rail lines to be more reasonable, about 60 EUR for a couple hours on the train if you're buying the day before your trip.
Public transport in larger cities is generally profitable as the seats are well-filled. Commercial companies pay the government for the privilege of being allowed to operate the services.
Public transport is indeed not very profitable in rural areas, as you're running a bunch of mostly-empty buses in order to provide the bare minimum of usable connectivity. The companies operating them are paid by the government to do so.
Besides, it is myopic to look solely at ticket prices. Roads are incredibly unprofitable as their maintenance costs far exceed the tiny amount of money brought in by vehicle taxes and fuel duties. But we're okay with that because the added value to the economy more than compensates for that! Lose money on road building, make money by taxing the companies who drive the trucks sustaining their businesses over them. Why not take the same approach with public transport?
Full seats don't mean much revenue in the cities I frequent. In Vienna for example the ticket for the whole year was 365€ until very recently. Now I live in a smaller city where it's 280€ per year for residents.
I love it and I am perfectly happy with my taxes subsidizing this for others but there's no way they're making money off this.
Does the Swiss rail not receive public funding? It seems to me that undercharging would only necessitate more public funding, not some fundamental change where taxpayers suddenly have to pay for something they didn't before.
If the train was going to run regardless, and there isn't that high of a demand on this level of off-peak, adding the weight of a person or two is practically nothing to the rolling of the train.
> JOHN COCHRANE: I think the activists who wanted toilet equity did not imagine the solution would be no toilet or a fight with businesses over who's going to be able to use the toilet.
> [...]
> BERAS: Without that incentive, Nik-O-Lok was right. The free public toilets were overrun with people who had to go or people abusing drugs or having sex. Cities were changing. In lots of places, they struggled to fund and maintain public places. With no income from the toilets, taking care of them was harder than ever. Cities couldn't deal. Eventually, they closed them or let them fall into disrepair. The pay toilets may have been flawed, but they served a purpose that no public or private entity has been able to effectively fill since. John says this is a classic tale of a price control, when the government imposes a price.
I think the case for at least allowing nominal payments for toilets is pretty strong. Anything that is free either requires significant and expensive oversight to mitigate anti-social behaviors, or a society that has equivalent anti-social checks baked into the culture (which the U.S. definitely does not have). We should aspire to ubiqitous free toilets, free transit, etc, but there's an infinite number of things people want to be free, or at least subsidized. The public has to pick & choose and allocate its resources wisely.
Note that almost everywhere in the U.S., transit is strongly subsidized and often effectively free for the most in need, but it might require some legwork. In SF where it's quite trivial to get this subsidy (https://treasurer.sf.gov/economicjustice/sfmta-transit-disco...) people still balk at the requirement, though I think the people who complain the most are the ones far too wealthy to have to worry about these things. Some government programs, especially Federal programs, have onerous application and reporting requirements specifically designed to dissuade use, but individual transit subsidies aren't generally structured this way. In SF and to a lesser degree California, there are armies of people paid to hold people's hand through these processes (mostly for Federal and Federally subsidized programs, as many state and especially local programs tend to be very low friction).
Always funny to me how people try and put laws on things for homeless people when the ills people are worried about with homeless people are already illegal but not being enforced. E.g., "we must charge for transit, to keep homeless people off as they could smoke meth on the platform." Never mind smoking meth on the platform is already illegal. Never mind that it isn't getting enforced. Never mind that this lack of enforcement on meth usage suggests farebox enforcement isn't going to suddenly out prioritize meth usage enforcement and be successful to combat meth usage in some round a bout way.
It ends up being about the optics of politicians getting to advertise that they are doing "something" and never mind if it works or not, because the people clamoring the loudest, angry suburban whites usually, aren't even the ones using these systems to begin with. They are told in their propaganda bubbles that these systems are dangerous rather than experiencing it with their own eyes and making any conclusion. They demand action for a system they will never use. After whatever action passes they don't become users either, the goalposts move to some other slight or ill that is really a proxy for "I don't feel safe around black or brown people."
This has crossed my mind for other things too, like immigration.
People say they don't want immigrants because of crime (whether that's a reasonable concern is a different topic entirely), but it presupposes that laws against crime aren't enforced. If we had stricter law enforcement would people worry about (immigrants, the homeless, etc.) less?
On the other hand, no charges mean you can get rid of a lot of cruft: no tickets, no gates/turnstiles, no machines, no payments, no paperwork thereof, no ticket inspectors, etc etc. So in fact having 0 charge is unequivocally better than having a residual charge.
In other words: charge price = cost, or don't charge at all and get funded by public revenue.
In every city I know of, the fares for public transit more than pays for the cost of collecting. Also, in every city I'm aware of, even the ones with high transit ridership (Tokyo), there is lots of room for adding more transit and getting even more people on, but money is lacking to do that.
I'm also aware of no place where people who use transit to consider cost one of the major barriers to using it more. The barrier, even for the poorest people, is almost always not cause, but the service just doesn't meet their needs. Which is to say most transit systems need to raise their fares a little more and use that extra money to give people the service they actually want.
I wasn't aware of that fun fact - I always just assumed it was down to the "personal responsibility" mindset ("people must pay for what they use").
Have the courts also said anything about the charge being super low, e.g. like a CHF 1 per month abo or such? I wonder if that would be a way around those rulings.
That sort of begs the question about elevators and escalators. I’ve never been charged riding those, and I can’t imagine fares tacked on in Switzerland. Have they been ruled on? An elevator in a public building is very much public transport.
I know it’s stupid, but I’m genuinely curious now.
Presumably there would be a legal definition of what constitutes public transport, and I would expect it wouldn't include those. But I'm neither swiss nor do I speak any swiss languages so hell if I could find it.
> An elevator in a public building is very much public transport.
Every country defines what counts as public transport - it could be a snowmobile, a boat, or a helicopter if needed. The simple definition of "transports people in a public place" would cover a lot of funny things as public transport, like a carousel in a playground.
Is this a knowing joke? Switzerland's largest (very much in both senses) coin is 5Fr, around 6 USD. Not a token amount by any means, though it wouldn't even cover most public transport journeys in cities.
Only valid during the two summer months. It's a rather weak simile of the German Deutschlandticket (now 58 euro/month but valid all day on bus/tram/metro and local/regional trains, but not on long distance trains, in a much larger country).
It started out as an idea to introduce the same concept as the Deutschlandticket in NL. But the government has a budget deficit and the national railway company expected a capacity issue during peak hours. As a result the ticket is only valid in off-peak hours and the low price is only for 2 months.
As an Australian, why are European train prices so high? Obviously it's due to a lack of subsidies, but why are they not subsidised?
For instance, a train from London to Edinburgh (about 4 hours) is about $120 while an equivalent trip in Australia (Melbourne to Albury) is about $10 (it used to be about $40, but that's still much cheaper). Sydney to Melbourne is 900 kilometers and $80, Berlin to Paris is minimum $172.
Is there very little competition from cars and planes?
There is ample competition from cars and planes, europe has one of the most dense and intensive highway networks in the world, and the most dense and intensive short-haul flight network in the world.
Rather, the trains in western Europe are so desirable that the prices don't need to be heavily subsidized in order to be fully utilized.
In most of western Europe, the main barrier to increasing train usage is the physical number of tracks and trains in operation. If prices were further lowered, there'd be nowhere to even put all the extra customers the subsidies would bring in. Therefore, if the governemnt is going to put money into the trains, the first priority is infrastructure expansions, not price subsidies
Railway is national and cross border is always expensive. For a similar distance you can check Hamburg - Munich.
Europe is too poor to subsidiase long travel trains :p EU policy is more to introduce more competitions into the system / partly privatise it (like it works in Italy)
Another reason is that these routes operate an airfare model where all tickets are for a specific seat on a specific service, with increasing prices as the seats sell out. It allows for more efficient train loading, with the downside that you can't turn up to the station and assume you can take the next train.
HSR is more towards airfare than metro-like train services though. The latter which is basically the Dutch rail situation: it's more of a national metro service than a method for voyaging. The fact that 95% of all travels are commuters underlines this.
Now I know some commute on the TGV, but the airfare model works really well for a lot of people, and I think it makes sense for longer journeys. Alas, the Netherlands doesn't have any (national) long journeys.
That said, Dutch rail has a discount system in off-hours now, where you can get sizeable good discounts if you book a few days in advance. You get a ticked valid not for a specific train, but a 4-6 hour timeslot.
It doesn't work on the GVB Amsterdam local trains or trams...just the NS trains.
There are some routes within Amsterdam that have NS trains paralleling GVB trains, might help save money on those.
A single, non-discounted, one-way train ride between the two biggest cities, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, costs €20,20.
The promotional price of this subscription is only a few euros more expensive than the existing unlimited subscription for weekend train travel (i.e. 6:30 PM Friday to 4:00 AM Monday), which costs €39,50. You can pay €4 extra for a 40% discount the rest of the off-peak hours.
With that discount, my commute (Haarlem <=> Amsterdam) costs €3,30 each way. A single trip to work a month makes the promotional subscription better value.
This special ticket is implemented by providing a 2-month discount on the existing 'off-peak free travel' subscription from the Dutch Railways. This was deemed the only way to quickly introduce such a product [1].
Please, this is the dutch government, who believes or trust them still? The price will be raised to 200 euro and they will make it sound like it's a good thing for you. There is this weird propoganda thing about the netherlands, where it looks like this amazing utopia from the outside, but, it's far from it. Look at the housing crisis, the immigration crisis, the incredibly stupid tax on unrealized gains, the cost of living, and the list just continues.
The off-peak hours this pass is valid: Monday to Friday from 9 am to 4 pm and 6.30 pm to 6.30 am. I wonder what happens if you start your ride 3:59 pm.
When you start a journey, the time you check in at the access gate is taken as the check-in time for your whole journey with that train company. (You may have to check-in and out if you switch trains and the train you're getting on is from a different company).
So if you check-in at 3.59 pm in the north of the Netherlands, and go to the south to arrive around 7.00 pm in the south of the Netherlands and you only use trains from 1 company (like NS) the whole journey will be considered off-peak hours. Even if by the time you arive in the south the peak-hours will already be over.
Most trains run with NS but some regional lines have Arriva (Deutsche Bahn) or Keolis (SCNF).
Additionally there is a 5 minute grace period in your favor, so if you check-in at 4.04 pm it will stil be off-peak.
And because the whole thing is rather confusing for those not already familiar with the system there you get to do it wrong once a year and get your fine waived if you call the train company.
And yes there's little queues just before 06.25 pm every day of people waiting in front of the check-in gates for their pass to become valid (especially on fridays when the weekend-pass will become valid).
The time of tapping in at the ticket barriers counts for the whole trip. If you get in just before the start of peak-hours, you still pay the off-peak rate for the whole trip. But if you tap in before 9am, the whole trip counts as peak-rates also the part that happens after 9am.
Transfer don't change it, they're all part of the same trip. Going out of a station and then back in also doesn't interrupt your trip. As far as I know you need 60 minutes of being "out" of the train system for it to be considered a new trip.
Overall, DB Regio (the regional trains which are covered by the Deutschlandticket) has around a 89% punctuality score[1], which is very comparable to the Dutch numbers. There are certain hotspot regions though where the regional trains are truly fucked, but for most of the country they're totally fine and quite reliable.
It's mostly Germany's long-distance high-speed ICE trains which have punctuality problems (the much discussed 60% punctuality [2] score), but those are not covered by the Deutschland ticket, and the Netherlands has no comparable service to these trains anyways, so if one is envious of the state of Dutch trains, they can happily pretend that German ICE trains simply don't exist. In my experience though, the ICE's are a pleasure to ride.
Sidenote, but the ICE punctuality score is not really directly comparable with the Regional train scores, since they measure different things. The ICE score is about the passenger arriving at their final destination with less than a 15 minute delay including connections, whereas with the regional trains they don't have granular passenger level data, so they measure whether or not a train gets to the platform within 6 minutes of the scheduled time.
The Netherlands runs around 3000 trains a day vs. 50k in Germany. That doesn't excuse Germany's problems which were also predicted years in advance when they stopped investing in maintenance and infrastructure but also shows that the comparison is not entirely fair.
What I don't understand about initiatives like this is... why bother charging at all? wouldn't the system be more efficient without a fare process? at that point you don't have to maintain an entire money handling system.
It would be more efficient for travelers, but not really from a systems point of view.
The Netherlands is densely populated and its railways are amond the busiest in Europe. If twice as many people took the train it would be impossible to have enough trains running.
Also, a money handling system functions as a gatekeeper. With some regularity there are stories in the media of people misbehaving on public transport. If everybody has the right to board it's more difficult to keep those people out.
but wouldn't the whole system be cheaper if it were paid for by taxes? because at that point you don't have to maintain a point of sale? hundreds of fare boxes, communication systems, physical barriers, auditing, accounting, printing cards, employees to maintain and operate it all... you even save a little time it takes tapping a card to get people on
the tax system is also progressive, so the people who are most capable of paying pay the most and the poor truly pay nothing
charging for a public system seems like pure waste
No, it's not even close. Those fares don't cover the whole operation of the train system, but they actually go a long way to covering a very large chunk of it. The cost of operating the fare system is a rounding error relative to the sums of money talked about here.
1) It's not a 10:1 ratio though, it's much more than that. These fare collection systems are very cheap relative to the money they bring in.
2) If there's sufficient money and will available to fund the transportation system to that level, then sure, that's great. But in most cases, I think it's better to just direct expansions in government train budgets towards expanding the network, not making it cheaper. Most people who drive cars don't drive because trains are expensive, they drive cars because there's no train at the time and place they want. Making trains cheaper doesn't address this problem.
> If there's sufficient money and will available to fund the transportation system to that level
there is! the system is already funded... people are just paying a portion of it out of pocket now and a bigger chunk out of taxes... the out of pocket part is really the same money but less efficient
That's very easy to say, and very unpopular to actually do. People on the country side would for example not feel it's fair for them to pay for the much more complicated public transport system in the city, when they get one train going by their village every few hours for it.
If you have a sovereign currency taxes don't pay for government spending. Governments should spend to expand the economy to its productive capacity (processes, labour, IP, infra of all kinds, social services, R&D), and use taxes to control investment and inflation.
Neoliberal governments don't do this, but they lie about why.
Other than that - of course you could.
Governments also lie about who gets subsidised, and why.
Generally subsidies go to the oligarchy, which makes constant attempts to "cut wasteful and inefficient public spending", because the oligarchy believes poor people don't deserve nice things.
(Not just rhetoric, btw.)
It's a political issue, not a practical one.
There are sociological reasons why you might want some kind of fare income, but they're more to do with adding some token resistance to accessing the system than making money from it.
Yes you need a card (ov-chipkaart or ov-pas) but you don't need to be a local to get one. You just order one online for 7.5/5 euros. You do need an address for it to be delivered to, but its valid for 5 years so if you visit the Netherlands again you can reuse it.
The "Dutch bank account" part is almost certainly illegal, by the way. Due to EU regulations they are required to accept any European bank account. It's called "IBAN discrimination", and the national central bank has a form[0] to let them known about it.
We've updated the URL to the English-language version that CalRobert submitted. We appreciate all languages and cultures but HN is an English-language site, so we always want the English version to be submitted here, thanks!
That’s the introductory price. It’ll be €127,95 after that period is over. Kids travel for free, though, so that’s pretty nice.
In hindsight, I think I underestimated the value of my OV card while I was a student: travel whenever, using all types of public transport, for free.
Even at that price, the British mind cannot comprehend such good a deal. An equivalent pass in the UK would be easily 10x that to even cover just a much smaller region than The Netherlands.
For sure. I currently live in the US (fairly rural) and I would kill to have my transportation-related costs reduced to about $150/mo. But where I live, I simply need to have a car to do any basic thing since the moment I step off my driveway, there aren’t even footpaths.
I live in the Netherlands and have absolutely no need for this ticket. When I need to go somewhere, I just walk or bike there, never takes more than 20 minutes. I cannot even imagine living in American suburbia
I moved here from The Netherlands in 2004, and have now lived in Florida, California, and Mississippi and stayed for prolonged periods in many US cities for my job. I wouldn’t feel safe riding a bicycle anywhere here considering the speed of traffic, the size of the vehicles, and lack of dedicated biking infrastructure. It’s a completely different world when you share the road with angry F150 drivers blasting past you at 80 MPH. No, thank you.
And drivers who themselves would never ride a bike. They see you as a nuisance.
We Dutch just hate both. If I'm on bike I hate all car drivers. If I'm in car I hate all bicycle drivers.
I think that is a general vibe. Mixing very different types of transportation on same road will always cause trouble.
That is a cute sentiment, because I imagine it pales in comparison to the loathing these groups feel towards each other in North America.
[flagged]
I’m from the US and moved to the Netherlands but there are still some things I prefer about the US (bug screens on windows for instance)
>bug screens on windows for instance
You can retrofit those on the cheap even in rentals. Hardly something major.
And? What's the gotcha you're implying?
That you clearly value other things the US offers over the transit situation. If the transit matters that much, making the US such an unlivable hellscape, why stay?
I think that's probably the point they're trying to make.
IMO that doesn't mean we shouldn't bother to make the transit better, but some people think its somehow related. A lot of people think the "success" of the US is strongly correlated to this suburbia design somehow.
Right, I assumed the same argument. I've spent over half my life here, so it's obviously not that important to me, nor was it a factor in my decision to move here. Yet it's an observation I can make, having two distinct perspectives to compare, not a judgment on America. Ugh. It's the whole "yet you participate in society" meme, or the "well, if you don't like it, why not go home?" argument, which could well both be logical fallacies I don't know the names of.
Anyway, more public transit for the people and all that.
I live in American suburbia and that's how I live. I can walk or bike whenever I feel like it, drive if it suits me. I sometimes wonder what the average European assumes American suburbia to be. Endless tract homes? Such places do exist, true. But that is far from universal.
I'd be curious what metropolitan area you live in for this to be true! If you're not comfortable sharing for privacy reasons, that's all right. But it seems like this is the case in inner-ring suburbs in the Northeast megalopolis.
I grew up in the Philly suburbs. They’re mostly pre WW2 in layout, so relatively walkable and bikeable.
Yeah, I've been. They were pretty much what I was referring to in the comment.
Of course you can walk. But can you walk to your workplace, your kid’s nursery, your local bakery/supermarket, your doctor, your dentist, the pharmacy?
I bike to all of those. Only work is typically so far away that you need to drive, the rest exists in every suburb and is in bike distance.
Absolutely not in every suburb.
I used to live in a suburb in Sacramento and just walking to the closest grocery store was over an hour
I said bike distance not walk distance. Typically bike speeds are about four times faster than walking speed so your hour walk is fifteen minutes.
I don't know Sacramento, but if it is as hilly as San Francisco you want an ebike which makes the hills level and is even faster.
Sacramento is largely flat. Topo view w/ bike routes indicated: <https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sacramento,+CA/@38.5615711...>
It has reasonably good biking infrastructure, for the US, but suffers badly from sprawl. There's also the summer heat.
San Francisco is hilly (tough riding), but quite compact. It's generally possible to avoid the worst climbs with modest detours.
Sacramento's sprawl means that it has roughly 1/4 the population density of Sacramento. Travel distances are correspondingly longer, and much commercial development (office, retail) is in suburban hubs / malls / office parks, rather than either downtown or in neighbourhood shopping districts, as with SF.
Again that sounds perfectly bikeable. You seem to be confusing not walkable with must have a car but bikes would just fine.
While the large malls are likely only reachable by cars, I expect small malls are closer and in bike distance.
The issues would generally be 1) traffic (a genuine hazard) and 2) bike parking. Many locations have few, if any, bike racks, and often other street furniture (signage, posts, fences) is poorly-suited to securing a bike.
Downtown / midtown areas are often far more amenable than outlying locations, particularly at malls and office parks.
This isn't to say that you cannot bike places, or take risks (collisions, theft), but it's additional friction. As I said, the infrastructure, by American standards, is actually pretty good. I'm just highlighting the limitations / caveats.
>But can you walk to your workplace
In most of my jobs in Europe(Austria specifically) I couldn't walk to my workplace because most tech companies in my current city put their offices in ugly concrete industrial techno parks outside the city where I don't want to live, meaning driving to work mostly as public transportation there is slow busses only every 30 minutes or one hour of biking. Similarly my GF needs to drive 40 minutes to work outside the city, to one of the few employers in her field. Not everyone lives and works in the city center to be able to walk to work.
So walking to work is such a weird and subjective metric since not all companies in everyone's' area of work will be clustered in your vicinity of your house unless you're lucky or you make active efforts to keep moving close to work which might be in undesirable areas for living.
>your doctor
My current one yeah, but she's terrible and to change her, the only one I found that accepts new patients is on the other side of town so no walking there either, unless I like walking for an hour each direction every time.
MY point is Europe can be highly spread out as well, with people and businesses fleeing inner cities due to space constraints and rent costs, leading to commute distances too long to walk economically. That's why you see traffic jams at highway ramps at rush hour. It's not like those people were too stupid to realize they could walk to work instead of driving if that was an option.
It is though, like, 90-95% of suburbia, and why the US has close to 100% of car commuters ( https://vis.csh.ac.at/citiesmoving/ ). Even small cities like Rennes (or even Clermont-Ferrand, which has objectively mediocre transit) have less car commuters than NYC, which is insane.
> But that is far from universal
I mean even just perusing around a lot of metro areas on Google Maps its by far the norm. I know its by far the norm for just about every metro I've spent more than a week or two in.
Definitely not universal, no. And in some place the "norm" can be pretty different, even in somewhat surprising locales. But generally speaking? Yeah, pretty terrible experience for a lot of pedestrians and cyclists in US suburbia.
I mean, most places I've visited traveling around the US suburbia, bike lanes were practically non-existent, there was zero notable public transit at all, and sidewalks were usually an afterthought if they existed at all.
I already have the NS Flex free weekend subscription (with 1st class addition) and it's the only way for me to travel longer distances. It's also just about the only available public transport in the neighbourhood because I live in a polder.
Nearest train station is a 35 minute walk, nearest supermarkets are almost an hour walk. One advantage, before Covid and I had groceries delivered, mandatory walking back and forth three times a week to the village did wonders for losing weight.
That means you never leave your town of residence. I am Dutch too, and I walk and cycle (of course), but I have friend and family elsewhere too, want to visit other nature, cities and countries as well.
I mostly use a car since it's so much cheaper and faster than public transport, but I bought this ticket in order to do some longer distance journeys as well. I don't really like driving.
I work with a guy from holland. There, he lived in a condo. Here, he owns 40-acers, a couple horses and is trying to grow his own corn. He can play out his rural lifestyle dreams and still work a desk in a city, something that isnt an option without personal transportation. (I would say "car", but he rides an R1 to work most days.)
> I would kill to have my transportation-related costs reduced to about $150/mo
Lots of people have had their transportation-related costs reduced to $0 by killing! Just be sure to get caught or it won’t work.
Oh man that’s dark
Can we get some commitment from Andy Burnham for something like this?
To be a little provocative, yes British train prices are very expensive in comparison but they perhaps also show that heavy subisidies to make tickets dirt cheap may not be the most useful use of resources: People can pay and will pay more than a few tens of euros per month. As long as that holds true what is the case for more subsidies?
As a resident of the UK, and reasonably well off, I can definitely attest that the price definitely changes my usage.
I will always get the slow 2 hour train into London rather than the faster 1.25 hour train because it's 1/2 to 1/3 the price. The peak hours slow train is approximately double the price, the peak hours fast train is about triple the price compared to off peak.
The local train to the next city (20 miles away) is £7.50 return if you want to arrive any time before 7.15pm. After that it's £3.50 for the same journey.
Almost every time I travel on British trains, it feels like I'm being ripped off. And then to add insult to injury, probably 50% of the times I travel, there's some problem that causes the trains to be delayed or cancelled. Or then there's often the first off-peak train of the day that is so full, it's not only standing room only, it's so packed you can't even move in the aisle. It's just 2 hours of standing, hoping that the train doesn't break down again and that the aircon keeps working.
And then you go abroad, everything seems to run on time, everything is cheap - often priced by kilometre of track travelled regardless what time of day it is, and the experience just feels pleasant.
As long as that happens what is the case for reaming the customer for as much as they can afford to pay, possibly forcing some customers to choose not travel at all even when there are plenty of empty seats?
> I will always get the slow 2 hour train into London rather than the faster 1.25 hour train because it's 1/2 to 1/3 the price. The peak hours slow train is approximately double the price, the peak hours fast train is about triple the price compared to off peak.
So you still take the train?
Fast trains into London (which are indeed very expensive, I won't dare state the price not to shock our European friends) are completely packed at rush hour and busy all the time, in my experience.
My point is that there is quite a bit of elasticity, especially for commute so that as long as people can afford the tickets and do use the service then subsidies to lower the price drastically probably aren't a productive use of resources when taxpayer's money could be put to better use because nothing is actually free ("because cheaper tickets" is not a valid justification for subsidies).
There may be a sweet spot but I really think that beyond a certain point taxes and subsidies to reduce prices are just a waste and don't make any differences, and I think we are in that territory in a number of locations in Europe.
I think seeing it as a market introduces the kind of biases and distortions that make the British system so incredibly expensive, and now also unreliable.
This is not the market for some fruit or some generic consumer good, with competition at all levels and a very flexible incentive structure that will move resources around to make the product as good and as cheap as possible, creating even different grades where demand justifies it.
This is more a piece-wise single provider structure that only has incentives to extract as much money as possible from the user, and substitute services are also pushed up indiscriminately by the government/regulators hierarchy, that sees them as a politically manageable way to fund massive pressure groups.
The NHS works under similar incentives and is also way out of hand by now.
Internally, the incentive to improve processes and infrastructure is much diminished by the fact that money isn't allocated on value or even perceived value, but established budgets that actually get locally lost if they are not spent, so oftentimes spending more for the same is better. Any improvement or extra budget allocation is a power struggle between localities and political pressure groups.
Trying to introduce competition has also been a massive failure. You have companies outsourcing as much of the maintenance as possible to the infrastructure regulator, squatting lesser profitable lines with skeleton-crew service, and actively impeding the entry of other operators.
It's not a matter of subsidies, sweet-spot for prices and passenger capacity. It's much deeper than that.
The Dutch system is primarily public and primarily operated by NS which is a public operator. The Japanese system is primarily private and operated by private companies, and the regulator has a tight control over it. The British system is hard to even categorise. It's a flailing mish-mash of public/private operation that goes back and forth and that is incompetently regulated.
My point is not related to seeing it as a market (although in most cases it is broadly one because it "competes" against other means of transportation).
It is a question of how to pay for the cost of things, allocation of resources, subsidies, best use of taxpayers' money, not least when public finances are under high strain and/or huge structural investments are needed in many countries.
but that is a market you are describing, one for the allocation of resources
it isn't really, the resources are created by the structure commercialising the service, and incidentally the other means of transportation are also made expensive by a connected structure
owning and operating a car in the UK is very expensive, esp. if you need to regularly park it near the most important economic centres, and this is also by design
more than a market, it's engineered scarcity and tax collection running this service and that is what they're maximising for, instead of economy of transportation which is perhaps the implied real metric of what would work as a market
> "the resources are created by the structure commercialising the service"
So you mean selling tickets, not subsidies?
Building railways and operating rail services cost money, a lot of it, actually. Is it a good allocation of resources, especially taxpayers' money, to make it free/almost free when people can afford to pay for it via tickets and funding/investments are needed elsewhere and (as the case may be) public finances are in a bad shape?
That's the way it is. Resources are always finite and thus there is always an issue with allocating them.
no, i don't mean that at all
there is not a set number of tickets that either get bought by the consumer or subsidised, that is so far departed from the issues it's pointless to even consider
Yeah. Yesterday I had to go in for a meeting with my client. I went "off peak" which meant not getting there before 10am. The alternative is "super off peak" which is only for trains arriving after 1pm. That "off peak" was already double the price of "super off peak" and the train wasn't close to being empty, but there were spare seats. If I'd needed to get there for a 9am meeting, it'd have been about double the price again.
If I compare this to China (just because I travel on the trains there quite a lot whenever I visit), they have a simple price structure - it's all per kilometre (and so weirdly, the quickest trains are often slightly cheaper as they've gone a shorter route), and have 4 set prices - first class (very comfortable, lots of room), VIP (even more space and only the front 8 seats of the train), second class (about the same standard as UK trains) and standing. Occasionally there's also a business class seat too.
An example of the prices, I just checked the app online. For Shenzhen to Guangzhou (136km), the next train is a 90 minute journey. The price of the standing seat and the second class are the same, first class is 25% higher, VIP seat is first class plus 50%, business seat is VIP plus 100%. If you pay for a seat, you get allocated seating and nobody would dream of sitting in your seat and not moving. The base price in this example is second class at about £8 for the journey, the most expensive ticket is about £28.
There is a bullet train half an hour later that takes 30 minutes for the same journey, because it goes a more direct route, it's cheaper and the second class ticket is under £5. This also has sleeping cabins (not useful on this route as it's between 2nd and 3rd stations on a very long journey) which is about £24.
Standing tickets used to be priced at a discount, but they seem to be the same as the second class tickets nowadays. I guess this discourages people from getting them (there are over 10 trains per hour for this route, so you'd just pick a different train) but it means your expectations about sitting or standing are made up front when buying the ticket and if you absolutely have to get on the train and don't mind standing, you can. But most people would wait for the next train.
Obviously, the peak time trains can sell out quickly, so people book earlier or later as required for a train with availability. Normally, tickets go on sale exactly 2 weeks early, but even on the day there's usually seating availability on one of those "local" services (like this one that's just under 100 miles) within the hour, and for the long distance ones there's usually some availability same day, maybe just at an inconvenient time. But the prices are the same whenever travel, so it's about choosing a ticket that works right for you.
Also, because the prices of all the tickets are the same, even though you have pre-booked tickets, there's more flexibility. Every ticket can be changed for free once before you travel, so if you get to the station early and there are seats available on the train you want, you can cancel yours and get those seats without penalty. Even more amazingly, if you miss your train, you can still cancel it and rebook a later train with only a 20% penalty, as long as you do it within 24 hours of your scheduled departure.
Yes, Chinese trains are subsidised, but it's a wonderful service. Delays do happen, but nowhere near as bad as the UK, on a 4-5 hour journey over 1000+ kilometers I've sometimes been a few minutes late.
Mind you, aviation in China is also amazing. I remember deciding one day while travelling to bail on a city because the weather forecast was another week of rain. I got a ticket for a 1500 km flight (2.5 hours) the day before the flight for £100, which is comparable to the cost of a train but about twice as fast (I think it would have been 7 hours). The airlines aren't subsidised, but these do sell out around busy periods like public holidays and the prices can balloon at those times.
But anyway, the elasticity in China is done on seat availability, not pricing. If a train is full, you book another one, so if a specific time is important to you, you book further in advance. But whenever you book, if you have a ticket, at least it's going to be a pleasant journey and reasonably priced. Sometimes if a train is unexpectedly sold out, about an hour or two before departure they'll add an extra carriage or two to increase capacity, and again this tickets are priced at the standard price.
Note that 128€ is the monthly price for 100% discount, but 6€ is the monthly price for 40% discount. It brings the prices of rail travel in the Netherlands from "fucking ludicrous" to just "reasonably expensive".
100% discount outside of peak hours. That's a small, but quite important difference.
Actual 100% discount is €399,95/month.
Kids under 12 free, too. I don't look forward to having to pay for both of them. Utrecht to Amsterdam round trip for a family of 4 is €80 for a family of 4, or €48 with the discount.
oops, "full fare" replaces one of those "family of 4"
Try Switzerland
> It brings the prices of rail travel in the Netherlands from "fucking ludicrous"
Haha I can't help but feel the Dutch firmly believe rail should be completely free
Isn't it fairly common for your employer to pay half to all of your commuting cost too...? (Almost unheard of in the UK for comparison, with people regularly paying £2,000-£10,000/year to commute)
And the Netherlands is like 10th in Europe for on-the-day return costs per km
https://www.euronews.com/travel/2023/01/09/rail-fares-across...
Though to be fare I think it's some shorter journeys that are quite expensive right? Eg Utrecht to Amsterdam is 20 EUR return which is pricey. But paying €6/mo to save 40% seems a pretty good deal if you travel a lot off peak
If not reimbursed 100% (like my public transport costs are), your public transport costs are tax-deductible at a staggered rate up to €0.29 per km.
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/...
> Utrecht to Amsterdam is 20 EUR
Well that's exactly the trip I had in mind. 20€ return for a 35km trip just sounds crazy expensive to me. That's over 25€/100km; driving a car (even at the high gas prices of the Netherlands) should be 10-15€/100km. The balance just seems out of whack.
But then again I'm not Dutch :) I come from a much lower cost-of-living country so that may skew my perspective a bit.
> paying €6/mo to save 40% seems a pretty good deal if you travel a lot off peak
Not really if you "travel a lot", it's just a no-brainer deal if you travel at all. In that one return trip Amsterdam—Utrecht it's already worth it for the entire month :) Plus you can take 3 more people with you and you all get the discount!
Nice pass. Would be perfect for my wife and I since we don't commute for work. There is something similar here in Switzerland but not as good.
Funny fact: there are cities here that have tried to make public transport free. But the constitution says public transport must have a "reasonable charge". It's obvious that law was created to not overcharge but the courts have ruled that it also means that there can't be no charge. So no free public transport.
My understanding of that ruling is that, the intent of the constitutional clause is not only to prevent ticket prices from being raised unfairly, but also to prevent ticket prices from being so low that they no longer cover the cost of running the network, which would shift that cost to the general taxpayer.
Still frustrating (if the taxpayers want it, might as well let them have it), but not purely a semantic technicality.
Public transport is not sustainable from ticket prices alone anywhere in Europe.
Neither is road infrastructure basically anywhere in the world... Here in Australia we have a fuel tax and each state has registration fees but combined those don't even cover half of what is spent by Government and local councils maintaining existing roads and investing in new road infrastructure, and that's before even thinking of the hidden costs of traffic enforcement, ambulances responding to accidents, etc.
It's the same case for basically everywhere around the world, driving ends up being quite heavily subsidised too.
True for local lines of everyday transportation. But actually high speed trains are sustainable, at least in France.
But also they are super expensive.
Prohibitively expensive! A 1.5h train ride from paris can set me back more than 100EUR some times.
Just out of curiosity, are these the lines to Bretagne/Normandy? I find the prices on southbound rail lines to be more reasonable, about 60 EUR for a couple hours on the train if you're buying the day before your trip.
That's a bold assertion.
Never mind that you know what's also not "sustainable", if the definition means "costs > revenues"? Automobile roads :)
The fossil fuel industry gets a global subsidy of $7tn a year if you include implicit costs, on top of $3tn year in revenue.
Worrying about train fares seems a little petty in comparison.
Citation needed.
Public transport in larger cities is generally profitable as the seats are well-filled. Commercial companies pay the government for the privilege of being allowed to operate the services.
Public transport is indeed not very profitable in rural areas, as you're running a bunch of mostly-empty buses in order to provide the bare minimum of usable connectivity. The companies operating them are paid by the government to do so.
Besides, it is myopic to look solely at ticket prices. Roads are incredibly unprofitable as their maintenance costs far exceed the tiny amount of money brought in by vehicle taxes and fuel duties. But we're okay with that because the added value to the economy more than compensates for that! Lose money on road building, make money by taxing the companies who drive the trucks sustaining their businesses over them. Why not take the same approach with public transport?
Full seats don't mean much revenue in the cities I frequent. In Vienna for example the ticket for the whole year was 365€ until very recently. Now I live in a smaller city where it's 280€ per year for residents.
I love it and I am perfectly happy with my taxes subsidizing this for others but there's no way they're making money off this.
Does the Swiss rail not receive public funding? It seems to me that undercharging would only necessitate more public funding, not some fundamental change where taxpayers suddenly have to pay for something they didn't before.
[dead]
Are the city streets tolled?
having a nominal charge would probably lead to less abuse of the system, and any contribution to the upkeep/maintenance would be welcome, I'd imagine
What kind of abuse are you thinking of?
Ecological? You can be sure companies would somehow exploit ut for their services. It should cost at least enough to cover the energy expenses.
If the train was going to run regardless, and there isn't that high of a demand on this level of off-peak, adding the weight of a person or two is practically nothing to the rolling of the train.
i've seen this argument before, normally they're talking about homeless people sleeping on trains or in stations
Homeless are the most visible, but perhaps not the biggest issue. See, e.g., the problem with public toilets: https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/1248664709/-public-good-why-i...
> JOHN COCHRANE: I think the activists who wanted toilet equity did not imagine the solution would be no toilet or a fight with businesses over who's going to be able to use the toilet.
> [...]
> BERAS: Without that incentive, Nik-O-Lok was right. The free public toilets were overrun with people who had to go or people abusing drugs or having sex. Cities were changing. In lots of places, they struggled to fund and maintain public places. With no income from the toilets, taking care of them was harder than ever. Cities couldn't deal. Eventually, they closed them or let them fall into disrepair. The pay toilets may have been flawed, but they served a purpose that no public or private entity has been able to effectively fill since. John says this is a classic tale of a price control, when the government imposes a price.
I think the case for at least allowing nominal payments for toilets is pretty strong. Anything that is free either requires significant and expensive oversight to mitigate anti-social behaviors, or a society that has equivalent anti-social checks baked into the culture (which the U.S. definitely does not have). We should aspire to ubiqitous free toilets, free transit, etc, but there's an infinite number of things people want to be free, or at least subsidized. The public has to pick & choose and allocate its resources wisely.
Note that almost everywhere in the U.S., transit is strongly subsidized and often effectively free for the most in need, but it might require some legwork. In SF where it's quite trivial to get this subsidy (https://treasurer.sf.gov/economicjustice/sfmta-transit-disco...) people still balk at the requirement, though I think the people who complain the most are the ones far too wealthy to have to worry about these things. Some government programs, especially Federal programs, have onerous application and reporting requirements specifically designed to dissuade use, but individual transit subsidies aren't generally structured this way. In SF and to a lesser degree California, there are armies of people paid to hold people's hand through these processes (mostly for Federal and Federally subsidized programs, as many state and especially local programs tend to be very low friction).
I love paying a euro for the toilet in Europe and getting one that 1) actually works and 2) isn't utterly vile.
Always funny to me how people try and put laws on things for homeless people when the ills people are worried about with homeless people are already illegal but not being enforced. E.g., "we must charge for transit, to keep homeless people off as they could smoke meth on the platform." Never mind smoking meth on the platform is already illegal. Never mind that it isn't getting enforced. Never mind that this lack of enforcement on meth usage suggests farebox enforcement isn't going to suddenly out prioritize meth usage enforcement and be successful to combat meth usage in some round a bout way.
It ends up being about the optics of politicians getting to advertise that they are doing "something" and never mind if it works or not, because the people clamoring the loudest, angry suburban whites usually, aren't even the ones using these systems to begin with. They are told in their propaganda bubbles that these systems are dangerous rather than experiencing it with their own eyes and making any conclusion. They demand action for a system they will never use. After whatever action passes they don't become users either, the goalposts move to some other slight or ill that is really a proxy for "I don't feel safe around black or brown people."
This has crossed my mind for other things too, like immigration.
People say they don't want immigrants because of crime (whether that's a reasonable concern is a different topic entirely), but it presupposes that laws against crime aren't enforced. If we had stricter law enforcement would people worry about (immigrants, the homeless, etc.) less?
Switzerland (2.5 per 10,000) has just under an order of magnitude less homelessness per capita than the US (19.5 per 10,000)
On the other hand, no charges mean you can get rid of a lot of cruft: no tickets, no gates/turnstiles, no machines, no payments, no paperwork thereof, no ticket inspectors, etc etc. So in fact having 0 charge is unequivocally better than having a residual charge.
In other words: charge price = cost, or don't charge at all and get funded by public revenue.
In every city I know of, the fares for public transit more than pays for the cost of collecting. Also, in every city I'm aware of, even the ones with high transit ridership (Tokyo), there is lots of room for adding more transit and getting even more people on, but money is lacking to do that.
I'm also aware of no place where people who use transit to consider cost one of the major barriers to using it more. The barrier, even for the poorest people, is almost always not cause, but the service just doesn't meet their needs. Which is to say most transit systems need to raise their fares a little more and use that extra money to give people the service they actually want.
I wasn't aware of that fun fact - I always just assumed it was down to the "personal responsibility" mindset ("people must pay for what they use").
Have the courts also said anything about the charge being super low, e.g. like a CHF 1 per month abo or such? I wonder if that would be a way around those rulings.
That sort of begs the question about elevators and escalators. I’ve never been charged riding those, and I can’t imagine fares tacked on in Switzerland. Have they been ruled on? An elevator in a public building is very much public transport.
I know it’s stupid, but I’m genuinely curious now.
Presumably there would be a legal definition of what constitutes public transport, and I would expect it wouldn't include those. But I'm neither swiss nor do I speak any swiss languages so hell if I could find it.
> An elevator in a public building is very much public transport.
Every country defines what counts as public transport - it could be a snowmobile, a boat, or a helicopter if needed. The simple definition of "transports people in a public place" would cover a lot of funny things as public transport, like a carousel in a playground.
Free public transport routes worldwide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_...
What's the largest-value coin in circulation ? Charge one of those. Drop a coin in the gumball machine, get a token.
Is this a knowing joke? Switzerland's largest (very much in both senses) coin is 5Fr, around 6 USD. Not a token amount by any means, though it wouldn't even cover most public transport journeys in cities.
Oh wow, that bites. No, it was not a "knowing joke". Just a failure to anticipate Swiss ways.
The trains can still charge, but what if the government pays the tab automatically?
People who use it more really should contribute something vs those who never use it.
Should people who use roads more contribute something vs those who don't?
Yes and they do in many jurisdictations. In Austria gas tax is used for road maintenance, on top of that there are tolls for highways.
Yes. This was the original intent behind the gasoline tax.
Personally, I find no charge very, very reasonable lol
Only valid during the two summer months. It's a rather weak simile of the German Deutschlandticket (now 58 euro/month but valid all day on bus/tram/metro and local/regional trains, but not on long distance trains, in a much larger country).
It started out as an idea to introduce the same concept as the Deutschlandticket in NL. But the government has a budget deficit and the national railway company expected a capacity issue during peak hours. As a result the ticket is only valid in off-peak hours and the low price is only for 2 months.
and the bus companies didn't want to play ball.
It's been 63 euro for some months now.
As an Australian, why are European train prices so high? Obviously it's due to a lack of subsidies, but why are they not subsidised?
For instance, a train from London to Edinburgh (about 4 hours) is about $120 while an equivalent trip in Australia (Melbourne to Albury) is about $10 (it used to be about $40, but that's still much cheaper). Sydney to Melbourne is 900 kilometers and $80, Berlin to Paris is minimum $172.
Is there very little competition from cars and planes?
There is ample competition from cars and planes, europe has one of the most dense and intensive highway networks in the world, and the most dense and intensive short-haul flight network in the world.
Rather, the trains in western Europe are so desirable that the prices don't need to be heavily subsidized in order to be fully utilized.
In most of western Europe, the main barrier to increasing train usage is the physical number of tracks and trains in operation. If prices were further lowered, there'd be nowhere to even put all the extra customers the subsidies would bring in. Therefore, if the governemnt is going to put money into the trains, the first priority is infrastructure expansions, not price subsidies
Railway is national and cross border is always expensive. For a similar distance you can check Hamburg - Munich.
Europe is too poor to subsidiase long travel trains :p EU policy is more to introduce more competitions into the system / partly privatise it (like it works in Italy)
HSR in France, Italy, Spain can be very cheap. Also, they have generous discounts for 'young people' (up to 30 I think) and 60+.
Living in NL, I have fond memories of the kind of travel enabled by Ouigo when I lived in FR.
Another reason is that these routes operate an airfare model where all tickets are for a specific seat on a specific service, with increasing prices as the seats sell out. It allows for more efficient train loading, with the downside that you can't turn up to the station and assume you can take the next train.
HSR is more towards airfare than metro-like train services though. The latter which is basically the Dutch rail situation: it's more of a national metro service than a method for voyaging. The fact that 95% of all travels are commuters underlines this.
Now I know some commute on the TGV, but the airfare model works really well for a lot of people, and I think it makes sense for longer journeys. Alas, the Netherlands doesn't have any (national) long journeys.
That said, Dutch rail has a discount system in off-hours now, where you can get sizeable good discounts if you book a few days in advance. You get a ticked valid not for a specific train, but a 4-6 hour timeslot.
It doesn't work on the GVB Amsterdam local trains or trams...just the NS trains. There are some routes within Amsterdam that have NS trains paralleling GVB trains, might help save money on those.
It doesn't work on bus, metro or tram, which GVB operates, but it does work on trains from all operators, not just NS.
A single, non-discounted, one-way train ride between the two biggest cities, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, costs €20,20.
The promotional price of this subscription is only a few euros more expensive than the existing unlimited subscription for weekend train travel (i.e. 6:30 PM Friday to 4:00 AM Monday), which costs €39,50. You can pay €4 extra for a 40% discount the rest of the off-peak hours.
With that discount, my commute (Haarlem <=> Amsterdam) costs €3,30 each way. A single trip to work a month makes the promotional subscription better value.
This special ticket is implemented by providing a 2-month discount on the existing 'off-peak free travel' subscription from the Dutch Railways. This was deemed the only way to quickly introduce such a product [1].
[1] (in Dutch) https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2026/05/22/voors...
Please, this is the dutch government, who believes or trust them still? The price will be raised to 200 euro and they will make it sound like it's a good thing for you. There is this weird propoganda thing about the netherlands, where it looks like this amazing utopia from the outside, but, it's far from it. Look at the housing crisis, the immigration crisis, the incredibly stupid tax on unrealized gains, the cost of living, and the list just continues.
But then again, which Western country is not having a housing crisis, an immigration crisis and a ballooning cost of living.
The off-peak hours this pass is valid: Monday to Friday from 9 am to 4 pm and 6.30 pm to 6.30 am. I wonder what happens if you start your ride 3:59 pm.
When you start a journey, the time you check in at the access gate is taken as the check-in time for your whole journey with that train company. (You may have to check-in and out if you switch trains and the train you're getting on is from a different company).
So if you check-in at 3.59 pm in the north of the Netherlands, and go to the south to arrive around 7.00 pm in the south of the Netherlands and you only use trains from 1 company (like NS) the whole journey will be considered off-peak hours. Even if by the time you arive in the south the peak-hours will already be over.
Most trains run with NS but some regional lines have Arriva (Deutsche Bahn) or Keolis (SCNF).
Additionally there is a 5 minute grace period in your favor, so if you check-in at 4.04 pm it will stil be off-peak.
And because the whole thing is rather confusing for those not already familiar with the system there you get to do it wrong once a year and get your fine waived if you call the train company.
And yes there's little queues just before 06.25 pm every day of people waiting in front of the check-in gates for their pass to become valid (especially on fridays when the weekend-pass will become valid).
The time of tapping in at the ticket barriers counts for the whole trip. If you get in just before the start of peak-hours, you still pay the off-peak rate for the whole trip. But if you tap in before 9am, the whole trip counts as peak-rates also the part that happens after 9am.
Transfer don't change it, they're all part of the same trip. Going out of a station and then back in also doesn't interrupt your trip. As far as I know you need 60 minutes of being "out" of the train system for it to be considered a new trip.
Significantly worse than the Deutschland ticket
Dutch trains run mostly on time though and with far less disruption than DB, right?
Really depends on where you are in Germany.
Overall, DB Regio (the regional trains which are covered by the Deutschlandticket) has around a 89% punctuality score[1], which is very comparable to the Dutch numbers. There are certain hotspot regions though where the regional trains are truly fucked, but for most of the country they're totally fine and quite reliable.
It's mostly Germany's long-distance high-speed ICE trains which have punctuality problems (the much discussed 60% punctuality [2] score), but those are not covered by the Deutschland ticket, and the Netherlands has no comparable service to these trains anyways, so if one is envious of the state of Dutch trains, they can happily pretend that German ICE trains simply don't exist. In my experience though, the ICE's are a pleasure to ride.
_____________________________
[1] https://ibir.deutschebahn.com/2025/de/zusammengefasster-lage...
[2] https://ibir.deutschebahn.com/2025/de/zusammengefasster-lage...
Sidenote, but the ICE punctuality score is not really directly comparable with the Regional train scores, since they measure different things. The ICE score is about the passenger arriving at their final destination with less than a 15 minute delay including connections, whereas with the regional trains they don't have granular passenger level data, so they measure whether or not a train gets to the platform within 6 minutes of the scheduled time.
The Netherlands runs around 3000 trains a day vs. 50k in Germany. That doesn't excuse Germany's problems which were also predicted years in advance when they stopped investing in maintenance and infrastructure but also shows that the comparison is not entirely fair.
What I don't understand about initiatives like this is... why bother charging at all? wouldn't the system be more efficient without a fare process? at that point you don't have to maintain an entire money handling system.
It would be more efficient for travelers, but not really from a systems point of view. The Netherlands is densely populated and its railways are amond the busiest in Europe. If twice as many people took the train it would be impossible to have enough trains running. Also, a money handling system functions as a gatekeeper. With some regularity there are stories in the media of people misbehaving on public transport. If everybody has the right to board it's more difficult to keep those people out.
"money handling system" scales quite well, and more money is good to have if it's affordable enough for many people?
but wouldn't the whole system be cheaper if it were paid for by taxes? because at that point you don't have to maintain a point of sale? hundreds of fare boxes, communication systems, physical barriers, auditing, accounting, printing cards, employees to maintain and operate it all... you even save a little time it takes tapping a card to get people on
the tax system is also progressive, so the people who are most capable of paying pay the most and the poor truly pay nothing
charging for a public system seems like pure waste
No, it's not even close. Those fares don't cover the whole operation of the train system, but they actually go a long way to covering a very large chunk of it. The cost of operating the fare system is a rounding error relative to the sums of money talked about here.
ok, but hear me out
let's say the fare system costs $1 million to operate and maintain
and let's say the fare system collects $10 million in fares
couldn't you just collect $10 million in additional taxes, just add a "railway fare" line item, and save everyone the $1 million?
1) It's not a 10:1 ratio though, it's much more than that. These fare collection systems are very cheap relative to the money they bring in.
2) If there's sufficient money and will available to fund the transportation system to that level, then sure, that's great. But in most cases, I think it's better to just direct expansions in government train budgets towards expanding the network, not making it cheaper. Most people who drive cars don't drive because trains are expensive, they drive cars because there's no train at the time and place they want. Making trains cheaper doesn't address this problem.
> If there's sufficient money and will available to fund the transportation system to that level
there is! the system is already funded... people are just paying a portion of it out of pocket now and a bigger chunk out of taxes... the out of pocket part is really the same money but less efficient
> just collect xxx in additional taxes
That's very easy to say, and very unpopular to actually do. People on the country side would for example not feel it's fair for them to pay for the much more complicated public transport system in the city, when they get one train going by their village every few hours for it.
the people on the country side, whose infrastructure are paid for by the revenue mostly generated by cities?
I know what you're saying, but it's silly... "we should waste more money because I don't understand how countries work" is so tired
If you have a sovereign currency taxes don't pay for government spending. Governments should spend to expand the economy to its productive capacity (processes, labour, IP, infra of all kinds, social services, R&D), and use taxes to control investment and inflation.
Neoliberal governments don't do this, but they lie about why.
Other than that - of course you could.
Governments also lie about who gets subsidised, and why.
Generally subsidies go to the oligarchy, which makes constant attempts to "cut wasteful and inefficient public spending", because the oligarchy believes poor people don't deserve nice things.
(Not just rhetoric, btw.)
It's a political issue, not a practical one.
There are sociological reasons why you might want some kind of fare income, but they're more to do with adding some token resistance to accessing the system than making money from it.
[dead]
Not for visitors AIUI. You need some kind of card only locals can get.
Yes you need a card (ov-chipkaart or ov-pas) but you don't need to be a local to get one. You just order one online for 7.5/5 euros. You do need an address for it to be delivered to, but its valid for 5 years so if you visit the Netherlands again you can reuse it.
Time, too - they print a card with your photo on it and it takes a couple weeks to show up.
Usually days. I've had one take ~5 working days and another one ~3.
I think everyone can get the card, though maybe you need a dutch address to sent it to.
No, you need a dutch bank account to pay plus a dutch address to receive the card. That's not going to work for 99% of visitors.
The "Dutch bank account" part is almost certainly illegal, by the way. Due to EU regulations they are required to accept any European bank account. It's called "IBAN discrimination", and the national central bank has a form[0] to let them known about it.
[0]: https://www.dnb.nl/betalen/hoe-werkt-betalen/sepa-en-iban-di...
I mean why not, right? The trains are moving anyways.
In English: https://www.ns.nl/en/season-tickets/dal-vrij
We updated the link, many thanks!
(in Dutch)
We've updated the URL to the English-language version that CalRobert submitted. We appreciate all languages and cultures but HN is an English-language site, so we always want the English version to be submitted here, thanks!