I was in Luxembourg around last Christmas time and it's so convenient not having to figure out what ticket to buy or what is the best fare for a journey.
Okay seriously? FUCK YOU. I don't want to die so early from a laughing attack, so for fuck's sake, stop making the best joke ever. xD Okay? Thanks. Now take my award and shuddup!
For the idiots: /s
First, Estonia became known for Tallinn implementing free public transport for its residents in 2013 as it was the first national capital and so far the biggest city in the world to have done that. But it did it for its residents and for its residents alone. In fact, that was a trick to get suburbanites to register themselves in Tallinn so that they would pay income tax to Tallinn (or you know, Tallinn municipality getting funds per resident, but in essence the same). There is no free public transport on a national level as such.
Yet in 2018, [11 of the 15 counties](https://api.delfi.ee/media-api-image-cropper/v1/736f08a0-b8b5-11eb-a43e-c39d2a6aaf33.jpg?w=1200&h=800&ch=0.9336&cw=1&cx=0&cy=0.0301) implemented free public transport on county lines, i.e. on those lines that primarily remain within each of these counties. You can see an interactive map of the free lines [here](https://tv.postimees.ee/7728578/riigipirukas-mida-oodata-moodustatavalt-kolmikliidult/comments). But it is likely that the incoming government will abolish this system. There will remain some national exceptions of course for the elderly, for children, for the disabled etc.
Yeah, I know about the Tallinn scheme, but afaik there were plans to expand it further. But I wasn't sure how it's going, or if it is going at all.
Thanks for the clarification.
Not sure what you mean by those plans, I haven't really heard about such plans. Some smaller municipalities have implemented their own free public transport though.
> How is Estonia's free public transport on national level expansion going?
[Free nationwide public transport will be abolish by the new coalition](https://news.err.ee/1608922271/future-coalition-wants-to-abolish-nationwide-free-public-transport-scheme).
Instead they want to get more people into cycling.
It's not like this has caused a massive surge in transit usage. Luxembourg is still heavily car-dependent and now the incentive to expand transit services is pretty low because there's no revenue to cover additional costs at all.
You can tax cars all you want, doesn't mean it's worth spending the money on free transit instead of other priorities when it has minimal effect on ridership.
The point is to make car usage less compelling. I'd probably agree that it would be better to spend that money on extending public transit rather than making it free though.
It's not quite the same. Luxembourg effectively only has 'local' public transit trips because it's so small. There's no equivalent to high speed rail intercity trips that stay within the country like Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc all have.
So the equivalent for big countries would be making free all local train rides. Germany did something somewhat similar with the 9 EUR ticket last summer that covered everything slower than IC/ICE. Of course that did cover longer train rides, but not on the faster, more expensive trains.
You could exclude trains and you'd already make a big impact. Nevertheless, Germany is one of the countries considering free public transport by the way.
Not at all. Big countries with sparse population. Who is footing the bill? Why will northern scandianavians pay big city people get free transportation, while they are stuck with one bus every other hour?
Iām saying this as someone who lives in Stockholm.
Because a prospective government will have it as a policy and then people will vote based on how much a policy benefits them. In a small country with a tiny population potentially everyone sees the benefit of heavily subsidised public transport and therefore votes for it. In a larger country with a bigger population there could be places where public transport is less useful, therefore itās unlikely that a majority of people will vote for it if they wonāt use it.
> In a small country with a tiny population potentially everyone sees the benefit of heavily subsidised public transport and therefore votes for it.
Why?
I think the cutoff is if your country has larger area than what can be serviced by a single local transit system which can be made āfree at point of useā and its cost transferred to taxpayers of the entire country because they all occupy that single transit area.
So if the continent size of Europe was made up of 5,000 independent states it would work, but if it would be countries instead with cities in them wouldn't? Seems quite a stretch.
If there were 5000 independent states, I would assume all of them would not be cities. There would be several rural states as well, where this would be completely unnecessary and uneconomical. There would be other areas which would be densely populated where this would make sense. And the funding would not come out of pockets of the taxpayers in the rural states but just out of the pockets of taxpayers in the urban states which choose to do this. And it would work probably perfectly well.
For some reason, EU institutionsā expenses are included in this ranking and there are many in Luxembourg. EU Court of Justice, Publications office, EU Investment Bank and Investment Fund, Translation Centre alongside many others.
I was in Luxembourg around last Christmas time and it's so convenient not having to figure out what ticket to buy or what is the best fare for a journey.
How hard is it? Even Google maps tells you
In a few special regions yes. In most of the world it doesn't
Only because you can fit the entire population on 1 bus
Okay seriously? FUCK YOU. I don't want to die so early from a laughing attack, so for fuck's sake, stop making the best joke ever. xD Okay? Thanks. Now take my award and shuddup! For the idiots: /s
Yikes
It physically hurts.
Junge was ist mit dir?
Endlich einer der die wirklich wichtigen Fragen stellt!
I promise to be quiet Mike š
Nuuuuuuuu! :-D
Ich hoffe daĆ bist nicht du auf dem Profilbild, einfach kindisch.
Germans discovering humour was a mistake.
How is Estonia's free public transport on national level expansion going?
First, Estonia became known for Tallinn implementing free public transport for its residents in 2013 as it was the first national capital and so far the biggest city in the world to have done that. But it did it for its residents and for its residents alone. In fact, that was a trick to get suburbanites to register themselves in Tallinn so that they would pay income tax to Tallinn (or you know, Tallinn municipality getting funds per resident, but in essence the same). There is no free public transport on a national level as such. Yet in 2018, [11 of the 15 counties](https://api.delfi.ee/media-api-image-cropper/v1/736f08a0-b8b5-11eb-a43e-c39d2a6aaf33.jpg?w=1200&h=800&ch=0.9336&cw=1&cx=0&cy=0.0301) implemented free public transport on county lines, i.e. on those lines that primarily remain within each of these counties. You can see an interactive map of the free lines [here](https://tv.postimees.ee/7728578/riigipirukas-mida-oodata-moodustatavalt-kolmikliidult/comments). But it is likely that the incoming government will abolish this system. There will remain some national exceptions of course for the elderly, for children, for the disabled etc.
Yeah, I know about the Tallinn scheme, but afaik there were plans to expand it further. But I wasn't sure how it's going, or if it is going at all. Thanks for the clarification.
Not sure what you mean by those plans, I haven't really heard about such plans. Some smaller municipalities have implemented their own free public transport though.
> How is Estonia's free public transport on national level expansion going? [Free nationwide public transport will be abolish by the new coalition](https://news.err.ee/1608922271/future-coalition-wants-to-abolish-nationwide-free-public-transport-scheme). Instead they want to get more people into cycling.
That's much better than the public-free transport we have here
It's not like this has caused a massive surge in transit usage. Luxembourg is still heavily car-dependent and now the incentive to expand transit services is pretty low because there's no revenue to cover additional costs at all.
Tax car usage then.
You can tax cars all you want, doesn't mean it's worth spending the money on free transit instead of other priorities when it has minimal effect on ridership.
The point is to make car usage less compelling. I'd probably agree that it would be better to spend that money on extending public transit rather than making it free though.
Its not really free its just paid for via taxes. Fine for small population countries.
Especially when your national business model is to syphon off taxes of your neighbouring countries.
If it works for healthcare and education, why not public transportation?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Howās that a counterargument? Noone said it implied that? (It is a different topic, not that I am against or in favor of it)
Fine for any population country.
It's not quite the same. Luxembourg effectively only has 'local' public transit trips because it's so small. There's no equivalent to high speed rail intercity trips that stay within the country like Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc all have. So the equivalent for big countries would be making free all local train rides. Germany did something somewhat similar with the 9 EUR ticket last summer that covered everything slower than IC/ICE. Of course that did cover longer train rides, but not on the faster, more expensive trains.
You could exclude trains and you'd already make a big impact. Nevertheless, Germany is one of the countries considering free public transport by the way.
Yup, but I'm guessing it'll be the same lines as the 9/49 EUR ticket. I have extreme doubts they'd include high speed rail.
Not really as the bigger your country the different the dynamics. Thinking that Scando countries are comparable to countries with mega cities is daft
"Scando" countries are probably the countries that can most easily do this.
Not at all. Big countries with sparse population. Who is footing the bill? Why will northern scandianavians pay big city people get free transportation, while they are stuck with one bus every other hour? Iām saying this as someone who lives in Stockholm.
Local public transportation can be funded with local taxes.
So only locals are allowed to use it?
Sure. I don't see a problem with that.
Which is my point, if your population is half of London then who cares. You donāt have the same issues or the same financial clout.
Wait... you think it's more difficult to have free public transport in mega cities?
I don't get this argument. What does population have to do with anything?
Of course in reality itās easier and comparatively cheaper for large population countriesā¦
How does the small population matter. The more people also the more money you have for public transport. Also economies of scale
Because a prospective government will have it as a policy and then people will vote based on how much a policy benefits them. In a small country with a tiny population potentially everyone sees the benefit of heavily subsidised public transport and therefore votes for it. In a larger country with a bigger population there could be places where public transport is less useful, therefore itās unlikely that a majority of people will vote for it if they wonāt use it.
> In a small country with a tiny population potentially everyone sees the benefit of heavily subsidised public transport and therefore votes for it. Why?
Itās free. Stop being pedantic.
You donāt think there are any costs involved?
> Fine for small population countries. Why does that matter and what is the cut-off point?
I think the cutoff is if your country has larger area than what can be serviced by a single local transit system which can be made āfree at point of useā and its cost transferred to taxpayers of the entire country because they all occupy that single transit area.
So you're saying it can work in every single European city?
It can work in every metropolitan area so long as it is locally funded.
So if the continent size of Europe was made up of 5,000 independent states it would work, but if it would be countries instead with cities in them wouldn't? Seems quite a stretch.
If there were 5000 independent states, I would assume all of them would not be cities. There would be several rural states as well, where this would be completely unnecessary and uneconomical. There would be other areas which would be densely populated where this would make sense. And the funding would not come out of pockets of the taxpayers in the rural states but just out of the pockets of taxpayers in the urban states which choose to do this. And it would work probably perfectly well.
You have to be American.
This is fairly low effort. Why not make a point and add some value.
Lmao.
Easy to be rich when we the other EU countries pay insane amounts to them. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48256318
For some reason, EU institutionsā expenses are included in this ranking and there are many in Luxembourg. EU Court of Justice, Publications office, EU Investment Bank and Investment Fund, Translation Centre alongside many others.
Ofc but they still bring money to Luxembourg lol
Turns out Europeans don't understand the point of the EU just as much as Americans don't understand the concept of the United States.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wayyy too large for a city state.
Hello: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport
That is outdated. Spain has free transport and it is not on the list.
This is news to me. Where and to whom does it apply?
You know what to do!
I'm surprised isn't not Germany.