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.
I used to live in a suburb in Sacramento and just walking to the closest grocery store was over an hour
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.
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.
While the large malls are likely only reachable by cars, I expect small malls are closer and in bike distance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
This, this is amazing. How I wish the SNCF did it like that. (Actually, it happens often enough that all SNCF trains on a route on the same day are booked full so maybe it wouldn't help.) When you are early, can you also up- or downgrade at no cost (other than the price difference), e.g. if only seats are available in a different class than on your ticket?
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.
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.
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
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
Actual 100% discount is €399,95/month.
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
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/...
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!