"subsidized", yes, but like any other investment the idea is that it will create positive economic value across the whole country and across a long time horizon, in a way that the tickets cannot recapture (for example, every person on the train is one less person on the road -- less cars is a benefit for the other drivers and reduces road wear/maintenance cost and reduces accidents/health-care costs).
Thus perfect for a government project. Create vast value and the recapture mechanism is taxes.
Luxembourg went to totally free public transportation. Bus, train, light rail. Total game-changer. More countries should do this.
It's a "country" with 630K relatively wealthy, educated, trustworthy people. You can do a lot of things if your "country" meets that criteria.
Few do.
See https://reporting.sbb.ch/en/finance?highlighted=8e222679f50e...
SBB made profit it 2019 for example.
I have never considered the "cost" of a government service to be representative of anything unless an analysis of social benefits is likewise included. For instance the entire discourse around the USPS during the last US presidential election.
Clearly, the train system is net-profitable for the country or they would shut it down, so calling it a "loss" seems inaccurate.
I gladly play my tax here in Swiz because the system works. There are "big" delays ever here, yesterday something like 30 minutes, but is like 1 time out of 100.
You can subsidize public transit/rail or you can subsidize highways. Which has a better 'ROI' when high oil prices come along? :)
Japan and honk kong: Mostly yes.
Europe: Mostly no but at least a good portion of it is for most.
US: Not even close.
Why are the US regional transit ratios so low? They're taking in real money, yet the costs are 4-5x the revenue.
* it's rarely the fastest way to get to your destination, wherever it may be, so doesn't attract passengers
* to build on the above points, the suburbanization of jobs in recent decades has reduced the ability of transit to compete, since transit mostly performs best heading quickly into congested city centers; suburbs are also diffuse, which make them hard to serve with frequent transit
* labor productivity in US transit is really low. as a general example, in the US most commuter rail systems still check individual tickets on every journey, which is very labor intensive. EU systems tend to use proof-of-payment, which basically means most of the time you're on the honor system, but if a roving inspector catches you without a ticket you'll get charged a punitive fine worth several months of fares. transit unions are probably one of the few US unions with teeth left, and they fight anything perceived as cutting jobs.
* US systems charge flat rates as a kind of social policy for the poor, which is good for them but bad for the balance sheet
one thing to note is that pretty much all the North American agencies on the list, unlike most of the Asian and European ones also on the list, integrate bus operations, and bus operations pretty much never make money due to the lower passengers per driver and high fuel costs.
Isn’t it paid for through ticket fees? Or is it subsidized by the state?