[wavemode]

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.

[KeplerBoy]

Public transport is not sustainable from ticket prices alone anywhere in Europe.

[stephen_g]

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.

[andrepd]

That's a bold assertion.

Never mind that you know what's also not "sustainable", if the definition means "costs > revenues"? Automobile roads :)

[TheOtherHobbes]

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.

[pjerem]

True for local lines of everyday transportation. But actually high speed trains are sustainable, at least in France.

But also they are super expensive.

[geraltofrivia]

Prohibitively expensive! A 1.5h train ride from paris can set me back more than 100EUR some times.

[throw-the-towel]

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.

[crote]

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?

[KeplerBoy]

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.

[sigmoid10]

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.

[CalRobert]

Are the city streets tolled?