After the unmitigated disaster that was Railtrack, Europe has wisely realized that the tracks have to be basically controlled by a government agency or equivalent. Since people still remember the Railtrack disaster, expect RFF to be quite conservative in its financial choices, charging more money for track access. Since RFF has to prove to the government and the people that it’s useful, expect it, like Network Rail, to continue to invest in major track improvements.

Because the scheduling of a rail system really has to be centralized, expect RFF to take over scheduling and planning (like Network Rail in the UK). It’s all about RFF.

The Länderticket is indeed a great deal. However, it is not cross-subsidized from the long-distance operation of DB, but its non-covered costs are paid for from the whole pot the individual Land (US equivalent: state; I don’t know of an UK equivalent) makes available to the various operators from which it orders transit services. That said, the Ländertickets almost always include private railways, as well as some bus operators (compare the validity maps for the individual Länderticket with the DB map, and you will find bus routes). In many cases, the networks of the Verkehrsverbünde of that Land are also included (such as Munich’s Verkehrsverbund is part of the Bavaria Länderticket). The objective of such tickets is to actually reduce car traffic … which actually can pay off because of reduced congestion etc.

So, the main share of your Länderticket is actually paid by you and your fellow taxpayers … exactly as the non-covered costs of your local road is paid by you and your fellow taxpayers.

DB’s offer “when it is needed”: Besides from real rural lines, it ends up as fixed interval schedules, sometimes extended by local services, often limited to the school terms. The lousiest interval is 2 hours, normal is 1 hour. Schedules are, as far as feasible and reasonable, harmonized, so that connections work reasonably well (IMHO a much more important element of successful transit).

Two things that DB does well is offer services where and when the customer would likely need them and not necessarily on an “every 15 minutes” basis throughout the country and also tickets which allow the traveller heavily discounted and instant group rover type tickets which aren’t valid on IC/ICE trains.

Scoop submits a popular argument, “Why should taxpayers subsidise rural branch lines”, the instant reaction is they shouldn’t. However a popular problem in the UK is road congestion and the cost of access charges to the road network (subsidized through Car Tax). Leaving aside the argument for extra taxes/charges to rebalance the “Economic externalities caused by heavy car and road usage” (health and polution) Scoops argument still begins to unwind when comparisons are made between rural country lanes used by 3 cars an hour (which are still maintained at great cost to the taxpayer regardless of how often they are used and their overall importance to the entire road network) and rural branch lines which often sport much higher usage but are constantly under political and corporate threat. The return question therefore is “Should we therefore close or neglect rural country lanes to save money?” Of course not as they serve a purpose. My response is therefore that rural country branch lines and indeed urban branches should be supported although not by national government but by a holistic transport body that operates at the local government level.

So back to the 2 DB examples.

The “Lander” tickets that DB offers, allow up to 5 people to travel on non IC/ICE trains after 9am and all day weekends. This allows people to travel a great distance and promotes use of more rural routes and connections. This obviouslz improves ridership levels.

In the UK trains to Bristol from London often go through to Weston Super Mare promoting direct “non-hassle through services”. What DB do is also ensure the reach of the IC/ICE services by extending the trains past primary destinations like Munich and Koln through to ssecondary destinations, often by surprising routes, but it still works by subsidising ridership . (As another quick example TGVs from Paris to Bordeaux go to Arcachon 2 or 3 times a day). This allows the TOC to use a train service that has already served it’s profitable aim to further subsidise the branch line or secondary service and increase awareness, ridership and revenue on the secondary route at minimal risk and cost.

In closing, people should learn not to confuse the word subsidy with taxpayer money as there are many other “routes” for subsidy than the public purse.

Finally, there are many more possibilities for support than just a single body or entity working alone. The future of branch lines and secondary routes lies with joined up thinking and team work. Whoever learns to work well together (be they SNCF and Acquitaine, FirstGreatWestern and North Somerset Council or DB and NordRheinWestFalen) at a really local level can look forward to progressive and enchanced usership. Decreasing politics and increasing cooperation and awareness will be the key.

I would like to pay particular attention to the subsidy issue and also to the shifts between different modes of transportation. Either government will have to pick up what SNCF and DB now cross-subsidize, resulting in an increased burden to taxpayers, or the branch lines will be lost and with them the possibility of end-to-end journeys by convenient public transport. If the latter happens, I suspect a lot of people are going to say, “Screw it, I’m driving.” I know I would.

The end result of British privatization is an industry that is far more politicized and government directed than it was under public ownership, with vastly higher fares, and higher government subsidy. The investment banks that now own the rolling stock have made out very nicely though, as have unionized employees. And this is the model the EU wants for the rest of Europe??? On a positive note, one thing that has indisputably improved under privatization is railfreight, but only because British Rail did not see themselves as anything other than a coal hauler in the freight market. But even that poverty of imagination was escaped only because the winning bidders for the freight system forced the government to abandon this franchised “competition” system for freight and go with a semi-monopoly model. The resulting EWS railway (now DB Schenker) has thrived on being able to compete directly with trucking, not with other railways.

Anyway, where I see the issues is when the Société de Chemin de Fer des Petits Pains Espagnoles starts to operate high speed trains between Paris and Lyon with two trainsets or so. I would see less a problem if the Chemin de Fer des Frotteurs sur l’Eau Congelée would offer a daily round trip between Paris and let’s say Albertville (because there is no reasonable service, although there were overnight trains in the past).

The problem with infrastructure subsidies is that they don’t actually promote development. They bring the periphery into a colonial relationship with the core, weakening its ability to govern itself while not encouraging local business development.

Cheap TGV service isn’t going to create much private-sector development in Rennes any more than it has in Le Creusot or Haute-Picardie. Even Lille, which is hailed as a success story of TGV-based redevelopment, remains one of Metropolitan France’s poorest regions. there isn’t much hope for subsidized travel in other regions, which do not lie at the crossroads of three cities as rich as London, Paris, and Brussels.

Going after the off-peak market is good for profits. As we’ve discussed on previous threads in criticizing peak-only commuter rail in the US, the presence of good off-peak service allows people to rely on the trains more, which would induce them to take trains more. In the US, even people who work 9 to 5 may not take a peak-only train to work if they’re not sure they can take the train back home if they stay at work late. In addition, peak-only service requires split shifts, which costs a lot per employee and doesn’t save much on labor costs relative to employing more people with continuous shifts.

While I reject your notion of my having “supporters” — I’m not running a campaign here, it’s a website — I’m still going to respond to your question.

You’re right that one way to fund an equitable transportation system would be to impose direct, progressive taxes on the population and then allow people a certain amount of transportation per time period.

However, there are many problems with that idea, namely that different people have vastly different travel needs and desires, and the idea that travel vouchers should be standardized would be problematic from that perspective. You could argue that all intercity transportation should be free, but if there are limited resources (which there are), that would be quite difficult to accomplish.

The primary reason it makes sense to have some cross-subsidy between main line routes and smaller, less-used corridors is that it is in the national interest to provide reasonably priced travel to the entire country: doing so reduces mobility-based inequalities and increases economic activity in locations that aren’t along the main lines. Without a willingness to subsidize routes to areas in lower demand, the advantages of the biggest cities are only compounded — this makes life more difficult elsewhere and goes against the idea of national unity.

Some would argue that I’m pushing for wasteful spending — such as building a rail line from Boise, Idaho to Helena, Montana simply because the people there are underserved, even though at the same cost, a similar rail line from Salt Lake City to Denver would carry far more people. I mostly don’t disagree with that line of thinking about capital spending, and I clearly think that investments should be prioritized.

But once the line is in the ground, providing operations subsidies make a lot of sense for intercity travel for the reasons spelled out above. Operations subsidies, also, are far cheaper than capital expenditures, so the burden placed on users of the main line is limited.