Those with a brain take the train

So what's the problem - that everyone likes it? Sounds to me like propaganda planted by car manufacturers, gas companies, tire companies. Compare the need for rail infrastructure in Switzerland with road infrastructure in this country (six lane wide highways everywhere, clogged). I think ours is far more expensive and less efficient. I know people in Germany, and, not counting teenagers and young adults, no one has more than 1 car per family. I know of no family in this country without at least two cars. According to AAA, the cost of owning and operating a car is over $8000/yr. It doesn't matter to me if it is money in taxes or money given to profit making business, it's still money out of my pocket.

I read the article. I was surprised to learn that mobility in Switzerland takes 10% of the household budget. The Swiss have done a remarkable job with the trains and connecting postal buses. It's so easy to get from one place to another in Switerland. It's also easy to connect to international trains as well. Perhaps the problems in the article are transparent to us travelers. You're speaking as a citizen. I also read the article on the aging Swiss population. We share that problem. One thing you could be thankful for is that your country doesn't let too many people emigrate there. It they did, you would be writing a different message. For me, Switzerland is one of the most beautiful and scenic countries on the planet. Can't wait to return.

According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income in the US in 2011 was $50,054. If owning just one car costs over $8000, that's 16% of the household budget. I'd say the Swiss, at 10%, have it pretty good.

This is propaganda, but there is nothing wrong with it (since it is put up by the rail companies). My concerns: - the Swiss have not liberalized their operations and have not split infrastructure and operations (as EU countries did or are doing) - the idea of a bureaucrat, a government employee operating something as menial as staffing a counter on a state-bistro on a state-train sounds horrible and just wrong to me - the Swiss really need to bring competition, with two or more rail companies COMPETING against each other, which would bring fares down at expense of the "order" on the network (like liberalization slashed real costs of flying worldwide).

I fundamentally disagree with the points made by Andre in his recent post on this thread. If you want to see what doing what you suggest can cause, just look at what has happened to British railways. I deal with it daily. Splitting the railway into nearly 30 parts has not helped.

The "competition" for railways is private transport and air travel. Passengers want to be able to go to a station and get on the first train, not wait for the company that they have a ticket with.

But those with more brain take the plane.

Nigel, It is a matter of principle. A network that is state-run might offer a "look good on a map" network. But I oppose state-run entreprises like state employees cooking sandwich for passengers as much as I oppose certain types of criminal activity. It is wrong, it is communist, it doesn't matter anything but its abolition and extinction.

The world according to Andre: -Seniors shouldn't stay in Hostels -Tourists shouldn't be allowed to smoke weed in Holland -Americans like mass transit in Europe because like a "theme park ride" -Rick Steves is wrong about everything -Carbon emission shouldn't be a consideration when choosing different forms of transport -Switzerland is a Communist country. (I guess the US is also a communist country seeing how it keeps Amtrak afloat)

My goodness! If Andre were to come to the US he would get "mind fry" from seeing all of the things he thinks are so "communist".

I've been taking trains in Europe since 1971 and will keep on taking trains, especially in Germany amd France, as long as it fits into the plan, my plans... everything else, by way of opinions, is irrelevant. No hostels? Stayed at hostels 40 years ago... as a senior I can't stop now.

I didn't write my statement correctly and it became ambiguous. I do not oppose all state enterprises, nor have I signed up for the libertarian utopia club. I do oppose, however, the state getting directly involved with delivery of non-essential, non-core services. So I have no problems agreeing with a model of paying somehow higher taxes so that highway, rail tracks (the tracks, not the trains running on them), airports (but not the airlines) can be all built and kept in good state of affairs. Or financing basic education or the delivery of basic health care. I just don't think because something is a public service it should be delivered by overpaid public employees as if train conductors or train ticket sellers were some sort of national heroes as their unions try to portray them.

Overpaid? I don't think so.

Andre, I'm curious what your definition of basic healthcare is.

I'm more curious about Andre's definition of "basic education". Really? Am I misunderstanding things here? Do you really think that education of children should not be financed via taxes?

" the Swiss have not liberalized their operations and have not split infrastructure and operations " Seems a rather interesting and somewhat dog - whistle euphemism for privatization . I agree with Nigel .

This is a Swiss slogan? Does it rhyme in German or French?

@Steve: separating infrastructure and operations doesn't necessarily mean privatizing none of them. Indeed, infrastructure management remains largely state-managed throughout Europe through various corporate models. Even the major operators in each country are often still public ones, though separating them from the infrastructure managers allow for competition, which is ALWAYS welcomed. Think, for instance, if governments managed not only highways and airports, but also own and operated truck freight, taxi services, car rentals and all flights - that is the outdated model for rail (mixed infrastructure + operations) we are departing from. ================================= @Steve, @Andrea: By basic I mean essential common services on health care and education taxes should fund. On health care, I mean all medical care related to organic diseases, genetic disabilities and diseases people can't avoid on their own (such as those caused by sheer overeating, or smoking/drinking/using drugs, whose consequences should be financially - at least partially - paid by the individual who brought those condition upon themselves). I also think mild cosmetic plastic surgery, sex change surgery, IVF etc. should be borne by those who want to partake on them. On education, I mean basic academic instruction from pre-school (but not merely daycare before that age) through the end of high school. University and technical education could be financed, but based on an intellectual ability and performance basis, not as some universal right to go to college no matter how much I slacked until age 18, for instance.