UK National Debt Options

[CyanIsland]

Well, I didn't know the politics behind the U.S.'s public transport debacle; I found it very interesting.

[stulancs]

I don't see why a high speed rail link is preferable to air travel - air travel will still be faster and if European railway tickets are anything to go by, cheaper also. Excluding the UK's excessive prices caused by an abortion of a privatisation, take a look at France.

According to TGV's website, taking the train from Paris to Toulouse is €100-€170 while Easyjet offer a flight for between €50-€70 that takes half the time. Why is the train preferable?

This post has been edited by stulancs: Jul 15 2012, 15:51

[Parsifal]

I don't see why a high speed rail link is preferable to air travel - air travel will still be faster and if European railway tickets are anything to go by, cheaper also. Excluding the UK's excessive prices caused by an abortion of a privatisation, take a look at France.

According to TGV's website, taking the train from Paris to Toulouse is €100-€170 while Easyjet offer a flight for between €50-€70 that takes half the time. Why is the train preferable?

The New York Times did a test once. Three people were standing on a corner in downtown Washington, DC and they were to meet at a certain corner in Midtown Manhattan. One would fly, one would take Amtrak (non-high-speed) and one would drive. (Acela trains don't count as high-speed.) The one who drove arrived first and the one who flew arrived last.

Now suppose that the US had "TGV" service from New York Pennsylvania Station to Chicago Union Station, both center city to center city. My calculation estimates a 7-hour train trip vs. a 2-hour flight.

From my apartment (in Manhattan) to Penn Station: 15 minutes
Arrive early by 30 minutes
Train trip 7 hours
Total: 7 hours 45 minutes, say 8 hours.

From my apartment (in Manhattan) to LaGuardia Airport by taxi: 30 minutes
Check-in and security: 30 minutes
Arrive early by 30 minutes
Another 20 minutes to board the flight
Flight 2 hours
Wait for baggage: 30 minutes (optional)
Taxi to downtown Chicago 45 minutes
Total: 5 hours and 5 minutes, say 5 hours

For a difference of 3 hours I'll take the train thank you and avoid the awful flying experience these days. Plus seats on trains are much more roomy and comfortable than seats on airplanes (unless you fly first class).

As for the cost, flying coach (with non-refundable tickets) does tend to be cheaper. But not everybody cares, especially not business travelers (a very important market).

For mid-range distances flying is not that much faster if at all.

Last November I attended a professional conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. Flying would have gotten me there faster (and probably more frazzled), but I opted for Amtrak and had a very comfortable and enjoyable 13-hour ride each way. It was a rare opportunity for me to just sit and read a book, do some work on my laptop and nap a bit. And the fare was about the same price as flying.

Until about the 1950s the US had world-class passenger rail service coast-to-coast (by the standards of the time) including many passenger rail lines that no longer exist. A number of factors led to the decline here (but not in Europe) and it wasn't just due to the advent of jet travel. I believe there is a need and a demand for the service here, but there are many political and economic obstacles in the way. My experience of rail service in the UK (this is a thread about the UK after all ) is far superior to that in the US's Northeast Corridor by comparison (although I find the trains in the UK to be more crowded ).

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Jul 15 2012, 17:22

[ATD]

Why are we talking about travelling round America in a UK National Debt thread....

[stulancs]

The New York Times did a test once. Three people were standing on a corner in downtown Washington, DC and they were to meet at a certain corner in Midtown Manhattan. One would fly, one would take Amtrak (non-high-speed) and one would drive. (Acela trains don't count as high-speed.) The one who drove arrived first and the one who flew arrived last.

Now suppose that the US had "TGV" service from New York Pennsylvania Station to Chicago Union Station, both center city to center city. My calculation estimates a 7-hour train trip vs. a 2-hour flight.

From my apartment (in Manhattan) to Penn Station: 15 minutes
Arrive early by 30 minutes
Train trip 7 hours
Total: 7 hours 45 minutes, say 8 hours.

From my apartment (in Manhattan) to LaGuardia Airport by taxi: 30 minutes
Check-in and security: 30 minutes
Arrive early by 30 minutes
Another 20 minutes to board the flight
Flight 2 hours
Wait for baggage: 30 minutes (optional)
Taxi to downtown Chicago 45 minutes
Total: 5 hours and 5 minutes, say 5 hours

For a difference of 3 hours I'll take the train thank you and avoid the awful flying experience these days. Plus seats on trains are much more roomy and comfortable than seats on airplanes (unless you fly first class).

As for the cost, flying coach (with non-refundable tickets) does tend to be cheaper. But not everybody cares, especially not business travelers (a very important market).

For mid-range distances flying is not that much faster if at all.

Last November I attended a professional conference in Charlotte, North Carolina. Flying would have gotten me there faster (and probably more frazzled), but I opted for Amtrak and had a very comfortable and enjoyable 13-hour ride each way. It was a rare opportunity for me to just sit and read a book, do some work on my laptop and nap a bit. And the fare was about the same price as flying.

Until about the 1950s the US had world-class passenger rail service coast-to-coast (by the standards of the time) including many passenger rail lines that no longer exist. A number of factors led to the decline here (but not in Europe) and it wasn't just due to the advent of jet travel. I believe there is a need and a demand for the service here, but there are many political and economic obstacles in the way. My experience of rail service in the UK (this is a thread about the UK after all ) is far superior to that in the US's Northeast Corridor by comparison (although I find the trains in the UK to be more crowded ).

Well the experience in Europe outside the UK is that even in countries which have nationalised high speed rail services, the cost is still more expensive than air travel, so essentially what you're saying is that due to your personal preference for trains over planes, taxpayers' money should be spent on building the infrastructure of a service that only the wealthy will be able to afford to use.

[Parsifal]

Why are we talking about travelling round America in a UK National Debt thread....

Oh you know how these things drift.
At the end of my last post I did try to steer the subject back to the UK.
But others keep asking questions that deserve an answer.

[Parsifal]

Well the experience in Europe outside the UK is that even in countries which have nationalised high speed rail services, the cost is still more expensive than air travel, so essentially what you're saying is that due to your personal preference for trains over planes, taxpayers' money should be spent on building the infrastructure of a service that only the wealthy will be able to afford to use.

Are you suggesting that TGV trains in France and ICE trains in Germany are used only by the wealthy? I think not. I don't think that we're talking about my personal preference. Improved rail service in the US (brought up to a Western European, Japanese or Chinese standard) is badly needed and would be well received. Deteriorating infrastructure in the US is seriously endangering the country's economic future. And don't overlook the fact that highways for automobiles are paid for with taxpayer money.

As for using taxpayer's money to subsidize public transportation that is widely a given. I would think than even London Transport doesn't cover its costs with passenger fares. (The UK ATD!!! ) The movement of goods, services and people is hugely beneficial to an economy which justifies taxpayer subsidies.

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Jul 15 2012, 18:44

[stulancs]

Well the experience in Europe outside the UK is that even in countries which have nationalised high speed rail services, the cost is still more expensive than air travel, so essentially what you're saying is that due to your personal preference for trains over planes, taxpayers' money should be spent on building the infrastructure of a service that only the wealthy will be able to afford to use.

Are you suggesting that TGV trains in France and ICE trains in Germany are used only by the wealthy? I think not. I don't think that we're talking about my personal preference. Improved rail service in the US (brought up to a Western European, Japanese or Chinese standard) is badly needed and would be well received. Deteriorating infrastructure in the US is seriously endangering the country's economic future. And don't overlook the fact that highways for automobiles are paid for with taxpayer money.

As for using taxpayer's money to subsidize public transportation that is widely a given. I would think than even London Transport doesn't cover its costs with passenger fares. (The UK ATD!!! ) The movement of goods, services and people is hugely beneficial to an economy which justifies taxpayer subsidies.

The likes of Easyjet and Ryanair have made it far cheaper to use air travel to European destinations than it is to use the train, which is really only a satisfactory solution for domestic snd suburban travel that can't be accomodated by air. And the US should be compared to all of Europe due to its size.

The original post you made was about how the evil air travel companies are stifling competition, but the fact is that in Europe the evil air companies have provided more than ample competition for state run rail companies with cheaper services to the same destinations and in much faster journey times. While there may be an argument for state subsidy of suburban and national routes, as far as long haul journeys go, air travel has proven it's cheaper and faster, and no-one who travels in Europe on a budget picks the train if they're going out of the country (or in equivalent US terms, out of state). It's just too expensive, and that's using nationalised companies.

Freight notwithstanding, why should the government use limited taxpayer funds to provide extra travel services to destinations that are already well served and which will be out of the reach of ordinary taxpayers?

This post has been edited by stulancs: Jul 15 2012, 19:27

[Parsifal]

Well the experience in Europe outside the UK is that even in countries which have nationalised high speed rail services, the cost is still more expensive than air travel, so essentially what you're saying is that due to your personal preference for trains over planes, taxpayers' money should be spent on building the infrastructure of a service that only the wealthy will be able to afford to use.

Are you suggesting that TGV trains in France and ICE trains in Germany are used only by the wealthy? I think not. I don't think that we're talking about my personal preference. Improved rail service in the US (brought up to a Western European, Japanese or Chinese standard) is badly needed and would be well received. Deteriorating infrastructure in the US is seriously endangering the country's economic future. And don't overlook the fact that highways for automobiles are paid for with taxpayer money.

As for using taxpayer's money to subsidize public transportation that is widely a given. I would think than even London Transport doesn't cover its costs with passenger fares. (The UK ATD!!! ) The movement of goods, services and people is hugely beneficial to an economy which justifies taxpayer subsidies.

The likes of Easyjet and Ryanair have made it far cheaper to use air travel to European destinations than it is to use the train, which is really only a satisfactory solution for domestic snd suburban travel that can't be accomodated by air. And the US should be compared to all of Europe due to its size.

The original post you made was about how the evil air travel companies are stifling competition, but the fact is that in Europe the evil air companies have provided more than ample competition for state run rail companies with cheaper services to the same destinations and in much faster journey times. While there may be an argument for state subsidy of suburban and national routes, as far as long haul journeys go, air travel has proven it's cheaper and faster, and no-one who travels in Europe on a budget picks the train if they're going out of the country (or in equivalent US terms, out of state). It's just too expensive, and that's using nationalised companies.

Freight notwithstanding, why should the government use limited taxpayer funds to provide extra travel services to destinations that are already well served and which will be out of the reach of ordinary taxpayers?

Not everyone wants to endure the likes of Easyjet and Ryanair even if they choose to fly. (Has Ryanair implemented the 1 euro charge for using the lavatory yet? Some people have self-respect and don't wish to endure demeaning treatment even if it costs less. They need to be accommodated too. Maybe it's just some of us who can remember what air travel was once like. Not to worry. We'll all die off in time.)

There is a mid-range that can and should be accommodated by both rail and air on a level field of competition (i.e. without influence from campaign contributions). I would put that at up to 1000 miles (at 175 mph = 5.7 hours). I believe that Hamburg to Munich is more than six hours (I didn't check). So make it a bit more than 1000 miles.

My original post put the blame on evil auto manufacturers and the evil air travel companies for stifling competition (with more blame on the Detroit folks although it may be equal - You'll have to ask John Boehner, Republican House majority leader. He knows who is getting bribes campaign contributions from whom.).

The last time I rode TGV trains in France and ICE trains in Germany as well as the international Eurostar between London and Paris those trains were not running empty. Quite full as a matter of fact. Rather popular I would say. Those trains are not operating out of reach of ordinary taxpayers unless those countries have really a LOT of very wealthy people. What's the story with high-speed service in the UK? (high-speed = 175 mph plus) I realize that the UK is croaking under the budget-cutting austerity measures, but isn't there any talk about investing in infrastructure and creating jobs while they're at it? Government tax revenues will increase if people are working you know.

And I wasn't suggesting accommodating the few people who might want to go from New York to California by train (or say, London to Athens if we're going to keep the UK in this discussion). Although many people along intermediate stops will be happy to have the service.

Is Eurostar service subsidized by the way? (I'm asking.)

[Roger Mellie]

Your understanding of the public transport system in the US is quite accurate.However, it appears that your understanding of the history and the politics behind it is probably non-existant.

I'm pleased to hear you find my understanding of the public transport system in the USA is quite accurate. However what makes you think that "it appears" I probably have a "non-existant" (sic) understanding of the history and politics of it all? It does make me chuckle when you jump to these rash conclusions, which defy any common sense. In my last post, I merely just questioned how available public transport was in various parts of the USA-- I actually made no remark or inquiry as to the whys and wherefores.

As it happens, despite your comically lofty assumption, I'm already aware of the set-up with Amtram, the proposed Californian high-speed line and lobbying by the likes of GM. I'm aware that I may be getting knowledge beyond my station; but such things are reported in our media; plus I have a number friends in the US who keep me abreast of things, and I ask them about such things. After all intelligence is not about knowing everything, but questioning everything you know (that's something at least *I* understand).

Credit to you, I was thankful of explanation you gave, there were some minutiae of policy that I wasn't aware of, sincerely received

>>> will refer to "Europe" only when appropriate. So you can stop accusing me of talking about Europe as if it's one homogeneous lump. (And yes, it does make you sound like a stuck record. bleh.gif ). I don't doubt that Americans drive a lot more than Europeans do I was accurate <<<

In the case of "Europeans" driving less than Americans, it would be a valid comparison, say if the Europeans in question were Dutch. However I'm sorry to burst your know-it-all bubble, but in mind of other Europeans countries, it's not a valid comparison. Sorry if it does make me sound like a stuck record; but then your habit of comparing the USA (one country, under one consitution) to Europe (a continent of diverse countries), is very seldom "appropriate".

As I pointed out, and you don't refute this (or have chosen to ignore it, to suit your prejudice?)-- some Europeans nations drive just as much (if not more) than the Americans. If you look at the stats from Road World Federation, the USA has 'only' the 16th level of car-ownership in the world. Luxembourg, a *European* country has the highest (647 cars per 1000 people). Iceland, Italy, Germany and France (other Europeans countries) are above the USA (2nd, 4th, 6th and 12th respectively); I imagine folk in these country drive these cars, are they are not there for ornamentation.


>>> I believe that by saying that petrol is MUCH cheaper in the US than in Europe <<<

Certainly in terms of fuel prices, you have a fair point. Then the USA probably has the cheapest fuel in the developed world, perhaps apart from El Salvador

However your original point was that to make fuel more expensive, dissuades people from driving. Not necessarily: In 2001, when first started driving, petrol was ~85p/litre. It is now £1.28, yet traffic levels have not decreased in Britain, the reverse is true. Despite our pump prices being amongst the highest in the world, the UK has one of the highest car-ownership in the world. To dissuade people from driving, you need carrot and not stick. For instance my local bus firm has started running an extra bus bus and hour, and has slashed its fares for my village. Passenger numbers have risen sharply, even though petrol and diesel prices have dropped 15p/l in past few months.

Sure if the govt put up the pump price too much, then so many people would give up driving, and only the rich would be able to drive (that's socialism for you ). However there would be a massive shortfall in Treasury income and people would be getting out and about less to spend their money in the economy-- so it's counterproductive to hike it up too much (plus haulage firms struggle, the lifeblood our economy)

Your basic tacit assertion that taxing people for certain things, means the uptake of those things drops, is not ncessarily true. Those who enjoy smoking, or like driving, will merely financially cut back on other things in their life. And cutting back on those 'other things', would stifle economic growth in the UK further, to bring things back onto topic

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jan 14 2013, 10:51

[Parsifal]

Car ownership statistics do not automatically translate into miles driven stats. Do each of those folks in Luxembourg drive more on average than each of the folks in Montana? (You can't drive two cars at once you know.)

[lubi]

The likes of Easyjet and Ryanair have made it far cheaper to use air travel to European destinations than it is to use the train, which is really only a satisfactory solution for domestic snd suburban travel that can't be accomodated by air. And the US should be compared to all of Europe due to its size.

The original post you made was about how the evil air travel companies are stifling competition, but the fact is that in Europe the evil air companies have provided more than ample competition for state run rail companies with cheaper services to the same destinations and in much faster journey times. While there may be an argument for state subsidy of suburban and national routes, as far as long haul journeys go, air travel has proven it's cheaper and faster, and no-one who travels in Europe on a budget picks the train if they're going out of the country (or in equivalent US terms, out of state). It's just too expensive, and that's using nationalised companies.

There is incidentally a lot of controversy about whether Ryanair receives state aid. I tend to think that mass transportation is so expensive and requires so much capital investment that state involvement is inevitable (whether roads, rail or air). I don't know much about rail, but hardly any airlines make money.

Not everyone wants to endure the likes of Easyjet and Ryanair even if they choose to fly. (Has Ryanair implemented the 1 euro charge for using the lavatory yet? Some people have self-respect and don't wish to endure demeaning treatment even if it costs less. They need to be accommodated too. Maybe it's just some of us who can remember what air travel was once like. Not to worry. We'll all die off in time.)

I don't really accept that Ryanair and easyjet are demeaning. It's still possible to travel in style, but in the days when air travel was glamorous it was also practically inaccessible. No-one forces you to travel on Ryanair - if I were travelling to Paris I'd rather go on Eurostar - but for trips within Europe, with fixed travel dates where you can book reasonably far in advance then the chances of the legacy carriers or trains being able to match the price are low (unless they're running some kind of promotion).

[ATD]

What's the story with high-speed service in the UK? (high-speed = 175 mph plus) I realize that the UK is croaking under the budget-cutting austerity measures, but isn't there any talk about investing in infrastructure and creating jobs while they're at it? Government tax revenues will increase if people are working you know.

Apparently they have just announced a £9bn infrastructure investment in the railways...

This post has been edited by ATD: Jul 16 2012, 19:43

[Roger Mellie]

What's the story with high-speed service in the UK? (high-speed = 175 mph plus) I realize that the UK is croaking under the budget-cutting austerity measures, but isn't there any talk about investing in infrastructure and creating jobs while they're at it? Government tax revenues will increase if people are working you know

There was talk of HS2, a new high speed line connecting London to Birmingham. However it's been shelved from what I understand: Not cost effective, damage to the Chilterns; only minimally beneficial, given Great Britain is only the fraction of the size of France. As ATD mentions, instead investment is going towards upgrading the existing network, mostly via electrification; a better idea in my view, since it benefits more of the country, rail-passenger numbers are at an all time high across the country. Plus no new railways have to built (Thameslink and Crossrail aside, already under construction).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18851907

I hope when more money is available, they will look at re-opening some of the 10,000 miles of railway that was closed by the idiot Beeching in the 1960s (alas much of it has been dismantled/built on)

>>> Car ownership statistics do not automatically translate into miles driven stats. Do each of those folks in Luxembourg drive more on average than each of the folks in Montana? (You can't drive two cars at once you know.) <<<

Fair comment about "miles driven". Whilst I acknowledge I don't inhabit your elevated intellectual plain up in the Wiseacre Range-- I am fully aware that one cannot drive two cars at once (who would've thought eh?). That said, it is ever amusing to patronised by somebody with scant common sense: Where does driving two cars at the same time come in to it-- what made you even come up with that? It's something I have never suggested or the stats imply. Or to put another way: Why would all those people have extra cars, pay vehicle duty on them and insure them-- if they're not going to drive them anywhere? It seems strange to me that if Americans drive more than "Europeans", that they have far fewer cars-per-thousand, than many European countries do.

You were saying that you "don't doubt" that Americans drive more than "Europeans": From what you say (cited above), you're defining driving more as "miles driven": What's to say that a person in one those European countries with higher car ownerships, doesn't drive more than the American equivalent? For instance Iceland has no train services, so the quickest and most convenient way to get from somewhere in the far east of Iceland (say Neskaupstadur), to Rejavik (far west) is to drive-- a journey of 420 miles. The distance from Billings and Helena, largest settlement and state capital of Montana respectively, to the majority (all?) of places in Montana is less than that. And what's to say those Europeans in countries with lower car ownership don't drive more than Americans as well? (How many miles do you drive Parsy-- I'm willing to guess it's fewer than what I clock up annually ).

Unless you of course have stats, that show Americans drive more miles a year, than "Europeans"?

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Jul 17 2012, 10:42

[berenger79]

I took the train from London to Avignon over the Jubilee weekend. Took just over 7 hours all in (including a change at Lillle). Vastly preferable to flying, and environmentally less problematic.

I'm not a fan of HS2 however. It would inevitably turn out to be a longer version of the Heathrow Express i.e. priced solely for those travelling on expense accounts, making no difference to those who pay to use the trains on a daily basis. And for what benefit? So rich people can reach Birmingham 15 minutes quicker than now? Hardly worth the cost. At least the latest headlines from the rail industry seem more concerned with improving existing services. HS2 is a vanity project, not far removed from the nonsense of the cable car that has recently arrived in east London, connecting two venues which are only 3 stops apart via ground level public transportation.

This post has been edited by berenger79: Jul 17 2012, 18:40

[Kev]

Another result of the US having lower gasoline prices is that many more people in the US tend to drive bigger, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks whereas I believe more people in most European countries tend to drive smaller cars that use less gas.

I think it's more important to consider what the auto companies did to intercity transit in this country in the 50s & 60s than what the airlines did to intracity trains. Because of the sheer size of the US people switching to planes from trains probably would have happened anyway. What the auto companies did to mass transit in our cities is unforgivable. They eviscerated our trams/subways which caused people to rely more on cars which has caused more sprawl. Because our cities are so spread out it makes it harder to implement new mass transit. It's a vicious circle.

Sorry to further derail the thread.

This post has been edited by Kev: Jul 17 2012, 21:54

[berenger79]

I'm from N Ireland which had a reasonably decent train network 50, 60 years ago. Unfortunately the powers-that-were back then took the decision to sell most of it off, with the result the network is shrunken to almost nothing and the regional government is obsessed with road-building, pumping millions into bypasses, underpasses, etc with narry a copper to spend on what passes for public transport.

This post has been edited by berenger79: Jul 17 2012, 22:19

[Parsifal]

Where does driving two cars at the same time come in to it-- what made you even come up with that? It's something I have never suggested or the stats imply. Or to put another way: Why would all those people have extra cars, pay vehicle duty on them and insure them-- if they're not going to drive them anywhere? It seems strange to me that if Americans drive more than "Europeans", that they have far fewer cars-per-thousand, than many European countries do.

Since you mentioned Luxembourg, I recall reading somewhere (don't have the stats handy) that Luxembourg has the highest per capita income in the world (or somewhere close to that). Rich people tend to have multiple cars. There's the BMW and a Jaguar and a Porsche in the garage plus maybe an Audi for going shopping. The point is that it is a misleading statistic to count autos per population. And rich people don't give two hoots about vehicle duty. I suspect that the standard of living in Luxembourg is higher than in Montana (but again, I don't have the stats handy).

[Humpty Dumpty]

Where does driving two cars at the same time come in to it-- what made you even come up with that? It's something I have never suggested or the stats imply. Or to put another way: Why would all those people have extra cars, pay vehicle duty on them and insure them-- if they're not going to drive them anywhere? It seems strange to me that if Americans drive more than "Europeans", that they have far fewer cars-per-thousand, than many European countries do.

Since you mentioned Luxembourg, I recall reading somewhere (don't have the stats handy) that Luxembourg has the highest per capita income in the world (or somewhere close to that). Rich people tend to have multiple cars. There's the BMW and a Jaguar and a Porsche in the garage plus maybe an Audi for going shopping. The point is that it is a misleading statistic to count autos per population. And rich people don't give two hoots about vehicle duty. I suspect that the standard of living in Luxembourg is higher than in Montana (but again, I don't have the stats handy).

If you look at the contributions to the EU, then Luxembourg receives back Euros 1.2 billion (2009), around 8 times more than the Republic of Ireland received back. - whereas net contributions are made by Germany Euro 8.8 billion, France Euro 6.4 billion, Italy Euro 6.0 and the UK 3.9 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union). So if the population of Luxembourg are rich they must be really good at receiving subsidies for their olive trees, wine lake and butter mountain.

Picking up what Roger said, the Swiss tend to have a lot of cars but use them in a different way, mostly commuting by public transport and using private vehicle for pleasure.

[Parsifal]

Where does driving two cars at the same time come in to it-- what made you even come up with that? It's something I have never suggested or the stats imply. Or to put another way: Why would all those people have extra cars, pay vehicle duty on them and insure them-- if they're not going to drive them anywhere? It seems strange to me that if Americans drive more than "Europeans", that they have far fewer cars-per-thousand, than many European countries do.

Since you mentioned Luxembourg, I recall reading somewhere (don't have the stats handy) that Luxembourg has the highest per capita income in the world (or somewhere close to that). Rich people tend to have multiple cars. There's the BMW and a Jaguar and a Porsche in the garage plus maybe an Audi for going shopping. The point is that it is a misleading statistic to count autos per population. And rich people don't give two hoots about vehicle duty. I suspect that the standard of living in Luxembourg is higher than in Montana (but again, I don't have the stats handy).

If you look at the contributions to the EU, then Luxembourg receives back Euros 1.2 billion (2009), around 8 times more than the Republic of Ireland received back. - whereas net contributions are made by Germany Euro 8.8 billion, France Euro 6.4 billion, Italy Euro 6.0 and the UK 3.9 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union). So if the population of Luxembourg are rich they must be really good at receiving subsidies for their olive trees, wine lake and butter mountain.

Picking up what Roger said, the Swiss tend to have a lot of cars but use them in a different way, mostly commuting by public transport and using private vehicle for pleasure.

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita
Depending on the source,
Luxembourg ranks 2nd or 3rd in the world.
The US 6th, 7th or 9th.
Switzerland 8th, 9th or 10th.
The UK 22nd or 26th.