Election 2019 - promises

alistairlees · 1 Dec 2019

158756 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50621621

Rail fares to fall by 33% under Labour, and free travel for under 16s.

Big news. But whilst a third off ticket prices will be an improvement, that only puts prices back about ten years, maybe less, and rail travel has not been affordable for more than ten years.

That will cost roughly £3.5bn to £4.0bn per annum. There was no mention of the cost in the article. Will probably lead to a lot of (over)crowding too, with inevitable demands for more trains / carriages (and less money to pay for them). It's a bit ironic that the bit that is soaking up most money (Network Rail) is the bit that is already nationalised. A further irony: those who commute (or travel by rail generally) tend to be the wealthier. Corbyn will be transferring subsidies to them.

RailUK Forums

Alfie1014 · 1 Dec 2019

158756 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50621621

Rail fares to fall by 33% under Labour, and free travel for under 16s.

Big news. But whilst a third off ticket prices will be an improvement, that only puts prices back about ten years, maybe less, and rail travel has not been affordable for more than ten years.

Dear oh dear, this election seems to have turned into a pissing contest.

Much of the network couldn’t cope with the overnight increase in demand such a reduction would generate. So either this big policy commitment will have to be embarrassingly dropped or delayed for years or if it goes ahead levels of overcrowding will bring much of the network around London and other big cities to its knees. Infrastructure improvements to deliver such increases in capacity will cost 10s of BN take 5-10 years to deliver, plus loads of new trains built or older ones retained.

A sensible rail strategy would freeze fares whilst working on proposals to grow usage by 50% over 10 years or so.

I don’t envy the Perm Secretary telling the new Secretary of State that his/her flagship policy is undeliverable during the 5 years of their Parliamentary term!

thedbdiboy · 1 Dec 2019

Given that it only applies in England (as fares in Wales and Scotland are devolved), and that the fares structure still relies on ownership of flows across TOCs and regions, simply reducing a given number of fares without overall reform is going to make the current anomalies look like mere rounding errors. There is a good case for funding reform so as to ensure that the majority benefit from lower prices (and ideally part time workers and the socially excluded benefit the most) but this is not a particularly effective way to achieve it.

WatcherZero · 1 Dec 2019

That and a lot of peak flows are now being intentionally priced at a disincentive price to try and limit demand to a manageable level and encourage more people to travel at other times of day. Primarily it isn't the Tocs that are capacity constrained, theres a massive influx of new rolling stock, its the network infrastructure that's constrained with limits on the length and frequency of services that can be run on lines.

JonathanH · 1 Dec 2019

Reducing fares for part time workers suggests something like TfL did - ie reduce the price of a daily ticket to one-fifth of the weekly ticket. No need to change the cost of a weekly ticket at all (or annual seasons).

Simplifying fares sounds like simply taking on the RDG proposals.

Saying fares will reduce by 33% is just nonsense. Are they going to apply an across the board reduction of 33% for train fares or just the peak ones?

...and, why on earth is it right to reduce rail fares by 33% while saying absolutely nothing about bus (or tram) fares? People who travel reasonable distances by train are often (but, of course, not always by any means) are those who earn considerable amounts in their job. Those who travel short distances, such as by bus or suburban rail services, are often those who earn less. It is bus and local rail fares that should be reduced, not longer distance journeys. This targets completely the wrong part of the working population.

Spending loads more money on the railways is not a progressive policy.

WatcherZero · 2 Dec 2019

Its actually a bigger cut in some areas than 1/3rd, they are proposing 33% reduction in regulated season tickets and that a peak single fare would be reduced to 1/10th the price of a weekly season ticket, on some routes that could be as much as a 75% cut!!

E.g. My journey is Wigan to Daisy Hill, a single peak fare is £4.00 a weekly season ticket is £21.50 so that would be a new single peak fare of £2.15, a near 50% price cut.

An average 1/3rd reduction in rail fares would cost £4bn however Labour have apparently costed it as £1.5bn with any difference to be made up from an increase in vehicle excise duty. VED currently raises £6.5bn so if the shortfall is £2.5bn that's 35/40% increase in car tax.

JonathanH · 2 Dec 2019

WatcherZero said:
Its actually a bigger cut in some areas than 1/3rd, they are proposing 33% reduction in regulated season tickets and that a peak single fare would be reduced to 1/10th the price of a weekly season ticket, on some routes that could be as much as a 75% cut!!

E.g. My journey is Wigan to Daisy Hill, a single peak fare is £4.00 a weekly season ticket is £21.50 so that would be a new single peak fare of £2.15, a near 50% price cut.

So, in that circumstance, would you remove all off-peak fares and just have one fare all day?

Setting a whole framework of future fares based on current season ticket prices would create some material anomalies.

WatcherZero · 2 Dec 2019

That's what the Independant is pointing out yes, that people would in some instances be better off travelling in Peak than offpeak after this change, and in a lot of circumstances might be better off buying unregulated tickets than season tickets.

Robertj21a · 2 Dec 2019

158756 said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50621621

Rail fares to fall by 33% under Labour, and free travel for under 16s.

Big news. But whilst a third off ticket prices will be an improvement, that only puts prices back about ten years, maybe less, and rail travel has not been affordable for more than ten years.

More stupidity from Corbyn. What planet is he on ?

Antman · 2 Dec 2019

WatcherZero said:
Its actually a bigger cut in some areas than 1/3rd, they are proposing 33% reduction in regulated season tickets and that a peak single fare would be reduced to 1/10th the price of a weekly season ticket, on some routes that could be as much as a 75% cut!!

E.g. My journey is Wigan to Daisy Hill, a single peak fare is £4.00 a weekly season ticket is £21.50 so that would be a new single peak fare of £2.15, a near 50% price cut.

An average 1/3rd reduction in rail fares would cost £4bn however Labour have apparently costed it as £1.5bn with any difference to be made up from an increase in vehicle excise duty. VED currently raises £6.5bn so if the shortfall is £2.5bn that's 35/40% increase in car tax.

It’s laughable. You can’t just tax drivers. I know the area fairly well. It’s so congested with loads of new houses coming. And the railway can’t get into Manchester with extra capacity. And can’t even get to Bolton or Wigan consistently these days ! The gilets Jaunes are going nuts about fuel duty and increases in metropolitan elites not understanding that the nation doesn’t all have a Metroolitain. How is labour going to move all those who rely on their car ? The rail and bus network is not good enough and the latter in particular doesn’t run at times when people with jobs need it to. With lower wages, but the same cost of fuel and cars, Labour is condemning millions to lacks of personal mobility and opportunity.
It’s just more free stuff empty promises. It isn’t going to happen. It’s just another electoral lie.

Goldfish62 · 2 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
...and, why on earth is it right to reduce rail fares by 33% while saying absolutely nothing about bus (or tram) fares? People who travel reasonable distances by train are often (but, of course, not always by any means) are those who earn considerable amounts in their job. Those who travel short distances, such as by bus or suburban rail services, are often those who earn less. It is bus and local rail fares that should be reduced, not longer distance journeys. This targets completely the wrong part of the working population.

Because Central Government has no influence over bus fares. In London it's down to the mayor and everywhere else it's a commercial decision by the operators.

Bantamzen · 2 Dec 2019

alistairlees said:
That will cost roughly £3.5bn to £4.0bn per annum. There was no mention of the cost in the article. Will probably lead to a lot of (over)crowding too, with inevitable demands for more trains / carriages (and less money to pay for them). It's a bit ironic that the bit that is soaking up most money (Network Rail) is the bit that is already nationalised. A further irony: those who commute (or travel by rail generally) tend to be the wealthier. Corbyn will be transferring subsidies to them.

On the face of it that cost actually doesn't sound too bad, however committing that amount of money now is easy, once in office not so much so. I presume that JC is proposing to fund these cuts as subsidies, an not just suggesting that operators take the hit. Because if the latter expect most of them to exit the field very, very quickly!

Of course as you say there could be logistical problems such as a rapid rise in demand, however if there was perhaps the additional money made could be ring fenced to allow additional orders of stock currently under construction, allowing either additional / extended units, or cascades of displaced units after being replaced by additional new stock. If one was going to propose a rapid increase in demand as the result of price cuts, there's no better time than when manufacturers have the capability to (reasonably) quickly offer more units.

This does all assume that this is the joined up plan, and that the 33% figure wasn't just dreamed up by Labour's hyperactive PR department.....

<holding breath mode /off>

LNW-GW Joint · 2 Dec 2019

The BBC analysis says Labour's rail fare cut would be funded by raiding VED revenue, but no increases in VED are planned.
That probably means road schemes will be reduced.
Although I don't believe there a direct link between VED and road spend, it's just general tax revenue.
Road spend is mostly also capital (similar to rail enhancements), while fares are very much revenue/opex, so it's not like comparing apples and apples.
Rail fare reduction would of course result in compensation to private TOCs while they still exist.
Devolution probably means changes in the "Barnett settlement" formula (which balances revenue/spend around the UK) will be needed.
The (Labour) Welsh Government is already intending to reduce/simplify fares and eligibility for free travel, but not to the degree now proposed.

PS Andy Mcdonald said the cost would be £1.5 billion a year.
They would just be "repurposing" the transport budget.
Ho. Ho.

mpthomson · 2 Dec 2019

Grumpy Git said:
I think it was one of our college lecturers who said (just prior to the 1979 election, when I was a second year apprentice);

" ............ if you vote a Conservative at 18, you have no heart but if you still vote Conservative when you are 48 you have no brains."

He was an ex-miner and he did have his tongue firmly in his cheek (and great mentor he was too), but I would still disagree, or maybe I don't have any brains?

It'd probably have more income if I voted Tory (v Labour), but in my opinion, the country is a better place when the system is fairer for those who have less and will never have the means to get out of the hole they are in. But as I said before, Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for me. I think anyone who does not have any experience of running a small business, where you have to import (and export) to the EU cannot begin to understand the chaos this has and will continue to bring.

They pay a high proportion of tax in Scandinavia apparently. Well I've worked there recently and prices are high, but no one complains and I have yet to see a boarded-up shop (or any other run down property) or pot-holed road. The place also has a general air of tidyness about it, very little discarded chewing gum and simple things like fallen leaves swept-up before they become a sodden mush glued to the pavement and gutter, so they must be doing something right in their "high tax" society?

Not really, Scandinavian countries have massive social problems and are, in the main, racist to a level that would make a BNP member blush, mainly because of a large rise in sexual crime caused by immigrants. They also have large scale organised crime run by biker gangs who are happy to settle scores using rocket launchers and guns.

None of them are anything like socialist in the way that the likes of Momentum claim.

There’s no point in comparing economic models in countries that have populations smaller than London, they’re simply of no relevance.

JonathanH · 2 Dec 2019

Goldfish62 said:
Because Central Government has no influence over bus fares. In London it's down to the mayor and everywhere else it's a commercial decision by the operators.

They can legislate to have influence over bus fares. Granted it wouldn't happen immediately but a majority government, particularly one like the one Labour envisage, could introduce new legislation to regulate bus fares if it wanted, even though the buses are currently run by private companies.

SamYeager · 2 Dec 2019

158756 said:
Rail fares to fall by 33% under Labour, and free travel for under 16s.

So how does this affect the existing contracts between DfT & the TOCs since presumably the TOCs were relying on this income to meet their financial targets?

Goldfish62 · 2 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
They can legislate to have influence over bus fares. Granted it wouldn't happen immediately but a majority government, particularly one like the one Labour envisage, could introduce new legislation to regulate bus fares if it wanted, even though the buses are currently run by private companies.

I don't see how that could possibly work given the structure and economics of the bus industry. You can't just legislate to introduce something that's impossible to achieve. It would never pass parliamentary scrutiny.

Goldfish62 · 2 Dec 2019

SamYeager said:
So how does this affect the existing contracts between DfT & the TOCs since presumably the TOCs were relying on this income to meet their financial targets?

The DfT can't just unilaterally vary the terms of the contracts. They would need agreement from each individual TOC. The TOCs would have nothing to lose by being completely uncooperative.

JonathanH · 2 Dec 2019

Goldfish62 said:
I don't see how that could possibly work given the structure and economics of the bus industry. You can't just legislate to introduce something that's impossible to achieve. It would never pass parliamentary scrutiny.

Politicians with an interventionist agenda could simply do what they propose for water, mail, broadband and the railways and impose policies on the bus industry. I don't see how it is outside their (perceived) remit.

I do, of course, agree that this wouldn't pass parliamentary scrutiny in the kinds of government we are used to but times may be different if a majority Corbyn-led Labour goverment is elected in 10 days time.

Realfish · 2 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
...and, why on earth is it right to reduce rail fares by 33% while saying absolutely nothing about bus (or tram) fares?

Labour announced last year and confirmed again last week, that where services are operated by local authorities, there will be free bus travel for the under 25s. As they as also have a policy of reversing privatisation of bus services, that could include all local authorities. The initiative will also be paid for out of the VED ring fence. I hope there's enough money in the pot!

''Labour is announcing a new policy to fund free bus travel for under 25 year olds across the country.

The move could benefit up to 13 million young people, help them save up to £1,000 a year and will be paid for using money ring-fenced from Vehicle Excise Duty.

The next Labour government will provide funds for free travel for under 25s to local authorities who introduce bus franchising or move to public ownership of their local bus services. This will support and incentivise local authorities to create municipally owned bus companies, run for passengers not profit, which research has found could achieve annual savings of £276 million per year.''

https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-introduce-free-bus-travel-25s/

Antman · 2 Dec 2019

Guess how the crime managed to get across London before they all started stealing mopeds? Free travel exported it to nicer areas. Why steal tat from your own when you can steal nice stuff somewhere else?

Do the under 25s not realise they are being bribed with empty undeliverable promises? And the over 35 labour voters that they are being taken for granted and so they can be taken for a (more expensive) ride ?

Robertj21a · 2 Dec 2019

It's nothing new, Labour has often attracted the young voters, often at their first experience of a General Election. It rarely survives 1-2 elections before the voter matures a bit more and realises......

Bantamzen · 2 Dec 2019

Robertj21a said:
It's nothing new, Labour has often attracted the young voters, often at their first experience of a General Election. It rarely survives 1-2 elections before the voter matures a bit more and realises......

This is not really true, many people vote Labour throughput their lives, however some people may change their political allegiance as they buy more into the "me-me-me" state of mind that elements of the main right leaning party panders to....

Goldfish62 · 2 Dec 2019

JonathanH said:
Politicians with an interventionist agenda could simply do what they propose for water, mail, broadband and the railways and impose policies on the bus industry. I don't see how it is outside their (perceived) remit.

I do, of course, agree that this wouldn't pass parliamentary scrutiny in the kinds of government we are used to but times may be different if a majority Corbyn-led Labour goverment is elected in 10 days time.

The truth is that the government would have to nationalise every single bus service in the country.

I'm not sure you understand how the bus industry is structured or how it operates. Here's an example. I'm Bloggs buses and I run a service a couple of times a day to take shoppers into town. It's a commercial service and the fares are set at a level that just about keep my business afloat. An imposed lower fare would result in me withdrawing the service, or going out of business, whichever came first.

Do you see the problem here?

And if the government could impose lower fares on independent businesses, why not stop at buses? Let's tell Tesco and Sainsbury what to charge.

The whole thing is a complete non starter.

underbank · 2 Dec 2019

Realfish said:
The initiative will also be paid for out of the VED ring fence. I hope there's enough money in the pot!

Must be Diane doing the sums again. The "VED" pot will be shrinking due to the policies aimed towards reducing the numbers of cars on the roads, and the low/zero VED for electric/low emission vehicles. So, to pay for it in the long term, they'll either have to ramp up VED (extra tax) or tax people in other ways. Can't imagine people will be happy that they've been "encouraged" to buy expensive electric cars with the "bribe" of zero VED, only to find themselves having to start paying VED again when the money runs out. A bit like how the govt at the time encouraged people to buy diesel cars and then changed their mind and started demonising them.

underbank · 2 Dec 2019

158756 said:
free travel for under 16s.

What about those without a reasonable public transport system? Any "spare" money they find should be spent on improving provision, not more freebies. Do these politicians not live in the real world? Are they really so blinkered by London Centricity? What about villages without a regular bus service? What about smaller towns where the bus service finishes at 8pm and it's only a two hourly service on a Sunday? Or an expensive park n ride initiative with no Sunday services? Get the core infrastructure right before election bribery freebies!

Antman · 2 Dec 2019

Most bus services don’t Actually seem to run for revenue. But jus Lr the subsidy. I see the rural services campaigned for (in village we are in and the old one).

buses don’t run to time with the train service at the local station. They actually arrive just after the train goes and leave before. They don’t run in the evenings. They run a school bus which doesn’t get into the main town where the secondary schools are in time for a lot of the schools’ registrations (many are private schools) (but do run to time for one state run secondary). There is no evening service for workers, there is no way to get a pint or two and a bus home. The only time the buses have a few people on them, they are mostly pensioners who are almost certainly on concessionary or free travel.

We now live in and Around Surrey Hills villages that are tourist central. Loads of DFLs (down from londons) who can’t drive on narrow lanes and clog the place up. A working bus service would slash the congestion and actually increase spend for the retailers/restaurants and pubs.

But money won’t be spent on these. Because some of the locals can afford to drive. Some will not get the bus anyway (a lot of the Hyacinth Bouquets simply don’t. Especially if they have fairly easily obtained blue badges so they can park easily). Some are young, low paid, struggle to get to a job without a car and a real bus/train service would help them so much. But it won’t happen. Because the local govt (if whatever hue) won’t pay for the subsidies. Oh and taxis are fairly hard to get without a full day of notice as well....

Goldfish62 · 2 Dec 2019

Justapunter said:
Most bus services don’t Actually seem to run for revenue. But jus Lr the subsidy. I see the rural services campaigned for (in village we are in and the old one).

buses don’t run to time with the train service at the local station. They actually arrive just after the train goes and leave before. They don’t run in the evenings. They run a school bus which doesn’t get into the main town where the secondary schools are in time for a lot of the schools’ registrations (many are private schools) (but do run to time for one state run secondary). There is no evening service for workers, there is no way to get a pint or two and a bus home. The only time the buses have a few people on them, they are mostly pensioners who are almost certainly on concessionary or free travel.

We now live in and Around Surrey Hills villages that are tourist central. Loads of DFLs (down from londons) who can’t drive on narrow lanes and clog the place up. A working bus service would slash the congestion and actually increase spend for the retailers/restaurants and pubs.

But money won’t be spent on these. Because some of the locals can afford to drive. Some will not get the bus anyway (a lot of the Hyacinth Bouquets simply don’t. Especially if they have fairly easily obtained blue badges so they can park easily). Some are young, low paid, struggle to get to a job without a car and a real bus/train service would help them so much. But it won’t happen. Because the local govt (if whatever hue) won’t pay for the subsidies. Oh and taxis are fairly hard to get without a full day of notice as well....

Not true. The vast majority of local bus services are commercial, ie operate with no subsidy. In fact a number of councils now provide no financial support at all to bus services.

swt_passenger · 2 Dec 2019

WatcherZero said:
Its actually a bigger cut in some areas than 1/3rd, they are proposing 33% reduction in regulated season tickets and that a peak single fare would be reduced to 1/10th the price of a weekly season ticket, on some routes that could be as much as a 75% cut!!

E.g. My journey is Wigan to Daisy Hill, a single peak fare is £4.00 a weekly season ticket is £21.50 so that would be a new single peak fare of £2.15, a near 50% price cut.

An average 1/3rd reduction in rail fares would cost £4bn however Labour have apparently costed it as £1.5bn with any difference to be made up from an increase in vehicle excise duty. VED currently raises £6.5bn so if the shortfall is £2.5bn that's 35/40% increase in car tax.

Then, on a journey such as Southampton Central to Waterloo. The current 7 day season has a daily single equivalent fare of £12.12. Knock off 33% to give £8.08, and you’re putting a trip to London in the same bracket as a long bus journey in some parts of the country. And compare it with present peak single of £44.80...

Antman · 2 Dec 2019

Goldfish62 said:
Not true. The vast majority of local bus services are commercial, ie operate with no subsidy. In fact a number of councils now provide no financial support at all to bus services.

That may work in urban areas. With decent loads and frequency. Surrey Hills buses carry grants from government bodies, funding from Gatwick (to offset their environmental emissions) and council subsidies (I haven't double checked this is still as it was...). If it was commercial only, none of the buses locally would ever run. But low loadings are as much a result of the timetabling. So someone has to fund it.

[local train service is also detrimental to public transport (Gomshall). It has gaps in the service that make it difficult to use as a commuter service. So you drive. It can take an hour to get to either Redhill or Guildford. And the same to Creepy Crawley. But the North Downs Line has its own issues that aren't just funding related...

Election 2019 - promises

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member