Northern to introduce evening peak restrictions

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I might not fully understand matters correctly in my somewhat aged years, but was the short-period Northern Rail franchise extension that was a direct result of the DfT fiasco on the WCML franchise under the terms of not actually making an amendment to the pre-existing strictures that so applied in all its many sections, one that an exterior body such as the DfT could request a franchise amendment of that the matter of this thread appeared to be?

 

[Howardh]

Of corse, all this palava is happening more-or-less within TFGM (Transport For Greater Manchester) area. The current happenings seem to be between Dept. of Transport, Northern Rail (+TPE) and us.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard a dicky-bird from TFGM? Could be nothing to do with them, but even so it is as passengers trying to avoid peak restrictions could turn to buses/trams or even drive, whicg affects passenger flows? Could imaging px's leaving Piccadilly now heading for the tram?

 

[yorkie]

Of corse, all this palava is happening more-or-less within TFGM (Transport For Greater Manchester) area....

As detailed earlier in the thread, it's also affecting South & West Yorkshire (as well as some flows with an origin or destination outside these areas)

The current happenings seem to be between Dept. of Transport, Northern Rail (+TPE) and us.

DfT has told Northern to raise revenue, Northern has decided to increase fares, but this is detailed earlier in the thread.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard a dicky-bird from TFGM? Could be nothing to do with them, but even so it is as passengers trying to avoid peak restrictions could turn to buses/trams or even drive, whicg affects passenger flows? Could imaging px's leaving Piccadilly now heading for the tram?

Modal shift is a possibility, that would be in line with Government policy to price people off rail.

 

[Howardh]

As detailed earlier in the thread, it's also affecting South & West Yorkshire (as well as some flows with an origin or destination outside these areas)

I meant specifically the Manchester area as *more or less* covers me for the routes to Buxton etc which are technically outside Gtr. Man. I am aware that the Yorkies (pun intended!) have the same problems! Sorry for the confusion!!

 

[yorkie]

I meant specifically the Manchester area as *more or less* covers me for the routes to Buxton etc which are technically outside Gtr. Man. I am aware that the Yorkies (pun intended!) have the same problems! Sorry for the confusion!!

Ah, I see, no worries

If you can say what your regular journeys are, we may be able to find cheaper alternatives.

 

[Howardh]

Ah, I see, no worries

If you can say what your regular journeys are, we may be able to find cheaper alternatives.

Most regular is Bon/Man or Lot/Man return usually after 6.30pm. Now the evening return's gone, I'm now paying double - but can I buy the cheap evening return from Adlington and get on (an off) at Lostock? Is that a legal move?? It's only saving a quid or so, but it's the principle

 

[muz379]

The DfT want to reduce Northern's subsidy, so that people who are wealthy and don't require public transport can have their tax burden reduced.

In order to achieve that, Northern chose to abolish cheap evening tickets and to introduce evening peak restrictions on many (but not all) of their Off Peak Day tickets.

They also chose to do it in a way that is ridiculous.

Northern could have also introduced parking charges but from my understanding some PTE's placed an embargo on that idea thus forcing Northern to introduce the more unpopular measure of evening peak restrictions .
I wonder how much the PTE's also had to do with the writing of the restrictions . not to mention the fact that they could have easilly pledged the subsidy that was being removed to keep the restrictions at bay .

As these are new restrictions id be willing to be on places when restrictions have been imposed there has been a process of amendments to them over time as they are implemented and then the snags of them are found out .Nobody gets it perfect first time . But we will have to wait and see what happens with these restrictions who knows they could make changes to them .

 

[IanXC]

If TPE suddenly decided to follow Northern by abolishing cheap fares and/or imposing similar restrictions, I'd be suspicious of collusion.

If TPE were to have taken such action at the same time as Northern there would be grounds to suspect that collusion could have taken place. If TPE see what Northern have done, observe the impact on their flows and revenue, and then decide to take the same/similar actions I think it would be difficult to conclude that collusion had taken place. That would not be unusual activity in such a market place.

Modal shift is a possibility, that would be in line with Government policy to price people off rail.

Do you have a source for that? The Government's stated policy is that the sharing of cost between tax payers and fare payers should move from circa 50:50 at the start of this parliament, towards being funded 75% by fare payers and 25% by tax payers. If Government were aiming to price people off rail why would it be undertaking the largest rail investment programme for decades?

 

[bnm]

that would be in line with Government policy to price people off rail.

Policies are usually spelled out. I've not seen this one though. I don't think it's an aim of Government either. A consequence of policies and aims maybe, but the ever increasing numbers of people using the railways would suggest otherwise.

Closer to the truth would be that Government is attempting to see that fare payers pay a greater share of the costs of running the railway and that taxpayer subsidies are reduced.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Closer to the truth would be that Government is attempting to see that fare payers pay a greater share of the costs of running the railway and that taxpayer subsidies are reduced.

I was under the impression that the aim was to reach a 75:25 balance between fares and subsidy; elsewhere it has been quoted in several places recently that we are now at 80:20 and there seems to be no sign of it halting, so I imagine the unspoken aim is to reach 100:0...

Northern, if I recall rightly, has a lower proportion covered by fares until now, so this could be an attempt to redress that balance with the DfT completely failing to consider the reason why the ratio is lower in the north, namely the greater geographical spread combined with a lower population density compared to the south east.

 

[yorkie]

If Government were aiming to price people off rail why would it be undertaking the largest rail investment programme for decades?

I'd argue that putting fares up in order to try to reduce the 'burden' on wealthy people who don't have to use public transport, is pricing people off, and they want to price people off.

Not pricing everyone off, but people are being priced off. If enough people are priced off, they don't have to fund so many additional carriages!

They know that, politically, they can't get away with making travel unaffordable for commuters, so they're targeting leisure passengers.

 

[muz379]

I'd argue that putting fares up in order to try to reduce the 'burden' on wealthy people who don't have to use public transport, is pricing people off., and they want to price people off. Not pricing everyone off, but people are being priced off. If enough people are priced off, they don't have to fund so many additional carriages! They know that, politically, they can't get away with making i travel unaffordable for commuters, so they're targeting leisure passengers.

personally I agree its political dogma and he purpose is to make those that travel on the railway responsible for covering more of the cost of its operation . I think its misguided given the economic benefits of an efficient rail network

But I just dont think its that calculated . I dont think they really fully understand what they are actually doing . I dont think they have enough foresight to plan a scheme quite that well .

If the government really wanted to price people off the railway the better route would be to make car use more affordable as that would incentive more people to use the car as well as be a massive vote winner .

I dont see why they would target leisure travelers either , they aren't the ones generally traveling on packed peak services . so getting rid of them wont reduce the need for more carriages .

 

[Howardh]

personally I agree its political dogma and he purpose is to make those that travel on the railway responsible for covering more of the cost of its operation . I think its misguided given the economic benefits of an efficient rail network

But I just dont think its that calculated . I dont think they really fully understand what they are actually doing . I dont think they have enough foresight to plan a scheme quite that well .

If the government really wanted to price people off the railway the better route would be to make car use more affordable as that would incentive more people to use the car as well as be a massive vote winner .

I dont see why they would target leisure travelers either , they aren't the ones generally traveling on packed peak services . so getting rid of them wont reduce the need for more carriages .

BIB - that won't get any votes from a 4x4 driver stuck in a jam all day! They could give petrol away tax-free, but all that would do is clog the roads up even further.
What we should be doing is getting people onto local buses short-distance, and the rail medium/long distance, but there's no point in the latter as the railways at peak times are full.
maybe in the long run government/s are trying to force people to work closer to home/live closer to work. Might be good policy, except that city-centre rentals are enormous compared to suburbs.

 

[muz379]

BIB - that won't get any votes from a 4x4 driver stuck in a jam all day! They could give petrol away tax-free, but all that would do is clog the roads up even further.
What we should be doing is getting people onto local buses short-distance, and the rail medium/long distance, but there's no point in the latter as the railways at peak times are full.
maybe in the long run government/s are trying to force people to work closer to home/live closer to work. Might be good policy, except that city-centre rentals are enormous compared to suburbs.

Id argue it would because the driving lobby can at times be short sighted . Reduce car tax and fuel duty and despite chronic congestion people will remember the extra money in their wallet on polling day .

what do you would reckon in a london mayoral election if a candidate pledged to get rid of the congestion charge ?

Schemes like banning HGV's from roads at certain times would also be good for winning votes in this area even if it doesn't impact that much on congestion .

As well as promoting that they could be trying to promote employers to adopt more flexible working hours as in some industries being in the office strictly during "business" hours is not as essential so then not everybody is going to work at the same time .

 

[IanXC]

I'd argue that putting fares up in order to try to reduce the 'burden' on wealthy people who don't have to use public transport, is pricing people off., and they want to price people off. Not pricing everyone off, but people are being priced off. If enough people are priced off, they don't have to fund so many additional carriages! They know that, politically, they can't get away with making i travel unaffordable for commuters, so they're targeting leisure passengers.

Ah you'd "argue" - so its not Government policy after all then? I'm pretty sure theres no Government policy to reduce demand for Rail travel. Quite the opposite in fact.

In what way has there been any 'reduction in the burden on wealthy people'?

I'm not clear how an argument that reducing demand at off peak times reduces the need for investment, whilst also stating that its politically unacceptable to impact commuters works?

 

[Howardh]

It's a long shot, but one way to lessen the demand on the roads and railways at peak times would be tax-breaks for those living within a certain distance of their work. Of course, then that would mean a reduction of duty for the government from fuel from the commuters, so it ain't gonna happen.

Devil's advocate question (so don't shout!) generally *work* is in a grimy, unattractive place (obviously not if you are a B+B owner in the Lake District....but generally!) and *home* is in a nice leafy suburb. If commuters want that arrangement, and aren't prepared to move to homes closer to work, why shouldn't they put up with expensive tickets or gridlocked roads? Remember, Devil's Advocate question!!

 

[yorkie]

Ah you'd "argue" - so its not Government policy after all then? I'm pretty sure theres no Government policy to reduce demand for Rail travel. Quite the opposite in fact.

You don't increase demand for a product by increasing the price. Some people will be priced off travelling if the price increases. I know many people who will choose not to travel by rail if the price is too high/increased to a level I am not happy with, and I am one of them.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ns-may-be-in-store-for-the-north-under-labour

"the government’s controversial plans for pacer trains and higher fares in the north "

http://www.stagecoach.com/media/insight-features/the-facts-about-rail-fares.aspx

"...For many years, government policy has been that a bigger share must come from people who use the train.."

"...Government support for the industry has dropped sharply in recent years..." "

...the government policy to reduce the share taxpayers pay towards the cost of running the railways."

In what way has there been any 'reduction in the burden on wealthy people'?

The quotes above state that subsidy has been reducing, so a reduction in the "burden" on taxpayers, but taxpayers who use public transport have to pay more in fare rises than they save in taxes. So it's people who do not use public transport, ie, people with car ownership - or people who walk everywhere, which must be such a small proportion of the population that it;s negligible- who are the ones the Government wants to pay less. Us public transport users pay more.

I'm not clear how an argument that reducing demand at off peak times reduces the need for investment whilst also stating that its politically unacceptable to impact commuters works?

There are two issues here really and these have been confused.

Generally, commuters are protected by fares regulation, and the regulated fares are generally going up more than they should do, which is affecting commuters, but there are limits to what the Government can get away with because of bad publicity. The Government doesn't want to pay for the true number of additional carriages that should be provided to cater for demand, so increasing fares is a way of suppressing demand and, although investments are being made, they can be reduced in scope.

What Northern have done specifically recently that has caused uproar is increase the cost of leisure journeys (or people who work part-time, or shift workers, etc may also be affected), and the intention of this specifically appears to be to either increase revenue, or to move some people onto less crowded services, or both.

So some people who might travel outward at 10:00 and back at 17:00 may choose not to travel because they've been priced off rail. There is no doubt some people will be in that position!

While other people who might travel outward at 10:00 and back at 17:00 may choose to travel back at 19:00, thus reducing the pressure on the busy 17:00 service, thus reducing the need for additional carriages on the 17:00.

And finally, some people will pay the excess, thus bringing additional revenue to Northern.

I do not know if Northern or the DfT have estimates for how many people are going to go for each of the options above, but it would be very interesting to find out what the forecasts are.

 

[muz379]

It's a long shot, but one way to lessen the demand on the roads and railways at peak times would be tax-breaks for those living within a certain distance of their work. Of course, then that would mean a reduction of duty for the government from fuel from the commuters, so it ain't gonna happen.

but then that would increase property prices and demand in employment centers . and devalue homes away from employment centres . probably not good news for a lot of people .

Devil's advocate question (so don't shout!) generally *work* is in a grimy, unattractive place (obviously not if you are a B+B owner in the Lake District....but generally!) and *home* is in a nice leafy suburb. If commuters want that arrangement, and aren't prepared to move to homes closer to work, why shouldn't they put up with expensive tickets or gridlocked roads? Remember, Devil's Advocate question!!

TBH I dont see anything wrong with that , nobody has a right to live in a nice place and also commute for pennies to work several miles away . Everything costs money and devils advocate surely those that make that choice should also pay the premium for it . Like those that choose to drive to work rather than use public transport pay a premium .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So some people who might travel outward at 10:00 and back at 17:00 may choose not to travel because they've been priced off rail. There is no doubt some people will be in that position!

While other people who might travel outward at 10:00 and back at 17:00 may choose to travel back at 19:00, thus reducing the pressure on the busy 17:00 service, thus reducing the need for additional carriages on the 17:00.

And finally, some people will pay the excess, thus bringing additional revenue to Northern.

my experience though is that neither of these courses of action have been taken . Or they have not been taken on that vast a score that it is noticeable .

Anybody making a non essential journey would probably think twice about taking the 17:00 service anyway if overcrowding is as bad as is being suggested here .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The quotes above state that subsidy has been reducing, so a reduction in the "burden" on taxpayers, but taxpayers who use public transport have to pay more in fare rises than they save in taxes. So it's people who do not use public transport, ie, people with car ownership - or people who walk everywhere, which must be such a small proportion of the population that it;s negligible- who are the ones the Government wants to pay less. Us public transport users pay more.

I know people who own cars and dont use public transport . Not because they are wealthy but because they work at times or places where public transport is just not a viable option . I'm sure they would rather money was taken from the subsidizing the railway to provide for better roads maintenance as they see no direct benefit from all this money being spent on subsidizing fares .

Nobody is going to see tax savings from this , but what people will see is a reallocation of funds . To be honest as a taxpayer id rather see some(not all) of the burden of running a privatized railway taken from the tax payer and that money used to fund Healthcare or education or policing . Given that the current government plans center around austerity all elements of government spending are being squeezed . Why should subsidized rail services be exempt from this .

 

[IanXC]

You don't increase demand for a product by increasing the price. Some people will be priced off travelling if the price increases. I know many people who will choose not to travel by rail if the price is too high/increased to a level I am not happy with, and I am one of them.

What we know is that the demand curve for rail travel is moving inexorably to the right due to external factors - all the evidence is that the demand for rail travel is very price inelastic - we know that the number of journeys made has more than doubled in the last 10 years, however we also know that fares have risen over 20% in just the last 5 years.

Government policy is to fund investments which substantially increase the supply of rail travel available, however not to the level which would allow the market price to remain where it has historically been. The total amount of the product sold in the market is, and will continue to increase, yet demand is moving in such a fashion that the price will also be higher than ever before.

I'm not sure what other policy options could realistically be followed within the confines of the public finances as they currently stand.

The quotes above state that subsidy has been reducing, so a reduction in the "burden" on taxpayers, but taxpayers who use public transport have to pay more in fare rises than they save in taxes. So it's people who do not use public transport, ie, people with car ownership - or people who walk everywhere, which must be such a small proportion of the population that it;s negligible- who are the ones the Government wants to pay less. Us public transport users pay more.

I'm not sure that a comparison with motoring is actually that useful. Yes its possible to make a political point comparing them, however the market for rail travel is very different to the situation on the roads, where demand is generally seen to have peaked. The price of rail travel reflects much more the capacity of the industry to provide the service, than it does any intention by Government to have one group pay more or less for their travel.

It is true to say that policy is to reduce the "burden" on taxpayers, but that is not unique to Rail - every element of public spending is subject to the same pressure. If we were talking about bus travel I would be inclined to agree that the policy would be regressive, but its hard to see increasing the price of rail travel in the same light.

The Government doesn't want to pay for the true number of additional carriages that should be provided to cater for demand, so increasing fares is a way of suppressing demand and, although investments are being made, they can be reduced in scope.

What Northern have done specifically recently that has caused uproar is increase the cost of leisure journeys (or people who work part-time, or shift workers, etc may also be affected), and the intention of this specifically appears to be to either increase revenue, or to move some people onto less crowded services, or both.

I agree, however, the crux of the issue is that factors external to the market for Rail travel are altering the demand curve for rail travel, the Government is responding by investing significant sums in new capacity, however not to the extent required to keep market equilibrium at the same price. Given the need for investment and the limited amount of public finance available for investment, it is perfectly logical to fund more and more of the investment by increasing the price of Rail travel.

This all results in a situation where demand is increasing rapidly, supply is increasing at a lower rate, and thus the market price increases. The cycle continues because the market is so price inelastic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

TBH I don't see anything wrong with that , nobody has a right to live in a nice place and also commute for pennies to work several miles away . Everything costs money and devils advocate surely those that make that choice should also pay the premium for it . Like those that choose to drive to work rather than use public transport pay a premium .

We chose to live in our present property because of the rural location and the opportunity to live in such an excellent property, despite its distance of two miles from any bus stop or railway station, as the need to commute prior to retirement was not just one of the normal home to work and the return home scenario, as there many days per month when I would set off for meetings from home to travel to locations many miles away for meetings, where a car park was provided at the meeting place, be that a company premises, a local authority complex or a hotel at which a business seminar was being held.

When I used to make such journeys away from the consultancy offices, not for one moment did I ever think of using anything but the vehicle in which to make a direct home to meeting journey. On the days when I was at our offices, I had a reserved car parking space as a result of holding a senior position. I make no excuses for this as I knew that my expertise was something that was valued by our organisation and I felt, as such, deserving of that particular benefit. I spent the last thirty years of my working life in the field of senior management and had I not been up to the standards required to ensure either competence or proof of success, I would most certainly not have retained such a position.

In the four years of retirement since 2010, I still see no reason whatsoever to have changed my views upon that matter one iota and I have been a member of this website for three and a half years, during which time my views on many similar matters to this being discussed matters are well known to both forum staff and members alike.

 

[Abpj17]

It often isn't a practical choice with increasingly metropolitan centres. The most jobs are in cities that don't have enough housing relative to the number of jobs. And the areas with more housing don't have enough jobs to support those in the house. Something has to give = commuting from the suburbs into city centres without significant structural changes to businesses.

 

[yorksrob]

It is true to say that policy is to reduce the "burden" on taxpayers, but that is not unique to Rail - every element of public spending is subject to the same pressure. If we were talking about bus travel I would be inclined to agree that the policy would be regressive, but its hard to see increasing the price of rail travel in the same light.

The problem with this policy is that it targets precisely those groups of varying income in urban areas who use the train throughout the day, for example parents, people going shopping etc, rather than commuters, so I think that this increase could be said to be regressive. Philip Hammond famously said that the railways were a "rich man's toy", yet I doubt he was thinking of a Northern rail train from Sheffield to Leeds as he would find a wide range of people of various social backgrounds using the train. Yet, it is those sort of travellers who are going to be disadvantaged and put off travelling by train.

Central Government seems to want to have it's cake and eat it by complaining that the railway only serves wealthy commuters whilst ensuring at the same time that the sort of fares that attract ordinary people to the railway are removed.

 

[Starmill]

Because this is all Northern's fault isn't it? I'm sure any other company would have told DfT where to go.....

Yes! Without a doubt this is Northern's fault! Look how LM introduced restrictions in the West Midlands and surrounding area, in a carefully thought out way that actually matched the service on the ground.

I'm fed up with people trying to pass the buck to the DfT. The DfT just said raise more money, not screw your customers over (and it is often to almost no benefit).


Unless you think that this:

DfT has told Northern to raise revenue, Northern has decided to increase fares, but this is detailed earlier in the thread.

is not the case?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you have a source for that? The Government's stated policy is that the sharing of cost between tax payers and fare payers should move from circa 50:50 at the start of this parliament, towards being funded 75% by fare payers and 25% by tax payers. If Government were aiming to price people off rail why would it be undertaking the largest rail investment programme for decades?

Well when was the last time you came across a fare in England that is good value outside of a locally subsidised set of fares? ECML and London to Birmingham, that's about it. Anywhere else where fares are getting better value for money in order to encourage car drivers to use trains instead? Compared to the obvious thousands of flows where the opposite is happening...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I dont see why they would target leisure travelers either , they aren't the ones generally traveling on packed peak services . so getting rid of them wont reduce the need for more carriages .

It severely weakens the case that can be made for longer trains if off-peak demand is weak, though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah you'd "argue" - so its not Government policy after all then? I'm pretty sure theres no Government policy to reduce demand for Rail travel. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'm with yorkie on this one.

I can't drive. I don't so much want to learn to because I think my 'ethos' and the way I want to live my life is such that I don't want to own a car. But society dictates that you are excluded from or ripped-off by such a large and increasing proportion of things if you have to rely on public transport that it's becoming difficult. Every small change that is made is cumulative - penalising leisure travellers like me by imposing these restrictions is just one more small addition to the pile of reasons why life without a car is hard. I hope this helps to explain.

Furthermore, government policy to shift the cost of the railway onto passengers is in my opinion itself misguided based on a) the environment and sustainability and b) the structure of society. I think that will have to be for a new thread though!

 

[Merseysider]

Yes! Without a doubt this is Northern's fault! Look how LM introduced restrictions in the West Midlands and surrounding area, in a carefully thought out way that actually matched the service on the ground.

I'm fed up with people trying to pass the buck to the DfT. The DfT just said raise more money, not screw your customers over (and it is often to almost no benefit).

What else did you expect Northern and TFGM to do? Introduce parking charges that'd hit those wealthy enough to afford a car? Nah.

Ask for investment from Serco (who made £4.3billion last year) and hit foreign shareholders? Nah.

Raise fares and hit Joe Public cause most of them aren't gonna put up a fight? Yeah!

 

[Starmill]

I guess what I'm advocating is some sort reward for anyone who uses public transport - it is 'doing the right thing' both socially and environmentally. At the very least make all journeys cheaper by PT than in an average private car. This is just the latest in a long line of past and by the sounds of it future developments to the contrary!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What we know is that the demand curve for rail travel is moving inexorably to the right due to external factors - all the evidence is that the demand for rail travel is very price inelastic - we know that the number of journeys made has more than doubled in the last 10 years, however we also know that fares have risen over 20% in just the last 5 years.

Government policy is to fund investments which substantially increase the supply of rail travel available, however not to the level which would allow the market price to remain where it has historically been. The total amount of the product sold in the market is, and will continue to increase, yet demand is moving in such a fashion that the price will also be higher than ever before.

I'm not sure what other policy options could realistically be followed within the confines of the public finances as they currently stand.

The increase in supply of rail travel should keep pace with the increase in demand for it, before slowly beginning to exceed it for a few years until all of the historical changes have been undone, along with a GB (UK?) wide review of all fares. Easy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The price of rail travel reflects much more the capacity of the industry to provide the service, than it does any intention by Government to have one group pay more or less for their travel.

Compare some Scottish and English fares over similar physical distance and economic terrain and see if you still think that! I cannot personally see a clear link between demand and price in the industry, with the exception of advance quotas.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....I'm fed up with people trying to pass the buck to the DfT. The DfT just said raise more money, not screw your customers over (and it is often to almost no benefit).

Northern were given options. The three I know of were car parking fees (PTEs didn't want that), evening restrictions (that we have got) or raising fares (which doesn't benefit anyone).

Northern chose the simplest restrictions, which are simple to understand. If Northern only wanted to screw people over I'm sure they would just have kept quiet and gone with option C.

 

[Starmill]

I think that is what will end up happening anyway. Are Off-Peak fares being frozen? Or their increases capped at below inflation, as in Scotland?

 

[Deerfold]

I wonder how much the PTE's also had to do with the writing of the restrictions . not to mention the fact that they could have easilly pledged the subsidy that was being removed to keep the restrictions at bay .

Ah, if only. I don't know how much money the other PTEs have, but at each round of bus route retendering WYMetro are trying to save 20-25% whether that comes from better bids or running fewer subsidised trips. They've no spare cash to plough in to maintain fares on local rail if central government unilaterally drops its subsidy.

 

[IanXC]

Well when was the last time you came across a fare in England that is good value outside of a locally subsidised set of fares? ECML and London to Birmingham, that's about it. Anywhere else where fares are getting better value for money in order to encourage car drivers to use trains instead? Compared to the obvious thousands of flows where the opposite is happening...

I can't drive. I don't so much want to learn to because I think my 'ethos' and the way I want to live my life is such that I don't want to own a car. But society dictates that you are excluded from or ripped-off by such a large and increasing proportion of things if you have to rely on public transport that it's becoming difficult. Every small change that is made is cumulative - penalising leisure travellers like me by imposing these restrictions is just one more small addition to the pile of reasons why life without a car is hard. I hope this helps to explain.

Furthermore, government policy to shift the cost of the railway onto passengers is in my opinion itself misguided based on a) the environment and sustainability and b) the structure of society. I think that will have to be for a new thread though!

I don't doubt that there are thousands of flows where prices are increasing. The issue is that the Rail is attracting more and more passengers despite increasing prices. This inevitably means that investment is required, which is happening. Given the state of the public finances Government is not in a position to write a blank cheque for all the investment that would be required to keep the market price at the same level given the changes in the supply and demand curves.

Yes it would be nice if we could make the kind of investment that would be required to carry yet more passengers and hold fares steady, but as a country we simply cannot afford it.

Compare some Scottish and English fares over similar physical distance and economic terrain and see if you still think that! I cannot personally see a clear link between demand and price in the industry, with the exception of advance quotas.

The Scottish Government has a different (arguably more generous) financial settlement, and has chosen to use it in different ways than has been decided in England. Increasing levels of devolution around the UK will only amplify these differences.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't doubt that there are thousands of flows where prices are increasing. The issue is that the Rail is attracting more and more passengers despite increasing prices. This inevitably means that investment is required, which is happening. Given the state of the public finances Government is not in a position to write a blank cheque for all the investment that would be required to keep the market price at the same level given the changes in the supply and demand curves.

Yes it would be nice if we could make the kind of investment that would be required to carry yet more passengers and hold fares steady, but as a country we simply cannot afford it.

But the question is whether this change will bring in enough revenue to counteract the negatives. I sincerely doubt it.