Times article - Commuters face big increase in fares

[mikeg]

Saw this just published in 'The Times', have to say I'm rather peeved. Yet again the rail passenger shoulders the burden whilst motorists get an easy ride, because political expedience. Is this government in any way serious about combatting climate change or more interested in winning votes from the Daily Mail brigade?

Times Article

Train fares are forecast to rise by more than inflation for the first time in eight years as passengers pay the price of a multibillion-pound bailout of train companies.

So why do restaurant diners get cheap meals, meanwhile it's the opposite for rail passengers, including this key worker who's had no choice but to travel by train to keep this country fed? Clientelism much? Needless to say I'm already drafting a letter to my MP, who happens to be the chancellor, begging him to reconsider! Anyone got any suggestions for what should be in the letter? Let's try our best to keep it semi-civil.

 

[JonathanH]

Is this 1% above inflation as rumoured - that will be no more than 2.6% (ie July RPI plus 1%) which isn't exactly a 'big' increase.

 

[mikeg]

It is, but it's frogs and boiling water, plus when given the treatment of other sectors versus the railways (an essential piece of national infrastructure) it absolutely stinks. It'll drive more people away from the railway, causing even more financial sustainability problems.

 

[Llanigraham]

Saw this just published in 'The Times', have to say I'm rather peeved. Yet again the rail passenger shoulders the burden whilst motorists get an easy ride, because political expedience. Is this government in any way serious about combatting climate change or more interested in winning votes from the Daily Mail brigade?

Times Article



So why do restaurant diners get cheap meals, meanwhile it's the opposite for rail passengers, including this key worker who's had no choice but to travel by train to keep this country fed? Clientelism much? Needless to say I'm already drafting a letter to my MP, who happens to be the chancellor, begging him to reconsider! Anyone got any suggestions for what should be in the letter? Let's try our best to keep it semi-civil.

Can't read the full article because it is behind a pay wall.
However, how do you propose the railway should be "supported" if not by fare increases?
And as for motorists getting "an easy ride", have you considered that there are many commuters who have no choice but to use their cars, because there is no trains or other public transport? And that included rail workers!

 

[JonathanH]

It'll drive more people away from the railway

While paying more for something is not what people like, is demand really as responsive to price changes as you suggest? 20% and I could see the point, 2.6% and people probably just grumble and get on with it (although I accept that a lot of workers won't get any increase in their pay this year).

 

[Hardcastle]

I can understand how very regular passengers will feel about any increase in fares like i do with the local bus services as someone who only travels for leisure i will pay the reasonable fare requested usually advances if one can get them but i do feel your pain.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, in the scheme of things, we've had fares pegged above inflation previously. 1% is undoubtedly a nuisance, but not much to write home about about all the other 1%'s.

The problem is to get the passengers back in the long term though ! It would be good if this came with a freeze on off-peak fares to develop discretionary travel !

 

[mikeg]

And as for motorists getting "an easy ride", have you considered that there are many commuters who have no choice but to use their cars, because there is no trains or other public transport? And that included rail workers!

Indeed I have, but that is either itself a failure of public transport policy (why is there no public transport for many of these? I appreciate not all will be practical to reach) or the fact that fuel duty has been frozen for years, not even gone up in line with inflation and that fuel prices themselves are broadly where they were over ten years ago if not cheaper. Which to me represents an easy ride as they've gone down in real terms.

While paying more for something is not what people like, is demand really as responsive to price changes as you suggest? 20% and I could see the point, 2.6% and people probably just grumble and get on with it (although I accept that a lot of workers won't get any increase in their pay this year).

I suggest a reduction in fares, patricularly peak fares as rail use seems to be down during this period more than it is at say the weekend (lockdown excepted). You also miss the frogs and boiling water, granted we may not notice a 2.6% much, but we'd notice it more over a few years. Not only this but we'd notice even a small decrease versus a 2.6% increase a lot more.

 

[Watershed]

Inflation is currently very low (even going by the RPI), so making the increase RPI+1 doesn't make it seem all that big in cash terms. Given this, as well as the record amount of subsidy the railway has been getting over recent months, the expectation is (not unreasonably) that most taxpayers will consider this an appropriate move, and that for the few passengers there currently are, they will not notice the increase too much in their pockets.

In reality, the reasoning behind the +1% rise is likely linked more to medium and long term finances than the current shortfall. If you increase fares by RPI each year, and assume that inflation = RPI, then your fares will stay even in real terms, so a £10 fare today will also cost the equivalent of £10 in 10 years' time.

However, if you increase fares by +1% a year, then due to compounding, after 10 years you have managed to put the level of fares up by 10.5%, without a one-off "shock". The increase is even greater when you consider RPI's tendency to exceed true inflation.

So, in other words, at a currently minimal political cost, the government can set in motion a long-term strategy to increase in the real terms level of fares. And whilst this year and next year and maybe even for a few years after that, passengers numbers may be well below previous levels - when they do recover, the government will be "quids in".

There is a lot more going on here than you might think at first sight. None of it is remotely justifiable from a climate change perspective, or fair from the lens of rail users, but neither of those are particularly relevant considerations to a Treasury that's been made to grow an orchard of magic money trees recently.

The suggestion that the Treasury wants to put a dampener on moves to reform season tickets is disappointing and short-sighted, though unsurprising. There are a lot of people who simply won't consider the railway unless it offers season-ticket like discounts for part-time commuting.

 

[island]

Can't read the full article because it is behind a pay wall.

This may help

 

[MikeWh]

This may help

Thanks.

I like how the sample potential increases are all wrong because they haven't factored in that annual tickets are always a multiple of £4.

 

[island]

I thought that also whilst reading.

 

[Camden]

The demand for a delay in roll out of flexible seasons exposes peak time fares for the extortion job it really is.

Time and time again we're told the eye watering cost of peak fares is needed to "manage demand".

Here we have a product which can help manage demand within that framework. The per journey cost will be the same, but the passenger is guaranteed to use fewer trains.

No, they don't want to "manage demand". They want to continue to rinse their captive market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Time and time again we're told the eye watering cost of peak fares is needed to "manage demand".

They were originally. They have become a means of price differentiation a long time ago.

 

[philthetube]

The demand for a delay in roll out of flexible seasons exposes peak time fares for the extortion job it really is.

Time and time again we're told the eye watering cost of peak fares is needed to "manage demand".

Here we have a product which can help manage demand within that framework. The per journey cost will be the same, but the passenger is guaranteed to use fewer trains.

No, they don't want to "manage demand". They want to continue to rinse their captive market.

Rinse the captive market or reduce the amount of your tax needed in subsidy?

 

[Ianno87]

The demand for a delay in roll out of flexible seasons exposes peak time fares for the extortion job it really is.

Time and time again we're told the eye watering cost of peak fares is needed to "manage demand".

Here we have a product which can help manage demand within that framework. The per journey cost will be the same, but the passenger is guaranteed to use fewer trains.

No, they don't want to "manage demand". They want to continue to rinse their captive market.

No rail market is truly captive, there is always an alternative. It's just that the alternatives just happen to be unappealing in many cases (e.g. driving and parking in central London).

If it were captive, rail demand wpuldn't currently be at less than 40% of pre-Covid levels). It would be much higher.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, they don't want to "manage demand". They want to continue to rinse their captive market.

Where "they" are HM Treasury and the DfT.
Somebody has to pay for the railway, and the taxpayer is already footing most of the bill for low usage during Covid.
TOCs just run the trains they are told to by DfT.

There's a small chance that the Chancellor will revise the fares formula in the Spending Review about to be published, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
If anything the spend on railways is likely to go down rather than up, given the state of current finances.

 

[philosopher]

Where "they" are HM Treasury and the DfT.
Somebody has to pay for the railway, and the taxpayer is already footing most of the bill for low usage during Covid.
TOCs just run the trains they are told to by DfT.

There's a small chance that the Chancellor will revise the fares formula in the Spending Review about to be published, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
If anything the spend on railways is likely to go down rather than up, given the state of current finances.

Personally I would rather they increased fuel duty by couple of pence and froze rail fares. However since I use the railways quite a bit and do not drive, I have a somewhat vested interest in wanting something like this.

In any case I think this is very unlikely, the last time fuel duties were raised I seemed to remember it did not go down too well and resulted in the fuel protests.

 

[AM9]

Personally I would rather they increased fuel duty by couple of pence and froze rail fares. However since I use the railways quite a bit and do not drive, I have a somewhat vested interest in wanting something like this.

In any case I think this is very unlikely, the last time fuel duties were raised I seemed to remember it did not go down too well and resulted in the fuel protests.

They are probably holding back on fuel duty at the moment to reduce the demand for income support for furloughed workers. There's also the fact that fuel duty will probably be raised to encourage the migration to EVs/Rail in a few years.

 

[6Gman]

So why do restaurant diners get cheap meals, meanwhile it's the opposite for rail passengers,

I think you can assume that the money spent on Eat Out to Help Out is a lot, lot less than what has been spent to keep the railways running.

 

[Camden]

Rinse the captive market or reduce the amount of your tax needed in subsidy?

Rinse the captive market. As the overall tax burden doesn't decrease.

The UK tax burden is at a 50 year high, and yet fares (and other things) have continually increased under the pretence of delivering better value to taxpayers.

That being the case, and that the captive market are also taxpayers, you can call it a double-rinse.

 

[island]

Rinse the captive market. As the overall tax burden doesn't decrease.

The UK tax burden is at a 50 year high, and yet fares (and other things) have continually increased under the pretence of delivering better value to taxpayers.

That being the case, and that the captive market are also taxpayers, you can call it a double-rinse.

Given the amount of government borrowing that’s taken place this year to prop the country up, I expect more, not less, of a tax burden for the foreseeable.

 

[miami]

I think you can assume that the money spent on Eat Out to Help Out is a lot, lot less than what has been spent to keep the railways running.

Eat Out to Help Out £522m in all

Brits demolish 100 million meals during Eat Out to Help Out

Chancellor Rishi Sunak hailed the scheme as a "success" as Brits demolished more than 100 million meals

www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk

Rail subsidies £100 per journey

Rail subsidies costing UK taxpayer £100 per journey in lockdown

Experts question how long government will continue to fund running of empty trains

www.theguardian.com

I suspect you could have simply paid for a taxi for every key worker to get to work and be far better off.

Rail is expensive just from an operational perspective, and it relies on a lot of people traveling to even approach breaking even.

Rail received £3.5b additional subsidy in the 6 months to September

Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

Information from UK Parliament on written questions & answers, written statements and daily reports.

questions-statements.parliament.uk

By comparison the money spent on road operations is far far less than that raised from taxation of road activities - which is why road pricing will come in, for decades successive governments have taken this excess tax and used it elsewhere, not ringfenced for road, or even transport in general.

Now sure, the externalities of burning oil isn't included in that expenditure figure, but as we move towards electric cars and a green grid those externalities drop, but the tax take won't.

Given the amount of government borrowing that’s taken place this year to prop the country up, I expect more, not less, of a tax burden for the foreseeable.

It will fall on the young - the ones who have been most hit by restrictions.

The wealthy retirees in million pound houses and final salary pensions who benefited the most from lockdown will get off scot-free.

A 10% windfall tax on net worth would raise £1.5 trillion, paying all covid debt off, and raising enough to reinvest in a green economy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect you could have simply paid for a taxi for every key worker to get to work and be far better off.

That is in theory what happened for the Marston Vale for March, April and probably May. I wonder if anyone took them up on it?

(The schoolkids appear to be going by car; I used what would normally be called the schoolkid special last week and it was pretty much empty - normally, this run is the one that means they can't just use a pair of 153s for the route)

 

[Mag_seven]

Can posters keep to the topic of the thread please which is the prospect of commuters facing a big increase in fares.

I've moved a number of posts that were discussing general taxation issues to the following thread:

Taxation discussion

Moderator Note: posts #1 - #20 originally in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/times-article-commuters-face-big-increase-in-fares.211303/ A 10% windfall tax on net worth would raise £1.5 trillion, paying all covid debt off, and raising enough to reinvest in a green economy...

www.railforums.co.uk