Ah, so instead of a debate about whether 3.8% is the most appropriate or 2.5% or 5% or whatever you want to slash fares by three quarters or whatever?
In an ideal world, yes. But returning to the realm of the possible, a cut of something like 25% would at least undo the cynical use of RPI (plus 1% for several years) rather than CPI over the last 25 years.
And from thereon out, increases should be limited to CPI unless there are exceptional reasons justifying otherwise (and no, government advice and restrictions artificially killing off demand doesn't count in my book!).
How would the railway cope with people flocking to it to travel at ten pence a mile (without building hundreds of new lines/ thousands of new trains etc)?
The same way as the roads cope with people being able to drive at 10p per mile - i.e. through capacity being rationed according to demand.
But again, I don't think 10p a mile is a likely figure. If the average could even be reduced to something closer to 20p a mile that would be a good start.
And, are you saying that rail fares should be amended in line with the cost of driving (which is influenced by both the cost of petrol at the pumps/ electricity bills and the fuel efficiency of vehicles - e.g. petrol may go up in price over a decade but the average motorist may be able to drive further for £1 since their new car has better mpg than the previous one)? So if crude oil changes in price (which it regularly does) then we should amend rail fares in line with it?
Generally, public transport should be an affordable and credible option for as many journeys as possible. There are flows where it could never hope to compete with driving, but there are also lots of flows where it presents a good option but is so overpriced that people are put off.
Obviously fluctuations in the cost of petrol will always happen, but at current fare levels, petrol would have to increase two or threefold for it to come close to an even match.
(also, the "continental levels" thing has a lot to do with the cheaper standards of living in many other European countries - you can travel a hundred miles in Italy for less than a hundred miles in the UK but then wages are lower in Italy/ the cost of a pint of beer is cheaper/ the cost of a house is cheaper/ the cost of going to the football is cheaper... the price of a train ticket needs to be seen relative to other things in a country, rather than just taking the exchange rate, since some countries are cheaper in all regards)
Yes, the cost of living is undoubtedly lower in some of the comparator countries. But even when taking that into account, we are still talking about massive differences.
For example Rome to Bologna, a distance of 187 miles as the crow flies, costs £53 (€62) for a walk-up single valid at any time. London to Preston, a distance of 190 miles as the crow flies, costs £189 for the equivalent ticket.
Frankfurt to Hamburg, 248 miles, costs £102 (€120) for a walk-up single valid at any time. London to Newcastle, also 248 miles, costs £169 for an Anytime Single.
In all cases the generalised journey times of the routes are comparable, and there are also cheaper Advance-type tickets. But clearly journeys on the continent are priced much lower.
