The Oct to Dec quarter was probably the quarter most impacted by strikes last year. Chiltern for example were not running service north of Banbury for several weeks. Though looking at those tables, I am surprised Southwest trains managed to run 82% of services.
Two different stages. Firstly ignore the national stats and look at specific ridership levels. But then consider that increased ridership might not be marginally profitable and therefore require yet more subsidy
Explain then. Levelling up the north requires major funding, which will be funded disproportionately by London and the south.
You seem to assume that more passengers is a benefit worthy of subsidy. That is not given and depends on who those passengers are and what they are doing.
Wasnt the 'settlement would be cheaper' statement a 'this year' thing, rather than the long term cost of pay rises (which are considerable and cumulative - hence why the private sector likes putting money in bonuses rather than pay rises). And I think expecting rail workers to be treated like nurses will only lead to disappointment - there is much greater public sympathy for the nurses, and a shortage of them.
What would be your criteria for subsidy-worthiness?
I disagree with the railway enthusiast assumption that all rail travel is worthy of subsidy, and therefore more passengers is good even if it requires even more subsidy.
It seems like you need to define it at least very broadly in order to pursue the argument being had in this thread. In reality I don't think there are many people, even rail enthusiasts, who think any kind of rail travel whatsoever deserves subsidy.
Northern is almost certainly displaced passengers from TPE, which on average has longer distance passengers
Up till now the rest of the country seems to have disproportionalely funded London and the south east
The net tax/spending data does not support that theory.
This qtr has a lot of issues with strike days, rdw disputes and crew sickness levels above long run average causing a much higher level of cancellation which have thus lowered vehicle mileage and revenue so not sure its reflecting true trend. Even yesterday with the reduced strike service i was pleasantly surprised how many people were waiting for my Thameslink service into London mid morning so if we can just return to stability revenue will push upwards.
Another straw man. Nobody is suggesting all rail travel is worthy of subsidy.
Benefiting from reduced timetables on XC, Avanti and West Midlands Trains?
State spending doesn't exist to give people back the value of their taxes. It exists to provide services for all. Public transport spending per capita is considerably higher in London than elsewhere. The average Londoner gets nearly twice the national average, three times what gets spent on the average East Midlander.
About the only use of railways that isn't at least arguably worthy of some degree of subsidy (if necessary) is the "meta-use" - ie railway enthusiasts travelling by train for the sake of travelling by train and not actually spending anything at a destination. Everything else potentially (important word) either removes cars from the road or contributes to economic or social well-being. Now, the degree to which different benefits are worth subsidising is a different matter....
It is subsidised though! It completely relies on loads of publicly provided and paid for infrastructure, and not just physical infrastructure.
If the North had received the sort of capital investment the South had, then the operating subsidy per pax km would be lower. At least they finally seem to have stopped dithering about electrifying one of the routes over the Pennines.
Not just that, but the fact that almost all roads are toll-free, let alone any attempt to make people contribute their a fair share towards the pollution and traffic they cause. Of course any such move would be wildly unpopular, not to mention unfeasible given how poor public transport is in the UK.
Agreed Fuel duty is quite a high rate of tax and effectively is a distance based tax too, because the more miles you drive more petrol you buy so more tax paid. How the government replaces that tax income particularly for electric cars is a future debate for not just funding roads but also the hole it will leave in treasury finances
Drinking and shopping contributes to economic or social well being - does that mean they should be subsidised?
I don't think that really holds. Income tax and VAT are widespread general taxes. Car drivers are hit with extra rather punitive taxation with the excuse that car driving is a 'bad' thing with lots of externalities.
