The cost of living agenda - how should the railway contribute ?

[JamesT]

Just because 2% of journeys are rail doesn't mean that only 2% of the population use rail.

I'm sure I saw a statistic somewhere that around half the population use the railway at least a few times a year, meaning that they may well value it for specific purposes.

Also, a lot of the 98% of journeys will be "nipping out for a pint of milk" type journeys, so not really comparable with rail suited distances.

Of course they're comparable. If you're trying to improve people's lives then you need to be looking at all journeys, not just some arbitrary subset.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...024/nts-2024-mode-share-and-multi-modal-trips appears to be the most recent survey

In 2024, 25% of trips were under 1 mile, and 70% under 5 miles.

I think most notable is Chart 4, where trains don't start beating buses until journeys are over 10 miles. I would expect an awful lot of commuting to be in those 1-5 and 5-10 miles categories.

 

[yorksrob]

Of course they're comparable. If you're trying to improve people's lives then you need to be looking at all journeys, not just some arbitrary subset.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...024/nts-2024-mode-share-and-multi-modal-trips appears to be the most recent survey

I think most notable is Chart 4, where trains don't start beating buses until journeys are over 10 miles. I would expect an awful lot of commuting to be in those 1-5 and 5-10 miles categories.

Arguably the bus fare cap and tube/tram zonal systems more than adequately assist residents using those modes already.

 

[Coleridge]

Can we have a "None of the above" option?

Simply subsidising things (as the new PM has done with electricity and bus fares) doesn't tackle the underlying issues in the economy: the best way of helping people with the cost of living is to help them get richer.

And I believe that there is almost no justification for using the taxes paid by people who rarely or never travel by train to subsidise those who do, many of whom can easily afford it.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

And I believe that there is almost no justification for using the taxes paid by people who rarely or never travel by train to subsidise those who do, many of whom can easily afford it.

Conversely those of us who don't drive subsidise wealthy car owners as our taxes are used to pay for road maintenance and upgrades.

 

[JamesT]

Conversely those of us who don't drive subsidise wealthy car owners as our taxes are used to pay for road maintenance and upgrades.

But you almost certainly do benefit from roads even if you don't drive. Public transport uses it, active travel uses it, the vast majority of goods traffic uses it.

 

[172007]

More effort needs to be done to fill empty trains. I feel that whilst advance fares are good the quota's anecdotaly suggests that even on very lightly used trains the cheap fares are still heabily restricted in number.

Maybe a tie up with hotels suchh as Premier Inn or Travel lodge ciuld be used to encourage rail use for short breaks and get people oit of their cars. GBR Holidays or something.

 

[Coleridge]

Conversely those of us who don't drive subsidise wealthy car owners as our taxes are used to pay for road maintenance and upgrades.

I should have been clearer: what I mean is that in the current economic climate there is no justification for raising taxes to lower train fares. In general, I believe in public subsidy of transport, but when money is as tight as it is at the moment (and the government is still spending £100bn a year more than it takes in taxes) there are more important things to spend the money on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

More effort needs to be done to fill empty trains. I feel that whilst advance fares are good the quota's anecdotaly suggests that even on very lightly used trains the cheap fares are still heabily restricted in number.

It might sound counterintuitive, and I have no evidence I can point to, but it's possible that the way to fill up trains (and, to return to the topic, help with the cost of living) is to abolish Advance tickets and lower the price of walk-up tickets to a more affordable level. I know of many people who would use the train more often if they could just decide on the day to go somewhere, go to the station (or online) and buy a reasonably-priced ticket.

Perhaps someone, somewhere, has done some modelling to determine the effect of abolishing Advance and Anytime fares and adjusting the price of off-peak fares.

 

[Farigiraf]

Most of the rail routes where fares are currently high are also capacity constrained - I'd suggest working on sorting that out first before encouraging any more commuters onto the railway, as you'd just be adding to already bad overcrowding. The majority of empty seats on the railway are on off-peak trains - current Super-Off Peak fares do help with filling these but the complexity of the tickets disincentivise usage by non-rail ticketing aficionados. Plus in a lot of places (e.g. Manchester and the Project Oval area) super off-peak fares are already being abolished in the interests of simplification.

Essentially some reduction of fares for less busy trains primarly used for leisure travel would work, but there are so many grey areas, complexities and loopholes associated with the dense nature of the UK rail network that it'd be a nightmare to introduce such offers on a national level. Dynamic pricing is the 'obvious' solution to that, but it's got so many problems attached to it that I wouldn't go down that rabbit hole.
As a result, I voted for continuing the current fares freeze - it's not perfect, and likely is resulting in advance fare rises, but no option is perfect really, with the current low-capacity state of the rail network. Raising walk-up fares by quite a bit more than the inflation rate year-on-year is just rubbing salt in the wound, so the freeze makes sense.

Simply subsidising things (as the new PM has done with electricity and bus fares) doesn't tackle the underlying issues in the economy: the best way of helping people with the cost of living is to help them get richer.

'Helping them get richer' is fairly vague - what would that actually entail, and how could you implement that on a national level in the same way as a rail subsidy or bus fare cap can be? Reducing the cost of living adds more money to people's bank accounts in the same way that reducing taxes does.

It's just that they are two ideologically opposed policies, so the further away you go from the political centre, the more you find people who love one policy and hate the other. There are benefits to both, but these need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, weighing the pros and cons of either option and how much money you have available, rather than relying on what a specific news portal tells you is good economic policy.

And I believe that there is almost no justification for using the taxes paid by people who rarely or never travel by train to subsidise those who do, many of whom can easily afford it.

You could use the same logic with so, so many things that the state's paying for, but then we'd have anarchy.
Edit: read your last post clarifying the previous post - that's a more valid point but it of course depends on what the money will be spent on instead. If it's spent on a rail capacity enhancement project, then yes, that's a better use of money. But chances are it won't go to that.

Conversely those of us who don't drive subsidise wealthy car owners as our taxes are used to pay for road maintenance and upgrades.

Exactly.

But you almost certainly do benefit from roads even if you don't drive. Public transport uses it, active travel uses it, the vast majority of goods traffic uses it.

The same logic applies the other way round - every person walking on a footpath, cycling on a bike lane, travelling on a bus or train, and every tonne of cargo on the railway, is one that's not on the already congested road network. Due to induced demand, a rail project will likely free up the roads even more than a new motorway or bypass. Drivers benefit from public transport investment just as much, if not more, than non-drivers do from road investment.

 

[Coleridge]

'Helping them get richer' is fairly vague - what would that actually entail, and how could you implement that on a national level in the same way as a rail subsidy or bus fare cap can be? Reducing the cost of living adds more money to people's bank accounts in the same way that reducing taxes does.

Well, that's the big question, isn't it, and the one that the new government ought to be (and undoubtedly is) considering.

Subsidising people's purchases - including freezing rail fares, removing VAT from energy bills and capping bus fares - is a short-term, quick fix solution but is dealing with a symptom, not a cause, of people's financial difficulties and can't go on indefinitely. Eventually, the government is going to have to find a way to grow the economy, to get more people into work and to make all of us (feel) better off.

 

[Farigiraf]

Subsidising people's purchases - including freezing rail fares, removing VAT from energy bills and capping bus fares - is a short-term, quick fix solution but is dealing with a symptom, not a cause, of people's financial difficulties and can't go on indefinitely. Eventually, the government is going to have to find a way to grow the economy, to get more people into work and to make all of us better off.

While for a lot of travellers, cheaper rail or bus fares do only make a fairly small difference, as they can afford the tickets anyway, for a lot of people in the lowest income brackets, the cost of a rail or bus fare is the difference between accessing a job or place of education, or not. Particularly with the decline of ex-industrial regional towns, many good schools and workplaces can only be found in an urban centre that's a fairly long bus or train ride away.
Improved accessibility does grow the economy a lot, and if it's a sustainable mode of transport then there are many added benefits on top of that.

 

[martin butler]

Clearly fares should be made easier to understand, Theres a lot to have just two sets, a peak, and off peak, and a single should be half the price of a return, and this should be the norm,

I would make railcards simpler, a child, 12- 18, student 18-24 and adult and make them national railcards, adults to include 2 adults, and up to 4 children,

so also being able to be used as family railcards, costs to be child £10.00 Students £20.00 Adults £30.00 with the option of adult cards being paid by direct debit for £5.00 a month and valid for 2 years, with automatic renewal all others valid for i year from purchase. all others to be withdrawn.

Advance tickets to be made available across all routes and destinations, without restrictions on routes, or carrier, subject to availibility

 

[yorksrob]

Can we have a "None of the above" option?

Simply subsidising things (as the new PM has done with electricity and bus fares) doesn't tackle the underlying issues in the economy: the best way of helping people with the cost of living is to help them get richer.

And I believe that there is almost no justification for using the taxes paid by people who rarely or never travel by train to subsidise those who do, many of whom can easily afford it.

There is an option for none - although I disagree with your assertion that there is almost no justification for people who rarely or never use it to subsidise train travel/public transport.

The same could be said for the emergency services, yet it is there as back up. And it keeps people off the roads that they probably use.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

It might sound counterintuitive, and I have no evidence I can point to, but it's possible that the way to fill up trains (and, to return to the topic, help with the cost of living) is to abolish Advance tickets and lower the price of walk-up tickets to a more affordable level. I know of many people who would use the train more often if they could just decide on the day to go somewhere, go to the station (or online) and buy a reasonably-priced ticket.

Perhaps someone, somewhere, has done some modelling to determine the effect of abolishing Advance and Anytime fares and adjusting the price of off-peak fares.

I agree that there is far too much reliance on advanced purchase to fill trains. The main competitor with rail is the car where people don't have to book months in advance.

The gist of my thread is to bring down walk on fares, although I wouldn't get rid of AP entirely - it can be useful to get bums on seats at less popular times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Well, that's the big question, isn't it, and the one that the new government ought to be (and undoubtedly is) considering.

Subsidising people's purchases - including freezing rail fares, removing VAT from energy bills and capping bus fares - is a short-term, quick fix solution but is dealing with a symptom, not a cause, of people's financial difficulties and can't go on indefinitely. Eventually, the government is going to have to find a way to grow the economy, to get more people into work and to make all of us (feel) better off.

These may be short term, however the underlying problem is often a result of a market failure, rentier economy etc. The structural problems need to be dealt with in the longer term, however the cost of needs addressing now.

Getting more people into work may well become a hollow mantra when the AI robber barons get embedded in the economy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Clearly fares should be made easier to understand, Theres a lot to have just two sets, a peak, and off peak, and a single should be half the price of a return, and this should be the norm,

I would make railcards simpler, a child, 12- 18, student 18-24 and adult and make them national railcards, adults to include 2 adults, and up to 4 children,

so also being able to be used as family railcards, costs to be child £10.00 Students £20.00 Adults £30.00 with the option of adult cards being paid by direct debit for £5.00 a month and valid for 2 years, with automatic renewal all others valid for i year from purchase. all others to be withdrawn.

Advance tickets to be made available across all routes and destinations, without restrictions on routes, or carrier, subject to availibility

Some very sensible suggestions IMO.

 

[Sonic1234]

As it is a cost of living thread, are the other 98% of journey makers happy with the railways £20b+ of public money?
Would they rather keep a couple of hundred quid and still not use the railways?

The everyman has never considered that the railways are subsidised, and would look incredulous if you suggested it. (S)he remembers a Daily Mail article that the trains are so expensive that it's cheaper to fly via Amsterdam, and his/her railway experience is of an overcrowded train. High fares and crowding - it's a money making machine.

Conversely those of us who don't drive subsidise wealthy car owners as our taxes are used to pay for road maintenance and upgrades.

Motorists pay a lot in tax. The Government likes them. Profligate "wealthy car owners" especially, it's the guy with the small 20 year old hatchback they like less (although by that stage the VAT on repair bills is tasty for HM Treasury)

 

[Mark J]

Can we have a "None of the above" option?

Simply subsidising things (as the new PM has done with electricity and bus fares) doesn't tackle the underlying issues in the economy: the best way of helping people with the cost of living is to help them get richer.

And I believe that there is almost no justification for using the taxes paid by people who rarely or never travel by train to subsidise those who do, many of whom can easily afford it.

There are plenty of things the Government funds or subsidises that I don't agree with, yet I am forced to contribute towards. So the tired argument of taxpayers who don't use the railways being forced to subsidise them is utter rubbish and now somewhat boring to listen to.

Most Governments elsewhere seem to adequately fund their public transport to keep it reasonably priced. In this country we have had Governments whom think the entire costs should be near as possible 100% funded by hard pressed passengers.

 

[sh24]

Most Governments elsewhere seem to adequately fund their public transport to keep it reasonably priced. In this country we have Governments whom think the entire costs should be near as possible 100% funded by passengers.

Playing devils advocate... Decisions have been made to retain the pension triple lock, fund the NHS rather than reform it (despite it consuming the entire GDP of Portugal and delivering mediocre outcomes). Savings are needed elsewhere and that roughly £12bn for a niche transport mode is an obvious target at 1% of total public spending.

 

[Magdalia]

Subsidising people's purchases - including freezing rail fares, removing VAT from energy bills and capping bus fares - is a short-term, quick fix solution but is dealing with a symptom, not a cause, of people's financial difficulties and can't go on indefinitely. Eventually, the government is going to have to find a way to grow the economy, to get more people into work and to make all of us (feel) better off.

Subsidies are like painkillers, they alleviate the symptoms in the short term, but there is a danger of addiction, especially if nothing is done to cure the underlying ailment.

The three main areas where the cost of living crisis has an impact are food, energy and housing. The VAT cut at least alleviates one of the main areas of higher living costs, but like the fuel duty freeze, it is not targeted on those that need help the most and it will be very difficult to take it away again. The bus fare cap is at least well targeted on those most impacted by cost of living, but "trying to do the right thing", people in low paid work and students. Both have the advantage that they can be implemented quickly.

The railway should be looking to return as much money as possible to the Treasury coffers, by targetting any offers at genuine spare capacity and ensuring revenue is maximised, so that the money can be spent by the government on greater needs.

This is the best thing that the railway can do to help cure the underlying ailment.

'Helping them get richer' is fairly vague - what would that actually entail

The quickest and most effective way to help people get richer is lower taxes. That's why the best thing that the railway can do is to reduce its cost to taxpayers.

In the short term, anything that the railway does to alleviate the symptoms of the cost of living crisis needs to avoid making the ailment worse, and be quick acting.

Maybe a tie up with hotels suchh as Premier Inn or Travel lodge ciuld be used to encourage rail use for short breaks and get people oit of their cars. GBR Holidays or something.

This reminds me of a very 20th century option, something like the Persil and Kelloggs voucher schemes, which were both linked to consumer products that are essential purchases, where even those most squeezed are still buying. There is time to negotiate a tie up with a manufacturer or retailer that could hit the shelves in the autumn with vouchers for use in the period mid January to mid March, when a lot of the railway has its quietest time of the year. In the 21st century it would be done with QR codes not cutting out coupons from cardboard boxes. Hotel chains might work too, especially if they could contribute to the cost of the promotion.

 

[Mark J]

Playing devils advocate... Decisions have been to retain the pension triple lock, fund the NHS rather than reform it (despite it consuming the entire GDP of Portugal and delivering mediocre outcomes). Savings are needed elsewhere and that roughly £12bn for a niche transport mode is an obvious target at 1% of total public spending.

Maybe if more effort was put into tackling fare evasion, now estimated at £350-£400 million a year, would help the railways finances somewhat.

 

[Howardh]

I use my bus pass add-on for local Greater Manchester rail so I'm not sure if this still is the case; Northern have a peak in the late afternoon (1601 - 1830?) which disincentivises shoppers and early night-goers. We also had a half-price evening ticket for the latter, now gone.

I'm sure it would help locals if the afternoon peak was lifted, and the half-price fare brought back; and the latter might also help the hospitality business. Maybe that evening half-fares could be brought in nationwide, although there are some local bargains such as the super-off-peak Milton Keynes - London return.

As for the choices, a national railcard for everyone would be a good idea, even just a national off-peak railcard; the Senior one costs £30 and maybe £100 for everyone else?

 

[Zomboid]

The three main areas where the cost of living crisis has an impact are food, energy and housing

Housing is the real killer IMO. We have become so beholden as a society to the idea that horse prices can only ever go up (and at a rate faster than wages), that we're inventing crackpot schemes like shared ownership and mortgages to 10x salaries to try and prevent the whole pack of cards from collapsing. It's an unsustainable bubble and when it pops it's going to make 1988 (or whenever that crash was) seem like a sunny day at the beach. It's also driving unaffordable rents, and people staying in house shares into their 40s. It's a real rich getting richer and the gap just gets bigger and bigger.

People need to be able to obtain reasonable accommodation without having colossal inheritances or mortgages/ rent payments that leave then with no money for food.

I don't have a workable answer to offer, but until it gets tackled then we're going to be stuck in the same declining living standards scenario for most of the population.

 

[yorksrob]

This is the best thing that the railway can do to help cure the underlying ailment.


The quickest and most effective way to help people get richer is lower taxes. That's why the best thing that the railway can do is to reduce its cost to taxpayers.

To an extent. Increasing the tax free allowance for example might be worthwhile, however whilst wholesale tax cuts might make some people richer, low tax economies rarely seem to result in greater overall wellbeing. It's notable that many European countries with higher than average taxation and better public services tend to have a better standard of living.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2026 ==

Housing is the real killer IMO. We have become so beholden as a society to the idea that horse prices can only ever go up (and at a rate faster than wages), that we're inventing crackpot schemes like shared ownership and mortgages to 10x salaries to try and prevent the whole pack of cards from collapsing. It's an unsustainable bubble and when it pops it's going to make 1988 (or whenever that crash was) seem like a sunny day at the beach. It's also driving unaffordable rents, and people staying in house shares into their 40s. It's a real rich getting richer and the gap just gets bigger and bigger.

People need to be able to obtain reasonable accommodation without having colossal inheritances or mortgages/ rent payments that leave then with no money for food.

I don't have a workable answer to offer, but until it gets tackled then we're going to be stuck in the same declining living standards scenario for most of the population.

It'll take years to sort out the housing system. Government wants cost of living alleviation sooner.

 

[Zomboid]

take years to sort out the housing system. Government wants cost of living alleviation sooner

Of course. But unless they start eating the elephant then it's just going to sit there whilst we munch on the side salad and hope for the best.

 

[Sonic1234]

Maybe if more effort was put into tackling fare evasion, now estimated at £350-£400 million a year, would help the railways finances somewhat.

What's the cost of doing so, and how much of that is potentially recoverable?

 

[Bald Rick]

[DEVIL’S ADVOCATE] Given that the fares cap has had, essentially, zero impact on demand, demonstrating (yet again) that demand for rail is usually price inelastic, and that rail is disproportionately used by those in higher income groups…

…the best way for rail to contribute to the cost of living ’crisis’ is to put fares up by more than inflation, and use the cash generated to fund essentials for those who really need help. [/DEVIL’S ADVOCATE]

 

[brad465]

[DEVIL’S ADVOCATE] Given that the fares cap has had, essentially, zero impact on demand, demonstrating (yet again) that demand for rail is usually price inelastic, and that rail is disproportionately used by those in higher income groups…

…the best way for rail to contribute to the cost of living ’crisis’ is to put fares up by more than inflation, and use the cash generated to fund essentials for those who really need help. [/DEVIL’S ADVOCATE]

Would this include bus users, who I suspect are the opposite and mostly lower income groups, given the announcement on bus fares today?

 

[ian jones]

The government will want to freeze rail's contribution to CPI/RPI which are the basis for many costs such as public sector pay rises and inflation linked gilt payouts. They really need to get interest rates down as well and lowering inflation is the number one lever for that.

Rail's contribution to inflation stats is calculated by the ONS.

Instead of manually checking ticket prices, the ONS now measures actual consumer spending using transaction-level data.

• The LENNON System: Data is extracted directly from the rail industry's Latest Earnings Networked Nationally Overnight (LENNON) ticket revenue system.
• Scale: The Rail Delivery Group (RDG) provides the ONS with approximately 40 million individual rail fare transactions every single month.
• Ticket Granularity: This massive dataset allows the ONS to track dynamic price changes across all specific ticket types—including Advance, Off-Peak, Anytime, and Season tickets—giving an exact picture of what consumers are actually paying.

Maybe lowering season ticket prices would have the biggest impact here. It would help the 'hard working' commuter, get Britain 'back to work' and nudge down interest rates.

 

[Farigiraf]

The quickest and most effective way to help people get richer is lower taxes.

That's just as much of a 'painkiller' as a fares cap. The only profitable railways are those that either A: make their money through side projects like housing or retail (e.g. JR East), or those that cut back service to only include profitable, high-fare routes such as commuter and intercity services (e.g. SNCF, or at least as much as they can get away with).

The former's not really an example of rail being 'profitable' necessarily, just a joined-up way of integrating housing, shopping and transport - the rail revenue on its own doesn't cover the costs. The latter drastically reduces rail's function in society - the state actually loses out significantly in other ways if you cut back unprofitable rail services or increase fares, as people lose access to jobs, young and old people get out and about less, and society gets more car-dependent which as we all know has many negative effects on society and the places we live.

In the short term, anything that the railway does to alleviate the symptoms of the cost of living crisis needs to avoid making the ailment worse, and be quick acting.

[DEVIL’S ADVOCATE] Given that the fares cap has had, essentially, zero impact on demand, demonstrating (yet again) that demand for rail is usually price inelastic, and that rail is disproportionately used by those in higher income groups…

…the best way for rail to contribute to the cost of living ’crisis’ is to put fares up by more than inflation, and use the cash generated to fund essentials for those who really need help. [/DEVIL’S ADVOCATE]

Quoting the above two as they argue the same point.

If you want to look at the railway on its own, fully siloed from everything else, then the above statements are objectively right. Rail costs a lot to run, even more to make better, while few people use it.
And indeed, if your goal regarding rail is just to keep it running to a bare minimum, rather than looking at reasons why the railways are a good thing to have, then it's correct that we should be spending less on it.

But that completely ignores what'll happen if do let rail usage stagnate or even decline - the negative effects to society of people not using the railways enough. A society that values the positives of rail usage (and public transport in general) does function better than one that doesn't. It makes the places we live nicer (through less congestion and more walkability), makes getting around a safe, reliable and affordable option for as many people as possible, improves one's health - I could go on and on but we all know this stuff (if you want it in full, sites like Campaign for Better Transport lay it out well). Essentially rail is not just a cool mode of transport, as we on this site all know, it does create more active economies and higher quality countries - there's a reason why the Swiss don't complain about the £400/person annual subsidy for rail - it's because the money is proven to be well-spent.

So basically if we don't want to look further ahead than the next general election, looking at places to cut subsidy in order to bring short-term relief to the economic troubles of the country, go ahead, do all the austerity that you want, and give the freed up money back to the people through lowered taxes etc. - but after that, within a decade or so, you'll notice that the motorway congestion won't have gone anywhere, there still aren't any jobs in regional centres, and those on the lowest incomes still can't feasibly reach a workplace without buying a car, so likely will remain on benefits.

Or alternatively we could spend more on public transport, set actually clear mode shift and passenger growth targets, then make the money back in good time through the increased economic activity, have a happier and healthier population, and might also have a chance at achieving some of the ambitious net zero targets.

 

[tbtc]

I do enjoy the tradition of threads that are essentially "<<thing in today's headlines>> justifies that thing I've been obsessing about for decades", I'm sure it won't be long until we see the same "solutions" (massive fare cuts, nationwide rail cards for everyone, copying whichever European nation is flavour of the week, abolishing peak fares etc) being suggested for whatever is headline news on another week

(At least people seem to now accept after various failed trials that cutting fares means an increase in subsidy needed, so the "this will actual see a rise in income because something something elasticity something" argument has been retired)

However, I wonder whether those suggesting specific changes to tackle the "cost of living agenda" have an idea of just how temporary their proposals would be/ what definition of future consumer wealth would trigger a resumption of peak fares or whatever? I'm sure this isn't just people disingenuously typing out their long term wishlists under the pretence that it was just a short term subsidy required to get through the current inflationary pressure, with no intention of returning to the status quo on fares if the economic pressures ever settle down

 

[Mikey C]

But you almost certainly do benefit from roads even if you don't drive. Public transport uses it, active travel uses it, the vast majority of goods traffic uses it.

And I would debate the generalisation that car owners as a whole are wealthier than non rail users. A lot of poor people never use the train for leisure purposes, as it's cheaper for the whole family to cram into their elderly Golf.

 

[yorksrob]

[DEVIL’S ADVOCATE] Given that the fares cap has had, essentially, zero impact on demand, demonstrating (yet again) that demand for rail is usually price inelastic, and that rail is disproportionately used by those in higher income groups…

…the best way for rail to contribute to the cost of living ’crisis’ is to put fares up by more than inflation, and use the cash generated to fund essentials for those who really need help. [/DEVIL’S ADVOCATE]

I think that the idea that fares freeze somehow demonstrates that rail travel is "price inelastic" is poppycock because whilst it may have paused increases, someone who found rail fares to be too expensive before the freeze, will still find them too expensive. For those who already use rail, it would take a fair amount of time before general inflation drew ahead of the static fare to produce a comparative difference in their mind.

It's often repeated that rail travel is disproportionately used by higher income groups, no doubt disproportionately skewed by wealthy London commuters. Given that the usage of the regional railway is much more working class in nature, maybe its time to extend the Network railcard to the rest of the country, ending that shocking disparity which gives a discount to wealthier parts of the country but not the provinces.

 

[mike57]

I have voted 'other' because I can see a number of related issues that need addressing, but also some more questions.

The first question is what can be done for people who are working but on low incomes, as IMO this group are the ones who are suffering most, frozen tax thresholds, a sluggish economy, housing costs rising quicker than incomes and because they are in service or manufacturing less opportunity to work from home.

A possible solution would be for employers to be able to provide season tickets to staff as a tax free incentive to use public transport. Restrict it to people who do not reach the 40% tax band, but you need to avoid a cliff edge effect.

A massive fares overhaul is needed, and I believe the concept of 'ToC's' should be abolished with the exception of OA operators. GBR sell tickets, deal with fare evasion, handle delay repay and deal with issues resulting from disruption, The current mess of ticket types is swept away. This will encourage more rail use. This is not directly related to cost of living, but as part of the the overhaul excessive fares for walk up journeys would be reduced, and this would help.

The next one is a bit more difficult, do you count discretionary journeys as part of 'cost of living'. If you are really struggling then you wont even be considering making leisure journeys, but on the other hand if you are working say a 40 hour week then its reasonable to expect that in your time off you are able to enjoy some relaxation. Personally I would flatten the difference between the cheapest and most expensive fares on a lot of routes, whilst staying roughly revenue neutral.

Its also worth noting that the taxpayer subsidy to the railways is running at almost 50% of revenue, at £12b so I think a debate about how this subsidy is applied would be reasonable. On lightly used rural routes do you reach a point where because subsidies are the bulk of income you reduce fares to get more passengers.