Fare increases - folk don't like them

[PR1Berske]

From the Guardian today

Rail fare structure 'not ideal', admits transport minister

Transport minister Norman Baker has admitted the current rail fare structure is "not ideal" and said the government wants to end above-inflation rises as soon as possible, as commuters returned to work after the Christmas break to face sharp fare increases.

Campaigners claim that fares for season ticket holders have risen by as much as 50% in the past decade, making travelling to work by train an extravagance that growing numbers of people struggle to afford.

Commuters returning to work face average season ticket increases of 4.3% and an overall rise on ticket prices of 3.9%. The Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) says these are just the latest in a series of fare increases, which are having an "appalling" impact on commuters.

Baker said a fares and ticketing review was examining the balance of regulation and which fares are regulated. Approximately 40% of fares are regulated by the government. The other 60% are unregulated and decided by the train companies themselves, he said.

"It's not ideal – there are over 100,000 rail tickets and different prices each year to deal with," Baker told Radio 4's Today programme. "It's a hugely complicated issue."

He added: "So it's important we try to get the best value for the passenger, the best value for the taxpayer and the simplest, [most] transparent system we can, given the need to ensure rail companies can price appropriately to attract people on to off-peak trains, which might otherwise be running empty."

CBT said its research showed that in the past decade London commuters have seen average season ticket costs increase by £1,300; fares growing 20% faster than wages; and average costs in real terms increasing by £360.

The CBT chief executive, Stephen Joseph, said: "It's truly shocking that we have deliberately made getting the train to work an extravagance that many struggle to afford. The time has come not just to stop the rises but to reduce fares."

In the past 10 years, rail fares rose significantly in all parts of England but there were big differences between routes over that period. Annual fares from Sevenoaks in Kent to London have increased by nearly 90%, from £1,660 to £3,112; and from Wednesday, commuters travelling between Worcester and Birmingham Moor Street will pay £1,240 for a season ticket compared with £816 in 2003 – an increase of £424 or 52%.

The TUC said average train fares had risen nearly three times faster than average wages since the beginning of the recession in 2008. It said this "huge disparity" between fare and wage increases meant that a family of four travelling to London on an Anytime ticket from Swansea, Plymouth, Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle in 2013 would have to pay more than the average weekly wage of £481.

What kind of PR exercise is being done by rail companies to make the case for pricing out ordinary people from using the network?

Twitter:

https://twitter.com/search?q="fare increase"&src=typd

and

https://twitter.com/search?q="fare rise"&src=typd

 

[HH]

It's no use complaining to rail companies, these are government decisions. Complain to your MP.

 

[Greenback]

If the price of anything goes up, then people are going to moan about it on Twitter! At the end of the day, no amount of press releases, spin or weasly words are going to make anyone happy to pay more for any product or service.

 

[dstrat]

Ha! It's not as if the rail companies are rejecting the rises is it?

Welcome to the 101 of how to increase your bottom line! Easy way for private rail firms to get that year-on-year increase in their profits that the world of business demands - by fleecing old Johnny who just needs to get to work. Bloody joke.

 

[PR1Berske]

Especially when there's fewer carriages, more delays, increased cancellation, no investment, out dated infrastructure and all the rest of it.

People aren't just complaining because of the expense. They're complaining because the service is going backwards despite the increases.

 

[dstrat]

Greenback...fares go up virtually every year at rates in order of magnitude of the comparative rise in earnings.

How is that fair? How is this a good deal to this country?

 

[Roverman]

Erm I thought Fares went up by average 4% and wages just didn't. Unless you were an MP or on benefits of course.

 

[RPM]

As I understand it, the extra income generated by the above inflation rise goes to the government so it would have little effect on increasing the TOC's profits.

My commute to work is by car and the cost of that keeps going up and up too. However I don't propose to waste any of my time getting cross about oil company profits.

 

[PR1Berske]

Benefits have not increased above inflation for a long, long time.

 

[Roverman]

They increased by far more than most peoples wages. Is that right?

 

[Greenback]

Greenback...fares go up virtually every year at rates in order of magnitude of the comparative rise in earnings.

How is that fair? How is this a good deal to this country?

I didn't say it was fair. It was just an observation that rail fares are not the only thing that has been going up.

If you want real fairness, we have to move away from the current system of capitalism which is largely governed and driven by the profit motive of corporate entities.

Simply moaning about the price increases of fuel, rail tickets, food, gas, electricity or anything else on Twitter will not achieve anything.

 

[radamfi]

Over the long term, fares have broadly gone up with earnings. Earnings usually outpace inflation so you would expect rises above inflation. However, in recent years, earnings have gone up less than fares and many people have even had their wages fall in real terms. So there is a particular issue at this current time.

What really counts, in my opinion, is whether some people are driving instead of getting the train because fares are too high.

 

[Roverman]

And this from the Guardian today

Good article but that final sentence is a tad inaccurate, as a family can travel using a Railcard and pay significantly less than the figure quoted, but hey why let the truth get in the way of a good argument!

 

[dstrat]

As I understand it, the extra income generated by the above inflation rise goes to the government so it would have little effect on increasing the TOC's profits.

My commute to work is by car and the cost of that keeps going up and up too. However I don't propose to waste any of my time getting cross about oil company profits.

So what you are saying is that when the next breakdown of the fare structure is reported, it will reflect the relative reduction? I haven't seen it in the past.

And you may not want to 'waste' any of your time about moaning about oil company profits; but they are some of the worst offenders - digging up the earth's resources, making you pay through the nose for it whilst refining it to a lower grade as they can.

I make no apologies for complaining when I think I am being fleeced. If you want to just accept it then fine. Watch your real earnings decrease and accept it. You are only going to suffer

 

[PR1Berske]

Good article but that final sentence is a tad inaccurate, as a family can travel using a Railcard and pay significantly less than the figure quoted, but hey why let the truth get in the way of a good argument!

I'm sure they could, but I'm just as sure that the railcard option won't be flashed in neon lights when they turn up at the station to travel.

 

[RPM]

So what you are saying is that when the next breakdown of the fare structure is reported, it will reflect the relative reduction? I haven't seen it in the past.

And you may not want to 'waste' any of your time about moaning about oil company profits; but they are some of the worst offenders - digging up the earth's resources, making you pay through the nose for it whilst refining it to a lower grade as they can.

I make no apologies for complaining when I think I am being fleeced. If you want to just accept it then fine. Watch your real earnings decrease and accept it. You are only going to suffer

I just find it a little strange that when rail fares go up it causes a tidal wave or anger, venom and slightly inaccurate accustatiuons of greed & profiteering. When other things such as fuel contunue to rise in price, people seem strangely more tolerant to it and are also more willing to accept that government is responsible.

 

[dstrat]

I didn't say it was fair. It was just an observation that rail fares are not the only thing that has been going up.

If you want real fairness, we have to move away from the current system of capitalism which is largely governed and driven by the profit motive of corporate entities.

Simply moaning about the price increases of fuel, rail tickets, food, gas, electricity or anything else on Twitter will not achieve anything.

Agreed. However forceful lobbying can always be supplemented by a bit of moaning on twitter if it gets the rest of the rabble moaning about the same thing. I do not use twitter though, mind

 

[NSEFAN]

The improvements made since privatisation don't come for free; the railway has to be paid for by someone. The government has made it clear they want as little as possible taken from the public purse, so the passengers will have to foot the bill.

This policy has been around at least since the days of New Labour, but fits in nicely with Conservative ethos. If you don't like what the government is doing, then write to your MP, or even better don't vote for Labour or Conservative in the next election.

 

[dstrat]

I just find it a little strange that when rail fares go up it causes a tidal wave or anger, venom and slightly inaccurate accustatiuons of greed & profiteering. When other things such as fuel contunue to rise in price, people seem strangely more tolerant to it and are also more willing to accept that government is responsible.

I am not tolerant to rises in fuel either Considering you are quoting myself, I assume I think this way, so I'll give you my thoughts on the situation - personally, I believe there should be a not-for-profit government oil company which equally sells energy on the markets against the other firms.

But of course this wouldn't work because whilst working to a zero-profit condition is a fundamental of a 'perfectly competitive' market in neoclassical economics, the sheer outrage of the rest of the profiteerers running the show would be huge. Because they don't operate competitively....the operate to keep the margins that they do and divest profits back to investors.

Besides, I think there is EU legislation that stops governments from running such entities. Probably versed as being healthy for the market as well :roll:

 

[Harlesden]

Erm I thought Fares went up by average 4% and wages just didn't. Unless you were an MP or on benefits of course.

A harsh and totally unnecessary slur on thousands of decent people who have lost their job through no fault of their own and now have to claim JSA simply in order to live. Your post clearly implies that you somehow believe that benefits are some sort of charity. People who have worked for years and then become unemployed are ENTITLED to claim back the NI they have paid in via JSA.
Why are people reliant on benefits not entitled to an annual rise (£2-£3 per week) like anyone else? Are people on benefits somehow exempt from the rising cost of living?

 

[radamfi]

People complain about fares everywhere, even where fares are dirt cheap like Belgium.

Same goes for petrol prices. Even in America when petrol was almost free (less than $1.50 a gallon) until about 10 years ago.

 

[Holly]

... How is that fair? How is this a good deal to this country?

It's all part of the price of privatisation.

If the public does not want a monopoly nationalised service, and it doesn't, then the public must be willing to dig deep into its pockets to pay for competitive industry. Nothing is free. Competition costs more than monopoly. Private enterprise costs more than public service.

If there is any change back at all then a little just might follow Scots independence.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

It's no use complaining to rail companies, these are government decisions. Complain to your MP.

I have done.

Why should I pay extra for train services into Lincolnshire when the services are as shocking as ever and the rolling stock should be in a museum

 

[Roverman]

A harsh and totally unnecessary slur on thousands of decent people who have lost their job through no fault of their own and now have to claim JSA simply in order to live. Your post clearly implies that you somehow believe that benefits are some sort of charity. People who have worked for years and then become unemployed are ENTITLED to claim back the NI they have paid in via JSA.
Why are people reliant on benefits not entitled to an annual rise (£2-£3 per week) like anyone else? Are people on benefits somehow exempt from the rising cost of living?

Lets turn this on its head. Why are people who work expected to cope with wage increases below the cost of living or no increase at all. Bear in mind many people on benefits get other things 'thrown in' such as their rent or Council Tax. Working people have to pay for those too. Why should I have less disposable income or even go into an overdraft just to survive yet those on benefits have the increases more or less covered.

Theres no slur there on the claimant. The problem is with the way the system is structured.

 

[jonhewes]

I saw coverage of this on the BBC News earlier this morning, they interviewed someone from one Passenger Focus (IIRC).

The main crux of the argument put across by the BBC was that the railways should be funded by passengers rather than the tax payer, and the Passenger Focus representative simply stated that the industry was too expensive, without any elaboration or explanation.

Nobody took the opportunity to explore the possibility that the above inflation fare increases are, at least in part, due to the way in which our rail network has been privatised.

This would have been an excellent opportunity for PF to highlight the structural inefficiency built into the UK rail industry privatisation model, and highlight issues such as paying rolling stock leasing costs to banks, particularly on assets which would have been paid off decades ago.

 

[exile]

Unfortunately the railways require a substantial subsidy from general taxation. And the government, if no-one's noticed, is running a big deficit and cutting services (or forcing local authorities to do so - libraries, social services etc). Unless someone has a magic wand for the deficit we'll see these increases for some time to come.

 

[a22book]

2 years Ago I simply couldn't afford to travel by train to work anymore. I bought a cheap little car and now save myself at least 500 pounds a year, now this might not be possible if you live and work in london, but motoring costs have come down dramatically over the past few years, so maybe instead of moaning people just need to use a diffrent form of transport.

 

[Goatboy]

I just find it a little strange that when rail fares go up it causes a tidal wave or anger, venom and slightly inaccurate accustatiuons of greed & profiteering. When other things such as fuel contunue to rise in price, people seem strangely more tolerant to it and are also more willing to accept that government is responsible.

Seriously?

There is as much vocal complaining over fuel duty as there is about rail fares. The two link quite nicely given the idea of high duty is to discourage car use ans encourage public transport use...

 

[exile]

Seriously?

There is as much vocal complaining over fuel duty as there is about rail fares. The two link quite nicely given the idea of high duty is to discourage car use ans encourage public transport use...

But they both run up against the issue of the government running a huge deficit and needing to raise taxes, cut spending (or both).

 

[Goatboy]

And hitting consumer spending through more above inflation increases to an already often massively expensive network is hardly going to encourage the growth needed to fix that, is it?

Perhaps we could stop charging people 40p for 900 mile journeys booked 6 years in advance funded by people paying 158 quid to do a return trip to somewhere 100 miles down the road who are not lucky enough to have advance fares available. That sounds like a nice start.