Should Shapps raise rail fares in a time like this?

[Hey 3]

I personally think no.

 

[SynthD]

It may not make much difference to the wallet of people with pent up desire to go out and visit and spend, but it may affect the irrational part of their mind that chooses a car instead.

 

[Purple Orange]

People need to be encouraged back on to the train, and like any business where demand is low, you can use price as a tool to attract attention. A cut in prices may be the best thing to do.

 

[squizzler]

No. We actually need a radical experiment in fares to attract new business that was not using rail before.

 

[zwk500]

It's not as simple as a Yes/No answer. The financial situation of the railways means that somewhere fares will have to go up. But as posters above have said, put them up too far and you shoot yourself in the foot.

It's a difficult choice to find the right balance and right areas - in some places cuts in prices will attract custom (2x £20 being better than 1x £30), but in others the demand will be steady and a small rise could generate significant sums for the railway.

The other issue that needs to be considered is that the entire fares system needs a dramatic overhaul.

 

[Hey 3]

People need to be encouraged back on to the train, and like any business where demand is low, you can use price as a tool to attract attention. A cut in prices may be the best thing to do.

Agreed. I do after lockdown want to see a kind of get the train and bus to help out scheme.

 

[JonathanH]

If RDG think that their fares reform proposals are going to increase the railway's revenue they really ought to rip up the current structure as quickly as possible and implement it. That will result in higher prices for some and lower prices for others.

Many of us might not like it but the simplification of fares to sensible single ticket pricing may be just what 'normal' passengers are looking for.

I don't think it is a mistake to have implemented the 2.6% increase. It really makes no difference for an individual journey and the compound effect of this increase is in the interests of the railway.

 

[A0]

Yes. Because the losses the railways are currently incurring need to be recouped from somewhere - and that should fall primarily on the users, not those who don't use it.

Let's keep a sense of perspective - the increase is 2% - or to put it another way 2p in the £. So a fare of £ 10 will increase by a whole 20p, which is small enough to be unnoticeable.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes. Because the losses the railways are currently incurring need to be recouped from somewhere - and that should fall primarily on the users, not those who don't use it.

Let's keep a sense of perspective - the increase is 2% - or to put it another way 2p in the £. So a fare of £ 10 will increase by a whole 20p, which is small enough to be unnoticeable.

When people look at the rail fare, people don't think "oh that's 20p more than 2 months ago, so I won't bother".

Whilst a hoo-haa is always made about rail fare rises, people make journey decisions based on the price there and then, and what it used to cost isn't really relevant.

 

[6Gman]

Yes. Because the losses the railways are currently incurring need to be recouped from somewhere - and that should fall primarily on the users, not those who don't use it.

Let's keep a sense of perspective - the increase is 2% - or to put it another way 2p in the £. So a fare of £ 10 will increase by a whole 20p, which is small enough to be unnoticeable.

This.

The idea that people will use the train if the fare is £40, but turn to the car - or not travel - if it's £40.80 seems fanciful.

 

[A0]

When people look at the rail fare, people don't think "oh that's 20p more than 2 months ago, so I won't bother".

Whilst a hoo-haa is always made about rail fare rises, people make journey decisions based on the price there and then, and what it used to cost isn't really relevant.

But given the small scale of the rise if they think it's expensive after the 2% rise, then they'll have thought it was expensive before and probably wouldn't have taken the train in any case.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

In the last decade, the cost of driving in real terms has dropped by around 20%, thanks to the fuel duty freeze. The cost of travelling by train has gone up by around 20%.

You wonder if anyone in Westminster has ever heard of this little thing called climate change.

 

[Annetts key]

Some things to think about:

No one knows how many commuters will return to a Monday to Friday pattern of travelling once the COVID-19 Corona virus restrictions are lifted. So we need to attract people back to travelling by train.

We (the country) should have a plan to encourage people to travel via transport systems that are less environmentally destructive than internal combustion engine cars. Rail is part of the answer here.

It often better to have a full train even if everyone is paying less, than a train with a small number of people on who are paying more.

The recent increase in fares is not going to make any significant difference in government debt on current income from fares, and even if it was normal times, the government nearly always wants fares to go up at the RPI rate but wage rises to be held at current levels or limited to the lower CPI rate.

The government is currently directly funding the TOCs (apart from the open access companies) and Network Rail to keep the railway operational because it’s apparently an essential service. Including to provide transport for key workers. But apparently it’s okay to make these key workers pay more even though the very same government is freezing (where the key worker is employed by the state) the pay of a lot of these very same key workers.

 

[A0]

In the last decade, the cost of driving in real terms has dropped by around 20%, thanks to the fuel duty freeze. The cost of travelling by train has gone up by around 20%.

You wonder if anyone in Westminster has ever heard of this little thing called climate change.

Perhaps because they also know that on average a new car in 2018 had an average emissions which are 30% lower than in 2000 ?

Emissions Facts & Figures - SMMT

SMMT is the country’s primary source of news and data on the motor industry. Click here to view the latest emissions facts and figures

www.smmt.co.uk

The tax system has driven people to change the cars they drive for 'cleaner' cars - so given that, why the opposition to people driving ?

Train travel has gone up by 20% in no small part due to increased costs - mainly salary driven. And why shouldn't the users or consumers of the service be the ones to pay for it ? Expecting non-users to pay, is akin to expecting somebody who buys a copy of The Times to also have to pay for a copy of The Guardian.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The tax system has driven people to change the cars they drive for 'cleaner' cars - so given that, why the opposition to people driving ?

Is that a serious question?

 

[Ianno87]

Some things to think about:

No one knows how many commuters will return to a Monday to Friday pattern of travelling once the COVID-19 Corona virus restrictions are lifted. So we need to attract people back to travelling by train.

But they *might* come back to some extent without having to do anything at all. Especially if employers manadate a certain number of office days per week (which some will). E.g. rail usage last summer recovered back to about 40% without really having to do very much at all (and that was without any real return of office workers).

We (the country) should have a plan to encourage people to travel via transport systems that are less environmentally destructive than internal combustion engine cars. Rail is part of the answer here.

It often better to have a full train even if everyone is paying less, than a train with a small number of people on who are paying more.

Environmentally yes. But not helpful for an industry that desperately needs to plug the gap between costs and revenue.

 

[A0]

Is that a serious question?

Yes.

Because I fail to see why forcing people to travel using a certain method of travel is morally right or acceptable. People should be free to choose the means of travel which is most convenient for their journey not have some nannying either from the government or "rail enthusiasts" about their choice.

And motorists contribute far more to the Exchequer than the rail network does.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Because I fail to see why forcing people to travel using a certain method of travel is morally right or acceptable.

Why? Because modes of travel have externalities. John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' as precis-ed by Wikipedia (with my bolding):

In the fourth chapter, J. S. Mill explains a system in which a person can discern what aspects of life should be governed by the individual and which by society Generally, he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others.

There are 28,000 road deaths in the UK every year. Road traffic remains a major pollutant and contributor to climate change, even despite incremental improvement year-on-year. The effects on physical and mental health of a sedentary society that normalises driving two miles across town, while - literally - pushing active modes out to the margins, are well documented.

"rail enthusiasts"

I'm not sure in what way this, complete with sneer quotes, is remotely germane to the conversation.

 

[A0]

Why? Because modes of travel have externalities. John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' as precis-ed by Wikipedia (with my bolding):



There are 28,000 road deaths in the UK every year. Road traffic remains a major pollutant and contributor to climate change, even despite incremental improvement year-on-year. The effects on physical and mental health of a sedentary society that normalises driving two miles across town, while - literally - pushing active modes out to the margins, are well documented.



I'm not sure in what way this, complete with sneer quotes, is remotely germane to the conversation.

You're way out on road deaths - the actual figure is sub 2000 - you're quoting 'killed or seriously injured', which is quite different.

These are 2018's figures https://assets.publishing.service.g...85/quarterly-estimates-april-to-june-2018.pdf

By comparison cancer kills over 160,000 a year - so should we 'ban' smoking or other causes of cancer ?

The quotes were used, because there is a small contingent who claim to be rail enthusiasts who are rail at all costs, with a fairly dictatorial approach and are completely anti-road / anti car without the foggiest idea of how most normal people live or view them. There are a disproportionate number on these boards. There are a good number on these boards though, who whilst being interested in rail, recognise it's not the only solution and quite often isn't even the solution for a problem.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

You're way out on road deaths - the actual figure is sub 2000 - you're quoting 'killed or seriously injured', which is quite different.

You're right. Apologies.

2,000 deaths is not great either. 28,000 KSI is really not great.

By comparison cancer kills over 160,000 a year - so should we 'ban' smoking or other causes of cancer ?

We have banned many scenarios where smoking "harms the interests of others". That's why you can't smoke in a pub or in a train any more. And yes, we should probably also extend that to other scenarios where people are involuntarily harmed by others' smoke - in particular, kids at home.

The quotes were used, because there is a small contingent who claim to be rail enthusiasts who are rail at all costs, with a fairly dictatorial approach and are completely anti-road / anti car without the foggiest idea of how most normal people live or view them. There are a disproportionate number on these boards. There are a good number on these boards though, who whilst being interested in rail, recognise it's not the only solution and quite often isn't even the solution for a problem.

There are; there are also a lot of "but I need my car to transport my disabled granny and her new fridge to their home halfway up a mountain in the Berwyns, try doing that with a train/bike/bus" types. Unsurprisingly you tend to find those on SABRE, while you find more rail proponents on RailUK Forums. This should not really come as a great surprise.

But even on SABRE there is a growing acceptance of the externalities of unfettered car transport - mostly, I'm reassured to see, led by transport professionals who have seen the damage that the car-centric transport policy of the last 50 years has done to our towns and our physical and mental health.

 

[Annetts key]

There is unlikely to be a situation any time soon, if ever, where some form of individual road transport, such as a car will no longer be necessary for everyone. Especially if you live in an area where public transport is never going to be economic or practical

I use trains, but also have my own car because public transport is not available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to my workplace. And because some of my usage is not practical by any other means.

But I walk, and take the train as much as I can.

One other point, as a citizen in this country, there is no right to drive a motor vehicle.

Hence why people should be encouraged, not forced to choose a reasonable method of transport. Increasing the cost of railway journeys does not help with this. Especially if the government are freezing pay or capping it at the CPI rate while the fares go up at a higher rate.

 

[Purple Orange]

This.

The idea that people will use the train if the fare is £40, but turn to the car - or not travel - if it's £40.80 seems fanciful.

That is true, but currently the car wins out on price in many cases, especially if 2 or more people are travelling. A return ticket in to Manchester from my local station would be about £8 walking up (I can’t recall the exact price and I have been using a season ticket for years). The cost of a season ticket compared to running a car and parking is better value if your situation is such that you would only be owning the car specifically to make that journey to work. But if like many people, you will have access to a car anyway, the cost of the ticket needs to start competing with the price of driving and parking in a far more aggressive way.

 

[A0]

You're right. Apologies.

2,000 deaths is not great either. 28,000 KSI is really not great.



We have banned many scenarios where smoking "harms the interests of others". That's why you can't smoke in a pub or in a train any more. And yes, we should probably also extend that to other scenarios where people are involuntarily harmed by others' smoke - in particular, kids at home.



There are; there are also a lot of "but I need my car to transport my disabled granny and her new fridge to their home halfway up a mountain in the Berwyns, try doing that with a train/bike/bus" types. Unsurprisingly you tend to find those on SABRE, while you find more rail proponents on RailUK Forums. This should not really come as a great surprise.

But even on SABRE there is a growing acceptance of the externalities of unfettered car transport - mostly, I'm reassured to see, led by transport professionals who have seen the damage that the car-centric transport policy of the last 50 years has done to our towns and our physical and mental health.

The bigger issue with our towns has been the inflexible and avaricious approach of most local councils who's planning departments are an absolute shambles. They've blocked town centre improvements, haven't listened to retailers in terms of their needs - which is why most retailers have deserted town centres, have fleeced motorists with excessive parking charges. Fortunately the internet and on line shopping is probably the death knell of the high street and indeed the revenue stream for these councils aided by Covid.

Councils and government have made it worse by implementing planning laws which have then made it impossible for people to park their cars outside their houses, arguing those residents shouldn't use cars, which just causes ill feeling among residents.

Fortunately an increasing number of people are sticking 2 fingers up at councils which have done that and are moving out of those areas.

And since many railway stations aren't centrally located they too have been busy fleecing motorists with excessive parking charges. And once again, Covid has done some damage to that golden goose, because fewer people will be travelling and commuting in the future. Many large employers are already downsizing their office space and moving to a more flexible working model - Sainsburys was announced this week: "The UK’s second largest supermarket will also close offices in Coventry and Victoria in London and move out of two of the five remaining floors it occupies at its London head office in Holborn, another two floors at its Avebury office in Milton Keynes and one in Manchester as many staff permanently switch to working part-time from home." https://www.theguardian.com/busines...0-head-office-jobs-with-a-further-650-at-risk

 

[Doctor Fegg]

The bigger issue with our towns has been the inflexible and avaricious approach of most local councils who's planning departments are an absolute shambles. They've blocked town centre improvements, haven't listened to retailers in terms of their needs - which is why most retailers have deserted town centres, have fleeced motorists with excessive parking charges.

I'm not convinced excessive parking charges are a significant contributor. Our local district (West Oxfordshire) has completely free parking, both on-street and off-street. It even built a brand new multi-storey 600-space car park with free parking for its new shopping development, Marriotts Walk in Witney. When did you last see a free multi-storey?

Despite that Marriotts Walk is, frankly, dying on its a**e. Several of the tenants have closed completely. Others are very unlikely to reopen after lockdown. Meanwhile, the new Westgate in Oxford is thriving, even though you have to pay £10 for parking that would be free in Marriotts Walk.

I could write much more on this, but this is getting way off-topic for this thread.

 

[SynthD]

Many countries do decide that non rail users pay some of the cost for rail users. We aren’t the normal.

 

[Ianno87]

Many countries do decide that non rail users pay some of the cost for rail users. We aren’t the normal.

We very much are. Railways are funded, in part, from general taxation as well as fares. But we do put a relatively high burden onto the farepayer compared to other countries, arguably.

 

[geordieblue]

Expecting non-users to pay, is akin to expecting somebody who buys a copy of The Times to also have to pay for a copy of The Guardian.

Yes, tax is stupid. *rolls eyes*
I agree with much of what you've said but trains are a public service and public services are subsidised by tax. This view is unbelievably right-wing, in the sense of opposing government involvement in the economy, and can be applied to anything. Is expecting healthy people to pay for cancer sufferers' operations also wrong?

 

[Hey 3]

In my opinion, the DFT and the Government should do the exact opposite of what they did with rail fares and the fuels. They should decrease rail fares to encourage people back on board after lockdown. People were hoping on the Willliams(now more or less Williams-Shapps) review for a decrease in fares. And if the government actually try to get people back on board, they should do a public transport discount scheme for any time people use it. Sir Peter Hendy is ready to swap maintance work to weekdays as he forecasts the demand will be lower then.

 

[HSTEd]

My own opinion is that railways are a bulk public transport system

As such, we should pile it high and sell it cheap, we need volume to amortise the fixed cost base away.
The railway should always be focussed towards this objective.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

The bigger issue with our towns has been the inflexible and avaricious approach of most local councils who's planning departments are an absolute shambles. They've blocked town centre improvements, haven't listened to retailers in terms of their needs - which is why most retailers have deserted town centres, have fleeced motorists with excessive parking charges. Fortunately the internet and on line shopping is probably the death knell of the high street and indeed the revenue stream for these councils aided by Covid.

Councils and government have made it worse by implementing planning laws which have then made it impossible for people to park their cars outside their houses, arguing those residents shouldn't use cars, which just causes ill feeling among residents.

Fortunately an increasing number of people are sticking 2 fingers up at councils which have done that and are moving out of those areas.

And since many railway stations aren't centrally located they too have been busy fleecing motorists with excessive parking charges. And once again, Covid has done some damage to that golden goose, because fewer people will be travelling and commuting in the future. Many large employers are already downsizing their office space and moving to a more flexible working model - Sainsburys was announced this week: "The UK’s second largest supermarket will also close offices in Coventry and Victoria in London and move out of two of the five remaining floors it occupies at its London head office in Holborn, another two floors at its Avebury office in Milton Keynes and one in Manchester as many staff permanently switch to working part-time from home." https://www.theguardian.com/busines...0-head-office-jobs-with-a-further-650-at-risk

As someone who has worked in a local council transport department, increased and higher parking charges, and making things harder and more inconvenient for car drivers is what will continue to happen, particularly in London. Cycling is the main priority and honestly the long term aim is to get as many people not using cars as much as possible. Not saying I agree with it, but this is the unofficial policy a lot of councils are following.