'We don't have a choice'

[The Ham]

It is notable that during the period you look at demand for road and air has also increased at similar levels.

Road usage has been falling since 2007, however even allowing for the period of growth (1995-2007) road usage has gone from 267 billion vehicle miles to 314 billion vehicle miles or a growth rate of about 18%, so no where near the nearly double (to get that growth rate you have to go back to 1979).

 

[A-driver]

So there we have it chaps - people choose to commute by train because they could move house instead. I notice you stopped short of saying they have a choice because they could use a donkey and cart.

The only ones who could honestly be said to have a choice are those who have recently made the decision to move to a new job which requires the use of rail and have made this decision at a point when the current fare levels were known about. Those who have been doing the same job for 20 years and have been constantly hit with above inflation increases for season tickets don't really have a choice, unless you consider 'changing career' as a choice, which technically of course it is.

The economic benefits of squeezing commuters are highly dubious, of course. But then we cannot and should not blame the TOC's - they are commercial organisations operating in an environment created by the government.

But everyone can choose where they live and work.

People choose to live 80 miles away from central London where they work so that they can buy a cheaper house with more land and live in the country side.

There is no such thing as a free lunch so the price you pay for cheaper housing and a higher quality if life is a longer journey to work, more expensive train ticket and having to get up earlier to get to work than someone paying more for a smaller house within the M25.

 

[northwichcat]

But everyone can choose where they live and work.

Exactly. For one reason there may be no equivalent alternative accommodation within walking/cycling distance of where you work. For another if you have a partner you might work in different locations.

 

[michael769]

because they could move house instead.

Only if they can afford the house prices near their place of work!

But everyone can choose where they live and work.

Really? And what do Londoners do when London hospitals have to close because a nurse's salary cannot come close to paying for accommodation in the area?

As I already implied Central London does not have the space to house everyone who is needed to work there! Many other UK cities have similar issues (albiet on a smaller scale).

In the real world most people face a fairly simple Hobson's choice

1. No job
2. Homlessness
3. A long commute between the only decent job they can find and the only place they can afford to live.


Yes it may be a choice they make, but it sure does not feel like it.

 

[northwichcat]

Really? And what do Londoners do when Central London hospitals have to close because a nurse's salary cannot come close to paying for accommodation in Central London?

What can be said about Nurses and similar roles is people in such roles are classed as essential roles and they get priority for certain housing schemes like shared ownership schemes.

 

[Yew]

Competition can be good and bad. And often people want it, but don't want it. Take fares for example. Competition is good when you can get better value fares with different operators, especially for traditionally expensive journeys. So you could say competition has allowed people to travel more cheaply. However with this price difference often strings are attached - less frequent service, slower times etc. And this is what people often don't like. They will quite happily say how wonderful competition is because they can now get cheaper fares, but still be expecting to use their cheaper restricted ticket on the higher priced operator, and then cry foul and claim it is all British Rail anyway so what does it matter.

Surely the choice between for example, a Pendolino and a 350 is not competition. Competition would be if GC could operate to Newark and Peterbrough, in direct competition with EC?

 

[jaigee]

Surely the choice between for example, a Pendolino and a 350 is not competition.

Especially if you happen to live by one of the Trent Valley stations!

 

[NSEFAN]

Surely the choice between for example, a Pendolino and a 350 is not competition. Competition would be if GC could operate to Newark and Peterbrough, in direct competition with EC?

Depends where you live, of course. Competition can never be absolute on the railways because it is an inherently controlled environment with limited numbers of paths available, unlike the roads where you can cram in a few more coaches here and there.

I'm of the opinion that commuter and rural routes are better geared for state operation (or not-for-profit), whilst freight and possibly intercity traffic is more open to competing private companies.

From a passenger perspective, the DfT doesn't like open access operators as it siphons cash away from the treasury and the TOCs paid to run the franchises. This is why Wrexham & Shropshire had the pick up/set down only at Wolverhampton, to avoid upsetting Virgin. So much for competition. :roll:

 

[sheff'd victoria]

If you use social media to see what's happening in the railways, you will often see customers railing (sorry!) against operators, and wailing 'we don't have a choice but to use your service'.
Arising from the Journalists & facts thread, was the point made about growth of passenger numbers.
Passenger journeys in 1995-96 were 589,499,000. In 2009-10, the number was 1,163,111,000. That's almost double the number. (Figures from this PDF produced by the ORR http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/nrt-regional-usage.pdf).
The national population has risen by about 5% in the same time, from (roughly) 59m to 62m.
So, seeing as the country managed to function perfectly well in 1995, and all those people that weren't using trains still managed to get to work, then surely it must follow that a large number of them do have a choice?

The question is are we better off than 1995 ?

Some areas maybe, but some are still lagging behind.

 

[cuccir]

But everyone can choose where they live and work.

People choose to live 80 miles away from central London where they work so that they can buy a cheaper house with more land and live in the country side.

There is no such thing as a free lunch so the price you pay for cheaper housing and a higher quality if life is a longer journey to work, more expensive train ticket and having to get up earlier to get to work than someone paying more for a smaller house within the M25.

This is a very ignorant comment.

First, a small number of people have literally no choice. This includes people with disabilities who may require private or social housing that is adapted in various ways. The stock of such housing may be extremely limited. Elderly people who require sheltered accommodation are another group whose location choice is very limited.

Second, many people have little practical choice. This might include people with responsibilities as carers, people who for either medical or other reasons cannot drive, or people who have children that require special education facilities.

Third, a larger number of people will have their choice restricted for financial reasons. House prices and job availability are pretty closely correlated, meaning that people on low-paid jobs in many locations cannot afford to live where there job is. This is at its most extreme in London, as pointed out above, but can be found across the country.

Fourth, another large group of people will have their choice restricted by the nature of their emplyoment. They may be part of the increasingly large 'under-employed' people who can only find part-time or limited contract work. Agency workers may often have zero job security, in which they can be let go over-night. In these situations (which will usually come alongside earning low wages), moving for employment would be foolish.

Of course, many commuters are those who've made a choice, but many are also not - commuters are not all people travelling from leafy Surrey suburbs into London! Many are people who face the choice: commuting or unemployment. Presumably you'd rather see them taking state benefits instead?

 

[EM2]

Really? And what do Londoners do when London hospitals have to close because a nurse's salary cannot come close to paying for accommodation in the area?

As I already implied Central London does not have the space to house everyone who is needed to work there! Many other UK cities have similar issues (albiet on a smaller scale).

Almost all of my friends who work in London also live in London (within the six zones). None of them are in exceptionally well-paid jobs.
The furthest away that any of my colleagues lives is Watford, and he still lives with his parents.
Of my friends who are in well-paid jobs, there is one that lives in Ashford (Kent) and uses the coach to get to work in Canary Wharf, another lives in Haywards Heath and uses the train/tube to get to Soho. Both of them could live nearer to work and save money, but they prefer to live where they do. It's a lifestyle choice for them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe I should also add that I have moved (either work or house) a number of times, when commuting became untenable.

 

[Marvin]

And what do Londoners do when London hospitals have to close because a nurse's salary cannot come close to paying for accommodation in the area?

The area will become less attractive to live in, and house prices will drop to the point where nurses can afford to live there again.

Alternatively, they'll decide they want nurses enough to pay them the amount they need to be able to live there.

 

[cuccir]

The area will become less attractive to live in, and house prices will drop to the point where nurses can afford to live there again.

Alternatively, they'll decide they want nurses enough to pay them the amount they need to be able to live there.

That doesn't reflect how either housing markets or salaries work though, does it? What will actually happen is that people are forced to commute further and further, or live in lower and lower quality housing, so that taxes can remain low while house prices continue to rise.

 

[tbtc]

So there we have it chaps - people choose to commute by train because they could move house instead. I notice you stopped short of saying they have a choice because they could use a donkey and cart.

The only ones who could honestly be said to have a choice are those who have recently made the decision to move to a new job which requires the use of rail and have made this decision at a point when the current fare levels were known about. Those who have been doing the same job for 20 years and have been constantly hit with above inflation increases for season tickets don't really have a choice, unless you consider 'changing career' as a choice, which technically of course it is.

The economic benefits of squeezing commuters are highly dubious, of course. But then we cannot and should not blame the TOC's - they are commercial organisations operating in an environment created by the government.

What's your alternative then?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Surely the choice between for example, a Pendolino and a 350 is not competition. Competition would be if GC could operate to Newark and Peterbrough, in direct competition with EC?

But it is. It provides a different level of service at a different price bracket. You can choose to travel on the faster, more comfortable*, perhaps more direct service, or you could choose to travel on the slower, commuter style train, which may require a change but pay less money. The choice is there. In the olden days apart from the plethora of Advance ticket types there was often no distinction between the different levels of service. If you turned up on the day you paid the same price regardless (unless there were some route via X specific fares).

 

[EM2]

Goatboy - surely there are a number of alternatives?
Move house, like the parents of one of my schoolfriends did, to cut down on the cost & time of commuting. It was better for them but worse for him, as it took him three times as long to get to school!
Change job, if not the actual job then maybe to a different location? And with the increase in teleworking, conference calls etc., surely more feasible than ever before? After all, the anti-HS2 mob are telling us that's why we don't need it
Change method of transport. Use a car, or a motorbike. Or club together and hire a coach.

 

[67018]

But everyone can choose where they live and work.

People choose to live 80 miles away from central London where they work so that they can buy a cheaper house with more land and live in the country side.

There is no such thing as a free lunch so the price you pay for cheaper housing and a higher quality if life is a longer journey to work, more expensive train ticket and having to get up earlier to get to work than someone paying more for a smaller house within the M25.

Absolutely. Although the choice is slightly less free than you (maybe unintentionally) imply.

In reality most people have some choice where they both live and work, and some constraint based on job availability, income, family needs etc. Some, for example on low incomes, have less choice than others, and the choice is probably harder for more people these days because the economic situation means that moving house or changing job is more difficult and more risky.

I lived close to work for years, enjoying relatively low travel cost and short commute time, traded off against living in an unfashionable part of South London. My commute is now three times as long and costs five times as much, because children and a city-hating wife changed the priorities A big factor in choosing where to live was the cost, reliability and convenience of the rail service.

This can't be an uncommon trade-off, and after all it's been a long time since everyone was expected to spend their whole life in the same place and their entire career in one job.

As far as competition goes, supply exceeds demand on commuter lines into major cities during the peaks, so no amount of competition is going to reduce prices. In fact economics points in the opposite direction, and commuter fares would probably be higher if it wasn't for wider social and environmental benefits of subsidising rail.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Elderly people who require sheltered accommodation are another group whose location choice is very limited.....

Do the elderly still commute down south?

 

[jon0844]

On the Brighton line FCC offer rubbish 319's and Southern quality 377's but if you go FCC only the price is much much cheaper.

Of course on some stations such as Redhill, FCC only run 4 trains a day so there is no FCC only price, so Southern ramp up the price compared to stations where there is competition because they can and the passengers are simply screwed as there is no choice.

Once FCC gets all-new trains (and ignoring the franchise merger for sake of argument, which will of course see the end of any cheaper TOC-specific fares), you'd have cheaper fares and nicer trains.

Of course, the stock doesn't determine the value of a fare even if it's quite obvious the passenger may well see that as a major factor in making a decision. I know I would, and I've paid more to travel on a nicer train in the past.

There would be little advantage having competition at Hatfield, as there are limited paths. I can't see how another operator could come in and compete by adding new services, so chances are you'd see the current provision split, so I'd still end up wanting an any permitted ticket unless I wanted to have to start really planning my travel around fewer TOC-specific services.

That said, for the stoppers to Moorgate, there's certainly an argument for having cheaper tickets that would only be valid on these slower trains - but unless you had some sort of 'HS1' style supplement on the faster trains, you'd not be able to do that with one TOC. That then paves the way to moving the Moorgate trains to another TOC, and all the problems of people now getting in trouble for having got on the wrong train for their ticket!

But everyone can choose where they live and work.

People choose to live 80 miles away from central London where they work so that they can buy a cheaper house with more land and live in the country side.

There is no such thing as a free lunch so the price you pay for cheaper housing and a higher quality if life is a longer journey to work, more expensive train ticket and having to get up earlier to get to work than someone paying more for a smaller house within the M25.

I moved out of London for more rooms and space in the home, not so much more land overall or a massive garden, a 4x4 on the drive and acres of woodland to enjoy walking our big dogs and breathing in the fresh country air!

My commute to London is/was actually very enjoyable, and both Wagn and then FCC (and the drivers!) have been able to provide commuters from Hatfield a very good service by and large - partly helped by having services starting from WGC so getting a seat isn't hard at any time (it's a case of whether you accept more stops for comfort or don't mind a bit of a squeeze for 30 minutes or less). Having many declassified services has also been an additional bonus!

Anyway, I've never really moaned about the cost of getting a season ticket. However, I have been unhappy with the system that sees an increase by a percentage, as against a fixed increase, because next year has an above inflation increase that is on the last year's increased amount - and that compounding rise really does see fares rocket.

And then there are the different schools of thought on whether season ticket holders (who mostly travel in the peak and therefore cost the industry the most by needing all the extra rolling stock) should perhaps enjoy lower increases at the expense of casual leisure travellers, or pay more because they already 'get so much'.

Personally, anyone that prepays a whole year of travel up front should be given a decent discount in my opinion and, one day, you might see smartcard season tickets able to give some form of rebate for users that avoid peak trains, and for the days they don't travel (e.g. sick, working from home) over and above the existing 2-months free.

If the economy was such that we were all able to enjoy annual pay rises at least in line with inflation (and that's no longer something people can enjoy) then it wouldn't be such a big deal. However, many people are considered lucky if they keep their job, let alone get an increase. So, in real terms, people are getting pay cuts each year on top of these above inflation increases.

That's not really fair, and it's not easy to just change job or realise that moving out London was maybe a bad idea and then try and move back (good luck with that, as even the shoebox you owned before is now stupidly expensive).

What can be said about Nurses and similar roles is people in such roles are classed as essential roles and they get priority for certain housing schemes like shared ownership schemes.

And many people then abuse this by sub-letting these properties to people who want to live in London!

And with the increase in teleworking, conference calls etc., surely more feasible than ever before? After all, the anti-HS2 mob are telling us that's why we don't need it

Working from home (which I now do) really isn't going to ever become a big thing. Even Yahoo! has begun to get rid of this, as the company found it was being abused by staff.. and that is sadly true in many cases. Employers find it hard to keep track of staff, and nobody wants to work at home and have to 'check in' every five minutes to prove they're working because of those that abuse it.

Home working isn't for everyone as it is, but it can also introduce many other issues like delays in getting relatively simple tasks done if it involves other people, so it doesn't necessarily bring real benefits to the company.

And, as someone who has worked from home in the 90s and now doing it (two years this August) there will always come a time when you consider wanting to go back to working in an office for the social contact you can't get even using Skype (voice or video).

The anti-HS2 brigade, or Charles Arthur from The Guardian are exceptionally naive (or clever, playing on the naivety of others), for suggesting we should ditch HS2 and invest in more home working schemes, faster broadband etc. [Of course, we should get faster broadband anyway - but that's not linked to or reliant on HS2 in any way].

 

[cuccir]

Do the elderly still commute down south?

There's nothing to say that the elderly can't work. I agree that they're unlikely commuters so maybe that one example was a poor one in this context, but the point I was arguing against was:

everyone can choose where they live and work.

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

I used to commute from Folkestone to London Bridge. Four hours a day in a train was killing me so I moved to York. Total commute time now 30 minutes on a pushbike or Bus.

 

[Tibbs]

I used to commute from Folkestone to London Bridge. Four hours a day in a train was killing me so I moved to York. Total commute time now 30 minutes on a pushbike or Bus.

You can cycle from York to London Bridge in 30 minutes?

You are Bradley Wiggins and I claim my £5.

 

[jon0844]

Well, it's downhill all the way isn't it? Going back after work on the other hand..!

 

[David Barrett]

But it is. It provides a different level of service at a different price bracket. You can choose to travel on the faster, more comfortable*, perhaps more direct service, or you could choose to travel on the slower, commuter style train, which may require a change but pay less money. The choice is there. In the olden days apart from the plethora of Advance ticket types there was often no distinction between the different levels of service. If you turned up on the day you paid the same price regardless (unless there were some route via X specific fares).

Perhaps, at the time, there was a big distinction between the stopping and faster services on a given route in that one complemented rather than competed with the other.

Sometimes the choice can be practical as much as anything else as I recall, when living in Scunthorpe, prefering to use the stoppers between there and Doncaster when going further North as the connections were generally better than off the Cleethorpes to Manchester services. As odd as it may seem the 142/144 plus HST/MkIV combination gave a better overall journey than the 158-HST/MKIV option.

Nothing is ever as clear cut as we may imagine.

 

[island]

Do we not already have different companies on the same route, for numerous flows, including almost the entire West Coast Main Line route, most cross-Country routes, and more?

I am not sure if this has led to better seating, but it has certainly led to "different fares" being offered for many flows. (I wonder if now is a good time for Island to give his example of about 12 businessmen going from London to Milton Keynes... it's better than my London-Stevenage/Peterborough example on EC/FCC!)

Why not

Alan, Barry, Charlie, Daniel, Edgar, Frank, George, Hywel, Ian, John, Kenneth, and Louis pitch up at Euston station at 0800 wanting to go to Milton Keynes Central.

1. Alan has an off-peak day return from London Terminals to Milton Keynes C route LDN MIDLAND ONLY (KM). He gets to leave on the 0824 train.
2. Barry has an off-peak day return from London Terminals to Milton Keynes C route ANY PERMITTED (DM). He has to wait until 0920, although he does get to use a Pendo.
3. Charlie also has an off-peak return from London Terminals to Milton Keynes C, but his is VIRGIN TRNS ONLY (DM). He also gets going at 0920 but has paid less than Barry.
4. Daniel has an off-peak return from London Terminals to Milton Keynes C, ANY PERMITTED (DM). He joins Barry and Charlie on the 0920.
5. Edgar isn't on that train though. He has an off-peak return from London Terminals to Milton Keynes C route VIRGIN TRNS ONLY (LY). He gets going at 0943.
6. Frank, meanwhile, came up from MKC yesterday and is using the return half of an off-peak return Milton Keynes C to London Terminals route ANY PERMITTED (LW). He can have his pick of trains and could in fact have got the 0527 LIV service.
7. George is on the return half of a super off-peak return from Milton Keynes C to Peterborough route +ANY PERMITTED. He's also able to pick his train because he's connecting within the Network area from a journey from outside the area.
8. Hywel has a 1-6 annual Travelcard and is on the outbound half of a Boundary Zone 6 to Milton Keynes C off-peak return ticket (4A). He gets into an argument with the Virgin gateline for the 0920 train as to whether the train will have gotten out of zone 6 before 0930, which is when his ticket becomes valid. [For what it's worth, I would say it is valid because the train is timed to pass Harrow & Wealdstone at 0929 and a half, which is zone 5.]
9. Ian also has an annual 1-6 and is on the outbound half of a Boundary Zone 6 to Milton Keynes C off-peak day return (B4). He got on the 0843 Virgin service after a little less argument.
10. John has an off-peak return from London Terminals to Manchester Stns (9I). He can't leave until the 0943 train and meets Edgar for a plastic Virgin panini.
11. Kenneth has the return half of a Lancaster to London Terminals off-peak return (3A). He can leave on the 0910 service to Holyhead (Caergybi).
12. And spare a thought for poor Louis. He has a London Terminals to Lancaster off-peak return (5F) and goes up with Kenneth since his ticket is valid from 0905, but is refused access to the train when he says he's going to MKC because break of journey is barred on his ticket.

So that's twelve people with twelve off-peak tickets, eleven of which become valid on seven different trains and one not valid at all for the journey desired. And if that's not simple enough, what happens later on when Mike, Nat, Oscar, Peter, Quentin, Ryan, Steve, Terry, Ultan, Victor, Warren, and Xavier show up at EUS at 1639 with the above tickets...?

 

[TUC]

I'd rather not; I prefer to have a comprehensive service available to all.

You can have both. The difference is that if you have two companies making up the comprehensive services there's a better chance of cheaper fares along the way.

 

[Minstral25]

Once FCC gets all-new trains (and ignoring the franchise merger for sake of argument, which will of course see the end of any cheaper TOC-specific fares), you'd have cheaper fares and nicer trains.

Of course, the stock doesn't determine the value of a fare even if it's quite obvious the passenger may well see that as a major factor in making a decision. I know I would, and I've paid more to travel on a nicer train in the past.

Not quite I live near Redhill so there is no competition and when Thameslink comes FCC will disappear into greater Thameslink and FCC only fares will be gone. Currently if it was convenient I could save £300pa at Three Bridges on an FCC only fare, or on Southern £500 at Oxted or Dorking (same distance from London) or £200 at East Grinstead (20 miles further out of London). Redhill is a rip off currently!

Why do I commute, I worked in Crawley (short drive) for 15 years, got made redundant and now can only find jobs in London - like many local people here. I can't afford housing in London so I am captive.