Anyway, make train fares cheaper and the commuter services would be even more crowded.
Make train fares more expensive and you'll price workers off the railways and potentially out of work.
Those hankering for a more expensive railway for whatever vested interest they have will take pleasure in the forthcoming franchise requirements the Government will be placing on future licence holders. It's unfortunate that people told to move out of towns and cities to more affordable housing elsewhere will now be told to move into towns and cities to lower their transport costs... err...
Sadly accidents on oilrigs dont work to a schedule.
But the games meant everything was going to be busier. I don't see how running trains and buses at full or enhanced capacity is a disgrace when it wasn't enough.
What do you suggest is done (and, given this is about fare rises, who should pay for it?).
Make train fares more expensive and you'll price workers off the railways and potentially out of work.
That's true and that's why the need for balance between public subsidy and fare increases.
Despite increasing fares, passenger numbers are still the highest level for decades which shows the demand is still there (or the alternatives are even more expensive or inconvenient). If we want to lower fares then we need to increase capacity - and that costs a lot of money as the Crossrail project is showing.
But the games meant everything was going to be busier. I don't see how running trains and buses at full or enhanced capacity is a disgrace when it wasn't enough.
What do you suggest is done (and, given this is about fare rises, who should pay for it?).
I travel that line at least once a week and its the exact same every Friday night, over sold and cramped. it was even worse during the games with no effort to accomodate extra travellers. Fortunately MSPS think their handling of this route is a disgrace and questions have been asked in the Scottish parliament.
A rise in fares for the service provided isnt good enough. So I'll drive in future and sod carbon footprints.
Make train fares more expensive and you'll price workers off the railways and potentially out of work.
Those hankering for a more expensive railway for whatever vested interest they have will take pleasure in the forthcoming franchise requirements the Government will be placing on future licence holders. It's unfortunate that people told to move out of towns and cities to more affordable housing elsewhere will now be told to move into towns and cities to lower their transport costs... err...
Who was told to move out? Nobody kicked me out when I moved outside zone 6. And my annual season ticket went from £2000 something when I started to £3500 before I stopped commuting. I still travel regularly but mostly off peak and with a railcard, I don't pay anywhere near as much as I did.
I wasn't stupid. I knew rail fares would go up. They always go up, and always by large amounts. Given they're a percentage, rather than a fixed amount, the increase soon stacks up.
Reducing fares would almost certainly only happen for off peak tickets, perhaps with more super off peak offers. No help for the low paid workers if they can't travel after 0930 or 1000.
Perhaps the solution is that workers on a lower wage could get some form of tax relief, or a discount (an extension of the new deal railcard or whatever it's called)?
But I'd imagine plenty of people having a problem with that. Even the St Albans commuters who have six figure salaries in the city and won't really be affected even if they have very loud voices.
As I've said, the only way to fix things is to spread the load and that is more than ticket prices can solve alone.
Trains run on 31% subsidy. People who use the trains are complaining about chipping in a bit more towards the cost of their journeys but what about the people who are paying the rest?
I pay 100% of my commute to work, the excessive taxes from which pay towards the £9 subsidy for every £20 ticket.
Lose lose for me.
That's true and that's why the need for balance between public subsidy and fare increases.
Again, to give one example of a forthcoming franchise renewal for Northern Rail's current franchise, the Government has made a requirement already for subsidy reduction and further reductions come the new franchise in 2016. The Government's long term prospect started by Labour is for trains to be funded (perhaps wholly) by passengers, not taxpayers. That could work for long distance journeys but for shorter ones, namely the ones Northern Rail currently run, it isn't going to be profitable to run in the long term unless you make massive cuts or price lower earners off the train. Even on long distance routes, the East Coast franchise has been handed back twice and only profitable when it was run by a state owned franchise returning profit to the taxpayer. Only that they're now tendering out to the private sector again with no allowance for the existing incumbent to bid. Fools.
Any person priced off the train will also find councils cutting subsidies for buses to the point where buses are a rarity before 9:30am and become scarce after 3pm, the times when most workers go to and from work. Our county council is now promoting the idea of voluntary buses for the elderly and disabled, and I hope that does not become the public transport run by the "big society" in the future whilst everyone else has no choice but to walk, bike, ride or drive anywhere at a time where we should be promoting green transport, not killing it off.
I travel that line at least once a week and its the exact same every Friday night, over sold and cramped.
A rise in fares for the service provided isnt good enough. So I'll drive in future and sod carbon footprints.
What service is over sold and cramped every Friday? I'll look into it for you and see what I can find out. Can you give the start and end stations and the departure time from the origin?
I am still unsure about the oversold thing though. It's not an airline. A train doesn't just sell tickets for the seats and that's it. There's no actual limit on how many people can travel, bar the physical limit of how many can fit or how many people wouldn't opt to get off and travel later, not at all, or drive, take a taxi etc.
Trains run on 31% subsidy. People who use the trains are complaining about chipping in a bit more towards the cost of their journeys but what about the people who are paying the rest?
I pay 100% of my commute to work, the excessive taxes from which pay towards the £9 subsidy for every £20 ticket.
Lose lose for me.
Despite £3500 being a shed load of money, I could never drive daily for the same cost (factoring in parking and the congestion charge, and even taking off the days I'd be on holiday where I've paid to use the train). And my time is also worth money, which on a bad day had been as much as 3 hours door to door on a 25 mile journey.
I tried for a while and it was horrible as I couldn't be sure when I'd arrive at work or get home. Anyone saying they'll ditch the train for their car may well find it isn't a better option rather quickly.
I know its never going to happen ( commuter boycott of the rail network) but it could and should....it 'falls at the first' because people don't talk on trains at all let alone about how they can stop themselves being ripped off.
What service is over sold and cramped every Friday? I'll look into it for you and see what I can find out. Can you give the start and end stations and the departure time from the origin?
I am still unsure about the oversold thing though. It's not an airline. A train doesn't just sell tickets for the seats and that's it. There's no actual limit on how many people can travel, bar the physical limit of how many can fit or how many people wouldn't opt to get off and travel later, not at all, or drive, take a taxi etc.
Aberdeen to Glasgow around 4.30pm and I would say a train is over sold when there are no seats available, the walkway up the train has people standing and people cant get on (and struggle to get off) or use the toilets because the spaces at the doors are crammed too. The girl who does the coffee trolley said its the most complained about route on the network. I'm sorry but its not acceptable to chsrge someone £75 and expect them to be able to stand for almost three hours while packed like sardines, not use the toilet etc.
But I'd imagine plenty of people having a problem with that.
Herein lies the problem, people complain about low paid workers living near where the jobs are whilst claiming housing benefit, so we engage in policies where people move away to cheaper housing with fewer jobs but the cost of commuting to work by train (and bus) becomes more expensive. Subsequently public transport becomes a privilege for people earning "six figure salaries in the city" whilst lower paid workers are priced out of their jobs.
Something has to give, you can't keep exponentially raising fares above inflation whilst wages for those in jobs on modest wages remain below inflation alongside other cuts that the Government is imposing on future rail franchises.
Ah, 1630 isn't quite the night I assumed. But, still, a train isn't full when the last seat is taken and likely to be busy in the evening peak (hence my earlier comments about needing to get people to vary their travel time).
I assume it was the 1637? If so, there's first class available. Is that full? If a seat is vital, that's an option available to you. And is it 2 or 3 coaches? Or more than one set joined up?
Of course, there's the other option, which is not to travel. Get a refund on your ticket and drive - as you've said you'll do. You have that right and nobody is forced to use a train.
the days I'd be on holiday where I've paid to use the train
My summer holidays have occurred at monthly intervals for that reason. I've been buying monthly season tickets. I'm not sure if that saves money over an annual ticket but then I'm reluctant to commit to a year's travel anyway.
For me it's roughly the same cost (Brackley to Birmingham) to drive and about ten minutes quicker but that's ignoring increased servicing and tyre wear. To say nothing of the hassle free journey. I like driving but on a daily basis I'd rather be sat reading in a train for an hour than fighting my way through traffic.
I have no difficulty getting a seat. The only people who have to stand are those joining at the last couple of stops - basically people going into the centre from the suburbs. They only have to stand for ten minutes at most. So thumbs up to Chiltern Railways - they seem to be doing a good job and I don't begrudge them £314 a month (which includes parking).
I looked into getting the train to work earlier this year as petrol was getting more expensive and I thought the exercise would be good (it would be a 30 minute walk from my house to the station and then another 30 minute walk from the station to work which isn't too bad as I used to do it) but when I worked it out it was no cheaper than sticking £100 of petrol in my car a month which is what I do at the moment and driving is so much quicker, I leave work and I am home 20-30 minutes later.
Trains run on 31% subsidy. People who use the trains are complaining about chipping in a bit more towards the cost of their journeys but what about the people who are paying the rest?
I pay 100% of my commute to work, the excessive taxes from which pay towards the £9 subsidy for every £20 ticket.
Lose lose for me.
What about the people who are paying the rest? One could make that argument about every single public service one doesn't use.
I could make the same claim about the NHS, which I haven't used for 30 years.
I could make the same argument about schools as I don't have kids.
i could make the same argument about the library and all the other services local government provide that I don't use.
That is the nature of public services.
As for the railways, this is the ongoing "benefit" we are still reaping from The Beeching Report and the cuts to lines and services made 50 years ago.
Trains run on 31% subsidy. People who use the trains are complaining about chipping in a bit more towards the cost of their journeys but what about the people who are paying the rest? I pay 100% of my commute to work, the excessive taxes from which pay towards the £9 subsidy for every £20 ticket.
Lose lose for me.
Actually, if you drive to work you are paying far more than 100% of the cost of your journey. Motorists pay billions more in road tax and fuel duty than is even spent on the road network.
A 31% subsidy sounds about right. Why should low paid workers in shops and factories in the Midlands pay more tax so that well paid people can have cheaper commutes into London from their suburban home?
My summer holidays have occurred at monthly intervals for that reason. I've been buying monthly season tickets. I'm not sure if that saves money over an annual ticket but then I'm reluctant to commit to a year's travel anyway.
Don't forget you can buy monthly seasons that last longer than a month. Anything from a month to almost a year, so if you know your holidays you can do some clever things that will mean being able to afford having a ticket for these days (and maybe even avoiding the odd weekend here and there).
Complicated to sort out, not necessarily guaranteed to work if plans change, and no Gold Card if in the former NSE area, but I know some people do make the effort.
Actually, if you drive to work you are paying far more than 100% of the cost of your journey. Motorists pay billions more in road tax and fuel duty than is even spent on the road network.
But road tax (like insurance) is a fixed cost. On the assumption that people who own a car do more with it than just commuting you can't really factor those into the comparison. Put another way - you can't reduce either of those just by choosing to take the train.
The only costs you can really attribute to commuting by car are fuel, tyre wear and servicing. Having said that the latter two are not insignificant. Tyre wear is probably of the order of 2p a mile. Servicing probably about the same. So a 10 mile commute costs perhaps £1.20 in fuel and 50p in tyres/wear and tear. These figures are rough and ready but suggests that it's wise to assume 25% in hidden costs.
VED (as there's no road tax) is based on emissions and if you choose a suitable vehicle then you can reduce this to almost nothing, or even nothing.
And if your car is very fuel efficient then there another saving. In fact, the car you buy and how you choose to drive it probably makes a huge difference to comparing costs between driving and other forms of transport.
I like driving and have a 2.5ltr turbocharged car, so pay the top rate for VED and average around 25MPG at best in town. I've had the car some time, but will definitely get something more economical when I change. With modern engine designs I could get something with similar performance yet significantly lower emissions and higher MPG.
Tyres and brakes etc all cost more for me too.
But while the car costs a lot more, the real problem for me was the congestion, trouble to find and pay for parking and ever knowing when I'd arrive (30 minutes on a good day, 3 hours on a bad day).
In over 10 years, I had delayed trains and the odd cancellation or short forming, but it was never as bad and I had options. Take another train somewhere else and use a bus or taxi locally, go for coffee locally or something else that couldn't be done when stuck in a car moving slowly.
This is getting worse rail fare goes up each year and people cant afford it
I'd like to see what else people are spending money on before their complaints are valid.
People can car-share and cycle to work for next to nothing. You can't expect the UK population to multiply without extra cost required for transport maintenance. It will keep going up until something breaks and they HAVE to think of alternative ways to get around.
I renew my travel card at the end of the year, so will be paying the 2014 price for my 2015 travel card. I'm amazed that more people don't do this. Whenever I mention it to friends or colleagues, they don't seem to ever have thought about doing that.
Comments
Sadly accidents on oilrigs dont work to a schedule.
Those hankering for a more expensive railway for whatever vested interest they have will take pleasure in the forthcoming franchise requirements the Government will be placing on future licence holders. It's unfortunate that people told to move out of towns and cities to more affordable housing elsewhere will now be told to move into towns and cities to lower their transport costs... err...
But the games meant everything was going to be busier. I don't see how running trains and buses at full or enhanced capacity is a disgrace when it wasn't enough.
What do you suggest is done (and, given this is about fare rises, who should pay for it?).
That's true and that's why the need for balance between public subsidy and fare increases.
Despite increasing fares, passenger numbers are still the highest level for decades which shows the demand is still there (or the alternatives are even more expensive or inconvenient). If we want to lower fares then we need to increase capacity - and that costs a lot of money as the Crossrail project is showing.
I travel that line at least once a week and its the exact same every Friday night, over sold and cramped. it was even worse during the games with no effort to accomodate extra travellers. Fortunately MSPS think their handling of this route is a disgrace and questions have been asked in the Scottish parliament.
A rise in fares for the service provided isnt good enough. So I'll drive in future and sod carbon footprints.
Who was told to move out? Nobody kicked me out when I moved outside zone 6. And my annual season ticket went from £2000 something when I started to £3500 before I stopped commuting. I still travel regularly but mostly off peak and with a railcard, I don't pay anywhere near as much as I did.
I wasn't stupid. I knew rail fares would go up. They always go up, and always by large amounts. Given they're a percentage, rather than a fixed amount, the increase soon stacks up.
Reducing fares would almost certainly only happen for off peak tickets, perhaps with more super off peak offers. No help for the low paid workers if they can't travel after 0930 or 1000.
Perhaps the solution is that workers on a lower wage could get some form of tax relief, or a discount (an extension of the new deal railcard or whatever it's called)?
But I'd imagine plenty of people having a problem with that. Even the St Albans commuters who have six figure salaries in the city and won't really be affected even if they have very loud voices.
As I've said, the only way to fix things is to spread the load and that is more than ticket prices can solve alone.
I pay 100% of my commute to work, the excessive taxes from which pay towards the £9 subsidy for every £20 ticket.
Lose lose for me.
Any person priced off the train will also find councils cutting subsidies for buses to the point where buses are a rarity before 9:30am and become scarce after 3pm, the times when most workers go to and from work. Our county council is now promoting the idea of voluntary buses for the elderly and disabled, and I hope that does not become the public transport run by the "big society" in the future whilst everyone else has no choice but to walk, bike, ride or drive anywhere at a time where we should be promoting green transport, not killing it off.
What service is over sold and cramped every Friday? I'll look into it for you and see what I can find out. Can you give the start and end stations and the departure time from the origin?
I am still unsure about the oversold thing though. It's not an airline. A train doesn't just sell tickets for the seats and that's it. There's no actual limit on how many people can travel, bar the physical limit of how many can fit or how many people wouldn't opt to get off and travel later, not at all, or drive, take a taxi etc.
Despite £3500 being a shed load of money, I could never drive daily for the same cost (factoring in parking and the congestion charge, and even taking off the days I'd be on holiday where I've paid to use the train). And my time is also worth money, which on a bad day had been as much as 3 hours door to door on a 25 mile journey.
I tried for a while and it was horrible as I couldn't be sure when I'd arrive at work or get home. Anyone saying they'll ditch the train for their car may well find it isn't a better option rather quickly.
I know its never going to happen ( commuter boycott of the rail network) but it could and should....it 'falls at the first' because people don't talk on trains at all let alone about how they can stop themselves being ripped off.
Aberdeen to Glasgow around 4.30pm and I would say a train is over sold when there are no seats available, the walkway up the train has people standing and people cant get on (and struggle to get off) or use the toilets because the spaces at the doors are crammed too. The girl who does the coffee trolley said its the most complained about route on the network. I'm sorry but its not acceptable to chsrge someone £75 and expect them to be able to stand for almost three hours while packed like sardines, not use the toilet etc.
Something has to give, you can't keep exponentially raising fares above inflation whilst wages for those in jobs on modest wages remain below inflation alongside other cuts that the Government is imposing on future rail franchises.
I assume it was the 1637? If so, there's first class available. Is that full? If a seat is vital, that's an option available to you. And is it 2 or 3 coaches? Or more than one set joined up?
Of course, there's the other option, which is not to travel. Get a refund on your ticket and drive - as you've said you'll do. You have that right and nobody is forced to use a train.
For me it's roughly the same cost (Brackley to Birmingham) to drive and about ten minutes quicker but that's ignoring increased servicing and tyre wear. To say nothing of the hassle free journey. I like driving but on a daily basis I'd rather be sat reading in a train for an hour than fighting my way through traffic.
I have no difficulty getting a seat. The only people who have to stand are those joining at the last couple of stops - basically people going into the centre from the suburbs. They only have to stand for ten minutes at most. So thumbs up to Chiltern Railways - they seem to be doing a good job and I don't begrudge them £314 a month (which includes parking).
What about the people who are paying the rest? One could make that argument about every single public service one doesn't use.
I could make the same claim about the NHS, which I haven't used for 30 years.
I could make the same argument about schools as I don't have kids.
i could make the same argument about the library and all the other services local government provide that I don't use.
That is the nature of public services.
As for the railways, this is the ongoing "benefit" we are still reaping from The Beeching Report and the cuts to lines and services made 50 years ago.
Actually, if you drive to work you are paying far more than 100% of the cost of your journey. Motorists pay billions more in road tax and fuel duty than is even spent on the road network.
A 31% subsidy sounds about right. Why should low paid workers in shops and factories in the Midlands pay more tax so that well paid people can have cheaper commutes into London from their suburban home?
Don't forget you can buy monthly seasons that last longer than a month. Anything from a month to almost a year, so if you know your holidays you can do some clever things that will mean being able to afford having a ticket for these days (and maybe even avoiding the odd weekend here and there).
Complicated to sort out, not necessarily guaranteed to work if plans change, and no Gold Card if in the former NSE area, but I know some people do make the effort.
The only costs you can really attribute to commuting by car are fuel, tyre wear and servicing. Having said that the latter two are not insignificant. Tyre wear is probably of the order of 2p a mile. Servicing probably about the same. So a 10 mile commute costs perhaps £1.20 in fuel and 50p in tyres/wear and tear. These figures are rough and ready but suggests that it's wise to assume 25% in hidden costs.
And if your car is very fuel efficient then there another saving. In fact, the car you buy and how you choose to drive it probably makes a huge difference to comparing costs between driving and other forms of transport.
I like driving and have a 2.5ltr turbocharged car, so pay the top rate for VED and average around 25MPG at best in town. I've had the car some time, but will definitely get something more economical when I change. With modern engine designs I could get something with similar performance yet significantly lower emissions and higher MPG.
Tyres and brakes etc all cost more for me too.
But while the car costs a lot more, the real problem for me was the congestion, trouble to find and pay for parking and ever knowing when I'd arrive (30 minutes on a good day, 3 hours on a bad day).
In over 10 years, I had delayed trains and the odd cancellation or short forming, but it was never as bad and I had options. Take another train somewhere else and use a bus or taxi locally, go for coffee locally or something else that couldn't be done when stuck in a car moving slowly.
I'd like to see what else people are spending money on before their complaints are valid.
People can car-share and cycle to work for next to nothing. You can't expect the UK population to multiply without extra cost required for transport maintenance. It will keep going up until something breaks and they HAVE to think of alternative ways to get around.