How fair are the fares?

[AndyPandy]

On Feb 19, 7:50*am, Jonathan Stott <jm...@kent.ac.uk> wrote:

Surely the problem in the UK is the whole setup with the TOCs? Can you
ever have a value for money rail service when the TOCs are trying to
maximise their shareholder profit? At least with a nationalised
network, any profit generated is reinvested back into the network.
Until we go back to the stage of a government owned company fully
running our rail system, I can't see UK train fares ever being fair
for consumers or representing value for money across the board.

It will be interesting to see if the TOCs cut fare prices if we do
enter a deflationary period, as is expected in the second half of the
year.

[Mark Hewitt]

> • The price of flexibility is too high – passengers are baffled by the
> huge gap between the cheapest and the most expensive fares on the same
> train (the fact of which is confirmed in our European research).

Great. So they'll 'solve' that problem by getting rid of advance
purchase fares.
I thought the difference was perfectly clear, you pay one price if you
want to travel on that train and that train only and a different price
if you want flexibility. It's a well understood concept in many
industries, e.g. hotels, not just travel?

[EE507]

On Feb 19, 10:33*am, "Tim Fenton" <timfen...@***************> wrote:
> "EE507" <ee...**********.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:68e2eb37-b0e6-44d8-80e4-ce718e390c72@w35g2000yqm.************.com...
>
> [I've snipped the lot because, yet again, someone's news client isn't
> quoting.]
>
> This snippet caught my eye, and of the posts I just read, doesn't seem to
> have been covered:
>
> "However, most British passengers appeared better served than other European
> passengers by the number and times of trains available, Passenger Focus
> said."

True, but that turn up and go benefit is lost of travelling on an
affordable advance ticket. Frequency is then effectively one train per
day! VT claim they have more cheap fares available, so that is a
benefit of high frequency as long as one assumes the lowest tier
tickets are still available until 18:00 the previous day.
Unfortunately a lack of transparency means that is the luck of the
draw.

Is it sensible running trains every 20 mins to Brum and Manchester
anyway? How robust is that timetable, and does it really generate
*that* much more travel than 2 tph?

[Charlie Hulme]

>
> Is it sensible running trains every 20 mins to Brum and Manchester
> anyway?
>

No! It requires disruption of the pattern of local
services to achieve.

> How robust is that timetable, and does it really generate
> *that* much more travel than 2 tph?

There were certainly cancellations going on yesterday
morning when I was at Stockport. People were being told
their tickets would be valid on the 'next' train which
was 20 minutes late and running in the path of the
cancelled one (and fight over your reserved seat,
presumably) , which happened to be going via Wilmslow
rather than Macclesfield, so there would have been a
longer gap at Stoke.

More travel will be generated by ultra-cheap advance
tickets, and attributed by the spin merchants to the
increased frequency.

Charlie

[Anthony Cunningham]

On Feb 19, 2:32*pm, "tim...." <tims_new_h...**********.uk> wrote:

> There's a big difference between expecting the market to work in an area
> which is profit making to expecting it to work in an area which inherently
> requires subsidy.

If the prices were raised to a high enough level there would be no
need for a subsidy.

[Tony Polson]

Anthony Cunningham <anthony.j.cunningham@**********> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 2:32*pm, "tim...." <tims_new_h...**********.uk> wrote:
>
>> There's a big difference between expecting the market to work in an area
>> which is profit making to expecting it to work in an area which inherently
>> requires subsidy.
>
>If the prices were raised to a high enough level there would be no
>need for a subsidy.

If the prices were raised to a high enough level there would be no
need for a railway, because no-one could afford to use it.

[Charlie Hulme]

>
> So, given that road transport also meets your standard for a public
> good I ask why should we treat the railways differently from the
> roads? Both supply a means of transport for goods and commuters and
> presumably both meet your test for a public good. Yet one is taxed and
> the other is subsidised.
>
> How fair is that?
>

Road transport is en environmental disaster that gets
in people's way, pollutes their air, assaults their
eardrums, and regularly maims and kills?

A high price to pay for the 'public good.'

Charlie

[Tony Polson]

Charlie Hulme <info@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
>Anthony Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> So, given that road transport also meets your standard for a public
>> good I ask why should we treat the railways differently from the
>> roads? Both supply a means of transport for goods and commuters and
>> presumably both meet your test for a public good. Yet one is taxed and
>> the other is subsidised.
>>
>> How fair is that?
>>
>
>Road transport is en environmental disaster that gets
>in people's way, pollutes their air, assaults their
>eardrums, and regularly maims and kills?
>
>A high price to pay for the 'public good.'

Like alcohol and tobacco, it is a very big earner for the Treasury.

Also like alcohol and tobacco, it is an addiction that the Treasury
would find extremely difficult to give up.

[Tony Polson]

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It isn't just about a
>simple profit v subsidy equation for individual aspects of transport,
>it's about developing a network that, as a whole, best meets the need
>of those who want to use it.

We need to be careful about using the word "want".

If we provided the transport network that people *wanted*, there would
have to be a massive road building programme and consequently a massive
decline in the use of rail. So many people would choose car over rail
that rail in its current form would find survival difficult.

What is needed is some sort of a balance between satisfying cost and
environmental objectives, while giving people as much of what they want
as is practicable.

These are conflicting objectives - sometimes diametrically opposite -
and compromise is difficult. We cannot keep everyone happy while
keeping overall costs to a minimum and keeping within our wider
obligations to the environment and climate change.

The sort of balance that needs to be struck is one that pays regard to
all these factors. However, we cannot hope to keep everyone happy, so
perhaps the best definition of compromise in a situation like this is to
find solutions that keep everyone equally unhappy.

It's about the best definition of a no-win situation I can think of. :-(

[EE507]

On Feb 20, 2:09*pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:57:13 -0800 (PST), s...@johnband.org put finger
> to keyboard and typed:
>
> >On Feb 19, 7:24*pm, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> >wrote:
>
> >> The biggest "hidden cost" of the roads is usually quoted to be the
> >> cost of accidents, which in 2002 was around 18,000 million[1]. That is
> >> a significant sum, but in this context it's less relevent as the
> >> majority of those costs are paid by the road users (or their insurers)
> >> rather than the state.
>
> >No, the majority of the cost falls on the NHS and the benefits system.
> >Cars are cheap; intensive care is expensive.
>
> The majority of the cost of accidents is the cost of repairing
> vehicles and loss of working time by employees. The majority of
> accidents don't result in serious injury.

More than 8 people die on the roads every day [1], each life being
valued at an average of £1.5m. Then there are the 'seriously injured'
to treat (NHS) and pay whilst recovering.

[1] Transport Statistics GB 2008