Posted 2nd January 2013 | 4 Comments
New Year fare increases trigger protests
Unions demonstrated about fare levels more than once during 2012. This protest was held at Brighton in September to coincide with the TUC conference
JANUARY fare increases on most National Rail routes have triggered protests, with unions staging demonstrations today. The increases average 3.9 per cent, according to ATOC, although some routes could theoretically see increases as high as 9.2 per cent.
The original average rise for regulated fares, which include season tickets, was to have been 6.2 per cent. This figure was reached by adding 3 per cent to last July's RPI of 3.2 per cent.
But the Government staged a u-turn for the second year running, and once again the Chancellor reduced the rise to RPI+1 per cent. The Government has also allowed a 5 per cent 'flex' be applied again this year, so that the actual changes can range in theory from an increase of 9.2 per cent to a reduction of 0.8 per cent, although operators must maintain the 4.2 per cent average for their regulated fares as a whole.
Rail fares in England have now risen by more than the rate of inflation for ten years running, because governments have wanted to increase the amount contributed to rail costs by passengers, while reducing the amount from taxpayers.
This policy has been sharply criticised, with its opponents claiming that it is 'pricing people off the railways', although passenger figures are continuing to rise and are now approaching an all-time record.
Not all fares are regulated, and any changes to unregulated tickets are a matter for train operators. One widely-quoted increase is a 10 per cent jump in the cost of an 'any permitted' day return from London to Birmingham.
The chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport Stephen Joseph said the increases were 'truly shocking', while TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "At a time when real wages are falling and household budgets are being squeezed, rail travellers are being forced to endure yet another year of inflation-busting fare increases."
However, Michael Roberts of ATOC said: "Fare rises are determined largely by government policy, and the Chancellor confirmed the government’s approach for next year in the Autumn Statement.
"Railway funding can only come from the taxpayer or from the passenger, and the government’s policy remains that a bigger share must come from people who use the train.
"We know nobody likes paying more for their journey, especially to go to work. Train companies will continue working with the rest of the industry to become more cost efficient, helping to take the pressure off future fare rises."
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham
Actually, the utopian model you described is already in place in most American cities: no rail subsidies. And guess what? Instead you get massive motorways that are often gridlocked. That shouldn't really be a surprise, because if you allow a £5,000 season ticket to double in price, £5,000 in parking charges becomes quite competitive.
By the way, I used to work as a civil servant occasionally based in Central London, and I can categorically tell you that neither I nor many of my colleagues earned anything like the levels you seem to believe we get. There's no way I could have afforded travel costs at the level you consider fair.
Oh, and you don't think the fact you can't get a seat on a train after you've seen Arsenal play in the evening might have something to do with the fact that Arsenal was playing in the evening?
Tony Pearce, Reading
Just to state first of all that I believe (and love) First Class Rail travel around Europe and this country. It beats all other forms of transport and I usually end up paying about 15% more than second class. However in the UK at this moment of time absolutely no-one is happy with the Railways. If you take the Daily Mail subscribers as a cross-section then you have Motorists complaining about Petrol prices, Rail passengers about fares and inability to get a seat, others about rip-off Train Operators, others about Unions exploiting the situation for greed, and Politicians playing the votes game. So no Bouquets whatsoever. I no longer commute into the West Midlands and can only speak about my line to Paddington. Its actually cheap off peak but even when I go to see Arsenal play in the evening, I can't get a seat even after 11 pm at night. Generally speaking London commuters are in very well-off jobs in the City or Civil Service and their fares are subsidised. A railway economist once told me that Commuting is a bane for rail companies and doesn't make money. They have to provide 2 shifts of drivers and staff (early morning and evening), and the trains often have to be taken out of service between 10 and 4 and don't earn revenue because there's no passengers. If rail fares went up in the London area people would not abandon trains as parking a car anywhere near the centre of London costs at least £5,000 a year.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England
Too simplistic. Rail subsidies vary massively across the network. East Coast and Virgin pay the government to run trains, not the other way round. Guess who picks up the tab for that? The lines that need the subsidy are the commuter lines, and with good reason. With long-distance travel, you can manage demand through peak pricing the spread out journeys over the whole day, but you cannot reasonably expect a commuter to travel to work at 6 a.m. or 11 a.m. instead of 8.30 a.m. This means you need a big fleet of trains and expensive signally to handle complex rail traffic on overcrowded railways whilst only getting the revenue from a few hours each day.
If you want to scrap subsidies from the rail lines that receive them on a matter of principle, that's fine, provided that you are happy for all those motorists you think are so hard done by to spend far longer in their cars are priced off the rails and on to the roads, driving most major cities into gridlock. I don't think many motorists will thank you for that.
By the way, I earn substantially below the average wage and commute on a main line, which means I pay the government for the privilege of getting to work by the most socially responsible means. Thanks for clumping me in with rich bankers sponging off the system. I didn't see anyone who looks like a pampered banker on the 08:23 Durham-Newcastle, but I guess I wan't looking hard enough,
Tony Pearce, Reading UK
Motorists have to pay 64% of the cost of petrol (62% diesel) in taxes to the Government. Internal Air travellers have to pay £24 (soon to rise to £26) for every leg of their journey extra in Tax. Whereas Rail Passengers get appromimately 50% of their rail ticket paid for my the Government in subsidy and no taxes such as VAT. I can't see any moral justification for the Taxpayer subsidising, say, a well-paid Banker travelling into Liverpool Street every day. Wages and London Allowances are deliberately higher in the South East to cover the extra cost of travelling by rail. The cheap cost of rail fares leads to over-crowding and a complete distortion of the 'Market'. You could probably make out a case for subsidising boat travel around Scottish Islands, bus journeys in rural England and maybe lines such as the Esk Valley to Whitby. Putting rail fares upto their proper cost would probably only mean that Wages and London Allowances would rise as employers tried to keep their staff. Other employers might also decide to relocate to a cheaper area. Other commuters might then be able to actually get a seat on a commuter train. Subsidies usually turn out to be unhelpful.