Rail fares rise above inflation rate.

[[TW]Fox]

so if the rail costs become too high then the only choice would be to move, move and downsize or change job

And you expect people to be forced to make the decision to do this AND not complain about it?

lol

 

[estebanrey]

And you expect people to be forced to make the decision to do this AND not complain about it?

lol

It's not the complaining, but the expectation that the tax payer should pick up the slack that is the problem.

 

[Buckster]

And you expect people to be forced to make the decision to do this AND not complain about it?

lol

I expect people to complain about it - but affordable rail-travel is not a given right

nor is car travel a given right

do I feel aggrieved about the fact my petrol prices have gone up almost 20% in 2 years - of course I am - is there anything I can do about it ? nope. If it gets too expensive I'll have to stop driving or move

to balance it out - I do quite a lot of train travel as well as drive

I have no issue with complaining - but I do take issue with any statement that says "I am forced to travel on the train and have no choice"

 

[Ricochet J]

While I accept the standard of Britain's rail network is poor and unacceptable compared to France, Germany and Spain, would nationalising the railways improve it? And importantly, would nationalising the railways reduce the price of rail travel?

The two main causes for concern are:
- Reliability
- Cost of travel to the customer

I am over the whole privatisation of the railways that happened in 1993. However what matters now is using the best possible means to address both reliability and cost of travel to the customer.

But we have to be careful - even attempting a public-private partnership is very dangerous. Just look what happened to Tube Lines. Ditto the nationalism argument. TfL and the Tube aren't exactly prize winners.

 

[Buckster]

tbh if we want cheaper petrol, cheaper bus fares and cheaper rail fares

we need to pay more taxes (prob quite a lot more)

when it comes down to it - money's got to come from somewhere/someone

 

[Destination]

tbh I find it hard to have any sympathy, motorists and airline passengers contribute to the tax coffers, rail passengers cost the taxpayer money

Govt (as in me the taxpayer) subsidises rail travel for those who take it, under labour I paid lots more fr it than I do now.
I am glad the fares are rising, if rail travel becomes too expensive then other forms of transporttaion will compete, or people will learn half the population doesn't have to work in the greater London area.
If you entire country is based around a single central hub and everything else goes to waste as a result of it, it will eventually become a mess. We have reached that state.

Rail travel hasn't paid for itself in a very long time.
The fares should increase to cope with this, and the taxpayer shouldn;t have to subsidise things as much as they do.

 

[StriderX]

tbh if we want cheaper petrol, cheaper bus fares and cheaper rail fares

we need to pay more taxes (prob quite a lot more)

when it comes down to it - money's got to come from somewhere/someone

No money is stagnant, it is labour that has to occur.

It is kind of like electricity, the electrons don't move, energy simply passes between them.

Of course I suppose you could describe any way you please, but this suits me.

Money or in my definition (power) only moves when a labour has made it worth it to move.

 

[Basher]

tbh I find it hard to have any sympathy, motorists and airline passengers contribute to the tax coffers, rail passengers cost the taxpayer money

Is that still true? What level of subsidies are applicable on the ~£6.5Billion that First will give to the Government over the next 13 years?

 

[estebanrey]

I've always said, companies should have to pay for their staff's travel to and from work. You'd soon see the amount of companies hiring people who live miles away drop like a stone then.

 

[Ricochet J]

No money is stagnant, it is labour that has to occur.

It is kind of like electricity, the electrons don't move, energy simply passes between them.

Of course I suppose you could describe any way you please, but this suits me.

Money or in my definition (power) only moves when a labour has made it worth it to move.

What on earth did you just say or mean? None of that made any sense. And the electricity analogy - where did that come from (which is wrong, but let's not get into that)!?

 

[Basher]

I've always said, companies should have to pay for their staff's travel to and from work. You'd soon see the amount of companies hiring people who live miles away drop like a stone then.

Or we'd suddenly find more people being based from home and it have little impact?

 

[Buckster]

Or we'd suddenly find more people being based from home and it have little impact?

which is bad why ?

a lot greener and cheaper

 

[StriderX]

What on earth did you just say or mean? None of that made any sense. And the electricity analogy - where did that come from (which is wrong, but let's not get into that)!?

Perhaps my physics isnt entirely up to scratch nowadays, but i made my point either way.

Money is worthless, it is the labour associated that is the definition, that is after all capitalism at its very soul.

Is it not, I am sure one Adam Smith would agree.

 

[Basher]

which is bad why ?

a lot greener and cheaper

I didn't say it would be bad. It's not a bad idea at all, more companies should do it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It's not the complaining, but the expectation that the tax payer should pick up the slack that is the problem.

I'm not sure it is. The availability of some things, even if we chose not to use them, are to the benefit of society as a whole.

I do not have children. I have no real interest in children. Yet I've no problem at all with taxpayers money funding schools for other peoples children. It's something that benefits society as a whole.

IMHO, the availability of reasonably priced and reliable public transportation also benefits society as a whole. The principle is the same.

To not see this is shortsighted, IMHO. We must reduce our dependance on things like cars and a crucial, crucial key to this is the availability of public transport.

And I say this as a massive car enthusiast.

 

[territt]

-deleted post as fox made the point I was trying to -

 

[estebanrey]

I do not have children. I have no real interest in children. Yet I've no problem at all with taxpayers money funding schools for other peoples children. It's something that benefits society as a whole.

Don't disagree, in the same way I don't mind my taxes going to pay for wheelchairs for those that can't walk.

Helping the less fortunate in society or educating children though isn't really the same as subsidizing commuters though, who mostly choose to work where they do and live far away for personal economic reasons.

Think of it this way, would you support the government subsiding cars over a certain value? That would be benefiting some sections of society too but it wouldn't be fair.

As someone stated above most (if not all) other methods of travel make a profit for the treasury, rail travel is one of few that makes a loss so why should that be subsidized but not car travel, air travel etc etc.

 

[oldbag]

Helping the less fortunate in society or educating children though isn't really the same as subsidizing commuters though, who mostly choose to work where they do and live far away for personal economic reasons.

I work in London because it provides me the income that I require to pay my bills, where I live. I wouldn't mind working locally, but stacking shelves at the supermarket doesn't quite pay the same money and there's no real work here and the surrounding area for my type of work, therefore working in London isn't a 100% choice. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of those who work in London aren't creaming it on massive salaries and the majority can't afford to live there.

 

[estebanrey]

I work in London because it provides me the income that I require to pay my bills, where I live. I wouldn't mind working locally, but stacking shelves at the supermarket doesn't quite pay the same money and there's no real work here and the surrounding area for my type of work, therefore working in London isn't a 100% choice.

But you've just backed up my point, you choose to work in London because it is economically better for you than say moving to London and having to pay higher housing costs or taking a job in your area that wouldn't pay as much.

As I keep saying, I have no problem with that notion, I only have a problem with those that think people like me should subsidize that choice.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Don't disagree, in the same way I don't mind my taxes going to pay for wheelchairs for those that can't walk.

Helping the less fortunate in society or educating children though isn't really the same as subsidizing commuters though, who mostly choose to work where they do and live far away for personal economic reasons.

Think of it this way, would you support the government subsiding cars over a certain value? That would be benefiting some sections of society too but it wouldn't be fair.

As someone stated above most (if not all) other methods of travel make a profit for the treasury, rail travel is one of few that makes a loss so why should that be subsidized but not car travel, air travel etc etc.

Do you genuinelly not see the benefit to an economy of having a reliable and fairly priced public transport network?

Really?

Can you imagine the situation the UK would find itself in in 30 years time if we decided that actually, subsidising public transport etc is rubbish and that personal cars were really the only way forward?

The more you invest in your public transportation networks, the better prepared you are for when private cars become ever more expensive. You don't fund public transport so rich people can commute for cheap, you fund public transport to enable it to be a genuine alternative to car use becuase massive, large scale car use is unsustainable and impractical for a number of reasons.