This is like the argument elsewhere about the BBC.

Shit happens,

If we assume that commuters journeys are inelastic then the public subsidy is to commuters not the operators. If people still have to get to work no matter how much the train fare rises then they are currently being subsidised with a fare ceiling. The areas where trains are used the most such as London and the SE are the most subsidised. Just one of those hidden subsidies that accrue to the capital and the SE.

Well, who knows. If inflation goes up, and stays up, perhaps that lib-dem manifesto commitment can be kept. Assuming that 40% isn’t already adjusted for inflation, anyway.

40% over 5 years is ‘only’ 8%/year (7% inflation + 1% above base rate), after all, excluding compound effects.

We’re on, what, 4% at the moment?

Quick, print money!

War on the motorist?

1997-2009

Car ownership cost down 11%
Rail travel cost up 14%
Bus travel cost up 24%

And rail travel cost increases won’t just hit commuters. The cost of Inter-City travel has been a hot topic out here in the NW more or less ever since the sell offs, and it will continue to rise for everyone – including those on limited incomes, who often don’t have an alternative.

Erm, subsidies to motorists? Where? What?

The amount raised in fuel duty is hugely higher than what is spent on the roads….it’s higher than the damage done by CO2 (using the Stern Review measure) and the amount spent on roads.

What subsidies are motorists getting when the Govt takes 65-70p per litre of petrol?

And Ricahrd at 2 is correct about the train subsidies. Which means we come back to the old question: why should some nurse in Plymouth, or dustman in Daventry, be taxed so as to subsidise bankers commuting into the City from Chiselhurst? Better to make the commuters pay their own costs, surely, more “progressive” certainly.

@Tim W

Are you implying that poor people are more reliant on the motor car than the better-off? Don’t make me laugh.
Public transport in this country (at least outside London – contrary to what capital-dwellers believe they actually have it quite easy!) is a bloody shambles that governments of every colour have failed to get to grips with, and this gov is no better.

Commuters contribute massivly to climate change.
They are no different than Easy Jet passengers in that regard.
If you support ”Plane Stupid” then this is ‘Train Stupid’.
People from Southend shouldn’t be commuting into central London.
I think I am following the line of logic here.
Price people off the rails.

damon, if you price people off the train they will drive to work instead.

You give the example of people commuting into central London from Southend, but most people need to commute to work unless they cycle (difficult if you are disabled, elderly or pregnant) or can afford to live near their place of work.

“Public transport”

Nice switch. We weren’t talking about public transport as a whole, only about the rail network.

Yes, I do think that usage of the rail network to commute is probably skewed away from the poor and towards the middle classes.

“Yes, I do think that usage of the rail network to commute is probably skewed away from the poor and towards the middle classes.”

Why, because the only people who take trains to work live in affluent satelite towns surrounding London?

Tell that to my mum, who has to find money for a railcard out of a meagre £14,000 pa pre-tax salary to get to work in Liverpool every day.

9

Hmmnnn… joined up transport policy anyone?

Railways and transport in general are just one example of the abject failure of succeeding governments, whether from the left or right, to come up with coherent policies. This isn’t a new problem. No wonder we have little manufacturing industry left, and that our infrastructure is sick joke.

The fact that railway travel in particular is relatively much more expensive here than in Europe is simply another way to impose a stealth tax on people. Whilst there is an argument to be made for expecting those using the services to contribute at least an element of the cost based on usage, there always has been and always will be a need for government subsidies. Similarly there is a case to be made that the existing subsidies for railways are in fact a huge subsidy in favour of London and the SE, which many of the nimby’s who live there tend to conveniently forget when railing against subsidies for the North and the Celtic fringes.

The way the railways were de-nationlised in this country was not only a disgrace, but a bugger’s muddle, as even the Thatcherite goons who profited from it most now agree. I can see little evidence that the current adminsitration will be any more willing or able to improve matters than the last.

No doubt we can expect the coming spending review to do what has always been done: slash spending and investment for short term reasons, because the problems it will cause won’t become evident until 10 or 15 years when the infrasturcture is collapsing, the train stock is super-annuated and safety has been put at risk.

@11 Galen10: “Similarly there is a case to be made that the existing subsidies for railways are in fact a huge subsidy in favour of London and the SE…”

I live in the East Midlands which I presume qualifies me to comment as an independent.

* Overall, the south east of England generates more GDP per capita than elsewhere. Thus government transport subsidies are being shifted from SE to SE.

* How should we calculate public transport efficiency? Head count on the bus, miles per passenger, offset from private to public transport?

* Stop, start. Stop, start. That is painful for a diesel engine.

Apologies to Sunny, for my initial blow off of steam,