Train fares, should they be subsidised?

fancythat

People complain about HS2. A lot.

Think I am a bit confused by this thread.

For me andd people living rural, it is miles of car journey before even getting to a train station.

We’re a railway family. HS2 isn’t about just cutting a few minutes off rail journeys. As with many other things in this country a lot of the infrastructure is still Victorian. It isn’t possible to upgrade the current tracks whilst still allowing them to be used. We need to get more haulage onto the railways. People should be able to afford to travel by train. I’m pretty sure they can in other parts of Europe and the world. Years ago we travelled round Europe by train and felt ashamed when we got back to the UK by how archaic our rail network was.

Doodledog - most supermarkets do home deliveries at an affordable price. Certainly cheaper than £16 each round trip.
Also cycling is encouraged around my area for those who can.
Are councils providing homes miles away from amenities? In any event children can go to locally run activities such as cubs, brownies, guides and scouts. There will be other local groups for sports and other exercise? Jogging is free.
Not too sure about anyone resenting tv ownership? Are you serious?

It's not a race to the bottom, but where I am, you have to be 66 to get free travel (buses only, not trains) and that also only applies to after the rush hour. I think that if you take a hospital appointment letter you can use the pass earlier, but as I have a while to go before getting mine, I'm not 100% sure.

Yes, there are those who look down on public transport. I don't know what can be done about that, other than to make car use less convenient, but that shouldn't stop public transport being subsidised or free, and if it were made clean, reliable and safe it might encourage more people to use it, even without disincentives to drive.

Just a slight correction to the idea that in London people over 60 get travel free. They do not get travel on trains free until 9.30 which means that a hospital (or any other kind of) appointment in the centre of town any time before 11.00 am costs the same as it costs anybody else. To do that journey by bus/tube may involve several changes and be twice as long - and may well require standing up all the way. That said, I'm very grateful for the ability to get on a crowded stuffy tube or bus without paying at any time of the day. But I do at the same time know plenty of people outside of London who would rather die than use this free transport. As for train subsidies, as far as I know they're already in place, and yes I must be in receipt of them myself.

I don't expect to see this happening in my lifetime, but it would be nice if it did!

Wouldn't it?

Imagine living on a bleak council estate miles from the nearest city, with no cinema, theatre, shopping centre or facilities such as bowling or similar for your children. If there is a bus an hour that costs £8 each way, and you have to lug your shopping with you, how likely is it that you will have a healthy diet? Or that you get to take part in anything cultural other than the TV that people resent you for having? Or that you will make friends with people from different areas, who may introduce you to new ideas or activities and broaden your horizons? Or that your children will stay out of trouble if they have nothing to do but hang around the streets? Or that you will be able to learn new skills to help you to get a job that will help you to afford to move away?

Transport is vital.

If governments are serious about ending the environmental crisis that has been in part caused by our massive use of fossil fuels, then all public transport should not be subsidised but be entirely funded from the state budget and a massive tax imposed upon anyone who persisted in using a private vehicle, apart from those with mobility issues.

Of course to be able to do so, most countries would need to re-think their budgets very carefully, pay their politicians a great deal less in salaries and perks and improve public transport, so that no matter where you lived you could actually get to where you need to be reasonably quickly.

A very small amount of the funds necessary would be available as we would no longer have to ruin good arable land by building bigger and better motorways and bridges! Or pay police for running speed controls etc.

I don't expect to see this happening in my lifetime, but it would be nice if it did!

Public transport is subsidised, just not enough. Here we have a bus service into the City and it has been reduced in frequency due to the cut in subsidy.

Like with the NHS and many other major parts of our lives, transport needs big thinking, more perhaps than can be done within one tenure of office, and it needs all party approval. If we are to aim for net zero, improve the air we breathe, we need to plan big, and pay big. Sadly, I don't think it will happen as we have already seen the result in Uxbridge due to the ULEZ charges.

Trains can be quite reasonably priced though, but you have to invest a bit of time online on the website trainline. By doing so, you will see that getting one particular train instead of another, considerable savings can be made. I also think that ticket offices, with their helpful advice on saving money when travelling with children or as a group, should be retained.

It is not easy to find the cheapest train fare as OP has found. Ticket buying is a nightmare but was made better by the kind man in ticket office at Manchester airport who suggested a cheaper ride for me, when I arrived there.
I would prefer to travel by train but it is cheaper to fly or travel as a single person by car.

The railway company’s cash flow is improved by people buying season tickets so they are willing to give a discount to encourage that. I wouldn’t call it a subsidy.

Levelling up to provide the same transport structures in all large cities would certainly help everybody , workers and retirees , it could also release some larger homes for families.

Absolutely. As to why non-users should pay towards improving transport for those who do use it - it would encourage people to stop taking cars everywhere and polluting the atmosphere. We pay for healthcare, education and all sorts of things that we may or may not use ourselves so that they are there if we do want or need them.

lots do not use so why should we the tax payers pay for the ones that do?

I know of several couples who have moved back into central London in their 70's due to the plentiful and efficient supply of free public transport and better provision of NHS care, not to mention the arts and leisure facilities that are now available to them.
Yes , they were lucky to be able to downsize to afford a 2 bed apartment but my goodness their lifestyle now is amazing. Levelling up to provide the same transport structures in all large cities would certainly help everybody , workers and retirees , it could also release some larger homes for families.

Many commuters used to buy a season ticket for their train journeys which was effectively a subsidy. Nobody seems to have thought about the many people who now work from home and only go in three days a week. I'm guessing that their fares are not much less than a whole week with a season ticket.

LouLou21

I am always a bit peeved that friends living in London have free access to the tube network, why can’t that be extended to all pensioners.

It should be, IMO. We all pay tax, so there is no reason why subsidies should be concentrated in some areas and not others.

As for pensioners being well-off - I wonder how the mayor would feel if that comment were made public. I doubt her constituents would take that well.

Some pensioners are well-off, but many are struggling, and the people who, potentially, could benefit most from cheaper transport are those who have made some provision for old age, but have to spend it on means-tested things that others get free.

LouLou21 good point- I asked the local mayor and her response was- no way as it is far too expensive to implement. Her view was that pensioners are well off and don’t need this!

I am always a bit peeved that friends living in London have free access to the tube network, why can’t that be extended to all pensioners.

If the government want to get people out of their cars they need to make public transport affordable. We live in Berkshire and one of our favourite outings is a trip tp the South Kensington museums. This means me, DD, SiL and two GSs in one car. If we go on a Sunday there is no congestion charge and DD has done it so often she's expert at finding free parking. With just the petrol to pay for the train can't begin to compare. Even if we go to parts of London where we have to book and pay for a day's parking it is still a huge saving.

ronib

Freya5 Oxfam for example suggests that top taxpayers are paying less than they should be and Oxfam has a way of working it out. Bit of a distraction though from the discussion.

Oxfam certainly have their finger on the pulse, don’t they.
top tax payers are paying less than they should be
Stone me, whatever next 🤦🏼‍♀️

Freya5 Oxfam for example suggests that top taxpayers are paying less than they should be and Oxfam has a way of working it out. Bit of a distraction though from the discussion.

surely if net zero is so critical etc
It is, but it’s not to the powers that be, they’re paying lip service to the problem.

M0nica

Should travel of any kind be subsidised? No.

I couldn't disagree more.

If people can't get to work they can't earn a living, so they can't pay taxes and they can't provide the services or good that their work brings. If people can't get to the doctor's they get ill, as do animals if they can't be taken to a vet. If people can't get to theatres, cinemas, restaurants etc their lives shrink and the venues lose money and can close. Similarly, things like toddler groups, evening classes and social events, eg lunches for older people can only continue if people can get to them. In tourist areas, if people can't get about on buses and trains, they often won't bother, or will stay in the towns and not explore other attractions.

Travel is not all 'Grand Tour' style - I'm talking about getting from A to B, which is often very easy and cheap (or free) in cities, but all but impossible and expensive elsewhere. The busy routes should subsidise the quiet ones, IMO.

The alternative is for everyone to use a car, which is bad for the environment, and excludes those who can't, or don't want to drive everywhere.

M0nica

Should travel of any kind be subsidised? No.

so why are we tax payers paying huge amounts for the road network?

ronib

I don’t know about that Doodledog- I always thought the richest paid the least?
Somehow - don’t know how!

Here's your answer
Income tax payments are concentrated amongst those with the largest incomes. The 10% of income taxpayers with the largest incomes contribute over 60% of income tax receipts.5 Jun 2023
commonslibrary.parliament.uk › ...
Tax statistics: an overview - The House of Commons Library - UK Parliament

M0nica

Should travel of any kind be subsidised? No.

I'm no economist nor transport specialist but I thought that all transport is somehow subsidised, whether in tax breaks or direct subsidies - even AMTRAK in the USA is heavily subsidised.

Should travel of any kind be subsidised? No.