Is £5000 a year for a season ticket too much?

[RANGERS]

I think the ultimately it is quite simple. If the cost of a season ticket is less than the net pay differential between a job at home and a job where you commute to then it is good value. If the cost of the season ticket is less than the monthly difference in mortgage or rent payments for your home relative to living in wherever it is you commute to then again it is good value.

There is a simple logic to that but the pay differential doesn't factor in the time taken travelling. To see the full picture, take the total door to door time from home and the salary for both a local and a distant job with the respective salaries deducted, then see how the two compare. Factor in the relative rental/ mortgage costs for living closer to each and the picture becomes even clearer.

 

Annual season tickets to London have been over £5k for a while from some stations in the Midlands. It's currently £7k from Grantham, £9k from Newark and £7.5k from Kettering.

 

I can't help thinking the rail industry would be better off if they didn't announce the price increases in the silly season. Every year we get the usual rent-a-quote moans from 'passenger groups', not to  mention the unions (who seem oblivious to the link between fair increases and their members' annual pay rise).

 

That Grantham figure is restricted to Hull Trains services only, the 'any permitted' is closer to £8500. This also highlights the discrepancy between certain stations and certain services. Bedford commuters pay just over £90 per mile/ per year whereas Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby commuters pay over £95 per mile/ per year to use the same train.

[pete_mcfarlane]

That Grantham figure is restricted to Hull Trains services only, the 'any permitted' is closer to £8500. This also highlights the discrepancy between certain stations and certain services. Bedford commuters pay just over £90 per mile/ per year whereas Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby commuters pay over £95 per mile/ per year to use the same train.

Ah, that explains the big difference between the Grantham and Newark figures (Newark Northgate only having the option of Virgin services to London). 

 

What surprises me about Grantham is the number of commuters who seem to live some distance away out in the villages, and drive in. Presumably he 4 hour round trip is worth it for a cottage in the country. 

[woodenhead]

Ah, that explains the big difference between the Grantham and Newark figures (Newark Northgate only having the option of Virgin services to London). 

 

What surprises me about Grantham is the number of commuters who seem to live some distance away out in the villages, and drive in. Presumably he 4 hour round trip is worth it for a cottage in the country.

 

They did it for the BR heritage trains (HSTs and 91s), thought they'd be safe from the new fangled EMUs......

[hayfield]

Being someone who commuted to London several times during my working life, when the business was relocated to the suburbs turned out to be the best thing that ever happened. Business flourished for all due to better life/work balance  

 

Why are there so many jobs in London especially as costs to business are so astronomic, I can accept so may need to be in the City, but with modern working practices the need for all to be there is now not as strong, perhaps only keeping essential staff at a city location and having spare office / meeting rooms for visitors

 

I am all for cheaper rail fares for all, but there is a cost in taxes, plus we would be subsidising businesses.

 

Also is long distance commuting something we would want to encourage ?

[Dunsignalling]

Being someone who commuted to London several times during my working life, when the business was relocated to the suburbs turned out to be the best thing that ever happened. Business flourished for all due to better life/work balance  

 

Why are there so many jobs in London especially as costs to business are so astronomic, I can accept so may need to be in the City, but with modern working practices the need for all to be there is now not as strong, perhaps only keeping essential staff at a city location and having spare office / meeting rooms for visitors

 

I am all for cheaper rail fares for all, but there is a cost in taxes, plus we would be subsidising businesses.

 

Also is long distance commuting something we would want to encourage ?

Spot on.

 

Whilst many businesses undoubtedly need to have a presence in London, it is highly questionable whether locating the entire shooting match in such a high-cost area is justified.

 

John

[Clearwater]

Every organisation that has a fixed capacity uses variable pricing to manage demand - good examples are airlines and hotels. Check how Premier Innnpricing varies. The railways are no different in this respect. If you think about it, the pre computer algorithm age had "peak" and "off peak" as a form of demand management.

 

Decisions on where to live are complex - availability of child care, other care responsibilities, age and stage of schooling, number of days journey to official office has to be made etc etc. However, relative money is always a consideration, either directly or indirectly!

[jjb1970]

Something to keep in mind is that commuting is not a London thing, people commute in all of our cities and even in rural areas people commute pretty long distances. If you spend time in most urban stations around the country during rush hour you’ll see plenty of commuters. This debate always seems to be fixated on London and although the numbers involved are much higher in London and the SE it shouldn’t obscure the fact that there are an awful lot of rail commuters in the West Midlands, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and all the other urban (and not so urban) centres. When I lived in Cumbria I had a longer commute (in miles, not time) than I do now.

 

That said I’ll now talk about London simply because I commute in and out of London so it is what I know.

 

Very few organisations aren’t dispersed, they may have their corporate centre in London and some service delivery, but manufacturing, distribution and many other functions tend to be kept well outside London exactly because it is so expensive to be based in London. Even the civil service and government functions are not as London-centric as some might think. For example the MoD may be on Whitehall but defence equipment support and procurement is at the huge Abbey Wood facility in Bristol with MoD offices for other functions around the country. Even if you look at financial services, most banks and insurance companies rely on operations centres outside London for their non-trading activities.

 

As others have noted, the decision whether to commute is based on a range of factors, money is probably the most important. Many want a quality of home life which they couldn’t achieve if living within London, but career wise if they have any ambitions to progress their careers then they need to be open to working in London. Yes I could get a job outside of London but I wouldn’t have the job I have now if I wasn’t in London. I commute because I have a home and quality of life at home I wouldn’t have in London at the same time as taking advantage of career opportunities that are only available in London if looking at the UK.

 

You can also use commuting time usefully. I did a big chunk of a master’s degree sitting onboard various London Midland class 350’s.

[John_Miles]

According to the Guardian (and yes I know the mention of a left leaning paper causes apoplexy for some of you) the train fares in the South East are massively subsidised.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/16/trains-too-expensive-transport-problem-subsidies-london

 

The problem with subsidies is they skew behaviour so it becomes possible to live further away from work and then people lobby their MPs to ensure train fares stay relatively cheap etc.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

You hear so much about the extreme cost of rail travel, and the disparity in train vs air fares, so out of interest, I compared return fares from London to Glasgow Central. Leaving today, returning tomorrow. Standard class, using trainline and Easyjet websites.

 

By train? £137.60 on Virgin Trains, if I can get to Euston in the next 2.5 hours.

 

Plane? EasyJet, £178 Gatwick to Glasgow.

 

No difference in hassle booking the two, in fact experience tells me Trainline is the easier of the two websites to use. I have not included the extra costs getting to and from the airport either.

 

It is a source of extreme frustration that when discussing train fares nobody seems to compare apples with apples. Mine is not a detailed scientific check, but less than 10 minutes on the Internet gave me those costs. I, like everyone else, don't want to pay vast sums for my season ticket, but it does seem to me that a lot of hyperbole is surrounding this issue in the media, as per normal...

[corneliuslundie]

Re the comment about publishing the fares at this time of year, in fact it is not of the railway's choosing as it is when the relevant RPI figures are published by the government.

My first annual season ticket to London (from Cambridge) was £205. But then my salary was much lower (and our house cost £5200). I don't think rail fare as a proportion of salary has probably changed that much.

Jonathan

Edited August 16, 2017 by corneliuslundie

[woodenhead]

I think the issue with Season tickets is on the one hand a timing issue - you pay up front so it's a big chunk unless your employer offers a scheme to smooth it out over months.

 

Secondly, a psychological issue, people pick up on the large debit from their pay or bank account each month making it very visible, whereas driving is more subtle - a weekly car parking charge, random petrol fill ups and servicing costs which are spread out and almost seen like your shopping or other living expenses.  This makes it very noticeable what you are actually paying for your commute when on a train against the less visible car costs.

[Talltim]

According to the Guardian (and yes I know the mention of a left leaning paper causes apoplexy for some of you) the train fares in the South East are massively subsidised.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/16/trains-too-expensive-transport-problem-subsidies-london

 

The problem with subsidies is they skew behaviour so it becomes possible to live further away from work and then people lobby their MPs to ensure train fares stay relatively cheap etc.

I might be wrong but I thought much of the extra subsidy for rail (and other public transport) in London ( which I know is not the same as the SE)

come from London taxes, i.e. via TfL

The catch 22 is that other regions don't have the spare tax to put into public transport

[pete_mcfarlane]

You hear so much about the extreme cost of rail travel, and the disparity in train vs air fares, so out of interest, I compared return fares from London to Glasgow Central. Leaving today, returning tomorrow. Standard class, using trainline and Easyjet websites.B

The only problem with advanced purchase cheap tickets is that they are only valid on one particular train.....

 

This story is currently doing the rounds - as ever it's always the railway company that's presented as being slightly unreasonable for sticking to their terms and conditions. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40936216

[Poggy1165]

I can't understand why fares rise by RPI when the Government's "preferred measure of inflation" is CPI. Surely there should be one inflation measure used for all purposes, both paying in and paying out.

[jjb1970]

According to the Guardian (and yes I know the mention of a left leaning paper causes apoplexy for some of you) the train fares in the South East are massively subsidised.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/16/trains-too-expensive-transport-problem-subsidies-london

 

The problem with subsidies is they skew behaviour so it becomes possible to live further away from work and then people lobby their MPs to ensure train fares stay relatively cheap etc.

That article makes some interesting points but it seems to swallow the idea that high fares and everything else wrong with the modern railways is the fault of rapacious private companies and fat cats, ignoring the fact that the railways have never been subject to more government interference in how they operate than they are today, Network Rail is already nationalised and that profits made by rail franchises are hardly extravagant. These articles never ask the obvious question – if much of what is wrong with the modern railway (and let’s not forget that if there is much to criticise there is also an awful lot to praise) stems from DafT interference and micro-management then why would nationalisation be the answer? The problem our railways have is an imbalance between demand and capacity, in fairness to the current system it seems to be doing as much as you probably can reasonably do to boost capacity, some of the ways to do that anger passengers too by changing seating to high density configurations. Given that what seems to be really needed to boost capacity is new lines, longer platforms, rolling out automatic train control etc then the body responsible for delivering those things is already nationalised. NR are investing an awful lot of money to improve things.

There is also a fundamental contradiction in complaining about high fares then complaining about high subsidy. Personally I’m not actually against reducing subsidies so that those who use the network pay for it, but let’s not pretend that the natural corollary of that wouldn’t be that us users would then pay more. The legitimate argument in favour of subsidies is that society as a whole benefits as even if you never use the train you benefit from reduced road congestion, lower air pollution levels (depending on what trains you look at…..) and it facilitates functioning of the urban centres that power the national economy.

The stuff on inequality and London being subsidised is nonsense really. Transport policy should be about transportation, not re-structuring society. If London is unfairly subsidised, then why not make London and all other regions self-funding, require regions to cover their own expenses and do that by giving regional bodies control of any taxes raised within their region. That’d be fair, as then no region would subsidise any other and it’d introduce much more accountability to public spending. Of course it would never happen as the loser in such a change wouldn’t be London.

[Clearwater]

I can't understand why fares rise by RPI when the Government's "preferred measure of inflation" is CPI. Surely there should be one inflation measure used for all purposes, both paying in and paying out.

The legislation would have been written in the mid 90s when RPI was the preferred measure.

[The Stationmaster]

The legislation would have been written in the mid 90s when RPI was the preferred measure.

 

It was indeed written then but everyone else involved in paying out money has changed, or is trying to change to, CPI so maybe this too could be similarly changed (but it would probably need primary legislation).

[RANGERS]

I might be wrong but I thought much of the extra subsidy for rail (and other public transport) in London ( which I know is not the same as the SE)

come from London taxes, i.e. via TfL

The catch 22 is that other regions don't have the spare tax to put into public transport

Notably, there's no quoted source of these figures, just 'estimated'. If it's an argument for nationalising rail, it's pointless using bus as a comparator. Buses are wholly in private hands, save for a handful of municipally owned companies, and provide three times as many journeys with a fraction of the level of public support, so the argument for full privatisation of rail becomes even stronger with that one.

 

TfL's public subsidy is about to end, this is sourced from central govt, taxes paid across the UK, a large chunk of which is generated in London anyway. In any case, this is London and South East the Guardian is talking about and is a direct result of the old BR fares structure, further promoted by Network SE and the legacy of which is the discrepancies in fares noted earlier between Bedford and the other MML stations to the North.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

The only problem with advanced purchase cheap tickets is that they are only valid on one particular train.....

 

 

Correct. But, the comparable air fare is also only valid on one particular flight...in the case of the London - Glasgow journey, the 19:00 departure.

[sjp23480]

My daughter has just started working in London, her commute from Ashford in HS1 costs £6900 (including tube) plus over £900 parking. For a commute of around 56 miles that is a lot, but it only takes 37 minutes for the train journey.

 

I also work in London (Canary Wharf) but drive 20+ miles and then catch a coach. Annual cost of £2900, excluding the cost of the car journey which is shared with four other "coach buddies". Total commute time is around 1 hour 40 minutes each way.

 

Old adage of good fast cheap, pick two seems to sum up the options.

 

Steve

[rob D2]

13 miles, an hour each way, very doable at least a couple of times a week.

I cycle into London at least twice a week from the Dorking-Leatherhead area (up to 30 miles each way). Combined with a day working from home it means I usually buy day or weekly tickets (which I eek out over two weeks), works out cheaper than a season ticket for me, albeit requires a bit of planning.

I object to the cost, but as the above, the pay rise for working in London vastly offsets the extra cost of travel. I'd not want to live in London even if I could afford a comparable house to the one I enjoy down here! I would just stump up for an annual if I stopped cycling in.

Yeah, I don't think most people would want a 30 mile cycle each way before and after work TBH

[TT3]

At this moment in time that's just under what my wife and myself have to live on per year, thanks to jobseekers. We are both signing on at the moment and only get £200 per fortnight between us and that has to pay for our utility bills, food and transport. We only get housing and council tax paid for us, if we got a job requiring a prepaid season ticket how on earth could we find that sort of money, and people wonder how the gap is getting wider between the rich and the poor.

​

If the UK is anything like here, I bet the allowance rates have not been increased for years despite every thing else going up.

 

Also a jobseeker, but due to our system still not getting any money, round here you have to be almost destitute before they even think about giving you any and when you are over 45, live outside the city the number of difficulties soon add up

[Clearwater]

At this moment in time that's just under what my wife and myself have to live on per year, thanks to jobseekers. We are both signing on at the moment and only get £200 per fortnight between us and that has to pay for our utility bills, food and transport. We only get housing and council tax paid for us, if we got a job requiring a prepaid season ticket how on earth could we find that sort of money, and people wonder how the gap is getting wider between the rich and the poor.

​

If you were in the position of having been offered a job that required you to get a travel card, I'd suggest that if you were the right person for the job, most larger employers have interest free season ticket loan schemes. If they've made the decision to hire you, I'd be surprised if they were not sympathetic to helping you get access to such season ticket loan schemes. As a hiring manager, if someone told me that lack of funds to get a season ticket was the limiting factor on that person taking the role I had offered, I'd be pushing very hard to get them into that scheme. Whilst I appreciate it may be a difficult conversation to have just after you've been offered a role, but one where you may well find an employer more sympathetic than you might expect.

[Richard E]

I've been doing Peterborough/York for over 10 years. 2016 fare (which for me covers my 2017 commuting as my ticket runs 1st Jan to 31st December) was £7864 plus parking which is around £1000 for a season ticket. So just shy of £9k a year.

 

My records show a ticket was already £5596 a year in 2008 so the £5k a year season ticket is not a new thing at all. In all that time my delay repay has only been under 8% for two years in total and actually reached 12% one year. that shows how poor the reliability has been on the ECML.

 

I've been using a Season Ticket loan scheme for the whole of the time I've travelled but made sure I wasn't caught by benefit in kind rules which would have made it more expensive.

 

I'm glad that I will not be affected by these latest increases and that my commuting days are nearly done - I seem to be sharing my journey with some awfully selfish and intolerant people these days ...

[hayfield]

Given the fact of major traffic pollution within not only London but also other major city's perhaps we are looking at the wrong solution, we should have cheaper public transport costs, but should we be encouraging long distance commuting? Why not tax long distance commuting to encourage less congested city's. As I said before the best thing I ever did was to relocate from the west end to the shires