London transport fares to rise by RPI+2%

TfL confirmed yesterday that London transport fares will rise by an average of two percent above inflation from January 2011. Overground, bus, rail and tube fares will all go up, as will travelcard costs. The cost of a weekly zone-2 travelcard will go up from £25.80 to £27.60.


50 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cue outrage from the hardworking tax payer..... @shrinkthestate, comments please?

Brockley Kiwi said...

I'd be interested to know what incentives the train/tube operators are given to keep costs down.

Does anyone know whether train & tube fares are the only source of revenue for the operators or whether they receive top-up payments from central or other government agencies?


If it's the latter I'd much rather pay the full charge through my fare so I cold make an informed decision about whether to use these services based on the full cost to me.

Brockley Nick said...

@Brockley Kiwi - public transport is subsidised. And the cost of your travel is not only about you.

By keeping your public transport travel costs lower, we make it more likely that you will travel that way, meaning you will be more likely to be able to afford to work, seek a new job, etc and less likely to jump in your car and pollute and congest the roads (neither pollution nor congestion is properly priced for, so in effect car travel is massively subsidised).

So if it's alright with you, I'd like to carry on paying taxes to subsidise your daily journey.

Bore off said...

I guess as only the 'rich' use the trains it stands to reason that they should pay more, right? Yawn... the same people yet again hit in the pocket. Those who bother to get out of bed and go to work in the morning.

Monkeyboy said...

This is where the argument bites you on the arse. Do you really want only passengers to pay for running and capital investment? it's possible but you may have to give up a massive chunk of your salary. Everyone benefits from a working public transport system.

The contractors are abated masivley for their performance if it falls below a certain standard. It's an expensive bussiness, some of the signaling equipment was out of date 40 years ago.

Anonymous said...

Why are buses subsidised but not the trains? Anyone? Because the trains take people to work and the buses generally are used by people with, lets say...more time on their hands.

Brockley Nick said...

Trains are massively subsidised. Try again.

Headhunter said...

Public transport is massively subsidised but car travel is even more so. The full cost of motoring, taking into account fuel extraction and refining, road construction, damage caused by pollution (to health, environment and buildings), loss in revenue to business through traffic gridlock etc is massive. Definitely not covered by tax revenues on motorists (fuel, VED etc).

Has anyone noticed that they are apparently also doing away with the zone 2-6 travelcard so even if you are travelling from Brockers out to somewhere in zone 4 you still have to pay for zone 1 travel. Yet another stealth increase like when they did away with the very effectively priced weekend travelcards in around 2002.

Tressilliana said...

Anon, I don't think you can have been on a bus recently. I get the 484 most days to and from Camberwell. It's packed with people going to work, school and college plus, of course, given the presence of two big teaching hospitals in Camberwell, some making their way to hospital as patients or visitors. On the odd occasions I get the 172, 171 or P4 it's the same story.

drakefell debaser said...

What a risible comment from the anonymous 14:43. Do you think the busses you see in the morning, which are usually crammed with people, are transporting people who are only pretending to go to work?

Brockley Kiwi said...

People can only make informed choices if they are exposed to the true cost of them and any smearing or cross subsidisation will only lead to inefficiencies. If, as you say, a car journey imposes far greater cost than an equivalent train journey to the same destination then price the car journey as such (charge for congestion and emissions).

If the true cost of my monthly travel card is actually £200, I'd rather have a choice to either pay that or seek an alternative (which in my case would be to cycle). At the moment I make the choice based on £100 and effectively pay the other £100 through taxes that I can't avoid and therefore don't affect my decision.

I acknowledge that in practice this philosophy is impossible to implement across many services due freeriding, wider public benefits and the need to redistribute wealth to those less fortunate. That aside, I think transport is one where it is entirely possible to implement given that there are alternatives.

Headhunter said...

There's no chance of drivers being exposed to the true cost of motoring though, politicians know that if the price of motoring was to increase massively to take into account all the hidden costs, they would lose elections/face revolution! There's the political cost as well as the economic cost to consider.

Also there has been an increasing emphasis on private motor transport for decades, ever since the 1960s and now we have a comprehensive network of roads, motoways and bypasses with logistics and businesses set up to benefit from these, whereas there has been little investment if any in the rail network. So whereas business in the early 20th century were keyed up to transport by rail they are now geared to transport by road on enormous HGVs which plough through cities, towns and villages. To reverse this would take enormous political will and a lot of investment.

Was it Thatcher who said that if a man in his 30s or older finds himself travelling on a bus he should consider himself a failure? Well that view persists for many people, unfortunately.

Anonymous said...

Do we pay for school kids as well ? they get free passes.

TM said...

Correct me if I am wrong but I think most motorists pay quite a lot of the taxes that pay for the roads.

If you can afford to run a car in this day and age then you are almost certainly paying high rate tax.

max said...

Would you rather they drive to school?

max said...

Yes, you are wrong, plenty of people that drive and are very careful about what car and how much petrol they can can afford.

TM said...

Could you re-type that Max, so that I can understand what you are trying to say?

drakefell debaser said...

TM, motorists pay VED which is an emissions tax. Since the 1930's it is tax in general which has paid for the roads so all tax payers pay for the roads regardless of whether you drive a car or not.

max said...

Sorry TM, I made a bit of a muddled argument, I thought that you were saying that motorists pay more than their share and driving is unaffordable for many.
I don't think it is the case that drivers pay more than their share and I also don't think that driving is necesseralily very expensive either when compared to the other forms of transport available.
Practical real life example, woman drives Nissan Micra to work and back to collect kids from school.
Small car, low insurance, low running costs, if she'd do that using public transports she'd spend a comparable amount, depending on her route she may spend a bit more than public transports but she buys flexibility and comfort.

poor but not defeated said...

So more than £100.00 for a monthly 1-2 travelcard :( & my pay <£10 an hour isn't going up, so even less spare cash...oh well

Anonymous said...

Max, exactly plus it is a time issue.

What working mother has time to take buses for God's sake, to improve the UK's carbon footprint?

Maybe the same mother who blithely explained her system as she told me she uses reusable nappies - (yes, I think it's disgusting too).

"It's so convenient, and not at all messy, don't worry. You can be green like me. The truck comes round and picks up the old ones and gives you your laundered ones. It's Tuesdays and Thursdays."

Errr...??

Sam said...

£27 is a lot for a 7 day pass. Public transport is getting so expensive in London I swear the long term policy goal is to encourage people to never leave the house.
It's time those on less than the living wage got subsidised train travel. How many people on £5.93 per hour can afford to even live within zone 2? Not being able to afford to take a train to a minimum wage job is a tad insulting in a city with so much wealth

Anonymous said...

Sam, spot on. Tell that to bumbags on the other thread, apparently if your poor you probably deserve it and just need some gumption to sort yourself out. Loosers.....

Anonymous said...

Why not just up the petrol prices,if people want gas guzzlers let them pay for it.

drakefell debaser said...

Crikey, the cost of motoring to re-usable nappies in one post?

I spent my nappy years in a re-usable nappy and I came out fine. The trick is to wash them in between use, which my dear mother made sure of. We did stop short of handing them down to my younger sister though.

Imagine all those mums in Asia/ Africa etc that do the same and yet somehow they are disgusting...

Brockley Nick said...

Reusable nappies aren't green though, despite the claims made for them, especially if you use a mobile laundry services.

Ah, I remember the good old days of BC, when I would argue with Sue Luxton over why the Council was funding campaigns to persuade more women to use reusable nappies.

drakefell debaser said...

Agreed, but in the countries where re-usable nappies are most widely used, out of neccessity rather than choice, you are unlikley to find a mobile laundry service.

I take issue with them being seen as disgusting is all.

Brockley Nick said...

Well they're disgusting in the sense they are soggy rags covered in poo that you have to keep in a large bin in your house.

Disposables are disgusting too, but at least you can chuck them out.

To each their own, but I object to state funding for environmentally illiterate propaganda.

Tamsin said...

While talking about nappies - my favourite sight-gag ever was in an episode of "My Family". Susan was changing her grandchild and knocked over her glass of white wine. Used the nearest absorbant item to hand to mop it up - the (clean) disposable nappy. A short while later, under the stress of a moment, she wrung it out back into her wine glass and tossed it off in one gulp - to the horror of the dippy niece who had not been witness to the original spillage.

Priceless! And I like to think it was based on a real incident.

What amazes me about Asian women particularly is how clean and fresh they keep everything in appalling circumstances. Field and building site workers in India in brilliant saris and men being interviewed in the aftermath of the floods in Pakistan in white shirts and pressed trousers.

Monkeyboy said...

Posted earlier but it seems to have disapeared into the eather....

Z2-6 travel cards are being phased out, now you have to buy a Z1-6 whether or not you travel via Z1.... is that right or am I misreading the news story? Makes the ELL not as great for some.

Headhunter said...

TM - As pointed out, VED or "road tax" (road tax was in fact abolished in the 1930s) does NOT pay for roads, it pays for everything from the NHS to the army, navy and nuclear weapons. Most roads, at least the ones in towns and cities, are paid for by council tax, not by motorists so cyclists, pedestrians, public transport etc etc all have as much right to the road as motorists.

Although it is controversial, many people believe that the true cost of motoring is NOT met by tax paid by motorists, even if you could argue that VED paid for roads. Motoring in the UK is actually subsidised quite heavily when all costs are taken into account. See here

So in fact, as a cyclist and non car owner I am subsidising people in cars to use the roads, not the other way round.

Headhunter said...

Yep, I think it's correct that the zone 2-6 travelcard is being phased out, so even if yuo're travelling from Brockers outwards on the ELL, you still have to pay for zone 1 travel which you don't need. Another stealth price rise, like when they abolished weekend travelcards.

Anonymous said...

Or you could just use Oyster pay as you go instead. This is more about forcing people to use Oyster and simplifying the ticketing system (God knows it needs it) than stealth price increases.

patrick1971 said...

@Sam: "It's time those on less than the living wage got subsidised train travel."

Surely it'd be better to increase the minimum wage rather than set up more welfare?

@TM: "If you can afford to run a car in this day and age then you are almost certainly paying high rate tax."

Have you looked around your nearest council estate recently? When I lived on a council estate in Deptford, on an estate of low wage earners in easy walking distance of three railway stations, mine was the only househould that didn't have at least one car and often more.

TM said...

Fair enough I stand corrected

Headhunter said...

Yeah I used to live in an ex council flat in Islington before moving to Brockers. The estate was relatively run down (but conveniently placed on the cusp of zone 1/2 near a couple of Tube stops, a main bus route and a rail station) and there were some blingin' cars parked there. I think lower wage earners are often willing to spend hunks of cash on status items like cars.

Anonymous said...

"I think lower wage earners are often willing to spend hunks of cash on status items like cars"

Thank the lord you're only a recruitment consultant and not in charge of anything complicated.

Anonymous said...

"I think lower wage earners are often willing to spend hunks of cash on status items like cars"

Thank the lord you're only a recruitment consultant and not in charge of anything complicated.

Tamsin said...

A perfectly valid opinion and based on observation. He said "often" not "always" - and it's what hire purchase is all about.

Anonymous said...

technically correct but a pointless statement. I would contend that low wage owners often struggle to pay their bills, low wage earners often have low wage earning parents. HH is of the school that believes that if your poor you probably deserve it. Or am i being unkind?

Headhunter said...

You're being an idiot. I simply made an observation. Why do people like you have sudden knee jerk reactions in defence of the "defenceless" poor? If lower wage earners make the decision to blow their money on cars then so be it. It's not a decision I would make but it's a free world.

Anyway I'm a headhunter not a recruitment agent (grimaces at the very thought...)

Anonymous said...

Your comments have that dog whistle quality - look it up. There a millions of poor people on benefits, you choose to focus on the few who are in your view feckless. Reveals a lot about you.

Headhunter said...

Well, if I were on benefits and short of a bob or 2, I probably wouldn't choose to allocate limited resources to a flash car, but that's me. That will probably "reveal" some stereotyped view you have of me in your mind, but I don't really give a cr@p.

Tressilliana said...

Environmental cost of nappies: it must make a difference that from our area they go to an incinerator that puts some energy back into the grid, rather than going to landfill. I felt less guilt about using disposables for that reason, anyway.

Tamsin said...

Reassuring but explains the smell that sometimes wafts across from SELCHP...

Re-usable are only disgusting and, arguably, not that green with all the power used carting them around and/or machine washing them.

In t'mother's day they were immediately rinsed (if mucky rather than just damp) under the flush in the toilet, rinsed again in cold water and Miltons in a bucket and then boiled up daily on the range that was belting out heat anyway. Its only nowadays that they are either kept festering in a bin for half a week or machine washed using massive amounts of water and electricity.

Fixed said...

Exactly, you don't leave the poo, stewing in a bucket. Of course its nasty if you do that.

Lou Baker said...

Reusable nappies are bad for the environment.

So much extra washing and, yes they're pretty gross.

But disposables are even worse.

Full of chemicals, destined for either landfill - which is foul - or incineration. Which is worse.

So renewables win - and we should be encouraged to use them.

They make financial sense and they're greener.

And Nick's wrong - again.

Anonymous said...

Only the most militant of mung bean eaters would ever dream of using terry nappies.... urgh.

Louby lou said...

What does full of chemicalc mean? Everything is full of chemicals. Allow me to clarify your argument, you believe they contain a substance that may be harmful. Why is incinerating poo worse than washing it out of nappies (with those evil chemicals) and flushing the resultant soup down the drain where it will find it's way to a sewage works. The sludge from sewage works is often burnt in incinerators or, after treatment, spread on land.


I don't have a position I just like dissecting your arguments. It's like shooting a big stupid fish in a bucket.

Tamsin said...

I've heard that having millions of disposable nappies dumped in little sealed plastic packets in landfill is seriously bad because of what will be given off as they decompose over the centuries. Surely incineration is better because, despite the occasional taint on the air, isn't nearly everything toxic stripped out in those tall chimneys?

And an observation on the relative disgustingness of poo-ey nappies. Those of breast-fed babies actually smell quite nice, at least to the mother. (It is, after all, how sheep recognise their own.) And this applies to a lesser extent with older children as well. Dealing happily with my own two I confidently offered to help my god-daughter when she could not reach and nearly threw up.

Latest Tweets

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!