Like Focus I've probably posted this before.
I live near Northampton and work in "Legal London" - round trip to office say 150 miles. On basis of being at work 220 days I'd do 33k miles a year. At 40 mpg (2.0 Hdi Xantia) driving would use 825 gallons @ £5.90 = £4867. Plus central London parking, congestion charge and wear/tear.
Annual season at £3708 is a bargain, even adding 10 miles in car to station and £650 a year parking. And nothing on offer, PT or car, beats the 12 minute bike ride from Euston to Chancery Lane.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 17/07/2008 at 00:01
|
|
|
Simple experiment.
Hyde Park Corner to Leicester Square on London Underground for 2 people £8.
Two all day Travelcards £5 each, so £10 return (to travel less than a mile).
London taxi £6 each way.
So why waste time on the underground?
HJ
|
SNIPQUOTE!So why waste time on the underground? HJ
If it's less than a mile Shanks's Pony is almost certainly quicker and FREE.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 17/07/2008 at 01:20
|
|
Public transport is not cheap because it is run as a business, not a public service.
|
HJ's journey is £1.50 per person each way therefore £6 in total with an Oyster card.
|
Look, it's free if you are a London resident my age, but so what?
A bewildering variety of cut prices under certain circumstances - ah sorry sir or is it madam, you were ten seconds outside the time limit for the concessionary 12-22 age group fare for single androgynous passengers on this line, whoops your student card is out of date that'll be another 11 quid sir or is it madam - do not a civilised public transport network make.
But would anyone recognise one even if it bit them savagely and insistently in the buttock?
|
What I also don't understand is that many of our public transport services are very heavily subsidised but the people who run them (Branson, Souter, Gloag of Virgin, Stagecoach etc) seem to be multi millionaires - how does that work? Do the subsidies or a large part of them go into their personal bank accounts?
Pardon my ignorance
|
We are lucky enough to have friends who live in Monaco and on the Riviera and I am always gobsmacked by how cheap public transport is down there. 'Everybody', including - to my knowledge - the well-off, use it because it makes sense.
Amazingly, bus fares there were reduced recently - you can now travel for about an hour and a half from the Italian border at delightful Menton, via the sights of the centre of Monaco and Casino Square, along the Riviera as far as Nice airport, for one euro.
And of course, while sitting in the air-conditioned bus in Monaco, you can gaze out at the super-rich in their Bentley and Aston Martin dropheads, sweating in the traffic...
|
|
|
|
your student card is out of date that'll be another 11 quid sir or is it madam -
Erm, what's the problem with that, Lud? Its got a start date and a finish date, after the finish date then its not valid so get a new one or pay up full fare....
Or are you meaning that there shouldn't be any disconted travel?
|
1. The Government pays for and maintains the roads, thus subsidising car travel.
2. A car driver isn't paid, contrast train driver/guard/ticket collector/timetabling computer staff etc. etc.
3. The cost of a car is a fixed cost, whether used or not, so the cost of using it for any one journey is "just" the petrol. Actual costs are around £3,000 a year PLUS fuel and servicing on average.
4. Branson made his money from records, not travel!!
A better comparison is hiring a car for a journey and comparing it to trains.
They've just opened a new station in Mitcham - hooray! Maybe now they'll build lines down the hard shoulder of all the M-ways, and re-open all the Beeching closures.
|
"4. Branson made his money from records, not travel!!"
I thought he sold Virgin records many years ago in order to finance Virgin Atlantic?
Edited by PhilW on 17/07/2008 at 12:46
|
"1. The Government pays for and maintains the roads, thus subsidising car travel."
The Government certainly does NOT pay for the roads, we do, and they certainly don't maintain them well. Motorists subsidise either the national budget as a whole or MP's second homes, depending on which jaundiced view point you adopt. Motorists are, by a large amount, net contributors to the Exchequer and they put way more 'in' than they get 'out'.
|
"they put way more 'in' than they get 'out'."
£40-£50 billion paid in by taxes on motoring, about £8billion spent on roads
|
Ed V seems a bit confused.
He wants "they" to build railway lines down the M4 and re-open the Beeching closures. Which "they" does he think would do that? When did a private company last build a railway line? Who does he think Railtrack are?
It's already been pointed out that the Government ("they"?) doesn't subsidise car travel as such. Roads are paid for out of the public purse into which motorists pay far too much.
Trains and buses are, in my view, very much public matters also. It would be in the public interest to pay more into those from the public purse so fares would be cheaper. As long as train companies are in private ownership they will try to get every last penny out of the system. Anyone noticed how cheap day returns are more difficult to obtain now?
The only reason it's possible to argue that public transport is cheap in the UK is because motoring is so expensive! Try looking at the cost of Italian or Spanish train fares if you want to see cheap!
|
The killer is local bus travel for families - some friends of ours are a bit green and they travel into town just under 2 miles by bus. For a family of 4 that costs them £12.
I guess the same probably applies to family journeys by train.
I used the train system in Munich with a group of colleagues and 1 ticket covered all of us to travel anywhere. Can't remember how much it cost, but it was a trivial amount.
|
'Public' transport ?; bit of a misnomer. Its largely used by the public, but owned
privately. Most (?all) of the companies granted franchises in the UK to run the services
associated with transport are owned by their shareholders.
But, strange as it may seem, these private companies all receive funding from Mrs and Mrs Taxpayer in the form of subsidies from the UK Government. There seems to me to be a paradox here: the companies have a legal, contractual duty to the shareholders to return a dividend, and to my mind a moral obligation to return taxpayers money in the form of investment and improvements.
Not to mention that the shareholders may have paid tax initially, and may often be merely getting their own money back!
I've been trying to find out for some time whether they are compelled under contract to reinvest a proportion of their profits back into the business (if anyone can help here I'd be grateful).
In a nutshell- as others have said, its run as a business.
Crazy.
Edited by theterranaut on 17/07/2008 at 14:15
|
|
There's also a degree of lazyness in the use of cars - we live about a mile from our town centre and walk it, but its unbelievable how many use the car... and then complain about the cost of parking!
|
There's also a degree of lazyness in the use of cars - we live about a mile from our town centre and walk it but its unbelievable how many use the car... and then complain about the cost of parking!
Are you sure they're not just using the car because they are going into town to buy things? (which then need to be carried home).
I have a bus stop a coule of hundred yards from my house that goes to the town centre and I'm not averse to using that - considering fuel and parking the bus is about the same cost [*] as driving. Or if I'm only buying small things (and it's not raining) I might cycle. But I wouldn't walk a mile to the shops unless I was buying very small things and only a few of them. Walking there is fine. Walking back heavily laden is not for me.
[*] Actually, the cost of the bus is only comparable if it's only me going into town - which highlights another issue with public transport. In general, if two people travel by bus or train, it costs twice as much. Carrying a passenger in your car does not double your fuel consumption or car parking charge. If I know my journey in advance (not always, but quite often) there seem to be train fares around that are competitive with the cost of driving. But not if I'm doing the journey with my GF, or a colleague for example. If you've got a whole family to move around, I imagine it's even worse.
|
In general, if two people travel by bus or train, it costs twice as much
With a family railcard (£20), adult + child can be cheaper than just adult. But you have to have the child with you - I tried without on one journey and got there ok. But an eagle-eyed ticket inspector stopped me getting on the platform coming back, said it didn't matter when I claimed the child was too ill to travel, and I had to get an additional full price single.
Altogether now - 'serves you right' :-)
|
You have to have the child with you - surely this is a fantastic opportunity for teenage children of friends to make some cash over the summer?
I know it could save me about £60 a time when going to London on peak tickets. I'd happily split that with a borrowed sprog, who would also get a free day in London. :-)
|
The killer is local bus travel for families - some friends of ours are a bit green and they travel into town just under 2 miles by bus. For a family of 4 that costs them £12.
Bus travel in my local area is getting prohibitively expensive for one-off journeys. It's £1.60 each way. Doesn't sound much for a single person, but a family of 4 will pay £8.00 to get into town and back, for a journey of a couple of miles.
I used to park on the outskirts of town and walk in at a cost of around £4.00 for a few hours parking, but the local council closed both of the car parks I used and sold them off for redevelopment.
I haven't been shopping in town hardly at all since. I drive to the local out-of-town shopping centre for free and shop there instead. It's also quicker to get there by car (20 minutes) than by public transport (40 minutes+ ).
|
the terranaut poses a good question about public subsidy into dividend paying private companies.
I suppose some routes have to be subsidised to get provided at all, in isolated areas for example. But the problem remains from getting the private sector to take over undertakings belonging to the state. Unless there are enormous sweeteners, the private sector only want the nice profitable bits.
I never saw what was wrong with British Rail that couldn't have been put right. What's so good about Stagecoach or Virgin?
IMO whenever the public sector tries to ape the private it all goes wrong. The aims and objectives just aren't the same. There's a big difference between providing a service and running a profit making business.
|
I'm not as confused as I may appear. I do understand that taxation is paid by tax payers, and that this forms income for a Government from which it decides on expenditure. So, yes, tax payers pay for roads. And yes I know Railtrack is now effectively a public company. The Government can quite easily dictate a rail building scheme. Can't think of anything more popular in fact, given climate change etc.
Whether to subsidise public transport is a moot point. Should road users buy a proportion of every train ticket bought by other people? Why should a family living in Abingdon [largest town with no station/line] pay for trains? Yes, it makes roads less full, but nonetheless you get the point.
The trouble with subsidy/nationalisation is it wastes so much money - [see British Rail 1945-1990]. The train service is fantastic compared with public ownership [of the rail companies] days because it's worthwhile the train companies spending money on it. And it's more cheaply run because private companies each year see if they can work more efficiently, fire people and save money. Public companies have a completely different outlook to costs, knowing the we taxpayers just pay up, even if we occasionally are allowed to change the Government, no civil servants lose their jobs. If only Tesco could run the trains!
HOWEVER, the [private] US train service is just as good as the [public] French one. Maybe it's just us Brits?
Does Stu consider his private business as offering poor value for money. I bet not!
Rant [sort of] over. Sorry for length!
|
|
I've always wondered: for where does our money in taxes go compared with Germans/French etc.? If we made all public transport free/as per Munich, what would it cost, and what do Munich tax that we don't to make up for their subsidy?
|
|
The government "Franchise Fee" for the east coast main line is £1bn for a ten year deal. Thats £100 million per year the government takes from the operator. The Operator must recoup this on top of actually running the trains.
|
TBH the system we have on the railways is not a "privatised" railway - the TOCs are so tightly controlled on what they can do its unbelievable, no new stock without permission from the Gov, no new services without permission, fines for just about anything, the list is endless... however there are also clauses in there that allow them to fine network rail if they are to blame - there's a small army of people on both sides who allocate blame and then fight each other over it... it must be costing them a fortune!
TBH they should either privatise it properly (ie like it was pre 1948) of re nationalise as the current situation is wasting too much money on both sides.
Railways and buses are a "public" service as someone else said, there are certain routes in both modes of transport which will make money, but on the whole they don't... the sooner that is realised by those in charge the better for all - if they are funded correctly and integrated correctly then they can relieve the pressure on our road system, but don't hold your breath!
Edited by b308 on 17/07/2008 at 18:43
|
Same fee for GNER who structured the staged payments a bit badly and quit on the deal as they couldn't manage it. I use the East Coast Line to go to London, cross to Waterloo by Underground, and then on by SW Trains for another one hour and this costs me £15.90 return, if booked well in advance It then costs me £25 to park at the station for the 5 days I am away!
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 17/07/2008 at 19:19
|
My mum works for one of the national bus companies and she often says that the subs they get paid dont often cover the discounts they have to give. This is why routes get lost or taken over by smaller, local companies, no bad thing I think.
Not only that but councils have to be chased very hard to get any money out of them, nor is there any consistant standard to the subs as they vary council to council.
There is also a move towards updating fleets with more enviromentally sound vehicles, which costs money. My mums company are currently testing a long distance coach that does 9 mpg - doesnt sound much but apparently it is for a coach.
To pay for the newer fleets, they have to find it in the fares somewhere and with people complaininga bout how dirty older buses are - most of the fleet where mu mum works is 10 years plus, it is again the green lobby who are behind high fares.
It would have to be government run for there to be any incentive to run it at cost, but I doubt even the government would msis the opportunity to make what they could out of it if they ran buses.
|
A "Partnertageskarte" for 5 adults for the whole network costs ?18 (15 pounds or so). Trivial?
|
|
Or are you meaning that there shouldn't be any disconted travel?
I didn't mean that, but perhaps there shouldn't be. If the basic fares were subsidised by the city down to a level that didn't make people gasp and clutch their wallets protectively, concessionary fares wouldn't be as essential as they are. Its all right in London for over sixties and schoolchildren, but everyone else has to travel at a special time or book in advance to get concessions. One imagines a lot don't bother or can't meet the conditions. It's messy, and generally expensive.
As it happens I took two longish single tube journeys today, unusual for me. The London underground is such a good basic system it seems a pity to spoil it.
|
Every country I know of in Europe have discounted fares of one sort or another, the price of tickets seems to be nothing to do with it, they are simply there to encourage people to travel - I've been to the Czech Rep several times and their public transport fares are really low, yet even they have a discount scheme!
Problem we have is that we are struggling with capacity anyhow so encouraging more is not a good idea unless they are on the quiet trains!
Edited by b308 on 18/07/2008 at 08:18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
