Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
B.J. Epstein

GET UPDATES FROM B.J. Epstein
 

Off the Rails

Posted: 03/01/2013 00:00

The new year brought with it the news that rail fares are going up even more in the UK, even surpassing the increase to average incomes. Considering what you get for the amount of money you pay for a rail journey in this country and considering how essential it is that we encourage people to use public transportation, this rise in fares is something we need to rail against.

In a recent article in the New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert wrote about the importance of carbon tax on petrol as a way of helping to curb car usage and of eventually having an impact on climate change. The extreme weather we've been seeing lately is proof - if we needed any more - that we must start taking climate change seriously.

Kolbert, who is always sensible on environmental issues, has a point about petrol tax. But I'd like to propose a few other things as well, and this ties in to the issue of rail fares.

First of all, let's lower the cost of using public transportation, as a way of encouraging people to use trains and buses rather than their own cars and taxis. At the moment, rail fares are prohibitively high. For example, I live in Norwich and have to go to London fairly regularly for work. This is just a two-hour journey and yet can cost more than £100 for a return ticket. You can get a cheaper ticket if you book in plenty of time and choose the exact (usually off-peak) times you want to travel, but whether you're travelling for work or for pleasure, you often don't know exactly when you're going to be coming back. It makes absolutely no sense to insist that people specify times or risk paying two or more times as much in fares. Also, for £100 in other countries, you can get much further than the 120 miles between Norwich and London.

Besides lowering the cost, adding additional routes so that it's easier for people to take public transportation would be helpful. Great Britain is a small island nation and it shouldn't be that difficult to get from one place to another. And yet, it often is a challenge that requires multiple transfers and long waiting times and delayed or cancelled services. No wonder people jump in their cars rather than hop on trains or buses. As well as assisting people so they could get from point A to point B and saving on exhaust fumes from cars, having more routes would help ease traffic, which in turn could make people's road rage and stress levels go down.

And, finally, having dedicated biking lanes on roads - as you see in many northern European countries - would encourage more people to ride their bikes since it would be safer and simpler to bike to work or to run errands. And having more bike racks at bus and train stations would ensure that people could ride there instead of taking their cars, thereby getting exercising while also benefitting the environment.

In short, it wouldn't take that much to train our sights on improving public transportation, and it would have many knock-on effects. But it seems as though railroad companies and others involved have gone off the rails here. To really start combatting climate change and to get people to use public transportation more often, fares need to be much lower. Politicians need to set in motion the policies that will help the environment, and this includes encouraging people to use buses, trains, and bicycles more than cars.

As the new year starts, let's train our sights on improving public transportation.

 

Follow B.J. Epstein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bjepstein

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
The new year brought with it the news that rail fares are going up even more in the UK, even surpassing the increase to average incomes. Considering what you get for the amount of money you pay for a ...
The new year brought with it the news that rail fares are going up even more in the UK, even surpassing the increase to average incomes. Considering what you get for the amount of money you pay for a ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gods own child
Weapons legitimise a regime
06:24 AM on 01/11/2013
More money has been spent on the railways since it was de-nationalised than it was when it was ours, but rather than going on what it was given for, by the taxpayer, it was stuffed into the pockets of the fat cats, and this continues to happen.
To our rulers, privatisation is the key to looting the exchequer, service is secondary, if at all.
Next it will be the police, with 'hello, Hargreaves and Allen crime solving, can I have your insurance number please? what is it a burglary?, oh, a murder, I'm sorry your not covered'.
Our country and our laws are all being sold to the looters.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
knightinchainmail
02:34 PM on 01/06/2013
Come on she has a point, Public Transport fares must be reduced if we are to get people out of cars and onto public transport. Train fares are so bad even Simon Burns (minister of State for Transport), gets chauffeured to work, (at a cost to the taxpayer of £400 a day)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Edgar H
Keep the Press free!
07:00 AM on 01/04/2013
She reminds me of friends who live in London, Birmingham and Manhecter who can't understand why I have to use a car when they they 24 hour public transport to get to and from work. Yet expect me to pick them up from the station which is 16 miles away.
photo
Reith
what's a micro-bio?
09:42 PM on 01/03/2013
"and considering how essential it is that we encourage people to use public transportation"


Did you mean public transport? Surely we haven't indulged in transportation for over a century when the last convicts were sent to Australia.
09:18 PM on 01/03/2013
I commute to work and my return fare for a 22 mile journey is a little more than my hourly rate; i work my first hour to cover my costs. Good article, but awful puns!
08:18 PM on 01/03/2013
The railway is full, period. The real question is how to get more capacity. HS2 is one part, but electrification, longer and double-decker trains may have their place too. None of this comes cheap. Nationalising the train operating companies is just a red herring. Backward thinking to some pre-Beeching era is like proposing using the canals to carry freight again, it just ain't going to happen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:20 PM on 01/03/2013
First you have to nationalise the trains because, as a non-commuting taxpayer, I'm not keen on subsidising your journey, for profit or pleasure, or contributing to the private train companies' profits.

Maybe you could move closer to work, and not commute so far.
03:30 PM on 01/03/2013
Do you want to pay higher income tax to fund the railways? Thought not.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justinjuice
03:16 PM on 01/03/2013
It is a curious kind of capitalism that forces the customers to pay for the capital investments before the investments have actually been made.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justinjuice
03:14 PM on 01/03/2013
I suspect it would be a lot cheaper to increase the number of regional airports and allow low cost carriers to operate them in conjunction with bus/tram feeder services
03:39 PM on 01/03/2013
It really wouldn't, it costs billions to build an airport, the numbers it can carry are tiny compared to a well used rail link and a plane cannot stop every 10 miles at intermediary airports.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Justinjuice
03:42 PM on 01/03/2013
If I am travelling two hundred miles, then i dont want stops every ten miles !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
battleofalma
12:22 PM on 01/03/2013
A hike in rail fares is just a tax on the poor. It's unavoidable for those living in and around the cities they work in. They can't afford to live nearer their work, and there isn't any sensible alternative to getting the train.
A lot of people have been priced out of car-ownership, and rely on public transport being affordable as there is no alternative.

I'm not generally in favour of nationalisation, but I'd argue the re-nationalising the railways would be preferable to the farce we have now.
09:00 AM on 01/03/2013
Yes, £100 for Norwich to London does sound excessive. Here in France I pay less the 90€ for the 900 kilometer journey from Paris to Cannes. That's in first class by high speed train. State ownership has its advantages. Bring back British Rail.
10:04 AM on 01/03/2013
Quote: "State ownership has its advantages"

Yes, you can get taxpayers who don't use the railway to subsidise your journeys. Are you under some delusion that state run enterprises are more efficient and cheaper to run than privately run enterprises?
10:59 AM on 01/03/2013
Using rail rather than car or plane benefits all tax payers - perhaps you haven't been following the climate change debate.

As to the choice between public and private ownership, one important factor is the nature of the market. Monopoly businesses - like providing the train journey from Norwich to London - are best run by the state. Just about every rail service in Europe beats the present British system and all are state run. Makes you think! (Or perhaps not in your case.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
battleofalma
12:31 PM on 01/03/2013
I think if anything, privatisation of the railways has proved that privately run enterprises aren't any better.

Essentially, the private sector is good at some things, but really shouldn't be trusted with monopolies. Private companies are designed to maximise profit, that is why business exists and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it doesn't fit with a mandate to provide public services.
A subsidised monopoly is just the biggest cash-cow a private company could ever hope for.