Train fare rises

As I write this, there are reports of the planned train fare rises, which are to be once again, a few percent above inflation. We are told that these above inflation fare rises are necessary to fund much needed investment in the system, as we are told every year.

But this is crap.

The problem is that if you put fares up by 3% above inflation one year, you only then need inflationary rises in future years to provide this same level of extra money each year. So, for example, if the fare rises 5 years ago were a few percent above inflation, providing an extra, say, £10M that year for investment, then every year from then on, if inflationary rises are allowed, this extra £10M will be provided. The value of this money will reduce, but it will still be there.

If the following year another higher-than-inflation rise is agreed, that raises an extra £11M, that means that the train companies are then taking an extra £21M that year. And onwards. If higher-than-inflation rises are allowed EVERY year, as seems to be the case, then the EXTRA money raised by the train companies will rise each year. If the same extra percentage is allowed each year, then the train companies are getting double the extra each year. that is substantial.

The problem is that this is claimed to be for investment in the system. However the truth is, as most people will agree, we do not see this investment in the system. We do not see substantial improvements in the performance of our train services - in fact, for my local service, we see ever poorer service. What is more, the real investment we have seen, in extending the platforms and buying newer rolling stock, are not paid for from the fare money. These are paid for from public money. The extra fare money seems to go towards paying the train companies profits.

The real reason for these fare increases is that the government wants to have no financial involvement with the train companies.They want to make them completely self supporting, which is a ridiculous idea, because the result of this will not be better public services. The results will be that people will resort to private transport - cars. Or not be able to get around, or get to work. Transport will become, if we are not careful, the privilege of the wealthy.

Any yet our society is being driven around people being mobile. If our society requires people to be mobile - the decimation of the high streets and the "centralisation" of services - then to also remove peoples ability to travel is wrong and dehumanising. I get particularly annoyed when people are dehumanised - one of my high horses. That is why this is an issue for Christians, for people of faith, for people who care about human rights and human dignity.

Transport is not a "basic human right", unless your society is built around transport. The "basic human right" at issue here is the ability to engage and interact with the society. Reducing that, which is what is being done, is unjust, unfair and inhuman. It should stop.