The Student Room Group

Why the government does NOT want cheap affordable train fares?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Len Goodman
There's nothing wrong with the high prices, obviously customers are willing to pay so what's the point in making the fares cheaper? The number one aim of a business is to make maximum profit for their shareholders, if you don't like it then tough.


No, youre wrong or deliberately making stuff up to "prove" a point.

Most people arent willing to pay these extortionate (and they are extortionate, see my explanation of how much singles cost compared to returns.) fees, they just dont have a choice, that is different than "fair and willing." Does this mean you think it is ok for me to dodge train tickets?

Clearly you live in a bubble.
Original post by Quady
Which is why its nuts water companies are regulated by interferring government. They should be allowed to charge whatever the market will bare - about £100/week per service user I'd have thought. Same for gas/lecy.


Having a set charge on things where people have literally no other choice is extortion. You want to charge people in some cases £50 more, just simply because you can and people will have no choice but to take it or lose jobs/education?

You people really do live in a bubble. That and not knowing the definition of extortion.
Original post by SonoLuma
No, youre wrong or deliberately making stuff up to "prove" a point.

Most people arent willing to pay these extortionate (and they are extortionate, see my explanation of how much singles cost compared to returns.) fees, they just dont have a choice, that is different than "fair and willing." Does this mean you think it is ok for me to dodge train tickets?

Clearly you live in a bubble.


Surely if they weren't willing to pay for the fares then they'd find alternative options - car, plane, or just move closer to family. At the end of the day, the prices that they're using now are the prices that give the business maximum profit and that's all that matters.

As long as the train companies are still getting a full house on the services then nothing will change, and in fact I wouldn't blame them if they put the prices up even higher.
Original post by Len Goodman
Surely if they weren't willing to pay for the fares then they'd find alternative options - car, plane, or just move closer to family. At the end of the day, the prices that they're using now are the prices that give the business maximum profit and that's all that matters.

As long as the train companies are still getting a full house on the services then nothing will change, and in fact I wouldn't blame them if they put the prices up even higher.


I use the train to get to college. Plane is out of the question, Car is too because of the ridiculously high outlay to get started. and buses dont run to where I need to be, unlees I want to be an hour late and take three buses (probably costing more)

As I say, some people dont have a choice, and the people with the power (the people setting the prices) probably know that fact and for sure, 100%, charge more than is reasonable in some cases.

You may think it is "good business." I prefer the more accurate "extortionate"

And it is extortionate. Im not asking for businesses to be all sensitive and charge under the odds. Im asking for a fair way to price tickets.

£9.50 for a return and £8.80 for a single is not fair. Thats just a short commute. I got my pass for 7 months, it cost almost £1200.

If you think that that is a fair price, just know that the man sorting the pass out at the kiosk (who worked for the company obviously) exclaimed surprise and disgust at how much it cost, even going so far as to ask me if im absolutely sure if I want to spend the money on it.

If the employees themselves dont think it is fair, it speaks volumes as to what exactly is.
Original post by joecphillips
Don't these other railways get funded by the taxpayers even more than the uk's so what people who complain about fares are saying is it's unfair that I have to pay for a service I use people who don't use it should pay

No, people are annoyed at being fleeced for their money by a private company who is offering an increasingly unreliable and poor service.

I don't get you Joe. You claim politicians and the left have ignored the concerns of the working man but one of the biggest concerns of the working class is a reliable public transport service. Many rely on it to get to work and will now have to spend even more of their income on it.

Our rail service is incredibly expensive and overcrowded and you don't care at all about regular people suffering as a result.

I personally don't use the army, nor do I use Buckingham Palace, nor do I use the civil service, nor do I use the judiciary. Should I get my tax back for all those things?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
No, people are annoyed at being fleeced for their money by a private company who is offering an increasingly unreliable and poor service.

I don't get you Joe. You claim politicians and the left have ignored the concerns of the working man but one of the biggest concerns of the working class is a reliable public transport service.

Our rail service is incredibly expensive and overcrowded and you don't care at all about regular people suffering as a result.

I personally don't use the army, nor do I use Buckingham Palace, nor do I use the civil service, nor do I use the judiciary. Should I get my tax back for all those things?


Well if all the trains are overcrowded then surely the best thing to do would be to increase fares even higher, so more people seek an alternative which would free up space on the trains.
Original post by Len Goodman
Well if all the trains are overcrowded then surely the best thing to do would be to increase fares, so more people seek an alternative which would free up space on the trains.


Great, so far less people would be able to go to work and we'd have far more unemployment. That would be great for the economy.

Or, it would mean that far more people choose to drive, which would make our roads a hell of a lot more crowded. At which point people like you would complain about the levels of traffic...

The obvious answer is to heavily invest in our rail infrastructure, to reduce crowdedness and make it easier and more affordable for working people (who you claim to care about) to get to work.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
Great, so far less people would be able to go to work and we'd have far more unemployment. That would be great for the economy.

Or, it would mean that far more people chose to drive, which would make our roads a hell of a lot more crowded. At which point people like you would complain about the levels of traffic...

The obvious answer is to heavily invest in our rail infrastructure, to reduce crowdedness and make it easier and more affordable for working people (who you claim to care about) to get to work.


Or people could just work locally - somewhere within walking distance or a 10 minute bus ride away - instead of jetting off to never never land and back every day.

And investing in infrastructure would mean fare increases too, the money has to come from somewhere, after all.
Original post by Len Goodman
Or people could just work locally - somewhere within walking distance or a 10 minute bus ride away - instead of jetting off to never never land and back every day.

And investing in infrastructure would mean fare increases too, the money has to come from somewhere, after all.


lol. You really do live in a bubble dont you? Some people get jobs where they can, most cant just say "oh ill just get a job closer"

Youre demonstrating you are out of touch with a lot of people who have it different than you.

Sounds like you live in nevernever land if you think people willingly pay unfair ticket prices.
Original post by Len Goodman
Or people could just work locally - somewhere within walking distance or a 10 minute bus ride away - instead of jetting off to never never land and back every day.

And investing in infrastructure would mean fare increases too, the money has to come from somewhere, after all.

Except it is likely that local jobs aren't there which is why they travel in the first place. Yet you want to screw over people like that?

You do realise transport is a fiscal multiplier? That long term the taxpayer makes a profit, given that a high quality and affordable public transport system is very important for businesses so they can recruit staff from all over.

Again, you claim to care about the working man but want to screw him over by making it more expensive to go to work.
Original post by Len Goodman
Well if all the trains are overcrowded then surely the best thing to do would be to increase fares even higher, so more people seek an alternative which would free up space on the trains.


So someone like me would have to either spend hundreds on driving lessons for a test which will take about a year to pass while coughing up the extra £££ or not go to work at all? And the public should shut up and accept this? Yeah, doesn't sound repressive at all. Why is it that so many other countries have a much better public transport system while their public pay less? Why do you want our public transport system to regress even further as opposed to following the better examples? The trains are dirty and are late perhaps more than half of the time, what are they charging extra for? The abysmal service?
Original post by Len Goodman
Or people could just work locally - somewhere within walking distance or a 10 minute bus ride away - instead of jetting off to never never land and back every day.

And investing in infrastructure would mean fare increases too, the money has to come from somewhere, after all.


Yeah, because it's that simple. Do you think that if everyone could get jobs down the road from where they live, the vast majority would not? There is nothing that I would love more than a short commute or to work within walking distance of my house but the fact is that there are not unlimited job opportunities in any area, we don't get to choose.
Reply 32
Original post by SonoLuma
Having a set charge on things where people have literally no other choice is extortion. You want to charge people in some cases £50 more, just simply because you can and people will have no choice but to take it or lose jobs/education?

You people really do live in a bubble. That and not knowing the definition of extortion.


There is choice of provider though.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending