Moderator note: In the interests of clarity and continuity, recent posts on the subject of regulated rail fare rises have been merged here with existing topics. bignosemac.
At least with a 2 year announcement, there won't be all the usual RPI▸ +3% headlines late next summer, with all the negative messages about rail fares that sends out, before the (far less dramatic) actually it'll only be RPI+1% stories hit the press later in the year. An announcement to be applauded I say.
As I said, it is welcome, although I wouldn't go so far as to applaud the decision. What narks me somewhat is, on the one hand you have George Osbourne saying another ^10 billion needs to be cut from the welfare budget, yet on the other hand the
DfT» have found some money (down the back of the sofa?) to reduce their take from the farebox. The reduced take will probably lead to more taxpayer subsidy, particularly as recommendations by McNulty seem no nearer to being implemented.
"Funded by savings in the DfT budget" is what the DfT are telling us. Yet later in the same press release in the 'Notes to Editors' they say:
The independent McNulty Rail Value for Money study published in 2011 highlighted that while our railways are performing well operationally, they cost too much to run. If we can make substantial reductions to the cost of running the railways and the improvement in the wider economic situation permits, we can bring to an end the era of above inflation fare rises in average regulated fares, while continuing to expand capacity on our rail network.
So first they say the lower increase in regulated rail fares is down to savings already made and then they say,
'If we can make substantial reductions' and (if) '
the wider economic situation permits'.
Just seems totally confused to me. Whatever happened to politicians making a policy decision and sticking with it? Dave and Co would do well to remember the words uttered by Mrs T, "You turn if you want to...."
Click on the map to explore geographics
