Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/8203-severn-beach-train-tickets-to-rise-by-up-to-60-per-cent/story-30055849-detail/story.html

Having advocated increases on this line on the forum on a couple of occasions I think the direction of travel is sensible, although I am sure that some of the detail may give rise to debate. In particular the whopping increases on weekly tickets "to encourage people to buy longer dated tickets".  Does that mean that the normal relationship between weekly/monthly/annual will not apply on the line. 

If approved, a single ticket from Clifton Down Station to Bristol Temple Meads (zone one) will rise from £1.50 to £2.

In comparison a single from any station between Severn Beach and Clifton Down in Temple Meads (zone two) will increase from £2 to £3.

A return from zone one to Temple Meads will rise from £2 to £3, and a return from zone two will increase from £3 to £4.

If the rises do go ahead in the summer it will be around the time the first Turbos head west - and they are earmarked for the Severn Beach line.

I remember attending a meeting two years ago when the question of the fares on that line were being discussed and everyone was wondering how to move the fares to a comparable level with other lines. I'm not sure why it has taken until now to draw up a proposal.

This is outrageous. My limited budget for transport will be severely...

...oh, hang on. I've moved.  :P ;) ;D

Comments on the story on the paper's website seem to point to a desire for other improvements:








There's an element of selective quoting in what I've picked out there looking at the service - on pricing these are the comments, with a suggestion that higher price should lead to better service.

How exactly will the fare increase fund MetroWest? What mechanism will be used to allocate the additional revenue?

If it's to be a revenue forecast based on current passenger numbers, what happens when footfall increases or decreases? If it's to be a fixed grant from the operator, who decides how much?

I'm deeply sceptical. Some arrangement will probably come to pass whereby all parties will claim the increased revenue is being given to MetroWest, but finding out the amounts will be impossible. I confidently predict the additional revenue will not all go to MetroWest, and I bet the words "commercially sensitive" will be used as a smokescreen.

Doesn't say "ALL this will fund MetroWest", BNM.....

What it says is:

"The money raised from the increase will go towards improving services on the line"

Doesn't say just SOME will fund improvements.

Increased capacity is already scheduled, with the rolling stock cascade. That decision was already made without it being dependent on a fares increase. I suspect a form of words will come from the LEP, DfT and GWR that says the fare increase is funding the new (to the line) rolling stock. Essentially putting the cart before the horse.

It could include improvements/refresh to the turbos too. That could be "improving services"

Again. Already costed and largely done.

So? The "costed" could include the fares rise - you just don't know.

We just don't know is precisely my point. And I strongly suspect we never will.

I welcome improvements to rail services across Bristol. I just don't think users of one line should be treated as a cash cow to fund them. The increased patronage of the line since 2007 has already wiped out the local authority subsidy. By every measure, the line has gone from strength to strength. But to use that success to increase fares by between 33-60% in one go is just wrong.

At that low level, 100% is really not very much!

The fares are low, but they must surely be covering the cost of operation as evidenced by the removal of the subsidy. That can only be a guess because we never know the finances of franchises.

Had the fares risen in line with the annual regulated fares increases then admittedly the increase since 2007 would have been around 30%. Importantly though, that would have been an incremental rise. The risk with a massive hike of 33-60% in one go is that all the hard work attracting people to the line will be undone and growth could stagnate.

If Severn Beach Line fares rises are to fund MetroWest then I'd welcome an incremental rise over a number of years. I'd also welcome use of an incremental increase to fund the introduction of cashless revenue collection methods - Smartcards and contactless. Ideally a city wide multi-mode, multi-operator system.

Saying that fares have to jump up by large whole numbers to speed up cash transactions is a poor excuse to raise fares. By far the slowest method of collection on board is chip and pin.

I don't think you can assume that.  The subsidy was to cover the incremental cost of increasing the service to every 40 minutes, and so one can assume that this cost has now been covered by the increase in traffic generated. If one presumes that the previous service required a subsidy to operate, which I think is highly likely, then it's most probable that the current operation in total still generates less revenue than the service costs.

At the end of the day the fares on the line were remarkably cheap in contrast to other services, even within the Bristol area, and they are now being brought more into line.  With the turbos imminent, and maybe other improvements to come once the four tracking is completed in a couple of years time, that doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

The "Severn Beach" is designated Community Rail, and as such that allows a flexibility in the fares and the fare system at the request / suggestion of the community area served, provided that pretty well all parties are in agreement.  This flexibility was used to restrain / even lower fares to encourage traffic back when there was plenty of room for more traffic on the less-frequent train service, and indeed it has done spectacularly well.  But with various groupings involved in putting the restrained fares in place unhappy about them being allowed to drift up in parallel with national fares, and with the traffic duely encouraged to the extent that there's no longer plenty of rooms on the train, "do nothing" ceases to be an option for the future.   There is (personal opinion) sense in bringing in higher capacity trains, and sense in letting fares re-couple to the national system so that the divulgence, with the need to collect fares from more people than the trains carry to pay for them at a level where all the extra traffic gained doesn't require an extra subsidy for each passenger.

Severn Beach fares are a very interesting 'case' for other designated community rail operations to learn from.

It's only reasonable to those who don't have to pay for them. ::)

There are low fares in many parts if the country. So, by that reasoning, it's okay for them to rise by 30-60% in one go.

And some the lowest fares of all are paid by those who use the rail network the most. Perhaps it's time we also looked at raising season ticket prices to better reflect the actual cost of transporting season ticket holders.

The Turbos and other improvements are coming not just to the Severn Beach Line, but to a much wider 'Greater Bristol' area covering North Somerset, South Gloucestershire, Bristol, Bath & North East Somerset. Shouldn't all the rail users in those areas be contributing more too, if that is to be the reason for SVB Line increases?

By all means, allow the SVB Line fares to 'catch up' with the increases to regulated fares across the rest of the network. But do it incrementally. Not 60% in one go.

I suspect the Severnside Community Rail Partnership will endorse the increases. They know which side their bread is buttered.

Yup, why not? Especially when 100& rise = £1


The amount of money being stumped up *in advance* does entitle one to a discount - you are effectively loaning potentially several £thousands well in advance if buying annual tickets. There is however an argument that they are overpriced these days as they're based on 4 weeks discount for annual holidays. There are many who get more than that these days and are therefore paying even while on leave!

It seems as though the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) are campaigning for part-time seasons *at the same discount* as for full seasons. How can that be when the amount of money being paid upfront is either 4% or even 60% less? No that won't happen, will it? Because that is why seasons are discounted - for paying in advance, not a discount for number of trips taken.


wait and see...?


why not - it's £5/week.....Sky subs go up that much. explain.....

Not if their fares are higher already. 

Let's look at an example.  NLS is 8 miles journey from Temple Meads, Avonmouth is 9 miles (less by road admittedly).


Current Fares:

Off Peak single
Nailsea:              4.40 (4.50 in peak)
Avonmouth now: 2.00 (same in peak)
Avonmouth new: 3.00


Off peak return
Nailsea:             4.50 (4.90 in peak)
Avonmouth now  3.00 (same in peak)
Avonmouth new 4.00

Weekly season
Nailsea:             23.50
Avonmouth now   9.00
Avonmouth new  15.00


With regard to seasons, the NLS weekly season gives a saving of just £1, or 4% on the daily peak cost of 4.90x5 and more than the off peak return price.  Hardly the big saving you are suggesting.  Whereas the Avonmouth fare currently gives a £6 saving or 40%. It will still give a saving of £5 or 25% under the new proposals.

At £9 for a weekly, the fare is 10p per mile, compared with 29.3p a mile from Nailsea.  Turning that around, pax from Avonmouth pay just a third of the rate that Nailsea passengers do. And NLS is of course just an example, other stations will be similar.

So fares will still be much cheaper than other lines in the Bristol area, and yes, I do think a substantial rise is necessary, appropriate and overdue.

 

Indeed, and surely it is unfair on all the commuters paying those higher prices that John R mentions. I think you are feeling aggrieved for the wrong set of travellers, BNM?