Rail fare hike: the 10 worst London commutes

Today's spike in train fares hits some journeys harder than others.

A moment's silence for those of us who have to get around by train. Over the last month we have had to deal with floods, signal failures, staff shortages and overcrowding. Now comes the news that rail fares are to be hiked once again.

The average rise is only 4.3 per cent, but as long as they stick to this average, train companies can increase the prices of some tickets as far as they like. The result is uneven, some routes are hit worse than others. Campaign groups point out that this is the 10th successive above-inflation rise, London commutes being particularly affected. Here are the 10 worst hit London travel routes:

1. Sevenoaks to London has gone up 87 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £41.50 to £77.80 and season tickets from £1,660.00 to £3,112.00.

2. Ashford International in Kent to London has gone up 80 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £66.50 to £119.50, and season tickets from £2,660.00 to £4,780.00.

3. Bracknell to London has gone up 78 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £55.70 to £99.00, and season tickets from £2,228.00 to £3,960.00.

4. Canterbury to London has gone up 78 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £67.50 to £120.30, and season tickets from £2,700.00 to £4,812.00

5. Tunbridge Wells to London has gone up 71 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £60.30 to £103.30, and season tickets from £2,412.00 to £4,132.00.

6. Maidstone to London has gone up 68 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £59.00 to £99.00, and season tickets from £2,360.00 to £3,960.00.

7. Tonbridge to London has gone up 68 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £56.00 to £94.20, and season tickets from £2,240.00 to £3,768.00

8. Gillingham to London has gone up 67 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £55.10 to £91.80, and season tickets from £2,204.00 to £3,672.00.

9. Hastings to London has gone up 59 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £72.00 to £114.60, and season tickets from £2,880.00 and £4,584.00.

10. Eastbourne to London has gone up 58 per cent in the last 10 years. Weekly tickets have gone from £68.00 to £107.60, and season tickets from £2,720.00 to £4,304.00.

The data came from Campaign for Better Transport, and was calculated using the weekly and season ticket prices between 2003 and 2013. It took inflation into account. (There is not yet a complete data set for travel routes outside London).

Stephen Joseph, the executive director of Campaign for Better Transport, said:

“These fare spikes are bad for people and bad for the environment. Once again, the Government is talking tall but walking short when it comes to ensuring the transport sector tackles climate change. If it is serious about tackling climate change, it must ensure train journeys are an attractive, affordable option for people.”

The average rise in fares is 4.3 per cent. Photograph: Getty Images
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Donald Trump wants to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency - can he?

"Epa, Epa, Eeeepaaaaa" – Grampa Simpson.

 

There have been countless jokes about US President Donald Trump’s aversion to academic work, with many comparing him to an infant. The Daily Show created a browser extension aptly named “Make Trump Tweets Eight Again” that converts the font of Potus’ tweets to crayon scrawlings. Indeed, it is absurd that – even without the childish font – one particular bill that was introduced within the first month of Trump taking office looked just as puerile. Proposed by Matt Gaetz, a Republican who had been in Congress for barely a month, “H.R. 861” was only one sentence long:

“The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018”.

If this seems like a stunt, that is because Gaetz is unlikely to actually achieve his stated aim. Drafting such a short bill without any co-sponsors – and leaving it to a novice Congressman to present – is hardly the best strategy to ensure a bill will pass. 

Still, Republicans' distrust for environmental protections is well-known - long-running cartoon show The Simpsons even did a send up of the Epa where the agency had its own private army. So what else makes H.R. 861 implausible?

Well, the 10-word-long statement neglects to address the fact that many federal environmental laws assume the existence of or defer to the Epa. In the event that the Epa was abolished, all of these laws – from the 1946 Atomic Energy Act to the 2016 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – would need to be amended. Preferably, a way of doing this would be included in the bill itself.

Additionally, for the bill to be accepted in the Senate there would have to be eight Democratic senators who agreed with its premise. This is an awkward demand when not even all Republicans back Trump. The man Trum appointed to the helm of the Epa, Scott Pruitt, is particularly divisive because of his long opposition to the agency. Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said that she was hostile to the appointment of a man who was “so manifestly opposed to the mission of the agency” that he had sued the Epa 14 times. Polls from 2016 and 2017 suggests that most Americans would be also be opposed to the agency’s termination.

But if Trump is incapable of entirely eliminating the Epa, he has other ways of rendering it futile. In January, Potus banned the Epa and National Park Services from “providing updates on social media or to reporters”, and this Friday, Trump plans to “switch off” the government’s largest citizen-linked data site – the Epa’s Open Data Web Service. This is vital not just for storing and displaying information on climate change, but also as an accessible way of civilians viewing details of local environmental changes – such as chemical spills. Given the administration’s recent announcement of his intention to repeal existing safeguards, such as those to stabilise the climate and protect the environment, defunding this public data tool is possibly an attempt to decrease awareness of Trump’s forthcoming actions.

There was also a recent update to the webpage of the Epa's Office of Science and Technology, which saw all references to “science-based” work removed, in favour of an emphasis on “national economically and technologically achievable standards”. 

Trump’s reshuffle of the Epa's priorities puts the onus on economic activity at the expense of public health and environmental safety. Pruitt, who is also eager to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain, spoke in an interview of his desire to “exit” the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. He was led to this conclusion because of his belief that the agreement means “contracting our economy to serve and really satisfy Europe, and China, and India”.

 

Rather than outright closure of the Epa, its influence and funding are being leached away. H.R. 861 might be a subtle version of one of Potus’ Twitter taunts – empty and outrageous – but it is by no means the only way to drastically alter the Epa’s landscape. With Pruitt as Epa Administrator, the organisation may become a caricature of itself – as in The Simpsons Movie. Let us hope that the #resistance movements started by “Rogue” Epa and National Parks social media accounts are able to stave off the vultures until there is “Hope” once more.

 

Anjuli R. K. Shere is a 2016/17 Wellcome Scholar and science intern at the New Statesman

0800 7318496