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
Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era