Why does every metro system use a different fare structure?

Oh, no: Paris’ RER network. Image: RATP.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are wandering through the old town of Amsterdam. As a tourist, you might not be au fait with the smartcard system there, so you buy a one hour ticket to travel across the city. You check in upon entering your first mode of transport, and then you’re free to mix transport modes as much as you like until your hour is up, when you are obliged to check out.

This is only one fare of many different types that exist in Amsterdam, but it already differs radically from how things work in London. Here, the fare system for buses and trams is entirely separate to the one for the Tube and Overground when it comes to how much you pay. The only similarity is that both London and Amsterdam will ask you to pay extra if you want to use a national rail service.

There’s a reason for this: it lies in the different prices the two cities attach to different destinations or different modes of transport. In Amsterdam, fares align: everything is included in the same fare, and it’s how long you travel for, not exactly where you travel to, that affects the price. Except for journeys to the airport, there is no zonal fare structure like.

In London, though, price differentiation is king. A bus costs less than a tube which costs less if you don’t use Zone 1 but costs an arm and a leg if you commute in from Chesham. But that journey from Chesham won’t cost any more if you travel back out again, to say, Upminster. This is confusing and impenetrable to anyone who isn’t a transport nerd. Why don’t London’s fares align? Why can’t cities agree on how to manage their fares?

In New York, the fare system is extremely simple and clear cut. One journey to anywhere costs exactly the same, no matter how you do it or where you go; but changing to a different mode of transport starts a new journey. This system works for New York because its public transit stays relatively close to the city centre – there’s no equivalent of the Metropolitan Line out to the wilds of Buckinghamshire that needs to be included in the fare structure.

In Paris, they took New York’s system and made it as confusing as London’s version. There’s one universal ticket price, and you can also change within 90 minutes, but only if you’re using similar modes of transport. You can change from Metro to RER, and you can change from a tram to a bus – but crucially, you can’t change from a metro to a bus. And these rules only apply within the subway-dense city of Paris – RER lines beyond Zone 1 can get expensive, fast.


In Tokyo, the authorities take a different tact to mixing modes. You can’t change without incurring a new fare, but each fare is determined on the basis of distance alone. If you travelled 10km by metro and then took the bus one stop, you would – intuitively – expect the bus ticket to be cheaper than the metro. In Tokyo, your intuition would be right. (The same is true of the Amsterdam smart card, but this does not apply to single tickets.)

A moment of reflection might lead you to conclude that all public transport should work this way. After all, it’s how most transport works outside of urban centres: the further you go, the more you pay. That’s why so many people balked at Sian Berry’s suggestion to remove the fare structure entirely when she ran for London mayor.

And yet, London’s current system already leads to instances of total nonsense. You could travel from Chesham to Baker Street or Chesham to Upminster, and even though the latter journey is nearly twice as long, you’d pay the same, because you’ve travelled through just as many zones. If we were in Tokyo, we wouldn’t have this problem; all metro-stops are equal in their eyes.

So why do cities manage their fare structures so differently? Why does London have so many confusing zones, complete with “special fares apply”? Why does Paris place an arbitrary divide between fare systems at its old city boundary? Why doesn’t Tokyo?

The classic retort of “look at a map” pays dividends here. Tell someone that Chesham is a dense urban area and they’ll laugh at you. In Tokyo, meanwhile, urban densities continue a lot further into the suburbs, as any satellite photo will tell you.

If we look to Paris, the logic is the same: a unified fare structure within the urban centre make sense because it is a near-uniform area of high density where trends in travel are consistent. London is one of the greenest capital cities in the world, and part of the reason is that the outer edges of its administrative area are packed with open space and patches of green belt. And yet, metro stations designed for the density of Kilburn continue all the way to Stanmore.

This is just one of a whole series of reasons why it’s so hard to come up with a single fare system appropriate for every city. London’s ongoing advertising campaign for the “Wonderful World of Off-Peak” is testament to a desire to simplify what travellers expect to pay on their journey. Perhaps in a world with a less restricted TfL budget, a reduced commitment to freezing fares, or a more homogenous urban geography, we could hope for a better fare structure. But in the meanwhile, for better or for worse, “special fares apply”.

 
 
 
 

What’s killing northerners?

The Angel of the North. Image: Getty.

There is a stark disparity in wealth and health between people in the north and south of England, commonly referred to as England’s “north-south divide”. The causes of this inequality are complex; it’s influenced by the environment, jobs, migration and lifestyle factors – as well as the long-term political power imbalances, which have concentrated resources and investment in the south, especially in and around London.

Life expectancy is also lower in the north, mainly because the region is more deprived. But new analysis of national mortality data highlights a shockingly large mortality gap between young adults, aged 25 to 44, living in the north and south of England. This gap first emerged in the late 1990s, and seems to have been growing ever since.

In 1995, there were 2% more deaths among northerners aged 25 to 34 than southerners (in other words, 2% “excess mortality”). But by 2015, northerners in this age group were 29% more likely to die than their southern counterparts. Likewise, in the 35 to 44 age group, there was 3% difference in mortality between northerners and southerners in 1995. But by 2015, there were 49% more deaths among northerners than southerners in this age group.

Excess mortality in the north compared with south of England by age groups, from 1965 to 2015. Follow the lines to see that people born around 1980 are the ones most affected around 2015.

While mortality increased among northerners aged 25 to 34, and plateaued among 35 to 44-year-olds, southern mortality mainly declined across both age groups. Overall, between 2014 and 2016, northerners aged 25 to 44 were 41% more likely to die than southerners in the same age group. In real terms, this means that between 2014 and 2016, 1,881 more women and 3,530 more men aged between 25 and 44 years died in the north, than in the south.

What’s killing northerners?

To understand what’s driving this mortality gap among young adults, our team of researchers looked at the causes of death from 2014 to 2016, and sorted them into eight groups: accidents, alcohol related, cardiovascular related (heart conditions, diabetes, obesity and so on), suicide, drug related, breast cancer, other cancers and other causes.

Controlling for the age and sex of the population in the north and the south, we found that it was mostly the deaths of northern men contributing to the difference in mortality – and these deaths were caused mainly by cardiovascular conditions, alcohol and drug misuse. Accidents (for men) and cancer (for women) also played important roles.

From 2014 to 2016, northerners were 47% more likely to die for cardiovascular reasons, 109% for alcohol misuse and 60% for drug misuse, across both men and women aged 25 to 44 years old. Although the national rate of death from cardiovascular reasons has dropped since 1981, the longstanding gap between north and south remains.

Death and deprivation

The gap in life expectancy between north and south is usually put down to socioeconomic deprivation. We considered further data for 2016, to find out if this held true for deaths among young people. We found that, while two thirds of the gap were explained by the fact that people lived in deprived areas, the remaining one third could be caused by some unmeasured form of deprivation, or by differences in culture, infrastructure, migration or extreme weather.

Mortality for people aged 25 to 44 years in 2016, at small area geographical level for the whole of England.

Northern men faced a higher risk of dying young than northern women – partly because overall mortality rates are higher for men than for women, pretty much at every age, but also because men tend to be more susceptible to socioeconomic pressures. Although anachronistic, the expectation to have a job and be able to sustain a family weighs more on men. Accidents, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and suicide are all strongly associated with low socioeconomic status.

Suicide risk is twice as high among the most deprived men, compared to the most affluent. Suicide risk has also been associated with unemployment, and substantial increases in suicide have been observed during periods of recession – especially among men. Further evidence tells us that unskilled men between ages 25 and 39 are between ten and 20 times more likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared to professionals.

Alcohol underpins the steep increase in liver cirrhosis deaths in Britain from the 1990s – which is when the north-south divide in mortality between people aged 25 to 44 also started to emerge. Previous research has shown that men in this age group, who live in the most deprived areas, are five times more likely to die from alcohol-related diseases than those in the most affluent areas. For women in deprived areas, the risk is four times greater.


It’s also widely known that mortality rates for cancer are higher in more deprived areas, and people have worse survival rates in places where smoking and alcohol abuse is more prevalent. Heroin and crack cocaine addiction and deaths from drug overdoses are also strongly associated with deprivation.

The greater number of deaths from accidents in the north should be considered in the context of transport infrastructure investment, which is heavily skewed towards the south – especially London, which enjoys the lowest mortality in the country. What’s more, if reliable and affordable public transport is not available, people will drive more and expose themselves to higher risk of an accident.

Deaths for young adults in the north of England have been increasing compared to those in the south since the late 1990s, creating new health divides between England’s regions. It seems that persistent social, economic and health inequalities are responsible for a growing trend of psychological distress, despair and risk taking among young northerners. Without major changes, the extreme concentration of power, wealth and opportunity in the south will continue to damage people’s health, and worsen the north-south divide.

The Conversation

Evangelos Kontopantelis, Professor in Data Science and Health Services Research, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.