Article - "A better future for transport after the pandemic?"

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From Bright Green - by Steve Melia - Senior Lecturer in Transport and Planning in the Centre for Transport and Society at the University of the West of England.  A very, very well read and briefed gentleman.

A better future for transport after the pandemic?

The government is worried that as the economy recovers this year, “the move away from public transport during the crisis will cause unmanageable levels of car traffic, slowing some areas to a crawl”. They are right to be worried. By late September national traffic volumes had returned to their usual levels despite half the workforce working from home. The quote above comes from Bus Back Better, a new policy that aims to encourage people back onto buses to avoid that descent into gridlock. One of the problems, they rightly identify, is that public transport has been getting steadily more expensive. They are promising to make buses (but not rail) more affordable, to break a “cycle of decline”, which they and their predecessors have presided over since the 1980s.

The picture points a thousand words ...



So if I spent £10.00 on bus fares in 2000, I would need to spend £15.20, but £10.00 spent on general motoring costs would be just £8.40 today,  and in the narrower tax on petrol, my £10.00 would be have been reduced to £6.90.   The same spending on bus and private transport became twice the spending on bus journeys compared to private transport in 2020.. Is it any wonder that the bus has become more and more a means of travel for those with little practical choice?

Figures above are adjusted for inflation.  An actual £10 in 2000 becomes an actually £17.82 on bus fares in 2020, with car costs at £9.80, and £8.09 on petrol tax.  https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator

[TaplowGreen]

How, and by what methods would you suggest reducing the cost of rail fares and making them more affordable in order to close that gap Graham?

[grahame]

How, and by what methods would you suggest reducing the cost of rail fares and making them more affordable in order to close that gap Graham?

My original post set out the way things have changed ... and didn't offer a solution or even a direction towards a solution. Take a look at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/24896 (Rumour Mill - unconfirmed base data) also from this morning which suggests that the latest attempt to address these issues might instead just be adding a new product to complicate the already-complex setup, and which has far less use / might have far less take-up than a fanfare around it would suggest. Indeed, ripe for mis-selling.   The current rail system is a mess and it would take much more than a short post to address it - and many people / organisation have made suggestions.

My original post actually concentrated on buses.   There's been a far greater price increase there (no regulated fares, perhaps, one of the causes?) but there's real opportunities there.  Another system which has many elements which are not (or should I say "no longer")  fit for purpose.  But different distortions and opportunities. 

[TaplowGreen]

How, and by what methods would you suggest reducing the cost of rail fares and making them more affordable in order to close that gap Graham?

My original post set out the way things have changed ... and didn't offer a solution or even a direction towards a solution. Take a look at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/24896 (Rumour Mill - unconfirmed base data) also from this morning which suggests that the latest attempt to address these issues might instead just be adding a new product to complicate the already-complex setup, and which has far less use / might have far less take-up than a fanfare around it would suggest. Indeed, ripe for mis-selling.   The current rail system is a mess and it would take much more than a short post to address it - and many people / organisation have made suggestions.

I agree with your post in the Rumour Mill, if the article in the Telegraph is correct then the proposed "Flexible season" solution is farcical. It sometimes feels as if the railway is determined to dig its own grave.

I was thinking more broadly however as to how fares could be reduced - not just by tinkering with structures but perhaps (for example) by looking to reduce operating costs?

It is telling however that someone like yourself who is well informed, an advocate and has great knowledge and expertise in this area seems to struggle to suggest a solution (and that's an observation, not a criticism!) 

 

[IndustryInsider]

If rail and bus routes are to remain open and served at a reasonable frequency, I think it’s inevitable that additional running costs will fall on taxpayers more after the pandemic than before it.

Marginal savings might be able to be made by reducing overheads such as staffing and leasing costs, but IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) that won’t be enough on its own...no matter how ‘streamlined’ the industry becomes.

[grahame]

It is telling however that someone like yourself who is well informed, an advocate and has great knowledge and expertise in this area seems to struggle to suggest a solution (and that's an observation, not a criticism!) 

I take that as a bit of a compliment!

It reminds me of the story of the car pulling up to an old bloke smoking his pipe on a bench beside the road, and the driver asking "Excuse me - could you direct me to Upper Eggesford?".  Old man takes a long pull on his pipe, looks thoughtfully around and replies "If I was going there, I wouldn't be starting from here"


I recall attending a Rail Delivery Group consultation meeting on rail fare restructring in Bristol, several years ago, when they were looking at recommendations as to how to change the fare system to make it better fit for the future. The bundary laid down was that the new system must generate at least the same farebox income as the old one.  I asked the question (not really "in all innocence") as to whether I could suggestion of a structure that greatly increased the popularity of rail travel, hence journey numbers, so that fares for each journey would be considered. I was told that was NOT what they meant - they want the same average income per journey.   And there you have the age old problem that you create winners (who are happy for 5 weeks and then forget the gain they made) and loosers (how remember it for 5 years, and vote at the next election based on that memory).

Taking the instruction on boundaries given that day, we have some significant issues as we go forward post-pandemic.   Firstly, a greater reduction in long journeys than regional and local ones will lead to a lower average income per journey. Secondly, with lower passenger numbers for a while, some of the benefit of havin lots of passengers will be lost and farebox income will drop further than operating and maintenance costs drop.  Thirdly, it's likely that people will be able to travel more easily away from the peak with work location and hours that are much more flexible having become more common over the last 15 months.

Counteracting those three issues, as we go forward a lower proportion of people will be buying season tickets which on some lines off relatively bargain travel on the busiet trains. And if the peaks get rounded off significantly, there may be a saving in resources as some of the few remaining extra peak trains can be withdrawn, and trains that are long onl for peak demand can be shortened.

But that still leaves the problem of how to avoid creating winners and losers while maintaining income.  Sad that the RDG^‡(resolve)'s rep (and he did check with a colleague) laughed at the idea of growth as a tool to fix the problem.  It should be all the more a tool today as we look to head to stop climate changes and move to less or zero carbon use.

Give me a wider portfolio than just fares, and a seeding budget, and I could come up with something that works for fares, and also for traffic levels, for carbon reduction and for customer long term appreciation.   Even that will have its losers as certain members here will hanker after a good best-split puzzle, or an idiosyncrasy to chew over.

[ellendune]

I agree with your post in the Rumour Mill, if the article in the Telegraph is correct then the proposed "Flexible season" solution is farcical. It sometimes feels as if the railway is determined to dig its own grave.

I think you mean the Treasury and DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) telling it to dig its own grave.  They wanted to maximise franchise income so they set the conditions for ticket price inflation and it is they that are even now I suspect putting the condition of reform having to generate the same income (if not more if there is reduced traffic).

I was thinking more broadly however as to how fares could be reduced - not just by tinkering with structures but perhaps (for example) by looking to reduce operating costs?

So long as the savings are real and brought about about by some real plan that achieves those savings.  Rather than an economist's top down there must be x% savings there so the politicians just cut what they hand out and leave the managers to work out the detail.

[onthecushions]

I'm not sure that price is a deterrent for business  and commuter traffic, certainly to London. Pre-Covid, even charging £26.60 single for a mere 23 minutes from Reading to Paddington still met with crammed peak trains.  Even then many worked at home a day or so a week, above a certain level, where supervision needs are less..

Home working is not that attractive in small flats, cramped houses or where small children are present. Often better networking, security and access to information is necessary which Zoom and Teams over a cheap laptop and a retail broadband cannot provide. Often late office hours correlate with children's bedtimes!

What is wicked is the rise in bus fares - charged to the poorer, regional workers, least able to pay, although the effect of the ECTS pensioners scheme isn't shown.

I'll buy my next rail ticket with enthusiasm!

OTC

[Trowres]

If rail and bus routes are to remain open and served at a reasonable frequency, I think it’s inevitable that additional running costs will fall on taxpayers more after the pandemic than before it.

Marginal savings might be able to be made by reducing overheads such as staffing and leasing costs, but IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) that won’t be enough on its own...no matter how ‘streamlined’ the industry becomes.

This is probably a good time to quote Neil Robertson, Chief Exec of the National Skills Academy for Rail. He has an agenda that includes training new rail workers, so the article in Rail isn't without the possibility of bias.

Between 50% and 60% of the money spent [on rail infrastructure] is efficient… 40% is not. Ten per cent will probably never be spent efficiently, leaving 30% we can do something about,

NSAR^» (National Skills Academy for Rail - website) calculates that wage inflation will rise from 5.6% to 8% in the supply chain, with peak years in 2022 and 2025.

Train driver wage inflation is 6% a year,” he said. “But for signalling engineers it’s 9%. And high-voltage workers, 11% a year.

More at https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/exclusive-rail-industry-pays-a-heavy-price-for-productivity-problems

[broadgage]

How, and by what methods would you suggest reducing the cost of rail fares and making them more affordable in order to close that gap Graham?

Whilst I appreciate that the question was not directed at me, I would not significantly reduce fares in total.
What I would do is make fares much simpler and cheaper in the off peak only.
Providing the capacity to meet peak demand is very expensive, and unless hugely subsidised, peak fares will be expensive.

I see no merit in allowing discounted advance tickets on peak time trains that are liable to overcrowding.
Neither do I see any merit in charging punitive fares for last minute travel on a lightly loaded service.
3 fares only for most journys.

London to Taunton, standard class

Peak fare, £100. Applies to the most popular trains. Limited to no more than 20% of  trains, to stop TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) declaring too many trains to be peak.

Off peak, £60. Applies to all trains not in the other two categories.

Super bargain, £20. Applies to very lightly used trains, mainly very early morning, or very late night services. Must be available on at least 20% of services.

The above fares ARE ONLY INDICATIVE and could be tweaked so as to achieve the following aims.
1) Increase revenue by higher fares on the expensive to provide peak trains.
2) Increase passenger numbers moderatly on the off peak services, but not to the extent that these become overcrowded.
3) Substantialy increase passenger numbers on the super bargain trains.
4) Total ticket revenue to be broadly similar to that existing before.

Peak time travel would be more comfortable, by reduced crowding.
Super bargain fares would appeal to those on a tight budget.
First class when provided would be more costly, but still only three different first class fares.

Let the TOC decide which services fall into which of the three categories, this can be different on different days. It might for example be reasonable to declare MOST Maunday Thursday services to be peak fare, and NONE to be super bargain. But over a timetable period of validity, no more than 20% of services can be peak, and at least 20% have to be super bargain.

[VickiS]

Hi! Just a quick pop in to check, is there any meaning for these two acronyms?
ECTS pensioners scheme (Obviously meaning the ECTS?)
and NSAR^» (National Skills Academy for Rail - website) ?
I apprechiate any help with this
/ VickiS

[Lee]

ECTS probably should be ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) - English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.

NSAR^» (National Skills Academy for Rail - website) is National Skills Academy for Rail.

[VickiS]

Thank you for that clarification Lee!
I apprechiate the help!

VickiS