COMMENT
Mike Hewitson, Passenger Focus’s head of passenger issues, explores the issue of micro-management of demand and fares and reminds the industry what really matters.
A
sk a typical passenger on a platform what they want from their train ser-
vice and the answer tends to be quite sim- ple: they want a seat, they want it to be on time, and they want fares that represent value for money.
Among all the debate on the reform of the railway, one important question must be asked: what does all this mean for the pas- senger?
One of the most immediate ‘threats’ is the call for more demand management. The recent ‘McNulty’ report talked of moving away from “predict and provide” to “pre- dict, manage and provide”. Making better use of capacity is a laudable aim. However, there are some who argue that the best way of achieving this is to move to ‘airline style’ pricing models that allow (in theory) better utilisation of capacity.
The report refers to low levels of train uti- lisation in Great Britain compared to other European equivalents. It attributes a num- ber of different reasons for this, including the pronounced service peaks in London and the South East which mean that, apart from a few hours each weekday, there is a vast over-provision of capacity. There are those who then argue that if peak demand can be more evenly spread, some of this cost can be removed.
We believe this argument ignores the fact that many commuters are ‘captive consum- ers’. While some may be able to change modes of travel, others, especially when commuting into London, have little in the way of a viable alternative or the flexibility to change work patterns. In such instances, increasing commuting fares will have lit- tle impact on demand and will not lead to changes in travelling behaviour.
It also undervalues one of the strengths of rail. We know from our research that Great Britain benefits from some of the most fre- quent services in Europe.
The benefits of this are lost if you are tied to a specific train. It is odd that we have what amounts to a bus service frequency on many long-distance routes in Britain (e.g. three trains per hour London to Birmingham and London to Manchester), but the price
of taking advantage of there being “another one along in a minute” is very high.
The Government has indicated that new rail franchises will be less tightly specified. We understand the arguments advanced by the rail industry against ‘micro-management’, but if nothing is specified how, in the worst case, would you remove a train operating company (TOC) for poor performance? How does Government ensure it gets what it pays for with taxpayers’ money unless it indicates what it wants in the first place?
So we see a continued need for the state to have a role in specifying franchises – it can’t just be a commercial decision for the operator. Much of the debate, therefore, comes down to the level of specification and the precise targets set within the fran- chise. We believe the key point is that the targets used are based on attributes that really matter to passengers. That means a mixture of traditional ‘hard’ performance targets – covering things like punctuality, reliability and crowding – alongside more qualitative targets.
Targets must of course be measured and monitored. Our strong preference is to base the qualitative measure on what passengers say – the best judge of quality being those who have used the services in question. The crucial elements are that the targets reflect passenger priorities and that the measure reflects passenger experiences.
We also believe that less specification should not mean less accountability. The key to accountability is transparency: giv- ing rail passengers access to relevant per- formance data (especially on punctuality and crowding) will help them to hold the
train company to account. Good manage- ment should not feel threatened by this. Indeed, the availability of accurate data may actually help them – a particularly bad journey can linger in the memory and dis- tort passengers’ perceptions. Accurate, rel- evant data can help challenge these nega- tive perceptions.
The Government’s welcome commitment to invest in more electrification schemes and new trains will help address some of the more immediate capacity issues in many parts of the country, but there is still much to do. It will be crucial that invest- ment continues if the railway is going to keep pace with growth forecasts – more and more passengers want to use the rail- ways.
However, lurking inside all this success is the ‘costs bug’ – the ballooning costs of running the railway threaten to soak up the new money. We will be keeping a close eye on the conclusions of the Government’s value for money review.
Visit
www.passengerfocus.org.uk Mike Hewitson
FOR MORE INFORMATION rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 11 | 27
We will make sure that the value of the railways is kept in focus as well as the cost. And we will watch for signs of how ticket prices might rise even further. We already have a costly railway compared with our European counter- parts and the trick now is to ensure we have a successful and value for money rail- way – good for both the taxpayer and pas- sengers.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92