Railfuture – Written evidence (TTS0022)

Introduction

Railfuture is Britain’s leading, longest-established, national independent voluntary organisation campaigning for a bigger and better railway network for passenger and freight users. This response draws together the views of Railfuture branches, the Railfuture Passenger Group and affiliated Rail User Groups, as authorised by Railfuture’s national Board of Directors.

Summary

We are grateful for the opportunity to respond.  Our key points are:

  1. There is considerable variability in the degree to which pre-covid commuting has, and might, return; for some reasons (eg education, manual work) there is largely a return back to normal but for others (eg many knowledge workers) the situation is still evolving, and such workers have much more optionality as to their frequency and timing of commuting – the quality of service on offer (frequency, capacity, reliability and fares et al) will have a significant impact on the volume of some of these demands, in a way it already does for other demand reasons such as leisure.
  2. The loss of a significant portion of the pre-Covid commuter market in some areas (including London) is a significant challenge, but also an opportunity.  The traditional office commute is no longer the primary driver it has been.  Instead opportunities such as consistent all day services, new approaches to fares and a stronger focus on great customer service can come to the fore.
  3. Current public transport does not always meet customer needs – eg early finishes of bus services, complicated fares.
  4. Light Rail has shown itself to be considerably more appealing to car users than buses – eg it has proven ability to encourage car drivers to switch modes in a way that buses do not.
  5. We see that Smart Ticketing, whether by use of a Phone with Near Field Communications, a dedicated Smart Card or a Bank Card to be an essential feature.  However, it must not be the only option.
  6. An essential characteristic of much innovation has to be that it seeks opportunity, rather than focuses excessively on threats.  Both Very Light Rail and Tram Trains are important options.
  7. Within Innovation, it is also important to remember that better use of existing practices and techniques is essential.
  8. Fare setting approaches need a revisit, including a detailed reassessment of the use of “peak” and “off-peak”.
  9. Public Transport (and active transport) is not being assessed for their wider benefits. We mention a review of 170 studies that find evidence that people are less likely to be obese or have diabetes if they live in cities where walking and cycling is safe and convenient (and thus access to public transport is also easy).
  10. We comment on the debate on the possible demise of the London Travelcard, noting that an approach of removing certainty and adding complexity is a classic example of why public transport gets used less.


1. What are the current and anticipated levels of public transport demand and capacity in towns and cities in England? What influences public transport travel patterns? How does the choice of public transport vary across different demographic groups?

We break our comments down under “Demand”, “Supply” & “Context”.

Demand

We do not believe the post pandemic demand is yet clear for many drivers of demand.  Take, for instance, commuting:

  1. Commuting for some reasons – eg mandatory attenders (eg of the workplace: factories, much of health and bio-sciences) is, we believe, close to the medium term outcome.   It is essential to recognise that this, as a portion of total commuting, varies very significantly.  For instance:
  2. Commuting for “knowledge workers”.  With some exceptions (eg as above), many such workers have now adopted a hybrid model, but we believe that this is still significantly evolving and has yet to settle down. Members and affiliated Rail User Groups, commented:
  3. Commuting for education. Again, this is a noticeable market, which has probably substantially settled down. Critically, this market is very time specific – many pupils need to arrive at school simultaneously; a member commented:
  4. Wider societal impacts are still working through “the system”.  A member comments “If you spend 20 hours on a train on weekdays the last thing you want is to go on a train at the weekends.  But if you travel less for work, then weekend leisure train travel with the family becomes attractive. Likewise, if you travel to work less often then you can relocate further away for a better quality of life, making fewer but longer train trips”.

More generally, members’ comment:

Supply

A member commented “It’s about making public transport ‘desirable’ – the option people choose”; another observed “They will not return if there is no viable rail product”. We fully concur, and for public transport to succeed, key elements include:

  1. Reliability and Speed. Services need to be firstly reliable, and secondly, sufficiently fast (measured by generalised journey time).
  2. We commented recently on Hertfordshire County Council’s HERT (Hertfordshire Essex Rapid Transit)[4].  We mention this observation in particular: “We believe there is strong element of HERT either being ambitious & effective in operation, or not proceeding at all (other than local initiatives for specific short distance flows).  Persuading travellers not to use their cars can offer significant advantages; the return on more money invested credibly can be a lot more than for less money on a less appealing product, as only the bigger, more ambitious product can create something of sufficient appeal to cause the wanted modal shift and the needed passenger numbers”. 
  3. Hours of operation.  Public Transport often has limited hours of operation. That it is not running at the end of an evening out, or suitable for commuters who work other than traditional office hours (or even are returning at 7pm) is a significant barrier.  A member commented “Except for the first 7 years after I left school (when I worked in insurance) I've never worked 9-5 M-F and even when I was in the office job I had a horticulture sideline at evenings and weekends. Obviously after a career in agriculture and horticulture I'm not a typical worker but if the population wants to shop evenings and weekends then retail staff are working. Same with the hospitality industry. Also a lot of jobs are nil hours jobs where there can be 40 hours work one week and 10 the next. One of my friends was doing 12 x 12 hour shifts per fortnight from September until 2 weeks ago. Now back to her normal 84 hours over a 2 week cycle.”
  4. Price.  The cost of public transport in (and around) towns and cities must be reasonable – and the fares simple and easily understandable, and ticketing pain free.

As regards Rail specifically, we observe:

  1. Rail-based public transport is seen by users (especially potential users if mode shift is to be realised), as more attractive over road-based [even if the rails are set into the road surface] as rail of any sort conveys a greater sense of permanence / certainty / reliability / predictability and as appealing to current car users.
  2. Light Rail has shown itself to be considerably more appealing to car users than buses – eg it has proven ability to encourage car drivers to switch modes[5] in a way that buses do not.  UK Trams note how trams are more appealing to higher income households[6].
  3. We believe that long distance commuting for a one, or a few days a week will continue to grow in relative terms. For many, without the need to be in the workplace 4 or 5 times a week, it becomes appealing to move to an area with a perceived quality of life (that is often also cheaper)[8]; this is typically further from the workplace, and so there is an acceptance of the commuting penalty for the fewer days of travel, of time and cost.  At a recent Northern Trains update to Railfuture, they specifically noted that part time commuters were often purchasing Advance tickets to ensure better value for money.
  4. Tactical investments – such as the provision of passing loops at stations to allow metro services to be overtaken by faster trains will be important – much of the UK rail network away from London and its approaches is a two track railway and capacity is limited by the mix of faster and slower services.  Techniques like that used at Penryn on the Falmouth Branch[9] and as proposed in the winning Restoring Your Railway bid for the Watford Junction-St. Albans Abbey line can noticeably reduce costs.


Context

Public transport is competing with:

  1. A decision not to travel: As previously mentioned, this is now much more relevant for some workers.  A member comments “[A point] I’d make is that people don’t have to return to exactly the same face-to-face on-site arrangements that they had previously. The important thing is to physically meet with colleagues and clients. It doesn’t necessarily mean returning to a two-hour trek to the national HQ in the morning and two hours back in the evening five days a week, which is what I endured between 2008-11 (leaving home at 06:50 and getting home at 19:05)”.
  2. Personal vehicles.  A key challenge is the differing mix of costs to the traveller. Public transport operates on a pay for use model, whereas much use of personal vehicles mixes pay to own and a marginal cost pay to use – exacerbated by a perception that some variable costs – eg of tyre replacement, of a portion of insurance and servicing costs are fixed (because they are incurred relatively infrequently) but are actually variable. Practices such as TfL’s fare capping on Pay as You Go do act to move public transport from a variable cost to a fixed one.

There are also wider issues with efficient use of carbon (irrespective of no local tailpipe emissions) and other pollutants such as rubber particles.

2. How might public transport travel patterns shift in the next 10 years? What impact could digitalisation and the COVID-19 pandemic have on travel patterns in the long term?

We note:

  1. Covid-19 is less “new” and more an accelerator of existing trends – but it may well have taken those trends further than might otherwise have happened – for instance, many employers and schools have probably invested more heavily in home / remote working than would otherwise be the case.
  2. Our comments above on the uncertainties of the portion of remote / home working in response to topic 1 are also relevant.
  3. Younger people are less likely to drive[10] and if they do possess a driving licence, to own a car.

3. What can be done to improve connectivity across public transport modes? How could better integration be delivered in urban areas outside London?

We are of the view:

  1. It is essential to focus on the total journey and both the outward and return elements (and where relevant, additional interim journeys).  Thus it needs to make it appealing to:
    1. Get from the start point to the most convenient public transport stop – always by walking, cycling and active travel, and in larger conurbations, an ability to use a personal vehicle may well be needed as well.
    2. To interchange easily as needed (including at the first and last point):
      1. Physically easy, including for the less abled.
      2. With through ticketing.
      3. With reliable information about next services, crowding etc – both as a planning aid (shall I leave at 8:15 or 8:45am?) and for in-journey support (have I got time to get a coffee, where do I go, do I need to keep moving etc).
    3. Complete both the outward and return journey.  Whilst many Rail services operate late into the evening, buses often stop much earlier, and so part rail and part bus journeys become impossible.
  2. We see that Smart Ticketing, whether by use of a Phone with Near Field Communications, a dedicated Smart Card or a Bank Card to be an essential feature.  However, it must not be the only option, as some intending travellers will not possess any suitable device or may be unable to use it for other reasons (eg no credit available on their bank card).  We like TfL’s core model of:
    1. A dedicated card ~ Oyster.
    2. Bank Cards with registration, which gives visibility of journey history and also aids customer service.
    3. Unregistered Bank Cards.

However, we dislike an important element of TfL’s model, which is that differing pricing is offered on Oyster and Bank Cards.  For instance, Oyster supports Railcard discounts, but Bank Cards do not and Contactless and Oyster have different station coverages.  Nor does TfL’s model cater well for families and groups.

Members’ comment:

4. What are the likely areas of innovation in urban public transport over the next 10 years? How should public policy be shaped considering both incremental and transformational innovations? How could data help transport services meet consumer demand?

An essential characteristic of much innovation has to be that it seeks opportunity, rather than focuses excessively on threats.

We believe the following to be important areas of innovation:

  1. The Warwick University activity on the development of Very Light Rail (VLR)[11]. The Revolution VLR trams[12] being developed by a consortium involving the University aim to bring the infrastructure cost needed down by c80%.  This should bring trams within reach of many more provincial cities.   As with Manchester Metrolink’s first line (from Bury), there may the option to convert existing lightly used lines (or old railway line) track beds and use a small amount of new track in the city / town centre. A continued need for freight can be problematic, but there are solutions; a member comments “There is a local example of a potential situation like this in the West Midlands. The Round Oak Steel Terminal gets a regular but low frequency freight service – and there are aspirations to extend the currently under construction metro southwards from Dudley through to Stourbridge, so a regulatory approach might be to have time-based operations such that freight and light rail vehicles aren’t allowed on the same section of branch line at the same time”.
  2. More use of Tram Trains (that can run on both tram tracks in City centres and on National Rail).  Already in existence, as the Rotherham extension of Sheffield Supertram, these can share existing lines with continued heavy rail services and are a useful option where handover of a current line is not sensible.
  3. A reduction in the costs of Public Transport through more extensive data collection and modelling.  Smart technologies, as already used by TfL and others will enable a much better understanding of demand and can allow pricing to cause time shifts for some to more evenly spread demand and reduce the cost of providing the service, for which the moment of peak demand each day is a significant element of the cost base.
  4. Fare setting approaches including a detailed reassessment of the definitions of “peak” and “off-peak”.  Many commuters, now that they have greater flexibility in their place and time of work, have opted to travel outside the traditional “peak” travel times.  The industry itself is considering this issue and it is our belief that the use of blanket morning and evening peak time bands may no longer be appropriate. We note Transport Focus’s recent report “Transforming rail travel – what do passengers want?”[13] and concur with their observations from page 19 on “2. Getting a Ticket”. In the context of travel in Towns & Cities, we believe these goals are particularly relevant:
  5. Industrial relations.  An ability for intending passengers, particularly commuters. to feel comfortable that public transport will be available to them is important.  In making the decision to use public transport (as opposed to personal transport) as the chosen option, a feeling that the service will be consistently available each day is an important element; a key differentiator being that many other types of disruption such as signalling faults delay a journey, as opposed to making it (nearly) impossible – and there are likely to be more options for alternative routes, such as using another local station.

It is also important to remember that better use of existing practices and techniques is essential: 

Finally, on this topic, there is the question of mindset.  It is easy to see the significant reduction in many commuting flows as a threat to public transport.  Railfuture acknowledges that the loss of these higher paying (for the distance) passengers is a significant challenge, but also urge that Public Transport – and associated Government policy – in the post Covid world is seen as an opportunity.  A railway (or indeed any public transport) that is designed, built and operated around meeting the point of highest demand – the traditional office commute is no longer the primary driver it has been.  Instead opportunities such as consistent all day services, new approaches to fares and a stronger focus on great customer service can come to the fore.

5. Are local authorities well equipped with appropriate funding and powers to deliver high-quality public transport services? Would further devolution of transport policy contribute to better outcomes?

We believe the key gaps are funding and resources, and Local Authorities typically do not have enough of either.

The Government’s recent Bus Back Better National Bus Strategy with its Bus Service Improvement Plan proposals from Local Authorities are an important step, and even though labelled “bus” are also highly relevant to rail, both as regards improving ease of access to railway stations and providing local residents with less reason to own a car (and thus more reasons to use public transport). To make best use of rail’s typically longer operating hours extensions in bus operating hours are important.  The quantum of funding, however, still remains very much a challenge – bids from Local Authorities massively exceeds the funds allocated[15] and service levels will also be impacted by the end of Covid related funding.

A member comments “In Derby, only buses that go to the south side of the city call at the railway station.  For proper integration, all buses to each suburb should call at the station on their routes, if practicable…… The railway companies will not do it - especially because car parking is a higher priority as more people come to the station by car.  The bus companies will not do it because they carry far more passengers to the city centre shops than to the station.”  Whilst the status quo means that it is an activity that will need to be “persuasion” based, rather than “rules” based, staff that specifically champion investment and operational change that makes use of multiple modes of public transport (and active travel) would, we believe be worthwhile.  Our member in Derby called them “Public Transport Integration Officers”.

A key challenge is that Local Authority Boundaries and main public transport flows do not necessarily coincide.  In his evidence on 1 March, we were struck by Mark Hopwood’s comments on Bristol, whereby coordination is needed across four local authorities.  This can be a greater challenge where there is unitary authority structure, as each can be smaller.  A process that improves coordination and seamless delivery for the right geographies needs to be contemplated – substantively smaller than a Sub-National Transport Body, but covering multiple local authorities, some of whom might need to ‘join’ more than one cluster.

The National Infrastructure Commission has recently carried out investigation on the topic of local authority infrastructure spending and made recommendations to the government on this subject which we support and refer the committee to the work of the NIC on this topic.

6. Could better policy coordination across government departments, and between central and local government, improve public transport outcomes? If so, how can this be achieved?

Yes.

We believe the key is not to think of Public Transport as a standalone objective, but to consider it as part of a greater whole – indeed in two parts – movement and as part of prosperity, health and low carbon.

Movement

An unanswered question is how public transport will work with the personal vehicle.  A member comments “Might the introduction of the driverless car lead to ‘drivers’ wondering whether to use a bus or train instead?  Or will driverless cars actually be ‘driverless taxis’, ie once you get out, it is a waste to park the vehicle awaiting your return when it could more productively go and do the next job, for someone else?  What is the point of owning one?!  There could be benefits in reducing congestion and land-take for car parking, but they may also make ‘private’ motoring available to all, to the detriment of public transport and urban quality of life?”.

However, a credible consequence of our member’s description is that the cost of a personal vehicle is very much on a Pay as You Go basis, so the choice could become pay more for convenience or less for shared transport.  And more generally, linked to this is the matter of road pricing; this is likely to need to be addressed as the portion of personal vehicles on the road become electric and do not contribute to the tax take in the way hydro-carbon vehicles currently do.

A member provided us with the graph[16] on this page to show how the cost of public transport and motoring has diverged over the years to the detriment of public transport.  This is a consequence of differing approaches to inflation – Fuel Duty has been frozen, but Public Transport fares are linked to higher inflation measures, often with top ups.

It is also important to recognise that electric personal vehicles are almost certainly not the “Nirvana” that some advocate:

Finally, freight & deliveries in Cities and Towns could be made more efficient; it needs to continue to grow but gets in the way of public transport (deliveries hold up buses; freight capacity reduces paths for passenger rail services).

Prosperity, health and low carbon

As we researched this submission, we came across a New Scientist article which observed “Pedestrian-friendly cities have lower rates of diabetes and obesity ~ A review of 170 studies finds consistent evidence that people are less likely to be obese or have diabetes if they live in cities where walking and cycling is safe and convenient”[17].  To us, this is a great indicator of wider benefits – a city which supports active travel also encourages public transport – and saves money for the Health Service as well.

It is this sort of wider benefit that is not being taken in account and thus we have seen over recent years a very considerable divergence in the relative costs of public transport and of motoring – as illustrated above.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies comments “Driving imposes costs on wider society. According to government estimates, the biggest of these by far is congestion (80% of the total). Government estimates for 2015 suggest that each additional kilometre driven caused an average of 17p of societal harm”[18].

7. What are the barriers to improving urban public transport, in terms of delivering the necessary infrastructure, increasing connectivity and improving the consumer experience?

The main challenge is funding, and, as outlined in our response to question 6, that this funding is considered as for “delivering public transport” as a standalone objective.

8. Are there other important changes, not covered elsewhere in these questions, which would improve matters?

We draw the Committee’s attention to the current debate over the future of London’s Travelcard, with strong suggestions of its demise.  We are of the view that this a classic case of a decision being taken in isolation:

This approach of removing certainty and adding complexity is a classic example of why public transport gets used less.

March 2022

12

 

[1] The South East Northumberland Rail User Group; https://www.senrug.co.uk/blog/index.php/2022/01/18/morpeth-line-ahead/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/17/home-working-doubled-during-uk-covid-pandemic-last-year-mostly-in-london

[3] https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/personal-security/

[4] Railfuture response: https://railfuture.org.uk/display2929 ; About HERT: https://hertfordshire.gov.uk/hert

[5] http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/LR-UK-LightRailReport-An-investigation-into-the-economic-impacts-on-cities-of-investment-in-light-rail.pdf#page=8, https://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/news/articles/140623-light-rail-systems.html, https://bathtrams.uk/buses-have-a-much-lower-modal-shift-ie-attracting-car-drivers-capability-than-trams, (On Sheffield Trams) https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/network-rail-and-partners-launch-tram-train-pilot-learning-hub   

[6] https://uktram.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Draft_LightRailStrategy_UK.pdf#page=7

[7] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9456/

[8] https://www.halifax.co.uk/assets/pdf/february-2022-halifax-house-price-index.pdf “it’s notable that both areas benefit from greater availability of more rural, scenic living which has proven to be so popular amongst buyers throughout the pandemic.”

[9] https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/its-the-final-countdown-to-extra-rail-services-on-falmouth-branchline

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/apr/05/number-of-young-people-with-driving-licence-in-great-britain-at-lowest-on-record

[11] https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/wmg/research/hvmcatapult/research/rail/vlr/

[12] https://revolutionvlr.com/

[13] https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/publication/transforming-rail-travel-what-do-passengers-want/

[14] In Railfuture’s view, “Automatic” should be added to this requirement

[15] https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/70439/funding-for-buses-more-than-halved-to-1-4bn

[16] Motoring costs and earnings sources from ONS statistics (RPI all motoring costs (CHBK)) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/transport-expenditure-tsgb13 & https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/averageweeklyearningsearn01

[17] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2309343-pedestrian-friendly-cities-have-lower-rates-of-diabetes-and-obesity/

[18] https://ifs.org.uk/publications/14407