Aside from the current high speed rail debate there are several other pressing policy areas affecting the railways as they are now, and top of that list is rail fares.
There is a philosophical schism between those who consider that the railways should not be a burden on tax revenue and those that think the railways should be treated, and paid for, as a public good. At present the cost of the railways is pretty much equally split between fare revenue and revenue from taxpayers.
The railway network in Britain has been a real success story throughout its history and we should talk it up rather than castigate it. It began as a Victorian marvel, a truly British engineering feat that led the world. It is now a victim of its own success as an effective and popular means of travel across the country that huge numbers of us rely on in our daily lives.
Even during this most recent recession passenger numbers have continued to climb year on year. But the current government’s orthodoxy is to increasingly use those passengers to pay for the maintenance and development of the rail network through inflation-busting fare rises.
When rail fares start climbing steeply (as they currently are) then the growth in rail patronage will turn into a decline as people are priced back into their cars – with the obvious negative environmental and congestion impacts that this will bring. Why is this desirable? Philosophically, this is a sop to those that want less government, less tax and can afford their means of transport come what may. The railway network provides the ability for any of us to commute quickly and easily, to get across the country comfortably, to visit friends and family or to do business conveniently. Railways connect us and help us in so many aspects of life. This significant and broad range of roles the railway plays for so many of us is exactly why it should be viewed as a public good that should be supported by the taxpayer through government support and investment.
Fares should be simplified for the benefit of passengers. The current complex system of fares is unnecessarily unfriendly to passengers and the example Chiltern Railways have recently set with their simplified fare structure is to be lauded and encouraged. Passengers are being overcharged for train travel compared to the rest of the world, particularly with the massive peak commuter demand which has created huge ‘shoulders’, whereby demand is immense either side of the peak time when the fares are more affordable.
Rail fares are a crucial mechanism for managing passenger demand. At present, there are examples of higher fares being used to price demand off the railway at certain times on certain routes. Conversely, managing fares at a reasonable level can stimulate demand. Increased demand can bring sustained growth in fare revenue and would also, crucially, secure the case for further investment to increase capacity as well as quality and reliability. This is key in two ways:
- Increased demand for rail travel will make a much stronger case for public investment in improving the network.
- That increased demand can bring predictable long-term revenue through fares and also support planned investment in a wider range of services, retail, parking and more around stations that can bring supporting additional investment and mutual benefits.
Increased rail usage also brings environmental advantages; recognising that the demand for travel will continue to grow we need to focus transport policy on ensuring that all additional journeys are made by public transport rather than by car if we want to ensure sustainable growth.
Furthermore, the success of the rail network is linked with the economic growth prospects and success for towns, cities and regions. Businesses locate to well-connected sites; a key factor is also the accessibility of a significant and sufficient pool of labour. People need to get to work easily and affordably. Which is why the railways are a public good. If we see our railways in the light of the support they give to UK plc then it is easier to comprehend why they should be supported by everyone as we all benefit from the prosperity that the railways bring.
—————————————————————————————
Alex Burrows is head of strategy at Centro (the West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority) and member of Sutton Coldfield CLP. He writes here in a personal capacity
—————————————————————————————
Photo: Son of Groucho
Is Chilterns approach really to be lauded, Alex? They have actually increased fares on that route but in doing so simplified them. You can have simple fares, all nicely rounded up and at a median price, or a more flexible system offering a range from very cheap (which 80% of people use at the moment, to very expensive (which about 3% of people use now – that’s how many pay the full fare. Which is it to be?
Pointless argument – fares are high because privatisation has cost the railways about £3 billion per year. Until you reverse that fares will always be high.
hi, thanks for the comments, to briefly respond my argument is that greater rail patronage will have 2 key effects:
1. a more visible reliance on the railways as supporting economic growth and access to employment (i.e. fighting back against the road lobby who have huge influence); i am always amazed at how little people seem to care about rail apart from the overarching debate of privatisation, we rely on the railways hugely and it has a significant impact on our quality of life as well as our jobs and education etc etc – fares are high in part because none has made the case as to why we should lower fares to increase patronage and plan for that huge growth through real railway development with a long term strategy (and thus explicitly say that the roads lobby should be the one to manage pragmatically while rail gets investment rather than vice versa)
2. by growing rail demand it becomes easier to make the business case successfully for a significant uplift in rail capacity and network development. the sheer cost of rail means big projects are far harder to justify than equivalent investments in not just roads but across public spending – look at high speed rail!
however, these arguments have been played out and won in london with crossrail, the jubilee line extension, and thameslink, and potentially with the northern line extension to battersea…
in terms of chiltern, i do consider that simplified fare structures are crucial – the customer should not have to plan rail travel with such complexity given you can just jump in a car and go. and the use of the strict conditions train operators have is a bar to flexibility. i recognise that there has been an element of fares rises by chiltern but the customers have given their view with widespread support and many people using the flexibility in those fare structures – and that includes me and my team at work.