Memorandum by Paul Denyer Esq (OPT 02)
OVERCROWDING ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Thank you for the opportunity to make observations
on this subject. I am responding as a regular user of trains and
an occasional user of buses but also as a professional transport
planner with a keen interest in promoting greater use of public
transport for commuting and business journeys.
Firstly, we should understand the scale of the
problem. A number of commuter routes into the major conurbations
are notoriously overcrowded at peak times, with London the prime
example, but many routes are not yet at or even close to capacity.
However my experience suggests that the Train Operating Companies
are not planning for the future and indeed even on these routes
are tending to make matters worse rather than better. Recently
I have seen on lines local to Portsmouth well used but not crowded
three carriage slam door rolling stock replaced with new, smarter
two carriage units now running at capacity, or very close to it.
Whilst passengers benefit from air conditioning, for most people,
and particularly those that travel regularly, this will only be
of secondary importance to having a seat, preferably with space
to stretch one's legs. This seems to be an increasing trend and
does not bode well for the future.
Secondly, the design of new rolling stock appears
to ignore the fact that train passengers tend to travel with luggage,
whether this is a briefcase, suitcases or a pushchair. Storage
space is limited and inflexible, doors are often narrow and at
the extreme ends of the carriages meaning that the flexibility
of the much maligned slam door stock is a thing of the past. With
limited access points disembarking/embarking times are extended
encroaching into the very limited journey time improvements promised
of the new stock. One is tempted to say that the longer the train
(and by inference the busier the routes it serves) the smaller
and less convenient the access/egress arrangements.
Thirdly, efforts to reduce overcrowding should
not be at the expense of the wider integrated transport policy.
A number of train operators have been quite explicit that they
see the carriage of cycles on trains as onerous. However, this
is a short-sighted view. The provision of good quality, secure
cycle parking is only practical at larger, fully staffed stations.
Left on an unstaffed station any quality bicycle can be expected
to have a limited life expectancy and if those living in more
rural areas are to be encouraged to reduce their car dependency
then being able to take your cycle on the train is essential.
There is also an issue of integration. Cycle/train/cycle is a
near ideal multi modal trip where both origin and destination
are each within three miles (and sometimes up to five miles) of
a station—and it is exceptional for this not to be the case,
certainly in the south-east and the Midlands. To not have one's
cycle at the destination station means another mode change, more
expense and, unless the station is a major one, probably a wait
for a taxi to be despatched to the station.
Clearly the question of overcrowding must be
addressed, not just for present passengers but also to make rail
travel a more attractive alternative to entice potential passengers
from their cars. This could be by using longer trains or more
trains/services but probably a combination of both. Increasing
charges to existing passengers to fund this expansion, particularly
over the likely time span before measurable improvement would
be seen off the premium corridors, is likely to prove counter-productive
in the light of recent government figures that have shown the
real costs of rail travel double over the last 30 years whilst
car ownership and use costs have actually fallen in real term.
Logically funding must be found elsewhere which inevitably leads
one towards traffic charging (preferably through the more flexible
and equitable mechanism of workplace parking charges) as both
generating a new revenue stream whilst working towards balancing
the costs between the alternative modes.
I look forward to seeing the results of the
Committee's deliberations in due course.
December 2002
|
