Memorandum by David Starkie Esq (OPT 07)
OVERCROWDING ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Overcrowded commuter trains are now recognised
as a serious and immediate problem but it is not one that can
be easily addressed, at least in the short term, by more investment.
Adding line capacity to allow more trains to run at busy times
is exceedingly expensive. Attempting to add capacity by lengthening
train sets is also expensive, particularly when it is necessary
to modify stations and increase track power supply. In addition,
adding line capacity or lengthening trains can have important
repercussions for the main termini. Even with existing volumes,
serious problems occur at, for example, Victoria Station; the
number of passengers wishing to enter the Underground system during
the morning peak exceeds the stations safe capacity. Moreover,
any solutions along the preceding lines are also long-term solutions;
they would not relieve the problem in the immediate future.
The normal response of commercial markets to
circumstances where there is excess long-term (or recurrent peak
period) demand is to increase the price of the goods or for the
service concerned. The short-term responsiveness of demand to
price in the case of the commuter railway will be very low and,
therefore, it is likely that large increases in price would be
required to have a significant impact on relieving overcrowding.
Such price increases would be politically unacceptable. Even so,
the current regulation of standard fares and season tickets, whereby
these fares have been reduced in real terms in recent years, needs
to be reconsidered. A modest and gradual increase in real terms
might now be appropriate.
In view of the difficulties of a solution involving
long-term investment or significantly increasing prices, I would
like to suggest an alternative way in which the price system could
be used to help to alleviate the overcrowding problem. Paradoxically
it involves a reduced price for travel; it is to introduce the
concept of economy class into commuter rail travel. The concept
is set out at greater length in an Annex to this memorandum (co-authored
with Peter Kain, now with the Australian Bureaux of Transport
Economics)[1].
The essence of the approach is to convert part of an existing
train set to high-density accommodation especially for suburban
and mid-distance services. (Travel times on these services are
not too different from those experienced by commuters using London
Underground.) Importantly, this "Economy Class" would
be offered at a fare sufficiently discounted to divert passengers
to the purpose-designed carriage(s) (in much the same way that
reservation-only discount tickets shift travellers to less popular
trains for intercity travel). Standing, or a mix of standing and
lean-to seating, would be allowed only in this high-density part
of the train.
Passengers who remain in Standard or First Class
would also be better off. For once, they would be getting what
they paid for—a seat, without being hemmed in by a mass
of standees. So Economy Class, by offering a different quality
and fare combination and thus providing additional choice for
the passenger, improves the welfare of all travellers. It provides
the passenger with a better opportunity to match price with comfort,
whether seated or standing. Those using Economy would receive
a discount; those willing to pay for Standard (or First) Class
will get a decent seat.
Because converting existing carriages for high-density
occupancy, would involve reducing the area currently occupied
by seats, (the layout would be similar to the renovated standard
gauge stock on London Underground) this would also provide opportunities
for the more versatile use of space. For example, it offers the
opportunity to improve access for disabled persons and to provide
much needed space for cyclists and their equipment in off-peak
times.
The train operating companies would benefit
because the approach potentially, and also somewhat paradoxically,
increases the opportunities for revenue protection. Ticket inspectors
would be able to circulate in Standard and First Class coaches
without the hindrance of standing passengers. This would be less
true in Economy Class carriages. However, it could be argued that
there would be no need to inspect Economy Class tickets because
passengers in these carriages would be holding only discounted
tickets. (The issue is then whether passengers have a ticket at
all; the introduction of ticket barriers at many stations is ensuring
that this is the case.)
The proposal I am putting forward, namely the
introduction of an additional high-density class of travel at
a cheaper fare is, of course, a common practice in the airline
industry. A number of major airlines have in the last few years
introduced an additional class of travel so that many long-distance
flights now operate with four different classes. There are also
distinctions in the density of seating and fare levels between
charter airlines/low-cost carriers and the full-service airlines.
I am also mindful that there is substantial commuting by coach
into central London, particularly from north Kent, and this suggests
a willingness by some commuters to trade high density seating
for a lower fare.
A recent newsletter circulated to passengers
by Connex (Upfront Issue No 4) suggests that the London
Transport Users Committee might be receptive to ideas (page 6)
broadly along the lines set out above. The same newsletter suggests
that Connex is willing to keep an open mind on the possibility
of offering a discounted ticket to someone standing on the trains
(page 6). The suggestion for exclusive areas for standing passengers
makes it easier to do so.
December 2002
1 Not printed. Back
| 
