Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence


APPENDIX 2

Memorandum submitted by Railfuture

  Since we are primarily a pro rail group, albeit with interests in public transport as a whole, we will confine this submission to issues that are related to rail transport.

DEREGULATION AND INTEGRATION

  Railfuture has always campaigned for properly integrated bus and rail services with bus routes arranged to include railway stations wherever possible with integrated fares and timetables as can be found in Switzerland, for example.

  Although there are some such successful examples in the UK, they remain haphazard and seem more likely to be found where the local bus operator is also the rail franchisee and it would appear that bus service deregulation has presented barriers to a nationwide integrated system.

  Rail privatisation has not helped either, as franchises are renewed there may be a loss of continuity of such service provision.

  The importance of integration cannot be over emphasised and the sooner the DfT is able to regard bus and rail services as complimentary to each other rather than one as an alternative to the other, the sooner we may start to see progress.

  Except in London, where a large measure of consistency has been maintained, deregulation has led to confusion as new routes have appeared on a trial basis, some with success, but most disappearing soon after and where familiar route numbers either vanish or no longer relate to their original points of origin or destination, this is hardly surprising.

  It would seem clear that this is the principal reason for the continued decline in bus patronage outside London.

  The success of the London franchise system would therefore appear to present the model for the rest of the country but integration with rail services would also help to increase patronage as a whole.

PRIORITY MEASURES

  We would agree that bus priority measures such as road space allocated for exclusive bus use and priority at traffic light controlled road junctions are an essential element for increasing bus service reliability and ridership, particularly where services may be integrated with rail.

CONCESSIONARY FARES

  Although free local public transport nationally for pensioners and the disabled is to be welcomed, we view the exclusion of rail services from the scheme with some concern.

  As proposed, there will be considerable abstraction of passengers from rail services, making local train services even more dependent on public subsidy than they are at present.

  As an example, Nexus, the Tyne & Wear Metro operators, have pointed out that if they retain their already low concessionary fare for Metro services, the loss of passengers due to free bus services will cause a loss of Metro revenue amounting to about £1.8 million per year.

  Conversely, if they scrap the Metro concessionary fare to match the free buses, their costs will rise by a similar amount of £1.8 million.

  Additionally, it has already been noted that these proposals also present problems for other supported bus services such as school travel as the Government grant of an additional £350 million is likely to prove inadequate.

  Clearly, a lot more work needs to be done before proposals for free concessionary travel are implemented in 2008 and it is of interest that at the recent Railfuture Annual General Meeting, a motion calling for a study into extension of this scheme to cover local and regional rail services was approved overwhelmingly.

  More alarmingly, the recent Department for Transport consultation on rail closures procedures made it clear that the Government is inclined toward replacing some rail services with buses as it regards them as cheaper.

  Whilst it is acknowledged that the average subsidy per bus passenger is around half that for rail passengers, albeit with wide regional variations, this simplistic view fails to acknowledge that, in terms of distance, the average train journey is about five times longer, and quicker, than the average bus journey and is also more likely to achieve modal switch from the car.

  Recent studies also indicate that buses enjoy significantly subsidised access to the road network and fail to meet their true track costs. On balance, therefore, subsidies for rail services may well provide better value for money and this should be borne in mind under the concessionary fares proposals.

  We would, therefore, support the idea of a nationwide version of the London Freedom Card, perhaps means tested as not all pensioners are unable to pay a fare rate for travel and there may be an overcrowding issue generated by free travel for all, whether by bus or train or both.

  Alternatively, the existing Senior Rail Card could be made available free of charge to all senior citizens and the scope of the card extended to include all bus services, instead of free local bus travel, and the discount rate raised above the present 33%.

  This would be more manageable than the present proposals for free local bus travel and more likely to achieve modal switch from the car and ease road congestion.

17 May 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 26 October 2006