Written evidence from Passenger Focus
(TE 17)
SUMMARY
Rail passengers' top three priorities for improvement
in Britain are value for money, punctuality and service frequency.
Punctuality is the single biggest driver of overall satisfaction
with rail services, while the biggest driver of dissatisfaction
is the way that the industry manages delays.
Bus passengers' top three priorities for improvement
in England (outside London) are punctuality, frequency and getting
a seat. There is a wide variation in the factors which have the
most impact on the satisfaction of bus passengers from one area
to another.
We do not believe it is our role to tell elected
representatives how much of taxpayers' money should be spent on
public transport, or how to divide the public contribution between
rail and bus subsidy. However, we do feel it is appropriate to
set out where passengers would like those budgets to be spent
and to alert the Committee to the likely consequences of reductions
in public support.
Passengers do not exist in a vacuum. They know that
tough decisions on public spending are having to be made and that
transport will not be immune. However, as the Eddington[29]
report made clear, transport is essential to the economic well-being
of the country. Rail and, in particular, bus travel, also deliver
a range of social benefits.
In the rail sector demand has already returned to
pre-recession levels and is forecast to double within the next
20 years. Rail plays an essential role in driving sustainable
economic growth both in terms of commuting into urban areas and
also through providing good connections between regions. Catering
for this demand requires continued long-term investment. A significant
reduction in spending will clearly have an impact on rail passengers
both now and in the future.
A withdrawal or significant reduction of public subsidy
for bus services could be bad news for passengers, since it would
almost inevitably lead to service cuts and fare rises. If reductions
prove necessary, bus operators and local authorities should consult
on proposals and explain decisions. Government should place conditions
on recipients of public funding to account to passengers and taxpayers
for the outcomes achieved on their behalf.
INTRODUCTION
Passenger Focus is the independent statutory watchdog
for Britain's rail passengers and, since February 2010 for bus,
coach and tram passengers in England (outside London, where passengers
are represented by London TravelWatch).
The first part of our evidence summarises passengers'
priorities for improvement on rail and bus, and what drives satisfaction
levels. The second part addresses the likely impact of cuts in
public subsidy on passengers and the best way to protect passengers'
interests.
RAIL PASSENGERS'
PRIORITIES AND
DRIVERS OF
SATISFACTION
As part of its input into DfT's High Level Output
Specification (HLOS) process Passenger Focus commissioned research
into passenger priorities for improvement. Around 4000 passengers
were asked to rank 30 different aspects of rail travel[30].
The work was repeated in 2009[31].
The table below shows the top ten priorities in 2009
compared to 2007. It also shows the relative importance of each
attribute ranking relative to punctuality - the higher the score,
the greater priority passengers assign to that service aspect.
| Rail Service Improvement Preference
| 2007 | 2009 |
2009 "Score" |
| Price of train tickets offer excellent value for money
| 1 | 1 | 1.08
|
| At least 19 out of 20 trains arrive on time
| 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Sufficient train services at times I use the train
| 2 | 3 | 0.98
|
| Passengers are always able to get a seat on the train
| 4 | 4 | 0.86
|
| Company keeps passengers informed if train delays
| 5 | 5 | 0.79
|
| Information on train times/platforms accurate and available
| 7 | 6 | 0.75
|
| Maximum queue time no more than 2 mins |
6 | 7 | 0.69 |
| Trains consistently well maintained/ excellent condition
| 8 | 8 | 0.69
|
| Seating area on the train is very comfortable
| 9 | 9 | 0.67
|
| Station staff are available whenever required
| 17 | 10 | 0.67
|
In the 2009 research there were three clear priorities for improvement:
value for money, punctuality and service frequency. These, coupled
with seats/capacity in fourth place, emphasise the continued importance
passengers place on the "core product".
Passenger Focus also conducts the National Passenger Survey (NPS).
We consult over 50,000 passengers a year to produce a network-wide
picture of passengers' satisfaction with rail travel.
Multivariate analysis of the overall satisfaction and dissatisfaction
scores reveals that punctuality is the single biggest driver of
overall satisfaction, while the biggest driver of dissatisfaction
is the way that the industry manages delays. This means that the
best way to improve overall passenger satisfaction is to get the
trains to run on time. This again emphasises the importance of
the 'core product'.
BUS PASSENGERS'
PRIORITIES AND
DRIVERS OF
SATISFACTION
In March 2010 Passenger Focus published a report on a survey of
over 3,800 bus passengers in England outside London[32].
This provides an indication of bus passengers' investment
priorities.
The table below shows the top ten priorities at the end of 2009.
More punctual buses is passengers' top priority, while more frequent
services going to a wider range of destinations and cheaper fares
are very important. Getting a seat also matters, although most
passengers seem not to be experiencing difficulties at the moment.
Interestingly, passengers placed a very high priority on flexible,
multi-operator tickets.
| Bus Service Improvement Preference |
2009 |
| More buses are on time or within five minutes of when they are scheduled to arrive
| 1 |
| Buses run more frequently at times when you want to use the bus
| 2 |
| All passengers are able to get a seat on the bus for the duration of the journey
| 3 |
| Tickets and passes are available that entitle you to travel on all buses in your local area, not just those operated by a specific bus company
| 4 |
| Buses go to a wider range of destinations in your local area
| 5 |
| Bus fares, tickets and passes offer better value for money
| 6 |
| All drivers are helpful and have a positive attitude
| 7 |
| Accurate timetable and route information is available at all bus stops
| 8 |
| Tickets and passes are available that entitle you to travel on all types of public transport in your local area, not just buses
| 9 |
| All bus stops have a well-maintained shelter
| 10 |
There is a wide disparity between the views of paying passengers
and those travelling on free bus passes. Both groups placed high
importance on improving punctuality and getting a seat. Inevitably,
those travelling on free passes were relatively unconcerned about
fares and tickets, focusing more on features such as waiting facilities
and low-floor buses, which may reflect their tendency to be more
physically frail, as well as helpful and positive drivers. Unsurprisingly,
paying passengers highlighted cheaper tickets as a priority for
improvement.
It is also interesting to note some significant regional variations.
For example, cheaper tickets are a relatively higher priority
in the South West and the South East; personal security is a key
issue in the West Midlands and the North West; and helpful drivers
are regarded as more important in the North East and the South
West. In the South East in particular, passengers want better
information at bus stops - route maps, timetables and real-time
information about when the next bus will be arriving.
Using the same multivariate analysis of the overall bus passenger
satisfaction and dissatisfaction scores as we have adopted on
the rail side, reveals significant local differences between areas.
For example, the five factors which have the greatest impact on
passengers' overall satisfaction with their bus journey in Brighton
and Hove, in order of impact are: length of time the journey took;
appropriateness of the speed; length of time spent waiting for
the bus; smoothness and freedom from jolting during the journey;
and helpfulness and attitude of the driver. By contrast, the factors
with the most impact in Cumbria are: electronic information showing
the time of the next bus; value for money; length of time the
journey took; comfort of the seats; and information provided on
the outside of the bus (route number and destination).
RAIL—WHAT
TYPE OF
SPENDING TO
PRIORITISE
Passenger Focus has commissioned some initial work on deciding
where rail spending should be best targeted in this difficult
economic period. While the initial findings must be treated with
caution due to the small sample size they are based on, some broad
themes did emerge:
- Capital investment projects should be deferred until more
funding is available — the current budget should protect
current services.
- The prospect of fare increases was strongly resisted, especially
if these were in addition to the standard annual rises that participants
already experience.
- Potential changes to the frequency and punctuality of current
services was strongly resisted by commuters who had built their
lives around train times and frequencies. Participants felt peak
services were already under severe strain and changes would not
be tolerated. To a degree these represent captive markets.
- There was tacit admission that speed of services was of less
importance than other core service factors. So, improvements to
journey times could potentially be delayed. Other, "softer"
aspects of service provision might be altered as a compromise
eg station cleaning, staffing levels (assuming more fundamental
moves towards smart ticketing), and off-peak service frequencies.
It is clear from our research that passengers' priorities centre
on the provision of an affordable, punctual and frequent service.
We feel that Government spending on rail should focus on these
priorities.
It has been suggested by some in the industry that it is impracticable
to go much beyond current levels of punctuality and that investment
required to do so could be better spent improving some other aspect
of the railway. Passenger Focus welcomes the continued improvement
in punctuality across the network — though there are still
pockets of poor performance that need to be addressed, but is
concerned at the argument that punctuality targets should be "frozen".
The existing measure of punctuality (PPM) classes a train as on
time if it arrives within five minutes (for shorter distance services)
and 10 minutes (longer-distance) of its scheduled arrival time.
However, research by Passenger Focus[33]
found commuters appear to notice lateness from the first minute,
not just after five minutes or 10 minutes allowed by PPM, with
levels of satisfaction dropping accordingly. This gap between
PPM and passengers' own experience of delay also reflects the
way in which punctuality is calculated. For example, punctuality
is only reported at the final destination rather than at intermediate
points and so ultimately records the delay to the train rather
than the passenger — eg a passenger could have been 15 minutes
late at the point he/she got off but the train may have made up
time later on and arrived "on time" — in such
circumstances the passenger was late but the train was on-time.
In a time of spending cuts it is inevitable that rail fares will
also come under some scrutiny, with parts of the industry arguing
that removing fare regulation and moving to airline style pricing
models allows better utilisation of capacity (particularly during
the "shoulder peak" period). We believe this misses
two fundamental points:
i. Captive consumers.
Many commuters have little (or limited) ability to change travel
patterns in response to rising fares. Such decisions are often
tied into longer-term choices on where to work or live. Some may
be able to change modes of travel but others, especially when
commuting into London, have little in the way of a viable alternative.
Increasing commuting fares can, therefore, lead to either an increase
in car use or the passenger having no option but to bear the cost
in the short to medium term. Where competition within an industry
is insufficient to control price then it is important that the
market is regulated to stop captive consumers being exploited.
ii. Railways are not airlines
Our fares and ticketing study[34]
showed that Great Britain benefits from some of the most frequent
services in Europe. The benefits of this are lost if you are tied
to a specific train. Turn-up-and-go frequencies do not align themselves
well to airline style book-ahead restrictions. Not everyone is
able, or wants, to plan their precise train journey weeks or days
in advance.
Passengers understand that tough decisions on public spending
are having to be made and that transport will not be immune. However,
it is widely acknowledged that costs within the industry are too
high and that it is still not as efficient as it should be. For
example:
- Opportunities for greater synergies between renewals and enhancement
work.
- Generating additional demand by reducing engineering possessions.
- Increasing demand and promoting long-term benefits by aligning
industry incentives.
We also believe that some of the rigidities in the existing fares
structure, and the complexities surrounding its use, suppress
existing demand and revenues. There is a clear sense from passengers
that the industry must look to address these before thinking about
passing any of the "pain" onto passengers in the form
of higher fares or a reduction in services.
BUS—WHAT
TYPE OF
SPENDING TO
PRIORITISE
All bus passengers rely on punctual, frequent and reasonably priced
services. These are at least partly dependent on public subsidy.
A withdrawal or significant reduction of public subsidy could
be bad news for passengers, since it would almost inevitably lead
to service cuts and fare rises. There is a risk of a double whammy
for passengers as local authorities are also making tough decisions
on spending and tendered services are already being trimmed back.
Buses serving the edges of cities and towns and rural areas will
be under most threat. Smaller operators making more modest profits
are likely to come under severe pressure and have less room for
manoeuvre.
It is in passengers' long-term interests to have bus companies
making healthy profits, but some of those profits must be used
to help fund improvements to services. However, all operators
must justify why they need to cut or reduce services. In the absence
of a clear explanation for changes to services, the arguments
for quality contracts and partnerships are likely to become more
compelling.
Although naturally we would prefer it if Government were able
to maintain current levels of support for the bus industry, we
are realistic. We recognise that public finances are constrained
and likely to remain so. If all areas of public spending have
to contribute to repaying public debt, it would be understandable
if Government wished to see a proportionate reduction in real
terms public spending on buses.
However, any changes to public subsidy for bus services must be
very carefully thought through and consulted on. Bus services
are local and should be determined locally. Local authorities
and operators should consult users. They should do so while plans
are at a formative stage, providing local people with a rationale
for their proposals, and alternative options. They should provide
feedback once they have analysed the responses, explaining their
decisions.
Any reductions in BSOG should be phased in to give bus operators,
local authorities and passenger transport executives the time
they need to do this effectively.
BSOG should be looked at in the context of all public funding
for buses and what it is designed to achieve. Taken as a whole,
taxpayer support for buses is considerable. Government should
place certain conditions on recipients of this money to account
to passengers and taxpayers for the outcomes achieved on their
behalf.
Patronage figures are a poor measure of success, since they are
likely to reflect external factors such as an expansion or contraction
in the economy. Unless very carefully designed, an Incentive Per
Passenger scheme risks skewing resources away from rural and edge
of town services which may be performing well but which are unable
to attract passengers in the same numbers as major routes in urban
centres.
Instead, the outcomes sought by Government should be closely linked
to passenger priorities and to delivering improvements to passenger
satisfaction levels.
We acknowledge the risk of Government being overly prescriptive.
We are not advocating central target setting. However, it is important
that the Government knows what it is getting for its money, and
that passengers have the information they need to hold their bus
operators and local authorities to account. As a minimum, this
should include accurate figures for the punctuality of bus services,
disaggregated down to an appropriate level, and figures for overall
passenger satisfaction and the satisfaction of fare-paying passengers
with the value for money of their bus services. Government spends
a lot of money on behalf of taxpayers and passengers supporting
bus services; it should demand more in exchange. Now is a perfect
time to introduce such a requirement.
As an immediate way forward, we would recommend trialling the
independent collection and publication of passenger satisfaction
and bus punctuality data on a sample of routes in some of the
country's big cities, prior to a wider national roll-out.
September 2010
29
Eddington Study. December 2006. Back
30
Passengers' priorities for improvements in rail services. July
2007. Back
31
Passengers' priorities for improvements in rail services. March
2010. Back
32
Bus passenger priorities for improvement. March 2010. Back
33
Towards a "right time" East Anglian railway. Passenger
Focus March 2010 Back
34
Fares and Ticketing Study. Passenger Focus. 2009. Back
| 
