As citizens of the USA prepare to commemorate Thanksgiving
later this week, those helpful people at the Institute of Economic Affairs
(IEA) have brought forth a turkey of magnificent proportions in
the shape of a “Discussion Paper”
entitled “Transport
Infrastructure: Adding Value”, authored by one David Starkie. It claims
to be “peer-reviewed by at least one academic
or researcher who is an expert in the field”.
More standing room: London Overground train sets at Highbury and Islington
One can only guess which field that reviewer was standing in
when he checked Starkie’s work over: a glance at the ideas being put forward
for getting more out of passenger rail capacity show all too clearly a lack of
understanding of the economics involved, an ignorance of the commuter rail
experience today, and a willingness to make spurious comparisons with other
transport modes.
Take this opener: “The
public sector should learn from the continual experimentation of the private
sector and address the quality issue by exploring the different preferences
that travellers have for different attributes of the transport service.
Consequently, when adding capacity, it should offer travellers a choice of
different price-quality bundles, in the manner of the de-regulated aviation
sector”.
So train operators should be free to limit capacity to the
number of seats available, set draconian limits on accompanying luggage, and
then put on and take off routes on a whim without being too fussed about
punters’ travel plans? Because that’s the reality of carriers like Ryanair. But
do go on: “Rail commuters, for example,
could be given more choice regarding the quality of service and the cost of
fares”.
And how would that one work? “An additional high-density ‘economy class’ section could be introduced
on commuter trains, access to which would be priced during the peak at a large
discount to current fares. From the resource cost point of view, there would be
more passengers on a standard- length train without the recourse to high levels
of taxpayer-funded investment in expensive new infrastructure”.
OK, now I’ve read enough of this rubbish. So it’s time to
put Starkie and the IEA straight. Many trains already have higher density
layouts: new trains for London Overground are laid out not unlike tube trains,
to get more standing room. This is fine because of the comparatively short
distances travelled. Other operators have removed some seats to provide more
standing room.
Then there are high density interiors with 3+2 seating. All
are already in service, and tailored to get the most out of train capacity –
while considering the length of journey that will be undertaken. Whole train
sets are thus configured – this ensures economies of scale for fitting,
maintenance and cleaning. This is the reality of commuter travel throughout the
world today.
That, IEA people, is the real
world. The one you would do well to join
sometime.
And to add to the point about the 3+2 seating configuration: this is already in use on the London Midland services out of Euston. In spite of this, load factor still goes up to 162% on some services. (This will be temporarily relieved next year when 110 mph trains allow a few extra trains to be squeezed in, but it won't be long before growth swamps that extra capacity.) HS2 will relieve this be allowing the southern end of the WCML to be dedicated to more stopping services whilst long-distance mostly uses the new line. You might get some more capacity by turning seats over to standing, but everyone standing for at least half an hour? You've got to be joking.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember, folk, most antis quite happily cozy up to the IEA, whose anti-rail agenda is always this blatant. We really need to get the message across that groups such as StopHS2 and HS2AA are no friends of rail passengers. Not long distance passengers, not commuters, not wealthy passengers, not hard-up passengers. Antis who claim they have the interests of ordinary commuters at heard are either lying or gullible.
(And that's before we move on the the discrepancy between StopHS2's claims they're standing up for notherners and their best mates in IEA decrying the entire north as subsidised and unproductive and calling for government jobs to be relocated to London.)