Transwatch “Fact Sheet” No

Transwatch “Fact Sheet” No. 11 – Various Claims

Journey Length

The DETR National Travel Survey 1997/9 provides journey length distributions. We found 50% of all surface rail journeys are less than 19 miles, 85% less than 52 miles, & 90% less than 80 miles. In contrast dividing passenger-km by passenger journeys from tables 5.11 & 9.2 of TSGB yields an average journey length of 41 km or 25 miles for national rail.

Ø The significance and purpose of these figures is unclear. Where are the road journey distances to compare? The average car journey is 8 miles. 50% of all bus journeys are estimated by the DfT to be on local buses - the average journey is 3 miles.

Speed

Future bus times and bus fares assume uncongested roads providing 65 mph average through to Euston.

Estimated express coach times are based on 60 or 65 mph average. (Railtrack used 65 mph at the Inquiry into West Coast Modernisation. Although speed for a HST is much faster than express coach, differences will be of little interest to most. The coach would offer a service frequency up to 10 times that of rail.

Ø This ‘uncongested’ route would face delays and accidents at thousands of flat junctions, right turns, and thousands of cross-roads & farm crossings from vehicles approaching randomly & interacting with his unscheduled buses.

Ø There is a huge difference between 65mph average on a train making multiple stops and a coach whose drivers have to load & unload luggage, & make comfort stops. 65mph average is unattainable on such a road, when PSVs are limited to 60mph maximum on motorways for safety reasons.

Ø Higher speeds increase maintenance costs. Market research showed that speed & comfort were important.

Ø Greater frequency will not compensate for lower speeds. Coach operators require advance booking. That is unlikely to change. It is crucial to fare levels. If passengers did not pre-book – as Conversionists claim – it is inevitable that many would have to wait for the next – or much later - bus.

Ø As proof that speeds would be better they claim no businesses or houses would have frontage access to the converted system. They then go on to claim financial gains from selling houses and land that adjoin the track, which would be unable to function without that frontage access!

Fares

Omitted from the data is a plethora of special offers for rail but no doubt the bus industry would offer the same as the market developed.

Ø If choice was only fare-based, there would be no Birmingham to London rail passengers! All would be on the motorway.

Ø Buses could offer a ‘plethora of fares’ now.

Ø Future bus fares & journey times are a guess - exactly half of those listed as current. There is no science, no timetable, no market research.

Ø Fares will not halve unless operating costs fall by a greater amount, for which no evidence is advanced.

Ø No company would invest on this basis.

Ø The reality is that with no rail competition, bus drivers’ hours would fall; wages would rise, leading to higher fares to cover higher costs & to maintain profits.

Ø Statements based on guesses are not ‘facts’ – they are unsubstantiated opinions.

Rail fares are up to 5 times as expensive as existing express coach fares, perhaps 10 times as expensive as would arise if coaches could used uncongested rights of way as do trains.

Ø His hero’s claims about lower bus fares in the Liverpool Street scheme are mathematically demolished in a recent book (Railway Conversion – the impractical dream).

Ø Converted railways would be congested if passengers transferred to cars in droves – not buses – as experience shows.

Ø The reality – which Conversionists obstinately refuse to accept - but which has been proved with every closure – is that passengers transfer to car not bus.

Ø An RAC Study revealed that for motorists, their second choice is rail, bus is third. The converse is obviously true.

Rail fares would have to at least double to eliminate subsidy from the taxpayer whilst buses are profitable despite paying substantial taxes.

Ø No study has been publicly published to prove that bus taxes cover their road costs. Studies of lorries showed that they did not, and the RHA admitted it reluctantly (see Railway Conversion – the ipractical dream, page 170).

Ø The only route study of rail conversion (which Transwatch praised) has been analysed in Railway Conversion – the impractical dream. The Study’s costs of bus operation & their effect on fares are exposed as seriously inaccurate. That bus service would require more subsidy than rail.

Seats

Express bus would be attractive except to those on immense salaries. Even they would probably prefer bus to the rail for all but the longest journeys. Certainly Commuters could all have seats.

Ø His ‘hero’ Edward Smith wrote (Journal of Transport Economics & Policy, Sept 1973): ‘there was no assumption peak bus passengers would be all seated.’ That would go down like a lead balloon.

Ø New York Transit Authority states passengers stand in peak buses on the much quoted NY bus lane.

Ø He assumes all passengers would transfer to bus, when 60 years experience of closures show that they mainly transfer to cars. See also RAC Study above.

Ø The claim that those ‘on immense salaries would prefer bus’ is clearly absurd. Obviously they would – in the absence of trains - go by chauffeur-driven limousine.

Fact Sheet 11’ is worthless.