Management Objectives for Local Rail Services.

This is a repository copy of

Management Objectives for Local Rail Services.

.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2399/

Monograph:

Hartley, T.M. and Nash, C.A. (1980) Management Objectives for Local Rail Services.

Working Paper. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds , Leeds, UK.

Working Paper 132

[email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse

See Attached Takedown

If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by

White Rose Research Online

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/

Institute of Transport Studies

University of Leeds

This is an ITS Working Paper produced and published by the University of

Leeds. ITS Working Papers are intended to provide information and encourage

discussion on a topic in advance of formal publication. They represent only the

views of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views or approval of the

sponsors.

White Rose Repository URL for this paper:

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/

2399/

Published paper

Hartley, T.M. and Nash, C.A. (1980)

Management Objectives for Local Rail

Services.

Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Working Paper 132

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR

LOCAL RAIL SERVICES

by

T.

M. Hartley and C. A. Nash

Working Papers are inffsndsd to promid8 information and smourags dtscus&on on a topic in advams of formal publication. They reprsssnff onZg the dews of the authors and do not nsceesariZg repscf the a h OF appromaZ of the sponsers.

Working Paper

132

1980

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR LOCAL RAIL SERVICES

by

ABSTRACT

HARTLEY, T.M. and C.A. NASH (1980) Management o b j e c t i v e s f o r l o c a l r a i l s e r v i c e s . Leeds: Univ. Leeds, I n s t . Transp. Stud., Work. Paper 132

Using h i e r a r c h i c a l l o g i t modal s p l i t models, and t r i p data from West Yorkshire, t h e e f f e c t s of pursuing a number of d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t i n g s t r a t e g i e s f o r l o c a l r a i l s e r v i c e s were analysed. These were judged a g a i n s t two p o s s i b l e management o b j e c t i v e s which railway o p e r a t o r s might be s e t , t o f i n d which p o l i c i e s b e s t served each o b j e c t i v e .

The more pragmatic o b j e c t i v e of maximising r a i l passenger-

km. t u r n e d out t o give s i m i l a r p o l i c y implications t o an o b j e c t i v e of maximising s o c i a l b e n e f i t . These w e r e d t h a t both o b j e c t i v e s could b e s t be s a t i s f i e d by a combination of lower f a r e s and replacement of l i g h t l y loaded s e r v i c e s by express bus. Conclusions on frequencies were l e s s c l e a r c u t , but it appeared t h a t very high e l a s t i c i t i e s would be required t o j u s t i f y peak frequencies above t h e minimum necessary t o cope with t h e t r a f f i c . The major d i f f e r e n c e between t h e o b j e c t i v e s came i n t h e treatment of off-peak r a i l f a r e s , where reductions could b r i n g l a r g e r i n c r e a s e s i n passenger kilometres but s i m i l a r o r smaller s o c i a l b e n e f i t s p e r pound t o peak reductions.

CONTENTS

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. The Modelling Approach

3.

Resource requirements

4.

Cost, revenue and benefit estimation

5.

Policies tested and their evaluation

a) Changes in rail fares

b) Changes involving Metrocard

c) Changes in rail service frequencies d) Replacing lightly loaded services

with Express Bus Services

6.

General implications of results

7.

Comparisons with results for other services

8.

Conclusions

References

Acknowledgements

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR LOCAL R A I L SERVICES

1. INTRODUCTION

A s p a r t of an SSRC-sponsored p r o j e c t on management o b j e c t i v e s and

methods of f i n a n c e f o r r a i l t r a n s p o r t , a d e t a i l e d study has been made

of t h e e f f e c t s of following a range of d i f f e r e n t p o l i c y o p t i o n s f o r

l o c a l r a i l s e r v i c e s , taking West Yorkshire a s a case study a r e a . Most

a t t e n t i o n was paid t o t h e s e s e r v i c e s ( r a t h e r than t o I n t e r C i t y and

London and t h e South E a s t ) f o r two main reasons :-

1) The ready a v a i l a b i l i t y of data f o r a l l modes of t r a n s p o r t i n West Yorkshire, p r i m a r i l y from t h e WYTCONSULT surveys of 1975.

This has permitted a more d e t a i l e d measurement of t h e s o c i a l

c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of d i f f e r e n t p o l i c i e s f o r t h e s e s e r v i c e s

t h a n f o r t h e o t h e r s e r v i c e groups.

2 ) The r e l a t i v e l a c k of knowledge of p r i c e and q u a l i t y e l a s t i c i t i e s

of demand f o r l o c a l p r o v i n c i a l s e r v i c e s . By c o n t r a s t , a

considerable amount of work has been undertaken r e c e n t l y on

I n t e r C i t y and London and South East s e r v i c e s , which has

provided parameters which can be incorporated i n t o models of

t h e s e s e c t o r s .

It should be noted t h a t we were concerned t o t e s t t h e consequences

of a l t e r n a t i v e simple o b j e c t i v e s using conventional techniques a p p l i e d

t o t h e s e s e r v i c e s purely a s a case study. The important p o l i t i c a l ,

s o c i a l and i n s t i t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s which determine a c t u a l p o l i c y making

a r e not considered i n t h i s paper, which i s not intended t o comment

d i r e c t l y on t h e p o s i t i o n i n West Yorkshire. I n any event, our d a t a and

conclusions r e l a t e t o t h e p o s i t i o n i n 1975, p r i o r t o t h e signing of t h e

Section 20 agreement under which t h e P.T.E. i s now r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f a r e s and s e r v i c e l e v e l s on t h e s e s e r v i c e s .

2. THE MODELLING APPROACH

Given t h e importance of n o n - l i n e a r i t i e s and i n d i v i s i b i l i e s i n t h e

c o s t and demand f u n c t i o n s faced by r a i l o p e r a t o r s , it was not considered

f e a s i b l e t o produce a single-mathematical model which could be optimised

with respect t o t h e d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e s s e l e c t e d . I n s t e a d , t h e

s e r v i c e l e v e l s f o r t h e s e r v i c e s under consideration, and t o c o s t

s e p a r a t e l y t h e s p e c i f i c changes i n s e r v i c e l e v e l s and t r a f f i c implied

by each policy.

For t h e l o c a l s e r v i c e s , d i f f e r e n t techniques were employed f o r

f o r e c a s t i n g peak (predominantly journey t o work) and off-peak t r i p s .

For t h e peak t r i p s ,

a

d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of t h e s p l i t of t r i p s between modes was considered necessary, because it was assumed t h a t most

changes i n r a i l t r a f f i c would be d i v e r t e d to/from o t h e r modes. Also

t h i s was necessary t o examine changes i n s o c i a l c o s t s due t o congestion.

Data were a v a i l a b l e from t h e WYTCONSULT surveys on peak c a r , bus and

r a i l t r i p s a t an aggregate zonal l e v e l , which were used t o c a l i b r a t e

models o f mode choice i n t h e county. D e t a i l s o f t h e d a t a and model

s t r u c t u r e s e l e c t e d a r e given i n Hartley and Ortuzar, 1980, but

b a s i c a l l y t h e model followed a h i e r a r c h i c a l l o g i t s t r u c t u r e . I n t h i s ,

t r i p s were f i r s t s p l i t between bus and r a i l . A b i n a r y l o g i t form of model was used i n each of t h e s e two s t a g e s t o c a l i b r a t e models from

t h e survey r e s u l t s . T r i p c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were represented by g e n e r a l i s e d

c o s t , which f o r c a r included network time, perceived operating c o s t

divided by average occupancy and parking charges. For p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t

t h e components were f a r e s , in-vehicle time, and walking and waiting

time (both weighted r e l a t i v e t o in-vehicle t i m e ) .

It was found t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n g e n e r a l i s e d c o s t s gave t h e b e s t

model fit f o r s h o r t t r i p s , and t h e r a t i o of g e n e r a l i s e d c o s t s was b e s t

f o r long t r i p s , (Hartley, 1979b). T r i p making data was a l s o disaggregated

by household c a r ownership, i n t o 0, 1 and 2+ c a r s per household with t h e dividion by d i s t a n c e , t h i s gave s i x s e p a r a t e data s e t s , f o r each of

which, models were c a l i b r a t e d using t h e WYTCONSULT data. The goodness

of fit of t h e r e s u l t i n g s e t of models i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 1. It w i l l be seen t h a t t r i p t o t a l s by mode a r e c l o s e l y reproduced, b u t t h a t

t h e r e i s some tendency f o r t h e models t o over-allocate longer t r i p s t o

bus and s h o r t e r t r i p s t o r a i l and c a r . Nevertheless, it was f e l t t o be

s u f f i c i e n t l y a c c u r a t e f o r t h e s o r t of broad s t r a t e g i c i s s u e s with which

we were concerned.

To i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e f f e c t s of changing t h e r a i l o p e r a t i o n (e.g. by

a l t e r i n g f a r e s o r f r e q u e n c i e s ) , it was assumed t h a t t o t a l peak t r i p s

c o s t s t o r e f l e c t t h e change, t h e t o t a l t r i p s were divided between c a r

and public t r a n s p o r t , and then between bus and r a i l ( a l l i n t h e s i x

c a t e g o r i e s described above). F i n a l l y , aggregating t h e s e s i x s e t s of

r e s u l t s gave t h e t o t a l t r i p s , passenger-km, l i n k flows e t c . f o r t h e

t h r e e modes, which enabled an evaluation of t h e change t o be made. To

complete t h e e v a l u a t i o n s , evening peak e f f e c t s were assumed t o be t h e

r e v e r s e of t h o s e i n t h e morning peak.

For t h e off-peak t r i p s , data were a v a i l a b l e f o r r a i l movements, but

not f o r bus and c a r t r a v e l . Consequently, simple constant e l a s t i c i t y

estimates were made from time s e r i e s t i c k e t s a l e s d a t a of t h e e f f e c t s

O$ changes i n off-peak (Hartley, 1979a). The c o s t s of off-peak bus and

r a i l operation were assumed t o be independent of t r a f f i c l e v e l s , because

of t h e high l e v e l of spare c a p a c i t y off-peak. The d i s b e n e f i t s of c a r

congestion i n t h e off-peak should a l s o be very much reduced compared

with t h e peak, and were ignored i n t h e evaluations. A l l r e s u l t s i n t h e

following s e c t i o n s a r e i n comparison with t h e base 1975 f i g u r e s .

Table 1.

T

Trips

Passenger km.

Mean t r i p l e n g t h

R a i l

-

T r i p s

Passenger km.

Mean t r i p length

Bus

-

T r i p s

Passenger km.

Mean t r i p l e n g t h

[image:9.595.66.554.64.829.2]

3. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

As a preliminary t o c a l c u l a t i n g t h e c o s t changes i n each of t h e

options examined, it was necessary t o work out t h e changes i n resources

used t o operate t h e r e v i s e d s e r v i c e s . A l l t h e l o c a l r a i l s e r v i c e s were operated by d i e s e l multiple-unit s e t s ( 2 o r more c a r s t o g e t h e r ) , and t h e

number of c a r s i n use during t h e peak determined t h e f l e e t s i z e . This

had t o be i n f l a t e d by 25% t o allow f o r c a r s undergoing maintenance and

r e p a i r .

For t h e s e peak s e r v i c e s , t h e model output f o r t h e r a i l s e r v i c e s

was i n t h e form of d i r e c t i o n a l l i n k flows over segments of r o u t e . The

f i r s t requirement was t o f i n d how passengers over common s t r e t c h e s of

r o u t e were d i s t r i b u t e d between Local and I n t e r c i t y t r a i n s , and a l s o

between d i f f e r e n t l o c a l t r a i n s , f o r estimating t r a i n loadings and

a l l o c a t i n g revenue. The only sources of d a t a t o permit t h i s a l l o c a t i o n

were t h e Passenger Train Surveys (P.T.S.) c a r r i e d out by B r i t i s h Rail.

These l i s t e d t r a i n boardings, a l i g h t i n g s and c a p a c i t i e s a t each

s t a t i o n . The d a t a s e t c l o s e s t i n time t o t h e WYTCONSULT R a i l Survey

(June 1975) was t h a t f o r November 1976, and f o r t h a t reason, t h e r e may

be some discrepancies i n t h e a l l o c a t i o n s .

I n t h e morning peak, t h e h e a v i e s t loads a r e found i n t h e l i n k s

n e a r e s t t o Leeds and Bradford s t a t i o n s . The f i g u r e s output by t h e model

f o r t h e s e l i n k s were divided between t h e t r a i n s t o compare l o a d s and

c a p a c i t i e s , using f a c t o r s derived from t h e P.T.S. counts. The c a p a c i t y

operated and t h e t r a f f i c shares observed by P.T.S. between s e r v i c e s on

each r o u t e i n t h e morning peak a r e shown i n t h e Appendix, Table

Al.

The

corresponding s p l i t between l o c a l and I n t e r c i t y t r a i n s i s given i n

Table A2 which a l s o shows t h e inter-peak proportions.

It was more involved t o a l l o c a t e passenger-km between l o c a l and

I n t e r c i t y t r a i n s . For each j o i n t r o u t e , a l l t h e l i n k s had t o be

i d e n t i f i e d , t h e t r a f f i c proportions applied t o t h e t o t a l s , and t h e

r e s u l t s m u l t i p l i e d by t h e l i n k l e n g t h t o give l o c a l and I n t e r c i t y

passenger-km. This procedure was used t o s e p a r a t e t r i p s and

passenger-km f o r t h e modelled base p o s i t i o n r e s u l t s , but f o r a l l t h e

options analysed, t h e changes i n t r a f f i c were assumed t o t a k e place on

t h e l o c a l s e r v i c e s , where a l l t h e supply changes were made. Therefore

changes i n l o c a l t r a f f i c were c a l c u l a t e d by f i n d i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n

t o t a l f i g u r e s f o r each run. It was then only necessary t o s p l i t up t h e

f i g u r e s according t o t h e f a c t o r s i n Table

Al.,

i n order t o check on

t h e c a p a c i t y of l o c a l s e r v i c e s . A maximum l o a d f a c t o r of 80% was used f o r a l l l o c a l r a i l t r a i n s , w i t h c a r s being added o r removed according

t o t h e t r a f f i c l e v e l s , so a s t o maintain t h i s l o a d f a c t o r .

It was assumed i n t h e inter-peak period t h a t l o a d f a c t o r s would be

low enough t o allow any t r a f f i c increase t o be c a t e r e d f o r w i t h i n t h e

current capacity. Reductions i n inter-peak t r a f f i c did not save s t o c k ,

a s t h e f l e e t s i z e was determined by t h e peak.

Where s e r v i c e frequencies were a l t e r e d , schedules were drawn up

manually t o e s t i m a t e t h e number of s e t s of stock needed.*

I n considering reduced frequencies, t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of s i n g l i n g

t r a c k a r i s e s , but f o r t h e cases examined i n t h e study, t h i s was not

f e a s i b l e because of o t h e r t r a f f i c . Where r a i l passenger s e r v i c e s were

abandoned, it was assumed t h a t t r a c k and s i g n a l l i n g savings would only

be p o s s i b l e on one r o u t e with n e g l i g i b l e f r e i g h t t r a f f i c , and t h a t

elsewhere t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e would be required f o r f r e i g h t t r a f f i c .

In p r a c t i c a l terms, t h e p o s i t i o n i s more involved t h a n t h i s

because of t h e way t r a c k c o s t s a r e a l l o c a t e d t o t r a f f i c s . Where PTE

passenger s e r v i c e s and f r e i g h t s h a r e t r a c k c a p a c i t y , t h e m a j o r i t y o f

t h e t r a c k c o s t i s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e passenger s e r v i c e s , with f r e i g h t

only being r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h o s e c o s t s which would cease t o be i n c u r r e d

i f it were withdrawn.

I f t h e passenger s e r v i c e i s removed from t h e r o u t e , t h e n t h e f u l l

c o s t of t h e t r a c k f a l l s on t h e f r e i g h t operation. This could make t h e

f r e i g h t s e r v i c e s unviable, with t h e r e s u l t t h a t

a l l t r a f f i c on t h e r o u t e

could cease and t h e f u l l c o s t of t r a c k provision and maintenance would be saved, but with t h e l o s s of some f r e i g h t revenue.

Even i f withdrawing t h e P.T.E. s e r v i c e s did not t r i g g e r o f f t h i s chain of e v e n t s , from t h e P.T.E. viewpoint t h e r e would be an immediate

t r a c k c o s t saving when t h e a l l o c a t i o n of c o s t s changed from t h e P.T.E.

t o t h e f r e i g h t s e r v i c e s . S i m i l a r r e a l l o c a t i o n s may be t r i g g e r e d o f f by

a change i n passenger frequencies, where a reduction may i n c r e a s e t h e

proportion of t r a c k and s i g n a l l i n g c o s t s which would be avoided by t h e

simultaneous removal of f r e i g h t s e r v i c e s and v i c e versa. So t h e c o s t

f i g u r e s i n t h e t a b l e s should be i n t e r p r e t e d a s changes i n c o s t s experienced

by t h e railways a s a whole, r a t h e r than from t h e narrower i n t e r e s t of

t h e P.T.E., o r even an i n d i v i d u a l B.R. business s e c t o r . It i s a l s o t h e case t h a t changes i n c o n t r i b u t o r y revenue a r e not passed on t o t h e

P.T.E., although t h i s f i g u r e i s small i n t h e c o s t s examined.

A f u r t h e r complication a r i s e s i n one of t h e r o u t e s which goes o u t s i d e t h e county boundary i n t o a non-P.T.E. a r e a . Here, t h e j o i n t t r a c k c o s t s

f o r t h e s e c t i o n o u t s i d e t h e metropolitan county f a l l again on t h e

passenger s e r v i c e s before f r e i g h t , but t h i s time a s p a r t of t h e Public

Service Obligation from t h e Department of Transport. So, again, from

t h e pointi of view of t h e passenger business, withdrawing such a s e r v i c e

would save t r a c k c o s t s , which would be r e - a l l o c a t e d t o f r e i g h t .

4.

COST, REVENUE: AND BENEFIT ESTDUTION

The changes i n c o s t s of operating t h e r a i l s e r v i c e s under each

p o l i c y were c a l c u l a t e d i n d e t a i l when t h e changes i n resourcerequirements

had been found, a s described i n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n , using ' t y p i c a l ' u n i t

c o s t s supplied by B.R. From t h e t o t a l c a r s f i g u r e were c a l c u l a t e d f u l l replacement c o s t d e p r e c i a t i o n , c a p i t a l charges ( a t 10% i n t e r e s t f o r

a 30 year l i f e ) and time-dependent maintenance and cleaning c o s t s .

Multiplying t r a i n l e n g t h s by r o u t e mileage and d a i l y frequency gave

d a i l y car-miles, from which d i s t a n c e - r e l a t e d maintenance c o s t s and f u e l

usage were found. Train crew needs were r e l a t e d t o peak t r a i n s i n

s e r v i c e , assuming two crews would be needed f o r each peak t r a i n , and a

pay t r a i n guard on every two c a r s where s t a t i o n s were u n s t a f f e d .

It should be s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e s e c o s t estimates a r e very much

long-run upper bounds. I n t h e short-run, c o s t changes from reductions

i n s e r v i c e s a r e l i k e l y t o be very much lower. Moreover, t o t h e Bxtent

t h a t l i k e - f o r - l i k e replacement w i t h e x i s t i n g l e v e l s f o r f u e l and

maintenance c o s t i s assumed, even i n t h e long-run lower c o s t s may be

p o s s i b l e by use of cheap, lightweight v e h i c l e s . Also

7%

would now be

a more a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r e s t r a t e t h a n t h e 10% upon which t h e s e f i g u r e s

a r e based. Together, t h e s e f a c t o r s may reduce f u t u r e c o s t s by up t o

30%, and t h u s make maintenance and/or i n c r e a s e of frequencies a much

h g i n a l terminal costs at staffed and unstaffed stations were

assumed to be zero.

Only in the options where stations were completely

closed were costs assumed to be escapable.

These covered station

operating and maintenance, but not accounting charges for amortisation

of buildings and depreciation of plant.

Disposal values were not

taken into account.

Fixed m u a l costs for track were used, together

with incremental wear and tear costs for service level charges.

Signalling

maintenance and operation costs were assumed only to be influenced by

line closures, after allowance had been made for

any

freight trains

remaining on the lines.

Management and administration costs were

assumed to consist of a fixed sum, and a variable portion equal to

10%

of the costs of train services, terminals, track and signalling.

All

unit costs were reduced to per kilometre or per day figures (assuming

300 da~rs

operation per mum).

Bus operating costs were calculated more simply as a fixed cost

per bus per day (for either peak-only operation or all

day

service),

and

a variable cost per bus mile, and were based on the Bradford Bus

Study

(R.

Yravers Morgan,

1976).

The figures for bus Brips and bus

passenger-km were not disaggregdted by route, but it was assumed that

the number of peak buses in service would be closely related to the

number of peak bus trips, so that a

change

of 50 peak trips would, on

auerage, cause a

change

of

1

bus in the fleet requirement.

This may be

optimis'cio, for those cases where the change in traffic is in fact spread

over several routes.

In the inter-peak, it was assumed that traffic

did not affect costs, except where new services were added.

Revenue for the rail services was calculated from the allocations

of passengers and passenger-km discussed

in

the last section, and linear

fare scales based on distance travelled, which gave good approximations

to the Bullseye weekly season ticket

and

the standard fare.

For each

origin-destination pair, the laver of the two fares was found and all

peak passengers were assumed to pay the lower fare; off-peak passengers

were assumed to travel at standard rates.

A sirnilas procedure was

month.

Again

peak passengers were allocated to the lower cost fare

system.

This

may

have exaggerated the use of season tickets, as their

use is only economic for regular travel, but no data were available on

the split as between season

and

standard tickets for peak trips*.

The

total revenue of bus and rail was found by multiplying trip numbers

and

distances by the relevant fare scales, and adding the results.

Peak passengers changing mode to or from bus in the policy evaluations

were assumed to use metrocard.

One further aspect of rail receipts is the problem of contributory

revenue, i.e. the effect on long distance rail trips from changes

in

the local network.

In West Yorkshire (excludbg ~eeds)

some

15%

of

originating rail passengers changed trains during their journey (Usually

at ~eeds).

To estimate the impact of the options tested, access data

for Inter City rail journeys from Leeds to London was drawn from a

study by Moss

and Leake (1976).

Taking those journeys which started

on the local rail network, the effect of the

ohange in

the local service

in

relation to the total journey (local plus Inter city) was estimated.

Inter city fares

and journey time elasticities of 0.7 derived from other

studies, were used to predict the change

in

Inter city jourmeys resulting

from the local service alterations.

Trips between Leeds

and London

account for approximately half of all Inter city trips made from West

Yorkshire.

Thus, this is very

muoh

a minimum estimate, but the magnitudes

are so small that a doubling or trebling of the figure would not affect

the conclusions.

The

ohan@;e

in

rail usersf

benefit was calculated by the conventional

"rule of a half" measure for each origm/destination pair in the trip

matrix as follows, and then summed to give the total effect:

Benefit

=

&%&I

+

%)(c,

-

c2)

where

&I,%

=

number of trips before and after change.

I

CI,C2

=

generalised cost before am3 after change.

I

*

_{In theory this split should be dealt with as a third level in the}

hierarchical modal split model, but usage data would

be

needed to

calibrate such an extension to the model.

When r a i l s e r v i c e s were removed, a value of C i n t h e above equation 2

had t o be estimated. An examination of t h e modal s p l i t equations f o r

bus and r a i l suggested t h a t an a d d i t i o n a l g e n e r a l i s e d c o s t d i f f e r e n c e

( r a i l cost-bus c o s t ) of 40p would v i r t u a l l y e l i m i n a t e r a i l t r i p s . This

f i g u r e was used i n p l a c e of ( C

-

C ) i n t h e b e n e f i t equation f o r r a i l

1 2

t r i p s which became impossible under a policy. This approach i s i n f e r i o r

t o obtaining a d i r e c t measure of b e n e f i t from i n t e g r a t i o n of t h e demand

equation but no simple a n a l y t i c a l expression could be found f o r t h e case

where g e n e r a l i s e d c o s t was i n r a t i o form. Any b i a s should be i n t h e

d i r e c t i o n of overestimating t h e b e n e f i t s of t h e r a i l s e r v i c e , s i n c e t h e

t r u e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l i k e l y t o be convex r a t h e r than l i n e a r .

Changes i

n

bus user benefits were only calculated for the cases

in

which bus fares were &angad. There would be slight effects from

the assumed peak: service level adjustments in other oases, but in no

case was the change

in

bus patronage more

thw

3%,

so these would be

small.

All of the policies which changed peak rail operations caused

changes

in

the numbers of oar trips.

The effects of these on other

car

users, by way of

an increase or a reduction in oongestion, was

estimated as follows.

Link

flows on the private vehicle network were

output from the model.

These were used to recalculate link speeds

from

the detailed speed/flow relationships for each link.

*om

these

new speeds, new costs were oaloulated for travelling on each link,

and

by summation over the routes, for each origin/destination pair.

The

change

in oar user benefit was then defined as the difference between

this cost

and the original cost multiplied by the number of oar trips

present both before

and

after the change.*

*

_{This procedure does not allow any r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t r i p s because}

[image:15.599.71.577.12.844.2]

F i n a l l y , t h e change i n p e t r o l t a x revenue due t o changes i n

c a r passenger-kilometres was c a l c u l a t e d . To t h e extent t h a t t h i s

t a x i s matched by e x t e r n a l c o s t s ( o t h e r than congestion, which was

evaluated s e p a r a t e l y , a s described above), t h i s w i l l a l s o be an

over-statement. One a l s o has t o t a k e i n t o account t h e f a c t t h a t

changes i n public t r a n s p o r t revenue a r e not n e t a d d i t i o n s t o t h e

public purse. To t h e extent t h a t revenue i s d i v e r t e d from taxed

c o m o d i t i e s , t h e r e i s a l o s s of t a x revenue elsewhere. This was

estimated a t 10% of t h e change i n public t r a n s p o r t revenue.

Neither t h e congestion e f f e c t nor t h e change i n p e t r o l t a x was

included i n t h e inter-peak e v a l u a t i o n , s i n c e we did not have information

with which t o f o r e c a s t t h e proportion of t r a f f i c switching modes.

A s i m i l a r problem a r i s e s with bus t r a v e l . Because of a l a c k of knowledge of t h e c r o s s - e l a s t i c i t i e s of b u s - r a i l s u b s t i t u t i o n i n t h e inter-peak

period, two extreme values were worked o u t . The f i r s t with no

b u s - r a i l s u b s t i t u t i o n , t h e second with f u l l s u b s t i t u t i o n , t o give

upper and lower bounds on t h e e f f e c t . Results i n t h e s e cases a r e shown

a s ranges, r a t h e r t h a n s i n g l e values.

Net s o c i a l b e n e f i t i s c a l c u l a t e d a s t h e sum of changes i n r a i l and

bus operators revenue, plus t h e n e t change i n t a x r e c e i p t s , plus t h e

sum of changes i n r a i l , bus and c a r user b e n e f i t l e s s t h e sum of changes

i n r a i l and bus o p e r a t o r s ' c o s t s .

5.

POLICIES

TESTED

AND

!CHJZlR EVALUA!CION

(a) m

e

s

in Rail Fares

The first set of policies exmined involved raising or lowering

I

-

11

-

I

Table

2.

C h a m s

in

Rail Fares

(All effects are measured per normal working

day)

Raise peak Laver peak Raise off- Lower off-

Rail Passenger

km.

Bus Passenger km.

Rail Costs

Rail Revenue

Petrol Tax

Rail User Benefits

Bus User Benefits

(iv) Overall Results

Net Social Benefita

( E )

Net Social Benefits

per

E

rail Subsidy

Net Social Benefits

per

%.

public transport

Rail Passenger

km

per

e

rail Subsidy

Public l'ransport passenger

bm.

[image:17.595.52.596.34.739.2]

Changes

in

peak rail fares have a considerable impact on cost when

train lengths are adjusted, although this is more than offset by changes

i

n

bus operating costs.

Browd

two-thirds of the traffic diverts to

or

from bus, which has a higher marginal peak operating cost per

passenger kilometre.

The remaining traffic diverts to/from car,

involving considerable changes

in

car user benefit through the effect

on

congestion.

(The WYTCONSUIIP Home Interview

survey found that

42%

of journeys to work by rail were made by persons with

a

car available

1

for that journey).

I Overall, lower peak r a i l f a r e s involve n e t s o c i a l b e n e f i t s of

1

around £1.70 per

E

subsidy (and v i c e v e r s a ) ; changes i n peak r a i l fares

gain o r l o s e around 50-60 passenger kilometres p e r £ subsidy, so t h a t

n e t s o c i a l b e n e f i t p e r passenger kilometre i s around 3p.

Turning t o off-peak f a r e s , r a i s i n g t h e s e involves l o s s e s of

passenger kilometres and net s o c i a l b e n e f i t per 2 subsidy saved.

Lowering off-peak f a r e s would produce n e t s o c i a l b e n e f i t s , although

t h e s e would be i n s i g n i f i c a n t i f t h e extreme case h e l d t h a t a l l t h e t r a f f i c a t t r a c t e d was d i v e r t e d from bus, but no reductions i n bus

s e r v i c e l e v e l s followed. If most t r a f f i c were new t o public t r a n s p o r t , t h e n e t b e n e f i t p e r

E

subsidy would be s i m i l a r f o r lowering off-peak

o r peak r a i l f a r e s .

The question must arise as to whether the benefits of cutting

peak rail fares are predomhantly the result of bus fares for commuters

being too low, due to the existence of the 'Metrocard' which substantially

undercuts rail fares for longer journeys.

The next set of options

examines this issue.

(b) cbames involvim Metrocard

Three options m e

considered here.

The first is to abolish

metrocard

in

the peak altogether; the second to permit its use on

rail at no extra

charge

and

the third to retain it, and raise both

Rail Passenger

km.

Bus Passenger

km.

Rail Revenue

Rail User Benefits

Bus User Benefits

(iv) Overall Results

Net Social Benefits

(£1

Bet Social Benefits

per

%,

rail Subsidy

Rail Passenger km per

%

rail Subsidy

-

Both t h e f i r s t options involve a r i s e i n t h e r a i l subsidy; t h e

f i r s t , because t h e cost of c a t e r i n g f o r a d d i t i o n a l peak t r a f f i c exceeds

t h e i n c r e a s e i n revenue; t h e second, a very much g r e a t e r i n c r e a s e s i n c e

t h e r e i s a l o s s of revenue. This i s more t h a n o f f s e t by u s e r b e n e f i t s

and a reduction i n bus operating c o s t s , however, t o l e a v e very much g r e a t e r

n e t s o c i a l b e n e f i t f o r t h e p o l i c y of allowing metrocard on r a i l t h a n f o r

i t s a b o l i t i o n . By c o n t r a s t , r e t a i n i n g metrocard and r a i s i n g both bus

and r a i l f a r e s involves a l o s s of n e t b e n e f i t s , although a s u b s t a n t i a l

reduction i n p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t subsidy. The r i s e i n bus passenger km. under t h i s p o l i c y a r i s e s because some longer t r i p s t r a n s f e r from r a i l a s t h e

absolute d i f f e r e n c e i n f a r e s i n c r e a s e s . On t h e o t h e r hand t h e r e i s a

t r a n s f e r of s h o r t e r t r i p s from bus t o c a r reducing t h e t o t a l number of

bus t r i p s .

( c ) Changes i n R a i l Service Frequencies

ye were hampered i n t h i s p a r t of our work by t h e l a c k of evidence

on r a i l frequency e l a s t i c i t y . The only major change i n West Yorkshire

i n t h e period under consideration was a 33% i n c r e a s e i n s e r v i c e on one

high frequency r o u t e . Unfortunately, t h i s came i n a t a time of t r a f f i c

r e c e s s i o n , but may have l e d t o t h e s t a b i l i s a t i o n of t r a f f i c on t h i s

r o u t e , w h i l s t elsewhere t r a f f i c f e l l by some 10%. More r e c e n t l y a low

frequency r o u t e has experienceda more than doubling of frequency, r a i s i n g

t r a f f i c l e v e l s by some 80%.

Within t h e peak model, frequencies a r e represented s o l e l y a s changes

i n waiting time, which have a s u b s t a n t i a l impact on mode s p l i t . But

f o r r e l a t i v e l y low frequency s e r v i c e s , t o assume waiting times t o be

h a l f t h e headway may o v e r s t a t e t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e .

The changes we considered took two of t h e higher-frequency r o u t e s ;

on one we doubled frequency from

4

t o

8

per hour e i t h e r f o r t h e peak o r all-day; on t h e second, we reduced frequencies by one t h i r d from 3 t o 2

f o r t h e peak o r a l l day. I n t h e former case, t h e i n c r e a s e i n frequency

would have s t r a i n e d l i n e c a p a c i t y t o i t s l i m i t s and might t h e r e f o r e

have imposed c e r t a i n a d d i t i o n a l t r a c k and s i g n a l l i n g c o s t s not evaluated

here. The implied frequency e l a s t i c i t i e s were 0.25 f o r t h e frequency

i n c r e a s e but n e a r l y 3 f o r t h e decrease. The l a t t e r r e s u l t seemed g r o s s l y

exaggerated, and we t h e r e f o r e a d j u s t e d t h e waiting time algorithm t o

produce an e l a s t i c i t y of 0.4. These r e s u l t s a r e shown i n Table

4;

(i) !l'raffio R a i l Trips

Rail F'asaenger

km.

Bus Trips

Bus Passenger

km.

Car

Trips

I Cknge.8 in Rail Service Ereauenq

(Low

~lasticit~)

1

Reduce Peak Reduce A l l Double Peak Double A l l b q u e n c y Day Ereqwncy Erequency Frequency

I

(Route A ) (Haute A ) (Houte B] d J

C a z Passenger km.

+

746

1

+

746

-1 846

I I

(ii) Finaacial Effects Rail Costs

R a i l Rwenue

, .

Bus Revenue

Bus

Subsidy

+

108

Petrol Tax +

4

Tax

Adjustment

h i ) User Benefits

Rail User Benefits

-

32

Bus User Benefits 0 0 0 0

Cas

User Benefits

-

4

-

4

+

766

+

166

( i v )

Overall Results Net Social Benefits

Net Social Benefits per £ r a i l Subsidy

Net Social Benefits per % public transport

subsidy

++

Y

0.09

I

*

R a i l Passenger

km

per

E r a i l Subsidy

1

5.49

1

11.76

/

_17.08

1

_16.411

Public Trmspoxt passenger

km.

per £ public transport; Subsidy

2-00

.96

to

9.34

8.74

.6.33

to

9.86

i

Table ha. Changes i n R a i l Service E l a s t i c i t y (High E l a s t i c i t y )

Reduce Peak Frequency

(Route

A)

Reduce A l l

Day Frequency (Route

A)

( i ) T r a f f i c Rail T r i p s

R a i l Passenger km.

Bus Trips

Bus Passenger km.

Car Trips

Car Passenger km.

(ii) F i n a n c i a l E f f e c t s

Rail Costs

R a i l Revenue

Contributory Revenue

-

R a i l Subsidy

Bus Costs

Bus Revenue

-

Bus SuGsidy

P e t r o l Tax

Tax Adjustment

( i i i ) u s e r Benefits

R a i l User Benefits

Bus User Benefits

Car User Benefits

( i v ) Overall R e s u l t s

Net S o c i a l Benefits

Net S o c i a l B e n e f i t s p e r £ r a i l Subsidy

Net S o c i a l Benefits p e r £ Public Transport Subsidy

R a i l Passenger km per £ R a i l Subsidy

Public Transport passenger km

p e r

E

P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t .Subsidy.

~ -

-. .

- ~-

*

I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e two elements move i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s .

[image:22.599.57.557.54.772.2]

The r e s u l t s show t h a t , on t h i s type of s e r v i c e , peak frequencies

i n excess o f t h o s e needed t o handle t h e t r a f f i c involve a d d i t i o n a l

c o s t s g r e a t l y i n excess of t h e revenue generated. The e f f e c t on n e t

s o c i a l b e n e f i t depends on t h e frequency e l a s t i c i t y , but t h i s would

have t o be very l a r g e t o j u s t i f y maintenance of frequencies on r o u t e A;

t h e i n c r e a s e on r o u t e B appears e a s i e r t o j u s t i f y . The off-peak

frequency adjustments have r e l a t i v e l y small a f f e c t s ; and t h e decision i s

marginal. However, even where t h e r e a r e b e n e f i t s from holding up o r

increasing peak frequencies,

it

appears l i k e l y t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l

net b e n e f i t s

or

passenger lan. p e r C of s u b s i w i s w e l l below t h a t f o r f a r e s adjustments. Thus t h e s o c i a l b e n e f i t o r passenger km. maximising operator w i l l reduce peak frequencies t o t h e minimum necessary t o c a t e r

f o r t h e t r a f f i c , and use t h e savings t o reduce f a r e s .

( d )

Replacinff L i g h t l y Loaded Services with Express Bus Services

The most l i g h t l y loaded r o u t e s were s e l e c t e d f o r replacement by

express bus s e r v i c e s , which were t e s t e d on t h e b a s i s of e i t h e r standard

bus f a r e s ( i . e . with metrocard) o r t h e much higher r a i l f a r e s . The

r o u t e s i n question c a r r y a t o t a l of 1,696 peak and 740 off-peak r a i l

t r i p s . A t bus f a r e s , a l i t t l e over a quarter of t h e peak t r i p s d i v e r t

t o c a r , t h e remainder using t h e express bus s e r v i c e . I f r a i l f a r e s

applied, t h e proportion d i v e r t i n g t o c a r i s over a t h i r d . For t h e

off-peak, a range of values corresponding t o 0 t o 100% d i v e r s i o n t o

bus was evaluated. The l o s s e s of b e n e f i t s , both t o r a i l u s e r s and c a r

u s e r s , a r e s u b s t a n t i a l . But t h e c o s t savings g r e a t l y outweigh t h e s e

b e n e f i t l o s s e s , and t h e passenger kilometres l o s t p e r £ subsidy saved

a r e f a i r l y low. Even if t h e peak diversion t o c a r were double t h a t

p r e d i c t e d , o r if s u b s t a n t i a l numbers of peak t r i p s ceased t o be made

a t a l l , t h e s e c l o s u r e s would show net s o c i a l b e n e f i t s , and t h e l o s s

of passenger kilometres p e r £ subsidy saved would be l e s s t h a n f o r

p r i c e increases.

As a final option, we tested the combined effects of lowering

i

rail fares by

2%

all day, reducing frequencies on one route as described

above and replacing three routes by express buses operating at rail fares.

The results are not quite additive, due to interactive effects, but there

are no surprises.

As expected, these measures succeed in achieving

major reductions in the cost of the public transport system with no

_-

net loss of benefit or traffic.

The benefits could either be taken

as reduced support requirements, or used to reduce public transport

Table

5.

Realacing Li&tLy Loaded Rail Services

(With .Express Buses)

I

--

Combination

of

3

policies

&il Passenger

km.

Eus Passenger l

a

.

Tax adjustment

Bus User Benefits

( i v )

Overall BeFnrlta

Net Social Benefits

Net Social Benefits

pQr

&?

rail Subsidy

Net Social Benefits

per

%

public tramport

Rail Passenger

km

pex

%:

rail Subsidy

[image:24.599.59.595.59.743.2]

6.

GENERBL

IMPLIC~IONS

OF

msms

The first important point to make is the close interdependence between

peak rail

and

bus operations

in this area.

Action which increases

the rail subsidy has a large compensating effect on the bus subsidy

and vice versa.

This potential for trip diversion may be a particular

characteristic of the services

we

have examined, in that the rail routes

are

paralleled by bus routes which, although slower, are for peak commuters

very much cheaper. This anomaly arises particularly because

of

the

existence

of

a Bus only travelcard that is very much cheaper than the

equivalent rail ticket.

Secondly, it is interesting that whether the objective is one of

maximising passenger kilometres carried,

or

the wider one of maximising

net social benefit, the same general policies would be followed.

Wherever

:

additional traffic

may

be accommodated by raising load

factors and/or lengthening trains, it is much more cost-effective to

attract additional traffic

and

benefits by lowering fares than by raising

service frequencies,at

any

rate

in

the peak.

Moreover, some of the more

lightly loaded services would be better handed over to express buses.

Table

6

shows the social benefit and cost per passenger kilometre

gained or lost under each of the rail options.

There is a fair degree

of consistency

in

the social benefit per passenger kilometre for the

different policies at about 5p.

The most radically different results

come not surprisingly when one considers changing off-peak fares

in

isolation.

Off-peak passenger kilometres have much lower social benefits

than peak, especially if they are largely diverted from bus.

It would

clearly be necessary to give these

a

much lower weight than peak passewr

kilometres,

probably

of

the order of one third (.less

if

they are diverted

yrom bus services).

Finally, it might be argued that w i n g

objectives in terms of

rail operations alone is inappropriate,

i

n

any case, given the clear

case for co-ordinating public transport fares

and services through the

existence of the P.T.E.

Tables 2-5 also show net benefit per

6,

of

[image:25.602.70.546.53.657.2]

Table

6.

Costs and b e n e f i t s of r a i l passenger km gained o r l o s t

(E

per passenger la)

*

Revenue

+

u s e r b e n e f i t + n e t e x t e r n a l b e n e f i t . Raise peak f a r e s 20%

Lower peak f a r e s 20%

Raise ~ f f - ~ e a k f a r e s 20%

Lower off-peak f a r e s 20%

Allow Metrocard on r a i l

Reduce frequency

-

peak

Increase frequency

-

peak

Express buses on c e r t a i n r o u t e s (bus f a r e s %

Express buses on c e r t a i n r o u t e s ( r a i l fares:)

~~ - ~

0.0508 t o 0.0549

!

0.0475 t o 0.0519

0.0637

[image:26.595.60.549.86.713.2]

7.

COMPARISONS

W

m

RESUmS

FOR

OTHER SERVIGES

No such detailed amlysis was possible for inter-city or London

suburban services because of data limitations.

However, the effects

on revenue

and

user benefits of raising or lowering fares was calculated

for t;hree types of service

-

a prime East Coast Main Line service, a

secondary intercity service and a London suburban service.

Results

a r e shown i n Table 7. Fares e l a s t i c i t i e s were taken t o be '3.7 f o r t k e

i n t e r - c i t y s e r v i c e s and 0.3 f o r t h e London suburban s e r v i c e . Revenue

and c o s t d a t a f o r t h e s e r v i c e s was supplied by BR; passenger kilometres

were estimated on t h e b a s i s of t h e mean f a r e p a i d p e r passenger

kilometre i n 1977 f o r t h a t s e r v i c e .

For t h e two i n t e r - c i t y s e r v i c e s , it was assumed t h a t t h e l o s s of

t r a f f i c due t o a 20% f a r e s i n c r e a s e would l e a d t o no r e d u c t i o n s i n

s e r v i c e s , and t h e r e f o r e no c o s t savings. Where f a r e s were reduced,

however, t h i s could put p r e s s u r e on peak l o a d f a c t o r s , and allowance

has been made f o r one a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e i n each d i r e c t i o n p e r day. No

increase i n t r a f f i c has been assumed a s a r e s u l t of this enhanced s e r v i c e .

This was costed on t h e b a s i s of a n o t i o n a l c o s t p e r t r a i n kilometre f o r

t h e type of s t o c k involved; no changes i n terminals o r t r a c k and

s i g n a l l i n g c o s t s have been assumed. On t h e London suburban s e r v i c e ,

which i s a high frequency s e r v i c e geared towards peak volumes, it w a s

assumed t h a t frequencies, and t h e r e f o r e t r a i n s e r v i c e c o s t s , would be

a d j u s t e d i n proportion t o changes i n volume.

I n comparing r e s u l t s with t h o s e given e a r l i e r , it i s n e c e s s a r y t o

t a k e account of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e r e s u l t s a r e i n 1977 p r i c e s ; t h u s ,

t h e y have been d e f l a t e d by 35.2% t o allow f o r t h e p r i c e i n c r e a s e s i n c e

1975.

The r e s u l t s again a r e unsurprising. Whilst day-long changes i n

f a r e s a f f o r d l o s s e s o r g a i n s of 70

-

100 passenger h./£ subsidy on t h e

l o c a l network, t h e f i g u r e f o r London and t h e South East i s only

16

-

20. That f o r i n t e r - c i t y i s much higher than b o t h a s long a s s e r v i c e l e v e l s

a r e held constant; however, i f i n c r e a s e s o r decreases i n s e r v i c e l e v e l s

r e s u l t from t h e change i n t r a f f i c , t h e f i g u r e f a l l s t o

68

i n t h e c a s e

of t h e prime i n t e r - c i t y r o u t e and a much lower f i g u r e of

48

f o r t h e secondary s e r v i c e where c o s t s a r e higher r e l a t i v e t o revenue. I n o t h e r

words, a r i s e i n t h e g e n e r a l - l e v e l of Inner Suburban f a r e s i n London

could generate four times a s many passenger kilometres a s those l o s t i f

devoted t o lowering f a r e s on l o c a l p r o v i n c i a l s e r v i c e s and t h r e e times

Table

7.

Fares Changes on o t h e r s e r v i c e s (Annual t o t a l s )

Contribution

c o n t r i b u t i o n

Social Benef

c o n t r i b u t i o n

[image:28.599.52.554.58.654.2]

I f we assume that t h e r e a r e no e x t e r n a l b e n e f i t s from i n t e r - c i t y passenger km. we f i n d t h e value of s o c i a l b e n e f i t p e r passenger km. t o be very much lower t h a n t h a t f o r peak l o c a l p r o v i n c i a l s e r v i c e s , but

s i m i l a r t o

-

o r higher than

-

t h a t f o r off-peak. It h a s not been p o s s i b l e

t o e s t i m a t e t h e e x t e r n a l b e n e f i t s of London Inner Suburban s e r v i c e s i n

t h i s study, but t h e y would need t o t o t a l some 4p p e r passenger km. t o

j u s t i f y f a i l i n g t o r a i s e f a r e s on t h e s e s e r v i c e s r e l a t i v e t o t h o s e on

t h e primary i n t e r - c i t y r o u t e and perhaps 12p t o j u s t i f y not r a i s i n g

t h e s e f a r e s r e l a t i v e t o peak l o c a l p r o v i n c i a l . _-

We have not examined changes i n frequency i n any d e t a i l f o r t h e s e

s e c t o r s , s i n c e t h e i s s u e of t r a f l i n g off frequency a g a i n s t t r a i n l e n g t h

i s l e s s r e l e v a n t . However, f o r primary i n t e r - c i t y s e r v i c e s , it i s c l e a r

t h a t even a low e l a s t i c i t y could j u s t i f y frequency improvements. For

i n s t a n c e , one a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e each way per day adds about 8% t o

frequency and c o s t s about £315,000 p.a. With an e l a s t i c i t y of 0.3, t h i s

would add 9,089,000 passenger km. on t h e primary r o u t e and 2,437,000 on t h e secondary route. In t h e former c a s e , t h e r e would be a gain of 126

passenger km. per £ reduction i n c o n t r i b u t i o n ; in t h e l a t t e r , 8.9. Obviously, a frequency e l a s t i c i t y o f 0 would give a r e s u l t of zero i n

each case. Thus, f o r t h e former route, even a low e l a s t i c i t y would

j u s t i f y higher frequencies;for t h e l a t t e r , t h e e l a s t i c i t y would need t o

be very high. For t h e former s e r v i c e , such an e l a s t i c i t y would g r e a t l y

enhance t h e case f o r f a r e c u t s .

8. CONCLUSIONS

The r e s u l t s suggest t h a t , f o r t h e l o c a l s e r v i c e s examine, a p o l i c y

of keeping peak frequencies t o t h e minimum necessary t o cope with t h e

t r a f f i c , and of r e p l a c i n g l i g h t l y used s e r v i c e s with express buses, i n

order t o hold down f a r e s w i t h i n a given budget c o n s t r a i n t , would be

adopted by e i t h e r a passenger-miles o r a n e t s o c i a l b e n e f i t ( a s

conventionally defined) maximiser. I n most c a s e s , passenger miles

maximisation appears t o give a good approximation t o s o c i a l b e n e f i t

maximisation. I n t h e r e l a t i v e treatment of peak and off-peak r a i l f a r e s ,

however, t h e two o b j e c t i v e s d i f f e r . Passenger miles maximisation, a s

off-peak t r a f f i c which y i e l d s low e x t e r n a l b e n e f i t s . This might be

counteracted by giving such passenger miles a weight o f , say, one-third

t h a t of peak passenger kilometres.

I n terms o f comparing f a r e s on t h e l o c a l s e r v i c e s with t h o s e on t h e

i n t e r - c i t y and London suburban s e r v i c e s considered, it i s more d i f f i c u l t

t o draw conclusions because of l a c k of d a t a on c r o s s - e l a s t i c i t i e s and

e x t e r n a l b e n e f i t s . It i s u n l i k e l y t h a t i n t e r - c i t y passenger t r a f f i c

y i e l d s s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e r n a l b e n e f i t s , i n which c a s e t h i s t r a f f i c y i e l d s

n e t b e n e f i t s p e r passenger kilometre of only around a t h i r d t h a t of peak

l o c a l t r a f f i c (although s i m i l a r t o , o r g r e a t e r t h a n , off-peak l o c a l

t r a f f i c ) . On t h e o t h e r hand, w h i l s t holding down f a r e s on t h e London

suburban s e r v i c e s produces f a r fewer passenger km. per

E

t h a n on t h e

i n t e r - c i t y o r l o c a l p r o v i n c i a l s e r v i c e , t h i s could be j u s t i f i e d i f major

e x t e r n a l b e n e f i t s , i n terms of reduced congestion and environmental

REFERENCES

BALCOMBE

,

J

.

J

.

,

D

.

J

.

RUTHERFORD and D .A. WALMSLEY ( 1973 )

A parametric model of i n t e r c i t y passenger t r a n s p o r t : an i n t e r i m r e p o r t . TRRL Report ~ ~ 6 0 7 , Department of t h e Environment,

Crowthorne.

HAETLEY, T.M. (1979a) R a i l passenger s e r v i c e demand d a t a f o r West Yorkshire. Technical Note 19, I n s t i t u t e f o r Transport S t u d i e s , University o f Leeds.

HARTLEY, T.M. (1979b) Aggregate modal s p l i t models

-

r e f i n i n g t h e goodness-of-fit, Technical Note 27, I n s t i t u t e f o r Transport S t u d i e s , University of Leeds.

HARTLEY, T.M. and J . D . ORTUZAR (1979) Modal s p l i t models f o r t h e journey t o work i n West Yorkshire by c a r , bus and r a i l : some comments. Technical Note 9 , I n s t i t u t e f o r Transport S t u d i e s , u n i v e r s i t y of Leeds.

HARTLEY, T.M. and J . D . ORTUZAR (1980) Aggregate modal s p l i t models: i s current U.K. p r a c t i c e warranted? T r a f f i c Engineering and Control

-

21 ( I ) , January 1980, 7-13.

TFiAVERS MORGAN (1976) BRADFORD BUS STUDY: FINAL REPORT (London)

MOSS, A.J. and G.R. LEAKE (1976) Modal choice t o c e n t r a l a r e a r a i l t e r m i n i

-

preliminary a n a l y s i s . Working Paper 86, I n s t i t u t e f o r Transport S t u d i e s , University of Leeds,

ORTUZAR, J . D . (1979a) Car ownership v/s car a v a i l a b i l i t y d a t a .

Technical Note 25, I n s t i t u t e f o r Transport S t u d i e s , University of Leeds.

This work was carried out under a grant from the Social

Science Research Council, using data generously provided by

West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council and by British

Rail. We wish to express our gratitude to the latter bodies,

and to West Yorkshire

P.T.E.,

for advice and discussion of

results. Nevertheless, none of these bodies necessarily

accepts our conclusions (indeed, in some cases they strongly

reject them), which are solely our own responsibility.

We are very grateful to Juan de Dios Ortuzar for advice

and assistance with the computational aspects of the work.

Finally Diane Petch deserves praise for producing a

APPENDIX

The Alloca$ion of Trips Between

Table

Al.

!hip

Allocation Between Local Semioea

in

A.M.

Peak

7

JC&@ON

LFEDS

.--

Model Link

-

Route

- -

Trains Cars Capacity Traffic Share*

2300-237

3

Goole

2/0

117/0

0.35/0.00

Castleford

2/2

137/137

0.08/0.23

Sheffield (~snnsle~)

2/3

1

37/188

0.28/0.77

Wakefield

K

2/0

117/0

0.29/0.00

2300-231

8

Garf

crth

Hull

York

2300-2331

kddersf

ield

2300-2332

Huddersfield

(~irect

OE

Dewsbuq only)

2300-231

9

&rll (~ireot

from

Selbg

BR&llNFD

F.S.

2309-2308

Keighley

Tlkley

*

-

Note: Where the proportions do not add to

1.0,

it is because

I

I

Inter-city trains c a m

the remaining traffic.

-.

i

[image:34.605.60.582.59.831.2]

Table

A2.

Trip Allocation Between Local and i n t e r c i t y Servicea Peak and I n t e r Peak

TO/FROK

m s

LEEDO-

--.

J.NmRPEAH

PEAK

LOCAL

PEL&

l3X'EBCITY

-cAL

INm8 CITY M o d e l L q

Route

T m f f i c Share Traffic Shase Traffic Share e a f f i o

Share

2300-231

3

Goole

1.00/1 .OO

oh'

I

.00/l .OO

Castleford

1.00/1.00

1.00/1

.OO

o/o

Shef f i e l d

1.00/1 .OO

o/o

o/o

I

.00/l

.oo

o/o

o/o

(B-ley)

Walcefield

K

l.00/1 .OO

O/O

?

.00/1 .OO

o/o

2300-2304

&amborough

1.00/1 .OO

o/o

1.00/1 .OO

fIasrogtite

1.00/1

.OO

o/o

0.95/0.94

0.05/0.06

o/o

A l l

?.OO/I .OO

o/o

0.97/0.97

o.o~/o.o~

2300-231

Bull

York All

2300-2327

Skipton

2300-2328

I<

2300-2330

Bradford

Manchestex (Halifax) 811

2300-2319

Hull ( ~ i r e c t )

[image:35.602.85.595.54.805.2]