99 Manton Drive

          Luton LU2 7DL

         01582 724257

          [email protected]

To Philip Benham, Director of Commercial Services
ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies)

Copy to -

John W Smith, London Transport Users Committee

John Uden, North London Transport Forum

Andrew Long, Beds Commuters Association

Denise Carlo, STEER

Simon Earles, Luton Airport

Platform Magazine (Transport 2000)

Railwatch Magazine (RailFuture)

Kelvin Hopkins MP

19 March 2002

 

Dear Mr Benham

I have heard that ATOC is proposing a minimum fare of £10 for those using a Network Card.

I am writing to urge you not to allow operators to restrict the use of Network Cards.

 

Buying a card once a year allows 1/3 reduction on off-peak rail travel in the south-east, and there is no minimum fare.  The card can be used for journeys no matter what the cost.  This is good for the rail operators, as it encourages more people to use off-peak trains, which usually have plenty of empty seats.

 

The action of introducing a minimum fare would :

 

• put up the price of train travel, making it so much more expensive for some people that many journeys become unviable (many of my Network Card journeys from Luton are between £6 and £8)
• particularly affect people on low incomes (bringing unacceptable social exclusion)
• encourage people to use their cars more, particularly for short journeys, causing more congestion and pollution, and reducing rail revenue, when the government is trying to encourage rail use
• discourage use of rail by passengers using most stations within M25 and 25 miles of London

 

Obviously a Network Card will generate some travel in the evening peak, but it is more staggered than the morning peak, and there is not the stress of getting to work late by avoiding a crowded train.  Those who do not have to travel before 10am will often avoid the most crowded times to return.

 

Obviously it is important to plan transport in an integrated way.  In the last year or two the railways have suffered several setbacks.  This is not a time, if ever there were one, to add new restrictions, put up fares for those who can least afford it, and make life difficult for those who rely on an affordable train service.

I believe there is a meeting of  ATOC on 25 March, when any decisions will take into account the comments of passengers and their representatives. Please convey the concern that this would hit a great many people who have no choice but to use trains, but could not afford the proposed increase.

Please note also that I shall write to the local press on the above issue.                                       /  PTO

 

 

Two further suggestions for raising revenue, which relate to my earlier point on integration :

 

1)  Luton Airport is expanding at one million passengers a year.  The airport claims that about a quarter arrive by public transport. This means 750,000 more people arrive by private car than the year before, causing rapidly spiralling congestion which is completely unsustainable.  It would be beneficial to both train operators and air travel operators to provide joint travel arrangements.  If an air ticket covered the cost of the train fare, and could be booked via the Internet and at Travel and Tourist Information Centres, it would do much to discourage people from travelling by car, and more people would bring revenue to the railways.

 

2) A vast number of people have no choice but to use their cars daily for east-west journeys travelling in and out of South Bedfordshire. It is likely that in the very near future the local authority proposal for a Luton-Dunstable busway will fail. There is a marvellous opportunity for an operator who wants to run trains or light rail along the existing track between the two towns to tap into a market of over a quarter of a million people. The people of Dunstable, many of whom commute to London by car (others contributing to road congestion by driving to Leagrave) are desperate to be on the rail network.

 

This scheme would be eligible for two types of SRA funding, would need minimum infrastructure, and could be done within two years.  Soon after, the service could be extended to the West Coast Mainline at or near Leighton Buzzard, for access to many destinations including Milton Keynes.  I am advised that no flyover would be needed at Luton for a rail link.  Several rail operators have expressed interest in recent years without reaching a satisfactory conclusion, but the political climate is now becoming more favourable for rail.  I urge you to consider the possibilities, look at the franchising arrangements, and put the word about that it may be beneficial to express interest.  If there is enthusiasm in some quarters, I should be delighted to hear from you.

 

 

A final point: There is great concern that Thameslink's reliability is getting worse, and that they are not prepared to respond to market conditions and to consider need for longer trains and platforms, or otherwise meet increased demand in the period prior to Thameslink 2000. This is very frustrating for rail users, and suggests that Thameslink would not prove to be a satisfactory operator once Thameslink 2000 goes ahead.

 

I would be grateful if you would put all these points before the meeting.

Thank you.

 

Yours sincerely
David Oakley-Hill

Co-ordinator, Luton Friends of the Earth

Committee Member, STEER (Sustainable Transport for the East of England Region)

Member, Luton Airport Transport Forum

Chair, Luton Agenda 21 Transport Group

Author, 'Sustainable Moves' (report based on 3 years work by Luton LA21 Transport group)