Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Prepared by: ................................................ Approved by: Jane Cornthwaite Brian Vaughan John Dodgson (NERA)
Marlborough House, Upper Marlborough Road, St Albans, Hertfordshire, AL1 3UT Telephone: 020 8784 5784 Fax: 020 8784 5700 Website: http://www.fabermaunsell.com Job No 52988T Reference Date Created July 2007
This contains confidential and commercially sensitive information, which shall not be disclosed to third parties.
f:\projects\t52988 saver fares\report\19 oct saver report final 4 (5.2.7 graph title added).doc
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Background........................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Objectives of the study ......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Policy context........................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Structure of the Report ......................................................................................... 5 Review of existing evidence .......................................................................................... 7 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Research on Fares Regulation ............................................................................. 7 2.3 TOC Submissions Regarding Saver Deregulation ............................................... 9 2.4 Evidence on Rail Fares Elasticities..................................................................... 10 2.5 Transport Select Committee Report and Government Response...................... 16 2.6 Evidence from Competition Authorities............................................................... 18 2.7 Competition Authority Views on Fare Levels...................................................... 22 2.8 Conclusions from the Review of Existing Evidence............................................ 23 New Research................................................................................................................ 26 3.1 Survey Objectives ............................................................................................... 26 3.2 Survey Methodology ........................................................................................... 26 3.3 Choice of Routes and Trains .............................................................................. 27 3.4 Questionnaire Design ......................................................................................... 27 3.5 Response Rates ................................................................................................. 29 3.6 Survey Conclusions ............................................................................................ 30 Findings From Questionnaire Responses.................................................................. 32 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Number of Saver users....................................................................................... 32 4.3 Respondent income and socio-economic information........................................ 33 4.4 Journey Planning and flexibility .......................................................................... 38 4.5 Access to Sales Channels .................................................................................. 41 4.6 Conclusions from questionnaire responses........................................................ 43 Modelling........................................................................................................................ 46 5.1 Stated Preference Results and Robustness....................................................... 46 5.2 Development of policy application model ........................................................... 58 5.3 Deriving ideal departure time ............................................................................ 64 5.4 Elasticity Values and Diversion Factors between Ticket Types ......................... 69 5.5 Overall Functionality of Policy Model.................................................................. 70 5.6 Policy Tests......................................................................................................... 73 Pulling the Evidence Together..................................................................................... 83 6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 83 6.2 Assessment of Market Power ............................................................................. 83 6.3 Implications for Competition Authorities if fare levels increase .......................... 84 6.4 Demand Management ........................................................................................ 85 6.5 Social Inclusion ................................................................................................... 86 6.6 Network Benefits................................................................................................. 86 6.7 Conclusions from the Evidence .......................................................................... 87
1. Introduction
Faber Maunsell
Introduction
1.1 1.1.1
Background The nature of how passengers buy and choose rail fares, particularly for longer distance travel is changing. Only a few years ago, internet rail purchase was almost non-existent. Now 64% of travellers in off-peak periods are buying their tickets in advance, and there is every indication to assume this trend will continue. At the same time, ATOC, working in conjunction with the Department for Transport (DfT) have been pressing for a simpler fare structure, and the DfT are working with the industry delivering this for passengers. A consequence of both these development is that passengers will have more readily available and clearer information about the different fares available for the journeys they want to make. In this light, DfT Rail have commissioned this study to look at the potential impact of Saver Fares Differentiation and Potential Deregulation. Saver fares deregulation has been on the industry agenda for some while. The SRAs Fare Review Conclusions, published in 2003, did not result in Saver deregulation at the time, but comments contained with the report give a clear indication that the arguments for considering saver Fare deregulation are strong. The regulation of Saver fares (off-peak for leisure travel of about 50 miles and over) has constrained new and innovative, customer-focused tickets and has led to significant overcrowding on some routes. Indeed crowding has sometimes been higher in the offpeak than the peak due to the distortions introduced by Saver regulation. Train operators generally face a competitive market for this type of travel because passengers can normally choose alternative forms of travel if operators do not offer attractive and affordable fares. The SRA will be working with the relevant train operators to develop proposals to address these problems, with a view to replacing the existing regime by 2006 with one more suited to passenger needs. It may be possible to introduce a new regime earlier than this, subject to any proposal demonstrating benefits for passengers and taxpayers.
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
The DfT now has responsibilities for fares policy for the rail industry. As part of a wider strategic assessment of the direction of the rail industry in the years to come, DfT Rail has commissioned this study to look again specifically at the Saver fare market and to provide new research to inform decisions about saver fare regulation policy. Faber Maunsell, in conjunction with NERA Consulting, undertook the study between February and May 2007. The findings of their work are presented in this report. Objectives of the study The high level objectives of the study have been as follows: