Extend open access says Adam Smith

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From City a.m.

Drop rail franchise system for head-to-head competition to slash fares, says Adam Smith Institute

Rail fares for British passengers could be slashed if the franchise system was dropped in favour of head-to-head competition, a leading thinktank has argued.

The free market thinktank the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) said an “open access” system, which would allow different train companies to compete on the same route, would drive down fares and operating costs, while also boosted innovation.

In its new paper, called ‘How to fix Britain's railways: The case for long-distance rail competition’, the ASI claims the open access model was commonplace in Europe, but not in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), where only one per cent of routes conformed to the model. It said on the routes where open for access was in operation, fares were 55 per cent cheaper than on those where there was a single monopoly franchise.

Adrian Quine, lead author of the paper and rail consultant, said: “In nearly every other industry where ‘like for like’ competition exists, consumers have benefited. In some countries in the EU^» (European Union - about) where there are multiple long distance operators competing on the same routes, passengers have enjoyed lower ticket prices, greater choice, vastly improved customer service and innovation for years.

[continues]

[CyclingSid]

Take it to their logical conclusion they will probably argue rules and signalling are a restraint to free trade.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

From City a.m.

Drop rail franchise system for head-to-head competition to slash fares, says Adam Smith Institute

Rail fares for British passengers could be slashed if the franchise system was dropped in favour of head-to-head competition, a leading thinktank has argued.

The free market thinktank the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) said an “open access” system, which would allow different train companies to compete on the same route, would drive down fares and operating costs, while also boosted innovation.

In its new paper, called ‘How to fix Britain's railways: The case for long-distance rail competition’, the ASI claims the open access model was commonplace in Europe, but not in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), where only one per cent of routes conformed to the model. It said on the routes where open for access was in operation, fares were 55 per cent cheaper than on those where there was a single monopoly franchise.

Adrian Quine, lead author of the paper and rail consultant, said: “In nearly every other industry where ‘like for like’ competition exists, consumers have benefited. In some countries in the EU^» (European Union - about) where there are multiple long distance operators competing on the same routes, passengers have enjoyed lower ticket prices, greater choice, vastly improved customer service and innovation for years.

[continues]

I'm struggling to think where in Europe open access is 'commonplace'. At the moment I can think of a couple of routes in Italy, a couple of services in Germany, Poland, Sweden and Austria and then...

...can anybody help?

[stuving]

I'm struggling to think where in Europe open access is 'commonplace'. At the moment I can think of a couple of routes in Italy, a couple of services in Germany, Poland, Sweden and Austria and then...

...can anybody help?

Italy is the only example I can think of on main lines - and the only one in this "research" report, which you can read yourself if you aren't too allergic.

While competition is generally a good thing, it does lead to perverse results where there is a capacity limit, or an agreed need for a lot of subsidy. Both of those (i.e. commuter services and sparse rural ones) they exempt from their panacea. But they don't register that capacity issues also affect most long-distance routes in some places. Come to that, where airlines hit the same problem - with take-off and landing slots - they do all they can to avoid fair competition playing any part.

[eightonedee]

Clearly one of the authors has a strong background in railway engineering, line capacity assessment, rolling stock procurement and letting contracts for the provision of public services by private contractors-

Prior to her position at the Adam Smith Institute, Sophie worked at Lloyd’s of
London as a trainee underwriter. She studied Classics at the University of Bristol,
specialising in female courtesans in 5th Century Athens.

That's why I have to post questions to others on this forum about the rail industry - I should have studied courtesans in 5th century Greece at university!

[Richard Fairhurst]

I'm definitely not going to cast any stones on that front.

signed, Richard, MA Anglo-Saxon, Norse & Celtic

[plymothian]

Privatisation was sold by the Major government on the basis of open access, ie one TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) competing with the other in the same was a buses can.  Unfortunately it was realised too late that one train cannot overtake another like a bus can and, like bus routes, everyone will want the Intercity routes and leave the branches and non profitable lines to wither without local council subsidy.

[Sixty3Closure]

I think the most generous thing i can say about most of the papers from the Adam Smith Institute is that they stimulate debate.