THE removal of peak fares on ScotRail services did not occur for a long enough period of time to fully assess its benefits, a transport expert has said.
Peak fares are set to return on September 27 with the cost of some peaktime journeys set to skyrocket.
By next week, a peak return between Edinburgh and Glasgow will increase from £16.20 to £31.40.
While passenger numbers during the trial increased by 6.8%, Transport Secretary Fiona Hyslop said a 10% increase was needed for the scheme to be self-financing.
READ MORE: Reform UK 'block' critical journalists from Birmingham conference
Tom Rye is a professor of transport policy at Molde University College in Norway who has previously undertaken research on behalf of the Scottish Government.
He told the Sunday National that removing peak fares for less than a year was not long enough to accurately assess the impacts of the scheme.
“There’s this concept in transport economics called price elasticity,” he said.
“It’s about understanding how demand responds to a change in price.
“But there’s both short-term and long-term elasticity.
“Short-term might refer to how demand changes within a few weeks or months while long-term could be over several years or even up to decades.
“For example, a long time ago, South Yorkshire in England had very cheap bus fares.
“They stayed at the level they were at in 1972 for something like 15 years.
“It meant that by 1982, the level of bus bookings in South Yorkshire were much higher than comparable metropolitan counties because the fares were so cheap.
“But that response didn’t happen overnight. It can take a while for people to even notice such changes.”
Rye added that the changes in demand can be a great deal more dramatic in the long term rather than the short term.
“You definitely need more than a year in the case of rail fares,” he said.
READ MORE: Ian Murray accused of 'hypocrisy' as 'freezing' pensioners tweet unearthed
The Scottish Government initially only greenlit the trial for six months in October 2023.
However, the scheme was twice extended by increments of three months, a method which Rye said was also likely to deter long-term change in behaviour.
“If it’s only a trial offer, people aren’t going to change their lives just to take advantage of that, particularly if they’re not sure it’s going to stay,” he said.
“It just adds to the problem of not having a long enough experiment.”
Rye’s comments come after trade unions and campaigners urged the Scottish Government to reverse its decision.
In response, the Scottish Government said it “would be open to consider future subsidy to remove fares should UK budget allocations improve in future years".
One of the main goals of the policy was to try and spur behavioural change away from private car use and towards more sustainable public transport.
According to the Scottish Government’s own research, the trial resulted in around four million extra rail journeys over the nine months from October 2023 “of which half of new passengers switched from private car” at the cost of £40 million per year in subsidy.
Yet Ric Lander, a senior campaigner at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said it was revealing that Scotland’s road budget didn’t suffer similar reductions due to the UK Government’s spending cuts.
“The Scottish Government must own its political choice to spend £4 million on just three road schemes when just 1% of this would have paid for the removal of peak fares for all train passengers in Scotland,” he said.
“John Swinney and Kate Forbes have consistently rolled back on climate since they came to power.
READ MORE: Scottish wind farm with power for 53,000 homes officially opens
“Among all the devastating cuts made to climate protection, safer cycling and bus travel for asylum seekers, the obscene road expansion budget didn’t seem to lose a penny.
“Our roads can be repaired and made safer by encouraging people out of cars, without always trying to just make them bigger.
“The Scottish Government should resist the continuation of Westminster austerity but this does not absolve Scottish ministers of their responsibility to use their powers to raise the revenue we need for climate and social protections.
“There is a growing chorus demanding higher income taxes for the wealthiest, taxes on private jets and measures that ensure the polluter pays the full cost of the harm they cause.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here