It’s weird. It just shows just how much the railways rely on the office commuters. Whilst roads are slightly quieter, still no where near deserted like they were during lockdown 1 and some roads are just as busy as they are during normal times. I fear many will just realise how convenient and sometimes cheaper the car can be and will just stick with that.
Certainly isn’t the age of the train anymore. Age of the automobile
The issue is that roads aren't congested and so people are using them, so if those many office workers return to work, even part time, then chances are congestion will return.
If that happens it'll make car driving less attractive.
However on the wider point of will rail see significant falls in rail use. I suspect that the answer is no.
Let's say that there's 1,000 passengers on the railways, well whilst 670 are comutters there's still 330 who aren't and so may not change their travel because of Covid-19.
Of those 670 there's going to be some who opt not to WFH at all or can't (in the latter there's likely to be school and college aged children as well as those jobs where is not viable), given that at the worst of the lockdown there was at least 10% of rail travel continuing (including when schools were closed) it's not unreasonable to say that 25% would be unaffected.
That leaves 503, so even if everybody stopped all their commuting rail use would fall by 50%. However that's highly unlikely, as nearly everybody would have some office time. Therefore is a case of what sort of split is most likely to be the average across everybody.
I suspect that WFH an average of 2 or 3 days a week would be a fairly likely average. That's then a fall of 40% or 60% on that 503, so a fall of between 200 and 300. That would put the maximum overall fall at between 20% and 30%.
However even then there's likely to be other factors to consider. For instance:
- that's passenger numbers, not revenue, with annual season tickets being very cheap compared to turn up and go prices then the fall in revenue may well not be that much
- likewise if you're traveling less frequently you may travel further, especially if that travel time is then counted as working, this could also further reduce revenue falls
- we've assumed 25% don't change (and we've seen username rates of over 35% over the summer and autumn) if that figure was 35% then the falls would be in the 18% to 26%. It could even be higher than that.
- the rise in WFH would likely impact car use too, now if you've only got to go to work infrequently why would you need 2 cars in the household (now some will keep then regardless, but other won't) as such there could be some trips a year for which there's a need for something other (as the one car is already being used) as such rail maybe used, which increases leisure travel by rail
- likewise there could be some who start using rail for their travel to work, even if that's just because they WFH 2 days a week and drive in 2 days (as their other half is WFH those days) and use the train for 1 day (when their other half is also working and takes the car
- the massive increase in home delivery will mean that owning a car for supermarket deliveries makes little sense, this will further erode the need for some to own a car, again this could lead to some small increases in leisure travel (as well as car club/car hire use)
- it's been a fairly ongoing trend that young people tend not to drive, with the ability to only need to be in the office a few days a week that becomes easier to do and so encourages this
- likewise if you're only going in a few days a week then cycling becomes more attractive rather than driving, as you're less likely to get rained on (and if you can pick when you do that reduces your risk yet further), add in the rise of e-bikes (so a lot less effort required, so no need to get hot and sweaty, as even if you want to do it for exercise you can do so on the way home) and those car commutes of less than 5 miles start to look more at risk. However cycling 40 miles to seeac friend isn't practical and so it could also mean more leisure travel on the railways.
Overall I wouldn't be surprised if the overall fall was in the 10% to 20% range (especially if we are considering revenue and/or miles traveled rather than passenger numbers).
Now whilst we may well see that hit hardest in the South East in the peak, it's not uncommon for peak services to be running with many more people on each train than there are seats and so rail may become nicer to do (which in turn makes it nicer for more people to do).
Overall it's likely that where things are likely to be cut would be:
- extra peak for services
- some local services to minor stations, however some could still see similar frequencies by faster services being slowed down
- more services staying on their own branchline and feeding into more frequent and longer trains
For instance rather than running 8tph with 3 coaches from 6 different branches and 2 along the mainline you'd run 4tph along the mainline with 8 coaches and 6 branchline services, probably running more frequently, with 2 coaches. The change time between the branches would reduce and the frequency on the branches would increase reducing the risk of missed connections, making rail more attractive. Your staff costs would increase a little as would your lease costs would increase a little, however the risk of delays would fall significantly saving a load of money and the rail service would likely attract many more people than the loss of a direct service increasing the revenue (hopefully enough to cover those extra costs).
Especially given that it would then be much easier to travel along the branch and then "the wrong way" along the mainline. As this would make more journey options viable.
I must say I do like your website and I have done a number of walks across the south east. The route instructions are second to none.