Author
Listed:
- Nicolas Coulombel
(LVMT - Laboratoire Ville, Mobilité, Transport - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Gustave Eiffel)
- Philippe Poinsot
(LVMT - Laboratoire Ville, Mobilité, Transport - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - Université Gustave Eiffel, EUP - École d'urbanisme de Paris - UPEM - Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée - UPEC UP12 - Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12)
Abstract
Although France has one of the largest railway networks in Europe, travelling by train represents only 11% of domestic passenger travel (CGDD, 2021). Furthermore, the usage of the French railway network is very heterogeneous. While a third of the network accommodates 71% of the transportation supply (in train-km), almost half of it (45%) is dedicated to only 9% of the supply. The French national railways company, the SNCF, has until recently benefitted from a quasi-monopolistic power by operating most of the network. However, complying with the European guidelines, the French government has gradually opened domestic rail passenger travel to competition, starting from 2019 and until 2023. French regions are seizing this opportunity to challenge the SNCF with other operators, and to question the relevance of rail services for small passenger lines ("lignes de desserte fine du territoire" in French). These lines face very limited ridership for comparatively often very high operating costs. In periurban and rural areas, where most of these lines are located, private cars are the preferred mode of travel, as they may prove more convenient than a low-speed train service with only a few round-trips per day. Coach services could therefore provide a more affordable alternative to train services. On the other hand, some regions have considered an opposite approach by improving service frequency on these small lines in an attempt to boost ridership and avoid closing those lines, in fear of isolating the rural areas served by these lines. This work intends to shed light on this debate by investigating the relevance of several alternative scenarios for the provision of regional passenger mobility, which vary according to the mode used – either train or coach – and the level of service frequency. The scenarios are evaluated using a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) evaluation framework based on the French national guidelines (Quinet, 2019), in order to capture the impact on consumer surplus, operating costs, and the environmental and safety externalities (Boardman, 2006). Relatively to the existing literature on the topic (see Tirachini et al., 2010 for a review), our evaluation framework includes a very detailed cost structure for train services. This allows us to take into account economies of scale related to infrastructure costs but also operating costs when improving service frequency, with a level of detail not present in previous studies. The methodology is applied to 8 railway lines in the Région Sud Provence Alpes Côtes d'Azur in French, which features a mixture of busy and small railway lines. Four scenarios are considered: 1) a "status quo" scenario with the current rail service, 2) a "coach" scenario where the service is operated by coaches instead of trains, 3) an "improved train" scenario with improved service frequency and finally 4) an "improved coach" scenario which mimics scenario 3) but again using coaches instead of trains. As the Région Sud faces chronic issues regarding regional passenger transportation, it provides an excellent case study for this analysis. Preliminary results show that, as expected, the choice between train and coach services results from a trade-off between the lower operating costs of coach services and the greater value for users of train services resulting from a better comfort for the latter mode. The environmental impact of switching from train to coaches depends on the load factor. Although it is usually in favor of coaches, it remains extremely limited compared to operating costs and private costs with the current valuation of pollutant emissions. Improving service frequency, both for trains and cars, often proves an effective policy, with a positive net present value for seven out of eight lines. We find that the critical level of ridership between coach and train services is around 700,000 passenger-km per year for regular levels of service frequency, and around 500,000 passenger-km per year when service frequency is improved and optimized, thanks to economies of scale.
Suggested Citation
Nicolas Coulombel & Philippe Poinsot, 2024.
"Coaches vs trains in the provision of regional mobility services: the case of France,"
Post-Print
hal-04576136, HAL.
Handle:
RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04576136
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's
web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04576136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.