Rail Baltica Forum
21 April 2017
Benefits of High Speed Rail in France
April, 24th 2017
Dominique DEAU
1 Table of contents
1. The different HSL since 1981 2. Impact on the traffic 3. Other impacts 4. Conclusion
April 2017 2 1 The different HSL since 1981 in France
HSL6 2007/2016 Total HSL length (Dec. 2016) : HSL3 1993 HSL7 2011 • 2130 km
HSL2 1989/1990 Number of HS trainsets : • above 400 trainsets
Network operated by HS trainsets HSL1 (HSL and conventional) : 1981/1983 • about 10 000 km
HSL4 1992/94 Number of stations served by HS trainsets : • 250 stations, • among which 19 built for HSL services.
HSL5 2001
April 2017 3 2 Impact on the traffic 2.1 Total of all high speed services
120 M pass./ year (highest HS traffic in Europe, but 350 M in Japan and 800 M in China)
Build-up of TGV traffic
120,0
110,0
100,0
90,0
80,0 Impact of competition (car sharing, coaches, etc.) 70,0
60,0
50,0
Traffic in millions of passengers of millions Trafficin 40,0
TGV all routes 30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
1982 1983 1986 1987 1990 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 1984 1985 1988 1989 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 1981 April 2017 4 2 Impact on the traffic 2.2 Detail by high speed service
Build-up of TGV traffic
35,00 Opening of HSL5
30,00 Impact of the commercial policy 25,00 Increase of
20,00 journey times
15,00 Traffic in millions of passengers ofmillions Traffic in
10,00 TGV South-East TGV Atlantic TGV jonction 5,00
0,00
April 2017
1985 1986 1987 1995 1996 1997 2005 2006 1982 1983 1984 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1981 5 2 Impact on the traffic 2.3 Example of Eurostar traffic (1/2)
Eurostar traffic through the Channel Tunnel 1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300 Monthly traffic in thousands of passengers of Monthlythousands in traffic 200
100 trend (12 month moving average)
0
nov.-94 nov.-95 nov.-96 nov.-97 nov.-98 nov.-99 nov.-00 nov.-01 nov.-02 nov.-03 nov.-04 nov.-05 nov.-06 nov.-07 nov.-08 nov.-09 nov.-10 nov.-11 nov.-12 nov.-13 nov.-14 nov.-15 nov.-16 April 2017 6 2 Impact on the traffic 2.3 Example of Eurostar traffic (2/2)
Eurostar traffic through the Channel Tunnel 1000 Sept. 2008 : 2nd fire in the Channel tunnel 900 Sept. 2001 : check-in times increased from 800 Change of 20 to 30 min commercial policy 700 Nov 2015 / July 2016 : terrorist attacks in Paris, 600 Brussels and Nice
500 Nov 2007 : journey time reduced by 20 min (CTRL2) 400 28 Sept. 2003 : journey Summer 20015 : terrorist 300 time reduced by 20 min attacks in London
Monthly traffic in thousands of passengers of Monthlythousands in traffic (CTRL1) 200
100 Nov. 1996 : 1st fire in the trend (12 month moving average) Channel tunnel
0
nov.-94 nov.-95 nov.-96 nov.-97 nov.-98 nov.-99 nov.-00 nov.-01 nov.-02 nov.-03 nov.-04 nov.-05 nov.-06 nov.-07 nov.-08 nov.-09 nov.-10 nov.-11 nov.-12 nov.-13 nov.-14 nov.-15 nov.-16 April 2017 7 2 Impact on the traffic 2.4 Lessons to be learnt
• The elasticity of the traffic to journey time is strong
• The elasticity of the traffic to price is also strong
• The market reacts up or down very quickly (you never “control” a market)
• The traffic between 2 cities located in 2 different countries is lower than what would be the traffic between these 2 cities if they were in the same country (border effect)
• If you try to internalise all the time saving through the fare policy, you jeopardise the future growth of the traffic
April 2017 8 2 Impact on the traffic 2.5 Economic approach of a high speed project
competition infrastructure
economical environment quality rolling stock of service
demand operating programme
fare policy
revenues operating costs
investment costs
interest for the operator
interest for the community April 2017 9 3 Other impacts 3.1 Example of Paris – Lyon OD
On the Paris – Lyon OD between 1980 and 1985 : • the railway journey time has been divided by 2 (4 hours to 2 hours), • the railway traffic has been multiplied by 2.4 (5 M pass. with TGV).
The study carried out to assess ex post the TGV impact has shown that : • among TGV passengers between Paris and Lyon, there was the same number of people living in Paris than people living in Lyon. As Lyon in 10 times smaller than Paris (1 M inhabitants vs 10 M), it means that in proportion the effect on Lyon has been 10 times bigger, • as it became so easy to travel from Paris to Lyon by TGV, some big companies have decided to remove their local or regional offices in Lyon, • on the other hand some skilled professionals living in Lyon (barristers, architects, etc.) have taken advantage of TGV to sell their services in Paris.
April 2017 10 3 Other impacts 3.2 Continuous development around Lyon Part-Dieu railway station
Railway B B B station Bricks Orange Sky 56 C A two Lyon Terralta
B : Silex1 B C : Silex2 Garibaldi C Commercial A centre Le Dolet B 2016 vision Wintech B 107 A : delivered A Servient B : works on going Incity C : works decided
April 2017 11 3 Other impacts 3.3 Example of HSL Rhin-Rhône (HSL7)
HSL Rhin-Rhône has been in service since December 2011.
The study carried out to assess ex post the TGV impact has shown in particular that the number of nights spent in the hotels around the HSL area : • has decreased from Monday to Thursday (business travellers can now achieved a return trip in the same day), • has increased on week-ends (positive impact thanks to leisure traffic).
April 2017 12 3 Other impacts 3.4 Preparing the opening of HSL Bretagne (July 2017)
Public and private stakeholders have been preparing this opening for several years. Among the actions undertaken :
• city of Rennes is involved in the development of Rennes station to facilitate intermodality with local transport (buses and automatic underground line), • Region of Bretagne is pushing hard to make sure that the benefits of the HSL will go beyond Rennes towards Brest and Quimper ; achieving such a result necessitates a remodelling of regional railway services, • private undertakings have reserved offices around Rennes railway station to facilitate co-working.
April 2017 13 4 Conclusion
• The market reacts up or down very quickly depending on : ➢ the journey time, ➢ the fare policy ➢ the economic environment (including competition)
• The key point for the economic assessment of a high speed project is the consistency between : ➢ the traffic forecasts (the demand) ➢ the operating programme (train timetable, rolling stock roster, etc.)
• The effects of a high speed project beyond the traffic are not automatic ; they have to be prepared well in advance with all stakeholders : ➢ public sector ➢ private sector
April 2017 14 Thank you for your attention
April 2017 15 Appendix
April 2017 16 A1 Impact of Eurostar on air traffic
Air travel between London and Paris
400
350
300
250
200
150
trend (12 month moving average) traffic inof passengers thousands traffic 100 monthly traffic
50
0
juil-92 juil-93 juil-94 juil-95 juil-96 juil-97 juil-98 juil-99
oct-92 oct-93 oct-94 oct-95 oct-96 oct-97 oct-98 oct-99
avr-92 avr-93 avr-94 avr-95 avr-96 avr-97 avr-98 avr-99
janv-93 janv-94 janv-95 janv-96 janv-97 janv-98 janv-99 janv-00 janv-92 April 2017 17