Mobility in EuropE

Transcription

Mobility in EuropE

2013 Report
Mobility
in Europe
A review of passenger
and freight transport
sncf.com
contents
04 — MOBILITY: THE BIG PICTURE
06 — Passenger transport
08 — Passenger indicators
12 — interview wITH Clare Hollingsworth
14 — Passenger transport in France in 2012
16 — interview wITH Jean-Marc Janaillac
18 — P
arking policies and mobility
20 — interview wITH Roland Ries
22 — European rail: a progress report
24 — interview wITH Pierre Cardo
sources
The statistics reviewed here
are taken from databases
of EU transport and lifestyle
statistics compiled
and released by Eurostat
(www. ec.europa.eu/Eurostat
and www.ec.europa/transport/
facts-fundings/statistics/
pocketbook-2013_en.htm).
Studying and managing mobility
requires combining data
on available transport and user
behaviours. European statistics,
which consist primarily
of aggregated national statistics
plus the occasional targeted
study, have both advantages
and disadvantages. Their chief
advantage is to provide users
with a solid foundation
for making comparisons
and tracking trends.
data
All data collected
and presented in this report
are available in Excel format
at www.sncf.com/en/group
We welcome your reactions,
comments and suggestions
at www.questions.sncf.com
26 — Freight transport
28 — Freight statistics
32 — Freight in France in 2012
34 — How ports fuel rail traffic
36 — interview wITH Didier Dieudonné
38 — Rail motorways – the freight transport of the future
39 — interview wITH Alain Picard
40 — interview wITH Robert Lohr
42 — Mobility offering
44 — Mobility offering: Key indicators
48 — interview wITH Dominique Riquet
50 — Mobility 21 Commission
52 — interview wITH Philippe Duron
54 — THE TRANSPORT ECONOMY
56 — THE TRANSPORT ECONOMY: Key indicators
60 — interview wITH Jean-Pierre Orfeuil
62 — A
NEW TEACHING AND RESEARCH CHAIR
64 — interview wITH armel de la bourdonnaye
66 — Low-cost models in transport
68 — Meeting the low-cost challenge
70 — interview wITH Emmanuel Combe
72 — Ouigo: France’s first budget rail service
74 — iDBUS: reimagining coach travel
76 — Passenger satisfaction with trains and railway stations
78 — Passenger satisfaction in Europe
84 — interview wITH Vincent Kaufmann
86 — Mytripset, Europe’s first multimodal trip planning website
90 — interview wITH Yves Tyrode
92 — GlossaRY
93 — BibliographY
mobility in Europe - 2013 — 3
FOREWORD
MOBILITY: THE BIG PICTURE
Mobility is both an integral part of daily life and a major
public policy issue – yet paradoxically, few people realize
how wide-ranging and diverse it is. That’s why we’ve
compiled this “open data” style report, which summarizes
the latest European data and makes it available to everyone.
We hope it will spark a dialogue with the entire community
of mobility stakeholders and perhaps even lead to new ways
of interacting.
In the opening chapters, you’ll find basic information
on mobility in the European Union, from passenger
and freight indicators to trends in the transport economy
and in the types of mobility on offer.
These figures provide proof – if any were needed –
of the economic might of the transport sector, which
accounts for an average 13.2% of Europeans’ consumption
expenditure. They also reflect the sector’s environmental
impact: it accounts for a full 25% of greenhouse gas
emissions and nearly 32% of all energy consumption
in the European Union. This reflects the continued
dominance of roads, which handle 82.7% of passenger
transport and 71.8% of freight. Between 2000 and 2011,
road transport actually increased its share, with private
automobiles gaining 6% and road freight increasing 10%–
even as public transport stagnated.
4
In the section on ground transport, you’ll find that France
is unusual among the countries in Europe. At 10%, rail’s
modal share is slightly above average for passenger
transport, and France boasts the longest per capita distance
travelled annually by train, at 1,410 km. But for freight
transport, the total volume of goods carried on the French
rail network in 2012 remained well below the level before
the 2008 crisis, and rail’s modal share is only 10%, compared
with an average 17% for the European Union as a whole.
Air transport is also facing economic headwinds in France.
While the number of French airports per capita is close
to the European average of one per 1.2 million inhabitants,
average traffic per airport is well below the figures for
other countries: French airports see only 2.3 million
passengers annually, versus 4.2 million for their German
counterparts.
This type of comparative analysis is valuable because
it highlights the unique features of each country
and gives us insights into national trends. It also shows that
the ambitious goals for reducing environmental impacts
adopted in the European Commission’s white paper remain
largely unrealized at EU level. We must take concrete
action in several key areas – deploying new car-sharing
schemes, promoting rail motorways, expanding rail-maritime
intermodality, and modernizing public transport
and improving its appeal.
In the second half of the report, we take a more themebased approach and focus on current economic conditions,
highlighting the major trends for the year – especially
passengers’ new expectations for mobility services. We
begin with a review of low-cost offers and their growth in rail
and other types of transport: more and more consumers are
drawn to these offerings, which deliver competitive pricing
by reducing services to their simplest possible level.
Throughout the report you’ll find interviews with key figures
– political leaders, academics and SNCF Group partners –
who generously shared their experiences and analyses with
us. Our warmest thanks to all of them for their contribution,
which we hope will encourage you to keep the conversation
going.
At the same time, an increasing number of passengers
say that the quality of the time they spend in transit is more
important to them than saving time or travelling faster. They
also value smooth connections and amenities at multimodal
hubs, as you’ll see from a study of Europeans’ expectations
for passenger information, safety and cleanliness in stations
and aboard trains.
In our final pages, you’ll find an article on Mytripset,
a new door-to-door travel tool that passengers can use
to combine every available mode of transport and plan
their travel down to the last detail. This new service reflects
our effort to provide clients with a personalized solution that
makes their everyday journeys simpler.
Passenger
transport
6
08 — Passenger indicators
12 — interview wITH Clare Hollingsworth
14 — Passenger transport in France in 2012
16 — interview wITH Jean-Marc Janaillac
18 — Parking policies and mobility
20 — interview wITH Roland Ries
22 — European rail: a progress report
24 — interview wITH Pierre Cardo
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
AnalysIS
Passenger
indicators
Automobiles no. 1 in passenger
ground transport
Rail takes larger share in Northern Europe
Rail traffic in Northern and Central Europe generally exceeds
the EU average, outperforming buses and coaches. Trains
account for nearly 10% of transport in the Netherlands and
Denmark, and 9% in Sweden, with Austria taking the lead
at 11%. In France, too, rail is relatively important, with 9.2%
of pkm in 2011.
In Eastern and Southern Europe, however, trains account for
a smaller share of transport. In these regions, bus and coach
travel outstrips the European average, representing 20.8%
of pkm in Hungary, 13.3% in Spain and 12.6% in Italy.
In Switzerland, by contrast, rail takes a steep 17.5% of transport
volume, much higher than in the EU-27.
In general, the automobile continued to dominate passenger
transport throughout the EU in 2011, accounting for 82.7%
of passenger-kilometres (pkm) travelled. Road-based mass
transport (buses and coaches) ranked second, with 8.8%
of European pkm, followed by rail with 7% and, finally, tram
and metro with 1.6%, though these averages mask wide
differences from country to country.
Traffic by mode as a % of 2011 passenger-kilometres for ground transport:
Automobiles, coaches and buses, trains, trams and metros
Train
Coach and bus
Tram and metro
Automobile
50%
70%
90%
Malta
Cyprus
Greece
Lithuania
Estonia
Slovenia
Ireland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Luxembourg
Finland
Poland
Romania
Latvia
Italy
Spain
Slovakia
Czech Republic
EU-27
7.0%
8.8%
1.6%
82.7%
Belgium
United Kingdom
Germany
Sweden
France
9.2%
5.3% 1.6%
84.0%
Netherlands
Hungary
Denmark
Austria
Switzerland
0
8
10%
20%
30%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Air travel takes off
When air and sea travel are included, we find that the key
development in Europe’s passenger transport market
is a sharp spike in travel by plane, which now outstrips rail
in terms of passenger-kilometres due to the longer distances
it covers.
Low-cost air travel arrives
Between 2000 and 2011, air travel’s share of passenger traffic
increased 26%, while automobiles and trains rose 10% each,
and bus and coach volumes fell by 1%. Low-cost operators
captured additional passenger volumes to account for part
of the rise in air traffic. Over time, passengers have come
to view air travel as a major medium- and long-distance
transport option at continental level.
But urban rail traffic (tram and metro) also saw a sharp rise
in volume, and though these modes continue to account
for a minority of overall traffic due to the short distances
they cover, they have grown by some 19% since 2000.
NOTE:
Passenger transport by mode in EU-27 in 2011
The indicators presented in this section
are taken from 2011 data
on the 27 member countries
of the European Union, published
by Eurostat in summer 2013. A directorategeneral of the European Commission,
Eurostat is tasked with providing official
statistical information at EU level,
primarily by collecting, harmonizing
and aggregating data published
by the national statistical institutes
of the member countries. The full
range of statistics is available
at: ec.europa.eu/eurostat
(% of passenger-kilometres)
Air
Tram and metro
8.8%
Trains
Sea
0.6%
1.4%
6.2%
Buses
and coaches
2-wheel
motor vehicles
7.8%
1.9%
73.4%
Automobiles
2000-2011 trend in passenger transport modes in EU-27
(% of passenger-kilometres)
26%
19%
13%
10%
10%
Buses
and
coaches
Automobiles 2-wheel
motor
vehicles
-1%
Sea
Trains
Tram
and metro
Air
-12%
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
Ground transport:
French rail stands out
Statistics on ground passenger transport (i.e., excluding
sea and air) relative to the population of each country
show that the average European travels 11,657 km annually,
with rail accounting for 814 km (2011 figures). France has
the highest per-capita rail travel, averaging 1,410 km
annually, while Luxembourgers cover the greatest distance
at 15,490 km per year (calculated by dividing total travel
for all modes of ground transport by the number
of inhabitants), reflecting the Grand Duchy’s central location
and focus on international business. In general, southern
and eastern European countries have the lowest numbers
of kilometres travelled per inhabitant, except Italy,
which ranks sixth overall.
Meanwhile, Switzerland far outstrips all 27 countries
of the EU, with 2,474 km of train travel per inhabitant.
Passenger transport relative to population in 2011
(passenger-kilometres per inhabitant)
Rail
Other modes
Cyprus
Malta
Greece
Lithuania
Estonia
Romania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Ireland
Slovenia
Portugal
Slovakia
Poland
Spain
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Italy
Finland
Hungary
EU-27
814
10,844
1,410
13,920
11,657 km per capita
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany
Denmark
Sweden
Austria
France
15,330 km per capita
Switzerland
0
10
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Passenger transport varies widely
across Europe
Taken as a whole, the EU’s 27 countries saw per-capita
kilometres travelled by automobile increase 6.0% between
2000 and 2011, while mass transit stagnated, with a rise
of only 0.7% in kilometres travelled. Yet here, too, averages
masked widely different trends.
EU-15
In the original 15 countries of the European Union (prior
to its expansion in 2004), per-capita mass transit volumes
rose 4.9%, while automobile travel stagnated, edging up only
0.3%. Over the same period, mass transit soared 29.7%
in Belgium and 17.2% in France, compared with a modest
2.8% rise in Germany.
Yet in the EU-15 countries of Greece, Portugal, Ireland,
Italy, Spain and Finland, rail traffic declined. And despite
heavy investment in Spain’s motorway and high-speed rail
networks, the country’s per-capita overland traffic remained
low and even declined relative to 2000.
Eastern Europe
In Eastern Europe, by contrast, per-capita kilometres travelled
by automobile increased sharply over the European average.
Volumes rose 21.6% in Slovenia and 54.2% in Romania,
and more than doubled in Poland, where automobile
traffic soared 109.9% – a spectacular increase fuelled
by the modernization of road networks in these countries
after they joined the EU. As a result, mass transport’s share
of the market plummeted in Eastern Europe, falling 7.4%
in Slovenia, 15.4% in Romania and 28.3% in Poland.
2000-2011 trend in per capita passenger-kilometres by country
Mass transport
Automobile
Belgium
Luxembourg
30%
19%
0%
France
17%
0%
United Kingdom
Austria
Sweden
11%
EU-15
5%
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Finland
Spain
Italy
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
3%
EU-27
1%
Lithuania
Estonia
Cypress
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Hungary
Malta
Romania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Poland
Slovakia
7%
Switzerland
27%
1%
-4%
8%
6%
7%
1%
0%
9%
-5%
2%
-1%
1%
-1%
13%
-3%
-4%
-3%
-12%
-3%
-1%
-6%
13%
-7%
50%
6%
32%
-2%
13%
-3%
25%
-3%
0%
-7%
22%
-12%
16%
-5%
13%
-15%
54%
-17%
99%
-19%
59%
-28%
110%
-35%
13%
3%
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
interview
“
We’ve carried over 130 million
passengers in the two decades since
Eurostar was launched – a testimony
to the advantages of high-speed rail
over air travel.
Clare Hollingsworth,
Chairman, Eurostar
Why do you think Eurostar traffic has
held up so well during the economic
crisis?
At Eurostar we’ve seen steady growth
in passenger numbers, revenue and
profitability year after year, despite
ongoing economic uncertainty in the
region.
We naturally experienced a dip
in business passenger numbers during
the banking and eurozone crises, which
prompted us to focus on the leisure
market, encouraging tourists to journey
beyond our main destinations
of London, Paris and Brussels through
12
the many connections we offer.
This new focus was successful,
and helped us offset the drop
in business traffic.
We also introduced several new
destinations to broaden our appeal.
For example, this year we tested a new
service to the Swiss Alps in association
with Lyria, and began offering a “sun
express” service to the French cities
of Lyon, Aix-en-Provence, and Avignon.
These initiatives played a key role
in helping us promote our services
and persuade travellers to try riding
with us for the first time.
Looking internationally, we continued
to market the Eurostar experience
outside our home region, generating
a sharp increase in passengers from
the US, Asia, Brazil and China.
The percentage of international traffic
rose 8% in 2012 and 17% in the first half
of 2013. Tourists visiting Europe now
feel their holiday wouldn’t be complete
without a ride on the Eurostar.
What is your outlook for the medium
term, given heightened competition
in your industry?
How can you make door-to-door
travel even easier for your
passengers?
Europe’s high-speed rail industry has
reached an interesting phase in its
development. Now that the high-speed
rail network has expanded considerably
– and domestic markets have opened
up to foreign competition – growth
opportunities abound.
We’ve carried over 130 million
passengers in the two decades since
Eurostar was launched – a testimony
to the advantages of high-speed rail
over air travel. And we’re convinced
that opening our rail lines to other
operators will boost demand for train
travel as a whole, since people will
be more likely to take a high-speed
train than fly when travelling to nearby
destinations.
We’ve been competing with airlines
since 1994 and will soon be up against
other rail operators as well.
In response, we’ll continue investing
in our services, our website and,
of course, our fleet. We aim to lead
the way in both technology
and customer service. That’s what will
keep us ahead of the competition.
We’re well aware that today’s travellers
have a choice. And we want Eurostar
to be their first choice, whether they’re
travelling for business or pleasure.
We strive to offer personalized,
exemplary customer service every
step of the way, from our website
and customer care centre to our
stations and trains. Over the past
12 months, we’ve put considerable
resources into completely revamping
our website, eurostar.com – a “virtual
shop window” that generates half
of our sales. The new website is faster
and easier to use, with an improved
design and a more modern look
and feel. It’s designed to streamline –
and speed up – the reservation
process.
For our Business Premier passengers,
we now offer guaranteed boarding,
an on-board taxi reservation service,
and gourmet menus by Michelinstarred chef Raymond Blanc. And our
leisure passengers can now choose
from a variety of meals and snacks from
premium UK food retailer Waitrose.
We have many improvements in store
for the next two years, including stylish
new uniforms, renovated Business
Premier lounges, and sleek new trains.
We’re also investing £700 million
to completely renovate our fleet. That
includes refurbishing our existing trains
and acquiring ten new, WiFi-equipped
e320 trains designed by renowned
Italian designer Pininfarina.
We’re excited about all these
improvements and we look forward
to unveiling a fresh, modern fleet
in 2015 – and to giving our passengers
an unparalleled travelling experience.
“
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
CLOSE-UP
Passenger
transport
in France in 2012
After dipping slightly in 2009 due to the economic
crisis, domestic passenger transport in France edged up
to 984.9 billion passenger-kilometres in 2012, an 0.4%
rise over 2011. Air travel, which rose 3.7% during the year,
accounted for most of the overall increase, while rail transport
grew only 0.3%.
14
Rail market trends
Between 2008 and 2012, growth in rail traffic varied
from segment to segment, with local and regional travel
particularly robust: TER regional traffic rose 11.8%
and travel in the Paris region increased 5.3% compared
with an increase of “only” 3.1% for high-speed rail.
The contrast in trends between long and short-haul journeys
has widened in the past year, with total traffic for national
lines – TGVs and TET inter-regional trains – dropping 2.0%
in 2012, and TGV volume unchanged for the year.
Meanwhile, 2012 volumes were up 5.2% over 2011
for TER regional trains, and up 1.7% for Transilien trains
serving the Paris area.
Rail sector trends by segment
(passenger-km; 2008 = 100)
National lines
Incl TGV
TER excl Paris region
Transilien (Paris region)
Total
111.8
105.3
103.1
102.3
100
99.8
2008
2009
2010
2011
Change in passenger volume by mode
Market share by mode in 2012
(bn passenger-km)
(passenger-km)
13.1
12.9
12.7
13.5
101.1
100.3
100.6
104.0
104.3
49.9
51.1
51.6
48.4
48.8
2012
1.4%
14.0
10.6%
5.2%
82.8%
800.0
2008
802.9
2009
810.8
2010
812.7
2011
815.0
2012
National lines
Incl TGV
TER excl Paris region
Transilien (Paris region)
Air
Rail
Road-based public transport
Private automobiles
Sources: www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr
Preliminary data for 2011 and 2012
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
interview
“
Today’s urban public transport systems
are more integrated than ever, with
connected networks that let passengers
switch seamlessly between different modes
of travel.
Jean-Marc Janaillac,
Chairman, UTP (Union des Transports
Publics et Ferroviaires)
How has demand for public transport
in France been affected by the
economic downturn?
We’ve seen two opposing trends.
On the one hand, French consumers
are more budget conscious; they’re
keeping a tighter grip on their wallets
and you can see this in their travel
habits. On the other, because public
transport is often cheaper than
car travel, they are more likely
to use transit systems for getting
16
around a city or region. Initially
we weren’t really affected by
the downturn. In 2011, the number
of journeys on public transport
(excluding RATP, the Paris metro
system) rose 5.3% to 2.454 billion.
In 2012 growth slowed to 3.5%
but didn’t stop. In the first quarter
of 2013, the trend slowed further
and the number of journeys now seems
to be levelling off. So it looks like
the crisis is starting to affect
our business, too.
What are the main innovations that
urban public transport systems are
working on to make them more
attractive options?
Today’s urban transport systems
must continuously innovate to meet
city residents’ fast-changing needs.
Systems focus a great deal of effort
on this area and have introduced many
new services. For instance, they’ve
expanded their networks to keep pace
with sprawling city borders; they also
offer better coverage in the areas
they serve, largely through on-demand
options. They’ve extended the hours
their networks run, since today fewer
people work standard 9-to-5 jobs,
and more take part in after-work
activities. They’ve invested in new
technology to offer convenient
services like ticketing machines,
annual passes, online and mobile
trip-planning and ticket-purchasing
systems, plus real-time passenger
information displayed on transit systems
and available online and remotely
on mobile and other devices. Thanks
to recent upgrades to urban roadways
and the widespread – although
not yet widespread enough – creation
of special lanes for public transport
vehicles, they now offer passengers
fast, regular and reliable service.
Today’s urban public transport
systems are more integrated than
ever, with connected networks that let
passengers switch seamlessly between
different modes of travel. This is made
possible largely through well-designed
interfaces, common fare schedules
and pooled information.
As cities across Europe prepare
to roll out urban public transport
systems, what do you feel are
the key strengths and ramifications
of France’s approach to public
service concessions (DSP)?
The EU’s public service obligation (PSO)
regulation that took effect in 2009 was
inspired by France’s 1993 Sapin Law,
which requires local governments
to let private-sector companies bid
for service concessions – including
for public transport. France’s approach
to public transport concessions
and “regulated competition” has one
clear advantage: it clarifies the roles
of transport authorities and transport
system operators. It spells out the
obligations of transport authorities,
which are responsible for drawing
up a public transport strategy, setting
fares and investing in infrastructure,
and of transport system operators,
which are responsible for providing
the public service and running
the transport systems. Under France’s
approach, the two parties are bound by
an agreement. How well
the agreement is drafted, and how
evenly duties are allocated between
the two parties, determine how
effectively the urban transport system
will run. The agreement is intended
to establish a genuine partnership
between a transport authority
and a transport system operator, while
allowing for flexibility in the execution
of the agreement. Here France’s feat
of legal engineering builds on its long
history of using concession contracts,
and has enabled the country’s transport
operators to become global players.
The French approach is clearly effective
– other countries are adopting it.
And the EU is now finalizing a new
concessions directive, which will affect
France’s Sapin Law and urban public
transport. It could affect the flexibility
currently allowed for under French
legislation and complicate the existing
procedure.
“
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
CLOSE-UP
Parking policies
and mobility
50%
Private cars still account for
one in two trips in French
cities
70%
French motorists’ parking
violation rate – the highest in
Europe
10 to 15%
of vehicles circulating in city
centres are looking for a
parking place
In Paris, street parking
accounts for some 20% of
available spots, and less than
3% of public parking is free of
charge.
18
The days when urban planning
had to adapt to cars are over, yet
the automobile is still a critical link
in the mobility chain. In French cities,
for example, privately owned cars
account for one of every two trips.
Parking is at the core of a number
of urban mobility issues, including
managing automobile traffic, allocating
street space, promoting multimodal
transport, improving the appeal of city
centres for business and tourism,
and facilitating access to key venues
such as train stations, hospitals
and stadiums. In all of these areas,
adding more parking is a major
challenge for the cities of tomorrow.
Meanwhile, rising new technologies
are creating connected cities populated
by Homo mobilis, an intelligent
new species that plays an active role
in its own mobility. These developments
are changing parking in profound
ways, revolutionizing a task previously
viewed by many as nothing more than
arranging space for cars on and off
the street.
Public parking is part of tomorrow’s
mobility
In smart cities, GPS and mobile apps
link public parking to cars, simplifying
life for drivers. Cars are guided
to the parking facilities closest to their
destinations, and motorists can get
up-to-the-minute information on rates
and available spaces. They can also
reserve spaces in advance – a service
that may one day be bundled with
booking tickets for a show or train
journey. And drivers can access realtime traffic updates, enabling them
to change routes and leave their cars
at less central parking facilities,
switching to public transport
or bike-sharing services for the last leg
of their journey.
At the same time, both urban
and suburban public parking areas
are becoming genuine mobility
hubs with new services. These include
connections to trains, urban transport,
bike-sharing and other modes, service
stations where electric vehicles can
be recharged, car-sharing facilities
and carpool pick-up points, shopping
and parcel delivery, and concierge
services.
Street parking
In the short term, street parking should
change even more dramatically,
with new technologies contributing
clear advantages. In addition, France
is moving towards locally defined
parking fines and away from outdated,
centralized street-parking regulations
that have made French drivers Europe’s
leading scofflaws, with a parking
violation rate of nearly 70%.
Payment by mobile devices
Though the high cost of telephone
communications continues to make
mobile payment for street parking
too expensive today, it is likely
to become the solution of choice
due to the many advantages it offers
both users and operators:
-users can pay for the exact amount
of parking time
-additional time can be purchased
remotely
-unlike pay-and-display systems,
mobile payment also works
for two-wheel motor vehicles
-fewer pay-and-display machines
are needed
One-click information on available
parking spaces
Finding available street parking
is another major area that is ripe
for innovation, and since an estimated
10-15% of motorists circulating in city
centres are looking for a parking place,
better systems would create genuine
added value for users. There are three
possible strategies:
-relying on statistical parking data,
correlated with pay-and-display
machines or camera feeds
-deploying physical devices,
with sensors providing real-time data
on available spaces
-using mobile phones, with user
communities agreeing to send
alerts when they are ready to free
a parking spot. These GPS-based
solutions do not require drivers
to alert the system every time
they leave a spot: once users join
the community, their parking
behaviour is detected automatically.
Renting a parking space on line
The Internet now offers the option
of renting parking spaces directly
from companies and individuals during
periods when they are empty –
a private individual might rent his spot
during the day, for example, while
a company would rent its spaces
at night and on weekends. Though
this phenomenon is still relatively recent
and little used, it is a telling illustration
of the new forms of collaborative
consumption made possible
by the Web, by eliminating
the middleman, and by establishing
direct contact between supply
and demand.
Though parking still plays a key role
in mobility, operators must adapt
to the advent of Homo mobilis –
a connected, responsive species eager
to find its own best transport options.
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
interview
“
For years we’ve been pushing
transport authorities to take
a more holistic approach
and become ‘sustainable mobility’
authorities.
Roland Ries,
President, Groupement des Autorités Responsables de Transport (GART),
Mayor of Strasbourg and Senator
How are France’s urban transport
authorities working with their
counterparts in French regions
and local government to facilitate
the use of different modes of travel?
At GART – the French transport
authority association – we aim
to improve cooperation among
transport authorities at all levels of local
government: municipal, departmental
and regional. We think this is crucial
to implementing an integrated strategy
for all transport systems in a given
region. There are several ways that
20
transport authorities can work together.
Some have teamed up under what
we call an SRU alliance – named after
France’s Solidarité et Renouvellement
Urbain Law – where they coordinate
their transport services, set up
intermodal information systems
and consolidate fare schedules. Other
transport authorities have joined forces
along the same lines, but without
creating an SRU alliance. For instance,
in Alsace we set up a regional transport
authority coordination committee
called CoCoAOT. But France is still
a long way from having a truly
integrated nationwide strategy
for mobility. At GART, that’s why
we want to see a plan for regional
intermodal transportation adopted
under proposed legislation
to modernize local public policy
and reinforce cities’ roles. Such a plan
could be a real boon to intermodal
transportation – if all local transport
authorities are actively involved
in developing it.
What initiatives do you have planned
to make green and alternative
transportation – e.g., carsharing,
carpooling and efficient parking
policies – a part of urban transport
systems?
For years we’ve been pushing transport
authorities to take a more holistic
approach and become ‘sustainable
mobility’ authorities. We feel now is
the time to encourage complementary
modes of travel wherever possible.
The war against cars is over; now
our focus is on promoting greener ways
to use them. For example, in some
French cities over half of residents
don’t have cars. These cities are ideal
candidates for carsharing programmes
– especially if that means bringing
transportation options to employees
and job-seekers in areas poorly served
by transit systems. Carsharing
and carpooling schemes can also
provide a major boost to local
economies and help foster community
spirit. But for that to work, transport
authorities need to be empowered
to manage the entire transportation
chain. That’s the key to successfully
incorporating green and alternative
transportation into today’s cities.
What were the goals
of your Strasbourg initiative
to introduce reduced fares
for low-income passengers,
and how successful has it been?
We decided to revamp Strasbourg’s
public transport fares after we realised
that some passengers were paying
more than others even though they
were living on lower incomes. So
in September 2010, we introduced
a new fare schedule where the price
of travel passes is based on
an individual’s income (including wages
and welfare benefits) and number
of dependent children – and not
on whether he’s a senior citizen or
a student, for example. Our old system
had sometimes led to unfair pricing;
by taking into account household
size, the new one reduces fares
for some people by anywhere from 50%
to 90%. The lowest possible price
of a monthly travel pass is now €2.30,
compared with a full-fare price
of €45.60. And to make our fares
as fair as possible, we did away with
all free travel passes – including those
for city officials. Everyone should pay
his share to receive a public service.
We also stepped up our efforts
to catch transgressors; with our new
fare schedule everyone can afford
a ticket. The benefits of our initiative
have been two-fold: the higher traffic
and travel-pass sales have more than
offset the cost to the city of Strasbourg.
“
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
close-up
European rail:
a progress report
Over more than a decade,
the European Union has moved
gradually toward a single European
railway area through a series
of legislative packages (box,
page 23). Key provisions in the first
three packages:
-
separated market-based
competition from transport
as a public service
-
regulated access to the rail
network and essential facilities
such as refuelling sites and
passenger and freight stations
-
promoted technical
interoperability, and
-
opened rail freight
and international passenger traffic
to competition.
In November 2012, the existing texts
were recast and merged into a single
directive, and in January 2013,
the European Commission proposed
the Fourth Railway Package, a new
set of measures that will complete
the single railway area and release
the full potential of European rail.
Understanding the Fourth Railway
Package
The Commission’s proposals focus
on three main goals:
-Simplify standards and vehicle
authorization procedures, in part
by issuing certifications at EU
level. Under this provision, railway
undertakings could operate
throughout the EU under a single
safety certificate, and authorization
to operate rolling stock in multiple
member states would be easier
to obtain. The new package also
calls for strengthening the European
Railway Agency, making it a single
point of contact.
-Open all domestic passenger
transport lines to competition
effective December 2019. From that
date, any railway undertaking would
be authorized to provide passenger
rail service anywhere in the European
Union, either by offering services
on the open market or by competing
to win public service contracts under
a mandatory tender procedure.
-Increase the separation between
rail operations and infrastructure
management. Measures include
increasing restrictions on transfers
of personnel between these two
functions, regulating movement
of funds, and expanding
“essential” functions for purposes
of infrastructure investment
planning, traffic management
and maintenance, which should
be independent of all railway
undertakings.
Legislative calendar
The package is making its way through
the European legislative process
and is now being reviewed by the
Council and the European Parliament,
which has appointed rapporteurs
to study the Commission’s proposals.
The Transport Commission will vote
22
on the Parliament’s amendments in late
November 2013, and a plenary session
is expected to adopt it in early 2014.
To date, the Council of Ministers has
reviewed only the technical aspects
of the proposed legislation, and
is unlikely to begin reviewing the other
components until the first half of 2014,
when Greece will hold the EU’s rotating
presidency. With European elections
scheduled for May 2014, the European
institutions may opt to concentrate
on the technical issues so that these
measures – critical to creating the single
railway area – can be adopted during
its current term.
Proposed amendments
Significant amendments to
the Commission’s text have been
proposed by the European Parliament’s
rapporteurs, including Mathieu Grosch,
who has suggested changes to the
regulations on public service obligation,
and Saïd El Khadraoui, who has focused
on the Rail Recast Directive. Under
one proposal, the deadline for making
public service contracts subject
to competitive tender would be pushed
back to 2029, creating a transition
phase. Another amendment would
strengthen organizing authorities
by allowing them to grant exclusive
rights to services awarded after tender,
and by eliminating both the principle
of proportionality in government action
and oversight of proportionality
by an independent regulator.
There are few amendments
to the provisions on separating
the infrastructure manager from railway
undertakings, except for a proposal
that would authorize local and regional
cooperation between these two entities
and expand the mobility restrictions
on infrastructure manager personnel
to all railway undertakings.
French lawmakers weigh in
France’s Parliament has also
proposed amendments to
the Fourth Railway Package. National
Assembly member Gilles Savary has
introduced a resolution, adopted by
the Committee on sustainability and
regional development in April 2013,
that opposes allowing the European
Commission to monitor compliance
by national organizations and criticizes
some of the proposed requirements for
separating infrastructure management
from railway operations. The Savary
resolution also opposes the implicit
ban on new vertically integrated
companies, and supports creation
of coordinating committees for each
network and increased cooperation
among European infrastructure
managers. Finally, Savary applauds
the Commission’s decision to allow
Transport Organising Authorities
(TOA) to continue operating their own
transport services and encourages
all EU member states to follow France’s
example and open urban services
up to competition in 2019.
The Senate
Senator Roland Ries, author of
a report on the Fourth Railway Package
that was adopted by the Senate’s
European Affairs Committee in July
2013, generally supports the European
Commission’s goals of promoting
rail mobility in Europe. But he argues
against applying the “pure
and perfect” model of competition
to the rail sector, preferring
a “contestable market” approach
instead. Under this model, EU member
states would retain control of the
liberalization process, especially
in order to preserve service for
unprofitable routes. Senator Ries also
remains committed to giving organizing
authorities the freedom to choose
their own method for awarding public
service contracts. In addition, the
Senate supports a measure that would
preserve jobs when public services
are outsourced. Under this proposal,
the specifications for every public
service contract would require that
existing personnel be retained at the
pay levels and under the regulatory
conditions in effect when the contract is
awarded. Finally, the Ries report regrets
the European Commission’s distrust
of all vertically integrated railway
undertakings and argues that member
states should remain free to choose
a vertically integrated entity, provided
there is a clear division of authority
between the infrastructure manager
and the incumbent rail operator,
and provided there are no cross
subsidies between the two entities.
MILESTONES
IN RAILWAY REFORM
26 February 2001: adoption of First
Railway Package (the “infrastructure
package”).
15 March 2003: transposition
of First Railway Package in France;
liberalization of international freight
market.
29 April 2004: adoption of Second
Railway Package.
28 March 2006: creation of French
Railway Safety Authority (EPSF) under
European Railway Safety Directive
(2004/49). The EPSF is an independent
oversight agency that focuses
on the drafting and deployment
of safety regulations for the French rail
network.
31 March 2006: transposition
of Second Railway Package in France;
liberalization of entire freight market.
23 October 2007: adoption of Third
Railway Package.
13 December 2009: transposition
of Third Railway Package; liberalization
of international passenger market.
21 November 2012: recast of First
Railway Package. The new law requires
railway undertakings and network
managers to maintain separate
accounts and establishes transparent
pricing enforced by independent
national rail regulators.
PASSENGER TRANSPORT
interview
“
The recast First Railway Package requires
national regulators across the EU to work
together even more closely.
Pierre Cardo,
President, Autorité de Régulation
des Activités Ferroviaires (ARAF)
What effects have you seen from
the opening up of domestic
passenger railways to new entrants
offering international services?
The change is still very new. Many feel
that domestic passenger railways were
actually opened up in December 2011,
when Thello – a Trenitalia/Transdev
joint venture – began offering night
train service between Paris and Venice.
For now there are only two new
entrants in France, whose services are
essentially based on those they had
already offered in partnership with
incumbent rail operators.
24
The first – Eurostar – is well-known;
it intends to leverage its new status
as an independent railway company
to expand its services from London
to various European destinations. Thello
is the second, and it plans to bring back
and extend services offered jointly
by SNCF and Trenitalia a few years
ago.
In addition to its Paris-Venice night
service, Thello runs night trains between
Paris and Rome and has submitted
plans for a service linking Milan, Nice
and Marseille. The idea is to offer three
round-trip services daily between Milan
and Nice, including one continuing
all the way to Marseille, with stops
on the way. We reviewed Thello’s
proposal and concluded it is indeed
international in nature; the stops in
France would be only secondary
in terms of both revenue and
passenger-km. That’s a legislative
requirement to be able to operate
an international service. The French
region through which the train would
run, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, also
asked us to make sure that the stops
on Thello’s proposed service wouldn’t
have an adverse impact on the
economics of the region’s rail transport
agreement with SNCF.
Neither Eurostar nor Thello face
competition from other railway
companies on their respective
routes. But they do compete against
air and road travel. I think railway
competition will start to emerge in
the next few years for services along
what geographers call Europe’s “Blue
Banana,” comprising London, Paris,
Brussels, Amsterdam, Cologne and
Frankfurt.
How does ARAF help draft regulation
at a European level?
We are a member of the European
Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies
(ENRRB), which works with
the European Commission, and
of the Independent Regulators’ GroupRail, which comprises 22 regulators.
Through these organizations
we share information and ideas with
our counterparts from other European
countries. We discuss different
regulatory approaches and how
different railway systems operate.
ENRRB’s role was enhanced under
the revised or recast First Railway
Package. Right now it’s working
primarily on the implementing acts
for the corresponding directive.
IRG-Rail looks at key industry issues
through five working groups, each
addressing a specific topic: international
rail freight corridors; cabotage
in international passenger rail
services; railway market monitoring;
joint positions on EU legislative and
regulatory proposals; and common
approaches to pricing issues. At the
ARAF we facilitate this last working
group.
a single EU regulator would have to go
hand-in-hand with a single European
railway area. That said, there’s a case
for having a single regulator to arbitrate
conflicts between national regulators
on cross-border issues – like freight
corridors – provided we preserve
the principle of subsidiarity.
Given the increasingly international
nature of both passenger and freight
rail transport, do you think there
will eventually be an EU railway
regulator?
The revised First Railway Package
requires national regulators across
the EU to work together even more
closely. It sets out guidelines for tighter
cross-border cooperation, so that
regulators can pool efforts to monitor
the railway market, handle passenger
complaints and carry out investigations
for international corridors.
Before we decide whether an EU
regulator is necessary, we should
first look at how well the enhanced
cooperation works. To be truly effective,
“
Freight
transport
26
28 — Freight statistics
32 — Freight in France in 2012
34 — How ports fuel rail traffic
36 — interview wITH Didier Dieudonné
38 — Rail motorways – the freight transport of the future
39 — interview wITH Alain Picard
40 — interview wITH Robert Lohr
freight transport
KEY FIGURES
Freight statistics
European freight trends show that road
continues to dominate
In 2011 road transport continued to dominate the freight
market throughout Europe, accounting for 71.8% of tonnekilometres (tkm) carried in the European Union. Rail ranked
second with 17.4% of tkm, followed by inland waterways with
5.8% and pipelines with 4.9%. But these European averages
mask sharp differences from region to region.
Rail leads in Northern and Eastern Europe…
Eurostat’s latest mode-by-mode statistics for freight transport
in individual EU countries (dating from 2009) show that rail
use in Northern and Eastern Europe generally exceeds the
European average. Rail’s share of the 2009 market reached
25.9% in the Czech Republic, 22.3% in Slovenia, 25.6%
in Finland, 27.9% in Slovakia, and 35.0% in Sweden, and
peaked in the Baltic states, with 68.3% in Lithuania, 73.2%
in Estonia, and 79.3% in Latvia, thanks largely to transport
of petroleum products from Russia through Baltic ports.
Figures for Switzerland and Austria – 34.2% and 30.5% – show rail
outstripped other Western European countries by a wide margin.
… and lags in other countries
By contrast, rail’s share of the freight market was lower in
Southern European countries, as well as in France, Ireland,
the UK, and Luxembourg. In 2009, road transport topped
90% in a number of countries, with Spain at 92.2%, Greece at
97.1%, Ireland at 99.2%, and Cyprus and Malta at 100%. The
Netherlands ranked highest for inland waterway traffic, with
35.9%, while the highest pipeline volumes went to Denmark,
with 17.6%, and Slovakia, with 21.5%.
2009 freight traffic in EU-27 by mode
(tonne-kilometres)
Rail
Pipeline
Waterway
Road
Cyprus
Malta
Ireland
Greece
Spain
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Denmark
Italy
Portugal
France
10.2%
5.8%
2.8% 81.2%
Belgium
United Kingdom
EU-27
16%
5.3%
5.8%
73%
Germany
Bulgaria
Hungary
Romania
Poland
Finland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Austria
Slovenia
Sweden
Lithuania
Estonia
Latvia
Switzerland
0
28
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Road transport continues to climb
From 2000-2011, road traffic sharply increased its dominance
in the market, rising by 14%, while rail traffic grew only 4%.
The strong growth in road transport resulted from two key
trends: new road infrastructures in the EU’s newest members,
and sector-wide deregulation, which reduced production
costs significantly, thus strengthening road transport’s
advantage over competing modes.
Though inland waterways continued to take a minority share
of the market, they rose by an average of around 5% between
2000 and 2011.
Rail freight traffic as a function of GDP
When we compare rail freight traffic to the GDP of each
country, we find that each €1,000 of 2011 GDP corresponds
to an average of 33.2 tkm circulating by train, with the
Baltic states reporting the longest distances for rail freight
relative to GDP. Conclusion: volumes carried by rail do not
necessarily correlate with a country’s GDP, but depend
primarily on its geographical location and the volume
of freight in transit within its borders.
At comparable GDP, however, transport volumes rose
in proportion to industrialization. In Austria, for example,
secondary industry accounts for 30% of GDP, and the railfreight-to-GDP ratio is among the highest in Western Europe.
Meanwhile, France ranks 16th among the EU-27, with 17.1
tkm of rail freight per €1000 of GDP.
note
EU-27 freight traffic: 2011 market share
are taken from 2011 data on the
27 member countries of the European
Union, published by Eurostat in summer
2013. A directorate-general of the
European Commission, Eurostat provides
official statistical information at EU level,
of the member countries. The full
range of statistics is available
(%, tkm)
Pipeline
Waterway
5%
6%
Rail
17%
72%
Road
EU-27 freight traffic: 2000-2011 trend in tkm
14%
11%
4%
Road
Rail
5%
Pipeline
Waterway
Total
-6%
freight transport
Rail freight traffic as a function of GDP
When we compare rail freight traffic to the GDP of each
country, we find that each €1,000 of 2011 GDP corresponds
to an average of 33.2 tkm circulating by train, with the Baltic
states reporting the longest distances for rail freight relative
to GDP. Conclusion: volumes carried by rail do not necessarily
correlate with a country’s GDP, but depend primarily on its
30
geographical location and the volume of freight in transit
within its borders.
At comparable GDP, however, transport volumes rose
in proportion to industrialization. In Austria, for example,
secondary industry accounts for 30% of GDP, and the railfreight-to-GDP ratio is among the highest in Western Europe.
Meanwhile, France ranks 16th among the EU-27, with 17.1 tkm
of rail freight per €1000 of GDP.
2011 freight traffic as a function of GDP
(in tkm/€1,000 of GDP
Cyprus
Malta
Ireland
Greece
Luxembourg
Spain
Netherlands
Denmark
United Kingdom
Italy
Portugal
France
17,130
Belgium
EU-27
33,195
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Austria
Bulgaria
Hungary
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Romania
Slovakia
Poland
Estonia
Lithuania
Latvia
Switzerland
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
freight transport
close-uP
Freight
in France in 2012
For decades, roads have been the principal mode of freight
transport in France, outpacing rail and waterways by a wide
margin. But the market shifted dramatically in response
to the 2008 economic crisis, and in 2009 all modes
of transport lost ground, with rail declining 20.5%
– the largest percentage of all.
Resisting in a tough economy
As rail volumes continued to decline in 2010, rival modes
began to recover. In 2011 rail transport regained strength
and returned to its pre-2009 market share, but when
the economy slowed again in 2012, freight traffic dropped
5.7% overall, and rail declined by 4.7%.
In all, rail’s market share fell from 10.8% to 10.1% between
2008 and 2012, while road and waterway transport picked up
slightly. Total volume carried in 2012 remained well below
32
its pre-crisis level – down 14.5% from 2008 – and rail volume
fell by 19.3% over the same period.
Competition heats up
Yet in addition to intermodal rivalries, starting in 2006
the freight market was rocked by new competition within
the rail segment itself, and market share for railway
undertakings in France other than SNCF rose sharply
from 9% in 2008 to 32% in 2012. By comparison, the 2012
figure for Germany was 31.5%.
Share of domestic freight transport by mode: 2008 vs 2012
(tkm bn)
2%
2.4%
10.8%
10.1%
87.5%
87.2%
Waterway
Rail
Road
2008
2012
Change in market share for railway undertakings
(as % of tkm)
9%
Other RUs
EF
15%
21%
Other RUs
29%
Other RUs
32%
Other RUs
Other RUs
91%
SNCF (EPIC)
85%
SNCF (ÉPIC)
79%
SNCF (EPIC)
71%
SNCF (EPIC)
2008
2009
2010
2011
68%
SNCF (EPIC)
2012
French domestic freight volumes by mode, 2008-2012
(tkm bn)
7.5
40.4
7.4
32.1
327.4
2008
284.2
2009
8.1
7.9
30.0
34.2
300.4
300.2
2010
2011
7.7
32.6
283.4
2012
Waterway
Rail
Road
www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr
Preliminary data for 2011 and 2012
freight transport
close-up
How ports fuel
rail traffic
80%
of world trade travels by sea
41%
of France’s foreign trade
passes through French ports
16,000
containers: the capacity
of the Jules Verne, one
of the world’s biggest
container vessels (operated
by CMA CGM)
84%
of container traffic to France’s
top 7 ports flowed through
the ports of Marseille and
Le Havre in 2012
A foothold for rail
Ocean shipping accounts for around
80% of world trade, and in France
some 41% of foreign trade passes
through the country’s top seven ports
– Marseille, Le Havre, Dunkirk, Nantes
Saint-Nazaire, Rouen, La Rochelle
and Bordeaux. Together, they handled
a total of 264 million tonnes of freight
in 2012. Delivering these goods to their
final destination is big business for all
transport modes, and was thus a key
consideration for France’s Mobility 21
Commission.
The role of rail
Not everything that comes into port
can be delivered by rail – oil, for
example, does not travel by train since
most refineries are located adjacent
to ports or supplied by pipeline – but
a large majority of the merchandise
flowing through France’s ports can be
transported by rail. This includes grains,
a major French export, as well as the
broader category of container cargo.
in 2014, and vessel capacities have
risen along with it. French shipper
CMA-CGM recently unveiled
the Jules Verne, a ship that can carry
16,000 containers, and it will soon
be outstripped by other even larger
vessels.
Ports adapted to vessels
Not every port can accommodate these
enormous ships, which only call in hub
ports where their containers can be
unloaded, handled and emptied most
efficiently – and where they can take
large numbers of containers on board.
In France, only Le Havre and Marseille
can accommodate this type of vessel:
together, they handled 84%
of the container traffic that flowed
through the top seven French ports
in 2012.
Containers go big
An increasing share of maritime traffic
now travels in containers, and though
they are appropriate for nearly all types
of merchandise, they usually carry
finished goods for consumers
or semi-finished products for industry.
In the European Union, container traffic
has soared from 8.8 million boxes
in 1994 to an estimated 37 million
Mobility 21
France’s Mobility 21 Commission has encouraged ports to adapt by putting
improved connections between European-class ports and their hinterland
at the top of its agenda. In particular, Commission members have suggested
taking pressure off the saturated Paris-Le Havre line by electrifying
and renovating the Gisors-Serqueux rail segment, thus providing an alternate
route. The French Prime Minister has approved their proposals.
34
Nerve centres for distribution
In coming years, it will be critical for all of these ports
to adapt their facilities for giant container ships. Le Havre
and Marseille are already moving in this direction with their
Port 2000 and Fos 2XL projects, but it is especially critical
for port terminals to be well connected to their hinterland.
Containers must be able to continue their journey via
high-quality rail, waterway and road systems – systems that
can handle large numbers of containers and merge freight
units.
Attracting transport and logistics operators
Transport and logistics operators prefer ports that handle
large numbers of containers bound for the same inland
destinations and offer optimal shipping conditions – and
that means good rail connections. When a port has these
advantages, it is in the ship owner’s interest for its vessels
to call there and unload containers owned by other transport
and logistics operators outside the port’s traditional
lighterage area. And when a ship owner chooses any one
port over its European rivals, that port can expand beyond
its initial traffic, as the added business creates new streams
of goods that can ultimately benefit rail transport.
freight transport
interview
“
The economic crisis has hit
the businesses in our area and cut
production volumes throughout
the entire economy.
Didier Dieudonné,
Deputy General Manager,
Port of Strasbourg
How has the economic crisis affected
your business?
The port of Strasbourg encourages
industrial and logistics companies
to choose alternatives to road transport
by providing them with the space
they need to scale up their transport
operations by merging diverse flows.
36
That’s our primary mission. Our
secondary mission is to offer other port
and handling services to businesses
throughout the region, giving them
single or multimodal access to transport
scale-up solutions. The economic crisis
has hit the businesses in our area
and cut production volumes throughout
the entire economy. And because
it has also affected consumption
and import volumes, it has definitely
had an impact on the port
of Strasbourg. We’ve weathered
the crisis well, but only because
our client base is very diverse.
How important is multimodality
in attracting clients to your site,
and what changes in rail freight
options would increase your traffic?
It’s essential for an urban port like
Strasbourg to have a multimodal
offer, which means having a range
of perfectly complementary rail services
as well as access to major maritime
ports via the inland waterways that link
us to the Rhine. Our offering needs
to be highly competitive with “all-road”
alternatives. Which is definitely the
case for rail: it rounds out the range of
services available from our multimodal
platform, enabling clients to reach
other major destinations and replace
waterway solutions when navigation
is difficult. From our perspective as
a point of departure or arrival, the key
to increasing rail traffic is ensuring
that what we offer gives transport
and logistics operators a total logistics
solution that outperforms current
options in meeting their expectations.
That’s why the independent port
of Strasbourg has encouraged on-site
rail companies to expand their “local
rail offering”. We need to provide the
customized rail-based logistics solutions
that businesses don’t have – or don’t
have any more.
Are ports able to work together
at European level, or are they
primarily in competition?
In the past, ports – especially
inland ports – tended to develop
independently. But the multimodal
ambitions expressed at national
and European level demand a different
approach, and the crisis has given this
approach a new urgency. The nine
French, German and Swiss inland ports
that stretch from Basel to Mannheim on
the Upper Rhine – which handle over 50
million tonnes of goods annually – have
now decided to join forces and take
charge of their collective future. At
the urging of the independent port of
Strasbourg, they responded to a call for
European projects under the TransEuropean Transport Networks (TEN-T)
program. From 2012 to late 2014, the
ports will hold talks on developing a
joint strategy, a corresponding master
investment plan, and a sustainable
governance structure that can carry
the partnership into the future. Our
goal is to reinforce the region’s links
to major transport corridors
and boost the overall performance
of the multimodal transport system
by leveraging the strengths of each
platform and improving connections
among the partner ports. This is
the only inland port initiative of its kind
in Europe! And the first few months
of work suggest that we’ll see
immediate benefits for alternative
freight mobility combining rail with
inland waterways.
“
freight transport
CLOSE-UP
Rail motorways – the freight
transport of the future
ChambEry - Turin
- In service since 2003
– Covers 175 km in 3 hours, with 4 return
journeys daily
- Transports over 25,600 semi-trailers a year
- Saves 4,500 tonnes of CO2 annually
Perpignan - Luxembourg
- In service since 2007
- Covers 1,045 km in 15 hours, with 4 return
journeys daily
- No operating subsidies
- Fill rate of 90% in 2012
- Transports 50,000 semi-trailers a year
- Saves over 47,200 tonnes of CO2
Multimodality for sustainable
transport
In combined or multimodal freight
transport, two different modes of
transport carry containers and swap
bodies, tanks or semi-trailers in the
course of a single journey, combining
rail with road, waterway or ocean. Most
often, combined transport systems
– like the two European rail motorways
that run through France – are designed
and supported as part of a broader
effort to promote a shift to rail transport
and thus reduce greenhouse gases.
How it works
Rail motorways take an innovative
approach to combined transport
by mounting trucks on trains. VIIA,
a SNCF Geodis division subsidiary,
operates the two rail motorways that
currently serve Europe: the Lorry-Rail
between Perpignan and Luxembourg,
and the Alpine line linking Chambéry
to Turin.
These combined rail-road services
shuttle trucks between terminals
several times a day. A semi-trailer can
travel with its tractor or driver’s cab
(“accompanied service”) or without
it (“unaccompanied service”).
38
Rail joins road
Rail motorways do not compete with
road transport: they supplement
it, acting as an integral part of the
transport chain. By parallelling major
highways, rail motorways can absorb
road traffic, thus making an active
contribution to policies supporting
multimodal shift.
And for the first time, rail is actually
adapting to road traffic. Because rail
motorway technologies carry all types
of semi-trailer, road hauliers are not
required to make special investments.
Standard semi-trailers can be loaded
horizontally without cranes,
and thanks to Modalohr technology
– manufactured in Duppigheim,
France – a semi-trailer can now be
loaded onto a wagon in just five
minutes. And capacity is expanding:
today’s rail motorway trains can carry
42 semi-trailers, while a new train now
in development will accommodate 60.
High security
Because they handle large quantities
of goods, rail motorway terminals are
nerve centres within the transport
system. A typical terminal has a metal
fence three metres high around
the semi-trailer parking area,
with additional security provided
by lighting, surveillance cameras
and round-the-clock human personnel.
The entrance is fortified with barriers
and security spikes. Within the terminal,
trucks must successfully pass technical
and administrative inspections,
and each train’s load and composition
are monitored by an in-ground system
that automatically opens and closes
wagons.
Making a difference
In 2012, rail motorways transported
80,000 units, saving 50,000 tonnes
of CO2. Between now and 2020,
the European network is expected
to grow, with seven terminals in France
and eight more in the rest of Europe.
In all, the system will cover more than
16,000 km – the distance between
Paris and Ho Chi Minh City – and run
88 trains a day.
INTERVIEW
“
Our customers expect multimodal
solutions
Alain Picard,
CEO, SNCF Geodis division
You recently took the helm at SNCF
Geodis, SNCF Group’s freight
transportation and logistics division.
What are your plans and goals?
With revenue of €9.5 billion, the SNCF
Geodis division ranks first in transport
and logistics in France, and fourth
Europe-wide. We plan to strengthen
our leading position and continue
to grow.
For us, the keys to winning customer
loyalty are quality service and the ability
to deliver excellent performance at the
right price around the world. We need
to be their partner for innovation and
competitiveness, and that means giving
them ever more efficient operations
and making a determined effort
to cut costs. Our customers also expect
multimodal solutions custom-tailored
to their needs.
In the rail segment, we’ll soon be
operating two new rail motorways
in France, rounding out our current
Luxembourg-Perpignan offering.
Internationally, we’re already
supporting customers in 120 countries,
and we’re going to keep growing.
To do that, we’ll need to step up
our presence in North America
and the Asia-Pacific region, especially
in transport commissioning.
Also driving our international growth
are Captrain, with its strong European
presence in rail freight, and STVA, our
automobile logistics business, which
continues to expand outside France.
“
freight transport
INTERVIEW
“
At the human level, it’s been a powerful
experience to bring rail and road together
– and for once the rail network has actually
adapted to the road.
Robert Lohr,
Chairman, Lohr Industries
Can you explain concretely how you
developed the Modalohr wagon
and discuss the advantages it offers?
I’m delighted to have contributed
to Europe’s shift towards roadrail transport by helping a French
technology, our Modalohr wagon,
become the benchmark for the two rail
motorways now in service – the Alpine
linking Chambery and Turin, and
the Lorry-Rail between Perpignan
and Luxembourg.
Rail motorway services adapt rail
transport to the road, allowing standard
semi-trailers to travel unaccompanied
over medium and long distances by rail,
in less time and at lower cost than
by road.
40
The innovation grew out of a simple
idea: putting trucks on trains to reduce
the cost of long-distance transport
and to overcome the obstacles that
nature and human activity can create
on the road.
Based on this simple idea, we created
the Modalohr piggyback system more
than 15 years ago – trucks have long
been our core business, so we’re very
familiar with them. And in the 2000s
SNCF adopted our system and began
to use it.
The early years were a bit controversial,
as the system had both passionate
supporters and resolute opponents, but
the Modalohr rail motorway has now
come of age and has proven its value,
both technologically and economically.
It was a challenge to get Modalohr
off the ground just as the French
rail network launched a sweeping
modernization effort, but it paid off.
The commercial success of the rail
motorway operated by Lorry-Rail
is a source of genuine pride
for us. We’re proud to have created,
developed and produced a wagon
that is integral to a new transport
system.
At the human level, it’s also been
a powerful experience to bring rail
and road together – and for once
the rail network has actually adapted
to the road.
What improvements are still in store
for this new service? And how can it
support the shift towards multimodal
freight transport?
From the standpoint of market access,
the Modalohr wagon has the potential
to fuel rapid growth in road-rail services.
That’s because our technology allows
rail motorways to serve virtually all
of the semi-trailers now in existence,
while only 3% of Europe’s semi-trailer
fleet is compatible with traditional
combined transport technologies.
And technically speaking, our solution
can be deployed immediately, since
the Modalohr wagon has been tested
and approved for operation.
Lohr Industrie has continued
to innovate, and we’re now working
on our third-generation UIC
(International Union of Railways) wagon.
It’s fully compatible with the UIC rail
gauge and can operate anywhere
in Europe.
Despite the crisis, we began designing
this new wagon – 80% of it revamped
– and began the approval process.
We’ve also laid the groundwork
for manufacturing the new wagon.
It will be 100% made in France,
with a network of French companies
joining forces to produce the various
components: axles, brake reservoirs,
bogies, brake assemblies, cast metal
parts, and so on.
That’s also a source of pride: rail
technology is very demanding, and
Lohr Group’s mobility-oriented mindset
has helped us bring in some very highperformance French companies.
Given the economic crisis, what will
it take to re-energize European freight
transport? And what’s the outlook for
expanding Modalohr’s offering
at European level?
First France. We’re partnering with
SNCF on the Atlantic Axis, and the
French government recently confirmed
launch of the Atlantic rail motorway
from Lille (Dourges terminal)
to Bayonne (Tarnos) and from Calais
(Côte d’Opale) to Perpignan (Le Boulou
]– Côte Vermeille terminal).
But we’re on the move in Switzerland
too: its North-South motorway that
crosses the country via the Saint
Gothard tunnel is one of Europe’s
major freight routes, carrying over
a million trucks annually. Over the past
few years, Switzerland has adopted
a proactive multimodal policy designed
to shift the flow of freight traffic from
road to rail, and as part of that policy,
VIIA – an SNCF subsidiary affiliated
with Lohr Industrie – has developed the
Transhelvetica Rail Motorway, which will
link Offenburg and the Ruhr to Milan,
via the Gothard tunnel.
I agreed to take the industrial risk
of putting Modalohr wagons through
trial runs in real-life conditions on the
Saint-Gothard line between ArthGoldau and Airolo in Switzerland.
And in October 2012, these tests
confirmed that the project is
technologically feasible.
This Swiss project has tremendous
strategic value for Lohr Industrie.
It would be the first export market
for the Modalohr system, and that
would strengthen our position as the
European leader in tomorrow’s road-rail
technology – a key component in
the ecomobility goals that are essential
to growing the green economy
and transitioning to a more sustainable
future.
“
Mobility
offering
42
44 — Mobility offering: Key indicators
48 — interview wITH Dominique Riquet
50 — Mobility 21 Commission
52 — interview wITH Philippe Duron
Mobility offering
AnalysIS
Mobility offering:
Key indicators
Length of road and rail networks
Ground-based mobility networks in Europe
In Europe, high-speed ground transport – road and rail –
accounts for only a small fraction of the overall network, with
motorways making up only 1.5% of all roads, and high-speed
lines only 3.2% of the rail network as a whole.
Motorways
French motorways account for 1.1% of France’s entire road
network, or slightly under the European average. Germany
and Luxembourg have the highest proportion of motorway
to total roads (including the secondary network), with more
than 1 km of motorway per 20 km of road.
High-speed rail
European countries with high-speed rail lines – Belgium,
Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and
the UK – are in the minority. Of these countries, Spain has
the longest high-speed network: in 2010, Spanish high-speed
lines totalled 2,144 km, outstripping France’s 2,036 km
and accounting for 13.5% of Spain’s rail system. Meanwhile,
the French high-speed network represents nearly 7%
of European rail. But when the length of a high-speed
network is compared with its traffic, we find that network
use is not necessarily proportional to network length.
For example, UIC statistics show that high-speed rail traffic
in France1 totalled 51,890 passenger-kilometres (pkm)
in 2010, significantly higher than Spain’s 11,715 pkm, even
though the networks were roughly equal in length.
(1) International Union of Railways (UIC) sources.
Belgium
Roads in km (late 2010)
155,210
Rail in km (2011)
3,558
incl high-speed
5.9%
Bulgaria
19,456
2.2%
3,947
0.0%
Czech Rep
130,641
0.6%
9,470
0.0%
Denmark
74,171
1.5%
2,629
0.0%
Germany
230,782
5.6%
33,576
3.8%
Estonia
58,630
0.2%
792
0.0%
0.0%
Ireland
96,269
0.9%
1,919
Greece
116,954
1.0%
2,554
0.0%
Spain
666,840
2.1%
15,932
13.5%
France
1,050,117
1.1%
30,884
6.6%
Italy
255,405
2.6%
17,045
5.4%
Cyprus
9,444
2.7%
–
Latvia
65,142
–
1,865
0.0%
Lithuania
72,047
0.4%
1,767
0.0%
Luxembourg
2,880
5.3%
275
0.0%
Hungary
199,567
0.7%
7,906
0.0%
Malta
2,228
–
–
Netherlands
137,691
1.9%
3,016
4.0%
Austria
124,507
1.4%
5,021
0.0%
0.0%
Poland
406,122
0.2%
19,725
Portugal*
13,123
20.9%
2,793
0.0%
Romania
82,386
0.4%
10,777
0.0%
Slovenia
39,073
2.0%
1,209
0.0%
Slovakia
43,325
1.0%
3,624
0.0%
Finland
78,161
1.0%
5,944
0.0%
Sweden
215,952
0.9%
11,213
0.0%
UK
419,628
0.9%
16,134
0.7%
* These figures include only the primary network. As a result, the proportion of motorways
relative to the overall road network is not comparable to that of the other countries.
44
incl motorways
1.1%
Network density
When network length is compared with total land area,
road and rail network density varies widely from country
to country. France, for example, ranks fifth in Europe for
the density of its road network, with 1.9 km of road per
sq km of land area, versus an average of 1.1 km/sq km
Europe-wide. But the length of France’s rail network
is close to the European average, at 0.06 km/sq km versus
an average of 0.05 km/sq km Europe-wide. Germany,
Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, and Belgium have
the highest rail network density, while Belgium is the only
country to rank among the highest in Europe for both rail
and road density.
Outside the EU-27, Switzerland stands out for the density
of its rail network, which is on a par with Germany’s. This is
one reason why rail occupies such a large share of the Swiss
transport market.
Network length relative to land area
(km/sq km)
Road
Rail
Portugal
Bulgaria
Finland
Romania
Sweden
Germany
Italy
Slovakia
Greece
Latvia
Cyprus
EU-27
Malta
Cyprus
Estonia
Finland
Greece
Sweden
Lithuania
Ireland
Latvia
Portugal
Spain
Bulgaria
Romania
1.1
EU-27
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Estonia
Poland
Spain
Ireland
Austria
Czech Rep
Denmark
UK
Slovenia
0.05
Italy
France
Hungary
Netherlands
Belgium
Malta
Slovenia
Austria
Denmark
Poland
UK
Netherlands
Slovakia
Hungary
Germany
Luxembourg
Belgium
Czech Rep
Switzerland
Switzerland
France
1.93
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.06
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
**Data for Portugal include only the primary network. As a result, the ratio of rail (km) to land area (sq km)
is not comparable to that of the other countries.
Mobility offering
Air transport network
Traffic ratios
But density must also be considered relative to traffic. For
example, France has better airport coverage than Germany,
but traffic per airport is only half as high: in 2010, the average
French airport handled only 2.3 million passengers, while
the average German airport had traffic of 4.2 million.
As a result, per-passenger structural costs are higher
in France than in Germany.
Variable density
Air transport coverage – the average number of inhabitants
served by a given airport – varies significantly from country
to country. Thus, while the European average is one airport
per 1.2 million inhabitants, density rises to one airport
per 300,000 inhabitants in Sweden and Finland, the top
two countries, and drops to one airport per 3.3 million
inhabitants in the Netherlands, 3.9 million in Poland and
5 million in Hungary, the three countries where air coverage
is lowest. In France, coverage remains slightly above the
European average, at one airport per 1.1 million inhabitants.
NOTE
are taken from 2011 data on the
27 member countries of the European
Union, published by Eurostat in summer
2013. A directorate-general of the
European Commission, Eurostat provides
official statistical information at EU level,
of the member countries. The full range
of statistics is available
Number
of airports
1.3
1.0
1.3
3.6
3.5
5.8
1.8
Denmark
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.5
0.8
France
58
1.1
2.3
Portugal
Belgium
9
39
3
3
43
6
36
3
3
42
1
3
5
3.0
4.2
0.9
0.6
4.7
4.2
3.3
0.6
2.2
4.2
1.4
4.3
5.1
5.1
1.2
10.8
2.1
2.7
Greece
Cyprus
Malta
Ireland
Luxembourg
Hungary
2
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.4
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.8
2.5
1.9
2.1
3.5
2.2
2.1
2.7
3.3
3.9
5.0
EU-27
402
1.2
Spain
Estonia
UK
Austria
Italy
Slovakia
Bulgaria
Germany
Slovenia
Czech Rep
46
Average no.
of passengers
per airport
13
29
27
2
1
4
1
7
Finland
Sweden
Lithuania
* Number of inhabitants / number of airports: average number
of inhabitants served by one airport, in millions
Airport coverage
ratios*
Latvia
1
Romania
8
Netherlands
5
Poland
10
3.7
4.4
Air network compared with passenger traffic and number of inhabitants in 2011
Coverage ratio
Number of passengers/airport
(number of inhabitants/airport)
Hungary
Poland
Czech Rep
Netherlands
Romania
Bulgaria
Belgium
Latvia
Slovenia
Germany
Slovakia
Italy
UK
Austria
EU-27
3.1 M
1.4 M
Spain
Portugal
Ireland
France
2.3 M
1.1 M
Lithuania
Denmark
Luxembourg
Estonia
Cyprus
Greece
Malta
Finland
Sweden
Switzerland
10
8
6
4
2
(millions of travellers per airport)
0
2
4
6
(millions of inhabitants per airport)
Mobility offering
interview
“
For the multimodal shift to succeed,
we need to invest massively in infrastructure
and rolling stock, and work towards total
network interoperability.
Dominique Riquet,
European MP
What are the European Union’s goals
for the Trans-European Transport
Networks (TEN‑T) programme?
The EU’s TEN-T policy calls for setting
up a series of major multimodal
corridors and creating connections
between them. The corridors are
designed to mirror the main traffic
flows in Europe, support a healthy
domestic market, and ensure smooth,
environment-friendly transport for
business and the public.
48
More specifically, the European
Commission will coordinate the
engineering works in the various
member states by identifying
infrastructure needs, prioritizing
projects, and apportioning funding.
The European Commission regularly
issues calls for proposals, based on
goals and criteria defined in partnership
with member-state representatives and
members of the European Parliament.
This Europe-wide blueprint is also
adjusted periodically in response
to changing economic conditions
and the progress of our various
projects.
But we should bear in mind that the
EU’s role is limited under the Treaties,
which expressly provide that no project
can be deployed on the soil of a
member state without its agreement.
As a result, it’s still up to the member
states to decide whether a given
project is included in the budget.
What sources of funding are available
for these projects?
The EU can help in a variety of ways,
either by providing direct financial
support or by acting as a kind
of catalyst. Funding for major
infrastructure projects can come from
a number of sources.
First there is “new money” from the
European budget, which is distributed
through line items earmarked for the
TEN-T programme, the European
Development Fund, and the Cohesion
Fund. But money can also come from
the European Investment Bank, and
that includes innovative financial
instruments such as project bonds,
equity capital structures and so on.
In addition, there’s the public funding
contributed by the member states, plus
other forms of market participation,
such as user contributions through
ticket purchases.
For the 2014-2020 programming
period, the EU plans to step up funding
efforts through the new Connecting
Europe Facility. The idea is to set up
a common fund for all trans-European
networks – for transport, of course, but
also for energy and telecommunications
– and turn the challenges shared by all
of these sectors to our advantage. With
a budget of some €30 billion managed
by the Commission, the Facility will
support projects with high added value
for the EU, based on clearly defined
selection criteria and co-financing rates.
Concretely, how can the European
Union achieve the ambitious goal
it has set for the shift to rail?
working towards total network
interoperability, and making significant
improvements in the timeliness,
frequency and comfort of our trains.
We also need to pay down debt and
stabilize prices. Finally, we need to
ensure that we factor in the externalities
for every mode of transport, and that
includes applying the polluter-pay
principle.
First, why is the shift to rail
so important? Remember that rail
transport is critical in achieving the
environmental protection goals we’ve
set, particularly for emissions.
And it offers undeniable advantages
in improving safety and scaling up
the transport system by merging freight
units. Finally, we shouldn’t forget that
trains strengthen the social fabric and
are an affordable form of day-to-day
transport.
With that as our starting point, how can
we increase the rail system’s share of
passengers and freight? First, we need
to make trains more appealing and
more competitive, and that
means making massive investments
in infrastructure and rolling stock,
“
Mobility offering
CLOSE-UP
Mobility 21
Commission
The Mobility 21 Commission
was created in October 2012
by the French Transport Minister.
Composed of four experts and
six MPs with a range of political
views, it was tasked with deciding
how to deploy France’s National
Transport Infrastructure Plan, which
originally called for €245 billion to
be spent on infrastructure work
by 2030-2040. With this timetable
no longer feasible, the Commission
was asked to prioritize infrastructure
projects based on current
circumstances and the outlook
for the nation’s finances.
Working within the energy and green
transition targets set by French
President François Hollande – and
balancing them against demand for
mobility, which will remain high – the
Mobility 21 Commission reached
several important conclusions:
-French transport networks are highly
developed, and have seen a number
of major investments in recent years,
including four newly launched
high-speed rail lines;
-Maintaining and renovating existing
structures, which must be the top
investment priority, will require
additional investments;
-All French regions should have
effective transport services, but
the offering must be matched
to local conditions for economic,
social and environmental
sustainability;
-The nation’s rail development
model needs an overhaul: problems
include financial losses; a weak rail
freight system; failure to consider
alternatives to high-speed service;
and inadequate attention
50
to problems confronting the primary
network nodes, which are already
affecting the entire system;
-Developing alternatives to road
transport must be a priority, but
roads continue to be the primary
mode of travel, and are often the
only practical solution for sparsely
populated areas and “last-leg”
transport.
-Inadequacies in the national logistics
infrastructure and in the major
platforms at France’s European-class
ports have left the national economy
less competitive and less attractive
to investors. These inadequacies are
also a major handicap in pooling
and scaling up transport flows and
developing alternatives to road
transport in France.
-Current mechanisms for transport
policy funding and governance
do not allow the French Parliament
and local communities to play
an adequate role in the State’s
investment decisions, nor do they
ensure a truly intermodal approach
to identifying priorities at local level.
Based on these findings, the Commission
has issued recommendations geared
around four key priorities:
The Commission also prioritized
infrastructure projects using four key
criteria:
-Delivering a quality experience for
transport infrastructure users;
-Contribution to the primary goals of
French transport policy – promoting
economic competitiveness, reducing
regional inequalities, and improving
short-range mobility;
-Boosting transport service quality;
-Improving the rail system’s overall
performance; and
-Updating transport funding and
governance mechanisms.
-Environmental performance;
-Social performance, or how
effectively each project promotes
regional development, improves
health and safety, and reduces
environmental and quality-of-life
problems for communities living
and working near transport
infrastructures;
-Socio-economic performance
(net present value).
Finally, the Commission recommended
reviewing and reprioritizing infrastructure
projects every five years, based on
mobility needs and changing financial
and regulatory requirements.
Mobility offering
interview
“
Our first priority is maintaining
and updating our existing networks.
Philippe Duron,
MP and Mayor of Caen,
President of the Mobility 21 Commission
During your work on the Mobility 21
Commission, you identified the main
challenges for improving transport
network performance.
What are they?
Our key challenge was creating
a system: transforming the French
transport infrastructure network –
extensive, heavily used, and in the
heart of Europe – into a genuine
system that combines all of our various
modes of transport to make them more
efficient. It should also help us keep our
infrastructure edge. We run the risk of
losing that if we neglect our networks
52
and continue to sacrifice maintenance
to growth, which is easier to see
in the short run. In 2005, the Ecole
Polytechnique de Lausanne assessed
our rail infrastructure and warned the
French government that our network
was decaying due to inadequate
investment, and that prompted
a sudden surge in spending to slow
and ultimately stop the decline. But
we could say the same of our
motorways and inland waterways.
There is an urgent need for action.
But we also have to find the political will
to outline a clear long-range investment
plan for the French public and for
the economic decision makers in the
transport sector. To remind everyone
that it will take time to develop
a strategy, and that we will have
to deploy it gradually based on clear
priorities. To take a pragmatic view
of development that acknowledges
the everyday realities for users
and matches resources to needs.
You chaired the Mobility 21
Commission. Can you review its main
conclusions for us?
Our first priority is maintaining
and updating our existing networks.
That is the fastest, most comprehensive
way to meet the need for better
day-to-day transport, to make
the network more competitive,
and to fight regional isolation around
the country.
Another priority is making the network
more efficient by focusing on rail hubs
that are becoming congested, such
as Lyon, the Saint-Charles station
in Marseille, and the Mantois region
near Paris, to name only the top three.
Still another priority is improving the
links between our major maritime ports
and their hinterland. That’s why we’ve
proposed renovating the SerqueuxGisors line as quickly as possible,
to relieve the heavy rail traffic
at the port of Le Havre.
Critics have argued that Mobility
21 turned its back on the TGV. That
isn’t true. What we recommended
was rebalancing the system, by
putting more emphasis on network
maintenance and by promoting a fast,
modern, robust new train – something
between the TGV and the TER regional
trains – to replace our Corail and
Teoz trains. Similarly, because there
is no agreement on when we will
reach the saturation point in several
critical regions, including Paris-Lyon,
Bordeaux-Hendaye, MontpellierPerpignan and Interconnexion Sud, we
recommended setting up multilateral
watchdog groups to monitor traffic.
Our report also suggests taking several
other steps, including smoothing
out demand for public transport
at rush hour, and experimenting
with transferring selected services
to coaches. But the really essential
thing, in our view, is for these ideas
to be regularly discussed in the French
Parliament – as part of a five-year plan
outlining the priorities and key goals
for the State’s investment policy,
for example. Then we would finally
be able to develop a strategic,
medium- to long-term plan for our
transport network.
What new sources of funding are
available to help us reach these
goals?
Funding for our transport networks is a
critical but extremely complex question.
No matter what form the funding
takes – budget line item, concession
or partnership agreement – and
no matter who provides the funding
– the French state, local communities
or other partners – in the end the cost
of our transport system will be borne
by taxpayers and transport users.
So we need to be keenly aware of
the consequences of our decisions.
Funding is a major and incredibly broad
issue in itself, and neither our mission
nor the available time allowed us to
make a thorough study of it. But one
thing is certain: France can never meet
the challenge of sustainable mobility
without setting a clear direction and
clear priorities for funding.
That’s why we recommended holding
a national transport funding forum as
soon as possible to discuss our options,
especially for large-scale projects.
For example, we could consider the
possible benefits of drawing on private
savings, asking companies located
outside major metropolitan areas to pay
a share of transport costs, or earmark
a larger percentage of toll revenue
to pay for transport infrastructure. There
is also the thorny but fundamental
question of how to distribute costs
among national taxpayers, local
taxpayers, and users. Not to mention
all the other ideas that a national
conversation could generate! It
is precisely because the funding issue is
still unresolved that we recommended
reviewing our findings five years from
now. By then, we hope, the economy
will have improved and new resources
will be available.
“
THE TRANSPORT
ECONOMY
54
56 — THE TRANSPORT ECONOMY: key INDICATORS
60 — interview wITH Jean-Pierre Orfeuil
62 — A NEW TEACHING AND RESEARCH CHAIR
64 — interview wITH armel de la bourdonnaye
THE TRANSPORT ECONOMY
Analysis
THE TRANSPORT ECONOMY:
key INDICATORS
What Europeans spend on transport
In all, transport accounts for some 13% of household final
consumption expenditure in Europe, with 2.5% going
to public transport and 10.8% to other modes. In France,
public transport spending is slightly below the European
average.
Transport budgets (all modes combined) are highest
for the UK at 14.3%, Slovenia and Lithuania at 15.1%,
Luxembourg at 19.1% and Bulgaria at 17%. Automobiles
absorb the lion’s share of these expenditures in Luxembourg,
where 18.4% of final consumption is car-related,
and Slovenia, where cars account for 14.0% – and the
number of automobile journeys per capita is in fact highest in
these two countries. By contrast, public transport accounts for
a significant share of household budgets in the UK, at 3.8%
of final consumption, and in Bulgaria, at 5.3%, even though
the per-capita number of journeys via public transport
is not among the highest in Europe. In fact, these larger
percentages reflect high public transport costs rather than
high volumes.
Share of public and other transport in 2011 –
household final consumption expenditure (HFCE)
Share of public transport in HFCE
Other modes
Bulgaria
Romania
UK
Greece
Ireland
Sweden
Estonia
Latvia
Germany
EU-27
2.5%
10.8%
France
2.3%
12.1%
Austria
Portugal
Slovakia
Finland
Malta
Italy
Poland
Netherlands
Hungary
Lithuania
Spain
Czech Rep
Cyprus
Denmark
Belgium
Slovenia
Luxembourg
0
56
5%
10%
15%
20%
Freight: hit hard by the crisis
When trends for passenger and freight traffic are compared
with the macroeconomic indicators for Europe, we find
a strong correlation between freight and the overall
economy. In 2009, for example, the economic crisis coincided
with a sharp drop in freight traffic, but volumes rebounded
in 2010 as the economy improved. Still, freight had begun
to decline as early as 2008.
Meanwhile, passenger transport, which had followed
economic indicators until 2008, did not seem as hard hit
by the 2009 slowdown. Since 2011, however, passenger
traffic has stalled as the economic downturn has had
a deeper impact.
Trends in freight, passenger transport, GDP and household consumption
(100 = 2000)
150
140
GDP
HFCE
Freight
Passenger transport
130
120
110
100
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Employment
Within the 27 countries of the European Union, road freight
is the sector’s biggest employer, with 28% of all transport
jobs in 2011. It is followed by logistics with 23.8%, roadbased passenger transport with 19% and postal transport
with 17%. Rail accounted for 6% of transport jobs.
Environmental impact
In the EU-27, transport accounts for nearly 25% of all
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with the great majority
coming from roads, which handle 74% of all traffic and emit
72% of total GHGs. Rail, which carries 6% of traffic, generates
58
a mere 0.6% of all GHG emissions. Not surprisingly,
air transport is responsible for a higher proportion of GHGs,
with 12% of emissions for only 8% of traffic.
Europe-wide, the transport sector accounts for 32%
of all energy consumption. The biggest consumers are road,
with 82% of the total, and air, with 14% – percentages
that are largely in proportion to their share of traffic. Rail,
by contrast, is responsible for only 2% of the energy
consumed by transport in Europe.
note
The indicators presented in this
section are taken from 2011 data
on the 27 member countries
of the European Union, published
by Eurostat in summer 2013. A directorategeneral of the European Commission,
Eurostat provides official statistical
information at EU level, primarily
by collecting, harmonizing
of the member countries. The full range
of statistics is available
EU-27 transport sector jobs in 2010, by mode
Other
Postal
2.36%
17. 02%
28%
Road –
freight
23.85%
Storage
& logistics
19%
3.77%
Air
Road –
passengers
6%
Rail
EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions in 2011,
by mode
EU-27 energy consumption in 2011,
by mode
Inland
waterways Pipeline
Other
Water
Air
1.63%
0.83%
0.75%
14.10%
13.87%
Rail
Air
Rail
2.01%
12.36%
0.61%
72.11%
Road
81.73%
Road
interview
“
A region’s vitality ultimately depends
on how well policy-makers can identify
its strengths and weaknesses, select the right
development projects and deploy these
under an effective governance system.
Jean-Pierre Orfeuil,
University professor, Paris Urbanism Institute
Université Paris XII
How do you think demand for
mobility in Europe will be affected
by current demographic, economic
and social trends?
It’s clear that demographic, economic
and social factors will play a major role
in mobility demand going forward. The
challenge is to determine which ones
are the most likely to materialize and
which will have the greatest impact.
I’ll go out on a limb and name six,
in decreasing order of importance.
First, the economy – are we headed
for a period of slow growth, stagnation,
or recession? This will have a major
60
influence on demand. Second,
the degree of social inequality. Unless
Europe’s “social model” is able
to narrow the steadily increasing gap,
we will see a growing divergence
between the rich who go out and the
less well-off who stay at home. Third,
peer-to-peer transportation options
like carpooling and carsharing. This
trend has taken off with the advent
of the internet, social networks, and
smartphones, and it could lure demand
away from public transport. Fourth,
tighter purse strings at public transport
authorities as they plan new services
and review their policies of offering
reduced fares for low-income people.
That could do away with the “collateral
benefits” some people have been
taking advantage of to live well out
beyond suburbia. Fifth, Europe’s aging
population. This is both a challenge
– transport services will have to be
adapted to better suit the elderly –
and an opportunity, since, for example,
retired people can help provide
on-demand transportation at a lower
cost. Sixth, greater vehicle efficiency.
Until now progress here has largely
offset rising energy prices (for petrol
and electricity) – but we don’t know
how long that will continue.
Do you feel Europe’s transport
systems are prepared for the
urban and regional shifts currently
underway?
Urban and regional dynamics are
being driven by two fundamentals.
One, the need for knowledge-based
businesses to have both efficient local
services and good connections to
international services like high-capacity,
high-speed trains and airports. This is
a trend pulling people into large cities.
And two, the need for families to live
comfortably, close to nature, in their
own homes and among people like
them. Initially that was a feature of the
upper class, but has since become
an aspiration of the middle class, too,
as they strive to distinguish themselves
from the lower class. This is a trend
pushing people out to the suburbs
– and being enabled by modern
motorway systems.
So today’s cities have to walk a fine
line. They have to be both “a great
city to live in” and “a great city to do
business in.” They have to combine
dense populations with spacious green
parks. This is especially true for cities
with tourist attractions and which have
invested in transport systems like trams
that enhance the quality of their public
spaces.
While such trends concern only city
centres, they also have ramifications for
suburbs, especially as more companies
open offices on the outskirts
of cities – ramifications that we will not
necessarily control. We have to accept
that urban sprawl will likely continue.
However, policy-makers can use
roadway regulations to help make
car transportation as efficient and
sustainable as possible. Such tools
include lowering speed limits, building
toll ways and access control systems
where useful, creating priority lanes for
buses and carpools, and promoting
the use of light electric vehicles (two-,
three-, and four-wheel) and making
sure they are used safely. We must get
away from associating a given type of
infrastructure (like a road) with a single
mode of travel (like a personal car).
How can improving a region’s
transport system create value
for that region?
The potential benefits to a region
of improving its transport system are
not straightforward. We see just how
complex they are in the contrasting
findings from studies of France’s
high-speed rail lines and of poor
neighbourhoods served by dedicated
transport systems. What happens
in one area does not necessarily
happen in another. And what happened
in specific contexts in the past may not
necessarily happen in the future. Past
findings are not necessarily applicable
to regions today, when transport
systems can generally get people
around effectively. And they will be
even less so in the future, when virtual
technology will play an increasing role.
A region’s vitality depends on how well
policy-makers can identify its strengths
and weaknesses, select the right
development projects and deploy these
under an effective governance system.
The same holds true for all areas of
regional development, not just mobility.
In the future it won’t be the transport
system itself that creates value, but the
service it provides. Some large cities
will continue to struggle with traffic
congestion, but the key challenge will
be to make sure everyone has access
to transportation – especially if the
inequality gap widens further, if job
instability, family instability, and poverty
keep growing, and if fuel prices and car
maintenance costs keep rising. Instead
of broad initiatives to improve mobility
on average, policy-makers will have to
implement targeted, focused measures
to provide mobility solutions to those
who need them most. And that will
bring the added benefit of improving
regional efficiency and cohesion.
“
close-up
A NEW TEACHING
AND RESEARCH CHAIR
Supported by École des Ponts
& chaussees, Paris-Est Marnela-Vallée University, and SNCF
Rail and other transport systems
can have a powerful economic and
regional impact. SNCF’s Business
Strategy & Development department
is contributing to deeper knowledge
and better teaching in this field through
its support of an academic chair with
a solid scientific programme.
Origins
Since 2007, the research and higher
education cluster at Paris-Est-MarneLa-Vallée University (PRES) has worked
to create a multidisciplinary university
with a world-class profile, close ties
between research and teaching, and
strong relationships with its region.
As founding members of PRES, ParisEst-Marne-La-Vallée University and the
prestigious engineering school École
des Ponts & Chaussees were ideal
partners for SNCF in creating the new
teaching and research chair, titled
“A new economic approach to regional
mobility and rail networks”.
A closer look at a critical time
Creation of the five-year chair comes
at a time of profound change for SNCF,
as we respond to market liberalization,
debate on national transport
infrastructure programs, heightened
constraints on rail system funding and
the broader economy, shrinking energy
resources, an increasingly digital world,
emerging new services, the possible
62
closing of existing lines, and many other
challenges.
What is more, SNCF operates within
a specific footprint and within specific
regions at multiple levels. To design
the network and mobility services
of tomorrow, we need to understand
regional trends clearly and assess future
demand accurately, while keeping
current and projected economic
pressures firmly in mind.
This understanding is critical
in developing the right vision today
and building the right transport network
tomorrow. For over 160 years, rail has
shaped the face of France, offering
growth opportunities to business,
local regions and individuals. But
recent projections show that society
is developing a new relationship with
the land as increasing diversity affects
lifestyles, work habits and consumption
patterns throughout France. As we
address these challenges, it is important
to back our in-house research with
a solid corpus of academic work.
Research topics
Designing the right business model
for mobility services and transport
infrastructure, and analysing their
impact on regional life raises a number
of issues that the new chair’s research
and teaching activities can address.
Key questions include:
-What are the costs of the various
transport modes and what are the
best ways of combining them for
end-to-end, door-to-door transport?
-What value should we assign
to comfort, reliability and other
quality-of-service issues in assessing
proposed improvements to urban
environments?
-How do transport services
and networks affect regional
demographic and economic
development?
-How should fares be designed to
reflect inadequate and congested
infrastructure in European networks?
The teaching and research work
associated with the new chair will
combine the science of engineering
with the economic and social sciences,
creating a collaborative, interdisciplinary
approach.
interview
“
The chair will let us continuously adapt
our teaching and research, so they remain
aligned with the needs of transport companies
and operators.
Armel de La Bourdonnaye,
Director, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées
How big a role do transport systems
play in the teaching and research
done at your school?
We have been teaching transport
systems since the school was founded
in 1747. Many of the civil engineers who
designed France’s major infrastructure
projects are École des Ponts alumni,
like Eugène Belgrand and Fulgence
Bienvenüe. In fact our library still has
notes taken by students in 1858 during
an early class called “Railways.”
Over time the scope of our degree
programmes expanded from
infrastructure to all modes of travel.
Today we look at mobility as a
whole, using a global approach that
64
encompasses transport infrastructure,
regions, users, and societal issues.
One of our school’s strengths is that
we teach – and research – solutions for
sustainable cities.
All six of our engineering departments
teach transport systems, reflecting the
importance we place on this issue.
The courses range from transport
economics and project finance to
energy, construction, civil engineering,
traffic analysis, and even new mobility
solutions. They draw on basic scientific
and engineering disciplines, like
mechanics, geotechnics, materials
strength, and modelling.
Our Cities, Environment, & Transport
department offers a programme
focused entirely on transport systems.
Enrolment has shot up over the past
couple of years, and half of its students
now come from other countries.
We overhauled the curriculum in 2012
to incorporate the latest developments
in transport systems. And every year
we hold a Disability Awareness Day
to teach future engineers about
the special mobility needs of the
handicapped.
Our faculty draws on the research
done at the school and at IFSTTAR
(the French institute of science and
technology for transport, development
and networks). Professors also
work closely with transport industry
professionals.
In addition to our undergraduate
engineering programmes, we also
offer Master’s degrees in subjects like
Transport & Sustainable Development
(in association with the Renault
Foundation), Logistics & Supply Chain
Design and Optimization (in conjunction
with École Polytechnique Fédérale de
Lausanne and AFT-IFTIM), Urban & Rail
Transport Systems (in association with
several organizations including SNCF),
Transport & Mobility, and Electric
Vehicle Engineering.
Many of our school’s research
programmes address the key
challenges related to transport
systems. For example, our City Mobility
Transport Laboratory (LVMT) looks
at mobility solutions, our Navier lab
studies civil engineering, and our
Cermics lab performs transport system
modelling.
Four of our school’s fifteen chairs
directly address transport systems.
What can local governments
do to better take financial criteria into
account when choosing a transport
system?
We are looking at this issue from many
angles.
Local officials usually perform
opportunity studies and social
and economic assessments when
considering a transport project. They
typically set minimum acceptable values
for a project’s net present value (NPV)
and internal rate of return (IRR). More
recently, they have been incorporating
other evaluation methods too, looking
at an array of criteria related to the
environment, safety and congestion.
Another recent trend is the systemic
approach I mentioned earlier.
This makes it possible to better
understand the complex relationship
between transport infrastructure and
transportation supply and demand.
For example, under this approach they
generate traffic forecasts based on
saturation studies of existing transport
infrastructure. That’s where advanced
traffic modelling software becomes
crucial. Over the past four years our
research labs have been doing more
work on saturation issues for transport
systems, stations, interchange stations
and nodes.
We are also seeing the emergence
of new business models like the Velib’
bicycle rental scheme, and of publicprivate partnerships for infrastructure
projects. Today’s local officials think
about transport infrastructure in
terms of life-cycle cost, factoring
in maintenance, operation and
decommissioning costs from the design
stage. A lot of work is being done
on ways to scale back maintenance
costs by adopting new approaches
like condition-based maintenance and
predictive maintenance.
In response to the economic crisis,
many local officials are reviewing the
pricing structure on their transport
systems and how they connect with
European systems. The idea is to
eventually set fares that also reflect the
service provided by a transport system,
and not only its marginal social cost.
Are these the kinds of transport
economics issues that the new ENPCSNCF chair will study?
We have been working with the SNCF
Strategy Department for several
months now, primarily through three
“mini-labs,” or joint meetings with
representatives from SNCF (from the
Innovation and Research Department
and several business units), researchers
from our school, and researchers from
University of Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée.
As you can see we opened the lines
of communication very early on in the
project, so everyone was clear from the
outset on the roles and expectations
of each participant. Personally I believe
that’s the key to success in this type
of venture.
We hope to be ready to finalize an
agreement and launch the first five-year
phase of our alliance this autumn.
The new chair will cover both research
and teaching:
- Research: One of the chair’s core
research areas will be infrastructure
project evaluation methods. A variety
of proven methods already exist,
including some that are spelled out in
fairly detailed government directives.
Some of the other methods are more
controversial, especially now that
infrastructure projects bring together
a wide range of stakeholders and
investors, including regions and large
cities. Today these stakeholders must
work together more closely than ever
before. One issue that came out of the
mini-labs was how local governments
can better assess the regional effects
of transport infrastructure on things
like redistribution and the environment
– both negatively and positively.
And how they can assess those effects
knowing that each region faces
a different set of economic, social,
and geographic challenges. To find
the answer, we must no longer think in
terms of infrastructure alone, but
in terms of the services it supports:
travel frequency, quality, capacity
– and the need for capacity
investment, such as in suburban
areas. We also plan to come up with
a business model that can be used as
an example for rail transport. This will
include carrying out an international
benchmarking study to identify best
practices we can build on.
- Teaching: The chair will work
to improve our existing degree
programmes, continuously adapting
them so they remain consistently
aligned with the needs of transport
companies and operators. This will
also help us build notoriety about
those programmes.
On top of those two functions I would
add a third: outreach. We plan to hold
two or three events a year on issues
directly related to the chair’s research.
They could be talks given by experts,
for example; here again, we would aim
to attract specialists from around the
world. We already have an inaugural
event planned to celebrate the signing
of our agreement with SNCF and kick
off the first phase of the chair’s work.
“
Low-cost
models
in transport
66
68 — Meeting the low-cost challenge
70 — interview wITH Emmanuel Combe
72 — Ouigo: France’s first budget rail service
74 — iDBUS: reimagining coach travel
Low-cost models in transport
Analysis
Meeting the low-cost
challenge
68
The low-cost model appears in French rail
Planes to cars to trains
In the beginning, it was only mass-market food and hotels.
But more recently, strategies for carving out low-cost
offerings have spread to virtually every sector – including
transport.
In the transport industry, low-cost players first appeared
15 years ago in air travel. And though they started small,
low-cost airlines now account for 44% of short- and mediumhaul traffic in Europe. The automobile industry followed suit
in 2005, when Renault launched Dacia, a subsidiary that sold
cars for less than €7,500. And in 2012, SNCF responded
with Ouigo and iDBUS, attracting new passengers with
two innovative transport offerings inspired by the low-cost
revolution.
The low-cost model
Adapting quickly
Though low-cost strategies vary slightly from company
to company, they all have three things in common.
The second key characteristic of low-cost companies is their
ability to adapt to client demand, quickly and constantly.
They never hesitate to try new destinations or eliminate
existing routes based on actual occupancy rates, and they
have replaced the connection-hub model with point-to-point
networks of independent routes that are easy to change.
Keeping it simple
According to low-cost strategist Emmanuel Combe (1),
the fundamental idea is that “each product is stripped bare.
Secondary features are pared away, leaving only the core,
the essential function.” This quest for essentials – which
ultimately means meeting the consumer’s most important
expectations – is the cornerstone of competitive pricing.
In the transport sector, consumers expect safety
and punctuality above all, making these two values
the foundation for any low-cost offering. But service should
be anything but minimalist, and it must be simple, clear,
and designed around the client’s core expectations. For
example, while tickets are sold exclusively via the Internet,
reducing costs through direct distribution, passengers can
increase their comfort and service level by paying separately
for add-ons – a range of additional services that are freely
chosen, not imposed by the transport operator.
Optimizing assets
Finally, low-cost transport plans are designed to maximize
working time for both equipment and personnel, reducing
downtime and capital costs. In addition, low-cost operators
choose a single type of equipment and use rental
agreements to keep turnover high and fleets young –
a strategy that cuts maintenance and employee training costs
sharply.
In today’s economy, low-cost offerings will continue to evolve
and expand as more and more consumers are attracted
to a model that delivers competitive pricing without
sacrificing key service features.
(1) Emmanuel Combe, “Le low cost au service du consommateur”,
Économie et Management, Vol. 134, 2010.
INTERVIEW
“
The secret to low-cost airlines lies increasingly
in the extras they charge for ‘non-essential’
services, which offer an additional revenue
stream.
Emmanuel Combe,
Vice-President of the French competition authority
(Autorité de la concurrence) and university professor
Why do you think low-cost airlines
have been largely unfazed by
the crisis, and what is your mediumterm outlook for these carriers
as competition heats up?
Low-cost airlines have benefited from
a perfect storm of economic and
structural factors. The main economic
factor is of course the European crisis,
since it has made passengers far more
price sensitive – not only tourists but
also business people, especially from
SMEs.
70
Today travellers care more about
the cost of flights than their frequency.
And middle-cost airlines are on average
between 20% and 30% cheaper than
conventional carriers – even after you
throw in the add-ons. This makes
a big difference for today’s stretched
budgets, particularly for short- and
medium-haul flights where air travel
is largely seen as a commodity. The
substitution effect is most apparent
on routes where low-cost airlines serve
main airports like Paris-Charles
de Gaulle and Orly.
In terms of structural factors, I believe
the success of low-cost airlines reflects
a major shift in consumer behaviour.
Today’s consumers make a clear
distinction between essential features
like safety and on-time service,
and nice-to-have features like loyalty
programmes and fast connections. With
their basic, no-frills service, low-cost
airlines give travellers exactly what they
want and nothing more, in return for
lower prices. Nowadays consumers
focus on value for money like never
before.
What differentiates low-cost airlines
from traditional carriers, and how
are they able to adapt so quickly
to market changes?
Low-cost airlines have one basic
principle: simplify, simplify, simplify.
That applies first and foremost to their
service offering, which in turn lets them
streamline their operations and boost
productivity. They offer simple pointto-point services; that is, direct flights
between two airports without any
connections. This contrasts with the hub
model used by major carriers.
Point-to-point services minimize
the time an airline’s planes are on the
ground and maximize the number
of daily flights. A plane on the ground
is a cost; a plane in the air is revenue.
Budget carriers’ stripped-down services
also mean they can standardize their
operations – for example, by using
a single type of aircraft and packing
in lots of seats. However the secret
to low-cost airlines lies increasingly
in the extras they charge for ‘nonessential’ services, which offer an
additional revenue stream. These extras
account for over 20% of their revenue
and are a major profit driver.
Another strength of budget carriers
is that they are mostly young, flexible
and fast-moving businesses that can
rapidly adapt to market trends and
get new routes off the ground quickly.
That often gives them a first-mover
advantage over large incumbent
airlines, which are typically slower
to change.
Airlines and railway companies wanting
to start a low-cost business have to ask
themselves the same questions: How
far can we go in stripping down our
services? Which services are absolutely
essential for our passengers? What type
of passengers should we target to avoid
cannibalizing our higher-end offerings?
Which services could we start charging
for? A similar corporate culture is also
required; a low-cost business must
be fast and agile to succeed.
How could the low-cost business
model be applied to other transport
sectors?
The low-cost business model
is perfectly suited to a sector like rail
travel. Both air and rail travel are high
fixed-cost businesses that turn a profit
by using their equipment intensively
while complying with strict safety
regulations.
“
close-up
Ouigo:
France’s first budget
rail service
30-50% less
French TGV tickets cost
30-50% less than high-speed
rail tickets in Germany and
Spain.
38%
In 2011, low-cost airlines
accounted for 38% of intraEuropean flight traffic.
€10
Ouigo tickets start at just €10.
€5
Ouigo’s flat fare for children
under 12 travelling with
an adult.
In 2011, we learned that nearly 70%
of SNCF clients viewed French TGV
travel as “somewhat expensive”
to “very expensive” – even though
high-speed trains in France are among
the most affordable in Europe, costing
30-50% less than their Spanish
and German counterparts.
As the sluggish economy intensified
this perception, lower TGV prices
became the number-one expectation
for 49% of French rail travellers – ahead
of punctuality at 29%. Against this
backdrop, 71% of travellers came to
see rail market reform as a plus, largely
because increased competition would
reduce prices.
SNCF responded by taking
the initiative, without waiting
for competition to reach the rest
of the domestic market. And we’ve
now created an innovative new
offering designed to meet passenger
expectations and set the standard
for budget-friendly high-speed travel
throughout Europe.
The right offer at the right time
Present in nearly every sector,
low-cost products and services have
become benchmarks for consumers
eager to get the most for their money,
transforming the economic crisis into
a golden opportunity for companies
with a budget offering. Air travel is
a perfect example: while occupancy
rates for Easyjet, Ryanair and other lowcost carriers exceed 85%, legacy airlines
have seen their passenger numbers fall.
By 2011, budget airlines accounted for
38% of intra-European flight traffic and
were on track to raise their market share
from 44% to 53% of overall traffic
by 2020(2).
(1) Source: TNS-Sofres, July 2010
(2) Source: European Low Fares Airline Association
72
Legacy airlines, which had initially
ignored the trend, were forced
to respond urgently by creating
their own low-cost subsidiaries, but
these new companies – Lufthansa’s
GermanWings, and Air France’s
Transavia and HOP! – are struggling to
gain ground against well-established
competitors. Thus the challenge for
SNCF Voyages was to launch the first
budget-friendly high-speed rail offering
on the French market – and set the
standard in no-frills travel for our clients.
An innovative new model
for high-speed rail
But selling high volume at low prices
is unsustainable without overall
profitability. We needed to offer a wide
range of prices– without compromising
our bottom line, and – as the low-cost
airlines had shown – that meant
trimming production costs to at least
40% below those of legacy carriers.
To do so, we needed to meet three
conditions:
- Make optimum use of rolling stock
- Cut structural and distribution costs,
and
- Develop a highly efficient service
production model.
For SNCF, the challenge was to apply
these principles without compromising
our relentless commitment to rail safety
and public service.
The first five months
Ouigo trains have been running since
1 April 2013, and preliminary results
confirm that budget-friendly high-speed
rail is a hit with French travellers.
By early September 2012, we had
sold a million tickets, with an induction
rate of 45%, including 32% pure
induction, i.e., passengers who had not
used rail at all previously (IPSOS and
Passenger Survey study).
The Ouigo offer
All Ouigo sales are digital, with tickets
available on the web by logging in at
internetouigo.com or through travel
agencies, if the client prefers.
Ouigo offers simple, transparent,
all-inclusive fares: a single fare
is displayed at the time of purchase,
with no extra fees and no processing
charges
one handbag and one carryon:
travellers can bring additional luggage
or larger bags for a €5 fee.
Ouigo offers daily service from
Marne-la-Vallée to Lyon, Marseille and
Montpellier, stopping at Valence TGV,
Avignon TGV, Aix-en-Provence TGV
and Nîmes.
On board, all seats are comfort class
– equivalent to a second-class TGV
seat – and there is no food or beverage
service. The ticket price includes
close-up
iDBUS: reimagining
coach travel
It was 2011, and the time was ripe for
innovation. Economic and social change
was in the air as new consumption
styles emerged, energy costs rose,
mobility needs grew and new coach
services were created. Careful analysis
convinced us that it was time to invest
in road passenger transport – an
up-and-coming niche that would meet
the mobility needs of the future.
12 cities
in 5 European countries
27
return journeys daily
200
employees
A strategic launch in record time
The first iDBUS lines debuted in 2012 –
just one year later. Today the company
operates 27 daily return journeys,
serving 12 cities in five European
countries with a workforce of 200,
a fleet of 46 coaches, a website,
a full-service coach station in the Bercy
neighbourhood of Paris, and a depot
in nearby Vitry.
Greener travel for motorists
iDBUS service is designed primarily for
motorists who want a transport option
that is easy to use, safe and more
economical, and that doesn’t scrimp
on comfort. In France, automobiles
account for 80% of journeys over
100 km, a trend that has spread
throughout Europe. Before we
launched iDBUS, we conducted client
feasibility studies and developed
a profile of our first passengers: results
showed that coaches have more appeal
for motorists than for rail passengers.
A carefully defined target
The great majority of our first
passengers were leisure travellers,
young people and members of midlevel socio-professional categories.
And for good reason: our target
74
clientele remains very attached
to road travel, for motives that range
from cultural (a positive image of the
automobile as a symbol of freedom
and prosperity) to practical (50% of the
motorists who travel with us decide
to travel on less than 15 days’ notice)
to economic. iDBUS has set a new
standard for road travel, delivering
comfort, safety, service and ecofriendliness, and meeting the client
expectations identified in our market
studies – all combined with our
expertise in long-distance mobility.
Reinventing coach travel
We create the iDBUS experience
by delivering premium service that
is people-centred, simple/reliable,
balanced, and open/modern, and our
offer is built around these four core
values, with innovative features that
redefine long-distance road passenger
transport.
- Frequent daily service tailored
to passenger needs
Clients can choose from a wide range
of timetables for the most popular
destinations, and on long-distance
journeys, night service allows them
to save time and hotel costs.
- Safe, comfortable coaches
Our new fleet of premium iDBUS
vehicles offers an array of security
features: a lane-keep-assist mechanism,
three-point safety belts for every seat,
an alcohol ignition interlock device,
a back-up camera, and more. And the
extra safety goes hand in hand with
a cosy, comfortable interior, featuring
reclining seats with adjustable footrests,
83 cm of space between rows, a tray
table, a hook for each passenger’s
belongings, electrical outlets, and free
WiFi.
- Client-centred service
iDBUS service is in a class by itself.
Stewards assist passengers with
boarding, and our captains and
on-board crew attend to their needs en
route. Dressed in iDBUS colours and
specially trained in customer relations,
our staff speak both French and English,
and draw on their “care management”
training in day-to-day contacts with
customers. At iDBUS, passenger
satisfaction means putting people at
the centre of our service programme.
- Convenient stops, welcoming stations
We choose all iDBUS sites for easy
access via public transport, but usually
avoid congested historic city centres.
Stations are well lit and provide a
comfortable setting for passenger
reception and information, ticket sales,
and basic services such as toilets,
newsstands and food.
- Pricing: simple, reliable and competitive
In contrast to car rental, carsharing and
other rival modes, our fare schedule
is simple. Prices are announced several
months in advance and do not change
until the day of departure, while each
destination has no more than three
price levels: mini, intermediate and
peak period. And with iDBUS, clients
can travel without breaking the bank:
every day, we offer our mini fare on at
least one coach to every destination,
and groups can save even more with
our Tribu fare – four seats for the price
of three.
- Client-centred distribution
Tickets are sold on line at iDBUS.com
and voyages-sncf.com, by telephone,
and in our dedicated stations.
- Building relationships with our clients
In addition to our customer call centre
and other distribution channels, iDBUS
maintains a strong daily presence on
Facebook, Twitter and other social
networks, where we can listen
to our passengers and engage them
in dialogue. Finally, we conduct regular
iDBUS client satisfaction surveys and
tailor our operations accordingly –
a practice that reflects our commitment
to setting iDBUS apart from competitors
and creating a new standard for coach
travel.
No-frills chic: premium service
at a bargain price
We’ve given coach travel a whole new
image, putting iDBUS in a different
league from low-cost competitors like
Eurolines and Megabus. iDBUS is the
only long-distance coach service that
combines a low-cost production model
– a homogeneous, regularly rotated
fleet, carefully chosen distribution
channels, and a simple offer – with
top-of-the-line service.
Recruiting in France
We’ve put people at the heart of iDBUS
service and customer relations – a major
innovation in the coach travel market –
and reinvented the role of our coach
“captains” and other personnel. Unlike
purely low-cost coach services that cut
costs by working with subcontractors
in other parts of Europe, we recruited
selectively in France. By choosing the
right people, we ensured that iDBUS
would deliver quality service – and
created 200 jobs in the process.
pacesetter for long-distance coach
travel in Europe, winning recognition
from coach makers, the French National
Passenger Transport Federation,
the trade press, competitors, and
others in the sector. Elsewhere in
Europe, competitors have launched
high-end coach services on selected
domestic routes, such as Alsa Premium
by the Spanish provider Alsa and
Megabusgold by Stagecoach in the UK.
In Germany, which liberalized its market
as of 1 January 2013, many companies
have reached the same conclusion and
added new services that exceed the
quality delivered by existing low-cost
providers. Some – such as Meinfernbus
and City2city – are comparable
to iDBUS.
With markets changing rapidly and
even more liberalization on the horizon,
we are diversifying SNCF’s services to
meet the additional competition. Today
we’re striving to give coach travel
a positive image, to offer new
distribution channels, and to open
new lines that meet passenger needs.
And to ensure our success over the
long term, we’re working to build
a European network that will reflect the
new iDBUS standard for long-distance
road passenger transport.
Free services
iDBUS coaches offer the very best in
service and amenities, including more
comfortable seating, a choice of seats,
and free WiFi and power outlets. And
that means higher client satisfaction.
Because our regular fares include all
of these services, our fares are higher
than those of our low-cost competitors,
but cost less than owning a car or even
carsharing.
A strong start
With over 200,000 passengers carried
in one year, client satisfaction at 98%
and a 25% repeat business rate over
six months, iDBUS has become the
Passenger
satisfaction
with trains and railway stations
76
78 — Passenger satisfaction in Europe
84 — interview wITH Vincent Kaufmann
Passenger satisfaction with trains and railway stations
AnalysIS
Passenger satisfaction
in Europe
Trains & stations: polling passengers
In March 2011, the Gallup Organization carried out
a “Survey on passenger satisfaction with rail services” (Flash
Eurobarometer #326) on behalf of the European Commission
Directorate-General Mobility and Transport. Results
were published in June 2011 and provide valuable insight
into Europe’s railway sector, with answers to questions like:
How do today’s travellers feel about passenger information,
personal security and cleanliness in railway stations and on
trains? And how does France compare with other countries?
Passengers want more information
France came in below the European average for the
percentage of passengers “very satisfied” with the
information they receive at railway stations– about train
schedules
and platforms – and on trains. For passenger information
at railway stations, 80% of French respondents said they were
“very satisfied” or “rather satisfied” – putting the country
in 18th place, on par with Italy and the Czech Republic, and
ahead of Romania (77%), Austria and Estonia (76%), Greece
(74%), Germany and the Netherlands (68%) and Poland
Are you satisfied with the provision of information about train schedules and platforms?
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
DK/NA
Poland
Italy
France
18%
62%
13%
7%
1%
Germany
Portugal
Netherlands
EU 25
23%
53%
14%
6%
Belgium
Spain
Austria
Slovakia
Romania
Czech Rep
Estonia
Hungary
Finland
Sweden
Bulgaria
Greece
Luxembourg
Latvia
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Lithuania
Ireland
0
10%
EU-25: EU-27 excluding Malta and Cyprus, which have no rail systems.
78
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(49%). For passenger information on
trains, only 45%
of French respondents said they were
“very satisfied” or “rather satisfied”
– tied with Germany in 24th place
and just behind Poland (31%).
These results show that French
passengers, like their counterparts
in Germany, expect to be well-informed
throughout their journey. For us
at SNCF, that means further improving
our passenger information systems
by leveraging new innovations and
making more staff available to answer
questions. We have already taken
two important measures: putting more
information volunteers and SNCF
personnel (in easily-identifiable red
jackets) in railway stations during peak
travel periods and service disruptions;
and teaching story-telling techniques
to our train crews so they can better
connect with passengers. Our drive
for innovation also extends to the
digital space. We now make real-time
passenger information available online
and through mobile apps, blogs,
tweets, web radio, and more.
Are you satisfied with the
provision of information about
train schedules and platforms?
:The survey was conducted through
telephone interviews with nationally
representative samples of rail
passengers aged 15 and older living in
25 of the 27 EU Member States (Cyprus
and Malta have no railway networks).
A total of over 10,000 interviews were
conducted with a national sample
size of around 400 people. While this
national sample is relatively small and
does not allow for a detailed analysis
within each country, it is adequate to
generate rankings between countries. A
rail passenger was defined as someone
who had travelled by train within their
country in the 12 months prior to the
survey; passengers who had only used
suburban trains or trains within city limits
were excluded.
Are you satisfied with the provision of information during your journeys, in particular in case of delay?
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
DK/NA
Italy
Poland
France
7%
38%
29%
19%
6%
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Romania
Portugal
EU 25
15%
41%
22%
12%
6%
Sweden
Bulgaria
Czech Rep
Austria
Spain
Hungary
Finland
Denmark
Slovakia
Luxembourg
Greece
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Ireland
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Security an even greater priority
On passenger security, France came in above the European
average for security both at railway stations (83% of
respondents “very” or “rather” satisfied, vs. a 77% EU-25
average) and on trains (86% of respondents “very”
or “rather” satisfied, vs. 82% on average).
But when it comes to security, we aim even higher.
That’s why we have installed even more surveillance
cameras in railway stations and on our trains. We also set up
a dedicated unit for preventing incivility and in 2012
launched a campaign to promote civility so our passengers
will feel more at ease riding our trains. A friendly smile
and reassuring presence help, too. There are no less than
24,000 SNCF agents in our stations, over 10,000 people
working on our trains, and more than 3,000 railway security
personnel keeping our passengers safe.
Are you satisfied with your personal security at the station?
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
DK/NA
Poland
Italy
Portugal
Bulgaria
Czech Rep
France
18%
65%
13%
3%
1%
Slovakia
Hungary
Latvia
Romania
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
EU 25
22%
55%
15%
6%
Belgium
Lithuania
Estonia
Greece
Luxembourg
Austria
Slovenia
Denmark
Sweden
United Kingdom
Finland
Ireland
0
10%
80
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Are you satisfied with your personal security whilst on board?
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
DK/NA
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Bulgaria
Czech Rep
Slovakia
Romania
Hungary
France
24%
63%
10%
3%
1%
Netherlands
EU 25
25%
57%
11%
Germany
Latvia
Spain
Belgium
Greece
Lithuania
Estonia
Slovenia
Austria
Sweden
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Denmark
Ireland
Finland
4%
6%
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kudos for cleanliness
France scored well above the European average for
the cleanliness of its railway stations (70% of respondents
“very” or “rather” satisfied, vs. a 61% EU-25 average)
and trains (65% of respondents “very” or “rather” satisfied,
vs. 56% on average). This puts our country in 11th place
on both criteria.
Are you satisfied with the cleanliness and maintenance of station facilities?
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
DK/NA
Poland
Italy
Hungary
Germany
Czech Rep
Slovakia
France
11%
59%
23%
6% 1%
Romania
Bulgaria
Netherlands
EU 25
14%
47%
11%
25%
Denmark
Estonia
Sweden
Portugal
Slovenia
Belgium
Austria
Latvia
Finland
Greece
Spain
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Ireland
0
10%
82
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Are you satisfied with the cleanliness and maintenance of rail cars, including train toilets?
Very satisfied
Rather satisfied
Rather dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
DK/NA
Poland
Italy
Germany
Slovakia
Czech Rep
Romania
Hungary
France
11%
54%
22%
12%
1%
Bulgaria
Netherlands
EU 25
13%
43%
26%
15%
Belgium
Sweden
Austria
Portugal
Denmark
Greece
Latvia
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Finland
Estonia
Spain
Luxembourg
Ireland
Lithuania
0
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
interview
“
Today’s passengers are less concerned
about how much time they spend travelling
than about the quality of that time.
Vincent Kaufmann,
Professor of Mobility Analysis at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,
and Science Director of Mobile Lives Forum.
What have European travellers
come to expect in terms of transport
service quality?
Passengers’ expectations of trains
have changed considerably over the
past decade. Research on mobility
shows that comfort while travelling
has become a primary issue – much
more so than 20 years ago. Today’s
passengers are less concerned about
reducing the time they spend travelling
84
than about the quality of that time.
That is largely due to the widespread
use of WiFi, tablets, laptops, and
smartphones. To be appealing,
a transportation service must offer
guaranteed, comfortable seating and
modern conveniences – passengers
want to be able to work, read a book
or simply relax during their journey.
So trains must be designed with
passenger comfort in mind, which also
means having the necessary seating
capacity. With today’s hectic lifestyles,
saving time no longer means getting
from Point A to Point B faster, but being
able to make good use of your travel
time. We are seeing more and more
passengers who could have got to their
destination faster by car, but chose
instead to take a train so they could
get something done on the way.
What measures would you
recommend to transport operators to
make door-to-door travel even easier
for their passengers?
Clearly the most effective measure
would be to integrate all modes of
public transport into a coherent,
seamless system. That would require
coordinating the schedules of urban
transit systems, regional coach services,
and rail lines, and offering “intermodal”
door-to-door passes covering all types
of journeys. For large regions that
are not served by public transport,
operators could introduce innovative
services like carsharing, group taxis
and on-demand transportation. France
has a lot of work to do in this area, but
recent studies show there are major
gains to be had by attracting more
public transport users.
Switzerland’s transport system
has been held up as an example
for Europe. What factors do you
feel set it apart, and what lessons
can other countries learn to improve
passenger satisfaction?
Our system is held up as an example
because it lets you get anywhere
anytime. It is a complete service
in terms of both scheduling and reach.
As such, it fits in perfectly with modern
lifestyles – to the point where many
residents of large Swiss cities don’t
even have a car. Another advantage
is that our travel passes are fully
integrated, making it extremely easy
to get around. For example you can
get an all-purpose travelcard that
lets you hop on any mode of public
transport: train, regional bus, city bus,
tram and even boat. Finally I would say
that our system offers a wide range
of on-board services like restaurant
cars with table service, family cars, WiFi
in first class (with tables and electrical
outlets so you can get work done),
and reserved seating capacity so you
can be almost sure to get a seat.
This large palette of services makes
rail travel in Switzerland a compelling
option – but it’s also an Achilles’ heel.
Now that cross-country commuting
is so convenient, people who get
jobs in distant cities tend to stay put
and commute instead of moving.
Of course the strengths of our
system are not readily applicable
to France, since Switzerland is 14 times
smaller than mainland France and
our population is not distributed across
the country in the same way.
“
Mytripset,
Europe’s first multimodal
trip planning website
86
90 — interview wITH Yves Tyrode
Mytripset, Europe’s first multimodal trip planning website
AnalysIS
Mytripset, Europe’s
first multimodal trip
planning website
300,000
users in the second half
of 2012
Mytripset, launched in 2012, is unique
in Europe. This groundbreaking website
lets travellers plan an entire journey
door-to-door and compare all possible
transportation methods: planes, trains,
automobiles, tube lines, cars, buses –
and soon carpooling and cycling, too!
Breaking new ground
The light-bulb moment came in 2011
when Siim Kallas, Vice-President
of the European Commission and
Commissioner for Mobility and
Transport, saw a need for an all-in-one
website that would let Europeans plan
journeys in the region using any and
all modes of travel. This prompted him
to launch the first European Mobility
Challenge, calling for innovative
answers to a simple question: “Why
can’t I plan or book my journey through
Europe, switching from air to rail or sea,
to urban or road transport in a single
go and online?”
At SNCF, we rose to the occasion with
Mytripset – our vision of a multimodal,
door-to-door trip planning website.
We designed it as a one-stop-shop
for European e-travel, combining
practical trip-planning features with
a simple, intuitive interface. We also
wanted travellers to be able to use
the website on any device, including
tablets and smartphones. And our
ingenuity paid off: in March 2011 our
88
Mytripset concept won the European
Commission’s “Best Innovative Service”
award.
Off to a running start
A beta version of Mytripset was
introduced in the second half of
2012 for testing by voyages-sncf.com
customers (on a test platform, http://
lab.voyages-sncf.com/). Some 300,000
people put it through its paces in just a
few months, and at the end of the year
it was integrated into the voyages-sncf.
com home page. Mytripset is currently
available for PCs, laptops and tablets;
a mobile version will be introduced in
autumn 2013. The website consolidates
travel information from 180 airlines,
100,000 trains, and hundreds of
thousands of trams, buses and tube
lines operating throughout Europe.
It also gives the CO2 emissions
of travellers’ itineraries and the full cost
of the trip by car – including tolls.
Comprehensive service and a wide
partner network Mytripset is based on a simple idea:
give travellers a full range of door-todoor transport options so they can
make informed decisions. To do so,
the website must be able to access
a full set of quality data. And with
Mytripset, each transport operator
stores, organizes and updates its data
according to its own procedures,
then decides whether to make them
available based on its business
objectives.
Dealing with this huge volume of
heterogeneous data is no easy task. For
example, to generate reliable doorto-door itineraries, the website has to
coordinate the bus schedule for a given
line at an ill-defined time of day with
a stop whose geolocation information
may not be accurate.
To give users the greatest possible
choice in their trip planning, we have
teamed up with a wide range of travel
industry partners:
-Mapping technology providers, so
travellers can view their full itinerary
from start to finish – including sites
to visit along the way
-Transport authorities, so the website
has the most up-to-date information
about regional and urban transit
systems
-International, national, regional,
and urban transport system
operators, so the website can cover
all modes of travel (planes, trains,
trams, buses, ferries, airport shuttles,
and more).
Our partners also provide auxiliary
travel services such as mobile services
and electronic payment options. With
Mytripset, travellers can buy e-tickets
for their entire journey before they even
leave the house – eliminating the hassle
of queuing up later.
There are big differences between
the business models used by airlines
and railway companies, largely because
rail services are partially organized
and subsidized by the public sector.
So the price of a ticket can depend
on where that ticket is purchased.
Giving users what they want,
how they want it
Mytripset lets users filter proposed
itineraries according to criteria like
price, trip duration, departure time,
arrival time, number of connections and
on-board services. In other words, the
website’s results can be personalized
according to the factors most important
to each user. While some people are
price-sensitive, others may care more
about cancellation terms or collecting
frequent flier miles.
Mytripset, Europe’s first multimodal trip planning website
interview
“
With Mytripset, we sought customer
feedback at every stage of development,
to offer users a door-to-door itinerary
to any address in Europe.
Yves Tyrode,
Head of Voyages-sncf.com
Can you tell us how you developed
the Mytripset service, and describe
its main benefits?
We developed Mytripset after carefully
studying our customers’ needs for travel
information and services. We found
that people typically need two types
of mobility: day-to-day travel, such
as for going to work; and long-distance
or occasional travel, such as for going
on holiday. For the former, customers
need real-time information and often
plan their trips with very little advance.
For the latter, they need a broader
range of information and spend more
90
time planning, if only because
they are not familiar with the itinerary
and destination.
With Mytripset, we focused
on the planning step. We sought
customer feedback at every stage
of development, so the new website
would make trip planning easy.
Mytripset gives travellers a full doorto-door itinerary to any address in
Europe. One main goal was to make
the website easy and intuitive so users
can quickly find the information they
need. So Mytripset displays on a single
screen information that would otherwise
take eight to ten internet searches
to hunt down. In fact, our Mytripset
interface won the Observeur du Design
2013 award in the interactive services
category.
For the programming part
of development, we used the
Scrum framework, an Agile software
development method with short,
two-week iterations carried out
by a small co-located team. Software
integration was done in the cloud.
This approach let us focus and prioritize
our development work according
to customers’ actual needs.
We also set up a forum where
customers can give us their feedback
as the website evolves. With this
valuable information, we can
continuously improve the service and
target the issues most important
to them.
Most multimodal trip-planning services
currently available in Europe cover only
a specific region or journeys between
two train stations or two airports.
Mytripset is the first service to combine
on a single website:
- detailed door-to-door itineraries
- itineraries covering all European
countries
- itineraries covering all modes of travel
(e.g., train, plane, bus, car, ferry and
urban transport)
- links to secure websites where
travellers can book their tickets.
Ours is a truly seamless service and the
only one that lets travellers compare
all possible door-to-door itineraries
– helping them make well-informed
decisions.
Mytripset is also unique in the spirit
in which it was developed. For us,
information is not private property but
a common good that should be shared
with everyone. We firmly believe in the
values of neutrality, co-development
and free access. The website was
a huge investment and made possible
only by bringing together a wide range
of skills and know-how. The next step
is to share our expertise with other
organizations for which passenger
information is a strategic issue, and
which want to leverage what we’ve
already built. We’ve already teamed up
with a few public- and private-sector
organizations, and hope others will
soon follow.
What improvements do you have
in store for Mytripset? How do you
plan to make the seamless service
even more complete for passengers?
Thanks to the steady stream
of feedback we get from customers,
we have identified enhancements that
will make our website even easier
to use and public transport even more
attractive. For instance, we plan
to start providing as much information
as possible on auxiliary travel services,
like the cost of a bus to get from a train
station to a given hotel.
But we won’t stop there – we also
plan to add an option for travellers
to buy electronic bus tickets online,
for example, so they can arrive at their
destination with everything they need.
We will also increase the amount
of real-time passenger information
on our website, such as the platform
a particular train is leaving from
or the gate for boarding a particular
flight. Another new feature in the works
is an interface promoting local travelrelated businesses of all sizes – thereby
boosting their visibility. For instance, we
could display a list of local carpooling
companies for getting to and from
an airport.
What challenges and opportunities
do you see for your business going
forward?
Mytripset gives voyages-sncf.com
a comprehensive, end-to-end
service that lets travellers get around
hassle-free anywhere in Europe. It also
establishes us as a leading e-travel
company and a major driver for
the e-travel market in Europe. Mytripset
has enormous growth potential
since we can easily add on a host
of travel-related services. We have
already formed several partnerships
and collected and orchestrated
a wealth of data – proof that our
service is meeting an unmet need
in the European e-travel space.
“
Glossary
ARAF
(Autorité de Régulation des Activités Ferroviaires)
Office of the Rail Regulator
As the independent public authority responsible for rail sector
regulation, ARAF’s main role is that of guaranteeing all railway
undertakings fair and non-discriminatory access to the national rail
grid to facilitate its opening to competition.
PASSENGER-KILOMETRE
A unit of measure equal to the transport of one passenger over
one kilometer.
DSP
(Délégation de Service Public).
Refers to France’s approach to the EU’s public service obligation
(PSO) regulation, more specifically the various contracts under which
a public entity transfers the management of a public service for which
it is responsible to a public or private-sector provider in exchange for
compensation that is largely linked to the operating result generated
by provision of said service. In France, DSP is the most common
form of delegated management of public services, although local
authorities may also opt for direct management (gestion en régie).
SRU (Solidarité et Renouvellement Urbain) groups
French SRU legislation adopted in 2000 introduced the syndicat
mixte, a cooperative structure allowing local authorities
and communities of different types to join forces with each other
or with public entities. Benefiting from a new institutional form,
these SRU transport groups are designed to encourage cooperation
between Transport Organizing Authorities (TOA) at different levels.
ELECTRONIC TICKETING
Refers to the range of procedures and management tools
for contracts between transport operators, organizing autorities
and users (passengers) in which print tickets have been replaced
by more advanced technologies e.g., magnetic-strip travel passes,
smartcards and other technologies. Electronic ticketing also refers,
more generally, to all IT and digital-based solutions used to deliver
services.
EU-15
Refers to the 15-member European Union that existed between 1995
and 2004
EU-27
Refers to the 27-member European Union comprising all countries
belonging to the EU from January 1, 2007. Previously this was
the EU-25, to which Bulgaria and Romania were added. On July 1,
2013, Croatia joined the EU, creating the EU-28.
IUR
The International Union of Railways, a 197-member body spanning
five continents. IUR promotes interoperability by creating new
worldwide standards for railways.
OWN SITE
Mass transport solutions are referred to as “own site” when they use
a track or space reserved to them. This may not apply to the entire
length of a given line; occasionally it refers only to the most heavily
used sections.
92
RATP
Régie Autonome des Transports Parisien, the entity operating urban
transport services in Paris and its region.
TRANSPORT TAX
A tax paid by all French employers with more than nine employees
in both the private and public sectors, whatever their business
or legal form. Initially designed to finance public transport as a
whole, including both investment and operation, this was gradually
expanded to cover operating costs.
TER
Train Express Régional. The Transport Organizing Authorities
for such trains are regions.
TET
Trains d’Équilibre du Territoire, or regional trains. The Transport
Organizing Authority for such trains is the State.
TGV
Trains à Grande Vitesse. The commercial name for high-speed trains
operated by SNCF.
TONNE-KILOMETRE
A unit of measure used to quantify freight flows that corresponds
to the transport of one tonne (t) of goods over one kilometre (km).
TOA
Transport Organizing Authority.
Local authority responsible for organizing transport services
in application of Article L2121-3 of the French Transport Code.
TRANSILIEN
Commercial name of regional trains operated in Paris and
its surroundings. The Transport Organizing Authority for such trains
is STIF (Syndicat des Transports d’Île-de-France).
BibliographY
Georges Amar, Homo mobilis. Le nouvel âge de la mobilité.
Éloge de la reliance, Limoges, FYP éditions, 2010.
Centre d’analyse stratégique, L’ouverture à la concurrence
du transport ferroviaire de voyageurs, Paris, La Documentation
française, 2011.
CERTU, Les transports publics urbains en France - Organisation
institutionnelle, Lyon, Certu, 2013.
Websites
Forum des vies mobiles – www.forumviesmobiles.org
Chronos – www.groupechronos.org
Mobilicités – www.mobilicites.com
Certu – www.certu.fr
Transit City – www.transit-city.com
Laboratoire d’économie des transports – www.let.fr
Jean-Marie Duthilleul (dir.), Circuler. Quand nos mouvements
façonnent la ville, Paris, Cité de l’architecture et du patrimoine, 2012.
Forum des vies mobiles, Mobile Immobile. Quels choix, quels droits
pour 2030 ?, La Tour-d’Aigues, L’Aube, 2011.
Vincent Kaufmann, Les Paradoxes de la mobilité. Bouger, s’enraciner,
Lausanne, Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2008.
Marie-Hélène Massot (dir.), Mobilités & Modes de vie métropolitains.
Les intelligences du quotidien, Paris, L’Œil d’or, 2010.
François Mirabel, Mathias Reymond, Économie des transports
urbains, Paris, La Découverte, coll. Repère, 2013.
Jean-Pierre Orfeuil, Une approche laïque de la mobilité, Paris,
Descartes & Cie, 2008.
Pierre Veltz, Paris, France, Monde. Repenser l’économie
par le territoire, La Tour d’Aigues, Éditions de l’aube, 2012.
Jean Viard, Nouveau portrait de la France. La société des modes
de vie, La Tour-d’Aigues, L’Aube, 2011.
“La mobilité des Français. Panorama issu de l’enquête nationale
transports et déplacements 2008”, La Revue du CGDD,
Commissariat général au développement durable, December 2010.
SNCF – Strategy innovation research and regulation
2 place aux Étoiles – 93633 La Plaine St Denis cedex – France
sncf.com
Photos: Sylvain Cambon, Jean Chiscano, H. Cléret, William Daniels, Jean-Marc Fabbro, Arnaud Février, Fred de Gasquet,
Sébastien Godefroy, Ludovic Gra, Bernard Lachaud, Laetizia Lefur, Patrick Messina, Pierre-Antoine Pluquet,
Christophe Recoura, Caroline Rose, Patrick Sagnes, Adrien Toubiana, Mathieu Vigneau, / École des Ponts ParisTech /
Médiathèque SNCF / Photothèque Geodis / Photothèque Keolis / Union Européenne
Design and production: Agence 90c
English translation: Durban/Clementi/Smith
Printing: Graphoprint, November 2013
This document was
produced by an
eco-responsible printer
on PEFC™-certified paper
made from fibres produced
in responsibly managed
forests.

Mobility in EuropE

Transcription

Similar documents

What`s down the track forum 2012

Hy-rail for backhoe loaders

New 2010 UG Brochure.cdr

OUR NEW EXPRESS FREIGHT SERVICE

SPecificAtionS

Saveaway - Merseytravel

Precision Rifle Stock for the M1A / M14

RDI Avalon Railing Brochure

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

2012 Spring [ pdf / 1.4 MB ]