Page 46 - 360.revista de Alta Velocidad - Nº 6

Delaplace, Marie.

When prices are high, they are used more extensively by the socio‐professional categories
that have the highest income and are most mobile (senior managers, consultants, etc.). This
was long the case in France (Klein and Claisse, 1997, Klein, 1998, Mannone, 1995), before
the development of discounted fares (“Prem’s” tickets and Ouigo services) (Delaplace and
Dobruszkes, 2015). According to Szynkier (2012), more than 70% of TGV trips are made by the
five wealthiest deciles (Szynkier, 2012). For example, a second‐class ticket for a Paris–Marseille
round trip in July 2017 can cost up to EUR 223 – that is, 13% of the net median per‐capita wage in
2016. While the literature shows that daily mobility varies relatively little according to income
level (Paulo, 2007), this is not the case for professional mobility or weekend mobility. Rates
of weekend travel are two‐thirds higher for the fifth quintile than for the first quintile. The
distance travelled by the former group is also 2.4 times higher than for the latter. Rouquette
shows that, in France, 58% of people belonging to the first decile of standard of living do not
go on holiday, whereas this proportion drops to 15% for the tenth decile (Rouquette, 2001).
Long‐distance mobility (over 100 km) is even more highly correlated with income. Similarly,
the modal shift from air to rail travel is a priority for high‐income travellers. Income levels
influence the potential for leisure mobility and long‐distance mobility. Low‐income populations
might therefore be excluded from the possibility of using these high‐speed rail services. For
example, in France in 2013, national rail operator SNCF estimated the number of users who
would not have travelled at all without the Ouigo offer (Delaplace and Dobruszkes, 2015) to be
25% of the total number of Ouigo users, reflecting a possible economic exclusion.

These income levels vary from country to country and, by definition, are lower in developing
countries. In these countries, the level of exclusion can be significant if the cost of a ticket
is high and income inequality higher. As highlighted by Shi and Zhou (2015), high‐speed rail is
inaccessible to a large part of the Chinese population in a country characterized by very high
growth in income inequality: “The top 10% income share rose from 27% to 41% of national
income between 1978 and 2015, while the bottom 50% share dropped from 27% to 15%” (Piketty
et al., 2017). For example, a Beijing–Shanghai ticket was priced at about EUR 142 in July 2017,
which represents about EUR 621 in purchasing‐power parity (PPP). In these conditions – and, as
some have argued, given public spending on HSR – taxpayers pay for the mobility of the richest
(Delaplace and Dobruszkes, 2016). Nevertheless, the price of a high‐speed train ticket is not
always so high in developing countries. For example, in Turkey, the train fare is equivalent to
the bus fare on the Ankara–Konya route and only slightly higher for the Ankara–Istanbul and
Ankara–Eskisehir routes. It is even lower for the Eskisehir– Konya link (Celikkol‐Kocak et al.,
2017). For example, the price of a Konya–Istanbul ticket in PPP is just EUR 41.30. In the case
of Morocco, if our calculations (see below) are correct, the cost of a Casablanca–Tangier ticket
11
10
will be MAD 150 – or, in PPP , approximately EUR 45 – for 350 km .
The economic inequalities of access to high‐speed rail are thus variable in developing countries.
They depend on fare policy and income inequality: the greater the income inequality and the
more selective the pricing policy, the greater the inequality of access.
But beyond these types of inequalities, there may also be inequalities in terms of possible uses.
Indeed, the range of possibilities in terms of economic activity and mobility for the population
is differentiated not just according to individuals’ status but also to the society to which they
belong.

3.4 Inequalities in terms of possible uses of high‐speed rail
A high‐speed line can be used for business trips, for tourist trips and sometimes for commuting.
But it is only relevant for distances between 150 km and 800 km. Below 150 km it competes
with car travel and beyond 800 km it competes with air travel (Klein, 1997, 1998, EC, 2010).
10 OECD (2017) Purchasing‐Power Parity (PPP) (index). doi: 10.1787/c0bc06ba‐fr (accessed July, 18 2017).
11 For comparison, a ticket for travel between Paris and Nancy (i.e. for an almost equal distance) can cost up to EUR 89.

44 360.revista de alta velocidad