Train fares: what political levers are needed to make tickets cheaper?
"Why are trains so expensive in France? And what are our politicians doing?" This question is at the heart of the debate on mobility and the ecological transition. While the train remains one of the most sustainable modes of transport, its cost to the user can be a major brake on its development. What room for maneuver is there, at political level, to change the model?
In this final episode of our special “train fares” series of our podcast Je t’offre un rail ? (the podcast that gets you hooked on trains), we give the floor to François Durovray, President of the Essonne département and former Minister Delegate for Transport. A connoisseur of the political workings of mobility, he sheds light on the available levers for action: rail tolls, network financing, competition, the role of local authorities and the State... An exchange that helps us to better understand the behind-the-scenes aspects of a complex system, and the conditions - political as well as economic - for a possible reduction in rail fares.
Train fares, a reflection of a hybrid system between market and public service
An economic model under pressure
Train fares in France regularly provoke misunderstanding and criticism. Unlike other infrastructures, such as roads, which are mainly financed by taxation, railways are based on a model in which the user makes a significant contribution to financing the network via tolls paid by operators. These tolls can represent up to 40% of the ticket price on certain lines, such as Paris-Lyon. François Durovray, drawing on his experience in the field and as a minister, underlines the extent to which this economic architecture is a political choice, not a neutral one: rail is more expensive because the taxpayer is less involved.
"In France, when it comes to cars, 80% of roads are free for the taxpayer. However, when it comes to trains, we've opted for a fairly high level of user involvement, since 40% of the ticket price goes towards rail tolls. It's vital that SNCF Réseau has more money today to maintain the network: there's a shortfall of around 1.5 billion euros. Is the priority to put more money into maintaining the network, or to lower tolls to make the network more accessible to operators, or both? It's a question we have to ask ourselves as a society." - François Durovray
However, François Durovray insists on the need to distinguish between regional services - which are heavily subsidized - and mainline services, which are open to competition and receive little aid. This dualism makes the system complex and sometimes illegible for users. He also raises the question of coherence: why is SNCF being asked to maintain unprofitable lines in the interests of regional development, while its competitors can concentrate on profitable segments? In his view, the rules of the game need to be reformed, so that territorial solidarity does not rest solely with the incumbent operator.
The promise (and limits) of competition
Opening up to competition is an ongoing process, with the arrival of players such as Trenitalia and Renfe. François Durovray expresses a philosophical reservation about the supposed virtues of the market in a field where coordination, robustness and interoperability are crucial.
However, we can cite the example of Italy, where lower tolls have led to an explosion in supply, proof that controlled competition can serve the general interest if the State provides the means.
To avoid a fare jungle and confusion in stations, he is calling for a single comparator that would enable users to view all offers in a neutral, unified way. Tomorrow, if we do nothing, there will be an SNCF Connect counter, a Trenitalia counter, a Zou counter... And we won't be able to find our way around. The project I wanted to launch was to invent a system in France that would be the ‘Kayak of the railways’, so that users would have access to all offers in a very neutral way." In his view, this fluidity of information is a prerequisite for beneficial competition.
"We could also imagine halving toll prices, betting on the fact that demand would increase - thanks to the lower cost of rail travel - and that there would be twice as many trains in circulation, and therefore more revenue. In my opinion, the real priority in France is to develop the offer. And to do that, we need more trains. If we want to change the model, we have to agree to distribute revenue differently." - François Durovray
Mobility, ecology and equity: a new deal to be imagined
Railways, the backbone of an ecological project
Who pays, and for what? François Durovray reminds us of an often overlooked truth: roads are free for the user, but costly for the taxpayer. Rail is the opposite. This structural imbalance is holding back the ecological transition, even though rail is a massively low-carbon mode of transport. So, should the tax burden on polluting modes be increased to finance rail?
He identifies two avenues: using future revenues from the ETS (European carbon market) for transitional purposes, and redirecting the profits from motorway concessions once they have been renewed. These choices imply breaking with the logic of budgetary silos and reasoning on a systemic scale. The challenge is immense, but the window of opportunity is there: reconfigure taxation so that it becomes an ecological lever.
Air transport: a blind spot in the transition?
According to François Durovray, trains will never be able to meet all needs, and for isolated areas, regional air routes - however costly - can be economically vital. The former Transport Minister is thus opposed to an overly caricatural “airplane bashing”. Nevertheless, he recognizes that situations such as Pau-Orly, subsidized at extravagant levels, call for rationalization. This is where the exemplarity of elected representatives becomes essential: reconciling words and deeds to give credibility to ecological policy.
He also discusses the dilemma of technological progress in aviation: electric and hydrogen seem promising, but they are limited (to find out more, we refer you to our interview with Aurélien Bigo, “L'avion vert : mythe ou réalité ?”). And more than technology, in his view, what we need above all is a cultural change, an imaginary of mobility that is both desirable and sober.
Building a people's ecology: storytelling, territories and innovation
From individual to collective storytelling
Storytelling is central to ecological transformation. Far from an austere posture, François Durovray calls for an ecology of pleasure, slowness and connection to the land. He is in line with a powerful idea here: to involve citizens in a transition, it has to be desirable.
This means symbolically reinvesting certain gestures (such as taking the train) as acts of sovereignty, dignity and community. Here again, the challenge is not just technical, but cultural. And elected representatives, like artists and entrepreneurs, have a role to play in this reinvention of the imagination.
Will train fares go down? "It's a question of political will and collective will," he replies. If there's pressure from our fellow citizens on this subject, and if we put it in the public debate by explaining the major issues (rail tolls, etc.), we'll be able to make progress. In my opinion, we need to put more money into infrastructures to prevent them from deteriorating, but also to put more money into lowering the price of collective use compared to individual use, and to give a signal that is both economic and ecological. So yes, train fares could come down."
Innovation in the service of proximity
The future of the railways will not only involve TGVs, but also the revival of short lines. François Durovray is enthusiastic about projects such as Dresy, a small, autonomous train designed for rural areas that is more flexible, less expensive and more adaptable. The aim is to serve areas that are currently neglected, without duplicating the cumbersome nature of conventional infrastructure.
This approach is in line with a philosophy of use: thinking about mobility not in terms of infrastructure, but in terms of users' real needs. It's also a way of reconnecting transport policies with local realities, everyday uses and the temporality of life.
This exchange shows us a contrasted landscape: an efficient but unbalanced rail system, competition that can enrich but also fragment, an ecological transition full of technological promise but unevenly shared. Above all, it shows that the crux of the matter is political will. Bringing down train fares, developing the offer, making rail more desirable: all this is possible, provided that choices are made, trade-offs accepted, and a coherent collective narrative woven. The ecology of mobility will be achieved neither against nor without the people. It will be popular or it won't be.
To find out more:
Our last articles
New OUIGO 2025: more lines and more comfort, still at a low price
The Caledonian Sleeper: travel to Scotland by night train from London
