Why I'm going to move to France

[Parkey]

Who is getting serious about climate change?

FOUR MONTHS of consultation on an unprecedented scale across France culminated at the end of October in a high-profile summit on the environment. During the event President Nicolas Sarkozy made some remarkable commitments on rail policy.

'We will make a massive investment in transport', proclaimed Sarkozy, who at that time had not witnessed the sight of deserted stations as staff began an indefinite strike on November 14 in protest over his plans to reform pensions. Specifically, the president promised that projects to add 2 000 km of high speed lines to the national network would be in hand by 2020, with studies launched for another 2 500 km. These include a scheme to put Clermont-Ferrand within 2 h of Paris, and the ambitious Transline scheme, previously known as T3A, for an 800 km inter-regional route from Lyon to Caen. According to the Ministry of Transport, discussions with regional authorities between now and mid-2008 will tackle routes, priorities and finance, with the government committed to making €16bn of funding available.

Sarkozy went on to suggest that the capacity released on conventional lines should be used for freight – he called for a cut of 2 million lorry trips a year on France's north-south trunk roads. This translates into the development of two high-performance autoroutes ferroviaires based on the Lorry-Rail scheme launched last March between Luxembourg and Perpignan, with trains departing at 15 min intervals; €100m of public funding would be provided for terminals and infrastructure improvements. In addition, a long-term loan worth €800m would cover purchase of specialist wagons.

No less remarkable is Sarkozy's promise to build 1 500 km of tram and dedicated bus routes in provincial cities over the next 10 years at a cost of €18bn. Admitting that 'the state had been wrong' to relinquish responsibility for developing public transport projects, he clearly sees light rail as an effective answer to road congestion and urban renewal – he had officiated at the opening of the Marseille tram network in July and was due to inaugurate Line 1 in Nice last month (p750).

Finally, the government wants construction of the Métrophérique automated orbital metro around Paris to go ahead, and proposes extension of RER Line E westwards into Normandie.

Admittedly, some of these projects are not new, while others are far-fetched, but the government has made it absolutely clear that rail offers many of the answers to the problems of road congestion, pollution and climate change.

Contrast this with the publication by the UK government – also at the end of October – of a 'framework document' entitled Towards a Sustainable Transport System. Buried in a torrent of verbiage are a few paragraphs about 'the new approach' to the Manchester – Birmingham – London corridor which is expected to run out of capacity by 2024. This would suggest the need for urgent action, so we are informed that 'the next step is to generate a broad range of options. This might include widening of motorways, active traffic management, road-pricing, or the construction of new rail capacity either through a conventional or a high speed line.' Definitely a commitment to save the environment there, then.

Incoming UK Conservative government take note.

[Salif]

I hope this is waved in the Governments face over and over and over and over again.

Useless twats (am I allowed to say that about our Government?).

[Parkey]

Sorry, forgot to post the link to the article. Here it is.

[elfabyanos]

All the noises about cost and effectiveness etc etc that constantly cause our government to sit on their thumbs regarding high speed rail existed in 1960s and 70s France. They went ahead with high speed rail, and proved all the dissenters wrong, the country hasn't looked back.There is no instance anywhere of genuine high speed rail being a failure. Even if it weren't needed they should build it. However, for congestion, pollution, capacity and economic reasons they should definitely do it.

[Parkey]

I technically work in the public sector, for the UK taxpayer. Recently I was sent on one of those personal development courses which was themed on being successful. The most important thing, the facilitator kept emphasising, in being successful is to identify your goals and focus on achieving them.

Why they invest such training on minions such as myself but not on senior civil servants in the DfT I have no idea.

This is why, in my opinion, with transport on a national scale this government isn't achieving anything. What are their goals? How are they going to achieve them?

At present their goal for a national transport strategy appears to be to hold a debate in fives years time as to what some of the possibilities open to them might be. Result - nothing gets done.

By contrast, Ken Livingstone and TfL are very good at outlining what their long term plans are, which is that's the first step toward achieving them. This is, I think, why London is doing comparatively well for transport investment compared with the rest of the country.

[Salif]

Red Ken for PM!

[sarflonlad]

SNCF is heavily heavily subsidised. Every passenger effectively makes "a loss". Now I'm not against this in any way - I'm just pointing out that unless we renationalise the railways, no fruit will ever become ripe. What company wants to invest in something that won't make them profit? And even when they have dared considered it, the government always turns them down.

Though... the French youth still come over the Channel to seek good jobs in the UK. At least we're doing something right

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

SNCF is heavily heavily subsidised. Every passenger effectively makes "a loss". Now I'm not against this in any way - I'm just pointing out that unless we renationalise the railways, no fruit will ever become ripe. What company wants to invest in something that won't make them profit? And even when they have dared considered it, the government always turns them down.

Though... the French youth still come over the Channel to seek good jobs in the UK. At least we're doing something right

SNCF as far as I know aren't subsidised on the high speed lines, those turn a profit. It's the same situation with the DB in Germany - ICE lines make a profit, however, RB and RE are working at a loss. As a general rule, high speed rail buoys up the rest of the system.

[gothicform]

yeah. and they only make a loss on their own balance sheets. in terms of what they provide to the economy around them the cost benefits are massive, thats the problem with privatised transport though - wider cost benefits dont matter one jot

[Brilliant]

Two things are interesting, first people are prepared to believe all this will actually happen and secondly people seem to ignore Crossrail, Thameslink, etc........ .

[Parkey]

Originally Posted by gothicform

yeah. and they only make a loss on their own balance sheets. in terms of what they provide to the economy around them the cost benefits are massive, thats the problem with privatised transport though - wider cost benefits dont matter one jot

Precisely.

Originally Posted by Brilliant

Two things are interesting, first people are prepared to believe all this will actually happen and secondly people seem to ignore Crossrail, Thameslink, etc........ .

Crossrail, Thameslink.....................................

What? What's the next big project? What's the plan? Who's job is it to come up with such a plan? How will our transport system change to cope with increased population, emissions targets and rising oil prices?

(Then of course there's the argument that is better held elsewhere about what fare and tax payers in this little place called NOT LONDON benefit from those projects, but let's not get onto that here)

The point I'm trying to make isn't about funding or who gets it, I'm talking about leadership, decision making and a sense of direction. If something matters enough to a government, it will get funding. My opinion is that the current UK government just doesn't care about transport, and certainly hasn't got a clue what it intends to do with it long term.

[Salif]

Long-term plan:

1. High Speed 2 (London-Birmingham)
2. High Speed 3 (London-Nottingham-Leeds/York/Newcastle)
3. High Speed 4 (Liverpool/Preston-Manchester-Leeds-York/Hull)
4. High Speed 5 (Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh)
5. High Speed 6 (London-Bristol-Cardiff)
6. High Speed 7 (Bristol-Birmingham International-East Midlands-Nottingham)
7. Manchester Picc-Vic
8. West Midlands RER
9. London by-pass
10. Electrification
11. Gauge enhancements
12. Central Railway
13. Morecambe Bay crossing
14. New Mersey crossing
15. Birmingham Grand Central

Reality??

[sarflonlad]

Originally Posted by Salif

Long-term plan:

1. High Speed 2 (London-Birmingham)
2. High Speed 3 (London-Nottingham-Leeds/York/Newcastle)
3. High Speed 4 (Liverpool/Preston-Manchester-Leeds-York/Hull)
4. High Speed 5 (Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh)
5. High Speed 6 (London-Bristol-Cardiff)
6. High Speed 7 (Bristol-Birmingham International-East Midlands-Nottingham)
7. Manchester Picc-Vic
8. West Midlands RER
9. London by-pass
10. Electrification
11. Gauge enhancements
12. Central Railway
13. Morecambe Bay crossing
14. New Mersey crossing
15. Birmingham Grand Central

Reality??

Is this an established plan or one of your own making?

I'd like to see a HS route to the South West. One of the most deprived parts of the UK - yet so much potential (and beauty).

[Parkey]

Originally Posted by Salif

Reality??

A thousand tonnes of waffle in paper form and a few token gestures, such as rebuilding Reading station.

[high_flyer]

The problem nowadays is that after the failures/delays of high profile projects like the Dome and Wembley (of which I don't think were failures, blame the Daily Mail/Express) all Governments will be afraid to commit to big projects that don't see an instant return, or very little public money being pledged.
All they now care about is lasting to the next election, and making peacemeal pledges that have no real investment or commitment.
Our leaders no longer believe that its their duty to make the big decisions, and especially the hard decisions, that may not bring benefits in the immediate future, but in 10-20 years.
But its easy for Sarko to pledge 10s of billions of euros for these grand projects, but thats why France's nation debt is 70% GDP.
Now I don't think we should get ourselves massively into debt just so we can have an all encompassing HS network, but I do think the Govt should provide a large chunk, and underwrite alot of the debt, because they can shoulder the burden better then a single company. Why should Virgin have to invest £2-3 billion to build a HS line? We all pay enough taxes, and they pay enough business tax for the Govt to provide this.
We just need politicans and the heads of the Civil Service to grow some balls and use them, and not dance to the tune of the tabloids!!

[JUXTAPOL]

Originally Posted by gothicform

yeah. and they only make a loss on their own balance sheets. in terms of what they provide to the economy around them the cost benefits are massive, thats the problem with privatised transport though - wider cost benefits dont matter one jot

Yes......Isn't buying a car, maintaining it, filling it with petrol, building roads and maintaining them then driving in massive traffic jams etc, actually a big massive loss.

[danz013]

Originally Posted by sarflonlad

Is this an established plan or one of your own making?

I was trying to work out the same?

[Parkey]

Originally Posted by JUXTAPOL

Yes......Isn't buying a car, maintaining it, filling it with petrol, building roads and maintaining them then driving in massive traffic jams etc, actually a big massive loss.

A lot of people seem to get polarised into the "trains good, cars bad" attitude. I've even been accused of this myself merely for arguing in favour of better public transport. I don't think it's constructive attitude to have. The automobile is here to stay, and per passenger-mile it currently provides about 85% of our nation's transport. We need to recognise that.

The problem is the congestion that results from the large amount of space each car needs, and the lack of alternatives available in most parts of the UK. A lot journeys that are made by car along congested corridors, especially commuting, should be made by public transport. A lot of people who currently drive would gladly use public transport if such a service existed. People will always travel in the way that best meet their needs. Telling them "cars bad" won't make any difference at all if the alternative to a 30 minute car journey takes 2 hours on public transport.

The places where road congestion brought about by cars is at its worst are the very places where public transport will function most cost-effectively though.

It doesn't need megabucks to build a decent integrated public transport system, it just takes the right attitude. That's what's currently lacking IMO.

[potto]

Originally Posted by high_flyer

The problem nowadays is that after the failures/delays of high profile projects like the Dome and Wembley (of which I don't think were failures, blame the Daily Mail/Express)

I think it is much more intrinsic than that, it is about the direction that the government, the country and the economy took with the Thatcher government and in the US where the private sector, or more precisely free market private sector competition was seen as a panacea to all ills. It worked to some extent but the problem is, as Gothic pointed out, the private sector just does not include all costs, it is more a collection of isolated bubbles forever passing on burdens so that it can appear to be efficient in terms of cost and profit, subsidy by deceit!

Basically instead of showing reality to the free market we have tried to split up reality into miniscule packets so that the current set up of the free market can handle it.

It is notoriously short termist because it doesnt have to consider anything but its own sphere of influence. You would think that competition should lead to long term aspirations as rivals should try out ever more sophisticated strategies. The world is full of tales of clever companies that have invested in the 'long term', but again this success is more often than not aloof from our reality; the strategies or long term visions that appear are only ever confined to the disconnected bubble in which the private enterprise sits, its products or its self-defined sector.

If it were actually possible and Im sure we could give quite an accurate attempt, to sit down and actually put a cost to everything, all the interactions, the knock on effects and then fed that into the free market then we might actually get some vague direction that points to long term collective aspirations of our reality.

Without the private sector embracing the 'truth' then there will never be any long term goals or aspirtations that we all will ultimately benefit from. So in cases where there is a clear long term strategy like the environment which ends up including everything from transport to food production then we as a society really should have the guts to either reveal the truth to the private sector or if that is not practical do what is required as a collective.

[gothicform]

potto, the problem extends to the govt too. they will work out the cost benefits for a new transport system and in doing so will then subtract from those benefits the amount they will lose in taxation by people not driving and buying petrol. the end result is the govt too cares about its own bottom line, not about what is actually good for the country and what people want.

they dont even bother to count how fucking unhappy people are because our transport system is so shit they spend so long commuting to work each day, they dont work out the cost to family life of what should be a 30 min journey taking say 90 mins each way thus depriving kids of their parents for an extra 10 hours a week or the effects of the breakdown of social cohesion as a result. they dont then count the effect of this on the education system. there's no counting of the amount of air pollution and the costs this has on the health service, they only count actual car accidents rather than the thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of illnesses it causes a year. theres no counting the massive costs of living in the south east of england because its the only way people can get to work to start with.

the private sector is no better, or worse than the govt. both simply care about their own narrow sphere and anything that jolts that comfortable little seat they are sitting in is *bad*. they would rather raise the maximum amount of tax possible and then stick their fingers in the dam spending this tax on problems that only exist because they want to raise so much tax to start with!