5 ms·

> One issue with France is that their train system is very Paris-centric. I mean it's not just the rail network; it's _all_ of France. Some of that is unsurpri

> One issue with France is that their train system is very Paris-centric. I mean it's not just the rail network; it's _all_ of France. Some of that is unsurprising given a 1/5th of the population live in Paris and the surrounding area. A significant amount of business travel from outside of Paris resultantly ends up being to Paris. There's definitely an argument that investing in infrastructure that isn't centred on Paris may help change how Paris-centric the country generally is, but that's a much harder sell politically. (And something like Bordeaux to Lyon needs to cross the Massif Central, which will significantly increase the cost of construction, which potentially makes it even less likely to happen.)

jkepler 6y ago
« (And something like Bordeaux to Lyon needs to cross the Massif Central, which will significantly increase the cost of construction, which potentially makes it even less likely to happen.) » Indeed. Currently by train, Bordeaux to Lyon would either go via Paris, or via Toulouse/Montpellier. Building train lines across the Massif Central doesn't really make economic sense due to the sparse population density.
- toinebeg 6y ago
  The lines exists. There is a project of a cooperative rail company who want to exploit this route with the existing infrastructure. https://www.railcoop.fr/ https://www.railcoop.fr/ (in french)
  - gsnedders 6y ago
    Though note from Wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Lyon_à_Bordeaux https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Lyon_à_Bordeaux) the projected journey time is 6h47, whereas going via Paris (and crossing by Metro) takes around 5h52, and there are a few connections via Massy TGV taking around 5h31. That said, I think this exactly shows one of the benefits of liberialisation of the rail market: it allows other companies to serve routes that the nationalised operator does not want to.
    - kergonath 6y ago
      > That said, I think this exactly shows one of the benefits of liberialisation of the rail market: it allows other companies to serve routes that the nationalised operator does not want to. It really does not. Private companies won’t invest in the un-profitable routes that are the most important for half the country. Instead, they’ll eat into the margins of the established companies on high profit main lines, which are used to subsidise secondary lines at the moment. So either we’ll need more public subsidies and incentives, or these routes just won’t be served. It’s good if Railcoop can keep the route open (supported by local councils, so public money), but this won’t redeem the privatisation project overall. Doing this for all important secondary routes will be more expensive than a well-run public operator Train service is a public service.
      - gsnedders 6y ago
        Is cross-subsidy really the best way to fund unprofitable routes, though? It makes sense if you view the state's rail budget as something that needs to be balanced in and of itself, but that's a matter of government accounting, moving where the revenue comes from, rather than a business in its own right. Relying on cross-subsidy you're essentially overcharging those taking the profitable lines, versus raising the subsidy required through general taxation. At least in the majority of cases, I'd expect cross-subsidy to be a form of regressive tax, quite possibly skewed towards middle-income groups. And it's not like those taking the profitable routes are getting disproportionate benefit from the unprofitable ones; the benefit from maintaining the unprofitable routes is derived from both the local economy and through benefiting the national economy, and as such it makes sense that it come from general taxation rather than fare-box revenue from profitable routes.
        kergonath 6y ago
        > Is cross-subsidy really the best way to fund unprofitable routes, though? It makes sense if you view the state's rail budget as something that needs to be balanced in and of itself, but that's a matter of government accounting, moving where the revenue comes from, rather than a business in its own right. I think you’re right. It’s just that we’ve been brainwashed into seeing our state-owned companies as normal companies that need to turn a profit. From that point of view it makes sense for high-margin routes to subsidise unprofitable ones. But a state does not have to balance the books the same way. Subsidising smaller routes directly from the State budget works as well, and results in lower fares overall, at the expense of a bit more in taxes. Subsidising private companies operating these routes, however, is a recipe for disaster. These companies expect a profit and would cut any corner to pocket the subsidies instead of doing their job. This is how it (mostly) works in the U.K., and it is terrible and expensive.
kazen44 6y ago
also, France has been Paris centric since well, forever? the French bureaucracy and political system is very centralised and has been since the French revolution. this directly ties into the idea of the state as an institution in French culture in a lot of subtle ways aswell.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > ... and has been since the French revolution Even before. > ... his directly ties into the idea of the state as an institution in French culture in a lot of subtle ways aswell. Especially in the parisian elites disdain toward pretty much anybody else in the country. ps: exiled french/parisian speaking.

jkepler 6y ago

« (And something like Bordeaux to Lyon needs to cross the Massif Central, which will significantly increase the cost of construction, which potentially makes it even less likely to happen.) » Indeed. Currently by train, Bordeaux to Lyon would either go via Paris, or via Toulouse/Montpellier. Building train lines across the Massif Central doesn't really make economic sense due to the sparse population density.

toinebeg 6y ago
The lines exists. There is a project of a cooperative rail company who want to exploit this route with the existing infrastructure. https://www.railcoop.fr/ https://www.railcoop.fr/ (in french)
- gsnedders 6y ago
  Though note from Wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Lyon_à_Bordeaux https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_de_Lyon_à_Bordeaux) the projected journey time is 6h47, whereas going via Paris (and crossing by Metro) takes around 5h52, and there are a few connections via Massy TGV taking around 5h31. That said, I think this exactly shows one of the benefits of liberialisation of the rail market: it allows other companies to serve routes that the nationalised operator does not want to.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    > That said, I think this exactly shows one of the benefits of liberialisation of the rail market: it allows other companies to serve routes that the nationalised operator does not want to. It really does not. Private companies won’t invest in the un-profitable routes that are the most important for half the country. Instead, they’ll eat into the margins of the established companies on high profit main lines, which are used to subsidise secondary lines at the moment. So either we’ll need more public subsidies and incentives, or these routes just won’t be served. It’s good if Railcoop can keep the route open (supported by local councils, so public money), but this won’t redeem the privatisation project overall. Doing this for all important secondary routes will be more expensive than a well-run public operator Train service is a public service.
    - gsnedders 6y ago
      Is cross-subsidy really the best way to fund unprofitable routes, though? It makes sense if you view the state's rail budget as something that needs to be balanced in and of itself, but that's a matter of government accounting, moving where the revenue comes from, rather than a business in its own right. Relying on cross-subsidy you're essentially overcharging those taking the profitable lines, versus raising the subsidy required through general taxation. At least in the majority of cases, I'd expect cross-subsidy to be a form of regressive tax, quite possibly skewed towards middle-income groups. And it's not like those taking the profitable routes are getting disproportionate benefit from the unprofitable ones; the benefit from maintaining the unprofitable routes is derived from both the local economy and through benefiting the national economy, and as such it makes sense that it come from general taxation rather than fare-box revenue from profitable routes.
      - kergonath 6y ago
        > Is cross-subsidy really the best way to fund unprofitable routes, though? It makes sense if you view the state's rail budget as something that needs to be balanced in and of itself, but that's a matter of government accounting, moving where the revenue comes from, rather than a business in its own right. I think you’re right. It’s just that we’ve been brainwashed into seeing our state-owned companies as normal companies that need to turn a profit. From that point of view it makes sense for high-margin routes to subsidise unprofitable ones. But a state does not have to balance the books the same way. Subsidising smaller routes directly from the State budget works as well, and results in lower fares overall, at the expense of a bit more in taxes. Subsidising private companies operating these routes, however, is a recipe for disaster. These companies expect a profit and would cut any corner to pocket the subsidies instead of doing their job. This is how it (mostly) works in the U.K., and it is terrible and expensive.

kazen44 6y ago

also, France has been Paris centric since well, forever? the French bureaucracy and political system is very centralised and has been since the French revolution. this directly ties into the idea of the state as an institution in French culture in a lot of subtle ways aswell.

alacombe 6y ago
> ... and has been since the French revolution Even before. > ... his directly ties into the idea of the state as an institution in French culture in a lot of subtle ways aswell. Especially in the parisian elites disdain toward pretty much anybody else in the country. ps: exiled french/parisian speaking.