3 ms·

Same in other countries for many things. It's relatively easier to spend big on white elephants but almost impossible to get basic day-to-day operation money.

by wazoox 2y ago

Same in other countries for many things. It's relatively easier to spend big on white elephants but almost impossible to get basic day-to-day operation money. Case in point right now at the France-Italy border : they're building the longest rail tunnel in the world under the Alps for tens of billions. There is a tunnel already (Frejus tunnel), which is used at 25% of its capacity, but public money is raining on this unstoppable, useless project. On the other end, all over Europe and particularly in France and Italy, rail and road infrastructures are in a state of disrepair. Wouldn't this money be better used repairing thousands of bridges, tunnels, etc? Sure, but no politician could campaign on "I've got billions spent in our region!". No multinational civil engineering and construction company such as Eiffage or Bouygues would get big money. All the big boys are in favour of the project, and all the small guys simply don't count. This is all completely fucked-up, frankly. It's a general failure of democracy and a global corporate takeover.

em-bee 2y ago
that's because the frejus route is unsuitable for high speed rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin%E2%80%93Lyon_high-speed_railway#The_present_high-altitude_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin%E2%80%93Lyon_high-speed_... Additional traffic limitations stem from the impact of excessive train transit on the population living near the line. Some 60,000 people live within 250 m (820 ft) of the historical line, and would object to the noise from late-night transits. In 2007 the conventional line was used for only one-third of this calculated total capacity. This low use level was in part because restrictions such as an unusually low maximum allowable train height and the very steep gradients (26–30‰) and sharp curves in its high valley sections discourage its use. A 2018 analysis, by contrast, found the existing line close to saturation, largely because safety regulations now prohibit passenger and freight trains from crossing in a single-tube tunnel. This very significantly reduces the maximum allowed capacity of the 13.7 km long Fréjus tunnel, which trains of one type must now fully cross before any train of the other type can be allowed in the other direction. The historical line's path through the deep Maurienne valley is also exposed to rockfalls, and a major landslide in August 2023 forced its closure for most likely over one year.
- wazoox 2y ago
  No that's barely a bad excuse. The projected market for the new line is 500 000 passengers a year, that's 2 trains each way per day. That doesn't even begin making the slightest sense. As passenger traffic cannot be a valid justification, they turned towards fret trains. Too bad, fret has been dropping between France and Italy for some years. Fret trains have dropped dramatically in France well below the European average (17% of cargo traffic) to 9 to 10% of traffic. If you want to revive freight trains, you can't just build one frigging tunnel, you need to rebuild almost from scratch the whole thing first because Fret SNCF has been closed down in 2023 and dismantled! With the amount of money invested you could probably fly everyone from Lyon to Turin on expensive aviation biofuel for centuries before recouping the humongous investment. This is just stupid grandiosity allied with corruption.

by wazoox 2y ago

em-bee 2y ago

that's because the frejus route is unsuitable for high speed rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin%E2%80%93Lyon_high-speed_railway#The_present_high-altitude_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin%E2%80%93Lyon_high-speed_... Additional traffic limitations stem from the impact of excessive train transit on the population living near the line. Some 60,000 people live within 250 m (820 ft) of the historical line, and would object to the noise from late-night transits. In 2007 the conventional line was used for only one-third of this calculated total capacity. This low use level was in part because restrictions such as an unusually low maximum allowable train height and the very steep gradients (26–30‰) and sharp curves in its high valley sections discourage its use. A 2018 analysis, by contrast, found the existing line close to saturation, largely because safety regulations now prohibit passenger and freight trains from crossing in a single-tube tunnel. This very significantly reduces the maximum allowed capacity of the 13.7 km long Fréjus tunnel, which trains of one type must now fully cross before any train of the other type can be allowed in the other direction. The historical line's path through the deep Maurienne valley is also exposed to rockfalls, and a major landslide in August 2023 forced its closure for most likely over one year.

wazoox 2y ago
No that's barely a bad excuse. The projected market for the new line is 500 000 passengers a year, that's 2 trains each way per day. That doesn't even begin making the slightest sense. As passenger traffic cannot be a valid justification, they turned towards fret trains. Too bad, fret has been dropping between France and Italy for some years. Fret trains have dropped dramatically in France well below the European average (17% of cargo traffic) to 9 to 10% of traffic. If you want to revive freight trains, you can't just build one frigging tunnel, you need to rebuild almost from scratch the whole thing first because Fret SNCF has been closed down in 2023 and dismantled! With the amount of money invested you could probably fly everyone from Lyon to Turin on expensive aviation biofuel for centuries before recouping the humongous investment. This is just stupid grandiosity allied with corruption.