On talking train, Wednesday, June 7, at the Council of Ministers. The future plan for transport is presented there. Clément Beaune, Minister Delegate for Transport, and Christophe Béchu, Minister for Ecological Transition, were to unveil the mobility component of the State-region contract, which sets out State support for regional investments in this area over the period 2023- 2027.
The prefects will be able to start negotiating with elected officials on specific programs. The government is asserting clear priorities. It will be rail and everyday mobility. These two areas will mobilize two-thirds of a total commitment of 8.6 billion euros over five years. A significant effort, since it is 50% higher than that of the 2015-2022 period.
As a consequence of this assumed choice, the amount of money devoted to the train will almost double, while that intended for the road will decrease by half: 2.5 billion euros will thus be allocated to the renovation of small lines, to the development of rail freight, the accessibility of stations for the disabled and the new darling of metropolitan elected officials, the regional RERs, by developing the rate of lines serving the outskirts and crossing metropolitan areas. Prudently, the government has changed its semantics and prefers to speak of “metropolitan regional express services”.
Poor result
A justified precaution, as the reality on the ground is so far removed from the romantic visions of a railway France, an absolute panacea in the fight against climate change. The choice of iron against bitumen is understandable, since transport alone represents a third of greenhouse gas emissions in France. But that does not prevent questioning the cost-benefit ratio, including environmental, of the train.
In an interesting article on the site bones, mobility researcher Jean-Pierre Orfeuil recalls some figures. Between 2007 and 2019, public spending on rail increased by 39%, after numerous alarmist reports on the state of the network. At the same time, the overall gross domestic product increased by 13%, public expenditure by 20%, that for the hospital by 18% and that for education by 12%. It cannot therefore be said that this sector has been neglected.
Thirteen years of effort and 140 billion euros committed later, the result is mediocre. The market share of the train, 10%, has not changed, and the network is still aging. Because the train is adapted to mass transport and not to the diffuse habitat which characterizes the great periphery of cities. More modular solutions, with buses of all sizes, capable of varying routes, are therefore much more efficient and economical. Even if, politically, it is less dreaming than gleaming TGVs.