SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (629569)9/26/2011 1:47:43 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1577842
 
Al, > I think you know that I agree with that with caveats....

What caveats?

Tenchusatsu



To: Alighieri who wrote (629569)9/27/2011 11:28:52 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577842
 
After 30 Years, TGV Service Prospers Even as its Future is Questioned

Thursday, France celebrated the 30th anniversary of the opening of the high-speed link between Paris and Lyon by then-President François Mitterand, an occasion that redefined travel in Europe and encouraged countries around the world in invest in faster train service by offering train service at speeds above 150 mph for the first time. SNCF, the public national rail company, celebrated this evening at Paris’ Gare de Lyon, where services first originated.

The distinct orange and blue TGV trains that have rocketed through the French countryside at speeds of up to 320 km/h (200 mph) since 1981 have been extraordinarily successful in attracting travelers away from airlines and even the highways because of the quick journey times they offer between center-cities. And they’re supremely safe: More than 1.7 billion rides have been taken on TGVs, fatality-free. Because of France’s reliance on nuclear plants, the electric-powered service has provided the country a low-carbon travel alternative; when considering alternative routes people would have taken without high-speed service, new routes — including construction and operations — are carbon positive* in the long-term.

Because of a series of investments in new dedicated passenger lines, Paris is now three hours from the Mediterranean, two hours and twenty minutes from London and the German border, and one hour and twenty minutes from Brussels. 2,300 km of new lines already under construction or planned for opening within the next decade (see map at the end of the article) promise significant improvements that will bring Toulouse and the Spanish border within three hours of Paris.

The high cost of new rail lines, however, puts in question how much further expansion the French can afford.

Combined with relatively affordable fares, lower travel times have increased ridership on TGV trains in France to about 100 million passengers a year ( 141,000 a day), more than one and a half times the population of the country as a whole. Though SNCF’s one billion total annual riders is dwarfed by ridership on DB German rail (1.9 billion), France’s encouragement of the construction of new high-speed lines and SNCF policies that push all riders to fast trains, rather than segregating train speeds by the means of individual travelers, have allowed the company to control 50% of the European high-speed market, compared to 22% for DB, 11% for Spain’s Renfe (which has a longer high-speed rail network), and 10% for Italy’s FS.

83% of French people have ridden TGV trains, similar to the percentage of Americans who have flown and far higher than the percentage of Americans who have ridden Amtrak, high-speed or not ( less than a third of them).

From its TGV services, SNCF has made significant profits, which have reached €900 million annually in recent years, much of which has been used to cross-subsidize losses on slower Intercités trains serving smaller cities and TER operations offering regional rail.

But the demands by President Nicolas Sarkozy — who recently saidThe TGV, it’s France” — on the national public rail infrastructure owner RFF to build more high-speed lines has changed the equation. Though new routes are usually partially funded by local, regional, and national governments, TGV offerings have been expected to pay back a portion of construction costs (and the much smaller cost of line maintenance) through fees on track usage. RFF covered 28% of the construction costs of the LGV Rhin-Rhône Branche Est, which will open for service later this year, for instance; those costs will be paid back through track fees eventually passed down to passengers on TGVs.

But debt accumulated to build the lines has reached €29 billion for RFF and €9 billion for SNCF; new lines, at a cost of €16-27 million per kilometer, will increase those sums substantially.

RFF has responded to this increase in debt by significantly increasing track fees, and it plans to do so by 40% between 2008 and 2012 — enough to wipe out SNCF’s margin of profitability on the TGV entirely (though the French government has said it would work to stabilize those charges after 2013). RFF will increase fees on the most popular TGV routes the most.

SNCF has responded by threatening to cancel routes with lower ridership (even though they are profitable if excluding the track fees devoted to construction) and it has said the loss of profitability will make it impossible for it to replace the original 1981 fleet of TGVs before 2020. Fares are increasing at 3.4% annually, twice the rate of inflation, and SNCF plans to charge users more on select routes even as it reduces customer service for others to a low-cost model over the next few years. Competition on international routes running through France, expected to begin later this year, will put another cog in the TGV’s future.

Other solutions, such as public-private partnerships for new routes, may reduce the burden on RFF, but they won’t help much for SNCF or riders because someone will have to pay for construction costs at some point. The new LGV Sud Europe Atlantique, to run from Tours to Bordeaux, will cover 55% of its construction costs through track fees, but the project’s PPP partner’s investment in the project will have to be paid back through higher track fees on trains through the corridor (the private investor will also get to keep all profits from the line). RFF’s 14% share of the costs of this project will have to be covered by riders on other lines paying track fees, since all track fees from this route will go to the investor, not RFF.

The irony of charging more track fees to pay for the construction of new lines is a lower degree of service on existing lines and less train travel, since SNCF must cover capital costs with operations profits and higher fares reduce demand.

Standing in the way is the inherent conflict between SNCF’s interests, which revolve around maximizing passenger revenue, and those of RFF, which are about minimizing debt from infrastructure construction and maintenance. These must be harmonized. SNCF’s President Guillaume Pépy has suggested that the current separation of operations from track ownership is a clunky, inefficient model that does not respond adequately to the needs of the railway. Other solutions, such as Germany’s or Spain’s, in which infrastructure is owned by a division of the national rail company, may be less amenable to future competition in services but may make for a less administratively complex system.

The fundamental question is whether France should continue to build new lines (and increase the debt of agencies like RFF), even if that means putting existing services out of the price range of some riders. The government has chosen to pursue that path, but it may not be a solution that is viable in the long term.

Nonetheless, the TGV remains a model for the rest of the world. SNCF has successfully demonstrated how to extend fast, safe, and environmentally friendly rail services to most of the country at prices that most of the population can afford.



Note: In the map above, which is just of high-speed lines, not all French rail lines, LGV refers to “ligne à grande vitesse,” or high-speed rail line.

* Carbon positive in this case means that the line will produce less carbon than would have status quo alternatives.

thetransportpolitic.com



To: Alighieri who wrote (629569)9/27/2011 9:16:23 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577842
 
The lamestream media is destroying my candidate.

As Perry Falters Romney Could Be Last Standing

By Margaret Carlson

Sep 27, 2011 5:00 PM PT

If Texas Governor Rick Perry isn’t the un-Romney that the Republican base craves, who, oh who, will it be?

If Perry cedes the un-Romney label -- and the nomination -- you can carbon date the moment when his campaign’s decomposition began: Sept. 22, 2011, between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. EDT. That’s when the Texas governor stumbled through one of the worst debate performances in memory. Weekly Standard editor William Kristol called Perry’s flubs close to “disqualifying.” Red State blogger Erick Erickson said he was a “train wreck.” The New York Post’s John Podhoretz deemed Perry’s performance: “Awful. Just awful.” Brit Hume of Fox News went the gross-out route, saying Perry “really did throw up all over himself.”

And those are his friends speaking.

Talk of Perry’s debate fiasco jumped from the tiny world of political insiders into the mainstream of late-night television comedy, generating ridicule, including an appearance on David Letterman’s Top Ten list, at warp speed. Yet even before the latest debate, Perry was fodder for jokes. Watching him over the past three weeks, party operatives in Washington had begun either praying for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to enter the race or reconciling themselves to the view that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is the best the party can muster in 2012.

Perry didn’t just insert his foot in his mouth; he inserted a wedge between his candidacy and the Republican base. Defending his policy of allowing children of illegal immigrants to attend state colleges at the cheaper, in-state tuition rate, Perry sounded as if he thought his party is still home to George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatives. “If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz said that Republicans he assembled for a focus group responded so viscerally to Perry’s immigration talk that they couldn’t turn their dials to negative fast enough. Iowa kingmaker Bob Vander Plaats, who helped former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee win the Iowa Republican caucuses last time around, said he was sure that Perry would take the opportunity to clarify his stance at an appearance the next day before the Florida Conservative Political Action Convention. Perry didn’t. As a result, Vander Plaats told Time, a lot of conservatives who once ran toward Perry are now “running to somebody else.” Given that opening, don’t be surprised to see Romney, who has mostly ignored Iowa, suddenly find his way to Des Moines and Davenport.

As if to confirm Vander Plaats’ assessment, the Florida CPAC straw poll last weekend was won by pizza entrepreneur Herman Cain, who received 37 percent of the 2,600 votes cast by party activists. Perry, who was expected to win or at least make a strong showing, had 15 percent, and Romney followed with 14 percent.

Immigration is not an issue Perry can finesse; if he holds to his position on in-state tuition he will alienate much of the Republican base. If he retreats, he opens himself up to charges that he lacks conviction. A pattern may already be established. At the last debate, Perry tried to wiggle away from his claim that Social Security is “unconstitutional.” Romney, the flip- flop king, gleefully clobbered the Texan for shifting his views.

Perry’s vulnerabilities extend beyond the border he so regularly invokes. When the debate turned to foreign policy, Perry looked far out at sea. Responding to a predictable question about the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call -- in this scenario the Taliban had gained control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons -- Perry was positively Palinesque. He began by mumbling about a terrorist group in Afghanistan, mentioned building a “relationship in the region” and then said something about selling more arms to India. By the time Perry’s meandering had mercifully concluded, he found himself 3,000 miles east of Islamabad -- in Taiwan.

After three debates in which parts of the country not named Texas have been exposed to him, Perry’s appeal has diminished and the quality of his performance has declined. The debates have revealed that Perry is neither consistently conservative enough to satisfy the Tea Party activists driving the nomination from below, nor sufficiently presidential to mollify the establishment hovering nervously above. And his mind is a muddle.

Yet there is no one waiting in the wings. Those begging Christie to jump in will almost certainly be disappointed -- in part because Christie is self-aware and observant enough to know that his path to the nomination would probably prove no easier than Perry’s. Sarah Palin? It’s not clear that even the base is interested in her at this point. Still, there must be an un- Romney. Until Republicans find one, Romney remains the only electable Republican in sight.

( Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Margaret Carlson in Washington at mcarlson3@bloomberg.net.