In the countries of France and Spain, the train system is by all means a symbol of modernity and technological prowess. The respective state-owned railway companies, the SNCF and the Renfe, both have their signature high-speed railway networks and their sleek train systems, the TGV and the AVE. Connecting major cities with speeds topping 150-250 km/hr in amazingly silent and comfortably stable environments, these high speed trains are highly viable alternatives, both price- and comfort-wise to the burgeoning private budge airline industry.
For those interested in development of public transport as a core means of transport that can completely replace car ownership, the existence of the strong railway system is no doubt great news. High-speed trains here in Spain and France provide a sort of state-provided public good in which all customers benefit in not having to pay for increasing expensive maintenance (not to mention gasoline) for their cars, yet can get to their destinations just as fast and conveniently when the train system is linked to equally efficient local bus and metro networks.
Of course, then there comes the political obstacle. Yes, in the long term, it is certainly true that increased cost of the car, driven up by price increases in the increasingly scarce raw materials that go into manufacturing and operating it, will ultimately cripple the industry, barring any radical innovations and/or technological advances. But in the short term, the car is still the symbol of individual independence, offering the amount of flexibility and privacy mass transport cannot possibly offer. Those who can afford the car sees no reason to develop an expensive system to replace it.
The only reason that the expensive high-speed trains, or more generally, extensive and convenient rail system in Western Europe can take off is perhaps due to the existence of complete state monopolies controlling the operations and developments of the entire system. These massive corporations, after accumulating the profits from a few highly lucrative services between major cities, can then channel the funds into creating an environment where further expansion in the system, in length, frequency, and speed can be made possible.
Part of the effort, obviously, is to invest in better technologies and more rail coverage across the country. But just as important is the ability and willingness of the companies, using state and NGO support, try to market a rail-centric lifestyle as one that is not just modern and eco-friendly, but fundamentally futuristic and desirable. The state-owned companies are given a free rein to market their products in a way that can increase the political will to invest in such expensive ventures as long-term building of rail networks.
And their jobs are made so much easier when they can collaborate with other state-owned companies to craft that "public transport is good" story for the public. With local bus/metro systems also state-owned and having the same incentives of capturing a greater share of customers from car-owners, they have incentives to form long-lasting business partnerships with state-owned train operators to share customers, revenues, and plans for expansions (e.g. coordination of "transportation hubs" where buses, trains, and metro all share terminals in one building)
The few players one needs to incorporate in the coordination, the less costly it is for building an integrated transportation network encompassing long-distance and local ground transport. Just as train schedules of most European rail operators (and airlines) are fully integrated, allowing one-time purchase of train tickets smooth connections between two trains without excess waiting (something that the Chinese railway system is still completely lacking), the cooperation of public operators can integrate schedules of all modes of transport in all localities.
To beat the flexibility and privacy of the car, mass transport can only go in the direction of greater speed, frequency, and coverage of the services. If operators of public transport can be reduced to a few public ones, the myriad separate systems can be efficiently combined to provide more convenient mass transport. And furthermore, with government coordination, the few public operators can amass their capital to improve upon advertising and improvement of the ENTIRE public transport system rather than just focus on their respective areas of coverage.
For those interested in development of public transport as a core means of transport that can completely replace car ownership, the existence of the strong railway system is no doubt great news. High-speed trains here in Spain and France provide a sort of state-provided public good in which all customers benefit in not having to pay for increasing expensive maintenance (not to mention gasoline) for their cars, yet can get to their destinations just as fast and conveniently when the train system is linked to equally efficient local bus and metro networks.
Of course, then there comes the political obstacle. Yes, in the long term, it is certainly true that increased cost of the car, driven up by price increases in the increasingly scarce raw materials that go into manufacturing and operating it, will ultimately cripple the industry, barring any radical innovations and/or technological advances. But in the short term, the car is still the symbol of individual independence, offering the amount of flexibility and privacy mass transport cannot possibly offer. Those who can afford the car sees no reason to develop an expensive system to replace it.
The only reason that the expensive high-speed trains, or more generally, extensive and convenient rail system in Western Europe can take off is perhaps due to the existence of complete state monopolies controlling the operations and developments of the entire system. These massive corporations, after accumulating the profits from a few highly lucrative services between major cities, can then channel the funds into creating an environment where further expansion in the system, in length, frequency, and speed can be made possible.
Part of the effort, obviously, is to invest in better technologies and more rail coverage across the country. But just as important is the ability and willingness of the companies, using state and NGO support, try to market a rail-centric lifestyle as one that is not just modern and eco-friendly, but fundamentally futuristic and desirable. The state-owned companies are given a free rein to market their products in a way that can increase the political will to invest in such expensive ventures as long-term building of rail networks.
And their jobs are made so much easier when they can collaborate with other state-owned companies to craft that "public transport is good" story for the public. With local bus/metro systems also state-owned and having the same incentives of capturing a greater share of customers from car-owners, they have incentives to form long-lasting business partnerships with state-owned train operators to share customers, revenues, and plans for expansions (e.g. coordination of "transportation hubs" where buses, trains, and metro all share terminals in one building)
The few players one needs to incorporate in the coordination, the less costly it is for building an integrated transportation network encompassing long-distance and local ground transport. Just as train schedules of most European rail operators (and airlines) are fully integrated, allowing one-time purchase of train tickets smooth connections between two trains without excess waiting (something that the Chinese railway system is still completely lacking), the cooperation of public operators can integrate schedules of all modes of transport in all localities.
To beat the flexibility and privacy of the car, mass transport can only go in the direction of greater speed, frequency, and coverage of the services. If operators of public transport can be reduced to a few public ones, the myriad separate systems can be efficiently combined to provide more convenient mass transport. And furthermore, with government coordination, the few public operators can amass their capital to improve upon advertising and improvement of the ENTIRE public transport system rather than just focus on their respective areas of coverage.
Comments
Post a Comment