Paris falls for the bike

It's not often that you return from holiday and find that your home town has changed. With only a little exaggeration, that was the case when I landed back at the weekend and witnessed the impact of the Vélib, Mayor Delanoe's rent-a-bike system that was launched on July 15 (earlier post).

Delanoe's scheme to saturate the city with thousands of nearly free wheels has proved a roaring success -- so far. The bikes are everywhere. The real test will come with the end of summer and the return of bad weather and the full quota of grumpy Parisians and stressed drivers.

But with the sun shining and traffic at its August low, flocks of stately Vélibs are slowing the pace and making the city feel a little more civilised. Despite rain, blasé Parisians and visitors can be seen grinning as they discover the delights of pedal power.

I have been using one for the downhill trip to the office on the Opéra from the 17th arrondissement where I live. Door-to-door it takes the same 15-20 minutes as the Métro. Like many lazy commuters, I admit to taking the Métro home. Here's my report from today's newspaper, with a parallel look at London's cycling efforts. 

Almost no Vélib riders are wearing helmets. So far, though, there have been no accidents to spoil Delanoe's success. The opposition on the city council -- led by President Sarkozy's UMP party -- has gone quiet after initially forecasting trouble for the scheme. We are waiting now for Sarko to muscle in and try to claim credit for it.

Since this is Paris, the thinking world has stirred from its summer torpor to pronounce on the Vélib phenomenon. For some conservative penseurs, there is something un-natural about pushing citizens onto bikes. Paris is for strolling [July jogging post] and not pumping pedals, says this camp. A true flâneur would not climb astride such a contraption to contemplate life on the boulevard.

Le Nouvel Observateur, the Left Bank weekly bible, came up with a riposte today, albeit tongue-in-cheek. Le Vélib is a superb example of communism at work. In his column, François Reynart wrote that the "anti-capitalist" communal bike had done more than Marx and the Bolshevik revolution to break the dependence of the proletariat on private property.

Comments

[rocket]

17th say you!

Well Well Charles you're only a 5 minute walk from me.

Don't hesitate to call me for an exclusive interview and photo rights.

In fact we've probably already passed each other in the street. I'm the good looking one!

Plus I'll be scouring the streets, on the prowl for that cute little doggie of yours

[Thanks Rocket. The dog has already tried out the bike basket but didn't like it. CB]

[Sarah Hague]

If metro workers go on strike, I predict there'll be total chaos as people fight for bikes.

Apparently inhabitants have been fixing their own locks to ensure they have a bike to get to work on in the morning. Now that's not quite cricket...

I nearly hired one when I was in Paris a couple of weekends ago, but flanning was part of the attraction, not trying to negotiate traffic and roads without a map.

[Terry]

Rocket said "Plus I'll be scouring the streets, on the prowl for that cute little doggie of yours". I don't know, CB. That sounded like a threat to me. I believe the wicked witch of the west made that same promise to Dorothy in Munchkinland.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4lsTG4saqko

As a right wing penseur, the bicycles do strike me as communistic although I really can't put my finger on why. It probably has something to do with government trying to change human nature. If everyone is enjoying them, then I do not see a problem provided the expense to the taxpayer is as minimal as it seems to be. However, I haven't quite percieved the relation between the bike program and reducing traffic and pollution. I would imagine that most people in Paris do not drive to work in the city. Cabs are too expensive. So, there is probably a small shift of people from the metro to the bikes. This might reduce some crowding in the metro. But I do not think it reduces pollution. The trains will still run the same amount. Perhaps, someone can straighten me out on this.

On a similar note, I met a german engineering student in his early twenties. He was being trained to try to figure out where people would walk in parks to layout paved walking paths. He would base his decisions where the paths would go based on certain mathematical formulas. I said that maybe they should let pedestrians trod their own paths and then pave over those routes. He informed me that method was unreliable and that only a trained engineer could know where people would walk. It seems that the bikes will have the same disappointments that our german engineer will have. CB's linked story does demonstrate the "unforeseen" consequences that will cause problems. People only using the bikes downhill. People only using the bikes in one direction causing bikes to pool up in one area causing scarcity in another. I would have thought that this was a rather predictable problem. I will truly laugh if the solution is to truck bikes back to certain starting points.

I guess the point is that if you want to alter human behavior, you need to understand it first.

BTW: I found it frightfully amusing that someone was actually being trained to figure out where people would walk in a park using equations. There seemed something quite European (and communistic) about it.

[Anna Finsterwald]

The conservative camp whose perspective is that "Paris is for strolling and not pumping pedals" might want to consider that the bikes are not so much intended to replace walking, but rather driving. And what stroller would prefer a promenade alongside a polluting jam of honking cars to the far more pleasant and harmless bicycle?

[Dominique]

I agree with Charles. I also found the city very much changed when i came back. This kind of program, just like Paris-Plage, has more impact on a city than usual political discussions.

"the "anti-capitalist" communal bike had done more than Marx and the Bolshevik revolution to break the dependence of the proletariat on private property"

That's very true indeed. Next will be voilib (voiture lib') for cars. Can you imagine plenty of little Smarts ready for use for a couple of € per minute? They are actually already working on it :

that's called AUTOPARTAGE, but 3 companies only are in yet! (see http://www.paris.fr/portail/deplacements/Portal.lut?page_id=381&document_type_id=5&document_id=19759&portlet_id=1199

I am eager to see the futur!

[Gerard Darby]

I was in Paris the day they launched this. It immediately sparked people's interest and there Velibs to be seen everywhere. I think the scheme is brilliant. It's bold, timely and fun.

Why can't we have this in London?

[Brett]

Terry,

Along with the possibility of lessening environmental pollution (particulate, noise, etc.), there are obvious health benefits to bicycling.

[Terry]

Anna said:

"the bikes are not so much intended to replace walking, but rather driving."

So, have the bikes cut down on people driving? My guess is probably not. The people who live outside Paris are not going to bike in. And the people who live and work in Paris probably don't drive to work anyway. Instead, they take the metro or use the new bikes. CB is a perfect example. He takes the metro to work. He doesn't drive. Now he often bikes to work.

The INTENTION may have been to replace driving but, in practice, the bikes have probably only reduced walking/strolling and metro usage. In other words, the bikes have not reduced traffic or pollution. This was supposed to be the point, n'est pas?

Yes, it seems people are using the bikes and that's okay. But the people who are using them (tourists, local commuters, students) probably weren't driving before the bike program anyway. Another feel good program from the left camp.

Anna, please tell us how the bikes have actually cut down pollution.

[John Molburg]

So make the fair at the low-lying stations zero. It may be necessary even to make it negative to get the bikes back up the hills. Awfully heavy bikes to pump uphill.

[Maggie Millington]

Mmmmmm, I think this is a disaster waiting to happen.
Let's see what happens after the holls are over,when the city fills up again, will they be ultra dangerous in the notorious Parisian traffic.
What about the legal implications ?
Are these bikes insured ? are the cyclists insured ? why no helmets ?
Will the company be made to pay injury costs ?
Do the users sign some sort of waver when hiring one ?
Sorry to be a kill joy, but it's the legal mind working.

[Maggie Millington]

Mmmmmm, I think this is a disaster waiting to happen.
Let's see what happens after the holls are over,when the city fills up again, will they be ultra dangerous in the notorious Parisian traffic.
What about the legal implications ?
Are these bikes insured ? are the cyclists insured ? why no helmets ?
Will the company be made to pay injury costs ?
Do the users sign some sort of waver when hiring one ?
Sorry to be a kill joy, but it's the legal mind working.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

'Almost no Vélib riders are wearing helmets.'

Well, here in Poland you MUST wear a helmet if you ride a bike, otherwise you will pay an 250 EUR equivalent fine.

And what if a cyclist crashes? It's too dangerous not to wear a helmet while cycling.

[Anna Finsterwald]

In response to Terry's question: "Anna, please tell us how the bikes have actually cut down pollution."

I don't believe I actually said that the bicycles in fact are cutting down on pollution. I was simply arguing that the intent was meant to reduce the number of people driving, not the number of people strolling. My point was really just to object to the argument that these bicycles somehow detract from Paris's "strolling culture".

I don't have data on whether that intent has been met with success, or on what percentage of these cyclists are otherwise metro-riders. I don't think any of us have that information at the moment.

While I think the assumptions you make about Metro-riders are likely correct, I also have to assume that at least some of the hundreds of thousands cars (and motorcycles, etc.) zipping around Paris are driven by people living in the city, and that these bicycles are a healthy and more pleasant alternative.

[Ros]

Now why is "Le Nouvel Observateur" the Left Bank Bible, Charles? True it is a pretty Leftish magazine but there's nothing geographic about that.

[Terry]

Brett:

"Along with the possibility of lessening environmental pollution there are obvious health benefits to bicycling."

Possibility? I thought that was the whole purpose of the program. To lessen pollution. Now, it's just a possibility.

Health benefits to cycling? Is that the reason this was done? I doubt that automobile commuters are using the bikes. So all that is really being done is converting walkers to bicyclers. I don't think the health benefits between walking and biking are significantly different.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are using them. The question is are the right people using them. The idea was to get drivers onto bikes. Has that happened? Is this really is an effective program to fight pollution and traffic?

[Terry]

Anna:

Fair enough. You did not say pollution. We could substitute "traffic" in my question, which is what I believe you meant. But my point remains the same. Has the bike program cut down on traffic?

I am sure that you are right. Some local people with cars/motorcycles have switched. But I doubt you'll see it in any great numbers. I can only assume that because the metro system was pretty good before the bikes. Yet,they still preferred to drive over the metro.

[jon]

Its not that this is something unnatural, its that its something new and untested. It hasn't really had a chance to prove itself usefull. I sympathize with many comments here both for and against. I hope they took into consideration that people will not want to ride their bike uphill, and that people want to be able to "park" their bike near their destinations. There is also the consideration that people want to KNOW that the bike will be available, and I hope that people can indeed reserve bikes for that purpose. Aside from all this, even though people might ride a bike rather than drive a car, its still polluting because food production and transport pollutes. If you eat a lot of meat, you may be polluting as much as you would driving a car or taking the metro. I personally feel that this should be given a chance, like most things. However, the fate of the world will not be won here.

[terry]

One other consideration, has the government sponsored bike program hurt businesses that sell bikes in Paris? The government is now leasing them to the public dirt cheap and, in effect, is now in competition with bike shop owners.

If I owned a bike store in Paris, I would sharpening my pitchfork. Of course, I (sitting here in New Jersey) do not even know if there are many (or any) bike shops in Paris.

[christopher muir]

Interesting to read Le Nouvel Observteur’s political take on pedal power. My post dated 17 July raised that very subject - I commented:

“While Beijing clears its polluted thoroufares of bicycles and replaces them with cars, Paris does the reverse. It’s a funny old world all right. Was Bertrand Delanoe by any chance influenced by the words of a Chilean politician called Jose Antonio Viera Gallo? “Socialism,” said the Chilean, “can only arrive by bicycle.”

Will the humble metropolitan bike become a constantly visible symbol of anti-Sarkoism - perhaps even a roving anti-capitalist machine?

[Judith]

So shocking that riders are unhelmeted. It seems odd that the French Government, while normally involving itself so extensively in the life of the French , is not more vigilant in ensuring mandatory helmet use.

[Dominique]

Terry,

Bicycles decrease pollution because Delanoe increases the number of lanes reserved for cycling therefore decreasing the number of lanes reserved for cars. It does not mean the drivers go on bikes, they probably go more on metro & buses (my case).

But that's pure logic : the less room for the cars, the less cars, the less pollution.

[pouet]

I tried it many times, and I must say that is quite practical: very easy to take and to leave. It only took me 30 minutes to go to work, 10 minutes less than usual. But, I am no car driver, so I can't answer to Terry's question. One of my friend leaves his scooter for Vélib' when the course is a short one (less than half an hour).

It's always hard to park in Paris . Vélib' is definitely an alternative.
If it can make the public transportation less crowded it would be a plus. A lot of car drivers and scooter drivers don't take public transportation because it's over crowded.
I think they (the city staff) also hope that commuters will park their car at the doors of Paris.

I went to Bretagne during the week-end, and some friends in Rennes told me a story about Vélib' (to be checked). They said that Rennes has experimented the system since 10 years. JC Decaux lost the urban furniture (is that a correct expression?) market in Rennes 10 years ago, because a challenger ,which is now a subsidiary of Clear Channel,proposed a Vélib' system.
So JC Decaux decided to developp the same offer.
http://www.jcdecaux.com/content/jcdecaux_en/presse/communiques/20070208.html

Strangely, everyone in France speaks about the Lyon experience, but not the Rennes one.

[JuanE]

I havent observed the bikes in Paris yet, but as an interesting excercise, in Bogota (home city) there are two days a year where cars are banned completely from the city. Only cabs and public service can use the streets. The days have turned into a great success. People dont seem to mind waking up a bit earlier to walk, cycle, or take public transportation. This has led to the planning of cycle routes that are permanent and some are using them every day now.

[Ricco]

Terry ("right-wing penseur" - [is there any other kind these days?]) and a few other commentators have missed the point about the role of cars in cities. They should read good old Marshal McCluhan again, who got to the heart of what cars really create: mass insanity and the death of cities. The danger they represent is not so much air pollution (although I would not be surprised that in 5 or 10 years there will be class-action suits against the car companies resembling those against the tobacco conglomerates in the 1990's for the health costs of cars). No, McCluhan recognized that cars are mostly a public mental health problem. Motorists are in an "emotional cage" and think nothing of leaving home every morning with 2 tons and 5m2 of their bathroom/bedrooms and foisting their intimacy onto the public thoroughfare. The car driver is structurally in thrall to his reptilian brain, reduced to a paranoid wreck with a cortex age of a toddler. The etymology of civilization is 'civiis', or 'city'. The car is not only anti-city, it is mainly anti-civilization.

[Helen]

The problem I have with Velib' is that there never seems to be any free spaces to park in any of the stations near where I live! It's annoying, and results in me and my fellow Velibers standing around, waiting to pounce on the space which is liberated when someone comes to hire a bike.

It is otherwise pretty great.

[John Gregory Flinn]

Mr Bremner, would it be fair to say this is M.Delanoe's (superior)answer to Mayor Livingstone's Congestion Charge?

[Maggie G]

I don't think the main reason for introducing these bikes is to combat pollution by cars. If they'd wanted to do that, they could have made parking more expensive, or reduced the number of parking places, or stuff like that.

I think the main idea was just to make Paris a more attractive city. Seeing the citizens pedalling around gives any city a more human image. Isn't that one of the things we admire about the Netherlands?

In the first blog about these bikes, Mr Bremner also states that the mayor hoped that having a lot of bicycles in the streets would result in motorists driving more carefully.

I think if the mayor of Washington DC wanted to introcude something like this, the automobile lobby would shoot it down pretty quickly. (In the 1920s, General Motors secretly purchased trolley systems throughtout the United States, and then dismantled them.) Terry is making a big fuss about objectives and results but really, it just not a very American idea, and that's what's blocking Terry, I think.

[Terry]

It is Ricco who misses the point. The velibs will not reduce traffic/pollution in Paris in a significant degree. This was the stated reason why they were introduced.

Ricco provides us with a new reason: the car is a "public mental health problem" where motorists are in a "mental cage" to themselves. I rode the Metro several months ago. And I don't remember seeing a lot of comraderie there. Mostly, commuters read their newspapers, books or listened to their ipods. Some text messaged. No one talked to anyone. Nor did anyone give up his seat for an elderly woman with a bag who wandered on. (I did-what a hero I am) The metro seemed no different than any other subway in the world. People going about their business without communicating with each other.

Leftist "thought" is always based on two psychological premises. One is envy of what others have and the other is fear that someone has more than they do. Think I am wrong? Reread Ricco's post. He informs us that the car driver has a "reptilian brain" and the cortex of a toddler. That is quite a venomous rant. We are talking about car drivers, not murderers. Certainly, Ricco's problems with car drivers go a little beyond congestion problems. A car provides a lot of individual freedom, something the lefties cannot tolerate. It allows a person to travel wherever he wants to. This is why they hung horse thieves in the west, not bank robbers. When you took someone's horse, you deprived them of his freedom. Similarly, certain leftists want to rob car drivers of their freedom by reducing everyone to foot. These people shouldn't be allowed to drive to the beach and waste other people's resources on their frivolties. That's why leftists support high gas taxes. To keep the riffraff off the road.

As for McCluhan, I would point out that cities have grown since the invention of the automobile.

BTW: There is also something quite Amish in Ricco's thinking.

[john]

This Velib' thing is the tree hiding the forest, as the French would say. First of all, let's remember once again that Paris is much larger than the tiny intra-muros City of Paris controled by Mr. Delanoë. Paris is a sprawling city of 11 million people, and transport problems are global. The tiny City of Paris does not live in vacuum, isolated from the rest of the metropolis.

If Mr. Delanoë was really serious about improving traffic in Paris, then he would have used his clout and PR skills to extend the RER E line to La Défense. He would have fought tooth and nail to remove one of the two branches on line 13 of the Métro (the Asnières branch) and join this branch with line 14 of the métro. He would have launched the long awaited doubling of the RER tunnel between Gare du Nord and Châtelet. He would have threatened to resign if the Métrophérique express metro line circling around the City of Paris is not launched in earnest.

These are extremely serious and urgently needed improvements to the Paris public transportation network. Those of you who don't live in Paris probably don't realize it, but the Paris Métro and RER network is bursting at the seams. Greater Paris is currently registering record growth, the population is increasing by 100,000 inhabitants every year. Such a high rate of increase had not been seen since the Oil Shock of 1973. This is due to the new French baby boom, and also to a return of high international immigration. As a result, Greater Paris should reach 12 million inhabitants by 2011, and possibly 13 million by 2020. The current public transport network simply won't cope. Some lines like RER A and line 13 are already completely choked all day long, and transport experts estimate that by 2015 the entire network will be like RER A and line 13 if nothing is urgently done.

Instead of dealing with this very serious transport problem due to a high population increase, Mr. Delanoë has only launched projects such as the tramway line and the Velib' scheme which are maybe good for PR and make for articles that sell well (don't they, Mr. Bremner?), but which are not up to the challenges ahead. Now we're being told that in about one month one million people used the Velib'. Just for a sense of proportion, in 2004 on any average day there were 6.65 million people using the Paris public rail network (Métro, RER, suburb trains, tramways), up from 6.11 million in 2000. So just compare 6.65 million people using public transport (except buses) daily with 1 million people using Velib' in one (summer) month. Now you get how inconsequential this Velib' scheme is. It's a bit like pretending to save the Aral Sea by dropping a glass of water there every day. Unfortunately there are many journalists like Mr. Bremner who make much hype about Velib' without actually looking at the real situation of Paris public transport. Sigh...

I mean, let's make it clear, this Velib' scheme costs nothing to tax payer, so I really don't care about it. It will have zero effect on the public transport situation overall, but if it's usefull for a few "bobo" people like Mr. Bremner who are rich enough to live in the exclusive City of Paris close to their work, then good for them. But let's face it, for 99% of Greater Parisians, the Velib' makes no difference, and the hype and journalist interest focused on it is to the detriment of the real improvements needed in the public transport network that should deserve all the focus.

And Londoners, if you want to improve your transport situation, please do not import the feel-good gimmicks of the City of Paris municipality. Build your Crossrail, renovate your old tube lines to increase traffic, build new tube lines on the south bank of the Thames. That's how you'll really improve your transport situation.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

John, you are wrong.

1) There is no French baby boom, the fertility rate is 1.98 child per woman, well short of the 2.1 CPW needed just to prevent the population from shrinking. That nation, like all other Continental nations, is suffering from a demographic death spiral: the number of deaths greatly exceeds the number of births. Paris's population is growing solely due to urbanisation and immigration. France's population will be halving every 35 years.

2) Your RER line extension proposal is unrealistic. Who is going to pay for it? The French debt burden is already 65% of GDP.

[Ricco]

I would like to heartily thank Terry for enjoining readers to carefully reread my post. It's not everyday one gets such freebie good publicity.
I am not a Fisker (neither the "journalist" nor the verb), but as for political orientation I daresay I consider myself a second-thought neocon, BTW. Maybe there's a difference between new rightists and old rightists?

Ricco

[Chris]

This seems like it would create business for bike shop owners. People will start to see that biking is fun and take pride in what they ride. Biking is still the most efficient mode of transportation.

[Terry]

Maggie:

It all seems quite the opposite of making the city look "more human". It's as if the mayor scattered a thousand cat toys around Paris for the pets to play with. Now the city looks more vibrant because the cats are playing with the toys?

If Parisiens think that the city looks "more human" with bicyclers around, I think that's fine. I am not sure how bicycling accomplishes that goal. I guess it makes people look more active. But Paris did not seem like a sedentary place to me when I was there in May. Would my experience have been richer had I saw a lot of people biking? I don't know. Probably not.

I doubt that more bicyclers will make traffic any safer. If crazy motorists are not deterred by pedestrians, I do not see why they would be for bicyclers. Although, the one less lane for traffic (as Dominique so informs us) will probably slow traffic down even more. So, maybe if you bring traffic to a standstill, it will be safer.

You are right that I am making a big fuss about results and objectives. Shouldn't examining the actual consequences of a program (like closing a lane to cars in a crowded city) be done. The problem is that often people come up with big ideas with good intentions how to change something. Often the main objective is not achieved and additional, unforeseen problems and costs emerge. My point is merely that if the goals are to reduce traffic, pollution and curtail drivers (a few tickets can solve that one) as many here seem to suggest, then it will probably be a dismal failure.

But if people get enjoyment out of riding the bikes or if it makes some commuters lives easier, that's great. On the other hand, if it makes traffic and pollution considerably worse ...

[D.Strohl]

John,

"This Velib' scheme costs nothing to tax payer, so I really don't care about it".

If I were a Parisian taxpayer, I would however care. It didn't cost money to the "municipalité" at the first glance, but I suppose that in exchange of the Vélibs, JCDecaux got free access to the Parisian ad panels, for which he would otherwise have had to pay fees to the "municipalité", thus improving the latter's budget.

However, the above is not at all a critic of Mr.Delanoë; he has got a good idea and an original financing scheme for it. May be Mr.Delanoë will go into economic history as the modern (re)inventor of the "économie de troc" (exchange economy ? I don't know the proper English translation - can anybody help me ? Thanks in advance).

[Terry]

Ricco:

You are welcome for the free advert. But I didn't tell anyone to read it "carefully". The contempt was plain enough.

[Valentin]

"So shocking that riders are unhelmeted. "

Judith, apparently you've never visited the Netherlands, hardly anyone is ever helmeted and hardly anyone bothers about it.
The whole idea is town biking, much like you go for a walk. Bikers must be protected with wider, better lanes and stricter policing rather than forcing them to wear those horrible plasticky things while going just a bit faster than the tapis-roulant at Montparnasse.

[rocket]

Daniel

the word is barter

[rocket]

Zbig

"The French debt burden is already 65% of GDP."

Without taking state pensions into account. With state pensions it soars to over 110% But you won't hear that on the state run news.

[Frank Schnittger]

économie de troc = barter economy?

[terry]

Well, I just hate to rain on everyone's parade with the bikes. Is this how it looks in Paris now? Click below-turn your sound on for the full effect.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4326601568147343789&q=raindrops+butch+cassidy&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[john]

Zbigniew Mazurak, I don't know if you believe in what you wrote in your message, or if you just meant to be provocative, but either way your message was frankly stupid. A fertility rate of 1.98 is not "well short" of the replacement rate, it is actually very near the replacement rate. In fact, so far all the French women who have ended their reproductive lives (i.e. French women born before 1957) have had more than 2.1 children on average. The fertility rate includes young women, so somehow it is always skewed downwards. It is quite probable that women born in the 1960s, once they'll have ended their reproductive lives (in less than 10 years) will also have had more than 2.1 children. As for women born in the 1970s, it's still too early to tell, but what the current figures show is that there's certainly no reason to panic, unlike in some countries like, say, Germany or your native Poland, Zbigniew, where the fertility rates are so low that even if women were to have babies in their late years there's no way they could end their productive lives with more than 2.1 children.

You also wrote erroneously that in France the number of deaths greatly exceeds the number of births. That is completely wrong. In fact it's quite the opposite, the number of births greatly exceeds the number of deaths, which sets France apart in Europe, and which is the reason why people are talking of a French baby boom. In 2006 there were 276,500 more births than deaths in metropolitan France (i.e. France excluding the overseas departments and territories). This is a record number unseen since the Oil Shock of 1973. In fact, this natural increase of 276,500 is the highest in Europe, by far. Countries in central and eastern Europe have negative natural increase (i.e. they have more deaths than births), and in Western Europe countries have only modest natural increase. No country comes close to France. For example in the UK in 2006 they registered a record natural increase, and yet it was only 176,300, well short of France's 276,500. In Germany in 2006 the natural increase was negative, there were 149,000 more deaths than births. Germany hasn't had a positive natural increase since the beginning of the 1970s.

You also wrote that Paris's population is growing solely due to urbanization and immigration. Again you're completely wrong. In fact, Greater Paris has the highest natural increase of all the French regions, by far. The reason for that is very simple: young people who are starting their reproductive lives move to Paris because of job opportunities, whereas people who retire usually leave Paris for a slower paced life in the provinces. As a consequence, there are much more births in Greater Paris than in the rest of France, and much less deaths than in the rest of France, and so the natural increase is very high. In 2005 for example there were 106,660 more births than deaths in Greater Paris. Compare this figure with the natural increase in the UK that I gave above, and you'll understand why Greater Paris's population is booming: Greater Paris alone has more than half the natural increase of the entire UK. In 2006 the number of births in Greater Paris increased compared to 2005, but the deaths figures were not released yet so I can't calculate the natural increase for 2006, although it's likely it has increased. There are unfortunately few French politicians who realize what's going on in Paris at the moment, i.e. a population boom unseen since the beginning of the 1970s. A lack of investment in heavy rail transport now will be paid dearly in the 2010s when we are one more million Parisians, but local politicians like Delanoë seem totally heedless of where we're heading (or is it that knowing they won't be in power in the 2010s anyway, therefore they don't care?).

Finally, you also wrote that the RER E line extension to La Défense is unrealistic because France's debt burden is already 65% of GDP. Well first of all I'd like to point out that 65% of GDP is high, but certainly not extremely high or unbearable. For the records, Japan's debt is more than 100% of its GDP. The problem is not the debt, the problem is the economic growth. If we finally get a 3% economic growth (which is one of Sarkozy's big promises), then the debt burden will mechanically decrease, as the overall GDP will increase fast. Then you also need to distinguish between good debt and bad debt. All economists agree that investment is good debt, because it increases the economic growth. Investment in transportation is particularly good for economic growth. There have been lots of studies showing that 1 billion euro spent improving public transport generate several billion euros in the economy (because transport is more efficient, companies benefit from faster transportation, pollution externalities decrease, etc.). So no matter what the debt burden is, spending money to improve transportation is good spending, with high return on investment.

Last but not least, I think you don't really have a sense of proportions here. The much talked about Métropohérique express line, which would circle around the City of Paris in 30 miles of tunnels, would cost at the most 10 billion euros according to various studies. Sarkozy's tax rebate will cost the State about 15 billion euros per year. In other word, even this mammoth Métrophérique line which would take 10 years to build would cost less than one year of tax rebate. As for the RER E extension to La Défense, it would cost much less than Métrophérique, at the most 5 billion euros, which is just 4 months of tax rebate. So let's keep a sense of proportion! And FYI, there's already an empty RER station underneath La Défense waiting for the arrival of the RER E. That's the great thing about the French public service, they have long term vision. When they built La Défense in the 1970s, they already planned the arrival of a second RER line (beside the RER A), so they built a huge RER station next to the RER A station. So basically all there is to do is to dig the tunnel between Haussmann-St Lazare and this empty station beneath La Défense, thanks to good planning in the 1970s. See, these are the real issues, but instead we're being entertained with that stupid Vélib' and the slow and low-capacity tramway that will solve nothing.

[Colin]

Once again Paris and the French lead the rest of the world in forward-thinking pragmatism. The bicycle is a wonderfully humanising influence as well as being the most energy-efficient way of moving one person around that there is. As I commute to work by bicycle in stupidly car-dependent Melbourne, Australia, I can give a cheery "hello" to pedestrians and the few other cyclists I pass - not something that happens when we're each cocooned in 1.5 tons of motor car! All strength to this initiative and let's hope it spreads to other cities quickly, making their populations healthier as well as keeping the roads clearer for essential motor transport.

[Judith]

"Netherlands, hardly anyone is ever helmeted and hardly anyone bothers about it"

Valentin
I have heard that the Netherlands is wonderful for cycling.
However Australia is such a large place and the distances we ride are great, we don't have the luxury of special lanes for bicycles. So bike riding can have its dangers.
I hate helmets also -they give you 'helmut hair' but recognise the need for them here.
I have been driven around in Paris taxis and I would reckon that Paris wouldn't be too safe for cyclists either, unless you are going to have specially dedicated lanes.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Rocket - the figure does include state pensions (Securite Sociale). It also includes the debt of the central government , the debt of Organismes Diverses de Administration Centrale, and the debt of the local government. Nevertheless it (the debt burden) is a problem.

Yes, most French TV stations are state-owned like some Polish TV stations - and I'd like them to be privatised.

[rocket]

Zbig

Clarification. It doesn't include civil servant pensions

Please check this link

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542652/posts

[Daniel Strohl]

Frank, Rocket -

Thanks for the translation

[Michel R, Paris]

Mr Mazurak, your gratuitous assumptions are becoming quite annoying.

No, France's population will NOT be halving every 35 years, but will instead reach 75 million in 2050, overtaking Germany as Europe's most populous country, thanks to its dynamic birthrate of 2.0 (latest figures), only second to Ireland in Europe.

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20050516-020035-3137r

And about French TV stations, may I remind you that TF1, the private-owned broadcasting company has a share of 31% of the total audience in France? We do have state-owned stations (thank God! Or we would be compelled to watch that TF1 or M6 crap all the time), namely France 2-3-5, but with digital TV in more and more households, their share is rapidly declining. And why on earth would you like them to be privatised?!

Terry, you pointed out the consequences of the Vélib' scheme on bikes shops. They are already painful indeed, see this article in Le Monde, if you read French.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36-943721@51-917383,0.html

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

John, yes, I do honestly believe that what I'm saying is right, because I know that it is.

1) As I said, there is no such thing as the French baby boom. The 1.98 CPW fertility rate is well below the 2.1 fertility needed just to prevent the populace from shrinking. By contrast, Poland is experiencing population growth due to a much higher fertility rate, and so is Ireland, and in both countries the reason is the same: because abortion is illegal. Your numbers and claims are simply false, and there is no proof that you are right. What evidence exists suggests that you are wrong. The population of Paris, nor France as a whole, will therefore not grow, unless more immigrants come to France. France will be a completely different place (along with most of Europe) by the end of this century.

Here in Poland, there is actually a shortage of maternity units at hospitals.

2) The 65% debt burden is a result of many reasons. These include wasting cash on trains (TGVs and regional trains alike) that almost no one uses, but the primary reason is exactly the French demographic death spiral: for various reasons (abortion being just one of them) the death rate exceeds the birth rate. France is not the only state to experience this problem, it's the case in Germany and many other countries too.

3) In France (but not only in France), regional trains and long-distance trains alike are underused and therefore commercially unviable. This means that those few passengers who DO use them pay only a tiny fraction of the operating cost, the rest is paid by taxpayers who don't even touch these trains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TER

4) 3% GDP growth will be too little as the yearly budget deficit is 2-3% GDP. And that's despite the budget not including your proposals, which, if implemented, would make the current French debt and debt burden look parsimonious.

Michel from Paris - I did not make any assumptions, I just mentioned a few FACTS.

Fact #1: As I already said, France's population, like most European populaces, is shrinking. Indeed, you yourself have admitted that the fertility rate is only 2 CPW. You would need 2.1 CPW just to keep the current population level, i.e. to complement for the deaths. For a 15 million increase you'd need a fertility rate of not less than 3 CPW. If the current abortion rate is any guide, this is NEVER going to happen.

Regarding French TV stations, I would like them (and Polish ones) to be privatised for a simple reason: cash earning and therefore debt reduction. Besides, why should the state control the media?

Yes, the facts I mentioned are annoying annoying, but facts sometimes are.

[terry]

Thanks Michel. My french is good enough to get the gist of it. I bet no one in the mayor's office even considered the damage that this might to do private owners of bike companies.

[Robert Marchenoir]

"In France, regional trains and long-distance trains alike are underused and therefore commercially unviable."

This is simply wrong, Zbigniew.

High-speed long distance trains (TGVs) are very much used. They are very often full. Two-storey carriages have been brought in to increase capacity. At some times, trains follow each other so closely that you almost feel you are boarding the underground.

They have been competing very successfully with plane travel.

The Wikipedia article you mention is only about regional trains. It is short, shallow and lacks sources.

The national train company, SNCF, has some serious problems. Commuter trains and freight service are generally appalling.

This has to do with the way SNCF is managed and with the power of unions.

However, I would not rule out as you seem to do, without arguments or justification, that the tax payer should support the system in any way.

Just because you never take the train does not mean you should not contribute to it through your taxes.

A proper system of public transportation is a key asset for any country. Everyone benefits in the end, even if one does not use it himself.

For one, it helps attract some of the British expats who comment here, and who support our economy through their spending and taxes...