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...

[Frank Schnittger]

Zbigniew Mazurak - I'm afraid your assumption that Ireland's rising population is due to the absence of legal abortion is mistaken.

In the first place Ireland's birth-rate, although still higher than the rest of Europe, has declined from 3.5 to 2.0 between 1975 and 1995 http://www.mailman.hs.columbia.edu/popfam/pubs/docs/irish.pdf

This has been due to a number of socio-economic factors - increased participation of women in higher education and the workplace, later age of marriage, and the use of contraception (partly due to the declining influence of the Catholic Church).

Secondly, Irish women have traditionally travelled to Britain to have their abortions. The numbers doing so haven't changed so significantly in recent years as to have a material impact on population growth. (c. 3000 in 1980 rising to 6000 in 2005).
http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/iabst.html

The reason why the Irish population IS growing rapidly at the moment is because very large scale immigration in recent years, so much so, that 25% of the total population will shortly be non-Irish born.

Many of these immigrants are from Eastern Europe including your native Poland - about 100,000 Poles have emigrated to Ireland in the past 5 years and they now make up 2-3% of the entire Irish population.

They are making a major contribution to our economy and are very welcome here, although there are concerns as to how well they are integrating with local communities and also about the impact that the recent downturn in the building industry will have on unemployment levels amongst both native Irish and recent immigrant workers.

[terry]

Try this link instead of the other one, which was pretty slow.

Is this life in Paris now with the Velib? Make sure the sound is on.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8751615566379379916&q=raindrops+butch+cassidy&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[Valentin]

On my word, I don't even remember how this discussion went from free bikes to disputes about the reproductive rates of irish women, and pole plumber unanticipated effects on visited countries!
Amazing ! :)

[john]

Zbigniew Mazurak, I suggest you go see a doctor. Denying reality as you do, I'm worrying about your mental sanity.

For those interested in the real figures, here you can see the French birth and death figures on the French statistical office INSEE website. Births far exceed deaths.
http://www.insee.fr/en/ffc/pop_age3.htm

[Ranokivio]

Some annoying facts for Zbigniew:

"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."

1/Fertility rates (2006)
France:1.98
Ireland:1.86
Poland:1,26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

"Your RER line extension proposal is unrealistic. Who is going to pay for it? The French debt burden is already 65% of GDP."
"The 65% debt burden is a result of many reasons. These include wasting cash on trains (TGVs and regional trains alike)"

So France can't pay for the extension of a rer line because of the 65% debt burden but the reason of the debt is the cash wasted on trains? It doesn't really seem logical to me...

and...

2/Public debt (% GDP)
Japan 175.5
Italy 107.8
Israel 91
Germany 68.7
USA 64.7
France 64.7
Poland 49
UK 42.2
Spain 39.9
...
Romania 21.4
Senegal 17.8
Ukraine 17.3
Bostwana 7.1
Chile 3.9
Estonia 3.6

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

To me, it looks like the public debt of France is average compared to similar countries.
By the way, I don't think the value of the GDP debt means anything. That's the reason I have a bit extended the list above...
So if France can't pay for an extension of a RER line, I guess Sarko will ask money to Bostwana, Chile or Estonia.

Why do you hate France so much?

Cheers

[cumming]

Facinating: Bremner writes: "With the sun shining ... But despite the rain"!!
No sun: just rain.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Robert - no, I am not wrong. Across the ENTIRE EU, the ENTIRE HSR network (TGVs, ICEs, etc.) is used annually by just 20 million people. Compare that to the number of foreign tourists visiting European countries, never mind the residents of those European countries.

And there is no reason to pay for anything that is not commercially viable (i.e. does not return 100% of the money spent on it) - be it a train or anything else. Railway is the worst mean of transport anyway - more expensive (tickets and subsidies), less safe (with or without terror) and pollutes the enviro too (diesel locomotives as well as electric locomotives powered by thermal electric plants).

Frank - in Ireland the total fertility rate and the influence of the CC may have declined indeed, but this is not the case in Poland. Living in Poland, not Ireland, I can assure you that Poland's population is not shrinking. Poland's obit has been written many times - unrightly.

Ranokivio, I suggest that you first learn how to read and then learn English because you are CLEARLY unable to read my posts:

1) The article you cite is false. It is plain gibberish; it proves that it's author doesn't know what he has written about. There may be a few articles like this one on the net but it doesn't automatically mean they are true. How do you think, why are Polish doctors calling for MORE maternity units in Poland? Why are they saying that there are TOO FEW maternity units in Poland?

2) No, I did not say that France is indebted to the tune of 65% of GDP solely because of trains. I have said that this is the result of MANY reasons. I wrote:

'The 65% debt burden is a result of many reasons.'

Read my posts before you reply (if you must reply)!

3) So you think that a 65% debt burden - i.e. nominal debt bigger than 50% of the ENTIRE French GDP - is OK?

4) No, I did not say that France can't afford ONE new RER line. Read my posts, dammit! I wrote that France cannot afford what John proposed, and he proposed a giant enlargement of the railway network (urban and long-distance lines).

5) And your final and the most ridiculous assumption - that I hate France. This is an offence, and a baseless one at that - I'm not insulting France or laughing at it, I'm just pointing out its financial problems. This is because I care about France despite not being a Frenchman. Your arrogant insult, an attack ad hominem, is I guess all you can do.

John - no need to insult me. Data from any national statistic office (French or not French - NOTE THIS, RANOKIVIO) is not reliable - every one of them tries to present its nation as well as it can. The stats you cide are nothing but a fantasy, and you need to realise that no country where abortion is legal will ever have its populace grow. That is a fact.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Addendum:
Ranokivio - you said that a 65% debt burden is nothing to be worried about. You are wrong.

This debt will have to be paid someday. Now let's assume that no privatisations occur, because some people have attacked me for advocating privatisation of France Televisions. If that would have been the case (no privatisations), then the government would have to impose a debt tax on all taxpayers. It would have to tax away 65% of GDP - that's right, two thirds of the entire gross domestic product - just to pay the debt. So the entire French nation would have been left with only 35% of its GDP for a year. That would be circa 600 billion dollars, about the same as Polish GDP, but to feed a bigger, though shrinking, population (60 million people). And that's before the government even taxes any cash away for its normal annual expenditures like the military and hospitals. I do not even know how much after-tax income do French taxpayers get AFTER paying taxes.

And then, who is going to pay SNCF's debt (6 bn EUR) and RFF's debt (unless this has been forgiven by the RFF's creditor)?

[Monika]

Terry,

your arguments might be right but why do I often get the impression when reading your posts (and particularly yours on this topic) that you just want to talk something bad?

Velib is in the first place a fantastic system that is enjoyed by the people and may even have some practical uses.

Btw. to your question about traffic reduction:
not sure if it actually will reduce traffic because if you lived in Paris you'd had noticed that in recent years more and more people already have switched to bikes (for the main reason that you go quicker in traffic that with a car I guess). It is just an offer from the town to generalize this trend, at least for short distances (the velib system as far as I understand is not made for long pedal strolls).

[rocket]

Pouet

Clear Channel was in the running for the Velib Contract in Paris. Their bid was actually less expensive and even have challenged the contract being awarded to JC Decaux in the courts but of course to no avail.

As the company is American it was surely IMHO not a question of awarding the contract to an American company for the city of Paris by the Mayor of Paris, eventhough, I do agree with him a per other policies for the town. He'll be a nationalist when he has to.

Also a type of "bicing" is available in Barcelona with Clear Channel supplying.

http://tinyurl.com/26xzvd

The Barcelona website actually gives the number of bikes available at any given time. I haven't seen that on the Paris site. Am I mistaken

http://tinyurl.com/2w9nhj

By far neither France nor Paris is the bellweather for this type of activity. Yet many of our French friends and the French media act as if they invented it. There are now many bicycle renting schemes in Europe. I was a bit astonished but not surprised to listen to the hype which made Paris out as some type of "éclaireur" dans le domaine. Of course as is to be expected, many French bloggers on many blogs immediately began giving the Brits lessons about how they too could implement their own pollution free bicycling system.

In any case, their is a war going on between Decaux and Clear Channel for this bicycling market in the world.

[Frank Schnittger]

"On my word, I don't even remember how this discussion went from free bikes to disputes about the reproductive rates of irish women, and pole plumber unanticipated effects on visited countries!
Amazing ! :)"

Posted by: Valentin

I would have thought that the linkage between the above issues was obvious, Valentin!

France's higher fertility rate proves what we all knew: that the French are sex mad and badly need to take more exercise to take their minds off sex. This is Delanoe's secret plan, one of the benefits of cycling not mentioned in this blog so far. Have you ever tried to have sex after a day out riding on a bicycle? OK, lets not go there.....

[Michel R, Paris]

"The stats you cide are nothing but a fantasy, and you need to realise that no country where abortion is legal will ever have its populace grow. That is a fact."

No, that is not. Facts are backed by figures, stats or written articles. What you are providing us is gratuitous assumptions based on your moral conservatism and blindness to the truth:

- France's population is not shrinking. Instead of that, it is growing at the fastest pace since the post-war baby-boom. Now give us figures backing your assumptions on that.

- France's fertility rate is higher than in Poland, despite the fact that abortion is legal here. Poland's fertility rate is among the weakest in Europe, at 1.23. Here are two BBC articles proving that: one on France's new baby-boom, one on Poland's population which actually fell by half a million people in the last 6 years.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4852924.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4856992.stm
Now, give us figures about your maternity shortage. Don't you think it can just mean Poland lacks basic hospital infrastructures?

Nobody is "writing Poland's obit" here. I don't know why you feel so unsecure as a Pole, Poland achieved a lot in the last couples of years, but there is no need to deny the truth: in secular France, population is growing and women are breeding, in Poland, they (momentarily?) stopped and population is declining. Period.

[Frank Schnittger]

Zbigniew Mazurak | 12 Aug 2007 08:15:29 wrote as follows:

"This debt will have to be paid someday. Now let's assume that no privatisations occur, because some people have attacked me for advocating privatisation of France Televisions. If that would have been the case (no privatisations), then the government would have to impose a debt tax on all taxpayers. It would have to tax away 65% of GDP - that's right, two thirds of the entire gross domestic product - just to pay the debt. So the entire French nation would have been left with only 35% of its GDP for a year."

I don't kow where or if you have studied economics, but National debt management simply doesn't work that way.

For instance Ireland's national debt has reduced fro 96% of GDP in 1993 to 23% now whilst at the same time the Government has actually reduced tax rates.

http://www.business2000.ie/cases/cases_7th/case21.htm#05

The Government is also spending c. 20 Billion Euro on improved public transport systems for Dublin - far in excess of any proposals I have seen for a far bigger city such as Paris. This investment is necessary to ensure that our economy can continue to grow by removing infrastructural obstacles to growth...

Zbigniew Mazurak again:

“Data from any national statistic office (French or not French - NOTE THIS, RANOKIVIO) is not reliable - every one of them tries to present its nation as well as it can. The stats you cide are nothing but a fantasy, and you need to realise that no country where abortion is legal will ever have its populace grow. That is a fact.”
You seem to dismiss all facts that do not fit your preconceptions as fantasies even when they come from reputable sources such as national statistics offices. Can you give us a reputable source for your assertion that abortion is illegal in all countries with population growth? Why should we believe your assertions when you supply to facts or official statistics to back them up?

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Frank and Michel, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. What I said ARE facts, and because I don't have much time to spend browsing the Net, I'll just give the URL of an exemplary article (the best on the Net):
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_europe_abandoned_israel_1.html

The author of that article wrote: ‘France still has sufficient immigration to counter declining fertility rates.’

I would have also provided the URL of another article by Amil Imani but he has also made so many other harsh statements about Europe that I won't - I don't want anyone to ever conclude that I'm anti-French.

And finally: some people, including John, should stop insulting me and instead start treating websites more critically. Just because it says X on a certain website does not mean that X is true.

National statistical offices are hardly the most reliable information sources.

So it's YOU who is blind to the truth. You live in a fantastical world.

Poland's medical infrastructure is good, better than Ireland's. The problem is that it is not adequate for the today Polish kid boom - maternity units are bursting because they are full. Your data is simply untrue, and everyone who lives in Poland or doesn't live in Poland but has been to a Polish hospital knows that.

And BBC is supposed to be a reliable source of information? Don't make me laugh. Most Brits agree it is a worthless TV station.

As for Ireland's debt - Frank, I'm a history student, not an economics student, but what I can tell you is that you know nothing about economics or anything else. Yes, Ireland's debt burden has shrank and it was not despite, but BECAUSE OF, tax cuts. Tax cuts enhace GDP growth and cause government revenues to INCREASE, not DECREASE.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

The French are certainly not sex-mad. Dunno about abortion though.

Ranokivio, your own words proved you wrong. You compared France to Italy, Japan, Israel, Germany and America– states which are also terribly burdened by debts. You’ve compared France to these terribly badly governed states and you claim that just because France’s debt burden is slightly smaller, it is not something to be worried about. You are therefore offending your own nation (if you are French) by claiming so. I do not believe that la Republique Francaise deserves to be compared with them. I do not believe that la RF deserves to be a member of THAT league. Do you realise that not only is the Italian government wasteful but also the Italian economy is stagnant? I believe that la RF deserves to be a member of the same league as Estonia (3% debt burden and 11% GDP growth making Estonia first of the 200 sovereign states on the planet).

But now an axiom: 65% debt burden is dangerous. It means that were the debt to be paid quickly, it would mean confiscating 65% of GDP, leaving the French nation with only 35% of GDP for one year. Excluding taxes.

And remember: that is despite small defence expenditures (37 bn euros, obviously inadequate to counter the Russians who not only have the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal but also have threatened to target their nukes at Europe and do not respect the Second CFE Treaty).

Regarding train usage, for Railteam, which has about 2000 HS trains, to transport just 20 million passengers PA (according to Railteam itself) is poor performance. That’s 55000 passengers everyday. Even in Paris more people use the urban transit network (subways, RER, trams and buses).

Even with its TGV trains, the SNCF failed to encourage passengers to cease flying planes. Speed is one reason, but the most important one is how much a ticket costs.

Safety: it is necessary only to protect airports so that neither the airports nor the planes are attacked, and to hire air marshalls. But regarding railways, every kilometre of the railway lines must be protected against saboteurs. Train stations too. Every war since the 1860s has demonstrated that railways are easy to sabotage.

[Ranokivio]

Zbigniew,

I don't have much time right now but I promise I will get back to the discussion tomorrow...if you post a reliable source (just a single one, in english or french) which clearly proves that the fertility rates of Poland is higher than the fertility rates of France.
If you don't, I will not bother and you will have make a fool of yourself.

For the debt per GDP, I only say that France's debt is what it is...Similar to the US, Germany, Canada...a bit worse than the UK and Spain, better than Italy and Israel... Japanese people can live with their country with a debt @ 175% GDP (the shinkansen must be an expensive train!) so I guess the french can live with one at 64%.
Is the ukrainian economy so much better than the polish one?

Cheers.

PS/ It's a bit off topic but I think Velib is a great idea!

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Currently the age of an average Pole is almost the same as the age of an average Frenchman (38 vs 39), reference: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_med_age_tot-people-median-age-total

See? Even the webmasters of stupid websites such as that one admit that.

However, by 2050, while an average Pole will be 38, an average Frenchman will be 53 (and an average Chicomm will be 44). By 2050 most of Europe will be Muslim; in France, Muslims are already burning cars unpunished.

And no, I did not say that abortion is illegal in all countries with population growth (though one could argue that this is true). I only said the reverse: that population growth occurs only in those countries where abortion is illegal. That is a fact, and no websites and no statistical offices are going to change that fact.

Finally: Michel, since you and Frank are utterly unable to disprove a word I’ve said, you’ve instead used false assumptions about me, such as the one about ‘moral conservatism’; I guess that this means you claim that I’m against abortion. So I want it to make it perfectly clear:

I am not pro-abortion, pro-choice nor anti-abortion. Honestly said, I believe that this choice should be left to every woman (whether she is Catholic or not) to make, according to whatever moral rules, Catholic or not, she preaches. I have only reported the truth – that is, that in every country where abortion is legal, the population is shrinking. I am not saying that abortion is good or bad – this is not for me to decide. I’m a man, not a woman.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Frank, read this: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/why_europe_abandoned_israel_1.html

More excerpts from that article:
‘One forecast I read suggests that France may be half Muslim by 2050 given continued immigration and the much higher birth rate for Muslims than other French.’

‘will France still be French if it is half Muslim?’

The French are the last nation I would call sex-mad. The last thing I would say about them is that they are sex-mad. No offence.

More excerpts:
‘recent article I read says the real Muslim population in France may be between 8 and 9 million, as illegal immigration, aided and abetted by Europe's new open borders, has brought more and more Arabs to the country in Europe where they were most numerous already: France.’

‘the comparative birth rates (white Europeans very low, Muslims very high) and immigration levels, soon enough Europe will be Muslim, and the question will be answered.‘

Indeed, guess what is the most popular male infant name in Paris? Mohammed. Marseille? Mohammed. Strasbourg? Mohammed.

This would have been impossible if the French baby boom was real. But it’s not, it’s just a fantasy made up by a few internauts such as Frank. Indeed, his claim that the reason Velib was created is to get the French out of bedrooms, which by itself proves he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

And please do not draw false conclusions that I’m against having sex (because I’m not), or that I’m morally stricly conservative.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Zbig, you should really try not to look so cocksure when you are caught red-handed with wrong assertions.

Not knowing basic French facts when writing from Poland is not a shame, but failing to admit it is.

You are not building up your credibility when you write:

"Robert - no, I am not wrong. Across the ENTIRE EU, the ENTIRE HSR network (TGVs, ICEs, etc.) is used annually by just 20 million people. Compare that to the number of foreign tourists visiting European countries, never mind the residents of those European countries."

1. We were discussing how many people use French long-distance trains. Suddenly you switch the subject, and chose to dilute French figures within European ones.

2. You quote a figure of people allegedly using European trains, "compare" it with the number of tourists visiting Europe (without bothering to come up with an actual figure), and pretend it "proves" trains are underused.

How did you come up with a law stating that a train is appropriately used if x% of tourists travel on it? What is x, exactly? And how do you compute x?

I know of various ways to estimate whether a train is underused or not: compare occupancy with targets; compare occupancy with market averages; compare occupancy with the 100% physical maximum; balance cost and revenue.

But just stating that not enough tourists use them, contrary to all anecdotal evidence and without further figures or arguments, is just baseless chit-chat.

There are many other holes in your arguments, but given your casual attitude to the truth, there is really not much point in picking them up one by one.

The Polish electrician who rewired my Paris home had much more respect for reality than you do. You have to, when you do not want everything to blow up in your face. It is much easier to get away with falsehoods when you are just blogging.

[Valentin]

Maybe I'm unfair towards Zbigniew, but his posting leaves a trail similar to that of the Kaczynski brothers at the last EU summit. The same kind of nationalism, edgy conservatism, lack of moderation...
Reminds me a bit of Terry too ;)

I wonder if anyone in the old EU realized how americanized Eastern Europe countries are, and how little they feel attached to Western Europe - tourism and agricultural subsidies aside.

[terry]

Monika

"your arguments might be right but why do I often get the impression when reading your posts (and particularly yours on this topic) that you just want to talk something bad?"

Well, I'm glad that I might have persuaded you. I don't post just to hear myself talk, as you suggest. If you haven't guessed by now, I am most interested in people (especially government) trying to change people's behavior. That's why I find socialism and people's love for it, so fascinating. And so dangerous. If you noticed, the things I choose to comment on usually have something to do with that subject in some way. I probably wont comment on the jazz article because its a subject that doesnt interest me. I like when people challenge what I say and i like to respond. Isnt that the only way to really learn?

You say it's a fantastic system. But it's hurting private bike owners and won't reduce traffic or pollution. I have given you another perspective that challenges what you believe. Maybe it's that you don't like.

BTW: I am not posting from my mother's basement.

[Michel R, Paris]

Zbigniew, you are just embarrassing yourself, please drop it before you go too far on that dangerous path... The rant about France's Muslim population was all too predictable and shows more about yourself than anything else...

Here is a study about the contribution of foreign-born women (not all "Arabs" or "Muslims") to France's birth rate. You will see that it really is insignificant: without them, France would have a birth rate of 1.8 instead of 1.9, still higher than anywhere in Europe, where foreign-born women also contribute positively to these low birth rates.

http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_telechargement/7659/telechargement_fichier_fr_publi_pdf1_pop.et.soc.francais.432.pdf

I don't know why I'm spending so much time trying to make you admit your mistakes as you will obviously never do so... But let me tell you, you are not showing a very nice image of your country. Not only because of your incapacity to have an argued conversation, but also because of your total lack of humour (see your pathetic answer to Frank's joke on Vélib' and sex)...

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Ranokivio, you wrote:

'I don't have much time right now but I promise I will get back to the discussion tomorrow'

No need to do so, I'm considering ceasing to reply to the gibberish you and Frank are writing. It's strange - I'm shooting evidence like bullets out of a machinegun's barrel - evidence which clearly disproves you - and yet you keep writing fantasies like a 9-year-old.

Another article which everyone must read:

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:qoF7Ec2uvy4J:daveinboca.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html+%22passengers+at+a+time,+if+only+somebody+somewhere%22&hl=pl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=pl&client=firefox-a

Two excerpts:

‘One would assume a demographic disaster is the sort of thing that sneaks up on you because you’re having a grand old time: You stayed in university till you were 38, you took early retirement at 45, you had two months a year on the Cote d’Azur, you drank wine, you ate foie gras and truffles, you marched in the street for a 28-hour work week… It was all such great fun there was no time to have children. You thought the couple in the next street would, or the next town, or in all those bucolic villages you pass through on the way to your weekend home.’

‘On the Continent, claims Professor Krugman, “government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff – to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family.” How can an economist make that claim without noticing that the upshot of all these “family friendly” policies is that nobody has any families? Isn’t the first test of a pro-family regime its impact on families?

As for all that extra time, what happened? Europeans work fewer hours than Americans, they don’t have to pay for their own health care, they don’t go to church and they don’t contribute to other civic groups, they don’t marry and they don’t have kids to take to school and basketball and the county fair.’

You are also wrong about the debt burden. You said that France's debt burden is only slightly worse than Britain's and Spain's - which is false. France's debt burden is 65%, for Britain the figure is 43% (22% less), for Spain the figure is 40% (25% less). DO YOU REALISE HOW MUCH IS 22%? NEVER MIND 22% OF A $2 TRILLION GDP!

Sarkozy is right to cut taxes - because this will mean BIGGER, not SMALLER, tax revenues as GDP growth will become faster. Greater tax receipts will allow him to balance the budget, or maybe even exceed expenditures. Thank God that Sarkozy, not Frank, is the President of France.

If you want to compare France with failed states like Italy and Japan, then I think debating with you is pointless because, as I said, France deserves better.

Robert - yeah, it'd be nice to admit that I am wrong if I was.

BUT I AM NOT, THIS TIME.

I don't need to live in France to know how many residents of that country use trains to know that few do, because:

1) Even WIKIPEDIA editors admitted that TERs are underused and passengers pay only 30% of the operating cost
2) RAILTEAM ITSELF admitted that all European HS trains (across the entire European continent) transport only 20 million passengers each year, which is 55000 passengers per day - across the ENTIRE European continent. More people use buses in my hometown than HS trains in France everyday.

Valentin - I am not a nationalist, nor am I a fan of the Kaczynskis. Quite the opposite. I've just said that France's population is shrinking, and that France's debt is to the tune of 65% of GDP - worser than Britain.

You claim that I am Americanised. Hmm. Then how will you explain my discontent about the American debt burden? Equal to the French figure, 65% of GDP. The answer is that I am not Americanised.

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

RAILWAY APOLOGY

I apologise to all railroad tycoons: whereas I was right about demographics, I was wrong about railways.

The entire European HS railway network is not used by 20 million people PA as I previously said (misled by the Polish press). The correct figure is 15 million PA, i.e. 5 million PA less.

This is 42000 people everyday.

The Railteam's goal for 2010 is unambitious - they plan to increase that to 25 million passengers PA by 2010. That would be 70 passengers per day - on the ENTIRE European HS railway network.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railteam
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9441785

[Zbigniew Mazurak]

Michel – embarassment is a relative term. I don’t care what YOU think about me, and I know that you do not represent your nation.
Firstly, I did not rant about France’s Mulim population, I’ve just pointed out the facts about it. These are backed up by 2 articles.
Your proof is useless. Proof is only proof if it proves you right, but your ‘proof’ doesn’t. FYI, stats from the INSEE, which – like every NSO – will always be unobjective – prove nothing and are therefore irrelevant.
And therefore so are all your claims that I’ve supposedly made some mistakes.
And yes, TODAY I am deadly serious and humourless – but what did you expect when you, Frank and Ranokivio write plain gibberish? (His joke was pathethic anyway).

[Frank Schnittger]

"As for Ireland's debt - Frank, I'm a history student, not an economics student, but what I can tell you is that you know nothing about economics or anything else. Yes, Ireland's debt burden has shrank and it was not despite, but BECAUSE OF, tax cuts. Tax cuts enhace GDP growth and cause government revenues to INCREASE, not DECREASE.

Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | 12 Aug 2007 12:11:25 "

First of all, Zbigniew, if you re-read my post, you will see that I wrote "For instance Ireland's national debt has reduced fro 96% of GDP in 1993 to 23% now whilst at the same time the Government has actually reduced tax rates. "

Yet you misquote me as having said DESPITE the tax cuts when that is clearly not the case!

Secondly, as you have divined that I know nothing about economics or anything else I won't bother to correspond with you again. You complained above about ad hominem attacks directed at you, yet it seems that is the only argument you can make when your "facts" about the Irish fertility rate have been clearly shown to be wrong by a number of contributors.

As Robert Marchenoir has pointed out, humility and honesty in making mistakes don't appear to be your forte. Please don't emigrate to Ireland. Polish people here have a great reputation for honesty, ability. high educational standards and hard work. Goodbye.

[terry]

Why would anyone cite "Professor" Paul Krugman, who is well known for fabricating his facts.

[Zbigniew]

Frank - I would have admitted to a mistake had I made one this time. But I haven't.

You wrote:
'You complained above about ad hominem attacks directed at you, yet it seems that is the only argument you can make when your "facts" about the Irish fertility rate have been clearly shown to be wrong by a number of contributors.'

Actually, it was one of those supposedly well-educated contributors (maybe you, I can't be bothered to scroll and see again) who did the first ad hominem attack by calling my post stupid. Since then, you and a few other childishly-behaving people have used this method several more times, so you can only blame yourself.

And don't worry, I'm not going to bother to immigrate to your country. I don't need to immigrate to Ireland, with it's IRA, Provisional IRA, Sinn Fein and history of killing dozens of innocent Britons (Northern Ireland). I don't need your country.

[Zbigniew]

Terry - I did not cite Krugman, and neither did Mark Steyn, the author of the article I cited. He has DISPROVEN Krugman's claim, by proving that in France and other European countries more people die than are born.

Regarding trains once again:

Someone said that he wants numbers. Well, the Wikipedia article doesn’t just say, TERs are underused, it cites specific numbers. Excerpt from the article:
‘TER services are heavily subsidised by French taxpayers. On average, 72% of the cost is borne by the State and the regional councils, with the travellers paying only about 28% of the cost. This cost tends to increase over time because the regional councils have steadily expanded the number of services. The low profitability of the TER system is primarily due to the way that the services are used by the travelling public, with commuter traffic in the morning and evening but significant under-utilisation during the rest of the day. In addition, passenger numbers are not particularly high; the trains have an average ridership of only about 66 travellers per train.’
Notice the term ‘low profitability’ – this what I dislike abort everything that is unprofitable, be it trans or anything else.

[Zbigniew]

Fact: Only 28% of the cost is paid by passengers who actually used TERs, the rest is paid by taxpayers who don’t use them.
My opinion: It is immoral to tax away cash from people to pay for something they don’t even use. This is not healthcare or education, which everyone uses. This is a rarely used mode of transport.
I guess this is a must-read:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467696394&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

2 excerpts from the article:

‘If you ever wanted to see Paris or Rome before you die, but haven't had a chance to do so, you might want to hurry.’

‘Not since September 8, 1683, when the Ottomans were threatening to breach the walls of Vienna, has Islam been so perilously close to seizing control over Western Europe.’

‘So if you really want to see the Eiffel Tower up close, you had best not delay.’

‘An increasingly Islamified Europe will prove ever more hostile to Israel and America’

Indeed. French soldiers were not send to Iraq. But the reason is NOT cowardice, because the French are not cowards. Indeed, the members of the French military deserve to be respected.

Regarding Chirac, personal disputes may have _exacerbated_ the dispute with the current POTUS, but the real reason was demographic. Whenever the current POTUS comes to France (or almost any other European country) he is greeted by millions of protesters, and millions of people protest every 20 March, even though the French military is not a participant of the war. Imagine what if it was.

[Zbigniew]

Well, that's actually 4 excerpts but they present my case well.

[Frank Schnittger]

Perhaps we should question the premise behind much of this discussion: That somehow it is a good thing for countries to increase their populations all the time.

In the first place, we know that the world's population is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Non renewable resources are being depleted all the time, and the environment is gradually being damaged for all of us. Thomas Malthus proposed that while resources tend to grow linearly, population grows exponentially.

Normally nature responds to overpopulation by famine, disease, mass migration, or massive conflict/competition for increasingly scarce resources. Do we really want war, disease and starvation to be the primary mechanisms for controlling the human population?

Nationalists often cite birth-rates as a sign of a nations virility and will to survive. Hitler actually gave medals to mothers who had had four or more children. He then proceeded to try to find "Lebensraum" for all these people.

We would be far better off directing our energies to helping nations with very high birth, disease, starvation and conflict rates to manage their societies more rationally and within the sustainability limits of their environment.

With soaring productivity rates, it is quite possible to grow an economy whilst the population is stable or even declining. Our long term prosperity and quality of life depends far more on the sustainability of our population than on the absolute numbers we can cram into (e.g.) the Paris region.

Greater migration controls over regions which are not managing their over-population may have to be brought in to prevent them flooding other regions which have managed to control their populations.

There is a humanitarian crisis in many regions of the world. However the solution is not necessarily to facilitate mass migrations from one region to another, but to solve the problems at source.

Some nationalist (and religious) fanatics may try to achieve local or regional dominance by out breeding their neighbours. There is no why reason why tolerant and liberal societies should facilitate this process, particularly where their tolerant and liberal traditions are abused and undermined by the migrations that arise from such excessive fertility...

I'm not advocating "one child policies" as in China. European societies are doing a very good job of regulating their populations without such draconian measures. Generally speaking lower fertility rates go hand in hand with economic and social development. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

It is in all our interests to help lesser developed countries to assist in their development and to improve education, human rights and social security which have all been shown to reduce excessive fertility rates.

This is an issue on which we should be taking a global as opposed to a narrow nationalist or sectarian view.

[Zbigniew]

'I'm not advocating "one child policies" as in China. European societies are doing a very good job of regulating their populations without such draconian measures.'

Indeed, in France abortion is not obligatory as in China, it's just legal. But then again the French are busy everywhere but in the bedroom.

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

Oh, that false article again. Yawn.

'Some nationalist (and religious) fanatics may try to achieve local or regional dominance by out breeding their neighbours.'

If by regional dominance you mean domination in Europe, then you are right, otherwise, you are not.

[Monika]

Terry wrote:
"Well, I'm glad that I might have persuaded you."

Persuaded to what? About traffic reduction due to velib? How did you know that - if - I had the opposite opinion? Now you see me in confusion.

Terry further wrote:
"I don't post just to hear myself talk, as you suggest. If you haven't guessed by now, I am most interested in people (especially government) trying to change people's behavior. That's why I find socialism and people's love for it, so fascinating. And so dangerous. If you noticed, the things I choose to comment on usually have something to do with that subject in some way. I probably wont comment on the jazz article because its a subject that doesnt interest me. I like when people challenge what I say and i like to respond. Isnt that the only way to really learn?"

So I notived. And perhaps it is the only way to learn ... but it is for sure you want others to learn your lessons but you don't want to learn others' lessons ;) You want to teach others but not learn from them.

Terry wrote:
"You say it's a fantastic system. But it's hurting private bike owners and won't reduce traffic or pollution. I have given you another perspective that challenges what you believe. Maybe it's that you don't like."

Actually I am not annoyed by the content of your posts. I simply made an observation as it appears to me. Actually I am not much interested in how you actually like this system (sorry, no offence meant, just to put things into their place).

Btw: there are not many bike shops in Paris. And it is very possible that it harms those shops. Two things nonetheless:
The velib bikes had to be bought somewhere so a manufacturer benefits where local shops might suffer. Of course this is injust to the local furnisher but globally the balance should be neutral, if not improved.
I don't think that velib bikes will replace bikes for those who use the bike for sportive reasons (the velib bikes are not really made for sporting excursions as far as I've observed) or who like to do longer rides. Using a bike for long tours gets very expensive. It is only competitive for very short trips.
There might be further economic benefits from the velib parks: they'll need replacement and maintenance.

[Valentin]

Zbigniew,

I didn't say you're a nationalist, but that your posting has that kind of flavour, and of conservatism, with a certain touch of self-righteousness and stubborness - much like your leaders' negotiation style.
And your phrase about abortion, explained or not, true or false, brings morals into discussion.
The quotes about muslims too, they do sound quite extreme.
Also, your insistence that you only care (to put it briefly) about what is profitable, is a pure american far right slogan. No one in old Europe speaks that way, right or left.

I said not that you, but the whole Eastern Europe is very americanized. You think american, many of your NGO are on american money (Putin is right about this one), you welcome american military presence without realizing the consequences. You guys supported Bush's madness in Iraq from the start, without a sign of questioning. The public opinion in the whole Europe is quite critic about the US, except that in Poland, Romania and the likes. You people are americanized, even if you personally don't accept it.

And then there are phrases like this:
"It is immoral to tax away cash from people to pay for something they don’t even use."

Trains are subsidized not because of lack of passengers, but because prices are kept low, while a car is much more expensive. This is called public service. Every body use it from time to time, and those who use it daily help the economy keep turning. This is why even if a discrimination is made according to use (tickets are much more expensive than a yearly transport pass), it must remain a public service, available when you need it, especially for those who don't afford a car.

This kind of logic abounds in your posts, and it smells of simplistic american-like reasoning.

What's truly immoral is for a few communist workers to block it all whenever they feel like it, just because they can - the sacrosanct right to strike.
What's even more immoral is those TGV people retiring at 50 from too much stress to get themselves hired on much the same job, passing by an untaxable company registered in the Man island, and for a double salary - while continuing to receive their subsidized (for lack of enough contribution) state pension!
This is indeed the summit of immorality.

[Valentin]

The article from Frank is all but false, it comes from The World Factbook, by the CIA, and it says that Poland is one of the countries with the smallest fertility rates (along with Germany, Italy or Spain), while France, the UK, the USA, or Ireland are quite well situated.
This shows it has nothing to do with immigration or abortion.