The French government has just released for consultation its visionary transportation plan for the next 20-30 years, and while I can’t really understand French, if you are able to read French then it will probably make for quite an interesting read. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the plan is the allocation of funding to various transport modes, which is shown in the diagram below: Working in a clockwise direction, 0.5% of the budget is due to be spent on airports, 4.5% on roads (only!!!!!), 32.3% on urban public transport, 9.2% on river-based transport, 1.6% on ports and the remaining 51.9% on rail (mainly intercity I think).

As a quick comparison, this is the cost-breakdown of NZTA’s spending on transport in the Auckland region over the next three years: Whilst I don’t speak French, the excellent blog “The Transport Politic” has translated a few key paragraphs of the French transport plan in this blog post:

Mr. Borloo, a member of President Sarkozy’s conservative administration, has advanced what the plan itself argues is “a drastic change in strategy, a major rupture in resolutely privileging the development of alternatives to road-based transport modes.” The result: Two million tons of carbon dioxide economized each year, part of a nationwide commitment to reducing greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020. In France, transportation consumes 68% of the nation’s gas and produces 28% of all emissions.

The plan, which is worthy of a read for French speakers, has four principal goals: Optimizing the existing transportation system to limit the creation of new infrastructure; improving the performance of the system in serving areas far from major metropolitan areas; improving the energy efficiency of the system; and reducing the environmental impact of the network. These priorities have resulted in what is a clear emphasis on improvements in the country’s already well-developed rail system. Not only will 2,300 kilometers (1,429 miles) of new (true) high-speed rail be under construction or complete by 2020, but two major north-south freight railroad corridors will be developed simultaneously to ramp up the country’s use of trains to transport goods.

In addition, €53 billion will be pointed towards the creation of new works of public transportation operating in fixed guideways, about half of which will go to the massive Grand Paris scheme. The doubling of congested highways such as the Paris-Lille autoroute have been eliminated from consideration, since road infrastructure projects will be kept to the absolute minimum. The program is likely to be approved by the government at the end of this year.

Though the state lacks a long-term funding source for the commitment, the plan suggests that whatever money that is available will go almost entirely to non-automotive modes of transport. Even if the government loses power in 2012, the plan’s goals won’t die off, since the opposition Socialists, in pseudo coalition with the Greens, are just as interested in advancing a similar transportation paradigm.

One particularly interesting paragraph from a translation of part of the plan is this:

The draft SNIT does not increase the overall capacity of roads or highways. Regarding roads, the projects will meet only the requirements of security, to improve access to legitimate concerns and regional fairness, and will erase some points of serious traffic congestion.

Yes, France has a much bigger population than New Zealand does, and yes it’s a more densely populated country. But the completely massive difference between the approaches to transport policy is striking: the French shifting almost completely away from spending money on new roads, while our transport plans focus almost exclusively on building roads of national importance.

In a future where oil will inevitably be a lot more expensive, I can’t help but think that France is taking the far more sensible path.

Share this


  1. France already has 12,000km of motorway running all over the country and with a speed limit of 130km/hr, so there wouldn’t be much pressure to increase the size of the network. That compares to NZ’s 170km, about a sixth the length per capita.

    Marseille is about the same population as Auckland. It has a motorway network with the A7, A50, and A55 running through the middle of the city while the A51, A8, A52, A520, A501, and A502 motorways all run around the outskirts within 20 or 30km of the city center.

    1. With regard to Marseille Much of that will relate to the fact that anyone going to the Côte d’Azur (Nice,Monaco,Cannes) from much of England/France will be travelling along these roads. Also anyone going from Spain and Southern France to Italy and much of Central and Eastern Europe will pass around here.
      Also the Marseille Metro has a daily ridership of 700,000.

    2. Marseille also happens to be a very ugly city — maybe they should get rid of some of those motorways?

      1. I picked Marseille as the French city with a population closest to Auckland. Lyon is smaller, isn’t bad looking, and is surrounded by the A46, A42, A6, A432, A43, A7, and A450 motorways.

        1. I could counter that Auckland is surrounded by SH1, SH 16, SH18, SH 20 (and A &B) but that would be facetious. Better just to point out that France also has a considerably more advanced rail and public transport network than NZ.

  2. Good point David. While France has an excellent system of motorways, it also has a fantastic railway system – including in its cities.

    One could hardly argue that our current transport policies here in NZ are seeking to redress a previous imbalance where public transport got too much funding and roads not enough funding.

    The point is that France realises that things are changing in the future, and that transport planning relates to the future – not the past. In the future oil will be more expensive, we will have to reduce our CO2 emissions from transport and we will have limited capability in our cities to actually build more roads because they’re so space-hungry.

    Of course New Zealand will have never a transport policy that only dedicates 5% of its funding to roads. But I’m sure there’s a happy middle ground somewhere.

    1. My point is that a mix of transport modes is essential. France has already built a comprehensive network of modern roads to the point where they connect pretty much every city and town in the country. That seems to have been the priority, although they obviously also have a good rail system. The road mentioned as being canceled (Lille to Paris) is an upgrade or duplication rather than new conceptually… And to labour the point, Lille has motorway grade N41, A25, A1, A27, A23, N227, A22, and D656 roads. They can afford to prioritise other modes now, whereas NZ’s road system generally dates back to the first half of the last century and isn’t up to scratch.

      1. Obviously a mix of transport is essential, and obviously France has a better public transport network and a better road network.

        I guess there are two real questions though:

        1) Does New Zealand have a mix of transport modes? If not, what are we doing about that to make it better, not worse – so that we have a more robust and resilient transport system?

        2) What’s up with the obsession that we need to complete the road network before we start doing public transport properly?

        1. “What’s up with the obsession that we need to complete the road network before we start doing public transport properly?”

          There is no obsession because that isn’t my argument. The original post made a case for NZ allocating transport funding in similar proportions to France. I was showing that the two countries aren’t similar because France is starting from a position where it already has a well developed network of modern roads. NZ doesn’t, which is why it wouldn’t make sense for us to allocate just 4.5% of transport funding to roads.

        2. Well no I didn’t say that only 5% of NZ’s transport funding should be dedicated to roads. In fact, if you see the comment I made above, I specifically said this:

          “Of course New Zealand will have never a transport policy that only dedicates 5% of its funding to roads. But I’m sure there’s a happy middle ground somewhere.”

      2. So the have “completed” their motorway network, a position we will be in, in Auckland at least, in about 10 years when the WRR is complete 😀 What I would love to see is instead of the the government saying “here is $10bil for motorways” like they have done, saying “here is $10bil for transport, NZTA, Kiwirail and Treasury go and work out what projects will give us the best economic return within this budget”. It may still be that a whole pile of roads (which could be motorways) will do this but it will more likely be a mix.

        1. That would be the logical approach to transport policy Matt I agree. Probably the only time when you would want to be a bit different from that would be if you felt that you needed to look forward a bit more than what the current economic analysis tells you. This is what France seem to have done, in focusing on trying to boost the resiliency of their transport network to higher oil prices and trying to reduce the carbon footprint of the transport network. I guess you could term it something of a “logical illogic”, in that there’s a strong reason behind not necessarily doing exactly what the economics of the projects says.

          In New Zealand we also seem to have something of a vision to look past the pure economic analysis of different transport projects. However, in NZ the illogic seems to be based on the the fact that the Road Transport Forum made a big donation to the National Party, rather than being based on anything as logical as improving the resiliency of the transport network to future changes.

      3. I think you’ll find that many most major state highways follow a completely different route to that of 70 years ago, often even 30 years ago. The road is also of a far better quality with wide shoulders, nice sweeping curves, and fairly regular passing lanes. I think we’ve generally got things about right for provincial state highways, with steady improvements on the most dangerous pieces of road being the right way to go.

  3. One thing to consider when comparing NZ to France is that France needs a huge “interstate” highway network (and a similar international rail network), it is at the centre of western Europe and has land borders with five major economies.

    On the flip side NZ has no land borders at all, all it’s interstate connections are via ports. NZ doesn’t need a comparable amount of highways per capita because it has nowhere for them to go. If you were to look at the number of international sea ports per capita though NZ would win hands down!

  4. @obi – This remark cannot go unchallenged: ‘They can afford to prioritise other modes now, whereas NZ’s road system generally dates back to the first half of the last century and isn’t up to scratch.’

    We travelled along the Napier – Taupo road a few weeks ago. This is a classic example of a state highway that has had virtually every segment rebuilt for gentler grades, more sweeping corners, passing lanes etc etc over many years. That current road would be unrecognisable to a traveller using the road in the 1970s. I can verify this because we were staying with people in the Hawkes Bay who had travelled on “the old” Naper-Taupo road. The New Zealand roading network has had massive investment over the last 50 years and this will accelerate over the next decade.

    In comparison the investment in rail over that period has to be regarded as a joke – no wonder our rail network is in the parlous state it is. One can only continue to fear for the future of the rail network when aspects of current roading investment appears to target competing rail freight and passenger corridors (Auckland-Cambridge 4 laning, Puhoi-Wellsford, Levin-Wellington and now the Tauranga Eastern Link). At the same time NZTA has now merged the various BCRs for individual RoNS Project highways together under banner “warm fuzzy” economics.

    I do understand where the petrolheads are coming from – in their eyes our highway network will not be complete till we have an unlimited speed-limit Autobahn stretching from Whangarei to Christchurch equipped so that V8 Commodores can drag off V8 Falcons! …eh!

  5. Interesting – so many changes afoot in Europe concerning travel modes over the last couple of years. I remember recently reading that UK banks we refusing to loan against new diesel-driven motive stock, because peak oil would render these assets worth significantly less than comparable electric trains – within the lifetime of the loans. Banks don’t make that kind of statement easily, and certainly don’t miss an opportunity to lend on the basis of philosophical future projects. Interesting that such business-orientated decision makers are forging ahead in Europe, where we can’t see beyond the front of our bonnet. The Lloyds report you refer to makes the case very well.

    Just a couple of points that I would draw attention to coming out of the post here –

    1. France has an extensive electrified train network, which has been possible in part due to their embracing of nuclear fuel after the seventies crisis. I don’t agree with this as a sensible long term strategy, but it has allowed them to create infrastructure which is less oil-dependent. We could do well to learn from this – we should be well placed to develop renewable electricity as a major resource, but we lag far behind even the most tardy of european countries, and even the US on this. I get the impression that we built the hydro lakes a long time ago, and would not contemplate many more. However, unless we go there, and add other lines of energy like coastal tidal or coastal wind, we are going to suffer big time when the oil does start to become undersupplied.

    2. A point of correction, but with some complex underlying issues – much of France is not densely populated, in fact the opposite. This is offset by the major urban populations, and by the strategic location the country has within europe, such that networks have developed for different reasons to ours. They also have interesting problems in that there are effectively several tiers of rail networks – the strategic intercity links are fantastic, TGV et al are truly amazing, even compared to trains in the UK and other european countries, but there are alot of very marginal local rail lines serving the countryside which have been neglected and run with poor stock and services. Not all, but alot. The classic network theory applies – the feeders keep the mainlines busy – but they effectively struggle with the same arguments that come up for us on rail vs. road to service the land-based economy. That said, I think their approach to engineering and network building could teach us lots of lessons.

  6. It is interesting to note that one of the reasons France got it’s network of TGV high speed train lines (which are being significantly extended) is that it is a highly centralised country. Presidents like Mitterand pushed a long-term agenda which included high speed rail as a major asset of the country. And because they were so centralised, they could push it through.

    Like NZ, really. Wellington calls the shots, and everyone else has to agree. Except that we seem to think that cars will and should remain king.

    On another note, just as France may have a good electricity security via nuclear power, we still have a good electricity security via hydro power. Sure, people talk about dry storage lakes every now and then – but there’s no droughts forcast for NZ’s future in general. There IS a forecast shortage of gas, petroleum and other fossil fuel, which NZ is set to weather much easier than other countries in terms of electricity (only). So we are in a great position to invest into electric trains and trams.

  7. Hi,

    I like your site! Translation? Try google’s machine translation if you are interested in knowing whats in a document or web page. Its a starting point and then if it makes you more interested you can take the next step to find a person to get all the details right.

    Just go to google translate: and copy from the pdf to paste in to the tool. Here is a portion translated for free with this free tool:

    The “national framework for transport infrastructure sets the direction of the state for maintenance, modernization and development of networks within its jurisdiction. (…) It is
    to promote the conditions for deferral to the modes of transport more environmentally friendly “(law of programming for the implementation of the Grenelle Environment).
    As such, the project presented below relates only to broad guidelines considered inte-
    est and is a national review of decisions of the Interdepartmental Committee on Planning and
    development of the territory of December 18, 2003. The chosen strategy is structured around four
    ? Optimize the existing transportation system to limit the creation of new infrastructure
    ? Improve the performance of the transport system in the service territories
    ? Improve the energy efficiency of the transport system
    ? Reduce the environmental footprint of infrastructure and transport equipment
    Under the Environment Round Table, the proposed national framework for infrastructure
    transport (SNIT) thus constitutes a drastic change of strategy, a major break in
    he strongly favors the development of alternative transportation to the road: rail, transit lanes in the river, the sea.
    First Priority: the rail. The proposed project underscores the commitment to give France a network
    comprehensive and high quality. This is the preferred mode of transportation for both passengers and for
    The revival of river transport is realized by writing the Canal Seine Nord Europe, absolutely binding framework of the Paris region and major waterways of northern
    The ports will be developed to enhance their competitiveness, focusing on the quality of their
    service and the creation of multimodal terminals.
    A major part is given to urban public transport, most of the new vector
    commuting behavior. The state intervenes and financially in the development of many projects in transport lanes in urban areas of
    any size.
    In air transport, the draft retains only SNIT airports in Mayotte and NotreDame Landes, on the latter subject to the existence of a railway.
    The draft SNIT does not increase the overall capacity of the motorway network. In
    road matters, proposed projects only meet the requirements of security, to-
    legitimizing open up concerns and territorial equity, and the desire to erase
    some points of serious congestion trafic.2
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    Rail transport
    Fashion? Uvial
    urban (32.3%)
    Road transport
    Air mode
    Relative share by mode of transport investments on the horizon of SNIT
    The investment program on the horizon of SNIT (170 billion € 20 to 30 years) clearly illustrates the transportation revolution initiated by the Grenelle Environment Forum, as part of
    the fight against climate change.
    A strategic framework, developed in consultation with all stakeholders.
    The national transport infrastructure is an important commitment of the Grenelle
    the environment. This is a strategic framework developed as part of a strategic process also involving all stakeholders widely Grenelle.
    Thus, each project was analyzed in terms of the multi grid developed in spring 2009
    consultation with stakeholders Grenelle and adopted by the Monitoring Committee in Grenelle
    last September. The Commissioner General for Sustainable Development has meanwhile been seized
    parallel to assess the application of this methodology to the entire project.
    The proposed project will be discussed extensively with representatives of all
    member organizations of the National Committee on Sustainable Development and Environment Round Table (CNDDGE) in July and September.
    It is subject to the environmental authority for review.
    Reworked, amended, it will in the end, the subject of new interdepartmental exchanges, and in October-November, the public consultation, local elected officials concerned and Economic Council,
    social and environmental (in its new composition). Finally it will be debated in Parliament.
    The national transport infrastructure for the next 20 to 30 years
    will be stopped before the end of the year 2010.3
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    Introduction 5
    I. Strategy 7
    1. The frame 7
    1.1. A State policy on transport marked by ambitious targets 7
    1.2. A national framework for transport infrastructure (SNIT) must decline the policy of the State 7
    1.3. A scheme which covers the issue of infrastructure 8
    1.4. A scheme for the state and its operators 8
    1.5. A scheme which is part of a continuous improvement process 9
    2. 9 issues
    2.1. A modern transport system performance and to ensure the economic development of countries 9
    2.2. A modern transport system and efficient for the well being of its inhabitants 9
    2.3. A modern transport system and a powerful environmental perspective 10
    2.4. A modern transport system and a powerful energy point of view. 10
    2.5. A multimodal transportation system 10
    3. The contribution of the Scheme 11
    3.1. Four major principles to govern the state policy on transport 11
    3.2. Four axes to structure state policy on transport infrastructure 12
    II. 13 actions
    1. Optimize the existing transportation system 13
    1.1. Ensure a high level of security infrastructure 13
    1.2. Ensure optimal use of network capacity by reducing congestion points 13
    1.3. Ensure the robustness of the transport system 14
    1.4. The corresponding actions 14
    2. Improve the performance of the transport system in the service territories of 15
    2.1. Improve regional accessibility 15
    2.2. Improve the quality of service provided to users 18
    3. Improve the energy efficiency of the transport system 18
    3.1. Making the supply of transport with low emissions of greenhouse gases relevant and powerful 18
    3.2. Practicing maintenance or operation of infrastructure weakly emissive 19
    3.3. The corresponding actions 19
    4. Reduce the environmental footprint of infrastructure and transport equipment 20
    4.1. Fight against nuisance Local 20
    4.2. Fight against water pollution and soil 21
    4.3. Strengthen biodiversity 21
    4.4. The corresponding actions 22
    III. Development projects 23
    1. Map of major rail development projects 26
    2. Map of major development projects freight rail 284
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    3. Map of major port development projects and river 30
    4. Project map of the Paris public transport development 32
    5. Map of the main objectives of development projects of urban public transport
    off Ile de France 34
    6. Map of main road 36 goals
    7. Project map optimization of air transport 40
    IV. Monitoring 43
    V. First elements of evaluation 45
    1. The evaluation process of the schema: defining elements 45
    2. The overall assessment 45
    2.1. External consistency 45
    2.2. Internal Consistency 46
    2.3. Effectiveness 47
    2.3.1. Rebalance the transport demand in favor of alternatives to road and air 47
    2.3.2. Reduce CO2 emissions
    2.3.3. Optimize network use in connection with transport demand. 48
    2.4. Efficiency 48
    3. EA 49
    3.1. Fragmentation of the natural environment and new pressures on the Natura 2000 49
    3.2. Consumption of pesticides and salt 49
    3.3. Use space 50
    3.4. Potential interactions, positive or negative, with the environment 50
    4. Summary 56
    VI. Financial estimate of a national 57
    1. Rail mode 57
    2. Port Mode 57
    3. River mode 57
    4. Urban public transport mode 57
    5. Road transport 57
    6. Air mode 57
    Annex I: Key data transport in France 59
    Annex II: 63 action sheets
    Axis 1: Optimize the existing transportation system 73
    Axis 2: Improving the performance of the transport system in serving territories, all scales combined, ensuring its proper articulation between the different scales 101
    Axis 3: Improving the energy efficiency of the transport system to reduce
    emissions of greenhouse gases and dependence on oil from the transport sector 119
    Area 4: Reduce the environmental footprint of infrastructure and transport equipment 133
    Annex III: Evaluation Grid development projects 161
    Appendix IV: Using transport model MODEV, changing assumptions
    passenger and freight traffic in 1735
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    Article 16 of Law No. 2009-967 of 3 August 2009 relating to the implementation of
    Grenelle Environment states that “a national framework for transport infrastructure fixed
    guidelines of the state in maintenance, modernization and development of networks
    within its competence, to reduce environmental impacts and consumption of
    agricultural and natural areas, and in terms of aid given to local authorities for
    developing their own networks. ”
    In this perspective, the pattern of national transport infrastructure is a strategy document that sets broad guidelines for the state’s transportation infrastructure. It includes a
    plan of action to implement these guidelines in concrete.
    The diagram also identifies, based on a multi-criteria analysis, major infrastructure projects
    whose implementation is desirable on the horizon 20-30 years, and whose studies should thus be
    continued. It is in this revision of CIADT December 18, 2003.
    The diagram is consistent with the policies recently implemented (performance contract between the state and RFF national commitment to rail freight, port reform law, plane
    modernization of road routes 2009-2014) who, for their part, the decline sectorally
    Environment commitments for the environment.
    Accordingly, the scheme is national infrastructure
    ? a clear strategy to build an efficient transport system, contributing to the fulfillment of international commitments, European and national government;
    ? 58 actions that guide the policies of infrastructure managers, in terms of operation, maintenance and system upgrades;
    ? a choice of development projects based on a multicriteria evaluation grid, built in consultation with stakeholders in the Round Table;
    ? environmental integration strongly enhanced transport infrastructure
    ? 170 billion euros invested in the development of transport infrastructure,
    over 90% in alternatives to road and air;
    ? nearly 2 million tonnes of CO2
    saved annually;
    ? a contribution to the creation or retention of about 65 000 direct jobs and indirect
    per year over 20 years.6
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    PRELIMINARY project7
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    I. Strategy
    This chapter describes the context within which the national framework for infrastructure
    transportation, the challenges it must meet. He stated in this context the guidelines of the
    State policy on infrastructure to reconcile environmental, economic development and social progress.
    1. The framework
    1.1. A State policy on transport marked by ambitious targets
    Following the Grenelle Environment Forum, the State has undertaken to operate, maintain, modernize and
    develop its network of transport infrastructure in order to make it more efficient while
    including in particular three structural issues:
    ? contribute to 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2020. Pursuant to the commitment of France to divide by 4 GHG emissions between 1990 and 2050;
    ? contribute to the preservation of natural environments, to maintain an environment respectful of biodiversity and beyond health;
    ? participate in the goal of improving energy efficiency by 20% of the European Community by 2020.
    In this context, the policy of the State’s infrastructure should aim to organize the rebalancing of the transport demand in favor of alternative modes to road and air travel more energy efficient and environmental footprint often lower to ensure sustainability
    environmental and energy transport system.
    It must also reinforce the inclusion of environmental requirements and reduce
    consumption of agricultural and natural areas in the implementation of maintenance policies,
    modernization and development of infrastructure networks.
    Finally, it must give priority to infrastructure optimization of existing networks
    and use before being considered for development.
    1.2. A national framework for transport infrastructure (SNIT) must decline
    State policy
    The national scheme is intended to implement the State policy on infrastructure
    transportation consistent with the guidelines laid down at the end of the Grenelle environment.
    This is to ensure that, while addressing the mobility needs and requirements of competitiveness and performance inherent in the global competition in which the French company
    part of the transportation system within the jurisdiction of the state contributes to the objectives brought
    the Grenelle Environment Forum. In particular the respect for the environment, public health issues, the fight against climate change, improving energy are
    fully integrated into the very foundations of this policy, and with this last
    lead to an increase in the efficiency of the transport system for the benefit of the whole
    In this perspective, the Act No. 2009-967 of 3 August 2009 relating to the implementation
    work of the Grenelle Environment specifically provides that the scheme: 8
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    ? “Sets the direction of the state for maintenance, modernization and development
    networks within its competence, to reduce environmental impacts and
    consumption of agricultural and natural areas, and in terms of aid given to local authorities to develop their own networks “(s.17);
    ? organizes “the conditions of deferral to the modes of transport more environmentally friendly by pursuing, simultaneously, the following three objectives: the European and national level, continue the construction of a rail system, marine
    river and high level of service for passengers and for freight; at regional level, strengthen
    multipolarity of the Regions; locally, improve travel in metropolitan areas “: the national scheme sets out the investments in new infrastructure
    that will, at different territorial levels, to organize a real complementarity
    between modes with an acceptable environmental impact. The scheme is in this
    “CIADT a revision of the 2003” which established including a list of major infrastructure projects to be undertaken by the State;
    ? “Ensure the overall coherence of transport networks and assess their impact on the environment and the economy.” The national plan includes a monitoring system based on indicators to measure the effectiveness of measures proposed, including their effects under
    various issues that the state policy in transport infrastructure
    must respond.
    1.3. A scheme which covers the issue of infrastructure
    The scheme covers infrastructure. It is therefore not intended to address all issues related to transport, which for many of them, particularly in the areas of
    rail, air or sea, are also issues of supply and quality
    transportation services. If SNIT aims to enable the development of a transportation system that
    meet the challenges of sustainable development posed by the Round Table, it can not by itself guarantee
    achieving the goals that depend, among other
    ? offers in place by operators in a market open to competition,
    ? quality of service rendered,
    ? mechanisms for regulating the travel demand,
    ? behavior of households and more generally economic stakeholders,
    ? improving environmental performance and energy vehicles,
    ? decentralized policies of the various transport authorities.
    All these points are outside the scope of the scheme. The SNIT aims to define policy
    to operate, maintain, modernize and develop the network infrastructure
    Transportation of the State so that the network can support without being a hindrance, changes desired
    the expression of mobility.
    1.4. A scheme for the state and its operators
    The transport sector is in France, 21
    century skills in an area largely
    shared. The SNIT does in this context that the only policy of the state’s transportation infrastructure. In particular, the principles of self-government of
    local government and subsidiarity, he leaves it to them to define their choices and
    guidelines for infrastructure and transport facilities. Provided that:
    ? State intends, through this scheme, an example of what can be done to
    improve the consideration of issues including environmental policies in-9
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    transport infrastructures while meeting the performance requirements of French society
    lish in a context of high public spending restraint;
    ? the SNIT specifies how the State intends to support local authorities in developing their transport infrastructure;
    ? SNIT contributes to the overall coherence of transport networks, particularly in that it formalizes the tools for decision support and trade-offs (large projects) that take into account
    needs of the territories and their populations. It should be a planning reference
    for the different territories in the interests of good coordination between transportation policies, planning and spatial development laid, firstly, by the State, other
    partly by local authorities.
    1.5. A scheme which is part of a continuous improvement process
    The SNIT part of a process of continuous improvement and will be gradually expanded and
    depth in the context of regular reviews provided by law.
    SNIT expresses the strategic directions of the State on the date on which he was arrested. These guidelines are divided into actions and projects that embody their conditions for implementing this
    same date. The inclusion of a project or no action has yet to render this project or action immediately enforceable. Any project or action and is registered subject to the law
    Common to which it belongs. It will therefore in due course, through the various stages of assessment,
    consultation, public inquiry and approval prior to its implementation.
    It follows that the evaluation of SNIT based on information that was reasonably possible to gather, given the knowledge and methods of assessment of
    content and accuracy of the scheme, and with stages in the decision process
    projects and activities it contains. The evaluation of the scheme is fully in the process
    Continuous Improvement SNIT: some aspects of the projects and actions will be evaluated at other stages of their decision-making process and benefit from knowledge gained in the meantime. The
    methods, data and assessment tools SNIT will also gradually improved to
    make revisions to the assessment SNIT more accurate and complete.
    2. Issues
    2.1. A modern transport system to ensure efficient and economic development
    Transport infrastructure to help increase the competitiveness of the economy by promoting trade and boost growth and employment. An efficient transport system
    indeed constitutes a major element of a functioning modern economy, its ability
    to meet the needs to produce, attract investors … An efficient transport function is
    required to secure trade and efficient allocation of production factors. Thus
    that infrastructure performance and more generally of the transport system is regularly cited by the economic as a key factor of attractiveness and
    performance of the national territory at different scales.
    2.2. A modern transport system and efficient for the well being of
    its inhabitants
    Beyond its major role in the economy, the transportation function is directly involved in meeting the mobility needs of each. It is an essential element of access to ter-10
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    tories, the poles of jobs, public services (schools, hospitals, social facilities, etc.) and
    as shopping, recreation, etc.. This contribution is a new urgency with the changes
    societal whether demographic factors (the cost of travel in the budgets of
    households, an aging population, for example) or social.
    In addition, transport is primarily a consumer service through: it is an auxiliary
    work or school activities, recreational activities, production (agriculture, industry, …) or consumption. The demand for transport and infrastructure needs through
    result can therefore be understood in relation to lifestyles, strategies
    implementation of production activities or logistics areas, urban form, residential patterns of development, etc.. and therefore with the structure and needs of the territories
    and their populations, at all levels, international, European, national, regional or
    At the same time, transport activities influence the distribution and habitat, with the conse-
    sequences that are not consistently positive and should try to control, particularly through better coordination of public policies.
    2.3. A modern transport system and a powerful environmental perspective
    If the transport infrastructure to help increase the productivity and well being of people,
    they also have an environmental cost that can sometimes be important. They consume scarce resources (man-made natural spaces, segmentation with destruction of natural habitats
    necessary linkages between ecosystems, …) that could otherwise contribute to growth,
    well-being or to be preserved for their heritage value. The artificiality of natural
    is a levy on natural capital, whose effects are difficult to reverse and
    manifest beyond the space directly subtracted, including medium and indirectly
    long term.
    2.4. A modern transport system and a powerful energy point of view.
    Transport is responsible alone for more than 23% of greenhouse gas emissions across
    World. In France, it represents 28% of GHG emissions (measured in CO2 eq
    ) And 34.2%
    those of CO2
    The other sectors being strongly appeal to the majority of electricity
    carbon-free or have implemented systems to capture their emissions. It is essential
    the urgency of the matter is now widely accepted that transport is involved in the effort
    committed to fight against climate change.
    Moreover, in France, transportation accounts for 68% of the consumption of petroleum products.
    This dependence vis-à-vis fossil fuels is now a major factor in frailty
    transport system.
    2.5. A multimodal transportation system
    Transport policy must respond to a multitude of often very specific questions:
    Who moves? For what purpose? At what point? To go where? With what financial constraints?etc.. In this context it is necessary to build a transport infrastructure policy coherent and efficient, able to rely on all
    transport services and to organize complementarities. The national square in the heart of
    transport policy development of intermodality. No mode of transport is in
    effect inherently more effective or less effective than another. It depends on the nature of the requirements of 11
    DRAFT of 09/07/2010
    travel to meet, place, or the context in which these needs are expressed. Only a
    strongly multimodal approach can provide an appropriate response.
    In this goal, trying to re SNIT consistent with the guidelines of the Grenelle
    than road and air transport. This is not to exclude those modes of transport but the
    in place an integrated policy. The road, for example, continue to represent the bulk of
    travel for short to medium distance outside urban areas due to lack of competitive alternatives
    credible. The importance that society attaches to this mode of travel, as well as its economic relevance to certain types of travel, can not overcome it. This
    in this context to ensure that road use is limited to trips for which
    there are no reasonable alternatives.
    Similarly the airline must focus on its area of ​​relevance, including long distance links or links that include maritime clippings.
    3. The contribution of the diagram
    3.1. Four major principles to govern the state policy regarding
    The diagram is a tool for implementation of guidelines for organizing the Round Table
    consistency of government policy on infrastructure. As has been pointed out previously, the guidelines from the Grenelle lead to review the transport policy to
    strengthen its contribution to the fight against climate change, reducing dependence
    hydrocarbons and the preservation of biodiversity and health.
    To achieve the objectives and recalled at 1, transport policy must be based
    on a multifaceted approach that combines both the incentive to change behavior,
    enhancement of technological advances (particularly in the field of engines and use
    carbon-free energy) and better integration of environmental issues.
    It is through this approach that encouraged the expression of mobility embedded within
    responsible behavior with regard to environmental requirements in all cases based on technological developments aiming at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases
    and local pollutants, to a lesser dependence on oil and more generally to a
    lower energy consumption. It is also to structure the offer of transportation so
    that mobility needs to be realized in greater respect for natural environments. This
    finally integrated into the investment policies and environmental concerns.
    This approach has four main principles of action:
    ? focus in France, already well-equipped, better use of existing network infrastructure before considering their development (see Figure 1 below);
    ? maintenance, modernization and development of networks, when it is necessary
    must meet specific targets, dictated by the needs of the people and economy of the territories, focusing on optimizing the service provided to users;
    ? organize the transport system so that the demand for mobility-oriented
    responsible behavior with regard to environmental requirements, may turn
    to the most effective modes of energy point of view;
    ? include the enhancement of environmental quality at every stage of policy maintenance, modernization and development réseaux.12

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *