Paris introduit l'interdiction 4x4 - pourquoi ne pas l'essayer à Londres?

Outre-Manche, les Français ne peuvent plus nous rivaliser avec les vins et les fromages, mais quand il s'agit de transport et de l'environnement, ils restent à la tête du peloton (OK, OK, et laissant de côté les bien-pensants de la Scandinavie et le nord de l'Europe).

Leurs chemins de fer publics fonctionnent mieux et plus vite et ils sont moins coûteux pour le consommateur. En termes de densité des chemins, la France a 497 mètres pour 1.000 habitants, comparativement à 276m du Royaume-Uni.  En France, près d'un tiers des voyages sont à pied, par rapport aux personnes ici, qui ne marche d'un huitième du temps et conduire une voiture deux fois sur trois (ce qui dans un pays moins dispersé et plus densément peuplé) .

Maintenant les gaulois prennent des mesures pour interdire les voitures les plus polluantes des centres-villes. Signalé dans Le Monde, une demi-douzaine autorités municipales,  comprisant Paris, Lyon et Clermont, sera à partir de 2012 refuser l'acces de 4x4 et certains vieux véhicules diesel comme ils ont créé des "zones d'action prioritaires pour l'air" (ZAPA). Selon le ministre de l'environnement de la France, plus de 160 villes à travers l'Europe ont déjà mis en place des expériences similaires.

Le procès est typique du golfe dans la gouvernance environnementale entre le Royaume-Uni et le reste de l'Europe. La mentalité plus dirigeiste sur le continent, notamment en France, dit "pas d'histoires". Par exemple: besoin d'une belle, droite, ligne ferroviaire à grande vitesse entre Paris et Marseille, Monsieur le Président? Simple... Ici, je vous presente, le TGV!

Le maire de Londres, Boris Johnson, ne rêve pas de mettre en œuvre une telle interdiction 4x4 dans certaines parties de notre capitale, en dépit de la santé et les avantages environnementaux qu'elle pourrait apporter.

French towns ban most polluting cars from town centres

Across the Channel, the French may no longer be able to rival British wine and cheese but when it comes to transport and the environment they remain à la tête du peloton (okay, okay, and leaving aside the green-fingered do-gooders of Scandinavia and northern Europe).

Their publicly owned railways function better and faster and are cheaper to the consumer.  In terms of railway density, France has 497 metres of track per 1,000 inhabitants, compared to the UK's 276m.  The French conduct nearly a third of journeys on foot, compared to people in England & Wales, who only walk one-eighth of the time and drive a car two times out of three (this in a less dispersed, more densely populated, country).  Apparently our trains do offer better Wi-Fi (if you coughed, don't worry, that's a perfectly natural reaction).

Now Gallic green-thinkers are taking steps to outlaw the most polluting cars from town centres.  Reported in Le Monde, half a dozen municipal authorities, including Paris, Lyon and Clermont, will from 2012 refuse access to certain 4x4's and old diesel vehicles as they set up "les zones d'action prioritaires pour l'air" (ZAPA).  According to France's environment minister, more than 160 towns across Europe have already put in place similar experiments.

The trial typifies the gulf in environmental governance between the UK and the rest of Europe.  The more dirigeiste mentality on the Continent, particularly in France, just goes and does things.  For instance: need a nice, straight, high-speed railway line between Paris and Marseilles, Monsieur President?  Straightforward.

The present Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has not just a mere modicum of John Bull about him and wouldn't dream of implementing any such 4x4 ban in parts of our capital, regardless of the health and environmental benefits it could bring.

Britain's railways are a nationalised industry. Let's admit it instead of making a meal of it.

The Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond, announced this morning a further £8 billion of investment for Britain's railway network.

I have long suggested that Britain halts in its tracks this charade that railways are part of a privatised industry run by profit motivated private companies driven by the spirit of healthy competition (see my most recent article on the subject here and mention of it in my party conference diary).

The Government was already supporting Britain's railways to the tune of £5 billion per year yet fares continued to rise, services trimmed, overcrowding continued (see a recent damning report from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee) and standards are falling.

This extra investment will go towards providing 2,000 more carriages in order to address the overcrowding problem (although they won't all be in place until 2019).  Worryingly, it does not tackle the problem of exponentially rising fares.  How could £8 billion not be used, in some way, to mitigate, if not freeze (dare I say reduce?) fares?

The BBC reports that passengers face an average fare rise of 6.2% in 2011, with some commuters seeing their tickets go up by as much as 12.8%.  For what justification?  To safeguard this extra investment, according to the Government.  More money to protect the influx of more money?  Behind this paradox is a horrible reality: railway finances are worse than we thought.  Railway companies on the whole are, for all sensible intents and purposes, bust.

Fares are a big issue.  For us to achieve the green revolution necessary in transport, to get people out of their cars and on to the platforms, to eradicate much of the demand for carbon-wasteful internal UK flights - railways must be competitive to customers.  I'm not talking about commuters, whose captive market fares are already protected by legislation and have been for 150 years (admittedly, I don't feel so charitable on purchase of my annual season ticket).  I'm talking about the people faced with the choice of flying to Edinburgh or taking the train, or the people (myself included) who see two hours on the M4 as preferable to the cost of a ticket between London and Bristol.

I don't see anything wrong in Government investment in, and subsidising of, the nation's railway network: in fact, I encourage it.  Collect the proceeds of re-privatisation of state-owned banks and put some of it towards bringing the railways back into public ownership.  Now that could be the start of a real green transport revolution.

Admit that the railways were a privatisation too far (enough Conservative politicians have acknowledged it privately) and a market experiment that hasn't worked.  Instead of this piecemeal, proxy nationalisation, let's be honest and let's do the job properly.

P.S. Martin Kettle at the Guardian has written an excellent piece here about the price of rail travel as being the uppermost concern.