If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
New York Times
A Tunnel Too Far By CHRISTIAN WOLMAR Published: May 10, 2004 LONDON — When the Channel Tunnel opened 10 years ago Friday, it was hailed as an engineering marvel, a new paradigm for the private financing of public-works projects and a way to integrate Britain into a continent it had always held at arm's length. But it has not worked out that way: while the 31-mile-tunnel linking Folkestone and Calais was a technological success, it's been a miserable failure both financially and politically. These two failures are linked. Had the tunnel inspired the two countries to forge closer links and made the border crossing an irrelevance — as is the case with most of the other borders within the old European Union — then traffic would have been much greater. But that has not happened. Consequently, revenues from the tunnel have been well below expectations and the company in charge, Eurotunnel, is effectively bust — which helps explain why the 10-year anniversary passed with scant celebration. Eurotunnel has debts of $11 billion and its income from passengers and freight is not enough to pay even the interest. In a desperate attempt to save the company and the value of its stock, a group of small French shareholders ousted Eurotunnel's board in April. The shareholders want the British and French governments to bail out the company, but their action is more likely to ensure that the banks move in to take over the tunnel — which will make their shares worthless. While the tunnel is in many ways a technological success, it has a significant flaw: you can't drive through it. In 1984, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher announced an effort to connect Britain and the continent — a surprising project for a politician dedicated to distancing herself from Europe — she hoped that the result would be a quick and convenient road connection with France. But that proved impossible. A channel bridge or a ventilated car tunnel (which would have required air chimneys reaching to the surface) would have been too dangerous in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Instead, we ended up with a rather uninspiring and cumbersome rail link that cost $15 billion, more than twice the estimated pricetag. The tunnel now offers shuttles carrying trucks and cars between the British and continental coasts, and through trains for freight and passengers, but none of these services have been successful. In particular, the number of passengers using Eurostar, the train service linking London with both Brussels and Paris, has been well below expectations, with a mere seven million passengers per year compared with original predictions of 17 million. The builders had predicted that the tunnel would force its chief rivals — the cross-Channel car and passenger ferries — out of business. The ferries, however, still command 50 percent of the market. Many passengers prefer a one-and-a-half hour cruise with a view of the White Cliffs of Dover over a half-hour trip in a gloomy rail carriage with tiny windows. Those traveling through the tunnel do not even get a glimpse of the sea, a key mistake by the tunnel's architects. And then there are rivals that barely existed in 1994: budget airlines. There are 50 daily round-trip flights between London and Paris, most of them much cheaper than a Eurostar ticket; many travelers think planes are quicker even though the train is much faster city center to city center. The rail journey between central London and central Paris is two and a half hours; while the flight itself is only an hour, once airport travel is taken into account, the journey is much longer. In truth, those high predictions of passenger volume were a bit of a con, intended to attract investors to what was supposed to be a wholly private project. The numbers were never really achievable, but were used to get guaranteed regular payments from the state-run railways for millions of phantom passengers. But those payments dry up in 2006, a deadline that has helped precipitate the current crisis. The hard truth is that the private sector alone can never build these massive infrastructure projects because the risks are too great and the return is too small. Similar links, like the Oresund bridge between Denmark and Sweden, have been joint public-private ventures or financed entirely by the state. The tunnel will survive. It will be worth keeping open because its revenue is greater than its operating costs — and, in any case, it would be far too embarrassing for the respective governments to mothball such a huge project. It will limp on, unloved and underused. But the real cause of its failure is that Britain and France are no closer together today than a decade ago. The British have remained aloof from their European neighbors and the French show little inclination to tour the land of les Rosbifs, still preferring to head toward the Mediterranean at holiday time. Indeed, recent events confirm that Britain — or at least its government — is closer to its American ally than to France, Germany and Italy. The last land link between Britain and France was worn away by storms after the last Ice Age. It seems we will have to wait until the next one for Britain to become truly part of Europe again. Christian Wolmar is the author of the forthcoming "Subterranean Railway," a social history of London's Underground, and a columnist for Rail magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10WOLM.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
May be from the NYT but Christian Wolmar is a UK based journalist. The
magazine he writes for "Rail" does not seem to be well respected by some members of the UK rail industry judged by some comments in other news groups. He runs two web sites: http://www.transportblog.com/ http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/ -- ***** *****The "return to" address embedded in this mail is wrong as an antispam measure. Please address new mails or replies to edwarddotharrison1atbtinternetdotcom replacing dot with a . and at with an @***** ***** |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
Sufaud wrote:
I imagine one of the reasons that Eurostar has not produced on this chunnel route is their hostile pricing. We would have happily used the rail link for our return to London last summer -- but one way tickets were incredibly expensive [while they were simultaneously marketing ridiculously cheap round trips with significant advance purchast] We flew instead -- the cost was about 4 times greater to take the train. I think most people expect to pay a bit more for one way than half round trip and a bit more with ticket purchase nearer the time of departure -- but whereas airlines really dont have any competition and can get away with their ridiculous pricing -- a train system can't -- there are other options New York Times A Tunnel Too Far By CHRISTIAN WOLMAR Published: May 10, 2004 LONDON — When the Channel Tunnel opened 10 years ago Friday, it was hailed as an engineering marvel, a new paradigm for the private financing of public-works projects and a way to integrate Britain into a continent it had always held at arm's length. But it has not worked out that way: while the 31-mile-tunnel linking Folkestone and Calais was a technological success, it's been a miserable failure both financially and politically. These two failures are linked. Had the tunnel inspired the two countries to forge closer links and made the border crossing an irrelevance — as is the case with most of the other borders within the old European Union — then traffic would have been much greater. But that has not happened. Consequently, revenues from the tunnel have been well below expectations and the company in charge, Eurotunnel, is effectively bust — which helps explain why the 10-year anniversary passed with scant celebration. Eurotunnel has debts of $11 billion and its income from passengers and freight is not enough to pay even the interest. In a desperate attempt to save the company and the value of its stock, a group of small French shareholders ousted Eurotunnel's board in April. The shareholders want the British and French governments to bail out the company, but their action is more likely to ensure that the banks move in to take over the tunnel — which will make their shares worthless. While the tunnel is in many ways a technological success, it has a significant flaw: you can't drive through it. In 1984, when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher announced an effort to connect Britain and the continent — a surprising project for a politician dedicated to distancing herself from Europe — she hoped that the result would be a quick and convenient road connection with France. But that proved impossible. A channel bridge or a ventilated car tunnel (which would have required air chimneys reaching to the surface) would have been too dangerous in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Instead, we ended up with a rather uninspiring and cumbersome rail link that cost $15 billion, more than twice the estimated pricetag. The tunnel now offers shuttles carrying trucks and cars between the British and continental coasts, and through trains for freight and passengers, but none of these services have been successful. In particular, the number of passengers using Eurostar, the train service linking London with both Brussels and Paris, has been well below expectations, with a mere seven million passengers per year compared with original predictions of 17 million. The builders had predicted that the tunnel would force its chief rivals — the cross-Channel car and passenger ferries — out of business. The ferries, however, still command 50 percent of the market. Many passengers prefer a one-and-a-half hour cruise with a view of the White Cliffs of Dover over a half-hour trip in a gloomy rail carriage with tiny windows. Those traveling through the tunnel do not even get a glimpse of the sea, a key mistake by the tunnel's architects. And then there are rivals that barely existed in 1994: budget airlines. There are 50 daily round-trip flights between London and Paris, most of them much cheaper than a Eurostar ticket; many travelers think planes are quicker even though the train is much faster city center to city center. The rail journey between central London and central Paris is two and a half hours; while the flight itself is only an hour, once airport travel is taken into account, the journey is much longer. In truth, those high predictions of passenger volume were a bit of a con, intended to attract investors to what was supposed to be a wholly private project. The numbers were never really achievable, but were used to get guaranteed regular payments from the state-run railways for millions of phantom passengers. But those payments dry up in 2006, a deadline that has helped precipitate the current crisis. The hard truth is that the private sector alone can never build these massive infrastructure projects because the risks are too great and the return is too small. Similar links, like the Oresund bridge between Denmark and Sweden, have been joint public-private ventures or financed entirely by the state. The tunnel will survive. It will be worth keeping open because its revenue is greater than its operating costs — and, in any case, it would be far too embarrassing for the respective governments to mothball such a huge project. It will limp on, unloved and underused. But the real cause of its failure is that Britain and France are no closer together today than a decade ago. The British have remained aloof from their European neighbors and the French show little inclination to tour the land of les Rosbifs, still preferring to head toward the Mediterranean at holiday time. Indeed, recent events confirm that Britain — or at least its government — is closer to its American ally than to France, Germany and Italy. The last land link between Britain and France was worn away by storms after the last Ice Age. It seems we will have to wait until the next one for Britain to become truly part of Europe again. Christian Wolmar is the author of the forthcoming "Subterranean Railway," a social history of London's Underground, and a columnist for Rail magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10WOLM.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
He may not be well liked by the industry but his story appears to be
spot on. And no different from the writing of others commenting on the history and politics of the tunnel. Listening to the cries of investors who have been conned by the developers is interesting. Reminds me of a time share owners meeting. Graham Harrison wrote: May be from the NYT but Christian Wolmar is a UK based journalist. The magazine he writes for "Rail" does not seem to be well respected by some members of the UK rail industry judged by some comments in other news groups. He runs two web sites: http://www.transportblog.com/ http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/ -- ***** *****The "return to" address embedded in this mail is wrong as an antispam measure. Please address new mails or replies to edwarddotharrison1atbtinternetdotcom replacing dot with a . and at with an @***** ***** |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
"jenn" wrote in message ... Sufaud wrote: I imagine one of the reasons that Eurostar has not produced on this chunnel route is their hostile pricing. We would have happily used the rail link for our return to London last summer -- but one way tickets were incredibly expensive [while they were simultaneously marketing ridiculously cheap round trips with significant advance purchast] We flew instead -- the cost was about 4 times greater to take the train. Eurostar are in fact profitable , its Eurotunnel that are making a loss. They are NOT the same company Keith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
"jenn" wrote in message ... Sufaud wrote: I imagine one of the reasons that Eurostar has not produced on this chunnel route is their hostile pricing. Their hostile pricing is one that is designed to make the most income. ISTM that they have got reasonably close to this point. The problem is not their market share or the average fare per customer (which most believe is too high) but the fact that the market for travel over the short crossing is just not growing. Attempts to grow the market with cheaper fares has failed. We would have happily used the rail link for our return to London last summer -- but one way tickets were incredibly expensive Why would you want to buy a one way ticket. Why would the rail operator encourage it? [while they were simultaneously marketing ridiculously cheap round trips with significant advance purchast] These offers are there to encourage people to make marginal journeys that they would otherwise not make. One could claim that the existance of this offer is the problem (but as every transport operator uses this method this is unlikely) but it isn'rt an arguement for reducing the normal single fare We flew instead -- the cost was about 4 times greater to take the train. And this is the problem, Not just the fact that you flew, but that it is possible to fly much lomger distances for the same money. There is no chance that the London to Paris market is going to get bigger, when people have the option of Rome, Prague ...... etc at 20 quid each way. tim |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message ... He may not be well liked by the industry but his story appears to be spot on. I think you you'll find that his theory about a car only tunnel has been well and truly shown to be un-workable elsewhere. As to the bit about the lack of 'closeness' of the countries, how was this the fault of the tunnel operators exactly? And no different from the writing of others commenting on the history and politics of the tunnel. Listening to the cries of investors who have been conned by the developers is interesting. your point is? Reminds me of a time share owners meeting. and it has been agreed that this was marketed wrongly and had to be controlled. tim |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
tim wrote:
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message ... He may not be well liked by the industry but his story appears to be spot on. I think you you'll find that his theory about a car only tunnel has been well and truly shown to be un-workable elsewhere. It's not his theory it was initially proposed by those promoting the tunnel As to the bit about the lack of 'closeness' of the countries, how was this the fault of the tunnel operators exactly? Again this was a justification initially. And no different from the writing of others commenting on the history and politics of the tunnel. Listening to the cries of investors who have been conned by the developers is interesting. your point is? A lack of sympathy. Folks get ripped off all the time. Take your losses and try to learn. Unfortunately, for me, that has taken most of a lifetime. Reminds me of a time share owners meeting. and it has been agreed that this was marketed wrongly and had to be controlled. tim |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times on the Channel Tunnel
Graham Harrison wrote:
May be from the NYT but Christian Wolmar is a UK based journalist. The magazine he writes for "Rail" Uh, "rail" has nothing to do with it. "Car" does .... you can't drive your car through the tunnel. If you could (at a reasonable price ... which is of course less than a ferry ride). I'm sure it would be a great success. Doug McDonald |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NY Times: Lost Luggage Is Rare, but the Trauma Can Be Acute | Sufaud | Air travel | 2 | June 10th, 2004 01:49 AM |
NY Times Travel WHAT'S DOING In Sydney | texan@texas.,.removethisbit.usa.com | Australia & New Zealand | 0 | April 30th, 2004 04:52 AM |
Times Letters: Cross-Channel tunnel timings | Sufaud | Europe | 0 | April 13th, 2004 09:02 AM |
New York Times Sunday 7 December 2003 Ericka Ashley Visconte | William Wallace ][ | Europe | 0 | December 7th, 2003 02:48 AM |
Channel tunnel open Paris-Kent | Casey | Europe | 28 | September 19th, 2003 09:58 PM |