An article in the NY Times today indicates that it is a financial bust.
The article can be read at the following if I get it right.
Thanks for the NY Times plug !!!
But it is realy ok even if it is a bust. France and England can afford it, the tunnel is built and the free flow of people and goods will enhence their economy on thee long turn. So don’t wory that the tunnel is bust, now that it is built, that is all that matters… of course none can officialy admit that!
It is bust, but it depends on who you ask, or which accounts you look at. Luckily, the Chunnel was built by a different company than it is operated by. So if you look at TML’s accounts, then yes, technically they are bankrupt (but that’s OK, cause they no longer exist). Eurotunnel, however, are the operator of the tunnel, and they make loadsamoney
Sure we can afford it, at the cost of decent healthcare, and the highest fuel prices in Europe (83 new pence per litre).
Besides, huge civil engineering projects rarely make any money.
Since when does everything except highways have to be a profit center? What we Americans need to understand is that particularly the Europeans have historically taken (rightly or wrongly, by our estimation) a different viewpoint that considers transportation a public utility that is chartered to achieve some combination of national goals that may or may not include what we would consider “profitability”. Same can be said for their national flag airlines and even Airbus (which gives Boeing fits). I’m not passing judgment on that philosophy here, nor do I expect any of the Forum members to, but you must at least acknowledge that there is a difference in viewpoint. So 440cuin makes a very valid point when he says it’s really OK. Isn’t it ironic, by the way, that the NYTimes would consider this even to be news…one wonders if they ever considered how much they’d have to charge for their papers if the highways over which they deliver them and receive raw materials were required to be profitable? And our friend Mr. Jampton from across the Pond is also exactly right–massive Civil Engineering projects rarely are cash cows. When was the last time you saw a “profitable” (by GAAP norms) flood control dam???
Highways can be a profit center. To bring this back to a railroad point of view, in the late 1950’s the New Haven Railroad moved construction materials for the (then) Connecticut Turnpike. Every 14 miles of the Turnpike had a toll gate. You paid 25 cents to go through the tollgate. Results: ridership went down on the NHRR, population in the suburbs went up, and the turnpike started turning a profit through tolls in the late 60’s. Now, CT had a huge sales tax going, but no income tax until the 80’s. With the higher speed limits, fatalities started occurring at the tollgates. Solution? Take out the toll gates. Now bridges are falling down or failing inspections… and CT has an income tax. And a trip along I-95 during rush hour going into New Haven or New York will give you a grand view of being overtaken by… a passenger train. It could be something as spectacular as an Acela trainset or just a lowly Metro North commuter set, but it’s still passing you.
I have a sister in law currently in England, in the Luton area… she swears that anyone crazy enough to drive in London will be a recipient of a Darwin award, which goes to the quick… and the dead. She sticks to trains, which are faster, safer and less stressful.
Erik
And there is the Swiss Tunnel story in the May issue with the Swiss People democratically deciding to show the World that a high standard of living is compatible with a rail-based not highway-based economy!
I have used the Eurostar trains to travel between England and the Continent several times, and all I can say is they beat, air, hydrofoils, and hovercraft. The Eurostar trains are a more reliable way to travel between London and either Paris or Brussels than either air or water.