A Comparison between Public Passenger Services in Paris and London

Abstract

Résuméby Pierre Ruais.This article aims at comparing the public passenger services of London and Paris, with particular reference to their dissimilarities.Public transportation in the Paris area is the joint concern of the State and of a regional agency: the « Office Régional des Transports Parisiens ». This is apparently the first and only attempt at regional management in this field, in France.The entire surface and underground networks have been entrusted, by gradual process of law, to one single body: the « Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens» (R.A.T.P.). Similarly all suburban road passenger services have been grouped in the « Association Professionnelle des Transports Routiers de la Région Parisienne », acting as the « opposite number » to the Office Régional.The area involved covers approximately 1,200 sq. km., within a 20 km. radius. « De jure », the State continues as the concession-granting authority, but the powers devolved upon the Office Régional are wide, and include determining the participation of the four «départements» (counties) and the municipalities in the budget of the R.A.T.P.The London Transport Executive's competency covers some 5,000 sq. km. within a 30 to 50 km. radius, and includes every type of transportation, with the exception of taxis, long-distance buses, and railways. It is a geographical unit of the British Transport Commission and is the successor of the London Passenger Transport Board, which itself replaced 170 individual operators.In London, public transportation is fully nationalised. In Paris there remains a sector of private enterprise, viz. suburban motor-bus services.In London, a monopoly granted to a single operator in in force. In Paris there are several, and there is no monopoly in the eyes of the law. Co-ordination between the Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer, the R.A.T.P. and the privately-owned bus lines is ensured by the Office Régional.In the Parisian system, financing is borne jointly by the local authorities and the State. In London, the several networks: Underground and bus lines on the one hand, railways on the other hand, mutually compensate their relative budgets in ratio of mileage, after balance of the income and outlay of each.In London, a special tribunal protects the passengers’ interest against that of the operator. In Paris, this task is the concern of the Office Régional.The British system lays managerial responsibility mainly on a small number of specialists. Paris has, even to a fault, respected the principle of representation of all the interests involved.This may lead, within the management, to differences of opinion between the operative side and the passengers and personnel. The British have given preference to laying the onus of protecting these to outside bodies: the Tribunal and a Wages Board respectively. Greater efficiency thus accrues to the management.The London « Pooling Scheme » was of value only as long as there were, as under the London Passenger Act of 1933, several joint operators, viz. the London Passenger Transport Board (buses and Underground) and the four railway companies serving the suburbs. It has become pointless since 1947, when, with full nationalisation, the British Transport Commission took over the total unified operation.In Paris, the networks being completely distinct, any such scheme would be supererogatory, in so far as season or other tickets valid for transfer between the several types of transportation, do not give rise, financially at least, to joint operation.The author does not feel that any transposition of the London regime to Paris would be beneficial. He admits however that remedy should be sought for the present financial situation, though the predominance of the concept of « public service » must ever remain in the forefront, in the case of passenger transportation.