First trip to Paris
Jun 6th 2003, 8:56 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: First trip to Paris
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:08:32 GMT, J-Ph wrote
>
> "Harvey Van Sickle" a écrit dans le
> message news: [email protected]...
-snip excellent clarification of the 1979 situation-
> What I mean, is that the "Parisian governement" and the French
> governement were really at war in 1979. A very parisian story for
> sure, but maybe not what you were said.
That could well explain the reason why we were told what we were.
If I recall it correctly -- it was almost 25 years ago, so I'm not
entirely positive about the context -- the question arose as a minor
side issue, when one of our party asked about inter-operation between
the two systems.
He was curious if it was possible to have an RER service which changed
character in the centre -- that is, that it would run fast as a
suburban express to the edge of the city proper, then become a stopping
service for most of the central Metro stations, and then change back to
an express service on its way out of the city.
The answer, of course, was that this was impossible, as the two systems
were incompatible, and when asked "Why was that?" the explanation we
were given had to do with personalities and politics -- the Parisian
desire for the Metro to remain unsullied by suburban traffic -- rather
than technical/costing considerations.
It may well have been the RATP rather than the Parisian municipal
authorities who wished to protect the "purity" of the Metro system, but
the clear implication was that "the people in charge locally in Paris
decided not to have this happen because they did not wish to risk
blurring the line between inner and outer Paris".
Given the context you've outlined, it may just have been a cheap
political point being made on behalf of central government in the then-
current Paris/Government conflict.
> I hope my English is understandable
It's excellent; many thanks for the clarification.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
>
> "Harvey Van Sickle" a écrit dans le
> message news: [email protected]...
-snip excellent clarification of the 1979 situation-
> What I mean, is that the "Parisian governement" and the French
> governement were really at war in 1979. A very parisian story for
> sure, but maybe not what you were said.
That could well explain the reason why we were told what we were.
If I recall it correctly -- it was almost 25 years ago, so I'm not
entirely positive about the context -- the question arose as a minor
side issue, when one of our party asked about inter-operation between
the two systems.
He was curious if it was possible to have an RER service which changed
character in the centre -- that is, that it would run fast as a
suburban express to the edge of the city proper, then become a stopping
service for most of the central Metro stations, and then change back to
an express service on its way out of the city.
The answer, of course, was that this was impossible, as the two systems
were incompatible, and when asked "Why was that?" the explanation we
were given had to do with personalities and politics -- the Parisian
desire for the Metro to remain unsullied by suburban traffic -- rather
than technical/costing considerations.
It may well have been the RATP rather than the Parisian municipal
authorities who wished to protect the "purity" of the Metro system, but
the clear implication was that "the people in charge locally in Paris
decided not to have this happen because they did not wish to risk
blurring the line between inner and outer Paris".
Given the context you've outlined, it may just have been a cheap
political point being made on behalf of central government in the then-
current Paris/Government conflict.
> I hope my English is understandable
It's excellent; many thanks for the clarification.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
Jun 6th 2003, 11:11 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: First trip to Paris
This hotel is close to the Place de l'Ecole Militaire. To get there by
RER/metro you'd have to change at Chatelet les Halles from the RER to
Metro line 8, direction Balard. There'd be some walking and stairs.
There is another RER line going through the Invalides station a bit
nearer, but that is still quite a walk from the hotel.
http://www.pariserve.com/bourdonnais/english.htm
http://www.ratp.fr/ParisVisite/Eng/index.htm
PJW
On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:11:39 +0100, Him_Tarzan
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:09:51 -0400, Kim Lodato
>wrote:
>>I'm also a bit confused about the RER/Metro...is anyone familiar with
>>the routes? It looks to me like I get on the RER at the airport, and
>>connect with the Metro. But, it said someplace that the hotel is by the
>>RER and Metro. So I thought I could just stay on the RER.
RER/metro you'd have to change at Chatelet les Halles from the RER to
Metro line 8, direction Balard. There'd be some walking and stairs.
There is another RER line going through the Invalides station a bit
nearer, but that is still quite a walk from the hotel.
http://www.pariserve.com/bourdonnais/english.htm
http://www.ratp.fr/ParisVisite/Eng/index.htm
PJW
On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:11:39 +0100, Him_Tarzan
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:09:51 -0400, Kim Lodato
>wrote:
>>I'm also a bit confused about the RER/Metro...is anyone familiar with
>>the routes? It looks to me like I get on the RER at the airport, and
>>connect with the Metro. But, it said someplace that the hotel is by the
>>RER and Metro. So I thought I could just stay on the RER.
Jun 7th 2003, 12:35 am
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: First trip to Paris
"P J Wallace" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This hotel is close to the Place de l'Ecole Militaire. To get there by
> RER/metro you'd have to change at Chatelet les Halles from the RER to
> Metro line 8, direction Balard. There'd be some walking and stairs.
> There is another RER line going through the Invalides station a bit
> nearer, but that is still quite a walk from the hotel.
> http://www.pariserve.com/bourdonnais/english.htm
> http://www.ratp.fr/ParisVisite/Eng/index.htm
> PJW
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:11:39 +0100, Him_Tarzan
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:09:51 -0400, Kim Lodato
> >wrote:
> >>I'm also a bit confused about the RER/Metro...is anyone familiar with
> >>the routes? It looks to me like I get on the RER at the airport, and
> >>connect with the Metro. But, it said someplace that the hotel is by the
> >>RER and Metro. So I thought I could just stay on the RER.
Metro line 8 does not have a station at Chatelet. If you take the RER to
Chatelet you will have to take Metro line 1 to Concorde and then line 8 to
Ecole Militaire. Another option is to get off the RER at Gare Nord, then
take Metro line 4 to Strasbourg-St.Denis and then line 8 to Ecole Militaire.
Ryan
news:[email protected]...
> This hotel is close to the Place de l'Ecole Militaire. To get there by
> RER/metro you'd have to change at Chatelet les Halles from the RER to
> Metro line 8, direction Balard. There'd be some walking and stairs.
> There is another RER line going through the Invalides station a bit
> nearer, but that is still quite a walk from the hotel.
> http://www.pariserve.com/bourdonnais/english.htm
> http://www.ratp.fr/ParisVisite/Eng/index.htm
> PJW
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:11:39 +0100, Him_Tarzan
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:09:51 -0400, Kim Lodato
> >wrote:
> >>I'm also a bit confused about the RER/Metro...is anyone familiar with
> >>the routes? It looks to me like I get on the RER at the airport, and
> >>connect with the Metro. But, it said someplace that the hotel is by the
> >>RER and Metro. So I thought I could just stay on the RER.
Metro line 8 does not have a station at Chatelet. If you take the RER to
Chatelet you will have to take Metro line 1 to Concorde and then line 8 to
Ecole Militaire. Another option is to get off the RER at Gare Nord, then
take Metro line 4 to Strasbourg-St.Denis and then line 8 to Ecole Militaire.
Ryan
Jun 10th 2003, 2:07 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: First trip to Paris
"Harvey Van Sickle" a écrit dans le message news:
[email protected]...
/.../
> If I recall it correctly -- it was almost 25 years ago, so I'm not
> entirely positive about the context -- the question arose as a minor
> side issue, when one of our party asked about inter-operation between
> the two systems.
> He was curious if it was possible to have an RER service which changed
> character in the centre -- that is, that it would run fast as a
> suburban express to the edge of the city proper, then become a stopping
> service for most of the central Metro stations, and then change back to
> an express service on its way out of the city.
> The answer, of course, was that this was impossible, as the two systems
> were incompatible, and when asked "Why was that?" the explanation we
> were given had to do with personalities and politics -- the Parisian
> desire for the Metro to remain unsullied by suburban traffic -- rather
> than technical/costing considerations.
Do you remember who gave that explanation ?
A politician, a technician ?
> It may well have been the RATP rather than the Parisian municipal
> authorities who wished to protect the "purity" of the Metro system, but
> the clear implication was that "the people in charge locally in Paris
> decided not to have this happen because they did not wish to risk
> blurring the line between inner and outer Paris".
Btw, the metro itself was extended outside Paris (but in the nearer suburbs
only : now 10 lines out of 14) before the RER was created, so the the line
between inner and outer Paris was already "blurred" in that respect.
When they decided to create the metro in the end of the XIXth century, they
hesitated : would it be a strictly parisian network or would it serve the
whole Paris region ? They choosed the former, but as the banlieue grew
(especially after WWI), it became a necessity to extend the metro outside
Paris, which was decided in 1929.
In the 1930's, Line 9 was extended to Boulogne and Montreuil, line 1 to
Vincennes and then Neuilly, line 11 to les Lillas, Line 3 to Levallois and
line 12 to Issy. In the 40's, line 5 was extended to Pantin and line 8 was
extended to Creteil in the 70's.
(I've found these details here : http://www.ratpinfo.net/histligne.php )
There were more recent extensions but as you can see, the metro was not a
strictly parisian network anymore when they decided to create the RER.
> Given the context you've outlined, it may just have been a cheap
> political point being made on behalf of central government in the then-
> current Paris/Government conflict.
I have the impresion that this context made them twist reality a bit.
It's strange that they gave you that (imo) far fetched explanation, whereas
there were credible functionnal and technical arguments.
JPh
[email protected]...
/.../
> If I recall it correctly -- it was almost 25 years ago, so I'm not
> entirely positive about the context -- the question arose as a minor
> side issue, when one of our party asked about inter-operation between
> the two systems.
> He was curious if it was possible to have an RER service which changed
> character in the centre -- that is, that it would run fast as a
> suburban express to the edge of the city proper, then become a stopping
> service for most of the central Metro stations, and then change back to
> an express service on its way out of the city.
> The answer, of course, was that this was impossible, as the two systems
> were incompatible, and when asked "Why was that?" the explanation we
> were given had to do with personalities and politics -- the Parisian
> desire for the Metro to remain unsullied by suburban traffic -- rather
> than technical/costing considerations.
Do you remember who gave that explanation ?
A politician, a technician ?
> It may well have been the RATP rather than the Parisian municipal
> authorities who wished to protect the "purity" of the Metro system, but
> the clear implication was that "the people in charge locally in Paris
> decided not to have this happen because they did not wish to risk
> blurring the line between inner and outer Paris".
Btw, the metro itself was extended outside Paris (but in the nearer suburbs
only : now 10 lines out of 14) before the RER was created, so the the line
between inner and outer Paris was already "blurred" in that respect.
When they decided to create the metro in the end of the XIXth century, they
hesitated : would it be a strictly parisian network or would it serve the
whole Paris region ? They choosed the former, but as the banlieue grew
(especially after WWI), it became a necessity to extend the metro outside
Paris, which was decided in 1929.
In the 1930's, Line 9 was extended to Boulogne and Montreuil, line 1 to
Vincennes and then Neuilly, line 11 to les Lillas, Line 3 to Levallois and
line 12 to Issy. In the 40's, line 5 was extended to Pantin and line 8 was
extended to Creteil in the 70's.
(I've found these details here : http://www.ratpinfo.net/histligne.php )
There were more recent extensions but as you can see, the metro was not a
strictly parisian network anymore when they decided to create the RER.
> Given the context you've outlined, it may just have been a cheap
> political point being made on behalf of central government in the then-
> current Paris/Government conflict.
I have the impresion that this context made them twist reality a bit.
It's strange that they gave you that (imo) far fetched explanation, whereas
there were credible functionnal and technical arguments.
JPh
Jun 16th 2003, 8:45 pm
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: First trip to Paris
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:07:55 GMT, J-Ph wrote
>
> "Harvey Van Sickle" a écrit dans le
> message news: [email protected]...
>>
>
> /.../
>> If I recall it correctly -- it was almost 25 years ago, so I'm
>> not entirely positive about the context -- the question arose as
>> a minor side issue, when one of our party asked about
>> inter-operation between the two systems.
>>
>> He was curious if it was possible to have an RER service which
>> changed character in the centre -- that is, that it would run
>> fast as a suburban express to the edge of the city proper, then
>> become a stopping service for most of the central Metro stations,
>> and then change back to an express service on its way out of the
>> city.
>>
>> The answer, of course, was that this was impossible, as the two
>> systems were incompatible, and when asked "Why was that?" the
>> explanation we were given had to do with personalities and
>> politics -- the Parisian desire for the Metro to remain unsullied
>> by suburban traffic -- rather than technical/costing
>> considerations.
>
> Do you remember who gave that explanation ?
> A politician, a technician ?
(Sorry for the late reply.)
I can't remember exactly who told us this, but it would not have been a
politician. It was (I'm fairly sure) a middle-to-upper-ranking civil
servant in the federal government department which held responsibity
for regional planning and associated development grants.
-snip-
>> Given the context you've outlined, it may just have been a cheap
>> political point being made on behalf of central government in the
>> then- current Paris/Government conflict.
> I have the impresion that this context made them twist reality a
> bit. It's strange that they gave you that (imo) far fetched
> explanation, whereas there were credible functionnal and technical
> arguments.
Quite possibly. It may just have reflected a "turf war" between civil
servants in central and municipal government departments with
overlapping responsibilities -- a power struggle that goes on in the
civil services of every country!
--
Cheers,
Harvey
For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
>
> "Harvey Van Sickle" a écrit dans le
> message news: [email protected]...
>>
>
> /.../
>> If I recall it correctly -- it was almost 25 years ago, so I'm
>> not entirely positive about the context -- the question arose as
>> a minor side issue, when one of our party asked about
>> inter-operation between the two systems.
>>
>> He was curious if it was possible to have an RER service which
>> changed character in the centre -- that is, that it would run
>> fast as a suburban express to the edge of the city proper, then
>> become a stopping service for most of the central Metro stations,
>> and then change back to an express service on its way out of the
>> city.
>>
>> The answer, of course, was that this was impossible, as the two
>> systems were incompatible, and when asked "Why was that?" the
>> explanation we were given had to do with personalities and
>> politics -- the Parisian desire for the Metro to remain unsullied
>> by suburban traffic -- rather than technical/costing
>> considerations.
>
> Do you remember who gave that explanation ?
> A politician, a technician ?
(Sorry for the late reply.)
I can't remember exactly who told us this, but it would not have been a
politician. It was (I'm fairly sure) a middle-to-upper-ranking civil
servant in the federal government department which held responsibity
for regional planning and associated development grants.
-snip-
>> Given the context you've outlined, it may just have been a cheap
>> political point being made on behalf of central government in the
>> then- current Paris/Government conflict.
> I have the impresion that this context made them twist reality a
> bit. It's strange that they gave you that (imo) far fetched
> explanation, whereas there were credible functionnal and technical
> arguments.
Quite possibly. It may just have reflected a "turf war" between civil
servants in central and municipal government departments with
overlapping responsibilities -- a power struggle that goes on in the
civil services of every country!
--
Cheers,
Harvey
For e-mail, change harvey to whhvs.
