Illustration : Thierry Cap de Coume
Two projects are under debate: the first passing through the cities of Marseilles and Toulon, the second through the Provencal hinterland (a direct itinerary from Aix Arbois station, called the “northern” itinerary). In mid-January, Éric Ciotti, President of the Alpes-Maritimes Regional Council turned the heat up even further by claiming that the State had already decided for the second plan which would cost 3 billion euros less (8.5 versus 11.5 billion). Later, at Aix-en-Provence, local representatives, wine-growing and ecologists(1) organised a demonstration against this announcement, judged to be premature. Certain are even opposed to the creation of an LGV line, whatever the itinerary. Reactions that Dominique Estève, President of the CCI Nice-Côte d’Azur, describes as “exaggera-ted selfishness. […] Aix-Marseille has been serviced by the TGV high-speed train since 2001. I don’t see why Nice should be deprived of better accessibility.” And to Bouches-du-Rhône authorities who threaten not to contribute financially to the line if the “northern” option is selected, he reminds that “the Alpes-Maritimes contributed to the development of the TGV Méditerranée,” regretting the lack of economic solidarity that Marseilles displays towards the Côte d’Azur. Whilst the words of Éric Ciotti may have raised temperatures, they at least have brought the file back onto centre stage… without a decision having been taken. On 11th February, Jean-Louis Borloo, the French ecology, energy, sustainable development and regional development minister met with local elected representatives and Hubert du Mesnil, president of the French railway network (RFF), responsible for construction of the LGV. In short: studies and reflection will continue until at least 30th June.
Then came bitterness. “Certainly a ‘consensus’ should be reached to carry out the LGV, but by postponing specific commitments once again and having two phases: June for the route and December for financing… just before the regional elections. We are counting on the mobilisation of ministers to finally respect this new schedule […]," he said in a press release. As a whole, the economic players of the Alpes-Maritimes have highlighted all the advantages of the LGV for their region: a shift of air traffic towards rail transport (3 million passengers per year on the Nice-Paris line), economic and tourist attractiveness, ease of access to the 2018 Winter Olympics which Nice is hoping to host. The CCI of Nice-Côte d’Azur also pleads for a more Mediterranean vision of the project in order to “bring Côte d’Azur inhabitants closer to the large cities in northern Italy […]. With an LGV Côte d’Azur connected to the Italian network, Nice would be 2 hours from Genoa and 2 hours 40 minutes from Milan,” indicates a Chamber report.
“Milan would then be the entrance gate of Italy for Swiss, Austrian and German networks, in other words, for essential clients forus,” further adds the supporting web site. From the CCI Marseille-Provence (CCIMP) side, the impatience is less obvious. Communication about the project is discreet, unlike Nice, which launched its latest online petition last November (www.touspourlalgvcotedazur.fr).
This has not, however, prevented consular elected representatives from working on the plan. “Many people, like Éric Ciotti, state their opinions on the project without understanding it," complains Marc Reverchon, responsible for the subject at the CCI. “The CCIMP, alongside the SNCF and RFF, has undertaken thorough comparative analyses and studies, which are not solely about journey times."
Conclusions from this work: “ journeys from the big southern cities correspond with the LGV PACA specifications and Grenelle’s environmental demands.”
(1) According to these organisations, a direct Paris-Nice line would ruin certain wine-producing areas, inflicting a blow on both the environment and tourism due to a “defacement” of the landscape.
English 
