Transport en commun: plaidoyer pour une importante hausse des tarifs

[gars du new jersey]

Come on, man. I've lurked on this forum for god knows how long, and I rarely feel compelled to post, but seriously, I feel like I'm listening to someone who just read Death and Life of Great American Cities for the first time and feels compelled to proselytize to everyone about this really great book I read and who is regurgitating in the most sophomoric manner possible the general outlines of Urbanism 101 to people who just don't understand. I mean, christ, do we need to hear about induced demand in every goddam thread? I need a bayonet to fall on, or something.

 

I'm sorry, I meant: Curitiba, William Whyte, TOD, congestion pricing, vancouverism, Robert Moses, Grandma Moses, edge city, satellite city, ville radieuse, le corbu, mies, richy florida, public housing, rent control, towers-in-a-park, public space, desire paths, tramways, streetcars, streetcars named desire, midibus, trains legers, lourds, etc., woonerf, wooneuf, woodix, etc., mixité urbane AND AMSTERDAM. BOOM. Did I win the argument?

Modifié 10 mai 2012 par gars du new jersey
my orthographe is not so good!

[Cataclaw]

Come on, man. I've lurked on this forum for god knows how long, and I rarely feel compelled to post, but seriously, I feel like I'm listening to someone who just read Death and Life of Great American Cities for the first time and feels compelled to proselytize to everyone about this really great book I read and who is regurgitating in the most sophomoric manner possible the general outlines of Urbanism 101 to people who just don't understand. I mean, christ, do we need to hear about induced demand in every goddam thread? I need a bayonet to fall on, or something.

 

I'm sorry, I meant: Curitiba, William Whyte, TOD, congestion pricing, vancouverism, Robert Moses, Grandma Moses, edge city, satellite city, villa radieuse, le corbu, mies, richy florida, public housing, rent control, towers-in-a-park, public space, desire paths, tramways, streetcars, streetcars named desire, midibus, trains legers, lourds, etc., woonerf, wooneuf, woodix, etc., mixité urbane AND AMSTERDAM. BOOM. Did I win the argument?

 

Nice rant, but you won't get sympathy from me. I won't apologize for having a passion in life and wanting to promote positive change.

If you don't want to read about urban/transportation issues, then don't go to an urban development forum and don't click on threads in the transportation section.

 

Besides,

A. If you agree with these concepts, then why are you complaining? If you agree, then you should know just how important these issues are, and just how much we need to address them.

B. If you disagree with these concepts, then your enumeration tirade is rather pointless without providing rational justification for why you disagree with them.

Modifié 10 mai 2012 par Cataclaw

[gars du new jersey]

Yeah, I agree with the concepts, but un peu de moderation SVP. I mean, remove the Metropolitain? By and large, it was built on fringe brownfield/agricultural land. Virtually all the development around it is predicated on there being a limited-access east-west highway there. It's not like it sliced through a coherent, preexisting urban area; Or, in the case of Centre Rockland and all the peripheral development it engendered, they're located where they are because it's where autoroute laurentienne came into town. You're not going to remake cremazie into las ramblas. There's no point. There's no effective way to serve that sprawl with mass transit - select nodes like Chabanel, maybe Marche Centrale, okay - but as a whole, no. It's not the canal ring of Amsterdam, it's not Venice... there's gotta be some realism and focus. And, lacking any other East-West expressway, how do you serve the St. Laurent industrial parks, northern airport hangers, etc., etc.?

Modifié 10 mai 2012 par gars du new jersey

[Cataclaw]

Dude, relax lol. I think there's been a bit of misunderstanding.

 

I'm not saying remove the Metropolitan now, or even in 20 years! Heck, it probably won't happen in my lifetime. All i said was that eventualy, one day, maybe in 50-80 years, it will most likely be converted to an urban boulevard. This is the direction urban transportation planning is taking. A distant future in which the Montreal metro is double its current size and a greater reliance on rail-based shipments would make this possible.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that a modicum of realism and some good sense are required in any kind of planning. We aren't going to change the world from one day to the next. And that's not the goal! I don't want to rip up all the streets and highways. I don't want to ban cars. I don't want to triple vehicle fees. I don't want any of that, and I wish people would stop wrongly characterizing urban planners. Being against automobile dependency does not mean being completely against cars! Hey, I drive a car from time to time, surprise!

 

Bottom line: there's a sensible middle ground that we should strive for, and that's all i'm advocating for. As someone who appears to be well versed in these concepts, I'm sure you can agree to that.

[jerry]

Now that's what I call a fun debate ! The three of you (Cataclaw, gars du new jersey, monctezuma) should go out for a beer... you'd probably be surprised on how much you actually agree on ! I love this forum !

[ToxiK]

Arrêtez de démoniser les automobilistes, tout le monde profites des routes, voyons !

 

S'il y a des oranges à votre épicerie, c'est qu'un camion en a fait la livraison.

Si une ambulance vient vous chercher chez vous alors que vous êtes en arrêt cardiaque, c'est qu'elle a roulé sur de l'asphalte (oh horreur! De l'asphalte!)

 

Si un policier (ben oui, c'est criminels qui battent à mort des milliers d'étudiants par jour, ces monstres qu'on devrait envoyer brûler en enfer!!!) se rend chez vous pour sauver votre femme qui est victime d'une agression, c'est qu'il a circulé sur une route avant de s'y rendre.

 

Vous allez voir la tournée de Madonna au Centre Bell ? Elle a utilisé une autoroute pour s'y rendre !

 

Les routes profitent à tous, pas qu'aux automobilistes... Ça prend une grue et des matériaux de construction pour consruite même le plus écologique des bâtiments. Jamais entendu parler d'un travailleur de la construction qui a porté sur son dos les briques nécessaires à ériger un projet. Peut-être il y a 300 ans. Mais c'était des chevaux. Retournons aux chevaux !

 

J'exagère, mais on commence tous à être tannés du climat social des dernier mois.

Et pour les routes, tout le monde en profite. C'est logique que les impôts de tout le monde servent à leur entretient.

 

Je n'essaye pas de démoniser les voitures mais simplement souligner que le transport automobile est lui aussi subventionné, mais que c'est moins apparent que pour le transport en commun. Si on veut se plaindre que le transport en commun est trop subventionné, il faut alors bien regarder à quel point le transport routier l'est aussi.

 

Si je me fait livrer une pizza et que le chauffeur doit payer davantage pour sa livraison (essence, péages, stationnement), le prix de ma pizza incluera ces coûts et me coûtera plus cher.

 

Les routes servent à tout le monde à différents niveaux (soit selon son utilisation). Le transport en commun est utile à tout le monde puisque son utilisation réduit la circulation automobile et libère le réseau routier (réseau, qui comme tu dis, sert à tout le monde).