False good transport related ideas (FNAUT)

[laurent_caen]

Hello,

I came across an interesting study by Fnaut (National Federation of Associations of Transport Users) identifying false good ideas in transport.

Among those :
- the tramway on tires
- the electric car
- biofuels
- the cheap house
- "exurbanized" TGV stations

The link in question: http://www.fnaut.asso.fr/images/docs/co ... bidees.pdf

Good reading and good evening

[Christophe]

- the cheap house

Huh? House on wheels?

Ah you probably mean the cheap house away from work?

I watch the study ...

Who is and who is behind the FNAUT? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9d%C ... transports

[sherkanner]

Interesting document.

I do not know if these are really false good ideas, but rather of evolution of the existing one.
They nevertheless highlight the outdated concepts that we are trying to preserve at all costs.

What is missing in my opinion, is to show the real solutions, in supported arguments (but they may already have a document above) and not only mention to take example from such or such as it do so, but to say why such an example is the way to go.

[sen-no-sen]

I generally agree with their analysis, a pity however that it fits into the current logic.

For example:

Example 5: free urban transport, social pricing is more efficient

Not false but insufficient, it would be fairer to guarantee free access and to introduce urban tolls, according to the polluter pays principle.
Free travel is inefficient if it is not supported by a tax constraint on the automobile.

9 example: the house cheap, promotes urban sprawl

On the contrary, we must stop
urban sprawl, a source of polluting and energy-consuming automobile traffic, and sprawling space
by diffuse housing, and densify in already urbanized areas and along the heavy axes of
collective transport (we know how to do it without crowding the population in towers and bars).

On the contrary, it is necessary to de-urbanize and relaunch rurality. Because even by rationalizing urban space to the extreme, prices will always be too high.
The problem is that the population has to adapt to economic change and come to work in the city, it is now necessary to do the opposite, it is at work to come to people ... in the countryside. how would you tell me 100% organic farming (1,5 million jobs at stake!)

[sherkanner]

Yeah, and you can add all the R&D centers, they don't need to be in the city center, in the middle of a lost village, it also works, even teleworking too.

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

Free travel is inefficient if it is not supported by a tax constraint on the automobile.

The advantage of free transport is, among other things, that it increases mechanically (sic!) The cost of traveling in a car, without there being any need to issue complex and costly regulations to implement.

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

Free travel is inefficient if it is not supported by a tax constraint on the automobile.

The advantage of free transport is, among other things, that it increases mechanically (sic!) The cost of traveling in a car, without there being any need to issue complex and costly regulations to implement.

Certainly, but being free costs money in one way or another.
I take an example that I know well, in the Rhône department very advantageous pricing has been set up on coaches (€ 2 for trips of up to more than 100km!, € 25 / month unlimited!) .
Except the frequentation of the lines remains mostly neglected (I have already taken the bus several times ... alone with the driver!).

On the other hand, the subsidies for such trips are unlike travelers who are very present!
So its measures, although starting from an excellent idea, remain mostly ineffective, because it misses the major ingredient: the budget constraint.

Either way, we will be paying dearly for the price of oil in a short time, so it would be better to anticipate such an increase as quickly as possible and take advantage of it.

For funding three tracks:
- urban toll.
-increase in the TIPP, for individuals (do not type, do not type!).
- tax sticker indexed on the type of vehicle.

[Ahmed]

Certainly, but free entry costs money one way or another.

You say, oh sen-no-sen. We agree!
The debate is this: does free access for users and funding by the community constitute a better allocation of resources, does it encourage a strengthening of solidarities compared to any automobile?

[chatelot16]

when someone asks the best way to heat a house we always answer well insulate to have less need to heat

for transport it's the same! the best means of transport is home next to work

therefore put an end to the housing shortage that traps everyone at home without the possibility of changing housing to get closer to their work

for real mobility of accommodation you need a little more accommodation than people to house ... with the current shortage everyone is ready for anything to keep theirs even in the wrong place

it is necessary to leave on the territory the factories and the accommodation ... alas the opposite is compulsory! impossible to build any workshop even noisy and non-polluting in a residential area ... impossible to build housing in an industrial area ... even if those who would stay there would appreciate the comfort of no longer wasting hours of transport .. .

and while this good development of the territory is prohibited we still let build housing next to some really dangerous factories (azf)

[sen-no-sen]

The debate is this: does free access for users and funding by the community constitute a better allocation of resources, does it encourage a strengthening of solidarities compared to any automobile?

Surely the answer is yes!
It seems to me that this would constitute a fundamental basis for the efficient sobriety (expression that I use instead of degrowth, term tainted with many a priori).

The automobile has dire consequences for society and the environment.
In addition, as the news reminds us, it is a factor in numerous relocations.
On the contrary, public transport is a vector of sustainable employment and cannot be outsourced by nature.
The health gains (between 10 and 30000 deaths per year from pollution), security (4000 road deaths) and international politics (most of today's major conflicts have an energy cause) are enormous, everyone should be there. win (except car manufacturers ... ).