King Marketing

i started to type out a longer response, but it can all be boiled down into two words anyhow:

amen, brother.

wrote optimus on September 28, 2004 1:40 AM

thanks. it means a lot. I think many people, even subconsciously, know that sprawl-based concepts of ‘growth’ are literally a death spiral for our society. And it’s too bad that cash trumps reason for everyone else. It will take a serious shock to the system ($60 a barrel? $75? $100?) for people to realize their American Dream is unsustainable for purely economic reasons.

I really think it is a strategy — using corporate media ownership to push non-issues into the public mind (Laci frickin Petersen 24/7, like no one else in the history of time has ever been murdered) while the big, systemic changes that favour corporations and fat cats go unnoticed. I mean, no-one questions giant newspaper sections all about cars (like today’s Driving section, which thankfully at least is a story about hybrids). There’s no equal time given to the other side of the argument, i.e. that if we designed cities better we wouldn’t need cars at all, and inner city kids wouldn’t be suffering from an asthma epidemic…

wrote aj on September 28, 2004 10:02 AM

i suppose i am complicit by providing weekly kevin federline updates, then. yikes. i’ll have to remind myself:

every time i post about kev-fed, asthmatic kids cough a little harder.

heh.

wrote optimusmontreal on September 28, 2004 3:43 PM

Kev-Fed is a CIA front operation for cultural disinformation, to make it easier for the black helicopter people to overthrow, er, hm. How about the polling process in swing states? Yeah, that’ll do.

Maybe we should have a moratorium on pop culture for a couple of years, see if we can, as a species, get something done.

wrote aj on September 28, 2004 4:02 PM

Hey AJ,

You know, I’m actually on the *ahem* advisory committee for this project that is currently under way called “allego”. I’m going to my first meeting tomorrow! Put simply, its an effort to better understand the transportation issues to and from the the University’s two campuses and “alternative” means of transportation (i.e. not cars).

Update soon!

wrote Oblivia on September 30, 2004 1:45 AM

wow, that sounds v. cool!

does that mean McGill will get its own light rail line to Ste-Anne’s?

wrote aj on September 30, 2004 8:36 AM

“pointy-headed intellectual fascists” (this was by far the most repeated moniker)

“a bunch of commies”

one would think fascism and communism where on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

wrote jihef on September 30, 2004 1:55 PM

I think that’s just a case of Godwin’s Law — when you have exhausted any intellectual reasons to debate your opponent, compare them to a Nazi…

wrote aj on September 30, 2004 3:57 PM

McGill has a shuttle service right now that is over-subscribed and probably used as an alternative to the STM for St-Annes. This and getting students/staff from the suburbs of Montreal is going to be the biggest challenge.

We actually have a huge proportion of people coming to downtown on foot or by public transportation anyway. We have to now decide how to move forward to address the issue. Car pooling is an obvious one but so onerous, I don’t think we’re going to get behind it. Also, parking is extremely limited and all the powers that be are committed to making it stay that way so car pooling means having to cede actual parking spots. Who would bother pooling if you run the risk of not getting a spot?

Interestingly, STM is not into getting more people on their system because it actually represents a DEFICIT. Surely, they need some vision and some convincing that reaching a critical mass is what is needed, not moping about lack of funding…

wrote Oblivia on September 30, 2004 4:36 PM

On a related topic, The Gazette has finally started reporting that “Whoa! Expensive oil means no more cheap consumer goods and travel!” Where were they a few years ago? Mired in their Boomer navel-gazing retronostalgia, most likely (and I’m lookin’ at you, Mike Boone).

My friend Chris who writes about urban issues reported that he heard an interview with the lead engineer of the now-way-over-budget Metro line extension to Laval: when it was pointed out that there were existing rail bridges and wouldn’t it be cheaper to build a light rail link to Laval, the engineer said “Of course — but I was hired to build a metro, sir.”

Like I’ve always said, maybe waiting on The Man to dole out the cash isn’t going to work. Public-private partnerships may be the only way we can boost the existing system and extend the network before the oil runs out.

Imagine if the owners of Fairview and Rockland shopping centres, Aeroports de Montreal and IKEA were to partner up with Alstom or Bombardier and build a Toronto-style above-ground/underground railway along the Metropolitan / 40 corridor and branching along Cote de Liesse Road. They could form a private consortium to fund, construct and operate it, linking with the STM or other municipal agencies. Obviously they get exclusivity on the advertising etc inside the cars, and there might have to be separate fares or some sort of hybrid pass system, but operating privately means perhaps some leeway for innovation - maybe an end car where bikes are always allowed, for instance - and an upgraded level of service and comfort.

Both branches would serve the airport, connect to metro stations
and link shopping, residential and office areas. It’s not a perfect solution, but imagine the traffic burden it would take off of those constantly jammed arteries, the Decarie and Dorval circles.

And there could be a tandem/parallel system for moving goods around the city as well, to reduce the number of trucks. JH Crawford detailed such a system in his great book Carfree Cities - parallel ‘freight metros’ and ‘freight stops’ to deliver goods to the same areas served by passenger metros. I suspect they’re going to be necessary as oil gets more expensive.

wrote aj on October 2, 2004 4:46 PM

Oh yeah — and serve the St Anne’s campus area as well, for both John Abbott and McGill :)

wrote aj on October 2, 2004 4:47 PM

Speaking of government handouts and transit I would like to remind you all that if the STM was financed the same way as the highways are it would cost nothing to get on to a bus or a metro and the operating costs would be spread out among all taxpayers whether they live in Montreal or Maniwaki.Or put it another way , in what state do you think autoroute 440 would be if the provincial government told the city of Laval: ” All right we’re pulling out of the highway maintenance business. Sometimes when it’s electorally convenient we’ll still chip in some money for major projects and we’ll even build you a useless extension that goes nowhere but for day to day maintenance , you’re on your own.” which is pretty much the regime that public transit has to live with ever since the Ryan Reform of the late 80s. We’ve got to get this double standard out or our heads where Public transit = subsidy/handout while highway = investment. After all no one even asks if the 440 is profitable.

wrote Eric V on October 4, 2004 12:34 AM

Eric, that’s a good point. I think we can legitimately consider highway funds to be an indirect subsidy to everyone involved in the suburb-building business; everyone involved in road construction, shopping centers, fast food,the auto industry and of course tract homes, none of which would be possible without high-speed multilane access, ‘collector roads’ and the like.

Of course, even with e-z financing it still requires a certain income level to afford this — so in another sense highway funding helps widen the gulf between rich and poor (white flight in the 70s, abandoned inner cities, etc.) When middle-class people leave a neighborhood (and the jobs tend to go with them) the neighborhood becomes poor by default. Which ironically means you need more money for social services, job creation, social housing, etc. etc. etc.

Throwing good money after bad, really.

wrote aj on October 4, 2004 9:40 AM