Like others commentators, I have to rely on the summary of the article, but in what is called the "plate of facts" by Jarret, I see fallacies. "Simultaneously, the road-space has been narrowed by about a third" That is wrong, the tram line has replaced bus only lanes (put in place in 2000), so it has been no reduction in space for general traffic since the tram at opened. The inhabitants (and electors) of Paris pocket the main part of the benefits while supporting a fraction of the costs. According the own finding of one of the author, 50% of people using the tram come from the suburbs: not bad for an 8km line not going outside Paris. As mentioned, by previous commentator, this line has no regional pretension: 17% of ridership come from people not moving before: is the "mobility increase" of those people not a net economic/social benefit? If not, what is wrong then to reduce the one of the motorist? But you will guess in the proposition of the author, a political taint... Which was more affirmed in 2008, or before the tram (but same city council), when the same authors had another scapegoat for the slowing traffic in Paris. So as other commentators, I doubt the seriousness of the mentioned paper, but will not comment further haven't got to read the paper in full.

j'ai aime le passage "En aérien ou en souterrain? "En aérien dès que c'est possible", répondent les architectes. D'abord parce que la réutilisatiion des voies existantes se fait forcément en surface. Mais aussi pour des raisons moins techniques. Duthilleul, encore: "Quand le métro aérien traverse la Seine, on a un petit flash d'émotion.Le long de la Seine entre la Défense et Saint-Denis, ce sera dix minutes de flash"." j'en ai profite pour faire un billet sur mon blog sur le sujet