Projet Montreal's Cym Gomery, who campaigned very hard on the issue (yes I signed her protest form), came in 3rd. The voters have spoken!

Your best friend in council will be Peter 'Green' McQueen! Peter has been working with community groups and asking hard questions at council for free for the past 2 years. Finally, now he will be getting paid!

Although he is being diplomatic for now, he said he isn’t afraid of stirring up some trouble if he can’t come to solutions amicably with his council cohorts; all of which are members of the ruling Union party.

Are you sure you don't have a hidden agenda here?

I can only assume you are being facetious. Laws require some degree of legitimacy among the public.

Like the law that says you cannot transport alcohol from one province to the other? That’s a very legitimate law, yes, indeed. Or the law that says that you cannot drink a beer in the street? Very legitimate, too. Or the other one that says that you cannot make your own cider because Mr Molson wants to sell his beer? Another legitimate legislation. Or the law that says you have to register your gun? I hear the hicks don’t find this one very letigimate, lately… Or the law that prohibits flying the patriotes flag (it’s “sedition”). Very, very, very legitimate, as legitimate as the monarch in whose name they are passed.
Laws do not require any legitimacy. Just the brute force to enforce them.

Banning cars, without the necessary pre-existing transit infrastructure to back it up, would be...well, "ill-advised," is the most polite description I can come up with.

But let's further explore this Land of Make Believe, shall we? You pass this hypothetical law and, at a figurative stroke of a pen, render people's automobiles entirely useless for the very thing that the overwhelming majority of people purchase them for: commuting to their place of employment. Not only that, you have imposed a staggering depreciation on those vehicles, because you've also decimated the resale market because, hey, why buy a used car that you can't use? Then, since many, many people have purchased them on finance, they now have to continue to make payments to the bank on a valueless item that they can't use for its primary intended purpose and that they can't dispose of on the secondary market.

Though fucking noogies. It’s not the first time that government fiat has rendered some capital immobilization obsolete. Those people have known all along that their conveyance is very destructive for the environment, so they should have seen it coming.
The government’s role is not to pooh-pooh some of it's citizens, but guarantee a livelyhood for the upcoming generations.

Meanwhile, let's shepherd Timmy and Mathieu and Marie-Hélène and their hockey bags to the corner bus stop so they can catch the 211 bus so that they can get to the arena for their ice time at 05h30.

They’ll lug their shit about just like my grandfather did. In the snow, uphill both ways. Or they will consider figure (or speed) skating, much less crap to haul about. And, of course, all the while carefully staying off my lawn.

Parents would love that. ...and yet somehow, you are possessed with the fanciful expectation that the majority of people would happily, or even grudgingly, accede to this adventure in government?

Of course not. Like the forced mergers, it's a good thing that will need to be forced down the throats of reluctant spoiled-rotten brats.

Or do you expect to enforce this idea at the point of a gun? Your idea is fascinating. But I'm certain that you are just being facetious and provocative, just for its own sake.

I am dead serious. Cars need to be outlawed, at least in their present, destructive form. Or at least discouraged by proper (read: tremenduously expensive) taxation.

But let's further explore this Land of Make Believe, shall we? You pass this hypothetical law and, at a figurative stroke of a pen, render people's automobiles entirely useless for the very thing that the overwhelming majority of people purchase them for: commuting to their place of employment. Not only that, you have imposed a staggering depreciation on those vehicles, because you've also decimated the resale market because, hey, why buy a used car that you can't use? Then, since many, many people have purchased them on finance, they now have to continue to make payments to the bank on a valueless item that they can't use for its primary intended purpose and that they can't dispose of on the secondary market.

Meanwhile, let's shepherd Timmy and Mathieu and Marie-Hélène and their hockey bags to the corner bus stop so they can catch the 211 bus so that they can get to the arena for their ice time at 05h30. Parents would love that.

...and yet somehow, you are possessed with the fanciful expectation that the majority of people would happily, or even grudgingly, accede to this adventure in government? Or do you expect to enforce this idea at the point of a gun?

Your idea is fascinating. But I'm certain that you are just being facetious and provocative, just for its own sake.

“I’m not sure what to expect,” “I respect my opponents and new colleagues. I don’t plan on having any major confrontations. They have the power, so what’s the point?”

I don't think the 40% of voters who elected him wanted to hear that.

Reference:
http://www.thesuburbannews.ca/content/en/2646

It's nice to see change called for from the grassroots but for anything to realistically take shape it has to be a top-down approach meaning someone with balls at city hall has got to implement the transportation plan without flip flopping (I'm trying hard here to stay on topic). This is how Projet Montréal is appealing to me and surely to others.

Another area that really needs better transport is NDG

Yes. Peter McQueen and Jeremy Searle want a reserved rush-hour bus lane on Sherbrooke so that the 105 and 420 don't get backed up. Plus they can add the white priority light which gives the buses lead time before the light goes green for everyone else. The other thing is more frequency on the 103. Funny thing is, it's actually on the schedule but I'd say about 20% of the buses never show up. Sometimes I'll step outside to watch and notice frustrated people looking at their watches noticing a bus didn't show.

So can buses. One of my issues with setting up a tram network is that dedicated lanes for buses on these routes hasn't been tried yet.

Métro building is extremely expensive. One line that cries out for extension is the blue line - it should go at least to Pie IX in the east. Doing that and building a tram line along Pie IX and up into Montréal-Nord would be a big boost to that area. Trams are more expensive than buses but they last longer and better "structure" an area. Another area that really needs better transport is NDG, but I'm not familiar enough with the area to know exactly where improvements are most urgent.

Most of the poorer neighbourhoods here (and even many "middling" ones) are multi-family dwellings. There are cars all along my street but only one household in my 15-flat co-operative owns a car. So that doesn't prove everyone owns a car. Of course we are close to three métro stations (Jean-Talon, Beaubien and de Castelnau) and there are many buslines nearby. Little point in owning a car unless one works in a location or during hours ill-served by public transport. Montréal is not one of those ghastly American cities where even low-wage workers absolutely have to own a car to get to their work.

London is far more populous and congested than Montréal.

Today in Montreal even the poorest neighbourhoods have cars in front of their houses. The decline of the car in cities will be made obvious when they lose their privilege to drive when gas becomes too expensive or driving becomes too costly and then it'll be the turn of the working class, middle class, and so on.

To return back to the topic, it is perhaps through the election of political parties such as Projet Montreal emphasising transit-first that people will start to make the choice by reducing car use. We will see if there will be coercion to make the car use unattractive in cities.

Just a thought...

But, even worse, if you're just going to whinge on a blog (and it's not even your own blog) about how well-funded and deeply-entrenched the auto industry's advertising machine is, then it appears to me like you're just making excuses, instead of coming up with innovative arguments and strategies for persuading individuals to make different choices in their lives.

What's the solutions for rural Québec where there is not a bus in sight??? Are the farmers forced back to the horse and buggy? I'd like to see that (not)

Rural Québec is moving to the city, as there is nothing worthy of interest up the sticks.
Farmers lived perfectly well before there were cars.

Pointing out those aspects of society that need improvement is good. Being overly smug, strident and sanctimonious about it will typically alienate the vast majority of people that you would otherwise need to persuade …

Nobody can be as overtly overly smug, strident, sanctimonious, pompous and arrogant than the auto industry and it’s multitrillion dollar advertising machine that reaches the deepest corners of the human mind in order to sell their destructive wares.

The car is a fine invention, helping farmers get their crops to market by truck and speeding up response in medical emergencies. It is simply misused in urban centres, and has produced a cancerous growth called suburbs (there have always been suburbs, but I'm referring to car-dependent postwar suburban sprawl, not the fact that cities grow).

I do think alternative transport solutions are necessary for people in smaller centres who can't drive (age, disability) or can't afford a private vehicle. We have to be creative about that.

The stuff about hippies is so lame. Hippies were people of my generation, and even rather older than I am - they are people in their 60s now. People have the right to protest idiocies such as people driving into the city ACROSS THEIR NEIGHOURHOODS alone in huge vehicles. Some of these people are alone in SUVS and Hummers, not little cars.