The single transport passe in and around Paris: a sustainable solution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Île-de-France constitutes a single perimeter of urban transport and the question of the bond between financing and tariffing is there all the more crucial, which makes tariffing a major stake, as well tariff as zonal. The article concentrates on the relevance to apply to commercial tariffing (the Navigo Step) a single tariff. During one time of delay in investments and budgetary scarcity, the Step with single tariff benefits only to 14% from the subscribers TC (Paris-Large crown), it causes a shortfall equivalent to the fifth of the receipts of ticketing, of about size of the investments in extensions of networks, its implementation being conditioned by the acquisition of new receipts. However, the current situation comprises already strong decreasing scales with the number of zones, and called upon territorial solidarity is prone to guarantee: the most modest households are located mainly east of the metropolis, in the rural sectors and in the urbanized sectors close to the heart of urban area, it is in the central zones that one finds the strongest percentages of households below the poverty line, the majority of the inhabitants of perish-urban wish to live into perish-urban, all the subscribers whose displacements are limited to two zones strongly see their tariffs increasing. The social solidarity is already exemplary. The Navigo Step and the Transilien logo contribute already to the regional identity. One cannot exclude an incentive with the urban sprawl. Especially the protagonists of the public transport from the Île -de-France work on alternatives (units of transport, not of proximity, reductions for displacements of off-peak hours, flow ceiling for the tickets…) license by progress of telematics, which could contribute to the marginalisation of a measurement neither effective, neither interdependent, nor social. L'Île-de-France constitue un périmètre unique de transport urbain et la question du lien entre financement et tarification y est d'autant plus cruciale, ce qui fait de la tarification un enjeu majeur, tant tarifaire que zonal. L'article se concentre sur la pertinence d'appliquer à la tarification commerciale (le Passe Navigo) un tarif unique. Dans une période de retard en investissements et de rareté budgétaire, le Passe à tarif unique ne profite qu'à 14 % des abonnés TC (Paris-Grande couronne), il provoque un manque à gagner équivalent au cinquième des recettes de billetterie, de l'ordre de grandeur des investissements en extensions de réseaux, sa mise en œuvre étant conditionnée par l'acquisition de nouvelles recettes. Or, la situation actuelle comporte déjà de fortes dégressivités avec le nombre de zones, et la solidarité territoriale invoquée est sujette à caution : les ménages les plus modestes se situent majoritairement à l’est de la métropole, dans les secteurs ruraux et dans les secteurs urbanisés proches du cœur d’agglomération ; c'est dans les zones centrales qu'on trouve les plus forts pourcentages de ménages en-dessous du seuil de pauvreté, la majorité des habitants du péri-urbain souhaitent habiter en péri-urbain ; tous les abonnés dont les déplacements se limitent à deux zones voient leurs tarifs fortement augmenter. La solidarité sociale est déjà exemplaire. Le Passe Navigo et le logo Transilien contribuent déjà à l'identité régionale. On ne peut pas exclure une incitation à l'étalement urbain. Surtout les protagonistes du transport public francilien travaillent sur des alternatives (unités de transport, passes de proximité, réductions pour les déplacements d'heures creuses, débit plafond pour les tickets voire tarification proportionnelle aux revenus...) permis par les progrès de la télématique, qui pourraient contribuer à marginaliser dans l'avenir une mesure ni efficace, ni solidaire, ni sociale.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".