19 ms·

Parisians vote in favour of tripling parking costs for SUVs

137 points by schleck8 3y ago

schleck8 3y ago
This applies to people coming in from outside the city with SUVs. It's probably still not fully financing the parking spots. Parking spots in cities are incredibly expensive and heavily subsidized.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  Imo you should be allowed to use the parking spots for just about whatever you want within reason. Pay the parking price and set up a hotdog stand for the day if you want. Then raise the price until some spots are usually free
  - davstr1 3y ago
    Free market solutions are so simple, elegant, natural and organic...I wonder why ecologists hate it that much...not.
    - Gigachad 3y ago
      The free market solutions are more of a thought experiment than a practical answer. They show how absurdly subsidized driving is. But if you actually implemented them they would make car usage not viable instantly which is too rapid of a change to go down smoothly. The non market legislation solutions like the OP article are a much softer landing which guide people towards the end goal without immediately bankrupting people.
      - davstr1 3y ago
        Free market solutions should perhaps be more of a general direction than an absolute goal. > without IMMEDIATELY bankrupting people. Il love the (involuntary ?) irony here ! Indeed, legislation actually bankrupt people. And industries. The automobile industry is now in bad shape thanks to legislation forcing them to adopt EVs. Even with subventions and taxes/norms for "bad behaving" vehicules, people aren't buying 60K electric vehicules... Many profesionals now can't afford to go to Paris due to the punitive politics for cars. (think plumber) People with old cars can't go there anyway. Yes, the poor gets poorer with this. This would go a bit better with an efficient system of public transportation. But since what belongs to everybody belongs to nobody and is taken care of by nobody... And before that they incentived everybody and their dog to buy diesel cars, only to overtax it a few years later... Example exists in every industry. This is a never ending story of politicians taxing and legislating what move and incentising what don't. In their own interests, not yours. Repeat and rinse. Nobody seem to understand that the ones that take decisions (politicians) are often remote from the actual situations, with a set of incentives often misaligned with their targets. Yet understanding this only takes a game of monopoly with friends or family, or just real life experience that everybody have on how people behave even for very small personal gains.
    - soco 3y ago
      I am not aware of any country where there's a free market. As soon as somebody can point me to one, we will see how's the parking space there and take that as a model.
      - davstr1 3y ago
        Free market is not an absolute measure, not a 100%, but rather a cursor. A country is rather ruled by free market or by government. Like in "are USA more a free market than Venezuela and North Korea ?" I can't understand why so many people keep on saying "there is no free market", as that's not even an argument. I mean i hope you can get out of this "black or white" void which just cancels any intent of reasoning. Unless it's done on purpose. Here is a list by the way : https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
        soco 3y ago
        When somebody makes an argument to let the free market do something free, it's quite important to remember that said free market is not free and will definitely not act freely, whether we're talking North Korea or USA. And the Parisian parking places market is definitely not a free market (as we just saw) so we simply cannot have a real talk about "letting the market decide", until same Parisians vote to let them run free. Assuming that was your argument we could talk about such a vote - which by looking at the trends has zero chances to pass. But let's assume for the sake of argument it would pass. Next vote will be then to limit it again because nobody wants a Cayenne parked in the narrow street in front of their little shop windows, either blocking the view or the passage, or the traffic. But again for the sake of the argument let's say we only liberalize the spaces in places where you can actually park bigger cars. Then yes you will be able to park them, but still not put a kebab stand because well a parking space is a parking space by definition, so again you'd need a voting to change that place attribution. And I could go on to show you how all this is in reality very much not free regardless whether you call the French economy a free market or not. It's not a jungle but a city with lots of inter-dependencies and who doesn't like it can, yeah, move someplace else - like in a jungle. And even in a jungle you wouldn't want to park your Cayenne next to the gorillas den. Freedom to do whatever is there only when you're completely alone - or in imagination.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Imagine if you could live in a parking spot. Or turn it into an AirBnB. Parking charges (and congestion charges) should equilibriate with rents for the same ground area.
    - wink 3y ago
      Used to be 5 EUR per day here, so that's 150 EUR for the month to pitch your tent, not bad.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
    In my city, during the covid lockdowns, restaurants were allowed to set up outdoor tables in the street parking spots in front of their restaurants. Many built semi-permanent structures with wooden flooring, waist-high walls to isolate seated guests from motorists, roofs for shade, etc. After everything opened back up, restaurants were allowed to keep the spots for about a year so long as they brought the structures up to code. After that, rather than shut them down the city started charging them rent. It's such a nice solution. The city earns much more revenue than they would if they put a parking meter there, the business gets more seating capacity, the guests get al fresco dining options. The only people who lose are those who insist upon driving (instead of Ubering, taking public transit, biking, walking, etc.), but even they can just park further away from the crowded areas and walk, or park in the parking structures (which charge something closer to market rate).
- martin_a 3y ago
  This is the most important part, I think. Everybody is hyping Paris like the end of the car is near, but in fact it's just an action to get some money from visitors and other external people. Don't see how this might change transport in large.
  - dieze 3y ago
    Visitors here also means Parisians outside their neighborhood.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Subsidized in what way? You mean street parking?
  - schleck8 3y ago
    Subsidized by the government https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM
rwmj 3y ago
It makes sense that road and parking pricing should be proportional to the size and impact of your car. Hopefully this will encourage manufacturers to produce more smaller cars - it's getting somewhat hard to buy a small car these days. I'd love to have a Japanese-style Kei car.
- infotainment 3y ago
  Agreed -- the popularity of giant vehicles is basically a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, and probably regulation is the only way to fix it at this point.
  - nox101 3y ago
    Some people claim it was regulation that caused SUVs https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/what-is-the-suv-loophole-and-will-it-close/2654 https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/... Hopefully new regulation will fix it rather than make it worse
    - aemoron 3y ago
      Regulation that came to be because of the aggressive lobbying.
    - kergonath 3y ago
      Certainly not in Europe, where things like pickup trucks and light trucks were exceedingly rare and there was no such regulation loophole.
      - nox101 3y ago
        I think some might say it started in the USA and was then brought to Europe after. Many things are introduced in one country and once successful the companies try to expand their market to other countries
        3y ago
wkipling 3y ago
Why a tonnage limit for electric vehicles. It's obviously not entirely for GHG reasons. 2T is not all that heavy for EVs.
- olabyne 3y ago
  What ? It is. 2T means a 70kwh+ battery, an heresy on a planet with limited resources. In Europe there is decent EVs with a 1.4-1.5T weight (Zoe/208/fiat)
  - quonn 3y ago
    The Zoe is not being produced anymore and has a 0 of 5 possible stars safety rating.
- Rygian 3y ago
  There's a tonnage limit for all vehicles. The only difference is +400 kg allowed if it's an EV.
- buro9 3y ago
  Weight is the best way to tax vehicles. It correlates to the amount of energy needed to move it, generally with the size of the vehicle, and highly with the particulate pollution from brakes and tyres (yes I'm aware of regenerative braking), as well as the amount of wear and tear on the roads and infrastructure, etc. European cities were never built for large vehicles, we should be going towards smaller vehicles, a Fiat 500 EV would be well within the limits described (at only 980 kg) even without the extra weight allowed by EVs. Even if one argues an EV is good for the environment... they could still be better for the environment by being smaller and weighing less as it would take less energy to move them. But looking at things like the Mercedes EQS SUV (3,375 kg), I drove behind one of these at the weekend and it is huge, it was scary seeing it pass a cyclist on a narrow London street. Living in a dense capital city, I would love if London followed suit here.
  - neoberg 3y ago
    Not only the energy though. "Tire emissions" are a serious problem and it's competing with ICE emissions. EV's are considerably heavier so they produce lots of fine particles from the tires. Maybe in the North America they're not that important since other cars are as heavy (SUVs and Trucks). But in Europe, EV's are by far the heaviest of the regular use vehicles.
dustincoates 3y ago
The thing that's most interesting to me (and not mentioned in the article) is the crazy split between results depending on the arrondisement.[0] Only one (the 6th, both rich but also rather low on parking) had results that were closer than 60/40 or 40/60. [0] https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisiens-et-parisiennes-sont-invites-a-voter-le-4-fevrier-25381 https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisien...
seydor 3y ago
There are small SUVs and they are great. They are popular for a reason: they have Utility, and you can use them slightly offroad. OTOH an X3 or other luxury suv is basically stupid concept other than a display of wealth.
- scrlk 3y ago
  The Fiat Panda 4x4 and Skoda Yeti are good examples of small SUVs that are incredibly practical. Shame that Fiat discontinued the Panda 4x4 and Skoda never released a true successor to the Yeti.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  An X3 isn't massive. We have a mid-size people carrier and although it's a different (and less practical) shape, it's a very similar size. An X7 is more what you're talking about, which almost no-one has.
  - lagadu 3y ago
    The X3 is big (D segment I believe) and larger by a decent margin than most other cars on the road. Even the X1 is not anywhere near close to being small (C segment?).
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Sorry, I don't know segments. Dimensions - some examples: Toyota Corolla 4600mm x 1710mm [0] Toyota Prius 4645mm x 1760mm [1] BMW X3 4,716mm x 2138mm [2] VW Passat 4767mm x 2083mm [3] Doesn't look like an X3 is particularly egregious vs some non-SUV family cars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Avensis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Avensis [1] https://www.parkers.co.uk/toyota/prius/plug-in-2017/specs https://www.parkers.co.uk/toyota/prius/plug-in-2017/specs [2] https://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/x3/suv-2017/specs https://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/x3/suv-2017/specs [3] https://www.parkers.co.uk/volkswagen/passat/estate-2015/specs https://www.parkers.co.uk/volkswagen/passat/estate-2015/spec...
      - 3y ago
pmontra 3y ago
From the article it seems that the campaign was about pollution. Heavier vehicles also consume the road much more than lighter ones. It's proportional to the fourth power of the weight on axles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
- blueflow 3y ago
  There is no math behind it and its evidence is poor. Thats why: > The accuracy of the law of the fourth power is disputed among experts
  - pmontra 3y ago
    A more extended quote: > When evaluating the series of tests, it was found that there is a connection between the thickness of the pavement, the number of load transfers and the axle load, and that these have a direct effect on the service life and condition of a road. The service life of the road is thereby reduced with approximately the fourth power of the axle load. > The accuracy of the law of the fourth power is disputed among experts, since the test results depend on many other factors, such as climatic conditions, in addition to the factors mentioned above.
    - raverbashing 3y ago
      Yes, saying it's only axis loading is wrong But the proportionality rule should be valid Even if the actual power would be 2 instead of 4 it does make sense to limit axis load
    - jabl 3y ago
      Even if we give it a bit of slack and make it a third-power-law for taxation purposes, it would still mean a large increase in tax for heavy vehicles. Or IOW, currently heavy vehicles are free-riding, with lighter vehicles providing much of the tax revenue to fix the damage the heavies are causing.
quonn 3y ago
Actually they voted for tripling the cost of heavy vehicles. The size is not even mentioned. It's a shortsighted move, since it incentives using gasoline cars in cities and disincentivies Hybrid and even EVs due to their weight. There is nothing in the rules specific to SUVs.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Tyre dust, break dust, there are other forms of pollution we need to eradicate / reduce.
  - luplex 3y ago
    This is true. But I fear that this talking point will be used by lobbyists and pro-ICE fanatics to justify more climate damage than necessary.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      The world is off ICEs now, no amount of lobbying is going to convince people they’re a good idea going forwards.
      - quonn 3y ago
        > The world is off ICEs now How is it off ICE? It's slowly moving in the right direction, but very slowly indeed. New ICE will be produced and sold even in Europe for another 10 years and afterwards they have a long lifetime.
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        Younger people are growing up facing an existential threat from climate change, they're the next generation of car buyers, and they're not passionate about or interested in maintaining the status quo. My fathers generation was, most people were very concerned at the idea of there being no more ICE vehicles on the road, as if something important was being taken away from them from a cultural standpoint.
michalu 3y ago
As a person with SUV and big family in Paris, I suggest we do the same with obese people and public transport - now that my kids will need to use it more frequently while paying more for sq ft.
- moritonal 3y ago
  I'd agree that families have the best reason for larger vehicles given how public transport can be difficult for buggies ect. An interesting intersection of gov trying to encourage families could be used here to offer a tax-relief on people that carpool (which'd by default therefore include families)?
  - michalu 3y ago
    To be honest we're moving out of France. I don't see much future in this country if you have a family unless you go to somewhere like Auvergne where there's less jobs, mostly farming and these guys are getting decimated and cities run down. Owning a dog here starts to be higher virtue than having a child. French are moreover delusional about the role their country plays in the international scene and lot of other things. I give it 10-20 years max.
  - neoberg 3y ago
    A good public transport system is not difficult for families and even easier. Berlin has a pretty good public transport. We had a car when we first moved here (we're a family) but we never had the need to use it other than 1-2 occasions in a year because public transport + biking is easier, faster and more comfortable. At the end we got rid of our car and not planning to buy another one. For those occasions that happens 1-2 times a year, we just use a car sharing app. It's also a lot cheaper than maintaining a car.
    - dustincoates 3y ago
      Sadly, Paris is not that. It's a great public transport system without families, but not for anyone with young children or with mobility problems. I can make do, but only if I have my 18 mos. old in the stroller OR my 3 year old walking, but not both. (It's a bit easier for my wife, because people will stop and help her up and down the stairs with the stroller.) Buses do tend to be a bit easier if you're travelling outside of peak hours. Otherwise, you might have to let a bus or two pass you before one comes with enough space for the stroller. Things are supposed to be a lot better with the Grand Paris Express, although that won't help much intramuros.
colonwqbang 3y ago
> The move will not apply to Paris residents’ parking
- masklinn 3y ago
  This is mostly intended to curb car use from the suburbs into Paris, and within Paris: from what I gather the surcharge will apply to cross borough parking.
barney54 3y ago
The reality is that people like their SUVs. It doesn’t matter where in the world, SUVs are popular and growing in market share. Here’s the International Energy Agency on SUVs. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/as-their-sales-continue-to-rise-suvs-global-co2-emissions-are-nearing-1-billion-tonnes?utm_content=buffer6eb8a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin-Birol&utm_campaign=buffer https://www.iea.org/commentaries/as-their-sales-continue-to-...
- wongarsu 3y ago
  SUVs are a lot bigger than typical European cars. Since people don't feel safe driving small cars around big cars the presence of SUVs causes an upwards pressure on vehicle size. That's an issue in cities where the roads and parking spaces are built to fit vehicles from 20 years ago, causing a lot of frustration for everyone. Which creates the paradox that SUVs both cause people to dislike them and to buy them, for related reasons.
  - grujicd 3y ago
    It's not that simple. There are SUV-like cars in all sizes now, starting with small cars like Suzuki Jimny, and you can find a model within each 5cm band up to 5m+. Where do you draw a line? Each of these could be called a SUV by a typical voter, with increased height and ground clearance, larger wheels, in many cases 4x4. There are also sedans and station wagons with increased height and some offroad protection and styling. My point is it's very hard nowadays to say what's a SUV. According to the article, French authorities decided purely on weight, which is only semi-related to SUV-ness of a vehicle and might include non-SUV cars, especially with heavy diesel engines, but exclude my petrol Honda CR-V 3rd gen. Why didn't they call it "triple cost for heavier vehicles" instead?
- danpalmer 3y ago
  I've noticed this trend, but I feel like it's down to several factors, and I think as full cost gets priced in correctly, it's likely to end. Obviously these use more fuel than the equivalent smaller, lighter car. Over time that's going to affect both the direct fuel costs, and the other taxes and costs levied for environmental reasons, road use, etc. Credit has been remarkably cheap, particularly in cars, and that's coming to and end. Insurance premiums have been going up in many countries, and these cars generally cost more to insure. On top of all of this, in the US SUVs are more practical because of the support for much larger vehicles (parking, roads, etc), and US media is a trend-setter for much of the world, so these vehicles are considered desirable more than may otherwise be the case. The numbers you point to are from 2022, I'd be interested to see 2023 numbers as that's where I expect things would really start to turn around.
hkt 3y ago
Vive la paris! It is always heartening to hear that people who make antisocial choices (cars in cities) are finally being made to bear the costs of those choices.
rapnie 3y ago
Should be added that this is for SUVs coming from outside of Paris and doesn't affect residents. Positive development nonetheless.
- dustincoates 3y ago
  Yes and no. Residents aren't affected if they are parking in their "authorized parking zone" but they are elsewhere, so unless their only Paris parking is in their neighborhood, they'll be affected by the change.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Let's have a vote of only the residents about an issue that only affects the non-residents...
  - posix_monad 3y ago
    > only affects the non-residents The status-quo (all you can eat SUV use in cities) has a big impact on everyone using the city. Yet no one voted for that...
  - lagadu 3y ago
    Of course a city's residents are the ones who should vote! Cities are built for us, who live in them, therefore we're the ones who get to decide how they are managed. It's the same reason that municipal elections are only open to residents of a city and national elections are only open to a country's citizens.
Aissen 3y ago
Interesting to note: the turnout (5.6%) is even lower than when it was decided to ban e-scooters sharing systems (7.4%). Also note this only applies to vehicles from non-residents. And that parking in public spots is already very expensive in Paris; limited to a maximum of 6h, which will cost you up to 75€: https://www.paris.fr/pages/payer-son-stationnement-2129 https://www.paris.fr/pages/payer-son-stationnement-2129
- pjc50 3y ago
  > the turnout (5.6%) is even lower than when it was decided to ban electric scooters public sharing (7.4%). These things should really have a quorum requirement.
  - rjst01 3y ago
    Most eligible voters are probably not personally affected and so didn't see a need vote. A quorum would make it effectively impossible to change anything.
    - Zak 3y ago
      The current system makes it possible for a very small portion of the population to change things for everyone. I'm not sure that's better.
      - vr46 3y ago
        Bring in Australian-style compulsory voting then.
        Gigachad 3y ago
        In Australia there would be no public vote for this. It would just be some internal council decision.
      - soco 3y ago
        If said "everyone" would care, they'd definitely show up at the booths. So the change is better indeed, benefiting those few who care.
Fradow 3y ago
This article leaves a lot of details out. As a Parisian who's been following this with attention, here are a few details: * first, the "SUV" part is the intent, but not the reality. It's actually by weight: over 1600kg for ICE and 2000kg for electric/hybrids. A lot of French SUVs fit under those restrictions (for example Peugeot 2008/3008). It's unclear to me if there is really something specific to target those SUVs as well (I have not read the full text) * part of the issue is width rather than weight: cars become larger and no longer fit in the parking spots. Parking spots minimum width in Paris is 180cm. For example, a Porsche Cayenne (a typical SUV) is 198cm without mirrors, 219cm with mirrors deployed. Being at least 20cm outside of the parking spot is an issue, roads are narrow. * this is only for paid surface parking for non-residents. Residents price is not impacted (which is controversial). Underground parking is private and not affected. Free parking (outside of 8AM to 8PM Monday to Saturday) stays free for everyone. * In general, underground parking is cheaper than surface parking even at the normal price. This will likely push those cars underground, which is IMO a good thing (especially because of the width issue). * this vote is controversial in the first place (much like the rental scooters one was recently): the result was expected: it doesn't really affect negatively Parisians, only outsiders, and is strictly a QoL improvements for Parisians. I'm actually surprised it's not a landslide, but I guess the people who went to vote are generally more likely to have a car and vote against because of that. * there were other questions asked for specific arrondissement. Those were important as well. Edit: of those questions, only one arrondissement rejected its question (8th, which is also one of the least favorable over the poll). Those questions were mainly around reclaiming space from cars to allocate to pedestrians/cyclists/green spaces.
- erostrate 3y ago
  > this is only for paid surface parking for non-residents. Residents price is not impacted (which is controversial). Underground parking is private and not affected. Free parking (outside of 8AM to 8PM Monday to Saturday) stays free for everyone. If my end goal was to apply this to everyone at some point, I would probably start with such a restricted law, then extend it step by step later.
  - orwin 3y ago
V-2 3y ago
Conspiracy theorists or cynics might claim it's not just about pollution and parking spots. Such initiatives could coincidentally align with the interests of French automotive industry. As of now, France is importing more cars than it is exporting, and its traditional main rival - Germany - happens to be doing particularly well in the SUV sector. Just a few months ago a French MEP called for introducing a special driver license for SUVs; German MEPs would want nothing of it, even the German Green Party opposed, dismissing the initiative as "nonsense". So when "citing a 60% increase in SUV ownership over the last four years, Parisian officials say SUVs are ridiculous, dangerous, and needlessly polluting", it would be interesting to break down where these ridiculous SUVs are coming from, in order to dispel such suspicions.
greatgib 3y ago
This vote was a total joke. For example, the question on the ballots was totally different and like "do you approve bad things"? But if you want to laugh a little bit, look at the official results: https://x.com/lachape_one/status/1754271878737203536?s=20 https://x.com/lachape_one/status/1754271878737203536?s=20 The total of ballots "FOR" + "AGAINST" in one district equal to 108% ...
- rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
  The vote is a joke because of a typo on a webpage? Results are 59,20% and 40,80%. https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisiens-et-parisiennes-sont-invites-a-voter-le-4-fevrier-25381#resultats-par-arrondissement https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisien...
  - greatgib 3y ago
    No, it is one of the hundred of points why it is a joke. Like for example not defining what people are voting for, or having more voting locations in small less populated districts that the mayor majority control and people being refused of some voting hall in the other districts being told to go in another district. Almost nothing respected the rules of a fair votation. Regarding the typo (maybe), the point is not an error on a random webpage but this page is the official results display for the votation. It let's you see how the rest was handled!
- touwer 3y ago
  Fake news. This is the real one https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisiens-et-parisiennes-sont-invites-a-voter-le-4-fevrier-25381 https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisien...
  - greatgib 3y ago
    Not fake news, they just updated the web page after social storm...
reacharavindh 3y ago
When I told my wife this, her immediate reaction was - “oh no, the families with 2 or more children that needs a bigger car will be penalized because of the SUVs driven by those who don’t need it”. And I said may be this is a two birds one stone moment. Give out SUV passes to those families with 2 or more children, and make it absurdly expensive for the rest. This way either you help increase the birth rate in EU or pay for the luxury of driving a huge thing on the road disproportionate to others. I see the article didn’t go about that way, and didn’t even apply for residents. Just for the tourists…. Meh.
- okuntilnow 3y ago
  Is an SUV needed for two children? I can accommodate my two children (and the dog if required) in my smallish hatchback.
  - reacharavindh 3y ago
    Me too. But, when we drive to my in-laws, NL -> Austria and back, we inevitably bring more stuff with us. I’m not going to rent a car three times a year while still owning a hatchback, and paying insurance and taxes for it.
penguin_booze 3y ago
Even if this were a resounding message against SUVs, I think this will lift the status of the SUV owners: "look what I can afford, even with expensive parking fee". This is just like how Apple made the exortionary and inflated prices of their products "cool" and a status symbol.
tmnvix 3y ago
I can understand why they went with weight (I assume the data is more readily available), but given many of the concerns they are trying to address I would think that height would have been a better measure.

137 points by schleck8 3y ago

This applies to people coming in from outside the city with SUVs. It's probably still not fully financing the parking spots. Parking spots in cities are incredibly expensive and heavily subsidized.

Gigachad 3y ago
Imo you should be allowed to use the parking spots for just about whatever you want within reason. Pay the parking price and set up a hotdog stand for the day if you want. Then raise the price until some spots are usually free
- davstr1 3y ago
  Free market solutions are so simple, elegant, natural and organic...I wonder why ecologists hate it that much...not.
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    The free market solutions are more of a thought experiment than a practical answer. They show how absurdly subsidized driving is. But if you actually implemented them they would make car usage not viable instantly which is too rapid of a change to go down smoothly. The non market legislation solutions like the OP article are a much softer landing which guide people towards the end goal without immediately bankrupting people.
    - davstr1 3y ago
      Free market solutions should perhaps be more of a general direction than an absolute goal. > without IMMEDIATELY bankrupting people. Il love the (involuntary ?) irony here ! Indeed, legislation actually bankrupt people. And industries. The automobile industry is now in bad shape thanks to legislation forcing them to adopt EVs. Even with subventions and taxes/norms for "bad behaving" vehicules, people aren't buying 60K electric vehicules... Many profesionals now can't afford to go to Paris due to the punitive politics for cars. (think plumber) People with old cars can't go there anyway. Yes, the poor gets poorer with this. This would go a bit better with an efficient system of public transportation. But since what belongs to everybody belongs to nobody and is taken care of by nobody... And before that they incentived everybody and their dog to buy diesel cars, only to overtax it a few years later... Example exists in every industry. This is a never ending story of politicians taxing and legislating what move and incentising what don't. In their own interests, not yours. Repeat and rinse. Nobody seem to understand that the ones that take decisions (politicians) are often remote from the actual situations, with a set of incentives often misaligned with their targets. Yet understanding this only takes a game of monopoly with friends or family, or just real life experience that everybody have on how people behave even for very small personal gains.
  - soco 3y ago
    I am not aware of any country where there's a free market. As soon as somebody can point me to one, we will see how's the parking space there and take that as a model.
    - davstr1 3y ago
      Free market is not an absolute measure, not a 100%, but rather a cursor. A country is rather ruled by free market or by government. Like in "are USA more a free market than Venezuela and North Korea ?" I can't understand why so many people keep on saying "there is no free market", as that's not even an argument. I mean i hope you can get out of this "black or white" void which just cancels any intent of reasoning. Unless it's done on purpose. Here is a list by the way : https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
      - soco 3y ago
        When somebody makes an argument to let the free market do something free, it's quite important to remember that said free market is not free and will definitely not act freely, whether we're talking North Korea or USA. And the Parisian parking places market is definitely not a free market (as we just saw) so we simply cannot have a real talk about "letting the market decide", until same Parisians vote to let them run free. Assuming that was your argument we could talk about such a vote - which by looking at the trends has zero chances to pass. But let's assume for the sake of argument it would pass. Next vote will be then to limit it again because nobody wants a Cayenne parked in the narrow street in front of their little shop windows, either blocking the view or the passage, or the traffic. But again for the sake of the argument let's say we only liberalize the spaces in places where you can actually park bigger cars. Then yes you will be able to park them, but still not put a kebab stand because well a parking space is a parking space by definition, so again you'd need a voting to change that place attribution. And I could go on to show you how all this is in reality very much not free regardless whether you call the French economy a free market or not. It's not a jungle but a city with lots of inter-dependencies and who doesn't like it can, yeah, move someplace else - like in a jungle. And even in a jungle you wouldn't want to park your Cayenne next to the gorillas den. Freedom to do whatever is there only when you're completely alone - or in imagination.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Imagine if you could live in a parking spot. Or turn it into an AirBnB. Parking charges (and congestion charges) should equilibriate with rents for the same ground area.
  - wink 3y ago
    Used to be 5 EUR per day here, so that's 150 EUR for the month to pitch your tent, not bad.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 3y ago
  In my city, during the covid lockdowns, restaurants were allowed to set up outdoor tables in the street parking spots in front of their restaurants. Many built semi-permanent structures with wooden flooring, waist-high walls to isolate seated guests from motorists, roofs for shade, etc. After everything opened back up, restaurants were allowed to keep the spots for about a year so long as they brought the structures up to code. After that, rather than shut them down the city started charging them rent. It's such a nice solution. The city earns much more revenue than they would if they put a parking meter there, the business gets more seating capacity, the guests get al fresco dining options. The only people who lose are those who insist upon driving (instead of Ubering, taking public transit, biking, walking, etc.), but even they can just park further away from the crowded areas and walk, or park in the parking structures (which charge something closer to market rate).
martin_a 3y ago
This is the most important part, I think. Everybody is hyping Paris like the end of the car is near, but in fact it's just an action to get some money from visitors and other external people. Don't see how this might change transport in large.
- dieze 3y ago
  Visitors here also means Parisians outside their neighborhood.
rightbyte 3y ago
Subsidized in what way? You mean street parking?
- schleck8 3y ago
  Subsidized by the government https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHZj6QNlkM

rwmj 3y ago

It makes sense that road and parking pricing should be proportional to the size and impact of your car. Hopefully this will encourage manufacturers to produce more smaller cars - it's getting somewhat hard to buy a small car these days. I'd love to have a Japanese-style Kei car.

infotainment 3y ago
Agreed -- the popularity of giant vehicles is basically a tragedy-of-the-commons situation, and probably regulation is the only way to fix it at this point.
- nox101 3y ago
  Some people claim it was regulation that caused SUVs https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/what-is-the-suv-loophole-and-will-it-close/2654 https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/... Hopefully new regulation will fix it rather than make it worse
  - aemoron 3y ago
    Regulation that came to be because of the aggressive lobbying.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    Certainly not in Europe, where things like pickup trucks and light trucks were exceedingly rare and there was no such regulation loophole.
    - nox101 3y ago
      I think some might say it started in the USA and was then brought to Europe after. Many things are introduced in one country and once successful the companies try to expand their market to other countries
      - 3y ago

wkipling 3y ago

Why a tonnage limit for electric vehicles. It's obviously not entirely for GHG reasons. 2T is not all that heavy for EVs.

olabyne 3y ago
What ? It is. 2T means a 70kwh+ battery, an heresy on a planet with limited resources. In Europe there is decent EVs with a 1.4-1.5T weight (Zoe/208/fiat)
- quonn 3y ago
  The Zoe is not being produced anymore and has a 0 of 5 possible stars safety rating.
Rygian 3y ago
There's a tonnage limit for all vehicles. The only difference is +400 kg allowed if it's an EV.
buro9 3y ago
Weight is the best way to tax vehicles. It correlates to the amount of energy needed to move it, generally with the size of the vehicle, and highly with the particulate pollution from brakes and tyres (yes I'm aware of regenerative braking), as well as the amount of wear and tear on the roads and infrastructure, etc. European cities were never built for large vehicles, we should be going towards smaller vehicles, a Fiat 500 EV would be well within the limits described (at only 980 kg) even without the extra weight allowed by EVs. Even if one argues an EV is good for the environment... they could still be better for the environment by being smaller and weighing less as it would take less energy to move them. But looking at things like the Mercedes EQS SUV (3,375 kg), I drove behind one of these at the weekend and it is huge, it was scary seeing it pass a cyclist on a narrow London street. Living in a dense capital city, I would love if London followed suit here.
- neoberg 3y ago
  Not only the energy though. "Tire emissions" are a serious problem and it's competing with ICE emissions. EV's are considerably heavier so they produce lots of fine particles from the tires. Maybe in the North America they're not that important since other cars are as heavy (SUVs and Trucks). But in Europe, EV's are by far the heaviest of the regular use vehicles.

dustincoates 3y ago

The thing that's most interesting to me (and not mentioned in the article) is the crazy split between results depending on the arrondisement.[0] Only one (the 6th, both rich but also rather low on parking) had results that were closer than 60/40 or 40/60. [0] https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisiens-et-parisiennes-sont-invites-a-voter-le-4-fevrier-25381 https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisien...

seydor 3y ago

There are small SUVs and they are great. They are popular for a reason: they have Utility, and you can use them slightly offroad. OTOH an X3 or other luxury suv is basically stupid concept other than a display of wealth.

scrlk 3y ago
The Fiat Panda 4x4 and Skoda Yeti are good examples of small SUVs that are incredibly practical. Shame that Fiat discontinued the Panda 4x4 and Skoda never released a true successor to the Yeti.
robertlagrant 3y ago
An X3 isn't massive. We have a mid-size people carrier and although it's a different (and less practical) shape, it's a very similar size. An X7 is more what you're talking about, which almost no-one has.
- lagadu 3y ago
  The X3 is big (D segment I believe) and larger by a decent margin than most other cars on the road. Even the X1 is not anywhere near close to being small (C segment?).
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Sorry, I don't know segments. Dimensions - some examples: Toyota Corolla 4600mm x 1710mm [0] Toyota Prius 4645mm x 1760mm [1] BMW X3 4,716mm x 2138mm [2] VW Passat 4767mm x 2083mm [3] Doesn't look like an X3 is particularly egregious vs some non-SUV family cars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Avensis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Avensis [1] https://www.parkers.co.uk/toyota/prius/plug-in-2017/specs https://www.parkers.co.uk/toyota/prius/plug-in-2017/specs [2] https://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/x3/suv-2017/specs https://www.parkers.co.uk/bmw/x3/suv-2017/specs [3] https://www.parkers.co.uk/volkswagen/passat/estate-2015/specs https://www.parkers.co.uk/volkswagen/passat/estate-2015/spec...
    - 3y ago

pmontra 3y ago

From the article it seems that the campaign was about pollution. Heavier vehicles also consume the road much more than lighter ones. It's proportional to the fourth power of the weight on axles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

blueflow 3y ago
There is no math behind it and its evidence is poor. Thats why: > The accuracy of the law of the fourth power is disputed among experts
- pmontra 3y ago
  A more extended quote: > When evaluating the series of tests, it was found that there is a connection between the thickness of the pavement, the number of load transfers and the axle load, and that these have a direct effect on the service life and condition of a road. The service life of the road is thereby reduced with approximately the fourth power of the axle load. > The accuracy of the law of the fourth power is disputed among experts, since the test results depend on many other factors, such as climatic conditions, in addition to the factors mentioned above.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    Yes, saying it's only axis loading is wrong But the proportionality rule should be valid Even if the actual power would be 2 instead of 4 it does make sense to limit axis load
  - jabl 3y ago
    Even if we give it a bit of slack and make it a third-power-law for taxation purposes, it would still mean a large increase in tax for heavy vehicles. Or IOW, currently heavy vehicles are free-riding, with lighter vehicles providing much of the tax revenue to fix the damage the heavies are causing.

quonn 3y ago

Actually they voted for tripling the cost of heavy vehicles. The size is not even mentioned. It's a shortsighted move, since it incentives using gasoline cars in cities and disincentivies Hybrid and even EVs due to their weight. There is nothing in the rules specific to SUVs.

ChatGTP 3y ago
Tyre dust, break dust, there are other forms of pollution we need to eradicate / reduce.
- luplex 3y ago
  This is true. But I fear that this talking point will be used by lobbyists and pro-ICE fanatics to justify more climate damage than necessary.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    The world is off ICEs now, no amount of lobbying is going to convince people they’re a good idea going forwards.
    - quonn 3y ago
      > The world is off ICEs now How is it off ICE? It's slowly moving in the right direction, but very slowly indeed. New ICE will be produced and sold even in Europe for another 10 years and afterwards they have a long lifetime.
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        Younger people are growing up facing an existential threat from climate change, they're the next generation of car buyers, and they're not passionate about or interested in maintaining the status quo. My fathers generation was, most people were very concerned at the idea of there being no more ICE vehicles on the road, as if something important was being taken away from them from a cultural standpoint.

michalu 3y ago

As a person with SUV and big family in Paris, I suggest we do the same with obese people and public transport - now that my kids will need to use it more frequently while paying more for sq ft.

moritonal 3y ago
I'd agree that families have the best reason for larger vehicles given how public transport can be difficult for buggies ect. An interesting intersection of gov trying to encourage families could be used here to offer a tax-relief on people that carpool (which'd by default therefore include families)?
- michalu 3y ago
  To be honest we're moving out of France. I don't see much future in this country if you have a family unless you go to somewhere like Auvergne where there's less jobs, mostly farming and these guys are getting decimated and cities run down. Owning a dog here starts to be higher virtue than having a child. French are moreover delusional about the role their country plays in the international scene and lot of other things. I give it 10-20 years max.
- neoberg 3y ago
  A good public transport system is not difficult for families and even easier. Berlin has a pretty good public transport. We had a car when we first moved here (we're a family) but we never had the need to use it other than 1-2 occasions in a year because public transport + biking is easier, faster and more comfortable. At the end we got rid of our car and not planning to buy another one. For those occasions that happens 1-2 times a year, we just use a car sharing app. It's also a lot cheaper than maintaining a car.
  - dustincoates 3y ago
    Sadly, Paris is not that. It's a great public transport system without families, but not for anyone with young children or with mobility problems. I can make do, but only if I have my 18 mos. old in the stroller OR my 3 year old walking, but not both. (It's a bit easier for my wife, because people will stop and help her up and down the stairs with the stroller.) Buses do tend to be a bit easier if you're travelling outside of peak hours. Otherwise, you might have to let a bus or two pass you before one comes with enough space for the stroller. Things are supposed to be a lot better with the Grand Paris Express, although that won't help much intramuros.

colonwqbang 3y ago

> The move will not apply to Paris residents’ parking

masklinn 3y ago
This is mostly intended to curb car use from the suburbs into Paris, and within Paris: from what I gather the surcharge will apply to cross borough parking.

barney54 3y ago

The reality is that people like their SUVs. It doesn’t matter where in the world, SUVs are popular and growing in market share. Here’s the International Energy Agency on SUVs. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/as-their-sales-continue-to-rise-suvs-global-co2-emissions-are-nearing-1-billion-tonnes?utm_content=buffer6eb8a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin-Birol&utm_campaign=buffer https://www.iea.org/commentaries/as-their-sales-continue-to-...

wongarsu 3y ago
SUVs are a lot bigger than typical European cars. Since people don't feel safe driving small cars around big cars the presence of SUVs causes an upwards pressure on vehicle size. That's an issue in cities where the roads and parking spaces are built to fit vehicles from 20 years ago, causing a lot of frustration for everyone. Which creates the paradox that SUVs both cause people to dislike them and to buy them, for related reasons.
- grujicd 3y ago
  It's not that simple. There are SUV-like cars in all sizes now, starting with small cars like Suzuki Jimny, and you can find a model within each 5cm band up to 5m+. Where do you draw a line? Each of these could be called a SUV by a typical voter, with increased height and ground clearance, larger wheels, in many cases 4x4. There are also sedans and station wagons with increased height and some offroad protection and styling. My point is it's very hard nowadays to say what's a SUV. According to the article, French authorities decided purely on weight, which is only semi-related to SUV-ness of a vehicle and might include non-SUV cars, especially with heavy diesel engines, but exclude my petrol Honda CR-V 3rd gen. Why didn't they call it "triple cost for heavier vehicles" instead?
danpalmer 3y ago
I've noticed this trend, but I feel like it's down to several factors, and I think as full cost gets priced in correctly, it's likely to end. Obviously these use more fuel than the equivalent smaller, lighter car. Over time that's going to affect both the direct fuel costs, and the other taxes and costs levied for environmental reasons, road use, etc. Credit has been remarkably cheap, particularly in cars, and that's coming to and end. Insurance premiums have been going up in many countries, and these cars generally cost more to insure. On top of all of this, in the US SUVs are more practical because of the support for much larger vehicles (parking, roads, etc), and US media is a trend-setter for much of the world, so these vehicles are considered desirable more than may otherwise be the case. The numbers you point to are from 2022, I'd be interested to see 2023 numbers as that's where I expect things would really start to turn around.

hkt 3y ago

Vive la paris! It is always heartening to hear that people who make antisocial choices (cars in cities) are finally being made to bear the costs of those choices.

rapnie 3y ago

Should be added that this is for SUVs coming from outside of Paris and doesn't affect residents. Positive development nonetheless.

dustincoates 3y ago
Yes and no. Residents aren't affected if they are parking in their "authorized parking zone" but they are elsewhere, so unless their only Paris parking is in their neighborhood, they'll be affected by the change.
londons_explore 3y ago
Let's have a vote of only the residents about an issue that only affects the non-residents...
- posix_monad 3y ago
  > only affects the non-residents The status-quo (all you can eat SUV use in cities) has a big impact on everyone using the city. Yet no one voted for that...
- lagadu 3y ago
  Of course a city's residents are the ones who should vote! Cities are built for us, who live in them, therefore we're the ones who get to decide how they are managed. It's the same reason that municipal elections are only open to residents of a city and national elections are only open to a country's citizens.

Aissen 3y ago

Interesting to note: the turnout (5.6%) is even lower than when it was decided to ban e-scooters sharing systems (7.4%). Also note this only applies to vehicles from non-residents. And that parking in public spots is already very expensive in Paris; limited to a maximum of 6h, which will cost you up to 75€: https://www.paris.fr/pages/payer-son-stationnement-2129 https://www.paris.fr/pages/payer-son-stationnement-2129

pjc50 3y ago
> the turnout (5.6%) is even lower than when it was decided to ban electric scooters public sharing (7.4%). These things should really have a quorum requirement.
- rjst01 3y ago
  Most eligible voters are probably not personally affected and so didn't see a need vote. A quorum would make it effectively impossible to change anything.
  - Zak 3y ago
    The current system makes it possible for a very small portion of the population to change things for everyone. I'm not sure that's better.
    - vr46 3y ago
      Bring in Australian-style compulsory voting then.
      - Gigachad 3y ago
        In Australia there would be no public vote for this. It would just be some internal council decision.
    - soco 3y ago
      If said "everyone" would care, they'd definitely show up at the booths. So the change is better indeed, benefiting those few who care.

Fradow 3y ago

This article leaves a lot of details out. As a Parisian who's been following this with attention, here are a few details: * first, the "SUV" part is the intent, but not the reality. It's actually by weight: over 1600kg for ICE and 2000kg for electric/hybrids. A lot of French SUVs fit under those restrictions (for example Peugeot 2008/3008). It's unclear to me if there is really something specific to target those SUVs as well (I have not read the full text) * part of the issue is width rather than weight: cars become larger and no longer fit in the parking spots. Parking spots minimum width in Paris is 180cm. For example, a Porsche Cayenne (a typical SUV) is 198cm without mirrors, 219cm with mirrors deployed. Being at least 20cm outside of the parking spot is an issue, roads are narrow. * this is only for paid surface parking for non-residents. Residents price is not impacted (which is controversial). Underground parking is private and not affected. Free parking (outside of 8AM to 8PM Monday to Saturday) stays free for everyone. * In general, underground parking is cheaper than surface parking even at the normal price. This will likely push those cars underground, which is IMO a good thing (especially because of the width issue). * this vote is controversial in the first place (much like the rental scooters one was recently): the result was expected: it doesn't really affect negatively Parisians, only outsiders, and is strictly a QoL improvements for Parisians. I'm actually surprised it's not a landslide, but I guess the people who went to vote are generally more likely to have a car and vote against because of that. * there were other questions asked for specific arrondissement. Those were important as well. Edit: of those questions, only one arrondissement rejected its question (8th, which is also one of the least favorable over the poll). Those questions were mainly around reclaiming space from cars to allocate to pedestrians/cyclists/green spaces.

erostrate 3y ago
> this is only for paid surface parking for non-residents. Residents price is not impacted (which is controversial). Underground parking is private and not affected. Free parking (outside of 8AM to 8PM Monday to Saturday) stays free for everyone. If my end goal was to apply this to everyone at some point, I would probably start with such a restricted law, then extend it step by step later.
- orwin 3y ago

V-2 3y ago

Conspiracy theorists or cynics might claim it's not just about pollution and parking spots. Such initiatives could coincidentally align with the interests of French automotive industry. As of now, France is importing more cars than it is exporting, and its traditional main rival - Germany - happens to be doing particularly well in the SUV sector. Just a few months ago a French MEP called for introducing a special driver license for SUVs; German MEPs would want nothing of it, even the German Green Party opposed, dismissing the initiative as "nonsense". So when "citing a 60% increase in SUV ownership over the last four years, Parisian officials say SUVs are ridiculous, dangerous, and needlessly polluting", it would be interesting to break down where these ridiculous SUVs are coming from, in order to dispel such suspicions.

greatgib 3y ago

This vote was a total joke. For example, the question on the ballots was totally different and like "do you approve bad things"? But if you want to laugh a little bit, look at the official results: https://x.com/lachape_one/status/1754271878737203536?s=20 https://x.com/lachape_one/status/1754271878737203536?s=20 The total of ballots "FOR" + "AGAINST" in one district equal to 108% ...

rcMgD2BwE72F 3y ago
The vote is a joke because of a typo on a webpage? Results are 59,20% and 40,80%. https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisiens-et-parisiennes-sont-invites-a-voter-le-4-fevrier-25381#resultats-par-arrondissement https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisien...
- greatgib 3y ago
  No, it is one of the hundred of points why it is a joke. Like for example not defining what people are voting for, or having more voting locations in small less populated districts that the mayor majority control and people being refused of some voting hall in the other districts being told to go in another district. Almost nothing respected the rules of a fair votation. Regarding the typo (maybe), the point is not an error on a random webpage but this page is the official results display for the votation. It let's you see how the rest was handled!
touwer 3y ago
Fake news. This is the real one https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisiens-et-parisiennes-sont-invites-a-voter-le-4-fevrier-25381 https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisien...
- greatgib 3y ago
  Not fake news, they just updated the web page after social storm...

reacharavindh 3y ago

When I told my wife this, her immediate reaction was - “oh no, the families with 2 or more children that needs a bigger car will be penalized because of the SUVs driven by those who don’t need it”. And I said may be this is a two birds one stone moment. Give out SUV passes to those families with 2 or more children, and make it absurdly expensive for the rest. This way either you help increase the birth rate in EU or pay for the luxury of driving a huge thing on the road disproportionate to others. I see the article didn’t go about that way, and didn’t even apply for residents. Just for the tourists…. Meh.

okuntilnow 3y ago
Is an SUV needed for two children? I can accommodate my two children (and the dog if required) in my smallish hatchback.
- reacharavindh 3y ago
  Me too. But, when we drive to my in-laws, NL -> Austria and back, we inevitably bring more stuff with us. I’m not going to rent a car three times a year while still owning a hatchback, and paying insurance and taxes for it.

penguin_booze 3y ago

Even if this were a resounding message against SUVs, I think this will lift the status of the SUV owners: "look what I can afford, even with expensive parking fee". This is just like how Apple made the exortionary and inflated prices of their products "cool" and a status symbol.

tmnvix 3y ago

I can understand why they went with weight (I assume the data is more readily available), but given many of the concerns they are trying to address I would think that height would have been a better measure.