Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday February 07, @03:39AM   Printer-friendly

The majority residents of Paris have voted in favor of heavy parking fees for suburban utility vehicles over 1.6 tons or more. These new fees rise to €18 an hour in the city center, with lower rates further out. The goals are to improve air quality, road safety, and provide for better commuting by bicycle.

Starting September 1st, gas or hybrid SUVs, and other larger vehicles weighing over 1.6 tonnes (1.76 tons), will be charged €18 (around $19.40) per hour to park in the center of Paris, and €12 (around $12.90) per hour in the rest of the city. The new pricing also applies to electric vehicles weighing over two tonnes (2.20 tons). Exemptions are in place for taxis and city residents, which means those traveling into Paris from outside the city will be most impacted. According to one of the posters for the referendum, only three in 10 Parisians even own a personal vehicle.

[...] Under Hidalgo, a Socialist, the streets of Paris have been transformed with 84 kilometers (52 miles) of cycle lanes created since 2020 and a 71% jump in bike usage between the end of the COVID-19 lockdowns and 2023, according to City Hall.

[...] SUVs have become increasingly popular in France, favored by families in particular.

The Verge: Paris votes to crack down on SUVs

Previously:
(2023) Test Bike Generators in Paris, Rotterdam, and Barcelona
(2023) Parisians Say Au Revoir to Shared E-scooters


Original Submission

Related Stories

Parisians Say Au Revoir to Shared E-scooters 15 comments

89% of citizens want them gone – at least among the 7.46% who showed up to vote:

Citizens of Paris voted on Sunday to ban e-scooters from the City of Love, and Mayor Anne Hidalgo responded by promising that the fleets of rechargeable rentables would be gone come September.

The outcome was overwhelming, with 89 percent of votes cast in favor of the ban, though only 103,084 of Paris's 1,382,322 registered voters participated – around 7.5 percent. In a summary of the vote, the Parisian government noted that the final decision on the ban fell to city officials, who didn't appear to plan on countermanding the non-binding outcome.

[...] Only three companies are currently authorized to operate electric scooter fleets in Paris – Lime, Dott and Tier – which were granted three-year contracts in 2020 after Parisians voiced their dissatisfaction with a 2018 rollout in the city. Per Paris's government, the public domain occupancy agreements the three operators have all end on August 31, and it seems Hidalgo doesn't plan to renew them.

Lime and Tier both told The Register they would be ceasing operations in Paris come September 1, though Tier did note its shared e-bike service would still be available in the city.

Both companies expressed disappointment at the outcome, but pointed to the fact that the low voter turnout meant the results weren't representative of the city's entire population. "With approximately 93 percent of citizens not going to the polls, a large majority of Parisians have shown that e-scooters are not an issue," a Tier spokesperson said.

"We acknowledge the result of this unprecedented referendum, which was heavily impacted by very restrictive voting methods. This led to an extremely low turnout, heavily skewed towards older age groups, which has widened the gap between pros and cons," said a spokesperson for Lime.

Lime's response came from a third-party PR firm who said the statement represented a position "shared by Dott, Lime and Tier and not Lime speaking for the industry."


Original Submission

Test Bike Generators in Paris, Rotterdam, and Barcelona 24 comments

Low-tech Magazine has built a bicycle generator for a public exhibition on energy at the Pavillon d'Arsenal in Paris, France. Their two other bike generators can be seen and experimented with in Rotterdam, Netherlands and Barcelona, Spain.

In October, we built a third energy bicycle during a workshop at the House of the Future in Rotterdam. This bicycle generator is now used as an energy source in the community center. The House of the Future is open to the public, for details see their website and instagram.

In a future article, we will cover the construction process and technical details of these two new muscular power plants. These machines are based on spinning bikes and are more powerful than the first bike generator we built.

With electricity prices continually hitting new record highs, maybe the market is the EU?

[The Toaster Challenge can help put this energy-generation idea into perspective. --hubie]


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 07, @04:04AM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @04:04AM (#1343454) Journal

    1.76 tons

    1.76 x 2000 = 3,520 pounds

    https://motorandwheels.com/suv-weight/ [motorandwheels.com]

    How Much Do Compact SUVs Weigh?

    On average, compact SUVs weigh between 3,300 and 3,800 pounds. However, there is a lot of variation depending on the make and model of the vehicle.

    So, most compacts are going to be exempt, most midsize will be fined at the higher rates, and virtually all full size will be fined. Of course, there is some overlap, depending on engine, transmission, 4WD, AWD, towing package, and accessories. Your compact SUV may be fined after all, while a midsize may be exempt.

    There is no indication in the article whether the fine will be levied for tare weight, or gross weight. If it's gross weight, I think all SUVs will face the penalty. Are the cops going to drag around a set of scales, and weigh each vehicle?

    --
    ‘Never trust a man whose uncle was eaten by cannibals’
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @04:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @04:19AM (#1343455)

      Stress sensors will be built into the pavement, measure your car's weight (with you inside), and charge accordingly, so, if you're obese besides, you might pay double!

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @04:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @04:37AM (#1343457)

      If France is anything like NY State, the registration document includes a weight. I don't think this is the actual weight, maybe it's called the taxable weight?? At any rate, the weight on the form (and in the database) is close to the actual weight and determines the registration fee (paid every two years in NY State). Any NY Cop and the camera systems on "open tolling" interstates has access to that database keyed to the license plate, so that's how the overweight fee would be determined here--say, if NY City did something like Paris is doing.

      40 years ago I bought an old step van in another state without "taxable weight" requirement. To transfer the previous registration to NY I had to go to a certified truck scale to have it weighed. I was polite with the scale operator and he wrote down a somewhat lower (but still plausible) weight on the form, which saved me a few bucks on the fee.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday February 07, @06:59AM

      by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday February 07, @06:59AM (#1343462)

      You forget that European cars are, on average, much smaller than US cars. A "mid-size" car in the US is "large" in Europe.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Frosty Piss on Wednesday February 07, @05:50AM (16 children)

    by Frosty Piss (4971) on Wednesday February 07, @05:50AM (#1343459)

    Rich people don't give a shit, they'll just pay it. Right now, a parking space in downtown Seattle costs my employer around $700+ a monthly, though I choose to take a commuter train. But if you got the money...

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by sigterm on Wednesday February 07, @06:58AM (15 children)

      by sigterm (849) on Wednesday February 07, @06:58AM (#1343461)

      Rich people don't give a shit, they'll just pay it.

      Mod parent up.

      Taxing the use of personal transport does lead to less pollution and congestion, because turning something into a privilege reserved for the rich, excludes the less wealthy which comprise the majority.

      However, there are always some who cannot easily find or use alternative means of transport, such as the elderly, the infirm, or parents with small (or even handicapped) children. They have to choose between staying put or becoming (even) poorer.

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @07:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @07:37AM (#1343463)

        You are exactly right, except that SUV assholes have to be taxed the heck out of it.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday February 07, @07:38AM (12 children)

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @07:38AM (#1343464) Journal

        Vehicles designated for use by the elderly and the infirm, 2 cases you specifically mentioned, are already exempt from these charges. The vehicle must display a special notice to be eligible and that is associated with the vehicle registration and has a photo ID of the vehicles registered user.

        Similar exemptions are in place for other special categories.

        --
        I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by janrinok on Wednesday February 07, @07:39AM (9 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @07:39AM (#1343465) Journal
          Of course, these people do not tend to be SUV drivers either.
          --
          I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sigterm on Wednesday February 07, @08:14AM (8 children)

            by sigterm (849) on Wednesday February 07, @08:14AM (#1343469)

            You know, that is probably true, at least in Europe. In fact, I'm guessing that SUV owners in France will typically be more affluent than the average population, in which case they will simply keep driving, pay the tax, and probably vote for whichever party promises to remove the tax at the next election.

            That won't result in cleaner air or more parking space, but it will fill the coffers of the city and, more importantly, let politicians perform the most important task of all: virtue signal to the electorate.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday February 07, @09:44AM (6 children)

              by shrewdsheep (5215) on Wednesday February 07, @09:44AM (#1343487)

              I tend to disagree. Taxation is one of the best instruments for politics to influence behavior and one of the most transparent ones. Your prediction is pure speculation. My prediction would be that the affluent would use their second car to go to the center of Paris. They are affluent because they take into account costs.

              • (Score: 2) by sigterm on Wednesday February 07, @10:09AM (5 children)

                by sigterm (849) on Wednesday February 07, @10:09AM (#1343497)

                Taxation is one of the best instruments for politics to influence behavior and one of the most transparent ones.

                Yes. And the reason for this is that those of limited means have no choice other than refrain from partaking in the taxed activity or not purchase the taxed goods.

                • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday February 07, @03:14PM (4 children)

                  by Freeman (732) on Wednesday February 07, @03:14PM (#1343516) Journal

                  Doesn't keep poor people from buying alcohol and cigarettes.

                  --
                  Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @10:48PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @10:48PM (#1343555)

                    Right... because "poor people" have no-one but themselves to blame and should as a form of punishment or penitence forego any and all forms of enjoyment in life. If you're poor, you deserve it and you do not deserve anything except the bare minimum to "exist" but nothing more. In fact, let's take away every single thing that might still bring some form of joy or escapism from their state and make them really regret having made the conscious decision to be poor by punishing them even more.

                    </sarcasm> for those that didn't get it.

                    You muppet

                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday February 08, @02:56PM (2 children)

                      by Freeman (732) on Thursday February 08, @02:56PM (#1343628) Journal

                      Personally, I see Cigarettes and Alcohol as forms of keeping oneself down. They are both heavily taxed and cost a lot. Beyond that they both greatly negatively impact your health, especially when taken to excess. Alcohol is the root of a ton of social, financial, and other problems. "Partying" doesn't need to include drinking Alcohol. You can have a fun and happy life without touching either.

                      --
                      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, @03:39PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, @03:39PM (#1343632)

                        I agree with you that alcohol and tobacco are things we'd be better off without. No question or argument about that, at all!

                        What I disagree with you about is how I interpreted your statement about "the poor": you paint a certain set of people as incapable of taking care of themselves and actively doing things that are bad for them while implying that if only they stopped doing those things, they'd not find themselves in the socio-economic class that they do find themselves in.
                        Your post, as read by me, reeked of a lack of empathy & compassion for, and understanding about why people find themselves (or even remain) in the socio-economic situation that they happen to find themselves in.
                        That is what I disagree with you on!

                        Like I said, while I agree that alcohol and tobacco are grave social harms, they are - typically - not the reason why people are or stay 'poor'. And if they truly are that single source of misery then be consistent: get rid of them for _everyone_, don't just restrict access to them for a specific group!

                        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday February 09, @03:23PM

                          by Freeman (732) on Friday February 09, @03:23PM (#1343729) Journal

                          There are people who just keep getting smacked down no matter what they do. There are also some that just can't be helped and/or don't want to be helped. The problem is that it's pretty hard to tell from the outside looking in, if they just can't catch a break and/or never had a chance. Which is part of the reason why I'm all for helping out people with housing, food, gas, etc. The essentials that people need to survive. Then everything else that they want, they can work on themselves. Which is partly why universal income is a horrible idea. The money is much better spent on helping people with surviving/rehabilitation, instead of feeding a bad habit.

                          --
                          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, @07:58AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, @07:58AM (#1343603)

              in which case they will simply keep driving, pay the tax, and ...

              ... and have their SUV burnt down at the next gilets jaunes demonstration, 2 years down the road. We were talking about France, weren't we?

        • (Score: 2) by sigterm on Wednesday February 07, @08:08AM (1 child)

          by sigterm (849) on Wednesday February 07, @08:08AM (#1343468)

          My comment was not specifically aimed at the restrictions in Paris. We have similar restrictions in my city.

          Very few of the elderly qualify for a special-use vehicle. You can be quite mobility-challenged and still not qualify. My grandmother could walk no longer than a block, which wouldn't even get her to the nearest bus stop. She didn't qualify.

          Parents with a child in a wheelchair, will typically qualify. Parents with a child with a mental disability (like severe autism) who has to be driven to various doctor's appointments on a regular basis, typically won't.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday February 07, @08:20AM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @08:20AM (#1343470) Journal

            OK, I misunderstood the point you were making.

            My wife was an invalid (MS) for about 20 years. Here in Europe (France) there is a reasonably good system of providing for such people. They can have free travel passes on local public transport, significantly reduced fares on long distance travel, special privileges (e.g. subsidised home improvements if they are justifiable for the invalid personally), and many stores actually provide priority queues for those who hold an invalid person's identity document. Trains and buses are designed to cope with wheelchairs, or passengers who have other needs etc. The system is Europe wide - my wife's documents were equally valid in Germany, the Netherlands, UK and elsewhere I presume, but we didn't travel much apart from the countries I have mentioned.

            Additionally, doctors (who do not like doing home visits unless absolutely necessary) would regularly visit her at home and it would be recorded as a surgery visit.

            --
            I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @06:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @06:42PM (#1343536)

        It distracts from the fact that about three quarters of the world's pollution comes from one hundred companies.

        You can't "personal responsibility" your way out of a systems problem.

  • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday February 07, @10:36AM (4 children)

    by Nuke (3162) on Wednesday February 07, @10:36AM (#1343501)

    Reading TFA in The Verge, the higher charge is not against SUVs, it is against vehicles over certain weights* :

    The higher parking fee will apply to combustion and hybrid models weighing 1.6 tons (1.8 tonnes) or more and electric models weighing two tons or more.

    So that includes many cars that are not SUVs, and does not include some that might be considered such (eg a Fiat Panda 4x4). Which raises the question of what is an SUV anyway? - does it just mean any car that the speaker happens to hate? Odd that Canopic Jug here refers to "Suburban Utiliity Vehicle" but I always thought "SUV" meant "Sport Utility Vehicle", whatever that means. Ironic that something that is supposed to have utility, such as usefully carrying stuff as opposed to being a minimal transport bubble to get to a wine bar, should get penalised, whether people actually use that utility or not.

    * I admit I have not checked the Paris city council's actual wording - in French I expect.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday February 07, @11:06AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @11:06AM (#1343503) Journal

      You are correct that this is not just SUVs - and the summary acknowledges that : "gas or hybrid SUVs, and other larger vehicles weighing over 1.6 tonnes".

      The larger vehicles have always been there, but the rapid growth in the adoption of SUVs has caused a major problem. Rather than get into the difficulty of creating a definition that covers all the intended vehicles but is clear, concise and complete, the vote was taken to include any vehicles that cannot reasonably be justified for personal travel in a major city. Public transport is exempt, commercial vehicles are exempt (at certain times), etc. So the majority of vehicles that will be penalised are probably those intended.

      There is a good internal metro service in Paris so there really is no need to drive all the way to the very congested centre of the city.

      The larger vehicles need more parking space, tend to be among the most polluting among private vehicles, and have problems in some of the narrow streets in the older parts of the city. They have problems navigating them, and they can effectively block a narrow street when they park on one. Then one must also take into account the 'quaint' Parisian tradition of using ones own car to 'enlarge' any parking space that is too short for ones own vehicle. They just use their car to push the other cars out of the way. I have only visited Paris a few times, and the last visit was many years ago. I was horrified to see this parking technique on at least 2 occasions. You can probably imagine the damage that an SUV with bull-bars can do to another vehicle. (I am assured that, despite my anecdotal evidence, it is a rare occurrence!)

      --
      I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 07, @01:48PM (1 child)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @01:48PM (#1343507) Journal

      I think the "definition" of SUV started out as a luxury car built on a truck frame. Then it expanded to any personal vehicle, family car, or whatever built on a truck frame. Expanded some more to not necessarily include a full truck frame. Of course, not all pickups built today have real full frames under them, so the reliance on a frame is slipping.

      It's kinda like porn, I guess. I can't define it, but I know it when I'm looking at it. Four or more doors, 5 or more seats, and rear access to a cargo area, said cargo area not to be confused with a trunk, works for me. Can't specify a power range, really, because there are some under powered SUVs out there, but SUVs tend to have pretty powerful power plants.

      I was going to offer towing capacity as a measure - but the Saturn Outlook doesn't have the standard Class 2 towing package, instead a class one package. But that Saturn is larger, heavier, and more powerful than a lot of other SUVs.

      You're right - it's hard to define.

      --
      ‘Never trust a man whose uncle was eaten by cannibals’
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, @08:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, @08:02AM (#1343604)

        It's kinda like porn,

        I kinda like porn too. Ooops, sorry.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @05:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, @05:04PM (#1343527)

      > "Suburban Utiliity Vehicle" but I always thought "SUV" meant "Sport Utility Vehicle"

      (rant)
      In certain circumstances, I call them "Stupid Useless Vehicles" -- this might be when I can't see past one of the taller ones, other occasions when they block my view, or are being driven erratically by someone texting.

      Other "stupid" comments:

      Many SUVs don't have as much cargo capacity as the old station wagon ("estate" in Europe) they replaced--the floor was raised more than the roof, the rear overhang was shortened, and the SUV internal volume is smaller!

      By raising the CG (center of gravity) they likely roll/lean more in turns (uncomfortable) or, if the springs and anti-roll bars are stiffened up to control the roll angle, then the ride suffers.

      The raised body work is more sensitive to cross winds...but this may be somewhat compensated for by their typically high weight?

      The combination of more frontal area and high weight (other things "equal") means that SUV's are less efficient than a normal height car or station wagon.
      (enough ranting, but I do have more!)

  • (Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday February 07, @12:23PM (7 children)

    by gnuman (5013) on Wednesday February 07, @12:23PM (#1343505)

    only three in 10 Parisians even own a personal vehicle.

    That must be a shocker for Americans (the ones outside of NYC), where without a car, your mobility is basically non-existent.

    • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 07, @01:52PM (3 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @01:52PM (#1343509) Journal

      That is changing. Even out here in rural America, a lot of people don't have cars. They have phones, with which to call people, so they can mooch rides. That ~30% owning their own cars isn't far off for America.

      --
      ‘Never trust a man whose uncle was eaten by cannibals’
      • (Score: 2) by gnuman on Wednesday February 07, @04:11PM (2 children)

        by gnuman (5013) on Wednesday February 07, @04:11PM (#1343522)

        If you don't own a car in America, you are screwed. Unless you are rich and migrated to Uber.

        I've lived there. I know. Try going to your local store without a car. Standard packaging size alone prohibits this and taxes the people without a car a hefty poor tax. A family needs at least 1 car. Most likely, 2. If kids are growing up, first thing they get is a driver's license at 16 and some old car.

        In Paris, you don't need a car because your stores are 10 min walk away. It's faster to walk that back and forth than to find a place to park. Even if you are well off, you walk. Soon enough, car because this thing that rusts that you can't even use most of the time, or you'll never find another place to park! ;)

        • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 07, @07:45PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 07, @07:45PM (#1343540) Journal

          I agree with you, gnuman. It's the younger generations who disagree. I mean, if I can impose on Grandma, a cousin, or a friend to haul my arse around, why not? More and more, young "adults" simply won't invest in their own transportation. I can empathize somewhat with those who make do with less - maybe they don't own a car, but there is a street legal motorcycle with which to do some errands. Of course, even with panniers, and stuff strapped on the back seat, it takes multiple trips to do a week's grocery shopping. But moochers don't see things the way you and I see them.

          --
          ‘Never trust a man whose uncle was eaten by cannibals’
        • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday February 07, @10:38PM

          by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday February 07, @10:38PM (#1343554)

          I don't think just the "rich" do that. Drivers in developing nations have adopted the Uber model with the ubiquity of inexpensive smartphones and Android, and urban millennials and beyond (especially renters) budget in ridesharing costs when needed. Electric-assist bicycles as primary transport are also making going uber/lyft-on-demand a *much* more feasible option.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday February 07, @03:19PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) on Wednesday February 07, @03:19PM (#1343518) Journal

      Perhaps those that have no idea how things work elsewhere. Yet, when you start looking at population densities, you'll start to figure out why the USA doesn't have a good public transportation for the entire USA. Individual states / cities having much worse public transportation than other countries comes down to the fact that states/cities have to foot the bill themselves for the most part. A public transportation system maintained by a nation's government is probably more likely to have a better public transportation system. Due to the fact that corruption at the national level is much harder to pull off than corruption at the state level and most certainly by the city level.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by gnuman on Wednesday February 07, @04:03PM

        by gnuman (5013) on Wednesday February 07, @04:03PM (#1343521)

        A public transportation system maintained by a nation's government is probably more likely to have a better public transportation system.

        Yes and no. There are lots of examples where public transport was actually quite crappy for decades while owned by "the people". The priority has been more recent than anything else. But "public transport" does nothing if the entire city-planning has sabotaged the city into dead districts. It's the poor excuse of paining bike-lanes and saying you made a city livable! City-planning is how you not bankrupt a city by building more roads that strangle your budget and bring in no business. But if you all know is "build more roads!", that's what you get.

        Here's a good video with all the excuse about "population densities" and other fallacies, taken to another level. Microcosm of an American city with its dying neighbourhoods. All on an island smaller than Amsterdam.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdz6FeQLuHQ [youtube.com]

        But from my experience, Americans drive everywhere (I'm including Canadians in this generalization). Even down the driveway to their mailbox. So finding them driving through pedestrial-only zones, almost driving into a subway line, is not so surprising....

        https://www.youtube.com/shorts/68h-tVcF3jE [youtube.com]

        Real reason why American cities are dying is because they are not for people. They are meant for cars to live in. So, good riddance, I guess. Public transit fixing this problem is like trying to fix gangrene with some homeopathy. If everywhere is far, how does public transit fix this??? And everything is far because it was designed like this in the first place. :shrug:

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Wednesday February 07, @06:31PM

      by istartedi (123) on Wednesday February 07, @06:31PM (#1343534) Journal

      I've been without a car in Charlottesville, VA and Washington, DC. College towns are apt to have more people without cars than you might think. The University ran transit, and the city did too. It wasn't awful, and the city was not too bad on a bike either. Being young helps. More young people in the USA are going this route because cars are expensive and pay hasn't kept up.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(1)