https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/...
Hopefully new regulation will fix it rather than make it worse
There is no magical switch, we have to accept that any transition will be long and messy.
[1] https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/29/us-car-cost...
Here (not France) you can drive an EU moped (45km/h) on a car license, which could (and should!) be a great alternative to a smaller car. The problem is that it's difficult to get to and through the city without touching the highways, which are strictly off limits for the mopeds for obvious reasons.
What's needed is something in between a full sized MC and a moped that can be driven on a car license and that can reach at least 80km/h to keep up with inner city highway speeds.
In France you can ride a scooter or motorcycle with a displacement < 125 cc with a car license. Certainly not ideal for long trips, but it’s enough for small stretches of motorways in the daily commute. Indeed it’s a good alternative to large cars but it can be dangerous depending on the state of the roads.
Max speed is told to be 130km/h but I'm pretty sure I drove my C-zero faster than that without much issue
The Tesla model 3 is right on that limit with 1.980 Kg, whereas the model Y weighs 2.4 tonnes.
In Denmark the model Y is by far the most sold car in 2023, with 1 out of every 10 cars being a model Y.
So I think it will be an uphill battle to enact the same law in Denmark.
In Europe, if you're driving a huge North American truck (which some people do) your parking options are very very limited. We don't build everything for their sizes only because there's some of them on the road.
And the change will probably not increase the amount of cars on the road, because at the same time, bikes and public transport are becoming more attractive in cities all across the continent.
* 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.
With 54,55 % in favor and only 5,68 % voting, I wouldn't call that "expected".
>is strictly a QoL improvements for Parisians
No, anyone visiting Paris in anything other than an SUV (say, a train, a bus, a bicycle) will benefit.
People visiting Paris were not polled, only Parisians were, that's why I only explained this point of view. But yes it does benefit everyone that doesn't visit Paris in a SUV.
Note that it also impacts Parisians with a SUV when they are parking outside of their resident zones (a resident parking permit allows you to park in 4 zones around your home).
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.
It started at least 10 years ago (current mayor that really pushes the issue was elected in 2014, I'm not sure it's the actual starting point), and we saw:
* bike lanes. Lots of bike lanes. Generally replacing traffic lanes and parking spots.
* several pedestrians zones replacing traffic lanes (especially in front of schools).
* Crit'air restrictions (car pollution rating, derived from Euro rating). You cannot drive a polluting car in Paris anymore.
* reduction of the speed limit from 50km/h to 30km/h in Paris, and from 80km/h to 70km/h on the Périphérique (highway circling Paris)
* there is no longer any always-free surface parking spot, and price has been raised a lot
And I'm very probably forgetting a few.
(unless a national law is passed).
I also think the weight for EV cars should be lowered, considering the better acceleration that EVs have.
Perhaps that will come later.
It is interesting that they went with weight as a proxy for size though. I expect the process for charging by weight or dimensions would come down to a list of oversized vehicle models, why abstract it a layer rather than a max width/length?
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.
The Gross Vehicle Weight (GVWR)refers to the maximum weight a vehicle is designed to carry including the net weight of the vehicle with accessories, plus the weight of passengers, fuel, and cargo, which is indeed a hefty 3375 kg.
The Weight Unladen (EU) is still a ridiculous 2810 kg for the EQS SUV 580 4matic
I won't edit, as your correction is clear and the context would remain
No it isn't. Even the most simple look into EV database would have shown that this is flat out wrong. There are heavy and big vehicles in there using very little energy and small ones using a lot.
So what should be taxed is the actual efficiency - either per individual vehicle which would also incentivise reasonable driving (could be easily done by either submitting two numbers, similar to what is already submitted to insurance) - or by using the test ratings which is a good approximation.
It's probably still not fully financing the parking spots. Parking spots in cities are incredibly expensive and heavily subsidized.
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).
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.
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)?
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.
There is nothing in the rules specific to SUVs.
I am not even sure using a large EV is better than a small ICE once you take into account other forms of pollution, road damage, congestion (which increases pollution as well as other effects) and safety issues.
> I am not even sure using a large EV is better than a small ICE once you take into account other forms of pollution, road damage, congestion
Where did I mention large EV? I'm mentioning a normal EV and comparing that to an equally sized ICE. Why would anyone compare a large EV with a small ICE? It's a strange and dishonest comparison.
Large cars are not significantly longer (they are higher and fatter) and congestions does not occur due to this car size. Cars need to keep a large distance between each other for safety. Even a small ICE car will very quickly emit more than the production of an average EV car ever could.
In a city there is the added benefit that EVs are silent and do not emit locally which matters.
They might as well incentive people to use that instead of cars.
Should not occur in EVs because braking is not necessary.
> Tyre dust
Fine. In cities this is one of the easiest problems to solve, since most of it is washed out into drainage pipes and the waste water can be effectively filtered (although this is not done in most places yet).
Fortunately I don't live in a city anymore so I don't have to put up with these rules.
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?
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chicken-tax.asp
>Most SUVs are classified as light trucks and are therefore included in the Chicken Tax
Full story: https://www.wired.com/2014/12/subaru-brat/
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.
The popularity of SUVs is driven by a whole variety of factors. Eventually some of those factors will start to weaken. One of the factors is that many of the costs of SUVs are externalised.
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
The total of ballots "FOR" + "AGAINST" in one district equal to 108% ...
Results are 59,20% and 40,80%. https://www.paris.fr/pages/plus-ou-moins-de-suv-les-parisien...
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!
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...
OTOH an X3 or other luxury suv is basically stupid concept other than a display of wealth.
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
These things should really have a quorum requirement.
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.
> The accuracy of the law of the fourth power is disputed among experts
> 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.
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-parisien...
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.
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.
