The measure to make vehicles weighing 1.6 tons and over pay 3x the parking rates for the first two hours has passed in Paris.
Now, let's get that in place for London and many other other places to help slow, and even reverse, this trend towards massive personal vehicles.
When there is adequate infrastructure then there should just be a ban period. What these policies achieve is to provide the rich with privileges that regular people can't enjoy. If you don't see why pay to play schemes are bad then there's no point continuing this discussion. I'm not ignoring anything, I just disagree with this approach on moral basis.
You are deeply unserious if your proposal is just "ban all cars lulz".
Congestion pricing and paid parking have objectively reduced traffic in downtowns across the world, and you are deeply unserious if you want to achieve a goal but refuse to do anything to work towards that goal.
You are seriously advocating for the massive subsidization of drivers here. I do not weep for the ability of the common man to impose massive externalities on their fellow men and have their behavior be subsidized.
Cars are a luxury good that most people simply cannot afford without massive subsidies. Consider how in Hong Kong and Singapore, where cars aren't subsidized, only the rich can afford to drive. Do you think that this is wrong? Should Hong Kong and Singapore bulldoze their cities and pave over paradise so that poor people can drive too?
You are acting as if driving cars is a God-given right that poor people are being denied. There is no such right to drive a car. The private automobile is a luxury good that would have never spread to the masses if not for massive government subsidies. Driving is not a civil right.
Sorry, what's unserious about a car ban in places with adequate alternative infrastructure? Why can't pedestrians who don't want to be honked and nearly (if lucky) run over be able to take refuge somewhere, even if it's only one city per country, with drivers retaining control over literally everywhere else?
Now, now, let's not try bring logic into this discussion.
I am for a total car ban in city centers around the world. However, this is not a policy that activists today can seriously propose to a city council: consider that even in the ground zero of the Urbanist movement, Amsterdam, cars are still allowed in the city center.
Even though I would prefer a total car ban, I am not going to oppose intermediate steps like a triple tax on oversized vehicles, because I'm not going to let my dreams of a perfect city get in the way of improving society somewhat.
When you play Mario Kart, do you assiduously avoid overtaking the leader of the pack?
Nice straw man buddy. What we're actually talking about merits of making SUVs a privilege for the rich or banning them.
Perhaps, it's silly to claim this is the only approach possible.
I'm not, but keep on straw manning there. Seems to be what you excel at.
Nope, but I've already realized that having a serious discussion with you isn't possible. Bye.
SUVs have always been a privilege for the rich. This policy reduces the amount of people who can afford to drive SUVs downtown. It is a net good despite your aesthetic objections against it.
A world where everyone can afford to drive SUVs is not better than a world where only a few can afford to drive SUVs. The world where everyone can afford to drive SUVs is the American suburb, where car ownership is so heavily subsidized to the point that even poor people drive SUVs. Do you think this is better than Hong Kong or Singapore, where only rich people can afford to drive SUVs?
This is literally your position. Your logic is completely indistinguishable from that of pro-car concern trolling. There is an in-between world between Dallas and utopia. There needs to be an in-between step between car hell and bicycle utopia. Expensive parking is a needed step in the right direction. To refuse to take the first step out of car hell, however imperfect it might be, is to advocate for an indefinite wallowing in the pits of shit.
And you are simply a deeply unserious person who says they want something but in actuality are advocating for the exact opposite. Good riddance!
In your bizarro world, there are actually no in-between steps between carbon hell and green utopia. Until carbon dioxide is banned, people should just be allowed to emit CO2 for free.
I'm so sorry that you cannot comprehend a world that's in-between "everyone drives SUVs" and "only a few drive SUVs" and understand why the latter world is better than the former world. When you advocate against policy that improves society somewhat on the basis that it doesn't create utopia, you are advocating in favor of the status-quo.
No hard feelings.