Hey, there! Log in / Register
Outrage among SUV drivers over enviro-friendly parking lot
By adamg on Wed, 04/25/2012 - 7:18am
The Herald manaages to find some gas-guzzler drivers who are shocked, shocked, at a new parking lot across from the Government Center garage that would charge them more.
GMC Sierra driver John Roberts said Dinosaur’s pricing plan "is not fair. It’s like they’re trying to make money off of people who are not environmentally conscious."
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
The quotes from angry SUV
The quotes from angry SUV drivers all sound like something from an Onion article.
Whatever car you buy is your choice
It's UnAmerican to associate choices with consequences.
Unless one "chooses" to be
Unless one "chooses" to be poor, in which case he must deal with those consequences.
Larger spaces cost more to provide
If you take up more space, you should be charged more for taking up more space. These behemoths require larger spaces than, say, a seven-seat minivan. Providing larger spaces means having fewer spaces available in the garage (don't get started on the headroom issue), and that means less revenue for the garage - unless they charge more for vehicles that require more space.
Really pretty simple - capitalism at work, people! Claiming that all vehicles are equal and should be charged the same is communist.
Except....
Their argument is not one of space, but of fuel economy and extra "wear and tear". Most space issues are ones of width, not length...and nearly all cars are the same approximate width.
If they charged half as much for a Mini or Smart car, then you might have something. But they are purely targeting fuel economy...and there are hybrid SUVs that get nearly as many MPG as my coupe. And as the article reads, they'll be getting a discount for being a hybrid and I won't...even though they are bigger.
Furthermore, the owner is quoted as wanting to recover extra wear and tear costs from larger vehicles. Space isn't wear and tear...he's talking as if the SUVs will harm his road surface more than any other car...and that is the least of his problems. It's not like he's parking tractor trailers inside. An SUV and a car barely make a different dent in the ground over time...and certainly nothing close to a 10% difference in wear and tear or anything...and still not an issue of space.
Not to mention utilization issues
I have an SUV that I occasionally drive downtown because I have a large family. When we are all in that car, it is a more eco.efficient choice than taking two small cars, or even taking the 'T. When I park it downtown, I'm using less gas per occupant than a solo driver in a compact, Let's talk about discounts for car poolers!
Agreed!
We have a seven seat minivan that comes into Boston every third work day carrying five downtown workers.
Even at 20mpg, that's more efficient than transit.
We do get a discount in that we only pay for parking every third day ... but it would be nice to see the kind of priority parking I've seen in other cities for established carpools.
p.s. to Kaz: all cars are not effectively the same width! Compact and subcompact vehicles are much narrower than an SUV - so much so that some garages squeeze in a bunch of discount spaces for them in convenient locations. My minivan is nearly a foot narrower than a Ford Expedition.
not true
5 people in a 20mpg minivan is NOT more efficient than the T, not even close, whether you are considering the subway (electric), buses (natural gas), or the commuter rail (diesel).
Besides using less fuel, there's less traffic congestion (except for the bus) and less of the world needs to be covered in parking lots/garages.
Then give people a discount
Then give people a discount in a downtown garage when they take the T downtown instead of driving. Oh wait, then they wouldn't need the downtown garage at all. Never mind.
Yes they are
Most parking space codes are written for between 8-9 feet wide for a reason. Even at the extremes, you could save an extra foot per space if everywhere else you were putting in 9' spaces but for the "compacts" you are putting in 8' spaces. If your garage has about 20 9' spaces down the side, then by putting in 8' spaces, you could get an extra 2 full spaces. That would give you 10% more...or exactly the same amount they are upcharging for poor fuel economy vehicles (which are likely to need the bigger space).
You just don't save a ton of space with each compact space in order to fit a whole other car in since cars are close to uniform in width. Usually those are put in because they couldn't fit another regular space (if they can fit 10 9' spaces, but only have 8' left to the wall) or because a supporting beam juts out (it's about length again, not width).
You are talking about a foot in width of a 7 foot vehicle. It's only about a 15% difference in width between the most extreme vehicle width differences. Most cars fall in the middle since nearly all people are the same width...so 2 seats (3 if it's a bench) plus vehicle frame are always about the same width.
but one SUV also saves on the
but one SUV also saves on the parking in their lot
2 cars = 200% regular rate
1 SUV = 110% regular rate
there's no incentive from these guys for you to suddenly start driving two cars.
The larger point is the same.
The larger point is the same. The larger, over all, vehicles cost more for the garage to accommodate and therefore, it is sensible to charge the drivers more.
The owner's quote is just as dumb
There is nothing about a car's MPG (which is their criteria for determining the parking fee) that effects the "wear and tear" on their parking lot. The difference in wear and tear is going to come down to vehicle weight...and there are hybrid SUVs that get better than 15 MPG. In fact, the Ford Escape Hybrid weighs about 400 lb more than its non-hybrid counterpart (and the non-hybrid still gets better than 15 MPG anyways).
I still question whether a parking structure (probably cement) really takes any noticeable "wear and tear" from heavier vehicles. Most of that added cost to our roads is due to tractor trailers and other extreme sized/weighted vehicles...not the difference between an SUV and a car. If it's an environmental penalty...well, that's a public resource penalty going to a private endeavor...which isn't justifiable on any moral ground unless they're planning to give all the extra they collect to the Mass. Dept. of Air & Water or something (which they aren't).
So, it's fine to say you want to convince people to get away from SUVs or benefit from their choice to "go green" or whatever...but justifying it as a recovery of "wear and tear" or a penalty for their consumption of a public resource like the environment is just baloney.
Wear and tear
Low MPG is eventually inflicting wear and tear on everything on the planet, so they sort of have a point, but yeah, I get what you're saying that heavy vehicles can have varying fuel efficiency.
Anyway, it pisses me off when places have incentives for any hybrid vehicle regardless of MPG. There are hybrids that get around 15 MPG. My non-hybrid gets 35-40 because it's small and is a stick, but I get no green incentives.
Also, what do they do with people who've modded their car to run on WVO, thus are getting infinite MPG? Or people who've done other modifications to get above the EPA's number? They should get incentives.
Their point is mixed
Agreed...but then that's a penalty the government (aka the people) should be doling out (or not), not some random garage owner...unless they just *want* to discriminate, which would be fine too. But don't give me some rigamaroll about "wear and tear" on your facility as to why the SUV has to pay more. Just say that you're making low MPG owners pay a penalty for buying a socially expensive car.
Sure, ONE SUV doesn't weigh
Sure, ONE SUV doesn't weigh that much comparatively.
Dozens, on the other hand, do.
Also, the best SUVs I could find average about 25, with the Ford hybrid being at the extreme end of 32. That's not very good. If your coupe is averaging below that, it's probably time for a trade-in, hoss.
You've got the money to buy and fuel a modern Nimitz-Class SUV
and NOW you're complaining that the world is "not fair?"
It must be fun to be so privileged.
I love...
that the owner of a large patch of pavement is worried about the environment.
And not just any patch of
And not just any patch of pavement -- an open-air parking lot in the middle of downtown.
If they really cared about the environment, they'd build something that would make the area more pedestrian-friendly.
Re-framed as a discount
The lot owner should have re-framed the price structure as a "10% Green Discount." The same way some businesses give a "cash discount" instead of a "credit card surcharge." It's the same two-tiered pricing scheme but it seems more palatable. Thoughts?
Double check the article
There are going to be three tiers. There's a green discount for hybrids/electric. A normal price for your average sedan. A 10% surcharge for anything below 15 MPG.
What am I missing here?
It must be something.
A private lot owner wants to engage in price discrimination that is not based on any kind suspect classification (e.g., race, etc.).
Why is this newsworthy?
Even if a pricing scheme is
Even if a pricing scheme is not illegal, it can still be a pain in the ass.
10K bet
These same people would be the first to complain about subsidizing "welfair queens" with their hard earned tax dollars.
Congestion, wear and tear, pollution, fuel economy, ect; it's all an issue, especially in the city. No one should keep you from driving your expedition behemoth, but you shouldn't force the externalities costs on others for your choice. My best buddy loves his gas guzzling Explorer, but I tell him to shut his mouth every time he complains about gas prices. No one is forcing him to ride in that thing, and he doesn't even have the excuse of a family to make it almost cost effective.
This city should take note and actually implement congestion taxes. Dump the revenue back into public transportation and into making the city more bike friendly. People that need to travel by car can still do so if need be, but pay the price. The price in turn lowers traffic and drives more people to public transportation, which also sees a boost in revenue and possible expansion.
It would work especially well with the size and layout of Boston.
The people complaining are
the same morons I always see sitting alone in their Land Rovers/Range Rovers/Escalades on 93 during the rush hours. If they can afford to drive in alone in their moronic vehicles and gas their guzzlers, they can afford to pay a surcharge to park.
SUV's are the biggest scam the auto and oil industries have forced on us to date.
These freaks want every
These freaks want every priveledge, no matter how undeserved, yet want to pay nothing. I hate those fucking republicans.
Forced
Nah, I actually agree with them that they're supplying what people want. If you want to blame someone, blame low gas prices and historically low gas taxes. At least Obama's EPS is trying to set ambitious new fuel economy standards. But in this election year Obama deserves some blame too, wanting gas lower.
People want these cars, love or hate em. The sales numbers don't lie.
Luckily the big 3 found out the hard way that the bubble all depends on gas prices, and when it popped they almost went under because production was almost explosively geared towards large SUVS, driving their prices cheaper. Keeping them a bit more expensive and having a better overall line of cars is their new deal, which is finally getting them back on track.
Chasing consumers that want everything for nothing almost ruined them.