Comments on: City Considering Free Parking for Zero Emission Vehicles

By: iDevin

iDevin — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:18:17 +0000

bikinginla: I don’t necessarily agree with all CNG vehicles getting white stickers either and I certainly don’t think hybrids deserve stickers of any kind. The Civic is the only CNG vehicle that might deserve stickers, and even that’s a stretch. They hand them out to any vehicle with CNG which includes gas guzzling V8 pickup trucks, full-size vans, Crown Victorias, and Camrys. And in the interest of full dislosure, she is coming from a WVO vehicle that was totaled from being hit head on by a speeding SUV driver in a parking garage. By comparison the Civic could be argued to be a step backwards in terms of emissions, but we couldn’t find anything reasonably safe that could be converted to WVO in our price range so this was the next best thing.

ubrayj02: I do consider the poor who don’t own a vehicle, or those who choose not to. You, however, seem to ONLY consider those people. They are in the minority, and while I’m all for people ditching their cars and for making multi-modal streets the standard (otherwise I wouldn’t be on this site, would I?) we don’t yet have adequate infrastructure to accommodate that. Until then we must do whatever we can to reduce the impact of the car driving masses. Getting them to opt for a cleaner car, even if it’s not the cleanest car or even public transit, is an overall good thing for everybody.

DJB: Thanks. This is essentially my point, you just made it more eloquently.

By: DJB

DJB — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:27:40 +0000

Just to play devil’s advocate here, it’s not realistic to expect that GHG emissions will be brought under control only by changing the transportation modes that people use. Changing modes is a really important, neglected part of the solution, but it is, in the end, only a part of the solution.

Even if everybody in America used alternative modes at the rate of people in NYC, a city which is far more advanced on that than any other in this country, it wouldn’t be enough (although it would certainly help).

Electric cars / plug-in hybrids at the moment are too expensive and unavailable to be mainstream and that’s actually a problem. Subsidies at a higher level of government than a city (combined w/ some good ol’ fashined carbon taxation) are needed to address this problem or we’ll all be making a mode change to boat.

Just as a city depends on multiple transportation modes, the solution to climate change will depend on a multitude of greening strategies, some of which must involve cars.

By: bikinginla

bikinginla — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:59:06 +0000

Okay, my mistake – until I re-read this article, I was unaware of the difference between a white and yellow sticker. If the state says a fossil fuel burning Honda is a zero emissions vehicle, who am I to argue.

By: ubrayj02

ubrayj02 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:55:12 +0000

Ah yes the “everyman” car driver – with access to capital and credit. I love this canard.

iDevin, have you considered the poor who (gasp!) cannot afford a car or choose to go without one save money? It is a preposterous idea, I know.

You know what, let’s go back to ignoring them and focusing on inane technologies that do not address the fundamental problems with out over-consumptive society. “Clean cars” for everyone!

By: bikinginla

bikinginla — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:45:45 +0000

iDevin, I think you misunderstood. My comment was about free parking for zero emission vehicles; it had nothing to do with “white stickers” — by which I believe you mean the permits that allow a low-emissions vehicle to use the carpool lane on a freeway, and which would have nothing to do with this proposal.

While I fully support anyone’s transition from a high-emission to a low or zero emission vehicle, your girlfriend’s Honda not qualify as zero emission vehicle.

By: iDevin

iDevin — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:54:46 +0000

bikinginla is misinformed about the white stickers and this incentive “stealing from the poor to provide for the rich”. This mentality is frustrating, because it usually has nothing to do with the poor but more to do with “I ride a bike/walk/take transit and I want a subsidy!” I take transit and walk whenever I can, and I also know that transit is already heavily subsidized.

While I strongly support electric vehicles, the cost of getting a vehicle with the white stickers is lower than you think. My girlfriend just purchased an used Honda Civic GX last weekend for $6,500. The GX is a natural gas powered vehicle which came with the white stickers.

By: ubrayj02

ubrayj02 — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:42:30 +0000

This is a great idea!

You see, the city spends the AQMD license fee money it gets to pay for “clean air” fleet vehicles for city staff to use. Now, no staffer has to worry about every paying for parking again when they’re using the city’s cars!

By: LAofAnaheim

LAofAnaheim — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:31:44 +0000

Agreed with bikinginla. You already have a benefit from buying a Zero Emissions Vehicle. Why should the City cofer more money for your benefit? Heck, the City should give me a benefit that I walk to work instead of driving. But, my benefit is less hassle, gas, parking worries, maintenance, etc…, but still, shouldn’t I get more? Good gawd…

By: bikinginla

bikinginla — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:40:20 +0000

So what they’re really proposing is to give a subsidy to the people who can afford the high price tag of a fully electric vehicle, and forcing all the people who can’t afford to buy a new car — gas or electric — to pick up the tab.

Sheer genius.

Electric car owners already save the $30 to $50 they don’t have to spend to fill up their tank. Does anyone really think that the extra few bucks they’ll save on parking will convince someone to drop a 100 grand on a new Tesla?

I hate to poop on the Council’s cornflakes, but this has got to be one of the most asinine ideas they’ve ever come up with — and that’s saying a lot.

By: DJB

DJB — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:46:24 +0000

Some subsidies for electric vehicles are necessary in my view, if we’re serious about lowering our GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, giving away parking isn’t the way to do it. We should be taxing carbon and funneling some of the cash into subsidies for electric cars and infrastructure (and even cleaner modes). Of course, that goes beyond what a city can effectively do. (I’m looking at you, Democrat-controlled Congress).

Also, I’m disappointed to hear about LaBonge proposing a reduction in meter hours. That would be a disaster in K-Town. It’s better to pay and find a spot than circle around vainly, adding to traffic and air pollution. “Free parking is a fertility drug for cars”.

By: Joe Linton

Joe Linton — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:21:37 +0000

D – I am glad you caught and covered this one. I was surprised at how high the price tag was… two to three hundred thousand dollars in lost parking revenue (per the LADOT spokesperson at the meeting – but he didn’t specify a time frame on that number.)

Giving away any public parking for free would not a smart choice for a city facing a budget deficit. Nor is it good for commerce, walkability, clean air, clean water, public health…

By: Browne

Browne — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:13:45 +0000

The only Zero Emission Vehicle is a bike and a human and we know how the city feels about humans hanging out in parking spaces. I don’t mean the clean art school ones, but the not so clean ones that live on the sidewalk 24 hours a day.

Browne

By: Gary Kavanagh

Gary Kavanagh — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:56:54 +0000

For a city that seems incapable of proving adequate bicycle parking, seems odd to me to be giving hybrids with far more carbon foot print such a financial incentive. It’s not about being green, it’s about sounding green while maintaining the staus quo as much as possible.