• Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Everywhere we should start changing parking charges to “by the foot”. The longer your car is the more you need to pay. That will incentivize smaller, safer cars for people that don’t really have any need for something big.

        • filister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Let’s ban archaic units like feet and stick with cubic meter.

          Plus there are vans, so the more accurate metric would be a cubic meter per passenger.

          • IndefiniteBen@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Oh yeah I’d prefer metric, but I was just being consistent with the thread, as the actual units are somewhat beside my point.

            Now to find why I didn’t get a notification for this reply…

          • saltesc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah, and just register it in a database. Like how I gotta pay $100 more in vehicle registration because my car’s 50 fucking kg above the lower bracket. People with F350s can pay triple what I do. No, sextuple! Because they can’t fit in just one park. Parking inspector puts in the number plate and machine calculates the rest.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I need the length in my car right now. I’d rather charge by weight. I like sedans (currently in a wagon). What I’d like to get rid of is big trucks for no reason

      • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        But the cost of constructing parking infrastructure is more directly related to square meters than weight (in HCOL areas especially). Sure more weight means beefier structures and/or pavement are needed, but that tends to average over an area vs a large object requiring a larger investment regardless of whether it’s light or not.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          As much as I like cars, cars aren’t the answer. Public transport is.

          • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Public transport is currently quadruple the price, double the duration and significantly more unreliable than personal car travel in the UK when travelling with another person.

            Unfortunately it’s just not viable to traverse major cities via train. I think it can be far better than it is right now but I have zero confidence it ever will be

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      While still punishing larger families that absolutely need the space. I’m not against the concept generally speaking but we need to consider those kinds of ramifications. Low income families can be large too, afterall. Not even talking about with kids - many families have the grandparents/cousins/etc. around as well.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        people had larger families in the era where cars were smaller. no one needs an SUV in a city, they’re meant for hauling firewood to the remote cabin where there’s no paved roads

      • yamsham@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Cars are not the only way to move people around. They are, however, the worst way to move people around. Take a bus and/or train, and you’ll never have to worry about parking again.

        In response, more and more of our streets can be reclaimed for pedestrians spaces, adding walking/biking paths, adding greenery, adding outdoor patios, etc, instead of it all just going to ever increasingly large and crowded parking spaces and One More Lane™

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          As an avid fan of Cities Skylines, buses are not the answer. Give me a decent metro system.

          The other issues is that I don’t mind people taking away lanes as long as they present other alternatives. Currently, my area is taking away a lane WITHOUT giving me an alternative.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I never said cars are the only way to move around. I’m just saying we need to think through this a little bit. I agree with the idea for the most part.

      • t0fr@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Honestly, get a car and then add a roof rack instead of an SUV You have the space you need, it’s cheaper than an SUV, it’s more fuel efficient, and you can take it off and not have to transport all the extra weight when it is not necessary

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Yes, I understand, but a flat fee regardless of size of car as it now, is effectively a subsidy directly toward the development of car dependent cities. Also families don’t tend to travel downtown by car on weekdays where space is a premium, those are usually single drivers going to work and often in NA, those lone drivers are often in large pickups and SUVs.

        Large families taking the train have to pay roughly proportionally to the size, which is one of many reasons why many families opt for car culture. It’s not those fault the options are this way but my point is that it can be changed.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          I agree that in this particular case it makes sense. But the person that responded to said that everywhere should adopt this rule.

          • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            (I was that person 😉). I suppose everywhere was a bit broad of wording. Where space isn’t a premium, parking is often free anyway so I wasn’t really including that. Like a Costco or Walmart wouldn’t have any good reason to have someone just to go around measuring people’s cars.

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Well that’s what I get for not checking usernames lol anyway glad to see it’s not as strict as it sounded.

      • iegod@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        People raised families through the 90s without the space of an SUV. You will survive.

      • Jack@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Human overpopulation is the biggest cause of anthropogenic climate change, and the root cause of almost all existential and major ethical problems facing us.

        Becoming a biological parent while our fertility rate is catastrophically and unsustainably high, causes by far more CO2e pollution than anything else.

        We shouldn’t just tax these omnicidal people, we should vote in parties that’ll make laws to jail or hang people making the world unlivable.