A few weeks ago, I ranted about having to pay for parking on my scooter. Apart from being a self-involved 21 year-old, I’m also right (at least on this one).
First, scooters are better for the environment. As a benchmark, we’ll continue the comparison between Goldy’s 2001 Nissan Altima and my 2009 Buddy 125. Claims of reduced CO2 emissions are indisputable. Scooters consume less fuel, and thus emit less carbon dioxide. Burning a gallon of gasoline produces 17.7 pounds of carbon dioxide, and at 21 MPG, Goldy’s car produces 0.84 pounds of CO2 per mile. My scooter, at 95 MPG, produces 0.19 pounds, or less than a quarter of his emissions per mile. Other forms of tailpipe emissions are more complex and variable, but the bottom line is that four-stroke scooters are better than passenger cars. If you’d like an obscene amount of information on the toxicity of scooter exhaust to humans, here’s a <a href=”doctoral thesis. (Warning: PDF)
This potentially amounts to a lot of environmental benefit for not very much money, which is why Seattle City Council Member Tim Burgess took up the issue in 2010.
Burgess’s office estimated scooter parking revenue loss in 2010 by multiplying the percentage of vehicles that are two-wheeled by the 2010 general fund parking revenue of $26.5 million. The total? A measly $800,000 to $1 million. In addition to promoting clean, effective transit, that money also prevents parking stickers from being stolen (a common problem among scooter riders), allows more people to park per block, and increases scooter visibility in the city. This is a targeted parking fee exemption that London, Sydney, Toronto, Vancouver, and Cincinnati (!?) have already adopted. Seattle should be next.
With all due humility, I know I’m right. But I’m also gracious enough to admit it’s not going to happen—for now, at least.
Here’s why: Not all two-wheeled vehicles are created equal, and it’s hard to distinguish new, clean scooters from cheaper, Chinese two-stroke scooters and motorcycles that are terrible for the environment. Parking enforcement officers wouldn’t easily be able to tell them apart, and Burgess cited this as the death knell for his 2010 efforts. The only way to make this work is by tying scooter environmental controls and regulations to free parking—something that should happen when the city isn’t facing the worst budget shortfall ever/snowpocalypse/rapture.
If emissions were the primary object of parking regulation, you’d have an air-tight case. Or, at least an air-tight case that scooters should pay less for parking than Nissan Altimas do. Maybe an air-tight case that they should get a 75% discount.
But I don’t think emissions are the primary object of parking regulation. The municipalities that control street parking have other things to worry about in setting their policies.
Besides, the virtue of scooter-riding is its own reward. Isn’t it?
As an addendum, awhile back I was hoping to pick up a two stroke moped to supplement a transportation device gap in between my honda civic and bicycle (for sunny days when I want to travel 20 miles in a reasonable amount of time). I was dismayed to discover that, environmentally speaking, most small two stroke mopeds are absolutely horrible. Needless to say, I didn’t end up getting one and instead have invested more into upgrading the bicycles I own.
Following your logic, I shouldn’t have to pay to park my ZENN (Zero Emissions No Noise) car. As Alden points out, parking fees exist to raise money for the city, so I don’t whine about it.
The last scooter I owned, a Lambretta, produced emissions equal to a Ford Explorer with a cracked engine block, towing an incontinent cow.
The obvious solution is to have an annual low cost parking permit that sticks securely on the license plate for two wheeled vehicles that qualify. Too logical to implement.
Two-stroke scooters produce significantly more emissions per gallon of gasoline than any modern car in good repair. Even factoring in the improved mileage versus a car, I believe they come out dirtier.
Pony up for the four-stroke.
Scooters actually put out 49 times the emissions of a passenger car. There are no emissions requirements for motorcycles and mopeds (the legal name of scooters) except that when new, they are only allowed to emit ten times the carbon/mile of a passenger car. http://www.edmunds.com/car-technology/un…
Scooters also enjoy the distinction of being the deadliest means of conveyance on the roads, followed distantly by motorcycles http://www.2keller.com/library/motorcycl…
http://ask.metafilter.com/45318/Scooter-…
And yes, they should still pay parking and not park on the sidewalk.
@1, nicely done. Thank you.
Just a thought Unpaid intern- if your logic was airtight, you wouldn’t need to constantly assure us how right you are… which, as the comments point out, you aren’t.
But hey- you’re raising page views and comments, which was the goal all along… at least from your editor’s point of view.
FYI, the only street-legal 2-stroke moped I know of is an ultra-clean high tech Yamaha.
The Chinese manufacturers stopped being able to get their 2 stroke scooters to meet EPA requirements close to a decade ago. All the cheap Chinese scooters imported today use the EPA-approved 4-stroke “GY6” engine.
A vintage Vespa is way worse for local air quality than anything out of China today.
Quit whining, and pay your parking fees. You’ve upset me enough as it is.
@3 No. Not all fees exist solely to raise money. They also exist to provide incentives.
And why don’t you just ride a bicycle? No one would beef about parking if you did.
If you are talking about hot chicks on scooters, then I agree, parking should be free for them.
@12: The usual intended incentive for downtown parking fees and time limits is to keep people from hogging spaces, so that new business customers have a chance to park. You want a certain amount of turnover.
@7:
You are confusing total carbon content with hydrocarbon emissions (usually HC on an emissions test form). The two measurements are quite unrelated. Total carbon is, and will always be, a direct function of how much fuel is consumed – a vehicle with better fuel economy will ALWAYS have a better carbon footprint. Unburned HC, on the other hand, is based on a whole bunch of factors.
Scooters do emit significantly more HC and NOx as a percentage of exhaust than any full size vehicle. However, the total volume of exhaust they produce is about 100x less than a full size car, which is why the EPA is more lenient on smaller engines.
These pollutants do react in sunlight to create low level ozone – local smog. However, they are NOT greenhouse gases and do not have a long term effect – they go away as soon as it rains.
Goldy’s car is still less filthier than your filthy scooter:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert…
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert…
@15
There’s nothing stopping us from still enforcing parking time limits, just because the parking itself is free.
Tire chalk is still a thing parking officers carry, you know. Or the parking machines could dispense a special free sticker.
Parking a scooter or motorcycle has become financially dangerous since the new parking system, anyway. Your parking sticker has to be displayed on the headlight, by law. Anyone can just walk along and take it, go stand by the parking kiosk with it, and sell it for cash. If you’re parked for any serious length of time, someone will take it. Or try and roll your bike up on the sidewalk to park their car.
Wrong, @17.
The mining, processing, manufacture and shipping of the vehicle itself plus the oil it consumes is the largest pollution impact.
Sadly, our dirty, dirty Intern is cleaner than Goldy.
Just to play devil’s advocate: what activity does the scooter most often supplant: commuting via car, or riding mass transit/walking? If it’s the former, then they’re are considerably more “green.” If the latter, they’re an entirely superfluous source of pollution.
Here in SF (I know, I know, but wait…) motorcycle parking is either free or metered (which has more than doubled in the last few years, but still a fraction of what a car spot costs) at a reduced rate. I agree with this. I take it this is not the case in Seattle?
And I should add, when I say “motorcycle parking”, I mean spots designated for motorcycles (or scooters) by the SFMTA.
@18: I face the same problem when I park my convertible. The solution is to pay with a credit card so you have proof of payment if you get a ticket.
Is this really a widespread problem, though? I’ve never seen anyone selling parking stickers for cash. And I’ve actually never had one stolen out of my convertible, even though I’ve often parked it with the top down.
Also, people rolling scooters up on sidewalks to free up a space? Does that actually happen? In the U District it mostly seems to be the opposite — people wedge scooters into spaces in between parked cars, leaving the car driver without enough room to get back out.
The kerosene-powered Stanley Steamer produces emissions far worse than modern scooters, and therefore cars are much worse than scooters for the environment. Of course, much like vintage two-stroke scooters, the Stanley Steamer hasn’t been sold for years. They still exist, but the majority of modern cars (and scooters) on the roads now use efficient, clean-burning four-stroke engines that meet modern EPA standards. In addition, the article linked to in @7 above doesn’t even mention scooters and motorcycles, so I’m not sure why it was used as a reference. Furthermore, that entire line of reasoning is beside the point: automobiles aren’t tested for emissions before entering the city limits either.
The real reason to allow for free parking for scooters (or a cheap annual pass) is to encourage greater vehicular density downtown. The simple truth is that two-wheelers take up less space than four-wheelers, both on the road and when parked. THAT is the reason they should be encouraged downtown. The emissions argument is pointless and basically a debate about what the EPA should be doing, which we have little/no influence over. Parking policies in Seattle? That IS something we can change.
@24: Of course, that argument is based on the idea that more motor vehicles downtown is a good thing. The opinion of most Strangeristas — based on the arguments I’ve seen here about the tunnel — seems to be that there should be FEWER motor vehicles, and that people should be bicycling or taking the bus instead. So I think you’re fighting an uphill battle with that argument.
@23: It’s not uncommon to come back to your scooter and find it lying on its side with body damage and broken mirrors because someone backed into it when parking, or decided to “try it out” by sitting on it (and then accidentally dropping it), or find it moved onto the sidewalk or down the street to make room for a “real vehicle” that wanted your spot.
I recommend that scooterists utilize a disc lock that prevents the scooter from being moved more than a few inches. That doesn’t prevent it being knocked over, but does prevent it from being moved (which is technically a felony, BTW).
@25: I agree with them, but I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect that Step One of improving downtown is “Ban all motor vehicles.” A good intermediate step would be to discourage large vehicles from being used downtown, and pushing people toward scooters and motorcycles if they need a motor at all. Two-wheeled motorized vehicles tend to be more pedestrian-friendly than SUVs, and would mix better with bicycles as well. Eventually we can push to make downtown a bike and pedestrian-only zone, but in the interim, reducing large-vehicle trips into the downtown core would help make it more pedestrian-friendly.
@26: Sounds like the ideal solution would be separate, segregated parking areas for scooters and motorcycles. UW does this, in fact they will ticket you if you park in a car space.
@27: So motor vehicles are okay as long as they’re dangerous and impractical? 😉
Back in my youth, I rode a beautiful old Lambretta around NY I always pulled it up on the sidewalk and found an out of the way spot for it I risked getting a ticket but I figured it was worth it — If I’d parked it on the street with the cars, it would have gotten dented or even knocked over by cars. When I see scooters here in Seattle, they are typically dented and I’m sure it’s because they are parked on the street with cars. They really should have segregated parking for them, and they probably shouldn’t have to pay for it, just because they take up so little room.
@29: The entire concept of motor vehicles is dangerous. In fact, the entire idea of vehicles is dangerous; bicycles were considered a menace to both rider and pedestrian when they were invented. Then again, walking is dangerous too, isn’t it? Better stay home.
Once again though, that sort of “logic” is silly and beside the point. If you honestly believe that the very first step to making Seattle a pedestrian-only city is to ban all motor vehicles, you’re living in a fantasy world. I’m suggesting that a pragmatic first step is to encourage usage of vehicles that are more scaled to the pedestrians and bicycles of downtown. SUV, truck, and car drivers are disconnected from the pedestrian experience, and often blithely unaware of what’s happening outside their glass and metal box. I’ve been almost run over by oblivious SUV drivers more times than I want to contemplate. On the other hand, motorcyclists and scooterists are hyper-aware of their surroundings; you have to be to share the road with cars and survive. They’re much more likely to notice the pedestrians and cyclists sharing the road.
My question to you is this: as a pedestrian/cyclist, would you rather share a downtown street with 30 cars or 30 scooters? And why?
@31: That’s a good question. I’m actually torn, because while motorcycle and scooter riders do have more skin in the game, they also showboat and engage in risky behaviors a lot more. I see a lot of motorcyclists popping wheelies, speeding, and weaving in and out of traffic. As a bicyclist (and, for that matter, as a driver) what I most want from motor vehicles is predictability. I want to know what their intentions will be and where they’re going. I often don’t have that with motorcyclists.
I have proposed in the past that I, as a sometime bike rider, should be paid by the mile for riding…especially if I eschew gasoline powered vehicles…and also, bicycles should ride free on Metro (LINK, ST, Sounder).
You do realize that Goldy’s car can fit four or five people, right? So if Goldy were to carpool he’d be outperforming your four or five scooters and taking one fifth as many parking spaces. I know, I know, Goldy isn’t going to take four people with him and there aren’t five employed scooter riders in the whole city, but you see how the math works.
A better solution would be for designated motorcycle and scooter parking nearest the corner where you can’t park a car anyway, or in the partial spaces between curb cuts that are almost big enough for a car but present visibility issues. The paid lots could do this too with the little angled leftover area and sell it for a discounted rate.
I think the main reason SDOT doesn’t do this is because scooter parking is only an issue for two months of the year.
LOVING the fitful bolding of text in this one! Loving it! Also the warning about pdf…user-friendly, like a scooter.
We like the way you have made the scooter debate into a series, much like every great movie never anticipates having a sequel until you’re crying on your 3-D glasses while fighting over Twizzlers with your mom in front of Toy Story 3. Glad you made a part 2 to refresh the dialogue.
And, in celebration of the real crux of the article, here is a list of Cinncinnati firsts, besides rad-ass chili:
-first city to publish greeting cards
-first city with a weather bureau
-first professional baseball team
-first concrete skyscraper in the USA
-the Boy Scouts were founded there!
The Boy Scouts were founded in England.
Try Austin, Texas. Motorcycle and scooter parking is free downtown.
You may want to check out an injury lawyer for your question to make sure you can be covered by insurance in most or every area. It would be helpful. – Janie
Scooters should have free parking because they take a lot less room; two or three scooters could fit in one car space. The advantages of using scooters are shown in a lot of large cities across the world where there are large numbers of this type of vehicles. And where there are a lot of vehicles accidents occur especially since people that ride scooters expose themselves to a larger risk than the people that drive cars so they have to be prepared in case of an accident that preparation should also include legal council. Albuquerque Personal Injury Lawyers