Politics is a subject we generally avoid, but this one hits a bit too close. Mayor Bertrand Delanoë has proposed a ban on all automobiles in the city of Paris that are more than seventeen years old (MY 1997 or older), as well as motorcycles more than ten years old, and trucks more than eighteen years old (cars and trucks older than that do not meet current EU emission standards). If approved by the ministerial council in January, the ban would go in effect in 2014. Other changes to reduce traffic are also included, including limiting traffic along the Seine, and lowering speed limits on city freeways. These changes are intended to reduce emissions and vehicular traffic, and their effects are intended to be offset, at least in part, by the bike-sharing program Velib and the EV-sharing program Autolib. After spending ten days in Paris two years ago, I have some very mixed feelings.
(I’ll pepper my comments with some pictures from that trip). As any of you who have spent time in European cities know, they weren’t designed for the heavy traffic they’ve come to bear. And that traffic does have a very real impact on the quality of life for those who live and walk or bike in their neighborhoods. If one spends their time there (like we did) walking and riding public transport, the traffic is a nuisance. Especially when it’s visibly smoking, like this old Mustang.
Parking is a nightmare, and is typically done with lots of body contact. The obvious goal of the ban is to reduce traffic more than emissions, which have already been cut, and Paris is hardly dirty. In fact, traffic has already been cut by some 25% over the past decade by various measures.
The streets that have already been closed off to vehicular traffic, like this one below our apartment, are a boon to pedestrians and sidewalk businesses (this was shot in the morning before it got very full of people).
Nevertheless, many depend on the automobile, including older ones for transportation (probably not this Corvette), both to come in to the city for work or to get out of it on weekends. And quite a substantial portion of those coming in to work are of low-to-moderate income. Proposals to offer a free six-month trial to Autolib are not adequate, motoring advocates say.
Opponents say that the mayor’s intentions are to make it so difficult to drive in the city that motorists will get so disgusted and give up their car. Some obviously already have, given the 25% reduction claimed to date. But many say that will never be a reality.
But the trend line is clear, regardless of whether this specific new ban is implemented or not. Non-motorized and EV vehicles are already on the rise, not only in Paris, but throughout Europe.
Little EV trucks and such are common sights,
And older ones, like this Citroen H-Van, are rare. But couldn’t there be some exemption for really old and classic vehicles? I’d be a bit sad to go back to Paris and not be able to stumble into one of these.
Unfortunately, its cars like this that tend to exacerbate the anti-car crowd’s feelings on the subject in European cities.
Hummers are a rare sight. This is more typical. Note the parking “bumper” in the Mini’s grille.
Don’t ask how you’d get your car out when you need to. Parking is a rough and tumble business, and it is liberating not to have to deal with it. Ask New Yorkers or San Franciscans.
It explains all the small cars, including old ones.
Obviously, I’ve used this post to wallow in a bit of Paris nostalgia. I also attended the Auto Show, where Renault unveiled the EV Twizzy, which is expected to be a big seller in Paris. It’s fairly easy to see why, as one already sees lots of three-wheeled Mopeds and such, fusions between bikes and cars, and designed specifically for high density areas.
Change is the only absolute. And I’m torn on the issue. I love finding old cars, but traffic in a crowded city is intrinsically not a people-friendly affair, unless you need or want to drive somewhere.
This issue tends to bring out very strong feelings, often political ones. If you have them, and need to express them, I encourage you to do it in a way that comes off not too heavy handed or insulting. It’s their city. Either way, I’ll still be happy to come back.
Full story and top picture: NYT
I would expect at least a few derisive remarks regarding the French. Remember American fries? Sometimes they are worth listening to, if not emulating. Where would we be now if we had hedded their advice regarding Vietnam and Iraq?
They were “Freedom Fries.” If you’re going to make trite generalizations about people you disagree with, at least get your references right.
“This issue tends to bring out very strong feelings, often political ones. If you have them, and need to express them, I encourage you to do it in a way that comes off not too heavy handed or insulting.”
I guess you missed that last part.
Are you sure you read his comment carefully? I don’t think he’s disagreeing with the French; au contraire ….and he didn’t say anything heavy handed or insulting. Easy does it.
You’re right. He didn’t disagree with or badmouth the French. I was referring to his pre-emptive (and from my view, condescending) dismissal of Americans that do disagree with the French. Political heavy-handedness is a two way street.
I thought the “Freedom Fries” thing was stupid, too. I just don’t see how dredging up bad memories does anything but fan the flames and lower the overall level of discourse. I’m not promoting or condemning any viewpoint, French, American or otherwise, I just felt that was unnecessary.
They’re fools. It’s not the age of the vehicle that’s the problem in a crowded city, it’s the size of the vehicle. Why would one ban the Fiat 500 instead of the newer Hummer? The Fiat takes up less space in a crowded city.
As for lowering speed limits, all they’re asking for is a repeat of what happened in the US after the 55mph law was imposed – massive disregard for the speed limit anywhere and everywhere.
Size is only part of the problem; emissions are a very real factor. Consider that the 500 probably puts out 100x the smog-forming emissions of the Hummer.
In Europe older diesels are a very real problem because of the soot they emit. A number of cities, including Berlin, have banned diesels that don’t meet current or recent EU emission levels.
Ditto. I wrote a post about this a few years ago: http://green.autoblog.com/2008/01/02/new-year-new-bans-berlin-hannover-and-cologne-banning-non-cat/
I think this regulation is actually about the same that applies in London with the congestion charge or the Umwelt zones in some German cities. Let’s not forget that some Italian cities already ban cars depending on registration numbers (México city did that too) and Barcelona has a traffic speed regulation system to try to cut emissions.
The new dieselcars are a problem as well. A huge one. But the European carmakers are big into dieselengines, and this is a big problem in big cities. The dieselengines pollute about 90% more of the NOx than a petrolengine.
I’ve never been to Paris, but I spent a semester in Florence during college, so I’m intimately familiar with the unique problems caused by automobiles in old European cities.
The roads weren’t made for cars, the congestion is unbelievable and there’s a lot of pollution. If Paris was pretty clean, that’s remarkable, because most of Italy was filthy and soot-covered (and graffiti covered).
Frankly, I didn’t see the need for a car while I was there. In the city, I walked everywhere. When I travelled on weekends, I took the train. It was fantastic. It surprised me, but I could definitely see myself living that way.
While I normally cringe over this kind of legislation and I think that the no pre-1997 cars things is a bit heavy-handed, but I can understand it.
Dont let Mayor Boobberg hear about this……
There will be opposition to this, but this being France….it wont last long….tadum-tish!
Thank You….
I’m not seeing how banning older cars is going to make that significant of an impact on traffic. Those that absolutly need to drive will just be forced to buy a newer vehicle. That should cause a significant price difference between the value of a 1996 model x and the 1997 version. Is this going to be a rolling ban, IE next year 97’s become illegal or are they basing it on the difference in the new emission requirements the vehicle needed to meet. Would there be an exemption if the vehicle was updated, for example there are kits to stick a 4.6 in that Mustang and the Vette could take a LSx. Before you go crying you would ruin the value of the vehicle, if you can’t drive it what value does it have, plus if done right you can return it to stock.
Many years ago I had a guy come into the parts store I was working at who was in the process of putting a late model 350 in place of the 327 in his vintage Vette, to store the original engine. If anything needed modifications he bought other original parts or new reproduction items so that none of the original pieces were harmed.
The primary stated purpose is to reduce emissions. The reduction in cars will occur, because there will be greater economic incentive to give up an older car and not replace it.
To be honest, probably very few people in Paris absolutely need to drive, because of the superb public transport. By making it incrementally more expensive and less attractive, the number of cars tends to go down, as has been shown in the past and in other cities.
There’s no way to get around emission regs in Europe with engine swaps and such. Cars are registered by their year, which determines their EU emission rating, and the bureaucracy just isn’t used to even contemplating engine swaps. It’s quite a bit different there than what we’re used to here…
Affluent folks with older cars will find a way to register them outside of Paris, if they don’t already. And I strongly suspect there is likely an exemption for genuine collector/classic cars, with severe restrictions as to how often/much they can be driven.
So after visiting this site for several months now, I’ll actually leave my first comment. First off, thanks for another great article! It’s been a great read as always.
But about the question on whether you can retrofit an older vehicle to meet newer EU emissions standards – at least in Germany, such a thing is possible and done quite frequently, too. For example, many German cities – including Berlin, which was cited as an example – now ban cars that fall into certain “dirtier” emissions categories, which includes most older and even many newer diesels. However, many of these can be retrofitted with catalytic converters (yes, they also exist for diesels) and particle filters; once that happens, and if everything is documented with the right paperwork, the emissions code in the vehicle’s registration will be changed, and you can once again legally drive your old Mercedes W123 200 D (or whatever) in Berlin. Because the emissions code also determines your tax rate, people also update the emissions equipment on gas-engined cars, even though the ones that already have catalytic converters are not affected by the inner-city bans.
And one last thing to conclude my somewhat length first post: cars that are at least thirty years old, in good working order and reasonably period-correct (not necessarily stock) can get registered as a historic vehicle in Germany, which exempts them from all emissions-based regulations, including the ban in Berlin and elsewhere. In that case, only a reduced flat tax applies, too. So that’s somewhat different from the Delanoe approach.
Thanks for the clarification. I was aware of the retrofitting of catalysts and filters for diesels, and forgot to mention that. Diesels are actually easier to clean than gas engines in that regard. I’m not aware of a similar program for gas engines, but I could be wrong. Perhaps converting them natural gas?
I was responding to Eric’s approach of swapping in newer gasoline engines for older ones, something that is more commonly done here.
You’re right, I guess engine swaps really aren’t too common over here – and if people do swap, it’s probably not for emissions reasons. Concerning retrofitting gas engines, for those cars that already have a catalytic converter, there’s usually the option of installing a more advanced catalyst; older catalyst-equipped cars can also get a better emissions rating by retrofitting a, uh, cold-start management system (“Kaltlaufregler”?). That’s actually pretty cheap, and it can cut taxes in half. You see it a lot on older cars. I had one of those in a 1990 BMW 318i myself. However, gas-engined cars will not be affected by the ban in German cities as long as they have a catalytic converter (and the green sticker on the windshield to prove it).
There is a growing number of natural gas conversions, as you mentioned. I’m not sure about the emissions rating effect, but many people do it because it significantly reduces operating costs with natural gas being substantially cheaper.
So anyway, that whole inner-city ban isn’t nearly as rigid in Germany as the one they’re planning in Paris – it’s not a problem for most gas cars, and for many diesels, there are ways to retrofit. But the ban is still very unpopular. And apparently, it hasn’t actually improved air quality thus far, which doesn’t help.
I feel its easier to get around via public transport/foot in the city, even Seattle. Fore example, I use the light rail to go to games @ Safeco or the Clink as it is considerably faster, cheaper and easier than driving,
Cars are far more useful/fun in wide open spaces 🙂
“Don’t ask how you’d get your car out when you need to.”
When I summered in Paris in the mid ’60s the parking protocol was to leave your car in neutral and not set the parking brake. When someone needed to get their car out, they would push cars in front of them and in back, if necessary, to get the room to get out. Sorta hard on clutches but the system worked.
Back in the late 70’s I spent some time in several major cities in Germany, if you didn’t like the smell of diesel exhaust, you were out of luck. Diesel fumes were everywhere in the city, you could not escape them. It didn’t take me long to understand why my Munich-based relatives enjoyed going to the mountains so much, as the mountain air was exponentially cleaner and easier to breathe.
Even in the cities of the upper midwest I can see an argument to prohibit or restrict cars in the city centers. Living in SW Michigan we get the air pollution from Chicago with the prevailing westerlies, it’s bad enough that we get Air Quality Action Days from across the big lake. If Chicago were cleaner, we would be too.
When I lived in Atlanta, the air quality (or lack thereof) caused my asthma to go into overdrive. I’d only ever had one or two asthma attacks before moving there, they were scary as Hell. After several years living in the shadows of the Piedmonts and frequent inversions they caused, I learned to live with my asthma (and allergies and other respiratory issues). Particulate emissions are a huge factor in the incidents of asthma in a given area, even with the preponderance of gasoline powered vehicles in the Atlanta area, the air was as bad as any other major metropolitan area I’d ever spent time in. I can see why the Parisians (and Londoners, too) are doing what they’re doing, it’s to keep people alive.
Like Paul, I hope that a reasonable compromise can be arranged to make the situation work for everyone. This is where I see the new generation of hybrid, battery assisted and battery-electric vehicles comes into play. With few or no local emissions, the air quality goes way up in a given area.
I like to think of a car like the Chevy Volt as the new Corvair in this regard. It’s a car we can run on electrons, probably for a good amount of most people’s commutes, but has the capability to keep moving once the electricity runs out. Additionally, a car like this will stay emissions compliant for much longer than the average car, meaning no or few parts to wear out and start pumping particulates and pollutants into the air.
But, I’m a GM fan, and this is my way of promoting the car. The Prius and it’s variations, the Leaf, the Coda, the Tesla are all similar answers to the question of pollutants. But it’s clear to me, that electrification or electric assist will continue to be part of a standard car as the future unfolds and that for some people an electric car will be their only car.
With government initiatives to increase public transportation use and even our own need to stay physically fit, less miles driven in private cars will be to the good. I have started to walk to more of my personal chores as I live in a neighborhood that is fairly walkable, bicycle friendly and close-in enough that I don’t NEED to use my car. That and my need to maintain my weight due to a recent diagnosis of diabetes, has caused me to re-evaluate my love affair with my car. I still love it, but I find I don’t need it as much as I once did. That’s not so bad.
Now, if I can figure out a way to get a 10 year loan on a Volt…
From my understanding the Volts sold over there, under the Opel Ampera name have the “now or later” switch like the US market Ford Energi vehicles. That way they can save all of their battery power for use in the “EV only zone”. In the US to help with their EPA emissions classification the Volt is equipped with a “Mountain zone” switch which maintains a portion of the battery capacity to provide extra power.
I believe you’re correct about the now or later switch on Amperas, and the Mountain Mode works in a similar fashion for us in North America.
Now that there are more Volts on the secondary (used) market, the idea of owning one appeals to me even more than before. The “hit” on depreciation has occurred, and the pricing is in line with a high line compact car. Of course, the drawback is that I wouldn’t get the tax breaks the original owners got, and there probably wouldn’t be the incentives to get the higher efficiency charger and accessories.
For me, there are several reasons why I think I’d like a Volt. The fact that it uses very little fuel (or at least it would the way my life is right now). That I think it would be very durable, meaning fewer run cycles on the gasoline engine would probably lead to a long lived unit since the other motive power is supplied by electric motors. And, I like the idea that it’s a hatchback! Lots of win for me.
But alas, my life is changing, My daughters, now young adults, may be looking at weddings (I’ve already been helping with down payments on a house for one!) and we’re thinking about moving from our comfy suburb to places either further in the city, or a much smaller rural town. I don’t know if a Volt would be a good choice at this point. Somehow, I’m thinking a small SUV would make more sense…
Ironic, isn’t it?
Did anyone catch the part about “motorcycles older than ten MYs” included in this ban?
That right there gives away the REAL agenda – it’s not about space; it’s not about emissions. How much pollution do you GET from a ten-year-old 250cc commuter bike that gives 75mpg?
The REAL agenda here is CONTROL. The internal-combustion engine, mounted in an engineered vehicle, makes personal mobility eminently affordable and immediately available. Which doesn’t set well with social-engineers and government functionaries and workers connected to government mass-transit projects.
The EV exception is a red-herring…well, maybe not in France, where most power is generated from nuclear plants. But in other places, like the Big PX…coal-fired plants are being ordered offline and scheduled for destruction in the next two years, in a reckless gamble on unproven technology and vaporware.
There won’t be the wattage for EVs in the coming years.
I don’t know. Was there a strengthening (or even just implementation) of emissions controls on bikes in the last ten years in the EU? If uncontrolled, the bike’s emissions could easily be 5-10 times the emissions of a modern car.
If there’s not the wattage for EVs in the coming years, it’ll be because of our antiquated grid. Leaving aside major storms, Americans put up with more power outages than Europeans, and our outages last longer, on average.
Americans love having stuff like electricity, running water, and roads; we just hate paying for the maintenance required to keep the systems running, and then we act all surprised when the systems break down
Let’s cook that one through. A commuter bike gets four times the fuel mileage of a car; but creates five to ten times the emissions?
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, OVER?
Our “antiquated grid” is because various environmental laws make new power-generating plants economically unfeasible; and hyper-regulation in some areas discourage investment in the grid infrastructure.
In Western New York the major utility, Niagara-Mohawk, sold itself (not a takeover) to a British concern, National Grid. The company and shareholders got tired of fighting the New York public-utilities regulation structure.
National Grid did what any absentee landlord would do: Fired most of the help and started running everything at 125 percent of capacity. A laid-off distribution-station operator told me, “Buy a home generator – the power’s gonna be down more often and longer.”
That was in 2003. Things have gotten worse. But the point of the story is, it’s seemingly-beneficial government requirements that are putting us to this point.
As with Paris.
Total nonsense. Imagine the scenario without some sort of regulation.
Yeah.
1966. Boy, that was a real hell, wasn’t it?
“In Western New York the major utility, Niagara-Mohawk, sold itself (not a takeover) to a British concern, National Grid. The company and shareholders got tired of fighting the New York public-utilities regulation structure.”
Um, that’s one possible interpretation. Another is that executives can make more money by dumping companies (full of problems they know more about than rest of us) rather than managing them. This short-sighted approach to running an economy is endemic in every sector. No reason to single out utilities.
Stockholders overwhelmingly approved the sale.
When management proposes something AND the owners of the company overwhelmingly approve…you can scarcely claim management malfeasance.
Unless it’s because the business is doing something people watching on the sidewalk don’t much like. But unsolicited opinions are free, and usually worth just that.
Let’s cook that one through. A commuter bike gets four times the fuel mileage of a car; but creates five to ten times the emissions?
A car with emissions control versus a bike without them, sure it’s possible. A 1969 car generates about 100x the pollution as one built today with the same mileage.
The EU introduced emissions regs for two-wheelers in 2002, they were unregulated before this.
So an electric utility was sold by one private corporation to another, with the regulatory environment unchanged. The new owner proceeds to abuse the infrastructure for quick profits, and somehow this is the government’s fault?
Control. Some people will do whatever it takes to gain it, and once they gain it, they corrupt and destroy everything that doesn’t conform to their plan.
The REAL agenda here is CONTROL
Let’s not forget that France is a democracy. As such, we can assume that the majority of the voters of Paris are generally in accord with this general direction by their government to reduce auto traffic in the city. If not, they know what to do. It’s not Louis the XVI running the show. That is, unless the government has figured out to how to control their voting (and thinking) too. Time to get out le tin foil berets?
There’s an answer to that – a logical one, if irony-soaked – but it’s long and belongs on another type of board.
…what the hey, I’ve gone this far. And since we’re talking about Frenchmen, anyway…Alexis de Tocqueville it was, warned of a system which kept the trappings of democracy, while the people ceded more and more liberty away to an increasingly runaway government…periodically the people would go through the motions of democracy, to select who among the choices were to be their taskmasters.
I don’t have the exact reference or quote handy, my apologies.
The bottom line for me, is, frankly: Paris can do what it likes. I’m only concerned when the uncritical pie-eyed among us start thinking how kewel it would be if WE copied THEM…ignoring their geography; their population densities; the different expectations and restraints on government, if any.
I, on the other hand, am loathe to imitate or emulate other people, singular or in the mass…until I understand WHY what is done, is done.
There is only one atmosphere. There is no “air” border.
Of course. Read up on the health problems of New York City, circa 1890. The automobile was a public-health boon.
Know those high, snap-fastened ladies’ boots of the period? Those weren’t just fashion – they were to keep the manure of the street off milady’s feet.
Typhoid and dysentery travel over borders, too.
And then came lead poisoning from gasoline…hopefully, we’re always moving to a healthier environment.
Denial…. not just a river in Egypt.
Life expectancy increased throughout the 20th century (except for a brief dip caused by the influenza pandemic in 1918), so apparently those cars weren’t killing us in the long run.
Today, the poorest New Yorker enjoys a cleaner, safer environment than the richest New Yorker did in 1892.
Rich city dwellers didn’t own those country estates solely for status in the 19th and 20th centuries. Cities were miserable places to live during that time – long before the advent of the automobile. Those estates also offered refuge when the epidemics hit.
“Alexis de Tocqueville it was, warned of a system which kept the trappings of democracy, while the people ceded more and more liberty away to an increasingly runaway government…”
You mean like when a coven of oil executives hide out with the Vice President to develop national energy policy in secret? Or the launch of trillion-dollar undeclared wars of opportunity based on faked evidence and prosecuted in part through a network of torture chambers? If so, then yes, runaway government is upon us.
Or is it only “runaway” when the Other Side is in charge?
/back to talking about old cars
And that energy bill included several incentives for the development of alternative energy sources. Somehow, I guess the “coven” missed that one.
And last time I checked, lots of Democrats in the late 1990s and the early 2000s believed that Iraq had the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Countering one simplistic interpretation of events with another is hardly effective in the long run.
Geeber, I am not countering an interpretation with anything but facts. The ones you present are valid also and stand alongside mine without contradicting them. My point is that the executive branch doesn’t become a monster under one party and then a lapdog when the other’s in charge. Sorry for my snotty phrasing.
I agree that too many people look at the world – or at least our government – through partisan blinders. In many ways, the first Obama Administration was a continuation of the Bush presidency.
“You mean like when a coven of oil executives hide out with the Vice President to develop national energy policy in secret? Or the launch of trillion-dollar undeclared wars of opportunity based on faked evidence and prosecuted in part through a network of torture chambers? If so, then yes, runaway government is upon us.
Or is it only “runaway” when the Other Side is in charge?”
You can actually POINT to something that came from these secret meetings, that you don’t like?
Oil executives…refine and market OIL. That runs cars. You’d think that at a automotive-interest site, that would be considered GOOD.
As opposed to the kind of “environmentalists” we knuckledraggers would call “radical” – who are busy trying to close electrical plants, condemn hydro dams, and stop all drilling…leaving us at the mercy of qat-chewing Arab potentates.
When did the price of gasoline explode, again? 1987, right? Right when the Ethanol Mandate got madated…by the Party Of The People.
That’s all I’m gonna say about it – until I get jabbed again.
;{D
“Qat-chewing?” Don’t worry about any “jabs” from me, I’ll be steering clear of you in the future. Sincere apologies to everyone else for this thread.
I give as I get.
If someone wants to discuss these things, I’m open to it; although another site would be a better choice.
But if someone just throws these things out…to place MARKERS; to establish his cred as a proper-thinking “enlightened” type…he should know, and many don’t, that many people neither accept these as facts, nor see supporting evidence for them, nor enjoy having unsupported assertions flung in their faces with contemptuous sneers.
Wattage for EVs? Not a problem, JPT. The French are world leaders in their use of nuclear power at 79%. They have a power surplus they sell to Germany. The French nuclear industry is a major exporter too.
I’m completely in favor of expanded nuclear energy.
Look…don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor of technological and engineering improvements. If there’s a practical EV developed that provides me with what I need, at an affordable price…I’ll be at the head of the line.
I bristle, though, at mandates.
And FWIW, no new nuclear plant has been licensed since 1975. And one in Long Island had its permits revoked, and had to be reconstructed at great cost as a conventional plant.
Why this is so, is something to discuss elsewhere.
Which happens to be a argument designed to inspire fear and loathing of epic proportions. It’s an argument that’ll wash in the U.S., where personal freedom is inextricably linked to the automobile, but in countries with cities built back in the days of Roman legions and ox carts? Not so much. I’m sure European enjoy their cars as much as the next American, but they don’t have the umbilical reliance to them that people in the U.S. are essentially stuck with.
“The REAL agenda here is CONTROL. The internal-combustion engine, mounted in an engineered vehicle, makes personal mobility eminently affordable and immediately available. …”
For the past century Americans have been “controlled” by the highway-and-fossil fuel lobby at all levels – from towns mandating four-lane-wide roads in cul-de-sacs all the way up to ExxonMobil and Dick Cheney & Friends.
Owning a car is not necessarily affordable, but most Americans have no choice but to do so. Attempts to curb car use – by elected governments, JPT! – are a tiny pushback on a boulder that’s been rolling since before any of us were born.
People own cars because they are more convenient and allow them to live in areas outside the center city. Last time I checked, there was no law against living in New York City or any other large city if one chooses to do so.
Prior to the advent of the Model T, 90 percent of native-born Americans had never ventured farther than 20 miles from their place of birth.
Thanks to those awful “highway and fossil-fuel lobbies,” I am not limited to a career as a farmer or working in my hometown, which didn’t have a lot of employment opportunities even in the “good old days.”
Nor do I have to move to Philadelphia or Pittsburgh for a job and live in a cramped apartment or rowhouse with no yard, which is what most middle-class people did prior to the advent of World War II.
Fair enough, but consider that we’re both right. There are benefits to the status quo and there are costs. Powerful interests, for whom our costs are their profits, work to obscure those costs or push them onto the public and away from their balance sheets.
There is no need to put the highway lobby in quotes, as it exists.
I’m glad that this lobby does exist…the interstate highway system has been a boon to this country, as well as to my family.
It’s a massive project that only could have happened with government backing, and it has been supported by both parties, so one would think that the left would be trumpeting its success.
Good roads have improved our quality of life and spurred economic development. Unless we want to go back to the “bad old days” when roads were mudholes for much of the year, and the only link many small towns had to the outside world was the railroad. If a few road builders get rich…doesn’t bother me in the least.
When I see the picture of Paul and his lovely wife in front of Notre Dame, I remember how black it was from coal soot when I first saw it in 1966. Parisians know that they have a historical obligation to maintain one of the world’s most beautiful cities. Like cleaning and restoring Notre Dame, removing some of the burden imposed by motor vehicles is part of an on-going and what I hope will be an unending process. Those of us who are fortunate enough to travel there can appreciate and enjoy what they have done.
Why does this give me the craving to watch C était un Rendezvous?
Enjoy your hygienic sterile smartCars. These asshats are surrounded by art everyday.
I wonder how many such old cars are really being driven, and if it is a large number, why are they being driven? Are they being driven by people who cannot afford newer ones because of high costs and taxes? Or by wealthy people as toys? I know very little about Paris, but have read that new vehicle sales are imploding in Europe. The problem with most broad bans is that politicians seem uniquely unable to comprehend the law of unintended consequences.
A unique interplay of circumstances and incentives has led to the current situation. A political ban is a blunderbuss of a tool. I will be surprised if it really accomplishes what the politicians believe that it will, but will not be surprised that the result will be some very sad stories of folks who need a car losing it because of the ban.
Urban emission/congestion control in Europe is a thorny issue and, sadly, I suspect enthusiast/classic car owners are going to get trampled in the rush to find a workable legislative solution.
Paris’ proposed ban is simply an extension of the general approach already in use in various forms elsewhere on this side of the Atlantic: taxing/restricting usage based on a vehicle’s age and/or engine size, with sadly no regard for a crucial third factor: usage patterns.
When I (as an urban European) reluctantly gave up on car ownership three years ago, cost was the main factor. Not all those costs were attributable to this type of indiscriminate restrictive legislature, but many were – notably Edinburgh’s resident parking permit scheme which had at the time just been revised (with very similar justifications to those of the Paris ban: discouraging car ownership, reducing congestion and penalising polluters) to grade cars according to engine size.
The change here meant that the hypothetical owner of (for example) a 2002 1.0 Daewoo Matiz, who commuted to and from Glasgow daily, could park his car outside his city centre home for free. Meanwhile for the same privilege of parking outside my home, I would be charged around £200 for my weekend driver 1998 FIAT Coupe 20v Turbo.
The Matiz emits 158g/km CO2, the Coupe 232g/km. So far so fair… except that my hypothetical example Matiz is being driven at least 3,200km/month (that’s on the daily commute alone, assuming absolutely no trips to the supermarket, Ikea, etc.) My Coupe might do a couple of weekend jaunts to the Highlands and back in that time, at the most covering a third of the distance the Matiz does in the same time, emitting significantly less than half as much CO2 (and contributing nothing whatsoever to urban congestion in either city).
Edinburgh focussed on engine size rather than age, but my point here is that neither metric gets the whole picture. If the Paris ban goes through plenty of Parisians will be facing similar choices to mine… It’s not a simple problem, and – in fairness – the parking permit cost was far from being the only reason I parted with my car… but it was “one more thing” on an already long list of unsustainable costs, forcing an enthusiast owner and light-use driver to part with a low-end “classic”… which has in all likelyhood since been crushed.
Living in the heart of an ancient European capital city I really sympathise with the Parisian authorities’ intention here… I just find it sad that the measures being taken (I believe, in good faith) to reduce urban congestion and reduce pollution are overly simplistic, and unfair.
The insurance industry here has long offered “classic” car insurance with lower premiums for cars that are owned and used as classics – there’s usually a mileage restriction on such policies. It would be nice to see some kind of similar accounting for exceptions in the (necessary) measures being taken to wean us urban Europeans off the unsustainable (and unnecessary) vice of commuter car ownership, without hammering the enthusiasts and classic car owners in the process.
That really hits the spot, thanks!
I have quite mixed feelings about this issue too. To begin with, I think this plan is almost bound to go through. Not only is it fashionable, on a par with other cities, but Paris mayor Delanoë is almost guaranteed to score political points here.
That’s because his main target is the commuters, not Paris dwellers themselves. First, whatever commuters think of Delanoë’s plans, they don’t vote in Paris at local elections. Second, Parisian voters regardless of political stripe are likely to support Delanoë on this particular issue. Social-democrats and greens will vote for him (or someone from his team) no matter what he does or almost. Conservatives dislike the guy, but even they will be very happy, deep down inside, if commuter traffic diminishes significantly. So on a purely political level, it’s pretty much plain sailing for the mayor (plus, he has the President and the government on his side. That can’t hurt).
Sorry about the Poli Sci 101 bit. Now when it comes to the concrete means to carry all that out, that’s another story.
I guess one of the rationales will be to try and make the life of commuter drivers basically miserable, so that they will be forced to either give up driving into town altogether, or trade their old car for a less old one. There are plenty of ways to do that. Especially if one decides to disregard individual usage patterns. In short: post-1997 Diesel delivery vans with 300 000 kms on the clock will be OK, pre-1997 one-owner grandpa Peugeots in mint condition won’t. What happened in Glasgow and Edinburgh will happen in Paris. Sob stories will abound in some situations.
However, in some other situations, people (possibly the same people) will be happy to get less traffic and less pollution. Overall public transport will have to be bettered if this whole thing is to work at all. Plus, when I was living in Paris in the 1980s, nobody in his right mind would have dreamt of cycling there unless you were suicidal. Now plenty of people do cycle there. It’s not a bad thing. And if I were living in downtown Paris today, I would most probably not use my car on a daily basis: in many cases, it just makes your life more complicated, not less.
Kind of a square circle, really.
This being a classic car forum, one last thing: preventing outsiders from driving clunkers into town is one thing, but even the most dedicated supporters of the mayor may not be too happy if they are prevented from taking their beloved E-Type out for a Sunday drive. Some kind of arrangement should be reached so that classic cars, registered as such (either in Paris or outside of it), benefit from a German-style kind of dispensation. At least I hope so. So far I haven’t seen the draft law.
Just to be on the safe side, I think some day before 2014 I’ll drive my 1966 Volvo and my 1976 DeVille to Paris and take pictures of them behind Notre-Dame (on the very Niedemeyer spot, that’s right). That way I’ll have something to show my grandchildren, when I tell them in 2040 or so that once upon a time, you could wander around major European cities and behold plenty of different vehicles, not only small hybrid things that look like vacuum-cleaners and go wheeeeezzz.
Thank you both for that explanation, which confirms what I was suspecting. I was hoping some of our European readers would shed some genuine light on the subject, not just political diatribes.
It’s a subject that for many Americans is still rather abstract.
One factor that jumped out at me: both writers cite significant weaknesses in public transportations systems.
The people on this side of the pond who want to ban or punish private car ownership are constantly asserting that it would be perfectly feasible; as long as we also adopt a European public transit model, which is pushed as though riding a bus or tram has no shortcommings as long as it’s available.
both writers cite significant weaknesses in public transportations systems.
erm… where did you get that impression Steve?
Public transport here in Edinburgh is excellent, I really really am not a fan of buses, given the choice I walk everywhere (another thing that’s much more feasible in a European city I suspect) but on occasion you need a vehicle, and whenever I take the bus I’m struck by how clean, efficient and cheap a way of getting around it is here.
There are of course some short comings to mass transit, I doubt anyone sane would argue that, but alongside other options (yer feet above all) it really can work well.
Another semi “public” transport option on the rise in cities here is the car club – I pay a small annual membership fee (£50) and that gets me access to a small fleet (I’d say about 100) of cars and vans parked in various locations around the city, as well as similar fleets in 13 other UK cities. 5 of the Edinburgh cars live in bays that are closer to my flat than I’d be able to get a space for a car of my own.
I book time in units of 15min, (costing around £6/hr all inclusive, which given fuel costs here is a bargain) and just collect the car from its space using an RFID membership card and a PIN code. It’s a really great system for the kind of occasional car use us urban dwellers actually need on occasion. I’ve only used a car four times this year, but on each occasion it’s been for journeys I wouldn’t have otherwise been able to make. For longer trips out of town, conventional rental cars make more sense, for short hops there’s the bus or (eventually) the tram, and for intercity travel we have high speed rail.
Don’t get me wrong I really miss driving my car, but I don’t miss the expense of owning and maintaining it… and there’s definitely no objective weakness in the range of alternative modes of transport I have available to me.
Thank you both for calm facts. Like most people, I adore Paris, but do not live there. Paris is a treasure. Inevitably passions get high on how best to take care of it and its lucky residents.
Surely some arrangement for classic cars will be reached. After all, how could they ban the car that saved DeGaulle’s life?
But couldn’t there be some exemption for really old and classic vehicles? I’d be a bit sad to go back to Paris and not be able to stumble into one of these.
Problem is that someone else gets to choose what a classic is. I’m pretty sure that all of us who are fans would exclude the pride and joy of some other equally rabid fan. Seems that everyone needs to have a mayor that can choose what size soft drink he drinks or what he drives. Guess those of us who would like to mind our own business are getting outvoted. That’s not really a political statement ….. or maybe it is. It was intended as a social statement. I think it is more likely sharpnel from the population explosion.
I see a business opportunity here, maybe for Steve Lang, buying old french cars on the cheap and exporting them for sale in the US. I’ll take a DS and that Citroen H-van please
Full suite of R5 variants for me please…
Here in the Netherlands they’re thinking of repealing the tax exemption for vehicles older than 25 years; as-is the lax rules here compared to Germany mean there’s actually business in importing clapped out diesel W123s from there. I do hope they add some clause for collectors though, like a maximum yearly mileage.
I wonder how much an environmental impact all the (two-stroke) scooters/mopeds riding around here in Europe have; I wish they’d crack down on those as I hate the things.
Worst case, if someone insists on a classic car as a daily driver in a regulated city, they could get it converted to electric power. I found this one example, a 1970 Citroen ID converted by an Edmonton doctor. A separate motor runs the hydraulic suspension, which “uses very little power.”
Another business opportunity for auto repair shops: EV conversions of special cars.
Euro Gov’ts are banning cars, and then when car plants close and workers riot, they are surprised?
I wonder if this isn’t a sort of backdoor “cash for clunkers” type policy. The French car makers have been in trouble. Meanwhile, I doubt that the targeted cars are considered to be classics by most of the French. Perhaps the goals is to spur sales of new French cars, which would be cleaner than the ones they are replacing.
At any rate, I believe that this will not gain as much traction in the United States for a few reasons.
One, we have been ahead of European nations on reducing emissions – from both vehicular and stationary sources. Even dry cleaners were ordered to reduce their emissions of volatile organic compounds a few years ago. This country has also never embraced diesels the way Europeans have done (nor is it ever likely to). The air in American cities is already very clean by historical standards, and only likely to become cleaner as newer vehicles replace older ones.
Two, most manufacturing has already moved out of our cities, which means less truck traffic and no emissions from the plants themselves within city limits.
Three, Americans consider crowds and traffic to be part of city life. People moving there are often seeking those things. If you don’t like crowds and traffic, you move to upstate New York or Montana. France is a much more densely populated country, and both business and government are much more centralized. There is no equivalent to upstate New York or Montana in France for those who don’t like crowds and traffic but still want a decent job.
pardon my ignorance, why we see so many yellow lights on French cars?
do they have more fog at night?
citroen ds has a timeless design, can we tell its been 57 yrs old now?
to some does look ugly like a frog too( no pun intended ) .
Here in Italy lots of cities have what perhaps are some of the most pointless anti-pollution controls ever heard: “alternate plates” means that in some weekends you can circulate only if your car’s plate make for an odd or equal number, depending on the weekend and no-traffic sundays…actually it’s lots of years that cars that rank below the Euro 4 or even Euro 5 emission controls are not allowed to circulate in the cities, but this doesn’t really affect classic cars as they make for a their own, privileged, fiscal class…about Paris I think it has an amazingly tidy traffic for such a big city, I’ve never felt overwhelmed by the cars like, say, in Madrid…it’s all about pollution (and forcing people to spend their money on brand new cars…)