Discussion

She transformed Paris for tourists — and divided the city

hshdhdhj4444: This article has such a weird framing.It keeps repeating how the cleaner air is so good for tourists.But tourists visiting Paris for a week don’t get the majority of the benefit from cleaner air.The Parisian residents living there throughout the year do.Maybe because it’s CNN, an American outlet, they’re focused on the “tourist”, but these benefits have mostly accrued to Parisians.Also, the 4% increase in traffic jams is minuscule when compared to other large cities across the world (outside of maybe NYC, since it implemented congestion pricing over that period). Paris has not escaped the wrath of the SUV, and a large part of the congestion cities across the world are seeing is solely down to cars becoming bigger.

lefrenchy: How does an SUV cause more congestion than a sedan? That seems untrue to me.

calvinmorrison: fewer cars per foot, less visibility, etc? If there's a sedan in front of me I can see whats going on, if there's a UPS box truck, i cannot even see the light 150 feet away.

Schiendelman: Have you ever tried to park an SUV versus parking a sedan?

delichon: In an American city I would bet on the mobility impaired people to win the cage match against the fewer cars people. They are tougher than they look.

troupo: Here's a helpful comparison https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/opel-astra-1998-cou...

InsideOutSanta: That's an amazing website; thanks for linking it. Apparently, lengthwise, my car easily fits between the wheels of a Ford F-150 without even touching them. My car's full height is substantially below where the F-150's windows begin. That car could probably drive over my car and barely even notice it.

kibwen: One of the major problems with cars is the terrible lack of density. Per-occupant, a car occupies more space on the roadway than any other form of passenger transport. And as cars get larger, that lack of density gets even worse. There's only so much space on the road, so something has to give.

obsidianbases1: Great point.Additionally, driving a small sedan myself, if there is a parking spot (not parallel, normal lot spot) in between two SUVs, there is a good chance that spot is useless, even in my small car.Just last night, I was parked perfectly (I had to stop and admire my work because what follows), but still had to squeeze out with my door undoubtedly touching the SUV, and it wasn't even a large size SUV.I really hope waymo takes of and makes it economical to stop owning a car, and reduce the necessity of parking lots

whatever1: Of course you can reduce highways and infrastructure and reduce traffic. But you also choked access to the city.And no public transportation does not fix the problem. It helps a bit, but at the end of the day biggest part of far commuters are gradually cut off.If decentralization is the target, then just state it.

tom-blk: Only rich people get to drive now

frnx: The new large cycling strips that appeared in the last 5-6 years are so good. At commute time there are frequently jammed with /cyclists/, but let's face it it's miles better than being stuck in a car. I shudder to think about the alternative where each cyclist was instead alone in a small car, this wouldn't even fit on the roads.

philamonster: I would love to be on what amounts to a group ride to and from work safely. That has to do wonders for all kinds of things both physical and mental. If it were safe I would do it year round.

suddenlybananas: I do wonder how many cyclists in Paris are really replacing cars versus replacing metro usage. Obviously, it's still good for people to cycle as well since the metro can be insanely crowded at times, but living in Paris, my impression is that the people who cycle are the kinds who would have been unlikely to own a car in any case.

goldenarm: I moved from LA to Paris, my mental and physical health improved dramatically.I don't even take the subway, walking and biking are enough where I live. Hopefully we can reach the comfort of dutch cities within a decade.

consumer451: Complete tangent, but I met my equally nerdy brother in Paris last month.It was my first time, and his fourth. We stayed by the Republique metro station.After the literal 30th indie Manga shop that we walked by, I asked him: "how are all these shops financially feasible?" He said: "look inside."Holy crap, they all had customers inside! I had no idea that Japanese culture has such a strong heart in the middle of Paris, in the middle of Europe.

kevinklaes: Fewer cars overall should increase the availability for those who need it. Same for drivers overall but most can’t see past the first step which is reducing lanes and parking.

zamadatix: Paris is consistently somewhere in the top 10 cities worldwide by number of tourists per year and this is an extremely important factor to the city. Even if if Le Monde was writing this in French the impacts to/from tourism would be relevant to the article.

ceejayoz: Huh? Fewer cars seems like a win to those who rely on them. Could probably wind up with more accessible spots if done right.

stingraycharles: > But tourists visiting Paris for a week don’t get the majority of the benefit from cleaner air.You’re missing the point: tourists are good for the city. If Paris gets a reputation of being polluted, tourism will decline.

throwawaytea: I go to Berkeley Ca often on weekends. As a kid we'd go to SF too because why not. But now it's another $8+ for the bridge, and even if you find street parking it's another $2 an hour anywhere you might want to jump out for a few minutes. Basically it's an extra $20 to get the opportunity to spend your money in SF. So now I haven't been to my favorite coffee shop or pizza place in years. Oh well.

bluesounddirect: I agree, CNN has always had a weird angle to its bias. I am by no means a FOX news nut . I really think a lot of american "news" now is similar to How The WWF ( World Wide Wrestling Federation/ World Wrestling Entertainment) isn't a Sport. CNN , FOX, MSNBC/MSNOW , Newsmax etc aren't news but unfunny entertainment.

chiefalchemist: Slightly off-topic but NYC went through a similar process when congestion pricing met legal battle after legal battle. Long to short, there was a calculated effort to make midtown less and less vehicle-friendly. The "hack" was to take streets / aves and repurpose those for pedestrians. Special walking lanes, more "park cafes", bike lanes, etc. None were stated as being anti-vehicle - as that would open up legal challenges - but that was obviously the intention.

Palomides: france has a really strong tradition of comics, it's not just manga

goda90: Many cities in the world have many thousands of far commuters arriving by train every day. And many of those people even live in single family homes and own cars.

iamkonstantin: I think it’s no easy task to reform a city away from being car-centric. In my home town of Ghent (in Belgium), we’ve had several iterations of a traffic plan that gradually reduces the number of parking spaces, rises taxes and car related costs, makes streets one way or deprioritises cars (e.g. a car doesn’t have priority over a bike anymore) etc. It’s not easy but the city today is a lot more liveable than it was when all this started.

jstummbillig: Honest question: What is the hard part? If you took all of that stuff and did it as quickly as you could somewhere else, what's would be the biggest issue? People + resistance to change of any kind?The outcome seems so obviously good. I have never heard of anyone complaining about a city becoming less car centric, but maybe somehow it's an under-represented story?

vovavili: I was more comfortable living in Paris than living in a Dutch city because I was able to live in a banlieue. Biking here is more developed, and that's a plus. But having my job, my living space, my friends and my favorite weekend activities spread across Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague does take a bit of a toll. I wish The Netherlands did have a much less restrictive housing policy.

wiether: A city with less cars is a net positive for mobility impaired people.It frees space for people (wider sidewalks...), reduce the risks of navigating the streets, and for the ones that have to use a car, there's less traffic and less people stealing dedicated parking spots.Less cars also means less mobility impaired people. Cars create them through crashes and a lifetime of sedentariness.Finally, it should be noted that most of the time when someone says "what about mobility impaired people?", when debating reallocating public space to people instead of cars, they are not mobility impaired themselves and don't actually care about them. They just try to guilt shame their opponents to win.

dmix: > and for the ones that have to use a car, there's less traffic and less people stealing dedicated parking spots.The article mentions there's now constant traffic jams for city buses in Paris. It seems best for people who can cycle, walk, or people who already live in the city and don't need to travel much.

LaGrange: [delayed]

dismalaf: > Paris has not escaped the wrath of the SUV, and a large part of the congestion cities across the world are seeing is solely down to cars becoming bigger.Europeans don't drive Suburbans. They drive crossovers that are, if anything, shorter than the equivalent sedan or wagon.

LaGrange: "There was a rise in hospitalizations of pedestrians and cyclists"looks at the reasonCARS.

Fricken: My buddy with no arms or legs would beg to differ. He can't afford taxis because he can't work a real job. His friends/family can't drive him around because you need a custom vehicle for his chair. But he can use bike lanes and sidewalks independently without too muuch trouble.Car-dependent sprawl creates mobility impaired people where there were previously none. Many people are too old, too young, too intoxicated, too vision impaired or too poor to drive. Lack of viable mobility options is the greatest barrier to upward economic mobility for Americans today.

vel0city: You have a fixed amount of space to put stuff. If the stuff gets larger, can you put more or less stuff in that space?So now we have at least the same number of people trying to put their stuff in that fixed size space, but their stuff got bigger, does that make it easier or harder for them to put their stuff in that space? Will they have to compete more or less for that space?Seems like a pretty obvious one to me.

goldenarm: Travelers are more sensitive to sudden changes. I got sick in Sicily on day one of my vacation because of how bad the air was.

Y-bar: > An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport.- Enrique Peñalosa Londoño

youknownothing: There is some clear bias and green agenda in the way this has been written, which to be fair it's very common in Europe. As the EU continues its course to ban the sale of ICE cars by 2035, the argument of "fewer cars make for cleaner air" is gradually losing weight. As more and more EVs hit the streets, the argument against cars is more ideological, about lifestyle. It's about collectivism, about giving up individual transport in favour of public alternatives. It's happened in London, where a clear anti-car agenda is being disguised as a pro-clean air agenda. Almost the entire city now has a 20 mph speed limit "to reduce emissions" but, if that was the truly the objective, then I should be able to drive faster with an EV.Or maybe the angle they're trying to go for is another very European problem: cities are no longer designed for the people who live there, but for the people who visit them. Barcelona in particular has become a theme park, Venice has been one for decades. Entire neighbourhoods looks their soul so we can have more Airbnbs and drunk tourists. Sad times.

tpm: Well a big reason for speed limits in cities is safety, that doesn't change with EVs. Another thing you mention is collectivism but cars are a very inefficient private use of public space, both roads and parking, so when such space is scarce it makes sense to restrict them.

otherme123: > It's happened in London, where a clear anti-car agenda is being disguised as a pro-clean air agenda.I don't know about London, but in Spain there is no disguise: you can find pro-clean air and pro-human strategies. Pro-clean limits, or straight ban, the access of ICE vehicles to some zones. Pro-human/anti-car limit or ban circulation or park for any car in certain zones.

curtisblaine: Not so helpful; the cars are from two different generations at two different price points. Try https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/bentley-flying-spur...

airstrike: [delayed]

Zigurd: > choked access to the cityCitation needed.Pedestrian and cyclist friendly cities have more vibrant street life, and are more attractive places to live. I've never heard of car restrictions leading to more suburbanization.

Lionga: The amount of brain farting someone can do the associated less cars, more bikes to cities being full of drunk tourists is truly something

saltysalt: Exactly.

skeletal88: But then public transport has to improve also. You cant make owning a car impossible without offering alternatives.

tikhonj: None of the changes in the comment make owning a car impossible, they just make driving marginally less privileged over walking and biking.

the_biot: No, it's worse than that. The city council very much implemented an anti-car (harassment) policy, to the point that car owners felt hounded by their own council's policies. It seriously wasn't a matter of "marginally less privileged".

dpark: This is a tired and unhelpful refrain. Only rich people fill their cars with gasoline without wincing at the price. Only rich people get to own 7 houses. Only rich people get to fill their pools in the middle of a drought.There are a lot of things that “only rich people get to do”. Reducing the number of people who engage in destructive activities is a good thing, even if it means only rich people can still do it.

saltysalt: I think Paris has bigger problems to worry about.

rwmj: > I think Paris has bigger problems to worry about.Say what you mean to say.

tantivy: How many working class people would be happier and less stressed if they had high-quality transit to replace their car bills?

rapht: This article omits so many negatives from the "cyclist's paradise" vision of Hidalgo's 2 terms that I don't know where to start. Families are the first casualties: the Paris metro is nowhere near accessible to strollers except if you are willing to go to the chiropractor after each week end, and using your car - hell, even parking your family car - is a no go as soon as there is some kind of hipster sports event or just as soon as you are after 10am on week end mornings. Local parks and generally streets are so dirty that you have to wash your children from head to toe as soon as they have set foot outside. And I'm not even talking about used seringes and broken glass in certain parts of the city. I'm actually so ashamed of my city at this point.

andersonpico: Why reclaiming city space is biased but covering the thing in parking lots is not?

wizzwizz4: Electric cars tend to be heavier than ICE cars. This means their tyres wear out faster, which is plastic dust being thrown up in the air. (We're still not sure of the health impacts of microplastics, but we do know they accumulate in various organs, including the brain.) They also throw up road dust, and we know that rock dust is really bad to breathe in. Air pollution is still present. Compared to ICE cars fitted with catalytic converters, electric cars are probably better, but just because you can't smell their emissions doesn't mean they aren't still reducing the air quality.They're also still tonnes of metal hurtling along the streets of a city shared by pedestrians, which is inherently dangerous. (Less so than a bus, but there are also more cars than buses: you'd have to check the statistics to see how that evens out.) As for actually damaging the road (producing road dust, potholes, etc, requiring a resurface that off-gases for weeks afterwards): cars damage the road more than bikes, though that's not significant compared to lorries, since the wear is something ludicrous like the fourth power of the weight-per-axle.

alistairSH: Effectively NIMBYism, but for cars. The political backlash would stop all progress. People don’t like change, even for the better.

tantivy: Cars are enclosed sofas that move around. Could car dominance be contributing to obesity?

TimK65: Motorists are incredibly fragile. I'm glad Paris has had a mayor who could stand up to their entitled whinging.

vel0city: You're calling out different price points while then choosing a $200k car. Which, you picked that car because it's an exceptionally long sedan.How about we choose a different SUV?https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/bentley-flying-spur...I see far more suburbans on the road than all models of Bentley.People aren't choosing SUVs because they're smaller than sedans. They're choosing them because they're bigger.

dopidopHN2: No. Rich people zoom in to work and take a stroll to the market on Saturday morning, and they enjoy tapas a the quaint Bistro on the bank of the seine.Driving is for plebes

jfengel: On a nice day it's fantastic to be out, but Paris can be cold and rainy. They really need to have a plan for those days, too.Paris Metro is pretty nice, and reaches most of the car free area. But I'm not sure if it can handle all of the cyclists if they're all trying to avoid a déluge.

nchagnet: I live in the Netherlands where the weather is arguably tougher than in Paris (rain, cold and wind for large portion of the year) yet everyone bikes year in year out.And not just young active people, it's a habit found across all age groups, parents bike their children to school (or with them if old enough, etc.)All that to say I wouldn't worry too much about the feasibility issue, it's really more of a mindset to adopt, and it's happening more and more in France.

alamortsubite: I learned about la nouvelle manga recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_nouvelle_manga

dpark: I don’t know how you’re defining “rich” but the wealthiest folks I know all go to work physically. They get in their cars, or in one case on their bike, and commute to work like everyone else.

jfengel: It's a good illustration of why solving climate change isn't just a matter of individual actions. We need to reconsider the whole infrastructure, and you can't do that from the bottom up.

dfxm12: Cleaner air is still good for tourists & the article is part of the Travel section of this publication.

rsynnott: Generally, restrictions on cars make public transport better automatically, as they make buses work better.

delichon: > they are not mobility impaired themselves and don't actually care about them.That's a baseless and false slur. My first thought was that visiting Paris would be difficult because of all of the walking. I fall in the large gap between disabled and fit. On the one hand I would benefit from more walking, on the other I would not get much enjoyment out of a city that way, and would tend to drive far to services where I could park nearby.

wiether: Maybe it's my European bias talking, but "visiting a city" with a car seems like the worst idea possible.Basically a city is either small enough to be crossed walking, or big enough to have public transportation.And after walking or cycling, public transportation is the best way to visit the city. In Paris, there's bus stops or metro (subway) stations everywhere. A bus or metro puts the passenger at a higher level than walkers/cyclists/car passengers and with huge windows, allowing to enjoy a unique view of the city.The view of the Eiffel Tower you get when crossing the Seine on the Bir-Hakeim bridge is an experience that can ONLY be enjoyed by riding the metro. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cqIJVzkLD4c

dadoum: About the accessibility issue in the Paris metro: this can be mitigated by using the buses (that's not the best experience but it works fine), and in some parts of Paris (in my experience, east and suburbs) people usually help you in the stairs with your stroller (it's not convenient or comfortable to rely on others but in practice it seems to work). Anyway this is not like Paris mayor has any power on that, the transport authority though announced a few years that the main priority after the Grand Paris Express will be accessibility in the historical Paris network. And fortunately after two years hopefully your kid can walk and you can carry it without a stroller.> Local parks and generally streets are so dirty that you have to wash your children from head to toe as soon as they have set foot outside.Maybe it is a newborn and you do not bring the stroller nor any clothes on rainy days it is that bad. Don't get me wrong, Paris is not a clean city, there are empty nitrogen tanks, puffs and cigarettes lying on the ground pretty much in every arrondissement, but syringes, even on the colline du crack I can hardly remember having seen even one (but it is very dirty there! with packaging, paper, cardboard, bottles).I still think there should be a higher priority on sanitation but I also think you are exaggerating a bit.

efavdb: When I look at traffic in my city, I rarely see it caused by full packing. Rather throughout seems to be the issue.

IneffablePigeon: This “nobody cycles in bad weather” is a tired myth. Yes, there’s some truth in it but cycling numbers past the traffic counters in my city in the UK (very similar climate) dip by 10-30% in winter months, and the higher end of those is mostly leisure routes not commuting ones. The Netherlands has a lot of rain and much more cycling than most other places.

prpl: In amsterdam, few people wear modern/synthetic rain coats as well. Just riding around in the rain with what I assume must be waxed duck out something

pastel8739: Looking at TfL’s infographic about the speed limits [1], it is all about safety. In fact, it mentions “no net increase” to emissions. I think there is no such thing as an anti-car agenda, but perhaps there is an anti-death one.1. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/the-impact-20mph-limits-and-zones...

kergonath: > I do wonder how many cyclists in Paris are really replacing cars versus replacing metro usage.That’s not necessarily a problem, particularly for saturated lines like the 13.

microtonal: I have cycled every working day in The Netherlands and in Germany for years (in Germany it was 22km per day) and I would often cycle a bit recreationally in the weekends. It really isn't an issue at all. I just have a waterproof jacket (one of those that circulate air as well), water resistant shoes, and rain pants. On very rainy days, I would put on the rain pants and would arrive mostly dry.It is not really an issue.The only thing that was slightly meh was the yearly ~two weeks of thick snow in Southern Germany. It increases effort a bit, but still not a huge issue and the cycling roads got cleared pretty quickly.

yulker: Interesting how correctly naming them motorists sharpens how "the default" is often to be presumed drivers and pedestrians and cyclists are marginal

recursivegirth: I would rather float to work like the Swiss.https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-workers-commute-...

rimbo789: Yes it is ideological: cars kill cities, kill communities and are bad for everyone involved. They are dangerous to drivers and non drivers alike and are deeply anti social. We need less cars everywhere period.Putting cars in cities was also deeply ideological. It was about segregation and as a way to extract as much resources from people as possible. The imposition of cars was about turning people into consumers who only point was to purchase goods and services.We didn’t choose cars- they were pushed on societies through a decades long propaganda campaign.

nonethewiser: >Yes it is ideological: cars kill cities, kill communities and are bad for everyone involved. They are dangerous to drivers and non drivers alike and are deeply anti social. We need less cars everywhere period.You lost me at"We need less cars everywhere period." Not everywhere is a dense city.

jacquesm: Paris has one thing that Amsterdam does not that makes cycling more challenging: elevation. (Ok, Amsterdam has bridges but those are for the most part really short and momentum is enough to carry you across).

nchagnet: Oh I agree. When I lived in Lyon, who is also quite bike-friendly, it was a lot more challenging than Amsterdam.But with electric bikes becoming more affordable, hopefully the gap can eventually close.

saltysalt: Cyclists hitting pedestrians.

zahlman: > It's about collectivismIt's about the many other objective problems caused by cars besides the fuel use. Most obviously: they cause terribly inefficient land use (demand for parking + the roads themselves being congested), and are a physical threat to pedestrians and cyclists.> but, if that was the truly the objective, then I should be able to drive faster with an EV.That would be fundamentally incompatible with how traffic works and a nightmare to enforce.

consp: You haven't been in a bicycle-jam until you've been before an open bridge just before the university colleges start in the Netherlands. Hundreds of cyclists trying to squeeze through a tiny bottleneck. Still costs less time than by going in a car.

jacquesm: Summer here is on Tuesday. The rest of the year it is rain, alternating with fog, snow & ice.Nah, jk, it's a beautiful day today and I'm thinking of going for a ride.

magicalhippo: Here the large SUVs make everyone else drive slower in the city, because they're so big the driver has poor visibility and thinks they need several feet more than they do in clearance, and so drive almost in the middle of the road. Others then have to go real slow to not get dinged up on either side.

rsynnott: I think you’d have a fairly miserable time navigating any major European city _by car_, even before these policies. They’re largely not designed for it. For a start, where are you parking? It’s not like parking was particularly plentiful or conveniently located before this change.These sorts of reforms are generally aimed at discouraging people from commuting in by car. People who _regularly drive around central Paris_ (except for delivery drivers etc) would be a fairly small constituency.

zahlman: When did the fad for compact cars end? Where did all these SUVs come from? Why do drivers want to lug all this extra weight and space around with them all the time?

LaGrange: We don’t really know if eating microplastics is particularly bad, but we do know breathing any pm2.5 and below dust is.

rsynnott: > I was thinking more about the unofficially mobility impaired people by obesity, like meThe vast majority of obese people are not meaningfully mobility impaired.

phoronixrly: Yeah, if there is any agenda, that's the pro-car agenda... It's absurd to call people wanting to get rid of cars taking space, polluting with noise, dust and emissions, and killing their children part of a 'green agenda'...

zahlman: It certainly helps the buses move more efficiently, but it can't do much about things like bus stop placement, or just generally sense of place as you start or end your trip.

enriquto: > Paris can be cold and rainyI cycle in Paris every week, and the only annoying experience climate-wise is the extreme heat you can get some days in july and august. If it's cold or wet, you can just wear appropriate clothes and be comfortable. But if it's sunny and 35°C, you are going to be drenched in sweat no matter what! Of course, being in the metro those days is even worse...

gostsamo: The way I've heard it from drivers, suvs gives you elevation to observe the traffic and the mass to make your bad behavior problem of the other side while you gain real numbers safety.

black_puppydog: People keep saying Hidalgo's policies made people angry, but then voter turnout when she actually asks for confirmation of her policies is low. For example, 2024's vote on whether to triple the parking fees for big SUVs. [1] Turnout was tiny, but the measure passed.Well what does that mean? It certainly doesn't mean that there is a huge wave of enthusiasm for the measure.But conversely it also means there's not a huge wave of anger about it. It's not like the automotive lobby didn't try hard to create one; the media coverage was actually kind of crazy at the time. And with the low turnout, even a small mobilization would have been sufficient to reject this measure. But it didn't materialise. So when I read articles like this one from CNN, I just have to ask myself what the agenda is behind jazzing this up as much.[1]: https://www.lerevenu.com/reduire-impots/conseils-impots/pari...

dwedge: Measures like this always seem unfair to me if they aren't announced a few years in advance. A car is a large investment and people may have made different choices knowing that the rules will change. Same with the tax per mile for Electric cars in the UK.Instead of encouraging motorists to make better choices, they just end up feeling part of a money grab

stalfie: Alternatives naturally become more viable over time as more and more people find car use impossible, but its kind of hard to tell in advance which lanes of public transport are most necessary to improve. So imo the best solution is just to do it, and then see what happens and adapt. It's too hard to plan out everything in advance, and if you try you get deadlocked politically and nothing ends up happening. So you just find the best lever you can to reduce traffic immediately, and just start pressing it. But you warn everyone that you're pressing it, and when you do so you do it slowly.The reality is that a lot of traffic is simply unnecessary, and dissipates once you add some friction. The most extreme example of that is the rise of remote work during and after Covid. As it turns out, none of these people actually needed to go anywhere.And more generally, cars induce their own demand simply by virtue of being the fastest and most comfortable option, and they shape the environment around them to depend on them. Small local shops get outcompeted by distant behemoths due it being more convenient to drive. People move to a large house in a distant suburb rather than a small apartment because they know it's just thirty minutes away from work by car anyways. The easier it is to drive, the more entrenched driving becomes. And any way you slice it, undoing that process will cause pain, so you might as well go ahead and start, because you're never going to find a way to prevent the consequences anyway.

backtoyoujim: "green agenda" means what exactly ?

dwedge: Motorists are an easy scapegoat but without alternatives it's just political handwaving. And most people are motorists.Take my city for example. I work in an office block around a 15 minute walk from the centre, which has free parking for employees. Monday this week the city announced that the land is now paid parking to the city effective immediately. When it was pointed out they they hadn't provided any of the necessary signage or machines for this, they decided it was illegal to park there at all, with fines and tow trucks for non compliance. An email from them suggested "cycling or using public transport as the weather is nicer".I cannot stress this enough. No warning, no compromise, no other use for this land, just an immediate draconian announcement.It's very easy to call another group entitled if you're not one of them

bombcar: I cannot read the fiery letters, but it’s quite possible, depending on how the affected metro vs the voting block overlaps, that those who vote aren’t those complaining.Also complaining is easy, I could do it right now here on HN from any bathroom in the world; voting is comparatively much harder.

consp: > there is a good chance that spot is useless, even in my small car.Totally off topic but I've seen two smarts side-by-side in one parking spot, on a right angle to the parking spot making exiting the spot easy. Now that's efficient. And they still were less parked on the road than any big SUV or worse.

pastel8739: But in fact the end goal wasn’t to remove vehicles, it was to reduce congestion, emissions, etc. Those things are caused by vehicles, so policies to remove them will affect vehicles, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that their motivation is anti-vehicle.

dopidopHN2: The wealthiest people I know are philanthropist that spend their day on zoon meetings to decide who get the grant. A couple of time a week someone arrange a visit for them to check on "things are going" on the trenches.They also spend a lot of time on the phone strategizing with other folks like them. --But that's not a contest!I'm sure your rich people are richer than my rich people. --If we were looking at a formal definition, my naive approach would be to use the median income, add the revenue of assets, and add a 20% to that ?I'm sure the field of sociology could help be more formal here. --Here I was talking specifically about French folks, where access to remote work and living in the inner city are strongly correlated with higher income.

pas: in the US it has a few factors, one is that trucks are exempted from some mileage requirements, so suddenly manufacturers started making "legally truck" cars

LaGrange: FYI this article and thread is about Paris, France, not Paris, Texas.

hashmal: I get why you'd bring these points up. I mean, really, they could make sense. but both "green" and "tourist" points don't line up at all.to cut short lengthy arguments, just compare urbanism rules in the US and in the EU. the 4, 5, or idk 8 lanes roads you can find in some parts of the US with the at mot 3 lane (paid) highways.it all comes down to "if you make more room for cars, there will be more cars". if you refuse to cave in for this and you actually provide alternative ways of transportation (bus, bikes, subway if realistic, etc etc), then the overall traffic becomes much smoother. only complaints never cease, but that isn't specific to "moving people around".

dest: The housing market is a bit broken: either expensive private housing or affordable publicly managed one, but very hard to get. People often cannot relocate. Big debt. Security, with addicted errands in some districts.

saltysalt: Well put. Lots of people in the comments have a nostalgic vision of Paris it seems.

rossant: I've lived in Paris for 20 years without even having the driver's license.

bombcar: But are you le riche?

bombcar: It’s not just France; most of Europe. Barks and Don Rosa are better known there than in their home country.

the_real_cher: Biker supremacy engaged.

bombcar: Stroller access makes the USA look like a paradise compared to an old metro Europe.A week with a double stroller in Paris will make you appreciate ADA wheelchair ramps, kerb cuts, and elevators.