Vespa congratuates Boston for enhanced scooter parking program
Filed under: Legislation and Policy, On Two Wheels
If even electric cars aren't the answer, then how should people best get around? Scooters are a feasible alternative for some, and the city of Boston just gave two-wheel drivers a boost with a new motor scooter parking program. There are 40 spaces in the Back Bay area that cost just 25 cents an hour instead of $1 an hour. Another benefit for scooter drivers is that the meters don't have a time limit, so you can just park and forget about feeding the meter. Vespa, unsurprisingly, thinks this is a good idea.
The scooter company issued a press release congratulating the city. The CEO of Piaggio Group Americas, which imports Vespas into the U.S., Paolo Timoni, said:
I'd like to congratulate Mayor Thomas Menino on his decision to execute a two-wheel parking program for the city of Boston. With better fuel economy than hybrid cars, scooters are not only a viable solution when it comes to reducing traffic congestion, but equally effective at reducing America's oil consumption and protecting our environment. ... I can only hope that more cities will follow Boston's example and offer similar programs for two-wheel commuters.
Some have, like San Francisco CA (1,000 scooter spaces), Columbus, OH (300 spaces) and Atlanta, GA (at least three, but probably more). Any two-wheel benefits available in your neck of the woods?
[Source: Piaggio Group]
It's a tough thing to combine support for the automobile industry with an extreme "free market" ideology. How can you logically make the argument that everyone should just do what's best for themselves when your product absolutely requires a network of roads that reach - and are paid for - everyone?
While the reasonable discuss the potential of a higher gas tax and ways to reduce oil dependence through any means necessary, the libertarian Reason Foundation has issued an interesting (shall we say) paper called Restoring Trust In the Highway Trust Fund that, basically, calls for an "Interstate 2.0 approach" to the U.S. Highway Trust Fund that would narrow its "focus to rebuilding and modernizing the Interstate system, both urban and inter-city." In other words, your gas taxes would pay for the big roads, and that's it. No livability improvements, none of the biking and walking improvements that DOT Secretary Ray LaHood embraced earlier this year, nothing like that. Mass transit is a local issue, the report says, adding:
We don't think there is any national interest or benefit from local transit systems or reason for the federal government to help fund them. *cough*national security*cough*
The report authors also don't like, for example, over five years, the federal government spent $3.2 billion of the fund's money on Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ). A more interesting discussion in the paper takes place over vehicle miles traveled (VMT charges). Read about that after the jump.
[Source: Reason Foundation via American City]