Re: City council voting on getting rid of free parking for motorcycles today
I think that after reading some of the letters being sent off to Councillors, I've noticed that some of them use arguments that could be easily rebutted and do not provide a stronger stance against having to pay for motorcycle/scooter parking. Could we as a community address them?
I'm specifically referring to:
(1) motorcycles are "greener" because they have lower emissions. Motorcycles don't have cat converters as far as I know and can only carry 2 passengers at the most, though they do use less gas to travel the same distance.
(2) tickets being stolen or blown off is a relevant argument, but I believe they intend on tackling that problem, especially when I saw that ctv video, the budget chief hinted at addressing that concern.
I'm not suggesting that these issues are not brought up, but (1) should focus more on the fact that motorcycles/scooters use less gas and not much else. (2) should be brought up, however with the assumed intent of the city to rectify the issue with some costly initiative: "I understand that the city would have to change ALL of the ticket machines to something similar to Montreal in order to deal with the issue of stolen or lost tickets that cannot be safely secured anywhere on a motorcycle/scooter. This associated cost would not be worth any minute revenue increase from motorcycles/scooters."
I just think that some of those Councillors will have this idea in their head like "motorcycles are green? No way, I saw myth busters!!" or "Tickets getting blown off? Don't worry we'll fix that so I've answered your concern- NEXT!"
Thoughts?
A motorcycle is by far greener than a single occupant car. A fully loaded 4 person car is however more efficient. But how is that car poolin going? Taking off isn't it? Secondly, compare the green credentials of the top of the line performance car with the bike equivelent, not an econo-mini-compaq-1.4 L car. Compare a 1000R to a porche and get back to me on that issue. Then compare a 250cc or 150cc scooter to a Kia rio. You will find scooters and bike are by far a greener option with marked personal freedom and flexibility at the expense of storage space and exposure to the elements and of course safety. Next time you're on the Gardener, roll down your window in gridlock and ask the 3 cars you might crawl past if they would consider car pooling with you the next day given that you all seem to be heading home in the same direction. See how that works out.
I commute every day 34km round trip, part highway, part downtown traffic, I spend $21 a week for my commuting using premium fuel. How does that compare to your let's say....run of the mill Ford focus or Honda Civic?
Just for the sake of comparing apples to oranges, the new Kia Forte with added "optional
Fuel Economy Package adds low resistance silica tires, a more efficient alternator, a five-speed
automatic transmission, and aerodynamic enhancements to increase fuel efficiency. With the
Fuel Economy Package, the Forte EX has a 27 mpg[SUB]
-US[/SUB] (8.7 L/100 km; 32 mpg[SUB]
-imp[/SUB]) fuel consumption in city driving and 36 mpg[SUB]
-US[/SUB] (6.5 L/100 km; 43 mpg[SUB]
-imp[/SUB]) in highway according to
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
Where as a standard out of the box rip your arms out of the sockets 2004 ZX10R consumes an average 6.25L/100km (that's not optimum, that's average) The eco-Forte is looking in the ballpark of 7.5L/100km for its average.
So forget the eco package, forget that it's a run of the mill compact sedan. Go compare the average car in town to the average bike, something like a 600 commuter, or compare it to a 150cc Vespa (which is 2.7L / 100km by the way!!!)
What's a Porche's economy you ask? 11.2L/100km (average)
So put a single dude in a Porche 911 Carrera, with all its power and glory, and sit him in traffic next to me on my comparable performance ZX10R and I'll use less fuel and be home 20 minutes faster, ultimately using even less fuel than an idling Porche.
