Could a Zipcar location be placed in a secure garage of a condo building? Or does it have to be accessible to the general public?

by FourthandEye on Jul 22, 2008 5:16 pm • link • report

It's not explicitly in the recommendations (they are at the level of general principles rather than detailed regs), but as discussed in the working group, it would have to be accessible to the public. Some garages put the car sharing spaces outside their security; others create an access card which goes inside the Zipcar and which the driver can use to go in and out of the garage.

by David Alpert on Jul 22, 2008 5:19 pm • link • report

If developers are already putting in spaces as per market requirements, there is no reason for the government to step in and require more. If DC really wants to subsidize car sharing, shouldn't they reserve more of "their" property (curbside parking spaces), rather then force the developers to provide the subsidy?

by Local on Jul 22, 2008 5:21 pm • link • report

I'm in agreement with Local except that I don't understand why a guaranteed, reserved spot is required for these cars.

I 'understand' the argument being made that because these cars benefit car-less residents, they aren't really "private/for-profit" ... (though I don't 'agree' with it since someone is definitely making a profit off of these cars and reaping the benefit of not having to pay to park these cars between paying rental customers like Avis or Hertz or any other car rental place is having to do ...)

But, even if we assume for a moment they are really just conveniences for car-less residents and the car sharing companies just a piece of the puzzle of getting a shared car to some of our residents, why should these residents get the special privilege of parking their cars in guaranteed and reserved spots?

The average DC car-owning resident doesn't get this privilege. He/she pays to get a green sticker that will allow them to park in their zone on a 'first come/ first served' basis. If they are lucky, there is a space waiting for them somewhere near their home when they want to park. The next morning they have to go looking for the car without benefit of being able to look each time for the same spot.

Why don't we just issue these same green stickers to the car sharers? ... provided of course the car sharing companies will agree to start registering their cars in DC. We could even make these stickers good for all parking zones.

Why should some residents get greater conveniences than others?

by Lance on Jul 22, 2008 6:44 pm • link • report

@Lance

I hope you can agree that car sharing isn't about catering to the car-less. It's about providing incentives to get cars off the roads.

As for your point about making car-sharing users hunt for parking... I think by focusing on what is "fair" you are missing that it's necessary for logistics. When a user of a Zipcar parks a car in one of the designated spots that is almost always a sign they are "done" with the car. Without a stable parking spot for the Zipcar how the heck would the next user of the car know where the heck it is?

by FourthandEye on Jul 22, 2008 6:56 pm • link • report

Lance: When I park my car on the street, it's just taking up space until I use it again. A car sharing car, on the other hand, is in frequent use. It's also taking about 5 cars off the road just by its existence. At the very least, it should get as much priority as 5 other cars, but really more because it's just taking up space for less than 20% the time that a regularly owned car is. How about we allocate one out of every five on-street spaces for car sharing?

Local: I think it would be preferable to allocate on-street spaces, but I doubt that is politically viable. Besides, every zoning requirement is a market distortion in a sense. This one also helps correct a market failure: without ample car sharing, there's no way to just buy car capacity as you need it, and you have to put considerable sunk cost into car ownership, insurance, and maintenance. This requirement helps create a freer market with more choices for driving options.

by David Alpert on Jul 22, 2008 7:17 pm • link • report

If I use a Zip care to go to Whole Foods for two hours, how much would that cost me?

I agree that they are not really car "sharing" programs. I don't understand the reluctance to call it car rental. That is what it is.

by Jazzy on Jul 22, 2008 9:39 pm • link • report

"Without a stable parking spot for the Zipcar how the heck would the next user of the car know where the heck it is?"

The same way he reserves it over the Internet. The ZIPCAR owners already know where it is via GPS or some other means ... and they now indicate it is one of their reserved spots. All they'd need do is indicate the address.

by Lance on Jul 22, 2008 9:54 pm • link • report

David, If we give them green residential zone stickers where they can park in ANY residential zone at any time and for however long, then the number of spaces needed for the Zipcars will automatically adjust as needed. You aren't limited to the one out of five your recommended, nor will you be stuck with unusable (for other cars) parking spaces if that many aren't needed. The market will efficiently decide how many are needed.

by Lance on Jul 22, 2008 9:58 pm • link • report

@Lance

>>"The same way he reserves it over the Internet. The ZIPCAR owners already know where it is via GPS or some other means ... and they now indicate it is one of their reserved spots. All they'd need do is indicate the address."

So under your scenario if I have a reservation for a car at 6pm I need to be online at that time to check to see where the car was returned. Your not seeing the impracticality of this? People aren't always going straight from their PCs to the cars...

by Fourthandeye on Jul 23, 2008 1:00 am • link • report

And if I had a pickup truck reserved at 10am to pick up something big, I have to go online to find out where it is, but it might be all the way in Glover Park or something?

Yeah I might as well just go buy a car again. Having Zipcar around is a big reason I sold my car two years ago.

by inlogan on Jul 23, 2008 6:17 am • link • report

Fourthandeye and inlogan,

Hmmm ... I thought we were talking about car 'sharing' ... Isn't coordination of geting the cars from one sharer to another part and parcel of a sharing situation? The convenience you're looking for sounds more like a rental situation. I mean, does that car or truck sit waiting for you in that convenient parking space where you were told it would be the day prior? If so, doesn't that defeat the benefits of sharing where we've been told it means that the cars are kept more on the road being 'shared' and less just "sitting around" for when and where someone needs them.

Jazzy may be right. Why not just call it "rental"? How is it different from Hertz or Avis other than that the rental company, Zipcar, gets free subsidized parking for their cars while they are off the road.

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 7:35 am • link • report

Fourthandeye and inlogan,

Hmmm ... I thought we were talking about car 'sharing' ... Isn't coordination of geting the cars from one sharer to another part and parcel of a sharing situation? The convenience you're looking for sounds more like a rental situation. I mean, does that car or truck sit waiting for you in that convenient parking space where you were told it would be the day prior? If so, doesn't that defeat the benefits of sharing where we've been told it means that the cars are kept more on the road being 'shared' and less just "sitting around" for when and where someone needs them.

Jazzy may be right. Why not just call it "rental"? How is it different from Hertz or Avis other than that the rental company, Zipcar, gets free subsidized parking for their cars while they are off the road.

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 7:35 am • link • report

Can someone please mention something about the cost of renting a Zipcar? At first I mentioned a couple of hours shopping at Whole Foods. But more likely would be a half day going to some place like Ikea. Does anyone know how much that would cost?

by Jazzy on Jul 23, 2008 7:42 am • link • report

Jazzy, I rented a pickup from them about a year ago to pick up something bulky I'd bought out at Tysons and the it cost something like $50 for the couple of hours that we had it out. (You also have to pay for a membership.) I just rented a car in FL for 4 days and it cost $165 total.

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 7:48 am • link • report

Get away from the semantics of what car charing and car rental actually mean. If you really want to play games with the name, isn't tradition car rental also sharing? I mean it's different people using the same car, which means sharing.

Anyway, the reason the city gives the company spaces on the street, which by the way pale in comparison to the number or private spaces, is because it helps keep cars off of the road which actually creates more parking for you. Do you really want all the Zipcar members buying their own cars and parking them on the street?

And rates start at $9 per hour after a $50 yearly annual fee and $25 application fee. If you use them often, they have driving plans you can sign up for too.

by inlogan on Jul 23, 2008 8:22 am • link • report

inlogan: Should mention that the fee includes (some) gas, insurance and maintenance.

The carsharing programs have been very effective in turning one-car households into no-car households (15% give up a car when they join), as well as delaying a second car purchase.

Additionally, since carsharing turns the decision to drive into an almost complete marginal cost decision, it levels the playing field between driving and transit, which also is mainly marginal costs. 27% of carshare users use transit more after joining, while only 7% use transit less. Also, the share of transit trips goes from 35% to 50% for those who join a carshare program.

Without carsharing, people tend to purchase and store a vehicle in order to have access to one conveniently, and once a vehicle is bought and stored, additional use is only a small marginal cost. This leads to more driving, which increases congestion, pollution and energy use. Carshare users who give up a car drive 72% less than before they joined.

Statistics here

by Michael on Jul 23, 2008 8:37 am • link • report

Jazzy. Just check out www.zipcar.com. My wife uses it and it keeps us from needing a second car. The rates are very reasonable. Costs include insurance, gas, everything. Different size cars get different hourly rates.

by NikolasM on Jul 23, 2008 9:32 am • link • report

Whether you call it rental, sharing, whatever ... the bottom line is that the private ventures who hope to make a profit off of this should be paying (and passing on) the costs of operating their venture. I agree that people who own cars in this city get a free ride in regards to being able to park their cars on city streets for extended periods for the cost of $15 per year. And I think it only fair that people who share cars (or even companies in the business of sharing cars) should get the same rights. But nothing more. If this is a good idea, then it will multiply in use without government subsidies. And yes, I personally think it is a good idea. I just don't think those doing the sharing should get subsidized by those not doing the sharing, or get special priviledges such as reserved parking on city streets that the rest of us don't get.

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 9:40 am • link • report

I just read some new information on DC's website. DC does have the ability to charge a fee for these on-street parking spaces, but initially they chose not to so the program could get off the ground. Also, no Residential Parking Permit spaces were used for the Zipcar reserved spots. DDOT plans to begin charging $1782 a year for these spaces. The full report from December 2007 is here: http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/frames.asp?doc=/ddot/lib/ddot/information/carsharing/carshare_evaluation_2008-16-01.pdf

The conclusions and recommendations begin on page 7.

by inlogan on Jul 23, 2008 10:19 am • link • report

David said:

"Some opponents argue that this requirements subsidizes car-sharing companies. But a requirement to provide car-sharing spaces in large garages no more subsidizes a company than plumbing requirements subsidize plumbing companies."

What goes unsaid here is that the reason the government can step in and order central plumbing requirements in a building (or house) is that a prime government responsibility is public heatlh, and the plumbing requirements are part of the greater sanitation system (including sewers) which governments are responsible for. They are responsible for this because no one else can be. Public waste is one of those externalities that no one will take responsibility for and hence the government must.

This is similar to the government's role in defense and other areas where no private enterprise can really step up to the plate effectively. And yes, we could argue on and on where that line ends. In the 50s (or earlier) the federal government got into the business of ensuring we had a good transportation system. This included highways and other means of transport as well as transportation. One of those policies was to give cars an unfair advantage over trains, buses, and other mass transit. As David and Bianchi have pointed out, all these free highways tipped the scales in favor of the automobile and caused our trams and other mass transit alternatives to die. Europe didn't have the money to invest in highways to such a degree and didn't tip the scales, and they kept a good (and getting better) mass transit system.

I see government coming in and mandating (or 'helping' or 'subsidizing') zip cars as a similar action as the government weighing in on the car vs. mass transit debate in the '50s. Personally, I'd rather they kept out of this and let the market decide. We've ended up with a situation where we have little good mass transit because the some politicians decided they knew what was best for everyone. The same could happen with these zip cars. Once you let politicians decide for you how things should be done, you've given them powers to create vested interests with unintended consequences. Think of the unintended consequences that have come from making us car-dependent ... (and oil dependent ...)

I'm not saying that Zip cars aren't a good idea. I think they are a fantastic idea. All I'm saying is keep them private. The results will be what are needed and not what some politicians thinks we (or more probably ... what his "vested interest" backers) think we need.

by Lance on Jul 23, 2008 10:23 am • link • report

If we could spend even HALF as much time talking about ways to improve the bus system, just think how far we'd get!

by Jazzy on Jul 23, 2008 10:37 am • link • report

If we could spend even HALF as much time talking about ways to improve the bus system, just think how far we'd get!

by Jazzy on Jul 23, 2008 10:38 am • link • report

Lance, Zipcar pays for most of their parking spaces, and soon will be paying for their on-street ones in DC, too. Mandating that a developer provide that parking doesn't mean that they provide it for free, just that they have that provision available.

Furthermore, most of the proffer requirements have language something like 'must provide shared car services,' meaning they can either provide a space to Zipcar or they can buy a car and share it with their own system if they so choose.

It's hardly perfect, but it's far more market-oriented than the comparisons you draw to highway funding. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

by Alex B. on Jul 23, 2008 10:42 am • link • report

OP’s final proposal for requiring that spaces be made available to a car-sharing company is vague (“Any development proposing new parking with 50 or more spaces shall make parking spaces available to any car share company at the rate of one space plus one for every 100 spaces over 50. Spaces shall be available in perpetuity to any car share company with 90 days notice.”), and presumably additional detail would be provided later. However, the original proposal, posted on OP web-site, has language which requires that the car-share spaces be made available AT NO COST to a car-share organization, and that those spaces be available to non-tenant car-sharing members 24-7. There is no reason to believe that, when the final regulations are drafted, OP will change the original proposal.

The original proposal for requiring developers to provide parking for car-share companies is:

“In newly constructed buildings, the provision of 50 or more spaces of dedicated, on-site parking must be accompanied by a minimum provision of one (1) parking space to be offered to a car-sharing service, as recognized by DDOT. One (1) additional car-sharing space must be provided for each 100 dedicated, on-site spaces provided.

Figure 5 provides the recommended schedule of requirements for providing spaces accessible to car-share vehicles when accessory parking spaces are built. (Figure inserted here.)

“The required car-share spaces shall be made available, at no cost, to a car-share organization for purposes of providing car-share services for its car-share service subscribers. At the election of the property owner, the car-share spaces may be provided on the building site or on another off-street site within 800 feet of the building site.

“The parking areas of the building shall be designed in a manner that will make the car-share parking spaces accessible to non-tenant subscribers from outside the building as well as building tenants.

“If and when such spaces are put to use by a recognized car-share company, access to those spaces must be maintained for all members of the controlling car-share company.

“Prior to approval of the first building or site permit for a building subject to the car share requirement, a Notice of Special Restriction on the property shall be recorded indicating the nature of requirements of this Section and identifying the minimum number and location of the required car-share parking spaces.

“All car-share parking spaces shall be constructed and provided concurrently with the construction and sale of units.

“If no car-share organization can make use of the dedicated car-share parking spaces, the spaces may be occupied by non-car-share vehicles; provided, however, that upon 90 days of advance written notice to the property owner from a car-sharing organization, the property owner shall terminate any non car-sharing leases for such spaces and shall make the spaces available to the car-share organization for its use of such spaces.”

by JR on Jul 23, 2008 1:52 pm • link • report

Jazzy - Prices are variable and depend on the type of car and when you rent it (weekend/weekday). There is a $50 annual fee, although you can get a discount through certain organizations, such as schools. They also have high user discounts if you use a certain number of hours per month but I think that's mostly for businesses. As others noted gas and insurance are included and you get 180 miles per day included with a 180 mile minimum per rental. Miles are $.35 over 180 miles/day. Some example prices:

Toyota Prius

Weekday - $9/hr,$67/day

Weekend - $9.75/hr, 72/day

Volvo S40

Weekday - $11/hr, $79/day

Weekend - $11.75/hr, $84/day

Toyota Tacoma Pickup

Weekday - $7.25/hr, $79/day

Weekend - $11.75/hr, $84/day

by Chris on Jul 23, 2008 2:19 pm • link • report

Didn't want Chicago's non-profit I-Go car share to go unmentioned.

Lance, with the free market approach do you also advocate remitting city revenue back to those who don't own cars?

by Lynn Stevens on Jul 25, 2008 12:13 am • link • report

>> "do you also advocate remitting city revenue back to those who don't own cars?"

No way jose. That's an obnoxious suggestion. Whether you own a car or not your life is dependent on roads. Your trash isn't picked up by bicycle. USPS isn't delivering that book you ordered from amazon on a vespa. Your grocery store doesn't get it's shipments delivered by metrobus...

by Redonkulous on Jul 25, 2008 5:30 am • link • report

Redonkulous, Lance's issue appears to be with offering "free" parking to car shares. At least in Chicago, trash pick-ups, USPS, grocery deliveries -- none of them use parking spaces on city streets (of course, they do double park on the thoroughfares).

by Lynn Stevens on Jul 25, 2008 1:02 pm • link • report

I'd love to be able to use car-sharing, but when I use a car, I usually bring along a toddler. No carseat, no go.

Are they any ideas out there on how to make car-sharing more practical for families like mine?

by Elizabeth on Aug 12, 2008 1:29 pm • link • report

Car seats are not very expensive, and as the child gets older, become less bulky, so buying and toting would be the first option. Another option is to ask the car-sharing agencies to provide this as an add-on, although without a seat being in the trunk, I am not sure how that would be feasible.

by Andrew on Aug 12, 2008 1:37 pm • link • report

Carseats are expensive enough, and a child is in a difficult-to-carry toddler seat for about three years. Having designated cars with convertible (infant/toddler) seats in the trunk might be a good way to go--though of course that means less trunk space for the vast numbers of people who don't have small children.

by ZetteZelle on Aug 12, 2008 3:25 pm • link • report