I'd be surprised if most DC car-owning residents' costs were that high. I pay max $400 per year. From what I can tell, there is no way Zipcar can help me out economically.

by Jazzy on Jul 28, 2008 8:50 pm • link • report

Jazzy: I think I pay that much in insurance. What insurer are you using?

Certainly this is probably an average assuming people have a car loan, which you may not have. It also accounts for depreciation.

There are a lot of hidden costs like that which don't come out of your pocket directly, but then when you have to buy a new car, you're hit with a huge amount. For example, I got my car for free when my grandmother died, but had to put about $3,000 into it for repairs. Over ten years, tha'd be $300 a year; it's a 1994, so I doubt it'll last much past that. It's only required maybe $100-200 per year, but that gets you to $400/yr just on maintenance averaged out.

Since I already have the sunk cost of the car, it's not economical to switch to Zipcar, but when my car dies, I probably will because getting a new one would cost more than just using Zipcar the 2-3 times a month I drive (especially given that there are 2 Zipcars just in my alley alone, one next door).

by David Alpert on Jul 28, 2008 8:55 pm • link • report

Geico

by Jazzy on Jul 28, 2008 9:07 pm • link • report

I pay $192 per 6 months, which is almost $400/year. Maybe I get more liability than you, but I don't even have collision (since I didn't pay for the car, it's not worth paying money to have the insurance company cover the now-very low blue book value of the car itself); I just need the insurance in case of injuries or liability to myself or others.

by David Alpert on Jul 28, 2008 9:17 pm • link • report

$300 per year.

Ok, don't build more parking lots. Fine, I guess. But at the same time, realize that more than a couple of parking lots have been built over. We've lost lots too.

by Jazzy on Jul 28, 2008 9:23 pm • link • report

David - that $400/yr is ballpark with what I paid in Arlington. I more than doubled with the switch to D.C. I'm wondering what the difference is between my insurance and yours. Do you have zero coverage for theft? I can understand not feeling you need to be reimbursed if the car gets totaled. But if someone were to steal it tonight would you feel the same way?

by Paul on Jul 28, 2008 9:25 pm • link • report

Paul: Yes, I'm not covered for the car itself at all, just any effects that might result from driving it. If it were stolen I'd be disappointed, but I'm making an actuarial decision that I'm better off not paying an insurance company. (Please nobody decide to steal my car! :) )

Generally my philosophy of insurance is: if it's something that wouldn't hurt too much financially to deal with if it happens, it's better not to insure it. That's because the insurance is priced such that the insurance company figures on average they'll get more in premiums than they'll pay out in claims, and therefore on average the amount I'd pay in insurance exceeds the expected value of my claims.

On the other hand, for things that would be huge losses, I need a huge insurance company to average out my risk with lots of other people's, and I err on the side of insuring against more major catastophes. Therefore, I have high liability protection (and umbrella, which is expensive) on the car, but no comprehensive or collision; my homeowner's covers a lot, but I picked a very high deductible.

A neighbor's tree fell down and broke my fence, which cost a couple thousand to fix, but over time most likely I'll save more in insurance premiums than I'll pay in storm repair, unless something smashes my roof in, in which case I need the insurance.

Of course, for some people, having a car stolen (or totalled) is a big financial hit they can't afford; in that case, getting collision and comprehensive auto insurance makes sense.

by David Alpert on Jul 28, 2008 9:34 pm • link • report

David, The last time I had a need to know (2004), garage spaces downtown (Penn. Ave.) were going for over $250. I've recently seen open lot spaces in Dupont advertized for $250. While there may be parts of DC where garage parking goes for under $250, it's probably not in the parts where there is a shortage of street parking.

by Lance on Jul 28, 2008 9:47 pm • link • report

Lance: if parking rates are high enough to support making a profit on parking (or even breaking even), then developers will just build the parking. Remember, this isn't a choice between no new parking and lots of new parking; it's a choice between the market deciding how much parking and the zoning rules forcing it.

Plus, define 'shortage'. And are the parking rules only applying to the areas with shortages? Do Cleveland Park, Tenleytown, Friendship Heights, Brightwood, Takoma, Anacostia, etc. have shortages? Because I don't know for sure, but I suspect garage parking does not go for $250/month there.

by David Alpert on Jul 28, 2008 9:53 pm • link • report

For Highland Park, you say that only 5% of the residents are paying for a space, but you still haven't said whether some of the residents of the building might own vehicles that they park on the street in order to save the rent on the spaces? You also haven't responded to questions about whether some of that capacity is meant to serve future needs. After all, it is difficult to slip additional garage space under a completed building.

At any rate, with minimum parking requirements of one space for every three or four units, it is difficult to argue that we are requiring residents who don't rent or purchase the spaces to subsidize them.

I also would be interested in your source for the estimate of $60,000 as the cost per parking space. This number is used frequently, but no independent source is ever provided.

by Tom on Jul 29, 2008 7:45 am • link • report

Tom: It's pretty annoying to park on the street and move one's car, so that's a strong incentive for people to use the garage. But, we drastically underprice our street parking. By making it $15 per year, we really encourage parking on the street. That's why we need performance parking to balance out the costs and incentives. If it weren't about 150-200 times as pricey to park in a garage, fewer people would park on the street. But more importantly, some of those people wouldn't own cars at all.

In the future, I hope that auto usage goes down, not up. Building 20 times as much parking as necessary just in case isn't the answer. If anything, it will encourage driving so much that it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As for "slipping" parking under a building, why don't we say that every building ought to be twice as high as it is now, just in case we need to accommodate more residents? After all, it'd be hard to slip extra housing above our existing buildings. Cars aren't entitled to more consideration than people. If parking becomes in higher demand in the future, people will start building buildings with more of it. That's no reason to build too much now, just in case.

The $60,000 figure was given to me by a developer. Nelson\Nygaard's Jason Schrieber cited a garage in Seattle where it was $70,000. I've heard various numbers around there (the cost is rising, especially recently, as things become more expensive), and so I used the most recent number I got from a DC-based source.

by David Alpert on Jul 29, 2008 8:31 am • link • report

"Cars aren't entitled to more consideration than people."

When you provide sufficient parking to meet current and future needs, it's not cars who benefit ... It's people.

"If it weren't about 150-200 times as pricey to park in a garage, fewer people would park on the street. But more importantly, some of those people wouldn't own cars at all."

This is very telling. Go to Europe to see what happens when that is the case. For decades now the Europeans have severly taxed cars in all ways possible. The last time I was there I had a cousin explain to me why it was necessary to make car ownership expensive for the average person ... as he raced his high performance car into Paris from the 'burbs. Apparently, their philosophy is that they could never build enough roads or have enough parking to accomodate everyone, so you need to restrict the amount available by making it available only by ... those who can afford it. The average person is supposed to be stuck taking mass transit, running on a schedule set by a bureaucrat and going to places on a map chosen by a different bureaucrat. Sorry, the automobile is the great equalizer. It is part of what has made America different ... and better. We need to encourage more parking garages and not less.

by Lance on Jul 29, 2008 8:59 am • link • report

That price per space can vary a great deal, too. If you have to build underground parking on a small site, the vertical circulation takes up more space that can't be used for parking, but excavating and building that space still costs money - hence the per-space price goes up. Also, you have to factor in ventilation systems, etc.

Bottom line - accommodating cars is extremely difficult to do in an urban environment without adversely damaging that environment. We have better options - build the cities for people, and use better transportation systems. That's the shift in focus DC should realize, and these recommendations are a significant step in that direction.

by Alex B. on Jul 29, 2008 9:04 am • link • report

Alex, Where these philosophies fail badly is that they assume that the urban environment should only be for those individuals living in them. Yes, I live in Dupont and it's wonderful that there are many things I can do on foot. But the philosphies in line with restricting access to places like Dupont, do just that ... they restrict access. They make it harder for others to come in and enjoy it. And coversely, they limit the opportunities for those without cars to make use of the greater metro area for something as simple as shopping at Tysons or working in Fairfax. They restrict and limit people's options. They're not good philosphies. They're a step backwards in time.

by Lance on Jul 29, 2008 9:18 am • link • report

$400 per year?!? Remind never to get into Jazzy's car since she apparently does not maintain it.

by rg on Jul 29, 2008 9:21 am • link • report

re: a schedule set by a bureaucrat -- the trains runs so often in Paris that schedule is not really an issue. Last time I was there, the longest I waited for a train was 5 minutes, and that includes Easter Sunday.

by rg on Jul 29, 2008 9:23 am • link • report

Lance,

Such policies do not restrict access at all. They use the market to determine the best means of access. Cars are still welcome, but at a much greater price - because that's what the market demands. Land is more valuable, etc.

This is not a restriction of access - it is putting the place above all else. If we were to build the kind of 'access' you seem to want, the place you're accessing would be irrevocably changed. You don't just seem to want access, but you don't want to have to pay for it, either.

Instead, a good policy plays to the strength of each area. Access to Dupont by car? Better off parking elsewhere on the outskirts and taking Metro.

Also, how does prioritizing and building for people in the district affect their ability to shop at Tysons? I'm presuming you mean that if parking is harder, people won't own cars, thus they can't get to Tysons. I'd posit that that is a failing of Tysons, not of DC.

by Alex B. on Jul 29, 2008 9:30 am • link • report

Don't worry - I won't be giving YOU rides anywhere with those manners! I maintain it just fine. You don't have to pay an arm and a leg. It's a fine car.

by Jazzy on Jul 29, 2008 10:27 am • link • report

I do not think $60K for an indoor spot is unlikely. Outdoor spots in Adams Morgan can be $30K. I prefer the street for $15/year.

A friend of mine bought a condo in Columbia Heights last year and was forced to buy a parking spot for $40K even though he has no car. Not sure the name of the building, it has a Dunkin Donuts inside. The difference in the additional mortgage payment is $50 more than he rents it for. Some tenants who have cars park on the street and rent the garage spot. Too much parking.

by Adams Morgan on Jul 29, 2008 11:14 am • link • report

Adams Morgan: Would you be willing to ask your friend which condo building it is? Did everyone have to buy a space? I'm very interested to learn more about the details of buildings that actually bundle parking.

by David Alpert on Jul 29, 2008 11:18 am • link • report

David-

The building is 2750 14th Street NW, Lofts of Columbia Heights.

He purchased the condo with the help of the Home Purchase Assistance Program (HPAP) / Greater Washington Urban League as a moderate income buyer. Buying the parking was almost a deal breaker for him as he really must rely on renting the parking to make the mortgage. I would not have thought that buying parking would be required under that program, but it was.

I should note that the $50 difference is monthly, not yearly.

by Adams Morgan on Jul 29, 2008 11:38 am • link • report

That is ridiculous. I wonder how much of the overall development in Col Hgts was bundled, meaning the condo would be built if DC USA was built, and so on.

by Jazzy on Jul 29, 2008 11:48 am • link • report

I was trying to be funny, not rude. I'm certain that you have a wonderful and very well-maintained car. I just don't believe that it costs you $400/year to own and maintain it. No worries if you are still angry with me though: I'm all set re: transportation and don't need any rides. :-)

That said, I stick to the original point I wanted to make: there is no way it only costs you $400/year to own and maintain a car. Insurance alone probably costs that much. A new set of brakes cost at least several hundred dollars and a set of tires costs at least $300, never mind major repairs. (Just to be sure, I checked online and tires.com wanted $500 for four tires & installation for a basic economy car. At some point you will need new tires and they will cost you hundreds of dollars, even if you get a good deal.

But, let's assume that $400/year is an accurate cost of owning a car. At approximatley $10/hour, you could get a lot of Zipcar rental for $400/year without the headache and hassles that come with worrying if your car needs a new muffler and whether you have time to get to to repair shop and whether the repair shop is ripping you off.

It's the major reason I'm glad I'm able to live without a car -- it's a huge money, time and hassle saver.

by rg on Jul 29, 2008 12:02 pm • link • report

Maybe you don't want to hear a point of view that is different than cars are a huge money, time and hassle saver, but I am really telling the truth. (Don't know if you were still kidding or not when you said you don't believe me.) I have a very old car that is in good shape, was apparently well-made and I don't drive it very much. Not sure why it'd be so surprising that I spend so little on it, considering all that.

I have spent years not owning a car too, and some years owning a car.

by Jazzy on Jul 29, 2008 1:09 pm • link • report

$400 a year seems way low for me. The costs of car ownership include:

Car payments

Insurance

Gas

Maintenance

Parking

Back when I had a car (a junker that was insured for the minimum and completely paid for), I was well over $400 a year, probably on fuel alone.

Put it this way: $400 a year, assuming for past years an average of $3/gallon for gas, and giving you an efficient 35 mpg car, means you would have only driven 4,667 miles for the year.

I'll put it this way: The only reason I'd go back to owning a car would be for the longer distance travel, i.e. going away for a weekend. With a few short road trips, I'd get well over 5,000 miles a year quick.

by Alex B. on Jul 29, 2008 1:27 pm • link • report

David wrote: "The $60,000 figure was given to me by a developer." Can this number be verified? Is the anonymous source reliable and unbiased? It seems that so much of the "analysis" hinges on this number, as well as the assertion that it is too much of a hassle for apartment residents to store their vehicles on neighborhood streets. So far, the parking countdown seems to be 0-7 on getting the facts right, and having the conclusions logically follow from the stated "facts" much less the verified facts.

by Tom on Jul 29, 2008 1:49 pm • link • report

Tom: I linked to a source that had said $70,000. How about, instead of demanding I prove everything, you do some Googling and find some alternative numbers (I don't doubt you can find lower costs for underground garages somewhere, anyway, because they used to be cheaper and in some areas are).

by David Alpert on Jul 29, 2008 1:55 pm • link • report

David: The source that said $70,000 was referring to one construction project in Seattle. You are the one relying on this information to make your argument, can't you find anything closer to home, preferably based on more than one observation? And what is your support for the unstated assumption that apartment and condominium residents won't store their vehicles on neighborhood streets? Perhaps you have vehicle ownership data and off-street parking information to demonstrate that they aren't doing this now, or you might try doing some late night parking counts in neighborhoods near large apartment and condominium buildings.

by Tom on Jul 29, 2008 2:06 pm • link • report

Tom: If you click on the "Excessive Parking" tag to the right of the story, you will find articles citing the following example built or proposed garages in our area:

$5M for 352 parking spaces, above ground garage in Arlington, VA above I-66, $14,200 per space in 1983 ($30,100 in 2007 dollars),

$88M for 1100 underground spaces, Bethesda, proposed this year, $88,000 each,

$225M for 3600 spaces, New York Yankees stadium, $62,000 each, and

$42M for 1000 spaces, Washington, DC, for DCUSA development in Columbia Heights, $42,000 each.

The lowest price is for an above ground lot constructed on free land, the most expensive lot is for six stories of underground parking. I think David deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to citing $60,000 per space for underground parking, since it was part of a consultant's presentation and is consistent with real-world examples from the area.

At the very least, if you assume that the spaces are $40,000 or even $30,000 each, does that change his argument much? Even if the lowest estimate were taken, we're still talking about $1500 per year just for a parking space. Add in depreciation, insurance, and operating costs for a car, and you're near the $5000 mark.

Note: I don't buy $20,000 per year to own a vehicle.

Regarding storing vehicles on neighborhood streets, cities did not have the technological means or political will to restrict on-street parking. The neighborhood streets see overflow from people trying to park cheaply or free. The solution is to auction off the residential street parking to balance the supply with demand. The revenues could be used to reduce other city taxes or to improve non-automobile transportation.

Reducing or eliminating parking minimums is going to be highly dependent on managing the overflow, something that's been talked to death here. I just hope DC is up to the political challenge of attacking what seems to be a third rail in DC politics: free unlimited on-street parking for residents.

by Michael on Jul 29, 2008 2:42 pm • link • report

Except for the Arlington lot at $5 million for 352 spaces, I didn't notice any sources for the projects for which David included statements about the cost of building parking in his posts.

And, when the minimum parking requirement is one space for every four units, it isn't as though the regulations would require anyone to pay for a space that they didn't want. The people who have vehicles will be paying for the spaces. It isn't as though their car-less neighbors are being asked to subsidize their parking. However, when there isn't enough parking and residents store their vehicles on neighborhood streets, there is a negative impact on others, and, particularly on families in rowhouse neighborhoods, or the type of neighborhood that "Reader Mark" is seeking.

In DC, we have been discussing ways of managing the parking overflow for years, and that was long before OP proposed policies that would increase the spillover. Five years ago, there was a Mayor's task force, which included many of the recommendations that Nelson/Nygaard listed this spring. Those have not been adopted then, and your guess is as good as mine as to whether they might be in the future.

by Tom on Jul 29, 2008 3:15 pm • link • report

Tom:

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/agenda/cm/2008/080428/20080428_TE124.pdf#page=9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yankee_Stadium#Parking_lots_and_garages http://www.dcch.org/html/archive/bak/060321_dc-usa.html

Not to be a jerk, but look harder. These were either direct links from GGW posts or the result of a quick google search.

The problem is not that someone without a car will be directly forced to pay for a space they don't use. The real problem is if the builder is required to build a certain number of spaces, but cannot recoup the costs of building the parking through charging for it.

If he can only sell half of the spaces to residents, and the market rate for selling the remainder doesn't reimburse him for the cost of building the parking, and he has to drop the price in order to sell out the garage, how is that not a subsidy to drivers? There's a government-mandated oversupply, which drops the price below what it costs to produce.

Alternatively, he could not drop the price and leave the garage partially empty, in which case he has to eat the cost of building the spaces as the price of doing business in the district?

Now you're asking builders to incur losses to build parking, which means they are not as willing to do business in the District.

If this were a government-funded program, where DC had to pay developers to build the extra required spaces, I doubt it would be very popular.

by Michael on Jul 29, 2008 4:23 pm • link • report

I think Jazzy's posts illustrate how much more egalitarian our current transportation options are than what I am hearing proposed by many on this blog. With the way things are now, someone like Jazzy (or David A.) can chose to drive a junker and have minimal costs associated with it and STILL be able to circulate at will, when and where they want ... and be able to carry things with them as they do. Others who wish to spend more for a luxury car or reserved parking or to use the hot lanes can spend as much as they want to have that same mobility that Jazzy and Albert have (and have other things too like a car to show off to the Jones with.)

Under the scenario I am hearing proposed by some on this blog, we'd instead end up with a situation where only the fairly well off could retain the flexibility (and load capability) that an automobile permits. Everyone else would be stuck following someone else's schedule to places along very limited "lines" and carrying little else than themselves, their backpacks, and the sweaty clothes they are wearing. I spent over a year (in Europe) doing the car-less thing ... and I know, it sucks. Mass transit can work in tandem with automobiles to provide proper transportation, but it can never supplant it. Not unless we are demanding that the average person make do with less. And THAT is not the American way.

by Lance on Jul 29, 2008 5:45 pm • link • report

Thanks for encapsulating that so nicely Lance. (Though I mightily disagree with your opinion on roads through Rock Creek Park.) Not many poor people can afford Zip car, I think. It's innovative, sure.

As I said, I have lived here both with and without a car. Not having a car did not really "suck" so much. But having one is just super. I feel like I am a good responsible citizen with it, and that it is a privilege and I treat it as such. I feel privileged to have my junker of a car in this great city!

We still need to improve the buses. But of course, everyone would rather talk about zipcars and the like.

by Jazzy on Jul 29, 2008 8:38 pm • link • report

Lance: Let's concentrate on the parking issue here, and more specifically the on-street residential permit parking issue.

I assume that I'm included in the group that proposes the situation where only the well-off can have the flexibility of the car.

Here's the proposal that I would support, and the reasoning behind it.

Out in the suburbs or in the country, there is a lot of curb space, way more than there are people who would like to park their cars there. Short of the regulations needed to ensure people don't abandon vehicles there on a semi-permanent basis (vehicle must have valid registration, must be on working condition, must move occasionally), I don't see any reason to charge people or otherwise restrict how or when you use the street space.

In a city, it's completely different. In the absence of restrictions, the number of people who would like to leave their car by the side of the road would overwhelm the amount of street space available. Economically, there's a shortage. There are three principal ways of dealing with the shortage of on-street parking.

1. You can ration by inconvenience. This is how New York City does it. People can park for free, but you have to move your car three times a week, and when you park, you may have to drive quite a distance to find an empty space. All of the time that people spend on trying to park and move the car is wasted, and is not usable in the economy. There is little consumer surplus, because the time wasted trying to park tends to cancel out much of the user benefits of parking.

2. You could ration by fiat. The government could make a rule that states, first come first served, or only one permit per person, or some other rule, arbitrary or not, that dictates in a non-market fashion who gets to use the on-street space. We have a little of this in DC, in that only residents can use the on-street space. We have more of it in Arlington in that the number of permits available are limited per household. Economically speaking, the people obtaining parking below market rate get a large consumer surplus, especially if the restrictions are effective at ensuring a good balance between supply and demand.

3. You could ration by price. There are a number of ways to do this, but the simplest would be to reduce the size of the permit areas (Arlington uses 1/2 mile radius), and conduct periodic availability surveys to determine whether the spaces are generally full or empty. The price to purchase a new parking permit for an area would float based on availability. I would propose capping the price increase rate of existing permits for stability's sake, and I would also make the permit price for the first car per household significantly lower, with additional cars being a premium over the first. The consumer surplus partially accrues to the consumer, because the price you pay is always lower than you would be willing to pay, but part of the consumer surplus accrues to the government, because the fee collected is greater than the cost of providing the parking service. That revenue could be used to improve public transit, subsidize shared cars, or reduce other taxes in the city, which would increase consumer surplus in other aspects of the economy.

I propose this not because I hate cars or that I think only rich people should have access to them, but because I recognize that city on-street parking is a scarcity, and allocating scarcity is what prices are for. It's the most efficient way of allocating scarce goods and services. You can put some small amount of intervention in the market as described above, basically saying that everyone should have the opportunity to park one car less expensive than people can park the second, but in general the mechanism for allocating scarce services should be prices.

I think that this proposal strikes a balance between egalitarian (everyone gets one at reasonable cost) and economic reality (everyone cannot have as many as they want without costs).

The alternative is to say that people should be given valuable goods and services (on-street parking) for free or well below market value, and we'll just have to deal with the costs of overuse (congestion, accidents, pollution, oil dependence).

crossposted at infosnackhq.blogspot.com

by Michael on Jul 29, 2008 11:20 pm • link • report