Links
Breakfast links: Silver on the line
Photo by wfyurasko on Flickr.
Virginia officials talk Silver Line savings: Loudoun supervisors will meet today to discuss proposals by Ray LaHood to reduce the cost of the Silver Line by transferring costs of some parking garages and one station to Loudoun and Fairfax, as well as building the Dulles Airport station above ground. (Examiner)
Metro morsels: More than 100 escalators were out in May, putting reliability short of targets (WTOP) ... Bus on-time performance is low as well (Examiner) ... Ken Cuccinelli is considering suing MWAA for doing a deal with a union (Post) ... New bus routes will go to BRAC sites. (Examiner)
Johnson resigns, but not fast enough: Leslie Johnson resigned from the Prince George's County Council, days after pleading guilty to destroying evidence related to corruption. Her resignation is effective July 31, but the council wants her to resign immediately, and voted to take all her staff and office budget away. (WAMU)
Car sharing bidding "backward policy"?: DDOT's move to charge for car sharing spaces is bad policy, argues Clayton Lane, effectively making everyone but car owners (now, even car sharers) pay for their use of public space. (TheCityFix)
Ward 1 ANCs discuss bike lanes, parking: Adams Morgan's ANC is voting on whether to complete bike lanes on Columbia Road. You can show support at the meeting, 7 pm tonight (WABA) ... A Columbia Heights ANC meeting will discuss Monday whether to restrict RPP parking on one side of every street to only residents with Ward 1 stickers.
Preserve Washington artifacts or empty space?: Tudor Place has the Washington family's papers and household items, but needs new climate-controlled facilities to preserve them; some Georgetown neighbors oppose plans to expand the building. (TBD)
When automobilization was new: A 1958 article in Fortune anticipates many of the problems with the then-new Interstate Highway System, including traffic engineers' penchant for building what's fastest without being sensitive to existing neighborhoods.
And...: Could DC's waterfront east of the Anacostia River look like Brooklyn's? (City Paper) ... Sierra Club volunteers dive through dumpsters to see if retailers are recycling (WAMU) ... Want to try Zipcar's "low-car diet" and go car-free for a month? Apply here.
Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
Tue May 21
Sun May 26
11:00 am Roosevelt Ride in Greenbelt
Sat Jun 1
10:00 am CSG walking tour of Wheaton
But I'm not sure his figure of $1-$2 extra per hour is right. Keep in mind that this is only 86 spots, so the cost would likely be spread among all of the rentals. Unless, that is, Zipcar decides to charge a premium for renting cars parked on-street. That wouldn't work out too well, since off-street cars are usually just as easy to get to.
by Tim on Jul 6, 2011 9:17 am • link • report
Also, apparently Captcha does Russian now?
by Dizzy on Jul 6, 2011 9:48 am • link • report
by Dan H on Jul 6, 2011 10:14 am • link • report
by Rob on Jul 6, 2011 10:26 am • link • report
by HogWash on Jul 6, 2011 10:33 am • link • report
Gotta defend my profession, which really didn't exist in any organised form back at the birth of the IHS; but instead arose because of the effects of it.
Traffic engineers fix what the highway designers design, who design what the planners plan for, who plan for what the politicians push for, who push for what the public demands. Bad decisions start with all of us.
by Bossi on Jul 6, 2011 10:40 am • link • report
This isn't really a fair comparison given that the $15 per car (and not 'per household' as the author says) fee is really just a 'hunting license' to get a parking space if you can find one while what ZipCar has been getting (and Hertz now wants) are reserved spots in public space. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
That said. In areas where there isn't sufficient street side parking to satisfy all demands on it, I really feel that using this limited space to 'store' a car ... any car, resident's or ZipCar's, is a bad idea. Where curbside spaces are in short supply, let's keep that curbside open as 'short term parking' for people who just need to be there an hour, two, or three, and let the people who can plan ahead for their car storage needs (i.e., residents and employees of businesses there) rent long term off street parking. This will free up these curb sides to keep the city moving and allow the on-demand and convenient access and mobility which only a person vehicles can provide to work as well in the city as it does in the suburbs. And, of course, if we stop viewing these limited supply curbsides as storage spots for cars, there'll be no arguments as to who gets to rent it for what from the city. Instead it'll serve it's highest and best use for all of us, allowing the easy access that is essential for personal vehicles to do their magic ...
by Lance on Jul 6, 2011 10:50 am • link • report
Great point. I am also an engineer and I feel like we get criticized too often for projects that are too spartan or destroy neighborhoods or whatever. Engineers don't make decisions. Engineers solve problems which are passed on from those who make the decisions. Sure engineers make decisions but you know what I mean when I refer to decisions.
Most often engineers want the same stuff that we here at GGW want, they justget told to do as much as they can with minuscule budgets, and hey, form follows function. And function is dictated by politicans. Go engineers.
by Dan on Jul 6, 2011 10:57 am • link • report
by Lance on Jul 6, 2011 10:59 am • link • report
by Weiwen on Jul 6, 2011 11:12 am • link • report
With the exception of a the most densely populated parts of the like Ward 1, street parking supply always exceeds demand. This policy would naturally mean eliminating the fees except in those areas, wouldn't it?
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 11:17 am • link • report
Also, the beauty of good engineering is that you don't notice it*... nobody gives a damn about sewers or drainage ponds that work properly.
*Obvious exceptions for bridges and stuff.
by andrew on Jul 6, 2011 11:24 am • link • report
You're of course correct .. except for the processing fee which would be justifiable to collect.
by Lance on Jul 6, 2011 11:26 am • link • report
Okay David, time to write another whiny post about moving on and shutting up about all the bad transit policies coming out of this admin.
by John on Jul 6, 2011 11:29 am • link • report
Another thought though ... opportunity cost could include not using the space for bikelanes, wider sidewalks, planting areas, etc.
by Lance on Jul 6, 2011 11:30 am • link • report
As lance said, you are comparing ping pong balls to kiwi's.
Paying $15 bucks a year for some residential parking sticker is completely different from getting a reserved spot in a highly trafficed commericial corridor.
People equating street parking in front of their house in Mt. Pleasant and a 24/7 reserved spot on 14th street in U Street in a highly traffced commercial corridor have completely missed the point.
Zipcar currently gets spots that the city would otherwise be charging $2 bucks a hour for. Even assuming these highly sought after spots are only occupied for 3 hours a day, the City gets $180 bucks a month for them. Why would we ever agree to give them away for free?
Lastly, we are completely ignoring the fact that Zipcar and Hertz are for-profit enterprises with shareholders. Why in Gods name DC taxpayers should be supporting some private individuals stock price is beyond me. It might be different if it was some non-profit, but it isn't.
by freely on Jul 6, 2011 11:36 am • link • report
Dead Horse on the menu again. Shoot, I'll watch the players line up, whilst I eat the popcorn.
by greent on Jul 6, 2011 11:45 am • link • report
Lane's article is spot on, and I'm not going to re-hash arguments made so recently in another thread. The only new idea here that you have both put forward is that a reserved spot for share drivers is somehow more valuable than a parking permit.
The opposite is true.
A parking permit allows private car drivers to not only park at there residence, it is a free parking pass for their entire permitted area. I have off street parking at home, but I have a parking permit because ti allows me to park for free, and for as long as I want, in all of DuPont Circle, Shaw, and Georgetown. My partner works at GU, and he foregoes rented parking at work exactly because we have a zone 2 permit.
If parking is market priced for private owners and shared car owners, the value of the parking pass should figure in to a higher cost for residents than the shared car single spot.
by CJ on Jul 6, 2011 11:53 am • link • report
That is, perhaps, the most ridiculous assertion I've ever seen on this board.
Your situation (both working and living in the same zone, and choosing to drive such a short distance for some unknown reason, with the actual possibility of finding a spot at the destination) is an edge case. Most people do not do a lot of driving and long-term parking within their RPP zone.
Regardless of what you believe, an offstreet spot is valued at as much as $200 a month in high-demand areas. If any substantive number of people actually though this was not as useful as an RPP permit, then why does such a market exist, for a spot at roughly 100 times the cost of an RPP permit?
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 12:01 pm • link • report
My post was a bit tongue in cheek, I admit. I was simply pointing out that the valuation of parking spaces is complex for many reasons and a reserved space versus a parking permit is not a cut and dried difference. The same posters who are making a big deal out of that difference are consistently ignoring the 14x number of drivers who benefit from the shared space versus the single permit holder. Or the fact that a shared space is never as spacially convient as the option of parking close to your home, and the utility of that space is therefore diminished.
Parking is parking. We already know that certain residents win the parking value lottery with their permits, while other residents are forced to pay a nominal fee for a worthless parking permit. This is no difference. Share drivers deserve exactly the same (subsidized) access to parking that private drivers enjoy.
And the real losers are still the non drivers, who realize none of the value or utility of this public space.
by CJ on Jul 6, 2011 12:15 pm • link • report
I agree. Therefore, these spots should be available on the same terms as they are to private citizens: for the cost of an RPP permit, no guaranteed spot, on a first-come, first-serve basis.
It would be totally practical for a car share service to operate this way. All they have to do is require that a given rental be parked within a certain predefined area. GPS technology is simple and cheap, all you'd have to do is go online for two seconds to find the nearest car. It may even end up being *more* convenient for users.
At the same time, the zipcar spots are highly underutilized. A regular shared spot in a high demand area is probably occupied 90% or more of the time. A zipcar spot is probably occupied well below half of the time (assuming that their service is in any kind of demand). What a terrible waste!
It's impossible to figure out the value of a resource like this. And even if you could come up with such a formula, it could vary by a factor of 10 even over the space of a couple blocks.
"And the real losers are still the non drivers, who realize none of the value or utility of this public space."
This is neither here nor there. Nobody uses every city service. I get no direct benefit from public schools, social programs, swimming pools, and so on. I do not take Metro to work, so I use it infrequently, yet my taxes help pay for it. I am perfectly happy they should exist, and others should benefit, though.Because they all add value to the city. Even non-drivers have visitors, contractors, and service people who will use that resource on their behalf, too.
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 12:26 pm • link • report
DC government had nothing directly to do with the dulles station decision or for that matter anything having to do with the silver line. The project is entirely paid for by virginia and the feds and the project is managed by the airports authority. Of course if DC or MD wanted to actually contribute significant money to the project, they could then have a rigjt to weigh in on decisions.
by Falls Church on Jul 6, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report
No, it wouldn't. If you cannot park the car in that pre-defined area... do you have to keep renting it?
Some people actually rent via their non-smart phones... so they don't go online.
"It's impossible to figure out the value of a resource like this. "
And yet, we try. What about the bike-share value? What about the loading zone value? Shouldn't a private business that gets a loading zone pay for that zone? Private citizens do... why not private businesses?
Mmmm Popcorn.
by greent on Jul 6, 2011 12:41 pm • link • report
How's that working out for bike share? One of the most common complaints is "bike racks full". Somehow, it functions. I am sure that if Zipcar felt the cost of actually paying for their own spots offstreet was not worth it, they would figure something out.
.. or alternatively, perhaps there *is* a substantial value to a reserved spot, after all. If so, then it should have an associated price tag. You can't have it both ways.
"Shouldn't a private business that gets a loading zone pay for that zone? Private citizens do... why not private businesses?"
They do, it's called real estate and corporate income taxes, which all businesses pay. Zipcar seems to have one office in DC at 403 8th St. NW. Their ratio of "free loading zones" to "taxes paid" would seem to be very favorable compared to most businesses.
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 12:49 pm • link • report
Also, last time I think I calculated that the average metered space brought in $72/month - far below the $180 freely made up. [Total revenue for the year divided by number of metered spaces]
by David C on Jul 6, 2011 1:02 pm • link • report
Where did you find the info regarding the total parking meter revenue DC collects every year?
by freely on Jul 6, 2011 1:21 pm • link • report
So the bottom line... yeah, something's gotta change with the car-sharing spaces.
Now to tie it in with parking elsewhere: carshare spots are basically like a 1st class reserved tickets on a train: you're guaranteed a nice seat. RPPs are sort of like preferential seating... maybe you get to board first & get to take seats with extra legroom. Then there's everyone else: plying for the aisle and window seats so they don't get stuck in the middle.
I certainly agree that RPPs are too cheap... that's among the reasons I still have a car; it's just so easy to keep it around. Of course, some areas are still easy to park in (indicating prices are OK or too high) while others are difficult (indicating prices are too low)... and I'd wager that carshare bids would also reflect that: places in Ward 1 would cost quite a bit more than many other places that aren't quite as busy.
Just a couple thoughts... can't say I can offer any of my own suggestions beyond that. My mind's still on vacation: next week I'll start back at work and hopefully my brain will become a bit more coherent again.
by Bossi on Jul 6, 2011 1:25 pm • link • report
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/getthere/2009/02/dc_parking_meters_get_more_exp.html
by David C on Jul 6, 2011 1:27 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 6, 2011 1:28 pm • link • report
"They do, it's called real estate and corporate income taxes, which all businesses pay. "
Umm, yeah, but I pay real estate and personal income, and I don't get a FREE loading zone in front of my house. Keep trying. Private business getting FREE public space that NO ONE can use but the business. They should pay the FULL MARKET SHARE of that space (or spaces as many loading areas are more than 1 parking space). If all people have to, and zip car has to, then ALL business should have to. Or not, if they city finds a reason to not do so. Hmmmmm.....
""If you cannot park the car in that pre-defined area... do you have to keep renting it?"
How's that working out for bike share? One of the most common complaints is "bike racks full". Somehow, it functions."
50 cents is a whole lot cheaper than 15$. And bikeshare are reserved spots, not tied to a specific entity. So, not really comparable, eh?
by greent on Jul 6, 2011 1:32 pm • link • report
I'm confused. Don't you get the whole street when you pay for RPP? Businesses only get one or two spots per block shared among all the businesses on the street.
"Private business getting FREE public space that NO ONE can use but the business"
Please identify a business which has exclusive use of a loading zone. I was under the impression that they were shared by all the businesses on a given block, but if you know of a loading zone on public that may only be used by a specific business, please share.
"50 cents is a whole lot cheaper than 15$. And bikeshare are reserved spots, not tied to a specific entity. So, not really comparable, eh?"
Likewise, $50 a year for a bikeshare membership is a lot cheaper than $20 an hour for a carshare. The proportional cost and inconvenience would be comparable.
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 1:49 pm • link • report
by mtp on Jul 6, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report
I'm confused. Don't you get the whole street when you pay for RPP? Shared Car drivers only get a minuscule number of spots, shared among all the share drivers in the city.
by CJ on Jul 6, 2011 1:57 pm • link • report
No. You may choose an open spot on one street. You do not get the whole street. Also, a street <> a dedicated spot, not comparable.
"Businesses only get one or two spots per block shared among all the businesses on the street."
Yes, then each business should pay a yearly fee that matches the total of the market price of the 1 or 2 spaces, just like zipcar will. Agreed?!?! Otherwise, wouldn't we be subsidizing a business?!?!
"Likewise, $50 a year for a bikeshare membership is a lot cheaper than $20 an hour for a carshare. The proportional cost and inconvenience would be comparable."
Incorrect. You pay a yearly membership + rental costs for both. So, 50 cents is far different than 15 dollarsm, if you have to keep the rental to find an open spot. The proportional cost is not the same, as in your GPS plan, there is no dedicated spaces anywhere. For bikeshare, there are dedicated spaces. Not comparable.
I'm fine with zipcar/hertz paying fees for the spaces. I am fine with auctioning off spaces. I am fine with businesses getting things people don't (loading zones, tax incentives, etc.) But the hate on zipcar is just a hate on Klein holdover. Nothing more.
by greent on Jul 6, 2011 2:03 pm • link • report
"But who will think of the small business owners?!?" is the new "But who will think of the children?!?" updated for the 21st Century.
:)
by oboe on Jul 6, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report
Sure! Let's say that a parking space is worth $200 a month. I am pretty sure that the 50 or so businesses on a dense commercial block can come up with the $48 apiece each year needed to cover their "setaside" for two loading zones. I'm right behind ya on this one.
Or, given that it's an inconsequential amount of money to levy at the level of an individual business, we could just assume that this is part of what every business already pays in real estate and income taxes.
On the other hand, Zipcar is a single business with a great many parking spots set aside, just for them. If there was some other business that had, say, a single storefront with the entire street of public parking reserved just for their customers, then they should be absolutely bearing the full weight of that cost, since it's exclusively for their use.
This has nothing to do with zipcar "hate." I think zipcar is a great business. Maybe it should even be subsidized. I mean, they're hardly unique for getting tax breaks in DC. My problem with this model is that it's a set-aside that's of a unique sort, because it reduces availability of a public resource. It's anti-competitive because obviously it can't scale well -- even one more competitor given the same setaside would substantially impact parking availability. Finally, the method of the set-aside makes it difficult to asses the actual cost of Zipcar operating their service. I would much rather we just gave them a tax break and let them pay for their own parking spots, at market rates, so we can know actually how much of a tax break we're giving them each year.
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report
Ok, DC parking meter revenue of 18.3 million/yr divided by your 15,500 meters is $1,180 in revenue per yr/meter or $98 dollars a month for your average meter.
That averages in the revenue from meters charging .50 cents an hour in low use residential areas to meters charging 2 bucks an hour in high demand downtown commercial zones.
If Zipcar was only interested in on street parking in a low use area like say, Spring Valley, then fine. But they aren't. They occupy some of the cities choicest parking.
You keep equating residential street parking with what Zipcar uses, and its two completely different things. Parking in an unreserved and unmetered spot on Harvard St NW is fundamentally differnet from parking in a reserved spot on the street at K/15th
A quick look at Zipcars current DC fleet deployment shows them having on street spaces in the cities densest commercial cores, Chinatown, K Street /15th, 14th/U street, places where meters charge 2 bucks an hour.
I made a lowball assumption that the average 2/hr meter in dc gets used 3 hours per day, hence the $180/month. In reality and anecdotally I am sure those meters, the ones adjacent to the prime parking Zipcar got for free all those years, get used more along the lines of 5-6 hours per day minimum ($360/month)
by freely on Jul 6, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report
My problem with this model is that it's a set-aside that's of a unique sort, because it reduces availability of a public resource.
Well, no, your problem is that it takes away a small bit of the subsidy to the owners of private automobiles and gives it to the users of car-sharing services.
by oboe on Jul 6, 2011 2:21 pm • link • report
Sorry, I thought it was a subsidy to the owners of a car-sharing service.
As I said, my problem has nothing to do with the actual money here. It has to do with equity and lack of accountability. We don't know what the value of the setaside is, and it would be impractical to offer the same setaside to even a single competitor. I can't think of a good reason why this should be done in a fuzzy way when it could just as easily be done the way tax breaks are given to other kinds of businesses. Why aren't you interested in the true costs of this service?
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 2:27 pm • link • report
hardly unique? Not even close to the tax breaks the luxury hotel in Adams Morgan is going to get. Hardly unique in taking over the nationals ballpark. This isn't even unique for a small business tax break.
"My problem with this model is that it's a set-aside that's of a unique sort, because it reduces availability of a public resource."
Seriously? Doesn't building bike lanes take away a public resource (Streets)? Doesn't roads take away a public resource (pedestrian walkways). Doesn't sidewalks take away a public resource (green space land)?
"It's anti-competitive because obviously it can't scale well -- even one more competitor given the same setaside would substantially impact parking availability. "
I agree, which is why I will support limiting the number of spots, paying a fee for the spots, and perhaps auctioning spots, depending opn methods.
After all, Tourmoobile gets their public/private free spots, and they have a non-competitive contract... hmmmm.... another business we need to look into. D'oh! Those dastardly feds....
"I would much rather we just gave them a tax break and let them pay for their own parking spots, at market rates, so we can know actually how much of a tax break we're giving them each year."
When no one knows how much those spaces are worth, how are you going to assess them? There is no such "market rate" system anywhere in DC, as the parking rates are set, and do not change unless by DDOT / Jack Evans wishes. Let's put meters on every street in every ward in DC, at 2$ an hour. Then we'll see how much everyone in DC would value their parking spaces, then we can get a market rate. Then we can charge businesses one rate, and homeowners another and renters yet another.
by greent on Jul 6, 2011 2:31 pm • link • report
I didn't realize that bike lanes, sidewalks, and so on benefited a single business in all of DC. I don't see the relevance to this observation at all.
I don't know anything about Tourmobile. I don't think you do either. My brief googling indicates they have a contract with NPS, where I suspect all their spots are located. If in fact there are dedicated spots on DC government public streets for tourmobiles, then yes, I have a problem with that. I have never seen one, though.
"When no one knows how much those spaces are worth, how are you going to assess them?"
There is a vibrant market for offstreet parking in any area that has tight parking. This is a very easy question to answer.
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report
If your point is that they sometimes pay less for a space then it would be worth as a metered space, you are almost surely correct. Unfortunately, that point is almost irrelevant.
DC has figured that there is a benefit to having successful car-sharing in the District. In order for car-sharing to be successful, it needs some curbside spaces that used to be metered set aside for car-sharing. The cost of selling these spaces for less than their metered price (and we aren't sure that this is what is happening) is less than the benefit of car-sharing. That is the only relevant point.
So, we need to determine the following:
1. What is the benefit to DC of a successful car-sharing system to DC? How would be quantify that?
2. What is the cost to DC of removing these 86 spaces from revenue generation?
3. Would zipcar or hertz be able to succeed if they had to cover the cost in 2.
On question 2, I'll say it is not as easy as calculating how often each space is used and adding up the meter fees. Because many drivers will simply find another metered space. only when every space in the immediate area is being used, and so a driver circles or goes home, is DC losing money. In fact DC could replace each metered space given to car-sharing by transforming some residential spaces to metered parking.
But the main point is that no one here really knows the answer to 1 or 2. No one has even really tried to honestly quantify either one. So we are basically arguing that a qualfun is heavier than a yalthap.
But, some people are arguing against this on principle. I, OTOH, think 1 could be larger than 2 and the answer to 3 could be no, which is all I really need to answer your question as to why DC taxpayers should be supporting this.
by David C on Jul 6, 2011 2:44 pm • link • report
They take away from streets, which take away from those businesses, from what I hear so often. Or, they increase public presence, which increases business takes. One hand, washing the other, etc.
Tourmobiles have stops on city streets, and at Union station. Those are street spots. Yes, it is comparable, though it is a fed project. DC collects the meter fees, not the feds, so.. public spaces.
"When no one knows how much those spaces are worth, how are you going to assess them?"
"There is a vibrant market for offstreet parking in any area that has tight parking. This is a very easy question to answer."
Not comparable. Those are private spaces, not public spaces. There is no requirements to limit who rents the private spaces (DC licensing and registration for RPP and ZipCar).
Again, put meters in every spot in every ward in the district, and we'll see how much people are willing to pay for them. That would be market rate. Then we could set market rate by each area for both zipcars, parking meters and residential parking.
by greent on Jul 6, 2011 2:49 pm • link • report
by Bob See on Jul 6, 2011 2:51 pm • link • report
Aren't they still yet to make a profit? I think we know the answer to this, so far, anyway.
But regardless, I am not at all arguing that Zipcar should be allowed to fail, because I think it's something that improves quality of life for many people. It's another service. Metro does not make a profit. Never has, never will. I am guessing Bikeshare doesn't.
However, as a taxpayer subsidizing a service, I want to know in quantifiable terms what the amount of that subsidy is, so I have some way to understand its costs and benefits. Likewise, we should be able to subject the service to a level of scrutiny if it is in fact able to operate only because we are offering that subsidy. We know that for every other kind of public transportation. There is no reason that we shouldn't know it for zipcar.
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report
Ironically, zipcar can probably answer that question better than anyone. They rent hundreds of spaces around DC and can probably accurately estimate the value of the spaces that DC set aside for them, from which you can just subtract the fee they pay. I'd estimate it at between $10,000 and $300,000 a year, depending on how you calculate it.
Another way to calculate it, is to look at the total parking revenue per year for the last 15 years or so. How much did it drop when the 86 spaces were set-aside. While they lost some revenue for those spaces, other spaces almost surely made more. I bet you won't even see a change in the total revenue.
by David C on Jul 6, 2011 3:07 pm • link • report
Really? The way we understand the cost of residential parking that we forego?
Also, the parking set aside for shared drivers is not a subsidy. It doesn't take a dime of taxpayer money for shared drivers to use those spaces, unless you're factoring upkeep in. In that regard, they still use far less of the service than private drivers.
by CJ on Jul 6, 2011 3:14 pm • link • report
by Catoe No Mo' on Jul 6, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report
Can you get over this at some point?
What is the value of a sidewalk? A park? A street sweeper? A street light? A phone booth? A public school? How many of those services do you personally use? How often? Why should I pay for schools when I have no kids? Why is street parking different?
"It doesn't take a dime of taxpayer money for shared drivers to use those spaces"
So which is it. Is free street parking a huge setaside for drivers, or are those spots worth nothing?
Either it has a value or it doesn't. If it does, then removing it has a cost to those who used to use it.
by Jamie on Jul 6, 2011 3:21 pm • link • report
Listen, I get it. I do. You are a zipcar fan but your fondness for the service has really clouded your judgement.
1. I don't know. I think that anecdotally the benefits are minimal at best. I've posted before about why I think so. You will answer that anecdotally there is a benefit but can't tie it to anything with numbers to it, so we will call it a draw.
2. Yes, this is extremely easy. Not only could the city just take the easy way out and average as I've done above (98/month which would still be a huge subsidy)and be done with it in two seconds. Or, they could do what they are already doing re charging restaurants for valet parking permits (.50 cents per hour/spot, plus lost parking meter revenue per spot). DDOT figured it out for valet parking, they can figure it out for Zip/Hertz.
3. You sound like a Republican defending a Wall Street bank. These are for profit businesses with public shareholders, not non-profits. If they can't "succeed" without getting permanent taxpayer freebies, then they shouldn't be in business at all, and yes I belive this covers any and all for-profit business. It galls me that DC would give away free parking to a sole company that turns around, rents it out for a profit that it then distributes to its shareholders. Ridiculous.
Which brings me to my final point. Zipcar has what...a few hundred vehicles in DC. 86 of them they now pay $200/yr for parking and prior to that parked for free. But that doesn't change the fact that they already DO pay for spots, and pay market rates. I belong to a condo HOA in Woodley Park that rents one of its off street parking spots to Zipcar, for $195/month, a fee that was negotiated 4 years ago and when is up for renegotiation next year. So Zipcar can and does pay market rate for their parking resources. But, like any for-profit company, they just prefer not to.
In the end, we will see exactly how much these spots are worth. The solicitation is on the street from DDOT and Hertz and Zipcar will have to pony up. I can guarantee you it will be more than $200/yr.
by freely on Jul 6, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report
by HogWash on Jul 6, 2011 3:25 pm • link • report
by John M on Jul 6, 2011 3:26 pm • link • report
Sorry Jamie, you called it a subsidy, not me. Of course these parking spots have utility, otherwise they would be empty. The issue here is that private drivers have benefited from an underpriced system for years, and now shared drivers are being asked to shoulder even more burden.
The canard that these are commercial spaces is ridiculous. shared drivers are skewed toward condo and apartment dwellers. Where else do they need parking other than outside these developments? i would even argue that reserving those spaces exclusively for meters is an ADDED benefit for RPP holders, who park in their neighborhoods, and want access to metered parking where they shop.
OUr system of parking needs to be revised to benefit shared car drivers. I'm not one of them, and any adjustment to the system will harm me personally, but I can clearly see the need.
by CJ on Jul 6, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report
I miss the old days; parking was a total breeze here, before Zipcar and their pinko commie users stole all those invaluable spaces that are the birthright of every red-blooded American.
by Bob See on Jul 6, 2011 3:45 pm • link • report
Businesses pay more than twice the real estate tax rate that residents do and a higher income tax rate as well. In return, businesses get several additional services that residents do not. Free loading zones is just one of them. It makes much more sense to just charge businesses a higher tax rate than to nickle-and-dime them for every service. And, businesses pay more in taxes than the services they receive, so giving them loading zones is hardly being overly generous. A review of 70 cost of government services
studies showed that for each dollar of tax revenue generated the three land use categories consumed
the following amounts in government services: residential $1.15, commercial/industrial $0.29, and
farm/forest/open space $0.37.
Here's a Silver Line cost saving: Terminate the line at Dulles, and forget about extending it beyond that.
That's penny wise and pound foolish because the payoff from the silver line is increased development in tysons and reston. To get that increased development, you need every one of those western silver line stations, including the one in loudoun. By contrast, the Dulles station does very little for tysons/reston economic development. The main purpose of that station is to provide a convenience to people in DC/MD (who's state/local governments are paying nothing toward the silver line) and arlington/alexandria (who are only contributing a litle -- through their state income taxes). If the airports authority thinks the underground station is some terrific investment because it will pay for itself through increased passenger volumes, then they should be the ones paying for it.
by Falls Church on Jul 6, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report
You are a zipcar fan but your fondness for the service has really clouded your judgement.
I'd say I'm a fan of good government of which supporting car-sharing is but one part, and since you admit that you don't have anything but anecdotal evidence, I'm not sure you can make such a blanket statement about my judgement.
1. I just read Clayton Lane's post and guess what? It has all kinds of info about the benefits of car-sharing. After joining, members drive 44% fewer miles. Which means they consume less gasoline and they reduce their carbon footpring by a ton per year. They also walk and bike more (health benefits) and spend more money locally. Each shared vehicle replaces about 14 private cars - so that is a lot of parking freed up.
Back of the envelope:
a. Considering the average American drives 13000 miles per year and the social cost of driving is 32.9 cents/mile, that means a reduction in driving of 7280 miles per year per member, which equals $2395.12 per year per member. Each zipcar has 68.75 members so each car (and thus each parking space) saves $164664.50 worth of social costs associated with driving.
But wait, there's more.
b. We also gain 13 spaces for each one we give away to zipcar. And you priced those at $98 a space, so that's another $1274 per space.
c. A ton of carbon sells for $10.00 at carbonfund.org. 1 ton per member. 68.25 members per car. That's another $682.50. That might be covered in a. So I'll give it to you, but I wanted to add it in case it isn't.
d. I don't know how much more people biked or walked, or what the benefit is. Let's call it X and agree that X is greater than zero.
e. Ditto for spending money locally, which I'll call Y.
So that adds up to $165938 + X + Y.
2. Do I even need to consider this anymore? Is there anyway that the cost of the space is not greatly exceeded by the benefit?
3. Here's where we fundamentally differ in our thinking about the role of government. I think governemnt should act in the best interests of it's citizenry, even if that means enriching a business. If giving away a few $3000 parking spaces to a for-profit company helps the city capture over $100,000 in positive externalities, then they should do it. If the government has to subsidize a private company to keep it in business, but the positive externalities exceed the subsidy, they should do it. If a governemnt can give a subsidy to a company where the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost, then they should - even if that means more profits for the company that they then give to their stockholders. In other words, government should invest it's money where it can be reasonably assured of getting a postive return - just like a business should.
But, like any for-profit company, they just prefer not to.
Irrelevant, what matters is that the marginal costs of these spaces are dwarfed by the benefits. Call it a public-private partnership, but DC's payment comes in the form of cleaner air, less congestion, more parking, less global warming, fewer traffic fatalities, more local shopping etc...
The solicitation is on the street from DDOT and Hertz and Zipcar will have to pony up.
And if it increases costs such that it decreases memebership, we will all be worse off for it.
by David C on Jul 6, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report
That way, there could always be a train waiting, and passengers wouldn't necessarily have to wait in the heat or the cold. They could get on the train, sit down, and relax for a few minutes before the ride began.
As far as saving money by building above ground, it's a compelling argument until you remember the original justification for a deep subway and long escalators. It was said back in the 70's that "deeper is cheaper." And we all know how well that's working. My own strongly held feeling is that if you're going to spend billions to buid the darned thing, you might as well do it right the first time....and remember it's going to be amortized over many, many decades.
by Mike Silverstein on Jul 6, 2011 5:33 pm • link • report
Exactly. I thought conservatives were all about privatization, anyway. What's your plan? Do you want the DC government to provide public car-sharing??? What a bunch of pie-in-the-sky cloud-cukckooland Maoist dreamers you guys are!
This is America buddy! We believe in the Free Market!
by oboe on Jul 6, 2011 11:04 pm • link • report
Amen!
by egk on Jul 7, 2011 12:15 am • link • report
Add a Comment