Parking
Clarendon Whole Foods pays customers to drive
Earlier this month, the Clarendon Whole Foods kicked off a new weekly food and wine event. If you drive and park in the Pottery Barn garage across the street, you get a $1 discount on the $5 cost. Anyone else, including those who walk, bike or take transit to the store, pays full price.
Photo by asmythie on Flickr.
At first, I thought the discount was designed to offset customers' cost of parking in the Pottery Barn garage. But, it turns out, Whole Foods already subsidizes that cost, validating for up to 2 hours in the garage.
With the discount, Whole Foods effectively pays people to drive to their store. As a company ostensibly committed to sustainability, they should figure out a way to reward people who don't bring their cars at all.
I was puzzled by this peculiar incentive and asked the store about the rationale via Twitter. Whole Foods sent this explanation:
Our parking lot is well known for being crazy. Trying to encourage people who drive to use the garage.I reached out to the management at the Whole Foods store in Clarendon via email for additional comment and explanation, but did not receive a response.
No doubt, Whole Foods is smart to encourage customers to park somewhere other than the store's small and crowded parking lot. The store has a limited supply of a valuable resource, parking spaces, and wants them to turn over as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, this discount policy specifically incentivizes and rewards driving and parking. This type of incentive is out of character for a company that espouses environmental sustainability as one of its values and has a "Green Mission Report" that praises employees who use public transportation and bicycles to get to work.
Besides, if keeping store-owned spaces available is the goal, Whole Foods could accomplish this far more effectively by encouraging people not to drive at all. Once a customer has driven to the store, they may still choose the convenience of the closer lot to the $1 discount and the more cumbersome garage.
If Whole Foods gives people a reason to leave the car behind altogether, these customers are guaranteed not to take up space in the coveted parking lot. What's more, given the cost of subsidizing customers parking in a garage, Whole Foods could probably save a bundle as well.
Clarendon is a textbook example of a walkable, bikeable, and transit-accessible neighborhood. Nonetheless, parking, especially for grocery stores, has historically been a topic that has touched a nerve in the neighborhood.
Whole Foods could charge a small fee to park, thereby encouraging customers to use their parking lot sparingly. This idea is likely a non-starter, as many businesses are terrified of losing customers to stores where they don't have to pay for parking.
Whole Foods could also extend their discount to customers who arrive by any means without a car. This is a logistical challenge, since it's very difficult to prove that a customer walked to the store, or if they use a SmarTrip card to arrive by Metro, rather than having parked on the street or even in the store's own lot. Producing a ticket to prove that they parked across the street, on the other hand, is easy.
Still, Whole Foods could at least level the playing field. When customers come in, Whole Foods could give them two options: a free parking validation or a $1 discount on the Wine:30 price. This approach would require Whole Foods to control access in or out of their own lot, but given the major issues they have, perhaps its time to consider this anyway.
With better controlled access, the store could still provide free parking to any driving customers, encourage people to park in the larger garage, and reward those who don't drive, all at the same time. For instance, at checkout, a customer could choose between a lot validation, a garage validation and a 1% discount, or no parking validation and a 2% discount.
Ultimately, Whole Foods needs to find a better way to decrease congestion in their parking lot without incentivizing driving and parking. For the Clarendon neighborhood, fewer driving customers mean less traffic and a stronger, safer, walkable urban fabric.
The store, meanwhile, would better adhere to Whole Foods' espoused corporate values and become a better community member. In a walkable, transit-rich neighborhood, it's time for Whole Foods to stop paying its customers to drive.
 | Rob Pitingolo moved to the DC area in mid-2010 and currently resides on Capitol Hill. He also writes about issues of urbanism, economics, transportation and politics at his blog, Extraordinary Observations.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
by Neutrino on Jul 26, 2012 2:22 pm • link • report
Basically, the danger that someone's going to choose driving over another mode thanks to a $1 discount is pretty remote compared to the real cost of the queues to get into the store.
by Corey on Jul 26, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report
My solution, close that parking lot and build a new building there for mixed use/retail-residences and build a 4 floor underground parking with it, and dedicate 2x as many spaces as there are now for Whole Foods customers.
Next problem...
by LuvDusty on Jul 26, 2012 2:27 pm • link • report
by selxic on Jul 26, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report
by Rob M on Jul 26, 2012 2:38 pm • link • report
And we wonder why people call urbanists elitist snobs!
by Corey on Jul 26, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report
Yeah yeah yeah
by HogWash on Jul 26, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report
by longley on Jul 26, 2012 2:45 pm • link • report
by Fitz on Jul 26, 2012 2:47 pm • link • report
by Ward 1 Guy on Jul 26, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report
by Jake on Jul 26, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report
Also, as you mentioned, logistically this is about the only way to handle the discount - checking the garage ticket as proof.
by Jon Renaut on Jul 26, 2012 2:54 pm • link • report
WF did the right thing here.
There used to be parking across Wilson, but that is now 24/7 residential.
by charlie on Jul 26, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report
by Don on Jul 26, 2012 3:00 pm • link • report
Seems that what Whole Foods did here was more of an incentive than a reward. I'm guessing WF wanted to bring people to their event that didn't just live within walking distance or the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor.
by Fitz on Jul 26, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report
by Anon69 on Jul 26, 2012 3:17 pm • link • report
It's imperfect, but much more easily administered, than the alternatives.
by ah on Jul 26, 2012 3:29 pm • link • report
Your silent erroneous assumption here is that Whole Foods solely caters to Clarendon. It does not. It caters to pretty much all of Arlington. Good luck walking, biking or transiting from Bellevue Forest or Shirlington to Clarendon. Those customers will come by car. The Whole Foods parking lot is a madhouse. A small reminder that people can park elsewhere is not a bad idea. I did not know that they validated for the other parking garage.
Could they have done without the $1? Sure. But really, is this what you want to use the valuable space on GGW for?
This article is a good example of the inability to imagine life and its complexities outside the perfect urban bubble. This is why urbanists often get referred to as snobs.
by Jasper on Jul 26, 2012 3:32 pm • link • report
by worthing on Jul 26, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report
Exactly. It's doubtful it will even have the desired result of getting people who already drive there to park across the street. Crossing Clarendon Blvd. at that location is a pain in the rear thanks to the stupidly-designed intersection at Edgewood St.
by Juanita de Talmas on Jul 26, 2012 3:51 pm • link • report
I know more than a few District residents who drive to the Clarendon Whole Foods because they think it's easier to park there than at the city stores.
by Tomas Mo on Jul 26, 2012 4:00 pm • link • report
I don't want people to feel guilty for driving to a grocery store - I actually did that today because I injured my foot and couldn't walk there like I normally do - but in an area like this where land is really valuable, they probably shouldn't get to park for free. Besides, paid parking would encourage turnover, which means more spaces for additional customers, which I assume Whole Foods would be pretty okay with.
by dan reed! on Jul 26, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report
by Jake on Jul 26, 2012 4:19 pm • link • report
by charlie on Jul 26, 2012 4:40 pm • link • report
by please on Jul 26, 2012 4:43 pm • link • report
by Distantantennas on Jul 26, 2012 4:49 pm • link • report
Yep.
For instance, at checkout, a customer could choose between a lot validation, a garage validation and a 1% discount, or no parking validation and a 2% discount.
Kudos for making things way, way more complicated than they need to be.
Besides, if keeping store-owned spaces available is the goal, Whole Foods could accomplish this far more effectively by encouraging people not to drive at all.
WF's primary motivation is to get people there. Discouraging drivers does not do that. Second is to make things as hassle free as possible. They could care less abotu keeping store lot spots open in a vacuum; it's only an issue because that free lot creates chaos. This is an attempt to ameliorate that chaos.
And what a tempest in a teapot.
by dcd on Jul 26, 2012 4:56 pm • link • report
Weekly grocery shopping for two on a bike doesn't have to be a huge pain in the butt. I strap a milk crate, like this one onto my rack. It fits about 3 really full grocery bags.
Ideally, I would like to modify the crate so it has a quick release mechanism for the rack. Nevertheless, I find it pretty convenient. Though, I can understand why it might not work for everyone.
by sk on Jul 26, 2012 6:16 pm • link • report
by Novanglus on Jul 26, 2012 6:31 pm • link • report
A standard folding 2-wheel grocery cart can hold 6-8 bags, and it folds up nicely in our apartment's front hall closet. But you'd need to live within a few non-hilly blocks of the store.
by Novanglus on Jul 26, 2012 6:59 pm • link • report
by Neutrino on Jul 26, 2012 7:30 pm • link • report
The parking garage Whole Foods wants to build next to their new store in Columbia. Not only will it be attached to a building designed by Frank Gehry (in the 1960's, before he went crazy) but it'll be directly fronting a lake.
by dan reed! on Jul 26, 2012 8:26 pm • link • report
by Rich on Jul 26, 2012 8:54 pm • link • report
But Fritz, I grocery shop for 2 by bike. Generally I shop at Safeway in my neighborhood more than Giant, each are equidistant from my home (about 1.25 miles) and Harris Teeter in NoMA + the Florida Market some. (For those two I often take the Metro back to Takoma to not have to ride uphill. But if it's after 4pm I ride.) I should but don't use panniers. Just a back back and bags on the handlebars.
by Richard Layman on Jul 26, 2012 9:59 pm • link • report
But yeah, figure out a way to in incentivize not using the main lot at all rather than using a different lot.
by Drums on Jul 26, 2012 11:40 pm • link • report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFc1pr2yUU
But seriously, Whole Foods parking has become such an issue that there are music videos about it. Limited supply + free price = shortage. The solution is to incentivize other modes (or locations in this instance) or to charge for parking. Only incentivizing one alternative is pretty narrow-minded for a company that touts its sustainability.
by Jacob on Jul 27, 2012 12:08 am • link • report
by Kevin C on Jul 27, 2012 1:56 am • link • report
by almondwine on Jul 27, 2012 9:01 am • link • report
by Socket on Jul 27, 2012 9:21 am • link • report
by Fitz on Jul 27, 2012 9:33 am • link • report
I shop for a family of five. I walk to the market with my children (including our 3-year-old because we do not have someone to watch her). The distance is about 4 miles. We buy rice, potatoes, milk, oatmeal, and cooking oil. We take turns carrying it back home.
Who needs a car? This article is correct, that Whole Foods is promoting wasteful and environmentally irresponsible consumerism. Besides the injustice, however, we would never go there because we cannot afford it.
by goldfish on Jul 27, 2012 9:49 am • link • report
On the east side of Wisconsin, an area of single family houses where almost everyone owns a car, the store will deliver as far north as East-West Highway. On the west side, closer to the store, the delivery area extends only as far north as Bradley Blvd. The area on the west side of Wisconsin between Bradley and Old Georgetown Road (the continuation of E-W Hwy), almost all apartments and townhouses where many people are car-free, is excluded from the delivery area even though it is closer than the car-owning area that is included.
by Ben Ross on Jul 27, 2012 9:52 am • link • report
by Transit Guy on Jul 27, 2012 9:54 am • link • report
We sometimes walk to the supermarket depending. Being carfree can work for some. But grocery shopping is one of the reasons many people choose to be carlite rather than carfree.
I can't speak for all of WF's policies, and we also rarely shop there. But this does seem like silly carping to me. Among other things they helped advance the redevelopment of the 14th street corridor, and their stores are often well designed for pedestrian access (I am thinking of their Old Town Alex store). But driving access is part of their business model.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 27, 2012 9:58 am • link • report
I am pretty sure Giant see that as getting additional business, and therefor paying for itself. Its not funded by higher prices on others. Marketing does not work that way.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 27, 2012 10:01 am • link • report
Price discrimination does not add anything to economic welfare; it neither produces something nor makes shopping more convenient. It merely transfers wealth. It is debatable whether it transfers money from (in this case) drivers to pedestrians.
But it is unquestionable that it transfers wealth from pedestrians to supermarket owners, and thereby lowers the cost of owning a car. The supermarkets would still make a profit if they charged pedestrians the same net price as drivers. And, of course, if it didn't help their profits they wouldn't do it.
by Ben Ross on Jul 27, 2012 10:36 am • link • report
All kidding aside, I really don't see the problem with this - as others have said, anyone heavily influenced by the prospect of saving $1 probably isn't shopping at Whole Foods.
Also, from a profit perspective, retailers have no incentive to encourage most of their customers to walk or bike to the store. After all, when you walk or bike, you can only buy as much as you can carry. I live 2 blocks from the Whole Foods in Silver Spring, and always walk for obvious reasons. If I drove I'd probably spend at least $20 more per trip.
by silver springer on Jul 27, 2012 10:58 am • link • report
by Jake on Jul 27, 2012 11:10 am • link • report
thats questionable. by lowering prices to the more price sensitive, and increasing to the less price sensitive, it can lead to better utilization of a fixed cost asset. It may not do so in a retail situation where the more price sensitive are simply being brought from other stores with high fixed costs. It may be the shoppers at Safeway who end up losing due to WFs successful implemantion of discounts to drivers, not pedestrians at Safeway. If all supermarkets discriminate due to the greater choice drivers have, than all peds would suffer at all stores - but thats really a consequence of the peds more limited choice, not of an individual chains policies.
The answer is to find ways to widen the choice non drivers have - by making it easier to get further by non auto modes, by making it easier for more competitors to locate in dense places, and by creating alternatives like farmers markets. Not by lecturing supermarket chains on how to price.
I WOULD lecture them on better ped oriented design, and on adding bike racks - issues out here in real suburbia.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 27, 2012 11:25 am • link • report
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 27, 2012 11:26 am • link • report
Because they perceive the parking as easier.
by Tomas Mo on Jul 27, 2012 11:30 am • link • report
While that's true, it's probably just as much an awareness thing. I lived in the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor for several years and didn't realize they validated the annoying parking lot under Market Common until after I moved away. $1 is an easy way to highlight that the option even exists.
by worthing on Jul 27, 2012 11:50 am • link • report
by Geof Gee on Jul 27, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report
That said, the problem with free parking being offered by stores is nit limited to WF and it's kind of unfair to single them out. Every store that offers free parking is subsidizing drivers and penalizing everyone else. It's is collective action market failure like bars failing to ban smoming without a gov mandate. Peoplr on the whole prefer bars with no smoking (even many smokers I know) but every bar was afraid to ban smoking because they thought customers would just go elsewhere (without considering all the customers who may specifically seek out a smokeless bar).
The real solution is for Arlington to require all stores to charge a market price for the parking they provide customers and to not allow non-residents to park on residential streets.
by Falls Church on Jul 28, 2012 12:45 am • link • report
by Ren on Jul 30, 2012 10:22 am • link • report
by petrick malony on Jul 31, 2012 4:29 am • link • report
Add a Comment