Parking Redux
Dear Long-Term Parkers:
As always, whenever the subject of parking comes up, it dominates
themail. Passionate supporters of Zipcar and Flexcar and skeptics of the
program have contributed several good points below. I remain skeptical
about three points. First, I don’t buy the effort to portray these
programs as being something entirely different from traditional car
rental companies. If they aren’t rental companies, they why do they
charge rent? There are certainly differences in their business model,
but they’re in the same business. Netflix and Blockbuster have
business models that are even more different from each other (or at
least they did until Blockbuster started renting by mail in addition to
running its storefronts), but they both are DVD rental companies.
Second, I’m still unconvinced by the argument about rental costs.
Zipcar and Flexcar proponents are right that car rental companies engage
in shady cost-hiding practices, and that all charges should be openly
disclosed. However, even with all costs included, Zip and Flex are an
expensive alternative to traditional rental companies unless customers
use their cars for very short periods of time. Half-hour and hour-long
rentals are good buys; four-hour and eight-hour rentals aren’t. Third,
I’m unconvinced that giving street parking spaces to Zipcar and
Flexcar is just giving those companies the same treatment that residents
get. We residents don’t get reserved spaces with our names on them,
and the city doesn’t ticket everyone else in the neighborhood if they
park in front of our houses.
Those are still side issues, however, to what I see as the main one.
People can make their own individual decisions, based on their own
needs, desires, and means, about whether to use public transportation,
take cabs, rent cars, or lease or buy a car. But the city has made a
collective decision for all of us to run a test program that not only
reserves street parking spaces for these companies, but also gives them
to the companies free. How should we decide whether the social value of
the service that these companies provide is so great that the companies
should keep the spaces, or should continue not to pay anything for them?
Certainly, customers of the companies who live close to the reserved
spaces will appreciate the convenience, and car owners who have a
marginally harder time finding a parking space will not appreciate their
inconvenience. By what criteria will the city decide that the program is
a success or failure, or will the decision be based on subjective hopes
and speculative projections?
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############
Let’s start a new dialogue. The nationally known Civil War
Preservation Trust will hold a news conference at the National Press
Club at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 28, to announce their 2006 Report
on America’s Most Endangered Battlefields. To be included are
Washington Defenses (indifferently managed, funded, and interpreted by
the National Park Service} for which the major endangered site is a
battlefield right here in the District of Columbia — in fact, it is
the only Civil War battlefield in DC!
It is located on the grounds of the BRAC-threatened Walter Reed Army
Medical Center reservation in Northwest. It is the battlefield of Fort
Stevens. No, not Fort Stevens itself, where Lincoln stood under enemy
fire for the only time any such chief executive did so while in actual
office. Rather, the battlefield, now threatened by the lusting DC
government and private developers and denied to public access by the
current security regulations of the US Defense Department, was the site
from which Confederate sharpshooters peppered Fort Stevens and nearly
killed Lincoln during an election year, before he got his second term
and nine months before John Wilkes Booth did the deed. Military
authorities consequently directed an attack to dislodge those
sharpshooters; a pitched battle developed with Confederate general Jubal
Early’s main army; and Battleground National Cemetery nearby, as well
as Grace Episcopal Church cemetery further out Georgia Avenue in Silver
Spring, hold the remains — American remains — of this fight to save
Washington from capture and Lincoln from death. One could almost style
the battle of Fort Stevens as the day(s) that Lincoln was almost shot!
The battle of Fort Stevens was possibly more important than Gettysburg,
Antietam, Shiloh, or all the other gory battles. Had Lincoln been killed
or Washington captured, the course of the 1864 election and the course
of the war would have been turned so as to redirect history.
Does anyone care? There are fascinating linkages with local history
and black history (the Military Road School was an outgrowth of the
soldier training of freed people there at Fort Stevens). Is filthy lucre
and more congestion, destruction of open space, and loss of hallowed
ground the only focus of public officials in the Department of Defense,
the DC city government, and the business community? If anyone wishes to
know more, I would be happy to discuss this in more detail I have
written widely on this business (I am the co-author of Mr. Lincoln’s
Forts; A Guide to the Civil War Defenses of Washington; Jubal
Early’s Raid, 1864; and articles in this field) and now connected
with trying to get the Federal and city to wake up to the treasure as
well as the sacred ground in its midst before yet another historical
site falls prey to “progress.”
Let’s begin the dialogue. I support the expansion of the nearby
national cemetery, the preservation of the sacred ground as a swath
leading to Rock Creek (folks, there are air, ecology, and other factors
here besides history), and more enlightened use of campus than urban
sprawl for the site. Let’s get on the National Park Service’s case
to do more with the Circle Forts Park, as it likes to style its
grandiose plans and talk lacking action, sound management, and community
involvement. Public stewards of funds and facilities owe taxpayers more
than mere rhetoric and ducking responsibility. Let the debate begin! The
Civil War Preservation Trust News Conference points the way.
###############
Inspector General Employment Complaints
Travis Montgomery, travis-montgomery@hotmail.com
And you thought the District was finally rid of Charlie Maddox?
Apparently he is still affecting the city, well after his resignation in
late 2003.
It seems that the former Inspector General has left a litany of
lawsuits and complaints from current and former employees of the office.
These complaints stem from the way Maddox empowered his executive staff
to treat these employees in ways that are illegal. Employee-filed
complaints include discrimination, harassment, forced termination, and
retaliation. These complaints against the office are all public and are
filed by current and former employees of the office.
What makes matters worse is the fact that no one from Maddox’s
former executive staff has even informed the new Inspector General of
these issues that are pending against his office. As the new IG is
finding his way, Maddox’s cronies are still running things in the
Office of the Inspector General. How long will Charlie Maddox affect DC?
###############
Rent, Homelessness, and DCPS
Ed Dixon, jedxn@yahoo.com
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, affordable
housing is that which costs no more than 30 percent of the renter’s
income. In DC, there is a conflict for many of the residents. The
minimum wage in DC is $7 per hour. At forty hours per week and fifty-two
weeks per year, that’s an annual salary of $14,560. That salary
provides $1,213 per month for rent. With HUD data, NLIHC puts one and
two bedroom apartments in DC on average at $1,080 and $1,225. The
minimum wage monthly of $1,213 lands right between the average one- and
two-bedroom prices. Minimum wage workers therefore must pay 100 percent
of income for rent. In order to make the average one or two bedroom
apartment “affordable,” minimum wage earners must work three times
as much, or roughly 120 hours per week. In order to meet the forty hour,
fifty-two week standard and the 30 percent of income towards rent,
workers would need to make over $23 an hour.
The Metropolitan Council of Governments did a head count in January
2005 of homeless persons in shelters. Of the 8,977 people counted that
winter month, 2,232 were persons in families. That picture is not
complete as it does not measure the people "in and out" of
homelessness but rather the number in January. The Community Partnership
for the Prevention of Homelessness logged in 6,993 children applying for
shelter with their families in 2004. These and other statistics can be
found in the 12th Annual Fact Book from DC Kids Count in your
neighborhood library.
The Fair Budget Coalition reported in its 2006 Budget Recommendations
that “homelessness places solid barriers between a child and his or
her education. Over the course of a school year, more than half of
children in homeless families in the District transfer schools at least
once, with 10 percent transferring three times or more. With each change
in schools, a student is set back academically by four to six months.
District homeless children are one and a half times as likely as other
students to repeat a grade or perform below grade level on reading
assessments. School transfers are directly associated with higher drop
out rates with less than half of mobile students graduating from high
school.” Neither DCPS nor the Board of Education has any control over
the cost of housing, the minimum wage, or whether or not public schools
have to educate homeless children.
###############
The fact that the president’s FY 2007 budget provides for a grant
to DC Libraries has received only limited attention in the media. The
budget request asks “For a Federal payment to the District of
Columbia, $30,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the
Federal contribution toward costs associated with the construction of a
new central library and renovation of neighborhood branches.” At a
recent “listening session” held at a branch library, the facilitator
said that this meant that the District had received a directive from the
Federal government to replace the MLK Library, closing discussion on
whether the idea had merit or not.
But is this really true? This gift of $30 million would, given that
the estimated price tag on a new central library starts at $280 million,
just cover the cost of the architectural plans and incidentals. If this
payment could only be used for a new central library, there would be no
need to mention fixing up the branches of the library system. Of course,
there is also the fact that the payment is far from a done deal. Given
the Congress’ preference for omnibus bills with last-minute earmarks,
it is hard to say what the final budget language or payment amount may
turn out to be. Even in the best of circumstances, the interpretation of
how to spend any Federal money appropriated for the District’s
libraries will be a job for the next Mayoral administration.
###############
Purported Meetings on Rent Control
David Sobelsohn, anc6d02 -at- capaccess -dot- org
As a founding member and former officer of the New Capitol Park Plaza
Tenants Association, I was startled to read Vincent Morris’s claim [themail,
February 19] that someone from the mayor’s office had met with my
tenants association about the mayor’s plan to means-test rent control.
I had heard nothing at all about such a meeting. Including my tenants
association in such a meeting makes little sense. Over three years ago,
as part of a sweetheart deal with the city, my building’s owner
obtained an exemption from rent control. The owner immediately
instituted 12 percent annual rent increases, reduced services, and began
transforming the building into a project for low-income tenants and St.
Elizabeth’s outpatients. (You may have seen the news last week about
the latest in a series of deliberately set fires in my building, near
the proposed site for a new stadium. All the arsons have followed our
exemption from rent control.) Under our current exemption, means-testing
rent control would have no effect on our residents. It would be odd for
our tenants association to have a position on something that would have
no effect on any of our residents. To check with other tenants
association members, I E-mailed our on-line list. Here are the replies I
received, all from officers or former officers of the tenants’
association: 1) “I don’t recall such an official meeting”; 2) “I
don’t recall anything at all. In other words -- huh??!”; and 3)
“Morris is lying.” The association’s secretary wrote: “As an
officer of the association (specifically, the secretary) I can say that
we did not send an official representative to any meeting about rent
control.”
I would like to know who Vincent Morris claims purported to represent
NCPPTA in meetings with the mayor’s representatives about rent
control, and when those meetings supposedly took place. No doubt this
information would also interest the officers of my tenants association.
Perhaps Mr. Morris is thinking of my testimony one year ago, at the
DC Council’s Consumer and Regulatory Affairs Committee, on Bill 16-47,
the Rental Housing Act Extension Amendment Act of 2005. At that point
Bill 16-47 simply extended rent control. As an ANC Commissioner, I
testified both for my ANC (6D) and on behalf of my constituents. I
testified that, “Our neighborhood already suffers from upward price
pressures on rental housing. These pressures are pushing working-class
and middle-class tenants out of our neighborhood. We need renewal of
rent control to maintain our neighborhood’s diversity.” Neither I
nor any other member of our tenants association mentioned anything about
means-testing rent control.
###############
Standing
Larry Seftor, Ward 3, larry underscore seftor .the757 at
zoemail.net
Tom Sherwood brings up a point, in the context of Ralph Nader [themail,
February 19], that I have been thinking about for some time: standing.
(Definition 1: standing is “to be in a position to gain or lose
because of an action taken or a commitment made”; definition 2: “a
position from which one may assert or enforce legal rights or
duties.”) Everyone can have an opinion about what has happened and
what should happen in DC. But those of us who actually live in DC have a
“standing” that those that live outside DC do not have. This problem
is magnified in our case because, as we are the nation’s capital,
everyone thinks they have a piece of us. Furthermore, Congress can and
does impose its will on us, despite our having no vote. The whole issue
has been particularly galling of late because of outsiders pressing such
issues as the baseball stadium and slot machines. Therefore, I would
like to ask that writers to themail identify their ward within DC or
their location outside of DC. It is not really so radical a notion —
just check out the letters section of the Post.
###############
[Councilmember Kathy Patterson has posted this response to Ed Dixon’s
message, themail, February 19] “I am sorry there has been confusion
about an amendment I’m proposing with Councilmember Jack Evans to
offset the fiscal impact of the school modernization bill. As we all
know, the CFO’s revenue estimate has fallen short of what is needed to
offset the fiscal impact of providing an additional $100 million per
year for school capital funding. The School Modernization Financing Act
is legislation that I have worked extremely hard on for the better part
of the last year and after a unanimous council vote in favor of it last
month, we’re now very close to getting final council approval. But in
order for this to happen, we first have to identify where the funding
will come from to fill any gap left in the general fund. The bill as
currently drafted contains at least two provisions to cover this
shortfall. The first is to use any excess revenue certified this year.
The certification on February 15 was the second of four certifications
this year; about $45 million has been identified so far. There are still
two more certifications to come this year — one in May and one in
August. The second provision uses surplus money from fiscal year 2005
that is not already allocated. There is sufficient funding there to at
least cover the fiscal impact of the bill for FY 2007.
“What remains at issue is what to do beginning in FY 2008 if the
other provisions do not provide sufficient revenue to cover the full
fiscal impact. In that event, Councilmember Evans and I will propose to
increase the deed recordation and transfer taxes in .1% increments to an
amount sufficient to cover the need. This amount should not exceed .2%
in any event. Because the deed recordation and transfer taxes have been
identified by housing advocates as a means to support new affordable
housing initiatives, which we also need very much, I have been asked
whether I would support using tax parity instead of new revenue or
surplus or a higher deed recordation tax to replenish the general fund
starting in FY 2008. I do not support this solution for two reasons. The
income tax drop that the tax parity bill calls for takes place in FY
2007, so it would already be in place when we get to FY 2008. Second,
use of the a higher deed recordation and transfer taxes are is a
contingency only if new revenues certified by that time have not been
adequate. This in no way precludes raising the deed recordation and
transfer taxes in the FY 2007 budget to fund all or part of the housing
strategy that the housing task force has recommended. Let’s say the
Council decides to following the housing task force recommendations and
the two taxes go from 1.1% to 1.5% in tax year 2007. As the worst case
for FY 2008, if no new revenue is certified over the next year, those
taxes could go to 1.7% to balance the budget due to the hole left in the
financial plan from the use of sales tax revenue in the school
modernization bill.
“All of that said, the issue of what revenues might be raised in
the future for any purposes will be joined, again, as soon as the mayor
submits his FY 2007 budget on March 20, 2006. It is likely that a
package of ‘revenue enhancements’ will be part of that package. The
good news is that school modernization will already have been
established as the priority, and will be secured by final passage on
March 7. This is due in large measure to strong advocacy from parents
and others, and I am grateful for that support.”
###############
There is one very good reason why the owners of Zipcar and Flexcar
should not be asked to pay for parking spaces: were they to enter into
negotiations with our mayor and our council, the end result would be
something on the order of a large annual payment from the city to the
owners, plus the owners would get naming rights to each space. Isn’t
there some sort of precedent for this sort of deal?
###############
Good questions. To them, I would add these points: I understand that
some of the cars are registered out of the District, removing another
potential revenue source. The parking spaces are fallow when the cars
are in use, limiting the use of the dedicated parking asset. The
companies have survived, and grown, while paying market rate rents for
parking on private property. And there has been no information provided
by either of the companies, or the District, demonstrating that the lack
of available parking is suppressing use of shared vehicles.
I think our city should support car sharing, but that these
for-profit companies should not be allowed to shift the parking portion
of their business costs to the District and its residents.
###############
Shared Cars Versus Handicapped Spaces
Nancy Masterson, njcmasterson@verizon.net
Has anyone counted the number of handicapped spaces reserved at Metro
stops? I acknowledge the fact the handicapped spaces get double the
amount of time, but it’s not free and it’s not unlimited.
###############
Curbside Spots for Zipcar/Flexcar
Jack McKay, jack.mckay@verizon.net
Yes, we want to promote Zipcar/Flexcar, especially in the
high-density areas of Ward One, where there are simply too many cars and
not enough curb space. But the reserved curbside parking spots aren’t
about whether Zipcar/Flexcar is a good thing or not, but about whether
it’s appropriate for the District to give these companies free,
reserved curbside space. (I reject the term "car sharing,"
because the users do not own the car; would you call a taxicab a
"shared car"?).
DDOT, in defense of these curbside spots, claimed that giving these
services curbside spots would open up more parking space for the rest of
us. “Studies have shown that 6 to 10 households can share a single
carsharing vehicle. Studies have also shown that many carsharing members
sell a car they own or avoid the purchase of a car that they planned to
buy before joining the carsharing service. For these reasons, DDOT is
confident that carsharing parking spaces will reduce the total number of
cars in congested neighborhoods and make parking easier for everyone —
whether they use carsharing or not” (http://ddot.dc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1250,q,631550.asp#10).
This claim is false, because roughly half of all households here in
the inner city already own no car, and those non-car households will be
the predominant users of the service. People who have cars, and struggle
to find curbside parking at night, are already served by Zipcar/Flexcar
in off-street spots. The only cars that might disappear from the streets
as a result of these free curbside spots are those belonging to
residents who are aware that they don’t really need to own a car, don’t
have off-street parking of their own, and are too timid to use the
off-street locations. I estimate that no more than one in twenty Zipcar/
Flexcar users are in that category, so if one such car serves six to ten
residents, clearly giving these companies curbside spots leads to a net
loss in parking for the rest of us. The DDOT claim is, to put it
politely, bogus. Readers should be aware that the fine for parking in a
Zipcar/Flexcar spot is $100, twice the fine for parking in a Metro bus
stop. Guess that shows what DDOT’s priorities are.
###############
The basic point is that services like Flexcar and Zipcar are proxies
for DC residents who are members. Should only car owners have the
privilege of parking on city streets, or should other residents who use,
but don’t own, cars have similar privileges? I think they should. Plus
the public benefits of reducing the number of cars in the city need to
be supported by public policies encouraging such use.
The fact is, in our attached housing neighborhoods, the average car
takes up all of the street space in front of a row house. So any
household that has more than one car stresses the system. Car owners
should be cheering on Zipcar and Flexcar because the presence of these
companies ends up reducing the overall inventory of cars seeking the
limited number of street parking spaces. (Studies show that each shared
car serves ten to twenty users who otherwise might own a car.)
Whether or not Flexcar or Zipcar should pay for the space is a
question that needs to be considered in these terms. A residential
parking permit is pretty low-cost. At the very least, perhaps the cars
should pay for residential parking permits, since the car users are DC
residents. I have written about this in my blog in “High Cost of Free
Parking Revisited” (http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/10/high-cost-of-free-parking-revisited.html),
“If There is Free Parking They Will Drive” (http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/08/if-there-is-parking-they-will-drive.html),
and “Car Sharing in DC” (http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/03/dr-transit-car-sharing-in-dc.html).
Note that my thinking has changed a little in the year since I wrote
that last piece.
###############
I don’t know exactly what negotiations went into the District
agreeing to let Zipcar have dedicated street parking places, but here
are some items to consider:
Northwest DC obviously has a parking crunch. There are not near
enough parking places for the number of drivers who want to park. Now,
Zipcar slots do subtract from that existing parking stock, but the goal
is for multiple residents to give up their cars, use mainly public
transportation, and share the use of Zipcars. If that model works, for
every one parking place that is taken away, several drivers may stop
trying to park in those neighborhoods. For example, I recently sold my
car and am relying on Metrobus, Metrorail, and Zipcar. (So far, I love
it.) I do think that this needs to be tracked over time to ensure that
the city is deriving the benefit of less parking congestion from the
arrangement. The city should also negotiate with Zipcar to get a good
deal, not necessarily just give the parking places away (although as a
user, that would probably mean my rental fees would increase.)
Secondly, every one I know who has used Zipcar loves it much more
than traditional rental companies. The ease of going online and
reserving a car with almost no advance notice, and being able to pick it
up within walking distance of my home, is great. Especially when used
sparingly, along with frequent use of public transportation, I think it
is very cost effective for me. (This is not an argument for the public’s
subsidizing Zipcar, just a response to Gary’s wondering what’s so
great about their business model.) Even before these assigned spaces,
Zipcar already had a model in place of putting cars in neighborhoods, in
office and condo parking lots, so I’m afraid Thrifty, Hertz, et
al., would be just starting out behind the curve.
###############
Public Parking and Rental Car Companies
Virginia Johnson, virginiajohnson@netzero.net
I seem to have missed the list server debates, community meetings,
and ANC and council meetings that took place ahead of the decision to
allow rental car companies public parking spaces to park their cars. I
wish I had been paying more attention as the notices of whether or not
to give away public property made the rounds. On the other hand, perhaps
such meetings never took place. Among the issues I have with Zipcar and
Flexcar are that they want to project this image of an eco-friendly
company, hip and cool and all that, and yet to get what they want, they
must maneuver in breathtakingly undemocratic ways, ways that should be
counter to the eco-friendly perspective they claim to be espousing. Do
they discuss with residents the possibility of decreasing parking spaces
on their streets? Is there any notice whatsoever of upcoming losses of
public parking spaces? Who decides whether or not to decrease public
parking spaces? Really: which specific District authority or authorities
gives permission to private companies to have those spaces? And, what
are the plans for more spaces? On which streets exactly? How many
spaces?
It’s important to note that there is a difference between what are
true carsharing programs (which, as I understand it, are not run by
companies or a local government, but rather residents coming together to
form their own nonprofit — there was an article on true carsharing
programs in the August 18, 2005, issue of the Washington Spark),
and the for-profit version like Zip and Flexcar. When the majority of
messages were being posted on the Adams Morgan list in the fall, the
head of one of those companies wrote to the list and said not to try
something is sad. I agreed (I am a member). But the thing is, residents
didn’t even have a choice. It was sort of, wake up and there they are,
and here they’re coming, more and more rental cars, fewer and fewer
parking spaces. I have my own car. I use it for myself but also to
volunteer in, loan to friends, share with others. It’s paid for, gets
great gas mileage, and all that. Now is what I have bad? I need to give
that up for Zipcar or Flexcar? Why?
About the best that I can say about giving away parking spaces is
that it is a less egregious example of the current push to privatize so
much public property in the city. And, for me, the fact is a few parking
spaces taken away does indeed make parking more of a challenge. There
are many other facets to this issue, including the price, which does not
make renting cars as accessible to everyone as I think the companies
would like us to believe, but one that I think has tended to be
overlooked is that perhaps longtime residents who have put down roots
here and have no plans on leaving by and large feel a tad bit
differently from others who see themselves as only temporarily in
Washington. Again, as people have repeated over and over, the idea of
the two companies isn’t bad. It is good. The issue for many is
continuing to give away public parking spaces.
###############
Zipcar and Flexcar
Neil Richardson, ananda@aol.com
As I understand this issue, it’s only an experiment. I listened to
a presentation recently at the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, and
DDOT said they were going to reevaluate the program in twelve months. If
the city decides to continue its relationship with the car sharing
companies, I would expect that these companies reimburse the District in
some manner for these spaces. In Mt. Pleasant, my neighbors are wildly
enthusiastic about this opportunity. Considering our traffic woes, the
environmental damage cars inflict on the environment, and the fact that
so many residents to do not own cars, I welcome this kind of
transportation innovation.
###############
Car sharing is very different from traditional car rental companies.
As a devoted member of Zipcar, I would still use Hertz, Avis, etc., to
rent a car for a day or a weekend because, as you say, it is cheaper,
but the advantage of Zipcar over Avis is that you can use it for thirty
minutes or one hour. There is definitely still a place for traditional
companies (like I said, I still use them) but there are times when you
have to pick up fifteen pizzas for a party and you only need a car for
thirty minutes. Zipcar and Flexcar are competitors, but Zipcar/Flexcar
are not competitors of Avis/Hertz. Even if rental cars were parked on
the street and if they were to be truly competitive with car sharing
companies, they would need the technology in the cars so that users
could come and go without assistance at any hour of the day. In
addition, you don’t have to pay for gas and for additional fees (like
you do for rental companies), you can access a car at 3 a.m. if you want
to because you don’t need an office or a customer service agent to
assist you in getting a car, and cars are conveniently parked around the
city so that you can walk two blocks to use a car instead of traveling
out to where the rental car office is located.
###############
Zipcar’s View
Gabe Klein, Regional Vice President, Zipcar, gklein@zipcar.com
I hesitate to get involved in these debates for many reasons, first
being that I run Zipcar’s operations in the Washington Region. Second,
I cannot make arguments as eloquently as the more than 13,000 people in
the region that rely on our service. In DC, we have 37 percent of the
population that chooses to not own a car. Some of this is due to
congestion (third in the country), parking woes, or financial
considerations... AAA estimates it costs over $700 to own a car in the
city. With housing costs what they are, how many people who do not
commute to a place with no public transportation can justify owning a
car for the occasional weekend trip to Costco? This on-street program
has its roots in Portland, Oregon, and has been very successful. There
are also many variations on the program around the country, North
America, and the world. In fact, over 450 cities in Europe have some
version of carsharing, and this is where I will start my argument. We
are not car rental. See the Washington Post’s columns last week
on car rental business practices hidden fees and more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302276.html?sub=AR,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021700632_2.html.
See also the report from Arlington, Virginia, on their carsharing
program success: http://www.commuterpage.com/pdfdocs/ArlingtonCarshareProgram.pdf,
and a federal study on carsharing: http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_108.pdf.
However, none of this is really my core point. Our rates are all
inclusive of gas, insurance, dedicated parking, maintenance, and
cleaning, and there are no hidden fees. More importantly, Zipcar serves
the local residents and businesses exclusively, 98 percent (sometimes a
member comes from another Zipcar city and uses a car). More than ninety
percent of car rental business is from travelers: tourists, and business
travelers. They rent by the day only, and are in centralized locations.
Zipcar has over 140 widely distributed locations in the Washington area
and 240 vehicles. If we are not less than five to ten minutes walk max
from someone’s home or work, they will not view Zipcar as a viable
transportation alternative to car ownership. In fact, both Zipcar and
Flexcar give members discount at rental car companies for longer trips.
We are membership based, completely self service, paperless (using
wireless technology), all inclusive in our rates, and have no hidden
fees. Just the reservation plus sales tax for the District. If I can
make an analogy: comparing Zipcar to rental car is like comparing Krispy
Kreme Donuts to Einstein Bagels. Yes, they are both serving circular
dough-based foods, however, nothing else about them is much alike. I
encourage you to try carsharing for yourself as I would encourage you to
eat a donut versus bagel with shmear and tell me the difference.
Next, you want to know why we should have access to on-street space,
and reference sidewalk cafes as a comparison. I think I have a better
comparison. Loading zones for businesses and restaurants, valet parking
zones in front of restaurants, taxi cab stands, and even bus stops. Bus
stops and taxi stands both serve multiple people with a transit option.
One is public, one private, but is that really the point? The Federal
Government (TRB) estimates that six to ten cars are taken off the road
for every carsharing vehicle put on the road. Our internal surveys show
more than twenty. There are 150,000 new residents moving into the
District . . . you can do the math. It’s a little like global warming.
Do you wait until the polar ice caps melt to do something? Carsharing is
not a silver bullet, but one in an arsenal of many programs/solutions to
a burgeoning problem.
So, my third point. This is a classic public/private partnership. DC,
Arlington, WMATA, Portland, and other jurisdictions and transit
authorities could have very easily started their own carsharing program
for the city instead of outsourcing it to Zipcar and/or Flexcar. This
has been done before, and was an option. Does the public benefit from
that? Would a seven to eight figure bill to the tax payers be the right
way to get this program going? DC came to us a couple of years ago and
said that they were interested in launching this program based on its
success in other places. They wanted to serve all eight wards of the
city and they were very cost conscious about it. DC government’s
contribution to this program has been extremely reasonable when you
think about the city getting a high-profile transportation option that
basically extends the public transportation system, stems the tide of
cars coming into the city, etc., and has no overhead to speak of.
Does Zipcar benefit? Absolutely! Are we a for profit company?
Absolutely! I am proud of this actually, and think that the mutual
benefit is why this works, that we are private is also a reason why this
works, that having competition is a third reason this works so well. It’s
interesting to me that in Arlington, for instance, we have had nothing
but positive feedback to the program. People get it, see the benefits.
They understand why Arlington has partnered with us immediately. Same in
DC for the most part, but there are some people that view any for-profit
company as inherently evil, or trying to game the system. I am a
District resident myself, live in Columbia Heights, and have lived here
through the Barry administration and countless other fiascoes. I know
why people are suspicious of motivations sometimes. Having worked on
this program for two years, and seeing first hand what DDOT wanted to
accomplish here, I can tell you that their motivations are not only
pure, but admirable.
Why is this program admirable? Well, let me tell you from my point of
view, and address why subsidizing spaces or the program in other ways
would be justified. In Arlington, not only did the county give free
spaces, but they told us to put them where ever we wanted as they want
us to tell them where the demand/density is. When the program started,
and for any new cars outside of the normal footprint (Shirlington,
Columbia Pike), they subsidized the cars to break even while they ramped
up. In DC, no subsidies on cars, and we have to place cars in all eight
wards, in many places where we have no market, no members, and it is
going to be a very slow ramp up. This is a big commitment on our part
financially, but it is offset by the benefit of being able to serve our
existing member base with better, safer locations and raising the
profile of the program. Also, I think it is the right thing to do to
serve the entire city, and am proud that through the DDOT and WMATA
partnerships, we are accomplishing this goal.
There are many other points to be made, but I am going to end this
with some links to information about the program so people can educate
themselves on carsharing here, in other places, and why there are many
nonprofit, and for-profit carsharing companies. Also, I will leave some
quotes from our members from the past week (we are always soliciting
feedback from them). Thanks very much for the opportunity to contribute
to the lively debate.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS
National Building Museum Events, February 25
Lauren Searl, lsearl@nbm.org
All events except Construction Watch Tours at the National Building
Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square stop, Metro Red Line.
Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.
Saturday, February 25, 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Model Airplane Family
Workshop. Families can construct their own Delta Dart rubber-motored
model airplane assisted by members of the DC Maxecuters. They then
examine how things fly before participating in a group plane launch in
the Great Hall. $10 Museum members; $13 nonmembers. Ages 8 and up.
Prepaid registration required.
Saturday, February 25, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Construction watch tour:
1247 Wisconsin Avenue. Located north of Georgetown’s main shopping
district, this mixed-use project renovates two mid-19th-century
commercial/residential buildings and fills the remaining site with
additional offices and street-level retail space. Two residences are in
renovated space within the historic buildings, and four new metal-clad
houses sit above the new commercial space to create a rooftop village
with courtyards and terraces. Mark McInturff, FAIA, founding principal
and Peter Noonan, AIA, both with McInturff Architects, will lead a tour
of this 22,000-square-foot project scheduled for completion in March.
Open only to museum members, $18. Space is limited. Prepaid registration
required. To register, call the Museum or visit www.nbm.org
beginning Tuesday, January 24.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — SCHOOLS
ALTA Has Openings for Pre-K Through 7
Alicia J. George, ajgeorge@earthlink.net
I’m writing to spread the word about openings for students in pre-K
through seventh grade at my son’s school, the Academy for Learning
Through the Arts (ALTA). ALTA is a free DC public charter school that
started last fall. The school offers a demanding arts and academics
curriculum, a nurturing school culture, exceptional teachers,
highly-involved parents, and strong ties to the community. My son (in
fifth grade) is thriving at ALTA. The teachers know how to guide kids to
do their best, and the principal is responsive and involved.
The school is currently located at 2100 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, a
block or so from the Reeves Municipal Center. It’s a short walk from
the U Street-Cardozo Metro stop on the Green Line and the Metro buses on
14th Street. ALTA will add pre-K and seventh grade this coming fall and
eighth grade the year after. For more information, see their web site
and application form at http://www.alta-pcs.com
or give ALTA a call at 232-4014.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCEMENTS
Curtis Etherly Announces for Ward 6 Council
L.E. Adams, workinprogress247@mac.com
On Saturday, February 11, the Syphax Condo Community Center in
Southwest Ward 6 was the site of an event that felt as much like a
reunion of a multifaceted extended family gathering as a political
announcement. It could be because the room itself is relatively small
and comfy, or the fact that such a diverse crowd turned out in the cold
rain to huddle together to hear from the inspiring young man. It could
also be because the candidate is as homegrown as anyone in recent
memory. Curtis Etherly, Jr., is running in the September primary for the
seat Sharon Ambrose will vacate in at the end of this term. He was born
and raised in the Ward, and graduated from Ballou High School before
going off to college at Yale. He returned to attend law school at
Georgetown University, and has been using his academic and professional
background to serve the community he hails from for more than a decade.
A former member of Councilmember Carol Schwartz’s staff, and a
youthful staffer at the Washington Board of Trade, he clearly
understands the importance of bipartisan effort and community-business
partnership. He has served on the boards of the DC Boys and Girls Clubs,
the Appleseed Foundation, and as board president for the Washington Math
and Science Public Charter School. Currently vice president of public
affairs for MidAtlantic Coca Cola, Curtis Etherly lives in southeast
Ward 6. As a resident of the southwest waterfront, I’ve been
disappointed with the outgoing councilmember’s performance on the dais
and in the community. Curtis Etherly could very well pull Ward 6 out of
its civic slump. In my opinion, he’s the one to watch.
###############
Are You Fed Up with the High Taxes in DC?
Jonathan Rees, jrrees@peoplepc.com
Rees for DC City Council Ward 3 is in search of volunteers who live
in Ward 3 to distribute campaign literature door to door in your
apartment building, and to E-mail all your friends in Ward 3 our web
site address. Forward this to your Ward 3 friends: http://www.dc2006.net.
If you are tired of the high taxes and the poor services we are getting,
our lousy schools, or are feeling left out, then we would love to hear
from you. Check Rees out at http://www.dc2006.net.
If you like what you see and want to make good things happen, then write
back, as you can do a lot of good using your computer. Write admin@dc2006.net.
###############
Stamp Act Congress Blog
Andy Catanzaro, Catanzara@gmail.com
Please visit our blog about DC voting rights (www.stampouttax.blogspot.com)
where we post about DC voting rights, local news, and raise awareness.
Our goal is to spread the word to America that without DC’s having
full voting representation, there is not democracy in the country. This
forum does not support one viewpoint as a solution for DC. Instead we
hope to be a location where all can join the struggle and debate about
how to best represent the District on this critical issue.
###############
CLASSIFIEDS — HELP WANTED
I am in need of a reliable housekeeper who seeks occasional work.
Please get in touch if you know of one. Call Jenny, 363-3945.
###############
themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every
Wednesday and Sunday. To subscribe, to change E-mail addresses, or to
switch between HTML and plain text versions of themail, use the
subscription form at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/subscribe.htm.
To unsubscribe, send an E-mail message to themail@dcwatch.com
with “unsubscribe” in the subject line. Archives of past messages
are available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.
All postings should also be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com,
and should be about life, government, or politics in the District of
Columbia in one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to
be printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief
paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can
be put into each mailing.
