In July, the new Davis City Council undertook a very modest investment to bring in an alternative Car Sharing Pilot Program, the Zipcar. The fiscal impact, by the way, comes from Developer funds deposited for environmental mitigation obligations, which are neither currently set aside or allocated for another purpose.
The cost to the city will depend on the usage. If we get 50% utilization it will pay for itself. At most it would be $74,400 if no one used the vehicle. Staff estimates a vehicle usage rate of 30% (current campus utilization rate is 40%). At the assumed 30% utilization rate, annual costs of approximately $20,000 are anticipated or $40,000 for the initial 2-year contract period of the pilot program.
It is not the cheapest thing to do, to rent these vehicles, at $72 per day. But the point of this is not to rent by the day. It is to use for short and simple car trips. For that purpose, there would be a savings to the consumer. Yeah ,if you want a vehicle to use 24/7 during your visit or where you live, then Zipcar is not the way to go.
On the other hand, one would save on gas and other additional costs. Over time, one would expect the cost to drop. However, Zipcar has now been working with USC and UCLA for nearly three years. “In the fall of 2008, the County of LA engaged Zipcar to launch a unique on-street pilot program in neighborhoods surrounding USC and UCLA. Since parking in these areas is nearly impossible and density is so high, the goal of this program is to reduce the need for a vehicle on or near these campuses. Through research conducted with government agencies, Zipcar knows that each Zipcar takes 15-20 personally-owned vehicles off the road.”
For the cost to the city, who could complain about the city implementing such a program? Apparently Bob Dunning can. Yesterday he wasted a whole column arguing against the program.
He writes, “Defenders of the city of Davis, spending public money to support an out-of-town rental car company at the expense of a locally-owned rental car company, responded in typical fashion when the Above-Pictured Columnist suggested that our elected leaders who forged this deal got ‘snookered.'”
Really? Snookered? I think our leaders knew exactly what they were getting in this deal. “With Zipcar, Davis residents can drive self-service cars by the hour or day, 24/7. Gas, maintenance, roadside assistance, insurance and parking are all included. Members can use Zipcars for errands, shuttling friends to the airport, shopping, or quick road trips anytime of day or night. It’s far more convenient and cost-effective than owning a car or having one on campus.”
He writes, “One, while admitting that Zipcar’s $72 a day weekend rental rate was perhaps twice what locally-owned Avis would charge, they nevertheless claimed that ‘when you add in gas and insurance, which are free with Zipcar,’ that Avis actually costs more.”
“Not by a long shot, my friend. First off, anyone with a credit score higher than their IQ has a credit card that automatically provides insurance coverage when used to rent a car,” he continues. “And, while Avis does require you to fill up the tank upon return, it sends the car out with a full tank as well, so you pay only for the gas you use, not a full tank’s worth. In other words, if you burn two gallons driving to the airport and back and running a few errands along the way, it’ll cost you about six bucks to ‘fill ‘er up.'”
I must have missed that one. Maybe the credit companies can get together and try to encourage people to save the planet and give the money that they would pay to encourage you to burn fossil fuels to rent the zipcar – how’s that for an innovative idea?
Somehow I think the cheaper issues misses the point, but then Mr. Dunning figures that one out as well. He writes, “But the argument about which rental car company is cheaper misses the point entirely. That’s a decision to be made strictly by the consumer, who can take into account convenience, cost, customer service, make and model of cars offered, add-on charges, company reputation and any other reason they care to come up with. People have every right to pay more for less if that’s what their rental heart desires.”
Except that’s not where I was going. People who choose the Zipcar, will choose it not for costs, but rather for the environment.
He spends his whole time talking about subsidies, and he misses the entire point of the program. He never once mentions the reason for implementing such a program.
He does write, “If folks want to rent a Zipcar, fine. If they want to rent from Avis, fine. The choice should be theirs and theirs alone. The city simply has no business favoring one over the other. “
The idea of the program is to get people out of their cars. They will have a car available to them if they need it for short-errands, but they will not have to have a full-time vehicle. That will reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled and encourage alternative forms of transportation.
The city of Davis has embarked on a very aggressive policy to reduce GHGs to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This will not be a huge component of it, but the program costs us nearly nothing. It has nothing to do with people should have the choice as to whether or not to rent a Zipcar or from Avis. It’s that right now Zipcars cannot economically compete with Avis, but we can no longer simply operate as we have and allow the economic laws of supply-and-demand forestall the implementation of alternative vehicles, until such time that they are viable to compete economically.
We need to encourage it.
He continues, “But, just for fun, given the passion of Zipcar’s devotees, I dialed up the Zipcar website to learn exactly what was so special. Apparently, this is not something any member of the Davis City Council did before signing this ill-considered $74,000 contract.”
“Free gas? Well, sort of. Depending on whether you plan to actually drive or just putter around town,” he writes. “Turns out the gas is free, all right, but if you plan to head out of town for any distance, you’ll be charged a whopping 45 cents a mile for any miles in excess of 180 per day. For many people, that’s not a problem. For others, the surcharge would be a deal breaker.”
The point of the zipcar is not for driving long distances, it’s for driving around town. If you are planning to head out of town, then Zipcar is not the way to go. It’s that simple. The program has been implemented in other college towns and it reduces the number of vehicles operating and parked in the city. Local business can reduce fleet vehicles and use Zipcars as needed. Zipcars add more incentives and opportunities for people to use mass transit, car pool, ride a bicycle or walk downtown.
“But you know, I’m now beginning to understand why the city of Davis decided to subsidize these folks. It’s clear Zipcar can’t compete with Avis in this town without the city helping to foot the bill,” he concludes. “But again, the choice is yours. I just wish the city would mind its own business and not somebody else’s.”
Bob Dunning proves once again he does not get it. Oh I know, the conservatives of the world, who doubt climate change, can cheer him on all they want. The rest of the world, that understands the calamity that is striking our planet, know better. This is not about choice anymore, it is about our leaders giving us new ways to do things. It is about changing our lifestyle.
Guess what Mr. Dunning, every mile you drive with an Avis vehicle harms our environment. Except our current system does not know how to charge you for that damage. Which means that for every mile you drive with your gas-burning, fossil-fuel consuming vehicle, it costs us all in ways that we will pay for later. But because we have not figured out how to charge you for that, you think it is free. It is not. Your children will pay for that later. They may pay for it with the quality of their lives or they may even pay for it with their lives themselves.
But as you said, the choice is yours. We elected our leaders to help find ways to get us out the pickle that you and your generation have continued to put us in, without much regard for subsequent generations. Your argument here, which never once mentions the environment, just proves that you still do not get it.
Maybe this program will not work. It is a pilot program, after all. In two years we can evaluate it. But every time one of these programs are put into effect, the technology advances just a little further and the costs become more and more competitive, even in the economic system that is skewed toward a fossil-fuel guzzler because it cannot account for environmental externalities without government intervention.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The real issue here is not the cost/benefit/etc of Zipcar vs Avis vs Bidget vs Enterprise. The issue is that the City of Davis is financially supporting only one of these businesses. I’d love it if I could start a new business knowing that the City would guarantee my success.
How exactly is zip more environmentally friendly? Only hybrids or????
I have a problem with the subsidy also and the fact that a number of parking places will go away and become zip.
David, I think your feelings about Bob Dunning have clouded your judgment on this one. I am not a conservative, believe strongly in climate change and the 3 R’s but agree with Dunning.
“Through research conducted with government agencies, Zipcar knows that each Zipcar takes 15-20 personally owned vehicles off the road.”
I say that’s BS. I’d like to see that research, what was it a questionaire?
Use the public transportation system, we have a pretty good one in the region. For instance, buses run on the hour to the airport for only a buck. Zipcar is a waste of public funds and parking spaces.
“Through research conducted with government agencies, Zipcar knows that each Zipcar takes 15-20 personally owned vehicles off the road”
Rusty just stole my punch line. I’d like to see this study and look at their methodology. These numbers seem way to high. My guess is that the correct answer is closer to zero. Also did anyone notice that UC Davis is differently situated than USC or UCLA, which are in LA (and USC is in a bad neighborhood). Davis is still a pretty small town and most students live relatively close to campus. davis is much more bikable. UCLA has quite a few bikers but many of its students live farther away and LA is obviously bigger. USC is a very different campus in many ways.
Who exactly would use this zip car? For what purpose? I could see grocery shopping, maybe some excursions to Sacramento (though at 45 cents per mile?). This program seems like a feel-good opportunity for everyone to think they are doing something about GHG when in fact they are not. GHG is a serious issue and deserves serious attention not platitudes.
I share Dunning’s skepticism but I have no trouble with the concept of govt subsidizing a good program–its just that they need to know what they are doing. At a minimum it would be nice to see the CC consider other proposals. What is we subsidized AVIS to bring in a small fleet of Priuses–I bet that would save more GHG.
THe amount of money here is trivial, unless, of course, there is a hidden liability issue. (I seem to recall Sue blogging that she was concerned about potential liability for the City in the case of an accident and was cut off by Saylor.)
But really, is this the best we can do? THis council may soon be remembered for innovations that sound good but don’t make much difference, zip-cars, reverse parking. Meanwhile they ignore our fiscal issues. Our CC is fiddling while Davis burns.
OK maybe you don’t agree with Dunning, but he has a nose for the ridiculous .
I’m not sure what this means:
“I must have missed that one. Maybe the credit companies can get together and try to encourage people to save the planet and give the money that they would pay to encourage you to burn fossil fuels to rent the zipcar – how’s that for an innovative idea?”
And I agree mostly with everyone else. Davis is an unusually compact town. Most people that need a car need it for going out of town.
The city would be better off subsidizing a “free bicycle” or “bicycle library” program, like Denver. Zipcar is a good idea, but a city contract is a bit much for a company that is for profit. If it was non-profit, I might be more for it.
Also, Zipcars are just as “gas guzzling” as Avis. That isn’t a fair comparison. From Zipcar’s site regarding how to impress your boss: “…take them out in a swanky BMW.”
As Bob Dunning mentioned, at Avis (and other companies for that matter) you can rent Smart Cars.
1) Zipcars are not all electric/alternative fuel cars.
2) The city cannot afford to waste $20,000 to fund anything right now, let alone a pilot program like Zipcars.
3) Zipcars are in direct competition with local rental car companies, but are getting a city gov’t subsidy – yet there is really no proof/it is unlikely Zipcars are going to reduce GHG emissions.
4) This town already has a wonderful public transit system to keep people out of their cars.
5) The city itself is not in need of Zipcars – almost everyone owns their own car. It is students who may not have a car and could use one ocassionally and cannot rent one. Zipcars for them MAY make sense, but not for the city.
This is a very expensive “pseudo-green” solution in want of a problem. Dunning, who I often do not agree with, has this one right…
“annual costs of approximately $20,000 are anticipated…”
For that, the city could donate 2,000 bare root shade trees to TREE Davis.
Don Shor: “”annual costs of approximately $20,000 are anticipated…”
For that, the city could donate 2,000 bare root shade trees to TREE Davis.”
Not only would the trees give off oxygen, thereby reducing GHG emissions by cleaning the air, it would beautify the city…
[quote]“A very modest investment (limited to $74,400, staff-estimated at $40,000)…comes from Developer funds deposited for environmental mitigation obligations, which are neither currently set aside or allocated for another purpose.”[/quote] How many illogical schemes have we funded recently (Hanlees, etc.) with the major justification that “this isn’t real money…we have to spend it on some specialty deal with for-profit companies…we can’t come up with a priority purpose..so we’re almost forced to accept this goofy idea that otherwise would seem like a waste of Davis citizen’s money….”
Why didn’t the idea of bike rentals come up? Done in several major cities w/ success. Credit card access.
One local Davis shop rents city bikes for $14/day ($59/week). It’s possible to buy a used bike for under $100 (the ultimate in “recycling”).
[url]http://www.zipcar.com/ucd/[/url]
The rubberstamping of the police contract, Zipcar and the proposed idiocy of the reverse angle parking makes our new City Council 0 for 3. I hope this isn’t a pattern.
Here is an interesting story about Zipcar: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/06/02/zipcar_still_awaiting_profit_plans_to_go_public/
A few facts: The city did not merely agree to subsidize the company up to $74,400. We also agreed to provide free, dedicated parking spaces in prime locations, to have our city staff take responsibility for bringing the cars in for servicing, and to actively help market Zipcar. I also have major concerns about city liability, although I do not know if they are well-founded.
I actually did try to bring this contract back for reconsideration and further discussion of the terms and a report on liability issues, but didn’t get the requisite number of votes.
“If you are planning to head out of town, then Zipcar is not the way to go. It’s that simple.”
you are exactly right, which makes zipcar a stupid idea. I hate to rain in on your parade, but a lot of people drive out of davis.
DPD: “It is not the cheapest thing to do, to rent these vehicles, at $72 per day. But the point of this is not to rent by the day. It is to use for short and simple car trips. For that purpose, there would be a savings to the consumer. Yeah ,if you want a vehicle to use 24/7 during your visit or where you live, then Zipcar is not the way to go.”
which is why the program will die a quick death.
DPD: For the cost to the city, who could complain about the city implementing such a program? Apparently Bob Dunning can. Yesterday he wasted a whole column arguing against the program.
I argue against it also. it is a high risk investment with no guarantee on any rate of return. in fact, good reasons to believe it won’t work.
He writes, “Defenders of the city of Davis, spending public money to support an out-of-town rental car company at the expense of a locally-owned rental car company, responded in typical fashion when the Above-Pictured Columnist suggested that our elected leaders who forged this deal got ‘snookered.'”
I don’t always agree with what he says, but Dunning is right on target.
“I must have missed that one. Maybe the credit companies can get together and try to encourage people to save the planet and give the money that they would pay to encourage you to burn fossil fuels to rent the zipcar – how’s that for an innovative idea?”
it is a rediculous idea. and a socialist one.
“Guess what Mr. Dunning, every mile you drive with an Avis vehicle harms our environment. Except our current system does not know how to charge you for that damage. Which means that for every mile you drive with your gas-burning, fossil-fuel consuming vehicle, it costs us all in ways that we will pay for later.”
god, now you are attacking avis. talk about picking on the innocent. apparently, it is a crime now to drive your car. or to set up a business to rent one.
I argued against the tax renewal, and this is exactly why I argued against it. apparently, the city seems to think has tens of thousands of dollars to burn on risky pilot programs.
I agree with dunning here. I think in this case he’s the one who is using sound reasoning. I could spend more time on this david, but your column here is almost more of an argument against the zip car than for it.
I also have a general comment: you can not force your own personal desires on other people. that is a recipe for disaster that will get you nowhere. case in point: the government, in its infinite wisdom, decided awhile back to force car manufacturers to make 10 percent of their cars electric. the result was a disaster. they didn’t sell. they were garbage cars that most people didn’t want. the consumer not long afterward began mass purchasing SUV’s because they were more desireable. I know how bad you want people to have the desire to protect the environment at all costs. but if you want people to help the environment, then it requires a plan that has to be well thought out, not just on a whim. In the 10 percent electric example, the government never considered that an electric car can only go a short distance before having to be recharged, a logistical problem which made the electric car prohibitive. if the government had actually studied the problem, they would have seen this roadblock ahead of time before they made such a ludicrous law. and I think you are running into the same problem with the zipcar. it is an idea fraught with forseeable problems, which you even mention right here in this article.
but the bottom line is, people use their autos regularly to go to the bank, grocery store, post office, job, and other functions, because it is convenient. every night I attend my toastmasters meeting, the parking lot is full, including full of cars from environmentalists who attend the meeting. I know, because I see their bumper stickers. the way in which you are trying to get people to stop their auto use, you may as well attempt to appeal against a thunderstorm. you cannot force people to think and feel as you do.
yet their are ways to protect the environment that are reasonable and simple. the food vendors at earth day offer a rebate to people who recycle their cups and plates. a simple, non coercive, yet effective idea to get people to recycle that doesn’t require the govt. to expend ludicrous amounts of resources on a program that won’t work.
If they are planning to head out of town, then the Zipcar is not the right car for them. But for people who just need short term transportation, then this would make a lot of sense.
Here are some of my reasons I supported the program:
The Climate Team that put together The Davis Climate Action Plan has as an action to establish a community car share program.
Traditional car rental companies require a minimum age of 25 without an extra fee being charged.
UC Davis implemented their Zipcar program 1+ years ago and has a fleet of 8 vehicles. As of June 21, 2010, UC Davis membership included 93 employees and 318 students, totaling 411 members. They currently have a 40% utilization rate and plan on adding two additional vehicles in the Fall or Winter quarter of 2010. First year students who live on campus cannot bring a car.
City/Community member rates will be $8 per hour and $66 per day during the week and $9 per hour and $72 per day on the weekend. Rates include fuel, insurance, parking, 24/7 roadside assistance and maintenance.
Most of the 318 students in the UC Davis Zipcar program use the car for 1 hour to a ½ day. Avis and Enterprise do not rent by the hour.
Zipcar will offer the Zipcar for business program to Davis businesses. This will encourage businesses to reduce their vehicle fleet, while still having vehicle available for employees when needed.
If the vehicles were used 30% of the time, the revenue would total $13,435 per quarter; the cost to the City would be $5,165 per quarter or $20,659 per year. 40% usage would cost the City $686 per quarter or $2,746 per year and 50% usage would exceed the minimum amount due and have no cost to the City.
The program will use Developer funds deposited for environmental mitigation obligations and which are not currently set aside or allocated for another purpose.
I welcome other competitors to bring Davis a proposal that matches or beats Zipcar. One company is Hertz with its Connect program.
Here is an article from one of my favorite web sites. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/day-after-zipcar-makes-profit.php
[url][/url]
“Guess what Mr. Dunning, every mile you drive with an Avis vehicle harms our environment.”
And every mile you drive in a ZipCar does what? Sequesters carbon and exhales oxygen? Steve, before committing the city to this adventure, did anyone ask the local Avis if they would provide the same service for the same subsidy? Was this put out to bid? What about Hertz with its Connect Program? Were they allowed to bid? Don Shor is right–the 2,000 trees would have been a better investment. Dunning is right on this one.
If the campus already has plans for 10 Zipcars and students are the major users once again why did the City need to get involved?
“The program will use Developer funds deposited for environmental mitigation obligations and which are not currently set aside or allocated for another purpose”
Maybe we can find other uses for these funds. It looks like the way to get money from our CC is to find some money not in the general fund and come up with a half baked plan then lobby City Hall (see Hanlees).
Maybe if the City has such funds it should have some kind of competitive process–maybe say we have $X and we want to see who in the community or who anywhere can do something to help the environmnet. Mr. Souza’s justification seems to be that 18 year olds can’t rent cars–there is a reason for this, its called liabity. Are we subsidizing 18 year old drivers in the name of the environment? Are we helping the environmnet?
As Steven Souza has pointed out, the Zipcar program is designed to reduce automotive use in Davis, by providing transportation when a bus or a bike will not do, such as a trip to Woodland for shopping. I’m not going to address that issue.
Instead, I will point out that climate change is being addressed by this proposal, as has been discussed on this site in various ways. In addition, unfunded road maintenance has been mentioned many times.
To address these issues, I propose a city car ownership tax, which would address both issues. The federal and state governments have not raised automobile taxes for many years. The City is in crisis, in terms of its own budget. Assuming that a population of 68000 in Davis owns maybe 50,000 cars, a tax of $100 per vehicle which goes directly to the road maintenance fund would raise $5,000,000 a year, which would go a long way toward correcting the unfunded needs for road repair.
Even though I ride a bicycle to work, my family owns three cars, one of which is almost never used. I would be happy to pay $300 a year to ensure that the roads I drive and bike on within the City are safe and well maintained. The additional benefit of such a tax would be similar to the idea behind the Zipcars – to cause people to re-examine whether they really need all the cars they own.
My apologies to Stephen Souza for using the alternate (wrong) spelling of his name. But my point stands.
Jrberg, great idea, give more money to the City so they can find better ways to spend our money than we can. After all, we all know they’re so fiscally responsible with our tax dollars.
Rusty, you need to learn how to read. I stated specifically that this money would be dedicated to road (and by corollary, bike lane and path) maintenance. How much money have you dedicated on your own to such maintenance? If the City can’t spend that money for those purposes, who will? Do you care about public services whatsoever? Have you ever spoken with anyone in Public Works about how maintenance money is used?
And do you sit in front of your computer 24/7 waiting to ambush people with your right wing talking points?
Yes, I expect answers to all of those questions… ;-}>
Again: UC Davis already provides this service. If you are interested in a Zipcar in Davis, you can click on this link and sign up right now: [url]http://www.zipcar.com/davis/learn-more?plan_key=odp[/url]
Why is the city putting any money into this at all? I have no problem with providing additional special parking places or providing other no-cost incentives. But this duplicates an existing service with the same company.
The problem I see here, as with yesterday’s thread about reverse-angle parking, is that it illustrates how the city’s budget simply can’t get changed. This project is ‘worthy’ because it addresses climate change. Reverse-angle parking is safer for bicycles. We need to spend money on each of these things because each has its own special constituency.
But again, the issue is setting priorities. There is a shrinking revenue stream. jberg has proposed a special tax, which the voters are welcome to consider. But such a tax requires a 2/3 vote, and would not be providing revenue for quite some time in the event that it were approved. We have a fiscal problem NOW. There is indeed a trade-off. Funds set aside for environmental mitigation could be used for other things, even if they are not presently allocated as such. So when there is already an existing program that provides this benefit, it seems that this would be a low priority for the council.
I would urge the council to call this back for reconsideration and either postpone it until the city’s budget is no longer in crisis, or simply jettison it altogether since it is unnecessary. And I would urge them to do that with every other new proposal that costs money for so long as staff is being reduced, and deferred maintenance continues to exist. The budget doesn’t cover current needs or staffing, so adding to the problem, however small the amount, seems fiscally imprudent.
Jrberg, if the City used their revenue wisely in the first place we wouldn’t even be considering how to fund the maintenance budget. But they’ve overpaid and promised too much in retirement packages to many of the public employees and have put us in this position, not to mention stupid ideas like Zipcars and reverse angle parking. And I love the excuse that the money for this is coming from developer fees, IT ALL COMES OUT OF THE SAME POT. We recently had two benches painted in my community at a cost of $5000 and the city said that money came from developer fees. You don’t think maybe that money could’ve been more wisely used on potholes instead of painting a bench? So for us as citizens to shell out more out of our pockets when everyone is feeling the economic pinch is lunacy. What’s next, the police budget is hurting so we’ll need to triple our safety tax with the promise that it’ll only go to police officers? Where does it end? Make the CC be fiscally responsible and keep your wallet in your pocket and quit trying to give away other people’s money.
[quote]I would urge the council to call this back for reconsideration and either postpone it until the city’s budget is no longer in crisis, or simply jettison it altogether since it is unnecessary–Don Shore.[/quote]Unfortunately it is too late to reconsider this contract. As I said, I made a motion to reconsider it in a timely fashion, but the motion did not receive the requisite number of votes.
I mean Don Shor, of course.
[quote][u]D. Greenwald:[/u] “This will not be a huge component of (the DHG policy), but the program costs us nearly nothing.”
[u]S. Greenwald:[/u] “The city did not merely agree to subsidize the company up to $74,400.”
[u]S. Souza[/u]: “The program will use Developer funds deposited for environmental mitigation obligations and which are not currently set aside or allocated for another purpose.”[/quote] Councilors, I don’t understand. Please clarify whether David’s second-paragraph description is incorrect (estimated to be $40,000, but up to $74,400 if usage less than 30%). Maybe the city did “agree” but did not “[u]merely[/u] agree.: But, I don’t see that anyone said the city is donating $74,400 to Zipcar for nothing more than just trying the program here for two years.
How many vehicles would Zipcar be providing to Davis, the same as the UCD package of 8? Was an option considered of publicizing the UCD program to Davis businesses and others, as opposed to “competing” with UCD? Who else are our target customers? (We don’t have any residents who cannot have a car. In fact, some have three cars that they hardly use!) How many “prime location” parking spots are we using? Do you have a link for the staff evaluation?
Sure appreciate you two taking time to explain your views and support. We don’t get much of that from the CC videos anymore. Would it be accurate to infer that this project is the highest priority on your list of environmental mitigation funds ideas? If there’s a dearth of proposals, I like Dr. Wu’s idea of holding public competitions for citizen ideas as well as business bids. Thanks, again.
rusty49, Which is it–are you exaggerating…or joking…or what? In any case, call [u]before[/u] you need another bench painted over there. I’ll do as many as you have for one-tenth price, only $50 per bench. High quality paint included.
Just Saying: I know that what Stephen said is language from the staff report.
This is the direct language from the staff report:
[quote]Depending on vehicle usage by the community, the annual fiscal impact of the contract ranges from zero (50% utilization rate for the vehicles) to $74,400 (0% usage of the vehicles) per year. Staff estimates a vehicle usage rate of 30% (current campus utilization rate is 40%). At the assumed 30% utilization rate, annual costs of approximately $20,000 are anticipated or $40,000 for the initial 2 year contract period of the pilot program.
Staff recommends using existing Developer funds deposited for environmental mitigation obligations and which are not currently set aside or allocated for another purpose.[/quote]
I don’t know if the council then voted to cap the contribution, my guess is they may have, but I’d have to go back over the meeting video.
“rusty49, Which is it–are you exaggerating…or joking…or what? In any case, call before you need another bench painted over there. I’ll do as many as you have for one-tenth price, only $50 per bench. High quality paint included.”
Just saying, not kidding. They were painted with a Picasso theme, just go to the entrance of Wildhorse on Wright St. to see them. The money came from developer fees that went into the art budget. At $50 you would be at 1/100th of the price and you’d still make a profit.
This is just to provide you reassurance that my painting is better than my math. I’ll stick with my original $50 price and include red, blue and/or yellow circles or wavy lines. Somebody must love this developer fee practice; it’s sort of like a pile of dough to spend on any unusual, but Davis-like, thing that pops into someone’s (but whose?) mind?
OK. I get it. I am starting a new business and hereby apply for $50,000 in Developer funds from the City.
Mr. Souza, in your long diatribe in favor of Zipcars, you don’t really give a reason why Davis citizens would use this program. Students, yes, but then they already have the program that doesn’t require a city subsidy. Davisites already have cars, will use them, and have no need of Zipcars. They are not likely to use Zipcars with the frequency required to keep this from costing money for the city.
jrberg: “To address these issues, I propose a city car ownership tax, which would address both issues. The federal and state governments have not raised automobile taxes for many years. The City is in crisis, in terms of its own budget. Assuming that a population of 68000 in Davis owns maybe 50,000 cars, a tax of $100 per vehicle which goes directly to the road maintenance fund would raise $5,000,000 a year, which would go a long way toward correcting the unfunded needs for road repair.”
Tax us more, so the city can waste more of our money? I don’t think so… That $20,000 that will probably be used on Zipcars could have been put towards road repairs which you want to tax us extra for – how many times do you want us to have to pay for road repairs?
Don Shor: “I would urge the council to call this back for reconsideration and either postpone it until the city’s budget is no longer in crisis, or simply jettison it altogether since it is unnecessary. And I would urge them to do that with every other new proposal that costs money for so long as staff is being reduced, and deferred maintenance continues to exist.
The budget doesn’t cover current needs or staffing, so adding to the problem, however small the amount, seems fiscally imprudent.”
I couldn’t have said it better…
Seems like Zipcar is double zipping at an unneeded cost to the citizens of Davis.
If I joined Zipcar today and put in Davis as my location the website would take me to UC Davis where I could rent a Zipcar. Thanks to Don Shor for pointing that out. Here’s the option for community members on the UC Davis Zipcar site (text below from web site).
______________________________________________________________
For Community Members
I’m not affiliated with UC Davis, but still want to use Zipcar.
join now
meet the cars
Activities & Recreation Center – Parking Lot 25A
3 vehicles
Mrak Hall Circle
1 vehicle
Silo – Parking Lot 43
2 vehicles
______________________________________________________________
Nobody in Davis is that far from the University. I’m only a three minute car ride or seven minute bike ride from the three Zipcars at the ARC.
It appears as though all the costs were not built into the city staff presentation.
1.The City could have done nothing except for a small cost publicize the existing Zipcar program. Until this issue arose I had no idea Zipcar was available to me in Davis.
2.The University is a no cost location for citizens of Davis.
3.Did the report outline what the cost is of setting aside 8 permanent spaces for Zipcar?
4.Did the report outline what was the true cost of the City administering the program. There are various references to the staff doing some of the Zipcar work. Why are both UC Davis and the City of Davis now paying their staff to administer a duplicative program in one small town? What is the anticipated costs of that city staff time?
5.What did Zipcar get UC Davis to front for UCD to have Zipcar there?
6.With their being an emphasis of cutting city costs by teaming up with other institutions why did we not just team up with UC Davis on Zipcar?
7.Seems like we’ve been double zipped!
Seems like Zipcar got money, eight free parking and two years of city staff assistance to provide a service that is already available. I agree with Don and Elaine we should cancel this unneeded contract ASAP.
[quote]David T.: “Did the report outline what the cost is of setting aside 8 permanent spaces for Zipcar?”[/quote] Where did you get the info. on the number of parking spaces? Or, the number of vehicles for that matter? I’m unable to find the staff report online yet and am hoping to hear back from Sue or Stephen or David soon.
The benefits of carsharing http://www.carsharing.net/where.html
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=1080
can include:
More careful consideration of the necessity, duration, and distance of automobile trips, resulting in decreased vehicle use and ownership.
Greater consideration given to alternative modes, resulting in increased transit ridership, biking, and walking.
Cost savings to individuals and employers.
Energy savings and air quality benefits.
Reduced parking demand at participating transit stations, member employer sites, and residential locations.
According to a study done by the Transportation Research Board, car-sharing services on average take up to 15 cars off the road.
Due to its many potential benefits, carsharing is gaining in popularity, as demonstrated by increasing North American membership.
As of January 2010, 27 U.S. carsharing programs claimed 388,089 members sharing 7,588 vehicles.
As of January 2010, 61,944 members shared 2,143 vehicles among 19 carsharing organizations in Canada.
As of October 2008, carsharing was operating in 22 countries and four continents, accounting for an estimated 650,000 members sharing approximately 20,000 vehicles.
As of October 2008, carsharing was planned in seven additional countries worldwide.
Stanford University has 35 Zipcars available at 15 locations with 2 off campus.
http://transportation.stanford.edu/alt_transportation/zipcar.shtml#locations
Los Angeles is adding 12 hybrids and SmartWay-rated vehicles to the 14 Zipcars already at UCLA and the 16 at USC could limit traffic congestion, cut back on exhaust fumes and emissions, and keep drivers from circling aimlessly while looking for parking spots. The schools are among the five largest of the 130 campuses that host Zipcar around the country.
From City of Davis Staff report: [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20100727/10 Zipcar.pdf[/url]
Developer funds deposited for environmental mitigation have come from, Mace Ranch II development agreement deposit and Wildhorse transportation and environmental mitigations. They have to be used for environment benefit and transportation.
Zipcar, Inc. contacted the City over a year ago to discuss the possibility of implementing a car share program to complement its program on the UC Davis campus which was launched in 2009.
Zipcar has been providing car sharing services to cities and towns since its inception in 1999. Zipcars goal is to provide a service that can maximize mobility and assist with reducing GHG’s.
Staff negotiated a 2 year contract, as opposed to Zipcar’s proposed 3 year term, with a termination clause after twelve months, if revenues/utilization does not support the contract.
[url][/url][url][/url][url][/url][url][/url][url][/url][url][/url][url][/url][url][/url]
Mr. Souza, this town is not configured like LA. Zipcars include cars which are not hybrids/electric/alternative fuel cars. Any benefits from Zipcar would have to assume citizens are going to use the Zipcars, and at a rate that will not cost the city. Don Shor made an excellent point – projects like this need to be prioritized along with all the other needs this city has. Frankly, I think most of us would consider other things far higher on the priority list than a pilot program for a duplicative Zipcar program that targets the wrong audience and will cost the city money at a time of dire economic downturn…
And by the way, Mr. Souza, what is wrong with taking Unitrans, which already reduces GHG emissions in a much more thorough manner? To piggyback on what David Thompson has said, Zipcars is duplicative of two differnt systems, Unitrans and UCD Zipcars.
[quote]“From City of Davis Staff report: http://cityofdavis.org/meeting…Zipcar.pdf”[/quote] Mr. Souza”: Thanks for trying. I clicked the link and got: “Page Not Found” [img]/Users/hankwyman/Desktop/Search 1.tiff[/img] Then I plugged “Zipcar” into the search box and got “0 Results…Did you mean zipcode?”[img]/Users/hankwyman/Desktop/Search 2.tiff[/img]
I tried to re-post that link so it would work, but couldn’t. But here is what you want:
http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20100727/10 Zipcar.pdf
You’ll have to copy and paste it, because there is a space between the 27/ and the 10 that seems to break the link.
Attempted to include a couple of images, but just messed up my message thanking Mr. Souza for trying to provide the link: “From City of Davis Staff report: http://cityofdavis.org/meeting…Zipcar.pdf” Ended up with “Page Not Found.” So tried using the city site search box with zero results and a suggestion that I might want “zipcode.” Still working…
Found it. Thank you, Don. The staff report makes interesting reading, and I’ll use it to expand on David’s report and the two City Councilors’ comments.
First, the report notes that we’re talking about four vehicles: “Zipcar proposes to initiate the Davis program with 2 SmartWays (Scion, Civic, or Matrix) and 2 SmartWay Elite (Prius or Insight) vehicles. Zipcar will pay for all vehicle maintenance, insurance and fuel and will provide marketing and other support. (Zipcar will pay for [u]all[/u] insurance?)
Yet: “City will maintain Commercial General Liability insurance with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000, will have Zipcar named as an additional insured under such policy and will provide Zipcar with a certificate evidencing such insurance.”
Other requirements on the city include: “City is required to pay a maximum of $18,600 per quarter for use of the 4 vehicles…with payments reduced by the amount of revenue received from member usage….City to provide high profile, on street parking locations at no cost (with City and Zipcar (to) jointly select sites for maximum visual impact…and later provide additional locations within 10 days of Zipcar’s request….City shall designate a marketing coordinator to coordinate the marketing and promotion of the Zipcar service to residents of the City. City shall aggressively promote the Zipcar service….City shall assign an employee (who must apply for membership and be approved by Zipcar) to transport the vehicles for maintenance (including but not limited to oil changes, tire rotations, and other services as may be required).”
It claims a couple of “program advantages” that seem at least questionable: “Zipcars add more incentives and opportunities for people to use mass transit, car pool, ride a bicycle or walk downtown. Reduces the amount of vehicles operating and parked in the City.”
Here’s the complete staff list of “program dis-advantages: City must guarantee utilization, with an estimated cost of up to $20,000 per year in the initial years of the program. City will need to assist with transporting vehicles to auto maintenance businesses for service.
The staff report includes a few odd commentaries, including this comprehensive paragraph: “City staff will work with Zipcar and UC Davis to ensure the 2 proposed additional vehicles for campus do no(t) adversely affect the City’s program. Zipcar feels the demand for vehicles in the City versus vehicles on campus is extremely high. The Zipcar program tends to work best in cities with local universities. Both entities partnering, tend to better ensure program success. UC Davis is in favor and very supportive of the City adding the program.”
What the staff report does not consider: Why the Davis downtown situation bodes well for success, except for the comment about Zipcar suggesting an “extremely high” demand for “vehicles in the city versus vehicles on campus.” Why the staff has concerns that two additional UCD vehicles might “adversely affect” the four-car city program, but doesn’t seem concerned about how the city program might affect the UCD program. Why the city should pay anything to guarantee a minimum level of usage when UCD doesn’t and Zipcar says downtown will have an “extremely high” demand when compared to campus.
Also: why options other than the Zipcar proposal weren’t evaluated, the most obvious being one in which the city would offer parking spaces and marketing support to help expand the UCD program to downtown and make it more successful. That would have been almost a no-cost option for Davis and for UCD. Why we’ve come up with money to start a separate program (softly justified on general suggestions of environmental benefit such as “people will get rid of their personal cars” and use Zipcars) is a mystery.
Is there any way to turn this bad idea around?
No way will the city ZipCar program get 50% utilization. If the program only gets 40% utilization on campus (where it makes sense for the many students who don’t own cars), it is foolish to expect that the program in the general community will get anywhere near 50% – which means the City will subsidize the program with money as well as staff time.
I rent cars from Enterprise when it makes sense to do so. They will come to my home and pick me up, and their daily rates are much less than ZipCar. They have all kinds of vehicles.
BTW, notice that ZipCar plans to add to their campus fleet, even though it is only at 40% utilization. Doesn’t that suggest that ZipCar is satisfied and can make a profit at 40%? If so, why in the world did the City Council authorize subsidizing ZipCar if utilization is less than 50%?
And what the heck is the City doing tasking City employees to take the ZipCars in for service? Do City employees not have enough to do? Or will we now hear that the City must authorize overtime for employees who couldn’t complete their regular assignments because they were out taking ZipCars in for service? How much will the staff time cost the City?
ZipCar is a great idea…on campus. If ZipCar wants to expand their program beyond the campus at their own risk and without City subsidy (in any form – dollars, free parking spaces, or staff time), that would be appropriate and I would wish them luck.
[quote]“How much will the staff time cost the City?”[/quote] The staff report–by Stacey Winton, Administrative Analyst II; Mitch Sears, Sustainability Program Manager; and Ken Hiatt, Director of Community Development and Sustainability–doesn’t analyze any of these costs to the city. These would include staff time to manage the program, to provide marketing and vehicle maintenance support, to set up and maintain the Zipcar signage and reserved parking spots, to obtain the $1-million liability insurance coverage for Zipcar and the city, to develop and operate charging stations, etc.
The report’s only fiscal analysis is the estimated “annual costs of approximately $20,000” to pay Zipcar–for which $40,000 was transferred from “developer deposits” to the “sustainability implementation” program.
[quote]“…why in the world did the City Council authorize subsidizing ZipCar if utilization is less than 50%?”[/quote] Maybe to cover the first-year special membership subsidies for:[quote]“- City of Davis, Davis Joint Unified School District, and Yolo County employees (who can) join for a $25 application fee and (will pay) no annual membership fee for the first year of their membership.
– Residents living in the City’s designated affordable housing units…(who can) join for a $25 application fee and (will pay) no annual membership fee for the first year of their membership.”[/quote]