Car2Go Illegal Parking - Solutions?

[innsertnamehere]

The company didn't park their cars on the street - its users (our neighbours) did. Now they'll buy cars and park on the street all the time, instead of just some of the time. A loss for all.

Exactly.

I took what was likely my last Car2Go trip this morning - grabbing a mercedes - and it was great. It's a damn shame that its going away.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The company didn't park their cars on the street - its users (our neighbours) did. Now they'll buy cars and park on the street all the time, instead of just some of the time.

So, basically returning to what we always had. I never saw a problem.

Surely you see that Daimler's business model was based on off loading its fleet storage costs onto the city? And once that fleet storage expense was going to be moved from the city onto Daimler's books the entire business model collapsed.

What the city should have done is issued a new commercial All Zone on-street permit to Daimler, thus addressing fans and critics. Of course you'd then have to be prepared for van and truck share, with U-Haul or others leaving their commercial vehicles across the city, since any cost of a commercial parking permit won't overcome the appeal of offloading your fleet storage costs.

If bikeshare can be successful with docks and stations, why can't car share? Was it such a terrible service when the Zip Cars were stationed at Green P lots?

 

[mdrejhon]

If bikeshare can be successful with docks and stations, why can't car share? Was it such a terrible service when the Zip Cars were stationed at Green P lots?

Excuse me--

It boils to convenience.

I am a member of a dock and dockless bikeshare, as well as being members of two different carshare services.

So I argue, that my opinion may have some relevance:

Hamilton, Ontario has one of the world's first dockless bikeshare systems, although it is a "dock-encouraged" system (convenience fees for ending rentals in a random spot -- thats why we don't have the mess of Chinese dockless systems).

It is superior to dock systems in that fewer bikes can serve a larger area with fewer bikes, create larger number of cheaper stations, and shorten walking distances to the nearest bike (because dockless means more GPS pushpins spread in your bikeshare bike map).

Hamilton had lower bikeshare budget but we managed to make a mere $1.6 million dollars buy a bikeshare system covering 45 square kilometers -- the capital cost of two buses. The whole system has more ridership daily than any Hamilton bus route. The dockless nature made that possible without making people walk far to their nearest bike.

My opinion is we need dockless carshare convenience, if a solution can be worked.

If three Car2go members who live on a street pays for their own car parking permit, they should be allowed to nominate one slot to car2go if they no longer have their own car. This should bypass the 2-car-limit rules and waitlist normally like any car -- if they want to declare car2go their own car, that gains that particular street an extra car2go slot. This incentivizes a slow reduction in car ownership over a period of a decade or two or so. Some special GPS parking tracking system will be needed to keep track, but theoretically could be done. If three true residents pays three parking permits, and waitlist scrolls to those, that gives 5 car2go slots (2 min + 3 resident waitlisted normally declaring car2go their own car). That means residents actually intentionally gave car ownership up for carshare. And now more residents benefit in a feedback effect that benefits everyone, because a resident owning a car, sees a few car2go on their street, and can begin using those. (Even though the other residents paid permits and waitlisted a car2go slot, the car2go is available to any member adhoc)

Heck, maybe a mechanism where a resident can decide to get rid of their car (free membership in exchnge for taking over their permit), with a minimum monthly usage of car2go (so they are an actual user of car2go), qualifies them to reassign their parking permit from their old car directly to the car2go car (skipping the waitlist). Like if you had replaced your car after accident (you don't go onto waitlist because of that), but instead you replaced with car2go. Increasing the legally permitted car2go count for that street.

And if 3 cars gets replaced by 3 car2go from the resident's generously giving up their cars and paying for the permits themselves, that frees up a parking spot for a regular car! Win, win.

Thats the only catch....residents must give up their car to free up additional car2go slots. Fair to everyone! Including all you non-car2go owners.

More fair than the current trial system, while not introducing "less-fair to existing cars" elements.

The car2go app will need to be updated to keep track, however, on a street by street basis. That will be the more complex part.

That is not the responsibility of the law though. What I am saying is the trial law of 2 car limit is silly for a street containing a large number of car2go members willing to donate the funds for the extra permits and/or give up car (not replace their old car). If neighborhoods want car2go, and don't own many cars, and all the extra Car2go parking licenses are paid, let them park more than 2 car2go in their area.

I do own a car but I expect to switch back to carshare once the Hamilton LRT is up and running -- there is enough legs in my car to last that long at the moment.

The Toronto idiocy (permanent 2 car limit even if all resident on a street demands, out of their own pockets, willingly pay annual parking permits to unlock car2go cars for their street) needs to be rewritten to match street demand. Sufficient flex needs to be built in to accomodate fast-moving sentiment of the future.

Sure, sometimes all the neighbours take all the nearby car2go. But it can often means, more than half of the time, I am not walking four or five blocks to the nearest ZipCar lot in the slushy snow or pouring rain.

If I was still living in Riverdale area in Toronto, I'd be willing to pay the street parking permit for a carshare car on my street. Many would. I'll even wait in line on the wait list. To be fair to everyone. I will still save money over car ownership. See where I am getting at?

In that situation -- My household should be able to nominate a carshare slot instead of having our own car -- even if others will often take the car. At least it makes my return trip easier since now I can park nearby (and if car2gos are around, I'll have to park in a slot-available street -- and nrarbys make it at least it's easier for my next outgoing trip).

If the law kept that door open a crack, it incentivizes sound environmental sense and improves parking efficiency based on neighborhood market demand rather than a dictated limit optimized to priveleged car ownership.

There must be other creative ideas but what Toronto has done is close the door to creativity like that. Quite idiotic.

 

[innsertnamehere]

So, basically returning to what we always had. I never saw a problem.

Surely you see that Daimler's business model was based on off loading its fleet storage costs onto the city? And once that fleet storage expense was going to be moved from the city onto Daimler's books the entire business model collapsed.

What the city should have done is issued a new commercial All Zone on-street permit to Daimler, thus addressing fans and critics. Of course you'd then have to be prepared for van and truck share, with U-Haul or others leaving their commercial vehicles across the city, since any cost of a commercial parking permit won't overcome the appeal of offloading your fleet storage costs.

If bikeshare can be successful with docks and stations, why can't car share? Was it such a terrible service when the Zip Cars were stationed at Green P lots?

Surely you realize permit parking is just loading individuals fleet storage costs onto the city?

Why does it matter if a person parks a shared car or a personal car on their street?

The new pilot project for floating car shares includes much higher annual fees for the "fleet" storage than that of a private individual. And at the end of the day, the vehicles are used exclusively to transport private individuals, who most likely live on the street that they are parked, just like the private vehicles.

 

[UserNameToronto]

Surely you see that Daimler's business model was based on off loading its fleet storage costs onto the city? And once that fleet storage expense was going to be moved from the city onto Daimler's books the entire business model collapsed.

Their business model was providing cars...and gas, insurance, and maintenance, and depreciation, and a system to find cars, and billing. Car2Go wasn't a parking space arbitrage.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Their business model was providing cars...and gas, insurance, and maintenance, and depreciation, and a system to find cars, and billing. Car2Go wasn't a parking space arbitrage.

That's the same as Hertz, Avis, Budget, and any other car rental company. If these companies didn't have a system to find cars, they'd be out of biz. Only difference is that these traditional players need to buy, maintain and pay property tax on fleet depots to store their cars. While for Car2Go the depot came at no cost, i.e. our streets.

The fair offer to Car2Go should be a blanket all-zone parking permit (smart permit would be ideal, limiting # of cars per zone) at a commercial rate, albeit one that doesn't drive them out of business.

 

[mdrejhon]

While for Car2Go the depot came at no cost, i.e. our streets.

Not if the residents are willing to pay for extra permits for extra slots.

If the rates need to be different then.... well, that's because the government have been giving us streetside parking for our owned owned cars like candy for nearly free for many decades, out of our property taxes.

But if I pay my house property taxes and decide I want to give up my car and give a street slot to car2go, I should be able to pay the parking permit for one extra carshare slot (i.e. car2go) in lieu of a car that I give up.

This is a problem that may take a few decades to migrate, especially in fifty years from now, when streetside parking of residential neighborhoods are half full of a pool of autonomous shared cars used by the neighborhood.

 

[Admiral Beez]

, especially in fifty years from now, when streetside parking of residential neighborhoods are half full of a pool of autonomous shared cars used by the neighborhood.

That’s essentially the end of private automobile ownership. There’s no need to have a vehicle parked outside your house when you can summon a driverless taxi to take you where you want to go.

 

[nfitz]

Or perhaps car drivers should pay less gas/license taxes and that transit users should pay for the true cost of public transit. Imagine if transit users had fund their own capital construction costs.

Imagine the extra congestion on the roads, if all the by-choice transit-users switched to driving!

Imagine if car drivers had to fund the capital construction costs of roads! The gas taxes and vehicle licencing doesn't even cover the operations and maintenance costs of city roads - let alone capital costs!

We are all in this together. More public transit infrastructure makes those of us who drive cars, have easier drives, and reduced parking costs at the destination.

Clearly we've gone too long without a TTC strike to remind people what happens if there was no transit; and that's instantaneous - in reality, it would get even worse with people buying more cars.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Clearly we've gone too long without a TTC strike to remind people what happens

IDK, as a downtown driver I've always found traffic absolutely zooming during transit strikes, especially during rush hour when curb parking is prohibited. No streetcars running at half the speed limit or opening their doors into traffic slowing all cars behind, no buses blocking a lane, etc. I remember being absolutely giddy when driving downtown during the last strike.

While I agree everyone moving to autos would be a nightmare, a short-term transit strike does not demonstrate the level of congestion that a sea change in commuter habits would have.

 

[pman]

There’s still an equity issue here. My street doesn’t have permit parking but we’re subject to the general three hour limit. Which is ruthlessly enforced thanks to one or more of my asshiole neighbours. But the C2G car intermittently parked on my street is exempt from the law, if I believe what the company told me. Or not, but they choose not to pay 2/3 of their parking tickets, so I guess that’s the reality. So...would it be the end of the world if I could get the same treatment as C2G?

 

[mdrejhon]

While I agree everyone moving to autos would be a nightmare, a short-term transit strike does not demonstrate the level of congestion that a sea change in commuter habits would have.

There's the induced demand effect to factor in. Years after a new (road|transit|subway|streetcar upgrade|system modification) is built, the capacity fills up to a demand equilibrium.

If you make it more convenient, it will be bliss at first then it gets busy again as people adapt and migrate to the improved-convenience mode.

New freeway lanes -- clogged eventually.
King Street pilot -- slows down as demand fills the newly added capacity
New subway line through ultra dense downtown core -- overcrowded eventually
Etc.

(Subway this is what happens in Beijing/Shanghai -- subways gradually become overcrowded eventually once built -- this will happen to the DRL too, mark my words; it will only temporarily relieve Yonge capacity then both will be concurrently more crowded than Yonge today. Platform doors will be still be needed on Yonge Line at busy stations by ~2035 for overcrowding safety reasons).

That’s essentially the end of private automobile ownership. There’s no need to have a vehicle parked outside your house when you can summon a driverless taxi to take you where you want to go.

I suspect by the 2050s+ there'll probably be may levels of here:
-- Autonomous taxis (typically dirtier, shorter rides, cleaned at end of day, etc)
-- Autonomous carshares for longer uses (drives itself to a maid service before next long-term user)
-- Neighborhood pools (community specific shared cars that the community buys)
-- Government subsidized pools (driverless vans acting as bus replacements in low density areas where they're more taxpayer efficient than the bus per dollar of fare)
-- Autonomous large-car services
Etc.

Balances varying from city to city depending on municipal support and laws. The distinction between taxi, bus, car share, and car rentals really begins to blur quite a lot. But there will be different general categories.

That said, even despite this all, there will always be a need for mass transit (e.g. subways, LRTs, commuter trains) for high-density corridors since you still hit road capacity limits even with platooning systems.

Autonomous shared cars are more efficient road space utilizations, spreads cost of car ownership (especially with much-more-expensive autonomous cars) -- as long as you're not wasting road space with empty cars going between rides (so pickup efficiencies will need to be enforced by putting a cost on fallow vehicles -- making it cheaper to keep the vehicle more continually utilized).

Now back to today.

car2go.

There needs to be a migration path between today and 2050 -- limiting to 2 vehicles seems short sighted when it comes to specific neighborhoods that would like to pony up the fees/costs of additionals. Thoughtful mechanisms are needed.