Today's News-Gazette:
Under the proposal, the MTD, acting as the lead agency, would contract with Zipcar, a for-profit car sharing company based in Cambridge, Mass.
Members of the program would have to pay an annual fee, expected to be $35, to participate and would be charged a likely rental fee of $8 an hour or $60 for a full day. Those fees also would cover the cost of gas and insurance.
Users would use an on-line reservation system to reserve a car at the time they want and at a particular location, said Rob Kowalski, Champaign's assistant planning director. An electronic pass given to members would open the vehicles.
"Cars would be placed in designated locations, preferably ones that are highly visible," he said.
Six major cities and 40 university communities are served by Zipcar, including the Big 10 communities of Ann Arbor, Mich., and Columbus, Ohio.
Zipcar, in its proposal to the local governments, states that it has serviced over 1.5 million reservations, billed 120,000 members and "provided over 5 million miles of trouble-free driving."
The agreement with Zipcar would be for three years and Champaign, Urbana, the UI and MTD would each provide an annual revenue guarantee of $27,000 per year, or $108,000 total. If the six cars failed to generate that much income, which would require that they be used about six hours per day, then the governments and agencies would have to make up the shortfall – with the deficit split evenly among Champaign, Urbana, the university and MTD.
Discuss.
Zipcar is a great idea, pretty good in practice, but requires a large customer base without other transportation.
This is why Zipcar works in Boston, in NYC, in Los Angeles, in San Francisco, etc.
In Champaign, where most of the population has reasonable access to a car, and where it is not densely populated - I can't see this working well for the cities.
Am I missing something here? I can rent a Ford Focus from Hertz for the day at about $60. I can rent a truck from Home Depot or U-Haul by the hour. What does the local government have against these companies that are serving us?
I don't like the fact that my money is going to be used to help Zipcar put Hertz out of business.
It's not like this "program" is going to really help poor people anyway, unless La Due is broke.
Maybe my problem is that I don't understand that people have a fundamental right to my money so that they don't have to buy their own car and still be able to drive around town at a slightly discounted rate compared to Hertz.
I guess I don't care enough. One might even say I lack empathy for La Due.
If this is such a great idea, why do they need a revenue guarantee? Who voted for this on the Champaign council?
6 hours of use per day for the six cars sounds like a pretty big nut to crack
Hertz doesn't make its cars available all over town for you to just go pick up and use without having to fill out a mountain of paperwork. Hertz's $60 a day does not include fuel. This will be great for students who can rent a car for an hour or so to run out to Wal Mart or to go to the movies instead of having to bring one on campus and pay for parking. It will also be great for old duffers who take public transportation when they can but don't have very convenient bus schedules at night and on weekends. Nobody here was bitching about the guaranties the cities and the university paid to get enhanced Delta Airlines service at Willard. What's the difference?
"Nobody here was bitching about the guaranties the cities and the university paid to get enhanced Delta Airlines service at Willard. What's the difference? "
No difference. Let this be my official bitch about that too.
Hertz will pick you up. The downside is that you have to pay the full cost.
I will not dispute that the subsidized Zipcar will be cheaper than Hertz, but the price difference isn't *that* huge.
I also won't dispute that people who use the subsidized Zipcars will enjoy the cheap transportation.
But just think about the thousands of people who provide their own transportation and are being forced to subsidize rental cars for people who would rather spend their money on other things. This program is an insult to them, but not quite as much as it is an insult to Hertz.
Nobody here was bitching about the guaranties the cities and the university paid to get enhanced Delta Airlines service at Willard. What's the difference?
No difference - can I complain about those after-the-fact?
8-0 vote in Champaign - I am very disappointed.
Adam, for the record, there doesn't appear to be much of a subsidy (free parking spots maybe), except for covering the downside risk.
RSW - I know it's not much compared to what the cities spend on other things. Maybe the city can co-sign some loans for me so I can get a better rate. Don't worry, it won't cost anybody anything because I'll make my payments.
Here we go with the CU MTD driving the $ train. Most college towns have bicycle rental to save time, space, $'s and environmental impact. I wonder why CU has to be different?
Regarding the previous deal with Delta, I found this:
Back to Zipcar - I am actually surprised the CUMTD didn't just do an agreement with them directly. This fits their vision so well. For such a small amount, I don't know why the cities are involved at all.
PR move maybe? Polical cover? Legal restrictions? Or was this the "baby" of a council member at the beginning?
Similarly to RSWB, I'm surprised that the U of I isn't the sole party to the Zipcar negotiations. That fits better with Zipcar's business model.
Besides, what is CU doing guaranteeing revenue? No way did Zipcar get a similar deal from its other major city locations.
Here is a map showing where else Zipcar is in business. Either a large city, or a large university partner.
http://www.zipcar.com/change-city?return_url=/find-cars/
Edit, because googling "zipcar revenue guarantee" is instructive - Zipcar has many revenue guarantees from universities they have contracted with, including UMich. See this article for what's happened there.
Looks like we did get a much better deal than U of M :-)
Uh, $9k/mo = $108k/year, which is what they're charging C/U/MTD/UI. So no, we're not.
Too bad they're not electric powered. With in town driving the gasoline powered zip cars are inefficient. Electric cars like the "zap car" or similar will work best for the short in-town type trips.
Uh, $9k/mo = $108k/year, which is what they're charging C/U/MTD/UI. So no, we're not.
My bad, I read the NG article wrong. thank you for the correction.
Also, as I read the U of M deal, it was a monthly deal. The NG implies this is a guarantee of annual revenue - I hope that is accurate, as this is sure to get off to slow start.
What about folks who want to use Zipcars for longer trips? $60/day including the price of gas could be a sweet deal for a roadtrip, but maybe not so profitable for the company.
According to the website, "180 free miles are included with the rental". So I'm guessing long mileage gets you an extra charge.
I've heard about these sorts of programs being helpful and useful if you're in an urban area where you don't normally need a car. I looked at their maps, and they have a program in Albuquerque, but only four locations, all near the state university. Is the CU program going to be similarly UIUC-centric, or it intended for use by the townies, too?
I'm thinking maybe more of these types of ventures might jump start the general private "let's have easy rental cars in town" trend. Plenty of companies don't ever want to be first in anything without some kind of guarantee (due to risk) but everyone wants to be a close #2 (that eventually takes over #1, of course). Perhaps a sunset clause on the guarantee?
If they were electric, so much the better. But heck, I don't drive, and even as it stands if there's some crazy weird errand I have to run all of a sudden really quickly, I call a taxi. No need having a car for the 1 in 100 off chance.
I also do know many people who rent trucks (U-Haul, etc) to make major shopping trips to Chicago. Just generally beginning to think of rental cars as a general option apart from only moving and at the airport would be a good thing.
The trick is that the cars need to be EASY to check out, and that's the "new, risky" part of the business. If it takes some pump priming, I'd be willing to see what happens. Either way, I imagine the cars would be available for anyone to rent.
The Delta deal going sour right here in C-U ought to have been the best example of why economic incentives ought not to be used for economic development. Delta pulled out as soon as the two-year clock hit midnight. This cost both the university and communities a lot of money that could have been directed toward other community issues.
The zipcar has potential, though we are not the large city examples already mentioned. A previous post posed the question why focus on cars rather than setting up a rental/free bicycle system, aka Paris, France. This is certain a legitimate query. My continuing concern with the zipcar and new bicycle pathways is that none of this is being done within the framework of a total transportation plan for the area. These are bits and pieces without a comprehensive look. The bicycle pathway on First does not merit "cheers" because it starts and stops, does not give clear signals at First and Green, when traveling north, as to what cars and bikes ought to be doing (yes, I know cars and bikes are to share the same road spaces), and caused 5 parking spaces on the east side of First to be removed in an area where there is only permit parking. Such plans ought to be accommodating all types of traffic friction and this is not happening.
Pattsi Petrie
"My continuing concern with the zipcar and new bicycle pathways is that none of this is being done within the framework of a total transportation plan for the area." What a curious statement when the LRTP 2025 calls for these very things within the entire urbanized area as well as the Champaign Moving Forward Transportation Master Plan and the Urbana Bike Master Plan. On top of all of this is the miPLAN project that has encompassed the entire community and focused on non-auto mobility options. I have biked several times on the First Street bike path. Have you? It works quite well. Obviously it is not possible to install the entire bike lane system in one stroke so you have to start somewhere.
Lots of plans but not well coordinated or overlayable. The LRTP still has the unfunded 'light rail' system sponsored by the MTD and only allows paying governmental entities to participate. Now we have the big guys, City of Champaign, City of Urbana, CUMTD and the largest employer in the county the University of Illinois pushing this 'zipcar' concept which is not to be found in any of these community plans---now that is CURIOUS.
As for the new 1st street bike path, I found both the delight in this start for Champaign as well as the disappointments stated by Pattsi.
Regarding, "A previous post posed the question why focus on cars rather than setting up a rental/free bicycle system, aka Paris, France."
Because this is America and we like cars. You could argue it SHOULD be different, but I certainly don't want to dump money into attitudes people OUGHT to have (in the opinion of some) but don't. But the Zip Car isn't entirely a subsidy... we guarantee their income so it is the potential of a subsidy but could be just as much proding those local bodies to make sure they push people towards the service. So, on second thought, it's more of a subsidy to their advertising budget. They don't have to advertise because the cities are on the hook for bringing the customers. We call that "externalization".
But if we are going to talk subsidies, I'd like to know why the RIDER of an MTD bus only pays about ~30% of what it costs to transport them. We can skip past the poor for a second because we could always subsidize that with some reduced-fare/no-fare system for those in poverty (not that I am suggesting we do, I am just suggesting we can). I'd like to know why the rider of an MTD bus who is perfectly able to pay full fare doesn't have to and why the property tax payers need to fork over the other 70%. (Ok, income tax payers too if you want to be technical about state/federal subsidies).
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I'd like to know why the rider of an MTD bus who is perfectly able to pay full fare doesn't have to and why the property tax payers need to fork over the other 70%.
Because no one ever questions the MTD or its finances. Every other governmental entity gets plenty of scrutiny but not them.
The same reason you don't pay your entire cost of the roads, John. It's basic infrastructure.
Other countries, transit is funded the same as roads, meaning, it's expected to be a cost that the country bears, because it's basic infrastructure.
Shall we talk about airlines now?
Fortunately this is not other countries, this is the USA, akibare. We elected to create the mass transit district and now we pay the price with high rates, poor coverage, land owners subsidization and no local authority over this public entity. However, we did elected to set it up that way, right or wrong. Most other countries had no choice.
Also, the CU MTD is NOT part of the basic infrastructure of CU. It is an add on capability which uses and negatively impacts the road infrastructure system for which it does not fund.
Also, the CU MTD is NOT part of the basic infrastructure of CU. It is an add on capability which uses and negatively impacts the road infrastructure system for which it does not fund.
Well, I don't drive, so does that mean that my taxes shouldn't have to pay for the road infrastructure system?
The MTD argument is quickly becoming old...like it or not, it's here, and it's funded by taxes, as all public transportation systems in the country are. There are hundreds of tax-payer funded programs that we'll never benefit from personally, but for some reason everyone always enjoys picking on the MTD.
Just to expand my example of bike sharing beyond another culture, I am sitting in Denton, TX reading an article in the Dallas Morning News about Emory University, Atlanta, that is offering at below cost bicycles for students, faculty, and staff to encourage that mode of transportation over cars along with building new extensive bicycle pathways in and around the university, which is set in a Frederick Law Olmstead environment. In addition, U. of Chicago has put in place some very creative and integrated transportation planning to enable those connected with the university to come and go to work.
One more university example--the U. of Minnesota has done an interesting job of encouraging biking and campus and to and from by providing bike boxes next to all of the campus parking lots. And to make it so easy to ride around this campus, it has been designed so one can easily walk, ride a bike, use a wheelchair, roller blade, etc. with minimized restrictions.
Austin and Portland, OR are among cities that have experimented more with low-tech sharing programs, in which "beater bikes" were painted one color and made available for use. Unfortunately, even these bikes were vandalized and/or stolen. And Washington, DC has the first high-tech public bike-sharing program in the U.S. SmartBikeDC.
Another thought about the First Street pathway is that there are parallel alternative streets, Oak and Locust, that are available for bicycle pathways.
Pattsi Petrie
gambit----I do not enjoy picking on the MTD. I ride the their buses to form the basis for my hopefully constructive criticisms, as there is no other way to reach out to this public entity ---- they have NO local oversight. All public transportation systems are not funded by taxes especially property taxes which is the unfair income stream I strongly object to. A correct statement you could make would be---All public transportation systems are constructed to public standards. I will continue to object to this public system as long as they dictate rates, make private deals, provide poor coverage, use tax dollars to fund other organizations, have no elected taxpayer oversight and use property taxes to subsidize their operations.
Your "......like it or not, it's here, and it's funded by taxes." tolerance attitude is what I believe is one of the major causes why we have a record of wide spread political corruption in Chicago and the rest of Illinois.
Unlike the bus system, if a person does not drive like yourself, the road infrastructure system supplies the markets which provides the service base enabling all people to live here, thus should be generally tax supported. That system also supports, at no cost, the MTD, you may use since you do not drive.
I merely point out that places with good public transit (and yes, the US is terribly behind) consider it infrastructure and don't constantly whine about it not "paying for itself" like people do here. It's the same as roads, it is funded from taxes, just like US roads are funded from taxes (and not only from drivers, either) and the US airlines are given subsidies.
US infrastructure is old and falling apart. Still, no one wants to pay for it, so I suppose it's to be expected.
I think the gas tax should be sufficiently high enough to pay for roads and bridges, and shouldn't be swept for other uses.
Way too much is going to the feds right now - such a big pile of cash leads to a lot of bad things (see Alaska). Of course, with our gov, it wouldn't be any better if it were all state money.
Thank you OILMAN for your unbiased perspective on the issue of transportation. Too bad the elderly, disabled, poor, and those unable to drive for various reasons can't take your advice to heart. The service in this community is truly excellent and those of us who use it regularly know this is the case. I realize I am wasting time and mental energy even responding, but your arguments are without factual basis. Several outside consultants have done studies of the efficiEncy of the MTD and found it to be 2-3 times more efficient than most transit systems. MTD carries more riders than the Orlando, Ft. Worth or Indianapolis transit systems. It is absolutely essential for those who cannot drive and the community would suffer consider damage economically, socially and financially if it were not here.
I ride the their buses to form the basis for my hopefully constructive criticisms, as there is no other way to reach out to this public entity ---- they have NO local oversight. Absolutely correct. They have no one looking at their finances, Bill Volk's golden parachute retirement package or anything else. And efficient? Please. Only a fraction of that supposed 10 million riders are truly in need. The number is based on all those healthy U of I students who could be walking or riding bikes as Patsie pointed out. The other large group are the school-aged students who could/should be riding a lesser weight, safer school bus.
"The number is based on all those healthy U of I students who could be walking or riding bikes as Patsie pointed out. The other large group are the school-aged students who could/should be riding a lesser weight, safer school bus."
You and Patsie (sic) are totally off base. There have been a number of surveys done on campus and the primary mode of transportation for students is walking. I am absolutely certain they walk more than either of you and I think it is pretentious and presumptuous of you to assume that they are not walking. In fact, many of the students use the bus to shop and get to their jobs. If they did not have the MTD they would bringing more cars to campus so they can get to North Prospect to buy the food and other items they need. Currently fewer than 30% of Freshmen bring their cars to campus. If they did the town would be overrun with teenage drivers.
The MTD is providing the students with access to the community. Just read the comments from the Savoy Village Board members who are looking forward to the students being able to get the Wal-Mart in Savoy. They understand that they have not been reaping the sales tax benefits of the student sales because the students could not get there since they had refused to annex the Wal-Mart into the MTD district.
Your assertion that the majority of the trips on MTD are students not walking is wrong. In fact the MTD has more community ridership, non-UIUC riders, than any of the downstate transit districts. BTW, school buses are not safer than transit.
If you care to look, in fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics show that the safest way to get to school is on public transportation. Not only is public transportation less expensive, it is safer and the kids prefer it because there is less bad behavior on the MTD buses because every single one of them has several video cameras and misbehavior is immediately identified and addressed. "Riding the bus is 170 times safer than automobile travel, according to National Safety Council data."
Users of transit are healthier and weigh less than non-transit users: "Public transportation fosters a more active lifestyle, encouraging more people to walk, bike and jog to transit stops. An analysis of 2001 National Household Travel Survey data for transit users finds that walking to and from transit helps inactive persons attain a significant portion of the recommended minimum daily exercise they need."
Add in the reduction of air pollution and GHG emissions that using MTD over driving creates and you find: "Public transportation produces 95 percent less carbon monoxide (CO), 90 percent less in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and about half as much carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), per passenger mile, as private vehicles. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions represent 82 percent of total US human-made greenhouse emissions."
Checking your facts before you throw stones might be a good strategy.
They did this in Marseilles in the late 70's and it was a huge flop.
Thanks for pasting that nice APTA propaganda into our blog.
I guess you are unaware that the National Household Travel Survey is part of the part of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in the Department of Transportation. The data on the health and transportation is from the Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/health_professionals/active_environments/aces.htm "CDC's Active Community Environments Initiative (ACES) promotes walking, bicycling, and the development of accessible recreation facilities. It was developed in response to data from a variety of disciplines, including public health, urban design, and transportation planning. These data suggest characteristics of our communities such as proximity of facilities, street design, density of housing, AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC TRANSIT and of pedestrian and bicycle facilities play a significant role in promoting or discouraging physical activity. This initiative encourages environmental and policy interventions that will affect increased levels of physical activity and improved public health. The goals are to * encourage the development of pedestrian and bicycle friendly environments. * promote active forms of transportation like walking and bicycling." The data on the environment is from: http://www.italladdsup.gov/index.html "For every passenger mile traveled, public transportation produces only a fraction of the harmful pollution of automobile traffic: only 5% as much carbon monoxide, less than 8% as many volatile organic compounds and nearly half as much carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides."
Lots of statements my critisisms of the Champaign Urbana MTD are not factual but NO citations by these 'Anonymous' posters to back their words.
If my statements are less than truthfull, lets see some postings on how the MTD has local taxpayer oversight, or data to show all mass transit districts are funded by property taxes, or how their bus service matches the community needs, or how about a single justification on why they elect the maximum local property tax levy every year or maybe just some ridership numbers by fare (full, partial, contract, subsidized, etc) or a few cost per line per rider or why they insist on keeping the 'light rail' system in the county's transportation plan or one reason their MTD buses are safer than school buses equiped with flashing lights that stop traffice by law to allow loading/unloading.
The Champaign Urbana MTD has all these answers but I seriously doubt any poster will put them up. As for the needs of elderly, disabled, non-driver's needs, my household has two people who fit this description. We are extremely thankful for the transportation assistance provided by Faith-in-Action, Senior Services and discounted local taxi services. No thanks to the MTD bus service which is limited at best, too expensive and not timely.
I will continue to ride the bus, even though I have to pay full fare, plus my property tax support with the hope someday we can have a real community focus mass transit system with local oversight serving all the community needs instead of focusing on the U of I, special interest groups (& individuals) or contracts outside of the district.
There have been many well stated points on this thread. Nonetheless, let me add a couple more to the conversation. The discount local taxi services come with the senior citizen MTD pass. So there is a connection there.
About the convenience of using MTD to trip--if one is going from point A to B in a direct line, then MTD works very well as the second family car. However for those who use MTD for tripping, MTD does not work well, is time consuming, and because of this one is tempted to use a car, if one can do so. The fact that all transfers occur at the transportation center increases travel time unnecessarily. For example, I live between the two prime routes; yet, rarely use the buse because it takes so lone to get anywhere, such as Market Place/North Prospect and to east University in Urbana. Travel time is 45-75 minutes, pending transfer wait time. This does not encourage use of the bus.
Last when I wrote about the lack of master planning, I am referring to an integration of all traffic frictions for all parts of the population within the C-U area. An example, walkability is a very important traffic friction. The condition of sidewalks within the community are questionable, the lighting of the sidewalks is basically non existant, and the ease of crossing major streets is rather death defying. This does not even touch on the urban design issues of no sidewalks available or the sidewalks that we put in, just to say we have sidewalks, but are not protected by curbing so are useless during the winter months, examples by the new Champaign Library parallel to Green Street and those along west Springfield and north Mattis.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi--You are correct there is a cab discount with the "Dash" card issued by CU MTD however, there is also a HOOK with this program-----its only good for up to $60.00 per month (takes more than twenty dollars to get from my house to Carle Clinic and ONLY its only goood within the mass transit district.
Here is the discount I was referencing through the county---Transportation (217-352-5100): Rides and transportation alternatives throughout Champaign County for grocery shopping, medical appointments and financial or legal matters. Escorted transportation available. Rides provided by volunteers when available (no fee) or by cab (client pays half fare).
Eligibility: Age 60 or older
Service Area: Champaign County
Fees: None (if volunteer); half fare (if cab).
Intake Process: Call at least two days in advance of when ride is needed to schedule
Good points on the lack of proper sidewalks and the fact both C & U allowed development without any sidewalks for years. In some cases there is not even curb and gutter requirements enforced to get annexation. Yet neither city has a sidewalk or curb& gutter program to correct these past errors by our elected.
Car sharing does anyone want to share my used SUV while I share their BMW convertible?
Since this thread is now on the second page, I hope this posting sees the light of day. The following has been sent out from the ASLA (American Society of Landscape Architects) through the associations advocacy group. It is directly on point with this thread.
"AARP's Public Policy Institute (PPI), in association with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and the National Complete Streets Coalition is examining how the design guidelines for older drivers and pedestrians recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) adhere to the basic design characteristics for "Complete Streets." The objective of designing for "Complete Streets" is to help states and localities adopt new policy and procedure rule changes so that the entire street right-of-way is routinely designed and operated to enable safe access for all users."
It is helpful that various professional organizations are focusing on ways to solve the integration of the various traffic frictions.
Pattsi Petrie
So the ASLA supports the AARP PPI, ITE, and NCSC push on the FHWA recommendations. But TNSTAAFL!!!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Love the humor, Pattsi Petrie
TINSTAAPP?!?
what does tht mean?
TANSTAAFL
:)
One can always find these alphabet soups on the internet. At least I did.
Pattsi Petrie