Subscribe free to our daily email newsletterContributor Opinion By Carl Henn: Car Free Contract For Beall's Grant II The Way To Go
Dec 21, 2008 12:39 - 5 Comments
>The following Contributor Opinion is by Carl Henn:
The recent decision by the City Council not to support the Beall’s Grant II project isn’t the end of the story. Regardless of how it turns out there will be consequences. Montgomery Housing Partnership may cut the size of the project significantly to meet neighborhood concerns. While this would reduce the impact of the project on the neighborhood, it would also decrease the number of people that it can serve while nearly everyone concedes that we have a tremendous need for affordable housing. Or perhaps MHP and the neighborhood won’t be able to find a workable compromise. This could result in an even worse outcome. If MHP finds that they can build more affordable housing for the same money elsewhere, they may sell the lot and the Rockville site will be built for the standard commercial market. The neighborhood impacts may be nearly the same as the current proposal, but without creating significant additional affordable housing. A commercial development wouldn’t require council approval, so would be less constrained by neighborhood interests.
Both sides have reason to compromise. What they need is better ideas on how to compromise. I believe that Car-Free by Contract housing, supported by investment in transportation alternatives such as car sharing, bicycles, grocery delivery, and transit can make this alternative work. Instead of building a 212 car parking garage and a 17 space surface lot, they could build a 200 bicycle parking garage and a 17 space surface lot with 10 shared cars provided and a free bike with each apartment.
The concept of Car-Free by Contract is that the project is given permission to build far less parking than is usually required in exchange for implementing a plan to ensure that the parking isn’t needed. Residents sign a contract agreeing not to own or use a car while living there. The contract establishes that they will be evicted if they are found to be keeping a car, with loss of security deposit.
Car free living isn’t for everyone and doesn’t work everywhere. But this is a circumstance and place where it can work. Beall’s Grant II will be primarily affordable housing. So many people are waiting for affordable housing that finding 100 households willing and able to get by without a car is very workable. Moreover, Beall’s Grant is within walking distance of Metro, several bus routes and plenty of stores.
The advantages for the neighborhood and city include far less traffic and a smaller building footprint. It is also likely that by selecting people who are able to live without cars that the number of additional students brought into Beall Elementary will be reduced. The arrangement is inherently more environmentally sustainable – car free living uses less energy. But it also opens up new opportunities. The smaller footprint can allow space for a community garden. The money saved by not building parking can instead pay for more advanced environmental features.
Let’s consider the math: Structured parking costs around $20,000 per space. Eliminating the 212 space garage saves $4,240,000. Providing a basic but fully outfitted bike (lights, fenders, panniers, helmet, lock) should cost around $500 each. One hundred would total $50,000. You can fit 12 bikes in the space of one car parking space. If it cost the same as structured car parking, we could provide 200 bike parking spaces for $333,333.
Providing a car sharing service is central to making this concept work. By providing a fleet of cars to share, people can have the use of a car for occasional use, but can share the expense with their neighbors. A fleet of ten cars for 100 households would provide a car when needed at only a tenth of the cost of maintaining a car for each household. Even if brand new cars were purchased for cash up front, this would cost far less then the money saved by not building a 212 car garage. Ten cars at $20,000 each is $200,000. My newest car cost me $5,000 – we don’t need to buy all new for this concept to work. Car sharing is already working in our area through Zipcar, or a non profit co-op can be created to manage it, ranging from a large successful venture in Vancouver to a small community startup.
This still leaves plenty of money left over to provide solar water heating for the complex. A laundromat/car wash in Massachusetts built in solar water heating for $55,000. A similar approach would keep the energy costs lower for this apartment throughout its life.
The cost of the car sharing, bicycles, bike parking and solar water heating comes up to $3.6 million less than the cost of the car parking that they forgo.
In Vienna, a Car-Free by Contract apartment building arrangement allowed an apartment complex of 244 units to provide only 20 parking spaces.
Making this work at the Beall’s Grant II site would solve a vexing problem. Beyond that it points the way to a more sustainable future. While this approach has worked elsewhere, this isn’t an off the shelf, cookie cutter model. This process, even after the fundamental agreement is reached, will take a lot of thought. Is it better for car sharing to happen through Zipcar, an MHP program or some other approach? How can bike lessons be provided to residents, and how will that be arranged? Can free deliveries from PeaPod or their competitors be arranged if a given number of residents agree to a particular delivery schedule? What exact language should be used in the Car-Free contract?
Pulling this together is an exciting and worthy challenge. The active engagement of the neighborhood, MHP and the City will be needed. The seven month delay necessitated by the Council’s decision not to move forward at this time provides the time needed to completely revise the proposed development. Car-free by Contract housing is the tool that can break our current deadlock and create a positive outcome for everyone involved.
Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.
This proposed concept is quite intriguing. I agree completely that the county should grant a special dispensation to reduce the required number of parking spaces at BGII. That would reduce the footprint of the project, and would definitely discourage residents from being car commuters. I testified at the Council hearing that living at BGI has allowed me to live a lifestyle that does not require owning a car, although I do still own one. I put less than 1000 miles on my car in all of 2008 (and that includes several trips out-of-town). There’s a very low rate of car ownership among the current tenants of BGI. Unfortunately, this does not appear to impress the opponents at all, and I suspect that their fierce opposition would also not be impressed by a reduction of the parking garage size.>
However, thoroughly banning car ownership at BGII would be too draconian. Implementing additional rental charges for a parking space would largely serve the same purpose. Without a viable alternative, like car sharing that REALLY works, residents would be stranded when attempting to do something like visiting a doctor who is not close or on a good bus line. Most of my doctors are on Medical Center Way, by Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, and the bus service out that way is very poor.
Riding bicycles is a noble concept, but is currently not very feasible, especially restricting that as the only option for BGII residents. Most employers don’t offer shower facilities or bike storage facilities; that makes a very big impact on the practicality. The biggest factor, though, is that it is VERY dangerous, especially in downtown Rockville. Since the current driver culture is extremely aggressive, riding a bike in the actual street is simply not an option for a sane person. Although Rockville and the county have spent a lot of time and effort creating bike paths, downtown Rockville and the West End are not part of that network. Thus, bicyclists simply must resort to riding on the sidewalk, and there are conflicts when this happens. Until we can educate car drivers to respect bicyclists, I think it would be irresponsible to force a large number of people to use only that form of transportation.
Restricting BGII residents to bicycling-only would discriminate against those who are elderly or middle-aged, and those who are not very physically fit. I am 54 years old, and am now starting to develop hip problems.
Three years ago, when I was living in Gaithersburg and working in downtown Rockville, I experimented with commuting by bicycle. I was riding south on 355 from Shady Grove Rd, and I was riding on the sidewalk. The biggest problem was the fact that there are so many entrances/exits off 355 onto side roads, and I was forced to stop at every single one of them to look for cars that were turning in or out. I was compelled to actually stop almost every time, because I knew that cars would be oblivious to a bicyclist, and would make the turn and probably strike me if I was riding across that part of the sidewalk. This constant stopping more than doubled my commuting time, and made it extremely tedious. I feel an obligation to follow the traffic rules, since I expect the same in return from cars (although I did not receive it), and thus the onus was on me to be cautious.
Every morning and afternoon when I cross North Washington Street, cars blast through the intersection after the light has clearly turned red. We have allowed car drivers to get away with very bad behavior toward pedestrians and others who are not also driving a vehicle, and so until we can effectively educate drivers to change their behavior, and can bring ourselves to genuinely enforce current traffic laws, then forcing a group of people to resort ONLY to bicycle transportation would be a bad idea.
I agree that a bicycle only transportation plan for BGII wouldn’t work. No one is proposing that. I proposed a fleet of 10 cars dedicated to a car sharing system for the project. Perhaps a higher number is needed, but clearly providing no cars isn’t workable and isn’t what I’ve proposed. Further Beall’s Grant is in walking distance of 15 bus lines and the Metro with its 88 stations.>
Regarding biking in West End, I bike there regularly and find some streets quite safe and others (Rockville Pike for instance) a complete no-go. There is a safe, enjoyable route from Beall’s Grant to the Rockville Pool for instance, and to a number of nearby churches. Bicycles provide another transportation option. The notion of providing bikes and bike parking enough to serve all residents in an apartment complex is different enough from normal practice that it may draw attention away from the more pedestrian aspects of the plan. You can walk to most of what you need in Town Center, and few places are better served by transit in this area.
This plan clearly discriminates against people whose life requires transportation to distant places that aren’t served by transit. It doesn’t discriminate based on age or infirmity. Many elderly people ride bikes. The apartment could provide three wheelers for people with balance issues and cargo bikes to expand the type of trips that a bike can serve. Perhaps providing shopping carts to wheel groceries home in is a good idea as well. Many people aren’t capable of driving, so that an apartment complex designed for people without cars would be a great advantage. Many people can’t afford a car, while they could afford car sharing. Car sharing is a step up for people who currently can’t afford a car and for others who impoverish themselves for a car that they must have for occasional use. I wouldn’t propose that all new affordable housing be car-free by contract. But at this point, none of the affordable housing in the County is set up this way. Hard to believe I wrote a thousand word essay without mentioning Peak Oil, but car-free by contract will serve us well as world oil production enters decline.
Carl Henn
You are poor…..no car for you!!!>
You must ride bikes, you must share rides with others.
This is the only way you will get a place in Rockville.
The Henn has spoken.
I believe your concerns are misplaced. Nobody will be required to live there. Everyone who lives there will have chosen to live there because they see it as the best available housing for their circumstances. Car Free by Contract adds a new alternative. Under our current system you are required to pay for parking whether you need it or not. Building one apartment where you aren’t required to have parking adds choices rather than taking choice away. Bear in mind that many poor people don’t own a car and no particular effort is made to meet their needs. Many wealthier people would be happy to give up their cars if provided a supportive environment, just as people living in Town Center have chosen not of own a yard.>
People who own cars typically pay several thousand a year for payments, repairs and insurance. This proposal would give people access to housing at a reduced rate and access to a car when they need it while sharing the costs with your neighbors. It’s well served by transit and can provide affordable housing and affordable transportation. Requiring a parking garage at Beall’s Grant II would add over $4 million to the cost, making the housing that much less affordable.
The millions in savings by not building a garage can not only pay for bikes and car-sharing, it could provide other nice features that can draw people to choose this option over the standard mandatory parking approach.
Given our current circumstance, no housing is approved for construction at Beall’s Grant II, so you can keep your car and sleep in it. I think we can do better. This is an idea that has worked in Europe. This isn’t an elitist dismissal of people’s needs – it is an innovative approach for better meeting people’s needs.
Carl
I think this is an excellent idea. Metro and many nearby bus lines make this the right place for such an experiment.>
I think it would be a good idea whether it is affordable housing or not.
Virtually every other housing option in Rockville will support a lifestyle involving car ownership. Surely 212 households would find this attractive.