Brad Baker

2020 Portland Candidate Responses

May 4, 2020 By Brad Baker 2 Comments

Questionnaire

Prioritization of our streets

Portland has limited street space and is unlikely to want to expand our roads. Streets are currently designed to give the most space to cars and to the storage of cars. Do you support repurposing on-street parking in order to give more space for bus-only lanes or bike lanes?

Lengthy public processes can delay projects to provide transit priority or street safety improvements when parking is involved. Do you support an expedited process to allocate parking space to transit and other modes when the data show it will benefit more Portlanders or lead to more equitable outcomes?

Off-street parking

New parking structures are very expensive, upwards of $50,000 per parking space and take up space that could be active uses like housing or storefronts. More parking brings with it more cars and associated noise, pollution, sprawl, and traffic violence. Will you commit to not using any city funds (including tax-increment financing) for the development or purchase of new off-street parking?

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

On-street parking management

The public right-of-way is often a city’s most valuable asset, but on-street parking is often free or underpriced relative to demand. Cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC have found that adjusting prices to charge more in times and places with higher parking demand, and lowering prices when there is less demand, is an effective solution. Portland has adopted several policy recommendations to allow PBOT to manage on-street parking in both residential neighborhoods (Parking Toolkit – 2016) and in more commercial areas (Performance-Based Parking Management Manual – 2018) but as of February 2020 these policies are not yet implemented. Will you support empowering PBOT to use best-practices to price on-street parking and fast-track the implementation of these policies?

Equity

How we spend our revenue generated from parking largely determines how equitable a parking program is. People who drive tend to be wealthier than those who don’t. By using parking revenues to give people in the area access to discounted transit passes, we can ensure that the parking program is equitable. How will you ensure that that revenue generated from parking programs will go to funding transit or transit passes and not to building more parking?

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Mayoral Candidates

Sarah Iannarone

Prioritization of our streets

I am a member of the City’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and an outspoken advocate for greater re-allocation of right-of way for human mobility and less for free personal car storage. I have been a vocal proponent of PBOT’s Enhanced Transportation Corridors project (from which the Rose Lanes emerged) the Central City in Motion Plan, and even tactical efforts like Better Naito and Better Broadway to increase transportation alternatives and reduce demand for so much on-street parking, especially where doing so makes a bike route safer or makes a bus route faster and more reliable. These minor policy changes will have significant impacts on the desirability of biking, walking, or taking transit for everyday Portlanders, and we simply must increase the modeshare of all these forms of transportation if we intend to hit our air pollution, traffic congestion, and climate related goals in the next decade.

It will be imperative for us to conduct thoughtful, equitable community outreach, particularly in East Portland and other neighborhoods that have seen significant gentrification and displacement (as well as the neighborhoods to which many were displaced). It’s essential that the changes in our transportation system that we make work to empower vulnerable communities and provide them with more transportation options.

That said, we need leadership that understands the complexity of neighborhood-scale reflexes against change and begins the conversation from a different starting point and set of measurable objectives including realizing Vision Zero, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, creating and maintaining affordable housing, and achieving racial and other social equity goals.

Off-street parking

Absolutely. I have been a vocal opponent of Prosper Portland, Metro, the Port of Portland, PBOT and other government agencies who have continued to invest millions in parking garages, the most ubiquitous yet least-discussed form of abundant fossil-fuel infrastructure in our cities. I will be a loud champion for whatever political reforms are necessary to rapidly slow the creation of new or expansion of existing off-street parking garages and facilities. I reference the need to cut back on car parking infrastructure in both my Green New Deal and my Housing for All policy platforms.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Yes. I testified in support of Better Housing By Design and the Residential Infill Project, with particular affinity for the amendments championed by Portlanders for Parking Reform and Portland: Neighbors Welcome. New residential parking requirements are astonishingly effective and making the aforementioned vision of a low-carbon, affordable Portland more difficult to pencil for housing developers, for transit planners, for everyday residents deciding whether or not they need to spend thousands on owning an automobile. I promise to be a staunch ally and accomplice to climate, housing, and transportation advocates who all clearly see the need to prioritize policies and investments in such a manner that encourages dense, walkable, neighborhoods with abundant, affordable housing connected by frequent, reliable transit.

On-street parking management

Absolutely yes. As mayor, I will prioritize directing The City to move forward aggressively with the expansion of innovative, progressive ways to prioritize transit, biking and walking over driving in our dense, amenity-rich neighborhoods. We will move swiftly on the fast tracking of these policies, so long as the agency continues to thoughtfully approach how to implement these policies effectively and equitably. I am a big fan of the “transportation wallet” program currently employed in the Central Eastside and in Northwest Portland; I would love to see further refinement and expansion of this program into more neighborhoods, especially if we can find ways to raise revenue and make street improvements that continue to prioritize transit investments.

Equity

This is the big challenge, isn’t it? We’ve set ourselves up with so many legal policies, financial incentives, and cultural norms to perpetuate the status quo at a time in which our children’s future fundamentally requires rethinking our entire built environment to make transit, biking and walking more effective, reliable, accessible, affordable, and desirable options for every Portlander. As a community, we need to innovate new revenue streams that aren’t dependent on drive-alone trips to the central city in opposition of our climate goals; minimizing the number of parking spots in every neighborhood, town center, and desirable destination is going to be key. I will use the bully pulpit of Green City Portland’s Mayor’s office to encourage the full exploration of all the available options to manage the decline of fossil fuel infrastructure so that we have more space in Portland for the housing, office space, transit, and livable streets that we need.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

I’m grateful for the work of Portlanders for Parking Reform for sending out this questionnaire and for your continued work to educate the public and elevate the importance of parking policy to help our city achieve it’s housing, transportation, climate action and equity goals. mindfulness on being a leader on rethinking norms around automobile parking policy to support a lower-carbon, more affordable, more equitable, and safer Portland.

Ozzie González

Prioritization of our streets

I do. I believe transit corridors are the answer to a balanced use of the right of way. My policy platform includes dedicating transit corridors to non-motorized modes of travel. This will increase safety, significantly reduce fatalities, and improve the mobility experience for everyone.

Yes, I do. My policy platform includes a transit oriented development overlay zone which will create expedited permitting processes for projects that accommodate multi-modal mobility options and provide tangible community benefits.

Off-street parking

I will not. The elimination of parking from the right of way and the reduction in parking requirements on new developments means off street parking will become a necessary ingredient as we transition away from the car centric land use philosophy that our planning and zoning codes were built on. I believe we can also reduce the construction costs and space requirements for parking with new parking structure solutions that have proven themselves in other cities. Over time, sites with the new lightweight automated parking structures will be developed into housing and mixed use buildings, but finding better ways to accommodate vehicles that are not in use is going to have tremendous benefits to Portlanders of all mobility persuasions.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

That depends on what the requirements are. I am not interested in perpetuating the car-centric land use planning philosophy of the last half century, though I recognize that horizontal transport will need to be accommodated in some fashion regardless of the fuel, vehicle type, or purpose of travel.

On-street parking management

I support policies to optimize the right of way and incentivize the offsetting of congestion through pricing structures. Part of my policy agenda is to create a task force to recommend congestion management strategies and develop a pricing structure for use of the right of way including curbside parking.

Equity

I am not interested in building more parking with money generated from parking programs. My policy for congestion management makes broad changes to how money is generated from the use of right of ways. My policy also includes looking at new ways to fund multi-modal transportation infrastructure without depending on activities such as gasoline purchasing and curbside parking.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Bikes, scooters, electric chairs, and every other kind of mobility device we invent is going to take up space when unoccupied and we need to accommodate their storage in smarter ways as we move into a vehicle sharing economy.

Mark White

Prioritization of our streets

I have no issue with repurposing on-street parking, but only as it applies to specific areas where it is appropriate. In other words, I do not support a one-size fits all approach to parking or any other issue of importance.

If we’re talking about generalized data that is not exclusively targeted to any specific area or roadway, then no. It is clear there are unique challenges in many parts of the City where it would lead to deadly outcomes if we presume that every area is the same and will have identical outcomes with proposed changes. For example, Outer East Portland has miles and miles of roadway with no curb or sidewalk. It also has a disproportionately high amount of elderly, disabled, and others who need this basic infrastructure to keep them safe. Many people in the area who depend on a wheelchair to get around, still ride in the street even in areas where there are curb and sidewalk because there are no curb cuts. The City recently negotiated a settlement for a class action lawsuit brought by disabled Portlanders for this very reason.

I would also be reluctant to apply generalized data to any roadway or intersection that falls on any ‘most dangerous’ list.

Off-street parking

I intend to dismantle urban renewal, so not using tax-increment financing will be easy. If you’re interested in why I intend to do that, I have a paper on my campaign site titled, The Case To Dismantle Urban Renewal.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

I do not support a one size fits all approach to anything. It’s arrogant, shortsighted, and flat out authoritarian. Addressing change at all levels must be based on what is real, not what is ideal.

On-street parking management

Welcome to the club of those of us who are frustrated with the City’s incredibly common practice of saying one thing and doing (or not doing) another. It’s quite common in areas of Portland where lots of vulnerable and marginalized groups have been segregated.

I will not be supportive of pricing structures that do not have a mechanism to prevent low income individuals and families from being disproportionately affected by pricing.

Equity

I disagree with the assumption that poor people tend to drive less. I would offer that low income individuals and families pay a disproportionately higher percentage of their income toward transportation.

My intention is not to give people bus passes, but to work on improving their access to nearby employment opportunities, shopping options for food and other basic needs, as well as public areas such as parks. Portland talks a lot of its commitment to marginalized and vulnerable groups, but sadly, as noted in section of On-Street Parking Management, what the City says and what the City does, are often two very different things. I intend to change that.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Commissioner #1 Candidates

Timothy DuBois

Prioritization of our streets

I do support repurposing on-street parking for increased bicycle and transit capacity. I know the evidence shows that removal of some on-street parking will have limited if any direct negative impacts. The benefits to transit times and safety for bicyclists is worth the political fight.

I support an expedited process for this and many other building processes.

Off-street parking

Revenue from parking structures is typically barely enough to cover operating costs let alone debt servicing. That is why tax payers are asked to subsidize. That is a problem by itself but it also undercuts our efforts to move people to transit. I will never vote to support a public subsidy of parking.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Portland has done a great job of realizing parking minimums are bad policies and instead imposing maximum parking limits. I believe we should do neither even though I prefer to have a maximum. Developers have many considerations to factor in when deciding their parking needs. Generally speaking they prefer to build as few as possible because as we know parking is not a good source of revenue. There are many creative ways developers can reduce that amount such as have a time diverse tenant base, that is a good mix of morning, afternoon and evening demand. Event though we have had some setbacks, car sharing is still a viable business idea in the right context. Portland should be supporting the decision of developers to reduce parking by expanding transit, pricing roads, and increasing density instead of micromanaging parking capacity through complex rules that further entrench existing developers at the expense of new small developers.

On-street parking management

Dynamic pricing of parking is no longer a technical impossibility, and has been proven to work in the places you name. Portland should implement the same policy. In that effort I would empower PBOT to get these pricing mechanisms in place as quick as possible.

Equity

I would actually suggest we be one step smarter with parking revenue than funding transit passes. I want to use that money to boost housing choice vouchers. Relying on transit is still a cost on low-income families. If we can increase their ability to pay to live in the neighborhood where they work we may be able to reduce all commuting modes and thus increase economic opportunity, reduce carbon emissions, and create a pedestrian oriented city. Absent a mechanism to use that revenue to boost housing vouchers I would use it to subsidize transit for those who are dependent on it.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Currently I have “The High Cost of Free Parking” next to me at my desk. I consider myself a Shoupista and am proud of it. My favorite quote he uses at the beginning of a chapter is the one about how cars are seen as the model of capitalism and yet require free rent everywhere they go. It is unfortunate the place cars have landed in our culture. But we have the technology and the need to change this. “Free” parking is never free, it is time that our streets reflect that. Additionally, I am appalled at the use of permit parking by a small group of influential Eastmorelanders to block parking for transit users near the Bybee Orange line stop. Parking permit systems are not a tool for ensuring no one parks in front of a home. If places with parking permits do not get used than a different pricing structure is needed.

Commissioner #2 Candidates

Julia Degraw

Prioritization of our streets

Yes, I strongly support prioritizing multimodal use of our roadways and to shift away from such car-centric infrastructure. I will sound like a broken record, as this will come up throughout this questionnaire, but we must expand transit if we plan to reduce the amount of cars on the road and therefore reduce the need for parking. People need a reliable and convenient alternative for getting around if we expect them to drive less. Creating bus only lanes and more protected bike lanes and pedestrian walkways are all things I support and will push for as we transition away from such a car-centric culture and infrastructure.

I really appreciate that your question mentions data! Across the board, the City of Portland needs to do a better job of using data to inform its programs and capital projects. I will support expedited processes to allocate parking spaces to transit and other modes of transportation when data shows it will benefit more Portlanders and lead to more equitable outcomes. Thank you for this question!

Off-street parking

To the degree that I can single-handedly stop the use of public funds, including tax-increment financing, to create off-street parking structures, I will. I can commit to not supporting the use of public funding for off-street parking structures, and even if it means I’d be one of one or two dissenting votes, I will live up to this commitment. That said, I am also committed to working with fellow Commissioners and the Mayor to make sure we are all in agreement on this issue.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Yes, I would resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements. Part of the solution as we shift to a carbon neutral future is building a more transit-centric city, which means greatly expanding transit. We need safe multimodal roads and neighborhoods where everything people need is a quick walk, bike, or transit ride away. If we continue to focus on car-centric infrastructure, we are going to continue to grapple with traffic, bad air quality, and fail to meet our climate goals needed to ensure a stable future for our region and the planet. I support transit-centric development where housing for every income level (including affordable housing) and amenities are built around transit hubs to encourage the kind of neighborhoods I laid out earlier in the preceding sentence.

On-street parking management

I do support empowering PBOT to use best practices to price on-street parking in the city. I also want to make sure that people living in every part of the city, including east of 82nd Avenue (where I live), are able to get around using transit. Right now, a lot of working-class and low-income people, many of whom have been displaced from inner northeast and southeast Portland, cannot take transit to reliably get to where they need to go for work and family needs. I want to couple a rational parking system with a more functional transit system that makes it easier for those who cannot afford parking to use transit instead to get around Portland. For construction workers and others who have to drive for work, employers should be encouraged to help cover the cost of parking, as some workers don’t make enough money to afford parking. The City should explore options to lower costs for workers that must drive for work and cannot afford the cost of parking.

Equity

As you can tell from my previous answers, equity is a major priority for my campaign. As I repeated throughout this questionnaire, we desperately need to expand transit and increase service frequency, add more lines, and create more transit hubs, where busses go in all four directions. One effective way to help finance that expansion and maintain the increased operations and maintenance costs is to use parking revenue to pay for it. Using parking money to pay for the creation of more parking in an era of climate change would be the height of irresponsibility and could, arguably, be considered new fossil fuel infrastructure given that the majority of our carbon emissions in the Portland metro region come from transportation. I would say we need to do more than just offer discounted transit passes; we need for transit in Portland to be up to the task of efficiently getting people from every part of the city to where they need to go––we can only do that by expanding transit.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

I want to make sure that those working-class and lower-income people who have to drive for a living (construction and landscape workers who have tools or those janitors and cleaning crews who work late, after transit service stops, etc.) are not inequitably penalized by parking policies. So long as those workers are considered in these policies and not penalized by them, I fully support every change suggested in this questionnaire. Our infrastructure has to match our climate justice goals, and how we manage parking can play an important role in transitioning to a healthier and safer transportation system for all.

Margot Black

Prioritization of our streets

Yes. I’d like to see several major road ways used only for busses and/or bikes as well as car-free “village centers” of neighborhoods so that intersections and roadways in those neighborhoods can be safe and useable community gathering spaces primarily accessible by bike and pedestrians.

That being said, I think that all of this needs to be done with a deep equity and racial lens for those with disabilities and who are otherwise reliant on automobiles for various reasons. We have spent almost 100 years building our world for car travel and it will take time to wean ourselves off of it.

Yes, but. Lengthy public processes can delay lots of important processes, but we need to be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater because expediting or forgoing those processes and/or presenting projects as foregone conclusions creates a distrusting public who often reject a project they would otherwise accept because of distrust and cynicism about intentions. When people feel that something new and scary and will impact their lives is happening no matter what they think, that sense of disempowerment — especially from groups and individuals who are accustomed to having decision making power and influence — leads people to fight back, even when they wouldn’t otherwise.

It’s important to do spend the time and money on necessary public education and outreach as the beginning of a public process so that by the time people are invited weigh in on actual proposals they are well informed of the necessity and goals of the project and primed to offer productive feedback to improve it instead of staunch opposition or efforts to significantly weaken or derail it. The public’s input DOES matter, and the goal of a process should be for people to feel heard and listened to, though often people have trouble differentiating between being listened to and getting the outcome that they desired.

Off-street parking

Yes.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Yes. I have a proven track record of doing so. Even when it makes me a bit unpopular.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2016/07/08/portland-tenant-advocates-have-joined-the-fight-against-parking-requirements/

On-street parking management

Yes, absolutely.

Equity

I plan to be a loud and outspoken advocate for FREE public transit for everyone, as well as more routes, busses, and more efficient service. That’s going to cost money and parking revenue is the obvious pot to start with.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Parking is a tough issue for me because I am a car driver and as a mother who hasn’t *not* lived on a hill in a hilly neighborhood for much of my adulthood, I have always been heavily reliant on my car. Moreover, I organize with low income tenants many of whom do not have cars but many others who do and for whom other transit option are not the right choice for them. I am completely on board, intellectually, with the infrastructure and culture shift changes we need to make to reduce our dependency on cars (especially trips by single occupancy vehicles) and our gross misuse of space for car storage (parking), but I am sensitive to the impact it will have on certain folks who are dependent on their cars and/or ample parking. I don’t offer this caveat to suggest that I won’t be a champion on this issue, or even that I’ll be a cautious one, but to say that even with predisposed bias towards parking reforms I have managed to feel comfortable and passionate advocating on this issue, though I will continue to insist that we are sensitive to the voices of those who scared, worried, or negatively impacted by it and work to mitigate equity issues that reform proposals might create.

James “Jas” Davis

Prioritization of our streets

Yes, in particular I’d like to see streets that meet certain criteria dedicated to bikeways.

Yes

Off-street parking

That is my intent and preference. There may be times when some funds spent there could leverage our overall goal of more bike and transit oriented use of public space. The important thing is that we share that goal, and I’m wanting to keep all tools in the toolbox for accomlishing that goal.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Yes

On-street parking management

Yes

Equity

My goal is city-wide free mass-transit. On path to that goal could be subsidized or free annual passes for anyone for whom purchase is a hardship. Getting more people to ride transit eases pressure on parking, which is the only ‘subsidy’ for parking I’m interested in making. If people want more parking spaces, subsidize mass transit.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Thanks for doing the good work you are doing.

Sam Chase

Prioritization of our streets

Yes.

I will push for direct funding to multi-modal transit and active transportation projects that get cars off the road. I will continue to be a champion for safe routes to school, rapid bus lanes, safer streets, sidewalks and bike lanes.

Yes.

Off-street parking

Yes.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Yes.

On-street parking management

Yes.

Equity

Equitable access to public transit has been a priority of mine at Metro and will continue to be something that I prioritize on city council. I successfully created a program to provide reduced transit fares by up to 72% for low income riders. I’ll bring my success winning affordable transit fares to the city of Portland where I‘ll fight for continued reductions to fares–starting with free youth passes for all riders under 18.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

I will require that all our urban development maximizes alternative mobility options such as walking, biking, transit. Portland has an opportunity to make it’s brand as a special place even more appealing in a way that attracts tourism, high quality employees, and retains our workforce. That is good for our economy and an argument that will help our efforts to win over a bigger percentage of our population.

Managing cars through parking must also go hand in hand with congestion pricing. I successfully championed an effort for Metro to study congestion pricing–not to leave it up to ODOT to forward their own ideas. The study will make the full range of options known to our elected, community, and business leaders. It’s an essential part of long-term structural change in our mobility strategy and carbon footprint reduction.

Aquiles Montas

Prioritization of our streets

No the way City has been structuring. Main artery streets needs more access to the growing population with needs of all three forms of transportation

Yes and it must include the representatives of each neighborhood associationsI am

Off-street parking

I am not for having our tax dollars going for development of new buildings unless they are public owned for low income families

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

No. We need to set up new requirements

On-street parking management

No. I believe that is the City’s responsibility and I would bring it back to City of Portland commissioners with assistance from each neighborhoods

Equity

I would have the system transparent tha funds should only be allocated to transit.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

As a 43 year north portland resident that learned the city bicycles and busses. This is one of my issues of concern as being a big crisis in the city that needs more attention with citizens impu. Still owns 2 bikes, ride the max when going downtown but experience parking problem as I have to drive around the city for my current job.

Terry Parker

Prioritization of our streets

NO!
The city needs to stop removing and narrowing full service travel lanes on major streets thereby creating more congestion and increasing both fuel consumption and emissions. To make transit work better, entire streets need to flow better. Enhanced street lighting and crosswalks must be a safety priority. PBOT advisory committees must become proportionally inclusive of taxpaying motorist representation based on the mode split.

NO!
89% of households in the Portland-Metro area have one or more cars. Any plan that would reduce motor vehicle capacity must be accompanied by a environmental impact statement that must clearly demonstrate changes to the street would NOT create more congestion, fuel consumption and emissions; and NOT create more cut through traffic and on-street parking in residential neighborhoods.

Off-street parking

NO!
Constructing new light rail lines and operating transit is not financially self-sustainable and is even more expensive. Population growth and building more housing to accommodate that population growth is what brings more cars. Moreover, it is just too easy to always place the behavior blame on drivers when more bicycling means more bicyclists ignoring traffic laws, and with people walking, more of them crossing streets mid-block, just stepping into the street at corners with out looking, and/or having their noses buried in cell phones.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

NO!
Adequate off-street parking with charging connectivity for electric cars needs to be required with all new residential developments. The city’s own studies suggest that 72% of households in new large multi-unit buildings without parking have one or more cars. Therefore, adequate off-street parking equates to no less than three parking spaces for every four units. Additionally, curb cuts for driveways in residential neighborhoods allow access to homes for service and delivery vehicles, create a space for garbage pickup and allow direct access to TriMet’s Lift or other on-call vehicles for hire that mobility impaired people in wheelchairs and with walkers utilize.

On-street parking management

NO!
Motorist paid taxes and fees already pay for the streets curb to curb, handicap ramps at intersections and on some streets, new sidewalks. Bike ridership is flat yet PBOT continues to spend millions of dollars to build a Cadillac like system of privileged infrastructure for a small demographic of riders – the “Strong & Fearless” at 1% and the “Enthused & Confident at 7% of the population. If any group should be charged a fee for curb space it should be the bicyclists that take away parking making it more scarce and want everything for free as if it is an entitlement.

Equity

I won’t.
59% of low income people drive to their place of employment. If anything is underpriced it is transit which is subsidized at approximately 65 cents per passenger mile. This is the absence of equity. One two-axle transit bus does as much damage to the streets as 1200 cars. On 82nd Avenue alone, TriMet makes 223 trips a day. It would take over 267,000 cars in a 24 hour period to do the same amount of damage all while transit fares cover only about 25% of the operating costs. Auto usage presently provides some of the largest subsidies to transit including paying for new buses from the federal gas tax. Motorists should be appreciated and valued by transit users for the massive subsidies to transit they are already saddled with.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Yes.
The government should not be attempting to dictate travel mode choice. History clearly demonstrates higher rates of personal mobility (such as driving) significantly contributes to greater economic productivity which in turn generates family wage jobs. Nearly 10% of the jobs in the U.S. are tied to the auto industry.

Commissioner #4 Candidates

Chloe Eudaly

Prioritization of our streets

Yes, absolutely, in fact I’m already doing that through the Rose Lane Project. And beyond bus-only and bike lanes, I’m interested in re-purposing parking spaces for other uses, like the Ankeny Square Food Cart Pod my office has been working on since the Alder Food Cart Pod was displaced by development. We’re also collaborating with the parks bureau to permanently close streets adjacent to the Portland Art Museum and Parks Blocks. And we are currently in conversation with Portland’s business community about reallocating the public right of way to accommodate safe social distancing during the gradual reopening process.

Yes, public benefit does have to take priority in these conversations. That’s why we took a holistic approach to the Rose Lane Project instead of approaching it one corridor at a time. That’s the approach we’ll take to improving our Neighborhood Greenway network as well. However, public engagement is still an essential part of the process, and I am committed to working closely with residents and business owners to ensure that we mitigate any unintended consequences.

Off-street parking

PBOT has no plans to build new parking structures. In fact, we intend to eliminate a garage (the one under O’Bryant Park). Prosper Portland has development agreements that include parking garages on the Broadway Corridor and OMSI sites. I’ll need to learn more about both of these projects, and get input from stakeholders and community members before I commit to a no vote. However, I will say that in a highly bikable/walkable/transit rich neighborhood, such as the Broadway Corridor, I’m going to be highly skeptical about the need to expand parking capacity. I think it’s worth exploring the potential of parking garages that can be converted to office or residential use as garages become obsolete. The challenge of designing for current need/demand and the carbon free future we are working toward is one that I’m looking forward to addressing.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Yes. I’m more interested in parking maximums, than parking minimums. Portland is an awkward phase between our growth and transportation habits. We cannot continue to support, encourage or subsidize those that are detrimental to the health of our communities or our environment. But we do need to vastly improve walking, biking, and transit options at the same time.

On-street parking management

PBOT was poised to implement changes to our metered parking districts later this year before the COVID-19 crisis. Those plans have been delayed–parking demand and therefore revenue has dramatically reduced and therefore it’s not the time to raise prices. We will revisit this plan post-crisis.

Equity

We’re already doing that through our Transportation Wallet for Residents of Affordable Housing Pilot. I’m deeply committed to creating an equitable transportation system for all Portlanders. One of PBOT’s special programs is Equity & Inclusion Initiatives. We center and prioritize equity in every major plan and investment we undertake. Our 5-Year Racial Equity Plan guides all of these efforts–from our Equity Committee, to the Equity Matrix we run rank our projects and programs with, to pursuing equity in our pubic involvement processes. We are also prioritizing our ADA transition plan as part of our overall equity strategy.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Thirty years ago I got yelled at for parking on the street in front of someone’s house in NE Portland–this still happens from time to time. I had neighbors in NW Portland who used lawn chairs to block off parking in front of their house. And I see residents all over the city using rolling garbage/recycling cans to stake their claim. It just goes to show how strongly people feel about their right to parking spaces in the public right of way. And to be fair, since the city puts the burden of sidewalks and street tree maintenance, I can see how the sense of ownership could extend beyond the curb. Portland has gone from a small town to a big city in a relatively short period of time. There’s not as much elbow room and people can get a little chaffed. We’re having challenging conversations about a lot of issues that many of us are accustomed to taking for granted, things we feel entitled to, and because those things are being called into question, some people feel aggrieved and imposed upon. We need to have some big conversations about transportation, housing, climate, and other issues that despite impacting people individually have to be determined on the overall public benefit. I’m looking forward to those conversations as they feel more vital and urgent than ever in light of our public health crisis on the ongoing impacts we’re going to see.

Keith Wilson

Prioritization of our streets

Yes. Out of the 100 top urbanized areas in the United States, Portland’s population has grown 61% but our freeway lane miles have only grown 22% (http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Congestion-Report-2020-FINAL.pdf, page 12). Our rank is eighth with increasing density as opposed to building more roads and parking. Our regional urban growth boundary has curtailed sprawl reducing the need for high cost roads. Coupled with House Bill 2001 passed by the 2019 Oregon legislature that allows middle housing in lands zoned for single-family dwellings within the urban growth boundary, Portland is poised to increase density. With Portland’s population estimated to grow by 260,000 this next 20 years, we can only welcome this growth by de-emphasizing parking and changing to a city that walks, bikes or rides.

Yes. However, I am keenly aware based on experiences that every decision is about real people, not just data alone. I operate a capital-intensive transportation business that delivers to most points throughout the Pacific Northwest. I use extensive data analysis systems Including artificial Intelligence and edge computing. Data and systems allow me to be data informed but not data driven. Data points me in the right direction and then talking to experts and stakeholders dial in the right answer / policy. Sometimes making the right and best decision takes time.

Off-street parking

Yes. We don’t have an affordable parking crisis. We have an affordable housing crisis. Struggling to find a parking space is not the same as struggling to find a place to sleep. Our focus for using limited city funds and financing should be on adding more housing and more low-cost housing choices.

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

Yes. I am a firm supporter that dense walkable cities have an enormous advantage as Infrastructure costs are leveraged over more households. Public transportation becomes more efficient and faster as more resources are needed to accommodate a denser population. I have had the pleasure of living in both New York City and London and have marveled at the efficiencies in these cities due to housing density that support large public transportation systems. Neither of these great cities focus on their parking infrastructures. They focus on their citizens and improving quality of life. Portland is well served doing the same.

On-street parking management

Yes. In areas when parking demand meets or exceeds capacity. Since 2004, gas tax revenue has decreased 22% as cars have become more efficient; however, road construction and maintenance costs during that time frame have increased 44%. Our roads continue to fall further into disrepair and we lack the funds to make needed investment to a green transportation network. In Portland alone, PBOT has $100 million in deferred maintenance of roads, bridges and traffic lights.

Equity

My priorities are focused on building a city that is less focused on single occupancy vehicles and providing parking. As a commissioner, I will focus on shifting our city from congestion to a city that walks, bikes and relies on public transportation. Housing cars is not as important as housing people or investing in our public transportation network. When we insist on on-street or off-street parking requirements, we are driving up the cost of housing and removing the density that is required to invest in an efficient public transportation system. Charging for parking and assigning those revenues to infrastructure, maintenance and transportation network improvements, are an important part of improving equity and quality of life for all Portlanders.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

Road and parking use charging this next 10 years is more difficult to foresee then the next 30. In 30 years, vehicles will be outfitted with Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) that will allow charging for Variable Miles Traveled and parking with differing rates based on location (e.g. downtown versus East Portland). Vehicles will be charged dynamically and at different times of the day. With my decades of transportation expertise and as commissioner, I look forward to helping to guide Portland with our parking and transportation challenges now and to ready our city for the future.

Seth Woolley

Prioritization of our streets

Yes, but I think one can address this carefully to build consensus
around the intermediary goal of parking reduction (and all its ancillary
benefits). Really parking reform is a means to a much more significant
set of ends that involve climate change and public health. I would
always remain cognizant of the ends when examining the means.

You will get opposition from businesses on bus/bike routes, but street
traffic tends to go up when these shifts occur.

Many times this proposal happens, it’s in conjunction with the reduction
of car traffic lanes (as you know, it’s called a “road diet”). I’m
surprised this question doesn’t ask if that’s also supported.

In many cases, we’ve seen parking preserved as bus lanes are added
because they have removed a car lane. They may have had a bike lane
already, so they can move the bike lane to outside the car parking
strip, which increases safety for bikes as passenger car doors open less
often than driver doors (in ride sharing this is not necessarily true)
and keeps the bikes further away from the faster moving cars.

The novel coronavirus gives a compelling argument for increasing
sidewalk space and parking can be taken by that. If you target
decreasing parking by increasing sidewalk space, you can always go back
later when cars are not so popular (because you’ve removed parking you
get a dramatic drop in single occupancy car use), then you can readily
have the data to back up dedicated bus lanes. Note that not every
street gets a bus but every street has or should have sidewalks.
Pedestrians get priority over even bikes and buses. If you link it to
pedestrian room, you can argue it for even more streets to reduce their
parking. In fact, it might even be easier. The places without bus
lines are less likely to have businesses advocating for on street
parking. You can then educate local residents on the benefits of less
parking, including improved air quality and road safety as fewer cars
want to circle their block.

I do not support expedited processes when data shows that the public is
not convinced of it. Otherwise, I’m fine expediting data-backed
policies. You need both data and an effective educational campaign to
convince the public if they are not on board. Then you win, and you
retain your win.

I’m a bit surprised at this question to be honest. Near the end of the
questionnaire there is also a question on equity, but it also doesn’t
appear to seek to dialogue with the diversity of impacted community
members.

The way to win on these issues is to educate, and we need to be
able to demonstrate replicable success in other jurisdictions. If you
put in a program, even if you have data, the public that isn’t convinced
will find reasons to make anecdotes confirm to their biases and it
becomes even more difficult to redo an undone policy later.

Off-street parking

In recent years Portland has reduced or eliminated parking requirements for new homes. Would you resist attempts to impose new residential parking requirements?

I would support new requirements to reduce maximum parking in many cases.
I think the question is asking about new requirements specifying a
requirement for minimum parking per some unit based on the first sentence.

I am fascinated why off street parking and on street parking policies
are asked in separate question without an additional question regarding
what happens when those two policies may interact with each other.

They interact a lot. One reason why residents often demand off street
parking requirements for places near them is that they actually want
what dynamic parking pricing can actually get them: available on street
parking in front of their home, or even nobody parking there at all
(another potential desire of environmental Shoupistas). By trying to
address these issues separately, one risks frustrating those with
significant overlap in desires regarding parts of the off street
parking problem.

If we had a policy where the minimum fee to park was significant enough
that even if dynamic pricing designed to maximize use balanced with
availability would have priced it zero or even at a negative cost, we
could help ensure the parking spot was not used when it would have other
negative externalities (such as is inherent with car travel, electric or
not — rubber tire particulate, energy emissions from heavy transport).

I’d have issue with a policy that was seeing significant honest
opposition and not being made more complete when there is the
opportunity to do so. That might mean we have to delay some reductions
until we develop better grand bargains. If you move too fast without
good bargains, they are again vulnerable to dissatisfaction and growing
distrust in government processes, and a feeling that the city ignores
input.

The next time somebody has a great data-backed idea, will the public be
on your side subsequently? Are you now just a technocrat and a source
of fear? Politics is about more than data-backed policies. It includes
getting people to work together, marshalling everybody’s lived
experience to craft nuanced policy that has wide consensus.

Compromise doesn’t always mean you spread the loss around. It can often
mean win-win scenarios are created. That is the reason why consensus
processes are useful and democratic engagement is important.

On-street parking management

I’ve had direct experience working in a system that used dynamic
pricing. I understand the algorithms innately and to be really good
they often have to use leading indicators of demand and not just
historical data. The dynamic pricing systems often in use vary from
historical average only, to also including real time use information.
But very few take leading indicators into account. What I mean by a
leading indicator is that it’s not an actual request for a thing, but
it’s something that tells you it is soon coming with a high likelihood.

At Uber, for example, a common leading indicator input was when people
opened the app. Surge pricing would rise even when people hadn’t even
requested a ride. This allowed the system to ensure availability and
prevent people from racing to request rides early (which would lead to
drivers using scarce parking).

There are many navigation apps that know where destinations are and they
have begun indicating parking availability. In the future this could be
integrated with city parking data and parking could even be reserved for
eventual arrival to enable the more needed use of parking (long trips
that aren’t easily transit accessible).

The city could get the origin and destination, analyze it for transit
alternatives, compare the cost of the transit, and offer to reserve a
spot if it’s truly necessary to enable the trip, and the necessity score
can also be used to dynamically price the parking. Trips that are
easily transit-capable can have super high parking prices. That may
also get people to use alternative means of arriving, such as using a
parking-free platform such as a ride-sharing solution. Such fees could
even be used to subsidize transit or ride-sharing carpool trips (where
they too are measured against transit accessibility of each trip
request).

All that being said, I would be willing to support implementation of
even more minimal dynamic policies. These policies exist on a continuum
of totally static (and subsidized), static and more properly priced,
dynamic to historical data, and dynamic to more real-time data, and
dynamic to advanced leading indicators. In this case, I wouldn’t make
the perfect the enemy of the good (the off/on-street question is more
difficult).

We do need to phase in dynamic programs with a long term vision to a
much more advanced allocation system that works with larger views of
transportation systems as many modes and options with government as a
guide to balance a whole series of needs from addressing climate change
to ensuring equity and access to transportation. The last thing you
want to have is an argument that restricting parking reduces access and
thus potentially impacts equity.

Equity

I would say it’s much more than how we spend the fees. Equity includes
democratic processes, listening, inviting diversity to the table,
learning about what people’s needs are, and ensuring overall system
fairness by looking at things not as single policies, but as sets of
interacting policies that work or do not work together.

Academics can make a study, hold a whole bunch of variables equal, or
even use statistical algorithms to correct for many variables so that
you are theoretically equal, and making judgements about policies absent
changes to other policies. These types of aggregate statistical studies
often fail to understand that reality isn’t a median, that it’s a
histogram of individuals, and how you treat the extremes in the
histogram can tank your changes. If you make ten changes and each one
helps 9/10 people, but 1/10 end up severely impacted, what happens if
it’s always a different ten percent that are impacted? 100% would
experience a deeply negative impact while getting a slight increase in
good. We know that people greatly magnify the negatives they experience
versus the goods, so now everybody thinks they are worse off, when they
were all the same or even better off.

Politics has to understand human psychology and to know how to build
policies that are much more aware of impacts on individuals. If you can
make policies that for example compensate people for those extreme
negatives (in business this is often called appeasement), then you can
potentially keep your overall approval high. But you need to be
sophisticated to understand these issues in advance, or you will fail to
recognize the need for appeasement.

These are all issues I learned about working on software that had to
scale to millions of users where negative experiences can be extremely
damaging to the brand and news reporters were willing to take one in a
million events and publish them widely as if they were common (which if
you have millions of trips per day, they are common).

The equity lens has to be very, very thoughtful on stuff as major as
transportation, for which big changes can be extremely disruptive on
people’s lives. Part of the goal of Shoupistas is to disrupt the
systems that really harm the environment and people who experience extra
air pollution effects (which itself leads to vulnerability to e.g.
SARS-CoV-2). That’s laudable and I’m 100% on board with the vision.

Where I used to work it was our goal to eventually make parking
requirements drop below 1 space per car because we would be using all
the cars efficiently, and you’d only need spaces for when cars were
idle at the same time in the same places. We repurposed idle time for
passenger delivery into meal delivery, and they could even be repurposed
even further to do package delivery (at night for example). It’s
possible to get near zero parking, with enough system optimization and
time-use distribution of modes.

Society will get there, but we have to have a plan to get there that
doesn’t leave the least privileged among us behind.

Anything Else

Is there anything else you’d like to let us know about parking?

I presume “us” includes the public, since this is to be distributed to a
wider audience. I’ve included a lot of commentary above, so I think
that should cover it for now. If you have any further questions, I’d be
happy to discuss. Having spent over a decade optimizing transportation
systems using software algorithms, this is one of my passions.

Portland’s 2020 City Hall Candidates Get Graded On Parking Policy

April 27, 2020 By Brad Baker 1 Comment

Background

Portlanders for Parking Reform created a candidate questionnaire for the upcoming May primary election to help voters understand which candidates are thinking critically about parking policy.

PPR sent this questionnaire to all mayoral and city council candidates. The themes of the questions were prioritization of our streets, off-street parking, on-street parking management, and equity. We took the candidate responses, anonymized them to remove any potential bias, and had board members of the Parking Reform Network give candidates a grade on how well their answers align with the best practices for parking reform.

Thank you so much for all the candidates below who took the time to fill out the questionnaire and thank you to Lindsay Bayley and Jane Wilberding of the Parking Reform Network for grading the responses.

Below are the grades we gave for each candidate and some quotes that help illustrate their perspective. You can view each candidate’s responses by clicking on their name or view all the responses and judge for yourself.

Mayor of Portland

Sarah Iannarone, A

On the subcategories, Sarah received:

Prioritization of our streets: A-
Off-street parking: A
On-street parking management: A+
Equity: A-

On building new parking structures Sarah said:

I have been a vocal opponent of Prosper Portland, Metro, the Port of Portland, PBOT and other government agencies who have continued to invest millions in parking garages, the most ubiquitous yet least-discussed form of abundant fossil-fuel infrastructure in our cities.

On thinking through the public input process Sarah said:

It will be imperative for us to conduct thoughtful, equitable community outreach, particularly in East Portland and other neighborhoods that have seen significant gentrification and displacement (as well as the neighborhoods to which many were displaced). It’s essential that the changes in our transportation system that we make work to empower vulnerable communities and provide them with more transportation options.

Ozzie González, C

On the subcategories, Ozzie received:

Prioritization of our streets: B+
Off-street parking: D
On-street parking management: B+
Equity: A-

On prioritization of street uses Ozzie said:

I believe transit corridors are the answer to a balanced use of the right of way. My policy platform includes dedicating transit corridors to non-motorized modes of travel.

On expediting the process for transit, Ozzie said:

My policy platform includes a transit oriented development overlay zone which will create expedited permitting processes for projects that accommodate multi-modal mobility options and provide tangible community benefits.

When asked if he would commit to not having the city use it’s own funds to build parking garages Ozzie said:

I will not. The elimination of parking from the right of way and the reduction in parking requirements on new developments means off street parking will become a necessary ingredient as we transition away from the car centric land use philosophy that our planning and zoning codes were built on

Mark White, C-

On the subcategories, Mark received:

Prioritization of our streets: D+
Off-street parking: C-
On-street parking management: C-
Equity: C-

On street prioritization, Mark said:

I have no issue with repurposing on-street parking, but only as it applies to specific areas where it is appropriate. In other words, I do not support a one-size fits all approach to parking or any other issue of importance.

When asked about resisting adding parking requirements for new homes Mark said:

I do not support a one size fits all approach to anything. It’s arrogant, shortsighted, and flat out authoritarian. Addressing change at all levels must be based on what is real, not what is ideal.

Incomplete

We did not hear back from Beryl McNair, Bruce Broussard, Cash Blanco Carter, Daniel Hoffman, Floyd La Bar, Jarred Bepristis, Lew Humble, Michael Burleson, Michael Jenkins, Michael O’Callaghan, Randy Rapaport, Sharon Joy, Ted Wheeler, Teressa Raiford, or Willie Banks.

Portland City Council, Position #1

Timothy DuBois, B+

On the subcategories, Timothy received:

Prioritization of our streets: B+
Off-street parking: B+
On-street parking management: A-
Equity: A-

On street prioritization, Timothy said:

I do support repurposing on-street parking for increased bicycle and transit capacity. I know the evidence shows that removal of some on-street parking will have limited if any direct negative impacts. The benefits to transit times and safety for bicyclists is worth the political fight.

On dynamic pricing, Timothy said:

Dynamic pricing of parking is no longer a technical impossibility, and has been proven to work in the places you name. Portland should implement the same policy. In that effort I would empower PBOT to get these pricing mechanisms in place as quick as possible.

Something Timothy said that we couldn’t help but love was:

Currently I have “The High Cost of Free Parking” next to me at my desk. I consider myself a Shoupista and am proud of it.

Incompletes

We did not hear back from Alicia McCarthy, Candace Avalos, Carmen Rubio, Corinne Patel, Isham Harris, Mary Ann Schwab, or Philip Wolfe.

Portland City Council, Position #2

Julia DeGraw, B+

On the subcategories, Julia received:

Prioritization of our streets: A-
Off-street parking: B
On-street parking management: B+
Equity: A

On where to use the funds for generated from parking, Julia said:

Using parking money to pay for the creation of more parking in an era of climate change would be the height of irresponsibility and could, arguably, be considered new fossil fuel infrastructure given that the majority of our carbon emissions in the Portland metro region come from transportation

On prioritizing uses of the street, Julia said:

Yes, I strongly support prioritizing multimodal use of our roadways and to shift away from such car-centric infrastructure. I will sound like a broken record, as this will come up throughout this questionnaire, but we must expand transit if we plan to reduce the amount of cars on the road and therefore reduce the need for parking.

Margot Black, B

On the subcategories, Margot received:

Prioritization of our streets: B
Off-street parking: B
On-street parking management: B-
Equity: A-

On how we use our streets, Margot said:

Yes. I’d like to see several major road ways used only for busses and/or bikes as well as car-free “village centers” of neighborhoods so that intersections and roadways in those neighborhoods can be safe and useable community gathering spaces primarily accessible by bike and pedestrians.
That being said, I think that all of this needs to be done with a deep equity and racial lens for those with disabilities and who are otherwise reliant on automobiles for various reasons. We have spent almost 100 years building our world for car travel and it will take time to wean ourselves off of it.

On resisting attempts to impose new off-street parking requirements Margot said:

Yes. I have a proven track record of doing so. Even when it makes me a bit unpopular.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2016/07/08/portland-tenant-advocates-have-joined-the-fight-against-parking-requirements/

James (Jas) Davis, B-

On the subcategories, Jas received:

Prioritization of our streets: B-
Off-street parking: C
On-street parking management: C
Equity: B+

On subsidizing parking, Jas said:

My goal is city-wide free mass-transit. On the path to that goal could be subsidized or free annual passes for anyone for whom purchase is a hardship. Getting more people to ride transit eases pressure on parking, which is the only ‘subsidy’ for parking I’m interested in making. If people want more parking spaces, subsidize mass transit.

On prioritizing street uses, Jas said:

Yes, in particular I’d like to see streets that meet certain criteria dedicated to bikeways.

Sam Chase, B-

On the subcategories, Sam received:

Prioritization of our streets: B
Off-street parking: C
On-street parking management: C
Equity: B

On spending revenue generated from parking, Sam said:

Equitable access to public transit has been a priority of mine at Metro and will continue to be something that I prioritize on city council.

On pricing, Sam said:

Managing cars through parking must also go hand in hand with congestion pricing. I successfully championed an effort for Metro to study congestion pricing–not to leave it up to ODOT to forward their own ideas. The study will make the full range of options known to our elected, community, and business leaders. It’s an essential part of long-term structural change in our mobility strategy and carbon footprint reduction.

Aquiles Montas, D

On the subcategories, Aquiles received:

Prioritization of our streets: D
Off-street parking: D
On-street parking management: F
Equity: C

When asked about being in favor of removing on-street parking for other users, Aquiles said:

No the way City has been structuring. Main artery streets needs more access to the growing population with needs of all three forms of transportation

On using city funds for building parking garages, Aquiles said:

I am not for having our tax dollars going for development of new buildings unless they are public owned for low income families

Terry Parker, F

On the subcategories, Terry received:

Prioritization of our streets: F
Off-street parking: F
On-street parking management: F
Equity: F

When asked about being in favor of removing on-street parking in favor of other travel modes, Terry said:

NO! The city needs to stop removing and narrowing full service travel lanes on major streets thereby creating more congestion and increasing both fuel consumption and emissions. To make transit work better, entire streets need to flow better.

When asked about pushing PBOT to implement practices for pricing on-street parking, Terry said:

If any group should be charged a fee for curb space it should be the bicyclists that take away parking making it more scarce and want everything for free as if it is an entitlement.

When asked about using parking revenue to fund transit, Terry said:

59% of low income people drive to their place of employment. If anything is underpriced it is transit which is subsidized at approximately 65 cents per passenger mile. This is the absence of equity.

Incompletes

We did not hear back from Alicea Maurseth, Cynthia Castro, Dan Ryan, Diana Gutman, Jack Kerfoot, Jeff Lang, Loretta Smith, Rachelle Dixon, Ronault (Polo) Catalani, Ryan Farmer, Tera Hurst, or Walter Wesley.

Portland City Council, Position #4

Chloe Eudaly, B+

On the subcategories, Chloe received:

Prioritization of our streets: A-
Off-street parking: A-
On-street parking management: B
Equity: A-

About finding uses for the street besides street parking, Chloe said

I’m interested in re-purposing parking spaces for other uses, like the Ankeny Square Food Cart Pod my office has been working on since the Alder Food Cart Pod was displaced by development. We’re also collaborating with the parks bureau to permanently close streets adjacent to the Portland Art Museum and Parks Blocks.

About pushing back on the imposition of new parking minimums, Chloe said:

Yes. I’m more interested in parking maximums, than parking minimums. Portland is an awkward phase between our growth and transportation habits. We cannot continue to support, encourage or subsidize those that are detrimental to the health of our communities or our environment. But we do need to vastly improve walking, biking, and transit options at the same time.

Keith Wilson, B+

On the subcategories, Keith received:

Prioritization of our streets: B
Off-street parking: A
On-street parking management: A-
Equity: A-

When asked about using city funds for developing parking garages, Keith said:

Yes. We don’t have an affordable parking crisis. We have an affordable housing crisis. Struggling to find a parking space is not the same as struggling to find a place to sleep. Our focus for using limited city funds and financing should be on adding more housing and more low-cost housing choices.

When asked about equity and transportation costs, Keith said:

Housing cars is not as important as housing people or investing in our public transportation network. When we insist on on-street or off-street parking requirements, we are driving up the cost of housing and removing the density that is required to invest in an efficient public transportation system. Charging for parking and assigning those revenues to infrastructure, maintenance and transportation network improvements, are an important part of improving equity and quality of life for all Portlanders.

Seth Woolley, B-

On the subcategories, Seth received:

Prioritization of our streets: C
Off-street parking: B-
On-street parking management: B-
Equity: C

When asked about prioritization of street uses, Seth said:

Yes, but I think one can address this carefully to build consensus around the intermediary goal of parking reduction (and all its ancillary benefits). Really parking reform is a means to a much more significant set of ends that involve climate change and public health. I would always remain cognizant of the ends when examining the means.

When asked about ensuring equitable spending of the revenue generated from parking, Seth said:

I would say it’s much more than how we spend the fees. Equity includes democratic processes, listening, inviting diversity to the table, learning about what people’s needs are, and ensuring overall system fairness by looking at things not as single policies, but as sets of interacting policies that work or do not work together.

Incompletes

We did not hear back from Aaron Fancher, Kevin McKay, Mingus Mapps, Robert MacKay, or Sam Adams.