TonyJ

Portland Is Building Parking For Cars That Won’t Ever Park

August 31, 2016 By TonyJ 3 Comments

Within a matter of days, Ford has announced plans to mass produce fully-autonomous vehicles by 2021, Uber said it would be debuting (semi) self-driving taxis in Pittsburgh, and folks in Singapore started taking rides in robot taxi cabs. Simultaneously, Portland plans to renovate a public parking garage for $25 million and build a 425 stall parking garage next to a Rose Quarter light rail station.

Autonomous vehicles are coming. The technology is here, the industry players are lining up, and given their track records with disruptive technology (see: Uber, AirBnB, Tesla Autopilot) our cities are unlikely to stop driverless cars from operating on our streets. But rather than crafting regulations to ensure that this technology is applied to solve transportation and planning problems, Portland is planning to spend millions of dollars to build more garages for conventional automobiles.

The threat of robot cars making things worse is real. It won’t do much good for us to trade privately owned single occupancy vehicles (SOV) that sit idle in parking stalls 98% of the time for privately owned SOV that sit idle in traffic 98% of the time. There are people making great arguments about what we should do to prevent a worst-case-scenario and Portland is lucky to have a planning commissioner, Chris Smith, who is pushing for policy about self-driving cars to be included in the upcoming Transportation System Plan.

The End of Parking?

While the virtues of autonomous cars and the timelines for their arrival are still open for debate, it is increasingly acknowledged that self-driving vehicles will greatly diminish demand for on-site parking in most areas with even a moderate amount of commercial or residential density. Wasting valuable land and money on parking stalls (already a bad idea) will be completely impractical once cars can park themselves in the hinterlands or, more likely, spend the entire day moving people and goods.

The possibilities for repurposing on-street and surface lot parking are exciting. Surface lots can be re-developed into new buildings. On street parking can be removed and replaced with bike lanes, parklets, bus rapid transit (BRT), or even additional lanes for car traffic. The curb lane is a massive public asset, worth billions of dollars in a mid-size city and how we’ll use it in a post-parking world is an exciting thought exercise.

Like a banana slicer or a butter cutter, a parking structure is, generally, only good for one thing.

Parking garages, however, are single-purpose structures. Like a banana slicer or a butter cutter, a parking structure is, generally, only good for one thing. Standalone parking garages can be torn down and housing or offices can take its place, but the parking built beneath or within a building is single-use space we will be stuck with for generations.

We can see the end of parking demand as we know it and it’s time to stop building parking for future generations; they won’t be needing it.

There’s Money For Parking But Not For Housing

In the past month Portland officials have committed over $40 million dollars to publicly financed parking garage projects and the Portland Development Commission (PDC) is just getting started. These projects are simultaneously in opposition to the city’s own mode split and climate action goals and foolhardy investments.

But why must we ask voters to pay for housing while we pay for parking garages with available funds?

As we have covered, the PDC is committing $18 million dollars to build a 425 stall parking garage as part of the convention center hotel project which PDC claims will be profitable for decades to come. Will visitors to Portland in 2025 rent cars and personally drive them to a hotel which is immediately adjacent to the MAX line? Only in the most dystopian of futures.

Parking garage at SW 10th and Yamhill — SW 10th and Yamhill Garage

Perhaps even more foolish is a plan to renovate the SmartPark garage on SW 10th and SW Yamhill. This project, which will cost $25 million dollars is said to be necessary because the building is old and the ground floor retail is lacking in modern amenities. It is irresponsible to spend this much on a parking garage, which will last many decades, in the heart of downtown Portland just as we begin a transition into a very different era of transportation. At the very least, if the city must rebuild this garage, then housing or office space should be built on top of it. A city that is moving forward in 2016 doesn’t just replace an old parking garage with a new one. It’s shameful.

Our city council is asking us to commit $250 million dollars in new property taxes to build affordable housing. This is a critical need and a worthy ask. But why must we ask voters to pay for housing while we pay for parking garages with available funds? Isn’t this backwards?

Voters should be asked if they want to raise taxes to rebuild a parking garage and city council should use those dollars to build affordable housing. City Council should direct PDC to abandon its bizarre parking garage strategy and, instead, to look to affordable housing as a long term investment.

A Step Backwards: Portland May Invite More Cars Into The Central City

August 3, 2016 By TonyJ 6 Comments

Downtown needs fewer cars per worker. But the proposed Central City 2035 Plan would make room for the ratio to increase.

Portland has ambitious goals for its future, but do we have the will today to set the proper course for tomorrow? Today, 40% of trips to downtown Portland are made by people driving alone. The city has, since at least 2009, had “drive alone” mode share target for the entire central city of only 25%. The proposed draft of the Central City 2035 plan (page 5) sets a goal for only 15% of trips to downtown Portland to be via single-occupancy-vehicles (SOV). But do the policies in the proposed draft support these goals? If ample cheap car parking is a “fertility drug for cars,” then the policies probably are not sufficient to meet our goals.

Curbing Parking

Since 1975 the city of Portland has limited the amount of parking that can be built downtown. In order to improve air quality, the city placed a “parking lid” on downtown, allowing a maximum of 39,680 non-residential (or hotel) parking spaces. In 1996, the Central City Transportation Management Plan (CCTMP) removed the lid on parking. In place of the parking lid, maximum parking allotments were created for the central city. The ratios allowed a certain number of commercial spaces per 1000 square feet of office space and varied geographically based on the sector’s access to transit and other modes of transportation. The most dense parts of downtown, for example, allowed .7 stalls per 1000 square feet of office space. This ratio reflected the major investments in light rail infrastructure in downtown.

The parking regulations in the CCTMP were fairly complicated and contained provisions for monitoring and reporting which were rarely enforced. There were more than 25 different “parking sectors” each with a different set of maximum parking entitlements. In January 2015, the city began a Central City Parking Policy Update project to review, revise, and simplify these regulations.

Shared Parking: A Double Edged Sword

The Central City Parking Policy Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) met nine times in 2015 and unanimously approved a proposal that greatly reduces the number of parking sectors, imposes maximum parking entitlements for all land uses in all parts of the central city, and relaxes restrictions on how parking can be used in the central city.

Under current regulations parking which is built to serve residential or hotel uses cannot also be used for commercial uses. The same is true for parking built for commuters, it cannot be leased to residents. To understand the impact of this policy on parking supply and the double edged sword of relaxing this policy, imagine the following example.

A developer is constructing a mixed-use building which needs 10 parking stalls for residents and 10 stalls for commuters to the office space. The developer builds a parking lot with 20 parking stalls.

A building with 20 parking spaces under it. In separate groups of 10. — A developer today must build separate supply for residential and commercial uses.

This policy can lead to an overbuilding of parking. Many of the stalls allotted for residential use will be empty during the day, as tenants will drive to their jobs elsewhere in the city. Conversely, many of the stalls reserved for commuter uses will be vacant during the evening hours when office workers are not at work.

The proposed draft of the CC2035 Plan aims to deal with this inefficiency by allowing buildings to use their parking entitlements for any use. Under the new plan, the developer of our hypothetical mixed-used building can take the habits of her future tenants into consideration. Suppose 80% of the residential tenants move their cars during the workday, and 80% of office workers are not at work during the evening hours. The developer can choose to “share” eight stalls between residents and commuters and might choose to build only 12 stalls (which might well save $1M dollars in subterranean construction costs).

A building with 12 parking stalls, 8 are shared between residential and commercial users. — Under new rules, a developer can build less parking, at a significant savings.

So far so good! The proposal encourages the building of less expensive parking by allowing more efficient use. This could help lower the cost of housing, lead to more development, and leave our children with fewer levels of underground parking to fill up with consumer goods when robots are driving us around.

But there’s a downside to this efficiency. In the short term the plan could lead to a substantial increase in the supply of parking for commuters to downtown, which could lead to more traffic, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. When the plan goes into effect, the developer who built 20 parking stalls, 10 for their residents and 10 for their commuters, can rent additional spaces for residents and commuters.

A building with 20 parking stalls, all in one supply. — Current parking supply, which was restricted for use, can now be sold to tenants which could induce traffic.

While this might be cause for some concern, the effect of this policy could be mitigated by a parking congestion fee, parking cash-outs, TDM, and the reality that not all restricted parking spaces will be opened up for other uses. Unfortunately, that’s not the only part of the proposed plan that will lead to more parking and traffic.

Going Backwards

Downtown parking regulations are complicated. The city core is split up into 6 parking sectors with three sets of parking ratios for commercial uses.

Map showing the downtown parking sectors. In 166 aces of the central city, where the 1.5B Ankeny Blocks proposal is sited, parking maximums can increase 42% from .7 stalls to 1 per 1000/sqft. A 56 acre parcel will have maximums decrease from 2 stalls to 1 per 1000/sqft, but it is unlikely to redevelop. — More parking will be allowed in a vast swath of the city core.

In Sectors 2 & 3, salmon colored on the map, the maximum parking entitlements are currently .7 stalls per 1000 sq/ft of commercial space. These 166 acres make up the bulk of the downtown core and include the east/west MAX couplet, much of the 5th and 6th Ave transit mall, and Pioneer Courthouse Square. But it is not what currently exists in this area that we must consider, but what will be built under the new parking maximums.

Picture of the 11 towers proposed as the Ankeny Blocks Project — All 11 of these proposed towers would be entitled to 42% more parking under the proposal.

Recently the Goodman family published a long-term proposal for their considerable holdings in downtown Portland. The Ankeny Project is a plan for up to 11 new developments, many of them considerable high-rise towers with the potential for over 4 million square feet of residential, office, and commercial space. All of these buildings would be built in what are currently Sectors 2 and 3. All of these buildings, under the proposed draft of the Central City 2035 plan would be allowed 42% more commercial parking spaces than are currently allowed. If these buildings were built today, and were entirely office space, 2,800 parking spaces would be allowed. If the proposed draft is passed unaltered, 4,000 spaces could be built.

Meeting our mode share goals for the Central City will be difficult enough if we allow 2,800 parking stalls in these towers. Allowing 1,200 MORE spaces than we could build today is a major step backwards.

An Imbalanced Proposal

The Central City 2035 Proposed Draft points out that the average maximum commercial parking entitlement remains at an average of 1 stall per 1,000 square feet of office space. This average is maintained by reducing the entitlement in the 56 acre Sector 6 from 2 stalls per 1,000 square feet to 1 stall per 1,000 square feet. A closer look at Sector 6, however, reveals that this reduction is unlikely to have any impact on the number of cars parked in the future downtown.

A 3-D Image of sector 6. Most of the sector is residential condos. — Sector 6 is nearly completely residential. The two vacant parcels pictured will be developed with residential or hotel uses before the Central City 2035 plan goes into effect.

Sector 6, is almost entirely condos or hotels. The two parcels in the photo which are undeveloped are a residential complex and a 6-story Hyatt hotel. The condos near the marina are relatively new and very unlikely to redevelop in the life of the comprehensive plan. Little-to-no office space will be built in this sector. The maximum entitlement could have been reduced to literally nothing and it would not have reduced the number of drive-alone trips we can expect in 2035 to the central city.

How To Move Forward

On July 26th, Portlanders for Parking Reform asked the Planning and Sustainability commission to amend the proposed draft and recommend a maximum parking entitlement for the downtown core of no more than .6 stalls per 1000 square feet. This ratio will not be a step backwards from where we are now. To meet our mode share and climate action goals in 20 years we must ensure that downtown parking is not so abundant as to make driving alone the cheapest and most convenient option.

Even a ratio of .6 stalls may not be enough. New parking for residential uses will be allowed at a ratio of 1.2 stalls per housing unit (currently 1.35 stalls per unit are allowed in sectors 1-5 and 1.7 stalls in sector 6) and the shared parking allowance will enable these stalls to be used by commuters to downtown. If the city is serious about meeting it’s stated goals, these ratios should be much, much lower, ratios of .25 stalls per housing unit or 1,000 square feet of office space are more appropriate for our 15% drive-alone mode share goal.

The policy suggestions are generally good. Simplifying the code and allowing shared parking are smart decisions, but a holistic examination is needed to ensure that shared parking and too-high ratios won’t lead to an increase in supply that could lead to more driving.

The Planning Commission and City Council must ask to see the math that supports the proposed parking maximums. Realistic projections of new development and the likely increases in car traffic and drive-alone commutes that will come along with this proposal must be justified and mitigated. These ratios are too high to meet our goals.

The Planning and Sustainability Commission will hold its final hearing on the CC2035 Plan on August 9th at 4PM. Testimony can be sent to psc@portlandoregon.gov asking the commission to reduce the maximum parking ratios to at most .6 stalls, across the board and the commission should direct PBOT staff to show how any proposed ratios support the mode share goals. Be sure to include “CC2035 Plan Testimony” in the subject line and your full name and mailing address.

[Note: Previously this article stated that Central City Parking Review (and likely Transportation Demand Management) would be required for developments with new parking. This was incorrect. Grant Morehead from PBOT says: “Under the existing zoning CCPR (and therefore a TDM Plan) is almost never required if the parking is accompanied by new development. Office uses (see 33.510.263.A.1 and Table 510-5) and residential uses (see 33.510.263.E.4 and Table 510-9) are allowed to build up to the maximum, if the parking is in a structure, without going through CCPR. CCPR in conjunction with new development is intended to address situations where there is no maximum (applies mainly to non-office uses outside of downtown/Core Area).”]

Did This Landlord Prove That Parking Reform Can Lower Rents?

July 15, 2016 By TonyJ 3 Comments

Portland is getting a new bike share service starting on July 19th and the city is installing 100 bright orange bike corrals all over town to support the system. Despite a process for bike share that has taken years and a public outreach and comment period that has spanned several months, some residents were surprised (and unhappy) to see the bike racks installed where they usually park their cars.

But perhaps the most interesting part of this story, so far, is a quote from the landlord who owns the duplex directly behind the new racks. Mike Papas, who runs a blog called “LandLordZen” claims that the loss of on-street parking will force him to reduce the rent he is charging to his tenants.

Landlord Mike Papas told KOIN news he will lose $250 in rents due to the bike rack removing parking. — Landlord Mike Papas told KOIN news he will lose $250 in rents due to the lost parking.

Charging For On-Street Parking?

Papas’ duplex doesn’t have dedicated parking for his tenants so, assuming they have cars, they park on the street. Although the building is on a duplex, SE Cesar E. Chavez is a busy street with no parking. Papas’ tenants will have to park at least 50 feet from their home from now on. Although the street usually has available spaces on the block face (Note: the author commutes by bike on this street every day) the inconvenience and loss of parking in front of the residence is apparently valued by Mr. Papas at $125 per month.

Access to that amenity is reflected in the rent Mr. Papas, whose tenants say is an extremely honest and ethical landlord, is charging them. This is no surprise. One common argument against reducing or removing minimum parking requirements is that allowing developers to build less parking doesn’t lower rents. Opponents to parking reform have gobs of tables showing rents for comparable studios in buildings with and without parking which reflect little to no discount (and surely not the $200+/month the parking is likely adding to the cost burden).

The problem with that argument is that given ample free or underpriced on-street parking, there is no major difference in the amenities offered by the building with parking and the building without parking. Often, when developers do build parking, they charge for it and if the off-street is cheap the lot will be mostly vacant.

Photo of sign reading "Got Bikes, Need Parking!" in front of new BIKETOWN station. — Neighbors at SE Taylor and SE Cesar Chaves have put up signs protesting their loss of parking.

Reform Parking and Reduce Rents

If cities permit parking, charge market rates, and only sell as many permits as there are parking spaces, then we expect to see developers build the amount of parking they need. If a developer chooses not to build parking in such an environment, the expectation is that the rent for the building will be cheaper and fewer residents will own cars.

In all likelihood, Mr. Papas will not be lowering his rents by $125 a month. Parking on this block is not extremely congested and even if it were, the market rate for off-street parking in this neighborhood is likely closer to $50/month rather than $125. The area doesn’t have permitted parking, yet, and in the event neighbors ask for permits, the monthly cost of on-street parking is unlikely to be above $10/month.

Nevertheless, if Papas does lower his rent because the BIKETOWN station was put in front of his property, one can imaging tenants all over Portland begging for a station to be put in front of their home next.

Portland City Council Decides Against Expanding Parking Minimums… For Now

July 11, 2016 By TonyJ 3 Comments

In a somewhat unexpected turn of events, two hours of testimony, mostly from Shoupistas and affordable housing advocates, convinced a majority of Portland’s City Council to hold off on extending minimum parking requirements into NW Portland.

In the days leading up to the hearing it seemed that members of the NW Parking Stakeholder Advisory Committee had convinced a majority of City Council that a “tourniquet” was needed to stop new buildings with no on-site parking from being built in the

City Council Hears from BPS on Minimum Parking Requirements

very walkable NW Portland neighborhood. A seeming majority of the 10 Portlanders who requested minimum parking requirements from City Council recognized that the policy they were asking for was flawed and needed reform, but they felt it was better to take action now and fix the citywide policy later.

For most of the 19 people who spoke out against an expansion of the current policy, however, the potential for harm to our already critical housing crisis was too great to take such a chance. Chris Smith, a member of the Portland Planning Commission, pointed out that there were roughly 25 parking management strategies identified by the Centers + Corridors Stakeholder Advisory Committee and nearly all of them should be tried before minimum parking requirements.

“Woefully Underpriced”

The hearing was notable for the breadth and quality of discussion around parking policy. Commissioners Nick Fish, Steve Novick, and Dan Saltzman were genuinely engaged and participating in what at times seemed to be an ad-hoc brainstorming session on parking management strategies.

The biggest impact of the hearing might be the shot-in-the-arm it gave to the on-going process to develop an overnight Residential Parking Permit program. Steve Novick, the transportation commissioner, was asked several times about the status of the recommendations from the Centers+Corridors SAC, a process that has seemed to stall out in recent months. There was a general consensus that the residents of NW Portland needed more tools, sooner rather than later, to deal with on-street parking congestion, and more effective parking permits are a likely solution.

One of the bigger obstacles to implementing an effective residential permit program has been the expected resistance of City Council to higher permit prices. Currently, the annual cost of most residential permits is $60, with the exception being the Central Eastside Industrial District where employee/residential permits now cost $140 annually. But the prospects for market-rate permits may be changing. Mayor Charlie Hales commented that “five bucks a month [for parking permits] is crazy low” and Commissioner Dan Saltzman said that he now agrees that “on-street permits are woefully underpriced.” We’re unlikely to see the price of on-street parking approach the $150+ a month it costs to rent a dedicated space in NW Portland, but $25+ a month for residential permits now seems like far less of a stretch than it did a week before the hearing.

Repeal or Reform?

So what is next for Portland’s minimum parking requirements? While an outright repeal seems unlikely, council members seemed ready to revisit the 2013 thresholds, ratios, and exemptions. Most notably, Commissioner Nick Fish was concerned that the 30 housing unit threshold he authored in 2013 was having unintended consequences on the housing market, as previously reported.

There appears to be an opportunity for a reform of the 2013 requirements to mitigate the impact on the housing market. Exempting affordable housing from the requirements (such that a 40 unit building with 10 affordable apartments would have no parking requirement) was mentioned as one strategy. In-lieu fees are another possibility, which could be particularly potent if the proceeds went to affordable housing and/or affordable transit subsidies.

We surely haven’t seen the last of this issue. The next few months will be critical to watch and participate in any efforts to change the current regulations and, likely, expand them into NW Portland.

Tell Portland City Council: Housing For People Is More Important Than Space For Cars

July 4, 2016 By TonyJ 3 Comments

Parking Spaces Take Up Valuable Space — Not only is parking expensive, but parking stalls take up valuable space that could contain more homes.

On Wednesday, July 6th at 2PM the Portland City Council will consider a request to require parking for all housing developments with more than 30 homes in the NW Plan District. The request doesn’t come from the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC), that body rejected the policy based on concerns it would raise rents and reduce housing supply. Instead, well connected members of the NW Parking Stakeholder Advisory Committee (NW Parking SAC) have lobbied city council in recent months to override the PSC recommendation and impose these new restrictions on future construction.

These parking requirements are not a solution to parking issues in NW Portland. Many high-end developments in NW Portland are built with ample parking, so much parking that the average number of spaces per home in new construction is already higher than the proposed requirements. New regulations would require all developments with 31 homes or more to build parking on-site. If this happens, fewer apartments will be built and they will cost more per-unit to construct.

Portland is experiencing a housing crisis. Thousands of Portlanders are being displaced by higher rents and redevelopment of their existing apartments. In times like this, proposals which curtail the supply of new housing and increase rents should be dead on arrival. A vote for minimum parking requirements is a vote to make the housing crisis worse.

City Council Needs To Hear From YOU

Portlanders who are concerned about housing availability and displacement must let City Council know that this is the wrong solution for this problem. Here is how you can help.

Write to the Commissioners

Send an email to the members of City Council. We suggest you do this by Tuesday July 5th.

Write to Commissioner Steve Novick, Mayor Charlie Hales, Commissioner Nick Fish, Commissioner Dan Saltzman, and Commissioner Amanda Fritz. Let them know that this is the wrong move to make in a housing crisis. Portlanders are looking for leadership and action on housing and will not tolerate steps backward on this issue.

Send testimony to City Council

Before the hearing on Wednesday, July 6th you can send written testimony to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov. The subject should be “NW Parking Update Project.”

Testify in person at the hearing.

The biggest impact will come from people showing and speaking to council. Council needs to hear from people who face rent increases and displacement due to poor policy such as this. Testifying is easy. Simply state, in your own words, why this issue concerns you and tell council that you want them to reject minimum parking requirements.

July 6th, 2PM @ Portland City Hall

If you plan to testify, please RSVP via this form so we have an idea of what support we can expect.

Spread the Word

We have prepared a fact sheet for your convenience. Tell others who will be affected by this policy change.