TonyJ

Comments on Portland’s Transportation System Plan

March 22, 2016 By TonyJ Leave a Comment

It’s a bit of late notice, but the Planning and Sustainability Commission will hold a hearing today on Stage 2 of the Transportation System Plan. The plan, which you can read about here is long and covers a lot of topics. I’ve scanned the document for parking references and made some comments on those parts of the plan.

There is an opportunity tonight to testify in person:

1900 SW 4th Avenue, Room 2500, Portland, OR Tuesday, March 8, 2016; 12:30 –
5:00 PM* Tuesday, March 22, 2016; 5:00 – 9:00 PM*

You can also modify the following testimony and Email: psc@portlandoregon.gov with subject line “TSP Testimony” this afternoon.

A google document is available here for easier editing.

Re: Comment on Transportation System Plan, Stage 2

Chair Schultz and Commissioners:

Please accept the following testimony for Task 5 of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). This testimony concerns parking related sections of the TSP.

Section 14: Transportation and Parking Demand Management

The city should incentivize car-share participation as part of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. Such benefits might, somewhat counterintuitively, be provided to car owners and parking permit holders in an effort to increase the supply of peer-to-peer carshare participation (with services such as GetAround and Turo).

One way to do this would be to partner with peer-to-peer systems and provide priority access to permits, or discounted permit prices, for car owners who make their vehicles available for neighbors for at least a certain percentage (say 50%) of the day.

Private housing developments should, similarly, offer discounted or free on-site parking (when available) to tenants who, likewise, regularly offer their vehicles for rental.

Integrating TDM and parking requirements is an important mitigation of the harms caused by our minimum on-site parking requirements. Developers should be allowed to reduce their parking requirement by providing progressively more intensive TDM benefits.

Centers & Corridors Parking and Transportation Demand Management

The Centers + Corridors Stakeholder Advisory Committee wanted the price of permits to be above cost recovery to make the permit programs more effective. TDM was one acceptable use of additional revenue, however there was also a strong desire for such revenue to be spent as locally as possible. Spending revenue generated on permits sold in a residential permit zone on TDM for residents outside of the zone could be politically contentious and appear as more of a tax than a management tool. TDM paid for with revenue from parking permits should be focused on residents in the permit zones, for example by discounting transit passes for households with no registered vehicles or purchased permits. TDM in commercially zoned apartments should be paid for by the property manager or owner.

Section 15: Parking Code Amendment—Commercial Parking in Mixed Use Zones

Mixed Use Zones Project

Parking requirements for residential developments proximate to frequent transit should be removed in anticipation of the Centers + Corridors recommended permit program availability. These requirements have had a detrimental effect on the production of new housing stock, decrease the affordability of the housing that is created, and contribute to a fractured streetscape with cars driving across our sidewalks.. Furthermore, trends in technology (TNCs and self-parking cars) and vehicle ownership and usage point to a future where we are likely to have an oversupply of parking.

Maximum parking entitlements for residential developments along corridors are encouraged and should be lower than 1.35 stalls per unit, a suggested amount would be the .7 stalls per unit regularly requested by neighbors.

Parking buy-down opportunities for developers should be expanded (assuming minimum requirements stay in place) . Developers should be able to buy down their entire requirement, rather than a maximum of 50%. The recently passed inclusionary zoning bill in Salem allows for a buy down of all affordable units in a development, there is no reason mandatory parking should be given a higher priority than mandatory affordable housing for people.

More flexibility in siting any required parking should be allowed. Shared parking among developments and off-site parking should be encouraged. Ideally, parking requirements should be eliminated in favor of on-street parking management, in which case there is no need to regulate shared and off-site parking other than enacting a maximum entitlement.

Portland Planning Commission Declines To Recommend New Parking Requirements

March 8, 2016 By TonyJ 12 Comments

Portland’s Planning and Sustainability Commission, on March 8, heard staff recommendations to impose mandatory minimum parking requirements in densely populated NW Portland.

Northwest Portland, because it is in a plan district, was left out zoning changes passed in 2013 which required parking in new multi-family developments with more than 30 housing units. Neighbors argued that the region was short 2000 parking spaces already and that new developments proposed would exacerbate the problem further in the future.

Housing affordability advocates, transportation activists, and Portland Shoupistas countered that minimum requirements were a step in the wrong direction during a housing crisis. Portland Shoupistas pointed out that there are many parking management strategies available to the district, such as limiting the number of permits and charging market rates, that would lead to right-sized parking being built at the developer’s discretion.

Commissioners agreed with concerns about the effect of minimum requirements on housing affordability and cited lack of any data or studies on the impact of the 2013 requirements as a reason to proceed with caution. Northwest Portland Parking

Commissioner Chris Smith moved to recommend only the shared parking provisions of the staff proposal, which would allow for more flexible use of off street parking. The commission also recommended that the process to gain approval for shared parking be streamlined.

The recommendations will be heard at City Council where it is likely some NW residents will attempt to convince city commissioners to impose requirements contrary to the recommendation of the PSC. Such an outcome, however, is far less likely now due, in part, to the work of Portland Shoupistas and our allies.

Minimum Parking Requirements Can Neutralize Inclusionary Zoning

March 2, 2016 By TonyJ 2 Comments

A long awaited re-legalization of mandatory inclusionary zoning looks likely to make it to Governor Kate Brown’s desk this Spring, opening up the possibility that Portland could see some council actions by late 2016 to deal with the housing crisis. But before we see any laws passed that require housing for lower-income Portlanders, council could require more mandatory housing for cars in parts of the city.

Comparing the inclusionary zoning possibilities to the mandatory parking realities is eye-opening:

Housing People vs. Housing Cars

SB 1533	Minimum Parking Requirements
Up to 20% of units must be affordable to 80% median income household.	Parking must be provided to no less than 20% of units and can be required for 33% of units in large developments.
Developers can avoid building any affordable units if they pay an in-lieu fee"	Developers can reduce requirement by no more than 50% through various measures.
City must provide financial incentive to developers who build "mandatory" affordable units.	Cost of parking space construction, maintenance, and opportunity is passed onto tenants.
Applies to new construction containing 20 or more units.	Applies to new construction containing more than 30 units, with two additional tiers which trigger additional parking requirements.
Could lower rent on average 2 bedroom apartment by $400.	A structured parking space can easily add $200 to monthly rent. Underground parking costs much more.

Portland is facing a housing crisis and applying the existing minimum parking requirements to more areas of the city will lead to higher rents in new apartments and will likely lead to less housing being built.

How many fewer units will we see built in Northwest Portland? How much higher will rents be in these apartments? To

Graphic showing that 1.5 parking spaces takes up 488 sq/ft where a 2 bedroom apartment is 900 sq/ft. — Courtesy of http://graphingparking.com/

our knowledge the city has not performed any studies on the affect of 2013’s zoning changes to require more parking.

Minimum parking requirements work at cross purposes to affordable housing policies. City Council and the Bureau of Development Services should work to reduce or remove minimum parking requirements rather than impose new ones. Managing our on-street parking supply with improved residential permit programs can ensure the right amount of parking is built by developers and not a space more.

On March 8, 2016 the Planning and Sustainability Commission will hear this proposal. Portland Shoupistas encourages testimony, both written and in person, opposing the imposition of new parking requirements. NWPD should be fast-tracking more modern and effective parking management, such as market rate permit prices, limiting permit supply, and longer meter hours, to deal with parking congestion.

The public is invited to provide testimony on this proposal in person at the public hearing in front of the Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC).

Planning and Sustainability Commission Public Hearing
Northwest Parking Update Project
March 8, 2016 at 12:30 pm.
1900 SW 4^th Avenue, Suite 2500A (second floor)
Please call 503-823-7700 or check the PSC calendar (http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/35452) for the scheduled time.

Testimony may also be submitted before the hearing in writing via the following:

By U.S. Mail:
Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission
1900 SW 4th Avenue Suite 7100
Portland, OR 97201
Attn: NW District Parking Update

By email: psc@portlandoregon.gov

Uptown & Downtown: A Parking Par-TAY – 2/23 at 6PM

February 20, 2016 By TonyJ 1 Comment

On Tuesday, February 23 join the Portland Shoupistas and the StreetLab division of Lancaster Engineering for a wonky night of parking talk and a screening of “The Parking Lot Movie.”

Probably the social parking event of winter 2016! 😉

When: Tuesday 2/23 6PM

Where: Lancaster Engineering Offices – 321 SW 4th Ave, Suite 400

Note: Previously this event was called a Parking Pow-Wow. We recognize that using this term outside of its original context might be considered inappropriate. We hope no one was offended, and apologize for the mistake.

PDC’s $26 Million Parking Garage: Money Maker or Money Pit?

February 14, 2016 By TonyJ 13 Comments

[Update: In December 2016, PDC voted to authorize an addition $6 million for construction of the garage. PDC will pay $24 million with TriMet covering the additional $8 million.]

Portland Development Commission, a taxpayer funded organization chartered to foster healthy neighborhoods, promote social and economic equity, and build a vibrant central city, announced approval to build a $26,000,000 parking garage to accompany Metro’s controversial 600 room headquarters hotel in the transit rich Lloyd District Portland’s central city.

The 425 stall garage will be built adjacent to a MAX station and near the Rose Quarter Transit Center. Fifty spaces will be reserved, ironically, for the use of Trimet employees (who might be, reasonably, expected to ride their own product to work).

Sandwiched between the Rose Quarter Campus and the Oregon Convention Center which, together, have more than 3300 existing structured parking spaces, the new facility will provide one stall per two hotel units at a time when most central city hotel projects are building little to no structured parking at all.

The lot construction will be funded by a loan from the tax-funded Oregon Convention Center Urban Renewal Area which will partially be repaid when Trimet purchases its portion of the building for an estimated $8 million. The remainder of the cost, PDC claims, will be paid with proceeds generated by the operation of the garage.

Is it appropriate for a regional transit operator to be spending 8 million dollars on employee parking while asking for what some say is a regressive payroll tax to expand frequent service? That’s a bit outside our wheelhouse, but a question worth asking in itself.

Wishful Thinking?

PDC should show its math on this projected revenue and explain how it squares with projected VMT trends, nearby investments in transit, and the likely advent of the autonomous vehicle era.

PDC projects the net operating income will be $1.8 million a year starting in 2020, and expects to pay $1.3 million a year in debt service on the remaining $18 million loan (after Trimet pays its $8 million). This figures to a 20 year loan at roughly 3.5% interest.

PDC says this garage will not only be able to support the repayment, but “it will become an income generator for PDC” to the order of $500,000 in annual income. Let’s explore the math:

~$105,000/month PROFIT needed per month to cover the loan payment divided by 375 stalls is about $278/month in net income per stall, for 20 years. But we would need to add another $70-90 a month in operating costs (current costs are ~$1000/year per stall) to that amount to cover security, fee collection, maintenance, cleaning, etc.

Just to break even, this garage will need to generate more than $12 per space every day of every year for 20 years, starting in 2020.

Do we believe that a 600 room hotel in one of the most transit rich areas in one of the most transit/bike/walk-able cities in the nation, built adjacent to a light rail line that goes directly to the airport and downtown, in a district with over 3,000 structured spaces, will be parked to capacity in 2030? Doubtful.

This is a dinosaur plan. PDC and Metro should contract with the OCC and the Rose Quarter to utilize parking in their facilities. Guests to this hotel will increasingly use transit, bike share, car share, taxis, Lyft (and other services) and, soon, autonomous vehicles to get around during their visit.

The city has invested heavily in alternative modes for this region. For PDC to bank on an increase in single-occupancy-trips in 20 years to finance this building is not only financially irresponsible, but it goes against the goals of the Portland Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and undermines the investments the city and Metro have made.

PDC has been facing a crossroads, traditional funding sources are drying up in the next decade and there is no reliable replacement on the horizon. Parking might prove to be a money-maker in the early 2020’s, but as a long term bet the odds are very long.

Portland taxpayers will be left holding the bag and paying the loans for this mistake for years to come. In a city with an acute affordable housing crisis, the last thing we should spend Urban Renewal funds on is housing rental cars for out of town visitors.