• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Portlanders for Parking Reform

Better Parking Policy For The City of Roses

  • About
  • Get Involved
  • What’s a Shoupista?
  • Posts

TonyJ

Weaponized parking requirements

January 24, 2019 By TonyJ Leave a Comment

When neighbors want to stop a project or close a business, parking is a convenient complaint.

Catapult with parking logo
(Catapult photo by Flickr:shankaronline)

Neighbors of a long-standing “community healing center” in Northeast Portland may succeed in forcing the business to shut its doors due to a lack of dedicated parking. Occupancy studies indicate the impact from The Everett House on neighborhood streets doesn’t justify a parking lot, but a reliance on ill-fitting parking generation and demand ratios provides cover for regulators to side with complaining residents.

The Everett House is actually a complex of several large homes in a neighborhood bordered by restaurants and shops on NE 29th to the west, more restaurants and shops (and a bus line) on NE Glisan to the north, and more commerce (and a 24 hour bus line) on E Burnside to the south.

For the last 36 years, the business has operated under a conditional use permit that allows the commercial activity in the residentially zoned neighborhood. That agreement, negotiated in June of 1982, requires the facility to provide 30 off-street car parking stalls within 300 feet of the spa for patrons. In the past, the business has contracted with nearby owners of parking to meet the requirements, but recently the lot they leased was closed to be redeveloped into 118 apartments with no on-site parking, and as a result a new conditional use permit, without parking requirements, was sought.

These requirements themselves “lacked evidentiary and legal reasoning” according to the Hearings Officer in the current case. In fact, a previous conditional use from 1981 required only 20 car parking stalls and 10 bicycle parking stalls.

More evidence that many existing parking requirements are completely arbitrary.

Nearby residents of the complex have, apparently, considered the business a nuisance for decades. A comment, purportedly from neighbor Fred King, on the Willamette Week’s coverage of the story, says “the real problem was that management has constantly tried to expand the business … the opposite of what the conditional use permit required.”

Ultimately, it is the expansion of services, specifically a desire to host up to 12 events per year at the facility attracting approximately 95 patrons, that the Hearings Officer felt did not meet the conditions of approval. Estimated peak occupancy of 65 members at the facility was shown by occupancy studies to not unduly congest parking. An additional 30 visitors two dozen nights a year, and particularly the cars they might drive to the neighborhood for those events, was enough to sink the petition to continue operations without off-site parking.

Parking is an unfortunate proxy for “livability”

A business operating in a residential neighborhood under a conditional use may be a bad neighbor. Neighbors of Everett House have cited noise, unauthorized structures, and other problems with the business. But parking is a proverbial “ace in the hole” when it comes to concerns about livability in a neighborhood. Because parking concerns are nearly always taken seriously and met with sympathy from other people who drive (including nearly every elected official), raising concerns about car parking is an excellent strategy for slowing down or killing a project (or business) that one doesn’t like.

This case highlights the general problem with parking requirements and a reliance on parking generation and parking demand worksheets. The transportation study provided in the application justified the removal of the parking requirement via several lines of argument and evidence. Transit access to the facility and strategies to implement better transportation demand management were mentioned, but the crux of the report depended on parking generation and demand calculations combined with observed parking occupancy.

Peak hour occupancy near the facility was shown to max out at 81%, less than the 85% the city considers congested. The engineer makes the very valid point that if the facility is operating and peak occupancy is below 85%, then the area is clearly able to absorb the demand from the spa.

But because the general assumption is that parking demand should be accommodated with off-street parking, the business is required to prove that special events will not cause parking congestion when calculated demand from those events is added to the current conditions observed at the site. Current conditions likely include “hide-and-ride” commuters who park and take transit, rarely used second or third vehicles owned by residents, and employees of nearby businesses (including the Everett House) who are, rationally, taking advantage of free and convenient parking.

A better approach would be to put the onus on the city to manage the public parking supply with demand based permits, metering, time stays, and other restrictions. A neighborhood permit system could allow much more efficient use of the public resource, potentially raising revenue that could be used to subsidize the transit costs for low-income residents and make capital improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

Such a system could allow patrons to buy virtual permits for their visit to the spa. Residents of the upcoming 118 unit apartment building would have an opportunity to pay market rates for parking, if they need it, just like anyone else in the neighborhood. All may park, all must pay (with proceeds going to subsidize transportation for the poor).

Time for a complete shift in thinking

Car culture brought with it an expectation of cheap and ample parking in our cities. As society faces threats from climate change, traffic carnage, and wealth inequality, this expectation stands in the way of progressive policy. As long as parking complaints are assumed to be legitimate livability concerns, cities will continue to implement backwards policies. In the worst cases cities will maintain parking requirements, but even in cities without parking requirements, pandering to parking demand will hinder effective action.

Car parking is not a community benefit. It leads to traffic that pollutes the air and endangers pedestrians. Car parking takes up space that could be used for housing, transit, parks, and more. Developers who want to build parking should be the ones defending themselves to Hearing Officers for conditional uses. Developers who provide parking should be the ones providing transportation demand management, planting trees, and providing additional affordable homes.

We’ve had things backwards for a long time, it’s time to deweaponize parking and get on with the serious business of solving our problems.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Preposterous Portland: Development agency wants to build a parking garage on top of a parking garage in the middle of a transit center

January 16, 2019 By TonyJ Leave a Comment

UPDATE 1/16 9:30pm: NextPortland blogger Iain MacKenzie posted on twitter that the Prosper Portland Board has decided to go forward with the office building addition, but without the added parking. This is a good decision by the board, let’s hope it sticks.

I listened to the board meeting. The intent is to move forward with the office, but without the additional levels of parking.

— iain 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏳️‍🌈 (@maccoinnich) January 17, 2019

Prosper Portland is betting 32 million dollars on 442 stall car parking garage next to a light rail station and transit center, but that’s not enough exposure to the risky parking market for the agency. Plans recently surfaced to build more than 100 additional car parking stalls on top of the existing garage, ostensibly to support a 10 story office topper.

Prosper Portland keeps dumping money into parking structures in the Rose Quarter

The agency, with a mission to “create economic growth and opportunity for Portland,” initially predicted the 442 stall garage under construction would net $500,000 a year in profits, but has since backed off those claims. Indeed, as car rental revenues at airports plummet, it seems less and less likely that visitors to Portland will choose to rent a car and pay high valet parking rates at the convention center hotel when they can take the MAX for $2.50 or take a ride-hailing service for 1/3 the cost of a day’s parking.

The project underway was a lynchpin to the complicated deal to build the 600 room Hyatt Regency hotel at the Oregon Convention Center. The financial risk of that garage was, apparently, worth the economic benefits to the region of the long-desired hotel project. It would seem that the hotel operator doesn’t consider the garage to be good investment, or they would have decided to build and manage the garage themselves.

The soon-to-be parking garage is designed to accommodate a structure like the proposed office tower on top, which is a defensible investment. But doubling down on more parking (at ~$60,000 a stall) is a massive unforced error by the agency that seems to consider car parking the solution to all it’s woes, even though it’s clear that more parking supply undermines the cities climate and transportation goals.

A peculiar location for more parking

Literally steps from the parking garage is the Rose Quarter Transit Center, which hosts four MAX light rail lines, two frequent service bus lines, CTRAN connections to Vancouver, five other Trimet lines, and it’s a short walk from the Portland Streetcar (and more frequent service buses). The city owns two massive parking garages, containing more than 1000 stalls, just about a quarter mile from the new garage. These garages are currently under contract with Rip City Management, and remain largely vacant when the Blazers (or Elton John) aren’t playing at the Moda Center.

This area of town is very well served by transit and massive residential developments nearby at the Lloyd Center position the region to be a bustling and lively center for entertainment and commerce, easily enjoyable without a personal automobile.

Investment that should serve the city

Ultimately, this proposal should be an opportunity to debate the direction Prosper Portland is headed and whether the organization is focusing on the future of the city or it’s own cash flow.

If Portlanders were asked how $6,000,000 could be invested for “job creation, innovation and economic opportunity throughout Portland to create one of the world’s healthiest, most desirable and equitable cities” how many people would suggest a parking garage built on top of a parking garage in the middle of a transit center?

Prosper Portland has been linked to efforts to build commuter parking garages in the Central Eastside Industrial District and in Old Town/Chinatown. In fact, the agency reportedly is managing a $57 million dollar “Investment and Parking” fund for the latter. If the agency was truly interested in innovative investments in transporting workers and customers to Old Town/Chinatown then that money could fund almost all of the ambitious Central City In Motion multimodal project.

How can you get involved

Prosper Portland is a quasi-governmental agency, their board and budget require city approval. The agency is in Mayor Ted Wheeler’s portfolio; concerned citizens can contact his office at MayorWheeler@portlandoregon.gov.

Prosper Portland meets monthly at 222 SW 5th Ave in Portland. The next board meeting is on February 13th at 6pm. Public comment is available by a signup sheet.

Filed Under: Parking Garages Tagged With: Convention Center, Prosper Portland

23 Stories and zero parking stalls: Proposed Pearl District hotel/apartment project packs meeting

January 14, 2019 By TonyJ 2 Comments

A building that would likely be the city’s tallest to have no on-site parking went before the Portland Design Commission on January 3rd. The meeting was reported to be packed with residents, many of whom opposed the development’s height and impact on traffic. But others in the neighborhood, including the Pearl District Neighborhood Association (PDNA), were more supportive of the project with some reservations.

The 250 foot tall building would provide roughly 170 hotel rooms on 11 floors and another 110 apartments on 11 more floors as well as ground level retail, all parking would be provided by off-site valet services.

Rendering of proposed building containing 170 hotel rooms, 110 apartments, and no parking.

The location, on NW 12th and NW Flanders, has been owned since 2016 by Vibrant Cities, a Seattle-based development firm. In June, the Oregonian reported that the developer had initially planned to build an apartment tower on the site, but shifted the focus to a hotel use after the city of Portland passed inclusionary housing requirements. Additional height allowed by the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, seems to have enabled a reimagining of the project to provide both a hotel and apartments, including the required affordable homes.

In September, the PDNA submitted a letter to the design commission which was particularly forward-thinking regarding the developer’s choice to forgo building expensive on-site parking, recognizing that “parking garages are the most expensive part of new developments” and building less parking can “[increase] housing affordability and [provide] more options for renters that do not own vehicles.” 

This project will likely face further opposition from neighbors who will insist on lower heights and on-site parking. Ironically, on-site parking would cause additional traffic and conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists; the very issues opponents claim the current configuration will bring. Proponents of multi-modal transportation will be needed to point out what should be obvious, more parking brings more congestion.

While many smaller parking-free projects have been developed in the last decade, this is, hopefully, a sign that larger buildings with no parking will be able to secure funding in the future. As the PDNA points out, “the Pearl is an ideal location to live and work car-free, especially at this particular site where numerous amenities and tens of thousands of jobs are located in reasonable walking distance.”


Filed Under: CC2035, housing, Parking Garages

PBOT Proposes Guidelines For Permit Surcharge Money

December 18, 2018 By TonyJ Leave a Comment

Northwest Portland has been the site of a PBOT parking management pilot for serveral years and the city is looking to apply what it has learned in that pilot to other parking management districts.

On Wednesday, December 19th, City Council will receive a report from PBOT on the activities and results of parking management strategies in the NW District. Council will then be asked to approve a list of “Parking Permit Surcharge Revenue Allocation Guidelines” which define what programs and projects are eligible for funding from permit surcharge revenues. 

NW PDX is trailblazing on permits

The report on Zone M parking permits and management is a case study for modern residential parking management. Since council denied demands for residential parking requirements in 2016, the NW Parking Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) has recommended increases in parking permits prices ($180 per year for a first permit with a discount for low income residents available) and progressive pricing for multiple permits ($360/year for the second permit and $540/year for each permit thereafter).

The process hasn’t been without pitfalls, however,  A recommendation by the SAC to limit permits available to residents of apartment buildings was jettisoned due to being unfair to residents of older buildings. The current policy does limit the number of permits available to residents of buildings permitted since 2013. 

• Permit restrictions will be applied to buildings that received certificates of occupancy (CO) after   August 7, 2013 in the following manner:   * Buildings with CO prior to 08/07/2013 – no permit restrictions on building.  * Buildings with CO between 08/07/13 – 08/31/17 – restricted to .6 permits per   number of units in the building.   * Buildings with CO between 09/01/17 or later – restricted to .4 permits per   number of units in the building.   o Residents apply for permits through the City. If the resident lives in a permit restricted   building, and there are no permits available, the resident may be added to a waiting list.
Permit restrictions are in place for residents of newer buildings

Where does the money go?

The big decision for City Council is whether to approve the surcharge revenue allocation guidelines. 

To make progress on climate action goals we must reduce car trips in the central city and using parking revenues to build parking garages or additional supply undermines those efforts. 

To that end, the eligible project examples given in the guidelines lean heavily toward subsidizing transit and cycling via universal transit passes and transportation wallets. Capital projects are included as well, but similarly the eligible projects are focused on making walking, cycling, scooting, and riding transit more safe, comfortable, and convenient.

Examples of projects/programs could include: • TriMet Universal Pass program to provide transit passes to district employees and residents • Free transit passes to low income residents and employees. • Transit tracker kiosks to provide arrival and departure information • Area walking maps and installation of pedestrian wayfinding signs • Design and installation of curb extensions and Installation of Rapid Flash Beacons • Design and installation of new sidewalks/filling sidewalk gaps • Carshare memberships • Permit opt-out incentive that allows residents to choose other transportation options, such as a transit pass or BIKETOWN membership, if parking permit is not renewed • Company or district-wide ridesharing networks with incentives to carpool • Free day and week passes on TriMet to encourage people to try transit • District-wide BIKETOWN zones that allow commuters and customers to park at any bike rack without paying a fee • Bike parking on public and/or private property • Free and/or reduced bicycling and walking safety accessories, such as lights, locks, and rain gear • Enhanced transit service in partnership with TriMet and/or Portland Streetcar • Transportation analysis related to future TSP projects to determine impact • Awareness campaign & education materials and services, such as graphic design and printing for promoting TDM related projects and programs • Evaluation and analysis, such as travel behavior and parking opinion surveys TDM programs, collateral and events that provide information, incentives, and encouragement to district employees and residents to walk, bike, carpool and use transit more often • Any project identified in the adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP) • Increasing public supply of off-street parking through development of shared use of existing supply and finding opportunities to share new parking supply in the future. Added parking supply should be in conjunction with TDM efforts to minimize the demand on parking
Projects eligible for funding from permit surcharges are, mostly, meant to reduce parking demand by incentivizing and promoting other modes.

More work to be done

The results of the NW parking pilot are encouraging, but there is a lot more that could be done. By eliminating guest permits and placing more stringent restrictions and higher prices on employee permits, the total number of permits sold in 2017 was 1,574 fewer than in 2016, but resudent permits sold increased by 6%.

This doesn’t mean the policy isn’t working, given the amount of housing coming online in the permit zone, an increase of only 188 resident permits is good, but higher annual fees are probably needed to really have an impact on parking demand. At $180 a year, the city is renting some of the most valuable property it owns for $1 per square foot a year, or $0.50 per stall per day, or $15 per stall per month.  No matter how you look at it, it’s a steal.

Table showing permits allocated in NW and change from 2016 to 2017. Mushiness permits declined by 688, 1094 guest permits were eliminated, but residential permits went up by 188

Another improvement to NW parking management would be to extend the hours of enforcement at parking meters later into the evening. Such a move is justified by occupancy rates in the evening dining/entertainment hours and it would have a number of beneficial impacts. Residents would have an easier time finding parking in meter zones if enforcement were extended and businesses in the area, particularly restaurants, would benefit from an additional wave of patrons as parking stalls would turn over an additional time in the early evening. 

Such a change was, in fact, recommended by the SAC and was slated to come before council for approval on Wednesday, but it was pulled and delayed until later next year.

Tell council what you think

The council hearing is scheduled for 3PM on Wednesday, December 19th.  Public comment is accepted in person or via cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov 

Filed Under: Parking Benefit Districts, Permit Pricing, Permits, TDM

Central City In Motion Plan Acquires A Parking Parasite

November 13, 2018 By TonyJ 3 Comments

City council could approve a backdoor plan to spend public money on parking garages in the Central Eastside and it’s cynically tied to a long awaited project to reduce car trips in the central city.


City Council needs to hear from YOU about this secret parking policy. When you’re done reading, send an email to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov before Thursday November 15 (put Agenda Item 1184: CCIM Parking Strategy in the subject). Tell City Council to cut out any new publicly funded parking supply from the CCIM Parking Strategy Report.  Tell Council to stay the course with Transportation Demand Management and don’t undermine the great projects in the Central City In Motion Plan.


Central City In Motion (CCIM) is a plan to keep the central city of Portland moving. It’s made up of 18 great projects that will make streets safer for walking, more comfortable for cycling, and faster for transit and, sometimes, freight.

After many years and thousands of public comments and meetings the project is finally scheduled to come before city council this week, on November 15th at 2pm.

But Central City In Motion has acquired a companion report and it’s not so good.

The Central City In Motion Parking Supply and Demand Management Strategies Report was released to the public, for the first time, on November 8th. Many people only learned of existence of this report earlier that day when the City Council agenda was released with a second item for CCIM.

Who Was At The Table?

Over the last 5 years, Portland has overhauled it’s parking policy, and it’s getting pretty good. This has taken countless volunteer hours, open houses, and hearings. There have been at least four stakeholder committees to review our parking policies, covering everything from loading zone signage to residential parking permits. At every step of the way, advocacy groups, the public, and business interests have been at the table to shape these policies.

Staff has held meetings with numerous stakeholders and potential partners, both within the City and private entities, to develop the accompanying report and strategies. Key partners involved in shaping the report and providing input include, Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, City of Portland Spectators Venue Program, the Central Eastside Industrial Council, the Portland Business Alliance, Portland Public Schools, Multnomah County, and Go lloyd.
Stakeholders Only Included Business Interests And Land Holders

But the CCIM Parking Supply and Demand Management Report was developed internally with input mostly from business interests like the Central Eastside Industrial Council and the Portland Business Alliance. Other groups consulted are primarily large land holders or managers of existing off-street parking supply that the city proposes to open up for public use.

It does not appear that any community groups, transportation advocacy organizations, or neighborhood groups were brought into the process.

And the report’s findings reflect that lack of any countervailing viewpoint among the stakeholders.

A Path Forward To Build A New Garage

The Central Eastside Industrial Council has been angling for new publicly funded parking for years, but new publicly funded parking is among the lowest priorities for PBOT. Thwarted thus far, the CEIC has supported some good parking policy instead. The area has many metered streets and the parking permit program charges almost $25 a month for residential and commuter permits.

The CEIC would seemingly prefer to apply that cash-flow toward new parking supply, perhaps by partnering with Prosper Portland, the city’s development fund that has pursued commuter parking projects in recent years. But, so far, there hasn’t been a policy that provides a path to building more parking.

Enter “Strategy 8” the “Off-Street Parking Investment Fund.”

 Undertaking a new, wholly-publicly owned parking garage is an expensive investment in Portland’s Central City. In addition, there are no obvious City- owned properties where a new publicly owned parking garage could be straightforwardly implemented. However, the City could invest public funds by issuing bonds to increase the number of parking spots being built as part of another new development. This type of partnership would remove the need for the City to purchase property speci cally for a parking garage and allow the city to minimize risk.
$50,000/stall is optimistic. Convention Center Hotel parking is costing more than $60,000/stall

If City Council approves this project, CEIC will perceive this strategy as an endorsement of the desire to apply revenue from on-street parking to this investment fund.  While the strategy claims the strategy of buying parking in new developments would reduce risk, this is a stretch. It seems very similar to an attempted deal between Prosper Portland and a prospective developer in Old Town/Chinatown.  Under that deal, the developer would build to their maximum allowable parking allotment (they were planning to build only 1/2 of their allowed stalls) and after construction, Prosper Portland proposed to buy ALL the underground parking from the developer and lease back the stalls to the developer for use by residents in the building. Far from minimizing risk to public funds, this type of deal puts all the risk of long-term parking onto the city.

Worse Than Risky

Investing in parking garages in 2018 or beyond is a bad bet. Construction costs are sky high, parking demand is declining at many destinations, transportation is changing rapidly, and the city is working hard to reduce automobile trips.  But even if it wasn’t a bad fiscal play, building new parking will undermine our ability to reduce car trips, reduce emissions, and make our streets safer.

The amount of parking in our city center is, effectively, the minimum number of car trips that are accommodated by our built environment. Most (if not all) of the time, the city has excess parking supply in the City Center. It might not be exactly in front of the restaurant someone is going to, but it is there. The fewer stalls that exist in the central city, the more inconvenient and expensive it will be to park. If there are more stalls, then it is easier to make the choice to drive to the central city rather than to take transit, bike, or walk.

CCIM and associated projects are designed to reduce the number of car trips to the city center. Reallocating on-street parking to other modes is a very effective way to do so, it makes driving less convenient and makes other modes more convenient. Replacing that lost parking supply undermines the goal. It invites more cars into the central city on one hand, while the other hand is trying to discourage them.

Isn’t Traffic Bad Enough Already?

The amount of parking in the Central Eastside is already supporting unacceptable congestion. Traffic congestion is consistently among the most cited complaints of Portlanders. But would the CCIM projects even actually reduce the parking supply in the Central Eastside? Not if new private parking is considered.

A project under construction right now at SE Stark and SE Water Ave, contains 6 floors of commercial parking. A few blocks away at 525 SE MLK, another building under construction includes underground parking. We still aren’t heading in the right direction in regards to parking supply in the Central Eastside, to meet our mode split goals we cannot add any more car trips to the central city, regardless of expected population and job growth.

New Parking Under Construction At SE 7 Stark Ave

What Should We Do?

The CCIM Parking Strategy and Demand Management Report isn’t all bad. There is one very, very good strategy mentioned. It’s also the one already being implemented, it’s proven to be successful, and it’s relatively cheap.

The Transportation Wallet

The first strategy mentioned is to increase funding for transportation demand management (TDM). The city is currently running a program to provide discounted, or in some cases free, Transportation Wallets to residents and workers in areas with parking meters and permits.  Money from the meters and permits is used to subsidize a package of alternative transportation options.  Right now, that package includes $100 on a TriMet Hop Card, a Portland Streetcar pass, and an annual BIKETOWN membership. The CCIM parking report suggests that people who opt-out of parking permits could be provided with an annual TriMet pass and providing deeper discounts for low income workers.

The city could go even further.  Right now the CEIC is paying $250,000 a year to operate a sparingly used parking lot circulator shuttle. A bold TDM strategy would be to scrap the shuttle (which is near both the streetcar and the Eastbank Esplanade) and provide 2,500 Central Eastside workers with free transportation wallets.

The city is looking at expanding the options provided in the wallet as well. Car share and e-scooters are two mobility options that could be added to the wallet soon.

A Proven Strategy

Transportation Demand Management works. On the same day the city finally published the parking strategy report, Sarah Goforth from PBOT presented a lecture at PSU’s Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC).

Goforth detailed how a combination of on-street parking management and the transportation wallet are leading to real reductions in parking demand.  You can watch her presentation here.

Let The Current Policy Work

The most recent parking policy to go through a full stakeholder process, including representatives from the CEIC and PBA, was the Performance Based Parking Management project. This policy will lead to performance-based price adjustments in areas with parking meters, like the Central Eastside. The first adjustments will happen next year.

Additionally, several years ago, the city completed and passed a Central City Parking Policy Update (incidentally, the PBA and CEIC were represented on that committee as well). Among other things, the policy relaxed rules about shared-parking. This relaxation meant that parking which was built for one purpose, say residential use, could be used for commercial parking as well.

These policies were developed in the normal public process. They are hard fought policies that will produce results.  We should not undermine our goals by passing a backdoor plan to build more parking garages and rent private parking spaces for public use.

A Call To Action

City Council needs to hear from YOU about this secret parking policy.  Send an email to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov before Thursday November 15 (put Agenda Item 1184: CCIM Parking Strategy in the subject). Tell City Council to cut out any new publicly funded parking supply from the CCIM Parking Strategy Report.  Tell Council to stay the course with Transportation Demand Management and don’t undermine the great projects in the Central City In Motion Plan.

Testify In Person

There is a hearing scheduled on Thursday November 15 at 2 p.m. City Council Chambers: 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Portland.

We encourage you to support the Central City In Motion project, but please tell city council to cut new publicly funded parking strategies from the CCIM Parking Strategy Report.

Filed Under: Meters, Parking Benefit Districts, Parking Garages, Performance Pricing, Permit Pricing, TDM

  • « Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • …
  • Page 16
  • Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Subscribe to Our Blog

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

Upcoming Events

Nothing from December 8, 2019 to January 8, 2020.

Like Our Facebook Page

Like Our Facebook Page

Latest Tweet

My Tweets

Recent Posts

  • Proposal would effectively eliminate minimum parking requirements in Portland
  • Better chances for affordable housing? Not if parking is required.
  • Changes coming to NW Portland Parking
  • You’ve got a rare opportunity to tell the IRS to tax parking fairly, seize it.
  • Democracy and Parking: High Hurdles for Permits in Portland

Copyright © 2019 · Portlanders for Parking Reform · Log in