Meters

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.

Will City Council Finally Approve Performance Parking Management?

July 22, 2018 By TonyJ Leave a Comment

CALL TO ACTION: City Council needs to hear from YOU about your support for Performance-based Parking Management. Send an email to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov before Wednesday July 25 (put Performance-based Parking Management in the subject). Tell City Council why you think it’s time to get politics out of parking prices by using a data-driven approach to parking management.

Should a prime, convenient, and coveted parking spot, right in front of a busy storefront cost the same rate as a, relatively, crummy spot near I-405?

That is the question that Portland City Council will grapple with on Wednesday, July 25th when they consider the Performance-based Parking Management Manual and new Parking Pricing and Event District Policy for approval.

A month ago, on June 13, council heard a presentation and testimony on this policy, but concerns from various commissioners led to a delaying a second hearing. Some commissioners were, reportedly, worried that adjusting prices based on demand would make downtown Portland less accessible to people with lower incomes.

But a look at preliminary data from the city shows that there are many areas of downtown and the central city which would likely see rates decrease under the new policy. Furthermore, many of the blocks likely to see increases are near city-owned Smart Park garages, a lower-cost and longer-stay alternative to prime street parking.

A map showing areas of downtown and the Central Eastside which have previously been observed to have parking occupancy that would warrant an increase or decrease in parking rates. Much of the core of downtown would potentially see increases. — Most areas likely to see increases are near Smart Park garages, many areas will likely see decreases. Image courtesy of Sightline Institute.

PBOT has returned with a new resolution and ordinance that should, hopefully, clear up some other concerns that commissioners had about the proposal in June.

Concerns about the impact of a policy like this on low-income people are valid and important, but too often those worries manifest in policy that provides a subsidy to all car-drivers, the majority of whom are not low income. Meanwhile, transit dependent people are stuck paying ever-increasing rates to sit in buses, idling in traffic caused by single-occupancy commuters. Performance-based Parking Management is just one of many strategic policies the city can use to reduce traffic, save people time, and encourage other modes. The most promising option for a sustainable and equitable solution to Portland’s transportation problems is to prioritize transit above other modes via enhanced transit corridors and bus/freight only lanes.

After years of work, seemingly countless committee meetings, and several false starts, Portland seems ready to join San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Seattle, and many other cities and apply simple market economics to on-street parking. Will City Council finally take that step?

CALL TO ACTION: City Council needs to hear from YOU about your support for Performance-based Parking Management. Send an email to cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov before Wednesday July 25(put Performance-based Parking Management in the subject). Tell City Council why you think it’s time to get politics out of parking prices by using a data-driven approach to parking management.

6 Parking Policy Priorities For Portland In 2017

January 12, 2017 By TonyJ 3 Comments

In 2016, Portland parking advocates scored a number of important victories: in February, downtown meter rates increased; in April, City Council ordered development of performance parking policy; in July, a proposal to require parking in NW Portland was defeated; and, at the end of the year, minimum parking requirements from 2013 were effectively repealed. Still, on the ground, the state of parking policy in Portland is in the roughly same place as it was 15 years ago.

In the coming year, Portland’s City Council and the Portland Bureau of Transportation must move forward and make real progress on parking policy. Our ability as a city to take action on climate change and meet our citywide housing and transportation goals depends on the political will of City Council and PBOT to develop and approve effective parking management tools, with the help of Portland’s growing number of Shoupistas.

Stay tuned for more in-depth articles on these parking policy priorities.

1. Pass The Residential Permit Program and Parking Toolkit

Portland needs a new residential permit program, and fast. One has been in the works for years but it recently got shelved. With residential infill and more apartments with little to no parking on the way, Portland needs to get serious about on-street parking management.

2. Create In-Lieu Of Fee Options For Remaining Parking Requirements

Starting in February, developers of new housing projects with 20 or more units will be required to rent a percentage of those units at a rate “affordable” to people making 80% of the median family income. As part of the incentive package, those apartments won’t have required on-site parking. State law mandates that developers be allowed to pay in-lieu fees instead of building affordable homes, but if they do, they still have to build parking. Arbitrary parking mandates don’t make sense. Let developers pay additional fees in-lieu of parking stalls and use the money to build more homes!

3. Use Downtown Parking Meter Money To Fund Night Owl Transit

Last year, Portland increased the hourly cost of downtown meters by $0.40/hour, raising an additional $4 million a year in revenue. Opponents to parking management often oppose reforms on the grounds that late night workers don’t have transit options. Managing on-street parking and using the revenue to extend transit hours is a win-win.

4. Demand That PDC Build Housing Instead Of Parking Garages

The Portland Development Commission is spending at least $32 million in urban renewal funds on a hotel parking garage just steps away from the MAX Red Line and they have plans to build more garages. In 10 years will visitors to Portland really choose to rent a car and drive themselves to the Lloyd District? Long term goals for the city require investing less in cars and building more close-in affordable housing, PDC should support those goals.

5. Require Parking Cash-Outs And Tax Downtown Private Parking

A graph showing that in one study, parking cash out led to 13% reduction in drive alone share. — (Image from ACCESS Magazine)

Federal tax laws allow employers to pay hundreds of dollars a month, tax free, for employee parking, but don’t require equal benefits for employees who use other modes. California requires employers who pay for parking to provide employees with an equivalent cash option. This has been shown to be very effective at producing desirable mode shifts. Portland can do this and would, likely, reap major benefits.

6. Develop, Adopt, and Implement a Comprehensive City-Wide Parking Management Strategy

At the current rate, passing parking reforms and upgrading PBOT’s technology to effectively manage parking may take several more years. Portland needs a comprehensive plan to modernize our parking management policy to ensure we are using the curb lane efficiently and for the highest social good. Big changes are on the way and time is running out to reap the rewards of progressive parking policy.

Performance-Based Pricing: A More Equitable Tool to Manage On-Street Parking

July 14, 2016 By Shoupista 4 Comments

2016 may be the most exciting year for parking reform in Portland. In February, the City raised downtown meter rate to $2 per hour – first rate increase since 2009 – in hope to increase parking turnover in downtown. Three months ago, Portland City Council passed a resolution directing the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to develop a performance-based parking pricing system to increase parking availability and manage on-street parking more efficiently. It is also worth mentioning that City Council decided to hold off on new minimum parking requirements in NW Portland after listening to testimonies from housing and transportation advocates and concerned residents at the public hearing on July 6. There will be more updates on parking minimums, but for now, let’s talk about performance-based parking pricing.

What Is Performance-Based Pricing?

Performance-based pricing, also known as demand-based or market-rate pricing, is a parking management tool that sets meter rates based on demand to achieve a target occupancy rate. Parking experts typically recommend 10 to 20 percent vacancy rate or 1 to 2 available spaces on any block to ensure drivers can always find a place to park near their destinations.

This video by the City of Seattle explains performance-based pricing. It is important to know that the primary purpose of performance-based pricing is managing parking availability and making finding parking easier, not raising new revenue.

The Question of Equity and Fairness

One question shared by people on both sides of performance-based pricing is “is charging previously free on-street parking based on demand an equitable policy?”

Commissioner Saltzman and Commissioner Fritz have publicly expressed concerns for such policy’s impact on low-income people. The concern for equity is what this article will explore.

Before we get deep into numbers and data, let’s first think about all the other costs people need to pay to own and operate a car. Most people do not think it is unfair to pay for gasoline, insurance, repairs, and the vehicle itself. Should we advocate for free gasoline for everyone so the cost of fuel does not burden poor people? What about food and housing? They are much more important to low-income households than free parking, but we don’t hear elected officials say we need to cap the prices of food so poor people can afford to eat. If people of all income levels have to pay rent for housing, why shouldn’t drivers pay rent for car storage?

Performance-Based Pricing Is More Equitable Than the Current Status Quo

To understand whether charging on-street parking is equitable, especially for low-income people, we need to compare it with the current status quo. For decades, cities have given away curb parking for free and required development to over-supply off-street parking to ensure free on-street parking availability. However, off-street parking is very expensive to build. According to a report by the Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, on-site residential parking can cost as high as $55,000 per space to build. Therefore, parking requirements increase the cost of any development because it is difficult to recuperate the costs of building and operating off-street parking by charging market-rate prices when people can park at the curb for free.

Consequently, the costs of providing off-street parking are hidden in the goods and services we consume. Low-income households without cars now pay for the cost of parking indirectly in the form of higher rent, higher grocery costs, and higher prices for everything else. If a low-income household decides to save money by using transit or bicycling to get around, they shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s parking costs. In contrast, demand-based pricing is more equitable because it only charges drivers the cost of parking.

There are other factors other than price that affect choices about where to park, such as parking duration, the number of people in the car, and the value drivers place on saving time for any given trip. When curb parking is underpriced or free, parking is rationed on a first-come, first-serve basis, regardless of trip purpose, duration of stay, and willingness to pay. Conversely, demand-based pricing gives drivers the ability to decide where to park, how much time to save, and how much they are willing to pay based on trip-specific preferences and conditions. Performance-based pricing will make parking readily available to everyone; even poor people can choose to park in the best parking spaces on occasions when saving time is very important.

For older adults and people with disability, having the ability to park close to their destination would significantly reduce travel barriers and improve their access. When on-street parking is free or under-priced, older adults and people with disability must circle the blocks like everyone else and may have to park far away to find a parking space, even though they have greater needs to park as close to their destination as possible. Performance-based pricing gives people with greater needs the choice to pay to park at the best parking spaces to accommodate their needs and therefore is more fair than the current status quo.

Performance-based pricing is also more fair than charging a flat rate that does not vary based on demand or time of day. Why should you pay the same flat rate to park on blocks with lower usage as others who get to park on blocks that have high demand? Performance-based pricing offers drivers the option to save money by parking during times and areas of lower demand whereas the current flat rate pricing unfairly charges every driver the same price even when there are abundant on-street parking spaces.

What About Low-Income People?

Portland’s on-street parking rate is most expensive in downtown; currently at $2.00 per hour but free after 7 p.m. Any attempt to expand meter hours and/or price meters based on demand beyond 7 p.m. will likely cause concerns for low-income workers who work night-shifts in downtown. But how many downtown commuters are low-income?

In fact, very few low-income commuters actually drive to downtown. According to U.S. Census data reported by Bike Portland, only 5 percent of downtown commuters who drive to work earn below $30,000 annually while 83 percent are commuters who earn above $50,000 a year. Is our current parking policy equitable when it subsidizes car storage for commuters who are mostly not low-income?

As a direct response to stakeholder concerns about the impact of new downtown on-street parking rates on lower-income workers, PBOT provides a reduced-rate permit program for low-income workers to parking inside SmartPark garages between 3 p.m. and 7 a.m. for $35 a month. This program is much more effective and equitable in serving low-income workers’ transportation needs than free on-street parking.

A report using data from the 2009 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) shows individuals in poverty take 3 times more transit trips than those in the higher income groups. People below poverty level also have the greatest rate of bike trips and take walk trips about 50% more than their higher income counterparts. Moreover, data from the 2009 NHTS, show that households in urbanized areas earning below $30,000 a year are 7 times more likely to not own a car than households earning $30,000 or above annually. The poor are much less likely than wealthy to drive and park, and yet our current parking policy subsidizes free on-street parking for the wealthy and requires off-street parking that increases the costs of everything else.

Turning Small Change into Big Changes

Owning and operating a car is by far the costliest mode of transportation. In 2015, the average annual cost of owning and operating a car is about $8,700 according to AAA. That is a huge price tag for poor people! If elected officials are truly concerned about equity in transportation, they ought to give low-income people more access to more affordable transportation options, such as transit, biking, walking, and car share /ride share, and not continue to encourage driving by offering cheap parking.

In fact, performance-based pricing can improve transportation equity by shifting public subsidy from parking to affordable transportation options that poor people already use. Instead of going into the city’s general fund, new revenues from on-street parking can subsidize transit passes, bike-share / car-share / ride-share fees, expand transit services, and enhance sidewalks to ADA standards. By establishing parking benefit districts, the City of Portland can invest parking revenue right back into the area where it is collected to enhance low-income people’s mobility options so they do not have to be burdened by the high cost of automobility.

Equity Through Performance-Based Pricing

Parking is a political issue more than an economic one. Concerns for economic equity come from a good place and should be acknowledged. Evidence shows pricing parking based on demand is more equitable than the present parking policy. Free or under-priced parking forces everyone to pay for off-street parking indirectly, regardless if they drive, and rations on-street parking space based on luck, not an individual’s needs or preferences. On the other hand, performance-based pricing only charges drivers and gives people of all income-range the ability to choose the most desirable parking space based on trip-specific circumstances. Most importantly, it can reduce low-income people’s transportation costs by improving access to more affordable travel options such as walking, biking, transit, and car-share / ride-share.

Performance-Based Parking Management Coming To Portland

April 5, 2016 By TonyJ 1 Comment

An important step towards performance-based parking management in Portland will, with any luck, take place on in mid-April.

On Wednesday, April 13 at 2PM Portland City Council will (most likely) direct the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to develop a set of rules, regulations, performance targets, and policies to manage on-street parking more efficiently. A stakeholder advisory committee will be seated to make recommendations and perform vetting on the staff proposals.

Performance-based Parking Management (PBPM), according to PBOT, will:

Establish clear performance goals for the management of the on and off-street public parking system.
Identify evaluation measures using data to inform changes to parking rates, policies and programs.
Implement demand-based parking practices as a means of allocating parking spaces in metered areas.
Outline communication procedures to inform the public of changes in parking management in particular areas.

Indications are that PBOT is aiming for a performance-pricing system for metered areas that is less technologically dependent than the vaunted SFPark system, but a bit more dynamic than Seattle’s parking program.

The technology available for implementing managed parking solutions is becoming more affordable and powerful by the day. Integration with parking applications like Passport, ParkMe and Citifyd can make expanding and enforcing paid parking zones near commercial corridors possible. Neighborhoods can benefit greatly from safety improvements and small infrastructure projects paid for by revenue generated in such districts, businesses will see higher turnover, and customers will find themselves less frustrated when they are able to find convenient parking at a reasonable price.

Keep an eye on this process as it moves forward. There will be many opportunities for advocacy and public involvement.