Meters

Portland Considers More Minimum Parking Requirements

February 14, 2016 By TonyJ 8 Comments

Three years ago the City of Portland took a step backward and implemented arbitrary parking minimums for new transit oriented multi-family construction containing 30 or more units. These zoning changes didn’t apply in densely populated Northwest Portland because that area of town is governed by the Northwest District Plan (NWDP).

Parking has long been a scarce resource in NW Portland, as anyone who has ever lived, worked, or visited businesses or friends there (by car) can attest. After many years of planning and negotiation, the district is expanding its permit zones and adding meters (although the meters won’t be enforced during the peak evening entertainment hours). Somewhat ironically, the parking management programs finally being implemented there are likely to be obsolete as soon as new overnight permit programs are approved and when performance parking policy is created, hopefully, later this year.

Unfortunately, rather than continue to refine the nascent permit and meter policy in the district, there has been a quiet project to implement the same minimum parking requirements for new buildings with more than 30 units in NW Portland. When rents in Portland are rising at alarming rates, displacement is rampant, and the city struggles to add supply to house newcomers to the city, this is another step in the wrong direction. Portland is set to require more housing for cars when it lacks the will to require housing for people on limited incomes [while mandatory inclusionary zoning is banned, the city could, today, require affordable units as a pre-requisite for any developer bonuses].

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

Eight Reasons To Support Parking Reforms

January 24, 2016 By TonyJ 1 Comment

A Parklet in San Francisco — 1300 Fulton St. Parklet in SF

Why is parking policy, such a seemingly mundane and boring feature of our lives, worth spending time and energy on?

Simply stated, there are few local opportunities for change that can have as wide and effective of an impact on such a list of problems as parking and each one, on it’s own, is reason enough.

Here are only eight of the reasons we should support parking reform, post your own in the comments:

… it leads to more affordable housing;

… it creates more walkable downtown districts;

… it preserves pedestrian friendly commercial corridors and neighborhood business nodes;

… it supports local businesses by encouraging turnover for customers;

… it reduces emissions and preventing traffic injuries from drivers cruising for a spot;

… it encourages no-car living in transit rich areas;

… it frees up valuable space for nature, recreation, and active uses;

… it provides a stable and equitable funding source for street repairs and beautification, safety improvements, and alternative modes of transportation.

Why Would You Vote To Raise Meter Rates?

January 9, 2016 By TonyJ 5 Comments

At the end of January 2016, downtown meter rates in Portland will go up $0.40 an hour. This increase was suggested by a citizen committee and was not initiated by city council or PBOT staff. When council voted on this increase, there was much misinformation about the motivation for this adjustment. When the rate actually goes up, there will likely be another round of stories. As a member of the subcommittee that made the recommendation, I want to give a bit of perspective and background on the reasoning behind the increase.

The Reasoning

The City of Portland’s binding Parking Meter District Policy reads:

“the on-street parking system in commercial districts is managed to support the economic vitality of the district by encouraging parking turnover, improving circulation, encouraging use of off-street parking, maintaining air quality, and promoting the use of alternative modes by managing the supply and price of on-street commuter parking. In managing the on-street parking system priority is given to short-term parking, followed by carpools and the remaining supply is managed for long-term use. Minimizing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods to protect neighborhood livability is a key objective of the City’s on-street parking management policies.”

The committee was reminded of this purpose statement and then provided with occupancy data and background information.

Basically, in many areas of downtown, particularly between 11am-1pm and from 6pm-9pm there is little to no on-street parking available. Some areas were at 95% occupancy. This is not good for business (which also means it isn’t good for employees of businesses). It’s not good for the environment, probably about 30% of the downtown traffic at those peak times is cruising for parking. All that extra traffic, and every turn a car makes, makes the downtown less safe for vulnerable road users.

Furthermore, pricing for off street parking in SmartParks is currently more expensive (for 3 hours) than on-street metered parking. That doesn’t make sense. When the on-street goes to $2, the SmartPark will stay as it is, making it a more attractive choice which should cut down on cruising and make more spaces available.

Another consideration is the cost of transit compared to parking. If the cost of parking is cheaper than transit, or even comparable, then there is an incentive to drive rather than ride transit. Trimet fares have gone up significantly since the last meter increase.

Those considerations align closely with the city policy I quoted above.

Will It Really Work?

The only tool we have right now is a blunt district-wide price increase. This isn’t great. In some areas of the city this will be too much because they already have a good occupancy rate. In other areas the increase will not be enough to free up spaces. The price balance with the SmartParks is important, and that might be the most effective part of this increase.

What’s Next?

Looking forward, the city is developing policy to allow for a more performance based pricing solution. There is a school of thought that if you have 85% occupancy you will have a space on every block face open. This means that someone who needs a space near a location because they are mobility challenged or have a load to carry will find one quickly. The city will lower rates in areas a little further away to encourage people who are able and have the time to park and walk a few blocks.

What About Low Income Workers?

It’s also critical to keep in mind that there are several city owned parking garages that are nearly empty after 7pm and overnight parking is only 5 dollars. One likely outcome with this increase is that the city will offer discounted monthly evening passes for low income workers. On-street metered parking is not supposed to be the place where downtown workers park, for retail in particular, it’s short sited to have your employees parking where your customers should be.

If we are really concerned for the well-being of low wage workers in Downtown, which we should be, then we should demand the additional money be put to work helping them. I haven’t run the numbers, but I wonder if two million dollars is enough money to extend Blue Line MAX service to 24 hours a day? Another effective program could be discounts for transit passes and/or cab vouchers for low wage workers. [Read more…] about Why Would You Vote To Raise Meter Rates?

Portland City Council to Consider $0.40/hour Meter Rate Increase

December 14, 2015 By TonyJ 2 Comments

On Thursday December 17, 2015 the Portland City Council will consider an increase of $0.40/hour to downtown parking meters, effective the end of January 2016.

Here are the ordinance and supporting materials.

I encourage Portland Shoupistas to support this increase in person or via email testimony.

When: Thursday, December 17, 3-4 PM. Time Certain.

Where: Council Chambers, 1221 SW 4th Ave, Portland, OR 97204

You may also submit written testimony in advance of the hearing. To be included in the official public record, email written testimony to the Council Clerk at: cctestimony@portlandoregon.gov

Testimony sent to this email address will also be forwarded to City Council members and their staff.

Several members of the committee will be giving invited testimony to support this increase. If you come down in person, be sure to say hello! If you’re wondering why we support this, or looking for some talking points, read further.

Why should we raise rates now?

The Central City Parking Policy Update SAC is likely, on 12/14 to recommend that the city develop a performance pricing policy. If council agrees, we’ll see a committee formed next year to develop policy with PBOT staff. We have a good chance at making a really good recommendation. In the interim, parking occupancy surveys show that many areas of downtown experience peak occupancy that is greater than 85%, meaning there aren’t any spaces open on the block. Since we don’t have an easy way to only raise rates on those blocks, we’re recommending an increase all over.

But won’t this destroy businesses and hurt our service employees?

Next time you are in a restaurant downtown, ask your server where they park. It’s probably not on the street near where they work. After you ask that, consider who is likely to tip more after a meal, someone who was willing to pay $2/hour to park nearby, or the person who decided they were going to Denny’s to save $0.40/hr. Employees have access to overnight parking in SmartPark garages for $5 a night, right now, and the city will be exploring monthly overnight passes for service employees.

As for business in general, we’re trying to provide the best experience possible for consumers with the finite on-street parking we have. I believe there will be areas of downtown where the rate will be too high, all the more reason to fast-track performance pricing.

Isn’t this just a revenue grab?

It could be! We should submit and give testimony that demands the additional revenue be used in a smart way. One thing the Council could do is direct that PBOT undertake some pilot programs in the areas most likely to be over/under priced. Implementing some performance pricing in these areas over the next 12 months could provide PBOT with invaluable data for developing policy. This is probably NOT on their radar and would be a great thing to mention.

What should I say in my testimony?

That’s up to you, but some things to consider:

Parking on-street for 3 hours is currently $4.80, parking in SmartPark for 3 hours is $5, taking the bus is $5 for a 3 hour trip. This increase is more in line with charging appropriate prices for more convenient modes of travel. See our previous article on the topic.
PBOT staff did a survey of evening parkers to determine the effect they found that only 8% of evening parkers downtown were low-wage workers.
Parking meter rates have not been increased since 2009.
Raising rates will provide information on the elasticity of demand for parking.
And, most importantly, this increase is supported by occupancy rates and smart policy. Reducing vehicle miles due to cruising and incentivizing other modes of travel are long-standing city policy.

Sacramento: A preview of short term parking politics in Portland?

December 10, 2015 By TonyJ Leave a Comment

The city of Sacramento is raising parking meter rates $0.50, from $1.25 to $1.75 this week. Additionally they are starting a pilot project to allow for progressive pricing in some zones. Progressive pricing allows parkers to pay higher hourly rates in exchange for staying longer in time-limited zones, rather than getting a ticket. The price after the second hour goes up, first to $3 for the third hour and then $3.75 each hour after that.

Oddly, a two hour stay at the cheapest garage in downtown Sacramento will cost you $6 or more, compared to $3.50 for a two hour meter stay… so there is still work to be done there.

While this, and the potential for changes to hours of enforcement have local business districts predictably concerned, city officials are trying to promote the message that higher turnover and a better parking experience are good for business, not bad.

Portland is a few months behind Sacramento on this track. Next Thursday, December 17, city council will consider raising downtown meter rates $0.40 from $1.60 to $2.00. One of the reasons given is to bring on-street parking rates into better alignment with the city owned SmartPark garages, which, after an increase, will be cheaper than the more convenient on-street parking.

City staff seem somewhat reluctant, at this time, to press their luck on the hours of enforcement. Some members of the committee that made the recommendation advocated for longer hours of enforcement, particularly considering that the highest observed occupancy was from 7-9pm downtown, right after enforcement ends.

Nevertheless, changes are in the pipeline for the city of Portland to consider performance pricing on downtown meters, and possibly progressive pricing as well.

We should keep a close eye on how things work out for Sacramento on this front. It’s interesting they aren’t looking into performance pricing, but the progressive pricing model for long stays is one that holds a lot of promise.