Parking Maximums

City Council To Consider Plan To Build More Parking In Central City

September 5, 2017 By TonyJ 1 Comment

On Thursday, September 7th, Portland City Council will consider adoption of the Central City 2035 plan, a document which will guide development in the city center for the next 20 years.

Portlanders should be able to look at this plan and envision the city in 2035. Let’s do an experiment:

Think for a second about the world as it is now and what you would like Portland to be in 20 years. Think about where you’d like to live in the city, pretend you work downtown, and then close your eyes and imagine a commute in 2035.

How did you get there? Did you ride a bike? Did you take a bus? Was a robot driving that bus or a human operator? Maybe you lived downtown? Maybe you took a jetpack? Maybe you took a Lyft or Uber or something we can’t imagine yet?

Did your vision for 2035 include driving your own car to the central city and parking in a parking garage?

Probably not.

Why then do so many of the Performance Targets and Action Plans for our city’s next 20 years seek to incentivize and build new expensive car parking for central city commuters and visitors?

While Mayor Ted Wheeler has publicly criticized the plans of Prosper Portland to bet its future on parking revenues, when he (most likely) votes to pass CC2035 they will be codified in a set of Action Plans.

Building Parking, For Your Health?

For an example, look at the bizarrely named “Transportation Health and Environment” Action TR7. This action calls for “Incentives to Create Off-Street Parking” in an area that was “built prior to the automobile age.” The supposed problem for the Central Eastside is that developers don’t want to pay the high cost to build parking that no one will be using in 20 years. The solution proposed in this plan is to retrofit the district to accommodate automobiles, at a time in our history when we not only are well aware of the damage car culture has caused, but when we can, for the first time, see the likely end of the automobile age as we know it.

Old Town and Chinatown Parking Garages

But that’s not all they have planned for the Central City. Old Town / Chinatown is another area of town where they would like to mortgage our future tax revenues to build more parking garages. Check out Action Plan item RC44.

There are some great ideas in the CC2035 plan, we should definitely make more efficient use of the parking we have as peak car passes us by. It may even be the case that new parking garages will help spur development, but the public must be honestly informed about the true cost of these garages, the poor outlook for self-sustainability, and the negative impact they have on our transportation and climate action goals. Every dollar spent on a car parking garage is one less dollar we can spend improving transit, building affordable housing, and incentivizing non-car modes. We’ll lose the opportunity to spend many many millions of dollars on sustainable practices if we build more public parking garages and we will be paying the mortgage on them when they are, inevitably, empty.

Convertible Parking Garages? Not In The Plan

Proponents of new parking like to point to trendy articles about converting parking garages into housing or offices. This is probably less likely than we think. Underground parking will only be used as housing in dystopian scenarios and building parking to be convertible makes it even more expensive.

But there’s another reason we probably won’t see convertible Prosper Portland parking garages in the future, it’s not required in the plan. Developers won’t build much parking at all, unless we force them. Prosper Portland knows new parking garages won’t pay for themselves, so it’s trying to get PBOT to help pay with meter money. Any requirement to make new parking be “convertible” would only make those projects harder to pencil out.

City Council should require that any structured parking built with public subsidy be convertible to other active uses (not just storage). If PBOT and Prosper Portland claim these projects can be turned into housing or retail space, then there should be no resistance to this amendment.

Tell City Council To “Stop Building More Parking Garages”

There is a hearing on CC2035 on September 7th at 2PM at City Council and there will be another hearing on September 14th. If you plan to testify, please mention that the city should not build more parking garages. Let developers build parking if they require it. Demand that any new public parking be completely convertible to active uses.

Please write to city council today and tell them to commit to climate action goals, transportation goals, and affordability by removing Action Plans TR7, TR22, and RC58 and modifying RC44. Tell them that new parking will be a significant cost burden on the city and will tie up critical funds that could be better used subsidizing transit or housing.

Please send an email now and demand that any parking built with public money (or in agreement with Prosper Portland) be built such that it is convertible to an active use by design.

For more inspiration, check out our coverage of the CC2035 Discussion Draft and read over the testimony sent in by Portlanders for Parking Reform.

Building more parking now in 2017 is a mistake; it certainly shouldn’t be part of our long range plans for Portland.

How to Testify

To testify, please provide your full name and address. Testimony to City Council is considered public record. Testifiers’ names, addresses and any other information included in the testimony will be posted on the website. You may submit testimony to the Portland City Council on the Recommended Draft CC2035 Plan in any of the following ways:

By Email
Send an email to cc2035@portlandoregon.gov
Subject: CC2035 Testimony

In person at the public hearing
September 7, 2017 at 2 p.m. City Council Chambers: 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Portland
Additional hearing dates may be scheduled. Please confirm dates and times by checking the City Council calendar one week in advance.

Questions Remain About Portland’s Downtown Parking Plans

September 26, 2016 By TonyJ 1 Comment

A map showing the locations of the Goodman family's proposed Ankeny Blocks project. — The CC2035 Proposal would allow an additional 1,200 parking stalls in the proposed “Ankeny Blocks” development.

Staff from the Portland Bureau of Transportation have responded to concerns that the Central City 2035 plan is taking a step backward by increasing maximum parking entitlements in the soon-to-redevelop “Ankeny Blocks.” Unfortunately, the memorandum doesn’t provide a convincing justification for allowing up to 1,200 additional parking stalls to be built between SW Washington and W Burnside, east of SW 6th Ave.

The arguments for “adjust[ing] office ratios in three existing downtown parking sectors upward [are] to reflect actual demand for parking in downtown, account for the loss of approximately half of the surface parking that existed when the current regulations went into effect in 1996, and in order to blend with other areas of the Core sub district that have current ratios varying from 1.0/1000sf to 2.0/1000sf.” The report further states that “the proposed ratio allows the sub district to continue to rely on non-auto trips for its growth yet it provides more flexibility to the market in some areas of downtown to support redevelopment.”

The Ankeny Blocks buildings would redevelop 225,000 sq/ft of surface lots, replacing approximately 750 parking stalls, many of which are currently occupied by food carts.

A graph showing the increase in allowed parking of 1,200 additional parking spaces. — Under the proposal, 1,200 additional parking stalls could be built in the “Ankeny Blocks.”

Questions Remain

Can the city meet mode split and climate action goals if we continue to increase downtown parking supplies?

Can our streets handle the traffic from drive-alone commuters we have today, let alone the potential traffic when thousands more stalls are available for workers in 2035?

If we anticipate that new technology and better transit will deliver the mode split changes we desire, then why should we signal that this additional supply in downtown is warranted, expected, or wanted?

It is true that the Central City Parking Policy Update Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) recommended these ratios, but there were reservations expressed and 8/19 of the committee members (see page 12) voted for the proposed ratios “with concerns.” [disclaimer: the author of this article served on that committee and voted in favor of the policy recommendations in totality]

The staff report doesn’t quantify the effect that the new maximum ratios might have on mode split targets. While affirming that the SAC “endorsed adjusting maximum parking ratios in a manner that generally relates parking allowances to mode split targets for the Central City 2035 Plan,” there is no evidence provided to the Planning Commission or the public that the amount of parking that could be built under this plan would support the needed 25% drive alone rate to downtown in 2035. In fact, at current rates, the city of Portland will add nearly 130,000 new drive-alone commuters (citywide) by 2035 (see page 47-48).

In response to concerns that the new ratios will lead to undesired amounts of parking built, the memo is optimistic. “Given other parking policies, present and future transportation investments and past trends, it is unlikely that [a scenario where developers will build to the maximum allowable ratio] will come to pass.” This begs another question, however, what is the purpose of a set of ratios that are rarely expected to be a limiting factor? The residential ratios, for example, are set at a ratio that is more than 40% higher than the average parking ratio by building built since 1995 (.85 vs. 1.2).

Don’t Go Backward On Parking Ratios

City staff are working hard to create a proposal that pleases many masters, and there are great things in this plan, but in the face of climate change and a dire need for increased traffic safety, we must be bold in setting our goals for 2035.

Taking a step backward now and allowing more parking in parts of the city core would be a mistake.

The Planning and Sustainability Commission should recommend that no maximum parking ratios be increased in the city center. Furthermore, they should ask staff to show evidence that the maximum parking ratios, to the extent possible, are fully supportive of the most aggressive mode split goals.

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

August 3, 2016 By TonyJ 6 Comments

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

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

Curbing Parking

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

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

Shared Parking: A Double Edged Sword

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going Backwards

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Imbalanced Proposal

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

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

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

How To Move Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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