• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main 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
You are here: Home / Posts

Posts

Walktober 2016: Curb Parking Walk-shop

October 9, 2016 By Shoupista Leave a Comment

57e078d9def87

Join parking and active transportation advocates for a fun evening stroll in NW Portland and talk about parking!

On Thursday, October 20, Portlanders for Parking Reform is hosting a walk-shop on curb parking in Northwest Portland with Brian Davis & Gwen Shaw from Lancaster Engineering. We will discuss Portland parking policy topics such as: residential minimum parking requirements, parking permits, metered parking, performance pricing, and more!

This event is part of Oregon Walk’s annual Walktober: a whole month of celebrating walking!

Event detail:

Date & Time: Thursday, October 20, Meet @5:00pm, walk leaves @ 5:30pm
Location: Meet at Dark Horse Pub (519 NW 21st, Portland OR)
The walk-shop is about 1 hour.

Filed Under: Meetups

It Is Time For Portland To Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements

October 2, 2016 By TonyJ 4 Comments

Minimum parking requirements “have a disproportionate impact on housing for low-income households because these families tend to own fewer vehicles but are nonetheless burdened by the extra cost of parking’s inclusion in the development.” This is the verdict of the Obama administration’s recently released Housing Development Toolkit, a report which “highlights actions that states and local jurisdictions have taken to promote healthy, responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing markets.”

The toolkit lists a host of cities: New York, Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis which have taken steps in recent years to reduce or mitigate parking requirements in order to encourage affordable housing and more environmentally sustainable development patterns. Portland is notably absent from this list. Our city has, historically, been a trailblazer for progressive parking policy. City Council enacted a controversial, but very successful, “parking lid” on downtown parking stalls in 1975 and in 2002 a City Council featuring future mayor Charlie Hales, eliminated parking requirements for housing developments near frequent transit. But in 2013 Mayor Hales and City Council yielded to neighborhood anxieties and took a step backward, re-implementing requirements in much of the city. In doing so, Portland’s reputation as an example of forward-thinking urban policies took a hit.

The timing of this reversal was unfortunate. Portland was entering a massive building boom and the restrictions parking requirements placed on new developments has lead to an untold number of “lost” homes in our city. The residents of apartments that have been built during this boom will bear the cost of mandatory parking, whether they own a car or not, for decades.

The Tide Has Turned

Since 2013 the teachings of Professor Donald Shoup have leapt from the pages of his dense and wonky opus “The High Cost of Free Parking” into the mainstream. Widely read publications like Wired, Mother Jones, and the Washington Post have promoted his advice to cities to eliminate parking requirements, charge market rates for on-street parking, and create parking benefit districts.

And governments are taking his advice. Oakland, California removed minimum parking requirements in September 2016.  Fayetteville, Arkansas did the same in October 2015. Also in October 2015, the State of California passed a law requiring all California cities to reduce parking requirements for affordable housing.  In September 2016 the Planning Commission of Philadelphia refused to roll-back reductions in parking requirements enacted in 2012.

And here in Portland it would seem that the rollback of Shoupian parking policy in 2013 was more of a blip than a trend.  Portland is planning a host of progressive parking policy changes including supply-limited residential parking permits and performance based pricing. In July, City Council took a bold step in declining to impose parking requirements in Northwest Portland. Council members signaled that changes to the 2013 off-street parking mandate were needed.

On the heels of the White House report and what seems to be a favorable environment at City Hall for reform comes an opportunity for eliminating the most harmful of Portland’s remaining parking requirements.

A Window Of Opportunity

Portland is wrapping up a long process to develop and approve a new Comprehensive Plan, “a long-range 20-year plan that sets the framework for the physical development of the city.” The bulk of this plan is in its final stages.  Called the 2035 Comprehensive Plan Early Implementation Package, this package contains the changes to the zoning code and zoning maps that will govern new development for the next 20 years.  In the remaining months of 2016, City Council will hear testimony on this package, propose and vote on amendments to it, and finally approve the plan.

One part of this plan is the Mixed Use Zones Project.  This project “is an initiative to develop new mixed use zoning designations to implement Portland’s new 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The 2035 Comprehensive Plan calls for managing growth and creating healthy, vibrant neighborhoods in part by focusing new housing, shops, and services into a network of centers and corridors located throughout Portland.”

These new zones replace much of the area affected by the 2013 minimum parking requirements and we can ask City Council to eliminate minimum parking requirements within them.

City Council should eliminate minimum parking requirements in Mixed Use Zones because the policy approved by council supports such an action:

Policy 9.58 Off-street parking. Limit the development of new parking spaces to achieve land use, transportation, and environmental goals, especially in locations with frequent transit service. Regulate off-street parking to achieve mode share objectives, promote compact and walkable urban form, encourage lower rates of car ownership, and promote the vitality of commercial and employment areas. Use transportation demand management and pricing of parking in areas with high parking demand. Strive to provide adequate but not excessive off-street parking where needed, consistent with the preceding practices.

Perhaps more importantly, City Council should eliminate minimum parking requirements in Mixed Use Zones because parking requirements make housing more expensive and parking requirements make it much harder to build more affordable housing.  The Mixed Use Zones project creates bonuses to incentivize developers to build affordable units.  That’s great, but the city is concerned that even with the bonuses, the affordable units won’t be built if parking is required:

Modeling revealed that additional required parking may limit utilization of the affordable housing bonus due to the high cost of providing structured or underground parking.

The proposal exempts the affordable units from the ratios that determine the parking, but we will see even more affordable housing built if we require affordable housing for people, via inclusionary zoning, and promote building more homes for people by not requiring shelter for cars.

We Can Do This

Is this possible? We think so. The report from the White House is a big deal and our housing/houseless crisis is still the biggest issue the city faces. Testimony on the Mixed Use Zones Project can be given through October 13th and Portlanders for Parking Reform is asking Shoupistas in Portland to join us on October 6th at the first hearing. If we show up to City Hall and write letters to City Council, we can put Portland back on the vanguard for progressive parking policy and further our goals to create more affordable housing, make safer streets, and combat climate change.

How To Help

Join Us on October 6th and Give Testimony

The biggest impact will come from people showing and speaking to council.  Council needs to hear from people who face rent increases and displacement due to anti-affordable housing policy like parking requirements.  Testifying is easy.  Simply state, in your own words, why this issue concerns you and tell council that you want them to eliminate minimum parking requirements.

We have prepared a document with talking points for your convenience.

October 6th, 2PM @ Portland City Hall

If you plan to testify, please RSVP via this form so we have an idea of what support we can expect. We may be able to save you time by signing you up.

Send testimony to City Council

Before midnight on Thursday, October 13th you can send written testimony to cputestimony@portlandoregon.gov with subject line “Comprehensive Plan Implementation.”

Write to the Commissioners

Send an email to the members of City Council.  We suggest you do this by October 13th.

Write to Commissioner Steve Novick, Mayor Charlie Hales, Commissioner Nick Fish, Commissioner Dan Saltzman, and Commissioner Amanda Fritz.  Let them know that you value housing for people over shelter for cars.  Let’s plan for the future we want for Portland and not a smog-choked-and-gridlocked playground for the wealthy.

Filed Under: Minimum Parking Requirements

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.

Filed Under: CC2035, Parking Maximums, Zoning

Wednesday Parking Round-Up: Oakland’s city-wide parking reform, park(ing) day empowers citizens to create better public space, is parking levy more desirable than congestion pricing, and more

September 21, 2016 By Shoupista Leave a Comment

img_20160916_233342
(We can either put 1 or 2 cars in our curb space or create an activate community gathering place that is also a rain garden. Photo source: Charlie Tso)

Oakland City Council approved city-wide parking minimum reduction, zero parking requirement near transit hubs, and some parking maximums. The new parking rules also included Transportation Demand Management options for new development, such as car-share, transit passes, and unbundled parking.

Cities like Seattle, Houston, and Washington DC are celebrating Park(ing) Day by allowing citizens to create more active and interesting public spaces out of curb parking spaces. Buffered bike lane, human-sized bubbles, park space, arts and crafts, the sky is the limit. Where is Portland’s Park(ing) Day?

Want better transit and reduce congestion? Try parking levy. Nottingham, UK, has successfully implemented a work-place parking levy to fund public transit. Some even argue that parking levy is more desirable than congestion pricing.

You might hate paying for parking, but that doesn’t mean paid parking is a bad idea. This article helps you see the rationale behind paid parking. Paid parking is better for businesses, for cities, and for everyone who uses the street.

Parking Benefit Districts: A key fix for parking and housing affordability issue supported by community groups is within reach but the City of Seattle is hesitant to reach out and grab it.

Parking concerns take a back seat in pursuit of affordable housing. Parking is a real enemy to affordable housing. In the age of car-share, ride-share, bike-share, autonomous vehicles, we should be thinking about making more room for people and not for more cars in our cities.

Google’s Waze now can navigate you to the “best” parking spot near your destination. Once again, we see private firms trying to make parking easier for people but forget the fact that the opportunity for tech-firms to developer parking products is mainly caused by local government’s mismanagement of parking resources. If cities are willing to reform its parking policy and charge the right price to achieve a targeted occupancy, every driver’s parking experience can be dramatically improved.

 

Filed Under: Parking Roundup

Curb Enthusiasm: Empowering Neighborhoods to Create Safer Streets with Parking Benefit Districts

September 6, 2016 By Shoupista 1 Comment

Residential Permit Zone Boundary Concept
(Photo source: PBOT)


The recent series of traffic crashes on Portland streets has raised a strong sense of urgency among transportation advocates, community leaders, and local residents to demand action to improve street safety. The tragic
death of a child and life-threatening injuries of another caused by two separate drivers have devastated families and our community. As a result, Vision Zero advocates and traffic safety experts are reminding us that while there are many approaches to making streets safer, the most effective approach to reduce fatalities and serious injuries is changing street designs and the built-environment to prioritize the safety of road users over vehicular speed.

However, safety improvements such as enhanced crossings or pedestrian medians that protect the most vulnerable users are often implemented slowly due to the fact the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has limited resources for safety enhancement projects and any change to existing streets would likely cause strong local opposition (these are explanations but not excuses). This means that if there a dangerous street that you or your child must cross every day to go to work or school, your neighborhood will probably have to wait for years to receive any safety improvement due to lack of funding and lengthy public process.

But what if there is a way for neighborhoods to empower themselves, fund their own street safety improvements, and create the change they desperately need?

Parking Benefit Districts

The answer is parking benefit districts. Parking benefit districts is a parking management tool for neighborhoods to capture parking revenue from both on-street parking meters and overnight residential permits and keep that revenue for the neighborhood. It works like this:

(1) neighborhoods work with the city to identify areas with on-street parking congestion and draw a parking benefit district to charge parking fees within the district boundary to reduce parking congestion;
(2) neighborhoods then can set up a “transportation safety enhancement” fund to collect and keep the net parking revenue after covering the administration costs of the program;
(3) the city can provide a menu of small capital projects or street improvement options to neighborhoods that adopt the program so they can decide how to invest their local parking revenue
(4) empowered by parking revenue, neighborhoods can now pay for more transportation options (e.g. bus passes) or small capital projects (e.g. rapid flashing beacon) or that increase the safety and comfort of every resident who uses the street.

The merits and benefits of parking benefit districts have been well documented by many scholars and organizations, such as Professor Donald Shoup at UCLA and the Sightline Institute (I highly recommend reading these articles). Instead of reiterating what these experts have already said, this article will focus on specifically how Portland neighborhoods can take advantage of the proposed residential permit program and create parking benefit districts that will bring locally dedicated revenues to pay for transportation safety enhancements.

Residential Permit Program: A Hypothetical Demonstration

In December, 2015, a stakeholder advisory committee tasked to advise the City of Portland on the development of new parking management tools proposed recommendations for a residential permit program. According to the draft proposal, “the permit area must be comprised of at least 20 contiguous block faces or 5 blocks or 4000’ linear feet.” and the recommended occupancy rate in residential zones is 85%.

Using data from a 1995 parking study in Portland, Shoup estimates that 33 parking spaces are available on a typical block’s 1,012-foot perimeter (The High Cost of Free Parking, p518). Using this measurement, we can conservatively assume that a typical street block face can accommodate 8 parking spaces. In order to not exceed the 85% target occupancy rate, each block face gets 6 residential permits. Thus, a single parking benefit district that contains 20 block faces (or 5 full blocks) in any inner Portland neighborhood can potentially sell 120 (6 x 20 = 120) permits to the residents living within and adjacent to the parking benefit district.

Hypothetically, if each residential parking permit is priced at $25 a month, and all 120 permits in this parking benefit district are sold, the district would generate $3,000 (25 x 120) a month or $36,000 a year in parking revenue for the neighborhood. The amount of parking revenue may be even higher if the permits are progressively priced as recommended by the parking stakeholder advisory committee. Meaning that the second parking permit will cost more than the first, etc., and residents with off-street parking will pay a higher price for their first permit. If the second permit costs twice as much as the first one, at $50 a month, and if two-thirds of the permits were sold in at the first-permit rate and the rest were sold at the second-permit rate, this would yield $4,000 a month ($25 x 80 + $50 x 40 = $4,000) or $48,000 a year in parking revenue.

Admittedly, the math here is crude. Also, no one knows certainly how much monthly permits will cost nor who will have the power to set the price. Nevertheless, this hypothetical scenario shows how much revenue neighborhoods can potentially receive if residents decide to charge for curb parking and the forgone opportunity cost for every day curb parking remains free.

If a neighborhood can receive $48,000 a year to spend on transportation safety enhancements, what kind of improvements can the residents collectively buy? A PBOT document  from 2013 for the East Burnside Street Transportation Safety Project shows cost estimates for some safety improvements recommended for East Burnside:

  • Speed Limit Reduction: $100 per sign; $2,000 – $5,000 per study
  • Travel Lane Modification: $150,000
  • Pedestrian Refuge Island: $10,000-$20,000
  • Curb Extensions: $30,000-$40,000 per corner
  • Flashing Beacon: $200,000

In addition, according to BikePortland, a traffic diverter could cost between $5,000 and $30,000. Based on these cost estimates, a neighborhood that sets up a 5-block parking benefit district can pay for a pedestrian refuge island, a curb extension or a traffic diverter within one year and still have some change left to pay for other public goods like street trees.

Think about a street like Hawthorne Boulevard. It is a major commercial corridor that attracts a lot of foot traffic but it is not a friendly environment for walking and biking. Nonetheless, PBOT’s data show that compared to other high crash corridors, Hawthorne is relatively safe. Therefore, it is difficult to justify using public money to pay safety improvements on Hawthorne when there are many other streets in worse shape in East Portland. If both Richmond and Sunnyside set up a parking benefit district in their neighborhoods, they could pool their resources together and enhance safety on Hawthorne rather than waiting for the City to take action.

A Benefit in Search of A Beneficiary

In The High Cost of Free Parking, Shoup notes that “curb parking revenue is a benefit in search of a beneficiary”. No one likes to start paying for something they have always had for free. However, charging for on-street parking in residential neighborhoods would be a lot more political favorable if the people who have to pay see their money come back to their neighborhood and used for their benefits. By adopting a residential permit zone to charge the right price for parking and a parking benefit district, neighborhoods that have experienced on-street parking congestion can (1) reduce over-crowding of curb parking caused by new development, (2) maintain access to convenient curb parking spaces, and (3) empower themselves to invest in transportation safety enhancements within the neighborhood boundary. Long-term residents who bemoan the loss of “livability” and increase in traffic on local streets can turn back the tides by charging for curbside car-storage.

Indeed, evidence from at least nine other U.S. cities show that parking benefit districts are invaluable neighborhood assets. For example, parking benefit districts in Pasadena and San Diego generate over a million dollar of parking fees annually dedicated for local investments. In Austin, TX parking revenue has created better public spaces and infrastructure for walking and bicycling by paying for sidewalk repair, cycle tracks, bike racks, street trees, and benches.

Some people might say “Portland is not Austin” or “Portland is not San Diego”. How do we know parking benefit districts will work in Portland and bring all the benefits it promises to bring? It will work in Portland because it already did – in the Lloyd District. The Lloyd District used to be an auto-oriented, suburban style neighborhood of office buildings and shopping mall and devoid of street life. However, in 1997 the district association turned on its first 1,000 parking meters and soon some employers started charging commuters for parking as well. Today, funded by parking revenue from 1,900 metered stalls, Go Lloyd provides incentives to commuters to use transit, walking, and bicycling and improve workers’ access to more transportation options.

The results of investing parking revenues in non-drive alone mobility options is impressive. According to BikePortland, between 1994 and 2013, the percentage of drive-alone commuters in the Lloyd District dropped from 72 to 42 percent. Transit usage increased more than three-fold, and walking and biking to work also increased significantly. It is also no surprise that this area has some of the best bicycling and walking infrastructure in the City. The story of the Lloyd District shows when a neighborhood decides to abandon the entitlement of free-parking, it opens itself to a future of increased safety, livability, and mobility options for its residents and workers.

From Curb Enthusiasm to Neighborhood Empowerment

The parking war in 2013 that led Portland City Council to adopt mandatory parking minimums for new development demonstrates that on-street parking is perhaps the most sacred amenity in Portland’s residential neighborhoods. This outcome also affirms that neighborhood voices are extremely powerful in the politics of parking. But the desires for better parking management and safe streets for our children and families are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is a lot of untapped synergy that can create strong political momentum to accelerate infrastructure investments that will benefit neighborhoods locally.  

The good new is PBOT is working on developing various parking management programs, such as residential permit zones and performance-based pricing, that will increase the feasibility of parking benefit districts. We are already halfway there, but our elected officials are averse to political risks and they need to know that the desire for parking benefit districts comes from the neighborhoods, not planners. In the wake of the recent spree of traffic violence on our streets, it is clear that we urgently need infrastructure improvements and waiting for the City to to fix our streets may result in another devastating, yet, preventable, traffic death in our community. Parking benefit districts can empower neighborhoods with locally-collected and locally-spent revenue and that allows neighborhoods to pay for safety enhancement projects and reduce traffic fatality and serious injuries.

 

Filed Under: Parking Benefit Districts, Permit Pricing, Permits

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to 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 May 12, 2025 to June 12, 2025.

Like Our Facebook Page

Like Our Facebook Page

Latest Tweet

My Tweets

Recent Posts

  • More housing and no required parking. It’s time to pass the Residential Infill Project!
  • 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.

Copyright © 2025 · Portlanders for Parking Reform · Log in

 

Loading Comments...