Update: 10/18/06
According to yesterday’s O, Sam is not making much progress with the Hawthorne folks.
Original Post: 10/6/06
Commissioner Sam has been advocating for parking meters in neighborhood business districts, including Hawthorne.
He’s been using Pasadena’s historic shopping district as a case study, citing improvements in turnover driving more profitable business.
Well, Willamette Week decided to check it out and sent a reporter to Pasadena. He found that in fact the district had thrived, to the point where national chains had replaced the local businesses.
Does that mean parking meters cause gentrification, or just that you have to be careful how you reinvest the proceeds?
Hint: NW 23rd attracted Pottery Barn and Williams Sonoma without the help of parking meters…
26 responses to “Parking Meters = Gentrification?”
“Willamette Week decided to check it out and sent a reporter to Pasadena. He found that in fact the district had thrived, to the point where national chains had replaced the local businesses.”
Could this businesses gentrification be compared to what Sam decrys WalMart for doing – driving the local ma and pa businesses out? From the comments Sam made and the response from the Hawthorne business community that appeared on the evening news last month, it appears like Sam is more than just advocating parking meters; he is attempting to force them into some business districts. Many years ago, probably before Sam came to Portland, parking meters were forced into the Hollywood District. At that time, it devastated the business there. Eventually the meters were removed and replaced with time limit parking signs. Then when parking was removed on Sandy Boulevard, many businesses in Hollywood were again hurt. From my own prospective all parking meters should be removed, including the ones downtown. For the most part they only subsidize the streetcar and now mall construction, both of which should be paid for by transit users. Furthermore, in areas where there is paid parking such as at meters, there should also be a fee to park bicycles at any public rack or facility provided.
1) This is the Willamette Week. They couldn’t very well pay to send a reporter to do a story where they found “Gee, Old Pasadena is nice.”
2) Hawthorne has already been gentrified once. The funky places that were there 15 years ago are gone. Its just not national chains. There really are not a lot of local services available there any more.
3) Its hard to believe that parking meters will make the area more attractive to Gap et al. It sounds like old Pasadena put in structured parking – which is more like what is happening in NW Portland.
4) What is an issue is where else people can shop without meters. You really have to extend the parking meters to every neighborhood shopping area or Hawthorne will not be competitive. Meters will push business to Division, Clinton, Burnside and Belmont. As well as down to the west end of Hawthorne. What local services are left will disappear.
5) How the money is spent isn’t really very relevant. Hawthorne is not a low rent district now, preserving it isn’t really an issue.
One has to remember… if we’re talking about Pasadena CA… keep in mind California is only the most superficial state in the entire country. It practically breeds chain stores.
Parking meteres probably cannot truthfully be correlated to such events…
JK:Lets cut through some BS.
Metro and its planners are on a jehad against cars. Their long range plan is to make driving more difficult and more expensive. That is why they advocate certain things:
1) Reduce road capacity by not building new roads as our population increases.
2) Reduce road capacity by actually removing lane-miles. Examples of this include Front ave. being reduced from four lanes two.
3) Reduce road capacity by reverting one-way couplets to two way. This also increases accidents, but planners seldom care about safety.
4) Increase congestion by adding extended curbs which make buses stop in the driving lane, force right turning vehicles to block traffic as they slow to turn. A side effect that they don’t like to talk about is encouraging peds to stand closer to fast moving traffic, increasing the chances of a collision.
5) Increase cost of driving. One example is Leonard’s gasahol mandate for Portland that will probably make gas more expensive and cause spot shortages. Actually it may increase driving as we have to drive out of Portland to get real gas. (I recommend getting gas in Vancouver to keep the tax money away from departments that use it against us – they still build road capacity over there)
6) PARKING METERS everywhere. Both increases the cost of driving and provides money for the toy trains.
There is more to this plan, but I forgot the details.
Bottom line: the real purpose of parking meters is to force people to get out of their cars and waste time on transit. Unfortunately, it will be the poor who are hurt most, but Portland’s planners have been screwing the poor for years.
The sickness of this whole plan becomes obvious when you realize that buses use more energy than cars, pollute more and cost more. The planers are still using 1970’s data when buses saved energy, but since then buses gradually got worse and cars got dramatically better. They too stupid to get modern data because it would interfere with their religion. The other part of their dogma, light rail costs too much and does too little.
Thanks
JK
Lets cut through some BS.
Okay, let’s do.
Metro and its planners are on a jehad against cars.
What’s a “jehad”?
1) Reduce road capacity by not building new roads as our population increases.
I’ll pretend that Sunnybrook Road doesn’t exist if you promise to keep pretending as well.
I’ll pretend that Highway 217 is not being widened if you promise to keep pretending as well.
I haven’t seen any construction going on along Highway 26, either.
2) Reduce road capacity by actually removing lane-miles. Examples of this include Front ave. being reduced from four lanes two.
Ummm, what? I can’t keep pretending, this one is too obvious: Front Ave (Naito Parkway) is NOT being reduced to two lanes. Where on earth did you get that one? Here is a quote directly from the project web site regarding lanes:
3) Reduce road capacity by reverting one-way couplets to two way.
Then why all the controversy about the plan to convert Burnside/Couch into a one-way couplet? Are you now pretending that this plan does not exist?
This also increases accidents, but planners seldom care about safety.
Glad to know you can read planners’ minds. I’ll be sure to tell a planner or two, next time I run into one, that they don’t care about safety. I’m sure they’ll agree.
4) Increase congestion by adding extended curbs which make buses stop in the driving lane, force right turning vehicles to block traffic as they slow to turn. A side effect that they don’t like to talk about is encouraging peds to stand closer to fast moving traffic, increasing the chances of a collision.
Since we’re cutting through BS, as you say, do you have any real stats to back up your assertion that peds standing on extended curbs are at greater risk?
5) Increase cost of driving. One example is Leonard’s gasahol mandate for Portland that will probably make gas more expensive and cause spot shortages. Actually it may increase driving as we have to drive out of Portland to get real gas. (I recommend getting gas in Vancouver to keep the tax money away from departments that use it against us – they still build road capacity over there)
You talk about “BS”, and now you advocate that people drive out-of-state to get gas? Such clear-headed advice!
6) PARKING METERS everywhere.
Yes, everywhere, as far as the eye can see. Why right here on my residential street in NE Portland there are thousands of them. Oh, wait, that was hyperbole, wasn’t it? I thought you were going to be cutting through “BS”. Please let me know when you start.
Both increases the cost of driving and provides money for the toy trains.
I checked with the local hobby shop and they assure me that their toy trains are not receiving city subsidy. Only the real trains get subsidy.
By the way, downtown parking is _subsidized_. The city lots (priced exactly the same as meters) are priced less than the private lots. Therefore, parking meters are not increasing the cost of driving. They are in fact increasing the availability of streetside short term parking.
There is more to this plan, but I forgot the details.
Sounds like you’re right on top of everything. Great job cutting through that “BS”.
Bottom line: the real purpose of parking meters is to force people to get out of their cars and waste time on transit.
Right, got it. And coming from you, we know this opinion won’t be “BS”, because you’ve told us so.
Unfortunately, it will be the poor who are hurt most, but Portland’s planners have been screwing the poor for years.
Sounds like a Foley scandal in the works.
The sickness of this whole plan becomes obvious when you realize that buses use more energy than cars, pollute more and cost more.
So now you’re against buses as well as rail. Thank you, at least, for sharing your true agenda.
Oh, and by the way (why do I waste my time?), we’ve had this argument before in this very forum. The entire fleet average for TriMet, which includes underutilized routes, idle time, etc., is 35MPG. The US automobile fleet average is worse.
The planers are still using 1970’s data when buses saved energy, but since then buses gradually got worse and cars got dramatically better.
Not so dramatic if you actually review the statistics, and as hybrid buses come online the transit numbers will improve faster than cars.
They too stupid to get modern data because it would interfere with their religion.
“They too stupid”? Perhaps you should proofread before calling people “stupid”. Just sayin’
The other part of their dogma, light rail costs too much and does too little.
Why should we listen to your prognostications about light rail if you’re against buses as well?
Thanks, JK
Oh, you are so very welcome.
– Bob R.
“Increase congestion by adding extended curbs which make buses stop in the driving lane, force right turning vehicles to block traffic as they slow to turn. A side effect that they don’t like to talk about is encouraging peds to stand closer to fast moving traffic, increasing the chances of a collision.”
AND curb extensions also force large trucks making turns to either drive over the sidewalk or make turns from the opposite of the street. Curb extensions actually jeopardize both pedestrian and vehicle safety.
“The planers are still using 1970’s data when buses saved energy, but since then buses gradually got worse and cars got dramatically better.”
TriMet busses only get five to six miles per gallon, and that is not an improvement since the 1970’s when the average transit bus was smaller. To my knowledge, there is no political force that advocates raising the standards for transit busses. It is public money that is paying for the fuel, so there should be. If cars can get 30 plus miles per gallon through technology, new busses similar to the ones TriMet uses should be able to double or even triple the miles per gallon. I suggest anybody who agrees call or write their elected representatives and demand that transit bus fuel economy standards be gradually raised into the 12 to 18 miles per gallon range, and become part of any other fuel economy standards legislation.
Terry –
TriMet buses get 35 passenger miles per gallon, current fleet average. We went through the math on here a few months ago. If you need a reference to the comment I will try and dig it up for you.
There are federal mandates coming about improved transit fuel economy, and with high diesel prices there are pressures already on transit fleets to upgrade. Portland has already been trying out a hybrid bus (I’ve seen it around town on several routes), Eugene is introducing hybrids this year on its new BRT routes, and I would expect that within 5 to 10 years fleets will begin standardizing on the best performing hybrid bus designs.
– Bob R.
Hang in there Bob, but is sure does get tiring listening to the same bable…over and over and over.
Parking meters increase turnover, so more motorists get to park in a given spot. They provide an income stream for enforcement. And in fairness to Sam Adams, he is proposing but has made clear that business districts will do the disposing or whatever with this idea.
Its all a question of managing public resources for desired results…some may disagree on what the “desired results” are, but they are not winning elections, at least not since Frank Ivancie.
Parking management, including meters, has paid big dividends in the Lloyd District where employment has almost doubled and no new parking structures have been built saving those businesses millions and making a for more rational use of public space. Almost half the folks working there get to and from work without a car, freeing up more parking for visitors, vendors and customers. Its a no brainer.
Terry, I can understand if you have an issue with meter revenues going to pay for transit projects, but would you OK with the meters if the revenue went for projects/programs that benefited motorists?
Overall, parking meters simply make people pay for what they use. And while they may subsidize non-motorists, motorists also get subsidies like the Big Pipe in return. Reading the article, it seems like the up-scaling and upping of rents drove out the independents, not the meters.
Lastly, I would like to note that Lars Larson seems to think that creating a couplet (Burnside/Couch) will increase congestion.
“… sure does get tiring listening to the same babble…over and over and over.
Parking meters increase turnover, so more motorists get to park in a given spot. They provide an income stream for enforcement.”
Furthermore, all the bicycle babble wanting more of this, that and the other from taxpayers, over and over and over again, but are unwilling to be directly taxed any for any bicycle infrastructure also gets extremely tiring. Any district that has metered parking should also have metered bicycle parking at any public bicycle rack or bicycle parking facility provided. The reasoning is no different that charging motorists. It should also be noted, those advocating parking meters are doing so for others, and probably don’t expect to use them themselves.
“Overall, parking meters simply make people pay for what they use.”
Using the same reasoning, this presents a good case for raising transit fares to better reflect the costs of infrastructure and service in that current fares only cover 20% of operation costs. Also using the same reasoning “make people pay for what they use”, also presents a good statement/argument for directly taxing the bicycle mode of transport for the bicycle infrastructure they use with a 100% subsidy paid for by taxpayers.
“Terry, I can understand if you have an issue with meter revenues going to pay for transit projects, but would you OK with the meters if the revenue went for projects/programs that benefited motorists?”
That is exactly where any motor vehicle parking meter revenue should go, directly to motor vehicle infrastructure. The key word here is “benefit”, and it must be a direct benefit, not transit, not bicycle infrastructure, not bubble curbs, etc. The revenue should be going for infrastructure that better accommodates motor vehicles, including the enhanced functionality and improved flow of streets and roads for motor vehicles. It goes back to paying for what you use, but not subsidizing another mode.
“Lastly, I would like to note that Lars Larson seems to think that creating a couplet (Burnside/Couch) will increase congestion.”
It probably will in that curb extensions will be added on Couch Street and morning westbound rush hour traffic on Couch will be reduced to two lanes instead of the current three currently on Burnside. Furthermore, the one-way northbound street that will double to take eastbound traffic back to Sandy, and jog westbound Burnside traffic over to Sandy and then Couch, will become a total choke point. Any accident here will create gridlock.
for directly taxing the bicycle mode of transport for the bicycle infrastructure they use
When a person walks or rides their bike they create a net public benefit, saving far more than they cost with each trip.
Truthfully, almost all bicycle (and pedestrian) infrastructure is there to benefit motorists by allowing them to operate at higher speeds than they safely could if they had to share the same public right-of-way.
Why does every topic have to be twisted to be about bicycles and their users? I swear we’ve had the same conversation about 15 times in the last month. We’re tired of it already. Move on.
Bob R. Says: What’s a “jehad”?
JK: Religious war.
Bob R. Says: (reformatted) I’ll pretend that Sunnybrook Road doesn’t exist if you promise to keep pretending as well….– Highway 217… Highway 26, either.
JK: Do these added lane-miles keep pace with population growth? NO, my point stands.
Bob R. Says: Front Ave (Naito Parkway) is NOT being reduced to two lanes.
JK: Front ave at the condo farm behind Union Station was reduced to one lane each way a few years back.
Bob R. Says: Then why all the controversy about the plan to convert Burnside/Couch into a one-way couplet?
JK: Don’t ask me, I favor it to the extent that they will have at least three travel lanes on both halves of the couplet compared to the four lanes now on Burnside.
Bob R. Says: Since we’re cutting through BS, as you say, do you have any real stats to back up your assertion that peds standing on extended curbs are at greater risk?
JK: DO you have any evidence that it increases safety to put people closer to fast moving heavy equipment. Generally, workplace rules (and common sense) favors keeping them apart.
Bob R. Says: Yes, everywhere, as far as the eye can see. Why right here on my residential street in NE Portland there are thousands of them.
JK: I see you are having trouble understanding ordinary English usage.
Bob R. Says: (quoting JK, reformatted) Unfortunately, it will be the poor who are hurt most, but Portland’s planners have been screwing the poor for years….Sounds like a Foley scandal in the works.
JK: Nice answer, shows a lot of concern for the poor. Also tells a lot about planner’s mentality.
Bob R. Says: So now you’re against buses as well as rail. Thank you, at least, for sharing your true agenda.
JK: I am just pointing to facts: buses use more energy that new small cars.
Bob R. Says: Oh, and by the way (why do I waste my time?), we’ve had this argument before in this very forum. The entire fleet average for TriMet, which includes underutilized routes, idle time, etc., is 35MPG.
JK: Now adjust that for the difference between Diesel and gasolene and use Fetche’s number of 3,792 BTU/passenger mile and you get 33 passenger miles/gal. A modern small car gets 32 MPG (city, 2006 KIA Rio) and typically carries 1.2 passengers for 38 passenger-miles/gal. You loose. But, stripping away the hype from both sides, the reality is that they are close while transit advocates keep thinking there is a saving from buses which is not true.
Bob R. Says: The US automobile fleet average is worse.
JK: But the US automobile fleet average is NOT worse than the US bus average: 3549 BTU car vs. 4160 bus. See Table 2.10 of transportaion Energy Data Book 25th edition.
Bob R. Says: as hybrid buses come online the transit numbers will improve faster than cars.
JK: Care to show your numbers? I was told by a Trimet person that their hybrid buses are disappointing from a fuel economy standpoint.
Bob R. Says: (quoting JK)The other part of their dogma, light rail costs too much and does too little.
JK: That deserves saying agin: light rail costs too much and does too little.
Bob R. Says: Oh, you are so very welcome.
JK: My, my, aren’t we getting arrogant?
Thanks
JK
JK,
I am not sure what battle you are fighting, but as a Muslim I find your use of the term jihad offensive. You might also want to learn to use spell check.
Thanks.
“When a person walks or rides their bike they create a net public benefit, saving far more than they cost with each trip.”
When a person drives they provide jobs and a net benefit to the economy. As for bicyclists saving more that they cost each trip. For themselves, probably; but there is a cost to all motorists and taxpayers who never use bicycle infrastructure but get charged for it anyway. The only way bicyclists can save more than they cost each trip is to either stop the construction and maintenance of bicycle infrastructure, or directly tax the bicycle mode of transport to pay for what they use.
“Why does every topic have to be twisted to be about bicycles and their users?”
The conversation will stop when bicyclists are taxed to pay for the costs of bicycle infrastructure – what they use. When is the entire anti-auto conversation, get drivers out of their cars, and poaching motorist paid tax dollars for bicycle infrastructure etc. all going to stop?
When a person drives they provide jobs and a net benefit to the economy
I suppose you can make the argument that anyone spending money on anything provides jobs and has a net benefit to the economy. But I don’t see how that is more the case for a motorist than a pedestrian.
but there is a cost to all motorists and taxpayers
No, there isn’t. There is a net savings to motorists and taxpayers when people choose to walk or bike. The public costs of getting someone to work on their bicycle or walking are far less than the public cost of getting that same person to work in an auto.
“current fares only cover 20% of operation costs”
Not if only bus trips that actually make economic sense to run (are well-used) are considered. And more trips would make economic sense if there were more parking meters (as well as less of other subsidies like the Big Pipe). In fact, I’ve read that some TriMet lines are actually profitable.
Overall, I agree that in a perfect transportation market, bicyclists would be charged. However, there are many other subsidies that need to go first, such as “free” parking.
“I suppose you can make the argument that anyone spending money on anything provides jobs and has a net benefit to the economy.”
A number of years ago at a time when my employment involved the auto industry, one in every seven jobs was related to this industry. Admittedly, I do not have any current figures of the same. However, I do know that an average number of employees for a new car dealership in Oregon is about 60 people. Compare that to the much smaller average number of people employed at a bike shop, and the number of bike shops compared to the greater number of new car dealerships, and there is a big difference. Furthermore, new car dealerships only scratch the surface when counting people employed in jobs that are related to the auto industry and auto industry jobs are rarely taxpayer subsidized.
The oil industry also creates huge profits. Perhaps we should institute a maximum mileage for US auto fleets – say at 5 mpg per automobile – so they will consume more fuel and thus employ more people?
Sure, fuck the environment, but we’re all going to die anyway, right? So what if the next generation has to deal with the sea level rising up 60 meters and flooding 95% of the world’s population? That won’t happen during my lifetime!
Let’s try to keep the language civil.
Besides, that’s one of those words that will force your comment into the moderation queue and delay its publication.
Portland is a very car-oriented place (its suburbs even more so), so it is odd reading the posts suggesting that the car culture here is under siege. The vast majority of street space is devoted to cars. Most streets were not created or paid for from gas tax dollars, most were created through land subdivisions – many before car ownership was widespread. Yet, cars monopolize the vast majority of this street space and the City’s mantra is all about ensuring throughway connectivity for motorists – preventing opportunities for street space to serve a greater variety of community needs. If Portland were really trying to get people out of cars, it would be reducing connectivity and convenience for cars, while maintaining and increasing connectivity for pedestrians and bicycles (thereby reducing the relative costs of the latter modes, in comparison to driving – providing the same connectivity for all modes does nothing to increase the relatively attractiveness of non-car modes). Bikes mostly get left-over space (if any happens to exist). Most of Portland’s much vaunted bicycle system is just lines on maps. Were bicycle lanes added to Alberta, Hawthorne, Division, Fremont or Sandy as a result of recent transportation plans for these streets? No! Bikes are intended to stick to “bike boulevards”, which are just less car-dominated parallel streets with no real bike facility improvements (except for those dots and the odd sign). You have to go to a no-nonsense city like Chicago to see a place where main streets often have bike lanes – many of which were reduced from four to two auto lanes. Bikes are responsible for virtually no roadwear – so why should bicyclists pay for road maintenance, especially since they are mostly just using space too narrow to be used as auto lanes? Everyone, even those who do not drive regularly, are already paying for a multitude of costs related to vehicle use – think of all the costs related to vehicle accidents not covered by street improvement dollars – police, fire, medical – not to mention health and environmental costs caused by vehicle emissions.
2) Hawthorne has already been gentrified once. The funky places that were there 15 years ago are gone. Its just not national chains. There really are not a lot of local services available there any more.
I’ve lived in Hawthorne (HAND) nearly TWENTY years…yeah, the porno shop is gone, the strip club is now Jarra’s. But the Bagdad lives…and thrives. You can still get a double-coney, heavy onions at Nick’s Coney Island. Fred Meyer cleaned up its act. Pastaworks survives, and, yeah, restaurants come and go, but I’ll not bemoan the loss of Burger King.
I don’t see how parking meters will really increase parking capacity. Why NOT a parking structure…maybe putting it where the surface lot is at Fred Meyer’s, so it doesn’t create the issues we see in NW Portland?
Why NOT a parking structure…maybe putting it where the surface lot is at Fred Meyer’s,
I don’t think 39th and Hawthorne is a place I would want to encourage more people to drive.
What is an issue is where else people can shop without meters. You really have to extend the parking meters to every neighborhood shopping area or Hawthorne will not be competitive.
I can park in a Smartpark garage, shop at Meier & Frank downtown, and have my parking paid for. And that’s with finding a parking space easily.
Just meters alone on Hawthorne, then, will make Hawthorne less competitive. Won’t it?
And, if the point of meters –this is the point, right?– is to encourage turnover, what’s wrong with a parking structure to bring more drivers to 39th & Hawthorne? Isn’t that the same goal?
Don’t think meters would generate enough $ for a structure, which is a huge waste of $ anyway. Ross is right, why would you want more cars at 39th and Hawthorne?
Thanks Clement…you are right on the mark. Far from being a “Platinum” bike city, Portland is more like “Copper.”
Meanwhile for pedestrians, speeding cars kill on 23rd, make Williams/Vancouver a hazard for kids, make Beaumont pretty unpleasant for shoppers, etc.
PDOT for all their talk, put automobile movement first…over and over again, as they have in the past under Blumenauer, Hales and Francesconi. Sam Adams has yet to make any real changes.
Ross is right, why would you want more cars at 39th and Hawthorne?
That’s a fair question. But the answer is the same one as for why you would want more turnover, and therefore parking meters.
39th & Hawthorne is a destination. People come from beyond the area to shop at Pastaworks, to go to Nicks…or catch a movie at the Bagdad.