February 21, 2007
I spent a significant amount of my time for about three years from 2001-2003 trying to work out a parking plan for my neighborhood in NW Portland, sometimes in partnership with, sometimes in opposition to the business association in the neighborhood.
Tonight Portland City Council will consider a design review appeal on the first parking structure proposed under the plan that resulted. Here's the letter I will provide Council with as part of my testimony:
Tearing down a house – one with a number of affordable apartments – to build a parking garage at the entrance to a street of single family homes is a tragedy.
But the larger tragedy is that the years of debate about this garage have distracted us from addressing the actual parking issues in Northwest Portland.
Five years ago, a Citizens Advisory Committee labored for a year and a half to produce a parking management plan (PDF, 124K) for Northwest Portland – a plan that recommended a “three legged-stool” of programs: metered parking, a residential permit program and a transportation management association to design and implement programs to reduce demand for auto trips and parking. The CAC report (attached) barely mentioned parking structures, but on a 3-2 vote, parking structures, and the specific parking structure you are reviewing tonight, became the sole focus of the community discussion about parking.
That decision was – and is – out of sync with City policy. Here’s a partial list of what’s happened in the four years since that vote that demonstrates this:
- In 2003 23rd Avenue was suffering from the trough of a recession. Now the economy has improved and there are many new businesses – apparently unhindered by the parking situation – blossoming in the neighborhood..
- A new retail building housing a Williams Sonoma Home store and a Pottery Barn Bed & Bath store has been built and occupied, without adding any new parking to the neighborhood.
- Apple Computer was prepared to locate a store in the neighborhood without any additional parking being.
- The writings of Donald Shoup (“The High Cost of Free Parking”) have gained great currency here in Portland, leading Commissioner Adams to propose paid parking in neighborhood business districts that mirrors closely the 2002 CAC recommendations.
- We have fought a war in Iraq – a war this Council is on record opposing – which at least in part is about oil needed to fuel our cars.
- Global warming has moved in the public consciousness from a nagging concern to an established scientific consensus requiring all of us to reexamine the impact of our mobility on future generations.
- The Portland Peak Oil Task Force produced a report, commissioned by this Council, which includes among other recommendations:
Prevent over-expansion of transportation infrastructure that may not be a good investment with higher fuel prices. Air, long-distance truck and car travel are likely to be reduced in response to peak oil, and land use patterns are likely to become more compact.
Isn’t it time to recognize the parking structure plan as a false start, and return to the recommendations of the CAC which are in much greater alignment with the changing world and the City’s own policies?
Former NWDA Transportation Chair
February 21, 2007 8:42 AM
Lenny Anderson Says:
Good luck tonight at Council with this fight.
As a former chair of NWDA Transportation, I am in full agreement with your letter to our electeds.
Sadly, this is but one of many examples of policy saying one thing and practise quite another in Portland.
We get another chance to see if those elected to lead can walk the talk with the Columbia River Crossing.
February 21, 2007 10:24 AM
I think a lot could be done to help parking in NW if the city were to require businesses to "open up" their parking when they are not open.
There are doctors offices and professional complexes in NW that are closed nights and weekends which have parking lots that they don't allow people to use.
If they were required to open up use to the public during non-business hours that would open up a lot of parking without adding a single space.
But they could still restrict and tow people who park there during posted business hours.
February 21, 2007 10:33 AM
Chris Smith Says:
The concept you describe is called "shared parking", and it was a major mission of the TMA that was one of the legs of the stool in the original (and ignored) plan concept.
February 21, 2007 10:38 AM
I'd like to add something:
if you really want to park, you can get underground paid parking. This neighborhood shouldn't be made to suffer from bulldozers paving way for more cars.
I thought we learned our lessons with the freeways through NE Portland?
February 21, 2007 11:59 AM
I don't believe in "required to open" parking. Put an incentive there. Tell em' they should/can/ought to charge for their parking. Remove legal obligation for them to cover drunks fighting in their lots and such (it is a serious concern, which is why most large corporations have sub-corps that own the parking lots).
There are a million solutions without "forcing" anyone (including business owners) to do anything. Another option would be to merely pop some parking meters over there. I mean really, everyone reading this blog should be well aware that parking aint free, so why is it? Somebody's paying for it, toss some meters over there and the revenue would be massive!
To alleviate the problem for locals living in the area just simply let them purchase a "pass" or even receive one with their monthly rent. Problems solved, moochers kicked, and parking is all of a sudden available for use.
But I digress, I'm bettin Chris and his fellows have most of those suggestions in the report which I am going to go read now.
February 22, 2007 4:48 AM
Frank Dufay Says:
Remove legal obligation for them to cover drunks fighting in their lots and such
Very true. Neighbors got on Grand Central Bakery's case in our neighborhood because they were letting patrons of the bar/restaurants across Hawthorne park in their lot in the evening. They ended up roping their lot off, which just meant MORE folks were parking in the residential areas, which solved nothing but exacerbated the problem of loud/drunken/fighting patrons and their impact on the neighborhood.