Oregonian Gets NW Parking Plan Facts Wrong, Continues to Root for More Cars

A new Oregonian editorial supports the Mayor’s NW Parking Plan resolution (as I do), but then gets the facts completely confused:

The plan calls for up to 650 new off-site parking spaces, and Adams said agreements have been reached for the first 200. Businesses want more, and particularly covet a parking garage. A garage might not be realistic, but the city should consider allowing more spaces. Though outside the city’s control, better park-and-ride options along TriMet bus and light-rail routes also would help.

Where to start…

The plan calls for up to 650 new off-site parking spaces…

The plan does not call for 650 new off-site (I assume they meant off-street) parking spaces. That was a feature of the 2003 ordinance (finally re-adopted in 2009 after a remand from LUBA) that allows for six sites to have parking structures, up to a limit of 650 spaces. This is not new, and not part of this plan. The private sector has had this ability for several years, but has yet to produce a structure.

agreements have been reached for the first 200…

These are not new parking spaces, these are shared-use agreements for existing spaces (for example, allowing overnight resident parking in parking lots used by medical offices during the day). This is also a feature of the 2003 plan that made sense then and continues to make sense now. Every existing space should be used as productively as possible (subject to some limits on things that might cause nuisances to neighbors, for example noise and light in the middle of the night).

The 200 hundred shared-use spaces have nothing to do with the limit of 650 additional structured spaces.

Though outside the city’s control, better park-and-ride options along TriMet bus and light-rail routes also would help.

Actually the city does have some control, both city and TriMet policy do not support park-and-ride facilities in inner neighborhoods, for very sound reasons.

Is one allowed to hope the editorial board might actually try to understand a City plan before editorializing about it?

My personal view is that off-street structures are unlikely to be developed because the economics will not support them. But I’m certain that because any off-street parking structures will need to be paid parking, none will ever be built while on-street parking remains free. We have ample demonstrations that drivers will go a long way to find free on-street parking in this neighborhood while existing paid lots remain only sparsely used.

4 Comments

4 Responses to Oregonian Gets NW Parking Plan Facts Wrong, Continues to Root for More Cars

  1. stan
    December 10, 2012 at 9:23 am Link

    Not sure why you’d expect the Oregonian to get its facts correct.

  2. al m
    December 10, 2012 at 5:51 pm Link

    Oregonian is a trash propaganda paper.
    Unbelievable they are the only paper in Portland.

  3. Chris I
    December 10, 2012 at 6:04 pm Link

    There are several other papers in Portland, some of which have actually covered this very topic:
    http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/a-temporary-armistice/Content?oid=7826150

  4. Chris I
    December 10, 2012 at 6:10 pm Link

    There are several other papers in Portland, some of which have actually covered this very topic:
    http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/a-temporary-armistice/Content?oid=7826150

Leave a Reply

By posting a comment, you are granting a license to Portland Transport for your comment. Please refer to The Rules.