A reader forwarded this link to an article in the Seattle Times about Seattle removing parking minimums in some zoning types, something Portland has already done.
This is directly in line with one of the suggestions on our open thread on topics (see, I’m listening).
Note the distinction: neither Seattle nor Portland restrict the parking you can build with your new development, they’re just removing the requirement on the minimum amount you have to build.
There seem to be a variety of viewpoints about this:
- This pushes the parking demand to the street, creating areas with parking shortages (e.g., NW 23rd)
- If we require parking, we’re just giving people incentives to drive
- What’s wrong with letting the market decide how much parking is really necessary?
What do you think?
29 responses to “Less Parking”
In the case of parking, the market decides how much parking is needed. Removing the minimum requirement in the downtown core is a good idea as it has worked well for downtown Portland.
Some lots are too small or shaped in ways that makes building underground parking uneconomical – so a minimum parking requirement impedes development of new buildings that otherwise would be built without parking. An example is the Madison Office Condo’s on 11th Ave – the building does not have underground parking due to the small size of the lot and probably would not have been built if there was a minimum parking requirement.
The development can be seen on Portland Architecture:
http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2005/08/more_west_end_d.html
Developers would much rather not have to build parking because it is expensive to build (ranging from 30K to 40K per stall downtown) but the market still demands it.
I would also say that when there are minimal good alternatives to driving, minimum parking requirements might be necessary. Even then, the market takes into account the lack of transit which then forces the developer to build more parking.
While i’m in general agreement about not mandating parking requirements for downtown development, this inevitably creates the scenario where some development begins relying on parking built by other developers (during the zoning mandate) to complement SmartPark structures and on-street parking; effectively passing some of their costs onto pre-existing development.
Is there any way downtown businesses can create some sort of parking co-op to ensure that the cost of attracting consumers/patrons etc. downtown (or to whatever neighborhood) is parceled equitably?
I am always struck by all the free parking available in industrial/employment areas where we are told land is in short supply. Converting this to paid parking would reduce demand and shift more trips to non-drive alone auto trips.
On Swan Island almost all employers offer free parking, but few employers to offer free transit.
This is the key factor in keeping the drive-alone mode split high…subsidized driving with no subsidized transit.
…the changes, which will not apply to residential neighborhoods.
This is a key difference from what Portland is doing. Here –OK, I’ll use my neighborhood as an example– we’ve had a lot of new restaurants and retail going in (with lots more coming) with almost NO provision for parking. Yes, parking is expensive…so, as in NW, the developers externalize the cost to the residential neighborhood, instead of bearing it themselves. It just seems the height of irresponsibility.
When a developer doesn’t even have to provide bike parking –they can buy their way out– for their shops and restaurant, as the Clinton on SE 26th & Division has done, you have to wonder how this committment to multi-modality is really playing out. I don’t know or remember how many bike spaces the OHSU SoWa facility is s’possed to have, but when I walked there yesterday, ALL the bike parking out front was taken, which suggests to me whatever they have is already inadequate.
If we want to wean people off the autombile in an urban setting –and, sorry, Jim, I think that’s an important priority– we have to offer them good –if not better– alternatives.
Think about it: I couldn’t walk to SoWa’s OHSU without walking in the street, and if I’d biked there I wouldn’t have had a place to park my bike. Sidewalks and bike stands are relatively cheap, but we’ve a $57 million tram. We’re approving new development as though the car is disappearing, but then we’re also saying we can’t afford to make walking and biking safer and more convenient. We upzone for higher density in the Division Street corridor…but then Metro declines to include funding for the Division Street streetscaping that was part of the upzoning plan.
As for placing reliance on the market? The market tends toward monopoly, as is the case in downtown Portland. I don’t know that that’s worked especially well beyond making a few families very, very wealthy. And turning lines of parking spaces into rows of fast-food shacks? What an ugly, ugly blight on our urban landscape.
Demand must be the rule of thumb that dictates the need for parking just as demand and not a lot of shouting by a mere few with a political agenda should also dictate what kind of bicycle infrastructure is constructed. If parking is paid in a given area, so should bicycle parking and storage. If there are no requirements to require parking with development, there should also be no requirements to add bicycle racks, storage and or lockers.
There is however a difference between the need for motor vehicle parking and perceived need for bicycle parking. If there is an absence of bicycle racks, most bicyclists will just treat the absence with contempt and then chain their bike up to the nearest street sign or utility pole, or take them inside. However if there is not enough parking: In a business district it could have a negative on profits and could force some businesses to close or locate elsewhere, such as outside of Portland. Lack of parking in a business district also can create more traffic and congestion increasing fuel consumption with drivers circling around to for that next available space. The majority of people that want to limit parking are not business owners. Limiting parking in business districts just adds to Portland’s anti-business reputation. In a residential district, the lack of parking forces more cars to park on the street, often in front of other residences, thereby lowering the quality of life for the neighborhood.
Jim –
From the report:
“Showing these different speed curves together illustrates that, by and large, traffic in the metropolitan region averages 55-60 miles per hour. In fact, there are only four locations from this sample where speeds fall below two-thirds of free-flow speed, or 40 miles per hour (a common definition of congestion).”
You are correct of course. The maximum throughput is between 25 and 40 mph. Anything near of below that is LOS F since that is the lowest level of service. But a lot of LOS F is not “stop and go” at all and provides more throughput than a higher LOS. Levels of service on not based on how efficiently a road moves traffic, they are based on the average speed relative to the designed maximum speed.
Less parking is a good thing. If a development does overload the surrounding neighborhood’s parking, a more market-friendly solution is to control (charge for/time limit) the parking and possibly give passes to other property owners. This can also encourage someone to set up a paid lot.
As for parking in business districts, they should really level the playing field by making the competition also charge for parking. The bottom line is that no parking is really “free”; people who come in a more efficient means are thanked by having to pay for parking anyways. Also, the land and money used to construct the parking could be used for better purposes.
John Russell, the transportation commissioner, was pushing for replacing Portland’s payroll tax with a tax on parking. Its not a bad idea, but it would really need to be done on a regional basis. Otherwise, the local businesses that compete most directly with commercial areas outside Portland would be at a disadvantage. If you own property on 82nd it is going to be tougher to compete with Clackamas Town Center. Its probably not a coincidence that Russell is a downtown Portland property owner.
The idea is still worth exploring. As Russell said when he suggested it, we should tax people for things we want to discourage (auto use) rather than for things we want to encourage (creating jobs). A properly structured regional tax on parking might make a lot of new industrial land available that is currently being used for parking lots.
Less parking is a good thing.
So…let’s have government help create a shortage, and then charge for it, and then, ultimately the “market” leads to parking garages, aka “more parking?” Maybe we can even knock down some of those inefficient single-family homes in our neighborhoods to build parking garages!
I think the situation on NW Irving is a function of the personalities involved, not a policy trend.
But the question you’re really raising is if you leave the question of how much parking to build to the market, will the market get it right?
Frank, as noted in the post, “Note the distinction: neither Seattle nor Portland restrict the parking you can build with your new development, they’re just removing the requirement on the minimum amount you have to build.” I don’t understand how people can complain about onerous government mandates and red tape on the one hand, then when the government lifts a restriction/burden, they same complaints roll in.
Where I live just off N. Mississippi, there are many new businesses opening up and consequently parking is spilling over on to my street, N. Michigan. It’s not a big deal to me because I commute via bicycle, we’re near a max line, we have frequent bus service, and we park our one car in our garage. Living close to services and work, and having multiple transportation options works great for us and the lack of adequate parking on Mississippi is not really relevant.
Are you sure about this Terry? “If there is an absence of bicycle racks, most bicyclists will just treat the absence with contempt and then chain their bike up to the nearest street sign or utility pole, or take them inside.” What would you have a bicylist do who wishes to frequent a business with no rack? There are no feelings of contempt when I lock my bike to a sign or anything else for that matter. We’ve skewed the market for 50 years toward motor vehicle transportation and you’re upset over bike rack requirements? The pernicious bicycle lobby sure has you losing sleep at night.
FYI, “Less parking is a good thing” was specifically about government-mandated/encouraged parking (the subject of this post). Parking that is usually free, possibly because of the forced supply.
We probably should have less parking in general, but use other means to get it, like property-tax policies showing that lots aren’t an efficient use of land and by charging for pollution and other costs of auto trips. And if people use other parking instead, charge them and fix the market.
lots aren’t an efficient use of land
Maybe not. But like Ron above points out:
I commute via bicycle, we’re near a max line, we have frequent bus service, and we park our one car in our garage.
Well, isn’t that convenient for you. You don’t have to compete with all those sweaty struggling masses, yearning for a place to park. Though maybe building HOUSING for cars isn’t a very efficient use of land either?
I’m sorta yanking your chain here, Ron, I’ve got a garage too. But I also live in a mixed neighborhood of single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, retail and a soon to be condo “tower” (well, the four-stories WILL be towering). I’ve got mine –my garage, that is– so I’m guaranteed parking, but those people in the apartments…let ’em eat cake and find their own damn parkings spaces as private developers continue to use the public commons to boost their bottom lines.
Nationally, parking is a $20 billion industry, experts say, with revenues divided almost equally between public and private entities.
Interesting article in the NY Times this morning about some of the consequences of a parking shortage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/us/06parking.html?th&emc=th
That article has a quote that should be a cautionary tale for NW Portland:
I wanted to price parking on the street as the first step in NW…
private developers continue to use the public commons to boost their bottom lines.
As I tried to say before, the problem is that the market is broken–commons parking is under-priced. If it wasn’t (driveway/garage users didn’t have to pay for commons users), I don’t see what the problem would be. Either developers would be encouraged to provide their own parking or someone else would be encouraged to provide it for a profit. And monopolization is a different issue.
Either developers would be encouraged to provide their own parking or someone else would be encouraged to provide it for a profit.
Are you saying, Jason, that on-street parking is “under-priced” in San Francisco, and that’s why the market fails to provide enough parking?
“Monopoly” isn’t a separate issue at all. It’s key to artifical shortages that raise prices for the private sector and, for government, brings in tens of millions of dollars in ticket revenue. Look at the transportation projects we use future projected ticket revenue to fund? We don’t want –can’t afford– to stop illegal parking behavior. Portland LOVES illegal parkers. Our budgets count on it!
Yes, we need to build more parking lots in Portland otherwise people will start killing each other!
I say if you’re that stupid to kill someone over a parking space than you should be subjected to capital punishment yourself.
Anyone want to argue that a system that produces 1.9 million parking citations a year is one that is working? It does bring in $40 million in city revenues, I guess.
On a separate note, Chris, the Streetcar meeting you cite has 2 separate meeting times listed, one in the “when” that’s during the day, but a 6:30 pm time listed in the body. Is that first meeting the one where the insiders get everything nailed down before the 6:30 “public input” meeting? :-)
Frank:
You sure jumped on the ‘garage’ portion of my post! Considering the house that I live in was built in 1900 with alley access, maybe it was pointless to add that to my original post. If you knew me and my egalitarian beliefs, you wouldn’t have skewed it in that direction.
“Maybe not. But like Ron above points out:
I commute via bicycle, we’re near a max line, we have frequent bus service, and we park our one car in our garage.
Well, isn’t that convenient for you. You don’t have to compete with all those sweaty struggling masses, yearning for a place to park. Though maybe building HOUSING for cars isn’t a very efficient use of land either?
I’m sorta yanking your chain here, Ron, I’ve got a garage too. But I also live in a mixed neighborhood of single-family homes, duplexes, apartments, retail and a soon to be condo “tower” (well, the four-stories WILL be towering). I’ve got mine –my garage, that is– so I’m guaranteed parking, but those people in the apartments…let ’em eat cake and find their own damn parkings spaces as private developers continue to use the public commons to boost their bottom lines.
Frank, I’m not following you on the Streetcar meeting. It looks to me like it says 6:30 in both places. We’re talking about the meeting on the 29th, right?
I still want an answer as to why City of Portland is phasing out their residential street-side parking program? I live in the Lloyd District and am quite upset that I have to park 6 blocks to the north in a residential area to avoid the expense of parking in one of the nearby structures. I live in this area so I can walk to work. However, I don’t want to completely give up my car, either, as I often drive to visit my parents in Salem. We have a great transportation system here, I just don’t think its the right motive to punish people who own cars.
“What: Public Scoping Meeting on Streetcar Loop
When: Tue Jan 30 03:30 – Tue Jan 30 04:30
Where: Metro Regional Center”
See it, Chris?
AS for Ron who writes “If you knew me and my egalitarian beliefs, you wouldn’t have skewed it in that direction re his garage.
Like I said, I myself have a garage. And I live on a corner lot and so haven’t been impacted much yet by the neighborhood parking shortage. But having a garage –a guaranteed place to park– does skew my feelings about parking on the street. However, I’m very sympathetic to the folks in apartments who struggle to find available parking. What’s interesting is everywhere we have parking shortages, you end up with parking in crosswalks, on the sidewalks, and delivery trucks parking whereever they damn well please. Which, it seems, is fine with PDOT planners.
I guess while we’re protesting the use of too much land being used for parking, no one wants to take on the issue of how much HOUSING we build for our cars? :-)
Frank, it doesn’t look that way for me. My guess is your computer is making Google think you’re in a different time zone.
The meeting is at 6:30pm on the 29th, your showing it at 3:30am on the 30th. Metro’s secret meetings never start before 6am :-)
Frank,
With all due respect, your perspective seems greatly impacted by one particular project in your neighborhood. I live near there, go by there often, and as I see the project go in (and what is across the street in three directions) I still find little to object to. Can you clarify? It seems (to me) like this is a good things for Division and will in the end have minimal parking impact (compared, say, to New Seasons). Please share more…
Thanks.
I don’t know how 27 residential units, accompanied by probably two retail stores and a restaurant can be conceived to have “minimal impact” on a street where there is currently both a shortage of parking and a shortage of delivery spaces. Which is why there was Clinton Street business opposition to the project.
If you live near there then you also know the Plaid Pantry across the street from that site is serviced by massive delivery trucks that invariably park on the sidewalk. Is that a “minimal impact” from the City’s profound inability to plan for such things (as well as unwillingness to enforce its own laws)? Or maybe the kids walking to school should have to walk in the street?
And, no, it’s not just this one project that informs my perspective, I just think it’s a great example of how the City in persuit of one goal –density– ignores the other equally important goal of neigborhood livability, as well as it discounts our “neighborhood plan.”
You’re absolutely right that New Seasons, a few blocks away, has had an enormous impact on both parking and through-traffic on Division. I love New Seasons and shop there often, and often walk. (As I hope I’ll love whatever Rappaport puts in his Clinton development.) But I drive there too, and half the time I’m not parking in their too-small lot, but in the neighborhood. And the “seven-corners” intersection is becomming gridlocked, which is funny from the perspective of this nearly 20 year resident of the neighborhood.
But back to the Clinton, that’s only one such project. The newly upgraded zoning anticipates many such projects like it. The dismal response of PDOT to this proposal –“it’ll be fine, they don’t need visitor parking or even someplace for delivery trucks to make deliveries,” well, just seems sorta short-sighted. It’s not just this one project or another…they keep comin’ at ya. (Which is why we have a code code that, for instance requires loading zones…it’s just that PDOT supports waiving these restrictions and doesn’t support the neigborhoods on enforcing their own rules and City Code.)
In fact, just across the street from New Seasons is another proposal for a mixed use retail, condo building. Any ideas where the retail shoppers and visitors will park for this facility? Yeah, I know, everybody’s gonna take the #4 bus. :-)
that on-street parking is “under-priced” in San Francisco,
Yes. See Chris’s quote above, and note that land in big cities is valuable/has a high opportunity cost.
and that’s why the market fails to provide enough parking?
If San Fran actually has a parking shortage (the NY Times article is mainly about too much demand for a a certain kind of parking–cheap on-street), it is a major reason. Its harder to justify building expensive off-street spaces if people would rather go to lengths to get a cheap on-street spot.
Other reasons for parking shortages are:
*No spaces reserved for those who really need them
*No great way to come without a car
*Other subsidies for auto use, like cleaning water and air pollution
*Not allowing people to build appropriate private lots/garages
I’ve posted my thoughts on this article, along with what I believe is the central topic of debate related to removing parking requirements, on my Parking 2.0 blog:
http://www.sparkparking.com/blogs/cooper/?p=62