Maybe this is an answer to the question of what to do about parking minimums in neighborhood development. Over at the “Overhead Wire” blog, there’s a suggestion that developers be allowed to drop parking from their projects only by paying an ‘in lieu of’ fee that would help fund alternative transportation.
34 responses to “Parking in Lieu of Fee”
25 of the (spaces) could be traded for 50% of the cost meaning the developer builds 25 spaces but then pays $10,000 for each space he doesn’t build into a capital fund for transit expansion.
I know this sounds completely ridiculous and stupid but why not have developers have to pay system development charges for the transit that enables their development? Too radical?
And NOT building parking spaces is fine if, concurrently, we don’t allow those unit owners to OWN cars. Otherwise what we’re arguing is NOT building parking spaces save develeopers money, but PROVIDING those parking spaces is now a SOCIETAL cost, borne by all of us.
How about the opposite? Only allow them to add parkin gif they pay a fee? Do we really need high-density development to increase congestion when the opposite could be true.
This just sounds like more subsidies to a transit system that is already over subsidized by taxpayers instead of being paid for by transit riders. As for a reality check, the reduction of parking spaces will undoubtedly only create more demand for parking places on the street and add to congestion. It may negatively impact business too.
Assuming people will take transit instead of finding a parking space nearby, maybe that would be a good idea…
But an unrealistic assumption.
Yeah. To say the least about this idea is that it is completely backwards.
If anything charge a fee for a parking space to discourage it. If you charge a fee to make a parking space you bet your good dollars that parking places will sprout up everywhere and development will be discouraged to spring up in transit fiendly ways.
If anything if a company is going to bear the cost of parking that should be enough, there should NOT be a charge on that either. But setting up so that a developer can avoid that cost altogether is an even better idea as it would decrease the cost of establishing high density living areas.
…yeah… so anyway, now that this suggestion has broken my silliness sensor for the day I’m going back to writing some code or something.
Parking is a challenging economic problem. People are used to parking being “bundled” with development, and usually not paying a user fee for the good. Of course, those who don’t use it end up cross-subsidizing those who do.
I’d love it to be unbundled, and let market forces decide how much parking is truly worth to people.
but PROVIDING those parking spaces is now a SOCIETAL cost, borne by all of us.
Not if society would actually charge the true cost of providing them.
god no. horrible idea.
maybe if you reversed it and set a low maximum # of spaces, and then charged the fee for going above that amount. that might begin to pay the opportunity costs associated with mandated free parking. better yet, change property tax so that the value of the land is weighted more strongly than the value of the improvements, automatically making parking less attractive economically.
I’d love it to be unbundled, and let market forces decide how much parking is truly worth to people.
On our SE Hawthorne and Division transit corridors, there are no parking requirements for many projects going in, and the developers vote with their wallets that the neighborhood public commons can provide parking. I’m not sure that leaving things to the market gets us terribly good answers.
Frank,
I’m not clear what your point is about the “neighborhood public commons.” Isn’t that the system we’ve always had? On my street homes constructed over 100 years ago 0-3 spaces on the lot. The street is for who happens to be there first…including residents and all of the shoppers who flock to the shops on Hawthorne and Division. Should single family home owners have first dibs? I don’t see developers now doing anything different than what has always happened.
Frank – The market hasn’t decided parking and other such transportation options for over 60 years, probably longer depending on where one lives. Our transportation system hasn’t met, been decided by, or representative of market demand for well over 70+ years.
The last time the market represented the transportation industry well was about 1920-1950. WWII threw in a big fluke and unbalancing itself. But that’s a whole different story.
I like the idea for areas where there are meters or zoned parking restrictions (my favorite example: the cheap condo units in the Civic with no parking space). In those cases, it will actually reduce the number of people who drive. Otherwise you just get the Hawthorne effect, where neighbors can’t leave their houses for fear of not being able to park on their block when they return.
Evan Manvel Said “Parking is a challenging economic problem”
In response, I would say one of the most challenging economic problems in Oregon related to transportation is to require the users of alternative modes of transport to pay for the infrastructure they use instead of having non-user taxpayers subsidizing that infrastructure.
When the first light rail line from Portland to Gresham was built, TriMet fares covered about one third (33%) of TriMet’s operation costs. Today fares cover only about one fifth (20%) of TriMet’s operation costs. The percentage of operation costs covered by fares should be going in the opposite direction, up instead of down.
Bicyclists also need to start accepting some financial responsibility for the infrastructure they use instead of acting like spoiled little children expecting to have everything handed to them on a silver platter for free. It is the bicyclists themselves whom receive a direct and the most benefit from required bike racks supplied by businesses, bike lanes subsidized by motorists and all the other bicycle infrastructure bicyclists do not pay for. Sharing the road must also mean sharing the financial responsibility. Adult bicyclists should welcome with open arms the idea of finally accepting the responsibility of paying their own way with a direct bicycle user tax instead of just continuing to feed off others.
Bicyclists also need to start accepting some financial responsibility for the infrastructure they use
As motorists need to accept more financial responsibility for the benzene, asbestos, oil and worse they simply dump out of their tailpipes as though the world is their private garbage pit.
Great point Frank!
Terry, motorists do not even begin to pay for the resources they use or the damage they cause to the Earth.
And bicyclists pay nothing, zero, zilchtowards the infrastructure resources they use, Bicyclists simply poach funds and freeload off motorists paid taxes, thereby indirectly being supported by motorists.
And bicyclists pay nothing, zero, zilch towards the infrastructure resources they use
This is absolutely, patently untrue, and this statement has been refuted time and time again here on this blog.
To summarize:
1. Bicyclists live in homes. Some own, some rent. Homes pay property taxes. Property taxes fund a portion, however limited, of transportation infrastructure. You can argue whether this proportion is sufficient to cover costs, but you can’t claim “nothing, zero, zilch”.
2. Bicyclists earn income. Income earners pay state income tax. State income taxes, to an extent, fund transportation infrastructure. Again, argue proportionality all you like, but “nothing, zero, zilch” is absolutely untrue.
3. Bicyclists who use transit pay transit fares (outside fareless square). Transit is heavily subsidized, but fares cover up to 25% of operating costs. 25% is more than “nothing, zero, zilch”.
Unless you can prove that bicyclists, as a group, are all unemployed and homeless and always evade fare payment, please retire your absurd claim.
– Bob R.
And bicyclists pay nothing, zero, zilch towards the infrastructure resources they use..
C’mon Terry. I drive w-a-y more than I bike. In fact, I’ll admit that my bent rim has kept me off my bike for quite a while. I think I sorta pay for my right to bike with all the gas taxes, property taxes, income taxes I pay?
Let’s go after the real parasites, those true drags on the economy. Those irresponsible pre-schoolers who use the sidewalks like they owned them! Excuse me but when did they pay their fair share?
And all those tricycles? Bikes with training wheels? We’ve gotta start charging by number of wheels on the ground! Enough free-loading off our infrastructure!
Come on Bob get real
Property taxes do not pay for bicycle infrastructure except in urban renewal districts from tax increment funding derived from increased taxes on development within that district. . Income taxes do not pay for bicycle infrastructure either. Transit fares cover only about 20% of TriMet’s operating expenses so every ride with or without a bicycle is subsidized at 80% of actual value and therefore transit fares do not pay for bicycle infrastructure.
And Frank, when you are driving a motor vehicle, you are paying to use your motor vehicle on the road, not your bike. Some bicyclists will argue that drivers do not cover their own costs. And yes, money is siphoned off from fuel taxes and motor vehicle fees that pay for bicycle infrastructure. That trickle down however undoubtedly contributes to the theory of those bicyclists statements. Bicyclists 18 years of age and over should be paying for a bike license and a direct bicycle tax to help pay for bicycle infrastructure and the use of that infrastructure.
And just a note: At one of Commissioner Sam’s community meetings, I asked if a complete expenditure breakdown of GTR (Generla Transportation Revenues) derived from gas taxes and motor vehicle parking revenues could be posted somewhere and/or made available to the public. Such a document should clear up who pays for bicycle infrastructure.
Come on Bob get real
Terry, you said “nothing, zero, zilch”… you can’t get more absolutist and incorrect than that.
Transit fares cover only about 20% of TriMet’s operating expenses.
At the lowest ebb, yes, but in FY2006 after fare increases and service reductions, the proportion was 24.9%.
– Bob R.
And as I’ve said before, its not like motorists pay for their fare share either. Not for the Big Pipe, not for most parking, not for oil defense, not for certain road improvements (in Salem, for example). And on a well-used line where transit actually makes economic sense, riders pay for far more then 20% or 24.9% of the their portion of the bus trip.
And bicyclists don’t pay property taxes. If they did, the tax would be different for those who don’t bike.
And bicyclists don’t pay property taxes. If they did, the tax would be different for those who don’t bike.
My point was that bicyclists, like everyone else, directly or indirectly, pay property taxes. Some property taxes fund transportation infrastructure. Therefore, people who exclusively or primarily bicycle pay into the transportation infrastructure. Perhaps not in the appropriate quantity, perhaps not near equilibrium, but certainly and definitively more than “nothing, zero, zilch.”
– Bob R.
People don’t pay extra to ride their bike. They don’t pay extra to walk across the street. They don’t pay extra in most places to park in front of their house. There are a lot of public services people don’t pay extra to use. Roads are just one of them. People who attend transportation open houses aren’t charged an admission fee. Nor are they charged extra for asking a question. Students who take up a teacher’s time with questions aren’t charged for it. Is this a silly discussion? Yes.
Some people are concerned about the disconnect between what people pay to use their automobile and the cost of the public services required for that use. The reason for that concern is that providing automobile service is a major public expense. And there is an enormous disparity between what people pay and the cost of what they use. Some people are paying way too much and others way too little. Making a stronger connection between the cost of what individuals actually use and how much they pay could result in much lower costs to everyone by reducing the cost of providing public facilities. And if that’s because some people use their bike instead, we are all still ahead.
Er, this is a post about car parking, right?
I have to say that I’m dissuaded from participating more actively in the discussions when each discussion seems to be the same discussion, instead of getting into the interesting aspects of the post itself.
In this case, it’s interesting to think that developers could choose between bundling parking or transit service with their development.
Of course, my worry is that the in lieu of fee might not directly serve the properties at hand.
Perhaps, however, that would be a good thing — that the fee could go to the highest-priority projects, rather than being forced to be focused on the development area itself. I think people were talking about (and doing) this for SW Portland, as far as sidewalk construction prioritization.
Developers shouldn’t be required to put in car parking. Don Schoup has written brilliantly about this issue, and I haven’t seen anyone deconstruct Schoup. This proposal seems to be a decent half-way solution.
“And all those tricycles? Bikes with training wheels? We’ve gotta start charging by number of wheels on the ground! Enough free-loading off our infrastructure!”
True. Freeway freight truck weigh-stations also charge by per axle and GVWT (gross vehicle weight). This should also be applied to children under the age of 6 yrs to assess their monetary damage to the pavement.
my worry is that the in lieu of fee might not directly serve the properties at hand
I think that’s a very legitimate concern.
In lieu fees paid by our developer of the Clinton on SE 26th and Division –in lieu of providing bike parking there for visitors or retail– well, where DO the bikes go (and we certainly love our bikes in SE!) Paying money is cute, but it doesn’t address some of the issues we face.
Similarly, the Transportation SDC money can’t go for maintenance, and only for projects on the SDC list…so that money’s been going out of the ‘hood despite all our infill development.
We need ways to mitigate the impacts of infill development, and the fact that we haven’t worked this out yet is partially why there’s more resistance to new development than there should be.
Having cars parked on the street is a positive thing. It slows down traffic and creates a better pedestrian environment. The problems start when you run out of places for people to park.
One problem is that the cost of providing parking varies quite a bit based on land prices and availability. Unfortunately I think it is often going to be the places where parking is short that developers have the highest costs and therefore the greatest incentive to not provide it. So a developer out in east county puts in a parking lot even though there is plenty of parking available. In Northwest Portland they don’t put in parking because of the high cost of building a parking structure.
It should be noted that motor vehicles including freight carriers pay better than 90% if the costs through fuel taxes and other taxes and fees for the street, road and bridge infrastructure used. Transit rider fares only cover 24.9% operation costs (per Bob’s FY 2006 figures), but contribute almost zero to the roads the heavy whale like busses travel on accelerating their need for maintenance, and contribute very little for new and replacement infrastructure such as new light rail lines and streetcars. Bicyclist directly contribute zero financially to bicycle infrastructure. It should also be noted that motorist paid taxes and fees also subsidize both transit and bicyclists, and why I contend if motorists pay their own way otherwise such subsidies to other modes could not be siphoned off.
Furthermore, attempting to add in costs for things like the big pipe to auto use only is absurd. First, many streets in Portland handle run off through dry wells under the street. There are two in front of my residence. Second, the majority of toilets in Portland are connected to the big pipe, more of them in high density areas. Third, the run off that does enter the big pipe also comes from sidewalks, bike lanes and the streets that not only autos use, but streets that TriMet uses and those trucks that bring products to your local store that after purchased, a person may take home by various modes of transport.
Yet this thread along with many others is discussing how to add even more subsidies to the two of the three modes (motor vehicle, transit, bike) that pay the least amount towards paying for the infrastructure they use. Therefore, it is fair game to make posts that point out the opposite point of view, including reducing subsidies to transit and bicycling – from both motorists and otherwise, increasing fares for transit and directly taxing bicycling to reduce taxpayer subsidies, and posts that take the view of better accommodating auto use and motor vehicle parking. One sided bicycle foamer posts, for example, belong over on the BTA blog.
Terry, I think you’re confusing repetition with persuasion.
I’m sure every reader of this blog understands your position on this issue. Saying it over and over is not making any converts.
I think he keeps repeating himself because his logic makes sense.
People who drive alone for most trips makes up the majority of the people out there 90%+, followed by those who use transit, rail, bike, walk, and etc.
It would only make sense that the majority of the taxes and fees paid out by motorists would go for accommodating the automobile, but they don’t.
Those single occupant drivers are expected, not only to pay for the roads they drive on, but to pay for transit and bike capital projects, traffic “calming,” transit development subsidies, etc. Drivers are then lied to and told that those projects benefit the driver by getting people out of their cars.
The truth is, the city, county, state, feds, or whatever should not be trying to get people out of their cars. Its not their business. They do not know better then us. We want roads and we pay for roads so build them. Its as simple as that. Who is working for who here?
And I respect your right to believe that. But having the same argument over and over does not make for a very interesting conversation here.
Its as simple as that.
It obviously isn’t that simple. The problem is similar to the problem with free on-street parking. We don’t have to pay extra for it no matter how much we use. If four people are sharing an apartment and they each have a car they take up four spaces on the street, unless someone gives them parking somewhere else. Hawthorne Boulevard doesn’t provide nearly enough parking spaces for all the customers of the stores there. The result is that the surrounding neighborhood streets are filled with customers’ cars.
So the issue is who should pay to create the needed parking? But the flip side is that if people use transit or bike they don’t need parking. At least that is true for employees and customers.
Much as I hate to encourage automobiles, I think requiring a space for each residential unit in areas where on-street parking is at a premium probably makes sense. Most people will own a car even if they bike or use transit most of the time. They have to have somewhere to put it. In truth, many, perhaps most, families have more than one car.
“I think requiring a space for each residential unit in areas where on-street parking is at a premium probably makes sense. Most people will own a car even if they bike or use transit most of the time. They have to have somewhere to put it”
Ross,
If we require a space and make the cost hidden then of course people will continue to fill them up with cars. In fact we are rewarding their behavior and punishing those (or at least not rewarding them) who chose to live without.
In other parts of the world people pay for their parking spots directly. It is amazing what contemplating the unhidden cost (e.g. $10,000) does to behavior. Sure, most people will continue to have cars. Why should we continue to hide the high costs of parking from them, reward that behavior and not reward those who are making different choices?
Why should we continue to hide the high costs of parking from them, reward that behavior and not reward those who are making different choices?
The place to start with that would be to eliminate the existing free public parking on the street. So long as you provide a free alternative you aren’t doing anything to discourage it, you are simply transferring more of the cost to the public. While the cost of the parking is hidden when bundled with housing, they are at least paying for it.