Portland Parking
 

Portland will test pay-by-phone street parking starting in August

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1889/meterjuly82011jpg142d50.jpg
Photo courtesy of The Oregonian.

An Atlanta company bets Portland residents and visitors will pay more to park if it means greater convenience.

Starting next month, Pearl District drivers will test technology that allows people to pay for street parking with a cell phone. No more walking to the meter in the middle of the block. No more fishing out coins or a credit card while juggling a toddler and an umbrella. And no more messy window stickers.

Instead, a few taps on a cell phone will authorize a credit card payment of the meter rate -- plus a 35-cent fee. And if your time is running out while you sit in a meeting or finish some shopping? Just pull out your phone and, for another 35 cents, add more.

The 3-year-old system, by Atlanta company Parkmobile, is already running in about 100 U.S. jurisdictions. Parkmobile will offer it in the Pearl for 90 days. If it catches on -- as it did in Washington, D.C., this summer -- the program could expand to other parts of Portland.

Read the full article here....

I still thought parking on the same side of the street for longer than the stated time (on the sign) was illegal! Yikes, I've been making more work for myself. :yuck:

It is. I think what they meant to say is IF you haven't already maxed out your time, you can remotely add more time to your meter.

Portland Parking
 

You all will appreciate this post from Price Tags.
Based off this thread here on SSP.

Although, in fairness, a number of the "parking lots" shown in Portland are actually just vacant parcels of land.

The artist(s) should've done some more research to separate empty lots from parking lots (at least for the article, since that's what it's about), but still a cool article.

http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/photo/10542866-large.png
Initial designs of the new five-story Payne Apartments slated for North Williams Avenue and Beech. Courtesy of Boise Neighborhood Association

City study finds increase in no-parking apartments but little neighborhood parking impact
Elliot Njus, The Oregonian
on November 08, 2012 at 6:00 AM, updated November 08, 2012 at 6:09 AM

http://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/index.ssf/2012/11/study_acknowledges_increase_in.html#

Haha, Oregonlive redid the above article. Its even the same author - 2 days later:

Changing attitudes by developers and lenders drive no-parking apartment surge in Portland
By Elliot Njus, The Oregonian
on November 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM, updated November 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM

http://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/index.ssf/2012/11/lenders_developers_changing_at.html

Bad decisions continue. By adding in minimum parking requirements, they just trashed the streetscape of most infill buildings and increased costs. The city and leadership are really on the downturn when it comes to planning. So sad. What the F happened?

Commissioners approve minimum parking requirements for new apartments
Portland apartment projects planned without parking that do not yet have a building permit may soon have to go back to the drawing board.

The Planning and Sustainability Commission on Tuesday voted to approve zoning code amendments that would require apartment projects with more than 40 units to include a minimum amount of parking. The vote followed more than three hours of public testimony from concerned residents; some contended that the amendments did not go far enough, and others said they went too far.

http://djcoregon.com/news/2013/03/13/com...parking-requirements-for-new-apartments/

No kidding. I thought the city of Portland was going to follow a fundamentally different path than San Francisco and Seattle. Apparently not. I'm predicting we will have similar unaffordability as those cities as the city council clamps down on infill development and turns their ear to the NIMBY element.

Livability issues will be compounded as our average income is far less than SEA and SFO. Umm... I wonder if this new ordinance bans any new dorm construction in the city? As dorms generally don't include parking, such as the ~950 bed dorm "University Pointe" downtown?

EXACTLY. What happened?!?!? A better solution would be to issue a limited number of parking permits, and when they're gone, you can get on a waiting list. Since the waiting list for new residents would probably grow pretty long, it would encourage people who aren't car-free to look elsewhere.

"The Planning and Sustainability Commission" You'd think these people would be the best and brightest in sustainable growth.

All we can do is hope that the current swing of the pendulum --towards mediocrity and reaction-- is brief.

There was quite a bit of push from some very coordinated neighbors from Division Street. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I submitted written testimony to the Planning and Sustainability Commission, but that didn't achieve much. Neither did having former Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder or a dozen other prominent transportation and land use planners. I'm going to call the City Council members individually to try to do some damage control. This is so ridiculous. I feel like I'm living in some alternate universe - It's like I never left Los Angeles

You can read Chris Smith's justification for his vote at his Portland Transport blog. Apparently it was to keep City Council from creating something even worse.

I admire the fact that he is rationally and dispassionately explaining his point of view. He's even responding to comments. What a class act.

This is a far cry from Oregon Live's comment section, that usually goes something like this: "LOOT RAIL! OBUMBA IS A SOCIOLOGIST RICHARD MARX!!".

Parking lot tax?
 

This could be great for eliminating all those empty lots downtown.

Controversial Portland parking-lot tax on agenda for April 21 planning meeting

Oh man that would be a game changer. Just make it surface parking lot. Divide and conquer the parking lot barons. The design requirements of buildings will keep the built structure in check. The surface spots are the larger problem. This is huge!

Good. Sounds like a simplified version of land value taxation, which I really wish we would adopt.

I wonder what impact this would have on food carts. I'm for just about anything that gets surface parking lots developed, but any lot that remains as parking will pass the cost of a tax on to drivers and, yes, food carts.

That is true, Portland is a unique city with the fact that most cities that have surface parking lots have dead zones, but in Portland a surface parking lot can easily mean a food cart mecca. I really hope the city is able to find a balance between developing surface lots and maintaining the food cart culture in downtown.

I'd be okay with the city changing policies to allow food carts to rent curbside parking. The city started with bike corrals. Now they already are letting restaurants put patios on street parking. It seems like a natural expansion of that plan.

It'd be a great way to really increase street life if the parking lots are replaced with buildings and we embraced using areas that are currently designated for curbside parking for more active uses. Maybe a few of the existing parking lots end up becoming Smart Park garages (with first floor retail) to offset the loss of parking lots and on street parking.

I actually don't like the idea of food trucks taking up street parking in downtown. I see it in other cities and it just doesn't look as good and I feel like it doesn't guarantee the same carts will always be in the same place. In Portland with the food carts in the parking lots it is a better guarantee that the same places will be in the same spot every day. That also frees up street parking so that people who need short term parking can have access to it.

Urbanlife: I agree 100%.

It's a conundrum. We want surface parking lots removed and redeveloped... except for the surface parking lots with food carts. We'd like to keep those.

In a perfect world, we'd hold some sort of fundraiser to buy a few of the food cart lots, tear out the remaining parking and replace it with tables and chairs. It's a fun thought, but it's not going to happen.

I don't think there's any danger of running out of parking spaces to house food carts anytime soon. And even if we ran out of parking spaces, there are always nooks and crannies that a food cart pod would be able to fit into.

The best food carts are on the east side anyway!

I hate parking lots, but I don't see how a tax is going to somehow spur development. Seems that all it would do is raise parking prices--at least in the short term.

There has got to be a better way to spur development downtown. If there were higher demand for new office space and high-end residential in the center of the city, then that would spur development. How can we attract more businesses to want to live downtown--which in turn will affect development. A parking tax will do nothing to address this. It just seems like small thinking...

I imagine a downtown with less space dedicated to surface parking would be more vibrant and attractive to developers.

Uh... that's not what we're discussing at all. This thread is about a controversial parking lot tax for the sake of encouraging development. Development is a good thing, of course, but if a tax increases parking lot costs significantly, an unintended consequence would be that the increase gets passed on to those who rent the spaces, potentially pricing food carts out of business - or, at least, out of the areas where we enjoy them most, if the lots become too expensive for the food carts to do business in.

You've summed up my thoughts quite well.

If you tax something, you get less of it. The idea is to tip the scale towards making it more economical to develop a site than it is to land bank it.

The tax can be applied with carrots. Tax breaks for Carts or development. You give this one particular parking lot owner, and its pretty much one family that has caused the problem, a way out. Something has to be done or this family will just pass the lots on the their next generation and nothing will get built. The lots are completely holding back DT for a generation. Just think of this, how could anyone argue that people wouldnt want to live overlooking Tom McCall park in DT? Its simple unfathomable that nothing has been developed until you look at who owns the majority of the underused property. Once successful project on the waterfront and you'd see a rush of development. But it cant happen when a vision-less family holds DT development hostage. Time to go to war, they've had enough time.

Cant the city condemn some of this land?

Parking
 

From the PBOT website:

...continues at the Portland Tribune.

...continues at BikePortland.

This is actually quite a good article, and worth a read.

...continues at the Portland Tribune.

...continues at the NW Examiner.

...continues at the Oregonian.

...continues at the Oregonian.

This thread has really taken off! Anyway, on City Council agenda next week. Proposal is to increase parking rates to $2 an hour downtown.

expect parking to become more and more expensive in the next decade. we should be seeing parking management in areas outside the downtown core as well. the era of free parking for all (a chicken in every pot?) is on the wane.

get on the bus.

This makes me happy I have my free parking in downtown connections still. :tup:

City Council approved the parking rates increase today.

The upside is that the meters approved for NW (3 years ago!) are going to finally be installed:

...continues at the Oregonian.

...continues at the Portland Business Journal.

...continues at Portland Shoupistas.

...continues at the Willamette Week.

I could see Wheeler doing something that requires buildings without parking to ask for lower rents than buildings with parking. If a developer is going to save money by not including parking, then they shouldn't be allowed to ask for as much in rent as a building that does have parking.

That's an area where the market does fine...if one company can build something more cheaply, then others probably will too. They'll compete with each other on price.

Density can be way, way higher and costs way, way lower without parking. Sometimes parking is the limiting factor. Small sites make parking extremely inefficient, especially beyond a single level. Or it's impossible to do a curb cut at all.

Picture a 50x100 site. That might be a few townhouses with a parking space each. At most, maybe 2/3 of the ground floor is parking with about seven spaces. Or maybe the alley has four spaces next to the back door. But alternatively, what about 20 apartments, or 40-50 micros? That saves cost on land per unit, and it encourages smaller units. That's how the market can serve a segment of the working poor, students, etc., without a subsidy.

Oh, I forgot to mention this one, and I am not sure if anyone on here noticed. I believe all of downtown Portland has changed its street parking hours, they have done away with the 90 minute, 3 hour, and such parking hours and replaced them with 2hours, 4hours, and 6hours to make it easier for people parking downtown.