For over three decades, NW Portland residents have been complaining of the “parking war.” Today, Mayor Sam Adams called a press conference to happily announce a truce: The NW District Parking Plan.
Parking sounds like a boring issue, but how we manage parking is essentially a debate over the best way to use public space—and who should pay for it. This week, a leaked Portland Bureau of Transportation draft budget document suggested filling PBOT’s budget hole in part by having Portlanders pay more for parking in high-demand areas and times.
That’s a key part of the NW District Parking Plan unveiled today: Installing meters on NW 21st and 23rd and establishing a resident permit system for people who in the area. The proposal also creates a Transportation Management Association for the area. The plan is essentially a reworking of a parking plan the city developed for the district in 2003.
The mayor acknowledged that revenue from meters and permits “doesn’t even begin to plug the gap” in PBOT’s budget, but revenue is only one of the goals here.
Meters raise money for the city, but they also free up parking—one of the main complaints about NW is that there is not enough parking around the popular bars, stores, and restaurants. In reality, the area has 10,239 parking spaces and a 10% vacancy rate, but much of it either has no time limit or has a time limit of two hours. Only nine percent of the spots in the area have a time limit of an hour or less. If the streets were metered, people would have to move their cars more frequently, freeing up spots.
Traditionally, efforts to install meters on commercial strips in Portland have suffered major backlash from businesses. The business association of NW 21st and 23rd is opposed to this plan, too. But the plan snagged support of some neighborhood leaders by promising that 51 percent of the revenue generated from the meters will stay within the district and will fund transportation projects like better lighting and signage.
Residents and employees of the area would be able to buy parking permits for $60 a year for one permit (and $100 per additional registered vehicle). That could be a drain on low-income residents, noted Commissioner Amanda Fritz, whose Office of Equity is working to amend the plan to address this impact before the proposal goes to council next Thursday, December 6th.
If council passes the plan, the initial phase will begin within the next six months, making parking metered and permitted on SW corner of the district closest to Burnside. The remainder of the plan, if approved, will be implemented in no later than 18 months.
“For over three decades, NW Portland residents have been complaining of the “parking war.” Today, Mayor Sam Adams called a press conference to happily announce a truce”
Thank goodness that’s over! Now let’s recreate the problem in every other neighborhood with a bunch of parkingless apartments.
Ah yes, the horrific shortage of places within public space in SE for people to store their cars. It’s just like a WAR, I tell you.
Yes geyser, it is not a problem now, therefore it can never ever become a problem for the rest of time. That is sound logic.
Blabby, the low parking apartments are meant to discourage excessive car use and plan for less of it. They are only built on transit corridors. We need density and we’re not going to get it by dedicating more space to private motor vehicle storage.
@lithell – hahaha! What’s actually going on is that developers are building low-income housing next to light rail, this will increase crime and lower property values all around. That’s the actual effect. If you don’t believe me, look at the “high density” apartment value near public transit stations ALL OVER THE WORLD (but locally, just ride the MAX out to 185th in Beaverton and hang out near one of those apartment complexes).
Here’s the truth lithell: car owners live in apartments without parking lots, they park their cars on the streets, just as what’s happening now in NW Portland. The personal automobile is not going away for 40+ years, there is no “plan” for less cars (and if someone told you there’s a “plan” they were lying and trying to get you to buy something). Also, we don’t need more density, there’s lots of housing sitting empty in and around Portland. If we need to improve density, the solution is NICE apartments, ones that utilize modern sustainability technology and practices; not cheap pieces of shit that don’t even have parking spaces.
Fidelity_axiom, The official Portland city plan is for 70% of all trips to be made by active transit and a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2035. As per your point on crime rate increases, that is not supported by evidence. Per capita crime rates drop in developed areas when there is more density, and total crime rates in Portland have been plummeting for the last decade.
Wow. Portland is so doomed. You actually think installing meters is there to AID the community? Think again. I’ve lived on 21st and Flanders for 5 years. People shopping park on side streets, they don’t pay, move there car, pay again. This is an excuse to hand out over priced tickets in an attempt to provide fake jobs that leech the community. If they wanted to assist people that LIVE here. Create a city funded parking structure that is solely for residents that doesn’t cost more than $25 a month. There is absolutely no excuse for issuing “permits” that expire, then leave locals at the m.ercy of the meter maid between the time of expiration and reissued permit. Not fare. Act like a city that works for its people. Eliminating local parked vehicles (that sit there for days/weeks/months) will solve this issue. Your welcome America. Ryan p.
Holy shit Ryan I can hardly even read your comment. I hope you’re drunk.
I’m just curious what makes NW residents so damn precious that potential monies collected get to stay in NW PDX.
Is that the case with other metered parking throughout the city?
That said, I always kind of looked at searching for a space as part of NW PDX’s charm.
“Blabby, the low parking apartments are meant to discourage excessive car use and plan for less of it…. The official Portland city plan is for 70% of all trips to be made by active transit “
The city just did a study that found residents of these buildings are just as likely to own cars, regardless of what the “plan” is. People around here seem to think that putting something in a plan makes it a reality. Reality is what actually happens, usually driven by microeconomic choices of individuals. Reality doesn’t know about, nor conform to, some document collecting dust on a shelf at City Hall.
I think Ryan hit the nail on the head: Parking garages. In the Pearl District there’s lots and lots of Parking garages, every bougie bike owner also has a car, because cars are the preferred transportation option for everyone who can afford one. The Pearl is also one of the most transit connected and high density areas in Portland, but it’s not littered with crime because the apartments are NICE (private security helps too). The city doesn’t build more parking garages in order to keep up the PARKING RACKET of privately owned and absurdly expensive street parking and garage parking. Just build more parking garages! (actually, remove the restrictions from building more parking garages, and I’ll start a Kickstarter to finance one the next day.) Problem solved!
Lithell – When it comes to “facts” on this, there’s lots of studies to support either side. However, you can easily take a trip to the Portland Suburbs and take a look at the “high-density” apartments near transportation hubs. They are extremely high in crime, totally unsafe, and only a few years away from being Section 8 housing (if they’re not already). That’s the reality, that’s the evidence: just go look at practical examples rather than listen to some guy at the City Hall whose buddy is making a killing on building these apartments.
The “Plan”, like I said, is to get you to buy something. When people talk about City “Plans” you need to remember that these people are “Planners”, which always reminds me of this:
https://mises.org/books/TRTS/ – I think we’re somewhere on page 3 thru 8.
It’s like Blabby said: microeconomic choices of individuals. Lithell, when you can afford it, you too will buy/use a car to get your kids/loved-ones to the hospital and grocery store. You’re not going to take the MAX.
On the subject of parking garages in NW PDX – a great idea, sure, but I think those plans have been floated many times before and the neighborhood association there has nixed the plans for it.
I believe they felt it didn’t fit the area.