The Parking Minute

A minute of parking news and commentary

Parking Requirements

Portland takes one more step toward zero parking requirements

By 1 Comment

As of March 1st, every new high-density residential project in Portland has a path to ZERO parking requirements and the low-density requirements are on their last legs.

Portland’s parking requirement situation is a bit more complicated than other cities claiming to have no parking requirements. Near transit, defined as within 500 feet of frequent service bus lines or 1500 feet of a light rail station, zero parking has been required for buildings with 30 or fewer homes since 2013. Since 2017, remaining requirements were waived for larger projects near transit if they contained inclusionary affordable housing (IH) and IH is mandatory for projects with 20+ homes, setting the effective ratio for parking near transit at zero.

Parking lot with two cars

But for projects 501+ feet from a frequent service bus line, parking requirements remained. In mid-December, Portland City Council approved the Better Housing by Design project, which adopted form-based codes for multi-family residential zones. The proposal called for cutting remaining requirements in half, new apartment buildings that were deemed too far from transit would only have to build one parking space for every two homes. 

Advocates were able to organize and make the case that the transit-proximity requirement was more trouble than it was worth. Only a small percentage of multi-family or commercial zones were “too far” from transit and it was hard to defend the damage from the occasional project caught up in red tape because of it. Mayor Ted Wheeler agreed and proposed a successful amendment to waive parking requirements for any project that provides affordable housing. Every project has a path to zero parking in Portland city limits.

Sometime in April, City Council will vote on another zoning project, the Residential Infill Project (RIP). Expected to pass and go into effect in October, RIP will eliminate all parking requirements, citywide, for low-density residential zones. At that point, Portland will join the small, but growing, list of American cities with no required residential parking.

Don’t waive parking requirements near transit, just waive them everywhere.

By 5 Comments

When cities reform their parking requirements, they often implement new rules reducing or waiving on-site parking based on a new project’s proximity to transit. But, just like ratios that came before them, these rules seem arbitrary and based on gut feeling rather than any real evidence.

In some cities, the ratio is based on proximity to bus stops, in others it’s how close it is to the street where the bus runs.  In some cities 351 feet is too far away to waive parking requirements, in others 501, and in others 1321 feet. Some cities treat light rail different than buses, others allow a waiver for planned transit. In most cities the bus or transit needs to run frequently enough for the site to qualify for a waiver, but “frequent service” means something different everywhere you go.

In this map of Portland, the areas in blue are “close enough” to qualifying transit and parking is not required. Many areas excluded are transit-rich walkable communities. Source: City of Portland

Proximity based rules like this are a lazy way to make reforms. A map of areas that qualify for a waiver in Portland, Oregon shows voids in the waiver area that are walkable, bike able, transit rich neighborhoods full of amenities, but just a couple steps outside an arbitrary boundary. Meanwhile, areas with wide streets, few sidewalks, and strip-mall development patterns are in the waiver zone because a light rail stop happens to be 1/4 mile away.

In this example, a new development may be saddled with a 1:1 parking ratio because it is 70 feet “too far” from a bus line. The site is in the middle of a bike network, which would be degraded by the addition of 244 more cars to the neighborhood.

Such mobility based rules rarely account for bike networks, walk-scores, or bike-share amenities. Frequency rates are often based on commute times to city centers, only, discounting the idea that people might want to work near where they live so they don’t have to drive or take the bus. 

While these reforms are better than nothing, the one-off problems they cause aren’t worth the trouble. Developers will build parking if their projected tenants will demand it. If cities are managing their on-street parking, there’s no free lunch for anyone and there’s no need for an arbitrary rule telling people how far they can walk to a bus before they’re forced to pay for parking whether they use it or not.

Six Parking Policies That Could Be Better Than Congestion Pricing

By 1 Comment

Painted sign reading “$ Pay BEFORE returning to your vehicle”

Congestion pricing is becoming the commonly prescribed cure for what ails the city. But what if there was another approach to traffic management that could yield similar results with less infrastructure, fewer privacy concerns, and help make housing more affordable, too?

First, eliminate minimum parking requirements already. 

Second, use curb zones for their best uses and price them appropriately. Bike lanes and transit priority lanes are the best use. If that’s not politically possible, then the space should be permitted and/or metered and market priced for performance. Allocate space for parking scooters, bikes, deliveries, and passenger loading, charge for these uses when in high demand. (Important: give some of the money directly to poor people and spend the rest to subsidize other modes)

Third, require a employers who voluntarily pay for employee parking to offer all employees a cash equivalent option. Parking cash-out is a simple and nearly free policy, but most employers won’t offer it unless they have to. So make them!

Fourth, implement a peak-hour commuter parking surcharge. If an office worker enters or exits a daily/monthly garage during peak traffic hours, charge a couple bucks.  Bonus if the charge is equivalent or more than a transit pass.  (Important: equivalent peak hour surcharges for ride hailing or autonomous vehicle trips are critical, too)

Fifth, impose a tax on surface parking lots. Ideally, the tax would be based on the site’s potential use, but a flat per-stall rate would be a fine start. This should encourage re-development of existing lots and discourage new ones.

Sixth, charge impact fees on new parking stalls to discourage new parking supply. Parking is not a beneficial community amenity, the external costs of new parking should be paid by the developer (who will pass the cost onto the user).

Individually, these are all good policies, but they combine like a classic recipe! A good comprehensive parking policy can do a lot of the work congestion pricing does, but it’s less invasive and easier to implement. By discouraging driving, repurposing space to transit and bikes, and reinvesting parking revenue in other modes these policies can help us combat climate change, save lives, and make housing more affordable.

Upcoming: National Planning Conference 2019

By Leave a Comment

Photo of San Francisco Skyline
NPC 2019 is in San Francisco. Let’s meet up and talk about parking!

In a few days I’m heading to San Francisco for the National Planning Conference. I was on a panel a few years ago for the Oregon/Washington Joint Planning Conference, but this is my first time attending the American Planning Association’s annual event.

On Sunday I will on a panel for an interactive session titled Parking Maximums: Development Barriers and Opportunities. I’ll be joined by fellow parking reformers Lindsay Bayley and Jane Wilberding, who developed the great Better Parking 101 handout. We’ll have a friendly debate about parking maximums with Ranadip Bose and Malek Abdulsamad, who will bring a developer/finance perspective to the conversation. 

Professor Donald Shoup is included on two sessions Saturday that I definitely plan to check out: Zoning Reforms to Boost ADU Development and a panel on Parking and the City.

There are several other parking sessions, including: From Parking Lots to Places, A Decade of Demand Responsive Parking, and Valuing and Managing the Public Right-of-Way.

I’ll be taking notes and dispatching a few Parking Minutes from the conference. If you’re attending and would like to meet up to talk about parking reform (or whatever), please get in touch!

San Diego Passed Some Great Parking Reforms This Month!

By Leave a Comment

On March 19th, San Diego’s City Council re-affirmed a decision to eliminate minimum parking requirements within 1/2 mile of planned or existing transit stops, zones they call Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). The new rules also require developers to provide transportation demand management (TDM) benefits when they build in the TPAs. The amount of TDM benefits varies depending on factors like how dense the new development is and how close it is to transit-accessible jobs.

TDM is required for all new buildings, whether parking is provided or not and the parking reform package requires that any stall built be unbundled from the lease or purchase of housing units in the building. There is an exemption granted for the TDM and unbundling requirements if the building contains a minimum of 20% on-site units affordable for people making 50% or less of the average median income. 

In downtown, the new policy bundle flipped it so developers can’t build more parking than they previously were required to build as a minimum amount (with a few mitigating exemptions).

The reforms passed an initial council vote on March 4th and there was some opposition and threat of legal action from a local attorney, Cory Briggs, on behalf of a group called “Citizens for Responsible, Economical and Environmental Development” or CREED-21. Briggs’ threats prompted a thoughtful op-ed prior to the second vote by Maya Rosas and Brendan Dentino from YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County. 

Overall this is a very good example of parking reform. The parking exemptions themselves are aggressive for a scheme based on transit proximity. Allowing for exemptions within 1/2 mile is great and allowing them near transit stops that are planned within the next 30 years (!!!) is even better. The TDM requirements apply evenly and the amount is increased for areas that are further away from transit and amenities, which is the proper way to do it. 

San Diegans should look into developing good on-street parking management programs for areas which might be impacted by spillover parking due to the new rules. When development without parking starts to come online, neighbors will be angry and the city should be prepared with residential permit programs and performance-based metering. Residents won’t be happy to have to pay for parking, but at least city staff and officials will have a ready answer to their complaints.