Parking Posts

When pricing is needed – Part 2

October 27, 2020 By Lindsay Bayley 4 Comments

As discussed in Part 1, increasing the supply of parking doesn’t address the fundamental challenge of congested parking areas. When drivers can’t find convenient parking during busy hours, the challenge must be addressed with pricing. No one wants to pay for something that they’re used to getting for free. But many are tired of driving in circles and are willing to pay so that they don’t have to keep wasting their time looking for parking.

When working with a community to understand their supply and demand challenges, a parking consultant will often undertake a parking turnover survey to understand how long cars stay parked in certain areas. Below is a graphic from a turnover study on Division Street in Chicago’s Wicker Park neighborhood.

*Bar chart depicting length of time cars were parked at free spaces, metered spaces, and loading spaces. (Source: CMAP, 2013)*

Metered parking is shown in red, loading zones are orange, and free spaces are shown in green – and the length of the bar is how long cars were parked. I spoke with a business owner on the west end of the metered section. He thought it was *great* because he would park in the free space just west of his business and leave his car all day and his customers could easily find a metered spot.

And this is the problem with free parking. You don’t get turnover.

If you have businesses whose customers want to park, a free space that they can’t use is worthless. We typically find that many cars remain parked for the entire duration of our 7-hour surveys. Maybe they are employees, maybe they are residents who only use their car on the weekend. It doesn’t matter. All those businesses in the green area have no available parking. The alderman saw this chart and quietly put meters in the easternmost block. No one complained, because it makes sense to have meters there. You want turnover.

Part 3 dives into the equity considerations of metering parking.

Parking problems – Part 1

October 8, 2020 By Lindsay Bayley 4 Comments

In the “before times” pre-COVID19, when beginning a parking study in an area that has a “parking problem,” I would start by interviewing people and asking them about the problem. I’d talk to business owners, residents, elected officials, principals at local schools, and anyone else who wants to talk to me. Can you guess the #1 complaint I would hear (prior to lockdowns)?

“There’s not enough parking!”

If you’ve found this site, you probably already understand that parking is more complex than that. But I thought I would share how I generally work with people to help shift their perspective – slowly. Rather than immediately reject the idea that more parking is needed, I start a conversation around the cost of parking. For at least $30,000 per space for new garages, I can ask who they think should pay for it. Will drivers be willing to pay for that? Should the local taxpayers cover it? Should the businesses have added taxes to pay for it? Will it be worth it? Will each new car bring in the sales tax revenue to cover that? What about people who don’t drive; should their taxes be higher so that others can park free? Should they pay more to dine out so that others can park for free?

When it settles in that their small town or neighborhood isn’t going to get a new free parking garage, I start to talk about ECON 101. Parking and driving are unique in our society because they don’t fit into the standard laws of supply and demand, because we typically don’t price much that has to do with driving. When it comes to other goods (housing, food, cell phone, etc.), the right price makes it so that suppliers can continue to produce and make a profit and demand can be satisfied. The point where the supply curve and the demand curve cross, determined by price, is called the equilibrium. (Credit to Jeffrey Tumlin for graphics and inspiration for this post and others yet to come)

When you don’t price driving and parking, you force people to wait for desirable spaces or sit in congested roadways, and TIME – rather than price – regulates how much demand there is. How much time are you willing to spend looking for parking or on your daily commute? And congestion, or full parking, becomes the equilibrium. While parking problems are very different than they were in February, that is because the demand is lower. The same principles of supply and demand still apply.

As San Francisco MTA’s Executive Director, Jeffrey Tumlin, says: congestion is what happens when the demand for mobility equals supply. It is the constant. Building more parking or more roads won’t fix the problem. So we need to understand what the problem is. Usually, the problem is better stated as “I can’t find convenient parking when I need it.” Solving for that problem requires more than just additional parking.

Part 2 of this series looks at how pricing and parking meters impact driver behavior. Part 3 dives into the equity considerations of metering parking.

Portland has eliminated residential parking requirements, your city should be next.

September 3, 2020 By Tony Jordan 2 Comments

Portland recently passed a landmark residential zoning reform eliminating “single-dwelling” zones by re-legalizing fourplexes (and below-market rate sixplexes) nearly everywhere in the city, and no parking at all is required for any of these new homes.

The Residential Infill Project was very controversial and took years of dedicated organizing to become a reality, but, astonishingly, the elimination of parking requirements came under relatively little scrutiny as the project made it’s way through the political process. At a public hearing in January, testimony mocking the cognitive dissonance of opponent’s simultaneous demands for affordable housing or tree preservation, but with ample parking for all, drew belly laughs from the Commissioners present. Surprisingly, among the amendments offered by the one Commissioner who ultimately opposed the project, there was no proposal to add parking requirements back.

Graphic description of Portland’s Residential Infill Project. Used by permission from Sightline Institute.

It seems to be true, as Mayor Ted Wheeler said at a hostile neighborhood meeting in May 2017: “The debate: Parking vs. Housing? It’s really over.” Portland planners may be more likely to open emails complaining about excess parking than too little of it. The story of how that happened goes back more than a decade, but the lessons learned can help you end the debate between parking and housing in your city.

A Few Steps Forward

Portland has a history of innovative parking reform. In the 1970s, Portland was one of a handful of cities which reduced parking requirements in their central business districts to combat air quality problems. In 1975, Portland imposed a cap on the total number of parking spaces allowed Downtown, a cap that remained in place for decades until it was replaced by maximum parking ratios.

In 2002, City Council continued to push the envelope when it eliminated minimum parking requirements for apartment buildings built within 500 feet of frequent service bus lines. But a few years later, an effort by Commissioner (and future Mayor) Sam Adams to convince merchants on Portland’s trendy Hawthorne Blvd. to accept parking meters on their street was met with serious resistance, and the plans were shelved.

A Step Back

Coming out of the Great Recession, Portland saw a development boom on SE Division St., a corridor which had been somewhat leveled in anticipation of a planned freeway in the 1970s. Mid-rise apartment buildings popped up in rapid succession on this formerly sleepy semi-industrial street and none of them had any on-site parking. Similar development was happening in a few other neighborhoods in Portland, and the people living in single-dwelling zones on nearby blocks were getting more and more angry about it.

Phone calls and angry emails flooded into Commissioner’s offices. People packed neighborhood association meetings demanding that developers build parking in these projects. The city had no effective on-street parking management solutions at the ready and, despite an op-Ed from Donald Shoup himself, in 2013, City Council re-imposed minimum parking requirements for new buildings with more than 30 apartments.

Getting Organized

At the hearing to approve the new minimum parking requirements, dozens of Portlanders testified against more car parking. Advocates had an ad-hoc email list and turned out thoughtful folks to show up at City Hall, but this effort was loosely organized and the angry neighbors had the momentum.

In 2015, Tony Jordan (the author of this article), set up a website at https://pdxshoupistas.com/ and founded a dedicated parking reform advocacy organization which would eventually be called Portlanders for Parking Reform. This group served to keep parking reformers informed about the progress of parking policy projects and opportunities to send in testimony or show up at planning commission meetings.

Lesson learned: A dedicated parking reform organization acts as a reliable press contact on parking issues. Such a group can also activate people who are sympathetic to parking reform, but not interested enough to closely follow developments at city hall.

Spreading the Word

Parking is important because it has impacts on so many aspects of city life. If someone is advocating for safer streets, climate action, abundant and affordable housing, tree preservation, active and equitable transportation, fiscal responsibility, or more vibrant business districts, then that person has a reason to support parking reforms. But, like most people, advocates for those causes have rarely considered how much parking costs, why we have so much of it, or how that relates to the issue important to them.

An example of educational materials Portlanders for Parking Reform developed to demonstrate the space parking takes from housing.`

Portland Shoupistas (later Portlanders for Parking Reform) met with leaders from these organizations like bicycle advocacy groups, tenants rights organizations, and even neighborhood associations. Educating these potential allies on the problems caused by parking requirements made it much easier to ask for their support when parking policy came back to city council.

Building a Coalition and Turning The Tide

In 2016, Portland parking reformers had another opportunity to fight parking requirements. The requirements imposed in 2013 didn’t apply to the dense Northwest Portland neighborhood, in fact, there had never been parking requirements in that part of town. Neighbors complained that this was unfair, they wanted the same requirements on buildings with 31+ apartments that applied in the rest of the city.

By this time, the housing affordability crisis affecting many American cities was hitting Portland hard and tenants around the city were organizing to fight rent increases and evictions. Portlanders for Parking Reform was able to build on the outreach to potential allies and organize critical support and testimony from tenant’s rights organizers who warned commissioners against approving any policy which would increase the cost of new housing during a housing crisis.

A crowd of parking reformers came to City Council to oppose new parking minumums.

Testimony against the new requirements was 2:1 at the hearing and the city declined to expand the requirements to NW Portland. Commissioners noted that existing parking permits in the neighborhood were “woefully underpriced” and directed the neighbors to pursue stronger parking management practices. Today the neighborhood has a mixed meter/permit zone and residential permits cost $190 per year.

Taking the Offensive

While the city was considering new requirements in NW Portland, the city was wrapping up a multi-year Comprehensive Plan process. Portlanders for Parking Reform went on the offensive, organizing testimony to ask council to repeal the new 2013 minimum parking requirements as part of that process. In response to our efforts Mayor Charlie Hales introduced an amendment to roll back the parking requirements for projects which included affordable housing.

Graphic from Portlanders for Parking Reform used to drive testimony opposing parking requirements.

Testimony in support of this amendment came from bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations, members of a tenant union, a coalition of housing advocates, a progressive business association, and dozens of citizens. The amendment was adopted and the parking requirements imposed in 2013 were effectively gone.

Flipping the Script

In the years since, Portland has continued to explore and develop parking reforms. The city has approved a performance pricing policy for meters, is piloting innovative market-rate permit/meter zones, and is currently considering parking surcharges for traffic congestion and a citywide parking cash-out policy. In March, transit proximity requirements for multi-family parking waivers were shelved and this spring the city granted schools and churches the right to build affordable housing on up to 50% of any existing parking mandated by their conditional use agreements.

Portland Planners can expect a few barbs from activists if they soft-pedal reforms.

Because advocates have educated and organized specifically around parking for years, there is a foundational base of citizens and organizations which can be counted on to support parking reforms and fight rollbacks of progressive policy. The script is flipped, for many Portlanders, more parking is not a positive community benefit and they’re willing to show up or write letters to oppose it.

Is your city next?

Do you want to see parking reform in your city? Whether you’re starting from scratch in a car-dependent suburb, or asking for improvements in a big city, the formula for effecting change is the same.

Educate your neighbors and advocacy organizations about the impact of parking on the issues they care about.
Form a club or organization with a communication strategy to inform those people about upcoming opportunities.
Organize, turn out testimony, pressure elected officials and bureaucrats

The Parking Reform Network exists to help you build a local organization and succeed in winning parking policy improvements in your community. Join us and support this important work!

Spot’s Parking Lot teaches kids just how much space parking takes

August 21, 2020 By Bridget Brown Leave a Comment

Hi. Bridget Brown, here, author of Spot’s Parking Lot, a children’s picture book wherein a terrier considers alternative uses for parking spaces (preview available here).

Cover of Spot's Parking Lot by Bidget C. Brown artwork of a red dog's head in front of a large empty parking lot. a sofa is in one of the spots.

It’s a little weird to be writing this in the midst of a pandemic, when the concept of how much space people need is so much on our minds as we try to minimize spread of the virus.

Flipping through “Spot,” for example, there are some edits that should be made for safety. About halfway through, there are 20 people doing yoga in a parking spot, and on the next page 5 people dancing in one. For adequate social/physical distancing, the yogis would probably need at least 3 or 4 spaces (and masks if they were indoors), and the dancers might as well.
Farther on, though there are only two people in the bus shelter, they should probably be giving each other a little more space on the bench and also masking up.

The cafe table spacing, on the other hand, almost works, though maybe only two rather than three to a spot. And this set-up is one that we’re seeing more often in the wild these days than usual. As long as they’re not parked on with cars or trucks, these big spaces offer an opportunity to help people spread out. And maybe some of their re-uses will become permanent.

At any rate, I’ve donated copies of the book to the Parking Reform Network for new members who can use them (while supplies last): parents, grandparents, teachers, librarians, caregivers. Current members can enter a drawing for a copy when they fill out the membership survey.

Hopefully the pandemic will pass before too awfully long and we’ll be able to gather closer again. I look forward to the day, for instance, when 20-some 2nd graders can sit together cross-legged again for story time in just one space.

Following is a “Spot activity” to try.

Materials

Open floor or ground space
Measuring tape
Masking tape
A copy of Spot’s Parking Lot
Print-outs of empty spots or lots (or draw your own if you don’t have a printer)

Instructions

Measure out 8-1/2 by 19 feet and apply masking tape on 3 sides of the area to represent a parking space (this can pair well with a lesson plan on inches, feet, and yards).
Measure a safe distance for kids to sit within the area, depending on circumstances.
Story time!
Have kids draw out their own ideas of what to put in a space, or even a lot.
If you’d like, submit photos of your favorite drawings to be added to an online gallery.

Parking Requirements Gave Me a Haircut

June 19, 2020 By Neil Heller 3 Comments

Neighborhood-friendly developments are often made infeasible due to overly high parking requirements.

By Neil Heller with Cary Westerbeck

Neil is an urban planner at Neighborhood Workshop in Portland, Oregon and faculty of the Incremental Development Alliance. Currently sporting an 80-day shelter-in-place mullet.

Cary is an architect and small-scale developer at Westerbeck Architecture in Bothell, Washington currently taking development haircuts.

Image via Google Maps: Different development types in one image, each with different financial metrics but the same off-street parking requirements. Cary’s 4-unit small scale project at left. A large scale 80-unit project in background.

A Parking Conversation With Cary Westerbeck

I caught up with Inc Dev alum and fellow founding member of the Parking Reform Network, Cary Westerbeck, who recently completed a mixed-use 4-plex in Downtown Bothell, WA.

Having such similar interests with him, it’s fun to talk shop and learn from his lived experience.

Cary:

Small Developers are needed in cities. We play a critical role. We are the ones who can utilize a small lot, an infill lot, a weird shaped lot, and all the lots that the large developers could never build on feasibly. We can build neighborhood-friendly sized apartments and businesses on these small sites. However, the minute we must provide required, on-site minimum parking for these sites they do not pencil out, they become physically and financially infeasible.

For example, I have a 2,500 square foot lot on which I just completed a mixed-use 4-plex. The entitlements allow me to build up to five stories in this downtown zone. I could have feasibly built 14-15 dwellings and a small retail space on this site had I not been required to use most of the site for parking. As a result of the onerous parking requirements, we squeezed in the five required parking spots for the four units.

We were prevented from using the site’s “highest and best use” in both height and number of units. As I told the Development Director at my city, I could have provided an additional 12 desperately needed small apartments at my site if minimum parking requirements had not held me back. Because I could have put 16 units on the site rather than 4, the price of the land per unit would be spread over 16 units, not just four.

I have a barber on the ground floor of my building, but it was the mandated parking minimums that forced me to take a 75% haircut!

Why would a city allow development entitlements that are functionally unobtainable?

Today, “form follows parking” for small developers. Feasibility for a project must start with required on-site parking minimums, then we can see how much site is left over for productive uses. It’s crazy, but true. As an architect and small developer, the first thing we do after reviewing zoning codes is figure out how many cars we’ll have to park for our intended building’s uses and how they will fit. Invariably – always – we can’t build nearly as much productive building due to the constraints of required parking. It’s the tail that wags the dog. It seems like something is broken when building design starts with cars, rather than people, but indeed it does.

Let’s pause for a moment.

For context, Bothell is in a downtown construction boom. Giving the place credit, it is good to see so much downtown investment and willingness to accept higher densities for being an outer suburb. Not to mention, the downtown zoning standards look quite permissible.

Interestingly, there are a variety of parcel sizes in downtown Bothell that correspond to the sizes of the buildings being developed. Despite all this variety, one thing remains constant — the size of parking stalls does not adjust based on the size of the lot.

Cary built in the Downtown Neighborhood Zone (DN) so let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a small developer and explore how this plays out.

The median lot size found in the DN zone is 7,500 square feet (see chart below).
A single 9×18 foot parking stall is 234 square feet when including the drive aisle.
This means that the median lot size in this zone can mathematically fit 32 surface parking spaces, but we want to house people, not just cars. Plus, in comparison to parking, housing is better for the municipal tax base and it is the humans who support the local businesses that in turn strengthen the local economy.

Also, the maximum height allowed in this DN zone is 5-stories. This means that the median lot size has the development potential for (32) 1,000 sf units. Great, 32 new homes! But let’s say we want a portion of our ground floor as commercial space. This results in three less units but, hey, local business easily accessible by residents!

Chart: DN zone parcel size analysis. The rules in a city should respond to the realities on the ground

But what about the parking?

Each of our prospective units are 1,000 square feet (2-bedrooms).
Each residential unit requires 1.5 spaces per unit (234 square feet each, remember).
Our commercial unit requires 2.5 per 1,000 square feet. (234 square feet each, remember).

So, let’s add this up:

29 residential units x 1.5 (43.5 subtotal)
+ 9 for our commercial space
= 53 parking spaces totaling 12,285 square feet.

But wait, we only have 7,500 square feet of lot area, so what gives?

It is often assumed that zoning is about buildings. It is not. Zoning assures neighbors that parking, setbacks, and landscaping requirements will be met and then whatever is left over is where a developer can build a building.

The starry-eyed planner might suggest putting all of our required parking underground so that we get all of our units and have good urban form, but, with a price tag of $1.5M this option forces rents to be an additional $500 more dollars per month, potentially out of reach for the local market. Even with the State of Washington’s progressive minimum wage of $13.50/hour, that’s an extra 37 hours of work.

The larger-scale developments may be able to absorb the additional cost of underground parking due to the larger number of units to share in that cost. So, while the total cost of underground parking will be more in comparison, the net cost to the renter will likely be less, therefore maintaining market feasibility. Smaller-scale projects are much more sensitive to price shocks due to the limited number of units to absorb additional development costs.

The thrifty developer might want to reduce the building size and surface park everything since that’s the least expensive, but then more than 60% of the lot is paved over, also resulting in significantly less housing in the downtown area and municipal revenue for the city.

The purpose of this example was to run through the onerous and expensive outcomes that mandated parking requirements create, particularly for the small, local developer who is likely to be working on one of the 72% of lots that are below 20,000 square feet within this downtown zone.

A more sane and rational approach is to not require but allow parking in order to provide flexibility to a development project so that a workable solution can be found, allowing developers to obtain more of the parcel’s legal development entitlements, otherwise known as ‘highest and best use’. Recent studies have shown that most times, developers do build parking and averages around 0.5 spaces per unit. They do this because there is still market demand for parking spaces. This could change in the near future so having the flexibility to determine what is appropriate for the site and for the intended end-user is key to a reasonable and feasible development. The final example we can call, “the reasonable and feasible” is only made possible by applying this 0.5 spaces per unit amount. This does not mean that 0.5 is the magic number, just that having the flexibility to suit our needs creates an option that works for everyone.

Additionally, one option to make sure that those who do not want parking are not subsidizing their neighbor is to decouple any provided parking from the rents just like a building might for extra storage or laundry facilities. Just because coffee is on the ground floor of the building does not mean that everyone’s rent should be higher in order to provide free coffee to the coffee drinkers.

In closing, I felt like Cary cast a vision that is likely to resonate with what most of us want out of our downtowns and neighborhood centers. Does your city have reasonable and feasible parking policies? I’d love to hear of good examples.

Cary:

With less of each site devoted to the automobile, more of each site can be focused on humans and their needs. This will allow more homes and businesses to be accommodated within the same amount of space, increasing the feasibility of potential developments, and potentially lowering the price point of each home while supporting our increasingly important local economies.