Table of Contents:   

INTRODUCTION «   
ECONOMY «   
EDUCATION «   
ENVIRONMENT «   
GOVERNMENT «   
HEALTH «   
PUBLIC SAFETY «   
SOCIAL ISSUES «   
TRANSPORTATION «   
URBAN LIVABILITY «    

TRANSPORTATION:
Parking

  



back  |  next
     

Portlanders have widely differing opinions regarding parking, based in large-part on their feelings towards automobiles and traffic.

Section Summary

Portlanders have widely differing opinions regarding parking, based in large part on their feelings towards automobiles and traffic. Those who want to continue using their cars advocate for expanded and more affordable parking, especially downtown and around new development. Those who imagine automobiles falling from favor in coming years advocate increasing the price of parking, reducing parking availability and transforming parking lots into usable community spaces such as parks, gardens and affordable housing. Those who support the expansion of public transportation call for above-ground or (preferably) underground parking lots near MAX stations, freeway exits, and other outlying areas, which would be linked to the city center by fast, frequent public transit. In addition to these general viewpoints, many individuals voice specific neighborhood parking issues which they hope the City will resolve in coming years.

Summary of Main Ideas

  1. It should be easier to park downtown and in certain neighborhoods.
  2. Parking should be discouraged, especially downtown.
  3. Parking should be designed to encourage use of mass transit.

Summary of Tensions and Disagreements

  1. Should we facilitate or discourage parking?
  2. Should Eastside business districts adopt metered parking?

MAIN IDEAS

  1. It should be easier to park downtown and in certain neighborhoods.

    Downtown:

  • A number of calls for increased parking options downtown.
  • Some people imagine cheaper parking, now and in the future.
  • Some people want free parking.
  • A few respondents ask for improved parking for motorcycles.
  • More parking for electric vehicles, to encourage their use.
  • More long-term parking spots (more 3 hour and 5 hour spots, fewer 90 minute spots).
  • Free parking spaces for Flexcar.

    Neighborhoods:

  • Adequate parking for new development: A number of respondents complain that when high-density infill is created, it burdens local parking capacity and creates parking hassles for current residents.
  • Some people ask for free parking in Northwest Portland, saying they dislike having to pay to park at home.
“In 20 years, the ideal Portland has the following: Parking is cheap, easy to find, and located near numerous and frequent public-transport sites. The public-transport network is much more extensive (think Boston MBTA).”

“I would like to see more parking facilities designed underground and overground when master-planning the new towers, shopping centers, offices, etc… It really isn’t that difficult if it is considered a necessity rather than trying to force people out of their cars.”

Sample Strategies:

  1. Remove parking dividers downtown to fit in more small cars (spots aren’t individually metered anyway, so it shouldn’t matter).
  2. Require developers to create new parking (preferably underground) when they build dense infill or new multi-family complexes in neighborhoods.
  3. Increase the availability of public restrooms so downtown parking garages will no longer smell like urine.
  4. Move downtown parking garages underground so surface space can be used for parks or gardens while still preserving parking availability.
  1. Parking should be discouraged, especially downtown.
  • A significant number of people advocate for restricting parking downtown as a method to discourage cars from entering the downtown core and reduce traffic.
  • Some call for eliminating all parking downtown, while others call for getting rid of all above-ground parking lots and/or all parking garages.
  • Some imagine a future with no cars or parking in Fareless Square.
  • A number of people suggest turning parking garages into affordable housing and converting above-ground lots into community gardens and/or community greenspace.
  • Some advocate making parking more expensive to help pay for increased public transit downtown and other services.
  • Others suggest that all parking should be moved to the periphery of downtown and connected to the core via rapid transit.
“Best of all, [in 2030] the parking garages downtown are gone. Nobody drives, so we don’t need them. Instead, that land has been turned into high density, multi-use urban neighborhoods where affordable housing abounds and people are flocking to live.”

“Discourage unnecessary driving by raising parking costs downtown and in the central core.”

"Continue to improve transport without putting the cost on the users; increase parking and other car fees so that we as car users can pay for the public transportation.”
  1. Parking should be designed to encourage use of mass transit.
  • The availability of safe, free parking near MAX stations and other major transit centers would serve to encourage more people to use public transportation.
  • Currently, a number of respondents say they do not take the MAX into downtown because there is nowhere to leave their car near max stops.
  • Some people speak of creating large underground parking facilities at transit centers and also off freeway exits, so people can park their cars and take public transit downtown.
  • Many people would like to see expanded parking facilities at:
    • Gateway: add more general parking and handicapped parking spots;
    • The Hollywood Transit site: add handicapped parking spaces;
    • On the Eastside MAX line to the Airport; and
    • At the Ceder Mill transit center.
"Take away the parking costs for outside transit centers. This discourages use of mass transit into the city because if people have to pay, then they will drive and pay to park.”

"In 20 years, the ideal Portland has the following: Parking is cheap, easy to find, and located near numerous and frequent public-transport sites. The public-transport network is much more extensive (think Boston MBTA).”

TENSIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS

  1. Should we facilitate or discourage parking?

    This is the major tension that runs throughout this section. As can be seen above, main ideas #1 and #2 almost completely contradict each other, with a large number of people calling for cheaper, more available parking and an equally large number calling for more expensive and/or reduced availability parking.

    Adherents of main idea #3 propose a compromise of sorts, in the sense that by increasing parking on the outskirts of town, traffic in the downtown could be reduced. However, this point doesn’t explicitly call for eliminating downtown parking; it simply suggests that use of public transit would increase if more people could access that transit.

  2. Should Eastside business districts adopt metered parking?

    A much smaller controversy in this section involves whether or not to put parking meters on Eastside streets such as Hawthorne, Division, Alberta, etc…The majority of those who mentioned meters said they do not want meters on Eastside streets.

    However, a few people said they would prefer to see meters for non-residents during business hours, as this would increase the amount of parking available to local residents who are currently crowded out by businesses and their clients.

back  |  next

Economy | Education | Environment | Government | Health | Safety | Social Issues | Transportation | Urban Livability


   

Vision into Action / 1900 SW 4th, Suite 7100 / Portland, Oregon 97204 / Phone: (503) 823-9585