TPAC Oct 3,24 & Nov 28, 2018 minutes

TPAC minutes from October 3, 2018

 

Present: Nathan Clarke, John Tydlaska, Kate Merrill, Juliana Lukasik, Brandon Wentworth, Michelle Sprague, Ryan Hashagan, Ken Wilson, Susan Pearce, Julie Bennett, Michael Zokoych, Chris Armes, Anthony Stohl, Todd Deneffe, Rina Jimmerson.

 

ADOPTION OF AUGUST TPAC MINUTES – JTydlaska proposed to approve the minutes, NClarke seconded.  Committee approved.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT – none

 

CEID PARKING ASSESSMENT AND PERMIT ANALYSIS – Owen Ronchelli

 

ORonchelli presents the updated PPT showing the same recommendations presented last time, but this version maps where the affects stalls are – a request from the last TPAC meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

  1. There are still 1 Hour stalls in the system (12 in sample zones).

Solution:  Identify all 1 Hour stalls and convert to 2 Hour

 

  1. There are still No Limit stalls outside the buffer zone (54 in sampled zones)

Solution: Identify all No Limit stalls outside the buffer zone and convert to time limit appropriate to location.

 

  1. 2 Hour (signed) stalls have violation rate of over 40%. 2 Hour (metered) stalls have violation rate of 16%.  Peak occupancy is 82% vs. 61% respectively.

Solution:  Convert all 2 Hour (signed) to 2 Hour (metered).

 

  1. There are still 1 Hour stalls in the system (12 in sample zones).

Solution:  Identify all 1 Hour stalls and convert to 2 Hour

 

  1. There are still No Limit stalls outside the buffer zone (54 in sampled zones)

Solution: Identify all No Limit stalls outside the buffer zone and convert to time limit appropriate to location.

 

  1. 2 Hour (signed) stalls have violation rate of over 40%. 2 Hour (metered) stalls have violation rate of 16%.  Peak occupancy is 82% vs. 61% respectively.

Solution:  Convert all 2 Hour (signed) to 2 Hour (metered) and to continue to improve enforcement.

 

  1. Permit Systems Allocations (recommendation)

 

Peak hour demand in 2 Hour OBP stalls is 94%  (G and N Zones).

Total Permits currently (2018) allocated:     6,753

  • G Zone: 4,969 (74%)
  • N Zone: 1,726 (25%)
  • Grandfather residential:             58 (1%)

 

Estimated permits to be reduced (from 6,753)

            as a strategy to lower peak occupancy in 2 Hour

            OBP stalls from 94% to 84%.                         695

    • Recommended 2019 Allocation (FTE)                       6,058 @ .60 vs.70 (2018)
    • G Zone:                                                            4,483 (74%)
    • N Zone:                                                            1,575  (25%)
    • Grandfather residential                                  58 (1%)

 

 

DISCUSSION POINTS:

 

KWilson – asks about the financial impacts

MSprague – how close are these spots to transit lines? Also, wanting to know if we can choose the type of meters that are put in

CArmes- the City is moving towards license plate meters

JTydlaska – why not change 2 hour signed parking to permit parking instead of meters

JBennett and KMerrill – it is hard enough for N as it is, – we need to think about this aspect.

 

 

CCIM PARKING LOSS ANALYSIS- Owen Ronchelli

 

  • 285 stalls would be affected
  • 13 loading zones would be affected
  • 19 transit zones would be affected

 

SCohen suggests that we focus on CCIM bundle #9 because it is included in the first 1-5yr phase of the projects.

JLukasik – agrees but says we need to look at the impacts from all the projects because all are at Council for adoption

 

 

 

 

2018 Bundle 9 Use Characteristics (Data Collected from 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM)

Use Characteristics All Users Non-Permit Users Permit Users
Unique vehicle trips 204 139 65
Vehicle hours parked 747 274 473
Permits displayed in OBP – Zone G stalls during peak hour[1] N/A N/A 37
Permits displayed in OBP – Zone N stalls during peak hour N/A N/A 12
Permits displayed in non-OBP stalls during peak hour N/A N/A 3
Remaining vehicles without a permit displayed during peak hour 31 31 N/A

 

Highlights of the discussion on Bundle 9:

  • The occupancy rate is 77 % – so the potentially lost parking spots are important stalls
  • There are no metered stalls on 7th
  • SPearce – Bikes and trucks should be separate
  • KMerrill – Frieght committee also believes that bike and freight should be separated. The Freight committee has asked Gabe Graff to review the option of 6th again
  • SPearce – freight should be on 7th and bikes should be on 11th and 12th
  • SLindsay – very little support for narrowing 11th and 12th

 

*All bundles are in the documents received by members.

 

ADJOURN

 

 

 

 

[1] The peak hour utilization is based on the 2018 area wide CEID on-street data collection 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM result.

 

 

TPAC minutes from October 24, 2018

 

Present: Ken Wilson, Michael Bolliger, Dan Yates, Kate Merrill, Deane Funk, Brandon Wentworth, Tina McNerthy, Peter Finley-Fry, Juliana Lukasik, Michelle Sprague, John Tydlaska, Ryan Hashagen, Julie Bennett, Michael Zokoych, Nathan Clarke, Chris Armes, Brad Malsin, Scott Cohen, Susan Pearce.

 

Guests: Brad Malsin, Sandra Constock

 

ADOPTION OF AUGUST TPAC MINUTES – MZokoych proposed to approve the minutes, JBennett seconded.  Committee approved.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT – none

 

PRESENTATION ON PARKING ENFORCEMENT IN THE CEID – Donald Hunter and Mike Crebs

 

CEID Enforcement

January 1, 2018 through October 19, 2018

 

(CEID APP Zone G and N):

Citations Issued:    4817     (541 APP Citations)

Warnings:               2039

Timings:                12189     (Vehicles)

Excused Cites:            86

 

(CEID Metered Locations):

Citations Issued:    4369

Warnings:                 991               

Timings:                  4503    (Vehicles)

Excused Cites:         116

 

TOTAL CITATIONS: 9,186                 TOTAL WARNINGS: 3,030

TOTAL Timings: 16,692             TOTAL Excused Citations: 202

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Citations issued in CEID:

2016: 9,200      2017: 9,925    2018: 9,186 (Through 10-19-2018)

 

Highlights :

  • Many vehicles have Zone G permits but are parked in time stay zones
  • People are over staying in the time stay zones
  • If we increase enforcement, it will most likely be employees and residents
  • Hours of enforcement are 8-6 Monday to Friday
  • Suggestion was made to send information about increased enforcement and promote the TDM to all permit holders
  • Suggestion was made to set up a sub-committee to discuss enforcement further

 

DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT STEPS OF PARKING ASSESSMENT AND PERMIT ANALYSIS REPORTS FROM RICK AND OWEN – facilitated by Chris Armes

 

– Focus on permit analysis

– How to decrease permits and go from .7 FTE to .6 FTE which we want to continue the conversation to hit the target of 6000 permits

– one way is to hard cap of .6FTE and the other is price – are the two ways to reduce permits

DYates – this was done without the CCIM and the loss of the 250 parking spots

RHashagen – TPAC is not charging a market rate, a rate similar to Trimet should be considered

KMerrill – worried about employees and low wage earners

CArmes- Option is to add meters

KMerrill – Staff will do investigations and make recommendations at the next meeting

JTydlaska- need to try not to put the burden on employees

RHashagen – permits don’t allow clients to park, consider a rate that is more comparable to a TriMet rate

Discussion ensues on pricing…

MBolliger – tables the discussion on pricing for the moment

JTydlaska- time stays is for clients,

CArmes – the goal is to have an open face on a block face- only sell enough permits, to have space for a permit holder or a customer

JLukasik – not necessarily black and white and create a program to help families in need.  Raising the price is good as long as we create a program to help those who cannot afford

CArmes- one thing TPAC did last time – you increased the permit rates every year for 3 years, so people could plan ahead for it.  If the cost is going to be an impact and you want to offset with a program, PBOT does not have the tools to administer a program to review tax forms.  TPAC would have to be responsible for it.

CArmes – right now there is the opt-out option for a permit which TPAC could continue to do that as opposed to rewarding people just once for not getting a permit by using surcharge funds for that

KMerrill – is there a way to find out if employees or if it is employers that are paying for it

CArmes – unfortunately not because we give them to employers.  PBOT needs a recommendation from TPAC  by January so to allow PBOT to prepare.

 

NEW CHAIR, Mr. Deane Funk, is introduced as Mike Bolliger’s replacement starting in 2019.

 

Scott Cohen from CCIM introduces a slide on PARKING MITIGATION STRATEGY

DYATES – how many of the strategies are presently allowed?

SCohen- all are allowed but depends on the locations, for instance, OMSI location requires a zoning change

JLukasik – OMSI and ODOT parking is just temporary

 

SCohen asks for a letter of support for CCIM as PBOT has been very engaged with TPAC

 

Motion to write a letter of support is put on the table by Ryan Hashagen and seconded by Nathan Clarke.

 

Many committee members share the following points:

  • TPAC concerns have not been addressed
  • HAND will not be writing a letter and not going to Council
  • Most concerned about with 7th, 11th and 12th
  • Freight and bikes should be on different streets
  • Train is an issue for 11th and 12th
  • Green loop not defined

 

KMerrill- TPAC will not be able to come to a consensus as we are not able to endorse all projects

 

Motion for a letter in support of CCIM is denied by majority – Ryan Hashagen in favor and Tina McNerthey abstained.

All members recognized Scott Cohen’s contribution to TPAC and their appreciation for his efforts, updates and continued attendance.

 

 

TPAC minutes from November 28, 2018

 

Present: Michelle Sprague, Tina McNerthey, Susan Lindsay, Juliana Lukasik, Julie Bennett, Michael Bolliger, Michael Zokoych, Susan Pearce, Kristan Alldrin, Chris Armes, John Tydlaska, Nathan Clark, Ken Wilson, Ryan Hashagen, Kate Merrill, Rina Jimmerson

 

Guests: Dan Bower, Michael L. Tevis, Doug Hadesty, Peter Stark

 

ADOPTION OF AUGUST TPAC MINUTES – JTydlaska proposed to approve the minutes, NClarke seconded.  Committee approved.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT – Michael Tevis asks about illegal parking.

 

PORTLAND STREETCAR UPDATE – DAN BOWER

  • 5 trains are out of service so the trains are running every 19 minutes instead of every 14 minutes
  • Talks about BAT lanes, would like to include freight in these lanes but needs to work on a definition of what freight is.
  • KMerrill – TPAC is already in discussions with CCIM on the subject
  • Portland Streetcar is working on a service expansion at the cost $370 000 in the NW with a terminus at Montgomery Park. This would add significant service to the Eastside as well.
  • Streetcar ridership is up 10 % in the Eastside
  • TPAC is going to change their promotion on the Streetcar that they sponsor to advertise the CEIC Water Avenue Courtesy Shuttle.

 

ADVISORY BODY CHANGES  – CHRIS ARMES

  • CArmes highlights a few changes like : there is now a maximum of 8 years to sit on a committee, members must follow an on-line training, e-mails/correspondence is now subject to public records, watch out for conflicts of interest.
  • She will forward the information to KMerrill and Rjimmerson in the new Year

 

DISCUSSION ON NEXT STEPS OF PARKING ASSESSMENT AND PERMIT ANALYSIS WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRICING SUGGESTIONS and ENFORCEMENT SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE – KEN WILSON/RYAN HASHAGE

 

What was presented and discussed:

4 CEID PERMIT SCENARIOS

1 – Follow Rick and Owen recommendations and reduce both zones N and G to .6FTE

2 – Reduce zone G to .6FTE and keep zone N at .7FTE

3 – Increase permit price to $350 1st year, $400 2nd year and $450 3rd year)

4 – Increase price and reduce eligibility

  • Discussion about better enforcement that has begun and MBolliger states that because we have no data on the increased enforcement there is no need to change anything. Increased enforcement will open up more parking stalls.
  • MZokoych suggests a motion to do nothing at this time and to only review this after we have data on increased enforcement which would be at the end of 2019.
  • RHashagen – expresses that there are too many issues and too many permits that are being sold. Would like to use the revenue to offset the wallet and so, he suggests that we increase the rate of parking and bring it to $370.
  • MBolliger suggests that this be added as a fifth option to the suggested 4 scenarios
  • KMerrill reminds the committee that average wage in the CEID is $50 000 while downtown it is $75 000.
  • MBolliger agrees with MZokoych that until we increase enforcement, it is hard to make a decision
  • CArmes adds that people who buy a permit should be able to find a stall
  • JTydlaska says that people are not finding stalls because they are clogged up with overstayers that need to get out of here
  • KWilson- if we increase enforcement, we should inform/notify permit holders through their companies
  • Rhashagen- need to get people out of their cars. If TPAC increases the rates, it allows for more money to be offered for alternatives
  • MBolliger- TPAC needs to separate the two issues: the overall intent of the plan is to make the cost of a permit more relative, so it makes sense to raise the cost of a permit.
  • KMerrill – reminds TPAC that we will be losing more parking now that CCIM has been adopted
  • MZokoych- adds to “increase the price of permits” to his original motion
  • SLindsay – prefers no increase in permit and make no changes
  • Rhashagen proposes a motion to increase the permit price by $70 per year for the next three years and no reductions.
  • Motion is proposed by RHashagen, seconded by KWilson and unanimously adopted.
  • New pricing will be set at $370 for 2019, $440 for 2020 and $510 for 2021 while we continue to look into improving the TDM Wallet.

 

METERED PARKING DISCUSSION:

KMerrill, JBennett and Rjimmerson propose the following list:

1 – North Block on Alder between SE 6th and Grand (3 -4 stalls)

2 – South Block on Alder between 6th and Grand (2 stalls)

3 – East face of 6th between SE Stark and Oak (3-4 stalls)

4 – West face of 6th between SE Stark and Oak (2 stalls)

5 – South Side of Oak between Grand and 6th (7-17 stalls)

6 –  SE Washington between 2nd and Water (5-6 stalls)

7 – SE Alder between 2nd and 3rd on the Southside (2 stalls)

8 – SE Clay between 2nd and 3rd on the Northside (7-17)

*Reminder

TOTAL STALLS =    4 018

STALLS IN ZONE G = 3 264

STALLS IN ZONE N =    754

RHashagen – is there a limit to the number of meters we TPAC can install?

CArmes- in the past, TPAC has always done 50 block faces per year

SLindsay- feels TPAC should not transfer all timestays to meters

RHashagen – suggests looking at Burnside Bridgehead because people are using N and G permits and parking all day long.  Also, Davis between MLK and 3rd, no turnover at all.

KMerrill – adds that there is a lot of construction right now

JKLukasik- historically TPAC has done things in a certain way ie. 50 block faces per year.  Suggests we try for 75 this year.

Committee agrees to do just 50 block faces again this year

JTydlaska- we should look at meters on the West side of MLK

MBolliger- if meters are clustered, they are easier to enforce

CArmes- the parking meters come from Sweden.  PBOT is adding 200 meters to the Northwest, TPAC could add our request to that order

Motion to order 25 meters to cover 50 block faces is proposed by NClark and seconded by JBennett, committee votes in favor by a majority.

Committee agrees to review 50 block faces at the next TPAC meeting in January, 2019.