Message from Mayor David J. Faber

March 6, 2025
 

The "Problem" of Downtown Parking

As far as I'm concerned, any good public policy project should be designed to solve a problem. Over my lifetime here in Port Townsend, I have heard an incredible cross-section of this community—business owners, employees, shoppers, and residents alike—express deep frustration and anger about parking downtown. It’s such a common complaint that it appears clear to me that at least the broader community believes we have a problem. But based upon the huge volume of feedback the City Council has received over the last few weeks with regard to the current plan to implement paid parking downtown, it’s equally clear that nobody can seem to agree on exactly what the problem is.

For some, the issue is a resource allocation problem: we have too little parking, and/or the wrong people are using it! I hear employees and residents complain about tourists, and I hear business owners and shoppers complain about employees and residents. It’s clear that each of these groups would prefer they have free use of our finite parking resources, and—at least to them—the other group is the problem.

To others, the issue is a collective action problem: greenhouse gas emissions and the resultant anthropogenic climate change threaten life as we know it, and transportation represents our single greatest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. To at least some in our community, swift government action to disincentivize the use of personal automobiles (and therefore reduce emissions) is the most urgent issue of our time.

I see validity in all of the arguments, having been in each of these groups during my life. I worked downtown as a teen and 20-something, I lived downtown and owned a business in my 30s, I shop and dine downtown frequently, and I think we owe it to future generations (not to mention the rest of the planet) to be good stewards of our environment. But these different factions have not and seem unable to come to a consensus on the problem of downtown parking or how to solve it.

To those who are concerned about the allocation of our parking resources, I hear demands for increased supply. “Build a parking garage” is a common refrain. Setting aside the environmental damage of a parking garage (lots of concrete, plus increasing the supply of parking downtown only further incentivizes more driving and more greenhouse gas emissions), the more immediate and material problem with increasing supply is the staggering cost. Current rates for building a parking garage are likely in excess of $35,000 per stall, meaning that even a relatively modest 200-stall parking garage (which would provide less than 15% of the total number of downtown parking stalls) would likely cost between $7- and $8 million, if not more, which the city cannot afford. It’s not really a practical solution.

To others, simply “punishing” those who exceed current parking time limits is the answer. “Enforce the two-hour parking limits!” is a common refrain. The problem is that enforcement is incredibly labor-intensive, and without the volunteer labor the city used to have, the city lacks the resources that hiring sufficient staff to monitor parking would require. It’s not really a practical solution.

Some argue for eliminating parking entirely to reduce car usage. “Pedestrianize downtown” is a common refrain. Pedestrianizing a business district would cut our car dependence and has been shown to generally have a positive economic impact pretty much every where it has been tried the world over, leading to increased retail sales, higher property values, and greater foot traffic, all because it creates a more attractive and accessible environment for shoppers, encouraging them to spend more time and money in the area. That said, pedestrianizing is a truly massive change that would depend on a lot of buy-in from the community that simply does not exist. Plus, pedestrianizing in-and-of-itself leaves some groups out (disabled, elderly, and families would each require additional public policy support in a pedestrianized downtown business district). It’s not really a practical solution.

Putting all of these complaints and ideas in a blender produced the idea of a paid parking pilot study, the purposes of which is to simultaneously encourage parking turnover and to encourage people to consider alternative methods of transportation. Back in 2024, the Council directed staff to begin exploring options for paid parking management, specifically utilizing technological advances that have made such programs relatively simple and cost-effective to implement. The idea, as originally floated, was a small project area, focusing on Taylor Street, plus the possibility of some of Water and Adams Streets. But as staff explored the options for implementing a paid parking program, the City discovered that a larger project area would be necessary for any company to work with the City. Hence the proposal that came to Council on February 10th.

It's also worth pausing here to note a couple things did not make the Leader’s coverage of the parking proposal: First was Council’s concerns about disabled parking access (staff confirmed that people with disabled placards or license plates would be exempt from parking fees). The second was Council’s concerns about not including the area in front of city hall in the paid parking area. As it stands right now, staff is planning on bringing back a tuned-up version of the paid parking proposal. Because we have received a lot of questions worrying about the need for a smartphone to pay for parking, please note the program being explored would allow people to pay for parking without needing a smartphone app (if you have a “dumb phone”, or if you just don’t want to install an app, you would be able to call in payment).

Now, whether or not the City actually adopts a paid parking program is ultimately dependent upon community buy-in. The city is not capable of a more extreme solution, be it either building a parking garage or pedestrianizing downtown. The city is also not currently able to enforce current parking rules unless those parking rules come with a way to generate revenue. I am still exploring different paid parking approaches that might allow a smaller area (e.g. parking kiosks with paper slips you put on your dashboard, for instance), though these concepts remain unvetted and have not as yet presented as a particularly viable alternative. Either way and in short, paid parking appears to be the only real, viable "solution" to our current parking "problem”. My question to our community is "do you consider the downtown parking problem to be serious enough to warrant the type of solution the city can actually implement (paid parking)?" It’s okay to say “no”, and if that’s the general community sentiment, I would rather council and staff not spend any more effort trying to solve a problem for which no reasonable solution is sufficiently popular to enact.

Please reach out to me and/or the rest of council by email at citycouncil@cityofpt.us.