Sustainability and Transportation Committee

Sustainability& Transportation MEMBERS Committee Agenda Councilor Regina Phillips, Chair Councilor Pious Ali, At-Large June 16, 2025 at 5:00 PM Councilor Anna Bullett, District 4 Remotely on Zoom The Sustainability and Transportation Committee will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live either in person or via Zoom, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting. For public comment via Zoom, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment. https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/87021298911?pwd=jXqbfbyAbMzVVsqhan6sTIIMqDfAmu.1 1. Review and approve minutes from May 14, 2025 a. Minutes from May 14, 2025 2. Sustainability and Transportation Program Updates a. Transportation Project Updates b. Sustainability Program Updates 3. Presentation and Discussion a. Complete streets policy update Public comment will be taken. b. Vision Zero Quick Action Plan Public comment will be taken c. Proposed moratorium on theater and performance halls Public comment will be taken 4. Other Business Page 1  CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE Committee on Sustainability and Transportation Councilor Regina Phillips (D3), Chair Councilor Pious Ali (At-Large) Councilor Anna Bullett (D4) Draft Minutes May 14, 2025 Members Present: Mayor Dion, Councilor Phillips, Councilor Bullett, Councilor Ali Staff Present: Troy Moon, Katie Tims, Kevin Kraft, Nell Donaldson, Zachary Lenhert Meeting was called to order. April 9, 2025 Meeting Minutes The April 9, 2025 meeting minutes were approved unanimously. Sustainability Updates We are pleased to report that the City was awarded a $180,000 Community Action Grant to support the development of a One Climate Future Risk-Based Asset Management Tool. This project will update the City’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment, develop an inventory of coastal typography in Portland and South Portland. The final project will incorporate a broad range of data from public and private sources to create a sophisticated GIS-based tool that will help decision makers prioritize investments in critical infrastructure Benchmarking reports were due May 1 for Portland buildings with a gross floor area of 20,000 sq ft or more and one tenant utilizing 90% of the space. We are also hosting three educational webinars with partners at the Falmouth Land Trust, Maine Audubon, and Natural Resources Council of Maine this summer related to sustainable landcare. We also have free “Mow Tall Until Fall” yard signs available to residents Transportation Updates Kevin Kraft shares that the City has launched an internal task force on the Vision Zero plan and will be bringing the Quick Action Plan, composed of measures that can be implemented this year and within available resources, will be brought to the S&T Committee in June. The first public open house on the Reimagining Franklin Street project was held, and the next public engagement sessions will be held at the end of June. Lastly, regarding the Union Branch Multiuse Pathways, we have our construction bid materials submitted internally. Staff has also drafted the Complete Streets policy update, and we are meeting with bikeped organizations before bringing the update to the committee. Page 2 Transit Leaders Forum Presented by Kevin Kraft and panelists Together, this panel discussion provided an overview of the current public transportation network serving Greater Portland and the future policy initiatives that may help strengthen Portland’s multi-modal transportation system. Panelists include the following representatives: ●​ Glenn Fenton, Greater Portland METRO ●​ John Savage, Biddeford Saco Orchard Beach Transit ●​ Dale Doughty, Maine Department of Transportation ●​ Patricia Quinn, Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority ●​ Kristina Egan, Andrew Clark and Chris Chop, Greater Portland Council of Governments ●​ Nick Mavodones, Casco Bay Lines ●​ Don Libby, Regional Transportation Program All panelists gave an overview of the systems they operate, the services they provide, and the challenges they face. Councilor Comments on Transit Leaders Forum Councilor Bullett notes that the Maine Association of New Americans was missing from the panel. MANA has been facilitating transit for the English learning language community and rides that do not qualify for MaineCare. Councilor Bullett reminds the Committee that we did build Safe Streets money in our CIP budget this year, further noting that getting to the bus can be less related to the bus frequency than how safe the walk to the bus is. Councilor Bullett asks Greater Portland METRO, in thinking about the enforcement of cars parked in bus stop areas, while traffic surveillance cameras are illegal in Maine, there is a carveout for school buses. Has Greater Portland METRO ever explored the possibility of putting cameras on buses? Glenn Fenton responds that we do already have cameras on buses, so the technology is there; it would be more of a question of whether it would stand up in court. Councilor Bullett asks Biddeford Saco Orchard Beach Transit if they have an app for their trolley services. John Savage responds that we use the Dirigo platform (same fare structure and services) and Google Transit to display our services for our passengers. Councilor Bullett asks the Regional Transportation Program if there are active partnerships with other organizations that serve the communities. Don Libby responds that we would entertain any partnerships and are coordinated with child development services and for MaineCare and our drivers are well trained to work with a variety of age groups, disabilities, and other situations. Councilor Bullett asks what language access looks like. We use Language Line, there are cards on the bus, and our drivers are trained for those situations. Page 3 Councilor Bullett asks the Maine Department of Transportation about the transitions between the LAP and METRO or other services. Dale Doughty responds that they were designed with commuters in mind, and that it has been a full year, and it may be time to review and make adjustments if needed (are the connections efficient and working for people today). Councilor Bullett asks Casco Bay Lines about the charging station for the electric ferry. Nick Mavodones responds that the shore power connection is here and ready for when the boat arrives. It will charge for 10 minutes between each trip. Councillor Ali notes that the federal funding uncertainty may impact the many regional transportation projects highlighted by the panel and asks how organizations are preparing for the impacts of funding loss. Nick Mavodones shares that transit leaders across the country are concerned about the uncertainty, and if funding were to go away, we may have to downsize operations and/or eliminate staff. Dale Doughty shares that it has been difficult because of the continued legislative timelines and deadlines and lack of re-appropriation of funds, but we will continue our services until we are redirected. Glenn Fenton shares Dale’s concerns and risk management strategy. Kristina Egan shares that GPCOG has lost multiple grants, but does feel like transportation is a little bit safer, and there are several transportation agencies trying to preserve funding. Councilor Phillips asks a question related to the funding that comes into the state. 50 million for the state, but 30 million of that is distributed through PACTS. That money is now distributed based on performance rather than a long discussion, and this coordinated efficiency between organizations has helped money go further. Mayor Dion asks what we can anticipate as a potential timeline for a decision around the question of the construction and siting of the train station. Kristina Egan notes the Transit Oriented Development work being done throughout the region for years, particularly reflected through ReCode, and that GPCOG and others still have remaining questions as to whether the site that NNEPRA has identified is the best and highest return on investment. Where the site ends up, it should interact with the other transit investments and housing opportunities available. Patricia Quinn notes that the reason the station is colocated with the bus station is because NNEPRA and Maine DOT were not successful in reaching an agreement on the location, and a public-private partnership with Concord Coach Lines was created. 25 years later, the service has expanded north of Portland. We are hoping to site a location that can support future rail service. Mayor Dion hopes we can find a mutual agreement between these analyses and move forward. City staff and the Council will begin a process to Councilor Phillips asks Maine DOT if the LAP pilot will continue to function as a program after its “pilot”. Dale Doughty notes that the pilot started last July and it was planned as a two-year pilot. If it is successful and growing, we may run it longer - dependent on costs, ridership, growth, promotion by the municipalities it serves, and the potential to locateg a long-term operator. Page 4 Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 30 Regarding Golf Carts on Peaks Island Presented by Zachary Lenhert, Licensing Manager Zachary Lenhert gave an overview of Sec. 30-110 of City Code regarding the regulation of golf cart rentals. Specifically, this proposal would remove the cap on golf cart operators and establish a wait list for rental golf cart licenses. Troy Moon notes that Assistant City Manager Dena Libner has been in communication with the Peaks Island Council and Peaks Island stakeholders, and they are all aware that this item has been raised. Zachary Lenhert notes that this conversation precipitated because we reached the cap on the number of golf cart operators (two operators). Councilor Bullett asks if there are any safety concerns or issues related to the topic. Zachary Lenhert notes that this ordinance has been in place since 2019 to regulate the number of golf carts on the island and prevent them from unnecessarily proliferating. There is a Portland safety officer who regulates the maintenance and registration of all the carts, rental and private. Councilor Phillips asks a clarifying question about the ordinance language regarding license renewal. Mayor Dion also notes that the safety officer on Peaks is well informed and encourages voluntary compliance to deal with this issue. Public Comment on Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 30 There was no public comment. Motion to approve the Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 30 The motion was moved by Councilor Ali and seconded by Councilor Bullett. The motion was accepted unanimously and will move forward to full City Council. Policy Review of Taxi Fares Presented by Troy Moon and Zachery Lenhert Troy Moon reviews aspects of the existing ordinance governing taxi rates in Portland. The goal of this review is to determine if staff should perform additional analysis and present recommended changes to rates. Aspects reviewed include taxi fares, reregistration of taxi company licenses, and reregistration and inspection of taxi vehicles. Councilor Comments on the Policy Review of Taxi Fares Councilor Ali asks why you register the taxi company separately from the driver. In the past, there were taxi companies that had many drivers working for them. Can drivers move between cab companies? No language restricts that; it would just be reported in the taxi company registration. Councilor Ali asks if Uber and Lyft go through this registration process? No, there is a state law that prevents municipalities from regulating ride-sharing organizations. Mayor Dion would support an amendment to update the ordinance regarding taxi wages. Page 5 Councilor Bullett would also support an update to the ordinance regarding taxi wages. Councilor Ali is in communication with taxi drivers and will ensure they are represented when we discuss the amendment. Motion to Adjourn The motion was moved by Councilor Bullett and seconded by Councilor Ali. The motion was accepted unanimously. Meeting Adjourned Page 6 City of Portland | Department of Public Works Mike Murray, Director To: Sustainability and Transportation Committee Regina Phillips, Chair MEETING DATE June 16, 2025 AGENDA ITEM Agenda Item 2A – Transportation Updates PURPOSE Provide the committee with update to date information on current transportation projects. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN/CITY COUNCIL GOAL ALIGNMENT These projects have been stated as an important topic and goal by the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The following transportation projects are in various stages of planning and/or construction. Vision Zero On April 14 the Council approved a resolution adopting GPCOG’s Vision Zero Plan and a goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the long-term. As this is a multi-disciplinary effort an internal Vision Zero Task Force was formed and met on May 5. A Quick Action Plan—consisting of measures that can be implemented this year using available resources is on the S&T Committee agenda for 6/16. Franklin Street Transportation & Land Concept The Reimagining Franklin Street project aims to transform the corridor into a more urban, pedestrian-friendly downtown street that supports mixed-use development, restores neighborhood connectivity, and incorporates state-of-the-art active transportation facilities. The project will also integrate stormwater and sewer infrastructure upgrades to enhance sustainability and resilience. ●​ Cost and Funding: $375,000 for EPS “planning phase”, funded jointly by the City and MaineDOT. Estimated construction cost is over $26M. ●​ Status and Next Steps: 1 Page 7  ●​ City Staff and WSP, Inc. will be holding a 2-day design workshop on Wednesday, June 25th and Thursday, June 26th, to be held at the Rines Auditorium, in the Main Portland Library, 5 Monument Square. Featured events will be a public workshop on each day from 4:30-6:30PM. At the public workshop on the 25th, attendees will share ideas and priorities for a new street design and land use plan through interactive activities. At the 26th workshop, attendees can see our street design work in progress and provide important input on its direction. ●​ Staff hosted a table at the City’s Walk the Working Waterfront event on Saturday, May 31, and held pop-up tabling events on June 5 at the Oxford Street Community Garden and nearby locations to share information about the Reimagine Franklin Street planning study and gather community feedback. ●​ The Reimagining Franklin Street survey is open to the public and available on the project website. To date, we have received over 250 responses. Libbytown Safety and Accessibility Project Reconstruction of Congress St./Park Ave. between I-295 and St. John St. Establishes two-way traffic on one-way streets; includes a roundabout near former Denny’s location, separated bike lanes, signal improvements, and streetscape enhancements (lighting, furniture, plantings). ●​ Cost and Funding: Project estimated cost was $28 million ($25M construction; $3M engineering). MaineDOT and City received $22.4M in federal funding (Reconnecting Communities-Neighborhoods Grant Program). MaineDOT and the City are sharing equally the 20% local match of $4.48M ($2.24M each). Project estimates are still preliminary and additional funding may be needed. ●​ Status and Next Steps: Staff provided comments on the draft Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Complete (HVAC) design in February 2025; Preliminary Design Review (PDR) to be completed in 2025; final design in 2026. Additional meetings on various design components ongoing. Grant funding requires construction by 2027. ●​ City Priorities & Concerns: ○​ Project management: scope, schedule, and budget. ○​ Goals for climate resiliency, urban design and water quality compliance. ○​ Protected intersections for cyclists and pedestrians at St. Johns at Congress and Park. Brighton Avenue: Rosemont Corner Intersection Improvements Intersection improvements at the five-way Rosemont Corner intersection. The intersection will either be a revised traffic signal intersection or a roundabout design. ●​ Cost and Funding: Funding is currently available for the feasibility study and for 50% design (PDR). Construction cost is to be determined as part of the alternatives selection process and preliminary design. The PACTS Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has allocated $2 million for construction of the Brighton Ave Multi-Modal Project; that 2 Page 8  project has been placed on hold and funding approved for the construction of the Rosemont Corner improvements. ●​ Status and Next Steps: The study began in July 2024 with the alternative analysis and preferred alternative to be selected in 2025. The project would then proceed to PDR. Forest Avenue: Morrill’s Corner (Smart Corridor Study: Phase II) Redesign of Forest Avenue and the three intersections from Warren Avenue to Stevens Avenue to improve safety and enhance predictability of operations. Redesign will focus on safety for all users, enhanced streetscape, active transportation facilities, and access management/turning movement restrictions at key locations, including Bishop Street. ●​ Cost and Funding: No current estimate, but costs are expected to exceed $10M. MaineDOT has identified either a RAISE or CDS grant as funding options. Local/state match percentage will be determined. Staff is awaiting updates from MaineDOT. ●​ Status and Next Steps: The City and MaineDOT are working toward completing PDR in late 2025. ●​ City Priorities & Concerns: ○​ Determining the project priority level versus other projects ○​ Access Management ○​ Scope of active transportation/street design features. ○​ Construction funding and timing. Forest Avenue: Marginal Way to Park Avenue (Smart Corridor Study: Phase III) Redesign of Forest Avenue to improve accommodations for active transportation from just south of Exit 6 through to Park Avenue. This work is anticipated to include the realignment of Kennebec Street to allow for two-way traffic access from Forest Avenue as well as the extension of the Bayside Trail from Brattle Street to Forest Avenue. In addition, a realignment of High Street is envisioned to reduce conflicts with vehicle queues at Forest and State, as well as reducing impacts to Deering Oaks. ●​ Cost and Funding: $200,000 available for preliminary design level engineering ($150,000 PACTS/$50,000 City); PACTS has allocated some final design funds depending on project timeline; construction costs and potential funding to be determined following this stage. ●​ Status and Next Steps: As of June 2025, this effort is to be combined with the State and High two-way conversion effort to maximize coordination and enhance project delivery outcomes. ●​ City Priorities & Concerns: ○​ Determining most appropriate alignments of streets in project area ○​ Timeline for property negotiations 3 Page 9  ○​ Coordination with State and High outcomes if two-way conversion proceeds Forest Avenue: Bedford Street to Woodford Street (Smart Corridor Study: Phase IV) Redesign of Forest Avenue between Woodford’s Corner and USM/Exit 6 with evaluation of improving safety for all users, active transportation options and reducing congestion. This is a PACTS-sponsored project. The focus is on a short-term redesign concept to align with an expected paving project within the next five years, to include a ‘road diet’ that would reduce lanes and allow in-street bike lanes. More in depth design will be needed for a longer term, more transformational project that could include extensive sidewalk and streetscape rehabilitation and sidewalk-level cycle tracks. ●​ Cost and Funding: Currently funded for feasibility only. MaineDOT is evaluating this section of Forest Avenue for a potential paving project approximately 2027-2028 that could provide the opportunity to implement the short-term recommendations. ●​ Status and Next Steps: The existing conditions analysis was completed in August 2024. The alternatives analysis and final draft report was completed in February 2025, which can be viewed on the project website here. The City will launch additional public engagement including to businesses and bicyclists in May and June to gather input on the final road diet street layout plan. This plan will then inform the striping and layout design for implementation. State & High Street Two-Way Conversion Update to 2015 study determining the feasibility of converting State and High to two-way streets which provides safety improvements and provision of bike lanes. Project seeks to minimize impacts to parking, trees and Level of Service (LOS). Coordination required with York Street, Forest Ave., and MaineDOT’s State-High Signal Replacement following determination of feasibility. ●​ Cost and Funding: Preliminary estimates suggest a $5 million cost to the City for additional signal work and bicycle facilities. Will be refined as bicycle alternative and preliminary design proceed. ●​ Status and Next Steps: MaineDOT signal project funded and Council has approved supporting work associated with two-way conversion as well as bicycle facilities. MaineDOT had an update meeting on the signal project week of 2/10/25. City has requested MaineDOT establish a Two-Party Agreement, also directed by the Council. The City’s consultant is completing assessment for three bicycle alternatives along or near State Street this summer. ●​ City Priorities & Concerns: ○​ Determining most appropriate design of bicycle facilities (likely on State Street) ○​ Obtaining Two-Party Agreement with MaineDOT ○​ Coordination with York Street and Forest Avenue efforts as work continues 4 Page 10 Union Branch and Union Branch Connector Pathways These pathways will fill gaps in the existing pathway network from Forest Avenue to the Fore River Parkway Trail pathway when completed. The Union Branch Pathway will convert the rail line from Forest Avenue to Park Avenue to a shared use pathway (0.7 miles). It will include a 12’ paved pathway, pathway lighting, landscaping, connections to Deering Oaks Park, Fitzpatrick Stadium and Hadlock Field and a stone dust jogging path by infilling between the remaining rails. The Union Branch Connector will cross Park Avenue to Valley Street, Congress Street and connect to the Fore River Parkway Trail. ●​ Cost and Funding: The Union Branch Pathway design is funded with 80% federal/20% local funding. The pathway’s construction is funded 100% by state funding up to $2.8M as well as a CIP allocation for costs the MaineDOT construction funding won’t cover (e.g., landscaping). The Union Branch Connector is funded through design with 80% federal/20% local funding. There is no construction funding currently. ●​ Status and Next Steps: The final design bid documents for the Union Branch Path were completed in April and are currently being reviewed by the City’s Purchasing Department with the project aiming to go out to bid in June for construction to begin in Summer 2025. The design of the second phase, the Union Branch Connector, is anticipated to be completed by Spring 2026. West Commercial Street Pathway The West Commercial Street Pathway will, when completed, extend from the terminus of the Fore River Parkway Trail path at Cassidy Point Drive to High Street/Hobson’s Landing. Phase I was completed by MaineDOT in 2018 as part of an International Marine Terminal expansion project. Phase II, from the Fore River Parkway Trail to the Star Match Building, was completed Summer 2024. Much of it was constructed as part of the site development process of the VA Clinic. The remaining segment (Phase III, 0.5 miles) is from Beach Street to High Street/Hobson’s Landing. ●​ Cost and Funding: A funding application to the MaineDOT for Phase III for design and construction, approximately $1M, was submitted this summer which would be 80% federal/20% local funding. ●​ Status and Next Steps: The City has received preliminary approval on this funding application to MaineDOT for the design and construction of the final Phase III but will not be officially awarded until Spring and this project is in the City’s upcoming CIP list for funding. A City-MaineDOT agreement will be forthcoming. Comprehensive Transportation Plan As Portland continues to evolve, we must ensure that our priorities evolve as well, especially in how we move around our city. The city’s last transportation plan dates from the early 1990s, and a new transportation master plan would be a strategic document that outlines the methods and strategies to move Portland forward, ensuring that our city and its people can travel safely and 5 Page 11 sustainably into the future. The comprehensive transportation plan would engage the public, identify and prioritize transportation goals, and identify the capital projects, programs, and policy initiatives necessary to achieve them. ●​ Cost and Funding: Staff is requesting funding through the FY26 CIP. ●​ Status and Next Steps: Identify funding options, project timeline, structure process, securing funding. Staff is requesting funding through the FY26 CIP. FISCAL IMPACT While all projects carry various fiscal impacts as noted above, this item is an update only. CONCLUSION(S) This item is for information and discussion. PRIOR COUNCIL/COMMITTEE REVIEW Ongoing report. PREPARED BY Mike Murray Kevin Kraft Director Director Public Works Planning and Urban Development ATTACHMENTS N/A 6 Page 12  Sustainability Updates June 16, 2025 Energy City staff have been meeting with CMP to review their Area Grid Project involving upgrades to transmission and infrastructure in the region. City staff hope there are areas to collaborate, especially during major construction projects such as the Franklin Street Redesign. Landcare On June 11, we hosted our first Landcare Lunch Break webinar of the season. In the webinar “Cool Plant, Wrong, Place: Correctly and Effectively Removing Invasive Species”, guest speaker Mila Plasvsic, Falmouth Land Trust, discussed introduced plant species in Maine and how to effectively remove them. Watch the recording here: www.youtube.com/@SustainPortME Our next two Landcare Lunch Break webinars will cover: ●​ “Right Plant, Right Place: Finding the Right Native Plant for Your Yard” with Andrew Tufts of Maine Audubon ●​ “What Can We All Do for Stream Health? Let’s Talk About Phosphorus” with Luke Frankel of Natural Resources Council of Maine Community Engagement On May 16, the City hosted Bike to Work Day in collaboration with Bike Coalition of Maine, GoMaine, Portland Trails, and others. This annual event celebrates active commuting and coordination between the many stakeholders to make Portland a safer place to bike and walk. On May 31, we co-hosted Walk the Working Waterfront with support from the Maine Coastal Program, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, and the Waterfront Alliance. This event invites people onto real working wharves to learn about Casco Bay’s working waterfront and coastal resilience planning efforts. The press coverage was fantastic: Portland Press Herald, News Center Maine, WGME, WMTW On June 12 and 13, the Sustainability Office attended the New England Municipal Sustainability (NEMS) Network annual conference in New Bedford, Massachusetts. NEMS is a consortium of New England cities and towns that collaborate to build connections among municipal sustainability professionals in the region and share ideas and resources. The theme of this conference was on both renewable energy and port resilience. Page 13 On June 13th, we hosted a Coffee & Climate event with South Portland Stormwater Program Coordinator Aubrey Strause and Portland Stormwater Coordinator Doug Roncarati to discuss stormwater management and climate resilience. Learn how both cities are managing their stormwater programs, from urban runoff to water quality and flood control. As always, visit www.oneclimatefuture.org to sign up for our once-a-month newsletter where we share information on upcoming events, programs launching, and climate action progress. We also host monthly Climate and Coffee events, which are community conversations that happen on the 2nd Friday of the month at 9 AM. You can also follow us on social media. Instagram @sustainableportlandme // FB @SustainablePortlandME Page 14 ‭City of Portland | Planning & Urban Development Department‬ ‭Kevin D. Kraft, AICP‬‭Director‬ ‭Staff Memo To:‬ ‭Sustainability & Transportation Committee‬ ‭Councilor Regina Phillips, Chair‬ ‭MEETING DATE‬ ‭June 16, 2025‬ ‭AGENDA ITEM‬ ‭Agenda Item 3A – Complete Streets Policy Update‬ ‭PURPOSE‬ ‭To review a draft update to the City of Portland’s complete streets policy, originally adopted by the‬ ‭City Council in 2012, and provide a recommendation to the City Council.‬ ‭COMMITTEE WORK PLAN/CITY COUNCIL GOAL ALIGNMENT‬ ‭At its February 12, 2025 meeting, S&T Committee members and attendees expressed interest in‬ ‭reviewing the City’s existing complete streets policy and considering potential revisions to‬ ‭strengthen processes for integrating complete streets concepts into street design and‬ ‭construction. As a result, guiding an update to the complete streets policy was included in the‬ ‭committee’s 2025 work plan.‬ ‭The complete streets policy supports the goals outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan,‬ ‭Portland’s Plan 2030,‬‭and is also embedded in the‬‭City’s climate action plan,‬‭One Climate Future.‬ ‭BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS‬ ‭Complete streets is a transportation approach that ensures that streets are planned, designed,‬ ‭built, operated, and maintained to provide safe, convenient, and accessible travel for all users,‬ ‭including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders, regardless of age or ability. While‬ ‭the design of complete streets varies by context, they commonly include consideration of core‬ ‭elements like sidewalks, bike lanes, transit accommodations, crosswalks, lighting, and‬ ‭ADA-accessible curb ramps.‬ ‭In 2011, the City Council unanimously passed a complete streets resolution that included‬ ‭principles to guide development of a complete streets policy. The following year, staff developed‬ ‭a‬‭complete streets policy‬‭, based on best practice and stakeholder engagement (‬‭Attachment 1)‬‭. The‬ ‭Council unanimously adopted the policy on December 17, 2012.‬ ‭The complete streets policy is founded on the principle that streets should accommodate all users‬ ‭and modes of transportation. By adopting the policy, the City acknowledged that complete‬ ‭streets play a vital role in advancing key objectives, including developing a comprehensive,‬ ‭1‬ Page 15 ‭equitable, and accessible transportation network; enhancing public safety and health; supporting‬ ‭land use objectives and economic development; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and‬ ‭promoting climate resilience. The existing policy establishes a vision, defines terms of‬ ‭applicability, and outlines exceptions. The policy also suggests a number of means through‬ ‭which to implement the policy, including through education, tracking performance standards,‬ ‭and adapting and developing design guidelines with references to numerous street design‬ ‭manuals that reflect national best practice.‬ ‭PROCESS‬ ‭On March 12, 2025, the S&T Committee reviewed the City’s existing complete streets policy.‬ ‭Councilors expressed broad support for updating the policy to reflect current best practices.‬ ‭Councilors suggested engaging staff across departments in drafting revisions, and also that‬ ‭outside stakeholders be integrated in the revision process.‬ ‭Following the March 12 meeting, staff developed a scope of work for updating the policy. Among‬ ‭the principles central to this scope were:‬ ‭1.‬ ‭Build on the strengths of the existing complete streets policy‬‭.‬ ‭The City’s existing‬ ‭complete streets policy meets many of the National Complete Streets Coalition’s criteria‬ ‭for best practice. Furthermore, and more importantly, the existing policy has been‬ ‭effective in producing significant complete streets capital investments in the City of‬ ‭Portland, as well as serving as a springboard for changes in related land use and‬ ‭transportation policy. Changes should improve the policy and leave effective parts of the‬ ‭policy intact.‬ ‭2.‬ ‭Fit the policy within the context.‬ ‭As noted in the‬‭March 12 S&T Committee meeting, the‬ ‭City’s complete streets policy exists within a context of additional tools that the City uses‬ ‭to achieve complete streets ends. For instance, the City uses our land use code, including‬ ‭the site plan ordinance, to leverage private investments in complete streets. We use our‬ ‭Technical Manual‬‭to establish technical specifications‬‭for complete streets elements. Our‬ ‭policy intersects with the policies of our partners, including MaineDOT and PACTS, who‬ ‭are tied to many of our transportation investments. And lastly, the City has committed‬ ‭funding to develop a comprehensive transportation plan, which will result in‬ ‭network-level recommendations for multi-modal investments. The policy should‬ ‭augment and align with these other tools, not replace or compete with them.‬ ‭3.‬ ‭Engage stakeholders for targeted feedback.‬ ‭Portland‬‭benefits from the presence of‬ ‭strong bicycle, pedestrian, and transit advocates, who have a wide range of experiences‬ ‭with the city’s streets. These experiences should be used to help inform the policy.‬ ‭In keeping with these principles, the drafting process included the following steps.‬ ‭1.‬ ‭Assessment of the existing complete streets policy.‬‭Staff in Planning & Urban‬ ‭Development reviewed the existing complete streets policy through the lens of the‬ ‭National Complete Streets Coalition’s‬‭Complete Streets‬‭Policy Framework‬‭. This framework‬ ‭includes a rubric for assessing the strength of local complete streets policies.‬ ‭2.‬ ‭Initial drafting.‬‭Following this review, staff in Planning & Urban Development and the‬ ‭Department of Public Works collaborated on early draft revisions to the existing complete‬ ‭streets policy. These revisions were based on best practice embedded within the‬‭Complete‬ ‭2‬ Page 16  ‭Streets Policy Framework‬‭as well as careful consideration of the ways in which this best‬ ‭practice intersects with existing City processes around street design and construction,‬ ‭capital planning, data collection, and reporting, as well as other tools and guides.‬ ‭3.‬ ‭Interdepartmental review.‬‭The early drafts were shared‬‭with staff across additional‬ ‭departments, including Public Health and the Fire Department. Feedback from those‬ ‭departments was broadly supportive.‬ ‭4.‬ ‭Stakeholder engagement.‬‭Following internal review,‬‭staff shared the draft with a group‬ ‭consisting of representatives from the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, the Portland Bicycle and‬ ‭Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and Portland Trails. The group met in-person to discuss‬ ‭the draft on May 16. Feedback included both technical suggestions around the structure‬ ‭and legibility of the policy and input on specific content. Major themes included the‬ ‭desire for more clarity on the vision and goals, more specificity on exceptions to the policy‬ ‭(including the exceptions process), additional performance metrics, clear and regular‬ ‭reporting, more control on state-involved roadways, and more public engagement in the‬ ‭processes that flow from the policy.‬ ‭5.‬ ‭Public review.‬ ‭On May 20, the City published the‬‭draft online for public review. The link‬ ‭to the online comment form was shared via the City’s social media accounts and the‬ ‭Friday news round-up, as well as directly with the stakeholder group including‬ ‭representatives of the Bicycle Coalition of Maine, PBPAC, and Portland Trails. By the time‬ ‭the form closed on May 30, there were 26 respondents and comments on all elements of‬ ‭the working draft. These comments are included as‬‭Attachment 2‬‭. In addition, the‬ ‭Planning & Urban Development received one public comment via email, which is included‬ ‭as‬‭Attachment 3‬‭. In general, the public comments aligned with those from the stakeholder‬ ‭group, focusing on revising language to remove any bias toward vehicles, how and by‬ ‭whom exceptions to the policy can be granted, how broadly exceptions should be written,‬ ‭how and what performance measures are tracked, and next steps for implementation.‬ ‭6.‬ ‭Final revisions.‬ ‭Using both feedback from the stakeholder group and broader public‬ ‭comment, staff revised the draft, making significant changes to address concerns‬ ‭regarding organization, clarity, and content. The final draft was shared for feedback‬ ‭across departments, and the resulting final draft is the one before the S&T Committee‬ ‭today‬‭(Attachments 4 and 5)‬‭.‬ ‭PROPOSED UPDATES‬ ‭The proposed changes include:‬ ‭1.‬ ‭Simplifying the vision statement.‬ ‭The vision statement‬‭has been simplified, and‬ ‭goal-like statements have been moved into a separate section of the policy. Goals are now‬ ‭highlighted as a way to provide structure for performance tracking in future years.‬ ‭2.‬ ‭Adding new sections to align with national guidance.‬ ‭Based on guidance from the‬ ‭National Complete Streets Coalition’s‬‭Complete Streets Policy Framework‬‭, the updated draft‬ ‭includes new sections addressing underinvested and underserved communities and‬ ‭project prioritization. Both of these new sections make reference to the City’s CIP process,‬ ‭rather than establishing new criteria for project selection that might overlay other‬ ‭mechanisms for capital planning.‬ ‭3‬ Page 17  ‭3.‬ ‭Clarifying exceptions.‬ ‭The updated policy makes significant changes to the section on‬ ‭exceptions, clarifying the difference between instances where the policy generally does‬ ‭not apply and case-specific exceptions. The revisions also designate the City Manager or‬ ‭their designee as the granting entity, and require documented findings from the Director‬ ‭of the Department of Public Works in consultation with other City departments in order to‬ ‭grant an exception. Lastly, the case-specific exceptions have been aligned with guidance‬ ‭from the National Complete Streets Coalition.‬ ‭4.‬ ‭Adding cross-departmental references.‬‭In various parts‬‭of the policy, language was‬ ‭added to acknowledge the need for cross-departmental collaboration on the‬ ‭implementation of complete streets.‬ ‭5.‬ ‭Requiring documentation and reporting.‬ ‭In the sections‬‭on exceptions, performance‬ ‭measures, and implementation, references to documentation and reporting were added to‬ ‭ensure that there is a public mechanism for reviewing progress toward the goals of the‬ ‭complete streets policy. In addition, a timeline for annual reporting to the S&T Committee‬ ‭was added to the performance measures section.‬ ‭6.‬ ‭Updating design references.‬ ‭The design language was‬‭revised to incorporate new‬ ‭resources for best practices and integrate language from elsewhere in the policy regarding‬ ‭complete streets treatment types.‬ ‭7.‬ ‭Revising performance measures.‬‭Though the list of‬‭performance measures in the policy‬ ‭is meant as a guide rather than a binding list, the list was revised to better align with the‬ ‭goals at the outset of the policy.‬ ‭8.‬ ‭Reorganizing.‬‭Various elements of the policy were‬‭reorganized to simplify and clarify the‬ ‭policy. Redundant elements and sentences were generally eliminated.‬ ‭9.‬ ‭Creating consistency with related city terms and processes.‬ ‭Last, the proposed revisions‬ ‭include updates to reflect current day roles around project design, implementation, and‬ ‭tracking.‬ ‭FISCAL IMPACT‬ ‭Updating the City’s complete streets policy does not commit the City to allocating funding.‬ ‭However, implementing complete streets does have financial implications in terms of design,‬ ‭construction, and maintenance.‬ ‭CONCLUSION(S)‬ ‭Staff suggest that the revised Complete Streets Policy be recommended to the Council for‬ ‭approval.‬ ‭PRIOR COMMITTEE REVIEW‬ ‭On March 12, 2025, the S&T Committee received a staff presentation providing an overview of the‬ ‭existing complete streets policy and outlining potential options for updating the policy. The‬ ‭Committee discussed these options and provided direction to staff to guide the process and‬ ‭development of a final draft for their review.‬ ‭4‬ Page 18 ‭PREPARED BY‬ ‭Kevin Kraft, AICP‬ ‭Nell Donaldson‬ ‭Director‬ ‭Director of Special Projects‬ ‭Planning & Urban Development‬ ‭Planning & Urban Development‬ ‭ATTACHMENTS‬ ‭Attachment 1 – 2012 Complete Streets Policy‬ ‭Attachment 2 - Complete Streets Policy Update Form Responses‬ ‭Attachment 3 - Complete Streets Policy Update Public Comment‬ ‭Attachment 4 - Draft 2025 Complete Streets Policy Update Redline‬ ‭Attachment 5 - Draft 2025 Complete Streets Policy Update‬ ‭5‬ Page 19 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 1. Vision. The City of Portland’s streets shall sustainably provide for the needs of all current and future users and all modes in planning, programming, design, construction, reconstruction, paving, retrofit, operations, and maintenance activities. The goal is to create a connected network of facilities accommodating each mode of travel that is consistent with and supportive of the local community, recognizing that all streets are different and that the needs of various users will need to be balanced in a flexible manner. Complete Streets contribute to the city’s sustainability and livability goals including: creating a comprehensive, equitable, and fully accessible transportation network; enhancing public safety and public health; complementing land use patterns and economic development; and, achieving energy and environmental sustainability. Decisions regarding the public right-of-way shall promote use by all users and all modes in a safe, balanced and effective manner taking into account the surrounding community context and land uses. The principles and policies guiding these decisions shall be known as Complete Streets. 2. All Users and All Modes. This Policy is inclusive of all users of all ages and abilities and all modes including: motorists; bicyclists; pedestrians, including persons with disabilities which may use mobility devices such as wheelchairs; public transportation services, vehicles and patrons; freight providers; and, emergency responders. 3. All Projects. Early consideration of all modes for all users will be important to the success of this Policy. Those planning and designing projects that affect public streets will give due consideration to all roadway users from the very start of planning and design work. This will apply to all roadway projects, including those involving new construction, reconstruction, re- paving/rehabilitation or roadway retrofit. Roadway retrofits may include changes in the allocation of the right-of-way and pavement space on an existing roadway, such as changes to the number and use of lanes, changes in lane widths, and/or reconfiguration of on-street parking. When applying for and reviewing projects for funding purposes regardless of funding source, Complete Street practices and principles will be included, as appropriate, for all projects that affect the public right-of-way. 4. Exceptions. Bicyclist, pedestrian and bus transit users and facilities and their considerations shall be included in street construction, re-construction, re-paving, and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the following conditions: a. A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on temporary detour routes. 1 Page 20 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 b. The Director of Public Services, or designee, determines there is insufficient space to safely accommodate new facilities and a parallel or nearby facility provides a reasonable level of similar accessibility to destinations. c. The Director of Public Services determines there are relatively high safety risks. d. The City Council exempts a project due to the excessive and disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project in relation to the anticipated number of users. e. As part of its Development Review process the Planning Board may waive sidewalk requirements based upon its formal, structured waiver provisions. f. The City Engineer and Planning Staff jointly determine that the construction is not practically feasible or cost-effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to historic resources, streams, flood plains, remnants of native vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes or other critical areas, or due to impacts on neighboring land uses, including impact from right of way acquisition. g. The project involves a roadway that bicyclists and/or pedestrians are prohibited by law or the roadway falls outside an established existing bus transit route or where it is reasonably determined a future bus transit route will not occur. 5. Network. Complete streets are planned, designed, maintained and operated to enable safe, convenient, appealing and continuous travel networks for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move from destination to destination along and across a network of complete streets. Complete Streets can be achieved through network level improvements, through integration into single location projects, or incrementally, though a series of small improvements or maintenance activities. Transportation improvements will include facilities and amenities, as appropriate, that are recognized as contributing to Complete Streets, which may include pavement markings and signs; street and sidewalk lighting; sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements such as medians/pedestrian refuges, curb extensions and crosswalk improvements; improvements that provide ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant and full accessibility such as curb ramps and accessible pedestrian signals; transit accommodations including bus shelters and improved pedestrian access to transit stops and centers; bicycle detection at intersections and bicycle accommodations including, shared use lanes, paved shoulders, wide travel lanes or bike lanes as appropriate; bicycle parking; and street trees, landscaping, street furniture and adequate drainage facilities, including opportunities for ‘green’ stormwater management facilities and practices. 2 Page 21 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 6. All Agencies and All Roads. The design of new, rehabilitated or reconstructed facilities should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling, walking, transit and motorist use and should not preclude the provision of future improvements. The City of Portland will coordinate and collaborate with other transportation agencies including PACTS and the MaineDOT, and other users of the public right-of-way, such as utilities and public transportation providers, to ensure that the principles and practices of Complete Streets are embedded within their planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities. 7. Design Standards and Guidelines. The Department of Public Services and the Department of Planning and Urban Development shall adapt, develop and adopt inter-departmental policies, urban design guidelines, zoning and performance standards and other guidelines based upon resources identifying best practices in urban design and street design, construction, operations and maintenance. These resources include, but are not limited to: the AASHTO Green Book; AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Designing and Operating Pedestrian Facilities; AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach; NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and US Access Board Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. When fulfilling this Complete Streets policy the City will follow the design manuals, standards and guidelines above, as applicable, but should be not be precluded from considering innovative or non-traditional design options where a comparable level of safety for users is present or provided. 8. Community Context. It will be important to the success of the Complete Streets policy to ensure that the project development process includes early consideration of the land use and transportation context of the project, the identification of gaps or deficiencies in the network for various user groups that could be addressed by the project, and an assessment of the tradeoffs to balance the needs of all users. The context factors that should be given high priority include the following: a. Whether the corridor provides a primary access to one or more significant destinations such as a community or regional park or recreational area, a school, a shopping/commercial area, a local transportation center or other multimodal center, or an employment center b. Whether the corridor provides access across a natural or man-made barrier such as a river or freeway c. Whether the corridor is in an area where a relatively high number of users of non- motorized transportation modes can be anticipated d. Whether a road corridor provides, or could provide, continuity or connectivity links for an existing trail or path network e. Whether nearby and/or parallel routes provide a similar Quality or Level of Service, convenience and connectivity already exist or could be implemented. 3 Page 22 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 9. Performance Measures. The City will define performance measure to track the progress of implementation of this Policy and supporting documents, such as the Comprehensive Plan. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to: improvements in safety for all roadway users; increased capacity and connectivity for all modes of transportation; usage (such as mode share) of biking, walking and transit; miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and attainment of ADA compliance. Such measures shall be incorporated into relevant plans, manuals, policies, processes and programs. The Public Services Department shall work with other departments and agencies to track such performance measures, as appropriate. 10. Implementation. The City will develop implementation strategies that will include, but are not limited to: a. Restructuring Policies and Procedures  Evaluate and revise manuals and practices.  Develop project checklists for the incorporation of Complete Streets elements into projects, plans and other activities affecting streets and the public-right-of way.  Work with governmental agencies such as PACTS and the MaineDOT to encourage incorporation of the City’s Complete Street policy into transportation projects under their jurisdiction. b. Developing Design Policies and Guidelines  Develop and adopt street network plans.  Develop Level/Quality of Service indicators for motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycling and transit facilities and services. c. Providing Training  Continue education of staff and public officials on the principles and practices of Complete Streets. d. Improving and Updating Performance Measures  Identify performance goals and targets.  Develop tracking measures such as safety, facility use and modal shifts to gauge success. 4 Page 23  5. PRIORITIZING 3. ALL USERS + ALL UNDERINVESTED AND 7. ALL AGENCIES + ALL 8. DESIGN STANDARDS 10. PERFORMANCE 1. VISION 2. NETWORK 4. ALL PROJECTS 6. EXCEPTIONS 9. COMMUNITY CONTEXT 11. PROJECT SELECTION 12. IMPLEMENTATION MODES UNDERSERVED ROADS AND GUIDELINES MEASURES COMMUNITIES This is a slippery slope. I'd Connectivity between areas suggest tightening up how It seems that some of Too wordy for a vision. is as important as exceptions are determined these sources may Everything but the first investments within areas so it doesn't just become contradict one another? sentence is about (journey to work, for the norm to waive How about just relying on implementation, not vision. example) complete streets the NACTO guides? requirements. Performance should not be about how many facilities or miles of certain infrastructure is built (that's All projects must include all The director should not a performance measure for Is this specific to only modes? City striping and need to exempt a network plan), rather, transportation project paving projects will build This is a City policy, and You said earlier in the maintenance projects, they performance measures selection, or all capital sidewalks at the same time should be focused on City policy that "All projects should automatically be should be tied to how many planning? Will Complete if they are needed? Kudos implementation. shall accommodate all exempt. How does the City projects included Complete Streets projects get priority to the City if that is the Collaboration is great, but users", if that is the case Has the City defined what define "disproportionate Streets items as dictated over housing, case. If not, be more how does a City apply it's then how does context "equitable distribution" cost in relation to number by this policy. You are electrification, or other City prescriptive and realistic own municipal policy to change that? You've means in this case? of users?". The PW Director measuring the capital projects because of about what types of projects implemented by already committed to doing should not need to exempt performance of a policy, this policy? You've already projects can build what other units of government? everything everywhere projects when bikes and not the implementation of said "all projects", if all types of complete streets Ask nice and hope for (good luck), so how does peds are prohibited, that some other long term plan projects apply them there facilities. Don't be compliance? context come into play? should be automatically for the transportation shouldn't be any that don't aspirational, be exempted. network. The plan does not advance the policy. implementable. dictate mode share, it dictates how projects are planned and what they include. This should include a definition of Street ( a street is designed as a platform for building community wealth, encouraging human All modes should not be Investments should be Complete streets should interaction and commerce treated equally. Cars are made where the tax also be a platform for We always need to be There needs to be more with slower speeds and antithetical to the definition revenue of the community building community wealth, Again, this should say that thinking about pedestrian elevated cross walks and equal access for all modes of a street and have can support the permanent Whether it's a street or a encouraging human there is a priority to non-car access and mobility. more traffic calming and of transportation) and Road historically been given maintenance. Otherwise road! interaction and commerce. travel Pedestrian access should less reliable on pedestrian (a road is a high-speed outside influence. the dense parts of the city This prioritizes people over be removed from c and d signals connection between two Complete streets should be are subsidizing the cars places, prioritizing efficient rectifying that. suburban parts of the city movement and often limiting access to maximize traffic flow ) and a commitment to honoring those definitions c. This clause seems like a loophole. It is very difficult to estimate number of users when bike infrastructure does not exist in an area. An I would love to see the city assumption may be that no Please prioritize separated collaborating with the state one will bike in that area, bike lanes and devoted to create longer multiuse but that may just be pedestrian/bike paths like paved recreation trails to because they have not the back cove trail. promote healthy Mainers! been given a safe way to do so. This clause should have a similar caveat to point b where there must be a parallel or nearby alternative route. 1 Page 24  5. PRIORITIZING 3. ALL USERS + ALL UNDERINVESTED AND 7. ALL AGENCIES + ALL 8. DESIGN STANDARDS 10. PERFORMANCE 1. VISION 2. NETWORK 4. ALL PROJECTS 6. EXCEPTIONS 9. COMMUNITY CONTEXT 11. PROJECT SELECTION 12. IMPLEMENTATION MODES UNDERSERVED ROADS AND GUIDELINES MEASURES COMMUNITIES I would add "are able to move safely and easily" - thinking about the wheelchair users who might be able to move how are you defining this sounds open-ended safely from place to place, "nearby" in point b? on enough that everyone can but do we put undue point c - how do you this seems vague. read their ideas into it. hardship on them - determine an anticipated expecting them to be able number of users? to maneuver in ways that is difficult or burdensome than we would ask an able bodied person to do. Again, I think this needs to include patterns that are predictable in order to I think this vision needs to ensure safety and include consistent and complete connection from predictable patterns one neighborhood to a next throughout the city to currently, there are many ensure safety. places in our city where bike lanes suddenly disappear If you want people to use Regarding c, I see very few bike lanes, you’ll need to bikes on the road train the city waste compared to the number of collectors not to leave the cars and in the winter, bikes bins in them which they do are almost nonexistent so all the time. On my street, I’m not sure how the cost there are no bike lanes, but of adding bike lanes is ever they pull the bins off the not disproportionate to the sidewalk and leave them number of users. out in the road. having another group makes sense but I lean weigh-in on the perhaps this decision toward NACTO over performance measures should be made by a AASHTO. Listing all of the "Streets" should be may make for more diverse n/a - standing committee to above could mean capitalized perspectives and oversight, ensure many eyes & competing "advice" and/or acknowledging the City diverse POVs/perspectives mixed messages from the ends up responsible various resources financially and otherwise A list of the underinvested Again, it would be helpful to and underserved include a list (or even just communities we're 2-3 examples!) of "user prioritizing would be groups" as the policy or city helpful. defines them. This makes sense, but only I would tighten this Commercial delivery in so much as this doesn't significantly. It is hard to vehicles may be a more preclude the creation of think of a street for which comprehensive and networks over time. one of these exemptions Fidelity to network descriptive stand in for Prioritizing the construction would not apply. I also think I would note that both connectivity should be a I think "context-specific" is freight providers. I would of complete streets exceptions should face a PACTS and MaineDOT have measure too. The worse a better word than also add ride share as a elements in dispersed yet City Council or Planning their own complete streets case with this policy is we "flexible". Flexible implies distinct category, because underserved areas of the Board vote, and not be the policies, and this section get a bunch of the ability to waive these there are places in the city city will ultimately be worse sole discretion of a should address how to unconnected projects that standards for any reason. we may want to make for underserved department that has long handle conflicts between do nothing to support context-specific street communities than focusing been focused on the needs the three separate policies increased non-motorized elements for increased on robust network of automobiles. In draft transportation. rideshare use (waiting development that will run scenario, the DPW Director areas, etc). through both privileged and is playing the role of both underserved communities jury and executioner. 2 Page 25  5. PRIORITIZING 3. ALL USERS + ALL UNDERINVESTED AND 7. ALL AGENCIES + ALL 8. DESIGN STANDARDS 10. PERFORMANCE 1. VISION 2. NETWORK 4. ALL PROJECTS 6. EXCEPTIONS 9. COMMUNITY CONTEXT 11. PROJECT SELECTION 12. IMPLEMENTATION MODES UNDERSERVED ROADS AND GUIDELINES MEASURES COMMUNITIES These exceptions are excessively broad, essentially making this entire policy non-binding and leaves far too much at the discretion of the This statement reads as Director of Public Works. very non-committal and The person in that role will hedging about what would be empowered to make be done differently from policy decisions about 1) how roadways are currently what is “excessive and planned and designed. If disproportionate” cost for a the purpose of this whole safer street, based on their effort is to correct for the own guess at the unsafe and overly anticipated number of car-focused design of our users (which would be current road network at the impossible to accurately expense of all other users, forecast before the then there should be more improved facility is built of a *why* statement and more pedestrian/bike incorporated into this, even demand is induced), 2) if it’s pointing back to what is “insufficient space” Vision Zero as the more for these new facilities This should include policy-focused document. (insufficient within the specific about where the existing curb lines? reporting of performance For instance, the The first line should begin Insufficient without metrics will be happening “Accounting for the needs “Streets in Portland…”, removing a car lane? This entire section in effect (who are they reported to, of all roadway users” rather than “Complete Without removing street duplicates of the caveats in will there be public access statement should be Streets in Portland…”. parking?) and what section 6 (“Exceptions”). and a forum for followed by a more Overall this is a good Complete Streets is the constitutes “reasonably Why continue to add more feedback?)—and language affirmative statement of summary, but the last line policy name, but shouldn’t similar” access on a nearby In the types of possible boxes that need to be that creates more intent: “…from the very start Great! Can the reporting of should be an “and” the implementation/intent street (putting aside that bicycle facilities, ticked before a safer, more transparency into any of planning and design these performance statement—indicating that of that policy be that all Again, the first line should drivers are never expected “curb-separated lanes” accessible, and improved exceptions given for work, with special priority measures be codified in a network improvement, streets are being planned, just read “…and to take a less direct route should be included as a street for pedestrians and projects (once an exception given to the safety and regular presentation to the single location projects, designed, maintained, and constructing streets”, so all to find a ‘“reasonably distinct facility, to cyclists can be is documented, who’s accessibility of more Sustainability & *and* incremental operated according to streets are benefitting from similar” road for driving, Great! differentiate from implemented? It should Great! getting that information?), vulnerable roadway users Transportation committee small/improvements will be those principals? Right now these priorities, under the and the expectation that separated bike lanes, which instead be the default, and a higher barrier for like pedestrians and of the City Council, so the used to meet these goals, this reads as though “complete streets” policy pedestrians and cyclists could be as limited as a without needing to justify it approval of exceptions than cyclists, in accordance with public has easy and rather than giving the streets don’t need to meet umbrella. will do so is inherently painted buffer, providing with possible destinations the discretion of the Public the city’s Vision Zero predictable access to this option of defaulting to those standards until inequitable), 3) what is “a much less safety for bike (all sorts of people go to all Works Director (for goals.” information? small, incremental they’ve been deemed current or future need” for lane users. sorts of places), land use instance, a vote of the improvements only. ‘complete’, and others get a these facilities, when the context that leads to Sustainability & Also, there’s mention of pass on accommodating current built environment is guesswork about number Transportation committee changing the number of the users mentioned in the so hostile to pedestrians of non-car-driving road of the City Council)—so lanes, but only the second half of the and cyclists, and therefore users, etc. that the default is for these “reconfiguration” of statement. some number of people policies to be implemented, on-street parking, without who would choose to travel and adhering to the City’s the specific option for by these modes (helping to Vision Zero goals is the removal if safety or establish the “need” for path of least resistance. accessibility needs to take them) are preemptively priority. forced into driving out of a concern for their safety. The selective removal of certain on-street parking These exceptions should spaces (for instance, near be narrowed considerably, intersections to improve and any project being given sight lines) is a core aspect an exception should be of Vision Zero when done required to petition for it correctly—like in Hoboken, (with documentation) at a NJ, which has gone over public forum where eight years without a traffic comment can be death—and this option given—ideally the should be clearly Sustainability and authorized in a complete Transportation committee streets policy, despite any of the City Council—so anticipated pushback. these decisions are being made out in the open and with the ability for the public to weigh in on what are ultimately public policy decisions. 3 Page 26  5. PRIORITIZING 3. ALL USERS + ALL UNDERINVESTED AND 7. ALL AGENCIES + ALL 8. DESIGN STANDARDS 10. PERFORMANCE 1. VISION 2. NETWORK 4. ALL PROJECTS 6. EXCEPTIONS 9. COMMUNITY CONTEXT 11. PROJECT SELECTION 12. IMPLEMENTATION MODES UNDERSERVED ROADS AND GUIDELINES MEASURES COMMUNITIES Items c. and e. include the ideas of "anticipated use" and "future need". These types of anticipatory metrics should not be relied on solely to waive the Complete Streets policy, for it it unclear how those metrics are extrapolating use. "Anticipated use" and In areas that snow, "future need" often rely too physically separating cars heavily on scaling up from non-cars becomes current use to the proposed increasingly complicated infrastructure. Non-driving from a plowing-logistics infrastructure use, perspective. This does not especially in areas that mean however that currently have poor physical barrier use should non-driving infrastructure be underutilized in will grow and respond to Portland. Plowing better infrastructure with solutions should be pitched more of a positive alongside separated bike feedback loop/ "snow ball" lane infrastructure. model. Take Washington Ave for example, where there is one bike lane running Southeast. If another bike lane is added going Northwest, the projected bike use won't double, it should more-than double. I trust you are up to date with current research and are doing the best thing for the city. Some.of the changes have been very I absolutely love that this confusing as a driver so includes trees, landscaping, more signage would be street furniture, adequate great. Or perhaps put drainage! This makes a Is there another solution reflective paint/ tape to huge impact on how the Separated bike lanes would besides the knobby plastic show where to go or not to I love this! It will also make city feels to both it's be great, it would give rectangles that break as go. I'm forgetting the street walking around the city feel residents and people drivers a good visual of anti slip things where the name but when your driving safer for folks coming from coming in to visit. It where not to go, the lines sidewalk ends and street behind the art museum and small towns into the big I think it's important to contributes to the fade and lots of drivers go begins? They not only don't it's 2 lanes, you go through city. I hear safety concerns This is fair work well with other happiness and vibrancy of Great thinking! way over the lines or just last but it's more plastic the light twords the old frequently from folks when agency's, glad to hear it. the community, no one's don't understand them. You waste that goes into the mercy and there is a large they learn I live in Portland. feels good in a concrete can use the side walk sewer and then the ocean. curb that is now protecting I don't agree but I think jungle. Concrete jungles plows to clear the bike They also sometimes come parking and the street goes perception is important. dont make you want to lanes in the winter. up on the sides and are trip down to one lane when you walk around, check things hazards. cross over (state st?). out and shop it makes you There was always a curb want to drive, park and get there but now it sticks way your item as quickly as out, it threw off drivers for possible and leave. quite a while, they would dart in front of you when they realized there was a curb there. A better warning would be good! This feels like a lot of This is a little long and great, maybe include that it love it. Would like to have great great great great great exceptions. I'm particularly fine great confusing, sort of feels like will be presented to the city great some specific smart goals, concerned about B, C, D, ... it's just creating more council in January of each like by what date will the there are lots of places excuses to not do complete year - Make a specific design manual be updated? 4 Page 27  5. PRIORITIZING 3. ALL USERS + ALL UNDERINVESTED AND 7. ALL AGENCIES + ALL 8. DESIGN STANDARDS 10. PERFORMANCE 1. VISION 2. NETWORK 4. ALL PROJECTS 6. EXCEPTIONS 9. COMMUNITY CONTEXT 11. PROJECT SELECTION 12. IMPLEMENTATION MODES UNDERSERVED ROADS AND GUIDELINES MEASURES COMMUNITIES Ideally this policy would be This is the most important written in such a way that part. exceptions are not necisary. MAKE SURE THE S&T COMMITTEE discusses this I don't think one person part first, and not at the end should be responsible for of the meeting when they determining an exemption are all very tired. is necisary; it should be This is a really big problem ideally a board like the one If the vision is the executive in Portland: those with the recommended by PBPAC, summary, this is kind of the This might want to shout Really this needs, and will time and energy have safer which would include the conclusion, which should out to the Master I would re-order this: have, it's own process, but, I streets than those who DPW director, but also really have been first. transportation plan: I see a "Pedestrians (including think it's important to don't have free time to other perspectives. cohesive network as being persons with disabilities), stress: It's very long, and a little advocate for them. This should specifically call impossible without that Public Transportation A)intuitive legible design hard to parse. One problem with This is really contingent on out the technical manual plan. Maybe something services (and access to The other option is to make B)cohesive design that I think it would benefit from I might say it in an even exemption A: it mentions having clear goals in the All projects should advance and need for a master like: "Plans at all levels, public transportation by clear that we shouldn't matches similar designs more breakdown between This seems at first glance more neutral tone: what we detours: detours should This is really something vision section of this complete streets; any transportation plan: we especially network wide those with disabilities), coordinate with partners if within Portland vision and Goals, possibly to conflict with some of the should be doing is consider the need for all that needs to be included in document. project that doesn't needs really aren't going to get plans, will ensure Bicyclists, E-mobility device they're not following our Everything has to start with the goals as bullet exceptions in section 6... distributing complete users to continue using the the master plan... This also needs be more to be re-evaluated and set anywhere without them. It pedestrians, bicyclists, users {term agnostic, but Complete Streets policy or somewhere, and hopefully points: without very clear streets based on risk infrastructure. A lack of concrete; its hard to say aside until it does. sort of does in a., but, could motorists and transit riders they should be mentioned, Vision Zero policy.... the master plan will allow goals success will be hard harassment not on any detours for bikes, what it means right now. be more specific: if the of all ages and abilities are we can't get rid of them} us to plan a network of to measure. other metric: dangerous pedestrians can create planning board doesn't able to safely move from Emergency responders, intuitive and legible streets streets need to be serious safety concerns. have time for it, the Council destination to destination Freight providers and which clearly guide addressed, and should be needs to give the technical along and across a network Motorists" everyone along the safest addressed regardless of I think the second part of B manual to a special task of complete streets." routes. the income of those who is pretty reasonable, esp. force, or set up a complete live along them. the parallel provision: the streets Committee, or network needs to be something; they need to complete, not each street. commit to doing whatever Thats something I hope the they have to do to get it Master plan process can over the line when they really nail down: we need a pass this policy. plan for a network for every street! There must be a better way than painting new lines every year. We go without visible lines for months and months before the painting is complete. Please improve that situation. City's climate plan also requires VMT (vehicle miles traveled) reductions, which Vision should include a "f. The volume, average could also be inferred from reference to the city's speeds, and crash rates of annual roadway AADT climate pollution reduction motor vehicle traffic on the counts. mandates, which require corridor, which collectively Would be great if the City reducing the amount of indicate the level of risk to Another recommended Council could also set motorized vehicle traffic in roadway users. More performance measure: aside a dedicated source of the city: "eeds of all current Add the word "connected" Thanks for including this. dangerous roadways square footage of funding for Complete and future users and should require more robust impervious City of Portland Streets improvements, e.g. transportation modes AND protection measures for paved roadway area. 10% of parking meter fees. FACILITATE NECESSARY vulnerable road users and Complete streets policies REDUCTIONS IN MOTOR more robust speed should reduce this and thus VEHICLE TRAFFIC management interventions deliver long-term savings to VOLUMES in planning, etc." for drivers." the city's operations budget and stormwater treatment costs. looks good! nice nice 5 Page 28  5. PRIORITIZING 3. ALL USERS + ALL UNDERINVESTED AND 7. ALL AGENCIES + ALL 8. DESIGN STANDARDS 10. PERFORMANCE 1. VISION 2. NETWORK 4. ALL PROJECTS 6. EXCEPTIONS 9. COMMUNITY CONTEXT 11. PROJECT SELECTION 12. IMPLEMENTATION MODES UNDERSERVED ROADS AND GUIDELINES MEASURES COMMUNITIES Section c should be struck, unless a similar judgment evaluating the comparable anticipated number of car or truck/motor vehicle users of a given roadway or street is also undertaken. This section implicitly values operators of motorized vehicles over I am concerned that the those using other modes of final phrase of the last transport, and is counter to It's not clear why the bullet point of section a. the policy's stated goals of modifier "a relatively high could undermine the equitable accessibility. number of" is needed to successful implementation SImiliarly, Section d should refer to "'users of of Portland's Complete Would a semiannual basis either be struck or non-motorized Streets Policy, because it for evaluation performance reworded to include a transportation modes" in seems as if it implies there measures be possible? similar judgment of the section c. To ensure could be a weakening of Annual seems almost too feasibility of costs of provision of equitable Portland's Complete infrequent, given the facilities for motor vehicle access in line with the Streets Policy when urgency of the safety users, so as not to prioritize policy, it seems that the aligning it with, for outcomes of the project motor vehicle users and phrase should be struck example, the MaineDOT's and the background of facilities for motor vehicle from the section, unless complete streets policies. recent pedestrian and use over other modes of similar constraint or Perhaps the word cyclist deaths in Portland. transport. modification is used to "encourage in section a, Again, the second clause of refer to the number of bullet point three, should be Section e. should be struck users of motorized changed to something like due to its transportation modes. "ensure," and "in alignment prioritizing/valuing motor with their complete streets vehicle users and their policies" should be struck. facilities over other modes of transport. (I am referring to the section that reads "or there is a documented absence of current and future need (e.g. the roadway falls outside an established existing or planned transit route).") Call out Metro specifically here Too restrictive for No need to prioritize No need to prioritize increasing bike/ped. Too motorists motorists much power for DPW to override Your goals are too vague and don’t focus on concrete markers- what does equitability matter if Irrelevant - prioritize what Motorists should be least you build a bicycle lane no makes the most sense for prioritized and even one wants to use? better roads and goals to deprioritized. You should benefit the most. That will consider closing off whole Include closers of certain D is too restrictive and Better would be this: in turn benefit these intersections to make roads converting to strictly allows for abuse to prevent “The goal is to create a communities. IE block Include traffic reduction, squares or walkable plazas public space with special good projects from being functional, well-designed, parts of forest ave to accident reduction and do drive more urban locks or guards for built. Allow for these kinds and intelligently connected commuters so public buses increased pedestrian usage community congregation emergency vehicles and of reviews after the fact but street network that can travel more regularly zones : ie intersections on public transport not for stalling supports all modes of and faster and now that forest Ave /allen Ave travel—while prioritizing benefits these Stevens Ave and pedestrians, cyclists, and communities because their woodfords corner. public transit, and reducing commute is cut in half or restricting car access where appropriate to make better use of urban space.” 6 Page 29  5. PRIORITIZING 3. ALL USERS + ALL UNDERINVESTED AND 7. ALL AGENCIES + ALL 8. DESIGN STANDARDS 10. PERFORMANCE 1. VISION 2. NETWORK 4. ALL PROJECTS 6. EXCEPTIONS 9. COMMUNITY CONTEXT 11. PROJECT SELECTION 12. IMPLEMENTATION MODES UNDERSERVED ROADS AND GUIDELINES MEASURES COMMUNITIES Again, the words are correct. Do it. Implement it. In addition to new Do not allow for Continuous is a key word investments and exceptions. Enforce TRUE here that hasn't been fully improvements this should Exceptions defeat the IMPLEMENTATION. I can implemented and still also include maintenance initiative if it isn't think of multiple "new plagues new designs and of existing infrastructure in consistently applied. Funds builds" where there is renovated streets. all neighborhoods. Street must be allocated for the The words are correct. Do technically a sidewalk Especially when and sidewalk sweeping is ongoing work needed to it. Implement it. Prove the installed after all is said considering new and novel non-existent in low income commit to and implement statement is true by and done but water pipes bicycle and pedestrian neighborhoods, such as this policy. Without funding the implementation and other utilities sticking infrastructure, we need to Parkside where you can committed funds, this is a of ways that serve all users, out of a building into the ensure they connect to the see leaves piled on the collection of words on not simply those in private sidewalk space prevent intersecting infrastructure sides of Mellen St all year paper and the internet with vehicles. passage, not only of which may be of a different round which accumulates no teeth to allow it to come wheelchairs or strollers, but design. Or commit to a trash and dangerous waste to fruition and start to in some cases even a design and require it to be such as needles, making protect and serve all users single walking pedestrian. followed through on for inequitable access to of Portland's streets. This is also an example.of everywhere. safe parking, biking and a dead ending sidewalk. walking. See Avon St post-Hiawatha build. difficult to parse and run-on more run-on sentences. c is hard to support. If you sentences. Suggestion: The Suggestion: Complete Suggestion: This policy is dont build it, they won't "ADA compliance". For goal is to create an streets in Portland shall be inclusive of users of all come. Like bike lanes. You the last sentence, try: The equitable, accessible and planned, designed, These run on sentences are ages and abilities and all Suggestion: This includes have to build them before City shall follow the design connected network to maintained, and operated really hard to read. modes including: all publicly- and folks will use them. Nor can manuals, standards and accommodate all modes of to enable safe, convenient, Suggestion: the City of Suggestions: The City of motorists; bicyclists; privately-initiated roadway you predict how many will guidelines above as travel. Outcomes will align appealing, and continuous Portland shall identify and Portland shall collaborate pedestrians,(including projects; new construction, use it because other applicable to the Complete with the City’s commitment travel networks for all prioritize UNDERSERVED interdepartmentally, and those with disabilities, reconstruction, facilities may spring up in Streets Policy. Innovative to safety, Vision Zero, users. Pedestrians, communities with the externally with PACTS, wheelchair users) asl well repaving/rehabilitation, the future that could use and non-traditional design appropriate land use, bicyclists, motorists and goal... Maine DOT, utilities and as public transportation resurfacing, restriping, or non-automobile access. options will be considered sustainability, and public transit riders of all ages METRO to coordinate vehicles and patrons; roadway retrofit. Thompsons Point, for ex. as long as comparable health. All streets are and abilities must be able Complete Street practices. freight providers, and Much better served by levels of user safety is different and the needs of to safely arrive at their emergency responders. bicycles, due to limited provided. all users must be flexibly destinations via a network space for parking. balanced. of complete streets. I am a bit nervous that item D is overly broad especially Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good Sounds good with regards to "impacts on neighboring land uses" OK. This is the first mention of any of the nitty-gritty, and what it is saying is that two departments shall take an eclectic approach There ought to also be This sounds more like a See above. I would rewrite These are quite a lot of drawing from a potpourri of some language about This section is pretty good, catalog of terms than a this to say “Portland show Again this could go into the exceptions, and leaves a lot manual standards evaluation here. Just at a “ Underserved communities Again, this section could be it would be nice to have clear vision. Why not use all create a network of definition of complete The section could be to the discretion of one practices guidelines as they You could substitute the project included “current shall receive priority when shortened if you put a more specifics though. You these words in terms to complete streets“ streets. A description that written to say “all projects person. It would be nice to see fit. word “constructed” for the best practices“ doesn’t determining which areas robust definition of the might also change “biking Nice and concise define complete streets, I like to use the terms includes both wheelchair will be built to the standard have a tool kit of “micro This, is not a policy. This is word “Man made” (and yes, automatically ensure shall receive a complete words “complete streets“ at “to “bicycling“ or “cycling.“ and then just say “complete motorists and bicyclists (as users and freight providers of complete streets“ improvements” they can be an arbitrary and ad hoc man-made is one word). success. These projects streets makeover“ the onset of this document Biking “generally refers to streets“ henceforth in the opposed to drivers and is a little weird. easily implemented in all or practice albeit one that is need to be continually motorcycle riding.” document? bikers). most of these cases. guided by a “vision“ evaluated, and if necessary, It would be nice if revised. advocates and community stakeholders would be mentioned in the list of Resources. 7 Page 30 Page 31 Complete Streets Policy City of Portland, Maine DRAFT 2025 REVISIONS 1. Vision. The City of Portland shall develop and maintain a safe, predictable, continuous, convenient, accessible, and connected network of streets that provide for the year-round needs of all current and future users and transportation modes. 2. Goals. The goals of this policy are to: Ensure that pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities are able to move from destination to destination along and across a network of complete streets; Improve multi-modal safety outcomes in alignment with the City’s initiatives such as Vision Zero; Complement land use patterns to support local businesses, enhance neighborhood livability, and foster people-centered public spaces; Support the City’s sustainability goals, including a shift toward multi-modal transportation, as defined in One Climate Future, the City’s climate action plan; Provide access to and connectivity between all neighborhoods, with a focus on those that are historically underinvested and underserved; and Enhance public health by encouraging active transportation and improvements to air and water quality; recognizing that all streets are different and that the needs of various users will need to be balanced in a context-sensitive manner. 3. All Projects. Complete streets shall be achieved through network-level planning, network-level improvements, integration into single location projects, and incrementally, through a series of small improvements or maintenance activities. Those planning and designing projects that affect streets within the public right-of-way shall account for the needs of all street users and all modes from the very start of planning and design work. This includes all publicly- and privately-initiated street projects, including those involving new construction, reconstruction, repaving/rehabilitation, resurfacing, restriping, or street retrofit as well as private development projects subject to site plan review. Street retrofits may include changes in the allocation of the right-of-way and pavement space on an existing street, such as changes to the number and use of lanes, changes in lane widths, and/or reconfiguration or removal of on-street parking. 4. All Users and All Modes. This policy is inclusive of users of all ages and abilities and all modes including: bicyclists; pedestrians, including persons with disabilities who may use mobility devices such as wheelchairs; public transportation services, vehicles, and patrons; freight and delivery providers; emergency responders; and motorists. 5. Prioritizing underinvested and underserved communities. In planning, designing, and constructing streets, and in alignment with the Capital Improvement Plan process, the City of Portland shall prioritize equitable community investments, with the goal of ensuring the equitable distribution of complete streets benefits across the city and equitable access to a network of complete streets that provide connections to important destinations. Page 32 Complete Streets Policy City of Portland, Maine DRAFT 2025 REVISIONS 6. Exceptions. This policy shall not apply when a project involves a right-of-way where bicyclists and/or pedestrians are prohibited by law or when a project involves only ordinary maintenance or emergency repair activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on temporary detour routes. In addition, the City Manager or their designee may approve exceptions to this policy based on documented findings presented by the Director of Public Works or their designee, in consultation with other City departments, which demonstrate one or more of the following conditions: There is insufficient space to safely accommodate new or enhanced facilities and a parallel or nearby facility provides reasonably similar accessibility to destinations. The cost or right-of-way impacts of establishing new or enhanced facilities as part of a project would be excessive and disproportionate in relation to the anticipated number of users. Establishing new or enhanced facilities is not practically feasible or cost-effective because of significant adverse impacts to historic resources, streams, floodplains, remnants of native vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes or other critical areas; or due to impacts on neighboring land uses (including impacts from right-of-way acquisition); or There is a documented absence of current and future need (e.g. the street falls outside an established existing or planned transit route). Sidewalk or transit shelter requirements for a private development project may also be formally waived based upon the waiver provisions within Chapter 14 of the Code of Ordinances. 7. All Agencies and All Streets. The City of Portland shall coordinate and collaborate internally across departments, with other transportation agencies including PACTS and the MaineDOT, and with other users of the public right-of-way, such as utilities and public transportation providers, including Greater Portland METRO, to ensure that the principles and practices of complete streets are embedded within their planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities in the City of Portland. 8. Design Standards and Guidelines. The Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning & Urban Development shall incorporate complete streets best practices into street design, construction, operations, and maintenance, using resources including but not limited to the most recent versions of: the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Designing and Operating Pedestrian Facilities; AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; NACTO Urban Street Design Guide; NACTO Transit Street Design Guide; NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide; MassDOT’s Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; US Access Board Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines; and Tactical Urbanism: Short Term Action for Long Term Change. Transportation projects shall include facilities and features that support and enhance complete streets, such as: a. Pavement markings and signs; b. Street and sidewalk lighting; Page 33 Complete Streets Policy City of Portland, Maine DRAFT 2025 REVISIONS c. Sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements such as medians/pedestrian refuges, curb extensions, raised intersections, pedestrian hybrid beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), and crosswalk improvements; d. Shared streets or street closures to motor vehicle traffic; e. Improvements that provide ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant and full accessibility such as curb ramps and accessible pedestrian signals; f. Traffic calming improvements; g. Transit accommodations including bus shelters, improved pedestrian access to transit stops and centers, and where appropriate transit priority treatments such as dedicated lanes and queue jumpers; h. Bicycle detection at intersections and bicycle accommodations including curb-separated bicycle lanes, separated bicycle lanes, shared use lanes, paved shoulders, wide travel lanes, or in-street bicycle lanes; and i. Street trees, landscaping, street furniture, bicycle parking, and adequate drainage facilities, including opportunities for ‘green’ stormwater management facilities and practices. When fulfilling this complete streets policy the City shall follow the design manuals, standards, and guidelines above, as applicable, but should not be precluded from considering innovative or non- traditional design options where a comparable level of safety for users is present or provided. 9. Community Context. All projects that affect streets within the public right-of-way shall include early consideration of the existing and planned land use context, the identification of gaps or deficiencies in the transportation network for various user groups that could be addressed by the project, and an assessment of the tradeoffs to balance the needs of all users. 10. Performance Measures. The City will define performance measures to track the implementation and outcomes of this policy. Such measures may include, but not be limited to: percentage of transportation projects which implement complete streets elements; distribution of complete streets projects; safety for all street users; capacity and connectivity for all modes of transportation (e.g. miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities); usage (such as mode share) of bicycling, walking, and transit, including for school-based trips; and attainment of ADA compliance. Such measures shall be incorporated into relevant plans, manuals, policies, processes, and programs. The Departments of Public Works and Planning & Urban Development shall work with other departments and agencies to track and report on such performance measures on an annual basis. An annual report covering the prior year will be presented to the City Council’s Sustainability and Transportation Committee (or successor committee overseeing transportation) by January 31 of each year. 11. Project selection and development. In long-range and capital planning, the City of Portland shall prioritize projects that advance this complete streets policy, including through pilot projects. 12. Implementation. The City will implement this policy by: a. Restructuring Policies and Procedures • Evaluating and revising manuals and practices to ensure that they support safe, accessible, and complete streets design. Page 34 Complete Streets Policy City of Portland, Maine DRAFT 2025 REVISIONS • Developing project checklists for the incorporation of complete streets elements into projects, plans, and other activities affecting streets and the public-right-of way, including documentation for exceptions. • Working with governmental agencies such as PACTS and the MaineDOT to ensure incorporation of the City’s complete streets policy into transportation projects under their jurisdiction. • Creating interdisciplinary project teams to review street designs for multi-modal performance. b. Providing Training • Continuing education of staff and public officials on the principles and practices of complete streets. c. Improving and Updating Performance Measures • Identifying and updating performance goals and targets. • Annually reporting on progress toward performance goals and targets and exceptions granted under Section 6 of this policy. Page 35 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 1. Vision. The City of Portland’s Portland shall develop and maintain a safe, predictable, continuous, convenient, accessible, and connected network of streets shall sustainably that provide for the year-round needs of all current and future users and all transportation modes. in planning, programming, design, construction, reconstruction, paving, retrofit, operations, and maintenance activities. 2. Goals. The goals of this policy are to:The goal is to create a connected network of facilities accommodating each mode of travel that is consistent with and supportive of the local community, Ensure that pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities are able to move from destination to destination along and across a network of complete streets; Improve multi-modal safety outcomes in alignment with the City’s initiatives such as Vision Zero; Complement land use patterns to support local businesses, enhance neighborhood livability, and foster people-centered public spaces; Support the City’s sustainability goals, including a shift toward multi-modal transportation, as defined in One Climate Future, the City’s climate action plan; Provide access to and connectivity between all neighborhoods, with a focus on those that are historically underinvested and underserved; and Enhance public health by encouraging active transportation and improvements to air and water quality; recognizing that all streets are different and that the needs of various users will need to be balanced in a flexiblecontext-sensitive manner. Complete Streets contribute to the city’s sustainability and livability goals including: creating a comprehensive, equitable, and fully accessible transportation network; enhancing public safety and public health; complementing land use patterns and economic development; and, achieving energy and environmental sustainability. Decisions regarding the public right-of-way shall promote use by all users and all modes in a safe, balanced and effective manner taking into account the surrounding community context and land uses. The principles and policies guiding these decisions shall be known as Complete Streets. 2. All Users and All Modes. This Policy is inclusive of all users of all ages and abilities and all modes including: motorists; bicyclists; pedestrians, including persons with disabilities which may use mobility devices such as wheelchairs; public transportation services, vehicles and patrons; freight providers; and, emergency responders. 3. All Projects. Early consideration of all modes for all users will be important to the success of this Policy. Complete Streets canshall be achieved through network -level planning, network-level improvements, through integration into single location projects, andor incrementally, through a series of small improvements or maintenance activities. Those planning and designing projects that affect public streets will give due consideration towithin the public right-of-way shall account for the needs of all roadwaystreet users and all modes from the very start of planning and design work. This will apply Page 36 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 toincludes all roadwaypublicly- and privately-initiated street projects, including those involving new construction, reconstruction, re-pavingrepaving/rehabilitation or roadway, resurfacing, restriping, or street retrofit. Roadway as well as private development projects subject to site plan review. Street retrofits may include changes in the allocation of the right-of-way and pavement space on an existing roadwaystreet, such as changes to the number and use of lanes, changes in lane widths, and/or reconfiguration or removal of on-street parking. When applying for and reviewing projects for funding purposes regardless of funding source, Complete Street practices and principles will be included, as appropriate, for all projects that affect the public right- of-way. 24. All Users and All Modes. This pPolicy is inclusive of all users of all ages and abilities and all modes including: motorists; bicyclists; pedestrians, including persons with disabilities whoich may use mobility devices such as wheelchairs; public transportation services, vehicles, and patrons; freight and delivery providers; and, emergency responders; and motorists. 5. Prioritizing underinvested and underserved communities. In planning, designing, and constructing streets, and in alignment with the Capital Improvement Plan process, the City of Portland shall prioritize equitable community investments, with the goal of ensuring the equitable distribution of complete streets benefits across the city and equitable access to a network of complete streets that provide connections to important destinations. 6. Exceptions. Bicyclist, pedestrian and bus transit users and facilities and their considerations shall be included in street construction, re-construction, re-paving, and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the following conditions: This policy shall not apply when a project involves a right-of-way where bicyclists and/or pedestrians are prohibited by law or when a a. Aproject involves only ordinary maintenance or emergency repair activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair, or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on temporary detour routes. b. The In addition, the City Manager or their designee may approve exceptions to this policy based on documented findings presented by the Director of Public Services,Works or their designee, determines therein consultation with other City departments, which demonstrate one or more of the following: a. There is insufficient space to safely accommodate new or enhanced facilities and a parallel or nearby facility provides a reasonable level ofreasonably similar accessibility to destinations. c. The Director of Public Services determines there are relatively high safety risks. b. d. The City Council exempts a project due to the excessive and disproportionate The cost or right-of-way impacts of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancementnew or enhanced facilities as part of a project would be excessive and disproportionate in relation to the anticipated number of users. e. As part of its Development Review process the Planning Board may waive sidewalk requirements based upon its formal, structured waiver provisions. Page 37 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 c. f. The City Engineer and Planning Staff jointly determine that the constructionEstablishing new or enhanced facilities is not practically feasible or cost-effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to historic resources, streams, flood plainsfloodplains, remnants of native vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes or other critical areas;, or due to impacts on neighboring land uses, (including impactimpacts from right-of-way acquisition).; or c.d. There is a documented absence of current and future need (e.g. the street falls outside an established existing or planned transit route). g. The project involves a roadway that bicyclists and/or pedestrians are prohibited by law or the roadway falls outside an established existing bus transit route or where it is reasonably determined a future bus transit route will not occur. Sidewalk or transit shelter requirements for a private development project are formally waived based upon the waiver provisions within Chapter 14 of the Code of Ordinances. 5. Network. Complete streets are planned, designed, maintained and operated to enable safe, convenient, appealing and continuous travel networks for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move from destination to destination along and across a network of complete streets. Complete Streets can be achieved through network level improvements, through integration into single location projects, or incrementally, though a series of small improvements or maintenance activities. Transportation improvements will include facilities and amenities, as appropriate, that are recognized as contributing to Complete Streets, which may include pavement markings and signs; street and sidewalk lighting; sidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements such as medians/pedestrian refuges, curb extensions and crosswalk improvements; improvements that provide ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant and full accessibility such as curb ramps and accessible pedestrian signals; transit accommodations including bus shelters and improved pedestrian access to transit stops and centers; bicycle detection at intersections and bicycle accommodations including, shared use lanes, paved shoulders, wide travel lanes or bike lanes as appropriate; bicycle parking; and street trees, landscaping, street furniture and adequate drainage facilities, including opportunities for ‘green’ stormwater management facilities and practices. 7. All Agencies and All RoadsStreets. The design of new, rehabilitated or reconstructed facilities should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling, walking, transit and motorist use and should not preclude the provision of future improvements. The City of Portland shallwill coordinate and collaborate internally across departments, with other transportation agencies including PACTS and the MaineDOT, and with other users of the public right-of- way, such as utilities and public transportation providers, including Greater Portland METRO, to ensure that the principles and practices of Ccomplete Sstreets are embedded within their planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities in the City of Portland. Page 38 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 8. Design Standards and Guidelines. The Department of Public Services Works and the Department of Planning &and Urban Development shall incorporate complete streets best practices into adapt, develop and adopt inter-departmental policies, urban design guidelines, zoning and performance standards and other guidelines based upon resources identifying best practices in urban design and street design, construction, operations, and maintenance, using . These resources includeing, but are not limited to the most recent version of: the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and StreetsGreen Book; AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Designing and Operating Pedestrian Facilities; AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities; NACTO Urban Street Design Guide; NACTO Transit Street Design Guide; NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide; MassDOT’s Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide; ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach; NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide; Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; and US Access Board Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines; and Tactical Urbanism: Short Term Action for Long Term Change. Transportation improvements projects shallwill include appropriate facilities and features amenities, as appropriate, that support and enhanceare recognized as contributing to Ccomplete Sstreets, such as: a. which may include Ppavement markings and signs; b. Sstreet and sidewalk lighting; c. Ssidewalks and pedestrian safety improvements such as medians/pedestrian refuges, curb extensions, raised intersections, pedestrian hybrid beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and crosswalk improvements; d. Shared streets or street closures to motor vehicle traffic; e. Iimprovements that provide ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant and full accessibility such as curb ramps and accessible pedestrian signals; f. Traffic calming improvements; g. Ttransit accommodations including bus shelters, and improved pedestrian access to transit stops and centers, and where appropriate transit priority treatments such as dedicated lanes and queue jumpers; h. Bbicycle detection at intersections and bicycle accommodations including curb-separated bicycle lanes, separated bicycle lanes,, shared use lanes, paved shoulders, wide travel lanes or in-street bike lanes as appropriate; and i. bicycle parking; and sStreet trees, landscaping, street furniture, bicycle parking, and adequate drainage facilities, including opportunities for ‘green’ stormwater management facilities and practices. When fulfilling this cComplete sStreets policy the City willshall follow the design manuals, standards, and guidelines above, as applicable, but should be not be precluded from considering innovative or non- traditional design options where a comparable level of safety for users is present or provided. 9. Community Context. It will be important to All projects that affect streets within the success public right-of the Complete Streets policy to ensure that the project development process includes-way shall include early consideration of the existing and planned land use and transportation context of the project, the identification of gaps or deficiencies in the transportation network for various user groups that could be addressed by the project, and an assessment of the tradeoffs to balance the needs of all users. The context factors that should be given high priority include the following: Page 39 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 a. Whether the corridor provides a primary access to one or more significant destinations such as a community or regional park or recreational area, a school, a shopping/commercial area, a local transportation center or other multimodal center, or an employment center b. Whether the corridor provides access across a natural or man-made barrier such as a river or freeway c. Whether the corridor is in an area where a relatively high number of users of non-motorized transportation modes can be anticipated d. Whether a road corridor provides, or could provide, continuity or connectivity links for an existing trail or path network e. Whether nearby and/or parallel routes provide a similar Quality or Level of Service, convenience and connectivity already exist or could be implemented. 10. Performance Measures. The City will define performance measures to track the progress of implementation and outcomes of this Policy and supporting documents, such as the Comprehensive Plan.policy. Such measures shallmay include, but not be limited to: improvements inpercentage of transportation projects which implement complete streets elements; distribution of complete streets projects; safety for all roadwaystreet users; increased capacity and connectivity for all modes of transportation; (e.g. miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities); usage (such as mode share) of bikingbicycling, walking, and transit; miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including for school-based trips; and attainment of ADA compliance. Such measures shall be incorporated into relevant plans, manuals, policies, processes and programs. The Departments of Public Services DepartmentWorks and Planning & Urban Development shall work with other departments and agencies to track and report on such performance measures, as appropriate. on an annual basis. An annual report covering the prior year will be presented to the City Council’s Sustainability and Transportation Committee (or successor committee overseeing transportation) by January 31 of each year. 11. Project selection and development. In long-range and capital planning, the City of Portland shall prioritize projects that advance this complete streets policy, including through pilot projects. 11.12. Implementation. The City will develop implementation strategies that will include, but are not limited to:implement this policy by: a. a. Restructuring Policies and Procedures • EvaluateEvaluating and reviserevising manuals and practices to ensure that they support safe, accessible, and complete streets design. • DevelopDeveloping project checklists for the incorporation of Complete Streetscomplete streets elements into projects, plans, and other activities affecting streets and the public-right-of way., including documentation for exceptions. Page 40 Complete Streets Policy December 17, 2012 City of Portland, Maine Council Order 125-12/13; Passed Unanimously 9-0 • WorkWorking with governmental agencies such as PACTS and the MaineDOT to encourageensure incorporation of the City’s cComplete sStreets policy into transportation projects under their jurisdiction. • Creating interdisciplinary project teams to review street designs for multi-modal performance. b. Developing Design Policies and Guidelines • Develop and adopt street network plans. • Develop Level/Quality of Service indicators for motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycling and transit facilities and services. b. c. Providing Training • ContinueContinuing education of staff and public officials on the principles and practices of cComplete sStreets. c. d. Improving and Updating Performance Measures • IdentifyIdentifying and updating performance goals and targets. • Develop tracking measures such as safety, facility use and modal shifts to gauge success. • Annually reporting on progress toward performance goals and targets and exceptions granted under Section 6 of this policy. Page 41 City of Portland | Executive Department Danielle P. West, City Manager To: Sustainability and Transportation Committee Councilor Regina Phillips, Chair MEETING DATE June 16, 2025 AGENDA ITEM Agenda Item 3B - Vision Zero PURPOSE Review progress following adoption of the Council Resolve to adopt Greater Portland Council of Government’s (GPCOG) Vision Zero plan and development of Quick Action Plan. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN/CITY COUNCIL GOAL ALIGNMENT This item is included in the Committee’s 2025 workplan and supported by City Council Resolve 8-24/25. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Vision Zero is a traffic safety initiative aimed at eliminating traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by prioritizing human life in transportation planning. Originating in Sweden in the 1990s, it is based on the principle that people make mistakes, but streets should be designed to prevent those mistakes from causing death or serious harm. The Greater Portland Council of Governments' (GPCOG) Vision Zero Action Plan was adopted on May 23, 2023. At its February 12, 2025 meeting, committee members and attendees expressed a desire to explore GPCOG’s Vision Zero plan and consider how to integrate into the City’s planning, programs and projects. At its March 12, 2025 meeting, the Committee voted to recommend the City Council approve a resolution that would express the City's support for adopting the Greater Portland Council of Governments' (GPCOG) Vision Zero Action Plan and commit to a goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2045. To these ends, the City Council adopted Resolve 8-24/25 (Attachment A) on April 14, 2025. As further outlined below, the Resolution aimed to broadly organize work by staff and the Committee to make progress on the Vision Zero goal over the short and long-term. 1 Page 42  Action Timeframe Status Develop Vision Zero Quick Action Plan 3 months In progress - draft plan complete Develop City’s Vision Zero Implementation Plan* 6 months In progress Update City’s Complete Streets Policy 6 months In progress - draft update complete Update Technical Manual; secure Planning Board 1 year Will commence following approval of Approval Complete Streets Policy. Complete Comprehensive Transportation Plan 2 years In progress - scoping for consultant assistance. Consult with diverse communities & stakeholders Ongoing Public engagement plan under development. Prepare regular progress reports on crash data Quarterly First quarterly report to ST and plan implementation Annual Committee scheduled for July 2025. * While not contemplated as part of the proposed Council resolution, this action item recognizes the need to develop a formal implementation plan for the City. This plan will be grounded in GPCOG’s plan and proposed measures, but is mostly aimed at implementation. Vision Zero demands a multi-disciplinary focus. Successful Vision Zero programs require cross-departmental and interagency collaboration and partnerships. Staff have formed an internal working group to guide the development and implementation of Vision Zero measures. The working group includes staff from the following departments and offices: Executive Office, Planning and Urban Development, Public Works, Police Department, Communications, Diversity Equity & Inclusion. Partner agencies include GPCOG and the Maine Department of Transportation. Additionally, the working group will develop an engagement plan for incorporating feedback and concerns from the community and stakeholder groups in the development of all major milestones with the exception of the Quick Action Plan due to its immediate timeframe. The proposed Quick Action Plan is included as Attachment A. In order to develop the Quick Action Plan (and subsequent full implementation plan), staff are organizing work around the following strategic priorities consistent with GPCOG’s Vision Zero Action Plan: Programmatic Support and Funding, Safer Roads, Safer Speeds, Safer People, and Post-Crash Care. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this item. City staff are utilizing existing budget capacity and/or grant funding to implement activities. CONCLUSION(S) Staff recommends the Committee endorse the Quick Action Plan and advance it to the City Council as a communication. 2 Page 43 PRIOR COUNCIL/COMMITTEE REVIEW Sustainability & Trans. Committee - February 12, 2025: Item introduced Sustainability & Trans. Committee - March 12, 2025: Action to recommend Council Resolve Sustainability & Trans. Committee - April 9, 2025: Informational Update City Council - April 14, 2025: Approval of Resolution 8-24/25 PREPARED BY Greg Jordan Vision Zero Working Group Assistant City Manager Executive Department ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Proposed Quick Action Plan 3 Page 44  City of Portland Vision Zero - Quick Action Plan July 1, 2025 - June 30, 2026 The proposed Quick Action Plan is outlined below. These actions represent what City staff can implement in a short timeframe within existing staff capacity and resources. These measures will be incorporated into a more complete Vision Zero Action Plan for the City with a longer time horizon. The measures outlined below are organized around the following strategic priorities consistent with GPCOG’s Vision Zero Action Plan: Programmatic Support and Funding, Safer Roads, Safer Speeds, Safer People, and Post-Crash Care. Objective 1: Programmatic Support and Funding (PF) # Action Timeframe Status PF-1 City Council adoption of GPCOG’s Vision FY25, Qtr 4 Completed Zero goal and plan adoption on April 14, 2025. PF-2 Form a cross-departmental task force to FY25, Qtr 4 Completed oversee Vision Zero Action Plan. PF-3 Participate on GPCOG Vision Zero Panel - Ongoing Ongoing - city staff participating. DPW staff representing on VZ Panel PF-4 Update the City’s Complete Streets Policy FY25, Qtr4 In progress - ST committee review on June 10, 2025. PF-5 Onboard consultant(s) and commence work FY26 Q2 In progress - scoping and on Comprehensive Transportation Plan procurement planning underway. PF-6 Update the City’s Technical Manual FY26, Qtr4 Will commence following adoption of Complete Streets policy with the goal of securing Planning Board approval by June 2026. PF-7 Identify sources of funding to support Quick Ongoing Staff have secured grant funding to Action Plan measures. support traffic enforcement, budget capacity to support a pedestrian safety communications campaign, and will be pursuing a federal Safe Streets for All grant. 1 Page 45  City of Portland Vision Zero - Quick Action Plan July 1, 2025 - June 30, 2026 Objective 2: Safer Roads (SR) # Action Timeframe Status SR-1 Advance approved transportation CIP FY26, Qtr4 These projects were approved as projects in alignment with Vision Zero goals. part of the FY25 and FY26 Capital ●​ CDBG Sidewalk & ADA Improvements Improvement Programs and are expected to be constructed during ●​ Traffic Calming/Street Safety Initiatives FY26. ●​ Arterial Crossing Program ●​ Bike Facility Safety Improvements While these projects were already ●​ Traffic Signal & Lighting project focused on improving the city’s pedestrian and bike safety ●​ Sewer Separation Project with infrastructure, they will advance in sidewalks, speed tables, raised crosswalk close alignment with the Vision ●​ Riverside Street Arterial Crossings Zero framework. ●​ Ocean Avenue Sidewalk project ●​ Congress Square Intersection ●​ Vannah Ave raised speed tables ●​ MDOT Paving with enhanced pedestrian crossings, speed tables in select areas. ●​ Union Branch Pathway construction ●​ North Deering Byway SR-2 Department of Public Works (DPW) shall FY26, Qtr 1 In progress complete the following measures: ●​ Confirm flashing school zone signs in all Portland Public School zones; ●​ Install high-visibility safety flags at key pedestrian crossings on a trial basis; ●​ Complete crosswalk painting. SR-3 DPW shall complete and document the FY26, Qtr 4 In progress following safety audits: ●​ Arterial crosswalk safety and lighting; ●​ School zone safety; ●​ On-street parking near intersections. SR-4 To ensure safe and appropriate street FY26, Qtr 3 In progress lighting, DPW will: ●​ Prepare quarterly reports on street light operability and performance; ●​ Determine approach to evaluate citywide street lighting including coverage, brightness, technology and costs. 2 Page 46  City of Portland Vision Zero - Quick Action Plan July 1, 2025 - June 30, 2026 Objective 2: Safer Roads (SR) - continued # Action Timeframe Status SR-5 Conduct review of current sidewalk snow FY26, Qtr 2 Commencing September 2025. ordinances in Chapter 25 with possible recommendations for Council action . Objective 3: Safer Speeds (SS) # Action Timeframe Status SS-1 Police Department (PD) will surge traffic Ongoing Traffic enforcement shall be enforcement in the “high risk network” as implemented in close coordination identified in GPCOG’s Vision Zero Plan and with the Communications and DEI MaineDOT’s Crash Database. Offices. SS-2 Based on findings of speed/traffic studies, FY26, Qtr 4 In progress. DPW will install up to 4 speed feedback in FY26. Subject to additional resources DPW will work to accelerate installation of additional speed feedback signs. SS-3 For the ST and/or HHS-PS Committee, FY26, Qtr 2 If determined to be a priority, this conduct a policy analysis on the introduction item would require a change in of red light cameras as an enforcement tool. state law. Objective 4: Safer People (SS) # Action Timeframe Status SS-1 Implement a communications campaign FY26, Qtr 2 Initial scoping complete. aimed at both motor vehicle operators as well as bicyclists and pedestrians. Objective 3: Post-Crash Care (PC) # Action Timeframe Status PC-1 PD will rejoin GPCOG’s Traffic Incident Ongoing In progress Management Committee on a trial basis. PC-2 Measure progress effectively by engaging FY26, Qtr 1 City staff working to engage GPCOG to assist with data collection, GPCOG on this work. analysis, and preparation of quarterly and annual reports. 3 Page 47 City of Portland | Planning & Urban Development Department Kevin D. Kraft, AICP Director Staff Memo To: Sustainability & Transportation Committee Councilor Regina Phillips, Chair MEETING DATE June 16, 2025 AGENDA ITEM Agenda Item 3C – Theater and Performance Hall Moratorium PURPOSE Review the proposed Theater and Performance Hall Moratorium presented to the City Council on April 28, 2025 (Order 165-24/25) and consider staff’s evaluation of the underlying conditions asserted as justification for enacting the moratorium. COMMITTEE WORK PLAN/CITY COUNCIL GOAL ALIGNMENT At its April 28, 2025 meeting, the City Council referred a proposed moratorium (Order 165-24/25) that would establish a 180-day prohibition on theater and performance hall projects with a capacity exceeding 2,000 people to the S&T Committee for consideration. The City Council’s 2025 Common Goals, particularly Goal #3 (One Climate Future)—express a commitment to expanding transit options and encouraging alternatives to car travel. While this particular item is not included in the S&T Committee’s work plan, the underlying issues closely align with the Committee’s priorities around Vision Zero, Complete Streets, and Comprehensive Transportation Planning. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On April 28, 2025, the City Council considered, but did not approve, a proposed moratorium (Order 165-24/25) that would establish a 180-day prohibition on theater and performance hall projects with a capacity exceeding 2,000 people. The moratorium was introduced in response to a major site plan application submitted by Live Nation in December 2024, proposing a 3,300-seat music venue in Downtown Portland. The Planning Board held workshops on March 25 and May 27, 2025, to review the proposal. The proposed moratorium expressed concerns that development, tourism, and commercial activity has resulted in demonstrated parking pressures downtown. Furthermore, the moratorium expressed concerns that theaters and performance halls may increase traffic before and after large events and create unsafe road conditions and further strain parking. The proposed 180-day moratorium on approvals of new large theaters and performance halls was intended to give the City time to review and, if necessary, amend the Code to prevent overburdening public services, parking, and transportation infrastructure. Rather than vote to 1 Page 48 approve the moratorium, the City Council referred the item to the S&T Committee for consideration. Maine law requires that any moratorium adopted by a municipality on the processing or issuance of development permits or licenses must be needed either to prevent a shortage or overburdening of public facilities; or because existing comprehensive plans, land use ordinances, regulations, or other applicable laws are insufficient to prevent serious public harm from residential, commercial, or industrial development within the affected geographic area, 30-A MRS 4356. Given the existing conditions, robust policy foundation including Portland’s Plan 2030 and One Climate Future, and well-established regulatory tools already in place such as the Land Use Code, Site Plan Ordinance, impact fees, and Traffic Movement Permit, staff concludes that there is sufficient capacity and regulatory framework in place to manage the parking and transportation impacts of new development. In staff’s judgment, the conditions do not meet the necessary threshold to justify enacting a moratorium on theater and performance hall projects. Policy History Over the past decade, the City has made a concerted effort to adopt policies that reflect a modern, 21st-century approach to growth and sustainability. The City’s long-range transportation planning has focused largely on developing a more integrated and multi-modal transportation network through public transit enhancements, sidewalk and streetscape improvements, and bikeway network planning, as well as work to the underlying street network. The City has also ensured that its land use framework is integrated and paired with transportation planning. The consistent direction of City policymaking over the past several decades reflects a common desire to guide Portland’s growth in a sustainable manner that prioritizes a more multimodal transportation network—one that supports the needs of all users, rather than focusing solely on automobiles and single-occupancy vehicles. This commitment is increasingly evident in Portland’s built environment today. For example, in 1991 the City adopted the Downtown Vision Plan. As Maine’s largest city and Northern New England’s primary urban center, Portland’s Downtown serves as a vital hub for commerce, culture, and civic life. In regards to transportation planning, the Downtown Vision Plan emphasized the need to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and minimize on-site parking. It advocated for a more pedestrian-oriented downtown, supported by transit, shuttle lots, carpools, biking, and walking. While acknowledging that reversing decades of car-centric development would take time, the plan called for a transitional approach, warning that continued auto-dependence could result in increased congestion, pollution, and diminished urban livability. Key transportation strategies outlined in the plan included limiting private on-site parking, encouraging employer participation in transit programs, and enhancing the role of public transit within a walkable, vibrant downtown core. This early policy direction laid the foundation for the City’s ongoing efforts to create a more sustainable, accessible, and multimodal transportation system, and to support land use regulation that encourages a shift away from single-occupancy vehicles. 2 Page 49 In 2009, the City approved the Portland Peninsula Transit Study, a study intended to advance transportation strategies that would support the livability and sustainability of the Portland Peninsula, recognized as one of the most vibrant and walkable small urban areas in the nation and the heart of the region. Building on prior policy direction, the study emphasized the need to integrate land use, infrastructure, and transportation planning to strengthen walking, biking, and transit options. The study acknowledged that while investments in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure are critical, meaningful reductions in single-occupancy vehicle trips would also require addressing the financial incentives and convenience that favor driving. It highlighted that many cities have chosen to accept some loss in auto-oriented conveniences in order to improve safety, reduce emissions, and prioritize multimodal transportation. The plan reinforced the City’s long-standing commitment to sustainable transportation and again set forth goals including reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips, shifting away from auto-oriented infrastructure toward support for alternative modes, and managing—rather than expanding—the existing parking supply. Key policy recommendations included: ●​ Traffic Policy: ○​ Shift from an auto-oriented infrastructure to promotion of other modes; ○​ Shift investment strategy from support for new lanes of asphalt to transit; ○​ No longer designing streets solely to accommodate peak-hour traffic; ○​ Accepting traffic delays as normal in an urban environment ●​ Transit Policy: ○​ Encourage development of transit to reduce the growth of traffic to and within the peninsula; ○​ Provide convenient, frequent, attractive, reliable, and safe transit options; ○​ Invest in transit over new vehicular travel lanes of asphalt ●​ Parking Policy: ○​ Encourage new initiatives to decrease the growth of traffic volumes; ○​ Manage the parking supply rather than continue to expand it; ○​ Use parking impact fees to support transit; ○​ Develop shared parking ●​ Pedestrian & Bike Policy: ○​ Encourage walking and biking, along with transit - “share the street” In 2017, the City adopted Portland’s Plan 2030, the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Portland. As a foundational plan, it establishes the policy framework that informs and supports zoning, the land use code, and other adopted regulations. Portland’s Plan 2030 outlines a series of goals and strategies aimed at decreasing reliance on automobiles through compact, walkable, and multimodal development and strategically managed parking and reinforcing the city center, recognizing that Downtown Portland remains the region’s cultural, civic, and economic hub. The plan’s transportation and land use policies stress that by managing automobile traffic growth, the City can expand transportation choices and ensure a more accessible, sustainable urban environment. 3 Page 50 Portland’s Plan 2030 laid the foundation for further studies and policy development, including One Climate Future, approved in 2021. One Climate Future continued to move the City toward the goal of sustainable growth. This adopted policy document included specific goals and strategies to support implementation of the higher level direction in Portland’s Plan 2030. These goals and strategies again focused on mode shift, aiming to decrease private vehicle use and focused on expanding public transportation systems, biking accessibility, complete streets, and transit-oriented development (TOD) in an effort to make it easier to travel between destinations without a car. A key action item identified in One Climate Future was to shift away from policies that promote increased parking demand and supply, and instead advance strategies that strengthen multimodal transportation options. To achieve this, the plan called for eliminating parking minimums in commercial areas and along designated transit corridors, and for establishing parking maximums. This action recognized that traditional minimum parking requirements, which emerged in the 1920s with the rise of the automobile, became entrenched in city planning by the 1950s, and remain embedded in many city codes today, are largely based on the belief that abundant parking is essential to meeting mobility needs, supporting real estate markets, and aiding local businesses. However, over the past decade, researchers and policymakers have increasingly acknowledged that minimum parking requirements have led to an oversupply of parking and often work counter to broader city planning and economic development goals. These requirements can constrain new development and drive up housing and development costs. Moreover, large paved parking areas conflict with climate resilience goals by worsening stormwater runoff, flooding risks, and the urban heat island effect. Furthermore, by encouraging lower-density, car-oriented development, excessive parking also undermines public transit efficiency and creates streetscapes that discourage walking and biking. This reinforces car dependency, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and perpetuates demand for more parking. Ultimately, the oversupply of free or convenient parking acts as a public subsidy for private vehicle travel, one that disproportionately benefits those with access to a car and undercuts the financial sustainability of public transportation systems. 4 Page 51  Figure 1: One Climate Future – Parking Strategies for Transportation & Land Use In recent years, the City has continued to advance its multimodal transportation goals. In 2023, the Gorham-Westbrook-Portland Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study was completed to assess the feasibility and potential benefits of a rapid transit connection linking the three communities. The study identified a preferred alignment, running along Main Street, Brighton Avenue, and Congress Street through downtown Portland, as the most direct and effective corridor. This route would connect major destinations including USM Gorham, Gorham Village, Downtown Westbrook, Rock Row, USM Portland, Maine Medical Center, Downtown Portland, and the Eastern Waterfront. On April 14, 2025, the City Council adopted the Greater Portland Council of Governments’ (GPCOG) Regional Vision Zero Action Plan. By doing so, the City formally endorsed the initiative’s core objective: eliminating all traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries by 2045. The GPCOG Vision Zero plan emphasizes reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and promoting greater use of public transit as a critical step toward safer, more equitable mobility. In 2025, the S&T Committee directed staff to update the City’s 2012 Complete Streets Policy to ensure that it continues to reflect the community’s vision for a safer, more multimodal city. PARKING CAPACITY & UTILIZATION While parking has been a frequent topic of conversation for several decades, the City commissioned a study covering much of the downtown and nearby waterfront areas, which found that there are enough parking spaces to accommodate roughly one space for every four residents of the City of Portland. The study showed that peak utilization typically occurs on weekday afternoons in the summer, when businesses and offices are open, with demand tapering off by early afternoon and continuing into the evening. More recent studies and analyses have yielded similar findings. 5 Page 52 Parking Study for Downtown, the Old Port, and the Eastern Waterfront (2017) In 2017, the City commissioned a parking study covering the downtown, central waterfront, eastern waterfront, and a ¼-mile buffer surrounding these areas (Attachment B). The primary objectives were to collect data on parking supply and demand during both weekdays and weekends and to identify any areas of deficiency. Figure 2: 2017 Parking Study – Study Area Map The study identified a total supply of nearly 16,000 parking spaces (on-street, surface lot, structured parking) within the study area, or roughly one space for every four residents of the City of Portland (~25% of Portland’s entire population). Of these, over 11,000 spaces were located within the core downtown area. The analysis found that peak parking demand occurs on weekday afternoons during the summer, when office and businesses are open and visitors are abundant, and demand exceeds the system’s effective capacity1, though not its total capacity (Figure 3). On these peak weekdays, utilization begins to decline starting around 2:30 PM and continues to remain low, below the system’s effective capacity, into the evening hours. In contrast, weekend peak demand during the summer season was significantly lower in general, reaching only 71% of effective capacity (Figure 4). 1 Effective Capacity: The effective capacity is a concept in parking analysis that refers to the occupancy level at which parking users begin to have difficulty finding open spaces and vehicle circulation to access parking begins to exhibit signs of congestion including queuing. The effective capacity is also thought of as the threshold when a parking supply begins to be perceived by users to be full. 6 Page 53 The study documented a strong preference for on-street parking, which was at or above effective capacity during weekday and Saturday evenings, despite the fact that substantial capacity remained in nearby surface lots and parking garages during those same periods. The study also highlighted that individual streets varied and some high-demand streets, such as Commercial Street, Middle Street, and Exchange Street, exhibited higher occupancy rates than the overall sample. The 2017 study also included a land-use-based analysis of parking demand. Using ITE parking generation factors, a conservative methodology known for overestimating demand, it concluded that evening and weekend events at a sold-out Cross Insurance Arena, with a seating capacity of approximately 6,700, appeared to be adequately supported by existing parking in Downtown Portland. The study indicated approximately 5,000 spaces anticipated to be available during the peak time for a sold out weekday event (Figure 5) and approximately 2,000 spaces anticipated to be available during the peak time for a sold event on a Saturday (Figure 6). Rather than recommending the construction of additional parking facilities, the study concluded that the City should focus on more efficient management of existing supply. Recommendations included encouraging greater use of underutilized surface lots and structured parking facilities, particularly during peak demand periods. Figure 3: 2017 Parking Study – Estimated Peak Season Weekday Parking Demand by Time of Day 7 Page 54 Figure 4: 2017 Parking Study – Estimated Peak Season Saturday Parking Demand by Time of Day Figure 5: 2017 Parking Study – Weekday Peak Demand by Land-Use 8 Page 55 Figure 6: 2017 Parking Study – Saturday Peak Demand by Land-Use Current parking occupancy data As of today, parking capacity in the area remains similar to past levels. The City of Portland Parking Division conducted a parking lot occupancy assessment of parking lots and garages within ¼ mile of the proposed music venue and ½ mile of the proposed Live Nation Portland Music Hall on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in May of 2025. Each lot was counted at least twice, and in some cases, up to four times, over the three-day period with all counts occurring after 5:00 PM. The results showed that of the approximately 2,700 parking spaces within a ¼-mile radius of the proposed Live Nation Portland Music Hall, the average utilization rate between 5:30 PM and 8:00 PM was 19% (Table 1). For parking spaces located between ¼ and ½ mile from the venue, utilization after 5:00 PM averaged 18% (Table 2). These findings suggest that roughly 80% of the parking supply remained available during those times, indicating sufficient existing capacity to support the proposed venue and other uses. These findings are consistent with the 2017 study and reflect a broader trend of reduced parking demand, particularly during evening hours. With utilization below 20% and available capacity at 80% these numbers indicate that there continues to be parking capacity within the existing supply aligning with the recommendations of both the 2009 Portland Peninsula Study and the 2017 study, which advised the City to focus on managing the existing parking supply rather than expanding it. TABLE 1 Off-Street Parking Utilization: 0 to 1/4 Mile Occupancy (5:30 PM-8:00 PM)(May 2025) Total Spaces Available Spaces % Utilized % Available 3,380 2,715 19.66% 80.4% 9 Page 56 Table 2 Off-Street Parking Utilization: 1/4 to 1/2 Mile Occupancy (5:30 PM-8:00 PM)(May 2025) Total Spaces Available Spaces % Utilized % Available 2,969 2,412 18.75% 81.25% Portland Music Hall TMP Parking Analysis Given that the proposed music venue includes no on-site parking, in accordance with zoning requirements, the project’s Traffic Movement Permit (TMP) included an analysis of existing parking to understand trip distribution within the surrounding area. The applicant provided a map of available off-street parking facilities, including garages and lots, identifying the total number of spaces within four-tenths of a mile of the site (Figure 7). These facilities were documented in the March 2025 City of Portland Parking Division’s Annual Parking Survey. Based on distance to the venue, current hours of operation, and capacity, the applicant identified five lots and garages as the most likely parking destinations for music hall patrons (Figure 8). Those five facilities alone account for approximately 2,800 total parking spaces. Additionally, as part of the Portland Music Hall Major Site Plan Application, the applicant’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan highlights the venue’s central Downtown location and centers its strategies on access to and from the site on modal split and vehicle occupancy. The TDM materials estimate a total of 1,385 one-way vehicle trips, including both attendees and employees. The projected mode share is 82% vehicles, 2% transit, and 16% walking or biking. The applicant’s original TDM submission also sets a target to reduce personal vehicle use by 10%, aiming for a modal split of 72% vehicles instead of 82%, which would further decrease parking demand. In summary, when comparing the estimated parking demand to the effective parking capacity Downtown, there is sufficient parking available to accommodate demand, even under the more conservative 82% vehicle mode share. 10 Page 57 Figure 7: Garages and Lots Within 4/10 Mile of Proposed Portland Music Hall (outlined in black) – Traffic Movement Permit (April 21, 2025), Source: Sebago Technics Figure 8: Traffic Movement Permit – Portland Music Hall (April 21, 2025) Nearby Parking Facilities, Source: Sebago Technics RECODE & PARKING STANDARDS Pre-ReCode Prior to the first phase of ReCode in 2020, the City’s land use code contained minimum parking requirements, as well as a variety of off-street parking regulations that had been amended over time to allow greater flexibility for projects seeking to provide less than the required minimum parking. The code offered several alternative compliance options, such as conducting a parking study, utilizing shared or off-site parking, or paying a fee in lieu of providing spaces on-site. In practice, many developers used a combination of these options to minimize their on-site parking. 11 Page 58 ReCode Phase I (2020) Against the backdrop of evolving planning priorities, policy initiatives, and data, the City of Portland undertook its first comprehensive rewrite of the land use code and zoning map in over 50 years. The primary objective was to align the City’s regulations with adopted policy direction and to support sustainable, intentional growth. During ReCode Phase I, off-street parking requirements were a key area of interest for the City Council’s Ad Hoc ReCode Committee. Throughout early 2019, the committee discussed potential far-ranging reforms, including reducing or eliminating existing parking minimums, introducing parking maximums, and implementing a fee for developments that exceeded parking thresholds. In response, and in alignment with the goal of Phase I to streamline the code rather than fundamentally overhaul it, staff proposed a set of targeted revisions to expand existing flexibilities within the off-street parking requirements. This included the introduction of a quarter-mile transit buffer exemption for multi-family developments. Staff also noted that more comprehensive reform could be considered in a future phase of ReCode. During the Planning Board hearing, the proposed transit buffer drew substantial attention. Some members of the public opposed the exemption, while others argued it did not go far enough. Board members reflected this range of views. Ultimately, the Board voted to recommend the proposed exemption, with the understanding that the divergent perspectives on parking would be conveyed to the City Council. The Board also indicated its intent to explore parking maximums in Phase II of ReCode. However, during the City Council’s adoption process for ReCode Phase I, the conversation around parking reform reemerged, and the Council ultimately voted to expand the quarter-mile parking exemption to apply to all land uses, effectively eliminating parking minimums for much of the city. This decision marked a shift in off-street parking policy and rendered much of the code’s previous off-street parking framework functionally obsolete. As a result, the City has not had minimum parking requirements for any land uses categories within a quarter mile of fixed route transit, representing most of the city, since 2020. ReCode Phase II (2024) In early 2021, One Climate Future committed the City to exploring the implementation of parking maximums, a commitment that was reaffirmed during the ReCode Phase II code evaluation later that year. Public feedback on this direction was generally positive; for example, more than half of respondents to ReCode’s code evaluation survey agreed or strongly agreed with establishing parking maximums in areas with access to transit. In line with this feedback, staff conducted additional research and released draft off-street parking regulations in spring 2024 that formally proposed eliminating minimum parking requirements and introducing parking maximums. During the Planning Board’s review, there was extensive discussion about the potential impacts of parking maximums. While the Board generally supported the concept, some members expressed concerns about applying them in areas of the city with limited access to alternative transportation options (Off-peninsula). However, no concerns were raised regarding their applicability in areas—such as the peninsula—that are perceived to have better access to public transportation and higher degrees of walkability. Ultimately the Board voted unanimously in favor of the proposed maximums, recognizing that minimum parking requirements can act as a 12 Page 59 barrier to housing production and development, that the proposed maximum parking caps were relatively generous, and that the City's long-range plans support a shift toward more sustainable modes of transportation. Furthermore, the Board acknowledged that, in practice, the City had been operating without minimum parking requirements since 2020. During the City Council’s review of ReCode Phase II, additional discussions focused specifically on the proposed parking maximums. Some Councilors expressed concerns that the caps were too high in mixed-use and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zones, and deliberated whether further reductions would better align with the City's transit-access goals. Staff advised that, as the City transitions to a system based on parking maximums, setting more conservative caps would provide flexibility, allowing market conditions to guide parking supply, while eliminating the barriers created by parking minimums. Ultimately, the City Council unanimously adopted the revised code (Order 70-24/25), including the implementation of parking maximums (8 in favor, 0 opposed, Councilor Fournier absent). Case Studies: Cities That Have Adopted Parking Maximums Beginning in the latter half of the 20th century, most American cities integrated the concept of required parking minimums into their land use codes. For any given development site or lot, a minimum ratio would be applied based on the proposed use, resulting in a parking requirement for the site. These parking minimum ratios were often based on outdated research and were conservative by design; by many standards they resulted in many more parking spaces than necessary. Figure 9: Maine Mall Parking Lot, South Portland, ME Realizing that not only were parking minimums resulting in “over parking,” but that they also encouraged the use of driving trips (and their carbon emissions), forced developers to use valuable land for cars rather than other uses, and meant that many city blocks were consumed by surface parking lots which detracted from the urban experience, cities began to embrace parking reform in the early 2000s. Many cities began by eliminating their parking minimums, effectively 13 Page 60 choosing to “let the market decide” how much parking to provide on a site. Ultimately, many cities progressed to parking maximums, or off-street parking caps, within their land use codes. Source: Parking Reform Network Regional examples ●​ Hartford, CT: In 2017, the City of Hartford, CT established parking maximums within its land use code. Hartford’s maximums are based on broad use categories (i.e. “industrial uses,” “employment uses,” “service uses”), and leave some discrepancy to special permit review. For entertainment uses, the maximum parking allowed is based on special permit review. ●​ Boston, MA: Boston, MA adopted parking maximums in 2022. These maximums apply to large projects, and are based both on use and geography. If a given use is in an area with a high “mobility score” (meaning good access to transportation options, grocery stores, and jobs), it has a lower parking maximum. ●​ Burlington, VT: Burlington, VT adopted parking maximums in 2023, with maximums that vary by zone and use. ●​ Roanoke, VA: Roanoke’s land use code establishes city-wide parking maximums by use. Examples of Cities Renowned for Their Live Music Venues ●​ Gainesville, FL: Gainesville’s 2022 parking maximums establish flat caps by land use. ●​ Nashville, TN: Nashville’s land use code establishes parking maximums within the Urban Zoning Overlay, an overlay which covers a large part of the city and all of downtown. Within the overlay, maximums are established by use. 14 Page 61  ●​ Austin, TX: Austin has established maximums within various zones, including the central business district (i.e. downtown). In the central business district, maximums are generally set at 40% of the number of spaces required elsewhere in the city. LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS & IMPACT FEES Parking Regulations In Portland, Article 18 of the Land Use Code regulates parking requirements. Section 18.1.2 states that off-street vehicle parking is not required. Section 18.1.3 establishes maximum off-street parking limits for each designated use, as outlined in Table 18-A. For theaters and performance halls, the maximum allowed is one space per 300 square feet of floor area. Section 18.1.3.F.1 provides a process for exceeding this maximum by up to 25%, provided certain conditions are met. Site Plan Requirements Portland’s site plan ordinance, located within Chapter 14 of the City Code (Land Use Code), establishes the framework for reviewing new development proposals. Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the purpose of the ordinance is to support the City’s vision for sustainable growth. The ordinance reflects shared goals around the environment, transportation, community well-being, and economic development. It is intended to complement the broader zoning regulations contained in the Land Use Code. Any development that triggers site plan review must obtain approval before construction may begin. Site plan review is conducted administratively for minor site plans and by the Planning Board for major site plans. Approval may only be granted if the proposal complies with all applicable standards. The site plan ordinance includes several standards focused on transportation impacts, including: ●​ Impact on Surrounding Street Systems: Projects must demonstrate that they will not create or exacerbate safety hazards or congestion on adjacent streets. This includes evaluating vehicle loading/unloading, parking, and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians both on-site and on neighboring properties. Any increase in congestion must be mitigated proportionally. ●​ Access and Circulation: Developments must provide safe and efficient internal circulation and site access for all users. Continuous sidewalk and curb infrastructure is required along all site frontages. ●​ Public Transit Access: Projects 20,000 square feet or larger and located on an existing bus route must include a bus shelter. ●​ Parking: All developments must comply with off-street vehicle and bicycle parking standards outlined in the zoning code. ●​ Transportation Demand Management (TDM): Commercial, institutional, or mixed-use projects of 50,000 square feet or more must submit a TDM Plan to demonstrate how they intend to get people to and from their site using alternative transportation modes, such as public transit, walking, biking, or other methods. As part of TDM requirements, an annual report must be submitted to the Planning Authority. 15 Page 62 In addition to the standards described above, projects that meet certain trip thresholds must also submit a Transportation Study in accordance with Section 2 of the City’s Technical Manual. This study must include: ●​ Description of the development proposal ●​ Overview of existing multi-modal transportation conditions ●​ Estimated trip generation and hourly volumes by mode (based on ITE or approved methodology ●​ Trip distribution assumptions ●​ Multi-modal level of service (LOS) analysis pre- and post-development ●​ Capacity analysis at intersections and roadway segments, including delay, v/c ratios, and queuing ●​ Crash history and safety analysis within the study area ●​ Summary of transportation and safety issues caused or worsened by the development ●​ Impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure and users ●​ Findings and recommended mitigation measures to address identified impacts State Traffic Movement Permit (TMP) Requirements The MaineDOT Traffic Movement Permit (TMP) is required for any development project that generates 100 or more passenger car equivalent trips during a peak hour. Its primary purpose is to ensure that such developments do not create unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions for all users—motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists—and that the surrounding infrastructure can safely accommodate the projected traffic. The TMP process promotes transportation-efficient development, supports multimodal access, and encourages the implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Applicants must submit a comprehensive traffic study that evaluates trip generation, distribution, safety impacts, and identifies necessary mitigation for both motorized and non-motorized travel. A TMP is issued once it is determined that a project will not adversely affect traffic conditions in the surrounding area. Impact Fees In 2018, the Portland City Council adopted an impact fee ordinance aimed at ensuring new development contributes a proportional or reasonably related share of the costs for new, expanded, or replacement infrastructure required to support that development. The ordinance requires that any new building, building addition, or change of use that results in a net increase in impact is subject to paying an impact fee. These fees apply to all qualifying building permits and are intended to help fund necessary municipal infrastructure improvements. Impact fees are assessed to ensure that as development occurs, bringing with it benefits and growth, it also accounts for increased demands on city infrastructure, such as higher volumes of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, greater strain on sewer systems, and additional use of parks and open spaces. These pressures require capital investment to maintain service levels and infrastructure quality. The City’s impact fee policy ensures that new development pays its fair share, supporting infrastructure expansion in line with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Portland’s 16 Page 63 impact fees pay for transportation, parks and recreation, and wastewater infrastructure required to serve proposed development. To implement the impact fees, the City conducted the City of Portland Impact Fee Study, completed in the fall of 2018. This study analyzed growth-related infrastructure costs and apportioned those costs to anticipated development, calculated per square foot, per unit, or per trip, depending on the development type. Based on the study’s findings, the City Council adopted the Impact Fee Ordinance, which includes a schedule of fees and a process for assessing and collecting them. The ordinance is codified in Article 16 of the City’s Land Use Code. As of January 2025, the adjusted Transportation Impact Fee for a Retail/Service use, under which a performance hall is classified, is $10,412 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Between 2017 and 2025, 59 development projects were reviewed and approved in mixed-use zones on the peninsula, resulting in the approval of over 3,000 parking spaces. While several projects during this period chose not to provide any on-site parking, others opted to include it, indicating that market demand continues to influence these decisions. This demonstrates that not all developments rely solely on the existing parking supply to meet their needs even in downtown and mixed-use transit accessible locations of the city. CONCLUSION(S) In staff’s judgment, the conditions do not meet the necessary threshold to justify enacting a moratorium on theater and performance hall projects. Given the existing conditions, robust policy foundation including Portland’s Plan 2030 and One Climate Future, and well-established regulatory tools already in place such as the Land Use Code, Site Plan Ordinance, Traffic Movement Permit, and Impact Fees, staff concludes that there is sufficient capacity and regulatory framework in place to manage the transportation impacts of new development. Additionally, the City’s transition from parking minimums to parking maximums reflects decades of intentional policy development and a consistent commitment from both policymakers and the community to support compact, sustainable, and multimodal growth. This approach is designed to reduce reliance on private vehicles, promote walkability, bikeability, and transit use, and align land use with broader transportation and climate goals. Furthermore, parking capacity studies and analysis have demonstrated capacity within Portland’s parking supply to handle future growth and demand. PRIOR COMMITTEE REVIEW N/A PREPARED BY Kevin Kraft, AICP Nell Donaldson Director Director of Special Projects Planning & Urban Development Planning & Urban Development 17 Page 64 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Proposed Performance Hall Moratorium (Order 165-24/25) Attachment B – 2017 City of Portland Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 18 Page 65  Attachment A MARK DION (MAYOR) SARAH MICHNIEWICZ (1) PIOUS ALI (A/L) CITY OF PORTLAND WESLEY PELLETIER (2) APRIL D. FOURNIER (A/L) IN THE CITY COUNCIL REGINA L. PHILLIPS (3) BENJAMIN GRANT (A/L) ANNA BULLETT (4) KATE SYKES (5) ORDER ESTABLISHING A 180-DAY MORATORIUM ON THEATER AND PERFORMANCE HALL PROJECTS WITH A CAPACITY EXCEEDING 2000 PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF PORTLAND WHEREAS, land development, tourism and commerce on Portland’s Downtown Peninsula have resulted in significant and demonstrable parking pressure, which has in turn created hardships for members of the public and commercial enterprises ; and WHEREAS, increased traffic before and after large events at theaters and performance halls are known to cause unsafe road conditions and strain parking resources; and WHEREAS, as set forth in Table 18-A of the City of Portland Land Use Code, there are no parking minimums for theaters and performance halls, regardless of the anticipated capacity, and this issue requires further study and potential amendments to the Land Use Code in order to protect the public welfare and safety and prevent overburdening of public parking facilities; and WHEREAS, section 14.6.8.14 of the City’s Land Use Code only requires a 100-foot buffer in the B-3 and WCZ zones between businesses with entertainment licenses; and WHEREAS, the City’s Land Use Code does not require a larger buffer between large theaters and performance halls, which should be considered to protect public safety and ensure that these venues are not clustered and do not overburden public infrastructure and city services or create unsafe road conditions for pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles; and WHEREAS, an immediate temporary 180-day prohibition on approvals of new large theaters and performance halls is necessary in order to allow the City time to review and amend the City Code as necessary to prevent an overburdening of city services and public parking and other facilities, and to ensure safe traffic patterns for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles; and WHEREAS, in the judgment of the City Council for the City of Portland, these facts justify a moratorium under 30-A M.R.S. § 4356(1) (A) and (B) and create an emergency under the City Charter, and require the following Moratorium as immediately necessary to prevent an overburdening of public facilities and for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and Page 66 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to its authority in 30-A M.R.S. §§ 3001 and 4356, and notwithstanding the provisions of 1 M.R.S. § 302, the Portland City Council hereby ordains that a Moratorium shall be applied retroactively, to December 1, 2024, on any and all proceedings, applications, petitions, and approvals required under the City’s Land Use Code that were or have been pending before any officer, board, or agency of the City on or any time after December 1, 2024 for the development of new theaters or performance halls with a capacity exceeding 2000 people; and, BE IT ORDERED, that that no permit applications for any new theaters or performance halls with a capacity exceeding 2000 people shall be accepted, processed, reviewed, or approved by the City or the Planning Board for the period of this Moratorium; and BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that those provisions of the City’s Land Use Code that are inconsistent or conflicting with the provisions of this Moratorium, are hereby repealed to the extent that they are applicable for the duration of this Moratorium, but not otherwise; and BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that during the time that this Moratorium is in effect, the City’s Housing and Economic Development Committee shall review the City Code, including, but not limited to, Chapters 4, 6, 14, and 15 and develop amendments for consideration by the Planning Board and City Council to address the concerns addressed in this Moratorium; and BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that this Moratorium shall remain in effect until the earlier of the effective date of amendments to the City Code adopted pursuant to this Moratorium or October 25, 2025, unless extended, repealed, or modified by the Portland City Council; and BE IT FURTHER ORDERED, that to the extent any provision of this Moratorium is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of the Moratorium that shall remain shall be considered valid. Page 67  City of Portland Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Final Report September 2017 infrastructure Page 68 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Contents A. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Existing Supply and Demand Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 15 B.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 B.2 The Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 B.3 Employment .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 B.4 Population ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 B.5 Work Commute Travel Mode ............................................................................................................................... 21 B.6 Auto Ownership .................................................................................................................................................... 23 C. Existing Parking Information Technology ..................................................................................................................... 24 D. Existing Parking Supply ................................................................................................................................................. 25 D.1 Structured Parking Supply Inventory .................................................................................................................... 25 D.2 Structured Parking Monthly Supply and Pricing ................................................................................................... 27 D.3 Surface Lot Parking ............................................................................................................................................... 29 D.4 Surface Lot Monthly Supply and Pricing ............................................................................................................... 33 D.5 On-Street Parking Supply ...................................................................................................................................... 35 D.6 Total Study Area Parking Supply ........................................................................................................................... 37 D.7 Time of Day Variation in Parking Supply ............................................................................................................... 41 E. Observed Parking Occupancy ....................................................................................................................................... 42 E.1 Observed Surface Lot Occupancy ......................................................................................................................... 43 E.2 Observed Structured Parking Occupancy ............................................................................................................. 47 E.3 On-Street Parking: Overall Occupancy.................................................................................................................. 52 E.4 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Street............................................................................................................... 54 E.4.1 Commercial St from Maple St to India St ...................................................................................................... 54 E.4.2 Exchange St from Congress St to Fore St ...................................................................................................... 55 E.4.3 Middle St from Union St to Franklin St ......................................................................................................... 56 E.4.4 Spring St from High St to Union St ................................................................................................................ 57 E.4.5 Casco St between Cumberland Ave and Congress St ................................................................................... 58 E.5 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Block-Face ....................................................................................................... 59 E.5.1 Thursday 2-Hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face .......................................................................... 59 E.5.2 Saturday 2-hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face ........................................................................... 66 E.6 On-Street Parking Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones .................................................................. 72 F. Summary of Observed Parking Results ......................................................................................................................... 75 G. Seasonal Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 79 Fort Hill Infrastructure Contents Page 69 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront G.1 Recurring Regional Demand ................................................................................................................................. 79 G.2 Seasonal Variation in Island Resident and Island Visitor Parking ......................................................................... 84 G.3 Summer Day Visitor Parking Demand Adjustment ............................................................................................... 88 G.4 Summer Overnight Visitor Parking Demand ......................................................................................................... 90 G.5 Adjusted Seasonal Demand .................................................................................................................................. 92 H. Land Use-Based Analysis of Parking Demand ............................................................................................................... 94 I. Existing Conditions Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 97 J. Projected Future Parking Supply and Demand ............................................................................................................. 99 J.1 Projected Ferry Passenger Parking Demand ....................................................................................................... 100 J.2 Tourism Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 101 J.3 Land-Use Development Scenarios Parking Analysis ........................................................................................... 102 J.3.1 Approved but Unoccupied Land Use Developments ...................................................................................... 103 J.3.2 Assumed Future Land Use Developments Likely to Occur ............................................................................. 104 J.3.3 Development Scenario Summaries ................................................................................................................. 105 J.3.4 Population Analysis of Development Scenarios.............................................................................................. 107 J.3.5 Employment Analysis of Development Scenarios........................................................................................... 108 J.3.6 Projection of Future Parking Demand............................................................................................................. 110 J.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 121 K. Strategy Recommendations and Development .......................................................................................................... 123 K.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 123 K.2 Recommended Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 124 K.2.1 Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation Association ........................................................... 124 K.2.2 Partner with Transportation Network Companies to Address Specific Parking Challenges ....................... 125 K.2.3 Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Programs..................................................................................... 125 K.2.4 Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand Areas ............................................................... 125 K.2.5 Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide ...................................................................................... 126 K.2.6 Improve Parking Management and Technology ......................................................................................... 126 K.2.7 Change Parking Requirements and Regulations ......................................................................................... 127 K.2.8 Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses Permits .................................................................. 127 K.2.9 Increase Car Sharing Use............................................................................................................................. 127 K.2.10 Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study ................ 128 K.2.11 Additional Transit Recommendations......................................................................................................... 128 K.2.12 Bicycle Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................. 128 K.2.13 Convert Unrestricted Parking...................................................................................................................... 129 K.2.14 Marketing and Advertising.......................................................................................................................... 129 Fort Hill Infrastructure Contents Page 70 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront K.2.15 Additional Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 129 K.2.16 Construct Additional Structured Public Use Parking Supply ....................................................................... 129 L. Implementation and Funding...................................................................................................................................... 130 L.1 Local Funding Suggestions .................................................................................................................................. 130 L.2 State Funding ...................................................................................................................................................... 130 L.3 Federal Funding................................................................................................................................................... 130 L.3.1 Formula Grant Programs................................................................................................................................. 130 L.3.2 Competitive Grant Programs .......................................................................................................................... 131 L.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 132 M. Appendix A: Structured and Surface Lot Parking Inventory with Numbered Maps ................................................... 131 N. Appendix B: On-Street Parking Observed Data Maps and Charts .............................................................................. 138 Fort Hill Infrastructure Contents Page 71 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront A. Executive Summary Currently in the City of Portland, challenges associated with parking are among the most pressing and frequent issues brought to the City by constituents. This study quantifies the present state of parking supply and demand in a study area consisting of Downtown, the Old Port, the Central Waterfront, and the Eastern Waterfront. With continued development expected in the next 10 years, the study also projects future parking supply and demand given approved and likely development. The study area is show in Figure A1 below outlined in green, a one quarter mile buffer around the study area is outlined in red. Figure A1: The Project Study Area The study addresses five tasks: Task 1) Existing Supply and Demand analysis, Task 2) Projected Future Parking Supply and Demand, Task 3) Strategy Recommendations, and Task 4) Implementation and Funding. Each task is described here with a summary of the key results. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 1 of 179 Page 72 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Task 1: Existing Supply and Demand Analysis An inventory of on-street, surface lot, and structured parking supply within the study area was created. The results are shown in Table A1. The total parking capacity in the study area is 15,669 spaces. This represents the maximum available parking capacity mid-day on a weekday. Because some off-street parking operators close during the evenings, overnight, and on weekends; the maximum parking capacity does vary, reaching a low of approximately 12,300 overnight on weekends. A detailed account of the pattern of supply variation by time of day and weekday versus weekend can be found in Chapter D. Table A1: Study Area Parking Supply Inventory Results Downtown/Old Port Central Waterfront Eastern Study Area 1/4 mi Waterfront (1-7) Buffer Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total On-Street 577 553 337 367 131 94 192 2,251 N/A Total Surface Lot Spaces 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 257 Total Garage Spaces 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050 Total Capacity 3,272 3,651 1,846 2,273 1,548 1,044 2,035 15,669 1,307 Effective Capacity 2,916 3,258 1,645 2,027 1,387 935 1,822 13,990 1,176 In Table A1, the effective parking capacity, 13,990 spaces, is defined as the total of 90 percent of the structured and off- street parking supply and 85 percent of the on-street parking supply. The effective capacity is a concept in parking analysis that refers to the occupancy level at which parking users begin to have difficulty finding open spaces and vehicle circulation to access parking begins to exhibit signs of congestion including queuing. The effective capacity is also thought of as the threshold when a parking supply begins to be perceived by users to be full. If a parking supply reaches total capacity, vehicles must queue or continue circling until occupied space is vacated. Table A1 also shows that outside of the defined study area boundary within a one quarter mile buffer area, there is up to an additional 1,176 spaces in effective parking capacity found in surface lots and structured parking that offer general use public parking and may be used by travelers destined for the study area. The supply outside of the study area is shared with land use outside of the study area. The parking demand generated by land use outside of the study area was not calculated during this study, therefore the exact amount of unoccupied parking available within the quarter mile buffer area for use by travelers to the study area is not known. It is estimated however, that several hundred spaces are needed in the quarter mile buffer area to meet the demand of employee monthly parking within the study area. More detail on the estimated supply and demand for monthly parking is presented in Chapter D. Task 1 included an estimation of current parking demand. An observed parking occupancy survey was conducted on one Thursday and one Saturday in December 2016. A sample of structured, surface lot, and on-street parking facilities were observed through manual data collection and voluntary reporting by structured parking operators. Because the observations were made during Winter, the observed parking occupancy results were adjusted for the peak Summer season using supplementary data on seasonal variation in ferry passenger demand and data on seasonal tourism from the Maine Office of Tourism. Combining the observed occupancy results of the parking survey and adjusting for additional peak season demand using supplementary data, the peak season weekday parking demand by time of day is shown below in Figure A2. The peak occurs at 12pm when parking demand reaches 14,280 vehicles. The estimated peak weekday demand at 12pm is 290 vehicles above the effective parking capacity of the study area at that time. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 2 of 179 Page 73 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 16,500 15,669 15,129 15,000 13,990 13,970 14,280 14,120 14,060 13,450 13,500 12,790 13,150 11,440 12,000 12,020 10,500 10,210 9,080 Vehicles 9,000 8,460 7,630 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1,500 - 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots On-Street Day Visitor Adjustment Ferry Demand Adjustment Overnight Visitor Adjustment Effective Capacity Adjusted Total Figure A2: Estimated Peak Season Weekday Parking Demand by Time of Day The estimated peak season Saturday parking demand result is shown below in Figure A3. The peak hour for parking demand occurs at 2pm when an estimated 9,320 vehicles park in the study area. The estimated peak Saturday demand at 2pm is approximately 3,840 vehicles below the effective parking capacity of the study area of 13,160 at that time. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 3 of 179 Page 74 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 16,500 14,750 15,000 14,150 13,820 13,500 13,164 12,624 12,329 12,000 10,500 9,320 9,020 8,850 8,620 8,640 8,740 8,780 8,870 Vehicles 9,000 8,240 7,410 7,830 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1,500 - 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots On-Street Day Visitor Adjusted Ferry Demand Overnight Visitor Adjusted Effective Capacity Adjusted Total Total Capacity Figure A3: Estimated Peak Season Saturday Parking Demand by Time of Day The results of the on-street parking occupancy survey individually show that during the weekday evening and on Saturday after 1pm, on-street parking is likely at or over effective capacity in the study area. Effective capacity for on- street parking is defined here as 85 percent of on-street spaces occupied. The implications of this finding are that at times when there is parking availability in surface lots and structured parking, such as weekday evenings and on Saturday, on-street parking is highly occupied and difficult for users to find. Findings on Portland’s on-street and off- street parking pricing relative to peer cities are included in Chapter D. Figures A4 and A5 show the observed Thursday and Saturday on-street parking occupancies for the overall on-street survey sample. The Thursday results show an overall occupancy above 85 percent at 7pm only, however individual streets varied and some high demand streets such as Commercial St, Middle St, and Exchange St exhibited higher occupancy rates than the overall sample. A detailed account of the on-street parking occupancy survey results by street and block face appears in Chapter E of this report. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 4 of 179 Page 75 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 100.0% 87.1% 90.0% 80.3% 82.4% 84.3%84.0% 79.2% 78.6% 74.8% 75.7% 80.0% 71.9% 73.2% Parking Spaces Ocupied 70.0% 63.9% 60.0%54.5% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full Figure A4: Thursday Overall On-Street Parking Occupancy 100.0% 92.9% 94.1% 97.5% 88.1% 90.0% 84.3% 83.6% 84.9% 87.4% 75.5% Parking Spaces Occupied 80.0% 69.0% 70.0% 60.0% 58.9% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full Figure A5: Saturday Overall On-Street Parking Occupancy A second method was used to estimate overall parking demand in the study area based on Land-Use. Parking generation factors from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) were used to create estimates of weekday and weekend parking demand based on land-use data provided by the City’s tax assessor. The results are shown in Figures A6 and A7 below. Weekday results show a peak parking demand at 2pm of 14,470 vehicles, which is 480 vehicles more than the effective capacity at that time. Weekend results show two peaks, a recurring parking demand peak between 12pm and 1pm of 9,390 vehicles, and an evening peak which would occur during a sold out arena event of 10,350 vehicles. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 5 of 179 Page 76 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 17,000 16,000 15,669 15,129 15,000 13,990 13,876 13,893 14,471 13,993 14,461 14,000 13,504 13,463 13,000 12,712 12,90212,004 13,136 12,000 11,659 11,000 10,000 10,019 Parked Vehicles 9,000 8,423 7,180 7,772 8,000 7,000 6,931 6,000 3,592 4,584 5,000 3,832 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am Office/Industrial Residential Other Services Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers Total Capacity Effective Capcity Total Estimated Figure A6: Land-Use Generated Parking Demand Estimate for a Weekday Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 6 of 179 Page 77 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 16,000 15,000 14,752 13,824 14,152 13,824 14,000 13,426 13,426 12,645 13,164 12,665 12,624 13,000 12,329 11,971 12,329 12,000 11,286 11,971 11,000 11,268 10,353 10,000 9,390 9,339 9,071 Parked Vehicles 9,266 9,000 8,000 7,184 7,000 6,000 4,967 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am Office/Industrial Residential Other Services Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers Total Capacity Effective Capacity Total Estimate Figure A7: Land-Use Generated Parking Demand Estimate for a Weekend Day A summary of the overall parking supply and demand findings are presented in Tables A2 and A3. The conclusion is that at present, during the peak summer season on weekdays in the afternoon, parking demand in the study area is likely between 290 and 480 vehicles beyond the effective parking capacity of supply within the study area. On Saturday’s during the peak season, parking demand is well below effective capacity overall, yet on-street parking is over capacity after 1pm as was shown in Figure A5. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 7 of 179 Page 78 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table A2: Weekday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary Weekday Peak Demand Estimation Method Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction at Peak Level Effectively Needed Full Observed Occupancy Dec. 12pm 15,670 13,990 11,540 2,450 1,680 4,130 - 2016 Observed Occupancy Dec. 2016 + Peak Season 12pm 15,670 13,990 14,280 -290 1,390 1,390 290 Adjustments ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated Demand (50th percentile 2pm 15,670 13,990 14,470 -480 1,200 1,200 480 factors) Table A3: Saturday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary Saturday Peak Demand Estimation Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Method Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction at Peak Level Effectively Needed Full Observed Occupancy Dec. 2pm 14,750 13,160 6,190 6,970 1,590 8,560 - 2016 Observed Occupancy Dec. 2016 + Peak Season 2pm 14,750 13,160 9,320 3,840 1,590 5,430 - Adjustments ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated Demand (50th 12pm 14,750 13,160 9,390 3,770 1,590 5,360 - percentile factors) ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated Demand (50th 8pm 13,820 12,330 10,350 1,980 1,490 3,470 - percentile factors) with 8pm Arena Event Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 8 of 179 Page 79 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Task 2: Projected Future Parking Demand Future parking supply and demand 10 years from now is projected considering ferry passenger growth, tourism trends to the Casco Bay Region, and three land use development scenarios that include newly build parking supply. Detailed information on the methodology and development projects included in the projections appear in Chapter J. Figure A8 is a map of included development projects in the analysis. Figure A8: Future Development Projects Included in the 10-year Future Parking Demand Analysis The parking projections were created by adding the projected land use development to existing land use and applying the same land-use based parking generation methodology as the existing conditions analysis. Three development scenarios were considered, a full build-out, a scenario including all approved projects plus 75 percent of likely projects, and a scenario including all approved projects plus 50 percent of likely projects. For the scaled down scenarios, newly built parking was scaled down along with expected development. The population and employment implications of the three scenarios in comparison to Portland’s comprehensive plan are discussed in Chapter J. Tables A4 and A5 summarize the projected parking supply and demand of the future scenarios. On weekdays during the peak season, the full build-out scenario is projected to result in parking demand that is 940 vehicles more than the projected effective parking capacity of the study area. The approved plus 75 percent of likely projects scenario is expected to result in parking demand that is 900 vehicles more than projected effective capacity, and the approved plus 50 percent of likely projects scenario is expected to result in a parking demand that is 840 vehicles more than projected Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 9 of 179 Page 80 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront effective parking capacity. On Saturdays during the peak season, all development scenarios are projected to result in parking demand that is still below the effective parking capacity of the study area. Table A4: Weekday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year Future Scenarios Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction Area at Level Effectively Needed Peak Full Existing + 2pm 18,870 16,870 17,810 -940 1,060 1,060 940 Full Build- Out Existing + 2pm 18,100 16,170 17,070 -900 1,030 1,030 900 (Approved + 75% Likely) Existing + 2pm 17,330 15,480 16,320 -840 1,010 1,010 840 (Approved + 50% Likely) Table A5: Saturday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year Future Scenarios Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction Area at Level Effectively Needed Peak Full Existing + 8pm 17,020 15,320 13,360 1,960 1,700 3,660 - Full Build- Out Existing + 8pm 16,250 14,510 12,830 1,680 1,740 3,420 - (Approved + 75% Likely) Existing + 8pm 15,480 13,820 12,310 1,510 1,660 3,170 - (Approved + 50% Likely) Figures A9 and A10 show the future parking demand projections graphically. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 10 of 179 Page 81 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 21,000 18,870 19,000 17,810 18,100 17,070 17,330 16,870 17,000 16,170 16,320 15,480 15,000 Vehicles 13,000 11,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50% Likely) Likely) Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level Peak Season 2pm Weekday Demand Figure A9: Weekday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year Future Scenarios 21,000 19,000 17,020 17,000 16,250 15,210 15,480 15,000 14,510 13,820 Vehicles 13,360 12,830 13,000 12,310 11,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50% Likely) Likely) Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level Peak Season 8pm Satuday Demand Figure A10: Saturday Peak Season and Peak Hour Parking Supply and Demand for the Combined Existing and 10-year Future Scenarios Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 11 of 179 Page 82 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Based on the results of the future parking supply and demand projections, we recommend a planning goal of reducing parking demand the study area by a range of 700-750 vehicles within a 10-year period. Parking demand should be managed to be at or just under the weekday peak hour effective capacity of parking supply inside of the study area, which is projected to be in a range between approximately 15,480 to 16,870 parking spaces depending on the future development scenario. Table A6 summarizes the derivation of the recommended parking demand reduction. Table A6: Recommended 10-year Parking Demand Reduction Scenario Study Area Peak Season Parking Demand Deficit Relative to Effective Capacity (in vehicles during the peak hour) Weekday Saturday Existing Condition Observed + Adjusted 290 0 Existing Condition Land-Used Based 480 0 Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods 190 0 #1 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Full Build-Out 940 0 #2 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 75% Likely Development 900 0 #3 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 50% Likely Development 840 0 #1- (Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 750 0 #2- (Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 710 0 #3- (Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 650 0 Recommended Planning Range Goal for 10- year Parking Demand Reduction 700-750 0 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 12 of 179 Page 83 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Task 3: Strategy Recommendations & Task 4 Implementation and Funding Reducing demand for parking does not mean reducing trips to the study area. A set of recommendations were developed to use technology, emerging mobility on demand services, and enhancement of transit and bicycle infrastructure to reduce reliance on the personal vehicle for transportation to the study area. The recommendations also aim to provide options for better management of the City’s existing parking resources, as well as an enhanced user experience. The specific parking challenges of employers, island residents, and low-wage earners are addressed in the recommendations and explained in greater detail in Chapter K. Local, state, and federal funding assistance for the parking demand reduction and management recommendations are detailed in Chapter J. New sources of local funding include membership dues to a new transportation association, a development impact fee, and a special purpose parking meter rate increase on high demand streets to fund targeted programs. State funding was not found to be a likely source of funding with the exception of a possible contribution toward a local match to leverage federal funding. Federal funding assistance is possible for a number of the recommendations, and a discussion is included in Chapter J on relevant federal formula grants and competitive grants for which the City of Portland or another eligible agency in the study area could create a proposal. Table A7 lists the parking demand reduction and management recommendations along with a suggested timeframe of implementation and suggested funding sources. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 13 of 179 Page 84 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table A7: Strategy Recommendations and Suggested Funding Sources Strategy Recommendations Suggested Suggested Funding Sources Implementation Timeframe Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation 1-2 years Private membership dues, Federal Association Formula Grant, City Funds Partner with Transportation Network Companies to 1-3 years User fees, City Funds, Development Address Specific Parking Challenges for Constituents Impact Fee, Special Purpose Meter (employers, island residents, low-wage earners) Rate Increase, Federal Formula or Competitive Grant Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Programs 1-2 years City Funds Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand 1-2 years City Funds Areas Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide 2 years City Funds Improve Parking Management and Technology 1 year -ongoing City Funds, Federal Formula or Competitive Grant Change Parking Requirements and Regulations 1 year City Funds Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses 1 year City Funds Permits Increase Car Sharing Use 1 year -ongoing City Funds, Federal Formula or Competitive Grant Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from 1-5 years City Funds, Development Impact Fee, the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study Federal Formula or Competitive Grant Additional Transit Recommendations 1-5 years City Funds, Development Impact Fee, Federal Formula or Competitive Grant Bicycle Infrastructure 1 year -ongoing City Funds, Development Impact Fee, Federal Formula or Competitive Grant Convert Unrestricted Parking 3-5 years City Funds Marketing and Advertising 1 year-ongoing City Funds, Private/nonprofit funds/partnerships Additional Data Collection 2 years-ongoing City Funds, Private Donations, Federal Formula Grant Construct New Structured Parking. Consider Requireing a Depending on Private Financing Repurposeable Design development, 3-7 years Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 14 of 179 Page 85 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront B. Existing Supply and Demand Analysis B.1 Introduction As Task 1 of The City of Portland Parking Study for the Eastern Waterfront & Old Port, Fort Hill Infrastructure conducted an existing conditions analysis. Task 1 objectives included:  Inventorying the existing parking supply within the study area,  Collecting parking occupancy data on one weekday and one weekend day during the winter,  Adjusting the collected parking data to represent the peak season,  Conducting interviews with parking stakeholders,  Identifying key parking issues related to employees of the study area, island residents, visitors, and study area residents,  Identify subareas within the study area that may be experiencing more parking challenges than others. B.2 The Study Area The study area included what is generally considered Downtown Portland south of Cumberland Avenue encompassing some of the Arts District, all of the Old Port, the Waterfront (referred to here as the Central Waterfront), and the Eastern Waterfront. Figure 1 below shows the study area boundary. A one quarter mile buffer area boundary is shown outside of the study area. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 15 of 179 Page 86 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 1: The Study Area Boundary and Subareas To allow for a more localized analysis in some sections of this report, the study area was divided into 7 subarea zones. Table 1 describes the streets demarcating the subarea zones. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 16 of 179 Page 87 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 1: Description of Subarea Zones Zone Location Area Dividing Streets Within the Study Area (acres) Downtown/ 1 63.7 North of Spring St, West of Preble St, West of Center St. Old Port Downtown/ 2 49.8 North of Spring St/Middle St, East of Center St, East of Preble St. Old Port Downtown/ 3 32.7 South of Spring St, West of Union St, North of Commercial St. Old Port Downtown/ South of Spring St/Middle St, East of Union St, North of Commercial St., West of 4 30.3 Old Port Franklin St. Central 5 58.5 South of Commercial St, Hobson's Wharf to Long Wharf. Waterfront Central 6 40.5 South of Commercial St, Long Wharf to Maine State Pier. Waterfront Eastern 7 52.6 East of Franklin St, Bounded by Fore St and part of Middle St to the North. Waterfront Total 328.1 B.3 Employment Employment growth in the Portland region and study area is considered here briefly to give a sense of the economic climate in which this parking study occurred. Between 2002 and 2014, a period that included The Great Recession of 2007 to 2009, employment growth was modest in the study area with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 0.7% annually. During this 12-year period, employment growth in the study area slightly outpaced the City of Portland the Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)1. Between 2010 and 2014, post-recession, employment grew in the study area at a faster CAGR of 2.2%. The rate of employment growth in the study area was, however, lower than the national employment growth rate during the same period as shown in Table 2. The Peninsula refers to the area south east of I- 295. Table 2: Recent Employment Growth in the Study Area and Regionally Study Area Peninsula Jobs City of Portland Portland-South U.S. Jobs Jobs Jobs Portland-Biddeford MSA Jobs 2002 15,721 33,987 63,912 235,145 114,115,409 2010 15,594 34,689 65,645 240,494 123,344,995 2014 17,149 36,607 67,648 247,487 135,035,443 Change '02-'14 9.1% 7.7% 5.8% 5.2% 18.3% CAGR '02-'14 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 1.4% CAGR '10-'14 2.2% 1.9% 1.4% 1.3% 4.3% Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau. 1 The Portland, ME MSA includes Cumberland, Sagadahoc, and York Counties Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 17 of 179 Page 88 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront The employment distribution among the subarea zones is shown in Table 3. Subarea Zone 4, in the Old Port, contains the most jobs, over 25% of the total study area employment, and has the highest employment density of the subarea zones at 144 jobs per acre. The subarea zones on the Central and Eastern Waterfronts currently contain fewer jobs, however as a subsequent chapter will show, the Waterfront zones are expected to see significant employment growth in the next 10 years. Table 3: Subarea Zone Employment Location Zone Area Primary Non- All Jobs Percentage Employment (acres) Jobs Primary 2014 of All Jobs Density 2014 Jobs 2014 2014 Jobs/Acre Downtown/ Old Port 1 63.7 3,722 349 4,071 23.7% 63.9 Downtown/ Old Port 2 49.8 3,764 219 3,983 23.2% 80.0 Downtown/ Old Port 3 32.7 2,045 91 2,136 12.5% 65.3 Downtown/ Old Port 4 30.3 4,088 274 4,362 25.4% 144.0 Central Waterfront 5 58.5 750 38 788 4.6% 13.5 Central Waterfront 6 40.5 948 89 1,037 6.0% 25.6 Eastern Waterfront 7 52.6 740 32 772 4.5% 14.7 Study Area 328.1 16,057 1,092 17,149 100.0% 52.3 Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau. Non-Primary Jobs are jobs for which there is more than one worker. A majority of workers employed in the study area, 70%, do not live within the city limits of the City of Portland. Just under 2% of study area workers currently live within the study area boundary. Figure 2 shows the home origins of workers in the study area as of 2014. 2.2% Sagadahoc County 39.8% Within Cumberland 12.0% York County County and outside of the 12.0% On the Peninsula City of Portland but outside of the… 30.0% The City of Portland 16.2% Within the City but outside of the Peninsula 1.9% Within the Study… 3.0% Androscoggin 12.9% Beyond the Portland-South Portland- Lewiston CSA (outside County the 4 counties shown) Figure 2: Study Area Worker Home Origins in 2014 Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, U.S. Census Bureau. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 18 of 179 Page 89 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront In Table 4, the home zip codes of study area workers who live within the City of Portland give a sense that Portland City residents who work within the study area are distributed roughly evenly among the City’s zip codes, with the exception of zip codes covering the islands. Table 4: Study Area Workers from City of Portland Zip Codes Home Origin of Worker Study Area Jobs Percent of All Study Area Jobs 04101 Downtown-East End-Bayside (includes study area) 1,970 12% 04102 West End-Stroudwater 1,400 9% 04103 North Deering-Deering Center 1,709 11% 04108 Peaks Island 61 <0.1% 04109 Great Diamond, Little Diamond Island 5 <0.1% Source: 2014 Longitudinal Employer–Household Dynamics (LEHD) data. U.S. Census Bureau. Of the workers who live outside of the City of Portland, Table 5 shows the top ten zip codes from which workers commute. Any mobility solution for commuting workers to the study area should take into consideration where more workers tend to begin their commute. Table 5: The Top Ten Zip Codes of Study Area Workers Outside of the City of Portland Home Origin of Worker Study Area Percent of All Jobs Study Area Jobs 04106 South Portland 1,347 8% 04092 Westbrook Area 686 4% 04074 Scarborough Area 674 4% 04105 Falmouth Area 547 3% 04107 Cape Elizabeth Area 525 3% 04062 Windham Area 440 3% 04038 Gorham Area 424 2% 04072 Saco Area 411 2% 04096 Yarmouth Area 328 2% 04021 Cumberland Center Area 317 2% Source: 2014 Longitudinal Employer–Household Dynamics (LEHD) data. U.S. Census Bureau. Figure 3 maps the zip codes shown in Table 5. The zip code boundaries are populated with dots representing workers to give a visual sense of relative worker density, although the dots are distributed evenly in each zip code boundary and not to actual worker home locations. South Portland, Zip Code 04106, and Westbrook, Zip Code 04092, stand out as particularly important commuter markets for the study area located outside of the City of Portland due to their relatively high density of study area worker homes. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 19 of 179 Page 90 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 3: Study Area Workers by Zip Code Outside the City of Portland B.4 Population As shown in Table 6 , according to the 2015 American Community Survey 5-year sample, Census Tract 3 in Cumberland County, which has a boundary that closely matches the study area, has a total resident population of 2,600. Since 2000, the total population in the study area has decreased, evidently due to a significant drop in the population living in group quarters, which includes group homes, institutions, shelters, etc. However, the number of occupied households in the study area and the population living in occupied households has remained relatively constant in the last 15 years, as shown in Table 7. In contrast, the Portland MSA gained population at a rate of nearly 7 percent during the same period. Table 6: Total Population in the Study Area and Regionally Year Study Peninsula City of Portland Portland-South Portland- Area Biddeford MSA 2000 3,125 23,168 64,249 487,568 2015 2,589 23,248 66,490 520,893 Change '00-'15 -17% 0.3% 3.5% 6.8% Sources: 2000 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 20 of 179 Page 91 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 7: Study Area Population in Occupied Households Year Occupied Population in Households Occupied Households 2000 1,709 2,434 2015 1,729 2,441 Change '00-'15 1.2% 0.3% Sources: 2000 Census, 2010 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau. The resident population within the study area is shown in Table 8. It shows that existing population within the study area is heavily concentrated in Subarea Zone 1 with approximately 63% of the population. Subarea Zones 5, 6, and 7, along the Central and Eastern Waterfronts currently have the fewest residents, however a subsequent chapter will show that these zones are expected to see significant residential development in the near future. Table 8: Subarea Zone Population Location Zone Area Pop% HH % (acres) Downtown/Old Port 1 63.7 63% 61% Downtown/Old Port 2 49.8 8% 9% Downtown/Old Port 3 32.7 10% 9% Downtown/Old Port 4 30.3 8% 8% Central Waterfront 5 58.5 4% 5% Central Waterfront 6 40.5 0% 0% Eastern Waterfront 7 52.6 7% 8% Study Area 328.1 100% 100% Sources: 2010 Census. U.S. Census Bureau. Census Block Level Data. B.5 Work Commute Travel Mode To get a sense of commuting trends in the Portland region, journey to work data from the 2000 census and 2015 ACS 5- year estimate were compared. The data describes how workers who live in a defined area commute to work collectively to all jobs. It is not possible to exclusively isolate how those who work in the study area commute, as that information would need to be extracted from a regional travel demand model or collected through a travel survey. The data shows significantly lower shares of drive alone commuting for workers who live in the study area or on the Peninsula as compared to the City and MSA. The share of workers who walk to work is very high in the study area at 43 percent in 2015, implying that those who live in the study area tend to work within a walkable distance from home. Table 9 summarizes regional commuting trends between 2000 and 2015, the key insights are:  The share of commuters who drive alone decreased in the region, and residents of the study area shifted away from driving alone more than the region with nearly a 9 percent decrease; Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 21 of 179 Page 92 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront  Carpooling decreased everywhere except with residents of the study area where the carpool mode to work rose by nearly 7 percent;  Transit commute mode share appears to have decreased slightly for residents who live in the urban core of the Portland region, yet the region saw a very small 0.1% increase in transit ridership suggesting that commuters living outside of the City of Portland have accounted for the small regional net gain in transit commute share;  Bicycle commute mode share increased on the Peninsula at just over 1 percent, yet residents of the study area appeared to be commuting by bicycle less in 2015 compared to 2000;  Walk mode share increased everywhere with impressive gains of nearly 9 percent on the Peninsula and nearly 12 percent for residents of the study area;  The share of workers who worked from home increased everywhere except for the study area, which saw a nearly 4 percent drop in the share of home workers. Table 9: Commute Mode Share Trends by Home Origin Commuter Home Origin Drive Carpool Transit Bicycle Walked Work from Home Alone & Other Portland-South Portland- 78.3% 9.3% 1.1% 0.6% 3.9% 7.0% Biddeford MSA 2015 City of Portland 67.4% 8.6% 3.1% 1.6% 12.2% 7.3% On the Peninsula 49.2% 6.9% 4.7% 2.8% 28.6% 7.9% Within the Study Area 40.6% 10.2% 3.5% 0% 42.5% 3.2% Commuter Home Origin Drive Carpool Transit Bicycle Walked Work from Home Alone & Other Portland-South Portland- 79.8% 10.2% 1.0% 0.3% 3.7% 5.0% Biddeford MSA 2000 City of Portland 70.7% 10.8% 3.9% 1.1% 8.9% 4.5% On the Peninsula 56.8% 11.8% 5.0% 1.7% 19.7% 4.9% Within the Study Area 49.4% 3.9% 8.5% 0.5% 30.8% 6.9% Commuter Home Origin Drive Carpool Transit Bicycle Walked Work from Home Alone & Other Portland-South Portland- -1.5% -0.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 1.9% Biddeford MSA Change '00-'15 City of Portland -3.3% -2.2% -0.8% 0.5% 3.3% 2.8% On the Peninsula -7.6% -4.8% -0.4% 1.1% 8.9% 2.9% Within the Study Area -8.8% 6.3% -5.0% -0.5% 11.7% -3.7% Sources: 2000 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 22 of 179 Page 93 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront B.6 Auto Ownership Auto ownership trends between 2000 and 2015 in the Portland MSA looked more or less like the nation as a whole, with growth in the number of vehicles available per occupied household of 3.3 percent in the Portland MSA versus 3.9 percent nationally. The City of Portland had higher growth in auto ownership than national and region rates with an increase of 4.4 percent. The urban core of Portland had slower rate of growth in vehicles per household during the 15-year period. Household vehicle ownership rates on The Peninsula grew by a rate of 2.6 percent during the period while the study area grew at a rather marginal rate of 1.1 percent. In 2015, Peninsula residents owned vehicles at a rate of 0.97 per household. Within the study area, the rate was 0.7 vehicles per household, well below the national average of 1.76 vehicles per household and the regional Portland average of 1.79 vehicles per household. It is interesting to note that while auto ownership levels rose, commuting to work by single occupancy vehicle appears to have decreased in the Portland region over the same timeframe. Table 10 shows the regional auto ownership trends normalized by occupied households. Table 10: Auto Ownership 2000-2015 Home Location Vehicles Occupied Veh/HH Households 2015 Total U.S. 205,767,452 116,926,305 1.76 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford MSA 383,798 214,667 1.79 City of Portland 40,495 30,119 1.34 On the Peninsula 11,611 11,917 0.97 Within the Study Area 1,206 1,729 0.70 Home Location Vehicles Occupied Veh/HH Households 2000 Total U.S. 178,344,236 105,480,101 1.69 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford MSA 340,344 196,669 1.73 City of Portland 38,283 29,715 1.29 On the Peninsula 11,468 12,073 0.95 Within the Study Area 1,179 1,709 0.69 Home Location Vehicles Occupied Veh/HH Households Change '00-'15 Total U.S. 13.3% 9.8% 3.9% Portland-South Portland-Biddeford MSA 12.8% 9.2% 3.3% City of Portland 5.8% 1.4% 4.4% On the Peninsula 1.2% -1.3% 2.6% Within the Study Area 2.3% 1.2% 1.1% Sources: 2000 Census, 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 23 of 179 Page 94 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront C. Existing Parking Information Technology Many cities are making detailed parking data available to users in real time. It is encouraging that the following smartphone apps are either already available in Portland, or will soon be:  Expected in the Fall of 2017, the new City of Portland Parking app that will allow for payment of on-street parking using a smartphone for the first time. Users will get updates on the app including alerts for expiring time and will have the opportunity to add more time up to the allowable limit. The app will be functional using both multi-space kiosk and traditional coin operated metered spaces. If over time the app can be enhanced to provide on-street occupancy and wayfinding to open on-street spaces, it could be helpful for Portland to dispel negative perceptions about parking availability. The new app along with the City’s new electronic enforcement technology should help the city better manage on-street parking supply.  The Passport Parking app is used by the largest surface lot operator in the study area, Unified Parking Partners. The Passport app already informs users where to find surface lot space on a map of Portland, allows for price comparison, hourly or multi-hour parking purchasing, and the app interfaces seamlessly with Google Maps for wayfinding. The interface could be improved by displaying price information earlier in the transaction process to quicken price comparing and including information on real-time lot occupancy.  Spare Spott is a parking app operating in Portland that allows commercial parking operators or commercial property owners to sell transient parking at underperforming locations that may have low visibility or are grouped in small numbers in “spare” locations. The app markets itself as a way for operators who do not have their own app to connect with customers and sell underperforming spaces. The app splits profit with the owner. Hourly prices are displayed on a map of Portland prominently, making price shopping easy upon fist opening the app. The company may raise or lower hourly rates based on demand every six months.  ParkMe and Parkopedia are global parking apps and websites that began as mostly informational but are evolving into full service parking apps as more operators share real-time information and partner with them to allow reservations. Substantial information on parking facility operating hours, prices, and facility size, and wayfinding is currently available for Downtown Portland using both apps. A limited number of parking operators currently allow the purchasing of parking using the apps. ParkMe also provides real-time occupancy at structured parking facilities, and in some markets, such as Washington, DC, the coverage of occupancy data at downtown garages is impressive. Currently, just one floor of the One City Center Garage in Portland appears to provide real-time occupancy information to the ParkMe app. With more parking operator partnerships, these apps could become excellent tools for prospective parking users. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 24 of 179 Page 95 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront D. Existing Parking Supply D.1 Structured Parking Supply Inventory Structured parking garages were inventoried in the study area using existing City parking survey data, supplemental aerial imagery, and information from City staff. The parking structures shown below in Figure 4 are categorized as either: Public Use- Daily general purpose public parking use including monthly and transient users. Blocks of passes may be held by employers and or hotels/business for customers. Allocation of space to monthly pass holders and transient users is typically managed in real time with the help of software. Private Commercial- Parking reserved for the employees and customers of commercial tenants in attached or nearby buildings. Private Residential- Parking reserved exclusively for residents of attached or nearby buildings. Private with Limited Public Use- Parking reserved for private tenants of attached or nearby buildings with some allowance for general use public parking either through monthly parking passes or limited transient hours typically during off-peak periods. Figure 4: Structured Parking Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 25 of 179 Page 96 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront An inventory of the number of parking structures by subarea zone and primary use is shown in Table 11. The land area consumed by structured parking is included. Where a parking structure fit within the structural footprint of a commercial or residential structure, the land area was not counted. This exception does not include parking structures with ground floor retail. Two public use garages within the quarter mile buffer area surrounding the study area are also included. Table 11: Structured Parking Inventory: Quantity and Area Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer Total Area+ Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Use 3 4 1 2 0 1 1 12 2 Private with Limited Public Use 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 N/A Private Use 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 8 N/A Total Parking Structures 4 5 2 4 1 3 2 21 2 Structured Parking Area (acres)* 2.6 2.8 0.9 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.9 9.5 2.0 Subarea Zone Land Area (acres) 63.7 49.8 32.7 30.3 58.5 40.5 52.6 328.1 N/A Structured Parking pct Land Area 4.1% 5.6% 2.6% 5.3% 0.0% 1.8% 1.7% 2.9% N/A *The areas of parking structures built beneath a commercial or residential building are not included. + Structured parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included the Chestnut St garage and the Public Market garage. Structured parking capacities are summarized in Table 11. The Downtown/Old Port contains the most structured parking in the study area, with Subarea Zones 1 and 2 containing just over half of the structured parking. Total structured parking capacity totals 7,013 spaces with 87% percent of total spaces (6,113) located in garages operated for public use. There are an additional 1,050 structured parking spaces outside of the study area north of Cumberland Avenue within the quarter mile buffer area. Effective capacity is defined as 90 percent of total capacity, which is the maximum occupancy level attained before users have high difficulty locating spaces and queuing begins to occur in and around the facility. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 26 of 179 Page 97 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 12: Structured Parking Inventory: Spaces Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer Area+ Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Use 1560 1946 285 1184 0 418 720 6,113 1050 Private with Limited Public Use 0 0 195 0 0 0 0 195 N/A Private Commercial 0 73 0 284 0 20 0 377 N/A Private Residential 37 0 0 0 150 30 111 328 N/A Total Capacity 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050 Effective Capacity (90%) 1,437 1,817 432 1,321 135 421 748 6,312 945 + Structured parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included the Chestnut St garage and the Public Market garage. D.2 Structured Parking Monthly Supply and Pricing The exact number of monthly spaces sold at privately operated garages is considered confidential information and was not shared by operators for this study. The amount of monthly parking offered is sometimes set by lending terms. Parking operators set their rate structures and parking mix (monthly vs. transient) to maximize revenue. Transient parking users pay a higher daily rate but can be a less reliable source of revenue. Many structured parking operators use software to optimize the parking mix offered. The amount of monthly parking available to employees in the study area is among the most important parking issues Portland is facing, as employers have voiced frustration over the scarcity of monthly parking for new employees. Table 13 shows what the quantity of monthly structured parking would likely be under a range of reasonable assumptions for different types of structured parking. For the public use structures, a low range of 65 percent and a high range of 85 percent of total capacity for daytime monthly parking was assumed, including an oversell rate of 10 percent. Oversell rates are possible because of the daily probability of monthly parker absenteeism, vacation, and time differences in worker shifts. Reserved parking is not typical in Portland except for in private commercial and residential garages. Monthly supply in private commercial garages was estimated as the total capacity since these structures are primarily built to accommodate the employees of attached structures. Garages primarily for hotel patron use were estimated at 15 percent to 20 percent monthly. Although residential parking structures do not typically contract out monthly parking for nearby employees, an estimated 12 percent of structured residential spaces are counted towards monthly parking capacity because it is unlikely that residents who both live and work within the study area would pay to re-park their vehicles at their place of employment. The 12 percent estimate is derived from dividing the number of primary job holders who both live and work in the study area, 3002 by the adult population of the study area, 2,4313. 2 Source: 2014 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the latest year available. 3 Source: 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. 18 years and over population of Census Tract 3 in Cumberland County Maine. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 27 of 179 Page 98 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 13: Structured Parking Pricing and Estimate of Monthly Structured Parking Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study Area 1/4 mi Waterfront Waterfront (1-7) Buffer Area+ Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Capacity 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050 Effective Capacity 1,437 1,817 432 1,321 135 421 748 6,312 945 (Spaces) Estimate of Monthly 1,020- 1,460- 1,130- 18- 70-100 320-410 530-690 4,650-5,960 680-880 Spaces 1,460 1,890 1,390 20 Monthly Percentage of 70%- 72- 15- 77-95% 12% 68-88% 64-83% 66-85% 71-93% Total Spaces (Estimate) 91% 94% 20% Average Monthly Price $120 $126 $120 $160 N/A $155 $155 $134 $120 Average Daily $25 $30 $16 $45 N/A $40 $50 $32 $35 Average Hourly Price $2.60 $3.10 $1.75 $5.50 N/A $5.00 $5.00 $3.60 $3.00 + Structured parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included the Chestnut St garage and the Public Market garage. Also in Table 13 are average monthly, daily, and hourly parking prices for structured parking. The average prices in each zone were weighted by garage size. The highest average parking rates are found in Subarea Zone 4 in the Old Port, Subarea Zone 6 near the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, and Subarea Zone 7 the Eastern Waterfront. To put the average structured parking prices into context, Table 14 was made to show how average prices from the study area compared to other cities in New England. As a quick way to aggregate price data from other cities, the online parking information from site Parkopedia.com was used to retrieve parking prices from the 5 closest parking structures to City Hall in each of the respective cities. The averages shown are weighted by structure size where possible and reflect weekday prices. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 28 of 179 Page 99 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 14: Comparing Structured Parking Cost in New England Cities City Monthly City Daily City Hourly 1 Boston, MA $502 1 Boston, MA $39 1 Boston, MA $25.58 2 Providence, RI $211 2 Portland, ME $32 2 Providence, RI $8.00 3 Hartford, CT $202 3 Portsmouth, NH $25 3 Hartford, CT $4.00 4 New Haven, CT $159 4 Hartford, CT $22 4 New Haven, CT $3.89 5 Portsmouth, NH $135 5 Providence, RI $19 5 Portland, ME $3.60 6 Portland, ME $134 6 New Haven, CT $17 6 Bridgeport, CT $3.25 7 Worcester, MA $121 7 Stamford, CT $14 7 Worcester, MA $3.18 8 Burlington, VT $96 8 Bridgeport, CT $14 8 Stamford, CT $3.00 9 Manchester, NH $93 9 Springfield, MA $13 9 Manchester, NH $2.26 10 Springfield, MA $93 10 Manchester, NH $11 10 Portsmouth, NH $1.25 11 Bridgeport, CT $89 11 Worcester, MA $11 11 Springfield, MA $1.23 12 Stamford, CT $89 12 Burlington, VT $10 12 Burlington, VT $1.11 Source: City of Portland, ME Parking Survey 2017, Parkopedia.com accessed in June 2017. Portland appears to be middle of the pack compared to other New England cities by monthly and hourly prices for structured parking. Daily structured parking prices, however, show that Portland is second only to Boston in average price. In some markets, garages offer evenings-only monthly parking at reduced rates, however the practice does not appear to be widespread in the Portland. One garage in Subarea Zone 4 advertises monthly evenings-only parking at a cost of $85. D.3 Surface Lot Parking Surface parking lots were inventoried in the study area using existing City parking survey data, supplemental aerial imagery, and information from City staff. The surface lots in Figure 5 are categorized by their primary use as either: Public Use- General purpose public parking use. Payment structure may either be by monthly permit, daily, hourly or some combination thereof. Public use lots may be publicly or privately owned. Private with Limited Public Use- Private lots primarily for employee or customer parking that offer limited general- purpose public use either through the sale of a limited number of permits for weekdays or off-peak transient access. Private Commercial- Parking intended for use by the customers of nearby commercial land use, possibly with limited employee parking mixed in. Private Residential- Parking reserved exclusively for residents of nearby buildings. Private Employer- Parking reserved for employee or industrial parking use. Private Shared/Other- Parking that serves a mix of nearby land uses including residential, commercial, and or civic/ecclesiastical/institutional use. General public parking is not allowed. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 29 of 179 Page 100 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 5: Surface Lot Parking Figure 5 also includes a small number of surface parking lots located outside of the study area that are known to offer general purpose public parking. There are many more private surface lots within the quarter mile buffer area, but most serve businesses and residences outside of the study area. Table 15 summarizes the quantity of surface lots in each category by subarea and includes the percentage of land occupied by surface parking. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 30 of 179 Page 101 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 15: Surface Lot Parking Inventory: Quantity and Area Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer Area+ Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Use Lots 5 4 5 2 3 2 3 24 3 Private Lots with Lim. Public Use 4 2 2 1 2 1 2 14 2 Private Lots 14 5 8 5 10 3 7 52 N/A Total Surface Lots 23 11 15 8 15 6 12 90 N/A Public Use Lot Area (acres) 1.8 6.3 6.7 1.8 3.5 0.2 1.6 21.9 1.78 Private with Lim. Public Use Lot Area (acres) 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.6 2.7 0.4 7.7 0.3 Private Lot Area (acres) 5.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 9.0 1.3 6.3 26.5 N/A Total Surface Lot Area (acres) 11.7 8.5 8.9 3.3 14.0 6.8 8.7 61.9 N/A Subarea Zone Area (acres) 63.7 49.8 32.7 30.3 58.5 40.5 52.6 328.1 N/A Surface Lot Parking Pct Land Area 18.4% 17.0% 27.2% 11.0% 23.9% 16.7% 16.6% 18.9% N/A + Surface lot parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included Maria’s Ristorante, Angelo’s Acre, 52 Danforth St, 62 India St, and 59 Middle St. Surface parking land area totaled 18.9 percent in the study area. When combined with the land area of structured parking, which was 2.9 percent (as shown in Table 11), the total land area allocated to parking in the study area becomes 21.8 percent. To put the percent of land area devoted to parking in the study area into perspective, Table 16 shows central business district land area allocated to off-street parking from past studies of other cities. The study area, which is a close proxy for Portland’s CBD, is among other CBDs known to have a high percent of land area allocated to surface parking. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 31 of 179 Page 102 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 16: Comparing CBD Land Area Allocated to Parking City Year Percent of CBD Land Area Devoted to Parking 4 Los Angeles, CA 1960 24% Portland, ME 2017 22% 5 Silver Springs, MD 2010 22% 6 Hartford, CT 2000 18% 3 Dallas, TX 1961 18% New Haven, CT 20005 16% 5 Berkeley, CA 2000 6% 5 Cambridge, MA 2000 3% The capacity of surface lots is summarized in Table 17. Surface lot parking supply within the study area totals 6,405 spaces with 43 percent of total spaces (2,785) designated for public use. There are an additional 316 spaces outside of the study area identified as offering public parking. Effective capacity is shown as 90 percent of total capacity, which is the maximum occupancy level attained (5,765 spaces) before users have high difficulty locating spaces and queuing begins to occur in and around the facility. Table 17: Surface Lot Parking Inventory: Spaces Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi Downtown/Old Port Buffer Area+ Waterfront Waterfront Area Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Public Use Lots 208 889 672 254 520 32 210 2,785 271 Private with Lim. Public Use Lots 175 67 163 32 125 317 56 935 45 Private Employer Lots 136 65 74 35 361 - 282 953 N/A Private Commercial Lots 261 6 114 90 261 133 464 1,329 N/A Private Other/Mixed Lots 188 15 - - - - - 203 N/A Private Residential Lots 130 37 6 27 - - - 200 N/A Total Capacity 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 316 Effective Capacity 988 971 926 394 1,140 434 911 5,765 284 + Surface lot parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included Maria’s Ristorante, Angelo’s Acre, 52 Danforth St, 62 India St, and 59 Middle St. 4 Manville, Michael; Shoup, Donald. "Parking, People, and Cities". Journal of Urban Planning and Development. American Society of Civil Engineers. December 2005. 5 Johnson, Matt, "Parking Takes Up Space", Greater Greater Washington. July 23, 2010. <https://ggwash.org/view/5939/parking- takes-up-space> 6 McCahil, Chris et. Al. "Visualizing Urban Parking Supply Ratios". Congress for New Urbanisim 22nd Annual Meeting, Buffalo, NY June 4-7, 2014. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 32 of 179 Page 103 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront D.4 Surface Lot Monthly Supply and Pricing An estimate of monthly surface lot parking supply (available during the daytime) was made using the following assumptions. Public use lots that advertise as monthly parking only during weekday working hours are known. Public use lots that offer a mix of monthly, daily, and hourly parking where the number of monthly parking spaces sold was unknown were assumed to offer a range between 65 percent and 85 monthly with an oversell rate of 10%. Private employer lots were considered to be 100% monthly. Private commercial lots are primarily for customers, however 25% was counted as monthly to account for limited parking for business owners and employees who may have close parking privileges. Similarly, a 25% assumption was also made for shared/other parking lots. Private residential parking lots were counted as 12% monthly parking, based on the percent of adult study area residents who also work in the study area and would be unlikely to repark their vehicle at work. Table 18 shows the estimated range of monthly parking by subarea zone. Also in Table 18 are surface lot weighted price averages. Price averages were weighted by lot size. A separate average was calculated for weekend prices because some private lots offer public daily and hourly parking on weekends only. The average daily weekend rate was slightly lower, $21 compared to $23, on weekdays. The average weekend hourly rate was slightly higher at $3.75, compared to $3.25 on weekdays. Additionally, a limited number of lots offer a flat evening rate after 6pm at an average of $5. Table 18: Surface Lot Parking Pricing and Estimate of Monthly Parking Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study Waterfront Waterfront Area 1/4 mi (subareas Buffer 1-7) Area+ Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Capacity (Spaces) 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 257 Effective Capacity 988 971 926 394 1,140 434 911 5,765 231 (Spaces) Estimate of Monthly 540- 750- 750- 270- 920- 370- 600-650 4200-4800 110-160 (Spaces) 580 940 890 330 1030 380 49- 70- 73- 62- 77- 73-81% 59-64% 66-75% 43-62% Estimate of Monthly (Pct) 53% 87% 86% 75% 79% Avg Monthly Price $95 $108 $120 $135 $119 $140 $116 $118 $81 Avg Weekday Daily (if offered) N/A $17 $36 N/A $10 $40 $10 $23 $6 Avg Weekday Hourly $3.75 $2.75 $3.75 $6.25 $3.00 $6.00 $5.00 $3.25 $4 Avg. Evening Flat Rate after 6pm (if offered) N/A N/A $5.00 $6.00 $5.00 N/A N/A $5.00 N/A Avg Weekend Daily (if offered) N/A $19 $36 N/A $8 $40 $10 $21 $6 Avg Weekend Hourly $4.00 $2.50 $4.25 $4.25 $4.00 $6.00 $5.00 $3.75 $4 + Surface lot parking in the ¼ mile buffer area included Maria’s Ristorante, Angelo’s Acre, 52 Danforth St, 62 India St, and 59 Middle St. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 33 of 179 Page 104 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Comparing the study area surface lot prices to other cities in New England shows that the monthly and hourly surface lot prices fall near the middle of the pack in New England, but the daily surface lot price of $21 ranks third behind Boston and Portsmouth, NH. Table 19 contains a surface lot price comparison. The data from other cities was collected by averaging prices at up to 5 of the nearest surface lots to each respective city hall using the parking information site Parkopedia.com and supplemental information from individual city websites. Table 19: Comparing Surface Lot Parking Cost in New England Cities City Monthly City Daily City Hourly 1 Boston, MA $332 1 Boston, MA $34 1 Boston, MA $15.00 2 Providence, RI $188 2 Portsmouth, NH $25 2 Providence, RI $8.00 3 New Haven, CT $135 3 Portland, ME $21 3 Hartford, CT $4.70 4 Portland, ME $118 4 New Haven, CT $19 4 New Haven, CT $4.51 5 Hartford, CT $117 5 Burlington, VT $16 5 Portland, ME $3.25 6 Stamford, CT $75 6 Providence, RI $16 6 Burlington, VT $1.80 7 Manchester, NH $60 7 Hartford, CT $12 7 Springfield, MA $1.38 8 Springfield, MA $60 8 Stamford, CT $10 8 Portsmouth, NH* $1.00 9 Burlington, VT $55 9 Bridgeport, CT $10 9 Worcester, MA $0.90 10 Portsmouth, NH N/A 10 Worcester, MA $8 10 Manchester, NH $0.61 Worcester, MA N/A 11 Springfield, MA $6 Stamford, CT N/A Bridgeport, CT N/A 12 Manchester, NH $6 Bridgeport, CT N/A *Surface lots in Portsmouth, NH priced at $1 per hour have a 2 to 4-hour time limit. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 34 of 179 Page 105 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront D.5 On-Street Parking Supply Using recent City survey data for on-street parking supply in the study area and supplemental counts using available street level images, the total on-street supply for the study area is summarized in Table 20. Table 20: On-Street Parking Supply Summary Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study Area Percent of Total Waterfront Waterfront (subareas 1-7) On-Street Supply Regulation Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Percent 2 Hour Meter 366 381 179 293 115 88 63 or (48)* 1,470 66% 2 Hour Zone 10 7 13 2 0 0 76 108 5% 1 Hour Zone 106 22 27 8 0 0 2 165 7% 30min Zone 3 34 2 4 0 1 0 44 2% 15min Zone 9 12 21 12 2 3 12 71 3% 5min Zone 12 11 1 1 0 0 0 25 1% VLZ 24 27 29 33 3 1 0 117 5% Motor Cycle 10 13 3 9 9 0 0 44 2% Disabled 22 17 2 4 2 1 1 49 2% Special Permit 8 14 0 0 0 0 0 22 1% Unrestricted 6 7 60 0 0 0 53 126 6% Taxi 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0.1% School Restricted 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.4% Total 577 553 337 367 131 94 192 2,251 100% Bus Zone 5 0 0 1 3 1 0 10 *(15 meters on the Eastern Waterfront are taken out of service during cruise ship visits and fall events, 48 spaces are included in the total). Portland charges $1.25 per hour for on-street parking, a rate comparable to other medium to large New England cities. As Table 21 shows, where other cities have raised rates higher than a $1.25 per hour, they have also typically introduced some type of price variability by location with higher rates in higher demand areas. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 35 of 179 Page 106 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 21: On- Street Parking Pricing in New England Cities City Hourly Price Exceptions Metered Payment Meter Time Methods Hours Limits Boston, MA $1.25 A pilot test in the Back-Bay Neighborhood is testing 2hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am- rates of $3.75 for all meters; A pilot test in the ParkBoson app 8pm Seaport District is testing demand based pricing where hourly meter rates are adjusted bi-monthly from $1 to $2.50. The adjustments are made in $0.50 increments up or down using an 80% occupancy by block-face threshold. Portsmouth, NH Varies Hourly prices range from $1.50 to $2.00 15 min, 3hr, Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 9am and 4hr Passport app, to 8pm, Sun EasyPark device 12pm to 8pm New Haven, CT Varies Hourly prices range from $0.75 to $1.50 15min, Coin, Credit Mon-Sat 8am- 30min, 1hr, Parkmobile app 9pm 2hr, 5hr, and no time limit meters Providence, RI $1.25 2hr, 3hr,4hr, Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am- and 10 hr Passport app 9pm Portland, ME $1.25 2hr Coin, Credit, new Mon-Sat 9am- parking app 6pm Hartford, CT $1.00 2hrs Coin, Credit, Mon-Fri 8am- Prepaid Downtown 6pm Gift Card Worcester, MA $1.00 1hr, 2hr Coin, Credit Mon-Sat 8am- 8pm Bridgeport, CT* $1 2hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am- MobileNow app 6pm Stamford, CT $1 Not available Coin, Parkmobile Mon-Sat 8am- app 7pm Burlington, VT Varies Hourly rates $1 for most spaces and $0.40 for the 15min, 30 Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am- 10hr spaces min, 1hr, 3hr, Parkmobile app 10pm 10hr Manchester, NH $0.75 Downtown on-street permit $55 per month, 2hr, 10hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Fri 8am- commercial use $20 per day on-street permits EasyPark device 8pm, Sat 10am-8pm Springfield, MA $0.50 2hr Coin, Credit, Mon-Sat 8am- Prepaid card, 6pm Passport app *Bridgeport, CT has recently installed new ‘smart’ parking meters that include sensors and cameras for automated ticketing by mail. Results have been mixed. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 36 of 179 Page 107 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront D.6 Total Study Area Parking Supply Combining the structured, surface lot, and on-street parking supply in the study area gives the total parking capacity shown in Table 22. The study area capacity comes out to 15,669 spaces with an effective capacity of 13,990 spaces which is the state at which all structures and surface lots are both 90% full and on-street parking is 85% occupied. The total estimate of monthly parking comes out to a likely range of between 8,730 and 10,750 monthly spaces, which is 65 percent to 80 percent of the total off-street supply in the study area. Table 22: Total Study Area Parking Supply Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi Waterfront Water Area (1-7) Buffer front Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total On-Street 577 553 337 367 131 94 192 2,251 N/A Total Surface Lot Spaces 1,098 1,079 1,029 438 1,267 482 1,012 6,405 257 Total Garage Spaces 1,597 2,019 480 1,468 150 468 831 7,013 1,050 Total Capacity 3,272 3,651 1,846 2,273 1,548 1,044 2,035 15,669 1,307 Effective Capacity 2,916 3,258 1,645 2,027 1,387 935 1,822 13,990 1,176 Estimated Monthly 1,020- 1,460- 70- 1,130- 320- 530- 4,650- 750- 20 Structured 1,460 1,890 100 1,390 410 690 5,960 980 Estimated Monthly 750- 920- 370- 600- 4,200- 110- 540-580 750-940 270-330 Surface Lot 890 1030 380 650 4800 160 Total Off-Street 1560- 2210- 820- 1400- 920- 690- 1130- 8,730- 860- Estimated Monthly 2040 2830 990 1720 1030 800 1340 10,750 1140 Total Estimated Monthly 54- 65- 73- 66- Percent of Off-Street 58-76% 71-91% 73-90% 61-73% 65-80% 66% 73% 84% 87% Parking In the sections that follow, observed parking occupancy and a land-use based parking analysis estimates overall parking demand in the study area. However, neither of these methods could isolate monthly parking demand from transient demand. A quick approximation of monthly demand from employees in the study area is made using a combination of the employment from Table 3, the commuter mode share data from Table 9, and the estimated supply of monthly parking in Table 22. The results in Table 23 place the demand for monthly employee parking in the study area about 320 spaces above the high range estimate for monthly parking supply in the study area. After including the estimated monthly parking supply in the quarter mile buffer area as available to study area workers, the total monthly supply within walking distance to the study area is about 800 greater than the demand. The monthly parking demand from employees who work outside Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 37 of 179 Page 108 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront of the study area but within the quarter mile buffer area was not calculated, however these employees surely take up some of the monthly supply in the buffer area, although it is more common for employers outside of the study area to provide on-site parking. This approximation is not precise enough to produce a definitive number of additional monthly supply needed. There are also island residents who also purchase monthly parking at and near the ferry terminal. Overall monthly parking demand per day is probably within a couple of hundred of the total monthly supply within a walkable distance of the study area. Unrestricted on-street parking in the study area and in adjacent neighborhoods is also likely being used by full-time workers given the tight market for monthly parking. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 38 of 179 Page 109 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 23: An Approximation of Monthly Parking Demand per Day from Study Area Employees Downtown/Old Port Central Eastern Study 1/4 mi Study Waterfront Waterfront Area Buffer Area + (1-7) Area Buffer Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Primary Employees7 3,722 3,764 2,045 4,088 750 948 740 16,057 Subtract Study Area (70) (70) (38) (76) (14) (18) (14) (300) Resident Employees (1.9%)6 Subtract Avg (108) (109) (59) (119) (22) (27) (21) (466) Employee Absenteeism Rate (2.9%)8 Subtract Avg (231) (233) (127) (253) (47) (59) (46) (996) Employee Vacation Rate (6.2%)9 Estimated 3,314 3,351 1,821 3,640 668 844 659 14,296 Commuting Employees City of Portland Drive 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% 73.1% Alone Mode Share10 City of Portland 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% Carpool Mode Share9 Estimated Drive 2,422 2,450 1,331 2,661 488 617 482 10,450 Alone Vehicles11 Estimated Carpool 143 145 79 157 29 36 28 617 Vehicles10 Estimated Total Monthly Vehicle 2,570 2,590 1,410 2,820 520 650 510 11,070 Parking Demand Total Estimated 1,560- 2,210- 1,400- 920- 690- 8,730- 860- 9,590- Monthly Parking 2,040 2,830 820-990 1,720 1,030 800 1,130-1,340 10,750 1,140 11,890 Spaces 7 Primary Employees are defined as working at jobs which are filled by only one worker. Source: 2014 Longitudinal Household Employer Dynamics data from the U.S. Census Bureau. 8 Absence rate from work for all occupations. Not including vacation. Source: 2016 Current Population Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 9 Data from Project Time Off research on the vacation habits of American workers. American workers were found to have taken 16.2 vacation days on average. https://www.projecttimeoff.com/research/state-american-vacation-2016. With 261 work days in 2016, the percentage of vacation days taken represent 6.2% of work days. 10 The drive-alone and carpool mode shares from the City of Portland are used as an approximation in the absence of specific mode share data for all commuters to the study area. Rates are adjusted here after excluding the share of workers who reported working from home. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau. 11 Carpool vehicles were estimated using the reported rates of 2-person, 3-person, and 4-person or more carpool users. It is assumed that the carpool vehicle parks within the study area or buffer area. 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimate. U.S. Census Bureau. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 39 of 179 Page 110 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Based on Table 23, Figure 6 shows which subarea zones likely generate more monthly parking demand than the high estimate of monthly parking supply in each zone. Subarea Zones 1, 3, and 4 have more employee demand for monthly parking than available supply in those zones respectively. Employees of these zones are likely parking in adjacent zones with available monthly parking where available. 3,200 2,830 2,820 2,700 2,570 2,590 2,200 2,040 1,720 1,700 1,410 1,340 1,140 1,200 990 1,030 800 650 700 520 510 200 (300) Est. Demand for Employee Monthly Parking Est. Monthly Parking Supply Figure 6: Monthly Parking Supply and Demand by Subarea Zone *Monthly parking demand from land use in the ¼ mile buffer area was not calculated but consumes some of the monthly parking supply shown here. **Island resident monthly parking also consumes monthly supply particularly in Zones 6 and 7. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 40 of 179 Page 111 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront D.7 Time of Day Variation in Parking Supply Due to variation in off-street parking operating days and hours, total parking supply in the study is not constant. Figure 7 shows how total parking supply varies on a weekday, and Figure 8 shows how total parking supply varies on Saturday. 17,000 16,000 15,669 15,129 15,000 14,461 13,990 Parking Capacity 14,000 13,504 13,463 13,080 Weekday 13,000 12,902 Total Weekday 12,004 Effective 12,000 11,659 11,000 10,000 Time Figure 7: Weekday Parking Capacity by Time of Day Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 41 of 179 Page 112 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 16,000 15,000 14,752 14,152 13,824 14,000 13,824 Parking Capacity 13,426 13,426 13,164 12,665 13,000 12,624 Saturday 12,645 12,329 Total 12,329 11,971 11,971 Saturday 12,000 Effective 11,286 11,268 11,000 10,000 Time Figure 8: Saturday Parking Capacity by Time of Day12 E. Observed Parking Occupancy Parking occupancy data was collected at a sample of garages, surface lots, and on-street sites simultaneously on Thursday, December 1st, 2016 and Saturday, December 3rd, 2016. The weather on the Thursday sample date was 36 degrees and had a light drizzle of rain until 9am before overcast skies stabilized. The Saturday sample had a temperature of 40 degrees with intermittent clouds and sun. The choice of early December for collecting the data was more of a project timeline necessity than a first choice, but as shown in the seasonal factors section, the sample days appear to have had higher than average, but not annual peak demand. December is near the annual low in visitors to Portland from outside of the region. This issue is addressed in the seasonal factors section where the observed parking occupancy is adjusted for the peak season. The occupancy data presented in this section shows the amount of vacant space observed without adjustment for how the vacant space is managed. Almost all of the structured parking operators in the study area manage their facilities with software to maximize the amount of vacant space that may be sold to transient demand at a certain time of day. Surface lots in Portland tend to be operated more manually. For surface lots that are managed in a way that does not allow for optimal resale of vacant space to transient users, there may be fewer available spaces for resale than observed 12 The large decrease in parking between 3pm and 5pm on Saturday resulted from The One City Center Garage closing at 4pm and the Cumberland County Courthouse garage closing at 5pm when this parking capacity analysis was completed. However, the operating hours of Th One City Center garage (600 spaces) has since changed to 24 hours a day and 7 days per week. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 42 of 179 Page 113 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront occupancy would suggest. As shown in Table 23, the daily average rate of absenteeism and vacation use for American workers is about 10%. Additionally, some monthly parking users may leave during the day for appointments etc. As a result, operators might oversell their target share of monthly parking based on their experience with the daily use rates of monthly parking. We have not factored up the observed occupancy rates to address monthly parking user vacancy, because making efficient use of that vacancy can be maximized with optimal parking management, and it is important to know the observed amount of vacant space so that the efficiency of parking supply management might be known in cases where parking is said to be unavailable but vacant spaces exist. E.1 Observed Surface Lot Occupancy (Figure 5 from Section D.3 repeated here for reference) As described in the section on garage and surface lot supply, there are 90 surface lots containing 6,405 spaces in the study area. On two data collection days, the surface lot occupancy data was manually collected by a team of observers every two hours. The Thursday count intervals began at 8am and concluded with a final count interval at 8pm. On Saturday, the counting began at 10am and concluded at 8pm. Between 60 and 77 lots were captured in the sample depending on the hour, and the coverage was well distributed across the study area. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 43 of 179 Page 114 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Off-street parking is considered effectively full when it reaches 90 percent occupancy because that is the occupancy level beyond which the facility is perceived as full by users. The short-term rise and fall of occupancy level due to turnover needs a 10 percent reserve capacity to prevent intermittent queuing in and around the facility. For the study area on Thursday, a single peak was observed during the middle of the day. The peak average surface lot occupancy of 72 percent was observed at 12pm, and the observation at 2pm of 70 percent was nearly as high. Occupancy dropped steadily after 2pm to a low of 19 percent by 8pm. Figure 9 shows a chart of average surface lot occupancy for the study area for the Thursday sample. As a measure of dispersion in the sample of surface lots, the bars represent one standard deviation from the mean, which tended to be about +-22 percent. 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% Percent Occupied 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 8AM 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM Average 46.3% 67.4% 71.5% 70.4% 59.8% 34.4% 19.2% Effectively Full 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Figure 9: Surface Lot Occupancy by Location Thursday Sample Figure 10 shows a chart of overall average surface lot occupancy for the study area on Saturday, the peak surface lot occupancy of 37.5 percent was observed at 2pm. A second smaller peak of 31.4 percent occurred at 8pm. The absence of many weekday employees appears to open up ample surface lot space on Saturday. One standard deviation from the mean tended to be about +-25%. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 44 of 179 Page 115 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% Percent Occupied 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM Average 19.1% 24.8% 37.5% 30.3% 29.3% 31.4% Effectively Full 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Figure 10: Surface Lot Occupancy by Location Saturday Sample Within the study area, variation in surface lot occupancy by subarea zone is shown for the Thursday sample in Figure 11. Location (Zone) Spaces 8AM 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM Downtown/Old Port (1) 1,098 51% 62% 67% 60% 52% 49% 32% Downtown/Old Port (2) 1,079 42% 73% 74% 75% 65% 35% 14% Downtown/Old Port (3) 1,029 47% 77% 81% 84% 70% 38% 20% Downtown/Old Port (4) 438 58% 70% 69% 72% 64% 31% 26% Central Waterfront (5) 1,267 44% 73% 76% 74% 64% 18% 11% Central Waterfront (6) 482 32% 54% 66% 69% 55% 54% 42% Eastern Waterfront (7) 1,012 58% 59% 61% 58% 45% 15% 12% Overall Time Period Avg 46% 67% 72% 70% 60% 34% 19% *Higher Than Average Occupancy for The Time Period Figure 11: Thursday Observed Surface Lot Occupancy Variation by Subarea Zone Subarea zones that had a higher occupancy level than average by time period are highlighted in red. Subarea Zone 3 in the Downtown/Old Port area stands out as having surface lots that are more occupied than average throughout the day, reaching a peak of 84% occupancy at 2pm. Subarea Zone 2 had higher than average surface lot occupancy between 10am and 6pm with a high of 75% occupied at 2pm. Figure 12 shows the Saturday occupancy results by subarea zone. Subarea Zone 6, on the central Waterfront stands out as having higher than average surface lot occupancy throughout the day reaching a peak of 73% occupancy at 2pm. Otherwise, occupancy is low in all subarea zones. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 45 of 179 Page 116 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Location (Zone) Spaces 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM Downtown/Old Port (1) 1,098 27% 39% 40% 29% 32% 35% Downtown/Old Port (2) 1,079 11% 17% 54% 48% 23% 36% Downtown/Old Port (3) 1,029 19% 20% 23% 20% 23% 24% Downtown/Old Port (4) 438 27% 27% 35% 42% 55% 51% Central Waterfront (5) 1,267 12% 16% 28% 13% 16% 16% Central Waterfront (6) 482 33% 54% 73% 54% 64% 64% Eastern Waterfront (7) 1,012 16% 17% 19% 18% 22% 16% Overall Time Period Avg 19% 25% 38% 30% 29% 31% *Higher Than Average Occupancy for The Time Period Figure 12: Saturday Observed Surface Lot Occupancy Variation by Subarea Zone Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 46 of 179 Page 117 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.2 Observed Structured Parking Occupancy (Figure 6 repeated here for reference) As described in the section on structured parking inventory, there are 21 parking structures containing 7,013 spaces in the study area. Eight parking structures are for private use only, four serve office employees in attached structures, while four are used by attached residential developments. The observed occupancy results here focused on the 13 parking structures that offered at least some public parking with a total of 6,308 spaces. Automated entrance/exit data was requested from structured parking operators on Thursday, Dec. 1st and Saturday, Dec. 3rd. Data was received for 9 parking structures with at least one structure in each subarea zone. Data from a 10th structure was collected manually on-site during the data collection days. Structured parking is considered effectively full at 90 percent occupancy. The Thursday and Saturday weighted average occupancy data are displayed in Figure 13 and Figure 14 respectively. Average occupancy was weighted by garage size. The standard deviation bars give a sense of the range of occupancy levels found among the different parking structures by time period. The Thursday results showed a single peak mid-day with a high of 72 percent between 12pm and 2pm. One standard deviation from the mean during the peak period was about 12 percent. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 47 of 179 Page 118 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Individual garages are not shown for commercial privacy considerations, but one garage had to be displayed separately because it is an important outlier. The Casco Bay Garage is an ‘upside down’ garage meaning it peaks in occupancy opposite of the usual mid-day peak. The Casco Bay Garage showed a peak occupancy of 72% between 12am and 6am. The garage is known to have customers who live on islands in Casco Bay and commute daily to and from the island using a parked vehicle at the garage. Figure 13: Thursday Observed Occupancy at Structured Parking for Public Use A quick look at the variation within the study area of structured parking occupancy for the Thursday sample shows that for the period between 10am and 2pm, Subarea Zone 4 and Subarea Zone 2 both in the Downtown/Old Port had higher average occupancy than the study area, when not including the Casco Bay Garage. Table 24 shows average subarea zone occupancies during the mid-day period ordered from highest to lowest on the observed Thursday. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 48 of 179 Page 119 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 24: Thursday Peak Period Structured Parking Occupancy by Subarea Zone Subarea Zone Average Occupancy 10am-2pm Downtown/Old Port (4) 78% Downtown/Old Port (2) 74% Downtown/Old Port (1) 69% Eastern Waterfront (7) 63% Downtown/Old Port (3) 60% Central Waterfront (6) 56% Central Waterfront (5) N/A Overall Average (Not Including Casco Bay Garage) 72% Results from the Saturday sample showed low structured parking occupancies across the study area except for the Casco Bay Garage as shown in Figure 14. The Casco Bay Garage had occupancies ranging between a low of 66 percent at 9am to a high of 80 percent at 5pm. The weighted average occupancy for all other sampled parking structures peaked between 1pm and 3pm at about 17 percent, one standard deviation from the average during the peak period was about 9 percent. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 49 of 179 Page 120 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 14: Saturday Observed Structured Parking Occupancy A quick look at the variation within the study area of structured parking occupancy for the Saturday sample shows that for the period between 1pm and 3pm, the afternoon peak period, Subarea Zone 3 in the Downtown/Old Port and Subarea Zone 7, the Eastern Waterfront, had slightly higher than average structured parking occupancy than the study area, in addition to the Casco Bay Garage in Subarea Zone 6. Table 25 shows subarea zone occupancies during the afternoon peak period ordered from highest to lowest on the observed Saturday. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 50 of 179 Page 121 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 25: Saturday Peak Period Structured Parking Occupancy by Subarea Zone Subarea Zone Average Occupancy 1am-3pm Central Waterfront (6) 72% Downtown/Old Port (3) 30% Eastern Waterfront (7) 23% Downtown/Old Port (2) 16% Downtown/Old Port (1) 15% Downtown/Old Port (4) 11% Central Waterfront (5) N/A Overall Average (Not Including Casco Bay Garage) 17% Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 51 of 179 Page 122 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.3 On-Street Parking: Overall Occupancy On-street parking data was collected on the sample dates (Thursday Dec. 1st and Saturday Dec. 3rd) from selected streets in the study area including: Commercial St, Spring St, Middle St, Exchange St and Casco St. Observations were made at one-hour intervals beginning at 8am and ending after 8pm. An observer walked along each side of the street and recorded the last 3 digits of parked vehicle license plates allowing for analysis of both occupancy, duration, and turnover. Metering in the 2-hour zones was in effect between 9am and 6pm on Thursday and Saturday. The total number of 2-hour metered spaces sampled was 477 representing about one third of the 1,485 two-hour metered spaces in the study area. Figure 15 shows the on-street sample coverage area. Figure 15: The On-Street Parking Sample The focus in this section is on occupancy in the 2-hour metered zones. On-Street parking is considered effectively full at 85% capacity. Beyond this level, users have difficulty finding parking on the street and either give up or circle the block repeatedly leading to user frustration, increased traffic, and the perception that there is no parking. Study area wide, the Thursday results show a pattern of rising occupancy in the morning to about 80 percent by noon. Between noon and 3pm, occupancy moved between 75-80 percent. After 3pm, occupancy began to climb and reached a peak of 87 percent at 7pm before trending down to 77 percent by 8pm. The 7pm observation interval was the only one Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 52 of 179 Page 123 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront on Thursday to show that the aggregate on-street sample was effectively full, though as subsequent sections show, variation existed block to block. Figure 16 shows the percent of 2-hour metered spaces occupied between 8am and 8pm for the study area sample on Thursday. 100.0% 87.1% 90.0% 80.3% 82.4% 84.3% 84.0% 79.2% 78.6% 74.8% 75.7% 80.0% 71.9% 73.2% 70.0% 63.9% 60.0%54.5% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full Figure 16: Overall Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy The Saturday results show higher on-street occupancy than Thursday. Overall 2-hour metered occupancy rose steadily to an effectively full level of 88 percent by 2pm before decreasing slightly below 85 percent through 3pm. After 3pm, overall occupancy surpassed the effectively full level again and steadily climbed to a peak of 97.5 percent by 8pm. Figure 17 shows occupancy between 10am and 8pm for Saturday. It should be noted that the increasing occupancy trend leading to the second peak of the day begins close to 4pm. That is the time when a vehicle may park, pay for two hours until the metered period ends at 6pm, and then remain for the rest of the evening. 100.0% 92.9% 94.1% 97.5% 88.1% 87.4% 90.0% 84.3% 83.6% 84.9% 75.5% 80.0% 69.0% 70.0%58.9% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm On-Street Occupancy Effectively Full Figure 17: Overall Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 53 of 179 Page 124 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.4 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Street This section shows aggregate 2-hour metered occupancy by street. Both sides of each street are combined into a single average occupancy by observation period. It should be noted that even when a street is effectively full on average, there may be variation among block-faces as shown in the next section. E.4.1 Commercial St from Maple St to India St Commercial St from Maple St to India St was beyond effectively full after 5pm on Thursday. On Saturday, this section of Commercial St was over effectively full at 2pm and after. 100% 92% 99% 94% 88% 88% 90% 84% 80% 78% 77% 77% 80% 73% Observed Utilization 70% 61% 55% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 18: Commercial St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy 100% 95% 93% 93% 97% 96% 98% 91% 88% 90% 78% 80% 66% Observed Utilization 70% 57% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 19: Commercial St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 54 of 179 Page 125 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.4.2 Exchange St from Congress St to Fore St Exchange St from Congress St to Fore St was effectively full between 12pm and 6pm on Thursday. On Saturday, this section of Exchange St was effectively full all day except for 3-4pm. 100% 100% 92% 91% 86% 88% 90% 83% 83% 85% 80% 82% 76% 77% 80% 73% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 20: Exchange St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy 100% 91% 92% 95% 95% 92% 100% 89% 89% 91% 91% 90% 80% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 21: Exchange St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 55 of 179 Page 126 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.4.3 Middle St from Union St to Franklin St On Thursday, Middle St from Union St to Franklin St was effectively full at 10am, 12pm, 2pm, 3pm and 7pm. On Saturday, this section of Middle St was effectively full between 12pm and 3pm then again from 4pm on. 100% 95% 93% 86% 88% 88% 90% 83% 82% 83% 82% 80% 76% 75% 80% 74% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 22: Middle St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy 100% 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 100% 88% 90% 84% 84% 83% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 23: Middle St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 56 of 179 Page 127 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.4.4 Spring St from High St to Union St On Thursday, Spring St between High St and Union St was the only street sampled that was not effectively full on average during the sample day. On Saturday, this section of Spring St did not become effectively full on average until 7pm. 100% 90% 80% 78% 79% 80% 70% 68% Observed Utilization 70% 61% 63% 59% 57% 60% 55% 48% 50% 45% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 15% 10% 0% Figure 24: Spring St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy 100% 88% 89% 90% 82% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 63% 60% 60% 57% 60% 52% 50% 40% 38% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 18% 20% 10% 0% Figure 25: Spring St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 57 of 179 Page 128 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.4.5 Casco St between Cumberland Ave and Congress St On Thursday, Casco St between Cumberland Ave and Congress St was briefly effectively full at 9am on Thursday, but then fell well below that until 6pm when it became 100% occupied. On Saturday, Casco St was effectively full between 11am on, reaching 100% occupied at 4pm and remaining nearly that high through 8pm. 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 90% 80% 75% 72% Observed Utilization 70% 63% 59% 56% 60% 50% 53% 47% 50% Total Observed 40% 34% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 26: Casco St Thursday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy 100% 97% 94% 100% 100% 97% 97% 100% 91% 88% 88% 90% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 63% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 27: Casco St Saturday 2-Hour Metered Occupancy Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 58 of 179 Page 129 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.5 On-Street Parking: Occupancy by Block-Face In this section, on-street parking occupancy in 2-hour metered zones is shown by block-face. E.5.1 Thursday 2-Hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face Starting with Figure 28 and ending with Figure 34, Thursday parking occupancies in the 2-hour zones at 9am, 11am, 1pm, 3pm, 5pm, 7pm and 8pm are shown respectively. Figure 28:Thursday 9am Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 59 of 179 Page 130 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 29: Thursday 11am Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 60 of 179 Page 131 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 30: Thursday 1pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 61 of 179 Page 132 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 31: Thursday 3pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 62 of 179 Page 133 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 32: Thursday 5pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 63 of 179 Page 134 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 33: Thursday 7pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 64 of 179 Page 135 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 34: Thursday 8pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 65 of 179 Page 136 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.5.2 Saturday 2-hour Metered Zone Occupancy by Block-Face Starting with Figure 35 and ending with Figure 40, Saturday parking occupancies at 11am, 1pm, 3pm, 5pm, 7pm and 8pm are shown respectively. Figure 35: Saturday 11am Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 66 of 179 Page 137 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 36: Saturday 1pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 67 of 179 Page 138 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 37: Saturday 3pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 68 of 179 Page 139 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 38: Saturday 5pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 69 of 179 Page 140 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 39: Saturday 7pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 70 of 179 Page 141 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 40: Saturday 8pm Parking Occupancy by Block-Face Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 71 of 179 Page 142 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront E.6 On-Street Parking Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones Parked vehicle duration and turnover are important metrics to understand parking behavior. When on-street parking occupancy is high, it is more desirable for parking turnover to also be high so that users have a greater chance of finding an open space. When the observed data for this study was collected, in December of 2016, the City of Portland’s on- street meter fee was $1 per hour for 2-hour limited zones. The hourly fee and time limit aim to facilitate parking turnover between 9am and 6pm Monday through Saturday. Average on-street parking duration and turnover by block face was calculated between 8am and 6pm for Thursday and Saturday using observed partially recorded license plate data. Because the observation intervals were 1 hour apart, an assumption had to be made about observed vehicle duration. If a vehicle was observed only once on a block-face it was assigned a duration of 0.5 hours. A vehicle that was observed for exactly two count intervals on a block-face was assigned a duration of 1.5 hours. Exactly 3 observations and the vehicle was assigned a duration of 2.5 hours, and so on. The average parked vehicle duration for each block face was calculated using the formula ∑ ( ) D= Where D = average parking duration, h/veh; Nx = number of vehicles parked for x intervals; X = number of intervals parked; I = length of the observation interval, h; NT = total number of parked vehicles observed. The average turnover rate for parked vehicles follows as the inverse of average duration. In Figure 41 and Figure 42, the average parked vehicle durations by block-face are shown for the Thursday and Saturday samples. The results show that on both Thursday and Saturday, the block-faces on Exchange St and Middle St had a lower parked vehicle duration and higher turnover rate compared to Casco St and Spring St. This is a positive sign given that Exchange and Middle St had some of the highest rates of parking occupancy. Commercial St shows more of a range of parking durations by block-face which tended to be 1 to 2 hours closer to the center of the Old Port on Thursday while block faces west of Cross St (north side of the street) and east of Franklin St had an average parking duration under 1 hour. On Saturday, average durations on Commercial St tended to be higher, between 1 and 2 hours on the north side of the street throughout. There is one block-face on Commercial St west of Center St (south side of the street) that had unrestricted angled parking on the observation days. The unrestricted parking was also observed in an adjacent bus loading zone to this block-face, presumably because it was not bus tourist season. This was the location of the longest on-street parking duration observed in the study area. On Thursday, this block-face had an average parking duration of just over 5 hours per vehicle between 8am and 6pm which is a turnover rate of less than 0.2 vehicles per hour. On Saturday, the duration was just over 2.5 hours per vehicle, a turnover rate of 0.4 vehicles per hour. This example illustrates how the metered and time limited block-faces maintain a higher turnover rate compared to unrestricted and free on-street parking. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 72 of 179 Page 143 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 41: Thursday Average Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones 8am-6pm Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 73 of 179 Page 144 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 42: Saturday Average Duration and Turnover in 2-Hour Metered Zones 10am-6pm Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 74 of 179 Page 145 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront F. Summary of Observed Parking Results In this section, the observed occupancy rates from the structured, surface lot, and on-street samples are projected onto the total parking supply in each respective category to estimate the total number of occupied spaces between 8am and 8pm. The results presented in this section have not yet been adjusted for seasonality. Table 26 summarizes the Thursday observed occupancy rates by hour. Figure 43 displays the projected parking occupancy in the study area based on the Thursday, December 1st observations. Private use only structured parking is displayed as 100 percent occupied since the spaces are reserved and are not resold to the transient public even when vacant. The effectively full level of vehicles for the study area represents the capacity when the surface lots and structured parking are 90 percent occupied and the on-street supply is at 85 percent occupied. The Thursday peak occurred at 12pm when an estimated 11,560 spaces were occupied leaving about 2,450 vacant spaces below the effective capacity of 14,011 spaces. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 75 of 179 Page 146 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 26: Thursday Observed Occupancies and Projected Total Spaces Occupied Private Surface Lots On-Street Public Use Structured Structured Projected Projected Projected Observation Observed Observed Observed Spaces Spaces Spaces Reserved Period Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Occupied Occupied Occupied 8am 46.3% 2,970 54.5% 1,230 60.1% 3,790 705 9am * 3,645 63.9% 1,440 67.5% 4,260 705 10am 67.4% 4,320 71.9% 1,620 69.5% 4,390 705 11am * 4,450 73.2% 1,650 70.0% 4,420 705 12pm 71.5% 4,580 79.2% 1,780 70.9% 4,470 705 1pm * 4,545 74.8% 1,680 70.6% 4,450 705 2pm 70.4% 4,510 80.3% 1,810 67.9% 4,290 705 3pm * 4,170 75.7% 1,700 60.7% 3,830 705 4pm 59.8% 3,830 82.4% 1,850 45.8% 2,890 705 5pm * 3,020 84.3% 1,900 29.2% 1,840 705 6pm 34.4% 2,210 84.0% 1,890 24.3% 1,530 705 7pm * 1,720 87.1% 1,960 21.2% 1,330 705 8pm 19.2% 1,230 78.6% 1,770 18.7% 1,180 705 *Interpolated Estimate 16,500 15,669 15,129 15,000 13,990 13,450 13,500 12,000 11,230 11,540 11,380 11,040 11,320 10,050 10,410 10,500 8,700 9,280 Vehicles 9,000 7,500 7,470 6,340 6,000 5,720 4,890 4,500 3,000 1,500 - 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots On-Street Effective Capacity Total Observed Demand Total Capacity Figure 43: Thursday Projected Total Occupancy in the Study Area Based on the December 1st Sample Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 76 of 179 Page 147 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 27 summarizes the Saturday observed occupancy rates by hour. Figure 44 displays the projected parking occupancy in the study area based on the Saturday, December 3rd observations. Table 27: Saturday Observed Occupancies and Projected Total Spaces Occupied Private Surface Lots On-Street Public Use Structured Structured Projected Projected Projected Observation Observed Observed Observed Spaces Spaces Spaces Reserved Period Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Occupied Occupied Occupied 10am 19.1% 1,110 58.9% 1,330 19.0% 1,130 705 11am * 1,280 69.0% 1,550 19.5% 1,160 705 12pm 24.8% 1,450 75.5% 1,700 20.9% 1,250 705 1pm * 1,820 84.3% 1,900 21.6% 1,290 705 2pm 37.5% 2,190 88.1% 1,980 22.0% 1,310 705 3pm * 1,980 83.6% 1,880 22.0% 1,320 705 4pm 30.3% 1,760 84.9% 1,910 20.7% 1,110 705 5pm * 1,740 87.4% 1,970 21.6% 1,090 705 6pm 29.3% 1,710 92.9% 2,090 21.8% 1,100 705 7pm * 1,770 94.1% 2,120 20.8% 1,050 705 8pm 31.4% 1,830 97.5% 2,190 20.1% 1,010 705 *Interpolated Estimate Figure 44: Saturday Projected Total Occupancy in the Study Area Based on the December 3rd Sample 16,500 15,000 14,750 14,150 13,820 13,500 13,164 12,624 12,329 12,000 10,500 Vehicles 9,000 7,500 6,190 5,720 5,890 5,490 5,510 5,610 5,650 5,740 6,000 5,110 4,280 4,700 4,500 3,000 1,500 - 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots On-Street Effective Capacity Total Observed Demand Total Capacity Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 77 of 179 Page 148 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Projected results from the observed Saturday had a peak of approx. 6,200 parked vehicles at 2pm leaving about 7,300 vacant spaces before the effective capacity of 13,525 is reached. Looking in more detail at the distribution of the observed vacant space, the next two figures show how many vacant spaces remained before the effectively full level was reached in each subarea zone at the peak hour. In Figure 45, we see that during the peak hour of 12pm on the observed weekday, Subarea Zone 1 had the highest number of vacant spaces particularly on-street spaces and structured spaces. On-Street spaces in Subarea Zones 2 and 4 were above 85 percent occupied during the peak hour, therefore no on-street vacancy is shown for those zones. Subarea Zone 7, the Eastern Waterfront had the most vacancy in surface lots at the peak hour. 750 700 650 600 550 Vacant Parking Spaces 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 - Sub Zone 1 Sub Zone 2 Sub Zone 3 Sub Zone 4 Sub Zone 5 Sub Zone 6 Sub Zone 7 Structured Surface On Street Figure 45:The Number of Vacant Spaces Until Effectively Full on Thursday at 12pm by Subarea It is likely that not all of the observed vacant spaces were available for use depending on off-street parking management. While garages use a computer to minimize vacant space that must be held for absent monthly customers, some surface lots that are operated more manually may hold more vacant space open for absent monthly customers, although holding more vacant monthly spaces open than necessary is not in an operator’s best interest. During the observed peak hour on Saturday, there were many more overall vacant spaces observed due to higher vacancies in structured and surface lot parking. However, the peak hour on Saturday had far fewer vacant on-street spaces before the effectively full level of 85 percent occupancy. The only subarea that had less vacancy during the Saturday peak hour compared to the Thursday peak hour was Subarea Zone 6 surrounding the Ferry Terminal on the Waterfront. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 78 of 179 Page 149 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 Vacant Parking Spaces 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Sub Zone 1 Sub Zone 2 Sub Zone 3 Sub Zone 4 Sub Zone 5 Sub Zone 6 Sub Zone 7 Structured Surface On Street Figure 46: The Number of Vacant Spaces Until Effectively Full on Saturday at 2pm by Subarea The vacant space charts are useful to understand where additional transient parking demand during the peak season might be accommodated within the study area. G. Seasonal Analysis In this section, the observed parking demand data is compared to annual parking demand curves at two sample garage locations to determine if the sampled days in December were a good representation of recurring regional demand, parking demand from seasonal variation in island ferry ridership is analyzed, and additional parking demand from higher levels of day visitors and overnight visitors during the summer season is estimated using data from the Maine Office of Tourism. G.1 Recurring Regional Demand Because the data collection occurred in December, it is important to look at the results in the context of parking demand from other times during the year. Data on customer entrance and exit volumes annually is not usually disclosed by private parking operators because the information is related to revenue. Data from the two publicly operated garages in the study area, Elm St and Spring St, are analyzed here to put the observed results from the December sample days into an annual context. Based on the location of the Elm St and Spring St garages, both are located in the north-west quadrant of the study area, it is likely that annual demand patterns at these garages are better indicators of recurring employment, retail, arena event, and restaurant related parking demand, rather than seasonal demand related to waterfront tourism and ferry passenger activity. Data from the year prior to this study at the Elm St and Spring St garages were obtained. Figure 47 shows the December 1st daily parking demand with other Thursday demand levels during the year at the Elm St garage. The December 1, 2016 daily demand fell at the 81st percentile of Thursdays, well above the median (50th percentile) peak demand for Thursday. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 79 of 179 Page 150 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 500 450 400 Daily Vehicle Entries Total Veh. Entries 85th Percentile 350 Thurs. Thurs 12/1/16 Observation 300 50th percentile Thurs. 250 12/10/2015 1/14/2016 2/11/2016 3/10/2016 4/14/2016 5/12/2016 6/9/2016 7/14/2016 8/11/2016 9/8/2016 10/13/2016 11/10/2016 12/1/2016 Thursdays Figure 47: Recent Thursday Demand Variation at Elm St Garage Thursday demand data from different seasons during the year at the Spring St Garage is shown in Figure 48. The December 1st 2016 data at the Spring St garage placed in the 87th percentile, corroborating that the Thursday sample date was well above average in parking demand, at least in the vicinity of the Elm St and Spring St garages. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 80 of 179 Page 151 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 850 800 750 Total Veh. Daily Vehicle Entries Entries 700 Thurs. Observation 650 12/1/16 85th 600 Percentile Thurs. 50th 550 Percentile Thurs. 500 12/10/2015 12/17/2015 2/11/2016 2/18/2016 4/14/2016 4/21/2016 7/14/2016 7/21/2016 9/8/2016 9/15/2016 12/1/2016 Thursdays Figure 48: Recent Thursday Demand Variation at Spring St Garage The same comparisons were made between the Saturday, December 3rd observations at Elm St and Spring St using annual Saturday data at each location. Figure 49 shows that the Elm St garage sample on December 3rd fits in near the 85th percentile of Saturday parking demand in the past year at that location. In Figure 50, however, we see that the December 3rd data at the Spring St garage is very close to the 50th percentile Saturday demand at that location. The observation day did not include an arena event and this is likely the reason for the observed demand at that location placing close to the median. The highest demand on Saturdays at Spring St appears to correspond with arena events during the year. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 81 of 179 Page 152 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 250 200 Daily Vehicle Entries 150 Total Veh. Entries Sat. 12/3/16 Observation 100 85th Percentile Sat. 50th Percentile Sat. 50 0 12/3/2016 11/19/2016 11/12/2016 10/8/2016 9/17/2016 9/10/2016 8/20/2016 8/13/2016 7/16/2016 7/9/2016 6/18/2016 6/11/2016 5/21/2016 5/14/2016 4/16/2016 4/9/2016 3/19/2016 3/12/2016 2/20/2016 2/13/2016 1/16/2016 1/9/2016 12/19/2015 12/12/2015 Saturdays Figure 49: Recent Saturday Demand Variation at Elm St Garage 600 550 500 Daily Vehicle Entries 450 Total Veh. Entries 400 350 85th Percentile 300 Sat. Sat 12/3/16 250 Observation 200 50% percentile 150 12/3/2016 11/19/2016 11/12/2016 10/15/2016 Sat. 9/17/2016 9/10/2016 8/20/2016 8/13/2016 7/16/2016 7/9/2016 6/18/2016 6/11/2016 5/21/2016 5/14/2016 4/16/2016 4/9/2016 3/19/2016 3/12/2016 2/20/2016 2/13/2016 1/16/2016 1/9/2016 12/19/2015 12/12/2015 Saturdays Figure 50: Recent Saturday Demand Variation at Spring St Garage Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 82 of 179 Page 153 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Based on the annual trends at Spring St and Elm St, we conclude that the December sample days were very likely a good representation of average to higher than average recurring regional parking demand in the study area based on the location of these garages. It is interesting to note that both Elm St and Spring St garages appear to show lower demand for parking during July and August, when a higher percentage of office workers and educators would be expected to be on vacation. It does not appear that Elm St and Spring St attract a high volume of tourism parking during the summer. We were unable to investigate the annual trends at other privately-operated garages because operators typically do not share annual data. Further data collection in the summer season would be useful to determine whether other garages and lots see a downturn in recurring employee parking during the summer and also to find out which facilities are attracting peak season visitor parking demand. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 83 of 179 Page 154 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront G.2 Seasonal Variation in Island Resident and Island Visitor Parking In this section, an estimate of additional peak season parking demand in the study area associated with island ferry passenger activity is made using passenger data from Casco Bay Lines, employment data, and assumed automobile mode shares. The City of Portland’s Waterfront is home to the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, which serves as a vital transportation hub for residents of and visitors to several islands in Casco Bay including Peaks Island, Little Diamond Island, Great Diamond Island, Cliff Island, and Long Island. The parking garage located at the ferry terminal is known to house the vehicles of many island residents and a waitlist estimated at several years long exists for the opportunity to purchase monthly parking there. Island residents with a residential sticker from the City may also park in designated non-metered (but time limited) zones located on the Eastern Waterfront for days at a time, although finding an on-street space has become more difficult for islanders as development has occurred on the Eastern Waterfront. Additionally, island residents and visitors to the islands may purchase parking at other structured and surface lot facilities in the study area, if and when available. For context, according to 2015 American Community Survey estimates, the island communities served by the Casco Bay Transit District have a year-round resident population of 1,258 people living in 589 year-round occupied households. Year-round island residents own 744 vehicles in total. The number of year-round island households owning at least one vehicle was 400. During the peak Summer season, the number of occupied households increases to 1,803. The ACS does not estimate seasonal population or seasonal vehicle ownership. Available data describing travel to and from the islands consists of Casco Bay Lines ferry passenger monthly totals, on- board vehicle transport monthly totals, and worker flow data between the mainland and the islands for primary job holders. Ferry passenger volume variation is highly seasonal, the summer season is much higher than the rest of the year. Figure 51 shows the trend of average daily passenger and on-board vehicle volumes by month for the most recent year available. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 84 of 179 Page 155 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 4,000 3,500 3,000 Quantity per Day 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 - MA NOV DEC JAN FEB APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT R * * Avg Ferry Passengers per Day 631 646 736 957 1,306 2,134 3,391 3,365 2,036 1,325 812 750 Avg Vehicles per Day 64 67 74 92 124 151 168 171 122 113 85 81 Figure 51: Average Daily Ferry Passenger and Vehicle Volumes by Month Source: Casco Bay Lines, 2016 monthly passenger and vehicle data. *November and December data are from 2015 as 2016 data for those months was not yet available at the time of the data request. According to Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data from 2014, the most recent year available, the number of workers who live on an island served by a Casco Bay Lines Ferry and hold a primary job on the mainland is approximately 550. Additionally, the number of workers who live on the mainland but hold a primary job on one of the islands totals approximately 100. Subtracting the expected number of commuting workers to and from the islands from the average daily passenger totals for a given month leaves a remainder of passengers that consists of visitors, full-time island residents making non-work trips, and seasonal island residents (depending on the month). Table 28 shows the difference between August and December passengers after subtracting out the expected number of recurring work commute trips. Table 28: Peak Season Ferry Passenger Difference CBL Ferry Passengers Dec Aug Difference (Aug-Dec) Avg. Round Trip Passengers/Day 750 3,365 Island Resident Workers who Commute Daily to Work on the Mainland (Primary Jobs) -550 -550 Mainland Residents Workers who Commute Daily to the Islands (Primary Jobs) -100 -100 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 85 of 179 Page 156 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Remaining Round Trip Passengers to/from the Islands per Day =100 =2,715 2,615 Sources: Casco Bay Lines, 2016 monthly passenger and vehicle data; 2014 LEHD data, U.S. Census Bureau To estimate the vehicle parking demand on the mainland associated with the August and December ferry passenger demand, some assumptions need to be made about how workers and non-workers travel to and from the ferry terminal. The following assumptions are made in the absence of more specific data on travel behavior to and from the islands particularly for non-work trips:  Of the approximately 550 island resident workers who commute to the mainland, employment data shows that approximately 100 of these workers work in the Downtown/Old Port. It is assumed that these commuters by and large do not drive between the ferry terminal and their work destination.  For the remaining 450 island resident workers, a drive mode share equivalent to the City of Portland’s for work trips is assumed for travel between the ferry terminal and their work destination. The City’s rate in 2015 was 73 percent drive alone, and about 9 percent carpool consisting of parties between 2 to 4 people.13  For the approximately 100 workers who commute from the mainland to the islands, the City of Portland’s drive alone and carpool to work mode shares are also assumed.  For all other passengers including visitor trips, year-round island resident non-work trips, and seasonal island resident trips, it is assumed that average travel party size is 2.5, which was the average travel party size for day visitor parties to the Portland region in 201514. A drive mode share of 82 percent is assumed based on the total automobile mode share of work travel in the City of Portland in 2015 in lieu of more specific data. Applying the stated assumptions, an estimate for parking demand in the study area arising from ferry passenger activity is presented in Table 29. The average daily number of vehicles transported round trip on-board the ferry is subtracted from the estimated parking demand since those vehicles traveled with the passengers rather than remaining parked in the study area. Table 29: Estimate of Peak Season Differential in Ferry Parking Demand Vehicles Dec Aug Difference (Aug-Dec) Parking Demand Estimate for Island Resident Workers Who Commute by Car from the Ferry Terminal (Primary Jobs) 350 350 Parking Demand Estimate for Mainland Residents who Commute by Car to the Islands 80 80 Parking Demand Estimate for Remaining Passengers to/from the Islands 30 890 Total Estimated Vehicles 460 1,320 Average Ferry Transported Vehicles per Day - 81 -171 Estimate of Average Daily Ferry Parking Demand in the Study Area =379 =1,149 770 13 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate. Work travel mode share for the City of Portland adjusted for commuting workers only (those who did not work from home). 14 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater Portland & Casco Bay. April 2016.pg 29. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 86 of 179 Page 157 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront The net additional 770 vehicles are added to the observed demand from December as a seasonal adjustment to the peak season for increased ferry parking demand. Because the passenger data from Casco Bay Lines does not give weekday vs. weekend variation in passenger demand, the average of 770 additional vehicles are added to both weekday and Saturday peak season estimates. In addition to the Casco Bay Lines, the Eastern Waterfront hosts the international ferry to Nova Scotia that operates May through October. Based on average daily passenger data from 2014-2016, an average daily walk-on passenger total is 25. It is estimated that parking demand related to the walk-on passengers is 10 vehicles, raising the peak adjustment for combined ferry parking demand to 780 vehicles. It is assumed that the impact of the additional 780 parked vehicles in the peak season would be allocated to the subarea zone of the Ferry Terminal, Subarea Zone 6, and then to the Eastern Waterfront, Subarea Zone 7, following that to Subarea Zones 4 in the Old Port and Subarea Zone 5 on the Central Waterfront, which are adjacent to Subarea Zone 6. It is clear that added parking demand of approximately 780 vehicles from the increase in seasonal ferry ridership alone could consume most of the off-street December observed vacant parking spaces shown in Figure 45 for the following zones: Subarea Zone 6 (200-225 spaces), Subarea Zone 7 (400-425 spaces), Subarea Zone 4 (125-150 spaces), and Subarea Zone 5(125-150 spaces) which collectively had about 850-950 vacant off-street spaces at 12pm on a December weekday. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 87 of 179 Page 158 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront G.3 Summer Day Visitor Parking Demand Adjustment A seasonal adjustment is estimated to account for the additional day visitor parking demand in the study area expected during the peak summer season. Detailed survey data commissioned by the Maine Office of Tourism are used to create the estimate. In the surveys, a day visitor to the Portland/Casco Bay region is defined as a traveler who originated within the state of Maine or from up to 100 miles from Maine’s borders and traveled more than 50 miles from home to reach their destination. Day visitor trip purposes included leisure, visit friend/relative, and business. The average weekday and weekend day visitor parking demand to the study area is estimated for both the winter and summer seasons for the purpose of understanding the difference. The percentage of day visitors who reported visiting Peaks Island (7 percent) was subtracted from the adjustment so as not to overlap with the seasonal ferry passenger demand adjustment. Several assumptions were made where specific data was not available. The automobile share of day visitor parties to the study area is estimated to be 93 percent. The automobile mode share of overnight visitors was between 81-93percent15. It is assumed that day visitors would have less time to travel by train or airplane, and therefore would be likely to drive at a rate closer to the high estimate for overnight visitors. It is assumed that the volume of day visitors is on average 15 percent greater on weekend days as compared to weekdays. This is in keeping with tourism markets where leisure travel is dominant. Table 30 summarizes the derivation of estimated day visitor parking demand to the study area for the winter and summer seasons. The result is an estimated additional 1,710 vehicles on a peak season weekday and an additional 1,960 vehicles on a peak season Saturday. 15 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of Tourism. March 2016. Pg. 34. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 88 of 179 Page 159 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 30: Estimation of Seasonal Day Visitor Adjustment Factors to the Study Area Winter Summer Difference Variable/Equation (Summer- Winter) Months Dec.-April May-August Number of days in 2015/2016 151 123 A Number of weekdays 105 86 B Number of weekend days 46 37 C Estimated total seasonal day visitation in Maine16,17 2,609,957 15,468,062 12,858,105 D Day visitor primary destination was greater Portland/Casco Bay Region14,15 14% 11% E Share of day visitors to the greater Portland/Casco Bay region that visited the study area not including visitors to Peaks Island18 42% 42% F Average day visitor travel party size19 2.5 2.5 G Automobile mode share of day visitors, assumed 93% 93% H Estimated seasonal day visitors to the study area 153,465 714,624 561,159 (D*E*F) Daily average day visitors to the study area 1,016 5,810 4,794 (D*E*F)/A Daily average day visitor parking demand to the study area 378 2,161 1,783 (D*E*F*H)/(A*G) Weekday average day visitors to the study area (assume weekdays are 15% lower than weekend days) 972 5,559 4,587 (D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C) Weekend average day visitors the study area (assume weekend days are 15% higher than weekdays) 1,118 6,393 5,275 1.15*(D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C) Estimated weekday average day visitor parking demand in the study area 362 2,068 1,710 ((D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C))*H/G Estimated weekend average day visitor parking demand in the study area 416 2,378 1,960 1.15*((D*E*F)/(B+1.15*C))*H/G 16 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Summer 2016 Seasonal Topline. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of Tourism. October 2016. pgs. 19,25. 17 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Winter 2016 Seasonal Topline. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of Tourism. June 2016. pgs. 19,25. 18 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater Portland & Casco Bay. April 2016. Pgs. 42. (Sum of day visitors who reported visiting either the Waterfront (27%), the Museum of Art (10%), or the State Theater (5%). 19 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater Portland & Casco Bay. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of Tourism. April 2016. Pg. 29. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 89 of 179 Page 160 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront G.4 Summer Overnight Visitor Parking Demand In this section, a seasonal adjustment is estimated to account for the additional overnight visitor parking demand in the study area expected during the peak summer season. The methodology uses a combination of published hotel occupancy rates in Portland for 2016, seasonal variation in statewide hotel occupancy rates, and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking generation factors for urban hotels. The percent of overnight visitors (7 percent) who reported visiting Peaks Island in a survey commissioned by the Maine Office of Tourism20 was subtracted because they are already captured in the seasonal ferry passenger parking demand adjustment. Table 31 summarizes the derivation of the peak season overnight visitor parking demand adjustment. The result is an additional 260 vehicles on a peak season weekday and 400 vehicles on a peak season Saturday. 20 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report. Prepared by DPA for the Maine Office of Tourism. March 2016. Pg. 23. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 90 of 179 Page 161 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 31: Estimation of Seasonal Overnight Visitor Adjustment Factors to the Study Area Description Result Formula 57% A Maine hotel occupancy annual rate 201521 42% B Maine hotel occupancy winter rate22 78% C Maine hotel occupancy summer rate19 70% D Portland hotel occupancy annual rate 201518 55% D-(A-B) Estimated Portland hotel occupancy Winter rate 91% D+(C-A) Estimated Portland hotel occupancy Summer rate 151 E Number of days in Dec. 2015-April 2016 105 F Number of weekdays Dec. 2015-April 2016 46 G Number of weekend days Dec. 2015-April 2016 Estimated winter weekday hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 54% (55%)/((F+1.1*G)/E) weekdays are 10% lower) Estimated winter weekend hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 59% 1.1*(54%) weekend days are 10% higher) 123 H Number of days May-August 2016 86 I Number of weekdays May-August 2016 37 J Number of weekend days May-August 2016 Estimated summer weekday hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 89% (91%)/((I+1.1*J)/H) weekdays are 10% lower) Estimated summer weekend hotel occupancy in Portland (assuming 97% 1.1*(89%) weekend days are 10% higher) 1,393 K Hotel Rooms in the study area 478 K*54%*0.64 Winter hotel weekday parking generation23 740 K*59%*0.9 Winter hotel Saturday parking generation20 Summer hotel weekday parking generation (-7% for Peaks Island Visitors) 20 735 (K*89%*0.64)-7% Summer hotel Saturday parking generation (-7% for Peaks Island Visitors) 20 1,137 (K*97%*0.9)-7% Adjustment factor for weekday overnight visitor parking 260 Wkdy summer-winter Adjustment factor for weekend day overnight visitor parking 400 Wkend summer-winter 21 Maine Lodging Outlook 2016. Prepared for MEREDA by Pinnacle Advisory Group. 22 2015 Maine Lodging Study. June 2015. Prepared by DPA for The Maine Office of Tourism. Pgs. 16. 23 ITE Parking Generation 4th Edition. 2010. Institute of Transportation Engineers. 0.64 vehicles/occupied room for weekdays and 0.9 vehicles/occupied room for weekends. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 91 of 179 Page 162 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront G.5 Adjusted Seasonal Demand Combining the demand curves from the observed December sample in Section E with the estimated adjustments for peak season ferry travel, peak season day visitors, and peak season overnight visitors, a new adjusted estimate of peak season weekday parking demand is produced as shown in Figure 52. The peak season adjustments result in a parking demand that is higher than effective capacity between 12pm and 2pm on weekdays. Peak vehicle demand is estimated as approximately 14,300 vehicles, which is approx. 320 vehicles more than the effective capacity. 16,500 15,669 15,129 15,000 13,990 13,970 14,280 14,120 14,060 13,450 13,500 12,790 13,150 11,440 12,000 12,020 10,500 10,210 9,080 Vehicles 9,000 8,460 7,630 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1,500 - 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots On-Street Day Visitor Adjustment Ferry Demand Adjustment Overnight Visitor Adjustment Effective Capacity Adjusted Total Figure 52: Weekday Observed Demand with Additional Summer Visitor Demand Figure 53 shows the Saturday observed parking demand with added peak season adjustments. The peak occurs at 2pm with approx. 9,320 vehicles parked, about 4,300 vehicles below Saturday effective capacity. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 92 of 179 Page 163 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 16,500 14,750 15,000 14,150 13,820 13,500 13,164 12,624 12,329 12,000 10,500 9,320 9,020 8,850 8,620 8,640 8,740 8,780 8,870 Vehicles 9,000 8,240 7,410 7,830 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1,500 - 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Private Reserved Structured Public Use Structured Surface Lots On-Street Day Visitor Adjusted Ferry Demand Overnight Visitor Adjusted Effective Capacity Adjusted Total Total Capacity Figure 53: Weekend Observed Demand with Additional Summer Visitor Demand Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 93 of 179 Page 164 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront H. Land Use-Based Analysis of Parking Demand A second method to estimate parking demand in the study area is theoretical parking demand based on existing land use development with engineering industry standard parking generation factors. Land use-based parking demand analysis estimates how much parking a development will generate based on factors derived from averaged historical observed parking data found in studies of similar land uses. A commonly used source of parking generation factors is the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th Edition. Although still the engineering standard for estimating the parking demand of new development when no applicable local parking case studies exist, the methodology has been called into question for reliance for too few or out of date samples used to calculate the factors, and overly conservative results leading to overdesigned parking.24 The methodology also results in only a single answer for a parking supply, usually enough parking to satisfy a chosen peak. To improve upon the results of land use-based parking analysis, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking 2nd Ed. Methodology can be used together with ITE factors to distribute parking demand by time of day based on the type of land use. Shared parking factors are also based on averaged observed land use specific parking studies. The ULI Shared Parking methodology allows for the estimation of how adjacent or nearby land uses may or may not be able to use the same parking supply in a complimentary way based on a distributed parking demand curve for each land use. The steps taken to create a land-used based estimate for the Portland study area were:  Commercial building use data by floor were obtained from the City’s Tax Assessor office at the parcel level.  Additional data on residential parcels were obtained from the City’s GIS department.  Vacancy rates of 7 percent for office, 1 percent for residential, and 2 percent for retail/restaurant were applied after consultation with the City Planning Department.  The hotel occupancy level in the study area was set at 70 percent based on the 2015 average annual hotel occupancy for Portland25  Assumptions had to be made about the percentage of internal capture trips in the study area for each land use. Internal capture is the expected share of trips that are attracted to a land use while the customer’s vehicle is already parked for another purpose. An example occurs when an office worker goes to lunch on foot while their vehicle is parked at their office and the lunch trip does not extend the time the vehicle would already have been parked. Internal capture trips increase with dense mixed-use development, much like the study area. Low rates of internal capture of 10 percent or less were assumed except for restaurants in the study area which were assumed to have a 50 percent internal capture rate.  ITE Parking Generation rates were used to calculate a peak parking demand for each identified land use at the 50th and 85th annual percentile demand levels according to ITE. The 50th percentile is intended to represent an average day, while the 85th is regarded to be the highest peak that should be designed for while remaining economical.  The results of the ITE Parking Generation calculations were next processed through a spreadsheet of land use specific ULI Shared Parking time-of-day factors and then a spreadsheet of internal capture rates.  The resulting charts give a combined peak parking demand by time of day that also shows how the parking demand of individual land uses crest and fall during the day while consuming and yielding shared parking. 24 Shoup, Donald C.(2003) Truth in Transportation Planning. Journal of Transportation Statistics. Vol. 6 No. 1 2003. 25 Maine Lodging Outlook 2016. Prepared for MEREDA by Pinnacle Advisory Group. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 94 of 179 Page 165 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 54 is the shared parking curve for the ITE generated weekday 50th percentile demand of the study area. The results of the 50th percentile calculation had a peak at 2pm of 14,470 vehicles, 480 vehicles more than effective study area capacity at that time. Noticeably, the 50th percentile land-used based estimate is not far off from the peak adjusted observed estimate in the prior section which found an average peak season high of 14,300 vehicle at 12pm. This is indicative of the reputation of ITE Parking Generation factors as over predicting parking demand. Another point made apparent from the land-use based parking demand calculations is that Downtown Portland appears that it would have difficulty hosting a mid-day event at Cross Insurance Arena during the summer on a weekday. The Arena parking demand was generated using the seating capacity as an input variable. Cross arena has a seating capacity of 6,733 and is predicted by ULI Shared Parking Factors to have a peak parking demand of 2,200 vehicles. An event using the full seating capacity of the Arena held mid-day during the peak season could push parking demand several hundred over the total capacity of the study area according the land-use based calculations. Evening and weekend events at the Arena, however, appear to be well accommodated for parking. 17,000 16,000 15,669 15,129 15,000 13,990 13,876 13,893 14,471 13,993 14,461 14,000 13,504 13,463 13,000 12,712 12,90212,004 13,136 12,000 11,659 11,000 10,000 10,019 Parked Vehicles 9,000 8,423 7,180 7,772 8,000 7,000 6,931 6,000 3,592 4,584 5,000 3,832 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am Office/Industrial Residential Other Services Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers Total Capacity Effective Capcity Total Estimated Figure 54: Weekday 50th Percentile Peak Demand Land-Use Calculated Figure 55 has the resulting shared parking curve for the ITE generated Saturday 50th percentile demand showing a peak at 8pm of 10,350 vehicles assuming an arena event in the evening. Without an arena event, the peak occurred at 12pm with 9,390 vehicles. Again, what is meant to be an average annual Saturday using the ITE land-use based factors turned out very close to the observed occupancy with peak season adjustment which had a Saturday peak of 9,320 at 2pm. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 95 of 179 Page 166 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 16,000 15,000 14,752 13,824 14,152 13,824 14,000 13,426 13,426 12,645 13,164 12,665 12,624 13,000 12,329 11,971 12,329 12,000 11,286 11,971 11,000 11,268 10,353 10,000 9,390 9,339 9,071 Parked Vehicles 9,266 9,000 8,000 7,184 7,000 6,000 4,967 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am Office/Industrial Residential Other Services Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers Total Capacity Effective Capacity Total Estimate Figure 55: Saturday 50th Percentile Peak Demand Land-Use Calculated When the weekday 85th percentile demand factors from ITE were applied to the study area land use, the results came out unreasonably high with a peak of 17,270 at 2pm, approximately 1,500 more than the total parking capacity of the study area. Such an occurrence would leave no open parking space in the study area and would also fill the public use spaces in the quarter mile buffer area. It is unlikely that this is a good representation of the peak season in the Portland study area and for this reason, the ITE 85th percentile demand factors are not applied further in this study. The 50th percentile ITE demand factors together with the ULI Shared Parking methodology appear to better approximate what was found to be a likely peak scenario based on the observed and adjusted results. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 96 of 179 Page 167 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront I. Existing Conditions Conclusion In conclusion, Table 32 summarizes the following for the weekday existing conditions: 1) The results of the observed parking occupancy analysis performed in December, which was found to likely be a good representation of recurring parking demand but lacked peak season visitor and increased ferry passenger parking demand. 2) The observed parking occupancy analysis with calculated adjustments to account for additional peak summer season parking demand related to higher ferry passenger ridership and higher levels of overnight and day visitors. 3)The theoretical land-use based parking demand estimated using ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed.) factors together with ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed) factors at the 50th percentile demand, which was found to be more realistic as an approximation of peak season demand for the study area compared to the results using 85th percentile factors. Weekday Peak Demand Estimation Method Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction at Peak Level Effectively Needed Full Observed Occupancy Dec. 12pm 15,670 13,990 11,540 2,450 1,680 4,130 - 2016 Observed Occupancy Dec. 2016 + Peak Season 12pm 15,670 13,990 14,280 -290 1,390 1,390 290 Adjustments ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated Demand (50th percentile 2pm 15,670 13,990 14,470 -480 1,200 1,200 480 factors) Table 32:Weekday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary While the observed parking occupancy in December was found to be 2,450 below effective capacity, after adjusting average daily parking demand for the peak season, we find that the study area is likely approximately 290 vehicles over effective parking capacity during the mid-day peak hour in the peak summer season. The land-use based calculation of parking demand using 50th percentile factors estimated that the study area is 480 vehicles over effective parking capacity. Travelers to the Study area do have access to an additional 1,300 off-street spaces with an effective capacity of 1,170 spaces within a quarter mile of the study area. However, this additional supply is shared with demand generated outside of the study area which was not calculated during this study. It was found that a high-range estimate of monthly parking supply within the study area, 10,750, is below estimated employee monthly parking demand, 11,070. Additional monthly parking supply outside of the study area, such as parking structures north of Cumberland Ave, have some additional monthly parking shared with land-use outside of the study area and this additional supply appears to be needed to accommodate monthly employee parking demand in the study area. Given the tight market for monthly parking, it is likely that unrestricted parking on streets surrounding the study area are being used by employees of the study area. It was found that during the peak summer season on a weekday, added parking demand related to higher ferry passenger ridership levels alone is of an order magnitude capable of consuming much of the peak period off-street Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 97 of 179 Page 168 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront vacant parking observed during December in zones surrounding the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal. When day and overnight visitor parking demand is added to the weekday summer peak, a majority of whom visit the Old Port and Waterfront, the pattern of how the vacant space observed during December fills up would appear to emanate from the Ferry Terminal and Waterfront consuming vacant space gradually outward to Cumberland Ave. On Saturday, it was found that off-street parking facilities were well below effective capacity. Table 33 summarizes the Saturday existing conditions case: Saturday Peak Demand Estimation Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Method Hour Capacity of Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Study Area Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction at Peak Level Effectively Needed Full Observed Occupancy Dec. 2pm 14,750 13,160 6,190 6,970 1,590 8,560 - 2016 Observed Occupancy Dec. 2016 + Peak Season 2pm 14,750 13,160 9,320 3,840 1,590 5,430 - Adjustments ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated Demand (50th 12pm 14,750 13,160 9,390 3,770 1,590 5,360 - percentile factors) ITE/ULI Land-Use Calculated Demand (50th 8pm 13,820 12,330 10,350 1,980 1,490 3,470 - percentile factors) with 8pm Arena Event Table 33: Saturday Existing Parking Demand Results Summary On-street parking during the weekday sample was found to be below 85 percent occupied overall in the study area except for during the evening at around 7pm. Individual streets varied however, and it was found that Commercial St was over capacity after 4pm, Exchange St was over capacity between 11am and 6pm, Middle St was over capacity between 11am and 3pm and then again at 7pm, and Casco St was over capacity after 6pm. Saturday on-street parking was above 85 percent occupied overall in the study area for much of the day after 1pm which is likely giving the perception that there is little parking to be found when in fact, off-street parking is abundant on Saturday, though at a higher price. Commercial St was over capacity from 1pm on. Both Middle St and Exchange St were over capacity during all sampled hours except for 3pm. Spring St was over capacity after 6pm. Casco St was over capacity from 11am onward. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 98 of 179 Page 169 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront J. Projected Future Parking Supply and Demand This chapter of the report projects future parking supply and demand considering ferry passenger growth, tourism trends to the Casco Bay Region, and three land use development scenarios that include new parking supply. Our methodology is outlined here: 1). First, using recent historic ferry passenger and ferry vehicle transport data, we determine a daily parking demand for ferry passengers 10 years into the future during the peak season. 2). Considering data from the Maine Office of Tourism, we determine if an additional growth factor for visitor parking demand is needed in addition to the projected parking demand from ferry passenger growth and new land use development. 3). Next a land use development analysis is carried out in the following steps: a. A set of approved and likely development projects in the next 10 years were obtained from the City of Portland. Three build-out levels, 50%, 75%, and 100% build out, are calculated to create three development scenarios. The scenarios are compared with population growth estimates from Portland’s Comprehensive Plan and state employment growth estimates. b. The three development scenarios are then apportioned to the study area using the subarea zone geography convention from the existing conditions chapter. c. A combination of ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed) and ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed) methods are used to calculate a time distributed daily parking demand for each scenario based on land use development. d. An accounting of the new development generated parking demand, newly built parking, and eliminated parking due to construction reveals whether the development scenarios are projected to be parking demand neutral, create a net new parking supply surplus, or create a future parking supply deficit. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 99 of 179 Page 170 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront J.1 Projected Ferry Passenger Parking Demand Casco Bay Lines Ferry passenger ridership between the City of Portland Waterfront and the Casco Bay Islands has grown in recent years by 12.5% between 2012 and 2016. A 10-year growth projection of ferry passenger parking demand is calculated here continuing the recent 5-year growth trend. Table 34 shows the compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for annual passenger and vehicle volumes between 2012 and 2016. Table 34: Casco Bay Lines Passenger Growth 2012-2016 Round-Trip Passengers 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total % Growth Compounded Annual 2012-2016 Growth Rate Annual Total 491,624 492,740 492,222 547,188 552,868 12.5% 2.4% Round-Trip 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total % Growth Compounded Annual Transported Vehicles 2012-2016 Growth Rate Annual Total 15,413 12,978* 16,068 17,168 19,998 29.7% 5.3% * In 2012 the car ferry was dry docked and service was subcontracted The passenger and vehicle growth rates were then used to project peak daily passenger and vehicle totals in 2027 as shown in Table 35. To convert ferry passenger and transported vehicle volumes to projected parking demand, the same set of assumptions that were made as in Section G.2 of the existing conditions chapter were applied. Those assumptions were:  Employment data shows that approximately 18% of the island resident workers who commute to the mainland work in the Downtown/Old Port. It is assumed that these commuters by and large do not drive between the ferry terminal and their work destination.  For the remaining island resident workers, a drive mode share equivalent to the City of Portland’s for work trips is assumed for travel between the ferry terminal and their work destination. The City’s rate in 2015 was 73% drive alone, and about 9% carpool consisting of parties between 2 to 4 people.26  The City of Portland’s drive alone and carpool to work mode shares are also assumed for the workers who commute from the mainland to the islands,  For all other passengers including visitor trips, year-round island resident non-work trips, and seasonal island resident trips, it is assumed that average travel party size is 2.5, which was the average travel party size for day visitor parties to the Portland region in 201527. A drive mode share of 82% is assumed based on the total automobile mode share of work travel in the City of Portland in 2015 in lieu of more specific data. Included in the future projection is an assumed rate of growth of the number of work commuters traveling to and from the islands. Commuter populations were increased by 8 percent in keeping with the Portland Comprehensive Plan goal of 8 percent population growth in 10 years. The result was a projection of an additional peak season daily parking demand of 230 vehicles for ferry passengers using Casco Bay Lines as shown in Table 35. The ferry parking projection will be added to both weekends and weekdays. 26 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate. Work travel mode share for the City of Portland. 27 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2015 Calendar Year Annual Report: Regional Insights Greater Portland & Casco Bay. April 2016.pg 29. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 100 of 179 Page 171 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 35: Projected Additional Ferry Parking Demand in 2027 Passengers Aug-16 Projected Aug 2027 Difference (2027-2016) Avg Round Trip Ferry Passengers/Day 3,365 4,472 Year-round Island Resident Workers who Commute to Work on the Mainland (Primary Jobs) 550 594 Year-Round Mainland Residents who Work on the Islands 100 108 Remaining Passengers to/from the Islands 2,715 3,770 1,056 Vehicles Aug-16 Projected Aug 2027 Difference (2027-2016) Parking Demand Estimate for Island Resident Workers Who Commute by Car from the Ferry Terminal (Primary Jobs) 350 380 Parking Demand Estimate for Mainland Residents who Commute by Car to the Islands 80 80 Parking Demand Estimate for Remaining Passengers to/from the Islands 890 1,240 Total Estimated Vehicles 1,320 1,700 Average Ferry Transported Vehicles per Day -171 -318 Estimate of Ferry Parking Demand in the Study Area =1,149 = 1,382 230 Forecasts of passenger demand for international ferry service to Nova Scotia were unavailable. Based on average daily passenger data from 2014-2016, an average daily walk-on passenger total of 25 will be held constant for the future weekday and weekend projections. It is estimated that parking demand related to the walk-on passengers is 10 vehicles. The results project a total ferry passenger parking demand of 240 additional vehicles in 2027. Ferry parking demand peaks in the evening and during the early morning hours before 7am. During the day, parking demand dips slightly as island residents make trips using their vehicles and visitors return to their vehicles. The time of day demand distribution from the Casco Bay Parking Garage is used an approximation for the time of day distribution for ferry parking demand. J.2 Tourism Considerations The Maine Office of Tourism does not forecast visitor levels, although it does set future goals for increased visitation, such as first-time visitation and business visitation. Recent data on 2016 from the office of tourism showed another strong year for increased visitors in Maine. Between 2012 and 2016, visitation grew by from 28 million visitors to 35.8 million visitors, which was a 28% percent increase overall and a compound annual growth rate of 5%. However, visitation to the Greater Portland Casco Bay Region is not necessarily growing at the same rate as the state Maine Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 101 of 179 Page 172 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront because a lower percentage of visitors reported making the Portland region their primary destination in 2016 as compared to 201228 29 30. Our future estimate of overnight visitor parking demand to the study area is based on the growth in hotel rooms in each development scenario. An occupancy rate of 70%, the annual average from 2016, is applied into the future scenarios. Similar to the existing conditions land use-based parking analysis, the future parking demand estimates are based on land-use generated parking demand using ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed) factors at the 50th percentile demand level together with ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed). The 50th percentile demand level factors were found to be a better representation of Portland’s existing conditions peak season than 85th percentile factors, which produced an unreasonably high peak too dissimilar from observed occupancy and calculated seasonal adjustment factors. Land-use based parking generation does not delineate between resident and visitor parking demand, total demand is based on the quantity of land-use development. The peak demand from the parking generation factors is already an approximation of the high demand season, meaning additional demand from tourism does not need to be added unless it is believed that tourism is increasing beyond the rate suggested by new development. New retail, restaurant, and hotel development specified in the future projects have been sized in anticipation of tourism. Additionally, we are accounting for growth in ferry passenger ridership in the future demand estimates, based on passenger growth since 2012, which is a way of accounting for projected island tourism growth. J.3 Land-Use Development Scenarios Parking Analysis Information on a set of approved and potential future projects within a 10-year time frame was obtained from the City of Portland’s Planning Department and the Economic Development Department. Figure 56 shows the approximate location of future projects within or very near the study area. The study area is shown divided into seven subarea zones as defined in the existing conditions chapter for the sake of discussion. The location of the projects suggests both a concentration of new parking demand in Subarea Zones 3 and 5, and a second concentration of new parking demand in Subarea Zone 7, the Eastern Waterfront, that will include new demand in the eastern edge of Subarea Zone 6 at the Maine State Pier. 28 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research 2012 Calendar Year Annual Report. Prepared by DPA. Pgs. 52,77. Seventeen percent of annual day visitors reported making the Portland region their primary destination. 29 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Winter/Spring 2016 Seasonal Topline pgs24,25. Fourteen percent of winter and spring day visitors reported making the Portland region their primary destination. 30 Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research Summer 2016 Seasonal Topline pgs24,25. Eleven percent of day visitors reported making the Portland region their primary destination. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 102 of 179 Page 173 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Figure 56: Future Development Projects: Approved and Likely J.3.1 Approved but Unoccupied Land Use Developments The developments in Table 36 are either under construction or now complete but were not occupied and therefore did not generate parking demand at the time of the parking occupancy surveys in December 2016. As a result of not having been included in the existing conditions analysis, they are included here in the future analysis. Table 36: Approved Development Projects Map Project Description No. 1 158 Fore Street (AC Hotel) – 150 room hotel/4,000SF restaurant with 65 parking spaces in the Ocean Gateway Garage 2 33 India Street - 5,964SF retail/8 residential units with 44 parking spaces used in the Ocean Gateway Garage 3 8 Middle Street – 39,526SF Office/5,032SF Retail Units with 124 parking spaces used in the Ocean Gateway Garage 4 121 Center Street – 8,859SF expansion of Aura entertainment venue with 60 parking spaces used in nearby existing lots 5 101 York Street – 63 residential units/7,000SF restaurant/9,955SF retail with 211 parking spaces (95 existing surface parking spaces eliminated) Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 103 of 179 Page 174 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront J.3.2 Assumed Future Land Use Developments Likely to Occur Some of the developments anticipated in the next 10 years are expected to provide on-site parking, those developments are grouped in Table 37. Other developments plan to provide parking by using existing spaces in a nearby lot or garage, those developments are included in Table 38. Table 37: Likely Developments with On-Site Parking Map Project Description No. 6 383 Commercial Street (former Rufus Deering site) – 22,691SF retail/275 residential units with 390 parking spaces 7 209 Fore Street (Next to Hampton Inn) – 136 hotel room with 97 parking spaces 8 3 Portland Square - 300,000SF office/30,000SF retail/35,000SF restaurant/84 residential units/145 room hotel with 1480 parking spaces (547 existing surface spaces eliminated) 9 58 Fore Street (Portland Company) – 123,917SF office/50,273SF retail/638 residential units/132 room hotel/3,800SF restaurant with 616 parking spaces 10 Thames Street Surface Lot – 80,000SF office with 450 parking spaces (100 existing spaces eliminated) 11 Fisherman’s Wharf – 93 room hotel/30,405SF office/7,625SF retail/5,200SF restaurant with 501 parking spaces (261 existing surface parking spaces eliminated) 12 Shipyard Brewery Expansion – 3,382SF retail/103 residential units with 420 parking spaces 13 230 Commercial Street (Union and Widgery Wharf) – 18,000SF office/10,000SF mixed use with 179 parking spaces (208 existing surface parking spaces eliminated) 19 Brown St Garage- 257 space parking structure for the tenants of 511 Congress St. (67 existing surface spaces eliminated) Table 38: Likely Developments without On-Site Parking Map Description No. 14 158 Fore Street –48,000SF office /21,000SF retail/48-unit residential building 15 Portland Fish Pier– 10,000SF marine use/20,000SF office (20 surface parking spaces eliminated) 16 Portland Fish Pier– 20,000SF office/10,000SF light manufacturing 17 Cotton Street – 10,000SF retail/10,000SF restaurant/20,000SF office/20,000SF residential (50 spaces eliminated) 18 40 Commercial Street (Maine State Pier) – 20,000SF office Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 104 of 179 Page 175 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront J.3.3 Development Scenario Summaries Aggregating all identified development projects by land use type, the full build out scenario is summarized in Table 39. The amount of new parking built is shown, as well as any parking eliminated from construction. Table 39: Summary of Approved and 10-Year Likely Future Development: Full Build-Out Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Full Build-Out Residential Units - - 104 - 338 - 813 1,255 Restaurant Sqft - - 45,000 - 12,200 - 7,800 65,000 Office Sqft - - 320,000 - 88,405 20,000 291,443 719,848 Retail Sqft - - 40,000 - 52,843 - 85,651 178,494 Hotel Rooms - - 145 - 93 - 418 656 Industrial Sqft - - - - 20,000 - - 20,000 Other Sqft - 8,859 - - - - - 8,859 - - - - - - - - Newly Built Parking 257 - 1,480 - 1,281 - 1,583 4,601 Eliminated Parking 67 - 597 - 639 - 100 1,403 Net New Parking 190 - 883 - 642 - 1,483 3,198 Existing Parking Reserved - 60 - - - - 233 293 Two additional scenarios were created to view the results of what might happen if less development than anticipated were to occur. As a simplified way of doing this, the likely to occur but not previously approved projects listed in Table 37 and Table 38 were reduced in total size to create a scenario described as all approved development plus 75 percent of likely development, summarized in Table 40. Similarly, Table 41 summarizes the last scenario described as all approved development plus 50 percent of likely development. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 105 of 179 Page 176 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 40: Summary of Approved Development Plus 75 Percent of Likely 10-Year Development Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Approved+ 75% Residential Units - - 78 - 269 - 616 963 Restaurant Sqft - - 33,750 - 10,900 - 6,850 51,500 Office Sqft - - 240,000 - 66,304 15,000 218,582 539,886 Retail Sqft - - 30,000 - 42,121 - 66,987 139,108 Hotel Rooms - - 109 - 70 - 351 530 Industrial Sqft - - - - 15,000 - - 15,000 Other Sqft - 8,859 - - - - - 8,859 - - - - - - - - Newly Built Parking 193 - 1,110 - 1,014 - 1,187 3,504 Removed Parking 50 - 448 - 503 - 75 1,076 Net New Parking 143 - 662 - 511 - 1,112 2,428 Existing Parking Reserved - 60 - - - - 233 293 Table 41: Summary of Approved Development Plus 50 Percent of Likely 10-Year Development Subarea Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Approved+ 50% Potential Residential Units - - 52 - 201 - 419 671 Restaurant Sqft - - 22,500 - 9,600 - 5,900 38,000 Office Sqft - - 160,000 - 44,203 10,000 145,722 359,924 Retail Sqft - - 20,000 - 31,399 - 48,324 99,723 Hotel Rooms - - 73 - 47 - 284 403 Industrial Sqft - - - - 10,000 - - 10,000 Other Sqft - 8,859 - - - - - 8,859 - - - - - - - - Newly Built Parking 129 - 740 - 746 - 792 2,406 Removed Parking 34 - 299 - 367 - 50 749 Net New Parking 95 - 442 - 379 - 742 1,657 Existing Parking Reserved - 60 - - - - 233 293 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 106 of 179 Page 177 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront J.3.4 Population Analysis of Development Scenarios Between 2000 and 2010, on the Peninsula, the majority of new growth occurred in the vicinity of the Parkside, East Bayside, and India Street neighborhoods, while Downtown, the West End, and a portion of the East End, lost population. As mentioned in section B.4 in the existing conditions chapter, the population lost Downtown between 2000 and 2015 was nearly all due to losses in the population living in group quarters while the population of residents in occupied households grew a small amount, by 0.3 percent. According to the City’s comprehensive plan (2017), the City has set a goal of growing from a current population of 66,681 residents (2016) to a population of 72,000 residents by the year 2027. The desired increase of 5,319 residents represents 8 percent in total population growth and would reflect a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2016 and 2027 of 0.6 percent per year. The comprehensive plan also says of the City’s goal of reaching 72,000 residents that, “This figure falls between the medium and high growth scenarios developed based on USM's county growth model.”31 The USM county growth model estimated a range of 2030 growth scenarios, from a high growth scenario which estimated a population of 81,000 to a low growth scenario which estimated a population of 69,000. The three development scenarios identified in this study consist of new residential units totaling 1,255, 963, and 671 units respectively for the Full Build-Out, the Approved Plus 75 Percent of Likely Development, and the Approved Plus 50 Percent Development scenarios. The average household size in the study area is 1.5 residents based on the 2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate. The population increases resulting from each development scenario relative to the City, the Peninsula, and the study area are summarized in Table 42. Table 42: 10-Year Relative Population Growth of Development Scenarios Development Residential Est. Pop Growth Growth Relative Growth Relative Growth Relative Scenario Units from Development to Study Area to Peninsula to City (66,681 (1.5 Persons/Unit) (2,589 residents (23,248 residents residents in in 2015) in 2015) 2015) Approved + 50% 671 1,010 39% 4% 1.5% Approved + 75% 963 1,440 56% 6% 2.2% Full Build-Out 1,255 1,880 73% 8% 2.8% The 10-year Full Build-Out scenario would result in a population growth of 1,880, which is 2.8 percent of the City’s current population. The comprehensive plan does not say where the City’s goal of 8 percent growth would occur within the City, however should the Full Build-Out occur, the City would need an additional 5.2 percent in population growth relative to the present population, or 3,439 additional residents, in neighborhoods outside of the study area to reach 8 percent total growth by 2027. Interestingly, the population growth from the Full Build-Out relative to the Peninsula is 8%. This means that if the Full Build-Out were to occur, no further population gain on the Peninsula would be necessary for the Peninsula to have grown in population by the same rate as the City’s overall 10-year goal. 31 Portland’s Plan (2017) pg. 100 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 107 of 179 Page 178 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront The Full Build-Out population growth relative to the study area, which has a current resident population of 2,589, would be 73 percent over 10-years, about 9 times the rate of growth compared to the City’s overall target of 8 percent. This is in keeping with trends nationally and with the City’s comprehensive plan policies related to supporting mixed use growth of Downtown as the center of the City and region. Between 2000 and 2015, the study area population in occupied households grew by 0.3% total. During the same period, the City population grew by 3.5%, as was shown in Table 6 and Table 7 in the existing conditions chapter. Should the study area experience a relative population growth of 73 percent in the next 10 years, as implied in the Full Build-Out, while the City grows by 8 percent during the same period, it would be a significant change in the relationship between growth in the study area vs. growth in the City overall in recent years. The same can be said of the Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely and Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenarios, though less dramatically so. The Approved Plus 50 Percent scenario would grow the study area resident population by 39 percent in 10 years. The Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenario would grow the study area by 56 percent in 10 years. J.3.5 Employment Analysis of Development Scenarios According to employment forecasts developed by the State of Maine, the City of Portland is expected to see a net increase of 16,610 jobs over the 30-year period from 2010 to 2040, a 25% total increase and a compound annual growth rate of 0.7%. In 2014, the latest estimate available, the City of Portland had 67,648 jobs32. Using the same rate of growth rate predicted by the State of Maine, 10 years of growth would result in 73,211 jobs in Portland, an increase of 5,563 jobs which is 8.2% total employment growth. The study area currently has 17,149 total jobs. Between 2002 and 2014 the study area employment grew by 9.1% while during the same period employment in the City grew by 5.2%. The study area gained employment at 1.75 times the rate of the City during the period. The implied employment from the three development scenarios was calculated using general employee occupancy factors for each land use. The total number of employees expected in each scenario is summarized in Table 43. 32 2014 Longitudinal Household-Employer Dynamics. U.S. Census Bureau Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 108 of 179 Page 179 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 43: 10-year Future Employment Estimated from Development Scenarios Development Scenario Approved + 50% Approved + 75% Full Build-Out Land Use Type Restaurant Sqft 38,000 51,500 65,000 Office Sqft 359,924 539,886 719,848 Retail Sqft 98,437 137,179 175,922 Hotel Rooms 403 530 656 Industrial Sqft 10,000 15,000 20,000 Estimated Employees Restaurant Employees33 87 118 149 Office Employees31 1,152 1,728 2,304 Retail Employees31 179 249 320 Hotel Employees34 322 424 525 Industrial Employees35 22 33 44 Total Employees 1,763 2,553 3,342 Restaurant= 1 emp/435sf; Office= (0.8*Gross Floor Area)/250sf; Retail = 1emp/550sf; Hotel= 0.8emp/room; Industrial= 1emp/450sf 33 For Restaurant, Office, and Retail: U.S. Green Building Council. LEED BD+C: New Construction V4 Appendix 2. Default Occupancy Counts. https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-existing-buildings-commercial-interiors-core-and-shell- schools-new-constr-3. Accessed July 20, 2017 34 For Hotel: “Hotel Staff”. City-of-Hotels.com. http://www.city-of-hotels.com/165/hotel-staff-en.html. This article quotes the World Tourist Organization in saying that the optimum hotel staff for a 3-star hotel is 8 employees for 10 rooms 35 For Industrial: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Non -Residential Employment Factors. http://www.mwcog.org/asset.aspx?id=committee-documents/Zl1aVlhe20131217082723.pdf Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 109 of 179 Page 180 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 44 compares the estimated employment from the development scenarios with existing employment totals in the study area and City. Table 44: 10-year Scenario Employment Growth Relative Comparison Development Scenario Estimated Scenario Growth Relative to Current Growth Relative to Growth Relative to Employment Study Area Employment Current City State Estimate of Growth (10-yr) (17,149) Employment (67,648) 10-yr City Employment Growth (5,560) Approved + 50% 1,763 10% 3% 32% Approved + 75% 2,553 15% 4% 46% Full Build-Out 3,342 19% 5% 60% The Full Build-Out scenario would result in a 10-year employment growth of 19 percent in the study area relative to current employment. While this is a higher rate of employment growth than the State of Maine predicted for the City in a 10-year period (8.2 percent), recent history does suggest that the study area has in fact tended to gain employment at a higher rate than the City. However, if the study area were to gain 19 percent in employment during a 10-year period when the City gained 8.2 percent, the study area’s rate of employment growth would be 2.3 times that of the City. This means that the Full Build- Out scenario would add employment to the study area at a higher rate relative to the City’s growth rate compared to the period between 2002 and 2014, when the study area gained employment at 1.75 times the rate of the city. The Approved Plus 75 Percent Potential scenario represents an employment growth rate in the study area of 15 percent, which would be 1.83 times more than a City employment gain of 8.2 percent, which is more in keeping with the recent past in terms of how study area employment grew relative to the City. The Approved Plus 50 Percent Potential scenario represents an employment growth rate in the study area of 10 percent, which would be a rate 1.22 times more than a City employment gain of 8.2 percent, a slower rate of employment growth in the study area relative to the City when compared to the period between 2002 and 2014. J.3.6 Projection of Future Parking Demand For the existing condition, parking demand was calculated two ways: observed demand with peak season adjustments from tourism and ferry passenger data, and land-used based parking generation. For the 10-year demand projections, only the land-used based method is applied with an adjustment for ferry passenger growth. Attempting to adjust observed parking demand to the future is not typically done. The development scenarios were apportioned to the study area using the Subarea Zones 1 through 7 geography convention from the existing conditions analysis. A combination of ITE Parking Generation (4th Ed) factors at the 50th percentile demand level and ULI Shared Parking (2nd Ed) factors were then applied to calculate a time distributed daily parking demand for each scenario. The 50th percentile ITE factors were found to be a more realistic approximation of the peak season in Portland compared to ITE’s 85th percentile factors in the existing conditions analysis, therefore the 85th percentile factors were not applied to the future scenarios. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 110 of 179 Page 181 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront J.3.6.1 Future Weekday Results The following section first presents the results of only the future supply and demand analysis, then the combined future supply and demand with the existing. Figure 57 shows projected parking demand for the 10-year Full Build-Out scenario on a weekday. Between 7am and 5pm, the projected future parking demand is greater than the effective capacity of the net new parking supply. 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,265 3,315 3,322 3,340 3,400 3198 3,105 3,175 3,293 3198 3,200 3,199 3,000 2878 2878 2,800 2,600 2,520 2,606 2,497 2,400 2,385 2,019 Parked Vehicles 2,200 2,037 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 - 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am Future Office/Industrial Future Residential Future Hotel/Other Services Future Restaurant/Retail Future Growth in Ferry Passengers Net New Parking Capacity Figure 57: 10-yr Full Build-Out Scenario Only: Projected Weekday Parking Demand vs. Net New Supply The peak parking demand projected from the new development in the Full Build-Out scenario occurs at 2pm. Table 45 shows the projected demand for each subarea zone at 2pm on a weekday. Table 45: 10-Year Weekday Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand Projected Parking Projected New Total Net New Net New Net New Net New Demand from Demand from Projected Parking Total Effective Effective Development at Ferry Passengers Demand at Total Capacity- Capacity Capacity- 2pm at 2pm 2pm Capacity Demand Demand Zone 1 - - - 190 190 171 171 Zone 2 10 - 10 - (10) - (10) Zone 3 980 - 980 883 (100) 795 (185) Zone 4 - - - - - - - Zone 5 580 - 580 642 60 578 - Zone 6 40 200 240 - (240) - (240) Zone 7 1,530 - 1,530 1,483 (50) 1,335 (195) Total 3,140 200 3,340 3,198 (150) 2,878 (460) (Parking Deficit) Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 111 of 179 Page 182 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Subarea Zone 1 has a surplus of 170 new parking spaces in effective capacity. The development in Subarea Zone 1 is a parking garage intended for an adjacent tenant, which would likely open up space in other existing parking supply in Zone 1 that could absorb most but not all of the excess future peak weekday demand from adjacent Zones 2 and 3 (195 vehicles). A common theme in all the future scenarios is that future parking demand from the projected growth in ferry passengers causes a net parking deficit in Subarea Zone 6, the location of the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal. There does not appear to be leftover room to accommodate the projected growth in ferry passenger parking demand within the net new parking supply from development. The future developments in Subarea Zone 7 alone appear to be at a deficit of parking supply during the weekday peak of 195 spaces despite approx. 1,500 net new spaces in that zone under the Full Build-Out scenario. The finally tally for the Full Build-Out has a deficit of 150 in total parking supply, but a deficit of 460 if we consider that a 10 percent reserve supply of the net new parking should be maintained to keep circulation for parking functional. As was found in the existing conditions analysis, the peak hour of the peak season weekday is likely currently over effective capacity by 290-480 vehicles. The projected deficit from the Full Build-Out scenario could not likely be absorbed into existing parking supply under these conditions without further diminishing the study area’s reserve parking capacity needed to maintain a functioning parking system. There is however, a noteworthy caveat to the future demand results related to residential parking demand. In Figure 57, the scale of future residential development is apparent. The ITE parking generation factors predict 1.2 vehicles per unit for mid-rise urban housing. Based on the 1,255 new housing units in the Full Build-Out scenario, and carrying forward a 1 percent vacancy rate from the existing conditions, the projection for residential parking demand is just under 1,500 vehicles. The ULI time of day curves predict that at 2pm on a weekday, 70 percent of the total residential parking demand will be either occupied by resident vehicles or reserved and therefore not shared by other parking users. However, if the parking supply for the new residential development is managed in a way that maximizes the possibility of parking space re-use when residents are away, particularly during the work day, this could help lower the peak parking demand curve. Furthermore, our projections retained the internal capture rate for office land use at 2 percent, based on the present, where only 2 percent of the employees in the study are also residents according to the latest available employment data (LEHD 2014). If future residential development in the study area were to attract a higher percentage of residents who also work in the study area, and do not use their vehicle to commute to work, this would raise the internal capture rate for office parking demand. An internally captured office trip does not need an additional office parking space because the resident employee leaves their vehicle at home. In this way, a single parking space would serve either a residential purpose or an office purpose depending on the time of day. It would help lower parking demand to promote or incentivize the occupancy of new residential development with employees (of any kind) who also work in the study area. The results of the Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely and Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely scenarios are shown in Table 46 and Table 47 respectively. The parking demand deficit in each scenario is lower than the Full Build-Out, though not dramatically so since newly built parking was scaled down along with development in the scenarios. The spatial parking deficit patterns remain the same, since all developments considered likely but not yet approved were scaled down evenly. The projected ferry parking demand was not scaled down with the development in these scenarios. In summary, the Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenario resulted in a total parking deficit of 180 spaces, but an effective parking deficit of 410 spaces. The Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely scenario resulted in a total parking deficit of 195 spaces, but an effective parking deficit of 365 spaces. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 112 of 179 Page 183 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 46: 10-year Weekday Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely Parking Supply and Demand Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity- Development at from Ferry at 2pm Capacity Demand 2pm Passengers at 2pm Zone 1 - - - 143 140 128 130 Zone 2 10 - 10 0 (10) 0 (10) Zone 3 740 - 740 662 (80) 596 (140) Zone 4 - - - 0 - 0 - Zone 5 450 - 450 511 60 459 10 Zone 6 30 200 230 0 (230) 0 (230) Zone 7 1,170 - 1,170 1112 (60) 1001 (170) Total 2,400 200 2,600 2,428 (180) 2,185 (410) Table 47: 10-year Weekday Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely Parking Supply and Demand Projected Parking Projected New Total Net New Net New Net New Net New Demand from Demand from Projected Parking Total Effective Effective Development at Ferry Demand at Total Capacity- Capacity Capacity- 2pm Passengers at 2pm Capacity Demand Demand 2pm Zone 1 - - - 95 95 86 90 Zone 2 10 - 10 - (10) - (10) Zone 3 492 - 492 442 (50) 397 (90) Zone 4 - - - - - - - Zone 5 328 - 328 379 50 341 10 Zone 6 21 200 221 - (220) - (220) Zone 7 805 - 805 742 (60) 667 (140) Total 1,656 200 1,856 1,657 (195) 1,491 (365) Next, the weekday Full Build-Out scenario parking demand is combined with the existing peak season weekday parking demand from the existing condition land-use based calculations results in Figure 58. The combined parking demand is higher than the future effective capacity between the hours of 10am and 4pm. The projected peak occurs at 2pm when the demand for parking totals approximately 17,800 spaces while the effective capacity is 16,700 spaces. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 113 of 179 Page 184 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 21,000 20,000 18,867 18,867 19,000 18,000 16,278 16,868 17,811 16,661 17,000 16,382 16,000 15,781 14,882 15,000 14,538 14,000 13,000 12,768 12,000 Parked Vehicles 11,029 11,000 10,853 10,000 9,000 9,316 5,659 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,143 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am Office/Industrial Residential Other Services Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers Future Capacity Future Effective Capcity Total Estimated Figure 58: Weekday Peak Season Existing + 10-year Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand To summarize, the weekday peak season and peak hour parking supply and demand of the combined future and existing scenarios is depicted in Figure 59 which shows the total capacity, effective capacity, and peak parking demand for each of the three 10-year future development scenarios. The results appear in tabular form in Table 48. 21,000 18,870 19,000 17,810 18,100 16,870 17,070 17,330 17,000 16,170 16,320 15,480 Vehicles 15,000 13,000 11,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50% Likely) Likely) Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level Peak Season 2pm Weekday Demand Figure 59: Weekday Peak Season and 2pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 114 of 179 Page 185 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 48: Weekday Peak Season 2pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction Area at Level Effectively Needed Peak Full Existing + 2pm 18,870 16,870 17,810 -940 1,060 1,060 940 Full Build- Out Existing + 2pm 18,100 16,170 17,070 -900 1,030 1,030 900 (Approved + 75% Likely) Existing + 2pm 17,330 15,480 16,320 -840 1,010 1,010 840 (Approved + 50% Likely) The 10-year projected weekday results show that parking demand would need to be reduced by 940 to remain under the effective capacity of parking supply within the study area in the Existing + Full Build-Out scenario. The Existing + Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenario results in a need to reduce parking demand by 900 vehicles to remain under effective capacity. Finally, the Existing + Approved Plus 50 Percent Likely scenario results in a need to reduce parking demand by 840 vehicles. J.3.6.2 Future Saturday Results Next, the projected 10-year Saturday parking demand is described. Figure 60 shows the hourly Full Build-Out scenario net new supply and demand alone. Between 6pm and 9pm, the projected future parking demand is greater than the effective capacity of the net new parking supply, which is approximately 2,900 spaces. Demand generated by the new development is projected to rise to just over 3,000 at 8pm, 100 vehicles more than the net new effective capacity to be built. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 115 of 179 Page 186 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 4,000 3,800 3,600 3,400 3198 3198 3,200 2,861 3,012 3,000 2878 2,750 2878 2,800 2,740 2,600 2,320 2,511 2,396 2,510 2,400 2,200 1,968 2,011 Parked Vehicles 2,000 1,904 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 - 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm 12am Future Office/Industrial Future Residential Future Hotel/Other Services Future Restaurant/Retail Future Growth in Ferry Passengers Net New Parking Capacity Figure 60: 10-yr Full Build-Out Scenario Only: Saturday Projected Parking Demand vs. Net New Supply Table 49 shows the 10-year projected parking demand for each subarea zone at 8pm peak hour on Saturday. The development in Subarea Zone 2 is an evening entertainment venue and the generated demand is based on full occupancy of the 1,000 seats. The net new parking in Subarea Zone 3 has a surplus of 395 spaces because of the lack of office demand during the weekend evening peak. In Subarea Zone 5, the net new parking is within 20 spaces of supplying enough parking for the evening generated parking demand in the zone. Ferry passenger parking demand is at its peak in the evening and creates a projected deficit of 240 vehicles generated from the Ferry Terminal in Zone 6. Subarea Zone 7 has a projected deficit of approximately 45 from hotel, retail, restaurant and residential generated demand. While the Full Build-Out scenario creates more net new total parking spaces than demand generated on Saturday at 8pm, there is a parking deficit of approximately 130 spaces relative to net new effective parking capacity. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 116 of 179 Page 187 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 49: 10-Year Saturday Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity- Development at from Ferry at 8pm Capacity Demand 8pm Passengers at 8pm Zone 1 - - - 190 190 171 170 Zone 2 390 - 390 - (390) - (390) Zone 3 400 - 400 883 480 795 395 Zone 4 - - - - - - - Zone 5 600 - 600 642 40 578 (20) Zone 6 - 240 240 - (240) - (240) Zone 7 1,380 - 1,380 1,483 100 1,335 (45) Total 2,770 240 3,010 3,198 180 2,878 (130) The Saturday Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely scenario parking demand deficit is higher than the Full-Build Out because the approved development in Subarea Zone 2 and ferry passenger parking demand are not scaled down while many of the likely developments that include net new parking are scaled down. The Approved Plus 75 Percent Likely result is a deficit of 300 spaces relative to net new effective capacity as shown in Table 50. Table 50: 10yr Saturday + 75% Likely Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity- Development at from Ferry at 8pm Capacity Demand 8pm Passengers at 8pm Zone 1 - - - 143 140 128 130 Zone 2 390 - 390 - (390) - (390) Zone 3 300 - 300 662 360 596 300 Zone 4 - - - - - - - Zone 5 480 - 480 511 30 459 (20) Zone 6 - 240 240 - (240) - (240) Zone 7 1,080 1,080 1,112 30 1,001 (80) Total 2,250 240 2,490 2,428 (70) 2,185 (300) The Approved Plus 50 percent Likely scenario has a final deficit of 460 relative to net new effective parking supply at 8pm on Saturday as shown in Table 51. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 117 of 179 Page 188 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 51: 10yr Saturday + 50% Likely Projected Projected Total Net New Net New Total Net New Net New Parking Demand New Projected Parking Capacity- Effective Effective from Demand Demand Total Demand Capacity Capacity- Development at from Ferry at 8pm Capacity Demand 8pm Passengers at 8pm Zone 1 - - - 95 95 86 90 Zone 2 390 - 390 - (390) - (390) Zone 3 200 - 200 442 240 397 200 Zone 4 - - - - - - - Zone 5 360 - 360 379 20 341 (20) Zone 6 - 240 240 - (240) - (240) Zone 7 770 770 742 (30) 667 (100) Total 1,720 240 1,960 1,657 (305) 1,491 (460) Although all three 10-year Saturday scenarios are projected to generate more parking demand than net effective supply, the existing condition land-used based calculated results had more than enough surplus parking capacity to accommodate the future Saturday demand. Figure 61 combines the Existing and Full Build-Out scenarios. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 118 of 179 Page 189 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 21,000 20,000 19,000 17,950 17,350 18,000 17,022 17,022 16,624 16,624 17,000 15,843 15,863 16,042 15,502 16,000 15,207 14,849 15,000 15,207 14,164 14,000 14,849 14,146 13,365 13,000 11,901 11,929 11,932 12,000 12,016 Parked Vehicles 11,000 9,504 10,000 9,000 8,000 6,935 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 - Office/Industrial Residential Other Services Restaurant/Retail Arena Ferry Passengers Future Capacity Future Effective Capacity Total Estimate Figure 61: Saturday Peak Season Existing + 10-year Full Build-Out Parking Supply and Demand The combined existing and future Saturday peak hour results are shown as a chart in Figure 62. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 119 of 179 Page 190 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront 21,000 19,000 17,020 17,000 16,250 15,210 15,480 15,000 14,510 13,820 Vehicles 13,360 12,830 13,000 12,310 11,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 Existing + Full Build-Out Existing + (Approved + 75% Existing + (Approved + 50% Likely) Likely) Full Capacity of Study Area Effectively Full Occupancy Level Peak Season 8pm Satuday Demand Figure 62: Saturday Peak Season 8pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios The 10-year combined existing and future parking projections for all scenarios find that, as was the case in the existing condition, parking supply is higher than demand during the Saturday peak as summarized in Table 52. The future scenarios do however result in a slight decrease in the amount of parking available until effectively full on a Saturday at 8pm. In the existing condition, the Saturday 8pm peak had 1,940 available spaces until effectively full, while the Existing plus Full Build-Out scenario has 1,850 spaces available until effectively full. Should the existing trend of over capacity on- street parking with simultaneous under capacity off-street parking continue, the added 10-year parking demand under any of the future scenarios could further shape perceptions of Portland as being a difficult place to find parking. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 120 of 179 Page 191 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 52: Saturday Peak Season 8pm Parking Supply and Demand for Combined Existing and Future Scenarios Demand Peak Full Effectively Peak Spaces Reserve Total Parking Estimation Hour Capacity Full Demand Available Spaces Remaining Demand Method of Study Occupancy Until Remaining Spaces Reduction Area at Level Effectively Needed Peak Full Existing + 8pm 17,020 15,320 13,360 1,960 1,700 3,660 - Full Build- Out Existing + 8pm 16,250 14,510 12,830 1,680 1,740 3,420 - (Approved + 75% Likely) Existing + 8pm 15,480 13,820 12,310 1,510 1,660 3,170 - (Approved + 50% Likely) J.4 Conclusion In the future parking demand section, we have shown the magnitude of approved and likely 10-year development in the Portland study area. The development was shown to exhibit clustering in Subarea Zones 3 and 5 as well as separately in Subarea Zones 6 and 7. Significant increases in study area resident population and employment are anticipated. The rate of population and employment growth would be significantly higher in the study area as compared to rates that have been projected for the City of Portland overall. This is not necessarily incompatible; however, it would require that the study area add employment and especially residents at a higher relative rate than the overall growth rate of the City compared to how the study area and City grew during the past 15 years. This is in keeping with policies of Portland’s plan. A 10-year growth assumption for ferry passenger demand was made by continuing the trend of the previous 5-years. Associated parking demand from ferry passenger growth was calculated to be an additional 240 vehicles during the peak season. The past 5-years saw a healthy growth in ridership, and continuing this trend may result in a future projection somewhat on the high or conservative side. Nevertheless, the future scenarios did not provide enough surplus net new parking that could absorb growing parking demand from ferry passengers. Although tourism in Maine has been increasing robustly during the last 5-years, the data was not as clear on visitation to the Portland region which may be relatively flat as a lower share of day visitors to the state reported the region as their primary destination even though the total number of state visitors increased. Tourism was accounted for in the future demand analysis as part of the ferry passenger growth trend and it is also embedded in the future land use parking demand generation from the addition of new land use development such as restaurant, retail, and hotels which has been scaled in anticipation of tourism. Three future development scenarios, a full build and two scenarios that allowed for the possibility of less development, were analyzed using a combination of ITE Parking Generation factors and ULI shared parking factors. The key results are summarized in Table 53, the final figures have been adjusted by the difference between the land-use generated existing conditions results and the observed and adjusted existing conditions results. This calibration was made assuming the observed and adjusted existing conditions results were more accurate than the land-use based results and carrying the difference forward into the future. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 121 of 179 Page 192 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront Table 53: Future Demand Analysis Adjusted Results Scenario Study Area Peak Season Parking Demand Deficit Relative to Effective Capacity (in vehicles during the peak hour) Weekday Saturday Existing Condition Observed + Adjusted 290 0 Existing Condition Land-Used Based 480 0 Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods 190 0 #1 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Full Build-Out 940 0 #2 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 75% Likely Development 900 0 #3 Existing Condition Land-Used Based + 10-year Approved & 50% Likely Development 840 0 #1-(Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 750 0 #2-(Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 710 0 #3-(Difference Between Existing Conditions Methods) 650 0 Recommended Planning Range Goal for 10- year Parking Demand Reduction 700-750 0 It should be recalled that an additional 1,307 spaces in structured and surface lot parking available to the public with an effective capacity of 1,176 vehicles outside of the study area within a quarter-mile buffer. This additional parking supply serves a combination of travelers destined for the study area and travelers destined for land use outside of the study area. The existing parking demand for land use outside of the study area was not observed. It should not be assumed that this additional capacity can offset the projected parking demand deficit in the study area alone. Analysis in the existing conditions chapter showed that the quarter-mile buffer area parking supply is likely already critical to meeting the monthly parking demand of employees in the study area. We therefore recommend that the City of Portland plan to reduce weekday parking demand in the study area by a range of 700-750 vehicles in a 10-year horizon. We propose a goal of managing parking demand in the study area to be at or just under the weekday peak hour effective capacity of parking supply inside of the study area, which is projected to be in a range between approximately 15,480 to 16,870 parking spaces depending on the future build scenario. In the following section, we offer a set of recommendations to address Portland’s critical need to manage overall parking demand in the study area and the specific parking demands of key user groups experiencing difficulty parking. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 122 of 179 Page 193 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront K. Strategy Recommendations and Development K.1 Introduction In Task 1, the existing conditions report determined that overall parking demand in the study area, including on-street and off-street parking, is likely 290-480 vehicles over effective parking capacity in the midday period on weekdays during the peak summer season. Furthermore, it was found that during weekday evenings (after 5pm) and on weekends, parking supply in the study area is well below effective capacity overall. However, on-street parking during the evening on weekdays (5pm-8pm) and after 1pm on Saturday is at or over effective capacity along key commercial streets in the study area. The most urgent existing condition parking challenges are identified as:  There is a scarcity of monthly parking offered for employees on weekdays during the work day.  There are limited low-cost parking options for low wage earners in the study area.  There are limited low-cost multi-day and monthly options for island residents who have a need to park a vehicle on the mainland accessible from the ferry terminal.  Visitors during the summer season compete with employees of the study area for day parking, contributing to off-street parking scarcity mid-day on weekdays.  High rates of on-street parking occupancy during weekday evenings and on weekends, in many sampled locations above 85%, is contributing to the perception that there is no parking, when in fact ample off-street parking is available during these periods, but at a higher cost.  Unrestricted parking on streets outside of the study area, but within a walkable distance, are under pressure of increased use by travelers to the study area seeking day parking, including employees and day visitors. This is particularly relevant weekdays during the peak summer season when study area parking demand is at or over effective capacity. In Task 2, the future demand report, three future development scenarios were identified, consisting of approved projects and likely projects built out to 50%, 75%, and 100% of proposed development capacity. The main parking challenges associated with the identified future parking scenarios are:  In the Eastern Waterfront area, Subarea Zone 7, and the area surrounding the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, Subarea Zone 6, the projected demand associated with new mixed-use development combined with growth in ferry passenger parking demand will likely exceed net new parking supply on both peak (summer) weekdays in the afternoon and on weekends in the evening. While there is existing off-street parking capacity elsewhere in the Study Area on weekends to accommodate the growth in parking demand, there does not appear to be existing capacity on weekdays during the afternoon peak hour to accommodate the amount of parking demand that is projected to be over capacity from Subarea Zones 6 and 7.  In Subarea Zone 3 located Downtown, the projected demand associated with new mixed-use development will slightly exceed the net new parking supply in that zone on peak season (summer) weekdays during the afternoon. Net new parking supply in adjacent Subarea Zone 1 will help to offset most of the projected parking deficit in Subarea Zone 3, but not entirely. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 123 of 179 Page 194 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront The following recommended strategies are made to address overall parking demand and the specific parking demands of key user groups including all employees, low-wage employees specifically, and island residents. K.2 Recommended Strategies K.2.1 Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation Association A new non-profit organization, a Transportation Management Association (TMA) being just one example, could serve as an important entity for bringing private and public-sector interests together to address collective parking challenges and other mobility issues affecting the study area. We recommend the role of the organization to be a facilitator of solution- finding for members and to play an important informational role to businesses in Portland. Commonly, transportation associations form to pool private funding for shuttle services created to solve employer mobility challenges. We do not necessarily recommend that the association itself contract with a fixed route shuttle service provider. Instead we recommend that the association become well-versed in existing and emerging transportation network company (TNC) services that use customized mobility solutions for individual members or partnered members. The advantages of TNC solutions over traditional fixed-route private shuttles are the possibility for on-demand and custom routing, custom smartphone apps can improve the user experience, and depending on the arrangement, members can pay for only the rides they use. Key issues that a new transportation association could play an important role in addressing are:  The difficulty employers and their employees are having securing monthly parking; specifically, we recommend the crafting of customized TNC solutions for employee mobility that could include new park and ride lots at underutilized and lower cost locations outside of the study area.  Helping to connect employers with transit mobility solutions for employees. This could range from practical matters such as helping to integrate the procurement of transit passes, to a larger-scale programmatic role of serving as a unified voice for members to dialog with regional public transit providers, Amtrak, the JetPort etc.  Collecting metrics on mobility issues, such as parking demand, that may help members solve mobility problems through coordination and sharing of unused parking spaces or crafting of another policy.  Acting as a clearinghouse for information and ideas regarding Travel Demand Management. The association could also provide a venue for voluntary compliance monitoring with TDM ordinances.  Identifying parking management strategies or programs that could benefit the area collectively or strategies to achieve a specific initiative, for example a large-scale special event.  Marketing mobility and parking solutions to visitors to help prevent the perception that Portland is a difficult place to visit because of hard to find and expensive parking. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 124 of 179 Page 195 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront K.2.2 Partner with Transportation Network Companies to Address Specific Parking Challenges We recommend that the City of Portland explore partnering with TNCs to create customized programs to address three specific issues: 1) island resident parking supply; 2) the limited availability of low cost parking for low-wage earners; and 3) surges in peak season visitor parking demand.  The City could partner with a TNC to create a customized program for island residents to improve mobility between the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal and a location where multi-day parking is lower cost, more available, and more reliable compared to the current situation of a crowded on-street resident parking zone. The City could explore ways to share the cost of this program with the island resident on a per-ride basis, a one-time annual fee, or another means. We strongly suggest keeping the existing on- street resident zones for island residents, and we suggest this new option as an alternative that could be very attractive given the right price point and convenience of use. The Chebeague Transportation Company (CTC) currently operates a shuttle bus between a satellite parking lot on Route 1 in Cumberland and the CTC ferry terminal in Yarmouth. Our recommendation for the Casco Bay Ferry Terminal would work similarly, but replaces a shuttle bus with on-demand TNC service utilizing a smartphone app.  The City could partner with a TNC to create a customized program for low-wage earners who are having difficulty finding affordable parking options close to their employer. The City could manage membership to such a program by requiring applicants already meet the requirements of another existing income restricted program. The program would allow low-wage earners to use a coupon code or custom app to use TNC travel between their employer and another location such as a park and ride lot or a transit center during defined working hours. The City could share the cost of this program with the employee on a per-ride basis, a one-time annual fee, or another means.  The City could partner with a TNC to coordinate a well-publicized option for peak season visitors to park remotely at an underutilized lot, perhaps a distant lot with good highway access, and use TNC services to ride to and from the study area, particularly those traveling to the Old Port, Waterfront, and Casco Bay Islands. The lot could offer day and multi-day pricing that together with the cost of the TNC ride could be comparable to what would be paid for off-street parking in the study area. We do not necessarily suggest the City play a role in cost sharing for visitor rides, but rather set the cost of parking in the remote lot intentionally to make the program viable. K.2.3 Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Programs Expand island resident parking programs to include a program where island residents may remit a resident parking permit in exchange for ridesharing subsidy or stipend to use as they see fit. This is like the suggestion above, but could be less programmatic and may not include a designated off-site lot. The City could also explore the possibility of allowing island residents to park in another residential zone that has surplus on-street parking and use ridesharing or transit to reach the Ferry terminal. K.2.4 Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand Areas One of the main findings of the study was that on-street parking is at or over capacity during weekday evenings and during most observed hours on Saturday. One side effect of over capacity on-street parking for businesses is lower customer turnover. Residents, employers, and their visitors may experience more difficulty finding short term on-street Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 125 of 179 Page 196 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront parking, and a higher incidence of double parking for pickup and drop-off activities. Stakeholders will need to define what an acceptable level of on-street parking occupancy is, we suggest 85 percent, and if it is acceptable to use meter pricing as a mechanism of influencing turnover and on-street occupancy levels. If higher turnover is defined as a goal, one way to increase parking turnover would be to pilot test higher on-street parking rates and extended meter hours to 8pm in high demand areas such as Commercial St. A pilot test would mean a short-term experiment with a known end that is followed by an assessment of the results. The goal of the pilot would be to determine if Portland parking users respond to the price increase with higher turnover rates and whether stakeholders decide the higher turnover rate was beneficial. K.2.5 Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide The on-street occupancy data shows that occupancy levels rise above capacity on weekends beginning near 4pm when a user would be able to pay for two-hours of on-street parking and leave a vehicle for the remainder of the evening. If stakeholders decide that maintaining a two-hour turnover up until 6pm is beneficial, which it may be for some stakeholders such as restaurants, the meters could be extended until 8pm so that cars cannot be left on the street for the evening with a two-hour payment until 6pm. Additional outreach would be necessary before any such change could be implemented. K.2.6 Improve Parking Management and Technology It is recommended that parking operators continue to utilize the latest technology in operating their parking supply including sharing pricing, hours, and even real-time occupancy data with customers via smartphone apps. The more customers know about where parking is available and at what price before departure or en route, the better the parking experience and more efficient use of available space study area wide. To address the issue of overcrowding of on-street parking during evenings and weekends while off-street parking is underutilized, parking managers could consider offering more competitive pricing with on-street rates during the first one or two hours of stay. More operators might consider offering evenings only monthly passes that might attract evening shift workers who would otherwise avoid higher priced hourly parking close to their employer. Implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) practices to better utilize existing parking supplies. One of the challenges associated with parking in Portland is knowing where to park. There are several approaches to addressing this problem. First, we recommend the review and implementation of any remaining initiatives identified in the 2013 Portland Peninsula Vehicular Wayfinding Plan specifically related to parking signage and wayfinding in the Old Port, Waterfront, Arts District, and Eastern Waterfront. If recommendations in the plan are found to be out of date, we recommend a new City led effort to study how parking wayfinding can be optimized through signage and technology. Technology is the wayfinding of the future. Encourage maximum use of technological tools that guide the public to available parking spaces at known prices. Smartphone apps can market and incentivize the use of existing parking by allowing users to price compare, reserve, purchase, and way find with one tool. Such programs maximize the efficiency of existing parking while reducing congestion and vehicle miles traveled. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 126 of 179 Page 197 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront K.2.7 Change Parking Requirements and Regulations Manage parking demand by reducing parking requirements for residential units in the urban core to less than 1 space per unit, while slightly increasing parking requirements for office from one space per 400sqft to one per 300sqft. The projected parking demand suggests that weekday mid-day parking will be over effective capacity. Increasing office parking requirements slightly will relieve part of this demand gap. However, we do not recommend closing the new gap entirely with new parking supply. Some of this parking supply gap should be closed through better management of citywide parking supplies. We suggest targeting 50% of the parking supply gap to be closed through parking requirements for land use approvals, while closing the balance through parking management strategies. Any increased structured parking supply should be specifically designed to be repurposed as retail space, due to the widely anticipated likelihood that structured parking demand will decrease substantially with the advent of the autonomous vehicle. While some believe that wide adoption of autonomous vehicles is many years in the future, it is important to note that structured parking costs are routinely amortized over 30 or more years. Based on current studies, it is highly likely that autonomous vehicles will result in a substantial reduction in parking demand, thereby undermining the financial models that allow for commercial parking garage developments. Many underwriters are already questioning the validity of parking garage pro formas in dense urban environments. K.2.8 Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses Permits As part of the city’s upcoming land use code rewrite, consider requiring additional parking data and or trip or parking generation studies as a component of all site plan review. Requesting that developments provide parking and trip generation information on a periodic basis will help the city calibrate its parking policies to reflect actual demand and allow for more informed policy decisions. This data collection effort should include pricing information (if applicable) for spaces that are sold or rented to tenants. In addition, strengthen the policy of allowing fees-in-lieu. If the current $5,000 minimum per space program has had low participation, the problem could be uncertainty about how the City’s Sustainable Transportation Fund will benefit development. Contributors to the fund must understand how the funds will be used. This is critical to lenders and investors looking to underwrite land development projects so the payment is viewed having a benefit for the project. The City should consider more marketing or public engagement related to the annual Sustainable Transportation Fund Appropriations Schedule. The City could use a variety of platforms to state how the Sustainable Transportation Fund is being used, follow through on the plan, and then let constituents know via social media or other means the results of the investment. K.2.9 Increase Car Sharing Use Facilitate car sharing through parking strategies. The use of U-Car and other car share opportunities can have a significant benefit for islanders and residents of the study area if made convenient enough. Car sharing can reduce demand for a landside car, while facilitating travel on the Peninsula for routine trips. One or more shared cars should frequently be accessible from the Casco Bay Lines Ferry Terminal, in the parking garage or via a short trip either by foot or using a ridesharing app. Additionally, new peer to peer car sharing apps, e.g. Getaround or a similar company, could allow residents of the study area to rent their personal vehicles to islanders or vice versa. A resident who lives and works in the study area may have a vehicle that is parked at home during the work day which an islander could rent. An islander who keeps a vehicle on the mainland but does not use it daily could rent it to residents of the study area on a short-term basis. The apps simplify the coordination and transactions necessary to rent. The companies provide special insurance, and allow the car owner to choose renters with favorable feedback ratings. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 127 of 179 Page 198 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront K.2.10 Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study Continue to pursue the adoption of multiple strategies for single occupancy vehicle parking demand reduction through travel demand management (TDM) in the study area as recommended in the 2008 Portland Peninsula Transit Study. The study outlined TDM strategies, some of which have been implemented, e.g, fee-in-lieu payments as part city’s zoning code and the creation of the Sustainable Transportation Fund. However, unimplemented strategies remain. TDM strategies that could address the Study Area’s parking challenges include:  Requiring new development in the study area become a member of the new transportation association and require the implementation of TDM ordinances such as: o Appointing a mobility coordinator for the development to interact with the transportation association. o Provide a car share space on-site. o Offer employees the option to purchase a pre-tax monthly transit pass. o Create incentives and educate employers on parking cash-out programs where employees may forgo an employee provided parking spot for a one-time payment. o The unbundling of parking and residential units so a resident is not obligated to take a parking space if they do not want one or own a car. The Peninsula Transit Study also made a number of detailed transit service recommendations that have yet to be achieved. We recommend continued pursuance of the following goals:  Increase the peak period frequency of key Peninsula routes to 10-20 min headways  Provide a direct link between the Portland Transportation Center and Downtown/ Waterfront. As development on the Eastern Waterfront progresses, service should extend there as well.  Use signal prioritization and other techniques (e.g. queue jump lane) to help move buses through congested areas. K.2.11 Additional Transit Recommendations Additionally, we recommend the consideration of a downtown circulator route specifically meant to transport riders between the Waterfront and Cumberland Ave in a loop. There is a need to make available parking uphill from the Waterfront more attractive to better distribute parking demand within the study area. The introduction of GPS enabled bus arrival tracking in Portland during 2016 is an important advancement. The City should encourage the creation of additional smartphone apps that utilize the open-source bus location data. The City could organize a hack-a-thon, a contest, or another incentive to spur user engagement with the new information technology. K.2.12 Bicycle Infrastructure It is encouraging that the final design for the Franklin Ave reconstruction will include new bike lanes to both cross Franklin Ave and travel along it. The eventual realization of that project should help raise the bicycle commute share to the study area. If the City can raise the bicycle commute share during the peak summer season especially, it could play a role in managing peak parking demand. Additional investment in bikeways, bike lanes, bike paths, and byways to improve bicycle access from off-peninsula is needed to raise the bicycle mode share of travel to the study area. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 128 of 179 Page 199 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront The City will have the opportunity to observe the new bike sharing initiative to be launched in Portland in 2018. We recommend the City support additional bike share infrastructure should the pilot program prove successful. Bike sharing could be part of a mobility strategy between outlying parking areas or transit hubs and high-demand destinations. K.2.13 Convert Unrestricted Parking If further study shows unrestricted on-street parking within walking distance to the study area is over capacity and is being used for longer duration parking than desired by stakeholders. Conversion of unrestricted spaces to time limited zones or metered spaces is recommended. It is recommended that this be carried out gradually so that the effects of parking demand on the study area can be monitored for adverse impacts should significant new parking demand be forced into the study area. The unrestricted spaces on Commercial St west of the study area could potentially be converted to metered spaces if a successful low-wage earner remote parking program were implemented as described in Section K.2.2, since those spaces are intended to provide at least some no-cost parking near the study area. K.2.14 Marketing and Advertising The City could continue to support a marketing and advertising campaign to raise awareness and improve perception about multi-modal access to the study area; including parking strategies, smartphone apps, and parking prices. Campaigns should also highlight transit and bicycle commuting opportunities. K.2.15 Additional Data Collection We recommend periodic data collection on parking demand, particularly during the peak season since this effort collected data during the winter season. Also recommended is data collection that would measure public knowledge about multi-model access to the study area and willingness to pay for transportation and parking services. Establishing baseline data on these topics will greatly help to develop performance measures for any solutions the City pursues. Having high quality measures of effectiveness can be key to attracting state and federal funding. K.2.16 Construct Additional Structured Public Use Parking Supply If stakeholders decide that additional parking capacity is a necessary component to the City’s overall parking demand management strategy. The construction of up to approximately 500 to 750 new structured parking spaces for public use by travelers to the study area could be explored. We recommend the consideration of repurposeable parking structure design to allow for the possibility of a change in use over the design life of the structure. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 129 of 179 Page 200 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront L. Implementation and Funding This section identifies potential local, state, and federal funding sources applicable to the recommendations in Chapter K. First, a short description of potential funding sources, then Table 54 summarizes each recommendation from Chapter K with applicable funding sources. L.1 Local Funding Suggestions A Development Impact Fee The proposed fee is a transportation impact fee scaled to the size, intensity, and or land use type of new development in the study area for funding travel demand management, workforce mobility, or parking demand management related initiatives. This fee would be separate from the existing optional parking in-lieu of fee in the City’s Land Use Code. A Special Purpose On-Street Parking Meter Rate Increase The proposed meter rate increase is for high-demand locations, such as Commercial St, Exchange St, and Middle St. It is suggested that the collected revenue be used specifically for mobility initiatives for low-wage earners and island resident commuters having trouble parking in the high-demand areas. It is also proposed that the purpose of the meter rate increase be clearly communicated to the public and the programs funded by the new revenue be clearly explained. L.2 State Funding The State of Maine collects revenue from gasoline tax and other transportation related user fees into a State Highway Fund. State Highway Fund expenditures are primarily allocated to road and bridge improvements, supporting traffic law enforcement, safety, and ferry passenger service operations. Funding for transit and other mobility programs is comparatively small and has not grown significantly in recent years. It doesn’t seem probable that tax and user fee revenue collected by the State will be a major source of funding for new mobility initiatives in the study area surrounding Downtown Portland. However, a mobility initiative with regional appeal or one that can be replicated elsewhere in the State should at least request a State contribution toward a local match requirement needed to leverage federal funding assistance. L.3 Federal Funding There are a several federal funding programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that are applicable to the mobility recommendations in Chapter K. What follows is a brief description of relevant federal transportation grant programs, made law under the most recent federal transportation bill, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015, which authorized federal transportation funding through federal fiscal year 2020. L.3.1 Formula Grant Programs A number of federal transportation grant programs are administered jointly by the FHWA and FTA as formula programs. This means that a formula defined during the writing of the transportation bill reauthorization is used to allocate federal Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 130 of 179 Page 201 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront funds to states on an annual basis considering factors such as population, federal fuel taxes paid, transit revenue miles, etc. Each grant program may use a different formula. After funding is allocated to the states, a second formula then applies for allocating funds within each state between state departments of transportation (DOTs) and regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). The City of Portland and other eligible agencies may then apply for federal grants through either a regional MPO or the DOT in a competitive annual process. Eligible projects in most cases should be included in a regional long-range plan (LRP), state implementation plan (STIP), and a regional transportation improvement plan (TIP) where applicable. With some exceptions, the federal grant programs typically offer funding assistance of up to 80 percent of project cost requiring a 20 percent local match at minimum. Four examples of formula grant programs are described below. L.3.1.1 Surface Transportation Block Grant Program The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) is the most flexible of the federal transportation grant programs covering a wide variety of eligible projects related to surface transportation including capital investments, planning, design, asset management, research, and training to name a few. L.3.1.2 Transportation Alternatives Program The Transportation Alternatives (TA) program is a subset of the STBG program meant for projects pertaining to alternatives to vehicular transportation such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities on and off road including recreational trail projects. L.3.1.3 Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program The Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ) is a grant program meant to provide assistance in funding transportation projects that help meet or maintain compliance with the Clean Air Act. Although Maine is currently in attainment of federal air quality standards, the State still receives a minimum apportionment of CMAQ funding for projects that improve or maintain air quality. CMAQ funds are provided on a reimbursement basis, meaning funds are not provided until work is completed. L.3.1.4 Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program, Section 5307 The FTA administers an Urbanized Area Formula Funding Program, also known as Section 5307. Eligible activities include a variety of transit planning, engineering, design, capital investment, and related communications technology. Some activities related to mobility management programs are also eligible under the program. Urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 are usually not allowed to use Section 5307 grant funding for transit operating expenses, however, a Special Rule exists allowing some urban areas to do so. The Portland, ME urbanized area is currently allowed to use a limited amount of Section 5307 funds for transit operating expenses. L.3.2 Competitive Grant Programs There are also grant programs administered by FHWA and FTA that are allocated through competitive processes at the federal level. Eligible applicants apply directly for the grants through one of the federal agencies and awarded funds do not count against the formula grant funds received by the states. The grant programs typically offer funding assistance at a maximum of 80 percent of project cost, though applicants are encouraged to apply for less to better the odds of receiving funding. Two examples of competitive grant programs are described below. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 131 of 179 Page 202 City of Portland, ME Parking Study for Downtown, The Old Port, and The Eastern Waterfront L.3.2.1 Passenger Ferry Grant Program The Passenger Ferry Grant Program is a competitive grant program administered by FTA for projects related to passenger ferry systems in urbanized areas. In addition to directly supporting capital expenses related to ferry boat service, eligible projects include enhancements to terminals and connectivity to other modes of transportation. L.3.2.2 Mobility on Demand Sandbox Demonstration Program The Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Demonstration Program was the first program of its kind created by the FTA in 2016. The MOD program is part of a broader long-range policy visioning effort at the USDOT called Beyond Traffic. Although the MOD program has already fully allocated its budget of $8 million in awards, future programs funding MOD demonstrations will likely follow in years to come. The MOD program funded innovative pilot projects in communities seeking to integrate mobility on demand services such as bike sharing, car sharing, and demand-responsive buses and vans with traditional transit services. The integration of smart phone technology across MOD services and transit was also a key component of many awarded programs. Eleven grants were awarded including one to The Vermont Agency of Transportation which received $480,00 to create a statewide transit trip planner that will attempt to enable various non- fixed route mobility services to be integrated with fixed route transit services using smartphone technology. L.4 Conclusion This chapter offered ideas for funding sources to support the recommendations made in Chapter K to reduce parking demand in Downtown Portland, The Waterfront, and The Eastern Waterfront over the next ten years. In Table 54, each recommendation from Chapter K is listed with the relevant funding sources described here in Chapter L. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 132 of 179 Page 203  Table 54: Suggested Funding Sources for Recommendations Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance Initiation Timeframe K.2.1 Explore the Formation of a Non-Profit Transportation Association Feasibility study 1 year Contributions from the private sector to an STBG Program has eligibility for planning projects. existing association or to the City to manage the procurement of a feasibility study. Incorporation and startup 2 years Membership dues. Some transportation CMAQ program. The Association would need to demonstrate a associations also provide services for fees.mission that will result in air quality improvement. Transportation Management Associations, for example, are eligible for federal assistance under the CMAQ program with startup funding assistance and up to 3 years of operating assistance spread out over a maximum of 5 years. K.2.2 Partner with Transportation Network Companies to Address Specific Parking Challenges Meet with TNC providers to 1 year N/A N/A discuss partnership and service Develop a custom program for 2 years City funding, user fees, development impact Park and ride lot projects are eligible under the STBG program, island residents fee, Special purpose on-street meter rate however use of federal funds for remote parking facilities and increase. programs would preclude the City from collecting user fees Develop a custom program for 2 years City funding, user fees, development impact beyond operation and maintenance of the parking lot. Park and low-wage earners fee, Special purpose on-street meter rate Ride lot projects using federal funds must accommodate transit increase. service and or traditional carpool/vanpool programs. Develop a remote park and 3 years City funding, user fees, development impact A future successor to the FY 2016 MOD program may provide ride lot strategy for visitors fee. an opportunity for the City to create a project integrating bus and passenger ferry service with mobility on demand services using smartphone technology. Approved use of federal funds for programs that include mobility on demand services is a current and emerging topic of federal policy review. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 127 of 179 Page 204  Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance Initiation Timeframe K.2.3 Expand Specific Island Resident Parking Permit Programs 1-2 years City Funding. Funding for this N/A recommendation could help offset future loss of revenue associated with the additional conversion of on-street spaces to unmetered hourly zones. K.2.4 Pilot Test Higher Cost On-Street Parking in High Demand Areas Design Pilot Study 1 year City Funding N/A Implement Pilot Study 2 years City Funding N/A K.2.5 Extend On-Street Meter Hours to 8pm City Wide 2 years City Funding for changes in signage, public N/A awareness. K.2.6 Improve Parking Management and Technology 1 year -ongoing Continued private operator investment The City could apply for wayfinding project grant under the CMAQ program. The project would need to demonstrate air quality benefits from improved wayfinding, e.g., decreased vehicular trip lengths. K.2.7 Change Parking Requirements and Regulations 1 year This recommendation could be reviewed N/A during the upcoming re-write of the City's Land Use Code, already budgeted for FY2018. K.2.8 Improve Parking Policies in the Context of Land Uses Permits 1 year This recommendation could be reviewed N/A during the upcoming re-write of the City's Land Use Code, already budgeted for FY2018. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 128 of 179 Page 205  Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance Initiation Timeframe K.2.9 Increase Car Sharing Use 1 year-ongoing The City could review additional While federal public transportation law does not consider car requirements in the Land Use Code for the sharing as a form of public transportation, capital expenses creation of designated parking spaces for car related to the creation of parking spaces for car sharing sharing vehicles as part of future private programs at transit stops, transit centers, or passenger ferry developments. terminals may be eligible for funding through the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Section 5307 or the Passenger Ferry Grant Program. K.2.10 Continue Implementation of TDM Recommendations from the 2008 Peninsula Transit Study Additional TDM requirements 1 year-ongoing This recommendation could be reviewed N/A for development during the upcoming re-write of the City's Land Use Code, already budgeted for FY2018. Transit Service Enhancements 3-5 years City funding, development impact fee STBG program, Section 5307 and Upgrades K.2.11 Additional Transit Recommendations Hack-a-thon, contest, or 1 year City funding, private donations N/A another incentive to engage users with the invention of new Portland area bus location smartphone apps. Downtown circulator bus route 3-5 years Development impact fee STBG program, Section 5307 K.2.12 Bicycle Infrastructure 1 year-ongoing City funding, development impact fee STBG program, TA program. Bicycle infrastructure upgrades to ferry terminals may be eligible under the Passenger Ferry Program. A successor to the 2016 MOD program may present Portland with an opportunity to create a program to integrate Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 129 of 179 Page 206 Recommendation Suggested Suggested Local Funding Sources Suggested Federal Funding Assistance Initiation Timeframe bike sharing and bus or passenger ferry service while incorporating smartphone technology. K.2.13 Convert Unrestricted Parking 3-5 years City funding. N/A K.2.14 Marketing and Advertising 1 year-ongoing City funding, Private/nonprofit N/A funds/partnerships K.2.15 Additional Data Collection 2 years City funding, private donations Data collection as part of planning activities could be eligible under the STBG program. K.2.16 Construct New Structured Public Parking Supply Depending on Private financing N/A development. 3-7 years. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 130 of 179 Page 207 M. Appendix A: Structured and Surface Lot Parking Inventory with Numbered Maps Structured Parking Map with Numbered Index Capacity count methodology: For surface lots and structed parking included in the City’s seasonal parking inventory, the published total of spaces were used. All remaining surface lots not included in the City inventory were manually counted using Google Earth aerial photography. For structed parking not included in the City inventory (which were typically private use garages), estimates were made using a combination of Google Earth aerial photography and Google Street View to determine the number of parking levels. The number of residential units associated with a private residential garage also informed private garage estimates. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 131 of 179 Page 208 Map Index for Structures LOT_ID on Study Area SubArea Name Spaces Use Type Map Section Zone 1 Casco Bay Parking Garage Waterfront 418 Public Use 6 Cumberland County Courthouse Parking 2 OldPort 328 Public Use 2 Garage 3 Custom House Parking Garage OldPort 761 Public Use 4 4 Elm St Garage OldPort 398 Public Use 2 5 Fore St. Parking Garage OldPort 423 Public Use 4 6 Gateway Parking Garage OldPort 655 Public Use 1 7 Portland Harbor Hotel Garage OldPort 195 PrivateLimPub 3 8 Ocean Gateway Garage EasternWaterfront 720 Public Use 7 9 Spring Street Garage OldPort 565 Public Use 1 10 One City Center Garage OldPort 600 Public Use 2 11 Temple Street Parking Garage OldPort 620 Public Use 2 12 Holiday Inn by the Bay OldPort 285 Public Use 3 Morgan Stanley_Citizens Bank Parking Private 13 OldPort 200 4 Garage Commercial Eastern Private 14 Portland House Parking Garage 111 7 Waterfront Residential 65 Monument Square Garage OldPort 340 Public Use 1 Private 105 Chandlers Wharf OldPort 150 5 Residential Private 106 Portland Pier Condos OldPort 30 6 Residential Private 109 Bangor Savings Bank Old Port 84 4 Commercial Private 110 2 Monument Way OldPort 73 2 Commercial Private 112 Oak St Lofts OldPort 37 1 Residential Private 113 Portland Pier Commercial Condos Waterfront 20 6 Commercial Study Area Total 7,013 1/4 Mi Buffer Area 114 Public Market Garage 1/4 mi Buffer Area 600 Public Use 115 Chestnut St Garage 1/4 mi Buffer Area 450 Public Use 1/4 Mi Buffer Area 1,050 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 132 of 179 Page 209 Surface Lot Parking Map with Number Index Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 133 of 179 Page 210 Map Index for Surface Lots LOT_ID Study Area SubArea NAME Spaces Use Type Map Section Zone 15 385 Congress St Lot OldPort 130 PublicUse 2 16 66 Pearl St OldPort 44 PublicUse 2 17 Casco St Lot OldPort 25 PublicUse 1 Cotton & Center Parking Lot & Center 18 OldPort 50 PublicUse 3 St Par 19 Portland Square Upper Visitor Lot OldPort 237 PublicUse 3 20 J.B. Brown Parking Lot on Free St. OldPort 44 PrivateLimPub 1 21 Middle & Pearl Parking Lot OldPort 208 PublicUse 4 22 Midtown Parking Lot OldPort 175 PublicUse 2 Eastern 23 Omni Park System/Casa Parking Lot 20 PublicUse 7 Waterfront 24 Portland Square Lower Monthly Lot OldPort 300 PublicUse 3 Private 25 Regency Hotel Parking Lot OldPort 45 4 Commercial 26 Top of the Old Port OldPort 540 PublicUse 2 27 68 Commercial St Waterfront 17 PublicUse 6 28 Baxter Place Lot OldPort 100 PrivateLimPub 3 29 14 York St Parking Lot OldPort 50 PublicUse 3 30 52 Brown St Lot OldPort 69 PublicUse 1 31 Hub Furniture Lot OldPort 32 PrivateLimPub 4 32 Sheply Lot OldPort 59 PrivateLimPub 1 Eastern 33 Thames St Hourly Lot 75 PublicUse 7 Waterfront 34 Fisherman's Wharf Parking Lot Waterfront 250 PublicUse 5 Private 35 Free St Parking Lot OldPort 155 1 Commercial Eastern Private 36 58 Fore St Narrow Gauge RR 200 7 Waterfront Commercial 37 198 Newbury St OldPort 21 PrivateEmployer 2 Eastern Private 38 100 Fore St 142 7 Waterfront Commercial Eastern 39 144 Fore St 82 PrivateEmployer 7 Waterfront Eastern Private 40 Micucci Grocery Store 30 7 Waterfront Commercial Eastern Private 41 19-39 Commercial St 66 7 Waterfront Commercial Eastern 42 15 Franklin St 33 PrivateLimPub 7 Waterfront Eastern 43 Simba Parking 115 PublicUse 7 Waterfront Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 134 of 179 Page 211  LOT_ID Study Area SubArea NAME Spaces Use Type Map Section Zone Eastern 44 208 Fore St 23 PrivateLimPub 7 Waterfront Eastern Private 45 1 Commercial St 26 7 Waterfront Commercial 46 East Brown Cow Lot 75 Commercial St OldPort 46 PublicUse 4 Private 47 185 Commercial St OldPort 20 4 Commercial 48 Memic Lot OldPort 20 PrivateEmployer 3 49 Portland Fish Pier Front Lot Waterfront 165 PublicUse 5 Private 50 Courtyard Portland Lot OldPort 22 3 Commercial 51 254 Commercial St Wharf Waterfront 72 PrivateEmployer 5 52 36 Union Wharf Waterfront 60 PrivateEmployer 5 Private 53 2-422 Chandler's Wharf Waterfront 46 5 Commercial 54 DiMillo's Parking Lot (Long Wharf) Waterfront 317 PrivateLimPub 6 Private 55 Portland Pier Private Parking Waterfront 38 6 Commercial Private 56 Custom House Wharf Waterfront 70 6 Commercial Private 57 90 Commercial St Waterfront 25 6 Commercial 58 Portland Fish Pier Back Lot Waterfront 105 PublicUse 5 Private 59 6 Portland Fish Pier Waterfront 100 5 Commercial Private 60 99 Silver St OldPort 25 4 Commercial 61 11 Patton Court Lot OldPort 35 PrivateEmployer 4 62 Cumberland Register of Probate Lot OldPort 44 PrivateEmployer 2 63 400 Congress St OldPort 36 PrivateLimPub 2 Private 64 Chestnut St Lofts Lot OldPort 37 2 Residential 66 340 Cumberland Ave OldPort 35 PrivateEmployer 1 67 Maine Historical Society OldPort 37 PrivateOther 1 68 380 Cumberland Ave Lot OldPort 26 PublicUse 1 69 Fairpoint Communications Lot OldPort 19 PrivateEmployer 1 70 Venture (VIP) Parking Lot OldPort 48 PublicUse 1 71 84 Oak St OldPort 35 PrivateLimPub 1 Private 72 Congress Square Apartments OldPort 48 1 Residential 73 12 Deering Place OldPort 35 PrivateOther 1 74 645 Congress Lot OldPort 76 PrivateOther 1 Private 75 Lafayette Square Lot OldPort 82 1 Residential Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 135 of 179 Page 212  LOT_ID Study Area SubArea NAME Spaces Use Type Map Section Zone 76 622 Congress St OldPort 40 PublicUse 1 77 WCSH 6 OldPort 82 PrivateEmployer 1 78 Episcopal Church Lot OldPort 40 PrivateOther 1 Private 79 125 Park St OldPort 25 1 Commercial Private 80 127 Spring St OldPort 26 1 Commercial Private 81 87 Spring St OldPort 44 1 Commercial 82 Maine Health Lot OldPort 37 PrivateLimPub 1 83 Holiday Inn by the Bay Lot OldPort 35 PublicUse 3 84 17 south St OldPort 23 PrivateEmployer 3 85 52 Center St Parking Lot OldPort 63 PrivateLimPub 3 86 70 Center St OldPort 31 PrivateEmployer 3 Private 87 9 Pleasant St OldPort 22 3 Commercial 88 Portland Fish Pier Employee Lot Waterfront 37 PrivateEmployer 5 Private 89 Yosaku Restaurant Lot OldPort 30 3 Commercial Private 90 10 Pleasant St OldPort 6 3 Residential Private 91 Hobson's Pier Waterfront 25 5 Commercial 92 US Coast Guard Waterfront 50 PrivateEmployer 5 93 Gulf of Maine Research Inst. Waterfront 82 PrivateEmployer 5 Private 94 48 Union Wharf Waterfront 90 5 Commercial 95 13 Widgery Wharf Waterfront 60 PrivateEmployer 5 96 1-39 Widgery Wharf Waterfront 75 PrivateLimPub 5 97 Portland Pier Public Parking Waterfront 15 PublicUse 6 Private 98 626 Congress St OldPort 11 1 Commercial Private 99 Church St Lot OldPort 6 2 Commercial Eastern 100 Thames St Permit Lot 200 PrivateEmployer 7 Waterfront 101 465 Congress St OldPort 15 PrivateOther 2 102 6 Monument Sq OldPort 31 PrivateLimPub 2 Private 107 58 Pleasant St OldPort 40 3 Commercial Private 108 Storer Condos OldPort 27 4 Residential 111 254 Commercial St Waterfront 50 PrivateLimPub 5 Total 6,405 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 136 of 179 Page 213  LOT_ID Study Area SubArea NAME Spaces Use Type Map Section Zone Buffer Area 1/4 mi Buffer 116 Maria's Ristorante 25 PrivateLimPublic Area 1/4 mi Buffer 117 Angelo's Acre 65 PublicUse Area 1/4 mi Buffer 118 52 Danforth 100 PublicUse Area 1/4 mi Buffer 119 62 India St 47 PublicUse Area 1/4 mi Buffer 120 59 Middle St 20 PrivateLimPublic Area Total 257 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 137 of 179 Page 214 N. Appendix B: On-Street Parking Observed Data Maps and Charts The On-Street Parking Observed Sample Coverage Locations On-street parking supply for the street block faces designated above were counted manually in the field. Five observers were assigned individual data collection routes. Parking occupancy was collected by recording the last three digits of parked vehicle license plates hourly between 8am and 8pm on a Thrusday, December 1, 2017 and between 10am and 8pm on a Satruday, December 3, 2016. Total on-street parking capacity for the remainder of the study area was counted manually using Google Street View with edits from the City on the recently developed Eastern Waterfront. Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 138 of 179 Page 215  Charts of Thursday 12/01/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results Overall Thursday Results: Parking Occupancy on All Streets Combined 100.0% 87.1% 90.0% 80.3% 82.4% 84.3% 84.0% 79.2% 78.6% 74.8% 75.7% 80.0% 71.9% 73.2% Observed Utilization 70.0% 63.9% 60.0%54.5% 50.0% On-Street Occupancy 40.0% 30.0% Effectively Full 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Commercial St: Thursday Parking Occupancy 100% 92% 99% 94% 88% 88% 90% 84% 80% 78% 77% 77% 80% 73% Observed Utilization 70% 61% 55% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 139 of 179 Page 216  Exchange St: Thursday Parking Occupancy 100% 100% 92% 91% 85% 86% 88% 90% 83% 80% 83% 82% 76% 77% 80% 73% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Middle St: Thursday Parking Occupancy 100% 95% 93% 86% 88% 88% 90% 83% 82% 83% 82% 80% 76% 74% 75% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 140 of 179 Page 217  Spring St: Thursday Parking Occupancy 100% 90% 80% 78% 79% 80% 70% 68% Observed Utilization 70% 61% 59% 63% 55% 57% 60% 48% 50% 45% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 15% 20% 10% 0% Casco St: Thursday Parking Occupancy 100% 100% 100% 100% 88% 90% 80% 75% 72% Observed Utilization 70% 63% 59% 56% 60% 50% 53% 47% 50% 34% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 141 of 179 Page 218  Charts of Saturday 12/03/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results Overall Saturday Results: Parking Occupancy on All Streets Combined 100.0% 92.9% 94.1% 97.5% 88.1% 87.4% 84.3% 83.6% 84.9% 90.0% 75.5% 80.0% 69.0% Observed Utilization 70.0%58.9% 60.0% On-Street 50.0% Occupancy 40.0% 30.0% Effectively Full 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm Axis Title Commercial St: Saturday Parking Occupancy 100% 95% 93% 91% 93% 97% 96% 98% 88% 90% 78% 80% Observed Utilization 66% 70% 57% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 142 of 179 Page 219  Exchange St: Saturday Parking Occupancy 100% 91% 92% 95% 95% 92% 100% 89% 89% 91% 91% 90% 80% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Middle St: Saturday Parking Occupancy 100% 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 100% 88% 90% 84% 84% 83% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 143 of 179 Page 220  Spring St: Saturday Parking Occupancy 100% 89% 88% 90% 82% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 63% 60% 60% 57% 60% 52% 50% 40% 38% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 18% 20% 10% 0% Casco St: Saturday Parking Occupancy 100% 97% 94% 100% 100% 97% 97% 100% 91% 88% 88% 90% 80% Observed Utilization 70% 63% 60% 50% Total Observed 40% Effectively Full 30% 20% 10% 0% Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 144 of 179 Page 221  Maps of Thursday 12/01/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results Thursday 8am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 145 of 179 Page 222  Thursday 9am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 146 of 179 Page 223  Thursday 10am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 147 of 179 Page 224  Thursday 11am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 148 of 179 Page 225  Thursday 12pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 149 of 179 Page 226  Thursday 1pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 150 of 179 Page 227  Thursday 2pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 151 of 179 Page 228  Thursday 3pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 152 of 179 Page 229  Thursday 4pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 153 of 179 Page 230  Thursday 5pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 154 of 179 Page 231  Thursday 6pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 155 of 179 Page 232  Thursday 7pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 156 of 179 Page 233  Thursday 8pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 157 of 179 Page 234  Maps of Saturday 12/01/16 On-Street Parking Occupancy Observed Sample Results Saturday 10am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 158 of 179 Page 235  Saturday 11am Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 159 of 179 Page 236  Saturday 12pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 160 of 179 Page 237  Saturday 1pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 161 of 179 Page 238  Saturday 2pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 162 of 179 Page 239  Saturday 3pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 163 of 179 Page 240  Saturday 4pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 164 of 179 Page 241  Saturday 5pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 165 of 179 Page 242  Saturday 6pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 166 of 179 Page 243  Saturday 7pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 167 of 179 Page 244  Saturday 8pm Parking Occupancy in Metered Zones Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 168 of 179 Page 245  Map of Observed Average Parking Turnover Between 8am and 6pm Thursday 12/01/2016 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 169 of 179 Page 246  Map of Observed Average Parking Turnover Between 8am and 6pm Saturday 12/03/2016 Fort Hill Infrastructure Page 170 of 179 Page 247