Sustainability and Transportation Committee — Portland, ME
Date: 2025-06-16
Time: 17:00

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

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

CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE
 Committee on Sustainability and Transportation
 Councilor Regina Phillips (D3), Chair
 Councilor Pious Ali (At-Large)
 Councilor Anna Bullett (D4)


Approved Minutes June 16, 2025
Members Present: Councilor Phillips, Councilor Bullett, Councilor Ali,
Other Councilors Present: Mayor Dion, Councilor Pelletier, Councilor Michniewicz, Councilor
Grant, Councilor Sykes
Staff Present: Troy Moon, Katie Tims, Karly Meyer, Kevin Kraft, Nell Donaldson, Greg Jordan,
Tony Wirkus, Michael Goldman, Jeremiah Bartlett, Mike Murray, Bruce Hyman, Keith Gray

Meeting was called to order.

May 14, 2025 Meeting Minutes
The May 14, 2025 meeting minutes were approved unanimously.

Transportation Updates
Jeremiah Bartlett notes that the City is working on a number of efforts speaking to Vision Zero
and is also partnering with GPCOG on a major demonstration project on Washington Ave.

City Staff 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. These public engagement events will offer opportunities for design feedback and
visioning related to Franklin Street.

We have been working with MEDOT on analysis related to Brighton Avenue (particularly
Rosemont Corner section) and contemplating intersection options available to us. This dovetails
with the next round of the Bus Rapid Transit project; this work should begin soon.

On the Redesign of Forest Avenue, just south of Exit 6 through to Park Avenue, after recent
discussion with Maine DOT, this work is going to be managed jointly with the State St and High
St work, so that the design and the outcomes, and ideally the construction of all of those can be
coordinated in a meaningful and strategic way.

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.

Kevin Kraft shares that staff are finalizing the RFP and scope of work on the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan and should that that out in a few weeks.
Sustainability Updates
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. CMP is
planning to submit their final plan to the PUC in July and has offered to brief the committee on
their updates.

Now that it’s summer, we are also working on engagement efforts around sustainable landcare,
and on June 11, we hosted our first Landcare Lunch Break webinar of the season discussing
invasive species in Maine and how to effectively remove them. We have two more webinars this
summer, all published online in our library of webinars.


Complete Streets Policy Update
Presented by Nell Donaldson, Director of Special Projects
In March 2025, the S&T Committee reviewed the existing Complete Streets policy, originally
written in 2012, and determined that the Planning Department should undertake the process of
updating that policy again. Over the last 3 months, Planning staff started with an assessment of
the existing policy, looking at national best practice, and made some initial edits to the policy
with peers at DPW. The draft policy was then shared in feedback and review sessions with an
interdepartmental working group, including Public Health and Fire, a stakeholder group,
consisting of representatives from Bicycle Coalition of Maine, the Portland Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Committee, Portland Trails, and others, and then finally with the public. With plenty of
substantive feedback, Planning staff made additional revisions and produced a final red line
document that simplified and reorganized the policy.

Public Comment on Complete Streets Policy Update
Winston Lumpkins is happy to see the final draft of the Complete Streets policy and thinks it is a
significant improvement from the 2012 version. Lumpkins also notes that the policy does
exempt temporary detour routes, which can be dangerous for vulnerable users.

Councilor Comments on Complete Streets Policy Update
Mayor Dion notes that some of the written testimony influenced his thinking in regards to
defining a ‘street’. Perhaps in the future we will determine the fundamental definition of what we
consider a street to be and what our responsibility is once it is constructed. Nell Donaldson
responds in saying that we [Planning staff] spent some time on this during Recode, working with
Corporation Council on our definitions of right-of-way, street, and other things within the land
use code, so there is some frame of reference for these terms. We use in this policy,
interchangeably, the concepts of street and right-of-way and so there is some room for
confusion about that and we can think about that a little bit more.

Councilor Bullett shares interest in a process where the S&T Committee is notified about
exemptions to the Complete Streets Policy. Councilor Bullett also shares a technical comment
about hyperlinking sections in the redlined document. Councilor Bullett’s last note is about
naming what it means to have a specific category of pedestrian (e.g. child) for certain mobility
requirements in the policy.

Councilor Phillips asks who is responsible for educating the public about pedestrian safety
related to traffic and street operations. Nell Donaldson acknowledges that the way that streets
have been designed for a long time doesn't lead to great safety outcomes when people are
making the best decisions, but what this policy is trying to do is control the things we can
control, the design of streets. We're never going to be able to control lots of individuals'
behavior, but we can try to channel people into good decisions and control the physical space
as well as we can.​

Motion to approve revisions to Complete Streets Policy
Note that this motion to approve includes small edits requested by Councilor Bullett.
The motion was moved by Councilor Bullett and seconded by Councilor Ali.
The motion was accepted unanimously and will move forward to full City Council.


Vision Zero Quick Action Plan
Presented by Greg Jordan
After the Council passed a resolution back in April adopting the GPCOG Vision Zero Plan, the
City launched an internal task force on the Vision Zero plan and created a series of strategies to
make progress on this. The ‘Quick Action Plan’, or strategies that we believe we can reasonably
implement in the near term with existing capacity. These strategies are outlined in the agenda
packet.

Public Comment on Vision Zero Quick Action Plan
Winston Lumpkins shares appreciation that the City is springing into action on this plan, and
suggests that similar towns (Falmouth) use speed feedback signs to help slow drives down, but
they force cyclists out of the shoulder and intro the travel lane and advocates that when putting
those out to ensure they are not exacerbating the existing problem.

Noah Grenier also shares appreciation for this quick action and progress being made for
bicycle-pedetrian safety.

Councilor Comments on Vision Zero Quick Action Plan
Councilor Pelletier and Councilor Ali share appreciation for this action.

Councilor Bullett raises the idea of making the walk signal time based on senior citizen’s
average walk signal time given that nature of our aging population.

Motion to approve Vision Zero Quick Action Plan
The motion was moved by Councilor Bullett and seconded by Councilor Ali.
The motion was accepted unanimously and will move forward to full City Council.
Proposed Moratorium on Theater and Performance Halls
Presented by Kevin Kraft, Director of Planning and Urban Development
In April 2025, there was a proposed moratorium to consider establishing a retroactive 180-day
prohibition on theaters and performance hall projects with a capacity of more than 2,000 people.
This was ultimately prompted due to the application from Live Nation for a new 3,300-seat
music venue in downtown on a privately owned site that is currently under review by the
Planning Board. The City Council referred that proposed moratorium to the S&T Committee to
evaluate the underlying conditions and determine whether there was justification to support a
moratorium, and if that exists.

Maine law requires that any moratorium adopted by a municipality must be necessary and it
must be needed to either prevent a shortage or overburdening of public facilities, or because the
existing policies and regulations are found to be inadequate to prevent serious public harm.

In terms of Portland’s public policies, data, and regulations, it is staff's recommendation that the
conditions do not warrant the justification to support a moratorium focused on theaters and
performance halls related to transportation-related impacts.

Public Comment on Proposed Moratorium on Theater and Performance Halls
A majority of the public comment weighed on the traffic the project would result in, lack of
parking available, cost of parking, implications for the local music and arts scene, and surge
prices on transportation.

Public comment in favor noted the benefits that incomers would bring to the restaurant and hotel
economy (particularly in the winter), the developers’ history of experience in the area, jobs this
project will bring to the area (construction and operations), and the use of an unused surface
level parking site.

Councilor Comments on Proposed Moratorium on Theater and Performance Halls
Before Councilor Comment, Director Kraft summarizes that the key points to touch on is the
major focus on parking pressure and unsafe road conditions. And the purpose of the
presentation and the memo was to reflect that there are adequate regulations in place,
standards in place to fully vet those aspects through a reviewed project. That's what our staff
does on a daily basis with applications before the planning board. He goes on to note that the
project is outside of that 100-foot radius, which is measured from main entrance to main
entrance.

Councilor Pelletier notes that the traffic this project will cause, especially when a redesign of
Franklin Street is imminent, is problematic and does not want to not lose sight of what a
moratorium is, as it is a pause so that we can discuss solutions.

Councilor Bullett points out that it was a missed opportunity to build community goodwill with
this particular project. She goes on to share concerns for pedestrian safety, the loss of ADA
accessibility on Myrtle Street. Merrill Auditorium and the Parks, Rec, Facilities Department have
been involved in conversations and coordination about how to handle operating two shows at
the same time and organizing ADA accessibility. Many of these concerns are to be covered in
the site plan review process (parking agreements, event management plan) and the traffic
movement process and will be finalized if this application continues forward.

Councillor Ali also shares concern for the impact on traffic and parking in the Bayside
Neighborhood Association.

Councilor Michniewicz also shares concern for the on-street parking nearby, but raises the
question about how impact fees can be used to improve the area and the neighborhood. In
terms of site plan review, projects are responsible for upgrading all of their directly abutting
sidewalks, ensuring that they're meeting our minimum space requirements and also bringing all
sidewalks up to ADA accessibility. They also have to upgrade the directly adjacent intersection
improvements, so a project like this is going to be looking at improvements to the intersections
at Cumberland and Pearl, Cumberland and Myrtle, as well as potential improvements of
Cumberland and Congress Street. In terms of impact fees (note: assessed to all projects), those
go for signal enhancements across the city, they can also go towards a set of ten identified,
larger transportation projects identified by the City Council back in 2018 (e.g. Franklin Street).
Site plan review process and the traffic movement process are going to require mitigation
improvements within the neighborhood. The impact fee transportation money goes into the city's
general impact fee bucket, and then it's allocated by the City Council each year at the CIP.​

Mayor Dion notes that the evidence is pretty clear that there is an available pool of parking
spots to meet the demand of this new venue. He reminds the council that our job has long been
to design a city that would reduce the demand for individual cars, and invest in public
transportation. We also have to adhere to rules. The applicant has followed process and it
should be expected that they can satisfy their expectation if they've answered all the conditions
that are placed before them during the planning process. But here we come with a moratorium. I
think the moratorium predicated on parking alone fails.​

Councilor Sykes shares concern that we have shut down a tremendous swell of public opinion
on this item and feels that it should be sent back to the full council so that they can hear from
the public on this.

Questions from several Councilors were answered related to construction material lay-down
areas, operational questions for the music hall related to employee parking, estimated number
of employees, cost of parking in the garage, and bus schedule adjustments.

Councilor Phillips walks through her understanding of the committee’s decision tonight and
shares agreement that this could go back to the Council to have more of a conversation, but
ultimately feels that it is only appropriate to vote based on whether or not this project prompts a
moratorium or not.

Motion to approve Proposed Moratorium on Theater and Performance Halls
The motion was moved by Councilor Bullett and seconded by Councilor Ali.
The motion was accepted 2-1 and will move forward to full City Council.


Motion to Adjourn
The motion was moved by Councilor Ali and seconded by Councilor Bullett.
The motion was approved 2-1.

Meeting Adjourned