Parking, especially in downtown Port Townsend, remains a contentious issue. The popularity of our quaint seaport community sees tourists flocking who, for better or worse, have become the main source of revenue for most of the businesses. But accommodating this near constant influx of visitors leaves locals, business owners and employees — as well as those who live downtown — scrambling to find a parking space.
Further exacerbating the issue is our public transit system which in some respects remains a frustration for its lack of adequately frequent service downtown. Averaging about once every hour, its operating schedule is also not conducive to those whose jobs require hours past 8 pm.
Adding to this dilemma is the city’s recent action to do away with off-street parking requirements for new developments. An example of this can be found in the new hotel planned between Ichikawa and the Pizza Factory. This Motel 6-looking box will have a 50-room occupancy, but only 11 off-street parking spaces.
The City’s $20,000 Proposal: Parking Fee Pilot Program
The city is now considering a paid parking pilot program. If pursued, it would run for 18 months and cost taxpayers approximately $20,000 to implement. At the February 10th city council meeting, Police Chief Tom Olson presented the details of this initiative.
Originally, what the council approved was a small scale pilot program that was only one block long. However, Olson’s presentation showed a much larger, full scale “parking plan” (see illustration at top) because, Olson relayed, the meter company couldn’t accommodate the “smaller” pilot plan.
Large or small, the plan appeared to lack some important considerations. For instance, it relies heavily on the assumption that everyone has access to a smartphone in order to use the parking software being considered. One must, at the very least, have access to a phone of some sort to enter a code and payment details in order to park.
In addition, while the current cost of a parking infraction is $15, this program would see it increased to $65. It was implied that the projected revenue generated by the increased fines would fund a parking enforcement position.
Finally, there is no provision that makes exceptions for those who work or reside downtown to have free parking. (Further details on this proposal can be found here.)
Council member Ben Thomas was concerned about the significant increase in the scope of the project — that it now appeared to be more than a pilot and could have broader overall impacts. Council member Libby Wennstrom commented that if all parking spaces were 24-hour, people would just keep feeding the meter (a figure of speech — no meters are involved) and not move their cars, thereby defeating one of the objectives to have more traffic/visitor circulation.
Mayor David Faber seemed disappointed that the pilot area wasn’t larger and didn’t cover all of downtown, adding that he definitely wanted Madison Street added to the pilot area. A public comment from Scott Walker, a long time Transportation Lab member, suggested that the hours of paid parking should be increased to run from 10 am to 7 pm thereby capturing more revenue from people going out for dinner or a movie.
Social Media Erupts
On February 12th, The Leader reported on the parking pilot. I also posted the details of this plan on February 14th to a couple of social media platforms including NextDoor. The response was immediate and robust (4,200 views on one site), with most people strongly against the idea for obvious reasons. Comments focused strongly on the adverse effects of the pilot program, but also included mention of collateral issues that have become a familiar refrain over the last couple of years.
One comment included the relationship of budget deficits and the city manager’s salary in a reply:
“I read the Leader article and noted that all that was discussed was the financial benefits to the city. Now we find that the city is budgeting for a $1.8 million deficit, while they have a city manager that gets paid more than the governor. No mention of the chilling effect on downtown business which is commonly the result of paid parking.”
Another included the lack of adequate public transit considerations in relation to the paid parking idea:
“The paid parking ‘pilot’ program will adversely affect those who work and live downtown. These fees have a minimal impact on tourists but will have a profound impact on residents and workers. We live downtown and are not wealthy. We do drive neighbors, who are in need, to appointments, grocery stores, etc whenever possible. These people have difficulties navigating the public bus system (which has not been expanded to meet the needs of this endeavor). I would like to see the environmental impact assessment of this pilot. As you know EIAs include the potential impact on members of the community. I cannot imagine that anyone would implement this system without regard for workers, business owners or residents.”
Still another noted that many are not so much attached to their cars as dependent on them, and that the cost of living in PT has a substantial impact on most households:
“Some of us would love to be biking and walking around a lot more. I know I used to. Ah how I remember it, having time, because I had more money and didn’t have to spend all my time working carrying tools around to pay for the high cost of living here. I don’t see any large tool carting racks on buses, I can’t get to my jobs by bus on time. I’m not car loving, I am car dependent, and yes gas costs but I try to plan my trips carefully. I can’t afford an electric vehicle. And, having been a caregiver as well for years, there are lots of mobility issues which affect what kind of transport and what kind of disability placard you can get. The issue isn’t really are we so much in love with our cars as what kind of transport those of us who work trade jobs here but can barely afford to be here need. I can’t see paid parking helping me with any of that. It certainly won’t help downtown.”
Some expressed concerns about the smartphone app required:
“What about the people who do not have a smart phone? Are they just not going to be able to park?”
“…or left it at home, or let the battery run out, or lost it, or dropped and broke it getting it out to scan the damn QR code…”
And a few which considered specific businesses that would be adversely impacted also spilled over into comments in a Feb. 22nd NextDoor post:
“Off-street parking appears ‘not’ to be in the plan, so the Quimper Merc plaza and other publicly available lot parking will be jammed by fee avoiders. ‘Customers Only’ signs will need to be enforced to be effective, a new cost for businesses who are already paying a premium to have convenient customer parking.”
“If most downtown parking is paid, it will push people into private parking lots behind downtown buildings (a headache for downtown businesses) and fill up the spaces outside the Mercantile and Don’s Pharmacy, making it harder for local shoppers to dash downtown for a few necessary items. Tourists will happily pay for a spot for a few hours and be unfazed. Locals who work, live and shop downtown will not be happy.”
“I think we have to acknowledge that paid parking will overload the private parking lots behind the Kuhn Building, the Palace Hotel, The Bishop Hotel, and other places, and that will create problems for managers of those lots. People will not pay. They will do almost anything to avoid it.”
Others took a more neutral or supportive tone:
“I’ve used an app for parking in other small towns, it’s pretty easy. Trying to figure out if you’re going to be 2 or 4 hours is usually the hardest. I personally will most time park over in the park and ride or take a bus or just visit more businesses in Uptown.”
“The city/county needs to monetize more of their assets. Property taxes should not be the only avenue for revenue. For those seeking more $ for roads this seems a reasonable first step.”
“I see nothing wrong with this as long as the $$ goes to road improvement. Parking at Haines place is free – so is shuttle. Make it mandatory for city workers/federal/state workers to use it, after all isn’t the current city plan to be more green?! What a shining example this would be!”
Mayor Faber Responds 
Many wrote to the mayor and council members directly, expressing their concern for the negative impacts this pilot program would likely cause. In fact, there was so much pushback on this idea, Mayor Faber posted a long-winded response on Facebook which some likened to “word salad.” He also read it in its entirety for the record at the February 18th city council meeting (posted on NextDoor in full, and now close to 200 comments).
To much amazement, the last paragraph of that word salad produced this jewel:
“My question to our community is ‘do you consider the downtown parking problem to be serious enough to warrant the type of solution the city can actually implement (paid parking)?’ It’s okay to say ‘no’, and if that’s the general community sentiment, I would rather council and staff not spend any more effort trying to solve a problem for which no reasonable solution is sufficiently popular to enact. Please reach out to me and/or the rest of council by email at citycouncil@cityofpt.us.“
Mayor Faber’s words give the impression that he is willing to yield on the implementation of a paid parking program if he determines that the general community sentiment is opposed to the plan. In that case, it seems a simple tally of comments received by the city, perhaps including comments from the main social media platforms (NextDoor and Facebook), which are also a collection point for many voices, would provide the clear answer.
A completely transparent process for determining the actual community sentiment would have to occur, of course. And, if indeed the mayor acts with integrity on his words, it would demonstrate a necessary course correction by our electeds for the inclusion of this community’s collective voice as part of implementing sound policies.
In conclusion, while I believe the city’s intent behind the paid parking pilot — to reduce the number of cars on the road — is a positive vision, the comprehensive rollout of this strategy still has a number of “potholes” that need to be addressed.
————————-
Mayor Faber’s missive creatively transformed by ChatGPT into a Haiku format:
Port Townsend’s Parking Dilemma: A Haiku Series
The Problem
Lines of cars wait still,
each space a battleground fought,
who deserves to stay?
Footsteps echo past,
shoppers lost in fleeting time,
while wheels never move.
Conflicting Views
Workers curse the crowds,
tourists linger far too long,
businesses despair.
“Build more space!” they cry,
but steel and stone bring a cost,
one too steep to pay.
“Enforce the old rules!”
but hands to mark time are few,
and fines change nothing.
“Clear the streets of cars!”
but the old and frail still need
paths to walk with ease.
The Proposed Solution
A coin for your stay,
turn the wheel, free up the space,
fairness in motion.
Not a fortress built,
not a rule left unenforced,
but balance through time.
A choice in your hands—
park, or let another claim
the waiting moment.
The Call for Voices
Speak now, shape the streets,
is this change a needed path,
or wind in closed doors?
Tell the council now,
should the meters rise or fall?
Only you can say.
Musa Jaman moved to Port Townsend in 1978, grew up racing sailboats and commercial fishing and is a 1984 graduate of PTHS. Professionally she holds degrees in Natural Resource Management, Water Policy, Geography, GIS, and Graphic Design. She is also an accomplished professional artist in multiple mediums.
PT is an old town, unable to be expanded by geography. It’s quaintness is it’s draw. No paid parking! It would kill everything and cause chaos.
Exacerbating the problem is the refusal of City Council to permit Uber or Lyft to operate here. Why? City Councilor Amy Howard, as I recall, just doesn’t like Uber’s “values.” So to get downtown for just about everyone, driving and parking is required.
Jim, it is completely possible and very easy to get downtown without a car. People did that here long before you were born. People do it today. And if everyone who wants to live in E. Jefferson County, which is just about anyone I’ve ever met, we’ll need to pave the goose that lays our golden eggs. Is that your future vision of PT?
You know, Scott, it is not for you to attempt to dictate how people move around. Cars are great. They are convenient and fun. We have used them for decades to build a great country, to take kids to soccer games, to go shopping, to transport older people to and fro so they can still enjoy life. If you want to bike in the rain, go right ahead. If you want to wait in the cold for a bus, so you can sit next to someone whom you would rather not be that close to, go right ahead. Me, I will drive when I go into town to buy a case of wine or a cooler full of clams and mussels. Or just to go out for dinner at night. Authorizing Uber and Lyft here would benefit lots of people and get drunk drivers off the road.
I don’t mind “feeding a meter” but I am not going to patronize downtown businesses if I can’t drive. I think that goes for everybody I know, particularly the elderly people who patronize the restaurants and catch movies at the Rose. You will kill downtown businesses if cars are excluded.
No one is telling you that you can’t drive into downtown. If implemented, you will hpay to access the most valued commercial area of town. So, drive if you want and know your small change will make good changes for the district- if the plan is properly developed.
An integral part of European center cities, that exclude most truck and car use, has been taxis, and now services like Uber and Lyft. City Council should reverse its refusal to allow these services in PT. Amy Howard, according to reporting at the time, was the primary obstacle. Getting these services in PT would reduce the demand for parking. I would certainly use them when going to town to enjoy a meal at a restaurant.
Mayor David Faber wants No Cars in Port Townsend. https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/03/14/port-townsend-just-quietly-ditched-its-off-street-parking-mandates/
I sent an email to the city council asking that just for once think of the negative impact instead of the revenue. It’ll probably get deleted, but at least I didn’t just whine and snivel about it on NextDoor.
Marc,
We got your email. The Council’s policy is that only the mayor speaks for Council, as a body, so he’ll be the one to respond. But I presume we all read it. Thanks for the reminder to “think of the people [we] are impacting”. At the end of the day, that’s what really matters.
Ben – any chance of rethinking the uber/lyft ban as part of creating parking alternatives
My son lives in Chicago. They have a permit process there that is a sticker on the windshield. It’s paid monthly I think. Signs on the streets designate what type of permit is allowed in each block. Isn’t this a possibility for us? With some areas left open for tourists only?
UCLA Prof Donald Shoup spent an entire career studying parking. He was a Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Urban Planning, UCLA.
He wrote an 800 page book titled “The High Cost of Free Parking” (2005).
I suggest we read that book before making further comments.
He died February 6th, 2025, aged 86.
The following is loosely from of his obituary published in “The Economist,” February 15, 2025.
Professor Shoup advocated smart parking meters, ones that vary their charges according to the peaks and valleys of the working day and week. They would charge the lowest price possible to achieve a vacancy rate on any street of 15% at all times.
Drivers would feel sure they could find a space, but they would have to pay more the closer they got to a popular destination.
Another virtue of parking meters was they they brought money into city coffers. His model was Pasadena, once a dump of shuttered shops, now transformed by meters into a vibrant city. He proposed money from meters go to specific local services – graffiti removal, plantings and street repairs.
I haven’t read his book so I’m not going to make a comment other than what was in his obituary.
David, I have a copy if you’d like to borrow it. Mostly, it’s chock full of data, charts, and explanatory pages. His many short articles are more approachable. Try this: shoup.bol.ucla.edu › SmallChange.pdf
Scott
If you have read Shoup’s book, you likely are in a better position to make comments than any of us who have not.
I don’t know how this will play out – whether a decision will be made based on years long and significant research or on personal emotions and prejudices. But I suspect the latter.
Pasadena, Shoup’s model, has a population of 138,699 in 2020. A little different from Port Townsend, fourteen times our size like comparing strawberries to watermelons. It also is a lot warmer and dryer.
Note that the plan just covers the downtown which prejudices downtown businesses vs those outside that immediate area. This obviously could particularly impact restaurants.
I have looked at a bunch of other studies/examples and the situations are multi factorial. Most of the places that have done this are bigger and more urban or suburban. A similar sized town, Poulsbo just turned down paid parking. Poulsbo is comparable in size only slightly larger, about a thousand, but has a much more severe demand problem. It is much more touristy, and they did not want it.
From what I have seen so far the justifications for paying involve technocratic manipulation of behavior; and making some money, the latter a maybe. This transactional, social engineering approach seems to fly in the face of Port Townsend being a welcoming place.
The city is in the process of permitting a fifty unit hotel with only eleven on site parking spots across from the Mercantile shopping center on Water St.. Do we see some contradiction, inconsistency here? It is actually a nice looking building but where will the other 39 roomfuls park. Even on Fillmore St. there are only twelve more.
Musa, my dear friend, your piece takes the pilot project’s 1st take/rough draft thinking and mixes it with your- and other’s opinions. Most opinions, yours included, are lacking in data, fact, or an educated understanding of the long-term affects of parking on a HUGE number of parking-caused social dilemmas. I won’t detail those at this time, but if you want to dig deeper, I’m happy to explore this with you.
I will, however, take issue with a couple of points you make.
The intent of the management plan is not to reduce car use or generate revenue. It is to create turnover and availability of parking during peak times, times which are not chosen as of yet. Parkers are looking for an available space, not necessarily a free one. Revenue needs to cover costs. What to do with excess revenue has not been discussed. Transit support for increased shuttle service? Funds for Main Street to beautify downtown? Better pedestrian and bicycle facilities? Paving some back parking area?
I’ve not heard a good argument for why residents and employees should get reduced or free parking passes. If we can increase the frequency of the transit shuttle, that removes the only argument. BTW, the shuttle runs every 1/2 hour but in different directions.
Downtown residents get the benefit of living in one of the most desirable locations in town; I don’t think they should get public support for storing their unused cars; that’s what the long term paid lots are there for. To make the system fair, in my opinion, everyone who wants to drive into downtown should pay.
Scott, it pains me to respond to your condescending tone at all, however, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that mine and others’ perspectives lack an educated understanding of the issue. One needn’t be a transportation-lab junky to understand that charging locals to park who are hanging on by razor thin margins will likely be a breaking point, causing far more collateral damage and adding to what is already broken in the system. It’s clear this is a passion project for you. It’s clear you’ve been working hard with the city to implement something you think is more important than anything else – something to hang your hat on… or bike helmet. But your passion is blinding you to the obvious pitfalls of a plan that simply doesn’t take into consideration the economic status of our working class locals, our small businesses, our senior, disabled, and fixed income citizens, or the folks who live downtown. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Without building a comprehensive infrastructure that adequately addresses the preliminary issues there will be failure. Therefore, I believe that makes you the one that is lacking in an educated understanding of the issue.
No offense, but your reply was still only opinion and not based on any data. Please begin to educate yourself on a small bit of how parking affects much of our social lives. Please read the link I included before responding again. shoup.bol.ucla.edu › SmallChange.pdf
Scott, perhaps you need to see and experience with your own eyes and ears what the true effects would be… that people here are barely hanging on financially is a fact – not opinion. I suggest you do some thorough local research so that you have the facts and aren’t relying solely on other peoples “studies”. It’s not a one-size-fits-all-situation no matter how stubborn or condescending you want to be about it. Please do some local research before responding again.
Scott, I’m interested to hear more about that “HUGE number of parking-caused social dilemmas.”
More creative thinking is needed for auto issues and the notion that this town needs beautification.
– where are people who live downtown to park their autos
– with meters those who can afford it can park as long as they want (I am guessing)
– meters do not reduce traffic, people will cruise just the same to find an empty space
– the city is supposed to be planning for .06% growth – what is the projected traffic impact from that growth? how much for tourists?
– transit could provide a small, jitney-type bus dedicated to a 15 minute Water St. circuit
– Water Street has a limited life span
– RFK Jr may set a policy for us to walk more, ride less
– the workforce needs low/moderate income multi unit housing centrally located
Special events in PT include broken down ferries and caved in streets; people figure it out – not everything has to be controlled by rules and parking meters and we certainly do not need beautification except to overcome the engineering designs that are tone deaf to the aesthetics of this small town.
The electeds and their manager are pushing some radical changes ignoring the overarching direction provided by the community’s Comp Plan to maintain the small town atmosphere and the natural surroundings.
Mainstreet and Chamber advertising for touring in this small Victorian seaport whose reputation, once funky with wooden boats, piers, and architecture, a few festival weekends, and always Centrum culture, is being lost. Before more fees, taxes, permits, and paid parking, the city budget needs some trim, most obviously the almost 50% that goes to city salaries and benefits.
Spending money to “beautify” is a euphemism to account for the loss of the legacy of rural, historic, small, and seaport well defined in the existing Comp Plan. All this everywhere USA aesthetic is a bleak prospect for a once unique place to visit.
Just for the record – In the 15 years I have lived in Jefferson County, I have never parked in any space for more time than posted. However, I can’t take a chance on a $65 fine. It’s a deal breaker. Public private partnerships are designed to transfer wealth from residents to governments and their cronies and $65 is most of my grocery money for a week.
I will probably have to take the shuttle downtown a few times a year for a haircut because I recently found a good stylist there. Maybe have longer hair in the winter because up to one hour standing in cold, wet rain is difficult for a person in their 80s or anyone with limited mobility not serious enough to justify a handicap placard.
Otherwise, I don’t need anything downtown. I will leave the spaces to people who can afford the fine risk. The Amazon truck rolls through my neighborhood almost every day. I will survive.
MJ, I agree that $65 is too much and is designed to be painful to ensure compliance. As effective as that may be for control, does it address our essential value to be a place which allows all to thrive?
Good question Ben. I think it may be possible to find a win/win – but I feel strongly that locals need more consideration and some form of subsidy whether that’s free parking for Jefferson Co. residents or some other middle ground. I wish the city had taken the time to include business owners and other people that would be most vulnerable to the negative impacts of this pilot to get some alternative solutions into the program.
I ran a business on the corner of Washington and Adams for 28 years. Folks from near and far were my customers and visitors. Discriminated against with fake signage insiders ignored, following the culture created by Sandoval, Faber, Timmons, Mauro and others.
There was a simple volunteer enforcement program that was de funded many years ago. Real estate benefited. After at least 13 years of no enforcement, there is no base line to start at because Helter Skelter was managed into existence. A city employee years ago estimated over 50 lost spots per day were given to illegal all-day parking. Blind eyes with an agenda, and all council with heads firmly down. Ben too.
There may be plenty of parking if managed. One past police chief said so.
The hotel with 50 rooms and 11 parking spaces passed SEPA and other environmental regulations. The ignored ordinance regarding parking was and is still on the books. Do Faber/Mauro just want the tax revenue? Look at their track records and their part in creating a lawless parking environment which is the base line now. Very flawed “data”. Some benefited. Will benefit.
I have seen no one mention this. Destroyers are never real fixers. Destroyers of polite culture and business. I know first-hand. My own “study”. Reality.
Seems just as with the FWPDA there is a manipulated flawed foundation to build any parking plan on. “Normal” was changed over 13 or more years. Many came to have blind eyes, from Main Street to police to Chamber. Responsible but not are and were city council, manager, and appointed mayors. Past and present. The worst of the “community’ took and take spaces on a regular basis. Smirking all the way. It’s going on today.
Imagine fair warning and enforcing existing signage that creates discrimination between the knowing class and the unknowing. Imagine actually following laws that everyone took an oath to uphold. Imagine ridding PT of the oath breakers.
Let that simmer for a while. Now you have a base line based in the law and no vandalism of the true community.
One thing is certain. Lots of busy work to tinker with what was destroyed on many levels, and big pay for your city manager. Is it 5 years now he has served those who vetted him and their agenda? Is this just an end run to allow the Hotel? And tax $$$$$$$?
The Kurt Vonnegut story about getting bugs in a jar to fight by shaking it seems relevant. Lots of fighting for ideas and ideals here. Manufactured grist for the corrupted mill. It will spit out the sausage it wants to.
Faber has said PT needs to look at Bordeaux France and eliminate all parking. He claims business boomed in that city of over 265,000. PT at 10,000 is in a much different setting. He gave no real details on how that would work here when I repeatedly asked him on the record.
Good luck.
Sound of crickets for days now? Where’s Ben? Here is something to digest. PT 101
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=port+townsend+leader&mid=84D00F76F6BA3ECAC94A84D00F76F6BA3ECAC94A&mcid=45B2BD17F2754B45986EF20251589C24&FORM=VAMTRV
People ask why I gave up a loved and successful artisan funded, and artisan supporting destination business in PT and re located to beautiful unincorporated Port Hadlock.
Corruption. From top to bottom.
Enjoy the hotel, and then all the special interest real estate that will be developed without any parking consideration. Faber will recite on about affordable housing when he wasted the Cherry Street project money and more. And that’s just one head of the medusa.
Vonnegut-
“I can’t remember what all Frank had fighting in the jar that day, but I can remember other bug fights we staged later on: one stag beetle against a hundred red ants, one centipede against three spiders, red ants against black ants. They won’t fight unless you keep shaking the jar. And that’s what Frank was doing, shaking, shaking, the jar.”
Faulty foundations all over the place.