Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City study finds large Zone 1 parking deficit; committee flags private‑lot accounting and shared parking options
Summary
A parking study commissioned alongside downtown streetscape work shows a large deficit in Zone 1 (about 1,141 demand vs. ~400 supply). Committee members raised concerns that private lots counted in the analysis skew availability and urged exploring shared‑use parking and a five/ten‑year plan.
Committee members reviewed a Sewell parking study commissioned as part of the downtown streetscape project and raised concerns about how private parking was treated in the analysis and about the study's static assumptions.
Anne Krieg, director of community and economic development, summarized the study findings and key limits: "Zone 1 has a pretty massive deficit. It's, like, 1,141 demanded versus, like, the 400 supply that's there," and she cautioned the study assumes static land use and does not account for seasonal variations.
Committee members and downtown stakeholders questioned the study's treatment of private lots. A downtown business owner and representatives for the Downtown Bangor Partnership said the appearance of a surplus in some aggregate results is misleading if private lots are not available to the public at all times. A representative of the Downtown Bangor Partnership described the problem as "an overbuild of private single use parking and an underbuild of publicly accessible parking," and recommended exploring conversion or shared-use agreements.
Staff explained Sewell's methodology counted private spaces because the spaces serve the square footage linked to a land use; excluding private lots could undercount parking tied to buildings. The committee identified examples of underused private lots (for example a lot at State and Park Street described as vacant much of the time) and suggested pursuing agreements that allow daytime/nighttime or cross‑user access.
Members discussed specific actions: ask Sewell to present to the committee at a future meeting, seek more granular time‑of‑day counts, and develop a short-term (5‑year) and long-term (10‑year) plan that models higher occupancy and infill scenarios. Anne Krieg said staff will bring Sewell to a future meeting to present the methods and scenarios and requested stakeholders (including the Downtown Bangor Partnership) provide supplemental materials for committee review.
No formal vote was taken on the study itself at the meeting; committee members asked staff for follow‑up presentations and additional data.
