Garfield street parking removal - is it worth it?

[K A]

I ran into a community member today who bikes everywhere and hasn't driven for many months.  It surprised me that she thought the removal of parking on Garfield (by the elementary school) was a waste of money and not much bang for the buck, considering how angry some neighbors are getting.

We agreed that Beca and Garfield are already very calm west-east streets for biking and more money shouldn't be spent on them, as there are much higher priorities.  Neither of us are impacted either way by the loss of street parking or the addition of bike lanes, but since it is using money that should be used for more effective safety improvements (in our opinion), she thought I should say something.  We both thought the sidewalks on Garfield are fine for little kids who might want to bike to school.

Thank you,

: )

Kris

"The smallest good deed is better than the grandest good intention."

[upsonr]

It’s not an issue about money.  The street is getting “reconstructed” anyway to fix the underground pipes. 

The only question is how it will look when rebuilt. The TSP says there should be buffered bike lanes. In order to do that, the 3 lanes for cars (two for driving east/west, and one for parking) would need to give room.

It will not be rebuilt to the current condition. There are already several design elements which will certainly be new, especially at key intersections.

[Wendy Byrne]

Yes, as Rob noted, it is not about creating a project but about the city holding itself to the standards it has set in its Transportation System Plan. Which is that when a collector street is worked on, the finished project supports the infrastructure you say it should support. Beca is a very, very different street than Garfield because it is a neighborhood street, not a collector street. It has no center line, no painted bike lane, and a much much lower volume of auto traffic. And Beca has been designated as a Neighborhood Bikeway street, which means it will have traffic-calming measures in the future. I would argue that more money needs to be spent on both streets to make sure the infrastructure is successful and that the designs don't fail because of lack of proper engineering. But that is a conversation best had face to face, not via email. 

-Wendy

--
——————
Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition
 
VISION: Corvallis is a hub in a regional transportation system that includes sustainable transportation modes for people and goods.
 
sustainablecorvallis.org/what-we-do/action-teams/transportation
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sustainable-corvallis-tr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/75a7ae3c-d84e-476d-b351-5c0bbbad7f6bn%40googlegroups.com.

[upsonr]

Consider the city's transportation plan.  Garfield is a planned as a Neighborhood Collector.  

This road won't be rebuilt for another 30-50 years.

Garfield will feel really different when the first multi-family development replaces a detached single family.

[Wendy Byrne]

     There will never be "enough parking" to allow everyone to park on the street whenever they want to... especially moving in to the future when housing will 100% get more dense as Rob points out in his last email.

     The streets belong to all of us, as they are part of the public right of way, not just to the folks who live along them. The streets need to be used in a way that benefits ALL folks in the city, not just those who live on them. Garfield might "feel" safe at this time, but when does that stop? Does a child need to be hit by a car before the street "feels" unsafe?

     I respect that our Department of Public Works is making an effort to establish a repeatable method to develop metrics to guide them on making changes. It means they are not just saying "this looks like a good idea." Changes to on street parking will not be an easy transition in ANY neighborhood... of course it will be the most difficult the first time it happens. 

-Wendy

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/0ae7f18c-274e-4e90-be12-c507003d56f5n%40googlegroups.com.

[d...@csbikestowork.com]

Wendy, as you mentioned a couple of emails back, these conversations are better in person that in email strings.  I'd be interested in bouncing this around with a small, knowledgeable group, if a time & place could be figured out.

For my part, I live on Garfield.  I bike, I drive, my kids bike and drive.  We walk.  I'm familiar with the ebb and flow of the street, with the seasons, and with the different segments and uses.

Garfield is a neighborhood collector, but also a dead end with limited destinations - the schools, and shopping/access to 9th on the east end.  It shouldn't be configured as a high-use cut-through for cars. 

I'd be curious for someone to show where the anticipated multi-family development would happen?  If anywhere, it seems most likely to be east of 10th, just north and (mostly) south of Garfield.

I'm more curious what the proposed solution is for the on-street parking demand that will be displaced in the two areas that already have multi-family housing (west end of the segment, near Kings; and the east end of the segment between 10th & 9th).

It seems to me that this is really four distinct segments:
a) 9th to 10th - a problem to be solved re: existing multi-family parking demands.

b) 10th to 14th - low on-street demand except during peak school times, high seasonal traffic (school), abundant side-streets that see high demand at peak school times.

c) 14th to 17th/Porter Park access - low on-street demand except for a couple of care homes, no side streets for several blocks.

d) 17th/Porter to Kings - a problem to be solved re: high on-street demand due to existing multi-family.

The proposal to remove on-street parking between 9th and Kings seems to:

1) create new problems in areas a) and d)

2) encourage increased speed and encourage use as a cut-through between 9th & Kings

3) increase effective pedestrian crossing distance.  Note, by the way, that the bulb-outs on the south side of Garfield at the intersection with 10th are in the way with the proposed road section.

4) offer marginal improvement for cyclists in terms of buffered bike lanes, with anticipation for increased vehicle traffic and higher speeds, as well as increased delivery truck encroachment in the bike lane (since no options with no parking).

To those last assertions, I acknowledge that I'm not considering the as-yet-un-proposed traffic calming treatments that would counter the speed-encouragment of a wide and unobstructed street.  It would be helpful for the discussion if some more of these ideas were put forth.

I'm open and eager for real improvements.  I'm glad to be 'inconvenienced' with lowered speed limits or improved calming measures.  I'm in favor of encouraging cycling - and to that point resurfacing will go a long way. 

Actually, for this corridor, the biggest improvement would be to make the crossing at Kings safe for cyclists and pedestrians.

Anyhow, I am interested in having a discussion with interested/knowledgeable people.  It may be that removing parking on Garfield is in the best interest of the City, but at this point I'm not seeing the benefits outweigh the costs.

Cheers,

Dan

---

From: "Wendy Byrne" <wendy.bi...@gmail.com>
To: "upsonr" <ups...@gmail.com>
Cc: "TAT" <sustainable-corval...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 7:03:18 AM
Subject: Re: Garfield street parking removal - is it worth it?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/CA%2Bq-W6vvdWdVdACw6_25kQMVFgsJq-NfYhEXnPwuvEA_hPsEFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Wendy Byrne]

I'm sorry to say I don't have a lot of time or energy to address so much of what is brought up in Dan's email, because he brings up good points. But I do have a few things to add/point out. 

For Public Works, and for the City in general, this is about the process, not about Garfield specifically. Garfield just happens to be the first street to undergo this process. By "process," I am referring to the use of the metric of studying the use of parking in the efforts of determining a repeatable way to make such a judgment. It is hard to be first, but also instructive for other neighborhoods (which is likely why folks from outside the direct neighborhood were willing to sign the petition).

Despite Garfield being a 'dead end,' as Dan notes, it is actually a very useful street in the network, and I have never considered it a "dead end." It goes to and from places of interest and of use. Like it or not, Garfield IS a 'pass thru street' that many of us use as we bike/drive/cross town from east to west. Like the part of NW 10th Street where I live, it carries a decent amount of pass-thru traffic as well as local traffic. Everywhere inside our city limits is going to have higher density over time especially given the State-mandated changes in land use code and zoning. I don't know of any specific projects planned for Garfield, but if current building practices are any indication, it's going to come. Look at what is happening on Buchanan at 11th, and what is likely to happen in Porter Park since those townhouses were approved. Wouldn't it be NICE if the new residents of those (when they are built) could use a buffered bike lane on Garfield to access shopping on 9th Street instead of driving to 9th Street? The bike/pedestrian bridge that is going to be built on NW 17th over Dixon Creek will lead folks right to Garfield. 

If anyone wants to put together a meet-up to talk about these things, I'd do my best to attend. I cannot be part of the planning process this summer but please drop any information here in case we can get together. 

Cheers!

Wendy

[upsonr]

Since it seems that everyone agrees that the Kings/Garfield intersection needs to be improved, then, in order to keep Garfield less car-trafficked well into the future, maybe we can all get behind diverters for that intersection re-design.  Or is that too much of an inconvenience also?

[d...@csbikestowork.com]

FWIW, I'm all for intelligent inconvenience for drivers.  If we could drop the speed on Garfield to 15 mph, I'd be a super happy. 

What would diverters look like? 

---

From: "upsonr" <ups...@gmail.com>
To: "TAT" <sustainable-corval...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2026 5:15:16 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/2b8eced8-00f0-461f-bb23-c8561c64d000n%40googlegroups.com.

[Wendy Byrne]

Hi Dan and all-

"Diverters" are also known as "modal filters," and help to restrict motorized traffic from using certain streets. You can search for that online but here is a pretty good video showing some options:

https://youtu.be/Wa4LfROYyv4?is=sviUfbNnfc582JRx

 

A good place to look for more info on diverters is:

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/designing-bikeways-for-all-ages-and-abilities/bikeways-on-low-speed-low-volume-streets/bike-boulevards/

It would be good to see our department of Public Works start using modal filters (aka diverters) so help control traffic flow on on neighborhood bikeways! It would also be good to see safer crossing for pedestrians at Kings/Garfield. I do not want them to put a traffic light there so hope they can come up with a better solution than a traffic light. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/646690311.8105210.1784514707758.JavaMail.zimbra%40csbikestowork.com.

[Steve Starcevich]

Hey Dan and others,

I'm trying to get the city to lower neighborhood street speed limit to 20 mph. There is good recent evidence for just doing it immediately. I'll keep you posted. 

One thing about this email thread that I'd like to say is that we need to reduce car dependency and car trips and increase active transportation trips if we want to make progress on the housing crisis, climate pollution, community health, clean air and water, mental and physical health of young people, more people oriented spaces (pedestrianized streets, parks), walkability, livability, lower cost of living, climate resistance (ie, street trees). I think we should be working toward the transportation system we want, that are sort of set out in our city goals, not the system that we are currently stuck with. If anyone is interested, my attached letter as a resident gives my take on this Garfield situation and how it fits with this larger goal.

Great discussion, everyone!

Cheers, Steve

Steve Starcevich (he/him) |541-602-1265

Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition

https://sustainablecorvallis.org/action-teams/transportation/

On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 7:31 PM <d...@csbikestowork.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/646690311.8105210.1784514707758.JavaMail.zimbra%40csbikestowork.com.

[Karen Smith]

Thanks for sharing your letter, Steve! A one way street seems like a solution that could make just about everyone happy. Everything you outline should make the street slower, quieter, and safer while also preserving the convenience of on-street parking. I hope Public Works sees value in the suggestion and/or finds another creative solution that is hope-filled.  🤞

-Karen

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/CACQr-7HQtCNH02FWH_Jp6E9AyRi8muE%3Dgz_wsNj1my2cqh7mtg%40mail.gmail.com.