Policies and Procedures
for
Review of New Parking Facilities in
New Jersey Central Business Districts
JANUARY 1975
Prepared for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Region II, New York, New York
Prepared by
TRW Environmental Services and DeLeuw, Gather & Company
-------
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR REVIEW OF NEW PARKING FACILITIES
IN NEW JERSEY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
PREPARED BY:
Environmental Services of TRW, Inc.
800 Foil in Lane, SE
Vienna, Virginia 22180
and
DeLeuw, Gather & Company
1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1385
Task Order No. 9
January 1975
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report and its attendant volumes were furnished to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by TRW Transportation & Environmental
Operations in fulfillment of EPA Contract No. 68-02-1385, Task Order
No. 9. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received
from the contractor. The opinions, findings, and conclusions are
those of TRW and are not necessarily those of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The report is based, for the most part, on secondary
data collected but not generated by the contractor. Mention of agency,
company, or product names does not constitute endorsement by EPA.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The preparation of this report and of its three companion volumes,
the "Parking Management Handbooks" for the central business districts of
Camden, Newark, and Trenton, New Jersey, required the help of many people
from numerous organizations. A tabulation of all those individuals who
provided data or other assistance for the study would be quite voluminous,
and it is hoped that the naming of the associated companies and agencies
in lieu of the actual personnel will suffice. Accordingly, the thanks of
TRW/DCCO go to the following organizations, listed in no particular order:
Essex County Planning Board
Greater Newark Chamber of Commerce
Prudential Insurance Company
New Jersey Bell Telephone Company
Newark Division of City Planning
Trenton Department of Traffic and Transportation
Traffic Engineering Division, Camden Department of Engineering
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
Newark Parking Authority
Bureau of Air Pollution Control, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
In addition, special thanks go to the EPA Project Officers, Tim Dwyer and
Steve Jurow, for their guidance and assistance on the project.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION . 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Study 1-1
1.2 The Need for the Regulation 1-4
1.3 Parking Management Regulations and Indirect Source
Regulations 1-9
1.4 Overview of Report 1-10
2.0 TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE CBD HANDBOOKS 2-1
2.1 General Approach 2-1
2.2 Parking Supply and Demand 2-2
2.3 Traffic Analysis 2-5
2.4 Public Transportation 2-8
2.5 Air Quality Analysis 2-10
2.6 References , . . . . 2-21
3.0 SUMMARY OF THE CBD HANDBOOKS 3-1
3.1 The Camden CBD 3-1
3.2 The Newark CBD 3-4
3.3 The Trenton CBD 3-6
4.0 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES . 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 General Socio-Economic Impacts of Parking
Management Strategies 4-2
4.3 General Socio-Economic Profile of Newark 4-8
4.4 The Newark CBD Employee 4-15
4.5 The Newark CBD Employer 4-35
4.6 Summary of the Socio-Economic Impacts of Parking
Management Strategies on the Newark CBD 4-40
4.7 References 4-44
5.0 ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION 5-1
5.1 Improvements in Transit Operations 5-1
5.2 Preferential Treatment for Buses and High Occupancy
Vehicles 5-2
5.3 Car and Van Pooling Program 5-4
APPENDIX A - PARKING MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
APPENDIX B - PARKING MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
:igure
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
Title
Parking Nomograph
Modeled 1972 Carbon Monoxide Levels
Study Area - Camden
Study Area - Newark
Study Area - Trenton
The Socio-Economic Impacts of Parking Management
Strategies
Page
2-4
2-20
3-2
3-5
3-7
4-5
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1-1
2-1
2-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
Air Quality Standards for Transportation Related
Pollutants
Level of Service Definitions
Carbon Monoxide Emission Factors
Summary of Overall Social Impacts
Potential Benefits and Costs of Parking Management
Strategies
Population and Population Growth 1960-1970
1970 CBD Residents
1970 Journey-To-Work Patterns - CBD Residents
1-2
2-7
2-19
4-3
4-4
4-9
4-12
4-13
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION*
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
1.1.1 Background
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 directed the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Air Quality Standards which
would protect the public health and welfare from the known effects of
the major air pollutants. In 1971, such Air Quality Standards were
established for six pollutants, including the four primarily associated
with motor vehicles, i.e. Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (N02),
Photochemical Oxidant (Ox), and Hydrocarbons (HC). The standards for
the first three of these species are given in Table 1-1. The ambient
standard for hydrocarbons was intended only as a means for control of
Ox, and it is not included in the table.**
On May 31, 1973, under section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40
CFR Part 51, the Administrator of EPA approved, with specific excep-
tions, State plans for implementation of the National Ambient Air Qua-
lity Standards. The plan submitted by the State of New Jersey for
attainment and maintenance of standards for photochemical oxidants and
carbon monoxide was approved with a 2-year extension of the attainment
data because transportation controls were deemed nexessary.
On January 31, 1973, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit decided the case of Natural Resources Defense Coun-
cil et. al. versus Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter referred
to as NRDC v. EPA). The Court ordered the Administrator to formally
rescind the extensions of time granted for achieving the standards and
to require that all affected states formally resubmit their transpor-
tation control plans by April 15, 1973. The Administrator did so on
* Reference numbers in this report refer to the list of references at
the end of each section.
** In other words, if an area meets the oxidant standard, it is assumed
to meet the hydrocarbon standard.
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORTATION-
RELATED POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Air Quality Standard*
Carbon Monoxide ~
mi Hi grams/meter
max. 8-hour cone.**
max. 1-hour cone.**
Photochemical Oxidants
mi crograms/meter3
max. 1-hour cone.**
Nitrogen Oxides
micrograms/meter^
annual arithmetic average
10 ( 9 ppm.)
40 (35 ppm.)
160 (.08 ppm.)
100 (.05 ppm.)
*Primary and secondary standards are the same for these
species.
**Not to be exceeded more than once a year.
1-2
-------
March 20, 1973. When the State of New Jersey failed to meet this
deadline, EPA published a notice of disapproval for the affected areas
in New Jersey on June 22, 1973 and published proposed rules and regu-
lations in the Federal Register of July 3, 1973 (36 FR 17782).
Public hearings concerning the proposed transportation controls
were held at various locations in New Jersey on July 16, 17, and 18,
1973. After the required comment period, the revised transportation
plan was promulgated in the Federal Register on November 13, 1973 (38
FR 31388). Corrections and proposed changes to the plan have been made
as noted below:
December 7, 1973 (38 FR 33775)
January 15, 1974 (39 FR 1848)
February 8, 1974 (39 FR 4880)
April 3, 1974 (39 FR 12101)
June 4, 1974 (39 FR 19779)
August 22, 1974 (39 FR 30440)
August 27, 1974 (39 FR 30942)
October 15, 1974 (39 FR 36870)
November 15, 1974 (39 FR 40286)
An essential part of the New Jersey Transportation Plan as it
applies to the central business districts (CBD) of Camden, Newark, and
Trenton is a set of regulations for management of parking supply. These
regulations are part of a comprehensive transportation control program
designed to minimize motor vehicle emissions in areas where these emissions
now cause serious violations of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In
these areas, it has been determined that the Air Quality Standards for car-
bon monoxide and photochemical oxidants (smog) cannot be achieved in com-
pliance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act through the use of only
stationary source and new automobile emission controls. In order to
achieve the applicable standards, it is also necessary to develop and im-
plement transportation controls, which both reduce emissions from in-use
vehicles on the road and reduce the vehicle miles traveled by the vehicles
in the affected areas. The controls set forth in the transportation plans
1-3
-------
to accomplish this task include parking management regulations, mass
transit improvements, inspection and maintenance programs, carpool
matching programs, exclusive bus and carpool lanes, employer incentive
programs for the use of mass transit and the retrofit of older automobiles
with emission control devices.
As part of the overall transportation control programs, the pur-
pose of the parking management regulations, which manage the development
of new parking facilities, is twofold: (1) To reduce the area wide
growth in VMT so as to contribute to the achievement of photochemical
oxidant and/or carbon monoxide standards; and (2) to assure that con-
gestion associated with the operation of a new parking facility does not
cause or exacerbate a violation or carbon monoxide standards.
1.1.2 Scope and Intended Use of this Report
This report, together with its companion volumes, provides the
following information:
• Data and methodologies which, when combined with other basic
data from parking facility permit applications, can be used
to estimate the impacts of the proposed facility on afr
quality, traffic congestion, parking supply, and transit
usage.
t A socioeconomic analysis which makes some preliminary judgements
of the effects of the parking regulations on the Newark CBD.
It should be noted that the study is not a detailed analysis or interpre-
tation of the EPA regulations, although these are summarized in Section 1.2
and printed in full as Appendix A; nor is the report intended as an instruc-
tion book for completion of parking facility permit applications. The latter
may be obtained from EPA regional offices.
1.2 SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY PARKING MANAGEMENT REGULATION
1.2.1 The Need for the Regulation
This regulation is designed to control the growth of parking
1-4
-------
facilities in the New Jersey portions of the Metropolitan Philadelphia
Interstate and New Jersey-New York-Connecticut Interstate Air Quality
Control Regions. Parking management regulations came about indirectly
as a result of provisions contained in the Clean Air Act of 1970. The
Act presents a master plan for national air pollution control. One im-
portant aspect of the Act is that it gave responsibility for this con-
trol to the States, requiring that each State submit an Implementation
Plan outlining how standards would be attained, and, after attainment,
how they would be maintained.
Within the context of the State Implementation Plan, there are
specific measures which deal with control of emissions from motor vehi-
cle activities. These measures constitute the Transportation Control
Plan. Transportation Control Plans are designed to change the emission
characteristics of motor vehicles and the way they are used to a suffi-
cient degree to assure certain defined reductions in the emission of
specific pollutants. Thus, the measures withfn the plan affect the
actual design of vehtcles, as well as the manner In which they are used.
Use controls relate to time of travel, location of destination, route
used, and operating conditions assumed during travel. In New Jersey, it
was found that, assuming all required modifications in automobile engines
to reduce their emissions by 90% were made, it would still be necessary
to reduce the absolute distance traveled by the overall State population
by approximately 25%. This means that, regardless of the success of all
other control measures, it will be necessary to place some constraints
on the use of the automobile for work-related trips and other trips made
frequently by automobile. This requirement is the primary and overriding
transportation control measure for the State, and all future planning and
development must seek such a reduction as a principal consequence of the
activity.
There are only two ways in which mobility can be limited as regards
private transportation. Either the capacity of the road system to carry
1-5
-------
vehicles can be reduced, or, the number of potential trip-ends can be
reduced. The term trip-ends can be loosely interpreted here as parking
spaces. One important method of reducing VMT in New Jersey is to reduce
the number of parking spaces available to the driving public. In this
way, unnecessary auto trips and auto trips which could have been made
using public transportation will be eliminated, as only persons for whom
it is absolutely necessary to drive will find the intense competition for
limited parking space to be worthwhile. The parking management regulation
is one method by which it is hoped to carefully and sensitively reduce
the number of parking spaces to be provided the drivers of New Jersey in
the specified region.
Parking management regulations are dual purpose: (1) they seek
either to reduce, or to minimize the growth of vehicle miles of travel
(VMT) in accordance with the State Implementation Plan; and (2) they
require that new facilities, or modtftcatfon of old facilities which
provide increased parking capacity, do not cause, or exacerbate already
existing violations of an air quality standard.
Two basic approaches for achieving the goals of parking manage-
ment are: (1) facility-by-facility review and; (2) a comprehensive parking
management plan. The former may be conducted by the Federal Government
or by the local jurisdictional agency, if it submits an approvable plan to
EPA outlining how it will pursue the review process. The development of a
comprehensive plan, however, can only be performed by the local planning
agency, as this process must integrate all facets of local planning with
the parking management control strategy, and this is beyond the scope of
EPA's work.
1.2.2 Faci1ity-by-Faci1ity Review
The parking management ruling outlines three basic methods for con-
ducting facility-by-facility review. The first method of satisfying the
1-6
-------
regulation is to indicate that the facility has a special purpose di-
rectly related to VMT minimization. An example of this would be in the
case of a facility where a substantial portion of its usage will be as
a park-and-ride lot for commuters. The VMT reduction is proven if it
can be shown that users who originally drove to jobs will now use the
facility to take advantage of public transportation, and that the
facility will not serve some other purpose which would negate this
savings and yield a net increase in VMT. If these two criteria can be
met, the facility will be granted approval in most cases.
The second method, assuming sufficient traffic information is
available, involves making accurate projections of VMT changes which
will result from the operation of the proposed facility. If it can be
shown that there will be no Increase tn VMT above what would have occur-
red without the facility, approval is likely.
The third and final method of showing compliance with VMT con-
trol strategies is to be applied where neither of the first two are pro-
per, and will probably be used in most evaluations. It assumes, first,
that there will be some increase tn VMT resulting from operation of the
facility. It requires then, that the owner/operator show the need for the
facility in spite of this compliance deficiency. At the same time, a
program to minimize the impact of the facility must be provided including
good-faith intentions to initiate and maintain the program after appro-
val has been granted. A listing of measures by which this can be accom-
plished is included in Appendix A. Such measures include incentives for
the use of mass transit and carpooling, rate schedules to discourage prob-
lem parking, and dial-a-bus or chartered bus service to areas not served by
regularly scheduled transit. Also, any item that the owner feels is of
merit will be considered, assuming it is apparent that other methods may
not be reasonably available in a particular situation. The overall proce-
dure will, therefore, include three phases:
1-7
-------
1. explanation of the need for the proposed facility;
2. development of a plan to employ all reasonable measures
to minimize VMT; and,
3. projection of the new reduced parking space demand resulting
from effective implementation of measures comprising the
second step.
The use of the appropriate method will be sufficient to allow
accurate review of a proposed facility with respect to VMT control.
The requirement that there be no violation of air standards is
dealt with separately in the review process. The regulations are struc-
tured to provide guidance in the use of dispersion modeling techniques
to clarify carbon monoxide problem areas around the proposed facility.
They also indicate the necessary information to be provided for accurate
analysis, and remove ambiguities which were present in the original rules.
1.2.3 Comprehensive Parking Management Plans
The final item covered in the revised proposal is the provision for
a local agency hot to utilize the facility-by-facility review, but, in-
stead, to proceed with the development of a usable comprehensive parking
management strategy. Upon approval of such a plan by EPA, it is assumed
that the parking management control strategy has been integrated wholly
into the local planning process, and that Federal supervision is no longer
needed. This situation represents the final goal of the proposed regula-
tions, whereby environmental considerations, primarily their relation to
air quality, are a functional part of land-use and transportation plan-
ning throughout the areas of concern. It is this goal toward which EPA is
striving by means of this parking management regulation.
The complete regulation was published in the August 22, 1974 Fede-
ral Register, Title 1, Part 52, and some minor corrections were published
on August 27, 1974. An amendment, published in the October 15, 19,74 Fede-
ral Register, postponed the effective date of the regulation from January
1-8
-------
1. explanation of the need for the proposed facility;
2. development of a plan to employ all reasonable measures
to minimize VMT; and,
3. projection of the new reduced parking space demand resulting
from effective implementation of measures comprising the
second step.
The use of the appropriate method will be sufficient to allow
accurate review of a proposed facility with respect to VMT control.
The requirement that there be no violation of air standards is
dealt with separately in the review process. The regulations are struc-
tured to provide guidance in the use of dispersion modeling techniques
to clarify carbon monoxide problem areas around the proposed facility.
They also indicate the necessary information to be provided for accurate
analysis, and remove ambiguities which were present in the original rules.
1.2.3 Comprehensive Parking Management Plans^
The final item covered in the revised proposal is the provision for
a local agency hot to utilize the facility-by-facility review, but, in-
stead, to proceed with the development of a usable comprehensive parking
management strategy. Upon approval of such a plan by EPA, it is assumed
that the parking management control strategy has been integrated wholly
into the local planning process, and that Federal supervision is no longer
needed. This situation represents the final goal of the proposed regula-
tions, whereby environmental considerations, primarily their relation to
air quality, are a functional part of land-use and transportation plan-
ning throughout the areas of concern. It is this goal toward which EPA is
striving by means of this parking management regulation.
The complete regulation was published in the August 22, 1974 Fede-
ral Register, Title 1, Part 52, and some minor corrections were published
on August 27, 1974. An amendment, published in the October 15, 1974 Fede-
ral Register, postponed the effective date of the regulation from January
1-8
-------
1, 1975 to June 30, 1975. The regulation, after that date, will apply to
all proposed facilities of the required size which have not signed con-
struction contracts for continuous construction on or before this later
date.
1.3 PARKING MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND INDIRECT SOURCE REGULATIONS
In addition to parking management regulations, EPA also has
indirect source regulations (40 CFR 52.22 (b), 39 FR 25292 et. seq.,
July 9, 1974) governing proposed future parking facilities. In order
to avoid confusion concerning the overlap between these two regulations,
a brief discussion is necessary.
The indirect source regulations, except as they relate to high-
ways and airports, are designed tp review proposed construction of new
parking facilities anywhere in the nation to prevent violation or exacer-
bation of an existing violation of carbon monoxide standards and were
applicable to facilities for which construction commenced after January 1,
1975. The size cutoff for indirect source review varies depending upon
the location of the proposed facility. Inside a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA), the regulations apply to new facilities of 1,000
spaces or more and modifications (additions) of 500 spaces or more. Out-
side an SMSA, the regulations apply to new facilities of 2,000 spaces or
more and modifications of 1,000 spaces or more.
Parking management regulations are limited to specific areas found
to have serious violations of auto-related air quality standards and re-
quiring transportation control plans. The regulations include both a re-
view for localized carbon monoxide impact, similar to that required under
indirect source regulations, and a review of the impact of the proposed
facility on area-wide oxidant and area-wide carbon monoxide levels resulting
from motor vehicle use. The size cutoff for parking management regulations
1-9
-------
is 250 spaces or more for the construction of new facilities or the
modification of existing facilities after June 30, 1975.
Indirect source regulations do not apply to facilities which are
subject to review under EPA-promulgated parking management regulations.
No single facility will be subject to more than one of these requirements.
Highways and airports in parking management areas will continue to be re-
viewed under the indirect source regulations. However, as originally
formulated, indirect source regulations would have applied to parking
facilities in parking management areas between January 1, 1975 and June
30, 1975*, but the implementation date has been suspended until July 1,
1975 the same as that for the parking management regulations (40 CFR
52.22 (b), 39 FR 45014-5, Dec. 30, 1974),
1.4 OVERVIEW OF REPORT
The remaining sections of this volume of the study cover the
following material:
• Section 2.0 - Technical Basis for Report
This 1s a detailed account of the methodology used for devel-
oping the data in the CBD databooks, and instructions for use
of the data. The areas covered are: (1) analysis of parking .
supply and demand; (2) traffic analysis; (3) public transpor-
tation analysis; and (4) air quality analysis.
§ Section 3.0 - Summary of the CBD Handbooks
This section is a summary description of data taken from the
databooks for the Camden, Newark and Trenton CBD's.
• Section 4.0 - The.Socio-economic Impact of Parking Management
Strategies
This section attempts to identify the potential socio-economic
impacts of parking management strategies based on the analysis
of two attitude surveys taken in the Newark CBD:
(1) a survey of the major employers in the CBD, and
(2) a survey of the employees at two major CBD employers.
* Information obtained at EPA Briefing for Developers on "Indirect Source"
Review, Washington, D.C., November 22, 1974.
1-10
-------
• Section 5.0 - Transportation Alternatives
The major emphasis in this section is on the operation of
carpooling systems, but short-term transit improvements are
also discussed.
In addition, there are parking management handbooks for each CBD
which provide data and techniques for estimating; (1) Parking supply and
demand; (2) traffic characteristics; and (3) air quality effects. Mass
transit availability is also discussed.
1-11
-------
2.0 TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE CBD HANDBOOKS
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH
Time and resource constraints of this study forced a reliance on
existing secondary information sources for the most part. In only one
case - the socio-economic analysis of the Newark CBD in Section 6.0 -
were field studies made for the development of primary data. Most of the
data used for the analysis of parking supply and demand, traffic, public
transportation, and air quality were obtained from local agencies. In
some instances, such as the hourly distribution of traffic, it was neces-
sary to use more general data, which were typical of urban areas.
Treatment of the collected data was based principally on existing
methodologies. At times, it was necessary to make some "adjustments" in
analytical techniques to fit the data pool, but these were held to a mini-
mum. The use of standard methods in most cases should give the overall
technical approach,, but not the specific results, some degree of general
applicability to other urban areas.
The remainder of this section presents the technical basis, both
data and methodologies, for each of the critical areas of parking facility
review, namely:
• Parking supply and demand;
• Traffic;
• Public transportation; and
• Air quality impacts.
2-1
-------
2.2 PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
The first area of interest in the review of a proposed parking
facility is the analysis of parking supply and demand. This step is de-
signed to identify the need for the new facility, in light of the existing
supply and the new or existing factors that might warrant the construction
of additional parking spaces.
The supply of on-street and off-street parking spaces can be best
determined by a field inventory. However, the time and resource limita-
tions of this study prevented the development of such a field inventory.
Existing data on licensed parking lots, and on-street parking regulations
were obtained from different secondary sources, and in one case - Camden -
a parking inventory of off-street facilities was done by the city's Traffic
Engineering Division. The "Parking Management Handbook" for each CBD dis-
cusses in detail this information, and accordingly, presents the location
of the parking facilities.
The parking demand for the CBD of a city is affected by many fac-
tors, some of the most important are:
• Population characteristics: population of the metropolitan
area, age distribution, income, car ownership.
• Total number of people coming downtown during the daytime,
to work, shop or visit.
t Cost: higher parking fees reduce demand if everything else
remains constant.
• Local administration: zoning, parking regulations and a
strict enforcement of the regulations can greatly affect the
parking demand.
• The economic growth and market share of the CBD.
t Traffic congestion in the CBD itself and the roadways
leading to it.
2-2
-------
Of the three cities being considered, only Newark had the neces-
sary information to make a rough estimation of the parking demand for the
CBD as a whole. It must be emphasized, however, that only a comprehensive
parking study can give an accurate picture of the demand for parking and
of parkers1 characteristics.
Although the parking demand for a new facility is also affected
to some degree by the factors mentioned above, there are other factors
that play a key role. These factors are:
• Land and building use: ranges in demand for different land
uses are available.
0 Location in relation to existing parking facilities and
final destination of motorists.
• Number of employees: especially relevant in cases of company-
owned parking lots.
• Transit availability within a reasonable walking distance to
both origin and destination.
The "Parking Management Handbooks" give the reviewing agency
simple methods to make first cut estimates for the parking demand of a new
facility, and provide general guidelines as to whether or not a new faci-
lity should be built at the proposed location and for the proposed number
of spaces.
The nomograph shown in Figure 2-1 was developed for use by the
reviewing agency during the review period of a proposed parking facility.
Input variables for its use are the number of employees, their mode of
access and auto occupancy. The number of spaces required is the output.
The nomograph can also be used to determine levels of auto occupancy and
automobile use assumed by applicants. To facilitate its use, examples
are presented in each handbook.
2-3
-------
2ooo
O
180
1080
1260
-1440
0
Ul
EC
I
in
ui
if
in
(D
2
2
I
IL
0
d
FIGURE 2-1
PARKING NOMOGRAPH
2-4
-------
In the analysis of parking supply and demand, it must be always
remembered that, from the viewpoint of the motorists, the parking areas
(off-street and on-street) should be as close as possible to their final
destinations. This is usually possible in areas of low intensity land
use, but becomes increasingly difficult and expensive in areas of higher
intensity land usage such as in the Central Business District of cities.
Parking inadequacies in downtown areas might create circulation
problems, since the searching motorist will drive around until he finds a
space. On the other hand, an excess of parking spaces available will in-
duce many motorists to take automobiles to their final destinations, ad-
ding vehicles to the already crowded streets. In either case, the asso-
ciated levels of traffic emmissions will be higher than necessary. An
equilibrium between demand and supply of parking spaces is, therefore,
desirable.
2.3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The existing traffic pattern in the vicinity of a proposed parking
facility is very important in the determination of the air quality impact.
It has become apparent that "hot spots" in the vicinity of parking facili-
ties are usually found in the exit/entrance lanes of the facility and at
intersections of nearby access roads. A congested intersection is charac-
terized by the heavy volumes that try to use it at a given time, the low
speed of the traffic flow and the frequent stop-and-go conditions that it
imposes on traffic.
"Level of Service" is a broad term that denotes a wide range in the
operating conditions of an intersection. The level of service of a given
intersection depends on the "load factor" of the approaches. An approach
is said to be loaded when the following two conditions apply to the green
h
phase of the signal controlling the intersections:
2-5
-------
(1) There are vehicles ready to enter the intersection in all
lanes when the signal turns greenj and
(2) they continue to be available to enter in all lanes during
the entire phase with no unused time or excessively long
gaps.
The "load factor" is defined as the ratio of the number of phases
that are loaded, to the total number of green phases available for that
approach during the same period. Table 2-1 presents the level of service
definitions according to the value of the load factor. Level of Service C
is the level typically associated with urban design practice. Stable oper-
ation is characteristic under this condition, but, occasionally, drivers
may have to wait through more than one red signal indication and traffic
back-ups might be observed.
The capacity (C) of an intersection is usually associated with a
given level of service. If the volume (V) carried by the intersection
during peak periods is known, then the volume to capacity ratio (V/C)
measures the level of congestion. When the V/C ratio is near 1.0 the
intersection is said to be working at capacity.
Parking facilities are large generators of travel, and unconges-
ted intersections in the access roads can become overloaded due to the
increased demand brought about by new or expanded parking facilities.
The volume to capacity (V/C) ratios for major signalized inter-
sections in the study areas were obtained and presented in the handbooks
for Newark and Trenton. No information was available for the Central
Business District of Camden.
Applicants for new parking facilities are required by EPA to
present the access roads to proposed facilities. By determining the
affected intersections, and checking the existing levels of congestion on
them, a preliminary judgement can be made as to what effect the new demand
will have.
2-6
-------
Table 2-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Traffic Flow
Level of Service Description Load Factor
A Free Flow 0.0
B Stable Flow <_ 0.1
C Stable Flow -^0.3 (a)
D Near Unstable Flow ^0.7
E Unstable Flow <_ 1.0
F . Forced Flow - (b)
Notes: (a) Design Capacity
(b) Not Applicable
Source: Highway Capacity Manual
Highway Research Board
Special Report 87, 1965
2-7
-------
One-way street systems were also considered in the handbooks.
Parking facilities with entrances on such streets present easier left
turns, reduced time to exit the facilities and, consequently a reduced
level of emissions. If entrances are available on more than one street,
access can be worked out as to cause the minimum interference with other
traffic and pedestrian movements.
Finally, the daily traffic volumes on major streets within the
study area of each of the three cities were presented. These indicate
the actual levels of street usage.
2.4 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
A major factor that is considered in the review of a new park-
ing facility is public transportation. Present and future availability
of some form of public mass transportation is of great interest when .
determining the parking needs in any Central Business District.
In many areas of the country, transit systems are the major
source of person trips to downtown areas. Their importance is further
increased in low income areas, such as the three cities considered in
this study, because public mass transit is the only means of transporta-
tion for a significant part of the population. The increased use of tran-
sit generally results in auto trip reductions and, therefore, in reduc-
tions of parking demand. Relief of traffic congestion and levels of
pollutants in central areas, are associated with increased transit avail-
ability and usage.
Several factors contribute to the use of transit systems, as op-
posed to the private automobile. Tbe frequency of service is perhaps the
single most important factor. Door-to-door travel time, reliability of
schedules, cost, and comfort of the ride are also variables considered in
2-8
-------
modal choice decisions. The relative importance of these factors varies
not only from individual to individual, but also with whether the users
are captive or choice riders, trip purposes and metropolitan area char-
acteristics.
The "Parking Management Handbooks" for Camden, Newark and Trenton
analyze the existing transit systems in each area. The areal coverage of
service, fare and transfer policies, schedules, and some other relevant
information on transit routes within the study areas are also shown.
The handbooks also discuss several of the existing plans to im-
prove transit service in the three cities and the effect that these im-
provements might have on the demand for parking spaces. Implementation
of these plans and some new ones will certainly be affected by the appro-
val of the "Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974", which
should encourage the continuation and improvement of transit service in
urban areas. Some of the main factors covered by this Act are:
t Funding level:
- $7.825 billion obligational authority to the Secretary of
Transportation, for the capital program from 1975 to 1980
inclusive.
- $500 million capital program for rural public transportation
- $3.975 billion for grant programs
• Federal matching share: 80% for capital programs
50% for operating programs
• Formula Distributions: (for the formula grant program only)
- *s based on the urbanized area population
- % on population weighted by a factor fo density
• Special provisions:
- Up to one half of the financial -assistance can be used
exclusively for the payment of operating expenses, upon
approval of the Secretary.
- Uniform system of accounts and records shall be developed
by January 10, 1977.
2-9
-------
- $20 minion is provided in each of the fiscal years end-
ing June 30 of 1975 and 1976, for the research, develop-
ment and demonstration projects to determine the feasibil-
ity of fare-free mass transportation systems, as well as
reduced fares. The effect of this on the level of reduction
of traffic congestion and, or air and noise pollution will
be closely observed.
The November 29, 1974 edition of Passenger Transport gives
a breakdown of the $3.9 billion available from the Act for grant pro-
grams over the next six years. According to that information, the
State of New Jersey is the eighth largest recipient of funds from this
grant, with $176,975,000. Improvements in transit services are to be
expected throughout the state, and in the three subject cities of this
analysis.
The transit system in New Jersey should also be favored by the
Environmental Protection Agency regulations that call for identifica-
tion of corridors with preferential bus/carpool lanes, and the estab-
lishment by the State of an additional 50 miles of bus/carpool lanes
by May 31, 1977. The accompanying reduction in travel time for transit
users and carpoolers should reduce the reliance on the private automo-
bile with low occupancy as a commuting travel mode.
2.5 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
2.5.1 Basic Approach
In assessing the air quality impact of a proposed new parking faci-
lity, it is necessary to take the following steps:
• Determine the existing air quality at or near the proposed
site in the year(s) of interest.
• Estimate the incremental change in air quality expected to re-
sult from operation of the new facility.
• By comparison with the relevant air quality standard(s), ascer-
tain whether the facility will cause or aggravate a violation
of the standard(s).
2-10
-------
Although these same general steps are applicable to both 0 and CO analysis,
/\
the implementation of the steps 1s quite different in most cases. However,
the study of either pollutant requires an estimate of the vehicular emission
rate - in grams per mile - of the pollutant directly for CO, or of the prin-
cipal precursor (HC) for 0 . Accordingly, the following paragraph, 2.5.2,
/\
discusses emission factor calculations per se. The next two paragraphs
comment upon the application of the three-step analytical process to 0 and
J\
CO, in turn.
2.5.2 Emission Factors
The calculations of emission factors for gasoline-powered and die-
sel-powered vehicles differ significantly and are treated separately below:
2.5.2.1 Gasoline-Powered Vehicles
The procedures detailed in EPA document AP-42 were followed in
computing emission factors for this vehicle class. Both heavy-duty and
light-duty gasoline-powered vehicle exhaust emission factors were computed
by the use of the equation below:
n+1
cipdi mi si (1)
i=n-12
where
e = emission factor in grams per vehicle mile for calendar
p year n and pollutant p,
c. = the 1975 Federal test procedure emission rate for pollutant
p (grams/mile) for the 1th model year, at low mileage,
d*i = the control vehicle pollutant p emission deterioration
factor for the i*n model year at calendar year n,
m. = the weighted annual travel of the 1^n model year during
calendar year n (The determination of this variable in-
volves the use of the vehicle model year distribution.), and
s.j = the weighted speed adjustment factor for the 1th model
year vehicles.
* This factor accounts for the decreasing effectiveness of the
emission controls caused by wear and tear.
2-11
-------
The c.. and d.. values are taken directly from AP-42. The weighted annual
mileage, m.. , for vehicles of model year 1 is determined as follows:
m. - VDi
V. = fraction of model year i vehicles in use on December 31
of year
D. = average miles driven by model year i vehicles
The vehicle age distribution data, the V.. , can be obtained from registra-
tion data on a county basis. For the present study, data compiled by the
R. L. Polk Co. were used for Camden, Essex, and Mercer Counties, where the
cities of Camden, Newark, and Trenton, respectively, are located. Unless
data to the contrary are available, it is normally assumed that the weigh-
ted annual mileage remains the same in later years. This was done for the
current investigation.
With regard to s^, it should be noted that data defining the re-
lation of vehicle age to average speed are not generally available and New
Jersey was no exception. As a result, an average speed for the entire
vehicle fleet is normally used. The appropriate value of s. may be taken
from AP-42 data. Because the APRAC-la Urban Diffusion Model for CO has an
internal speed adjustment, a CO factor unconnected for speed must be used.
Paragraph 2.5.4 presents the details.
The preceding calculations account for the exhaust or tailpipe emis-
sions. Emission factors for hydrocarbon evaporation and crankcase losses
are calculated from another equation for which no speed adjustment is neces-
sary:
fn = > h.m.
2-12
-------
in which,
f = the combined evaporative and crankcase hydrocarbon emission
factor for calendar year n,
h. = the combined evaporative and crankcase emission rate for
the ith model year, from AP-42, and
m.j = the weighted annual travel for the itn model year.
Once fn has been computed, it is added to the speed-corrected exhaust
hydrocarbon emission factor to determine the total emission factor.
Hardware or vehicle emission reduction control measures are in-
corporated by one of two procedures:
1. If the control measure reduces the per-vehicle emissions of
all age classes equally, the controlled emissions are simply:
Controlled Emission = (1-f) x Uncontrolled Emission
where f is the fractional degree of control.
2. If the control measure affects different age classes by
different amounts, one must recompute the emission factor,
applying the correct degree of control to each component
of every age class. The proper speed adjustment factor
should be applied as the final step.
In computing hydrocarbon emission factors for evaluating control
measures, one should remember that most such measures affect only exhaust
hydrocarbons and not the evaporative/crankcase component. The correct
procedure is to apply the control measure to the exhaust factor and then
add the evaporative/crankcase factor to it.
2.5.2.2 Diesel Powered Vehicles
Emission factors for this vehicle class were taken directly from
AP-42. No speed corrections are needed for these values.
2.5.2.3 Overall Vehicle Fleet Emission Factors
For some purposes, such as CO diffusion modeling, it is necessary
2-13
-------
to have a single factor for carbon monoxide. This is easily obtained
by multiplying each vehicle class emission factor by Its fractional con-
tribution to total VMT and summing the products. These fractional con-
tributions can be obtained from most highway departments on a county-
wide basis.
2.5.3 0.x Impact Analysis
x
The determination of the impact of a single emission source -
point source, area source, or indirect source - on ambient oxidant levels
is a very tenuous undertaking because:
• Photochemical oxidants form via a complex interaction
involving HC, NO , and sunlight and the associated air
quality effects are area-wide rather than localized in
nature.
• Generally applicable diffusion models for 0 do not exist.*
/\
• Such factors as hydrocarbon reactivities and the effects of
meteorology reduce the utility of the simple proportional
model.
Because of the underlying lack of a procedure for quantifying the relation-
ship between 0 air quality and hydrocarbon emissions, the use of an equa-
/\
tion of the following type seems as appropriate as more elaborate methods:
ER = AE + Ee
Ea
where: ER = the emission ratio as explained below,
AE = the hydrocarbon emission contribution of
the proposed parking facility,
Ee = the AQCR total hydrocarbon emissions expec-
ted in the first year of operation of the
proposed facility, and
Ea = the maximum allowable hydrocarbon, emission
level that will prevent exceeding the am-
bient 0 standard.
/\
* Models have been developed for the Los Angeles airshed,
but they are highly involved systems specific to that
area alone.
2-14
-------
Both Ee and Ea can be taken from the New Jersey Transportation Control
Plan. AE must be estimated from data given on the permit application,
such as :
• Number of vehicle trips created,
• Average trip length.
From these data, one can compute vehicle miles of travel, which, when
multiplied by the emission factor, yields hydrocarbon emissions.
The meaning of the emission ratio is as follows: (1) if ER is
greater than one, the total HC emissions are greater than those allowed
by the control plan; (2) if ER equals one, the 0 standard might just
A
be equalled; and (3) an ER less than one means the oxidant air quality
should be less than the standard. Situation (1) means the construction
request should be denied, unless suitable modifications are made. Situ-
ation (2) indicates a more thorough analysis is in order, and situation
(3) implies an acceptable facility, if all other criteria are met.
2.5.4 CO Impact Analysis
The impact assessment for carbon monoxide is much more straight-
forward and objective than that of 0 for the following reasons:
A
• During the normal measurement periods - 1-hr and 8-hr - CO is
highly unreactive.
t Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide are highly localized
with respect to the proximity of receptors to emission sources.
• There are numerous urban air quality models for CO including
simple and modified rollback models; the Hanna-Gifford models;
the APRAC-la model; and the Transportation and Air Shed Simula-
tion Model (TASSIM).
• Most of the models, particularly APRAC-la, make use of data
which are normally collected in urban areas.
t Air quality data are frequently available for carbon monoxide
over a period of several years.
2-15
-------
• Motor vehicles are by far the major sources of CO so that
stationary sources normally may be ignored. This is fre-
quently not true for hydrocarbons.
For determining the CO air quality effects of vehicular activity, the
usual choice of a technique is between rollback - the proportional model -
and one of the diffusion models. The following paragraphs compare
these options.
2.5.4.1 Rollback Versus Diffusion Modeling
In choosing a model or other procedure for determining the effects
on carbon monoxide levels of changes in transportation activity, several
factors are important:
• The amount of detail required in determining the spatial fea-
tures of CO concentration;
• The nature of the actual or postulated transportation changes;
• The quantity and type of transportation, meteorological, air
quality, and other data available; and
• The resources - manpower and computers - available.
Making a point-by-point comparison of every available CO model would be
far too unwieldy an undertaking for the present purposes. Instead, a
frequently-used diffusion model developed by Stanford Research Institute,
APRAC-la, will be considered as representative of the class.
Rollback Modeling
The basic assumption of the rollback equation is that the air quality
at some "representative" receptor point in an area is proportional to the
emissions in that area. For CO, this is a very poor assumption because
nearby emission sources in an area are observed to have much greater im-
pacts on a monitor than more distant sources. The problem of choosing a
"representative" site within the area is quite complex involving itself in
social, philosophical, as well as technical issues.
2-16
-------
Because of the use of area-wide emissions in the proportional
model, no spatial resolution is possible. Hence, a transportation con-
trol measure, which might relieve congestion 1n a small area and greatly
reduce local CO levels, could be observed as only a small proportional
change in CO concentration at the "representative" monitor.
Although the data inputs required by the rollback model - total
emissions and a "representative" CO level - appear to be non-demanding,
closer inspection reveals that they are not. It is quite unlikely that
a truly representative CO monitoring site car, ever be selected in an urban
area because of the highly site-specific nature of the pollutant. In
addition, the total emissions are dependent on total vehicular activity
in an area. In emission computations from motor vehicles, the commonly
used activity term is vehicle miles of travel (VMT). In most cases, VMT
is calculated as the product of average annual daily* traffic (AADT) on
a traffic link and the length of the link. However, AADT by link - a
common way of expressing traffic data - is the direct input to APRAC-la.
The resources required by rollback modeling are minimal. Only
simple mathematical calculations are needed, although they can be volu-
minous in some cases.
APRAC-la CO Model
This model calculates pollutant contributions from diffusion on
various scales, including:
• Extraurban diffusion, mainly from sources in upwind cities,
• Intraurban diffusion from freeway, arterial, and feeder street
sources,
• Local diffusion of emissions within a street canyon.
The computer program can be used to make calculations of the following
types:
* Other time periods may be used, as well.
2-17
-------
t Synoptic model: hourly concentrations as a function of time,
for comparison and verification with observed concentrations
and for operational applications;
• Climatological model: the frequency distribution of concen-
trations, for statistical prediction of the frequency of oc-
currence of specified high concentrations in connection with
planning activities; and
• Grid-point model: concentrations at various locations in a
geographical grid, providing detailed horizontal concentra-
tion patterns for operational or planning purposes.
As the preceding description indicates, APRAC-la has good spa-
tial resolution for carbon monoxide and so it can detect the local im-
pacts brought about by parking changes, local traffic improvements or
modal shifts on a particular traffic link. Data requirements include:
• Vehicle fleet emission factors;
t AADT and hourly distribution of AADT;
• Meteorological data, such as surface observations and upper
air soundings;
• Area source emissions, if these are significant.
Although these data require some effort to collect and code for the com-
puter, they are generally available for most metropolitan areas.
The APRAC-la model requires both professional personnel and a
digital computer for its use. The manhours expended in preparing the
data inputs are generally not large, since many of the data are normally
collected in the needed form. Only simple transfer operations are needed
in most cases. Likewise, the computer time needed is quite modest, amount-
.ing to only a few minutes on a CDC-6500 for a typical urban area. The de-
tailed operating procedures for the model are given in the APRAC user's
7
manual.
2-18
-------
2.5.4.2fMethodology Used for Present Study
Because CO levels are highly localized and the locations of new
parking facilities cannot be known in advance, it seemed essential to de-
termine the spatial characteristics of this pollutant in and around the
three CBD's of interest. To do this, the APRAC model was run in the grid-
point mode. The CO concentrations predicted by this option are roughly
comparable to rooftop levels, and provide a useful look at the carbon
monoxide background across the analysis area. Figure 2-2 shows the peak
one-hour values for the Newark CBD in 1972. The combination of meteoro-
logical data and traffic data was chosen to represent the worst air qual-
ity conditions occurring in that year. More details are given in the
CBD Handbooks.
As was mentioned previously, APRAC makes an internal speed cor-
rection to the CO emission factors based on the street type classifica-
tions. Because the speed correction equation differs from that used by
EPA, it is necessary to adjust the emission factor computed from AP-42
by a factor which makes the speed-corrected factors equal at some chosen
speed, 20 miles-per-hour in this case. The factor turns out to be 9.46.
The emission factors for the three CBD's are shown in Table 2-2 for two
different years. The EPA and SRI factors become equivalent when the
appropriate speed corrections are applied.
TABLE 2-2
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSION FACTORS*
CBD
Camden
Newark
Trenton
1972
EPA
74.0
74.0
74.0
SRI
700.0
700.0
700.0
1975**
EPA
44.5
39.3
28.6
SRI
421.0
371.5
270.2
* Uncorrected for speed.
** These factors incorporate both the federal motor vehicle
control program and the New Jersey Transportation Control
Plan.
2-19
-------
FIGURE 2-2
MODELED 1972 CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS
UNITS=F*RTS PER MILLION (PPM.)
ro
i
-------
Results such as those in Figure 2-2 give an approximate idea of
the air quality in the vicinity of any proposed parking facility in the
analysis area. It is best to have actual air quality data for the pro-
posed site, but this will normally not be the case. Failing this, one of
the following approaches can be taken:
• APRAC-la can be run in the street canyon mode on the most
congested street adjacent to the site. This option pre-
dicts street level CO concentrations-.and can show whether
or not an air quality standard might be exceeded. Exercis-
ing the model both with and without consideration of the
traffic impacts of the facility will enable the reviewer to
distinguish the CO impacts of the proposed installation.
• The parking facility can be modeled using conventional com-
plex source techniques.3 When these procedures are used,
the APRAC grid point results can be added in as background
concentrations.
The preceding methods work quite well for assessing possible vio-
lations of the one-hr, CO standards. However, the standard models can-
not be used directly for comparison with 8-hr, measurements. A techni-
que that can be used is to run the one-hr. model for eight consecutive
hours* and then average the results. Because of the extra resources
involved, this procedure should be used only at critical locations for
borderline cases.
2.6 REFERENCES
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Document AP-42,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1973. Also, supple-
ments No. 1, July 1973; No. 2, September 1973; No. 3, July 1974;
and No. 4, January 1975.
2. Users Manual for the APRAC-la Urban Diffusion Model Computer
Program, R.L. Mancuso. et al.. Stanford Research Institute, Sept. 1972.
3. Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis
Volume 9: Evaluating Indirect Sources. Publication No. EPA-^450/
4-75-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 1975.
* These hours should be chosen as the period when the worst 8-hr.
CO concentrations normally occur in the CBD of interest.
2-21
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF THE CBD HANDBOOKS
The Central Business District Parking Management Handbooks for Camden,
Newark and Trenton contain background data and general methodologies for
estimating the demand for a proposed parking facility and the impacts of
such a facility on local traffic and air quality. The handbooks are intended
as a framework for utilizing data usually available to local planners and
policy makers. Each handbook presents the following:
1. Data on existing levels of parking supply and demand, and proce-
dures for estimating the demand for parking spaces at a particular
facility.
2. Traffic characteristics of each CBD, data on existing levels of
congestion shown as volume to capacity ratios, and procedures
for estimating the impact of a new facility on the traffic of
the surrounding streets.
3. Existing CBD air quality levels, the predicted 1975 air quality
levels and procedures for estimating the impact of a new facility
on air quality.
4. The status of existing public transit serving the CBD.
The three subsections below summarize the data contained in the handbooks
for Camden, Newark and Trenton, respectively.
3.1 THE CAMDEN CBD
The Camden CBD study area is shown in Figure 3-1. Briefly, the data
contained in the Camden Central Business District Parking Management Hand-
book indicate that the CBD has a supply of approximately 2600 parking spaces
though no accurate estimate of the demand for parking could be made. Analysis
of the traffic characteristics indicates that about 40,000 of the 60,000 vehi-
cles, which cross the Benjamin Franklin Bridge daily, use Linden and Penn
streets to continue traveling on U.S. Route 30, the most heavily used route
in Camden. In addition, heavy daily traffic volumes occur on Broadway, Haddon
Avenue and Seventh Street in a North-South direction; and on Market Street
and on Federal Street in an East-West direction. Estimated 1975 daily traf-
fic volumes for the major streets within the CBD and volume to capacity
ratios (indicator of congestion) for key intersections are illustrated in
the Handbook.
3-1
-------
OJ
i
r\>
FIGURE 3-1
STUDY AREA
-------
Based on an eight-hour CO measurement of 16.1 parts per million (ppm)-
the standard is 9.0 ppm. - Camden needed a forty-four percent reduction 1n
CO emissions to meet the national standard. However, Camden representatives
felt that the high reading was based on a highly atypical monitoring sit?.
The adverse air quality was considered to be a localized phenomenon caused
by the following:
• Poor location of carbon monoxide monitors;
• Local traffic congestion; and
t Construction activity.
It was believed that the needed improvement in air quality would be obtained
by:
• Relocating the monitors to more representative sites;
• The opening of the Betsy Ross Bridge and completion of Interstate 76;
• Improvements in traffic flow from the TOPICS program; and
• Completion of the construction activity around the present
monitoring sites.
Carbon monoxide diffusion analyses using the SRI APRAC-la model con-
firmed the localized nature of the CO problem. Furthermore, even one-hour
peak CO concentration estimates were nowhere near the eight-hour concen-
tration upon which the required reduction was based. The local traffic
improvements are considered to have a good chance of success, but the air
quality should be monitored closely to ensure conformance with the air
quality standards.
Public transportation access to the Camden CBD is provided by Transport
of New Jersey and the Port Authority Transit Corporation which provide bus
and rapid rail service, respectively. Transport of New Jersey provides
local bus service in Camden and between Camden and neighboring towns in
southern New Jersey, with some routes continuing to Philadelphia. The bus
routes are few in number, however, and the frequency of service is poor.
On the other hand, the Lindenwold Line provides modern rapid rail service
between Camden and Philadelphia 24 hours daily. The system carries about
40,000 round trips on an average weekday with 8,000 or 20 percent being
generated or ending at the two stations within Camden's CBD.
3-3
-------
3.2 THE NEWARK CBD
The Newark CBD study area is illustrated in Figure 3-2. Generally,
the data contained in the Newark Central Business District Parking Manage-
ment Handbook indicate that no large inadequacies presently exist in the
supply of parking in the Newark CBD as defined in this study. The present
demand for parking is estimated to be between 17,500 to 21,500 spaces, most
of which are required by long-term parkers. Analysis of the traffic char-
acteristics indicates that the heaviest traffic volumes occur in the North-
South direction on McCarter Highway and Broad Street, each of which carries
over 30,000 vehicles per day. Peak hour flows of over 2,000 vehicles per
hour occur on sections of McCarter Highway, Broad Street and Raymond Boule-
vard. Estimated 1975 daily traffic volumes for the major streets within
the CBD and volume to capacity ratios (indicators of congestion) for key
intersections are illustrated in the Handbook.
The control strategy for Ox in the New Jersey portion of the N.J. -
N.Y. - Conn, air quality control region (AQCR) is based on a 1972 level of
0.210 parts per million (ppm.) measured on Welfare Island in the East River
of New York City. Even though the highest Ox level measured in the New
Jersey portion of the AQCR was only 0.135 ppm., the regional nature of this
pollutant dictated the use of the higher value throughout the region. Re-
ducing this Ox concentration to the standard of 0.08 ppm. requires an esti-
mated reduction of 67% in total hydrocarbon emissions in the entire AQCR.
The control strategy for CO in Newark is based on a second high eight-
hour average of 17 ppm., measured in 1972. Lowering this level to the
9 ppm. standard requires a CO reduction of 47 percent. To obtain some
perspective concerning variations in carbon monoxide concentrations around
the CBD the APRAC-la diffusion model was exercised for the years 1972 and
1975.* The results indicated the following:
• Maximum estimated 1975 CO levels are only about 50 percent of
the 1972 levels.
* The 1975 calculations assumed that the transportation control strategy
was in effect.
3-4
-------
CO
en
FIGURE 3-2
STUDY AREA
SCALE
-------
• The area around the intersection of Washington and William
Streets has by far the highest CO levels in the Newark CBD for
both 1972 and 1975.
t In 1972, additional pockets of relatively high CO concentra-
tions occur around the intersections of University & Bleeker
Streets, Mulberry Street & Park Place, Mulberry & E. Kinney
Streets, and Washington and Spruce Streets.
• In 1975, except for the area around the Washington Street-
William Street intersection, the CO levels appear to drop to
negligible levels.
These results indicate that the Newark CO control strategy, when implemented,
has a good chance of success.
The Newark CBD exhibits a viable public transportation system com-
prised of bus, local subway and commuter rail systems. Extensive local
bus service is provided by Transport of New Jersey and 14 additional inde-
pendent bus companies. In 1970, it was estimated that approximately 41
percent of the CBD work trips were completed by bus. The limited city sub-
way serving the Central Business District extends out to a medium density
residential/industrial area in Belleville. The CBD is also served by the
PATH system, the Erie-Lackawanna, the Penn-Central, the Central New Jersey
and the Reading railroads which connect it with the surrounding communities
in New Jersey and downtown Manhattan.
3.3 THE TRENTON CBD
The Trenton CBD study area is depicted in Figure 3-3. The data pre-
sented in the Trenton Central Business District Parking Management Handbook
indicate that there are approximately 6434 parking spaces within the study
area and that short run demand will exceed supply by about 900 parking spaces.
The highest daily traffic volumes are carried on State Street in an east-
west direction, 18,000 vehicles. The main through streets in the study area
running in a north-south direction are Broad Street and Warren Street which
carry average daily volumes of 11,000 and 12,000 vehicles, respectively.
Volume to capacity ratios for key intersections are also illustrated in the
handbook.
3-6
-------
CO
FIGURE 3-3
STUDY AREA
TRENTON 9
1000
SCALE
-------
The control strategy for Ox in the New Jersey portion of the Metro-
politan Philadelphia air quality control region (AQCR) is based on a 1970
level of 0.145 parts per million (ppm.). Reducing this Ox concentration
to the standard of 0.08 ppm. requires an estimated reduction of 47% in total
hydrocarbon emissions in the entire AQCR.
The CO control strategy for Trenton is based on 1972 air quality, which
requires an emission reduction of 70 percent. At the time this requirement
was established, it was understood that the major problem in the CBD was
due to highly localized traffic congestion in the vicinity of the State St.-
N. Broad St. intersection. Control of this "hot spot" was to be accomplished
by establishment of the Commons Mall along State Street and the implementa-
tion of a network of one-way streets to disperse the traffic.
The APRAC-la air quality model was used to provide an estimation of
the CO levels around the CBD for both 1972 and 1975. Because there were no
good traffic data for the Trenton CBD in 1972, it was necessary to use the
1975 traffic projections from the Traffic and Circulation Plan for the Trenton
Commons Mall3 as a primary data source. Consequently, the 1972 air quality ,
projections reflect the effects of the new mall and the one-way street system.
The modeling results confirm the localized nature of the CO problem. How-
ever, even the one-hour peak CO concentration estimates are nowhere near the
eight-hour concentration upon which the required reduction was based. Other
salient features of modeling are as follows:
• The highest predicted CO concentration appears to be centered
around the Commons Mall area in both 1972 and 1975.
t The modeled concentrations are far below the national standards
of 35 ppm. (maximum one-hour average) or 9 ppm. (maximum eight-
hour average).
The failure of the model to reproduce the high 1972 measured CO concentra-
tion is largely due to including the mall traffic circulation improvements
in the modeling inputs. According to local representatives, CO levels
around the mall have decreased drastically.
Buses are the only means of public mass transportation in the Trenton
area. Three companies provide local bus service, but the bulk of the patronage,
3-8
-------
17,200 average weekday riders, is carried on the quasi-public Mercer Metro
System. The system operates twelve different routes: eleven link different
areas of Trenton through the Central Business District and the other is a
cross-town connector operating north of the CBD.
3-9
-------
4.0 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Transportation control plans adopted for many urban areas throughout
the United States have significant implications for future regional land
use and transportation planning. Transportation control strategies and,
more specifically, the parking management strategies with which we are
concerned here, will have numerous socio-economic impacts associated with
them. The socio-economic benefits and costs will occur first at a local
level where older central cities may be the most severly impacted.
This chapter attempts to examine the potential socio-economic impacts
associated with the implementation of parking management strategies for
the Central Business District of Newark, New Jersey. Briefly, as part
of the N. J. transportation control plan, parking management strategies
will require owners or operators of off-street parking facilities to sub-
mit for EPA approval any plans for construction or modification of facil-
ities over a certain size. Also, the strategies provide for the curtail-
ment of on-street parking along certain streets in the Central Business
District where carbon monoxide levels have been determined to exceed the
ambient air quality standards. For the most part, estimation of impacts is
qualitative since socio-economic impacts are qualitative in nature and
not readily quantifiable. An attempt is made to identify the potential
impacts and the characteristics of those who may be impacted. The sensi-
tivities of the young, the elderly and the poor, which have sometimes
been neglected by transportation planners, are of special interest.
Such an approach is designed to make the' decision-maker aware of the
potential trade-offs inherent in public policy decisions. Hopefully in
this manner, public policies can be implemented with minimal socio-eco-
monic disruption.
The rest of this chapter will be organized to present a semblance of
the following information: first, the general socio-economic impacts of
4-1
-------
parking management strategies; second, the general historical background
and socio-economic characteristics of Newark; third, a more detailed
socio-economic profile of the Newark CBD employee, including a profile
of the Newark CBD parker; and fourth, a detailed profile of the Newark
CBD employer.
4.2 GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The socio-economic impacts of parking management strategies will be
primarily a function of local or regional characteristics such as the
availability of alternative transportation, the existing supply and de-
mand of parking, and the ratio of long to short term parkers. The stra-
tegies may affect an individual's future personal mobility, modal choice
decisions and future access to the CBD. The major socio-economic costs
may be actual monetary costs, time costs, opportunity costs and con-
venience costs.
The social impacts of parking management strategies may be viewed
in relation to the impacts of other transportation control measures in
Table 4-1. The table indicates that parking management strategies are
not as socially disruptive as a number of other transportation control
strategies and have no very unfavorable impacts. Parking management
strategies may negatively affect the average American, his mobility,
modal choice decisions in favor of the automobile and accessibility.
However, when complemented with improvements in public transit, the
minor impacts on the young, the elderly, the poor and minorities become
favorable impacts. The unfavorable impacts on the average American and
modal choice decisions in favor of the automobile may be matters of ad-
justment in life style.
4-2
-------
Table 4-1 Summary of Overall Social Impacts
• Vehicle Oriented
I/M .
Retrofit
t Traffic Flow
TOPICS
On-Street Parking
Staggered Work Hours
Highway Construction
Ramp Metering
• VMT Reduction
Transit Improvements
Car Pooling
Parking Control
Pricing Schemes
Auto Free Zone
Gasoline Rationing
0.
o
t/) 1-
3 CS >>
0 r?
•r- U S.
&. ••- (U
O •—
C UJ
C 0 ^.
O U CT
UJ C
+J 1 3
(JO O
«J -r- >-
Q. 0
E 0
i-i CO •
-
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
—
0
--
^
0
o
o.
•
--
--
0
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
—
0
--
1/1
0
U
tZ
(U
•^
0)
en
L.
OJ
^f
•
0
-
+
-
0
+
-
0
-
_
-
0
-
>^
^J
tp*
^«
•r*
^2
0
^^
C
o
4^
^j
(0
0.
1—1
0
0
+
-
0
+
-
+
0
_
-
0
--
£
^~
2
•r—
I/)
I/I
(U
U
U
^£
C
o
^)
U
n
Q.
£
0
0
0
-
0
+
0
+
0
_
0
__
0
(U
U
o
^^
0
0
(U -M
•O 3
o <:
ji^
OJ
C 4J
O C (O
o >
*J -^ •!-
U Vt i-
(O T- Q.
0. U
E (U
>_ a •
.
--
+
.
+
+
.
0
-
_
_
__
—
44
•r—
tn
C
-------
Among the potential benefits and costs of parking management
strategies are those listed below in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Potential Benefits and Costs of
Parking Management Strategies
Benefits
Costs
• reduction in VMT and
in air pollution, pro-
tection of public health
• alleviation of traffic
congestion
• possible improvements in
public transportation for
commuters and captive riders
• possible increases in the
supply of the latent demand
for public transportation
• possible increase in carpool
usage
• possible increase in viability
of CBD, increase land values,
increase in retail sales
t possible increase in parking
costs
• possible increase in time or
convenience costs
0 possible increase in mobility
costs
• possible rise in consumer prices
• possible decrease In the attrac-
tiveness of the CBD, loss of
retail or commercial business
and decrease in land values
The socio-economic impacts may be divided into direct and consequential
impacts. The direct impact of parking management strategies will be the
possible restriction on additional downtown parking spaces. The inter-
face between benefits and costs, which will be called the consequential
socio-economic impacts of parking management strategies, will be a func-
tion of public response to this direct impact and the quality of services
offered, as previously mentioned. To avoid confusion between terms, their
interaction is depicted in Figure 4-1. The list of socio-economic bene-
fits and costs may be summarized in three areas of consequential socio-
economic impact;
1. the Impact on the CBD Parker
2. the Impact on the CBD Resident
3. the Impact on the Future Viability of the CBD.
4-4
-------
Figure 4-1
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
PUBLIC RESPONSE
1) pay higher.
parking cost
2) shift modes
3) look for an
alternative
place to
accomplish
trip purpose
DIRECT IMPACT
- reduction in
number of
parking spaces
LOCAL AND REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
1) land use
2) parking supply/demand
3) existing public transport
4) ratio of long to short
term parking
CONSEQUENTIAL
IMPACT-INTERFACE
BETWEEN BENEFITS
AND COSTS
4-5
-------
The impact on the CBD parker may be in the form of higher parking,
time, convenience, or accessibility costs. In the absence of price con-
trols, the limitation of the future number of public or private parking
spaces will cause the price of available parking to increase. This con-
dition may elicit the following responses in the CBD parker: he may
pay the higher parking cost; he may park in a peripheral lot, which will
probably be affected in price as well, and walk; he may choose another
mode of transportation; or he may find an alternate place to accomplish
the desired trip purpose. The first response has serious equity impli-
cations for low income auto owners since lower income groups are hardest
hit by price increases. Any increase in parking costs will be socially
regressive. The second and third responses have implications for higher
income groups which place greater value on time and convenience. The
fourth response has implications for the future viability of the CBD which
will be discussed below. Optimally, the consequential impact would be a
shifting of the CBD parker's mode of travel to either public transpor-
tation or carpooling. The status of the existing public transportation
system, improvements in the levels of service offered and carpool pro-r
grams would provide incentives for making such shifts.
Improvements in the levels of service of public transportation would
minimize the disruptive socio-economic impacts, and may also simultaneously
supply the demand of "captive riders," as well as, beginning to supply the
"latent demand" of the young and the elderly for public transportation.
Service improvements would improve the mobility and accessibility of these
groups characteristic of older CBD's and central cities.
Besides the individual costs mentioned above, the viability of the
CBD may also be impacted by opportunity costs or loss of potential retail
sales or commercial business. A probable impact of parking limitations
will be a shifting of the remaining spaces to long term use. The present
parking price structure is designed to favor regular, long term parking
uses. Since commuters generally arrive in the CBD first, more spaces
4-6
-------
will shift to long term use leaving fewer short term parking spaces for
shopping or business. In addition, the inelasticity of the home to work
trip may cause a shift to a lower ratio of non-commute/commute CBD trip
purposes. This may result in a loss of profits for the commercial and
retail establishments which are competing with their suburban counterparts.
Since the intent of parking management is to induce more travel by.non-
private auto uses, especially during peak commute periods, limitations of
parking supply have to be formulated carefully. If not, the reduced
supply will be largely used up by commuters at the expense of other poten-
tial users of the facilities. This could be avoided, for example, by
requiring facilities to remain closed until after the time commuters would
typically use them. Again, the socially disruptive impact here could be
minimized by improvements in public transportation.
Here the optimal consequential impact would be the shifting of commu-
ters to alternative modes of transportation and the enhancement of the
competitive position of the CBD by increasing public transport accessi-
bility and not impinging upon short term parking.
4-7
-------
4.3 GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF NEWARK
With the proliferation of suburbanization, Newark, like many tra-
ditional urban centers, has experienced a decline in population, manu-
facturing jobs and work force. Economic growth has been and will con-
tinue to be in the suburbs while urban centers probably will continue
to decline. Between 1960 and 1970, the number of Newark SMSA workers
employed in Newark declined from 170,205 to 137,209, while the total
number of SMSA workers increased from 666,051 to 744,421, mostly in
o
Morris County.
The post World War II process of decentralization was a result of
a number of interrelated factors, among which the freedom and mobility
provided by the automobile stand out most formidably. Combined with
other technological and economic changes, transportation changes
brought about by the automobile have aided the dispersion of jobs,
residences and services throughout the outer rings of metropolitan
3
areas at the expense of central cities.
Technological changes in production, transportation and communi-
cation have made outlying areas more attractive to manufacturing and
even white collar industries, while the central city has remained
attractive to the central office functions requiring face-to-face commu-
nication. In Newark, manufacturing employment declined from 97,000 in
1952 to 55,000 in 1972. These declines have been partially offset by
increases in employment in government (from 17,000 in 1952 to 31,000 in
1972), services (from 24,000 in 1952 to 40,000 in 1972), and transpor-
tation, communications and utilities (from 21,000 in 1952 to 27,000 in
1972). Finance, Insurance and Real Estate had relatively little change
in employment remaining at between 23,000 and 25,000 employees since
4
1952. However, the decline in the city's traditional industrial base
means that the city's jobs are increasingly less suited to the city's
labor force.
4-8
-------
Since, in general, people follow jobs, residential location has
also become dispersed. Population in central cities has declined as shown
for Newark and the Newark CBD in Table 4-3. Higher income and car owner-
ship have given many Americans the ability to choose a decentralized
residential location. Indications are that these trends will continue
because in addition to the movement of jobs, there exists fear of crime,
dissatisfaction with schools and services, pollution and a generally
negative image of the central city. In fact, a whole generation has
been raised on suburbia with no need for the central city.
Table 4-3
Population and Population Growth
1960 - 1970
Newark CBD
Newark
Newark SMSA
Popul
1960
12,914
405,220
1,689,420
ation
1970
7,749
382,417
1,356,556
Population
Change
- 5,165
-22,303
167,136
% Annual
Rate
-3.9
-0.6
1.0
Source: Reference 5.
Finally, as basic sector jobs and residential locations change, the
location of the retailing and service industries which serve them will
follow. The move of retailing to suburban locations was also aided by
technological changes in warehousing and shipping, not accomodated in
central cities. Newark CBD.retailing has been experiencing a slight ab-
solute decline in retail sales over the previous decade and a substantial
decline relative to total SMSA retail business.2
Despite the effects of decentralization, Newark still possesses a viable
central business district. As of 1970, the city supported 195,000 jobs. The
CBD, which is the largest focus of office employment in New Jersey, the second
4-9
-------
largest in the region, and about the fourteenth largest in the nation, sup-
ports 85,000 of these jobs. Approximately 50,000 office workers were employed
in the CBD in 1972 mostly in insurance and financial activity. Other office
uses include communications, utilities, services and government. It is es-
timated that during an average workday, downtown Newark is utilized by over
100,000 people: 85,000 workers plus students, shoppers and visitors. In
effect, this doubles Newark's daytime population and accounts for one of the
highest commuting rates in the country.
The future economic viability of the CBD will be a function of Newark's
ability to, conservatively, retain existing jobs, and optimistically, attract
new jobs in the CBD. The CBD is one of the main targets of potential growth
to achieve Newark's overall future goals of increased employment and income
generated by the city. According to the Newark Economic Development Committee,
by 1980 the CBD could lose about 20,000 jobs unless the city of Newark takes
some positive actions. If such actions are taken about 20,000 jobs could be
saved and another 20,000 added by 1980. The NEDC offers the following list
of CBD assests and liabilities and the areas which the committee feels need
immediate attention/
NEEDS
ASSET (+) IMMEDIATE
LIABILITY (-) ATTENTION
Access to labor +
Access to population +
Vehicle entry to downtown +
Parking +
Bus Service +
Rail access +
Airline access +
Land availability - X
Site preparations - X
Property taxes - X
Utilities +
Housing opportunities - X
Shopping opportunities +
Educational facilities +
Public safety - X
Environmental and aesthetic
quali ty - X
Ultimately, the future of the city and the CBD will be dependent upon the
alleviation of its fiscal burdens, poor housing, crime, high unemployment
and other problems.
4-10
-------
4.3.1 Profile of Newark Residents
The population of Newark has declined from 439,000 in 1950 to
405,000 in 1960 and to 382,000 in 1970 while the population of the
rest of the Newark SMSA has continued to increase. Between 1950 and
1970 the white population declined by approximately 54 percent from
363,000 to 168,000 and the non-white population increased by approxi-
mately 182 percent from 76,000 to 214,000. The white population con-
stituted approximately 83 percent of Newark's population in 1950 and
44 percent in 1970. The age - sex distribution in 1970 was character-
ized by a younger population and fewer males in relation to females.
The median years of school completed in 1970 was 10.0. In 1970, there
were 146,681 workers 16 years old and over in the city's civilian la-
bor force of which 137,134 were employed and 9,547 were not. The per-
cent of Newark's population in the labor force was 59.4 percent. The
unemployment rate for Newark residents was about 6.7 percent, 5.6 per-
cent for men and 7.8 percent for women. Of Newark's 137,134 workers
49 percent or 66,673 worked within the city itself and about 12 percent
or 16,283 worked within the CBD. The city of Newark has been identi-
fied by the U. S. Census as a low income area; the median income in
1970 was $7,735 and about 18.4 percent of all households had incomes
below the poverty level. This is substantially lower than the U. S.
median income in 1970 which was $9,867. Half of Newark's households
do not have access to an automobile so they must choose work places
accessible by public transportation. Thirty-seven percent of all resi-
dents take some form of public transportation to work. Besides work
trips, a large number of young and old "captive riders" exist who util-
2
ize public transportation.
4.3.2 Profile of Newark Central Business District Residents
The population of the Newark Central Business District declined
from 12,914 in 1960 to 7,749 in 1970.* The decline in population effected
* The census definition of the CBD (tracts 80, 81, 85) is larger than
the definition of the CBD study area used in this study.
4-11
-------
Male
4,492
27.3%
24.4%
35.5%
12.7%
Femal e
3,257
33.3%
30.1%
29.8%
6.9%
all age groups, especially 35-64 age group. In 1970, the population
distribution was characterized by a younger population with a larger
share being held by the under 19 age group and by the 20-34 age group.
Table 4-4
1970 CBD Residents
Total all ages
under 19
20 - 34
35 - 64
over 65
The median years of school completion ranged from 8.8 years in Tract 80
to 12.1 years in Tract 31. The median family income was particularly low
in the CBD, ranging from $5,258 in Tract 80 to $7,907 in Tract 81. The
proportion of families receiving incomes below the poverty level was gen-
erally higher than the city average, ranging from 15.4 % in Tract 81 to
24.1% in Tract 85. For Tract 80, nearly one out of four families received
public assistance or welfare in 1969. The percent of families earning
incomes in excess of $15,000 was 9.1% compared to 12.1% city-wide and 33%
in the SMSA.
In 1970, there were 3,664 workers 16 years old and over in the civil-
ian labor force of which 3,371 were employed. The percent of the CBD popu-
lation in the labor force was 62.2%, higher than either the city on.,the
SMSA average, largely because of the greater proportion of women residents
in the civilian labor force. The unemployment rate of CBD residents was
8.0% in April of 1970, again, higher than either the city or SMSA level.
Unemployment rates for women were particularly high, averaging 9.5% for the
4-12
-------
CBD, although in Census Tract 80, the rate reached 11.7%. Over half of
the CBD residents, 14 and over, are employed in the manufacturing, trade
and services industries. Another fifth were classified as "not reported"
in the 1970 Census, and the remaining were employed in finance, public
administration, construction and the transportation and communication-^
public utilities group. Approximately one-third of employed CBD resi-
dents are involved in "white collar" occupations i.e. professional,
managerial, clerical and sales; about 27% were employed in blue collar
trades, and 20% in the service and laborer categories.
Only 23% of the 3,140 CBD residents employed worked within the CBD.
Another 27% worked in the rest of the city and the remaining 50% worked
outside of the city. Of the total number of residents at work, over
35% listed bus or streetcar as the primary mode of transportation.
Almost 30% walked to work and 28% travelled to work by automobile. Only
3.6% indicated regular use of subway or railroad. The place of work and
mode of travel to work for CBD resident employees are shown below in
Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
1970 Journey-to-Work Patterns - CBD Residents6
(16 Years and Over)
Place of work
All Workers 3,140
to:
CBD 23.1%
Rest of City 27.7%
Rest of SMSA 16.5%
Outside SMSA 12.2%
Not reported 20.5%
Means of Transportation
All Workers 3,140
by:
Auto 28.1%
Bus/Streetcar 35.6%
Subway or Railroad 3.6%
Walked 29.4%
Worked at home or other 3.3%
4-13
-------
Nine out of ten CBD residents rent their living quarters and pay
an average of $101 per month. However, 19% of the units lack some
plumbing facilities, 14% lack adequate kitchen facilities and 28% live
in quarters with more than one person per room. These conditions com-
bined with declining in-migration rates help explain the high 11% vacancy
rate in the CBD.
4-14
-------
4.4 THE NEWARK CBD EMPLOYEE
Since the majority of Newark CBD employees are not Newark resj-
dents, a questionnaire was designed in order to gain a profile of all CBD
employees. A questionnaire survey was administered to the employees of
two large CBD employers. The questionnaires were designed to identify
important socio-economic characteristics of CBD employees such as income
distributions, age, sex, place of residence, mode of travel, travel time,
car ownership and attitudes toward both private and public transportation,*
The questionnaires were distributed to a random sample of em-
ployees at two large CBD employers. Information was requested on the
employee's trip to work on an average work day. Completed questionnaires
numbered 625, which represented a return rate of about 70 percent. The
survey was analyzed using BIOMED statistical programs. The inherent limi-
tations of the survey as representative of an employee population of.
85,000 people must be realized, therefore, no immutable conclusions are
drawn from it. However, it does provide some indicators of the characters
of the Newark CBD employee.
4.4.1 Major Findings of Newark CBD Employee Survey
(1) Public transportation was indicated as the principal mode
of travel to work by 58 percent of the respondents. The
most frequently cited reasons for using public transporta-
tion were that it was cheaper than auto, caused no parking
problems and no driving strain.
(2) The automobile was indicated as the principal mode of travel
to work by 41 percent of the respondents. Of these, 50 per-
cent traveled alone and 50 percent traveled with one or more
passengers. The most frequently cited reasons for utilizing
the automobile were that it was faster, .more dependable than
public transit, and that buses or trains ran too infrequently.
* A copy of the Newark CBD employee questionnaire is contained in Appendix B.
4-15
-------
(3) The respondents ranked the following incentives for en-
couraging the use of buses or trains as most effective
in order of effectiveness: first, more frequent service;
second, faster travel; third, cleaner and newer vehicles;
and fourth, lower fares.
(4) When asked about their attitudes toward certain parking
proposals the respondents indicated "time limits on all
on-street parking" and "reducing on-street parking" to
be the most acceptable. They indicated "restricting or
reducing off-street parking," "increasing cost of all
day parking," and "restricting downtown parking to car-
pools only," to be the most unacceptable in order of de-
clining acceptability.
(5) Approximately 54 percent of auto travelers indicated they
would use bus or train if parking became more than they
are willing to pay.
(6) Essex County was indicated as place of residence by 39
percent of the respondents, 19 percent in the City of
Newark itself and 20 percent in the rest of Essex County.
4.4.2 Detailed Findings of Newark CBD Survey
Modal Splif
About 58 percent of the respondents indicated that they used some
form of public transportation as their principal means of travel to work;
about 41 percent indicated they used the automobile and about one percent
walked.
Mode % of Respondents
Public Transportation 58
Automobile 41
Walk 1
Total Number of Respondents = 624
4-16
-------
Travel Time
About 46 percent of the respondents Indicated that it took
them 30 minutes or less to get to work, 38 percent spent between 30
minutes and one hour and 15 percent spent more than one hour traveling
to work.
^^of Respondents
^""^by Mode
Travel Time ^\
0-15
16-30
31-45
46-60
61-90
90+
Public
Transit
3
18
14
10
11
3
Auto
5
19
10
5
1
1
Walk
-------
Daily Cost of Public Transit Trip
Of the respondents who traveled to work by bus or train,'about
53 percent paid one dollar or less for a daily round trip, 37 percent
paid between one and two dollars, 6 percent paid between two and three
dollars and 4 percent paid more than three dollars.
Daily Cost of % of Respondents
Public Transit Trip
(dollars)
£ $ .50 2
.75 25
1.00 26
1.25 9
1.50 9
1.75 6
2.00 13
2.25 4
2.50 2
>_ 3.00 4
Total Number of Respondents =318
4-18
-------
Reason for Utilizing Public Transportation
The most frequently cited reasons for using either bus or train
to accomplish the work trip were: public transportation is cheaper than
auto, no parking problems, and no driving strain, each of-which was cited
by 50 percent or more of the respondents.* Only 15 percent indicated
they did not have driver's licenses. The respondents were asked to choose
among the list of reasons shown below.
Reason % of Respondents
Cheaper than Auto 53
No Parking Problems 53
No Driving Strain 51
Safer than Auto 28
Faster 20
No Driver's License 15
No Available Car at Home 15
No Car at Home 12
Other 12
Total Number of Respondents = 365
* Sum of percentages greater than 100
because of multiple answers.
Public Transit Convenience
About 92 percent of the respondents who traveled to work by bus
or train indicated that they found a seat.
Response % of Respondents
Yes 92
No 8
Total Number of Respondents = 357
4-19
-------
Attitudes Toward Bus or Train Service
About 77 percent of the respondents who took public transporta-
tion indicated that they had some dislikes about it. Specific respon-
ses are not listed because of their variety and the difficulty inherent
in categorizing them. However, these dislikes are reflected below under
transit incentives.
Transit Incentives
Respondents were asked to rank incentives for inducing modal
shifts towards public transit in order of effectiveness. A weighted
average measure of effectiveness was calculated from the responses
and indicated the following to be the most effective: first, more
frequent service; second, faster travel; third, cleaner and newer
vehicles; and fourth, lower fares.
Weighted
Incentives Average Rank
More frequent service 7.84 1
Faster Travel 7.07 2
Cleaner and Newer Vehicles 6.80 3
Lower Fares 6.79 4
Better security to assure
personal safety 5.40 5
Air-conditioned vehicles 5.39 6
Parking lots at stops
and stations 5.19 7
Shelters against bad
weather 4.95 8
Better located stops and
stations . 4.51 9
Other 4.06 10
Total Number of Respondents = 461
4-20
-------
Attitudes Toward Parking Proposals
The respondents were presented with five alternative parking
proposals. The proposals are ranked* below in order of declining
acceptability:
(1) time limits on all on-street parking
(2) reduction or elimination of on-street parking
(3) restriction or reduction of off-street parking
(4) increasing the cost of all-day parking
(5) restriction of CBD parking to carpools only
A majority of the respondents indicated the first two proposals [(1),
(2)] to be acceptable and the last three [(3), (4), (5)] to be unac-
ceptable. The distribution of responses by proposal is given below.
When the responses are broken down by mode, the attitudes toward the
parking proposals remained the same. However, the percentages of ac-
ceptable responses were generally lower and the percentages of unac-
ceptable responses were generally higher for auto travelers when com-
pared to public transit users. The ranking of the proposals also
changed slightly as exhibited below:
(1) time limits on all on-street parking
(2) reduction or elimination of on-street parking
(3) restriction or reduction of off-street parking
(4) restriction of CBD parking to carpools only
(5) increasing the cost of all-day parking
CBD auto travelers indicated that "increasing the cost of all-day park-
ing "was the most unacceptable proposal while the attitudes of CBD tran-
sit users corresponded to those of the employees .in general.
The actual questionnaire responses were either "very acceptable, some-
what acceptable, neither, somewhat unacceptable or very unacceptable"
(see questionnaire question 6 in Appendix ). These responses were
weighted 2, 1,0, -1, -2 respectively to compute the above ranking.
4-21
-------
I
ro
ro
35- of
Respondents
by Mode
by Parking
•s^roppsal
ResponseS*"*^^
Very
Acceptable
Somewhat
Acceptable
Neither
Somewhat
Unacceptable
Very
Unacceptable
PARKING PROPOSALS
Time Limits
on all on-street
parking
P.T.* Auto Total
19 11 30
13 8 21
13 10 23
5 5 11
5 10 15
On-street
parking reduced
or eliminated
P.T. Auto Total
15 10 25
15 7 22
10 9 19
8 6 14
9 11 20
Off-street
parking restricted
or reduced
P.T. Auto Total
7 3 10
11 4 15
11 7 18
11 9 20
17 19 37
Increase cost
of all -day
parking
P.T. Auto Total
5 <1 5
628
739
11 5 16
28 33 62
Downtown
parking for
carpools only
P.T. Auto Total
43 7
7 5 12
6 4 10
11 5 16
29 27 56
Total No.
of Respondents
(563)
(550)
(537)
(541)
(542)
* P.T. = Public Transit
-------
Place of Residence
The distribution of where the respondents live, the origins of
their work trip, are given below. Essex County was indicated as place
of residence by the greatest number of respondents. Of the 39 percent
who lived in Essex County, 19 percent lived in the city of Newark itself
and 20 percent lived in the rest of Essex County.
Residence % of Respondents
New Jersey
Essex 39
Union 13
Morri s 10
Hudson 10
Monmouth 8
Bergen ' 6
Middlesex 5
Passaic 4
Ocean 1
Mercer 1
Somerset 1
Sussex < 1
Burlington < 1
Hunterdon < 1
Warren < 1
New York < 1
Pennsylvania < 1
Total Number of Respondents = 568
4-23
-------
Accessibility to Bus or Train
Responses were divided almost equally among those who indicated
that they lived within three blocks of a bus or train stop and those who
indicated they did not. Interestingly, 49 percent of those who traveled
into the CBD by auto indicated that they lived within three blocks of a bus
or train stop.
Responses
Yes
No
Don't Know
% of Respondents
Public Transit
29
29
0
Auto
20
21
< 1
Total
49
50
< 1
Total Number of Respondents =615
Length of Residence
About 54 percent of the respondents indicated that they have lived
at their present address for five years or more.
Residence % of Respondents
< 6 months 7
6mon - 1 year 8
1 - 5 years 31
> 5 years 54
Total Number of Respondents = 625
4-24
-------
Plans to Relocate
About 63 percent of the respondents Indicated that they did not
plan to move from the county in which they presently reside within the
next three years, while 11 percent indicated that they did plan to move
and 26 percent did not know.
Response % of Respondents
Yes 11
No 63
Don't Know 26
Total Number of Respondents = 625
Car Ownership
Only about 7 percent of all the respondents did not own cars; 40
percent owned one car, 43 percent owned two cars and 10 percent owned
three or more cars. Of those respondents who indicated public transpor-
tation as their principal mode of travel to work, about 88 percent owned
at least one car.
Car Ownership % of Respondents
0
1
2
3+
Public Transit
6
25
22
4
Auto
1
14
20
6
Total
7
40
43
10
Total Number of Respondents =610
4-25
-------
The distribution of model years, are listed below:
Model Year % of Respondents
(1st car)
1975 < 1
1974 13
1973 16
1972 14
1971 12
1970 12
1969 9
1968 7
1967 5
1966 4
1965 4
1964 2
< 1963 1
Total Number of^Respondents = 572
Driver's License
Approximately 87 percent of the respondents indicated that they
had drivers' licenses and 13 percent indicated they did not. Of those
respondents who indicated public transit as their principal mode of travel
to work, 81 percent had drivers' licenses
Responses % of Respondents
Public Transit Auto Total
Yes
No
47
11
40
2
87
13
Total Number of Respondents = 609
4-26
-------
The age distributions seem pretty evenly matched when looking at the
percentages of total respondents. However, when examining the percen-
tages of respondents who used either public transit or automobile, the
age distribution changes. As can be seen in listing below, a higher
percentage of auto travelers are younger than public transit users.
Age
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-59 .
60 +
% of
Public Transit
Users
3
12
24
18
29
8
7
10TT
% of
Auto
Users
3
16
30
17
23
6
4
1UO
Marital Status
About 69 percent of the respondents were married and 31 percent
were single. These percentages remained approximately the same when
broken down by mode.
Marital Status % of Respondents
Public Transit Auto Total
Married 39 29 69
Single 18 13 31
Total Number of Respondents = 603
4-27
-------
Sex
The percentage of respondents who indicated their sex to be [Dale
was slightly lower than those who Indicated their sex to be female; 53
percent were female and 47 percent were male. These percentages remained
about the same when broken down by mode.
Sex % of Respondents
Public Transit Auto Total
Female
Male
31
28
22
19
53
47
Total Number of Respondents =614
Age Distribution
The highest percentages of respondents fell into the following age
groups. 27 percent in the 25 to 34 years category and 26 percent in the
45 to 54 years category.
Age
(years)
15-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-59
60+
% of Respondents
Public Transit Auto
1
7
14
10
17
4
4
1
7
13
7
9 .
3
2
Total
3
14
27
17
26
7
6
5842TOO
Total Number of Respondents =613
4-28
-------
Income
The majority of the respondents, 63 percent, had annual incomes of
$15,000 and greater. When broken down by mode, this remains true. How-
ever, the distribution of incomes under $15,000 changes with incomes of
auto users being higher.
Income
(dollars)
0-4,999
5,000-6,999
7,000-8,999
9,000-10,999
11,000-12,999
13,000-14,999
15,000 + .
% of Respondents
Public Transit Auto
1
4
6
4
4
3
37
1
1
4
5
2
3
20
Total
1
5
10
9
6
6
63
Total Number of Respondents = 573
The percentage of transit users with annual family incomes under $7,000
was 8 percent compared to 2 percent of auto travelers as shown below.
Income
0-4,999
4,000-6,999
7,000-8,999
9,000-10,999
11,000-12,999
13,000-14,999
15,000 +
% of
Transit
Users
1
7
10
7
6
5
63
% of
Auto
Users
1
1
9
11
6
8
63
Total Number of Respondents = 573
4-29
-------
4.4.3 The Newark CBD Parker - Detailed Findings
As indicated in the previous section, 41 percent of the CBD em-
ployees surveyed arrived in the CBD by automobile. About 50 percent of
those were members of carpools. The following findings of the Newark CBD
Employee Survey are those relating specifically to those respondents,
commuting by automobile.
Reason for Using the Automobile
The most frequently cited reasons for utilizing the automobile
were: car is faster, more dependable, and bus or train run top in-
frequently, cited by 65, 47 and 29 percent of the respondents, respecr
tively.*
Reason . % of Respondents
Car is faster 65
Car is more dependable 47
Bus or Train run infrequently 29
Transit stop too far from home 26
Car or carpool available 26
Car is cheaper 26
Other 26
Need car after work 24
Free parking at work 18
Car is safer 15
Need car for work 15
Hate fixed schedules 12
Can always park on-street 6
Transit schedules too confusing 6
Low cost parking at work 2
Total Number of Respondents = 272
* Sum of precentages greater than 100
because of multiple answers.
4-30
-------
Car Occupancy
Of the respondents who traveled to work by car, 50 percent indi-
cated they drove alone, 26 percent with one passenger, 12 percent with
two passengers, 9 percent with three passengers and less than 4 percent
with four or more passengers.
Car Occupancy % of Respondents
(persons)
1 50
2 26
3 12
4 9
5 3
>_ 6 < 1
Total Number of Respondents =273
Where Car Was Parked
About 59 percent of auto travelers indicated that they parked at
independent off-street lots or garages, 23 percent indicated they parked
at a company owned lot and 8 percent parked on the street.
Responses % of Respondents
On Street 8
Company Owned Lot 23
Independent Lot or Garage 59
Other . 10
Total Number of Respondents = 272
4-31
-------
Parking Cost
The average total parking cost per car incurred by CBD auto
travelers was $1.60 per day and ranged from $.25 to $2.27 per day.
Personal parking costs for solo auto drivers averaged $1.49 per day.
Personal parking costs for carpool members averaged $.74 per day. The
average parking rates for the Newark CBD in general are given below
in Table 6-6.
Table 4-6
Parking Rates Newark CBD
Range
Average
(dollars)
1/2 hour
1
2
3
4
5
Max
Monthly
.45
.60
.90
1.20
1.50
1.50
1.50
25.00
- .65
- 1.30
- 2.10
- 2.30
- 3.90
- 4.80
- 7.00
-44.35
.62
.86
1.37
1,76
2.08
2.19
2.46
33.19*
* 33.19/22 working days = 1.50 per day
Source: Newark Parking Authority
Tolerance to Parking Cost Increase
The greatest amounts parkers were willing to pay before they
would switch to an alternative mode of transportation ranged from $.45
to $9.99 and averaged $1.92 per day. Of those auto travelers who drove
alone, 10 percent presently pay nothing for parking and indicate they
will pay nothing for parking; 24 percent who presently pay are not willing
to pay more; and 21 percent who presently park free indicated a willingness
4-32
-------
to pay between $.45 and $2.00 per day or an average of $1.18 per day
for parking. The remaining 45 percent who presently pay for parking
indicated a willingness to pay an average of about 90 percent more for
parking.
Of those auto travelers who were members of carpools, 10 per-
cent presently pay nothing for parking and indicate they will pay
nothing for parking; 29 percent who presently pay are not willing to pay
more; and 25 percent who presently park free indicated a willingness to
pay between $.50 and $3.50 per day or an average of $1.78 per day fpr
parking. The remaining 36 percent who presently pay for parking indica-
ted a willingness to pay an average of about 114 percent more for park-
ing.
These results are to be expected since the average carpooler pays
about half as much ($.74) for parking as the average solo driver ($1.49).
Since CBD parkers pay different base prices for parking it was not possi-
ble to estimate the elasticity of demand for parking. However, assuming
CBD parkers act the way they say they will and the average cost of parking
goes up to $1.75 per day, then approximately 39 percent of the respondents
who drove alone and indicated tolerances for price increase would switch
modes. If the average price of parking went up to $2.00 per day about
about 49 percent of this group would switch modes and if it went up to
$3.00 per day about 84 percent would switch. These hypotheses must be
viewed with caution, however, since the demand for parking for work trips
has been shown in other studies to be inelastic.
4-33
-------
Changes Induced by Increased Parking Costs
If presented with a situation where parking became more than one
is willing to pay, about 54 percent of the respondents indicated that
they would take a bus or train, 17 percent indicated they would join a
carpool and 8 percent indicated they would look for a job where parking
was cheaper.
Responses % of Respondents
Join a Carpool 17
Take Bus or Train 54
Look for a Job with
Cheaper Parking 8
Other 21
Total Number of Respondents =216
4-34
-------
4.5 THE NEWARK CBD EMPLOYER
An attempt to identify the potential impact of parking manage-
ment strategies on the economic future of the CBD was carried out via a
second questionnaire. This questionnaire was distributed to the major
CBD employers and was designed to identify characteristics such as:
employer's attitudes toward parking, parking management strategies, and
the effects they may have on their business, if any.*
The CBD employer questionnaire was distributed to 22 major CBD
employers as identified by the Greater Newark Chamber of Commerce. Major
employers were those employing 200 persons or more and ranged from 200 to
3800 persons. Sixteen responses were received, a return rate of approx-
imately 73 percent. The responding employers employed a total pf about
18,000 employees.
The responses were distributed among the following employment
categories:
banking, finance, insurance 7
general office 1
engineering 1
utility 2
education 2
post office 1
retailing 2
TF
4.5.1 Major Findings of Newark CBD Employer Survey
(1) In general, Newark CBD employers consider their parking
supply to be important. They linked parking to their
employment, student enrollment; and business opportunities.
* A copy of the Newark CBD employer questionnaire is contained in Appendix B.
4-35
-------
(2) Almost all of the employers responding, 94 percent, indicated
that they do not intend to move out of the Newark CBD within
the next five years.
(3) The majority of employers, 87 percent, felt favorably about
carpools.
(4) The majority of the employers, 80 percent, indicated that
reduced traffic congestion would have a positive effect on
their businesses. Most noteworthy were the CBD retailers
who indicated that reduced traffic congestion would help
their competitive position with suburban centers.
4.5.2 Detailed Findings of the Newark CBD Employer Survey
Employee Parking Provided by Employer
Of the employers responding, 19 percent indicated that they pro-
vide parking for all of their employees, 31 percent provided parking for
some of their employees and 50 percent provided no parking.
Response % of Respondents
Provide parking for all employees 19
Provide parking for some employees 31
Do not provide parking 50
Total Number of Respondents = 16
Of the employers who provide some form of parking for their employees, 50
percent provide parking at a company lot or garage, 25 percent provide
parking at a contracted lot or garage and 25 percent provide parking at
both. Of these employers, 50 percent provide free parking, and 50 percent
charged costs ranging from $.45 to $2.00 per day or an average of $1.03 per
day. Of the employers who provide limited parking or do not provide park-
ing for their employees, 31 percent indicated that their employees who can't
use company spaces park on the street or at a commercial lot or garage, and
69 percent indicated that these employees parked at commercial lots or
garages only.
4-36
-------
numbers of existing commuting drivers were given for "yes" answers. Rea-
sons given for "no" answers were that the city has other major problems
besides parking and that the city has an excellent public transit system
(Total Number of Respondents = 16). About 56 percent of the employers
considered their parking supply to be very important, 31 percent Important,
6 percent not at all important.
Employers' Attitudes Toward Traffic Congestion
Of the 15 employers responding, 80 percent indicated that reduced
traffic congestion would affect their business in a positive way and ?0
percent indicated it would not. The reasons cited for a "yes"
answer could be summarized as convenience for auto commuters and existing
or potential customers.
Employers' Future Plans
Of all the employers responding (Total Number of Respondents =16),
94 percent indicated that they would not move out of downtown Newark within
the next five years, while 6 percent were uncertain. The majority of e,m-
ployers, 75 percent, have been located in downtown Newark for ten years or
more. About 57 of the employers responding (14) indicated that their em-
ployment will in the future expand, 7 percent indicated it will decline and
36 percent indicated it will remain the same.
Employers Attitudes Toward Parking Proposals
The attitudes of the CBD employers surveyed toward five different
parking proposals are given .below. Basically all but on-street parking
time limits received a negative response. In summary, 20 percent of the
employers indicated that a time limit on all on-street parking in the QBD
would negatively affect their business while 73 percent indicated that it
would not; 73 percent indicated that a reduction or elimination of on-
street parking would negatively affect their business while 27 percent
4-37
-------
indicated it would not; 71 percent indicated that restrictions on the
number and size of off-street parking lots would negatively affect their
business while 14 percent indicated it would not; 73 percent indicated
that cost increases for all-day parking would negatively affect their
business while 7 percent indicated it would not; and 3 percent indicated
that allowing persons in carpools only to park downtown would negatively
affect their business while 7 percent indicated it would not.
% of Respondents
Response
Yes No
20 73
73 27
71 14
73 7
93 7
Total Number
Don't Know of Respondents
7 (15)
0 (15)
14 (14)
20 (15)
0 (15)
Time limit on all on-street
parking in CBD
On-street parking reduced or
eliminated in CBD
Number or size of off-street
parking lots restricted to
present size or reduced
An increase in the cost of
all day parking for off-
street facilities and
on-street parking
Persons in carpools are the
only ones allowed to park
in CBD
Employee Income Breakdown
The employers responding (11) indicated that their employee income
breakdown was as follows: approximately 19 percent made less than $8,QOO
per year, 52 percent made between $8,000 and $14,999 per year and 29 per-
cent made $15,000 or more per year. (Note that this breakdown is not di-
rectly comparable to the family income breakdown obtained from the employee
questionnaire.)
4-38
-------
Employers' Attitudes Toward Carpooling
Of all the employers responding, 87 percent felt favorably about
carpools and 13 percent felt unfavorably (Total Number of Responses = 15).
31 percent of the employers indicated that they do have a carpooling policy
and 69 percent indicated that they do not (Total Number of Responses = 16).
Interestingly, only 38 percent of the employers who felt that carpooling
was a good idea did have carpooling policies. The type of services pro-
vided by the employers who indicated they have carpooling programs are
listed below:
Response % of Respondents
Priority in parking space assignment 20
Advertisement and Promotion of 80
Carpools
Matching System 40
Share costs 20
Total Number of Respondents = 5
Visitor Parking Provided by Employer
Parking was provided for visitors or customers by 38 percent of
the employers responding.(Total Number of Respondents = 16). Of the 62
percent who do not provide parking for visitors or customers, 50 percent
indicated that their customers park either on the street or at commercial
lots or garages, 40 percent indicated that they parked at commercial lots or
garages only and 10 percent on the street only.
Employers' Attitudes Toward Parking Supply
About 81 percent of the employers indicated that changes in available
parking would affect their business and 19 percent indicated it would not.
Reasons of employment, student enrollment, customer convenience and the
4-39
-------
4.6 SUMMARY OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PARKING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
ON THE NEWARK CBD
The ultimate objective of parking management strategies is to reduce
vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in the central business district and thereby
alleviate air quality problems, particularly that of carbon monoxide. Parking
management strategies are part of an overall transportation control plan,
and as such, should not be viewed in isolation. As is the case with other
vehicle restraint strategies, parking management strategies must be comple-
mented by public transit improvements if actual VMT reductions are to be
achieved. The improvement of public transportation which is probably the
most efficient strategy for the long run alleviation of air quality problems,
is also consistent with the goals of the N.J. Master Plan for Transportation^0
and long run national energy concerns. Should the effects of the predicted
"energy crisis" be realized, the freedom of movement of the automobile may
be severely curtailed in the future. This may represent the greatest incen-
tive for modal choice decisions away from the private automobile in favor of
public transportation. Parking management strategies are also complemented
by EPA's carpooling strategies for the Newark CBD which require employers
providing 400 parking spaces or more to develop mass transit incentive programs.
The benefits of parking management strategies will accrue to those living
and working in the CBD. Viewed in isolation, parking management strategies
would result in parking price increases and trip disincentives. However,
viewed in light of the existing and potentially improved public transit system
in Newark, EPA's carpooling strategies and long term energy concerns, the
consequential socio-economic impacts of parking management strategies are
expected to be minimal. Though the consequential impacts cannot be exactly
quantified or predicted in a complex social, economic and political environ-
ment, three areas of potential impact are summarized below.
The socio-economic impact of parking management strategies on the Newark
CBD parker may be in the form o,f higher time, convenience or monetary costs.
The Newark CBD Employee Survey results indicate that about 42 percent of the
respondents travel to work by car and about half of these drive alone. The
4-40
-------
results indicate that the time cost of shifting from private automobile to
public transit may be between 25 and 33 percent additional average travel
time. Though the survey showed no significant differences between travel
times of solo drivers and carpoolers, it will probably take the CBD employee
who shifts from solo driving to carpooling slightly longer to get to work as
well. Convenience costs may be incurred in. getting to a bus or train stop
instead of an automobile. However, 49 percent of the respondents who traveled
to work via auto indicated that they lived within three blocks of a bus or
train stop. Time and convenience costs will have a more severe impact on
higher income travelers who place more value on their time. The survey
results indicate that a majority of auto travelers (and CBD employees in
general) have family incomes of $15,000 per year and over.
Should the future supply of parking be limited in some way, the price
of parking will probably rise. Though one cannot be sure of the magnitude
of a price increase, the survey results indicate that the majority of CBD
auto travelers had family incomes of $15,000 per year or greater, Increased
parking costs will have a less severe impact on this income group than
on lower income groups. However, 23 percent of CBD auto travelers had
family incomes of under $12,000 per year. Using a hypothetical increase
in average daily parking cost from $1.45 to $1.75, the tolerance levels of
CBD parkers indicated that about 39 percent of solo auto drivers may be
willing to switch to either carpooling or public transit. About 54 per-
cent of the CBD parkers surveyed indicated that they would take a bus or
train if parking became more than they were willing to pay while only 8
percent indicated they would seek employment elsewhere. Improvements in
the levels of service offered by public transportation will help alleviate
the time and convenience costs. However, it should be noted that these
costs may in the future become incorporated into a changing lifestyle in
light of the predicted energy problem.
The socio-economic impact on CBD residents and employees may be in the
form of air quality, accessibility and mobility benefits. The benefits of
reduced traffic congestion and improved air quality will accrue to those
living and working in the Newark CBD. These two groups, as well as the
city of Newark in general, stand to benefit from transit improvements. The
4-41
-------
Newark CBD Employee survey Indicated that about 58 percent of the respondents
take some form of public transportation to work. The general socio-economic
profiles of Newark and the Newark CBD show that these are low-income areas
with high propensities of transit usage. In the city of Newark, about 37
percent of the residents use some form of public transportation to get to
work. Improvements in public transportation would increase the mobility
and accessibility of low income captive riders as well as that of the young
and the elderly. It is doubtful that the central city population alone would
generate the demand for such service improvements. The fact that improve-
ments are needed is brought out in the survey results which indicated that
77 percent of the public transit users noted dislikes about the public transit
system and the infrequency of service was marked as one of the reasons why
people drive into the CBD. The results indicated the following incentives
as the most effective in encouraging the use of buses and trains: more fre-
quent service, faster travel, cleaner and newer vehicles and lower fares.
The socio-economic impacts of parking management strategies on the future
viability of the CBD may be in the form of opportunity costs. Lost retail
sales or business opportunities may result from the displacement of the CBD
off-peak visitor by higher parking costs or by commuters preempting visitors
in the utilization of parking facilities. However, the potential opportunity
cost in lost retail sales is alleviated somewhat by the following three local
conditions in Newark. First, the supply of parking at the present time appears
adequate for the CBD. Second, the CBD is adequately served by public trans-
portation. Third, the peak shopping hours are between 11:30 A.M. and 2:00 P.M.
Q
Monday through Friday, which exhibits the fact that CBD employees are the
major supporters of the retail establishments. Parking rates in the Newark
CBD favor the long term parker and the majority of the parking clientele are
commuters. Estimates of the percentage of total parking spaces used by com-
muters range as high as 75 percent.
However, the relative and absolute decline of retail sales is one of the
Newark CBD's many problems and it may be argued that CBD retailing needs no
negative impacts no matter how slight in order to compete with suburban shop-
ping centers. Visitor parking can be protected, at least to a certain degree,
4-42
-------
for example, by keeping garages closed until after peak commute hours, by
reserving space for visitor parking, or by allowing special rates for shoppers
with proof of a shopping trip.
The future of Newark CBD retailing and the economic viability of the CBD
in general will be a function of the city's ability to retain its existing
employment and increase its future employment. The Newark CBD Employee Sur-
vey results indicated that less than two percent of the employees surveyed
would look for a job elsewhere if parking became two expensive. Although the
Newark CBD Employer Survey indicated that, in general, CBD employers considered
their parking to be important, it does not appear to be a very significant
factor in the future of the CBD. This is evidenced by the fact that in the
face of an adequate parking supply, CBD employers still offer their employees
additional incentives for working downtown such as higher salaries, free
lunches and travel stipends. About 94 percent of the employers responding
indicated that they did not intend to move out of the CBD within the next
five years.
CBD retailers responding to the Employer Survey indicated that reduced
congestion and air pollution would have positive impacts on their business
and would increase their attractiveness, sales and competitive position with
suburban centers in general. Parking management strategies also contribute to
creating a better environment and a more positive image for the city.
As exhibited by these three areas of impact, parking management strate-
gies will impact different segments of the CBD population unevenly. The
severity of the socio-economic impacts in each area will depend upon how the
strategies are implemented. The availability of alternative modes of trans-
portation and the nature of the parking supply are future conditions of major
import. It is believed that the flexibility contained within the scope of the
regulations will allow local planners aided by public participation to mini-
mize the disruptive socio-economic impacts as well as provide for the parking
needs of the city.
4-43
-------
4.7 REFERENCES
1. For a general discussion of the socio-economic impacts of trans-
portation control strategies see: TRW, Transportation and Envi-
ronmental Operations. Socig-Economic Impacts of the Proposed
State Transportation Control Plans: An Overview (November 1973).
2. Newark Division of City Planning, Newark Transportation & Growth
(October, 1973).
3. It is not the purpose of this chapter to discuss in depth the
process and forces affecting suburbanization. For a good discus-
sion of the process, it's relationship to transportation and the
viewpoints of noted urbanologists on the future of the central
city, see:
Hughes, James W. ,(ed). Suburbanization Dynamics and the Future of
the City, New Brunswick, New Jersey:Center for Urban Policy Re-
search, Rutgers University, 1974.
Also see:
Meyer, Kain, Wohl, The Urban Transportation Problem. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Armstrong, Regina Belz. The Office Industry: Patterns of Growth
and Location - A Report of the Regional Plan Association.Cam-
bridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1972.
4. Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. Economic Development Frame-
work for the City of Newark, New Jersey. Washington, D.C.(June
1973).
5. U. S. Department of Commerce. 1960 Census of Population and Hous-
ing - Newark, New Jersey. Washington, D. C. :U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1972.
6. Port Authority of N. Y. & N. J. An Economic Audit of the Central
Business and Ironbound Districts of Newark, New Jersey. Planning
and Development Department (July 1973).
7. Survey recently conducted by the Greater Newark Chamber of Commerce
on staggered working hours in the CBD (1974).
8. TRW, Transportation and Environmental Operations. Photochemical
Oxidant Control Strategy Development for Southeast Texas Air Quality
Control Region (September, 1973).
4-44
-------
9. Information obtained from the Greater Newark Chamber of Commerce.
10. N. J. Department of Transportation. A Master Plan for Transpor-
tation. 1972.
11. Federal Register. Vol. 39, p. 19779 (June 4, 1974).
12. Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. Regional Transit 1990 (April
1972).
13. Tri-State Transportation Commission. The Region's Unique Rapid
Transit System - In Newark, Technical Bulletin Volume IV, Number
2 March 1968.
4-45
-------
5.0 ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
This section of the report briefly describes methods that are
being used to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in different sec-
tions of the country. Some of these methods are direct responses to EPA's
promulgated Transportation Control Plans, and some others are methods that
had been previously used in an effort to increase the efficiency of traffic
flow and the carrying person-capacity of existing facilities.
Although interrelations exist in the methods, three separate sec-
tions will be considered:
• Improvement in transit service operations;
• Preferential treatment for buses and high
occupancy vehicles; and
• Car pool and van pool programs.
5.1 IMPROVEMENTS IN TRANSIT OPERATIONS
This section deals with operations of the transit system without
changes in the operation of freeways and streets being used by the system.
Frequency of service is the variable most frequently reported to
be the most important factor considered by transit users. By increasing
the frequency of service, the headways between vehicles are reduced as are
the waiting times at bus stops. The effect will be an increase in transit
use. However, no exact relationship exists, making it extremely difficult
to predict the effect of a given improvement. In most cases, improved ser-
vice requires an increase in rolling stock, which, in turn, calls for capital
disbursements in nearly bankrupt systems. The Urban Mass Transportation
Assistance Act of 1974 (UMTAA) addresses this problem and provides funds for
this type of program.
Travel time is another variable highly important to transit users.
Auto drivers will change modes much more readily, if their door to door
travel time is reduced. Express buses and buses with limited stops are
5-1
-------
the means most widely used to cut down the travel time by bus. Other
methods, which involve changes of regulations in the street network
operation, are considered in Section 5.2.
Fare reductions and fare-free transit are methods that have been
tried in different areas of the country in an effort to reduce the number
of auto trips to downtown areas. Atlanta, San Diego and Cincinnati, among
others, have tried reducing fares with different levels of success, but a
net increase in ridership has resulted, in each instance.
Fare-free transit has been tried in Boston, Massachusetts. The
results showed that a 14% reduction in auto work trips would result, but
little diversion to transit from auto would occur for shopping trips. The
effect on parking was very significant, since each space left open by an
auto driver to work left an average of 3.4 spaces open for other trip pur-
poses, which have higher turnovers per space. Estimates were made of 4.5
and 3.0 percent reductions in auto emissions for the morning and evening
rush periods, respectively.
UMTAA provides 20 million dollars in each of the fiscal years ending
June 30 of 1975 and 1976, for demonstration projects in fare reduction and
fare-free transit. The modal shifts, reduction in auto trips and level of
vehicle emissions will be closely observed. A better understanding of the
effects of these methods might result.
Many other improvements have been proposed for transit systems:
bus stop shelters; more attractive and comfortable buses; cross town routes;
etc. Although these improvements are important and might affect the rider-
ship level of transit systems, no major shift from auto to transit is to be
expected from these changes, alone.
5.2 PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR BUSES AND HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLES
Preferential treatment for buses and car pools on freeways, ramps
and city street networks has been implemented either on an experimental
5-2
-------
or permanent basis in different sections of the country. The main objec-
tive of these techniques is to reduce the travel time of vehicles that
meet certain qualifications. Research has shown that, to some extent,
buses and car pools are competitive. Preferential bus treatment may, as
a side effect, reduce the number of car pool users and visa versa. Some
preferential treatment techniques are briefly discussed below.
• Separation of high-occupancy vehicles has been
ensured by constructing separate roadbeds for
these vehicles. The San Bernardino and Shirley
busways, leading to Los Angles and Washington,
D.C., respectively, are examples of this tech-
nique. The high cost involved in the constru-
ction of a separate facility might be a deter-
rent to a generalized use.
• Contra-flow lanes for buses have been also used.
In this technique, one lane of traffic is reser-
ved for bus use in the off-peak direction. Safety
considerations have led to the use of this tech-
nique for buses only. The method has been used in
Marin County, California, on the Southeast Express-
way in Boston, by the City of New York on the Long
Island Expressway, and on the New Jersey approach
to the Lincoln Tunnel.
• Preferential entry at metered on-ramps has been also
used. The metering allows only a fixed volume of
vehicles to enter the freeway upstream of bottle-
neck locations and this flow is controlled by a
traffic signal. Buses are allowed to bypass the
traffic waiting at the signal and enter the free-
way without delay. Carpools have also been allowed
to do the same thing, but the number of violations
of the signals has increased in some cases.
• The reduction of delays has also been accomplished
through the use of exclusive lanes upstream of
bottleneck locations. This method permits buses
to use exclusive lanes when approaching an established
bottleneck, by-passing the existing long queues and
delays. Use of freeway shoulders as peak period bus
lanes has been suggested. The method could be used in
corridors with relatively low bus volumes.
• Exclusive use of city street lanes by buses in con-
gested areas is another method used to avoid delays.
San Juan and Washington, D.C. are examples of cities
using this method.
5-3
-------
5.3 CAR AND VAN POOLING PROGRAM
Sections 5.1 and 5.2 discussed methods that have been used to reduce
the demand for auto trips and parking, and of the effect on vehicle emissions.
Application of these techniques, however, is in most cases out of reach of
applicants for new parking facilities and even the reviewing agencies. This
section deals with methods that are more viable for implementation by the
applicant or the reviewing agency.
Car and van pooling activities have been encouraged recently by the
increasing concern on air quality, the gasoline shortage and gas price
levels. Carpooling has been looked upon as a short-term relief to the
daily commuting problem, by providing available seating space otherwise not
used.
It has been established that a 30 percent increase in auto occupancy
could bring a 22 percent reduction in VMT with the associated effect on
traffic congestion, travel speeds, fuel consumption, and CO and hydrocarbon
emissions.
Successful programs have been reported by the U.S. Department of
Transportation and National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Washin-
gton, D.C., with auto occupancies of 2.5 and 3.85 respectively. Private
employers have also undertaken successful programs. Texas Instruments, in
Dallas, has increased the auto occupancy of its employees from 1.20 in
October of 1973 to 1.64 in April 1974; and Hallmark Cards in Kansas City,
Missouri, saw its three-man carpool increase in number from 132 to 258
after a pooling program was initiated in early 1973.
Three phases compose a comprehensive pooling program:
a) Carpool Matching: This phase requires name of applicants,
addresses, work time, destination and other data that can be of importance
to the users. The Federal Highway Administration has a computer program
that provides locator services. Use of this, or similar programs, is
recommended for groups exceeding 200 persons.
5-4
-------
b) Public Information: A proper promotion of the carpool pro-
gram is very useful. Considerations such as time, cost, convenience,
environment and energy, should be stressed in this phase of the process.
Announcements on local news media and by interested employees are alsp
very helpful.
c) Incentives: Combined with the public information, special
incentives could be provided if at all possible. Special parking privi-
leges have been the most sucessfully used incentive. It has been done in
two ways:
a) Assigning parking space only to the largest carpools,
where spaces are limited; and
b) Assigning priority parking areas to carpools, where spaces
are in abundance.
Once a carpool program is started, a continuing updating process
should begin too. This way the existing vacancies might be filled out, or
prospective carpoolers will know when vacancies occur in convenient pools.
Master files and periodic listings in convenient locations can be used for
this purpose.
The Federal Highway Administration makes readily available its com-
puter matching program with explanatory information about it. A similar
program is offered by the New Jersey Department of Transportation to both
businesses and municipalities.
Applicants covered by the EPA review process should be made aware of
the possible decrease in parking spaces by implementing a car pool program.
This program is of special interest to applicants for private garages, since
the coordination of employees can be easier.
EPA has recognized the benefits involved in improved transit usage
and carpooling. In the New Jersey Transportation Control Plan, Section
52.1590, paragraph (c) as amended on June 4, 1974, the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency mandates that:
5-5
-------
"(c) Each employer in the Regions who maintains 400 employee parking
spaces at any of his facilities shall submit to the Administrator, on or
before July 1, 1974, an adequate transit incentive program for that faci-
lity designed to encourage the use of mass transit and carpooling by his
employees. The employer's program should contain the mix of incentive or
disincentive provisions most likely to obtain maximum use of carpooling and
mass transit so as to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Some incentive
examples are: Subsidies to employees using mass transit, preferential park-
ing or other benefits for those who travel in carpools, provision of special
charter or employer buses to and from mass transit stops and formal infor-
mation systems so that employees can select optimum carpool arrangements.
Some examples of disincentive provisions are: Reduction in employee parking
spaces, surcharges on use of parking spaces for single passenger drivers and
non-preferential parking for single passenger drivers."
The same section provides that the employers report on a semi-annual
basis the number of employees commuting to and from work by single passenger
automobile, carpool and mass transit. The Administrator can, at any time,
revoke the approval of an employer's plan; and if after two months of the
revocation the employer has not provided an acceptable plan, the Administra-
tor will prescribe the transit incentive program for the affected employer.
5-6
-------
APPENDIX A
PARKING MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
-------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 39 • Number 164
PART 111
ENVIRONMENTAL
AGENCY
PARKING MANAGEMENT
' REGULATIONS
Proposed Rules
No. 164—Pt. in—1
-------
30440
PROPOSED BUIES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
. [40 CFR Part S2 ]
IFRL 252-5]
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Proposed Amendments to Parking
Management Regulations
Between November 6 and December 12,
3973, the Environmental Protection
Agency, acting under court order, pro-
mulgated or approved transportation
control plans for 30 major urban areas
as part of the State Implementation
Plans. These transportation plans are
designed to help provide the necessary
control of photochemical oxidants
(smog) and carbon monoxide required
under the Clean Air Act for attainment
of National Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards established to protect the public
health and welfare. Many of these trans-
portation control plans include a man-
agement of parking supply regulation
which requires explicit consideration of
air quality Impacts before construction
of certain specified new parking facilities
can proceed. Today, the Administrator is
proposing amendments to these'regula-
tions which provide clarifications and
slight modifications necessary for their
successful implementation.
The areas having management of
parking supply regulations covered by
•these amendments include:
Alaska:
Fairbanks Area
Arizona:
Phoenix Area
Tucson Area
California:
Fresno and San Joaquln Valley Area
Los Angeles Area
Sacramento Valley Area
San Diego Area
Ban Francisco Area
District of Columbia Interstate Area:
Washington, D.C:
Maryland Suburbs
Virginia Suburbs
Maryland:
Baltimore Area
(Suburbs of D.C. listed under D.C. Inter-
state)
' Massachusetts:
Boston Area
New Jersey:
Suburbs of New York City
New Jersey Suburbs of Philadelphia (Cam-
den, Trenton)
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia Area
Pittsburgh Area
Texas:
Houston
Virginia:
(Suburbs of D.C. listed under D.C. Inter-
state)
Four additional areas which have
parking management regulations set
forth either by the State or EPA are not
covered by the amendments being pro-
posed today. These include: Denver,
Colorado; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle
and Spokane, Washington. Parking man-
agement regulations for Denver and
Portland are already included In ap-
proved State Implementation Plans. The
proposed regulatory modifications do not
apply to Seattle and Spokane because the
State is actively developing its own pro-
cedures which, if approved, would remove
the need for any EPA involvement (Sec-
tion 39 FR 26, 167 (July 17, 1072)).
The original transportation control
plans called for the management of park-
ing supply regulations to become effec-
tive no later than January 19.74. However,
in December of 1973 the Emergency En-
ergy bill passed by both Houses of the
Congress granted the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency the
authority to suspend the parking review
requirements until January 1, 1975.
Though the bill did not become law at
that time, the Administrator regarded It
as firm Congressional guidance on.the
parking management issue. Conse-
quently, the Administrator deferred the
effective date for Implementation of
these regulations until January 1, 1975.
This action was taken on January 5,
1974 (39 PR 1848). The Energy Supply
and Environmental Coordination Act of
1974 which was signed into law on June
22, 1974 (Pub. L. 93-319) retained the
predecessor bill's language concerning
the effective date of the management of
parking supply regulations.
The Administrator is today taking
three general actions to clarify and aid
in the implementation of these regula-
tions :
. (1) This proposal provides additional
clarification of the relationship between
the management of parking supply and
the Indirect source regulations. The clar-
ifications elaborate upon the revisions to
the Indirect source regulations set forth
in the July 9, 1974 FEDERAL REGISTER (39
FR 25292). The July 9 REGISTER notices
explained that" in areas where a parking
management regulation promulgated by
EPA is in effect, review of applicable
facilities will be performed under park-
ing management regulations rather than
under the indirect source regulations.
(2) In this notice of proposed rule-
making, the Administrator is proposing
several amendments to the existing park-
ing management regulations. The pur-
pose of these amendments is to clarify
possible ambiguities in the existing reg-
ulations, to encourage State and local
administration of programs under these
regulations, to provide greater flexi-
bility to applicants, and to assure con-
sistency between the procedural require-
ments of Indirect source and parking
management regulations.
(3) An appendix is also being proposed
by the Administrator to provide guide-
lines for the conduct of parking facility
review and to explain the potential func-
tion of a local areawide parking manage-
ment plan. The appendix provides alter-
native methods for meeting the require-
ments of the existing regulations and
specifies procedures to be followed by
applicant and reviewer in complying
with the federally promulgated review
of new parking facilities:
The basic purpose of these proposed
changes is to provide a clear picture of
the new parking facility application re-
quirements and the criteria by which an
application under the management of
parking supply regulations will be
judged; to provide maximum possible
flexibility to the potential owner/opera-
tor of a parking facility while not com-
promising the effectiveness of these
parking review requirements In terms of
air quality objectives; and to encourage
local areas to develop their own parking
management plans to replace the Fed-
eral review regulations. It is the Admin-
istrator's firm desire that local areas
develop parking management plans con-
sistent with their local problems and
needs with respect to both air quality
improvement and socioeconomic devel-
opment. .Such plans, if adequate, will be
approved by the Administrator and re-
place the applicable Federal manage-
ment of parking supply regulations.
Metropolitan areas such as San Diego,
Seattle, and Portland are already in the
process of developing such regulations.
The Administrator further feels that the
changes proposed today will allow a po-
tential applicant subject to the Federal
requirements to select the approach most
suitable to his demonstrating compli-
of the original objectives of these
methods will further aid in achievement
of the original objectives of these reg-
ulations.
Philosophy of Parking Management.
The management of parking supply reg-
ulations are part of a comprehensive
transportation control program designed
to minimize motor vehicle emissions in
areas where these emissions now cause
serious violations of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. In these areas, it
has been detennined that the air quality
standards for carbon monoxide and
photochemical oxidants (smog) cannot
be achieved in compliance with the pro-
visions of the Clean Air Act through the
use of only stationary source and new au-
tomobile emission controls. In order to
achieve the applicable standards, it is
also necessary to develop and implement
transportation controls which both re-
duce emissions from in-use vehicles on
the road and reduce the vehicle miles
traveled by the vehicles in the affected
area. The controls set forth in the trans-
portation plans to accomplish this task
Include parking management regula-
tions, mass transit improvements, in-
spection and maintenance programs, car-
pool matching programs, exclusive bus
and carpool lanes, employer incentive
programs for the use of mass transit and
the retrofit of older automobiles with
emission control devices.
As part of the overall transportation
control program, the purpose of the park-
ing management regulations, which man-
ages the development of new parking fa-
cilities, is twofold: (1) To reduce the
areawide growth in VMT so as to contrib- .
ute to the achievement of photochemical
oxidant and/or carbon monoxide stand-
ards; and (2) to assure that congestion
associated with the operation of a new
parking facility does not cause or exacer-
bate a violation of carbon monoxide
standards. Since the vast majority of
FEDERAL BEGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30441
carbon monoxide and photochemical
oxidant pollution in the transportation
control areas has been demonstrated to
be of automotive origin, the need to mini-
mize the rate of increase in vehicle miles
traveled must be emphasized. Although
emissions per individual vehicle will vary
considerably depending on model year,
' maintenance, speed, temperature and
road characteristics, for most vehicles
after the Initial warm up period the emis-
sions generated will be roughly propor-
tional to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Consequently, measures designed to re-
duce the vehicle miles traveled result in
lower pollution levels. To the extent that
automobile usage in these areas is char-
acterized by low occupancy (one car, one
driver) trips and particularly where
much of this travel could be readily ab-
sorbed by Increased use of carpools and
mass transit, the resulting automotive
emissions represent an avoidable con-
tribution to the area's pollution problem
and a potential area for VMT reductions.
Efforts to reduce the vehicle miles trav-
eled In an area, however, are continually
neutralized by growth in areawide travel
which usually leads to increased emis-
sions and higher pollution levels. Thus,
the parking management strategy which
can influence the rate of increase In an
area's VMT complements other elements
of the transportation program such as
mass transit improvement which are de-
. signed to provide alternatives to low oc-
cupancy vehicle usage and accordingly
reduce VMT.
At the present time, the vehicle miles
traveled In our urban areas continues to
Increase, in some areas at an annual rate
of up to eight percent. This compounds
an already serious problem and if allowed
to continue can completely negate imple-
mentation of other pollution control
measures and defeat expeditious attain-
ment of air quality standards. The causes
for growth in VMT are complex but the
principal reasons can be briefly summar-
ized here. The rising standard of living
has brought the automobile within the
reach of most families and made multi-
car ownership a prevalent goal. The in-
crease In automobile ownership has also
been associated with an increase in sub-
urban sprawl, a living pattern heavily
dependent on the automobile and less
easily served by mass transit. Conse-
quently, transportation by automobile
has Increased relative to the use of other
transit modes, patterns of low occupancy
automobile usage have developed, and
many mass transit systems have been
gradually deteriorating as vehicle miles
traveled have continued to increase.
The extremely rapid growth in the
building of highways, parking lots, and
other auto-related facilities has been
• both cause and consequence of the shift-
ing transit patterns in our urban areas.
At the same time that public transit sys-
tems have been allowed to deteriorate',
billions of tax dollars and private invest-
ments have been poured into encourag-
ing and providing the physical infra-
structure for increased auto transit. Tills
shift to an even-increasing reliance on
the automobile and the accompanying
growth in vehicle miles traveled has con-
tinued to result in further emlssons of
pollutants, as well as an ever-increasing
use of energy and natural resources.
Though growth of new parking-related
facilities does not in and of itself cause
air pollution, It has been demonstrated
that the supply of available parking at
new facilities is a major factor influenc-
ing choice of transit mode. Other in-
fluential factors are: time, costs, com-
fort, and convenience. Due to the inter-
relationship of these factors and the im-
portance of convenient, readily available
parking, effective control and planning
of future parking facilities can directly
influence the rate of growth in low oc»
cupancy automobile use.
• Furthermore, intelligent planning of
parking facilities will greatly facilitate
the use of high occupancy vehicles. The
various programs to improve mass tran-
sit and encourage carpools will be com-
plemented by appropriately located and
designed parking facilities such as sub-
way parking lots and suburban park-
and-ride lots, environmentally-respon-
sible decisions on the size of parking fa-
cilities at new commercial and industrial
locations, and increased use of innovative
employer incentive programs to encour-
age carpooling and mass transit rider-'
ship. As mass transit and carpool pro-.
grams continue to expand and improve,
new parking facilities should be designed
to focus on providing convenient parking
in areas unlikely ever to be served by
mass transit, not to duplicate and com-
pete with transit in areas where it is
available. •
The impact new parking facilities have
on local carbon monoxide levels as well as
areawide oxidant and carbon monoxide
concentrations must also be considered.
The induced traffic associated with a
new parking facility could create an
area of concentrated vehicle use which
may cause or exacerbate a violation of
the carbon monoxide standard in the im-
mediate .vicinity of the facility. Con-
sequently, approval of new parking facil-
ities covered by these regulations in the
transportation control cities Is subject
to both a review considering the facility's
impact on areawide vehicle miles
traveled and a demonstration that op-
eration of the proposed facility will not
cause or aggravate a localized carbon
monoxide problem.
Regulations Currently in Effect. Park-
ing management regulations in their
current form require that all new modi-
fled or parking facilities above a speci-
fied size in the aforementioned metro-
politan areas, for which construction
will commence after January 1, 1975,
mast undergo pre-construction review to
receive approval to construct. The appli-
cation submitted by the prospective
owner or operator must demonstrate
that:
(1) The proposed facility will not
cause or exacerbate a violation of any
national ambient air quality standard;
and
(2) The proposed facility will not
violate the vehicle miles traveled control
strategy contained In the applicable
transportation control plan.
The regulations provide a list of re-
quired information .through which the
applicant must demonstrate that the
proposed facility will be in accord with
the requirements listed above. The
methodology included in these require-
ments involves a demonstration through
quantitative modeling that there will be
no local carbon monoxide air quality
violation and similar computations to
demonstrate compliance with areawide
vehicles miles traveled reduction strat-
egies. A special purpose facility, such
as a park and ride lot may be approved
as a result of a qualitative assessment
which demonstrates that the facility in-
herently would result in a decrease in
vehicle miles traveled and cause no car-
bon monoxide problems.
The current regulations are ambiguous
on several points and provide the owner
or operator of a proposed new parking
facility with a limited amount of flexi-
bility in the application process. The
orginally promulgated regulations also
fail to clearly state the Administrator's
policy on local participation in the im-
plementation of parking management
programs. Consequently, this notice of
proposed rule-making attempts to ex-
plain existing areas of ambiguity such as
the relationship between indirect source
regulations and parking management,
proposes certain modifications to the
regulations to facilitate implementation,
introduces additional flexibility throu;;ii
a VMT minimization option and other
alternatives set forth in a newly pro-
posed appendix, clearly provides the al-
ternative of developing and Implement-
Ing a local parking management plan to
replace the Federal facility-by-facility
review regulations, and states the Ad-
ministrators viev/s concerning local
participation.
Relationship of Indirect Source Re-
view and Management of Parking Supply
Regulations. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has two regulations
which require that certain classes of
proposed new parking facilities be ap-
proved by the Administrator prior to
construction. These two regulations are:
Indirect Source Regulations (40 C.PR
52.22(b), 39 FR 25292 et seq., July 9.
1974), and Management of Parking Sup-
ply Regulations. The Indirect Source
Regulations, except as they relate to
highways and airports, are designed to
review proposed construction of new
parking facilities anywhere in the na-
tion for which construction commences
after January 1, 1975 to prevent viola-
tion or exacerbation of an existing
violation of carbon monoxide stand-
ards. The size cutoff for Indirect Source
Review varies depending upon the loca-
tion of the proposed facility. Within
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(SMSA's), all new facilities with 1.000
or more parking spaces will require prior
approval. Outside of the SMSA's only
those proposed facilities with 2,000 or
more spaces will require approval.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL, 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30442
PROPOSED RULES
Parkins Management Regulations are
limited to specific areas found to have
serious violations of autorelated air
quality standards and requiring trans-
portation control plans. These regula-
tions Include both a review for carbon
monoxide impact, similar to that re-
quired under Indirect Source Regula-
tions, and a review of the impact of the
proposed facility on areawide oxidant
levels through vehicle miles traveled.
These regulations are generally appli-
cable to all new facilities having a park-
ing capacity of 250 or more motor vehi-
cles.
As was stated In the July 9 FEDERAL
REGISTER (39 FR 25296) the Indirect
Source Regulations do not apply to facil-
ities which are subject to review under
EPA-promulgated Parking Management
regulations. (See 40 CFR 52.22(b) (15),
39 FR 25300. July 9, 1974.) Accordingly,
no single facility will be subject to more
than one of these review requirements.
It is Incorrect to conclude, however, that
the indirect source regulation has no ap-
plicability whatever in areas subject to
Parking Management Regulations.
Highways and airports in Parking Man-
agement areas will continue to be re-
viewed under the Indirect Source Regu-
lations. In addition where residential
developments are exempt from the Park-
ing Management regulations, they will
be reviewed pursuant to the terms of the
Indirect Source Regulations. Moreover
consistent with the Indirect Source Reg-
ulations, a facility for which a bona fide
general construction contract is executed
prior to January 1, 1975 (exempt from
Parking Management Review), will be
subject to Indirect Source Review If ac-
tual construction does not commence
prior to that date, since the Indirect
Source Regulation contains no "general
contract" exemption.
Proposed Regulatory Clarifications.
Today the Administrator is proposing a
number of changes to the Parking Man-
agement regulations which should clarify
the regulations' applicability, procedures
for implementation, and specific review
requirements. Some of the more signifi-
cant changes include: Clarification of
the parking facility definition; the re-
view time schedule to be employed; the
size of facilities subject to these regula-
tions and alternative procedures for
demonstrating consistency with VMT
control strategies.
The Administrator has received some
questions regarding the applicability of
the parking management regulations as
determined by the definition of "parking
facility". Some have inquired about the
regulation's applicability to large un-
paved area in which vehicles are reg-
ularly parked. The Administrator believes
that any area used to park 250 or more
\-ehicles should be considered a parking
facility subject to review under the Park- •
ing Management regulations. The Intent
of the current regulations is to include
such areas. Accordingly the definition of
"parking facility" is being changed to
clarify this position.
The Administrator does not Intend to
construe the definition of "parking facil-
ity" as applying to facilities such as au-
tomobile sales lots in which vehicles are
temporarily stored pending sale. If there
is a question as to whether a proposed
construction or modification would be
subject to review, owners or operators of
the proposed facility should contact the
appropriate EPA Regional Office, or the
local agency which has delegated review
authority for Parking Management, for
a determination of applicability.
Inasmuch as Parking Management re-
view is incorporating provisions similar
to those, contained in the Indirect Source
Review regulations, the procedures for
implementing Parking Management re-
view are being amended to be the same
as those required for indirect source re-
view, as recently amended in the FEDERAL
REGISTER of July 9, 1974 (39 FR 25292).
The basic review timetable that appears
in most of the Parking Management reg-
ulations is not being changed. The prin-
cipal changes involve adding the follow-
ing provisions: (1) The reviewing agency
must notify the applicant if any infor-
mation required in the review is not sub-
mitted in the application; (2) the ap-
plicant is given the opportunity to re-
spond in writing to comments submitted
by the public; and (3) facilities for which
on-site construction does not commence
within 24 months after receipt of ap-
proval must undergo another review
process to take into account changed
conditions since the time of initial ap-
plication. Extensions of this time period
proceeding commencement of construc-
tion may be requested at any time, in-
cluding at the time of initial application.
One of the more significant changes
being made to the Parking Management
regulations concerns the size of facili-
ties to be reviewed. A number of factors
have been taken into consideration in
selection of appropriate parking lot size
cutoffs (in terms of number of spaces)
for Parking Management review. Such
factors include: Specific air pollutant
to be controlled, severity of the problem,
technical resources available for review,
and the whole range of air quality control
strategies to be employed. As a conse-
quence, the specific size of parking facili-
ties subject to review varies from one Air
Quality Control Region to the next. Sub-
sequent to the promulgation of some of
the initial regulations, the Administrator
has determined that size cutoffs in cer-
tain areas needed to be modified and
these modifications are proposed today.
Through the regulatory actions pro-
posed today, the minimum size of a park-
ing facility to be reviewed under these
regulations will be no less than 250 spaces
except in the case of Fairbanks. Alaska
and where parking freezes are in effect.
In the Northern Alaska Intrastate Re-
gion, the meteorological conditions pe-
culiar to Fairbanks create the need to
review annually nearly all new or modi-
fied parking facilities; accordingly none
of the size thresholds in this particular
plan has been changed. It is further pro-
posed that in most cases the sections of
the regulations now in effect for certain
areas which require notification of the
Administrator prior to construction of a
facility having from 50 to 249 spaces be
deleted. The Administrator has deter-
mined that in most cases it is presently
not practical or productive to require
that parking construction and modifica-
tion involving less than 250 spaces be
subject to review and approval pursuant
to the Management of Parking Supply
regulations. A similar determination has
been made regarding the notification
procedures.
The Administrator Is also proposing to
delate language from the California reg-
ulation regarding consideration of the
social and economic impact of a facility
as part of the criteria for approval. Es-
sentially the same protection Is contained
in the alternatives set forth in today's
proposal.
. The proposed regulations also set forth
alternative analytical procedures which
may be used to meet the air quality and
VMT control criteria. The outline of the
proposed alternatives is contained in the
appendix section to the proposed regula-
tion. These alternatives provide the ap-
plicant with additional flexibility by pro-
viding a choice of methodologies to be
used for compliance with the air quality
and VMT reduction goals specified by
these regulations. The VMT minimiza-
tion procedures described below particu-
larly highlight this flexibility.
Various other minor modifications not
intended to affect the substance of this
regulation have also been included for
purposes of clarification. For the most
part these changes deal with matters of
procedure or are specific modifications
unique to specific areas.
Proposed Appendix to Parking Man-
agement Regulations. The proposed ap-
pendix sets forth two basic approaches
for achieving the goals of parking man-
agement. These are a facility-by-facility
review and a Parking Management plan.
Either the Federal government or the
local government can directly imple-
ment facility-by-facility review of ap-
plicable parking structures. Due to the
nature of the planning process, however,
only the state or local area can adequate-
ly develop a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan. Such a plan can interre-
late future parking growth with the
transit and land-use plans and other
unique needs of the community.
The Administrator believes that the
ultimate result of these regulations
should be the development by local areas
of parking management plans to replace
the Federal Regulations. It is therefore
this Agency's policy that Federal Regu-
lations on new parking facilities shall be
applicable only until such time as ap-
provable local parking management
plans are developed and implemented.
Accordingly, Appendix B sets forth a
clear explanation of current require-
ments and alternative approaches for
facility-by-facility review which can be
used until such plans are developed as
well as guidelines for formulation of
these local Parking Management Finns.
EPA Regional Offices will encourage and
assist local area governments In develop-
ment of these plans.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30443
Facility-by-Facility Review. The inter-
im facility-by-facility parking review
guidelines set forth in Appendix B are
basically divided into methodologies to
(1) demonstrate consistency with the
area's VMT control strategy and (2)
demonstrate noninterference with at-
tainment and maintenance of the na-
tional carbon monoxide standards.
I. Consistency with Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Control Strategy. An
applicant can select from among three
alternative methods to demonstrate con-
sistency with the VMT control strategy.
These methods include: certification
that the proposed facility will result in
a net decrease in VMT by its very nature,
quantification of the vehicle miles trav-
eled which will be associated with the
new facility, and demonstration that the
proposed parking facility is both needed
by the community and that all reason-
able measures are being taken to mini-
mize the VMT associated with the pro-
posed facility. By providing these three
approaches the Administrator feels that
an adequate amount of flexibility is pro-
vided to the applicant while not com-
promising the goals of the regulation.
A. Special Purpose VMT Reduction
Facility—Owners/operators of special
- purpose parking facilities specifically de-
veloped to reduce VMT, such as park and
ride lots, will not be required to develop
detailed VMT generation models of the
Impact of their proposed facilities. The
principal requirements for approval will
be certification of the facility's purpose
and presentation of some means to assure
that the facility will not be used to serve
some other function which might in-
crease VMT.
B. Modeling—Where an applicant has
available sufficient information regard-
Ing traffic patterns and prospective clien-
tele, he can make relatively accurate pro-
jections of VMT changes by the use of
origin and destination studies, gravity
models and similar studies. If no increase
In VMT is Indicated by these calculations
and the reviewing agency concurs in the
accuracy of these projections, then the
applicant will be considered to have
demonstrated consistency with the VMT
control strategy.
C. Employment of All Reasonable
VMT Reduction Measures—Where an
applicant can demonstrate the need for
the proposed parking facility based on
community goals and inadequacy of
other transit modes, a program may be
submitted stipulating measures to be em-
ployed to minimize the VMT impact of
the proposed facility. If this plan can be
shown to employ all reasonable measures
to minimize the VMT impact, a precisely
quantified VMT model will not be
required.
• Examples of reasonable measures to
minimize VMT would include: various
measures to encourage use of mass tran-
sit, carpool locators and a carpool pri-
ority system, rate schedules to discour-
age all day parkers and dial-a-bus or
chartered buses in areas not served by
regularly scheduled mass transit.
The procedure to be followed by the
applicant Includes three phases:
1. Explanation of the need for the pro-
posed parking facility which takes into
consideration the overall interests of the
community and the adequacy of existing
and proposed mass transit. This shall in-
clude a description of existing and pro-
posed transit service as well as existing
parking facilities.
2. Development of a plan employing all
reasonable measures to minimize VMT.
3. Projection of new reduced parking
space requirements based on effective op-
eration of the plan described in step 2
above.
Appendix B stipulates certain VMT
minimization measures which must be
considered by the applicant in preparing
the plan. Each such measure must be uti-
lized, or an explanation provided as to
why the measure is inappropriate or im-
possible to use.
Demonstration of Non-interference
ivith Attainment of Carbon Monoxide
Standard. The original regulations did
not define a methodology for dealing with
the impact of new parking facilities on
carbon monoxide concentrations in the
immediate area. The appendix proposed
today sets forth a methodology for dem-
onstration that a facility does not cause
or exacerbate a violation of carbon
monoxide standard. This methodology,
varies depending upon the size of the
proposed facility.
A. Facilities having a capacity for 1,000
or more spaces—These facilities are sub-
ject to the same requirements as those
facilities subject elsewhere to the In-
direct Source Regulations. The applicant
must demonstrate by means of the ap-
propriate indirect source guidelines
(Guidelines for the Review of the Impact
of Indirect Sources on Ambient Air
Quality," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, OAQPS, July, 1974), a suitable
diffusion model or other appropriate
analytical technique that the traffic as-
sociated with the proposed facility will
not result in a violation of carbon mon-
oxide standards. Any model submitted by
the applicant must take into considera-
tion current and projected traffic counts
and background air quality.
B. Facilities having capacity for less
than 1,000 spaces—Smaller facilities not
elsewhere subject to Indirect Source Reg-
ulations may not need the detailed mod-
cling reciuired of the larger structures.
The Administrator has therefore deter-
mined that additional measures should
be made available for applications per-
taining to these facilities. The three al-
ternatives available to the applicant spec-
ified in the appendix include: (1) Use
of the appropriate Indirect Sources mod-
eling scheme; (2i provision of acceptable
air quality monitoring data to determine
if modeling is necessary; or (3) submis-
sion of some other appropriate informa-
tion to demonstrate that a violation of
the carbon monoxide standard will not
result from operation of the facility.
The second alternative could be used
by many smaller facilities to satisfy the
carbon monoxide review requirements
through presentation of acceptable air
quality data to demonstrate that a viola-
tion is not likely to occur. The Appendix
proposed today states that if acceptable
monitoring data are provided demon-
strating that the worst carbon monoxide
level adjacent to the proposed facility is
less than 75 percent of the standard, the
applicant could satisfy the local carbon
monoxide impact requirements without
completing a modelling study. The 75
percent figure is an approximate number
which lacks an adequate technical basis
and additional study Is needed. The En-
vironmental Protection Agency is under-
taking further analysis of the carbon
monoxide parking facility relationship in
order to develop a correlation between
the background carbon monoxide levels
and the size of the parking facility which
may cause a carbon monoxide problem.
The Administrator invites comments on
the formation of this correlation. Follow-
ing the final modification and promulga-
tion of this option, an owner or operator
will be able to use air quality data which
satisfied the requirements of this option
as a basis for approval. However, if mon-
itoring data indicate that a violation can
reasonably be expected to occur, the ap-
plicant will be required to comply with
the modelling criteria discussed under
subpart A.
The third alternative, demonstration
that a carbon monoxide is unlikely to
occur, is only applicable to a small num-
ber of facilities which are located in
areas clearly recognized as being in no
danger of having carbon monoxide vio-
lations now or in the foreseeable future.
Parking Management Plan. The ap-
pendix sets forth guidelines for devel-
opment of a parking management plan
as one component of an area's overall
plan for development which focuses on
the interrelationships of transportation
and land use and specifically describes
the manner in which the growth, loca-
tion and operation of parking related
facilities are to be kept consistent with
air quality standards. The parking man-
agement plan (PMP) further must com-
bine the "hot spot" carbon monoxide re-
view and the areawlde VMT review of
individual facilities under a comprehen-
sive plan, relating where appropriate to
an Air Quality Maintenance Plan. This
means that the plan can allow certain
tradeoffs among different areas within
its scope, and that the plan can include
control measures that are not necessarily
within the limited scope of a facility-by-
facility review (such as zoning changes
or changes in transit service).
This program is an option available
only to state or local governments. The
regulations provide that parking man-
agement plans are to be submitted to
EPA by such governments to replace
the interim facility-by-facility review.
Though EPA will work with states and
local areas developing such plans, the
Agency will not unilaterally prepare
parking management plans.
Local Participation. The regulations as
originally promulgated were somewhat
ambiguous as to the role a local com-
munity could play in implementing the
facility-by-facility review or in develop-
ing and implementing a parking man-
agement plan. Parking facility review
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30444
PROPOSED RULES
can be Implemented In three different
ways:
(1) EPA Regional Offices can review
applicable proposed facilities,
(2) EPA can delegate to a state or
local governmental body the authority
and responsibility to review applicable
proposed facilities under these regula-
tions, and
(3) State or local governments can
develop a parking management plan for
their area, which.upon approval would
replace the need for Federal or local ac-
tion under the facility-by-facility re-
view regulation. The proposed regula-
tions specifically state that these three
modes of implementation are available.
It is especially the Administrator's desire
that state and local governmental en-
tities be encouraged to submit local park-
Ing Management Plans at any time,
which would replace the EPA promul-
gated regulations whenever the local
plan Is approved and implemented.
A. Local Delectation. In the absence
of an approved local comprehensive
parking management plan, it is the Ad-
ministrator's desire to delegate imple-
mentation of the EPA promulgated park-
Ing facility-by-facility review procedures
to State and/or local governmental en-
tities. Accordingly the proposed regula-
tions provide that local governmental
entities—typically city or county gov-
ernments, Councils of Governments,
local air pollution control agencies, or
regional planning agencies—may submit
a request to the Administrator to be dele-
gated the authority to carry out the re-
view of facilities and enforcement under
the EPA-promulgated regulations. The
Administrator may determine the condi-
tions under which such a request is ap-
proved. Two conditions which must be
met are that: (1) Any final action taken
by the delegated agency must have legal'
authority so that its final actions will
be legally binding in the jurisdiction in
which the proposed facility is to be lo-
cated, and (2) the agency must either
possess legal authority to enforce any
final actions, or be willing to enforce ac-
tions taken under the EPA promulgated
regulation using authority delegated to
It by the Administrator.
B. Local Parking Management Plans.
EPA regards parking management
plans as a means through which future
parking growth can be correlated with
transit plans and the growth needs of
the community. Such correlation is best
performed by local governments, through
a comprehensive planning approach to
environmental quality and development
needs.
The Administrator realizes that local
governments may prefer to Implement
a locally devised comprehensive manage-
ment plan instead of the facility-by-
facility review promulgated by EPA. In
the proposed regulations local govern-
ments are encouraged to develop such
plans. The Administrator will make
every effort to approve locally submitted
plans which meet the objectives of the
EPA parking management plan regu-
lations. In order for a local plan to
receive approval, the local governmen-
tal entity submitting the plan must have
legal authority to enforce compliance
with its requirements. Accordingly, it
is anticipated that a city or county
government, Council of Governments, or
in some cases a regional planning ajjency
or local air pollution control • agency,
will be the local governmental entity
submitting a comprehensive parking
management plan.
In California, several localities have
begun the process of preparing parking
ir.nnasement plans which reflect local
situations. EPA has executed an inter-
agency agreement with the Urban MP.SS
Transportation Administration in the
Department of Transportation to pro-
vide one-time financial assistance to se-
lected regional transportation agencies
to develop these plans as part of their
overall regional transportation plans.
These agencies include the Metropol-
itan Transportation Commission in the
San Francisco Bay area; the Southern
California Association of Governments
in the Los Anseles area; the Maricopa
Association of Governments in the
greater Phoenix area; and the Com-
prehensive Planning Organization in the
San Diego area. Local jurisdictions will
participate in the effort through these
regional entities. Both in California and
Arizona the regional transportation
planning process has bc-en successful,
and EPA is encouraging these efforts by
incorporating the Parking Management
Plans as an element of the regional
transportation planning process in these
areas.
Exemption for General Construction
Contracts. In the preamble to the indi-
rect source promulgation of July 9,
1974, EPA stated: "In general, develop-
ers should assume that devices used in
an attempt to evade review will be scru-
tinized carefully to determine whether
a source actually subject to the regu-
lation is commencing construction with-
out the required approval." This applies
equally to the Management of Parking
Supply regulations.
In particular, the Administrator cau-
tions against abuse of the exemption for
"construction or modification for which
a general construction contract was fi-
nally executed by all appropriate parties
on or before January 1, 1975" which
is set forth in the Management of Park-
Ing Supply regulations. The intent of
this exemption is to treat a developer
who has entered into a bona fide agree-
ment with a general contractor for
construction in the immediate future as
being -in the same position under the
regulation's "grandfather clause" as a
developer who actually commences on-
site construction prior to January 1,
1975. This exemption was included in
the regulation under the assumption
that the execution of a general con-
struction contract is one of the very last
steps taken before construction will con-
sider any significant lapse of time be-
tween execution of a contract during
1974 and actual commencement of- con-
struction in 1975 as strong evidence that
the contract may not be valid for pur-
poses of the regulation's "grandfather
clause."
It must be emphasized that the alter-
native procedures for demonstrating
consistency with the VMT control
strategies (such as presentation of a
plan employing all reasonable measures
to minimize VMT) and satisfying the
local carbon monoxide criteria (the
non-modelling options) are features
only of this proposed amendment to the
Environmental Protection Agency's
regulations for the management of
parking supply. The proposed options
cannot be officially used to satisfy the
requirements of this regulation until the
proposal has been submitted to the
public hearing and comment process,
and subsequently promulgated. Proposed
new facilities which require approval
prior to the promulgation of the pro-
posed amendments must comply with
the more limited provisions of the exist-
ing regulations. In such cases, it will be
necessary to provide information re-
quired under quantitative modelling pro-
cedures for carbon monoxide impact and
similar computations (except for special
purpose VMT reduction facilities such as
park and ride lots) to demonstrate com-
pliance with areawide vehicle miles
traveled reduction strategies.
Owners or operators of all other pro-
posed new facilities covered by these
regulations, which do not require an
approval/disapproval decision until after
promulgation of the proposed regulation
may begin developing applications in
accordance with this proposal. Applica-
tions using proposed options cannot be
officially submitted until this proposal
has been promulgated. Environmental
Protection Agency personnel will be
available to aid owners or operators of
proposed future parking facilities in
developing applications which will meet
the provisions of either the existing or
proposed regulations.
The following portion of this notice
Includes the regulation changes proposed
for the affected areas, and the proposed
appendix. It should be noted that the
regulation modifications for each state
are presented twice; first as individual
revisions and then as revisions incor-
porated in the context of the applicable
state regulation. It is hoped that this
format will assist the reader in more
readily understanding the elements of
this proposal.
Public hearings on this proposal will
be held in the affected areas in the near
future at times and places to be
announced in local newspapers. These
hearings will be held to both receive
comment on the proposed amendments
and to gather information on the status
of local efforts to develop parking man-
agement plans. The Administrator is
especially interested in the previous local
actions which provide a foundation for
parking management plan development
and the areas in which the Federal gov-
ernment can assist the plan development
process. Comments are also Invited on
the VMT minimization and carbon
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22. 1974
-------
PROPOSED RUIES
30445
monoxide monitoring options outlined in
this proposal. Interested parties may
also participate in this rulemaklng by
• submitting written comments, preferably
in triplicate, to Mr. Roger Strelow,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Waste Management, Attention:
Transportation and Land Use Policy
Office, AW-443, EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
A copy of all public comments will be
available for inspection and copying at
the EPA Information Center, Room 227,
West Tower, Waterside Mall, ^401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20406.
All comments received on or before
September 23,1974.
42 U.S.C. 1857-5 (c), 1857g
Dated: August 2,1974.
JOHN QuARtES,
Acting Administrator.
- Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40, of the
Code of Federal Regulations proposed to
be amended as follows:
Subpart C—Alaska
§ 52.86 [Amended]
1. In |52.86(a), subparagraph (1) is
revised to read as follows:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called
"facility") means any off-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, in or
on -which motor vehicles are parked.
2. In |52.86(a), subparagraphs (3),
(4), and (5) are deleted and replaced by
new subparagraphs (3) and (4) which
read as follows:
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a con-
tinuous program of on-site construction
Including site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation for
the fabrication, erection, or installation
of the building components of the facil-
ity. For the purpose of this paragraph,
Interruptions resulting from acts of God,
strikes, litigation, or' other matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded in determining whether a
construction or modification program is
continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modifi-
cation" means to engage in a continuous
program of on-site modification, includ-
ing site clearance, grading, dredging, or
land filling in preparation for a specific
modification of the parking facility.
3. In §52.86(a), subparagraphs (6)
and (7) are redesignated as subpara-
graphs (5) and (G) respectively.
4. In § 52.86(c), the first sentence in
amended by inserting the words "on or"
after-tlie word "commenced."
5. In &52.86(e>, subparagraph (4) Is
• added to read as follows:
(4) The methodology for satisfying
the requirements of paragraphs (e) (1)
and (e) (2) of this section is explained in'
Appendix B.
6. In &52.86(h), subparagraph (8) Is
added to read as follows:
(8) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles.
certain additional Information Is re-
quired as is specified In Appendix B.
7. In § 52.86, paragraph (1) Is added
to read as follows:
(i) Each application shall be signed by
the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated In accordance with
the information submitted in the appli-
cation. In addition, the Administrator
may prescribe reasonable construction
and operating conditions to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
8. In § 52.86, paragraph (j) is added to
read as follows:
(j) (1) Within 20 days after receipt of
an application, or addition thereto, the
Administrator shall advise the owner or
operator of any deficiency in the infor-
mation submitted in support of the ap-
plication. In the event of such a defi-
ciency, the date of receipt of the ap-
plication for the purpose of subpara-
graph (2) of Uiis paragraph shall be the
date on which the required information
is received by the Administrator.
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with -paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
(ii) Make available in at least one lo-
cation in each region in which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials sub-
mitted by the owner or operator, a copy
of the Administrator's preliminary de-
termination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, if any, considered by
the Administrator in making his prelimi-
nary determination; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in each region in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for writ-
ten public comment on the information
submitted by the owner or operator and
the Administrator's preliminary deter-
mination on the approvability of the fa-
cility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagraph shall be sent
to the applicant and to officials and agen-
cies having cognizance over the location
where the parking facility will be situ-
ated, as follows: state and local air pol-
lution Control agencies, the chief execu-
tive of the city and county; and any
comprehensive regional land use plan-
ning agency.
(4) Public comments submitted In
writing within 30 days after the date
such information is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator In
making his final decision on the appli-
cation. No later than 10 days after the
close of the public comment period, the
applicant may submit a written response
to any comments submitted by the pub-
lic. The Administrator shall consider the
applicant's response In making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public Inspection In »t least
one location in the region In which the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant In writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the
application, and shall set forth his rea-
sons for conditional approval or denial.
Such notification shall be made available
for public Inspection in at least one loca-'
tion in the region in which the parking
facility would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified in
subparagraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this
paragraph by no more than 30 days,
or such other period as agreed to by the
applicant and the Administrator.
9. In 5 52.86, paragraph (k) is added
to read as follows:
(k) Approval to coastruct or modify
shall become invalid If construction or
modification is not commenced within 24
months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator may extend such time
period upon a satisfactory showing that
,an extension Is justified. The applicant
may apply for such an extension at the
. time of initial application or at any time
thereafter.
10. In § 52.86, paragraph (1) Is added
toreadasfo?lows:
(1)(1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or
regional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(1) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has full and adequate
legal authority to enforce compliance
with Its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are con-
sistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of tills section Includ-
ing Appendix B.
(iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this chapter.
(3) Upon the effective date of any ap-
proved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this
section.
11. In § 52.86, paragraph (m) is added
to read as follows:
(m)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the1 authority of the Administrator for
purposes of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following condi-
tions are met:
(1) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
flnal action taken by such entity or
agency, or that it Is willing to enforce
the provisions of this section using
authority delegated to It by the Admin-
istrator.
(11) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the jurisdic-
tion In which the proposed facility is
located.
(Ill) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of
this section including Appendix B.
12. In § 52.86, paragraph (n) is added
to read as follows:
(n) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility In ac-
cordance with the application as ap-
proved by the Administrator; any owner
or operator who fails to construct and
operate a parking facility in accordance
with conditions imposed by the Admin-
istrator or agency designed by him; any
owner or operator who modifies a park-
Ing facility In violation of conditions
Imposed by the Administrator or agency
designated by him; or any owner or
operator of a parking facility subject to
this section who commences construc-
tion or modification thereof on or after
January 1, 1975, without applying for
and receiving approval hereunder, shall
be subject to the penalties specified
Wider section 113 of the Act and shall
be considered in violation of an emission
standard or limitation under section 304
of the Act. Subsequent modification to
an approved parking facility may be
made without applying for permission
pursuant to this section only where such
modification would not violate any con-
dition Imposed pursuant to paragraph
(1) of this section and would not be sub-
ject to the modification criteria set forth
In paragraph (c) (2) of this section.
§ 52.139
Subpsrt D—Arizona
[Amended]
13. In §52.139(a), subparagraph (1)
is revised to read as follows:
- (1) "Parking facility" (also called
"facHity") means -any offstreet area or.
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, in or
on which motor vehicles are parked.
14. In §52.139(a), subparagraph (3),
(4) and (5) are deleted. New subpara-
graphs (3) and (4) are added to read as
follows:
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a continu-
ous program of on-site construction in-
• eluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling specifically designed for a
parking facility in preparation for the
fabrication, erection, or installation of
the building components of the facility.
For the purpose of this paragraph,
Interruptions resulting from acts of God,
strikes, litigation, or otiier matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded in determining whether a
construction or modification program is
continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modi-
fication" means to engage In a continu-
ous program of on-site modification, In-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling in preparation for a
specific modification of the parkins
facility.
15. In ? 52.139, paragraph (b) Is re-
vised to read as follows:
(b) This section is applicable to Plma
and Maricopa Counties.
16. In § 52.139(c), the first sentence Is
amended by Inserting the words "on or"
after the word "commenced."
17. In § 52.139(c) (1) the number "50"
is revised to read "250."
18. In § 52.139(c) (2), the number "50"
Is revised to read "250".
19. In §52.139(d), the following sen-
tence is added at the end of the para-
graph to read as follows:
This section does not apply to any.
parking facility constructed or operated*
with a residential buildings or buildings
for the primary use of residents of such
building (s), nor does it apply to any
parking facility to be constructed by a
religious organization and to be used
solely for religious purposes (not includ-
ing high schools and college-level
education).
20. In §52.139(e), subparagraph (3)
is added to read as follows:
(3) The methodology for satisfying
the requirements of paragraphs (e) (1)
and (e) (2) of this section is explained in
Appendix B.
21. In § 52.139 the existing paragraph
(g) Is deleted.
22. In § 52.139, paragraph (h) Is re-
designated as paragraph (g) and yie first
sentence is revised to read as follows:
(g) All applications under this section
shall include the following Information
unless the applicant has received a
waiver from the Administrator or agency
approved by him.
23. In § 52.139(g), a new subparagraph
(8) is added to read as follows:
(8) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles,
certain additional Information is re-
quired as is specified in Appendix B.
24. In § 52.139, a new paragraph (h) is
added to read as follows:
(h) Approval to construct or modify
under paragraphs (a) through (g) of
this section shall become invalid If con-
struction or modification is not com-
menced within 24 months after receipt of
such approval. The Administrator may
extend such time period upon a satis-
factory showing that an extension Is
justified. The applicant may apply for
such an extension at the time of initial
application or at any time thereafter.
25. In § 52.139 paragraph (i) is revised
to read as follows:
(i) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance
with the information submitted in the
application.' In addition, the Adminis-
trator may prescribe reasonable con-
struction and operating conditions to
any permit granted. Such conditions
shall be agreed to in writing by the ap-
plicant before any permit Is granted by
the Administrator.
26. In 9 52.139, paragraph (J) Is revised
to read as follows:
(J) (1) Within 20 days after receipt of
an application, or addition thereto, the
Administrator shall advise the owner or
operator of any deficiency in the infor-
mation submitted in support of the appli-
cation. In the event of such a deficiency,
the date of receipt of the application for
the purpose of subparagraph (2) of this
paragraph shall be the date on which the
required Information is received by the
Administrator.
(2) Within 30 days-after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
(ii) Make available in at least one lo-
cation In each region In which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials submit-
ted by the owner or operator, a copy of
the Administrator's preliminary deter-
mination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, if any, considered by the
Administrator in making his preliminary
determination; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in each region in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment on the information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion on the approvabillty of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagraph shall be sent
to the applicant and to officials and agen-
cies having cognizance over the location
where the parking facility will be sit-
uated, as follows: State and local air
pollution control agencies, the chief
executive of the city and county; and any
comprehensive regional land use plan-
ning agency.
(4) Public comments submitted in
writing within 30 days after the date
such information is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator in
making his flnal decision on the applica-
tion. No later than 10 days after the close
of the public comment period, the appli-
cant may submit a written response to
any comments submitted by the public.
The Administrator shall consider the
applicant's response in making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public inspection in at least
one location in the region in whicFf the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take flnal
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant in writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the
application, and shall set forth his rea-
sons for conditional approval or denial.
Such notification shall be made available
for public inspection in at least one
location in the region in which the park-
ing facility would be located.
FEDEBAL BECISTEB, VOL. 39, NO. 144—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30447
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified In sub-
paragraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this para-
graph by no more than 30 days, or such
other period as agreed to by the appli-
cant and the Administrator.
27. In § 52.139, paragraph (k) Is re-
vised to read as follows:
(k)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finis that:
(1) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has full and ade-
quate legal authority to .enforce com-
pliance with its requirements.
(11) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of this section includ-
ing Appendix B.
(ill) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this chapter.
(iv) The plan has been reviewed by
the appropriate 3C transportation plan-
ning agency.
(3) Upon the effective date of any ap-
proved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this sec-
tion.
28. In § 52.139, paragraph (m) is added
to read as follows:
(m) (1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
purposes of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this sec-
tion.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
are met:
(1) Demonstration by such governmen-
tal entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such entity or
agency, or that it Is willing to enforce
the provisions of this section using au-
thority delegated to it by the Adminis-
trator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the jurisdic-
tion in which the proposed facility Is
located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of this
section including Appendix B.
29. In § 52.139, paragraph (n) is added
to read as follows:
(n) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in accord-
ance with the application as approved
by the Administrator; any owner or op-
erator who fails to construct and operate-
a parking facility in accordance with
conditions imposed by the Administrator
or agency designed by him; any owner
or operator who modifies a parking fa-
cility In violation of conditions Imposed
by the Administrator or agency, desig-
nated by him; or any owner or operator
of a parking facility subject to this sec-
tion who commences construction or
modification thereof on or after Janu-
ary 1, 1975, without applying for and
receiving approval hereunder, shall be
subject to the penalties specified under
section 113 of the Act and shall be con-
sidered in violation of an emission stand-
ard or limitation under section 304 of the
Act. Subsequent modification to an ap-
proved parking facility may be made
without applying for permission pursuant
to this section only where such modifica-
tion would not violate any condition im-
posed pursuant to paragraph (i) of this
section and would not be subject to the
modification criteria set forth In para-
graph (c) (2) of this section.
Subpart F—California
§ 52.251 [Amended]
30. In §52.251(a), subparagraph (1)
Is revised to read as follows:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called
"facility" means any off-street area of
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combinations or portion thereof, in or
on which motor vehicles are parked.
31. In §52.251 (a), subparagrnphs (3)
and (4) are revised to read as follows:
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a con-
tinuous program of on-site construction
Including site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation for
the fabrication, erection or installation
of the building components of the facil-
ity. For the purpose of thfs paragraph.
Interruptions resulting from acts of God,
strikes, litigation, or other matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded in determining whether a
construction or modification program Is
continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modi-
fication" means to engage in a continu-
ous program of on-site modification, in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling in preparation for a
specific modification of the parking
facility.
32. In §52.251 (a), subparagraph (5)
Is deleted.
33. In § 52.251 (c), the first sentence Is
amended by deleting the words "para-
graphs (d) through (1) of" and by In-
serting the words "on or" after the word
"commenced."
34. In § 52.251 (e). the word "either"
In the first sentence is deleted; subpara-
graphs (1) and (2) are deleted; subpar-
agraph (3)(i) Is redesifrnated as sub-
parasraph (1); subparagraph (3) (ii) Is
redesignated subparagraph (2); a new
subparagraph (3) is added to read as
follows:
(3) Satisfaction of the requirements
provided in Appendix B shall serve to
fulfill all requirements of subparagraphs
(e)U) and (e)(2) of this section.
35. In § 52.251 (f) subparagraph (10)
Is revised to read as follows:
(10) An estimate of the net.change
In VMT associated with the operation of
the proposed facility.
36. In §52.251(f) subparagraph (12)
Is added to read as follows:
(12) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles,
certain additional Information Is re-
quired as specified in Appendix B.
37. In § 52.251 paragraph (h) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(h) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance with
the Information submitted in the appli-
cation. In addition, the Administrator
may prescribe reasonable construction
and operating conditions to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
38. la § 52.251, paragraph (i) Is re-
vised to read as follows:
(1) (1) Within 20 days after receipt of
an application, or addition thereto, the
Administrator shall advise the owner or
operator of any deficiency in the infor-
mation submitted in support of the
application. In the event of such a defi-
ciency, the date of receipt of the appli-
cation for the purpose of subparagraph
(2) shall be the date on which the re-
'quired information is received by the
Administrator.
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section,'or disapproved.
(ii) Make available in at least one lo-
cation in each region in which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials sub-
mitted by the owner or operator, a copy
of the Administrator's preliminary deter-
mination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, If any, considered by
the Administrator In making his pre-
liminary determination; and
(ill) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation In each region in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment on the Information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion in the approvability of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagraph shall be sent
to the applicant and to officials and
agencies having cognizance over the lo-
cation where the parking facility will be
situated, as follows: state and local air
pollution control agencies, the chief ex-
ecutive of the city and county; and any
comprehensive regional land use plan-
ning agency.
(4) Public comments submitted in
writing within 30 days after the date
such Information Is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator iu
No. 164—Pt. III-
TEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30448
PROPOSED RULES
making his final decision on the applica-
tion. No later than 10 days after the close
of the public comment period, the ap-
plicant may submit a written response
to any comments submitted by the pub-
lic. The Administrator shall consider the
applicant's response in making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public inspection in at least
one location in the region in which the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 dnys
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant in writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the
application and shall set forth his rea-
sons for conditional approval or denial.
Such notification shall be made avail-
able for public inspection in at least one
location in the region in which the park-
Ing facility would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified in sub-
paragraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this para-
graph by no more than 30 days, or such
other period as agreed to by the appli-
cant and the Administrator.
39. In § 52.251, paragraphs (j) and (k)
are deleted.
40. In § 52.251, a new paragraph (j)
is added to read as follows:
(j) Approval to construct or modify
shall become Invalid if construction or
modification is not commenced within
24. months after receipt of such ap-
proval. The Administrator may extend
such time period upon a satisfactory
showing that an extension is justified. •
The applicant may apply for such an
extension at the time of initial applica-
tion or at any time thereafter.
41. In § 52.251, paragraph cl) is re-
designated as paragraph (k) and revised
to read as follows:
(k)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or
regional planing agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
euch plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has adequate legal.
authority to enforce compliance with its
requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive provi-
sions of this section including Appendix
B.
(iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this chapter.
(iv) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the 3-C transportation
plan for the area involved.
(3) Upon a date specified by the Ad-
ministrator in his approval of a local
comprehensive parkins management
plan, such plan shall replace all appli-
cable portions of this section.
42. In § 52.251, a new paragraph (1)
is added to read as follows:
<])(!) A local governmental entity
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
puiposes of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2> The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such entity or
agency using authority delegated to it by
trie Administrator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final
action taken by such governmental
entity or agency will be binding in the
jurisdiction in which the proposed facil-
ity is located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of
this section including Appendix B.
43. In § 52.251 paragraph (m) the in-
ternal reference to paragraph (1) Is re-
vised to read paragraph (k); the refer-
en to paragraph (k) is revised to read
paragraph (j).
44. In § 52.251, paragraph (n) is added
to read as follows:
(n) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in accord-
ance with the application as approved
by the Administrator; any owner or
operator who fails to construct and op-
erate a parking facility in accordance
with conditions imposed by the Adminis-
trator or agency designated by him; any
owner or operator who rnrxlificsta park-
ing facility in violation 01 conditions im-
posed by the Administrator or agency
designated by him; or any owner or op-
erator of a parking facility subject to
this section who commences construction
or modification thereof on or after Janu-
ary 1, 1975 without applying for and re-
ceiving approval hereundcr, shall be
subject to the penalties specified undsr
section 113 of the Act and shall be con-
sidered in violation of an emission stand-
ard or limitation under section 304 of
the Act.
Sufapart J—District of Columbia
§ 12.493 [Amended]
45. In §52.493(a), subparagraph (1)
Is revised to rend as follows:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called "fa-
cility") means any off-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, in or
or. which motor vehicles «re parked.
40. In §52.493(a), subparagraphs (3)
and (4) are revised to read as follows:
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a continu-
ous program of on-site construction in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredg-
.ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation for
the fabrication, erection, or installation
of the building components of the facil-
ity. For the purpose of this paragraph,
interruptions resulting from acts of God,
strikes, litigation, or other matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded In determining whether a
construction or modification program is
continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modifi-
cation" means to engage In a continuous
program of on-site modification, in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling in preparation for a spe-
cific modification of the parking facility.
47. In §52.493(a), subparagraph (5)
is deleted.
48. In § 52.493(c), the first sentence is
amended by inserting the words "on or"
after the word "commenced."
49. In §52.493(e), subparagraph (3)
is added to read as follows:
(3) The methodology for satisfying
the requirements of paragraphs (eMl)
and (e) (2) of this section is explained
in Appendix B.
50. In § 52.493 (f), the following phrase
is added after the word "information'':
"unless the applicant has received a
waiver from the Administrator or agency
approved by him:"
51. In §52.493(f), subparagraph (13)
is added to read as follows:
(13) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles,
certain additional information Is re-
quirqd as is specified in Appendix B.
52. In § 52.493 paragraph (g) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(g) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance with
the Information submitted in the ap-
plication. In addition, the Administrator
may prescribe reasonable construction
and operating conditions to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
53. In § 52.493, paragraph (h) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(h)(l) Within 20 days after receipt
of an application or addition thereto,
the Administrator shall advi.ie the owner
or operator of any deficiency in the in-
formation submitted in support of the
application. In the event of such a de-
ficiency, the date of receipt of the .ap-
plication for the purpose of subpara-
graph (2) of this paragraph shall be the
date on whicli the required information
Is received by the Administrator.
- (2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
(Ii) Make available in at least one
location in each region in which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials sub-
mitted by the owner or operator, a copy
of the Administrator's preliminary deter-
mination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, if any, considered by the
Administrator in making his preliminary
determination; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 2], 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30449
circulation in each region In which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment on the information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion on the approvability of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subpara graph shall be sent
to the applicant and- to officials and
agencies having cognizance over the loca-
tion where the parking facility will be
situated, as follows: State and local air
pollution control agencies, the chief ex-
ecutive of the city and county; and any
comprehensive regional land use plan-
ning agency.
(4) Public comments submitted in
writing within 30 days after the date
such information is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator in
making his final decision on the applica-
tion. No later than 10 days after the close
of the public comment period, the ap-
plicant may submit a written response to
any comments submitted by the public.
The Administrator shall consider the ap-
plicant's response in making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public inspection in at least
one location in the region in which the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant in writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the
application, and shall set forth his rea-
sons for conditional approval or denial.
Such notification shall be made avail-
able for public inspection in at least one
location in the region in which the park-
Ing facility would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified in
subparagniphs (2), (4), or (5) of this
paragraph by no more than 30 days, or
such other period as agreed to by the
applicant and the Administrator.
54. In § 52.493, paragraph (i) is added
to read as follows:
(i) Approval to construct or modify
shall become invalid if construction or
modification is not commenced within
24 months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator may extend such time
period upon a satisfactory showing that
an extension is justified. The applicant
may apply for such an extension at the
time of initial application or at any time
thereafter.
55. In § 52.493, paragraph (j) is added
to read as follows:
(j) (1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or
agency submitting the plan has full and
adequate legal authority to enforce com-
pliance with its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of this section includ-
ing Appendix B.
(ill) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this chap-
ter.
(3) Upon the effective date of any ap-
proved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this sec-
tion.
56. In § 52.493, paragraph (k) is added
to read as follows:
(k) (1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
purposes of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it cur-
rently possesses legal authority to
enforce any final action taken by such
entity or agency, or that it is willing to
enforce the provisions of this section
using authority delegated to it by the
Administrator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the jurisdic-
tion in which the proposed facility Is
located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of
this section including Appendix B.
57. In § 52.493, paragraph (1) is added
to read as follows:
(1) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in accord-
ance with the application as approved by
the Administrator; nny owner or operator
who fails to construct and operate a
parking facility in accordance with con-
ditions imposed by the Administrator or
agency designed by him; any owner or
operator who modifies a parking facility
in violation of conditions imposed by the
Administrator or agency designated by
him; or any owner or operator of a park-
ing facility subject to this section who
commences construction or modification
thereof on or after January 1,1975, with-
out applying for and receiving approval
hereunder, shall be subject to the pen-
alties specified under section 113 of the
Act and shall be considered in violation
of an emission standard or limitation
under section 304 of the Act. Subsequent
modification to an approved parking fa-
cility may be made without applying for
permission pursuant to this section only
where, such modification would not vio-
late any condition imposed pursuant to
paragraph (g) of this section and would
not be subject to the modification criteria
set forth in paragraph (c) (2) of this
section.
Subpart V—Maryland
§ 52.1103 [Amended]
58. In §52.1103(a), subparagraph (1)
Is revised to read as follows:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called "fa-
cility") means any off-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, in or
on which motor vehicles are parked.
59. In § 52.1103(a), subparagraphs (3)
and (4) are revised to read as follows:
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a con-
tinuous program of on-site construction
including site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation for
the fabrication, erection, or installation
of the building components of the facil-
ity. For the purpose of this paragraph,
interruptions resulting from acts of God,
strikes, litigation, or other matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded in determining whether a
construction or modification program Is
continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modifi-
cation" means to engage in a continuous
program of on-site modification, includ-
ing site clearance, grading, dredging, or
land filling in preparation for a specific
modification of the parking facility.
60. In §52.1103(a), subparagraph (5)
is deleted.
61. In §52.1103(c), the first sentence
Is amended by inserting the words "on
or" after the word "commenced."
62. In |52.1103(e), subparagraph (3)
is added to rend as follows:
(3) The methodology for satisfying the
requirements of paragraphs (e)(l) and
(e) (2) of this section is explained in Ap-
pendix B.
63. In §52.1l03(f), the following
phrase is added after the word "infor-
mation":
"; unless the applicant has received a
waiver from the Administrator or agency
approved by him:"
64. In § 52.1103(f),subparagraph (13)
Is added to read as follows:
(13) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more vehicles, cer-
tain additional information is required
as is specified in Appendix B.
65. In § 52.1103 paragraph (g) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(g) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance with
the information submitted in the appli-
cation. In addition, the Administrator
may prescribe reasonable construction
and operating conditions to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
66. In § 52.1103, paragraph (h) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(h)(l) Within 20 days after receipt
of an application or addition thereto, the
Administrator shall advise the owner or
operator of any deficiency in the in-
formation submitted in support of the
application. In the event of such a de-
ficiency, the date of receipt of the appli-
cation for the purpose of subparagraph
(2) of this paragraph shall be the date
on which the required information is
received by the Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30450
PROPOSED RULES
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking, facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
(ii) Make available in at least one
location in each region in which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials sub-
mitted by the owner or operator, a copy
of the Administrator's preliminary deter-
mination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, if any, considered by
the Administrator in making his prelim-
inary determinations; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement In a newspaper of general
circulation in each region in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment on the information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion on the approvability of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagraph shall be sent
to the applicant and to officials and agen-
cies having cognizance over the location
where the parking facility will be situ-
ated, as follows: state and local air pol-
lution control agencies, the chief execu-
tive' of the city and county; and any
comprehensive regional land use planning
agency.
(4) Public comments submitted in
writing within 30 days after the date
such information is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator in
making his final decision on the applica-
tion. No later than 10 days after the
close of the public comment period, the
applicant may submit a written response
to any comments submitted by the pub-
lic. The Administrator shall consider the
applicant's response in making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public inspection in at least
one location in the region in which the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant in writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the
application, and shall set forth his rea-
sons for conditional approval or denial.
Such notification shall be made available
for public inspection in at least one loca-
tion in the region in which the parking
facility would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of-the time periods specified in sub-
paragraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this para-
graph by no more than 30 days, or such
other period as agreed to by the appli-
cant and the Administrator.
67. In § 52.1103, paragraph (i) is added
to read as follows:
(i) Approval to construct or modify
shall become invalid if construction or
modification is not commenced within
24 months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator may extend such
time period upon a satisfactory showing
that an extension Is Justified, The appli-
cant may apply for such an extension at
the time of initial application or at any
time thereafter.
08. In § 52.1103, paragraph (j) Is
added to read as follows:
(j)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has full and adequate
legal authority to enforce compliance
with its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are con-
sistent with the substantive and proce-
dural provisions of this section including
Appendix B.
(iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this chapter.
(3) Upon the effective date of any ap-
proved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this sec-
tion.
69. In § 52.1103, paragraph (k) is
added to read as follows:
(k> (1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
purpose of carrying out Die review of fa-
cilities and enforcement under'this sec-
tion. e
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possess legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such entity or
agency, or that it is willing to enforce
the provisions of this section using au-
thority delegated to it by the Adminis-
trator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the juris-
diction in which the proposed facility
is located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of
this section including Appendix B.
70. In §52.1103, paragraph (1) is
added to read as follows:
(1) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in ac-
cordance with the application as ap-
proved by the Administrator: any owner
or operator who fails to construct and
operate a parkins facility in accordance
with conditions imposed by the Admin-
istrator or agency designated by him;
any owner or operator who modifies a
parking facility in violation of conditions
imposed by the Administrator or agency
designated by him; or any owner or
operator of a parking facility subject to
this section who commences construc-
tion or modification thereof on or after
January 1,1970 without applying for and
receiving approval hereunder, shall be
subject to the penalties specified under
section 113 of the Act and shall be con-
sidered in violation of an emission stand-
ard or limitation under section 304 of
the Act. Subsequent modification to an
approved parking facility may be made
without applying for permission pursu-
ant to this section only where such modi-
fication would not violate any condition
imposed pursuant to paragraph (g) of
this section and would not be subject
to the modification criteria set forth in
paragraph (c) (2) of this section.
Subpart V—Maryland
§52.1111 [Amcmlcd]
71. In §52.1111(a), subparagraph (1)
Is revised to read as follows:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called
"facility") means any off-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, In or
on which motor vehicles arc parked.
72. In § 52.1111 (a>. subparagraphs (3),
(4), and (5) are deleted and replaced
by subparagraphs (3) and (4) to read
as follows:
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a continu-
ous program, of on-site construction in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling specifically designed for a
parking facility in preparation for the
fabrication, erection, or installation of
the building components of the facility.
For the purpose of this paragraph, inter-
ruptions resulting from acts of God,
strikes, litigation, or other matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded in determining whether a
construction or modification program is
continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modi-
fication" means to engage in a continu-
ous program of on-site modification, in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling in preparation for a spe-
cific modification of the parking facility.
73. In §52.1111(c>, the first sentence
Is amended by deleting fne words "para-
graphs (d) through (i) of" and by in-
serting the words "on or" after the word
"commenced."
74. In §52.llllCe). subparagraph (3)
Is added to read as follows:
(3) The methodology for satisfying
the requirements of subparagraphs (e)
(1) and (e)(2) of this section is ex-
plained in Appendix B.
75. In § 52.llll(f), subparagraph (12)
is added to read as follows:
(12) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles.
certain additional information is re-
quired as is specified in Appendix B.
76. In § 52.1111 paragraph (h) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(h) Each application shall be signed'
by the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance
with the information submitted in the
application. In addition, tha Administra-
tor may prescribe rea-sonaljle construc-
tion and operating conditions to any
permit granted. Such conditions shall be
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 39, NO. 1«4—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30451
agreed to In writing by the applicant
before any permit Is granted by the
Administrator.
77. In § 52.1111. paragraph (1) Is re-
vised to read as follows:
(1) (1) Within 20 days after receipt
of an application, or addition thereto,
the Administrator shall advise the owner
or operator of any deficiency in the in-
formation submitted In support of the
application. In the event of such a
deficiency, the date of receipt of the
application for the purpose of subpara-
graph (2) of this paragraph shall be
the date on which the required informa1-
tlon Is received by the Administrator.
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(1) Make a preliminary determination
Whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
(ii) Make available In at least one
location in each region In which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials sub-
mitted by the owner or operator, a copy
of the Administrator's preliminary de-
termination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, if any, considered by the
Administrator in making his preliminary
determination; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in each region in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
'structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment on the information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion on the approvability of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagraph shall be sent
to the applicant and to officials and agen-
cies having cognizance over the location
where the parking facility will be situ-
ated, as follows state and local air pollu-
tion control agencies; the chief executive
of the city and county; and any com-
prehensive regional land use planning
agency.
(4) Public comments submitted In
writing within 30 days after the date
such information is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator in
making his final decision on the appli-
cation. No later than 10 days after the
close of the public comment period, the
applicant may submit a written response
to any comments submitted by the pub-
lic. The Administrator shall consider the
applicant's response in making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public inspection in at least
one location in the region in which the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment pe-
riod. The Administrator shall notify the-
applicant in writing of his approval, con-
ditional approval, or denial of the appli-
cation and shall set forth his reasons
for conditional approval or denial. Such
notification shall be made available for
public inspection in at least one loca-
tion in the region In which the parking
facility would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified in sub-
paragraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this para-
graph by no more than 30 days, or such
other period as agreed to by the appli-
cant and the Administrator.
78. In § 52.1111 paragraphs (j) and (k)
are revised as follows:
(j) (1) Approval to construct or modify
shall become invalid If construction or
modification is not commenced within 24
months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator may extend such time
period upon a satisfactory showing that
an extension is justified. The applicant
may apply for such an extension at the
time of initial application or at any time
thereafter.
(k)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or
regional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the re-
view of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or agency
submiting the plan has full and adequate
legal authority to enforce compliance
with its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of this section includ-
ing Appendix B.
- (iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of §.51.4 of this chapter.
(3) Upon the effective date^of any ap-
proved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this sec-
tion.
79. In §52.1111, paragraph (1) is ad-
ded to read as follows:
(1 (1) a Local governmental entity, local
air pollution control agency or regional
planning agency may, upon request to the
Administrator, be delegated the author-
ity of the Administrator for purposes of
carrying out the review of facilities and
enforcement under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such entity or
agency, or that it is willing to enforce the
provisions of this section using author-
ity delegated to it by the Administrator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the jurisdic-
tion in which the proposed facility is
located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of this
section including Appendix B.
80. In §52.1111, paragraph (m) is
added to read as follows:
(m) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in accord-
ance with the application as approved
by the Administrator; any owner or oper-
ator who falls to construct and operate a
parking facility in accordance with con-
ditions imposed by the Administrator or
agency designed by him; any owner or
operator who modifies a parking facility
In violation of conditions imposed by the
Administrator or agency designated by
him; or any owner or operator of a park-
Ing facility subject to this section who
commences construction or modification
thereof on or after January 1,1975, with-
out applying for and receiving approval
hereunder, shall be subject to the penal-
ties specified under section 113 of the
Act and shall be considered in violation
of an emission standard or limitation un-
der section 304 of the Act. Subsequent
modification to an approved parking fa-
cility may be made without applying for
permission pursuant to paragraph (h) of
this section only where such modification
would not violate any condition imposed
pursuant to paragraph (c) (2) of this
section.
Subpart W—Massachusetts
52.1128, 52.1135
[Amended]
and 52.1136
81. In § 52.1135(a),subparagraphs (1).
(2), and (4) are deleted and replaced by
new subparagraphs (1) and (2)-to read
.as follows:
(1) The phrase "to commence con-
.struction" means to engage in a continu-
ous program of on-site construction in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation for
the fabrication, erection, or installation
of the building components of the facil-
ity. For the purpose of this paragraph,
interruptions resulting from acts of God,
strikes, litigation, or other matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded in determining whether a
construction or modification program is
continuous.
(2) The phrase "to commence modi-
fication" means to engage in a continuous
program of on-site modification, includ-
ing site clearance, grading, dredging, or
land filling in preparation for a specific
modification of the parking facility.
82. In § 52.1135(a), subparagraphs (5)
through (12) are redesignated as sub-
paragraphs (3) through (10) respec-
tively.
83. In § 52.1135(a), the newly redesig-
nated subparagraph (3) is revised to read
a.s follows:
(3) "Parking facility" means any off-
street area or space, lot, garage, building
or structure, or combination or portion
thereof, in or on which motor vehicles
are parked.
84. In § 52.1135(c), the internal refer-
ences to subparagraph "(a) (6)" are re-
vised to read "(a) (4) ". In subparagraph
(3), the internal reference to paragraphs
"(h) and (k)" is revised to read "(r)
and (u)."
85. In §52.1135, paragraph (d) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(d) The requirements of this section
are applicable to the following parking
facilities in the areas specified in para-
graph (b) of this section, the construc-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30152
PROPOSED RULES
tlon or modification of which is com-
menced on or after January 1, 1975.
(1) Within the freeze area, any new
parking facility with parking capacity for
50 or more motor vehicles, or any parking
facility that will be modified to increase
parking capacity by 50 or more motor
vehicles;
(2) Outside the freeze area, any new
parking facility with parking capacity for
250 or more motor vehicles, or any park-
ing facility that will be modified by 250
or more motor vehicles; and
(3) Any parkins' facility constructed
or modified In increments which indi-
vidually are not subject to review under
this section, but which, when all such
increments occurring since January 1,
1975, are added together, as a total would
subject the facility to review under this
section.
86. In §52.1135, paragraphs (g), (h).
(1), (j), (k), and (1) are redcsignated
as paragraphs (q), (r), (s), ".
d. In §52.1135 (u), "(d) and (e)" to
"(d), (e). and (f)11.
87. In § 52.1135, a new paragraph (e)
is added to rend as follows:
(e) No person shall commence con-
struction or modification of any facility
subject to this section without, first ob-
taining written approval from the Ad-
ministrator or an agency designated by
him; provided that this paragraph shall
not apply to any proposed construction
or modification for which a general con-
struction contract was finally executed
by all appropriate parties on or before
January 1, 1975.
88, In § 52.1135. the newly redesigr-
nated paragraph (f) is revised as fol-
lows: The date.3 "August 15, 1973" are
revised to read "October 15, 1973"; and
the word "commercial" is inserted be-
fore the words "parking facility" and
again before the words "existing facil-
ity" in the first sentence; the word "per-
mit" is changed to "approval" in the
first sentence; and the reference to par-
agraph "(d)" is revised to read para-
graph "(ei".
89. In § 52.1135, the newly redesig-
nated paragraph (g) is revised to read
as follows:
(g) No approval to construct or mod-
ify a facility requiring the permit de-
scribed -in paragraph of this section
shall be granted unless the applicant
shows to the satisfaction of the Admin-
istrator or an agency approved by him
that:
(1) The design or operation of the
facility will not cause a violation of
the control strategy which is a part of
the applicable implementation plan and
will be consistent with the plan's VMT
reduction goals.
(2) The emissions resulting from the
design or operation of the facility will
not prevent or interfere with the at-
tainment or maintenance of any na-
tional ambient air quality standard at
any time within 10 years from the date
of application.
(3) Construction or modification of the
facility will comply with the require-
ments of paragraphs (r) and (u) of this
section.
(4) The methodology for satisfying
the requirements of paragraph An estimate of the effect of the
facility on traffic pat!era and flow.
(10) An estimate of the effect of the
facility on total VMT for the air quality
control region.
(11) An analysis of the effect of the
facility on site and regional air quality,
including a .showing that the facility will
be compatible with the applicable imple-
mentation plan, and that the facility will
not cause any national air quality stand-
ard to be exceeded within 10 years from
date of application. The Administrator
may prescribe a standardized screening
technique to be used in analyzing the
effect of the facility on ambient air
quality.
(12) In the event the facility contains
employee parking spaces, the parking
space/employee ratio that will occur as a
result -of construction or modification of
the facility.
(13) Additional information, plans,
specification, or documents as required
by the Administrator.
(14> For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles,
certain additional information is re-
quired as is specified in Appendix B.
91. in § 53.1135. a new paragraph (i) is
added to read as follows:
(i) Each applicant shall be signed by
the owner or operator of the facility,
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed or operated in accordance with
the information submitted in the appli-
cation. In addition, the Administrator
may prescribe reasonable construction
and operating conditions to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
92. In § 52.1135. a new paragraph
is added to read as follows:
(j)(l) Within 20 days aftsr receipt of
an application, or addition thereto, the
Administrator shall advise the owner or
operator of anv deficiency in the infor-
mation submitted in support of the ap-
plication-. In the event of such a defi-
ciency, the date of receipt of the appli-
cation for the purpose of subparagrapli
(2) of this paragraph shall be the date
on which the required information is
received by the Administrator.
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (f) of this
section, or disapproved. ••
(ii) Make available in at least one
location in each region in which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of the Administrator's
preliminary determination, and a copy
or summary of other materials, if any.
considered by the Administrator in mak-
ing his preliminary determination; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in each- re'.don in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment en the information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion on the apnrovability of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagraph shall be sent
to the anplicant and to officials and
agencies having cognizance over the lo-
cation where the parking facility will be
situated, as follows: State and local air
pollution control agencies; the chief ex-
ecutive of the city and county; and any
comnrehensivo regional land use plan-
ning agency.
(4) Public comments submitted In
writing within 30 days after the date such
information is made available shall be
considered by the Administrator m mak-
ing his final decision on the application.
No later than 10 days after the close of
the public comment period, the f.pplifnnt
may submit a written response to any
comments submitted by the public. The
Administrator shall consider the appli-
cant's response in making his final.deci-
sion. All comments shrill be made avail-
able for public insnection in at least one
location in the region in which the park-
ing facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant in writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
3015.3
application, and shall set forth his rea-
sons for conditional approval or denial.
Such notification shall be made available
for public inspection in at least one loca-
tion in the region in which the parking
facility would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified in sub-
paragraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this para-
graph by no more than 30 days, or such
other period as agreed to by the appli-
cant and the Administrator.
&3. § 52.1135, a new paragraph (k) is
added to read as follows:
(k) Approval to construct or modify
shall become invalid if construction or
modification is not commenced within
24 months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator may extend such time
period upon a satisfactory showing that
an extension is justified. The applicant
may apply for such an extension at the
time of initial application or at any time
thereafter.
94. In § 52.1135, a new paragraph (1)
Is added to read as follows:
95. (1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has full and ade-
quate legal authority to enforce com-
pliance with its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of this section includ-'
ing Appendix B.
(iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this
chapter.
(3) Upon the effective date of any ap-
proved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this
section.
• 96. In § 52.1135, a new paragraph (m)
is added to read as follows:
(m)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may,-upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
purposes of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such. entity or
agency, or that it is willing to enforce
the provisions of this section using au-
thority delegated to it by the Adminis-
trator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the juris-
diction in which the proposed facility
is located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of
this section including Appendix B.
97. In §52.1135 a new paragraph (n)
is added to read as follows:
of Section 52.1135.
106. In § 52.1130 as amended on Janu-
ary 15, 1974, (39 FR 1848), a new para-
graph (f) is added to read ns follows:
(f) The City of Eo.'tcn or any political
subdivision or administrative bodies hav-
ing jurisdiction over any off-strert com-
mcrcir.l parking facilities within the core
area shall submit to the /Ulministrntor
prior to December 31, 1974, a detailed
comnliance schedule indicating' t\;c. steps
it will take to enforce the parkin" reduc-
tion required by this section. Such sched-
ule shall include as a minimum the
following:
(1) Designation of one or more agen-
cies responsible for the administration
uiid enforcement, of the program; and
(2) the procedures by which the desig-
nated agency will enforce the prohibition
provided for in paragraph (c) of this
section.
Subpart FF—New Jersey
§ 52.15SS [Ai.icn.lo.!]
107. In § 52.1588(a), subparagraph (2)
is revised to read as follows:
(2) "Parking facility" (also called
"facility") means any off-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thercot, in or
on which motor vehicles are parked.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22. 1974
-------
30454
PROPOSED RULES
108. In 9 52.1588(a), subparagraph (4)
and (5) are revised to read as follows:
(4) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a contin-
uous program of on-slte construction in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling specifically designed for
a parking facility in preparation for the
fabrication, erection or installation of the
building components of the facility. For
the purpose of this paragraph, interrup-
tions resulting from acts of God, strikes,
litigation, or other matters beyond the
control of the owner shall be disregarded
in determining whether a construction or
modification program is continuous.
(5) The phrase "to commence modifi-
cation" means to engage in a continuous
program of on-site modification, in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling in preparation for a spe-
cific modification of the parking facil-
ity.
109. In § 52.1588(a) subparagraph 6 is
deleted.
110. In § 52.1588(c). the first sentence
Is.amended by inserting the words "on
or"' after, the word "commenced."
Administrator or an agency designated
by him that the facility will be used for
"residential parking only."
111. In §52.1588(c), (1) the number
"50" is revised to read "250."
112. In § 52.1588(c), subparagraph (2)
is revised to read as follows:
(2) Any existing parking facility that
will be modified to increase parking
capacity by 250 or more motor vehicles,
and
113. In §52.1588(e), subparagraph
(3) is added to read as follows:
(3) The methodology for satisfying
the requirements of subparagraphs (e)
(1) and (e)(2) of this section, are ex-
plained in Appendix B.
114. In § 52.1588, paragraph (g) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(g) All applications under this section
shall include the following information
unless the applicant has received a
waiver from the Administrator or agency
approved by him:
115. In § 52.1588(g), subparagraph (8)
Is added to to read as follows:
(8) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles,
certain additional information is re-
quired as is specified in Appendix B.
116. In § 52.1588, paragraph (h) is
revised to read as follows:
(h) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance with
the information submitted in the appli-
cation. In addition, the Administrator
may prescribe reasonable construction
and operating conditions to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
117. In §52.1588, paragraph (i) is
revised to read as follows:
(i) (1) Within 20 days after receipt of
an. application or addition thereto, the
Administrator shall advise the owner or
operator of any deficiency in the infor-
mation submitted in support of the ap-
plication. In the event of such a defi-
ciency, the date of receipt of the applica-
tion for the purpose of subparagraph (2)
of tliis paragraph shall be the date on
which the required information is re-
ceived by the Administrator.
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall;
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
(ii) Make available in at least one lo-
cation in each region in which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials sub-
mitted by the owner or operator, .a copy
of the Administrator's preliminary de-
termination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, if any, considered by
the Administrator in making his pre-
liminary determination; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in each region in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment on the information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion on the approvability of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagrr-ph'.shall be sent
to the applicant nnd to officials and agen-
cies having cognizance over the location
.where the parking facility will be situ-
ated, as follows: state and local air'pollu-
tion control agencies; the chief executive
of the city and county; and any compre-
hensive regional land use planning
agency.
(4) Public comments submitted in
writing within 30 days after the date
such information is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator in
making his final decision on the applica-
tion. No later than 10 days after the close
of the public comment period, the appli-
cant may submit a written response to
any comments submitted by the public.
The Administrator shall consider the ap-
plicant's response in making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public inspection in at least
one location in the region in which the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant in writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the ap-
plication, and shall set forth his reasons
for conditional approval or denial. Such
notification shall be made available for
public inspection in at least one location
in the region in which the parking fa-
cility would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified in sub-
paragraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this para-
graph by no more than 30 days, or such
other period as agreed to by the appli-
cant and the Administrator.
118. In § 52.1588, paragraph (J) Is
added to read as follows:
(j) Approval to construct or modify
shall become invalid if construction or
modification is not commenced within
24 months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator may extend such time
period upon a satisfactory showing that
an extension is justified. The applicant
may apply for such an extension at the
time of initial application or at any time
thereafter.
119. In § 52.1588, paragraph (k) is
added to read as follows:
(k)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has full and ade-
quate legal authority to enforce com-
pliance with its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of this section includ-
ing Appendix B.
(iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this
chapter.
(3) Upon the effective date of any ap-
proved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this
section.
120. In § 52.1588, paragraph (1) is
added to read as follows:
(1)(1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
purposes of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following condi-
tions are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such entity or
agency, or that it is willing to enforce
the provisions of this section using
authority delegated to it by the
Administrator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such govemmentnl entity
or agency will be binding in the jurisdic-
tion in which the proposed facility is
located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of
this section including Appendix B..
121. In § 52.1588, paragraph (m) is
added to read as follows:
(m) Any owner or operator who falls
to construct a parking facility in accord-
ance with the application as approved
by the Administrator; any owner or
operator who fails to construct and op-
erate a parking facility in accordance
with conditions imposed by the Admin-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30455
istrator or agency designated by him;
any owner or operator who modifies a
parking facility in violation of conditions
imposed by the Administrator or agency
designated by him; or any owner or
operator of a parking facility subject to
this section who commences construction
or modification thereof on or after Janu-
ary 1, 1975, without applying for and
receiving approval hereunder, shall be
subject to the penalties specified under
section 113 of the Act and shall be con-
sidered in violation of an emission
standard or limitation under section 304
of the Act. Subsequent modification to
an approved parking facility mny be
made without applying for permission
pursuant to this section only where such
modification would not violate any con-
dition imposed pursuant to paragraph
(h) of this section and would not be sub-
ject to the modification criteria set forth
in paragraph (c) (2) of this section.
Subpart NN—Pennsylvania
§ 52.2040 [Amended]
122. In § 52.2040(a), subparagraph (1)
Is revised to read as follows:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called
"facility") means any off-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, in or
on which motor vehicles are parked.
123.1n § 52.2040(a), subparagraphs
(3) and (4) are revised to read as fol-
lows :
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a contin-
uous program of on-site construction
Including site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation for
the fabrication, erection, or installation
of the building components of the facil-
ity. For the purpose of this paragraph,
interruptions resulting from acts oi' God,
strikes, litigation, or other matters be-
yond the control of the owner shall be
disregarded in determining whether a
construction or modification program is
continuous.
(4) The phrp.se "to commence modi-
fication" means to engage in a continu-
ous program of on-site modification, in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredging,
or land filling in preparation for a specific
modification of the parking facility.
124. In § 52.2(MO(a) subparagraph (5)
is deleted and subparagraph (G) is re-
designated as snbparaprarh (5>.
125. In § 52.20!0, the first sentence
Is amended by inserting the words "on
or" after the word "commenced."
126. In §52.2CKCKc>. U> the number
"50" is revised to read "250."
127.- In § 52.20401 c>, subparagraph (2)
is revised to rend as follows: '
• (2) Any parking facility that will be
modified to increase parking capacity by
250 or more motor vehicles,
128. In § 52.2040fe>, Eiibparagrnph <3)
is added to read as follows:
(3) The methodology for the satisfy-
ing requirements of paragraphs (e)(l)
and (e) (2) of this section is explained in
Appendix B.
129. In } 52.2040, paragraph is re-
vised to read as follows:
(g) All applications under this section
shall include the following information
unless the applicant has received a waiv-
er from the Administrator or agency
approved by him."
130. In § 52.2040(g), subparagraph (8)
Is added to read as follows:
(8) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehi-
cles, certain additional information is re-
quired as is specified in Appendix B.
131. In §52.2040, paragraph (h) is
deleted.
132. In § 52.2040, paragraph (i) is re-
designated as paragraph (h), and revised
to read as follows:
(h) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility,
whose signature shall constitute .an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance with
the information submitted in the appli-
cation. In addition, the Administrator
mny prescribe reasonable construction
and operating condition.'; to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
133. In § 52.2040, paragraph (j) is re-
designated as paragraph (i) and revised
to read as follows:
(i) (l) Within 20 days after receipt of
an application or addition thereto, the
Administrator shall advise the owner
or operator of any deficiency in the in-
formation submitted in support of the
application. In the event of such a defi-
ciency, the date of receipt of the applica-
tion for the purpose of suhjjr.ragraph (2)
of this paragraph shall bo the date on
which the required information is re-
ceived by the Administrator.
(2) Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a.preliminary determination
whether the parkins facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
-------
30456
PROPOSED RULES
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
purpo'ses of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
• are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such entity or
agency, or that it is willing to enforce
the provisions of this section using au-
thority delegated to it by the Adminis-
trator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final ac-
tion taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the jurisdic-
tion in wliich the proposed facility is
located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive1 and procedural provisions of this
section including Appendix B.
137. In § 52.2040, paragraph (m) is
added to read as follows:
(m) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in accord-
ance with the application as approved by
the Administrator; any owner or opera-
te* who fails to construct and operate
a parking facility in accordance with con-
ditions imposed by the Administrator or
agency designated by him; or any owner
or operator who modifies a parking facil-
ity in violation of conditions imposed by
the Administrator or agency designated
by him; or any operator of a parking fa- .
cility subject to this section who com-
mences construction or modification
thereof on or after January 1,1975, with-
out applying for and receiving approval
hereunder, shall be subject to the pen-
alties specified uno'.er section 113 of the
Act and shall be considered in violation
of an emission standard or limitation
under section 304 of the Act. Subsequent
modification to an approved parking fa-
cility may be made without applying for
permission pursuant to this section only
where such modification would not vio-
late any condition imposed pursuant to
paragraph (h) of this section and would
not be subject to the modification criteria
set forth in paragraph (c) (2) of this
section.
Subpart SS—Texas
§ 52.2295 [Amended]
138. In §52.2295(a), subparagraph
(1) is revised to read as follows:
(1) ''Parking facility" (also called
"facility") means any oil-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, in or
on which motor vehicles are parked.
139. In §52.2295(a), subparagraphs
(3) and (4) are revised to read as fol-
lows :
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a con-
tinuous program of on-site construction
including site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation for
the fabrication, erection, or installa-
tion of the building components of the
facility. For the purpose of this para-
graph, interruptions resulting from acts
of God, strikes, litigation, or other mat-
ters beyond the control of the owner
shall be disregarded in determining
whether a construction or modification
program is continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modifi-
cation" means to engage in a continuous
program of on-site modification, includ-
ing site clearance, grading, dredging, or
land filling in preparation for a specific
modification of the parking facility.
140. In § 52.2295(a),subparagraph (5)
is deleted.
141. In § 52.2295(c), the first sentence
is amended by inserting the words "on
or" after the word "commenced."
142. In § 52.2295(e), subparagraph (3)
is added to read as follows:
(3) The methodology for satisfying the
requirements of paragraphs (e) (1) and
(e) (2) of this section is explained in Ap-
pendix B.
143. In § 52.2295 (f), the following
phrase is added after the word "informa-
tion":
"unless the applicant has received a
waiver from the Administrator or agency
approved by him:"
144. In §52.2295(f), subparagraph
(13) is added to read as follows:
(13) For any parking facility having
capacity for 1000 or more motor vehicles,
certain additional information is re-
quired as is specified in Appendix B.
145. In § 52.2295 paragraph ,(g) is re-
vised to read as follows:
(g) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance with
the information submitted in the appli-
cation. In addition, the Administrator
may prescribe reasonable construction
and operation conditions to any permit
granted. Such conditions shall be agreed
to in writing by the applicant before any
permit is granted by the Administrator.
146. In §52.2295, paragraphs (h), (i),
(j), and (k) are deleted and replaced
by a new paragraph (h) to read as fol-
lows :
(h)U) Within 20 days after receipt
of an application, or addition thereto,
the Administrator shall advise the owner
or operator of any deficiency in the infor-
mation submitted in support of the appli-
cation. In the event of such a deficiency,
the date of receipt of the application for
the purpose of subparagraph (2) of this
paragraph shall be the date on which
the required information is received by
the Administrator.
(2) .Within 30 days after receipt of a
complete application, the Administrator
shall:
(i) Make a preliminary determination
whether the parking facility should be
approved, approved with conditions in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, or disapproved.
(ii) Make available in at least one lo-
cation in each region in which the pro-
posed parking facility would be con-
structed, a copy of all materials sub-
mitted by the owner or operator, a copy
of the Administrator's preliminary deter-
mination, and a copy or summary of
other materials, if any, considered by the
Administrator in making his preliminary
determination; and
(iii) Notify the public, by prominent
advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation in each region in which the
proposed parking facility would be con-
structed, of the opportunity for written
public comment of the information sub-
mitted by the owner or operator and the
Administrator's preliminary determina-
tion on the approvability of the facility.
(3) A copy of the notice required pur-
suant to this subparagraph shall be sent
to the applicant and to officials and agen-
cies having cognizance of the location
where the parking facility will be situ-
ated, as follows: State and local air pol-
lution control agencies; the chief execu-
tive of the city and county; and any com-
prehensive regional land use planning
agency.
(4) Public comments submitted in
writing within 30 days after the date
such information is made available shall
be considered by the Administrator in
making .his final decision on the appli-
cation. No later than 10 days after the
close of the public comment period, the
applicant may submit a written response
to any comments submitted by the pub-
lic. The Administrator shall consider the
applicant's response in making his final
decision. All comments shall be made
available for public inspection in at least
one location in the region in which the
parking facility would be located.
(5) The Administrator shall take final
action on an application within 30 days
after the close of the public comment
period. The Administrator shall notify
the applicant in writing of his approval,
conditional approval, or denial of the ap-
plication, and shall set forth his reasons
for conditional approval or denial. Such
notification shall be made available for
public inspection in at least one location
in the region in which the parking facil-
ity would be located.
(6) The Administrator may extend
each of the time periods specified in sub-
paragraphs (2), (4), or (5) of this para-
graph by no more than. 30 days, or such
other period as agreed to by the appli-
cant and the Administrator.
147. In § 52.2295, a new paragraph (i)
is added to read as follows:
(i) Approval to construct or modify
shall become invalid if construction or .
modification is not commenced within 24
months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator, may extend such a
time period upon a satisfactory showing
that an extension is justified. The appli-
cant may apply for such an extension at
the time of initial application or at any
time thereafter.
148. In § 52.2295, a new paragraph (j)
is added as follows:
(j)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or
regional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30457
the authority of the Administrator for
the purposes of carrying out the review
of facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following condi-
tions are met:
(1) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it cur-
' rently possesses legal authority to en-
force any final action taken by such en-
tity or agency, or that it is willing^to
enforce the provisions of this section
using authority delegated to it by the
Administrator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final
action taken by such governmental entity
or agency will be binding in the juris-
diction in which the proposed facility is
located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
stantive and procedural provisions of this
section including Appendix B.
149. In § 52.2295, paragraph (1) is re-
designated as paragraph (k) revised to
read as follows:
(k) (1) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has full and ade-
quate legal authority to enforce compli-
ance with its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of this section includ-
ing Appendix B.
(iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this chapter.
(3) Upon the effective date of any
approved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this
section.
150. In § 52.2295, a new paragraph (1)
is added to read as follows:
(1) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in ac-
cordance with the application as ap-
proved by the Administrator; any owner
or operator who fails to construct and
operate a parkins facility in accordance
with conditions imposed by the Admin-
istrator or agency designated by him;
any owner or operator who modifies a
parking-facility in violation of conditions
imposed by the Administrator or agency
designated by him; or any owner or
operator of a parking facility subject
to this section who commences construc-
tion or modification thereof on or'after
'January 1, 1975, without applying for
and receiving approval hcrcundcr, shall
be subject to the penalties specified
under section 113 of the Act and shall
be considered in violation of an emission
standard or limitation under section 304
of the Act. Subsequent modification to
an approved parking facility may be
made without applying for permission
pursuant to this section only where such
modification would not violate any condi-
tion imposed pursuant to paragraph (9)
of this section and would not be subject
to the modification criteria set forth in
paragraph (c) (2) of this section.
Subpart W— Virginia
§ 52.2443 [Amended]
151. In § 52.2443 (a), subparagraph (1)
is revised to read as follows:
(1) "Parking facility" (also called
"facility") means any off-street area or
space, lot, garage, building or structure,
or combination or portion thereof, in
or on which motor vehicles are parked.
152. In §52.2443(a), subparagraphs
(3) and (4) are revised to read as
follows:
(3) The phrase "to commence con-
struction" means to engage in a con-'
tinuous program of on-site construction
including site clearance, grading, dredg-
ing, or land filling specifically designed
for a parking facility in preparation
for the fabrication, erection, or installa-
tion of the building components of the
facility. For the purpose of this para-
graph, interruptions, resulting from acts
of God, strikes, litigation, or other mat-
ters beyond the control of the owner
shall be disregarded in determining
whether a construction or modification
program is continuous.
(4) The phrase "to commence modifi-
cation" means to engage in a continuous
program of on-site modification in-
cluding site clearance, grading, dredg-
ging, or land filling in preparation for a
specific modification of the parking
facility.
153. In § 52.2443 (a) , sub'paragraph (5)
is deleted.
154. In § 52.2443 (c), the first sentence
is amended by inserting the words "on
or" after the word "commenced."
155. In § 52.2443, paragraph (g) is
revised to read as follows:
(g) Each application shall be signed
by the owner or operator of the facility,
whose signature shall constitute an
agreement that the facility shall be con-
structed and operated in accordance
with the information submitted in the
application. In addition the Administra-
tor may prescribe reasonable construc-
tion and operating conditions to any per-
mit granted. Such conditions shall be
agreed to in writing by the applicant be-
fore tiny permit is granted by the Ad-
ministrator.
156. In §52.2443
-------
30458
PROPOSED RULES
159. In 8 52.2443, paragraph (i) Is
added to read as follows:
(1) Approval to construct or modify
shall become invalid if construction or
modification is not commenced within 24
months after receipt of such approval.
The Administrator may extend such time
period upon a satisfactory showing that
an .extension is justified. The applicant
may apply for such an extension at the
time of initial application or at any time
thereafter.
160. In §52.2443, paragraph (j) is
added to read as follows:
(j)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or re-
gional planning agency may submit, at
any time, a comprehensive parking man-
agement plan as an alternative to the
review of facilities under this section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such plan if he finds that:
(i) The governmental entity or agency
submitting the plan has full and ade-
quate legal authority to enforce compli-
ance with its requirements.
(ii) The provisions of the plan are
consistent with the substantive and pro-
cedural provisions of this section includ-
ing Appendix B.
(iii) The plan has been adopted after
a public hearing held in conformity with
the requirements of § 51.4 of this
chapter.
(3) Upon the effective date of any
approved local comprehensive parking
management plan, such plan shall re-
place all applicable portions of this
section.
161. In §52.2443, paragraph (k) is
added to read as follows:
(k)(l) A local governmental entity,
local air pollution control agency, or
regional planning agency may, upon re-
quest to the Administrator, be delegated
the authority of the Administrator for
purposes of carrying out the review of
facilities and enforcement under this
section.
(2) The Administrator may approve
such a request if the following conditions
are met:
(i) Demonstration by such govern-
mental entity or agency that it currently
possesses legal authority to enforce any
final action taken by such entity or
agency, or that it is willing to enforce
the provisions of this section using au-
thority delegated to it by the Adminis-
trator.
(ii) Demonstration that any final
action taken by such governmental
entity or agency will be binding in the
jurisdiction in which the proposed
facility is located.
(iii) Demonstration that the review
process will be consistent with the sub-
' stantive and procedural provisions of
this section including Appendix B.
162. In § 52.2443, paragraph (1) is
added to read as follows:
(1) Any owner or operator who fails
to construct a parking facility in accord-
ance with the application as approved by
the Administrator; any owner or oper-
ator who fails to construct and operate
a parking facility in accordance with
conditions imposed by the Administrator
or agency designated by him; any owner
or operator who modifies a parking
facility in violation of conditions im-
posed by the Administrator or agency
designated by him; or any owner or
operator of a parking facility subject to
this section who commences construc-
tion or modification thereof on or after
January 1, 1975, without applying for
and receiving approval hereunder, shall
be subject to the penalties specified
under section 113 of the Act and shall
be considered in violation of an emission
standard or limitation under section 304
of the Act. Subsequent modification to
an approved parking facility may be
made without applying for permission
pursuant to this section only where such
modification would not violate any con-
dition imposed pursuant to paragraph
(g) of this section and would not be
subject to the modification criteria set
forth in paragraph (c) (2) of this section.
APPENDIX B—PROCEDURES FOR DETERMIN-
ING CONSISTENCY WITH THE VEHICLE
MILES TRAVELED AND AIR QUALITY
GOALS OF THE PARKING MANAGEMENT
REGULATIONS
1. General. This appendix sets forth
procedures for demonstrating satisfac-
tory compliance with the Regulations for
the Management of Parking Supply con-
tained in various transportation control
plans.
These regulations provide two alterna-
tive approaches to satisfy the require-
ment of parking management review:
(1) Facility-by-facility review and (2)
preparation and implementation of a
Parking Management Plan. The Federal
regulations specifically provide for
faciiity-by-facility review of all new
parking facilities above a specified size
both to ensure compliance with air qual-
ity standards and to ensure minimiza-
tion of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
This facility-by-facility review regula-
tion is to be administered by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency or by an
appropriate state or local agency which
has been delegated this responsibility.
Although this regulation has been Fed-
erally promulgated, it is the Administra-
tor's intent to delegate implementation
of facility-by-facility review to appro-
priate state or local agencies wherever
possible.
The regulations also envision develop-
ment by state or local government agen-
cies of Parking Management Plans,
which when approved by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and imple-
mented by the appropriate state or local
agencies will replace the facility by facil-
ity review procedures. A Parking Man-
agement Plan is a comprehensive plan
for managing the parking supply of an
area consistent with air quality stand-
ards as well as other land use and trans-
portation considerations. As such, the
plan will incorporate consideration of the
relationship of an individual parking fa-
cility to an overall plan for future park-
ing development in the area. Through
this approach tradeoffs can be made
within the review area, and parking facil-
ity development can be designed to com-
plement changes in zoning regulations
and transit service. The Environmental
Protection Agency prefers and encour-
ages the Parking Management Plan op-
tion due to its inherent flexibility, Its
ability to reflect local goals, and Its di-
rect integration into overall transporta-
tion and land use planning proceses. Un-
til parking management plans are de-
veloped by state or local agencies and
approved by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency however, facillty-by-facility
review will be in effect. This appendix
outlines both the procedures to be fol-
lowed under facility-by-facility review
and the considerations to be utilized in
developing a Parking Management Plan.
2. Facility-by-Facility Review. Facil-
ity by facility review includes an analy-
sis of a facility's impact on both area-
wide vehicle miles traveled and local
carbon monoxide concentrations. Each
of these requirements includes several
alternative procedures which can be used
to demonstrate fulfillment of the provi-
sions of this regulation. . '
The review requirements for analyzing
the impact on vehicle miles traveled can
be satisfied in any of three ways: (1)
By certification that the facility is specif-
ically designed to promote high occu-
pancy vehicle use, -(2) by modeling to
demonstrate that there will be no net
increase in vehicle miles traveled, or (3)
by justification of the need for the pro-
posed parking facility together with
measures to minimize vehicle miles trav-
eled. The applicant can select which-
ever technique is most appropriate to his
specific circumstances.
The specific review required for car-
bon monoxide impact varies according to
the size of the facility. Facilities having
a capacity of 1000 vehicles or more must
satisfy the procedures for parking-
related facilities set forth in Indirect
Source Regulations which are presented
in the. FEDERAL REGISTER of July 9, 1974
(39 F.R. 25292). Facilities having a ca-
pacity of fewer than 1000 spaces, but
more than the minimum specified under
these regulations, can satisfy the carbon
monoxide requirements through any of
three procedures: (1) By modeling the
carbon monoxide impact in accordance
with the referenced Indirect Source
procedures; (2) by providing acceptable
monitoring data which indicates that the
worst existing carbon monoxide level
immediately adjacent to the proposed
facility is less than 75% of the carbon
monoxide standard; or (3) by demon-
strating to the Administrator's satisfac-
tion that no carbon monoxide standard
violation will result due to the sjze and
location of the proposed facility. Again
the applicant can select whichever tech-
nique is most appropriate to his specific
circumstances.
A. Impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled.
The first requirement under the facility-
by-facility review is that all proposed
facilities subject to this review shall pro-
vide adequate information to demon-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30459
strate that operation of the proposed
facility will be consistent with the need
to minimize vehicle miles traveled as set
forth in the applicable transportation
control plan. Such consistency must be
demonstrated by use of one of the three
• alternatives below. It should be empha-
sized that proposed facilities need only
satisfy the requirements of one of these
three alternatives.
(i) Alternative 1: Special Purpose
Facilities Specifically Designed for VMT
Reduction. This alternative is to be
limited to special purpose facilities de-
veloped as an integral component of pro-
grams specifically designed to reduce
VMT. Examples of such facilities are
park and ride lots developed in conjunc-
tion with transit improvements and car-
pool programs. The application must
provide the following kinds of informa-
tion:
1. The type of mass transit sen-ice to
be provided, if any.
2. Special arrangements for carpools.
3. The parking fee schedule.
4. Measures to avoid use of the facility
as auxiliary parking by adjacent enter-
prises.
(ii) Alternative 2: Modeling. This
alternative is applicable to prospective
owners/operators of proposed facilities
for which precise information exists or
can be developed regarding the locations
and travel patterns of potential facility
users.
Approval of a proposed facility shall
be contingent upon provision of quanti-
tative analysis demonstrating that op.-
eration of the facility will not result in
a net Increase in the vehicle miles
traveled In the. transportation control
plan area subject to this review. The
analysis shall consider such items as the
trip origin and location of vehicles using
the proposed parking facility and shall
Include employee origin studies for work
sites, market analysis for shopping loca-
tions, and similar studies for other uses.
The techniques used for these studies
must conform with generally accepted
transportation planning practices. Ex-
amples of such analyses include:
1. For a work site relocating within
an urban area, an analysis of residence
locations and mode usage showing that
fewer vehicle miles of travel will be
generated to access the new site.
2. For shopping facilities, a market
analysis illustrating that expected users
will have shorter trips than to presently
available facilities, and that longer trips
from established areas will not result
in a net increase in vehicle miles trav-
eled. The mode of travel used for access
must- be considered in these studies,
which may be based on an analysis of
• existing customers for current opera-
tions.
Additional sources providing informa-
tion on transportation planning and
traffic estimating techniques include:
(1) Latent Demand tor Urban Trans-
portation. Carnegie-Mellon University,
Transportation Research Institute. Study
- in New Systems of Urban Transporta-
tion. Report to the U.S: Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania: 1968.
(2) Patterns of Car Owership, Trip
Generation and Trip Sharing in Urban-
ized Areas. Prepared for the U.S. De-
partment of Transportation. Bureau of
Public Roads. New Haven, Connecticut:
Wilbur Smith and Associates, June 1968.
(3) Transportation and Parking for
Tomorrow's Cities. Prepared for the Au-
tomobile Manufacturer's Association.
New Haven, Connecticut: Wilbur Smith
and Associates, 1966.
(4) Modal Split: Documentation of
Nine Methods for Estimating Transit
Usage. U.S.-Department of Transporta-
tion. Federal Highway Administration,
Office of Highway Planning. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, October 1970.
(5) Traffic Engineering Handbook.
Edited by John E. Baerwald. 3rd Edi-
tion. Institute of Traffic Engineers.
Washington. D.C., 1965.
All necessary studies, surveys, and
market analyses required to determine
the effect on VMT will be the responsi-
bility of the applicant who must pro-
vide the data source, methodology, and
calculations used in supplying the follow-
ing information:
1. The number of people using or en-
gaging in any enterprises or activities
that the facility will serve on a daily
basis and a peak hour basis. This should
include estimated tctal daily person trips
to the enterprises served by all modes
of travel, by mass transit, by walking or
bicycle and by automobile.
2. An estimate of the total daily auto
trips as well as average and peak hour
vehicle trip generation rates, before and
after construction or modification of
the facility.
3. A projection of the geographic areas
in the community from which people
and motor vehicles will be drawn to the
facility. Such" projection shall include
data concerning the availability of mass
transit from such areas. Describe exist-
ing and proposed routes, levels, and times
of service of public transit within a
quarter mile radius of the facility.
4. An estimate (In terms of change In
vehicle miles traveled) of the effect of
the facility on total VMT for the air
quality control region. This should In-
clude an estimate of the mean distance
traveled for users of the enterprises and
activities served by the facility based
on information provided in 2 and 3 above.
5. Additional information, plans, spec-
ification, or documents determined to
be necessary by the Administrator.
Example. The following example Is
provided as an illustration of an appli-
cant having adequate information to
comply with the requirements of this
alternative. This example is provided
solely for the purpose of demonstrating
the evaluation process to be used In re-
viewing applications and the conclusion
reached is valid only under this narrow
set of circumstances.
An insurance company with 550 em-
ployees intends to relocate and wishes
to provide parking for 300 employee
cars and some visitors' cars at its new
location. Origin studies based on maps
derived from employee records indicate
that the average employee now lives
7.15 miles from the current office. Road
travel studies for this area indicate road
distance at 1.40 times the straight line
distance giving an approximate average
round trip commuting distance of 20
miles. Similar origin studies for the new
destination show that the .average round
trip commuting distance for the new
facility will be 15 miles. Surveys of em-
ployees' transit habits indicate the modal
split for commuting to existing facilities,
and similar studies and projections are
used to predict the modal split for em-
ployee access to the new facility.
A summary of the findings of the origin
destination study and the modal split
survey are illustrated In the following
Table I. Inasmuch as the new vehicle
miles traveled figure Is not greater than
that associated with the replaced facil-
ity, the facility proposed by this appli-
cant would be approvable under this
alternative.
TABI.E I.—Compariion of Vehielt Afifei Tnaltd Atiociatrd irif» Eiiilmg amf New FacilUy
Modal split
Percent
Number of
employees
Per capita
VMT
Total Parking
VMT spaces
Eiisting facility (average round trip distance, 20 miles)
\Y;,lk •..-.-:i.^_-- -vi^T-.r-T..;..
Itj.-yr-lc , , .... . ....r
Total. ....-....- :;;;-;;.-;.•.-.-•
3
2
35
30
30
100
17
11
1!I2
1 165
165
560 .
0
0
3
'8
20
0
0
570
1,33)
3,300
5,l«0
0
0
0
47
IK
212
New facility (average round trip distance, 15 miles)
Walk 1...J.1..-.-.;.-.::.;-...;.;
liicivit' . •
M^:! trniwt -: — y
Slnrluocculuincy — •
Total .•
1
2
22
30
45
103
5
11
121
165
248
550 ..
0
0
8
6
15
-:
0
0
S63
MO
3,720
5,073
0
0
0
47
248
295
i Avrrnt'f carpool occupancy (or this firm waa 3.5 employees.
' Avorajie commuter trip by carpool was 40% o! the single occupancy per capita VMT;
' In this situation, ina^s transput lotion is assumed not to be as readily available as In tlie original location:
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30460
PROPOSED RULES
(ill) Alternative 3: Minimization of
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Under this alternative a proposed fa-
cility will be approved if it can be dem-
onstrated by the applicant that the
facility will serve the community's wel-
fare and that all reasonable measures.
are employed to minimize the new fa-
cility's impact on vehicle miles traveled.
Basically the steps to be followed by
a prospective applicant selecting this al-
ternative are as follows:
1. Justification of the need for the
proposed parking facility which takes
Into consideration the best interests of
the community and the adequacy of ex-
isting and proposed mass transit. This
shall include a description of existing
and proposed transit service as well as
existing parking facilities. (Certification
of any mass transit inadequacy by ap-
propriate local officials may be required.)
2. Development of a specific program
to minimize the VMT impact of the pro-
posed facility.
3. Estimation of the reduction in re-
quired spaces to be achieved through
implementation of the VMT reduction
program.
4. Application for a permit to con-
struct the facility.
The program to minimize the vehicle
miles traveled associated with the facility
should generally discourage low occu-
pancy use of automobiles and promote
use of carpools and mass transit. This
can be accomplished through a variety
of specific measures expressly designed
to minimize the vehicle miles traveled
associated with use of the proposed fa-'
cility. The specific mix of measures to be
employed will vary depending upon the
particular circumstances affecting the
facility; however, in each case all rea-
sonable measures must be employed.
Whenever special circumstances or re-
placement measures indicate that a par-
ticular measure is not reasonable for
implementation as a VMT minimization
action, the applicant must provide a de-
tailed justification to this effect.
Table II lists measures which must be
considered for inclusion in any proposed
facility's program for minimization of
vehicle miles traveled. Facilities are di-
vided as to type according to five cate-
gories. In general, the purpose of pro-
viding parking facility categories has
been to recognize individual circum-
stances and provide special treatment for
special purpose facilities. However, it is
clearly recognized that many parking
facilities may involve overlaps in the
categories listed above. For example, a.
shopping center parking lot may well be
used by both customers and employees of
the enterprises located in the shopping
center. In such cases, VMT reduction
measures from both of the applicable
categories will be required, and the appli-
cant must provide sufficient information
to describe user categories, VMT mini-
mization measures considered, measures
to be implemented, and justification for
the omission of any applicable measure
which the applicant considers inappro-
priate or unreasonable.
The basic categories are:
(1) Residential—Parking facilities to
be utilized exclusively by residents of the
associated apartment or condominium or
their guests, and the immediate staff of
the residential complex. Those pai-king
facilities which employ measures suffi-
cient to control residential uses and to
exclude customers, clients, employees or
students from other enterprises can be
considered to fall solely within this cate-
gory. Otherwise the requirements for ad-
ditional categories shall apply.
(2) Customer/Client—Parking facili-
ties to be used by customers and clients
of -specific commercial facilities or offices.
Only those facilities which employ meas-
ures sufficient to exclude or limit use
by all day parkers such as employees and
students can be considered within this
specific category othc-n.-ire the require-
ments for employee pp.rking shall also
apply. These circumstances would be ap-
plicable to parking facilities provided for
shopping centers, professional b&ildmgs,
restaurants or similar enterprises or some
combination.
(3) Employee—Parking facilities to be
used primarily by all day parkers such
os employees and students. For purposes
of this regulation an all day pnrker is
anyone who parks at the same location
for six or more hours. However, this cate-
gory is not intended to apply to resi-
dential parkers or intermittent users of
facilities such as stadiums, clubs, thea-
ters, churches, or recreational facilities.
Examples of such facilities would include
but not be limited to: university parking
facilities for students and staff and em-
ployee parking facilities associated with
factories, warehouses, offices and com-
mercial enterprises.
(4) Recreation/Intermittent Use—
Parking facilities to be used by patrons
of theaters, churches, clubs, auditoriums,
sport stadiums, recreational facilities
and similar establishments not normally
used on a daily basis during the work
day. Only those parking facilities which
employ measures sufficient to exclude
shoppers, clients, employees or students
of other enterprises can be considered
within this specific category; otherwise
the requirements for these additional
categories shall also apply.
(5) Multi-Purpose—Parking facilities
operated as commercial enterprises for
use by the general public rather than
to serve the patrons or employees of a
specific business. An example of such a
facility would be any public or private
parking lot or garage intended for use
by the patrons and employees of many
enterprises within walking distance of
the parking facility. Such parking facil-
ities normally would not require identi-
fication and the users may well include
all types of parking facility users includ-
ing residents, students, employees, cus-
tomers and clients.
The measures listed are not intended
to be all-inclusive. Additional measures
not listed may be appropriate depending
on the specific circumstances associated
with a proposed facility ..Such additional
measures may be used by the applicant
to augment or serve as justification for
nonelnployment of one of the specified
measures if such measures have the
equivalent effect and are approved by the
Administrator. In any case, measures
enumerated for the facility In question
must receive full consideration and must
be included in the facility's program to
minimize vehicle miles traveled except
where it has been demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction that certain
specific measures are not justified in a
particular instance. All listed measures
will be deemed applicable except where
such demonstration has been provided
and approved by the Administrator. The
need for including certain measures on
the list may be preempted-by inclusion
of other listed measures (for example,
shopping facilities already well served by
mass transit may not need to provide
private bus service). Such tradeoffs must
be clearly specified and explored. In all
cases the substantive provisions of the
vast majority of measures listed in Table
II must be included in the program to
minimize the impact on vehicle miles
traveled in order to obtain approval of
the proposed facility. Examples of pro-
grams employing these VMT minimiza-
tion measures are included at the end
of this section.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30461
TABU U.-VMkb MStt Traveled Utntmlntlm Meuniru
1. Measures to restrict nsoce:
(») Assigned enacts and'or decols
(b) Limited oi*rat.ing houra _
(c) Parkine feus ami/or flat ral e hourly
per eharyes or other rates favor-
ing short-term parking
(d) Ticket validation
(?) Postin(?ofparkln(rrestrirtion/tow-
Ing or fines fur violator*
! Measures to cncouracc mass Iruiislt nan?e:
(a) Locatinp neurexi-4inE nuiss transit
anrt/orprnvidincorooonlinntiiiR
with the transit aconcv to pro-
vlile: 1. adeqtiale levels of tratiMt
service, 2. protected comfortable
shelters at tmnsit slops. 3. cov-
ered walk-ways to transit slops..
(b) Publicity for mass transit iisapi!
Including prominent display of
mass transit schtduliM, maps,
etc.
(c) Deliver? service, for customers'
packnces
(d) Subscription to dial-a-rMe service.
(e) Privmo bus semre provided by
itrea Imsincsses..
(0 Locator for inini-lnis pool
(R) Full or partial payment of transit
faro
(b) Provision of company vehicles for
carpool commuting
(i) -Provision of company or chartered
vehicles connecting with public
transit lines or other park and
ride facilities
-------
30462
PROPOSED RULES
gaflie. Bus tickets may be included as
part of the purchase price of an admis-
sion ticket, and private bus lanes within
the facility assure users that they will
have unimpeded service right up to the
entrance. Once discharged at the sta-
dium entrance, the rider finds secure
waiting areas with covered walk ways
connecting loading and discharge areas
with exits and entrances.
For those users of the stadium who
might choose to walk or travel by bicycle,
other measures are provided. Bicycle
racks are located in sheltered guarded
locations and bicycle paths are separated
from the highways for motor vehicles.
Sidewalks are well designed, and there
Is an overpass allowing cyclists and
pedestrians to cross without getting into
motor vehicle traffic;
In addition to the VMT reduction
measures specifically aimed at the
patrons of the coliseum, the parking
facility will also be operated so as to re-
duce vehicle miles traveled by the area's
commuters. During the daytime, when
sports activities are not scheduled, the
parking facility will serve as a park-and-
ride lot for commuter bus lines and for
carpools. To accommodate this function
comfortable waiting areas, mass transit
publicity, including maps and schedules,
and a carpool locator showing names,
phone numbers, and destinations of
those desiring to share rides will be pro-
vided. In no case will the fee for using
a park-and-ride lot be greater than one-
half the cost of a space for a sports fan.
Commercial/Multipurpose: The pro-.
posed parking facility is to be a munici-
pal parking garage, located in the down-
town commercial district of a major city.
In general, in order to discourage all day.
parkers, the following measures will also
be included: First, only 20% of the
spaces are to be available before 9:30
a.m. Parking fees will not be subsidized
and will increase hourly to favor the
short term parker.
In order to promote usage of buses,
from the point of parking to other desti-
nations, the facility is located along
major north-south and east-west sub-
way and bus routes, including mini-
buses to adjacent stores and offices.
There are prominent displays of mass
transit publicity, including maps and
schedules. Additionally, protected com-
fortable waiting areas for mass transit,
with covered walkways to landing and
discharge areas, are provided as well as
storage lockers for packages.
Carpools will also be promoted in a
variety of ways. A carpool publicity cam-
paign and a locator (including names,
phone numbers, homes, and destinations
of people desiring to share rides) are to
be prominently displayed. Priority
spaces are provided for drivers of cars
with four or more occupants. These
spaces are closest to the entrances and
exits of the parking garage. Further-
more, parking fees for carpools are only
75% of the normal daily rate.
The facility will also provide some
service for bicycle riders and pedestrians.
Guarded sheltered bicycle racks are
located within the facility. All curbs
adjacent to the facility have ramps for
bicycles and wheelchairs, and convenient
sidewalks are provided throughout the
facility.
Customer /Client Parking. The follow-
ing VMT minimization program accom-
panies a proposed parking lot for a new
suburban shopping center. The proposed
parking facility is to be utilized by both
customers and clients of the shopping
center enterprises, as well as some em-
ployees of the shopping center.
The shopping center is connected by
regularly scheduled bus routes both to
the downtown area and to neighboring
suburbs. One-half of the roundtrip fare
is paid by merchants, with proof of pur-
chase at the stores. Also, a dial-a-bus
minibus system is provided within a five
mile radius of the center, and half of the
round trip cost is paid by the shopping
center enterprises with proof of pur-
chase. A delivery service is provided for
any bulky packages which might prove
inconvenient for the customer using the
bus. Furthermore, mass transit publicity
including maps and schedules promi-
nently posted is displayed throughout
the shopping center, and there are pro-
tected comfortable shelters for those
awaiting buses as well as covered walk-
ways from the shopping center to bus
waiting areas.
Priority parking for cars with two or
more occupants is provided in spaces
closest to the stores. Also, a carpool pub-
licity campaign, with a locator including
names, phone numbers, and residences
of potential users, is a consistent priority
of the shopping center's publicity efforts.
For those ^who walk or cycle to the
shopping center, there are overpasses
and underpasses to provide safer and
more convenient access. Guarded shel-
tered bike racks are provided, and bi-
cycle and foot paths separated from
roadways are also available. Addition-
ally, lockers are provided for these custo-
mers, and they can take advantage of
the delivery system for bulky items.
To further encourage mass transit and
carpool use by employees to enterprises
located in the shopping center, special
employee parking facilities are provided
separately from the customer/client fa-
cilities. All employees are directed to
park only in the employee area and to
enforce this provision, all other parking
is closed until 9:30 a.m. In addition, all
other suitable measures for employee
parking facilities are to be utilized for
this special employee parking area. Such
measures include: free bus tokens to em-
ployees; coordinating employee hours
with bus schedules; providing each em-
ployee with a list of other shopping cen-
ter employees working similar hours and
living in the same vicinity; and the use
of shopping center cars or vans for car-
pools.
B. Impact on Local Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations. The second requirement
under the Federally promulgated facil-
ity-by-facility review procedures involves
analysis of the local carbon monoxide
impact. In order to receive approval un-
der this portion of the review procedure
the applicant must demonstrate that op-
eration of the proposed facility will not
cause or exacerbate a violation of the
national carbon monoxide standards.
The procedures for demonstrating a
facility's impact vary according to the
size of a proposed facility.
(i) Parking Facilities Having Capacity
for 1,000 or More Motor Vehicles. Park-
ing facilities having a capacity of more
than 1,000 motor vehicles or being modi-
fled to" increase capacity by 500 or more
motor vehicles shall demonstrate through.
the use of a quantitative analysis that
the design or operation of the facility
will not result hi a violation of carbon
monoxide • standards. Applicants may
provide the required demonstration
through the use of the methodology spe-
cified in the Environmental Protection
Agency's Guidelines for the Review of
the Impact of Indirect Sources on Ambi-
ent Air Quality or through the use of
some other acceptable air quality diffu-
sion model. If the applicant follows the
appropriate methodology specified for
review of indirect sources, he may either
complete the modeling procedure and
submit the data and results or simply
submit the data for the Agency's 'model-
ing calculations. Necessary supporting
data also must be provided to the extent
indicated on the application form. The
following types of general background
information will also be required for all
proposed facilities in this category.
(a) A map showing the location of the
site of the facility including the topog-
raphy of the area.
(b) A description of the proposed use
of the site, Including the normal hours
of operation of the facility, and the gen-
eral types of activities to be operated
therein.
ic) A site plan showing the location of
associated parking areas, points of motor
vehicle ingress and egress to and from
the site and its associated parking areas,
and the location and height of buildings
on the site.
(d) An identification of the principal
roads, highways, and intersections that
will be used by motor vehicles moving to
or from the parking facility.
(e) An estimate, as of the first year
after the date the parking facility will be
substantially complete and operational,
of the average traffic volumes, maximum
traffic volumes for one-hour and eight-
hour periods, and vehicle capacities of
the principal roads, highways, and inter-
sections identified in item (i)(d) above
located within one-fourth mile of all
boundaries of the site:
(f) Availability of existing and pro-
jected mass transit to service the site.
(li) Parking Facilities having a capac-
ity for fewer than 1,000 motor vehicles.
Parking facilities subject to this "review
having a capacity for fewer than 1,000
vehicles, or involving modification of a
facility to increase capacity by less than
500 motor vehicles shall satisfy the re-
quirements for analyzing the carbon
monoxide impact in any one of the fol-
lowing three ways:
Alternative 1. Modeling to demonstrate
that operation of the facility will not
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
PROPOSED RULES
30463
cause or exacerbate a violation of car-
bon monoxide standards. These require-
ments can be satisfied by following the
procedures set forth In B(i) above.
Alternative 2. Provide acceptable moni-
toring data which indicates that the
worst existing carbon monoxide level im-
mediately adjacent to the proposed fa-
cility is less than 75% of the carbon
monoxide standard. The monitoring shall
be conducted for a period of 2 weeks, and
may be seasonally adjusted by the Ad-
ministrator to account for more adverse
traffic or meteorological conditions. The
monitoring instrumentatin and the loca-
tion of the sampling instrument shall be
approved by the Administrator.
Alternative 3. Demonstrate to the Ad-
ministrator's satisfaction that no carbon
monoxide standard violation will result
due to the size and location of the pro-
posed facility. This alternative will be
limited to a small number of facilities in
areas clearly recognized as being in no
danger of having carbon monoxide viola-
tions now or in the foreseeable future.
3. Parking Management Plans. The
second alternative approach for satisfy-
ing the requirement of parking manage-
ment review calls for the development by
the affected local jurisdictions of a Park-
Ing Management Plan. A Parking Man-
agement Plan is a comprehensive plan
for the control of the development of fu-
ture parking facilities in the affected
metropolitan area in relationship to ex-
isting parking resources and the present
and projected transportation system.
Such a plan would have the same basic
objective as the facility-by-facility re-
view procedures: to consider and at-
tempt to minimize the effects of new
parking facilities on areawide vehicle
miles traveled and to assure that the
motor vehicle traffic associated with these
facilities does not cause or exacerbate a
violation of air quality standards.
Although a Parking Management Plan
may take many forms dependent on the
goals and resources of an area, all plans
will have certain features in common.
They will all be long range locally
developed plans which emphasize people
miles traveled rather than vehicle miles
traveled. All parking management plans
will respond to how the city wants to
grow and consider the interrelationships
of transportation, land-use, and air
quality. This can be accomplished by a
general scheme for the placement of new
parking facilities in association with
plans for transit and land use develop-
ment. This scheme will be created in such
a way as to be consistent with the VMT
minimization and air quality objectives
stated.above. Each proposed new facility
will then be reviewed to determine
whether it is in compliance with the
parking management plan's pattern for
future parking facility development
throughout the area.
The Environmental Protection Agency
definitely prefers the development of a
Parking Management Plan over the Fed-
erally promulgated facility by facility ap-
proach. EPA feels that since the plan
approach relies on the participation of
local officials in the plan development
and Implementation process It can more
successfully reflect the needs and con-
cerns of the community. As long as the
plan provides for the considerations out-
lined under the facility-by-facility re-
view requirements, a great deal of
flexibility In the plan's form and proc-
esses is possible. Due to the myriad of
local considerations which must be inte-
grated into development of such a plan
the Environmental Protection Agency
has neither the capability nor intention
to unilaterally develop such plans.
In general, an acceptable Parking
Management Plan would have several
specific advantages over the more limited
facility-by-farility review. Once a plan is
established, less effort would be needed
to review each individual application.
Prospective developers would have a bet-
ter understanding of the type of develop-
ment that would be found acceptable by
the reviewing agency. Local zoning and
transit plans not incorporated in facility-
by-facility review could be incorporated
in the parking management plan. Con-
sideration of replacement of existing
parking spaces in different locations
within the area covered by the plan could
be permitted, and tradeoffs allowed. The
plan's, requirements and projections
could be better coordinated with an ap-
plicable Air Quality Maintenance Plan
for the area. Finally, by complementing
long range land use and transportation
planning, such a plan would be more
effective in achieving air quality goals for
the entire Air Quality Control Rcaion.
A Parking Management Plan, although
representing a different a'pproach, still
provides for the same considerations and
objectives as the facility-by-facility re-
view. An acceptable Parking Manage-
ment Plan must contain procedures for
the review of a new facility's effect on
local carbon monoxide concentrations
and assure that there v;ill be no viola-
tion or exacerbation of violations of car-
bon monoxide standards. This require-
ment may be met through a carbon
monoxide review process similar to that
now required under the facility-by-facil-
ity review. The plan must also provide
for a minimization of vehicle miles
traveled consistent with that obtained
through the facility-by-facility review.
This can be accomplished through a va-
riety of methods such as: a freeze on
growth of new parking facilities in cer-
tain specified areas; a policy providing
for only replacement of facilities so as
to maintain a constant total supply of:
parking for the area; an allocation sys-
tem .which provides that only a certain
limited increase in parking may take
place each year, consistent with the vehi-
cle miles traveled minimization consid-
erations; a policy which encourages new
parking facilities which complement
mass transit and encourage carpools
while discouraging those which compete
with mass transit; and a policy for
land use development patterns which
integrates considerations for minimizing
vehicle miles traveled into parking and
other land use decisions. Illustrations of
some of these optional approaches are
provided at the end of this section. In
light of the similarity of the requirement
for a Parking Management Plan and
those under facility-by-facility review
and the insights to be gained through
implementation of a facility-by-facility
review process, a local government may
find it beneficial to use the facility-by-
facility review process as an initial stage
in its development of a Parking Manage-
ment Plan. This procedure, however,'is
not required and a local jurisdiction is
encouraged to move to development of a'
plan as soon as possible.
In developing a comprehensive park-
ing management plan which meets the
requirements of this regulation, the local
government or planning agency may
find it useful to consider the following
questions:
1. What are existing VMT growth rates?
2. What will be the effects of an uncon-
strained increase In VMT on air quality, en-
ergy land use, and the local economy and
social concerns?
3. What measures are available to reduce
potential VMT Increase?
4. What contribution con management of
parking supply realistically be expected to
make In minimizing Increases In' vehicle
miles traveled?
5. What land use and transportation deci-
sions must be made to implement effective
use of parking supply management?
6. How can these decisions be Imple-
mented?
In order to fulfill the specific require-
ments of the Management of Parking
Supply regulation the agency applying
for approval of a parking management
plan must demonstrate to the satisfac-
tion of the Administrator- that the plan
will control construction of the area's f u-.
ture parking facilities so as to minimize
vehicle miles traveled and to prevent a
new facility from causing or exacerbat-
ing a violation of the National Air Qual-
ity Standards. In order for the Admin-
istrator to make this determination at
least the following information must be
provided:
1. Inventory of existing parking .facilities
by type, location and capacity..
2. Inventory of average dally vehicle miles
traveled.
3. Current annual growth rate In net new
parking spaces and vehicle miles traveled.
4. Applicable zoning and other land use
regulations In the affected areas, Including
any proposed or adopted amendments neces-
sary to achieve the goals of the plan.
6. Criteria for evaluating new parking fa-
cilities.
6. Description of the evaluation and ap-
proval process.
7. Mechanisms for enforcing any decisions
made during the evaluation and approval
process.
8. Amount and general location of new
parking spaces to be permitted.
9. Method of allocation of new- parking
spaces.
10. Description of Interrelationships of the
criteria In the proposed plan with other local
transportation and land use goals.
11. Description of the relationships be-
tween the various agencies charged with
responsibility for implementing this plan.
No. 164—pt. nr-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30464
PROPOSED RULES
13. Description of the procedures to be
employed in processing applications for new
parking facilities.
13. Provision of Information concerning
the vehicle miles traveled reduction to be
achieved through the use of this plan.
14. Documentation that a public hearing
has been held on this plan and summary of
the principal comments.
15. Description of the plan's procedures
for assuring that the operating of any new
parking facilities will not cause a violation
or exacerbation of a violation of local car-
bon monoxide standards. Such procedures
must be equivalent to the requirements set
forth under the faclllty-by-faclllty review
procedures.
16. Additional Information may be re-
quested by the Administrator upon or short-
ly after final submission of this plan for ap-
proval.
Examples of Directions in Parking
Management Plans. The following ex-
amples are provided to serve as illustra-
tion of the wide variety of possible direc-
tions to be followed in the development
of Parking Management Plans. The
specific details of any plan and even the
type of plan selected would depend upon
the interests and configuration of the
jurisdictions involved.
Selective Parking Freeze. A plan for
controlling parking space growth which
already is in effect in parts of Boston and
Seattle is to establish a freeze on all new
non-residential parkins spaces in cer-
tain areas. As some parking spaces are
replaced by new buildings, tradeoffs can
be provided allowing that same number
of spaces to be reallocated to another
setting. Similarly, several small lots may-
be consolidated into one large one which
Is located at a mass transit terminal and
better serves area merchants. However,
In both these cases no net increase in.
parking spaces is permitted.
Specified Graduated Increases. A vari-
ation of the "freeze" approach to park-
•ing management is to expand the con-
trol'area and allow a small graduated in-
crease in parking spaces. The annual
amount of new parking spaces to be per-
mitted would be determined by refer-
ence to the current average VMT growth
rate and desired reduction. Under this
approach, mass transit improvements,
VMT reduction programs and parking
space allocations would have to be suffi-
ciently coordinated to assure that the
jointly agreed upon parking space rate
of increase is not exceeded.
Use of Monthly Quotas. A further vari-
ation of the gradual increase approach
would call for the establishment of
monthly quotas in new parking spaces
based on required minimization. Appli-
cants for the limited number of new
parking space permits could then be
judged bnscd on predetermined and pub-
lished criteria. Such criteria could in-
clude such diverse elements as commu-
nity need, proximity of mass transit, fi-
nancial per space contribution to mass
transit. VMT impact and efforts made to
minimize VMT. Depending upon the
specific needs and interests of a given
metropolitan area, a limited number of
permits for new non-residential parking
spaces could also be sold as a mass transit
revenue support measure with price de-
termined so as to achieve the desired
reduction.
Parking Spaces and Zoning. A city
having a clearly defined and well accept-
ed comprehensive transportation and
land use plan may choose to zone various
areas of the city to allow only certain
categories of new parking. For example,
major transportation corridors of the
city could be restricted so as to exclude
new parking facilities except for resi-
dential parking and facilities specifi-
cally developed as park and ride lots.
Other areas located several blocks distant
from existing and proposed high fre-
quency mass transit service could permit
new parking facilities for customers and
clients as well as residents, but no new
employee parking facilities. (Parking
for residents only can be controlled by
issuing color coded stickers to residents
and customer parking can also be con-
trolled through operating hours and
pricing policies.) Similarly areas located
still further from transit lines could
allow some new employee parking with
priority given to carpools.
Maximum Space Zoning. Other metro-
politan areas may not desire to fix their
land use and transportation patterns
quite as rigidly at this time. These areas
may elect to use a form of parking space
zoning that sets maximum rather than
minimum numbers of spaces to be pro-
vided. Instead of requiring that a certain
category of office building provide at
least 3 spaces per 1,000 sp. ft, of gross
leasable floor area, the locality could re-
quire that no more than 3 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. be provided.
Maximum allowable spaces for various
categories of buildings would be estab-
lished so as to achieve the desired reduc-
tion in parking space growth rate. These
maximum limits would, of course, reflect
the availability of mass transit and the
maximum allowable number of spaces
for'any category of enterprise could be
determined in advance. Given the enter-
prise, its size and location, both the ad-
ministering agency and the prospective
developer could readily determine the
maximum number of spaces to be per-
mitted.
Local governments in all affected areas
are encouraged to submit proposals for
local Parking Management Plans as
soon as possible. At that time specific
arrangements for transition from facil-
ity-by-facility review to a Parking Man-
agement Plan can be developed and co-
ordinated.
[PR Doc.74-18903 Filed 8-21-74;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
30942
PROPOSED RULES
tittered revolutionary In their Impact on
affected Industries and the public. "Inten-
sive and coordinated study," therefore, would
absorb th» time, efforts and energies of many
Individuals and organizations and would
require sufficient time to afford the deliberate
and considered analysis which the proposals
clearly deserve. The objective of such coordi-
nated study would be the development of
a consolidated statement representing, to
the maximum extent possible, the views of
the transportation community Including all
Interested persons, whether members of
HMAC or otherwise. It Is contemplated that
such a statement would Include a detailed
critique of the subject dockets as well as
alternative proposals, which would then be
presented to the Board "as objectively as
possible, with dissents and affirmative votes,
and reflecting all of the positions In be-
tween."
The Board has studied carefully the
comments and recommendations pre-
sented by each petitioner and has de-
cided that adequate time has been pro-
vided for review, analyses, and prepara-
tion of comments on these rulcmaking
proposals, both by organized groups and
Individuals, and that a further lengthy
extension of time to submit comments
Is not warranted. However, the Board
has decided to grant approximately 30-
days additional time for the submission
of comments thus allowing final review
and coordination which may have been
difficult during the summer months.
•. In accordance with the foregoing de-
cision, the Hazardous Materials Regula-
tions Board has extended the time to
file comments on Notices 73-9 (Docket
HM-112) and 73-10 (Docket HM-103)
from August 31, 1974 to October 3, 1974
and has denied all petitions it has re-
ceived as of August 20, 1974 requesting
extensions beyond October 3, 1974.
AUTHORITY. Transportation of Explosives
Act (18 TJ.S.C. 831-835). section 6 of the De-
partment of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C.
1666); Title VI and section 902 (h) of the
Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. M21-
1430, 1472(h), and 1655(c»; Dangerous Car-
go Act, as amended (46 U.S.C. 170); Tank
Vessel Act of 1936 (46 U.S.C. 391 a), (46 U.S.C.
875), (46 U.S.C. 416) (49 U.S.C. 1655(b)(l)),
49CFR1.46(b).
Issued In Washington, D.C. on Au-
gust 21,1974. • .
ALAN I. ROBERTS,
Secretary, Hazardous Materials
Regulations Board.
[PR Doc.74-19773 Filed 8-26-74;8:45 am]
ENVJRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40CFRPart52]
[FBL252-5]
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Proposed Amendments to Parking Manage-
ment Regulations
Correction
In PR Doc. 74-18903, appearing at page
30440 of the Issue of Thursday, August 22,
1974, the table on page 30461 was mis-
takenly published In incomplete form.
The entire table, Including both pub-
lished and omitted sections, appears be-
low:
TABU IL—V«*W« mOa tmeltt minimization mttmru
Recreation
Customer/ KmptojM and Independent
«ll«nt IntermltUnt multipurpose
1: Measures to restrict usage:
(») AjslRnod spaces and/or deotte X
(b) Limited operating hours .-
(o) Parking fees and/or not rate hourly ....
per charges or other rates
favoring short-term parking.
(d) Ticket validation
(o) Posting of parking restriction/ X
towing or fines for violators.
2. Measures to encouruKR mass transit usage:
(a) Locating near existing mass transit
anil/or (.roviding or coordinating
with the transit ugcncy to pro-
vide:
1. adequate levels of transit X
service,
2. protected comfortable shelters
fit transit stops, and
3. covered walkways to transit
stops.
(1>) Publicity for mass transit USIIK« X
including proinineul display of
mass transit schedules, maps,
etc.
•(c) delivery service for customer's
packaces.
(d) Subscription to diul-a-rUkservice.. X
(c) Private bus service provided by
area businesses.
(0 Locator for mini-bus pool X
(e) Full or partial payment of transit
fate.
(h) Provision of company vehicles for
canwol commuting.
(I) Provision of company or chartered
vehicles conni'ctim; with public
transit lines or other park and
ride facilities.
0) Adapting company hours to be,
more compatible witli bus sched-
ules.
3. Measurestoenconn'.p'Carpooling:
(a) Carpool locator X
(b) Car|»olpiibli('ityeamp:!lgn X
(ej Restricted priority spuecs fur ear- X
poolers only.
(d) Designated protected pickup and
discharge invas.
(o) Kcduecdruti'.-: f'irear|K>ols
(f) Use. of company curs for c;irpooling
4. Measures toeneoiinme ii?'lof l-icyel>'<:
(a) Protected bicycle racks and Moi age. X
aruas.
(b) Bleyulo. paths, imdl-iti'1* X
(c) Showerand locker rii'iliiie?
6. Measures to encourage w'ul kinp:
(a) Lighted and protected paths and X
sidewalks.
(b) Ground security p.tU'tl X
(c) Overpass, underpins rmd other X
Grade-separations.
8. General:
(a) Use of commercial rales or other X
pricing policies.'
(b) Daytime use of parking facilities X
as park and ride lots.
X
X
-~ X
.;..-. X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
x
X
X
x .. -.
x
x
- ... X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i Use of pricing policies designed to encourage use of carpools and mass transit, end to reduce VMT should also be
considered. However, because of the ban on KPA-lmnosed "surcharges" contained in the Energy Supply and Kn-
viromncntal Coordination Act, Implementation of this measure is not mandatory, unless required by State or loeal
Goverimients.
[FRL 222-1]
KENTUCKY
Approval and Promulgation of Implementa-
tion Plans
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and the implementing regula-
tions of.40 CFR Part 51 require each
State to submit a plan which provides
for the attainment and maintenance of
the national ambient air quality stand-
ards throughout the State. Each such
plan Is to contain legally enforceable
compliance schedules setting forth the
dates by which all sources must be In
compliance with any applicable require-
ments of the plan.
On March 19, 1974 (39 PR 10277). the
Administrator announced that the Ken-
tucky implementation plan had been re-
submitted for the Agency's approval on
December 5, 1973, following a decision
• of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit vacating the Adminis-
trator's original approval (37 PR 10342).
Included as part of the resubmitted plan
were a number of compliance schedules.
This publication Identifies these sched-
ules, offers them as proposed rulemaking
and solicits public comment on this
proposal.
Each of the proposed compliance sched-
ules identified below establishes a date
by which an Individual air pollution
source must attain compliance with an
emission limitation of the State Imple-
mentation plan. This date Is Indicated In
the table under the heading "Final Com-
pliance Date." In many cases the sched-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 167—TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1974
-------
36870
PROPOSED RULES
tion of food or feed, or food or feed pack-
aging materials.1
(e) Well injection. (1) No pesticide.
pesticide-related waste, pesticide con-
tainer, or residue from a pesticide con-
tainer shall be disposed of by well in-
jection unless the person(s) proposing to
undertake such disposal first receives ap-
proval from the appropriate State
agency, demonstrates that he has exr
hausted all reasonable alternative meth-
ods of disposal and finds them unsatis-
factory in terms of environmental
considerations, submits to the Regional
Administrator in the Region where the
well is to be located the recommended
data requirements which accompany
ADS #5 (FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 39. No.
69. April 9, 1974), and obtains the ap-
proval of the Regional Administrator for
the proposed well injection. Included in
these information requirements are:
(1) The location and design of the in-
jection well:
(ii) The type and amount of pesticide
to be Injected;
(ill) The results of pre-injection tests
made to predict the fate of materials
Injected;
(iv) Provisions for monitoring the op-
eration and the effects on the environ-
ment;
(v) Provisions for plugging injection
wells when abandoned;
(vl) Contingency provisions for coping
with Injection well failures;
(2.) If spills from storage containers, or
from the injection operation, occur, dis-
posers are warned of their potential lia-
bility and penalties which may be im-
posed under Section 311 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (PL 92-500).
(3) If at any time after approval of an
application for the well injection of a
pesticide there is additional Information
regarding adverse effects on the environ-
ment, such information shall be sub-
mitted to the aforementioned Regional
Administrator.
(FR Doc. 74-23836 Filed 10-11-74:8:45 am]
[ 40 CFR Pait 52 ]
IFRL 279-6]
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Parking Management Regulations,
Postponement of Compliance Date
In the August 22, 1974, FEDERAL REG-
ISTER (39 FR 30440) the Environmental
Protection Asency proposed nmrndments
to the parking management regulations
for eighteen areas. The effective date i'or
compliance with these regulations was set
for January 1,1975.
'Department of Transportation has pro-
posed hazardous materials transportation
regulations (FEDERAL REGISTER, January 24.
1974, Vol. 39. No. 17) that would prohibit
the mired shipment of hltjhly tor.lc pesti-
cides and food or feed, and the transfer of
any pesticide to food or food may render
such food or feed adulterated under tho
meaning of tho Federal Food, Drug and Cos-
meuo Act.
Planning and organization to Imple-
ment the regulations is proceeding. How-
ever, In order to provide more adequate
timo for successful implementation of
tho combined regulations and amend-
ments, the compliance date for the park-
ing management regulations and amend-
ments is hereby changed to June 30,1975.
This will r.lso allow time for adjustments
made necessary by any changes adopted
as a result of the various local hearings
being held during this month in affected
areas on the August 22. 1974, proposals.
The Administrator intends to take final
action on the proposed amendments
after completion of all public hearings
scheduled for the affected areas, and
after receipt of written comments. A no-
tice of the dates and locatioas of these
hearings appeared in the FEDERAL REG-
ISTFR on September 23, 1974 (39 FR
3'1070>, with a minor correction on Sep-
tember 27 (39 FR 34071). At that time
the period for written comment was ex-
tended to October 31, 1974.
The new compliance date only con-
cerns the parking manngement regula-
tions, and does not pertain to the indi-
rect source regulations, which Include
requirements for reviews of certain park-
ing facilities, which were published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER on July 9, 1974
(39 FR 25292). The compliance date fof
implementation of the indirect source
regulations remains January 1, 1975.
These indirect source regulations are ef-
fective nationwide including all areas
which would have been subject to the
parking management regulations.
(Sections 110(c) and 301 (p) of the Clean
Air Act, (42 D.S.C. 1857c-5(6) and 1857(g)))
Dated: October 8,1974.
.'RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
In Part 52 of Chapter I. Title 40, of
the Code of Federal Regulations, the date
"January 1. 1975," is amended to
"June 30,1975." in the following sections:
1. Subpart C—Alaska, § 52.86:
2. Subpart D—Arizona, § 52.139;
3. Subpart F—California, § 52.251;
4. Subpart J—District of Columbia.
552.493:
5. Subpart V—Maryland, § 52.1103 and
§52.1111:
6. Subpart W—Massachusetts, § 52.-
1128, §52.1135 and §52.1136:
7. Subpart FF—New Jersey, § 52.1588;
8. Subpart NN—Pennsylvania, § 52.-
2040:
9. Subpart SS—Texas, §52.2295; and
10. Subpart W—Virginia. § 52.2443.
lFR.D.ic.74-23837 Filed 10-ll-74;8:45 am]
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
[18 CFR Parts 2,154]
[Docket No. R-478]
NATURAL GAS PRODUCED FROM WELLS
COMMENCED BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1973
Just and Reasonable Rates; Notice of
Extension of Time
OCTOBER 8,1974.
On September 30, 1974, a p.roup of
producer respondents in the above-desig-
nated matter, respresented by Phillips
Petroleum Company, fded a motion to
extend the dates fixed by notice Issued
September 12, 1974, and published in the
FEDERAL REGISTER at 39 FR 34301. for fil-
ing comments and reply comments re-
garding this rulemaking.
We have concluded that It is in the
public interest to grant this extension
to assure the most complete evaluation
of this matter. Therefore, the dates for
filing comments and reply comments are
extended to and Including November 18.
1974 and December 16,1974, respectively.
By direction of the Commission.
KENNETH F. PLTJMB,
Secretary.
[FRDoc.74-23890 Filed 10-11-74:8:45 am]
WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL
[ 18 CFR Part 701 ]
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Proposed Policy on Disclosure of Records
Notice Is hereby given that the Water
Resources Council, under the authority
of 5 U.S.C. 552 and 42 U.S.C. 19G2d-l.
proposes to add a new Subpart D to Part
701 of Chapter VI, Title 10 of the Cede
of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below.
This new Subpart D to Part 701 de-
scribes the availability to the public of
records of the Water Resources Council
pursuant to the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
This Subpart states the Cour.cii's pol-
icy of the fullest possible ci-'closure of
records consistent with tho.'e obligations
of confidentiality and administrative
necessities which are recoi-nized by the
Act. In regard both to the Ir.rormation
that is available to the public and to
the sources from which it may be ob-
tained this Subpart supplements exit-
ing procedures and does not roiplr.co or
restrict them. The normal channels
through which information has regularly
been made available to the public will
continue to be accessible.
This Subpart is intended to be con-
sistent with, but separate from, the pub-
lic participation provisions of the Coun-
cil's principles and standards (38 FR 174,
Sept. 10, 1973) and subsequent imple-
menting procedures.
Interested persons are Invited to sub-
mit written comments, suggestions or ob-
jections regarding this proposal to the
Director, Water Resources Co'.inc:!. 21-D
L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. .'C, .7.
on or before November 14, 1974.
Dated: October 7. 1974.
WARREN D. FAIRCHILD.
Director,
Water Resources Council.
It Is proposed to amend Part 70J of
Chapter VI. Title 18 of the Cede of Fed-
eral Regulations by adding a new Sub-
part D set forth below:
Subpart D—Availability of Information
Sec.
701.200 Statement of policy.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 200—TUESDAY, OCTOBER IS, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
2585
guch absence, the hearing will proceed
and the case will be regarded as sub-
mitted by the absent party as provided In
Rule 11.
(u) Rule 20, Nature of hearings. Hear-
ings shall be as informal as may be
reasonable and appropriate under the
circumstances. Appellant and respondent
may offer at a hearing on the merits such
relevant evidence as they deem appro-
priate and as would be admissible under
the generally accepted rules of evidence
applied in the courts of the United States
in nonjury trials, subject, however, to the
sound discretion of the presiding Ad-
ministrative Judge in supervising the
extent and manner of presentation of
such evidence. In general, admissibility
will hinge on relevancy and materiality.
Letters or copies thereof, affidavits and
other evidence not ordinarily admissible
under the generally accepted rules of evi-
dence may be admitted in the discretion
of the presiding Administrative Jud?,e.
The weight to be attached to evidence
presented in any particular form will be
within the discretion of Uie Board, taking
Into consideration all the circumstances
of the particular case. Stipulations of fact
agreed upon by the panics may be re-
garded and used as evidence at the hear-
ing. The parties may stipulate the tes-
timony that would be given by a witness
If the witness were present. The Board
may In any case require evidence in addi-
tion to that offered by the parties.
(V) Rule 21, Examination of witnesses.
Witnesses before the Board will be
examined orally under oath or affirma-
tion, unless the facts are stipulated or
the presiding Administrative Judge shall.
otherwise order. If the testimony of a
witness is not given under oath the
Board may, if it seems expedient, warn
the witness that his statements may be
subject to the provisions of Title 18,
United States Code, sections 237 and
1001 and any other provisions of law
Imposing penalties for knowingly making
false representations in connection with
claims against the United States or in
any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency thereof.
(w) Rule 22, Copies of papers. When
books, records, papers or documents have
been received in evidence, a true copy
thereof or of such part thereof as may
be material or relevant may be sub-
stituted therefor, during the hearing or
at the conclusion thereof.
(x) Rule 23, Post hearing briefs—(I)
General. Briefs must be compact, concise,
logically arranged and free from burden-
some, irrelevant, immaterial and scanda-
lous matter. Briefs not complying with
this rule may be disregarded by the
Hoard.
• 2) time of submittal. Briefs, includ-
ing reply briefs, shall be submitted at
f-'jch times and upon such terms as may
^ agreed to by the parties and the
^residing Administrative Judge at the
conclusion of the hearing.
• 3) Length of briefs. Except by per-
mission of the Board on motion, principal
""els shall not exceed 100 8!2" by 11"
typewritten double space exclusive
any table of contents and table of
statutes, regulations and cases cited.
Reply briefs shall not exceed 20 such
pages.
(yj Rule 24, Transcript of proceedings.
testimony and argument at hearings
shall be reported verbatim, unless the
Board otherwise orders. Transcripts of
the proceedings shall be supplied to the
parties at such rates as may be fixed by
contract between the Board and the re-
porter. If the proceedings are reported
by an employee of the Government, the
appellant may receive transcripts upon
payment to the Government at the same
rates as those set by contract between
the Board and the independent reporter.
(z> Rule 25, Withdrawal of exhibits.
After a decision has become final the
Board may, upon request and after notice
to the oilier party, in its discretion permit
the withdrawal of oriirinal exhibits, or
any part thereof, by the party entitled
thereto. The substitution of true copies
of exhibits or any part thereof may be
required by the Board in its discretion
as a condition of granting permission for
such withdrawal.
iaa) Rule 26, Representation—The ap-
pellant. An individual appellant may ap-
pear before the Board in person, a cor-
poration by an officer thereof, a partner-
ship or joint venture by a member
thereof, or any of these by an attorney at
law duly licensed in any state. Common-
wealth, Territory or in the District of
Columbia.
(bb) Rule 27, Representation—The
respondent. Government counsel shall be
designated to represent the interests of
the Government before the Board. They
shall file notice of appearance with the
Board, and notice thereof will be given
appellant or his attorney in the form
specified by the Board from time to time.
Whenever at any time it appears that
appellant and Government counsel are in
agreement as to disposition of the con-
troversy, the Board may suspend further
processing of the appeal in order to per-
mit reconsideration by the contracting
officer: Provided, however, That if the
Board is advised thereafter by either
party that the controversy has not been
disposed of by ar.roement, the case shall
be restored to the Board's calendar with-"
out loss of position.
(cc) Rule 28, Decisions. Decisions of
the Board will be made in writing and
authenticated copies thereof will be for-
warded simultaneously to both parties.
The rules of the Board and all final
orders and decisions (except those re-
quired for <;ood cause to be held, con-
fidential and not cited as precedents^
shall be open for public inspection at the
offices of the Board in Washington, D.C.
(dd) Rule 29, Motions for Reconsid-
eration. A motion for reconsideration, if
filed by either party, shall set forth
specifically the ground or grounds relied
upon to sustain the motion, and shall be
filed within 30 days from the date of the
receipt of a copy of the decision of the
Board by the party filing the motion.
fee) Rule 30, Dismissal without pre-
judice. In certain cases, appeals docketed
before the Board are required to be placed
In a suspense status and the Board Is un-
able to proceed with disposition thereof
for reasons not within the control of the
Board. In any such case where the sus-
peasion has continued, or it appears that
it will continue, for an inordinate length
of time, the Board may in its discretion
dismiss such appeals from its docket
without prejudice to their restoration
when the cause of suspension has been
removed.
(ff) Rule 31, Dismissal for failure to
prosecute. Whenever a record discloses
the failure of the appellant to file docu-
ments required by these rules, respond to
notice or correspondence from the Board,
comply with orders of the Board or other-
wise to indicate an intention to continue
the prosecution of an appeal filed, the
Board may issue an order requiring ap-
pellant to show cause within thirty days
why the appeal should not be dismissed
for lack of prosecution. If the appellant
shall fail to show such cause, the appeal
may be dismissed with prejudice.
(gg) Rule 32, Ex Parts communica-
tions. No Administrative Judge or mem-
ber of the Board's staff shall entertain,
nor shall any person directly or indirectly
involved in an appeal submit to the Board
or the Board's staff, off the record, any
evidence, explanation, analysis or ad-
vice, whether written or oral, regarding
any matter at issue in an appeal. This
provision does not apply to consultation
among Board members nor to ex parts
communications concerning the Board's
administrative functions or procedures.
(hh) Rule 33, Effective Date and Ap-
plicability. These revised rules shall take
effect on January 14, 1975. They govern
all proceedings in appeals after they take
effect and also all further proceedings in
appeals then pending, except to the ex-
tent that in the opinion of the Board.
th:ir application in a particular appeal
pending when the Rules take eifect
would not be feasible or would work an
injustice, in which event the former pro-
cedure applies.
§ 210.5 Ilulos of llie Corps of F.nainecrs
Hoard of Contract Appeals. (Mlioo of
llic Chief of Mutineers [ Kcvokrd ).
(Regs., January 7. 1975. DAENJ (Sees. 2301-
2314, 3012, 70A Stat. 127-133, 157; 10 U.S.C.
2301-D314, 3012).
|FR Doc.75-1082 Filed 1-13-75:8:45 am]
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[FRL 320-1]
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGA-
TION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Suspension of Effectiveness of Parking
Management Regulations Pending Pro-
mulgation of Amendments
Between November 6 and Decem-
ber 12. 1973. the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency promulgated or approved
transportation control plans including
parking management regulations for
certain major urban areas requiring
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 4(,. NO. 9—TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1975
-------
2586
RULES AND REGULATIONS
such plans for the attainment and main-
tenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for photochemical
oxldants and carbon monoxide. These
regulations are applicable to new or
modified parking facilities for which
no general construction contract has
been entered prior to June 30, 1975. 39
FR 36870 (October 15. 1974).
On August 22, 1974, EPA proposed
amendments to the parking management
regulations In effect in the following
areas: (39FR30440)
Alaska: Fairbanks Area
Arizona:
Phoenix Area
Tucson Area
California:
Fresno and San Joaqutn Valley Area
Los Angeles Area
Sacramento Valley Area •
San Diego Area
Qan Francisco Area
District of Columbia Interstate Area:
Washington, D.C.
Maryland Suburbs
Virginia Suburbs
Maryland:
Baltimore Area (Suburbs of D.C. listed
under D.C. Interstate)
Massachusetts: Boston Area
New Jersey:
Suburbs of New York City
New Jersey Suburbs of Philadelphia
(Camden, Trenton)
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia Area
Pittsburgh Area
Texas: Houston
Virginia: (Suburbs of D.C. listed under D.C.
Interstate)
The August 22, 1974, notice of proposed
rulemaking involving amendments to the
parking management regulations for
Houston-Galveston was subsequently
withdrawn. 39 FR 37212 (October 18,
1974).
The purpose of the proposed amend-
ments was to clarify certain require-
ments and procedures in the parking
management regulations and to provide
developers of parking facilities subject
to pre-construction review several al-
ternative methods of demonstrating that
the facility is consistent with the control
strategy to reduce areawide VMT and
will not cause or exacerbate a violation
of the carbon monoxide standards. 39
FR at 30441.
Because the parking management reg-
ulations were then applicable to facili-
ties for which general construction con-
tracts were executed after January 1,
1975, EPA believed it necessary to con-
tinue the ur.amcndcd regulations in ef-
fect so that developers could proceed with
applications for permits under the ex-
isting regulations if they so desired.
Since that time, EPA has deferred the
date at which parking facilities become
subject to review until June 30, 1975. In
addition, it has become apparent that
the developers affected by the regula-
tions have not chosen to submit applica-
tions for review under the existing regu-
lations, preferring to wait until the
amendments are promulgated. Although
EPA has held workshops on the applica-
tion procedures, no applications for per-
mits have been received.
Since the applicability date of the
parking management regulations has
been extended and the regulated parties
have elected to wait until the more flex-
ible amended regulations are promul-
gated, there is no longer any reason to
leave the unamended regulations in ef-
fect. In addition, the existence of pro-
mulgated regulations for which signifi-
cant amendments have been proposed
has led to requests for stays of the
existing regulations end lias made the
process of orderly judicial review of the
regulations more difficult, for belli the
regulated parties and the government.
For these reasons, EPA finds tliat
there is good cause to suspend the effec-
tiveness of the parking management
regulations to be amended by the Au-
gust 22, 1974 proposal, Including the ap-
plicability date, pending the promulga-
tion of the amendments. EPA expects to
promulgate the amendments within the
next 90 days. The suspension will not af-
fect the final rulemaking procedures
presently being followed by the Agency .
on this subject and will end upon promul- '
gation of the amendments proposed on
August 22, 1974. This suspension shall be
effective on January 14. 1975.
(Sees. 110(e),301(a).Clean Air Act, 42 DJ3.C.
. 1857c-5(c) and 1857g)
Dated: January 7, 1975.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
In Part 52 of Chapter I, Title 40, of the
Code Of Federal Regulations, the pro-
visions of the following sections are sus-
pended indefinitely pending the promul-
gation of amendments:
1. Subpart C — Alaska, § 52.86;
2. Subpart D — Arizona., § 52.139;
3. Subpart F — California, § 52.251 ;
4. Subpart J — District of Columbia,
§ 52 493'
5. Subpart V— Marj'land, § 52.1103 and
552.1111;
6. Subpart W— Massachusetts, para-
graph (d) of § 52.1135;
7. Subpart FF— New Jersey, § 52.1588;
8. Subpart NN — Pennsylvania. § 52.-
2040; and
9. Subpart W— Virginia, § 52.2443.
IFR Doc.75-1071 Filed l-13-75;8:45 am:
SUBCHAPTER E— PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
[FRL 320-8]
PART 180— TOLERANCES AND EXEMP,
TIOMS FROM TOLERANCES FOR PESTI-
C!!)F. CHEMICALS IN OR ON RAW AGRI-
CULTURAL COMMODITIES
Methidathion
Two petitions (PPs 4F1512 and 4F1522)
were filed (39 F.R. 2G479, 26929) by
CIBA-GEIGY Corp., Post Office Box
11422, Greensboro, NC 27409, in accord-
ance with provisions of the Federal Food,'
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a) .
proposing establishment of tolerances
(40 CFR Part 180) for residues of the
Insecticide ruethidathion (O.O-dimethyl
phosphorodithioate, S-cster with 4-
(mercaptomethyl) -2-methoxy - ' -• 1,3,4-
thiadiazolin-5-one) In or on the raw
agricultural commodities sorghum for-
age and fodder at 2 parts per million and
sorghum grain r.t 0.2 part per million.
(PP 4F1512) and peaches, pccaas, and
walnuts at 0.05 part per million (negligi-
ble residue) (PP 4F1522).
Based on consideration given the data
submitted in the petition and other rele-
vant material, it is concluded that:
1. The insecticide is useful for the pur-
pose for which the tolerances are being
established.
2. There Is no reasonable expectation
of residues in eggs, meat, milk, or poul-
try and § 180.6 (a) (3) applies.
3. The tolerances established by this
order will protect the public health.
Therefore, pursuant to provisions of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (sec. 408(d)(2). 68 Stat. 512; 21
U.S.C. 34Ca(d) (2)), the authority trans-
ferred to the Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency (35 FR
15623), and the authority delegated by
the Administrator to the Deputy Assist-
ant Administrator for Pesticide Programs
(39 FR 18805). § 180.293 is amended by
revising the paragraphs "2 parts per
million • • •" and "0.2 part per mil-
lion * • •" and by adding the new
paragraph "0.5 part per million • • •"
to the end of the section, as follows:
§ 180.298 Mcihidatliion; tolerances for
residues.
2 parts per million In or on grape-
fruit, oranges, and sorghum fodder and
forage.
0.2 part per million in or on cotton-
seed, potatoes, and sorghum grain.
0.05 part per million (negligible resi-
due) in or on peaches, pecans, and
walnuts.
Any person who will be adversely af-
fected by the foregoing order may at
any time on or before February 13, 1975,
file with the Hearing Clerk, Environmen-
tal Protection Accncy, Room 1019E, 4th
& M Streets. S.W., Waterside Mall,
Washington. D.C. 20460, written ob-
jections thereto in quintuplicate. Objec-
tions shall show wherein the person
filing will be adversely affected by the
order and specify with particularity the
provisions of the order deemed objec-
tionable and the grounds for the objec-
tions. If a hearing is requested, the ob-
jections must state the issues for the
hearing. A hearing will be granted if
the objections are supported by grounds
legally sufficient to justify the relief
sought. Objections may be accompanied
by a memorandum or brief In support
thereof;
Effective date. This order shall be-
come effective January 14. 1975.
(Sec. 403(d)(2). 68 Stat. 612 (21 U.S.C.
316a(d)(2)))
Dated: January 9, 1975.
EDWIN L. JOHNSON,
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Pesticide Programs.
IFR Doc.76-1208 Filed 1-13-16;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 9—TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1975
-------
APPENDIX B
PARKING MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES
-------
NEWARK CBD EMPLOYER QUESTIONNAIRE
DO YOU PROVIDE PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES?
Yes, for al1 employees L_I
Yes, for some employees LJ
No D If no, please go, to Question B
A. If you provide parking:
How many spaces are provided at:
Company lot or garage
Contracted lot or garage .,
How much does parking cost employees?
It's free D
$ per space (per day)
B. If you provide limited or no parking:
Where do employees (who can't use company spaces) park?
On the street D
Commercial lot or garage LJ
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT CARPOOLS? (Are they a good idea? Why?)
3. DO YOU HAVE A CAR POOLING POLICY?
Yes D
No D Please go to Question 4
If you have a car pooling policy:
a. Which of the following do you provide?
(check one or more)
Priority in parking space assignment D
Advertisement and Promotion of Carpools D
Matching System (Coordinate Riders) LJ
Other (Please specify) d
b. How many employees participate?
4. DO YOU PROVIDE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS OR VISITORS?
Yes D
No D
-------
a. If Yes, how many spaces are provided that are:
Free on company lot/garage —, ,
Free with validation at commercial lot/garage ,___
b. If No, where do your customers or visitors park?
On the street D
Commercial lot/garage I—I
WOULD CHANGES IN AVAILABLE PARKING AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT?
Yes D Why?
No D Why? .
WOULD YOU CONSIDER YOUR PARKING SUPPLY IS:
a. Very important D Why? •
b. Important O Why?
c. Somewhat important Q Why?
d. Not at all important D Why?
WOULD REDUCED TRAFFIC CONGESTION AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENT?
Yes D Why?
No D Why? , . __r_
DO YOU PLAN TO MOVE FROM YOUR PRESENT LOCATION WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS?
Yes D
No D
a. If yes, where would you move?
Within downtown Newark D
Outside of downtown but remain in Newark D
Outside Newark but within Essex County D
Outside Essex County D
b. Would you rank by importance the reasons for moving:
Somewhat Very
Important Important Important
Newark high labor cost D D D
High tax rate D D D
Neighborhood deterioration D D D
Decreasing profits D D D
Inadequate parking D D D
Inadequate space D D P
-------
Somewhat Very
Important Important Important
Traffic congestion D DP
Excessive rent D LJ LJ
Pollution D D D
Other D D D
(please specify) .
9. WOULD THE FOLLOWING PARKING MANAGEMENT CONTROLS, IF INSTITUTED IN THE
DOWNTOWN NEWARK AREA TODAY, NEGATIVELY AFFECT YOUR BUSINESS?
Yes No Don't Know
Time limit on all on-street D D D
parking in downtown
On-street parking reduced or D D P
eliminated in the downtown area
Number and size of all off- D D P
street parking lots (company and
commercial lots) restricted to
present size or reduced
An increase in the cost of parking D D D
all day in company, commercial
and on-the-street parking
Persons in carpools are the only D D D
ones allowed to park in downtown
FOR OUR STATISTICAL SUMMARIES:
10. HOW LONG HAS YOUR FIRM BEEN AT ITS PRESENT ADDRESS?
Less than a year D
One to 5 years D
5 to 10 years D
10 or more years D
11. WHAT ARE YOUR REGULAR WORKING HOURS?
am to . pm
12. HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU HAVE
Full Time
Part Time
a. How many of these are salaried?
-------
b. How many of your employees fall into the following
annual income categories?
$ 0 to 7,999
$ 8,000 to 14,999
$15,000 +
13. IN THE FUTURE, WILL YOUR EMPLOYMENT:
Expand D
Decline D
Remain the same CD
14. TYPE OF BUSINESS:
(e.g. manufacturing)
(Optional)
NAME OF ORGANIZATION:
ADDRESS: __i
COMMENTS:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
-------
NEWARK CBD EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. WHAT WAS YOUR PRINCIPAL MEANS OF TRAVEL TO WORK TODAY?
(check as many as applicable)
Newark City Subway d
Erie-Lackawana Railroad L~3
PennCentral, Central New Jersey and
Reading Railroads into Penn Station D
PATH System into Penn Station D
Bus (Route Number ) Q
Car driver D
Car passenger D
Walk D
Other (Please specify) Q
2. HOW LONG DOES IT NORMALLY TAKE YOU TO GET TO WORK?
_Minutes
[if you came to work by car, please go to Question 4. |
3. IF YOU CAME TO WORK BY BUS OR TRAIN TODAY:
a. Did you find a seat?
Yes D No D
b. How much will you pay for Today's Round Trip? pollars
Monthly passes? Yes D No D
c. Why did you take the train or the bus?
(check one or more)
No driver's license D
No car at home . D
Car at home not available D
Cheaper than auto D
Safer than auto D
No parking problems D
No driving strain D
Faster D
Other (please specify) D
-------
d. What do you dislike about bus or train service?
|Bus and train riders please go to Question 5.
4. IF YOU CAME TO WORK BY CAR TODAY:
a. How many people were in the car including yourself?
1 D 4 D
2 D 5 D
3D 6 or more D
b. Where was the car parked?
On the street D
Company owned lot or garage D
Private or City-owned lot or garage D
Other (please specify) r O
c. What was the car parking cost?
$ per day
week (circle one)
month
d. How much was your share of the parking cost?
$ per
day
week (circle one)
month
e. What is the greatest amount you are willing to pay for parking
before you leave your car home or do not ride to work in a car?
$ per
day
week (circle one)
month
f. What if parking at work became more than you are willing to pay?
Would you:
Join a carpool D
Take a bus or train to work D
Look for a job where parking is cheaper D
Other (Please specify) ; D
g. Why did you come to work by car?
(check one or more)
Car is cheaper than bus or train D
Car is safer than bus or train D
-------
Car is faster than bus or train D
Car is more dependable than bus or train D
Free parking at work D
Low cost parking at work D
Can always find parking on the street D
Car or carpool is available D
Need car for work D
Need car after work D
Bus or train stops are too far from home D
Bus or train schedule is too confusing D
Bus or trains run too infrequently D
Hate fixed schedules of buses and trains D
Other (Please specify)
5. PLEASE RATE IN ORDER OF EFFECTIVENESS FROM 1 TO 10 (1 = most effective;
10 = least effective) THE ITEMS YOU FEEL WOULD BE MOST EFFECTIVE IN
ENCOURAGING THE USE OF BUSES OR TRAINS? (Please use each number only once)
RATING
1 = Most Effective,
2 = Next most effective,
3 = The next, etc.
Cleaner and newer vehicles
Faster travel
Air-conditioned vehicles
More frequent service
Lower fares
Parking lots at stops and stations
Shelters against bad weather at stops and stations
Better security to assure personal safety --,
Better located stops and stations
Other (Please specify)
6. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE FOLLOWING PARKING PROPOSALS?
Very
Accept-
able
Some-
what
Accept-
able
Neither
Accept-
able nor
Unaccept-
able
Some-
what
Unaccept-
able
Very
Unaccept-
able
Time limit on all on- fj D D D D
street parking in
downtown
-------
On the street parking
reduced or eliminated
in the downtown area
Number and size of all
off-street parking lots
(company and commercial
lots) restricted to
present size or reduced.
An increase in the cost
of parking all day in
company, commercial
and on the street
parking.
Persons in carpools are
the only ones allowed
to park in downtown
Very
Accept-
able
D
D
Some-
what
Accept-
able
D
D
Neither
Accept-
able nor
Unaccept-
able
D
Some-
what
Unaccept-
able
D
D
Very
Unaccept-
able
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
7. DO YOU LIVE WITHIN 3 BLOCKS OF A BUS OR TRAIN STOP?
Yes D
No D
Don't know D
8. DO YOU HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE?
Yes D
No D
9. HOW MANY CARS IN YOUR FAMILY?
0 D
ID
2 D
3 or more D
a. What year is each?
1st car
2nd car
3rd car
-------
10.
II,
12.
13.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED AT YOUR PRESENT ADDRESS?
Less than 6 months D
6 months to a year U
1 to 5 years D
More than 5 years D
What is your zip code?
WITHIN THE NEXT 3 YEARS, DO YOU PLAN TO MOVE FROM THE COUNTY WHERE
YOU NOW LIVE?
D
D
Yes
No
Don't know
CHECK:
a. Female D
Male D
b. Age:
15-19 years D
20-24 years D
25-34 years D
35-44 years D
c. Marital Status
married LJ
45-54 years D
55-59 years LJ
60 + years D
single I—J
WHAT WAS YOUR FAMILY INCOME LAST YEAR?
$0-4,999 D $11,000-12,999 D
$5,000-6,999 D $13,000-14,999 D
$7,000-8,999 D $15,000 + D
$9,000-10,999 D
14. COMMENTS:
THANK YOU
------- |