-------
62
PROPOSED RULES
ue. Bus tickets nwj be included as Wix(or those users of the stadium who
ght choose to walk or travel by bicycle.
•ier measures are provided. Bicycle
cks are located in sheltered guarded
cationi'and bicycle paths are separated
bm the highways for motor vehicles.
IdcwaTus are well designed, and there
an overpass allowing cyclists and
-destrians to cross without getting into
otor vehicle traffic.
In addition to the. VMT reduction
icasures specifically, aimed at the
itrons of the coliseunx the parking
parking facility is to be utilized by both
customers arid clients of the shopping
center enterprises, as well as some em-
pioyees of the shopping center.
The shopping ccnt-er is connected by
regularly scheduled bus routes both to
the downtown area and to neighboring
suburbs. One-halt of the roundtrip fare
is paid by merchants, with proof of pur-
chase at the stores. Also, a ciial-a-bus
minibus system Is provided within a five
mile radius of the center, and hall of the
round trip cost Is paid by the shopping
center enterprises with proof of pur-
icility will also be operated so as to re- chase. A delivery service is provided for
' °™ *"""•• «a^°«^ «.M-H «..<«*!* mmw
ice vehicle miles traveled by the area's
wnmuters. During ttje daytime, when
x>rts activities are not scheduled, the
irking facility will serve as a park-and-
de lot for commuter bus lines and for
irpools. To accommodate this function
jmfortable waiting areas, mass transit
ublicity. Including mtps and schedules,
nd a carpool locator showing names.
>ione numbers, and destinations of
base desiring to share, rides will be pro-
Idei In no case will the fee for using
p&rk-and-ride lot be-greater than one-
alf the cost of a space for a sports fan.
CowrotrcioJ/lf«aeptHT>Qse: The pro-
mised parting facility Is to be a munici-
pal parking garage, located In the down-
town commercial district of a major city.
to general. In order to discourage all day
Barkers, the following measures will also
ie Included: First, only 20% of the
spaces are to be available before 9:30
,4 m. Parking fees wffi not be subsidized
and will Increase hourly to favor the
short term parker.
la 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 p&ckages.
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
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 01
more occupants is provided in spacer
closest to the stores. Also, a carpool pub •
licity campaign, with a locator including
names, phons nximbors, and residences
of potential users, is a consistent priority
of the shopping center's publicity efforts.
For those who walk or cycls to tne
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 pa.ths 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: SO ajxi. 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 Coroon ifonoxida
Concentrations. The second reqxuremant
under the Federally promulgated facil-
ity-by-f acilrty 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 cf tho jirojjosnl raellity will not
cause or o.xtu'tib.v:.'.: n violation of the
n.iUoruU i-.cjrLcji uio^u^j hUuidards.
Tho lu-ocecwitiii fn: c-.'"ou&tnvt;!i£ a
facility'* Impivot v*ry tocovdmg to the
slue of a propowccl r-iciiiv'/.
li> Parkin? Facilities Having Capacity
for 1,000 or l£o<-« ATofcr Vehicles. Park-
ing facilities h&virur a capacity of more
than 1,000 motor vehicles or being modi-
fied to increase oa^LiCify sy SCO or more
motor vehicles shall demonstrate through
the use of a qut-a.tita:.tve analysis that
the design or opercd-a of tne facility
will not result In a violation of carbon
monoxide standards. Applicants may
provide tha ree'lUrsd demonstration
through the ur-s c-* tb.e ir.ethodology spe-
cified In the B5iviK«xoier.tal Protection
Agency's 'Guidelines for the.Review of
the Impact of Is.airest Sources on Ambi-
eut Air Quality or through the use of
some other acceptable air Quality diffu-
sion model. E th=? Applicant follows the
appropriate met'acdaicsy specified for
review of indirect sc-m-c^s, he may either
complete tb? tnocsiins procedure and
submit the 3.-ur. end results or simply
submit the c\ai& for the Acency'a model-
Ing calculations. Weccser.ry supporting
data also muss be -wc-vlS? d to the extent
indicated on tl-.ft i.yi^c-a^oa form. The
following ty^L ci pmeral background
Information v?i:i i^-> w reauired for all
proposed f&cil!':1c-n fa tills category.
(a) A ina^ siiowinj the location of the
site of the facilAiy inciudlng the topog-
raphy of tiie srsa.
(b) A doacr.ptiCi; ol tlie proposed use
of tha site, ttcluiln.^ tJ3 normal hours
of operation of tho i'jjciaty, and the gen-
eral types of activities to be operated
therein.
(c) A sits pis.,-. ••hcT.lagr the location of
associated parldn;. ur.xs, points of motor
vehicle ingrei? ana e^tss to and from
the site and its asscciF.sed parking areas,
and the location, and height of buildings
on the site.
(d) An Wenttftciiticn of the principal
roads, hi£hvf.7s, asd intersections that
will be used by ir.olor yeriicles moving to
or from the parting: facility.
(e) An estinr,ve, a-i d the first year
after the aata siie p^niiiug facility will be
substantially cc-rnp!«is e^sd operational,
of the averse? tru'Uc %*oliuaos, maximum
traffic vclurr»53 i'o? p^e-iictur and eight-
hour perioas, sriO. viicijle capacities of
the'principril rr-ACo, liirnways, and inter-
sections Wen^cc-i J;.i iters. (i)(d) above
located within C2e^•^'o^irtli mile of an
boundaries <:>;' t' e E;;-:;
(f) Avai'stiuv:-' of existing and pro-
jected mass xrtn.- v. to service the site.
(ii> Parfciwj rcoiWi'is haviny a capac-
ity for fevsf Vfiun »,IC;5 motor vehicles.
Parking facilities stsa.'ert to this review
having a capacity i'cr fewer than 1,000
vehicles, or twol'tlrx; ncciflcation of a
facility to increase capacity by less than
500 motor V£tl-3lo» iliall catisfy the re-
quirements for eai^'zing the carbon
monoxide impact ia any one of the fol-
lowing three way:;:
Alternative I. l-.Coc.iliriS to demonstrate
that operation of the facility will not
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 164—THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1974
-------
or exacerbate * violation ol car-
lonoxkie stentards. These reeraire-
can be satisfied by foBowina the
-fores set 'ortli la B'i) above.
rrMtive 2. Pro«de acceptable monl-
; data which- indicates that the
existing carbon monoxide level 1m-
jtely adjacent to the proposed fa-
is less than T5% of the carbon
S!d<> standard. The monitoring shall
fictuetcd lor a period of 2 weeks, and
'v seasonally adjusted by the Ad-
aralor to accoecnt for more adverse
: or meteorological conditions. The
toring irtstromentatln and the loca-
sf the sam-.ilins Instrument shall be
by the A standard violation win result
to the sine and* location of the pro-
d facility. This alternative wEl be
t«j to & stnaS number of faculties In
.<; cieasly recognized as being In no
ser of having csrbon monoxide viola-
s now or tn the foreseeable fttture.
Parkin? Mtenajwwtenf Plant. The
ad sltenative approach tor satJsfy-
the requirement of parking manage-
it review calls for the deveiopment by
affected local Jurisdictions of a Park-
Mtmagenaart Plan. A Parting Man-
nent Plan ts »' comprehensive plan
toe control of the development of fu-
! parting faculties tn the affected
lopoKtan are* ta relationship to ex-
15 parking resources and the present
projected transportation system.
">. a plan would have the same basic
.ctive M th« fficlltty-by-facllity re-
»•. procedures: to consider and at-
ipt to minimise the effecta of new
king facilities on areawide vehicle
es traveled and to assure that the
arwhidetrsSc associated with these
Cities does not cause or exacerbate a
.atka of air quality standards.
Qthough a Parking Management Plan
y take many forms dependent on the
us and resources of an area, all plans
i have certain features In common.
?y win all be long range locally
•eloped plans which emphasize people
es traveled rather than vehicle miles
vcled. All parking management plans
I respond to how the city -scants to
:w and consider the interrelationships
transportation, land-use, and air
ility. This tan be accomplished by a
leral scheme for the placement of new
•king- facilities in association with
Jis for transit and land use develop-
nt. This scheme wiil be created in such
i ay as to be consistent with the VMT
rumization and air quality objectives
,ted above. Each proposed new facility
1 then be reviewed to determine
ether it is in compliance with the
riling management plan's pattern for
:ure parking facility development
roughout the area.
I"he Environmental Protection Agency
finitely prefers the development of a
,rking Management Plan over the Fed-
ally promulgated facility by facility ap-
jach. EPA :ee3s that since the plan
iproach relies on the participation of
local officials in the plan development
and topVezrteritatioa ;>roee3* it cnn more
MJccessfuJX? reiiect the aeeds ana con-
cerns ot the eornrrruEity. As *or_g is the
plan provides for fee considers.ticns out-
lined under the fRciHty-by-facility re-
view requirements, a great deal of
flexibility In the plan's form and proc-
esses is possnrfe. Due to the myriad of
local consideration;! %-hieh must be inte-
grated into development or such a plan
the Environmental Protection Agency
has nelttier tli« capability r.or intention
to unilaterally develop Bueh plans.
In general, an acceptable Parking
Management Plan would have several
specific advji ntages over the more limited
f»cility-by-f acility review. Once a plan te
established, 2«a> effort woukl be needed
te review each individual application.
Prospective developers would have a bet-
ter understanding of the type of develop-
ment that would be found acceptable by
tbe reviewing ageocy. Local zoning and
transit plens not tncorpowLtecl tn f aeGrfcy-
by-facllity review oouJd be incorporated
In the parking managecaent plan. Con-
sWeration of replacement of existing
parking spaces In different Vocations
within the area covered by ttie plan could
be permitted, and tradeoffs allowed. The
plan's nxratrements ancl proiecttans
could be better coordinated with an ap-
plicable Air Quality Maintenance Plan
for the area. FtaaUy. ty eosapieaectins
long range laod we and trscisportation
planning, such a plan would be mow
effective in s^hieving air quality goals for
th« aoUre Air Quality Control Rarion.
A Parking iataumemersi Plaa. although
representiag: a diKereci approach, still
provider for tbe same coasiderntiora and
obJecUves as the facility-by-facillty re-
view. An acceptable Parang N^uiage-
raant Plaa mast eneate.'i^ procedures for
the review of a. naw facility's eSTect on
local carbon monoxide concentrations
and assure that there will 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 factlity-by-facil-
ity review. The plan must aJso provide
for a minimization of vehicle miles
traveled consistent with that obtained
through the facllity-by-facility review.
This can be accomplished through a va-
riety of methods such as: a freeze on
growth of new parking f aolUties 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 wWch compete
with mass transit: and a policy for
land use development patterns which
integrates considerations for minimizing
vehicle miles traveled Into panting and
other land use decisions. Illustrations of
some of to*se optional approaches arc
provided r»t the end of this section, in
light oi the 8lmiiaKty of ihe rrquir.^r.o,r.'
for a Parking Ltar.a^emerJ. jpiaii r.i;cv
those under faciliiy-by-fac'iity review
and the Insights to bs, gained throupn
implementation of a r&cility-by-faclttty
review process, a local government may
find It beneficial to use the facility-by-
facility review process as an initial sta.se
in its development o* a Parting iiaaage-
tucnt Plan. This procedure, however, is
not required and •& local jurisdiction ts
encouraged to move to development of a
plan us scon as possible.
Xn developing a comprehensive paik-
itur nuioaeemeat plan which mect& the
requirements of this regulation, the losai
government or planning agency mas'
find it osetul to consider tbe foilotrlng
questions:
I. Wfcai are *il*ttog VMT growth raUs?
2. What wUl b« tte *3ect» of an wuaii-
Btrained increase In VMT on air qufiilty, CD-.
ergy land TKC, and tbe local economy &nd
Mchit concern*?
3. Wttat KMasurea are tratlable to nxluc«
4. Wiiat contrlbutico c*n EULCJi«c.tie3t ot
supply re&U&tlcally be «2pocUd to
la minimizing tncxe&sea In vehlcio
' 6. Wh«t tsnd wo tad trtnsportftWoc
atone must b« made to Implement
uee of parking- luppiy management?
a. How can tijiau ciacieioas be Imple-
mented?
In order to fulfill the specific reciuire-
jaents of the Management of
Supply reralation the agency
for approval of s parking mar
plan must demonstrate to the sa
tkm of the Administrator thr.t tht plan
will control construction of the area's fv.»
ture parking facihties so ss to rrunlaiizs
vehicle rctiiea trswied and to prevent a
new facility frees causing or exacerbat-
ing a violation of the National Air Qual-
ity Standards. In order for the Admin-
istrator to make this deteraunation at
least the following information must ba
provided:
1. Inventory of existing parking fftcilltl.'s
by type, location "and capstclty.
2. Inventory of average dally vehicle miles
traveled.
3. Current annual growth rale in net new
parking epaces and vehicle miles vnveled.
4. Appllcatio zoning and cither land use
regulations in the affec'ced areas. Inclucilr.g
any proposed or adopted amendments neces-
sary to achieve the goals of the plan.
5. Criteria for evaluating new parking fa-
ciiitles.
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 t>s-
tween the various agencies charged wuh
responsibility for implementing this plan.
No. 164—PC HI ft
VOL Jft, Ha t*4-JMUB£OAY, AUGUST 22. 1974
-------
Si
PROPOSJIO RULES
of U»e procedure* to be
iioyod lu procwatns application* for new
i>ro«ilou of information
,-Fhiri* mil** traveled reduction to
•> «1 through Uxe v.«e ol thU plan.
Documentation that, a public hewing
j««n held on thU plan and summary of
>rinctp&l oommnnta.
Description of tte plan's procedure*
.tsuring that the operating of any new
sag ficiiiues will not cause a violation
BcertM»cion of • violation of local car-
moooxida ctendaKls. Suob procedures
. be equivalent to the requirements set
[ uadar tbe IacUlty-*y-faclUty review
--.
Additional Information may be re-
iwi by tie Administrator upon or short-
iier final submission of this plan for ap-
N-
.ample* of Directions in Parking
agement Plans. The following ex-
ies are provided to serve as illustra-
o? the wide variety of possible direc-
> to be followed in the development
Parking Management Plans. The
iflc details of any plan and even the
of plan selected would depend upon
Interests and configuration of tha
actions involved.
•cttoe Parking Frieze, A plan for
DUinK parking space growth which
iy is in etect in parts of Boston and
le is to establish a freeze on all new
«ssdenUal parking spaces in cer-
ireas. A5 some parting spaces are
x& by new buildings, tradeoffs can
ovutod allowing that same number
aces to be reallocated to another
'.5. Similarly, several small lots may
one large one which
awd at a mass transit terminal and
• serves area merchants. However.
.h these cases no net increase in
ig spaces is permitted.
ci/ied Graduated Increases. A vaii-
ot tha "freeze" approach to park-
ianaeemmt is to tarpand the con-
trol Rira w^ci allow a small ur&du&tod in.
crww« \n parting apucw. Tr.o annual
amount of new pHrkln^ (ipiwei to bo per-
mitted would b* deisna'.ned by reJer-
cnce to the current averaee VMT growth
rate and desired reduction. Under this
approach, mass transit improvements,
VMT rt-duction programs and parking
space allocations would hnve to be suffl-
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 parting spaces
based on required minimization. Appli-
cants for the limited number of new
parking space permits could then be
judged based 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 wiih price de-
termined so as to achieve the desired
reduction.
Parking Spaces and Zontny. 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-aa 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 t.nd
clienU as well as rtii^nU, but no new
•cwloyod l>M'a:\3 SfcdUUw. U-v.rklr.-:;
for refciaenta only c^r. ba oontroliod by
issuing color coded &tlctsrs to rwMc-nU
and customer parking cu& fci&o bo con-
trolled through op@rtii.uii2 hours imcl
pricing policies,) Slrallarly &rcsa located
still further from trantii lines ccuM
allow some new employes parting with
priority given to carpcols.
. Maximum Specs Zoning. Other metro-
politan areas may not desire to f is their
land suse 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 requirins that a certain
category ol office .buildin; provide at
least 8 spaces per 1,0 GO sp. ft. cf gross
leasable floor area, the locality could re-
quire that no more tru.1 3 spaces per
1,000 sq. ft. ba provided.
Maximum allowable spaces for various
categories of buildings would bo estab-
lished so as to achieve the ct-elved reduc-
. tion in parking tpace growth rate. These
maximum limits would^. ol course, reflect
the availability of mass transit avid the
maximum allowablo a'unbsr of sp&ees
for any cateaory of entarprit-e could bs
determined la Advance. Given the enter-
prise, its size and location, both the ad-
ministering agency ana the prospective
developer could readily determine the
maximum number of spaces to be per-
mitted.
Local governments in all affected areas
are encouragexi to au'cnit proposals for
local Parkins ManaireuiMit Plana as
soon as possible. As thai Urns sp£c&c
arrangements for transition, from lacil-
i^r-by-facility review to a Parkins Man-
agement Plan can be developed and co-
ordinated, „
KDftAl kECJSTEt, VOL 39, NO, 1*4—TOUtSOAT. AUGUST *!, 1*74
3
-------
Kecrcatlon 4
Customer/ Intermittent, Independent
Residential Client Employee use Multi-purpose
3. Measures To Encourage Carpooling
a) carpool locator x x x x x
b) carpool publicity campaign x x x x x
c) restricted priority spaces for
carpoolers only x x x x x
d) designated protected pickup and
discharge areas x x x
vreduced rates for carpools x X
use of company cars for carpooling x x
e) vi
f) i
4. Measures To Encourage Use of Bicycles
a) protected bicycle racks and storage areas x x x x x
bicycle paths* and lanes x x x x x
shower and locker facilities x
a/
3
5. Measures To Encourage Walking
a) lighted and protected paths and
sidewalks x x x x x
b) ground security patrol x x x x x
c) overpass, underpass and other grade
separations x x x x x
6. General
a) Use of commercial rates or other
pricing policies x x x x x
b) daytime use of parking facilities
as park and ride lots x x
-------
ERRATA
The effective date for compliance with the parking
management regulations has been postponed to June 30, 1975.
A notice of postponement appeared in the Federal Register on
October 15, 1974.
The effective date for indirect source review remains
January 1, 1975.
-------
PROPOSED RULES
lion o* food or feed, or food or feed pack-
aKiv.s matcriaLs.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 persoms) proposing to
undertake such disposal first receives ap-
proval from the appropriate State
agency, demonstrates that he has ex-
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 aceoinucmy
"ADd #5 IFEUERAL REC'.KiEK. Vci. .jj. .No.
69. April 9. 1P74>. and obtains thv> ap-
proval of tue Regional Administrator, for
the proposed well injection. Included in
these information requirements are:
(i) The location and design of the in-
jection well;
(ii) The type and amount of pesticide
to be injected;
(iii) 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;
(vi) 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.
[PR Doc. 74-23836 Filed 10-ll-74;8:45 ami
[40CFRPart52]
(FRL 279-6]
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION FLANS
Parking Management Regulations,
Postponement of Compliance Date
In the August 22, 1974, FEDERAL REG-
ISTER (39 PR 30440) the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed amendments
to the parking management regulations
for eighteen areas. The effective data for
compliance with these regulations was set
for January 1.1975.
'Department of Transportation bas pro-
posed hazardous materials transportation
regulations (FEDERAL REGISTER. January 24,
1974, Vol. 3D. No. 17) thit would prohibit
tli& mixed shipment of highly to!Uc pesti-
cides and food or feed, arid the transfer or
ftiiy pesticide to food or r-ctj jn:iy rosier
oi;ch food dr foed adulVern'.ed under lh»
i...T:.uin.i of tin- i-cuerui >'xxx>. Drag and Cos-
uttUo Act.
Planning and organization to Imple-
ment the regulations is proceeding. How-
ever, in order to provide more adequate
time for successful implementation of
the combined regulations ard amend-
ments, the compliance date for the park-
Ing management regulations and amend-
ments is hereby changed to June 30,1975.
This will also 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
sch&dul~-d for *b*? nFfpo^d ?.r??.s. ?.nd
aicer rcceziJE of writTen couur.er.'.s. A no-
tice 01 the dates arc! loi.;'.tior.s of these
hearir.^.i anpeared in liie I i;::2.::Ai REG-
ISTER on September 23, I3~i <39 FR
34070), with a minor correction on Sep-
tember 27 (39 FR 34671). At that time
the period for written comment was ex-
tended to October 31,1974.
The new compliance date only con-
cerns the parking management 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 for
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 ll. Subpart SS—Texas, §52.2295; and
10. Subpart W—Virginia, $ 52.2443.
[FK Doc.74-23837 Filed 10-ll-74;8:45 am)
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
[ 18 CFR Parts 2,154 ]
(Docket No. B-478J
NATURAL GAS PRODUCED FROM WELLS
CO.MJ.'.c.NCED 8SFOPJE JANUARY 1, 1973
Just and Reasonable Rates; Notice of
Extension of Time
GC.-V-LU 2. 1374.
Oa Scv'mLrer 30, 1974. a eroup of
producer respondents iu the above-desig-
nated matter, respresented by Phill:,>s
Petroleum Company, filed a motion ixj
extend the dates fixed by notice issued
September 12, 1974. and published in the
FEDKRAL REGISTER at 39 FR 34304, 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 tha Commission.
Sacrt'nry.
(FH Doc.7t-238SO Filed 10-U-74-.3: ^ '; ».ral
WATER RESOURCES COU^CiL
[18CFRPart70l]
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. 19624-1.
proposes to add a new Subpart D to Part
701 of Chapter VI, Title 18 of the Code
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 Council's pol-
icy of the fullest possible disclosure of
records consistent with those obligations
of confidentiality and administrative
necessities which are recognized by the
Act. In regard both to the information
that is available to the public and to
the sources from which it may be ob-
tained this Subpart supplements exist-
ing procedures and does not replace or
restrict them. The normal channels
through which information has regularly
been made available to the public wlfl
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 Council, 2120
L Street, NW.. Washinston. D.C. 20037.
on or before November 14, 1974.
Dated: October 7. 1974,
V/AEREN D. FAIKCHIID.
Director,
Water Resources Council.
It is proposed to amend Part 701 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 Infnr.-nation
SCC.
701.200 Statement of policy.
F£D£T.Al R£CIST£3, VOL 39, NO. 200—TUESDAY, OCrOBEJ 15, 1974
-------
Preliminary Report:
Relationship Batv/een Parking
Management and Vehicle Miles Traveled
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency has approved or promulgated
transportation control plans for scr.ie thirty metropolitan areas. In
these areas, the health related air quality standards cannot be achieved
by a combination of stationery source controls (i.e., power plants,
gasoline service stations) and emission controls on new motor vehicles.
Consequently, transportation plans are required which include inspection
and maintenance programs, retrofit emission control strategies and/or
strategies designed to reduce the vehicle miles traveled, and thus pol-
lutant emissions, in the affected area. The vast nejcrity of the plans
require overall reductions in current levels of vehicle miles traveled
(VKT), or a decrease in projacted Vf
-------
2
of the landscape of any large American city. For- example, parking spaces
alone occupy approximately 25 percent of downtown land space in our cities.
Use of the automobile has demanded that those facilities be built, but the
consequences of low occupancy automobile transportation in the major cities
have been negative in many aspects. How the problems of pollution, energy
consumption5 and urban congestion and sprawl make it imperative that a
closer and more empirical analysis be done on some of these interrelationships.
The EPA parking management regulations and proposed amendments to these
regulations are designed to affect one such interrelationship, that of
parking supply and VMT. Generally, the proposed amendments require that
new or modified parking facilities over 250 spaces which are constructed
after June 30, 1975 must undergo a pre-construction review to 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 in the
applicable transportation control plan.
Under the requirement that there be no violations of the VMT trans-
portation control strategy, an applicant can choose one of several options
to comply. He con demonstrate that his facility inherently reduces VMT.
A park-and-ride lot is one example. If this is inapplicable, he can do
coti'iprehensive modelling to demonstrate that his particular facility does
in feet reduce VMT. For example, an employer moving his plant closer to
the center of density of his employees' homes would be able to demonstrate VKT
-------
reductions. If neither of the first two options is applicable, the
applicant must undertake certain measures to minimize the impact of
any VMT increases caused by the facility. Measures include carpool
and mass transit programs.
The proposed amendments to the regulations make clear EPA's
desire that state and local governments take over the responsibility
for the parking management program. This can be done in one of two
ways. First, EPA can delegate its review and enforcement authority
to state or local governmental bodies. The Administrator may approve
a request for review and enforcement authority if the follov:ing condi-
tions are met: a) any final action of the delegated agency must have
binding leqal authority in the jurisdiction of tha proposed facility; b) the
delegated agency must have legal authority to enforce its actions under
the regulations or be willing to enforce such actions. A second method
for delegation is for state and local governments to develop their own
parking management plan which, after EPA approval, would replace the
need for Federal or local action under the parking management regulations.
Already, some cities such as San Diego, Portland, and Seattle are actively
developing comprehensive plans.
The EPA's parking management program for reviewing new parking lot
construction so as to avoid localized carbon monoxide problems and reduce
or minimize VMT growth in urban areas provides a flexible and incremental
approach which should contribute to a return to healthful air in our
heavily polluted cities. The program cannot be examined in isolation.
P.ather, it should be looked at as part of an overall transportation control
-------
.. 4 -
strategy designed to bring about less reliance upon single-occupancy
vehicular commuting, and at the same time making available other more
efficient means of transportation. Use of carpools, private mass
transportation (buspools and vanpcols), public mass transportation,
and bicycles can provide realistic alternatives to low-occupancy
automobile usage.
By encouraging the use of higher occupancy transportation modes,
carefully chosen parking controls should, with properly region-tailored
implementation, move transportation sarvices toward optimality in catering
to the diverse end conflicting needs of a particular urban region. As
such, proper parking management can help make America's total transportation
system less polluting and more energy efficient.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a better understanding of the
relationship between parking supply and YI-IT. This will be accomplished by
1} a discussion of some theoretical models; 2) an analysis of traffic
growth and parking space growth statistics: 3} an examination of actual
experiences with parking management programs, both by individual employers
and regional governmental units, and the resulting effects on YMT: 4) a
lock at several urban areas' long range parking plans.
f-'.any studies have documented how parking costs can be used as a tool
to affect VMT or mo-ol choices. However, to date, little has been written
on the parking supply - VMT relationship. This is not surprising since the
-generally abundant parking supply of the past has resulted in the availabjliv.
of parking being, taken for granted. Accordingly, parking management as & -K^-
..to improve air quality Snd/or !^ore rffoctivcly «rd?r urban growth, i? * ral^v-l-
mew concept.
-------
TRIP DECISION KAKIKS AND PARKING I'ANAGEMENT
It is self evident that a person does not begin a trip without
knowledge of costs and possible inconveniences. Parking availability
and other factors such as gasoline availability and cost, parking
cost, traffic congestion, and existing alternative n;odes of transporta-
tion all enter into his trip decision-making. Studies of several
of these factors show a causal relationship to trip decision-making.
One such study which has evaluated parking supply alternatives
Involves the davelopaant of a simulation model.2 A rondel w-is built to
evaluate alternative access systems to a typical university ir.odiuni-siztd
city based on composite data from sixteen metropolitan area transportation
planning studies. Parking supply was one of the alternatives tested. The
study found that the addition of free shuttle service from a remote parking
lot and the elimination of on-street parking produced a fifty percent de-
crease in auto trips. Conversely, the provision of unlimited, free on-site
parkinp, resulted in a forty-five percent decrease in. the existing number
of 'simulated transit trips. Although th'e university simulation does not
consider altar--.af.ives to the transit and shuttle nodes, such as student
®td faculty carpooling, the study indicates that parking supply controls
-------
- 6 -
tend to significantly decrease vehicular travel and increase transit
ridership.
Another study, which concluded that parking supply management for
an individual trip generator will decrease Yf'iT, was undertaken for the
^
St. Mary's Hospital perking garage in San Francisco.J 1'athodology bared
on a 1968 survey of the Hospital's trip generation characteristics and
Bay Area Transportation Study modal split curves was used to determine
the changes in traffic voliras duo to varying parking policies. Assuming
no new off-street parking lots were constructed around St. Mary's, a
five percent increase in transit patronage and reduced vehicle trips
were projected. While this model did not Icok at several alternatives.
its conclusions suggest that parking supply changes have an impact on
the amount cv VMT generated by individual facilities.
In addition, other studies have dsvelopcd parking models which ex-
plicitly evaluate the effect of parking costs and supply en a wider area.
An example of such a model has been developed for the central business
district of Los Angeles/" Parking supply, demand, cost and facility
location were variables in the Los Angeles parking model which was cali-
brated on.the basis of behavioral data from parking and employee surveys.
Estimating that parking demand would greatly exceed supply by 1980 and that
market processes would force average parking prices to nearly double in
the downtown area, the study recorded excess dsrand be absorbed by
designating peripheral parking lots and providing personal rapid transit
service fre:n the lots to center city locations. The study conclude; that
_„,,.. ,-.,•» cbfcinn:! in I1-
- ''• " •
-------
is, no Increase in areawide VMT), In order to use this alternative, a
great deal of detatled information and analysis is generally required.
A third alternative method has been set forth in proposed amendments
to these regulations. This alternative, referred to as the VMT minimization
method, provides for satisfactory compliance if the applicant can demonstrate
that the proposed parking facility is both needed by the community and that
all reasonable measures are being taken to minimize the VMT associated
with the proposed facility. Such measures include carpool locators, carpool
parking priority systems and dial-a-bus. A table of these measures is set
forth in the proposed amendments.
In order to show non-interference with attainment of carbon monoxide
standards for facilities having a capacity for 1,000 or more spaces, an
applicant must demonstrate through a suitable diffusion model or other
appropriate analytical techniques that such violations will not occur.
This is equivalent to indirect source review elsewhere. Under the proposed
amendments smaller facilities (1,000 spaces or less) may not need the
detailed modeling required of the larger structure. Although those applicants
with smaller facilities may use the appropriate indirect source modeling
scheme as described above, the proposed amendments provide two other possible
approaches. The applicant may provide acceptable air quality monitoring data
to demonstrate that modeling is not necessary; or he may submit other appropriate
information to demonstrate that a violation of the carbon monoxide standard
will not result from operation of the facility.
-------
8
As stated previously, state and local governments have the option of
developing a parking management plan (PMP). This plan focuses on the inter-
relationships of transportation and new parking facilities and specifically
describes the manner in which the location, operation and increase in the
number of parking related facilities are to be kept consistent with air
quality throughout the area. The parking management plan is not as limited
in scope as facility-by-facility review. It can include such control measures
as zoning changes and improvements in mass transit services. Thus, the plan
allows certain tradeoffs among different areas within its scope and among
different control measures. It is through parking management plans that
greatest state and local participation is possible, and the agency wishes
to encourage the development of such plans to replace the Federal regulations.
Several areas including San Diego, Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle have
already begun such plans.
For further information and a more detailed description of the existing
as well as proposed regulations and requirements see the Federal Registers
setting forth the original transportation plans and the August 22, 1974
Federal Register (39FR30440) on Proposed Amendments to Parking Management
Regulations.
Guidance
Over time, as applications are received and reviewed, EPA Intends to
develop a precedent reporting system that will aid applicants 1n anticipating
what the agency .considers adequate in meeting the requirements of the different
alternatives.
-------
In addition to the precedent reporting system which will be available
on a continuing basis as soon as applications are processed, EPA encourages
an active and open line of communications between applicants and the Agency
before formal submittal of an application. These preliminary consultations
are designed to: 1) give specific guidance on such issues as the most
appropriate and effective choice of methodologies for an individual project;
and 2) resolve, by use of example, any uncertainty in the developer's mind
as to what 1s meant by the different requirements.
EPA will accept applications under the existing promulgated regulations,
which require Inc'irect Source modeling for CO impact and compliance with VMT
strategy by either extensive analytic and technical modeling to show no net
increase in VMT, or demonstrating that the proposed facility is designed for
high occupancy vehicle use (i.e., park-and-ride lots).
If an owner or operator of a proposed facility wants to take advantage
of the proposed alternative options for CO and/or VMT, he may submit a
preliminary application to EPA. Although the preliminary application can
not be formally accepted or reviewed until final promulgation of the
amendments, EPA staff will make themselves available for guidance and
consultation on application development.
-------
The programs' possible money savings aspects for employees
is'also a point v/orthy of emphasis. Transportation is one of the few
areas v.'here personal spending habits can be cut. Unlike food costs
where outlays are largely fixed, confuting costs can in many cases be
reduced if employers and employees cooperate to create an effective
program. The spending costs of ov/ning and operating a private
vehicle make a carpool program, for example, increasingly attractive
as a cost savings device. Employer subsidized mass transit can
offer the same employee savings.
-------
EMPLOYER lUCEHTIVE PROGRAM MEASURES
The folio1.-:ing list of measures are those which an employer should
consider for inclusion in his progr?.;n. Consideration, not necessarily
adoption, of all the measures is required. The chart is not intended
to be inclusive and employers are encouraged to develop novel techniques.
An employer program should include measures frota all three main areas in
order to give a balanced plan. After an employer submits a clan, the
guidelines and this chart will be used by the regional office in the
evaluation of the subniittal. If the program is declared inadequate, the
regional office will make suggestions, after consultation with'the
employer, as to what additional measures would make the program acceptable.
If the employer claims that additional measures are not feasible, EPA
will require detailed docuniantation as to why each measure listed on the .
chart cannot be implemented.
I. Carpool Measures
- Carpool publicity and promotion campaign
- Carpool locator: manual or computer
- Follow-up and updating of carpool matches
- Reduced parking fees for carpools
- Preferential carpool treatment for parking and exiting
II. Mass Transit Programs
- Publicity and promotion campaign
- Shuttle service to and from transit stops
- Negotiation with transit authorities for rescheduling and
rerouting
- Subsidized tokens and transit passes
- Charter buses and shuttle service from outlying points
- Vanpool systems
HI- Miscellaneous
- Commercial rate or higher parking fees
- Reduced number of parking sp?.ces
- Reduced and/or controlled on-street parking
- Bicycle pro/notion: lanes, racks, lockers
- Walking promotion: lighted paths, security patrols, overpasses
-------
Sample Employer Incentive Regulation
-------
§ 52.20.~2 J nij>l,.v<-r%s pr..v;-.ii>n tor
mutt lr.>»»^i! priority i.-iccntiu-*.
(1) "PhilacU-l-ihi.! CUTT' nirans the
area v.'ithin the Cry of Phll.idelph.ia.
Pennsylvania, bo'.nvj'.-.l by, but not in-
cluding. Yin? Street. South Street, the
Schuyikiu River, and i'ue Ki-lav.-are
River.
•::' '•Krr-.ploycc parkins space" means
any parking .-pace re served or provided
by an employer lor the u-;e of hi.s em-
ployees.
(b> This section is applicable in the
Southv.-est Per.nsylvy.iU3. Intra-".ate
AQCiX pr.d in 15 1.3 Phihxriclyhia CBD of
the Pennsylvania portion oi the Metro-
politan Philadelphia Itiiorstat" AQCH
(the Regions*.
Fi-':h employer *n the Regions v.-Uo
maintains more than 700 eir-oloyce park-
ins spaces fhr.il, on or before February
1. 1974, submit to the Administrator nil
adequate transit incentive program de-
signed to encouv.yw the us-e oi mass
transit and discouv;1 .ere :he u^s of single-
passenger automobiles by his employees.
This program m?y conUtiu provisions for
signed to encourage the use of mass
transit, reductions in the number of em-
ployee parking spaces, ouroh;u-2C5 on the
use of such spaces by employees, provi-
sion of special charter buses or other
modes of mass transit, for the me of em-
ployees. preferential p?rkir.z. and other
benefits to employees \vho travel to work
by carpool. and or any o;her a'.ejisuror,
acceptable to the Administrator. By
April 1, 1974. the Ackninisire'.or shall
approve such program for each c-wyloyei-
if he finds it to be edeouat-e. ?.:id shall
di^r.pprove it if he fir.di it, not to be ade-
quate*. Notice of such approval or dis-
approval v.'iU be published in Eubpr.rt
NN of this part.
!>ivatOi, such prx;iyrii jhol! con-
tain procedures whereby the employer
Tv-:ll supply the Acirt:Li!at:-::i-;>tr:ttor h«
aiipiovod s trar.r,it jrco:i-:v3 proprarn.
tlie einpioyor i-3-:> tc "lo-::!: a::v :-f-4;or ;s
in full Compliance v/ith wa^Ph (cl)
of this section, or if the Adnuni-rtrator
Sr.ds thnt r.ny such rc-pcrt hc.-j fcsen in-
tentioiuu'y falsified, or if the Adminis-
tratoi (ic-ternM-'ies thr-t tl.c pro^'am w
net in r.;:-or.xtion. or i^ not prrvicun;: ade-
quate iucentivcs loi eir.i-J^vee use of c?r-
-jocls and ir.a^ u-aru-iu. U-.e
(D By April i. 1C"?J, the
shall pfesoribc fe transii incentive vro-
trram for t-r.cU enr.noyoi to \vnon\ p^:a-
prfv-h (c) ot tnif snttior. is s.pplic^ole
if such en:pio>cr hns not, i.iiTinit'.cd a
Pi-ctrram. Sy J-.mn 1. 1574. thrt AUminls-
trr.ror shall prcixnbe a transit mce-,x:vo
prorrrw for each employer to vliom
parai.raph (d of this section Is apph-
cabl- - roTjr tc,i-
.
P^-CO -^,d> of fr-f.
c.»rA th;..t La pr.r«-,;;rr.i-n '.c.-.
crri? i^a b? sv.33e-;t to ap,): -A'-
El or rJrap?TOVf.\ t.y fr.e /.a^L-iistr^or
by ^"-rti 1. :9r'5- i'"^ *-"* P^-''-7^
v nen a'-'wvtc', sl?r,U be ^'.i.-cc'. to ri-v->-
caticn i-3 pro'.-idt-d in pan-graph (e; of
Uiis t-ecrion. . .
(h; "' April 1. 1S75, the Acrair.ist
tc-' shO prc?7rio3 a trr-iuJt ucent
pro-ram for each emoloycr w ^ Well p
r .
nr^-t-r i-r tTve): cm; :.•>:-'-- -f Vi-.i;'h pai-
£w £> or tvj« K-ovion b uppli'Abu
if'ths rM-o?T^r.i submif.oii l« rot tceqvate.
V.'i'hin i rr.'ji:t'"-s SJU: *-•-?'" :diOCc.U<-:". 01
av>y pr< ~r""-n r.f r-rji rr-r ;irr'~ ru^fr-nt
?-Brr.v«l »e^ cf tl=is «ct
cenuve w^srsir. for uic -rtcc rt. e;_a-
pU-.-rr «_';v protrani pie»cr:^.vl by ..._e
Atlir'in.'«ra>.or ?hi31 --? i/-)tUsr.C(l ^ Sub-
pare KN cf Fart 52, 1V.;e 4i, O*3* of
-------
« 9 -
indicated that these dcv^'lop:::c;nts './in reduce tl:e need for i;:ors long-
term CBD parking spaces by som?. 13,GOO spaces, or 31%, and will reduce
the need for added short-term spaces by about 3,500 or 20%. It is
clear that the reason Baltimore will require fev:er parking spaces in
1985 is that there will be a transportation alternative. Attitudinal
studies, such as the one conducted in London and those used in formu-
lating the Los Angeles CBD study and the Baltimore study show that
people are willing to utilize these alternatives.
Another parking management strategy is the use of peripheral
parking lots which act as collecting points for single occupancy
vehicles and starting points for higher occupancy vehicles. This
strategy has considerable potential as a VMT reduction measure. For
example, one Los Angeles study estiirrtss t;:at 10 to 15 pcrcsr.t of
the estimated parking supply r.3fc
-------
- 10 -
park-n-ride sites vary in size fro,n church parking lots to major shopping
center facilities. Implemented in conjunction with ether transportation
control strategies such as expanded bus service and freeway surveillance,
the peripheral lots are saving an estimated 18,000 VMT and 1,<00 gallons
of gasoline daily. This high rate of growth in usage indicates that peri-
pheral parking programs ere a potentially effective strategy to reduce VMT
and increase transit usage in some urban areas.
As part of an overall transit program, the Lindenwold Hi-Speed Rail
Line which serves the Philadelphia city center, provides six suburban
fringe parking lots located in a New Jersey commuting corridor. It has
been estimated that this rapid transit line has displaced nearly 29
million VMT per year.10 Park-n-ride facilities hava also been successful
in urbr.n corridors in citiec such as Borers CUv.Vbrui, Ft. V.'o'rth, r-isw
York City and Chicago.
It must be kept in mind that parking management techniques are in-
tended to encourage carpooling or other modes of transportation rather
than to discourage initiation of the trip altogether. From this per-
spective, it is evident that reductions of VMT through parking manage-
ment can be best accompli shed as part of a balanced policy of -ore re-
strictive parking measures confined v/ith the support of measures such
as better public transit and carpoolino incentives. Oust as it would
not be successful to implement parking controls without providing at-
tractive alternative transportation imdes, a unilateral policy of
improving public transit alone may not succeed in halting the current
trend of'ir.cr^s*- *uto costing. The t-,-o :ol1r.i- - -^nagen-nt of
parking supply and increased availability of muU',;:.^ occupsncy pro-
orc"i5--should be pursued together.
-------
- n -
jOIf;2:LSTrA^^ r^Ii;
AND Vi-lT ~'~ ..... "~ " ..........
There i been experience both on the macro (regional) and micro
(individual marking facilities) levels that, dr:raonstro.tcs the relation-
ship between V'-'iT and parking supply. Many individual employers h?.ve
reduced work -commuting VI-'.T because further parking supply increase.^ were
either not feasible or were rejected for other reasons, thereby neces-
sitating the increased use of cerpcols and rrass transit. Cn n regional
scale, cities such as Pittsburgh, London, England, and Karseilles s France
have experienced decreased V:iT as a result of parking restrictions.
Regional:
Existing historical information illustrates a correlation between
VMT and parking supply. Study dot a taken in 1956 and 1963 on traffic
volumes into the central business district (CBD) and parking spaces per
1,000 population in urbanized areas provide an opportunity to compare
VMT growth with increased availability of parking supply. All of the
city groups in the study (cities of over 50,000 were classified into
five groups by population) showed an increase of park'ng spaces per
1,000 population except the groups of cities of over one million. Urban
areas in the 100 to 250 thousand range had the greatest changs (from
33.2 to 48.5 spaces per 1 ,000. or a nearly 50% increase). This croup
also experienced the greatest increase in traffic voli-mes, up nearly 30
percent. The larger cities (over one irnllicp) on the ether hand, hc.d
the largest decrease in traffic volumes into the CBD (from 66 to 49
trips per 1,000 population). These cities, where problems of conoastion
arose et -"ic curVic:. t r^i \^-: !..-.c-:-,r.e the r;.,1; zv:v? , v:3,e also I. o:.V,
cities as a group to have a decrease in poking spaces per 1 fCOO.
-------
•- I ?. -
The strong correlation between increased parking supply and in-
creased Vf-iT does not,in itself, hov;sver, indicate the existence or
direction of a cau?al relationship. The data shows that the two
variables change together. Although this alone cannot prove that in-
creased parking supply causes additional VMT, it is self evident the
two factors are related. Specifically, it can be postulated that in-
creased parking spaces were a factor in increased VMT figures. This
conclusion recognizes that VMT itself has induced parking supply
growth.
Support for this thesis cams from an examination of situations
where parking supply has for some reason be-en significantly reduced.
In those cases, VITf COGS not rer^in constant. In fact, significant
VMT reductions have becni found to occur under such conditions,
The most significant urban wide example of the Vi'.T/'parking space
relationship in the United States comes from Pittsburgh where, in
August, 1972, a parking attendant strike caused the closing of 80
percent of the parking spaces in the city.12 Despite.the fact that the
strike only lasted thrae days curing a surcnor vacation period, the
'observed impact was significant. Peak period traffic into the C3D de-
clines 25 percent with most commuters switching to transit. According
to a local newspaper, :'The big n£v:s...was v.hst didn't happen - the
predicted traffic chaos. We've been far worse off in the morning after
a snow. There was no flood of cars driving back and forth by wives
taking husbands to vork. Neither cbsenteclsm nor tardiness in dor;..-
-i ^
town officer, were -ro:,t-r tl^n ir.r.VI..." "
-------
- 13 -
Illustrative of the principle that computers will sv.-i ten to
available alternative modes of transportation when parking supply is
limited are statistics on bus ridership accumulated during the strike
period. The city bus lines ran additional buses to accommodate the
anticipated demand. Bus rieiership for the three days of the strike
and the corresponding days of the preceding and succeeding \veeks is
given in the table below:
Table 214
Transit Riders hip During Pittsburgh Parking
Strike (In Thousands)
Week
Prior •
?.79
Strike
209
Week
After
?G3
Tuesday
Wednesday 285 303 283
Thursday 292 317 291
Of particular note is the fact that bus ridsrship nearly de-
clined to pre-strike levels immediately after the strike when parking
supply was once again at an optimal level. These figures surest
that a disincentive such as restricted parking supply is an important
factor in inducing a modal split. While actual carpool surveys v^re
not taken, it can be assumed thr.t there was considerable carpool ins
since work attendance v.-as ncru-al and the bus ridsrship figures did
not increase sufficiently to account for all work trips.
Non-work trips normally wade to downtown were also reduced by
the strike. Lcccl retail ".'•«!:.->-,- resorted a sal^s c'rco of 6 vn -
percent, forking i,^^;,^ pr^ry^ v;ou1d mke incentives to siiort
duration parkin" possible so ^ to -voic such a result.
-------
- 14 -
Movie theatre patronage was cut to less than half tha normal rate &.;?.
to tha lack of rnghttir.^ periling. Ihllko n p?.rkir.n itrikc., narking ma no ••'•::-
ment would, of course, allow sufficient parking supply for after work-hoi.-T
activities.
While most parking was closed, 800 city and 600 privately-owned parking
spaces remained L-.VSliable through the strike. Interestingly enough, however,
these "remained half empty curing much of the strike period." '-.'nils part of
this unfilled capacity might be attributed to lack of citizen information
(i.e., they thought all the lots were closed), nevertheless, a parking study
concluded "This...indicates that commuters and shoppers, faced with a short-
age of downtown parking, tend to change mode or suppress their trip, rather
than spend time in search of scarce parking spaces." This counters the fre-
quently expressed argument thet parking management will actually increase Y-iT
because people will drive around looking for scarce spacss. The Pittsburgh
experience ^r.d atti tydini;! studies indicate thai: ::^op'ie will svntch trar-s-
portetion modes rather than waste time searching for parking spaces.
An example of planned parking management resulting in a reduction in V.TT
conies from Europe where an experimental ten-day total ban on parking was ins-
tituted in a section of Marseilles, France resulted in a 40£ reduction in
carbon monoxide concentration.16 Despite- drive-through traffic of autos ,
taxis, and buses, the parking ben shov/Dc! £ strikinc; offset on dov/ntown pol-
lution. Six miles of additional bus lanes and free transit service lure-J
computers from their cars. I'hilo no percentage V"T reduction figures are
availcible, the direct CO/VMT rclaticnshi;; ireens t!v>t significant v:'T ro.:,::>
ticns did take place in the urban area.
Another e^'ple corres frcro London vhere total available CBD parkinn
spaces dsclinsd sllrhtly fro- 15C2 (before the nror.t«r London Co-n-:iT? i:-^1--'-:
policy had been developed) to 1972.u Trends in evening peak ptriod tvafvic
-------
- 15 -
over the past 20 y^rr, v-ere investigated on a representative road network I
London. The dots si. <;•.»; th;;t t!;- rain of cjrc".t!i has fallen f.-orc about 7 [••-?>••
cent per year to zero since 1£G4. Employment in the erea during t'n's perio
has regained virtually-constant. A study of this data has concluded that
"[t]his reduction can be attributed largely to parking control."
Individual Employers:
The experience of many employees shows that conwjters are willing to
abandon their single occupancy work confuting under parking shortage con-
ditions. For example, the national Aeronautics and Space Administration,
faced with a shortage of parking for employees in V.'sslrington, D.C., began
in 1964 to allocate their limited parking supply to employees who were
members cf organized carpcols. Automobiles driven for cownurSng purposes
18
at NASA have maintained an occupancy rate of 3.85 employees per car,
One year ago ths Gov^'/vimsnt Emrlnyiiss Ins-ov-once Cer,r>eny, faced v/ith ?
parking sp&cc shortens, began giving gi;ara;ito£d parhing IQ carpcols vriJi
three or more rnembars. With 394 places now reserved for carpools, GF.ICO's
one-year old policy keeps over 800 cars away from work.'9 The Pentagon,
unable to expand its limited parking supply, has required carpcol member-
ship, with priority for close-in parking given to ccrpeols with high
QO
occupancy. '
To alleviate the immense parking problem faced .by its employees
in New Haven, Connecticut, Southern f!sw England Bell similarly began
21
a program of guaranteed parking to carpools. Due to an occupancy
rate of 4.25, the company esfiirstes 720 cars are not driven to work
due to the program. One of t!:S most ambitious cor^any programs
carried out in the face of parking shortages is the 2M Corporation's
-------
•- 15 -
Ccromute-a-Van Program where ever 50 vans of "12 passengers each arc
now In operation.2 .In addition, a cm-pool program is also operating.
As a result of the two programs, ov;r 3,000 c-nployeos (40% of the
company wor!; force) ride to work in some type of multiple occupancy
vehicle. 3M estimates that their program sr.ves 1.4 million V;1T
and 108,300 gallons of gas annually. In all of these cases, which
represent a few typical examples of employer programs throughout the
country, lack of available parking supply is the predominant reason
for the increased carpooling and vanpooling, and consequent decrease
in Vi-iT.
An examination of the data used for two 1S71 Los Angeles studies
also links parking supply shores with Icw^r WT. One study involved
a survey cf CDD office employees 23 Another v,as conducted to cx^ine
the travel characteristics of 5,000 City Hall and Water and Power
employees whose work destination was just outside the CBD in an area
with a parking shortage24 Survey results showed that fewer CBD
employees, where parking was more abundant* were carpcol meters or
25
riders than were city envioyoGS.
Similarly, situations involving ample parking show the other
side of the equation: automobile usage is promoted by readily availa-
ble parking. Suburban shopping cantors and rony er.ployinant facilities
are pri*e examples. EnpTncal support comes from a London study wh.re
it was "proved conclusively that where employee; have bean moved frcn
a building -,;Uh lo,« perkinn provision to onr with high provision,
. ^..,;.-.•-,.-.v- -;>-.—•-:-•' in ;ii'-!-.r.'.;-.obi"i2 use for cor^uM"';
thare has- b?v< a ST>; •' •..'-<•>* -• --
-------
O ("
purposes..."''' Anci, significantly,, this occurrad despite a high
level of transit service iu ths area. This latter fact shows again
that good transit service alone may be an Insufficient inducement to
bring about a modal switch without the further inducement of a
parking irariagerrisnt policy.
PARKING DURATION AMD VMT
The fact that confuter parking tends to be long term (i.e., from
morning to evening peak hours) v.'hile other types of parking, such as
shopping, recreational or business parking, tend to be short duration
has a significant impact on \v-JT generation and parting management
policies.
It apr-y^rs that for normal urban regions 30-5D/^ of ths trips
made into the CBD ara work-oriented; 30-40% non-work, and 20-30%
other trips with no parking need.27 A study of CBD parking charac-
teristics shows that work trips have had the greatest percentage
change over the years.23 The average increase in work-related trips
to the CBD in all the city groups tested was 45% from 1955 to 1983.
The niost dramatic incr&ass occurred in those cities betucGn 533,000
and 1.000,000 whore the proportion of vork trips increased from 22%
in 1956 to 46S in I960. Thi'cnly group showing no increase was the
citios of over 1,030,000 v;i ^ the proportion rained constant at
41X. Only in the vary Isr^st cities where such problems becsme
acute earliest..has a beginirixc apparently been mode in bringing
these trends urulsr control.
-------
- 18 -
Since traffic volumes into the CbD h^ve increased in cities
generally 5 except for those cities over one mil lion, it became clear
that commuters have been, to a greater extent than other groups,
responsible for the growth of ViiT in American cities. Additionally,
because of the long duration of v;crk trip parking, the actual avail-
able parking supply for other types of trips may have decreased. The
appeal and proliferation of large suburban shopping centers does,
to a certain extent, reflect the non-availability of CBD parking for
shoppers.
A sisr.ple contraction ef parking supply may set parking on a
first-come first-served basis, possibly resulting in coirauters taking
even a laroer parentage of the available spaces than th::-y nov; demand.
and cauFln:] eco::c;nic hardship for the CLD. One-: solution which has--
been used in England is to keep parking facilities closed until 9:30
oO
a.m. in order to exclude conKuters. This strategy is also a part
30
of the Boston transportation control plan. Straight hourly rates
with no reduced dally rates would have a similar effect.
If significant numbers of commuters are induced to join carpcols
. or use public tr^sit, there ray be an effect en other drivers who
contribute to VMT. Because fcv.-sr colter vehicles would be on the
read, traffic congestion v/culd decrease. Drive through traffic may
possibly increase os persons take advantara of frsi roadspace.
Decreased congestion v/o^ld have an iirport?nt bcn-ficial effect
on public transit. Transit service would presumably be faster.
Many attitudinol survey? Ii?v,- rr.^c^d tiic conclusic:. thr.t ccr-rifinc
time is a very important factor in nodal choice. Recently, a
-------
- 19 -
Knoxville, Tennessee medal split analysis showed that faster transit
service was a significant inducement for new riders.31 People were
willing to pay double the normal fare for true express service.
If corr.n:i.!ter parking is restricted, then short-term parkeri
may be expected to do iviore business in the CDD, thereby improving
the CBD economic status. But since several short-duration parkers
can utilize one formerly commuter space, there may be a potential
for an increase in dov.-iitov.ri VMT. Are?.v/ide, hov.-ever, there will be
an offsetting decrease in VMT if trips to the CBD are taken in place
of trips to s'jburo.-'n shopping centers. In addition, the potential
for a VnT increase relates only to the commercial parking facilities
serving a nix of long end chert-term parkers t rather chan the
shopping center or snp'ioysr parking facilities. Alsos t'h:2 impact of
improved transit service should counteract any tendency to increase
VFiT. Due to the above factors, EPA fee Is that any VMT increases
associated with short duration CBD parking should be outweighed by
areawide VfiT decreases. If evidence co the contrary appears, EPA
will reassess, its strategy in this rocard. One potential counter-
acting measure would i:a to hold short duration CED parking at a
constant level.
Several cities have already integrated the supply of perking into
the total- tra;u;portati en end land us? schema on tr.c cssui.-.ption that
In L
-------
- 20 -
zoning regulations |:l-c? ? cell inn on the snaxir.^-: r,:-rv.bar of perking soacos
U.at can be; provide! -;i: :K.V offkv r:;•,•-;:;.-;;;:;-,,•;-:.•••- The »!•:•••. maxiiviiw if, often
less than the fonner nii.^ivjn rec;inrod number o;v spaces in that city.
One report states. • "Tl'io policy .-.copter! in Liverpool and other British
cities is to limit psrkir.g capacity so as to keep the vclunio of traffic with-
oo
in the economic capacity of the rosu network." The Bavarian Interior Min-
istry is considering ?.ii alteration of existing building ordinances so that
communities may limit construction of parking garages v.'ithin central city
•54
areas.
The H'ic'r.-.'ay Plan for 61 as cow, Scotland, now being i no lamented, involves
a restraint on entry to the CBD.00 Control may ba exercised by setting a
limit to tho number of parking spccss to be provided, the charges to be
made for packing, and the tiir.os v.'irjn csrtain spaces nay be opened and closed.
The Icrc-rr^o r1"1?!"; ;:--i"ils ^or PV.OP'i n?v!'.>ng sp'-c^s iv« 19^0 against ;n ex-
pected dc:;.i:;.d of to,COO. Similarly, in Uicenter, Lnglmd, a ceiling of
22,500 perking spaces h:-\s been est;:1?lished.j6 This contrasts with an ex-
pected derand for 67,000 spaces.
American cities also have begun to act. The New York City Planning Cc:;.-
mission in order to relieve street congastien has attempted to restrict new
parking gdrage'consiryction in mi-Jtov.-n Manhattan.-37 In Denver, planners
have uncbrtaken an extensive lend uio ?nd tranr-portaticn planning study
which explicitly r.?co,ynizos the potential effects of parking quantity snd
cost measunvs en ui•:.-/.'; dcyelcprr.iivi:."8 Par!nrn policy ^s been appl ;CH' in
the process of alter:,-live l-?r.d t!-rvolopvr.3nt and transportation plan testing
nnr! .c^..-, nl_^ C-.I.-.-MC--! r.-r-.-.i.t.'.v- -,iir:ilatir;i of this approach indicates
Ui IU I i ! i •„ I p 1 f? ' ' *>C I v v- ^ I *- »• • -• - • - -(
potential for acccir-.-lishinq the -irtc.nt.ified urb.n davelop^nt objectives.
Francisco, and s™ !>^go sro rov: a:tiv3ly pianino to curb parking lot gro-.-t>
-------
- 21 -
CONCLUSION
Availo'ole studies, actual experiences, and logic all point
toward a definite VMT-per king manage, icnt relationship. It seerns
clear that proper perking nanagement, v;hsn coupled with improvements
in nigh occupancy transportation (car-pools, vanpools, mass transit),
can be an effective tool to help bring about decreases in heretofore
unchecked areawide VilT increases. Perhaps the best evidence of the
reasonableness and acceptability of parking management as an air
pollution abatement measure is the various American and European
cities that have or are in the process of developing such plans.
The benefits cccurring include cleaner eir, better planned and orderly
-------
c-ry. !i:- n:<:
J .' --- «
1. See, for example, C.K. Love, "A Behavioral Approach to Modal Split
Forecasting," Transportajbi cr\ jlgj^sarcj^, Vol. 3, 1969, p. 463.
2. F.J. Uecmann, J. Ojo and \\. Kennedy, "Transportation Access
Special Generators", Trans rprtc-tl on Engineering Journal , August,
to
1974.
3. Deleuw, Gather and Co., Tr3Rsp_ortjit.icn El enicnts_for the Envi ronniental
Impact P.5 port on St.- ?-orv 's Ho s m_taT j IscQ cal "Office tiuTidlng end Perking
Garage, f973. " ""*"
4. Wilbur Smith and Associates, A Peripheral _
City - los Angel es. prepared for the yoarcTo?"?arR"Trig Ucrnniissioners,
Hay, 1972.
5. See, for example, Peat, Mar-wick, Mitchell and Company, A_Gui.^*°
Parking Systems Analysis, prepared for the Dap&rtrnent of Transportation,
OctoberT^97l , p. XU.2." See also R.E. Jackson, "Parking Policy as an
Integral Part of Urban Daveloptr.snt Objectives," MKih^y Research Record.
No. 474, 1973, p. 1.
6. J.H. Thomson, i-fet'iodsjjf J^ffl£_U^tatu^n.JJi^nJ^'eas , Organi-
zation for Economic" Ccoocraf'lcn Ind Dcvslcprr^nt, 1972, pp. 9G--S5.
7. E.L. Walker, Or., and John 0. Cuirjninps, "Fcr-scasting Impacts of
Transit Improvements 'and Fringe Parking Dnvelopnients on Downtown raring
Needs," Mighway Research Record. No. 395, 1972, p. 37.
8. T.H. Austin and M.J. Lee, "Estimation of Potential Use of Peripheral
Parking for Los Angeles CBD," Hi^hwavJieseairc^JecoH^ No. 444, 1973,
p. 20.
9 Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Status_of_the, J-!l^ii_Corj^[orJ^>
onstration Piy_arajji, draft report prepared for tiio Djparrment ot irsns-
portation, JuTy 1974.
10 R H Ellis, J.C. Bennett and P.R. Rassam, "Consiilerations in the
Design of Fringe Parkin? Facilities," HJQ'^gy Research Record, i!o. 4^,
1973, p. 37.
11. R,VI. Stout, "Trends in CBD Parking Cheracteristics, 1956 to 1S68,"
h Record^, Mo. 317, IS 70, p. <0.
1? Lester A Hoel and Ervin S. Roszner, Tho
Report llo. VMTA-:?A-!l --0011-72-2, prepared for Dsparii^nt of iransporta-
tion, December, J972.
-------
13- JlLy^!I£lLJ!r^^oy'^ Aurnst, 1972.
14. See note 12.
15. Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, P^jngJ^rLaa?!^jTt_PUms:_ Issues
and Alternatives for Local_Covcn^;gnt,'prepared for Southern California
Association of Government-;, AuguTt, l"974.
16. Kenneth Orski, "Car Free Zones and Traffic Restraints: Tools of
Environmental Management," Micjiway Research Record, Mo. 406.
17. A.D. K«3y, "Traffic l-tenagement and Restraint by Parking Control in
Greater London." Highway Rc-r.earch Record, Ho. 473,'1873, p^ 19.
"18. Data from national Aeronautics and Soace Administration, Washington,
D.C.
19. Lew Pratsch, The Success of Carpools, Federal Highv/ay Administration,
August, 1974.
20. Data from Department of Defense, the Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia.
21. Data from Southern New England Dell, New Haven, Connecticut.
22. See note 19.
23. See note 4.
24. Alan H. Voorhees and Associates, A Study of Techniques to Increase
Commuter Vehicle .OccLjpB_ncj/_on_ th_g_H_oJlvy-'Qp~ci frggv.'ro'» prepared for
CalTrornia Department of Transportation, November, 1973.
25. See note 15.
26. G.H. Harris, A lteEort_on_a_Staff Trayel_Suryj:v, 19619 and A__Rscort'
on a. Second[Staff Travel Survey, lyoSTpre'pared for Shell rnternational
Petroleum Co., Ltd.
27. Massachusetts Deoartn^nt of Public V'orks, Psr.ulD^J_^Pi^l0J2f'lJ^i?i»
prepared for Eastern Massachusetts Regional Planning Project. See si so
note 6.
28. See note 11.
30. 38 Federal Register. 30960.
31. See note 19.
-------
'"?. See note 29.
;;•'; Sea note 6.
34. See note 6.
35. 0. Areour, "Parking Objectives in Glasgow," British Parking Authority
Seminar, Hay, 1971.
35. See note 6.
37. See note 6.
38. See note 5 article by R.E. Jackson.
-------
A Report on Vehicle Miles
Traveled Minimization Programs
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Boeing Company (carpool) 5
NASA (carpool) 7
Jantzen, Inc (carpool) 8
The Pentagon (carpool) 9
Prudential of Boston (carpool)... 10
11
13
15
17
John Hancock Insurance Company (carpool, buspool
Southern New England Telephone (carpool, buspool
Atlantic Richfield Company (carpool
6EICO (carpool
buspool
buspool
Freightliner, Inc (carpool, buspool) 18
Aerospace Corp. & Samso Installation., .(carpool, buspool) 19
3-M Company (carpool, vanpool) 22
General Mills, Inc. (carpool, vanpool) 27
Texas Instruments (carpool, buspool, vanpool) 30
Tektronix (carpool, buspool 5 vanpool) 31
bus system
bus system
bus system
33
34
36
Georgetown University
University of North Carolina
University of Washington . . .„
Combus (bus system; 37
Reston Commuter Bus, Inc (bus system) 39
Westport, Connecti cut (bus system) 41
Minneapolis, Minnesota (park-and-ride lots,
contra-flow bus lanes) 43
Knoxville, Tennessee ..(carpool, buspool, vanpool) 44
Omaha, Nebraska carpool)...... 48
Connecticut Statewide Efforts. (carpool matching and
commuter parking lots) bl
-------
Introduction*
As part of its transportation control programs, the Environmental
Protection Agency has promulgated parking management regulations for
twenty metropolitan areas. Generally, the August 22, 1974 proposed
amendments to the existing parking management regulations (39 FR 30440)
require that an applicant seeking to build a new or modified parking lot
over 250 spaces demonstrate: (1) that there will not be a localized
carbon monoxide problem and (2) either the facility will decrease vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) or that VMT increase will be minimized through a
positive program designed to reduce single occupancy travel to the facility.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the reasonableness of the
VMT minimization option contained in the August 22, 1974 proposals. This
will be accomplished not by theoretical arguments but by a documentation of
actual in-use programs from all parts of the country which reduce vehicle miles
traveled. The very existence of the programs is proof that VMT minimization
efforts are a feasible, realistic method to help in achieving the goal of
healthful air. The number of cities, employers, or groups undertaking
programs of this type grows daily and the examples included herein represent
but a sample of the existing VMT minimization type efforts.
Various industries and cities around the country have developed and
put into operation programs that range from carpooling and vanpooling to
shuttle buses and express bus systems. The large degree of success is due
*Kuch of the information for this paper has been supplied by the Federal
Highway Administration.
-------
2
in part to the development of a program tailored to fit a particular city's
or industry's needs. One conclusion that can be drawn from an examination
of the various programs is the relative ease with wiiich these programs can
be made successful when high level management or top city officials lend
their support. The impressive resources, both financial and human, present
in private industry makes that sector an especially valuable reservoir of
creative new ideas.
Information on the various types of programs, including cost and
ridership figures, was compiled through telephone interviews with appropriate
officials and company personnel. Every effort was made to obtain the
most recent and accurate details. The following contains a summary of
the types of measures being instituted.
Carpools:
Carpool programs are designed to utilize the enormous reserve of unused
seating capacity in automobiles. The programs can be organized and put into
effect at a very nominal cost and in a very short period of time and result
in immediate VMT reductions. The types of programs include area-wide
computer programs, employer computer programs and hand-matching and grid
map programs.
Some groups supply information and perform the matching free of cost.
Also, the Federal Highway Administration will supply demonstration money
to urban areas for the purpose of establishing a carpool program. Even if
a private employer chooses to establish and fund his own carpool program,
-------
3
the amount of money spent on developing a program is minimal and can be
deducted as a business expense.
Vanpools:
Vanpooling is becoming an exceedingly fast-growing commuter-transport
system. Many companies see it as an attractive alternative to the choice
between 4-6 passenger automobiles or 40 passenger buses. An initial investment
of $5,000-$6,500 per van is needed, hut this can be amortized over a period
of years. This investment cost plus all of the operating and maintenance
costs can be covered by a reasonable commuter's fare. Companies now
employing this system are breaking even or running at a profit. The
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing program, for example, even returns a
substantial profit to the driver, despite the fact that $29.0.0 a month is
the highest fare any rider pays.
Shuttle Buses and Express Buses:
Many employers are using passenger buses as a method of reducing employee
single occupancy automobile commuting. Shuttle buses may be public transit
buses or may be smaller versions and may be equipped with comfort features
such as carpeting, comfortable seats and tinted glass. The operation costs
can be covered by commuter fares.
Other firms are securing express bus service for their employees in a
number of ways. Subscription arrangements, guaranteed fares, and subsidization
are some of the methods being utilized. For example, Atlantic Richfield, in
cooperation with the Southern California Rapid Transit District, has developed
-------
4
subscription bus routes and guarantees a certain number of bus riders. In
addition, the company pays a direct monthly subsidy (covering one-half to
one-third the monthly bus fare) to those employees who take the bus.
Park-and-Ride Lots:
Municipal governments as v/ell as employers are successfully using park-
and-ride lots as a VMT minimization strategy. These lots, by their nature,
reduce vehicular travel and, when tied into efficient mass or rapid transit
service, provide a means to improve air quality, save energy, and reduce
congestion. Often capital investment is not needed since church and shopping
centers provide free satellite parking. GEICO of Bethescia, Maryland, for
example, makes use of free shopping center parking lots to run shuttle buses
to its facility.
Many municipalities such as Minneapolis, Chicago, Hew York, and Boston
are finding that park-and-ride lots provide a desirable alternative to
uncontrolled parking lot growth. The success of these lots has already
guaranteed their inclusion in long-range planning.
-------
5
Boeing Company : Seattle, Vfashingtor^
Boeing, with 52,000 employees at five sites in the Seattle,
Washington metropolitan area, has encouraged carpools for its employees
for years. Organized efforts date back to the '40s and continued to
some degree until January 1974 when a major new campaign was waged to
conserve fuel. During these years when employment varied from 34,000
to 105,000 employees, Boeing offered incentives such as reserved parking
areas and flexible hours for carpoolers. The January 24, 1974, issue
of the Boeing [Jews was devoted largely to ride sharing and the overall
transportation problems facing the Nation. Reaction to the issue was
believed to have stimulated the excellent response to a carpool survey
card included in each payroll envelops.. Of the 29,000 respondents
over eo,000 yjere interested in car-pooling while approximately 6,000
had alternate preferences for commuting.
The computer carpool matching program designed by Boeing utilizes
the zip code system. Rather than giving each applicant a computer
listing of potential carpoolers, Boeing established 115 "Share the
Ride" centers on the Plant billboards. These Information centers were
located within easy access to all employees. At these "Share the
Ride" centers all employees at the site are listed by zip code and time
of arrival. The beauty of Boeing's zip code matching is that employees
can check adjacent zip codes for the best watch.
Summary statistics are:
- Carpoolers now total 19,000 an increase of 3,400
- 3.4 employees ride in each carpool, an increase of .7
-------
6
-- 1,315 employees now use public transportation, an increase of
235
-- 38,273 cars now are used for commuting, a decrease of 3,824
-- 1.38 employees ride per car, an increase of .12
— Six charter buses operate between Seattle and another plant in
Evert, Washington, 60 miles away
-------
NASA: Washington, D. C.
The NASA complex in Washington, D. C. is an excellent example of a
successful carpool system developed at a nominal cost. There are 1,600
employees at this government agency and \,015 of them are involved in
carpooling. A major motivating factor is the very critical parking shortage
in the area in which the complex is located. In 1364 NASA decided to help
its employees by organizing a carpool matching program. The response was
amazing as is demonstrated by the number of actual participants.
.Presently, NASA has a total of 265 operating carpools. These carpools
consist of seven that are 6-person carpools, 76 that are 5-person, 90 that
are 4-person, 49 that are 3-person, and 40 that are 2-person. The average
number of persons per car in these carpools is 3.83. An incentive used
for large carpools is the attainment of a favorable parking space. An
added incentive to their program is the $2.50 per month charge for the
government's parking facilities compared to surrounding parking area's
charge of $45 per month. Not only are these commuters saving themselves
money but they are significantly decreasing the VMT that this complex
previously generated.
-------
Jantzen, Inc.
In April 1973, Jantzen, Inc., in the apparel industry, decided to
make an effort towards reducing pollution. Realizing there was little
or no direct industrial pollution from its facilities, the thrust was
established to aid employees in forming carpools at all Jantzen facili-
ties. At each site, the Jantzen supervisors distributed and collected
carpool data forms resulting in an 00 percent response. With 3,360
employees at seven sites in four states, carpools increased by an
estimated 30 percent. Currently 45 percent of all employees carpool.
The employment at these sites varies. For example, 48 percent of the
207 employees in Los Angeles, and 35 percent of the 1,558 employees in
Portland, Oregon, are carpooling. In Ju1y,1974, 90 percent of all new
carpools were still operating.
The company believes that the individual's self-motivation is the
key to success. Their objective is to make it convenient for volunteers
who are interested in carpooling to get together. Excellent Hatching
services were provided along with posters for bulletin boards, a few
buttons and a pamphlet entitled, "What's All This Talk About Carpooling"
Jantzen used a map board with pins representing residential location
of employees instead of computer listings as many locations had only a
few hundred employees. Because of plentiful parking, incentives such
as preferential locations were not established.
-------
The Pentagon: Washington, D.C.
The Pentagon, in Washington, D.C., with 25,000 employees has con-
s
sistently suffered from a parking shortage. Formerly, spaces were
issued according to rank and grade with no priority for carpools. Even
so, due to the huge parking lots (some requiring a 12-minute walk to
the building), informal carpooling occured as commuters carpooled with
high ranking officials to obtain the "close in" parking advantage.
The first priority parking lot for carpools was established in
December, 1970. In December 1973, to optimize the use of the 10,000
plus parking spaces and reduce congestion, and energy consumption,
18,000 employees participated in computerized carpool matching. The
computer lists were distributed in March 1974, along with information
on obtaining a "close in" space for carpools of three plus. The pro-
gram was an instant success with nearly 4,000 permits issued in the
first three months. In order to keep the program continuing, all
transferees to the area are given a two-week temporary permit to
allow them to join a car pool or make mass transit arrangements.
As of June 1974, 4,962 registered carpools with an average of
2.6 persons have taken over 2,000 cars off the highways. With many
empty parking spaces, parking on curbs and access streets was elimi-
nated. This was all accomplished at a slight (undetermined) cost to
the government.
In addition to the carpooling activities, there are about 20-22
buspools in operation and about 8,000 conventional bus riders.
-------
10
Prudential of Boston: Boston, ri^ssflchus_etts_
Prudential Insurance Company in Boston provides free parking to
employees who carpool in groups of three or more while others pay the
normal parking fee of $3.00 per day. Approximately, 44 percent of
Prudential's employees (1,400) are presently in carpools. This number
entails 591 people riding in 252 car pools with the average of three
people per/car.
-------
11
John Hancock Insurance Company: Boston. f'assQc'nusetts
The John Hancock Insurance Coirpany of Boston has launched a successful
program to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by their employees
in work trip commuting. They began their initial program for carpoolers by
advertising in their company publication which is published weekly. The
company allows space for classified ads listing riders wanted, carpcols
available within the company, and also carpool openings with two other
cooperating companies. If an employee does not receive a newspaper response,
another avenue open to him is a computer listing of every employee's township
residence.
With the company encouraging commuter carpool programs and making them
readily available to those employees who wish to participate, the prooram
has met with a favorable response. Out of a total employment of 6,500,
there are approximately 525 carpool drivers, 1,125 carpool riders and 325.
carpool driver/riders. This brings the total number of carpool participants
to approximately 2,000 with an average of -2.5 persons per car.
This company has also set up a special division of personnel called
the "commuter services unit", to help with any arrangements or problems
a commuter may have. Through this department a commuter may secure a
pre-paid pass for the use of the bus/subway system of Boston. The John
Hancock Company takes the initiative to buy these tickets at a discount
from the mass transit authority, and then distributes them to its employees.
The cost of the tickets is later taken from the employee's paycheck. Over
1,000 employees secure their ticket through the company in this manner.
-------
12
This company has also arranged for the use of five peripheral parking
areas outside of Boston. Shoppinci centers and. churches allow free use of
their lots. Bus routes have been changed so that there are mass transit
stops at the peripheral lots.
-------
13
Southern ilev.1 England Tolori_,o n_ej: I^_}'-tv£n, Conncticut
Southern New England Telephone developed a car pool system in
December, 1973 in order to help alleviate the Immsnse parking problem
faced by company workers in Mew Haven. They began their program
through advertising in the company weekly, "The Telephone Times" and
with posters on bulletin boards. Then carpool application forms were
passed out and workers took the remaining steps to form carpools. The
response was amazing; the only incentive given was a guaranteed parking
space to mergers of carpools (Previously, workers had to arrive one
hour early in order to secure one of a limited number of parking
spaces). In the George Street parking facility in New Haven, thare are
presently 160 carpool spaces with an average of 4.5 persons per car.
In the W?ll Street parking facility there are forty spaces reserved for
members of carpools with an average of three persons per car. This
has eliminated approximately 720 cars that had previously been driven
to work.
Another program developed, by Southern New England Telephone is
that of a charter bus system. Presently, there are eight charter buses
running at the cost of 20-30 dollars a montfi for the commuter. This is
an approximate savings of one hundred dollars a month for the bus rider
who previously had to drive into work and pay for parking. The commuter
fees cover the cost of renting and operating the bus which is about
75-100 dollars per/day. There are various pick-up points in order to
save time which would be wasted in door to door service. The company
intends to further expand the system in the future, and presently
-------
is cooperating with smaller companies in the r.reji in arranging for these
employees to utilize the bus service also.
Southern New England Telephone has been so successful in their bus
and carpool programs that they are contemplating the idea of vanpooling.
Future plant construction by the corporation will experiment with
significantly less parking space/employee ratios to further encourage
carpooling and bus chartering. These ratios will be adjusted to take into
account the type of employees working within the facilities. For example,
telephone installers and operators would require proportionately more parking
spaces due to the irregular working hours.
-------
15
Atlantic Richfield Company: j^os_^np_gj_es , JjlvfornlR
Atlantic Richfield Corporation, in cooperation with the Southern
California Rapid Transit District, has developed subscription bus
routes in order to help alleviate traffic congestion and the pollu-
tion problem in the Los Angeles area. Out of the approximately 1,600
employees at this office, 425 rids buses to work. Atlantic Richfield
provides a financial incentive for them to do this. The company
covers $15 per month of transportation fees for each employee who is
riding the bus into work. This leaves the remaining fee of $30-45
(depending upon the distance traveled) to be paid by the commuter.
The company ends up paying about $6,400 a nonth in transportation fee
reimbursements.
The Rapid Transit District is involved in a guaranteed fare pro-
gram with Atlantic Richfield. The guarantee consists of a minimal
number of 35 riders on each bus. If the minimum is not met the com-
pany is responsible for the fares not paid. Approximately $5-6,000
maximum per year is paid to RTD by Atlantic Richfield. Because of
increased ridership, this fee should be significantly reduced in the
future.
This company also has developed an extensive car pool system,
using a hand-matching approach. There are 175 participating car pools
with an average of over three people per car. The incentive for
these car-poolers is free parking. Free parking for carpoolers results
in an approximate $1,000 per month revenue loss to the company.
-------
Atlantic Richfield has also made these programs readily available
to any of its subsidiaries. The programs have become a corporate
effort to reduce VMT. The corporation has made a positive commitment
to these programs and is willing to insure that, the programs continue
by means of monetary support.
-------
17
GEICO: Bethosda, Maryland
In a Washington, D.C. suburb, Government Employees Insurance
Company (GEICO) with 3,900 employees, and only 1,000 parking spaces
faced a parking shortage in 1972. Zoning was denied for th- instruction
of additional parking facilities. GEICO's solution was to establish
priority parking spaces for carpools of three or more, provide a carpool
matching service, and a buspool program. As a result, over 343 parking
permits serving 1,036 employees were issued, raising the overall average
auto occupancy to around two persons per car, 40 percent above the
typical occupancy. Eight free buspools,. serving 300 people, were estab-
lished for GEICO employees. At three shopping centers the management
approved fringe parking areas for the bus riders use. Another 200
employees ride GEICO subsidized buses from more distant origins. V.'ith
an estimated 500 employees traveling on regularly scheduled buses over
half of all employees now "share-a-ride". GEICO management, elated
over the corporate headquarters program has distributed a "How-to-do-it"
package to regional offices. Two of these have sponsored their first
carpool campaigns.
-------
18
Freight!iner, Inc.: Portland,_0rc£cm
Freightliner has an express bus arrangement with Trimet, the
Portland Mass Transit Authority, consisting of three bus runs. The
express buses make a maximum of three stops. The cost of the program
Is paid for by the participants. This express system also involves
a park-and-ride program which is arranged cooperatively between Trimet
and Freightliner. Parking lots at various locations are used at no
charge. In return the parking arrangements provide publicity and
perhaps some added business to the donors. Approximately 120 people
participate in this program daily and Freightliner has arranged for
additional buses to be added in the event of an overflow developing.
Freightliner also encourages employee participation by having the
bus tickets sold once a week within the company's confines and by
allowing the employees time off in order to secure their tickets. The
result of this effort is a savings of an estimated 74,000 gallons of
gasoline per year by those express bus riders.
A car pool program was also initiated at Freightliner. A car pool
survey taken among the employees received a favorable response. Out of
a total employment of 2,500 persons 215 carpools were established in-
volving more than 650 employees (approximately 3.25 people per/car).
Over a year's period, these pooled rides represent an estimated savings
of 370,000 gallons of gasoline.
-------
19
§£!LJ£!£2r^ El Scnimdo,
Cal1 toriri a
The 3,700 employees at Aerospace Corporation, in El Sequndo,
California, participate in a joint ride-sharing program with the 2,100
employees at the Air Force's Space and Missle Systems Organization
(SAMSO installation). This ride-sharing concept began in June 1972 for
Aerospace employees who v;ere transferred from San Bernardino to El
Segundo, California, 80 miles away. Rather than relocate their resi-
dences a "charter" bus was initiated. It was so successful that it
served as a model for establishing other routes. Uhat started as a
commuter service for transferees has now grown into eight buses carrying
approximately 250 employees.
Upgraded from standard transit buses, these comfortable buses are
outfitted with air conditioning3 reclining sects, coffee SGrvice and
music. For each rider the trip means from one to two hours a day for
reading, relaxing or just quiet conversation (and even work!). VJhile
cutting air pollution, it is estimated that these buses save 250,000
gallons of gasoline annually.
The buses were initiated by individual groups of employees and
are run as bus clubs. Various charter companies provide buses with
the average weekly fare of $8 to $12. Because of the frequent business
trips of the riders, coraitment to weekly or monthly use is not re-
quired and rebates are given. Employees of nearby companies are per-
mitted to use these buses. The bus clubs are completely self sustain-
ing with no guarantee by the employers. However, the conpany aid in
solicitinn numbers for the bus clubs has been vital to their success.
-------
20
A fully computerized carpool matching system v/as developed and
initiated at SAKSO Aerospace. A total of 1,226 employees were pro-
cessed in the initial January 1974 run. New and revised applications
are updated and added to the master file weekly. < The data base now in-
cludes' 2,200 employees. A follow-up survey found that approximately
60 percent of those participating in the program had actually joined
a carpool. A later survey found about 15 percent l&ft their carpools.
Prime reasons were that someone had moved or work hours or jobs had
changed.
The cost of developing and using the computer matching program
and the telephone survey to get the program going was relatively
minor. The labor involved included a month of a programmer's time to
modify, check out and to put into operation the computer program,
and-a month for othsr technical and administrative tasks involved in
the effort. The direct costs were $1,530 for computer time in pro-
cessing and key punching the 1,325 applications, and for reproducing
and distributing mass application blanks and instructions to approxi-
mately 6,000 personnel.
These costs can be viewed in a number of different ways. If only
the direct costs are included, the values range from $0.25 per employee
(in relation to total employment) to $1.71 per car pooler. If all
labor costs are included, these figures would be somewhat greater,
ranging from approximately $2 per employee to $13 per car pooler.
-------
21
The average VMT trip length for those forming car pools was 16.2
miles one way compared to 12.8 miles of overall employee population.
This concludes that the car pools were being formed generally for
longer distances. The total VMT saved per day was calculated to be
9,900 miles one way. Using a figure of 230 working days per year,
this would mean a savings of a total round trip VMT of 4.55 million
miles which is equivalent to 13 percent of the total VMT generated by
employees at the facility. Since approximately 900 people v:are car
pooling and the average occupancy was three people per car a total of
600 cars were removed from rush hour traffic. This involved a savings
of 300,000 gallons of gasoline annually .and a reduction of 50 tons of
pollutants into the air.
The 600 car reduction would eliminate the parking space require-
ment- of four acres, which is a potential savings of over $1 million
in land and constructions costs for the employer. There are also cost
benefits for the individual car poolers. Tn addition to lower in-
surance ratess each member will expend 5,000 fewer miles in not driving
a vehicle to work daily. Using a figure of $.05 per mile for mileage
dependent auto costs, this amounts to a savings of $300.00 per year
for each individual.
-------
22
3M Company: St. Paul ,_ V]nn_c_^ota
The 3M Company in St. Paul, Minnesota, established a "coRimute-a-
van" pilot program in April 1973 with six 12-p?.sscnger vans. By
August 1974 the v/ell-received program expanded to 64 vans in St. Paul
and one at the 3M location in Los Angelc-s. Uitn as many as 1,000
people on waiting lists, continued expansion of the program at 3H in-
stallations is assured. As vans become available, the fleet will be
expanded to 75 serving about 10 percent of St. Paul employees. With
3M's experience serving as an excellent model^at least 9 companies
are known to have started vanpooling programs.
The 3M Company headquarters, a large suburban industrial complex,
includes administrative, laboratory and-United production facilities.
Currently, 3M Center consists of 17 buildings with approximately 9,000
employees on some 400 acres. Anticipated 1980 employment is 16,000.
Because of somewhat limited access, congestion near 3M Center has
existed for several years in addition to the perplexing challenge of
accommodating future growth. Since the center is auto oriented, the
conventional solution meant additional highways. But it was realized
that the public's ability and willingness to support additional high-
way capacity was becoming exhausted.
The 3M Company established an adhoc committee composed of repre-
sentatives of the following departmsnts: engineering, transportation,
insurance, legal, office administration, public relations and employee
relations to develop an operations guide for the pilot program. The
program outlined a system where the operators would be permanent 3H
-------
23
personnel. Vehicles would be purchased and supplied by 3M. The fares
would cover full amortization and opsrating costs of the vans. Priority
parking would be mads available.
Benefits to 3H:
-- reduced congestion at 311 installations
— reduced demand for parking
-- reduced capital expenditures for auto related facilities
-- more efficient use of land at 3M installations
— self-sustaining operation
— easy to terminate if proved unsuccessful
Benefits to Users:
— save money
— reduced risks and tension of commuting
. — free up car for use by family members thereby increasing
their mobility and social-economic opportunities
-- high level of door to door service
Benefits to Non-Users:
— reduction in congestion and parking demand in and
around 3M installations
Benefits to General Public:
— reduced congestion on streets and highways
-- reduced land use for auto related facilities
-- positive effect on the environment - less air and
noise pollution
-- the most energy efficient commuter mode
-------
24
In the pilot program, six areas exhibiting slightly different
trip characteristics were selected. The number of employees residing
in these areas range from 67 to 277 with distances varying from 5 to
32 miles respectively. In January 1973, a special employee survey was
conducted to determine interest in each of the selected pilot.areas.
In one area, 12 miles from the 3M Center, 50 of the 178 persons
applied for the use of the van.
The pilot pools consisted of the '-'Pool Coordinators" or drivers
and a minimum of eight paying passengers, with at least one backup
driver. The drivers must have chaufeurs licenses and are carefully
screened to determine reliability. Drivers are responsible for the vans
and ride free in return for driving and collecting monthly fares.
Monthly fares, figured on a "break evenl: basis of eight riders, range
from $19.50 to $39 depending on distance. As an incentive to the
pool coordinator to keep the van full, the driver pockets the fare of
the 10, 11, and 12th riders.
Possibly the best indication of the program's acceptance is its
fabulous growth and continued acceptance. In April 1974, 80 percent of
the 437 vanpoolers returned questionnaires on the program. 91 percent
of the participants expressed a desire to continue using the commute-a-van
for commuting. The convenience level of the vans scored amazingly high
as exactly 80 percent of the respondents found the vanpool more convenient
than their former method of commuting.
-------
25
By any measure the 3I'i ccmmute-a-van program has been an outstanding
success. The average van carries 11.36 persons for a monthly fare of
$23.72 and a round trip distance of 49 miles. The shift to vans saves
an estimated 1.4 million vehicle miles of travel and 108,300 gallons
of gas per year. The vanpool project reduced the size of a planned
3M parking ramp from 1,500 to 775 spaces saving 2-1/2 million dollars.
In addition, carpooling employees have expanded three-fold to approxi-
mately 3,000 since the energy crisis began. Overall, 40 percent of
all employees are participating in ride sharing, certainly one of the
highest in the country.
-------
26
COMMUTE-A-VAN COST CALCULATIONS
Fixed costs of Commute-A-Van vehicle
Cost of Vehicle
Immediate Depreciation
Cost for Depreciation
purposes
1.
2.
3.
Depreciation over 48 months
Insurance $430/year
One-time fixed costs — 1st year
Sales Tax $196.00
Tires 121.00
License 83.00
2nd — 4th years
License (average) 201.00
4.
5.
Total
Cost/month for 48 Months
$601.00
Estimated Value of Vehicle after
48 months is $1800. cr
fixed cost to be received
by User Income (4 minus 5)
7. Yearly Fixed Cost used for Fare
Calculation purposes
Operating Costs for Commute A-Van Vehicle
1. Gasoline: $.36/gal. @ 9 miles/gal.
2. Oil Change, filter & lubrication at
3000 mile intervals & $7.25/each
time
3. Other Maintenance
4. Tires — cost for life o' vehicle
5. Total Operating Cost
For Fare Calculation purposes and
personal mileage charges $.07/rr,iie was used
III. Fare Calculation
Stepl
Step 2.
Step 3
Step 4
Step 0
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
$4891.00
121.00
$4770.00
$ 99.00/month
40.00/month
12.52/month
$ 151.52/month
$ 37.5.0/month
$ 114.02/month or
$1368.24/Year
$1400.00/Year or
$ 117.00/Month Fixed
Cost/Vehicle
$ .04/mile
.0024/mile
.01/mile
.01/mile
$ .0624/mile
Daily round trip distance
Miles per year (21)0 clays ti
Fixed Cout pot rniie (:•{.] 40
Oporo!m'j Co-.f rr,r •„>.'>•.•:• ( :• .
TotC:i Co.: ;;•:! rr.ii.- ( .i i: ^ »
Cost p'.rU.iv (cosf/r-iiio l'r:
Co-.t p»i •T'«-.0!l car (1.V/ (r-
Cost psr person pc-r monll.
mes .Tbove mileage)
. divided by miles/year)
:os cliily mileage)
v.l :!jy Ci^kK : I>V P)
(1M limes cost/d.-'.y/person)
15
-------
27
General Hi 11s, Inc.: Mi mieauolis^ jrinnesota
Following 3r!(s example, General Mills, Inc., in neighboring
Minneapolis launched a pilot commuter van program among its 1,800
employees. Begun in January 1974, with five vans, the program doubled
in just three months. In order to lower fares in some areas and
maximize use of the vans, arrangements have been made to use a van for
shuttle service between buildings during the day. Free transportation
is available to commuter van passengers for doctor appointments and
emergencies. The vans are used for these purposes by employees with a
chauffeur's driver's license while company cars are provided for other
passengers. The drivers of the vans are also permitted to drive the
vans home and use them at their disposal' at the cost of seven cents a
mile. (The driver during the week gets a free ride for his services)
and also receives the fares from the 10th and llth passengers.
As of September 1974, the companv's van pooling program
consists of 12 vans that transport about 8% of the employees at the
main office. The vans cost nine cents a mile in operating costs but this
is covered by the commuters' fares - which range from $12.60 - $33.00
a month depending on the distance travelled. These vans are 12-passenger
vans purchased at the initial investment of $6,100. The monthly fares
cover the capital investment and operating costs.
In addition to the van program, reserved parking close to the
building for carpools of three or more is offered to more than 50
carpools transporting over 180 employees. More requests for reserved
parking assignments are continuously made as new carpools are formed
with the aid of a "Pool It" ride board from which employees find others
to pool with.
-------
28
GENERAL MILLS
FARE CALCULATION
1. Monthly mileage = daily round-trip mileage x 21 days (average
number of working days per month)
2. Fixed cost per mile = $113.00 (monthly fixed cost) * monthly
mileage.
3. Operating cost per mile = $.09
4. Total cost per mile = #2 + #3.
5. Total cost per month = total cost per mile x monthly mileage.
6. Cost per person per month = total cost per month 4 8 passengers.
7. Cost per person per day = #6 ~ 21 working days.
-------
D
29
GENERAL MILLS
FIXED AND OPKRATIMG COSTS OF
VANS IN PILOT PROGRAM
Fixed Costs
Capital Cost of Van
- Depreciation (over 4 years)
Net Book Value
Salvage Value (after 4 years)
$5,372.68 *
5,157.77
214.91
1,800.00
Profit $1,585.09
Annual Costs:
Depreciation
Insurance
Licensing
Vehicle license 4- title fees
Class B drivers1 licenses
$58.50
33.00
Profit
Annual Fixed Cost
Monthly Fixed Cost
For fare calculation purposes = $113.00/month.
$1,289.44
360.00
2L...5J)
1,740.94
$ 396.2.7
$1,344.67
$ 112.06
Note: Above figures do not include cost of capital, as it is being
absorbed by company.
Operating Cos ts
Gasoline ($.54/gal. @ 9 miles/gal.) .060
Oil change, lubrication ar..d filter every 3,000 miles @ $12 .004
Other maintenance:
1st servicing - 12,000 miles (annual mileage - 12,000 miles) .008
Tires: $50/tire x 3 = $150 .013
(2 tires - 12,000 tniles = $100/year;
2 tires - 7,000 = $50/year)
Snow tires - $GO/tire, cood for 2 years. -005
Operating Cost = .090/rciie
* Fibres based on purchase price as of 7/1/73.
-------
30
Texas J.Q_sj_r»njg_n_^j^_Jfe'L'L0s> Texas
A major Texas Instruments Company complex in Dallas, Texas, which
employs in excess of 20,000 people, initiated a comprehensive ride
sharing program in the fall of 1973. The program was designed to meet
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) transportation require-
ments for the region. The regulations state that employers with 1,000
or more employees in one location and who maintain more than 700
employee parking spaces must provide incentives to encourage employees
either to ride to v:ork in carpools or ride buses. V.'hile EPA regu-
lations apply to only four company facilities, the corporate policy
is to aid all "domestic sites" in pooling program. The effort is viewed
as a corporate moral commitment to locate the best commuting opportu-
nities for employees in order to conserve energy and reduce air pollu-
tion.
With a carpool matching effort and parking priorities for three or more
persons per car or a "full car" such as a two-seater sports car carrying
two people, the average occupancy increased from 1.20 in October 1973
to 1.64 in April 1974. A pilot TRANS-I-VAN program started in March
1974, with five vans, and is similar to the 3M Company operation. An
additional five vans were added in July, 1374. In addition, seven
new express bus routes provide exclusive service to Texas Instruments
with another three bus routes under discussion. Texas Instruments de-
termines the routes, stops and times and guarantees the Dallas Transit
Authority 40 paid riders for a trial two-week period to start the buses.
-------
31
Tektronix:
Tektronix operates a shuttle bus system to transport employees
to different parts o.f their hugh complex which is located outside of
the City of Portland, Oregon. This company has two 12-passenger vans
which operate 12 hours a day, with drivers working a four-hour shift.
The management of Tektronix has found this system to be both a con-
venient and economical way to move people throughout the 18 miles of
plant area. The vans transport about 100 people a day giving to them
quick door-to-door service and enabling inner-plant business to proceed
more efficiently.
The total operating costs including gas, tires and the leasing of
the vans is $130.00 per day. Tha company finances this operation and
has found it to cause a reduction of travel expenditures. Previously.
the company had been paying employes 12 cents a mile for inter-plant
travel. Also, the company is saving money by a reduction of wasted
time. The van system is much more convenient and efficient in trans-
porting employees to and from buildings. In the time it takes the van
to get an employee to one place from another, previously the employee
would have just made it to his car (which could have been parked up to
1/4 mile away) to begin his trip. The employee at the same time is
saving money on gas, eliminating wear on his vehicle, avoiding the
inconvenience of driving.
Another alternative to the shuttle buses offered by Tektronix is
that of a "company bike." A number of bicycles were purchased by
Tektronix for the employees' use. Bike paths were set up throughout
the company's campus - like settino, in order to cet to the various
-------
32
buildings. Also, bike racks were installed at each building of the
complex to provide secure parking spaces for the bikes. The employees
find this program to be a healthy and relaxing way to travel.
Tektronix also has an agreement set up with the mass transit
system of Portland. They supply an express bus to the company in con-
junction with a park-and-ride program. Church and city parking lots
are used for this purpose and usually at no charge. Metro.is actually
in charge of coordinating the program, but the company encourages
employee cooperation. The cost of the bus system to the commuter is
about 40 cents per trip which is approximately equal to the cost of
driving his own car.
Tektronix also has a car pool program which was first started
by a computer matching system. As a result of the matching that occurred,
there are presently 900 carpools with over 2,OOC passengers (including
the drivers) taking part. The remaining employees of the 10,000 total
population get to work using various forms of transportation. Sixty
two percent of the total 10,000 population are still driving their own
cars to work. Twenty percent of the workers are involved in carpooling.
Six and one half percent of the people utilize mass transit. Five
percent of the employees ride their bikes to work, usually along state
financed bike paths. Three and one half percent of the people ride
motorcycles and park them in the spacial parking areas supplied by
Tektronix. This leaves the remaining three percent of the population
who utilize their feet and walk to work.
-------
33
Georgetown Urnvers jty:_ HasIn'nqton,JXC_-_
Georgetown University put into effect a transit program during
September, 1974. This type of program was necessitated due to traffic
congestion, the lack of available parking space, and the shortage of
dorm rooms. Four shuttle buses transport students to and from school
and to the surrounding vicinity. The buses were bought at the cost
of $23,000 each which the university expects to pay off within six
years. This cost is considerably cheaper than securing land in the
Georgetov/n area and building a parking lot.
A fee of 25 cents is charged for each student ride. This fee
enables the university to break even in operating costs. During the
week approximately 1,200 students a day utilize this service. The
service is run on a part time basis on weekends.
Georgetown University is a member of a consortium of universities
in the Washington, D.C. area. If this program proves to be successful,
the other consortium schools will most likely adopt a similar program.
-------
34
University of North, Carolina: Chapg] HjTM,, North Carolina
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill launched a pilot
program in a cooperative bus system with the town of Chapel Hill on
August 1, 1974. The idea was conceived by the townspeople and the
University administration in order to eliminate the problem of traffic
congestion in both the town and on campus. The nrogram began with an
advertising program utilizing both newspaper and radio for this purpose.
Both the newspaper and radio cooperated in giving free advertising
when requested by the bus system authorities.
The University subsidizes the system by guaranteeing the transit
system a total of $300,000 in bus passes. The University in turn sells
these passes to the students at the cost of $72 per year including
parking. Parking facilities were secured at the airport and University
Mall which are on opposite sides of the town. The students park their
cars at these areas and catch a bus to campus. The buses run every
six minutes.
On the first day of operation this system carried a total of
1,466 people to and from school. Now, it averages 11,000 people during
•the week and 3,000 on weekends. The University hopes the system will
expand to carry more of the 25,000 town and 14,000 University popu-
lation. The bus system is trying to attract increased ridership by
launching a massive advertising program in the near future.
The bus system consists of 22 older buses that have caused some
maintenance problems. The 25 cents in town.and 15 cents on campus
-------
35
fares do not cover the operation costs for the first year of opera-
tion. The University expects a deficit of $50,000 the first year.
The bus system is already growing after only a few months of
operation. Over-crowded buses and people always waiting at bus stops
are just a few indications of the support behind this program. The
system has helped to eliminate some of the problems of traffic con-
gestion and has received widespread community support.
-------
36
University of Washington: Seattle, Washington
The University of Washington has a cooperative agreement-with Seattle's
mass transit authority whereby buses are provided to help transport students
to and from the campus.- This program is designed to alter the traffic
problem in and around the university.
At present, there are five bus routes which transport about 2,700 students
a day. This compares with a total student population of 34,000. The buses
operate 22 1/2 hours each weekday but no service is provided on weekends. The
highest level of service is provided during the 8-11 a.m. peak period.
The transit offers two types of service for the students. The first is
the neighborhood residential service which picks up students living within a
five-mile radius of the campus. Another system is, the express collector
service which takes care of persons living outside the five-mile radius.
Free park-and-ride lots are supplied by the city, the Elks Lodge, and various
churches. Free bus transfers ere given to students using this service.
The bus routes are operated at a cost of approximately $1,100 per day.
This cost includes the rental fee, driver salaries, gas, insurance, and
maintenance. Approximately 60 percent of these costs are covered by the
student fares, with the university paying the other 40 percent. The
university desires to expand the transit system but is limited by budgetary
constraints.
-------
37
Combus: Los Ange 1 es; Ca_l_'iform'a
Combus is a commuter-based bus system in the Los Angeles area.
It is the largest operator in the Los Angeles area of commuter trans-
portation. It is basically run as a private utility and is regulated
by the Public Utilities CoiTirnission which approves all routes and fares.
The procedure is for a company to submit a route request and a proposed
fare rate, both of which are then subject to approval.
The system operates a total of 47 buses and carries approximately
2,400 commuters daily. The cost for the commuter is approximately
$11-$14 a week depending on the distance traveled. Professional
drivers are hired by Combus, and the buses are used for charter purposes
in between the commuter runs. The "off-hours" chartering business
provides sufficient revenue to maintain a high quality bus system
during commuter hours.
Combus also operates a mini-bus system in supplementing Us normal
bus routes. Presently, there are seven mini-buses operating. These
buses hold 12-17 passengers and are also regulated by the PUC. The
buses are driven by specially licensed passengers v;ho in return get
to ride free. The drivers are also allov/ed to take the buses home
and use them for free personal use. The otner passengers are permitted
use of the bus on weekends at an approximate cost of 12 cents per
mile. Adequate insurance coverage is regulated by the PUC. The ini-
tial capital investment of this program was $6,500-11,000 per bus and
the company is running at a profit.
-------
38
Combus was faced with the problem of attracting people out of
their private automobiles and has succeeded in their task by offering
conveniences such as top-grade service, air conditioning and reclining
seats. Its success has been achieved without the advantage of priority
treatment such as bus lanes. Priority treatment would even further
increase the attractiveness of the bus system.
-------
39
Reston Commuter Bus, Inc.: Reston, Virginia
In 1968 the Reston Community Association set up a commuter express
bus system from Reston, Virginia to Washington, D.C. in order to
provide easier access to the downtown and to alleviate traffic
congestion. In that year a committee was organized to charter a bus
and determine the schedule, picking routes and destination points for
the buspools.
The program was an immediate success and by 1971 it became evident
that a separate organization was necessary due to the size
and scope of service. Consequently, Reston Commuter
Bus was incorporated under the laws of Virginia, It is a non-profit
organization run by a volunteer Board of Directors and 11 volunteer
officers.
In 1973 permission was obtained to use the Dulles Airport Access
Road. Since the Dulles Airport Access Road splits the Reston
community into two sectors, buses having collected passengers each
morning in each sector meet at the Dulles ramps to exchange passengers
and pool those with common destination. This, in effect, means that
the buses act as two kinds of buspools: local circulation buspools
and line haul express buspools. Operating in groups of two or three
buses, they provide collection/distribution service. After rendezvousing
at the Dulles ramps where passengers change on the basis of destination,
they begin a line haul express function to employment hubs in
Washington, D.C. In the evening the process is reversed at a point in
Rosslyn, Virginia, just outside .Washington, D.C. The exchanges are
performed at both the Dulles ramps and Rosslyn in just a few minutes.
-------
40
The buses are chartered front the Washington, D.C. transit
authority, METRO, and are used in normal transit service during
non-rush hours. Presently, 25 morning buses and 23 evening buses
are operating. During the energy crisis 2,400 people (1,200 each
way) rode the buses each day. Approximately 2,000 people now
participate.
The cost of the bus is $57.09 per run. The .standard fare is
$1.40 per commuter each way with the purchase of a ten pack booklet.
(If cash is paid, the cost is $1.75). The fare to the CIA
is $1.20 because it is a shorter distance.
The Reston experience proves what interested and dedicated
communities can do in a unique situation. The program has become a
permanent and viable community service. The bus system is both more
convenient and cheaper than single-occuoancy automobile communting,
and many commuters choose it instead of facing the tensions of rush
hour traffic.
-------
41
Vfestportj Connecticut
Hestport, Connecticut is a suburban community outside of New York
City that has rediscovered the bus as a means of transportation. A
fleet of eight luxurious small buses began regularly scheduled trips
throughout VIestport and the surrounding vicinity in August of this
year. The number of riders increased from 1,300 on the first day of
operation to 2,254 in the following week and presently the 16-seat
buses are filled most of the time.
The buses were bought with a $302,000 grant from the Federal
Urban Mass Transit Administration and the Connecticut Department of
Transportation. The operating costs are estimated, to be 250.000 per
year. A single bus ride costs 50 cents-/a total of $110,000 in fares
is expected the first year. This will leave a $140,090 deficit which
is to be shared equally by the state and the town of VJestport.
A fleet of eight comfortable Mercedes-Benz buses were ourchased
in order to induce people out of their cars and into the buses. The buses
have large picture windows, air conditioning, low pollution diesel
engines, and padded bucket seats.
The buses go into the countryside along seven routes in the early
morning and evening hours bringing commuters into tha railroad station.
Then during the day the routes are changed to bring residents every 35
minutes to the main shopping areas, the beach, and recreational and
cultural centers. The residents of this community are, in effect, spared
the inconvenience of driving.
-------
42
Initially, there were strong fears that such a mass-transit
system would fail in -a suburb designed for the specific use of the
automobile, but these fears have proven unfounded. It seems people
are ready to abandon their automobiles if an alternative economical,
efficient and convenient system is offered.
-------
.43
Minneapolis, Minnesota
The city of Minneapolis has established approximately 35 p?rk-and-ride
lots to serve and augment its bus system. 17 of the lots are along the
Interstate 35W corridor, a main expressway into the city. Several churches
and shopping centers allow free use of their parking lots. Approximately
5-700 commuters use the lots daily. An estimated 18,000 VI-'T and 1,400 gallons
of gasoline are saved every day by the program. The program is expected to
expand in the future.
The city has also established contra-flow bus lanes on two of the main
downtown streets. The lanes have been successful and free of any accident
problems. In addition, a downtown mall limited to only bus and pedestrian
traffic has been inexistence for several years. Finally, several ramp
meters which provide priority access for buses have been installed.
-------
44
Knoxvilie, Tennessee
Starting months before the energy crunch of Fall 1973, the city
of Knoxville, Knoxville Transit Authority, various homeowner's associa-
tions and the University of Tennessee, and major employers all pioneered
a comprehensive urbanwide pooling program. Encompassing all forms of
available ride sharing, the emphasis is on the optimum use of each
vehicle type, i.e., cars, vans, and buses.
This urbanv/ide carpooling program was not viewed as a reaction to
the energy crisis but as a positive response for urban transportation
needs involving: (a) declining transit ridership and rapidly increasing
transit deficits; (b) increasing peak hour traffic congestion; (c) in-
creasing numbers of peripheral activity centers, shopping centers, and
industrial parks.
The car/buspool concept was, therefore, viewed as a low-cost method
of identifying commuter demands to allow a more effective scheduling
of buses to generate higher load factors and multiple peak hour trips
through selective scheduling, promotion and selling. It was also in-
tended to generate alternatives for areas which cannot economically
support traditional transit service.
Knoxvilie's ride sharing achievements are largely the result of
an all volunteer effort operating on a shoestring budget. By the end
of the energy crisis, 12,000 employees at 12 firms received carpool
matching lists, hundreds of carpools were established, a vanpool pilot
program was initiated and nine new express bus routes were established.
-------
45
In September 1974, the second phase of Knoxvilie's ride-sharing
program was going from a volunteer program to a Federally funded cam-
paign.
Preliminary findings of the first phase suggest:
(a) In Knoxville where transit has very low utilization, the
importance of carpooling cannot be overemphasized.
(b) The car/bus pool matching program can increase carpooling
by five percent of the work force with little other effort than a
good carpool matching service.
(c) The car/bus pool matching program is yery effective pre-
dictor of express bus service and can accurately predict who will ride
for a direct marketing approach. Riders readily pay double fare for
genuine express service.
(d) Firms do not visualize the actual cost of commuter associated
expenses for land, parking lots, multiple shift work schedules, and
uneconomical expansion of parking facilities.
(e) Highly visable radio or TV carpool programs are less effective
because of the lack of association between respondents.
(f) A highly committed individual in each firm is essential for
the success of a program.
(g) Employer vanpools or charter buses are very appealing to
many businesses.
(h) A successful program should probably consist of a strong pro-
motional and training program directed to the employer plus a strong
appeal to the employe2s so that peeling implies benefits instead cf
imposition.
-------
46
(•») The propensity of employees of a given firm to live in the
same neighborhood appears to be far greater than expected. This may
have major implications for transportation planning and schedulings.
Extensive cooperation and marketing (bus demand established from
carpool matching data) betv;een TVA, suburban employers, Levi Strauss
and Camel Manufacturing, the transit authority, University of Tennessee,
employees and home owners associations resulted in nine new express
bus routes. These genuine express bus runs virtually equal the door
to door travel time of a privately driven automobile. With only 3 or
4 pick-up stops at fringe parking areas (churches and shopping centers)
the buses travel express to a single employment destination (one major
stop) arriving 10 minutes before work. This enables fast trips for
the commuters and quick turnaround for the buses.
During the summer of 1974, all nine new premium fare buspools
were carrying more riders than in March.- In addition, TVA added two
special charter buses to serve overtime employees. These buses cover
full operating costs as riders pay premium fares of $.50 and $.60 for
premium fast service as compared with $.30 for conventional locals.
There is standing room only on most buses, some with 10-16 standees.
The fast service results in standing less than 20 minutes.
In April, 1974, TVA signed a two year lease with Hertz Car for
six vans. The TVA credit union handled the leasing and insurance
arrangements for the six vans to eliminate any question that TVA was
providing transportation for sene employees.
-------
47
The door to door service costs $23 per month for a 40-mile round
trip or less than four cents per passenger mile. This is based on 10
paying passengers. Continuous patronage for 11 months will entitle a
passenger to one free month. The employees pay monthly either through
payroll deduction or by check. The driver rides free and has the
personal use of the van for seven cents per mile. In identifying the
potential areas for vans, the carpool matching survey was invaluable.
The selected driver is responsible to recruit a group of 10 persons
using lists provided by TVA and through other available sources. During
the day between commuter trips, the vans are available for subleasing
to charitable .organizations at a minimum charge.
Overall, TVA has increased their employees ride sharing from 30
to 50 percent. To continue this program, a permanent full time posi-
tion of transportation coordinator has been established to aid all
TVA employment centers.
Substantial support for the comprehensive Knoxville program has
been forthcoming from Mayor Kyle C. Tester-man who stated, "Substantial
evidence has been gathered that the car/buspool plan can do more to
save energy, reduce congestion and pollution, reduce parking problems,
and increase access to the downtown area than any other program which
we might be able to implement within the city. The car/buspool system
is also working to reduce the tax burden caused by a previously in-
effective mass transit system as well as providing a fast and reliable
method for getting to work. Frankly, our bus system for the first
time has hgcorce cons'jner oriented."
-------
48
Omaha, liebraska
In Omaha, Nebraska, a program labeled Energy Conservation Carpoo'i
Operation (ECCO) was conceived by an energy committee of Northern Natural
Gas Company. After receiving company approval for use of its comupter,
Northern's energy committee, which included two Jaycees, obtained full
support of the Omaha Jaycees. In September 1973, ECCO became an
authorized Omaha Jaycee project.
The main goal of the Omaha Jaycees is to make data available to
commuters to aid carpool formation and increase ridership of nsass transit,
thereby, reducing cornrmter energy consumption and street congestion. Vital
to the success of the effort, a promotional campaign v:as launched (although
limited in scope so as not to swamp the volunteer effort) at both the
public end company levels. The active support and aid of key business
and public personalities was obtained and the ECCO promotion was coor-
dinated with Metro Area Transit expansion and development. The Jaycees
contacted companies, explained the details of ECCO program and enlisted
their participation. Upon a company's involvement, an effective program
of training was launched to guide their program.
. To keep all informed as ECCO progressed letters were written to all
employers, the mayor and governor.- This minimized the need to fully
explain the objective and progress of the ECCO program as each new client
entersd the program. It also served to act as a form of promotion to
the employer-. Their cooperation is vigorously solicited especially for
participating employers and considered absolutely necessary to the success
of the program.
-------
49
By April 1974, ths success and popularity of ECCO was evident as
130 companies had completed surveying their employees. OF the 1,190
Northern employees who received the questionnaire, 65 percent returned the
completed form. This subsequently led to the formation of 130 more
carpools bringing the total nun±>er to 281. While parking is not critical
at Northern,emergency, car kits were offered as an incentive.
Union Pacific Railroad had over a 75 percent return from its 5,000
employees, and the company is investigating the adoption of this ECCO
format for soma of its other locations. Mutual of Omaha, an insurance
company with about 3,600 employees, began its own carpool promotion
in early 1973. Through the use of attractive incentives - preferred
parking, free breakfasts, and drawings - more than 1,000 employees
were already commuting by carpools when ECCO started. The company has
worked hard to encourage the smaller businesses in its immediate area to
participate in pooling programs. It made its data processing and key-
punching services available to them, and now matches the employees from
these 29 concerns with its own employees.
As of May 1974, approximately 15,000 of a potential 27,000 employees,
mostly in downtown Omaha, had submitted data forms to ECCO. The return
rates of soma larger firms exceeded 80 percent, laith smaller firms
slightly behind. A high participation rate on returning data forms is
critical as it increases the probability of locating partners within
reasonable proximity. The goal of an expanded ECCO program (federally
funded) to-be in full operation in the fall 1974 will be to contact each
of the 917 companies employing 25 or more persons, for a total of 147,000
employees.
-------
50
As of September 1974, the ECCO project was turnsd over to the Metro
Area Transit which received federal funding for the task. The project's name
was changed to Metro Area Carpool the the goal is to establish carpooling as
a permanent transportation alternative. To achieve this goal, Metro Area
Carpool goes into the various companies and train people from personnel to
take charge of keeping the system updated. Each company is checked once a
week for any additions or deletions from the master list, thus keeping the
program accurate and effective.
Metro Area Carpool plans to re-contact some of the companies who shaved
a favorable response to ECCO's project, it will attempt to re-survey 5 or 6
companies in the downtown Omaha area in order to determine the extent and
success of the carpool programs.
-------
5V
Connect1 cut Statevnde_Efforts
In 1972, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT)
developed a UNI VAC qomputer program for carpool matching and provides
carpool matching services to any public or private employer in the
State who desires to participate.
Initially, over 7,000 employees from 45 State agencies in Hartford
submitted date forms for matching. Subsequently, over 1,000 employees
ride in carpools, most parking in spaces reserved for carpools with
three or more. Joining the spirit of Connecticut DOT in conserving
energy, about 100 companies from across the State also sponsored
programs. With around 80 percent to 90 percent of the employees
participating, some 70,000 questionnaires were 'returned by the first
31 firms.
In addition, Connecticut DOT has an accelerated statewide
construction program for carpool commuter parking lots located
primarily at key highway intersections. As of July 1974, 8 permanent
lots, which are paved, landscaped and illuminated and 62 new gravel-
covered temporary facilities have been constructed. "Even though the
energy crisis appears to have subsided, our carpool commuter lots are
holding their own and in many instances are experiencing increased
usage," said State Transportation Commissioner Joseph B. Burns.
-------
Examples of Reductions in Energy Use and
Vehicle Miles Traveled From Parking Related Programs
Inducing people to switch to carpooling and mass transit results in
significant gasoline and vehicle miles traveled savings. This also translates
directly to improved air quality. The following examples are representative
of the possible gains that can be achieved in both VMT reduction and fuel
economy by implementing VMT minimization programs. The costs of such programs
relative to the benefits gained are minimal. And the comparative ease of
implementing effective programs demonstrates that there is a high degree of
potential applicability nationwide. •
The company estimates that their . vanpool ing program saves approximately
110,000 oallons of gasoline each year. This translates to about 1.4 million
vehicle miles saved annually. In addition, 350 less parking spaces are now
needed.
The corporation estimates that their carpool program saves over 300,000
gallons of gasoline per year and a reduction of 50 tons of pollutants. A
daily estimated savings of 20,000 vehicle miles traveled or a yearly VJTT
savings of 4 million (230 working days per year) results from the program.
In addition, over 250,000 gallons of gasoline are saved annually by their
bus program.
-------
2
" Southern Ncvy Englond Telephone Company: Now Hajvfln, Connecticut
Their buspool program saves 350,000 gallons of gasoline annually while
their carpool system saves approximately 215,000 gallons of gasoline annually
and takes some 500 cars off of the highway daily.
" Frelnhtliner. Inc.: Portland, Oregon
Its carpool program results in an annual gasoline savings of 370,000
gallons or 4.8 million miles. In addition, the bus program contributes
another savings of 74,000 gallons of gasoline each year.
" Minneapolis, Hlnngsota
A new and expanding park-and-ride lot system already reduces VHT by
18,000 miles every work day, thereby saving 1,400'gallons of gasoline daily.
- Boston, Mas sach usett£_JVanspQr ta ti on Cont rol PI an
Implementation-of the promulgated control measures which include an
extensive employer transit incentive program would result in a savings of
approximately 110 million gallons of gasoline each year.
-------
Parkin a Investment. Costs
The attached report contains an analysis of the investment costs
associated with the construction of a parking facility. In order to reflect
such costs accurately, the report sets forth a categorization of parking
facilities based upon their intended uses. The categorization is the same
as the EPA categorization contained in the August 22, 1974 proposed amendments
to the parking management regulations.
Each of the five usage categories has been further subsivided on the basis
of actual facility design characteristics. This detailed breakdown is necessary
in order to treat the many variables (i.e., space efficiencies, land costs,
amortization and interest rates) associated with the construction of parking
facility.
Due to the many possible typos of parking facilities which can be -cnstrnctad
at a particular location and the wide variations in land values (i.e., from
less than $2 per square foot to greater than $50 per square foot), any
estimate of the total cost of a particular type and size parking facility
must cover a broad dollar range.
The following table illustrates the very large capital expenditures
involved in the erection of a parking facility. The figures reflect land
acquisition costs,which vary considerably, and construction costs, which
Generally average about $400 per parking space. The figures represent
Kitinl cash costs and do not include amortization costs, investment f1n?rc?
ch^ges, and taxes, Thus, the figures are lower then actual costs to a
-------
TABLE I
Use Catenor:/
Residential Parking Facility
Custorner/Cl ient Parking Faci 1 ity
Employee Parking Facility
Recreation £ Interim'ttant Parking
Facility
Independent Multi-Use Parking
Facility
'lumber of
Parking Spaces
250
1000
500
2000
750
Cost Range
Per Facility Cost Per
(millions) Car Space
$0.4 - $1.9 $1625 - $7500
$4.9 - $7.5 $4875 - $7500
$0.7 - $2.5 $1350 - $5000
$3.3 - $8.6 $1625 - $4280
$2.8 - $6.0 $3750 - $8040
-------
PARKING
INVESTMENT COSTS
by
EPA CATEGORIES OF USE
and by
TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION
-------
PARKING
INVESTMENT COSTS
by
EPA CATEGORIES OF USE
and by
TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION
The numbering system in this report is that the first digit goes to:
EPA CATEGORIES OF USE:
1. Residential parking
2. Customer/client parking
3. Employee parking
4. Recreation and Intermittent Use
5. Independent multi-purpose parking
Tne lettering system is that the second digit with Capital
Betters representing Self-service operation and lower case letters
^presenting attendant parking operation.
A. Surface parking
B. Basement parking
C. Underground parking
D. Concrete parking decks
E. Steel .frame parking decks.
j^erever appropriate to avoid repetition reference is made
^ applicable Tables in another section.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Type 1 Residential Parking Facilities
A. Surface Parking
Space Efficiency
Investment Costs
Amortization Costs
Land Value
Land Investment
Total Rental Cost
B. Basement Parking
C. Underground Parking
D. Concrete Parking Decks
E. Steel Frame Parking Decks
2- Customer/Client Parking Facilities
A. Surface Parking
D. Concrete Parking Decks
C. Steel Framed Parking Decks
3. Employee Parking Facilities
A. Surface Parking Facilities
B. Basement Parking Facilities
C. Parking Decks
4* Hecreation/Intermittent Parking Facilities
5* Independent/Multipurpose Parking Facilities
a. Surface Parking - attendant operation
A. Surface Parking - Self Service
b» Basement Parking - Attendant Operation
B. Basement Parking - Self Service Operation
c» Underground Parking - Self Service
D. Concrete Parking Decks - Self Service
3- Concrete Parking Decks - Attendant Operation
5« Steel Framed Parking Decks - Self Service
-------
I
JI
EPA TYPE I PARKING PATRONAGE
RESIDENTIAL PARKING FACILITIES
TYPE PATRONAGE
1. Residential. Parking facilities to be utilized
exclusively by residents, their guests and the
immediate staff of the residential complex (e.g.,
parking facilities associated with apartment complexes,
condominiums, tovaihouses, etc.). Only those parking .
facilities .which employ measures sufficient to exclude
custcir.sr.9 , clients, employees or students of other
enterprises can be considered within this category;
otherw.'.fjt:, the facility will b'e considered also to
be associated with such other categories.
TYPE PARKING CONSTRUCTION
A. Surface Parking
B. Basement Facilities
C. Underground Garage
D. Reinforced Concrete Parking Decks
'E. Steel Framed Parking Decks
-------
RESIDENTIAL
EPA TYPE I - RESIDENTIAL PARKING FACILITIES
The residential type of parking service is operated for exclusive
use by residents of the associated apartment or condoininiun or
their guests, and the immediate staff of the residential complex.
Such facilities to be classified as residential parking facilities
must employ control measures which will assure such use. Resi-
dential'parking accommodations are generally provided in the
following five types of construction:
A. Surface parking
B. Basement facilities
C. Underground garage
D. Multifloor reinforced concrete garage
E. Multifloor steel framed parking decks.
Each of the above types of construction have their own characteris-
tic car space efficiencies, construction costs, occupied land
areas and rates of amortization, all of which affect the monthly
finance charges. The amortization tables have been prepared for
representative useful life periods and rates of interest. It
should be noted; however,- that it is not uncormon for some large
residential building complexes to use several of the above types
of parking. In such event, the analysis of costs may be broken
down according to type of construction because this technique
Y7.ill more accurately reflect the investment costs involved in
providing the parking service.
Parking facilities which serve residential type patronage as
defined in the Parking Management Regulations (Federal Register
August 22, 1974) are generally laid out to provide each stall with
direct access to an unobstructed aisleway. The developer's choice
of type parking construction .to be used depends upon site size,
shape, topography and various other factors.
Occasionally due to unusual circumstances in some residential
parking facilities it is necessary to park cars two cars deep which
requires an attendant to be on hand to move cars. In the tables .
which follow in this Section the system used to identify each is
when the first digit is "1" this designates "Residential parking
use" (EPA Category #1)". The second is an alphabetic letter A
tnrough E to identify the type of construction as par the above
five categories. The third is a digit which relates to the typs
oj; cost figure (i.e., whether it is the amortization costs, the
taxos and interest or the car space rental cost.
1
-------
A
RESIDENTIAL CSURFACE
A. RESIDENTIAL SURFACE PARKING (TYPE IA)
Space Efficiency Parking lots for residential developments
generally require 250 to 400 square feet per car space, and
average about 350 square feet per car space.
Investment Cost. The cost to build a parking lot to serve
a residential building complex, including paving, construction
of entrances-exits, wheel stops, striping, lighting, and
landscaping generally ranges between $300 and $500 per car
space, averaging about $400 at today's prices. The breakdown
of this cost is as follows:
COMPONENTS OF COST-SURFACE PARKING
ITEM COST PER CAR SPACE
Clearing, grading, drainage, paving
Entrance-Exit and curb cut
Striping and wheel stops
Fencing
Landscaping
Lighting
Attendant Booth (Prefab)
Total construction, cost per car space
Monthly Amortization Costs. Parking lot improvements
are generally amortized over a ten-year period. Calculations
of monthly amortization costs at ten-year useful life for
representative car space costs at interest rates ranging
between six percent and nine percent are shown in the following
table:
TABLE I A-l MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS PER CAR SPACE
Interest
Rate
6% 10 yr.
7%
8%
9%
Investment Per
$200
$2.23
2.33
2.43
2.54
$300
$3.34
3.49
3.64
3.81
Car Space
$400
'$4.45
4.65
4.86
5.07
$500
$ 5.56
5.81
6.07
6.34
I'.?.n_d_ Value of residential building complexes generally range
bol:'.:con $2~ per square lo'o'c and $3 per square foot and spa.ce
efficiency ranges between 250 and 400 square feet per car space
The average space efficiency is 350 square feet per car space
-------
1A
RESIDENTIAL Q SURFACE.
LAND I A-2 LAND INVESTMENT/SPACE (RESIDENTIAL LOTS)
SQUARE FOOT LAND VALUES
LAND AREA/SPACE $2 $3 $4 $5
250 Square feet $500 $750 $1000 $1250
300 600 900 1200 1500
350 700 1050 1400 1750
400 800 1200 1600 2000
-------
1A
RESIDENTIAL 0 SURFACE
Monthly Interest and Taxes on Land as Per Table I. A-2 (above)
Assuming that 11 percent annual interest on the dollar values as
shown in TABLE I A-2 w.ill represent an adequate rental for the
land occupied by each car space and also cover the real estate
taxes (interest on investment plus taxes) as shown, the monthly
"rental" costs values in TABLE I A-2 are projected to be the follow-
ing amounts.
TABLE I A-3 MONTHLY LAND RENT PER CAR SPACE
(RESIDENTIAL LOTS)
SQUARE FOOT LAND VALUES
LAND AREA/SPACE £2 $3 £4 $5
250 Square feet 4.58 6.87 9.16 11.46
300 5.50 8.25 11.00 13.75
350 6.41 9.62 12.83 16.04
400 7.33 11.00 14.66 18.33
Monthly Amortization of Construction Plus Land .Rent
If we were to amortize construction cost of $400 per car space
over a ten year period at seven percent (see Table I A~l) cirid add
to this the land rental based upon a space efficiency of 350 square
feet per ccir space for the land values shown in Table I A-3, then
the monthly costs per car space of providing the residential
parking facility would be as follows:
TABLE I A-4 MONTHLY CAR SPACE RENTAL (RESIDENTIAL LOTS)
(LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS)
ITEM $2 Land $3 Land $4 Land $5 Land
Table IA-1
Air.ort. $400 constr.@7% 10 yrs. 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.65
Table I A-3 Monthly Land
Costs @ 350 sq ft (Land & Tax) 6.41 9.62 12.83 16.04
Total Monthly Rental Cost
Per car space 11.06 14.27 17.48 20.69
In the same manner as shown in Table I A-4 various combinations
of values for estimating the monthly rental cost for amortising
the parking lot construction (Table I A-l) and for estimating interest-
ana taxes on land (Table I A-3) nay be projected for any combination
of values to obtain the estimated overall monthly cost per car
spjice for a given parking facility.
In_door Parking is Costly but Sometimes necessary at. large residen-
tial complc;: "developments. This type facility is iv.uch more co'-'tly
to provide than surface parking oecauso of construction costs.
Each type of indoor parking facility has its own construction cost
characteristic which will be set forth in the following sections:
ft - Basement Parking; C-Underground parking; D-Concrete parking
decks; K-Steel Framed structures.-
4
-------
IB
R KSIDEN T I A L Q B A SE MENT
RESIDENTIAL BASH'-rSNT PARKING FACILITIES (TYPE I B) are sub-
r . ; antially no re costly than outdoor parking lots, but they also
involve shorter walking distances and provide a greater convenience
and protection for the apartment dweller.
Space Efficiency. Betsement parking facilities have car space
eTficiencTes in "the range of 300 to 600 square feet per car
space and they average about 450 square feet per car space.
These lower car space efficiencies are due to adverse column
spacing which is of necessity based upon the design require-
ments of the prime building use, the need for larger columns
in the basement to support the structure above, the loss of
space taken by ventilation equipment, the provision of elevator
service to the apartments above, and space losses due to other
design requirements. The construction costs nust also include
costly excavation, sprinklers, the provision of ventilation
drainage and waterproofing. These losses cause poor space
efficiency.
Investment Costs. As result of poor car space efficiency and
the higher cost of underground construction the investment
cost per car space for basement parking ranges between $4,000
and $5,500 per car space but averages about $5,000 per car
space at today's prices. However, it should be noted that
in 1970 construction costs for this type of facility was
about $4, COO per c&r space. In terms of monthly carrying
charges, with interest at seven percent and a 30-year amorti-
zation, the monthly cost of this type facility would be $33.27
per car space at today's construction costs.
Monthly Amortization Costs presented in the Table below are
calculations for representative investment costs for basement
parking facilities over a 30-year amortization period at
various rates of interest.
TABLE IB-1 MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS (RESIDENTIAL BASEMENTS)
Interest INVESTMENT COST PER CAR SPACE/MONTH
?4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000
6% 30 yr
7%
8%
9%
$23.
26.
29.
32.
99
62
36
19
$26
29
33
36
.98
.94
.02
.21
$29.98
33.27
36.69
40.24
$32
36
40
44
.98
.60
.36
.26
$35.98
39.92
44.03
48.28
$38.
43.
47.
52.
98
25
70
31
$41,97
46.58
51.37
56.33
Land Cost Per Car Space for basement parking is normally
regarded as being carried by the residential apartments
directly above which are the prime users. In any event, this
would be an arbitrary figure.as decided by the management.
Therefore, we show in Table I-B-2 the cost per car space per
month based upon a real estate tax of $4 per $100 assessed
a t 6 0 £ c •'" cons L i a a t ion co^ t.
-------
RESIDENTIAL O BASEMENT
(Tax/Car Space/Konth Based Upon 4% Ann. Tax on 60% Value)
TABLE I B-2 MONTHLY -REAL ESTATE TAXES/SP ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Investment Cost Per Car Space
$4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000
% tax on 60% value $8.00 $9100 $10.00 $11.00 $12.00 $13.00 $14.00
Rental per Car Space per Ilonth based upon amortizing con-
struction cost in equal monthly payments at seven percent
over 30 years (See Table I B-l) plus real estate taxes at
four percent per $100 on 60% of construction costs as shown
in Table I B-2.
TABLE 1B-3
MONTHLY RENTAL COST PER CAR SPACE
Investment Cost Per Car Space
$4,000 $4,500 $5,000 '$5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000
Amort 30yr @7% $26.62 $29.94 $33,27 $36.60 $35.98 $38.98 $41.97
60% value 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00
Rental on uss
of land -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-._ I$- -0-
Jlo. Rent per
car space $34.62 $38.94 $43.27 $47.60 $47.98 $51.98 $55.97
Attendant Operation. In some residential parking garages the
floor layout and operational needs for service and/or optimizing
the car space use there may be justification for the use of
attendant operation.* In such cases the car space efficiency
may be substantially improved over the above cited averages
for self-service operation but this gain is usually at a
heavy cost in manpower wages, and skilled management which would
about v/ipe out the gain in space efficiency..
*Because the column spacing is designed to efficiently serve the
functions of the building use above. This generally results in
parking space efficiency in the basement.
6
-------
RESIDENTIAL© UNDER GROUND
C. RES I DEN TIAL UNDE R 3RGUN D_PARIvIKG (TYPE I C) for residential
bu i T dTng corr-pTexes iF~often constructed under plazas, as well as
under recreation facilities and landscaped areas. Such facilities
can provide all weather protection for walking between various
buildings of the complex as well as betv^ecn the covered parking
facility and motorist's destination.
The Space Efficiency in underground facilities is generally
better than in baseraant parking facilities for the reason
that column spacing is designed to efficiently serve the needs
of a single purpose structure. As result, the space efficiency
is in the range of 300 to 450 square feet per car and the
average is about 4.00 square feet per car space.
I n ve s t rr.a nt Cos t s . Due to the load bearing roof, the need for
ventilation,automatic sprinklers, the costs of excavation
and waterproofing, the range of costs of underground parking
facilities at today's prices is from $5,000 to $9,000 at
today's costs and the average is approximately $7,500 per car
space. However, in 1970 this average was about $5,000.
Monthly Amortization Costs Calculations for representative
Investment costi~for underground garciges over a 40-year
amortization period at various rates of interest are presented
below:
TABLE I C-l MONTHLY AMOFcTlZATION COSTS (Construction Only)
INTEREST
RATE
6% 40 yr
7%
8%
9%
$5,000
$27.52
31.08
34.77
38.52
$6,000
$33.02
37.29
41.72
46.29
$7,000
$38.52
43.51
48.68
54.00
$7,500
$41.27
46.61
52.15
57.86
$8,000
$44.02
49.52
55.63
61.71
$9,000
$49.52
55.93
62.58
69.43
Land Cost Per Car Space^ for underground parking in connection
wTEh re side- lit i a 1 b u i IdTng complexes is usually considered as part
of the overall development since a major objective in going into
costly underground construction is to preserve the surface for
recreational or scenic values. Since underground parking con-
struction generally costs about double the cost of an efficiently
designed and constructed multi-level open deck parking structure,
the opportunity for surface use for landscape treatment and
recreational use does have value which can justify free land
rent to the underground garage. In any event, the land rent, if
any, is a riumagemsnc decision. Therefore, the monthly rent per
car space based upon construction costs only for undergroxmd
parking would be approximately as shown in fable I C-l. How-
ever, to this figure should be added an amount to cover tr.xes
on the un^ercrrorn^'j; r~:r:~". Tor this purpose it can be aasuacc*
that $4 per hundred dollars at valuation at 60% of the construc-
tion cost would, approximate this cost. Table I C-2 shov.'s the
monthly tax cost pcir car space as calculated on this basis.
-------
TABLE I C-2 MONTHLY REAL ESTATE TAXES/SP Ois1 CONSTRUCTION COST
INVESTMENT COST PER CAR SPACE
$5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,500 $8,000 $9,000
Ilonthly Tax
@ 4ro/100 on
60% cost of constr. $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $15.00 $16.00 $18.00
Rental Cosjb Per Car Space Per Month based upon amortization
construction* costs iri equal jponthly payments at 7% over ten
years (see Table I C-l) plus real estate taxes at four percent
per $100 valuation based upon 60% construction cost as shown on
Table I C-2. The monthly rental costs are calculated as follows:
TABLE I C-3 MONTHLY RENTAL PER CAR SPACE
$5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,500 $8,000 $9,000
40 year amortization
@ 7%(see Table 1C-1)$31.08 $37.29 $43.51 $46.61 $49.52 $55.93
Bldg. Tax/sp (1C-2) 10.00 12.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 18.00
i-'onthly rental/
car space $41.08 $49.29 $57.51 $61.61 $65.52 $73.93
In the above example it is assumed that there is no rental.
charge for the occupied ground. In all five types residential
parking (ABCDS) above no allowance has been made for profit
fro:?, parking service. It is also to be noted that there may be
a few instances where attendant service is used in order to get
more parking capacity, but in such cases the gains in space
efficiency are wiped out by increased labor costs.
-------
RESIDENTlAlOcONCRETE DECK
D. RSS^IDEMTI^j. lUn/IT-FLOOR JvoOVS GROUND GARAGE (TY?L: I D) A
sInq 1 e p~urpose parking structure, designed for self-service to
serve the resident's parking use and constructed of reinforced
concrete has often been the developer's choice when the site was
siriill and the parking capacity requirements were large. Generally
these facilities have been open deck structures which have been
provided with an attractive facade to harmonize with its surroundings
It is to be noted that the Building Codes of some cities raay not
permit this type of construction and that others sometimes restrict
the building height to six levels above ground, (Liiaited by height
to which ladders from fire trucks can effectively fight a fire
without dragging hoses up the stairwells.)
Space Efficiency of self-service garages of this type is in
the range of 300 to 450 square feet per car space and they
average about '400 square feet per car space. VJhen clear span
column spacing is used they can achieve a saving of 25 or more
square feet per car space over the conventional designs which
are generally based upon three-car bays. The column-free
modular widths have the advantage also of providing a
flexibility which will allow the garage to adjust to changes in
car sizes which can be expected to occur during the useful life
of the structure.
Investment Costs, Open deck parking structures eliminate the
i72e"a~~for ventilation equipment and sprinklers and thoraby make
a substantial saving in construction coats over underground
garages. By designing for use of lev,1 ceiling heights which
eliminate the possible use of the facilities by trucks, the live
load is limited to passenger cars permitting construction for
lighter floor loads and hence lower, construction costs, Aside
frora gaining lover construction costs through reduced clearance
heights, the ramp grades are also made more satisfactory to the
patrons due to lower floor to floor heights. The range of costs
of reinforced concrete garages at today's construction costs is
from $2,500 to $5,000 and the average is about $4,000 per car
space. But in 1970 this cost figure was $3,000.
Monthly Amortization Costs Calculations of monthly carrying
charges for representative investment costs for above ground
reinforced concrete open deck garages designed for single
purpose (parking) use based upon a 40-year amortization period at
various rates of interest are as follows:
TABLE I D-l MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS
INTEREST INVESTMENT COST PER CAR SPACE
RATE $2,500 $3,00^0 $3,500 $i'°00 •$4,50^0 $5,003
6% 40 yr
7%
81,
9%
$13.76
15.54
17.39-
19:29
$16.51
18,65
^ '"i O f~
^.•J .GO
23.15
$19 . 26
21.76
24.34
27.00
$22.01
24.86
27.62
30.86
$24.76
27.97
31.23
34.72
$27.52
31.08
34 . 77
38.57
-------
RESTDENTIAL.Q CONCRETE DECK
Land Cost For Car Sp.sce is a function of the number of storage
fToor. In most cases, with this type facility, the ground
area per car space is approximately 80 square feet, fhe
following table of car space values is based upon the usual
land values for residential development and story heights of
throe to six levels of parking.
TABLE I D-2 LAND INVESTMENT/SPACE
LAND AREA SPACE SQUARE FOOT LAND VALUES
$2 $3 $4 $5
60 square feet $120 $180 $240 $300
80 square feet 160 240 320 400
100 square feet 200 300 400 500
120 square feet 240 360 480 600
Monthly Interest and Taxes on Land. Assuming that 11 pefcent
annual interest on the dollar values for land as shown in Table
I D-2 will represent an adequate rental for the ground area per
car space and will also cover real estate taxes on the land, we
compute the following monthly costs per car space for monthly
interest and taxes on the ground occupied per car space.
TABLE I D-3 MONTHLY LAND RENT PER CAR SPACE
LAND APEA/SPACE $2 Land $3 L?.nd $* Land $5 Land
60 square feet $1.10 $1.65 $2.20 $2.75
00 square feet 1.47 2.20 2.93 3.66
100 square feet 1.83 2.75 3.66 4.58
120 square feet 2.20 3.30 4.40 5.50
Total Monthly Rental Cost (Amortization of construction plus
land). Table I D-l provides the monthly amoritzation costs of
construction for representative car space costs in reinforced
concrete residential parking structures at representative
interest rates. Table I D-3 shows the monthly costs for the use
of the land at various land values and occupied ground areas per
car space. We present in Table I D-4 the monthly cost per
car space based upon a 40-year amortization of the structure
at seven percent. The taxes on the structure are estimated
at $4 per $100 based on 60% valuation on construction cost.
The interest and taxes on the land are based upon 80 square
feet of ground area per car space, on land valued at $5 per
square foot assuming 11 percent interest will be adequate to
cover interest and taxes on the land. (See Table I D-3 for .
this figure.) Thus, in the manner shown in Table I D-4 which
is for an average- situation, a similar estimate may be made
for any coinbination of circumstances.
10
-------
ID
RESIDENTIAL CONCRETE DECK
I D-4
CONCRETE PARKING DECK FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
(TOTZ^L MONTHLY RENT PER CAR SPACE)
CONSTRUCTION COST PER CAR SPACE (CONCRETE)
$2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000
amortization
@ 7%/ino/sp $15.54 $18.65 $21.76 $24.86 $27.97 $31.03
*Tax on struc/sp/mo 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
.*#Land Tax & Rent/sp/mo
(S5 land)80 sq.ft./sp 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66
"ToLai Monthly Rent $24.20 $28.31 $32.42 $36.52 $40.63 $44.74
*From Table 2D-1 page 18
**(Table ID-3)
11
-------
-a ~}f 71
P ?!\
RESIDENTIAL GSTEEL§ DECK
E. RSSIDSNTLAL STSBL FRAMED PARKING DECKS (Type IE) There are
a mivober of structures £rf~wnich, for reasons of construction economy
and/or speedy construction, or other reasons, a developer may
choose to use steel framed open deck parking construction and
provide it with sone form of attractive screening for- the facade.
Space Efficiency. Such functional structures can achieve an
Improved s~pace efficiency. The range is about 250 to 400
square feet for each car space and the average space efficiency
is about 375 square feet per car space.
Investment Cost. Due to improve space efficiency and the use
of exposed steel construction (instead of encasement in concrete,
but sometimes provided with asbestos covering to provide better
fire resistance) there can be a substantial saving in construc-
tion cost. However, due to the fact that demolition accomplished
more easily for site clearance, the amortization period should
be shortened. The range of construction costs for steel framed
parking decks suitable for residential type of parking is
$1/750 to $3,500 per car space at today's construction costs.
In 1970 the average cost was in the range of $1,250 to $2,500
depending upon the austerity of the design.
Monthly Amortization Costs. Calculations for representative
Tnvestnient costs for steel framed garages over a 25-year amorti-
sation period at various rates of interest are presented as .
follows:
TABLE I E-l MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS
INTEREST INVESTMENT COST PER CAR SPACE/MONTH
RATE $1750 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
6% 25 years 11.28 $12.89 $16.11 $19.33 $22.56
7% 12 37 14.14 17.67 21.21 24.74
8% 13 51 15.44 19.30 23.16 27.02
9% 14.69 16.79 20.98 25.18 29.38
Land Cost Per Car Space. The average occupancy of ground area
per car .space is directly related to the number of parking levels
On the average, assuming five parking levels, the occupied land
area is about 70 square feet per car space. Therefore, on this
basis the investment cost per car space in land for representa-
tive building heights is as follows:
TABLE I E-2 LAND INVESTMENT/SPACE
SQUARE FOOT LAND VALUES
LAND AREA/SPACE $2 $3 $4 $5 .
70 $140 $210 $280 $350
80 160 2
-------
RESIDI-.NTIALG3TEEL DECK
Mgntlily Land Rent is based upon interest and taxes on the land
wirrch~we~nave^as3"u3;;cc"l to be 70 square feet of land area per
car space at $5 p?.r square foot. An interest rate of. .11 per-
cent to cover interest on land occupied by each car space and
also the taxes on that land. The following Table I E-3 shoxtfs
the monthly rental'of land on this basis for representative
square foot land values and for representative average land
areas per car space.
TABLE I E-3 MONTHLY LAND RENT PER CAR SPACE
LAND AREA/SPACE. $2 Land $3 Land $4 Land $5 Land
70 square feet $1.28 $1.92 $2.51 $3.21
80 square feet 1.47 2.20 2.85 3.66
90 square feet 1.65 2.48 3.30 3.96
100 square feet 1.83 2.75 3.66 4.58
In Table I E-4 it has been assumed as a case example that land
rental was based upon 70 square feet of land area is occupied by
each car space and that the structure was built on land costing
$5 per square foot. Prow T^ole I E-3 (above) this element of cost
would be $3.21 per car space per month and is thus entered in line
three of Table I E-4.
Real Estate Tax on fr.be parking structure per r.onth is calculated
-co La $4 par $100 bd.se.ci upon 50% valuation of the construction
cost. Those respective costs are shown or: the second line of
Table I E-4.
Total Monthly Rental .Cost. The three components of rental cost,
otiier tnan profit, are amortization of construction cost plus
taxes and rental of the land, plus taxes on the parking structure,
Interest and taxes on the land are based upon an assumed
average of 70 square feet of ground area per car space and land
is valued at $5 per square foot as shown on line three of the
following Table I E-4.
STEEL DECK FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
TABLE I E-4 TOTAL MONTHL'/ RENT PER CAR SPACE
INVESTMENT PER CAR SPACE
ITEM $2,000 $2,500 $3-,000 53,500
25 year amortization
@ 71/space $14.14 $17.67 $21.21 $24.74
. Taxes on structure/space 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
* Lcnd JL6^ and tar/s5£?_e 3.21 3.21 3.21 __3JL21_
Total Monthly'Rerit"" $21.35 $25.88 $30.42 $34. §5
*{!!% per yr. on 70 sq.ft. occupied land area (see Table 1E-2
above or Table 5e-3 en page 46))
13
-------
EPA TYPE 2 PARKING PATRONAGE
CUSTOMER/CLIENT PARKING PATRONAGE
TYP2 PATRONAGE
2. Customer/Client. Parking facilities to be us-ed
by custoners uncl clients of specific ccisniercial or
pnbiir: f £-vs.. li tier-.or -officers (e.g. ..parking facilities.
prevised for shopping centers ,, professional builaings/
j.e?tau.t'ani:'5, hospitals, etc.). Only those facilities
which employ measures sufficient to exclude or limit
use by all day parkers such as employees and students
can be considered within this category.
TYPE CONSTRUCTION
A. Surface "forking
B. Basement Parking
C. Underground Parking
D. Reinforced Concrete Parking Decks
E. Steel Framed Parking Decks
-------
7
&3
EPA-2 CUSTOMER-CLIENT (TYPE 2 USE). Parking facilities constructed
for~use of customers and clients of retail stores, professional
and office buildings, public establishments, hotels, hospitals,
restaurants are generally provided in the following types of con-
struction:
A. Surface parking
B. Basement parking
C. Underground parking
D. Concrete parking decks
E. Steel frame parking decks.
These five types of facilities will almost invariably be designed
for self service operation for three good reasons:
1. To most efficiently accommodate the high rates of turnover.
2. To keep manpower operational expenses to a minimum.
3. To avoid having a bailee-bailor relationship which is
inherent with attendant parking service. Any parking
system which requires that the keys be left in the car
automatically makes the parking operator legally responsible
for any loss or damage to the car or its contents while
in his care.
Occasional]// sor.;e businesses whicli provide the land and improvements
for customer parking seek to get arourd this legal responsibility
by leasing out the operation to a private operator. In such cases,
due to high land value of the site and also the desire to pick up
additional parking revenue from night parking etc., the parking
operator may elect to take out liability insurance and go to
attendant parking operation to improve space utilization. However,
if this is done,the operation would automatically fall into the
EPA Independent/Multipurpose category §5 and by this change in
type of patronage the appropriate investment cost tables in Section
5 of this report would therefore apply to rental cost.
14
-------
BA
CUSTOMER0 SURF-ACE
CUSTOMER/CLIENT SURFACE PARKING (TYPPJ 2A)
Space Efficiency for customer/client parking facilities will
generally be in the range of 300 to 450 square foot per car
space. It is to be noted, however, that many shopping centers
provide liberal stalls, aisles, circulation and distributor
raodv/ays as well as such special amenities as porte cocheres
and liberal landscaping which may substantially reduce the
overall space efficiencV of the parking area. It is. not
unusual for a shopping center to allocate over 500 square feet
par car space when the space allocation takes into account
the entire area allocated to automobile access parking and
landscaping.
Investment Cost. Business establishments which provide
customer parking facilities are generally willing to spend
substantial amounts on parking improvements in order to create
an inviting impression upon the motorist patron. As result,
the range of construction costs per car space for surface
parking may range front $300 to $900 per car space. The tables
which follow take into account the special need for amenities
and larger car space allocations and rr.ore costly improvements
in customer/client parking facilities.
It is not unusual for the ruore successful companies to, as a
matter of policy, decide tc provide costly elastomer parking
amenities and for them to elect to write-off the construction
costs at a low rate of interest. Provision has been n\ade for
such procedure in the table which follows:
TABLE 2 A-l CUSTOMER/CLIENT PARKING INVESTMENT COSTS
MONTHLY AMORTIZATION CONSTRUCTION COS.TS/CAR SPACE
Amortization 10 years - Surface Parking.
INVESTl-ENT PER C7iR SPACE
Interest
Rate $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
3.19
3.34
3.49
3.64
3.81
4.25
4.45
4.65
.4.86
5.07
5.31
5.56
5.81
6.07
6.34
6.37
6.66
6.97
7.28
7.60
7.43
7.77
8.13
8.49
8.87
8.49
8.88
9.29
9.77
10.14
9.55
9.99
10.45
10.92
11.40
4% 10 yr $3.04 $4.05 $5.07 $6.08 $7.09 $8.10 $9.12
5
6
7
8
9
Land ^Investment Costs. Customer/Client parking facilities
provided by retail stores, office buildings, public buildings,
professional buildings, hospitals, motels, shopping centers,
etc. occupy land which varys widely in cost. In the table
which follows provision has been ruade for this wide range in
square Joot l;u:d costs.
15
-------
r& A
£ A
CUSTOMER G SUIIFAGE
TABLE 2 A-2 CUSTOIISR/CLIEHT LAND COSTS
LAND INVESTMENT PER CAS SPACE
Square Foot Land Values
Land
Area/Space $2 $5 $10 $15 $20
300 $600 $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 $6,000
350 700 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000
400 800 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
450 900 2,250 4,500 6,750 9,000
500 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
Monthly Interest and Taxes on Land Costs Shown in Table 2 A-2.
It is assumed that 11 percent annual interest on the values
shown in the above table of investment per car space will
produce an adequate rental return for the developer and also
cover the land tax. The calculations shown in Table 2 A-3
were mads on the basis for the rental costs as shown above.
It should be noted; however, that high land value sites are
often leased out by the owner at low rental for surface
parking as a temporary use with a special cancellation clause .
which will enable him to take possession with short notice if
he hir,s an opportunity -co develop the site to a higher use.
TABLE 2 A-3 CUSTOMER/CLIENT MONTHLY LAND RENT7iL/SPACE
LAND RENTAL COST PER CAR SPACE PER MONTH
Square Foot Land Costs
Land
Area/Space £2 $5 $10 $15 $20
300 $5.50 $13.73 $27.50 $41.25 $55.00
350 6.41 16.64 33.08 48.13 62.50
400 7.33 18.33 36.66 55.00 73.33
450 8.25 20.63 41.25 61.88 82.50
500 9.17 22.96 45.83 68.75 91.66
Monthly Rental cost is comprised of two components: (1) amorti-
sation of the construction cost; (2) rental value of the land.
In the case example illustrated by Table 2 A-4 it has been
assumed that construction costs range from $300 to $900 per
car space and that they are amortized in ten years at five per-
cent and that ten dollars per squeire foot land is utilized by
a layout which only achieves a car space efficiency of 450
square feet. From the table above, it will be seen that if a
space efficiency of 300 square feet per car space could be
achieved then the rent per car space would be reduced by $13.75.
ri;ne use of a lower land value site would nake further substantial
reductions.
16
-------
TT1> O
. j .i;J> &*''*>><• SURF ACE
CUSTOMERO PARKING -' BASEMENT
^UNDERGROUND
TABLE 2 A-4 CUSTOMER/CLIENT LOT
SAMPLE MONTHLY RENT P£R CAR SPACE
Construction Cost Per Car Space
Rent Item £300 g400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
Amortize 10 yr @5% $3.19 $4.25 $5.31 $6.37 $7.43 $8.49 $9.55
$10 land (§450 sqft/sp 41.25 41.25 41.25 41.25 41.25 41^2J5 41.25
Rent per space/mo "3174T 43750" 46.56 47.62 48.68 49.74 50.80
The Economic Justification of Providing Customer Parking lies
In the continuance of existing patronage and from the attraction
of NEW customers by the provision of parking convenience.
Department stores normally achieve an average turnover of 4 1/2
times per day and good management should make periodic checks
which relate parking use to the jingle of the cash register.
Bank parking facilities can usually achieve a turnover of from
10 to 15 times per day.
2_B CUSTOMBR/CLIENT BA3EI1SNT PARKING using self service is sometimes
used. In such case Section IB (pages 5 and 6 for residential
basement parking v.'ould apply.
2_D_ CUSTOMER/CLIENT UNDERGROUND GARAGES might be used. In such
case Section 1C (pages 7 and 8) would be used.
17
-------
CUSTOMER ©CONCRETE DECK
2 CUSTOMER/CLIENT CONCRETE PARKING DECKS (TYPE 2D) Multi-floor
parking dicks which are provided for customer/clients are normally
designed and operated as park and lock facilities.
Space Efficiency is 300 to 450 square feet per car space The
average space efficiency is 400 square feet per car space.
Investment Per Car Space. The range in construction, cost is
from $2,5 0 0 to $5,000 and the average cost at today's prices is
$4,000 per car space. Because such facilities are financed and
developed as a service to customers, patrons or clients of a
successful business enterprise, the amortization period and
interest rate are management decisions which vary according to
that Company's financial situation. Under average conditions
the amortization would be 25 years at about six percent. If
we assume a $4,000 cost per car space, the cost (equal monthly
payments) would be $25.78. See Table 5 D-l which gives the
monthly cost for construction costs ranging from $2,500 to
$5,000 per car spacG for amortization periods of 20 to 4(
years at interest rates of five percent to nine percent.
Taxes on Building are generally estimated at four percent
on "60" percant"of the construction cost. It is to be noted
that both the tax rate and the method used by the local
assessor's office vary from city to city. Table 2 B-l shows
the calculations on the basis of 4 percent on 60 percent
valuation.
TABLE 2 D-l TAX ON BUILDING
REAL ESTATE TAXES ON BUILDING PER CAR SPACE PER MONTH
Construction Costs Per Car Space
$2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000
Tax/Month on Building "$5.00 "£6~00 $7.00 $0.00 $9.00 ITO.0'0
Land Cost Per Car Space for. Customer/client multi-deck parking
facilities according to the square foot land values and
according to the number of parking levels. Most parking
decks developed for this type patronage range between three and
six stories in height. The average is four decks. However,
there are several exceptions which go to nine stories.
Cost Per Cfir Space Example. Assuming that a four-story parking
stucture occupies a site 130 feet by 272 feet and has a
total capacity of 404 cars, then it would have an average space
efficiency of 360 square feet per car space. This figure is '
arrived at by calculation of the ground area at 35,360 square
feet and multiplying by four to arrive at a total floor area of
141,440 square"feat. If the total stall capacity is 392
cars, then the average- cpace efficiency for U;o garage is ic^
square feet per car space. Then the occupied ground area per
car space for the four deck structure is 90 square feet.
18
-------
2l
CUSTOh/IER'O CONCRETE DECK
Table for Fi riding the Land Investment.Cost for the occupied
ground area per car space is presented in Section 5. Here
Table 5 D-3 provides for the full range of land costs occupied
ground area per car space. This table gives the ground area
cost per car space for occupied fround areas, ranging from 50
to 150 square feet with land values ranging from $5 to $50 per
square foot. Thus, to use Table 5 D-3 with the above example
of 90 square feet of occupied ground are per car space on land
valued at $15 per square foot we find the land cost to be
$1350 per car space.
Land Rental Cost Per Car Space Per I-lojith can be estimated at
11 percent per year per car space value as presented in Table
5 D-4. The Ij. percent figure would include a reasonable return
on the investment in land and also real estate tax on the land
calculated on a car space basis. (See Table 5 D-4 which covers
monthly REMTAL COSTS of the full range of car space allocations
from 50 to 150 square feet per car space on land values
ranging from $5 to $50 per square foot.)
Total Monthly Rental Cost. Customer/client parking facilities
are generally not intended to yield a profit. Their prime
purpose is to attract and hold patrons for the associated .
businesses or professions which generate automobile "patronage
for the parking facility. Thus, the monthly cost of providing
this service is comprised of amortization of the construction
cost plus taxes on land and building plus the cost of carrying
the investment in land. Table 2D-2 presents a case example of
the use of the various tables to arrive at the monthly rental
cost per car space. In this example the assumptions were: a
20 year amortization at 5 percent with a parking structure
averaging 90 square feet using land valued at $15 per square
foot. Table 5 D-l provides the monthly amoritzation costs
shown in line one of the table below. Table 2 D-l provides the
taxes per month per car space on the building. Table 5-*D-4 (Page 40}
provides the $12.38 monthly cost figure for the $15 per square
foot land which averages 90 square feet per car space.
TABLE 2 D-2 MONTHLY RENTAL COST
CUSTOMER/CLIENT PARKING DECK '
Construction Cost Per Car Space
Item $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000
20 yr amortization @5% $16.50 $19.80 $23.10 $25.40 $29.70 $33.00
Taxes on structure/sp 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Int.s Taxes on land/sp 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.38 12.38
Monthly Rental Cost $33.88 $38.18 $42.48 $46.78 $51.08 $55.38
19
-------
CUSTOMER O STEEL DECK
EPA 2 E CUSTOMER/CLIENT STF.rJL FRAKjSD PARKING DECKS (TYPS 2E)
For reasons of construction economy, and speed of erection a
developer may choose to use steel framed construction. This
type construction can be provided with cast stone panels which can
meet any special requirements for an attractive facade. This type
construction has been used on parking structures for motels,
apartment complexes, shopping centers, and various other generators
of parking demand.
Space Efficiency. The range of space efficiency is 275 to
450 square feet per car space. The average space efficiency
is 375.
Investment Cost. The construction cost per car space ranges
Eetv;e e n $1,75d~~~and $3,500 depending upon the austerity of the
design. The table of amortization costs ranging from $1,750
to $3,500 at interest rates of from 5 percent to 9 percent
gives the full range of values follows:
20
-------
12.54
11.28
10.50
9.98
9.63
14.33
12.89
12.00
11.41
11.01
16.12
14.50
13.49
12.83
12.38
17.92
16.11
14.99
14.26
13.76
19.71
17.72
16.49
15.69
15.14
21.50
19.33
17.99
17.11
16.51
25.08
22.56
20.99
19.96
19. 26
• CUSTOMERS STEEL DECK
TABLE 2 IV-1 MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS
STEEL FRAMED DECKS AT VARIOUS
INTEREST RATES - TIME PERIODS - CONSTRUCTION COSTS/SPACE
Construction Cost Per Car Space
Period of
Percent Amortization $1,750 $2,000 $2,250 $2,500 $2,750 $3,000 $3,500
5% 20 year $11.55 $13.20 $14.85 $16.50 $18.50 $19.80 $23.10
25 year 10.24 11.70 13.16 14.62 16.08 17.54 20.47
30 year 9.40 10.74 12.08 13.43 14.77 16.11 18.79
35 year 8.84 10.10 11.36 12.62 13.88 15.15 17.67
40 year 8.44 9.65 10.68 12.06 13.27 14.47 16.38
6% 20 year
25 year
30 year
35 year
40 year
7% 20 year
25 year
30 year
35 year
40 year
8% 2G year
25 year
30 year
35 year
40 year
9% 20 year
25 year
30 year
35 year
40 year
Taxes on Building vary from city-to-city. Table 2 S-2 is based
upon a 4 percent tax rate using a 60 percent of first cost
valuation. This table shows the normal range of steel frame
construction costs per car space.
TABLE 2 E-2 TAXES ON BUILDING
REAL ESTATE TAXES ON PARKING DECK PER SPACE PER MONTH
Construction Costs Per Car Space
SiiTJilL . ?2'000 $2,250 $2,500 $2,750 $3,000 fAiJlPJl
Tax On Building $3,50 ~~?4~rOO $4,50 $5.00 "$3.50 $6.00 $7.00"
13.57
12.37
11.64
11.18
10.88
15.51
14.14
13.31
12.78
12.43
17.45
15.90
14.97
14.38
13.98
19.39
17.67
16.64
15 .9 8
15.54
21.32
19.44
18.30
17.57
17.50
23.26
21.21
19.96
19.17
18.65
27.14
24.74
23.19
22.36
21.76
14.64
13.51
12.84
12.43
12.17
16.73
15.44
14.68
14.21
13.91
18.82
17.37
16.51
15.98
15.65
20.92
19.30
13.35
17.76
17.39
23.00
21.23
20.18
19.53
19.12
2^.10
23- 1C
22.02
21.31
20.86
29,28
27.02
25.69
24.86
24.34
15.75
14.69
14.08
13.72
13.50
18.00
16.78
16.09
15.68
15.43
20.24
18.88
18.10
17.64
17.36
22.50
20.98
20.12
19.60
19.29
24.74
23.08
22.13
21.56
21.21
27.00
25.18
24.14
23.52
23.15
31.50
29.38
2S.I7
27.44
27.00
21
-------
.CUSTOMER G STEEL DECK
Land Cof.t For Car Suace^ for customer/client parking varies
\7Id'ely between dovnrcown" locations for Department Stores which
generally occupy high land value locations and ir.otels or
outlying shopping.centers. In some situations such as
University Campus sites or hospitals, the land is already
owned and consequently this element of cost may be regarded
by the Accountants as having zero cost. However, in the
usual situation the land must be acquired and/or is carried on
the books at a set figure. In such cases it is necessary to
allocate the land cost per car space. The method for doing this,
together with a case example is presented in Section 2 D on.
page 18.
A table for finding the land investment cost for various
areas of occupied land per car space at various square foot
costs is presented in Section 5 of this report. See Table
5 D-3 for dollar costs per space. In the case example for
customer/client steel framed parking deck presented at the
end of this Section we have assumed $10 per square foot land
and a six-deck structure which v.'as designed to provide 586 car
spaces for an average space efficiency of 360 square feet
per car space or 60 square feet of occupied ground area per
car space. By mental calculations it is obvious that 60 square
feet of occupied land area ar $10 per square foot is $600. How-
ever, just to illustrate the use of the table for interpolation
of odd. values between those values given in the table, 'Je
refer now to Table 5 D-3. Here we find that the calculations
for the 60 square foot area are not shown, but that the
calculations for $10 land at 50 square feet shows $500 value
per space and that the 70 square foot value is $700. There-
fore, the halfway in-between figure of 60 square feet is $600.
Land Rental Cost Per Car Space Per Month raay be valued in
various ways.The calculations of monthly land rent shewn in
Table 5 D-4 are based upon 11 percent interest per year on
the dollar values given in Table 5 D-3 for the occupied land
area per space. This 11 percent figure represents a reasonable
return on the investment in land, and also is intended to cover
the assessed real estate taxes on the land-. Table 5 D-4 shows
that the monthly rental cost per car space for 50 square feet
of occupied land is $4.58 and that for 70 square feet of
occupied land area the car space rental value is $6.42.
Therefore, by interpolation, the 60 square feet ground area
per car space would be halfway between which is $5.50 per car
space per month.
Total Ilonthly Rental Cost. It is assumed by the provision
of the customer/client park-ing probably means thr^t at beet
the facilities are not intended to yield a profit, although
under L*:)r:.2 circumstances thev clo. The three components of
rental cost are (1) amortization of construction costs, (2)
taxes on land and building, and (3) land rental costs. AD
noted previously, GOMG parkinq developments such as cainpus
parking and hospitals which building the facilities do not
22
-------
CUSTOMER O STEEL DECK
charge the facility with land rental or land, taxes.
In the example given in Table 2 E-3 it is assumed that the
steel framed parking deck which is provided for customers/
clients cost $2,750 per car space which will be amortized
in 25 years at 8 percent and that the project is developed
on land valued at $10 per square foot. As a case example it
is assumed that the structure as designed would have six parking
decks, averaging 360 square feet per car space and occupying
60 square feet of ground area per car space.
Thus, by using Table 2 E-l we find the values shown in line
one of the following Table. By reference to table 2 E-2 we
find the values as shown in line two of the table below. By
reference to table 5 D-4 we.can interpolate the 60 square foot
land area pe'r car space as being $5.50 and entering this figure
on line three of the case example shown in the table below. *•
TABLE 2 E-3 TOTAL MONTHLY RENT
Construction Cost Per Car Space
$1,750 $2,000 $2,250 $2,500 $2,750 $3,000 $3,500
Amortize 25 yr @ 8% $13.51 $15.44 $17.37 $19.30 $21.23 $23.16 $27.02
** Taxes on structure 3.50 4.CO 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 7.00
' * Land rent 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50
Total Monthly rental/sp22.51 24.94 27.37 30.80 32.23 34.66 39.52
* -.-Therefore, if we were to assume a $2,750 construction cost per
car space at 60 square feet of occupied land area the rental
would be $32.23 per car space per month. However, if this were
a campus facility on land for which no rental is charged
against the project the monthly carrying charge would be $26.73
per car space.
Customer/Client Parking Involving A Fee. There are many situa-
tions where a business establishment seeks to achieve maximum
turnover of its associated parking facility or where it seeks
to improve the space efficiency through use of parking attendants,
the usual practice is to use posted rates with a limited amount
of free time for validated tickets. Such use of posted rates
for non-validated tickets and/or fee for parking time in
excess of the free prescribed free time allowance would automati-
cally invite parking use by the general public which would appear
by definition to become Classification 5 (Independent/Multi- .
purpose parking facility). In such event the applicable invest-
ment costs of attendant parking (5a) or the self service costs
of 5?- would apply.
* Bldg. Tax @ 4?« on 60% cost .
,23
-------
EPA TYPE 3 PARKING PATRONAGE
EMPLOYEE PARKING FACILITIES
TYPE PATRONAGE
3. Employee: Parking facilities to be used
primarily by all clay parkers such as employees
and students. For purposes of EPA application
an all day pc.rk.er is anyone .who parks at the same
location for si;-: or more h'oury. Bov.'ever, this
category is not intended to avppiy to residential
park a r 3 or transient us'^rs of facilities.
Exanples of employee jiacilities include university
parking facilities for students and staff and
employee facilities associated with factories,
warehouses, offices and coromercial enterprises.
TYPE CONSTRUCTION
A. Surface Parking Lots
B. Basement Parking
E. Steel Frame Parking Decks
-------
EMPLOYEE OSURFACE
EPA 3 EMPLOYES PARKING FACILITIES (TYPE 3 USE) are mostly
pFo'videcl in suFface parking facilities and they almost invariably
use park and lock operation. Aside from the fact that this is the
most economical way to provide such facilities there is an
insurance angle which encourages such self service operation. The
courts have consistently ruled thtit with possession of the keys to
a car also goes control of the car. Therefore, to require the key
to be left in the car, the operator of the parking facility therefore
assumes a bailee-bailor relationship which makes him legally respon-
sible for any loss and/or damage to the car and its contents.
This situation raises a particular problem for hospitals and for
industrial plants which operate in shifts. The hospital problem is
particularly acute at the 3 PM change of shifts for nurses. Since
the departing day shift nurses must remain on duty an extra 5 to
20 minutes to brief their evening shift counterparts of any special
problem with individual patients; as result, there is usually about
a 50 percent overload for a 15 to 20 minute period at the 3 PM
change of shifts. It is particularly important for the safety of
the evening shift nurses that they have convenient, close-in well
lighted parking when they go to thair cars at 11 PM. The indus-
trial plant change of shifts only involves a minor overload problem
at change of shifts which management can alleviate by staggering
the working hours. The usual ruu of the mill type of industrial
parking facilities are generally constructed at the least possible
cost and consequently have little or no landscape treatment or ameni-
ties for the users. There are, however, many modern industrial
parks and major industries which invest substantial sums for
landscape treatment and amenities for their parking areas. Allowance
should be made for this fact in using the respective investment
tables.
In other respects employee parking is quite similar to residential
parking. Both types of parking have the unique feature that since
the individual drivers know the other cars and their drivers because
they live or work together, the cars can be parked in tighter
accommodations. For example, the parking facilities can, if need
be, use stall widths of 8 1/2 instead of 9 foot and SO degree parking
modules of 58 feet instead of 63 etc. As result, it is quite
possible to achieve space efficiencies of 300 square feet per car
spii.ce and construction costs of $300 per car space.
Therefore, the car space costs shov;n for Residential surface
parking lots in Tables 1 A-l, 1 A-2 and 1 A-3 would apply to
Employee parking costs. However, for the average employee parking
facility based upon monthly car space costs as shown in those
tables it is suggested that a $300 per car space construction cost
be used for average situations and that the space efficiency of
300 sq-j-n-o feet per car :-*;:>--:•? bo u---e;i. The following example1 uses
24
-------
8A
EMPLOYEE O SURFACE
these assumptions.
TABLE 3 A-l EMPLOYEE SURFACE PARKING
EXAMPLE MONTHLY RENTAL PER CAR SPACE (EMPLOYEE LOTS)
Square Foot Land Values
Item $2 Land $3 Land $4 Land $5 Land
Amort.$300 construction
@ 7% 10 yr Table 1A-1- S3.49 $3.49 $3.49 $3.49
Land & Tax/rao @ 11%
300 sq. ft.JTabjeJAS 5.50 8.25 11.00 13.75
Rental Cost/Space/Mo $8.99 $11.74 $14.49 $17.24
In the same manner as above, various other combinations of value
may be used for estimating monthly costs of land and improvements
to provide this employee parking accommodation.
'25
-------
EMPLOYEE O BASEMENT
3 B EMPLOYEE BASEMENT PARKING FACILITIES (TYPE 3 B) There are
many instances in which Employee paricThg is provided in the basement
areas of office buildings, Quite frequently such space is required
by the local Zoning Code.
Vv'hen the layout and operation of the employee parking is such
that each car has direct access to an unobstructed aisle then the
cost characteristics as set forth in Section IB (Residential
Basement Parking) will prevail. However, in many situations, the
buildings which provide basement parking permit cars to double and
triple park when the employees know one another's cars and their
arrival and departure times are known. In some cases this practice
is not only known but is condoned by providing one of the building
maintenance men to assist in this practice. There is a fire
hazard involved here as well as other risks including a risk from
the practice of leaving keys in the car. Since this practice is
against public safety no cost estimates will be provided.
Another situation which is quite corrmon is where an office building
allocates a certain percentage of the space (no assigned stalls)
then uses the balance of the space for commercial parking operation.
In such situations attendant parking is used and during the peaks
(11 am to 3 prti) the aisleways are frequently loaded. The practice
of commercial operation in connection with providing employee perking
has proved profitable. Otherwise, so many office building developers
would KQ'J? be building basement parking into their buildings an
areas where there are NO zoning requirements for parking.
There are also a few situations in which the employee work hours
of starting and ending the day are identical and prompt. In sone
of such cases the cars are parked 2, 3 and even 4 cars deep, and
other cars are locked. This, of course, is on the assumption that
all employees will depart promptly and that those parked on the front
2 or 3 rows will make particular effort to be prompt at check-out
time in order not to block in their fellow workers parked behind
thorn. This type of parking is very unusual. In some cases the keys
are left on a keyboard in the guard's office.
26
-------
f CONCRETE
EMPLOYEE PARKING DECKS 1 „„ f__ r
^ o I ji.r-.Li
3 K EMPLOYEE PARKING DECKS (TYPE 3E) In the usual situation,
e"ri\oloyee" mult if loo r parking structures are strictly functional and
arc designed for self service operation. The space efficiency is
c-onerally about 300 per car space. The construction costs may be
held about $2,500 per car space at today's cost. The contractor may
choose reinforced concrete, lift slab, prestressed, precast concrete
01- exposed steel to hold coats down.
The amortization period for the construction cost is generally about
25 years and the interest rate charged against the project is
about 5 percent.
The occupied land area is in the range of 70 to 100 square feet
per car space and the land value is low since the structure is
generally on company owned property. However, in the case example
given below we shall assume 70 square feet of occupied land per
car soace at a rental cost of $2 per square foot. See table 2 E-l
for amortization, Table 2 E-2 for tax on building and Table 1 E-3
for land rent.
TABLE 3 C-l EMPLOYEE PARI'ING DECKS
Construction Cost For Car Space
$1,750 $2,000 $2,250 $2,500
Amortization 25 yr
-------
EPA TYPE 4 PARKING PATRONAGE
RECREATION/INTERMITTENT USE PARKING FACILITIES
TYPE PATRONAGE
4. Recreation/Intermittent Use. Parking
facilities to be used by patrons of.theatersr
churches, clubs, auditoriums, sport st.adiuiris,
ski rcsor.cs, msrinas and other-: recreational
facilities and r.in-ilar setae lishrr.onts not
normally ur,ed on a daily bapis during the v;oik
day. Only those parking facilities v;hich employ
coiitx-ol r.easures sufficient to excluc.'i shoppers,
clients, employees or students of other enter-
prises can be considered within this category;
otherv/icta, the 'facility v/ill be considered also
to be associated other categories of use.
TYPE CONSTRUCTION
Mostly Surface Parking
Occasionally Multi-Deoh concrete or steel
(Sirdlar costs to Residential Type 1 D
and IE)
-------
RECREATIONS JNTKRMlTM i NT USE
EPA 4 RECREATION/INTERMITTENT USB (TYPE 4 USE) The cost of
providing parking facilities to bo used, by patrons of theaters,
churches, clubs, auditoriums, sport stadiums, ski resorts,
marinas and other recreational fcicilities are quite similar to those
of Residential Parking facilities. Practically all parking
facilities serving this category of use are surface parking lots.
Occasionally clubs, auditoriums and sport stadiums use one of
the four other types" of parking construction as listed under
Residential Parking. The rental cost components as shown in
the tablses for each of these five types of construction as
appropriate may be applied to arrive at the cost figures for
A Category: "Recreation/Intermittent Use."
if.
Various methods of operation are used ranging in manpower use from
attendant operation to supervised parking (collection and flagged
into stalls) to self service.
28
-------
5
EPA TYPE 5 PARKING PATRONAGE
INDSPENDENT/MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING FACILITIES
FOR GENERAL PUBLIC
TYPE PATRONAGE
5. Indepenckmt/£5ttlti-Furpose. .Parking facilities to be
operated as commercial enterprises for use by the
general public rather than to serve the clients or
employees of a specific business. An ei.air.ple 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 facilities normally would not require
identification and the users may well include all
types of parking facility users including residents/
students, -employees, customers and clients.
TYPE CONSTRUCTION
A. Surface Parking
B. Basenvsnt Parking
C. Underground Garage
D. Concrete Parking Deck
E. Steel Framed Decks
-------
5A
^~s JL *-v
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING
EPA 5 INDEPENDENT AND MULTIPURPOSE USE. This category of park-
IngTacility includes~all~parking facilities available to the
general public for a fee, a validation stamp, or a monthly
contract and. with or without in-and-out privileges. It includes
all such facilities whether operated by the owner, a parking
operator or any public agency.
Such facilities, available to the General Public involve the
whole range of parking design types to be found in any of the
ten Regions of USA. While there nay exist 100 or more basic
design types and a half dozen or so basic construction methods
there exists only about eight basic types of parking facility
each having their own distinctive economic characteristics which
substantially differ from the others. They are as follows:
A. Surface Parking
B. Basement Parking
C. Underground Parking
D. Reinforced Concrete Parking Decks
E. Steel Framed Parking Decks.
F. Integral Parking
G. Airrights Parking
H. Mechanical Parking.
In addition, to the types of design it is to be noted that in
parking facilities available to the .general public for a fee
that there are also two distinctly different types of parking
operation: (1) attendant operation in which cars are double
parked, triple parked and in some cases solid-mass-parked during
peak loads which depend largely upon the attendant's skill in
the proper placement of cars as they enter to avoid excessive
"car jockeying" when they depart; (2) self-service operation
in which the patron parks his own in a stall having direct
access to an unobstructed aisle. The former uses nanpower to
achieve maximum car space efficiency (i.e., since the average
car now on the streets and highways of USA cover an area of 120
square feet, the objective is to approach this figure as closely
as practical. The latter (self-service) seeks to reduce the
use of manpower operating staff on the parking facility to a
minimum by providing more area per car space and thus permit
the motorist to perform his own park and unpark maneuver. , In
this way mancover is used by management to reduce investment
cost per car space. Economic investment plays a major role in
both types of operation. It is therefore necessary to treat
surface parking (type A) and basernent parking (type E) for both
types of operation"since new facilities continue to use both
types of layout. However, due to the continuing upward spiral
29
-------
ATTENDANT OPERATION
-------
MULTI-PURPOSE PA; KING O SURF
ATTENDANT OPERATION
of attendant wages during the past 40 years, practically all
new designs based on the "five other types of parking facility
are now being constructed as self-service operation. Therefore,
in the following paragraphs, Types A and D facilities will be
treated for both attendant and self-service operation. The other
six types will be treated as self-service operations only.
;a- SURFACE PARKING represents well over half of all off
street parking capacity.in USA.
(1) Attendant Operated Facilities
Space Efficiency. The great majority of commercial
parking lots use attendant operation. Space effi-
ciency in attendant operated parking lots ranges
from 150 to 225 square feet per space. An effi-
ciently operated lot in the core area of the Central
Business District can operate at maximum capacity
on an average of 190 square feet per car space.
However, to cover average conditions in USA we
shall use the figure of 200 square feet per car
space with the following calculations.
INVEST"3NT_COST to pave, stripe, provide the required'
ba'fr'B'e'rsT'sigri's", curb cuts, driveways, lighting and
attendant boor.h on an average commercial downtown parking
lot having about 80 spaces will average approximately
$300 per car space at today's prices.
MONTHLY AMORT IZ ATI OIJ COS TS . Parking lot improvements
are generally amortized over the term of the lease,
with the operator being allowed to sell or remove those
improvements which are not anchored in the event that
the lease is not renev/ed. A reasonable amortization
period for the total improvements may therefore be
assumed to be 7 1/2 years. Calculations of monthly
amortization costs at 7 1/2 years of useful life for
representative car space improvement costs at interest
rates ranging between 6 and 9 percent -are shown on the
following table: SURpACE PARKING _ ATTENDANT OPERATION
TABLE 5a-l MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS PER CAR SPACE.
(Assume 7 1/2 year useful life due to leasehold write-off)
Interest Investment Per Car Space
Rate $200 $300 $400 $500
6% 7 1/2 years $2.78 $4.13 $5.66 $6.94
7% 2.85 4.32 5.75 7.18
8% 2.98 4.44 5.95 7.43
9% 3.OS 4.62 6.15 7.69
30
-------
5a
MULTI PURPOSE PARKING SURFACE
ATTENDANT OPERATION
Land Values of downtown properties range widely. Based
upon an average of 200 square feet per car space the usual
values run as shown in the following table:
SURFACE PARKING - ATTENDANT OPERATION
TABLE 5a-2 LAND INVESTMENT/SPACE
SQUARE FOOT VALUES
LAND AREA/SPACE $5 $10 $20 $30 $40
175'Square feet $875 $1,750 $3,500 $5,250 $7,000
200 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
225 1,125 2,250 4,500 6,750 9,000
250 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000
monthly Interest and Taxes on Land as Per Table 5 A-2
Assuming an 11 percent annual interest on the dollar values as
shown in Table 5 ;a-2 above will represent adequate rental and
real estate taxes on the land, the monthly land rental per car
space v.Tould be as follows:
TABLE 5 a-3 MONTHLY LAND RENT PER CAR SPACE'*/ .
SURFACE PARKING - ATTENDANT OPERATION
L^ND AREA/CAR SPACE " SQUARE FOOT LAND VALUES
$5 $10 $20 $30 $40
175 Square feet $8.02 $16,04 $32.01 $47.91 $64.17
200 9.17 18.33 36.66 55.00 73.33
225 10.31 20.63 41.25 61.87 82.50
250 11.46 22.92 45.83 68.75 91.66
(11% per yr On Land Values per Space (as shown in 5a-2).
Monthly Amortization of Construction Plus Taxes and Rent. IF
we were to amortize the improvement cost at $300 per car
space in equal monthly payments over a 7 1/2 year period at
seven percent (see Table 5a-l)and add this to the land rental
based upon a space efficiency of 200 square feet per car space,
then the total monthly rental cost for the downtown public
(transient) parking lot would be as follows:
TABLE 5 a-4 MONTHLY CAR SPACE RENTAL
(LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS 1 nr,n±'rfva
SURFACE PARKING '- ATTENDANT OPERATION
ITEM $5 Land $10 Land $20 Land $30 Land $40 Lane
Amort $300 @7% ;7 1/2yr $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32 $4.32
Interest & tares
on Land (Table '5a-3) 9.17 18.33 36.66 55.00 73.33
Total !-fo Cost/
-TT r
In the same manner as in Table 5a-4 (above) various combinations
of values for estimating the n-onthly rental may be projected ^
for any combination of valuoc or square foot space efficiencies
for attendant: opor^.vc:d public pay p-.'rklivj lots.
-------
MULTI- PURPOSE PARKING C SURFACE
S.ELF SERVICE
MACS PUBLIC PARKING SFLF SEP. '/ICE OPERATIC-^. The
majority or pay ^acTTlties usrhg~sej.t: service operation are
owned and operated by Governmental /Agencies . This type of operation
involves various typss of revenue control systems ranging from
cashier operation to automated controls such as parking meter,
card-key, etc.
Space Efficiency for this type facility in downtown commercial
areas generally range from 250 square feet per car space to 400
square feet per car space . The average is about 300 square
feet per car space.
Investment Cost to pave, stripe, provide required fencing,
signs, cum cuts, driveways , lighting and control equipment
will range between $400 and $600 and average about $500 at
today ' s prices .
Monthly Amortization Costs. This type of parking facility
generally uses a ten year amortization period for the improve-
ments. Calculations for 10-year amortization in equal monthly
payments for representative car space improvement costs at
interest rates ranging between six and nine percent are shown
on the follov/ing table:
TABLE 5(&)-l MONTHLY 7U1ORTISATION COSTS. PER CAR SPACE
(Arvsur.ie JO year Useful Life)
IKVESiMEKT COST PER CAR SPACE
Interest Rate $400 $450 $500 $550 $600
6% 10 years $4.45 $5.00 $5.56 $6.10 $6.66
7% 4.65 5.23 5.81 6.39 7.55
8% 4.86 5.46 6.07 6.67 7.28
9% 5.07 5.70 6.34 6.97 7.60
Land Values for public parking lot facilities which uses
surface parking generally range between $5 and $25 per square
foot because this type of operation is not generally used in
"hot spot" locations.
TABLE 5 (A) -2 LAND INVESTMENT/CAR SPACE
SQUARE FOOT VALUES
AREA/CAR SPACE $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
250 Square feet 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6f25G
300 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500
350 1,750 3,500 5,250 7,000 8,750
400 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Mqntlly 'Interest and Taxes or^ Land as Per Table 5 (A) -2
As&vn.r:anq an IT percent rinnuai interest on tae -dollar values as
shown ir> Table 5 (A)-2 prove v;ill represent adequate rental and
real estate taxes on the land, the monthly land rental per car
space would be as follows: •
32
-------
iA
MULTI-PURPOSE; C SURFACE
SELF SERVICE OPERATION
TABLE 5(A)-3
SURFACE PARKING - ATTENDANT OPERATION
MONTHLY LAND RENT PER CAR SPACE
SQUARE FOOT LAND VALUES
LAND AREA/SPACE- $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
250 sq.ft.
300
350
400
Monthly Amortization of Construction Plus Land Rent. If we
were to amortize the improvement at $500 per car space in
equal monthly payments over a ten year period at seven percent
(see Table (A)-1} and add this to the land rental based upon
a space efficiency of 300 square feet per oar space, then the
total monthly rental cost for the pay pub'lic parking lot operated
on a self service basis would bo as follows:
TABLE 5(A)-4 MONTHLY CAR SPACE RENTAL
(LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM $5 Land $10 Land $15 Land $20 Land $25 Land
$11.46
13.75
16.04
18.33
$22.92
27.50
32.03
36.66
$34.37
41.25
48.12
55.00
$45.84
55.00
64.17
73.33
$57.29
68. 75
80.21
91.66
Amort Improve
-------
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING '3 BASEME.NT
SELF SERVICE
BASE1-22MT PARKING {Type 5B) We shall assume that for
this type of~parklng (Public Pay Parking) will be in facilities in
v;hich reasonable space efficiencies can be achieved due to the fact
that the column spacing for requirements of the building above are
reasonably coifipatible with parking layout requirements for double
parking of cars using attendant operation. However, our tables for
space efficiency will also provide for practical conditions of com-
paratively poor parking space efficiency.* Generally these parking
facilities range between one and four basement levels with two or
three levels being the more common. It is to be noted that in some
cities underground construction may be costly due to the problem
of high water table while in others the costly problem of rock
excavation nay cause unusually high square foot construction costs.
The space losses due to ventilation equipment, basement elevator
lobbies, thicker columns, etc., on the other hand cut back parking
space efficiency*
Space Efficiency. Under practical conditions it can be
assumed that even with attendants , double and triple parking
cars in basement facilities that column sizes , spacing and
ramp access will achieve at best a range of 250 to 500 square
feet end average about 350 square feet per car space with
attendant parking. Self service will average about 450
Investrasnt_Costc_ per car space- should normally be in the -range
oT~S47b{Hf~to"f77obo per car spece and average about $5,000 per
car space, and the useful life can be assumed to be 30 yeaj:s.
Therefore, the tables as presented in Section IB (Residential
basement parking facilities) seem to cover the investment costs
except for one additional element of cost for which some allow-
ance should be made. In view of the fact that the basemant
parking is operated as a commercial enterprise, the owner
rightfully should expect a rental return from the use of this
space. This additional element, namely profit, should be
added to the payments for interest on investment and taxes
which were provided for merely at cost in Tables I_ B-l, I B-2
and I B-3. Except for rental value of the land, and for profit..
the tables and examples given in Section 13 would apply here.
Accordingly, the yield from parking use, in addition to merely
covering investment cost of that portion of the building which
is devoted to paring should also be expected to pay soi'e share
tor tne occupied around area plus a fair profit return on the
investment costs o-f creating these facilities. It is not
unreasonable for the .owner to expect this figure to aporoxi-
mate 30 percent of the gross parking revenues unless he, the
owner, achieves some substantial indirect benefits from such
parking use It is also to be noted that the parking nana
would also be required to pay all costs of oocratina these
p out of the rrot-i 'Ocirkincr revenues"
U
-------
5/
l^ ..
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING 0 UNDERGROUND -GARAGE
SEL-F SERVICE & ATTENDANT OPERATION
MULTIPURPOSE USDERGROPyp. I" .RKIKG FACILITIES (Type 5 C) Most of
ETirunaerground garages are designed for self service .operation
due to the fact that they invariably have a large capacity and the
further fact that the cost of maintaining a large enough operating
staff to satisfactorily handle all peak load situations would be
very costly and probably result in. slow service. In one such garage
where both attendant and self service is offered to the public, 85
percent of the patrons choose self service parking.
Space Efficiency. Where public pay parking is provided in
Underground facilities the space efficiency ranges between 350
and 500 square feet per car space. The average space efficiency
for self service is 400 square feet per car space". In. the case of
attendant parking the average space efficiency might possibly be
300 square* feet per car space."
Investment Cost can vary widely due to soil conditions, topo-
graphy, and otner special conditions existing at the site. At
today's construction costs, the range is between $5,000 .Snd
$9,000 per car space with the average being about $7,500 per
car space. The monthly amortization costs calculated at seven
percent, 40 years would be approximately the same as for resi-
dential underground parking as shown in Table I C-l (this
figure is listed as the first item in Table 5 C-3 on next page).
Land Cos*t in the cas& of underground public parking for a fee,
whether construe tod on public or private ground,, a charge for
the occupied ground use should be made. This aioount may vary
according to location and also allowance can be made for the
fact that the surface can be put to.other use. Indeed, the
air rights above can be put to other commercial use so long as
the colurfjn spacing and footings of the garage are suitable for
such use. Such a project was accomplished under an urban renewal
project in downtown Fresno. Table 5 C-l shows scjuare foot land
values ranging from $2 to $10. Translation of ground area costs
into land cost per car space depends upon the average space
efficiency achieved in the design and also upon the number of
parking levels. The normal n'oiaber of underground parking levels
range between three and five floors. On this basis the occupied
ground area per car space would usually range between 70 and
160 square feet per car space. This" would cover the range for
both attendant and self service. , For representative sites for
either type of service the land investrufmt per car space would be :
'UNDERGROUND" GARAGE,
TABLE 5 C-l LAND INVESTI-SSNT- COST/CAR SPACEy7-50NTH
GROUND ASKA PER CAR SPACE IS SQUARE FEET
LAND VALUE 70 80 90 100 110 120 140 160
$2 Land
$4 Land
$5 Land
$6 Land
$8 Land
$10 Land
35
$140
280
350
420
560
700
$.160
320
4GO
•ISO
640
r-oo
5 ISO
360
450
5-10
720
f.- 00
S200
400
500
600
BOO
1000
$220
440
350
6 GO
88.0
11QO
S240
480
600
720
960
1200
$2 SO
560
700
840
1120
1400
e: o -j r-
640
800
950
12:'f
Ju V *J V.:
-------
5
C-c
MUL-TI-- PURPOSE PARKING O UNDERGROUND GARAGE
SELF SERVICE & ATTENDANT OPERATION
Land Rental Cost Per Car Space Tor Montji can be estimated at
II percent per year per car space value {as presented in
Table 5 C-l) which figure would include a return on the land
cost plus tax on the land. The calculations on this basis for
the monthly car space land rental values are presented in the
following table.
UNDERGROUND GARAGE
TABLE 5 C-2 LAND RENTAL COST/CAR SPACE/MONTH
GROUND AREA PER CAR SPACE IN SQUARE FEET
Land Value 7Q 80 90 100 110 120 1.40 160
$2
$4
$5
$6
$8
$10
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
$1.28
2.57
3.21
3.85
5.13
6.42
$1.47
3.02
3.66
4.40
5.87
7.33
$1.66
3.30
4.12
4.95
6.60
8.25
$1.83
3.66
4.58
5.50
7.33
9 ... 17
$2
4
5
6
8
10
.01
.03
.04
.05
.07
.08
$2
4
5
6
8
11
.20
.40
.50
.60
.80
.00
$2.57
5.13
6.42
7.70
10.27
12.83
$2.93
5.87
7.33
8.80
11.73
14.66
Monthly Rental Cost Per Car Space for Multipurpose underground
garages (Type 5 C) bperatedT'as public pay facilities would
normally have these components of rental cost:
1. Amortization of construction cost assumed at 7 percent
over a 40 year useful life.
2. Tax on building estimated to be 4 percent per year on 60%
of f.^rst cost.
3. Rent and taxes on land estimated at 11 percent of land
having $5/ square foot value.
To this figure should be added a profit for the risk capital.*
Other projections can be made from these tables to fit other
combinations of space efficiency (a function of design) and
other land values and construction costs. It should be noted;
however, that the optimum number of parking levels in an under-
ground garage is usually four and that the average ground area
per car space is about 90 square feet.
UNDERGROUND GARAGE
TABLE 5 C-3 RENT7*L - SAMPLE MONTHLY RENT/CAR SPACE FOR VARIOUS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CONSTRUCTION COST PER CAR SPACE
Rent Item $5,000 $6fOOO $7,000 $7,500 $87OOQ $9 ,000
Amortize Constr.
40 yr e 7% $31.08 $37.29 $43.51 $46.61 $65.52 $73.93
Tax on Bldg, 60%
@ 4%/yr/sp. 10.00 12.00 , 14.00 15.00 16.00 18.00
Rent $5 Land & >
Tax @ 11% yr 4.12 _A-J-2 4.12 4.12 4.12 _ .'L..T~
Total Monthly
Rent/Space $45.20 $53.41 $51. G3 $65.73 $85.64 $36.05
* To the above totals must bo added a profit for the developer's risk
rvjuj'titl,
36
-------
M.ULTi-PURPOSE PARKING O CONCRETE DECK
SELF SERVICE
MULTIPURPOSE PARKING DECKS (Type 5 D) Reinforced concrete parking
decks of various types of "construction (poured in place, prestressed,
precast/ and left slab) are the dominant types of free standing,
above ground parking garages now in service. Prior to 1953 most
such construction was designed for attendant parking operation.
Self service raultifloor parking operations were first pioneered by
several Customer/Client parking developers in 1937, but it was
not until 1955 that this type of parking service began to move
ahead. The swing to the dominant role for self service operation
was due to rapidly rising wages for parking attendants, the emerging
development of Municipal parking facilities, and also the strong
preference of motorists for this type of service. Today, developers
do not use designs based upon attendant parking unless the site
dimensions are such that there is no other "way.
However, since there remain a good number of attendant parking
garages still in use we shall include discussion and tables on
both types of design. It must be remembered; however- that in
terms of investment and rental costs that the garages designed for
attendant operation are substantially lower cost than is self
service operation, simply because manpower labor is used as a
means to reduce the investment cost. Thus, the attendant operation
racist use highly skilled management and as result the rental yield
is usually about 50 percent of the gross revenues. In self service
facilities the tendency is toward minimizing the labor cost through
automation techniques and the rental yield is usually 75 percent
or mox-e of the gross revenues. Thus, for a given site, when the
design alternatives are weighed, the overwhelming preference is for
the design based upon self service operation. In the discussion
which follows "5 D11 is used for self service operation and "5d" is
used to identify the designs based upon attendant operation.
5 D Multipurpose Parking Decks SELF SERVICE
Average Space Efficiency of this type garage is calculated on
the basis or" ground area occupied by the garage multiplied by
the number of storage floors and divided by the nun±>er of
parking stalls. The range of space efficiencies is the
sarae as for residential parking decks (1 D) namely 300 to '450
square feet and the average is 375 square feet per car space.
Investment Cost per car space at today's cost in inultifloor
parkfng decks^~range from $2500 to $5000 and now average about
$4000 per car space. Since the amortization period and rate
of interest depends upon whether the developer is a private.
investor or public agcrcy and other factors, the fcllo'.ving
Tnblr: presents tha .:•.:•-.--••" t:\n-3tl r:i costs in c~x;-"'' monthly p~/v --.'.~
for various rates of interest, periods of snortization and
construction costs per car space.
37
-------
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING © CONCRETE DECKS
TABLE 5 D-l MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS
CONCRETE GARAGES AT VARIOUS
INTEREST RATES - TIME PERIODS - CONSTRUCTION COSTS/SPACE
Period Of CONSTRUCTION COST PER CAR SPACE
Percent Amortization $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000
5% 20
25
30
35
40
6% 20
25
30
35
40
7% 20
25
30
35
40
3% 20
25
30
35
40
9% 20
25
30
35
40
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
Year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
year
$16
14
13
12
12
17
16
14
14
13
19
17
16
15
15
20
19
18
17
17
22
20
20
19
19
.50 $19.80
.62
.43
.62
.06
.92
.11
.99
.26
.76
.39
.67
.64
.98
.54
.92
.30
.35
.76
.39
.50 •
.98
.12
.60
.29
17.54
16.11
15.15
14.47
21.50
19.33
17.99
17.11
16.51
23.26
21.21
19.96
19.17
18.65
25.10
23.16
22.02
21.31
20.86
27.00
25.18
24.14
23.52
23.15
$23
20
18
17
16
25
22
20
19
19
27
24
23
22
21
29
27
25
• 24
24
31
29
28
27
27
.10
.47
.79
.67
.88
.08
.56
.99
.96
.26
.14
.74
.19
.36
.76
.28
.02
.69
.86
.34
.50
.38
.17
.44
.00
$26.
23.
21.
20.
19.
28.
25.
23.
22.
22.
31.
28.
26.
25.
24.
33.
30.
29.
28.
27.
35.
33.
32.
31.
30.
40
39
48
19
29
66
78
99
81
01
02
28
62
56
86
46
88
36
42
82
99
57
19
36
86
$29.
26.
24.
22.
21.
32.
29.
26.
25.
24.
34.
31.
29.
28.
27.
37.
37.
33.
31.
31.
40.
37.
36.
35.
34.
70
31
16
72
70
24
00
98
66
76
89
81
94
75
9?
46
74
02
97
29
49
77
21
28
72
$33,00
29.23
26.85
25.24
24.11
35.83
32.22
29.98
28.51
27.52
38.77
35.34
32.27
.31.95
31.08
41.83
38.60
26.69
35.52
34.77
49.99
41.96
40.24
39.76
33.57
-------
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING-© CONCRETE DECKS.
SELF SERVICE
Taxes on Building are estimated to be four percent per year
on~SU% of the first cost. Assuming the range of construction
costs is $2,500 to $5,000 we have the following monthly tax
costs per car space:
TABLE 5 D-2
REAL ESTATE TAXES ON BUILDING PER CAR SPACE PER MONTH
Tax. on Building
CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER CAR SPACE
$2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00
Land Cost per Car Space for multipurpose parking facilities
vary widely according to the nuivber of parking levels and
land values vary widely between "fringe" and "hot spot"
locations. Eultifloor parking structures range from double
deckers to 12 stories but the great raajority range between
four and eight. In order to cover most of the situations
Table 5 D-3 provide a spread from 50 to 150 square feet per
car size. In order to accommodate the wide range in land
valxies iu various size cities Table 5 D-3 covers from $5 to
$40 per square foot land.
TABLE 5 D-3
LAND INVESTMENT COST PER CAR SPACE PER MONTH
GROUND AREA PER CAR SPACE IN SQU7iRE FEET
Land
Value
$5
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
Land
50
$250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2000
2500
Rental Sost
70
$350
700
1050
1400
1750
2100
2800
3500
Per
90
$450
900
1350
1800
2250
2700
3600
4500
Car1 Space
110
$550
1100
1650
2200
2750
3300
4400
5500
Per Monti
130
150
$650
1300
1950
2600
3250
3900
5200
6500
$750
1500
2250
3000
3750
4500
6000
7500
11 percent per year per car space value as presented in Table
5 D-3. The 11 percent figure would include both a modest
return on the land and -~^vcr tbo real estato tr.x. on the land.
The calculations on the basis for the nonLhly land rental
per car space are presented in the following table.
39
-------
MULTI-PURPOSF. PARKING O CONCRETE DECK
SEJ.F SERVICE
TABLE 5 D-4
MULTIPURPOSE STRUCTURES
LAND RENTAL COST PER CAR SPACE PER MONTH
GROUND AREA PER CAR SPACE IN SQUARE FEET
Land
Value
$5 sq.ft.
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
50
$2.29
4.58
6.88
9.17
11.46
13.75
18.33
22.92
70
$3.21
6.42
9.62
12.83
16.00
19.25
25.66
32.08
90
$4.13
8.25
12.38
16.50
20.63
24.75
33.00
41.25
110
$5.04
10.08
15.13
20.17
25.21
30.25
40.33
50.42
130
$5.96
10.83
17.88
23.83
29.79
35.75
47.61
59.58
150
$6.88
13.75
20.63
27.50
34.38
41.25
55.00
68.75
Monthly Rental Cost Per Car Space for multipurpose reinforced
concrete parking structures (Type 5 D) would normally have
these components of cost:
1. Amortization of construction cost
2. Tax on building
3. Rent and taxes on land
4. Profit for venture capital
In the example provided in Table 5 D-5 an average situation
has been taken. However, since the circumstances surrounding
each parking project vary widely the accompanying tables are
intended to enable one to make a reasonable estimate of
i-ental for any combination of circumstances. In the examples
provided in Table 5 D-5 the construction cost" amortized over
a 40 year period at seven percent show the monthly rental per
car space per month. See Table 5 D-l for the v;ide range of
'situations which night be encountered in any specific situation.
In the tax on the Building we have assumed -a four percent
yearly tax on a 60% valuation of construction costs as shown
in Table 5 D-2 but any other method of projecting this cost
may be used. In the land rental calculations we have assumed
that the investment in land was $15 per square foot. We have
also assumed that a land rental yield of 11 percent per year
would be sufficient to cover real estate taxes and an acceptable
rental yield on the land. Table 5 D-3 shows the full range
of per car space land investment costs for structures of
various heights and space efficiencies normally encountered.
Table 5 D-4 converts these car space costs to monthly rental
on the assumption that 11 percent annual yield, on Table 5 D~3
figures -.-ill be a sufficient land rental return to cover the
investment cost and also ta;:cs on the land. However, any
other formula may be used for specific situations which might
be encountered. Table 5 D--5 which follows puts the above
named elements of cost together,
40
-------
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING Q CONCRETE DECK
SELF SERVICE
Line one comes from Table 5D-1 (page 38) 40 years @ 7%.
Line two comes from Table 5D-2 (page 39) 4% ann tax on 60% valuation
Line three comes from Table 5D-4 (page 40) 11% interest on occupied
ground area per car space to cover land use and tax on land.
TABLE 5 D-5
SAMPLE MONTHLY RENT/CAR SPACE FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SELF SERVICE CONCRETE DECKS CONSTRUCTION COST PER CAR SPACE
Renttem
$2,500 i3^000_ $3^500 $£,000. $4^500, $5,000_
Profit- To this total must be added an amount which will yield the
developer a fair profit for the risks involved.
41
-------
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING Q CONCRETE DECK
ATTENDANT OPERATION
5d MULTIPURPOSE PARKING DECKS - ATTENDANT OPERATION
Average Space Efficiency of reinforced concrete attendant
operated garages is calculated on the basis of ground area
occupied by the. garage iroiitiplied by the nurober of storage
floors and divided by the total number of parking stalls. The
range of space efficiencies for attendant operated parking
garages is approximately 200 to 300 square feet per car space
and the average is generally 250 square feet per car space.
Investment Cost Per Car Space at today's cost in attendant
operated nmltlrToor perking decks range from $1,750 per car
space to $2,500 per car space and average about $3,~OOQ per
car space at today's costs. It is to be noted that the
1970 construction costs for attendant operated garages was
about $1,750 per car space. The developers, who would design
multifloor parking structures for attendant operation would
be very few in number and those who do v.'ould be prudent enough
to design them with floor layout anrl ranp system that would
be capable of being converted to self-service operation at
some future date during the u.ser.-l life of the structure.
Because of the risks involved in cuch a single purpose building
the developer would probably use an amortization period of
25 years as shown in the following table.
TABLE 5 d-1 ATTENDANT OPERATED DECK
MONTHLY AMORTIZATION COSTS PER CAR SPACE
Investment Per car Spnce
Interest
Rate $1,750 $2,000 $2,250 $2,500 $2,750 $3000
6% 25 years $11.28 $12.89 $14.50 $16.11 $17.71 $19.33
7% " 12.37 14.14 15.90 17.67 19.44 21.21
8% 13.50" 15.44 17.37 19.30 21.23 23.16
9% 14.69 16.79 18.88 20.98 23.08 25.18
Taxes on Building are estimated to be four percent per year
based upon 60 percent of the construction cost. Assuming the
range of construction costs is $1,750 to $3,000.
-TABLE 5 d-2 ATTENDANT OPERATED DECK
REAL ESTATE TAXES ON BUILDING PER CAR SPACE
Construction Coat Per Car Space
?JL<_7A!-i ^ZiPlL0. \r_£~5Jl ^-i.5.^ ?2,_7_5p_
Tex en building $TT50~ 1?T700~' lTI"bO~ SlTTolT" I'JTsI)"
4'; aim. tax on 60% valuation
-------
MULTI-PUP S*: PARKING
O
CONCRETE DECK
Land Cost Per Cr~ Space for multipurpose parking facilities
vary widely,' according to the number of parking levels and
also according to the"land values. Multifloor attendant operated
parking structures in "hot spot" locations usually must go
high in order to justify the use of high land value. The
normal range of parking levels which can be expected in the
future attendant operated parking structures is 6 to 10
parking levels, with an average structure having eight levels.
The occupied ground area per car space will range between 25
and 55 per square foot per car space,
TABLE d-3 CONCRETE DECK ATTENDANT OPERATION
LAND INVESTMENT PER CAR SPACE
OCCUPIED GROUND AREA PER CAR SPACE
(IN SQUARE FEET)
Land
Value
$5
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
25 sq.ft30sqft 35 sgft 40sqft 4J>sqf_t SOsqft 55sqft
$125
250
375
500
625
750
1000
1250
$150
300
450
600
750
900
1200
1500
$175
350
525
700
875
1050
1'iOO
1750
$200
400
600
300
1000
1200
1600
2000
$225
450
675
900
1125
1350
3.800
2250
$250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
2000
2500
$275
550
325
1100
1375
1650
2200
2750
Land Rental Cost Per Car Space Per Month can be estimated at
11 percent per year~p~er car space according to the values
presented in table 5 d-2 above. In this approach, the 11 per-
cent figure would include both a modest return on the land and
would cover real estate tax on the land. If the developer should
expect a higher return on the land, then this percentage would
be increased above that shown in the following table which is
based upon 11 percent.
TABLE 5 d-3 CONCRETE STRUCTURE
MULTIPURPOSE ATTENDANT OPERATED
LAND RENTAL COST PER CAR SPACE PER MONTH
(ATTENDANT OPERATION
STRUCTURES
Sq. Ft.
Land
Value
$5
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
25
Occupied Ground Area Per Car Space (In Square Feet)
30 35 40 45 50 55
$1.15
2.29
3.44
4.58
5.73
6. S8
9.17
11.46
$1.38
2.75
4.13
5.50
6.83
0.25
11.00
13.75 .
$1.61
3.. 21
4.81
6.42
8.02
•j .62
12.83
16.00
$1.83
3.67
5.50
7.33
9.17
11.00
14.66
18.33
$2.06
4.13
6.18
8.25
10.3!
12.38
16.50
20.63
$2.29
4.58
6.88
9.17
11.46
13.75
18,33
22.99
$2.52
5.04
7.56
10.08
12.60
15.13
20.17
25.21
-------
£" '•'
J/fff
t''^
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING Q CONCRETE DECK
ATTENDANT OPERATION
y^^l.?l^ost_Per_£ar^Dace for multipurpose red -
concrete pan:ing structures when "designed and operated for
attendant parking in cities of various sizes and geographical
area* of USA have a wide range of building costs per car
.rll1^ a Wi?J range of land ccsts- r-^e same comments
ere made ror self-service garages following Table 5 D-4
° | !°rapP*y here> Howgver, in the case example used in
/ ^Tn^h foll^s a 25 year amortization period and
i^d v/ith 4u square feet per car space has been assumed.
TABLE 5 d -5' ATTENDANT OPERATED MULTIPURPOSE CONCRETE DECK
SAMPLE MONTHLY KENT/CAR SPACE FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Ccjj-ntruction Cost Per Car Space
teja £]-Z5i li^O $2_,25Q_ $2^500 ' $2,750 $3,000
s
Rent/sp before pTOfit-?Z5^ ST'-JT I2573
$14.14. $15.90 $17.57 $19.44
~ ~~8T F34TTT
-------
f-5
tP^iiJ
MULT I-PUR POSE PARKING O STEEL- DECK
SKJ.F SER\?JCE
5 E STEEL FRAMED MULTIPUPPOSE PARKING DECKS (TYPE 5B)
In multipurpose steel franed parking facilities, the great majority
of such facilities arc designed to use self service operation. The
general comments which were made in Section 1 D (Residential-Steel
Framed Parking Decks) also expply here. However, there are certain
respects in which multipurpose Steel Deck facilities designed for
commercial parking .use differ frov- the Residential Typo. These
differences lie primarily in (1) higher land cost; (2) in less
costly construction; and (3) the requirement for a profit from the
venture which rmst be produced primarily by the net yield from
parking charges.
Space Efficiency ranges from 250 to 400 square feet per car
space and averages about 350.
Investment Cost ranges from $1,750 to $3,000 and averages
about"$2,000 at today's construction costs for multipurpose
steel parking structures.
Month J/y Juaorti sat ion Costs . Calculations for amortization at
equal raontiiiy "payjr.ontsover a 25 year period for the full
range; of costs per car space a'c interest rates of from six
to nine percent are shown in the following Table.
TABLE 5-E-l MONTHLY AMORITZATION COSTS - STEEL DECK
Investment Cost Per Car Space/Month
Interest
Rate $1,750 $2,000 $2,250 $2,500 $2,750 $3,000 $3,500
6% 25 years$11.28 $12.89 $14.50 $16.11 $17.71 $19.33
7% 12.37 14.14 15.90 17.67 19.44 21.21
8% 13.50 15.44 17.37 19.30 21.33 .23.16
Land Cost Per Car Space. Some multipurpose steel framed
structures go to nine stories and the land upon which they are
constructed ranges from $5 to $50 per square foot. Table 5 E-2
shows the calculations fo'r land investment per car space.
TABLE 5 E-2 LAND IN VESTMENT /SPACE
LAND INVEST:IEMT PER CAR SPACE
Sq. Ft. OCCUPIED GROUND AREA P
Land
Value
$5 sq.ft.
10
15
20
40
200
400
600
800
50
250
500
750
1000
60
300
600
900
1200
ER CAR SPACE IN
70
350
700
1050
1400
80
400
800
1200
1GOO
SQUJvRE F
90
450
900
1350
1SOO
EET
100
500
1000
1^-00
2UOO
25 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
30 1200 15CO 1800 2100 2490 2700 3COO
40 1GOO 2000 2-"00 2800 3200 3600 --OfsT:
50 /.Ouu xbUO 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
-------
MULTI-PURPOSE PARKING G STEEL DECK
SELF SERVICE
^O'vhhly__LandJRent. An interest rate of 11 percent is
assumed to ~be~s ui/ficient to cover the interest: on land
occupied by each car space and also cover taxes on that
allocation of land area. The following table of monthly land
rental per car space is based upon the values shown in Table
5 e-2 as shown above.
TABLE 5 E-3 STEEL FRAMED MULTIPURPOSE
MULTIPURPOSE SELF SERVICE STRUCTURE
LAND RENTAL COST PER CAR SPACE PER MONTH
Sq. Ft.
Land
Value
$5 -sq.ft.
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
Occupied Ground Area Per Car Space (in Sq.Ft
40
$1.83
3.67
5.50
7.33
9.17
11.00
14.66
13.33
50
$2.29
4.58
6.88
9.17
11.46
13.75
18.33
22.89
60
$2 . 75
5.50
8.25
11.00
13.75
16.50
22.00
27.50
70
$3.21
6.42
9.62
12.83
16.00
19.25
25.66
32.08
80
$3.67
7.33
" 11.00
14.66
18.33
22.00
29.33
36.66
90
$4.13
8.25
12.38
16.50
20.63
24.75
33.00
41.25
100
$4.58
9.17
13.75
18.33
22.99
27.50
36.66
45.83
Tax on Parking Structure per rr.onth is calculated on the basis
of "$4 per slOO assessed value based upon 60 percent valuation
of the construction cost.
TABLE 5 E-4 STEEL FRAME TAX/MONTH
Construction Cost
$1,750 $2,000 $j,250 $2,500 $2,750 $3,000
Monthly Tax on Structure $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 "$5.00 $5.50 $6.00
Total Monthly Rental Cost of. multipurpose steel framed parking
structure is coir-posed of three components plus- one additional
component, narcely profit, which is a variable and is dependent
upon the objectives of the developer who undertakes the project.
Presented in Table 5 E-5 are the three components for a
representative case example. Here it is assumed, that the struc-
ture will be amortized in 25 years at 7 percent and that the
project is developed on land valued at $25 per square foot and
that the structure as designed, averages 60 square feet of
occupied ground area per car space..
TABLE 5 E-5 1IULTIPURPOSE SELF SERVICE STEEL FRAMED
SAMPLE MONTHLY RENT PER CAR SPACE FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction cost Per Car Space
Rent Item
Amortize Ts~yr @ 7%
T;-.x on Fildg/car space
•'^j liLiicl 0 GO sq.ft.
Kent/space bafore Prof.vtT
• $29.62. $31.39 $34.15 $36.42 $38.69 $^0.9S
j-.ro-..-it: To the above totals ir.ust be added an amount which will yield
$1,750
$12.37
;e 3 . 50
rof.i.t
$2,000
$14.14
4.00
13. 75
$2,250
$15.90
4.50
13.75
$2,500
$17.67
5.00
13.75
$2,750
$19.44
5.50
13.75
S3, 000
$21.21
6.00
13.7.:
-------
Quantitative Modelling Costs
Associated With EPA Parking Regulations
-------
Indirect source regulations were promulgated on July 9, 1974
(39 Federal Register 25292} and will become effective nationwide on
January 1, 1975. After that date, new parking facilities with more than
1,000 spaces and modified facilities with more than 500 spaces must underao
preconstruction review to ensure that there will not be any localized carbon
monoxide violations.
Parking management regulations were promulgated for some 20 metropolitan
areas in late 1973. On August 22, 1974 amendments to the parking management
regulations were proposed (39 Federal Register 30440). Generally, the
regulations and proposed amendments require that new or modified parking
facilities over 250 spaces undergo a prcconstruction review to ensure that
(1) there will be no localized carbon monoxide violations, and (2) the new
facility will be consistent with the VMT control strategy in the existing
transportation control plan. In parking management areas, indirect source
review will be integrated into the parking management review.
Under indirect source regulations, a proposed facility must be subject
to a carbon monoxide modelling process in order to determine whether a
possible violation would occur if the facility was built. Under the parking-
management regulations, carbon monoxide modelling is one of the options
available to a developer to determine the facilitiy's impact on carbon
monoxide concentrations. A developer may also choose to undertake
VMT modelling as one method of satisfying the VMT requirement in the parking
management regulations.
-------
2
Carbon Monoxide Modelling' Process:
The modelling process for determining carbon monoxide impact involves
two basic steps: (1) the gathering of monitoring and other needed inform ;on,
and (2) the applying of the information to technical guidelines such as those
provided by EPA or the use of this information in a privately developed,
site-specific model. The technical guidelines are based on general assump-
tion concerning meteorological conditions and roadway situations. If the
owner or operator of a proposed facility decides to only gather the necessary
data and submit it for application to the general guidelines, the costs for
the process would range from $3,000 to $10,000. These costs would vary
according to the amount of data previously gathered for environmental imoact
statement or general planning purposes.
On the other hand, if an ov:nsr or operator of a proposed facility both
gathers his own information and develops and uses a site-specific model, the
costs for the process might range from $30,000 to $45,000. The variation in
these costs would again be primarily influenced by the amount of base
information and model relevant data which has previously been roads available.
The size and nature of a proposed facility makes little difference for cost
purposes.
Case studies based on hypothetical assumptions have been completed
which demonstrate the range of review process cost estimates. The-following
chart illustrates the review process costs for six projects and compares the
costs to overall project costs.
-------
Total Project Costs of Percent Increase
Costs Hithout ISR Modelling Process in Project Cost
Office;50 acres;one $31,400,000 $45,000 .1
million sq.ft. gross
leasible
Regional Shopping Center; $37,200,000 $35,000 .09
urban area;(developer
had already done some
traffic analysis for his
own design objectives)
Office, Commercial and $114,000,000 $40,000 .03
Residential Complex;
urban area
Office and Commercial $27,800,000 $5,000 .02
Development^ million
sq.ft.;(EIS was already
required)
Office Park;suburban $24,800,000 $5,000 .02
area;1.5 million sq.ft.
Shopping Center;suburban area $13,900,000 $10,000 .07
The above figures indicate that, on a percentage basis, both front-end
and total costs are quite minimal. Front-end costs will vary from developer
to developer. A front-end cost is money that a developer invests out of his
own pocket before he receives a loan. Because the cost of the indirect source
modelling process is a front-end cost, it will reflect a somewhat higher
percentage of the initial investment. However, a developer can be expected to
include these costs in a loan package once a project receives a permit and
thereby amortize the costs. Thus, the true impact of the indirect source
modelling process can be estimated as a percentage of his total project cots,
amortized over the period of the loan.
-------
It must be emphasized that no tins penalty costs should be associated
with the indirect source modelling process. The developer is expected to
incorporate modelling into his normal scheme of development and make a timely
application. Routinely, a developer makes many applications such as a zoning,
utility, and safety permit. A delay in submitting those applications will,
of course, delay commencement of construction and result in additional costs.
The indirect source permits are no different.
VflT Modelling:
The proposed amendments to the parking managemant regulations contain
three available options which a developer may use to ensure that the proposed
parking facility is consistent with the VMT control strategy in the applicable
transportation control plan. One of the options available is for the developer
to undertake quantitative modelling which demonstrates whether or not
construction of the facility will cause a reduction in VMT.
The costs involved will vary somewhat according to tha size £r;d location
of the facility. As with indirect source review, the amount of available
data (number of daily trips, average trip length, etc.) v.'ill also influence
the final cost figures. Generally, $5,000-$50,COO is the amount of money that
will be necessary.
The follov/ing four hypothetical cases illustrate the information gathering
process and the costs involved:
Case n: Proposed Community Shopping Center
Step 1. Information is obtained by a sample survey. For the community shcppinq
center, the basic economic feasibility analysis indicates that the primary service
area will be within a 2-mile radius of the proposed center. A sarnole of 100
randomly chosen households is asked to complete a form recording thnir uutcjrcbile
shopping trips ,:;.d Gestu^uv;. en c-.'rlr.c.le weekurr-. -^ing this c^lc, ;... ;• :.. - .
daily shopping trip rate is determiner!.
Level-of-affort 1/2 rwn-clay per Iwsehold = 50 days
-------
Stsp 2. In order to analyze the choice of destination a gravity model
technique is to be used. To achieve this a "network" is developed repre-
senting the highway system 'servicing the shopping center market area
and roads leading to all locations of competing facilities are identified in
.the sample survey.
Coding Level-of-effort 5 man-days
Stsp 3. Using standard FHWA procedures the "gravity model" parameter's
are calibrated, yielding a set of travel time resistance functions known as
"f-factors"
Level-of-effort 5 man-days plus 5 minutes IBM"
370 c.p.u. time
Step 4. The "irip generation" rate as determined in the sample is used
to estimate the 'etal number of daily shopping trips made by residents of
the new centers market area. This number represents trip 'productions."
The size of the new center (in terms of employees and floor space or
some such) is used to estimate 'attractions." The "gravity model" is now
applied for two cases (1) with the new center in the system and (2) without
the new center. The output of the "gravity model" is a matrix of trips
from residential areas to shopping areas. For each case, with and without
the new center, the appropriate trip matrix is assigned to the highway
netvok and the total vehicle-miles of travel summarized.
Level-of-effort 10 man-days
10 minutes IBM 370 c.p.u. time or
equivalent
-------
Summary Case I:
Item
1.
2.
3.
4:
Man-Days
50
5
5
5
65 man-days
Computer Time (IBM
370/155 or Equivalent)
10 minutes
10 minutes
20 minutes
Approximate Labor Cost @ $145/day $ 9,425
Computer @ $100/Hour 330
Miscellaneous 500
. Total Approximate Cost $10, 255
Say $10,500
Case 2: Proposed Regional Shopping Centsr; 2000 parking spaces.
Data on trip rates and gravity model "f-factor-." is available from an established
transportation planning agency and no survey is required. Only steps 3
and 4 of Case I are required, but an addition 5 man-days to gather data
is included in the estimate.
Labor Cost 15 Days @ $145 $2, 174
Computer & Miscellaneous (As Above) 830
Total $3,004
Say $3,000
The basic techniques will be similar to those used for the smaller center,
but due to the size of the market area approximately twice the effort will
be required for all tasks.
-------
Therefore:
Cost for Analysis Including Survey $21, COO
Cost for Analysis Excluding Survey 6, 000
Case 3: Individual EiTiDlnyer; 550 employees
1. Consider the example given on Pago 30459 of the Federal Register
of August 22, 1974 (40 CFR Part 52) for an insurance company with 550
employees which intends to relocate. A brief description of the analysis
technique is contained in the cited reference. The level-of-efforl would
be approximately
a. Employee Survey 10 man-days
b. Survey Analysis 10 man-days
c. Travel Distance Analysis 10 man-days
Total 30 man-days © $145/day - $-1, 35C
Say about $4, 500
2. This example can be extended to the case where the new location
does not offer comparalbe transit facilities. In this case, the employees
would also be questioned on their mode of travel to work at the new location.
Analysis of this data would raise the cost of the project to about $5, 500.
Case 4: Complex Development
The most intricate and costly VM'F modeling will be required for a complex
mixed use center. Consider the following proposed development:
Shopping Facilities - 500,000 square feet gross floor area
Olficc Facilities - 1,500 employees, 500 of one known
client. Remainder yet uncommitted
Residential - 1,500 c'v.vlHrjg uiiils.
-------
For a large development such us this each element would have to be treated
separately with allowance for Ihe interaction of the separate units (i.e.,
the potential for increased walk trips due to concentrated development).
The shopping element can be treated as described above for the large re-
gional center.
The office facilities must be treated in two parts. For the 500 employees
of the committed client the methods described above for an individual
employer are applicable. For the unrentcd space a "gravity model" analysis
similar to that described for shopping centers would be required. A set
of "f-factors" for work travel will need to be developed and an analysis
made of population or labor force distribution in the effected portion of the
region. Examination of trip length frequency distributions can be used to
define the region which must be examined. Much of the data on population
will be available from local planning commissions. Worl: trip "f-fuciors"
may be developed either by a small scale survey, from data gathered from
employees of the committed employer or from the local planning agency.
A gravity model analysis with and without the proposed office facilities will
yield tables of person movements. Depending on the scale of transit services
a mode-choice analysis may be required to develop tables of automobile trips
to the site.
For the residential units an examination of trip generation rates, trip length
data and mode split characteristics from similar type developments can be
used to forecast VMT impact. This information may be obtained cither from
a local planning agency or by a survey of a similar area.
The level-of-effort estimate presented below assumes that basic ci;;tu for
t';c rcoitlcj.ual analysis c:a:: he ;..-...^inc-ii i, om uri esiub^:,;;!. u plan;:;;:;; ;;._;> _ v.
-------
Shopping Facility (See Above) $21,000
Committed Office Space (Sec Above) 4, 500
Uncommitted Office Space
a. Gather data
b. Implement network
c. Gravity model analysis
d. VMT analysis
Cost as similar to shopping 10, 500
center
Residential
a. Gather data
b. Implement network (no cost,
use b. above)
c. Gravity model analysis
d. Mode split analysis
e. VMT analysis
Cost is similar to shopping 10, 500
center
Total Approximate Cost $46, 500
Assume Cost At About $50, 000
-------
Public Support for Parking Management
-------
The following collection of editorials, speeches, and letters Is
illustrative of existing support for parking controls in general and EPA's
parking management regulations in particular. While vociferous opposition
to EPA's parking management programs has been forthcoming from various
parking and development interests, the attached material demonstrates that
support for the parking management concept does exist. This support arises
from a recognition of the potential benefits associated with various types
of parking management - air quality improvements, energy conservation,
transit improvements, ordered urban growth.
Included are statements from the Secretary of Transportation and the
Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, both of which reference
the use of parking limitations as a tool for enerav conservation and impetus
for use of mass transit.
Editorials opposing any Congressional action that will cut off EPA
funds to administer or regulate parking programs have appeared in the
New York Times and the Washington Post. Other editorials in the Boston
Globe, the San Antonio Express, and the Chicago Today all express support
for some type of control over parking and specifically mention the
resulting air quality and energy conservation benefits.
-------
REGION I
*O"Ci
.OU * Jf TQ
UiiXy IClSfl Ja3
fewes'esrs
What it rctacsis to Is this.
Boston business liacsrs, as por-
tr?.y;-d by their offfcnt! spokesmen,
don': give a damn about cleaning up
Greater Boston's poisoned air,
Somehow they feel it can be
done with mirrors.
The- Ss.dn«E*»eaial PretectioR
Agency "has ssked business to cut
ba;k 25 percent oa oonpscy parking
spaces so that ieirer zutomobBe*
enter zed operate In the metro-
trea. -
The agency also iuts askti for a
tores-hour street parkiaf baa — f
a.m. to 10 aja. — i& Boston sod
Ccribriisa to jesotce auto coasiauter
vo],i-e in those cities.
The r^?3Mi is single* Carbon
sv&r.:K.r£e kills sai"n-«£2SiS. ft ctsrtss
CATS. -And csrboa mosoclde
levels in Boston" iM
hj\t sV tirr.es fio^e three tines high-
tr than that considered safe to
health. - '
Further, the levels are continu-
ing 10 rise sad spread,
It hw tlrs*dy bsen f?ar.«f in New
York City thrt oae CS.E s!i !rside: re-
psat. ir.siae; i *tr»t Itvel resMurant
End £ei *. j>:&o3Pia c*
iae caekuil fre* of chirj*
c:*.r>a
of
r«ac-
i!o.-.try to c^z^ys s^i-A-iert i& the
TVe.~.s.ra v:c!d, perdFts la feeling
that if our streets are not ia-craed
•with double-parked Car* and
becked-up truidts, fSiir tusiaess will
c:^:.-~:=r.
T:.-i rivsiJ trade in pzrSctilar has
yelled fcr ma:* ^srtgss sad egainst
psdesiriai mails ior yc&rs, eHhcusA
it can be proved in 2 score of other
world citres that cutting down on
cars" snc &:ri Kg. the shopper ^ little
p-itre i.r.c {rrefer.ery has not hurt
bus: >.!ȣ.
And thst is the niest
statement of *& They'll €« t» work,
you can bet- yota-'wetMy-payclitclfcii
ton that, and no one is pret»r.dine
that there won't be some inconvea-
ience. . ' • ' •' '• ;-. • • ••"'••
But dont these business spokes-
men know there if a shortage of o3,
that we will ran out of gas again,
that we may hive difficulty hesti&f
hoiftes, that industry nseds- cheaper
oil. that blackouts sad brownouts
will reoccur?
The whole Idea, geaSeissa, c*
well.as for health reasons, is to get
people out of cars and into mass
transit, to save fasl- ceasetve ea«r»
gy. improve air qutciy aad Increase
fiwesbility.
For sure sass trarSK isrit \
ing its finest hour at the
General Motors saw to that a long
time ago, but it will only iteprove
when the needs of the people de*
Rand that it does and Congress a}»
ready has acceded to such demand*
and will again.
And. in their antagonism business
spokesmen lsa*e failed to t«kno.wl--
edge that :
-------
\
Cars siid c
-
Boston wiU be the f 'rsl ol 56 ci'.-
jes across the country to co~e
pollution cas^rsd by at:-"
tomobile emissions undo? tha IS70
Q|att Air Act And, with cnljr nine
noiiths to go, critics of strict park-
ing revelations .designed" to reduce"
ear trtvsl &re sow atuek!$s *
''
iRrpp>-
3ic were tett usloacaei New tHs
has cHsr.;:.d znd the outcry has es-
calated. • '
. Tfcat,si&Ka$;4$ us unfair, 7hi«la
Batting Arr.frricss£ out of their auhl-
ths1 fcurcea on werEiag >so?le by
ir.dar>.2 students in t!* parsing
restrictions.
"Tfus is palently absurd. If the
workers caa be required to leave
their cars at horns, join GET pr-cls or
make use ol public trcr^pc-rtaUoc,
there is , i»o reason^, wby healthy
"'
dents cannot do~4he. S&JBS.' If :hey
live ja Demote suburbs, as ..5ToKlt-»
easSsn* Unix'era^'s pre^aent Asa
Knowles srgues, they caa drive to
pariatsg Io» to Q-oincy and Revere
and Kverside and ta'ae tfce 1^3TA
to sd>6ol. And they ctn certainly do
iUfiS easily -3S-ii«3«striai employees.
sutomobi!eern:ssion conirol
u|> by tha Eaviroa-
ir.sr.tat protection Agency ir. June
1STS a-hus Msssidsitsetts frlltc to
jregs^ a plan of iu ^».•n1 *-&i not
iatttasJett lo be sacred. 3at the E?A
1»» been greeted'toF resounding s--
lence in its . requesis for positive
from industry and iocal
traoe Associations.
Instead there .has been a passive
eatery centering chiefly on the pro-
posal that employers should reduce
cosjiisy ;»rking spaoa by 25 ptr-
ceat in c-rder to fceip reduce Uie
er of slngjs-psssenger cora-'
£-'? ror.tributing to our in-
AcS thare "«-CE same justifies tion
for tl<* criticism. Growing c«ripa-
~'.*s v-'f^',& be treated the ranie as
films that were shrinking. Suburban
businesses where little public trsns-
portation was available faced the
same requirements as inner city
basasarsss. And compsrues SKat pro-.
videc; £.f.pioyee parkfeg wsie t» be
"penalized" while firms that left
4heir employees to find parfc^af for
theciss^ves- bore r»o ;'e5pt-r.r:i:I.iiy
for reduciag commcxer iravel. In the
as- the ultimata stsridards *f
clean air are net sbssdoaed.
basic problem is that nost
KS co cot feel personaBy
ihrestftnasl .fcy- air paHution, desoftt
jrcf Is'g staiiFtics to ths contra^.
Aaaihftr is-ti^t -a^Kaaeines for"g*t-
tJnj to work, snd to colleges, are act
ye; to-^et^ive "with
" •
Mass
Route 495. the area covered by iha
-_'
• transit extensions nave schedulei
co— ipletion-cates and tbe'jnpney for
a S1CO million program to 'upgrade
commuier rail servJce is not $et ia
tand.
Car pocliz-i: is iicoavsnieat. Aod
"Bicycling to wirk JB ibis cold c3-
r.a- e is >ir.PbssJ$'.c. Yer during last
year's ericrgy criits -:orr.TCuters fid
•fi:.'i alltniBt:ve JSSSES of trasspw-i
teioa znd were jsrlia* esai t»;ft.
Ana ic the PTKSSS bus «*rvict ias-
prcved. It rr.sy teke a sir^Iar crunch
with ir--re-;:ed trs^fic. jess and
'- srts prices, to t-jra ihs
t again.
But the fa^t is that, rigSt. now,
Biitomobile emissions rr.^ke up S8
percent of the carbon Monoxide in
the air downtown and 50 percent of
the hyerotarbaas -tinMt poHsl* tt*
air in the entire region. Dsspite tfefi
sew fejjfi-pofiutjor. cevices, iiatial
fin.dir.ss of --* r?A show that car*.
ibon ncncird* le-«ls at Keazaorc
Scusre- increi.-ad bjf at least .fll jar»
cent fetweaa liSS aad-ISTfc
ET»" ih* cajsr
fcis
In
-Jis issue. Bfertiiag the
:r.c!i?de studs-st ecssftuter* & It r£-
: : -2,1 tni :: ?:ilv2 sif art to
17
-------
Page 18-A
-fritfoy September 27 1974
Rupert Murdoch
Oiotrmon
Charles O. Kftpatridc
Editor and Publither
Better Buses Alone
,. ""If competitive, convenient mass
transit is provided, it will be used and
cause substantial shifts away from
auios."
•; Roger Strelow of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency offered
this assertion here this week as if it
were a statement of fact. Our feeling is
(hat it is only an affirmation of faith
Since it has certainly never been tried,
; Cars waste space. They waste fuel.
They waste the very air we breathe.
But they are still first in the hearts of
our countrymen.
- The government can subsidize
buses and trains until it is blue in the
face and red in the budget. It can pad
the seats, expand the routes and keep
the fares down. But by themselves, we
don't think these measures can do
much more than maintain transit's
share of commuter traffic, currently
less than 10 per cent.
If governmnent really wants to slow
down the flow of cars into congested
cities, it will have to make tougher
decisions involving more than mere
dollars. Expansion of freeway systems
will have to be curtailed. Parking lot
construction will have to be restricted.
Cars may have to be denied access to
some pqnions of the cities.
More cars need more roads, \vhich
encourage still more cars. Forceful
measures like these are the only way
to stop the cycle. But what will it mean
for downtown San Antonio?
The road men bend to the irresisti-
ble circular logic of the automobile.
Keep building the roads, they say, or
the inner city will die.
We say they are wrong. We say that
when the freeway system is allowed to
become unattractive to all the drivers
who want to use it. those drivers will
switch to transit — if they want to get
downtown badly enough.
Whether downtown San Antonio is
worth getting to, after all, depends
much less on the ease of access than it
does on the quality of work and play
that are available here. To whom do
we look to improve those things? Su-
rely not the builders of roads.
San Antonio contains the seeds of a
vital, attractive central city. It need
not submit to the tyranny of the au-
tomobile in order to fulfill Us promise.
That is OUR affirmation of faith.
-------
... ,- T7^3-';3 cngo ... f\v
Halfway measure-1 on parking &£
Y"\NE PROBLEM with anti-pollution regu-
U^ lation is that it Is outnumbered by op-^
posing considerations. On one side it is
countered by fears about the energy short-
age; on tbe other it-collides with econom-
ics. The Federal Environmental Protection
Agency, in its plan to dean up Chicago's
air thru traffic regulation/ avoided any con-
flict with energ.T problems—but ran smack
into complaints from the business communi--
•?•--
.' The'original plan was to ban parking" oa
.both sides of two-way streets and limit it to
one side of one-way streets; the former
provision was dropped in the face of pro-'
tests: -As it is, the proposed rule—to take
'effect next Sept. 30-wiD restrict parking to
'one side only of key one-way streets: Dear-
born, dark, Randolph, Washington, Madi-
son, Monroe, Adams, and Jackson.
7 The :
-------
o * v> j 7 /
(-1 of i L
OCT
£74
r-M-IE HOUSE Appropriations CcmniiUee recently a>
i- proved a bill thai would severely limit the powers
of the Environmental Protection Agency. The com-
jrJtles's bill Vvvjld unc'o party of the orjgir.a! acts that
created EPA. Ap?Lrsri*.'y. so.T.e of the committee mem-
bsrs so-*- find EPA not to their Using: one of those
nost offended by the agency's -.^adste to control or.
£din;i£ite~poi;utio2 is ?-£p. Jtnua L. 'S'hitten (D^Sss.).
As d--sirr!i£^ of ths Lpprcprlaticos Tubcomnittee on
i^ricuZ'.ure, &t.vi:c; :^:.~£.l end ci^Lser proteziisa,
he rsp^rts-d ths b:l! arc iis sce:,;r.panying report with
Glrectives against £?A*.
-The ageacy. for example, would be directed to 'stop
programs that mighi raise the cost of food or electricity.
Thus, if there is a repeat outbreak of the contamina-
tion that occurred rea-nlly in the pouJtry Hook.- of
Mr. Wiiitten's home Mate. EPA co-ate uo nothing be-
t-iiise the socled costs of destroying the poisonous birds
would be passed to the i-onsurm-r Much !he s^rr.r
pr'nriple \vraild apply 1" a pr-wcr cf,:r"iry v.r.-r or-lr-r*
^n I T- i "n r
- ^~ ^ -?- ~ ci-oW-i
;o :r..-:al! anti-poI'u'Jon devices. The committee would
Jet t:-2 pollution continue on the pretext of keeping
down the electricity costs. Never mind the untallied
cc-sts that would have to bs borna by the local conj-
munity in the threats to its health snd envirorurent.
Auother shackling of EPA involves the cat-off of
fuads for any EPA programs that -rould c&crease rail-
lutioE or eacourage mass transit by tsxlng or lisiiting
city parking.
That such a piece of regressive legis-ation is the
inspiration of Mr. Wnitten is no surprise. His record
of, Gppcsitior. '.c sr-'.."2ily u?cfal bills is uell-kriovfa, tnc
he has tried similar gr^ibi'.s in the past. The bill that
he now backs wcuid limit the powers of EPA exactly
at a time when the ajency u reaching a '.evel of iratarity
needed to earn.- out the wilS of Congress. Every effon
.shouid be inadf on the KJIUF* fnx>r cither tr» eliminate
or ar.-.end the provisions tha: shackle EPA. Faii.ng that.
;hr Senate would siill have in opponunity tu ac:. Either
way. Mr. XVhilten's effort* deserve to be treated "like
lhe environmental hazard they are.
-------
ff V
an&
7 ••"/* ' ?-
Bff E.P.A.
Environir.:-n:£k».s wsre cli-mayed when T.£ >rtstrit8-
tlve Gsorjs KihdcV of Texas, cnalnr^n of the House
Appropriations Committee, had the had judgment lo
ensign envircrtTitaial agencies to an agriculture sub-
committee h*sd?d by ?,?x*s»ntat;ve Jarrjie L. 'Written,
Mississippi Di=tc£ept£tive Whitr^a's solici-
tude extends to teisr-city ttfric jams and ths p&isonous.
smogs they help rsrserate. He and his
proposed zii pollatioa. regulations -with regij-d to traffic
cor.gsstioa in cities -Had the buijdiag of^ additional
parking g---z22S.
Tne ^r3itUn suboc-nurJttae also directs E.P-A. to halt
say pro|ra.-n thai "m::ht r^uh Li t riss is tie cost of
food or electricity. TrJs edict rsf.ects a csinpiiga being
•waged br hss respci3;b;e ftlemsrts of the b^soess com-
- ir.unity to '^se the general uiHatior. pcoblem" ES an excilsa
for stopping £ny cistr^u? of the trrvlror^r-ent.
Corgresi r.ust nit let ±-?-\. be h£.r=s--jrg by Ibese
Onerous r££ir:r^o.i£. It is slso tL-£ that Kouss Ssmo-
crsts. raosi of v?:.:.in pay at ^sist !ip service to the cause
of Ctesn air end c^a.- ws:sr, b~=g;n callirg r.ercesenta-
tivas Mahoa tnd Vrjtten to account for these csslructiye
s. played in the back rooms of the
-------
Ideas
P.O. Box 30159
Los Angeles, CA 10960
Gentlemen:
The answer to air pollution f-cn r-otpr^Vv-iA^-l^'i *s simple - perhaps
too simple. The problem is vo'rseTn""perhuos a do^eii tiajor cities. Yet not
lonj; aso» Pittsburgh had a parfect example of what could be done, and very
simply too.
Last spring, Pittsburgh had a parking attendant strike, cotnolete
with pickets. For several weeks, parking in the city v?as almost nonexistent.
People had to use public transit. It did a land ofiice business. Traffic
novcd faster than it had in years. Horning and evening rush hour traffic jams
disappeared. The air pollution index dropped dramatically.
Yet tha lesson v;sa completely lost on everyone. /ithin a Tnonth after
the strike, the extra bur-os were dropped, and those left x^ere «£ain half erspty.
Traffic jaas and air pollution were back to nomai.
The lesson? hy spend 30 billion dollars (SPA's estimate) over the
next four years (including 3 billion extra gallons or gasoline) to reduce air
pollution and yet gain only a fraction (14?, CO, 6.57* KG anJ 7.5% lICx) ir. taa
worst areas, the central cities: Ths answer is.nnch simpler. Close the pcrck-
irj; Ict3 and '.'.so thrs land for buildiivjs anu parka. Elinir.ate r.11 c?y nnrLin^.
and li^it pnrhfn™ t^^c^cs to four hour occupancy for those vino cust coir>a into
to-,;n on errands. If necessary, provide Barking la-the suburbs at rsass transit
terainals.
This will force people to use n:3ss transportation. Service will
become more frequent. Operating deficits will decrease and perhaps even dis-
appear. But more iraportaat, eir pollution control can be concentrated vhere
it is needed rcost; and one jof "oTIr"Tudsc~>aTuab'le' resources, petroleuct, vrill be
conserved for future generations to enjoy.
Very truly yours,
H. H. Eckler
cc: Sen. JIush Scott
Sen. Richard Schweiker
Repr. John Heinz III"
1-Jayor Peter Flaherty
-------
•
._/ . '« • .' i > i ~« I *'.•" I • « . i 1 *—» t "'J
txrcuriu o.'ffcrs. fiK> cim HULK tf.nviAY • c/.fiA3. u.*-s ««/
October 4, 1974
Mr. Arthur W.
Regional Ac-ininistrator, Region VI
U.S. Environmental Project ion A«jft
1600 Patterson, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75215
Dear Arthur:
It was a pleasure to have met you at the Southwest Regional Real
Estate conference at SHU this past weekend. I now have a firsthand
appreciation for the work in which you are involved.
It seems to ma that you have quite a challenge ahead. V'han locking
at the positive effects the land use control regulations might have,
the results could be most beneficial for the entire Southwest region.
Our company, Brockhollcv,1 Corporation, is .one of the pioneers of con-
scientious rr^al estate development in the Southv.-est. Twenty years ago,
Brook hoi lew v;as the first to c-^ploy v/hat is now corrnonly kncwr. as "Pro-
tective Covari-.nis." Protective covenants establish green belt areas,
minimum parking space ratios, and, in effect, all the things that ire now
standard operating procedures for industrial end business parks.
Many people pay "lip service" to envir.onir.c-ntal quality, but very few
put their woney 1,-hcre their inouth is. Sroo.khollov; has the trtck record
that stands up for its convictions. Enclosed please find a partial list
of the environ;r.antal c.varc's Brookhollov.1 has received on a national, state,
and local basis. Our company received the most environmental awards for
land developers during 1973 and 1974.
I am very interested in what you are doing and I look forward to
visiting with you and getting a firsthand vie\v of your course of action
with the indirect source regulations es well as reviewing the courses
which will be offered in the future.
Sincerely,
Carlos E. Fonts
Executive Vice President
CtF/cb
Fnclosuro
-------
The following are excerpted statements given by various government
officials with reference to the use of parking limitations.
John C. Sawhill, former Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration,
stated on September 17, 1974 in a speech to the American Automobile Association:
"Up to this point, the Federal government has not included auto
'disincentives' in its urban transportation policies, except
as they relate to EPA's Transportation Control Plan. But such
disincentives — coupled with improved public transit — are
critical to inducing Americans to use their cars less and to
use public transit more."
"I believe disincentives for city parking can be particularly
important. Although Congress has prohibited the Federal
government from imposing surcharges, and I think they made
a mistake in taking this action, other ways of discouraging
parking must be considered."
Claude Brinegar, Secretary of Transportation, in a speech to the
Society of Automotive Engineers on August 14, 1974, stated:
"We will develop — and encourage local areas to implement —
various incentive systems to force more efficient vehicular
usage of our existing streets and highways. A necessary part
of such an approach is to see that the automobile does, in fact,
pay its share of all the costs that it imposes on the cities.
This could mean stiff parking — For some cities, it might
even.mean banning or severely limiting automobile access to the
central core."
-------
Tf=.cf»h y^.i for y-H.r- Icttc-r of Sc.titrtr-cr 2*, 1*74 re
Fi.vn- •,: cnt^I FrotssUes Aft^cy is evnkatlfi-- ths £raft rc?cri, v^tc.- *ss
recently r?!c3?«ct. . Ths -Mi
c,ttns1'»ors x:=^ ^orst c-sic sH^aticn rst-er t-sn ^e realistic s1t
end, t-)erefcra, Is jsiclft
A fajcr oc^si^fc fi^sct roted la the tf-?crt - t?*>t 3.4
1~ ti:«; Sf-;tt te^ss Mr U*«i, iC';' of tl:a tct^l v^ri; feree, ^111 t;£ wit
5CC^"^ to t^-ir Pieces of *«ri - Is i;^?^ ^alejy ca ire tr:slcre?-t2l*c.r;
^Srtlin* iKJUtinru This t:^rct ti---uid r^llutlcalV ^E tclftlV «Hsr
St^r^ t^e "T-m'lU'e lii •? titles s.^jld bft sn vnre<;5on*M^ t-.ur<^ft on the F?C^1^
c?T *;^'; f,ii-.v;r. Cctst rir ';£sin» t-ir* 11r:?.5£ic?> i^cutd not u& irnoscd itnd t'-C
nr;""1ctc4 irc^ct v-t-yjii B-ji: cccvr. As I rv»vf Mcttnfi c-!i ssvorsl ctrcc-:1cns,
tfcis ^c^cy >?cu1d net enforce ^ev^rs ^SS-O»IP«? vrrnc.tic irvsctr. cf rr.
or £-i;vt'-.i:-s?; clot.<: *<; ii h^J -^t CCCIT, t'^s- sUtistlc? i^sn* in t-'fc r-?-
;--^ "it "crrjrt, Ir- "0J>t €?.>•'•: .. iP'-'s r^sr-or^.«> t^ Cvpl*.* i?T^ct of t?." pjr^1n« rr^ute tiers* the
tfcstes t'-.R n^'±cr r>f fctiHt'rs yMch ar«? t-? v-c
^s 2r^T:.:::-xui"S to t';^ :-5riJn« rsr;-/v-r rtjt rv r:j]^tio~i as
-------
sizs to be revised in Calif cm* a veuld bay* § capacity of 250 cars.
T.-^e report Iccorreetly assiaros U»et any lot ever 50 s «?.«** vculd fcc subject
to tic- Federal retswl.fticns. FrcD the statistics included in the report,
t-*i$ sta&rr of periinq lots ?-sv1rn tct^ea W and ££9 s^-sces comprise ever
r-b percent cf the n« lots built in C?lifcrnis in 1573 snd have iroxsrrectly
beea inelud-id in thsc:js end solutions tr. t-i^se problems j a&dr.Uter
control prr^r.^s at ^11 !?v;vls of f-cven:Rer.ti r-onitc-r sir quality; anCRS r.:.y h-r,'ir sc^c rv'vcct on the Cilircm1? €C(?n.?n>». t' Is
effect shculu be s?a}l ero»<;h so that It v^lHI be d>'5rfed fcy tn§ effects of
&p fact&s-s sych as fiscal SRS wonctsry policy ami t^c busii^ess
Th<» rr~ecrt net cnly erronec-usly calct'letss the r?eact?f hut
5lto falls to t-a'-e 1-'ftc account the socic-oco^eric i-: --pact -of t?i& severe
!«calt*t efforts «nticip2tcd ^s a res wit of feillr^ to Irplercnt sufficient
?-»r ^ll«vic«» cor.trcl pro^r«r-;s. *-:'.llft t«s costs cf sir nsllutiou ?re
i;irfSci?U to wtir:3U\ t;.?/ Irclirr^: (1) ^o-spltsl, doctor, ^r-4 r-c dot 3i. led, 1r--df'^th study. <'o v»ill
continue tn tare 3 rcr^ c^raful Ic-cV at the California t.d5^ force r«?rort as
*.-3 f,n«1y5c tn? ccomrr-ic Ir.nscts of Lr*'s sir pclluticn ccntrc-1 re'nilaticns
iiii-J tftiio.^ t' --vse ir.pucts d^alnst t--^ i.'2t:soss caused ty air Dilution to t?>
Pvil!c wealth ?nd velf*rc.
Fussell E. Train
United sutcs Scnste
a, 0. C. 23S10
-------
A Summary and Analysis of
the Harbridge House Report on
Indirect Source Regulations
-------
I. Introduction.
The purpose of this summary is to: (1) highlight the economic findings
of the Harbridge House Report, The Economic and Land Use Impact of Regulations
to Review New Indirect Sources of Air Pollution Prior to Construction; and
(2) to discuss some of the assumptions and methodology Harbridge House uses
to estimate the potential costs associated with the Indirect Source Regulations.
The Harbridge House report identifies the potential range of costs
associated with indirect source review (ISR) regulations, and assesses the
impact of these costs on developers. This is accomplished through an
examination of six existing development projects. However, because of the
limited number of cases examined, this report should not be 'interpreted as
a conclusive study. Additional studies are being undertaken to provide a
more extensive sample base from which to draw more definitive conclusions..
II. Conclusions of Report.
Harbridge House identifies three types of potential costs associated with
ISR: (1) data acquisition and application preparation costs; (2) time-related
delay costs; and (3) physical design change costs. Based on the cases
examined, the report concludes that, generally, both the application and
time delay costs represent a small percentage of the total project costs
and would have an insignificant impact on the developer's ability to achieve
an acceptable rate of return on his project (see Table I).
In contrast, the report concludes that, when physical design changes are
required, there may be ^significant increases in project costs in absolute
dollar amounts. However, the report also demonstrates that it is not these
absolute dollar amounts that determine the financial viability of a project;
-------
2
rather, the crucial factor is how these dollar costs, as a proportion of
total costs,impact the developer's rate of return. This is illustrated in
five of the six cases analyzed where the increase in project costs associated
with the design changes did not prevent the developer from achievina a
desirable rate of return (see Table 1).
Another finding evident from the report is the need for developers to
anticipate ISR in their initial planning stages, thereby assuring a timely
ISR review and avoiding cny potential ISR delay costs.
In sum, Harbridge House concludes that, even in the context of today's
uncertain economic climate, ISR-related costs would not present a major
obstacle to the development industry.
III. Summary of Economic Impact Results.
The Harbridge House report reviews the estimated costs related to the
indirect source review procedures for six case studies. The case studies
include two office space facilities, two shopping centers, and two mixed
development projects which include residential, commercial and office-type
facilities. In each of the case studies, ISR review associated costs for
data acquisition, air quality, data analysis or modelling, application
processing, possible project delay costs, project design costs, and interim
financing costs are considered. Tables I and II summarize the estimated
costs resulting from these considerations for each case.
Table I summarizes the effect of the ISR process on total project costs
for these six cases. A comparison is made of project costs both with and
without ISR, as well as the percentage cost effect on the projects. Finally,
-------
3
figures are given which show the developer's return on investment without ISR
and with ISR. As the table demonstrates, the percentage increase in project
costs due to ISR was less than 1 percent in four of the six cases. In the
other two cases, ISR resulted in project cost increases of 5 percent and
21 percent for reasons which are explained below. In all but one case, Table I
demonstrates that ISR had little impact on the developer's ability to achieve
a substantial rate of return.
Table II contains a detailed breakdown of the total project costs listed
in Table I. The first cost encountered by a developer is data acquisition
and application preparation expenses which may include costs associated with
traffic analysis, air quality monitoring, air quality analysis using EPA
technical guidelines and/or diffusion modellinq, and application preparation.
For the six case studies, Harbridge House estimated that these costs range
from $3,000 to $45,000, depending on the methodology used to project air
quality. This cost element accounts for less than 0.1 percent of total
project costs in all six cases. This expense represents only 10 to 15 percent
of the developer's front-end money used to initiate the projects.
A second possible cost in the process is associated with review period
delays. This cost might result if a developer does not properly anticipate
ISR requirements in the initial planning stages of a project and thus delays
the project. In such circumstances, a developer must finance inflation costs
such as those on materials that must be purchased at a later-than-planned
date, and opportunity costs. Table II shows the rather significant economic
consequences if delays'do occur.
-------
4
If a proposed facility appears likely to violate the carbon monoxide
standard, a third cost involves physical design changes. These design
changes include such options as traffic network improvements, and mass
transit and other traffic decreasing alternatives (e.g., staggered workhours
and carpooling). The effects of these costs vary depending on the nature
of the development and the severity of the potential location. As Table II
demonstrates, costs can vary considerably.
The final cost shown on the table is for interim financing. Interim
financing is a loan that a developer may arrange to help minimize the initial
impact of design change costs. Interest rates on this kind of mid-term
loan tend to be higher than for the longer term loans used to finance the
total cost of a project. The costs associated with interim financing
combined with the design change costs are the principal sources of indirect
source review costs.
As Table II demonstrates, the effects of design change costs are likely
to be greatest for shopping centers (see Project B and F). In Project F,
design changes and interim financing would increase project costs by 21 percent.
With an 8 percent rent increase or with some public funding of design changes,
the project would be able to proceed as planned.
A breakdown of the 21 percent increase reveals that the actual design
change expense accounts for only 9 percent of project costs. The remaining
12 percent is due to the unusually high cost of interim financinq. In this
case, the interim finance cost accounts for 67 percent of total design change
costs. This is in marked contrast with the remaining five projects where
the interim financing costs range from only 3 to 10 percent of the total
-------
design costs.
The great impact that design change costs have had on Project B are
due to several circumstances. First, Project B had a marginal rate of
return even without ISR (see Table I, rate of return Project B before ISR).
Second, Project B was located in a heavily congested urban area that was
prone to carbon monoxide violations. Although the immediate area around the
project is well served by mass transit, 60 percent of the shopping center's
trade was from comnuter automobile trips by persons living outside the vicinity,
thereby exacerbating the carbon monoxide problem. Harbridge House notes,
however, that the development could be built if it were oriented to serve the
local community which has good transit service.
IV. Analysis of Assumptions and N:ethodology.
The conclusions of the study support EPA's contention that ISR will not
present a threat to the economic health of the development industry, despite
the fact that certain cost estimates in the case studies v/ere based on assump-
tions that factored in "worst-case" contingencies. Because some of the
Harbrdige House cost estimates are based on certain assumptions not reflecting
the typical situation, ISR-related cost estimates are likely to be higher than
what the majority of developers would experience.
A. Data Acquisition, Modelling, and Application Costs.
The modelling process for determining carbon monoxide impact involves
two basic steps: (1) the gathering of monitoring and other needed information,
and (2) the applying of the information to technical guidelines such as those
provided by EPA or the use of this information in a privately developed,
site-specific model. The technical guidelines are based on general assumptions
-------
6
concerning meteorological conditions and roadway situations. If the owner
or operator of a proposed facility decides to only gather the necessary
data and submit it for application to the general guidelines, the costs for
the process would range from $3,000 to $10,000. These costs would vary
according to the amount of data previously gathered for environmental impact
statement or general planning purposes.
On the other hand, if an owner or operator of a proposed facility both
gathers his own information and develops and uses a site-specific model, the
costs for the process might range from $30,000 to $45,000. The variation in
these costs would again be primarily influenced by the amount of base
information and model relevant data which has previously been made available.
The size and nature of a proposed facility makes little difference for cost
purposes.
While the Harbridge House study results generally support these cost
ranges, the methodology used in the study assumes that owners of large
perspective sources would opt for a more complete modellinq analysis rather
than initiate design changes based on the simple EPA screening technique.
Consequently, the study assumes an initial cost of $45,000 for all projects
and reduces this amount when the circumstances of the specific case studies
indicate the use of less than the total modelling process. This technique
implies that $45,000 is the norm and lesser costs are the exception. EPA
does not expect a complete modelling analysis to be necessary in the majority
of cases. Consequently, the Agency estimates that $10,000 represents a
more typical direct cost to the applicant in the indirect soured'.review.
-------
7
B. Time-Related Delay Costs..
The Harbridge House report points out that th2 costs sustained by
a developer as the result of delays caused by the review process could be
much greater than the cost associated with full scale modelling. In each
case study analyzed, Harbridge House assumes a 90-day review delay.
However, EPA expects the indirect source review procedure to be integrated
with other required permit procedures so that the applications can be
processed without delay, as rapidly as possible. In emphasizing the need
for timely review, EPA has stressed the importance of preliminary consulta-
tion with developers, so that a developer may anticipate the ISP requirements
and plan for them in his initial plannino process.
It is possible that in the initial stages of ISR implementation some
developers may experience some transitional delay costs. This would occur
only in those cases where a developer is in advanced stages of planning for
a major facility, and thus, is unable to benefit from early integration with
the ISR process. In the Harbridge House report, however, each case includes
a delay cost that should only be associated with the transitional process.
Thus, the report includes an additional cost which would not be part of the
developer's costs in most cases.
C. Physical Design Change Costs.
Some of Harbridge House's design change cost estimates are subject
to variation depending on certain key assumptions. Two examples of such
-------
8
cost assumptions are how much a developer may have already integrated improved
design into his facility and how much of the design change costs he must assume.
It is reasonable to assume that the developer may find it in his best interest
to ease traffic flow into and out of a facility. Developers, of course,
realize the advantages of improved access to their facilities and as a result
are already incorporating provisions for traffic analysis and improved desian.
Accordingly, design change costs resulting solely from ISR requirements may
prove to be the exception.
In addition, the developer may not have to bear the sole burden of design
change costs. In particular, a community may, in many cases, agree to sub-
sidize or share the costs of street or roadway redesign and reconstruction.
Such circumstances are likely to occur if a community desires the service
or tax base to be provided by the proposed facility.
While the report does address a range of possible cost variations in a
sensitivity analysis, the main body of the report reflects the higher cost
options. As the previous discussion indicates, there are other less costly
options that must be kept in mind when considering the ISR impact.
V. Federal/State Indirect Source Regulations.
Several states have already adopted indirect source regulations and
others are in the process of developing their own regulations to replace
the Federal procedures. In many cases, the state regulations are significantly
different from the Federal regulations. The Harbridge House report does not
-------
9
explain in great detail these differences. The dissimilarities primarily
pertain to the application requirements, the length of ISR review, and the
size of facilities subject to review. In forming analogies between the
operation of Federal and existing state regulations, these differences must
be carefully considered.
-------
Lonq-Term Impact (in 11 ions of dollars)
Office Park Shopping Center Mjxed Use
Project A Project E Project B Project F Project C Project D
Total Project Cost:
a. Without ISR 31.4 24.8 37.2 13.7 27.8 114
b. With ISR an4
No Delay I/ 31.4 S/ 25.0 38.9 16.6 27.8 116
Percent Increase in
Project Cost:
a, With ISR and .
No Delay 0.1 0.7 5 21 ^/ 0.02 1
Return on Investment
a. Without ISR 19.1 21 14 30 12.8 -3.9 k/
b. With ISR and .
No Delay 19 20.2 12 24.7 £/ 12.8 -4.2 £/
-' Source: Harbridge House. Assumes developer pays all costs, 12 percent annual inflation.
- Project D is financed as a tax shelter.
& With 8 percent,increase in rents.
—' The lack of difference between rows a and b is due to round off.
e/
- Without including almost two million dollars of interim financinq costs, this figure would be only 9 percent.
It is unclear from the report exactly why financinq charges are so high, accounting for approximately 67 percent
of the total design change costs, when all other projects have interim financinq that accounts for only 2.5 to
9.4 percent of the total design change costs. The rate of return, however, still is large and ISR would, therefore,
not present a real financial threat to the viability of Project F.
-' No delay means that the time period for application review could be incorporated into the developer's planning
process, such that construction of the project is not deferred'due to the review.
-------
Cost Element
Data and Application
Review Process With
No Delay
Review Process With a
90-Day Delay•£/
Physical Design
Changes
Interim Financing
for Design Changes
Office Park
Project A
3 to 45
260
0
Project E
5
863
155
19
Shopping Center
Project B Project F
35 10
Mixed Use
0
833
1550 4/
100
0
260
940
1950
Project C Project D
5 40
0 0
600 774
0 1440 S/
0 150
& Source: 6 case studies, Harbridge House.
y Harbridge House analysed Project A assuming maximum application cost of $45,000. However, if the EPA technical
guidelines were applied, data acquisition and application costs would only amount to $3,000.
£/ This figure is included to indicate what may be a transitional cost for some developers at the initial stages of
ISR Implementation. Certain developers may already be in advanced stages of the planning process at the
January 1, 1975 deadline and, thus, may experience some delays at the beginning of ISR program. It is expected
that the majority of applicants who properly plan for ISR in their initial planning stages will experience no delay.
-------
Present Status of State Actions on
Indirect Source and Parking Management Programs
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working with
affected states and localities to establish state and/or local regulations
which would replace the Federal regulations for indirect source and parking
management reviews.
Indirect source review plans are required for all areas of the United
States. At this time, 16 states and two territories have submitted Indirect
source regulations for approval by EPA. Six plans have been approved, three
plans have been disapproved, and nine plans are pending. In addition, several
other states are preparing to submit their regulations to EPA for approval;
still other states intend to adopt the Federal regulations.
Although the Federal indirect source regulations do not become effective
until January 1, 1975, some state regulations are effective at an earlier date.
Consequently, some states have already begun implementing indirect source
review plans. The following table summarizes the approval status of state
indirect source plans:
IS Plans IS Plans Pending Plan Approvals or
Approved by EPA Disapproved by EPA Imminent Plan Submissions
Alabama Maine Connecticut Washington
Florida New York Idaho Colorado
Kentucky Virginia Nebraska Delaware
N. Carolina Nevada District of
Guam New Hampshire Columbia
Virgin Islands Oregon Georgia
Vermont Mi nnesota
W. Virginia
-------
2
Parking management regulations are to take effect in some 20 metropolitan
areas on June 30, 1975. Already, several localities are actively developing
comprehensive parking management plans to replace the Federal regulations.
Other areas are in the initial stages of developing local plans and additional
areas have expressed an interest in developing such plans. The following
table summarizes the status of parking management plans:
Comprehensive Plan Beginning Plan
Development Development
Portland Philadelphia
Seattle Washington, D. C.
Los Angeles Boston
San Francisco
San Diego
Sacramento
Fresno
EPA expects a significant amount of additional Iocs! plan development
prior to the June 30, 1975 effective date for the parking management regulations
-------