September 1976
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
                                     Office of Research and Development
                                    U.S. Environmenta; Protection Agency
                                         Washington, D.C. 2046C


Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  have been grouped into five  series  These five  broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields
The five series are:
     1.    Environmental Health Effects Research
     2    Environmental Protection Technology
     3    Ecological Research
     4.    Environmental Monitoring
     5.    Socioeconomic  Environmental Studies

This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management.
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and forecast-
ing,  and analysis methodologies  Included are  tools  for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques at
the regional, state, and local levels; and approaches to measuring environmental
quality perceptions, as well as analysis of ecological and economic impacts of
environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial mix,
growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms of
optimal environmental performance These interdisciplinary studies and systems
analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses to
management and policy-oriented reports
This document is available to the public through the National Technical informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161

                                            May 1976


             J. Dern, J. Cole
           B. Fallen, J. Heller
           S. Rickey, J. Koines
                R.  Sanson
         Contract No.  68-01-3243
             Project Officers
               Isabel Reiff
     Office of Planning and Evaluation
                Ed Twcroey
Office of Transportation and land Use Policy
               PREPARED FOR
          WASHINGTON,  D.C. 20460
                                EPA - RTP LIBRARY

     This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

                                      RQPFRTY  OF
     The Agency's many lesislative mandates,  calling  for  improved
environmental quality nationwide,  specify delegation  of authority to
state or designated regional and local governments  for runplementation
of the programs.  In addition,  the legislation requires consideration
of nonstructural concepts for reducing pollution, as  well as  the
traditional control technology approaches.

     Environmental management research is directed  toward improving
the capabilities of state,  regional,  and local governments for
instituting and managing environmental programs by  providing  them with
improved information and methods for  identifying and  describing
alternative solutions to specific environmental problems  and  for
selecting and implementing the best solution.

     The program considers four fundamental functions performed by
public administrators:  planning,  evaluation,  iirplementation, and
enforcement.  It emphasizes intermedia and secondary  effects  of
environmental management actions,  implementation incentives and
institutional arrangements, and consideration of the  complete range of
implementation measure, including economic incentives, land use
management measures, and public education programs, as well as the
traditional regulatory mechanisms.

     The management of parking spaces in urban areas  as an incentive
to reduce the use of automobiles is an example of a nonstructural
approach to mobile-source emission control.   Such an  approach, while
simple in theory, can be ineffectual  if the social, psychological,
institutional, and economic aspects of the proposed program are not
considered and included in the plan.   This report stresses these
aspects of parking management planning, and places  less emphasis on
the computational aspects of determining actual reduction of  vehicle-
iniles traveled, which are presented in detail in references listed in
the bibliography.

     This report defines the concept of parking management and
explores how parking management can be used to iirprove air quality,
support mass transit, reduce energy consumption and iitprove the
amenities of life in urban areas.  Specific aspects of this analysis
were developments of a prototype parking management plan for the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area illustrating types of measures
which can be used for parking management; evaluation of the
socioeconomic impacts of parking measures in the plan and their
effectiveness in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improving
air quality; development of a parking management planning process
which integrates local and regionwide planning through the use of
regional guidelines.

     Four target areas in the D.C. region were studied in detail:  the
D.C. Core, Rosslyn, Va., Silver Spring, Md., and Centreville, Va.  A
regional plan was then developed from information gathered in the
target area studies, including an analysis of regionwide parking
related goals and problems.

                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
I    Summary 	   1
     A.  Goals of This Study	   1
     B.  Definition of Parking Management  	   1
     C.  A Parking Management Plan for the Washington,
         D.C. Area	   3
     D.  Major Findings of the Study	   7
     E.  Sensitivity of the Analysis	13
     F.  Possible Future EPA Roles	14

II   Introduction	15
     A.  Objectives of this Parking Management Study ' .  15
     B.  Assumptions	16
     C.  Background	16
     D.  Definition of Parking Management  	  20
     E.  EPA's Role	24

III  Alternative Parking Management Planning Processes
     for a Region	29
     A.  Local Parking Management - Planning and
         Implementation  	  30
     B.  Regional Frameworks for Planning  	  34
     C.  Three Approaches to Parking Management
         Planning	40

IV   Procedures for Parking Management Planning. ...  56
     A.  Introduction	56
     B.  Technical Analysis of Plans 	  56
     C.  Means for Analyzing Institutional Framework  .  60
     D.  Techniques for Evaluating Socioeconomic
         Impacts	61
     E.  The Community Planning Process  	  64

V    Parking Management Planning Process Applied to
     the Washington, D.C. Area	69
     A.  The Target Area Approach	69
     B.  Methodology for Selecting Target Areas  ...  71

      C.   Summary of Target Area Studies	74
      D.   Parking Provided by the Federal Government  85

 VI   Evaluation of Measures for the Regional Plan .   94
      A.   Introduction	94
      B.   Evaluation of Data from the Target Area
          Studies	94
      C.   Parking Measures Considered for the Re-
          gional Plan	101
      D.   Evaluation of Measures	108

 VII  The Regional Plan	112
      A.   Introduction	112
      B.   Strategy #1: Residential Permit System
          and Limits on On-Street Commuter Parking .  112
      C.   Strategy #2: Increased Parking Rates and
          Preferential Carpool Parking 	  114
      D.   Strategy #3: Transit Support Through
          Additional Park  'n Ride Lots	118
      E.   Strategy #4: Zoning and Land Use Controls.  120
      F.   Summary	121

VIII  Socioeconomic Impact of the Regional Plan  . .  123
      A.   Introduction	123
      B.   Impacts on Population Subgroups  	  123
      C.   Impact on Auto Commuters	127
      D.   Impact on Transit	128
      E.   Impact on Economic Growth and Development.  131

 IX   Air Quality and Energy Impacts	133
      A.   Present Air Quality	133
      B.   Air Quality Projections	135
      C.   Air Quality Impact of Parking Plan  ....  140
      D.   The Energy Impact	146









  D.C. Residential Permit Parking Program	162

  Methodology for Surveys of Private Employers with
  Regard to Employee Parking 	 169

  Steps in Assessing the Air Quality Impact of a
  Parking Management Plan	172


     The authors wish to acknowledge  the contributions of a
number of individuals that aided in the development of this
report.  In particular, recognition is given to the continuing
support and guidance provided by the  U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Project Officers, Ms. Isabel Relff of the Office of
Planning and Evaluation and Mr. Ed Twomey of the Office of Trans-
portation and Land Use Policy.   Additional assistance from EPA
was provided by Joel Horowitz and Jack Hidinger from the Office
of Air and Waste Management, Charles  N. Ehler and Roger Shull
from the Office of Research and Development and Ed Vollberg from
EPA Region III.

     Special thanks also go to members of the Washington Council
of Governments, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
and the planning authorities for Fairfax,  Arlington and Montgomery
Counties and the District of Columbia.  Patricia McCormack provided
invaluable support in the editing,  preparation  and typing of the
final manuscript.

                        CHAPTER I
A.   Goals of the Study

     This study seeks to define the concept of parking manage-
ment and explore how parking management can be used to improve
air quality, support mass transit, reduce energy consumption and
improve the amenities of life in urban areas.  Specific goals of
this study are:

     •  to develop a prototype parking management plan for the
        Washington, D.C. metropolitan area illustrating types
        of measures which can be used for parking management;
     •  to evaluate the socioeconomic impacts of the parking
        measures in the plan and their effectiveness in reduc-
        ing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and improving air
     •  To develop a parking management planning process which
        integrates local and regioriwide planning through the use
        of regional guidelines.

Four target areas in the D.C. region were studied in detail  (Fi-
gure 1):   the D.C. Core, Rosslyn, Va., Silver Spring, Md., and
Centreville, Va.  A regional plan was then developed from informa-
tion gathered in the target area studies, including an analysis of
regionwide parking related goals and problems.

B.   Definition of Parking Management

     Parking management is a relatively new concept designed to
redress policies of unrestrained support of automobile use in favor

                                              FIGURE 1
Target Areas
1  D.C. Core
2  Rosslyn
3  Silver Spring
4  Centreville

         4    Fairfa

of a more balanced approach to transportation which includes
mass transit, carpooling, walking and bicycling.  Parking
management is a process as well as a plan, a strategy as well
as a specific list of parking measures.  It requires political
commitment, institutional coordination and a defined planning
process with articulated goals and public involvement as well
as technical analyses.

     Over the short term, parking management cannot be effective
without improved public transportation.  Over the long term, park-
ing management policies can affect land use decisions and ulti-
mately the shape of urban growth to decrease the use of the auto-

C.   A Parking Management Plan for the Washington D.C. Area

     Insufficient time and resources were available to develop
detailed plans for all portions of the D.C. area, an effort which
should properly be done by local governments acting in conjunc-
tion with regional transportation, land use and air quality planners.

     Alternatively, four major types of parking strategies were iden-
t\fied as applicable to the region.  The four strategies and the
potential reduction in auto-driver trips which might be expected
from them are given in Table  1.  Table 2 shows these trip re-
ductions as a percentage of total trips.  The calculations are
explained in Chapter VII.  The proposed strategies are delineated

     1.  Residential Parking  Permit Systems and Removal of
         On-Street Commuter Parking

     These measures will preserve the integrity of residential
neighborhoods from overflow   commuter parking and restrict the
access of commuters to free parking, thus effectively raising their
parking rates and diverting them to transit or carpools. It also
will improve traffic flow.  These measures must be implemented before

                                       TABLE 1
                                              Auto Driver Trip Reduction
                                     Without Additional        by 1980      by 1990
 1.  Residential Permit Systems
     and Limits to On-Street
     Commuter Parking
Parking Price Increase
and Preferential Carpool

Transit Support Through**
Additional Park 'n Ride
Lots for Buses
 4.  Zoning and Land Use Controls
 * The numbers presented here are only intended as indicators of parking management impacts.
   Due to the nature of these strategies, such numbers cannot be rigorously derived.  The
   numbers reflected impacts on commute trips plus associated non-home based trips.
   Planned Metro lots will accommodate 30,000 automobiles but are not credited as a
   parking management measure.

parking rates can be increased so that the free parking option
is eliminated.  Regional guidelines would provide model ordi-
nances and set criteria for determining the types of neighbor-
hoods where the ordinances would apply.  These measures together
could reduce auto driver trips by   14,500    by 1990.

     2.  Increased Parking Rates and Preferential Carpool

     Parking is heavily subsidized by employers (both private and
government), by building rents, by businesses and by local communi-
ties.  As a result, commuters pay only about half the real cost
of parking.  If subsidies were reduced, the cost of auto driving
will increase, diverting commuters to transit or carpools.  In
conjunction with improved transit and carpooling incentives,
this measure could potentially eliminate 46,000 auto driver trips
in the D.C. area by 1990.  Regional guidelines would suggest po-
tential ways to raise parking rates through voluntary reductions
of employer subsidies, restrictions on parking supplies to allow
gradual rate increases, and imposition of parking taxes or selec-
tively applied surcharges.

     3.  Transit Support Through Park  'n Ride Facilities

     Two parking considerations are critical to the success of
bus and rail mass transit:

     •  restrictions of parking supply at major employment centers
        which raise parking prices and increase transit demand;
     •  provision of adequate parking at transit stops  outside
        the Core to intercept auto commute trips and make transit
        more accessible.

     The first consideration was addressed by strategies 1 and
2.  By 1990, these two strategies could reduce daily auto driver
trips by 60,300 and increase transit trips by  17,000.
Park 'n ride lots for express buses and outer rail stations will
also increase transit ridership.   Currently planned bus and rail
lots will eliminate 90,000 auto driver trips by 1990 while addi-
tional park  'n ride facilities could eliminate another 13,000 trips.

     Together, the measures suggested in the regional plan will
increase transit ridership by 20,700   by 1980 and 123,000 by 1990.1;/
These riders would contribute about $10 million per year in addi-
tional transit revenue by 1980.

     Regional guidelines will support mass transit by allocating
fringe and rail station parking to each jurisdiction based on such
factors as population, transit  service, income and travel patterns.
This would help guarantee adequate parking supply in the face of
considerable citizen opposition to additional parking at Metro
rail station sites.

     4.  Zoning and Land Use Controls

     Zoning and land use controls influence both parking supply
and demand.  Zoning codes may artificially Inflate parking supplies
by requiring that developers construct a;  .east a set number of
spaces.  Where mass transit is  available, zoning requirements could
instead impose maximum limits on the number of spaces allowed.
Alternatively, they could set a minimum of zero spaces and let
builders determine the appropriate parking supply, or they could
require a parking analysis, similar to an environmental impact
assessment, for new construction.
I/ Assumes  an  occupancy  rate of  1.4 persons per car and diversion
   of  33% of all  auto  drivers and passengers affected by the measures,
   For  trips to the  Core,  the diversion rate to transit is assumed
   to  be  56%.

     Parking demand, on the other hand, is largely determined
by land use plans which influence the demand for automobile
trips and parking.  Mixed use zoning can reduce parking demand
by combining residential and employment areas, thus reducing
the need for long commute trips.

     By 1990, auto driver trips would be reduced by 185,000
if land use plans in the Washington, D.C. area became more transit-
oriented, and parking supplies are reduced through changes in zon-
ing codes.  Regional guidelines to reach this objective would
recommend general growth patterns, suggest model zoning codes
and require parking impact analyses.

      5.  Summary

     As noted in  Table  1, these strategies can be ranked in terms
of their effectiveness  as follows:

     1)  Zoning and Land Use Controls
     2)  Rate Increases and Preferential Carpool Parking
     3)  Transit  Support Through Park  'n Ride Lots
     4)  Residential Permit Systems and Commuter On-Street Bans

Long term measures  are  by far the most effective and least pain-
ful.  They  involve  basic changes in growth patterns toward more
"transit-effective" land uses.  Rather than rapidly changing exist-
ing patterns, long term measures gradually alter the urban infrastruc-
ture so that it supports transit rather than auto commuting.

D.   Major  Findings of  the Study

     Data gathered  in the target area studies and evaluation of
the regional plan for the Washington, D.C. area supports the
following major conclusions concerning the parking management

planning process and the impacts of the plan,
General Findings
     Parking management can be  an effective means of reducing
     automotive air pollutants  only  if  there  is  a large volume
     of easily divertable, concentrated (i.e. home-to-core)
     Parking management will become  a less effective means of
     reducing automotive pollutants  on  an absolute basis  as  the
     average emission  rate for  the population of cars  is  lowered
     through improved  engine design  and emission control  devices,
     i.e.,  eliminating a vehicle-mile traveled by a  "clean"  car
     reduces pollution less than a similar VMT reduction  for an
     older  "dirty"car.
     Parking management has significant energy conservation  and
     congestion-reduction benefits through VMT reduction  irre-
     spective of the pollutant emission  characteristics of the
     auto population.
     Parking management measures must be carefully timed  to
     coincide with improvements in mass transit.  Unless  this
     is done, the  measures will cause severe  economic  disloca-
     tion in certain areas and  as a  result will  be politically
     difficult or  impossible to implement.
     Parking measures  can have  diverse  social and economic im-
     pacts  on various  areas within a region depending  on  each
     area's economic health and attractiveness,  stage  of  develop-
     ment,  and mix of  land uses.  For this reason, measures  must
     be carefully  tailored to local  conditions in each community
     of a region.  For example, parking supply restrictions  in
     Rosslyn would not have adverse  economic  impacts while the
     same measures in  Silver Spring  could damage its potential
     for economic  growth.

Parking in the Washington, D.C. area is heavily subsidized
by the Federal government and by many local governments.
This conflicts with the publicly expressed goals of diverting
people from automobiles to reduce congestion, conserve energy,
improve air quality and support transit.  Federal parking ac-
counts for 25 percent of all Core area parking and costs
an average of $9 per month as compared to $20-$60 per month
in commercial spaces.  An increase in Federal parking prices to $40
per month would increase Federal revenues by $ 14  million.
Legal barriers may exist to raising Federal rates and using
the additional revenue for transit support.

Private employers frequently subsidize employees' parking.  In
addition, office rents often pay part of the development costs
of garage facilities.  If parking rates reflected the eco-
nomic value of development and land costs, average parking
prices could double, deterring the use of single passenger
automobiles where lower cost transit is available.
Developers, office building tenants, and indirectly con-
sumers bear the substantial costs of building parking faci-
lities.  The proposed parking measures would reduce new
parking supply in the D.C. Core, saving up to $ 30 million
annually in development costs by 1990.
Regional coordination is needed in parking management plan-
ning to achieve such regional goals as the support of mass
transit, the improvement of air quality, and the reduction
of congestion.   However, local governments should retain the
responsibility for detailed planning and implementation of
parking measures to fit local needs.   A proposed local/re-
gional planning process is diagrammed in Figure 2 which in-
corporates regional guidelines developed through a regional
coordinating body, to which local parking plans should corres-

                      FIGURE  2


Goals Problem
Identification 	 ^ Assessment
(Regional) • Growth




Adoption o.f
^ Regional

' Guidelines
by Regional
• Transportation
• Transit
• Mr Quality

Input) x





Goals Problem
Identification v Assessment
• Growth

• Parking
Supply and



Adoption of

by Local







. Analysis
• Trips

> Parking
• Impacts
• Institu-









• Goals
• Impacts
• Institu-
• Techni-
• Sensi-








l menta-








Findings Related to the Parking Plan for the D.C. Area

1.   The parking management measures proposed for the D.C.
     area would significantly reduce auto-driver trips.  It
     is estimated that 267,500 auto-driver trips per day could
     be eliminated through parking management by 1990.  Assuming
     1.4 persons per car, 374,500 person trips daily would be
     eliminated which compares with an existing daily Metrobus
     ridership of 400,000-450,000.  Table 2   shows the per-
     centage reductions in commuter and non-home-based trips
     due to parking management measures for 1980 and 1990.

2.   By 1980, 74,300 auto driver trips should be eliminated
     diverting approximately 20,700 people to Metro rail
     or bus and increasing Metro revenues by approximately
     $10 million.   This would substantially reduce the $102
     million transit deficit which local governments will be
     expected to absorb.   By 1990, after completion of the
     rail system,  parking management measures could add 123,000
     riders and $60 million in revenue which could allow Metro
     to generate an operating profit.
3.    The 267,500 auto-driver tri^o per day eliminated by
     parking measures will have more impact on transit rider-
     ship,  carpooling, and the reduction of congestion than
     on air quality.   By 1990, they are estimated to reduce
     pollutant emissions less than 2 percent.  While this figure
     may appear small in an absolute sense, it must be kept in
     mind that by 1990 automobiles on the road will be "clean"
     automobiles and stationary source controls will have elimi-
     nated much of the remaining automobile related pollutants.
     All other remaining automobile control measures including
     parking management will, therefore, not show large percentage
     pollutant reductions but may still be necessary to achieve
     the primary standards as well as show the energy savings and
     quality of life benefits.

                                TABLE 2
                        DUE TO PARKING MANAGEMENT
                                 Percent Trip Reduction

                             1980                  1990
                                 Non-Home               Non-Home
                       Commute    based      Commute     based
Existing Measures

Proposed Parking
   Use Measures

Proposed Zoning and
   Land Use Measures

4.   The most valuable measures in reducing auto-driver trips
     were long range measures including zoning modifications
     and land  use  controls.   These  measures  are  relatively  painless
     because they result in gradual lifestyle  adjustments
     caused by more transit-oriented growth patterns.

E.   Sensitivity of the Analysis

     Estimates of parking supply and demand, area growth
patterns, changes in the modal split etc., are precarious at
best.  EEA numbers are only intended as indicators of the
relative effectiveness of various measures and the order of
magnitude impact of the proposed parking management planning
process.  Some of the study's findings about the effectiveness
of parking management, however, could be altered by changes
in several assumptions.

     While proposing measures that are more stringent than
those that local commuters would choose without outside
influence, the study accepts local jurisdiction goals.  If
implementation is not a local function, then much more
stringent measures could be utilized.  However, EPA exper-
ience indicates that local goals must be given more, not
less, consideration if parking management is to succeed.

      The study concentrated  on  the home-to-work  trip  as  the
one  most easily divertable to  transit  by  parking  management;
although one  non-home-based  work trip  was eliminated  for
every two home-to-work  trips diverted.  While other  trips
could be affected,  the  problem remains that only  7 percent
of all  auto-drivers  trips are  home-to-core  work  trips  (those
most easily divertable).  And,  with the addition  of  emissions
controls,  autos will  be accounting for a  smaller  proportion
of air  quality problems.  Consequently, realistic changes  in
the  proposed  approach are unlikely to  dramatically change  the
conclusions about air quality  impacts.

     Modal splits developed by WMATA were used, except where
better data could be developed.  Failure to achieve the projected.
diversion to transit would increase parking demand and probably
improve the 'effectiveness of the proposed plan in terms of
auto-driver trips reduced.  However, the number of auto-driver
trips diverted to transit as opposed  to 'carpools would
probably decline.  Consequently, the impact on transit
deficits could become less significant.

      The qualitative conclusions are relatively  insensitive  to
changes in  the study's assumptions.  The conclusion that  park-
ing management planning  can play a  significant role in  reducing
reliance on the  automobile for  commuting will  be supported under
almost any  assumption.   The quantitative conclusions, air quality
improvement,  transit deficit reductions, energy  savings,  etc., are
sensitive  to  changes in  the assumptions.   However, to further re-
fine  these  calculations  at this time would be  of little value in
developing  a  parking management planning process.

F.    Possible Future EPA Roles

      In the future, EPA  can take several approaches to  parking
management.   EPA's  dilemma is  that  it  is the  agency responsi-
ble  for protection  of the public health from  automotive pol-
lution.   However, parking management cannot succeed without
 support from  the transportation establishment.  Potential
 roles that the Agency might assume include the following:

       •  Stipulations in Amendments to the Clean Air Act that
          cities with severe air quality problems must  accom-
          plish  a parking management planning  process that in-
          corporates certain parking management  measures.  For
          example,  most  polluted cities might  be required to
           incorporate vehicle  free  zones,  lower  rates for short-
           term parkers,  commercial  rates and maximum rather  than

minimum zoning criteria (parking spaces/square feet).
Cities violating health standards but not by much would
be required to incorporate less strenuous parking manage-
ment measures such as on-street parking bans and fast
bus lanes.   EPA's role could involve the review and ap-
proval of the process and measures.

EPA would be authorized to fund local and regionwide
planning agencies  in parking management planning and im-
plementation.  In  most cases,  this  funding would be in
conjunction with DOT and/or EPA's Section 208  (water)
planning efforts.

EPA  could be  given the authority  to approve  or disapprove
parking planning  in conjunction with applications  for
UMTA transit  grants for those  cities and  associated
measures  stipulated in the  first  solution above.
EPA  could have review  authority with regard  to the annual
transportation planning process,  particularly  the  deter-
mination  of  consistency.   In  other  words,  for  the  cities
and  measures  specified in the first solution above,  EPA
could disapprove  transportation  plans that did not meet
the  parking  management requirements stipulated pursuant
to the first  solution  above.

                           CHAPTER  II
A.   Objectives of this Parking Management Study

     The purpose of this  study is to develop an example parking
management planning process  for the Washington, D.C. area, which
is also applicable to other  areas.  The  study will provide:

     •  a definition of parking management;
     •  the explanation of a parking management process
        that communities  can use to develop parking management
        plans including the  development  of institutional
        approaches to achieving, in concert, regionwide and
        community goals;
     •  illustrative case studies at the community level
        which show how communities should relate to regionwide
        institutions and how reliable technical analyses
        can be accomplished;
     •  a prototypical parking management plan for the D.C.
        area which, while it is not geographically complete,
        nor in all respects  technically  at the state-of-the-
        art  (due to resource and time constraints), does
        provide users with an example framework for a regionwide
        plan and handbook guidance on how to prepare a complete

B.   Assumptions

     This study includes a number of assumptions which may
limit the applicability of its conclusions.  The most impor-
tant assumptions are:
     •  This study accepts local jurisdictions' goals as
        expressed in interviews and planning documents.
        However, the stringency of proposed measures
        often exceeds what  communities would choose without
        outside influence.
     •  The bus and rail transit system will presumably be
        developed and completed by The Washington Metropolitan
        Area Transit Authority  (WMATA) as planned.
     •  WMATA1s estimates of modal split to transit in 1980
        and 1990 are accepted, except where alternative
        projections are noted.
     •  The study concentrates on the home-to-work trip as
        the one most easily diverted to transit by parking
        restraint measures.  One non-home based work trip
        was presumably eliminated for every two home-to-work
        trips diverted.

     •   It  is  assumed  that  in  the core,  55 percent  and
         elsewhere  35 percent,  of the  people diverted away
         from  auto-commuting by parking  management measures
        will make  the  trip  by  transit.   The  remainder will
         use carpools.
     •   While  parking  management planning  may  be  shared by
         local  and  regional  governments,  implementation will
         remain a  local  function.

 C.   Background

     This study develops  a  parking  management  process which,
 when carried  out  in  a  coordinated manner by  local and  regional
 government  agencies, results  in a parking  management plan

th at realistically reflects what can be  implemented.
Realism  in this context means a plan which reflects mean-
ingful local and regional community goals.

     Under the Clean Air Act, states were required to submit
implementation plans by January 30, 1972 containing strategies
demonstrating how national ambient air quality standards would
be achieved by 1975, or in selected difficult cases by 1977.
EPA encountered serious problems in metropolitan areas where
vehicle  emission controls were not sufficient to ensure the
attainment of the standards.

     In  response to a court action precipitated by the Natural
Resources Defense Council, EPA agreed to develop plans to reduce
traffic  in twenty-nine  metropolitan areas.  A delay was granted
until February 15, 1973 to study and then select a combination
of transportation controls including carpooling,  mass transit
usage and motor vehicle restraints to reduce emissions.  Ulti-
mately,  plans for these twenty-nine areas were finalized in late
1973.  However, EPA was primarily responsible for development
of these plans because there was little time to obtain local input

     Parking management was an element in nineteen of the trans-
portation control plans (TCP).  It was defined solely in terms of
the inclusion of parking measures such as on-street parking bans,
the imposition of commercial parking charges in lieu of sub-
sidized  parking, and vehicle free zones.  Considerable resis-
tance to implementation of TCP measures was encountered and
the parking management portions of most TCP's were ultimately
withdrawn or delayed indefinitely.  Congressional action and
other difficulties have precluded further EPA efforts to im-
plement  parking management as a part of transportation control
planning, however, the need for action to improve air quality
in cities like Washington, D.C. remains.

     The concept of limiting the supply and controlling the
price of parking remains a method for reducing reliance on the
automobile and improving air quality.  Additional benefits flow
from this approach including the aesthetic improvements in areas
free of auto traffic, reduced congestion, less noise, and improved
energy efficiency.  The purpose of this research effort is to
develop the concept of parking management further in an effort
to define it more precisely.  This is important because it is
possible that EPA's failure to implement parking management is
largely a failure to develop the appropriate institutional arrange-
ments.  This possibility is abundantly illustrated by the Washing-
ton, D.C. experience.  Washington's parking management plan was
technically a well-developed document.  Unlike most parking
management plans, it was primarily a non-EPA product.  The ap-
proach proposed by EPA in late 1973 was almost wholly developed
by the technical staff of the areawide (D.C., Maryland and Vir-
ginia) Council of Government's staff.  The chief provision of the
parking management plan was a measure to eliminate subsidized
parking throughout the central core and the densely populated
non-core centers.  For those areas adequately serviced by the
new $4 . 5 billion Metro mass transit system, an  additional parking
surcharge was to be imposed to provide an incentive for increased
mass transit utilization.

     After a lukewarm reception by the local newspapers, the
D.C. plan met increasing opposition.  Finally, the Congress
withdrew EPA's power  to implement the key parking charge pro-
vision.   Reflecting on the two years of effort by local com-
munities and the COG  staff, the leading COG  staff official
responsible for developing  the D.C. area parking management
plan could say in March 1975 that "while we  worked on this project
for two years, even today we do not know what parking management
is."  This astonishing statement has several possible conse-
quences.  Perhaps EPA knew  but the community did not understand;

Or, perhaps there is no technical basis for believing that
parking management can reduce automobile use and thereby im-
prove air quality.  Neither of these explanations is likely.
Much more probable is that EPA and COG viewed the development
of parking management as a technical task, whereas above all
it is a political and institutional effort.

     A hypothesis underlying the development of this project is
that a flaw in the D.C. parking management plan was its lack
of grassroots institutional support.  Communities had not fo-
cused on parking management and identified their goals as con-
sistent with it.  Institutions were not developed which could
serve as community focal points for goal setting, conflict re-
solution, and on-going technical analysis.  Evidence to support
this hypothesis is abundant.  Communities in the D.C. area do
not feel responsible for the plan, nor did they have a large role
in its development.  The plan is homogenous across the entire
2.8 million population region whereas the economic situations
of the communities vary, their  access  to mass transit is dif-
ferent, and their political objectives are diverse.

     Part of the difficulty with parking management in the D.C.
area can be attributed to time and resources.  Months, not years,
were available to develop a plan, yet institutional under-
standing and technical knowledge were practically non-exis-
tent.  Few Federal or local resources were available.  The
fact that proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act in the
House and Senate would provide millions of dollars to build
and support such institutions indicates the institutional ob-
stacles to parking management are being recognized.

D.   Definition of Parking Management

     1.   Overall Purpose

     Parking management is a new concept  related  to the broader
issue of managing automobile traffic in cities  in a manner
to achieve a better balance between automobile  use on the one
hand, and public transit, car pooling, bicycling and walking,
on the other.  It is a new concept because historically  the
provision of parking supply in U.S. cities has  been keyed to
the objective of maximizing the supply of parking in relationship
to demand.  Parking supplies have only been  constrained by the
willingness of employers and business to  pay for the cost of
providing spaces to workers and shoppers.  The  evidence is
abundant that many commuters pay far less than  commercial rates
for parking.  One survey in the District  of  Columbia found that
56 percent parked free and over 80 percent paid $1.00 per day
or less.
     If public policy shifts in favor of  a transportation policy
balanced among modes, recourse must be taken to one or several
methods of increasing the cost of automobile travel.    A gasoline
tax is one approach, but it has little political appeal.  It
is also indiscriminate in application, impacting all drivers.
Bridge tolls are another alternative with many  advantages,
but in the District of Columbia tolls are unpalatable because
of jurisdictional differences which resist a "commuter tax."
Another possible automotive restraint is  congestion itself.
I/  See G.  K.  Miller and K.  M.  Goodman, "The Shirley Highway
    Express-Bus-on Freeway Demonstration Project—The First
    Year Results," UMTA,  November,  1972.
2/  Of course  non-automotive modes  can be subsidized but experience
    has shown  that even with substantial public transportation
    subsidies, high transit ridership is difficult to attain.

Even with abundant parking, great congestion can increase
driving times to the point that public transportation will be
favored.  However, congestion has drawbacks:  it worsens
pollution and ties up buses as well as cars.  By the process
of elimination one is led to parking management.

     2.   Parking Management - What is it?

     Parking management encompases all policies that attempt
to tailor the supply of parking to demand so as to increase
the price and scarcity of parking in order that automobile
drivers have an added incentive to shift to other modes or
at least car pool.  Among the list of parking management tools
are the following:

     •  strict enforcement of parking meter conditions and
        time limits for on-street parking spaces;
     •  residential sticker systems to give priority access
        to residents over lower priority uses such as commuter
     •  park'n ride and kiss'n ride facilities for public
     •  maximum parking space limits per square foot of newly
        constructed floor space instead of the currently
        prevailing minimum limits;
     •  higher rates for off-street parking, including applica-
        tion of "commercial rates" to currently subsidized

     •  altered parking rates to make short-term parking
        cheaper relative to long-term parking to favor
        shopping  trips over commute trips;
     •  ceilings  on new parking space construction including
        moratoria on parking construction;

     •  on-street parking bans to facilitate vehicle flows,
        particularly bus service; and
     •  vehicle free zones to open street areas to serve as
        in-town shopping centers.

     3.  Selectivity

     The chief advantage of parking management as a vehicle
restraint approach is its selectivity.  In a particular
community in need of commercial revival, without expanding
the supply of parking the price of short-term shopper
parking can be reduced and all-day prices can be increased
to attract shoppers and shift commuters to public transit.
If, as is the case in Washington, D.C., it is desired to
provide parking at the outer fringe of the new public transit
system while reducing it at the down-town terminus, parking
management can be applied to the appropriate Metro-served

     4.   Limits on Parking Management

     In the short run, the ability of a community to manage
parking to restrain automobile use is limited by the
capacity of available transit systems to pick up the diverted
automobile traffic without undue cost or inconveniences to
the travelers.  In other words, parking management must go
hand-in-hand with improved public transportation.

     In the long run, parking management can be employed in
conjunction with land use planning to help alter the shape
of cities.  If growth takes place at nodes or housing-office
complexes where work opportunities and residences are co-
located, then reduced parking spaces per capita can help
insure that growth does not sprawl unnecessarily.

     It is difficult to envision the consequences of long-
range application of land use patterns intentionally designed
not to be automobile-dominated.  Coordinated application of
land use and zoning practices with parking management and
augmented transit in Washington, D.C., for example, would
take at least a decade to yield a discernably different land
use pattern.  However, a North American city of similar size
to Washington, D.C. opted for transit dominance about the same
time Washington, D.C. was encircled by the Beltway, symbolic
of its commitment to the automobile.  The results are
summarized in Table 3  below.

                           TABLE  3

           1973 Comparative Data on Washington, D.C.
                      and Toronto. Canada
Fixed Rail Transit Miles
Transit Trips Per Day
Washington, D.C.
2.9 million
257 sq. miles
2.8 million
240 sq. miles
     Toronto is widely acclaimed as one of the most
liveable modern western cities.  For over a decade/ Toronto's
growth has been shaped around public transit.  Special parking
has been provided near transit stations and downtown parking
has been limited.  One consequence,for a city smaller
than Washington, D.C. by about one-fourth and of a lesser
population density/is a three-fold higher transit ridership.

     Ultimately, the 98 mile Washington, D.C. Metro system
in conjunction with buses is projected in the 1990's to carry
1.2 million riders.  This can only be accomplished if suppor-
tive land use and transit policies are adopted.

     5.   Goals and Institutions

     Accomplishing parking management planning is in large
part a political and institutional task.  Technical brilliance
cannot substitute for community commitment to a revised role
for the automobile.  Previous efforts by EPA to implement
parking management have consisted largely of the mechanical
application on a regionwide basis of the parking management
tools described earlier.  This report develops an alternative
approach.  Its emphasis is on harmonizing regionwide and
community goals.  Only at the regional level can meaningful
policies to improve air quality, operate public transit systems,
coordinate major highway transportation and save energy through
travel reductions be adopted.  Likewise, some regional-level
coordination is necessary to avoid economic inequities among
communities if some impose parking management controls and
others do not; alternatively, regionwide coordination is key
to insuring that economically troubled communities are not
damaged by parking measures adopted without concern for the
local economy.  Yet only at the community level (25,000 to
150,000 people) do all considerations that bear on parking
supply and demand converge.  These include the essential
needs for residential and shopping parking.  Likewise, only
at the community level are zoning and parking ordinances
employed as part of land use planning and only at the community
level does day-to-day policing of parking take place.

E.   EPA's Role

     1.   From Facility-by-Facility Reviews to Parking
          Management Plans

     EPA's indirect source and parking management efforts
have been suspended despite  considerable effort to develop
a viable strategy.  First, in 1973 controls were to be

implemented to reduce carbon monoxide pollution near new
parking facilities of 1,000 spaces or larger in SMSA1s and
2,000 spaces or larger in non-SMSA communities.  These
requirements were part of the indirect source regulations.
Later in 1973 EPA proposed that nineteen cities particularly
troubled by automobile pollution, implement a more elaborate
parking management approach.  This approach applied to new
parking facilities larger than 250 spaces.  It was a separate
parking facility review regulation that took shape as part of
EPA's efforts to finalize transportation control plans in
major U.S. cities.  Those who proposed to build parking
facilities in these cities had to demonstrate that the traffic
attracted to their lots would not cause a carbon monoxide problem.
They also had to demonstrate that their facility would not
"generate" additional travel.  If new facilities attract
automobiles from long distances, the areawide vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) can increase.  Increased VMT results in greater
hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxides emissions.  These pollutants
are decisive factors in smog formation.

     In the second version of these parking regulations, proposed
in August 1974, EPA shifted its emphasis from carbon monoxide
pollution in the immediate vicinity of parking sources and
began to give primary concern to the problem of reducing areawide
VMT.  These proposed regulations made another critical distinction:
EPA introduced the concept of parking management plans.  Previously
EPA had emphasized facility-by-facility reviews.   In short, any
builder of a parking facility of 250 spaces or larger in the
designated city had to apply for a permit and be dealt with as
a single facility.  The applicant was supposed to show efforts
to link his facility with mass transit.  The proposed regulations
required him to post bus schedules, seek bus route modifications,
and consider installing park-and-ride lots and transit shelters
and possibly implement a para-transit program.   If the applicant
wanted to avoid these requirements he had either to show his

facility was a park-and-ride  lot or complete a study showing
that the net effect of his  facility would be to reduce VMT
because it diverted longer  trips to more distant facilities to

     The new August 1974 EPA  thrust accompanied the facility-
by-facility requirement with  an alternative called a parking
management plan   (PMP) .  If a city developed a master plan for
its parking facilities, showing such  things as where growth in
spaces would be balanced with curtailments, then EPA would
forego the detailed facility-by-facility review.

     Before EPA suspended its parking management program on
July 1, 1975, it  had planned  to put out yet a third set of
parking management regulations.  These would have further
emphasized the PMP concept  by spelling out more precisely how
a city should prepare a PMP.   Facility-by-facility reviews
became the "stick" to prod  communities to develop PMP's.

     The Federal  Executive  Branch is  now opposed to Federal
intervention on a facility-by-facility basis.  It is believed
that States and localities  should handle such things.   Current
•draft amendments  to the Clean Air Act pending in Congress lean
toward the same philosophy.   This attitude leaves unanswered
the question of sanctions.  What if the States and localities
do not act to complete PMP's? Two approaches are under
consideration to  add credibility to the concept of local per-
formance.  One is to provide  the carrot of 100 percent federal
funding to local  agencies that complete PMP's.  Of course a plan
is not necessarily a regulation.  To  insure that regulatory
action is taken others are  advocating that cities that need
but will not prepare PMP's  be denied  Federal funding for such
items as highways, mass transportation, and sewage treatment

     Congress could politically remove the irritant of parking
management by funding local agencies to prepare plans,  but
with no guarantee or sanction for local performance.  Alternatively,
Congress could require the preparation of PMP's coupled with the
sanctions of either withdrawal of Federal funding for selected
projects or Federal intervention and preparation of PMP's in the
absence of State and local performance.

     2.   Possible Future EPA Roles

     In the future, EPA has several approaches it could take
to parking management.  EPA1s dilemma is that it is the Agency
responsible for protection of the public health from automotive
pollution.  However, parking management cannot succeed without
support from the transportation establishment.   One solution
would be to do the following:

          (a)   Stipulate  in Amendments  to  the Clean  Air
          Act that cities with severe  air  quality  problems
          must accomplish a parking  management  planning process
          that incorporates certain  parking  management measures.
          For example,  most polluted cities  might  be required
          to incorporate  vehicle  free  zones,  lower rates  for
          short-term parkers,  commercial rates,  and  maximum
          rather than minimum  zoning criteria (parking spaces/
          ft ).   Cities violating health standards but not
          by much would be required  to  Jncorporate  less
          strenuous parking management  measures  such as on-
          street parking  bans  and fast  bus  lanes.

          (b)   EPA would  be authorized  to  fund  local and
          regionwide  planning  agencies  in  parking  management
          planning and implementation.  In most  cases  this
          funding would be in  conjunction  with  DOT and/or  EPA's
          Section 208 (water)  planning  efforts.

(c)   EPA could be given the authority to approve
or disapprove parking planning in conjunction with
applications for UMTA transit grants for those
cities and associated measures stipulated in  (a) above.

(d)   EPA could have review authority with regard to
the annual transportation planning process, particularly
the determination of consistency.  In other words for
the cities and measures specified in (a), EPA could
disapprove transportation plans that did not meet the
parking management requirements stipulated pursuant to

                          CHAPTER III

                    PROCESSES FOR A REGION
     The institutional process chosen for parking management
planning in an interstate, multi-jurisdiction metropolitan
region such as Washington D.C. is critical in determining the
success or failure of the parking management plan.  Too much
top-down regional control results in plans which are not
implementable on the local level, while too great an emphasis
on local planning can result in plans which do not address
regional goals.

     The planning process must be structured so that local
governments' experience and sensitivity to parking needs is
incorporated with a recognition of how parking can address
regional goals of air quality, energy conservation, and support
of mass transit.

     The regional instrument in the Washington Metropolitan
Area is the Council of Governments, together with its indepen-
dent Policy Committees such as the Transportation Planning
Board and The Air Quality Planning Committee.  Although COG
itself has no implementation powers, it has planning responsi-
bilities in land use, transportation, air and water quality,
and through cooperative agreements is able to develop policies
and programs of a regional nature.

     This chapter will explore the existing institutional
structures available for parking management planning.
Part A will show how parking management planning is carried

out and implemented on the local level, noting the fragmented
nature of such planning and its exclusive attention to local
goals.  Part B will look at existing types of COG programs,
their coordination and output, including the potential of the
"consistency" requirement for coordinating transportation and
air quality planning.  This will serve as a baseline for Part
C, which will present and evaluate three options for parking
management planning, resulting in a recommended planning pro-
cess applicable to a large metropolitan area such as Washington.

A.  Local Parking Management - Planning and Implementation

    Parking is entirely a local government responsibility.
Although no area jurisdiction has yet developed a parking man-
agement "plan" as such, the case studies indicate that all have
distinct parking policies, whether or not they articulate and
recognize them as parking policies.  Also, local jurisdictions
are increasingly aware that parking management involves more
than simply providing parking to meet demand, as has been the
case in the past.  Nevertheless, most parking related efforts
are still fragmented and uncoordinated on the local level.

    Localities have many legal tools available to affect parking,
some taken for granted and others subject to varying degrees of
political and legal acceptance.  Most local government parking
powers are drawn from the "police power", delegated to locali-
ties by the States to protect the public health, welfare and
safety.  Under this legal umbrella, localities meter parking,
enforce parking restrictions, levy fines and license and tax
private parking lots.  Under zoning powers, also derived from
the police power, localities require minimum numbers of parking
spaces in commercial, industrial and residential development.

      These responsibilities for parking are shared by many
 different agencies within local governments, as shown in
 Table 4,  and coordination is often inadequate.  As a rule,
 the local transportation departments are charged by the
 governing council or board with both planning and imple-
 mentation of parking measures.  The comprehensive planning
 bodies are slowly becoming aware of the long range land use
 implications of parking management and are trying to inte-
 grate parking, transportation and land use planning.

      It was noted that no air quality agencies had an active
 role in either planning or implementation of parking manage-
 ment programs.
                            TABLE 4
Meter parking

Prohibit on-street
Set parking fines

Operate public
  parking lots
Require license for
  private lots
Place tax on private
Set zoning require-
  ments for spaces in
  new development
                          ' lar.ni no. fiaer.cv
Local DOTs
Local DOTs
Council, judges
(in D.C.)
Council, DOT
Implementing Agency
Police, meter maids
Police, meter maids
Police, court system
DOTs, police
Licensing bureau
Assessments division
Council, Zoning      Zoning Administrator
Commission (in D.C.)
planning boards &

    In addition to these accepted  controls over parking, local
governments have other potential controls where the legal au-
thority and political acceptability are not yet firmly estab-

    •  Residential parking permit  systems;  Montgomery County,
       Maryland and the District of Columbia are in the process
       of implementing permit systems, which are operational in
       Richmond, Virginia, Wilmington, Delaware, and Cambridge,
       Massachusetts.  Arlington County's ordinar.ee has been
       declared illegal and will probably be appealed.  Details
       in these ordinances vary, altering their impact and, very
       likely, their susceptability to legal challenge.
    •  Rate control over private lots;  Considerable uncertainty
       surrounds the question of whether a jurisdiction can
       exercise rate control over  private lot operations.  Possi-
       ble means of doing this  are to regulate parking as a
       public service, such as  taxicabs, as has been contemplated
       in Arlington; tax parking lot operators so that higher
       costs .would be passed through to the parker; or require
       adherence to a rate schedule1as a condition of licensing.
       In theory, such rate control would be legal under local
       police powers, but most  jurisdictions would have to seek
       specific state enabling  legislation, for example to tax
       lots in Virginia.  To date, no Washington area jurisdic-
       tion has attempted to directly control rates in private
    •  Parking Surcharge:  The  parking surcharge was a part of
       the original Transportation Control Plan for the Washington
       area and is considered legal as a State power under the
       Clean Air Act.  While EPA can no longer require a sur-
       charge, there is no legal reason why local governments

       could not do so,  except that the surcharge idea is
       considered a politically dead issue by everyone.  The
       major political problem with the surcharge idea in
       the Washington area is that it is considered a form
       of commuter tax by the city on suburban residents,
       even though suburban jurisdictions could impose it on

    All local governments experience some fragmentation of
their parking programs,  but Washington D.C. is especially
complex because of the predominant Federal presence in the
city.  Almost 25 percent of the parking spaces in the D.C.
Core are under the control of either the General Services
Administration or the Congress and thus not subject to any
controls exercised by the city government under its home rule
charter.  Historically,  these two parts of the Federal estab-
lishment have been less than cooperative in regulating their
parking policies to meet city goals, especially in reducing
their subsidy of employees parking costs.

    Indirect controls over parking supply and demand, as opposed
to the direct parking controls described above, are found in
comprehensive land use and transportation plans and their asso-
ciated zoning regulations.  These affect the location and rate
of development, the need for vehicle trips, mode of transporta-
tion available, and the number of parking spaces supplied by
the private development.  All jurisdications  have such controls,  but
they are most fully used as a development tool in Rosslyn, in
Centreville, and in Washington's West End.

    A few parking programs presently transcend local control.
Local governments have delegated to WMATA the responsibility
for providing parking at Metro rail stations, but have retained
a great deal of control over just how much parking will be

developed at each station through veto power by jurisdictional
representatives on the WMATA Board.  As a result  of local
political pressures, the number of parking spaces at B.C. rail
stations has been cut by 66 percent from those recommended in the
original adopted regional system for Metro rail in 1968, and
only the addition of 3,000 spaces at Shady Grove in Montgomery
County has kept the total number of parking spaces equivalent
to the originally planned total.

    In addition, the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission
(NVTC),  has arranged free fringe parking for i500 cars in lots
to serve express bus routes into D.C.  NVTC has no power of
eminent domain to condemn land for fringe parking lots and
little money to purchase them, so cooperative arrangements have
been made with shopping center owners who have excess parking.
In one case NVTC funds were used to repave an area for the owner,
but usually the spaces are donated; COG and local funds are also used,

    In summary, parking management on a local level is often
uncoordinated, and responsibilities are scattered internally
among numerous agencies.   Few localities have incorporated
parking management  into either the transportation or compre-
hensive land use planning processes.  In addition, no
coordination exists among different jurisdictions in the
region.  As a result, most existing parking policies only
match supply with demand for parking.  Locally-oriented
parking primarily concerns problems of traffic, local
congestion and business needs.  Consequently, parking pro-
grams tie closely to local goals, but not necessarily ad-
dress the regional  goals of transit maximization or quality
and minimization of region-wide congestion.

B.  Regional Frameworks  for Planning

    No  significant  regional effort has yet been made  to  carry
out parking management planning in the Washington Area  since
the abortive efforts to  include parking measures in the

Transportation Control Plans.  The efforts of Washington COG
in other regional planning efforts, however, are of interest
in case a regional parking management planning process is
undertaken.  This section will describe and evaluate existing
regional frameworks for planning as potential models for
creating a regional parking plan.

    Regional planning efforts now operate through Washington
COG.  COG is a voluntary, regional association of 16 local
governments whose purpose is to coordinate actions of its
members in matters of regional concern.  COG functions through
a Board of Directors made up of elected local officials from
each jurisdiction, plus Federal and State legislators.  COG is
thus highly political and serves as a forum for the exchange
of ideas rather than a regional governing body with either
direct planning or implementation powers.

    Certain regional planning efforts are, however, carried
out by COG, its own Policy Committees, and Policy Committees
associated with COG but independent of it, in the areas of
transportation, air quality, land use and water resources.
Table 5 summarizes the important characteristics of each of
these planning processes, which are briefly described below.

    •  Transportation Planning:  Carried out by the Transpor-
       tation Planning Board (TPB) which was formed by inter-
       state compact to do "cooperative, continuing and com-
       prehensive" (3-C)  transportation planning required
       under the Federal Air Highway Act of 1962.  The TPB
       is composed of local government officials and represen-
       tatives of transportation-related agencies including
       WMATA, DOT, and the State Highway and Transportation
       Departments.  It functions as COG's transportation arm,

            TABLE 5

Air Quality
Land Use
DOT Federal
Aid Highway
Act of 1962
Clean Air
Act of 1970
and amend-
Section 208
Section 701,
Housing Act
of 1954
Regional Agency
Planning Board
National Capital
Interstate Air
Quality PI -nning
Committee . QPC)
Water Resources
Planning Commit-
tee (WRPC)
COG-Land Use
Policy Commit-
from DOT and
states for
from EPA
plus local
Coming from
from HUD
for planning
3-C Transporta-
tion Planning
Process, certi-
fied yearly by
DOT prior to
release of funds
Recommends for
SIP & TCP by
EPA approved
regional plan
Revising Year
2,000 Plan
for Region
/• to meet DOT
\ Potential
| coordination
1 yet to be
J worked out

                 1976 COG

        uses COG staff, and prepares regional transportation
        plans for yearly certification by DOT as required
        before Federal funds can be released.  DOT has re-
        quired for 2 years that "consistency" be shown be-
        tween transportation and air quality plans, a process
        which to date has satisfied no one although its po-
        tential is real for accomplishing this essential
        coordination.  Newly issued Department of Transporta-
        tion regulations / require that a Transportation
        Systems Management (TSM) element be included in all
        metropolitan transportation plans in order for
        projects to receive UMTA grant funds.  Among the
        projects recommended for inclusion in the TSM ele-
        ment are parking management programs such as elimin-
        ation of on-street parking, rate regulation, fringe
        parking and enforcement.
        Air Quality Planning:  - Conducted by the National Capital
        Interstate Air Quality Planning Committee (AQPC)  estab-
        lished by interstate  agreement and associated with COG.
        The AQPC developed and recommended to the States por-
        tions of the State Implementation Plans applicable to the
        region and elements of the Transportation Control Plans.
        Composed of technical air quality personnel plus three
        COG members,  the AQPC is less political than the TPB and
        thus less sensitive to local political realities, as
        demonstrated in the TCP planning process.  As will be
        seen when regional planning efforts  are evaluated,  the
        lack of local political input and commitment to  the
        TCP process was one of its greatest  weaknesses.
        Land Use Planning;  Carried out by a COG Policy Comm-
        ittee to recommend regional elements of land use to
        local governments, funded by HUD 701 monies.   COG,  however,
I/ Part 450, Subpart A,  23CFR,  Chapter I and Part 613,  Subpart
   B, 49CFR, Chapter VI,  issued September 17,  1975

       has no power to alter local land use decisions, as this
       is the prerogative of local government.
    •  Water Resources Planning:  Newly established by
       interstate compact under Section 208, the Water
       Resources Planning Committee nust develop a regional
       plan for non-point source management for EPA approval.
       The regional planning process for this program is
       under development and it will be a number of years
       before its full impact will be realized.

    None of the above models for regional planning meets the
need for parking management, with the possible exception of the
Water Resources approach which is yet to be proven.  Some of
the reasons for this are:
    •  Insufficient coordination between air quality and
       transportation planning.  Parking management requires
       close coordination between air quality and transpor-
       tation planning.  DOT requires a finding of "consis-
       tency" between regional air and transportation plans,
       but this process has numerous weaknesses.  Air quality
       agencies have not, in the past, been involved in
       commenting on long and short range transportation plans.
       The TPB has been reluctant to test any alternative plans
       other than the adopted plan, with and without certain
       highways, such as a plan which called for radically
       increased dependence on mass transit.  In addition,
       there is no institutional mechanism for resolving in-
       consistencies between the two types of plans.
    •  Lack of requirement to do parking management planning.
       No funding lever exists in parking management, as it
       does in transportation where construction funds are
       contingent on satisfactory completion of a regional
       planning process, unless changes are made in the Clean
       Air Act.  One potential requirement for parking planning

      is in the new DOT regulations.  However, it is not yet
      clear whether adherence to these regulations will be
      required by the Washington area to obtain DOT funding
      for Metro rail construction.  If so, a parking manage-
      ment plan could possibly be required.
   •  Lack of Funding:  No federal funds are available to aid
      the region or localities in parking management planning
      at the present time.
   •  Local Institutional Problems:  Particular institutional
      problems in the Washington area, such as the large Fed-
      eral government presence, have complicated air quality
      planning as in the TCP and would likewise complicate
      parking management planning carried out under the same
   •  Inability of any regional body to require Federal gov-
      ernment cooperation in terms of air quality, particularly
      in reducing its parking subsidies to employees.
   •  Difficulty where air quality agencies plan for transpor-
      tation-related measures, as in the TCPs, without full
      understanding of their impacts.
   •  Lack of political input into the AQPC because of its
      makeup, and lack of a mechanism for resolving differences
      between State governments which developed over air
      quality measures.
   Despite these particular problems with existing planning
processes, COG does have the potential for further regional
cooperation.  The AQPC is now undertaking an effort aimed at
coordinating air, water, transportation and land use planning.
A current study is investigating cooperation between the TPB

and the AQPC and is being overseen by a joint committee of
the two policy committees.  Also, the consistency requirement
is a potentially strong mechanism for requiring coordination
between the TPE and the AQPC if fully utilized by both COG
and DOT.

    In summary the past two sections have shown that lo^al
parking planning is too locally oriented, internally fragmented,
and not coordinated regionally to achieve regional goals of
supporting mass transit, improving air quality and conserving
energy.  Also, that existing regional planning mechanisms have
weaknesses, especially regarding coordination between air,
transportation, and land use planning.

    The basic question, therefore, is how to devise a structure
through which parking management planning can work effectively
to meet both regional goals and local needs.  The following
section will develop three basic alternatives for parking man-
agement planning to determine which would be most appli-
cable  for the Washington D.C. and simil .:- large, metropolitan

C .     Three Approaches to Parking Management Planning

      The  challenge in  parking management planning is  to  find a
process which  can  incorporate  the meeting of local  needs
with  regionwide  goals.   Various  strategies  can  be used  to
 develop regional plans,  specifically:

      • The Grassroots  Approach
      • The Top-down Directive Approach
      • The Regional Guidelines  Approach

 A fourth  alternative is available where  a strong regional govern-
 ment  exists,  as  in Minneapolis-St.  Paul, or where a metropolitan

area is within a single state, and has few governmental subdivisions
and a unified planning body.  In this case, more responsibility
could be given to the regional body and less local government
participation required.

     The following section will describe each approach and the
planning process used, examine the output of the process/ and
evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, especially as demonstrated
in the Washington Metropolitan Area.  The major elements involved
in each approach are shown in Table 6.

     1.  Grassroots Approach

     This approach calls for local planning only and approximates
the existing parking management planning process in most metro-
politan areas.  The characteristics of this planning process are
a focus on local goals, little concern with the air quality as-
pects of parking programs and no regional coordination.

     The rationale for this type of planning is that parking
management involves land use decisions and policies which are
local responsibilities and that parking measures have important
local impacts, especially on the economic health of commercial
areas and on a jurisdiction's ability to attract growth.  Also,
a grassroots approach increases the ability of the planning
agency to coordinate with the agency which will implement the
measures, leading to practical plans which are sensitive to
local needs and problems.
     The methodology followed by local plan making has been
outlined in each of the case studies.  Accounting for local
differences, parking plans generally  originate in either the
local transportation or planning agency.  These operating level
agencies then recommend the parking-related measures to the legis-
lative body,  (the County or City Council or Board) for approval
and funding.  If rates are to be raised, as in Silver Spring,

                              TABLE 6
             Technical Guidelines
             (or minimum             Uniform
             performance standards)   Measures
Top-Down Directive
Regional Guidelines





or zoning ordinances to be changed, public hearings are re-
quired.  In other cases, such as minor revisions in meter rates
or locations and in enforcement policies, hearings are not held.

     The normal comprehensive planning process is not usually
applied to parking management, nor is a parking element
usually included in local transportation plans.  Although
specific parking measures are continually being approved,
no formal parking management plans have yet been developed
in the Washington area.  As a result, elected officials are
often not involved in goal setting, internal coordination
of operating agencies is not provided for and public input
is often absent until final approval of a measure is being
considered.  Thus, the output from a totally local planning
process is usually a series of ad hoc parking measures which
may meet some local goals but does not address the broader
needs of the jurisdiction.

     Several specific weaknesses inherent in local planning became
apparent from the case  studies, even where adequate internal
coordination of the planning process took place.

     •  Local planning  generally fails to address the air quality
        aspects of parking management measures.  The air quality
        agencies on the local level are not actively involved
        with either the comprehensive planning process or trans-
        portation planning.  Although they have technical expertise
        in monitoring and enforcement, they do not have experience
        in transportation-related planning.   One local exception
        is in Fairfax County, which is correlating air quality
        with urban growth and hopes to use environmental assess-
        ment procedures in land use decision-making in such
        areas as Centreville.
     •  Local planning cannot effectively maximize the regional
        potential of mass transit, particularly Metro rail.

       Regional cooperation will be required to encourage rider-
       ship in order to decrease the total deficit and  to re-
       duce local deficit allocations.  As illustrated  by Rosslyn,
       local areas are often impacted by commuter auto  traffic
       originating from neighboring jurisdictions, e.g., Fairfax
       County.  Rosslyn would benefit from extensive  fringe
       parking lots to divert auto trips, but has no  means to
       develop them outside of its boundaries.  Likewise, if the
       District acts to restrict parking, increased transit
       service must be provided by suburban jurisdictions if
       economic hardship is to be avoided for both the  Core and
    •  Local planning tends to avoid strong unilateral  action
       for fear of placing the local economy at a disadvantage.
       This applies particularly to measures which call for in-
       creased rates or a reduction of  spaces which might limit
       the attractiveness of older CBD's to shoppers.   In spite
       of the  fact that a freeze on spaces in the District, for
       example could result in a net financial savings  for both
       businessmen and the city alike,  the perceived  fear is that
       supply  reductions will result in congestion and  economic
       hardship.  One Los Angeles area  county  (San Bernandino) has
       predicated implementation of its parking plan  on the
       adoption of similar plans by neighboring jurisdictions,
       and the same problem is envisioned for the D.  C.  region.

     In summary,  local planning only, while  innovative and clearly
applicable  to  valid  local  economic  and  social  needs,  is not
capable of  meeting  the regional goals of air quality,  mass transit
support and energy  savings.   It usually  does not recognize the
costs of  too  great  a  dependence on  the  automobile  in  terms of
congestion,  noise,  and  land  lost  to parking  and  highways. Local
initiative  depends  on the  whim of politics and without regional
encouragement,  parking management planning is  apt  to  remain un-
coordinated,  ineffective  and  in many cases,  will not  even be

     2.  Top-Down Directive Approach

     This approach was used by EPA in directing preparation of the
Transportation Control Plans by the states in 1973.  For a variety
of reasons it failed to accomplish what it sought:  a workable set
of measures which would reduce VMT and improve air quality to meet
1977 air quality standards.  An examination of the Boston and
Washington, D. C. experiences illustrates what happened.

     Boston's initial TCP called for measures including prohibition
of on-street parking, a freeze on parking construction without an
EPA permit, a 25% reduction in employee parking spaces, and a
parking surcharge.  These were, in essence, dictated by EPA to the
Boston region.  Final amendments, however, modified and postponed
all these measures after local opposition surfaced and their imple-
mentability was questioned.

     In the D. C. area, the original TCP called for similar measures,
although they were worked out by the National Capital Interstate
Air Quality Planning Committee associated with COG and formally
submitted by the States for EPA approval.

     As shown in Table 6, this approach requires process manage-
ment, regional guidelines and uniform measures, and essentially
imposes them from the top down.  Local government had a small
role in preparing the TCP measures, since the staff of COG
developed the plan in conjunction with the National Capital
Interstate AQPC, which does not have local political represen-
tation.  Approval was a function of the States.  Local govern-
ments, therefore, felt intensely pressured and have, to some
extent, resisted implementation of measures.  Even the States,
after publication of the TCP recommendations by the NCIAQPC,
indicated that they felt that some measures were impractical
and infeasible.

       An analysis by COG "'of the institutional problems surrounding
  the TCP planning process points out a number of specific weaknesses
  in this process as applied to the Washington area:

       •  Inability of the planning process to ensure the cooperation
          of the Federal government in its parking management
          measures.  As the report indicates, "The desire of the
          Federal government to handle its responsibilities is a
          significant factor; however, the inability  of the Federal
          government to do so is a significant institutional
          problem."    Although Federal workers had to bear the
          brunt of the proposed parking measures in D. C., there
          was no coherent parking policy on the Federal level nor
          any effort to coordinate Federal attitudes  with the measures

       •  Lack of authority of the air quality control agencies over
          transportation related measures.  x'n addition, no insti-
          tutional mechanism existed for interface between the air
          and transportation organizations or for working out
       •  The number of organizations  involved in  this interstate
          region make implementationf  as  well as  planning,  extremely
       •  Conflicts between the requirements  for  preparation of
          regional plans,  as opposed to requirements  that  plans
          be adopted by the States,  led to confusion  of authority.
       •  Absence of a mechanism to  plan  and  implement for the
          region,  other than the NCIAQPC.   This  group,  associated
I/  "Review of Institutional Problems Associated With the Develop-
    ment and Submission of Implementation Plan Revisions in April
    1973 for the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control
    Region."  Submitted to:  Office of Technical Support and Special
    Projects, EPA, May 31, 1973.   Metropolitan Washington Council
    of Governments.
2/  Ibid. p. 15.

        with COG as its air quality planning arm, is composed of
        technical members from the two states and the District,
        plus three COG members.  It lacks direct representation
        from the local political bodies which held final responsi-
        bility for implementing parking plans, and thus the approved
        plans were not responsive to local wishes or needs.
     •  A lack of adequate time and funding to develop and review
     •  Confusion over deadlines and extensions available from EPA.
     •  Pressures to come up with an acceptable regional plan in
        a relatively short time under threat of EPA promulgation
        of a plan for the region.
     •  Expectation of massive reductions of VMT to be achieved
        by measures that were largely untried and difficult to

     Despite the intent of EPA to permit local involvement in the
development of the SIPs and TCPs, this effort was not successful.
The planning process would be improved if local government, rather
than state level agencies could have been factored into the planning
process.  Perhaps, had the time frame allowed more leeway for
planning and review, had technical knowhow in achieving clean air
goals been further developed, and had a different structure been
designed for the regional air planning body which involved local
governments, the results would have been different.

     3.  The Regional Guidelines Approach

     The necessity remains for a regional framework under which
parking planning can successfully be undertaken.  The third
alternative strategy seeks to combine the strengths of local
planning with a structure for addressing regional goals.  This

strategy envisions procedural and possibly technical guide-
lines, which are adopted on the regional level with the partici-
pation of local governmental representatives, accompanied by
local preparation of parking plans consistent with the guide-
lines, as shown in Table 6.  It does not call for uniform
measures throughout the entire region.

     The regional/local approach relies on a regional coor-
dinating body such as COG or the metropolitan transportation
planning organization to lead the regional parking management
planning effort.  It is recognized that, in the absence of
federal sanctions or federal funding, such regional coordin-
ation will probably not be forthcoming.  However, three
factors could contribute to a growing consensus for regional
     •  The emerging interrelationships between parking and
        regional transportation planning especially the role
        of parking management in supporting mass transit.
     •  The general re-evaluation of the role of the automobile
        in light of energy considerations.
     •  Continuing urban air quality problems.

     Once agreement is reached that parking management should
be addressed on the regional level, whether under federal
sanctions or voluntary cooperation, the regional body can
begin to develop a regional planning process.  The procedural
steps that could be taken are outlined below and would result
in a set of regional guidelines which would be approved by
local governments and then followed in their local planning
processes.  This combined regional/local planning process is
diagrammed in Figure  3.

     •  COG passes a resolution to undertake parking management
        planning as a regional effort.

                                                      FIGURE  3
                                           REGIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT PROCESS
                                                 LOCAL/REGIONAL APPROACH
 Lead Agency
Coordination of
Planning Process
• Regional Goals
• Problem Assess
• Technical
  and/or   1
 Memorandum of
signed by local
Plan Preparation   \
• Local Goals      j_
• Problem Assess-  •
  ment             •
• Technical Analysis
• Parking Packages ;
• Adoption
Review and
                                                               — ^| Implementation
                                            i   Public   |
                                            '   Hearing  i
                                           PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

   Determines source of funding
       Federal grant - EPA, DOT, other
       COG funds  (from local contributions)
       Specific local contribution for parking planning
   Designates lead agency to oversee planning process
       Transportation Planning Board
       Joint committee of TPB and AQPC
       Ad Hoc Parking Committee including private parking
       interests  and Federal government
   Defines goals  of parking planning process
       to develop process guidelines
       to development of technical guidelines, i.e.,
       minimum performance standards
   Requests formal support and participation from all
   member jurisdictions

Lead agency prepares  procedural and/or technical  guide-
lines with participation of local  governments.
   Definition of problem
   Definition of regional goals
   Technical data and information  gathering
   Review procedure by local governments  and COG  Board
   during preparation of guidelines
   Public input through citizens'  committee and hearings
   Hiring of parking  advisor to provide technical advice
   as both regional guidelines and local  plans  are
COG Board acts to approve regional guidelines (procedural
or technical or both).
   Public hearings required before resolution passed
   Resolution calls for agreement  of all  local  juris-
   dictions to guidelines and signing of  a Memorandum
   of Understanding to that effect

     •   Memorandum of  Understanding  is  signed  by  all  jurisdictions
        indicating that  they  will  adhere  to  the regional  guide-
        lines  and prepare  local  parking management plans  con-
        sistent with the guidelines.
           State regulatory agencies  (Air Quality agencies),
           EPA and/or  DOT  also  sign  memorandums and commit  them-
           selves to review and  comment on local  parking  plans
           Dates are established in  Memorandum for submission of
           local plans to  lead  agency for review
     •   Local  preparation  of  parking management plans.
           Local governments  designate  own agency most  capable
           of  carrying out planning  process
        -   Citizen participation provided in local plan preparation
           as  determined by locality
           Approval by local  government of the plan through its
           usual plan  approval  process
     •  Local plans submitted to COG lead agency for review and
        signoff for adherence to regional guidelines.
     •  Implementation of plans by local  governments,
     •  Continuing review and evaluation  by lead agency.

     The key elements in this approach which distinguish it from
past efforts are:

     •  Representation of local governments on the lead agency
        designated by COG to  develop the  regional guidelines.
        It is suggested  that  the Air Quality Planning Board,
        at least in its  present form,  not be the lead agency
        because it lacks direct ties to local government.
     •  Technical support from COG and a  new "parking advisor"  to
        aid in both regional  guideline and local  plan preparation.
     •  Commitment by local  governments through  a signed docu-
        ment to carry through a local  planning process under
        the regionally-approved guidelines.

     •  Local preparation of specific plans including choice of
        measures best suited to each area.

     Examples of the types of measures which might be drafted
in the form of technical guidelines or minimum performance
standards are noted below:
     • Residential parmit parking system;  Guidelines could
       include a model ordinance establishing a permit system
       which would avoid the legal pitfalls experienced by
       some jurisdictions.  They could also specify criteria
      as to the type of area which should be considered for a
       permit system, e.g. percent of non-resident parking,
       expected impact from other parking measures, alterna-
       tive transit availability and resident preferences.
     • Zoning ordinances to reduce minimum spaces required in
       new buildings.  Guidelines could be set in the form of
       model ordinances calling for flexibility in space require-
       ments if a builder can show reduced demand; zero space
       requirements in certain types of neighborhoods; and
       maximum limits on the total spaces allowed.  Criteria
       could also be set as to the type of situation where
       these measures would apply.
     • Fringe parking provisions;  Each jurisdiction could be
       required to provide a specified number of fringe
       parking spaces based on available transit service, number
       of workers it contributes to the Core, land availa-
       bility, or auto ownership, similar to the Fair Share
       housing allocation formula.  Parking at Metro rail
       stations could be similarly assigned.
     • Absolute limitation on subsidies provided by local
       governments to employee parking, and a recommended
       reduction in the amount of private employee subsidized
       parking.  The latter requirement is extremely hard
       to implement, but should be discussed at the regional

     Although no exact parallels exist to this strategy as applied
to parking management, there have been several cases where local
governments have initiated regional cooperative efforts, without
a direct Federal requirement, which are more binding than the
usual COG-stimulated voluntary regional program.  Examples of
these in the Washington Metropolitan area are recent sewage treat-
ment agreements and the Fair Share subsidized housing allocation

     •  1970 Sewage Treatment Memorandum of Understanding;  Local
        governments committed themselves to regional cooperation
        and established general guidelines for cooperative efforts
        in a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1970 regarding
        sewage treatment problems.  This agreement was arrived at
        without any Federal directive, or even a Federal require-
        ment that cooperation must take place.  The document was
        signed by representatives from the District of Columbia,
        Fairfax County, Virginia and the Washington Suburban
        Sanitary Commission, acting for Montgomery and Prince
        Georges Counties, Maryland, after express approval by
        their respective governments.  State and Federal regulatory
        agencies also signed, not as direct participants but to
        indicate their support and commitment to carry out their
        regulatory function.  The Memorandum has become a legal
        document committing the signatories to certain financial
        contributions for regional treatment but more importantly,
        committing them to plan for future regional sewage capacity
        and to undertake interim measures to reduce pollution.
        The exact form of these interim measures was left to the
        jurisdictions, in the same way as local parking planning
        is left to the local government in the Local/Regional

     •  Fair Share Housing Allocation Formula;   COG has recently
        been instrumental in working out an agreement by which
        local jurisdictions accept a specified amount of low and
        moderate income housing funded through HUD.  COG's role
        was to agree in principle to the idea of an allocation
        formula based on indicators such as the amount of available
        residential land, number of low and moderate income units,
        over-crowded and deficient units, and other factors.  The
        actual allocation formula was worked out through a special
        Affirmative Action Task Force composed of local govern-
        ment representatives under the auspices of COG.  The
        allocation formula indicates to each jurisdiction what
        percentage of regional funds for subsidized housing it is
        entitled to receive.  As a result of this cooperative
        effort, HUD has not only agreed to release the specified
        funds but given the region a bonus as well.  However,
        the allocation formula was not a pre-condition for the
        release of funds.

     In summary, the Regional Guideline Approach would assure that
at a minimum, process management takes place at the regional
level.  Local governments help determine how the process will
be carried out through participation in the lead agency designated
by COG.  A commitment is then required, through a signed Memorandum
of Understanding, that local planning will adhere to the process
management and time schedule established.

     Stronger regional coordination would be achieved if the process
went one step further:  development of regional technical guide-
lines drawn up by the COG-designated agency and agreed to by the
localities as the basis for their local planning effort.  These
technical guidelines could be generalized or in the form of minimum
performance standards.

     Th is process could be used in conjunction with future EPA
or DOT regulations which require parking management planning
in regional air quality and/or transportation planning. Several
potential roles for EPA involvement were outlined in Chapter II
for example specific parking measures for highly polluted cities;
federal funding for parking management plans; EPA approval of
parking planning regarding UMTA grants, or EPA review authority
with regard to the annual transportation planning process,
especially the consistency determination.

                          CHAPTER IV

A.   Introduction

     This section describes briefly the procedures for parking
management planning.  These recommendations are meant to
supplement the introduction to this paper in which the general
plan development process was discussed.  Four areas are high-
lighted here:

     •  Technical preparation and analysis needed to select
        parking measures and evaluate their effectiveness;
     •  Means for analyzing the institutional framework of
        an area to elucidate possible constraints on
        community acceptance of developed plans;
     •  Techniques for evaluating the social and economic
        costs and benefits of parking controls; and

     •  The community planning process.

The discussions on each of these areas are not meant to be
comprehensive; there are already numerous "how-to" manuals
which aid those interested in using the proper tools to
develop and evaluate plans for their areas.  Rather, they
are intended to describe the major steps which must be  taken
in parking management planning.

B.   Technical Analysis of Plans

     The technical phases of plan development evaluate the
characteristics of auto traffic in an area.  Supply of
parking and demand for it must be measured, as well as

availability and quality of alternate modes of transit.  An
understanding of the parking "system" in an area, will suggest
the best parking measures for achieving whatever auto-related
goals a community may have.  There are three prime steps in
this analysis, including collection of the necessary data,
evaluation of the data to elucidate the important parking
characteristics, and selection of applicable measures from
which to develop a parking plan.

     1.   Data Needs

     The data considered useful to developing parking management
plans includes land use and activity level information, parking
inventories and occupancy rates, and traffic and transportation
system characteristics.

     Different land uses contribute differently to vehicle
generation.  In addition, the concentration or level of
activities will have an effect.  For instance employment in the
Washington target areas studied was derived by multiplying
standard "per square foot" factors times floor space.  Parking
characteristics will also be impacted by land uses.  Shoppers
tend to turnover faster than workers, thus implying that more
vehicle trips can be generated by any one parking space.

     Growth in land uses must be determined in order to be
able to predict future vehicle travel.  As with measurements
of present activity levels, data collection should stress the
types and scale of expected land uses.  It is noted that fore-
casted land use data is often inaccurate.  In the case of
Silver Spring, projected growth probably overstates what might
reasonably be expected; in Rosslyn, planners hoped for slower
growth than actually occurred.  Thus, it will be important to
continuously monitor actual development and compare it to fore-
casts.  If divergences are great enough, parking plans may have
to be revised.

     Area traffic and transportation characteristics are
vital to determine the modes used by persons leaving, coming
to, or passing through, the study area.  The variation in this
data is normally quite large.   The Origin/Destination Bus
Study by WMATA was performed in 1972.   Because of fare hikes,
and service rerouting in the interim,  it is not possible to
get an accurate handle from this data on how many persons
use buses to get to any particular location.

     Parking data is also necessary.  At a minimum this should
include information on the number and type of spaces and their
cost.  However, the degree to which parking costs are subsidized,
occupancy rates and location of spaces in relation to activity
centers, are also important.  Parking studies should not concen-
trate solely on spaces associated directly with demand activities
(i.e., working or shopping).  In addition, they should look at
space provision at mass transit stations as well as at park and
ride or fringe lots.

     2.   Data Analysis

     Data analysis to evaluate the parking "system" of an area
encompasses two steps.  These include:

     •  Trip generation - The total number of present and
        future person trips generated by and through the
        study area must be determined.  The technical means for
        performing this estimate range from the very simple
         (standard factors which can be multiplied by floor
        space areas) to  the complex  (models which weigh
        economic differences between areas, to establish the
        needs to journey amongst them).  For regional studies,
        trip generation analysis also yields travel desire
        lines between a number of zones.

     •  Modal split -  Once total trips are known, then it is
        necessary to calculate how they are divided among
        those using transit and those using automobiles.  It
        is this exercise which allows person trips to be
        converted to vehicle trips.  With this model, the
        costs associated with making trips by any mode, including
        running time, excess time, and dollar costs, are compared.
        Modal split models are generally supplemented by car
        occupancy models, which compare lower costs associated
        with carpools, against the convenience of single-occupancy

     Detailed analysis, such as is envisioned by the more com-
prehensive applications of these models will usually be beyond
the financial capability of most areas considering parking
management plans.  It is generally found,  though, that regional
and sometimes state governments have been working in those areas.
Thus, much of the needed information may have been generated
already, or could be, by modifying the models now developed.

     3.   Analysis of Parking Measures

     Two types of evaluation tools are needed in order to
successfully measure the impacts of proposed parking control

     •  Sensitivity of parkers to parking cost.  With this
        information it will be possible to judge how effective
        cost increases will be in diverting drivers to other
        forms of transit.
     •  Sensitivity of parkers to substituting supply constraints
        for price increases.

     With knowledge of both sensitivities (they are derived from
modal split models), then parking measures should be evaluated to
determine the effect they will have on reducing travel.  Such
evaluations should culminate in the ranking of measures by how
effective they are.   Measures may then be selected according  to
the desired results.

C.   Means for Analyzing Institutional Framework

     Analysis of the institutional aspects of parking manage-
ment requires an understanding of the governmental structure
and the roles which various governmental and private agencies
play in planning and implementation, both locally and region-
ally.  Four specific types of information must be obtained and

     •  Local Government Powers;  The legal powers which are
        available to control parking on the local level should
        be studied, such as control of on-street parking, taxa-
        tion and licensing, enforcement and residential permit
        systems.  If additional legal authority is needed, this
        should be identified and the actions necessary to ob-
        tain it explained.  The political as well as legal re-
        straints to the implementation of parking measures should
        be noted.  In addition, indirect powers to control sup-
        ply of parking, such as through zoning, should be evaluated.

     •  Participants in the Planning and Implementation Process;
        The agencies which presently particpate in planning for
        parking management should be identified and their capa-
        bilities evaluated.  For example, does the comprehensive
        planning department have any role in parking planning, or
        is it entirely planned and implemented through the local
        department of transportation?  The appropriate lead agency
        for creating parking plans should be identified in each
        area and, if present policies need to be altered to enable
        this agency to function, suggested alternative institutional
        organizations developed.

     •  Process for Parking Management;   The process by which
        parking plans are currently being developed must be
        understood  and an evaluation made of the effective-
        ness of this process in meeting  planning goals.  Cri-
        tical elements in the planning process should be iden-
        tified, such as goal setting, problem assessment, tech-
        nical analysis and plan selection, and any weaknesses
        which are found should be noted.

     •  Coordination within Local Government and Between Regional
        Jurisdictions:  The mechanisms for coordinating planning
        within a jurisdiction should be  clearly spelled out.
        Formal and informal mechanisms for coordinating planning
        and operating agencies should be noted and insufficiencies
        identified.  The regional and sub-regional organizations
        which exist for inter-governmental coordination, their re-
        spective roles and responsibilities must be identified and
        the ones which could be most useful in coordinating park-
        ing management planning indicated.  Where no regional
        mechanisms exist, suggestions can be made for institutions
        which could fill the gap, indicating who should be repre-
        sented and why.
           Information concerning these institutional relationships
        can be gathered by interview, by study of planning documents
        and organizational charts, and by case studies of examples
        of local, sub-regional and regional cooperation and agencies.
        There is no clearly defined process for conducting such e-
        valuation other than to collect the required data, analyze
        it, identify problem areas and investigate alternatives.

D.   Techniques for Evaluating Socio-Economic Impacts

     The socio-economic impact analyses can be approached from se-
veral perspectives but can be done most effectively by first screen-
ing general problem types.  Those problems which seem most important

in an area can then be analyzed in depth.  General categories
include impacts on development, commuters  (various income levels),
local governments and residential communities.  In depth analyses
require understanding of the existing equilibrium which by defini-
tion exists prior to the imposition of parking management mea-
sures.  Parking measures may upset the equilibrium causing stress
to commuters, developers, etc.    The degree to which these groups
are affected can be quantified using some of the techniques de-

     1.  Development

     In communities where attracting additional commercial or re-
sidential development is a goal, parking management effects will
be felt primarily through zoning measures.  The costs to developers
of providing parking can be  estimated.  The developers' atti-
tudes about whether zoning requires too much or too little park-
ing will help predict the impact of a zoning law change.

     If parking is profitable and there is a shortage,  then a
maximum zoning limit on parking could be useful.  Even  where park-
ing is subsidized so that the demand is artificially kept high, a
.maximum ordinance could be effective.  Examining historical growth
trends, land prices and remaining zoned potential will  clarify the
economic attractiveness of the area.  If it is attractive, strict
parking management measures may not damage development  significantly,
Where excess supply exists, developers might even welcome reduced

     2.  Commuters

     Parking measures are aimed principally at changing the mode
of travel used by commuters for home-to-work trips.  Consequently,

commuters who choose to continue using autos may be heavily
impacted.  Rates can increase and supply decrease causing
additional inconvenience.

     Socially, concern would focus on the low income "captive"
auto commuter.  For example, commuters without a transit alter-
native for whom a parking price increase would substantially re-
duce take home pay deserve  special consideration.

     The impact on transit commuters may also be substantial.
Commuters riding buses which exceed capacity could be forced
to stand as load levels increased due to parking measures. Con-
versely, service could improve markedly if additional transit
commuters justified the addition of new buses reducing headways.

     These impacts can be quantified using available data on income
by region, modal splits, excess transit system capacity, parking
costs and demand elasticity.  Use of this data is presented in the
various case studies.

     3.  Local Governments and Residential Communities

     Most transit systems operate at a deficit.  Parking manage-
ment which increases transit ridership will generally reduce the
public deficit where excess capacity exists and increase it where
substantial fixed costs must be incurred.  For example, adding
peak hour buses will increase the deficit but increased ridership
during off-hours will lower deficits.  To quantify the impacts re-
quires data on fixed and variable bus/rail transit costs, existing
capacity and load factors and existing deficits.

     Local governments will also be sensitive to the political
and social implications of parking management.  Understanding the

influence of developers, parking lot owner/operators, and local
citizen groups on local officials will largely determine the
acceptability of parking measures.  If residential communities
are concerned about commuter parking spillover, the accept-
ability of a residential parking ban, for example, will increase

     The relationships discussed here are used in the case
study analyses and are helpful in evaluating socio-economic
impacts.  The data collection and emphasis, however, must be
tailored to the analysis for any particular region.

E.   The Community Planning Process
     The planning process for each community is diagrammed in
Figure 4.  The timing sequence generally proceeds from left-to-
right in the diagram,  although steps can be accomplished simul-
taneously.   Various feedback loops may necessitate the accom-
plishment of several interactions of particular steps in the

     The first step is for an institution to accept responsibility
for leading the debate over the appropriate parking management
goals for the community.   A community is typically an urban
concentration of between 25,000 and 150,000 people.   The lead
group might be an organization with general government or just plan-
ning responsibilities, or it could be a transportation, air quality
or land use planning group acting on behalf of the general purpose
government.   This group should collect basic data on the role of the
automobile in the community and consult with the regionwide COG-
government and technical staff and with EPA.  The emphasis at
this point should not lie on precise data manipulation or technical
exercises, but on the broad conceptualization of goals for managing
automobile use in the urban environment.  Among the goals that
might be considered are:

                                               Figure  4
                                     COMMUNITY PARKING MANAGEMENT



r i
, Selection •
of Institution .
' to Manage
t CenuT.unity
: Debate of ! 	 ^
. Parkiner I
i :
L 	 j


sion of Gather data on:
ative o economic growth
g / • auto use /
rr.ent « parking supply
and demand
« public transit
o air quality
s "~". "\ ' """"

1 Trip ,
f Analysis <
U _ _ _ —1
, Parking
1 Measures ,
i Impact ,
1 Analysis i
1 Institutional i
1 Assessment ,
t.. 	 	 	 1


Groups of measures
with :
« goals
o impacts
• institutions
• technical
assessment and
Lstep 1 - Discussion of __.lr,tep ?. - Problem ! Steo 3 - T-chnic^l 1 qt-^r, A _ 01^ c^i^


     •    giving priority  treatment in terms of accessability
          of parking  space to  priority uses  in an environment
          of limited  parking supply.   For example,  residents
          should have spaces in front  of their homes and space
          should be provided for shoppers necessary to sustain
          the commercial core;
     •    maximizing  ridership on public transportation systems
          through the provision of disincentives to those auto
          uses most competitive with public  transportation use;
     •    fully internalizing  the cost of operating the auto-
          mobile in the urban  environment.   This goal would
          emphasize the implementation of commercial parking
          rates in lieu of subsidized  rates  and, if possible,  a
          premium parking  charge to reflect  the air quality,
          congestion  and other external costs of supporting a
          large automobile population;
     •    reducing auto use to the maximum extent possible to
          attain air  quality goals and energy savings;
     •    providing excess parking spaces so that all uses have
          adequate capacity regardless of the direct or indirect
          costs to the community.

     These goals should be articulated in terms of the spe-
cific opportunities available  to the community.  Public
hearings should obtain the views of:

     •    residents who cannot park at home;
     •    businessmen who  need parking and reduced con-
          gestion to  sustain  their operations;
     •    regionwide  and  EPA  spokespersons who can provide
          a regionwide viewpoint on problems such as air
          quality, highway and transit planning;
     •    public health spokespersons  concerned about
          the impact  of air pollution  and noise on the


     •    land use, police and other officials who cope
          with the automobile problems.

     The hearings should focus  on questions like the following:

     •    Does the community want to increase or reduce
          the automobile's role?
     •    Is there too little or too much parking?
     •    Where are the community's acute parking problems?
     •    What role should areawide priorities such as in-
          creasing public transit ridership and saving air
          quality and energy play in community decisions?
     •    How can the community sustain its businesses while
          at the same time bring pressure on excessive auto-
          mobile use?

     The second step in the process (see Figure 4) is to document
basic facts about the community's parking situation.  This is
the problem assessment phase.  Growth projections, land use
patterns, public transportation ridership, air quality, parking
supply and demand — all of these should be examined.  Simple
and low cost data collection and projection approaches should be

     Step three is the technical analysis.  This step should
always be subservient to the overriding task of goal setting.
It should analyze trips taken in the community to determine
the relative incentives to use the automobile or mass trans-
portation.  Parking management measures should be developed
and applied to specific community problems.  Impact studies
should be conducted to determine the costs and effectiveness
of various measures.  Also, the institutions responsible for
parking management planning and implementation should be ex-
amined.  Their legislative authority,  technical expertise, re-
sponsiveness to the public, and resources should be assessed.

     In step four, various combinations of parking measures
are combined into parking management packages consistent with:

     •    different views of the preferred parking manage-
          ment goals for the community;
     •    variances in key technical facts which are in
     •    possible actions at the regional level which may
          influence needed local actions.

     The parking management packages devised should be presented
to the public accompanied by:

     •    social, economic and environmental impact studies;
     •    explication of the required authorities and resources;
     •    a statement of consistency with Federal and regionwide
          requirements;  and
     •    a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the technical
          weaknesses of the underlying facts and analysis.

     Finally, a parking management plan should be adopted by the
community reflecting both its local goals and the goals of the
regionwide community.

                       CHAPTER V
A.   The Target Area Approach

     The objective of this study is to develop a regional
parking management planning process and to apply it in the
Washington, D.C. area.  Chapters V, VI and VII  will de-
scribe how the planning process was applied to the D.C.
area, specifically the selection of target areas, the eval-
uation of measures, and the development of a regional plan.

     Within the resource constraints, the target area approach
seemed to offer the best chance of testing the regional plan-
ning process.  Four target areas were chosen and are shown on
Figure  5  :  The D.C. Core; Rosslyn, Virginia; Silver Spring,
Maryland; and Centreville, Virginia.  Separate appendices con-
tain extensive descriptions of the four target area studies and
summaries are found in Section C of this chapter.

     The study of target areas simulates the portion of the re-
gional planning process which would be carried out by local
governments, e.g. determination of local goals and problems and
analysis of specific appropriate parking measures.  Under the
"regional guidelines" planning process, this local effort would
be carried out concurrently with regional actions.  In this
study, the information collected in the target area studies was
developed into recommendations for a sample regional plan.  While

                           FIGURE  5
Target Areas

1  D.C. Core

2  Rosslyn

3  Silver Spring

4  Centreville

the measures selected reflect feelings about those approaches
to parking management which are technically most sound and in-
stitutionally most implementable, they are not proposed as the
definitive answer to the myriad of parking related problems
which afflict the Washington, D.C. region.

B.   Methodology for Selecting Target Areas

     The criteria used to select target areas are shown in
Tables  7 and 8.  Since the study concentrated on the home-to-
work commute trip  (seemingly the most divertable), target areas
were chosen with varying types of employment concentrations
and populations.  The Washington COG divides the metropolitan
area into a series of concentric rings which correspond roughly
with population and employment density; a target area was se-
lected  from each of the four inner rings.  In addition, a target
area was selected from both states in addition to the District
of Columbia, and from different county and city governments.
Other factors considered in the selection of target areas in-
cluded  economic health, relationship to new Metro rail lines,
and current state of development.

     It is recognized that four target areas cannot describe all
possible types of communities in a metropolitan region, but these
were considered representative of types found in most urban areas.
The D.C. Core was an obvious choice as the urban center and the
largest single source of home-to-work trips.  Rosslyn is a ty-
pical new, highly concentrated employment center just outside
the Core.  Silver Spring is similar to many older CBD's located
outside the central city and beset with economic problems.  Centre-
ville is an undeveloped growth center where long-range parking
management measures can be used to a maximum effect.


                                 TABLE 7

1.   Location by urban ring
    •  Central core (Ring 0 and D.C.  portion of Ring 1)
    •  Outer Core
    •  Urban Ring
    •  Outer Ring

2.   Employment and Residential Densities
    •  Highest (20-500 Jobs/acre - 18-100 units/acre)
    •  High (5-20 jobs - 4-12 units/acre)
    •  Lower (0-5 jobs - 1-4 units/acre)
    •  Lowest (under 1 job and 1 unit per acre)

3.   Land Use (predominant)
    •  employment center predominately (Federal or Federal and private)
    •  mix of employment, commercial  and residential
       (also new or older CBD)

4.   Transit accessibility
    •  Future Metro rail
    •  No future Metro rail

5.   Institutional Framework
    •  Location in Maryland, Virginia or D.  C.
    •  County or municipal government
    •  COG member or Not COG member

                                   TABLE  8


D.C. Core
     •  Central Core location
     •  Highest employment and residential densities
     •  Mixed land uses
     •  Future Metro Rail
     •  District of Columbia government
     •  Outer Core location
     •  High employment density
     •  Employment center only
     •  Future Metro rail
     •  Arlington County, Virginia government
Silver Spring
     •  Urban Ring location
     •  Lower employment and residential densities
     •  Mixed land uses - older CBD
     •  Future Metro rail
     •  Montgomery County, Maryland government
     •  Outer Ring location
     •  Lowest employment and residential densities
     •  Mixed land uses - growth area
     •  No Metro rail
     •  Fairfax County, Virginia government

C.   Summary of Target Area Studies

     Four principal elements are of interest in these tar-
get area studies:

     •  local goals and their relationship to the regional
     •  a description of the parking problems facing each
        of the communities;
     •  the parking plan and the measures chosen for that
        plan; and
     •  the institutional implementability of the parking

An additional section explains the relationship between the
Federal government and parking management efforts in the
Washington region.

     1.  The D.C. Core

     The D.C. Core was selected for analysis because 50  percent
of the work trips made in the SMSA are to the Core.  Over five
percent of all regional trips are core-based home-to-work trips.
The Core is also a shopping and tourist hub which complicates
the role ;:•£ parking management since these trips must be protected.

     The most important function of the parking management plan
in the Core is to boost transit ridership.  Metro's focus is
downtown, and if ridership cannot be encouraged there, then the
economic viability of the entire system will be jeopardized.  A
secondary goal is the redevelopment of the center city to attract
more tourists and shoppers.  Comprehensive plans now under develop-
ment call for additional shopping areas and hotels.  Parking

must support these activity centers and be protected from
use by commuters.  A parking policy must supplement the over-
all plan.  For example, in the short-term, buses could take
tourists downtown from fringe lots ;   long  term redevelopment
with tourist bus service to the major monuments from down-
town hotels would eliminate the need for additional downtown

     Work trip modal splits to transit are projected to rise
from 35 percent in 1974 to 55 percent by 1992, implying a 115
percent rise in transit use and a 4 percent decline in auto
use.  Should growth anticipated now occur, then auto use would
be expected to be reduced even further.  Non-commute auto trips
(mid-day business and shoppers)  are also expected to be re-
duced as a result of Metro.

     However, such overall figures cannot be used except at
the grossest scale to devise parking management plans in the
target area.  The analysis presented in the appendix breaks
down the Core into six sectors in order to give a better under-
standing of distribution problems.  Certain sectors (i.e. South-
west Mall) are expected to grow much faster than average and thus
should expect, even with transit, pressure from more auto drivers,
Other areas which remain constant in size will see a more sub-
stantial reduction in demand (Capitol Hill, for example, should
have a reduction in vehicle trip generation of 20 percent.)

     Demand for spaces currently is less than the total supply.
In certain areas, though, modal splits to transit are much higher
than average because there are insufficient spaces.  Residential
spillover occurs in some areas where adjacent parking is cheaper
than that found in the Core itself.  Total spillover is estimated
at   4,000 cars.

     Parking prices are the highest of any in the region.
$2.55 is the average maximum daily rate.  Monthly rates for
off-street spaces average close to $40.  Few workers pay these
rates, though, as approximately 40 percent of them are currently
subsidized by their employers.  Thus, their commute mode de-
cisions are not affected by the costs of parking.

     An important factor in downtown parking is the Federal
government.  Twenty-five  percent of Core spaces are government-
owned or -operated.  Approximately 50 percent of the workers
are federally employed.  The rates on government lots are much
lower than the cost of providing them and range from $5 to $15
per month.  Forty percent of them are free.  Clearly, control
of these spaces will be essential.  A detailed discussion of
Federal subsidies follows the target area summaries.

     The parking plan suggested for the Core includes four stra-
tegies.  First, a program must be initiated to get employers to
voluntarily reduce or eliminate the subsidies they give.  This
can be done by raising employees' salaries commensurate with
the subsidy in order to give them the choice of paying for the
parking or diverting to some othei* mode.  Second, in accordance
with the wishes of citizens residing in adjacent neighborhoods,
residential parking systems should be initiated.  This will force
spillover parking back into the Core.  These drivers will have
to pay the higher prices, carpool or divert to transit.  To pro-
tect the spaces now used by shoppers and other non-workers, it
will be necessary to reserve on-street spaces for these short-
term parkers.  Thus, a third strategy would be to eliminate long-
term on-street parking with the express purpose of diverting those
employees into garages.  This will have the effect of forcing them

to pay the full cost.  However, it will also guarantee a
supply of spaces which cannot be used by other than those
for whom they are intended.

     Lastly, long-term measures are aimed at satisfying the
gains made in the short term by both Metro and the foregoing
parking strategies. The primary vehicle, would be a reduction
of the minimum zoning requirement for office building parking
supplies to zero.  Additionally, an amendment would be made
to. the process of granting building permits to formally analyze
the parking needs of each major proposed development.  Such
analysis would consider the vehicle generation characteristics
of a building and the potential for diverting these trips to
other modes of transit.  Such a system would allow flexibility
in providing spaces.  If the number of Core employee spaces
were frozen , D.C. developers would save more than $30,000,000
by 1990.  To further encourage Metro ridership, a second long-
term measure would analyze the potential for spaces at Metro
stations on the fringes of D.C.

     2.  Silver Spring

     The Silver Spring target area study focused on the needs of
a community which was economically declining and wanted to re-
vitalize its CBD.  Silver Spring faces tremendous competition
from shopping centers which have developed in the past decade
around the preiphery of Washington.  These centers offer free
parking and shopping areas which are the equivalent of auto-
free zones.

     While Silver Spring has been intent on supplying enough
parking cheaply to support the CBD, the parking problems which
they now face are much more complex.  The city has 21,300 parking

spaces to meet the demands of commuters,  shoppers and others.
Yet, demand and supply are unevenly matched.   Within the local
area, some public lots are 100 percent occupied while others
are only a fraction full.   In high demand areas, parkers over-
flow into residential neighborhoods.

     It was very difficult to consider future problems in the
Silver Spring area because of the unreliability of the growth
estimates.  Characteristic of many areas, Silver Spring's
growth projections were based more on hope than on historical
growth trends.  Planning documents serve the dual function of
being advertising for potential investors and developers and
also as a basis for the community's decisions on, for example,
providing more services or accommodating future growth.  The
community hopes that the new Metro station will attract new
high-rise residential and commercial development to help re-
vitalize the CBD.  A sensitivity analysis indicated that growth
projections reflecting historical trends would completely alter
the study's conclusions, predicting a future surplus of parking
as opposed to a deficit.

     A related parking problem concerns the new Metro station.
WMATA had not allocated any parking to Silver Spring.  Studies
conclude that feeder buses, plus people within walking distance
and those choosing to "kiss "n ride," would be the sole users of
the Silver Spring Metro station.  As the time for opening the
station nears, Silver Spring has had second thoughts about the
accuracy of these projections.  The city is vulnerable to an on-
slaught of Metro commuters because public parking is cheap and
available.  Either additional parking will have to be supplied or
parking management measures will have to be instituted to protect
public spaces supplied for the use of local commuters and shoppers,

     The parking plan suggested for Silver Spring includes several
short-term strategies. A residential permit system was suggested
for the areas presently impacted by commuter  and shopper  over-
flow.  Second, parking rates would be raised only for long-term
parkers, not for shoppers.  Increased parking fees for home-
to-work commuters would divert auto drivers to transit.  Differ-
entiation between short- and long-term parkers could be made by
putting in short-term meters, allowing very inexpensive parking
for two hours and then raising the rates significantly for long-
term parkers, or restricting supply by not opening lots until
after most commuters would have arrived.  It was suggested that
parking be provided for the Metro station.  One analysis indi-
cated that the demand might approach 500 cars per day for persons
to drive to Silver Spring and take Metro into the city.

     There was little evidence, however, that this kind of plan
would have been supported by the Silver Spring community.  Silver
Spring is currently most concerned with preserving and revitaliz-
ing the CBD and any actions that hamper this program would be
viewed negatively by most of the parties involved.

     The Silver Spring problem is extremely characteristic of
CBD's located outside the core of a major city.  In general, these
CBD's must compete  with newer shopping centers which were de-
signed around the automobile providing cheap and easy access.
Older CBD's tend to be located in more congested areas where
parking supply is dispersed.  A recent and growing trend towards
turning these areas into auto-free zones has improved their at-
tractiveness to shoppers.  Silver Spring had given only casual
consideration to converting two rather small areas into auto-free
zones.  While data is available to show that areas like Silver
Spring must have parking to compete with shopping centers, ade-
quate parking is no insurance that a CBD will be revitalized.  In

fact, the excess of parking in parts of Silver Spring indicates that
the city may have overused parking as a tool for attracting
new commercial development and shoppers.  There is apparently
a limit to the amount that can be accomplished with parking
supply manipulation.  Beyond this point, the inherent economic
attractiveness of a CBD is what will determine its ultimate
growth potential.

     3.  Rosslyn

     Unlike Silver Spring, Rosslyn has had no problem attract-
ing developers.  Rosslyn is characterized by dense high-rise
development which has filled most of the available space.  Ap-
parently, little thought had been given to using parking as a
means of controlling growth in the area.

     Most parking in Rosslyn is supplied by commercial developers
as garage spaces in high-rise buildings.  The current equili-
brium in parking supply and demand is a result of a number of
loosely related factors.  Because the modal split to transit
was  lower than that predicted in the original growth plan, park-
ing  in the completed office buildings is not sufficient in most
cases to meet worker demand.  The slack has been taken up by lots
which remain in undeveloped areas of Rosslyn and by the ready a-
vailability of residential parking.  In addition, zoning require-
ments resulted in an overbuilding of hotel and motel spaces and
these have been rented to commuters.  Yet, demand for parking in
Rosslyn is high despite the fact that they have one of the lowest
ratios of employees to parking spaces.  This reflects both the
auto intensive nature of the businesses in Rosslyn (e.g. consul-
tants and salesmen) and the subsidization of spaces by employers
and  by rents.

     The study found that parking fees in Rosslyn did not
cover the costs of constructing and maintaining parking spaces.
Parking was used as a means of attracting tenants to buildings
and parking costs were subsidized by building rents.  Employers
also tended to subsidize their employees^so very little of
the actual cost of parking was paid by the auto commuter.

     Two parking management approaches are possible in the Ros-
slyn area.  A stringent plan would involve implementation of a
residential parking ban in the area, a ban on future construction
of parking spaces and a request for voluntary elimination of
employer subsidies.  A more gradual approach would involve the
decrease or elimination of minimum zoning requirements.  This
measure, coupled with the residential parking ban imposed in
neighborhoods where it was requested, would gradually decrease
the supply of spaces relative to demand.  As completion of develop-
ment in Rosslyn occurred, the number of employees per space would
increase along with the price of parking.  These measures would
be coupled with a voluntary employer subsidy elimination and en-
couragement of carpooling.

     Institutionally, the powers to implement this plan are held
by the County Board, although a challenge to their right to
institute a residential parking ban has been upheld in the courts.
The'Northern Virginia Transportation Commission has also
been very active in advocating that parking rates be in-
creased and supply decreased to divert more riders to transit.
The County may choose to  force new developments in Rosslyn not
to provide parking.  The  major question  then becomes: Will de-
velopers  construct  high-rise buildings without associated parking?

Of all of the areas investigated, Rosslyn seemed to have the
best chances for successfully restricting parking in this
manner.  The County is already critical of the extensive  de-
velopment that has taken place in the area and has not expressed
much concern about the possible loss of future tax revenue.
In fact, a citizen's committee studying the Rosslyn-Ballston
Corridor suggested thay some of the remaining land be devoted
to parks as opposed to more high-rise construction.

     4.  Centreville

     Centreville is representative of those areas lying out-
side the CBD which have yet to become fully urbanized.  In these
areas, the potential exists to avoid the kind of remedial park-
ing measures recommended for other areas.  The community is still
in a sufficiently formative stage where the types o'f congestion
and air quality problems characteristic of more urbanized areas
have not yet developed.  Fairfax County develops Centreville plans
and has been very innovative in land use controls and cognizant
of the role of the automobile in new development.  The County's
goals include decreased dependence on the automobile and increased
use of transit.  High density townhouse type developments have
been constructed and provide an ideal point from which home-to-
work commute trips to the Core can be conducted by transit.  Planned
development centers may take this concept one step further by
mixing land uses in a concentrated area.  In these cases, the need
for commute vehicles can be considerably reduced since home-work
centers are in proximity.

     Presently, Centreville has no parking problem.  The goal of
parking management in a marginally developed area must be either

to anticipate future problems or to support other areas of
the region which currently have parking and congestion problems.
Anticipated development for Centreville would approximately
triple the population in the next 10 years but there would
still be less than 27,000 people.  Some planners indicated
that the kind of congestion characteristic of Rosslyn or Silver
Spring probably would not appear in Centreville for the next
century.  However, almost one-half of the Centreville residents
travel to the D.C. Core, Alexandria and Arlington.  These resi-
dents contribute substantially to traffic congestion and air
quality problems in other parts of the region.  Bus ridership in
the area consists of less than 70 passengers per day going to
the Core.  No projections were available for future transit
growth and the probability of Metro rail coming to Centreville
is considered relatively low.

     Employment growth in Centreville is expected to be rather
marginal.  Only 8 to 13 percent of the work force living in
Centreville will ever work there.  However, Fairfax County pre-
dicts that most employees living in Centreville will work in
western Fairfax County in the Dulles, Manassas or Fairfax City
areas.  Data is unavailable to support these projections but
planners are counting on these home-work patterns to cut the
need for additional capacity on commuting routes to the Core.

     Two types of strategies were considered in  the plan for Centre-
ville.  The first involved fringe parking for bus transit.  The
Centreville plan now contains a recommendation for a very large
lot for fringe parking located near the center of the city.  Pre-
sumably buses would be provided to the Core and western Fairfax
County for persons parking in this lot.  The success of this mea-
sure, however,  would be largely dependent on the form which
growth takes in Centreville.  In Reston, for example, fringe

lots are unnecessary because the density of development
allows buses to stop at several pick-up-points within the
city before beginning their express haul to the Core.  If
development in Centreville turns out to be more sprawl than
high density, the need for fringe parking would be great.
This is a case where local zoning decisions must be closely
tied with parking policy.

     The second strategy concerns zoning and planning.  Minimum
zoning requirements in the area provide sufficient spaces for
the people currently residing there.  Minimum parking require-
ments could be relaxed to encourage transit usage and minimize
reliance on the automobile.  Developers would still retain the
right to provide more parking but they could save money in areas
where minimum parking requirements are excessive.  The reduction
in zoning requirements could stimulate more innovative approaches
to transporting shoppers and residents.  For example, minibus
service might be provided in lieu of parking.  In addition, the
land use plans which Fairfax County has been generating could
enhance mixed land use development.  This would also reduce de-
pendence on the automobile and the need for further parking

D.   Parking Provided by the Federal Government

     This section discusses the relationship between the
Federal government, as the region's single most important
employer and parking management.

     1.   Background

     The Federal government's stance on employee parking was
discussed in a memorandum accompanying an Office of Management
and Budget Draft Circular,  (April 1972).  Although never
officially adopted, the memo is the only existing statement
of Federal policy.  Issued by GSA during the energy crisis in
1974, it says in part:

     "The proposed policy would assure that agency require-
     ments and operating effectiveness are not hindered by
     the lack of adequate employee parking facilities while
     also assuring that the provision of such parking
     facilities would not serve to augment employee com-
     pensation at Government expense.  Further, in view of
     the environmental problems caused by the operation of
     automobiles, especially in urban areas, and in view of
     the government's support for public transportation
     projects, the policy would permit the acquisition or
     construction of the minimum parking facilities com-
     mensurate with the effective operation of government

     The memo represents a very recent attempt on the part of
the government to use parking as a means of encouraging some
of its program goals.  Historically, the government has used
parking as a means of attracting employees.  Lagging behind
private industry in the salaries it could offer, the govern-
ment provided parking as an employee benefit.  However, while
salaries are now more equitable, the parking policy still

reflects employee subsidies.  Moreover, provision of free
or low-cost parking as an employee benefit poses conflicts
with other expressed government goals:
          •  to support transit
          •  to comply with EPA air quality standards
          •  to lessen energy consumption.

     2.   Administration

     Parking for Federal employees is administered principally
by GSA and the Architect of the Capitol.  In 1974 GSA
published a temporary regulation  (above); it established
criteria for parking space assignment as follows:
     "At least 90 percent of employee spaces would be assigned
     to carpools according to the number of persons in the
     carpool.  Employee spaces are those available after
     government vehicles, other official parking and visitor
     vehicles are accommodated".
While actual numbers of carpool assignments and occupancy are
not available, an informal inquiry conducted by the National
Capital Planning Commission confirmed that several large
agencies do comply with the regulation giving high priority
to carpools.

     By far, the most successful carpooling venture is the
Pentagon's.  The energy crisis in combination with preferen-
tial parking for carpools spurred carpool growth from 300 in
December 1973 to 5,000 in March 1974, with an average occupancy
of 2.6 persons.

     As a result, there are enough unused parking spaces in
the north lot to allow 1200 spaces to be allocated for Bi-
centennial visitors.

     Th e effectiveness of other Federal agency carpooling
programs has not been documented.  Originally, most operated
on a point system so that spaces were provided to employees
or employee carpools with the highest number of points until
all spaces were filled.  These programs encouraged carpooling
but did not result in empty spaces as the Pentagon program did.
      N.C.P.C.  officials feel  parking  restraints  could
not only interfere with carpooling, but could divert car-
poolers to transit at peak hours, when it is least able to
accommodate them.

     All employee parking at the Capitol falls under the
purview of the Capitol Architect.  There is not at this time
any indication that the assignment of spaces follows criteria
similar to that of GSA; also Capitol parking is free.

     3.   Pricing

     Pricing policy for GSA managed parking is to charge only
at contracted parking facilities, and only enough to recoup
the operating cost charged by the contractor.  All other
parking is free, with no attempt to recover any of the capital
costs which are considerable.

     The average fee that is charged at a contract facility is
$9 per month; the maximum monthly charge is $20.00.  These
figures fall below the average and maximum rates used in private
facilities.   ($32.00 per month average and $55.00 per month

     In contrast to the Federal parking subsidy, a D.C. govern-
ment employee must pay market rates ($20-$30.00 per month), as
a matter of government policy.  These fees were imposed by the
D.C. government concurrent with air quality plans proposed in
1973.  Arlington County government has plans to remove employee

parking subsidies and increase employee salaries by an equal
amount thereby leaving the choice of transportation mode
entirely up to the employee.

     4.   Federal Parking Supply

     Table  9  presents the distribution of Federal employ-
ment and parking.  The Federal government controls  almost
39,000 parking spaces, 25,SCO of whichare provided free.

     In Ring 0 at the present time, there are over 76,000
Federal employees.  Of these,  72 percent occupy government
owned buildings, while 38 percent work in government leased
space.  The total Federal parking supply in Ring 0 is esti-
mated at 11,078 spaces.  The ratio of total Federal employ-
ment Ring 0 to the total Federal parking supply is 6.88:1.
However, the ratio does not represent the actual Federal
employee/parking supply relationship, because total Federal
parking supply is underestimated for the 38 percent of the
employees working in leased space.   The ratio of employees
in owned space to total parking which is 4.28:1 in Ring 0 is
a closer approximation of parking-availability.  However, this
ratio is too low because it includes those leased spaces
counted as part of the Federal parking supply.

     Over 68,000 Federal employees work in the D.C. portion
of Ring 1; of these, only 6,100 work in leased office space.
Total Federal parking supply is 17,075 in owned facilities;
therefore, the total number of employees per Federal owned
space is 4.00, compared with a 6.88 ratio in Ring 0.  However,
since the amount of employment in leased space is so small,
the actual demand-supply relationship is probably better
approximated by the ratio of employment in Federal owned space
to parking in Federal owned buildings:  3.64 to 1.

                        TABLE 9        -39-


                     Ring 0, Ring 1
                                                         Ratio  of  Em-
                                                          ployees  in
DC Ring 0
001 NW Rectangle
002 Conn. Ave .
003 McPherson Sq.
004 Mt. Vernon Sq.
005 Municipal Ctr.
Fed. Triangle
006 White House
Sub Total
Prescribed ratio
DC Ring 1
101 Foggy Bottom-
Federal Owned Office Parking owned soace
Employment Space Total Fed. Free to total parking

102 N.Dupont Circle m
103 West Shaw
104 East Shaw
105 Union Station
106 Capitol Hill
107 Southwest Mall
108 W.Potomac Park
Sub Total
Prescribed ratio
DC Total
VA Rina 1
131 Pentagon
132 Navy Annex
133 Rosslyn
Sub Total
Prescribed ratio
Overall Total

83 3
66 1
72 2
89 1
62 11

22 2
100 5
96 7
91 17

76 28
100 9
100 1
84 10
77 38




(Source: National Capitol Planning Commission, with General Services
Administration Public Buildings Service, (Quarterly Report on
Assignment and Utilization of GSA Controlled Space in the
Capital Region as of June 30,
and Washington

Metropolitan Council of Governments)

     5.    Congressional Parking Supply

     Table 10 presents data for sectors with more than 70
percent of Federal employees in owned office space; it is the
most accurate representation of the employee:parking space
relationship, since it is possible to identify the precise
amount of parking in office facilities which are owned by
the Federal government.  The data is presented in order of
increasing employee:parking space ratios.

     The distribution of spaces, both free and low cost,
varies significantly from sector to sector.  In the B.C.
portion of Ring 1, employment sector 105  (Capitol Hill) stands
out in having a very low employee to space ratio  (2.62).  In
the D.C. portion of Ring 1, sector 107 is next closest with
only about half as many spaces per employee.  What is perhaps
most astounding is that all of the Capitol Hill spaces are
free.    A visitor to Congress quickly learns that few
spaces are available for non-Federal employees.  The Pentagon
which is the only sector with a lower ratio has such an effective
carpooling program that it has 1200 spaces not in use.

     6.   Price Increases and Impacts

     The preceding sections demonstrate the prevalence of
parking subsidies for Federal employees.  While the Federal
government  is not the only employer to provide parking subsi-
dies,  the policy is especially curious because it conflicts
with other Federal goals.  To continue to subsidize employee
parking is:
     •  inconsistent with Regional Air Quality
        goals and Federal standards
     •  not cost effective
     •  inequitable because the poorest government
        employees who may not drive receive no comparable

                                         TMBUL  J.U
Percentage Total
Federal Employment
in Owned Office



Federal Agencies
131 Pentagon
106 House Office Bldgs.,
LDC , Capitol , Supreme
Court, Botanical
005 IRS, Justice Dept.,
Archives, FTC, FBI,
US District Court
Court of Military
001 DOI, GSA, USIA, State
Dept., Fed. Reserve
Bldg. , Bureau Indian
Affairs NAS
107 Smithsonian Museum,
NASA,FAA, Agriculture,
Bureau of Engraving
and Printing GSA-R3,
132 Navy Annex
006 Executive Offices,
White House, Treasury
Dept . , Commerce , P . O . ,
ICC, Coast Guard, Labor
108 West Potomac Park



ixumud. <_>J-



Federal Emp. in
Owned Office Space-
Fed. Controlled
Parking Supply

- i


     •  no longer defensible as an employee benefit.

     The Federal government has been criticized for doling
out funds for Metrobus operating subsidies, while the
government continues to provide free/low cost parking for
its commuting employees.  For example,  the annual tab for
employee parking at the Pentagon is $4.5M while only $1.5M
is appropriated as a bus operating subsidy for Northern
Virginia  (FY 1975).

     Raising free and low cost government parking spaces
to market rates could provide approximately $14M per
year in additional revenue.    Assuming that some spaces
would be exempt from this price hike, the additional
revenue would be reduced.

     According to GSA officials, however, prices increases
would  require a change in their charter because they are
forbidden to earn a profit.  In addition, there are no
legal or institutional channels to make parking revenues
available for mass transit.  Both Congress and the Executive
branch would have to act in order to change Federal parking

     The major negative impact of a price increase would be
on Federal employees.  In a letter to EPA officials, the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission strongly objected
to a price hike, stating it would lead to grave labor manage-
ment disputes.  He further asserted that the policy was not
wisely designed to meet the "legitimate goal of reducing air
pollution."  An additional objection mentioned earlier to across-
the-board increases is the possibility of pricing some carpoolers
I/  Assumes raising the price of government spaces to $40/mo,
    in D.C. and $30/mo. in the Virginia portion of Ring 1.

out of the market, and diverting more people to transit
during peak hours when the bus system is already over-
loaded.  Consequently, increased parking prices would
have to be coordinated with the beginning of Metro rail

                        CHAPTER VI

                    THE REGIONAL PLAN
A.   Introduction

     This chapter describes how information gathered in the
target area studies was used to develop the regional plan,
what measures were evaluated and the criteria used to eval-
uate them.  In practice, representatives from local govern-
ments and the regional coordinating committee would work to-
gether to determine what parking elements could be implemented
in the region.  The process of combining and trading
off elements from the local plans to produce a coordinated
regional plan was simulated in the study.

B.   Evaluation of Data from the Target Area Studies

     1.  Target Area Characteristics

     Table 11 provides some vital statistics on each of the tar-
get areas.  The D.C. center is typical of core areas.
It is the largest employment center, providing jobs for one out
of every three workers, and drawing commuters from all parts of
the region.

     Rosslyn is primarily an employment center and the only area
where daytime employment exceeds resident population.  Silver
Spring is a mixed use area with substantial employment, residential
and commercial areas.  Centreville contains very little employ-
ment and almost all residents commute to other parts of the region.

                                TABLE 11
Silver Spring
(see map)


No. Of
Living In
The Area

In The Area

Percent Of Workers
Living In The
Target Areas And
Working In The :
14% 66%
12% 40%
19% 52%
7% 20% *
*rises to 45% if Alexandria and Arlington are included.
 Source:   1970 Census
 TPB - Commute Trip Studies

     Growth rates in each of these areas also differ.  The
D.C. Core has shown steady growth over the past decade while
Rosslyn has grown exponentially.  Centreville is a future
growth area with its population expected to triple over the
next decade.  Silver Spring represents areas that are stable
or declining.

     In summary, the target areas represents tremendous var-
iety in terms of economic attractiveness, stage of development
and type of development.  They also represent different juris-
dictions and illustrate the types of local considerations which
must be taken into account in the development of a regional

     2.  Local and Regional Goals

     Table 12 summarizes the parking management related goals in
the target areas and compares them to regionwide goals.  These
goals are of three types: economic, environmental and social.
All the target areas compete for economic growth.  Increasing
Metro ridership to decrease deficits was also a commonly held
goal.  Environmental goals, such as air quality improvement or
traffic congestion reduction, are heavily emphasized at the re-
gional level but much less so within local jurisdictions.  Most
communities shared the goal of protecting existing neighborhoods
from spillover.  Parking also supported unique local goals, for
example, attracting tourists to D.C., assisting the Silver Spring
Parking District, or attracting shoppers to Centreville.

     3.  The Parking Problem

     Table 13 illustrates the parking supply and demand situation
currently and in 1980 for all of the target areas except Centre-
ville.  Centreville was excluded because it is currently not an

                              TABLE 12

Attract more

Attract more
shoppers to

Increase Metro

Make parking
district self-

District   Spring   Rosslyn   Centreville






Improve air
Reduce traffic


                                  TABLE  13


          92,070    92,070
                 600  —
           Current   1980

              D.C. CORE
Current   1980
 Silver Spring
Current  1980
         Parking supply:  private, public}//^  residential

         Parking demand:

employment center and parking supply for home-to-work commuters
has little meaning.  In the target areas, parking supply always
exceeds demand although in some cases it requires spillover into
residential spaces.  However, since these estimates cover large
areas, local shortages and surpluses are not shown.  By 1980,
surpluses will probably increase as the number of area workers
diverted to transit by Metro rail exceeds the growth in auto com-

     The estimates in Table 13  do not include implementation of
parking demand measures.  They assume the existence of Metro but
do not account for any additional parking restraints.  Some
rate adjustemnts and supply changes can be expected when Metro
rail opens.

     4.  Transit Availability

     Table 14 shows the present modal split to transit in each of
the target areas.  With the exception of Centreville, all of
the areas will have access to Metro rail.  All target areas offer
relatively good transit service to the Core while service to
CBD's outside the Core is fair to poor.  Transit service will
improve once Metro rail becomes operative.  Buses formerly used
for line haul service to the Core can then be diverted to feeder
bus  and local service.  With the introduction of Metro rail,
WMATA predicts that the modal split to transit in D.C. will in-
crease from 35 percent to 55 percent, in Silver Spring from 11 to
20 percent, and in Rosslyn from 20 to 35 percent.  These increased
modal splits reflect the impact of Metro rail.

             TABLE  14

The site of a Metro
stop in:
Metroline to extend
beyond this stop
Bus access --
to the D.C. Core
to its CBD
Present Split to
Target Area
Auto Driver
Auto Passenger



— _

— —






— —


none planned

none planned


almost 100%
auto related

C.   Parking Measures Considered for the Regional Plan

     1.  Types of Measures

     Given the scope of this effort, it was only feasible
to investigate the aggregate parking supply-demand relation-
ships and the measures which could be used to influence these,,.
More detailed analysis would be done by local governments as
they develop specific parking management plans.

     Three basic categories of parking measures were considered
for the D.C. region in terms of their impact:  parking supply,
parking demand, and support measures.  Table 15  lists each
measure by category.

     Parking supply measures increase or decrease the amount of
parking and change the geographical distribution of spaces.  In
addition, this category includes strategies which change the
type of parking, for example, replacing on-street spaces with
the same number of spaces in lots or garages.

     Parking demand measures impact the price of parking.  Park-
ing prices may be lowered as an incentive for certain trip types
such as shopping or raised as an incentive for commuters to use
transit rather than automobiles.  Not all parking demand measures
have a direct impact on the price of parking.  For example, eli-
mination of free parking would force parkers into commercial spaces
which would involve  additional cost.

     Support measures are generally low cost actions which do not
make dramatic changes in the parking system.  These activities
support parking supply and demand measures,  enhancing the attrac-
tiveness of other modes of travel such as bicycles and carpools.

                        TABLE  15

                   PARKING MEASURES
Parking Supply Measures

     Provision of Park 'n Ride Lots in Fringe Areas
     Provision of Parking at Metro Stations
     Limitation of Parking Supply Through Zoning Changes
     Elimination of On-Street Commuter Parking
     Residential Permit System
     Parking Facility Review
     Auto-Free Zones

Parking Demand Measures

     Increase in Current Parking Rates
     Institution of a Parking Surcharge
     Elimination of Subsidies to Commuter Parking
        -- by employers
        — by rate structure

Support Measures*

     Provision of Preferential Carpool Parking
     Enforcement of Parking Measures and Violations
     Provision of Secure Bicycle Parking
     Public Information Campaigns
* The proposed Metro system was assumed to be fully in operation
   as a support measure by 1990.

     2.  Description of Measures Evaluated for the D.C. Region

     The measures analyzed for the D.C. region are described in
terms of their applicability, their impact on auto-driver trips
and their feasibility given present institutional considerations.

         a.  Parking Supply Measures

     Park  'n Ride Lots in Fringe Areas:  Park 'n Ride lots for
bus passengers located at future Metro rail station sites or on
non-rail corridors would be served by express buses connecting
to the CBD or rail station.  Park  'n Ride lots are often developed
as a free service to promote bus ridership and therefore the
transit trip should have the distinct cost as well as convenience
advantages over parking in the Core.

     Parking at Metro Stations:  Parking is expected to be pro-
vided at most Metro stations outside of the District of Columbia.
The difficulties lie in determining how  much parking is  adequate
and meeting the goal of maximum Metro ridership without increas-
ing congestion or VMT.  Ideally, parking at Metro stations should
not act as an incentive to drive to the station rather than ride
the feeder bus.  This, however, requires adequate bus service.  It
is unlikely that any practicable feeder bus service will totally
eliminate Metro stimulated parking demand.  It is possible that
a much higher demand will exist for parking at outer Metro stations
than is presently planned.and increased parking supply in these
areas should be investigated as a way of diverting auto drivers
to transit.  Local political considerations, for example, citizen
opposition to parking lot locations, may present difficulties in
optimizing parking supply at Metro stations.

     Limitation on New Parking Spaces:   This measure refers to
policies which plan and coordinate parking supply increases.
Parking provided by private developers can be limited by revi-
sions in the zoning requirements, special exceptions, or a tem-
porary freeze in parking supply.  This measure would  constrict  sup-
ply commensurate with  growth  and force the use of  transit  or  car-

     Elimination of On-Street Parking:   This measure removes on-
street parking in the Central Business District from use by long
term parkers.  This can be accomplished through metering or by
establishing time limitations(e.g. no parking until  after 10 a.m.)
which do not conform to commuter needs.

     Residential Permit System:  Residential parking controls are
used primarily where commuter parkers overflow into surrounding
residential streets.  It allows residents with stickers to park
near their homes but bans all cars without stickers.  It prevents
spillover which may result from other parking control measures.
A residential parking ban would have the effect of diverting af-
fected drivers to commercial parking or transit or to carpools
using commercial lots.

     Parking Facility Review:  An alternative to freezing the
parking supply through zoning changes would be modifying the
building design review process to include an analysis of parking
needs.  Local authorities would estimate the potential parking de-
mand exerted by a building to insure that extra spaces were not
provided for those who could take transit or carpool.  Developers
already should be estimating their space needs, so this measure
merely formalizes the process.

     Auto Free Zones;  Auto free zones are clearly within the
powers of local governments and are currently planned for several
areas in the District of Columbia.  Roads crossing these pedes-
trian malls will carry only midi-buses, emergency vehicles and

     These zones will divert rather than eliminate auto traffic
but should enhance the quality of life in the inner city and
help revitalize decaying areas of the Core.  Auto free zones can
also reduce carbon monoxide hotspots by dispersing traffic away
from congested areas.  Parking impacts of auto free zones are
nominal, limited, mainly to reducing orv-street supplies.

         b.  Parking Demand Measures

     Increase in Current Parking Rates:  This measure is appli-
cable in communities where parking is largely supplied by local
government parking districts.  In communities where the vast
majority of parking is provided by private operators, govern-
ments will probably have little ability to increase rates.
The    legislation required to obtain this control could probably
not be obtained at least in the short term.  Rates can also be
effectively raised through increased taxes on parking lot operators,
However, experience in San Francisco with a 25 percent parking
tax indicated that only part of the tax was passed through and
that the number of commuter trips diverted was negligible.

     Parking Surcharge;  Although a surcharge is within the legal
powers of all local communities under provisions of the Clean Air
Act and surcharge income might be used to reduce the transit de-
ficit, a surcharge is politically very sensitive and would probably
not be applied unless required by Federal law.  Suburban residents

who work in the CBD have viewed this measure as a form of "com-
muter tax."  In terms of its effectiveness, a parking surcharge
is the same as raising parking rates.  A $1.00 rate hike accord-
ing to the diversion curves would reduce auto trips to the CBD
by 15 percent.  Both surcharges and rate increases will only be
effective in reducing auto trips if residential area spillover
is adequately controlled.

     Elimination of Employer and Rent Subsidies:  Subsidies pro-
vide incentives to use automobiles for commuting trips.  An end
to employer subsidization results in new out-of-pocket expenses
for employees even if salaries are raised to compensate for park-
ing payments.  This direct payment eliminates the hidden cost of
parking and places transit in a more competitive position.  Govern-
ments in the region cannot directly change the policies of private
business firms.  However, to encourage the elimination of the prac-
tice voluntarily:
     •  a public relations effort by the District and County
        governments would show what they have done to reduce
        auto commuting by their own employees;
     •  the  City or County could directly request that private
        businesses reduce subsidies as a way of saving energy and
        reducing congestion and air pollution.

     This same form of "moral suasion" would probably be needed to
eliminate Federal government subsidies.  A detailed discussion of
the Federal government's parking policies is found in Chapter  V
and shows that, while preferential carpool parking has been in-
stituted, little other effort has been made to raise low cost
parking to commercial levels to divert more commuters to mass

     The elimination of commuter parking subsidies from rents
is difficult to implement unless local governments obtain the
legal powers to control rates in private parking garages.  At
the present time, parking rates in most garages favor long term
parkers, such as commuters, over short term parkers by charging
low all-day rates or using monthly discounts.  Rental income
helps recover the capital investment in parking facilities.
Local governments could require an altered rate structure as a
condition for licensing, but such a move would undoubtedly face
political opposition by the parking  industry.

         c.  Support Measures

     All of the strategies in this study depend to some degree
on support measures.  These measures are especially valuable
because they are inexpensive, relatively easy to implement and,
with the exception of enforcement, are positive parking policies
rather than negative or restrictive mechanisms.

     Carpool Incentives:  Carpool incentive programs are designed
to utilize the enormous reserve of unused seating capacity in auto-
mobiles.  Carpool matching  programs can be organized and put into
effect at a nominal cost and in a short period of time through
areawide computer programs.  Other carpooling incentives include
reduced parking rates, preferred space locations and reserved
spaces for carpool parking.  Carpools can ameliorate the impact
of rate increases or supply restraints.

     Enforcement;  As other parking measures begin to take effect,
drivers will seek to avoid higher prices by parking illegally.
Strict enforcement is vital to discourage illegal parking.  Im-
portant elements in strict enforcement are reciprocity between
jurisdictions in convicting violators, adequate personnel, an auto-
mated parking violation information system to allow on-the-spot

detection of repeaters, severe enough fines to discourage vio-
lations, and the successful collection of fines.

     Secure Bicycle Parking;  This measure applies to provision
of secure bicycle parking at transit stations, major office
buildings, and other important destinations.  The type of faci-
lity could be lockers or racks under surveillance.  Because of
serious theft problems, many persons will not ride and park bi-
cycles in current facilities.  Private garage operators could
also be required by local government action to provide a per-
centage of spaces for secure bicycle parking.

     Information Programs;  Information programs can range from
acquainting commuters with the availability of fringe parking
lots to requesting that major employers distribute information
to all employees on transportation options.

D.   Evaluation of Measures

     A detailed explanation of the procedures for technical ana-
lysis and evaluation was given in Chapter IV.  The following ele-
ments were considered in evaluating the parking measures for de-
veloping the regional plan.

     •  Comparison of local and regional goals to determine
        which measures could effectively meet both.  Local goals
        were considered partial constraints in choosing measures.
     •  Consideration of the specific parking measures recom-
        mended for the target areas.  Table  16 shows the short-
        and long-term measures selected for each target area.
     •  Evaluation of measures against specific criteria drawn
        from the regional goals.  These criteria shown in Table 17

                        TABLE  16
Measure             District   Spring

                  Rosslyn   Centreville
Provision of Park     short    short                short
 ?n Ride Lots         term     term       N/A       term
Metro Station                  short
 Parking               N/A     term       N/A        N/A

Limitation of Sup-
 ply through Zon-     short/   short/     short     long
 ing Changes          long     long       term      term
Elimination of On-
 Street Commuter      short               short
 Parking              term      N/A       term       N/A

Residential Permit    short     short/    short
 System               term      long      term       N/A

Parking Facility      short
 Review               term      N/A       N/A        N/A

Auto Free Zones       long      long
                      term      term      N/A        N/A
Increase in Current
 Parking Rates
Parking Surcharge

Elimination of Sub-
 sidies to Commuter
  - by employers

  - by rate structure N/A

Support Measures



Preferential Carpool

Enforcement of Parking

Secure Bicycle Parking

Information Programs



               TABLE  17

1) Park 'n Ride
2) Parking at
Metro station
3) Limits on Parking
Supply thru Zoning
4) Eliminate on-
street commuter
5) Residential
permit system
6) Parking faci-
lity review
7) Auto free zones
8) Increases in
Parking Rates
9) Parking sur-
10) Eliminate park-
ing subsidies by:
- employers
- rate/time
11) Preferential
Carpool Parking
12) Enforcement
13} Secure Bicycle
14) Information
No Change
No Change
Cost to Auto
Cost to
to Region
Questionable ^

        include the legal, political and institutional appli-
        cability of the measures as well as their socioeconomic
        impacts and their effectiveness in reducing vehicle
        miles traveled.  The criteria used were:
          —  VMT - impact on vehicle miles traveled;
              Transit Use - impact on Metro ridership;
              Economic Dislocation - harmful socioeconomic
              impacts on any population subgroup;
              Cost to Auto Driver - severity of the parking
              price increases;
              Cost to Government - direct costs required to
              implement program or construct facilities;
              Legal Authority - if presently held or reason-
              ably attainable by governments;
              Political - implementability in light of anti-
              cipated reaction of local elected officials;
              Applicability to Region - summary of evaluation
              of measures indicating whether they deserve further
              consideration for the regional plan.

     As a result of this evaluation procedure, it was possible to
determine which measures were most applicable regionwide.   The
results are summarized in the last column of Table 17.  The
recommended measures are combined into four strategies and
evaluated quantitatively as part of the regional plan in
Chapter VII.

                      CHAPTER VII
                  THE REGIONAL PLAN
A.   Introduction

     Those parking measures described in the preceding chap-
ter which were applicable to the region were grouped into four
strategies; these were combined to form the regional plan:

     •  Residential permit systems and limitations of
        communter on-street parking
     •  Increased parking rates and preferential car-
        pool parking
     •  Transit support through additional park 'n
        ride lots
     •  Zoning and land use controls.

This chapter describes these strategies in detail and estimates
their effectiveness in reducing auto driver trips.  These measures
are not recommended as specific programs which can solve the
Washington metropolitan area's parking problems.  They are meant
to be illustrative of the general types of measures which can be
applied to achieve regionwide parking goals.  Likewise, the numer-
ical impacts assigned to each measure are indicators only of their
relative effectiveness in reducing auto driver trips.

B.   Strategy #1:  Residential Permit Systems and Limits on
                   On-Street Commuter Parking

     1.  Applicability

     This strategy is designed to restrict supply and consists
of two measures: elimination of on-street parking and installation
of a residential permit system.  Before applying pressure to auto

commuters, one must figuratively close the escape hatch.  In
parking management terms, this means eliminating free and avail-
able on-street parking spaces.  This measure has a dual purpose;
residential areas would be protected from the increased number of
auto commuters who would seek cheaper parking if commercial rates
were raised and the cheapest form of parking, free on-street spaces,
would be eliminated.

     This is an extremely powerful measure because it carries
a "double whammy."  By eliminating free on-street parking as an
alternative, those commuters who were most price sensitive (they
are probably not subsidized) and willing to walk the extra few
blocks to get free parking would have that alternative closed.
These parkers must pay commercial rates as auto drivers or car-
poolers, or switch to transit.  The portion choosing not to switch
to transit would begin competing for the cheapest spaces avail-
able in the CBD.  Parking garage owners recognizing the increased
demand for the limited supply could raise rates and still fill
their parking lots.  Thus, those people who formerly parked in
free on-street spaces would now have to pay commercial rates plus
they would add to the demand pool which would presumably cause an
increase in those commercial rates.

     2.  Estimation of Trip Reductions

     This strategy may eliminate up to 14,500 auto driver trips
by 1980.  As free on-street spaces are restricted to short-term
parkers and residential permit programs close the areas of greatest
spillover, many auto drivers will be diverted to carpools or transit.

     The parking spillover problem depends on two factors.  First,
a dense employment center must be present.  In these areas, parking

is normally provided at a fee because the land is valuable
and limited.  Second, free on-street parking usually provided
in a lower density residential area must be in proximity to
part of the employment center to accept spillover .   To estimate
the number of trips affected, 28 dense employments centers in
the region with employment greater than or equal to that in Silver
Spring were identified.  Employment for 22 of those areas in Rings
0-4 was projected for 1980 and 1990 to estimate potential spill-
over problems.  When spaces were eliminated, the diversion curve
in Figure 6 was used to predict the reduction in auto driver

     3.  Implementability

     The regional parking plan proposes residential/on-street
parking restrictions inside the Core area and in dense employ-
ment centers elsewhere in the region.  The mechanisms for imple-
menting this measure would include a residential parking permit
program similar to that in effect in D.C.; elimination of on-
street spaces in commercial areas, introduction of short-term
parking time limits and better enforcement.

     Residential parking bans have been approved in the District
but have run into legal problems in Arlington. (' Appendix A
includes a copy of the D.C. ordinance).  The regional working
group would develop a model ordinance and criteria for appli-
cation.  The process for applying this ban might include public
hearings in the neighborhoods where a parking ban was to be in-
stituted or a requirement  for local approval.

C.   Strategy #2;  Increased Parking Rates and Preferential Car-
                   pool Parking

     1.  Applicability

     This strategy affects parking demand by raising auto commuter
parking rates.  The applicable measures include increasing parking

                                                   VHT vs. TRANSIT

    . 7
                                                 TRIPS vs. PARKING

§                 1.0          2.0         3.0         4.0         5.0
       1	I            I	|	J.....	|

                  0.20        0.40        0.60        0.80        1.00


prices through taxes or local surcharges, eliminating sub-
sidies by employers and by rate structure, and providing pre-
ferential treatment for carpools.   These measures would serve
as cost and convenience disincentives for the single auto driver.

     The availability of cheap parking acts as a tremendous incen-
tive to auto commuting.  Employer subsidies, a rate structure
that favors long-term parking (subsidized by building rents), park-
ing lots that do not reflect the value of the land being occupied
and publicly funded garages all support auto commuting.  This
strategy would raise auto commuter parking rates by raising prices
and eliminating subsidies.

     Five possibilities for increasing rates are immediately ob-
vious: a voluntary reduction of employer subsidies, a voluntary
reduction of rent subsidies, restriction of parking supply to allow
rate increases, taxation of parking receipts which would be tied
inversely to rate schedules,and a surcharge applied selectively.
In short, the objective would be to raise the cost of parking
to long-term parkers through any method that the jurisdiction felt

     2.  Estimation of Trip Reductions

     To evaluate the effectiveness of the measures in reducing auto
trips requires several assumptions:

     •  average government rates are assumed to increase to $40
        per month in Ring 0 and $20 per month in Ring 1 and beyond;
     •  the percentage of private employees with subsidized park-
        ing decrease from 50 percent to 25 percent;

     •  the average auto occupancy rate for Federal carpools
        increases from 1.5 to 2.6 persons;
     •  diversion curves indicate the number of auto driver
        trips eliminated due to price increases;
     •  commuters affected by the measures are diverted to
        carpools or transit in proportion to the existing
        modal split.

These assumptions, used in the impact analysis, are conservative
because the proposed measures are difficult to implement and rely
on the voluntary cooperation of employers.  Despite this,
applying these assumptions, 46,000 auto driver trips could be
eliminated by 1980.

     3.  Implementability

     These rate increase measures rely heavily on voluntary parti-
cipation by private and public employers.  A re-education program
will be required for both auto commuters and employers.  This,
however, may be insufficient to raise parking rates to the point
where transit becomes an attractice alternative.  Once people have
gotten used to parking being cheap, it will be very difficult for
them to accept the fact that the real cost may be 2-3 times what
they are currently paying.

     Alternatively, tax or surcharge measures may be used but
these also face great difficulties in implementation.  A regional
committee consisting of members of the local jurisdictions could
determine what the "real cost" of parking is under various cir-
cumstances and using guidelines try to insure that rates reflect
these values.

D.   Strategy #3;  Transit Support Through Additional Park
                   'n Ride Lots

     1.  Applicability

     This strategy combines two measures: additional park 'n
ride lots for buses  (fringe lots) and additional Metro station
parking.  Data from other cities with Metro rail type facilities
indicate that the availability of park 'n ride lots is inte-
grally tied to the success of rapid transit.  WMATA will pro-
vide only 37,000 park 'n ride spaces although they estimate de-
mand at 103,000 spaces.   As a result, 39,000 riders will be lost.
Political decisions were made as to where park 'n ride lots would
be provided, in which communities, and how far from the Core.
Decisions on parking rates have also been tied to the political

     Evidence in Rosslyn and Silver Spring suggest the park  'n
ride facilities may be insufficient for Metro demand.  In fact,
insufficient spaces could serve as a barrier to achievement of
Metro rail ridership projections.  Metro parking currently planned
will be paid for by WMATA, however, local jurisdictions can supply
additional parking.  Through the regional parking management plan-
ning process, additional parking could be constructed.

     2.  Estimation of Trip Reduction

     The relationship between auto driver trip reduction and addi-
tional park  'n ride lots is precarious.  Since many park 'n ride
transit patrons now park in residential areas, park  'n ride lots
could serve to concentrate these people at an additional expense
to the community.  In addition, former feeder bus patrons
might be induced to drive.  Presumably though, some additional

transit patronage would result from former auto drivers who
would ride transit because of convenient park 'n ride facilities.

     To estimate trip reductions due to the addition of new park
 'n ride lots, recommendations made by WMATA for additional lots
were used.  As of 1972, 21 fringe parking lots  (6,000 spaces)
were available in the Washington area, occupied at 50 percent
capacity.  Occupancy rates have increased and by 1980  all spaces
are assumed to be filled.  The WMATA study on "Integrated Metro-
bus Services" recommended that 5,700 spaces be built at non-Metro
rail corridor locations for bus service.  These 5,700 spaces would
be located in eight sites in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties
as  well  as  in  Northern  Virginia.      Since suburban lots
have generally achieved higher than average occupancy rates, an
occupancy rate of 75 percent was assumed.

     Although in Rosslyn and Silver Spring demand was clearly pre-
sent, WMATA policy has been not to provide any Metro parking in the
inner rings, but to construct parking facilities in the suburbs.
Therefore, no credit was taken for additional Metrorail park 'n
ride spaces.  Providing enough parking to maintain the ridership
Metro estimates it would otherwise lose would significantly re-
duce auto driver trips.

     3.  Implementability

     Through regional agreements paralleling WMATA, it would be
possible for jurisdictions to finance collectively additional park-
ing.  Original WMATA parking allocations have been steadily cut
back as residents protest construction of new lots.  A formula
could be developed by a regional organization allocating fringe
parking based on land, transit availability, employment character-
istics, etc.  This would have to be further investigated by the
local jurisdictions.

E.   Strategy #4;  Zoning and Land Use Controls

     1.  Applicability

     This strategy incorporates two types of measures:  zoning
and land use controls, with facility reviews potentially in-
corporated into the zoning decision process.  These are the
most powerful measures suggested since they- influence future
growth patterns.

     Zoning codes are the traditional tool for managing parking
by specifying the minimum number of spaces which developers
must provide.  Land use planning as the determinant of allowable
types of development  (i.e. high-rise, single family dwelling or
commercial) also largely determines parking supply.  Traditionally,
zoning measures attempt to insure an adequate supply of parking
to prevent  spillover into neighboring development or public
streets.  However, zoning measures should begin to reflect the
newly emerging regional goals of air quality improvement, energy
conservation and transit support.

     In less developed areas like Centreville, land use and zon-
ing measures are particularly important.  The basic land use
plans will have a great impact on auto usage in future development.
For example, if zoning or land use planning is oriented towards
mixed uses of land, then dependence on automobiles for commuting
can be greatly reduced.

     2.  Estimation of Trip Reduction

     Savings from zoning changes were estimated by assuming that
the ratio of employees per space  in Rings 0 and 1 increased from
3:1 to 4:1 for all future employment growth.  By 1990, 33,000 less
spaces would be constructed with approximately 100,000 trips eli-

     Data from Energy, Land Use, and Growth Policy:  Implica-
tions for Metropolitan Washington was used to quantify the
impact of alternative development patterns.  The report pre-
sents "wedges and corridors" and "transit-oriented" growth
patterns.  In the "transit-oriented" scenario, employment and
population growth occurs primarily in Rings 2-5 while in the
"wedges and corridors" scenario, substantial growth also occurs
farther out in Rings 6 and 7.    This transit oriented growth
pattern eliminates an additional 85,000 work-related trips.

     3.  Implementability

     Reduction or elimination of minimum parking requirements
under zoning ordinances could be done by a regional committee
composed of local jurisdictions.  This committee would set up
criteria for different areas specifying or suggesting what
levels of zoning should be applied for parking.

     Generally, new institutions are not recommended for imple-
menting these long-term measures.  Rather, the existing planning
process should be modified so that parking management becomes
part of the land use and transportation planning processes.

F.   Summary

     Table 1 indicates the relative impacts of the recommended
parking strategies in eliminating auto driver trips.  By far the
greatest reduction can be expected from zoning and land use
changes, especially long range alterations in land use development
patterns to channel growth into more transit and energy efficient
configurations.  Trip reductions can also be achieved more immedi-
ately through reduced zoning requirements for parking supply in
new CBD development.

     The second largest decrease in auto driver trips can be
achieved through parking price increases and preferential car-
pool parking.  This strategy relies heavily on the voluntary
reduction of  parking  subsidies  and  may  be  difficult
to achieve.

     Moderate impacts can be gained through maximum develop-
ment of park  'n ride lots for bus service in non-rail corri-
dors.  This measure assumes that express bus service will ac-
company fringe lot development to make transit usage attractive.
Additional rail park  'n ride lots would substantially increase
the impact of this measure but insufficient data was available
to quantify the impacts.

     Less  important in numbers but vital to the success of
other measures are the residential permit systems and the limits
on on-street  commuter parking in the Core and outlying major
employment centers.   The success of this strategy  may have
a more visible effect on congestion and the livability of urban
areas than any other, yet cause the least amount of disruption.
For this reason, it is highly recommended as an initial first
step in any parking management plan.

                      CHAPTER VIII
                     REGIONAL PLAN
A.   Introduction

     The proposed regional parking management plan will sup-
port a change in the lifestyles of Washington area commuters
that has already begun to occur.  When local jurisdictions
agreed to support Metro, they implicitly agreed to
limit the role of automobiles as commuter vehicles in favor
of rapid rail transit.  Since then, the addition of express
bus lanes, preferential carpool parking, fringe lots, etc.
represent further incursions against the wastefulness of one
man-one car commuting.

     The socioeconomic impact analysis is divided into four
major sections.  These measure the plan's impact on:

     •  various population subgroups
     •  auto commuters
     •  transit
     •  economic growth and development.

B.   Impacts on Population Subgroups

     The recommended regional parking management plan will
affect eight different population subgroups.  These subgroups
and the associated impacts are shown in Table 18.  The table
indicates that most of the negative impacts fall on auto commuters,
however, these additional burdens are not penalties.  The in-
creased auto commuting costs simply reflect the elimination of

                                              TABLE 18


4)    Employers

5)    Residents

               ELEMENTS OF PLAN
Decrease in
Free Spaces

Decrease in
on-street Park-
N-Ride Spaces
Demand for
Tenant Parking
                   A Few May Need
                   To Find Parking

                   More Available
                   Space Near Home
Increase in
Parking Costs

Potential In-
crease in Tran-
sit Demand, Fares
and Service

Lower Losses on
Existing Spaces
                    Potential Savings
                    Through Decreased

                    No Impact
Zoning and Land
 Use  Planning


 Less Need  to

 Less Auto
 Traffic  in

More Inner
City Spaces
Better Auto
Access to
                                    Less Need to

                                    Less Spill-
                                    over Into

6)    Store SW/
                   More Demand for
                   Available Spaces
                    More Short Term
                    Parking Available
                    Better Non/
                    Auto Access
                    To Shopping
                 Income From
                 Dual  Use  of
                 Shopping  Cen-
                 ter Spaces
Decreased Metro-
Rail Defecits
Decreased Metro-
Rail Defecits
 Better Use of
 Taxable Land
Decreased Metro-
Rail Defecits
     Parking Lot
8)    Owner/Opera-
                   Able to Charge
                   Higher Prices
                    Potentially Lower
                    Demand and Higher
                    Less Demand
                    for Commercial
                 Impact Depends
                 on Type of
                 Parking Allowed

subsidies and the encouragement of less auto-oriented future
development.  The impact will fall most heavily upon "captive"
low income auto commuters  (i.e. those unable to switch to
transit or carpools).  For example, a government secretary
earning $7,000 a year who lives far from the Core and must
drop off children at a day-care center could be seriously im-
pacted.  Increasing parking fees from zero to $40 per month
would reduce her pre-tax disposable income by 7 percent.  Special
exemptions or variances for these situations would have to be
investigated at the regional, local or individual employer level.

     The impacts on transit commuters will be mixed.  Poten-
tially, they could be paying higher prices, getting better ser-
vice, but also having to cope with more crowding.  This might
mean standing on buses or trains that formerly had extra seats,
but having to wait a shorter period of time before the next bus
or train arrived.  This dichotomy occurs because most of the mea-
sures which negatively impact auto commuters increase the demand
for transit.  With increased demand, transit can charge higher
fares and theoretically provide better service.  In the Washing-
ton metropolitan area, the tremendous capacity available through
Metro rail should alleviate the problem of crowding or the cost
of adding more buses which could arise with the implementation
of a parking management plan at this time.

     Commercial developers should benefit as long as the parking
plan is applied regionwide.  Under these circumstances, developers
would face similar predicaments.  Tenants, unhappy over increased
parking costs and perceived supply shortages, would have few al-
ternatives.  The whole region would benefit if the cost of com-
mercial development decreased because zoning ordinances required
less parking.

     Employers would benefit to the extent that their park-
ing subsidy payments decreased due to increased carpooling or
transit usage.  Land formerly devoted to employee parking
could be put to more profitable uses.

     Residential areas adjacent to commercial areas would be
spared the problems of spillover.  In addition, the use of
vehicle free zones in shopping areas would aesthetically im-
prove residential and commercial areas.

     The case studies already demonstrated the need for pro-
tecting shopping trips.  Stores and shoppers will benefit
from the proposed plan to the extent that spaces formerly oc-
cupied by long-term commuter parkers would now be free to meet
the relatively short-term demands of shoppers.

     Local governments will benefit in two ways.  First, park-
ing measures would decrease Metro deficits by increasing Metro
rail ridership.  Second, modifications in existing zoning regu-
lations and less auto-oriented land use planning would allow
land to be used for functions which yield more tax revenues.

     The impact on parking lot owners/operators depends upon the
future supply-demand equilibrium.  The proposed measures should
decrease demand for commuter parking while allowing operators to
charge higher rates by eliminating free on-street and residential
spaces.  The San Francisco experience with a 25 percent surcharge
indicated that if the revenue from price increases had gone
to the parking lot owners rather than the city, lot owners
would have profited.

C.   Impact on Auto Commuters

     Many aspects of auto commuting are paid for by subsidies
or hidden costs.  Parking represents one area which is now heavily
subsidized.  The proposed plan would gradually force auto commuters
to pay the full cost of parking which for many will double or
triple auto commuting costs.

     The out-of-pocket costs for commuting are the price of gas-
oline, oil and maintenance on the automobile.  These costs are
approximately $.07 per mile.  A 20-mile per day round trip com-
mute, therefore, would cost $1.40 plus parking.  Interviews with
auto commuters on Shirley Highway indicated that 50 percent of
them paid nothing at all for parking and 80 percent paid $1.00
or less.  EEA's surveys in D.C. and Rosslyn indicated that over
half the auto commuters had subsidized parking.  Since a round-
trip bus ticket now costs about $1.40 per day, the costs of auto
and bus commuting are approximately the same for over half of
the commuters.

     Even without employer subsidies, auto commuters do not pay
the full price of parking.  Parking lots also provide a kind of
subsidy.  Parking lot owners attempt to reduce the losses incurred
while holding land for development by charging enough to help cover
taxes and land investment costs, but rarely succeed in making a pro-
fit or even fully covering expenses.

     Garage spaces are partially subsidized by rents and employer
contributions.  The cost of land coupled with the high costs of
construction would require charging $60-$70 per month for parking.
Realizing this, developers competing for tenants have chosen to
build only enough parking to service building tenants and to sub-
sidize parking costs through office rents.  This situation developed

because parking is a relatively competitive market.  Commuters
will walk across the street or down the block to save on parking
costs.  Consequently, parking garages must price competitively.
The presence of heavily subsidized government parking, the abun-
dance of lots which charge less than full costs, and the avail- 1-
ability of free parking in residential areas limit the amount
which garage owners can charge for parking.  Once the practice
of subsidizing parking costs with office rents became widespread,
new developers followed this pattern and the current situation de-

     The proposed plan would raise the costs of parking for most
commuters.  The measures used would include voluntary elimination
of employer subsidies, elimination of free on-street parking and
parking in residential areas and, where necessary, parking taxes
applied by the local jurisdictions.  For those auto commuters now
paying only the $1.40 per day out-of-pocket costs, full price park-
ing could double or triple their daily commuting expenses.  "Cap-
tive" commuters, unable to carpool or switch to transit, would bear
the full cost of the proposed measures.

D.   Impact on Transit

     Automobiles compete with transit for commuters.  Historically,
most people walked to work or commuted by transit.  However, be-
tween 1950 and 1956, transit ridership in Washington, D.C. de-
creased 50 percent.  During the same period, widespread automobile
ownership, growing affluence, improved roads,  and suburban popula-
tion growth shifted the modal split drastically towards auto com-
muting.  Further deterioration in transit's position occurred all
during the 1960's until, by 1970, three-fourths of the commuters in
Washington, D.C. got to work by auto.

     Shifting community priorities has resulted in a multi-
billion dollar investment to revitalize transit commuting
in the D.C. area.  Parking management can support transit by:

     •  providing fringe lots near line haul bus and rail
        stations making it easy for commuters to drive short
        distances to a convenient transit collection point; and

     •  raising parking rates to decrease transit costs re-
        lative to auto commuting costs.

In creasing parking rates would also allow transit fares to be
increased with less diversion back to automobiles.

     Washington, D.C. has committed $4.5 to $6 billion to a Metro
rail system.  Due to unanticipated cost increases, Metro will
never be able to cover operating and capital costs.  Minimizing
losses, therefore, has become an acute problem because some local
jurisdictions are having difficulty paying their share of the

     1.  Fringe Lots

     Local jurisdictions delegated responsibility for Metro-related
parking management decisions to WMATA  (Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority).  They recognized that parking policies would
affect the success of the rail system.  Since some communities did
not want to provide Metro parking lots, the decision affecting size
and location of lots had to be made regionally through compromise
and negotiation.  The regional plan would follow a similar pattern

in extending the number of fringe lots.  The Silver Spring and
Rosslyn case studies identified significant needs for additional
park 'n ride spaces.  Even WMATA acknowledges that 37,000 riders
may be lost daily by 1992 because of insufficient parking.

     The negative socioeconomic impact of fringe lots for buses
may be minimized by using existing shopping center parking lots.
This is an ideal set-up because peak parking demand for commuters
occurs during those hours of the day when the demand for parking
by shoppers is relatively low.  In the evening and weekend hours
when shopping demand peaks, commuter transit parking demand is
low.  Local communities have tremendous "horse-trading" power with
developers and can use zoning variances and tax allowances to
secure fringe lot spaces.  Local communities can also construct
fringe lots.

     Conceptually, fringe lots are the result of moving parking
spaces from the Core to the periphery of the region.  A recent
meeting of transit personnel from San Francisco, To-
ronto and other major urban centers stressed the importance of
moving these spaces out to fringe lots.  These communities found
that availability of park  'n ride spaces for bus and rail commuters
was vital to the success of their transit  systems.

     2.  Transit Deficits

     The price of parking is integrally related to transit defi-
cits. As discussed previously, the cost of auto commuting and transit
commuting is approximately equal when parking is provided free.
The regional plan would increase the modal split to transit and
at the same time allow transit fares to be increased without  di-
verting as many transit riders back to autos.

     The measures suggested in the regional plan will increase
transit ridership by 20,700 by 1980 and 123,000 by 1990.  These

riders would contribute about $10 million per year in addi-
tional revenue by 1980 and $60 million by 1990.  These revenue
increases would substantially reduce the projected Metro operat-
ing deficits.

E.    Impact on Economic  Growth  and  Development

     Parking management affects the location and form of new de-
velopment.  The land use planning process determines how various
land parcels should be zoned; and the zoning process sets minimum
parking requirements for each land use.  Parking is, therefore,
already an  integral part of the land use and zoning process.

     The target area studies indicate that communities in the D.C.
area compete for new development.  Developers choose those areas
which seem  to offer the highest rate of return on their invest-
ment.  Since many developers may see parking restrictions as a
potntial threat to profitability, they could avoid those areas in-
stituting the strictest parking measures.

     The target area studies, however, indicate that economic at-
tractiveness of an area probably overrides its parking poli-
cies in affecting developers' decisions.  A change in parking
management  policy in Rosslyn, for example freezing parking
at  its present  level, could decrease the attractiveness of the
area for new developers.   However, the inherent attractiveness
of  the area, its proximity to D.C., tax rate,  existing develop-
ment and access to Metro would  probably allow  it to grow de-
spite a parking freeze.  This is especially true if similar
parking measures were imposed in other parts of the Core.

     Including  parking management in the zoning and land use de-
cision making  processes  to reduce reliance on  the automobile is
the most powerful strategy proposed in this plan.  In the D.C.
Core, a freeze  on future parking would save developers $30 million

per year by 1990.  In Centreville, a decision to encourage high
density townhouse development as opposed to single family unit
sprawl would allow transit to compete with automobiles as the
primary form of commuting.

     Parking management would not become a separate function; it
would be integrated into the regional and local community land
use, transportation and air quality planning processes.  The im-
pact of these measures would therefore be felt over a longer
period of time and have much milder socioeconomic impacts than
the short-term measures.

                         CHAPTER IX


A.   Present Air Quality

     In 1974, the air quality  standards  for  photochemical
oxidants, carbon monoxide  and  nitrogen dioxide  were  all  ex-
ceeded in the Washington,  D.C. area.   Maximum concentrations
of carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidants have been  con-
sistently over twice the applicable  Federal  ambient  air  quality
standard.  Nitrogen dioxide  levels were  only slightly over
the standard in 1974.

     Table 19 cho-'s a .sunnary o.~ riaximum  observed pollutant con-
centrations  for these auto related pollutants for the  National
Capital Air  Quality Control  Region.

     Generally maximum concentrations of auto related  pollutants
have changed little over the last three  years in the D.C. area.
One-hour CO  concentrations dropped slightly  in  1974  and  are about
15 percent over the standard.   Violations  of the eight-hour and
one-hour concentrations have consistently been  observed  in the
District of  Columbia apparently due  to the higher concentration
of vehicle use in this area  than the suburban areas.

     It is somewhat surprising  that  levels of carbon monoxide
in Washington have not dropped  off over  the  last several years.
In other metropolitan areas  saturated with high auto use, CO
levels have  been dropping  due  to emission controls on  new auto-
mobiles.  The lack of an observable reduction in CO  levels in
D.C. may be  attributable to  continued increases in vehicle traf-
fic and/or atypical meteorlogical stagnation patterns  during the
1972-1974 time period.
  Appendix C presents the general analytical procedure used in
  this study to assess the air quality impact of a parking manage-
  ment plan.

                             TABLE  19
(Averaging Time)
Carbon Monoxide
(1-hour)    1972
Primary Std.
District of Columbia, Core
District of Columbia, North
Carbon Monoxide
(8-hour)    1972
primary Std.
District of Columbia, East
District of Columbia, East
District of Columbia, North
(1-hour)    1972
Primary Std.

Prince George's County
Prince George's County
& Alexandria
District of Columbia, North
Nitrogen Dioxide
(Annual Average)
Primary Std.
District of Columbia, Core
Prince George's County
Prince George's County

     Maximum concentrations of oxidants, which result from
atmospheric reactions of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and
sunlight, have increased slightly each year over the last
three years.  Although precursor hydrocarbon emissions of
new automobiles are being reduced, the relative importance
of other hydrocarbon emission sources and the complex mechan-
isms of oxidant formation make oxidant control difficult.

     High oxidant levels are a regionwide problem in the D.C.
area.  The oxidant standard is being exceeded at every sampling
station in the region.  The highest observations are often in
suburban areas.  This can be attributed to the time of reaction
involved in converting primary emissions into oxidants.
During this reaction time, contaminated parcels of air often
move away from the source of emissions.  In this way emissions
on one side of the region can impact oxidant levels on the other
side.  The general lack of reduction in oxidant levels is pro-
bably best attributed to continued growth in regionwide vehicle
use in the 1972-1974 time period.

    In 1973 and 1974 the primary air quality standard for nitro-
gen dioxide was violated in the Maryland suburbs of Washington,
D.C.  Like oxidants, nitrogen dioxide may prove to be a region-
wide problem.  Nitrogen oxide emissions, mostly NO, must be
oxidized €o form N0~.  During the time of reaction parcels of
air mix and travel throughout the region.  Because of this nitro-
gen oxide emissions throughout the region are likely to impact
on the areas having highest concentrations of this pollutant.

B.  Air Quality Projections

    With or without a parking management plan, the future air
quality of-the entire National Capital AQCR will be a function
of the temporal and spatial distribution and magnitude of the

various pollutant emission sources.  For secondary pollutants
such as photochemical oxidants and nitrogen dioxide which are
produced from primary hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions,
photochemistry and pollutant interactions are also of importance.

    In order to estimate the future change in air quality due
to parking management/ regionwide emissions inventories should
be constructed for CO, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.  Tables
20, 21 and 22 give regionwide projections of these pollutants
for 1972, 1980  and 1992.  These emission projections are based
on long range planning studies by COG with extrapolation of
data to 1980 as required.  The inventories for carbon monoxide
and hydrocarbon emissions are both keyed to those periods of the
day having the greatest impact on air quality for these pollutants.
Morning hydrocarbon emissions react to form high afternoon oxi-
dant levels, and carbon monoxide emissions in the late afternoon
and evening are most  likely to cause high CO concentrations.
Regionwide, automobiles presently account for about 80 percent of
CO, 65 percent of hydrocarbons, and 45 percent of nitrogen oxide
emissions.  As stringent limitations on automobiles are imple-
mented, and the dirtier vehicles are removed from the in-use
fleet, the absolute and relative contribution of automobiles to
adverse air quality will decrease.  These projections do  assume
high efficiency and effectiveness for future emission controls.
To the extent this is not the case  (as emission controls have not
been totally effective in recent model years), the role of the
automobile could be significantly greater and the air quality of
region corresponding  worse than the figures presented in the
remainder of this report.

    Detailed emission inventories have not been developed for
use in assessing the air quality impact specific to subregions
of the National Capital AQCR.  Because oxidants and nitrogen

                        TABLK 20

                  CARBON MONOXIDE
                  tons/peak period
Emission Source

Trucks & Buses

I/   Peak period = 2-10 p.m.
2/   From COG Technical Report #3, June 1974, "Air Pollution
     Emissions Analysis of Long Range Transportation Plans
     for the National Capital."
3/   Extrapolated values.

                        TABLE  21


                  tons/peak period
Emission Source


Trucks & Buses

I/   Peak period 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.
2/   From COG Technical Report #3, June 1974 "Air Pollution
     Emission Analysis of the Long Range Transportation Plan
     for the National Capital."

3/   Extrapolated based on EEA projections of automotive emis-
     sion factors and general trend projections of other sources,

                           TABLE  22


                    NITROGEN OXIDES

Emission Source

Trucks & Buses

I/   Automotive projections based on EEA's emissions projections
     model and 1992 COG estimates, remaining trends developed
     from Draft COG Report "1985 Air Quality."

 dioxide both require chemical formation reactions  in the
 atmosphere before high concentrations are observed,  both are
 considered regionwide problems and are  normally not dealt
 with at the subregional level.  Air quality projections for
 these two pollutants based on overall regional  conditions  are
 shown in Table 23-

     Carbon monoxide is, however, amenable to localized impact
 analysis.  Sample localized analyses are presented in the  case
 studies.  For the purpose of assessing  the regionwide plan,  how-
 ever, only general regionwide emission  trends,  assuming source
 homogeneity, and projecting reductions  in CO based on the  region-
 wide emission inventory will be used.  Projected maximum CO
 levels based on the overall regional emission projection are also
 shown in Table 23.  The projection indicates  that a  CC  8-hour
 standard will be met in the National Capital AQCR  during the

 C.  Air Quality Impact of Parking Plan

     Although vehicle miles travelled (VMT)  is often used  as
a surrogate for emissions reductions, emissions of  CO,  hydro-
carbons and nitrogen oxides from automobiles  are in  fact a
complex function of the  frequency  and manner  in which the  ve-
hicle is operated.  Certain emissions due  to  fuel evaporation
are independent of operation.  Others such as high  hydrocar-
bons and carbon monoxide emissions while the  engine  is  cold
are a function of the number of  trips and  duration  between
trips.  Running emissions are  in turn a  function of  both the
miles travelled and the  speed  of travel.   Projection of emis-
sion reductions due to parking strategies  is  further compli-
cated by the fact that each year and make  of  car will have a
specific system for emissions  control and  specific  emission
characteristics which can change with vehicle age,   level of
maintenance and the accumulation of mileage.

                           TABLE  2 3




Carbon Monoxide
8-hr average
Photochemical**  Nitrogen Dioxide***
  oxidants    3   annual average
peak hour /ag/m        ug/m3




    310  (260)
    210  (168)
    Federal Ambient
    Air Standard      10,000
*   Assumes  1972  to  be  a  representative air quality year.
    Constructed from emission inventory and air quality data
    presented  elsewhere in  study.
**  Oxidant  values reflect  the use of EPA's non-linear Appendix J
    hydrocarbon/oxidant relationship.   Use of a linear approach
    will give  greater improvements in air quality.  Values in
    parentheses reflect use of a linear relationship.

*** Nitrogen dioxide levels are  assumed to  be  proportioned to
    total nitrogen oxide  emissions.

    In spite of these technical complications, one must have
a feel for the air quality significance of a parking manage-
ment plan.  To do this, an estimate has been made of the short
terra and long terra plans' effects on miles driven and trips
made in the National Capital AQCR in 1980 and 1992.   The analy-
sis focuses on the periods of the day most important to high
concentrations of the identified pollutants:  6 to 9 a.m. for
high oxidant levels due to morning hydrocarbon emissions, 2
to 10 p.m. for high eight-hour average CO concentrations, and
a full 24 hours for the annual average N02 concentration.
Since emissions are both a function of trip length and fre-
quency, both auto use "indicators", number of trips and vehicle
miles travelled, were examined for 1980 and 1992.

    Table 24 shows the distribution of  regionwide  travel  in the
 1980's which was used in predicting air quality impact,  given
 by general type of trip and  time of day.

    As presented in  Section  V  , the impact of parking manage-
 ment has  been analyzed in  three elements:  the reduction in  auto
 use due to existing  parking  measures in the Washington area, the
 reduction due to proposed  measures aimed directly at parking use,
 and the long-term impact of  land use and zoning measures.  Exist-
 ing and proposed measures  are designed to reduce  only work com-
 mute trips and non-home based trips dependent upon commuter  auto
 use.   The estimated  impact of the  proposed and existing  parking
 management measures  on regionwide  commuter and non-home  based
 trips  is  shown in Table  25.

    Based on these figures,  one can estimate the  impact  of region-
 wide parking management on total auto  usage.  Table 26  shows  the
 estimated reductions  in trips and  VMT  for 1980 and 1992  for  the
 three  time period of  concern.

                      TABLE  2 4

                    ASSUMED DISTRIBUTION OF
                       AUTO DRIVER TRIPS
                         1980 and 1992
Trip Type

Home-to-work, Core
Home-to-work, Non-Core
Non-Home based
Percent Trips

Percent VMT*

                    TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION
                         OF TRIPS
                    Morning Peak
                      6-9 a.m.

     Home-to-work        45%
     Home-to-shopping     5%
     Home-to-other       10%
     Non-Home            10%
             CO Peak
             2-10 p.m.

        of day

*  Assumes core commute - 9 miles, non-core commute - 7 miles,
   shopping - 4 miles, other - 6 miles, and non-home based - 4 miles,

                         TABLE 25


                       AUTO USE DUE TO

                     PARKING MANAGEMENT

                               Percent Reduction

                           1930                  1992

                      Commute  Non-Home    Commute    Non-Home
                                based                  based
Existing Measures
Proposed Parking
  Use Measures
Proposed Zoning and
  Land Use Measures

                         TABLE   26

                    REDUCTION IN REGIONWIDE

                           AUTO USE

                        BY TIME OF DAY*
                            Percentage Reduction

                        1980                  1992
                     Trips   VMT
                     Trips   VMT
6:00-9:00 a.m.
(oxidant related
peak period)
2.8%    3.0%
6.5%    7.0%
2:00-10:00 p.m.

(CO related peak
1.7%    1.8%
3.7%    4.1%
Overall 24-hour
1.7%    1.8%
3.7%    4.1%
   Includes impact of existing parking measures and  proposed
   use and zoning measures.

    Both the number of trips and number of miles are useful
surrogates for emissions, the former representing start-up
emissions and the latter running emissions.  Ten to thirty
percent of the auto HC and CO emissions can occur during
start-up of a cold engine.  As new cars (and associated
controls) come into use between now and 1992, this relation-
ship may change but the two figures, trips reduction and VMT
reduction, should bracket the range of emissions reductions.
For nitrogen oxides, cold start emissions are low and VMT
should be a more representative surrogate for these emissions.

    Taking into account the relative contribution of auto-
mobiles in 1980 and 1992 to total HC, CO, and NO  emissions
as depicted in the COG projections presented earlier, one
can estimate the impact of parking management on air quality.
Regionwide reductions in CO levels would be on the order of
0.8 percent in 1980 and 0.9 percent in 1992.  These reductions
will accelerate achievement and prolong maintenance of the CO
air quality standards in Washington, D.C.

    Oxidant levels would be expected to drop about 1.5 percent
by 1980 and 1.8 percent by 1990.  For nitrogen oxides, the reduc-
tions would be 0.3 percent in 1980 and 0.2 percent in 1992.  Since
both the oxidant and nitrogen dioxide standards are projected
to be exceeded in 1992, any reduction in the precursors of these
pollutants will have some benefit.

    These reductions are not large but in regions such as Wash-
ington where auto-related pollutant standards will be difficult
to attain and maintain, parking management can serve as one of
many control strategies to help reduce overall emissions and

 thereby improve  air  quality.   The  big reductions  achievable
 in  the 1970's  through  initial  control of  all  emissions  sources
 will  no longer be  available  in the *80's  to further  reduce
 emissions.   Emissions  reductions on the order of  one to two
 percent are  typical  of the measure available  in this time

    One must also  keep in mind that the baseline  projections
 developed  by COG and used to assess the impact of parking
 management assume  complete and effective  attainment  of  the
 auto  emission  standards called for in the Clean Air  Act.
 These standards  have yet to  be achieved.  To  the  extent they
 may not be realized  in terms of timing or effectiveness, the
 role  of automobiles  in regional emissions will increase, the
 air quality  will be  worse, and the impact of  parking manage-
 ment  will  be greater.

D.   The Energy Impact

      In addition to air quality improvements and Metro deficit
reductions, the proposed regional parking management plan can
potentially reduce energy consumption.  Bus and rail are gener-
ally more energy efficient commuting modes than private auto-

     The key variable in assessing relative energy efficiency
is the load factor.  Table 27 indicates energy consumption per
passenger mile for auto and bus for various load factors.  Rail
is the most energy efficient commuting mode whether operated at
full or typical load factors.  Auto-drivers diverted to other com-
muting modes would become bus riders, rail riders   (or bus/rail
combination), park 'n riders, bicyclists,  etc.  They would travel

                       TABLE  27


                  TRANSPORT, 1970
Motor bui
Electric.. ,
*  Typical average  loading

I/ For the average  1970 rail  system at a 20 percent load
   factor, energy consumption was .4,100 btu's per passenger
   mile.  BART achieves the 2,400 btu consumption rate due
   to its light weight design and Metro should do likewise.

SOURCE:  Hirst, "Energy Implications of Several Environmental
        Quality Strategies",  1973.
Energy per



during the peak period when occupancy rates are nearly 100
percent or off peak when marginal energy consumption would
be quite low.

     For this analysis, the energy consumption impact was
approximated by assuming first that the estimated 74,000
trips diverted in 1980 split to Metro bus  (36%) and Metro
rail (64%) in the same percentages as general ridership in
1990.   An auto occupancy rate of 1.4 persons per car was
also used for existing passenger trips. Using these assump-
tions,  the energy savings is approximately 3.8 x 109 btu's.
Converted to gallons of gasoline, this amount to 42,000 gallons
per day.

Air Quality Control Region  (AQCR):  A total 247 areas designated
     by EPA based on jurisdictional boundaries, urban-industrial
     concentrations, common atmosphere areas and other factors
     necessary to achieve air quality standards.

Auto-free zone:  Section of the CBD reserved for non-auto use:
     pedestrians, bicycles, mini-buses.

Central Business District  (CBD):  The "downtown" section of a city
     containing but not limited to the "Core"  (the heart of
     business, commercial, financial and administrative activity,
     which is usually the area having the greatest parking demand).

Feeder bus service:  High frequency, short route bus service de-
     signed to take commuters from home to rapid rail or express
     bus stations.

Home-to-work trip:  One-way trip for the purpose of commuting to
     or from work.  Non home based work trips are mid-day
     excursions for lunch, business, etc.

Kiss-and-ride:  An auto trip where the trip-maker is driven to
     the transit station and thus does not require parking space.

Long-range plan:  For the purpose of this study, a parking manage-
     ment plan implementable by 1990.

Measure:  Mechanism that allows some form of regulation over
     parking, usually through supply or pricing.  One or more
     measures make up a parking management plan.

Metro:  In this study, refers to the rapid rail service to be
     provided in the Washington Metropolitan Area, beginning in
     1976.   (The term Metrobus is used to describe bus transit.)

Modal Split:  That portion of the population which travels by
     various modes (i.e., auto driver, auto passenger, bus
     rider, walker).

Park and Ride:  A bi-modal trip made by auto and bus or auto and
     rail, where the trip maker is the auto-driver, and thus
     requires a parking space at or near the transit station.

Peak parking demand:   The maximum demand for parking spaces from
     commuters, shoppers and other visitors to the CBD, believed
     to occur in Washington between 11 a.m. and 12 noon.

Peak period:  The time when most travel is occurring.  In the
     morning this is usually 6-9 a.m.  The evening peak period
     occurs between 5-7 p.m. but the concentration of traffic
     is less than in the morning.

Short-range plan:  For the purposes of this study, a parking
     management plan that is implementable by 1977-1980.

Spillover:  Condition that results when commuters, shoppers and
     other visitors to the CBD choose to park in residential areas
     (usually on-street, free spaces) rather than use CBD,
     parking facilities.

Transportation Control Plan (TCP):  Plans developed by EPA for
     twenty-nine metropolitan areas who otherwise would not have
     met National Air Quality Standards by the 1975 deadline.  The
     TCP involves a combination of transportation controls to re-
     duce emissions including carpooling, mass transit usage and
     motor vehicle restraints.

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT):   A quantity of vehicle usage that
     acts as a surrogate for vehicle-produced pollution, energy
     consumption, etc.

Vehicle occupancy:  The average number of persons per automobile
     for a certain area or trip-type.

                        GENERAL SOURCES

Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region,
"EPA Praises Region's Air Quality Team",  CPO News, Issue No.
7, San Diego, California, September, 1975.

Comprehensive Planning Organization for the San Diego Region,
San Diego Region Transportation Management Tactics for Air
Quality Improvement, San Diego, California, July 1975.

Engineering Science, Inc., Development of a Final Air Quality
Maintenance Plan Using the Baltimore Air Quality Control Region.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, McLean,
Virginia, September, 1974.

G.C.A. Corporation, Transportation Controls to Reduce Motor
Vehicle Emissions in Boston, Massachusetts.  Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.  Bedford, Massachusetts, December, 1972.

G.C.A. Corporation, Transportation Controls to Reduce Motor
Vehicle Emissions in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality and
Standards ,  Bedford, Massachusetts, December, 1972.

Gilman and Company, Inc., Voorhees, Alan M. and Associates, Inc.,
Traffic Revenues and Operating Costs.  Prepared for Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C. Rev.
February, 1971.

Holmes, John G.  Methodology for Examining the Air Quality
Pollution Control and Energy Conservation Benefits of Exclusive
Bus Lanes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge,
Massachusetts, December, 1974.

Holmes, John G., Stolpman, P.M., EFA Working Paper on Parking
Management, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.^1974.

Horowitz, J.  Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative Stra-
tegies for Reducing Emissions from Motor Vehicles, U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Air Quality
Analyses of the Long Range Plan Alternatives for the National
Capital Region, Draft Report, Washington, D.C.,June, 1975.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Consistency of
the Short Range Transportation Improvement Program with the
State Implemented Plans to Achieve Air Quality, Draft Report,
Washington, D.C., June, 1975.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1985 Air Quality
in the National Capital Region, Draft Report, Washington, D.C.,
May, 1975.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Non-Work Travel
in the Washington Area, Information Report No. 55, Washington,
D.C., February, 1973.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Regional Air
Quality and Energy Impact of the Metro Rail System, Prepared for
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C.,
June, 1975.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Review of Insti-
tutional Problems Associated with the Development and Submission
of Implementation Plan Revisions in April 1973 for the National
Capital Interstate Air Quality Control Region, Washington, D.C.,
May, 1973.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Technical Report:
Air Quality in the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Region,
1972, Report No. 2, Washington, D.C., September, 1973.

National Association of Regional Councils, "San Diego Area Develops
Regional Strategy for Public Awareness and Action on Air Pollution",
Regional Perspective, Vol. 1, No. 4, Washington, D.C., April, 1975.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Inquiry into
the Impact of the Motor Vehicle on the Environment; Automotive Air
Pollution and Noise Implications for Public Policy, Paris, France,
October, 1972.

Pratt Associates, Technical Justification of Transportation Control
Strategies, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, D.C.

San Diego Air Quality Planning Team, Tactics Under Consideration
for the Regional Air Quality Strategy, San Diego, California,
August., 1975.

San Diego Air Quality Planning Team, Themes for Building the Alter-
native Regional Air Quality Strategies, San Diego, California,
August, 1975.

Taylor, L.R., Regional Air Quality Strategy Background and Work
Program, San Diego Air Quality Planning Team, San Diego, California,
July, 1975.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Boston Transportation Con-
trol Plan", Federal Register, Vol., 40, No. 114, Washington, D.C.
June, 1975.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Ambient Air Quality
Standards",  Federal Register, Vol., 38, No. 215, Part II, Washington,
D.C., Nov. 8, 1973.

                  PARKING SOURCES
Barton, Ackerman Associates, Inc., London Transport Execu-
tive, A Generalized Automobile Parking Policy to Encourage
Increased Use of Public Transit by Commuters, prepared for
U.S. Department of Transportation, July 1972.

CPO, 1975 Parking Inventory - San Diego Region, San Diego,
California, April 1975.

Field Testing of Parking Management Guidelines, Metropolitan
Los Angeles AQCR~!

Gatens, D. , Locating and Operating Bus Rapid Transit Park -
Ride Lots, Research Report No. 73-3, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, August 1973.

Hidenger, J.D., Overview of the EPA Parking Management Regu-
lations, Office of Tranportation and Land Use Policy, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Information on EPA's Parking Related Programs, File Notebook,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1974.

Kulash, D., Parking Taxes as Roadway Prices;  A Case Study of
the San Francisco Experience,Urban Institute,Washington, D.C.
March 1974.

Kulash, D. , Parking Taxes for Congestion Relief; A Survey of
Related Experiments, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., March 1974,

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Price Elasticity
and Supply - Demand Characteristics of GSA Parking in Washington's
Core, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 1973,

	,& U.S. Department of Transportation Parking
Management Policies and Auto Control Zones, Draft Final Report,
May 1975.
"Parking", Highway Research Record No. 237, Highway Research
Board 1968.

"Parking" Highway Research Record No. 267, Highway Research
Board 1969.

"Parking Allocation Techniques", Highway Research Record No.
395, Highway Research Board, 1972.

"Parking Analysis", Highway Research Record No. 317, Highway
Research Board 1970.

"Parking as an Alterant to the Traffic Pattern" Highway Re-
search Record No. 474, Highway Research Board 1974.

Parking Principles, Special Report No. 125, Highway Research
Board 1971.

Peat, Marwick and Mitchell and Co., Washington, D.C. A Guide
to Parking Systems Analysis, prepared for U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, October 1972.

Planning Environment International,  Alternatives for the San
Diego Regional Parking Plan/ draft prepared for Comprehensive
Planning Organization of the San Diego Region, San Diego, Cali-
fornia, January 1975.

Planning for Parking Outside the CBD, Automotive Safety Founda-
tion, 1970.

Stout, R.W., A Report on CBD Parking,  Washington, D.C., Federal
Highway Administration, 1971.

Wilbur Smith and Associates, Metropolitan Boston Parking Study,
Summary, New Haven, Connecticut, 1975.

Wilbur Smith and Associates, "Forecasting Impacts of Transit
Improvements and Fringe Parking Developments in Downtown Parking
Needs," Highway Research Record No. 395, Highway Research
Board, 1972.

Wilbur Smith and Associates, Metro Station Parking Analysis,
Memorandum Report No. 25. prepared for Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority, October 1974.

                     TRANSPORTATION SOURCES
Charles River Associates, Inc. A Disaggregated Behavioral
Model of Urban Travel Demand, prepared for U,S, Department
of Transportation, March 1972.

Debeer, A.M., Financing Operating Subsidies for Urban Mass
Transit Systems; An Analysis of State and Local Tax Options,
Washington, D.C., United States Department of Transportation,
June, 1974.

Dougherty, N., Lawrence, W., Bicycle Transportation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December, 1974.

Everling,  B., Report on Institutional Problems Associated
with Implementation of Transportation Control Measures, July 1972

Fiscal Year 1977 Budget Estimates, Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C., August, 1975.

Fiscal Year 1977 Metrorail Operations Budget Estimates, Washing-
ton Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C.,
August, 1975.

Highway Research Board, Pedestrian Principles, Highway Re-
search Record No. 406, Highway Research Board, 1972.

Horowitz,  J.L., Transportation Controls, Washington D.C.,
U.S.EnvironmentalProtection Agency, prepared for publica-
tion in Environmental Science and Technology.

Institute  for Defense Analyses, Evaluation of Rail Rapid
Transit and Urban Bus Service in the Urban Commuter Market,
U.S. Department of Transportation, October 1973.

Kemp, M.A., Reduced Fare and Fare-Free Urban Transit Services -
Some Case  Studies,Washington, D.C., Urban Institute, July,

Lee, D., Costs of Urban and  Suburban Passenger Transportation
Modes, Iowa University, April 1975.

Metro Memo,  Issue No. 60, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, Washington, D.C., June 1975.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Forecasting
for WMATA Transit Technical Studies, MWCOG Department of
Transportation Planning, August, 1974.

Meyer, J.R., Kain, J.F., Wohl, M. , The Urban Transportation Prob-
lem, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1965.

National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board, A
Long-Range Transportation Plan for the National Capital Region,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, June, 1973.

	, Commuting Patterns and Trends 1960-1968,
Information Report No"! 15, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, February, 1969.

National Capital  Regional Transportation Planning Board,
Commuting to the  Core,  Information Report No.  33, Metropoli-
tan Washington Council  of Governments, October  1970.

	, Improving Access - The Shirley Highway
Express Bus Project, Information Report No. 39, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, April, 1971.

	, Metro Core Cordon Count of Vehicular and
Passenger Volumes, Summary of Findings, Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, October, 1974.

	,  Progress Report  - 1974-1975, Metropolitan
Washington  Council of  Governments, Washington,  D.C.

	, Short Range Transportation Plan for the
Washington Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, July, 1974.

	, Transit Trends - the Past  Decade,
Information Report No.  46, Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, July,  1972.

	, Transportation Planning in the 1970's,
Information Report No.  15, Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, May, 1971.

 .  ,	/ Travel to Work,  Information Report No.
32, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Septem-
ber, 1970.

Pratt Associates, Inc. Low Co^t nrban Transportation, Vol. I,
II, Executive Summary, Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation, January, 1973.

Pratt Associates, Inc. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Technical Justification for Transportation Con-
trol Strategies, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region III, 1974.

Sarros, R.G., Existing Transportation Systems in the Washington
Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
National Capital Regional Transportation Planning Board, Washing-
ton, D.C., June 1972.

TRW Transportation and Environmental Operations, Transportation
Control Streategy Development for the Metropolitan Los Angeles
Region, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
dondo Beach, California, December 1972.

U.S. Department of Transportation,  Incentives to Carpooling,
January  1974.

U.S. Department of Transportation,  A  Study of Urban Mass Trans-
portation  and Financing, Washington,  D.C., July 1974.

U.S. Department of Transportation,  Urban Corridor Demonstration
Program, P6500.1, Washington, D.C., October, 1974.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Support Docu-
ment for TCP for National Capital Interstate Region, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, February, 1974.

Voorhees, Alan M., and Associates,  Status of the Urban Corridor
Demonstration Program, prepared for U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, Washington, D.C., July,  1974.

Voorhees and Associates, Comprehensive Planning Organization of
the San Diego Region, Transportation Management Tactics for Air
Quality  Improvement, San Diego, California, July 1975.

Wilbur Smith and Associates, Design and Detail of 1974-1975
Bas Plan, Memorandum Report No. 12, prepared for Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C. 1974.

                   CENTREVILLE SOURCES
Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax,
Virginia, Preliminary Comprehensive Plan for Area III, 1975.

Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax,
Virginia, Preliminary Countywide Plan, June, 1975.

Fairfax County, Virginia, Zoning Ordinances  (adopted in
principle), Fairfax, Virginia.

Prince William County Capital Grant Application to the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration, Commuter Rail, Prince
William County, Virginia.

Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board, Regulations for
the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution, Richmond,  Virginia,

                       D.C. SOURCES
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Reexamination
of the Year  2000 - Policies Plan, Vols. I, II, Washington,
D.C., January,  1974.

National Capital Parks, EIS;  Proposed Rehabilitation of the
National Mall,  Final, Washington, D.C., United States Department
of the Interior, September, 1975.

National Capital Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan for the
National Capital, Washington, D.C.    ""

National Capital Planning Commission, Washington's Central
Employment Areaj	1973, A Status Report on Development and
Occupancy^Informational Series Report No.3~,Washington,D.C.,
May, 1975.

Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, The Pennsylvania
Avenue Plan, 1974, Washington, D.C., October, 1974.

Roberts, J.S.,  Energy, Land Use and Growth Policy;  Implications
for Metropolitan Washington, Real Estate Research Corporation,
Chicago, Illinois, Prepared for Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, June, 1975.

Wilbur Smith and Associates, Integrated Metrobus Services for
the Washington Transit Zone.  Prepared for Washington Metropoli-
tan Area Transit Authority, Transit Technical Project No. IT-09-
0020-1, 1974.

Wilbur Smith and Associates, On-Bus Origin-Destination Survey.
Prepared for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
Memorandum Report Mo. 11, April, 1974.

                      ROSSLYN SOURCES
Arlington County Planning Commission, Arlington, Virginia,
Report of the Rqsslyn-Ballston Corridor Committee to the
Planning Commission, June, 1975.

Arlington County Department of Environmental Affairs Plan-
ning Division, Arlington, Virginia,  Trends, Arlington, Va.
October, 1974.

Arlington County Department of Environmental Affairs Plan-
ning Division, Arlington, Virginia, Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor
Housing and Neighborhood Profile, October, 1973.

Peat, Marwick and Mitchell and Co., Washington, D.C., Rosslyn-
Crystal City Impact Analysis, May, 1974.

Peat, Marwick and Mitchell and Co., Washington, D.C., Arling-
ton County Growth Patterns; Transit Station Impact Analysis,
December, 1974.

Peat, Marwick and Mitchell and Co., Washington, D.C., Arling-
ton County Growth Patterns; Profile, May 1975.

                    SILVER SPRING SOURCES
Maryland Capital Park and Planning Commission, Final Draft,
Silver Spring Sector Plan - CBD and Vicinity, December, 1974.

Montgomery County Planning Board of Maryland National Capital
Park and Planning Commission, Silver Spring, Maryland, Frame-
work for Action: Growth Policy Report, October, 1974.

Montgomery County Department of Tranportation, Parking in
Silver Spring.

Peat, Marwick and Mitchell and Co., JHK and Associations, Rivkin-
Carson, Inc., Access Recommendations; Silver Spring Metro Sta-
tion, for Maryland Department of Transportation, February, 1975.



    20,  1975                   -163-
                                       District of Columbia  Register
                        RULES AND REGULATIONS


      By virtue o£ the authority vested in me as Mayor of the District
of Columbia, the following objective criteria is hereby established
to be used in evaluating need for ru-.t ncted parking in a residential
area in accordance with Section 82 (c)  of Regulation 74-25:

      For an area, however big or small,  to be eligible for  residential
permit parking, that area must meet the following  criteria;

      (1)    During any period between the hours of 7:00 a.m.  and
            6:30 pom. weekdays,  except holidays,  the number of
            vehicles parked (or standing),  legally or illegally, on
            the streets in the area is equal to 70% or more of the
            legal on-street parking capacity of the  area.  For
            purposes of this criterion, a legal parking  space shall
            be  20 linear feet,

      (2}    During the same period as in Item 1 above, 10% or more
            of the vehicles parked (or standing) on  the streets  in the
            area are not registered in  the  name of  a person  residing
            in this area.  For purposes of this criterion, the latest
            available information from the Department of Motor
            Vehicles regarding registration of motor vehicles  shall
            be  used.

      (3)    Prior to an area being recommended as a residential
            permit parking area,  the following factors must  be

            (a)   The clean air requirements of Federal and District
                 air quality plans.

            (b)   The possibility  of a reduction in vehicle miles traveled,

            (c)   The likelihood of alleviating traffic congestion, illegal
                 parking,  and related health and safety hazards.

            (d)   The proximity of public transportation.

District of Columbia'Register                       May  20,  1975
             (e)   The desire and need of the a.rea residents for
                  residential permit parking and their willingness
                  to bear the associated administrative  costs.

             (f)   The need for parking for periods in excess of
                  two hours for business establishments and the
                  general public for  religious, health, or education
                  purposes; and

             (g)   The need for parking regulation to maintain the
                  stability of neighborhoods.
       Interested persons  residing in impacted areas may submit
 written petitions  reflecting the majority viewpoint on the program
 to Mr,  Martin K.  Schaller, Executive Secretary, Executive Office
 of the Mayor, Room 528, District Building, 14th and E Streets, N. W,
 Washington,  D.  C.         20004.
                                    Walter E.  Washington

1.   Question:


2.   Question:


3.   Question:


4.   Question:


3.   Question:

                  '.'hat arc the proposed hours of enforcement for the

                  The permit parking restriction v.'ill be in effect  from 7:00 a.m.
                  to 6:30 p.m., Weekdays- Except Holidays.

                  What effect v.'ill- the program have  on par.king in evenings or on

                  The program will not be in effect  at all during those periods.

                  What areas v:ill  the program effect?

                  The program is city-wide and will  be implemented  on  a petition
                  basis.  All impacted areas will be served.

                  How v.'ill citizens know v:here they  con park legally for more
                  than 2 hours?

                  A zone system v;ill be er.t--\o!:'.sho
                  two-hour limit.

                  I-'iov; v;ill the zones be established?

                  There will be 8  zones and the boundaries will coincide i;ith
                  oxisting -..'arc", boundaries.
f->.   Question:    How will  the  stickers bo issuodV

     Answer:      "-h:;n rn r.ren  has bscr. approve',"., ntickerf? c.-n bc^ cjbtcincc" fror.i
                  the Oepartr.ior.t  o:: Motor Viih;.cl"s.

7.   Oucstion:    V">. 11 tlio::e be a chr.rgr- for  one  sticker?.?

     Anjiver:      Y^s, but  it •••111 ]5o r.uninir-1  pnc -J.asic,;v.-.l v.o covor  the
                  ^rogrr.r.\'s ';v."j.vL:iistriT:tive CO.'JV.K.  The cost is cvpocted  \-.-.i he b
                  five ."ri<"i  ti.i  c'cllar^;.
•"• .   ruostion:
                  '.'ill v.he program insur^ res.i dnnts  a p^r';ing sneic-;1  in  front of
                  Lhoir iio.vicsV

                  -'o, but it  shoxxl'l jjrovico onc'n  Tos5..-"icnt an o:)yo:-:l.Min.i.V.y  \:ii i.'~J."k
                  in the cj^no:--! vicinity of  '.:".i7.i :: homr:.

     Question:    Will out of town guests,  household employees and visitors
                 be subject to the two-hour restriction?

     Answer:      Yes, however the Director of the Department of Highways and
                 Traffic is authorized to make provisions for the issuance of
                 temporary parking permits to bona fide visitors of residents
                 of a designated residential parking area.

                 If there arc exemptions..  who would qualify?

                 We are  considering exemption stickers for the handicapped
                 and. other hardship cases.

                 Kow will the restriction be enforced?

                 The restriction will be enforced by the Metropolitan Police
                 Departr.icnt using the standard iv.ethod of marking tires and
                 re-checking the tires at certain intervals during the dr.y.

                 If residents have more than one vehicle, will each vehicle
                 be able to display a sticker?

                 2,-ch vehicle belonging to a resident of an affected area
                 would be eligible for a sticker.
10.  Question:


11.  Question:


12.  Question:
13.  Question:
                 Can a city resident from one zone park for r.'.ors than two
                 hours in another zone?

                 I'.o, a sticker is only valid in the zone in which it has been
!«:-.  Question:   Will the stickers be transferredle?

     Answer:      ITo,  each sticker will bear the vehicles license nunbcr nnd
                 if the nunbcrs don't correspond, the vehicle will bo ticketed,

15.  Question:   l.'ill students and other temporary residents 'GO. eligible for

1G.   Question:


                 Yes.  but only if they can prove that thoy are actual zone
                 resident:-: and meet the district's requirements lior vehicle.

                 How often v:j.ll the stickers have to be renewed?


17.  Question:


18.  Question:


19.  Question:


20.  Question:


21.  Question:


22.  Question:


23.  Question:


24.  Question:

Is this program nov; in effect in other cities?

Yes, similar programs have been quite successful in
Boston, Cambridge, Wilmington and Richmond.

When can the program be implemented?

We are confident that the program can be implemented in
certain areas of the city some time this summer.
How may vehicles will be affected by the program?

Our studies indicate that approximately 10,000 vehicles will
be affected.

What alternatives will these vehicles have in seeking a
mode of transportation?

We believe that the majority of these vehicles will be able
to utilize our fringe parking programs, the area-wide car
pool program, and the improving bus system.
     there be provisions for individuals who live in aroas
not adequately served by mass transit?

We are presently studying this problem.  However, we nrc
confident that i-El'RO is risking- positive steps to improve thoir
level of service from a comprehensive standpoint.
'•.ill all residents in aparfcr.icnt houses be eligible for sticker'.

Yes- the sticker applies to r.ll zcne residents.

How can on area become a part of this program?

Sach area must sv-Lmit 5 bloc!; by block petition containing
signatures of the major:.ty of the households in each block.

'<.•ii.il an area v:ith a two-hour restriction currently in erf Toe t.
be eligible for inclusion in tha program?

Yes, this area has already exhibited a need for restricted



The undersigned residents of the	block of
              Street petition the Mayor-Commissioner and City Council
to designate said street as part of the Residential Parking Permit area
by restricting the parking of vehicles beyond a consecutive two (2) hour
period between the hours of  7 a. m.  and 6:30  p. m. on weekdays,  except
holidays,  to vehicles bearing a valid parking permit.
       It  is our understanding that the residents will bear the
administrative costs of the program and this fee and other aspects of
the program will be discussed at  a public  hearing held for each affected
area prior to the implementation.
       Signature                                    Address

           APPENDIX  B


     These informal surveys were conducted in August  (Rosslyn)
and October (D.C.) using telephone interviews.  Lists of
Rosslyn employers were prepared from a field inventory of
building registers in the Rosslyn CBD and telephone numbers
were obtained from the Northern Virginia Directory.  In the case
of D.C., names of private employers were pulled from the Yellow
Pages according to category and location.  The surveys were
biased towards large employers to get maximum employee coverage
although small businesses were also sampled.

     Each inquiry followed the same format.  The interviewer
would ask to speak to the Office Manager or Personnel Director
who could furnish information on employee parking.  The purpose
of the survey (to provide information for a Parking Management
Study being prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
was explained, and the following data collected:

     1.  What is the total employment for this company within
         Rosslyn  (D.C.)?
     2.  For what percentage of employees is parking provided?
     3.  What is the cost to the employee for this parking?
     4.  If parking is not provided, is the employee reimbursed
         for parking costs?
     5.  What is the policy behind provision of parking or re-
         imbursement for parking costs to the employee?
     6.  Does the employer offer any incentive to carpool?

     The number of employers and the employees they represent are
given in Table B-l as well as the number of employees for whom
parking is 100 percent subsidized.  The number of employers does
not represent all those who were telephoned; in some instances
it was not possible to obtain the information  (the Office Manager

was not available, the company was not located in D.C. or
Rosslyn any more, etc.)-  In cases where no data was col-
lected, these employers were not counted in the survey.

     These surveys are limited in scope and design but in-
dicate the need for further investigation of the extent of
private employers' parking subsidies.  Parking management
strategies which fail to consider the impact of private sub-
sidies may be much less successful than anticipated.
                       TABLE B-l
                                   D.C.        Rosslyn
Number companies sampled             48           29
Number employees represented     11,891        2,803
Total number of employees
   in target area               492,266       19,833
Percent of target area em-
   ployees represented in
   the survey                      2.4%        14.1%
Percent of employees with
   fully subsidized parking        48%          84%
Percent who must pay own
   parking                         52%          16%

              APPENDIX C


                          APPENDIX C

                   PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
    There are seven basic steps to projecting the impact of
parking management on air quality.  They are:

        (1)  Characterize existing air quality
        (2)  Characterize auto use
        (3)  Develop a current emissions inventory
        (4)  Project total emissions wihtout Parking Management
        (5)  Estimate future air quality without Parking Management
        (6)  Estimate future impact of parking management on
             auto use
        (7)  Estimate impact on future air quality

    For major metropolitan areas much of the data necessary to
generate an estimate of the parking management plan impacts are
readily available in some form.  Existing air quality, auto use,
and emission projections were used in the assessment of this
proposed in Washington D.C. plan.  However, the development of
site specific data and continuous monitoring of the program
impact can be of significant additional value.  For each of the
seven steps, the direction and extent of analysis will be briefly
discussed below.

Existing Air Quality

    To characterize existing air quality one should collect .all
available data on nitrogen dioxide, oxidant, and carbon monoxide
for the last couple of yea-rs.   Data should be collected from all

monitors in the region.  Although summary data for previous
years may appear in various reports of transportation planning
documents, it is best to contact directly those persons actually
conducting the monitoring programs to obtain their most recent
set of data (normally less than one year old), find out if pre-
viously reported levels are still considered valid and represen-
tative, and to determine locations of monitoring equipment and
the analytical methods used.  Where possible,  data trends should
be evaluated on both a site-by-site and region-wide basis.  If
different test methods have been utilized, potential differences
due to the test procedure itself must be considered.

    The air quality data should be evaluated on the basis of
averaging times consistent with Federal or State air quality
standards.  For Federal standards the averaging times are one
hour for oxidants, one and eight hours for carbon monoxide, and
annual average for nitrogen dioxide.

    Examination of recent air quality trends will indicate the
extent of auto related air quality problems (how badly are air
quailty standards being exceeded), the effectiveness of on-going
controls, and the representativeness of each year's data  (one
year may have had particularly bad or good meteorology and con-
current non-representative bad or good air quality).

    In characterizing existing air quality it may be found that
air quality is not monitored in an area of particularly high
emissions and where parking management is likely to have a
significant effect on auto use patterns.  Development of a new
monitoring program should be considered to characterize this
potential pollutant hot spot and to' track the effectiveness of
parking management on that area's air quality.

Auto Use

    In the development of the parking management plan, it is
likely that all relevant data on auto useage directly related
to parking spaces has been collected and evaluated.  However,
one may need to gather or estimate figures on mileage, trip
frequency, and trip types on a regional or subregional scale in
order to get at pollutant emissions' impacts of parking manage-

    Both the number of trips and length of trips influence
automotive emissions  (cold start-up emissions of hydrocarbons
and carbon monoxide are typically high).  The distributions
of auto use by time of day can affect the impact of the emissions
on air quality (early morning emissions of hydrocarbons are not
influential on afternoon oxidant levels).  Temporal distribution
of trips may also indicate which trips and how many trips are
affected by a particular parking measure.

    Characterizing auto use by trip-type is necessary for eval-
uating measures aimed at particular types of trips (commute,
shopping, business, etc.)..

    General information on number of trips, and auto mileage
are normally available from local air pollution and transportation
agencies.  Specific information useful in disaggregating summary
figures by time of day and type of trip may be available from
personal auto use surveys conducted in the area.  Where such
studies have not been carried out, studies carried out in other
cities can be extrapolated.   For Washington, D.C.  data in the
emission projections by COG,  the 1972 long range regional plan,
and a 1968 personal transportation survey were used to estimate
distribution of trips by type and time of day.

Current Emissions Inventory

    It is likely that sufficiently detailed emission inventory
data on hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides
are already available in air pollution implementation plans.
In adapting existing inventories to the parking management
analysis, one must consider up-dating the inventory if assump-
tions regarding control effectiveness have changed.  One must
also check the compatability of the auto use figures to be used
with those in the inventory.  If the auto use figures are in
conflict with the inventory, a revised inventory can be developed,
using EPA AP-42 report series on emission factors.  The baseline
inventory, auto use data, and air quality data should all be for
the same year.  This may mean using data from two or three years
past to obtain the desired consistency.

    Readily available emission inventories are normally based on
region-wideor county-wide emissions.  For oxidant and nitrogen
dioxide concentration analysis, where delays between primary
pollutant (HC and NO) emission and secondary pollutant formation
take place,  development of smaller scale inventories is of little
value.  For a primary pollutant such as carbon monoxide,  the use
of a localized inventory may be in order.  This can be developed
using standard EPA inventory techniques and data on localized CO
stationary sources and motor vehicle use.  State and local air
pollution control agencies can often provide insight and necessary
data for developing such an inventory.

    For short-term standards such as those for oxidants and
carbon monoxide maximum concentrations are likely to occur con-
sistently during a particular part of the day.  To the extent
these maximum concentrations can be related back to emissions
during a particular part of the day and an emission inventory

can be developed accordingly, a more accurate representation of
relevant pollutant emissions will result.  In the case of
Washington D.C., the GOC has developed the hydrocarbon inven-
tory around the 6 to 9 a.m. period, and the carbon monoxide
inventory around the 2 to 10p.m. period. This is because 6 to
9 a.m. HC emissions are expected to convert and have a major im-
pact on 12 to 2 p.m. oxidant levels and because ambient CO levels
are highest in the afternoon period.  Either time specific or
daily inventories are acceptable analytical approaches at the
present time.

Projecting Emissions without Parking Management

    Development, implementation, and realization of parking
mangement measures and their associated auto use reductions will
all take time.  As in this study the time frame of significant
impact, which to a certain extent is dependent on the precise
nature of the measures themselves, is likely to be the decade
of the eighties.  It would, therefore, be  inappropriate to
evaluate these measures in the context of current emissions and
air quality and ignore the effects of growth in pollutant sources
and the effects of on-going or planned control efforts.   Emission
and air quality levels must be estimated for appropriate future
years to obtain a meaningful assessment of parking management.
In projecting emissions one must take into account the combined
effects of source growth,  the impact of retirement of older
sources,  and the effects of various State, Federal,  and Local
emission control programs.

    This can prove to be a complicated and tedious task.   For-
tunately, however, as with the baseline inventory, one or more
existing emission projections are likely to be available for any
major metropolitan area.  In Washington,  D.C., for example, pro-
jections to 1975 and 1977  were prepared for use in the Transportation

Control Plan, projections to 1985 were developed in support
of Air Quality Maintenance Planning efforts, and a 1992 pro-
jection of emissions was done as a part of the long range
transportation plan consistency assessment now required by
the Federal Highway Administration.

    When using existing projections one should consider the
validity of the growth rate, and control programs' assumptions
used in the original projection exercise.   If data are drawn
from two or more different projections, consistency between
them must be established.

    If original projections are to be developed either because
previous efforts are outdated, cannot be validated or provide
insufficient detail, procedures used by local air pollution
agencies should be followed as closely as possible.  Generalized
guidance can be found in EPA's 13-volume Air Quality Maintenance
Plan Guidelines series.

Future Air Quality without Parking Management

    Projecting future air quality involves estimating the impact
of shifts in the quality and type of emissions, as reflected in
the emission projections, on air quality as a function of the
level or levels observed in the baseline year.  The simplest of
approaches, which is typically used, is to assume a proportional
change relationship between emissions and air quality.  For
pollutants such as carbon monoxide or ntirogen dioxide the
following is applicable:
               Ci = CO x
               Ci = projected air quality level.
               Co = observed base year air quality level,
               Eo = baseline year total emissions.
               Ei = the projected total emissions.

Because oxidants are produced through complex hydrocarbon
reactions in the atmosphere, a non-linearity factor is often
introduced.  A typical formula for projecting oxidant air
quality is:

           Ci = (Co x FO X Ei)/(Fi x Eo)

           Ci = projected oxidant air quality level.
           Co = observed base year air quality level.
           Fo - weighting factor which accounts for any non-
                linear relationship between hydrocarbons
                emitted and oxidants observed in the baseline
           Fi = the weighting factor in the projected year.
           Eo = baseline year total hydrocarbon emissions.
           Ei = the projected total hydrocarbon emissions.

    The factors Fo and Fi are based either on aerometric data '
    or on an assumption of direct proportionality between hydro-
    carbon emissions and oxidant concentrations, i.e., Fo=Fi=1.0.
    The exact relationship is still not known.

Parking Management's Effect on Auto Use

    To assess the impact on auto use of the parking management
plan one must clearly define the cost and supply assumptions
explicit or implicit in the baseline air quality and emissions
projections.  The baseline projection is likely to reflect a
status quo assumption (i.e., price levels and structures, types
of parking and ratio of parking to travelers unchanged).  From
this baseline one must then identify price changes, and supply
changes expected in the year in question due to the plan and
evaluate which trips and which travelers will face these incre-
mental changes.
I/  For example Appendix J, "Requirements for Preparation,
    Adopting, and Submittal of Implementation Plans," Code
    of Federal Regulations, 40 CFR 2.100.

In this study, those travelers facing price increases due to
elimination of previously free parking were diverted on the basis
of the full price for the duration of parking typical to the trip
type in question (commute, shopping).  Those facing increases in
price due to rate increases were diverted based on the shift in
price before and after parking management.  Diversion of trips
in essence reflects the shift in the split of travelers between
driving and parking, and carpooling or using mass transit.  A
series of diversion curves (examples on the next page) were
already available for Washington from previous work in the area.
If diversion estimates specific to the region being analyzed
are not available,  data from other cities can be reasonably sub-
stituted.  Diversion curves based on cost ratios and time ratios
of autos vs. transit are particularly useful in this respect.
These kinds of curves are also available for the Washington area. '

    Where free or cheap parking is eliminated with substitutable
space available, proportional diversion due to increased cost and
time is appropriate.  Where alternative space is not available
one must assume 100 percent diversion to transit or carpool.  How-
ever, this assumption can be inappropriate if the supply/demand
imbalance is great and alternative modes of travel are not adequate,
Under such conditions, cruising in search of space and chauffeuring
of travelers can actually increase auto use and associated emis-
sions.  These conditions should be avoided.

    New and better parking can be evaluated in a reverse evalua-
tion of transit diversion as in the case of fringe lot development.

    Operating on these principles one can approximate the changes
in trips (number of trips, length of trips, and destinations) due
to shifts in parking supply (volume, cost, and location).  Dis-
tributing travel by type of trip and time of day is useful in
I/  Modal Split Curves in "Software Systems Program Development",
    DOT, UMTA, 1974.

                                                  VMT vs. TRANSIT
   1.8  -


                                                TRIPS vs. TRANSIT
                                                  VMT vs.  PARKING
                                                TRIPS vs.  PARKING
                 1.0         2.0         3.0         4.0          5.0
                  I            I            I            I            I
                 0.20        0.40        0.60        0.80         1.00

 this  respect  (e.g.,  Is  parking  supply  constrained  at  any
 particular  time  of the  day  and  which travelers will face
 this  constraint  or to what  degree  are  morning and  afternoon
 peak  traffic  flows affected by  measures  aimed solely  at com-
 muters) .

    The goal  of  this particular exercise is  to come up with
 an estimate of the reduction  in both number  of trips  and miles
 traveled  throughout the day resulting  from the plan.

 Air Quality Impact of Parking Mangement

    Emissions of HC, CO and NOX are a  function of  both trip
 length and  frequency.   Start-up emission  of  HC, and CO are high
 while NOV is  somewhat low.  For this reason  the emissions due to
 one five-mile trip are  different from  those  due to five one-mile
 trips.  To  date  this interaction between  trip length  and fre-
 quency has  been  important in accurate  emission characterization.
 It is likely to  continue to be  important  in  future car emissions.
 Data relating the portion of emissions attributable to start-up
 as opposed  to running operation cannot be developed for autos to
 be sold between now and the year of years being projected.   In
 this analysis both the  percentage reduction  in number of trips
 and number  of miles were used to bound the potential  reduction
 in auto emissions.

    Reducing auto use will  stimulate demand  for transit.   If the
 increased demand is absorbed in current transit service,  no
 change in transit emissions need to be considered.   If, however,
 transit service frequency will be increased due to parking man-
 agement stimulated demand,  the net emissions impact assessment
must reflect the negative effect of increased transit emissions.
 Necessary emission factors  for this inclusion are provided in
EPA's AP-42 report series on emission rates.

    Percentage changes in motor vehicle emissions, once derived,
are directly relatable to the projections of emissions and air
quality discussed earlier in this Appendix.

     Office of Research and Development
         Technical  Information Staff
           Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
                                                                         POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

                                                                 US  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                                                                       Special  Pourth-Class Rate
                                         If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label;
                                         tear off; and return to the above address.
                                         If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
                                         series, CHECK HERE Q; tear off label, and return it to the
                                         above address.