STATEMENT OF MERRITT A. NEALE, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL PARKING CONGRESS; AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC PARKING AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH

Mr. NEALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

About 3 weeks ago I was privileged to attend the Second National Conference on Highways and Urban Development at Williamsburg, Va. The conference was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway Officials, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities and was an outgrowth of the first such meeting, known as the Sagamore Conference, held in 1958.

Intensive efforts at the local and State level to acquaint decisionmakers with the Sagamore Conference recommendations led, in 1962, to the Federal Highway Act requiring "a continuing, comprehensive transportation planning process carried on cooperatively by States and local communities.' After 3 days of hardworking sessions, those present, from Federal Highway Administrator Rex Whitton, Assistant Administrator for Transportation John Kohl, and Urban Renewal Commissioner Bill Slayton, down through the many State highway administrators and officials, as well as mayors of several of the Nation's largest cities, agreed that transportation planning in all its forms for the ever-growing metropolitan areas and regional centers of population in this country, and the implementation of these plans, must be carried out on a continuous basis, and must be coordinated with comprehensive community and regional planning and implementation programs.

In

To operate effectively, a transportation system must have three basic elements: The vehicle, the right of way, and the terminal. a highway system, these three elements are translated into the motor vehicle, the road, and the place to park at the end of the trip.

Moreover, if the system is to operate at continuous maximum efficiency, each of these three elements must be kept in balance with the others.

Senator TYDINGS. Was this a finding of that conference?
Mr. NEALE. Yes, sir.

Nowhere in the spectrum of the city is the automobile more visible than in the center of the business district, carrying shoppers, workers, and visitors to and from their destinations. Thousands of vehicles pour into our downtown areas every day, sometimes in an almost never-ending caravan, and plod their way to the nearest parking oasis.

Provision of parking facilities in the right quantities, in the right locations, and at the right prices is one of the major problems facing most urban centers. The parking problem, of itself, can never really be solved. In most of our downtown districts, the public is accommodated with offstreet parking which is readily accessible and which charges reasonable rates. It will soon make optimum use of this space. The question, then, is not the parking problem alone, but a larger problem of overall transportation within, around, and through the city. Undoubtedly, mass transportation must continue carrying a large portion of the burden. It still remains the most efficient carrier of a large number of persons and means must and are being found that will make it more attractive to the traveling public.

Furthermore, a greater number of responsible municipal officials are encouraging its increased use. Too great a desertion from mass transportation to private automobiles already has and will continue to congest our downtown streets, making it impossible for either automobiles or transit vehicles to move efficiently.

The primary function of the central city is as a center of commerce, banking, government, recreation, and culture, and must be protected, and the basic key to this protection is to arrest the trend of decreasing tax values at the city's core, brought on by urban decentralization. This is not an academic question, but a practical life and death matter to city officials, since the downtown district provides a majority of the real estate tax revenue for the entire city.

A solution to the overall problem of transportation to, from and through the city is fundamental in safeguarding the values of the central business district, and the provision of adequate, strategically located offstreet parking spaces in the downtown area is one part of the answer to the tranportation problem.

One point which I would like to make, and which I cannot emphasize too much, is that parking is merely a service for the basic use of the downtown area. If there were no generators of traffic in the downtown district, if there were no retail stores and banks, office or government buildings, theaters, hotels, or other meeting places, certainly there would be no need for any parking facilities.

As a use in itself, parking is nothing. It only serves to accommodate the people who want to avail themselves of the great variety of primary uses in the central city. This leads to a discussion of the historical significance of private versus public enterprise in meeting the parking problem. Until the recent past, off-street parking spaces have been supplied almost entirely by private enterprise. In the beginning of the motor age, automobiles were stored in open lots and in converted buildings. The 1920's saw a flurry of construction that closed in buildings designed especially for the parking of motor vehicles, and beginning in the mid-1930's open-deck garages began to be built in an effort to reduce construction costs.

Practically all of this past activity was generated by private enterprise. With private enterprise beginning the effort, why did it not continue alone to serve the public? Would there have been any interest in turning to the municipalities or in creating public agencies to handle the parking problem if private enterprise had adequately satisfied the demands of the using public?

It is significant to note that a great majority of all public parking agencies now in existence have been created since the end of World War II. Let's look at this question of private versus public responsibility for a moment. Why is parking not entirely a private responsibility?

In the first place, the location of an off-street parking facility is of paramount importance. Surveys have shown time and time again that parkers will not walk great distances from where they park their cars to their destinations. Therefore, parking facilities must be conveniently located to centers of large demand. Oft times the private parking developer cannot get the most advantageous location for an off-street facility. In his attempt to assemble a site large enough and suitably shaped to construct an efficient lot or garage, he may be

completely blocked by an uncooperative owner of a small property holding out for an exorbitant amount of money.

Second, acquisition of land and construction of the parking facility is usually a major undertaking, with rising costs of construction added to the burden. The private investor or developer often does not have sufficient risk capital to invest on a long-term basis. I might say within the past few years there have been several good and outstanding examples of joint merchant-parking lot operator cooperation to bridge this gap.

Third, in many instances the private operator does not have in mind the overall parking picture within the downtown area and throughout the city. His primary interest must be in his own establishment and not primarily with the general health and welfare and safety of the central business district, the community at large, and its citizens.

Finally, we must realize that the primary objective of the private operator is to produce a fair return on his investment, or, in simple words, a profit. Certainly this is not to be criticized or decried. Our economy is based on the profit motive. However, in a situation where the demand is much greater than the supply, the temptation to boost prices beyond a reasonable limit is often very great, particularly if the rate increase will not substantially change the number of automobiles using a facility, and if the law of supply and demand cannot function due to the inability of private enterprise to meet the demand, an unbalanced supply and demand ratio will continue.

When, then, is the answer? There is no absolute, carefully delineated answer to the question of the public versus private development and management of parking facilities. It is almost as varied as the number of cities we have and depends to a great extent on the conditions existing in these cities. In some cities, private parking operators and developers have realized their responsibility and in working with merchants and other downtown property owners have reached a reasonable and workable solution to the parking problem.

In other cities, private parking operators have not faced up to the facts. They have gone their own separate ways and have met the situation with a denial that any problem actually exists.

As for the question of responsibility, it would be difficult to deny that the public does have a definite responsibility in this matter of solving the parking problem. Briefly, the responsibility is to see that adequate spaces are supplied in our cities, sufficient to satisfy a good part of the demand.

What mechanism is necessary to meet the problem? It is my feeling, and that of the more than 100 member cities and municipal parking agencies from around the world affiliated with the International Municipal Parking Congress which I represent here today, that a strong, effective, overall agency is necessary in our cities, including Washington, D.C., which will keep a continuous watch on the parking situation to assure that the public interests are safeguarded at all times. This should be a public agency that will act as an information bureau and be empowered to plan, acquire land for, design, finance, construct, lease, operate, and maintain public parking facilities.

One reason it is taking so long to make real progress in solving the parking problem in some cities is that the responsibility often has been delegated to a municipal official or department already over

worked. As a result, parking has been neglected. Depending on the local situation, a special department or agency should be created. In some instances, a board or commission using the facilities of existing departments has proved adequate or in other cases augmenting the staff and budget of an existing department has done the job.

Above all, a dedicated, nonpartisan group, board, or commission members, coupled with a competent and diversified professional staff, are the real keys to the implementing and administering of a successful municipal parking program and system.

In the next few minutes, I would like to outline for you the bold and progressive steps that three cities have taken toward solving their parking dilemma. These examples will vividly illustrate what can and must be done if Washington, D.C., is to meet and solve its critical parking situation before it is too late.

First of all, San Francisco, Calif. The city and county of San Francisco created a public parking authority in 1949 for three compelling reasons: First, the inability of private business to carry the entire parking load unaided and alone; secondly, the then new, rising conception of parking facilities as an integral part of the streets and highways system; and third, the importance of concentrating responsibility in one agency, especially designed for the purpose.

The private parking industry just was not able to, first, acquire and assemble land in desirable locations by itself, without the use of eminent domain; second, to obtain sufficiently low cost financing by solely private means; and third, to commit high value downtown real estate to parking use.

The parking authority there functions like a department of the city and county government and is directly responsible to the mayor and board of supervisors. It is responsible for advising and making recommendations to the mayor and board pertaining to the off-street parking program, and where required, the authority also acts as an agent for the city and county government in carrying out off-street parking development approved by the city administration.

The parking authority, envisioning the possibilities inherent in private-public cooperation, adopted in 1950, 15 years ago, the following policy statement as one of its first official acts, and to which it has adhered throughout with excellent results.

Policy point No. 1: Stimulation of and cooperation with private enterprise to finance and construct the facilities required under the offstreet parking program. Facilities developed under this phase of the authority's program since 1949 have provided 17,000 parking

spaces.

Policy point No. 2: Public cooperation with private enterprise to provide offstreet parking by public provision of garage sites and private provision of the construction financing. Offstreet parking projects completed or under development jointly by Government or private enterprise under this phase of the authority's program to date total 8,200 parking stalls.

Policy point No. 3: Direct public financing and construction, including site acquisition, where private construction was not or could not be undertaken. The 8,500 special event parking stalls at Candlestick Park were developed under this phase of the general parking program. In addition, 28 public parking lots and garages are programed for 15 neighborhood shopping districts, providing nearly

1,500 critically needed parking spaces to serve these older, secondary business areas of the city.

The accomplishments of the San Francisco parking program rests on the right to exercise the power of eminent domain and expend public funds granted by the California Legislature in 1949. The legislature declared:

The supplying of additional parking facilities and the performance of all undertakings incidental or advantageous there to are public uses and purposes for which public money may be spent and private property acquired, and are governmental functions.

Evidences of increasing property and tax values resulting from establishment of parking facilities have been apparent wherever a new structure has been built in San Francisco. In commenting on Union Square Garage, San Francisco's assessor has said:

The construction of the Union Square Garage certainly has been an influence in the enhancement of property value in the area surrounding this important facility. Since 1942 there has been an average increase in the value of land in this neighborhood approximating 47 percent, with a substantial part of said increase due to the garage.

Estimates indicate that this represents $1,500,000 annually in additional taxes which, in this case, means the initial $1,550,000 cost of construction of the garage is being returned each and every year. Senator TYDINGS. The Union Square Garage is what type of facility?

Mr. NEALE. That is an underground parking structure surmounted by a surface park which creates and has created a beautiful, green open space in the heart of downtown San Francisco.

Some of the significant results of the San Francisco parking program to date may be summed up as follows: First, the conduct of the program has been such that development of municipal garages has stimulated rather than deterred private garage construction, as evidenced by the great increase in production of parking of that type. This manifestly reduces to a very material extent what might otherwise become a vast public burden. The establishment of municipal garages has, however, had a very beneficial effect in relieving San Francisco's downtown traffic problem. This is especially true where the garages are designed and operated for self-parking, permitting prompt ingress without street backups of incoming cars.

Furthermore, the increase in downtown parking generally has not added to traffic congestion, in spite of the fact that additional traffic has been generated. As distinguished from traffic, San Francisco officials say the new garages have particularly aided in solving the parking problem and so far, at least, not to the detriment of traffic.

In the final analysis, San Francisco officials concur with New York City's former traffic commissioner, T. T. Wylie, that—

History does not disclose any city that strangled to death because of too much traffic, but communities have withered up on the vine because of too little.

Next turning to Detroit, Mich., this city recognized early the need for municipal action on offstreet parking, believing that cities of the country might have a right to look to the home of the automobile for leadership and guidance in coping with traffic and attendant problems, including parking.

In 1941 a vote of the people authorized the city to engage in the parking business. In 1945, on an advisory vote concerning an under