Mr. BARR. 2. Privately owned facilities have mobility as well as permanence. Oftentimes it has been argued that a privately owned parking facility will disappear when the land can be utilized for an office building, store, or some other purpose. Anyone who examines the history of parking lots will discover that almost without exception real estate that was used as a parking lot 20 years ago is still a parking lot, or if not, it is a parking garage, or a parking facility as an integral part of an office building.

In other words, there exists irrefutable proof that real estate used as a parking lot continues to serve the same purpose for the reason that it is the best economic use for a particular piece of property. On the other hand, if the central business district shifts a block or two, privately owned facilities can be converted to another use and new facilities created which are more adjacent to the generators of business. A publicly owned facility cannot be so readily converted.

3. Many municipal parking programs are financed through tax-free bond issues. This is a device whereby all of the people in a community pay for parking of the relatively few who directly benefit. Offstreet. parking is not a public responsibility such as sewers, streets, schools, and so forth, and with our expanding population and economy, bond issues are needed for purposes that are truly in the public interest and should not be utilized to provide offstreet parking when such parking can be readily provided by private investment if there is an economic need.

4. Many municipal programs are subsidized by pledging of onstreet parking meter revenue funds. Sooner or later, with the tremendous automobile growth, parking meters will have to be removed from the streets completely. If the funds are used to subsidize offstreet parking, the moneys must be made up by additional taxation. Many communities have created offstreet parking facilities by pledging these funds for long periods of time. When the facilities are built, the city has discovered to its dismay that at least half the downtown culprit is traffic congestion. It is unable to remove the meters from the streets to eliminate this congestion because the meter funds are pledged for another purpose.

In Pittsburgh, it is interesting to note, traffic demands caused the removal of a large number of parking meters from the downtown streets. However, the bonding company that had arranged for financing for the municipal parking program required the return of approximately 1,200 of these to the streets, even though municipal authorities considered them a detriment to the proper movement of traffic.

5. The right of eminent domain enables a municipality to confiscate available downtown real estate for parking purposes. Not only does the device confiscate the property, but it removes income-producing real estate from the tax rolls. One can legitimately argue that if a municipality is permitted to exercise this right for parking purposes, it should be permitted to use the same device to create additional hotels if there are not enough rooms during a convention, or an adequate number of seats in a restaurant at 12 o'clock noon. No one has ever seriously argued this. All of us must realize that never will there be a sufficient amount of parking during the week before Christmas or the week before Easter.

57-450-66——16

The development of offstreet parking through private enterprise is hampered by none of these problems. As automobile registration increases, so does the number of spaces provided by the parking industry. An examination of the Bureau of the Census Selected Services reports for 1953, 1958, and 1963-the latest published-show that every 4 or 5 years the parking industry in our central business district expands by some 20 percent. In 1947 there was slightly less than $1 billion invested in parking facilities in the United States. Today there is more than $5 billion invested. More than 94 percent of that $5 billion is invested in free enterprise offstreet facilities. Less than 6 percent is invested in public parking facilities. This demonstrates beyond question who is taking care of the offstreet parking needs of the motoring public. One might think, considering the barrage of propaganda disseminated by the supporters of public parking, that municipalities were providing the 94 percent instead of less than 6 percent.

The National Parking Association-its staff and its membersare mindful of the responsibility of the industry to share in overall traffic, parking, and transit planning. We are represented in_work being done by such organizations as the Highway Research Board and the National Retail Merchants Association. There is still much to be done in this field of coordinating all types of urban transportation facilities, but the creation of a parking authority for the District of Columbia is not the method best calculated to achieve success.

One or two other points, if I may, Senator Tydings. There has been some discussion during the course of these hearings as to whether or not on-street parking meter funds should be used to support the financing of off-street parking facilities. I say the answer is definitely "No." Practically without exception, in every city ordinance in every municipality in this country which permitted the creation of on-street parking meters, there is no mention of the revenue producing nature of the meter.

It always says that meters were installed on the street simply for the purpose of regulating and controlling traffic, for as long as that street could afford the luxury of parking cars rather than moving traffic, so that parking meters, as a revenue producer, have no legal basis, in fact, and certainly should not be considered as a long-term method of financing off-street parking facilities, such as a 40-year bond issue.

Another point I think worthy of mention is the parking shortage surrounding or the alleged parking shortage surrounding Capitol Hill. I know certainly, Mr. Chairman, that you, and I have read many times, or are opposed to unnecessary governmental spending for various activities. I think that sooner or later, we must realize that there is no such thing as free parking anywhere. And the difficulty surrounding Capitol Hill, in terms of off-street parking facilities, is that almost everyone by permit or some other device is permitted to park free. Let the user pay a rate that is economically feasible, in terms of reflecting the cost of the investment of those parking facilities, and I think you will find sufficient parking spaces or certainly an economic demand to create additional spaces.

Certainly if there is a loaf of bread with the present charge, there is no line to get it. If it were free, there would be a big line. And this would be one way to help to achieve the balance we need in

transportation to and from the central business district of any community between the private automobile and some form of public transportation.

Senator TYDINGS. I gather, then, that if we wish to provide private parking facilities in the Capitol Hill area for the tourists, the best way would be to deprive all the employees of Capitol Hill of the parking privileges which they now have. Then the demand

Mr. BARR. No, sir; I would say to make them pay a rate, Senator Tydings, that is economically feasible. And an employee of downtown America, if he chooses to drive an automobile must pay for the parking of his automobile. I see no distinction.

Senator TYDINGS. You think, then, that if the Senate employees who park in the garage here paid a fee to the Senate or to the General Services Administration for that privilege, that that would automatically attract private parking in the area and provide facilities for the tourists?

Mr. BARR. First I would think it would make many of those users, perhaps, use public transportation, or resort to car pooling, for example, to cut down on the number of automobiles, simply because of the economics involved. None of us want to pay anything to park a car. I am sure

Senator TYDINGS. What are we going to do about the tourists who like to see the Capitol? You know, there are quite a few tourists who come in and like to look.

Mr. BARR. Well, I think-I have none of the figures available to me, Senator, but in reading them, such as from the Board of Tradewe will find that the tourist industry in the District of Columbia has increased year after year, far and above expectations or predictions, so it would not appear that the alleged lack of parking for this purpose is distracting people from visiting the Nation's Capitol.

Senator TYDINGS. Well, now just to get back to your line of thought, I thought you indicated before, that if we charged the Senate employees a fee, then automatically that would attract private investment up here on Capitol Hill to build a parking facility. I am just interested in following your logic out on that, or perhaps you are not quite

Mr. BARR. Sir, I think, No. 1, as I said before, it would have the effect of perhaps not as great a usage by these people, if there was an economically feasible rate charged, reflecting the investment.

Secondly, I think there are serious considerations that should be given to the fact that the proper climate, if this were the situation, that an economic rate was charged, would attract private investment, or it would make governmental bodies recognize that they, like a business, a downtown business, should provide parking for its employees, or its visitors, or work in cooperation with the established parking industry for that purpose.

Senator TYDINGS. Do you agree, then, with one of the other witnesses here this morning, who, although he opposed my bill, said, nevertheless, that the Department of Interior should provide public parking facilities on the Mall and in other areas for tourists?

Mr. BARR. No, I do not agree with this statement.

Senator TYDINGS. I thought you just said that it was the responsibility of the Government to provide parking facilities?

Mr. BARR. I say this: That where now for whom? Tourists? No. For their employees, yes; for example, the Pentagon. I have

proposed and I believe the General Services Administration agrees, that employees should pay for their parking and has so recommended. Senator TYDINGS. You do agree that the Government, then, has the responsibility to provide parking facilities for its employees?

Mr. BARR. In those areas where, for various reasons, it cannot be done by private investment, such as in the immediate area of Capitol Hill.

Senator TYDINGS. So you would agree that parking should be provided on Capitol Hill. What about the Foggy Bottom area, at the State Department, for all those thousands of employees down there who really try and find a spot to park? Do you think that the State Department or the Government has a responsibility to provide them with parking spots?

Mr. BARR. If it deems it that they are going to encourage their employees to use automobiles, No. 1, it should be part of their consideration to include parking as an integral part of their building, such as other governmental buildings, which I would suggest regardless. Senator TYDINGS. You think that is sound policy?

Mr. BARR. I believe that is sound policy, if it is to be so determined that they should use an automobile.

Senator TYDINGS. Why did you oppose the Great Plaza, then, down there?

Mr. BARR. For the simple reason that in my judgment, at that time, there was an adequate number of parking spaces to provide the needs of that area-provided by private investment.

Senator TYDINGS. What about the Federal Triangle proposal to provide an underground facility to replace that eyesore down there where lots of cars are parked during the day, and make that into an underground facility, make the parking lot into a beautiful park, and take care of three or four times as many employees. Why did you oppose that?

Mr. BARR. First, because it was going to be provided not only for use of employees but for other people, nongovernmental employees, so there was going to be a garage for public use. Secondly, because of the economics involved. Anyone knows that. it costs from $4,000 to $7,000 a car space to build parking underneath the surface of the ground, as compared to $12

Senator TYDINGS. The ground does not cost anything. It is right there. It belongs to the Government.

Mr. BARR. Forgetting the cost of the ground, Mr. Chairman, it still is not economically feasible to create parking facilities below the surface of the ground at a cost of $4,000 to $7,000 exclusive of land costs.

Senator TYDINGS. Then you agree that the Government has a responsibility to take care of its employees in parking, but only if it is economically feasible to park the cars above the ground-they can't park them below the ground? Is that what you are testifying to here?

Mr. BARR. Not exactly, Senator. What I am testifying to is when a Government building is built, whether it be in the District of Columbia or anywhere in the country, for that matter, and it is decided by GSA or whoever is responsible for building this building, that there are certain employees who are using this building all day long, must have automobiles, they should include parking as an integral part of that building, and charge a fee for it.