As a result, Nashville had somewhere in the neighborhood of 19,000 spaces downtown. We actually had a surplus of spaces in some areas. So it was a mutual cooperation between the two.

Senator TYDINGS. Are you familiar with some of the private parking representatives who have appeared here?

Mr. HUNNICUTT. I heard their testimony.

Senator TYDINGS. I was thinking specifically of Mr. Warshauer or Mr. Barr.

Do you know whether any of them have private parking facilities? Mr. HUNNICUTT. From what I understand, Mr. Barr does have interests in parking in Illinois and Mr. Warshauer, I think that his father is in the private parking business in Chicago.

I was in Chicago and helped develop their program from its inception in 1952 and 1953, so I was familiar with the starting of the Chicago program which is one of the largest. That has been somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 million in parking.

Senator TYDINGS. Have the private operators suffered in Chicago? Mr. HUNNICUTT. Well, if they have, I am not aware of it.

By the way, all of the Chicago parking facilities built by the city of Chicago are being operated by private parking operators with the exception of metered lots, but all of them are being operated by private parking interests.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunnicutt. We appreciate your being with us and the time and effort you put into your statement.

Mr. Glenn Lashley, director of Public Relations and Civic Activities of the District of Columbia Division of the American Automobile Association.

We are happy to have you with us this morning, Mr. Lashley. Why don't you submit your statement for the hearing record? Then we would be delighted to have any comments you might wish to make.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF GLENN T. LASHLEY, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC RELATIONS AND CIVIC ACTIVITIES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DIVISION, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Glenn T. Lashley, director of public relations and civic activities, District of Columbia division, American Automobile Association. I am appearing in behalf of the advisory board of the District of Columbia division, American Automobile Association. We are gratified that you have taken so much time and effort to find ways of strengthening proposed parking legislation.

Our concern over the passage of this bill is obvious. In addition to our 55,000 AAA members in Washington, D.C., we have another 48,000 members in northern Virginia and 70,000 members in suburban Maryland. Many of our Virginia and Maryland members commute to the District on a daily basis, and they are met with a hopeless parking situation.

Before we outline our recommendations to the subcommittee, permit me to briefly cover certain AAA policies pertinent to this parking bill and related matters: The District of Columbia division of the American Automobile Association has been on record since 1961 favoring a transportation plan for the National Capital region embracing:

(1) A network of freeways and bridges with adequate parking facilities. (2) A system of express bus routes utilizing freeways.

(3) A system of rapid rail transit.

We are also in favor of a parking authority empowered to make fringe parking facilities available to rapid transit commuters, and in-town facilities for those who depend solely upon their automobiles for transportation.

With the construction of a rapid transit facility, there will be an urgent need for increased fringe parking areas within the District. Present facilities are entirely inadequate or at improper locations to handle the hoped for numbers of commuters who would take advantage of a rapid transit line.

However, it can be safely stated that many thousands of persons living in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs, who work in the District, will continue to use their automobiles despite the advent of a rapid transit line. A recent survey conducted by Homer Hoyte Associates of Washington shows that the families of the greater Washington area have an extremely high average family income. For instance, Montgomery County's average per-family annual income is $14,000 and Fairfax County's is $12,500.

Many greater Washington residents with such incomes, we feel, would prefer to take their own automobiles to work instead of using public transportation, and we feel strongly that they have a right to that privilege.

Apart from the motorists' consideration, it would be well to consider the real victim of the present inadequate parking facilities in the District of Columbia, particularly in the downtown areas.

It is common knowledge that merchants in the central business district have been struggling for some years to attract the high buying power of suburbanites. Some of the larger merchants have practically given up the struggle by opening branch stores in the suburbs-branch stores which do more volume business than their downtown stores.

But what happens to the smaller merchant? He watches his business struggle along with no appreciable increase in sales enjoyed by merchants in outlying areas. He wonders if the day will come when he can successfully draw the buying power of higher income families from the suburbs. He knows he is helpless until some provision is made by the proper authorities to increase his store's accessibility through increased parking facilities.

There is also an increased tendency to relocate commercial centers of production to areas outside Washington, D.C.-to bring the industry to the worker instead of bringing the worker to the industry. Employers are well aware that in order to attract trained employees they must make their businesses accessible to them. With almost two-thirds of the Greater Washington population in suburban Virginia and Maryland, and with the cost of real estate somewhat lower in those areas, it is becoming convenient to relocate both offices and factories to the suburbs.

The result to Washington is a considerable loss in sales and corporation tax

revenue.

History must not be repeated in the frustrating failures of the Motor Vehicle Parking Agency of the District of Columbia government, its funding powers now stripped, the indirect victim of high-pressure lobbying. Here are two cases in point:

In 1959, funds were requested by the parking agency for a proposed underground parking facility at 21st and E Streets NW. The garage would have been built between the depressed areas of E Street. The District of Columbia Commissioners approved this $3 million project which would have been a joint endeavor of the agency and the District of Columbia Planning Commission because a park would have been built over the underground garage. The proposal was rejected. In relation to a proposal to build a parking facility adjacent to the District Building, the District of Columbia Parking Agency again met strong opposition. The Engineer Commissioner, at that time, asked the agency for a feasibility study to eliminate the unsightly areas of the Great Plaza for such a parking area. proposal was also rejected.

This

The moment of bitter truth came for the agency in March 1962 when legislation was approved to strip all funding powers for parking facilities from the agency and $3 million of parking revenue was turned over to the general highway fund. We feel that many points already incorporated in this proposed bill will help avert a repetition of this frustrating experience. The power of eminent domain and the power to regulate parking rates in facilities constructed by the parking authority are important provisions of this draft legislation.

Washington, D.C., is the Nation's "hometown," and over 9 million tourists come to Washington each year. We urge, therefore, that some provision be made in this proposed bill to give tourists every opportunity to see the Nation's Capitol by enabling them to find parking space. If surface parking is to be eliminated on the Mall, then we respectfully suggest that the Federal Government has an

obligation to provide underground parking to enable these constituents of every Member of Congress to visit our Capitol and other historical attractions.

Other locations to be considered may be in the southeast or northwest sections of the District of Columbia, where visitors could park their cars in lots reserved only for tourists and purchase a ticket to cover parking, visitor orientation sessions, minibus service, or other transportation facilities.

The Carter Barron fringe parking lot has met with spectacular results in terms of numbers of automobiles which are parked there daily, their owners taking 16th Street buses to downtown areas of employment.

We suggest, therefore, that one prime reason behind the failure of one lot to attract fringe parking and the success of another may be laid to the varying efficiency of transit connections. Therefore, we urge that it be incorporated in this bill that the authority, upon consideration of a fringe parking lot, should receive pledges from transportation companies or commissions that ample connection be made available for commuters parking in such lots.

Finally, we propose that such a bill establishing a parking authority be allowed to stand upon its own merits.

We are aware of the consideration to attach this parking bill to the needed revenue legislation for the District of Columbia.

In our opinion, marrying these two bills could jeopardize highway legislation which has already passed the House. We simply cannot afford the risk of a delay or a defeat for the highway program. Our Board has expressed the fear that the strategy of tying the parking bill to the highway legislation could send both down the drain, thereby creating an intolerable situation:

(1) The District of Columbia highway program would be forced to a standstill.

(2) The jobs of 25,000 persons would be placed in jeopardy.

(3) It would become impossible to complete the Interstate Highway System by the target date of 1972 and would therefore cause many projects to revert from 90-10 to 50-50 financing. Moreover, projects that have been completed could be transferred from 90-10 to 50-50 financing, requiring reimbursements since the project did not connect the interstate routes as originally planned.

Our Board is hopeful that the highway legislation can move ahead without further delay, but it should move upon its own merits.

Gentlemen, Washington, D.C., needs a parking authority to stimulate the long sluggish circulation of commerce which should be pouring into the central business district from the more affluent commercial source generated from the suburbs.

We urge this committee to open these arteries of commerce through increased parking facilities in town and in fringe areas to augment the public transportation of today and tomorrow.

But, at this moment, we are not planning for tomorrow with this bill. We are trying to catch up with the needs of today.

We thank you gentlemen for the opportunity to make this statement and we particularly commend you, Senator Tydings, for interest in promoting such a parking authority. We believe that your objectives are identical with ours and to that end we want to work together in providing for Washington's overall transportation needs.

Senator TYDINGS. I have two paragraphs which I would like to hear you comment on.

On pages 3 and 4 of your statement, you outline the history of the frustrating failures of the attempt to have public parking here in the District. You start that part of your statement at the very last paragraph of page 3 and run through about the middle or threequarters of page 4.

I wonder if you would go over that a little bit with us.

STATEMENT OF GLENN T. LASHLEY, DIRECTOR PUBLIC RELATIONS AND CIVIC ACTIVITIES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DIVISION AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

Mr. LASHLEY. Yes, I will be happy to, Senator.

I am very much aware of the pressure of time. I will hit on that and one or two other highlights, if I may.

Mr. Chairman, we feel very strongly that history must be repeated in the frustrating failures of the Motor Vehicle Parking Agency of the District of Columbia Government, its funding powers now stripped, the indirect victim of high-pressure lobbying.

Here are two cases in point: In 1959, funds were requested by the Parking Agency for a proposed underground parking facility at 21st and E Streets NW. The garage would have been built between the depressed areas of E Street.

The District of Columbia Commissioners approved this $3 million project which would have been a joint endeavor of the Agency and the District of Columbia Planning Commission, because a park would have been built over the underground garage.

The proposal was rejected.

In relation to a proposal to build a parking facility adjacent to the District Building, the District of Columbia Parking Agency again met strong opposition.

The Engineer Commissioner at that time asked the Agency for a feasibility study to eliminate the unsightly areas of the Great Plaza for such a parking area.

This proposal was also rejected.

The moment of bitter truth came for the Agency in March 1962 when legislation was approved to strip all funding powers for parking facilities from the Agency and $3 million of parking revenue was turned over to the general highway fund.

We feel that many points already incorporated in this proposed bill will help avert a repetition of this frustrating experience. The power of eminent domain and the power to regulate parking rates in facilities constructed by the parking authority were important provisions of the draft legislation which was recommended by the Parking Advisory Committee to the Commissioners. The AAA was represented on that committee.

Senator TYDINGS. I wonder if you will continue, because you now got to the other point which I would like to discuss; namely, the relationship of Washington to tourists who come each year and whether or not we must try to help our tourists.

Mr. LASHLEY. Yes, sir.

Washington, D.C., is the Nation's hometown and over 9 million tourists come to Washington each year.

We urge, therefore, that some provision be made in this proposed bill to give tourists every opportunity to see the Nation's Capital by enabling them to find parking space. If surface parking is to be eliminated on the Mall, then we respectfully suggest that the Federal Government has an obligation to provide underground parking to enable these constituents of every Member of Congress to visit our Capitol and other historical attractions.

Now other locations that might be considered may be in the Southeast or Northwest sections of the District of Columbia where visitors

could park their cars in lots reserved only for tourists and purchase a ticket to cover parking, visitor orientation sessions, minibus service and other transportation facilities.

Senator TYDINGS. Let me ask you this along those lines: Do you think that we really have treated our tourists properly in Washington, D.C., insofar as enabling them to park and to see the great national shrines?

Mr. LASHLEY. I don't think we have, Senator. We have over 9 million AAA members and we have complaints from all over the United States that they come here to see the Nation's Capital and many times this results in dad chauffeuring the rest of the family and he sits in the car and circles the block while other members of the family try to get in and out of the buildings.

I think we have a critical situation and should provide better for our tourists.

Senator TYDINGS. Would it be a fair statement to say that the group probably affected most disadvantageously of all the groups which come to Washington each year, because of the failure of adequate parking facilities, are the tourists who come from all over the United States?

Mr. LASHLEY. I think that is a correct statement, Senator.

Senator TYDINGS. Did your complaints come from every State of the Union?

Mr. LASHLEY. They are intermittent. I don't have a complete compilation of them but we know this is a matter of concern voiced through our affiliated clubs from all parts of the country.

Senator TYDINGS. Would it be too much trouble for your association to compile a list of the number of complaints by States in the last 3 or 4 years about the inadequacy of parking facilities to take care of them in the District of Columbia?

Mr. LASHLEY. I cannot speak for national headquarters; however, I have already discussed this parking bill with those officials and they are very much interested in discussing it with our member clubs. throughout the country.

Senator TYDINGS. If you could, and if you would, take it up with your member clubs over the country, I think it is very important because I look at this responsibility of taking care of tourists as one of the greatest responsibilities we have.

Let's face it, they are the ones, as you point out, who suffer the most. I think the more facts we can get along this line the more likely we are to get a bill passed.

Mr. LASHLEY. You may rest assured that we will endeavor to do that.

Senator TYDINGS. So if you will take that up with them, I think it could be of tremendous assistance to us.

Mr. LASHLEY. Fine.

Senator TYDINGS. Are there any other points you want to make, Mr. Lashley?

Mr. LASHLEY. Those about cover my points, Senator Tydings, but I would like to express our thanks to you for the leadership you are giving to this very critical problem. We feel your objectives and ours moving ahead with the highway program and parking program are in complete harmony and we will work with you to that end.