COMMITTEE OF ONE HUNDRED ON THE FEDERAL CITY, Re Washington's parking problem. Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: The Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City has followed with great interest your hearings on Washington's parking problems and wishes to submit its views and the results of its studies for your consideration. We wish to express our gratitude for your interest in exploring the issues involved. As you suggest, the problem is inseparable from effective planning in transportation. We must state, however, our opposition to the bill introduced over your name (S. 2769), or to any other new legislation dealing with parking at the present time. The immediate need is for more facts and more study. As we see it, the present parking problem is essentially one of too much parking for too many cars in the wrong places for the wrong purposes, and at the wrong times. Existing legislative proposals would not solve these problems: they would compound them. The Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City has not reached a final judgment or decision on the problem of integrating parking planning with transportation planning. At its annual meeting, November 30, 1965, our membership did, however, adopt a statement of preliminary transportation recommendations, 1965-85 plan, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. You will note that with specific reference to parking in employment areas this statement says: "5. Terminal parking. The NCPC staff is to be commended for its proposal for rigid control and limitation of all-day parking in employment areas. Such steps should be accompanied by construction of new fringe parking facilities on transit routes outside of the District of Columbia." The National Capital Planning Commission has not yet reached its final judgment on the transportation planning policies, including transit, highways, and parking, that it believes should govern for the next 20 years. The final 1985 plan is not due to be issued until the summer of 1966. As the official planning agency for the District of Columbia, the Planning Commission is under the legal direction of Congress to serve as the overall coordinator of planning policies for our Nation's Capital. With this objective, the chairmen of both the Senate and House Distrist Committees are members ex officio of the Planning Commission, entitled to attend its meetings in person or to send an alternate. The Planning Commission cannot legislate. But its transportation planning responsibilities, including both parking and highways, undoubtedly will require recommendations to the Congress for an appropriate legislative program. We believe that it would be appropriate and desirable for the Congress to stay its hand on any new legislation affecting regulation, control, construction, or financing of highways and parking (or, indeed, further extensions of the presently authorized rapid transit system) until it has the benefit of the Planning Commission's studied recommendations, as well as the public's reaction thereto. Consistent with the stated planning objectives of the Planning Commission, we would also like to suggest for study the following proposed reforms for a sensible legislative program on parking. They are submitted, not as any final opinion on the matter by the Committee of One Hundred, but as positions that deserve a thorough study. 1. There is need to centralize authority over transportation planning, including parking, in the National Capital Planning Commission. 2. Existing tax incentives for offstreet commercial parking lots should be eliminated. 3. Except for resident parking in residential areas, all new offstreet parking should be subject to the rigid control of the Planning Commission. 4. The one type of parking that creates both a traffic and a parking problem (the all-day parker in employment areas) should be discouraged by levying a tax at least equal to the round-trip transit fare upon all cars entering a lot or garage between 7 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. 5. Except for resident parking in residential areas, all curbside parking on public streets should be subject to the control of the Planning Commission. 6. Encouragement should be given the Planning Commission for the creation of new fringe parking lots, outside of the District of Columbia, or east of the Anacostia River. 7. The existing District of Columbia motor vehicle parking fund should be abolished and all meter or other public parking revenues should become part of the District's general fund for unrestricted use. You will note that these recommendations do not contemplate the grant of authority, to the Planning Commission or otherwise, of any general power of eminent domain or any general power to use park and other public lands for parking. Although the Planning Commission should be free to recommend such courses of action, their implementation should require specific legislative action, as is the case today. This letter can only skim the surface of a problem that is exceedingly complex and seems to be generally misunderstood by the public. In order to document and supplement our views, I enclose a report prepared by the Chairman of our Roads Subcommittee that has been reviewed, revised, and supplemented at a meeting of the executive committee. In summary, the Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City is not so much concerned with increasing the total amount of parking as it is with achieving a truly balanced system of transportation which should actually decrease the need for parking in the downtown area. We also believe that all elements required to produce a balanced system of transportation should be under the planning control of the National Capital Planning Commission: this would certainly include highways, rapid transit, and parking. Respectfully yours, NEILL PHILLIPS, Chairman, Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City. FEBRUARY 4, 1966. Mr. NEILL PHILLIPS, Chairman, Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City, DEAR MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you for your recent letter expressing the views of the Committee on One Hundred on the Federal City of Washington's parking problem. The suggestion of the Committee of One Hundred that the District of Columbia levy a parking tax to discourage commuters from driving into the District of Columbia does not appear to me to be feasible or desirable at this time. The Committee of One Hundred would prefer that commuters use rapid tannsit. This is a laudable objective but the fact is that for many Maryland and Virginia commuters, existing bus service is inadequate and the proposed subway line is still a dream. The overwhelming testimony before my subcommittee from planning officials and highway users supports my bill to authorize the creation of a public parking authority. Before this authority took any action it would have before it a comprehensive study of the entire transportation system in our Nation's Capital. I am not equipped to prejudge the results of this report, but from the testimony before my subcommittee, there is every indication that even with a rapid transit system we will need a public parking program for at least five reasons: (1) Washington is the fastest growing metropolitan area in the country. (2) A large part of existing downtown parking spaces will disappear as office buildings continue to be constructed on parking lots. (3) Visitors urgently require parking in the Mall area. (4) Fringe lots will be needed in order to enable those who must drive to work to leave their cars part way and take public transit. (5) Washington's downtown business district will continue to decline both relative to the suburbs and absolutely unless it is reasonably accessible. Rightly or wrongly, many people, including shoppers, business visitors, the elderly and the handicapped, will prefer to use their cars rather than public transit, no matter how modern and convenient that transmit might be. I am convinced that downtown Washington will suffer unless convenient and reasonably priced parking is available for these short-term visitors. The enactment of S. 2769 will not necessarily result in the creation of a net addition of parking spaces in the downtown business district, but it will help insure that the spaces which are lost to new construction are replaced, in accordance with sound public policy. It will also enable the city to meet the parking needs of congested residential areas, such as Georgetown, as well as neighborhood shopping centers. I share your professed desire to achieve a truly balanced transportation system in our Nation's Capital. To my mind, a great city, such as Washington, needs both highways and subways. I think it would be as much a mistake to build only rapid transit, at the expense of needed highways and related parking facilities, as it would be to construct only highways at the expense of mass transit. I fought hard to achieve a subway system for the District of Columbia. I would hope that the Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City would reconsider S. 2769 and support legislation which would insure that public policy on balanced transportation is reflected in the number and location of parking facilities. Sincerely, JOSEPH D. Tydings. THE GOTTLIEB BROS. CLINIC, Washington, D.C., February 3, 1966. Senator JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: Both brother and myself are constituents of yours. We both want you to know that we are firmly in accord with your bill to create a strong public parking program for the District of Columbia. We also approve that part of the measure which would give the parking authority of the District of Columbia power to condemn land. Parking is vitally needed in the Columbia Heights section of the District of Columbia (Cardozo area-10th precinct). In the 10th precinct there are over 3,000 licensed business establishments, over 1,000 licensed rooming houses, and over 300 doctors of various callings. Other than sidestreet parking and a small, private, high-priced lot at 1420 Park Road NW., this is all that is available to serve all of these establishments. The businesses that exist in the Cardozo area are the prime source of employment for the people who reside in Columbia Heights. The Government has been pumping millions of dollars into Cardozo to help the people and prevent urban blight. We feel that public parking is essential to protect the Government's interest and to keep employment at the highest possible level. Dr. Morris M. Gottlieb or the writer, Dr. Julius Gottlieb, will be happy to appear before your Senate District Subcommittee and testify in favor of your bill. Parking bills for the Columbia Heights area have always met with Senate approval and have vaingloriously died in the House of Representatives due to the unyielding opposition of the local parking interests. Cordially yours, THE GOTTLIEB BROS., WASHINGTON, D.C., January 29, 1966. Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: Thank you for giving Washington's private parking lot operators the blasting they have long deserved. You are absolutely right. Theirs is, indeed, an attitude of "public be damned." I've wondered for years how they ever got away with it. You are the first public figure, to my knowledge, who has ever told them off. Keep it up. Now a Washington resident, I am a native Baltimorean. I spend the summers at my home on Taylor's Island in Dorchester County. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH C. KOLAREK. Senator TYDINGS, Woodbridge, VA., February 2, 1966. DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for your efforts in behalf of the man with a car. I guess you are beginning to feel the full brunt of "the lobby." If there ever was a determined effort made-one will be made against you. I can assure you that large numbers of desperate drivers regard you as their champion. Please don't give up. Sincerely, DOUG DANIELSON. ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR ENGINEERS OF THE BUREAU OF SHIPS, Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: As current president of the Association of Senior Engineers of the Bureau of Ships, I am replying to your letter of December 29, 1965, to Mr. John J. Nachtsheim, in respect to the parking problem. The association plans to continue to press for alleviation of the local parking shortage. We are aware that this is a complex problem, and that our situation here at the Navy Department is duplicated at other locations. However, we are also confident that if enough dedicated public servants, such as yourself, can be brought to realize the ultimate benefit to the United States, a solution can be found. The decreasing availability of parking in any form, together with the failure of public transportation to serve more than a fraction of the area's residents, has made it increasingly difficult to hire and retain competent people. Many of our technical staff are now walking more than 11⁄2 miles daily to obtain legal parking space, and during such special events as the Cherry Blossom Festival, this distance often increases to 3 miles. If there is anything our association can do to assist in the forthcoming hearings, we will be pleased to help. Sincerely, E. R. LACEY, President. WASHINGTON, D.C., January 21, 1966. Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR JOE: I'd like to compliment you on your stand on District of Columbia parking. It is long overdue and I certainly hope you will be successful in carrying this through to the very end. Like many thousands of residents of Maryland who use parking garages daily, I cringe at the complete disregard most parking attendants have in the handling of automobiles. It is impossible to make them admit a dent in the fender or the paint being scratched, and sometimes damage to even more extent. They have complete disregard and we have no recourse today. Also, Joe, some of the parking charges they are able to get by with, in my opinion, are excessive. I wish you the utmost success in the enactment of this long overdue legislation. Cordially, CHARLES B. BUSCHER. SILVER SPRING, MD., January 27, 1966. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: As one who voted for you in the last election, I find it hard to understand why you are pushing the public parking bill in District of Columbia. After reading of the cuts in the school budget for District of Columbia and the Maryland counties, I am upset that this money may go for public parking and not for education. I feel that you should consider carefully your attitude on this bill, and also consider the need for education, especially in the Washington area. If children can't read and learn due to the cuts, no one will thank you for providing parking places. Sincerely, ROSALIE G. GROSSMAN. Mrs. ROSALIE G. GROSSMAN, FEBRUARY 11, 1966. DEAR MRS. GROSSMAN: Thank you for your recent letter concerning parking legislation for the District of Columbia. There is no one more deeply concerned about the educational system in the District of Columbia than I. I fought hard last year for adequate funds for the District educational system. I will take credit, in some small degree, for restoring a number of the educational items which had been cut from the budget by the House of Representatives. I will continue the fight this year. I do not feel there is any conflict between the parking bill and a sound educational program for the District of Columbia. Ünder my bill, all the funds to provide parking facilities would come from new sources: (1) the fees charged for parking automobiles in these lots or garages; (2) parking meters. The bonds used to finance the acquisition of parking facilities would be revenue bonds and would not pledge the credit of the city or utilize any tax funds that are currently available for education or social services. In short, the parking facilities would be entirely self-financing and would, if anything, enhance the tax base of the District of Columbia by improving economic conditions in the downtown business district. This in turn would provide additional funds for education and other badly needed social services. I appreciate your letter and the opportunity to explain this important aspect to you. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH D. TYDINGS. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR ACTION ON TRANSPORTATION, Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: We are following with keen interest the current hearings of your subcommittee on the District of Columbia parking situation and your proposal S. 2769. For several years we have been struggling with the increasingly severe parking and transportation problems of USDA and other Federal employees along Independence Avenue. We would like to submit this summary for the subcommittee's consideration. FEAT is a coordinating group of Federal employee organization representatives in the National Capital area to keep informed and unite in effort on the problems of transportation, including the active support of: The American Federation of Government Employees. The Federal Professional Association. The Organization of Professional Employees of the Department of Agriculture. The National Federation of Federal Employees. Various other employee organizations. FEAT supported the rapid transit legislation in 1965. FEAT presented testimony before the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission in opposition to the fare increase requested by the D.C. Transit System. But one of FEAT's most difficult tasks has been seeking facts and encouraging action on the growing pressures for parking, particularly in the Agriculture-HEW Independence Avenue area. We want to direct the attention of your committee to the course of events and outlook for this area as an example of the need for the action which your proposal S. 2769 could bring. Pressure on parking space along the Independence Avenue sector became unusually severe commencing with redevelopment, the completion of the new Smithsonian Museum of History and Technology on the Mall, and the initiation of construction of new Federal buildings between HEW and USDA. Employee organizations sought aid from the Federal administrators. Temporary relief was arranged by leasing space on a month-to-month basis through the Redevelopment Land Agency. Costs are met by charging employees $12 per month. is expected that RLA will sell this land in the near future. When this happens there will no longer be any land in the area available for parking and Agriculture and other Federal employees in this area will be under a severe handicap in getting to and from work. It |