Dot 41563 DS1

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
Study of Adequacy
of Commercial Truck Parking
Facilities − Technical Report
Prepared for
Federal Highway Administration

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101
FOREWORD
This report provides technical documentation supporting the Report to Congress on the study
called for in Section 4027 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to “determine the
location and quantity of parking facilities as commercial truck stops and travel plazas and public
rest areas that could be used by motor carriers to comply with Federal hours of service rules.”
This report documents the analysis of commercial truck parking demand and supply and
summarizes activities State partnership groups identified for addressing areas with parking
shortages.
Janet A. Coleman Michael F. Trentacoste

Director, Office of Safety Programs Director, Office of Safety
Safety Core Business Unit Research and Development
NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the
interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its
contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and
manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the
object of the document.
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
FHWA-RD-01-158
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
STUDY OF ADEQUACY OF COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING March 2002

FACILITIES − TECHNICAL REPORT
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Stephen A. Fleger, Robert P. Haas, Jeffrey W. Trombly, Rice H. Cross III,

Juan E. Noltenius, Kelley K. Pécheux, Kathryn J. Chen
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Science Applications International Corporation 11. Contract or Grant No.

8301 Greensboro Drive
McLean, VA 22102
DTFH61-00-C-00014
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Federal Highway Administration March 2000 to June 2001

Office of Safety Research and Development (HRDS)
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, Virginia 22101-2296
15. Supplementary Notes
Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Raymond A. Krammes, HRDS

16. Abstract
This report documents the findings of a study to investigate the adequacy of commercial truck parking facilities serving the
National Highway System (NHS).
The study involved: 1) a national assessment of the extent and geographic distribution of parking shortages, 2) research to
clarify drivers’ parking-related needs and decision-making, and 3) development of a technical guidance document to be
used by partnerships of public- and private-sector stakeholders in 49 States (excluding Hawaii) for inventorying current
facilities serving the NHS, analyzing current and projected shortages in commercial truck parking at public rest areas and
commercial truck stops and travel plazas, and developing plans for action at the appropriate jurisdictional levels.
The process involved: 1) the development of an inventory of public and commercial truck spaces serving the NHS, 2)
development, calibration, and application of a truck parking demand model, 3) a national survey of truck drivers to
determine how drivers plan for and address their parking needs, how truck drivers select when, where, and at which
facilities they park, and what truck drivers think of the adequacy of current parking facilities, 4) an estimate of parking
demand using a modeling approach, 5) identification of parking deficiencies at the State and corridor level by comparing
supply and demand, and 6) identification of improvements that were recommended by State partnerships to mitigate any
existing or future problems identified.
17. Key Word 18. Distribution Statement
Commercial Motor Vehicles, Truck Stop, Rest Area, Travel Plaza, Truck No restrictions. This document is available
Parking, TEA -21 Section 4027 Study, Human Factors, Parking Studies, to the public through the National Technical
Parking Supply, Truck Driver Survey, Parking Demand Model Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 68
ii
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT.................................................................................................2
1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH .................................................................................................3
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT.........................................................................................4
2.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING DEMAND..........................................................................5

2.1 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO PARKING SPACE DEMAND........................................5
2.2 NATIONAL SURVEY OF DRIVER PARKING NEEDS AND PREFERENCES..................6
2.2.1 Survey Methodology ..............................................................................................6
2.2.2 Survey Results .......................................................................................................8
2.3 NATIONAL COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING DEMAND MODEL..........................10
2.3.1 Model Development .............................................................................................10
2.4 NATIONAL DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING ...............................17
3.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING SUPPLY..........................................................................21

3.1 ESTIMATING PARKING SPACE SUPPLY.....................................................................21
3.2 PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES ....................................................................................21
3.3 COMMERCIAL TRUCK STOP AND TRAVEL PLAZA PARKING FACILITIES ............23
3.4 DRIVER ASSESSMENT OF PARKING FACILITY QUALITY .......................................24
3.5 INTERCHANGEABILITY OF PUBLIC REST AREA AND COMMERCIAL
TRUCK STOP AND TRAVEL PLAZA PARKING...........................................................28
3.5.1 National Truck Parking Needs and Preferences Survey...........................................28
3.5.2 Field Observational Studies ..................................................................................28
3.5.3 Public-Private Supply/Demand Imbalance .............................................................29
4.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND BALANCES.....................................31

4.1 METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................31
4.2 DETERMINING CURRENT LEVEL OF PARKING SPACE UTILIZATION....................31
4.3 RESULTS FROM THE DRIVER SURVEY......................................................................34
5.0 ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE SHORTAGES................................................................................35

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................35
5.2 REST AREA FORUM.....................................................................................................35
5.3 NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS................................................................36
5.4 ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STATE PARTNERSHIPS....................................38
5.4.1 Actions to Expand or Improve Rest Areas..............................................................41
5.4.2 Actions to Expand or Improve Commercial Truck Stops and Travel Plazas..............41
5.4.3 Actions to Encourage Formation of Public -Private Partnerships ..............................42
5.4.4 Actions to Educate or Inform Drivers about Available Spaces.................................42
5.4.5 Actions to Change Parking Enforcement Rules ......................................................43
5.4.6 Actions to Conduct Additional Studies ..................................................................43
iii
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Contents
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................44

6.1 STUDY SUMMARY .......................................................................................................44
6.2 INTERPRETATION OF THE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...................................46
6.2.1 What problems are associated with an inadequate supply of truck parking
spaces?................................................................................................................46
6.2.2 Is there an adequate supply of truck parking spaces for the NHS?............................46
6.2.3 Is it appropriate for the State and Federal governments to take steps to address
any inadequacies in truck parking, if they exist? .....................................................47
6.2.4 How can locations with inadequate truck parking be identified? ..............................48
6.2.5 How can inadequate parking at some locations be rectified?....................................49
6.3 SUGGESTED FUTURE RESEARCH ..............................................................................50
6.3.1 Distribution of Parking Supply ..............................................................................50
6.3.2 Commodity Flow Patterns ....................................................................................50
6.3.3 Short-haul to Long-Haul Ratios.............................................................................51
6.3.4 Model Validation .................................................................................................51
6.3.5 Public-Private Partnerships ...................................................................................51
6.3.6 Providing Information on the Availability of Parking Spaces ..................................52
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................53
iv
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Figures and Tables
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Respondent distribution by region..........................................................................................7

Figure 2. Demographics of truck driver respondents..............................................................................7
Figure 3. Preferred parking locations....................................................................................................8
Figure 4. Parking availability at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas. ..............9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Driver parking locations. .......................................................................................................8

Table 2. Demand model variables. ....................................................................................................12
Table 3. Demand model parameters. .................................................................................................12
Table 4. Field survey results for model calibration. ............................................................................14
Table 5. Values of calibration parameters..........................................................................................15
Table 6. State survey results for model validation. .............................................................................16
Table 7. Commercial truck parking demand: Peak hour demand along interstates and other NHS routes
carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day, 2000. ....................................................................19
Table 8. Commercial truck parking demand: Comparison of state and demand model estimates............20
Table 9. Commercial truck parking inventory: Public rest area facilities along interstates and other NHS
routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day. ...................................................................22
Table 10. Parking capacity ranges from the Truck Stops Database .......................................................24
Table 11. Commercial truck parking inventory: Commercial truck stop and travel plaza facilities along
interstates and other NHS routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day. ............................25
Table 12. Driver-reported usability characteristics in truck parking. .....................................................26
Table 13. Driver-rated importance of features when parking. ...............................................................27
Table 14. Drivers’ parking facility preferences by purpose of stop. ......................................................27
Table 15. Demand/supply ratio categories. .........................................................................................32
Table 16. Parking space utilization: National summary of demand/supply ratio along interstates and other
NHS routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day............................................................32
Table 17. Parking space utilization: Demand/supply ratio along interstates and other NHS routes carrying
more than 1,000 trucks per day. ..........................................................................................33
Table 18. Frequency with which drivers find available parking at public rest areas and commercial truck
stops. ................................................................................................................................34
Table 19. Summary of recent or current actions pursued by State partners............................................39
Table 20. Summary of future actions recommended by State partners. .................................................40
v
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Acronyms
ACRONYMS
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ART America’s Road Team
ATA American Trucking Association
CORBOR National Corridor Planning & Development Program and Coordinated Border
Infrastructure Program
CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
DOT Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HOS Hours of Service
HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System
IFTA International Fuel Tax Agreement
IRP International Registration Plan
ITS Intelligent Transportation System
MFCA Motor Freight Carriers Association
NATSO National Association of Truck Stop Operators
NHS National Highway System
NITL National Industrial Transportation League
NPTC National Private Truck Council
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OOIDA Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association
PATT Parents Against Tired Truckers
PMAA Petroleum Marketers Association of America
SH/LH Short-Haul/Long-Haul
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
VMS Variable Message Sign
vi
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report documents the findings of a study undertaken to investigate the adequacy of commercial truck
parking facilities serving the National Highway System (NHS) in response to Section 4027 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Section 4027 requires the following:
...a study to determine the location and quantity of parking facilities at commercial truck stops and
travel plazas and public rest areas that could be used by motor carriers to comply with Federal hours
of service rules. The study shall include an inventory of current facilities serving the National
Highway System, analyze where shortages exist or are projected to exist, and propose a plan to
reduce the shortages. The study may be carried out in cooperation with research entities representing
motor carriers, the travel plaza industry, and commercial motor vehicle drivers.
To assist in the preparation of this report, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) encouraged the
creation of partnerships of public- and private-sector stakeholders at the State level and provided a technical
guidance document for their use in conducting an inventory of current facilities serving the NHS, analyzing
current and projected shortages, and developing plans for action at the appropriate jurisdictional levels.
FHWA provided technical assistance to the partnerships to guide them in completing these activities.
FHWA division offices worked closely with the partners for approximately one year and provided
guidance and advice on forming and structuring partnership membership, conducting partnership
meetings to review inventory and analysis results, and preparing partnership status reports that describe
actions to mitigate any parking shortfalls identified. This report summarizes the results of this effort.
This study of the NHS is a follow-up to a previous study of the Interstate Highway System completed in
1996.( 1) Subsequent to this 1996 report, a number of States also conducted studies of truck rest parking
needs and availability within their jurisdictions.
FHWA solicited input on the truck rest parking issue through the Rest Area Forum, which FHWA hosted
in Atlanta, GA, on June 29–30, 1999. Forum participants included more than 70 State Department of
Transportation (DOT) and enforcement officials, representatives of the motor carrier industry,
commercial truck-stop operators, commercial drivers, safety advocates, and other interested parties.(2)
In addition, on May 21, 1999, FHWA issued a Request for Information (RFI-ST-001) to obtain feedback
on how best to design, focus, and conduct the Section 4027 study. Five individuals or organizations
responded. The results from the 1996 report and individual States’ subsequent studies, input from the Rest
Area Forum participants, and responses to the Request for Information can be summarized as follows:
• Many Rest Area Forum participants and respondents to the Request for Information voiced the
sentiment that we now know the problem and, therefore, should focus on solutions rather than on
more studies. One significant exception is a response to the Request for Information that
recommends: “The TEA-21 study should count all private- and public -sector spaces to accurately
assess the truck parking situation.”
• Parking shortages are concentrated and solutions thereto should be targeted at a corridor or regional
level; therefore, the analysis of shortages and development of solutions should be performed at the
corridor, State, or sub-State rather than the national level.
• Satisfying drivers’ rest parking needs in corridors or regions with either real or perceived shortages in
parking supply is likely to require public, private, and public -private solutions. Identifying consensus
vii
solutions among parties with competing interests is likely to be easier and more successful at the
corridor, State, or sub-State level.
• A major unknown and point of contention is whether, or to what extent, public rest area and
commercial truck-stop parking are interchangeable. To supply parking where drivers need it, a better
understanding of their parking-related needs and decision-making processes is required.
In consideration of this input, FHWA has undertaken a two-pronged approach to the Section 4027 study.
First, FHWA contracted for research to clarify drivers’ parking-related needs and decision-making
processes. Second, FHWA encouraged the creation of partnerships of public - and private-sector
stakeholders in 49 States (excluding Hawaii) and provided a guidance document for their use in
inventorying current facilities serving the NHS, analyzing current and projected shortages, and developing
plans for action at the appropriate jurisdictional levels. These partnerships provided a forum for interested
parties, including State and local agencies as well as the private sector, to examine the problem and
formulate strategies to mitigate any problems identified.
This report, which summarizes the work completed by these partnerships, involved the following process:
• Estimate parking demand using a modeling approach.

• Inventory public and commercial truck spaces.
• Identify deficiencies by comparing supply and demand.
• Develop recommendations for improvements to mitigate any existing or future problems identified.
Estimate Parking Demand Using a Modeling Approach
A nationwide estimate of the peak-hour demand for commercial truck parking facilities resulting from the
need to comply with Federal hours-of-service (HOS) rules was conducted. The approach relied on the
development of an engineering model to estimate the demand for commercial vehicle parking at public
and commercial facilities. The model predicts commercial truck parking demand for a highway segment
based on total truck-hours of travel and the time and duration of the stops. The model considers the effect
of Federal HOS regulations on parking demand by using these regulations as part of the basis for
estimating the average number of hours spent parking per hour spent driving.
A national survey of truck drivers’ parking-related needs, preferences, and decision-making processes
was conducted as part of the modeling effort. Surveys were distributed to a national sample of more than
2,000 truck drivers through site visits and mailings to truck stops. Survey results of drivers’ preferences
were used to estimate the fraction of total parking demand for public and private parking spaces.
Following are highlights from these efforts:
• There is currently an estimated peak hour demand for approximately 287,000 truck parking spaces at
commercia l truck stops and travel plazas and public rest areas serving Interstate highways and other
NHS routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day.
• According to drivers’ preferences, the percentages of total demand for parking at public rest areas and
commercial truck stops are estimated as 23 and 77 percent, respectively.
• The 20-year forecast for the annual increase in parking demand is estimated to be 2.7 percent.
• Drivers’ responses to the survey demonstrated definite preferences and priorities when it came to
choosing where they would park. For long-term rest (more than 2 hours), drivers overwhelmingly
viii
prefer commercial truck stops and travel plazas to public rest areas (78 percent to 6 percent,
respectively). For short-term rest (less than 2 hours), drivers generally prefer public rest areas to
commercial truck stops and travel plazas (45 percent to 19 percent, respectively). Short-haul driver
preferences are the same as long-haul driver preferences, although short-haul drivers value parking
facility features differently than long-haul drivers.
Additional details surrounding the national demand for commercial vehicle parking and the national
survey of driver needs and preferences can be found in section 2.0 of this report.
Inventory Public and Commercial Truck Spaces
An inventory of the number of public rest areas and commercial truck stops that could be used to comply
with Federal HOS rules was conducted as part of this study. The inventory included a survey of State
DOTs to quantify the location and number of public rest areas. A proprietary database developed by
Interstate America served as the primary basis for determining the number of spaces available at
commercial truck stops and travel plazas. The driver survey also addressed features that truck drivers
value at parking facilities. Highlights from the commercial truck parking supply inventory and driver
survey include the following:
• An estimated 315,850 parking spaces at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel
plazas serve Interstate highways and other NHS routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day.
• Approximately 10 percent of truck parking spaces are in public rest areas and 90 percent were in
commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
• Expected growth of truck parking spaces at public rest areas is estimated to be smaller (5.1 percent
over the next 5 years) than growth in the private sector (estimated at 6.5 percent annually).
• Truck drivers value public rest areas primarily for ease of access and convenience and value
commercial truck stops and travel plazas for their amenities.
• A significant percentage (21 percent) of the parking supply used by drivers to comply with Federal
HOS rules appears to occur at loading docks, company terminals, or other facilities (e.g., fast food
restaurants, shopping plazas, and motels).
• Results from the driver survey and observational field studies suggest some, but not complete,
interchangeability between parking spaces at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel
plazas.
Refer to section 3.0 of this report for additional information pertaining to the supply of commercial truck
parking spaces, including drivers’ assessments of parking facility quality and the interchangeability of
public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
Identify Deficiencies by Comparing Supply and Demand
A four-step process was used to determine where shortages in truck parking exist or are expected to exist.
First, estimates of parking demand over roadway segments were developed using a modeling approach
(section 2.0). Second, estimates of parking supply were gathered for each segment using available data
sources (section 3.0). Third, a summary of the supply and demand for each roadway segment was
provided to partners for review, verification, and comment. In many cases, subsequent analyses were
ix
conducted to account for the local knowledge of partners to improve the estimates. Fourth, a final
calibration of the model was completed, and the calibrated model was used to evaluate shortages (section
4.0). Highlights from these analyses follow.
• A shortage of parking at public rest areas may exist in up to 35 States, and a shortage of total parking
may exist in up to 12 States.
• Shortages of parking at commercial truck stops and travel plazas are less common and, to the extent
that these spaces are interchangeable, may offset shortages in parking at public rest areas.
• Although the driver survey indicates that 23 percent of the demand for truck parking spaces is at
public rest areas, only 10 percent of the supply is at that type of facility.
• This imbalance in parking availability is underscored by the results of the driver survey in which
50 percent of the respondents indicated that parking is rarely or almost never available at public rest
areas. Approximately 15 percent reported parking is rarely or almost never available at truck stops
and travel plazas.
• The estimated growth rate of parking spaces at commercial truck stops and travel plazas (6.5 percent)
will accommodate the expected growth in demand for these spaces (2.7 percent).
• The estimated growth rate of truck parking spaces at public rest areas (5.1 percent over the next five
years or 1.0 percent annually) is below the estimated growth in demand for these spaces (2.7 percent
annually). The increased demand for public parking will exacerbate the supply shortages already
apparent for public parking unless either additional public spaces are made available or steps are
taken to encourage drivers to better utilize the existing supply of private spaces.
Additional findings stemming from the analysis of commercial truck parking supply and demand,
including a national summary and a State-by-State analysis of parking shortages, can be found in section
4.0 of this report.
Develop Recommendations for Improvements to Mitigate Any Existing or Future Problems Identified
The State partnerships provided a set of recommended actions to solve any parking shortages that have
been identified either through this study or as a result of other similar studies conducted in recent years
for their States. These actions fall into six broad categories, as listed below.
• Expand or improve public rest areas.
− A total of 15 States have firm plans to provide additional parking spaces.
− Eleven of these States provided a specific number of spaces for a total increase in spaces of
approximately 1,600 over the next five years.
− Improve geometric design of public rest areas to increase convenience for drivers using these
facilities.
• Expand or improve commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
− Increase yearly truck registration fees with the stipulation that these special funds can be used
only by States on initiatives to address the truck parking issue.
x
− Implement a program that allows States to close rest areas in locations that are well served by
private-sector business and shift funds to areas where additional development is desirable.
− Remove cost-prohibitive road improvement requirements imposed by State DOTs upon

developers attempting to open new facilities.
• Encourage the formation of public -private partnerships.
− Provide low-interest loans or grants to commercial truck stops to increase capacity.
− Construct State-owned lots adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel plazas and enter into
agreements with these owners to lease or maintain the lots.
− Work with owners of commercial truck stops to help them promote the availability of parking in
large lots close to the Interstate highway (e.g., provide signage on the highway).
• Educate or inform drivers about available spaces.
− Develop Intelligent Transportation System deployments that provide drivers with real-time
information on the location and availability of parking spaces. For example, investigate using
cellular phones and radio frequencies to broadcast parking locations and availability to drivers.
− Investigate using mailings related to credentials administration for the International Registration
Plan and the International Fuel Tax Agreement as a means of distributing information on the
location and type of parking spaces within the base State to participating motor carriers.
− Publish and distribute a “trucker’s map,” in both paper and electronic format, that pinpoints
parking facilities for drivers (both public and commercial), including lot capacity and space
availability.
• Change parking enforcement rules.
− Implement more stringent enforcement of parking rules to remove vehicles from locations such as
interchange ramps.
− Change parking limits to permit trucks more time to park at public rest areas.
− Encourage local government and business support for constructing and operating commercial
truck stop and travel plaza facilities in or near their community industrial and business parks (i.e.,
zoning).
• Conduct additional studies.
− Refine the results from the present study and develop more detailed assessment strategies at
specific highway locations (e.g., target heavily traveled truck corridors).
− Establish a multi-State committee to evaluate alternatives and recommend solutions that would
address the “staging” of trucks at certain locations in response to “just-in-time” delivery.
− Conduct additional research to further refine the demand model (e.g., to accommodate local
factors that can influence demand, such as a higher rate of parking near major distribution
centers).
xi
More detail on these and other suggested recommendations from the State partnerships for reducing truck
parking shortages, including recommendations from the 1999 Rest Area Forum and from government and
motor carrier industry stakeholders surveyed as part of this study, can be found in section 5.0 of this
report.
xii
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Chapter 1 − Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The role of the Federal government in addressing issues related to driver fatigue and the safety of the
commercial vehicle industry began in 1937 with the promulgation of hours-of-service (HOS) rules by the
Interstate Commerce Commission. These rules established limits on the number of hours that truck drivers
may drive and be on duty before a mandatory rest break must be taken. Complying with these rules has
created a demand for parking spaces so that commercial vehicle drivers can rest. Until recently, a rough
balance seemed to exist between this demand for truck parking spaces and the spaces available at public rest
areas, commercial truck stops and travel plazas, and other locations. However, changes in the trucking
industry that began in the 1980s initiated disturbances to this balance.
The deregulation of the trucking industry in the early 1980s led to significant changes in the way goods and
products are moved throughout the United States. Prior to deregulation, approximately 20,000 motor
carriers operated in an environment in which operating authority was issued by the Interstate Commerce
Commission and entry into the industry was difficult. As of 2000, approximately 500,000 interstate motor
carriers operated in the United States, and projections for the next 20 years estimate continuing growth. As
truck traffic on America’s highways has increased, the demand for services and facilities for the trucking
industry, including the demand for truck parking spaces, has increased as well.
Another significant change in the movement of goods and services was the advent of just-in-time delivery.
Manufacturers now operate in an environment in which large warehouse inventories of parts and supplies
are no longer maintained but, instead, are delivered by trucks in tightly scheduled deliveries such that these
inputs arrive just in time to be used in the manufacturing process. Just-in-time delivery places new demands
on truck parking facilities as trucks use these facilities as staging areas to better meet their delivery
requirements. The combination of increased truck traffic and tighter delivery schedules is one of the primary
reasons for the increased demand for truck parking, and this increased demand has resulted in perceived
shortages of truck parking spaces in some parts of America.
This report documents the findings of a study to investigate the adequacy of commercial truck parking
facilities throughout the Nation. The information contained in this report describes the technical details of
the analyses considered by FHWA in preparing a Report to Congress in response to Section 4027 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Section 4027 requires FHWA to prepare the
following:
...a study to determine the location and quantity of parking facilities at commercial truck stops and
travel plazas and public rest areas that could be used by motor carriers to comply with Federal
hours-of-service rules. The study shall include an inventory of current facilities serving the National
reduce the shortages. The study may be carried out in cooperation with research entities
representing motor carriers, the travel plaza industry, and commercial motor vehicle drivers.
To assist in the preparation of this report, FHWA encouraged the creation of partnerships of public- and
private-sector stakeholders at the State level and provided a technical guidance document for their use in
conducting an inventory of current facilities serving the National Highway System (NHS), analyzing current
and projected shortages, and developing plans for action at the appropriate jurisdictional levels. FHWA
provided technical assistance to the partnerships to guide them in completing these activities. FHWA
division offices worked closely with the partners for approximately one year and provided guidance and
advice on forming and structuring partnership membership, conducting partnership meetings to review
1
inventory and analysis results, and preparing partnership status reports that describe actions to mitigate
any parking shortfalls identified. This report describes the results of this effort.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has tentatively estimated that driver fatigue is a primary
factor in 4.5 percent of truck-involved fatal crashes and is a secondary factor in an additional 10.5 percent
of such crashes. (3) A 1995 study conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) asserts
that the most important factors in predicting a fatigue-related accident are the duration of the last sleep
period, the time slept in the past 24 hours, and interruptions in sleep periods.(4) The availability of parking
for commercial vehicles can affect all of these factors.
In 1996, the FHWA funded a study of parking along the Interstate Highway System in response to a Senate
recommendation to evaluate the adequacy of places for truck drivers to stop and rest. (1) This study estimated
a shortfall of 28,400 public truck-parking spaces nationwide. While a detailed survey of public rest areas
was conducted, the survey of commercial truck stops and travel plazas was more cursory and relied on a
statistical weighting of the 17 percent of commercial truck stops and travel plazas that completed and
returned the survey.
This national study was followed by a number of State-specific studies documenting shortages of truck
parking facilities. Minnesota completed a study of public rest area usage in 1998 that estimated potential
capacity problems for more than 50 percent of the public rest areas surveyed. (5) In 1999, New York
completed a study that summarized public rest area construction activities for Interstate highways in that
state.(6) A Tennessee study completed in 1999 indicated that nearly 44 percent of truck parking on
weekday evenings occurred on ramps and shoulders.(7) Iowa completed a study in 1999 that observed an
excess demand for parking at public rest areas but sufficient supply at most commercial truck stops and
travel plazas.(8)
In 1999, the NTSB began an initiative that held public hearings to obtain information about the relevant
safety issues regarding trucks and buses and the ways to address these issues. The major issue addressed
in the NTSB investigation was the lack of safe, available commercial vehicle parking on or near
Interstates. The report also addressed the lack of information about parking available to truck drivers and
the State-enforced parking time limits. In 2000, NTSB published a special investigation report that
summarized the results of these hearings.(9)
Congress responded to this growing body of evidence that availability of truck parking was becoming a
significant problem with potential safety implications and to the concerns raised about the previous
studies of this issue by mandating, in Section 4027 of TEA-21, that a study be conducted to determine the
adequacy of parking facilities. The mandated study of the NHS was intended as a follow-up study to the
previously referenced 1996 study of the Interstate Highway System and was intended to address some of
the criticisms of that study.
In response to this Congressional mandate, FHWA implemented a series of initiatives. The Rest Area
Forum was hosted by FHWA in Atlanta, GA, on June 29 and 30, 1999. (2) Forum participants included 70
State Department of Transportation (DOT) and enforcement officials, representatives of the motor carrier
industry, commercial truck stop and travel plaza operators, commercial drivers, safety advocates, and other
interested parties. The forum identified 17 key issues affecting commercial vehicle parking, identified the 7
highest-priority issues, and developed recommendations to address these 7 issues.
2
In May 1999, FHWA issued a Request for Information (Reference Number RFI-ST-001) to obtain
feedback on how best to design, focus, and conduct the Section 4027 study. Five individuals or
organizations provided responses to the Request for Information. FHWA used these responses, along with
the results of the 1996 report, the State studies, and the input from Rest Area Forum participants, to identify
the following parameters to guide the Section 4027 study mandated under TEA-21:
• Many Rest Area Forum participants and respondents to the Request for Information believed that the
rest area problem was now understood and that future work should focus on solutions rather than on
more studies. One significant exception was the recommendation that “the TEA-21 study should count
all private and public sector spaces to accurately assess the truck parking situation.”
• Parking shortages are concentrated and, therefore, analysis of shortages and development of solutions
should be targeted at a corridor, State, or sub-State level rather than at the national level.
• Satisfying drivers’ rest stop parking needs in corridors or regions with either real or perceived parking
supply shortages is likely to require public, private, and public -private solutions. Identifying consensus
solutions among parties with competing interests is likely to be easier and more successful at the
corridor, State, or sub-State level than at the national level.
• A major unknown and point of contention is the extent to which public rest area and commercial truck
stop and travel plaza parking are interchangeable. To supply parking where drivers need it, their
parking-related needs and decision-making processes must be better understood.
In consideration of this input, FHWA developed a two-pronged approach to completing the Section 4027
study. First, FHWA contracted for research to clarify drivers’ parking-related needs and decision-making
processes. The results of this research were documented in a separate report.(10)
Second, FHWA encouraged the creation of partnerships of public - and private-sector stakeholders
(“Partners for Adequate Parking Facilities”) to address the truck parking shortage issue at the corridor,
sub-State, and State levels. To assist with this, FHWA provided a technical guidance document for
conducting an inventory of current facilities serving the NHS, analyzing current and projected shortages,
and developing plans for action at the appropriate jurisdictional levels.(11) FHWA also provided technical
assistance to the partnerships to guide them in the completion of these activities. FHWA division offices
worked closely with the partnerships over a period of approximately one year, providing guidance and
advice on the following:
• Formation and membership structure of the partnerships and the conducting of partnership meetings
to review inventory and analysis results.
• Preparation of partnership status reports that described actions to mitigate any parking shortfalls
identified.
1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH
The research presented in this report is focused on 49 States and excludes Hawaii, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Discussions among the State partnerships for each of these States, which
typically included membership representing motor carriers, the travel plaza industry, and commercial
vehicle drivers, formed the basis for understanding truck parking demand and supply and helped in the
development of a plan of action to address any problems that were identified. FHWA provided a technical
guidance document to each partnership and encouraged the partnership to consider using the methodology
3
contained in that document for pinpointing parking needs and developing a plan of action to mitigate any
problems identified.
A nationwide survey of parking spaces at public rest areas was conducted during the summer of 2000 to
ascertain the number and characteristics of publicly owned and operated spaces for heavy trucks. An
inventory of commercial truck stop and travel plaza spaces was created using a proprietary database
developed and maintained by Interstate America. The information from the survey and the inventory
comprised the basis to determine the location and quantity of both public and commercial parking
facilities that could be used by motor carriers to comply with Federal HOS rules as required in the TEA-
21 Section 4027 study.
Demand for parking on a highway segment was estimated through a modeling approach that considered
the daily volume of trucks traveling across the segment, the duration of stops anticipated to comply with
HOS rules, and other short-term stops (e.g., restroom breaks, phone calls). A national driver survey and
field observations were also used to develop and calibrate the model. The parking demand and parking
supply values over the full length of a highway segment were compared to determine whether a surplus or
shortage existed. Partners examined these model estimates in light of actual observational studies or
experience to provide a basis for determining the validity of the results. Where appropriate, model
parameters were adjusted to better replicate observed parking demand values against modeling results.
The State partnerships discussed the supply and demand analysis results to identify roadway segments
with a parking shortage. In cases in which either current or future shortfalls were identified, partners
worked together to develop strategies to mitigate these shortages. Finally, the results of the study were
organized and synthesized into a series of reports.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is divided into six parts. Following this introductory section, section 2.0 contains an overview
of factors affecting commercial vehicle parking demand and the modeling approach used in this study.
Section 3.0 describes the commercia l vehicle parking supply, and section 4.0 compares parking supply
and demand. Section 5.0 outlines the recommended actions proposed by partners to reduce any shortages
that were identified. Finally, section 6.0 contains a summary and the report’s conclusions.
4
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Chapter 2 − Parking Demand
2.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING DEMAND
2.1 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO PARKING SPACE DEMAND
This section summarizes an analysis that was conducted to develop an estimate of the pe ak hour demand for
commercial truck parking resulting from the need for drivers to rest and to comply with Federal HOS
rules. The two most important factors that contribute to the demand for truck parking are the need to
comply with Federal HOS rules and the need for drivers to perform certain non-driving activities (e.g.,
eating, fueling).
Under the current HOS rules, truck drivers participating in interstate commerce are generally permitted to
drive up to 10 hours after 8 consecutive hours off duty. A driver is permitted to be on duty up to 15 hours
a day, with 10 hours driving and 5 hours performing non-driving tasks, after which the driver must take
off 8 consecutive hours. The regulations further require that, if a motor carrier does not operate
commercial vehicles every day of the week, then its drivers may not drive more than 60 hours over a
7-day period. If the motor carrier does operate commercial vehicles every day of the week, then its drivers
may not drive more than 70 hours over an 8-day period. At the end of each time period, drivers are
required to take a 24-hour rest break, after which the “HOS clock” restarts. These regulations induce a
demand for parking spaces so that drivers who must drive more than 10 hours between their origin and
destination (i.e., long-haul drivers) can obtain the required 8 hours of long-term rest. In other words, these
rules typically require drivers of commercial motor vehicles to complete a period of rest while en route to
a destination if the driver is unable to return home for the required rest.
In addition to the breaks required for achieving long-term rest, drivers also take regular short breaks for
activities such as eating, refueling, or using bathroom facilities. These breaks induce a demand for short-
term parking spaces at locations that provide amenities to support these activities. While drivers are
required to obtain extended rest, there is no single agency, organization, or group that is responsible for
providing drivers extended rest locations. Essentially, drivers find such locations themselves and typically
rely upon two primary options: commercial truck stops and travel plazas or public rest areas. Commercial
truck stops and travel plazas are designed to provide drivers an opportunity to fulfill many non-rest-
related activities, while public rest areas provide the driver with only minimal services.
The demand for truck parking along a particular stretch of highway is driven not only by the general
factors that induce demand, but also by other factors that affect the distribution of that demand. For
example, truck drivers’ desire to accommodate their natural sleep cycles results in greater demand for
truck parking spaces at night than during the day. Tight delivery schedules associated with just-in-time
delivery can result in demand for truck parking spaces near loading/unloading facilities because drivers
use these spaces as staging areas to help ensure on-time delivery. Truckers who drive as teams are likely
to have different parking requirements because one team member can drive while the other rests. Also,
some States limit parking at public rest areas, encouraging commercial drivers to seek other locations for
parking.
Taken together, these factors can result in complex demand patterns for truck parking. For example, HOS
rules require rest periods away from home primarily for long-haul drivers; a short-haul driver will typically
arrive at the destination before a mandatory rest is required. Therefore, highways with a larger proportion
of long-haul drivers (relative to the total number of trucks on the road) will typically generate a larger
demand for truck parking than other highways. Because short-haul drivers are not required to take an
extended rest, one might expect them to take more frequent, shorter breaks, which would favor the use of
public rest areas over commercial truck stops and travel plazas. Stretches of a highway that are 8 to 10 hours
5
from a center of commercial traffic might be expected to have higher parking demand because the HOS
rules will force drivers from that origin to take an extended rest before driving further. Alternately, an
area near a significant commercial vehicle destination may have a substantial early morning parking
demand as drivers use rest facilities as staging areas while waiting for the loading/unloading facilities to
open.
While the factors listed above help determine the total demand for truck parking in an area (i.e., the latent
demand), other factors help determine how that demand is distributed among the available parking locations
(i.e., the demand choice). For example, drivers wanting to take a short break are more likely to choose a
location for its convenience, while drivers taking a long break are more likely to choose a location that has
more favorable amenities. Drivers taking a break for a specific activity (e.g., to take a shower) will park at
only a location that supports that activity. If one stretch of highway has a shortage of parking locations,
demand that cannot be met on that stretch of highway will be met by parking locations on nearby stretches
of highway.
The primary purpose of this section is to discuss the factors that can affect latent demand for commercial
vehicle parking and to describe a model to estimate this demand; this helps meet the stated objective of
the Section 4027 study to “analyze where shortages exist or are projected to exist.” A secondary goal is to
evaluate some of those factors that affect the demand choice because, even in an area in which sufficient
parking spaces exist, dr ivers may still choose to park at inappropriate locations such as on the shoulder of
a road. A three-step approach was used to achieve these goals:
1. Administer a national survey of driver parking needs and preferences.

2. Develop a model for commercial vehicle parking demand.
3. Use the model to generate national demand estimates.
The remainder of this section documents the process followed to complete these steps, lists the results of
each step, and identifies conclusions from these results.
2.2 NATIONAL SURVEY OF DRIVER PARKING NEEDS AND PREFERENCES
The first step in evaluating the demand for commercial vehicle parking was to administer and evaluate a
national driver survey about driver parking needs and the adequacy of current parking facilities. This
survey accomplished two goals. First, it helped better characterize the factors that affect parking demand,
which assisted in the design of the demand model. For example, the survey results helped explain the
preference for parking at either a public rest area or a commercial truck stop or travel plaza. Second, the
survey provided data that were used to verify some of the assumptions in the model. It has already been
noted that the ratio of long-haul to short-haul vehicles could have an important effect on parking demand;
the survey results helped identify differences in the parking patterns of long-haul and short-haul drivers.
The survey methodology and some of the results of this survey are summarized in this document. A
separate report presents a complete description of the national driver survey report.(10)
2.2.1 Survey Methodology
The six-page driver survey was developed with input from a broad spectrum of public - and private-sector
stakeholders. The surveys were tested and found to be acceptable during a small pilot or trial survey of
40 respondents at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas. The respondents did
suggest that distribution at commercial truck stops would be more effective because the quick stops taken
by most drivers at public rest areas would not allow time for the completion of the survey. After careful
consideration, the advice to survey at only commercial truck stops was followed. To determine whether
6
omitting public rest areas from the list of distribution locations would limit the sample of short-haul drivers,
the survey team asked short-haul drivers if they use commercial truck stops and travel plazas as often as
they use public rest areas. Short-haul drivers consistently indicated that they use both types of facilities
equally. Therefore, to maximize response rate and minimize negative impact on drivers’ time, commercial
truck stops and travel plazas were used exclusively for the survey distribution. A geographically stratified
sample of commercial truck stops and travel plazas was selected at which to gather data to help ensure a
nationally representative distribution of respondents (see figure 1).
Two methods were used to gather

survey results at the selected
commercial truck stops and travel Northeast
Southeast Northwest
plazas. At 20 locations, researchers 20% 8%
5%
made site visits and distributed
surveys to truck drivers at those Upper Midwest Southwest
sites. The response rate at those sites 20% 18%
was 80 percent, collecting a total of TX/South- Midwest
1,042 completed surveys. At 22 central 13%
other locations, commercial truck 16%
stop and travel plaza operators
agreed to make the surveys available Figure 1. Respondent distribution by region.
in heavily traveled areas of the truck stop and to ship back completed surveys. This resulted in nearly
1,100 additional completed surveys.
Long-Haul versus Short-Haul Size of Trucking Company
Short-haul
Large
3%
44%
Independent
32%
Long-haul Medium Small

97% 17% 7%
Team Driving Truck Volume
> 15,000 /
< 5,000 / day
Sometimes day
Non-teaming 23%
9% 38%
71%
Teaming
20% 5 - 15,000 /
day
39%
Figure 2. Demographics of truck driver respondents.
The charts in Figure 2 describe the distributions of the respondents in terms of the following four factors: (1)
long-haul versus short-haul drivers; (2) the size of the company for which the driver works (independent,
small, medium, or large); (3) whether the driver often works as part of a driving team (non-teaming,
sometimes, or teaming); and (4) the truck volume of the location at which the survey was taken (< 5,000
7
trucks per day, 5,000 to 15,000 trucks per day, or > 15,000 trucks per day). The distribution of the
respondents between long-haul and short-haul drivers is not characteristic of the commercial vehicle
driver population; intercept surveys performed at weigh stations indicated that 35 to 65 percent of drivers,
depending on the location, are on short-haul trips. This discrepancy between the real-world and sample
demographics indicates that care should be taken when interpreting the survey results on factors that may
differ between short-haul and long-haul truck drivers. (The survey results primarily represent only long-
haul drivers; however, as previously mentioned, a trial survey of short-haul drivers indicated that these
drivers use commercial truck stops as often as they use public rest areas. Also, the lack of short-haul
driver representation in the sample is due largely to self-selection. When approached by members of the
survey team, these drivers indicated that the Truck Parking Needs and Preferences survey was not
relevant to them. Most of the short-haul drivers that were approached elected not to participate in the
survey.) No attempt was made to confirm whether the other demographic factors are consistent with the
population of truck drivers as a whole.
2.2.2 Survey Results
This survey seeks to answer two questions that are fundamental to the truck parking shortage:
• Where do drivers prefer to park, and what factors affect a driver’s decision on where to park?
• Are there sufficient parking spaces available, and if not, what can be done to eliminate the shortages?
Figure 3 addresses the first question, indicating that drivers stopping for a quick nap (two hours or less)
have a slight preference for parking at a public rest area, and drivers stopping for an extended rest (more
than two hours) strongly prefer a commercial truck stop or travel plaza to a public rest area.
Preference for a Quick Nap Preference for an Extended Rest

Truck Stop Truck Stop
19% 78%
No No
Preference Rest Area Preference Rest Area
36% 45% 16% 6%
Figure 3. Preferred parking locations.
The survey addressed parking location by asking drivers where they had most recently stopped for sleep
and where they expected to next park their trucks to sleep. Table 1 summarizes the responses to this
question and helps validate the results from the previous question; the stated preference for parking at
commercial truck stops and travel plazas for sleep is consistent with the locations at which the drivers last
parked and expect to park next.
Table 1. Driver parking locations.
Facility Last Stop Next Stop

Home 9% 8%
Truck Stop 56% 58%
Public Rest Area 8% 7%
Loading Dock 10% 14%
Ramp 4% 2%
Other 11% 9%
No Response 4% 4%
8
The second part of the question regarding the preference for truck parking locations is designed to
identify the factors that affect a driver’s decision on where to park. One factor is already apparent: the
preferred parking location is dependent on whether the driver is making a long or a short stop. Other
factors that drivers rate as important when choosing a place to park include availability of restrooms,
convenience to the highway, availability of showers, availability of a restaurant, availability of public
phones, a well-lit parking area, and availability of fuel.
Because of the safety issues involved with parking on ramps and shoulders, the survey specifically asked for
the four most common reasons why truck drivers sometimes park on entrance or exit ramps and highway
shoulders. The following list includes the most common responses to this question, reinforcing the fact
that the dominant problem in truck parking is one of availability; truck drivers do not prefer to park on
ramps and shoulders but do park there when unavailable parking elsewhere forces them to.
• No empty spaces are available at nearby facilities (94 percent).

• There are no nearby parking facilities (83 percent).
• Time limits at nearby facilities are too short (50 percent).
• Empty spaces are available at nearby facilities, but access is blocked (50 percent).
The second question, whether a parking shortage exists and how to correct any shortage that does exist,
was also addressed in this survey. Figure 4 indicates truck driver opinions on how often parking is
available at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
Parking Availability at Rest Areas Parking Availability at Truck

Seldom
Stops Seldom
48% 16%
Sometimes
50%
Sometimes Frequently
Frequently 34%
41%
11%
Figure 4. Parking availability at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
Truck drivers perceive a significant problem with finding parking at public rest areas and a much smaller
problem with finding parking at commercial truck stops and travel plazas. When asked to rank methods for
improving truck parking facilities, the respondents identified the following methods as most important:
• Build more commercial truck stop and travel plaza parking spaces – 79 percent listed in top 5.
• Build more public rest area parking spaces – 66 percent listed in top 5.
• Stop enforcement officers from waking driver – 57 percent listed in top 5.
• Eliminate time limits – 49 percent listed in top 5
• Improve parking configuration (e.g., more pull-through parking) – 46 percent listed in top 5.
• Separate truck, car, and recreational vehicle parking – 41 percent listed in top 5.
9
2.3 NATIONAL COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING DEMAND MODEL
A modeling approach was employed to develop an estimate of the demand for commercial vehicle parking
spaces at public facilities (i.e., rest areas, weigh stations) and commercial facilities (e.g., truck stops and
travel plazas, motels, fast food restaurants). First, a model was developed to estimate the demand for truck
parking for highway segments; this model is summarized in section 2.3.1. Second, field measurements of
truck parking demand were made to calibrate the model. The field measurements included all available
parking along a highway corridor, including space available at public rest areas, commercial truck stops
and travel plazas, hotels and motels, fast food restaurants, shopping malls, and exit ramps. Thus, the
calibrated model estimates total demand for parking along a highway corridor. Intermediate model results
and model parameters were provided to State partnerships so that they could review the results and model
parameters to ensure that they were consistent with local observations. Finally, the model was calibrated
and used to estimate the demand for truck parking for all highway segments that are part of the NHS. A
complete description of the development and use of the demand model is documented in a separate report,
and the following three sections summarize that description. ( 12)
2.3.1 Model Development
This description of the model occurs in two parts. The first part describes a highly simplified version of the
model that still captures most of the key elements. This section should be used to become familiar with the
general nature and limitations of the model and concludes with a list of factors that are not considered in
the simplified model. The second part describes the additional factors that are considered in the final model.
2.3.1.1 The Simplified Demand Model
The simplified model predicts the demand (D) for commercial truck parking spaces along a highway
segment based on total truck-hours of travel per day (THT) on that segment and the average parking time
per truck-hour of travel (Pavg).
D = THT ⋅ Pavg (1)
The average truck-hours of travel per day for a segment is estimated from the formula:
THT = Pt ⋅ AADT ⋅ L S (2)
where Pt is the percent of vehicles that consists of commercial trucks, AADT is the annual average daily
traffic, L is the length of the segment, and S is the speed limit or average truck speed. The term Pavg is a
parameter that is estimated during the calibration step to best fit the calibration data.
Although this model is conceptually appealing and simple to understand, it does include several limitations.
The list below describes some of these limitations and how the simplified model was adapted to help
circumvent these limitations. The demand model used in this study is the result of these modifications.
• The goal of this study is to estimate parking shortages that will occur at peak parking demand. The
formula used to estimate THT is for the average truck-hours of travel per day, not the peak. This
formula should be adjusted to consider both seasonal and daily variations in the truck volume. The
demand model includes a term Fs in the estimate for THT that accounts for the seasonal variation in
truck volume, and an Fs value of 1.15 is assumed to apply for all segments. In other words, the
seasonal peak truck volume is assumed to be 15 percent greater than the annual average daily truck
10
volume. The demand model uses peak parking factors to account for large demands during certain
times of the day.
• As described above, the average parking time per truck-hour of travel varies significantly between
long-haul and short-haul trucks. The demand model accounts for this difference by estimating the
demand separately for long-haul and short-haul trucks and summing these to estimate the total demand.
This involves (1) introducing a new term, the short-haul to long-haul ratio (SH/LH), that is used to
“split” the total truck-hours of travel per day into the number of truck-hours of travel for short-haul
trucks and the number of truck-hours of travel for long-haul trucks and (2) estimating a separate value
of Pavg for long-haul and short-haul trucks.
• The term SH/LH can vary dramatically between different highway segments depending on a number
of factors, such as the proximity to a population center that is the focus of short-haul transportation
and whether the segment is part of a major, long-distance transportation corridor. The demand model
uses two values for the term SH/LH: one value is used for segments classified as rural segments, while
another value is used for segments classified as urban segments.
• It is important for the model to differentiate between the demand for public parking spaces at public
rest areas and private parking spaces at commercial truck stops and travel plazas. The model estimates
public and private parking demand by estimating total demand and introducing a factor (PRA), based on
drivers’ preferences, representing the percent of total demand that is for public rest area parking and a
factor (PTS = 1 - PRA ) representing the percent for commercial truck stop and travel plaza parking. The
model does not consider variations in these factors that might exist between long-haul and short-haul
drivers.
• The parameter Pavg, which represents the ratio of truck parking time at public rest areas and commercial
truck stops and travel plazas (including weigh stations, fast food restaurants, hotels, etc.) to the truck
driving time, can be estimated directly from survey results that describe the percent of time a truck
driver spends driving, at home, and resting away from home. This parameter is influenced by HOS
rules, differs between long-haul and short-haul drivers, differs between public and private parking
spaces, and may differ with other factors such as geographical region and type of highway. The
model includes separate values of Pavg for long-haul and short-haul drivers but does not consider other
factors that might affect this parameter. Researchers estimated the value of this parameter based on
the limitations imposed by HOS rules and information gathered during the driver survey about how
drivers spend their time.
There are other factors that could influence the demand for truck parking (e.g., geographical variations in
the short-haul to long-haul ratio). However, the above list summarizes those that were considered in the
final demand model developed for this study.
2.3.1.2 The Demand Model
The final demand model uses the general equations and modifications described in the previous section to
estimate commercial vehicle parking demand for the NHS. The factors that are used in the finalmodel
can be divided into two categories: model variables and model parameters.
The model variables (listed in table 2) are the values on the right-hand side of equation (2), which define
each highway segment and the commercial vehicle volume on the segment. The values for these variables
were obtained from either the Highway Performance Monitoring System13 (HPMS) or through a State’s
own databases and information systems. It is these factors that create differences in the estimates for
parking demand for different highway segments.
11
Table 2. Demand model variables.
Variable Description
L Length of the highway segment (mi)
AADT Annual average daily traffic (vehicles per day)
Pt Percent of daily traffic consisting of commercial trucks
S Speed limit of highway, or average truck speed (mi/h)
The model parameters are the values (like Fs ) that are used to adjust the truck volume estimate of
equation (2) and other values that are used to estimate the term Pavg in equation (1). The parameter values
were typically estimated from either other data sources, such as the driver surveys, or from calibrating the
model based on empirical measurements made as part of this study. Table 3 lists the model parameters
and the values of these parameters used in the demand model.
Table 3. Demand model parameters.
Parameter Description Value

Fs Seasonal peaking factor 1.15
SH/LH Short-haul to long-haul ratio 0.36/0.64, 0.07/0.93
DST Short-term parking duration per hour traveled 5 min/h
TDRIVING Time driving for long-haul drivers 70 h/8 days
THOME Time at home for long-haul drivers 42 h/8 days
TLOAD/UNLOAD Time loading and unloading for long-haul drivers 15 h/8 days
TSHIPPER/RECEIVER Time at shipper/receiver for long-haul drivers 16 h/8 days
PRA, PTS Portion of demand for public rest areas/commercial truck stops 0.23, 0.77
PPFSH Peak-parking factor for short-haul trucks 0.02
PPFLH Peak-parking factor for long-haul trucks 0.09
PRLH Long-haul parking ratio 0.7833
The model parameters are defined as:
• Seasonal peaking factor. This is the ratio of seasonal peak average daily truck volume to average
daily truck volume. This value, representing a peak truck volume of 15 percent above the average,
was assumed.
• Short-haul to long-haul ratio. This is the ratio of the number of trucks performing short-haul trips
to those performing long-haul trips. Because this ratio will be different for segments in populous
regions (urban segments) and those in less populous regions (rural segments), two values were used.
An origin-destination study performed as part of this study estimated a value of 0.32/0.68 for
urban segments. The values of 0.36/0.64 for urban segments and 0.07/0.93 for rural segments
were derived during the model calibration. Some States provided specific values for the short-
haul to long-haul ratio, in which case those values were used instead of the calibrated values.
• Short-term parking duration per hour traveled. This is the number of minutes (on average) spent
parking per hour traveling. A value of five minutes was assumed. This assumption was based on
professional judgment and information obtained from talking with drivers about their typical
stopping patterns.
• Time driving for long-haul drivers. This is the average number of hours spent driving during an
8-day period. A value of 70 was used, based on HOS rules.
12
• Time at home for long-haul drivers. This is the average number of hours spent at home during an
8-day period. A value of 42 was derived from responses to the driver survey performed during
this study. (On average, drivers stated they sleep at home 6.7 days per month. Multiplying this by
12 months per year, multiplying by 24 hours per day, dividing by 365 days per year, and
multiplying by 8 days per 8-day period results in an estimate of 42 hours per 8-day period.)
• Time loading and unloading for long-haul drivers. This is the average number of hours spent
loading/unloading during an 8-day period. A value of 15 was derived from responses to the driver
survey performed during this study. (The question on which this estimate was based was not part
of the original driver survey and was asked of only about 30 drivers.)
• Time at shipper/receiver for long-haul drivers. This is the average hours spent parking at a
shipper/receiver (e.g., for rest, waiting to load/unload) during an 8-day period. A value of 16 was
derived from responses to the driver survey performed during this study. (On average, drivers
stated they stopped for long-term rest at a shipper/receiver 2.6 times per week. Assuming a 6-
hour stay each time, drivers spent an average of 16 hours per week resting at these facilities.)
• Portion of demand for public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas. The
proportions of total parking demand for rest area spaces and truck stop spaces were derived from
responses to questions in the driver survey regarding where drivers prefer to stop for different
activities (e.g., long-term rest, restroom, meal, etc.). The values were derived as follows: 1) the
number of driver responses for each preference category (i.e., rest area, truck stop, no preference)
was weighted according to the average amount of time spent parking for each activity (thereby
converting number of drivers into number of truck-hours of parking according to preference); 2)
the truck-hours of parking were then summed for each preference category; 3) the truck-hours of
parking in the “no preference” category were then divided evenly between the rest-area and truck-
stop preference categories; and 4) the total truck-hours of parking for rest areas and truck stops
were then divided into the overall total truck-hours of parking. The resulting proportions of
parking demand for rest area and truck stop spaces were 0.23 and 0.77, respectively.
• Peak-parking factor for short-haul trucks. This is the ratio of parking demand (in spaces) during
peak demand hours to total daily parking demand (in hours) for short-haul trucks. If parking demand
was evenly distributed throughout the day, this value would be 1/24 or about 0.04. Because
parking demand for short-haul trucks is concentrated during the day and overall peak parking
demand occurs at night, this number should be smaller than 0.04. A value of 0.02 was assumed.
• Peak-parking factor for long-haul trucks. This is the ratio of peak parking demand (in spaces) to
total daily parking demand (in hours) for long-haul trucks. If parking demand were evenly
distributed throughout the day, this value would be 1/24 or about 0.04. Because parking demand for
long-haul trucks is concentrated during the overnight hours due to drivers stopping to rest, this
number should be greater than 0.04. A value of 0.09 was derived during model calibration.
• Long-haul parkin g ratio. This is the ratio of the total parking time to the total driving time for
long-haul trucks. The following equation is used to estimate this parameter:
8days ⋅ 24 hr / day − TDRIVING − T HOME − TLOAD / UNLOAD − TSHIPPER / RECEIVER 5 min

PRLH = + = 0.7833
TDRIVING 60 min
13
2.3.1.3 Model Calibration and Validation
The demand model includes three calibration parameters: the value of SH/LH for rural segments, the value
of SH/LH for urban segments, and the value of PPFLH . Table 4 presents the results of the field survey and
the final model calibration.
Table 4. Field survey results for model calibration.
Observed Model
Region Corridor Segment Trucks Estimate Error
Atlanta, GA 1 I-20 AL State line to Atlanta 807 550 -32%
Atlanta, GA 1 I-75 Atlanta to Macon 859 1,202 40%
Atlanta, GA 1 I-16 Macon to Soperton 186 158 -15%
Atlanta, GA 1 I-16 Soperton to Savannah 161 194 20%
Atlanta, GA 1 Corridor Subtotal 2,013 2,104 4%
Atlanta, GA 2 I-75 Bolingbroke to Cordele 641 487 -24%
Atlanta, GA 3 I-95 Port Wentworth to Darien 415 473 14%
Atlanta, GA 1-3 Region Subtotal 3,069 3,064 0%
Pocatello, ID 4 I-15 UT State line to MT State line1 427 457 7%
Pocatello, ID 4 US-20 Idaho Falls to MT State line1 54 118 119%
Pocatello, ID 4 Corridor Subtotal 481 575 20%
Pocatello, ID 5 I-84 OR State line to Mountain Home 1 763 530 -30%
Pocatello, ID 5 I-84 Mountain Home to UT State line1 817 1,003 23%
Pocatello, ID 5 I-86 Jct. I-84 to Pocatello 1 92 174 89%
Pocatello, ID 5 Corridor Subtotal 1,672 1,707 2%
Pocatello, ID 6 I-90 WA State line to MT State line1 212 206 -3%
Pocatello, ID 6 US-12 Lewiston to MT State line1 64 83 30%
Pocatello, ID 6 Corridor Subtotal 276 289 5%
Pocatello, ID 4-6 Region Subtotal 2,429 2,571 6%
Harrisburg, PA 7 I-81 Jct. I-64 to Harrisonburg 1 1,023 758 -26%
Harrisburg, PA 7 I-81 Harrisonburg to WV State line1 817 964 18%
Harrisburg, PA 7 I-81 MD State line to Harrisburg 1 1,493 1,307 -12%
Harrisburg, PA 7 I-81 Harrisburg to Frackville 1 618 1,005 63%
Harrisburg, PA 7 Frackville to Scranton1 480 574 20%
Harrisburg, PA 7 Corridor Subtotal 4,431 4,608 4%
Harrisburg, PA 8 I-80 Dubois to Rote1 654 511 -22%
Harrisburg, PA 8 I-80 Rote to Bloomsburg 1 507 383 -24%
Harrisburg, PA 8 I-80 Bloomsburg to Scotrun1 546 222 -59%
Harrisburg, PA 8 Corridor Subtotal 1,707 1,116 -35%
Harrisburg, PA 7-8 Region Subtotal 6,138 5,724 -7%
Memphis, TN 9 I-40 North Little Rock to Brinkley 652 828 27%
Memphis, TN 9 I-40 Wheatley to Memphis 808 888 10%
Memphis, TN 9 I-40 Memphis to Brownsville 119 373 213%
Memphis, TN 9 I-40 Brownsville to Holladay 740 397 -46%
Memp his, TN 9 Corridor Subtotal 2,319 2,486 7%
Memphis, TN 10 I-55 Winona to Batesville 322 378 17%
Memphis, TN 10 I-55 Batesville to Memphis 158 249 58%
Memphis, TN 10 I-55 Memphis to Blytheville 934 686 -27%
Memphis, TN 10 I-55 Holland to Bertrand 594 536 -10%
Memphis, TN 10 Corridor Subtotal 2,008 1,849 -8%
Memphis, TN 9-10 Region Subtotal 4,327 4,335 0%
All All TOTAL 15,963 15,694 -2%
1
Segment classified as a rural segment.
14
To calibrate the model, field surveys were conducted in four regions to count the number of parked
commercial vehicles during the period of peak nighttime parking demand between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. Highways in each region were divided into segments, and the potential parking locations along each
segment of highway were cataloged during daytime surveys of the highways. Each highway segment was
resurveyed during the nighttime period of peak demand. All parked trucks were counted during the
nighttime surveys.
The “Segment” column describes the highway segment, and the “Observed Trucks” column lists the
results of the field surveys. The “Model Estimate” column lists the estimated demand for truck parking
spaces for the calibrated demand model. The “Error” column lists the percentage error in the estimated
demand (i.e., “Model Estimate” minus “Observed Trucks” divided by “Observed Trucks”). For example,
the demand model underestimates the demand by 32 percent for the first highway segment and
overestimates demand by 40 percent for the second.
Travel corridors were also defined based on likely travel routes for commercial vehicles, and the observed
and estimated demands for the segments were summed to generate corridor-level values. A corridor subtotal
row provides the percentage error in the summed estimated demand for each corridor. Because the observed
demand for a highway segment can include unmet demand from nearby segments (e.g., if a highway segment
does not have sufficient parking available, some drivers will park on the nearest highway segment with
available parking) , it was expected that the errors in the corridor-level results would be significantly lower
than those at the segment level, which turned out to be true. Note that the error at the segment level does
not necessarily indicate that the demand model is inaccurate when applied to highway segments, but may
indicate that the lack of available parking spaces on some highway segments creates unmet demand that
appears in field observations as unusually high demand on nearby segments with a surplus of parking.
Region subtotal rows indicate the estimation error for the cumulative demand for all of the highway
segments in the region, and the “-2%” error in the bottom row is for the 29 highway segments combined.
To calibrate the demand model, each highway segment was categorized as either rural or urban. A segment
was categorized as urban if it was within 200 miles of a city with a population of 200,000 or more.
Otherwise, it was classified as rural. Then, the model variables identified in table 2 were collected for
each highway segment, and an iterative process was used to identify the values for the three parameters
that enabled the demand model to best estimate the parking demand observed in the field surveys. Table 5
lists the resulting values of the calibration parameters.
The estimates of parking demand corresponding to these model parameters are listed in the “Model
Estimate” column of table 4. This table also lists the results for ten highway corridors, four regions, and
the total sample defined by combining results for the highway segments. This list indicates that the
predictions of the model were more accurate at the corridor and regional level than at the segment level.
At the segment level, the average absolute error in estimated demand was 38 percent, while it was
12 percent for the corridors and 3 percent for the regions.
Table 5. Values of calibration parameters.
Parameter Value
SH/LH (rural) 0.07/0.93
SH/LH (urban) 0.36/0.64
PPFLH 0.09
While the demand model does provide reasonable estimates of truck parking demand, the following
limitations of the model and model calibration were noted:
15
• The demand model estimates latent demand for each highway segment and ignores variations in the
parking supply that might affect the demand actually observed during the field surveys. For example,
a driver on a highway section with insufficient parking supply is forced to drive to another segment
with sufficient supply. Some of the latent demand for the section with insufficient supply is actually
observed on a subsequent section.
• The demand model estimates latent demand caused by typical driver needs to rest and obtain services. It
does not consider other factors that might influence demand in a local region, such as the desire to “stage”
near a shipper/receiver at night in order to more easily access the loading dock in the morning.
• The fact that the SH/LH ratio varies was reflected in the model by classifying each highway segment
as either rural or urban based on its proximity to a large city and using a different value for this
parameter for rural and urban segments. This methodology may not capture the true variation in this
parameter, and a more realistic model for estimating this ratio for each highway segment would likely
result in better demand estimates.
• Demand for parking along half the 29 segments used for calibration was at or exceeding capacity,
limiting the number of drivers who could find parking along those segments. Thus, the field surveys
may have underestimated the actual demand (by not counting those drivers who wanted to park but
could not), which would result in a calibrated model that also underestimates demand.
• Although the model provides more accurate demand estimates for larger geographical regions, evaluations
based on large geographic regions may not be an appropriate way to evaluate truck parking
shortages—an excess supply at one extreme of a large geographical region does not help a tired driver
at the other extreme of the region to find rest.
To examine the validity of the model, the demand estimates generated by the model were compared
against observed demand measured by the States of Iowa and South Dakota. Table 6 lists the results of
this comparison. Neither of these comparisons is an exact comparison to the demand estimates generated
by the demand model. The Iowa study was conducted in 1999 (not 2000), and the observed parking
demand included only vehicles parked at public rest areas and at 39 of 58 commercial truck stops located
near the Interstate highways. The study excluded vehicles parked at other public locations (e.g., weigh
stations) and on exit ramps, and total demand for parking at commercial truck stops was estimated by
extrapolating the observed values. In the South Dakota study, it was not clear whether the demand
included trucks parked at other public locations (e.g., weigh stations) and on exit ramps. Despite these
limitations in the compatibility of these surveys with the demand estimates, the comparison supports the
conclusions drawn from the model calibration results listed in table 4.
Table 6. State survey results for model validation.
Observed Estimated
State Highway Demand Demand Error
I-29 599 392 -35%
I-35 487 601 23%
Iowa(8) I-80 1,813 1,844 2%
I-380 275 153 -44%
Total 3,174 2,990 -6%
I-29 243 346 42%
South Dakota (14) I-90 532 519 -2%
Total 775 865 12%
16
2.4 NATIONAL DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING
The demand model described in the previous section of this document was used to estimate parking demand
for corridors along the Interstate and non-Interstate portions of the NHS using procedures outlined in the
technical guidance document. (11) The process for developing parking demand estimates requires three steps:
1. Identify major trucking corridors and select analysis segments.

2. Collect demand model inputs.
3. Apply truck parking demand model to estimate peak hour demand.
The explanation of each step is as follows:
• Identify major trucking corridors and select analysis segments. The modeling approach was applied to
appropriate NHS roadway segments throughout 49 States (excluding Hawaii). The corridors
considered for analysis were identified by examining the amount of commercial vehicle traffic carried
by a highway. These corridors generally consist of Intersta te highways and non-Interstate highways that
carry a significant amount of commercial vehicle traffic, including roadways that carry more than 1,000
combination vehicles per day. Additional NHS roads were considered if they were part of an
identified natio nal corridor.
National corridors were selected on the basis of utilization, network continuity, and geographic
distribution. As a rule, routes were initially identified on the basis of commodity flows. Rather than
relying on strictly numerical criteria for identification of routes, the research team used visual scans of
commodity flows on a State -by-State basis, using the relative magnitude of commodity flows as an
initial selection approach. On this basis, the routes with the dominant volumes of commercial vehicle
activity within each State were chosen.
To ensure network continuity, the study team also looked at cross-border issues. In some instances,
routes were selected because they accounted for critical links in regional or trans-regional commodity
flows. Consideration was also given to the National Corridor Planning & Development Program and
Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (also known as CORBOR). CORBOR is looking at the 43
high-priority corridors on the NHS and at projects that improve transportation near our borders with
Canada and Mexico. The intent of looking at CORBOR was to consider national and international
trade implications of the national corridors.
Once the proposed national corridors were identified, the corridors were segmented so that the
demand model could be applied to the highway segments. Segments were identified to be consistent
with the technical guidance document and with a logical partition of the proposed corridors. Proposed
corridors and candidate segments were then presented to the States for comment; in some instances,
the States proposed changes either in the routes selected or in the segmentation of the corridors. In
other cases, segments were excluded because there were not sufficient parking supply data or a
practical method for estimating truck volume. The resulting highway segments are typically between
60 and 120 miles long and carry a uniform amount of commercial vehicle traffic.
• Collect demand model inputs. To apply the demand model, the length, travel speed, annual average
daily traffic (AADT), and percent trucks must be known for each segment, and estimates for these
parameters were collected from a variety of sources. Although the data sources were generally the
same for each State, there were some differences. The data sources typically included the following:
− Length values were estimated by referring to highway maps.

− Speed limit values were based on HPMS and augmented by comments provided by the State DOT.
17
− AADT and projected AADT were derived from HPMS and augmented by public rest area survey
responses and comments provided by the State DOT.
− Some State DOTs provided additional comments and corrections to AADT and other values.
− When other sources of traffic flow data were not available, the “Heavy Commercial Vehicle Flow
Atlas of the United States National Highway System” (revised on August 27, 1998) was used.
Partners in each State reviewed these estimates and provided comments and suggestions that were
used to improve the estimates. In many cases, adjustments were made to better reflect the volume of
truck traffic on a segment, the speed limit, and other model factors. For example, the following States
suggested different values for the short-haul to long-haul ratio for some highway segments: Idaho
used a 0.20/0.80 ratio; Alaska used a 0.75/0.25 ratio because all the routes in Alaska can be driven in
a single day; Kansas, Michigan, and Washington used a 0.60/0.40 ratio for some highly urban
highway segments; and South Dakota used a 0.03/0.97 ratio for some highly rural highway segments.
After the States completed their review of the model variable and parameter data, a final calibration
of the demand model was completed that generated final values for the short-haul to long-haul ratios
and the long-haul peak parking factor. The collected data and the calibrated parameters were used for
the final demand estimates.
• Apply truck parking demand model to estimate peak hour demand. After defining the highway
segments and identifying estimates for the model variable s, the demand model was used to estimate
the parking demand for each segment. The demand estimates (as well as the demand model inputs)
for each section are listed in the Final State Status Reports. The demand estimates for each segment
were summed to generate demand estimates for each State (table 7) and for Interstate and non-
Interstate highways. In this table, the “Rest Area” and “Truck Stop” columns list the estimated
demand for truck parking at public rest area and commercial truck stops and travel plazas, respectively,
and the “Total” column lists the estimated total truck parking demand. The total demand on Interstate
highways was for 245,389 truck parking spaces (56,424 spaces at public and 188,965 at commercial
facilities), and the total demand on non-Interstate highways was for 41,927 spaces (9,643 at public
and 32,284 at commercial facilities). The demand estimates are for 39,963 miles of Interstate
highway, which cover most of the Interstate highways, and 21,702 miles of non-Interstate highway,
which include only those sections of non-Interstate highways with a significant volume of
commercial vehicle traffic
The “Annual Increase” column lists the estimated annual increase in truck parking demand for each
State over the next 20 years, which is estimated from corresponding estimates for the increase in truck
volume over this period. In other words, the same demand model was used to estimate the demand for
truck parking in 2000 and in 2020, and the “Annual Increase” was calculated as the annual growth
rate necessary to account for the growth in the estimated demand between 2000 and 2020. Note that,
because most States could provide only forward projections for AADT values, the other model
variables and parameters (e.g., percent trucks, speed limit) were assumed to remain fixed between
2000 and 2020.
While 35 States elected to use these demand model results to satisfy the requirements of the Section
4027 study, 14 States elected to use a different method of evaluating the demand for and supply of
truck parking spaces. Table 8 lists the State demand estimates and compares these estimates to those
of the demand model.
18
Table 7. Commercial truck parking demand: Peak hour demand along interstates and other NHS routes
carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day, 2000.
State Rest Area Truck Stop Total Estimated Annual

Demand Demand Demand Increase in Demand
Alabama 1,634 5,473 7,107 4.4%
Alaska 25 88 113 1.0%
Arizona 1,052 3,523 4,575 3.2%
Arkansas 1,783 5,968 7,751 2.9%
California 4,539 15,183 19,722 1.9%
Colorado 760 2,546 3,306 3.0%
Connecticut 616 2,060 2,676 1.7%
Delaware 206 694 900 2.4%
Florida 1,694 5,665 7,359 2.8%
Georgia 2,188 7,324 9,512 3.0%
Idaho 734 2,462 3,196 3.0%
Illinois 3,338 11,172 14,510 1.1%
Indiana 4,299 14,400 18,699 3.0%
Iowa 688 2,302 2,990 3.6%
Kansas 566 1,907 2,473 2.7%
Kentucky 2,206 7,380 9,586 2.7%
Louisiana 2,060 6,910 8,970 3.0%
Maine 205 691 896 0.5%
Maryland 592 1,983 2,575 2.0%
Massachusetts 863 2,894 3,757 1.3%
Michigan 1,275 4,262 5,537 2.2%
Minnesota 872 2,925 3,797 2.0%
Mississippi 1,254 4,194 5,448 2.7%
Missouri 2,643 8,841 11,484 2.7%
Montana 462 1,550 2,012 2.6%
Nebraska 251 837 1,088 3.6%
Nevada 682 2,285 2,967 2.0%
New Hampshire 72 243 315 2.2%
New Jersey 457 1,528 1,985 0.6%
New Mexico 1,218 4,083 5,301 2.5%
New York 1,801 6,034 7,835 3.0%
North Carolina 1,270 4,262 5,532 3.0%
North Dakota 188 635 823 3.0%
Ohio 3,301 11,059 14,360 2.9%
Oklahoma 1,078 3,610 4,688 1.8%
Oregon 1,139 3,819 4,958 1.8%
Pennsylvania 2,360 7,903 10,263 3.0%
Rhode Island 167 566 733 1.4%
South Carolina 1,265 4,236 5,501 3.8%
South Dakota 199 666 865 1.7%
Tennessee 1,214 4,073 5,287 4.0%
Texas 8,305 27,797 36,102 2.7%
Utah 391 1,307 1,698 4.3%
Vermont 27 91 118 1.2%
Virginia 1,772 5,932 7,704 1.4%
Washington 815 2,724 3,539 2.1%
West Virginia 468 1,572 2,040 3.0%
Wisconsin 633 2,115 2,748 4.2%
Wyoming 440 1,475 1,915 3.6%
TOTAL 66,067 221,249 287,316 2.7%
19
Table 8. Commercial truck parking demand: Comparison of state and demand model estimates.
Public Rest Area Private Truck

State Model Demand Stop Demand Total Demand
Alaska State Estimate1 68 97 165
Demand Model 25 88 113
California State Estimate2 9,162 13,595 22,757
Demand Model 4,539 15,183 19,722
Colorado State Estimate2 1,491 2,212 3,703
Demand Model 760 2,546 3,306
Connecticut State Estimate3 1,462
Demand Model 616 2,060 2,676
Idaho State Estimate4 567 1,886 2,453
Demand Model 734 2,462 3,196
Maine State Estimate5 205 691 896
Nebraska State Estimate2 519 769 1,288
Demand Model 251 837 1,088
Ohio State Estimate2 6,931 10,294 17,225
Demand Model 3,301 11,059 14,360
Rhode Island State Estimate6 228 766 994
South Dakota State Estimate7 179 905 1,084
Tennessee State Estimate8
Demand Model 1,214 4,073 5,287
Vermont State Estimate9
West Virginia State Estimate10
Demand Model 468 1,572 2,040
Wyoming State Estimate11
Demand Model 440 1,475 1,915
1
Used a preliminary version of the demand model, which is the same as the final model but with the following different
parameter values: Short-haul to Long-haul (SH-LH) Ratio = 0.40/0.60, Long-haul Parking Ratio = 1.25, Long-haul Peak Parking
Factor (PPF) = 0.07, Short-haul Percent Public/Private = 0.6/0.4, and Long-haul Percent Public/Private = 0.4/0.6. Alaska
customized the preliminary model by using a SH-LH Ratio of 0.75/0.25 for all highway segments.(11)
2
parameter values: SH-LH Ratio = 0.40/0.60, Long-haul Parking Ratio = 1.25, Long-haul PPF = 0.07, Short-haul Percent
Public/Private = 0.6/0.4, and Long-haul Percent Public/Private = 0.4/0.6.(11)
3
Used the model from a 1996 study. (1) This model estimates demand at a public rest stop based primarily on the annual
average daily traffic of the road served by the rest stop.
4
Used a version of the demand model, which is the same as the final model but with the following different parameter
values: SH-LH Ratio = 0.20/0.80 and Long-haul PPF = 0.08.
5
Maine has hired a consultant to perform the required rest area study, and the results of that study are not yet available. In
the interim, Maine has accepted preliminary numbers generated using the demand model.
6
Did not specify the model used to generate the State estimates.
7
parameter values: SH-LH Ratio = 0.40/0.60, Long-haul Parking Ratio = 1.25, Long-haul PPF = 0.07, Short-haul Percent
Public/Private = 0.6/0.4, and Long-haul Percent Public/Private = 0.4/0.6. South Dakota customized the preliminary model by
using different SH-LH Ratios (0.03/0.97, 0.1/0.9, and 0.4/0.6) on different highway segments.(11) South Dakota also conducted
field surveys to validate the model predictions.
8
Used a model proposed in 1981 by the Federal Highway Administration in the report Safety Rest Area: Planning,
Location, Design, which estimates demand at public rest areas based primarily on traffic counts of vehicles entering the rest
areas. Tennessee also conducted field studies to help evaluate usage of public rest areas.
9
Vermont conducted a field survey of rest area usage and did not estimate parking demand.
10
West Virginia did not provide estimates of rest area demand.
11
Wyoming inventoried the supply of parking spaces along highway segments and evaluated the adequacy of that supply
by comparing it to the daily count of trucks using each highway segment. Wyoming used driver interviews to generate demand
estimates for a highway segment only when this analysis indicated a potential supply inadequacy.
20
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Chapter 3 − Parking Supply
3.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING SUPPLY
3.1 ESTIMATING PARKING SPACE SUPPLY
This section contains an inventory of the number of public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel
plazas that could be used to comply with Federal HOS rules. The two primary data sources for the commercial
vehicle parking supply information presented in this document are 1) the Interstate America database of
commercial truck stops and travel plazas and 2) a survey of public agency rest areas conducted for this
study. The inventory information presented herein is the most recently available and is generally characteristic
of conditions in 1999 (in the case of the commercial truck stop database) and 2000 (in the case of the
public rest area survey).
While this inventor y does include the parking areas that are located close to the NHS and used most often
by truck drivers, the inventory does not include parking that is available from other sources (e.g.,
restaurants and stores located close to the NHS, loading and unloading facilities). Table 1 lists the
locations at which drivers reported last parking for rest and the relative frequency with which these
locations were reported.
The inventory presented includes all the Interstates on the NHS and selected non-Interstate portions of the
NHS with daily truck volumes of greater than or equal to 1,000. Information was gathered for each parking
facility on each highway segment and summed to generate estimates of the parking supply for each highway
segment.
3.2 PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES
A survey that included 49 States (excluding Hawaii) was conducted to gather information on truck
parking capacity at public rest areas and welcome centers. Information was obtained from all 49 State
DOTs and their toll road agencies for a combined total of 1,771 public rest areas. Information was
compiled and entered into an electronic database for use in this study. The results for each State are
summarized in table 9.
The “Parking Facilities” column of this table lists the total number of public rest areas identified in each
State, and the “Parking Spaces” column lists the total number of parking spaces at those facilities. The
“Weigh Station” column indicates whether the State allows parking at weigh stations, and the “Imposes
Time Limits” column indicates whether the State imposes time limits on parking at public rest areas.
As can be seen from reviewing the results of table 9, some States permit drivers to use weigh stations for
parking when the stations are closed. While this does create additional parking spaces for drivers, the
estimated number of spaces created was not included in the analysis. During the driver surveys (summarized
in section 2.2 of this report), many drivers indicated that parking at a weigh station was not a desirable
solution. These facilities often lack amenities, and concern was also expressed about parking at an
enforcement facility. An additional constraint to estimating the number of parking spaces at these facilities
is that weigh station hours of operation vary and rotate between daytime and evening operations. This
variance meets the needs of the enforcement community, as it enables enforcement personnel to maintain
random inspection patterns. However, this variance makes the availability of these facilities for use as
parking spaces somewhat random. The study team determined that, based on these factors, weigh and
inspection stations should not be considered as a supply source of parking spaces for the overall analysis.
21
Table 9. Commercial truck parking inventory: Public rest area facilities along interstates and other NHS
routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day.
Parking Parking Weigh Imposes Time

State Facilities Spaces Stations Limits
Alabama 27 712 ü
Alaska N/A1 457
Arizona 38 559
Arkansas 21 343
California 88 1,106 ü
Colorado 31 167
Connecticut 20 361 ü
Delaware 1 70 ü
Florida 69 1,709 ü ü
Georgia 31 1,162 ü ü
Idaho 30 245 ü ü
Illinois 54 1,267
Indiana 52 2,430 ü
Iowa 38 804 ü
Kansas 29 455 ü
Kentucky 44 991 ü ü
Louisiana 15 221
Maine 11 113
Maryland 11 295
Massachusetts 17 140 ü
Michigan 75 1,570
Minnesota 40 536 ü
Mississippi 43 428 ü ü
Missouri 35 618
Montana 43 392 ü
Nebraska 22 263 ü
Nevada 36 260 ü
New Hampshire 6 86 ü
New Jersey 19 667 ü
New Mexico 11 78 ü ü
New York 36 1,257 ü ü
North Carolina 37 642
North Dakota 30 260
Ohio 98 1,402
Oklahoma 63 767
Oregon 40 602 ü
Pennsylvania 65 1,298 ü
Rhode Island 5 267
South Carolina 49 816
South Dakota 21 371 ü ü
Tennessee 30 767 ü
Texas 105 654 ü
Utah 24 238
Vermont 41 178
Virginia 39 820 ü
Washington 29 455 ü
West Virginia 21 506
Wisconsin 23 652
Wyoming 58 792
TOTAL 1,771 31,249
1
Alaska did not report the number of facilities.
Note: Checks denote States allowing truck parking in weigh stations and States that impose time limits in public rest areas.
22
An additional consideration identified during the course of the survey is that 25 States indicated that they
have time limits on the amount of time a truck may be parked at a public rest area. Of these, 9 States have
limits that should have little impact on using the facilities for long-term rest to satisfy HOS rest
requirements (e.g., the time limit is greater than 8 hours, the time limit applies only during the day), while
the other 16 States have limits that might impact using the facilities for long-term rest. Of these 16 States,
10 enforce the time restrictions only rarely or never, leaving only 6 States sometimes enforcing time
restrictions that might impact the use of the facilities for long-term rest.a
An analysis of the number of parking spaces at public rest areas along Interstate highways versus non-
Interstate highways indicated a total of 28,396 spaces distributed along 39,963 miles of Interstate
highways included in this study and 2,853 non-Interstate spaces distributed along 21,702 miles of non-
Interstate highways.
Although not developed as part of the inventory process, researchers did develop an estimate of 1 percent
annually for the expected growth rate of truck parking spaces at public rest areas. This estimate was
derived from the response of the State partnerships regarding plans to improve public rest areas (see
section 5.4.1). Fifteen States indicated that they have firm plans to provide additional parking spaces at
public facilities, and 11 of these States provided a specific number of spaces for a total increase of 1,609
spaces at public facilities over the next 5 years. This increase of 1,609 spaces is 5.1 percent of the 31,249
current spaces, and a 5.1 percent increase over 5 years is equivalent to a 1 percent annual growth rate.
3.3 COMMERCIAL TRUCK STOP AND TRAVEL PLAZA PARKING FACILITIES
Commercial truck stops and travel plazas are designed to provide drivers an opportunity to fulfill many
non-rest related activities, while public rest areas provide the driver with only minimal services. Commercial
truck stop operators provide a number of services to trucks and typically provide extended parking to
encourage drivers to use these services. In other words, commercial truck stop and travel plaza operators
do not provide extended-stay parking as a primary service but only to encourage purchases of fuel, food,
and other services. Truck stop operators do not generally charge for parking and provide parking only to
attract business.
The primary data source for the inventory of commercial truck stops and travel plazas was the Truck Stops
Database developed by Interstate America. FHWA, for purposes of this study, obtained a license permitting
the use of the 1999 database. This database, which includes every known facility in the United States and
Canada (for a total of 6,327 facilities), is updated annually and contains information describing the number
of commercial vehicle parking spaces available at a facility as well as information about the amenities at
that facility. Unfortunately, the number of truck parking spaces available is not expressed as an exact
number, but as one of the ranges listed in table 10; this results in a range of possible values for the
inventory of truck parking spaces for each highway segment rather than an exact number.
The commercial truck stops and travel plazas listed in this database were identified with the road segments
that were the basis of the demand model calculations. The number of parking spaces for each road segment
was determined by summing the spaces at each commercial truck stop and travel plaza for that segment.
Because the number of truck parking spaces was reported as a range, this resulted in a minimum number of
spaces (obtained by summing the bottom number of the range) and a maximum number of spaces (obtained
by summing the top number of the range) when this database was used to evaluate the supply of truck parking.
a
The NTSB identified 19 States that have laws limiting the amount of time that a vehicle can park at a public rest area,
16 of which were also identified in this study. Three of the States identified by the NTSB did not provide complete information to
this study team on whether there were time limits for some rest areas within the State.
23
Table 10. Parking capacity ranges from the Truck Stops Database
Parking Code Definition Min Max

NM Not Marked 0 0
N None 0 0
L Limited 1 4
5-25 Range from 5 to 25 5 25
26-50 Range from 26 to 50 26 50
51-99 Range from 51 to 99 51 99
100-199 Range from 100 to 199 100 199
200-299 Range from 200 to 299 200 299
300-399 Range from 300 to 399 300 399
400-499 Range from 400 to 499 400 499
500-600 Range from 500 to 600 500 600
In an effort to better quantify shortages of truck parking spaces that may exist, some States completed a
field inventory of the commercial parking facilities along the highway segments included in this study.
This generated an exact count (i.e., the minimum and maximum number of spaces is the same) for the
number of parking spaces available, and these exact counts were used in place of the ranges obtained
from the truck stops database. The results of this inventory for each State are summarized in table 11.
The “Parking Facilities” column of this table lists the total number of commercial truck stop and travel plaza
facilities identified in each State, and the “Parking Spaces” column lists the total number of parking
spaces at those facilities.
An analysis of the number of parking spaces at commercial truck stops and travel plazas along Interstate
highways versus non-Interstate highways indicated a total of between 153,829 and 260,599 spaces
distributed along 39,963 miles of Interstate highways included in this study and between 13,705 and
24,002 non-Interstate spaces distributed along 21,702 miles of non-Interstate highways.
The expected growth of truck parking spaces at commercial truck stops and travel plazas is expected to be
about 6.5 percent annually. This estimate was derived from an evaluation of the Truck Stops Database for
the years 1997 to 2000 performed by the National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO)
Foundation. This evaluation found an historical growth rate of 6.5 percent for this period, and NATSO
expects this growth rate to continue in the future.
3.4 DRIVER ASSESSMENT OF PARKING FACILITY QUALITY
The number of parking spaces is only part of the issue related to the adequacy of the supply of truck
parking spaces. For example, if sufficient spaces are available yet these spaces are either difficult to
access or do not have the amenities that a driver needs, then a driver may choose to park at an over-
crowded facility, may park at an inappropriate location, or may drive while tired to find a more favorable
facility. This section summarizes the results from the driver survey (see section 2.2) that indicate truck
drivers’ assessments of the quality and availability of truck parking facilities.
24
Table 11. Commercial truck parking inventory: Commercial truck stop and travel plaza facilities along
interstates and other NHS routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day.
State Parking Facilities Parking Spaces

Alabama 99 3,650-6,902
Alaska 1 — —
Arizona 58 4,730-8,140
Arkansas 108 3,806-7,519
California 2 122 7,496
Colorado2 57 2,710
Connecticut 12 650-1,243
Delaware 8 128-324
Florida 85 3,692-7,339
Georgia 122 6,158-11,475
Idaho2 25 1,967
Illinois 122 4,962-9,602
Indiana 119 7,972-14,529
Iowa 65 2,994-5,209
Kansas 55 2,209-4,383
Kentucky 76 3,745-7,186
Louisiana 115 4,682-9,159
Maine 16 738-1,248
Maryland 14 2,008-2,290
Massachusetts 20 1,040-1,916
Michigan 90 2,925-6,147
Minnesota 58 2,200-4,503
Mississippi 98 3,277-7,003
Missouri 140 6,468-12,272
Montana 39 1,499-3,085
Nebraska 2 46 2,835
Nevada 31 2,930-4,979
New Hampshire 13 294-697
New Jersey 34 1,980-3,730
New Mexico 49 3,657-6,322
New York 97 3,441-6,970
North Carolina 102 3,771-7,323
North Dakota 25 960-2,039
Ohio 2 135 11,474
Oklahoma 129 4,683-9,632
Oregon 52 3,052-5,702
Pennsylvania 134 7,722-14,502
Rhode Island2 3 420
South Carolina 96 4,291-8,515
South Dakota2 30 1,331
Tennessee2 89 6,419
Texas 284 12,277-23,525
Utah 43 1,138-2,488
Vermont 63 185-449
Virginia 13 4,183-7,445
Washington 39 1,295-2,663
West Virginia 21 821-1,717
Wisconsin 80 2,863-5,971
Wyoming2 51 3,806
TOTAL 3,382 167,534-284,601
1
Alaska did not report on the number of commercial parking facilities and spaces.
2
These States provided independent estimates of parking facilities and spaces.
25
Drivers were asked to report how frequently truck parking spaces have certain usability characteristics.
Drivers rated how frequently available parking is convenient to the highway, has the features they need,
has time limits that allow enough time for their needs, has enough room for them to maneuver their trucks
in and out, and is used only by trucks. Respondents gave mixed ratings for all these usability
characteristics (table 12). For each of these usability characteristics, sometimes [encountered] was the
most frequently reported driver response. The usability characteristic that was most often encountered by
respondents (i.e., most often given ratings of frequently or almost always) was available parking has the
features I need, marked by 51 percent of respondents. Thirty-nine percent of respondents indicated that
available parking is frequently or almost always convenient to the highway.
Table 12. Driver-reported usability characteristics in truck parking.
Almost Almost
Usability Characteristic Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Parking is convenient to
highway 9% 30% 41% 12% 7%
Facility has features needed 15% 36% 38% 7% 3%
Parking time limits allow
enough time 15% 22% 30% 18% 15%
Parking allows enough room to
drive in and out 8% 24% 48% 15% 6%
Truck spaces used only by
trucks 9% 25% 34% 20% 12%
Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
To help clarify drivers’ parking preferences, the survey asked drivers to identify how important various
parking facility features are to them when they park their trucks. Drivers rated various features on a scale
from one to five (almost always important to almost never important). Table 13 shows the features evaluated,
along with the mean and modal ratings they received. Features rated as most important were generally the
ones that address basic needs. Food, fuel, restrooms, phones, showers, convenience to highway, and well-
lighted parking lots all received modal ratings of almost always important. In fact, between 70 and 85 percent
of the sample rated these features as frequently or almost always important. Interestingly, drivers appear to
value well-lighted parking lots more than they value security presence. Seventy-five percent of respondents
rated “well-lighted parking lots” as frequently or almost always important, while only 60 percent gave the
same ratings to “security presence.” The majority of drivers rated features such as entertainment facilities,
Internet connections, and availability of travel information as less important.
Almost 400 respondents provided written comments on the parking facility features they consider important.
The single most frequently mentioned feature was big parking spaces that allow trucks to maneuver in and
out (written by 45 drivers). Drivers indicated that they look for quiet parking facilities where they are not
likely to be disturbed by police officers or solicitors. They value clean facilities where the personnel are
friendly. Drivers also commented that they prefer parking facilities that allow access to shopping areas
with grocery or department stores. Finally, drivers commented that laundry facilities add to the appeal of
a parking facility.
Ratings given by short-haul drivers reflected the fact that they value parking facility features differently
than long-haul drivers. Specifically, long-haul drivers most often rated features such as showers, fuel, and
well-lighted parking lots as almost always important, while short-haul drivers most often rated these same
features as only frequently important. Female respondents provided different ratings than their male
counterparts on some features. Eighty percent of women rated security presence as frequently or almost
26
Table 13. Driver-rated importance of features when parking.
Important Features Mean Median Mode

Restrooms 1.4 1.0 1
Convenient to highway 1.6 1.0 1
Showers 1.7 1.0 1
Well-lighted parking lot 1.9 1.0 1
Public phones 1.9 1.0 1
Restaurant 1.9 1.0 1
Fuel 2.0 1.0 1
Security presence 2.3 2.0 1
Repair facilities 2.6 3.0 1
Prepaid fuel cards accepted 2.9 3.0 1
Vending machines 3.4 3.0 5
Entertainment facilities 3.4 3.0 5
Travel information available 3.6 4.0 5
Internet connections 4.0 5.0 5
Note: Respondents rated the features on a scale from one to five (almost always important to almost never important).
always important, while just under 60 percent of men gave the same ratings to security presence.
Additionally, 92 percent of women rated “well-lighted parking lots” as frequently or almost always
important, while about three-quarters of men did the same.
In addition to inquiring about the features that are important to drivers, the survey also asked which type of
parking facilities (public versus commercial) they prefer for parking. Because parking facility preference
likely depends on the purpose of the stop, various common “reasons for parking” were identified to give
context to their facility preferences. Generally when drivers showed a preference, they indicated a
preference for commercial truck stops over public rest areas (table 14). Public rest areas were preferred to
commercial truck stops only when drivers stopped for a quick (less than 2-hour) nap. For extended rest
(more than 2 hours), performing minor truck maintenance, and eating a meal, drivers overwhelmingly
preferred truck stops to rest areas, with between 79 and 91 percent of drivers indicating a preference for
truck stops and fewer than 6 percent indicating a preference for rest areas. Most respondents marked no
preference for stops made to use vending machines, get travel information, use public phones, and use the
restroom. However, among those drivers who did show a facility preference when making these types of
stops, more drivers indicated a preference for truck stops. For all the parking reasons listed, short-haul
driver preferences were the same as long-haul driver preferences.
Table 14. Drivers’ parking facility preferences by purpose of stop.
Reason for Parking Rest Area No Preference Truck Stop

Take a quick nap (< 2 hours) 45% 36% 19%
Take an extended rest (> 2 hours) 6% 16% 79%
Use vending machines 28% 58% 14%
Get travel information 9% 51% 40%
Use public phones 14% 49% 37%
Perform minor maintenance on truck 2% 19% 79%
Use the restroom 25% 45% 30%
Eat a meal 1% 8% 91%
Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.
27
3.5 INTERCHANGEABILITY OF PUBLIC REST AREA AND COMMERCIAL TRUCK

STOP AND TRAVEL PLAZA PARKING
An important factor in determining whether there is a sufficient supply of truck parking spaces involves
the concept of interchangeability of spaces at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel
plazas. That is to say, can a surplus of parking spaces at commercial truck stops and travel plazas
compensate for a shortfall in available public rest area parking? Because most truck drivers use public rest
areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas for resting, it is logical to conclude that a driver can
rest equally well while parked at a public rest area or at a commercial truck stop or travel plaza and,
therefore, that these spaces are interchangeable. This view is challenged, however, by the results of the
national survey of driver needs and preferences, by the findings of field observational studies, and by the
imbalance identified within the supply and demand ratios between public and commercial parking spaces.
3.5.1 National Truck Parking Needs and Preferences Survey
Drivers’ responses to the Truck Parking Needs and Preferences Survey conducted as part of this study
demonstrated definite preferences and priorities when it comes to choosing where they will park. These
preferences are offered as evidence of the limited interchangeability or substitutability between public rest
areas and commercial truck stops or travel plazas.
When drivers park for quick naps (less than 2 hours), they prefer to park in public rest areas (45 percent
of the drivers preferred a public rest area, 19 percent preferred commercial truck stops, and 36 percent
expressed no preference between public rest areas and commercial truck stops). For more lengthy
activities (greater than 2 hours), such as eating a meal, resting for the night, or repairing a truck, drivers
choose truck stops where possible (79 percent of the drivers preferred a truck stop, 6 percent preferred
rest areas, and 16 percent expressed no preference between rest areas and truck stops).
To help clarify drivers’ parking preferences, the survey asked drivers to identify how important various
parking facility features are to them when they park their trucks. Restrooms, convenience to highway,
showers, well-lighted parking lots, and public phones were the top features selected from a list of 14
features that drivers rated as most important. Three of the five features address drivers’ basic needs, while
the other two clearly address drivers’ preferences. Drivers were also given the opportunity to write
comments on the parking features they consider most important. The single most frequently mentioned
feature was big parking spaces that allow trucks to maneuver in and out.
The survey also provided the respondents with the opportunity to speculate about why truck drivers
sometimes park on entrance or exit ramps and highway shoulders. The most commonly reported reasons
were that no nearby parking facility was available, no empty spaces were available at nearby truck stops
or rest areas, nearby parking spaces have time limits that are too short, empty parking spaces nearby were
blocked by others vehicles, the ramp/shoulder is convenient for getting back on the road, interruptions by
strangers (e.g., drug dealers, prostitutes) were less likely, it is hard to drive around congested parking lots,
and better lighting exists on ramp(s)/shoulder(s) than in lot(s).
3.5.2 Field Observational Studies
In addition to the driver self-report data cited above, more objective evidence to support the notion of
limited interchangeability between public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas can be
found from the results of observational field surveys conducted both for this study and by a number of
States.
28
Commercial vehicle parking field surveys were conducted as part of the demand model development
effort for this study. The purpose of these observational studies was to record trucks parked during the
peak hour in public rest areas, commercial truck stops, pull-out areas, interchange ramps, mainline and
cross-street shoulders, fueling stations, fast food restaurants, hotels, etc. The studies were conducted along
three segments of NHS highway in Arkansas, six segments in Georgia, seven segments in Idaho, two
segments in Mississippi, one segment in Missouri, six segments in Pennsylvania, two segments in
Tennessee, and two segments in Virginia. These segments were selected as representing the typical range,
from low to high, of truck parking supply and demand. Although most of the rest areas were full or
overflowing, some of the commercial truck stops had spaces available, as did most of the fast food
restaurants, fueling stations, and shopping centers along the segments, suggesting that drivers do
differentiate between parking at public rest areas and other commercial parking areas.
The University of Tennessee conducted nighttime observational studies at all public rest areas in
Tennessee for each day of the week. (7) Availability of space in commercial truck stops and travel plazas
near interchanges was also examined. The results of the occupancy studies showed that the rest areas
were overflowing with trucks at night, as evidenced by trucks parked along the shoulders of highway exit
and entrance ramps as well as on interchange ramps. While the rest areas were overflowing,
approximately 30 percent of the private truck parking spaces were not occupied, and the unoccupied
private parking spaces outnumbered the trucks parked along the highways by nearly three-to-one. To
understand why some truck drivers park along the highway when there are available private parking
spaces, in-depth interviews were held with drivers. The opinions of the drivers interviewed were quite
consistent. The findings were that commercial truck stops and public rest areas are not substitutes for each
other because they meet different needs.
The State of Iowa completed field observations of truck parking on Interstate highways in 1999. (8) This
study divided the Interstates in Iowa into six segments. Parking at public rest areas was observed to be
above capacity for almost every segment and almost every day during the observation period, and trucks
were observed parking on the shoulder at exit and entrance ramps. On the other hand, parking at
commercial truck stops and travel plazas was observed to be above capacity for only a single segment,
and then for only two of the seven days during the observation period. These observations suggest that
drivers do differentiate between parking at public rest areas and other commercial parking areas.
In 1999 the Baltimore Metropolitan Council sponsored a study of truck parking in the Baltimore area that
concluded that, even though there was a sufficient supply of parking spaces available to truck drivers,
trucks were often parked illegally along the highways at night.( 15) These observations suggest that truck
drivers do differentiate between parking spaces by choosing to park in illegal spaces along the highway
rather than legally at other locations.
FHWA supported a study in 1996 that included observations of truck parking along a stretch of I-81
between Radford, VA, and Knoxville, TN.(1) These observations indicated that public rest areas tended to
fill up quickly, reaching capacity before commercial truck stops. These findings suggest that truck drivers
differentiate between parking at public rest areas and other commercial parking facilities.
3.5.3 Public-Private Supply/Demand Imbalance
As stated earlier in this report, the national driver survey was also used to develop an estimate of public
and private parking demand to reflect drivers’ preferences for the two facility types. Drivers were asked,
for each of seven activities, if they preferred to use public or commercial facilities. The relative
preference for the two facility types was estimated by taking an average of the preferences for each
activity, weighted by the duration of that activity. The results showed the proportions of total hourly
parking demand for public rest areas and commercial truck stops to be 0.23 and 0.77, respectively.
29
Therefore, if drivers had their preference, 23 percent of the total truck hours of parking demanded in a day
(or the peak hour) would occur at public facilities, while the remaining 77 percent of the total truck hours
of parking demand would occur at commercial facilities.
An assumption made in the modeling process, to convert 24-hour parking demand to peak-hour parking
demand, was that a truck will occupy a space for at least 1 hour. While this assumption may not hold for
daytime hours, the majority of trucks parked in the overnight peak hours are parked for longer periods of
time in accordance with the HOS regulations. With this assumption in mind, due to the multiplicative
nature of the model’s parameters, the proportions of hourly parking demand for public and commercial
facilities can be directly compared to the proportions of parking supply at these two types of facilities. On
average, only about 10 percent of the total available parking supply is at public facilities, while around
90 percent of the available parking supply is at commercial facilities. This imbalance in supply
(10 percent at public facilities and 90 percent at commercial facilities) and demand (23 percent at public
facilities and 77 percent at commercial facilities) is further evidence on the limits of interchangeability
from the driver’s perspective.
In summary, while it may be argued that, because truck drivers could rest equally well at public rest areas
and commercial truck stops and travel plazas, parking spaces at these two different types of rest stops are
interchangeable. In other words, truck stop parking can be substituted for rest area parking, even if the
private parking is not as convenient. On the other hand, empirical evidence provided through both driver
surveys and observations of parking behavior indicate that parking at these locations is not interchangeable;
more likely, the evidence suggests that there is some interchangeability and that this interchangeability is
limited due to preferences expressed by drivers for one type of space over another. In reality, a system of
parking exists in this country that consists of public rest areas, commercial truck stops and travel plazas,
weigh stations, and various commercial establishments (motels, fast food restaurants, etc.). As a system, a
certain synergy applies such that substitution occurs among the available types of spaces. However, it is not
a complete substitutability. The interchangeability of one type of parking space for another is limited or
governed by an array of factors that affect driver preferences (e.g., purpose of the stop, amenities available,
parking convenience, time of day, hours since last slept, distance to next pickup/delivery), and these are the
factors that influence a driver’s decision as to where to park.
30
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Chapter 4 − Supply and Demand
4.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND BALANCES
4.1 METHODOLOGY
The methodology used to analyze where shortages exist or are expected to exist involved a six-step process.
First, the supply of available truck parking spaces was inventoried based on a database of commercial
truck stops and travel plazas and a survey of public agency rest areas. Second, a parking demand model
was developed and calibrated (based on a limited data set) to estimate parking demand along highway
segments. Third, demand estimates from the preliminary model were sent to States and State partners for
review and comment. Fourth, the model estimates were refined, based on the partnerships’ comments,
and the model was re-calibrated based on additional field data. Fifth, the new estimates were sent back to
the partners for a final round of review and comment. Sixth, model estimates were refined based on the
partners’ comments, and the results of the analyses were used in this report.
Note that the results of these analyses were meant to assist in developing strategies and plans to reduce or
better manage any shortages. The information was not intended to provide a sufficient level of detail to
define the specific location and quantity of truck parking spaces required. The design-level detail required to
complete this type of needs assessment was not practical within the time frame and resources of this
study. However, the supply and demand information provided at the corridor level did fulfill the goal of
identifying system-level problems and needs that can serve as the bases for the formulation of policy
alternatives and the conducting of a more detailed study at a later time. In fact, many of the partners used
the supply and demand results described above for exactly this purpose.
4.2 DETERMINING CURRENT LEVEL OF PARKING SPACE UTILIZATION
The analysis conducted for this study included information compiled for 49 States and addressed all the
Interstate highways as well as a significant share of non-Interstate highways that comprise the NHS.
Detailed modeling analysis and truck parking space inventory were conducted for nearly 520 individual
roadway segments. By comparing the estimated demand with the inventoried supply, it was possible to
determine if a shortage of truck parking existed along a highway segment.
To simplify the interpretation, a rating system was developed to summarize the results of the supply and
demand analysis. Dividing the estimated demand by the estimated supply for both public and private
parking spaces formed a demand/supply ratio that indicated the level of utilization statewide.a A ratio less
than one indicates that demand is smaller than supply and an apparent surplus of spaces exists, while a
ratio greater than one indicates that demand outstrips supply and there is an apparent shortage.
Because of the uncertainty of the demand and supply estimates, using one as an exact cutoff for indicating
whether shortages exist is not appropriate. Instead, the demand/supply ratios have been grouped into three
categories, as indicated in table 15. The first category, “Surplus Spaces,” indicates that the number of
parking spaces available is likely to exceed the peak demand. The second category, “Sufficient Spaces,”
indicates that the peak demand and the supply of parking spaces are nearly the same. The third category,
“Shortage of Spaces,” indicates that overcrowding is likely. Because the estimates of truck parking supply
a
The truck parking supply inventory described in section 3.0 estimated both a minimum and a maximum supply for each
highway segment. For the purpose of determining the demand/supply ratio, the maximum value was used. This approach helped
ensure that the demand/supply ratio provided a conservative estimate of the locations at which inadequate truck parking exists.
31
indicate a range of parking spaces, several different supply values could be used in determining this ratio;
the results in this report use the maximum estimated truck parking spaces.
Table 15. Demand/supply ratio categories.
Demand/Supply Ratio Parking Space Utilization

Less than 0.9 Surplus Spaces
0.9 to 1.1 Sufficient Spaces
More than 1.1 Shortage of Spaces
Table 16 contains a national summary of the results using the parking space utilization classification method.
These results provide a general sense of the level of unmet needs for commercial truck parking. A total of
35 States are rated as having a shortage of spaces at public rest areas, while a total of 8 States are rated as
having shortages at commercial truck stops and travel plazas. When looking at a combined rating (i.e., the
sum of demand and supply for both public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas), a total
of 12 States are rated as having shortages.
Table 16. Parking space utilization: National summary of demand/supply ratio along interstates and other
NHS routes carrying more than 1,000 trucks per day.
Parking Space Public Rest Commercial

Utilization Areas Truck Stops 1 Total
Shortage of Spaces 35 8 12
Sufficient Spaces 4 6 8
Surplus Spaces 10 34 29
1
This column excludes Alaska, which did not report on the number of parking spaces available at
commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
Table 17 provides a State -by-State breakdown of these results. The “Ratio” column lists the
demand/supply ratio, and the “Category” column lists the parking space utilization category for each
State. The “Public” column refers to the demand/supply ratio for parking spaces at public rest areas, the
“Commercial” column refers to the demand/supply ratio for parking spaces at commercial truck stops and
travel plazas, and the “Total” column refers to the ratio for parking spaces at both types of facilities.
In addition to determining where truck parking shortages currently exist along the NHS, the study also
attempted to estimate where future shortages might exist. Table 7 lists the expected annual growth rate for
the truck parking space demand for each of the 49 States considered in this study, with values ranging from
0.5 to 4.4 percent. In section 3.0, the expected annual growth rate for the supply of truck parking spaces is
estimated at about 1 percent for public spaces and about 6.5 percent for commercial spaces. Because the
estimated growth rates for parking supply are national averages and local growth will vary considerably, it is
not appropriate to use these figures to generate State -specific estimates of the future adequacy of truck
parking space supply. However, the following observations can be made:
• The expected growth in supply of public spaces is not projected to match the expected growth in
demand. As there is already an apparent shortage of public spaces in many States, this projection
indicates that the shortage of public spaces will worsen in the future unless steps are taken to either 1)
increase the growth rate of public spaces or 2) increase the interchangeability between public and
commercial spaces so that the relative demand for public spaces decreases.
• The expected growth in supply of commercial spaces is projected to exceed the expected growth in
demand, indicating that the surplus of commercial spaces is likely to increase in the future.
32
Table 17. Parking space utilization: Demand/supply ratio along interstates and other NHS routes carrying
more than 1,000 trucks per day.
Public Commercial Total

State Ratio Category Ratio Category Ratio Category
Alabama 2.29 Shortage 0.79 Surplus 0.93 Sufficient
Alaska 1 0.05 Surplus N/A N/A N/A Surplus
Arizona 1.88 Shortage 0.43 Surplus 0.53 Surplus
Arkansas 5.20 Shortage 0.79 Surplus 0.99 Sufficient
California 4.10 Shortage 2.03 Shortage 2.29 Shortage
Colorado 4.55 Shortage 0.94 Sufficient 1.15 Shortage
Connecticut 1.71 Shortage 1.66 Shortage 1.67 Shortage
Delaware 2.94 Shortage 2.14 Shortage 2.28 Shortage
Florida 0.99 Sufficient 0.77 Surplus 0.81 Surplus
Georgia 1.88 Shortage 0.64 Surplus 0.75 Surplus
Idaho 3.00 Shortage 1.25 Shortage 1.44 Shortage
Illinois 2.63 Shortage 1.16 Shortage 1.33 Shortage
Indiana 1.77 Shortage 0.99 Sufficient 1.10 Shortage
Iowa 0.86 Surplus 0.44 Surplus 0.50 Surplus
Kansas 1.24 Shortage 0.44 Surplus 0.51 Surplus
Kentucky 2.23 Shortage 1.03 Sufficient 1.17 Shortage
Louisiana 9.32 Shortage 0.75 Surplus 0.96 Sufficient
Maine 1.81 Shortage 0.55 Surplus 0.66 Surplus
Maryland 2.01 Shortage 0.87 Surplus 1.00 Sufficient
Massachusetts 6.16 Shortage 1.51 Shortage 1.83 Shortage
Michigan 0.81 Surplus 0.69 Surplus 0.72 Surplus
Minnesota 1.63 Shortage 0.65 Surplus 0.75 Surplus
Mississippi 2.93 Shortage 0.60 Surplus 0.73 Surplus
Missouri 4.28 Shortage 0.72 Surplus 0.89 Surplus
Montana 1.18 Shortage 0.50 Surplus 0.58 Surplus
Nebraska 0.95 Sufficient 0.30 Surplus 0.35 Surplus
Nevada 2.62 Shortage 0.46 Surplus 0.57 Surplus
New Hampshire 0.84 Surplus 0.35 Surplus 0.40 Surplus
New Jersey 0.69 Surplus 0.41 Surplus 0.45 Surplus
New Mexico 15.62 Shortage 0.65 Surplus 0.83 Surplus
New York 1.43 Shortage 0.87 Surplus 0.95 Sufficient
North Carolina 1.98 Shortage 0.58 Surplus 0.69 Surplus
North Dakota 0.72 Surplus 0.31 Surplus 0.36 Surplus
Ohio 2.35 Shortage 0.96 Sufficient 1.12 Shortage
Oklahoma 1.41 Shortage 0.37 Surplus 0.45 Surplus
Oregon 1.89 Shortage 0.67 Surplus 0.79 Surplus
Pennsylvania 1.82 Shortage 0.54 Surplus 0.65 Surplus
Rhode Island 0.63 Surplus 1.35 Shortage 1.07 Sufficient
South Carolina 1.55 Shortage 0.50 Surplus 0.59 Surplus
South Dakota 0.54 Surplus 0.50 Surplus 0.51 Surplus
Tennessee 1.58 Shortage 0.63 Surplus 0.74 Surplus
Texas 12.70 Shortage 1.18 Shortage 1.49 Shortage
Utah 1.64 Shortage 0.53 Surplus 0.62 Surplus
Vermont 0.15 Surplus 0.20 Surplus 0.19 Surplus
Virginia 2.16 Shortage 0.80 Surplus 0.93 Sufficient
Washington 1.79 Shortage 1.02 Sufficient 1.14 Shortage
West Virginia 0.92 Sufficient 0.92 Sufficient 0.92 Sufficient
Wisconsin 0.97 Sufficient 0.35 Surplus 0.41 Surplus
Wyoming 0.56 Surplus 0.39 Surplus 0.42 Surplus
1
Alaska did not report the number of commercial parking spaces; however, the number of public spaces exceeded the
estimated total demand.
33
4.3 RESULTS FROM THE DRIVER SURVEY
Several hundred drivers provided written and verbal comments, both solicited and unsolicited, regarding
the availability of truck parking. Overwhelmingly, drivers remarked that there are not enough parking
spaces at either public rest areas or commercial truck stops and travel plazas, particularly during the
overnight hours. Drivers also reported that more parking is needed near metropolitan areas and in certain
regions of the country (e.g., Northeast, Southern California, Northwest).
Drivers were asked how frequently they encounter available parking at public and commercial truck
parking facilities (table 18). Among the overall sample, only 11 percent of respondents indicated that they
frequently or almost always find available parking at public rest areas and only 34 percent of respondents
reported that they frequently or almost always find available parking at commercial truck stops. Forty-
eight percent of respondents indicated that they only rarely or almost never find available parking at
public rest areas, while only 16 percent reported that they only rarely or almost never find available
parking at commercial truck stops.
Table 18. Frequency with which drivers find available parking at

public rest areas and commercial truck stops.
Almost Almost
Type of Facility Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
Public Rest Areas 14% 34% 41% 9% 2%
Commercial Truck Stops 4% 12% 51% 25% 9%
Drivers also had the opportunity to rate how often their next stop (e.g., shipper or receiver) has available
parking. The most frequently reported response (by 40 percent of the sample) was that sometimes their
next stop has available parking. Thirty-seven percent of drivers reported that their next stop has available
parking rarely or almost never. Twenty-three percent indicated that their next stop has available parking
frequently or almost always.
34
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Chapter 5 − Activities
5.0 ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE SHORTAGES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This section of the report presents a compilation of recommended actions for addressing commercial truck
parking shortages. The first set of recommendations was obtained through discussions with various
stakeholder groups. These are groups that, in general, represent the national stakeholder constituencies,
such as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) [enforcement] and Parents Against Tired
Truckers (PATT) [safety community]. These stakeholders help provide a high-level, national view on the
issue and possible solutions.
The second set of recommendations was provided by the participating State partnerships. The
recommendations, while often mirroring the national-level recommendations, also focus on State- and
corridor-specific solutions – that is, the “grass roots” level.
5.2 REST AREA FORUM
On June 29-30, 1999, FHWA hosted a two-day Rest Area Forum in Atlanta, GA. More than
70 representatives from State DOTs and enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, commercial
drivers, commercial truck stop operators, safety advocates, and other interested stakeholders participated
in the Forum, which was intended to achieve the following objectives:
• Review issues surrounding the provision of parking for commercial drivers by both States and
commercial truck stop operators.
• Describe and document success stories and best practices.
• Consider means to provide real-time information on the availability of truck parking spaces and
information on driver fatigue.
• Identify actions and initiatives, including legislative actions and funding initiatives, that could be
undertaken to address parking shortages.
A number of issues were identified by the participants, and recommendations were developed for the
seven highest-ranked issues, which are presented below, but not in any ranked order.
• Improve safety and security at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
• Provide low-interest loans, tax incentives, and public -private partnerships to support commercial
truck stops (i.e., meet parking space demand through the private sector).
• Use alternative parking sites such as weigh stations and park-and-ride lots.
• Improve the provision and location of public rest areas and commercial truck stops (e.g., spacing
standards between parking areas).
• Improve financial support for improving and expanding public rest areas, and make this a safety-
related issue.
• Eliminate time limits on parking at public rest areas. Alternately, enforce time limits to increase the
availability of spaces at public rest areas.
• Increase driver education and information on causes of fatigue and on the availability and location of
available parking spaces.
35
These recommendations served as a resource for identifying a number of questions that were included in the
survey. (2) It is interesting to note that the findings of the current study, which draws upon a significantly
larger (and different) population than that included in the Rest Area Forum, are consistent with and support
these recommendations. The Rest Area Forum report also noted that the recommendations developed were
not necessarily consensus recommendations and that various stakeholders disagreed on approaches to
addressing shortages of commercial vehicle parking spaces. The results of the current study support this lack
of consensus, in particular on the issue of whether parking space shortages should be addressed by
expanding public rest areas or relying on the private sector to meet demand.
5.3 NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS
During the course of the study, FHWA provided the study team with a detailed listing of stakeholder
groups that comprise the “national stakeholder” interests. These groups represent the enforcement
community, the motor carrier industry, commercial truck stop operators, shippers and receivers, and the
safety community. The intent of discussing truck parking space availability issues with stakeholders was
to obtain a balanced portrayal of how the issue of truck parking space availability affects the various
interest groups.
Each group was contacted by telephone to discuss the proposed interview. Groups were then given a
list of questions and issues and either provided written comments or agreed to telephone discussions. As
can be seen, the groups share a common desire to solve the truck parking problem. As outlined in this list,
a variety of positions were proposed, including expanding public parking, changing regulations and
financing, and increasing the number of commercial truck stop and travel plaza spaces:
• Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety. Expansion of commercial facilities represents the best
solution to the truck parking problem.
• America’s Road Team (ART). ART supports 1) increased State and Federal funding for public rest
stop spaces and 2) encourages the use of existing facilities, such as weigh stations and park-and-ride
lots, for parking, where possible.
• American Trucking Association (ATA) Foundation. ATA believes that DOT should lead a concerted
effort to fund the construction of additional truck parking using existing funding sources. DOT should
also explore technology for improving the efficiency of existing resources. ATA does not advocate
one method of eliminating the shortfall over another. Instead, ATA wants organizations and agencies
to do everything possible to improve the availability of parking spaces at both public and commercial
facilities for truck drivers.
• Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). CVSA has been active on this issue for two years.
CVSA believes that there is a shortage of parking spaces and that the next reauthorization should
include a Federal mandate to use highway funds to construct rest stop facilities if a need is
demonstrated and proven. CVSA believes the permissive language on this issue is not strong enough
and that a formal mandate is needed. A Federal mandate and funding for building new or additional
parking facilities would be the most effective means of addressing the problem. Additional short-term
solutions include the following:
• Change State policies that restrict the amount of time truckers may stay in public rest areas.
• Use inspection and weigh station facilities during off-hours to provide additional parking.
• Use satellite parking to provide additional parking spaces.
36
• Communicate information on space availability and facility locations to drivers. [Maryland is

currently doing this through variable message signs (VMSs), the Web, and brochures.]
• Motor Freight Carriers Association (MFCA). MFCA stands behind the results of the ATA Foundation
rest area/truck stop study, “Making Space for Safety,” as far as the truck parking shortage is
concerned. They report, “while our segment of the industry does not use public rest areas or
commercial truck stops and travel plazas for long-term parking, we do believe that more can be done
to encourage public/private partnerships to help solve the parking shortage.”
• NATSO, Inc., the Association representing America’s Travel Plazas and Truck Stops. NATSO
believes that the commercial truck stop industry has in the past adequately met the needs of the
professional driver and will do so in the future. NATSO believes professional trucking companies and
drivers should bear the responsibility of finding safe, legal places to store their equipment. In that
regard, NATSO recommends the following:
• Increase yearly truck registration fees with the stipulation that these special funds can be used by
States only on initiatives to address the truck parking issue.
• Implement a program that allows States to close rest areas in locations that are well served by
private-sector businesses and shift funds to areas in which additional development is desirable.
• Remove cost-prohibitive road improvement requirements imposed by State DOTs upon developers
attempting to open new facilities.
• Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association (OOIDA). OOIDA feels this is a problem so

important to the industry that meaningful solutions will be found only through cooperation among all
the stakeholders. Actions that OOIDA believes would be beneficial include the following:
• Build more and bigger public rest areas.

• Provide designated “trucks only” public rest areas.
• Increase the number of overall spaces.
• Accommodate longer (e.g., 53-ft) trailers.
• Stop closing existing public rest areas.
• Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT). PATT believes that a Federal mandate and funding for
building new or additional parking facilities would be the most effective means of addressing the
problem. Additional solutions include the following:
• Provide low-interest loans for developing truck parking facilities (absent direct funding or as a
supplement).
• Explore public -private partnerships for developing additional rest facilities. An example would be a
“super lot” in which a vendor or contractor would develop a facility on a State-provided land.
Another example would be to have highway contractors who are working in an area in which a
truck rest stop is located be available to help build additional parking spaces at that rest stop.
• Review individual State policies that restrict the amount of time truckers may stay in public rest areas.
• Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA). PMAA feels that ensuring that drivers get
adequate sleep is the responsibility of the companies that use their services and that the best way to
address parking shortages is for the trucking industry to seek out alternative solutions. For example,
setting schedules so that drivers do not necessarily arrive in congested areas during peak times would
help reduce overcrowding in some locations. The trucking industry could develop consortia to locate
available parking areas in which inadequate parking currently exists, and large carriers could seek out
37
parking areas within reasonable distances of thruways and contract for parking at those facilities.
Trucking companies could also work with their customers, shippers, and receivers to allow trucks to
park at their facilities.
• Four other stakeholders [American Automobile Association, International Association of Chiefs of

Police, National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), and National Private Truck Council
(NPTC] were contacted but did not have an official position on the truck parking issue.
5.4 ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE STATE PARTNERSHIPS
Partners provided a set of recommended actions to solve any parking shortfalls that have been identified
either through this study or as a result of other similar studies conducted in recent years for their States.
These actions fall into six broad categories, as listed below.
• Actions to expand or improve public rest areas.

• Actions to expand or improve commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
• Actions to encourage the formation of public -private partnerships.
• Actions to educate or inform drivers about available spaces.
• Actions to change parking enforcement rules.
• Actions to conduct additional studies.
Table 19 summarizes the actions that have either recently been completed or are currently being
implemented in each State. Table 20 summarizes the actions by each State partnership for future
implementation. The sections that follow describe in more detail some of the specific suggestions or
comments associated with each of these six categories.
38
Table 19. Summary of recent or current actions pursued by State partners.
Expand
Expand Public Commercial Foster Improve Enforcement Additional
State Facilities Facilities Partnerships Information Changes Studies
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ü ü
Arkansas ü ü ü ü
California ü ü ü
Colorado ü ü
Connecticut ü ü
Delaware
Florida ü ü
Georgia ü ü ü
Idaho ü ü ü ü
Illinois ü ü ü
Indiana ü ü
Iowa ü ü
Kansas
Kentucky ü
Louisiana ü ü ü
Maine ü
Maryland ü ü
Massachusetts ü
Michigan ü
Minnesota
Mississippi ü
Missouri ü ü ü ü
Montana ü ü
Nebraska ü
Nevada ü ü ü
New Hampshire
New Jersey ü
New Mexico ü
New York ü
North Carolina ü ü ü ü
North Dakota
Ohio ü ü ü
Oklahoma
Oregon ü ü
Pennsylvania ü ü
Rhode Island ü ü ü
South Carolina ü
South Dakota
Tennessee ü ü
Texas ü
Utah
Vermont ü
Virginia ü ü ü
Washington ü
West Virginia ü
Wisconsin ü ü ü ü ü
Wyoming ü ü ü
Note: Checks denote States reporting recent or current actions.
39
Table 20. Summary of future actions recommended by State partners.
Expand
Expand Public Commercial Foster Improve Enforcement Additional
State Facilities Facilities Partnerships Information Changes Studies
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona ü ü
Arkansas ü ü ü ü
California ü ü ü
Colorado ü ü
Connecticut ü
Delaware ü ü
Florida ü ü
Georgia ü ü ü
Idaho ü ü ü ü
Illinois ü ü
Indiana ü ü ü
Iowa ü
Kansas
Kentucky ü
Louisiana ü ü ü
Maine ü
Maryland ü ü
Massachusetts ü
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi ü
Missouri ü ü ü ü
Montana ü
Nebraska ü
Nevada ü ü ü
New Hampshire
New Jersey ü
New M exico ü
New York ü
North Carolina ü ü ü
North Dakota ü
Ohio ü ü
Oklahoma
Oregon ü ü
Pennsylvania ü ü
Rhode Island ü ü
South Carolina ü
South Dakota ü
Tennessee ü ü
Texas ü
Utah
Vermont ü
Virginia ü ü ü
Washington ü
West Virginia ü
Wisconsin ü ü ü ü ü
Wyoming ü ü ü
Note: Checks denote States planning or considering future actions.
40
5.4.1 Actions to Expand or Improve Rest Areas
Thirty-two States indicated that they were currently taking or had recently taken actions to expand or
improve the public rest area facilities as a strategy to increase the availability of adequate parking for
trucks, and five additional States indicated an intention to do so in the future. The recommendations on
how to expand public facilities included the following:
• Construct new public rest area facilities with additional truck parking spaces. Consider developing
truck-only parking facilities. Raise the priority of public rest area construction by making it a safety-
related issue.
• Add new truck spaces to existing public rest areas as part of scheduled rest area reconstruction or
rehabilitation. Redesign and reconfigure rest areas to increase parking and improve commercial
vehicle circulation through the lot. Also, convert parallel parking to pull-through parking for added
driver convenience.
• Convert closed public rest areas into parking facilities, and consider designating these facilities for
truck-only parking.
• Investigate the use of Federal funds for maintaining public rest areas. Explore alternative financing of
public rest area construction. Develop pilot projects for generating revenue to keep public rest areas
open.
• Partner with other State agencies, such as the Department of Tourism, to incorporate truck parking
needs into the development of new tourist information sites.
• Review and expand security at public rest areas by providing call boxes, cameras, increased law
enforcement, etc.
• Identify locations where commercial vehicle parking can be combined with ports of entry, weigh
stations, or police substations. Consider exempting trucks from enforcement actions to encourage the
use of these sites for parking by fatigued drivers.
• Construct turnouts in rural sections of Interstate for parallel parking by commercial trucks.
• Upgrade facilities currently closed during off-season to be open year round.
• Improve geometric design at interchanges to increase convenience to drivers choosing to exit. For
example, increase turning radii, widen narrow bridges, place traffic signals where warranted, and add
turning lanes to ease access and egress to commercial truck stops and travel plazas.
5.4.2 Actions to Expand or Improve Commercial Truck Stops and Travel Plazas
Eighteen States indicated that they were currently taking or had recently taken actions to help expand or
improve commercial truck stops and travel plazas, and 15 of these States expressed an interest in continuing
to do so in the future.a Six additional States (Delaware, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and
Wyoming) indicated that they intended to rely on the private sector to provide additional commercial truck
a
The 18 States cited refers to those States that identified this strategy in their draft action plans. It does not necessarily
reflect the total number of States in which individual truck stop operators plan to expand facilities.
41
parking along overcrowded corridors. Growth estimates provided by the NATSO Foundation indicated that
the number of private spaces has increased by an average of 6.5 percent per year over the last several years.
If this rate continues, much of the private demand can be accommodated by the anticipated growth in
private spaces.
5.4.3 Actions to Encourage Formation of Public-Private Partnerships
Six States indicated that they were currently taking or had recently taken actions to encourage formation
of public -private partnerships to increase the availability of adequate parking for trucks, and five of these
States expressed an interest in continuing to do so in the future. The recommendations on how to
encourage formation of public -private partnerships included the following:
• Create working groups between public and private sectors to develop new parking and explore
options to overcome barriers to cooperation.
• Work with the private sector to redevelop or construct new public rest areas with direct access to the
Interstate.
• Provide low-interest loans or grants to commercial truck stops and travel plazas to increase capacity.
• Construct State-owned lots adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel plazas and enter into
agreements to lease or maintain the lots.
• Work with owners of commercial truck stops to help them promote the availability of parking in large
lots close to the Interstate highway (e.g., provide signage on the highway).
5.4.4 Actions to Educate or Inform Drivers about Available Spaces
Seventeen States indicated that they were currently taking or had recently taken actions to better educate
or inform drivers about available parking spaces, and 16 of these States expressed an interest in
continuing to do so in the future. States suggested that the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
infrastructure may provide real-time information on the availability of parking to drivers. In addition, States
suggested that drivers be informed of the importance of complying with HOS rules to encourage fatigued
drivers to pull off the road. Specific recommendations offered by the States included the following:
• Educate drivers on the safety benefits of rest and encourage them to use available spaces. For example,
provide safety information (e.g., through brochures and public service announcements) to both drivers
and trucking companies about the relationship between driver fatigue and accidents to encourage
fatigued drivers to get off the road.
• Develop ITS deployments that provide drivers with real-time information on the location and
availability of parking spaces. For example, investigate using cellular phones and radio frequencies to
broadcast parking locations and availability to drivers.
• Investigate using mailings related to credentials administration for the International Registration Plan
(IRP) and the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) as a means of distributing information on the
location and type of parking spaces within the base State to participating motor carriers.
• Publish and distribute a “trucker’s map” that pinpoints parking facilities for drivers.
42
• Initiate a program that informs drivers of State -approved parking facilities. Such facilities may have
security, lighting, and other services that will encourage drivers to use existing spaces.
• Use both static and real-time signage to provide drivers with information about availability and
location of public and private parking spaces.
5.4.5 Actions to Change Parking Enforcement Rules
Five States indicated that they recently had implemented or may in the future implement changes in
parking regulations and other development-related regulations related to commercial vehicle parking.
Specific recommendations offered by the States included the following:
• Implement more stringent enforcement of parking rules to remove vehicles from unsafe locations
such as interchange ramps.
• Change parking limits to permit trucks more time to park at public rest areas.
• Encourage local government and business support for constructing and operating commercial truck
stop facilities in or near their community industrial and business parks (i.e., zoning). The “Not in My
Backyard” syndrome has made it difficult to gain this local support. This issue has become a major
problem in the development of new commercial truck stops and public rest area facilities near the
boundaries of larger cities.
• Encourage better recognition or credit and tax incentives for companies and terminal operators who
provide “truck staging area” facilities for pickup and delivery activities with 24-hour access, parking,
sanitation, and security. This could be promoted at both the State and national levels.
• Promote building requirements for future warehouse and delivery facilities to incorporate truck
parking and staging facilities as part of their development/building permit process. Encourage
public/private partnerships to fund or offset these increased costs. This could be promoted at both the
State and local levels.
5.4.6 Actions to Conduct Additional Studies
Eight States indicated that they recently had conducted or may in the future conduct additional studies on
the adequacy of parking for commercial vehicles to refine the results emerging from the Section 4027
study and to develop more detailed strategies targeted at specific locations.
One State will be pursing more detailed truck parking supply and demand studies at the State and regional
levels on specific, heavily traveled truck corridors. The methodology used for the national study will be
modified. Field interviews with truckers could be added to make the results of these studies more useful as
planning tools for developing measures to address identified parking problems.
Another State suggested that a multi-State committee be established to evaluate alternatives and recommend
solutions that would address “on-time deliveries.” Many States noted that truck parking demand at certain
locations is a reflection of trucks “staging” to provide just-in-time delivery.
43
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report Chapter 6 –Conclusions
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 STUDY SUMMARY
Section 4027 of the TEA-21 requires:
…a study to determine the location and quantity of parking facilities at commercial truck stops and
travel plazas and public rest areas that could be used by motor carriers to comply with Federal hours
of service rules. The study shall include an inventory of current facilities serving the National
reduce the shortages.
This report, which has been prepared in cooperation with research entities representing motor carriers, the
travel plaza industry, and commercial motor vehicle drivers, presents the findings of the Section 4027
study. These findings include results of a national driver survey, estimates of truck parking demand
generated by a demand model, estimates of truck parking supply generated by a national inventory of
truck parking facilities, and comments and recommendations on the issue of truck parking from State
partnerships and national stakeholders. Sections 2.0 through 5.0 of this report describe the detailed results
of this study, which are summarized in the list below:
• Only 11 and 34 percent, respectively, of truck drivers surveyed in the national driver survey indicated
that they frequently or almost always find parking available at public rest areas and at commercial
truck stops and travel plazas. Nearly half reported rarely or almost never finding available parking at
public rest areas. Fewer than half of the truck drivers indicated that they frequently or almost always
find any of the following features at truck parking facilities: parking convenient to the highway,
parking facilities with the needed amenities, parking that allows adequate time, parking with enough
room to drive in and out, and parking spaces used only by trucks. For each feature, about 40 percent
of respondents indicated that they sometimes find that feature, and the remainder indicated that they
rarely or almost never find that feature. The survey results indicate that truck drivers do perceive that
there is a problem with the adequacy of available truck parking.
• An analysis of the driver surveys indicated that drivers prefer commercial truck stops and travel
plazas for most activities that require them to park, but they prefer public rest areas when stopping for
taking a quick nap. Weighting these results by the relative time spent on each activity indicated that
23 percent of the demand for truck parking is at public rest areas and 77 percent of the demand is for
parking at commercial truck stops and travel plazas. This split is a key element in understanding the
adequacy of truck parking because in many areas where there is an apparent shortage of spaces at
public rest areas, there is an apparent surplus at commercial truck stops and travel plazas. One way to
address the shortage of public parking spaces is to take steps to shift the demand to the available
private spaces.
• The national survey of truck parking spaces identified 31,249 spaces at 1,771 public facilities
(e.g., public rest areas, pull-offs, and weigh stations) and between 167,881 and 284,601 spaces at
3,382 commercial facilities. The demand model estimated a total demand for 66,067 spaces at public
facilities and 221,249 spaces at commercial facilities. While the estimated demand for parking spaces
at public facilities far outstrips the supply, the supply at commercial facilities seems sufficient to meet
the current demand.
• A total of between 182,225 and 288,995 parking spaces was identified along Interstate highways,
compared to an estimated demand for 245,389 truck parking spaces. A total of between 16,558 and
44
26,855 parking spaces was identified along non-Interstate highways, compared to an estimated
demand for 41,927 spaces. The total supply of parking spaces along Interstate highways seems to
match the estimated demand, while the total supply along non-Interstate highways falls far short of
the estimated demand. Part of the discrepancy along non-Interstate highways may be accounted for by
the greater access to other locations at which to park (e.g., restaurants and shopping malls) along non-
Interstate highways than along Interstate highways.
• An analysis of the supply and demand for truck parking indicates that 35 States have a current
shortage of parking at public facilities, while only 8 States have a shortage at commercial facilities,
and 12 States have a shortage when both types of facilities are considered together. In some cases, the
apparent shortage may be mitigated by regional factors (e.g., Delaware could be considered a “pass-
through” State, and the parking shortage in Delaware may be offset by parking surpluses in nearby
States). In other cases, however, no apparent mitigation exists.
• The growth rate of demand for truck parking was estimated to be 2.7 percent annually, while the
growth rate of supply of public spaces was estimated to be 1 percent annually, and the growth rate of
private spaces was estimated to be 6.5 percent annually. These estimates suggest that, if other factors
that affect truck parking remain the same, the apparent shortage of spaces at public rest areas will
worsen while a growing surplus of spaces at commercial truck stops will develop.
• A few States restrict parking (e.g., place time restrictions for parking) at public rest areas, which can
further exacerbate any supply shortages that may exist for parking at public facilities. At the same
time, some States augment the parking spaces available at public rest areas with parking spaces at
other public facilities such as weigh stations.
• A number of factors indicate that the degree to which truck drivers use parking spaces at public rest
areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas interchangeably is limited. Responses to the driver
survey indicate a preference for different facilities, depending on the reason for the stop. Field
observational studies noted that parking spaces at public rest areas often fill up sooner than spaces at
commercial facilities. The study team believes these differences arise for the following reasons:
public rest areas typically offer more convenient access to the highway and more certainty of whether
a parking space exists (because drivers can often observe the lot from the highway), while
commercial truck stops and travel plazas typically offer more amenities. One way to shift demand
from public rest areas to commercial truck stops and travel plazas would be to increase the
convenience and certainty of finding parking spaces at commercial facilities.
• Geographically, truck parking shortages appear to be more common in the Northeast and the
Midwest.
• A number of recommendations for addressing truck parking shortages were proposed by participants
in the Rest Area Forum, national stakeholders, and State partnerships. Most of these
recommendations fall into one of the following six categories: expand or improve public rest areas,
expand or improve commercial truck stops, encourage formation of public -private partnerships,
educate or inform drivers about available spaces, change parking enforcement rules, and conduct
additional studies.
Although there is a consensus that the adequacy of truck parking is an important issue that must be
addressed, there is wide disagreement both among the various stakeholder groups and among the States
about the best approach to addressing the problem. Although the problem has national consequences, both
the problem and the proposed solutions seem to be more local in nature. For example, some States have
an apparent shortage of parking spaces while nearby States have an apparent surplus, and any shortages
that do exist are often concentrated on a few sections of highway within a State. The solutions, too, can be
45
local in nature, with some States proposing to leverage existing ITS initiatives to broadcast parking
information, others proposing to open more parking facilities, and others relying on private industry to
meet the demand. One point of agreement, however, is that the various agencies, organizations, and
special interest groups worked together as part of the State partnerships and want to continue to work
together to address this issue.
6.2 INTERPRETATION OF THE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The previous sections of this report provide detailed information about the adequacy of truck parking on
the NHS. These results, when presented and viewed as a series of snapshots, tell only part of the story.
Missing from that type of snapshot presentation is the bigger picture that surrounds the adequacy of
commercial truck parking facilities serving the NHS. To wit: Is there a truck parking problem, and if so,
what should be done about it? This section looks at the bigger picture by posing a series of questions
whose answers are key to understanding and addressing the adequacy of truck parking and suggesting
answers to these questions that are synthesized from the report findings. In particular, nearly all of the
suggestions identified below are restatements of recommendations made by the State partners for the
express purpose of establishing a starting framework for considering solutions to specific truck parking
problems.
6.2.1 What problems are associate d with an inadequate supply of truck parking spaces?
An inadequate supply of truck parking spaces can result in two negative consequences: (1) tired truck
drivers may continue to drive because they have difficulty finding a place to park for rest, and (2) truck
drivers may choose to park at unsafe locations, such as the shoulder of the road and exit ramps, if they are
unable to find available parking. Both of these consequences generate a safety hazard for the truck driver
and for other drivers using the NHS. However, any program meant to address the problems of an
inadequate supply of truck parking spaces must concentrate on a number of issues beyond simply
providing additional parking spaces. For example, a Federal program that simply earmarks funds for each
State to build new truck parking may not completely address the “big picture” need. Earmarking funds for
every State may not be necessary if some States already have a sufficient supply of truck parking. Also,
building spaces that have neither the convenience nor the amenities necessary to convince a truck driver
to use the spaces would not help; tired truck drivers would either continue to drive to locate spaces with
preferred amenities or would park in unsafe locations because of the greater convenience. Finally, parking
spaces need to be adequately spaced so that a surplus of spaces is not developed in a select group of
locations while other roadway segments continue to have an inadequate supply of spaces. Consequently,
the analyses and conclusions in this report will regularly refer back to these issues.
6.2.2 Is there an adequate supply of truck parking spaces for the NHS?
In determining whether the supply of truck parking spaces is adequate, it is important to evaluate not only
the total supply of truck parking, but also the distribution (i.e., Are spaces located at the places necessary
to meet demand?) and type (i.e., Will truckers use the spaces?) of those parking spaces.
A key issue is to determine what types of parking spaces are available. That is, do the available spaces
have the convenience and amenities necessary so that the driver will choose to use them? If these spaces
do not meet the needs of a driver, the driver may choose to either drive tired or park on the shoulder. This
fact leads to another key element in addressing this problem: a proposed solution must not only consider
the number of available spaces, but must also consider the factors that influence truck drivers’ choices
about where and when to park.
46
A second key issue is to determine whether the distribution and spacing of parking spaces address the
factors that impact the need for these spaces. For example, an important factor impacting the demand for
truck parking spaces is the HOS regulations, which place strict limits on the number of consecutive hours
a truck driver may drive. If a driver has “used up” his hours, she/he is forced to either violate these
regulations or find a place to rest. If there are no legal parking spaces available, the driver must either
park at an unsanctioned location (e.g., an exit ramp) or continue to drive until a parking space is located.
Similarly, a very tired driver must either find a parking space immediately or continue to drive while
tired. This leads to the following observations about the truck parking problem with respect to distribution
and spacing:
• The problem of truck parking is, by its very nature, a local problem. A State or highway that has
sufficient parking spaces, in general, can still have important stretches of highway with inadequate
parking.
• In the absence of an extreme abundance of truck parking spaces, the factors that influence truck
parking must include some flexibility to alleviate truck parking problems. For example, because HOS
regulations (or fatigue) place strict limits on the amount of time a driver may drive, drivers must have
some flexibility in where they park. It may be safer for a highly fatigued driver to take a short nap on
an exit ramp than to continue to drive. On the other hand, a driver who habitually parks on exit ramps
may pose a greater safety hazard to himself and the general public than one who drives so as to avoid
the necessity of parking on ramps.
The driver surveys, field observations, and demand model calculations all support the conclusion that
there is a shortage of truck parking spaces at many locations in the United States and that this shortage is
worse for parking at public rest areas than at commercial truck stops and travel plazas. Shortages also
appear to be worse for non-Interstate highways, though the fact that those highways are often not access-
controlled makes it more likely that other types of parking spaces (i.e., not at public rest areas or
commercial truck stops or travel plazas) are used as supplemental parking.
The demand model provides a useful method for identifying locations at which parking shortages may
exist, but further investigation is required to confirm the implications of the demand model. For example,
the demand model does not consider the fact that demand generated in one section of a highway can often
be safely met by supply in a nearby section or that a driver who is getting tired might stop early to park at
a favored facility. Also, the demand model does not consider a number of local factors that can influence
demand, such as a higher rate of parking near major distribution centers. Further research and refinement
of the demand model could help sharpen the demand estimates made with the model. In the meantime, it
should be used as only an indicator of potential shortages.
Finally, there is the question of the type of parking (public or private) that is available. Many field surveys
have observed that drivers choose to park at overcrowded public rest areas or on the shoulder when
parking is available at a nearby commercial truck stop or travel plaza. This could be caused by the
uncertainty of finding parking at a nearby truck stop, the relative difficulty of entering and exiting a truck
stop, or some other reason. If steps are taken to reduce the factors that make some truck drivers favor
parking at public rest areas (or even on shoulders), then the commercial truck stop industry can be
effective in addressing the need for truck parking. However, as long as truck drivers view these types of
parking spaces differently, a need will exist for both types of parking spaces.
6.2.3 Is it appropriate for the State and Federal governments to take steps to address any
inadequacies in truck parking, if they exist?
Even if there is a shortage of truck parking spaces, it may not be the responsibility of the State or Federal
government to address the problem. Certain stakeholder groups have argued that expanding public
47
parking for commercial vehicles amounts to a subsidy of the trucking industry and unfairly penalizes the
commercial truck stops that serve it. Parallels have been drawn to the aviation industry, where Federal
HOS regulations limit pilot flying time, but the Federal government does not help provide sleeping
facilities for the pilots.
The other side of the issue is that tired truck drivers pose an imminent health risk to other drivers on the
road and that governments have a prevailing interest to protect citizen-drivers by helping tired truck
drivers find rest. This view is supported by the existence of citizen-led organizations that are lobbying the
government to address this problem and by the media attention that this problem has drawn.
The clearest indication of whether the government has a role to play in addressing this issue comes
directly from the comments of the stakeholders interviewed for this study. While different stakeholders
prefer different roles for government, ranging from leveraging ITS technologies to better disseminate
information about available parking spaces to building more and better public parking facilities, most
stakeholders do agree that government should play a role. For example, a large number of State partner
groups advocate a hybrid approach that involves the commercial industry working with the State and/or
Federal government to help solve the parking problem.
6.2.4 How can locations with inadequate truck parking be identified?
The first step in alleviating parking shortages is to identify the locations at which those parking shortages
exist. The demand model and supply inventory represent a good first step in achieving this goal. The
primary limitations of this model, however, are that it does not consider a number of local factors that can
affect local demand (e.g., proximity to distribution centers that results in truck drivers staging at parking
facilities, proximity to other parking facilities that absorb demand, and consideration of travel patterns
that affect the short-haul/long-haul ratio). Because of these limitations, the model should be used as a
guideline for identifying possible locations of parking shortages that can be evaluated more carefully
through additional study and field observations.
As a first step in this process, State governments can use their knowledge of local conditions to refine the
model for local usage. For example, the model may estimate that the parking supply for an important
North-South travel corridor is “at capacity.” Because the route of interest is an important long-distance
travel corridor, however, the proportion of long-haul vehicles on the route is likely higher than that used
in the model, which will result in a greater demand than that estimated by the model. Alternately, a route
between two nearby population centers may generate an unusually high amount of short-haul commercial
traffic, which will result in a smaller demand than that estimated by the model. In each case, model
parameters can be calibrated specifically for these routes in order to generate more accurate demand
estimates.
Once locations with possible shortages have been identified, field observations can be used to verify the
shortage prior to implementation of any expensive plans to address the perceived shortage. These field
observations should note not only signs of over-utilized parking facilities (e.g., parking above capacity at
public rest areas and parking on shoulders), but also under-utilized parking facilities that may be nearby.
Many field studies have already identified situations in which public rest areas were full and overflowing
and trucks were parking on shoulders and exit ramps, but capacity still existed at nearby commercial truck
stops and travel plazas. To identify the most cost-effective solution to a local truck parking problem, the
field observations must identify existing resources that might be used to address the problem. Useful
resources might include under-utilized parking at commercial truck stops and travel plazas; VMSs, radio
broadcasts, and Intelligent Transportation Technology (e.g., Global Positioning System) to deliver real-
time parking information and other public facilitie s on the highway (e.g., park-and-ride lots and weigh
stations) that could be opened for parking at night. Several State partners have recommended that the
Federal government facilitate this process by providing funds to conduct additional studies (e.g., field
48
observations) where parking shortages are suspected. Furthermore, implementation guides can be
developed to help standardize and increase the effectiveness of these studies, as can evaluation guides to
help interpret the results of these studies for the purpose of formulating cost-effective plans for addressing
the problem.
One of the most powerful features of the truck parking demand model is its ability to estimate future
demand so that long-range plans can be formulated to accommodate this future demand. States could use
this model to initially identify locations with possible parking shortages, then, based on local knowledge
and field observations, refine the model to better reflect local conditions. The refined model could then be
used to make long-term projections of parking demand so that appropriate long-term plans could be
implemented.
6.2.5 How can inadequate parking at some locations be rectified?
When a parking shortage has been identified, a number of alternatives exist for how best to address that
shortage. The alternatives that are best for a particular location will depend primarily on the local
observations that were made while verifying the parking shortage. The following list describes some local
observations that may be made and the possible solutions. The suggestions listed below are restatements
of various suggestions made by the State partners consulted as part of the research for this report:
• Trucks are observed parking on the shoulder, but parking is available both at nearby public rest areas
and commercial truck stops and travel plazas. This may be an indication that truck drivers are not
aware of the parking that is available, and a program to disseminate parking information (e.g., with
fixed highway signage, with VMSs, and through the Internet) might help. Truck drivers may not be
aware of the safety risks of parking on the shoulder, and educational brochures could be used to teach
them about these safety risks. Perhaps local enforcement of safe parking practices is lax. While
waking a tired driver and forcing him to drive to another location is probably not a good practice for
enforcement officers, leaving a warning ticket that explains the penalty for parking illegally and
informs the driver of nearby parking locations might be more appropriate.
• Trucks are observed parking at overcrowded rest areas, but parking is available at nearby commercial
truck stops and travel plazas. Truck drivers might not be aware of the available parking, and some of
the suggestions mentioned above might help (e.g., VMSs, educational brochures). Truck drivers may
favor the convenience of parking at a public rest area. If the exit ramps or roadways leading to nearby
commercial truck stops and travel plazas are difficult to navigate, the State could choose to improve
the exit ramps and improve access to the parking provided at the commercial facilities. Providing
signage on corridors to inform drivers of the nearby facilities, and better yet, whether parking is
currently available at those facilities, might also make use of the commercial facilities more
appealing. If sufficient parking is available, the State can also make inappropriate parking less
convenient by issuing tickets and levying fines.
• Overcrowded truck parking facilities are observed near a major city. Truck drivers may be using the
parking facilities as a staging area to ensure timely arrival at a loading/unloading facility. Perhaps the
owners or managers of the loading/unloading facilities could be convinced to provide access to a
staging area for trucks making deliveries.
• Trucks are observed parking illegally, but legal parking is available nearby, information is available
to guide truck drivers to the available parking, and access to this parking is convenient. In this case,
truck drivers are likely parking illegally for the convenience of easy access to the highway, and
enforcement activities could be used to make this illegal parking a less attractive option. Before
beginning to enforce regulations more strictly, a warning period may be appropriate to give truck
49
drivers a chance to become better acquainted with nearby parking facilities and the new enforcement
practices.
• Other nearby parking facilities are near or at capacity, but parking is available at a public rest area. In
this case, it is likely that the physical layout of the rest area makes parking inconvenient for truck
drivers. For example, a rest area may provide only parallel parking for commercial vehicles. The
solution may be to reconfigure the rest area to better accommodate parking for commercial vehicles
in accordance with published guidelines (i.e., American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials) for designing safer and more trucker-friendly public rest areas.
• All nearby parking facilities are near or at capacity. This situation is indicative of a true shortage of
parking spaces, and a new source of parking must be located. However, correcting this problem does
not necessarily entail construction of new public parking facilities. If other public facilities that are
typically closed at night are available, parking at those facilities could be used to supplement the
existing parking. A similar arrangement might be made with nearby commercial facilities, or the
government could rent parking space from commercial facilities for nighttime use. Commercial truck
stops or travel plazas may already have expansion plans that will meet the need, and local government
can take steps to help facilitate those plans. Several State partner groups have suggested that the
Federal government create a program to supply low-interest loans to develop new parking spaces at
commercial facilities located where a demonstrated parking shortage exists. The State or local
government may choose to expand existing public rest areas or construct new ones to meet the
parking shortage.
6.3 SUGGESTED FUTURE RESEARCH
6.3.1 Distribution of Parking Supply
This report has presented a discussion of the model’s limitations and how the limitations hinder the ability of
the model to accurately estimate demand at the segment level. While the demand model used in this study
provides reasonable estimates of truck parking demand, improvements could be made to the model in the
future to improve its ability to estimate parking at a more microscopic level. One specific limitation is that
the model estimates demand for highway segments, ignoring variations in the parking supply that affect
where drivers can park. Thus, there is currently a factor missing from the model that represents the
geographic distribution of supply. Therefore, when field counts are compared to model estimates, as was
done during calibration, it is not surprising that, in some cases, the estimates for one segment are too low,
while the estimates for the next segment are too high. Additional research into how to add a factor to the
model that represents the distribution of parking supply would make the model more accurate at the
segment level and more useful for local planning purposes.
6.3.2 Commodity Flow Patterns
The model estimates parking demand as a result of truck drivers’ needs to rest and obtain services. It does not
consider other factors that might influence demand in a particular region, such as typical commodity flows
or the desire to “stage” close to a shipper/receiver for more quick and easy access. In contrast, the model
distributes demand evenly across the network without consideration of these types of factors. Research into
commodity flow patterns (particularly where flows are heavy) and the location of large distribution centers,
ports, etc., could provide insight into “loading” factors that could be used in the model to help distribute
the demand in a more realistic fashion. Additional research into commodity flow patterns is especially
important because just-in-time delivery is becoming the standard for the movement of goods and products
in the United States.
50
6.3.3 Short-Haul to Long -Haul Ratios
The report discussed the short-haul to long-haul ratio, factors that might affect its variability, and how the
variability was modeled (by classifying each highway segment as either rural or urban and using a different
value for the ratio for rural and urban segments). This methodology, however, may not capture the true
variation in this parameter, and a more realistic model for estimating this ratio for each highway segment
would likely result in better demand estimates. Therefore, it is recommended that future research be
performed to understand how, when, and where the short-haul to long-haul ratio varies and what factors
affect its variance. This could be accomplished by conducting origin-destination studies at a variety of
geographic locations and at different times of the day.
6.3.4 Model Validation
As discussed in the report, the model was calibrated using data collected along nine corridors in four
regions. The demand estimates from the calibrated model were examined for face validity by analysts and
State partnerships; however, no formal validation process was performed. It is recommended that more
field observational studies be conducted and that the results of these studies be used for model validation.
6.3.5 Public-Private Partnerships
A number of States recommended the development of public -private partnerships to assist with the
development and financing of additional parking spaces. However, public -private partnerships often represent
new ground for States, as these partnerships may involve pooling funding, sharing risk, and accommodating
the need for the private sector to show profit on investments. These types of funding and risk-sharing
arrangements often are at variance with more conventional State procurement practices and can be difficult
for States to implement. Candidate issues associated with the creation of public -private partnerships for
providing additional truck parking spaces include the following:
• Differences between the public and private sectors’ perception of what is important—the private
sector’s foremost goal is to make a profit. The public sector is concerned with improved operation of
the transportation system.
• Legal issues such as the following: Does the public sector agency have the legal authority to
undertake a public -private partnership? Do Federal and State tax laws prohibit a public agency from
receiving compensation from participation in a public -private partnership?
The study team believes that moving this particular recommendation forward will require additional research
that documents how a successful public-private partnership that implemented a similar type of project
succeeded.a This research would include such issues as the following:
• Documenting how the partnership identified and addressed issues.
• Identifying statutory and regulatory issues that need to be addressed (i.e., revenue sharing and
procurement) prior to the partnership being able to implement the project.
a
An excellent summary of the types of issues encountered in developing public-private partnerships and
recommendations on how to address these is presented in the ITS America/DOT-sponsored study Choosing the Route to Traveler
Information Systems: Decisions for Creating Public/Private Business Plans. Although this report focuses primarily on Advanced
Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), many of the issues will be similar to creating public-private partnerships for providing
additional truck parking spaces.
51
• Observing how the partnership blended public - and private-sector goals (i.e., profit motive versus
providing needed services).
The expected outcome of this research would be a case-study document that States would be able to use
as a reference document to guide the development of other public -private partnerships.
6.3.6 Providing Information on the Availability of Parking Spaces
A common complaint heard throughout the course of the study was that drivers have a difficult time obtaining
information on the location and whereabouts of facilities with available parking. This complaint was
mirrored by similar complaints from commercial truck stop and travel plaza operators that they often have
available spaces while drivers are parking on exit ramps and road shoulders. In the driver interviews, drivers
indicated that they prefer not to park in overcrowded lots where driving can be difficult. A number of
States recommended that providing information to drivers on the location of available parking facilities
would help address these issues and help drivers find a place to obtain adequate rest.
Many States are studying how this type of information can be made available to drivers. Maryland, for
example, received a grant from the I-95 Corridor Coalition to study the feasibility of using VMSs to
provide information to truckers on the location of available truck parking.
Additional research in this area might include the following:
• Identifying which States are providing this type of information and how this information is being
provided. This would include identifying what type of delivery system is being used by the State(s);
the costs; the process used for obtaining, posting, and updating information; and who is responsible
for system operation.
• Identifying any legal or regulatory issues that would need to be addressed in providing this information.
For example, does posting information about the availability of parking spaces at commercial truck
stops and travel plazas constitute advertising on behalf of that facility? Does a State have to provide
equal access to all commercial facilities?
The expected product of this research would be a “lessons learned” report documenting issues that States
would need to consider in developing and implementing such a service.
52
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report References
REFERENCES
1. Commercial Driver Rest & Parking Requirements: Making Space for Safety. Publication Number
FHWA-MC-96-0010, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C., May 1996.
2. Rest Area Forum: Summary of Proceedings. Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-034, Federal

Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., December 1999.
3. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 49 CFR Parts 350,
et al. Hours of Service of Drivers; Driver Rest and Sleep for Safe Operations; Proposed Rule.
Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C., May 2,
2000.
4. Factors That Affect Fatigue in Heavy Truck Accidents. Report Number NTSB/SS-95/01, National
Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., January 1995.
5. Market Research Nighttime Truck Parking Length of Stay Study. Office of Technical Support,
Site Development Unit, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN, March 2000.
6. Schneider, N.R., Alexander, N.O., Baker, D.A., and McCartt, A.T. New York’s Research and
Program Approach to Address the Needs of the Motor Carrier Industry at Public Roadside Rest
Areas, Proceedings, Second International Truck and Bus Safety Symposium, University of
Tennessee Transportation Center, Knoxville, TN, October 1999.
7. Wegmann, F.J., Chatterjee, A., and Clarke, D.B. Truck Parking at Night Along Interstate
Highways—Tennessee Experience. Proceedings, Second International Truck and Bus Safety
Symposium, University of Tennessee Transportation Center. Knoxville, Tennessee, October
1999.
8. Maze, T., Taylor, B.A., and Nelson, M. Commercial Vehicle Parking. Center for Transportation
Research & Education Management Project 99-56, Center for Transportation Research and
Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, December 1999.
9. Truck Parking Areas. Report Number NTSB/SIR-00/01, National Transportation Safety Board,
Washington, D.C., May 2000.
10. Chen, K.J., Pecheux, K.K., Farbry Jr., J., and Fleger, S.A. Commercial Vehicle Driver Survey:
Assessment of Parking Needs and Preferences. Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-160, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2002.
11. Science Applications International Corporation. Technical Guidance—TEA-21 Section 4027

Study of the Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities Serving the National Highway
System. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety Research & Development, Turner
Fairbank Highway Research Center, July 2000.
12. Pecheux, K.K., Chen, K.J., Farbry Jr., J., and Fleger, S.A. Model Development for National
Assessment of Commercial Vehicle Parking. Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-159, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 2002.
53
Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities − Technical Report References
13. Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., December 1999.
14. Assessment of Commercial Driver Rest Area Needs, Study SD00-13 Final Report, South Dakota
Department of Transportation, Pierre, SD, August 2000.
15. Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore Region Transportation Steering
Committee, Baltimore, MD, Press release, TSC’s Baltimore Region Freight Movement Task
Unveils Sign to Help Truckers Find Overnight Truck Stops, June 1999.
54

Dot 41563 DS1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dot 41563 DS1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dot 41563 DS1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

Federal Highway Administration

Janet A. Coleman Michael F. Trentacoste

STUDY OF ADEQUACY OF COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING March 2002

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Stephen A. Fleger, Robert P. Haas, Jeffrey W. Trombly, Rice H. Cross III,

Science Applications International Corporation 11. Contract or Grant No.

Federal Highway Administration March 2000 to June 2001

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Raymond A. Krammes, HRDS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

2.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING DEMAND..........................................................................5

3.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING SUPPLY..........................................................................21

4.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND BALANCES.....................................31

5.0 ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE SHORTAGES................................................................................35

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................44

Figure 1. Respondent distribution by region..........................................................................................7

Table 1. Driver parking locations. .......................................................................................................8

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

• Estimate parking demand using a modeling approach.

Estimate Parking Demand Using a Modeling Approach

Following are highlights from these efforts:

Inventory Public and Commercial Truck Spaces

Identify Deficiencies by Comparing Supply and Demand

• Expand or improve public rest areas.

− A total of 15 States have firm plans to provide additional parking spaces.

• Expand or improve commercial truck stops and travel plazas.

− Remove cost-prohibitive road improvement requirements imposed by State DOTs upon

• Encourage the formation of public -private partnerships.

− Provide low-interest loans or grants to commercial truck stops to increase capacity.

• Educate or inform drivers about available spaces.

• Change parking enforcement rules.

• Conduct additional studies.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

1.3 RESEARCH APPROACH

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

2.0 COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING DEMAND

2.1 FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO PARKING SPACE DEMAND

1. Administer a national survey of driver parking needs and preferences.

2.2 NATIONAL SURVEY OF DRIVER PARKING NEEDS AND PREFERENCES

2.2.1 Survey Methodology

Two methods were used to gather

Long-Haul versus Short-Haul Size of Trucking Company

Long-haul Medium Small

Team Driving Truck Volume

2.2.2 Survey Results

Preference for a Quick Nap Preference for an Extended Rest

Figure 3. Preferred parking locations.

Table 1. Driver parking locations.

Facility Last Stop Next Stop

• No empty spaces are available at nearby facilities (94 percent).

Parking Availability at Rest Areas Parking Availability at Truck

2.3 NATIONAL COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING DEMAND MODEL

2.3.1 Model Development

2.3.1.1 The Simplified Demand Model

D = THT ⋅ Pavg (1)

THT = Pt ⋅ AADT ⋅ L S (2)

2.3.1.2 The Demand Model

Table 2. Demand model variables.