Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration Go to TFHRC homeGo to FHWA websiteFeedback

Go to FHWA website Go to DOT website Study of Adequacy of Commercial Truck Parking Facilities--Technical Report (FHWA-RD-01-158):

view pdf version PDF icon

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 peak 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 parkingp>

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 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, drivers 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.

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.

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 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).


Figure 1. Respondent distribution by region.  Pie chart depicting the following distribution of respondents: Northeast 20 percent, Northwest 8 percent, Southwest 18 percent, Midwest 13 percent, Texas/South-central 16 percent, Upper Midwest 20 percent, and Southeast 5 percent.
Figure 1. Respondent distribution by region.

Two methods were used to gather survey results at the selected commercial truck stops and travel plazas. At 20 locations, researchers made site visits and distributed surveys to truck drivers at those sites. The response rate at those sites was 80 percent, collecting a total of 1,042 completed surveys. At 22 other locations, commercial truck stop and travel plaza operators agreed to make the surveys available in heavily traveled areas of the truck stop and to ship back completed surveys. This resulted in nearly 1,100 additional completed surveys.

Figure 2. Demographics of truck driver respondents.  Four pie charts depicting respondent demographics: Chart 1 Long-Haul versus Short-Haul, 97 and 3 percent, respectively Figure 2. Demographics of truck driver respondents.  Four pie charts depicting respondent demographics: Chart 2 Size of Trucking Company: large 44 percent, medium, 17 percent, small 7 percent, and independent 32 percent
Figure 2. Demographics of truck driver respondents.  Four pie charts depicting respondent demographics: Chart 3 Team Driving: non-teaming 71 percent, teaming 20 percent, and sometimes 9 percent Figure 2. Demographics of truck driver respondents.  Four pie charts depicting respondent demographics: Chart 4 Truck Volume: less than 5,000 per day 23 percent, 5,000 to 15,000 per day 39 percent, and greater than 15,000 per day 38 percent.
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 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:

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.

Figure 3. Preferred parking locations.  Two pie charts.  Chart 1 One depicts preference for a quick nap: truck stop 19 percent, rest area 45 percent, and no preference 36 percent Figure 3. Preferred parking locations.  Two pie charts.  Chart 2 The second pie chart depicts preference for an extended rest: truck stop 78 percent, rest area 6 percent, and no preference 16 percent
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%

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.

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.

Figure 4. Parking availability at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas.  Two pie charts.  Chart 1 depicts truck driver opinions on how often parking is available at public rest areas: seldom 48 percent, frequently 17 percent, and sometimes 41 percent.  The second depicts truck driver opinions on how often parking is available at truck stops and travel plazas: seldom 16 percent, frequently 34 percent, and sometimes 50 percent.   Figure 4. Parking availability at public rest areas and commercial truck stops and travel plazas.  Two pie charts.  Chart 2 depicts truck driver opinions on how often parking is available at truck stops and travel plazas: seldom 16 percent, frequently 34 percent, and sometimes 50 percent.
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:

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. 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.

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 final model 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 System[13] (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.

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:

PR subscript LH equals the sum of the following: 8 days times 24 hours per day minus T subscript DRIVING minus T subscript HOME minus T subscript LOAD/UNLOAD minus T subscript SHIPPER/RECEIVER, end of sum, that sum divided by T subscript DRIVING, to that quotient add the quotient of 5 minutes divided by 60 minutes, the sum of which equals 0.7833

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.

Region
Corridor
Segment
Observed
Trucks
Model
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 Home1

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 Pocatello1

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 Harrisonburg1

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 Harrisburg1

1,493

1,307

-12%

Harrisburg, PA

7

I-81 Harrisburg to Frackville1

618

1,005

63%

Harrisburg, PA

7

Frackville to Scranton 1

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 Bloomsburg1

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%

Memphis, 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%

1Segment classified as a rural segment

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:

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.

State

Highway

Observed Demand

Estimated Demand

Error

Iowa(8)

I-29

599

392

-35%

I-35

487

601

23%

I-80

1,813

1,844

2%

I-380

275

153

-44%

Total

3,174

2,990

-6%

South Dakota(14)

I-29

243

42%

I-90

532

519

-2%

Total

775

865

12%

 

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:

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 Demand

Truck Stop Demand

Total Demand

Estimated Annual 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%

Table 8. Commercial truck parking demand: Comparison of state and demand model estimates.

State

Model

Public Rest Area Demand

Private Truck Stop Demand

Total Demand

Alaska

State Estimate1
Demand Model

68
25

97
88

165
113

California

State Estimate2
Demand Model

9,162
4,539

13,595
15,183

22,757
19,722

Colorado

State Estimate2
Demand Model

1,491
760

2,212
2,546

3,703
3,306

Connecticut

State Estimate3
Demand Model

1,462
616


2,060


2,676

Idaho

State Estimate4
Demand Model

567
734

1,886
2,462

2,453
3,196

Maine

State Estimate5
Demand Model

205
205

691
691

896
896

Nebraska

State Estimate2
Demand Model

519
251

769
837

1,288
1,088

Ohio

State Estimate2
Demand Model

6,931
3,301

10,294
11,059

17,225
14,360

Rhode Island

State Estimate6
Demand Model

228
167

766
566

994
733

South Dakota

State Estimate7
Demand Model

179
199

905
666

1,084
865

Tennessee

State Estimate 8
Demand Model


1,214


4,073


5,287

Vermont

State Estimate 9
Demand Model


27


91


118

West Virginia

State Estimate 10
Demand Model


468


1,572


2,040

Wyoming

State Estimate11
Demand Model


440


1,475


1,915


1Used 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)
2Used a preliminary version of the demand model, which is the same as the final model but with the following different 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)
3Used 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.
4Used 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.
5Maine 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.
6Did not specify the model used to generate the State estimates.
7Used a preliminary version of the demand model, which is the same as the final model but with the following different 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.
8Used 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.
9Vermont conducted a field survey of rest area usage and did not estimate parking demand.
10West Virginia did not provide estimates of rest area demand.
11Wyoming 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.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next