TRAFFIC STUDIES This brings me back to the traffic study. The results of the traffic study, the application of those results by the technicians, and my own judgment concerning their significance, compel me to recommend the changes in plan which you are now considering. First, let me reassure you the study of the traffic engineering firm (p. 64) indicated that Agency estimates of annual patronage were only 2%1⁄2 percent high, and, in fact, that the Agency estimates of peak hour patronage had been low. There was an important difference between the conditions under which the Agency made its estimates of traffic for the authorized system and the conditions under which the traffic engineering firm made its later study. Where it had been necessary for the Agency to work without the assistance of local bus operators, the traffic engineering firm had the fullest cooperation from them. In consequence, they were able to conduct one of the largest origin and destination studies of bus riders ever conducted. FINDINGS Two significant findings resulted. First, the Columbia Heights route proved to be the weakest in the system, producing an estimated 3,100 passengers in its peak hour, instead of 6,700 originally forecast by the Agency. This volume of 3,100 does not justify rail rapid transit. Parenthetically, let me say that there is another reason why the Columbia Heights line should not be built-and a reason why this action should be entirely acceptable to the community. We feel that the needs of north central Washington, including the Shaw Urban Renewal Area, would be better and more efficiently served by construction of an independent route in either the 7th or 14th Street traffic corridors as part of an expanded regional rail system now being studied by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The building of the Columbia Heights line would foreclose this more desirable route. Second, the study showed that downtown traffic congestion would not be alleviated by the authorized system to the extent that the Agency had expected. The Federal employment center in Southwest Washington proved to be a source of really tremendous patronage. We found that large numbers would ride the rail system to G Street and then transfer to buses to complete their travel to the Southwest. During the peak hour, at the 12th and G Street station, 70 buses would be required, and at 8th and G Street 50 buses would be needed, to handle transfer traffic. Obviously, this would make traffic conditions worse rather than better. And fare-splits with the bus company would be greater than had been anticipated, thus reducing rail transit revenues. It was clear to me that system routing required re-examination. Along with the patronage figures and the traffic congestion problem there were operating characteristics of the authorized system which were not attractive to me. Working with the planning and engineering staff of the Agency, I concluded that the system should probably be changed in the fashion proposed in H.R. 11395. To obtain patron age figures of the changed system, I directed the same traffic engineering firm to examine this system as they had the other. In that way I was able to obtain recent and comparable traffic studies for the system authorized in 1965, and for the system which contains my recommendations for change. These studies show that, in 1980, the modified system will attract an estimated 12,000 more riders than the authorized system during the peak hour, about 70,000 more riders daily, and some 22,300,000 more riders annually. Operating costs are not expected to be significantly different than those for the authorized system. Thus, we expect that in 1980 the increased patronage on the modified system, when compared with the new traffic figures for the authorized system, would produce additional net annual revenue after operating costs and payment for feeder buses of approximately $3.5 million. Applied to bond debt service expense and assuming an interest rate of 5%1⁄2 percent per annum, such added annual revenue would be sufficient to fund $55 million of added capital costs over a 40-year period. This amount of additional revenue would more than cover the net increase in capital costs which would result from the recommended modifications. Our estimates indicate that the provision of service to Southwest Washington, as proposed, would increase the cost of the basic system at current prices by $98 million. This increase, however, would be reduced substantially by the $56.5 million reduction which would result from deleting the Columbia Heights line. Thus, the net increase in capital cost is $41.5 million, which can be financed from the additional revenues generated by the modifications. Right here, Mr. Chairman, I should like to clarify one point so that there is no misunderstanding. I am not saying that the modified system can be built for $431 million-the cost of the system authorized in 1965-plus $41.5 million, the net cost of the modifications we are recommending-for a total of $472.5 million. I am saying that it will cost $41.5 million more to build the modified system than to build the authorized system and that the revenues arising from the change will support the additional cost involved. Escalation could increase the total costs. But escalation will have the same impact on the authorized system as it will have on the modified system. My belief that station design must be improved will add somewhat to the costs. But again such an increase is common to the system with or without the modifications proposed in H.R. 11395. There will be added costs as a result of the interstate Authority's responsibility for assuming the burden of relocating private utilities. This factor will be applicable to either system. ENDORSEMENTS OF PROPOSED REVISIONS As required by Section 204 (d) of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, the Agency transmitted a draft copy of the Revised Transit Development Program 1967 report for review and comment to the various governing bodies, regulatory bodies, regional organizations, private transit companies and unions representing their employees, and others specified in that section of the Act. All that responded-and almost all did-endorsed the proposed revisions. 81-965-67- -2 Copies of their responses have been furnished to the Committee and to the Committee staff. It is requested that these letters be made a part of the record of this hearing. Mr. WHITENER. We will make them part of the record if you will submit them to the reporter. (The documents referred to follow:) Local governing bodies: SUMMARY OF EXHIBITS District of Columbia Commissioners Montgomery County (Md.) Council Prince George's County (Md.) Commissioners Fairfax County (Va.) Board of Supervisors Loudon County (Va.) Board of Supervisors Falls Church (Va.) City Council Regulatory bodies: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Northern Virginia Transportation Commission National Capital Planning Commission Council of Governments Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board D.C. Transit System, Inc. Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co., Inc. Unions: Amalgamated Transit Union (Local 689) Agencies not responding: Fairfax City Prince William County Fine Arts Commission A,B&W Transit Co. GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Mr. WALTER MCCARTER, Washington, D.C., May 16, 1967. Administrator, National Capital Transportation Agency, DEAR MR. MCCARTER: The Board of Commissioners is pleased to lend its general support to the recommended modifications to the rail rapid transit system as presented with your March 29th submission. The changes in the program undoubtedly will result in a more efficient and economic system. We too have long recognized the need for providing adequate transportation services for the anticipated 85,000 Federal workers in the southwest area. We would suggest in this regard that preference be given to the study of an alternative to Independence Avenue in the vicinity of the Capitol. The Independence Avenue alignment would seem to be in conflict with some past proposals to provide for future construction of an Independence Avenue tunnel to accommodate auto traffic. The C Street alignment, meanwhile, traverses a highly developed Capitol Hill building area on a narrow right-of-way which presents serious construction problems. It is understood from your staff that an alternate alignment through D Street is under study. With regard to modification number 2, we are concerned that the north central section of the city would be denied the service which would be provided by the Columbia Heights Route or some alternate route in the corridor between Rock Creek Park and the Old Soldiers Home. We understand that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, as part of the future regional system, is studying the feasibility of such an alternate route along either 7th Street or 14th Street. We applaud this objective effort to explore all aspects of this difficult problem. The Board of Commissioners hopes that the modifications you are suggesting can be incorporated without delay into the plans for the basic system so that construction can begin as soon as possible. We would prefer that construction begin in the downtown area along Ĝ Street and that second priority be given to construction of the extensions which provide service into the residential sections of the city. We are encouraged to note that estimated transportation usage in the modified system might be sufficient to refund the estimated cost increase of $41,500,000 over a 40 year period. We look forward to continued cooperative efforts which will contribute to the implementation of the rail rapid transit system. DEAR MR. MCCARTER: Enclosed are copies of Resolution No. 6-372, adopted by the County Council on April 11, 1967, regarding the revision of the Transit Development Program. Sincerely, ROBERT A. PASSMORE, Acting Clerk, Montgomery County Council. [Enclosure] COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, TIN EXECUTIVE SESSION, 4/11/67 RESOLUTION NO. 6-372 Re Revision of Transit Development Program Whereas the National Capital Transportation Agency has proposed a 1967 revision of the transportation development program authorized by the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965 (PL 89-173, 79 Stat. 663), and Whereas the Washington Suburban Transit Commission supports and urges the adoption of the modifications outlined by the National Capital Transportation Agency in its letter of March 29, 1967, and Whereas the County Council, in Executive Session on Tuesday, April 11, 1967, reviewed the proposed changes and is of the opinion that said modifications will benefit the residents of Montgomery County: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, That it supports and urges adoption of the modifications as presented in the transmittal from the National Capital Transportation Agency. A True Copy. Attest: ROBERT A. PASSMORE, Acting Clerk for County Council, Montgomery County, Maryland. Mr. WALTER MCCARTER, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, April 13, 1967. Administrator, National Capital Transportation Agency, DEAR MR. MCCARTER: The Prince George's County Board of Commissioners has received your letter of transmittal of March 29, 1967, of the Recommended Modifications of the System of Rapid Transit Lines and Related Facilities Authorized in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965. This request for review and comments was appropriately sent to Prince George's County under the terms of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, however, since that time this commission joined the County of Montgomery in forming the Washington Suburban Transit Commission, which agency has reviewed and studied the modified changes. It is their opinion that the modifications are justifiable and have recommended we urge the adoption of this modification. We feel that the recommended changes will serve to allow the Washington Suburban Transit Commission and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority the opportunity of developing an optimum regional rapid transit system. Therefore, we support the changes which have been made and urge that the construction, with the modifications, proceed as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Maj. Gen. JACKSON GRAHAM, General Manager, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, DEAR GENERAL GRAHAM: The Arlington County Board at its meeting on April 22nd discussed the March 29th transmittal from NCTA requesting its views concerning the proposed 1967 revision of the Transit Development Program authorized by the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965. I am pleased to advise you that the Board unanimously endorsed the modification as proposed by the National Capital Transportation Agency. Very truly yours, PHYLLIS L. FERRARI, Clerk. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Mr. WALTER J. MCCARTER, COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, Fairfax, Va., April 28, 1967. Administrator, National Capital Transportation Agency, DEAR MR. MCCARTER: I am pleased to advise you that the Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County, at its meeting on April 26, 1967, approved the proposed 1967 revisions to the transit development program authorized by the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965, with the suggestion that a transfer station and facility be provided in the Southwest Mall area where the R.F. & P. Railroad would intercept the Subway System. With best wishes, CARLTON C. MASSEY, County Executive. Mr. WALTER J. MCCARTER, LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, National Capital Transportation Agency, DEAR MR. MCCARTER: The Board of Supervisors acknowledges receipt of the March 29, 1967 report of your agency on the revision of the authorized rail rapid transit system. Although we are behind your recommended schedule, we would like you to know that the report has received consideration. It appears that this stage of your transportation system does not affect Loudoun County. However, we realize the long-range planning of your agency does consider the transit problem as it would affect our County. We feel that the present report is satisfactory, and understand that the future stages, as they affect Loudoun County, will be to our advantage. Yours most sincerely, CHARLES F. TURNER, |