Mr. McCARTER. I can check the figures if you wish.
Mr. FuQUA. You say 12,000 more.
Mr. McCARTER. Yes; that is the projected peak-hour increase.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. McCarter, the testimony that you have given by today and on the day of our other hearings would indicate that your at decisions are being made on the basis of the intent of Congress that

this system would be self-sustaining as nearly as possible and that the fare box shall carry the cost of the system.

Mr. McCARTER. Í have taken that as my charge; yes. BALI Mr. WHITENER. And so while we may make arguments about dep'sirability from the individual's point of view of having served his

own community, I take it that you feel that you have no authority to plez be governed by that type of consideration? her Mr. McCARTER. Mr. Chairman, I feel that I have no alternative as

a professional other than to make this recommendation. Vr. WHITENER. On the basis of economics?

Mr. McCARTER. And on the basis of the operating conditions as well as the economics; yes.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Broyhill has pointed out that we had some diffithe culty in the past in selling the subway concept to the Congress. I

believe that it would be accurate to say that we probably were able

to sell it because of the engineering studies that we had and projections a which indicated that with the grants of the local and Federal governhim ments that there could be a pay out of the fare box in a 40-year period.

Mr. McCARTER. Yes. Mr. WHITENER. If we get away from that concept then it seems to me we are getting into trouble and maybe running the risk of having no subway system at all.

Mr. MCCARTER. That is correct, and you run more of a risk of having

to come back for more money. E Vr. WHITENER. Don't you also run a risk of higher fares for each

passenger if we established marginal line operations?

Mr. McCARTER. That's correct. + Ir. WHITENER. And in that way do injury to many citizens of all

economic levels ? Mr. McCARTER. That is correct, yes. Vr. WHITENER. Are there any other witnesses that you have that you would like for us to hear today, Mr. McCarter? Mr. McCARTER. Not unless the subcommittee members wish additional information.

Mr. WHITENER. I didn't know whether you had some others. I certainly hope that you and this Authority that you mentioned will take into account the needs of the community in all of its aspects as long as you keep in mind the original thought that we had that this was supposed to be an economically sound operation.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCarter, under the new reorganization plan for the D.C. Government which includes abolition of the three Commissioner setup, I believe two of the District Commissioners served on the Authority?

Now, under the reorganization plan how will that be handled ?
Jr. WHITENER. We are going to have nine councilmen.


Mr. McCARTER. The City Council will appoint two members of the Board from among the City Council or the Commissioner or his assistant. In other words, they can pick any two from among the 11.

Mr. NELSEN. I was under the opinion that the Congress by law put the Commissioners on the authority, but now the reorganization plan changes that specific law. I am not sure about that. I was a little concerned about it. May I reiterate what I said when the transit bill was enacted into law, that one of the fears that I have is that costs double or triple whenever political influence gets into some of these projects. I hope men like yourselves will be in control of the situation to the degree that the public interest is protected and political interests come second.

And I am sure that if men like yourself continue your interest that will happen.

Mr. Chairman, a Mrs. Webster had some charts she would like to show. I don't know if there is time. I told her I would call it to your attention.

If the lady who spoke to me cares to present her case to the chairman, may she testify.

Mr. WHITENER. We can't be bouncing back and forth.

Mrs. WEBSTER. I think we should have an opportunity to use the charts. Mr. McCarter may clarify some of the written statements we have made and also-it will only take 5 or 10 minutes.

Mr. WHITENER. At this time we will make a part of the record a letter dated August 4, 1967, from Mr. McCarter, to the chairman of the subcommittee. Also, a letter and statement from the Federal City Council.

Also a letter from the Columbia Heights Citizens Association. Finally the charts which have been referred to in the testimony of Mr. McCarter. (The documents referred to follow :)

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 23, 1967. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, House District Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The Columbia Heights Citizens Association of the District of Columbia, sincerely urges the retention of the Columbia Heights subway line as was originally planned and authorized.

Columbia Heights is both business and residential, serving over 500,000 citizens within the area, to say nothing of the thousands from other areas and Maryland, who use our great shopping district, both day and evening hours. This is the "heart” of the city, with arterial streets crossing the very center of the business district; and with a consolidation perhaps of more schools and churches than any area within the District of Columbia. 2. To eliminate the Columbia Heights line, in favor of the Southwest Mall

. would be both impractical and shortsighted. We feel that the subway officials made a thorough study of the Columbia Heights area when planning the subway-a subway that would serve the greatest number of people at all times of the day, not just at 8 A.M. and 4 P.M. after which the tracks were pulled in.

We feel that when Congress appropriated the funds for the Columbia Heights line, they meant to serve, and give service to the greatest number of people.

Therefore, the Columbia Heights Citizens Association feels very deeply, that to eliminate the Columbia Heights line would be. not only a disservice to the greatest number of citizens, but suspect, of a play to special interests. Sincerely,

(Mrs.) LILLIAN HOWARD, President, Columbia Heights Citizens Association.

AUGUST 21, 1967. Mr. JAMES T. CLARK, Clerk, House District Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Wash

ington, D.C. DEAR MR. CLARK: I am attaching several copies of the statement of the Federal City Council in regard to H.R. 11395, which would permit modification of the basic rapid rail system in the Nation's Capital.

We shall appreciate the insertion of our statement in the record of hearings on this legislation, which we understand are to be reopened on August 23rd. Thank you. Sincerely,

MILES L. COLEAN, Chairman, Transporttaion Committee.


ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The Federal City Council wishes to express its wholehearted support for H.R. 11395, a bill to amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 1965 by permitting modification of the basic rail rapid transit system in the Nation's Capital.

The Transportation Committee of the Federal City Council has discussed in considerable detail this proposal with Walter J. McCarter, Administrator of the National Capital Transportation Agency, and with General Jackson Graham, the General Manager of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. We are convinced of the wisdom of the proposed changes.

As we understand it, the modification involves two significant changes :

The addition of a line to serve the rapidly growing area of Southwest Washington and the deletion of the Columbia Heights spur. The arithmetic furnished by the agencies' consultants, in our judgment, more than justifies the enactment of the pending bill.

With regard to the new line in Southwest, we are advised that a daytime employee population of 85,000 persons is anticipated for this area by 1971. Surely the central city distribution system must provide convenient service for this great concentration of people or it will fail in its purpose. It will be impossible to meet the transportation needs of the people in any other manner.

The alternative to this line in Southwest would be an unbearable influx of commuter automobiles on the city streets and an impossible problem of automobile storage in an area that is already suffering from inadequate parking facilities.

For the employees of this area who would be willing to use rail rapid transit to a G Street station—the closest terminals to Southwest under the authorized system--their transfer on to surface buses at that point would not only create rider inconvenience but would be economically injurious for the transit authority which would be forced to split the fares with the bus operator. This would involve a serious reduction of rail transit revenues.

We believe it is also important to consider the positive impact that a line in the general area of Independence Avenue would have on Washington's tourist industry, second only to government as an important staple of the city's economy. Perhaps the most serious problem facing visitors to the national capital is that of visiting the historic and monumental landmarks in the mall area economically and conveniently. It is simply too far to walk and virtually impossible to drive because there is no space to park an automobile. An Independence Avenue subway line would contribute significantly to the quality of the experience of a visit to the Nation's Capital.

The Council's Transportation Committee devoted considerable study to the proposal for deletion of the Columbia Heights spur. We are convinced that this proposal is likewise sound. An investigation by the agency has shown that this line would not carry its weight economically and would reduce the operating efficiency of the Connecticut Avenue line. The suggestion, now under study, that a future line be constructed to provide a direct connection between this area and the central city is, in our estimation, a highly desirable suggestion.

The two major changes contained in H.R. 11395 are expected to result in approximately 70,000 more rail rapid transit riders daily. We are told this increase in ridership would produce additional net annual revenues (after operating costs and feeder bus payments) of approximately $3.5 million.

We are assured that this additional revenue would more than cover the net increase in capital costs resulting from the modification.

The Federal City Council has supported the concept of rail rapid transit for Washington for many years. We expressed our support during deliberations of the approved basic system. On the basis of studies performed by experts in the field, we now wish to support the proposal for altering the basic system to make it more efficient, to improve its financial picture, and to broaden the extent of its service to the residen of the Washington area.


Washington, August 4, 1967. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, Committee on District of Columbia, House of

Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WHITENER: We thought you might be interested in a description of Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., the consulting firm that has developed the passenger travel forecasts for both the Authorized and Modified rapid rail systems. President, and founder, of the firm is Mr. Voorhees, an internationally known Traffic Engineer and Planner. The personal work of Mr. Voorhees has included development of those techniques for projecting traffic patterns which are now used in most large scale transportation studies.

Other officers of the firm are Walter G. Hansen, David W. Schoppert, Charles F. Barnes, Jr., and Thomas B. Deen. They count in their collective experience a broad variety of responsible assignments in highway and transit planning and traffic estimation, traffic engineering and city planning.

With a staff of approximately 80 employees, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., is located in the Washington Metropolitan area at McLean, Virginia. The experience of the personnel and of the firm is detailed in the enclosed brochure, “Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc.-History, Personnal, and Sample Projects."

In the area of transit planning, in addition to studies for the National Capital Transportation Agency, the firm has prepared rapid transit patronage estimates in a number of major cities, including Boston, Honolulu, Memphis, Caracas, Venezuela, and Calgary, Canada. Computerized mathematical models are used which relate transit and auto usage to the character of the urban area and of the proposed transit and highway systems. As described in the brochure, the firm has engaged in developing transit planning techniques and computer programs most recently under contract to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and has concluded transit studies covering such areas of concern as evaluation of alternative transit systems, bus operations, "new town” transit services, fringe parking for transit and study design for "new concept” transit system evaluation.

Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc., has participated in many regional transportation planning projects including Adelaide, Austria, Altoona and Scranton, Pennsylvania, Anne Arundel County, Marylad, Regina and Ottawa, Canada, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Springfield, Illinois and the Virginia peninsula area. Last year the firm received, for its contribution to the Lower Manhattan Plan. citations from the Philadelphia Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and the Municipal Art Society of New York, and was given the Albert S. Baird First Honor Award for excellence in urban design. Similar downtown transportation planning is currently underway for Toronto, Canada. Sincerely yours,

WALTER J. McCARTER, Administrator. Mr. WHITENER. All right, thank you, Mr. McCarter. Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question? How much longer will the NCTA exist? Mr. McCARTER. Five weeks.

Mr. BROYHILL. When does the National Capital Transportation Agency go out of being ?

Mr. MoCARTER. September 30.

Mr. BROYHILL. At that time, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority will have the full responsibility?

[ocr errors]

linch you can avoid your headway problems if you take a single line such

Mr. McCARTER. That is right, for the basic system plus the regional system. The $150 million which you have authorized must be spent on the basic system.

Mr. BROYHILL. It was just called to my attention, Mr. Chairmanthe question that Mr. Nelsen asked about who will serve on this authority. The act as we had approved it provides that the directors of the authority would be members of the appointing body.

The reorganization plan permits the Council to appoint a director other than members. City Council. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much. Mrs. Webster, we will hear further from you, briefly, if you have something you wish to present.

Mrs. WEBSTER. I have here an adviser who has the technical knowledge. Mr. WHITENER. I thought you wanted to explain something. Mrs. WEBSTER. This is what he is going to do. Mr. WHITENER. Do it quickly.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN KILPATRICK, CHANGE, INC. Mr. KILPATRICK. My name is Norman Kilpatrick, of Housing and Urban Development.

We would like to very briefly make a few comments about what we think are rather significant parts of Mr. McCarter's reports-rather significant omissions from Mr. McCarter's testimony. We think the Committee should and give consideration to it.

I would like to start with the Exhibit A of Mr. McCarter's agency, le the approved rapid transit system. Mr. McCarter has made much of the

fact that we need to spend another $98 million to allow Government

workers to save about six blocks of walking in the Southwest complex partners and also to improve what he calls the headway at the various branch

lines of the subway system.
Now, Mr. McCarter seems to feel or gives the impression that the

way you can improve headway is to create the system he desires and cut off the Columbia Heights line. It seems to me this is glossing over the fact that Committee members may have had the opportunity to study the New York subway system to know that as this between Lafayette Square and New Jersey that has been approved and simply double the sizes of the tube. New York has several sections where they have two subway lines running side by side with a platform in the middle, running on the same tube, coming down here and swing up and swing down.

This costs considerably less than the exceedingly expensive loop Mr. McCarter says is necessary to reduce headway. It seems to me this should be seriously considered, that this would be a much less expensive answer that would still allow for the coping of the Columbia Heights section and at the same time produce the speed of headway that Mr. McCarter feels and many people feel are desirable at the branches of the subway system.

There is no reason why this cannot be opened slightly larger to accommodate the two lines running side by side rather than to have the loopity-loop that Mr. McCarter suggests.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »