There are a couple of other things that are of interest. The original transit study that was made for the Congress in 1962, and one would assume by fairly competent people, agreed that the Columbia Heights line-and, therefore, Mr. McCarter's figures are slightly different and somewhat questionable since many people in the Columbia Heights area do not use D.C. Transit, and yet with their very high density of 40,000 people per square mile could walk to the four stations suggested, therefore, they are not considered in this bus analysis, the 1962 survey indicated Columbia Heights line would not be as great a feeder as the other lines in the system.

This is understood. This is not anything new. But at the same time the same study by the National Capital Transportation Agency under a different director pointed out that the first priority should be the Columbia Heights line going over to Anacostia. We submit that one of the reasons that the priorities of the original administrator, the National Capital Transportation Agency was a different priority in his thinking than that of the current administrator.

Representatives of CHANGE, Inc. have had an idea to understand Mr. McCarter's orientation and we think we understand why his priorities are different than the original authority. Mr. McCarter was very proud to announce to us that when he was administrator of the Chicago Transit System he had closed the subway stops in the sections of this city and these were where they had less than 1,000 users during rush hours. I believe that is an accurate reproduction of his statement. This is interesting. While if you are talking about a suburban area where people pretty much go during an-if you had a stop that had less than 1,000 per hour that would be economically unfeasible. But in a low-income area you don't have people going to jobs at 9 to 5. You have a much wider spread because of shifts, because of the nature of the employment. You may have only 900 people at peak hour but you could have 700 people at midnight. In upper Cardoza and at night you will see hundreds of people in the subways. But these people are low-income people whose jobs take them out at night, not suburban either who have the 9 to 5 sort of job.

Mr. McCarter does not understand the type of economy, the type of job situation in low income areas and, therefore, he sees as unfeasible stations because they don't have a 9 to 5 peak hour.

There is one other factor. It was referred to by an earlier witness, what I would like to stress it again-what will taking out the four stops in the Columbia Heights line do to Columbia Heights employment internally? The 1985 plan was developed by the National Planning Commission. Again we would assume its planners are fairly competent people. They base in the Columbia Heights area an employment center around the rapid transit system around 14th and Park Road which they say will employ 20,000 people including 5,000 Federal employees.

The next stop, 18th and Columbia Road, they project for 5,000 additional new jobs. This is the heart of the National Capital Planning Commission's plans for employment in the North Central area. This will plainly be knocked out if this line is knocked out.

Now, we seriously wonder why Mr. McCarter doesn't mention to the Committee that this is also going to be one of the effects of taking out

this line, not only to limit the mobility of the people in the area out, but to limit the growth of jobs in this area which right now badly needs new jobs.

I thank you. I think that completes our comments.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you.

Mr. GUDE. Is it permissible to ask a question?

Mr. WHITENER. I understood the witness was a housing man.

Mr. GUDE. I was wondering. You were saying Mr. McCarter used only peak rush hour figures.

Mr. KILPATRICK. He did in Chicago to justify closing the stations. Mr. GUDE. I was noticing the charts that he submitted here and as I read them it says the 24-hour rapid transit

Mr. KILPATRICK. I have seen those.

Mr. GUDE. Do you have any dispute with them?

Mr. KILPATRICK. We have a number of disputes one of which goes back to the basic attitude reflected by Mr. McCarter. He says he feels the subway system should be closed at night, at least late at night. This again appears to ignore the fact that many low-income citizens are going to be using the system at night. Despite that these figures claim to represent a 24-hour projection, assuming the system is going to operate all night which he says it should not. We do dispute that for a number of reasons, although I again say even if these are somewhat true, the original National Capital Transportation Agency indicated still there should be a priority given to Columbia Heights. But we dispute them for these reasons. We do not understand how the survey he has stressed, the study of bus patronage can accurately portray two factors at least, the fact that a lot of our people are unemployed now and one of the reasons is that they do not get satisfactory transportation service from D.C. Transit and how can he project that there will be an increase in employment that will put more people onto a rapid transit system which right now where these people are sitting around because they are not properly served!

How can his bus survey allow him to project that these people will start going to jobs?

Another thing, the original National Capital Transportation survey says on page 58 that in the low-income area 88 percent of the residents who use transportation at all will be using rapid transit if rapid transit is provided. They propose that only 32 percent of the workers in the high-income area will do this and only 50 percent in the moderate income area.

Mr. McCarter has never refuted this study. I say again on page 58 of the report to the Congress and we suggest that this study showing the 88 percent of the workers in the low-income area will use rapid transit, since it has not been invalidated by anything he said maybe more accurate to Mr. McCarter's study. It takes into account the type of employment, the type of job situation or unemployment situation you have in low-income areas.

Mr. GUDE. You estimated unemployment in the Columbia Road area to be 14 percent?

Mr. KILPATRICK. I heard it is 10 percent, 15 percent.

Mr. GUDE. You could expect that much increase if we maintained the Columbia Road line?

Mr. KILPATRICK. Understanding-we hope it will amount to about that not that everyone who is unemployed will become employed. Also, there are people who are under employed in the area. We would hope that these people often take menial jobs in the area would be riding subways to better jobs.

Mr. GUDE. I was just wondering what effect this line would have on the 14 percent would have in the increase of 15 percent. As another criticism that you have of the proposed change, you said you could have these lines parallel to avoid this headway problem.

If you started with two lines out on Columbia Road-you would have one going and one coming. The same on Connecticut. Then when they merge, you would have four lines, wouldn't you?

Mr. KILPATRICK. As I understand Mr. McCarter's description of the lines-perhaps we need Exhibit B. He proposes that Columbia Heights and the Connecticut Avenue lines come together. He is also saying that causes a headway split. He also said there would be an additional split and, therefore, a doubling of the time factor then when these lines come together here. We are suggesting that that split can be avoided and, therefore, you reduce in half the leadway all the way through by doubling your line through here.

Mr. GUDE. To me, and I don't know. We would have to have expert guidance on this very technical problem. Would you end up with two sets of three lines downtown in order to do this?

Mr. KILPATRICK. No, the Columbia-this line would come together here. It would come in here as a single line. They would join-they would run parallel with the line coming from Northern Virginia and simply run across and then split out here. Their trains would be on separate tracks and, therefore, would not cause the kind of headway delay Mr. McCarter says is an exceedingly unfortunate thing to have. Mr. GUDE. If you are going to have a 2-minute wait on the Columbia Heights line, it seems to me you got to have it.

Mr. KILPATRICK. We agree to this. But 4 minutes is such an improvement over what is out there now or what one would expect comes from D. C. Transit as not to be a significant objection.

Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, would the witness describe her organization? What is its reason for being? Who is it composed of?

Mrs. WEBSTER. CHANGE represents the citizens-CHANGE, Inc., is an agency of the UPO, the community of the District of Columbia. It is the first citizens group that has become self-governing within the anti-poverty program. It represents approximately 55,000 person from Harvard Street to Spring Road, Rock Creek Park to Soldiers Home.

Mr. NELSEN. I would want to make a comment relative to the statement of Mr. Kilpatrick, that for many, many years attempts were made to get some kind of a modern transportation system for the District of Columbia. The feeling was that our Nation's Čapital should have the best schools, the best transportation system, and should be a model city for the rest of the Nation.

Intense efforts were made to find the man who we thought was best qualified to structure a modern transit system for our Federal City, a man who by his performances established the fact that he knew his business well. The results of that intense search brought us Mr. McCarter. He has performed excellently as administrator of the N.C.T.A.

I think that he has done more than anyone to sell the merits of a good transit system for the District of Columbia.

There are bound to be differences of opinion. But I hope we don't get into personal criticism because it wasn't easy to sell this system to the Congress. And I hope that we don't get so divided that we delay action on a modern transportation system.

Certainly, the time will come when there will be additions to the basic system; but lets get started on building the basic system before we lose any more time quibbling.

Mrs. WEBSTER. I agree with you, sir. This is not our desire. It is our desire, however, to take into consideration the kind of social revolutions that we are presently having. It would have been far better to have Mr. McCarter come here prior to the Congress approving a line that would have served a certain segment of the population. I think it is most unfortunate that Mr. McCarter with his experience and expertise did not come first to the Congress accepting the plans as submitted by the National Capital Transportation Agency and then have Mr. McCarter come who saw certain weaknesses in it and made certain recommendations.

We submit that it is more important to consider the citizens themselves and those that would have to use the transportation than it is solely to be so objective that we are considering money when you cannot sustain the fact that the amount of money that we are spending is justified as opposed to the amount of money that has been approved by the Congress.

Mr. NELSEN. Thank you.

Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will now adjourn. Before doing so I want to express my appreciation to Mr. McCarter for the services he is rendering and say that I agree with Mr. Nelsen we are very fortunate to have him here.

I have had some connection in transportation for several years and I find everybody is an expert in that field whether it is in my town or any where I have been. They all can schedule our bus routes in my little town better than the folks who run the bus company. I suppose it is somewhat like being sheriff, everybody seems to be qualified for that

office.

But I do thank Mr. McCarter. I am sorry that the Congress and others have made it so that this agency will not be able to complete the building of the transit system for Washington. There is no need crying over spilt milk. I think a great mistake has been made in not permitting that agency to complete its job, but whatever has happened, I think we are all dedicated to the idea of a good transportation system. Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I think we should welcome Mr. Jackson Graham, the new general manager who is with us this morning. His qualifications are very impressive. I had a very fine visit with him and Mr. McCarter in my office. We wish him well in his new responsibilities. He has a gigantic task ahead.

Mr. WHITENER. We are delighted to have you, Mr. Graham, and hope you won't have as much trouble getting money for the subway system as some of us think we might in dealing with certain interested parties. We will now adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee adjourned.)