Mr. DENTON. It will probably cost you more now than it cost you in Chicago?

Mr. MCCARTER. I have only been away from Chicago a year now. I would also add that a 10-percent contingency has been added on all of these items.

Mr. DENTON. As I understand it, then, most of these studies were made several years ago when you were contemplating a more extensive system.

Mr. MCCARTER. The original studies, yes, but as Mr. Lyon has pointed out, most of this system was a part of the larger plan. The estimates have been updated to apply to the present system.

Mr. DENTON. You have used the original estimates and your staff has updated them?

Mr. MCCARTER. That is right.

Mr. DENTON. The current plan with an estimated cost of $431 million was compiled several years ago.

Mr. LYON. In December of 1964.

Mr. DENTON. And construction will continue for about 7 years? Mr. MCCARTER. That is right.

Mr. DENTON. There is always the possibility that costs will increase over this period of time.

Mr. MCCARTER. That is right.

CONTINGENCY FOR INCREASED COSTS

Mr. DENTON. What have you done about the possibility of increased costs?

Mr. MCCARTER. As I say, we have a 10-percent contingency on all of the items of cost.

Mr. DENTON. You computed the cost, and then added 10 percent in each instance?

Mr. MCCARTER. That is right. Actually, the contingency amounts to approximately $37 million, or 10 percent of the construction cost excluding the contingency item itself. I am still hoping we can do it for less, because I have always tried to be a hard bargainer on this subject.

TRAFFIC AND OPERATING COST SURVEYS

Mr. DENTON. You have requested funds in this estimate for traffic surveys?

Mr. MCCARTER. Yes, an amount has been included under the salaries and expenses appropriation.

Mr. DENTON. You are going to have to sell bonds.

Mr. MCCARTER. Yes.

Mr. DENTON. And whoever buys the bonds is going to want to know the cost of operation and the amount of revenue.

Mr. MCCARTER. I have had experience with issues of that sort. Mr. DENTON. We have had a good many of what you might call "character witnesses" on passenger revenue and operating costs. Do you have anything substantive in the way of evidence to support your estimates? What actual surveys have been made, who made them, and when?

Mr. MCCARTER. We had early surveys by outside engineers.

Mr. DENTON. That was for the larger system. I am talking about the bobtail plan we are discussing today.

Mr. MCCARTER. That has been updated with the assistance of individual engineers. For example, we utilized the services of Mr. Joe Ong, of Cincinnati, Ohio, who is probably the best qualified schedule man of the United States. Robert Pollock, manager of operations for the Cleveland Transit System, also assisted the Agency staff.

Mr. DENTON. When did they make these surveys?

Mr. HERMAN. The staff made them, Mr. Chairman, and they were made during the past year.

Mr. DENTON. Don't you think you ought to have an outside engineering firm make a survey?

Mr. MCCARTER. That is what this is for.

Mr. HERMAN. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that we had the assistance of outside experts in developing the present estimates, and we think they are sound and reliable. We do, however, want a further independent study prior to the bond-financing phase of the program.

Mr. DENTON. If you were selling bonds, you would have to have outside engineers make a survey.

Mr. HERMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCCARTER. I would like to expand on that just a little because I have the same concern as the subcommittee. Some of the traffic studies were undertaken without the cooperation of the local bus companies because up to this point they have not participated to any degree. I want to get a firm of engineers who are experts in this field, and who are acceptable to the bond houses. I want to cooperate with the local bus companies, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission. I would like to select a firm that can work with all concerned, so that we will all be together on this. I know many of the operating staff of the D.C. Transit, for instance, and I am confident they will work with us on such a project. A much more detailed study must be made. Funds are being requested for that purpose.

Mr. DENTON. What would the traffic survey cover?

Mr. MCCARTER. The general scope of the study would be toA. Determine, by station, the number of peak hour, daily and annual maximum load point passengers who will use the rapid transit system from 1971 to 1980 broken down into the following:

1. Transfers from buses (by company).

2. Parkers (NCTA lots and other parking).

3. Kiss-and-ride.

4. Walk-ons.

B. Determine the number of "local" (nonmaximum load point passengers) in the same manner as A above.

C. Determine the number of "reverse flow" passengers passing the maximum load point on a daily basis.

D. Determine downtown station loadings during peak hour.

OPERATING COST STUDIES

Mr. DENTON. What about cost of operation studies?

Mr. MCCARTER. We have up-to-date information on the cost of operation.

Mr. DENTON. Do you have studies on that?

53-537-65--38

Mr. MCCARTER. Yes.

Mr. DENTON. Who made those?

Mr. HERMAN. The firm of Coverdale & Colpitts of New York.
Mr. DENTON. When was it made?

Mr. HERMAN. During 1964.

Mr. MCCARTER. I want to agree with you that this is one of the most important studies we have made.

TRAFFIC SURVEY

Mr. DENTON. Will the study you are going to make give you sufficient information to project the passengers?

Mr. MCCARTER. Yes.

Mr. DENTON. Do you think you can make an adequate survey for the amount you have indicated?

Mr. MCCARTER. We believe we can. We think we can make the traffic surveys including a study of the feeder bus system, and so forth. If at a later date we want to determine in detail the financial impact on the D.C. Transit, for instance, I think this would need to be a separate project.

APPLICATION OF PREVIOUS STUDIES TO SMALLER SYSTEM

Mr. DENTON. You made a good many studies in connection with the more extensive transit system that was not approved by the Congress. To what extent have you used any of these earlier studies in connection with the presently planned system, and how were they modified to retain their validity in connection with the "bobtail" system?

Mr. HERMAN. Regarding the traffic, Mr. Chairman, we used the original studies for the large system as a check against our own estimate for the present system. On the operating cost side, we had the independent Coverdale & Colpitts study made of the short system. Mr. DENTON. When?

Mr. HERMAN. August 7, 1964.

Mr. DENTON. On the cost?

Mr. HERMAN. Yes; operating costs for the system that has been authorized by the Congress.

CONSTRUCTION COST STUDIES

Mr. DENTON. What about the construction costs for the "bobtail" system? What sort of studies have been made?

Mr. LYON. There has been a very detailed study made of this specific system which is presented in the engineering supplement. Mr. DENTON. Give me some of the details.

Mr. LYON. Complete statements are presented in detail in this book entitled "Engineering Plans and Cost Estimates."

Mr. DENTON. Who made that study?

Mr. LYON. This is a combination of staff work, current consultant work, and of figures from studies used over the past 3 years, that have been updated.

Mr. DENTON. I am sure you have heard statements that this "bobtail" system can never be constructed for $431 million.

You have

heard that a good many times, I am sure, the same as we have. What do you say about that?

Mr. LYON. I feel that they are in error.

Mr. DENTON. You won't ask for funds in excess of that estimate? Mr. LYON. We don't intend to, sir.

Mr. DENTON. We can be assured of that?

Mr. LYON. Mr. Chairman, these figures have been reviewed by all of the engineering firms that have been mentioned so far in this committee session. They all agree, to a man, that this estimate is properly prepared and properly presented, and probably presented in more detail than any normal preliminary engineering estimate. The facts are all here.

Mr. MCCARTER. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I was in Chicago 2 weeks ago and took this report along with me. I met with the assistant chief engineer of the city of Chicago, who has been concerned with the design of all of the subways in that city. He checked our unit costs on construction and he indicated that, in his opinion, they are reliable.

Mr. MARSH. Mr. Chairman, what is the report dated; August 7, 1964?

Mr. HERMAN. That is a study of the operating costs, Mr. Marsh. Mr. MCCARTER. On the operating costs as well as other studies, the general reputation and capabilities of the consulting firm is always an element but a more important factor is the caliber of the personnel in the consulting firm that actually does the work. When we hire consultants, we will engage them not on the basis of their general reputation but on the basis of specific experience and who they are going to assign to do the work. It just happens that Coverdale & Colpitts, the firm that developed our operating costs, has a young man who made the study who worked for me in Chicago for several years in the Rapid Transit Division. In developing these costs he came to Chicago and also went to Toronto to check detailed cost data. I know that he is a knowledgeable young man and well qualified in developing operating costs.

POTENTIAL OF A SYSTEM LIMITED TO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. DENTON. There are many who question the successful operation of a transit system operating only in the District of Columbia. It is contended that in order for this system to be successful it must necessarily link up with the suburban areas in Maryland and Virginia. I would like for you at this time to describe in detail just what the possibilities are for a system operating only in the District of Columbia, and then give the committee a pretty detailed resume of future plans for extension of the system into Maryland and Virginia.

Mr. MCCARTER. The present system has been called the bobtail system, but I prefer to call it the basic rapid transit system. To me it goes through those areas of maximum traffic congestion, and people can get to the terminals with less traffic congestion than if they had to come all the way downtown.

In my opinion the system authorized by the Congress, which is basically a District of Columbia system, will be a successful operation and will be economically viable under the financial program submitted to the Congress. In my judgment, the capital cost estimate is a sound The data on traffic and operating costs submitted by the Agency-which were developed with the assistance of a number of

one.

outstanding transit experts-are not only likely to be realized but possibly exceeded. I am confident that this basic system will more than pay its own way-in terms of meeting its operating expenses and debt service requirements.

I do not agree with those people who say that a short system which does not make deep penetrations into the suburbs will fail to attract riders. Toronto, with only a 41⁄2 mile system, has had a very successful operation. The important point to keep in mind is the necessity for rapid transit to service areas just beyond the major traffic bottlenecks. Our system does this very effectively by intercepting traffic outside of the downtown congested areas, and will be attractive because it eliminates the most burdensome and time-consuming portion of the home-to-work trip. A coordinated feeder-bus service to our stations and the 12,000 parking spaces will induce many present bus and automobile riders to use this more pleasant and faster method of travel. I agree that extensions of the system into the suburbs will provide greater regional service and will attract additional passengers. I hope that such a regional system will evolve but in any event in my judgment the presently authorized system will prove to be every bit as successful as our projections indicate. This basic system will also provide the community a very high level of service, and it will materially reduce rush hour traffic congestion downtown.

Concerning plans for extension of this basic system, the plan proposed by NCTA in its report of November 1, 1962, is still the Agency's general concept of an areawide rail system. That plan called for rail service between downtown Washington and such widely separated communities within the region as Springfield and Fairfax City in Virginia, and Bethesda, Rockville, and Bowie in Maryland. The present basic system is capable of being extended to do this.

Under the 1960 legislation, however, final decisions on the location. and extent and the timing of any facilities outside the District of Columbia are subject to the prior approval of the Governors of Maryland and Virginia, as the case may be. The States have expressed their approval in principle regarding the short extensions into their areas included in this basic system. However, before undertaking any actual acquisitions or construction in either State, we will need their approval of the specific plans.

Also, I want to point out that in anticipation of extending a basic system, both the Maryland and Virginia Legislatures have created transportation districts and commissions covering their respective portions of the National Capital region for the purpose of developing plans for extending the system and working out the necessary financing. The Virginia body is the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission and is composed of elected officials of the several political jurisdictions in the northern Virginia area and a representative of the State highway department. In Maryland there is the new Washington Suburban Transportation District Commission which is composed of officials from Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties. These bodies are, of course, very interested and extensions of the basic system will have to meet with their approval.

Finally, there is the proposed interstate compact that has been under negotiation over the past several years. If a suitable compact organization materializes, it would assume an areawide planning role.