I have no criticism at all to make on a lack of coordination in this regard. POLICE PROTECTION Mr. NATCHER. Are you keeping in mind, General Duke, the additional police service that would be required after this system has been placed into operation and also what other additional services would be required. This would call for more revenue. I General DUKE. I want to apologize for my previous answer. was mentally reviewing the District engineering departments in that connection. With respect to the police problem, which admittedly is a unique problem for this sytem, we, I think, are in basic agreement that the police protection for this system should be a Metropolitan Police responsibility-a District of Columbia responsibility. Mr. MCCARTER. If I could follow up on that with respect to police cooperation, it is generally considered a police problem when neces sary. In designing the system, there will be on each train a radio telephone direct to a dispatcher's office, and that dispatcher's office will have a direct line to the proper police agencies, I have had some cases in Chicago where youngsters after a football game got on a car and were acting up. The motorman called the dispatcher, who, in turn, called the police and the police met the train at the next station. For unusual situations like that, special policing would be required occasionally. We also had an arrangement in Chicago where we had all night transit service. Periodically, the police in uniform would get on a train and walk through to be sure everything was all right and if some person was intoxicated and was asleep, they would awaken him, and things of that nature. If there was some disturbance, we would also call them. The secret, in my opinion, of crime control, and related acts of hoodlumism, is to have, first of all, extremely well-lighted facilities, and no hiding places. A loudspeaker system is also helpful so you can call attention to improper conduct. Quick and adequate communications are the most essential elements in this respect. Television surveillance is also beginning to be developed. Toronto has an unmanned station during a certain period of the day, and they observe that unmanned station from another station by closed circuit television. In my opinion, if you build your facility in such a way that it does not look like a good place for crime, you will be able to reduce the incidence of crime. CONTEMPLATED HOURS OF SERVICE Mr. NATCHER. Would it be all night service? Mr. HERMAN. Twenty hours service. The system would not operate from 1 a.m., to 5 a.m. TAX REVENUE EFFECT OF RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM Mr. NATCHER. At this point in the record, insert a short statement concerning increased revenue from taxes that would be necessary as a result of this rail rapid transit system. It would have to be an estimate. Point out if you can the necessity, if any, of increasing the taxes in the District. General DUKE. For all municipal purposes-police as well as others? Mr. NATCHER. Yes. (The information submitted follows:) THE TAX REVENUE EFFECT OF THE RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM The tax revenue effect of the rapid transit system for the District of Columbia gives every indication of being significant. Newspaper accounts have indicated that in Toronto over a 5-year period values rose 33% percent along one line of the city's subway system compared to a 17.2-percent rise in values throughout the city as a whole. The statement has been made that the rapid transit system of San Francisco is expected to increase property values enough to more than offset that portion of its capital cost payable out of property taxes. In testimony on the legislation authorizing the Washington Transit System it was stated that some $160 million of new improvements have been constructed or are planned along Cleveland's rapid transit line. These reports indicate that substantial real estate development usually acompanies rapid transit. In addition, the transit system should facilitate access to the central business district and thereby enhance the sales, income, and other tax collections of the city. Alternatively, the transit system might also be viewed as the means of sustaining the ability of the central business district to hold its position as the center of employment and retail business in the face of tendencies to decentralize these revenue productive activities to suburban areas. Amortization of the $50 million District contribution to the rapid transit system's development costs will require an annual expenditure for interest and principal of approximately $3 million over a 30-year period. The transit system is expected to be the incentive for approximately $250 million of real estate development that might not otherwise occur. Revenue from this source alone would be sufficient to repay the loan. Real estate development aggregating $250 million would constitute less than a 5-percent increase in the assessed value base of the city at the present time. In view of the experience in Toronto and Cleveland this appears to be a minimum reasonable expectation. At the same time, sales, income, and other tax revenues of the city which would increase as a result of the additional facilities created by real estate development, amount to probably 5 percent more. The overall revenue effect of the system, therefore, could easily reach $6 million annually in the years following the completion and opening of the rapid rail system. In addition to the annual amortization cost of the $50 million District contribution, it is conceivable that other costs could accrue to the District government. Of significance, would be the cost and means of providing law enforcement for the system. Until final design is completed, a firm estimate of such cost cannot be determined. However, based on limited design information available at this time, it would appear that an additional unit approximating 200 officers at a cost ranging from $1.25 to $1.5 million would be required if other means of security prove inadequate. Although these costs-amortization of loan and security-are significant, the estimated amounts required are well within the limits of the estimated increased revenue benefits to be derived from the operation of the system. QUESTION AS TO WHETHER SYSTEM WILL BE TAXED Mr. NATCHER. Since we are talking about taxes, what would this total? Mr. MCCARTER. No taxes. Mr. NATCHER. No taxes from any source. As far as taxing the property is concerned? Mr. MCCARTER. It is my understanding that the transportation property would not be taxed. Mr. NATCHER. Are you sure about that, Mr. McCarter? Mr. MALONE. Our opinion is that the property and facilities of the agency are specifically exempt from taxation. Mr. NATCHER. Would this include the operation of the rapid rail transit system? Mr. MALONE. Yes. Mr. NATCHER. Has that been passed on by the Attorney General? Mr. MALONE. It has not. Mr. NATCHER. This is important and should be passed on at once and the information released to the press. General Duke, you and the Commissioners should be interested in that matter. Some people want to tax our National Capitol and all the Federal buildings in the Capital City. General DUKE. I will certainly look into this. Frankly, I have not looked into it before. Mr. LowE. The pending compact envisions that this would be a publicly owned facility and tax exempt throughout the entire metropolitan area. TITLE TO BE TAKEN IN NAME OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Mr. NATCHER. How would the title be carried? Mr. Lowe. In the compact agency, assuming that agency comes into being and takes over the system as envisioned in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960. Mr. NATCHER. In the agency rather than the Federal Government? Mr. MALONE. As things stand now, the compact agency is something in the future, and any acquisitions of property by NCTA would immediately be property of the United States. Mr. NATCHER. Title would be taken in the name of the Government? The system would be owned by the Federal Government. Mr. MALONE. That is right, sir. UTILIZATION OF CAR DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH AND EXPERIENCE OF OTHER CITIES Mr. NATCHER. As far as car development projects are concerned, are you utilizing research and experience of other cities? Mr. MCCARTER. Mr. Chairman Mr. NATCHER. Give us an idea as to the number of cities you have in mind from the standpoint of finding out what their experience has. been. Mr. MCCARTER. Mr. Chairman, some years ago I was president. of the Transit Research Corp., which developed the quiet streetcars you used to have in Washington. Within the industry they werecalled the president's conference cars. When the streetcars went out of business, that organization was converted to the Institute for Rapid Transit, of which I was president for the last 4 years. I resigned to become Administrator and to eliminate any possible conflict of interest. The Institute for Rapid Transit has promoted much of the research that the manufacturers and suppliers have been doing on equipment. In addition, as general manager of the Chicago Transit System, I was 53-537-65- -44 responsible for purchasing a quantity of rapid transit cars of the most modern design except for one thing-they did not have the cab control signal system. This is now being installed in the cars on the Lake Street line. So far as equipment research is concerned, there has been a tremendous amount accomplished, and what we will do is to decide on the outside and detailed dimensions of the cars. We will write performance specifications, not only on the overall car but for each part of the equipment on the car. There will be performance specifications for each component of equipment. From that time on, each of the principal car manufacturing firms will design cars in cooperation with us. The ultimate purchase of the cars will be on a bid basis. For instance, the last cars we bought in Chicago were from the Pullman Co., but the Budd Co. has also furnished cars. But for that particular order, there was a complete design of the cars by each of the three major companies, and we approved the design and they bid on them. It happened that Pullman was the low bidder and we took the Pullman cars. That is the way we will do the equipment. We will do all the preliminaries. I have no intention of hiring one company as they did in San Francisco to build a prototype car. I believe I know enough about. them to eliminate this step. The San Francisco system is an interurban system so they need to have a different type of car. St. Louis Car Co. was given the task of building the prototype car in San Francisco. One of the reasons for building a protype car is to show the residents what kind of a car they are going to have. Recently three types of very modern cars were on display at Union Station. They included the Chicago car, the car that is used by the Pennsylvania Railroad in Philadelphia, and the car used on a suburban line in New York. I would say there has been a tremendous amount of research done and I do not think we need to do any more research. We want to move ahead and get a job done. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SYSTEM Mr. NATCHER. Mr. McCarter, at this time we would like for you, oone of the members of your staff, to explain to us the transit develop ment program as depicted on the map before the committee. Mr. QUENSTEDT. The chart taken as a whole shows the 24- or 25-mile system that is in this basic system we propose. Its foundation is the downtown distribution segment which runs east to west across the central portion of the city. It is roughly between Judiciary Square on the east and Lafayette Park on the west. From this basic distributor, four radials go out into the respective parts of the city. One line begins at Benning and Kenilworth Avenue NE., which is shown here in green. It is in green because this particular portion of the line is either on surface, or on an elevated structure as the topography might dictate. This route is No. 4 on the illustration in justification material provided the subcommittee. It goes over to the District of Columbia Stadium and at this point the subway line begins. Where you see these lines in red, the routes will all be underground. It proceeds across the eastern part of the city with a stop at South Dakota and Kentucky Avenue SE., on to Pennsylvania and North Carolina Avenue SE., and a stop in the East Plaza of the Capitol. We referred to this station earlier in connection with your question concerning coordination with the Architect of the Capitol. It swings around the Capitol toward Union Station and then, as I mentioned before, joins the downtown basic distributor. The line from Maryland (identified as No. 3 in the justification document, see p. 571b) begins at a point just beyond Silver Spring, which for matters of convenience was selected to provide a necessary yard. It is located where the Georgetown spur of the B. & O. goes toward the Potomac River. This terminal point is at Woodside and there is a stop there. The next stop is at Silver Spring. Then the route crosses the District of Columbia line into Takoma Park where there is also a stop. Another is at New Hampshire Avenue NE., there is one at Taylor Street NE., another at Rhode Island Avenue NE., and the route then proceeds down to Union Station. This particular part of the system will be on the surface, on the real estate or right-of-way of the B. & O. Railroad. This will be accomplished by separating the present tracks of the B. & O. and running the transit between the tracks. At Union Station, the system will go into subway, underneath the Union Station Building, and there run coincidentally with the line we just described across to Lafayette Square. At Lafayette Square the lines turns northwesterly following the alinement of Connecticut Avenue, and except for a crossing of the Rock Creek Park Canyon, will be entirely in subway out to the Bureau of Standards. The Connecticut Avenue line is identified as No. 1 in the budget document. From that line, also all in subway, will be a line that runs across the north central portion of the city and terminates at New Hampshire and Georgia Avenues NW. This route is No. 2 in the illustration contained in the budget document. As you can see, there will be four stops on that particular line. From Lafayette Park, the line leading to the Pentagon proceeds westerly generally along the alinement of H Street NW. I might mention that the downtown distributor is generally under G Street NW., from 7th Street on the east to 15th Street on the west where it turns northwestward under Lafayette Park. This route follows the alinement of H Street to and under the river to a station in the center of the Rosslyn complex; then it turns southeasterly, and it runs on the surface along the property mentioned earlier belonging to the Pennsyslvania Railroad, it returns to subway north of the Pentagon. There will be a station at the Pentagon Building. The route then continues southerly until it gets just beyond Shirley Highway, at which point it travels in a cut along the alinement of South Hayes Street and terminates at what is known as the "Pentagon City" area. This provides a convenient location for a storage yard for transit cars. The Pentagon route is No. 5 in the illustration opposite page 2 in the budget document. There are 13.1 miles in subway and approximately 12 miles either on the surface, on structure, or in the cut. |