ule into the critical area. Further delays will endanger all means of transportation in and out of the Capital. Traffic, other than peak-hour commuter traffic, is bound to increase as more visitors come to Washington and more goods and material are needed for our everyday needs. Peak-hour traffic will also increase. Let's get these projects off dead center. highways as rapidly as our plans will allow. and details from NCTA so we may proceed. Sincerely, Let's proceed with both subways and FRANK WOLFSHEIMER, Chairman. Members: John Daniels, Harold Gray, Dean D. Marlowe, George Petticord, Lee Purnell, W. F. Sheppard, James Willett. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman of the District Committee, JUNE 1, 1963. DEAR SIR: The presentation, by the President, of the NCTA report to Congress, along with his thoughts on the matter, was long in coming, and I feel that a great deal of soul-searching thought had been put into his remarks before they were presented to you. It is most unfortunate that he did not go the full length of his conclusions which must have been that both highways and rapid transit are needed. The Evening Star, May 29, 1963, assessed the great need of the city of Washington, for both, very adequately and very completely. It would be a great shame if this becomes a fight between those who think the automobile is a thing of the past and those who think the automobile is the only thing of the future. A great deal of study, engineering reports, and research has been put into the design of the network of highways leading into and around the city of Washington. The Bureau of Public Roads, the State highway departments of Virginia and Maryland and the District of Columbia have arrived at certain conclusions and those conclusions should be followed. No such detailed study or research was done by NCTA, nor did NCTA have the professional and technical staff to make such a study. Cooperation between NCTA and the various highway departments was at a bare minimum. It is true that they were given briefing lectures, but their opinions were not solicited nor followed. The highway system should not be allowed to lag. We are well behind our needs at the present time. We should continue our construction at the same pace that was planned in 1960. The Three Sisters Bridge is an urgent need of the District of Columbia and of Virginia in order to allow traffic to flow smoothly between these areas. Empirical formulas, arrived at unilaterally, which vary from the accepted standards of the Bureau of Public Roads and most State highway departments, cannot be used to overthrow the plans and decisions made by these departments. If the correct figures are used for design purposes, the need for the Three Sisters Bridge is obvious. There is no question that a rapid transit system is also required for the future growth of the metropolitan area. Just as in the case of highways, the exact locations and details on the rapid transit system bear research and investigation. The amount of investigation and engineering research given to the plans are presented by NCTA are not sufficient to tie up the millions of dollars required to perfect a system. This is one of the largest expenditures that has ever been made for public works in the Greater Washington metropolitan area and certainly adequate attention and engineering research and design should be given to this most important project. Congress should do everything within its power to speed up the completion of the highway systems as planned by the Bureau of Public Roads and the various highway departments and to speed up the beginning of a feasible subway system. Sincerely, FRANK WOLFSHEIMER, CE-PE, Chairman of the Commissioners' Planning Advisory Council; Director-Adviser of the Civic Affairs Committee, District of Columbia Society of Professional Engineers. WASHINGTON, D.C., July 7, 1963. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, Chairman, House District Subcommittee No. 6, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WHITENER: Following is a statement from the Cathedral HeightsCleveland Park Citizens Association regarding the transit development program for Washington. We hope it will be included in the record of the hearings to be held by your subcommittee commencing July 9, 1963: "Three of our recent meetings have been devoted to studying the transportation situation and various proposals. We have heard representatives from the National Capital Transportation Agency, the District of Columbia Department of Highways, and other knowledgeable speakers. Our resolutions (A, B, C, below) were adopted by large majorities. A. IN FAVOR OF A RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM (1) The association strongly supports the proposals of the NCTA for a balanced, comprehensive system centered around a rail rapid-transit network, to be combined with express bus routes and highways only as needed. (2) We are aware that several groups have criticized the NCTA proposals. Most of these well-organized and local critics appear to have financial or professional interests in highway construction. Our interests are solely those of the citizens who will have to live with and travel by whatever plan is decided on by Congress. Our deep concern is the preservation of the beauty and tranquillity of our home environment, and the dignity and graciousness of our Nation's Capital. (3) We, therefore, urge that construction of the rail lines be begun immediately. In this way all Washington, and our area in particular, will have the benefits of this long overdue and badly needed facility as soon as possible. (4) For this purpose we strongly urge you to do all in your power to expedite and support the bill (H.R. 6633) which authorizes the NCTA to begin construction of its transit lines. B. OPPOSITION TO UNNEEDED HIGHWAY EXPANSION The only alternative to rail transit is a great proliferation of motor vehicles, multilane freeways, and parking lots. We have rejected this concept. (1) Such huge construction would destroy the graciousness of the city as we now know it, and would fail to do the job in any case. (2) The growing and serious atmospheric pollution from motor vehicles demands limitation of their use rather than their multiplication. (3) Since a single rail line equals the carrying capacity of about 15 lanes of paved roadway, these hazards are greatly lessened or eliminated by a rail transit system. C. OPPOSITION TO THE THREE SISTERS BRIDGE Although not directly at issue, this matter will doubtless be discussed at the hearing. Our association would therefore like to record with your committee its overwhelming opposition to construction of the Three Sisters Bridge and connecting roadways on both sides of the Potomac. Careful study by our members has shown, in brief, that such a bridge is entirely unnecessary at that location, and that the proposal is the single concept most destructive of priceless and irreplaceable scenic, esthetic, recreational, and residential values at present being considered. Respectfully submitted. (Mrs.) HILDEGARD W. CANNAN, Secretary, Cathedral Heights-Cleveland Park Citizens Association. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, PARKWAY CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, House District Subcommittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WHITENER: This letter is in regard to the transportation legislation on which your subcommittee is beginning hearings. Our organization endorses a balanced program between highways and rapid transit. Such balance does not include the Three Sisters Bridge and the Spout Run Parkway. We are opposed to these two projects for two reasons: One, it would cover a section of our fast-vanishing nature areas within concrete. Second, it is not needed within the foreseeable future. As conclusively shown by the National Capital Transportation Agency's report and that of the Committee of One Hundred on the Federal City the bridges now under construction and proposed by Representative Broyhill, of Virginia, and the rapid transit system can handle the traffic within the period of responsible forecasting. Beyond that time new situations will prevail and adapted preparations can be made. Therefore, in the light of economy, a balanced transportation system, including the proposed rapid system and balancing freeways we urge your subcommittee to give consideration to such a program. Such a balanced program does not include the Three Sisters Bridge and the Spout Run Parkway. Sincerely, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee, J. H. HECKMAN, President. SILVER SPRING, MD., June 20, 1963. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission has taken a strong position in advocating the inclusion of the Three Sisters Bridge and the north leg of the inner loop in the Washington highway construction plans. Mr. Brewer has justified this position by saying that we residents of Montgomery County need these additional highways because most of our families own two or more automobiles and, therefore, will not use alternative transportation to and from Washington. I wish to point out that Mr. Brewer's statements do not necessarily reflect the popular opinion in suburban Maryland. It is, indeed, granted that many of us own two or more cars; however, we own additional (more than one) cars because they are necessary as a result of the extremely poor public transportation offered here. Many of us would be glad to substitute our additional cars for good transportation. Also, many of us would prefer to ride good rail transit to work and not have to devote one automobile solely for this purpose. I will not include the additional, and perhaps more important, reasons for the establishment of suburban rail transit and the deceleration of highway construction in the Washington metropolitan area. You have heard the arguments from both sides. I mostly wish to point out that many of us in suburban Maryland are not in accord with the position taken by the MNCPPC. Although I have not talked to the majority of people in suburban Maryland on this issue, I have found that at least 75 percent of the people my wife and I have contacted are not in accord with the position of the MNCPPC, which may be an indication of the popular consensus of opinion. The National Capital Transportation Agency plan, in my opinion, is the most comprehensive and potentially efficient transportation plan so far submitted and still will preserve the dignity of the Capital and consider the welfare and transportation needs of its residents. President Kennedy was right in his decision to accept this plan as is. It is hoped that the members of your committee will keep the public interest and the well-being of the Nation's Capital in mind over the relentless pressure to which you will be subjected by the highway interests. Respectfully yours, JOHN E. MCKINNEY. WASHINGTON, D.C., July 3, 1963. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 6, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WHITENER: Feeling that you would be interested in a disinterested citizen's views on the local transportation problem I am enclosing a statement for insertion in the record of hearings by your subcommittee which, I believe, will begin next Tuesday; and although I appreciate the heavy demands upon your time, and regardless of the length of the statement, I am hopeful that you may find time to read it. I assure you that it contains a straightforward presentation of the problem. As you will understand from previous correspondence, and John Bell Williams will verify this, I am not in sympathy with the President's overall program of socialism nor with the attempts of the Brothers Kennedy to mongrelize this Nation. Yet, in this instance, the President has taken the only practicable approach to a solution of our transit problem. Apparently, however, there is a well-organized movement on the part of the selfish interests to destroy the NCTA if their demands for unnecessary highways are not met. Their drive is being spearheaded by the AAA whose propaganda is most vicious. I am hopeful, therefore, that my presentation may assist you in arriving at a most difficult decision. Respectfully, Enclosure. JOHN M. DEW, KYLE II. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. DEW. KYLE, II, A CONSULTANT, OF WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am John M. DeW. Kyle, II, a consultant situated at 1954 Columbia Road, NW., Washington, D.C. During my more than 35 years of residence in the Greater Washington area, I have been a student of municipal government. I am, therefore, somewhat familiar with the local transportation problems and traffic management. I have carefully studied the National Capital Transportation Agency transit plan and the numerous highway proposals now existing. My testimony is in support of the NCTA plan. I would like to point out that I support the NCTA plan as a private citizen and that I am not in the employ of any firm, organization, or individual, having an interest in any means of transportation. As is now well known, Mr. Chairman, the President has approved the NCTA plan and has asked the Congress to implement it. Before the President approved the plan it is well to point out, I believe, that it was approved by the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission on Fine Arts, the Area Council of Governments, the adjacent counties, and by area federations of citizens associations, and to my knowledge no citizens' organization in the area has opposed the plan. The plan, therefore, has the unqualified support of the people who have spoken through their organizations who are authorized to speak for them. Unfortunately, however, commercial interests, including downtown business interest and privately owned transit and transportation concerns, are demanding the construction of highways that were planned before the NCTA was established but which the NCTA system has outdated. Obviously for grant purposes, the proposed highways are tied in with the interstate highway program; but as the Washington Evening Star pointed out editorially on June 30, we must not confuse local rapid transit with interstate highway programs. Rapid transit is to handle commuter traffic and that's just what NCTA is undertaking to do. Those of us who oppose any nonessential highway construction have pointed out time and time again that in land area the District of Columbia is but 10 miles square and that we cannot increase the area by annexation; that there is no available land for new highway construction and that the existing interstate highway system is adequate to our needs. Would it be wise, therefore, to demolish and relocate whole communities, desecrate our parks and woodlands, our shrines and our monuments, and our historical surroundings to provide additional surface space for the operation of trailer tractors, buses, trucks, etc., when such is not necessary or desirable? Shall we make the Washington area a trunkline for interstate motor freight carriers? If the subcommittee is interested in obtaining an amusing list of the interests that are on record for the proposed new highway construction, it is suggested that the folder "Highways Move More People Better" be obtained. It is published and distributed by the local highway users conference which uses the address of the American Automobile Association at 1712 G Street NW., Washington 6, D.C. These selfish interests do not represent the commuting public nor the motorist; and, I regret to say, the AAA is alined with them, is indeed their spokesman. The record must show, however, that the AAA does not represent the AAA membership. According to the AAA there are about 100,000 AAA members in this area, but the AAA officials have refused to put the NCTA plan to a vote of the AAA membership, and would not even poll the members by mail on the subject. The officials are not elected by the AAA members, and apparently, the 21-468-63- -8 local AAA spokesman is an advisory board-not elected by the members-and although the board members are all worthy citizens, not a single one of them can be recognized as an authority on any means of transportation. With the AAA and the selfish interests with which it is allied, we find a strange bedfellow. This is a labor union representing construction workers; and its interest in highway construction, according to its spokesman, is to generate make-work programs. This union's name will be found along with those of the automotive and highway interest in the cited folder. And, now, the Ohio unit of AAA has joined forces with the local AAA and other selfish interests. We note in the Congressional Record for July 2, 1963 (at page 11395) that this Ohio function has registered its opposition to the NCTA plan with a U.S. Senator. One would think, however, that the Ohio AAA would be more properly concerned with transit problems in Ohio. Later, Mr. Chairman, I shall show just what the AAA and the interests it represents has in store for the President. But of just what are the automotive and highway interest really afraid? This Ohio AAA organization, for instance, is merely parroting scare propaganda being generated by the automotive and highway interests. Their ridiculous line is that if NCTA is permitted to build a subway system here that it will be held up as a model transit operation which would result in the abandonment of highway construction in other cities. This is a clear indicator of what is to come. The interests are out to defeat the Senate-enacted mass transportation bill, and the destruction of the NCTA would be the first stepping stone. In recent years many congressional hearings have been held on mass transportation bills. The great metropolitan areas have asked the Congress for financial assistance to build local transit facilities; and in support of the legislation, distinguished Governors, mayors, county officials, and representatives of local chambers of commerce, have appeared before the committees; and what do these prominent officials and leaders, who have learned by experience, say about subway transit and highways in their communities? They have said that as fast as freeways are completed, motorists rush to them and jam traffic from one end to the other. The Governor of California has said that the Los Angeles freeway is the longest parking lot in the world, and Los Angeles is planning a subway; also these officials are convinced that highways cannot solve their transit problems and they want subway transit. Then last November, by an overwhelming majority, the voters of the San Francisco area approved a rapid transit system much like the NCTA proposal. We may well note, too, that the principal cities of the world are now building subway systems or extending those now in operation. The problem is the same in the cities everywhere. There just isn't enough surface space in the congested sections to move the automotive traffic. The gay city of Paris is even planning for underground parking. Will the highway fraternity never see the light? Until they can build modern and adequate transit systems, some of our cities find it necessary to impose drastic traffic restrictions which are most distasteful to the motorists. One city, Philadelphia I believe, has proposed to impose a special license fee on all passenger automobiles using the downtown streets during certain hours. Restrictive parking and metered parking are similarly distasteful; and generally, the motorists complain that private parking fees are too high. Unfortunately, the highway-automotive interests and the public highway departments have had a stranglehold on our municipalities for too long a time. That hold must be broken even at the cost of a complete reorganization of the National Bureau of Public Roads. The State highway departments-including our own highway departmentwield too much power over city planning. Each State highway department has a separate municipal planning section whose planning services are free to the municipalities and those services are used to promote city freeways as adjuncts to the interstate routes; and too many cities have accepted these services as a solution to their local transit problems; and what the highway engineers have done must now be corrected; with their vast networks of interstate highways, expressways, freeways, parkways, etc., they have simply poured more automotive traffic into the congested areas of the cities than can be handled by any surface means. Like Washington, therefore, the cities have turned to the only means of a satisfactory solution and that is subway transit. No responsible person, however, is opposed to expanding the Interstate Highway System to meet the national needs. But just what is the interstate highway situation in the Washington area? |