Some of my questions might be repetitious of some that have already been asked, but I think they are important in developing answers as fully as possible in the record. As I understand it, your agency does not contemplate constructing and operating any type of facility other than the rail transit. You do not intend, or you do not contemplate, operating buslines? Mr. BROYHILL. You intend to leave that up to free enterprise? Mr. BROYHILL. Now, you feel that free enterprise can survive; properly survive, with the development of this system? Mr. STOLZENBACH. Yes. Mr. BROYHILL. With subsidy? Mr. BROYHILL. Without subsidy? Mr. STOLZENBACH. Some of the lesser feeder lines that will be necessary possibly would not be profitable, and we have provided in our financial estimates for a certain amount to be paid Mr. BROYHILL. Yes, we talked about that yesterday, and the figure of $7 million a year was mentioned. Mr. STOLTZENBACH. $7 million a year. Mr. BROYHILL. Out Mr. STOLTZENBACH. Out of the annual operating revenues. Mr. BROYHILL. $7 million to subsidize the private lines? Mr. STOLZENBACH. Right. Mr. BROYHILL. Have you checked those figures with the existing companies as to whether that would be sufficient? Mr. STOLZENBACH. No. Mr. BROYHILL. How did you arrive at the figure? By so much per mile of operating costs and so many trips? Mr. SEEGER. If I can identify Mr. Roy Gilfix, I think he can answer that question. Mr. GILFIX. I am Roy H. Gilfix. That was based, Mr. Broyhill, on 1212 cents for each passenger, that we assumed that the local bus companies would deliver to us. The actual figure is not 7 million. It is 7.5 million. We developed the 122 cents based on what is known in the transit industry as a "finders-keepers arrangement." This simplifies bookkeeping. In other words, the basic fare is a quarter. If they deliver to us a passenger, they pick up the original fare and retain it and give the passenger a transfer which we will accept. When we originate the passenger we keep the 25 cents and give him a transfer which he can use on the next system. Mr. BROYHILL. I would have hoped, Mr. Stolzenbach, that you would have checked these figures out with the existing companies just for verification. I am very interested, and so is the committee, and so is the original committee that created the agency, in the survival of free enterprise because, by and large, they are doing a very fine job. Now, we know that there is a need for improvement in the transportation system here, but we do not want to scuttle a healthy system if it can be avoided. So I would like to have those figures verified by the private industries here, and I hope that they will comment on them when they testify later on during the hearings. I want to keep these existing lines in existence, if possible. Mr. STOLZENBACH. I understand. Mr. SEEGER. Mr. Broyhill, we need them. Mr. BROYHILL. I beg your pardon? Mr. SEEGER. I think it is perfectly clear, from our transportation plan, that we need them. Mr. HARSHA. Will you yield there? Mr. BROYHILL. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. I take it, the answer to my question now is "No" because you previously said that you had not had any cooperation with the bus companies; but have you consulted with them as to whether or not they will accept this figure? Mr. STOLZENBACH. No. Mr. HARSHA. Well, then it is quite possible that that subsidy can be considerably larger before they will cooperate with you; is it not? And this again will be reflected in your overall costs? Mr. STOLZENBACH. That is possible. Mr. HARSHA. That is all. Mr. BROYHILL. Now, we have also discussed the feasibility, or lack of feasibility, of having the existing rail lines come into town without being picked up by, or continued by, a subway system. Now, a moment ago, Mr. Seeger-and I think it was you who pointed it out, in answer to one of Mr. Harsha's questions you said that in the development of a downtown subway system you found it would be practical to go ahead and continue it out into the suburbs. At any time during your studies and planning here did you consider the economic feasibility of just developing the subway system within the boundaries of the District of Columbia and stopping it right there, considering the possibility of other bus lines or, rather, buslines bringing passengers into the perimeter or having large parking areas and having your subway system right within the bounds of the District of Columbia? Was that considered? Mr. SEEGER. Yes, sir; we did that and made a specific study with respect to Route 66, which was one of the smaller volume corridors that was ultimately proposed as a rail transit corridor. The conclusion was that it would be cheaper in the long run, taking into account operating costs and capital costs, to provide the rail service. There was also the fact that we felt that the rail service in that corridor would attract more passengers than would buses, largely because of the transfer problem. Mr. BROYHILL. Well now, the reason for asking the question is that I am trying to develop an answer in the event the surrounding communities do not go along with the roughly $40 million that they would be called upon to put up. Now, I believe, Mr. Stolzenbach, you said the other day, in answer to a question along that line, or at least I got that impression, that the system could survive and be successful, economically feasible, even if the surrounding communities do not participate. Did I understand you correctly? Mr. STOLZENBACH. That is correct. Mr. BROYHILL. Now, would that mean developing the subway system within the District of Columbia and stopping it there? Mr. STOLZENBACH. That is right. Mr. BROYHILL. It would not mean developing any rail lines or rapid lines. The bus lines would not cost you too much, only median strips. Mr. STOLZENBACH. In that event, we would propose two short extensions into the suburbs to Woodside and Silver Spring and Pentagon City, in Virginia, which we feel are appropriate terminal points. Mr. BROYHILL. So it is within the realm of possibility that we could wind up here with a subway system within the boundaries of the District of Columbia Mr. STOLZENBACH. Yes. Mr. BROYHILL. And then have other types of transportation bringing the people into that perimeter? Mr. STOLZENBACH. Right. Mr. BROYHILL. Another reason that I think this should be explored as fully as possible is your answer to the question concerning intrastate travel. I do not know whether this is in the 1959 survey or not, but some survey or some report that we had before us indicated that there would not be any greater number of people commuting into the center of the populated area of the District of Columbia by 1985 than we have commuting now. But I notice that you folks, in your report, indicate that there would be an increase in the number of commuters. Anyway, there is some conflict there as to the growth of the areas or the population changing and shifting; that it is possible that there may not be as many people coming into the center of Washington as you contemplated, but perhaps more might be engaged in intrastate travel. Now, we will certainly have to have a more flexible rapid system than the rail system if we are going to adjust in shifts in employment areas, will we not? Mr. STOLZENBACH. Yes. Mr. BROYHILL. I believe if we did confine it or consider the economics and feasibility on confining the rail portion to the District of Columbia we would have more flexibility in developing better transportation for the shift in employment, which we might not be able to contemplate with accuracy today. And with that in mind-or did you ever have that in mind, to consider the use of an all-bus system, not even using rail at all? Mr. STOLZENBACH. The all-bus system was examined very thoroughly by the 1959 survey group, and they concluded that for many reasons it was impractical Mr. BROYHILL. Did you attempt to develop that yourself? Mr. STOLZENBACH. We took another look at it, looked over their figures very hard, and even extended the studies. These studies are described in our technical report "A Study of Bus Rapid Transit Operations of the National Capital Region-1963.” When you talk about the system within the District of Columbia, I think we have got to point out that it is not going to serve the whole region as well as our total system. Mr. BROYHILL. I agree. I agree. Mr. STOLZENBACH. And so far as flexibility is concerned, we feel you get the greatest amount of flexibility and service, bringing everything together, by having these rail lines go as far into the suburbs as there are people to ride them. Mr. BROYHILL. Well, my questions are not necessarily meant to convey a point of view on my part. I think these questions that are being asked and are going to be asked, should be asked Mr. STOLZENBACH. Right. Mr. BROYHILL (continuing). Because whatever action we take on the legislation here, we are going to be subjected to similar questions on the floor. And it may be possible that we take a part of the load or half of the load in order to get some improvement in the transportation here. So that is the reason I asked the question as to whether or not we might have to stop this thing at the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Obviously, it would not be as satisfactory as extending it on out into the suburbs. One more question here, Mr. Chairman: Is your engineer here, who came up with the survey that showed that three times as many people would like to ride rail or would ride rail as would ride buses? Mr. STOLZENBACH. Yes; that is Dr. Warren Wittereich. He is vice president of National Analysts, Inc. Mr. BROYHILL. I would like to have him answer, for the record, a few questions on that. When you asked the persons, as I understood the statement the other day, you asked them what would they prefer if the convenience, the expense, the comfort, the time element, and everything else was the same. How in the Sam Hill could a person know which he would prefer and how could you rely on his answer and, the second part of my question is, Is that your sole source of information as to predicting the habits of people, what people do in riding rapid rail versus buslines? Mr. WITTEREICH. My name is Warren Wittereich. To answer your question specifically requires a two-part explanation. The first part is to explain why the question was asked in what may appear a puzzling manner; namely, to equate bus and rail on three dimensions, cost, time, and convenience, for that is essentially the principle that was employed in asking this question and a great many other questions in the survey which compared various alternatives in terms of transportation open to the commuter. The principle is to ask the question in as unbiased a fashion as possible, so that the nature of the question does not predispose the respondent to say bus or rail, vehicle or automobile, or whatever it may be. The object is to try to make these alternatives as equal as possible. That is why we did attempt to equate the bus and rail vehicle in this particular question on these three dimensions. Now, the responses to the question indicate that actually 15 percent of the people who said "no preference" did respond, in essence, as you have indicated. In effect, these people said these things are the same; so it doesn't make any difference. However, we did go on to ask the people who did indicate a preference, why they had selected a bus or a rail vehicle, and their answers to this followup inquiry indicate that their selection was based on considerations other than the three dimensions on the basis of which the two vehicles had been equated. Now, specifically of those who selected the rail vehicle, 48 percent said the reason they selected it was that the rail vehicle did not present any traffic or weather problems. Thirty-one percent said that a rail vehicle was more comfortable and 20 percent argued that it provided greater safety. In contrast, of those people who had selected the bus, 27 percent gave as their reason greater mobility. Twenty-four percent argued that the bus provided greater comfort, and 15 percent said that the bus enabled them to get closed to their destination. So, in other words, the reasons for picking one or the other were for reasons other than the dimensions on which they had been equated. Mr. BROYHILL. In the example you gave, what difference does it make if it is the same length of time and the same convenience? Possibly in the back of their minds, subconsciously, was the fact that rail would give a little greater speed; wasn't it? Mr. WITTEREICH. I think that is very definitely indicated by the kind of answers they gave. Mr. BROYHILL. One more thing: Did you contact the Housing and Home Finance Agency during your studies? Mr. STOLZENBACH. Yes. Mr. BROYHILL. They have several million dollars in their study in metropolitan transportation right now. Mr. STOLZENBACH. I was in very frequent contact with John Kohl. Mr. BROYHILL. What does he think of your proposal? Mr. STOLZENBACH. The Housing and Home Finance Administration endorsed our program very heartily. Mr. WHITENER. Gentlemen, we are going to try to wind up with you here today, but there are a few questions that I think we might go into. The D.C. Transit Co. has suggested in its report to the President that it believed that it will have the right, indeed that it will be required, to operate such a system under the provisions of its present franchise. Now, did you gentlemen take into account the possibility of that legal situation? Mr. STOLZENBACH. I would like to have the Assistant Administrator and General Counsel answer that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEEGER. We were satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that under the D.C. Transit Franchise Act there is no right to operate the system. This is wholly a matter for Congress to decide. We have made no recommendations on that point. |