I wanted you to comment during your testimony as to whether or not you have gotten any indication or agreement from the communities as to whether or not they would pay or come up with their $60 million share.

There have been a lot of questions expressed as to whether or not we could get as many riders to participate in the mass transit system once it was developed, because we would have to do something in reversing the trend of the public to private automobiles. Certainly if the communities themselves participated in the cost of construction of such a system, I believe we would have more participation on the part of the riding public in the system. Unless the people are willing to pay something toward the cost of the construction of the facility, I doubt very much if the public will spend to use it.

My third point I should like to raise here, and I think this is the most serious one, is whether or not the agency has taken full cognizance in their study and in their recommendations of all of the existing transportation facilities, such as the existing rail lines, but even more important, the existing transportation system.

We discussed quite a bit in detail the existence of privately owned transportation systems when we passed the legislation creating the National Capital Transportation Agency. The committee expressed deep and grave concern as to whether the creation of any mass transit system would destroy or injure private enterprise, and the committee did express its intention, its desire, its determination to see that these privately owned and operated transportation companies were not injured and certainly not destroyed, but, on the contrary, took the view that these privately owned transportation companies should be exploited, expanded, and improved as a part of an overall improvement of transportation services here in the metropolitan area.

Those are the three points on which I have concern and on which I think a lot of the Members of the Congress will have concern and questions that they want answered as we proceed with the problem we are going to have in getting this legislation approved.

Mr. WHITENER. Do any of you other gentlemen have comments? Mr. Stolzenbach, I think that before you testify perhaps I should say to my colleague that in the report which the agency issued on November 1, 1962, in chapter 2 you did go into these matters of existing mass transportation facilities, you did go into the highway situation, and I would hope that in the hearings that we can approach this matter as a serious study of the need for a rapid transit facility in the District of Columbia and in the metropolitan area, and not as a battle between advocates of one form of transportation and advocates of another.

Now there are some who have said that this subcommittee in the last Congress was opposed to the highway program. Of course, there is no basis for that allegation.

I must admit, speaking as one member of the committee, that I am not in favor of a highway program or any other program which would uproot thousands of people from their residences without some plan to relocate those people. I think it is one of the bigger problems here in the District of Columbia. It is nice to be able to bring folks in from outside of Washington on highways, but I think it is even nicer to have places for people who are living in the District of Columbia to go to bed at night.

I have had telephone calls from people in my State that someone here in Washington has contacted, giving them completely erroneous information as to the purpose of these hearings. I have said to those people-most of them, of course, are very close friends of mine, that is why they called-that as far as I was concerned that anyone who has any views on this matter can set them forth here in the record and give their testimony.

If there is merit to their position it will stand before this committee. If they do not have and if you do not have, then I would assume that the position would fall in this committee. It is just as simple as that.

Now you have with you, I believe, some other gentlemen from your agency, do you not?

STATEMENT OF C. DARWIN STOLZENBACH, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY WARREN D. QUENSTEDT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND EDWIN H. SEEGER, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. STOLZENBACH. I would like to introduce Mr. Warren Quenstedt, Deputy Administrator of the Agency, and Mr. Edwin Seeger, the Assistant Administrator and General Counsel.

Mr. WHITENER. If it is all right with you, I think it would be well to have these gentlemen make their presentation and wait until they finish. Otherwise, we will never get through with the witnesses.

Suppose you and your associates make the presentation and then we will withhold questions until you have completed your presentation. Mr. STOLZENBACH. Mr. Chairman, as directed by the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, on November 1, 1962, the Agency submitted to the President, for transmittal to the Congress, a report describing the region's transportation problems and recommending a transit development program designed to solve them. The President has since transmitted the Agency's program to the Congress with his strong recommendation that it be adopted and implemented.

I am here to explain how the Agency carried out the directives given it by the Congress, and to urge that the Congress act favorably upon the program.

I should make it clear that the only authority requested by the President and the Agency is authority to begin construction of the proposed rapid transit system. The Agency's recommendations with respect to highways have been taken under advisement by the President and the other agencies concerned and the bills presently before this committee do not concern these recommendations.

Before turning to the substance of my statement, Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to express for myself and for my staff our deep appreciation for the continuous interest and support of this committee.

The transit development program being considered today is the culmination of nearly a decade of thought and careful planning by a succession of people and agencies both in and out of government. Without the initiative and the farsighted support of this committee and the Congress, the present program could never have been prepared, nor would the comprehensive studies which preceded our Agency's work have been possible.

In 1952, legislation was initiated by this committee, under the leadership of Chairman McMillan, directing the National Capital Planning Commission to include mass transportation in a study of the transportation needs of the National Capital.

When the Planning Commission presented the results of this study to the Congress in the Mass Transportation Survey Report of 1959, extensive hearings were held before the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems of the 86th Congress. Several members of the House District Committee participated with Senator Bible and Congressman McMillan in the work of the joint committee, and will recall its deep concern over the inadequacy of existing transportation facilities, and the effect of transportation improvements on the beauty and dignity of the Capital, and on the future growth of the Capital region.

NCTA was born of those deliberations. With a clear and comprehensive statement of the problems before it, the committee and the Congress focused their attention on solutions. The National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 identified the problems, directed NCTA to prepare a program of action to meet them, and established a number of very precise ground rules to guide our work.

Mr. Chairman, in my testimony I will concentrate on the specific provisions and directives in the 1960 act and will explain what the Agency did about them. I can at best summarize the extensive studies conducted by the Agency.

The transit development program now being considered was published first in the Agency's report to the President of November 1, 1962. It is described also in the summary report which accompanied the President's letter of transmittal to the Congress. Details of the program are contained in six appendix volumes on planning, engineering, finance, organization, and other subjects which were published by the Agency in January of this year: Volume I, Engineering; volume II, Use of Railroad Facilities; volume III, Traffic Forecasting; volume IV, A Model for Estimating Travel Mode Usage; volume V, System Planning; and volume VI, Organization and Finance. Still other reports have been issued by the Agency. Copies of all of this material have been placed in your hands.

THE AGENCY'S RESEARCH ON THE TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM

Section 204 (f) of the 1960 act required the Agency, among other things, to

conduct research * * * on the needs of the region for transportation (and) on facilities, equipment, and services to meet those needs.

One of the first jobs the Agency undertook was the development in collaboration with the area highway departments of a set of forecasts of future travel within the region. This project included the development of a computerized method of forecasting highway and public transportation patronage for any given combination of highway and rapid transit systems.

That forecast disclosed what anyone who has lived in Washington over the past several years would suspect: a constant increase in trips throughout the region and a 44-percent increase between now and 1980

in rush hour trips to and through downtown Washington. Today there are 176,000 person-trips destined to and through Washington in the morning peak hour, creating intolerable congestion. By 1980, the number will rise to 254,000, an increase of almost 80,000 person-trips.

The key conclusion of the Agency's traffic analysis is that without a rapid transit system, and even assuming a highway system larger than that proposed by the District Commissioners, congestion will increase. But with a rapid transit system, and a vigorous freeway program, not only can we accommodate the additional traffic that will develop, we can substantially improve today's conditions and give the city a real measure of relief.

In sum, the conditions which gave rise to the establishment of the Agency in 1960 and the recognition by the Congress that a rapid transit system was needed, have grown steadily worse and will continue to do so unless rapid transit becomes a reality.

THE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Section 204 (a) of the act required the Agency to prepare a transit development program designed to meet this problem. The program prepared by the Agency, recommended by the President, and which would be authorized by the bills before this committee, is a truly regional mass transportation system consisting of more than 80 miles of rapid transit service, an additional 15 miles of commuter railroad service, and over 50 miles of express bus service on freeways.

Before coming to a detailed description of the system, Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize one point.

This plan was developed after countless meetings between myself, the Deputy Administrator and members of my staff and public and private organizations throughout the region.

Section 204(g) of the act required us to consult with a wide variety of other agencies and governmental bodies and we did so. Beyond that, we discussed our plans with many, many individuals and citizens' groups. And I think you will find, Mr. Chairman, as the hearings develop, that the transit development program has tremendous popular support.

In this connection, I think the committee will be interested in the results of a study which the Agency had conducted to provide a check on its traffic projections. That study, which was conducted by one of the Nation's leading market research firms, disclosed that commuters in Washington are overwhelmingly in favor of having a rail rapid transit system in this area. We will have more to say on this matter later on in the hearing.

THE DOWNTOWN SUBWAY

Recognizing that any rapid transit system, to be successful, would have to be capable of distributing tens of thousands of people throughout downtown Washington, Congress directed the Agency to "give special consideration to early development of a subway from Union Station capable of rapid dispersal of passengers from the railhead to the principal employment centers of the District of Columbia and its immediate environs."

Following this instruction, thorough studies were conducted by the Agency to ascertain the location of present and future downtown employment concentrations. A series of alternative downtown subway systems were then designed to meet the demand.

I may say here, Mr. Chairman, that the Agency literally examined dozens of different ways of distributing commuter traffic throughout the downtown area. The plan which we came up with is the one that we decided was the best one.

In this map to the right here-map No. 1-the areas in dense black show the areas of greatest employment concentration as anticipated by the planning agencies and the General Services Administration for the year 1980.