In the meantime, the first phase of that program which is within the District of Columbia should be started by the National Capital Transportation Agency. The leadership in this program must come from the central city and from the Congress of the United States, which is the legislative body for that central city.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this bill, these bills, will be acted on favorably by this committee and by the Congress.

I have a resolution from the board of supervisors which I ask to include in the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

At an adjourned meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County, Va., held in the board room in the county office building at Fairfax, Va., on Wednesday, January 23, 1963, at which meeting a quorum was present and voting, the following resolution was adopted:

"Whereas transportation facilities to, from, and within the central city are clearly inadequate to handle traffic generated by the present population of the metropolitan area; and

"Whereas it is doubtful that the proposed future highways alone will be able to handle the traffic generated by the expected area population; and "Whereas it is believed that both a mass transit system and an adequate highway system will be necessary to provide for future needs; and

"Whereas it is understood that detailed location of transit lines and stops in the Virginia area will be subject to negotiation between local jurisdictions concerned and the National Capital Transportation Agency, and that the arrangements for financing are subject to further study and negotiation: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That the Fairfax Board of County Supervisors endorse the general proposals of the National Capital Transportation Agency for a mass transit system in the metropolitan area with the clear understanding that the board of county supervisors does not endorse the entire National Capital Transportation Agency report; particularly, the recommendations which concern the elimination of certain planned highways in Virginia and bridges across the Botomac ; and be it further

"Resolved, That the Fairfax Board of County Supervisors urge Congress to .provide an appropriation for the construction of the first phase of the mass transit system within the District of Columbia."

A copy, teste:

EDNA A. BICKSLER, Clerk of Said Board. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Wilkins, for being with us.

The next witnesses we have are representatives of the Alexandria, Barcroft & Washington Transit Co., Mr. Sexton, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Kahn.

You gentlemen are speaking also for the Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. ?

STATEMENTS OF S. HARRISON KAHN, COMMERCE COUNSEL, AND ROBERT T. MITCHELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, ALEXANDRIA, BARCROFT & WASHINGTON TRANSIT CO.; BURTON H. SEXTON, CONSULTANT AND ENGINEER; MANUEL J. DAVIS, GENERAL COUNSEL AND VICE PRESIDENT, AND S. A. DeSTEFANO, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO.

Mr. KAHN. We are, Mr. Chairman, and these gentlemen are sitting here at the table.

Mr. WHITENER. Who will make the statement in behalf of these two companies?

Mr. KAHN. If the chairman please, I have a few brief opening remarks. Mr. Sexton, a transportation consultant, has been retained by both of the Virginia buslines and he has a statement and a few brief remarks, and Mr. Robert T. Mitchell, who is the executive vice president of Á.B. & W. Transit Co., will speak, and his remarks are endorsed by the president of the Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., who is sitting to my left at the table.

Mr. WHITENER. The only prepared statement we have here is by Mr. Kahn?

Mr. KAHN. That is correct, sir. Mr. Mitchell has his statement and Mr. Sexton. We will pass them up to the committee now.

Mr. WHITENER. All right, Mr. S. Harrison Kahn.

Mr. KAHN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am appreciative for the permission granted to present these facts in your consideration of the legislation designated as H.R. 6633 and H.R. 7249, having concern with a proposed rail rapid transit system for the Washington metropolitan area.

My name is S. Harrison Kahn, and I am commerce counsel for the Alexandria, Barcroft & Washington Transit Co., which trades as A.B. & W. Transit Co., Alexandria, Va.

I also represent the Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., of Arlington, Va., which trades as the W.V. & M. Coach Co. and is also known as the Arnold Lines.

A.B. & W. and W.V. & M. operate over a large network of routes between the northern sector of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the one hand, and, on the other, the District of Columbia. These two bus companies, long engaged in public transportation, under private ownership, provide all of the passenger transportation by motorbus between the District of Columbia and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax, Va.

Additionally, these companies provide intracounty and intercounty services within the areas in which they presently conduct their

services.

On July 1, 1963, the A.B. & W. Transit Co. owned and operated 258 motor coaches and the W.V. & M. Coach Co. operated 200 motor coaches, or a total of 458 vehicles.

The annual revenues of A.B. & W. for 1961 were $4,265,212, and for 1962 were $4,620,228. For the same periods, W.V. & M.'s revenues were $2,971,679 and $3,417,404.

Combined in 1961, the bus companies serving the northern sector of Virginia grossed $7,236,891 and in 1962, $8,037,632.

For 1961, A.B. & W. operated 6,358,267 passenger-miles while W.V. & M. operated 4,570,254 miles, or a total for both companies of 10,928,521. In 1962, each company increased its passenger miles, namely, A.B. & W. to the number of 6,661,348, and W.V. & M. to 4,990,477, or again, in total, 11,651,825 passenger-miles operated.

The number of employees for the two companies as of June 15, 1963, were 829.

The committee will be interested, it is believed, in the amount of taxes paid by these two motorbus companies, including all types of taxes, Federal, State, District of Columbia, and other, but not including income taxes.

For 1961, A.B. & W. paid $278,434 in taxes and W.V. & M. $210,426, or a combined total of $488,860, but not including income taxes.

In 1962 these taxes increased for A.B. & W. to the amount of $320,864, and to the amount of $239,316 for W.V. & M., for a total for the two companies of $560,180, and, again, not including income taxes.

The cost of the present fleet of vehicles devoted to public service by the A.B. & W. Transit Co. is $5,569,162, and that of the W.V. & M. Coach Co. $3,061,700, or a combined total of $8,630,862.

Shop and other equipment total $910,920 for A.B. & W. and $364,032 for W.V. & M., or a total of $1,274,952.

Properties devoted to public service, but leased, cost approximately $830,000 for A.B. & W. and $1 million for W.V. & M., or a grand total for equipment, garage, and other facilities devoted to public service of $11,735,814.

The A.B. & W. Transit Co. and the W.V. & M. Coach Co. retained Mr. Burton H. Sexton, a consultant engineer, to review the legislation referred to this committee. Mr. Sexton has prepared a report that he shall desire to distribute to the committee and make several brief comments with respect thereto.

Mr. Robert T. Mitchell, executive vice president of the A.B. & W. Transit Co., is also sitting beside me and with your permission, desires to make a statement with respect to the position of A.B. & W. Transit Co.

Mr. S. A. DeStefano, president of W.V. & M. Coach Co., is also at the table and his company, I am advised, endorses the views and positions stated by Mr. Sexton and Mr. Mitchell. Mr. DeStefano is accompanied by Manuel J. Davis, general counsel for the Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co.

The A.B. & W. Transit Co. and the W.V. & M. Coach Co. oppose the proposal before your committee to establish a rail rapid transit system in the Washington metropolitan area for the reasons that will be succinctly set forth by Mr. Sexton and Mr. Mitchell.

These gentlemen, Mr. DeStefano, Mr. Davis, and myself, shall be available, after the statements by Mr. Sexton and Mr. Mitchell, to answer such questions as the committee may have with respect to the representations made to it by the A.B. & W. Transit Co. and W.V. & M. Coach Co.

May I again thank you for the opportunity to present this state

ment.

Mr. Sexton now desires, if the chairman please, to make a brief statement.

Mr. WHITENER. All right, Mr. Sexton, you may proceed.

Mr. SEXTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Burton H. Sexton. I am a consultant and engineer specializing in traffic, noise, and transportation.

I was retained several months ago by the A.B. & W. Transit Co. and the W.V. & M. Coach Co. to prepare an independent analysis of the National Capital Transportation Agency's recommendations for transportation in the National Capital region. This study also included an appraisal of appropriate sections of the appendixes volumes I through VI.

I wish to present a copy of this report, dated March 1963. I will briefly summarize the findings to minimize the amount of time for my presentation.

1. The development of a transportation plan for a metropolitan region must consider each mode of travel and the dominant characteristics of each mode. The achievement of a transportation plan must consider the optimum requirements of the transport users. These requirements cannot be based solely upon peak hour needs--some 3 or 4 hours-but upon a 24-hour level of service. These requirements must be based upon not only a 5-day week, but must also include Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. These requirements cannot be solely based upon central business district trips but must also include intra-area trips.

2. Important to a transportation plan is the level of service. The level of service must give consideration to:

(a) Travel time: The National Capital Transportation Agency plan calls for rail speeds of 75 miles per hour, which in actual operation they will be maintaining 40 miles per hour travel time. This more realistic speed can also be maintained by a bus freeway operation. Important to travel times is the increased length of trip produced by the advent of the modern expressway. The increased trip length will have a pronounced effect and will increase intra-area trips. The demand for intra-area trips can be met by only a bus operation and auto travel.

(b) Frequency of service: The headways predicted by a rail operation can also be met by a bus freeway operation.

(c) Area of service or coverage: The National Capital Transportation Agency plan will actually reduce transit coverage and will increase walking distances, waiting times, by drastically reducing the number of transit stops.

(d) Diversion of transit to auto: Washington is recognized to have a high level of transit service. It is the only city of which I am aware that has not lost more transit passengers each year to auto travel. The National Capital Transportation Agency has used a diversion factor of about 58 percent. However, I find this difficult to believe since transit is now carrying some 40 percent of the total trips. How can National Capital Transportation Agency support an extensive rail system with an increase in transit patronage of only 18 percent? 3. The details of the National Capital Transportation Agency forecasting methods as related to the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads sensitivity tests are shown in my report and I will not discuss it at length. However, it is important to note that:

(a) If only 2 minutes were added to the auto parking and walking time the model would predict an increase in transit usage by a fantastic 32.7 percent.

(b) If the 1955 parking costs and the auto waiting and walking times were used the model predicted a decrease in transit usage by 29.6 percent.

Such variations could have a pronounced effect upon the warrants for a rail system or the elimination of any part of the highway system. 4. The National Capital Transportation Agency's consultants also raised a few serious questions and warned transportation planners that the differences were probably due to random variations or regional characteristics. They suggested changes in sampling techniques. The consultants also pointed out that such variations could influence a transportation decision regarding the capacity requirements for transportation facilities.

5. The National Capital Transportation Agency's consultants warn, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads confirm, and it is my opinion that, the National Capital Transportation Agency model has not produced significant warrants for a rail dominant system nor are there warrants for a substantial reduction in the proposed highway program.

6. There are two important questions raised as to the effects on the Virginia corridors:

(1) The corridor containing Columbia Pike is the heaviest populated corridor. If this corridor needs no rapid rail transit service, then the balance of northern Virginia needs no rail service.

(2) There was a complete lack of recognition of the need for intraarea trips and there is absolutely no provision for intra-area trips found in any of the National Capital Transportation Agency plan.

(3) In contrast to Columbia Pike, rail service is proposed for Springfield. This is a typical suburban community. This type of community is ideally suited for bus-expressway service.

7. My report gives considerable discussion to the expressway bus operation versus a rail system. The more important items are:

(a) An expressway bus system can compete with rail passengers per hour given the correct expressway facility and a bus subway or other traffic expedients on downtown streets.

(b) The expressway bus operation would collect passengers in satellite communities and perform an express through trip to downtown or other suburban centers of employment. This would be accomplished without the chief time loss factor attributed to a rail system that is, feeder bus operation and the multiple transfer.

(c) The highway or expressway lane is in service 24 hours a day serving all modes of travel for all trips purposes.

(d) A gargantuan fixed rail system would produce a maximum use of only 9 percent of the available directional hours annually.

(e) Other interesting comparisons are provided in my report. Mr. Nathan Cherniak in 1960 pointed out that rail systems operating at substantial deficits satisfy only journey to work and return demand. The weekday noncentral business district trips, reverse travel trips, the expanding weekend trips, and all of the intra-area trips would still have to be met by limited access highways.

(f) It is obvious that the planning for urban transportation is a dynamic process and should not be chained to a fixed rail system. As the region grows and becomes more complex, an expressway bus system can be altered to provide expanded service with little increase in cost.

8. In conclusion:

(1) My report supports a bus expressway operation;

(2) Continuation of the highway system and particularly

(a) the north-central route,

(b) the inner loop,

(c) the intermediate loop (Fort Drive) including the Three Sisters Bridge,

(d) the Potomac River Freeway,

(3) Immediate planning and design for median operation and loading facilities for bus operation on expressways.

(4) The conversion of the Shirley Highway median for bus operation.

(5) Negotiations should commence with the National Park Service to permit transit bus operation over existing parkway or freeway

routes.