V. Express bus versus rapid rail

The matter of the relative efficiency of freeway bus operations as opposed to rapid rail transit has long been the topic of invalid reasoning. The proponents of rail transit have assumed that this form of commuter travel is the most efficient in terms of carrying ability, speed, and convenience.

For years rapid rail transit has been rated at an operating passenger capacity of 40,000 persons per hour. The rapid rail operating capacity is generally compared to a bus operating capacity of only 3,000 persons per hour. The rail figures are based upon a rapid rail operation over private rights-of-way while the bus figures are based upon local city street operations. A freeway bus operation has also been incorrectly placed at 7,500 persons per hour. Actually, an express bus system operating over a freeway or an expressway can obtain a capacity in excess of 25,000 persons per hour. In most cases costly rapid rail operations have been supported on passenger carrying ability with insufficient thought given to flexible expressway bus operation. An expressway bus operation would collect passengers in satellite communities and perform an expressway trip to downtown Washington or other centers of employment, thereby eliminating the chief time loss factor attributable to rapid rail transit, feeder bus operation, the multiple transfer. It also adds to an efficient transit operation which cannot be achieved by fixed rail, the most important factor of flexibility. As the National Capital region grows, so would a flexible express bus operation. It is obvious that a highway or an expressway lane, whether designated as an exclusive transit lane or not, more efficiently serves public travel since it is in continuous service 24 hours of a day each day of the year. An important point is that a fixed rail facility is chiefly in use on the track of the dominant flow direction during the rush-hour periods.

Because of this use characteristic, the maximum use on the inbound and outbound track is only 3 hours during the appropriate morning and evening rush hours. Based upon this hourly rate and using 250 weekdays per year, each track achieves a maximum use of only 750 hours per year. This gargantuan fixed cost facility produces a maximum use of only 9 percent of the available directional hours annually.

The mass transportation survey plan proposed a four-rail system, plus downtown subway, plus highway and feeder bus service. As opposed to this plan, the National Capital Transportation Agency system proposes eight rail lines and a downtown subway plus a reduced highway program. In each case the plans purport to justify a fixed rail system based upon serving high density employment and residential areas. However, a few observations are in order:

(1) In either system, the expanded number of trips that have been forecast from a 50-percent increase in population cannot support a tripling in the transportation system.

(2) Under either system, with employment less in the District of Columbia than in any of the surrounding Maryland or Virginia counties, how can either plan support the need for a multimillion-dollar rail system with most of the construction cost within the District of Columbia?

(3) Neither report mentioned the relocation of suburban employment centers and the resulting shifts in complementary population which will increase intraarea trips not interarea trips to the central business district.

(4) The mass transportation survey casually mentioned intraarea service, "The only logical solution to the transportation problem of the new metropolitan area is to provide a new form of transportation so attractive that many rushhour travelers to downtown will use it and thus leave space on the highways for those who must use their automobiles for these new nondowntown trips." We could find no mention of this item in the National Capital Transportation Agency reports.

(5) A true study of a dominant bus-expressway operation has not been made. Such a plan offers a flexible transit plan and one that can be efficiently operated by private enterprise. The rail dominant plan in effect steals the main-line service from existing operations. The present transit companies cannot exist on feeder operations alone. Such feeder operations are not self-supporting and are dependent upon main-line service for support. If private operators are left only feeder service they will cease to exist and the resulting deficits must be included in the National Capital Transportation Agency financial estimates.

(6) A dominant bus-expressway plan will provide for two types of main-line service: (a) those main-line trips that will not leave the expressway until they arrive at downtown terminals and, (b) to eliminate feeder trips, other main-line

trips will traverse residential communities and then complete the expressway trip.

(7) During the initial stages of operation the expressway buses will operate on the facility and mix with other traffic. They will continue this operation until it is necessary to pave the median for bus roadways. The bus roadways can commence operation as two-way, a second stage would be a one-way rush-hour operation returning to two-way operation during the base.

(8) The National Capital Transportation Agency report points out that, "there is no example of such a truly competitive bus system. Though a few special instances of successful express bus service exist; for example, the services operated through the Lincoln Tunnel into the Port of New York Authority Terminal, fullscale areawide systems have not been tried." This is true. However, examples of expressway bus operation do exist in the Washington area and can be expanded on an area basis provided some assistance is rendered by the local, State, and Federal Governments.

(9) The expressway-bus system would operate over existing and proposed expressways, freeways, and parkways without the burden of a publicly owned fixed rail system-and there are no rail lines in the United States or Canada that are operating at a profit.

(10) A fixed rail facility cannot be justified in Washington on the basis of population. Washington, for example, is larger in area than downtown Philadelphia and is not as densely populated. This is a primary requisite for subway construction.

(11) Mr. Nathan Cherniack wrote in 1960, "Today, capital investments in new systems of rail transit facilities do not appear justified. Studies have invariably pointed to substantial deficits because such new proposed system of rail mass transit would only satisfy largely only the weekday journey-to-work demand to and from the central business district. The weekday noncentral business district travel, 'reverse travel' and expanding weekend leisure time travel demand would still have to be met by limited-access highways. These limited-access highways could also satisfy the journey-to-work demand with expressway buses and preferential or exclusive bus lanes, if required."

(12) As I pointed out in 1960-the planning for urban transportation is a dynamic process and one which should not be chained to a fixed rail mode of travel. The modern expressway has produced a "roadbed" for buses to provide service with speed and operating capacity that is competitive with fixed rail service. It is more convenient in that it improves linkage, thereby reducing transfers. Most important, it is flexible and can keep abreast of changing urban demands. Lastly, it is more economical and withdraws the threat of public owned transit operations. The planning of expressways now under consideration in urban areas should include immediate design features and provision, if necessary, for expressway bus operations that would provide rights-of-way sufficient for exclusive bus lanes and medians that can be utilized for bus roadways or reversible lanes for all traffic during all 24 hours of the day and 365 days of the year. VI. Realization of the highway system

To satisfy the growth demands of the National Capital region, not only central business district travel but also intra-area, holiday, weekend, and the remaining 21 hours of daily travel, the construction of a planned highway system must proceed. The important projects must continue such as:

(1) The north central route.

(2) The inner loop.

(3) The intermediate loop (Fort Drive) including Three Sisters Bridge. (4) The Potomac River Freeway.

Planning and design features should commence immediately for the inclusion of express bus facilities on each of the proposed highways. Redesign of existing facilities should also commence immediately, such as the conversion of the median lanes for express bus usage on Shirley Highway.

Negotiations should also commence with the National Parks Service to permit transit bus operation over existing parkway or freeway routes. Existing examples that would greatly expedite central business district and intra-area travel would be transit bus routings over the Rock Creek Parkway and the George Washington Memorial Parkway.

The General Accounting Office and the General Services Administration should also study and correct the deficiencies in the parking charges now in force for Federal employees. This applies not only to "undercharge" parking rates in the central business district but also the complete lack of parking charges in

outlying Federal employment centers. The rates should not only be drastically increased in all cases, but the rates should be based upon convenience, that is, a higher rate for spaces in close proximity to place of employment or building line.

The President of the United States and the Bureau of the Budget, or whichever Federal agency the President selects, should study and reactivate a Federal staggered hours program. There have been arguments that staggered hours would produce inconvenience and inefficiency within the Federal work force. However, there is much that can be done within an hours reporting time that could greatly affect the capacity requirements for both a highway and transit plan.

True, it is an individual's privilege to drive his automobile to and from work. The Federal Government must take the initiative to pursue courses of action that will assist in minimizing or equalizing rush hour automobile use. VII. A balanced transportation plan

What is a balanced transportation plan? The mass transportation survey thought its plan had achieved the goal. The National Capital Transportation Agency thinks it has a balanced plan. Wherein do the deficiencies lie? Since 1955 there has been a lack of agreement in planning, improper recognition of the different modes of travel, improper understanding of the acceptable levels of service and a misunderstanding of an equitable plan based upon optimum travel needs.

The National Capital Transportation Agency is not "an island to itself" but a Federal Agency created to develop a plan through cooperation not only with other State and county governments but also with private transportation companies.

COOPERATION IN PLANNING

Paramount with the language of Public Law 86-669, July 14, 1960, had the cooperation or coordination existed between National Capital Transportation Agency and the other planning bodies or private transit companies, agreement on a planned transportation system could have in the majority of cases, been achieved.

Since I was not a part of the planning activities between the National Capital Transportation Agency and other agencies, my opinion of the amount of cooperation that existed would be second hand. However, the amount of cooperation offered by the National Capital Transportation Agency to the A.B. & W. bus company was almost nonexistent. This lack of cooperation by the National Capital Transportation Agency was vigorously displayed in January of this year. The National Capital Transportation Agency by letter dated January 10, 1963, requested that the A.B. & W. company submit their comments to the National Capital Transportation Agency plan and appendixes on or before January 31, 1963. The request was received on January 12 prior to the company having access to the appendixes purportedly supporting the National Capital Transportation Agency report. Volumes I. II, III, and V were received on January 14 and IV and VI on January 18. The National Capital Transportation Agency letter was acknowledged on January 18 by A.B. & W. The reply obviously indicated that insufficient amounts of time remained to study the proposals.

A BALANCED SYSTEM

My understanding of a balanced transportation system includes:

(1) Proper servicing for both central business district trips, inter-area trips, and intra-area trips.

(2) To achieve this end, proper attention must be given each mode of travel (a) the automobile or highway, (b) express bus and expressway, (c) regular arterial transit and crosstown service, (d) a limited rail system if warranted and, (e) at some future date further expansion of a rail system when and if needed.

Because of the limited use that is offered by a dominant rail system over a 21-hour period, it is obvious that prior to subjecting a metropolitan area to this limited express service other means of travel should be exhausted.

Therefore, the proper transportation procedures call for the following: (1) Completion of the proposed highway system with further attention toward the immediate construction of the Three Sisters Bridge and Fort Drive or the intermediate loop.

(2) The addition of expressway bus routes on the Interstate Highway System. Immediate provision should also be made for medians of suitable width for bus operation and if needed in the future for conversion to rail.

(3) Immediate relief to central business district transit operations. Little has been done to accomplish this. Where transit lanes have been in operation insufficient enforcement has resulted. The use of transit lanes should be expanded with strict enforcement maintained by the Metropolitan Police as well as the conversion of certain streets as transit streets with no other vehicles permitted during the two rush hour periods.

(5) All of the commuter computations have been based upon the 1955 origin and destination surveys. Although further sampling has been conducted in areas not contained in the 1955 surveys, an expanded and complete restudy should be conducted now. This should be a joint undertaking between the area highway departments, the Bureau of Public Roads, the National Capital Transportation Agency and the private bus companies.

(5) The analysis and evaluation of the surveys proposed in (4) above should also be a joint undertaking with agreement to forecasting measures and procedures.

Mr. WHITENER. All right, Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before your committee, and I hope my testimony will be of some assistance to the committee. In order that my testimony may be properly evaluated, I would like to take time to give the committee the background of my experience in both rail and bus transportation in the Washington area.

My name is Robert T. Mitchell; I am the executive vice president and general manager of A.B. & W. Transit Co.

I have been associated with the local mass transportation industry in the Washington area for more than 35 years. I am a past president of the Virginia Passenger Bus Association and have been on its board of directors and chairman of its legislative committee for more than 12 years.

I am also a director of the American Transit Association at this time, and previously served on the board when Mr. Donald Hyde, who appeared before this committee, was its president.

I served for several years as chairman of the Washington Affairs Committee of the ATA, with the responsibility of protecting the national interest of the members of the association.

I am a Washingtonian by birth and reside in Alexandria, Va., at the present time. I was chief operating head of a fine rail transit system which operated between Washington, D.C., and most of the Virginia areas embodied in the Agency plan. That rail system was made obsolete and finally abandoned in 1931 as a result of an extensive bus system which was able to expand and grow with the community.

The Agency's own figures indicate that the predicted growth of the community in the 20 years between 1960 and 1980 will be less than the actual growth between 1940 and 1960. There was no rapid rail system to support the 20 years of growth between 1940 and 1960why is it now necessary to resort to a fixed system of transportation which cannot meet the requirements of a sprawling suburban community?

A.B. & W. operates 141 separate and distinct routes in an intricate bus system in order to meet the demands of the public. The Agency proposes one rail route in the territory now served by A.B. & W.

The reason A.B. & W. operates this great network of routes is that our patrons have convinced us over the years that they do not want

to transfer from one vehicle to another. Under our system, less than 10 percent of our patrons are required to transfer vehicles to make a trip from origin to destination.

My study of the Agency's system indicates that less than 10 percent of the users will be afforded a through ride, the other 90 percent being required to transfer once, twice, or possibly three times per trip.

As an example, under the Agency's plan, thousands of Virginia commuters would be required to transfer from the bus they now ride to a train, at the so-called Pentagon City, ride all the way uptown to 12th and G Streets, then change again to another train and ride back downtown to reach 12th and Pennsylvania Avenue.

I predict that the commuters will not use such a system, unless the Agency is successful in its apparent desire to force the commuters to use public transit by refusing to give them a choice between private and public transportation.

Today, without any such restrictive arrangements, the Agency concedes that the buses are transporting 40 percent of the commuters. It is my considered opinion that with proper consideration of the problems in the movement of buses as outlined by Mr. Sexton, the combined bus services in the area could reach the same proportion of riders as is predicted for the rapid rail system.

I must challenge the impression expressed to this committee that "responsible representatives" of the local communities in Virginia have, in any way, committed those communities to the payment of millions of dollars to solve a problem which does not exist.

At this point I would like to stop my formal reading and say that I did not have the information that Mrs. Wilkins gave this morning and to the extent that that might differ with this, why I will yield to that.

Specifically, the city of Alexandria, with a population in excess of 100,000 people-notwithstanding the prodding by representatives of the Agency-has refused to even endorse in principle the Agency's plan. The reason for this is simple: Alexandria has no transit problems; instead, it has one of the finest transit systems in the United States.

Included in the services rendered to the city by A.B. & W. is the operation of 133 special school trips, and many intra-area routes which bring the city into close association with the less populated areas surrounding it. These services would be lost to the city if the Agency is permitted to move in and take the "cream from the top." That is, to siphon off the through riders in an effort to aim all of its services toward the central business district of Washington, D.C., and leave the obligation for providing local and intra-area service to A.B. & W.

At this point I would like to respond to a question asked of an Agency representative by Congressman Harsha early in these hearings. That question had to do with the desire and/or the ability of the privately owned transit companies in the area continuing to invest huge sums in rolling stock and other facilities to expand their services to the public during the period of 8 to 10 years of rail construction.

I can only speak for A.B. & W. Transit Co. on this vital issue. My board of directors has issued a notice to me as general manager that there is to be no further capital expenditures until such time as they are satisfied that the company is not facing ultimate extinction.

21-468-63—17