For example, in testifying as president of the Montgomery County Citizens' Planning Association at a public hearing in January 1958, on the proposed extension of new Route 240 or 70-S into the District of Columbia, Mr. Stolzenbach said:

"Our first conclusion is that a decision to bring 240 into the District of Columbia along any of the routes now under active consideration will probably not be in the best interest of Maryland residents."

He went on to say:

"Now, of course, no single route for a high-speed freeway through a metropolitan region makes sense.'

This testimony, mind you, comes from a man who has no engineering degree, has never worked as a professional engineer and has never held any elective office which would qualify him to speak for the people of Montgomery County.

Mr. Stolzenbach also recommended at the hearing that "the circumferentials already on the planning maps are very essential to any system of radial highways and should not be postponed until all the radials are built."

This statement obviously contradicts his present stand that part of the inner loop in the District of Columbia is not needed, although the inner loop is very much a circumferential.

As a clincher in his adamant opposition to the extension of new Route 240, Mr. Stolzenbach urged at that 1958 hearing that officials use the results of the 1959 mass transportation survey for which the Congress had appropriated $400,000.

Yet 1 year later, in testifying before the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems, Mr. Stolzenbach, on behalf of the Interfederation Council of the Greater Washington Area, had this to say about that same survey:

"I would like to mention that the council concluded that the plan as proposed in the mass transportation survey placed a disproportionate emphasis on private auto transport as opposed to other forms of transportation."

Gentlemen, I strongly dispute the accuracy of that statement. I was chairman of the National Capital Regional Planning Council when the mass transportation survey was made. I participated actively in that survey. It was conducted by nationally known experts, some of whom have since conducted similar studies for other urban areas, including San Francisco and Boston. For Mr. Stolzenbach to contend, as he did in 1959 and as he has stated this year, that the mass transportation survey was slanted in favor of highways displays an appalling ignorance of the facts.

Mr. Stolzenbach now tells us that his own computer studies at the National Capital Transportation Agency prove that rail transit will handle nearly all of the region's transportation needs. And when his computer assumptions were challenged by the Department of Commerce and the District Commissioners, Mr. Stolzenbach airily waved them away.

Yet, in his 1959 testimony at a second public hearing on the extension of Route 240, Mr. Stolzenbach made this interesting comment on the accuracy of computers:

"I deal with these computers and I know you can get any kind of a result out of them that you put into them in the way of assumptions. They are merely guides to tell you whether something is going to cost more in relation to something else, but you can use a high-speed computer to get any kind of result you want to predetermine by the results you put in. You should not expect the public to buy such a large pig in the poke."

So apparently Mr. Stolzenbach's ideas depend on whose ox is being gored.

Mr. Stolzenbach also insists now that he seeks the agreement of all local authorities before deciding on the location and extent of mass transit facilities. Indeed, he assures us that this local agreement is essential and that he doesn't for a moment contemplate putting any transit lines into an area without the approval of the jurisdiction involved.

But this isn't what he thought only 3 years ago when he spoke before the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems.

Appearing again as the representative of the Interfederation Council of the Greater Washington Area, he stated:

"We believe that an effective regional transportation agency must have the power to make decisions on the establishment and operation of specific regional highway and transit facilities, whether or not all the local authorities agree." It seems to me that Mr. Stolzenbach is full of contradictions. On July 16, 1963, he told this committee, in response to a question, that "we do not feel the highway program is in competition with the mass transit program."

He added that the construction of the Three Sisters Bridge, the Potomac Freeway and the north leg of the inner loop would have absolutely no effect on the mass transit program.

But in 1960, he sang a different tune at a hearing before the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems. This is what he said then :

"Let me make this point as clearly as I possibly can. Highways and mass transit are and will always be competing facilities for mass transportation." In March 1961, in an interview published in the Washington Star, Mr. Stolzenbach repeated his familiar theme about the wickedness of highways:

"A highway system is like a bottomless pit. The more highways are built, the more traffic they generate; the more traffic, the greater need for parking facilities. And as a consequence, the city gets more and more chopped up."

He also told his interviewer that the function of the National Capital Transportation Agency, as he saw it, was to serve "as the voice of those who favor mass transit."

Gentlemen, to appropriate funds for an agency headed by such a prejudiced, one-sided individual would obviously not be in the best interests of the majority of the citizens in the Washington Metropolitan area. They need a truly balanced transportation program, not one based on the predetermined idea of a man who is completely unqualified for his job.

It is obvious, too, that Maryland and Virginia traffic needs are receiving not the slightest recognition by the NCTA as it is presently constituted.

As cochairman with Harlan Bartholomew of the 1959 transportation survey, I can tell you that ye are in for serious trouble, in fact we are in serious trouble, if the Transportation Agency is permitted to continue to receive funds and operate as it has up to now.

Congress appropriated previously $600,000 to pay for the Mass Transit Survey I just referred to. It was understood by the Congress and all the planning agencies in the region that no intelligent regional plan could be successful unless and until a basic transportation plan which was agreeable to all jurisdictions were adopted. That is the reason that Congress appropriated money for the survey, and I might point out, gentlemen, that when this survey was completed, every political jurisdiction within the region was signatory to this survey and agreed to it. In other words, this survey was acceptable. The findings were not colored or in any way dominated by the thinking of any one individual. Extreme care was used and every precaution taken to give balance to the findings of this survey. The end result was that we in the region required a balanced highway and rapid transit system, that all components of both types of transportation were necessary in order to move our people. It proved conclusively that the system could not be auto dominated or transit dominated. It also had a solution for the tremendous operating deficit which would be created by the transit phase of the system.

We believed that when this survey was adopted we would move forward in the region but this has not been the case. An entirely different tact has been taken by the Transportation Agency and we now find ourselves 4 years behind in transportation planning with the Transportation Agency's plan vetoed by three States and the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Public Roads. Congress never intended that such an unbelievable mess would be created by the new Transportation Agency.

Gentlemen of the Congress. the facts are abundantly clear. The solution is even clearer. This mess can be solved by taking the following steps:

1. Congress should not appropriate one more dollar for the administration or operation of the Transportation Agency until-

2. A true tristate authority is established and this tristate authority should be set up as follows:

3. (a) The Transportation Agency should be administered by three commissioners.

(b) These three commissioners should be appointed by the President of the United States.

(c) All commissioners should receive the same salary.

(d) All commissioners should be full time.

(e) The commissioners should elect their own chairman.

(f) One commissioner should be appointed by the President with his term to coincide with the President's term in office and at the pleasure of the President.

(g) One other commissioner should be recommended by the Governor of the State of Maryland and be appointed by the President.

(h) One other commissioner should be recommended by the Governor of the State of Virginia.

4. (a) The Advisory Board of the Transportation Agency should be abolished forthwith.

(b) The administrator of the Transportation Agency should not be a member of the National Capital Planning Commission and should be removed forthwith. 5. The Presidential appointed commissioner should be a resident of the District of Columbia and he should have resided in the District for at least 2 years prior to his appointment.

6. This so-called new commissioner legislation should be enacted by Congress as an emergency measure as an amendment to the 1960 National Capital Transportation Act.

After this legislation has been passed, the new commissioners should immediately review the fiscal requirements of the Transportation Agency and should report to Congress on these requirements by November 15, 1963, at which time Congress could pass adequate legislation to promote a balanced transportation system.

7. In my judgment, if H.R. 6633 were passed without the safeguards which would be inherent in the new commissioner setup I above referred to, we would have complete and absolute chaos in the regional process.

In my judgment, Virginia and Maryland would never appropriate the needed matching funds with the Transportation Agency being operated the way it is presently constituted.

Just imagine, gentlemen, if in your own jurisdiction we were to superimpose on your own local governments a transportation agency setup similar to the NCTA, what a complete rebellion you would have at home. It would not work in your jurisdictions and it won't work in this jurisdiction. To believe otherwise is the height of political childishness.

8. To you gentlemen, representing the State of Maryland, may I remind you that the Legislature of Maryland by formal resolution requested the Maryland delegation in the Congress to lift the freeze on transportation planning in the northwest section of Washington, D.C.

I plead with you as a planner to take such action as necessary to remove this vicious freeze which has brought to a standstill all intelligent planning in Montgomery County and part of Prince Georges County. If this freeze is not lifted I can assure you that no transportation plan of any description is capable of moving forward, that no regional plan can be adopted safely and that the cost in dollars is so staggering that we simply cannot afford the luxury.

In closing, I will remind you again, that the Transportation Agency's work so far has been vetoed and repudiated by every knowledgeable official agency in the metropolitan region. All the work by the Transportation Agency, under the present administrator, has been wasted, unless new legislation is passed to correct the administration of the tristate authority. We will be no further along 5 years from now than we are today and that H.R. 6633 would place in the hands of the present Transportation Agency such power that in my judgment the States of Maryland and Virginia would ultimately withdraw from any tristate compact.

May I take this opportunity to thank you for your kind consideration in allowing me this time.

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, D.C., July 8, 1963.

MY DEAR MR. MCMILLAN : The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have for report H.R. 6633 and H.R. 7249, 88th Congress, identical bills to authorize the prosecution of a transit development program for the National Capital region. The purpose of both bills is to authorize the National Capital Transportation Agency to undertake development of transit facilities described in the Agency's "Summary Report on the Transit Development Program, May 1963." Such authorization would be subject to the availability of appropriations and other funds.

The development of adequate mass transit facilities for the National Capital region has long been recognized as a critical need, and has been the subject of intensive study for almost a decade. The Board of Commissioners in its April 8,

1963, evaluation of the National Capital Transportation Agency Report of November 1, 1962, stated its unequivocal support of the proposition that the District of Columbia needed improved mass transit.

In the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, the National Capital Transportation Agency was directed by the Congress to prepare, consistent with policies and directives established by the act, a transit development program. The Agency has sought to develop a program to meet the requirements of the act and that program would be authorized under the current bills H.R. 6633 and H.R. 7249. The Agency program conforms, to the extent practicable, to the general plan for the development of the National Capital region as proposed in the year 2000 plan. The Agency's proposal to make maximum utilization of existing railroad lines and schedule the early development of a subway connecting the Union Station with principal downtown employment centers is consistent with the recommendations of the Board of Commissioners' April 8, 1963, evaluation of the Agency's program, at least in principle.

An early start on this program is a matter of vital concern to the District of Columbia, as well as to the Federal Government. The District, situated at the center of the National Capital region, requires a mass transit system in order to maintain its viability. In fact, the Board of Commissioners is concerned with acceleration of all means of transportation to help keep the District of Columbia and the region in pace with current growth and the future projections for movement of people and goods. To this end, the Board of Commissioners is endeavoring to complete reexamination of certain highway projects as directed by the President so that this means of transportation will complement mass transit development.

The report of the congressional committee on the 1960 act states: "It is now generally recognized that a healthy mass transportation system is essential to every metropolis. In no other way can large numbers of people be carried quickly and economically to their places of work each day. In no other way can the downtown area be revived as a center of business, finance, cultural events, and other activities that draw people from all parts of the metropolis." The Federal Government, for its part, must be concerned with speedy, efficient, and economical transportation for its employees to and from their work.

The transit development program which would be authorized by H.R. 6633 and H.R. 7249 has been recommended by the President after a review of comments from a large number of Federal departments and agencies, including the District of Columbia. The Board of Commissioners supports the administration's position and recommends favorable action on either H.R. 6633 or H.R. 7249.

The Commissioners have been informed by the Bureau of the Budget that enactment of either H.R. 6633 or H.R. 7249 would be in accord with the President's program.

Yours very sincerely,

WALTER N. TOBRINER, President, Board of Commissioners, D.C.

Mr. WHITENER. Now, we have used up the time allowed to us this morning, but I have conferred with the members of the subcommittee, and they are willing to come back at 2 o'clock, and hear the other three witnesses who were scheduled today, if that meets with the convenience of the witnesses.

Is there anyone here from the American Automobile Association? (No response.)

Mr. WHITENER. If not, we will hear only probably two of the witnesses.

We will take a recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was in recess, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will come to order, and we will proceed with the hearing by hearing Mr. Walter J. Bierwagen of the Greater Washington Central Labor Council.

This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Our federation is composed of some 130 local citizens associations throughout Fairfax County, and I believe it is fair to say that we speak for a majority of the citizens of the county.

While we have our own local government and commerce, we in Fairfax County are focused on Washington. Our greatest daily transportation need is prompt and adequate access at a reasonable cost to and from downtown Washington, especially in the critical morning and evening rush hours.

FEDERATION ACTION

Our federation's transportation committee made a careful study of the report of the National Capital Transportation Agency when it was made public last winter. The transportation committee prepared a report which was reviewed by the federation's executive committee and then submitted to our full membership early this year. After a full discussion, the membership voted virtually unanimously in favor of the proposal as submitted.

The Transportation Agency has recommended the construction of a substantial surface and subway rail system along radial lines, supplemented by express buslines along certain freeways. The system proposed is far more satisfactory than the much more limited rapid transit facilities suggested in the 1959 mass transportation survey, which would have provided virtually no direct rail service to Fairfax County.

We are citizens, not rail or highway engineers. From the standpoint of serving the maximum number of county residents the proposed rail-bus system is not ideal in every respect. For example, there is no proposed line out Columbia Pike, a heavily traveled artery. Nevertheless, we appreciate that the system has been designed to bring the area as much as possible at a minimum cost. On the whole we think the system is basically sound. We have endorsed it generally, reserving our position on the number and location of lines.

On these matters we would expect to work with the responsible agency to modify and improve the system within the scope of the agency's power and the funds available. We urge you to pass the legislation necessary to begin construction of the mass transit system which we feel is essential to the healthy development of our county and the entire metropolitan area.

NEEDS OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON

We are convinced that the Washington area has grown too large and has too much growth ahead to continue to rely exclusively on the private automobile and local bus service for its transportation. Continuance of this approach can lead only to overloaded freeways, traffic jams downtown, continuous new road construction in built-up areas, parking problems, smog and a loss of vitality in the downtown area. Much as we would prefer the flexibility of driving our own cars where we choose and when we choose, we do not look forward to becoming another Los Angeles. Indeed, we are not sure that we even have this alternative in the light of the necessary concentration of our Government facilities downtown.