National Capital region. Much time was spent by the Agency officials in liaison with these bodies and their wishes were considered in the development of the transit development program.

I especially want to call to your attention the enthusiastic response which the publication of the Agency's report last November brought forth on the part of the residents of the National Capital region. Since that time almost every citizens' organization in the area has met to consider the Agency's transit proposals, and to the best of my knowledge not one of these citizens' groups has failed to endorse it. At the same time, some of these groups have urged that the proposed transit system be enlarged to provide for even more extensive service.

Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago the Congress, recognizing that the region faced a transportation crisis, passed the legislation under which the Agency has been operating. Based on close observation, the Board is convinced that the Agency has fulfilled the congressional directives set forth in that legislation, and in doing so has performed a commendable job of transportation planning.

The problems which impelled the Congress to establish the Agency and to appropriate considerable funds to enable the development of the proposals now being urged have not diminished. The Advisory Board feels that the proposed transit development program is, as the President has said, "both sound and necessary," and that if promptly implemented it will provide a solution to the transportation crisis which is threatening this region.

We therefore urge the Congress to authorize the Agency to proceed as soon as possible with the construction of the system.

Mr. Chairman, I feel Mr. Broyhill has raised some very important questions which I did not anticipate, and I do want to say that the Board is very willing to respond to these at whatever time you feel such a brief response might best fit into the schedule of the hearings. I would say that possibly-I have not had a chance to talk to Mr. Hyde, but the third question which Mr. Broyhill raised concerning the use of existing facilities and alternative transportation systems might possibly be subject to an answer by Mr. Hyde, who does run a transit system that includes buses, rapid transit, the whole thing. He has concerned himself very closely with this problem which Mr. Broyhill properly spotted as a very important consideration.

I hope that perhaps Mr. Hyde might have a chance to address himself to that point, and any time that you feel that the other questions of Mr. Broyhill should be responded to, I will be pleased to make myself available.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you very much, Mr. Farmer.

We will let the staff advise you if we need to bring you back for that and if Mr. Broyhill feels that we should.

I think that we should hear from Mr. Hyde since he has come here from Cleveland and needs to get out of town, I understand, fairly soon. So without objection we will proceed.

Mr. BROYHILL. I understand that Mr. Hyde will come up with the

answers.

Mr. FARMER. The third answer, yes. I think the third question is more properly within his particular expertise since it is the practical question of how to run a transit system, on which he is a real expert.

Mr. WHITENER. Will you come around, please, Mr. Donald C. Hyde? Will you proceed?

STATEMENT OF DONALD C. HYDE, MEMBER NATIONAL CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY ADVISORY BOARD

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committe, my name is Donald C. Hyde. I am general manager of the Cleveland Transit System and past president of the American Transit Association.

I was appointed to the Advisory Board of the National Capital Transportation Agency by President Eisenhower in November 1960 and was reappointed to the Board by President Kennedy in August 1961. Prior to that time I was a member of a panel of consultants for the Steering Committee of the Mass Transportation Survey Report which in 1959 proposed a rapid transit system for the National Capital region leading to the establishment of the National Capital Transportation Agency.

As Mr. Farmer, the Chairman of the Advisory Board, has pointed out, my contribution to the job of planning the proposed rapid transit system for the National Capital region has been to make available to the Advisory Board and to the Agency's Administrator the benefit of my experience in the transit industry.

I have been in the industry most of my working life, beginning in 1928 when I was employed by the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. In 1944 I joined the Cleveland Transit System, becoming general manager in 1947. The Cleveland Transit System operates a combined system of buses and rapid transit. In 1955 we completed construction of a 13-mile rapid transit system which was extended 2 miles farther in 1958.

I might add that our rapid transit system has more than paid all of its operating and maintenance costs from the start.

My testimony will be directed to two aspects of the Agency's program-the planning of the proposed rapid transit system and the Agency's traffic and operating cost forecasts.

THE PLANNING OF THE RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM

In the National Capital Transportation Act, Congress gave the Agency two directives that seem to me, as an operator of a rapid transit system, to be the very heart of efficient, economical, and attractive rapid transit service.

First, Congress told the Agency to design a downtown subway system connecting the Capitol, Union Station, and major downtown employment complexes in other words, to design a distribution system that would cover the downtown area. Downtown distribution is the key to a good rapid transit system and let me say that no single problem has received more attention on the part of the Agency and myself, as a member of its Advisory Board.

During the period when the Agency's plans were being drawn, over 100 different downtown systems were examined by the Agency. Because of my belief in the importance of good distribution I took a special interest in this aspect of the Agency's planning process and discussed the matter with Mr. Stolzenbach, the Agency's Adminis

trator, on numerous occasions. And I must say I am pleased with the downtown system that has been proposed.

The second directive from Congress was that the Agency should, wherever possible, locate rapid transit lines in the median strips of the highways or on existing railroad rights-of-way. In my judg ment, this too, was a wise requirement. Use of highway and railroad rights-of-way require relatively small investment compared to the cost of building subways.

Our Cleveland rapid transit system operates on what were once railroad rights-of-way, and the fact that we were able to obtain these rights-of-way at relatively small cost does much to explain the success of our system.

After a very thorough study, the Agency has proposed that six of the eight rail lines use highway or railroad rights-of-way. The net result is to provide a tremendous amount of service for the amount of investment required. Here again, I am satisfied that the Agency did its job and selected its routes in a very businesslike manner best designed to provide good public transportation patronage while at the same time providing a system which should be able to pay its own

way.

In sum, it is my judgment that the Agency has carefully blended rapid transit, express bus, and feeder bus services to produce an excellent total system. The system has good downtown distribution, it has excellent coverage of the region, and it takes maximum advantage of low-cost rights-of-way. I feel it is a very practical and efficient answer to the transportation problems of the National Capital region.

THE AGENCY'S TRAFFIC AND OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS

Another aspect of the Agency's work in which I, as a member of the Agency's Advisory Board, have taken a special interest is the Agency's estimate of future revenues and operating costs.

Congress told the Agency to design a system which would be paid for to the maximum extent by the users of the system and which would depend as little as possible on Federal and local grants. It is my belief that the system proposed for Washington can be made to pay for itself out of the fare box.

I have assumed there would be some public support as described by Mr. Stolzenbach and Mr. Kerr.

Despite these convictions I felt that I could best assist the Agency by taking a critical approach to the Agency's projections. Furthermore, early in the game I suggested to Mr. Stolzenbach that in developing operating cost estimates he use the services of transit experts, including Mr. Robert Pollock, our manager of operations, who is responsible for work of our schedule department, and who is, in my opinion, one of the most knowledgeable operations men in the country. Mr. Stolzenbach acted on this suggestion and also retained the services of Mr. Joe Ong, recognized throughout the transit industry as one of the most experienced and able consultants on matters of scheduling and operating costs. I think the result is the Agency has devised a realistic set of forecasts.

Insofar as traffic projections are concerned, I am satisfied that the Agency's forecast that the proposed rapid transit system will attract

60 percent of the downtown market by 1980 is reasonable and achievable. The Agency is proposing a modern rapid transit system with average operating speeds twice those of older systems in cities such as Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. In those cities, rapid transit and commuter rail systems capture 70 to 90 percent of the downtown peak-hour market. In other words, the Agency forecast that a faster, more modern system in Washington will carry less of the market than these other systems and that, it seems to me, is a conservative approach to traffic forecasting.

I have given special attention to the Agency's operating cost estimates. As I have pointed out the Agency used the best advice that was available to develop these projections. The projections and schedules were reviewed by Mr. Pollock. I kept in close touch with Mr. Pollock while he was doing this work, and when the technical appendixes to the Agency's November report were issued I reviewed the operating cost estimates in considerable detail.

As a person whose job it is to meet weekly payrolls for a rapid transit system, I am convinced that the Agency's estimates of operating costs are reasonable, and, if anything, are on the high side. Thus, insofar as the Agency's estimates of operating costs are concerned, I am convinced that these are good, sound, and realistic estimates.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, after 7 years of close involvement with the planning of a rapid transit system for the Nation's Capital, a period during which traffic congestion has continued to grow, I am more than ever deeply convinced of the need for such a system and of the need to start construction of the system now. I feel that the Agency has provided the Congress with a realistic, down-to-earth plan. And I certainly hope that this proposal will meet with the approval of this committee and the Congress and that an early start can be made on the construction of the system.

Mr. WHITENER. Thank you, Mr. Hyde.

Gentlemen, these out-of-own witnesses are here and would like to leave, so do any of you have questions that you would like to ask them? Mr. HARSHA. I just have one I would like to ask Mr. Hyde.

Mr. Hyde, as I understood your testimony on page 4, the first paragraph, "It's my belief that the system proposed for Washington can be made to pay for itself out of the fare box," that was your statement, and then I believe I heard you say, "assuming of course, there is some public support or assistance."

Mr. HYDE. Yes. I believe, Mr. Chairman, I said I am assuming there is some public support as indicated by Mr. Stolzenbach, and by Mr. Kerr.

Mr. HARSHA. And I take it from that that you mean that the
Mr. HYDE. The $180 million.

Mr. HARSHA. The $180 million, it would take that from grants, from State, Federal, and local governments to make this program work, is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. I think that is the conservative approach to that.

Mr. HARSHA. Then there is some question in your mind whether that sum would ever be repaid to those governments.

Mr. HYDE. The reason I said I think that is the conservative approach to that, the schedule of debt payment set up by the finance advisers, assuming the system got into construction in the year 1964,

would have the debt paid off by, I believe, around the year 2000, and it's a pretty substantial debt service.

I think the point made by Mr. Stolzenbach was that they would expect that, after that time, and I believe he said that over a period of 50 years, they would expect the possibility of paying back to the Federal Government or to the local governments their contribution. Mr. HARSHA. Was it your opinion that that would occur?

Mr. HYDE. I think that could hapen. My viewpoint may differ from that of Mr. Stolzenbach in that respect. I would not recommend it to the Administrator. I personally believe that it is in keeping with a good program and plan of the community that there be some public participation, and I have expressed that in Cleveland. This is my position. It is well known in Cleveland. This will be my position with respect to the program here.

What finally develops, of course, would be up to Congress and the other people that are responsible. I would not recommend it. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. I wonder if you could comment a little further on the possible use of existing rail facilities. The reason for my question is not whether the Agency is considering using existing rail facilities or not, but at what stage in the development of the program they would be used. The reason why I was concerned about the timing of the use of the existing facilities was that during the committee deliberations, when we created or approved the legislation creating the National Capital Transportation Agency, a great deal of concern was expressed as to whether or not any type of mass transit system would ever pay for itself around here.

I remember Judge Smith making a comment or the observation of an existing rails facility here a number of years ago. Mr. May, the founder of the A.B. & W. Bus Co., had a semirapid transit system from Alexandria to Washington, and it was subsequently abandoned. There also were other rail systems here in the metropolitan area which were subsequently abandoned.

We know that the trend of people has been toward privately owned automobiles. So many members of the committee and many witnesses expressed concern as to whether or not we could reverse this trend, and whether we would know whether or not we could reverse the trend prior to the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.

So one of the reasons why we did express the desire or intent that consideration be given to the use of existing rail facilities was to try to test whether or not we could get, in some instances, the riding public to reverse this trend toward privately owned automobiles and to ride a rapid transit system if one were developed, and of cours^, one could be developed quickly and economically on existing rail facilities. Now I don't know whether that could get a fair test or not or whether that is putting the cart before the horse. But some of us felt that that should be explored a little bit more thoroughly before too much capital expenditure was made in the development of a new rapid transit system.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, that is a familiar story to me. The situation you describe of the trend from rail transit to automobile is by

21-468-63