a publicly owned company by a suburban community, the community of North Ohmstead. But they can bring people to the rapid transit for 15 cents and do it more profitably than they can take these same people all the way downtown for 40 cents because of the greater utilization in number of round trips that they make with their equipment and their manpower.

Mr. WHITENER. Those people have a 40 cent fare, 25 cents on the transit and 15 cents on the feeder bus line?

Mr. HYDE. Yes. Our rapid fare is 30 cents cash, 25 cents for tickets. The regular commuter would pay 40 cents.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Hyde, in these figures for this program for the District of Columbia, there is no consideration given, is there, to a reduction in fare for students? They are all figured at one rate, aren't they?

Mr. HYDE. I don't know. I know what the basic fare structure is. I think you are familiar with it. It is in the report. I think Mr. Stolzenbach had better answer that, or someone from the staff. I don't know.

Mr. HARSHA. The Cleveland transit system, is that a privately owned company?

Mr. HYDE. No, sir; it is owned by the city of Cleveland. However, the city of Cleveland never put any money up to buy it.

Mr. HARSHA. No further questions.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Horton.

Mr. HORTON. In my viewing of this proposal, there are two aspects, one, the urban distribution and the other suburban distribution, or commuter type.

Your system in Cleveland doesn't compare with this because you don't have the downtown distribution, is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir. What we have is a line from both east and west that hits the downtown at only one station and at the fringe of downtown. It's behind the public square complex, if you are familiar at all with Cleveland.

Mr. HORTON. I am not, but the point I am trying to make is that this appears to be at least a proposal that covers the downtown and commuter systems as opposed to the type of situation that you have. You are working up to a complete downtown and commuter system, is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. That is correct.

Mr. HORTON. Now, based on your experience and also based in the transit system and based on your experience with this committee, do you feel that this proposal is adequate for the future needs of this region?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, I do. I will go beyond that. The various projects they have made are keyed to the year 1980. This was true of the MTS report in 1959 as well as this report. Again, this is one of the virtues of rapid transit. The train operation of rapid transit will provide a capacity greater than the anticipated volume of traffic in 1980. And with the amount of money that is being spent, it is considerable.

It seems it is the prudent, wise thing, to think beyond the year 1980. This is one of the important, to me, one of the important things about this rapid transit proposal, that there is a capacity on these various rights of way which rapid transit will operate that will take care of

growth and development way beyond the year 1980, so that you don't have to be building more and more and more as has generally been the case with the highways.

Mr. HORTON. In your opinion, if you eliminate one phase of this system, let us just take the downtown distribution phase of it, if you eliminated that for some reason or for any reason, do you feel that this would be fatal to the overall plan of solving this problem? Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir; I do.

Mr. HORTON. You mentioned in your testimony that the Cleveland system has been paying the operating and maintenance costs. Are you paying anything toward the capital cost of the Cleveland system?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, we are. We are not paying all of the capital cost; that is, all of the debt service. After we paid off our system, we paid off some additional debt equipment trust certificates, we incurred another debt of $291% million.

Now, that involved more than just rapid transit. It involved 100 buses. It involved a garage. We have an integrated system that is pretty hard to figure precisely a revenue allocation.

In fact, we don't do it except for spot check purposes. And I make no bones about it. I am saying this. I am criticized for it at times. Mr. HORTON. But you are making some contribution toward the capital cost of the system?

Mr. HYDE. There isn't any question about that. I can give it to you quickly to illustrate it by saying this-that if you take the total cost of the rapid transit, operating, maintenance cost, some rental costs that we are paying to the Cleveland union terminals-take that total and divide it by the turnstile count that we have of rapid transit riders, we come up with a figure of less than 13 cents a passenger.

Obviously, if our fares are 25 cents and 30 cents, there has to be a margin over and above that.

Mr. HORTON. I don't want to set you up as a critic of the advisory committee on finance, but based on your experience and based on your study of this plan, do you feel that the proposed financial plan is a feasible one?

Mr. HYDE. I believe it is. It is a hard thing. There have been a lot of studies. I concern myself, sir, with principally the operating cost end of this thing. The cost figures used in the study or by the Agency, the unit cost is some 67 cents a mile. Ours are less than 50 cents a mile. The cost estimates of proposed modern rapid transits in San Francisco, in Los Angeles, and others that are in the planning stage, are all less than the figures used here.

This gives me a little comfort. This is what I was looking for.

Mr. HORTON. Do you concur completely with this financial report or are there some areas in which you disagree?

Mr. HYDE. I don't think I am thoroughly enough familiar with it to make the unqualified statement that I concur in it completely. If you have in mind a particular phase

Mr. HORTON. Do you have any points with which you disagree? I am talking now also about the operating and the capital program. Mr. HYDE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference of philosophy. I believe that rapid transits in our larger cities are necessary for all people, for the automobile driver to provide relief on the highways, from the standpoint of maintaining tax values, from the standpoint

of having a strong central core, and I believe the city as a whole should pay a substantial part of the capital costs.

Mr. HORTON. I think you mentioned this earlier.

Mr. HYDE. I said this before, this is my difference. In other words, you are specifically asking me if there is any difference in my viewpoint. My viewpoint would differ only in this respect. That I believe as a matter of principle that the community as a whole ought to pay a larger part of the capital cost.

Mr. HORTON. Based on your experience, your practical experience, do you feel that this financial program is feasible?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. HORTON. In other words, you think it can be carried out based on the hard facts of life in operating a transit system.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORTON. One other question. Since the institution of your system, what has been the effect of the passenger load? Has it increased or decreased?

Mr. HYDE. Are you speaking of the rapid transit only?

Mr. HORTON. Yes, the rapid transit.

Mr. HYDE. The rapid transit riding increased sharply over several years. There was a decline, a slight decline, in 1961 following the increase in our cash fare from 25 to 30 cents. There was a slight decline in 1962, which was coincident with the general economic condition of all downtown Cleveland.

This has reversed itself, and our system, as a whole, we are carrying fewer people in the first 6 months of 1963 on the total system than we did in 1962. However, we are carrying more people or did carry more people on the rapid transit, notwithstanding the decline in the system as a whole.

Mr. WHITENER. Do you find, then, that there is a greater public acceptance of rapid transit than there is for the bus system?

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, there can be no question of it. We had an extraordinarily rough, tough winter last year, and if anybody had to have proof of the virtues of rapid transit, you had to go through the kind of winter we had. Our surface operation on local streets and arterial highways and on expressways, I am sorry to say, was pretty sad for quite a long period of time.

Our rapid transit had a very minimum of delays.

Mr. WHITENER. How does your per mile cost on your surface transportation compare with vour per mile cost on the other?

Mr. HYDE. The per mile cost on our surface system is higher than our rapid transit.

Mr. WHITENER. And you include in that the cost of the facility? Mr. HYDE. I am taking into account the total operating and maintenance expense in both cases.

Mr. WHITENER. Do you gentlemen have any other questions?
Mr. HYDE. I might add quite a bit less, quite a bit less.

Mr. WHITENER. We certainly thank you for coming down. I understood the committee wanted to ask these other gentlemen some questions.

The House is in session.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I came from the Public Works Committee where we are having testimony on the same subject and

I want to observe that we have invited Mr. Stolzenbach to appear before our committee, and I hope he will, because some very serious charges have been made there this morning by people who appeared before our committee about the adequacies and efficiency and the correctness of the report itself, and some other charges that I think ought to be made a part of the record of the Public Works Committee. I hope they will make themselves available. They have been invited. They haven't accepted yet, but there are some real serious questions and doubts in the minds of some of the members of the committee.

I am impressed with this testimony. I want to say that I am certainly not in opposition to the rapid transit system. The only question in my mind right now is whether or not we should have this freeze on, because it seems to me that we are postponing the date of resolving, really resolving, the problem here in the District.

I ask you, sir, if it would not be advisable in these circumstances to move ahead with our highway program and, at the same time, recognize that we ought to do something about rapid transit as well. Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of some controversy in that area. The other four members of the advisory board are all residents in this area. I have not concerned myself with the pros and cons to the extent I am sure they have. I have tried to concern myself with the operating aspects of it, with the cost aspects of it. I couldn't give you an intelligent answer because I haven't paid enough attention to it except to read about it.

I think that the other members of the Board who are more thoroughly familiar with the problem, and particularly locally, can give you a viewpoint that would have much more weight than mine.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Let me ask you this then. In the Cleveland situation, did you people or any of the planning agency advise any postponement ever of the development of the highway system in Cleveland designed to relieve this traffic problem?

Mr. HYDE. No, sir. Of course, the highway program in Cleveland is farther behind than what it is in Washington.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. But you have never asked for a freeze on this to implement or to give encouragement or to aid and abet the rapid transit system?

Mr. HYDE. No, but I think you must understand, sir, that our program is not as well developed and advanced at this point, nor do I think I am sure of this-that the overall contemplated program is anywhere near as extensive as the overall contemplated highway program in this area. I am sure of that.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. When you say, contemplated program, do you mean the plan of 1959 or 1962, or both!

Mr. HYDE. Either one. The program of 1959, or the program of 1962, which goes over and above that which is presently planned by the highway agencies.

Both the MTS report and the NCTA report recommended additional highways.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. The big quarrel that people who appeared before the Public Works Committee have this morning is that this freeze is stymying the total growth and is not in the public interest. I wanted to establish the point that you people have never been identified with

any kind of a freeze order that would hold up any construction of any building of freeways into the town of Cleveland.

Mr. HYDE. That is correct. As I said, it is principally for the reason that we lagged behind and the program has never been as extensive.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is all.

Mr. WHITENER. Of course, Mr. Hyde, you folks in Cleveland are not operating under the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, such as they were here where the authority or agency was required to take into account highway and other needs.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir. That is certainly true. One of the, I think, important things is that we probably have gone our way and the highway people have gone theirs. There is presently underway a coordinated planning, and, as you know, this is made necessary by act of Congress because there isn't going to be any money from the Congress after 1965 unless they do it.

Mr. WHITENER. Of course, what the Congress is trying to prevent would be the needless expenditure of money on either system, either highway or transit system, and that is why this coordinated plan was written into the law.

Mr. HYDE. And I certainly commend Members of Congress for the wisdom and for being economy minded and requiring a coordinated comprehensive type of planning.

Mr. WHITENER. It is nice for us to have somebody commend us for being economy minded. We certainly thank you, Mr. Hyde.

I am sorry that we won't be able to conclude with the witnesses that we had earlier, but if you gentlemen could be back tomorrow morning for a little interrogation from members of the committee, we would appreciate it.

Mr. Reporter, we have a report, or a letter from Mr. Darwin Stolzenbach, dated July 8 addressed to Chairman McMillan, which we will make a part of the record immediately following Mr. Stolzenbach's testimony.

We also have a communication from the Summit Park Citizens' Association dated January 18, which we will make a part of the record; a communication from the Connecticut Avenue Citizens Association with an exhibit dated January 22, 1963, which we will make a part of the record; a letter from the District of Columbia Society of Professional Engineers, dated June 1, 1963, with an exhibit which we will make a part of the record; a letter dated June 13, 1963, from Ellen L. Becker, which we will make a part of the record; a letter dated July 3, 1963, from Richard R. Randall, which we will make a part of the record; and a communication and a resolution dated July 4, 1963, from Allied Civic Group, Inc., of Silver Spring, Md., which we will make a part of the record.

(The documents referred to follow :)

SUMMIT PARK CITIZENS' ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., January 18, 1963.

Hon. JOHN L. MOMILLAN,

Chairman, District of Columbia Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Summit Park Citizens' Association in its meeting of December 12, 1962, voted to go on record in favor of the recently released National Capital Transportation Agency report.