TRANSIT PROGRAM FOR THE NATIONAL CAPITAL

REGION

WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1963

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 6 OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 445-A, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Basil Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Whitener, Broyhill, Harsha, and Horton. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Clayton Gasque, staff director; Donald J. Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator.

Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will come to order.

We will hear from Mr. Warren D. Quenstedt, Deputy Administrator of the National Capital Transportation Agency and then Mr. Edwin H. Seeger, Assistant Administrator and General Counsel. After that we would like Mr. Stolzenbach to join these gentlemen. We will have questions from members of the committee.

You may proceed, Mr. Quenstedt.

STATEMENT OF WARREN D. QUENSTEDT, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

Mr. QUENSTEDT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

If I may impose, I would like to express a personal greeting to the Congressman from my home district, Mr. Broyhill. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here on behalf of the Agency. I am Deputy Administrator of the National Capital Transportation Agency.

Before I present the statement which I have here, Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise one question, and that is with respect to the November report of the Agency and the appendixes which were transmitted to you with a letter from Mr. Stolzenbach that I believe you entered in the record yesterday.

As to the report itself and the appendixes, I simply suggest that you may wish to have them incorporated in the record, or some notation to the effect that they are available in the committee files.

Mr. WHITENER. We will not make them a part of the record, due to their length, but they will be in the committee files. I am sure you gentlemen will give it rather good distribution.

Mr. QUENSTEDT. That is right, sir. Thank you very much.

21-468-63- -5

Mr. Stolzenbach, the Agency's Administrator, has described the transit development program and has pointed out how much it would benefit the Federal Government and the community. The purpose of my testimony is to explain how we would propose to get construction underway, assuming favorable action by the Congress, and how the total system would be phased.

PHASING THE SYSTEM

In their examination of the engineering elements of the transit development program, our engineers worked out the sequence in which the various links of the system would be built and prepared a timetable for the completion of each link. From this they concluded that the entire regional system could be constructed within a 10-year period. The sequence and timetable are designed to bring about a progressive extension of service through the region as nearly as possible on the basis of probable need. This begins with the construction of the first element of the downtown distributor system so that from the very outset of operation the first radial lines would offer attractive service to the large numbers of people whose destination would be somewhere in the downtown area. The next step would be the construction of those radials along which demand for service is greatest. To a degree, of course, the selection of initial routes should provide for a sensible basis for the scheduling and operation of trains. One other consideration in the selection of initial routes to areas where need is greatest is the underlying advantage of producing substantial early revenues.

This sequence and the timetable are illustrated in the chart before you labeled "Growth of the Rail Transit System" (chart No. 1). The sequence of the construction process is covered in detail in appendix volume I. I should like first to invite your attention to the map in the upper left-hand corner of the chart. As you can see, an initial system consisting of a line from Columbia Heights over to Anacostia, via Union Station and the Capitol, and connecting with a line along the Baltimore & Ohio right-of-way to Rockville, could be opened for service to the public in the latter part of 1968. Simultaneously, service would begin on the Pennsylvania Railroad commuter line between Bowie and Union Station.

You will observe that this initial construction represents the Agency's compliance at the very outset with the congressional directive that special consideration be given to "*** expanded use and development of existing railroad lines into the District of Columbia * * *” and "*** early development of a subway from Union Station capable of rapid dispersal of passengers from the railhead to the principal employment centers in the District ***", a subway “* * * capable of being extended to serve other parts of the region."

For the construction of these first radials reaching outward from the central city we propose to use the B. & O. right-of-way, thereby being able to obtain right-of-way at an attractive cost and without disruption of the residential portion of the District. The radial line to Bowie possesses both of those attractions with the added distinction of being an operation not just along the right-of-way, but actually employing the physical facilities of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

I should point out that the service along these railroads does not terminate abruptly at Union Station. On the contrary, the Rockville

line is an integral part of the rapid transit system, passing under Union Station at which point subway operation begins. Yesterday you had an opportunity to observe the model that shows the fashion in which this line would pass under that building. Passengers on the Bowie line would be able to transfer quickly and conveniently to the subway system across the platform at either side of their train since the Bowie track would be between the two tracks of the transit operation.

From an examination of the second map at the top center of the

chart, you will observe that construction would be completed in 1969 on the line to Pentagon City and on the line serving Connecticut Avenue as far up as Van Ness Street.

These lines would be entirely in subway except that the line to Pentagon City would surface after passing under the Potomac River

in a tunnel and would later reenter subway in the vicinity of the Pentagon Building. The chart shows additional lines opening during the period from 1970 to 1972, with the final phases of the system completed and in operation in 1973.

I might interpolate at this point an explanation of my saying suchand-such year. The construction program will involve a 10-yearperiod and simply to be illustrative I have assumed the start of construction with approval at this particular time. To whatever extent the approval varies, these years will necessarily vary. The 10-yearconstruction period is itself a constant.

Before leaving this discussion of the sequence and timetable, I should like to reiterate that these represent the Agency's views at this time, and they are the course which we recommend should be followed. However, the concept of the regional system permits considerable flexibility, particularly insofar as the later steps are concerned. The main point I wish to make is the very simple point that the job can be done in the period which we propose, and we have developed what we feel is a logical schedule for going about it.

In the second chart headed "Construction Schedules" (chart 2), the phasing of the program is shown in somewhat greater detail. This chart shows, for each segment of the system, when engineering work would begin, when construction bids would be advertised, and when construction work would be completed.

STARTING CONSTRUCTION

I should like to turn now to the earlier phases of this construction program and to give the committee some idea as to where the Agency stands at this moment.

Over the past 2 years, the Congress has appropriated to the Agency, and the Agency has committed, some $1.7 million for engineering work, including both staff and contract funds. While the purpose of this engineering work was to develop estimates of the cost of building the system, necessarily this work has had the added value of moving us along the road to construction if the Congress should give us the goahead.

The most intensive preliminary engineering was done on those downtown segments of the system which would be built first. Plans and profiles have been drawn for these segments and we have completed a substantial amount of the soil boring work which must be done prior to actual construction. Thus, if the Congress were to authorize the system this year and to provide funds for the beginning of the construction, this is what we would be able to do:

First, the status of our premilinary engineering work is such that we would be able to begin almost immediately on the preparation of contracts. We would anticipate that the first two projects would consist of a tunnel from 9th and G Streets westerly and northerly to the vicinity of 17th and K Streets. This is part of the Columbia Heights-Anacostia segment which will serve Union Station and the Capitol. Construction bids would be advertised by about April 1964 and construction would begin shortly thereafter.

I think it important to emphasize that this section would be constructed in tunnel with minimum disruption of surface traffic. Except for the construction of the stations, the work would go on underneath the city virtually unnoticed, as will be true of approximately 70 percent of the downtown portion of the recommended transit system.

Second, successive engineering commitments would be made in fiscal year 1964 on eight additional projects requiring a longer final design period. These projects would further extend subway work in the downtown portion of the Columbia Heights-Anacostia route and would insure the start of construction in calendar 1965 on the Capitol Hill-Woodside and Lafayette Square-Pentagon City routes.