1 Estimated at 80 percent of volume forecast for the larger system. 2 Estimated at 70 percent of volume forecast for the larger system. 3122 cents per passenger for 40,910,095 passengers which represent 40 percent of rapid transit passengers. 121⁄2 cents per passenger for 1,633,821 passengers which represent 29.1 percent of rail commuter passengers. $101,932,908 rapid transit passengers to and from downtown plus 15,748,000 intradowntown passengers for a total of 117,680,908 at 2 cents per passenger. 65,614,504 rail commuter passengers to and from downtown plus 378,000 lo al passengers for a total of 5,992,504 at 2 cents per passenger. 79,389,393 annual car miles at 80.5 cents per mile. 1,438,224 annual car miles at $1.40 per mile. ADVISORY BOARD, NATIONAL CAPITAL TRANSPORTATION L Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, AGENCY WASHINGTON, November 6, 1963. Chairman, Subcommittee No. 6, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. WHITENER: In hearings before your subcommittee on July 9, 1963, I testified in support of H.R. 7249 and H.R. 6633, which would authorize the National Capital Transportation Agency to carry out its transit development program for the National Capital region. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on your recent bill, H.R. 8929, which would authorize an abbreviated version of that program. This abbreviated system is sound in concept and is operationally feasible. You are to be congratulated for advancing this proposal. As I emphasized in my earlier testimony, effective downtown distribution is the key to a good rapid transit system. The downtown subway that would be authorized by H.R. 8929 provides good distribution and will serve a large portion of downtown employment. The route makes good sense and meets the congressional directive in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 that a subway be designed to serve Union Station and the major employment centers in the District of Columbia. 25-175-63- -3 Another major asset of your proposed system is the location of the rapid transit terminals outside the congested area. It will give people the opportunity to board the system beyond the major areas of traffic tieups, which is essential in order to attract people to rapid transit. Furthermore, such location of terminals will prove advantageous to the private bus companies who are an essential supplement to the rapid transit operation. I know from experience that by permitting the bus companies to deliver passengers to rapid transit terminals before the buses become involved in downtown congestion the rapid transit system will enable the bus companies to achieve substantial savings in operating expenses. As I stated in my testimony before your subcommittee, the most serious threat posed to the financing stability of bus companies is not rapid transit-it is the increasing traffic congestion in the downtown area. While I strongly endorse H.R. 8929, I would be less than candid if I failed to state that I still feel that ultimately the system should be extended along the lines of the original transit development program. In fact, one of the great virtues of the system that would be authorized by H.R. 8929 is its flexibility and the fact that it will be relatively easy to extend it wherever future growth takes place. I strongly urge the passage of H.R. 8929, which would provide Washington with effective rapid transit now, and a solid basis for growth in the future. Sincerely yours, DONALD C. HYDE, Member. AVCO CORP. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, NEW YORK, N.Y., October 31, 1963. Chairman, Subcommittee No. 6, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On July 9, 1963, as Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Finance of the National Capital Transportation Agency, I testified before Subcommittee No. 6 of the House Committee on the District of Columbia in support of H.R. 6633 and H.R. 7249, bills to authorize the prosecution of a transit development program of the National Capital region. In light of the introduction on October 24, 1963, of your bill, H.R. 8929, to authorize the prosecution of a more limited transit program than that contemplated by the earlier bills, I wish to apprise the subcommittee of our Committee's views concerning the new bill. The composition of our Committee and its role in NCTA's work are described in my earlier testimony. Our Committee's function has been to assist and advise the Agency in the preparation of a suitable plan for financing its transit development program. We endorsed the Agency's recommended financial plan for the larger transit system and regarded it as an excellent businesslike approach. In our judgment the financial plan originally recommended by the Agency follows to the letter Congress instruction that proposals for financing transportation improvements within the National Capital region should provide as far as possible for the payment of all costs by persons using or benefiting from such facilities and for the equitable sharing of any remaining costs among the Federal, State, and local governments. Please be advised that our committee has reviewed the Agency's recommendations for financing the more limited program envisaged by H.R. 8929. With one exception the new financial plan retains the basic features of the Agency's earlier recommendation. It proposes that the expense of constructing and equipping the abbreviated system be provided through a combination of Government grants and the sale of federally guaranteed transit revenue bonds in the private market. The plan departs from the original recommendations in that it calls for an acceleration in the timing of the $120 million Federal grant and the $21.7 million District of Columbia grant proposed originally. The plan does not contemplate any increase of the Federal and District financial outlays originally proposed. While the committee necessarily recognizes that the abbreviated system cannot attract as many passengers and do as much to alleviate congestion as the larger system, the committee is nonetheless convinced that the transit facilities proposed in H.R. 8929 represent an economically viable undertaking and will of itself make an important contribution to the relief of traffic congestion in the District of Columbia. In short, it is our view that the abbreviated system represents a significant first step toward improved areawide mass transportation. We share the Agency's feeling that if meaningful relief is to be provided within the reasonably near future, improvements must be undertaken at once. H.R. 8929 calls for facilities limited largely to the District of Columbia. Acceleration of Federal and District grant funds will make this possible and recognizes the special Federal interest in the District. Our committee urges the prompt enactment of H.R. 8929. JAMES R. KERR, President. ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL WASHINGTON, D.C., October 30, 1963. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your letter of October 24, 1963, forwarding a copy of H.R. 8929 (a modification of H.R. 7249), relating to construction of a rapid transit system, and requesting my additional comment and report thereon. After I appeared before the subcommittee July 24, 1963, and expressed concern about the proposed system running through the U.S. Capitol Grounds, representatives of the National Capital Transportation Agency came to my office for consultation. At two meetings with this group, we outlined our objections to their plans affecting the Capitol grounds and were assured that any portion of the system within the Capitol grounds would be restudied with a view to making it acceptable to this office and the Congress. Since, as indicated in my earlier statement, plans have been prepared for underground garages and certain other facilities immediately east of the Capitol Building, under the direction of the Commission for Extension of the U.S. Capitol. I believe that Commission is the congressional authority primarily concerned with this portion of the Capitol Grounds, the area most vitally affected by the proposed legislation. I would, therefore, suggest the following amendment to H.R. 8929: At the end of section 1, change the period to a colon, and insert the following: "Provided, That no portion of any such routes shall be constructed within the United States Capitol Grounds except upon approval of the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol. I have discussed this matter with Speaker McCormack, Chairman of the Commission for Extension of the U.S. Capitol, and he is in agreement with the amendment proposed. With warm regards, I am, Sincerely yours, J. GEORGE STEWART, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, WASHINGTON, D.C., November 4, 1963. Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1963, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 8929, a bill to authorize the prosecution of a transit development program for the National Capital region. H.R. 8929 would authorize the National Capital Transportation Agency to undertake development of a network of rail transit facilities, as described therein, in the District of Columbia, to the Pentagon and Rosslyn in Virginia, and to Bowie and Woodside in Maryland, at an estimated capital outlay of $400.6 million. The authorized rapid transit development program represents a specified portion of the larger program described in the "Summary Report on the Transit Development Program, May 1963," which was transmitted by the President to the Congress on May 27, 1963, and incorporated for authorization in H.R. 7249. The system authorized under H.R. 8929 is identical to major core elements and represents the early development phases of the larger system proposed in H.R. 7249. The financing schedule for the more limited system differs from the Agency's original plan in that (1) capital outlays have been reduced by $392 million, and (2) grants of $141.7 million, derived from the Federal Government and the District of Columbia, represents a reduction of grants by the contributions originally included for Maryland and Virginia. The Agency's feasibility analysis of the more limited system indicates that revenues would be sufficient to repay outstanding loans by the year 2002-approximately the payout period estimated for the original program. This is possible because under their assumption certain high-cost segments of the network have been eliminated and a higher ratio of equity to debt is provided by continuing Federal grants at $120 million. The proportionate increase in Federal grants is a consequence of the more limited system proposed in H.R. 8929, which is principally located in the District of Columbia where Federal interests are paramount. As indicated in the explanatory attachment accompanying the bill, no further Federal grant contributions are contemplated if the system is ultimately extended to its fullest proposed length. Additions to the system both within and beyond the District of Columbia would be financed through the sale of bonds, and grants by local governments of the region outside of the District as provided in the financing schedule originally recommended by the Agency. Since the proposed schedule for the longer transit regional development program extended in any event over the period 1964-73, it would not be inappropriate for the Congress at this time to authorize construction of parts of that program which are consistent with, and at the same time essential elements of, the longer range regional development plan. Indeed, the knowledge gained in the development of the limited system will provide factual data upon which to base future decisions to expand the system into the regional transit program originally proposed by the Agency. The development program proposed in H.R. 8929 would not interfere with negotiations currently underway looking to the establishment of a regional compact agency with authority for development and administration of a regional transportation program. Negotiations can proceed, and at such time as they are completed, the Congress will be informed as to the extent to which Maryland and Virginia and their local subdivisions are willing and able to cooperate in development of the more extensive system. The program originally submitted to the Congress by the President continues to represent, in our view, the most desirable transit system from the standpoint of service, downtown distribution, and maximum contribution to a balanced regional transportation system. The long-range need for the comprehensive program is also an essential element in guiding the future development plans of the region. Other planning decisions should be based upon the knowledge that a regional transit development program will be advanced. For example, we believe that acceptance of a more limited system should not inhibit the continuation of cooperative highways-transit land acquisition along these corridors, extending beyond the transit system to be authorized by H.R. 8929, where location of transit facilities in the median of limited access highways is contemplated by the original program. The system outlined in H.R. 8929 is the essential core of a longrange transit development program and is in line with recognized broad regional developmental objectives. Accordingly, its enactment would be consistent with the administration's objectives. Sincerely yours, PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. |