Page images
PDF
EPUB

CATHEDRAL HEIGHTS-CLEVELAND PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION WASHINGTON, D.C., November 1, 1963.

Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER,

Chairman, House District Subcommittee No. 6,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. WHITENER: On July 7, 1963, the Cathedral HeightsCleveland Park Citizens Association wrote you expressing support of the mass transit program presented to the Congress by the National Capital Transit Authority. Since then there have been a number of modifications made in the plan which was the subject of our earlier letter.

Upon consideration of the modified proposals, the association has concluded that the plan nevertheless continues to merit our active support, as modified. Therefore, the board of directors of our association urges that the Congress favorably consider the modified mass transit program now pending before it.

Sincerely yours,

PATRICIA H. FITT
Mrs. Alfred B. Fitt,
Corresponding Secretary.

CONNECTICUT AVENUE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION

Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER,

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 31, 1963.

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 6,

Committee on the District of Columbia,

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: I was greatly pleased to read in the Washington Evening Star of October 28, the remarks made by you in regard to the revised rapid transit and subway plans on a recent television program.

On July 31 last, I had the privilege of testifying before your committee as a representative of the Connecticut Avenue Citizens Association in support of the NCTA plan as provided for in bills H.R. 6633 and H.R. 7240.

Our association being on record as supporting the original plan, we therefore sincerely urge that your committee recommended adoption of the revised plan at the hearing to be held on November 12, in order that the necessary legislation be enacted to start construction of the first segment of the subway system.

Respectfully,

LAWRENCE P. WINNEMORE, Chairman, Municipal Services Committee.

THE DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 30, 1963.

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

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: Thank you for sending me a copy of H.R. 8929, and inviting the comments of the Democratic central committee on the proposed modification of H.R. 7249, authorizing construction of limited rapid transit facilities for the District of Columbia.

The Democratic central committee is convinced of the critical need for an efficient rail rapid transit system. Therefore we support this measure as a vital first step toward the ultimate goal of a comprehensive area system and strongly urge early enactment.

In our previous testimony we requested that a high priority be given to the establishment of an East Capitol Street line extending beyond the Anacostia River into the far northeast reaches of the city. We very much regret this is not included in the current proposal and again express our hope that the needs of the highly concentrated population in that section be considered fully.

However, we are pleased to note that the present plan does retain a line across the Anacostia River to the Southeast which will serve residents of that well-populated area and also will provide transit service to the approximately 40,000 to 50,000 persons who are expected to be employed at the Navy Weapons Plant site and in the Bolling-Anacostia development area.

We also should like to suggest that the relocation provisions as contained in section 3 of the bill be modified to conform to the relocation assistance provisions of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Specifically, this requires that people be relocated in decent, safe, and sanitary housing and may not be evicted until such housing is available. The Federal statute also permits larger payments to businesses which are forced to move than those allowed in H.R. 8929. While we are aware that the amount of dislocation created by the transit system will be minimal, we nevertheless feel it is important that uniform relocation procedures be written in to all legislation.

In closing we should like to express our sincere thanks for your continuing interest in this extremely important program and we very much appreciate your courtesy in permitting us to comment on the revised bill.

Very sincerely,

POLLY SHACKLETON,

National Committeewoman for the District of Columbia.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN AREA HIGHWAY USERS CONFERENCE

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 31, 1963.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

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

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter dated October 24, 1963, in which you ask for comments on H.R. 8929. We appreciate very much the opportunity to do so.

In a letter to Chairman Whitener, dated October 19, 1963, part of which we quote, we said, "Any approach taken by the Congress in the direction of moving forward to solve the District of Columbia metropolitan area transportation problems must include prompt favorable action on the needed highway projects. This has been, and remains, the position of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Highway Users Conference."

As you know, a special committee appointed by the President is now restudying three vital interstate projects which are important parts of an adequate highway system in the District of Columbia. The need for completion of the Potomac River Freeway (Interstate 266), approval for construction of the Three Sisters Bridge (Interstate 266), and the north leg of the inner loop (Interstate 66), all of which are eligible for 90 percent participation from the highway trust fund, should be settled before Congress takes action on any rail transit legislation.

We are sure your committee recognizes that the construction of a smaller rail transit program raises new questions and problems not encountered in the larger system which was the subject of hearings last July before the Whitener Subcommittee No. 6. For example, in the material supplied to us, the bobtailed proposal contains no information on how buses will be utilized in the overall transportation needs of the community. Taking into consideration the large number of citizens using bus transportation, and the large capital investment in existing bus facilities, we feel this information should be made available to the public. We know, of course, that your committee will give serious consideration to the practical views expressed by the bus companies in the area and to the merits of operation by private enterprise before arriving at a final decision on any mass transit system.

Another important factor, which should be kept in mind, is that further delay in the highway projects mentioned earlier will seriously affect the economy of the area. Many construction workers may find themselves on the relief rolls unless the highway bottleneck is broken immediately.

As pointed out to Chairman Whitener in our letter to him, H.R. 8929 is worthy of serious consideration but we feel strongly that the points covered in this letter merit the same serious attention and approval prior to any final action on H.R. 8929 because of their more urgent need by our community and by the Nation.

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present the views of our conference.

Sincerely,

ANDREW W. JOHNSON,

Chairman, District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Highway

Users Conference.

D.C. TRANSIT SYSTEM, INC.

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 31, 1963.

Re H.R. 8929-Modification of H.R. 7249.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,

Committee on the District of Columbia,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MCMILLAN: I appreciate your letter of October 24, 1963, and the opportunity to present to your committee my views with regard to H.R. 8929, which is a modification of H.R. 7249, authorizing the construction and acquisition of limited rapid transit facilities for the District of Columbia.

As you know, I have previously presented my views regarding the original NCTA proposal in testimony given July 25, 1963, before Subcommittee No. 6 and in my report to the President dated July 9, Although H.R. 8929 is merely a shortened version of H.R. 7249 and, therefore, subject to substantially similar views, as I have indicated in my letter of October 23, 1963, addressed to each of the members of your committee, I shall endeavor to present additional constructive criticisms.

In an effort to review this new NCTA proposal, I have utilized my seven-man general operations committee, representing 217 manyears of experience in mass transportation in the Washington metropolitan area. These same man-years, and many more, have been devoted for a considerable period of time toward establishing, for this area, the most economically feasible solution to the transportation problems with which we are confronted. The result is a practical, flexible alternative proposal based upon a realistic evaluation of the public need. Our proposal will (1) minimize the total initial capital investment, (2) provide substantial improvements without undue delay, (3) involve construction in stages, thereby enabling the ultimate system to benefit from future technological advances, and (4) preclude the risk of premature obsolescence.

CRITIQUE OF NCTA MODIFIED PLAN

It is obvious even to the untrained eye that the only difference between the initial NCTA plan and the one presently before the committee is that the suburban arteries, originally declared to be vital, have been eliminated. The final result is merely that an otherwise impractical and inadequate system is rendered even more impractical and inadequate. The scaled-down system is no more flexible than the original proposal.

Many inaccuracies contained in the original NCTA report were pointed out in the Wohl report, my report to the President and in the record of the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before this committee. These inaccuracies are not corrected or rendered less. offensive by merely reducing their size.

The NCTA modified subway plan still fails in the following respects: 1. The subway system is a rigid, inflexible, single-purpose, railtype system based upon the shortsighted "corridor" concept of mass transportation.

2. The costs of construction and acquisition of facilities for such a system are astronomical, even under the NCTA figures, which have been seriously questioned.

3. The public will be deprived of any sustantial transit and traffic benefits during the prolonged construction of the proposed NCTA system.

4. Once the construction of such an inflexible system is underway, it will be impossible to take advantage of future technological advances.

5. The excessively high costs of construction and operation of such a system will place an undue tax burden upon the public for generations to come.

6. The proposed system is designed to be a governmental operation, totally ignoring the congressional mandate to utilize private enterprise.

The inescapable conclusion is that the NCTA's modified subway plan is not feasible.

Your committee has been called upon to approve the appropriation and expenditure of $400.6 million for construction of only 23 miles of rail rapid transit.

If this current NCTA proposal is approved and the money expended, the inevitable result can only be (1) something less than half a transit system and (2) a future need for the appropriation and expenditure of an equal or greater amount to complete such a system. For one-fourth of the initial capital investment required by the NCTA for its scaled-down subway plan alone, D.C. Transit can provide substantial, prompt relief of traffic congestion, increase peak-hour transit speeds, and maintain the highest degree of flexibility.

D.C. TRANSIT'S ALTERNATE PROPOSAL

PHASE I

We propose the construction of 160 new additional miles of express busways over routes which will serve more areas than the NCTA originally proposed to serve. Express busways are separate lanes, one in each direction, reserved for transit vehicles during rush hours. Under our proposals, the movement of buses would be rerouted along streets and roadways presently wide enough to provide such busways on either side or along the median strips. Along streets and roadways containing only four lanes, we propose that two additional lanes be constructed for busways.

The downtown distribution of passengers utilizing the express busways would be accomplished by expanded D.C. Transit Minibus service. In association with the District of Columbia and the Housing and Home Finance Agency, we are installing the first fleet of D.C'. Transit Minibuses in the downtown area, commencing on November 4, 1963. This is not fantasy; it is a reality.

Such a system could be fully operative in less than 2 years. The estimated costs of the project follow:

Busway construction...

735 buses at $38,000 each__

Shop, maintenance, and service facilities.

Bus storage lots and facilities.

65 terminals, stations, parking lots at $200,000 each (average)

[blocks in formation]

$53, 000, 000

28, 000, 000

3, 000, 000

1, 000, 000

13, 000, 000 4, 500, 000 500, 000

103, 000, 000

« PreviousContinue »