Page images
PDF
EPUB

Such an express bus system, made possible through the joint endeavors of government and private enterprise, will provide the following obvious advantages:

1. Greatly decreased initial capital costs, thereby reducing considerably the burden upon taxpayers.

2. Prompt and substantial alleviation of traffic congestion.

3. Opportunity for further continuous study of technological advances in mass transit concepts, changes in population density, and shifting transit traffic patterns and needs.

4. Utilization of such express busways for automobile traffic during off-peak hours, thereby further relieving traffic congestion and allowing through-vehicles to move undeterred.

5. Immediate convertibility of such busways to general traffic use, at no cost, in the event of shifts in transit traffic patterns or needs.

PHASE II

Thereafter, we propose to provide for a realistic test project of a rail rapid transit system, in an area most suitable for such a system. Such an experimental project will provide an opportunity for extensive operational study prior to expending what would inevitably be a minimum of $1 billion on an areawide subway system.

This second phase of our proposal is based upon the belief that mere conjecture and long-range forecasting, even under the most modern techniques, do not provide a sufficient basis for the proper evaluation of any transit plan. Certainly, such an i' adequate basis should not be relied upon solely as justification for the expenditure of astronomical sums of money in hopes that such conjecture and long-range forecasting will prove to be accurate. Yet, this is the basis of the NCTA proposal.

Our test project could involve, for example, the construction of 5 miles of elevated, suspended monorail from Beltway Plaza (Prince Georges County, Md.), over Beltway Road to the D.C. Transit right-of-way; thence, over the D.C. Transit right-of-way to Mount Rainier. At that point, we would propose that the monorail be continued through approximately 5 miles of multipurpose, vehicular tunnel from Mount Rainier (corner of Rhode Island and Eastern Avenues) southwesterly under Rhode Island Avenue to 7th Street NW.; thence, south on 7th Street to G Street; thence, west under G Street to 14th Street; thence, south on 14th Street into the area bounded by 12th Street, 14th Street, D Street, and Maine Avenue. Finally, we propose the construction of elevated, suspended monorail over the Potomac River to the Pentagon; thence, from the Pentagon to Washington National Airport.

Monorail passengers would be distributed in the downtown area by means of an expanded D.C. Transit minibus network.

Such an experimental project can be completed and fully operative within 3 to 5 years after the completion of phase I, and will provide the following obvious advantages:

1. Afford an opportunity to study passenger reaction to surface, elevated, and subsurface transit.

2. Allow time for the further development of new technological advances in mass transit concepts, such as monorail, monobeam, superail, pneumatic tubes, ground effects machines, and hydrofoil.

3. Relieve traffic congestion without undue delay by utilizing the tunnel for general traffic during nonrush hours.

4. Substantially reduce the initial capital investment, thereby reducing the burden upon taxpayers.

CONCLUSION

There is no panacea for the transportation ills of any community. The Washington metropolitan area is a growing area but the growth is sprawling. It is a young community with rapidly shifting population concentrations. Mass transit systems designed to serve such a community must necessarily be flexible in order to move with shifts in population concentration. We do not have the population density so essential to any successful operation of a rail subway system. Furthermore, even in densely populated areas, most publicly owned rail subway systems operate at a deficit. The chances of success in such a venture as proposed by the NCTA are best reflected in the mirror of those deficit operations.

We are not opposed to any kind of transit system which will serve the needs of our area, but we urge you to proceed with caution toward the development of the ultimate transit program for this region. believe that careful planning will reduce the risk of failure. If we minimize our initial investment and maintain pace with technical progress, we can continue to grow and solve our problems with the aid of new, modern mass transit concepts.

Our intense interest in this matter stems from the mandate of Congress establishing D.C. Transit System, Inc., as the authorized transportation system for the Nation's Capital, primarily responsible for the development and operation of such mass transit facilities as the public may require.

We welcome your questions concerning these comments and our alternative proposal. My entire staff and I stand ready to aid your committee in any way toward the development and operation of an economically sound and feasible mass transit system.

Sincerely,

O. ROY CHALK.

DUPONT CIRCLE CITIZENS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., November 5, 1963.

Subject: Rapid transit for the District of Columbia.

Hon. BASIL WHITENER,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITENER: We have been told that you are submitting a bill which would permit the early start of plans and construction for a subway and transit system for the District of Columbia in accordance with the President's recommendations. We understand that this bill would limit the system to the District of Columbia for the time being.

The Dupont Circle Citizens Association, at its regular meeting on November 4, 1963, voted unanimously to support this bill in its general principles and its purpose of getting a transit system started in the District of Columbia.

The National Capital Transportation Agency should be commended for the work they have done and the fine job of developing routes

which will serve the rapid transit needs of the area and at the same time utilize existing rights-of-way to the extent they have been able to do so.

We wish to thank you for your efforts in getting this much-needed project underway. Assuring you of our full support for this timely legislation, we are,

Sincerely yours,

JOHN R. IMMER, President.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 4, 1963. DEAR MR. WHITENER: Before Wednesday I want to go on record as being wholeheartedly for the proposal you have made for a rapid transit bill with adjoining highway system. Our citizens association passed a resolution backing you up and I just want to add my voice. as a private citizen, too, so that you know that wasn't just a move by the officers but that we, the taxpayers, are with you.

Sincerely yours,

JAY ELY.

P.S.-We are AAA members and their official policy to build the highway completely first and then maybe rapid transit was not voted on by the members but decided by a clique. We are not with them.

FEDERAL CITY COUNCIL

Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 21, 1963.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITENER: The Federal City Council wishes to express its pleasure and appreciation for the move you made last week to end the current impasse in efforts to secure a balanced transportation system in the National Capital region.

As you know, the council views the transportation situation in the Nation's Capital as one of the most vital community issues to be met, because it will directly affect the future growth and development of Washington.

Although the council has not changed its endorsement of the mass transit program included in the November 1962 report of the National Capital Transportation Agency, the recommendation to scale down the proposed 83-mile mass transit system estimated to cost $793 million in order to get a mass transit program started appears to be a sensible and practical step.

While we have not had an opportunity to evaluate fully the scaleddown version, which would entail 23.3 miles costing nearly $401 million, it seems readily apparent that your proposal is entirely reasonable for moving forward with this vital element of a balanced transportation system.

We congratulate you for your leadership in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM P. ROGERS.

President.

MILES L. COLEAN,

Chairman, Transportation Committee.

INSTITUTE FOR RAPID TRANSIT

CHICAGO, ILL., October 31, 1963.

To the House District of Columbia Committee:

Mr. Chairman and members of subcommittee No. 6, it is not the policy of the Institute for Rapid Transit to comment on specific plans for transportation in any individual metropolitan area. However, we would like to acquaint you with our basic philosophy of a balanced approach to metropolitan area transportation planning.

The Institute for Rapid Transit is a not-for-profit industry organization whose prime objective is to assist in the promotion, expansion, and improvement of rapid transit facilities in urban areas where a need for such facilities exists. We also serve as a clearinghouse for technological information, and we act as a catalytic agent encouraging the research and development of equipment and operating techniques. Our membership is composed of transit operators, organizations planning new rapid transit systems, suppliers in the field, manufacturers of equipment, and consulting engineering organizations.

While the institute embraces all segments of the rapid transit industry, its board of directors is composed solely of representatives of operating companies and agencies planning new rapid transit systems.

The present board of directors is as follows:

J. Gerson, Atlanta Transit System.

W. J. McCarter, Chicago Transit Authority.

D. C. Hyde, Cleveland Transit System.

T. J. McLernon, Metropolitan Transit Authority (Boston).

J. G. Gauvreau, Montreal Transit Commission.

C. D. Palmer, Pittsburgh Railways Co.

B. R. Stokes, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
J. C. Baine, Bi-State Transit System (St. Louis).

J. G. Inglis, Toronto Transit Commission.

Our definition of a balanced urban transportation system is one which provides necessary and modern facilities for both private and public conveyances. Such a system, in our opinion, should provide for sound traffic engineering procedures for movements over ordinary city streets as well as limited access expressways as required.

So far as transit is concerned, we believe that its abilities to handle substantial volumes of people should be recognized as necessary complement to private transportation. We believe that, in view of the importance of moving large numbers of people expeditiously, provisions should be made so that all transportation services can perform as efficiently as possible.

In the larger metropolitan areas, we believe that there should be provisions for the expansion or inauguration of grade-separated, private rights-of-way rapid transit. Such facilities are needed to provide higher scheduled speeds and greater regularity of service than are possible when operating over streets and expressways in competition with other vehicles. While professionals in our field may debate the type of vehicle to be operated over these private rights-of-way, we believe for a number of reasons that rail rapid transit will be found to be the most desirable form, as based on long-time experience by our Nation's largest cities.

In most instances, rail rapid transit has proved itself because of its simple method of guidance, its ease of operation in trains, its compatibility with existing rapid transit systems and railroad rights-ofway that might be available, its all weather reliability, and because of its trilevel-subway, ground level, and elevated-adaptability from an economic standpoint.

We do not discount the importance of the bus and the private automobile. Both must be retained in the future, even in metropolitan areas where rapid transit is provided. The bus is needed not only to serve as a feeder to rapid transit, but also to provide necessary local services, as well as through service where volumes are such that they cannot economically justify a private right-of-way. The automobile, because of its flexibility, is indispensable to any balanced transportation system.

The coordination of all modes of local travel-the private automobile, the bus, rapid transit, and the suburban railroad-in a balanced transportation will provide the following advantages:

First, a balanced transportation system will provide the optimum transportation service with the least expenditure of public funds.

Second, it will make for a healthier overall metropolitan area, keeping more property on the tax rolls and providing for a more orderly development of suburban areas. It also will contribute significantly to the financial stability of the suburbs as well as to the central or parent city.

Third, the transit phase of a balanced transportation system provides a ready means of travel to a significant group-the young, the old, tamilies of low income, and to many persons who because of infirmities are unable to drive.

Fourth, the transit phase makes possible the concentration of large numbers of people in a downtown area, thereby affording the fullest use of the business, shopping, and cultural facilities of the central district.

Fifth, a balanced transportation system will provide travelers with a choice of modes of travel that best meets their needs of the moment. Sixth, with the provision of various modes of travel in a balanced. transportation system, these various modes provide standby service for the others.

And, finally, a balanced system will provide travelers with a greater degree of speed, safety, comfort, and convenience.

Many of the Nation's major cities already are actively planning balanced transportation systems. In San Francisco, voters in a three-county area have given their approval to the creation of an entirely new rapid transit system to complement its existing and planned freeway program. In south Jersey, the Delaware River Port Authority is building a new rapid transit line over existing railroad rights-of-way to complement the bridge facilities which the authority provides between New Jersey and Pennsylvania. As another example, Boston has recently approved the construction of a new rapid transit line to northern suburbs to supplement existing expressways. The growing metropolitan area of Atlanta is well along in plans for a rapid transit system, again to complement existing and planned expressways.

In New York, the Port of New York Authority, which for years has been outstanding in its development of needed automotive

« PreviousContinue »