transit has suffered a steady, uninterrupted loss of patronage since World War II. The only public transit that has reversed this trend has been rapid transit, which has demonstrated a steady upward climb in patronage since 1958. (See exhibit 1.) Bus service in Washington is no exception. Its decline of riders. closely parallels experience in other cities. Every year since 1946, D.C. Transit has carried fewer revenue passengers in the District of Columbia (including interline passengers to Virginia) than the previous year (see exhibit 2). COMMUTERS WANT THE ALTERNATIVE OF RAPID TRANSIT Armchair experts particularly those with a financial interest in highway construction or bus service may understandably engage in wishful thinking that the commuter is more satisfied with bus service than rapid transit and that most commuters wish to drive anyway. But this is not what the Washington area commuters themselves think. Today, the Washington area commuter has no alternative but to travel by highway-by bus or auto. This is not the commuter's choice; it is the result of 40 years of public works expenditures in which 100 percent of all transportation capital outlay has been for highways and parking. If the question were left to the area's commuters, four out of every five would prefer that improvement in Washington's transit system receive more emphasis than a better system of highways and parking. The most vocal support for improved transit is among the area's present bus commuters, over 85 percent of whom prefer some type of transit improvement to new highways. But even among the auto commuters, over 75 percent prefer transit improvements to new highway construction. Furthermore, this sentiment is not limited to District residents; commuters from all area jurisdictions prefer transit improvements by a 7-to-3 margin or better. (See exhibit 3-A; compare exhibit 3-B.) Of the various types of transit improvements that are posible, the commuters strongly prefer a rail rapid transit system to any other. This is particularly true among the auto commuters. Even if it were possible to provide a "bus rapid transit" at no difference in cost, time, and convenience, still the auto commuters would prefer rail rapid transit by a 7-to-2 margin. Although the Washington bus commuters have a somewhat greater tolerance for bus service, they also would prefer a rail rapid transit system to any theoretical bus alternative by a 6-to-4 margin. (See exhibit 3-C.) During the past 6 years, there has been a steady upward trend in commuter desire for a rail rapid transit system. In 1957, auto commuters in the Washington area were split almost 50-50 on whether a new public transit system or new highways would best solve traffic problems. Today there is little dispute: Over 60 percent of the auto commuters who daily hazard the trek to central Washington prefer a new rapid transit system to new highways. Bus service has become increasingly less attractive to them. In 1957 59 percent preferred a rail rapid transit system. Today, that preference is shared by 78 percent. Furthermore, over 85 percent of the auto commuters would be potential rapid transit users. (See exhibit 3-D.) POTENTIALITIES OF RAPID TRANSIT Far from exaggerating the prospective patronage for rapid transit, it would appear that the NCTA has unduly discounted its effects on reducing traffic congestion. Rapid transit in Washington has a potential for reducing traffic congestion that few, if any, other major cities can match. Forty years of completely auto-dominant transportation planning has eliminated all streetcar service and left the only remaining mass transit (bus service) a crippled and ineffectual competitor to the automobile. (See exhibit 4.) So dependent today is Washington's rush hour travel on the automobile that even the modest NCTA suggestion that only one-half of future transportation capital outlay be for rapid transit offers substantial promise of sharply reducing rush hour motor vehicle traffic on Washington's existing highway system in future years. A detailed discussion of this promise, particularly as it affects Montgomery County-Washington commuting and Northwest Washington is set forth in exhibit 5. EXHIBIT 1 Index of revenue passenger trends, transit companies serving cities with 1950 population in excess of 500,000 1 Only 5 out of the 18 cities in this group had rapid transit (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, and Cleveland). 2 Adjusted for 1955 strike. Source: American Transit Association and yearend reports of D.C. Transit Co. and Capital Transit Co. EXHIBIT 2 District transit revenue passengers, D.C. Transit Co., and predecessor companies, 1924, 1936-62 1948 312, 700, 000 | 1955_. 128, 000, 000 128, 000, 000 127, 600, 000 127, 400, 000 1950. 215, 200, 000 1960_. 124, 600, 000 1951. 1944_ 315, 500, 000 | 1954_ 181, 500, 000 1 Shut down by strike, July 1, 1955, through Aug. 21, 1955. Adjusted for the strike, total would be 142. 600,000 on an annual basis. Includes all reported revenue passengers within the District, excluding only Maryland revenue passengers (most of whom are counted once as District revenue passengers, too). Adjustments were made as follows: For 1936, 2,156,557 revenue passengers of Washington Rapid Transit buslines (required during the year) were included with Capital Transit Co. For 1936-51, inclusive, total weekly pass riders for the District and Maryland were multiplied by 0.5 to obtain estimated "revenue passengers.' During this period, the company used a 0.735 multiplier. In 1952, the company revised its reporting system to assume that each weekly pass represented 17 revenue passenger rides (about 50 percent of all reported rides by weekly pass holders). For 1952-61, "trans-Potomac" passengers (classified by the company as “Maryland and other") were added to the District of Columbia total, as they had been through 1951 and in 1962. Notes: 1924 figure from 1925 transportation study, including Washington Railway & Electric Co., Capital Traction Co., and Washington Rapid Transit. All other figures from yearend monthly reports of D.C. Transit and Capital Transit on file at District of Columbia Public Utilities Commission. Revenue passengers include the total cash fares, token fares, school fares, interline tickets (with the Virginia bus companies), and weekly pass rides calculated at about 17 rides per pass. They do not include transfer passengers or weekly pass rides in excess of 17 rides per pass, or revenue passengers within Maryland. EXHIBIT 3. WASHINGTON AREA COMMUTER ATTITUDES ON RAPID TRANSIT A. Question 27a. "Recognizing that improvements to both highways and transit systems are needed, from your point of view, which one of the following ought to receive the major emphasis? "More and better bus service? "A rapid transit system (e.g., subway, elevated)? "Express buses on reserved lanes? "Commuter trains? "A better system of highways, expressways, and parking?" Results: By mode of present commuting 1 1 Commuters using other than bus or auto transportation are not included. B. Question 36. "Assuming that there are just so many dollars available to deal with the transportation problems around here, which of these things would you personally like to see more of the money spent for: "An efficient rapid transit system for getting to town and back from almost anywhere, or "A new system of good highways for getting to town and back, including more intown parking facilities?" C. Question 40a. "Considering bus and rail vehicle, if there were no difference in cost, no difference in time or convenience, which would you prefer? "Bus. 1 Commuters using other than bus or auto transportation are not included. Source: "A Survey of Commuter Attitudes Toward Rapid Transit Systems," by National Analysts, Inc., vol. III-A (1963). D. Trends in opinions of auto commuters, Washingion metropolitan area, 1957–63 Source: 1957: Fortune magazine survey, published in "The Exploding Metropolis," pp. 58-60 (1957); 1963: National Analysts, Inc., "A Survey of Commuter Attitudes Toward Rapid Transit Systems," vols. I, III-A (1963). EXHIBIT 4 Method of home-to-work travel, all persons employed in Washington, D.C. Sources: McClellan & Junkersfeld, 1925 Transportation Survey; 1960 census; 1963 Wilbur Smith study for NCTA. EXHIBIT 5. FACTS ON MONTGOMERY COUNTY-WASHINGTON, D.C., COMMUTING A technical report by Northwest Committee for Transportation Planning 1. PAST TRENDS In 1925, only 3 percent of the persons employed in Washington, D.C., were residents of Montgomery County. By 1960, this figure had risen to 12 percent, representing about an eight-fold numerical increase in commuting to Washington. In 1925, 50 percent of the commuters from Montgomery County to the District went by automobile, 40 percent by street car, 8 percent by railroad, 1 percent by bus, and 1 percent by foot. Currently it is estimated that about 90 percent of the commuters from Montgomery County to the District travel by automobile, and the remaining 10 percent by public transit, principally bus. About 10 percent of the auto commuters switch to bus en route (chauffered to bus stop, use fringe parking, or park car on District streets, changing to local bus). The remainder drive their cars all the way to work. Between 1925 and today, all streetcar service from Montgomery County to the District has been removed, and the limited railroad service has been curtailed. Travel times on bus service substituted for former rail service are generally slower-in some instances 50 percent longer than in 1925. Between 1925 and today, the number of arterial streets and highways leading from Montgomery County into the District of Columbia has increased from 5 to 19, and each of the 5 arterials existing in 1925 (MacArthur Boulevardformerly Conduit Road-River Road, Wisconsin Avenue, Connecticut Avenue, Georgia Avenue) has been widened or rebuilt to increase its vehicle-carrying capacity. The average speed for an automobile commuter has increased from 1925 to the present by 50 percent, meaning a one-third reduction in travel time. In 1925, there were virtually no off-street parking lots or garages in downtown Washington. By 1930 there were 5,000 off-street parking spaces; today there are 45,000. Overall, public and private investment in transportation and terminal facilities between 1925 and the present has been almost entirely to the advantage of the automobile commuter. Between 1925 and 1962, the number of peak-hour riders from Montgomery County to the District (including Virginia destination) rose from 3,400 to 28,000, an increase of 700 percent. The number of transit riders increased only 75 percent, whereas the number of auto riders increased 1,370 percent. |