That, in view of the foregoing, and as the population in the immediate areas grew, W.V. & M. routed a considerable number of its buses from the Commonwealth of Virginia to the District of Columbia. via the Pentagon and return. To the extent that W.V. & M. would lose any or all of its patrons herinabove referred to, not only it, but its riding public would be caused to suffer. It is reasonably forseeable that with the loss of revenue that fares would have to be increased to provide sufficient revenue to operate the said system economically. Let us not overlook the fact that the same bus that is used in rendering interstate service is also used in rendering intrastate service in the Commonwealth of Virginia for those passengers who have no other means of public transportation from points and places in northern Virginia to the Pentagon and return. If the coach company were to fail because of this unwarranted and unneeded competition, persons residing in nearby Virginia traveling to and from the Pentagon Building would be totally without means of public transportation. The costs involved in the construction of the proposed rapid transit system would, in our opinion, be nothing more than throwing money down the drain. There is aboslutely no need for the proposed service. Further: In addition to the foregoing, W.V. & M. believes it to be most important that the committee have before it several very important observations made to the committee by the coach company's consultant, Burton H. Sexton, at its recent public hearing on H.R. 7249. Mr Sexton stated: "The National Capital Transportation Agency's consultants warn, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads confirm and it is my opinion that, the National Capital Transportation Agency model has not produced significant warrants for a rail dominant system * * * (a) "An express way bus system can compete with rail passengers per hour given the correct expressway facility and a bus subway or other traffic expedients on downtown streets. (b) "The expressway bus operation would collect passengers in satelite communities and perform an express-through trip to downtown or other suburban centers of employment. This would be accomplished without the chief time loss factor attributed to a rail system that is, feeder bus operation and the multiple transfer." (c) "Other interesting comparisons are provided in my report. Mr. Nathan Cherniak in 1960, pointed out that rail systems operating at substantial deficits satisfy only journey to work and return demand. The weekday noncentral business district trips, reverse travel trips, the expanding weekend trips, and all of the intraarea trips would still have to be met by limited access highways." (d) "It is obvious that the planning for urban transportation is a dynamic process and should not be chained to a fixed rail system. As the region grows and becomes more complex an expressway bus system can be altered to provide expanded service with little increase in cost." The Government of the United States is sincerely interested in providing the public with a better and more efficient bus transportation system in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia. To that end, we ask your indulgence and hereinafter set forth a proposed program which we not only believe will better serve the needs of the public, but will enable W.V. & M. and the coach companies operating in the Greater Washington metropolitan area to render the public an efficient, flexible, and warranted bus passenger service. RECOMMENDATIONS (1) In view of the fact that the Government is contemplating the expenditure of $400 million for something less than half a subway system, offering no relief nor benefit to the people of Virginia, W.V. & M. proposes the acquisition of 192 modern, air-conditioned buses representing a capital outlay to the Government of only $6,720,000. (2) With the acquisition of the new equipment, the Virginia private enterprise bus companies could easily provide a well-balanced, highly flexible bus transportation system providing a seat for every passenger and a greatly enhanced express peak hour service. (3) Such a service, even if required to be subsidized to assure private enterprise of a fair rate of return on gross operating revenues, would cost the Government less by the year 2000 than the NCTA proposal would cost for the mere construction of the scaled down version of its plan. (4) Such a proposal precludes the necessity for displacement of persons at considerable expense to the Government, and further eliminates the lengthy and crippling timelag inherent within the NCTA subway construction program. (5) That appropriate legislation be prepared and submitted to the Congress for its action implementing proposals outlined herein. I want to thank you in the behalf of the W.V. & M. Coach Co. for affording us the opportunity of filing the statement and proposal herein. Sincerely yours, S. A. DESTEFANO, President. FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. NOVEMBER 8, 1963. DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: Herewith is a statement on behalf of the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia on H.R. 8929. We would greatly appreciate having the statement included with the documentary information considered by your committee in its deliberations on this proposed legislation. As you have been advised, it was not possible to submit the views of the federation for your record on H.R. 8929 until after a meeting of its executive board last night, at which time its committee on transportation and transit presented a report on the subject. Representing citizens from all sections of the District of Columbia, the federation expresses gratitude to you and to Congressman Whitener for your untiring leadership in seeking a solution of the city's transportation problems. Cordially yours, WILLIAM A. ROBERTS, President. STATEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON THE PROPOSED TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (H.R. 8929) The Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia urges prompt approval by this Congress of H.R. 8929 which will authorize an initial increment in the construction of the rapid transit system proposed by the NCTA. The urgent need for legislation initiating rapid transit development for the Washington metropolitan area has been well-documented in hearings before the House District Committee in 1959, 1960, 1962, and 1963. Also, Congress (in establishing the NCTA in 1960) and official planning agencies (in the 1959 "Mass Transportation Study," the 1961 "Year 2000 Plan," and the NCTA's 1962-63 reports) have recognized this need. The federation, therefore, strongly petitions that the hearings on H.R. 8929 lead to the actual breaking of ground in 1964. Our support of H.R. 8929 assumes that, at the appropriate time, further legislation will be considered to authorize completion of NCTA's total rapid transit system. Certainly, the truncated lines which would be authorized by H.R. 8929 cannot be considered a transit system for the Washington metropolitan area. Consequently, the relative attractiveness of these lines to new transit customers (i.e., those switching from auto) cannot be extrapolated to decide the merits of the NCTA ultimate system in which the advantages to suburban commuters from switching (particularly in traveltime and in fare reductions) are especially significant. We also consider that passage of H.R. 8929 is necessary as a means of conserving Federal highway funds for use in construction of highways in nonurban areas. The interstate highway program originally and primarily was directed to the solution of the intercity, not intracity, travel problem. For intercity movement, there is no realistic. alternative to highways, particularly for personal travel. For intracity movement (especially in large metropolitan areas), there is an alternative to highways-rapid transit (buses on freeways are subject to the "Parkinson's law" of highway construction-the number of vehicles expands to fill available space). By tapping the Federal highway fund for urban highways which attempt to provide capacity to satisfy commuters' intracity demands (in addition to normal intercity needs), we divert funds from the construction of highways which could provide improved access to nonurban areas with the consequent favorable effect on the economies of these areas. FAIRFAX COUNTY FEDERATION OF CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, ALEXANDRIA, VA., November 8, 1963. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCMILLAN: On January 17, 1963, the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens Associations adopted a resolution endorsing the November 1962 recommendation of the National Capital Transportation Agency that immediate and primary consideration be given to the construction of a substantial rail rapid transit system for the National Capital region extending into the suburbs including Fairfax County to supplement adequate highways and highway transit. The federation further endorsed the recommendation of the NCTA that at least two rapid transit lines, and two express buslines, be constructed to provide adequate service to Fairfax County. We urged the Congress to enact during the 1st session of the 88th Congress the legislation necessary to permit the construction of the District of Columbia portion of the system to begin no later than 1964. The views of the federation were presented to the members of the Subcommittee No. 6 of the House Committee on the District of Columbia at the hearings held with regard to the NCTA report in July 1963. We understand that Subcommittee No. 6 is now considering a scaled down version of the NCTA proposal which would provide for a downtown subway only. Such a system could later be extended to serve Fairfax County and other suburban areas, but without such extensions would be of very limited use or benefit to the residents of Fairfax County, and would not solve the problem of highway congestion particularly during the peak rush hours. The federation's position has been and remains that Congress should enact legislation to provide for the construction of a comprehensive rapid transit system in the most expeditious manner which is feasible. The need for such a system becomes more acute with every passing day. We do appreciate the practical consideration which lies behind. the limited proposal now before the subcommittee. Certainly this more limited plan is better than nothing at all and it could form the first stage of an eventual overall system for the region. For this reason the federation, in accordance with its previous endorsement, endorses the scaled-down plan with the qualification that this plan is and can, with some assurance, be viewed as the first legislative step in providing a complete system to include lines extending into Fairfax County and other suburban areas from the center of the city to serve the entire National Capital area. We feel that the committee should direct its attention to one apparent inequity in the scaled version which has come to our attention. A rail commuter line is provided for Prince Georges County and one subway line would extend well north from the center of Washington to suburban Silver Spring. Yet, there is virtually no service provided for northern Virginia. We appreciate the concern of Congress with the cost element but question whether it would not be feasible, consistent with this objective to provide for some form of commuter service along the R.F. & P., or Southern Railway from the Springfield, Va., area to the Pentagon City subway terminal or Union Station. Such service would provide a better balance in the initial phase and could relieve the present critical traffic problem along Shirley Highway. We have noted in the Washington Post of Thursday, November 7, that the Metropolitan Area Transit Commission has come out with a proposal which provides for a single 11⁄2-mile subway from Union Station to the White House area. We are opposed to this proposal in that we feel that it would do nothing to solve the basic problem which is the congestion to and from the suburbs. We also note that there is absolutely no provision for service in this proposal to and from Washington and the northern Virginia suburbs. An identical letter has been sent to Congressman Whitener as the chairman of the subcommittee with a request that he insert it into the record. Committee on the District of Columbia, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITENER: Our organization welcomes this opportunity to express approval of the shortened version of the rail rapid transit system under study by your subcommittee. We believe it to be an important first stage in solving the transportation problems of the metropolitan area and trust that within a few years it will be extended beyond Rosslyn across Arlington County. Sincerely yours, LESLIE LOGAN. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee of the District of Columbia, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. NOVEMBER 7, 1963. DEAR CHAIRMAN MCMILLAN: I have a copy of a letter dated November 5, transmitting a copy of a communication from the Joint Transportation Commission submitting its comments in respect to H.R. 8929. I am writing to state that I am not in accord with the views expressed in that communication. I am in accord with the views expressed by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, which I assume you have received. Yours very truly, H. LESTER HOOKER, Commissioner. Copies to Mr. Jerome M. Alper, Washington, D.C.; Commissioner Albert L. Sklar, Baltimore, Md.; Mr. Delmer Ison, Arlington, Va. |