and the District of Columbia, is engaged, pursuant to the legislative authorization of those governments and of the Congress contained in title III of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 (40 U.S.C. 651) in the negotiation of an interstate compact for the establishment of an organization empowered to provide the transportation facilities required for the National Capital region. Since H.R. 8929 seeks legislative authorization for only a portion of the regional system proposed by the National Capital Transportation Agency, the bill vitally concerns the work of this Commission, and has been considered by the Commission in a special meeting called for that purpose. The comments of the Commission with respect to H.R. 8929 are set forth below: 1. The Commission supports H.R. 8929 as a necessary first step in the development of the expanded transportation facilities required by the National Capital region. As a first step, the substitute project is not inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the States and of the Congress as set forth in the Statement of Findings and Policy in section 1 of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960. It was there found that an improved transportation system was required for the entire National Capital region and that the provision of such expanded transportation facilities was a joint responsibility of the Federal, State, and local governments in the region. By crossing into both Maryland and Virginia, the substitute plan establishes the regional character of the proposed mass transit system. This is confirmed by the explanation of the substitute bill, which states that the proposed system does not eliminate any of the routes provided for in the NCTA report, but simply involves a shortening of those routes to terminate within the District of Columbia or immediately across the boundaries of the District of Columbia. It thus appears that the route pattern recommended by NCTA is preserved by the proposed legislation and this route pattern may be achieved by extending the routes now authorized to be constructed. If H.R. 8929 should not be construed as inconsistent with the established public policy for a regional transportation system, it does not appear that the passage of this legislation should have a materially adverse effect on the negotiations for an interstate compact, but, of course, unavoidably will introduce some uncertainties which may complicate the negotiations. The Commission is prepared to face these additional complexities, if it is the judgment of your committee that congressional authorization may be obtained at this session only for a modified system. 2. The National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 contains several provisions designed to facilitate the transition from a Federal Agency to an Interstate Proprietary Agency. One of such provisions is contained in paragraph (d) of section 204, which provides, inter alia, that NCTA shall submit the transit development program: "(5) To the Governors of Maryland and Virginia or such Government agencies as they may designate for approval of the location and extent of proposed Agency facilities and the timetable for the provision of such facilities within Maryland and Virginia, respectively; and except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, the Agency shall not acquire, construct, or operate property, rights-of-way, or facilities indicated in the transit development program or a revision thereof within the State in which such property, rights-of-way or facilities are located unless prior thereto the Governor of the State involved of such Government agency as he may designate shall have approved the transit development program or the pertinent revision thereof." Subsection (e) of section 204 similarly provides for such approval of any portion of the proposed project to be located within the States in advance of the approval by the Governors of the entire transit development program. These provisions are basic to the development, on a cooperative basis between the Federal, State, and local governments, of the expanded transportation facilities required by the region. Although section 2 of H.R. 8929 makes the work authorized by section 1 of that bill subject to the provisions of the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, the Commission feels that the question of whether the project authorized by H.R. 8929 is subject to section 204 (d) and (e) of the 1960 act should be clarified beyond any possibility of doubt or confusion. 3. Although H.R. 8929 does not authorize the issuance by the NCTA of revenue bonds to the public, the explanation of the bill and the accompanying anticipated payout schedule indicates that approximately $100 million of such securities would be marketed to the public during 1967. In earlier testimony on behalf of the Joint Transportation Commission, which I presented to the subcommittee on H.R. 6633 and H.R. 7249, I pointed out that the issuance by the NCTA, or any successor Federal agency, of revenue bonds to the public, may preclude the substitution of an interstate compact agency for the Federal entity as obligor of the bonds. Although it is reasonably to be expected that the compact will be adopted by the States and the Congress prior to 1967, care must be exercised that no action by the Congress or the NCTA should not be taken or permitted which would impede the transition to a compact agency. The issuance by NCTA of revenue bonds to the public well may be one such action. Unless the transportation project is to become and remain a purely Federal activity, Congress should at this time make certain beyond peradventure of doubt that no revenue bonds shall be publicly marketed by NCTA, or any successor Federal agency, unless satisfactory provision is made in the bond indenture for the substitution of the compact agency for the Federal entity as obligor of the bonds. 4. It is generally recognized that an interstate compact agency inherently is better suited to achieve the necessary intergovernmental cooperation required to develop and put into effect a regional transportation system. In this connection, the prior hearings before the subcommittee on the earlier authorization legislation discloses that some of the political subdivisions and other governmental agencies in the National Capital region have complained that they have not been permitted to participate in the formulation of the transit development program and were not brought into meaningful participation by NCTA until the plans were fully developed. Under these circumstances, these governmental units felt that they did not have the requisite knowledge and information on which to base an informed judgment and, therefore, were put in the position where they must accept or oppose the NCTA proposals without adequate consideration. As a result, the transit development program has not had the full support which it merits and requires. This problem of intergovernmental cooperation is receiving major attention in the negotiations of the Joint Transportation Commission. By a majority of the Commission: CARLTON R. SICKLES, M.C., Chairman. FAR NORTHEAST COUNCIL OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS WASHINGTON, D.C., November 11, 1963. Congressman BASIL WHITENER, Chairman, House District Subcommittee on Transportation, The Far Northeast Council of Civic Associations urgently request proposed subway line be extended to the National Guard Armory and further that residents of the Far Northeast and neighboring Prince Georges County be furnished improved access road to and through the city. ROBERT W. BOYD, Secretary. MAYFAIR PARKSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION Congressman BASIL WHITENER, WASHINGTON, D.C. House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Our organization respectfully requests that the National Capital Transportation Agency plan includes provisions for a rapid transit line to extend into the far Northeast and Southeast areas somewhere in the vicinity of East Capitol Street. will be greatly appreciated. Your interest and assistance JOHN NELSON, President. WASHINGTON, D.C., November 12, 1963. HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE (Attention Representatives Whitener and Broyhill, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.): Respectfully request resolution under consideration this morning approving highway transit compromise not pertaining to sudden New Georgetown Bridge site. Loaded gun thesis used by Glover Archbold Park lobbyists equally applicable to Georgetown and areas up Wisconsin Avenue. Basic issue is do you destroy people or trees. Major organized campaign for survival underway by residents of Georgetown, adjacent neighborhoods, and Virginia allies to clarify officials stand on this point. Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown voted against site last night as a beginning. NORBORNE ROBINSON. CAPITOL VIEW CENTRAL NORTHEAST CIVIC BETTERMENT DEANWOOD EASTLAND GARDEN Hon. BASIL WHITENER, WASHINGTON, D.C., Norember 11, 1963. Chairman of District Subcommittee, House of Representatives, DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITENER: We are very much concerned about the reivised plan of NCTA for rapid transit, this plan does not include a subway line that extends into the far Northeast-Southeast area. We feel strongly that the report should be revised to include this area in the initial phase of the system. This area of Washington east of the Anacostia River is the fastest growing area in the District of Columbia. This area contains approximately 85 percent of the vacant land in the District although the population as of the 1960 census was approximately 80,000 people, since this time the population has grown at an enormous rate until now the estimated population is in excess of 100,000 persons. With this type of increase and NCTA's proposal that the subways will be paid for through the cash box, it is inconceivable that NCTA or any other agency or committee can propose a rapid transit plan and not include the far Northeast-Southeast area. We sincerely hope that your committee will include a rapid transit line that will extend into the far Northeast-Southeast area when this bill is presented to Congress. M. MARIE ROGERS, WESTERN SUBURBAN DEMOCRATIC CLUB Hon. BASIL LEE WHITENER, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 6, BETHESDA, MD., November 11, 1963. Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: The members of the Western Suburban Democratic Club along with the members of the Kensington-Wheaton Democratic Club and the Women's Suburban Democratic Club all of Montgomery County, Md., strongly urge a favorable report supporting the proposed 23.3mile rail rapid transit system for the District of Columbia. We will use this system, however, our strong support does not preclude our desire for the ultimate extension of this needed service to this suburb. E. PHILLIP SAYRE, Chairman Issues Committee. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, WASHINGTON, D.C., November 8, 1963. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Since my high school days (1935) I have been interested in public transportation. Also, I have been very much concerned with the constant deterioration and abandonments of service which seems to continue endlessly in the rail area of public transport. The 11 years that I have lived in Washington have seen that process continue right in my front yard. Therefore, I am certain that it is time to quit kowtowing to the freeway and concrete lobby, the AAA, and the Delmer Ison crowd at the WMATC, and to go ahead with the NCTA plan which is now before your committee. I agree with you in that the 23-mile system is all that can realistically achieve legislative action at this time. I hope you can push the idea through successfully. You have my proxy for 100 percent support. Every day I ride Roy Chalk's fume-filled buses to work and back. I know first hand how bad public transport has become in the capital of the most advanced country of the world, since abandonment of the world, since abandonment of the smokeless "obsolete" electric cars. Good luck to you. Sincerely, HENRY S. LIBBY. MT. RAINIER, MD., November 10, 1963. Hon. BASIL L. WHITENER, DEAR MR. WHITENER: On the question of running a subway down the middle of G Street in Washington, I would like to add my negative vote. Your plan is a vast improvement over that presented by the NCTA, in my opinion, but I think that no plans should be forced through until the housing and highway research people have had time to suggest a subway system that would complement expansion in their fields. I think it is bad policy to soften them up first with the NCTA plan, so that they would be content to accept anything else. Second, I think there is excellent reason to place the subway line next to K Street rather than G Street. A K Street line will have more customer potential in the near future, if it doesn't have it now. Later an East Capitol Street line can be added without crowding, but nobody would want a line on G Street and the Mall. Finally, a K Street connection would offer a good excuse for building a huge new station on top of the tracks so that loading problems could be simplified. Sincerely yours, BILL ALBAUGH. |