of Senator Bible. Few pieces of legislation are supported by such thorough staff work in both the executive and legislative branches of the Government.

The Congress saw in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960 a bold new program, the like of which has never before been undertaken. It recognizes all the complexities inherent in the development of a major regional public works program for a modern metropolitan area. It also takes account of the unique complexity involved in the multijurisdictional region whose core is the Nation's Capital. It faces up to the tough questions of finding regional financing and management arrangements for a long-range transportation development program able to endure for years and to provide the skeleton for the future development of the region.

While the Washington area is not alone among urban regions in the United States having acute transportation problems, the approach Congress has taken in this instance is unique because this is the Nation's Capital. The eyes of other metropolitan regions in the country are certainly on us.

The main point today is that it would represent false economy to appropriate less than the full amount requested by the President for the Agency. The reasons are in the statement of justification accompanying our proposed amendment to the appropriation language. I believe a brief description of the six major elements of our work program and of the interdependence among these elements will assist you to understand why we believe a full restoration of the House cut is necessary to enable us to carry out the intent of Congress.

(1) The regional transit system program, including preliminary engineering plans for part of the downtown subway. This item includes all preliminary engineering studies on location, type of transit route, and services for the longrange program. It includes studies on locating the first downtown subway as we were instructed to do in our organic act. It includes all cost and benefit and related economic analyses basic to our recommendation for financing the entire system. It is the largest element in the budget.

(2) The finance and organization report due by November 1962.-This report would contain recommendations on a firm financing program and on the creation of a permanent regional transportation organization. These two problems have plagued all other efforts to develop metropolitan transit systems throughout the country. The situation for the Washington area is as we said above unduly complex. This activity will develop the soundest possible solution to these two questions. Not just a theoretical solution but one with hope of gaining political acceptability in Maryland and Virginia as well as in the Congress, in order that the decision to go ahead can be made easily and quickly.

(3) Coordination of highways, transit, and land use; and extension of the mass transportation survey.-This item represents the basic transportation planning necessary to provide the framework into which the transit system must fit. It is dictated by the findings of the Congress that an improved transportation system for the National Capital region "requires the planning on a regional basis of a unified system of freeways, parkways, express transit service on effective rights-of-way, and other major transportation facilities ***." It includes the economic and other studies enabling the Agency to relate the transportation system to other aspects of regional development. It includes development of all the up-to-date traffic data and origin-destination studies needed for the design of an efficient and economical transit program.

(4) Early improvements to existing services, particularly commuter railroads.—This item was specifically singled out by the Congress. We will explore the possibilities of using more effectively the existing transit and railroad facilities in the region, with a minimum of additional capital investment. If an expanded commuter railroad service could be made workable, for example, it could start soon either on a temporary basis or as part of a permanent program. Work under this item also includes study for improvement in existing local transit service throughout the region.

(5) Research and development on vehicles and automation. This element is most important to the program of the Agency. It may unlock doors to much improved equipment or system technique with implications for the location and type of transit routes as well as for costs and revenues. The amount included in this year's budget is for initial work only and would not include field testing. The results of the effort will, of course, have national implications as well as benefiting directly the program for the Washington area. It is necessary in part because the transit industry in the United States has been declining for many years and so has neglected this type of research and development.

(6) Engineering of transit facilities in conjunction with development of new highways. This provides for preliminary engineering studies leading to reservation of space for future transit facilities in the Federal-aid highways now being designed and built. The savings to the transit system would be enormous if the space can be reserved now. Failure to do this might preclude forever the practical possibility of having transit and automobile traffic use the same rights-ofway in some of the corridors.

These several items of the work program are closely related to one another. The finance and organization report will draw on the findings of all the other work items and have a specific termination date. The other items, however, will provide more information than just what is needed for the November 1962 report, and will be continued for 2 or 3 years.

The 1962 report will depend heavily upon the engineering work. In effect all the work of the Agency is centered upon the engineering of the regional transit system program, but the engineering work could not be carried out without the benefit of continual feedback from other elements in the program. For example, in extending the mass transportation survey work we will reestablish the traffic needs in each part of the region. This will be derived from an assessment of land use and zoning policy changes made recently, as well as the impact of the Dulles International Airport, the Potomac interceptor sewer, and similar largescale projects.

With the revised travel needs available, the engineering studies can show alternative routes and systems to meet the need. At this point the analysis of the new commuter railroad services will reveal the extent to which new commuter service might permanently meet a portion of the travel needs of the region. These studies would also indicate the feasibility of introducing early improvement in rush-hour travel service.

The highway-transit coordination work will be conducted for the purpose of reserving space in most of the new radial freeways. The main purpose is to reserve space for transit now; yet the results of these studies will provide important data for the regional transit system program, both by giving us better cost information, and by indicating where transit space can be reserved in the freeways and where it cannot.

The research and development studies will be conducted in order to provide both a beginning to the development of new equipment as well as to learn whether or not the transit system should be designed with significantly different concepts in mind. It is quite conceivable, for example, that through new knowledge about savings in operating costs of one type of equipment or another we could conclude that some express bus routes could be more economically developed as rapid transit routes, and vice versa. The capital cost of such alternatives might also vary considerably.

To complete the picture of the interrelationship among elements in our work program it should be noted that the initial engineering conclusions will be reevaluated in terms of the impact of the system on land use and development, and in terms of the difficulties both physical and financial of providing that system. This reevaluation would be done on a continual basis.

Further studies would then be made with area planning officials in order to learn where their detailed plans could be altered so as to maximize the advantages of the transit routes. This work, of course, would include examining the possibility of locating employment centers near some transit stations as well as locating high density housing at many of the stations. This coordination with other agencies in the region will require staff effort, but is necessary in order to insure the development of a comprehensive transportation system for the region. I have reviewed carefully the entire program of the Agency and find that the cut of one-third will mean a minimum delay of 1 year in starting construction of the regional rapid transit system-specifically, the first section of the downtown Washington subway.

I know the President and the Congress expect the Agency to do a thorough and adequate job. It is a new kind of effort with many inherent difficulties. I do not believe that we can afford to take short cuts that might impair the soundness of the engineering and financial estimate that will underlie our report to the President and the Congress on November 1, 1962.

In imposing this deadline, the Congress has responded to the sense of urgency expressed by the citizens and business groups of the region at the hearings on the act. To impose a cut that really means a year's delay is inconsistent with that urgency.

I believe that a cut of this size is not a savings to the Government in the long run. It merely postpones work that must be done sometime before we can get on with the job of construction and operation. As has been indicated in the justification accompanying our request for amendment to the appropriation amount, I believe the delays would prove costly in more ways than one.

I would like to conclude this statement by pointing out that the total transportation program, as envisaged in the mass transportation survey report, is expected to cost about $2 billion. The Agency is required to reevaluate that entire program. Viewed in the light of that figure, the amount of $325,000 appears insignificant in comparison.

In view of these considerations, I respectfully request that the Senate amend the House appropriation language for the National Capital Transportation Agency so as to restore the full amount requested by the President and press for sustaining this restoration in the conference.

DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Mr. STOLZENBACH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today in connection with our 1962 budget which the House of Representatives has cut by onethird. The President has assigned me to one of the newest and most challenging problems the Federal Government has ever undertaken in the field of urban affairs. This job is to develop a modern backbone in the Washington region-and I say "backbone" because that is exactly what the problem of transportation is in relation to any big city area.

At this point I would like to quote from the President's message on "Housing and Community Development" which he sent to the Congress early in March. The President said, "Nothing is more dramatically apparent than the inadequacy of transportation in our larger urban area." The solution cannot be found only in the construction of additional urban highways. As vital as that job is, other means of mass transportation that would use less equipment must be improved and expanded. Perhaps even more important, finding transportation and planning land use must go hand in hand as two inseparable acts of the same process.

Now, how we in the National Capital Transportation Agency design this system so that it will fit into regional planning, how we recommend that this system be financed and how we recommend that 12 political jurisdictions participate in its management will be regarded seriously in all of the other large metropolitan areas of the country.

The region

Chairman HAYDEN. There are 12 jurisdictions in Washington? Mr. STOLZENBACH. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. consists of four counties and two independent cities in Virginia, two counties in Maryland, the District of Columbia, the two States, and the Federal Government.

The Congress cut our budget for this fiscal year in half, a fact which even now prevents us from going ahead with some of the studies which we have undertaken. For the next fiscal year the President has requested, as you know, $975,000. With the deadline in our act on the financial and organizational report, I regard this as a minimum budget request.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have brought with us a chart to point this up and I have a copy for insertion in the record. (The chart referred to follows:)

On this chart, Mr. Chairman, you see a diagram of the six major parts of our work program. To me this is a picture that somewhat resembles those you see in the advertisements of chemical companies showing the structure of a complex molecule with the arrows symbolizing the bonds between the different kinds of atoms that comprise the molecule.

In the physical world, if any of these bonds are broken or weakened, the character of the substance is changed. In fact, you have a different material.

This chart has been drawn so that the areas of the several circles are roughly proportionate to the budgetary emphasis that we would place on the several parts of the program. I first constructed this diagram primarily for my own use to assist me in figuring out just how we would adjust our program if the House cut were sustained.

What I find is that three of the elements which Congress has specifically directed us to undertake are at an almost absolute minimum.

FINANCIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL REPORT

You can see at the top a circle representing the financial and organizational report due November 1962. That part of our program represents about 10 percent of the budget and I seriously doubt that any meaningful recommendation could be made to the President next year if this item were cut significantly.

FEASIBILITY STUDIES ON RAIL COMMUTATION

You will observe the circles for our studies on the feasibility of the railway commuter program and on the acquisition of extra wide median strips and other land for transit facilities along proposed highways. These parts of our program are smaller in emphasis than the financial and organizational report, and are also at a practical minimum; so I believe good administration would certainly require either their elimination entirely or keeping them in at approximately the level indicated.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Going to the circle at the lower right, research and development on new types of vehicles and techniques of automation, we feel this is necessary if we are to have the latest word in a transit system for the Nation's Capital. This is due mainly to the fact that the transit industry has been declining over the last 30 years and, consequently, very little industry-sponsored research and development has been undertaken. Of course, some of this effort could be deferred, but it would certainly mean we would have less information as to the cost savings possible from the application of the latest scientific and technical knowledge.

Going to the circle in the upper right, the extension of the mass transportation survey was directed in the act creating the Agency and must of necessity be done in order to provide a basis for relating the proposed transit system to the prospective pattern of growth in the region, as well as plan for future development, particularly highway development.

ENGINEERING PLANS

In the center circle is what I regard as the main task of the Agency, the development of firm engineering plans and cost and benefit studies for a regional transit system. In this area we will put particular emphasis, again as directed by Congress, on a downtown Washington subway, which is, of course, the logical place to start a metrotransit system, if we are in fact to have one."

If we could go ahead with our work on the basis of the amount requested by the President, I believe it would be possible to present to the next session of Congress a sufficiently firm report on the details of the downtown subway so that construction may actually begin some time in 1964; however, it is my equally firm conviction that if these last two largest items in our work program have to be curtailed by as much as one-third we would not be in a position to start construction until a year later, 1965.

In other words, we have to conclude that the impending cut implies a delay of 1 year. I do not mean that it would necessarily mean a delay of a full year in our work; but if it delayed us even by 6 or 8 months in getting our report to the Congress, this would mean putting the decision to go ahead over for 1 year.

As I have explained in my longer statement which you have before you, all of this work must be done thoroughly or it is not worth doing. A delay of 1 year will be costly to the people and the businesses of this region and ultimately to whatever other governmental unit or units are going to pay the bill. It seems to us a false economy, par