are interested in the growth of Washington. We do feel, however, that neither our company nor our patrons should be made to pay part of the expense of beautifying Washington which does not benefit at all the company or the patrons except in the same way that the general public is benefited.

We are, as I say, entirely satisfied with the present layout of tracks. Our own line operates, as you know, to the Peace Monument, up First Street to C to Delaware Avenue, where it goes both right and left to the Union Station and passes the Library Building.

Some connection across the Plaza between the Union Station and the Capitol is an obvious necessity because of the various car lines, ours and those of the Washington Railway & Electric Co., which must go from the eastern section of the city to the business part of the city.

We have three lines operating there: One from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Union Station, another to Eighth and F past the Union Station, and a third line coming down New Jersey Avenue past the Union Station, past the Senate Office Building, the Library, and the House Office Building to the Navy Yard. Those lines all feed this particular territory and are necessary in order to furnish the transportation service which our charter requires us to furnish.

Several suggestions have been made as to changes. I will not go into them except to emphasize a little bit from an operating point of view the objections to the particular plan that is laid down in the bill. That is, the underground connection all the way from New Jersey Avenue to First Street.

As Mr. Ham has stated, that contemplates two subways and three open cuts. It enters in an open cut, is depressed, goes under the Plaza, another stretch of open cut, and goes under Delaware Avenue, another stretch of open cut, until it goes up the grade at First Street.

The plan as laid out by Mr. Parsons would necessitate a 10 per cent gradient for our tracks emerging from that tunnel into First Street east. For matters of comparison I would say that the steepest grade on which street cars are operated is on B Street alongside the Capitol Grounds, which is a 6 per cent grade. A 10 per cent grade would be two-thirds more than that and would create, in my opinion, almost an impossible situation. To come out of a depressed track into a busy street on a 10 per cent grade would cause a possibility of accidents that I do not think should be allowed in the interest of the public of Washington.

Of course, in addition to that actual difficulties of operation would be very great; the possibilities of delay, cars being stuck on that grade; the difficulties of snow removal in this open cut. All those things would make a very unfortunate situation, to say the least. I will not say that it is not possible to operate under those conditions. I would not like to make the statement that anything is impossible in this day and generation. But many things are possible which should be avoided if that can be done.

As I said in the beginning, we would be entirely satisfied to have the track layout remain exactly as it is, as far as we are concerned. If any change is made I believe with Mr. Ham that from our point of view the use of B Street is the best arrangement that could be

made. I am not arguing at all the question of esthetics here, because I am not competent to do it; but it would give the most direct line from our line on Pennsylvania Avenue to feed this building and the Capitol building, and a direct line to the Union Station and to east Washington.

If B street is used, preferably we would like to go down Delaware Avenue as we go now, because that requires less change and gives a more direct route. If we go to C Street we have not as direct a route as we have now.

The use of First Street instead of Delaware Avenue is, from our point of view, objectionable in several ways. In the first place, First Street is a narrow street and presumably would have to be widened to accommodate two tracks. It is out of the way. It would cause passengers coming from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Union Station to go a block out of the way over to First Street rather than down the diagonal street. That is not very great, but it is something, and I merely bring it in.

If B Street is not used Mr. Bibbins will explain the other plans which have been laid out to which Mr. Ham has referred.

The use of C Street with subconstruction as far as Delaware Avenue-I will not go into that because he will; but I do want to emphasize this fact, that we are now well taken care of. When I say "we," I mean, the companies and the companies' passengers. These proposed changes will neither increase the operating efficiency nor will they serve the public any better. The companies, consequently, can not expect any additional revenue coming from these changes, and, consequently, in my opinion, should not be expected to bear any part of the expense.

Again, I am speaking as Mr. Ham did, not from a legal point of view, because I am not a lawyer, but from the equitable point of view. I would emphasize this fact. You have referred to the fact, Senator, that our charter requires that changes of this sort should be borne at the expense of the companies. That is probably true, but the charters were granted at a time when the rate of fare was a contract rate of fare, when the companies were not under regulation and when they had undertaken to furnish a certain service at a certain rate of fare, under the conditions existing then. That no longer is the case. The passage of the public utilities act of 1913 took all of these public service companies out of the contract class and put them under modern regulations. The rate of fare depends upon the cost of the service. And for that reason matters of this sort have an entirely different bearing, a different status, it seems to me. In the long run all of these changes have to be paid for by the patrons of the car lines or the patrons of any other utility

company.

Senator TYDINGS. Have you any idea what the change contemplated in the bill would cost?

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Bibbins has definite information on that. The costs are based on these various plans which he will talk about. Just in round figures, what is it, Mr. Bibbins?

Mr. BIBBINS. It varies from $276,000 to $360,000, not including, of course, the loss value.

Mr. HANNA. It includes the net cost of replacing those tracks.

Senator TYDINGS. Would it shorten any of the tracks any?

Mr. HANNA. No; it would not. Some of the plans would involve less total trackage after completion than is now on the streets.

Senator TYDINGS. Of course, if it would shorten the track any, assuming that it would be fair, do you not think in that case that you, through maintenance and so on, would get a slight increment of some kind, and that that should be taken into consideration, and just as you now say that any additional burden should not be borne by you, if there is any benefit accruing to you out of that it ought to be taken into consideration?

Mr. HANNA. If there is any benefit accruing it ought to be taken into consideration; yes. But I think that in this particular case, assuming that the subway construction is to be used, with the additional cost and the additional nuisance, I might call it, of operating in this depressed area, it would much more than compensate for the maintenance charges of a few feet of track here and there.

Some mention was made of using the new street from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Union Station, routing our cars there. Our objection to that is this, that we probably have more originating traffic during the course of the year, or as much, from the Capitol and Senate Office Building, as we have from the Union Station, and those passengers would be carried very much out of their way. The Union Station cars would not go anywhere near this building or near the Capitol.

Senator SWANSON. Did you relocate your tracks when the Union Station was established where it now is?

Mr. HANNA. Yes, sir.

Senator SWANSON. Who paid the cost of that?

Mr. HANNA. Some of those tracks were not in existence at all, Senator. Our tracks, for instance, made a loop around this building. We had a track in First Street at one time.

Senator SWANSON. Did you have any loss by relocation?

Mr. HANNA. I do not think we did. My recollection is that there

were no

Mr. HAM. I do not think Mr. Hanna is correct on that. There were certain abandonments provided for in the bill.

Senator TYDINGS. That was before the public utilities act was passed?

Mr. HAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANNA. I was speaking of our own system. We afterwards abandoned our track on First Street. We had a single track that was afterwards abandoned because it was not needed. But there was a great deal of new track built. I do not believe we abandoned any track to amount to anything.

Senator SWANSON. What has been the custom in Washington where tracks were abandoned and you were able to relocate your tracks? Mr. HANNA. Generally speaking, the companies have paid for it. Senator SMOOT. The companies do it all under their charters. Senator SWANSON. Do you know of any case where the Government has paid for the relocation of tracks in Washington?

Mr. HANNA. No, sir; I do not, so far as our company is concerned. Senator SWANSON. Have you studied to what extent this would affect the flow of traffic to the Library, the Capitol, and the Union

Station? I assume they are the largest places that you draw traffic from and for which you have to supply cars.

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Bibbins has some information on that.
Senator SWANSON. He has studied that phase of it?

Mr. HANNA. Yes, sir.

However, what I was speaking of particularly was this proposal to divert our tracks along this new avenue entirely away from the Capitol and Senate Office Building. We think that would be objectionable from very many points of view. In the first place, we believe that that avenue should, if possible, be left free of car tracks, because it is the main artery for other vehicular traffic; and the general practice now is to leave such main arteries free of car tracks unless it is necessary to have them constructed on such main arteries. Senator SMOOT. That is why we want B street left open.

Mr. HANNA. As far as B street is concerned, from our point of view B street is unquestionably the best solution of this problem. Senator SMOOT. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. HANNA. But that is not for us to decide; it is for you gentlemen to decide. We simply want to point out the difficulties and our reasons why we think the proposed assessment of this cost on the companies and on the companies' patrons is not equitable or fair.

Senator SMOOт. We all recognize that there are some difficulties to overcome.

Mr. HANNA. That is all; thank you, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. PARSONS, ARCHITECT, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. PARSONS. Mr. Hanna has stated that these plans provide for a 10 per cent grade from Delaware Avenue to First Street. I would never have proposed such an excessive grade as that. The plans as we worked them out originally provided for a 7 per cent grade. After that we had a meeting in conference with Mr. Lynn and the street railway officials and they said that they wanted certain standard conditions on which to operate there. We said, "What are those conditions that you want? What are the feasible conditions?" They said a 6 per cent grade maximum and a 15-foot clearance at subways would be necessary.

So we revised our plans and worked out a scheme by which those conditions are met. It requires, however, raising Delaware Avenue at that point several feet and depressing First Street several feet. I believe that can be done.

Senator SMOOт. You mean that you are going to depress the whole street or just the entrance?

Mr. PARSONS. Just at the intersection.

Senator SMOOT. That would not be a very good thing, would it? Mr. PARSONS. It is quite feasible, and I think that would improve Delaware Avenue.

Senator SMOOT. Would it not look rather peculiar there unless the street was graded gradually?

Mr. PARSONS. The grade will have to be changed.

Senator SMOOT. I asked you if you were going to change the whole street gradually.

29741-29- -2

Mr. PARSONS. Yes; that is right. We will have to begin here [indicating on plan] and fill up about 4 feet higher than it is, and then it would be more nearly level along the Senate Office Building.

I just wanted to say that, having had this conference with the engineers, we have worked out a scheme, and the details of the plan will conform to the standards which they requested.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, a 6 per cent grade?

Mr. PARSONS. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF J. ROWLAND BIBBINS, CONSULTING ENGINEER, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BIBBINS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as Mr. Ham has stated to you, I have undertaken to make a careful study of this problem, and I want to submit to you the result with my conclusions as to the best trackage plan to recommend reasonably conserving the proposed plaza design and also the permanent transit service of the various car routes concerned, to the best advantage of the car-riding public.

Incidentally, I may say that I have been more or less closely in touch with the transportation-planning situation here, beginning with the 1925 transportation survey, and particularly through an intensive study of economies from unification and rerouting presented in the merger proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia.

We are now concerned mostly with transit facilities north of Capitol Park and the connecting transit lines east-west, north-south, although section 5 of H. R. 13929 does bring into the picture somewhat the Mall development plan as shown on the full map of Scheme B (H. R. Doc. 252).

66

And I want to ask your attention to the map which is labeled Proposed Capitol Plaza Mall Development-East End. Present Routing."

The main lines of the present railway trackage are here indicated in color; new public buildings authorized or contemplated are indicated by shaded cross section. You will notice the east-west trunk in red, the north-south trunk lines in green, and the Pennsylvania Avenue service in blue, together with its connection to the station. This Capitol group now houses perhaps 5,000 employees with a possible future expansion to about 7,000. That is, the same occupancy as the proposed municipal center, while the east triangle Executive group" will provide for about 25,000 employees.

66

You will notice here also at the bottom of the map the steam railroad tunnel swinging up from the south into the line of First Street to reach Union Station. North of D Street, it comes within about two feet of the surface. This scheme B, you will recall, is really cast about the unnamed street which I have called New Avenue, forming a traffic cut-off from Union Station to Union Square, around Capitol Hill on the north, symmetrical with Canal Street by-pass on the south. Delaware Avenue will thus be much relieved, from a traffic standpoint, and that has some bearing on this problem.

In this study I have analyzed possible ways of harmonizing the commendable desires of the architects as expressed in scheme B, with the needs of mass transportation as measured by the very real