nue track, two-thirds of which have just been rebuilt. The minor disadvantage-the acute angle at Delaware Avenue-B Street in the north-south operating routes-appears entirely outweighed by the advantages.

The side location of tracks in B Street along the park curb with a roadway of suitable width, properly protected by a visible clearance line along the pavement, offers the advantage of an unobstructed thoroughfare under normal traffic, and at the same time gives emergency traffic relief along the trackway in case of roadway obstruction, thus in a sense giving a twin roadway.

This B Street routing, with the station approach via Delaware Avenue, obviously lends itself most directly to these several services from the viewpoint of simplicity, freedom of Plaza treatment, minimum disturbance during Plaza construction, and general desirability to the public, yielding maximum convenience for the whole Capitol group as on south B Street.

Further, it gives the riding public some vision of the whole beautification plan which should be one of its major objects.

If modern street cars operating on the street free of wires, poles, or cables above ground are a disadvantage, this must be set down to the necessities of city transportation, and the state of the art which is rapidly moving forward by evolution to more sightly cars, greater convenience, and less noisy operation.

Experience and observation show that dense mass transportation, especially during the opening and closing hours of city peak loads, has not proven the bus to be an agency at present able to displace the large capacity, high-powered street-car unit in these essential services, certainly not with as low a fare. The so-called "unsightliness" of modern street cars must be a matter of personal opinion. It would seem wise to conserve the heavy investment forced upon the companies where reasonable from the standpoint of public service.

Cost distribution: It does not appear to be in the public interest to burden car riders further with extraneous costs, directly attributable to civic beautification rather than utility, for these costs must finally be reflected in the car fare. In the present case no definite advantage to transportation commensurate with its cost appears in the Capitol Plaza scheme presented, hence the cost of the improvement must rest upon an evaluation of the aesthetic advantages to be gained from eliminating surface transit at a cost of one-half million or upwards for the railway costs alone and nearly $1,900,000 for plaza regrading, construction, and so forth. However, if the development cost is borne by the park plan as it should be, an allowance or credit thereto should be made by the companies for that part of the existing railway structures, destroyed, representing that pro rata part of its reasonable service life which has already been used up in transportation service.

In this manner the car rider, out of fares collected, will carry the actual capital cost of facilities used up by them in service, and the park development the remainder.

In conclusion: Weighing the three main points at issue, first, cost to the public of plaza development and railway relocation; second, operating advantages and convenience to car riders; and, third, free

dom of plaza treatment, it is my conclusion, that first, the two-subway plan, C Street crossing, of the House bill as written can not be recommended.

Second, the B Street crossing, using Delaware Avenue approach to the station, is the simplest, best fulfills all three conditions, and deserves first consideration.

I have already explained the alternatives, and that covers my study in the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Would any of the members of the committee like to ask Mr. Bibbins any questions?

Senator SMOOT. I would like to take his statement and a map and follow it out in detail. I could not follow it as closely as I would want to follow it.

Mr. HAM. In addition to that, Mr. Bibbins has prepared a report which we would be very glad to file with the committee. It is considerably more elaborate than the statement which he has made, and it may be helpful. With the consent of the committee, I would be pleased to file Mr. Bibbins's report.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; the committee would like to have that. (The report referred to was filed with the committee.)

Senator SWANSON. If the companies pay the cost of this change the Public Utilities Commission, in estimating the value of your properties, would include that. Under the present law when they fix the values of your properties, if there is a return from that they will estimate it, will they not?

Mr. BIBBINS. I would not presume to talk upon the subject of valuation, but that is a question that in my experience in previous valuations always is raised, namely, development costs. It is handled in various ways in various situations.

Senator SWANSON. That would be considered a permanent improvement such as they would include in the value of your property when they make an estimate of your value to fix rates?

Mr. BIBBINS. Sometimes it is and sometimes it is a matter of contention.

Senator SWANSON. But it is left with them, is it not? They have been made the judges to do this, have they not?

Mr. BIBBINS. I take it so.

Mr. HANNA. I think Mr. Bibbins's answer refers not to the cost of the new tracks, but to the continued inclusion of the old tracks until they have been amortized. There will be no question, I think, about the inclusion in the capital structure and the rate base of the cost of these improvements. Of course, that means that the car rider would have to pay the carrying charges on that.

Senator SWANSON. If given to you without charging you, would they subtract that when they fix the value of your properties? Mr. HANNA. They would not add it to them.

Senator SWANSON. Or they might say your property is worth so much for replacement, whether they took the replacement value of it or the cost value.

Mr. HANNA. As a matter of fact, if the property were valued after any of these changes were made, I think practically all of them result in somewhat of a lessening of the total. If it were revalued

at a time after the changes were made there would be, if anything, a reduction of the value.

Senator SWANSON. What is the process here in Washington? Do they take the replacement value or do they, as in this case now in the Supreme Court, take both into consideration?

Mr. HANNA. The value of the Capital Traction Co. was based upon reproduction value. That is the only value of either of the companies that has been actually adjudicated in the courts of the District of Columbia. The court valued the Capital Traction Co. on the reproduction basis.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. The cost of reproduction at present?

Mr. HANNA. Yes, sir. That is the value that has been fixed by the court of appeals, the highest court in the District, on the Capital Traction Co.

Senator SHIPSTEAD. When was that?

Mr. HANNA. Two or three years ago.

Senator SWANSON. That is a little different from the interpretation of the Esch-Cummins law in fixing value.

Mr. HANNA. That did not apply to our company. Our property was valued under the public utilities act of 1913.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ham, have you anything else to present. Mr. HAM. I only want to emphasize one point. Naturally the Senators are interested as to what has been done in the past when it became necessary to remove tracks, and we have stated that when those abandonments were made it was at the cost of the companies.

This, however, it seems to me, is an entirely different proposition. Those changes were made to meet the needs of traffic developments. When they built the Union Station we went down there with new tracks, and naturally we paid for them, because we were going to get revenue from the Union Station. It was necessary from a transportation standpoint.

Here is something that is not necessary from a transportation standpoint. As a matter of fact, we will be worse off if the provisions of the bill are carried out. We will earn less money, and it is done solely for the reason that you want to enlarge and beautify the Capitol Grounds. That burden in this particular case is not put upon the District of Columbia at all. It is borne entirely by the Federal Government. We are a citizen of the District of Columbia. We have to pay our burdens as citizens of the District, but other citizens of the District are not burdened directly with any of this cost of the Capitol improvement. We, of course, pay our Federal taxes like other citizens; and we feel that simply as a matter of ordinary fairness and justice this is a burden that should be borne by the Federal Government. We are not going to get anything out of it at all, either in value of property or in financial results from an operating standpoint.

I would like to leave that thought with you just as earnestly as I am able to express it.

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Grant is here and the committee would be glad to have him give his views.

STATEMENT OF COL. U. S. GRANT, 3D, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC PARKS OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Colonel GRANT. So far as the matter of beautification in that plan is concerned, Mr. Parsons and Mr. Lynn, of course, can speak for the plan they are putting before you, and all I can add to that is that the Park and Planning Commission, which contains in its membership some men of national and almost international reputation in such matters, have looked over these plans of Mr. Parsons and feel they are most unusually attractive and an ingenious solution of a very difficult problem from the standpoint of looks.

From the standpoint of economics and car-line operation it would be an impertinence for me to say anything on my own hook. I appreciate that. Realizing that its own staff are not experts in such matters, the Park and Planning Commission two years ago employed the firm of Hall & Bartholomew, in St. Louis, to make certain studies of the car system here, a firm which is well known as one of the leading firms in city planning and which has specialized particularly in transportation problems of all kinds. We felt that we were getting the best advice that could be gotten in this country when we went to them. They made an extended study based on flow of traffic and various other conditions as to the car situation here; and I only want to say that in that study the movement of the cars from B Street to C Street fitted in very well.

Major Brown, engineer of the commission, has information here, and if the committee wants to take the time to go into it, we have some extensive information that we could put before you.

One of the worst things about the car system in the District of Columbia is the large number of curves and the zigzagging of cars around different corners. This change will eliminate some curves, at least two curves, and it has the advantage from the standpoint that we see in the light of that study of fitting in with the study as it was given to our commission.

I believe they have somewhat over-emphasized the difficulties of operating a depressed track running through a short tunnel like this. I think that in New York, Boston, and Chicago, in all three of which the climate is very much more severe than here and where there is a great deal more snow to handle, such depressed tracks entering tunnels are operated without, as far as I know, any difficulty to speak of. I suppose it would be a little harder than running on the surface of the street, but I do not believe that that is a practical difficulty that is prohibitive.

Only one other word. I am the executive officer of the Arlington Memorial Bridge Commission, and that project which the commission is administering, as Senator Keyes knows, includes the widening and cutting through of B Street from the Capitol to the vicinity of the Lincoln Memorial. That means the creation of a great cross-town street of enormous traffic value.

Ever since I have been in Washington on this tour of duty, the officials of the car companies have, quite wisely, I think, been suggesting the great advantage there would be in utilizing B Street for a car route. I say "wisely." Manifestly it offers them a wonderful opportunity for cross-town car traffic.

On the other hand, it has been my belief and understanding, and, I think, that of all the members of the Planning Commission, and, I have always understood, of the members of the Arlington Bridge Commission, that Congress was cutting B Street through in order to provide a vehicular traffic route that the city has not got at the present time and which will be all the more needed because of the public-building program that has been adopted since the Arlington Bridge project.

I think that I am not going too far in saying that it is a general principle of city planning that has been developed in the last few years that with the automobile traffic car lines are inconsistent with the greatest traffic use of a street by automobile traffic, and that there is a distinct advantage in segregating the two. We can not get along without car lines, and the Planning Commission has recognized that fact by undertaking to make this study and we have asked for conferences on the subject with the street-car authorities here. But I think the separation is something that the commission is firmly convinced should be made and that B Street should be preserved for cross-town vehicular traffic in order to get its full traffic value that is being paid for in cutting it through, and that the main car lines across town should be shifted to another street and not be allowed to go on B Street.

In other words, if this plan were carried out, it would be a step toward a rearrangement of the street-car lines which would have to be quite extensive, and this would only be one brick in that structure, and we want to consider the need to the general public to preserve B Street against having car lines put on it. We feel it would destroy the value of the new street to a very great extent.

If you put 20,000 Government officials and employees in the public buildings on the north side of B Street there has to be some way for the automobiles and the buses which carry them, as well as for the street cars, to get away from there. If we can put that vehicular traffic on B Street south of the group of buildings and connecting the street cars in some way with the center, north, then we will have a location that will give the very best results generally-not the cheapest or easiest for the street car companies, but the best general result.

Senator TYDINGS. I would like to ask if the lines do go on C Street instead of on B Street as now operated, do the railways contend that there would be any lessening of the revenue by that change? Mr. BIBBINS. From the occupancy of C Street?

Senator TYDING. If the plan as outlined is adopted instead of the one suggested, do you contemplate any decrease in operating revenue from this section?

Mr. BIBBINS. By occupying C Street?

Senator TYDINGS. No. I say, if we adopt the C Street plan instead of the plan you suggest or the one now in effect, do you contend that there will be a decrease in operating revenue from this section here?"