W ‘wg ““T 3‘ (Z 7W0“ Plait NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION "P (:5;..4} NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL .AI, . , _._‘.‘ . .7 , V. JURISDICTIONS—NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 7W 771cm EIATIONAL CAPITAL REGION The Mass Transportation Survey Report-1959 CITY AND Rea. PLANNING National Capital Planning Commission HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW, Chairman CLAUDE W. OWEN, Vice Chairman C. MCKIM NORTON JOHN A. REMON ALEXANDER C. ROBINSON, III Ex Ofi‘icio ALAN BIBLE, Chairman, Senate District Committee JOHN E. MCMILLAN, Chairman, House District Committee ELLIS L. ARMSTRONG, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads MAJ. GEN. EMERSON C. ITSCHNER, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army F. MORAN MCCONIHE, Commissioner, U.S. Public Buildings Service BRIG. GEN. A. C. WELLING, Engineer Commissioner, District of Columbia CONRAD L. WIRTH, Director, National Park Service JOHN NOLEN, JR., Director (until April 1958) WILLIAM E. FINLEY, Director (from May 1958) National Capital Regional Planning Council DONALD E. GINGERY, Chairman, Montgomery County, Md. BRIG. GEN. A. C. WELLING, Vice Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission WILLIAM H. MOSS, Second Vice Chairman, Fairfax County, Va. HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW, National Capital Planning Commission THOMAS N. DE LASHMUTT, Loud‘oun County, Va. SAMUEL EPSTEIN, Falls Church, Va. MELVIN L. REESE, Montgomery County, Md. HERBERT W. REICHELT, Prince Georges County, Md. MAX S. WEHRLY, Arlington County, Va. HERBERT W. WELLS, Prince Georges County, Md. PAUL C. WATT, Director (until December 1958) RICHARD H. KRAFT, Director (from January 1959) MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY / Joint Steering Committee ROBERT E. McLAUGHLIN, (D.C.) Chairman HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW (NCPC) FRANK HARPER (Md.) (Deceased April 3, 1958) H. LESTER HOOKER (Va.) ALBERT L. SKLAR (Md.) MAX S. WEHRLY (NCRPC) BRIG. GEN. A. C. WELLING (NCPC) HERBERT W. WELLS (NCRPC) Expert Advisory Group FRANK W. HERRING, Deputy Director for Comprehensive Planning, The Port of New York Authority, New York, New York KENETH M. HOOVER (from July 1958), Chief Engineer, San Franscisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, San Francisco, Calif. W. PYKE JOHNSON, Past President, Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, DC. DONALD C. HYDE, General Manager, Cleveland Transit System, Cleveland, Ohio JOE R. ONG, Consulting Transportation Engineer, Cincinnati, Ohio Proiect Director KENETH M. HOOVER (until June 1958) PAUL C. WATT (from July to December 1958) ROBERT A. KEITH (from January 1959) LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL W39. )75‘? CITY & REGIONAL r... G JULY 1, 195g. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We are pleased to submit herewith the findings and recommendations of the Mass Transportation Survey conducted in accordance with the National Capital Planning Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 78I) and as authorized by the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1955 (69 Stat. 33). The survey has been a complex task, requiring the integration of the efforts of many organizations and indi- viduals under the joint direction of the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council. The work was supervised by a Joint Steering Committee consisting of representatives of these two bodies and the public utility commissions of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The survey could not have accomplished its objectives without the wholehearted cooperation of these and many public agencies, private organizations, and individuals in the region. In this undertaking, advanced and extensive research has been applied to the transportation problems of the National Capital Region. We believe the Survey is one of the most thorough transportation analyses ever completed in any American city. The transportation system recommended for the National Capital Region will consist of an expanded network of highways and new express transit facilities. The new highways will be modern freeways and parkways, while the new transit service will be provided by express buses and by rail transit reaching out to all parts of the urban area. Prompt action should be taken by the Federal, State and local governments to create the regional trans- portation system recommended in this report. Such action is needed to accommodate the rapidly growing volume of travel in this metropolitan area. Only thus can a healthy and balanced development of the National Capital community be assured. Respectfully, 35¢“ ' \ ' Wm Chairman, National Capital Regional Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission. Planning Council THE PRESIDENT, The White House. HEW?! ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTING MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK ALEXANDRIA CITY PLANNING FALLS CHURCH PLANNING AND PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION COMMISSION Ch . EVERETT WEITZELL, Chairman THOMAS R. JONES, Chairman HERBERT W. WELLS, airman DENIS H' CAHILL’ Director E. H. GRIGG, JR., City Planning Engineer ARTHUR K' STELLHORN’ D‘m‘o’ ARLINGTON COUNTY PLANNING o R G A N I z A TI 0 N F O R COMMISSION LOUDOUN COUNTY PLANNING M A s s T R A N s P O R T A T l O N s U R V E Y NORTHERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL PL AN- KINGSLEY HIGGINS, Chairman COMMISSION N INC AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THOMAS E’ MOORE’ D "em" FULTON WANT, Chairman NATIONAL CAPITAL NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION FAIRFAX COUNTY PLANNING COUNCIL COMMISSION PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY PLANNING WILLIAM H. Moss, Cham’m" KEITH PRICE, Chairman COMMISSION JOINT STEERING COMMITTEE CHARLES C. ROBINSON, Director WILLIAM C. BURRAGE, Director LEE C. LANSING, JR., Chairman EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP HIGHWAY COORDINATING COM- JOINT COMMISSION TO STUDY PASSENGER CARRIER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MOTOR MITTEE OF THE MASS TRANS- FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN THE WASHINGTON VEHICLE PARKING AGENCY mum, mascm PORTATION SURVEY METROPOLITAN AREA WILLIAM D. HEATH, Director DOUGLAS S. BRINKLEY, Chief Planning Engi- neer, Department of Highways (D.C.) ROBERT E. MCLAUGHLIN, Chairman (D.C.) CONSULTANTS sun: GEORGE N. LEWIS, Director of Trafiic Divi— US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE sion, State Roads Commission (Md.) J. MAYNARD MAGRUDER, Vice EDWARD S. NORTHROP, Vice . . BUREAU OF THE CENSUS GARLAND E. MARPLE, Chief, Highway Plan- Chairman (Va.) Chairman (Md') . _ _ _ ning Programx Branch, Bureau of Public H. LESTER HOOKER (Va.) Electronic Systems Dlwsmn Roads (Fed ) HARLAND BARTHOLOMEW ' . . (D C ) ALBERT L. SKLAR (Md.) J. P. MILLS, JR., Traffic and Planning Engz- BRIG. GEN. A. C. WELLING neer, Department of Highways (Va.) C ‘ R F V D C JAMES L. SHOTWELL, Supervising Highway HARLLS ' ENWICK ( a.) ( ' ') Design Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads ARTHUR T- SONNENBERG: (Fed.) Secretary (D.C.) CONSULTANTS STAFF OF THE MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY ADAMS, HOWARD AND GREELEY—Regional General Development Plan RALPH R. HECKMAN~ASSistant Project Director JEROME M. ALPER—Transit Regulation Study JOHN T. HOUBOLT~—Public Information HENRY M. BAIN, JR.—~Editorial Consultant GEORGE J. LANRA——Statistician ERNEST E. BLANCHE—Data Processing MRS. NANCY S. GROVE—Regional Planner ° - - - - COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH——Econ0mlc Base Study WILLIAM LAMB—Draftsman Man} Other organizations and Individuals DELEUW, CATHER AND COMPANY—Civil Engineering Stud5I MARY V. HANNA—Secretary made Signy‘icant contributions to the M (133 INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—Finance and Organization Study GOLDA I. STEGNER—Statistical Clerk BURTON H. SEXTON—Traflic Consultant ELEANORA BRENNAN—Statistical Clerk Transportation Survey. Their COHITibU- WILBUR SMITH AND ASSOCIATES—Traffic Engineering Study JACKSON H. TAYLOR—Consulting Engineer tiOflS are gram/ll”) acknowledged. CONTENTS SUMMARY Recommendations 1n Brief . . How the Recommendations Were Arrived At The Recommended Transportation System Paying for the System . Governmental Organization for Creating the System. ................ I. INTRODUCTION . Transportation and the MOdern City. . . Elements of the Regional Transportation Problem . . Origin and Structure of the Survey . II. THE GENERAL PLAN OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT . . Growth Patterns of the Past . Growth Patterns of the Future . Population and Employment Growth . Location of the Future Population . Circulation . ..... ...... ooooo III. TODAY’S TRAFFIC F Low AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ................ Sources of Data . . . . . Recent Trends In Travel Within the Region . . Travel In 1955 . . . . Factors Related to Travel Patterns . Present Transportation Facilities . IV. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES The Survey Area ....... Traffic Projection Procedure . Future Traflic Volumes . . V. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYS- TEMS ............. Design of the Three Hypothetical Systems. Traffic Assignment Procedure . . Determination of Design Volumes . . Testing the Three Hypothetical Systems . . Evaluation of the Three Hypothetical Systems . Page O©©© marble-— II 11 I3 16 I9 20 23 23 24 24 27 3o 34 34 34 37 39 40 4o 41 42 43 VI. THE RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. An Expanded Highway System ........ Express Bus Routes. . Rail Transit Routes. Transit Equipment. . . Evaluation of Other Equipment and Transit F ac111- thS. Parking Facilities. . Cost of the Recommended Transportation System. Staging of Construction. . . . . . Preserving Capacity for the Future ..... Preventing Congestion on the Freeways . VII. FINANCE AND ORGANIZATION. . System Costs and Sources of Funds . Organizational Alternatives . APPENDIXES A. Statement by the Expert Advisory Group. B. Statement by Mr. Joseph Barnett, Deputy AS- sistant Commissioner for Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads (Representing Ellis L. Arm- strong, Commissioner, a member of the National Capital Planning Commission). C. Statement by C. McKim Norton and Alexander C. Robinson III, Members, National Capital Planning Commission . . D. Statements by Other Members of the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council. . . E. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regu1a- tion Compact. . . . . . F. Reverse-flow Operation of Freeways . . . G. Number of Passengers Between Fare Zones on Recommended Express Transit Lines. . ....... ....... ....... Ta bles TABLE I.——EStimated Cost of the Recommended Sys- tern TABLE 2.—Population of the National Capital Region . TABLE 3,—Employment in the Independent Sectors, National Capital Region . 81 81 I7 TABLE 4. —Federal Employment in the National Capital Region. . ....... . TABLE 5. —Commercial Employment in the National Capital Region . TABLE 6. ——Industrial EmplOyment 1n the NatiOnal Capi- tal Region TABLE 7. —Total Employment in the National Capital Region. TABLE 8. —Trips By Persons, 1955. TABLE 9. —Trips by Vehicles, 1955.. . . . TABLE IO. ——Travel by Persons Within Study Area, 1955. TABLE 11 .——Traffic Volumes and Highway Capacity in 13 Radial Corridors, 1 955. TABLE 12. —Percentage of 24-Hour Travel Taking Place During 4 Peak Hours, 1955. TABLE 13. ——Revised Travel Speeds and Travel Delay Times . TABLE 14. —Estimated Passenger Volumes, Hypothetical Rail System, 1980 . TABLE 15.——Estimated Capital Costs Of Three HypOtheti- cal Systems . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 16. ——Balancing of Trafiic Assignments, Screen LineI,1980.. ..... ........ TABLE I7. —Balancing of Traflic Assignments, Screen Line 11,1980 . . TABLE 18. ——Travel Volumes by Different Modes Under Alternative Systems. TABLE 19. —Parking Space Needs 1n the Central Sector, 1980. . ...... TABLE 20. —Estimated Cost of the Recommended Trans- portation System . . . TABLE 21 .—Estimated Cost of the Recommended High- way System. . ....... TABLE 22 .—Estimated Cost of the Recommended Express Transit Facilities. . . TABLE 23. ——Annual Revenues and Expenses Of Recom- mended Express Transit System . ..... TABLE 24. —Indicators of Fiscal Capacity of the WaShing- ton Metropolitan Area with Projections to 1980 . TABLE 25. —Need for New Sources of Funds and Poten- tIal Sources of Revenue . . . TABLE 26. —Relation of Cost of Recommended Transit System to Property Values . Page I7 18 I8 18 25 25 26 32 4.1 42 47 49 49 51 7O Figures Figure No. Title Page 26 Traffic Survey Areas, 1955 and 1980 34 Plates 27 Gravity Model. . . 35 Figure No. Tm, Page 28 Assumed Highway System for Traffic Projection . 36 PM, N0. 7..” 1 Rescommended Express Bus and Rail Transit 29 1980 Desire Lines for Trips to and from Sector 1 Plan and Profile, Route J—Station 291+ 50 to Page ystem . . 5 Zero . . 37 Station 15o+oo . . 6o — Land Use 1955, Metropolitan Area . followmg 12 30 1980 Desire Lines for all Trlps for Work Purpose . 38 2 Plan and Profile, Route J—Station 180+oo to 2 1955 Population and Employment 13 31 Traffic Diversion Curve, Transit vs Freeways and Station 30+00 , 61 3 Urban Service Factors 14 Local Streets . . . . . . 40 3 Plan and Profile, Route J—Station 50+oo to 4 Regional Growth Factors 14 32 Traffic Diversion Curve, Freeways and Parkways Statlon 0+00; ROUtC DE—Statlon 0+00 t0 5 Open Space 1980 . 15 vs Local Streets 41 Station 1004—00 62 6 Population 1955, 1965, 1980 . 16 33 Preliminary Analysis, Trips Approaching Inner 4 Plan and Profile, Route DE—Station 75+oo to 7 Federal Employment Centers 17 Loop, 1980 ' 42 Anacostia Terminal ' ' 63 8 Population and Employment Increases 18 34 Hypothetical Auto-Dominant Highway system . 43 5 Plan, Route F—Jeflerson Manor Terminal to Total Em 10 ment 35 Hypothetical Express Bus S stem _ Washington National Airport Station . . 6 9 p y - I9 y 45 4 10 1955 Population Density 20 36 Hypothetical Rail Transit System 47 6 Plan, Route F—Washington‘ National Airport 1 1 1980 Population Density 21 37 Radial Traffic Corridors and Screen Lines . 49 P1Stat1o: t1? Bftiireau Of Engravmg Stat1on 65 12 Land Use 1955 . 22 38 Potomac River Crossings, 1940—1980 51 7 :1: Safationmi)fool-{Cigéztiifilassttiigmj Pa:k , — 1 o oo o 13 General Development Plan 1980 22 39 Existing and Presently Planned Freeways and Station 7 5+00 . . . . . _ . . . . 66 14 Traffic Survey Area 23 Parkways . 53 8 Plan and Profile, Route K—Station o+oo to 15 Changing Patterns of Traffic Flow . . . 25 40 Recommended Freeway and Parkway System for Station I36'l'7S 67 16 Hourly Distribution of Residents’ Trips, All 3,000,000 People - 53 MOdCS I955 ‘ 26 41 Major Arterials to Complement Freeway System . 54 17 Hourly Distribution of Residents’ Trips, Auto - - Credits for Exhibits Drivers 1955 26 42 Recommended Express Bus and Rall Trans1t 18 Hourly Distribution of Residents’ Trips, Transit T System l l I I i i. 55 gfilicfggiiiiifigtaexiliciifiem 0f PUbliC Works Riders 1955 . 27 43 yp1cal Bus-to-Rall Transfer Termlnal 56 Cleveland Transit Systemy 19 Internal Transit Trips for Work 28 44 Plan of Freeway Bus Station . 57 Consulate General of Japan 20 Internal Commercial Transit Trips . 28 45 Recommended Subway Routes and Estimated Toronto Trans“ commiSSion 21 Internal S - 1T . I 80 Em l0 ment Downt wn 8 US. Bureau of Public Roads 0c1a rlps 28 9 P Y 0 ' 5 DC. Transit System, Inc. 22 1955 Traffic Volumes . , 29 4.6 Toronto Subway Station 68 The American Swedish News Exchange, Inc. 23 1955 Arterial Street Capacity 1n 13 Corridors at 47 Subway Cross-Section Between Stations, and $116 waShmgton EV-ening Star . S L . . raffic Safety Assoc1at10n of Detr01t creen mes . 3o VICW 0f COHStI‘UCUOH 68 Gunther Gottfeld 24 Local Trans1t ROUtCS 1955 . 31 48 Modern Parking Structure . . . 70 DeLeW’» Gather and Company 25 De?“ Lines I955, Auto Drivers vs Transit 49 Proposed Plan for New Radial Freeway (Cross- gamp consglgng -Semce’ Inc' Rlders 1mpson an urt1n 33 Sectlons) . . . . . . . . . . 72 Wilbur Smith and Associates speeds on their own grade-separated rights-of—way or in a District—Part of a sector, used in more detailed analysis of free-flowing stream of traffic on a freeway, and making traffic. The 1955 survey area was divided into 68 districts; stops at relatively infrequent intervals. the 1980 survey area contained these and an additional 62 districts. Glossary Local Transit—Public transit service making use of vehicles Terms which are of special importance to the understanding traveling at low speeds and making frequent Stops" , _ Terms Used in Traffic Analysis of this report are defined below, for the convenience of the reader. Areas of Importance in Transportation Planning Trajfic Projection—The prediction of the total number of The Transportation System and its Components Transportation System—Facilities for the movement of people and goods, including highways, parking facilities, and public transit. Highways F reeway—A divided highway with full control of access and grade separations at all intersections. In a more limited sense, the term does not include parkways. Parkway—A freeway from which commercial vehicles, other than express buses, are excluded, and in the design of which greater attention is given to landscaping and fitting the highway to the topography. Arterial or Major Street—A street or highway, primarily for through traffic, with intersections at grade and direct ac- cess from abutting property. Local Street—A street or highway primarily for access to adjacent property. Circumferential or Loop—A highway around the down- town area, at any distance from its center. Radial—A highway extending outward from the down- town area in any direction. Median Strip or Center M all—The space separating the two sets of lanes of a divided highway. Public Transit Public Transit—A system of common carrier facilities for the movement of persons, offering transportation service on a fare payment basis and operating on established schedules along designated routes and at designated stops. ' Express Transit or Rapid Transit—Public transit service making use of modern buses or trains traveling at high Central Business District—The part of downtown Washing- ton bounded by Third and Twentieth Streets, N.W. and Massachusetts and Constitution Avenues, N.W. Central Sector, Central Area or Downtown—«The 6—square- mile area in the District of Columbia roughly bounded by the proposed Inner Loop Freeway. Identical with “sector zero” used in the 1955 origin and destination study. Ten-Mile S quare—The area included in the original Dis- trict of Columbia and now consisting of the District, Arling- ton County and part of Alexandria. Urbanized Area—The area containing development of an urban character. The urbanized area consisted of approxi- mately 300 square miles in 1955. The urbanized area is predicted to reach 400 square miles in 1980. Survey Area—The area covered by an urban transportation study. The 1955 origin and destination study covered ap- proximately 230 square miles; the area covered in predict- ing 1980 traffic patterns was 775 square miles in extent. Metropolitan Area—The Washington Standard Metropoli- tan Area, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, con- sists of the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the Cities of Alexandria and Falls Church in Virginia. National Capital Region—The region, as defined in the Na- tional Capital Planning Act of 1952, consists of the Wash- ington Standard Metropolitan Area plus Loudoun and Prince William Counties in Virginia. S ector—A part of the survey area used for analysis of traffic movement. The survey areas used in both the 1955 analy— sis and the prediction of 1980 traffic were divided into nine sectors consisting of a central sector and eight other wedge- shaped sectors extending from the central sector to the boundary of the survey area. trips that will be made between every pair of districts dur— ing a future time period. Traflic Assignment—The prediction of the mode of travel and the route by which the trips projected between each pair of districts will be made. Trip E nd—The point at which a trip begins or ends. Each trip is described in terms of two trip ends, representing the points at which the trip is begun and completed. Desire Line—A graphic means of representing the number of trips between two districts, without regard to routes of travel. The width of the line indicates the number of trips. Auto-oriented Trips—Trips which will be made by private automobile even if express transit service is provided. Transit-oriented Trips——Trips which will be made by public transit even if no express transit service is provided. Peak H ours—The four 60-minute periods (two in the morning and two in the evening) during an average week- day when the largest number of persons travel. Design H our—The single 60-minute period during an aver- age weekday when the largest number of persons travel. At present, the traffic moving in the design hour amounts to 30 percent of the traffic in the four peak hours. Design Volume—The number of trips passing a specific point on a specific route in the direction of heavier flow dur- ing the design hour. Practical C opacity—The maximum number of vehicles that can pass a given point on a roadway or in a designated lane during a given time period without the traffic density being so great as to cause unreasonable delays, hazards, or restriction to the drivers’ freedom to maneuver under the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. C orridor—An area of several blocks to several miles in width, adopted for the analysis of traffic volumes moving in a given direction. The area lying outside the central sector was divided into 13 wedge—shaped corridors, each contain- ing one or more radial freeways and major streets. Transportation is one of the most important influences on the development of urban areas. The use of land, the direction of growth, and the distribution and density of population are strongly influenced by the form and character of transportation facilities. Thus transportation must be an integral part of the comprehensive plan for the future metropolitan region. Only by intensive study and thorough planning can serious mistakes be avoided, and excessive waste prevented. It is this philosophy that has guided the preparation of this transportation plan for the future National Capital Region. SUMMARY Recommendations in Brief Steps should be taken at once to create an adequate trans- portation system for the National Capital Region. This re- gional system should consist of: I. A network of freeways on which people can travel quickly between any two parts of the region, even at the hours when traffic is heaviest. 2. A new kind of fast, comfortable public transit service be- tween the suburbs and downtown Washington. This transit service will take two forms: (a) Modern express buses on eight of the routes that lead to downtown, traveling on freeways at high speeds and making a limited number of stops until they reach the downtown street system. Wheaten Bethesda Cabin John RECOMMENDED EXPRESS TRANSIT SYSTEM Hyattsville Seat Pleasant Suitland Alexandria 0"" Hm _ Express Bus Rail Transit Springfield (1)) Modern rail transit service on four heavily traveled routes. The rail lines will be located in subways in the inner areas of the District of Columbia, and elsewhere will be in the median strips of freeways or on their own rights-of-way. 3. Arterial streets and highways extensively improved to carry automotive traffic not served by the freeways. 4. Expanded and improved local transit service on arterial and local streets, to carry passengers not served by the new bus and rail routes. The recommended transportation system will meet the needs of the region when the region’s population has reached 3 million. This is the population projected for 1980 by this survey. The cost of building and equipping the recommended new transportation facilities is estimated at approximately $2.5 billion. Express bus and rail facilities will account for about $565 million of this total. A large part of these facilities should be built within the next ten years to accommodate fast-growing traffic volumes. Many of the recommended highways are already planned by the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal Government, and will be built in the course of their continuing construction work, but new sources of revenue will be necessary to finance much of the highway work. Part of the construction costs of the new express transit system can be paid for by transit fares, but the remainder of these costs, too, will call for new financial resources. Some of the additional funds needed to create the regional transportation system could be raised by regional taxes or charges on the users of regional transportation facilities, or both, and some should come from Federal contributions. To bring the recommended system into being, the following organizational steps should be taken: I. The interstate compact establishing an interstate agency to regulate transit in the Washington metropolitan area, already ratified by Virginia and Maryland, should be approved by the Congress so that immediate improvements can be made in transit service on a regionwide basis. 2. The Congress should at once create a temporary public corporation to complement the efforts of the regulatory agency. The corporation should be empowered to acquire rights—of-way and construct express transit facilities (acquisition and construc- tion in Maryland and Virginia to be subject to approval of those States), to operate them or provide for their operation by private firms, to finance its operations from transit revenues and from Federal contributions, to review highway plans as they may affect transit facilities and consult with highway agencies upon those plans, and to assist the highway agencies in overcoming any deficit in funds. 3. A second interstate compact should be negotiated and adopted as soon as possible, creating a new interstate agency to succeed both of the above organizations. It should have power to construct and own transit facilities, to operate them or provide for their operation by private firms, to review and consult upon highway construction plans as they may affect transit facilities, to assist the highway agencies in overcoming any deficit in funds, and to regulate and coordinate any private firms engaged in transit service. This new agency should be empowered to obtain funds by borrowing and by exercising limited taxing powers, as well as from transit fares. During the negotiation and adoption of such an interstate compact, which will be a lengthy process, the first two agencies should make an immediate start at creating the recommended transportation system. I'l FEDERA L CORPORAT I O N REG U LAT CRY IMMEDIATE ORGANIZATIONS PROPRIETARY AGENCY How the Recommendations Were Arrived At The above recommendations were only decided upon after a thorough study of the region’s future needs for transportation, and a careful consideration of alternative ways of meeting those needs. The Forces That Will Shape Future Travel Patterns in the Region The studies carried out in the course of the survey produced a substantial body of information on the probable character of the region’s future growth, and the pattern of travel that is to be accommodated. The most important of the predictions about the future of the National Capital Region, on which the recom- mendations are based, are as follows: I. The population of the region will increase from today’s 2 million to 3 million in about 1980. This increase in the number of persons to be served is the most important single factor in creating the need for new transportation facilities. If the popu- lation reaches 3 million before 1980, as is quite possible, then still more transportation capacity may be needed in 1980. Today I 980 2. The trend toward a dispersed population pattern will con- tinue. More than 80 percent of the added population will be outside the original Io-mile square (the District of Columbia, Arlington County and part of Alexandria) . Growth will extend much farther in some directions than others, however, as it is guided by the terrain, the availability of water and sewer services, and zoning policies. An especially large concentration of subur- ban population will lie to the north and northwest of Washing- ton in Montgomery County. The residents of the dispersed suburban areas will make longer trips, and more trips per person, than today’s population. This, combined with the increase in population, will cause the total daily number of person—miles of travel to triple by 1980. EMPLOYMENT 1955 1930 Downtown Outside Downtown Within Ten-Mile Square Outside Ten-Mile Square Increment 3. Employment will increase moderately in downtown Wash- ington (the 6-square—mile area roughly bounded by the Inner Loop Freeway). Downtown will remain the largest employ- ment center in the region, and work trips into this area will constitute one of the most important traffic flows to be accom- modated. Peak-hour travel terminating in the downtown area will be about 20 percent heavier in 1980 than it is now. Growth Inside Ten-Mile Square Growth Outside Ten-Mile Square 4. The majority of the new jobs, however, will be located out- side of the downtown area; in fact most will be outside the Dis- trict of Columbia. The large increase in trips to dispersed places of work will lead to a tremendous growth in peak hour trips through, around, or just short of the downtown area. The magnitude of this diffused home-to-work movement is shown by the fact that daily travel across the boundary of the 10-mile-square will increase by more than 200 percent by 1980, while the 24-hour travel volume into the downtown area will only increase by a little more than 25 percent. This type of dispersed traffic flow will place new demands on the transporta- tion system, of a much different sort from the radial flow in and out of the downtown area that is so prominent today. DAILY PERSON-TRIPS IN MILLIONS I955 I980 I955 Beginning and Ending Downtown I980 In and Out of Ten-Mile Square 5. Automobile ownership will continue to increase, and the people of the National Capital Region will rely more and more on the private automobile for most kinds of travel. This will be especially true of shopping, recreational and social trips, and trips to points outside the downtown area. More than 80 per- cent of the total regional travel will be in automobiles even with the proposed transit system in operation. Truck traffic will also continue to increase. TRANSIT More than 80% of Regional Travel will be in automobiles in 1980 0 6. Approximately half of the peak-hour travelers to the down- town area will be in a position to choose between using public transit and traveling by private automobile, and will base their choice upon the relative speed, cost, convenience, and comfort of these two modes of travel. An estimated one-fourth of them will have to travel by auto in any case, either because they need their automobiles at work, or for some other reason. The re- maining one-fourth are sure to use transit, many of them because they will not have automobiles available. A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAVEL TO DOWNTOWN D.C., I980 7. The peak volumes of travel in 1980, as today, will occur during the two morning and two evening rush hours on work- days, and will be mainly composed of trips between home and work. These are the critical volumes that the transportation system must be designed to accommodate. Nearly one-half of the 24-hour travel will occur in these 4 peak hours. Movement at other hours can be carried by the facilities needed to serve the peak home-to—work flows. The heaviest peak-hour movement of people will be encountered on the radial routes leading into the District of Columbia. 8. Many important segments of the existing highway system are rapidly nearing capacity, and some are already carrying more traffic than their rated capacities. Improvements in existing streets and highways can accommodate only a small part of the anticipated trafi‘ic increase. Increasing congestion threatens to lengthen the time that both motorists and transit riders waste in traffic. The Job That Needs To Be Done Each of the above-listed aspects of the anticipated regional growth helps to determine what kind of a transportation system we must have: 0 The large increase in population and in person-miles of travel will create a need for greater capacities on all main routes of travel. 0 The dispersed, low-density residential development will call for considerably increased highway capacity throughout the region, since public transit can only serve economically a small proportion of the trips originating in the suburbs. Increased automobile ownership in all parts of the region and reliance on the automobile for all kinds of trips will have the same effect. 0 The continued heavy flow of workers into downtown Washington will require large capacities on the main radial routes. 0 The diffused pattern of travel to new, dispersed employ- ment centers will emphasize the importance of circumferential highways, and will call for still more capacity on radial routes to accommodate the radial portions of trips through, around, or short of the central area. 0 The large present and future population to the north and northwest of the District of Columbia will demand transporta- tion facilities with very large capacities. O The rapid depletion of such little spare capacity as now remains in many existing highways means that many new high- ways must be built promptly, while the large increases in traffic flows along certain routes indicate that new and improved transit service will also be needed soon. Continued heavy concen- tration of traffic in a few peak hours will also call for high- capac1ty transit service. Alternative Approaches to the Region’s Transportation Problem It was decided at the outset that a realistic study of the region’s transportation problem would have to explore the ability of both public transit facilities and private automobiles to serve future needs. Three hypothetical systems were considered, each con- sisting of a particular form of public transit service plus whatever highways and streets would be needed to carry the people who would not travel by public transit under that plan, as well as the truck traffic. The transit components of the three hypothetical systems were: -- II!!- “.74.“ NEW-WWW” I. Auto-dominant system. Public transit service would be much like today’s, consisting of transit vehicles sharing the streets and highways with other traffic, and traveling at the same sched- ule speeds as today. 2. Express bus system. Fast-moving express buses would carry large numbers of people along the radial freeways leading to the downtown area. The present kind of public transit would provide feeder service for the express bus lines and serve the other nonautomobile trips. 3. Rail transit system. Trains, probably operating on rails, would serve the traffic along the radial routes. The present form of local transit would provide feeder service for the rail lines and carry other nonautomobile trips. An evaluation of the auto-dominant system showed that it would be infeasible, in the absence of improved public transit, to provide the number of freeway lanes that would be needed to carry all of the automobiles moving along routes inside or near the 10-mile square. Under the second alternative, the introduction of express bus service on radial freeways was found to reduce the number of lanes needed on many freeways, by attracting many riders who would otherwise travel into or near downtown in the rush hours in private automobiles. More highways than have so far been planned would be needed, however, to accommodate the still great numbers of private automobiles as well as trucks and the new express buses. The inauguration of express bus service would not meet all of the region’s transit needs, since even fast-moving express buses would not be able to carry all the people desiring to travel by transit into the downtown area. The passenger volumes from the heavily populated areas to the north and northwest could not be carried through the built-up parts of the District of Co- lumbia by buses using the limited number of freeway lanes, spe- cial bus lanes and loading bays that could be provided along these critical routes. The evaluation of the third hypothetical system showed that rail transit could carry the volumes of passengers moving along the routes where express buses would be inadequate. Because construction of most rail lines in Washington will be very ex- 4 pensive, while bus service can be provided at little additional construction cost on the freeways that will be needed in any case, the buses generally have an advantage on routes where they can accommodate all of the potential transit riders. The evaluation of these three hypothetical systems, resulting in the conclusion that no single one of them was altogether sat- isfactory, led to the design of a fourth system, embodying some features of each of the others. This system was subjected to fur- ther tests and evaluation, which led to the Conclusion that it should be recommended as best meeting the future needs of the National Capital Region. The most important conclusion to be drawn from the evalua- tion of the three alternatives and the recommended system may be stated as follows: An adequate transportation system for the National Capital Region must include a new form of express transit service, capable of attracting a large number of riders who would otherwise travel by private automobile from the suburbs to points in or near downtown Washington during the rush hours. Only if many of these people are induced to use public transit can the highway system within the 10-mile-square accommodate the people who are not in a position to travel by transit. The traffic studies show that a modern, high-speed transit system will change the peak-hour travel behavior of a large number of people. Under the auto-dominant plan, the num- ber of automobile trips terminating in the central sector would be one-third greater than in 1955 (if the highways needed to move this many automobiles could actually be provided) ; while express transit service will reduce the number of such trips to a figure slightly below today’s. PEAK-HOUR TRAVEL TO DOWNTOWN WASHINGTON , By Automobile and Transit thousands of person-trips ending downtown during the morning peak hour 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 l I 1955 'I 980 AUTO DOMINANT PLAN 1 980 RECOMMENDED PLAN Even after express transit has made its full contribution, how- ever, the volumes of automotive traffic expected within a few years on many routes are far greater than the capacities of the existing and previously planned highways. The region there- fore faces the need for an expanded highway construction pro- gram as well as a new form of express transit service. The Recommended Transportation System The recommended system includes a network of freeways and parkways, express bus service, rail transit service, local transit, and improvements to existing streets and highways. Highways The recommended freeway system consists of 329 miles of freeways and parkways, of which 81 miles are already in exis- tence, and another I 78 miles are presently planned by the high— way departments. The remaining 70 miles are newly proposed in this report. In addition, extra lanes and other improvements are needed on some of the existing freeways and on some of the already planned routes. Express Buses Express buses will operate over eight routes, totaling 66 miles (one-way). Six routes will radiate from downtown and the other two will begin at the end of one rail line. All will extend to points near the Washington Circumferential Highway. The buses will travel on freeways or parkways in the same lanes as private vehicles. Stations on the freeways will be located at in- tervals of between one and two miles, but most buses will stop at only a few stations, or none, between the outer terminal and downtown. After reaching downtown, they will leave the free- way system and make use of local streets to distribute and col- lect passengers. It will be necessary to give the buses priority in the use of both freeways and downtown streets. Ample parking space will be provided at stations in order to attract riders to the new transit system. VIERS MILL VILLAGE o ROUTE K SCALE BELTSVILLE KENSINGTW o-- _M LES — ,. , pom“ 3mm “TEES M A R Y L A N D ,. o ROUTE J " ROUTE A , \ GREE BELT / LANGLEY PARK ‘ / / ROUTE I “mm COLLEGE I v -IN JOHN MKRK // MEADOWS l/ RIVERDALE L HYATTSVILLE / I I / MOUNT MC LEAN “'N'ER BLADENSBURV / CHEVER\V \ ’ A ROUTE e \ SEAT . ) PLEASANT II ROUTE c 9’ ROUT E H FALLS CHURCH :ETSQ‘TS ‘ M RRIFIELD DISTRICT HEIGHTS SUITLAND , SILVER FORESTVILLE V R G I N I A , HILL . R0UTE3“”‘\\\ ANNANDALE ALEXANDRIA . —- ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE ROUTE G .UNT/NG SPfilmFl: PEEK ' ROUTE F M A R Y L A N D CUNTON L E G E N D _ RAIL RAPID TRANSIT — EXPRESS BUS 0N FREEwAY --- EXPRESS BUS ON SURFACE STREET -— STATION — PLANNED OR EXISTING FREEWAY --— PLANNED OR EXISTING PARKwAY , ' FARE ZONE BOUNDARY 2 FARE ZONE NUMBER SCALE . figure I Io,ooo 2°-°°° RECOMMENDED EXPRESS BUS AND RAIL 30,000 ‘°'°°° TRANSIT SYSTEM PASSENGER TRIPS PEAK- HOUR - ONE WAY MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Rail Transit There will be 33 miles of double track rail line, on four routes radiating from downtown Washington, three of them going as far as the Washington Circumferential Highway. Approxi- mately one-half of the rail mileage will be in subways, includ- ing all of the mileage in the central area of the District of Columbia. The rest will be in the median strip of freeways or on separate rights-of—way. Stations will be placed at inter- vals of between I and 2 miles in the suburban areas but will be spaced closer in the downtown area. There will be ample park- ing facilities at the stations, bringing the total number of park- ing spaces at express transit stations to 32,000. Transit Equipment The trains and buses proposed for the National Capital Re- gion will represent a considerable improvement over the transit equipment now in use here and in most other American cities. They will be quiet, well-lighted, air-conditioned and attractively appointed, and will be capable of rapid acceleration and de- celeration while giving the passengers a comfortable ride. The rail equipment will embody some of the latest design features, now in use in some European cities such as Stockholm and Paris, and will be quite different from the older type of subway equip- ment now to be seen in several cities in this country. The buses will be the largest practicable on downtown streets and will em- body substantial improvements over even the newest equipment now in use in the region. Equipment of this caliber is essential if large numbers of commuters are to be attracted to public transit. Consideration was given to new technological developments such as monorail, moving belts, automated buses and helicopters, and to greater use of existing railroad service or rights-of-way, but none was found to be as satisfactory as the corresponding parts of the proposed system. New technological devices will continue to appear, however, and full use should be made of them wherever this is advantageous. Modern high-speed train—Stockholm, Sweden. Modern high-speed bus. Downtown Parking Downtown all-day parking space will be required in about the same amount as exists today. However, the expected loss of a large number of today’s downtown parking spaces, on tem- porary lots and on the streets, will call for the provision of 22,000 new all-day spaces, most of them in multi-level structures. There will also be a need for 27,000 new short-time spaces, both to replace some existing spaces and to meet new demands. ‘. e (3‘ - ,. _ . i \ .‘I nun-m, ... . . ' Modern parking facility, Salt Lake City, Utah. Timetable The creation of a modern transportation system should take place in three steps: First, immediate action should be taken to improve the pres- ent public transit service in several ways: by integrating opera- tions on a regional basis and overcoming the barriers imposed by jurisdictional boundary lines; by using traffic controls and regulations to help transit vehicles improve upon schedule speeds; and by building more adequate transit stations at key points. The detailed planning and design of the new express transit facilities should also begin. At the same time, rights-0f- way should be reserved or acquired for the new freeways and the pace of highway construction programs should be accelerated to complete many of the already planned freeways well ahead of the present schedule and to make some of the newly proposed freeways available as well. The quick completion of many miles of new freeways is needed to provide roadways for express buses, as well as to accommodate rapidly increasing numbers of private automobiles and trucks. Second, express bus service should be introduced on the new radial freeways as they are completed, beginning in the early 1960’s. The accelerated highway construction program should continue during these years and a beginning should be made on the construction of subways for the rail transit system before 1965. Third, rail transit service should be inaugurated no later than 1970. Preserving Capacity for the Future The radial freeways should be designed to permit expansion to meet the needs of a population even larger than the three million predicted for 1980. Failure to promptly preserve capac- ity for the future will greatly increase the cost of the transporta- tion facilities that will be needed sometime after the region passes the 3 million mark. Flexibility for expansion can be achieved by building freeways with wide center malls, which can be landscaped in early years, and later paved to provide additional lanes. These center lanes might serve as one-way roadways with directions reversed in the morning and evening rush hours, to be used by both autos and buses, or these lanes might be reserved for buses moving in both directions. If transit traffic grows still heavier, the paved lanes could be replaced by a double track rail-line or a new form of rapid transportation, not yet foreseen, in place of conventional rail equipment. Congress Street transit and highway facility, Chicago, Ill. Paying for the System The estimated cost of the recommended transportation system is approximately $2.5 billion. This figure includes about $1.8 billion for highways, $564 million for express transit facilities, and $1 19 million for parking facilities in the downtown area. Approximately three-fourths of the total amount should be spent within the next 10 years. A portion of the recommended freeways will be financed by the Federal Government, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia under their continuing highway construction pro- grams. About $500 million worth of the new highway system will not be covered by these programs under the presently planned arrangements for highway financing. This amount should come from a new source, because the highway agencies already face serious financial difficulties in meeting the present construction schedule. The full $500 million should be raised within a few years, since a large part of the recommended new highways are needed within a few years. If this expenditure were initially financed by a single 30-year bond issue at 4 percent interest, annual payments of interest and principal would be about $26.7 million. Table l.—Estimated Cost of the Recommended Transportation System Total ___________________________ $2, 486, 100, 000 Highways ______________________________ 1, 803, 000, 000 Express transit facilities __________________ 564, 100, 000 Express bus ____________ $68, 000, 000 Rail ___________________ 458, 500, 000 Parking at express transit stations ______________ 37, 600, 000 Downtown parking facilities ______________ I 19, 000, 000 NOTE—Cost of highways does not include Northwest Freeway link be- tween Tenley Circle and Inner Loop. This section, added to the recom- mended system after basic cost estimates were made, would add less than two percent to the recommended highway system cost. Under the assumptions made as to transit fares, parking fees at transit stations, and the terms of financing the express transit system, revenues would be suflicient—when the region’s popu- lation reaches three million and the transit and freeway systems are in full operation—to cover operating costs and a substantial part of the yearly payments of interest and principal on the initial investment. There would remain a net annual deficit, amounting to about $16.1 million in 1980, for which a new source of funds would be needed. There are two main potential sources of additional funds for transit and highways: taxes and charges imposed within the 1975 I980 l 970 TIMING OF NEEDED EXPENDITURES New Regional Resources and Federal Contributions Transit Deficit and Additional Freeway Costs region, and Federal contributions. The most obvious sources of locally raised additional money are: special regional motor- fuel taxes and motor vehicle license fees, special parking fees, taxes on payrolls and additional real estate taxes. Not all of these sources are required, but the best way of raising funds within the region would probably consist of a combination of several of them. It will be up to the people, through their own governing bodies, to decide which means they prefer in order to have the transportation system that the National Capital Region needs. There is serious question, however, whether local resources can reasonably be expected to pay the whole added cost of the recommended system. Strong arguments can be made for loans and contributions by the Federal Government toward the cost of transportation facilities in the National Capital Region because of the special Federal interest in the sound development of the region, and the special burdens that are placed on the region by the presence of nontaxpaying Federal installations. The Federal Government should, in particular, make initial contributions toward the planning and design of the recom- mended rail system. It should also be prepared to provide funds for the early stages of the rail transit construction, if an inter- state agency capable of raising funds within the region is not established in time. Also, in view of the inability of State and local agencies to finance in total the highways required under the recommended plan, the Federal Government should study and take action on additional highway financing which will provide the necessary funds. Governmental Organization for Creating the System While the Federal, State and local governments can inde- pendently carry out many of the steps leading to the creation of the recommended transportation system, new forms of govern- mental organization are needed to complete the job, since the existing governments do not have all of the powers and financial resources that are needed to do the whole job. The develop- ment of the necessary organization will require the establish- ment of three new regional agencies, two of them to be estab- lished at once and later to be replaced by a third, ultimate form of organization. Interstate Regulatory Agency The first step should be the prompt ratification by the Con- gress of the interstate compact, already approved by Mary- land and Virginia, which establishes an interstate agency to regulate transit throughout the metropolitan area. This agency will facilitate the integration of transit service across the juris- dictional boundary lines, and with the aid of an advisory High- way and Traffic Board it will encourage the coordination of transit service with highway planning and traffic regulation. Federal Corporation More than a regulatory body will be needed to provide the region with the transportation system that it requires. Prompt action is needed to secure rights-of-way for highway and transit routes, to begin planning the rail transit system, and to accelerate the highway construction work. To begin work in these direc- tions, the Congress should at once establish a temporary public corporation. This corporation should be empowered: (a) To acquire rights-of-way for transit facilities and con- struct them (subject to approval by Maryland and Virginia of projects in those States). (b) To operate transit facilities or to provide for their opera- tion by private firms. (6) To finance its operations from transit revenues and from Federal contributions. (d) To review highway plans as they may affect transit facil- ities and to consult with highway agencies upon these plans. (e) To assist highway agencies in overcoming any deficit in funds. The interstate regulatory agency should serve as a liaison agency between the corporation and the several jurisdictions. Interstate Proprietary Agency Both the interstate regulatory agency and the federal corpora- tion should terminate upon the establishment, by interstate compact, of an agency having more powers than both of them. This, the ultimate form of organization, will take some time to create, since the negotiation and adoption of an interstate com- pact on such a complex subject is likely to be a lengthy process. This interstate proprietary agency should be empowered: (a) To construct and own transit facilities. (b) To operate transit facilities or make arrangements with private firms for their operation. (0) To finance its operation by revenues from transit fares, by the use of limited tax powers and by other appropriate devices. (d ) To review highway construction plans as they may affect transit facilities and to consult with highway agencies on these plans. (e) To assist highway agencies in overcoming any deficit in funds. (f) To regulate and coordinate private firms engaged in public transit service. This organization would have the full range of powers needed by a regional agency to complement the work of existing govem— mental agencies in creating the proposed transportation system. The foregoing summary was adopted by the National Capital Flaming Commission and the National Capital Regional Plan- ning Council as their report and recommendations to the Presi- dent. A more detailed explanation of the findings and recom— mendations of the Mass Transportation Survey, prepared by the Commission and Council’s Joint Steering Committee and the survey staff, is presented in the following pages. Statements by several members amplifying their views or expressing reser— vation or non-concurrence in certain of the recommendations are contained in appendixes D and E. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Transportation and the Modern City If people and goods could be transported instantly and without cost by rubbing a magic lamp—if there were no need for auto- mobiles, buses, trains and trucks—urban centers in their present form would not exist. Cities bring together, at low transpor- tation cost, workers and jobs, buyers and sellers, students and schools—this is the basic function of cities. This function is nowhere better illustrated than in the Washington urban area, whose existence depends largely on the need for quick and eco- nomical communication of government officials and personnel— with each other, with representatives of other governments, and with people having business with the government. But the economic potential of cities is lessened by inadequate transportation. Traffic congestion, slow and uncomfortable buses, and other deficiencies in transportation facilities inhibit the process of quick and easy communication which is the very basis of urban existence. Losses imposed by poor transporta- tion partially offset rising living standards. The attractiveness of life in suburban Wheaton or Annandale is lessened by the dif- ficulty of getting quickly and comfortably to downtown Wash- ington and other focal points in the region. The advantages of the modern automobile are often canceled out by the lack of road space on which it can move freely. The lag of transportation facilities behind other amenities of modern life is already recognized as a pressing problem. Un- less the region acts quickly to remedy the results of past neglect and to provide for the future, tomorrow’s transportation prob- lem is bound to be even more pressing. 454635 0 - 59 - Z Elements of the Regional Transportation Problem There are four main elements of the problem now facing the National Capital Region. First, present facilities are inadequate for today’s population. A generation ago, transportation improvements took the form of merging many local transit firms into a more unified system, and extending some streets and avenues out from the central city. The region has long outgrown those and subsequent im- provements and is suffering from the failure to keep pace with the growing demand. Second, the region’s population is increasing rapidly, at one of the highest rates in any of the nation’s metropolitan areas. By 1980, the region’s population will probably be at least 50 per- cent greater than today’s figure and will spread out over a greater area. TODAY I980 Two Million People Three Million People Third, as income, leisure hours, and living standards increase, the average resident of the region will demand more and better urban services. In particular, he will demand transportation facilities which will enable him to make more and longer trips in less time and in greater comfort. FOUR PEAK HOURS Fourth, the demand for transportation is not evenly distrib- uted throughout the day or the week. During working days, a large part of the demand is concentrated in the hours of the two great flows of traffic created by the journeys from home to work and from work to home. Most travel involves journeys which begin or end at home— home to work, home to market, home to school, home to recrea- tion centers, or from one home to another. There are other components of travel which are not home-based, such as tourist trips and trips between working places. All of these enter into the movement of vehicles and persons, constituting the region’s demand for transportation facilities. The movement of people in metropolitan areas requires both automobiles and public transit. The Mass Transportation Sur- vey was carried out on the assumption that an adequate trans- portation plan must include both highway and transit facilities. Since highways must carry goods as well. as people, the survey included an analysis of truck traffic. The survey has been primarily concerned with accommodat- ing weekday traffic because it is this traffic which accounts for most of the congestion on the transportation system, and upon which the region’s economic well being depends. The traffic on holidays and weekends does not often exceed the weekday traffic peaks on most facilities in the metropolitan area, so the holiday and weekend traffic does not provide a basis for deter- mining the capacity of the transportation system. This kind of traffic may grow in importance in the future, but it will probably be more important than home-to-work travel only in the outer parts of the suburbs where public transit will not play a large role in carrying weekday traffic. Peak-hour traffic, Washington, D.C. Origin and Structure of the Survey The need for good transportation has long been recognized in the planning of the Nation’s Capital. Studies of transporta- tion have been made by the National Capital Planning Com- mission throughout its lifetime. An example is to be found in the 1950 comprehensive plan for the National Capital, which devoted considerable attention to provisions for circulation. The National Capital Planning Act of 1952 directed the Com- mission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council to prepare plans for the movement of people and goods in the re- gion. Later in 1952 a report to the Commission indicated that much more detailed information was needed before an adequate mass transportation plan could be developed. 10 In 1955 the Congress directed the Commission and Council to “jointly conduct a survey of the present and future mass trans- portation needs of the National Capital Region . . . and to re— port their findings and recommendations to the President.” The two agencies appointed a Joint Steering Committee to plan and supervise the work. The Steering Committee consisted of two voting members from each of the two planning bodies, and three nonvoting members representing the public utilities com- missions of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. To supervise the technical studies, the Steering Committee appointed a small central staff, headed by a project director. The Committee also retained an advisory panel consisting of several nationally known experts in various aspects of transporta- tion. (See Appendix A for a statement by the Expert Advisory Group.) When the need for a complete study of highways was seen, a highway coordinating committee composed of area high- way officials was established. Coordination was also main- tained with the Joint Commission representing the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, which had begun a study of transit regulation in the Washington area before this survey commenced. Four major areas of study were laid out by the Steering Com- mittee, the survey staff, and the expert advisors. These were: I. Projection of the future population of the region and the distribution of the future population and employment within the region according to a planned pattern of land use. 2. Projection of future travel volumes within the region. 3. Design of physical facilities to accommodate the projected travel. 4. Preparation of recommendations on the financing and administering of the proposed transportation system. Several consulting experts and firms were engaged for studies in these areas. The reports of these consultants are as follows: Economic Base Study for the General Development Plan of the National Capital Region by the Council for Economic and In- dustry Research, Inc. This survey projects the future popula- tion and employment in the region, on various assumptions as to economic and demographic trends. General Development Plan for the National Capital Region prepared under the direction of John T. Howard of Adams, Howard and Greeley, with assistance from the survey staff and the planning agencies of the region. This is a plan for the future pattern of land use and the distribution of population and employment within the region. Commuter Service Report by Burton H. Sexton. This study describes the existing commuter service on the railroads and intercity bus lines, and presents data on the commuter traffic. Trafic Engineering Study by Wilbur Smith and Associates. This report analyzes factors presently bearing on traffic patterns, on the basis of which detailed projections of urban travel are made for the years 1965 and 1980, for each mode of travel. Civil Engineering Report by DeLeuw, Cather & Co. This re- port presents the results of a study of possible transportation systems and describes a proposed system. Transit Regulation for the Metropolitan Area of Washington by Jerome M. Alper. This report discusses regulation of pri- vately operated transit systems and proposes an interstate com- pact for the unified regulation of transit throughout the region. Financial and Organizational Report by the Institute of Public Administration. This report considers present methods of financing and administering transportation facilities and reviews ways of meeting future requirements. The Commission and Council have made their recommenda- tions with the aid of the findings, conclusions and recommenda- tions of these reports and with the guidance of the survey staff, the expert advisors and the Joint Steering Committee. The following chapters describe each step of the survey and set forth the results of the studies on which the recommendations of the Commission and the Council are based. CHAPTER II Growth Patterns of the Past Transportation has been one of the most powerful of the forces which have determined the shape of the National Capital Region and its pattern of land use. During the first half of the nineteenth century, the new city of Washington grew slowly around the Capitol, the White House, and the few other Government buildings located between. The city’s development was patterned by L’Enfant’s plan, which superimposed a network of diagonal boulevards on a gridiron street system. THE GENERAL PLAN OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT : ufthe limms'r uf‘the Uxmm S12v1 A ‘ ~ ' P L A N “ 4 K (flit CIT): Ill/filtlnlfi'fi“ X , ;Perm.'mmt.\,fi .\ .of tlgfieg_ \ ’llmormmafi "4 £9“ . Wiring-ma”: to Ida Iii/mil»: ‘ 1 I: u.- ltnxthWH X .a/mugbxlrr (hwy; 35,1 d» , ‘ K wlmfi My MAIN-(we. ; , ‘mmflnb/n Ikflmm V ' OBSERVATIONS may tithe PLAN. L 7LWfiAwAJl&-¢LHHH-~{W ”mg—bum .1?— H541. ”7—,,9. m MH—I‘AM-"fll— 1;":— l~L—,‘-‘,y—Ifr’id—ui—‘ 4., ‘WWMA shunt. ‘ ”kg—us dug—www-2rfiaun fi’f—fz.qp.-b WAW-~W”JW- with—dry“ RMM y‘llk ,flrmr. E0 470 may. 5.?» J‘o};-H-l:.‘-:-J ”I,“ W W / -Iofif_—.-—¢.4 m’ ,___r— *flz~;‘~-_ } y ‘ 6mm 11“”- l; -r. \w' LA lineal)" ...L \1’“ aezwas%« \\ u L ,4 A s. I #6” 7" \ % REFEBE.’(‘I‘.S. A 'I‘ II F. ”5.10m“ “Ha/IN:M.M-.I vfia BfififWUb‘Q DDDDVGDDLJL) .\, I; WI-IF ("LI-s run—”6,54 II,-- J“... m... a...“ j... M "awn—.15.. ..4..u.;.... \‘ 'nr—Lf—A-Mallnn}JM-15Ifhn!~lkflmwu MAL-Ant“ o \ C. ,‘l Hhhhuth-‘Jh-Llfiihn- java-.4 A \ .nfilwhwnmd-A‘M A . 7L mu ”-445. MM. “HM/o‘rth-l7—7qfi—rJ-1Mk ’ uMApI—1.P_bk~i_uhufl,_.u 1.4:. fl kamn.pdmuwndgfihthm~lawvou G ‘ A....&,u..al.-—.,’u.1“Add"..nvL—y’AJ-uym—y % . 1")“ Huh ' g .. fi. y..J_/.«.».AI~.« .. .wr.’..., NJL 71m 0. “.44.. a z-.. 7 1‘. m, .L.‘ afar“... ,'...n.: m... .I..4..z_l,’,751u .5 1....~,o¢.r. 0 Lia-s ;. .1 '15- n. v—, - L .m. ‘ ml: _.JA 4.... 7b ”/13: - 5.4:.4‘ ‘ —‘ 7““, ,L..,..7_. .. M "V... IL “,th-Ju/A— new mu. ”yd-Mun» 9.3—, hA-unbhfiufiuda" ”1-4-4.“ $.wbwwwarmu. A f-fim’d—H-A‘ByQ-bbnl—WH why-unyfpd-MM. 6 --n :5 —9,—..,.~-5H’A..J,v.b«nsnh run, havofnpm mu“ ‘ A ’9, 71”,. ..... ant...“1.,1,”..-..L.....n../u..¢.y........g...,.:M‘..,A $ ’ «r . 4; flaky—«AH 17—..4,~,_.. 4, “d“hhmwfin-‘dfiuw—Hfl 7L“‘~J.b»q.«-—/ ‘ I ‘ » - ‘ ”fir-“filgwhl—I 4.45;. H, ., . é' l 3’ K} Mg“ V 7.7 "dd/h uni—h ”add-5, , an.- ‘fi ) ‘" "pl” 34 ”HF“ fi—nbna— (~1— - 71. 7’ 3’\v\ ism-1:995” \l ’ySI-v-t-de u..- J’e—Ma’ufiunww .. ,, m ' \" ”mm” ' .4 ' mlhubhfi‘ ~nL-L-{rhhth yuMAAMM~.I.;7yiLZL:w O 2 ”“5 *‘h'b’ .- 0% gas-Amy‘s”; nw—lq-bafikW-uh 6 / ”H & JUL 71.. .w/q—yno-W«.mmfitypdw.uy.u.,s.,-¢. ’a a I / 4...} wk—u‘“ ‘ "a 1* AqH‘AG} a~F_¢~,d-,u “.4. -AWA. ...r.~:....,,... .mhlga. t l / Q? Ad—Auna’tdunq-nij—‘Jfit.~—7—(L-b~ I‘nfl / 6. { f ’b ‘ - r’ ”fix/z ”‘ ~' J12: I. ,4: M' / ’01., my. /, X , )1 -.- r . - flau- ’ lam-n c? ‘ 22 g my. F. chum—I. fi—Jf‘wf—LJ—w’l-Th G. La.“ H‘Ffthwéqu—b a.“ H. mifiuu,am.a-mwm_~ w.~,.._wl.-.—t,-g Mun, Mmadtwfidfi I. [Lara—41.. ‘ > K. tug—.1 .L—g-y-l]lu-If—-Lf~d¢b.,j~bl aufimbdi .1),-—.b..l-,4 £.-,h..‘,.l—I.¢— 9—H w—f‘u—n—J—l—“b—ay—l .d‘flnlkwfiy—ul—m—J’udvzfi . .5» M. hf-‘AhWML- I‘M—.44., d”—lrhafidq._k~— grab—«q "hr-‘9 n—d 1L~.n/-.a_u._a..u, .Nl By 1850, the District of Columbia had about 50,000 inhabit- ants, clustered around the Capitol-White House axis. Most of them could, and doubtless did, walk to work in 30 minutes or less. Horse-drawn vehicles provided local transportation. Thirty years later, when the District’s population had grown to 180,000, technological improvement in the form of rails for horse-drawn cars had begun to increase the range and speed of public trans- portation, and to lengthen the distance of residential develop- ment from the Capitol and the White House. By then, many of L’Enfant’s boulevards had been paved, but his basic plan had been violated in several ways, for instance by the building of a railroad station on the Mall. By the end of another 30 years, in 1910, the population had reached 350,000, the L’Enfant plan had been revived by the McMillan Commission of 1901, transportation technology had produced the electric streetcar, and fingers of residential develop- ment were following streetcar and railroad lines out into Mary- land and Virginia. Another 30 years of growth, from 1910 to 1940, brought the region’s urban population, which by now extended far outside the confines of the District of Columbia, to approximately one 12 ‘ m E1 » am 0 Ci :3 g million. By the end of this period, transportation was dominated by the automobile, which freed many people from dependence on the streetcar and the railroad, and produced the new metro- politan pattern. The spaces between the fingers of development following rail lines were gradually filled in with houses whose residents traveled to work and to the shopping center by automo- bile. Of all employees depending on vehicular transportation to get to downtown jobs in 194.0, 42 percent used private auto- mobiles and 55 percent used public transportation, while 3 per- cent traveled by railroad. While first the streetcar and then the automobile extended the area of development, the large majority of employed persons continued to live within half an hour’s travel time of their jobs. As long as employment was concentrated almost entirely in downtown Washington, development was therefore largely con- fined to the area within a circle whose hub remained near the Capitol-White House area. In the course of the great expansion during and after World War II, when the region’s population nearly doubled, there was a rapid increase in the number of employment centers, both gov- ernmental and nongovernmental, located outside the region’s historical center—notable examples are the Pentagon in Arling- ton County, Va., and the Bureau of the Census in Suitland, Md. The modern regional shopping center, depending on the auto- mobile for its patrons and located out of the central city’s traffic stream, appeared for the first time as a formidable competitor to downtown retailers. Large new areas lying within a short drive of the new employment and shopping centers became ripe for development. The pattern of growth was less influenced by travel time from downtown Washington, and new development tended to follow water and sewer lines and other public facilities as it was freed from dependence on the arteries leading to the city. During this period more and more travelers were lured away from the transit lines connecting downtown Washington with the suburbs by the speed, comfort and convenience of the auto- mobile and the fact that, in Washington, the out-of-pocket costs of travel by automobile are frequently less than by public transit. Declining patronage forced transit companies to increase fares and to forego improvements in service, stimulating further shifts to the private automobile. But in the meantime, road space for automobiles lagged far behind the demand for it, despite the construction of new highways and bridges and improvements in traffic control. Congestion steadily increased with no dimi- nution in prospect as long as traffic growth and highway con- struction continue at their recent unequal rates. I Got your TARGET right here... NAYIONAL CAPITAL IEGION, l955 Population—l 858.000 Employment—816,000 255,000 - 1955 Population E I955 Employment Figure 2 Growth Patterns of the Future An adequate transportation plan must be based upon a gen- eral plan of regional development which shows where people are expected to live and work, shop and play. The Mass Trans- portation Survey set the year 1980 as the date for projecting future population and development, with 1965 as an interim bench mark. The general development plan was formulated in two steps.1 First, the size of the regional population and the amount and 1 A more detailed description of the preparation of the general develop- ment plan will be found in the following reports: Council for Economic and Industry Research Inc., Economic Base Study for the General Development Plan, National Capital Region, Washing- ton, 1956. General Development Plan for the National Capital Region, prepared for the Mass Transportation Survey under the general direction of John T. Howard, of Adams, Howard and Greeley, city planning consultants, Washington, 1959. kind of employment were projected to 1965 and 1980. The second step was to determine where the future population will live and work, as development is guided by the supply of land, the location of parks and airports, local plans and zoning policies, and other factors which influence the pattern of land use. Fashioning the development plan for 1965 was a compara- tively simple matter. Most of the decisions which will control development to that date, such as zoning policies and the loca- tion of utilities, have already been made. Some of the decisions which will determine the shape of the region in 1980 have yet to be made and it is still possible to choose among alternative paths of development. Basic Assumptions and Objectives of the Plan The general plan of regional development is based upon the finding that the region’s population will undergo a very large and rapid increase, on the order of one million persons in a matter of two decades. It is assumed that the local governments will not be willing or able to significantly change this rate of growth. It is further‘ assumed that the local governments will be able to exercise only a limited influence on the pattern of development and the direc- tion of growth. These two assumptions lead to the conclusion that the trans- portation system must be designed to serve a rapidly growing metropolitan region whose broad lines of development will con- tinue to follow the trends of the recent past. It will not be pos- sible, within the next two decades, to reshape the region to con- form to a plan that constitutes a radical departure from current trends. Nor will it be possible to shape the region according to the demands imposed by some new kind of transportation system—the transportation system of 1980 will have to service a region whose configuration is largely determined by continued reliance on the private automobile, and by forces other than governmental action. Public agencies will, however, have an important influence on certain aspects of the region’s growth pattern. The develop- ment plan therefore seeks to guide the major public decisions concerning the pattern of land use and the provision of public facilities, while predicting the character of the development that is likely to take place within the framework set by these public decisions during the next 20 years. Some of the major objectives of this development plan nat- urally stem from the unique position of the region as the seat of the Federal Government and as the symbolic center of a great democratic society. These objectives include: 1. Housing the activities of the Federal Government so as to foster efficient transaction of the Govemment’s business and to facilitate the citizen’s dealings with it. 2. Rehousing Federal agencies now located in temporary buildings which detract from the beauty and monumental char- acter of the central part of the District of Columbia. 3. Measures to preserve the beauty and dignity of the central area, and to provide attractive settings for the principal public buildings and monuments there and elsewhere in the region. Other objectives of the plan are of importance in planning any urban region. They include: 1. Space for adequate and attractive housing of varying den- sities with conveniently located schools and other public services, shopping centers, and entertainment and recreational facilities. 2. Optimal location of office buildings, factories, and other employment centers in relation to residential centers and trans- portation facilities. 3. Preservation of open space in order to define and protect communities, to provide recreation opportunities and aesthetic values, and to reserve land for future developmental needs. 4. Flexibility to accommodate future trends in population and technology now unforeseen. The main purpose of the develop- ment plan is to guide the major public decisions concerning the region’s shape and land use pattern as the population increases by another million persons. But it must also point the way to a more distant future when the region may be even larger and more populous than in 1980, and ways of life may be entirely different. Factors Directing Urban Development Policies guiding the region’s development must take into con- sideration certain factors which limit the density to which certain areas should or will be developed. These are: NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PATUXENT R\IVER WATER SUPPLY W //’?‘.‘/ ,, "/ // \\, I '/ I» 1}! WASHINGTON REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY OCCOOUAN CREEK WATER SUPPLY REGIONAL GROWTH FACTORS PARK AND RECREATION AIRPORT SITES CONSERVATION AREAS Figure 3 N PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL LAND A URBAN SERVICE FACTORS 1955 URBAN LAND 1:] CRITICAL WATERSHED AREA—OPEN DEVELOPMENT , 1965 PREDICTED URBAN GROWTH PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AREA—URBAN DEVELOPMENT w‘fi CRITICAL WATERSHED LINE CRITICAL WATERSHED LINE Figure 4 Water Supply Areas. Present water sources are inadequate for the long-run needs of the region. Additional water sources must be provided and present supplies safeguarded. Accord- ingly, the site of the proposed River Bend dam and reservoir 0n the Potomac River should be withheld from development until it is finally decided whether a dam should be built there. Development of parts of the watersheds of the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers and Occoquan Creek (see fig. 3) should be limited to densities low enough for safe disposal of sewage by septic tanks. Otherwise, these areas must be provided with costly sewer lines and pumping stations to carry sewage into other watersheds. Recreational Areas Along Streams. Other streams, not sources of water supply, should be guarded against pollution so as to preserve them for recreational use. Again the alterna- tives are the restriction of development to low densities or the pumping of sewage to other watersheds. Flood and Erosion Control. Urban development should not be permitted to encroach upon flood plains, and the slopes of major streams should be kept in their natural state. Major Airports. Because of hazards and high noise levels, extensive urban development should not be planned close to major airports and their approaches. This limitation affects the areas adjacent to Andrews Air Force Base and the new jet-age airport under construction at Chantilly, Va. Other Open Space. Large tracts of open space will be re- quired for the recreational needs of the growing population, to define and protect outlying communities, and to provide flexi- bility for future growth. Such spaces will play an important part in shaping the development of the region. Some land will remain open because the terrain is unsuitable for urban develop- ment. For example, extensive deposits of hardpan lying close to the surface in western Fairfax and Eastern Loudoun counties will preclude intensive development of that area. Figure 5 shows the pattern of open space and low density areas contemplated by the general development plan for all the purposes mentioned above. After allowances are made for the restrictions on development there remain in the region more than 700 square miles of land that is close enough to the center to be suitable for development as an integral part of the metro- politan complex. This area would easily accommodate any population increase that is at all likely to occur by 1980, even at a low average density. .. . \“\‘.‘\n‘\}_ \\ i \\ \\ I - \ l. I \\ _”I" \w " \ \ ‘x. \"‘ NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Figure 5 OPEN SPACE 1980 PARK AND RECREATION LAND—PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSERVATION AREAS, STREAM VALLEY PARKS, PARKWAYS GOVERNMENT LAND, CEMETERIES, INSTITUTIONS CRITICAL WATERSHED LINE Population and Employment Growth Rate of Population Growth A population of three million is projected for the National Capital Region as of the target date of 1980 (see figure 6 and table 2 ). This projection is based mainly on predictions of job opportunities, which are described in a following section. Both population and employment projections can vary widely, depending on assumptions concerning such factors as the growth of Federal employment and the degree of industrialization of the region. Thus, if industry develops to its full estimated potential, the 1980 population will be much larger than three million. While the exact date on which the region’s population will reach three million is necessarily uncertain, that day will surely come in the foreseeable future, and population growth will continue thereafter. Natural Growth and Net In-Migration The population increase can come from two sources: natural growth (an excess of births over deaths) and net in-migration. Natural growth averaging 30,000 persons per year will ac- count for three-fourths of the projected population increase be- tween 1955 and 1980. Net in-migration into the region is pro- jected at an average of 10,000 persons per year. This is one-fourth the annual average between 1950 and 1955. The projected decline in rate reflects the expectation that job op- portunities will grow at a slower rate than in the past, and that most of the new jobs will be filled from the growing pool of local manpower. Economic Basis of Population Growth The projections of future population were based primarily on a study of the prospective increase in employment. Projections of employment were based on several assump- tions as to national and international affairs. It was assumed that the national economy will continue to grow, and produc- tivity and per capita income continue to rise, with no substantial setbacks from depressions; that average hours worked will de- cline; that continuing international tension will necessitate con- 16 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 1955—1,858,000 1965—2,400.000 WOO—3,000,000 852,000 POPULATION I980 Figure 6 \ 1965 1955 Table 2.—Population of the National Capital Region jurisdiction Total District of Columbia Montgomery County Prince Georges County Alexandria Arlington County Fairfax County and Falls Church Loudoun County Prince William County 1955 1, 858, 000 1955 2, 4.00, 000 1980 3,000,000 852,000 255,000 290,000 83,000 153,000 165,000 23,000 37,000 900,000 390,000 445,000 112,000 200,000 282,000 26,000 45,000 950,000 560,000 595,000 122,000 205,000 467,000 36,000 65,000 tinuing heavy expenditures for national defense but that this country will not be involved in a major war. In the analysis of regional employment, employment sources were divided into two main categories. These are: I. The “independent” sectors, which are little affected by forces within the region or by local governments and business firms. These sectors include the Federal Government, embas- sies and international organizations, firms serving national mar- kets, firms catering to the tourist trade, and several other kinds of economic activity. These sectors accounted for almost half of the total regional employment in 195 5. 2. The “dependent” or supporting sectors, which produce goods and services for consumption within the region. These sectors service the independent sectors and each other. They include retail and wholesale trade, services, construction, and manufacturing for the regional market. They accounted for slightly more than half the regional employment in 1955. Independent Sectors. Detailed studies of trends in the inde- pendent sectors led to a projected increase in the employment in these sectors of approximately 160,000 jobs between 1955 and 1980. The projections are presented in table 3. FEDERAL PERSONNEL. Civilian and military Federal per— sonnel in 195 5 accounted for 75 percent of employment in the independent sectors, and for 38 percent of total employment. Federal employment by jurisdiction is shown by table 4. For the defense agencies, a small increase in civilian personnel, with no increase in military personnel, is projected. Employ- ment in the State Department and other agencies dealing with international affairs is projected to double by 1980. Employ- ment in other Federal agencies is assumed to increase at about the same rate as the Nation’s population. The majority of Federal employees, as figure 7 shows, will continue to be located in downtown Washington. There will be some changes, such as the removal of temporary buildings and the addition of 16,000 employees along the proposed East Capi- tal Street Mall. Several new Federal employment centers, housing an estimated 43,500 employees, will be located in out- lying areas. NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Table 3.—Employment in the Independent Sectors, National Capital Region Labor force or equivalent (thousands) Percentage of total i955 1965 1985 7955 1965 1980 Total 413 480 574 100 100 100 Federal-civilian 241 267 298 58 56 52 Federal-military 72 72 72 I7 15 13 Tourists and other visitors 35 5o 65 8 IO I I Business and professional services 24 3o 42 6 Universities . I8 30 50 6 Immigrant retirees IO 12 16 3 Diplomatic and interna- tional organizations I 1 Scientific research and de- velopment 20 Table 4.—Federal Employment in the National Capital Region jurisdiction 1955 1965 1980 Total 3 I 2, 000 334, 500 370, 000 District of Columbia 195, 000 187, 000 21 1, 000 (District of Columbia—Central Area) (143, 500) (I40, 000) ( 143, 000) Montgomery County 16, 000 26, 000 30, 000 Prince Georges County 18, 500 27, 000 31, 500 Alexandria I, 900 2, 400 4, 400 Arlington County 55, 000 53, 000 48, 000 Fairfax County and Falls Church 16, 700 30, 000 34, 000 Loudoun County 50 100 100 . “9",. 7 Prince Williams County 8, 850 9, 000 n, 000 FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS NUMBER EMPLOYED 500 1,999 2000—9399 N 10,000 24,999 A M CRITICAL WATERSHED LINE 95,000 49,999 50,000 150,000 TOURISTS AND PERSONS ATTENDING CONFERENCES AND CON- VENTIONS. Visitors from outside the region averaged 22,500 daily in 19 5 5. They constitute a market for regional goods and services. As an economic force they were the equivalent of 35,000 employed workers. The number of visitors is expected to increase at the same rate as the projected increase of the gross national product. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Many banking, law, public relations, and other firms—located in Washington be- cause it is the National Capital—serve a national clientele. About 24,000 persons were employed to provide such national services in 1955; the projected rate of growth for this category substantially exceeds that of the national population. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. Regional institutions draw from a much wider territory than the region itself. In 1955, the economic impact of university activities was equivalent to that of 18,000 workers. Projections of a substantial increase reflect expectations both of population growth and a larger proportion of the college-age population attending college. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. Such work, both for the Federal Government and other clients throughout the country, is expected to expand rapidly in the next two decades with a more than threefold increase in employment. DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES AND STAFFS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. The projected increase in this sector is predi- cated on the expectation of increasing United States involve- ment in world affairs. IMMIGRANT RETIRED PERSONS. Spending by outsiders who come to retire in the Washington region affects the region’s economy in the same way as spending by tourists and diplomatic representatives. Employment created on account of retirees is projected to rise by some 600 percent between 1955 and 1980. SUPPORTING SECTORS. Expansion of the independent sectors will induce expansion of the supporting sectors—retail and wholesale trade, services, construction and the like. Some in- crease is projected in the region’s now small manufacturing sector, mainly to supply certain types of light consumer goods for the large and increasing regional mass market. The pro- jected increase of employment in the supporting sectors, between 1955 and 1980, is about 50 percent. COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. The large increase in commer- cial employment will be concentrated in the outer areas, near the new residential centers. (See figure 9.) The central business 18 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT INCREASES 1980 over 1955 Ihoumnds of person; 100 50 - Population [:1 Employment 0 district in downtown Washington will still be the largest com- mercial center, but the District’s share of total commercial em- ployment will drop from 65 percent in 1955 to 50 percent in 1980. INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT. One of the most important vari- ables in the population-employment picture is the extent of in- dustrial development. Many industrial products, which have in the past been made elsewhere and imported into the region, can be produced within the region. As the mass market in- creases, industrial production for the local market will become increasingly more practicable. The economic studies indicate that in 1955 the region had de- veloped only about 15 percent of its industrialization potential, that is, only this much of the total amount of manufacturing for the local market that would be feasible in the region is actually carried on here. The proportion is expected to increase to about 25 percent in 1980, a figure consistent with a population increase to 3 million. Table 5.—Commercial Employment in the National Capital Region jurisdiction 1955 1965 1980 Total 3 I 2, 650 384, 700 479, 535 District of Columbia 203, 000 217, 750 237, 360 Montgomery County 29, 500 45, 550 69, 650 Prince Georges County 21, 900 38, 100 58, 400 Alexandria I7, 200 20, 700 25, 000 Arlington County 25, I50 29, 150 34, 000 Fairfax County and Falls Church 10, 3 5o 25, 250 43, 625 Loudoun County 2, 650 3, 900 5, 100 Prince William County 2, 900 4, 300 6, 400 Table 6.—lndustrial Employment in the National Capital Region Jurisdiction 1955 1965 1980 Total 94, 550 131, 250 181, 500 District of Columbia 64, 500 72, 700 81, 400 Montgomery County 5, 450 10, 400 I 7, 800 Prince Georges County 6, 050 17, I 50 32, 500 Alexandria 6, 050 7, 900 10, 700 Arlington County 8, 300 10, 400 12, 100 Fairfax County and Falls Church 2, 600 9, 500 20, 500 Loudoun County 750 I, 450 2, 750 Prince William County 850 I, 750 3, 750 Table 7.—Total Employment in the National Capital Region jurisdiction 1955 1965 1980 Total 816, 000 963, 000 I, 169, 000 District of Columbia 503, 000 521, 000 579, 000 (District of Columbia—Central Area) (315, 442) (326, 000) (354, 000) Montgomery County 66, 8 50 101, 000 I41, 000 Prince Georges County 61, 450 100, 000 145, 000 Alexandria 28, 3 5o 35, 000 45, 000 Arlington County 97, 900 103, 000 106, 000 Fairfax County and Falls Church 35, 700 75, 000 115, 000 Loudoun County 7, 700 10, 000 I3, 000 Prince William County 15, 050 I8, 000 25, 000 The new industries will require large amounts of new indus- trial land, to be found primarily in the outer fringes of the region. Consequently, the District’s share of total industrial employment will decline, although it will still have in the foreseeable future the larger proportion of the total. The location of industrial employment is shown by table 6 and figure 7. Total Employment. Total employment in the region, ac~ cording to the projections, will rise by some 44 percent between 1955 and 1980, or by some 353,000 jobs. Only 22 percent of the increase will be located in the District of Columbia, and only 12 percent, or 39,000 additional jobs will be located in the down- town central business district. Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland will have 45 percent of the total increase; and the Virginia portion of the region, 33 percent. Projections for the various jurisdictions are shown in table 7. Location of the Future Population Where in the region will the future population live and work? The most important determinant of the shape of the future re- gion is the existing pattern of land use: the present location of homes and shops and offices, schools and churches and parks, and the existing system of highways and local streets. Even with one million newcomers, therefore, the metropolitan pattern will be much as it is today—a central city built up at high densities, surrounded by suburban areas the population density of which tends to decrease with distance from the center. Downtown Washington will still be the focus of the region. Future development, however, will be influenced significantly by the decisions and policies of the region’s governmental juris- dictions. Inadequate planning will result in a shapeless, inef- ficient, unattractive urban sprawl. The development plan pro- duced for the Mass Transportation Survey has been adopted by the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council as a guide for the major public decisions which will shape the growth of the National Capital Region. Residential areas will continue to take up the greater part of the region’s urban land area. Most of the vacant land in the inner parts of the region now by-passed by development will be filled in by new residential construction. The outer edge of the region’s urban area will extend considerably further than it does NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION TOTAL EMPLOYMENT O IOIAL EMPLOYMENT 1955 INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT 1955 to 1980 0 FEDERAL 0 COMMERCIAL O INDUSTRIAL 37%;;- (RITICAL WATERSHED LINE NUMBER EMPLOYED 500 1 ,999 1000—9999 1 0,000 94,999 75,000 49,999 300,000 AND OVER today, particularly in the northwest. Today’s communities will grow considerably, and there will be lying beyond the present urban area a significant amount of scattered population in rural areas on large lots. The directions and densities of the continuing residential de- velopment are shown on figures IO and II. Employment centers will be even more decentralized than they are today. Some new Federal employment centers of mod- est size will be built in outlying locations, most of them near existing communities. Several new large commercial areas will be located in the midst of suburban residential clusters. New industry, demanding large tracts for low level plants and em- ployee parking, will also be located well out of the inner areas where land costs are high. Open space—the use of land for purposes other than urban residence, commerce, industry and institutions—will be a posi- tive element in the future metropolitan development pattern. Regional parks will make up a substantial amount of the open space. Other open space, however, such as privately owned recreational areas and land held privately for continued rural use will provide “breathing space” between the outlying urban clusters. Circulation The regional development plan is based upon the assumption that a transportation system will be provided which, even after a 50 percent increase in the region’s population, will permit the large majority of the population to reach downtown Washing- ton in 30 to 45 minutes during peak hours. It is also assumed that the transportation system will put each part of the region within a similarly reasonable travel time of most of the other focal points. A much expanded transportation system is thus needed in order to permit the region to develop in the manner laid out in the general development plan. The transportation system can be one of the most powerful instruments in bringing about a desirable pattern of regional growth. Since the general development plan shows only the broad out- line of regional growth, it is based on relatively general assump- 20 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION ~,\. _ \ ‘ \\\\‘\\.\\. \ 1955 POPULATION DENSITY NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY PERSONS PER ACRE 100 AND OVER 20 TO 100 5 TO 20 I TO 5 W CRITICAL WATERSHED LINE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION tions as to the provisions for circulation. When final decisions are made on the construction of specific highways and transit facilities, some modifications in the general development plan may be called for, so that land use will conform to the transpor- tation system. Changes of this kind should be made by the ap- propriate planning agencies as the transportation system materializes. Figure 12 shows land use and major streets and highways in the National Capital Region in 1955. Figure 13 shows the land use as projected for 1980, with the recommended freeway and express transit system described in chapter VI. During the preparation of the general development plan, data on the present and future population, personal income, labor force, employment, retail sales and other factors in each part of the region were developed by the staffs of the Mass Transporta- tion Survey and the National Capital Regional Planning Coun- cil, with the aid of the local planning agencies. The data were plotted on the map of the region, and used in analyzing current travel behavior and predicting future travel patterns. = :_.__‘ C‘s—:9 i iii‘fs: Figure 11 1980 POPULATION DENSITY NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITY PERSONS PER ACRE - ‘00 AND OVER m 20 To 100 E 5 TO 20 1 TO 5 w‘x—‘x—‘r CRITICAL WATERSHED LINE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Figure I2 LAND USE 1955 - PARK & RECREATION - PUBLIC A INSTITUTIONAL - IO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND OVER m 2710 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE - INDUSTRIAL 5. COMMERCIAL 1A2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE [XX] AIRPORT AGRICULTURAL, WOODS AND VACANT LAND N A NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Figure I3 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1980 DWELLING UNITS 10 AND OVER PER ACRE ~‘ DWELLING UNITS 3 To 9 PER ACRE &W DWELLING UNITS 1 To 2 PER ACRE — COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL m PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL “—'—° NEW FEDERAL SITES ++++~ PARK AND RECREATIONAL CONSERVATION AREAS AIRPORT FREEWAY RAIL TRANSIT WITH FREEWAY RAIL TRANSIT IN OWN RIGHT-OEWAY RAILROAD CHAPTER III TODAY’S TRAFFIC FLOW AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES The next step in the survey was to predict the demand for transportation that will result from the predicted pattern of land use and population distribution in the region. This was done by first studying the travel patterns of recent years to as- certain how the volume of traffic between any two areas within the region is affected by the number of people living in each area, by their average incomes, by the number of persons em- ployed in each area, by the length of time that it takes to travel between the areas, and by other factors. This information was then used to derive formulas expressing the number of trips that are made between any two parts of the region in terms of the factors that have an influence on travel. The formulas were then applied to the data on population, land use, and other fac— tors as predicted for 1965 and 1980 to show the pattern of travel that can be expected as the region’s population approaches three million. Sources of Data This procedure called for detailed information on travel in the region during the recent past. Fortunately, a vast amount of such information was available from the two origin and desti- nation studies carried out in 1948 and 1955 by the highway de- partments of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, in cooperation with the US. Bureau of Public Roads. These studies, administered through the Regional Highway Planning Committee on which each of the highway agencies is repre- sented, provided a much more complete fund of data on present travel patterns than is usually available for a survey of this kind. IOUIDIRV URI "55 SURVEY ARIA Figure 14 TRAFFIC SURVEY AREA I955 Showing Origin and Destination Districts In each of the studies a boundary line was drawn around the region approximately at the outer fringes of urban development, and the study area thus defined was divided into nine sectors, which were in turn subdivided into districts, zones and subzones. Figure 14 shows the 1955 study area and the zone and district boundaries. The 1948 study area did not extend quite as far in some directions, and its central sector was much smaller. The two study areas were in other respects nearly the same. Four methods were used to gather information on travel within the study area: Home interviews. Interviewers called at a sample of the homes in each zone and obtained information on every trip made by each member of the family during the previous day. The 1948 sample included one out of every 20 dwellings in the study area. The 1955 sample was reduced to I out of 30 in the Dis- trict of Columbia, where the changes since 1948 had not been great, but the sample in Maryland and Virginia was increased to I out of 10, to provide more accurate information on the rap— idly growing suburban areas. For each trip that was reported, the interviewers obtained in- formation on the origin, destination, time the trip began and ended, mode of travel and purpose. (Trips made on foot or by bicycle were not covered.) They also ascertained the number of persons living in the dwelling unit, the number of automobiles that they owned, and the occupation of each employed person. Taxi interviews. Taxi drivers were interviewed and trip manifests were examined to obtain information on the origin, destination and time of each trip made by I out of every 10 taxi- cabs on a given day. (The 1955 sample included one out of every five cabs in Maryland and Virginia.) Truck interviews. The drivers of I out of every IO trucks registered in the metropolitan area were interviewed to deter- mine the origin, destination and time of every trip performed wholly within the study area on a given day. Roadside interviews. In 194.8 a large proportion of the ve- hicles entering and leaving the study area were stopped at its boundary and the drivers were asked their origin and destina- tion. The time of passage across the boundary was also re— corded. The 1955 study used data that had been obtained by roadside interviews in 1953. These data were expanded to cor- respond to the 1955 volume of traffic. The data obtained by these four methods gave a detailed pic- ture of the travel within the region on a typical weekday, in both years. The resulting information on regional travel was used, and is still being used, by the highway departments in planning their construction programs. The data were also made available to the Mass Transportation Survey. Other useful data on travel in the region were obtained from several other studies of traffic undertaken by various highway agencies to provide information needed in the planning of par- ticular highways and bridges, and from the continuing traflic counts and analyses of these departments. A special study of commuting by intercity bus and railroad was made by a con- sultant to the Mass Transportation Survey, and additional data were obtained from various sources on taxi use, persons travel- ing to and from airports, and other kinds of travel. Recent Trends in Travel Within the Region The data produced by the traffic surveys provided a valuable picture of travel in the urban and suburban parts of the National Capital Region.2 They showed, above all, the growing reliance on the private automobile as a means of travel during the years after World War II. While population in the study area in- creased by a little more than 40 percent, the ratio of automo- biles to persons increased by 45 percent, causing the total number of automobiles owned to double in just seven years. 2 The survey consultant’s analysis of the data produced by the 1948 and 1955 studies is described more fully in the following report: Wilbur Smith and Associates, Mass Transportation Survey, National Capi- tal Region, Trafiic Engineering Study, New Haven, 1959. 24 ‘ Population GROWTH IN TRAVEL 1948 vs. 1955 percent increase 20 40 60 Auto Ownership Auto Driver Trips Truck Driver Trips All Resident‘s Trips Transit Passengers While the number of trips by residents of the study area in- creased by 50 percent, the number of trips they made in private automobiles grew by about 75 percent. Because the number of persons carried in the typical automobile declined, the number of vehicle trips increased 100 percent. The number of shopping trips by automobile and transit almost doubled, while the num- ber of school trips almost tripled, indicating the growing reliance on the automobile and school bus in the suburban areas where many people live beyond walking distance of stores and schools. While population and automobile travel were increasing, the number of transit riders continued to decline from the inflated figures of World War II toward the level of prewar days. The number of trips made by public transit on a weekday decreased by 6 percent between 1948 and 1955, and the number of week- day transit trips into the downtown area decreased even more. The decline in overall transit usage would have been still greater, but for a I 52 percent increase in trips to school by public transit and school buses. When school trips are excluded from the com- parison, the decrease in transit ridership amounts to about 17 percent. The loss in transit ridership on weekends and holidays was considerably greater than the weekday 6 percent. This was largely the result of a decline in social and recreational trips by transit. While the total number of transit riders decreased only moderately, transit’s share of the total daily travel by all modes dropped sharply, since travel volumes were increasing. Public transit carried 37 percent of the daily trips in 1948, and only 23 percent in 1955. With the volume of automobile traffic doubling in a seven-year period, while relatively small increases were being made in high- way capacity, congestion naturally worsened. Since attractive local transit service becomes more difficult to provide as street congestion increases, the result was to encourage still more people to travel by private automobile, generating the now-familiar cycle of decreasing transit patronage, leading to increased fares and automotive congestion, which in turn, lead to a further decline in transit patronage. Fortunately, the proportionate use of transit for trips in or into the central parts of the region in the peak hours has not declined as much as other transit use, mainly because the cost and inconvenience of operating an automobile in the central area gives transit an advantage in serving much of this traffic. Changing patterns of traffic How have also contributed to con- gestion. Crosstown traffic, once insignificant in amount, has in- creased considerably in recent years, and promises to constitute a still larger proportion of the total traffic in the future. (See fig. I 5.) Growing crossflows of traffic make it necessary to stop the flow of traffic on the principal radial routes more often and for longer periods of time, to permit crossing and turning move- ments. Since a relatively small proportion of crosstown trips can be served by public transit, this kind of traffic makes an even greater demand for highway capacity than an equal number of downtown trips. Travel in 1955 More than 3 million person trips, and nearly 2 million vehicle trips, were made in and through the study area on a typical working day in 1955. (See tables 8 and 9.) More than 80 percent of both the person trips and the vehicle trips were made completely within the area covered by the origin-destination study. These are the most important trips to be considered in planning to meet the mass transportation needs of the region, although the trips passing in and out of the region have a significant impact upon highway facilities. The traffic data were analyzed in terms of the purposes of the trips, the times at which they were made, and in other ways, to provide a basis for predicting future traffic. l 930 Heavy Movement to Center Table 8.—Trips by Persons, 1955 Thousands Of daily trips Total 3, 070 Type of trip: Within study area: Auto driver Auto, truck, taxi passenger Public transit passenger Into or out of study area : Residents of study area Nonresidents Through study area 454635 0 - 59 - 3 1955 Some Cross Movement Still Heavy to Center Figure 15 CHANGING PATTERNS OF TRAFFIC FLOW Table 9.—Trips by Vehicles, 1955 Thousands of Percentage Type of vehicle: daily trips of total Total I, 871 100 Private automobiles I , 327 7 I Taxis 267 I 4 Trucks 277 I 5 NOTE—The origin and destination study did not gather information on trips of transit vehicles. Inclusion of such trips would increase the total by less than 2 percent. 1 980 ch More Cross Movement Still Heavy to Center Trip Purposes The total number of trips was divided into four categories, according to purpose, as follows :3 I . Work. Trips between home and work. 2. Commercial. Trips, beginning or ending at home, for shopping and other personal business, to restaurants, and to doctors, dentists and hospitals. 3. Social. Social and recreational trips, and trips to school. 4. Other. Trips between two places of work, between two commercial points, or between work and commercial locations. 3 The data presented in this report differ from the published data of the origin and destination studies conducted by the highway departments, be- cause some trips were eliminated by a redefinition of what constitutes a “trip,” the 10 categories of trip purpose used in the origin and destination studies were reduced to 4. by consolidation, and supplementary data were added on taxi passengers and commuters traveling by intercity bus lines and railroad. 25 REASONS FOR TRAVEL thousands of trips Urban Area 1955 24 HOURS -DESIGN HOUR 1,000 —— WORK COMMERCIAL SOCIAL OTHER fix. The analysis of travel by purpose of trip threw valuable light on the region’s transportation problem, since each kind of trip has its distinctive relationship to such factors as income level and automobile ownership, and each makes a unique demand on the transportation system. Table IO summarizes the 1955 trips made entirely within the study area by purpose and mode of travel. Table ‘IO.—Travel by Persons Within Study Area, 1955 [In thousands of trips] Mode of travel Auto Auto Transit Total Purpose of trip driver passenger 1 passenger 2 Total I, 049 847 631 2, 526 Work 470 212 349 I, 031 Commercial 3 I o I 52 98 560 Social I44 210 I57 511 Other 124 272 28 424 ‘ Includes taxi and truck passengers. 2 Excludes 8,000 trips by persons commuting on intercity buses and rail- roads, whose purpose was not ascertained. 26 Peak Hours of Travel Washington, like other cities, experiences a few hours of heavy traffic each day. During other daylight hours, most streets out- side the central sector are used by a moderate number of vehi- cles. During many of the night hours most streets are virtually empty. These familiar patterns are repeated each weekday throughout the year. Traffic is heaviest during the four “peak hours” from 7 to 9 a.m. and from 4. to 6 pm. In these busiest periods the trips to and from work predominate. The hourly distribution of the total daily traffic volume is shown by figure 16, while the con- centration of work trips in the peak hours is demonstrated by figures 17 and 18. Nearly 40 percent of all automobile trips and almost half of all transit trips were performed during the four peak hours. Work trips accounted for about 70 percent of all peak hour travel in the survey area, and an even larger pro- portion of peak hour travel in and out of the downtown area. About two-thirds of the daily work trips took place during the peak hours. Traffic reaches peaks that are still higher than the average flow during the four busiest hours. Highways and transit facili- ties are ordinarily designed to serve the traffic that moves during the single hour of heaviest flow. In 1955 this one hour ac- counted for about 30 percent of the street and highway travel in the four peak hours, or 12.5 percent of the 24-hour total. Figure 16 HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS TRIPS All Modes and Purposes, I955 percent of 24-hour fig”: ”alum 4 PEAK HOURS 40% of All Auto Trips 50% of All Transit Trips 0 A I Midnight 2 6 10 Midnight Figure 17 HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS TRIPS Auto Driven by Purpose, 1955 thousands of auto driver trips per day Trips between: WORK AND HOME COMMERCIAL AND HOME _—.—— SOCIAL AND HOME _____ WORK AND COMMERCIAL . A ,.~u .- \ _.. -. t: /’ ¥‘——J ’- L ....... T‘_ .3 ’J ./ mid-12 3 4- 5 6 7 8 91011noon12 34 5 6 7 8 91011rmd‘ night time of arrival or departure at non-home end of trip night The peak-hour traffic volumes on many routes are heavily concentrated in one direction, as is evidenced by the use of reversible lanes and reversible streets in the morning and evening rush hours. The proportion of automotive traffic carried during the single hour of heaviest travel on most of the main highways in the direction of heavier flow is a little more than 7 percent of the 24-hour two-way weekday travel. Travel by public transit is even more greatly concentrated in one-way movements. At the heaviest load points of transit routes leading into the down- town area the number of persons traveling in the direction of Figure 18 HOURLY DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS TRIPS Transit Riders by Purpose, I955 thousand; of transit rider trips per day 80 Trips between: , WORK AND HOME ‘ ' ‘ ‘ ‘ ' ‘ "' COMMERCIAL AND HOME — — — — SOCIAL AND HOME ————— 0— WORK AND COMMERCIAL 1:-.- I / \ ’ N ..f"' 1.:‘A mid-1 2 3 4- 5 6 7 8 91011noon12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lOlvlmid- night time of arrival or departure at non-home end of trip night § heavier movement during the single peak hour is I I percen: of all trips passing those points during the day. Of all transit trips actually terminating in the central sector, I 7 percent arrive during a single hour in the morning. The proportion of all trips made during peak periods is lower than the regional average on some routes carrying large numbers of trucks and through traffic, because this traffic is distributed more evenly through the day and night than are local trips, and congestion during the peak periods discourages the use of some of these routes by traffic that can take another route or travel at another time. For example, the Highway (14th Street) Bridge, which carries much through traffic and cannot carry all the peak hour travelers who would like to use it, carries in the four peak hours only 30 percent of the daily trips. The nearby Memorial Bridge carries 40 percent of its daily trips during those hours, displaying a more typical peak period characteristic. Factors Related to Travel Patterns After the basic data on present travel had been assembled, they were analyzed in order to derive formulas that were then used to predict the travel patterns to be expected when the re- gion’s population has reached three million and there have been corresponding changes in land use and other relevant factors. In deriving these formulas and applying them to data on ex- pected conditions, the survey consultants used some new tech- niques which are intended to represent a considerable advance over more conventional methods of trafl‘ic projection. An elec- tronic computer was used to summarize and interpret the large volume of data and to project future travel patterns, permitting a much more complete analysis and interpretation than would have otherwise been possible, even by highly mechanized compu- tational procedures. The result represents the most comprehen- sive analysis of the demand for transportation yet produced in the Washington area and one of the most comprehensive studies of urban travel yet undertaken in this country. Number of Trips After extensive analysis of the travel data, it was concluded that the factors which have the greatest influence on the number of trips originating in any one area are the following: DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE TRAFFIC PATTERN FUTURE LAND USE FUTURE TRAFFIC PATTERN TRAFFIC FORMULAE Number of trips is related to: DOWNTOWN 'NC°M‘ NUMBER OF CARS TRIPS BEGINNING OR ENDING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Family income. Families at the low end of the income scale average barely half as many trips per person as those with high incomes. The middle income groups make almost as many trips per person as the top income group. Automobile ownership. More trips are made by the resi- dents of an area in which automobile ownership is high than are made by people in another area with the same average income but fewer automobiles. Distance from the downtown area.’ This is the most im- portant single factor influencing the generation of trips in resi- dential areas. The number of trips per person tends to increase with the distance from the urban center, mainly because the close-in areas are more densely settled and much travel is per- formed there by foot (and therefore not included in the data on vehicular trips). Isolation. In the sparsely settled outermost suburban and rural areas the number of trips per person no longer increases with distance from the center, but is actually smaller than in the suburbs lying close to the center. This is apparently because most of the potential destinations are so far away that people combine several errands in a single trip when possible. 27 TRIPS BEGINNING OR ENDING IN NONRESIDENTIAL AREAS Employment. An average of about 160 worker trips are made to or from employment centers for every 100 jobs located there. The daily number of absent employees brings this figure below 200. The ratio of trips to jobs is little affected by distance from downtown Washington. Retail Sales. An average of 6,000 daily trips are made to or from each retail center for each I percent of the total regional retail sales taking place there. The figure is lower in downtown Washington, and higher in the outer suburbs. Figure I9 INTERNAL TRANSIT TRIPS FOR WORK As Percent of All Work Trips by District of Columbia Residents, 1955 percent of work trips made by transit 40 l NOTE: _ i Derive percentage of work trips made via transit by adding vaiues from curve ”A” to values from curve “B”. / persons per car in each district 6 7 MEDIIAN FAMILY INCOME Class Income Range 3] to $2,499 2,500 to 4,499 4,500 to 6,999 7,000 to 9,999 10,000 and over ' Incomes 4 & 5 I x Incomes I, 2, 8- 3 l 10 15 20 25 ofl-peak driving time to Sector ”0” (minutes) MODE OF TRAVEL The traffic data were also analyzed to ascertain what factors influence the proportion of travelers using public transit, and the number of automobiles used to carry the rest. Figure 20 INTERNAL COMMERCIAL TRANSIT TRIPS As Percent of All Commercial Trips by District of Colunioia Residents, 1955 percent of commercial trips made by transit 6° l l NOTE: Derive percentage of work trips made via transit by adding values from curve “A” to values from curve “B". persons per car in each district 1 1 I 3 4 5 ' Incomes 4 l- 5 x Incomes I, 2, 8. 3 W X In N“ d MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME Class Income Range I $1 to $2,499 2 2,500 to 4,499 3 4,500 to 6,999 4 7,000 to 9,999 5 10,000 and over I | 5 10 15 20 ofl-peak driving time to Sector “0” (minutes) PUBLIC TRANSIT The following factors were found to have a significant influ- ence on transit ridership: Quality of transit service. The quality of service rendered by public transit (frequency of service, directness of route and speed Figure 21 INTERNAL SOCIAL TRANSIT TRIPS As Percent of All Social Trips by District of Columbia Residents, I955 percent of social trips made by transit 60 NOTE: Derive percentage of work trips made via transit by adding / values from curve ”A" to values from curve “B". / / 4 5 persons per car in each district \\ 10 I5 20 25 ofl—peak driving time to Sector “0” (minutes) of travel) was found to be most important. Service is generally the best along the routes where the travel volumes are greatest. Transit thus has the biggest advantage in attracting passengers in areas where population is densely concentrated. The quality of service is also affected by the lack of through service at the boundaries of the District of Columbia. Transit ridership is considerably less in nearby Maryland and Virginia than in the adjacent parts of the District of Columbia. In the more re- mote suburbs, where the population is even more thinly distrib- uted, transit usage is even less. Since both low population density and boundary lines work against transit usage in the suburbs, the great majority of transit trips (almost 80 percent) are made by residents of the District of Columbia. Automobile ownership and family income. Within the Dis- trict of Columbia transit ridership is highest in areas where au- tomobile ownership is lowest. This factor is, of course, partly a reflection of family income. In the suburbs, where automobile ownership is high almost everywhere, the use of transit for com- mercial trips is noticeably higher in the areas with lower average family incomes, while the use of transit for other purposes is little affected by family income. Figures 19, 20 and 21 show the relation between these factors and transit use by residents of the District of Columbia. PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE The factors described above can be used to determine the pro- _, portion of all trips made by public transit. The rest are made ‘ “/- by private automobile and taxicab. To determine how many QQE‘IF/j automobiles will be used to serve this traffic, it is necessary to ”Ts/’1 ‘ ‘4' determine the average number of persons occupying each ‘fl 1" ‘3 automobile. \‘ 45" " The present average auto occupancy, on peak-hour trips to . . Q‘ work in the downtown area, is 1.9 persons, compared with an _ ‘V area-wide 24-hour average of 1.4 for work trips. The higher MA figure for downtown work trips is largely the result of car pool- ing, which is often encouraged by employers and by the expense of all-day parking. It is made practical by the high concentra- tion of employment in the downtown area which makes it con- venient for neighbors to ride together. Car pooling deprives public transit—normally the cheapest mode of transportation— of much or all of its traditional cost advantage. Car pooling tends to relieve congestion by enabling some people who would otherwise drive to leave their cars at home. However, it has a 25 SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES (vouufis LESS nun 2000 nor suowu) A Figure 22 1955 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Average 24-hour Weekday on Maior Routes MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION GAHNERSBURG Rocxvu,f ‘9 .\ ' . ._:=7* cam 40% ' mam; ~ "EQNDQN k3 ,/ McLEAN FAIQFAK SPRINGFIELD ' '9“ PRACTICAL A-r unuszo CAPACITY SCALE m mousmos or vsmcus CAPACITY WTEIPRACYICAL CAPACITY IS APPROXIUATELV “IS 0' POSSIBLE CAFACITV. L AUREL / ./ ./ ‘/ anpfwiu ’1’ ,/ / ,/ SEAT “LEASANY \. SUIYL 340 .\' \' ANDREWS AIR BASE LEGEND '—'—'CORRIDOR LIMITS —SCREEN LINES l-l3 CORRIDORS Figure 23 5 ART IAL STREET CAPACITY IN THIRTEEN CORRIDORS AT CIRCUMFERENTIAL SCREEN LINES MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION counterbalancing tendency to increase congestion by enabling many to drive downtown who would otherwise travel by transit. Present Transportation Facilities Information on the present highway and transit facilities is important in understanding future needs and designing trans- portation facilities to meet those needs. Streets and H ighways The street system laid out in the plan of L’Enfant, and later extended beyond the downtown area, continues to carry the bulk of the automobile and transit traffic that moves into and out of W'ashington. The wide avenues radiating from the center of the city have provided space for ever increasing traffic volumes, thanks to improved traffic engineering techniques, stricter regu— lation of traflic movement and parking, and construction of in- tersection improvements. L’Enfant’s avenues have been ex- tended into the suburbs where new street patterns have been laid out. A few freeways and parkways have also been built in the re- gion. Of these routes, about 15 miles lie within the District of Columbia, 32 miles are in Virginia and 34 miles are in Maryland. The region does not have a “system” of free-flowing, high- capacity traffic arteries, however. Much of the freeway mileage is in outer parts of the region, and there is little in the center where it is most needed. The few existing routes are not inter- connected. Therefore, the travel habits of most of the region’s population are limited by what is possible on surface streets, whether traveling by private automobile or public transit. Figure 22 gives a picture of the use of the street and highway system. Table II and figure 23 compare the average daily number of vehicles moving through each of the principal corri— dors that radiate from the central sector with the capacity of the streets and highways serving each corridor. While the region does not now have a modern system of free- ways, the backbone of such a system has been planned in recent years by the highway departments, and major segments are, or soon will be, under construction. Among the more important of the new routes will be the Inner Loop which will encircle down- town Washington and the Washington Circumferential High- _ way which will encircle the present urban area at a distance 35mm. from the White House of about 10 miles. Most of the major " new routes will be parkways built by the Federal Government or routes built by the District of Columbia and the States with 90 percent Federal grants as part of the National System of In- . terstate and Defense Highways. While the new freeways and . " ~ m mitt: parkways will give the region a greatly improved highway net- work, some parts of the region will be much better served than others and the network as presently planned will still have some serious gaps. With this much-improved highway system will come some im- portant shifts in travel habits. Transit service on the local streets will be at least temporarily improved by reduced conges- tion, and fast transit service can be introduced on the new free- ways, offering the possibility of increased transit ridership along such routes. But the primary benefit will come to automobile users, and it is likely that there will be both a lessening of conges- tion, and a sizable increase in the volume of automotive travel as the public takes advantage of the new mobility that the new highways provide. CABIN JONN ARLINGTON Public Tramit Five transit companies serve the Washington metropolitan area. A small number of local trips are also served by inter- city bus lines and railroads. The routes of the five local com- panies are shown in figure 24. ‘ ”LAND The largest of these is the DC. Transit System, Inc., which carries about 80 percent of the total traffic. This firm, the suc- cessor to the Capital Transit Co., began operation in August 1956 under a 20-year franchise granted by an act of Congress. It serves nearly all of the District of Columbia and provides serv- ice in large parts of suburban Maryland. Some of the service from central Montgomery County into the District is provided “5,. ND . by the firm’s wholly owned subsidiary, Montgomery Bus Lines, Inc. D.C. Transit owns some 5 IO streetcars and 870 buses, and had some 70 miles of streetcar routes and 3 30 miles of bus routes until it recently began conversion of the streetcar lines to bus service. The company’s franchise calls for an all-bus operation by 1963, LEGEND —-“- BUS ROUTES - CAPITAL TRANSIT COMPANY — STREETCAI ROUTES — CAPITAL TRANSIT CONPANY .1 I . omen man an; noutzs Flglll'e 24 LOCAL TRANSIT ROUTES, I955 TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION and the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia recently approved the company’s plan for accomplishing this. Modern, attractive buses, many of them air-conditioned, are being acquired to supplant streetcars, as well as to replace the older buses now in service. Two other companies serve parts of suburban Maryland. The W.M.A. Transit C0. operates from the downtown area to south- east Washington and Prince Georges County, and also has local routes within each of the two jurisdictions. The Suburban Transit Co. has several routes in suburban Montgomery County and provides some service into the District, These two com- panies, which own a total of about 125 buses, have recently announced their desire to merge. Service between the District and Virginia, and within the Virginia suburbs, is provided by the Alexandria, Barcroft and Washington Transit C0. and the Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach C0. The two firms own approximately 350 buses between them. These five firms make a total of nearly 1,000 vehicle trips into downtown— Washington in a workday morning peak hour, carry— ing approximately 55,000 passengers destined to the central sector, plus approximately another 25,000 passing through it. For many people who are in a position to choose between using their own automobiles and transit, present transit service is too slow, inconvenient and uncomfortable to offer much attraction. The difficulties of public transit firms stem from several sources. First, and most important, almost all transit vehicles travel on the local streets and highways mixed with other traffic. Very few routes are on separate rights-of-way or high-speed freeways. Scheduled speeds are low, and are not being improved upon. Little has been done to give transit vehicles preferential treat- ment on the streets, because adequate solutions have not been forthcoming to justify such treatment. Modern air-conditioned bus, Washington, D.C. Second, through service in and out of the District of Columbia is hindered by the different regulations and different tax struc- tures which prevail in the two States and the District. The D.C. Transit System’s patrons must generally change vehicles at the District line (some rush-hour through service is available on a few routes) and the Virginia companies are only permitted to deliver and pick up passengers in certain parts of downtown Washington. Third, the dispersal of the suburban population in low-density developments produces few concentrations of traffic large enough to support frequent and economical transit service. Any attempt to provide a much improved suburban service would probably require higher fares. These factors cause public transit to have a much shorter ef- fective service radius than the private automobile. Heavy volumes of transit travel are generally limited to the District of Columbia and the area just across the river in Virginia, while large volumes of automobile traffic move between downtown and the outer suburbs. This can be seen in figure —, in which the width of each line represents the daily number of trips from the central sector to every other part of the survey area, by public transit and private automobile, in 1955. Taxi trips, not shown, serve the areas closest to downtown and are shorter than transit trips. Railroads and Intercity Bus Lines A relatively small number of commuters, about 10,000 to 15,000 per day, are carried in and out of Washington by three railroads and five intercity bus lines. Most trips are for the pur- Table IL—Traflic Volumes and Highway Capacity in 13 Radial Corridors, 1955 Screenline I Screenline II Practical Corridor 1 capacity 3 40,000 76,000 85,000 104,000 118,000 48,000 102,000 29,000 117,000 27,000 43,000 40,000 20,500 1 See figure 23 for location of corridors and screenlines. 2 Average number of vehicles passing the screenline in both directions in 24 hours. 3 Traffic on a heavily traveled artery may exceed its rated “practical capacity.” Practical Percent capacity 3 usage 76,000 77 100,000 90 96,000 94 89,000 96 81,000 97 135,000 90 105,000 83 50,000 107 100,000 100 22,000 91 63,000 117 38,000 90 10,000 120 Yraflh2 58,100 89,500 89,900 85,300 78,500 120,800 87,100 53:500 100,000 20,000 73>500 34,000 12,000 pose of work and are therefore made in the peak hours. Persons arriving by railroad at Union Station usually need further transit or taxi transportation, but most bus riders walk to their destina- tions from the downtown terminals. Taxicabs Of great importance in the movement of people in the central area is the taxicab business, which provides a much larger pro- portion of the public transportation service than in other large American cities. Within the inner part of the city, the unique zone system with relatively low fares for individual and group rides, the dispersed character of the downtown area, and the extraordinarily large number of visitors from out-of-town, all contribute to the large patronage. In recent years, there have been between 9,000 and 10,000 licensed cabs in the District, to— gether with approximately 500 cabs in Maryland and 225 cabs in Virginia. In addition, a fleet of limousines and taxicabs serve the National Airport. Taxis, like transit companies, are sepa- rately regulated in each jurisdiction. Most local taxi operators recently entered into a voluntary agreement, worked out under the auspices of the Washington Metropolitan Regional Confer- ence, specifying the fares to be charged for trips across the Dis— trict line. Trucks About one-sixth of the vehicle trips in the survey area are made by trucks. Trucks require more road space than automo- biles and their impact on traffic can be far greater than is indi- cated by the ratio of truck trips to total trips. However, truck trips are not heavily concentrated in the peak hours, so they make a smaller demand on the transportation system than their numbers would suggest. Of the 277,000 daily truck trips in 1955, 79 percent were made completely within the survey area, while the remaining 21 percent originated or terminated outside the area. Only one- fifth of the latter were through trips, but on some routes, such as US. Route I in Maryland and the Shirley Highway in Vir- ginia, through truck travel accounts for 50 percent or more of all trucks entering the survey area. Figure 25 W NEAYON / I Auto Driver vs. / Trips to and From Downtown or YIIPS \\ SPRING CHEW CHAS ,\ ./ I z SCALE / IN \ / 3 mousmns SM“ 5 1 CABIN JOHN NV TSVILLE \ nets... l//\ /\ . / N \ / ARLINGTO I . SEAT BLADENSBURG / SUITLAND ANNANDALE I , (4" } / ~ A " nonumssmz meomu »‘ l & J \ ‘J’ SPRINGFIELD AUTO DRIVER TRIPS DESIRE LINES—1955 WHE‘TDN Transit Rider SILVER J spam CNEVV CNASE’ ANGLEV PARK BEYHESDA \ \ I mam JONN \( \ \ MC LEAN / \ ULADENSBURG NYATTSVILLE I DOWNTOWN SEAY < D.C. / PLEASANY ARLINGTON , x . FALLS CHM SUITLAND ANNANDALE MORNINGSIDE OXON HILL SPRINGFIELD i \ TRANSIT RIDER TRIPS NOTE: Volumes less than 1,000 not shown Parking The supply of parking space is another important factor in determining the flow of travel to many parts of the area. Down- town Washington has an unusually large number of all-day parking spaces, and an unusually large proportion of such spaces are free. Nearly 75,000 spaces are available for long-time park- ing in the downtown area, of which about 50,000 are free. Ap- proximately 20,000 of these are free spaces on the streets and another 16,000 are free off-street spaces provided by the Federal Government for its employees. The latter figure could decline sharply in the next few years, however, since many Government parking lots are on land on which new Federal buildings are to be erected. The ample supply of parking space, so much of it free or avail- able at low rates, encourages people to travel downtown in their automobiles, thereby adding to peak-hour congestion and de- priving the transit companies of paying passengers. To help reverse this trend, the District of Columbia Motor Vehicle Park- ing Agency has in recent years established three fringe parking lots to promote “park-and-ride” commutation. These lots are used, free of charge, by a total of 700 to 800 cars daily. The analysis of data on present travel behavior and trans- portation facilities paved the way for estimates of future travel and for design of transportation facilities to serve this future travel, as explained in the next chapters. in 1980, primarily due to more auto ownership by persons at the lower income levels. The formulas referred to in chapter III were then applied to these data to predict the flow of traffic in 1965 and 1980. In projecting future travel patterns, two sets of data were pre- dicted, as follows: I. The total number of person trips and truck trips that will begin or end in each district. This figure is called the number of “trip ends.” Person trips were separately computed according to trip purpose (work, commercial, social, and other) and mode of travel (private automobile, taxi, and public transit). 2. The number of person trips and truck trips that will be made completely within each district; the total between each pair of districts; and the total between each district and each entrance point on the boundary of the survey area. These cal- culations were made by linking every trip end with another, in order to describe each trip by its points of origin and destination. Trip “linkages” were separately projected for each purpose and each mode of travel. The resulting travel data, when plotted on a map, produce the familiar pattern of “desire lines” whose width indicates the number of trips between pairs of districts. The analysis by mode of travel required an assumption as to the kind of public transit system that will be in existence. (The character of transit service did not enter into the computation of the total number of trips made by all modes.) For this pur- pose it was assumed that the future transit system would be sim- ilar to that of today, offering relatively slow service by transit vehicles which would share the local streets and highways with other traffic. The projections thus produced an estimate of the minimum number of trips likely to be made by public transit and the maximum likely to be made by private automobile, since it is reasonable to expect that transit service of at least the present quality will continue to be provided. This set the stage for the evaluation of various hypothetical transportation systems em- bodying improved forms of public transit service, to determine how many additional people would be attracted to transit from private automobiles by such service. Determining Trip Linkages. The formulas used in determin- ing the pattern of linkages between trip ends represent a signifi- cant departure from more conventional techniques of trafl‘ic projection. These formulas relate the number of trips between any two districts to two factors: the total number of trip “attrac- tions” (homes, stores, jobs, etc.) in each district; and the time required to travel between the two districts. Intradistrict trips and trips between a district and points outside the survey area are likewise predicted on the basis of trip attractions and travel times. The introduction of travel times makes it possible to take into account the improvements in travel conditions that will result from anticipated highway construction. The predicted traffic flows therefore include the extra travel mileage that will be in- duced along the routes served by newly opened highways, on which the average length of trips will increase as people take advantage of their new ability to travel farther in a given number of minutes. (The predicted number of trips will not be appre- ciably affected by the extent of the highway network.) To the extent that the new technique is able to predict traffic induced by new transportation facilities, as well as normal traffic growth resulting from population growth and the creation of new traffic generators, this technique constitutes an important advance over conventional methods of traffic prediction. The linkages of trip ends were computed separately for each purpose of travel and for each mode of transportation, because different formulas are needed to describe the pattern of travel by each mode and for each purpose. The relative importance of the time factor is different in each case, and travel for each purpose is related to a distinctive kind of trip attraction (thus Figure 27 GRAVITY MODEL Residential Area Work Center Work Center Work Center Distances shown between points represent travel time. Residential Area work trips are related to the number of jobs in a district, while commercial trips are related to retail sales) . This method of predicting the pattern of travel is often called a “gravity model” because of a superficial resemblance between the formulas used and the law of gravity. (Gravitational attrac- tion between two bodies varies directly with their mass and inversely with the square of the distance between them.) To illustrate the application of this method to work trips, let us assume that the region has two residential centers, A and B, and three employment centers, X, Y, and Z; and that their loca- tions and numbers of trip attractions are as shown in figure 27. Workers from A will be attracted to all three employment centers. However, since A is considerably closer to X than Y, and X has almost as many trip attractions as Y, a larger propor— tion of the people living in A will work in X than in Y. The number of work trips from A to Z, which is a much smaller and more remote employment center, will be far smaller. In the same way, the largest number of workers living in B will have jobs in Y. Since this method predicts travel patterns in terms of travel times, it was necessary to estimate the time that will be needed to travel from the center of each district to the center of every other district, and to points on the boundary of the survey area. Analysis of the data from 1948 and 1955 showed that travel patterns are more closely related to travel times during the mid- dle of the day than during the peak hours of the day, and more closely related to travel times by private automobile than by public transit. All travel times were therefore calculated for travel by private automobile during midday periods. The as— sumed speeds were as follows: freeways, 42 mph, except the Inner Loop, 30 mph; divided arterial streets, 36 mph; and other streets, 24 mph, except streets within the Inner Loop, 12 mph. The calculation of travel times required an assumption as to the kind of transportation system that will be available in the future. A single highway system was used for both the 1965 and the 1980 projections. The assumed system included the freeways and parkways now planned for completion by the late 1960’s, plus several hypothetical major arterials of less than freeway capacity that were included in order to fill some of the more obvious gaps in the presently planned system. Figure 28 shows the freeways, parkways, and hypothetical major arterials that were assumed in projecting traffic flow to 1965 and 1980. The vast existing network of local streets and highways was also assumed available in calculating future travel times. ’I ’ — a ,o “an” I ’ 7-----§‘ [Is-c- Sm I: AND EXISTING NEW FREE WAYS 8| PARKWAYS HYPOTHETICAL MAJOR ARTERIALS Figure 28 ASSUMED HIGHWAY SYSTEM FOR TRAFFIC PROJECTION MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION The Potomac River Barrier. The formulas for predicting the interdistrict flow of traffic were modified in the case of trips across the Potomac River, because the strict application of the formulas would have led to a projected increase in trans-Po- tomac traffic far in excess of the amounts indicated by recent trends. While the construction of additional Potomac River bridges can be expected to increase such traflic well above cur- rent levels by making it possible to cross the river more easily, the normal patterns of travel between districts will probably continue to be substantially modified by the presence of the river. The main reason for this is to be found in the fact that the traffic formulas predict the volume of traffic between any two districts in terms of the travel time between their centers. A significant number of trips between the typical pair of adjoining districts are shorter than the distance between the district cen- ters. These short trips are made over an extensive network of local streets crossing the boundary between the districts. There is little opportunity for trips of this kind between the districts lying on opposite sides of the river, since the river adds sub- stantially to the distance between the closest inhabited parts of the two districts, even if their centers are not exceptionally far apart, and the effective distance between any two points lying on opposite banks of the river is further lengthened by an amount equal to twice the distance to the nearest bridge. Furthermore, travel habits have been established over a long period of time, during which the inadequacy of the river crossings has encour- aged people to stay on their own side. It is expected that these habits will persist even when additional bridges have made it easier to cross the river. For these reasons, the volume of trans- Potomac trips is likely to be less than is indicated by the formulas. To allow for the expected effect of the Potomac River barrier, the number of trips from each district to points across the Po- tomac was reduced 30 percent below the figure produced by the formulas, and a corresponding addition was made to the number of trips from each district to other districts on its own side of the river, distributed in proportion to the number of trips already predicted from that district to each other district. The pro- jections of traffic across the Anacostia River appeared to be in line with the historical trend, and the formula was not modified for such trips. Fulure Traffic Volumes This series of calculations produced a comprehensive picture of future travel in the region, showing the new traffic volumes and the changing pattern of traffic movement. The number of person trips on a 1980 weekday in the 1980 survey area is predicted at 6.1 million, in contrast to the 1955 figure of 3.1 million within the smaller area used in that year’s study. These totals include trips by residents and non- residents of the survey areas. Trips by residents themselves are estimated to increase from 1.6 per person in 1955 to 1.9 per person in 1980, primarily because most of the new population will be living in surburban areas. Travel to downtown Wash- ington will increase by 26 percent, from the nearly 1.2 million person trips of 1955 to 1.5 million trips in 1980. Peak-hour travel to the downtown area will increase 19 percent, primarily because of an estimated 12 percent increase in downtown employment. The total miles of travel per day will increase at a much greater rate than the number of trips, and the future demand for transportation will therefore be much greater than the Ioo-per- cent increase in the number of trips might indicate. The daily number of person-miles is expected to have tripled when the region’s population reaches 3 million. This is explained pri- marily by the concentration of the added population in the suburbs where most trips are longer. Another factor that will produce increased travel mileage is the superior highway system which will be in existence within a few years, on which higher travel speeds will permit longer trips to be made in a given amount of time. The median length of trip for all residents of the 1980 survey area is estimated at 4.7 miles in that year. Even for those people who in 1980 continue to live, shop, and work within the 1955 survey area (the present built-up area), the median trip will be 3.9 miles in length in contrast to the 1955 figure of 3.2 miles. Figure 29 shows the principal 1980 traflic movements to the central sector. Work trips will continue to predominate in the daily and rush hour travel as they do today. Work trips also will continue to be longer than trips for other purposes. The median work trip in the 1980 survey area by persons driving automobiles will be 6.7 miles, compared to 5.1 miles for all trips by such persons. HERNDCN VOLUMES LESS THAN I000 NOT SHOVIN so 25 no 5 SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF TRIPS PER DAY QAHHEHSBMRL 9/ B4 ARLWGH 7I0 évkwcrrE L 7" SFFENB «I03 Figure 29 I980 DESIRE LINES FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL Trips to and from Sector Zero MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION “$3?! 3 a. w‘”'¢3“g§ figfmfix ’ j! t\ ~EHVUON VOLUMES LESS THAN IODO NOT SNOW" I00 so 25 no 5 SCALE IN THOUSANDS OF TRIPS PER DAY Figure 30 1980 DESIRE LINES FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL All Trips for Work Purpose MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION For those people driving to work by automobile within the 1955 survey area, the median 1980 trip will be 4.6 miles, compared to 4.0 miles for all trips by automobile drivers within that area in 1955. Persons going to work as automobile passengers or on public transit will likewise travel farther than in 1955, and farther than persons traveling for other purposes in 1980. Figure 30 shows the pattern of work trips within the region in 1980. A large proportion of all trips originating in each suburban area will terminate in other suburbs, and many of these suburb— to-suburb trips will pass through the central part of the region. For example, of all the trips crossing the District Line from one large suburban area (central Montgomery County), only 25 percent will have downtown destinations; 50 percent will be destined for Northeast and Northwest Washington outside down- town; and fully 25 percent will end south or southeast of the downtown area or in Virginia. Other suburban areas will follow the same general pattern. All of these desire lines and mileage figures are predictions of travel that will take place if people can move about the region at the speeds that were assumed. These speeds will be possible on the new and enlarged highway system that was assumed, if the highways are not overcrowded. It could not be known, before future travel was projected, whether all of the projected travel volumes could in fact be accommodated on the assumed transportation system without creating congestion and thereby preventing people from achieving the assumed travel speeds. The next step was to determine how much of the projected traffic could be carried by the assumed transportation system, and at the same time to evaluate the traffic-carrying capacity of two other possible transportation systems, each making use of a distinctive form of improved public transit service. CHAPTER V EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS In devising transportation networks to be tested, it was recog- nized that any significant improvement in the movement of per- sons within the region would require the creation of one or per- haps several kinds of transportation facilities which are now lacking. The first of these, which was regarded as essential in any case, is a regional network of freeways and parkways. These are defined as highways at least four lanes wide, divided in the cen- ter, with no intersections at grade and no access from abutting property. The main distinction between freeways and parkways, for purposes of traffic analysis, lies in the fact that trucks, and most buses, are excluded from parkways. While a number of miles of freeways and parkways have been built in the Washing- ton area, they fall far short of constituting a regional system which would permit convenient automobile access to each part of the region. Second, it was believed that new kinds of express transit facili- ties may prove necessary. Express transit is defined as service by vehicles which travel over the large part of their routes on their own rights-of-way or in a free-flowing stream of automo- tive traffic on a freeway, stopping only at stations at intervals of a mile or more, and offering a high degree of passenger comfort, including the opportunity to take a seat after no more than a brief wait. If service of this caliber is not provided, public transit is destined to play an ever smaller part in the solution of the region’s transportation problems. Three hypothetical transportation systems were evaluated in an attempt to determine the ability of various new facilities to meet the future traffic demands.5 Each hypothetical system consisted of a distinctive form of public transit service plus the highway network needed to carry both the people who would not use transit and the truck traffic. The three systems may be characterized as follows: I. The “auto-dominant” system provided for continued transit service of the present kind, sharing the local streets and highways with other traffic and operating at low average speeds. This system derives its name from the fact that public transit of this kind is destined to carry a steadily decreasing proportion of the total volume of travel, and if no other form of transit service is provided, the private automobile will be the principal means of making almost every kind of trip. It was recognized that this alternative would probably call for an extensive system of freeways, elaborate improvements to the other highways and streets, and large increases in downtown parking space. 2. The “express bus” system provided for transit service by fast-moving express buses on the main radial routes between downtown Washington and the outer suburbs. These buses would travel on freeways, or on their own rights-of-way when this is necessary to maintain fast service. An extensive freeway system would still be necessary, but it was expected that the amount of freeway construction, highway improvements, and downtown parking would be less than under the auto-dominant 5 The three hypothetical transportation systems, and the procedures fol- lowed in evaluating them, are described in detail in the reports of the consultants : Wilbur Smith & Associates, Mass Transportation Survey, National Capi- tal Region, Trafiic Engineering Study, New Haven, 1959. DeLeuw, Cather & Company, Mass Tranrportation Survey, National Capital Region, Civil Engineering Report, Chicago, 1959. system. The present kind of transit service would provide feeder service for the express routes and would operate on other routes where passenger volumes justify it. 3. The “rail transit” system provided for transit service by high-speed trains operating on their own rights-of-way along the radial routes between downtown Washington and the suburbs, and moving belts for the distribution of rail passengers in the downtown area. It was expected that this system, like the second, would require less highway capacity and less down- town parking space than the auto—dominant system. Despite its name, this system was conceived as making use of trains operating either on conventional steel rails, or on some new form of roadway made available by new technology. Its distinguish- ing features include operation of express transit vehicles over an entirely separate roadway on all routes, and use of trains which can carry large numbers of passengers and are capable of a high degree of automation. These would be complemented by the present kind of local transit service. The three hypothetical systems were evaluated by assigning the volumes of traffic projected for 1980 to specific routes and modes of travel in each system in turn, and determining the feasibility, cost, and desirability of the highways and express transit facilities needed to carry the traffic assigned to each route. The evaluation was carried out in three steps: First, a tentative design of each system was prepared, and preliminary traffic assignments were made to each system. The systems were then modified, and highways and transit service were added or subtracted to better meet the demands that the assignments showed would be imposed upon each kind of facility. Second, a new assignment showed how far each of the three alternative systems, as redesigned, could meet the needs, and 39 ASSIGNMENT OF TRAFFIC TO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM HYPOTHETICAL TRANSPORTATIO SYSTEMS DEMAND ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM revealed the unavoidable limitations of each. With these find- ings providing guidance, each system was further revised and a new, fourth, system was designed, incorporating the features of each of the the hypothetical systems that the assignments had shown to be necessary. A third and final assignment was then made to each hypo— thetical system and to the new composite system, to permit further evaluation of all systems and to provide the basis for revisions in the new system. After these revisions had been made the newly designed transportation system, consisting of express bus and rail facilities as well as an expanded freeway network, was submitted by the civil engineering consultant to the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capi- tal Regional Planning Council. After making several altera- tions in the highway portions of the system, the Commission and Council adopted the revised plan. It is hereafter referred to as the recommended transportation system. Design of the Three Hypothetical Systems For the preliminary assignment, all three of the systems in- cluded the highway network that had been assumed in making the traffic projections, as well as local transit service. The auto- dominant system contained nothing else, while the express bus system added 13 express bus routes radiating from downtown 40 Washington. Three variants of the rail transit system were tested. One contained eight rail routes radiating from the downtown area, while a second contained a quite different pattern of routes, seven in number. Each of these also provided for distribution of passengers in the downtown area by means of small cars on moving belts in subways. The third variant was like the second, except that the special device for down- town distribution was omitted. Traftic Assignment Procedure The assignment of trafiic to each system began with a com- putation of the number of trips between each two districts that will be made by each mode of travel. The amount of the total traffic that is sure to move by public transit, if no major im— provements are made in the character of transit service, had already been calculated in projecting total travel volumes for 1965 and 1980. In the survey area as a whole, the “transit oriented” travelers will account for I 4 percent of all trips in 1900. Another group of persons are sure to travel by private auto- mobile. These include, for instance, salesmen and repairmen who need their automobiles in their work. This group will account for 19 percent of all trips. The remaining trips will be made by either private automobile or an improved form of public transit, depending upon the relative attractiveness of these two modes of travel. It has been found that out-of—pocket costs (rather than total costs), comfort and travel time are the important factors in the average person’s choice of a means of travel. It was assumed that the out—of-pocket cost and comfort of travel by the new ex- press transit service will be substantially the same as by private automobile, and that persons having a choice between modes will therefore base their decision primarily on the time required to make the trip. Few, of course, will use the new transit service if it is much slower than travel by private automobile, while most or all will shift to transit if it saves them a substantial amount of time. When travel time is about equal, some people will use the new transit and others will use automobiles. The relation between the proportion of travelers using each mode and the ratio of travel times by the two modes was expressed by a traffic diversion curve, shown in figure 31, which was developed Figure 31 TRAFFIC DIVERSION CURVE Transit vs. Freeways and Local Streets pereent transit trips 100 90 .0 \ . \ \ l 1 \ gFREEWAYS VS. LOCAL STREETS \'\' 60 \ 5o \ . \ TRANSIT VS. FREEWAYS #3 AND STREETS /— DIVERSION TO TRANSIT~1 / 40 30 \ \ \ \_ .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 EQUAL TIME 1 \ \ TRAVEL TIM E RATIO Time via Transit/Time via Auto especially for this survey. Studies of travel in the Chicago area appear to confirm this curve as a reasonable one. The new express transit service will attract riders not only from private automobiles, but from the local buses and from taxis. The same trafiic diversion curve was used to estimate the number of trips, otherwise to be made by taxi or local transit, that would be diverted to express transit. It was likewise necessary to determine how many automobile drivers will use freeways and how many will use other streets and highways. These decisions, too, are made principally on the basis of relative travel times. Another traffic diversion curve prepared by the Bureau of Public Roads was used to predict this kind of choice. (See fig. 32.) The time that will be required to travel between each pair of districts was calculated for each mode and each route, and the traffic diversion curves were applied to the total volume of traffic between the districts to determine the proportion of the total that would use each mode of travel and each route. All calculations of travel time were on a “portal-to-portal” basis, TRAFFIC DIVERSION CURVE Freeways and Parkways vs. Local Streets perren! freeze/1y trips 100 90 an \ EQUAI Tl ME\ ENGER SOURCE: Bureau of Public Roads Cirrtllar Memo to Division Engineers \ ‘ PM “Guide for Forecasting Traffic on Interstate System"70ct. 15, 1956 \ \‘\ .50 _60 .70 .80 .90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 TRAVEL TIME RATIO Time :‘ia Freeway/Time z'ia Quifkest Alternate Route Figure 32 since it is the total time from origin to destination that is of concern to the person who is deciding how to make a trip. Travel times by transit include estimates of the average time required to travel between each terminus of a trip (for instance, home or office) and a transit stop or station, and the time spent in waiting for transit vehicles and transferring between them, as well as the time spent in the transit vehicle. Automobile time includes the estimated average time spent in parking the automobile and in walking between the parked automobile and the trip terminus, in addition to driving time. The travel times by automobile used in the first assignment were based on the same average speeds of movement over each kind of highway that had been assumed in projecting future traffic volumes. A revised set of highway travel speeds was used in the later assignments. Travel times by transit were based on the schedule speeds that would be possible with the assumed facilities and on the average waiting and walking time indicated by the layout of the transit routes and the assumed frequency of service. 454635 0 - 59 - 4 Determination of Design Volumes In this way, the total volume of travel between each pair of districts was calculated for each mode of transportation and each route. The total traffic on each segment of each facility was determined by adding all the trips assigned to that facility which would pass over the segment in question. Except for the first assignment, these calculations were made separately for the volumes moving during two distinctly different parts of the day—the 4 peak hours and the other 20 hours of the day. By analyzing the projected travel data separately by purpose, by mode and by time of clay, and by using information on peak- ing characteristics of the region’s traffic obtained in the 1955 study, it was possible to better understand the characteristics of the peak period travel and to arrive at a more satisfactory estimate of the critical peak-hour loads to be accommodated by the transportation system than is possible by the conventional method of estimating peak loads by applying fixed factors to the 24-hour totals on all segments of the system. Table 12 shows the 1955 peak travel by purpose and mode. Each of the hypothetical transportation systems was designed to accommodate the traffic that would move during the single hour of heaviest flow. The traffic during the “design hour” was calculated by multiplying the traffic volume predicted for the 4 peak hours on each segment by 30 percent, a factor de- rived from the 1955 traffic data. Table l2.—Percentage of 24-Hour Travel Taking Place During 4 Peak Hours, 1955 Trip Auto Auto Transit purpose drivers passengers riders Work 62 78 67 Commercial 23 I 8 20 Social I 3 25 3 7 Other 3 3 I 6 Nora—The figures in this table should be read as follows: 62 percent of all trips by automobile drivers to and from work were made in the hours from 7 to 9 am. and 4 to 6 pm. Because the flow of traffic along most routes tends to be heav- ier in one direction than in the other during the single busiest hour, it was necessary to compute the proportion of the design hour traffic that will move in the direction of heavier flow, in order to determine the “design volume”—the capacity that will be required. The following percentages were assumed to rep- resent the proportion of the two—way design-hour highway traffic that will move in the direction of heavier flow: Percent Radials outside Intermediate Loop _____________________ 65 Radials inside Intermediate Loop ______________________ 60 Loops (or circumferentials) ___________________________ 55 Since the region has no experience with an express transit system, there were no adequate local data for determining the design volumes of travel by this mode. On the basis of ex- perience in other cities it was assumed that the design-hour vol- ume on express transit routes, in the direction of heavier flow, would constitute 15 percent of the total daily two-way volume. The volumes of truck and taxi traffic that are expected to move along each highway during the peak hours were added to the peak volumes of travel by private automobile and express bus. Since many trucks occupy more space and maneuver less freely than a private automobile, the average truck is estimated to take up as much highway capacity as two cars. The volumes of truck traffic were therefore multiplied by two to express their demand for highway capacity in terms of an equivalent number of cars. In determining the number of freeway lanes needed on each route, it was assumed that the freeways would carry 1,500 vehicles per lane per hour. This figure is generally regarded as the volume of traffic that can be safely carried on a modern freeway in a large urban area with little chance of congestion. While volumes of 1,800 vehicles per lane per hour, or even more, are often carried, these exhaust the freeway’s reserve capacity. Any momentary interruption of the traffic flow on so heavily loaded a freeway is likely to result in serious congestion and a great reduction in travel speed or even a temporary ces- sation of traffic flow, with a very slow return to normal operating speeds. Testing the Three Hypothetical Systems In the first assignment, 24-hour traffic volumes were assigned to the highways and transit facilities, and the highway speeds were the same as were used in computing travel times in chapter IV. The first assignment showed which parts of the highway system that had been assumed earlier in the projection of traffic volumes (fig. 28) would be able to handle all of the automotive traffic predicted for the time when the region has a population of three million, and which parts would require relief, in the form of either additional highways or improved public transit service. The most serious congestion was found on the proposed Inner Loop Freeway around the central part of the District of Columbia, and on some of the radial routes leading from the Inner Loop to the boundary of the Io-mile square. A large part of the excess traffic on these routes was found to consist of trips not destined for downtown Washington. Nearly 70 per- cent of the freeway trips approaching the Inner Loop would terminate outside of it. Figure 33 shows the amounts of traffic approaching the Loop on the main routes. Much of this traffic would not need to use the Inner Loop and the inner radials if another circumferential route were available somewhat farther from the center. A new circumferential route was therefore added to the freeway system, far enough from the center to serve many trips that would otherwise overload the Inner Loop and Preliminary Analysis TRIPS APPROACHING INNER LOOP, l980 Downtown vs. Nondowntown Destinations trips in 24 hourx Downtown Destinations Nondowntown Destinations t—t—‘l 0 100 200 thousand; NOTE: Local strect traffic excluded Figure 33 inner radials. This freeway, on the approximate alinement of the long-planned Fort Drive, was designated the “Intermediate Loop.” The initial traffic assignment showed very heavy traffic vol- umes along three corridors radiating from the center toward the northwest, north, and east, where freeways are not now planned. In the projection of traffic volumes, express arteries of less than freeway capacity had been assumed to exist in these corridors, in order to fill obvious gaps in current planning. Since the assigned volumes were far greater than such arteries could carry, a free- way was added to the assumed system in each corridor. Nu- merous other additions were made to the highway system in order to accommodate other critical traffic volumes that had been revealed by the first assignment. The revised highway plan consisted of about 520 miles of freeways and parkways. The first traffic assignment showed that the introduction of express bus and rail transit service would reduce the highway and freeway traffic by a significant amount. The express buses diverted more persons from private automobiles to transit than the trains did, because the network of proposed bus routes was more extensive than the rail lines. The express transit service—— rail or bus—provided the greatest relief to the highway system in the areas nearest the center. A number of changes were made in the express bus and rail systems on the basis of the first traffic assignment. These con- sisted mainly of revisions in the location of routes, and in the assumed speed and frequency of service over each route, as called for by the indicated volumes of traffic. A single set of nine rail routes was adopted for further testing, and the proposal for underground distribution of transit passengers in the downtown area by means of cars on moving belts was eliminated. The projected traffic volumes were then assigned a second time to the three hypothetical transportation systems, now con- siderably revised in details and in routes. This time, peak-hour traffic volumes were assigned and revised highway speeds and travel delay times, shown in table 13, were adopted. This sec- ond set of traffic assignments provided sufficient information on the ability of each system to carry the future traflfic, and on the inadequacies of each system, to permit an evaluation of each in terms of cost and physical feasibility. On the basis of this evalu- ation, further refinements were made in the three systems (for example, the size of the freeway system under the auto-dominant plan was cut back to 344 miles), and a fourth system was de- signed, embodying some of the features of each of the three hypothetical plans. A final set of traffic assignments was then made to provide definitive information on each system tested. Table 'l3.—Revised Travel Speeds and Travel Delay Times Highway type Peak-hour speeds Ofl-peak speeds Local streets : Inside Inner Loop 10 mph 12 mph Outside Inner Loop actual actual 1955 speeds 1955 speeds Divided at-grade arterials: Inside Intermediate Loop 24 mph mph Outside Intermediate Loop 30 mph ‘ mph Freeways and Parkways: Inner Loop and within Loop 30 mph mph Outside Inner Loop to Wash- ing Circumferential 36 mph Washington Circumferential and beyond 42 mph Type of delay Average time Automobile All the Way: Parking and walking, one trip end in Central Sector 7 minutes Parking and walking, no trip end in Central Sector 3 minutes Freeway access I minute Transit All the Way: Walking to and from transit (includes both ends 5 minutes of trip) Waiting for each transit vehicle Part auto, remainder express transit: 1 Walking from parking lot to station platform and from transit to destination 6 minutes Waiting for each transit vehicle 1/2 headway 1 Applies to trips with one end outside the District of Columbia; trips en- tirely within D.C. analyzed as Transit All the Way. I/2 headway Evaluation of the Three Hypothetical Systems The following pages present the evaluation of each of the three hypothetical transportation systems, on the basis of which the. final and recommended system was designed. Table 18 shows the numbers of trips that would be made by automobile and transit under each of the hypothetical systems. Auto—Dominant System The auto-dominant system would rely upon the present form of local transit service to carry all “transit oriented” travelers, while all others would travel by automobile. This would require the addition to the region’s existing transportation system, over the next 20 years, of 263 route miles, or about 1,700 lane miles, of freeways and parkways, in addition to improvements to many major streets and highways. Figure 34 shows the freeways and parkways required, and the number of lanes needed on each of them. The number of vehicles with a downtown destination in the morning peak hours would increase by one—third, and a total of I 52,000 downtown parking spaces would be required, an increase of 56,000 over today’s figure. The estimated cost of the necessary highway construction is nearly $2.2 billion for freeways and parkways, and $200 million for improvements in major streets and highways. The down- town parking facilities would cost an estimated $236 million, bringing the total cost of the auto-dominant plan to $2.6 billion. These costs are compared with those of the other two hypo- thetical systems in table I 5. Evaluation. A large number of the new highways included in the auto-dominant design are sure to be needed in the near future, but the complete auto-dominant highway network is not considered feasible for two main reasons. First is the large number of lanes which would be required in certain corridors. Eight lanes is normally considered the max- imum width for practicable operation of a freeway. Twelve to eighteen lanes would be required to carry the traffic on various sections of the North Central corridor, the route from the Capi- — FREEWAY OR PARKWAY O //”\\ VJNSH? \ ,‘Vk w \ / \ . I g / l 1980 Survey Area Boundary \/ J ) L I! BROOKMLLE l ‘K [i / / ~/\\ // \fstmt N- J v (,AITNERYBUQC waswmortm GROVE S A NOV SVWING DARNESYOWN (gOCKwLLE VIENNA fan 9 Humor “ ‘AIRFAX q / ‘ ANNANUALF SWJVNG‘ If, D POTOHAC J , I mm / HQNY ’ ”l\ 1980 Survey Area Boundary row? MOUNT“ —’ m wAswwmoV / roar mwom 9 \ f”/ I / / / / LEGEND Figure 34 HYPOTHETICAL AUTO-DOMINANT HIGHWAY SYSTEM NUMBER OF LANES REQUIRED MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Results of an auto-dominant system, San Francisco, Calif. tol to Wheaton. The Inner Loop between the Highway (14th Street) Bridge and South Capitol Street would require 14 lanes. Several other corridors would require more than eight lanes. An alternative to the construction of excessively wide freeways in these corridors would be to build two or more parallel free- ways. This would not be feasible along some relatively narrow corridors where acquisition of right-of—way for even a single freeway will be difficult. Not only would the cost be great but excessive damage would be done to residential communities and to the character of the central area of the Nation’s Capital, and large quantities of real estate would be removed from the tax rolls. The auto-dominant system would also require highway facilities in several locations where any construction at all would be extremely expensive and difficult. These would include a Potomac River crossing at the south edge of the Washington National Airport, and an extension of the New York Avenue Freeway from the Inner Loop into the central business district. Second is the difficulty of accommodating all of the auto- mobiles that would pour into the downtown area. Traffic con- gestion would be especially serious in the vicinity of the ramps leading from the freeways to the local streets. These findings led to the conclusion that, in the absence of substantially improved public transit, the highway system 44 needed to serve the projected traffic volumes is hardly feasible from the engineering standpoint, and is certainly out of the « question from the viewpoint of desirable regional development. Unless an improved form of public transit is created that can relieve the highway system of substantially more traffic than will be attracted to the existing form of transit, the pattern of regional development, trip linkages and travel behavior will take a form that is substantially different from that described in the pre- ceding chapters. In the short run, many people may change their places of residence, or their jobs, so as to reduce the lengths of their trips. But this will be a short-run response to the nar- rowed range of choices of dwelling places and jobs open to each person, resulting from growing congestion. In the longer run there will be a tendency for the pattern of land use to take a different form from that envisaged in the general development plan described in chapter II. Two kinds of difference are likely to be observed. First, some areas soon to be provided with new freeway connections will grow much faster than has been assumed, as congestion continues to worsen in the areas not served by new transportation facilities and development in those areas is hindered. Second, the region will become even more decentralized than has been assumed, because of the inevitable congestion within the Io-mile square. Neither of these tendencies is desirable, but each will gain in strength as the region grows beyond the population of three million predicted for 1980. The auto-dominant plan therefore does not offer an adequate solution to the region’s transportation problem. Express Bus System Another of the hypothetical transportation systems was de- signed to reduce the need for highways by providing high-speed express bus service along the main routes between downtown and the suburbs. The service contemplated for these routes, it should be emphasized, would represent a substantial improve- ment over any now offered in the region. Almost all of the passengers would have seats—standees would not exceed 20 percent of the seating capacity of the buses at the heaviest load points. The local transit firms have made commendable efforts to modernize their equipment and improve service, but they have been handicapped by jurisdictional boundary lines and by the limitations imposed on good transit service by congestion along their routes. The express bus system would furnish high-speed service with only infrequent station stops, on freeways or other roadways not impeded by congestion or traffic lights. This kind of service will only be possible when radial freeways and parkways have been built to accommodate it. In the design of this system it was assumed that grade-separated roadways, ex— clusively for buses, and special control devices to give buses priority on freeway lanes might also be found necessary. The express bus system was found to reduce the need for highways and downtown parking space by carrying many per- sons who would travel by private automobile if improved transit service were not available. Most of the reduction in highway requirements takes the form of decreases in the number of lanes needed on various routes, but several difficult and costly stretches of freeway could be eliminated altogether. The express bus plan would require approximately 2,500 trips by local and ex— press buses into the central sector during the morning peak hours, a substantial increase over the 1,000 buses and streetcars entering today. They would carry some 145,000 passengers, about two—thirds of whom would have a destination within the central area. Figure 35 shows the express bus routes and the number of persons using each route. Downtown parking fa— cilities would have to be increased by only 20,000 spaces over the number available in 1956—a much smaller increase than in the case of the auto-dominant system. An additional 32,000 spaces would be required at express bus stations. The cost of the express bus system and the associated highway network is lower than that of any other system tested. The bus facilities would cost $184 million, of which $88 million would be for special bus lanes and bus stations, $45 million for buses, $14 million for yards and shops, and $38 million for parking at bus stations. The freeways, parkways, improvements to other highways, and downtown parking facilities would cost $1.9 bil- lion, bringing the total cost of this transportation system to $2.1 billion. Evaluation. Express bus service is a satisfactory means of carrying some of the traffic moving along several of the heavily traveled radial corridors, and thereby reducing the volumes of vehicular traffic to the level that can be accommodated by a feasible highway system. However, like the auto-dominant sys- tem, the express bus system would not be able to accommodate (/f all of the traffic expected in 1980 and thereafter. This system ,, * " M A R Y L A N o J has two main deficiencies. The first is congestion on the down- mm ,, ‘ cmuwmmm WWW“ \ town streets. It is believed that the large number of buses enter- 4 fT Nonmm ing the downtown area, two and one-half times as great as in E\ 1955, would be unable to operate satisfactorily on the ever- complicated local street system, even though the number of private automobiles entering downtown will probably be no greater than today. The downtown area’s ability to accommo- date additional buses would be limited by the number which could be moved through on-street bus stops and loading zones. On-street facilities would probably be unable to handle the pre- dicted number of buses. Reliance on a few large off-street bus LLNGLEV PARK RIIERDA‘BE HVATTSVILLE . MOUNT terminals, bus subways, or other passenger distribution devices , ‘ y W” \ “L‘D‘NSW was found to be impractical because of the large area of the _ central sector. \ . 259g; 3 A second and more serious deficiency of the express bus system . ‘ (E ‘ \ enevERLi I would be the difficulty of providing adequate capacity on several “.1 0f the freeway routes to accommodate all of the buses that would ‘ I be needed to carry the people attracted from automobiles to ' ‘ /. EEAAAAvi the express transit system. . MSW“ ’ mm 5 From 375 to 450 buses would be required in the direction of I \ ‘ ' J "W's heavier flow during the peak hour along each of the freeways “'F'Ew leading from downtown Washington to the northwest, north, and. ‘ southeast. The number of buses would be so great that it would / “ “3233?; be unreasonable to expect them to be able to maintain high- \ ' SM. // speed service, even with special controls over other freeway traffic to give buses priority. Several methods of moving these large numbers of buses “mm" along a corridor were considered. Special bus lanes might be built in the center malls of the freeways, but several lanes and cow loading platforms would be needed at the stations in order to accommodate the large number of buses moving in the direction of the heavier flow. Stations of the necessary width could not very well be added, along these critical rights-of—way, to a center mall that would have to be 64 feet wide to accommodate just wow. one lane and one platform in each direction. Another method of moving large numbers of buses would be the construction of bus roadways on entirely separate rights-of- way. This would be difficult on any of these critical routes, which run through land that is already intensively developed, LEGEND where right—of—way for even a minimum number of freeway =8< a ARKIN C Q \ ' .PEDESTRIAN if CONTROL GATE > STALLS TRANSFER / TERMINAL / AUTO PICK-UP BUS ACCELERATION LANE 3-:2' FREEWAY LANES SCALE E O 20 40 60 80 FEET Figure 44 PLAN OF FREEWAY BUS STATION MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 454635 0 - 59 - 5 BUS LANE BUS PLATFORM :eELow O 4 0 II (D (I) O a: U TYPICA L BUS 3—l2' FREEWAY LANES ACCE LERATION LANE *eIImd‘Ion :i . :- Ham hf ~LLLEML%;&E**EI I —E “yTII W‘ :yufl/fif"MmeEfi%§¥w 5 ,u A " 2 ‘ ‘ ~. 1‘ W" 1 J M” , 771 ._- ~JJ/QJJ - : W" -E3§%g9zfifi Thy v1 ’4 ' r V —J ——l h A L] “—1 1 2: I ‘ I L. "if?" __l [:1 I \ O W uzu X L,, ' .’ ,. : 0 I E; V _ ..... m 4 I J ‘ x x . , u _,L,, ‘5 z! ' I N" E \J :5‘ . ‘ , r ~ E T - I x r , T .. , I I L] A -: I" i ....... ’ ‘ " ' I ' ' 1 - I . "..;. E’ " “ ‘ l T r ’ ll ' ' .1- n ‘ g VILIIK)VN\ swim: uawaaaé [—‘WLL‘F—Lfl—T Lf/éL—j " L_ LLL' ‘71'; I I .- h ,‘ i T . . a / A,“ : f A n x r' ‘ rm, . ,/:/._..:_..‘..-_\\ , V <" ‘ w 1 ~ I,‘ . , ‘Vl ‘ V l :- 0 'ul‘ n RLLEEQECJD E9: UJUJQEEEfEEEEELE‘ L932 ‘ L_‘ Lw— L3: L’LL‘ULUCJ 1 ....... T u... 1 “no" I ,Vuuuyi, 1 31—; L; L' VEL LEV z r /c’ "I .. #0.”, I4 '45 . .u ‘ E . “EELEE ::k [_LI_L'w EzEELis .__EsLL L E E ~ O Err :‘LLEEELEEL ~5EIT:>LEELL . v o , A! LI—r', m . /\,\,4 ‘EW L an n " \I: I“ ’ ’ __].\_J=_t_]_]_]_ LEGEND " ‘ : fl .‘ SUBWAY ROUTES . ‘ 3 SUBWAY STATIONS INNER LOOP FREEWAY AREA AND MAGNITUDE OF EMPLOYMENT LIMITS OF SECTOR ZERO (DOWNTOWN) LE ,¢A--—~E4-Eéa 4 Figure 45 RECOMMENDED SUBWAY ROUTES AND ESTIMATED T980 EMPLOYMENT DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES '980 :1; f g ‘ . ~ . ‘ , MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION BASE MAP COURTESY (I: THE' ENGINEER COMMISSIONER D C Bus to rail transfer station, Cleveland, Ohio. of the freeways on parallel service roads at intervals of from I to 2 miles, depending in part on the availability of space for parking and on the location of major cross streets which will bring passengers to the stations. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be needed at the stations. Two or more types of service will be operated between the outer terminals and the points where the buses leave the free- ways near the downtown area. During peak periods on all routes, and even during midday on the more heavily traveled lines, some buses will run nonstop from the suburban terminals to downtown. Other buses will stop at every station or every second station. At appropriate points in the vicinity of the Inner Loop F ree- 'way, the express buses will leave the radial freeway and con- tinue their trips on the surface streets within the central area, where they will be given preferential treatment by new traffic regulations when required. The buses'on most lines will fan out into three or four distributor routes when they reach down- town. This will broaden the distribution within the downtown area, although some patrons will find it necessary to transfer to other bus lines or even to the proposed subways to reach their ultimate destinations. It will probably be found desirable to route some express buses into and through the central area to points on the other side. Most lines, however, will terminate within the downtown area and the buses will return to the same freeway for additional express trips or go into storage at a con- venient point. Most passengers crossing the central business district will transfer between vehicles. Rail Transit Routes Four rail lines will radiate from downtown Washington under the proposed plan. There will be two transit routes, each con- sisting of a pair of rail lines extending in opposite directions from a station in the heart of the downtown area. One route will extend in a north-south direction between Wheaton and a point just south of Alexandria, while the other will begin in the area north of Bethseda, crossing the first route in the central area, and continuing to a point just beyond the Anacostia River, southeast of the central business district. The rail transit lines and the predicted passenger traffic on each are shown in figure 42. Appendix G shows the number of persons who will travel between each pair of express transit stations. The location of each rail route has been defined in this survey with enough precision to provide a sound basis for estimating construction and operating costs. Further study will be needed at the time construction design is undertaken, in order to deter- mine the location of each route more precisely. One rail line will start at a point just beyond the Washington Circumferential Highway in Wheaton, where a feeder bus trans- fer station and ample parking facilities will be provided. A double-track rail line (one set of rails in each direction) will be built in the center mall of the Northern Parkway and of its newly proposed southward extension, past Silver Spring to a point within the District of Columbia, probably between Ta- koma Park and the Soldiers’ Home in the vicinity of New Hamp- shire Avenue. Here, at a point to be determined by the aline- ment of the proposed freeway, the rail line will enter a subway in the roadbed of one of the streets and continue south toward the intersection of all four rail lines at I 2th and E Streets NW. The trains operating on this line will continue through the downtown area, passing beneath the Federal Triangle and the Mall, and proceed along the second of the four proposed rail lines. This will cross the Washington Channel in a tunnel. The alinement and design will require close coordination with the proposed 12th Street Expressway and the proposed Washington Channel Bridge. The most economical way to cross the Po- tomac River would be to bring the rails to the surface in East Potomac Park and cross the river on a new bridge parallel to and just south of the railroad bridge. A more costly alternative would be to continue the tunnel under the Potomac. v The line will swing westerly at ground level to the Pentagon after crossing the river and will then continue in a southerly direction to a station opposite the Washington National Air- port. Shops and storage yards will be provided in the area between the tracks of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad and the Jefferson Davis Highway (US. 1) near the airport. The first stage of construction could be stopped at this point and service could at first be provided over only this much of the route. The rail line would eventually be extended, by building at grade, on fill and on elevated structure along the railroad tracks through Alexandria, to a terminal south of Hunt- ing Creek near Jefferson Manor. At this point there will be a bus-to—rail transfer station and a parking lot. The total length of this rail route will be approximately 19 miles. A third rail line will begin at a terminal north of Bethesda in the general vicinity of Pooks Hill. A double—track line will proceed along the center mall of the proposed Northwest Free- way past the Bethesda business district to a point between the District Line and Tenley Circle, near the Intermediate Loop. Here it will enter a subway in the bed of existing public streets. The subway will begin in Wisconsin Avenue, turn southeasterly in the bed of Massachusetts Avenue, cross Rock Creek Park on a new bridge, and proceed past Dupont Circle into the central area, passing below the north-south rail route near 12th and E Streets. Trains operating on the line will leave the downtown area on the fourth line, which will continue in subway to Union Station and past the Capitol. The subway will then turn south, passing under the Naval Weapons Plant (Naval Gun Factory) and the Anacostia River to a terminal just south of the river where there will be a bus transfer station and a parking lot. Yards and shops will also be located in this vicinity. The total length of this rail route will be approximately 14. miles. The route from Wheaton to Alexandria will have approxi- mately 20 stations at an average spacing of about I mile. The route running from Bethesda to Anacostia will have 16 stations at an average interval of 0.9 miles. Downtown stations, how- ever, will generally be only about a half-mile apart, while the suburban stations will be nearer 1%) miles apart in order to permit the trains to operate at high speeds. Plates I through 8 show the location of the rail transit lines, except for the portion of the lines which will be in the median strip of the freeways to Bethesda and Wheaton. .‘ ‘5‘ . fl 1 a ' 3x1; f z! w ‘i’x s \‘H ”X K . a ‘ ‘ )- 4 at“ V ‘ c. z ‘. SEE PLATE 2 2 .t:2 ~2 . - ~ *‘c.’ Q . f“. 2. . i ‘L. . d. f 1gQI ’ . .4 ; . , ' ' ’IVKW‘.‘ , ,, .3" ,. " j , w I. 3%? 5‘“ .w a mum" aw" ‘4 ~49: LQ‘K‘: .: ..r ,. , -— , ., ‘r" . u.’ ‘4;wa F1. A.,¢§x“v’h§~.h: . 7'31? um; 11".1.13)E2*fi*”~.*a"tm.l- P‘s #1; 4» - AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY U.S.A.F.. AIR FORCE PHOTO, AIR PNOTOGRAFHIC AND CHARTING SERVICE (M.A.T.S.) F’ U) l \ BEM lRLE PROPOSED INTERMEDIATE LOOP & W 400‘ v c 0 5 7' IOOO’ T0 MEDIAN STRIP OF PROPOSED FREEWAY-VIA SUBWAY \ ‘ 300+OO 275+00 250+00 225+ 00 . 200+00 |75+00 I50+00 SCALE HORIZONTALEOO FEET PROPOSED RAIL LINE 0 500 I000 PLAN AND PROFILE mm“ 0 so :00 zoo FEET . ROUTE J—STA. 291+5o TO STA. 150+oo MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION SEE PLATE 3 RD. eELMONT U.S. NAVAL OBSE RVATO RY SEE PLATE | AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY USAF, AIR FORCE PHOTO AIR PNOTOGRAPHIC AND CHARTING SERVICE (MATS) ENUE'= BR [295 \ STREET CIRCLE CIRCLE AVENUE INNER LOOP STREET MASSAPHUSEITS AV STREET JELMQNIM TUNNEL STREET DUPONT DUPONT STREET I CALWORNM ‘_____ ‘ ' JEFFERSON MANOR TERMINAL TO “ WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT STATION MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 0 NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PLATE 6 SEE PLATE 5 ‘59; sw’lflgfll ' .. .Y r5 a V, 1 N, S ' ’, . .y! f, . . ‘~v r ' «0:09- 3:93; m ”6.x”: ”12",‘ r ’04: :4 5m SEE PLATE 7 PROPOSED RAIL LINE m PLAN—ROUTE F :13. WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT STATION BUREAU OF ENGRAVING STATION MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAI. REGION HG? IZONTAL PLATE 7 30.. . mwzz. ammoaoxa O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PROPOSED RAIL LINE PLAN AND PROFILE ROUTE F—EAST POTOMAC PARK TO STA. O+OO ROUTE K—STA. 0+00 TO STA. 75+00 MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY “523m 3535332 SEE PLATE SEE PLATE 3 ROUT E K——-- PLATE m-mue Humzkm . g m ‘<>._>m22mn. 2 . w, um: .: yvtnwflfiiu “HRH; a a Lymaiafi v . _ . 2 a. gym ASHI NGT ON MONUMENT W zo_._.3._._._.mzo I TURN AROUND ' EX?S"I'7NG BUS 52 FEET IOOO 'V.C, WASHINGTON CHANNEL SEE PLATE 6 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY U,$.A‘F.,A|R FORCE PHOTO, AIR PHOTOGRAPNIC AND CHARTING SERVICE (M ATS) HORIZONTAL VERTICAL |50 PLATE 8 WM NORTH CENTRAL FREE TO MEDIAN STRIP IN VIA SUBWAY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE O NATLONAL CAPITAL REGION PLAN AND PROFILE ROUTE K—STA. 0+00 TO STA. I36+75 PROPOSED RAIL LINE |25+00 {V I 3 .m, I: , 1, m 0401 MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY kmmmkm. om<> -fl.‘ .. ah £21» 3 Jig _. 3%,? fl IOO + 00 _@4Vf@g>w, w :, mazu>< «9203 (W ~ ,- SM ‘rfi' I; g? .3, _ w 3:, gag/m.- ,3 K‘fi KEY PLAN PLATE ITHRUB mu: '1‘ 3.; Kw O<. onszu> a ”f I, W ”J M’alg ii a; a: mazu>‘ mphmw::om xio» .5“me ¢ A _: , LE: ; a: Ebb k 'l nl. .5435... .If... .. umoo 4 I: mafia. , m ROUTES DE 8 J ._ a. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH COURTESYUSAAE. AIR FORCE PHOTO, AIR PHOTOGRAPHIC AND CHARTING SERVICE (MATS) 5. Ti 3 N. FEW—a mum VERTICAL E HORIZONTAL The stations will be made attractive to the patrons by in- corporating architectural features of the most advanced design. They will be similar, for example, to the facilities recently built in Toronto, shown in figure 46. Walls and other surfaces will be faced with structural glass, tile, stainless steel or other mar- proof and easily cleaned materials. Full use will be made of acoustical materials to keep the noise level at a minimum. Fluo- rescent lighting will be applied generously in all parts of the stations and in their vicinity. Escalators will be provided at many places, their use now being practical even where the device is partially exposed to the elements. It is expected that pedestrian tunnels would be built between the subway stations and the basement levels of stores and office buildings in the downtown area. Most of the subway will be built by cut-and-cover methods, as shown in figure 47. This will minimize the distance between the subway station platform and the street, and will be the most practical construction for conditions in Washington. Street traflic need be interrupted only temporarily, since the street can be restored for use by decking over the construction after the initial excavation has been completed. Modern subway station, Toronto, Canada. 68 \V \V \\v \V ‘V \' \' \'\\'\\' \' w/l/ 0’ Subway construction proceeding under temporary decking of street, Toronto, Canada. of 0/ // _/_‘//Xfl .. . Figure 47 SUBWAY SECTION BETWEEN STATIONS Cut-and-Cover MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Transit Equipment It is recommended that Washington’s express transit system be equipped with the most modern express buses and electric trains available. The equipment proposed, both the buses and the trains, will be comfortable, quiet, air conditioned, well lighted, and attractively appointed. Passengers will have an opportunity to take a seat after only a brief wait. Standees at the peak load points of the express transit routes will not exceed 20 percent of the total number of passengers on bus routes, and 30 percent on rail transit. The equipment will be capable of high rates of acceleration and deceleration, while maintaining the highest standards of safety. The equipment proposed for Washington will be far superior to that now used in most Ameri- can cities; for example, it will bear little resemblance to the older equipment in use in New York City. The buses will be the largest that can be operated satisfactorily on downtown streets, and will be superior to the newest of the buses now in use in the region. Experimental subway car, rubber-tired wheels, Paris, France. Central subway station, Stockholm, Sweden. Several new types of rapid transit cars have been developed in recent years, from among which the operating agency can make a selection. All rank high in comfort, appearance, and ease of maintenance. It is likely that an articulated car consist— ing of three permanently coupled units on four sets of wheels would prove to be the most appropriate for the Washington operation. This design permits lightweight construction with economy in use of materials and provides sufficient flexibility to permit trains to operate efficiently in lengths from I 50 to 450 feet. Station platforms would then be 500 feet long. Average schedule speeds between 3 5 and 40 miles per hour, with stations between I and 2 miles apart, would be practicable. Noise can be virtually eliminated, either by use of rubber-tired wheels, now successfully operating on some branches of the Paris subway, or by design techniques now in use in Swedish equip- ment, which employs steel wheels on steel rails with rubber cush- ions between rails and ties and between the cars and the trucks on which the wheels are mounted. Technological progress may even permit the operation of trains on a flat roadbed instead of conventional rails, offering advantages in flexibility of routing and perhaps economy. The cars purchased for the Washington system should be readily convertible to fully automatic operation, though the estimates of operating costs are conservatively based on manned trains. Evaluation of Other Transit Equipment and Facilities The recommended transit facilities and equipment were only decided upon after careful consideration of several new devices, including monorail, moving belts, automated buses, and heli- copters. None of these was found to be as satisfactory as the corresponding components of the recommended system, although some may prove useful at a later stage in the development of the region’s transportation system. A monorail system, for instance, requires substantial structures which would not be acceptable in the public streets of most parts of the metropolitan area, whether built along the curb line or in the center of the street. All portions of a monorail system, either supported or suspended, would have to be composed of expensive structures, including the yards and shops. It does not appear to be desirable to employ any of the various types of monorail in the public transit system of the National Capital Region. Another new device that was considered is a system of con- veyor belts and rollers carrying small passenger cars. Such a device would be impractical on long routes because of its limited speed. Preliminary plans and cost estimates were prepared for short routes in the downtown area. These showed that the cost of building such a system in a subway would be approximately as great as for a standard rail line in a subway, which would have the major advantages of higher speeds, greater reserve capacity and greater flexibility for future extensions. Moving belts do not appear to be an appropriate means of serving any of the region’s present needs. Their use for lateral distribution from the recommended downtown subways may eventually prove to be desirable, but is not proposed at this time. The use of present-day streetcars for express service was also considered, but rejected. Streetcars do not have sufficient capacity to carry the passenger volumes that will be attracted to the two recommended rail transit routes. Substitution of streetcars for express buses on any of the other routes would require extensive construction not needed by buses, similar to that envisaged in the hypothetical rail transit system. Costly downtown subway construction for streetcars would not be justi- fied by their low carrying capacity. Omission of subways would require operation of streetcars on surface streets as at present. The Alweg train, Cologne, Germany. Another device which was considered and discarded was an elevated roadway for the operation of buses, singly or in trains. It has been suggested that such operation could be fully auto— mated, dispensing with the need for employees on the vehicles. Although fully automatic equipment is not yet commercially available, this feature is admittedly possible from the mechan- ical and electronic viewpoint. In Washington, however, a sub- stantial portion of each bus trip would be made on surface streets, either at the outer end or in the central business district, so a human operator would be needed on each bus. The use of existing railroad tracks and the sharing of railroad rights-of—way was considered, but found to be an unsatisfactory arrangement on most routes. Some use of railroad property is proposed for the route to Alexandria, but in other cases the small number of vehicles that could be operated on railroad facilities in the peak hours without interfering with railroad operations constitutes a serious drawback. Other difficulties include the present lack of a downtown distribution system and the present lack of railroad rights-of—way through many of the areas needing rapid transit service. Parking Facilities The recommended transportation system calls for a total of 1 I 5,500 parking spaces in the central sector in 1980. (See table 19.) There are 96,000 spaces in the central sector today, but it is estimated that only 67,000 of these will still be available in Modern parking structure, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 1980. A reduction in curb parking space will result from in- creased restrictions to provide better traffic movement. Some of today’s off-street spaces will be lost as new buildings rise on land now used for parking. A total of 48,500 new spaces will there- fore be needed to meet the 1980 demand. Fewer long-time spaces will be needed in 1980 than today, since a larger propor- tion of trips into the downtown area will be made by transit. The number of short-time spaces will have to be more than doubled, however. As the central sector will be built up more densely in the years to come, most new parking spaces will have to be provided by multi-level garages like that shown in figure 48. A large amount of space for parking will be provided at most express transit stations. The express transit system could hardly be operated successfully without it. There will be a total of 32,000 spaces at the transit stations. Two-thirds of these spaces will be at the 1 1 large terminals at the ends of the express transit routes, which will have an average of nearly 2,000 spaces each. Cost of the Recommended Transportation System The total cost of the recommended transportation facilities is estimated at $2,486,Ioo,ooo. Highway construction accounts for $1,803,ooo,ooo, or nearly 75 percent of the total. Express transit facilities will cost an estimated $564,100,000, of which approximately 82 percent will be devoted to rail transit facilities. Another $119,000,000 will be needed for new downtown park- ing facilities. Table 20 shows the costs of highways and transit in each po- litical jurisdiction. Substantial economies can be secured in the construction of the transit system by careful coordination with freeway con- struction. Trains will be operated in freeway median strips on some routes and buses will travel on freeways. The difference in cost between rail transit in a freeway median and in a sub- way is at least $15 million per mile, while the added freeway costs attributable to use by express buses will be small. Savings in highway costs will in turn result from the provision of public transit for people who would otherwise travel by private automobile. The cost estimates are based on current prices. Highway unit costs are similar to those recently used by the highway depart- ments in special reports to the Bureau of Public Roads. The costs include all of the items usually covered, ranging from pre- liminary design and engineering through acquisition of rights- of-way to construction. The rail transit costs also include com- plete signal, communication, and electrical systems. Where transit shares a highway right-of—way, the transit system is assigned the added costs of the rights-of-way and construction that are necessitated by the transit facilities. Table 19.—Parking Space Needs in the Central Sector, 1980 Short-time Long-time Total Spaces required 1980 45, 700 69, 800 115, 500 Spaces available 1955 21, 000 75, 000 96, 000 Spaces to remain in 1980 19, 100 47, 000 67, 000 Spaces to be provided by 1980 26, 600 21, 900 48, 500 Staging of Construction The civil engineering consultant has projected a tentative construction schedule for transit and highways, as a guide for the analysis of the financial requirements. The actual staging, how- ever should be the responsibility of the agencies which will carry out the work, and this report makes no proposals for the year-by- year scheduling. In the construction of highways, priorities should be given to the segments which will provide continuous transit or highway routes through congested areas, and to those on which express bus service will be most urgently needed, as well as to those on which the automotive traffic is heaviest. Ex- press buses should be introduced on freeways and parkways as soon as possible, including those routes on which rail service will eventually be provided. Final decisions on construction of the rail transit lines should be made in conjunction with adoption of a complete freeway program. In the meantime, public agencies should undertake 20.—Cost of the Recommended Transportation System [In millions] . ,1 Downtown Express transit Parking Bus Rail Total Highways Total Total ________________________________________________ $1,803.00 $119.00 $88.23 $475.86 $564.09 $2,486.09 District of Columbia __________________________________________ 871. 75 119.00 1 1.25 333. 35 344. 60 I, 335. 35 Maryland ——————————————————————————————————————————————————— 434. 40 21- 44 39- 49 60- 93 495- 33 V1rg1n1a ____________________________________________________ 496. 85 18. 14 46. 67 64. 81 561. 66 Yards, garages, shops and rolling stock ___________________________ 37.40 56. 35 93. 75 93. 75 1 Includes parking facilities at express transit stations. NOTE—Cost of highways does not include Northwest Freeway link be- tween Tenley Circle and Inner Loop. This section, added to the recom- mended system after basic cost estimates were made, would add less than 2 percent to the recommended highway system cost. no major underground utility work or other construction which would block the eventual building of the subways and other rail transit mileage recommended in this report. It often takes between 8 and 10 years of planning and con- struction to bring a subway into operation. It is estimated that express buses alone will provide adequate service only until 1970, by which time train service will be needed to carry the volumes on the most heavily traveled routes. Therefore, detailed plan- ning of the rail system should begin in the near future. By about 1965, many of the new express bus routes should be in op- eration and some subway construction should have been initiated. The timing of freeway and transit construction will have a profound influence on the pattern of growth of the metropolitan region. New facilities will encourage more rapid settlement in the areas directly served, while delays in building other fa- cilities will retard the growth of the affected areas. Since the provision of improved transportation facilities in some corridors sooner than others may lead to a pattern of growth somewhat different from the plan on which the recommendations are based, the responsible agencies should be prepared to revise the details of the recommended system as indicated by the develop- ing traffic volumes. Wherever possible, flexibility should be pre- served in the transportation system, so that revisions can be made as needed. Preserving Capacity for the Future An even more important reason for maintaining flexibility is the fact that the population will no doubt continue to grow be- yond the figure of three million on which the recommendations are based. Additional capacity is therefore likely to be needed eventually on some routes. By the time the need is actually felt, rights-of-way for additional freeways and transit routes will be difficult to find. It is recommended, therefore, that the pro- posed radial freeways be designed as shown in figure 49. Each freeway route would have a three- or four-lane roadway for traffic in each direction. These roadways would be separated by a 64-foot mall, and the columns supporting cross-street bridges would be spaced 51 feet apart. The center mall of the two freeways into Montgomery County would be occupied by rail transit lines within a few years. On other routes, the wide mall would be landscaped and held available for future developments. Express transit would at first consist of express buses operating in the general traflic lanes. The buses might make stops at appropriate intervals on the Congress Street highway and transit facility, Chicago, Ill. parallel service roads without special station facilities, or at sta- tions on the freeway at appropriate cross-street bridges. As automobile and truck traffic became heavier, a three-lane vehicular roadway could be built in the median strip, separated from the other traffic lanes, to be used by one-way traffic. Di- rection of flow could be reversed between the morning and evening rush periods. This would be consistent with policies of the US. Bureau of Public Roads. (See appendix F.) If express bus traffic were much heavier in this stage, buses might occupy a substantial portion of one of the lanes on the initial roadways of the freeways, nonstop buses might share the re- versible lanes in the median strip with other traffic, or the ex- press bus traffic might be removed from the freeway lanes and operated by itself in the center mall. If the last step were taken, the roadway would not be reversible, of course, and bus stations would be needed in the center mall. Stairways or escalators would connect the stations with the cross-street bridges where passengers would transfer from local feeder buses. In a later stage of development, if transit traffic grew still heavier, the center roadway could be replaced by a double-track rail transit facility with appropriately spaced stations, which would provide capacity for large volumes of future transit patronage. Figure 49 PROPOSED PLAN FOR NEW RADIAL FREEWAYS Typical Cross Section INITIAL DEVELOPMENT BUS STATION L 51'—o~ J T 64’—O" CENTER MALL " APPROXIMATE RIGHT-OF-WAY sow-o" A V’ 1 FIRST ALTERNATE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR REVERSIBLE LANES SECOND ALTERNATE INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT EXPRESS BUS LANES AT STATION ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Lu .. .1 EXPRESS TRAINS AT STATION / MASS TRANSPORTATION SURVEY O NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION This plan would reserve the right-of-way needed to serve any likely future traffic volumes without requiring large expendi- tures until the need was actually felt. It is particularly adapt- able to the proposed freeway to the northeast (Interstate Route 95); to Interstate Route 66, extending westerly into Virginia on an alinement lying several miles north of US. 50; and to the Chantilly Airport route. This plan should also be considered for the proposed new freeway to the southeast, and the Shirley Highway, when that freeway is rebuilt and widened. The high— way cost estimates include acquisition of rights-of-way for these wide center malls except on the Wisconsin Avenue and North Central Freeways where immediate rail transit use is proposed, and the extra costs are assigned to the transit system. Preventing Congestion on the Freeways The recommended system will only be able to meet the needs of the region when its population has reached three million if ex— press buses are able to maintain high-speed service on the free- ways. To make this possible it will be necessary to control the use of freeways by automobiles and trucks, particularly in the peak hours, giving buses priority and limiting other vehicles to the numbers that can be carried without congestion. Controls over freeway usage will attract to the transit vehicles many people who would otherwise crowd onto the freeways in private auto- mobiles, causing congestion. Controls will thus preserve the ca- pacity of the freeways so that not only buses but the remaining private automobiles will be able to move at adequate speeds. Without such controls, fast-moving express transit service could only be assured by building separate bus lanes or, more likely, additional rail lines, greatly increasing the cost of the transpor- tation system. The controls could be provided by devices that would meas— ure the speed and volume of freeway traffic and indicate when traffic volumes have reached the maximum that can be carried without undue congestion. At such times, access to the free- way could be restricted to permit traflic to flow smoothly. Con- trols of this character will be required if the recommended transportation system is to be able to carry the traffic volumes predicted for 1980. CHAPTER VII FINANCE AND ORGANIZATION The next phase of the survey consisted of a study of the ways by which the recommended transportation system might be fi- nanced, and of organizational arrangements which might be adopted for the complex tasks of building, regulating, and oper- ating the diverse kinds of transportation facilities that have been proposed. This chapter 6 indicates the magnitude of the finan- cial requirements, describes the sources of funds that could be drawn upon, and describes the new governmental agencies which are needed to bring into being some parts of the recom- mended system. Sysi‘em Costs and Sources of Funds The creation of the proposed transportation system, at an estimated cost of $2.5 billion, will constitute one of the largest public works programs to be undertaken in the region during the years to come. At the same time, of course, there will have to be additional expenditures on the many local streets and roads that are not included in the recommended regional highway system. The governments of the region will also be called 5 A more detailed account of the findings of the financial and organiza- tional study is given in the following document, not yet published: Institute of Public Administration, Financial and Organizational Report, Mass Transportation Survey, National Capital Region (1959). Organizational arrangements for area-wide regulation of mass transportation, and a pro- posed interstate compact, are discussed at length in: Jerome M. Alper, Transit Regulation for the Metropolitan Area of Washington, D.C., Washington, 1955. 454635 0 - 59 - 6 upon to make investments in many other kinds of public facili- ties, such as schools, libraries, parks, and water and sewer lines. The aggregate need for public investment of all kinds will be several times the amount required for transportation. In View of the competing demands for public funds, the fi- nancing 0f the very costly recommended transportation system presents a real challenge. The task is complicated by the large number of governmental agencies—Federal, State, and local— concerned with financing. Each part of the recommended sys- tem poses special problems, and different sources of funds are potentially available for each. Freeways, Parkways, and Other Highway Improvements The total estimated cost of the recommended highway system is $1,803,000,000. Nearly half of this amount represents high- ways and bridges in the District of Columbia; the remainder is divided almost equally between the Maryland and Virginia parts of the region. Table 21 gives estimates of the highway costs in each of the three major jurisdictions. These figures include the cost of right-of-way and engineering, as well as construction. A large part of the recommended construction is already in- cluded in the programs of the Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia highway departments and the Federal roadbuild- ing agencies, and no doubt even more of the recommended high- ways would be built by these agencies, in the normal course of events, by 1980. The Federal Government bears 90 percent of the costs of the National System of Interstate and Defense High- ways, and 50 percent of the costs of other F ederal-aid highways. It has also built, entirely from Federal funds, certain freeways and parkways in the National Capital region. Under present arrangements, the Maryland and Virginia State governments and the District of Columbia government pay most of the re- mainder of the costs of major highway construction, and local governments in Maryland and Virginia build a few routes of regional significance. Table 2'I.—Cost of the Recommended Highway System [In millions] Other Interstate freeways Major system and streets parkways Total Total ______ $772. 00 $849. 55 $181. 45 $1, 803. 00 District of Colum- bia ____________ 365.00 478. 95 27.80 871. 75 Maryland _______ 177. 00 153. 10 104. 30 434. 40 Virginia _________ 230. 00 217. 50 49. 35 496. 85 NOTE—Cost of highways does not include Northwest Freeway link be- tween Tenley Circle and Inner Loop. This section, added to the recom- mended system after basic cost estimates were made, would add less than two percent to the recommended highway system cost. If the conditions listed below are met, approximately $1.3 billion will be spent by the highway agencies, between 1958 and 1980, on construction recommended in this report. It should be emphasized that it is by no means certain that these conditions will be met. The necessary conditions are as follows: 1. Federal agencies build the roads that they have already planned, such as the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the highway to the Chantilly airport. 2. The District of Columbia and the States complete their parts of the proposed 41,000-mile Interstate Highway System. 3. The District of Columbia and the States continue to spend 73 approximately as much on other than Interstate highways in the National Capital Region as they have spent in recent years, and devote about two-thirds of such expenditures to highway improvements recommended in this report. More than $1 billion of the total expenditure on the recom- mended highways will take place by about 1970, if the financing of the Interstate System is completed by the date originally planned. Thereafter Federal aid to the States is scheduled to return to a much lower level. The highway expenditures to be made by the States and the District of Columbia, under the assumed conditions, represent very great increases over the amounts spent in past years. While highway spending in the region recently amounted to less than $30 million per year, the figure is expected to rise to an amount in the vicinity of $100 million in 1960 and is scheduled to stay near that level for several years. This increase in highway spending is largely attributable to the availability of Federal aid under the Interstate program. Great as the Federal and State expenditures would be, under the assumed conditions, they would fall short of the $1.8 billion that is recommended for expenditure by 1980, leaving about $500 million to be provided from new sources. Furthermore, even the greatly expanded construction effort scheduled for the next few years will not produce new highways as rapidly as this survey has shown they will be needed. More than two—thirds of the recommended highway construction would have to be completed by 1965 in order to carry without congestion the traffic volumes that have been projected for that year. The entire $500 million in extra highway funds would be needed by 1965 in order to complete this construction, since some of the assumed expenditures by the States and the District of Columbia would not occur until later. However, it would hardly be feasible to carry out such an ambitious highway build- ing program within so short a period, so some degree of highway congestion is likely to be experienced until sometime after 1965, even under the recommended plan. The highways recom- mended for construction in later periods could be financed from Federal and State funds, if the conditions listed above are met. The heavy concentration of construction required in the years just ahead results mainly from the fact that, during the several decades beginning in the depression, highway construction failed to keep pace with growing traffic volumes. While many existing streets and highways were widened and improved, only a few 74 Suburbia, 1980. ' of the expensive new high-capacity arteries that are needed to serve today’s traffic volumes were built. Not only will an extra $500 million be needed for highway construction within a few short years but there is another very real financial problem that must be met. The two States and the District of Columbia will face varying degrees of difficulty, under their present arrangements for highway financing, in simply raising the money needed to match Federal aid for Inter- state construction and to continue building other highways at the modest pace that has been set in recent years. The District of Columbia has been able to reach its current rate of expenditure on highway construction only with the assist- ance of a loan from the Federal Government, which will soon be exhausted. Unless new revenues are made available to its highway construction fund, the District will be unable to match the Federal-aid payments which it needs and to which it is entitled. Maryland’s current highway program is financed by bond issues authorized by the legislature in a total amount which was originally intended to finance all construction over a 12-year period ending in 1965. The projects scheduled for the first 4 years of this program have been completed much more slowly and at a greater cost than originally planned. Rising construc- tion costs may force further delays in completion of the 12~year program unless additional funds are made available. Virginia, whose highway construction is financed on a pay- as-you-go basis, also probably will need additional highway reve- nues if it is to match Federal aid, as evidenced by the State’s recent decision to forego temporarily some $18 million of Fed- eral aid for construction of Interstate mileage in other parts of the State. The Federal Government also faces difficulties in carrying out its highway financing plans. Revenues of the Highway Trust Fund have not been sufficient to provide the funds needed for scheduled payments to the States under the Interstate program. In short, current sources of highway funds are failing to pro- duce money needed for already-programed construction in both States and in the District. Any new highway funds raised by any of these jurisdictions will have to be applied first to their current construction programs. These needs promise to tax the resources of the District of Columbia and the States so severe- ly that there seems to be little possibility that they will be in a position to provide any of the extra $500 million that will be needed between now and 1965. The discussion of new sources of revenue below is based on the assumption that none of the $500 million will be forthcoming from the governments of the States and the District of Columbia. The difficulty that they face in securing funds to maintain highway expenditures at the assumed level will not be further discussed, since it involves con- siderations that lie outside the scope of this report. The immediate source of the extra $500 million could be a bond issue, provided a source of funds for payment of interest and principal were assured. If this $500 million were raised by a single issue of 30-year bonds at 4 percent interest, the annual payments of interest and principal would amount to about $27 million. Downtown Parking Facilities The recommended downtown parking facilities will cost an estimated $119 million. It is assumed that the construction costs of the parking facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, can be repaid from parking fees, so no other source of funds will be required. All-day parking fees, for example, would have to average approximately $1 to cover all costs. Express transit The estimated cost of all express transit facilities and equip- ment is $564 million. Rail facilities account for about 85 per- Subway tunnel, Osaka, Japan. cent of this amount. More than three-fourths of the total transit construction costs will be incurred within the District of Colum- bia where expensive subways will be needed for much of the rail system. More than 80 percent of the express bus costs will, according to the proposed schedule, be incurred by 1965, while only 20 percent of the expenditure on rail construction will be necessary by that date. Transit costs include the cost of parking facilities at transit stations. Parking fees at express transit sta- tions would have to be set at approximately 35 cents for long- time parking to repay capital costs and pay for maintenance and operation. If the total capital cost of the express transit system, except for buses, were financed by a single issue of 30-year, 5 percent bonds, and the cost of buses were financed by 10-year, 5 percent bonds, the interest payments and repayment of prin- cipal over the 30 years would average about $31.3 million per year. The annual payments would be less in the early years, and the total period of repayment would extend over more than 30 years, if bonds were issued only as needed. In calculating revenues of the express transit system, it was assumed that there would be a basic fare of 20 cents for rides within a central zone having a radius of 4 miles from the White House, with an additional charge of 5 cents in each of a series of concentric zones, 2 miles in width, beyond the center, as shown by figure 42 in chapter VI. For inbound trips, the initial fare would be 20 cents, plus an additional 5 cents for each zone Table 22.—Cost of the Recommended Express Transit Facilities [In millions] Bus Rail Total Total _________________ $88.23 $475.86 $564.09 Route construction ____________ 3o. 60 402. 15 432. 75 Yards and shops ______________ 8. 65 12. 25 2o. 90 Rolling stock _________________ 28. 75 44. 10 72. 85 Parking facilities ______________ 2o. 23 17. 36 37. 59 line crossed. The average fare paid by passengers traveling on the express system in 1980 is estimated at 28 cents. The gross annual revenue of the express transit system (not including rev- enue of parking facilities at express transit stations) is estimated at $62,750,000 when the population of the region has reached three million. This amount includes the fares paid for trips made exclu- sively on the express transit system, and for trips using both ex- press and local buses, but not for trips exclusively on the local buses. It is assumed that local bus service in all parts of the re- gion will continue to operate on a self-supporting basis as at present, and that there will be transfer privileges between local and express transit, with the local bus lines serving as feeders for the express routes. After deducting the local transit system’s share of fares for trips that use both local and express buses, revenues of the express transit system would amount to $51.5 million. Operating costs of the recommended transit system were esti- mated on the basis of 1958 prices and wage scales and the high standards of service described in chapter VI. Public op- eration of the express transit system is assumed in the cost esti- mates, and no allowance is made for taxes other than the usual payroll taxes. If the transit facilities were privately owned, or if publicly owned facilities were operated under lease or con- tract by a private firm, the costs would be increased by the amount of other taxes imposed on a private operator. While the initial capital costs of the rail routes will be high, the annual cost per passenger served will be less on these routes than on the express bus routes and can be expected to decrease in later years, as amortization of the initial construc- tion costs is completed, patronage grows, and more automatic .141 ‘1 .9113; mine-s kw}. Subway entrance, Chicago, Ill. operation is introduced. The express bus system, on the other hand, offers low initial costs, offset by the prospect of increasing per passenger operating costs as wage rates and other costs rise. When the annual costs of maintenance and operation in 1980 are deducted from the estimated revenue, the annual net oper- ating revenue of the express transit system will be about $13.0 million. Net operating revenues of the parking facilities at the express transit stations will bring the total to about $1 5. 1 million. Net operating revenues will be smaller in earlier years, before transit patronage has reached the magnitude to be expected when the region’s population has reached three million, but they should continue to increase after that time. The 1980 net oper- ating revenue will amount to approximately 48 percent of the annual carrying charge of $31.3 million required to amortize the initial costs under the assumed financing conditions, leaving an estimated deficit for the year 1980 of approximately $17.8 million. Table 23 shows the estimated annual revenues and expenses of the express system in 1980. It should be noted that the annual deficit predicted for 1980 would be smaller if a higher average fare had been assumed. A large proportion of the assumed fare will be devoted to paying operating costs, while any increase in the fare would be entirely available for application against capital costs. Even a small increase in fare will therefore lead to a substantial reduction in the predicted deficit. For example, a basic fare of 25 cents, 75 Table 23.—Annual Revenues and Expenses of Recommended Express Transit System [When region’s population is three million] Revenues from fares (assuming basic fare of 20 cents and zone fare of 5 cents) Less allocation to local transit service for carrying passengers to and from express stations 11, 250, 000 $62, 750, 000 51, 500, 000 Transit operating expenses: Express bus Rail transit $17, 900, 000 20, 650, 000 38, 550, 000 Net operating revenue of express transit service 12, 950, 000 Net revenue of parking facilities at express transit stations 2, 190, 000 Total net operating revenue of express transit system Amortization of capital costs: Route construction $25, 240, 000 Yards and shops 1, 250, 000 Rolling stock 2, 572, 000 Parking facilities 2, 190, 000 15, I40, 000 31, 252, 000 Deficit $1 6, 1 I 2, 000 Fixed charges are computed for 5 percent 30-year bonds. The initial investment in buses will have been amortizd by 1980. with the same 5-cent zone fare, would result in an average fare of 33 cents per passenger, and a predicted annual deficit of only $6.6 million in 1980. Thus the system might be able to repay 80 percent of the annual carrying charges. The deficit will be attributable primarily to the costs of rail subway construction. Revenues from the express bus routes will be sufficient to cover operating costs and repay the costs of building bus facilities. However, the transit system must be fi- nanced as a single entity, since the subway lines are as essential 76 to the regional transportation system as are the bus routes. A major new source of revenue will therefore be needed to pay for the transit system. System Costs and Fiscal Capacity of the Region Under the assumed conditions of financing, the annual car- rying charges on the investment in transportation facilities not paid for by regular highway construction programs or by transit fares will amount to about $43 million in 1980. Highway costs would account for $27 million, while the remaining $16 million would be attributable to express transit facilities. To put the cost figures in perspective, they should be compared with the data on the fiscal capacity of the Washington metropolitan area presented in table 24. The increase in full values of taxable real estate in the area between 1956 and 1980 is projected at $12.5 billion, and the increase in aggregate personal incomes at nearly $10 billion. Another perspective is gained by a comparison with yields of various taxes and charges which might be imposed on a region- wide basis, as shown in table 25. The highway requirements of the plan, for example, could nearly be financed in 1980 by a regional motor vehicle license charge averaging $10 a year, plus a regional motor vehicle fuel tax of 2 cents per gallon. The in— dicated annual deficit of the express transit system might be financed by a tax of a little more than 5 cents on each $100 full value of real estate, or a tax of a little more than 1/10 percent of regional payrolls. Various combinations of taxes and tax rates could be devised to raise the funds that will be needed. REMAINDER L EXPRESS TRANSIT COST Table 24.—lndicators of Fiscal Capacity of the Washington Metropolitan Area with Projections to 1980 1955 1980 Percentage A. Population 1 (Thousands) Increase Total 1, 813 2, 888 59 District 840 940 I 2 Maryland 556 1, 153 108 Virginia 416 794 90 B. Employment 2 (Thousands) Total 793 1, 030 District 503 581 Maryland 128 285 Virginia 162 264 C. Assessed value of real property: (Millions) Total $3, 912 $9, 393 District 1, 948 2, 814 Maryland I, 296 4, 355 Virginia 668 2, 224 D. Estimated full value of taxable real estate: (Millions) Total $8, 159 $20, 625 District 3, 542 5, 116 Maryland 2, 632 8, 880 Virginia 1, 985 6, 629 E. Personal income of residents: (Millions) Total $5, 224 $15, I74 District 1, 960 3, 830 Maryland 1, 801 6, 523 Virginia 1, 463 4, 821 NOTE.——Items A, B and E present data for the Standard Metropolitan Area. Items C and D present data for an area with a slightly smaller popu- lation from which the predominantly rural districts are excluded. The data in the first column in items C and D are for 1956. Table 25.—Need for New Sources of Funds and Potential Sources of Revenue [In millions] Annual cost of amortization of $500 million investment in highways 1 $26. 7 Annual deficit of express transit system 16. 1 42. 8 Estimated annual yield of potential revenue sources when region’s population is 3 million Regional motor vehicle license tax averaging $10 $10 Regional motor fuel tax of 2 cents per gallon 16 2 5 cent charge on all long-time off-street parking downtown 5 5 cent tax per $100 full value of taxable real estate 21 1/i0 percent tax on payrolls 11 1 Annual carrying charges on initial investment computed at 4 percent interest for highways and 5 percent interest for transit facilities, 30-year amortization period. Disparities between Costs, Resources, and Benefits in Various jurisdictions One of the greatest difficulties in meeting the new financial needs lies in the fact that the bulk of the costs will be incurred within the District of Columbia, while the benefits to be realized from the construction of the system, and the resources which are potentially available to pay for it, are distributed widely through- out all of the political jurisdictions making up the region. While District residents would constitute only 42 percent of the riders on the express transit system, and would account for only 27 percent of the miles traveled on it, 80 percent of the cost of the express transit system represents construction in the District. Furthermore, 88 percent of the increase in the full value of real estate in the survey area and 80 percent of the projected increase in personal income would accrue to the resi- dents and firms of nearby Maryland and Virginia. The impli— cations of this disparity are shown in table 26. Construction costs of the express transit system alone would be equivalent to 21.9 percent of the total projected increase in taxable real estate values of the District, compared with figures of 0.5 percent for Maryland and 1.0 percent for Virginia. Each part of the region of course has an important stake in the creation of new transportation facilities: to protect present property values in the District of Columbia; to safeguard the Federal Government’s current and planned investment in the Nation’s Capital; to enable suburban residents to travel from home to work in a satisfactory manner. Alternative Means of Financing The facts presented above make it clear that the recom- mended system cannot be brought into being by separate action on the part of the District of Columbia and the two states or their political subdivisions. The concentration of construction costs in the.District is far greater than either the District’s pro- portion of regional resources or its share of the benefits that are to be expected from the completed system. There are two principal ways in which the additional construction money could be provided: Table 26.—Relation of Cost of Recommended Transit System to Property Values Cost of recommended express transit system as percentage of projected full value of tax- ]urisdiction able real estate in 1980 Metropolitan area 2. I District of Columbia 6. 7 Maryland . 4 Virginia . 7 Cost of recommended express transit system as percentage of projected increases in full value of taxable real estate jurisdiction between 1956 and 1980 Metropolitan area 3. 5 District of Columbia 21. 9 Maryland . 5 Virginia I. o Transit Deficit and Additional Freeway Costs New Regional Resources and Federal Contributions 1. A system of region-wide taxes or charges, or both, which would be pooled to meet the costs of the regional system. The imposition of additional charges and taxes might be justified on the grounds that practically all citizens, employers and prop- erty owners of the region will in the long run reap substantial benefits from an improved transportation system. It is perti- nent to note that the people of the region will spend, in the next 20 years, an estimated $7 billion or more on new private auto- mobiles and several billion dollars more on other automotive vehicles. It seems reasonable that they should put up at least a part of the additional money that is needed to provide ade- quate facilities on which to travel. 2. Contributions from the Federal Government toward con— struction costs, particularly in the District of Columbia. Such contributions might be justified on several grounds: that the Federal Government, the largest property owner in the region, is not subject to any real estate taxes; that a large part of the costs requiring new sources of funds will be incurred in the Dis— trict of Columbia, whose highway program has suffered from the limited amounts of money available in past years; that the transit deficit will be incurred primarily by subway construction necessary to protect the aesthetic values of the Federal District; and that the Federal Government, as employer of 38 percent of all workers in the region, has a vital interest in the creation of an efficient transportation system. Financial Recommendations The foregoing discussion leads to the following recommenda- tions on the financing of the regional transportation system: 77 The Federal Government should make initial contributions toward the planning and design of the recommended rail system, and it should be prepared to provide funds for the early stages of rail transit construction. In recognition of the inability of the State and local govern- ments to finance in total the highway system required under the recommended plan: the Federal Government should undertake study and action on additional highway financing which will provide the necessary funds. Any funds beyond these amounts will have to come from the resources of the region. A new interstate agency is needed to raise such additional funds. Organizational Alternatives The creation of the recommended transportation system should take place in three stages, each stage calling for action by various existing governmental bodies, as well as by one or more new agencies. The three stages of transportation improvement are as follows: First, immediate action should be taken to improve the pres- ent public transit service in several ways: by integrating opera- tions on a regional basis and overcoming the barriers imposed by jurisdictional boundary lines; by using traflic controls and regulations to help transit vehicles maintain and improve on schedule speeds; and by building more adequate transit stations at key points. All governing bodies and planning agencies of the region should adopt the transportation plan, and a prompt start should be made on the detailed planning and design of the new express transit facilities. As these steps progress, rights-of- way should be reserved or acquired for the new freeways and the pace of highway construction programs should be accelerated to accommodate rapidly increasing numbers of private automo- biles and trucks. Second, express bus service should be introduced on all new radial freeways as they are completed, beginning in the early 1960’s. The accelerated highway construction program should continue during these years, and before 1965 a beginning should 78 be made on the construction of subways for the rail transit system. Third, rail transit service should be inaugurated no later than 1970, because the express bus system will have reached its capacity on several routes by that time. A number of existing organizations will have parts to play in providing the new transportation facilities. The new freeways and parkways will be built by the existing highway departments of the States, the District of Columbia and the Federal Govern- ment. Local governments, in the absence of any structure of metropolitan government, will have to enforce the controls over freeway usage that are necessary to make the system work. Downtown parking facilities will no doubt continue to be built and operated by private enterprise, supplemented perhaps by public agencies, while the Federal Government will continue to provide parking space for some of its employees. Local transit service can continue under private ownership as at present. However, a new form of organization, regional in scope, will be needed to carry out some of the functions listed earlier. There are three possible organizational forms from which to choose. These are: (I ) an interstate agency for the regulation of public transit in the region, (2) an interstate agency with the power to levy taxes and to build, own and operate as well as to regulate area transit systems, and (3) a Federal agency with the power to build, own and operate transit systems. These three forms are not altogether mutually exclusive, since they have vary- ing capacities to handle different parts of the transportation job. Their respective capacities are evaluated below. Interstate Regulatory Agency This is the alternative contemplated in the interstate compact setting up a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commis- sion, already approved by Virginia and Maryland, and intro- duced in Congress. The Commission would consist of one mem- ber of each of the three public utility regulatory commissions, appointed by the governors of the two States and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Part of the com- pact is reproduced in appendix E. The main purposes of the agency would be the regulation and coordination of private transit companies within a metropolitan district defined in the compact. The compact is modeled upon the Interstate Commerce Act and the various State enactments for the regulation of transportation, and like its models, it puts primary emphasis on conventional public utility regulation of private concerns. Thus the Commission would issue certificates of public convenience and necessity, its approval would be re- quired for establishment or abandonment of routes, tariffs would be filed with it, and changes would be approved by it. The Commission would also have some positive powers. It could require establishment of additional routes or extensions of routes, under certain conditions; establish through routes and joint fares involving several companies; and prescribe just and reasonable fares, and regulations and practices relating thereto. The compact also creates a Traffic and Highway Board com— posed of the chairman of the Commission, the heads of the traflic and highway departments of the three signatories and of the counties and cities within the metropolitan district, and rep- resentatives of regional planning agencies. The Board is to make recommendations to the Commission with respect to traf- fic engineering, including the selection of streets for transit rout- ing, and on means and methods of shortening transit travel time. Advantages. Privately owned transit firms, operating under regulation by such an interstate agency, could probably carry out a large part of the transit improvements called for in the first two stages of transportation development outlined above—im- proving the present system of surface transit and establishing express bus service on radial freeways. The Commission’s budget would be small and could easily be financed by contribu- tions from the two States and the District of Columbia. Disadvantages. There is little probability that private oper- ators could, or would be willing to, finance the construction of a rail transit system with a price tag in excess of $400 million. Even in the first two stages of transit development, the responsi- bility for initiating improvements would be left largely in the hands of private operators. There is no provision for a coopera- tive program of transportation improvement between Govern- ment and private firms—for instance, in financing experiments with special types of service or fare structures. The problem of providing “fair” rates of return with an eco- nomically efficient fare structure would be complicated by the differing situations of different companies. Moreover, the fi- nances of the private companies would be affected by the tax policies of the three jurisdictions, over which the Commission would have no control. No provisions of the compact deal positively with the impor- tant issue of consolidation of transportation companies. In- deed, intrastate transportation in Virginia is excluded from the purview of the Commission and intrastate transportation in other parts of the region is made dependent upon the affirmative vote of the Comission member from the signatory concerned. Some basis for coordination of highway and transit planning would be afforded by the Traffic and Highway Board, but this Board’s powers are purely advisory and there is no provision for funds for systematic research on the problems of overall regional transportation. In short, the proposed agency would not have the powers needed to perform a large part of the job of transportation im- provement. Its main advantage is to be found in the fact that it can be brought into existence with little delay. The compact needs only the approval of Congress, after which the interstate agency can make a prompt start on the first parts of the job of improving public transit service. It is hardly possible that either of the alternative organizations could be established as promptly, as will be seen below. Conclusion. The establishment of an interstate regulatory agency would constitute a useful first step in providing the region with an adequate public transit system. Interstate Proprietary Agency The characteristics of such an interstate organization can not be specified in as much detail as those of the regulatory agency, since no specific proposal for such a proprietary agency has yet been advanced. An agency established by interstate compact could be em- powered not only to regulate private transit firms but to build and own transit facilities, and to operate them or provide for their operation by management contracts or leases entered into with private firms. An interstate agency could also be given the very important power to levy taxes. Advantages. Such an agency would have most of the powers needed to carry out all phases of the program of transit im- provement. In addition, this agency and the highway depart- ments could coordinate the planning of highways and public transit facilities by working together. An important advantage of this form of organization, which neither of the alternatives possess, is the fact that the agency could be empowered to levy regionwide taxes. It could also be given a line of credit by the Federal Government in view of the special Federal interest in transportation in this region. Disadvantages. The chief disadvantage of an interstate proprietary agency lies in the time which would be required to establish it. The negotiation and ratification of interstate com- pacts has required, on the average, almost five years. A compact setting up an agency with the powers proposed here would be more complicated than most and might require even more time, History reveals that the compact has rarely been effectively used in programs that involve potential conflicts among groups and jurisdictions, where there are complicated problems of al- locating costs and benefits, and where operating responsibilities impinging heavily upon the life of the community must be assigned. Of the approximately 400 compacts now in opera- tion, fewer than IO are concerned with urban development, and none has granted authority to an interstate agency on the scale required for transportation development in the Washington region. Experience thus suggests that the creation of an inter- state agency capable of creating the recommended public transit facilities will be a lengthy and complex business. The compact would also be a relatively inflexible device. Amendments that might be required by changed conditions would require action by three legislatures. This disadvantage might be largely over- come, however, by care in the original design of the organization. While the interstate agency might have most of the powers needed to do its job, it would lack the ability to control or in- fluence action of Federal agencies, in whose hands some of the important powers would remain. Endowing the agency with taxing power might require amendment of the constitution of Virginia; the Maryland constitution apparently presents no problem. Special attention would be required in making the manage- ment of the agency responsive to the interests of the region. Since the compact organization would be in part a creature of the States, the State legislatures might choose to reserve control over appointments in the hands of State officers. Conclusion. A properly designed and appropriately financed interstate proprietary agency would be a satisfactory means of carrying out the transit plan, if it could be established soon enough. But given the obstacles in the way of immediate adop- tion of compacts with broad powers, it would probably be un- wise to place sole reliance on the interstate regulatory agency while awaiting creation of the compact instrument. It may be regarded as the ultimate organizational form rather than an immediate one. Federal Corporation There is ample precedent for establishing Federal corpora- tions to serve the national public interest, particularly where immediate Federal interests are involved. To perform an ade- quate and comprehensive job, a Federal corporation would need most of the powers listed above for an interstate organi- zation. It could not be equipped with taxing powers, how- ever, because of the constitutional requirement that Federal taxes be equally apportioned among the states. Hence the cor- poration would have to rely largely on revenues from charges on the users of transportation facilities. This agency could be established by a Federal statute defining a metropolitan district, specifying the powers and duties which are inextricably intertwined with interstate movement in the district and the operation of the District of Columbia as the seat of the National government, and creating a corporation to de- velop public transit facilities within the district. The operations of the corporation would initially be financed by loans or con- tributions from the Federal treasury. Although corporation oflicers would be appointed by the President, whose power to appoint cannot be limited unduly by legislation, the Federal corporation could be made responsive to local needs and interests. For instance, provision could be made for an advisory board made up of representatives of local govem- ments in the region. Also, there could be provision for review of the corporation’s plans and activities by other regional agencies concerned with land use and development. Its powers to condemn land could be made contingent on approval of ap- propriate regional or local agencies. Federal corporations usually receive appropriations to their capital funds to enable them to carry out their designated func- tions. This would be of crucial importance in initiating the program of transit improvement. The corporation would be able, with Federal credit, to undertake the transit improvements called for in the first two stages, and to carry out the construc- tion of a rail transit system if need be. One of the conditions of a Federal corporation is that it be potentially self-supporting. This condition could be met by the bus portion of the express transit system. The ability of the rail system to meet operating expenses, with increasing amounts left over for repayment of construction costs as patronage in- creases, is probably sufficient to meet the condition of potential self-support, and to justify the corporation’s undertaking to build and operate this transit system. Advantages. The Federal corporation would require action by only one legislative body, thereby avoiding the lengthy process usually involved in creating an interstate agency with any substantial powers. A Federal corporation is by the same token more flexible than alternative forms, since important changes in the character of the agency can be accomplished simply by an act of Congress amending the initial legislation. The Federal corporation would also be free of the questions of legal and financial authority which existing State constitutions pose with respect to an interstate agency. It is an especially effective means of taking into account the unique character of the government of the District of Columbia and the interest of the Federal Government. Because it is a flexible and adaptable device, it can be tailored to local conditions, and charged with the responsibility of cooperating with other agencies and gov- ernments of the area. Disadvantages. The Federal corporation cannot raise funds by taxation. It would therefore, lack the financial resources of an interstate agency equipped with taxing power. On the other hand, such an agency would be more likely to secure contribu- tions or loans from the Federal Government than an interstate agency. Strong opposition might well develop in the region to the idea of establishing a Federal corporation, on the grounds that this would represent an encroachment of Federal power on State and local prerogatives. In its proper context, however, a pub- lic corporation is neither a novel nor an irresponsible arrange- ment. It does not escape judicial purview, and thus cannot in- fringe upon the constitutional authority of any State or local government. Devices can be provided to make it responsible to local public opinion. Conclusion. A Federal corporation would prove a useful device for carrying out the first steps in the planning and build- ing of the recommended express transit facilities until an inter- state proprietary agency can be established by compact. Organizational Recommendations New forms of governmental organization are needed to cre- ate the recommended regional transportation system, since no existing government has the necessary powers and financial re- sources to do the whole job. The development of the necessary organization will require three kinds of organizational action by 80 FEDERAL CORPORAT I O N IMMEDIATE ORGANIZATIONS 4 J , ULTIMATE ORGANIZATION ii ' I ‘ - ' . ‘ [12“ \‘ , V- l ‘ , FROPRIETA RY AGENCV the Federal and State governments, all of which should begin promptly. Interstate Regulatory Agency. The first step is the ratifica- tion by the Congress of the interstate regulatory compact, al- ready approved by Virginia and Maryland, which establishes an interstate agency to regulate transit throughout the metropol- itan area. This agency will facilitate the integration of transit service across the jurisdictional boundary lines, and through the establishment of the Highway and Traffic Board contem- plated by the compact it will encourage the coordination of transit service with highway planning and traffic regulation. Federal Corporation. More than a regulatory body will be needed to provide the region with the transportation system that it requires, however. Prompt action is needed to secure rights- of-way for highway and transit routes, to begin planning the rail transit system, and to accelerate the highway construction work. To begin work in these directions, the Congress should at once establish a temporary public corporation. This corpora- tion should be empowered: (a) To acquire rights-of—way for transit facilities and con- struct them (subject to approval by Maryland and Virginia authorities of projects in those States). (b) To operate transit facilities or to provide for their oper- ation by private firms. (c) To finance its operations from transit revenues and from Federal contributions. . (d) To review highway plans as they may affect transit fa- cilities and to consult with highway agencies upon these plans. (e) To assist highway agencies in overcoming any deficit in funds. The regulatory agency should serve as liaison agency between the corporation and the several jurisdictions. Interstate Proprietary Agency. Both the interstate regula- tory agency and the Federal corporation should terminate upon the establishment, by interstate compact, of an interstate pro- prietary agency. This is the recommended ultimate form of organization. It will take some time to create, since the ne- gotiation and adoption of an interstate compact on such a com- plex subject is likely to be a lengthy process. This interstate proprietary agency should be empowered: (a) To construct and own transit facilities. (b) To operate transit facilities or make arrangements with private firms for their operation. (c) To finance its operations from transit fares, by the use of limited tax powers and by other appropriate devices. (d) To review highway construction plans as they may affect transit facilities, and to consult with highway agencies on these plans. (e) To assist highway agencies in overcoming any deficit in funds. (f) To regulate and coordinate private firms engaged in public transit service. This organization would have the full range of powers needed by a regional agency to complement the work of existing gov- ernmental agencies in creating the proposed transportation system. Transportation and Other Governmental Functions The proposals in the preceding sections have been designed to promote an effective regional transportation system. Stand- ing alone, however, they still leave unsolved the problems of effectively relating transportation to other governmental func- tions and to overall planning. The planning and construction of the transportation system must be closely related to the work of existing planning bodies and of any new agencies of govern— ment that may be established. APPENDIX A Statement of the Expert Advisory Group FEBRUARY 25, 1959. NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, 7013 Interior Building, Washington 25, DC. GENTLEMEN: The Mass Transportation Survey has brought into sharp relief the major problems that face the metropolitan area of the Nation’s Capital in the movement Of persons and goods in the years ahead. Too, it has clearly defined the broad role that should be played by public and prlvate transportation. The several consultants’ findings indicate future transportation demands far beyond those heretofore envisioned, or more than double those of today. Transportation requirements so great cannot possibly be accommodated by improvements to existing facilities nor by previously proposed facilities, and present governmental machinery does not appear able to cope with the problems. In the work that has been done to date, the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council have undertaken one of the most comprehensive urban transportation planning surveys yet made. In so doing they have made use of the most advanced techniques available in population, land use, economic, and traffic projec- tions. A sound foundation has been laid for the never-ending job of meet- ing the transportation needs of those who live in the shadow of the Nation’s Capital. The magnitude of these needs is great. The accommodation of them is of vast importance to the future welfare of the metropolitan area. No time, therefore, should be lost in establishing an organizational and financial framework of suflicient breadth and strength to permit the development of a transportation system capable of meeting both the private and public transportation requirements of the region. We commend the undertaking as a significant advance in planning. Your Expert Advisory Group, FRANK W. HERRING, KENETH M. HOOVER, DONALD C. HYDE, PYKE JOHNSON, JOE R. ONG. APPENDIX B Statement of Mr. Joseph Barnett, Deputy Assistant Commis- sioner for Engineering, Bureau of Public Roads (Representing Ellis L. Armstrong, Commissioner, a Member of the National Capital Planning Commission) I have concluded that the arterial routes recommended in this report are reasonably located, with the number of traffic lanes conservatively estimated. This statement concerns itself with a recommendation to planners to slant their future efforts to reducing the needed person miles of travel and ton miles of haulage. I understand that the prediction of traffic in the corridors and the recommendations for arterial routes were based on the assemblage of the ideas and the conclusions of the several planning groups in this area. There was no reason to question this procedure. There appears to be no other that would better show the probable future, needs of traffic. Nevertheless, I fear that the resulting volumes of traffic and haulage are so great as to lead to the conclusion that the planning as now envisioned for later years may not be possible due to the inability Of the streets and highways then in being to satisfy the demands of traffic. Whether we like it or not, therefore, the city plans are likely to be adjusted to fit the realisms of available traffic capacity. It is not unreasonable to face the possibility that not all the highways necessary to serve the future plans can or will be constructed. We, therefore, must consider other means of reducing congestion. The other means I have in mind are the several proven efforts in city planning, looking toward a reduction in the overall needed travel, measured in vehicle miles and person miles, particularly during the peak hours. City planning is not static. It is a continuing effort to control the development of cities, looking toward the finest way of life possible within the realities. If it is realistic to assume that all the capacities necessary for what we now believe to be the future plan cannot be developed, then we must look to compromise in the ideal city to reduce the person miles of travel and the ton miles of goods. In every large city, say in the million-population class, there are people who veer toward life in suburban and rural areas with its share of green grass. There are others who would not accept a house in the country as a gift and, instead, favor apartment house living. These differing desires on the part of people can be recognized to the advantage of transportation by adjusting planning through the years to encourage the location of apartment houses near the centers of employ- ment, the principal centers in this city being Government Office buildings. As a matter of fact, this trend is already in evidence in the recent con- struction of several apartment houses in the Foggy Bottom area, and in the plans for the Southwest redevelopment area. At the same time centers of employment should be encouraged to locate close to areas of homeownership. In some cities this may locate industry in the suburbs. In the Nation’s Capital it would probably take the form of locating more of the future Government office buildings on the outskirts or distributed throughout the 2,3oo-square-mile area which is under consideration. That this kind of city planning can reduce the needed miles of travel is neither a new or an untried idea. It has proven its worth in the location of industrial parks in residential areas, as in Dallas and in other cities; exceptions in zoning which place factories in residential areas, as the ~ Sylvania Electric CO. and the Bulova Watch Co. plants in Queens, N.Y.; and numerous urban development projects in cities all over the country which have located apartment houses downtown. I urge that city planners in the various jurisdictions take serious note of the possibility that their plans may not be possible or practical of attain- ment because Of congestion, and that each planning commission should do its share toward the objective of alleviating congestion by reducing the needed vehicle miles of traflic and haulage to dispersal concepts here described. APPENDIX C Statement of C. McKim Norton and Alexander C. Robinson Ill, Members, National Capital Planning Commission MAY 7, 1959. After careful reading of the report upon which the recommendations for a $2.5 billion transportation system are based, we find that we have some reservations on the recommendation that at this time a decision can be made to commit $500 million in a rail rapid transit system for Washington. In our judgment it would be wiser to postpone decision on the rail transit commitment without eliminating it as a future possibility if events develop as projected by the study. To preserve this possibility we agree that the Federal corporation is needed to acquire rights-of-way in the freeway system to make rail transit a future possibility. Meanwhile the other elements of the recommended transportation system should be progressed vigorously in the stages suggested in the report. Par- ticularly needed is progress in the field of regulations so well spelled out on page 72. At the outset we must register some doubts concerning the conclusions of the report as to the inevitability of the projected future travel demand in the Washington region. The admittedly novel techniques used by the study are impressive, but answers given by Univac are only as valid as the assump- tions fed into its electronic brain. The traffic engineering report is prefaced by remarks which recognize this point. The proposed transportation system is based upon a selected set of hy- pothetical projections of passenger travel movements in the Washington region for 1965 and 1980. These projections in turn are based on analyses of current travel patterns and a single set of assumptions as to regional em- ployment and population growth, the future locations of homes and jobs, future travel patterns, and many other factors. One key assumption is that the proposed system should permit a wide choice of place of residence and place of work in a greatly expanded Washington region. Another key as- sumption is that the proposed system should make it possible to live virtually anywhere in a 7oo-square-mile region and enjoy a fast rush-hour commute to any other place in the region. The Univac computer was first used to summarize and interpret the large volume of current data and later to project today’s travel patterns into the future. The results of these computations are startling. To satisfy the assumed cumulative travel “desires” of a 5o-percent increase in regional population, it is proposed that the capacity of the transportation network be approxi- mately tripled. The report nowhere demonstrates, however, that this amount of trans- port is really necessary. It does not explore how much less costly a system could be built if lower assumptions of travel speeds, “patterns of linkages,” etc., had been made. The high level of transport “linkages” and the increased length of average trips are not shown to be absolutely essential to enable the assumed land use pattern to develop. Commonsense indicates the contrary. May not people shorten their journey to work by living closer to their jobs? As the proportion of the region’s employment grows in the suburban areas, may there not be a continuing tendency of people to live in the sector of the re- gion where their jobs are located? To the extent the proposed system pro- vides excess “linkages” it is open to the criticism that it creates “desires” in order to satisfy them. To give a notion of how far the proposed system goes in facilitating suburb-to-suburb commutation, we quote from the report: “For example, of all the trips crossing the District Line from one large suburban area (cen- tral Montgomery County), only 25 percent will have downtown destina- tions; 50 percent will be destined for Northeast and Northwest Washington outside downtown; and fully 25 percent will end south or southwest of the downtown area or in Virginia. Other suburban areas follow the same general pattern.” [Italics ours.] To handle these suburb-to-suburb commuters, the report concludes: “The only logical solution to the transportation problem of the new metro- politan area is to provide a new form of transportation so attractive that many rush-hour travelers to downtown will use it and thus leave space on the highways for those who must use their automobiles on these new non- downtown trips.” 82 The “new form of transportation” by 1970 is estimated to require the proposed $500 million rail transit system. The case for a firm recommendation at this time for the rail transit system does not seem to us to have been made by the report. The people of the Washington region are certainly entitled to all the transportation they care to pay for with the help of the Federal Government and the States. Our difficulty with the report is that it recommends a $2.5 billion transportation package, all of which is to be committed at this time, as the only solution to the region’s transportation problem. This package includes a rail transit system with an indicated annual deficit of $16,112,000. The report gives no clues as to the adequacy of less costly alternatives. Memoranda submitted to the study by at least one transportation expert indicate that there is a real possibility that the recommended express buses on freeways and improved arterials could do the mass transit job after 1970 as well as before 1970. An additional reason against a firm commitment at this time to build a Washington rail transit is that rail transit systems in metropolitan areas with growth characteristics similar to Washington are showing a decline in use. This is especially true in nonrush hours. There is evidence that a falloff even in rush-hour transit riding is also occurring. For example, in the last decade New York’s total rapid transit ridership has dropped off 35 percent and its rush-hour ridership 20 percent. While rail transit serves to link high-density residential areas and high- density work areas, it does not attract rush-hour riders who either live in scattered, low-density residential areas or work in scattered places of em- ployment. But this is exactly the kind of development projected for the Washington region. The report does not contemplate great new concentra- tions of people or jobs along the proposed rail transit routes. It states that “more than 80 percent of the added population will be outside the original 10-mile square (the District of Columbia, Arlington County, and most of Alexandria)” and that employment will increase only moderately (11 percent) in downtown Washington. APPENDIX D Statements by other Members of the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council MAY 29, 1959. I request that my affirmative vote for the Mass Transportation Survey be so noted in the official report to show that I have reservations about including the additional freeway in the Northwest sector of Washington and that I voted against the motion in this regard. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM H. Moss. JUNE 2, 1959. In his final report for the Mass Transportation Survey, the Engineer Consultant recommended a balanced transportation plan of highway facilities, parking facilities, express bus facilities, and rail rapid transit involving a cost of almost $2.5 billion. At their joint meeting on May 7, 1959, the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council by a majority vote added a freeway in the northwest sector of Washington to the Consultant’s plan. In the National Capital Regional Planning Council, I voted against the majority because I did not consider that adequate study and evaluation had been given to the additional proposed freeway. M. L. REESE. MAY 27, 1959. In his final report for the Mass Transportation Survey, the Engineer Consultant recommended a balanced transportation plan of highway facili- ties, parking facilities, express bus facilities, and rail rapid transit involving a system cost of almost $2% billion. At their joint meeting on May 7, 1959, the National Capital Planning Commission and National Capital Regional Planning Council, by majority votes, added a freeway in the Northwest sector of Washington to the consultant’s plan. In the National Capital Planning Commission I voted against the majority because I did not consider the addition of the freeway to be justified. JOHN A. REMON. MAY 27, 1959. In his final report for the Mass Transportation Survey, the Engineer Consultant recommended a balanced transportation plan of highway facili- ties, parking facilities, express bus facilities, and rail rapid transit involving a system cost of almost 352% billion. At their joint meeting on May 7, 1959, the National Capital Planning Commission and National Capital Regional Planning Council, by majority votes, added a freeway in the Northwest Sector of Washington to the Consultant’s plan. In both bodies I voted against the majority because I did not consider the addition of the freeway to be justified. A. C. WELLING, Brigadier General, U .S. Army. APPENDIX E Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact The preamble, title I, and part of title II of the interstate compact for the regulation of transit in the Washington metropolitan area, as enacted by Virginia and Maryland, are reproduced below. The rest of title II contains detailed provisions for the regulation of public transit, including the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity; prescription of fares, regulations, and practices; and other aspects of transit regulation. The quotation is from Article 41 of the Code of Maryland, beginning at Section 257. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact Whereas the District of Columbia, the adjacent suburban area of the State of Maryland, and the adjacent suburban area of the Commonwealth of Virginia constitute a highly developed and integrated metropolitan area, and its economic well-being and the comfort and welfare of the citizens thereof require free and easy movement of persons and vehicles within the area; and Whereas the movement of persons and vehicles within the metropolitan area is being hampered by the congestion of traffic in all areas of the metro- politan area and by the lack of adequate and coordinated mass transit facilities; and Whereas such conditions, which will be aggravated by the continued growth and expansion of the metropolitan area, imperil the safety of the public and constitute a serious impediment to the safe, adequate, and speedy travel to and from their homes and places of employment of persons living in such areas and persons traveling through such areas, and occasion great economic loss; and Whereas such conditions stem in part from the fact that responsibility for dealing with the problems involved is divided among the District of Columbia, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Federal Government, and from the lack of an areawide basic policy on the move- ment of persons and vehicles; and Whereas the elimination of unnecessary transit and traffic problems is of prime importance to the people of the metropolitan area and travelers through the area; and Whereas the National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council, agencies of the Government of the United States, have undertaken, with the assistance and cooperation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia, a comprehensive study of the mass transit requirements for the metropolitan area, and Whereas the regulation of transit on a coordinated basis throughout the area without regard to political and legal jurisdictional boundaries through the cooperation of the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia by and through a common agency with the advice and assistance of all agencies of local government whose activities affect the movement of persons and vehicles, is a proper and necessary step looking towards the alleviation of transit and traffic problems in the metropolitan area. N ow, THEREFORE, The States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia, hereinafter referred to as signatories, do hereby covenant and agree as follows: TITLE I General Compact Provisions ARTICLE I 259. There is hereby created the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit District, hereinafter referred to as Metropolitan District, which shall embrace the District of Columbia, the cities of Alexandria and Falls Church, the counties of Arlington and Fairfax, and political subdivisions of the State of Virginia located within those counties, and the counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges, in the State of Maryland and political subdivisions of the State of Maryland located within said counties. ARTICLE II 260. The signatories hereby create the “Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission,” hereinafter called the Commission, which shall be an instrumentality of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the State of Maryland, and shall have the powers and duties set forth in this compact and such additional powers and duties as may be conferred upon it by subsequent action of the signatories. The Commission shall have jurisdiction coextensive with the Metropolitan District for the regulation and improvement of transit and the alleviation of traffic congestion within the Metropolitan District on a coordinated basis, without regard to political boundaries within the Metropolitan District, as set forth herein. ARTICLE III 261. The Commission shall be composed of three members, one member each to be appointed by the Governors of Virginia and Maryland and by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, from that agency of each signatory having jurisdiction over the regulation of mass transit within each such jurisdiction. The member so appointed shall serve for a term coincident with the term of that member on such agency of the signa- tory and any Commissioner may be removed or suspended from office as provided by the law of the signatory from which he shall be appointed. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term in the same manner as an original appointment. 262. No person in the employment of or holding any official relation to any person or company subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or hav- ing any interest of any nature in any such person or company or affiliate or associate thereof, shall be eligible to hold the office of Commissioner or to serve as an employee of the Commission or to have any power or duty or to receive any compensation in relation thereto. 263. The Commission shall select a chairman from its membership an- nually. Such chairman is vested with the responsibility for the discharge of the Commission’s work and to that end he is empowered with all usual pow- ers to discharge his duties. 264. Each signatory hereto may pay the Commissioner therefrom such salary or expenses, if any, as it deems appropriate. 265. The Commission may employ such engineering, technical, legal, clerical, and other personnel on a regular, part-time, or consulting basis as in its judgment may be necessary for the discharge of its functions. The Com- mission shall not be bound by any statute or regulation of any signatory in the employment or discharge of any officer or employee of the Commission, except as such may be contained in this compact. 266. The Commission shall establish its office for the conduct of its af- fairs at a location to be determined by the Commission within the Metropoli- tan District and shall publish rules and regulations governing the conduct of its operations. ARTICLE IV 267. The expenses of the Commission shall be borne by the signatories in the manner hereinafter set forth. The Commission shall submit to the Governor of Virginia, the Governor of Maryland and the Board of Com- missioners of the District of Columbia, at such time or times as shall be requested, a budget of its requirements for such period as may be required by the laws of the signatories for presentation to the legislature thereof. The expenses of the Commission shall be allocated among the signatories in the proportion that the population of each signatory within the Metro- politan District bears to the total population of the Metropolitan District. The allocation shall be made by the Commission and approved by the Governors of the two states and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and shall be based on the latest available population statistics of the Bureau of the Census; provided, however, that if current population data are not available, the Commission may, upon the request of any signatory, employ estimates of population prepared in a manner approved by the Commission and by the signatory making such request. 268. The signatories agree to appropriate for the expenses of the Com- mission their proper proportion of the budget determined in the manner set forth herein and to pay such appropriation to the Commission. There shall not be included in the budget of the Commission or in the appropria- tions therefor any sums for the payment of salaries or expenses of the Commissioners or members of the Traffic and Highway Board created by article V of this title I and payments to such persons, if any, shall be within the discretion of each signatory. The provisions of Section 2—27 of the Code of Virginia shall not apply to any official or employee of the Commonwealth of Virginia acting or performing services under this sub-title. 269. The expenses allocable to a signatory shall be reduced in an amount to be determined by the Commission if a signatory, upon request of the Commission, makes available personnel, services or material to the Com- mission which the Commission would otherwise have to employ or pur- chase. If such services in kind are rendered, the Commission shall return to such signatory an amount equivalent to the savings to the Commission represented by the contribution in kind. 270. The Commission shall keep accurate books of account, showing in full its receipts and disbursements, and said books of accounts shall be 83 open at any reasonable time for inspection by such representatives of the respective signatories as may be duly constituted for that purpose. ARTICLE V 271. There is hereby created in addition to the Commission, a Traffic and Highway Board, hereinafter referred to as Board. This Board shall be composed of the Chairman of the Commission created by Article II, who shall be chairman of this Board, and the heads of the traffic and highway departments of each of the signatories and of the counties and cities encompassed within the Metropolitan District, a representative of the National Capital Planning Commission, a representative of the Na- tional Capital Regional Planning Council, and a representative of each local and regional planning commission within the District. The repre- sentatives of the various planning commissions shall be designated by each such commission. The official in charge of the traffic and highway depart- ment of each of the signatories may appoint a member of his staff to serve in his stead with full voting powers. 272. The Board shall make recommendations to the Commission with respect to traffic engineering, including the selection and use of streets for transit routing, the requirements for transit service throughout the Metro- politan District, and related matters. The Board shall also consider prob- lems referred to it by the Commission and shall continuously study means and methods of shortening transit travel time, formulate plans with respect thereto, and keep the Compact Commission fully advised of its plans and conclusions. 273. The Board shall serve the Commission solely in an advisory capac- ity. The Commission shall not direct or compel the Board or its members to take any particular action with respect to effectuating changes in traffic engineering and related matters, but the members of the Board in their capacity as officials of local government agencies shalluse their best efforts to effectuate the recommendations and objectives of the Commission. 274. The members of the Board shall serve with or without additional compensation, as determined by their respective signatories. ARTICLE VI 275. No action by the Commission shall be of effect unless a majority of the members concur therein: provided, that any order entered by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Title II hereof, relating to or which affect operations or matters solely intrastate or solely within the District of Columbia, shall not be effective unless the Commissioner from the signatory affected concurs therein. Two members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. ARTICLE VII 276. Nothing herein shall be construed to amend, alter, or in any wise affect the power of the signatories and the political subdivisions thereof to levy and collect taxes on the property or income of any person or company subject to this subtitle or upon any material, equipment or supplies pur- chased by such person or companies or to levy, assess and collect franchise or other similar taxes, or fees for the licensing of vehicles and the operation thereof. 84 ARTICLE VIII 277. This compact shall be adopted by the signatories in the manner pro- vided by law therefor. This compact shall become effective ninety (90) days after its adoption by the signatories and consent thereto by the Con- gress of the United States, including the enactment by the Congress of such legislation, if any, as it may deem necessary to grant this Commission juris- diction over transportation in the District of Columbia and between the sig- natories and over the persons engaged therein, to suspend the applicability of the Interstate Commerce Act, the laws of the District of Columbia, and any other laws of the United States, to the persons, companies and activities which are subject to this subtitle, to the extent that such laws are incon- sistent with, or in duplication of, the jurisdiction of the Commission or any provision of this subtitle, or any rule, regulation or order lawfully pre- scribed or issued under this subtitle, and to make effective the enforcement and review provisions of this subtitle. ARTICLE IX 278. This compact may be amended from time to time without the prior consent or approval of the Congress and any such amendment shall be ef- fective unless, within one year thereof, the Congress disapproves such an amendment. No amendment shall be effective unless adopted‘ by each of the signatories hereto. 279. Any signatory may withdraw from the compact upon one year’s writ- ten notice to that effect to the other signatories. In the event of a with- drawal of one of the signatories from the compact, the compact shall.be terminated. 280. Upon the termination of this compact, the jurisdiction over the matters and persons covered by this subtitle shall revert to the signatories and the Federal Government, as their interests may appear, and the applica- ble laws of the signatories and the Federal Government shall be reactivated without further legislation. ARTICLE X 281. Each of the signatories pledges to each of the other signatory parties faithful cooperation in the solution and control of transit and traffic prob- lems within the Metropolitan District and, in order to effect such purposes, agrees to enact any necessary legislation to achieve the objectives of the compact to the mutual benefit of the citizens living within said Metropolitan District and for the advancement of the interests of the signatories hereto. ARTICLE XI 282. If any part or provision of this compact or the application thereof to any person or circumstances be adjudged invalid by any court of compe- tent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this compact or the application thereof to other persons or circumstances and the signatories hereby declare that they would have entered into this compact or the remainder thereof had the invalidity of such provision or application thereof been apparent. 283. In accordance with the ordinary rules for construction of interstate compacts, this compact shall be liberally construed to eliminate the evils described therein and to effectuate the purposes thereof. TITLE II Compact Regulatory Provisions ARTICLE XII Transportation Covered 284. (a) This subtitle shall apply to the transportation for hire by any carrier of persons between any points in the Metropolitan District and to the persons engaged in rendering or performing such transportation service, except— (I) transportation by water; (2) transportation by the Federal Government, the signatories hereto, or any political subdivision thereof; (3) transportation by motor vehicles employed solely in transporting schoolchildren and teachers to or from public or private schools; (4) transportation performed in the course of an operation over a regular route, the major portion of which is outside the Metropolitan Dis- trict except where a major portion of the passenger traffic begins and ends within the Metropolitan District; (5) transportation performed by a common carrier by raiload subject to PART I of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended. APPENDIX F Reverse-flow Operation on Freeways US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU or PUBLIC ROADS Washington 25, DC, August 8, 1958. Subject: Reverse-flow Operation on Freeways Circular Memorandum To: Regional and Division Engineers From: G. M. Williams, Assistant Commissioner The traffic volumes that have been estimated for many sections of the Interstate System are of such magnitude as to emphasize the necessity for designing these facilities in a manner that will assure maximum efficiency in lane utilization. Under suitable circumstances, separate roadways for reverse-flow operation are among the devices that may be employed to accomplish this objective in the larger urban areas where cost per lane usually is high. The subject of reverse-flow operation is discussed in the AASHO Urban Policy. Pages 280—285 discuss reverse flow on expressways at grade, pages 353—3 56 discuss it for depressed freeways, and page 434 for elevated free- ways. Warrants are listed only on page 282 which are specifically for expressways at grade but essentially they are basic conditions that are applicable to freeways as well. The following requirements are particu- larly pertinent: 1. A directional distribution during peak hours that is substantially un- balanced, on the order of 2 to I. . A directional traffic volume that would require more than three lanes to be in operation in one direction during periods of peak volumes. . A large portion of the peak-hour traffic travels a substantial distance, say 3 miles or more, between principal points of entry and exit with little or no need for intermediate interchange. . Terminals of the reverse-flow roadway that can be suitably arranged to transfer traffic between it and the conventional one-way roadway in either direction or to nearby highways. Where conditions are suitable, consideration should be given to designing freeways with separate reverse-flow roadways. Where there are to be large future volumes initial construction could omit the reverse-flow roadway, so that during the first few years the highway would be in keeping with the volume and not give the appearance of over design as might be the case if all lanes are constructed initially. In addition, the pattern of traffic could be reexamined when it is necessary to add the reverse-flow roadway. The principle of reverse flow cannot be applied indiscriminately. It is apparent from the above requirements that the conditions under which it is applicable may not exist in many cities of intermediate size or smaller. Also, analysis for future traffic must take into account changes in land use which could change the imbalance in existing traffic. Experience in some cities indicates that unforeseen land improvements both within a city and in suburbs may develop which, by concurrently producing high traffic vol- umes in a direction- opposite to the direction of movement of the peak-hour traffic, diminish or eliminate the advisability of use of reverse-flow road— ways. Accordingly, this probability should be considered in planning and designing a freeway or an expressway so that there is flexibility in operation and possibility of later making alterations to meet changing traffic patterns. Please arrange to review at the very earliest preliminary stage the plans for those Interstate System highways and other freeways or expressways estimated to require more than three through-traffic lanes in each direction to determine if it is possible and practicable to provide all or a portion of the additional directional capacity required above three lanes by means of a separate reverse-flow roadway to accommodate the directional peak—hour volumes. For example, a total of six lanes on three roadways, one of which would be for reverse-flow operation to provide four lanes in one direction during peak hours, might provide the total capacity needed for a consider- able future period and at a lesser cost than to provide two roadways of four lanes each either initially or by stages. The initial step, of course, is adequate traffic information which has been stressed and requested in Assistant Commissioner Holmes’ circular memo- randum of July 7, 1958. .AHENDD‘G Bus line A Bus line B 1% Fare zone I 2 Central sector 8, 47 5 I4, 07 5 _ I 35 GIG—OMHQONJ" [24-hour weekday—both ways] But line C Rail line DE I 0 I I6, 390 I3, 675 390 I, 525 895 I, 070 I50 620 475 9.00 2, 730 270 — 1, 205 840 Number of Passengers on Express Transit Lines Rail line F But line D Bus line E and G Rail line F ,—~—\ /——-—’\——- /—~—“ 2 I 2 0 I 5, 830 12, 100 16, 800 810 I, 200 395 665 275 435 4! 5 675 1, 040 760 260 I, 265 OMHDH jot-a I , I 55 440 765 505 545 1 2 3 4 o 1 2 3 o i 2 3 o 1 2 3 o 1 2 3 8, 475 14,210 All lines except D and E go to Downtown D.C. Bus Lines: A—Operates on proposed Interstate Route 95 from Baltimore, beginning near Washington Circumferential Highway just beyond University of Maryland in Prince Georges County. B—Operates on Baltimore-Washington Parkway and proposed New York Avenue Freeway, beginning near Bladensburg, Md. C—Operates on proposed East Capitol Street Freeway and proposed East Capitol Street Mall, roadways beginning near Capitol Heights—Seat Pleasant, Md. D—Operates on Suitland Parkway, beginning in Suitland-Morningside, Md. area and ending at the terminal of proposed rail line DE in Southeast Washington. I4, 230 I3, 795 21, 030 20, 195 33, I30 E—Operates on Anacostia Freeway, beginning at Oxon Hill, Md. near Circumferential Highway and ending at the terminal of proposed rail line DE in Southeast Washington. G—Operates on Shirley Highway beginning beyond Washington Circumferential Highway near Springfield, Va. H—Operates on proposed Interstate Route 66, beginning just west of Falls Church, Va. near the Washington Circumferential Highway. I—Operates on George Washington Memorial Parkway, along the Potomac River, beginning in the vicinity of Cabin John, Md. 8,110 23, 255 10,770 20, 730 31, 040 12, 765 Rail Lines: DE—Trains operate from a terminal south of Anacostia River, south of the Anacostia business area into downtown, continuing on Rail Line J. F; F and G—Operates from south of Alexandria, Va., near the Washington Circumferential Highway in Fairfax County (a large number of passengers from Bus Line G will be picked up at Pentagon station) crossing Potomac River east of 14th Street Bridge, continuing on Rail Line K. J—Trains operate from north of Bethesda, Md., near the Circumferential Highway into downtown, continuing on Rail Line DE. K—Trains operate from near Wheaten, Md., just beyond the Washington Circumferential Highway, into downtown, continuing on Rail Route F and G. Befween Fare Zones for the Recommended Plan, I980 [24-hour weekday— both ways] Bus line G Bus line H Bus line Rail line ] Rail line K I 1 2 1 2 3 o I 2 Total 13, 275 3, 374 2, 461 19, 566 I8, 909 21, 739 44, I30 12,265 32, 975 443, 715 1, 215 94 186 1, 576 1, 730 — 286 19, 295 470 30 295 — 9, 075 300 20 I95 4, 390 475 3I 309 7: 395 I: 390 , 209 28, 930 I, 250 I, 907 . 22, 250 605 164 7, 670 730 189 28, 700 I, 010 24, 835 270 3, 575 1, 040 428 12, 335 250 3, 830 22, 520 910 18, 460 5: 390 4, 690 1, 105 3, 720 7, 525 10, 820 4, 475 3, 300 446 457 724 525 9, 484 86 6, 114 3, 385 7, 075 — 4, 160 94: 905 17: 515 3: 95I 5: 32° 4: 099 2: 975 34’ 314 37> 047 39: 535 32: 77° 725, 930 'U. 5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1959 0 - 454635