Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-12-26
By FRANCIS r. DOUGLAS

Officials hammering out plans
for a transit authority for Wash
lington have before them for
study the program meeting
somewhat similar problems which
has been recommended by a Bal
timore committee.
The Baltimore recommends
tons go farther than may be
possible or desirable in Wash
ington. For one thing. Baltimore
is concerned with only one State
jurisdiction: the Washington
area with the District and two
States.
But it is regarded as likely
that the Baltimore program may
influence the thinking of Wash
Iington planners.
Made. Report
The Baltimore Committee on
Mass Transportation made its
report December IL to Mayor
Thomas D'Alesandro, jr. 1t is
lnow being studied by officials OF
that area. Here are its main
Recommendations:
l. A transportation authority
should be set up to own and
Operate the transit system.
2. 1t should be metropolitan
in scope.
3. The transportation author
lily should establish transporta-
ton policy and direct "all trans
Iportation activities"
When the committee said "all
transportation activities" it COW
cred about everything except
transporting bricks in Wheel
lbarrowS.
1t has been pointed out that
there is a surprising parallel be-
tween the Baltimore program
and the first report in the mass
transit survey which is getting
under way in Washington.
That report recommended an
area wide regulatory authority
which could become an operat-
ing authority If decisions to that
end are reached.
Baltimore Plan
Under the Baltimore plan, the
proposed transportation author
.ity would supercede and assume
the functions Of:
/. The Department of Traffic
Engineering. The counterpart OF
this in Washington is the De-
Ipartment of Vehicles and Traffic
| 2. The OF Street Parkin 6
Commission. Washington has its
Motor Vehicle Parking Agency.
3. The transportation plan
ming function of the City Plan
ming Commission. Here the Ma
tional Capital Planning Com
mission has some authority for
transportation planning but had
not exercised 1t to any great
extent.
4. The transit regulatory
function of the Maryland Public
Service Commission. In Wash
lington this would mean a tran
sit authority would be indie
pendent of the Public Utilities
Commission
The interdependence of high
way use by mass transit vehicles
and other traffic is recognized
In the plans already made in
Washington. In the proposal for
a regulatory authority drawn up
by Jerome M. Alper, attorney
and approved by the National
Capital Planning Commission
and the egional Planning
Council, there is provision for
q Traffic and Highway Board.
Area Wide Basis
This board. also to be set ur
on an area-wide basis, would be
concerned with planning, con-
troll and enforcement of high
way use as affecting the service
rendered by the transit system
The board would not be SUBJ
sidiary to the transit authority
whether regulatory or opera
tional. Mr.. Alper's report said
1t was not considered desirable
or feasible" to give the pro-
posed authority direct power
over traffic and highways"
The Baltimore report cited
that city's master transportation
plan. drawn up by the City
Plan Commission. This program
was estimated in 1850 to cost
$215 million. 1t consists of a
system of radial arteries and
r{n~ straafn