Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-11-04
Transportation Plan

Whatever else may be said Of it.
and it is apparent that great many
things will be-the report of the Ma
tional Capital Transportation Agency
does not suffer from any lack of con-
fidence.
Its grandiose $793-million subway,
criSs-croSSing the downtown and shoot
ing off in all directions to the suburbs,
would, If it were built, be a fine thing
for Washington. No one disputes the
fact that some superior form of transit
is needed in order to avoid excessive
future highway construction. There is
no doubt that the rail system described
would attract wide patronage. But to
assert, as the Meta does, that COM
muters would choose to use this system
in sufficient numbers to pay its entire
capital and operating costs over the
next 40 years is an astounding claim.
There is no precedent in experience
elsewhere to support it. To justify it,
the Meta must supply more celebrating
detail than its report contains. Since
the subway as proposed depends almost
wholly on Federal financing, however,
this is question which in the final
analysis rests with Congress.
The section of the plan dealing
with highways is another matter. For
the Meta here has done more than
simply curtail certain parts of the
regional freeway system which has been
carefully developed and generally APP
proved for years. It has cut the heart
out of this systemic such a degree,
in fact, that the question arises as to
whether the true intent might not
be to make automobile congestion so
clearly intolerable, through inadequate
highways, that commuters would have
no alternative but to seek other forms
Of transportation that exist only on
paper. The skeleton highway system
proposed as a substitute has not been
studied by highway officials, nor is it
certain-deSpite Meta statements to
the contrary-that it could be financed
under existing policies underlying Fed
eral aid in highway construction.
The justification in the Meta
report for these highway proposals,
moreover, is far too vague. The report
says, for example, that Three Sisters
Bridge is unnecessary because a rail-
transit line would extend into the
Arlington-F Fairfax region and that, in it's
considered Judgment, existing Potomac
bridges alone would have sufficient ca
pacity in 1880 to accommodate vehicular
traffic. Here we go again! What is
the source of traffic estimates which
allegedly support this assumption? How.
many automobiles will there be in
relation to adequate" bridge capacity?
How many people will use the transit
line, and where will they come from?
The report does not say. Highway
officials who have seen the traffic
projections which apparently served as
basis for the Meta decisions contend
that it is necessary to see precisely
how such data were applied in order
to evaluate the validity of the conclu-
SionS. This information is expected
later on from the Meta. Until that
time, in our opinion, the public would
be wise to reserve judgment on much
of the report.
There are other aspects Of the plan
on which we intend to comment in sub
sequent editorials. The most urgent
question now, however, concerns the
status Of those currently authorized
highway projects which are in conflict
with the Meta PLAN In the face Of
mounting traffic, can the Washington
area afford to hold up these projects
for an indefinite period while awaiting
decision on transit plan which may
or may not be authorized by Congress
and which, in any event, would not be
operable for years? We do not think so.
Meanwhile, the Meta director, Mr..
Stolzenbach, has asked President Ken
nedy to request certain appropriations
and authorizations Immediately in order
to begin its program. Before decisions
on this request are made, the White
House will, Of course, be required to
satisfy itself that the Meta proposals
stand up under critical analysis.