(8) Memorial arches (covered pedestrian bridges) between U.S. Department of Agriculture buildings over Independence Avenue. The Congress has in the past enacted legislation permitting such use. The planned hotel over the Ninth Street Expressway was authorized by Public Law 86-743 and District of Columbia Code, section 1-244, approved September 13, 1960, and the planned Federal office building over 10th Street was authorized by Public Law 87-585 (76 Stat. 385), approved August 14, 1962. On April 27, 1964, the House Public Works Committee reported out a bill (H.R. 10392) authorizing the tunneling under the Mall for the center leg of the inner loop freeway. There are numerous examples of existing use of airspace over highways in other cities. The most striking of these is the four 32-story apartment buildingbus terminal complex over the Manhattan approaches to the George Washington Bridge in New York City. Other examples include: (1) John C. Lodge Expressway under Cobo Hall in Detroit. (2) Parking lots under San Francisco's Central Freeway. (3) Bus and auto parking under the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. (4) Eisenhower Expressway through the downtown post office in Chicago. (5) The United Nations complex over F.D.R. Drive in New York. (6) The Grand Central Station-New York Central Office Building complex over and under Park Avenue in New York City. (7) The main public library over a freeway in Hartford, Conn. (8) Restaurant over Turner Turnpike in Oklahoma. (9) Restaurant over New York Thruway. (10) Restaurant over Illinois Toll Road. (11) Hamburger's Department Store over Fayette Street in Baltimore. Mr. GARBER. Is there any information you could furnish us on that? I think it would be very helpful to the members of the committee if you can. Mr. AIRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. GARBER. Do we have in the data submitted to us an amortization schedule on the existing $50 million which has been borrowed and how that is being financed? Mr. AIRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. GARBER. That is in the material submitted? Mr. AIRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. LowE. The same data shows the repayment schedule anticipated on the $35 million. Mr. GARBER. On the table entitled "C-4," there is an estimated acreage requirement and the estimated cost under that. The most extensive land acquisition in your program is here in the north leg, west section, $29 million for 34 acres. That is about $850,000 per acre. On the east leg of the inner loop, you have $10 million for the rightof-way for 215 acres or about $50,000 an acre. What explains the difference between those acquisition costs? That is a very considerable difference. Mr. AIRIS. What table are you reading from there? Mr. GARBER. I was just using notes here. Mr. AIRIS. Sir, I will attempt to answer the question but could I have it read back? Mr. GARBER. Yes, sir. (The question was read.) Mr. AIRIS. Whatever the exact source of those figures, the answer is about like this: On the west section of the north leg, the right-of-way that could be taken would be some of the most expensive in the District whereas on the east leg the freeway would go through park land and is less expensive property. That would explain the difference in the unit cost. I would also add just this: That, as you will recall, the President's Advisory Committee recommended we consider the use of tunnels to the maximum extent practicable on the west section of the north leg. These estimates contained in the table are based on those available in the preliminary plans and with this new thinking on the use of tunnels, it could well be that the amount would be drastically reduced. We do not know yet, and we will not know until after we get our studies from our consultants. Mr. GARBER. On the use of tunnels, are the figures you have submitted to us on these estimates based on that premise, or on surface construction? Are these figures for surface construction? Mr. AIRIS. Let me just verify that. They were based, not-I repeat, not-on the use of a tunnel which is just being considered now. Mr. GARBER. You are considering the tunnel alternative? Mr. AIRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. GARBER. You would estimate your acquisition costs for land would go down and what would be your construction costs per mile? Would they go up? Mr. AIRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. GARBER. They would go up? Mr. AIRIS. That is correct. Mr. GARBER. At the moment we cannot get any clear picture of what the alternative program might result in? Mr. AIRIS. We would have to complete these studies before we definitely know what is the economical thing to do. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Dowdy, do you have any questions? Mr. DOWDY. No questions. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Airis, I suppose you and General Duke and Mr. Lowe, and maybe others, will be interested in further hearings when we will hear from the others. At least, some of you will be present then? Mr. AIRIS. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITENER. There is certain information you have already been asked to get for the committee and there may be more requested as we go along. I would hope that we probably could finish the hearings in 1 more day. Let us try to finish next Monday. Let us set next Monday as our target date to wind up the hearings if we can. We are not going to cut off any citizen who wants to be heard, but perhaps they will cooperate with us. I think that for the technical data, we will have to rely pretty much on what you gentlemen offer and anyone opposing it probably will oppose it on the basis of some broad policy consideration as to whether a gasoline tax should be increased or whether we ought to give the additional $35 million borrowing authority rather than on the technical matters you gentlemen will have to offer. In the meanwhile, Mr. Tobriner, if you and General Duke and your fellow Commissioners have any additional thoughts you would like to present to us, we would be happy to have you do so either in writing or orally. We do appreciate the cooperation you have given us and I want to say to Mr. Airis and all of you that personally I feel we are now getting on the right track in this matter of meeting the needs of the area on the transportation of people. I would hope that this attitude of having a well-balanced system of highways and other necessary systems could become the thought of the entire community and out of this attitude of working together we could bring about a solution to what I, as a smalltown, temporary resident of the District of Columbia, find to be intolerable at certain periods of the day. I commend you on this. With reference to Mr. Horton's question, and I am sorry he has gone, I do not feel as he does that the Commissioners diverted highway funds, if that is what he meant to imply, in providing for the Traffic Division, Police Department, from highway funds. As far as I know, that is sort of standard procedure. I know in our State they have been very careful that the highway patrol restricts itself to highway safety matters rather than general law enforcement. I presume your Traffic Safety Division on the Police Department here is pretty much restricted to that area of police work. Certainly, I would not want anything to be said that would indicate I felt you should not support the Police Department. I think we have the finest department of all. There is one other request I would like to make of Mr. Airis. Will you find the man who is going to tell us about relocation? I think that is one of the big problems confronting us, particularly the lower income group and the small businessman in the community uprooted by highways, freeways, or any other public condemnation of property. I think we are going to have to do something about that sooner or later and I hope we can do it sooner. We will come back here next Monday morning at 10 o'clock and I do not mean to ask you gentlemen to come if you have other matters that are more compelling. However, I would certainly hope Mr. Airis could find it possible to be here or have one of his top people with us. Mr. Lowe, if you can possibly do it, and I know you are terribly busy, we would like to have you since we sort of depend on you as the adding machine. It would be nice if you could be back here. Mr. LowE. We will be back. Mr. WHITENER. Then we will recess until Monday at 10 o'clock. (Thereupon, the hearing was recessed at 11:55 a.m.) FINANCING FEDERAL-AID AND LOCAL HIGHWAYS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MONDAY, MAY 25, 1964 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 445-A, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Basil Whitener (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Whitener (presiding), McMillan (chairman of the full committee), Dowdy, Hagan, and Harsha. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator. Mr. WHITENER. The subcommittee will now come to order. We will resume our hearings on H.R. 11022, a bill to increase highway borrowing authority and the gasoline tax. Mr. WHITENER. I believe at this time our next scheduled witness is Mr. Hyde Gillette, chairman, municipal finance committee, Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade. STATEMENT OF HYDE GILLETTE, CHAIRMAN MUNICIPAL FINANCE COMMITTEE, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I have a statement here which I think perhaps it will expedite matters if I read, since it is a very brief one. My name is Hyde Gillette, of the firm of Auchincloss, Parker & Redpath. I am serving as chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade's Municipal Finance Committee and appear before you in that capacity to speak in support of H.R. 11022-a bill to increase the loan authorization of the Highway Department and to increase the District of Columbia motor vehicle fuel tax. The recommendation of my committee has been approved by the board of directors, and therefore, represents board of trade policy. District officials who have the responsibility for carrying out the highway program have already outlined their programs and have advised you of the urgent necessity for increasing the borrowing capacity of the Highway Department by an additional $35 million. I will not attempt, therefore, to burden the committee with any details about the programs and their needs. The Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade is, as I think the chairman knows, completely committed to the pressing need for a balanced highway-rapid-transit transportation system to serve 33-423-64 61 |