The Committee of 100 strongly supports the concept of tunneling the proposed center leg beneath the Mall but is gravely concerned about the location and design of the freeway north of Constitution Avenue.

The plan thus far disclosed for the center leg north of the Mall is an eight-lane depressed freeway occupying an open trench between Second and Third Streets that would sever most east-west streets and isolate Capitol Hill from the central business and employment area of the Nation's Capital. According to estimates by the District of Columbia Highway Department such plans would result in the condemnation of 20 acres of land (6 in residential use, 12 in commercial use, and 2 in educational and other public uses) at a cost of $19,310,000. Total costs, including construction, would be over $35 million per mile. Churches would be destroyed, many hundreds of people would lose their homes, and plans for private renewal investment would be frustrated.

Such adverse effects on the Nation's Capital are costly and avoidable.

It will be recalled that the center leg freeway was first proposed by the National Capital Planning Commission in 1950 as part of an all-highway transportation plan (a concept it has since abandoned). Initially this proposal, together with a similar proposal for a north leg freeway, were rejected by the District Highway Department and District Commissioners because of the cost and property damage that would result. (See Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, "A Recommended Highway Improvement Program," Nov. 17, 1952, p. 40.)

The enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, with its provision for 90 percent Federal aid for freeways that are a part of the Interstate System, appears to have overcome the reluctance of the District government to construct the center leg freeway. But this Federal legislation obviously was not intended to be construed as a subsidy for unnecessary destruction of central city property. Any doubts about this were removed by the 1961 amendment (23 U.S.Č. sec. 111) clarifying the right of cities to utilize tunneling techniques in freeway construction. The general north-south alinement of the proposed center leg offers a unique opportunity for the District government to utilize existing rights-of-way for construction of a tunneled freeway that would avoid many of the undesirable consequences of the center leg while promoting completion of a downtown freeway bypass removing interstate traffic from surface streets. Thus, by cut-and-cover construction of freeway tunnels beneath Second and Third Streets (for both northbound and southbound traffic) the District could satisfy both the need for this freeway and the equally important need to preserve the character, vitality and economic health of the central city area. Where it may be necessary at the northern end of the center leg to depart from the street right-of-way, then bored tunnel construction should be utilized to the maximum extent feasible.

While the construction and maintenance costs for such a freeway tunnel, including relocation of utilities and provision for ventilation and lighting, undoubtedly would be higher than for an open trench design, the total overall cost would probably be considerably less; since most of the contemplated $19,310,000 expenditure for property condemnation would be avoided and the District would receive over $1 million in property taxes alone each year that would otherwise be permanently lost.

The Committee of 100 believes that tunneling is imperative for such freeways as must be built in the heart of the Nation's Capital. We can ill afford more Chinese walls such as the Southwest Freeway or the E Street Expressway now under construction. The proposed tunneling beneath the Mall is an important first step, but the rest of the city's core, no less than the Mall, deserves like treatment.

We therefore hope that if the Congress approves the pending bill that it attaches appropriate requirements that any continuation of the freeway north of Constitution Avenue likewise be tunneled so as to minimize or eliminate the undesirable features that would otherwise result from the open-trench design.

In further documentation of our views, I would also like to submit for the record the testimony of the Committee of 100 on the center leg presented to the District Commissioners September 3, 1963, the answer to such testimony by the former District Highway Director, and the reply by the chairman of our roads subcommittee dated October 2, 1963, which was unanimously ratified and approved by the full Committee of 100 at its meeting of October 11, 1963.

Sincerely yours,

NEILL PHILLIPS, Chairman.

Senator COOPER. Just for the record, General Duke, will you state the length of the center leg and its estimated cost?

General DUKE. Our present estimates, Senator, indicate that the center leg will probably run just under 2 miles in length. It was quoted a while ago as running 1.8 miles. I would say that is generally correct. Our cost is roughly $70 to $71 million.

Senator COOPER. Do you know how many people would be dislocated by the construction of the center leg?

General DUKE. Would you allow me to supply that data for the

record. sir?

We have it. I don't have it available at this moment.

(The information requested follows:)

Senator COOPER. Have you made any estimate of the loss of taxable property? I mean by that the valuation of the property that would be removed from the rolls by the construction of the center leg?

General DUKE. Yes, sir, we do have that figure. We treat that on the immediate basis, since in our judgment in the long run the tax rolls are increased rather than decreased.

Senator COOPER. Can you supply this information?

General DUKE. Yes, sir.

(The information requested is as follows;)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CENTER LEG REQUESTED AT HEARINGS OF SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS, PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, JUNE 19, 1964

DISCUSSION OF DISPLACEMENT AND TAX LOSS

As a result of the public hearing held by the Board of Commissioners on September 3, 1963, the location of the center leg north of the Mall was narrowed down to two alternate alinements. They consisted of the recommended alinement located between Second and Third Streets, and an alternate located between Third and Fourth Streets. The Second and Third Streets alinement was selected because it displaced fewer persons, had better long-range real estate tax potential, cost less to construct and served traffic better. The estimated initial displacement for this alinement is approximately 1,690 persons and the esimated initial annual tax loss is approximately $220,000.

It is generally recognized that the socioeconomic consequences of any public project are of two types, short range and long range, and that long-range benefits are of much greater importance. The short-range consequences when adverse, however, must be faced to minimize their effects.

In this connection, the District is preparing legislation for the leasing of air rights over and under exclusive transportation rights-of-way. The objectives of this legislation are as follows:

1. Relocation of displaced persons. This act would potentially enable the space above transportation facilities, on a selected basis, to be utilized for residential purposes.

2. Increase of tax base.

This act would potentially enable the space above or below transportation facilities to be used for commercial and other structures, thereby increasing the real estate, income, and other tax bases.

3. Transportation facilities sometimes sever vital socioeconomic ties and tend to divide communities. This act would permit a bridging of facilities with buildings in order to provide continuous residential or business districts.

4. Esthetics and recreation. This act would enable the space above and below transportation facilities to be used for recreational or park purposes, to intensify the land use and permit full exploitation of esthetic possibilities.

5. Direct income. The District would derive a direct income in the form of air rights rent.

6. District "expansion." Land within the District is at a premium, and limited in area by law. This act would permit a multiple and more intense use of land in keeping with the dignity and beauty of the Nation's Capital.

As an example of the potential of air right development on the center leg and its implication in terms of displacement and tax base, a study was made which indicated the feasibility of providing apartment developments to house approximately 2,400 persons over that section of the center leg between Massachusetts Avenue and New York Avenue. This study estimated that a potential increase in annual real estate revenue of approximately $900,000 could result from combined commercial and residential air rights development over the center leg between Constitution Avenue and New York Avenue.

Senator COOPER. If the tunnel should be bored and extended beyond the present point of entry, it would be possible, would it not, that a number of these people would not be dislocated and the taxable property would not be destroyed?

General DUKE. Sir, I would have to say that to a degree this would be technically possible. Whether it would be practical and feasible to extend the tunnel for its entire length and thereby prevent relocations or destruction of business I would have to say that I would question this off hand.

Senator COOPER. I recognize that that is a matter for the engineers and the Bureau of Public Roads. My interest in asking that question is to make certain that the alternative of extending this tunnel as far north as possible be considered by the District Commission, its engineers and by the Bureau of Public Roads. Will that be done?

General DUKE. Absolutely, sir, and I would like to say on that score that this scheme that we have now is really a very rough thing as you have gathered. and will be coordinated with the Planning Commission, with the architect whom we select for design and with the Commission of Fine Arts from the standpoint of the beauty of the area and the aesthetics of the area. Certainly the tunnel will be extended to the proper length with these factors in mind. I wouldn't say that these agencies would necessarily indicate that the tunnel would be extended even further than the esthetics might require, for the express purpose of preventing relocation.

But from the standpoint of the esthetic treatment, I can assure you that this is an open question.

Senator COOPER. You have heard Mr. Walton testify that the Fine Arts Commission has not been consulted on this point. Do you intend to consult with the Fine Arts Commission?

General DUKE. Absolutely; yes, sir. We certainly do. The design. of this will be developed as far as I am concerned in complete consultation with the Commission.

Senator COOPER. You do not think it strange that the National Capital Planning Commission withheld its approval until it was shown designs and models of the proposed freeway which Senator Metcalf referred to as a ditch. You don't think that is strange at all.

General DUKE. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Don't you think that perhaps we should have the same opportunity to see the models and to see the exact plans before giving approval to the construction of a tunnel which in fact fixes the location of the center leg and removes Congress forever in my judgment-except for the appropriation of funds-from having anything to say about the construction of the entrances to this tunnel which even though located off the Capitol Grounds could effect the appearance and the beauty of the Capitol Grounds.

General DUKE. Sir, I sincerely understand your concern over this and I want to make sure, and I can assure you that the design of this center leg will, I am sure, relieve your mind of such concern.

The entirety within which this project has been conceived, Senator, is the same as all of the Interstate Highway Systems. The Bureau of Public Roads, the Secretary of Commerce has been delegated by the Congress the responsibility of reviewing all elements of the Interstate System and the District of Columbia as far as this, the Interstate Highway network is concerned, acts as one of the States. Therefore we have been following the same procedures with respect to the Interstate System as all the other States.

Senator COOPER. May I interject here to say that I think there is a difference. This is the Capital Citv. This is the Federal City. I think there is a great deal of responsibility for preserving the beauty not only for today but for the future, and you have responsibility to do that under your job. Others do also, but this Congress has the ultimate responsibility. It interests me that you have just assumed from the beginning that we would approve a bill which would give you carte blanche to do whatever you want to do, and that we would have no authority to do anything else about it.

I don't say this was your intention but it is the effect, whether your intention or not. I think that if anything has been accomplished by these hearings it is your assurance that you are going to consult with the Fine Arts Commission and that you are going to produce plans and models for the Capital Planning Commission, because these agencies are concerned not only about the construction of the center leg, but the effect upon the beauty of the city.

Senator RANDOLPH. Senator Cooper, for the record I want to be very clear. This was the effect of what General Duke told us at an earlier hearing before the subcommittee, that he would counsel with these agencies that you have mentioned. I am not disagreeing with the record being made here, but I would want to point out that we haven't had to pull this out of General Duke, because he said it before.

Senator COOPER. The record shows that he has not consulted with the Fine Arts Commission, and the record further shows that he has obtained only a conditional approval of the National Capital Planning Association.

General DUKE. May I inject one thing, Senator, with your permission?

Senator COOPER. Yes.

General DUKE. Just to refresh all of our memories on the technique of insuring that the Board of Commissioners is not given any undue authority to disrupt the beauty of the Capitol Grounds, the method by which this proposed bill would fulfill that requirement is contained in section 2 of the bill which says that this entire permission is subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol and to such conditions as he may prescribe.

Senator RANDOLPH. General Duke, insofar as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Roads is concerned, he has the same intense interest in the preservation of the beauty of the Capital City and its environs that is shared, I am sure, by the membership of the Congress generally, and yet he recognizes that there is the process of change

which must necessarily be part of our life. I once thought that when I purchased a residence in a certain part of the District of Columbia that it would be a rather quiet location, somewhat remote from the hurry of the city.

But this has been changed with the years, and now the cars are constantly moving by this residence, and sometimes backed up for blocks, and I recognize this as a problem of transportation, a problem of the movement of vehicles and of people.

I could conceive of nothing worse for the District of Columbia than to allow ourselves to bring about insufferable congestion in the District of Columbia by prolonged consideration of projects that are vital to the fulfillment of the Interstate System. I say this with due deference to the needs here of the preservation of the beauty and integrity of the Capitol Grounds themselves.

I want the record to show very clearly that I believe that this is a matter of concern to be sure. It is also a matter of immediate need. It is also a matter for consultation and counseling. I am sure General Duke that you and the Commissioners and the members of the Commissions involved, the Architect of the Capitol, and yes, the Congress, will not allow the project actually to move forward in construction until the answers to the questions that Senator Cooper and others have advanced are clearly enunciated.

Thank you, General.

General DUKE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator RANDOLPH. We must close our hearing for this morning. Senator Cooper, so that the record may be very clear, we will include all information pertinent to the hearing provided by those who have testified, supplementing their testimony because of questions, and also in the one instance the information by letter which was provided to the committee.

General Duke, we thank you very much.

General DUKE. Thank you very much, sir. It is a privilege to

be here.

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the hearing was concluded.)

O