But Spong added that unless the experimental train project is alternately extended into downtown Washington with commuter stops en route, Dulles might be better served by an extension of the presently planned Metro system.

Through a consultant, the Metro agency is already studying the feasibility of such an extension, Spong noted.

To preserve the special quality of Georgetown, Volpe said the Department is investigating the possibilty of tunneling rather than extending the elevated Whitehurst Freeway.

Volpe led a successful effort to tunnel under New Orleans' historic French Quarter, rather than construct an elevated expressway there.

Volpe said the Department also is investigating the possible use of abandoned rail right-of-way as an immediate means of mass transit. Noting that this is not a new idea, he said it seems to merit another look.

Volpe said the Shirley Highway express bus lane service now underway has proven to be a marked success and is expected to replace about 5,000 cars on the busy corridor by spring.

He said his Department is committed to help provide 90 additional buses for the project.

Volpe's mention of a regional airport authority was the first high-level Federal mention of the Nixon administration's proposal to sell National and Dulles since a one-line teaser item appeared in President Nixon's fiscal 1972 budget.

This time Volpe went further: He suggested that a regional authority might eventually include Baltimore's Friendship Airport, which is not federally owned. Volpe said the Federal Government would be willing to subsidize free minibus service if the F Street mall were expanded. The D.C. Transit Co. recently applied to discontinue the minibus service on grounds that it is not a paying operation and that the smaller buses are more difficult to maintain.

Mr. NATCHER. On March 31, 1971, an article appeared in the Evening Star entitled "U.S. Can't Fund Metro Till D.C. Share Is Freed." A copy of this article is inserted in the record at this point.

(The article referred to follows:)

[From the Evening Star, Mar. 31, 1971]

UNITED STATES CAN'T FUND METRO TILL DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHARE IS

FREED

(By Stephen Green, Star Staff Writer)

Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe has found he cannot produce $68 million in matching funds for Washington's subway system, in spite of his January statement that the money would be released immediately.

Under Secretary of Transportation James M. Beggs said yesterday the $68 million in Federal matching funds won't be released until Congress gives the District its share of rapid transit money.

In January, Volpe said he would release the $68 million in matching Federal funds immediately, even though the District's share of subway costs, totaling $34.2 million, remained frozen in the House Appropriations Committee.

But yesterday Beggs said none of the $68 million has been released by the Department of Transportation. He added that legally the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority may not have the Federal matching funds until the District's share of subway costs is actually appropriated.

Representative William H. Natcher, Democrat, of Kentucky, chairman of the House District Appropriations Subcommittee, has balked at agreeing to the District subway money appropriation because of his dissatisfaction over the state of freeway construction in the city.

Beggs made his comments after meeting for more than an hour with Representative Joel T. Broyhill, Republican, of Virginia, who had warned President Nixon that the Appropriations Committee would not release the District subway funds until construction of the Three Sisters Bridge resumes and work begins on other road projects, such as the South Leg Freeway, as required by the 1970 Highway Act.

Mr. NATCHER. Hearings on the design of the Three Sisters Bridge were con cluded on December 16, 1970. An article appeared in the Washington Post on December 17, 1970, entitled "Hearings End on Design for Bridge."

A copy of this article is as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 17, 1970]

HEARINGS END ON DESIGN FOR BRIDGE

The next chapter in the decade long saga of the Three Sisters Bridge project will now be written by District of Columbia Highway Director Thomas F. Airis and Virginia highway officials.

When 3 days of around-the-clock hearings ended at 3:40 p.m. yesterday, it became their task to sift the testimony of about 130 witnesses. Then they must make recommendations to Federal officials on the design of the disputed Potomac River crossing.

A lopsided majority of the witnesses urged instead that the whole project be dropped.

Many called the hearings illegal because, among other reasons, Mayor Walter E. Washington and Members of the City Council did not conduct them in person. Federal rules on such hearings provide for a direct recommendation by highway departments to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Bureau of Public Roads without requiring clearance from such bodies as the Council or from the Mayor.

Airis told a reporter, however, that he plans to clear his recommendations with those officials before transmitting them to Charles E. Hall, the road bureau's District of Columbia division engineer.

Hall was an observer at most of the hearing sessions. The rules provide that a public announcement be made of Hall's recommendation after it is sent to his superiors.

Work on the bridge piers began late in 1969 in compliance with a law requiring the span's construction. Activity was suspended by court order in August until after the just concluded hearings on the design.

Mr. NATCHER. In March of this year Representative Joel T. Broyhill directed a letter to the White House concerning the stalling tactics of the District officials pertaining to construction of Three Sisters Bridge. It developed that in order to continue stalling the construction of the bridge an order was issued directing that an 81-foot model of the proposed bridge be constructed. An article appeared in the Evening Star on March 30, 1971, entitled "White House Orders Talk in Three Sisters Rift." This article is inserted in the record at this point.

[From the Evening Star, Mar. 30, 1971]

WHITE HOUSE ORDERS TALK IN THREE SISTERS RIFT

(By Jack Kneece, Star Staff Writer)

The White House has ordered Transportation Under Secretary James M. Beggs to meet with Representative Joel T. Broyhill today to discuss congressional threats to cut off District subway funds if construction is not begun on the Three Sisters Bridge.

Broyhill wrote the White House last week, warning members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee would vote against the subway funds unless construction begins on the controversial bridge.

Broyhill, a Virginia Republican, said he was angered by a noncommittal “thank you for your letter" type reply from the White House. So he wrote a second, sterner letter.

"I warned them I would not put up with a brush-off either," said Broyhill, who was to meet with Beggs at 3 p.m. today.

Broyhill said he convinced the White House that Congress is "dead earnest" about the subway fund threat.

Broyhill said a model of the bridge is being used as the current reason for delaying construction of the bridge-a reason he said is spurious.

"I think the White House has been trying to use this deliberately as a test confrontation with the Congress on the powers of the executive branch versus the Congress," he said.

The 81-foot model of the proposed bridge is being constructed in Skokie, Ill., at the request of the Federal Highway Administration.

An engineer at Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, the New York consulting firm which designed the single span bridge, said the model was "not absolutely necessary" but added:

"Perhaps in view of the controversy, it's a good thing we are building one." Fred H. Sterbenz, project engineer, said the model will be completed in July, when testing designed to determine what stress and load factors the span can bear, will start.

Mr. NATCHER. The Governor of Maryland, along with the State Comptroller, issued statements to the effect that the price for constructing the rapid rail transit system will be closer to $4 billion than $2.9 plus billion. On January 24, 1971, an article appeared in the Evening Star entitled "Subway Funds Hit New Snag." This article is inserted in the record at this point.

(The article referred to follows:)

[From the Evening Star, Jan. 24, 1971]

SUBWAY FUNDS HIT NEW SNAG

(By James B. Rowland, Star Staff Writer)

ANNAPOLIS.-Washington subway builders face another delay in obtaining $10 million from Maryland because of the agency's lack of an acceptable longrange financing plan for the $2.9 billion mass transit system.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's revenue and spending program sent to Gov. Marvin Mandel last week is based on the agency's initial and now out-dated cost estimate of $25 billion for the 98-mile system due for completion in 1980.

The Maryland Board of Public Works, the State's final authority on the disbursement of construction funds, said here January 6 it would release the $10 million for the subway project only after the board had received the agency's updated plans for meeting building costs. The transit agency last month said inflation and other factors have raised the price to $2.9 billion.

Mandel noted that the State law authorizing the $19 million requires that the board know how the total costs are to be met.

INTENDED FOR TWO COUNTIES

The $10 million State authorization was intended to help Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties meet committed payments of $8.91 million and $6.78 million, respectively. The money was due to WMATA on January 2.

WMATA will not be able to decide on a long-range financing plan for another 4 to 6 weeks at least, a spokesman for the agency said yesterday.

Mandel, chairman of the public works board, said through a spokesman yesterday that the State is bound to its commitment to support mass transit, but that he insists on seeing definitive figures so that the Sate will not be investing its money blindly.

State Comptroller Louis L. Goldstein, another member of the three-man public works board, said the board cannot act until WMATA financing plans are brought up to date.

INFORMATION NEEDED

"We've got to have that information because otherwise our contribution will be a shot in the dark," Goldstein said.

"It's not the spending of the $10 million now we're so concerned about, but the future. What about the Federal contributions? Are the subdivisions going to end up having to pick up the entire burden?" Mandel said.

"Our sources in Washington tell us the price will be closer to $4 billion than $2.9 billion, and this will require a tremendous amount of money from within the State somewhere," the Governor warned.

Goldstein said the WMATA data sent public works board members last week also does not include a written commitment to pay back the $10 million or suggest a repayment plan. The money is to be handled by the Washington Suburban Transit Commission, the Montgomery-Prince Georges County arm of WMATA.

State and WSTC officials agree the law requires repayment of the $10 million as soon as the State sets up a formal schedule or plan for getting the money back. This is to be done by the Governor and his newly created State Department of Transportation which becomes operative July 1.

Mr. NATCHER. An article quoting Governor Mandel appeared in the Sunday Star of January 31, 1971, entitled "A Way Out of Subway Fund Crisis Proposed." A copy of this article is inserted in the record at this point. (The article referred to follows:)

[From the Sunday Star, Jan. 31, 1971]

A WAY OUT OF SUBWAY FUND CRISIS PROPOSED

(By Jack Kneece, Star Staff Writer)

Subway agency officials said yesterday it is not too late for Washington to bail itself out of financial difficulties caused by tardy payment of subway construction funds.

But they linked success in erasing the $590,000 in penalties assessed by the area subway agency to fast action by Congress-particularly the House Appropriations Committee.

Funds have been held up in the past by Representative William H. Natcher, Democrat, Kentucky, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for the District. He has held up subway funds due the District because of dissatisfaction with the progress of certain freeways.

Schuyler Lowe, chief fiscal officer for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, explained that by paying in advance, the District could erase all of its late penalties.

He said, specifically, that payment of $34 million by early spring and then $38 million due WMATA from the District for fiscal year 1972-by August would erase the District's penalties.

Although this sounds like a happy way out of the dilemma, chances are that congressional haggling not only will prevent this but will lead to even more penalties.

TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY

The Transit Authority also has assessed Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties a total of more than $72,000 since January 2 for not having produced their latest construction commitment to the $2.98 billion subway system.

The late assessments continue to spiral at a rate of more than $2,000 a day in the District and to a lesser extent in the counties.

District City Council Chairman Gilbert Hahn, Jr., said yesterday he had been concerned from the beginning about the WMATA clause calling for such penalties.

But he said that from a practical standpoint the Transit Authority could not function without such a clause.

Delmar Ison, WMATA Comptroller, Lowe, and Carlton Sickles, Chairman of the Transit Authority explained that the clause is necessary only to insure pay. ment on time like payments on a car by consumers.

They said the subway agency had built into its operating expenses a return of 6 percent on investments of idle funds.

"As you know, sometimes we'll have funds for a year or more before we use them," Sickles said. But, by law, the transit authority cannot award a contract without having the money in hand.

RETURN IS EARMARKED

So the return on its investment of idle funds is earmarked for executive and administrative costs. Therefore, those jurisdictions which pay late are in turn assessed the same 6 percent the authority would have realized had it had the funds in hand.

All insisted that the penalty clause is equitable and vital.

Hahn also pointed out that the Authority's full faith and credit would be seriously undermined without this clause in contracts.

The assessment was levied against the District for failure to make its $34.2 million payment due last July 1.

Meanwhile, the Maryland counties said they have held up payment of their subway contribution because the State, in turn, has not made its $10 million loan to them.

The counties said the State must make such a contribution before they can produce their $15.7 million contribution.

Transit officials said it would be even easier for Montgomery and Prince Georges to erase their penalties by paying in advance over the next 2 years in an amount of time equal to their tardiness.

A TEN MILLION DOLLAR SQUABBLE

There also is a behind-the-scenes squabble among the counties, the Governor, and the Transit Authority over whether the $10 million from the State is a loan or a grant.

"We of course take the position that it is a loan-not a grant," said a spokesman for Maryland Gov. Marvin Mandel. But some highly placed transit officials said the wording in the law clearly terms it a grant.

Mandel also has asked for detailed long-range spending proposals from transit officials before releasing any more State funds. He has said the project's real costs are more like $4 billion than $2.98 billion.

WMATA's long-range spending blueprint will be produced within a month officials there said.

Montgomery owes $8.9 million and Prince Georges $6.8 million for the total $15.7 million due. They have been assessed for tardy payment due January 2. Montgomery's assessment to date is $40,965 and Prince Georges' is $31,276.

HISTORY OF SUBWAY LEGISLATION

Mr. NATCHER. In 1963, the District of Columbia reported a bill to the House of Representatives, which provided for the construction of a rapid rail transit system for the city of Washington. The District of Columbia Committee was unable to answer questions concerning the cost of such a system, and this bill was recommitted.

In 1965, the District of Columbia Committee reported out a bill providing for construction of a 25-mile system at a total cost of $431 million; $100 million was to be paid by the Federal Government and $50 million by the District of Columbia. The balance of the cost was to be raised through the sale of bonds. Before the 25-mile system proceeded under construction, authorizing legislation was enacted by Congress in 1969, which provided for a 98-mile system at a total cost of $2.5 billion. The National Capital Transportation Act of 1965 provided for the 25-mile rapid rail transit system, and the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 authorized a regional transit system at a total cost of $2.5 billion with $1,447,044,000 to be in Federal grants, $216,500,000 to be the District of Columbia's share, and with the suburban jurisdictions paying $357 million. The balance of $835 million would be raised through revenue bonds issued by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTING SUBWAY

For several years now, our committee has not believed that the 98-mile rapid rail transit system could be constructed for $2.5 billion, and each year since the system was authorized has questioned the officials as to whether or not they were still of the opinion that $2.5 billion would construct such a system. In addition, our committee has maintained all down through the years that bonds issued could not be retired out of the fare box. The rapid rail transit systems in this country have never been able to retire bonds out of the fare box.

On November 24, 1970, at the time the supplemental appropriation bill for fiscal year 1971 was before our committee, we questioned the officials of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority concerning the $2.5 billion cost of the 98-mile system. We pointed out to the officials of the Authority that we had never believed that the 98 miles could be constructed for $2.5 billion and inquired as to whether or not the officials were still of the opinion that the system could be constructed for this amount. The officials stated for the first time that the 98 miles could not be constructed for the $2.5 billion, and that the cost would be substantially higher than the $2.5 billion authorized. When the question was raised as to whether or not the figure would be nearer $4 billion than the $2.5 billion authorized, the officials stated in part as follows:

General GRAHAM. I do not think anyone has that answer, Mr. Chairman. At the time we put these figures together in late 1967, we were assuming a 5-percent rate of construction escalation compounded per year, and allowed several hun