The D.C. Freeway Revolt and the Coming of Metro Part 8 The Metro Revolt Table of Contents Advancing Metro ............................................................................................................................ 2 The Volpe Plan ............................................................................................................................... 5 The I-66 Problem in Virginia ........................................................................................................ 11 The New Delegate ......................................................................................................................... 20 Metro Funds .................................................................................................................................. 23 Three Sisters Bridge Design ......................................................................................................... 25 Fighting for Metro ......................................................................................................................... 26 Chairman Natcher Makes His Point ............................................................................................. 31 On the Eve of Revolt ..................................................................................................................... 37 Day of the Revolt .......................................................................................................................... 40 After the Revolution ..................................................................................................................... 55 Trying to Move On ....................................................................................................................... 59 Trying to Break the Impasse ......................................................................................................... 63 Hearings on District Appropriations, 1972 ................................................................................... 67 The Ghost Bridge .......................................................................................................................... 72 On Appeal ..................................................................................................................................... 77 The I-66 Lawsuit ........................................................................................................................... 86 A Blockbuster Ruling ................................................................................................................... 93 Freeway and Metro Linkage Tightens......................................................................................... 106 Cutting the Gordian Knot ............................................................................................................ 115 The Revolt, Part 2 ....................................................................................................................... 120 After the Vote ............................................................................................................................. 138 Fighting For/Against Freeways ................................................................................................... 143 I-66 Hassles ................................................................................................................................. 151 The End of the Freeway Trauma? ............................................................................................... 154 Part 8 The Metro Revolt Advancing Metro On Saturday, January 2, Secretary Volpe sent a brief letter to General Graham regarding Metro’s financial prospects. Secretary Volpe wrote that he “noted with increasing concern the mounting jeopardy into which the long-range financial plan . appears recently to have fallen.” He asked General Graham, “Pursuant to my responsibilities in this area, I request that you take no further action on a new financial plan . until I have had an opportunity to review [it] . and possible alternatives” for finding the extra $510 million needed to finish Metro construction.” Councilmember Moore, chairman of the WMATA board, replied that he welcomed Secretary Volpe’s “review and help.” He called on WMATA staff to honor the request. General Graham confirmed that he would comply with Secretary Volpe’s request. Jack Eisen reported: An aide said Volpe’s intention is to expedite the building of the system. A Metro official said he is confident that Volpe would reject any suggestion that the length or quality of the system be reduced . It was not clear yesterday whether Volpe acted completely on his own initiative, or had been asked to get involved in the Metro problem. An aide said he understood that the Secretary’s assistance was solicited by “a number of community leaders” not otherwise identified. [Eisen, Jack, “Volpe to Review Metro Cost Crisis,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, January 5, 1971] On January 6, Maryland’s Board of Public Works agreed to release $10 million to help its two Washington area counties may their $15 million contribution to WMATA. However, release was dependent on receipt of current construction financing plans and clearance by State Attorney General Francis B. Burch that WMATA had satisfied all aspects of the mass transit bond statute the General Assembly had approved in 1970. The three board members – Governor Mandel, Comptroller Goldstein, and State Treasurer John Leutkemeyer – expressed concerns about the ultimate cost of Metro and the Federal Government’s commitment to the project. Governor Mandell, who suggested the cost could rise to $3.5 or $4 billion, wanted “factual figures and accurate figures . I mean honest figures.” Although Congress had authorized Federal funds for the present year, it was withholding the District share, prompting a concern that Congress might abandon the project and leave Maryland and Virginia to pay more for it. Goldstein asked, “Is there just going to be a big ditch dug and nothing else happens?” Gladys Noon Spellman was one of the chief advocates to address the board in support of the funding. She was serving on the Metro board and the Washington Suburban Transit Commission, which was the conduit for the two Maryland counties’ contributions to WMATA. Although she conceded the counties were concerned about the long-term Federal commitment, she argued that the counties should make their payments with confidence that the project will be built. She disclosed to the Public Works Board that in August 1969, as the District city council was deciding whether to advance the freeway system as a way of securing release of the Metro matching funds, she had warned council members that Prince George’s County, where she lived, might pull out of the planned system. If the city council did not comply with Section 23 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, county officials would lose confidence in the plan and withdraw from it. [Eisen, Jack, “Md. Acts On Metro Funds,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, January 7, 1971; “Maryland Acts to Free Its Funds for Subway,” The Evening Star, January 7, 1971] On January 14, Carlton R. Sickles of Maryland became chairman of the WMATA board of directors, replacing District Councilman Moore in accordance with the annual rotation specified in the WMATA compact. Jay E. Richs of Arlington became first vice chairman while the Reverend Moore became second vice chairman. That same day, WMATA staff proposed new minority hiring rules. The plan would require firms with $500,000 or more in contracts to hire a specific number of minority employees in certain occupation classifications. The highest goal, 43 percent, would be for iron worker jobs by May 1974. Laborers, teamsters, roofers, cement masons, and brick layers would be excluded because local unions for those classifications consisted primarily of minority members. Carpenters, plasterers, and operating engineers also were excluded because they were “demonstrating affirmatively their intention of including minority group members within their ranks.” The staff plan also proposed a job training program for 220 minority members who, upon graduation, would be assured of jobs on the Metro construction project. Unions and the Federal government would fund the training program. [Kneece, Jack, “Minority Hiring Rules Offered For Subway,” The Evening Star, January 14, 1971; Eisen, Jack, “Metro Acts to Bar Bias,” The Washington Post and Times Herald, January 15, 1971] WMATA held a seminar at Airlie House in Warrington, Virginia, with about 160 officials from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to discuss the status of Metro. The key issue was how to pay for the 98-mile system. As WMATA Comptroller Lowe made clear, the Wall Street securities firms of Kuhn, Loeb and Company and Dillon, Read and Company had indicated that WMATA would not be able to market $900 million in revenue bonds without a guarantee from the Federal Government or some tax means of retiring the bonds if revenue from fares were insufficient. The bonds would have to carry a 7.5-percent interest rate, not 5 percent as originally planned. Officials discussed tax options, such as a payroll tax in the District or a regional tax, to be collected only if farebox revenues were insufficient. However, officials preferred other options, such as a regional gasoline tax or simply the Federal guarantee to make up the difference. Maryland and Virginia officials urged WMATA to pursue the Federal