STUDY OF ESSENTIAL RAILROAD PASSENGER SERVICE WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1968 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room 1202, New Senate Office Building, Hon. James B. Pearson presiding. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN Senator PEARSON. The committee will come to order. Senator Lausche is at the Foreign Relations Committee meeting. He will be over as soon as he can. I am going to open these hearings at his request and make a short statement, which is the chairman's statement. The hearings today and tomorrow are on the June 25, 1968, recommendations of the Interstate Commerce Commission proposing that (1) for 2 years following enactment a special test of public convenience and necessity and financial burden should be imposed on all passenger trains which represent the last remaining interstate service in either direction between two points provided by a rail carrier; and (2) the Secretary of Transportation, acting in cooperation with the Interstate Commerce Commission and other Federal agencies, should undertake and submit within 1 year following enactment a study of the existing and future potential for intercity railroad passenger service in the United States. These recommendations of the ICC are contained in a bill, S. 3861, introduced on July 19, 1968, by request of the Commission. S. 3861 also includes proposed amendments to section 13a contained in the ICC's June 25, 1968, recommendations. The Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year held a series of hearings (May 24, 25, July 31, August 1, 2, 3, and 25, 1967) on a number of passenger train service bills, including proposed amendments to section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act recommended by the ICC; S. 512, introduced by Senator Williams of New Jersey, and S. 1685, introduced by Senator Case, to amend section 13a; and Senate Joint Resolution 52, introduced by Senator Moss, and Senate Concurrent Resolution 25, introduced by Senator Allott for himself and 25 other Senators, to provide for moratoriums and studies of passenger train service and related matters. The Commerce Committee, at its July 18, 1968, executive session, voted to hold these additional hearings on the new June 25, 1968, ICC Staff member assigned to this hearing: Stanton P. Sender. proposals for a special test applicable to "last trains," and for a study of railway passenger service potential. The bill and agency comments will be placed in the record at this point. (The information referred to follows:) [S. 3861, 90th Cong., second sess.] A BILL To amend section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, to authorize a study of essential railroad passenger service by the Secretary of Transportation, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 13a of part I of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. 13a) is amended to read as follows: "13a. (1) A carrier or carriers subject to this part, if their rights with respect to the discontinuance or change, in whole or in part, of the operation or service of any passenger train or ferry operating between a point in one State, the District of Columbia, or a foreign country and a point in any other State or in the District of Columbia, are subject to any provision of the constitution or statutes of any State or any regulation or order of (or are the subject of any proceeding pending before) any court or an administrative or regulatory agency of any State, may, but shall not be required to, file with the Commission, and upon such filing shall mail to the Governor of each State in which such train or ferry is operated, and post in every station, depot, or other facility served thereby, including stations, depots, or facilites on the property of other carriers which share in the operation of said train, notice at least sixty days in advance of any such proposed discontinuance or change. The carrier or carriers filing such notice may, upon the expiration of, but not during, the notice period, discontinue or change any such operation or service pursuant to such notice except as otherwise ordered by the Commission pursuant to this paragraph, the laws or constitution of any State, or the decision or order of, or the pendency of any proceeding before, any court or State authority to the contrary notwithstanding. Upon the filing of such notice the Commission shall have authority during said sixty days' notice period, either upon complaint or upon its own initiative without complaint, to enter upon an investigation of the proposed discontinuance or change. Upon the institution of such investigation, the Commission, by its investigation order served upon the carrier or carriers affected thereby at least twenty days prior to the day on which such discontinuance or change would otherwise become effective, may require such train or ferry to be continued in operation or service, in whole or in part, pending hearing and decision in such investigation, but not for a longer period than seven months beyond the date when such discontinuance or change would otherwise have become effective: Provided, That the Commission may further require such train or ferry to be continued in operation or service, in whole or in part, for a period of no longer than two months beyond the date specified in its investigation order, pending completion of the investigation or the Commission's determination of any petition or petitions for reconsideration of its decision and order in such investigation. However, if during the notice period, the carrier or carriers discontinue or change, in whole or in part, the operation or service of any train or ferry, the Commission shall retain jurisdiction to enter upon an investigation of the change or discontinuance and may require the immediate restoration or continuance of operation or service of such train or ferry until the expiration of the notice period. When an investigation by the Commission is instituted under this section, the carrier or carriers filing such notice shall have the burden of establishing that public convenience and necessity permit the proposed discontinuance or change, in whole or in part, and that the continued operation or service of such train or ferry without discontinuance or change, in whole or in part, will unduly burden interstate or foreign commerce. If, after hearing in such investigation, whether concluded before or after such discontinuance or change has become effective, the Commission finds that the public convenience and necessity permits the proposed discontinuance or change, in whole or in part, and that the continued operation or service of such train or ferry without discontinuance or change, in whole or in part, will unduly burden interstate or foreign commerce, the Commission shall by order permit discontinuance of operation or service of such train or ferry, in whole or in part. If, however, the Commission finds that the operation or service of such train or ferry is required by public convenience and necessity and will not unduly burden interstate or foreign commerce, the Commission may by order require the continuance or restoration of operation or service of such train or ferry, in whole or in part, for a period not to exceed one year from the date of such order: Provided, however, That, for two years following the enactment of this proviso, where any trains or ferry proposed to be discontinued represents the last remaining passenger train or ferry operated in either direction by the carrier or carriers proposing such discontinuance, between a point in one State and to a point in another State, the District of Columbia, or a foreign country or from a point in the District of Columbia to a point in any State or a foreign country, the Commission shall require the continuance of the operation or service in question for one year from the date of its order unless it finds that (1) the public convenience and necessity do not require its continuance, or (2) that it finds that continuance of the service or operation in question will impair the ability of carrier or carriers proposing such changes or discontinuance to meet its common carrier responsibilities, considering the overall financial condition of the carrier or carriers in question: Provided further, That in the case of operations and service covered by the first proviso of this sentence, the Commission may attach such conditions to its order, requiring the continuance of the operations or service in question, as are just and reasonable to assure the preservation of a reasonable level of service for the passenger trains or ferries required to be continued: And provided further, That the jurisdiction of the Commission over operations and service subject to the first and second provisos of this sentence shall be exclusive and the carrier or carriers proposing to discontinue or change any operation or service covered by these provisos shall file a notice with the Commission as provided in this paragraph, the laws or constitution of any State, or the decision or order of, or the pendency of any proceeding before, any court or State authority to the contrary notwithstanding. The provisions of this paragraph shall not supersede the laws of any State or the orders or regulations of any administrative or regulatory body of any State applicable to such discontinuance or change unless notice as in this paragraph provided is filed with the Commission. On the expiration of an order by the Commission, after such investigation requiring the continuance or restoration of operation or service, the jurisdiction of any State as to such discontinuance or change shall no longer be superseded unless the procedure provided by this paragraph shall again be invoked by the carrier or carriers. "(2) Where the discontinuance or change, in whole or in part, by a carrier or carriers subject to this part, of the operation or service of any train or ferry operated wholly within the boundaries of a single State is prohibited by the constitution or statutes of any State or where the State authority having jurisdiction thereof shall have denied an application or petition duly filed with it by said carrier or carriers for authority to discontinue or change, in whole or in part, the operation or service of any such train or ferry or shall not have acted finally on such an application or petition within seven months from the presentation thereof, such carrier or carriers may petition the Commission for authority to effect such discontinuance or change. Upon the filing of such a petition, such discontinuance or change shall be subject to all of the provisions of paragraph (1) of this section to the same extent as if the subject train or ferry operated as described in the first sentence of paragraph (1) of this section: Provided, That the first, second, and third provisos of the eighth sentence in paragraph (1) of this section shall not apply to petitions filed with the Commission under this paragraph. When any petition shall be filed with the Commission under the provisions of this paragraph the Commission shall notify the Governor of the State in which such train or ferry is operated at least thirty days in advance of the hearing provided for in this paragraph, and such hearing shall be held by the Commission in the State in which such train or ferry is operated; and the Commission is authorized to avail itself of the cooperation, services, records, and facilities of the authorities in such State in the performance of its functions under this paragraph. "(3) Any State, administrative or regulatory agency of a State, or person, adversely affected or aggrieved by an order of the Commission entered pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this section, may bring suit to obtain judicial review thereof under those provisions of law applicable in the case of suits to enjoin, suspend, or set aside orders of the Commission." SEC. 2. The Secretary of Transportation, acting in cooperation with the Interstate Commerce Commission and other interested Federal agencies and departments, is authorized and directed to undertake and submit, within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a study of the existing and future potential for intercity railroad passenger service in the United States to the Committee on Commerce of the Senate and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives. In making this study, the Secretary shall consider, among other things: (1) Existing resources of all types for meeting the Nation's present passenger transportation needs. (2) Anticipated expansion of those resources by 1975 on the basis of current governmental or private activities (such as the interstate highway program, by Government, and auto production increased, by industry). (3) The Nation's expected passenger transportation needs, including business, private, and defense movement, in the years 1975 and 1985. (4) The ability of the existing resources, or resources as expanded by current governmental or private programs, to meet these anticipated needs adequately, efficiently, economically, expeditiously, safely, and comfortably, at least as far ahead as 1975. (5) The ability of improved railroad passenger service to meet these anticipated needs. (6) The proper role of the carriers and governmental bodies in developing the required quality and quantity of service, including methods of financing operations which are necessary but not economically viable. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C., July 31, 1968. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of July 22, 1968, requesting our comments on S. 3861, which would amend section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 13a, and authorize a study of essential railroad passenger service by the Secretary of Transportation. Section 13a was added to the Interstate Commerce Act in 1958 (Pub. L. 85-625, 72 Stat. 568, 571), at the instigation of rail carriers which urged that the several states, by denial or by refusal to act, prevented the cessation of passenger train operations and ferries no longer required or used by the public. It provides a method and procedures to make it possible for carriers by railroad subject to the Interstate Commerce Act to discontinue or change, in whole or in part, the interstate or intrastate operation or service of trains or ferries operated by them, notwithstanding otherwise applicable state laws. S. 3861 is intended to impose on the railroads and on the Interstate Commerce Commission new criteria for the change or discontinuance of certain interstate and intrastate passenger train and ferry operations; also, it would authorize a study by the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with the Interstate Commerce Commission and other interested Federal agencies, of the existing and future potential for intercity railroad passenger service in the United States. The enactment of S. 3861 would not directly affect the functions or operations of our Office, nor would it adversely affect the interest of the United States as a user of transportation. While we are aware of the need for viable solutions to the existing passenger transportation problems created in part by the increasing urbanization of sections of our country, we have no specialized knowledge of these problems and make no recommendation as to the action to be taken on the bill by your committee. Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, Washington, D.C., August 2, 1968. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This refers to your request of July 22, 1968, for the views of the Federal Maritime Commission with respect to S. 3861, a bill to amend section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, to authorize a study of essential railroad passenger service by the Secretary of Transportation, and for other purposes. Inasmuch as the bill does not affect the responsibilities or jurisdiction of the Commission, we express no views as to its enactment. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there would be no objection to the submission of this letter from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, JOHN HARLLEE, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In the Department's letter to you dated June 27, 1968, we presented our preliminary views on the Interstate Commerce Commission's Report concerning intercity rail passenger service and proposed amendments to Section 13 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act. We indicated that we would welcome the responsibility for conducting a study of the existing and future potential for intercity passenger service of the type proposed, provided sufficient funds and the power to compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of documents were authorized. We further indicated that views on the other recommendations of the Commission would be provided within the near future. Your Committee has since requested our views on S. 1175 (Committee Print #1). We are pleased at this time to offer our further views on the Commission's request and recommendations and on S. 1175 (Committee Print #1). The Department has posed no strong objections, and poses none now, to the various technical changes to Section 13 (a) set forth in S. 1175 (Committee Print #1). For the most part they are either technical or limited in scope. The Department supports the Commission's recommendation for a thorough study of the intercity passenger problem to assist in the creation of a more positive public policy. The general guidelines suggested by the Commission in its report are good ones. In particular, we would emphasize the Commission's admonition that any study of this problem should consider the overall intercity passenger transportation requirements of the country and should look at intercity railroad passenger service within this larger context. At the same time, it should be understood that any such study will encounter substantial difficulties. The extensive investigation of intercity railroad passenger service conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1959 (306 I.C.C. 417) and the exhaustive study conducted by the Senate Committee on Commerce which culminated in the publication in 1961 of the so-called Doyle Report similarly concluded that by any usual tests the need for intercity railroad passenger service had largely disappeared. Thus, any new study of this problem must develop some concept of public need different from that indicated by market preferences, or its conclusions will simply be a restatement of those already reached by two previous studies. We do not believe it will be enough merely to develop a new means of measuring need. We must also find a way to determine how much public or private money we are justified in spending to meet any identifiable extra-market need. There are no existing studies which provide satisfactory answers for either of these problems. Another problem associated with any thorough study of intercity passenger transportation is that existing data on intercity passenger travel is at best fragmentary and incomplete. The information which we are collecting in connection with the Northeast Corridor Transportation Planning Study and the Northeast Corridor Passenger Train Demonstration projects will constitute the first reasonably complete profile of intercity passenger travel yet compiled. Compiling data complete for the country as a whole will require more years and more funds beyond those funds now available for such purposes. If it is the judgment of the Congress that the Department of Transportation should assume responsibility for such a study, then we must respectfully urge that the expediture of additional funds must be authorized beyond those presently |