Senator PEARSON. We appreciate your coming in. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Donald Beattie. Will you come up, Mr. Beattie? Mr. Beattie is the executive secretary of the Railroad Labor Executives' Association with offices here in Washington. We are pleased to have you, Mr. Beattie, and pleased to have your statement on this particular subject. STATEMENT OF DONALD S. BEATTIE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION Mr. BEATTIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a list of the member organizations of the Railway Labor Executives' Association attached to my statement. On behalf of the railroad workers whom we represent, I want to urge you to act promptly and favorably on the Interstate Commerce Commission's bill, S. 3861, with the addition of two strengthening amendments. Our general views are summarized in a resolution approved unanimously by the RLEA on June 27, 1968, and with your permission I should like to read you that resolution. Senator PEARSON. Yes, of course, Mr. Beattie. Go right ahead. We have a copy of it here, and in addition to your statement, we will include this in the record. Mr. BEATTIE. Thank you, sir. [Reading:] Whereas the railroads, making use of section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, and other means, have killed off nearly 900 intercity passenger trains since 1958, leaving less than 600 in existence today, and Whereas this drive by most of America's railroads to destroy their intercity passenger trains is a gross disservice to the nation, and Whereas the attitude of most American railroads toward passenger serviceoffers a shocking and shameful contrast to that of the European railways, which run Trans European Express (TEE) trains linking over 100 cities in fast, clean, comfortable service, and to the Japanese Railways whose new Tokaido Line is a model for the world, and Whereas this Association has protested for years against the "public be damned" attitude of most American railroad corporations toward their passenger service and we have pleaded with Congress to halt the slaughter of passenger trains, and Whereas public concern over this problem is steadily mounting, as shown for example by these developments: On March 7, 1968, Interstate Commerce Commission Chairman Paul J. Tierney warned as follows: "Highway construction has not kept pace with the growth of traffic congestion. Air corridors in many metropolitan areas are rapidly developing their own congestion problems, and terminal facilities are becoming more difficult to reach. Yet the public's urge to travel is not abating. By 1984 we will have to provide the means to move twice the passenger traffic that moves today. Certainly, a viable rail network could make a major contribution in carrying that traffic without the huge investment, safety hazards, loss of valuable land and social dislocation inherent in providing alternative means of service. Rail passenger service will be transformed into an efficient national system only if there is a complete reversal of the traditional attitudes and policies of the industry, the public and government toward passenger service." On April 22, 1968 ICC examiner John S. Messer, after finding that the Southern Pacific and other railroads have downgraded their passenger service, that "this has contributed materially to the decline in patronage," and that "the need for passenger rail transportation at present and especially in the future is clear," recommended that the ICC require the railroads to observe "certain minimal standards" in their passenger service and that "a National Rail Passenger Sys tem should be created capable of meeting present and future intercity rail transportation requirements." On May 13, 1968 the New York Times in a lead editorial declared among other things: "Railroad companies have developed the propaganda myth that maintenance of passenger service is a matter of interest only to a dwindling number -of train buffs. In reality, 98 million passengers, not counting daily commuters, traveled on intercity trains last year. Rather than dwindling the number of rail passengers is likely to rise in the coming decade as highway and airline congestion worsens. If highway traffic triples in the near future, as experts expect, the immensely expensive interstate highway system now being built will not be able to sustain the burden. A functioning network of passenger railroads connecting major points in this nation is not a matter of nostalgia and romance; it is a practical necessity." and Whereas in contrast to the negative attitude of most of the railroad corporations, Mr. Stuart Saunders, chairman of Penn Central Company, on June 6, 1968 declared: "I would like to propose, either as a corollary or an alternative to Congressional review, that a National Railroad Passenger Council be created by appropriate governmental action to expedite solution of this (passenger service) problem. This council should be a group representative of the public, the railroads, and the governmental agencies concerned with transportation policy. It should move promptly, in as brief a time as possible, to study the problem and issue a report as a basis for formulating a railroad passenger service program within the larger context of the national transportation policy. Such a study is fundamental in determining the extent to which the Federal government must support rail passenger service. In addition to investigating the requirements of Federal participation in commuter, intercity and long-haul passenger service, it should analyze the need for Federal sponsorship of railroad research and development," and Whereas the Interstate Commerce Commission on June 25, 1968 after warning that "changes in Federal policy are urgently needed," recommended: “(1) that a Federal study of the need and means for preserving a National Rail Passenger System be initiated as soon as possible; (2) that section 12a be amended to provide more effective and efficient regulation geared to present conditions, including a provision to preserve a minimum level of service while the study is in progress; and (3) that the Post Office Department temporarily redirect its policies on mail contracts to support the present level of passenger train service during this study.": Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Railway Labor Executives Association: 1. Reiterates its previous appeals for suspension of section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act under which the railroads have slaughtered their passenger trains, 2. Wholeheartedly supports the recommendations by Mr. John S. Messer for minimal standards for rail passenger service and for creation of a National Rail Passenger System, and 3. Strongly endorses the proposal by Mr. Stuart Saunders for a National Railroad Passenger Council, offers the full participation of railway labor in such a council, urges prompt creation of this council by the Federal government, and suggests that the Council should file its report and recommendations no later than March 31, 1969, and 4. Urges prompt action by Congress and the Post Office Department to implement the above-cited ICC recommendations of June 25, 1968 including enactment of a strong bill on the subject providing among other things for protective conditions for railroad employees adversely affected by passenger train abandonments and for a National Railroad Passenger Council along the general lines suggested by Mr. Stuart Saunders. The two amendments to S. 3861 that we urge are (1) insertion of protective conditions for employees adversely affected by passenger train abandonments similar to those provided by law for employees adversely affected by abandonment of other railroad operations; and (2) creation of a National Railroad Passenger Council, with representatives from the Congress, the executive branch, the public, the railroads, and railroad labor, to make a study and recommendations regarding the future of rail passenger service. We feel this council should make its report by next March 31. We also feel that the Council should not depend on a new appropriation of funds from Congress, but it should draw on whatever funds are already available for such a purpose in the executive branch plus private contributions. One reason for suggesting such a National Railroad Passenger Council rather than a study by the Department of Transportation alone is that there will be a change of administration next year, which might involve some delay and confusion in pushing ahead this very urgent matter. I am constrained to add that testimony by Mr. A. Scheffer Lang, the Federal Railroad Administrator, before the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, July 8, 1968, makes us feel even more strongly that Mr. Stuart Saunders' basic proposal for a National Railroad Passenger Council is a more fruitful approach than a study by the DOT. The mandate of Congress to the Department of Transportation was to lead in the creation of a well-balanced, fully integrated and efficient transportation system to meet the needs of this and the next generation of Americans. By all of the standard productive criteria employed in the transportation field, the need for transportation will double in the next 12 years. The evidence is all too apparent that we will not meet the challenge to provide the facilities for a doubled need if we proceed at our present rate. Indeed, the evidence is all too clear that we have failed to a significant degree to provide for today's needs. No competent observer now contends that our highways are adequate for transportation, nor that the passenger car is in itself the ideal vehicle for a great amount of transportation. The charge of Congress to the DOT to embark upon a $2 million study into auto insurance because of the questionable practices of the industry is indicative of only a small part of the problems which beset this country in relation to the automobile. Air transportation, only a decade ago thought to be the wave of the future, has reached a saturation point at many city airports, a Timemagazine article of June 14, 1968, cites Los Angeles Airport, designed to handle 15 million passengers a year with its seven highly automated "satellite terminals," as already obsolete. The article also reports that O'Hare Airport of Chicago has almost reached the saturation point. In short, as put by New York Port Authority Aviation Director John R. Wiley, "What we have is an air transportation crisis." Yet, in the face of the present crisis in transporting our Nation's people safely and efficiently, what has the DOT proposed? Has it given us a broad outline for action to create the capacity that we need or to point out where innovation must be had because of present saturation? The simple answer is no. Instead, we have Mr. Lang commenting as follows: "Preserving today's outmoded intercity passenger service is and can be of little benefit to the public." Yet in 1967, this outmoded passenger service carried 100 million passengers distances of 75 miles or farther. One can appreciate that the DOT would prefer to enter rail passenger service with a new slate. It is, of course, much less trouble to be involved in those programs like the Northeast corridor project because it is possible to deal with a new technology, and a new market. Moreover, one can also sympathize with the Department's reluctance to become involved in trying to force an industry to perform a task when that industry has demonstrated such a uniform unwillingness to do so. However, the DOT is supposed to operate in the interest of the public even though it means incurring the wrath of the various transportation industries from time to time. This is the situation we have here. It is indeed ironic that the DOT, which has the responsibility for making highways and automobiles safer, would encourage the Congress to place another 100 million passenger Americans onto a highway system when that system has such an enormous record of destruction. For a department in which so much public trust has been placed, this is a very inauspicious performance. We in railway labor feel very strongly that today's intercity passenger service should not be destroyed. It should be built upon to create the truly modern, comfortable, efficient service that is needed and wanted and that will be even more needed and wanted in the future. The charge is made that America's railroads can't afford to continue running passenger trains. As to that, I refer you to appendix H of the ICC's report to you of June 25, 1968. This report shows the "deficit related solely to passenger and allied services" amounted to only $30.9 million in 1966, the latest year available. The eastern railroads, on this basis, actually showed a passenger profit of $16.8 million in 1966, with the southern roads showing a deficit of $23.8 million and the western roads a deficit of $23.9 million. The "solely related" passenger deficit of $30.9 million compares with a total railway net operating income of $1,046 million in 1966. In 1967 the ICC suggested the railroads' "solely related" passenger deficit rose "significantly" from 1966. But it was undoubtedly still only a small fraction of their total 1967 net operating income of $677 million. Solely related expenses are relatively easy to identify. They consist of those expenses which are generated by or incurred on behalf of the passenger service only and have no relationship to other services performed by the railroad. Examples of this type of expense are repairs to passenger train cars, fuel consumed by locomotives in passenger trains, wages of ticket agents, and maintenance of passenger stations. Maintenance and depreciation of the roadway used exclusively by passenger trains, including such items as replacement of rails, ties, ballast and other track material, repairs to bridges, trestles, culverts and other elevated structures, maintenance and depreciation of power transmission systems, the expenses of the entire passenger traffic department, wages of enginemen, trainmen, such as conductors and ticket takers and the wages of certain general office clerks are still further examples of solely related passenger expenses. Clearly the railroads can afford present passenger service, even if they can't afford the desirable new equipment. As to the future need for passenger service, the ICC report said: Clearly, all levels of government will face extremely heavy burdens in order to enlarge the present highway and air systems to accommodate public and private transportation to the future expansion of intercity travel. Therefore, it is imperative that a comprehensive review be initiated of the future contribution which a modernized rail passenger system could make before some vital services are abandoned. Even in terms of present needs, the ICC said: rail travel still provides a real service to those who fear flying. For those who do not own automobiles or prefer not to drive, the railroad has a distinct value. Students, servicemen, the less affluent and senior citizens are the most fre quent groups who use rail service. Some rail routes provide excellent service for tourists who want to view the country during their vacations rather than speed to and from a single destination. Railroads also furnish passenger service that is less subject to cancelllation because of weather conditions. Although its ability to prevent a near breakdown in intercity travel when the highways and airways are closed is tapped only infrequently, it is a very vital service during those periods. Peak travel demands of holiday and vacation traffic are also substantially eased by rail service. Unfortunately for the carriers, a large part of the public uses the railroads only when they are crowded over the holidays or when the weather is bad. The reserve capacity of railroads to transport large masses of people during periods of national emergency is another asset of an intercity rail passenger system. Gentlemen, I predict that if Congress does nothing-if you let present intercity rail passenger service be destroyed-it will not be more than a few years before such a public demand will arise that you will see the Government paying the entire bill to create a wholly new rail passenger system. The time to begin a rescue operation is immediately at hand. The cost of corrective action now would be minimal; the cost of delayed action will mount exorbitantly. (The list of the membership of the Railway Labor Executives' Association follows:) The Railway Labor Executives' Association is an organization of the chief executives of the national and international railway labor unions which represent virtually all employees in the railroad industry. The chief executives of the following rail unions are affiliated with our Association: American Railway Supervisors' Association. American Train Dispatchers' Association. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Brotherhood of Railway. Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes. Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders' International Union. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Bunilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers. International Organization Masters, Mates and Pilots of America. National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen. Railroad Yardmasters of America. Railway Employes' Department, AFL-CIO. Seafarers' International Union of North America. Transportation-Communication Employees Union. |