All matters in which the MTA would be empowered to render a final order, decision, or requirement might be appealed to the State commission, or when the proceeding arose in an interstate metropolitan district, to the joint State commission. Conceptually, all questions arising under this act could be divided into transportation and nontransportation matters. Transportation matters would refer to those questions for which the Interstate Commerce Commission has traditionally been responsible, for example: Operating rights, and rates and practices. Nontransportation matters would refer to those which are normally entertained by judicial courts, for example, taxation and damages.

Transportation matters could be appealed beyond the State commission to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Beyond the Commission the existing appeals procedures would apply. Nontransportation matters except designation of districts would be appealed to the highest court in the State and the usual remedies beyond that court would apply.

2. Substantive powers of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority The powers of the MTA should be designed to plan and carry out effective programs providing balanced and well integrated mass transportation systems within the districts, yet providing an essential element of flexibility and a range of alternative methods to meet local needs. Diagram 4 illustrates the probable range of powers needed by the MTA. Only the more critical of these will be discussed.

Five basic powers would be required for accomplishment of the goals set forth. First, the MTA must develop a long-range mass transportation master plan. Second, in the development of plans and the projects thereunder, the MTA must cooperate and coordinate with other governmental bodies properly charged with an interest therein. Third, the MTA must be able to control, regulate, and to the extent necessary operate, all mass transportation and mass transportation facilities and equipment within the metropolitan district in order to achieve a balanced and maximum utilization of all facilities and modes. Fourth, the MTA should have power to tax the movement of and license all mass transportation modes so as to obtain operating revenues. This could aid in equalizing the cost base for the various modes of mass transportation so as to improve the balance of use of existing capacities. Other taxing powers pose insuperable legal problems. Fifth, the MTA must have the power to raise capital funds through the issuance of obligations and the flotation of private, State, or Federal financial indebtedness.

Planning. The MTA ought to be required to prepare a transportation master plan for the district and to complete the original plan, if none exists at the time of formation, within 3 years. The plan of course should be continuously revised and extended as growth and change requires. In the planning function the MTA should be required to coordinate its efforts with other land use and public works planners in the district. Financing of the planning function could initially come from Federal funds but should eventually be supported by the MTA. The MTA should follow sound practices as giving adequate notice, conducting public hearings and building records thereat. Other public bodies should be heard at such proceedings and their position recorded.

Regulation. Much of of metro transportation is now supplied by private corporations and to the maximum extent possible this should continue. However many metros lack a single agency responsible for the regulation of such carriers. This would include all interstate metros and those States where transit regulation is delegated to incorporated cities. Clearly such regulation must be uniform and coordinated for the entire district and should apply to all carriers moving passengers within the district including those portions of interstate routes carrying mass movement passengers within the district. All other regulatory powers over transportation would remain as at present.

Entry. The powers over entry should be broad enough to produce the most desirable route structures and the best balance of modes. Existing carriers should have grandfather rights but the MTA might have the power to initiate a proceeding to alter these rights. Reduction of duplication and needless competition would be goals as well as securing needed route extensions and revisions in a timely manner. These extensions and revisions should be operated as early as possible in the changing development of the district and such devices as stop-loss contracts should be used for financial support by the MTA in the period while these routes were maturing. It is possible that the MTA should be able to initiate proceedings for consolidations and mergers if necessary to strengthen the regulated companies. It clearly should consider their applications. The general financial weaknesses seen in those metros served by large numbers of small companies demonstrates the need for such strengthening. Taxation. Undoubtedly financing has been the single most critical public problem in metropolitan transportation. The artificial constitutional and jurisdictional limitations on the revenue sources of local governments have erected barriers that only Federal grants have been able to conquer. Other State laws limit actions such as subsidizing or making contracts for public service with private corporations. Subvention of State tax revenues has become increasingly important in local finance and as a consequence those States with inadequate State taxing powers place an additional burden on the local governments. CED comments, "Obviously the great metropolitan complexes within which the bulk of our national income is produced have the capacity to pay for local services. But the tax sources of local governments are too limited and inflexible to tap the

8

• Committee for Economic Development, "Guiding Metropolitan Growth," August 1960,