ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND LETTERS TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT C. BYRD, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify at this hearing on S. 3861, a bill to amend section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act, and to authorize a study of essential railroad passenger service by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. The fact that inter-city non-commuter railroad passenger service has been declining both in the quality and quantity of the service offered to the public is no longer a new finding. It has been taking place for well over 15 years. The reasons are not hard to document. They stem from the advent of the jet age and the superhighway as well as from the fact that freight traffic is the remaining profitable service for the railroads to operate. That some of the fall-off in rail traffic should have occurred because of the increase in air and highway travel is understandable. But that the extent of the drop-off should be as great as it has been does not quite make as much sense. It does not make sense that only 1.4 percent of all intercity travel should be by rail. Yet that is a fact. I do not believe that the United States government should ever decide, as a matter of public policy, that it is in the national interest to foster a decline in rail passenger service with a view toward the possible elimination of all such inter-city service. I do not believe the day should ever come when it is no longer possible to travel from city to city by railroad. On the contrary, I believe the United States government should set itself firmly in favor of increased inter-city rail passenger service. I do not say this because I am a sentimentalist about the railroads. I make this statement because I firmly believe that the long- and medium-haul passenger train has an important and proper role to play in our nation's future transportation "mix." Passenger trains have their place just as jets, autos, and interstate buses have theirs. Neither the one, nor any of the others, is in any way a complete substitute for each other. Thus, while there are services the airlines can perform which are unique, similarly the railroads offer certain advantages to the public which cannot be otherwise provided. To take just one example, the airlines are somewhat at the mercy of the elements. During severe storms the planes often do not fly. Yet no such conditions apply to rail transport. Rain or shine the railroads almost always can operate. Further, nearly all of our small rural communities, like many of those which I am privileged to represent, are serviced by rail links to the exclusion of any other form of transport save autos or buses. And since not every family owns a car or may want to travel by bus, there should exist a substantial reservoir of prospective rail passengers who would be more than willing to take the train if the train can be there to carry them. It is for these reasons that I heartily endorse Section 2 of S. 3861 which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with the Interstate Commerce Commission and other interested Federal agencies and departments, to undertake a study of the existing and future potential for inter-city railroad passenger service in this country. I think such a study will clearly show that the public interest will only be served by a continuation—and expansion—of inter-city rail passenger service. I believe that a majority of West Virginians would favor such an expansion in our State. Rail lines go into almost every city and hamlet in West Virginia. Today they are used almost exclusively for hauling coal and the other products of our industries to the marketplace. But I think there is a tremendous opportu nity for profitable passenger service if only a concerted effort is made to re-think this problem and find solutions to it. It may mean using single-unit, commuter type, self-propelled cars. Perhaps it would mean consolidating stations and railroad operations into more efficient units. I believe the railroads have the ability to transfer the efficiency which they have brought to freight operations to the passenger field. I believe the study which is authorized in this bill, if it explores every possible avenue, including subsidies, will find a way to preserve and expand intercity rail passenger service and will prove a landmark in the history of American railroads. I again would like to thank the Chairman of this distinguished Committee for permitting me to testify here today. STATEMENT BY HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Unless this Committee and the Congress act affirmatively, effectively and soon, the passenger train may become a thing of the past. In the 10 years since the passage of the Transportation Act of 1958, almost 900 trains have been discontinued. There are now fewer than 600 passenger trains operating in the country compared to more than 20,000 back in 1929, and the Interstate Commerce Commission faces a rising stack of petitions to discontinue many of these 600. It is not for nostalgia's sake that we must retain and build upon our rail passenger system. The system is vital to our ever more urbanized and mobile society of which congestion is the predominant characteristic. The passenger train potentially is the most efficient of all modes of transportation of large numbers of people. The trains do not require new and expensive rights-of-way, covered with tons of concrete, as do automobiles, buses and trucks. Trains typically go from city center to city center usually to the convenience of their passengers. Airline passengers frequently lose much or even all of the time they hope to save through flying because of delays in takeoffs or landings, or, assuming they are lucky enough to encounter neither, because of the time it takes to get downtown. Only a few days ago, airlines in the Northeast Corridor were advising passengers between New York and Washington to save time by going by train. Last year the railroads carried almost 300 million passengers at estimated revenue of $485 million. This compares with a peak of more than 910 million passengers carried in 1944 at revenues approaching $1.8 billion. While these figures serve to show the sad trend of passenger service in the U.S., it is significant that millions still use the railroads and that some lines even make a profit. And millions more would use trains, I am convinced, if there were better service, on-time and cleaner trains. For years the ICC has shown almost total indifference to the plight of railroad passengers. Thus headlines greeted the recent recommendation of ICC Examiner John S. Messer for establishment of minimum standards for service on passenger trains, including the requirement that all trains have air conditioning, heating facilities, lighting, rest rooms and drinking water "in good operational order." Since the late 1950's I have introduced legislation to prevent the drain of essential rail passenger service so that there might be something to which to apply the minimum standards Mr. Messer so rightly recommends. My bills-the current measure is S. 1685-would amend the Transportation Act of 1958 (Section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act) which regulates the discontinuance of passenger trains and ferries. This law gave the railroads almost carte blanc power to dismember the nation's passenger railroads. With the aid of a supine Interstate Commerce Commission they have nearly succeeded in doing so. Belatedly the ICC has proposed amendments to the law. The proposals are. however, not only late but too little. In general the ICC bill (S. 3861) proposes a "comprehensive study" of the need for, and means of preserving, a national railroad passenger system. Further, the ICC proposes that the "study" of passenger needs be paralleled by "steps. . . to maintain a minimum level of essential passenger service." To do this, the agency recommends that Section 13a be "suitably amended to modernize its provisions and render them more effective as an instrument of policy during the duration of the study." Unfortunately, the "suitable amendments" proposed by the ICC do not meet the need. For example, the ICC proposal would not change existing law which does not require that some public agency, either state or federal, assume jurisdiction in an interstate passenger discontinuance. If the appropriate state agency, assuming there is one, refuses to take jurisdiction, the carrier is under no compulsion to clear a discontinuance with the ICC, and the service can be dropped unimpeded. In a recent example of how this provision operates, the State of New Jersey and the ICC both disclaimed jurisdiction over a proposal to drop the Erie Lackawanna Ferries between Hoboken, N.J. and New York City. This left the operator of the ferries free to scuttle the service, and it was scuttled, resulting in inconvenience to thousands of daily commuters. The ICC proposals also are wanting in that they would not require the Commission to issue orders in cases coming before it which it decides not to investigate. Under existing law, not only does ICC “inaction" leave a carrier free to drop a passenger service, but the courts have held that the public has no appeal. Under the color of this non-provision, the Weehawken ferries in New Jersey and trains involved in more than 60 other cases before the ICC have gone out of business in the last 10 years. The ICC bill does not recognize its own responsibility with regard to employees of a discontinued passenger service, though under existing law the ICC may routinely protect workers affected by a line abandonment. On the affirmative side there are some slight improvements contained in the ICC bill. (1) The proposed legislation, I am glad to say, adopts a provision in my bill giving state regulatory agencies additional time (seven months, as compared to four in existing law) to act on discontinuances of trains operating wholly within a single state. (2) The ICC makes proposals to protect the public against a railroad dropping a train during the notice period which brings the Commission into a discontinu ance case. (3) There is a provision which would prevent the removal of a carrier's last train between two interstate points. This is strictly stop-gap to assure that passenger railroads do not go out of business altogether while the ICC study is underway. And (4) the measure gives the Commission an additional three to five months to investigate proposed interstate discontinuances, although this is hardly sufficient in matters of such complexity. In sum, the ICC proposals amount to only minimal improvement in the present law. They would not assure continuance of essential passenger services while rehabilitation programs are developed, as my bill (S. 1685) would. The provisions of S. 1685 were fully explained by my testimony before the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year. Essentially, they would revoke the arbitrary authority Congress granted the carriers under Section 13a to drop vital passenger service without hearing or appeal. If the ICC wishes to maintain a "minimum level of essential railroad passenger service" while it investigates the nation's rail passenger system, it could help by getting behind S. 1685. My bill has been supported by the Railway Labor Executives' Association, the National Association of Railroad Passengers and by a number of state regulatory agencies. By acting favorably on S. 1685 the Committee and the Congress will serve notice that they clearly understand the vital role that passenger railroads can, and must, play in the nation's transportation system now and in the future. [From the New York Times, July 27, 1968] Current difficulties for the airlines at New York's congested airports present a golden opportunity for the railroads to attract customers to their potentially profitable, middle-distance runs in the busy Northeast corridor. Although the flight time from New York to Washington is under an hour, air travelers between this city and the nation's capital normally have to figure on two hours from center city to center city. With the current delays for aircraft stacked up over airports and waiting for runway clearances, the air time from 98-319-68-10 Manhattan to Capitol Hill is beginning to approach the fastest train run of three hours and 35 minutes. The trouble is that trains are frequently behind schedule also, and that the railroads have become notoriously contemptuous of passenger comfort. Furthermore, rail schedules frequently ignore passenger convenience. For example, the two early morning trains from New York to Washington make numerous stops and take almost four hours for the trip. The 8 A.M. President out of Pennsylvania Station doesn't reach Washington until 11:50-when it's on time-and that's only seven minutes ahead of a bus that leaves New York at the same hour. Surely the railroads can do better than that, even without the new high speed equipment that has been subject to such inordinate delays. The railroads could also attract and hold more passengers by improving the cleanliness of their cars and the quality of dining-car and other services. A little effort in these areas would go a long way toward changing the don't-give-a-damn-for-the-passenger image of railroad management. Switching more Atlantic corridor passengers to the rail won't solve the airport congestion problem, but it could help. Currently, some 12.8 per cent of all scheduled flights in and out of New York's airports originate in or are destined for Boston and Washington. This traffic could be served almost as quickly and perhaps more efficiently on the ground if the railroads would make the effort. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, DEAR CHAIRMAN MAGNUSON: On behalf of the Board of Directors of TAA. I should like to reaffirm the Association's opposition to any substantive changes in Section 13a of the Interstate Commerce Act. This Section, in our opinion, provides a fair means by which railroads faced with unprofitable passenger-train operations can seek administrative relief through the Interstate Commerce Commission. The latest proposed changes in this Section are contained in S. 3861, which is the subject of current hearings before your Committee. In May and August of 1967, two witnesses appeared before your Committee to present TAA's views on a number of bills designed to amend Section 13a, including S. 1175, a bill very similar to S. 3861. At that time, these witnesses cited reasons why TAA believed specific proposed provisions are undesirable, and why such legislation would unduly delay future unprofitable passengertrain discontinuance cases. While a number of changes have been made in S. 3861, this bill, as written, still does not overcome the basic objections that were expressed during last year's hearings. Therefore, we recommend that your Committee not give Section 1 of this bill favorable consideration. We have no objection to the study proposed in Section 2 of the bill. We request that this letter be made a part of the official transcript of these hearings. Sincerely, HAROLD HAMMOND, President. THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE, July 26, 1968. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The National Industrial Traffic League is greatly concerned with the provisions of S. 3861 and other pending bills which would inhibit the efforts of the railroads to eliminate unprofitable and burdensome passenger train service. As you know, the League is a national organization of shippers and as such represents both large and small users of transportation services in every part of the country. In addition to manufacturers of all types, the Leagues membership embraces shippers of agricultural products, products of mines and includes Chambers of Commerce, Boards of Trade and other organizations. The |