League is generally recognized as the voice of the nation's transportation rate payers. Our concern with the pending passenger service legislation is that the deficits from passenger service must inevitably be made up either by a higher level of freight rates or a lower level of freight service particularly with respect to the provision of an adequate car supply. Based on the accounting procedures prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission for separation of expenses between freight and passenger services the railroads will likely incur a deficit from passenger services in 1968 of between $500 million and $600 million. The precise extent to which these constitute avoidable costs and losses is debatable but unquestionably there is an avoidable loss of at least $100 to $200 million. In the last few years there has been an accelerating decline in the use of intercity rail passenger services. The Post Office Department has diverted substantial mail revenues from passenger trains and operating costs and losses have increased. The railroads' only remedy is to eliminate these hopelessly losing operations. In August 1967 railroads increased freight rates by approximately $300 million, again in June 1968 freight rates were increased by approximately $300 million and the railroads are now seeking further increases. The losses from passenger service were obviously a major factor in motivating the railroads to seek higher rates and if the passenger losses are permitted to continue and worsen they inevitably will result in still higher freight rates and consequent inflationary pressures. The National Industrial Traffic League sees no objection to a full scale investigation of railroad passenger service such as suggested by the Interstate Commerce Commission but the other provisions of the pending bills would certainly have the effect of inhibiting and seriously retarding the railroads' efforts to relieve themselves and their shippers of the serious burden of these losses. The League, therefore, urges the Senate Commerce Committee not to approve the provisions of any of the pending bills which would in any way inhibit the efforts of the railroads to eliminate unprofitable intercity passenger train service. Respectfully submitted. SAM HALL FLINT, Chairman, Legislative Committee. WASHINGTON, D.C., July 25, 1968. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: This letter is responsive to inquiry from your staff concerning any possible effect passage of S. 3861 might have on pending litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 68 C 956, City of Chicago, et al. v. United States of America, et al., an action which seeks to set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission issued under section 13a (1) of the Act and thus to restore full operation of the "Georgian" passenger trains between Chicago, Ill. and Atlanta, Ga. The suit was commencd May 27, 1968 by City of Chicago, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee, Village of Milford, City of Watseka, City of Hoopeston, City of Danville, City of Terre Haute, City of Vincennes and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. These plaintiffs have been joined by the State regulatory agencies of Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama and by City of Evansville and National Association of Railroad Passengers. I serve as commerce counsel for all plaintiffs. S. 3861 was introduced July 19, 1968 at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which had transmitted its draft bill and recommendations in a report to your Committee on June 25, 1968. In so far as section 13a (1) of the Act is concerned, S. 3861 contains two amendments which are entirely new and which have not been the subject of prior hearing in the 90th Congress. One provision is the "last train" amendment. The other provision, which has received scant attention thus far, is an amendment which would specifically require that notice of a proposed discontinuance be posted at all stations served by a train which is jointly operated by two or more carriers. No change is proposed in the required service of the notice upon Governors of States in which the train is operated. This letter is addressed to the second of the proposed amendments to section 13a (1). The case before the court at Chicago involves the discontinuance by Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company ("C&EI") of its segment of the “Georgian" passenger trains operating daily in each direction between Chicago, Ill. and Atlanta, Ga. The C&EI handles the train between Chicago, Ill. and Evansville, Ind., where Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company takes over the train for the operation between Evansville, Ind. and Atlanta, Ga. C&EI served notice that it would discontinue its segment of the operation. The Commission authorized this partial discontinuance, by final action on May 15, 1968. Two orders were served on May 15, 1968. The first, issued at 9:30 AM, would have ruled in the traveling public's favor by dismissing the proceeding for failure of C&EI to effectively invoke the Commission's jurisdiction in that notice of the proposed discontinuance was not posted at stations served by the train south of Evansville, Ind., and the notice as posted failed to adequately describe the through-route nature of the train. The second order, denominated "corrected order", was issued at 3:00 PM. It found that C&EI had invoked the Commission's jurisdiction, thus ruling in the railroad's favor. The sole justification for the notice amendment contained in S. 3861 was given yesterday by I.C.C. Chairman Paul J. Tierney: "Fifth, lines 8-10 page 2 of S. 3861 provide more adequate notice to all patrons of a given train." The sole comment contained in the I.C.C.'s June 25, 1968 report to the Committee is: "Requires the posting of the notice on the property of carriers other than those proposing a discontinuance where the train or trains are part of a joint serviceThis provision is new.” (p. 60) "Item 2 provides for more adequate notice to rail passengers and is basically self-explanatory.” (p. 63) I know of no discontinuance proceeding pending before the I.C.C. or the federal courts (other than the instant action in Chicago) where the issue of the I.C.C.'s failure to require notice at all stations served by a train is in issue. Plaintiffs take the position before the court in Chicago that notice is presently required at all stations served by a train, and that the failure to provide proper and adequate notice rendered the agency without jurisdiction to authorize the discontinuance of C&EI's segment of the "Georgian" train. A contrary interpretation of existing law, by enactment of the I.C.C.'s proposal without satisfactory explanation, could possibly be adverse to the 14 plaintiffs, including three state agencies, seeking to restore the "Georgian" train for its full run between Chicago, Ill., and Atlanta, Ga. Very truly yours, GORDON P. MACDOUGALL. ORDER Service Date: May 15, 1968. At a Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Division 3, acting as an Appellate Division, held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 8th day of May, 1968. Finance Docket No. 24725 CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD Co.-DISCONTINUANCE OF TRAINS Nos. 93 AND 54 BETWEEN CHICAGO, ILL., AND EVANSVILLE, IND. Upon consideration of the record in the above-titled proceedings, including the petition filed by the Cities of Chicago, Danville, Hoopeston, Terre Haute, Cincennes and Watseka and the Village of Milford, on March 1, 1968, for reconsideration of the order of the Commission, Division 3, dated January 25, 1968, authorizing the above-titled discontinuance; applicant's reply thereto; petitioners' motion to strike certain matter appearing in the reply; and applicant's relpy to the motion, and It appearing, That the matters appearing in the reply to the petition objected to in the motion to strike are not of record in this proceeding and therefore not properly before this Commission as evidence and that no objection is made to motion to strike; It further appearing, That in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission under section 13a (1) of the Interstate Commerce Act a carrier must comply with certain requirements, including the posting of notice "in each station, depot, or other facility involved" (49 CFR 43.5 (j)), which notice must contain a "complete description of the present service of the train . . . involved and of the discontinuance or change of operation or service proposed" (49 CFR 43.5(c)); and that the purpose of requiring such notice is to give the travelling public affected the opportunity to protest the proposed discontinuance; and It further appearing, That applicant in the above-titled proceeding failed to give the proper notice required, as described above, in that no notice was posted in those facilities along the through route of trains Nos. 93 and 54 south of Evansville, Ind., and the notice as posted contained no mention of the throughroute nature of the trains south of Evansville; and that applicant therefore has not effectively invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission in the above-titled proceeding: It is ordered, That the motion to strike certain matters appearing in applicant's reply to the petition for reconsideration be, and it is hereby, granted; It is further ordered, That the petition, insofar as it seeks dismissal of the above-titled proceeding for failure to invoke this Commission's jurisdiction under section 13a (1), be, and it is hereby, granted, and in all other respects is denied. By the Commission, Division 3, acting as an Appellate Division. [SEAL] H. NEIL GARSON, Secretary. Service Date: May 15, 1968. CORRECTED ORDER At a Session of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Division 3, acting as an Appellate Division, held at its office in Washington, D.C., on the 8th day of May, 1968 Finance Docket No. 24725 CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD Co.-DISCONTINUANCE OF TRAINS Nos. 93 AND 54 BETWEEN CHICAGO, ILL., AND EVANSVILLE, IND. Upon consideration of the record in the above-titled proceedings, including the petition filed by the Cities of Chicago, Danville, Hoopeston, Terre Haute, Vincennes, and Watseka and the Village of Milford, on March 1, 1968, for reconsideration of the order of the Commission, Division 3, dated January 25, 1968, authorizing the above-titled discontinuance; applicant's reply thereto; petitioners' motion to strike certain matter appearing in the reply; and applicant's reply to the motion; and It appearing, That the order of the Commission, Division 3, acting as an Appellate Division, dated May 8, 1968, and served earlier on May 15, 1968, erroneously indicated that the Commission had granted the petition insofar as it sought dismissal of the above-titled proceeding for failure to properly invoke this Commission's jurisdiction under section 13a (1); It further appearing, That the matters appearing in the reply to the petition objected to in the motion to strike are not of record in this proceeding and therefore not properly before this Commission as evidence and that no objection is made to the motion to strike; It further appearing, That in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission under section 13a (1) of the Interstate Commerce Act a carrier must comply with certain requirements, including the posting of notice "in each station, depot, or other facility involved" (49 CFR 43.5 (j)), which notice must contain a "complete description of the present service of the train . . . involved and of the discontinuance or change of operation or service proposed" (49 CFR 43.5 (c)); and that the purpose of requiring such notice is to give the travelling public affected the opportunity to protest the proposed discontinuance; It further appearing, That applicant in the above-titled proceeding gave the proper notice required, as described above; and It further appearing, That no other new issues are raised or evidence of substance offered to support the request for reconsideration, and good cause has not been shown for granting the relief requested; It is ordered, That the motion to strike certain matters appearing in applicant's reply to the petition for reconsideration be, and it is hereby, granted; It is further ordered, That the petition for reconsideration be, and it is hereby, denied in all respects. By the Commission, Division 3, acting as an Appellate Division. [SEAL] H. NEIL GARSON, Secretary. THE BOARD OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OF MORRIS COUNTY, N.J., Morristown, N.J., August 1, 1968. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, The Board of Public Transportation of Morris County, New Jersey, an Agency of County Government dedicated to protecting and preserving the public interest in public transportation, respectfully requests that the following Statement be entered into the Record, on S. 3861. It is the belief, and recommendation of this Board that before any Legislation is considered, The Congress should find and determine that the National economy, welfare, future and security require the preservation and improvement of rail passenger service. Attention is directed to the fact that all over the World, including throughout the U.S.S.R., each year shows more, better and faster rail pas senger service, whereas in the United States of America, the exact reverse is true. If The Congress believes that balanced public transportation services, with each mode doing the job for which it is best adapted, is required in the public interest, then it becomes necessary for The Congress to decide how adequate, reliable, and attractive public transportation services, including that by rail, can be provided in a manner fair to all parties at interest. To determine how rail transportation, as one example, can be provided in a manner fair to all concerned, it is first necessary for The Congress to recognize that there are four basic types of rail passenger service. They are: the Transcontinental; the long-haul runs of say between 500 and 1,000 miles; the intercity runs of say between 100 and 500 miles; and last but by no means least, the suburban runs of up to 100 miles, including the most essential, commuter service. Each of these types of service presents a different problem, and the problems vary with the area served and with the railroads performing the service. There are no simple, quick, easy or pat answers, as the problems are serious and their roots go deep. To date, The Public has received little consideration and even less protection under transportation legislation, which invariably is drawn to protect and to further the interests and desires of the railroads. There is no "Public Defender", nor does The Public have skilled lobbyists to present its side of the case. It is time for a change. The Public must receive equal consideration with that accorded the common carriers. The Congress should recognize, and insist, that the seven indispensable links required to solve railroad passenger problems be forged into a chain without further loss of time. The Seven Links are: The Federal Government; The State Government; County Government; Municipal Government; Railroad Management; Railroad Labor; and last, but by no means least, The Public. Before writing legislation intended to preserve and to improve railroad passenger service, The Congress should make sure that it has heard and received all facts bearing on the case, from all sides of the problem. "The Public” should be invited to present its side of the case, whenever the Railroads or regulatory bodies are asked to testify. The facts presented by "The Public"-who, after all, are the people who patronize the services-should receive as serious consideration as is accorded those presented by anyone else. This Board recommends that The Congress direct the Department of Transportation to arrange and to conduct a symposium requiring from three to six days, if necessary, so that all parties at interest in rail passenger service can present their facts and recommendations. One or two days should be devoted to Trans-continental, and Long Haul passenger service; one or two days to Inter-City runs; and one or two to suburban and commuter service, since these various types of service have little in common. Today, the record is very clear as to what has happened, and is happening to rail passenger service in the United States of America. How it has happened is quite obvious, but far too little attention has been directed to "Why It Happened". The only reasons given have been those which interested parties, generally other than "The Public" have placed in the record-the whole story has never been told. When our fine Country spends billion of dollars on esoteric projects such as trying to put a man on the moon-and yet it cannot insure him a convenient, comfortable ride between his home and place of business-where he works to earn the money to pay the taxes, some part of which are spent on far-out projects it is high time for a change. Respectfully submitted For The Board. THOMAS T. TABER, Chairman. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD Co., Re S. 2711, S. 1685, S. 1175, S. 512, S. Con. Res. 25, S.J. Res. 52, and bill introduced on June 28: passenger trains. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The Captioned bills have for their purpose extension of the period in which a railroad must operate a losing passenger train after the date upon which it proposes discontinuance, authorization of the Interstate Commerce Commission to impose conditions not only upon the discontinuance of the train but upon the overall passenger service of the applicant, and authorization of imposition of conditions for the protection of labor. The Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company respectfully urges that Section 13a be left as it is. We oppose any amendments of this statute. Section 13a has enabled L&N to discontinue, with resulting economies, passenger trains which had been abandoned by the public and which were suffering staggering operating losses, but which, under prior law, would have been discontinued only after long delay while running virtually without patronage. These discontinuances, and other actions, have enabled the nation's railroads to render low-cost service to shippers and to those passengers who actually use the trains that can justfiably be continued in operation. This contrasted with the long delays this Company encountered prior to 1959 when we had to proceed before state commissions. In every case before the Interstate Commerce Commission it decided the proposal within the time limits set by the statute, and nobody requested L&N to extend the time. Our experience does not show that additional time would serve any needed purpose. The imposition of conditions relating to the passenger service would be a tremendous invasion of the responsibilities of management and would impose terrific burdens upon the Interstate Commerce Commission. Job protection conditions are not needed when one aspect of service over a given line is discontinued. In all L&N train discontinuances the crews manning the trains were able to exercise their seniority rights to other L&N positions, and the junior employee on the extra board who was unemployed temporarily because of the level of business received the job protection provided by Congress through the provisions of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. Yours very truly, W. H. KENDALL, President. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY Co., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: I am informed that the proposed legislation which has for its purpose altering Sec. 13a of Interstate Commerce Act so as to place a "freeze" on the removal of passenger trains, will be considered in executive session of the respective Commerce Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives this week. Section 13a as now written, fully protects the public, in that it provides for full review, including public hearings, by the Interstate Commerce Commission; and after having just recently experienced a series of hearings in connection with a |