Legislative declaration.-It is hereby found and declared that continued operation of railroads in the State and improvement of their service and facilities are essential to the commerce, defense, and general welfare of the people of the State; that the financial condition of railroads in the State has deteriorated in recent years to the extent that it now constitutes a serious threat to continuation of vital operations; that this condition is the result, among other things, of competition from other forms of transportation, increased costs, and the incidence of taxation; that the consequences of these developments have been a loss of commerce, a decrease in employment, and a decrease in service rendered by railroads; that the reversal of these trends is a matter of public concern; that it is in the public interest to enhance the ability of railroads to continue their operations and improve their service under private enterprise; that the real property tax burden on railroads in the State does not fluctuate in accordance with earnings and generally cannot be readily passed on to users of the service because of the industry's economic position; that substantial tax relief will help strengthen railroads financially so that they can contribute their share to the economic well-being of the State; and that therefore it is the policy of the State to grant to the railroads in the State partial tax exemption in a manner which will grant greater relief to the railroads that need it more by giving increasingly greater exemptions as the rate of earnings of a railroad system declines.

Immediate railroad relief is provided by elimination of the special franchise tax on intangible property and by freezing all other railroad real property taxes at current levels, with an exemption for certain capital improvements made in the public interest; e.g., grade crossing eliminations. Long-term tax relief is provided by means of a basic revision in railroad property taxation to go into effect after July of 1960. This will result in a system of taxation involving exemptions to railroads with inadequate earning power-a tax system which partially reflects earnings, and thereby the economic condition of the particular railroad being taxed. The amount of exemption will be determined by a formula which will provide greatest relief where most needed. For the localities suffering consequent loss of revenues, State aid will be provided to any taxing district in which tax revenues from railroad real property are now substantial, in the amount of 50 percent of the loss of tax revenue.

APPENDIX I

RESOURCE MATERIALS OTHER THAN BOOKS AND PERIODICALS
USED IN PREPARATION OF REPORT

The reference numbers appearing on exhibits and prefixed to quotations are keyed to the numbers appearing below.

1. Comprehensive Plan, City of Atlanta, 1958: Atlanta-Fulton County Joint Planning Board with technical assistance from the metropolitan planning commission.

1a. Rapid Atlanta: Proposal by Atlanta Transit System, Inc., August 1960. 2. Baltimore Transit Study-Parts I-III, June 1958: Department of transit and traffic.

3. Transportation Facts and Public Policy for Downtown Boston: Studies of urban transportation, Seminar Research Bureau, College of Business Administration, Boston College, March 1958.

4. Problems of the Railroads: Studies of urban transportation, Seminar Research Bureau, College of Business Administration, Boston College, June 1959. 5. Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan Study Public Transit: City planning commission, Cincinnati, Ohio.

6. The Mass Transportation Problem in Illinois: A final report prepared by the State mass transportation commission, June 1959.

7. Basic Issues in Chicago Metropolitan Transportation: A research report prepared by the Transportation Center at Northwestern University, June 1958. 8. Chicago Area Transportation Study-Volume I: Study conducted under the sponsorship of State of Illinois, county of Cook, city of Chicago, December 1959.

9. A Study of Public Transportation Needs in the Area Served by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority-Determination of Potential Mass Rapid Transit Routes; Coverdale & Colpitts, May 5, 1959.

9a. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority Report Relating to Rapid Transit Program: Prepared by Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, June 27, 1960.

10. A Study of Traffic and Transportation in Metropolitan Dade County, 1958 (April): Prepared by the department of traffic and transportation, Dade County, Fla.

11. Rapid Transit for the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area: Report of the metropolitan rapid transit commission, January 1958.

12. Newark Area Transportation Study: State highway department, Dwight R. G. Palmer, commissioner.

13. Hub-Bound Travel in the Tri-State Metropolitan Region (New York): Persons and vehicles entering Manhattan south of 61st Street, 1924-56, Regional Plan Association, No. 91, April 1959.

14. Plan and Program, 1955 (Philadelphia): Urban traffic and transportation board, April 1956.

15. St. Louis Metropolitan Area Transportation Study, 1957-1970-1980: W. C. Gilman & Co.

16. (San Francisco) Regional Rapid Transit, 1953-55: A report to the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, Parsons, Brinckeroff, Hall and Macdonald, New York.

17. Transportation Plan-National Capital Region, the Mass Transportation Survey Report, 1959: National Capital Planning Commission and the National Capital Regional Planning Council on the mass transportation survey of the Washington region.

18. Report to the Old Colony Area Transportation Commission on Plans for Improved Suburban Transit, April 1959: DeLeuw, Cather & Co., Engineers, Brookline, Mass.

19. Mass Transportation Problems in Urban Areas: By Bernice T. Van Der Vries, member, Chicago Transit Board, December 3, 1959.

20. Proposed Rapid Transit Plan (Preliminary): Regional planning commission, Cleveland, Ohio, June 1958.

21. Minutes of Meeting, Committee on Mass Transportation, Colorado Legislative Council: Denver, Colo., August 13 and 14, 1959.

22. Rapid Transit System and Plan Recommended for Detroit and the Metropolitan Area: City of Detroit Rapid Transit Commission. Preliminary report to the Mayor and common council, 1958.

23. Annual Report, 1958: Department of street railways, city of Detroit, Mich. 24. The City of Milwaukee's Mass Transportation Problem: A report by the Municipal Transportation Study Committee with survey by Marquette University, College of Business Administration, 1955.

25. Rapid Transit Needs of the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area: Staff report of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission, December 1957. 26. Trans-Hudson Vehicular Origin and Destination Survey: Annual report, 1958, the Port of New York Authority, port development department, planning division.

27. Survey of Common Carrier Bus Transportation Between Suburban Communities West of the Hudson River and New York City: Report for the Metropolitan Rapid Transit Survey, March 20, 1957, Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., Engineers.

28. New Jersey's Rail Transportation Problem: A review and suggestions for immediate and long-range action. Report to Governor Robert B. Meyner and the New Jersey State Legislature, division of railroad transportation, New Jersey State Highway Department, April 1960.

29. The Commuter Problem: An analysis by the New York Central Railroad Co., New York, N.Y., April 1, 1958.

30. Transportation in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Region: John A. Bailey, executive director, Urban Traffic and Transportation Board, Philadelphia, Pa. Delivered before the Community Leadership Seminar, May 19, 1959.

31. Proposed Southern New Jersey Haddonfield-Kirkwood Line, Rapid Transit, 1960: Prepared by Simpson & Curtin, transportation engineers, Philadelphia, for the Delaware River Port Authority.

32. Southern New Jersey Mass Transportation Survey, January 1956: Prepared by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Hall & Macdonald, engineers for the Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

33. Proposed Puget Sound Regional Transportation Study, Scope and Procedures: By Puget Sound Regional Transportation Study Committee.

34. Report of City Transit Commissioner on Operation of the Community Traction Company, for Year Ending December 31, 1958: E. I. Graumlich, city transit commissioner, city of Toledo.

35. Transit's Future in Youngstown: A report by James W. Cannon, city traction commissioner, January 31, 1958.

36. A Report of Dallas' Public Transportation, February 1954: J. W. Monk, supervisor of public utilities.

APPENDIX J

69 metropolitan counties for which auto registrations are reported 1948–59 [This group of counties has consistently appeared in the annual table of motor vehicle registrations in leading U.S. counties published in Automobile Facts and Figures by the Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc., Detroit, Mich.]

69 metropolitan counties for which auto registrations are reported 1948-59—Con.

SUGGESTED PLAN FOR USE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AID IN FORMING METROPOLITAN AUTHORITIES

The introduction to this chapter notes the major findings which grew from our assignment to study railroad passenger service. The second paragraph on page 1 finds: "We do not have an element or jurisdiction of government which meets the needs of metropolitan area administration."

Such areawide administration has been clearly established as a present-day necessity and particularly so for rail services which extend through so many jurisdictions. Following identification of this problem of lack of governmental competence our legal work proceeded along two channels: (a) Review of those means through which Federal legal support might be used to aid directly in the creation of competent metropolitan agencies; and (b) preliminary analysis of model statutory provisions for such authorities.

A realistic appraisal of urban government shows that metropolitan problems cannot be met by bodies which have but a fraction of the total responsibility and act inde pendently. In a Harvard Law Review note exploring the possibilities of utilization of the county as the major unit of urban administration it was stated:

"Creation of a central governmental authority which reflects the organic coherence of a metropolitan area would seem to offer a threefold promise: First, the resources of the entire area could be more effectively utilized if placed at the disposal of a governmental unit having area wide responsibilities. Second, efficiency and economy could be advanced by the elimination of duplicate operations in a multiplicity of jurisdictions. Third, a political jurisdiction coextensive with the organic metropolitan problem could be endowed with authority to undertake planning and capital improvements which require conception and effectuation in regional terms.' Feldman and Jassy, "The Urban County: A Study of New Approaches to Local Government in Metropolitan Areas," 73 Harv. L. Rev. 527 (1960).

Rough drafting of a model statute is a particularly effective research device. It provides a framework for the systematic analysis of major problems and a method for the collection and development of material. These materials provide the most appropriate standards for administrative action, and definitions of the administrator's scope and powers. Due to the voluminous and very unrefined nature of the draft material it is not reproduced herein but is available in the committee's files. This summary is introduced by the table of contents of the draft statute which indicates the range of subjects that were touched upon.

*Section 3. State mass transportation commission.

*Section 4. Joint State mass transportation commission. Section 5. Metropolitan district: designation.

*Section 6. Metropolitan district.

*Section 7. Metropolitan transportation authority.

Section 8. General manager.

Section 9. Eminent domain.

Section 10. Contract.

Section 11. Purchases.

Section 12. Property.

Section 13. Mass transportation facilities, equipment, and service.
Section 14. Claims for personal injury or property damage.

Section 15. Indebtedness.

Section 16. Mass Transportation Financing Corp.

*Section 17. Authorization of general obligation bonds.

Section 18. Forms and terms of general obligation bonds.

Section 19. Issuance and sale of general obligation bonds.

Section 20. Refunding bonds.

Section 21. Temporary borrowing.

*Section 22. Revenue bonds.

Section 23. Equipment trust certificates.

Section 24. Reissuance of bonds, notes, or other debt instruments.

Section 25. Past due bonds.

Section 26. Investments.

*Section 27. Taxation.

Section 28. Reports, accounts.

Section 29. Depreciation reserves, other accounting reserves.

*Section 30. Entry.

Section 31. Tariffs.

Section 32. Rates and practices.

Section 33. Prescription of rates, fares, charges, etc.

Section 34. Divisions.

*Section 35. Discontinuance.

Section 36. Abandonment.

*Section 37. Combinations and consolidations of carriers.

Section 38. Agreements between carriers.

Section 39. Remedies of persons damaged, elections, witnesses, statute of limitations.

Section 40. Complaints, jurisdictions, investigations by State commissions.

Section 41. Investigations and suspension.

Section 42. Hearings.

Section 43. Witnesses, testimony.

Section 44. Findings, orders, rules, regulations, reports.

*Section 45. Appeals.

Section 46. Damages.

Section 47. Endorsement of provisions of act.

NOTE.-Asterisk (*) sections are those discussed in the following summary.