liams' Bill, and my hope would be that grants of this type also could be awarded on a basis which would encourage innovation and well thought out experimentation, rather than merely on the basis of extending proven but relatively ineffective transit facilities. The availability of funds to state and local agencies will itself tend to encourage somewhat longer-range planning, but I believe it would be well to bring this aspect out in the final wording of the Bill.

I would like to make several points in regard to Bill S. 3227 which Senator Tydings introduced on April 14, 1966. The first section of this three-part bill would authorize the Secretary to make grants to States, local bodies and agencies in order to provide fellowships for training of personnel in the urban mass transporation field. Specifically, it provides for the awarding of not more than 250 fellowships in any one year. I wholeheartedly endorse the concept that the development of effective mass transportation systems will hinge directly upon the availability of personnel adequately trained to develop and operate such systems. However, I feel that it is unrealistic to expect that 250 fellowships per year can be utilized effectively in the immedate future. While I have not attempted any extensive study of the personnel employed by mass transit organizations, I would judge that it would be difficult to identify 250 people who had the background to undertake a year of rigorous academic training and simultaneously could be spared from their existing positions with transit companies. A further difficulty which must be recognized is that, while the universities of the country could certainly absorb this number of regular graduate students in departments of economics, industrial management, city planning and engineering, there are very few institutions in the country which can be said to have anythig approaching a strong interdisciplinary activity in the field of transportation, particularly in the field of urban mass transit. Experience in these other departments would, of course, be very valuable, but one should not expect to find, especially on short notice, subjects tailored particularly to the needs of the transit field.

I would like to elaborate somewhat on the difficulties which will be encountered by people brought back to the university after a period of ten or more years in non-academic positions. While such people have gained valuable experience in their own field of endeavor, their capabilities and interests are quite different from those of the student who has had an uninterrupted progression through college and into graduate school. By and large, university programs are designed for this latter category of students, and the accommodation of those in the former category within existing programs is accomplished only at the expense of some considerable hardship to those students. Several years ago, M.I.T. established a Center for Advanced Engineering Study designed specifically to provide advanced training for engineers who had been working in industry for some years. In spite of the fact that the engineers who have returned to participate in this program have been extremely carefully selected, it has been our experience that the type of courses from which they can receive the most benefit are those which are tailored specifically to draw upon their experience and capitalize on their particular competencies. I believe that selected schools should be encouraged to develop similar specialized programs if effective training is to be provided for individuals returning from positions in transit agencies.

The financing provided for in this section of the bill also poses a problem. Provision is made for the payment of tuition and for a fellowship, but there is no provision for payment of any cost of education allowance to the university. It is generally accepted that the total cost of educating a graduate student is at least twice the tuition charge. The National Science Foundation now recognizes this fact by awarding to the university an amount which for some universities is in excess of the actual tuition. Under their fellowship program, the total payment to the university for each fellowship holder is now $2.500. While this amount leaves some excess beyond the actual tuition charges, the excess has decreased as tuition charges have increased, and for the private universities with tuitions approaching $2,000 for nine months, the total award is now considerably less than double the tuition. If the universities are to take on the task of providing the specialized type of training which would be necessary to accommodate men returning from a number of years in industry, I believe that they should be able to recover the real costs incurred. For the better private institutions, the total amount paid to the institution should be approximately twice the tuition. Men returning under the program of our own Center for Advanced Engineering Study which I mentioned earlier currently pay M.I.T. $3.600 tuition for the academic year. Unless some comparable arrangements are made. I believe that the universities will have little enthusiasm for developing the kind of program from which these people can really benefit. It must also be recognized that the costs of developing new interdisciplinary programs of the types which

would be of most benefit to that group we are considering will be greater than for regular graduate programs. As a result, in spite of the fact that the general concept is excellent, I am afraid the program will tend to flounder and be ineffective unless the full cooperation of the universities is obtained.

While I recognize that the proposed amendments call for a one year extension of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, I would like to emphasize the fact that I feel that the program for personnel will be much more effective if it is established on the basis that it will continue over a period of years. Few schools would be interested in committing the effort involved, especially if it meant diverting their resources from other programs, unless they were assured of continuation of the program over a number of years. This program will certainly be much more appealing to the universities if it can be identified as one which will continue over a period of years at a modest level rather than one which calls only for a short-term effort designed to train a large number of people for a year or two and then phase out. While it is hard to estimate exactly what response might be gained from the universities or the transit agencies, I would estimate that even under the most favorable conditions, it would be most fortunate if more than 60 or 70 people could be accommodated during the first year of operation.

The second section of Senator Tydings' Bill would authorize the Secretary to make grants to public and private institutions of higher learning to carry on comprehensive research in the problems of transportation in urban areas. I am entirely in accord with this portion of the Bill. I would only like to urge that the breadth of activities outlined be retained. For example, my colleagues and I feel that the interrelationships between urban and interurban transportation are extremely strong. Consequently, the effectiveness of any effort directed toward the design of an effective transportation system, where I use the word system to represent the whole spectrum of transportation modes from automobiles through mass transit systems to aircraft, loses significantly if it is confined solely to one mode. I also enthusiastically endorse the concept of broadgauge studies which will bring social scientists together with physical scientists in the examination of the problems of urban transportation. Again, I would like to urge that this program be established on as long range a basis as possible. The R&D problems of urban transportation are certainly not going to be solved in a single year. The educational institutions of the country represent one of the best pools of broad-gauge talent for tackling the problems of urban transportation. However, the effectiveness with which these institutions can engage in research is markedly increased if funding can be obtained on a basis longer than one year at a time.

The third portion of Senator Tydings' Bill instructs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to prepare a program designed to achieve a breakthrough in mass transit technology and to provide national leadership for the planning, financing and operation of future urban mass transportation systems. While the design of a transportation system which will offer essentially the door-to-door convenience afforded by the private automobile at a reasonable cost to the user and to society at large is a complex problem, I believe that, given the task, an imaginative multi-disciplinary team can outline several attractive alternatives. Furthermore, I feel it is appropriate to limit this effort to a period of 18 months and to a total funding of approximately $1,000,000. These limitations will insure that the efforts are directed toward outlining the characteristics of the over-all system and do not become preoccupied with detailed considerations of hardware design. I would, however, urge that the Bill state explicitly that the program should consider the ways in which systems designed to carry people and goods within the metropolitan area will interface with systems designed to carry people and goods between metropolitan areas. Some of the most frustrating experiences which people encounter, as they travel on public transportation from a point in or near one city to some other city, are associated with the necessity to change modes at various points within the trip and with the delays and uncertainties associated with these changes. I feel that it is vital to the success of our future public transportation systems that adequate consideration be given, from the very onset, to this interface problem.

The successful conclusion of this program planning phase would probably lead to the detailed examination of several different systems, followed by tests of specific hardware and, finally, the installation in several cities and experimental systems on a scale sufficient to yield significant results. Each step in this process will be progressively more costly, but many opportunities for reappraisal will be avialable along the way. The important point is that unless

actions are taken now to initiate this chain of steps toward the availability of significantly better urban transport systems, our cities will continue to try to make do with half-way measures and continue to postpone the achievement of a really viable solution.

In conclusion, I should like to restate that I am in favor of amending the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, so as to extend it for an additional year and to authorize additional activities which will provide for the training of personnel to work in the field, for the funding of planning activities, for the initiation of comprehensive university research programs related to urban transportation and for initiation of a program which will lead to technological and operational break-throughs in the mass transit field.

Senator WILLIAMS. Gentlemen, you have been advised we have a problem here. Mr. Parkhouse has to catch a plane, as I understand it, and we wanted to bring him on with his statement.

Can you remain? You don't have the time problem Mr. Parkhouse has?

Mr. STOKES. I have a plane this afternoon, but I think I have a little more time.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Parkhouse has a 1 o'clock plane.

Mr. PARKHOUSE. Train, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. You are closer than I thought. You are 4 minutes away from that train.

STATEMENT OF A. RUSSELL PARKHOUSE, PRESIDENT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PA., ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES Senator WILLIAMS. Will you identify yourself, please?

Mr. PARKHOUSE. I am Russell Parkhouse, president of Montgomery County Commissioners, Montgomery County, Pa., and I am here today testifying on behalf of the county, the southeastern Pennsylvania region, and the National Association of Counties.

I have a prepared statement I would like to read.

I want to first thank you for the opportunity to present the views of not only the National Association of Counties, but those of the southeastern Pennsylvania region, composed of the four suburban counties of Montgomery, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and the city and county of Philadelphia in regard to the very pressing problem of mass transportation.

The mobility of people has traditionally been one of county government's principal functions as evidenced by the fact they have the responsibility for 2.5 million out of the Nation's 3.5 million miles of roads.

However, county government is by no means limited to its interest in the transportation of people on our roads and highways. We are painfully aware of the transportation crisis confronting our urban counties and of the benefits a good commuter system-bus and railcan and does make.

Consequently, on behalf of the National Association of Counties, I request the extension of the Mass Transit Act. We would further suggest, and this is the recommendation of the association, and not mine personally, that the $95 million extension proposal by the administration be increased.

The Federal Government's concern with adequate transportation facilities is vividly demonstrated by the $4.1 billion highway allocation for fiscal year 1967.

We do not propse that figure be reduced, rather that increased emphasis be placed on mass transit in our urban areas.

In our region we are fortunate to have a fine commuter system. Our 5-county region represents more than 40 percent of the population of the entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, indeed, we have more people living in our region than in 35 States of the Union. We contribute two-thirds of the economic prosperity of Pennsylvania, and, certainly, play a large role in the economic well-being of our Nation. Southeastern Pennsylvania has one of the most extensive commuter systems still intact in the United States; 12 lines totaling 217 routemiles branching out into Pennsylvania in every direction from the region's core in midcity Philadelphia. On them run 704 trains carrying 125,000 passengers daily; an average of about 180 passengers per train. And I am submitting a map showing our commuter system net. The region has long realized the catastrophic results which would be produced by the elimination of this fine system.

In 1962, the counties and city entered into a compact for a demonstration project on the lines of the Reading Railroad and Pennsylvania Railroad. The cost thereof was paid two-thirds by a Federal grant and one-third by contributions of the city and counties. The object of this project was to determine the effect of lower fares, increased services, better parking facilities, coordinated bus and train schedules upon the mass transportation facilities of the Reading and Pennsylvania Railroads. This project proved beyond doubt that, with reasonable fares, dependable service, proper parking, and decent facilities, the people of our area would make substantially greater use of the mass transportation facilities. In fact, on the Levittown branch of the Pennsylvania Railroad, the number of passengers was more than doubled. Similar results were shown by the Reading Co. with an increase in passenger trips from 5.8 to 8.7 million annually; an increase of 2.9 million annually.

In 1963 the General Assembly of the Commonwealth, recognizing the need for regional cooperation in mass transportation, created the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, now referred to as SEPTA. The policy of the Pennsylvania Legislature as embodied in this act is that SEPTA shall create by acquisition, lease, and contract a comprehensive integrated mass transportation system in southeastern Pennsylvania. In addition, that act charges SEPTA with the responsibility of maintaining and extending present levels of mass transportation services in its area and of insuring that properties which are useful for mass transportation are not abandoned.

It is hoped that in time the coordinated systems under SEPTA will eliminate the losses thereof by (1) the elimination of duplicity of service within our four systems with the integration of the rail, bus, train, and subway systems of Philadelphia and suburbs; and (2) reducing management expenses with one overall administrative management for operation of the entire system in place of four present systems. SEPTA is governed by two representatives from each of the four counties and the city of Philadelphia and one representative appointed by the Governor. Until it takes over a system to provide revenue for itself, the operation expenses have been borne by the city and four suburban counties, notwithstanding the fact that the administration of the four suburban counties is Republican in contrast to a Democratic city administration. This, we believe, proves that

cooperation for the benefit of the entire region transcends political consideration.

Finally in 1965, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted the Pennsylvania urban mass transportation assistance law, a $13 million package, designed to work in concert with local government, the Federal Government, and private industry for the preservation and improvement of mass transportation facilities in metropolitan areas. The National Association of Counties official policy endorses grants for comprehensive planning and improvement of mass transit facilities, however, is silent on the proposal of Federal operating subsidies to commuter facilities as compared to our policy. Consequently, my remarks relating to that proposal are the views of the southeastern Pennsylvania region.

I might say, Senator, in this respect, I contacted personally the mayor of Philadelphia, Mayor Tate, the leaders of the other three governing bodies in our region, Mr. Ed Bower, city solicitor, who has been a leading figure in this work, for their views and condensing them into this statement. However, I do feel confident that they are shared by many other county officials throughout the country.

S. 2084 is admirable in its intent to face up to a national problem in mass transportation. Several points, however, must be kept in mind in your deliberations of this legislation. In regard to operating subsides which will be paid to privately owned transit systems we must be sure that the subsidy itself does not dull the incentive of the common carrier to operate on an efficient basis. My general approach here is the fear that subsidy can create complacency and breed inefficiency of operation when someone else is paying the bill. There must be some obligation placed upon the carrier to perform a service that will not only preserve the level of operation but, indeed, encourage and increase it. I do not believe that 100-percent subsidy will accomplish this aim.

My second concern is in the field of municipally owned transit systems which operate with a low fare box and traditionally have been subsidized completely on a local basis out of other forms of revenue; that is, the New York City subway system. Safeguards must be created to prohibit municipally owned service from deliberately maintaining an unreasonably low fare base of revenue with the expectation that the Federal Government will step in and pay up to two-thirds of the operating deficit. According to a statement on national policy by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development (Library of Congress catalog card No. 65-19988) municipal support for the New York system annually amounts to $140 million which is as much as 35 percent of the total cost of operation.

It is obvious that I speak for the southeastern Pennsylvania region in our support of the basic principles of this legislation subject to the reservations which I have heretofore stated. I say "obvious" because the proposed legislative program is exactly what we have been doing since the year 1962, cooperating regionally in attempts to solve our mass transit problems and contributing one-third of the operational subsidy programs, which from the outset have been subject to the reservations which I have expressed.

Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity of presenting the views of the National Association of Counties and myself.

(The map accompanying the statement of Mr. Parkhouse follows:)