this critical point would help develop favorable habits among commuters, so they would be using mass transportation, rather than automobiles, and it would help obtain the survival of existing systems.

Fresno, like many other communities, is trying to do those things which will keep the city dynamic and vital. We think one of the most critical elements in determining whether we will continue to meet this challenge is urban commuter transportation. We think a solution to this problem is not in our immediate reach, but it is essential to Fresno and many other cities our size and our future size.

We therefore urge this committee to report favorable legislation which would most effectively help us solve the critical urban transportation problem and also we urge that Congress adequately fund such a program.

Senator WILLIAMS. Now Fresno has a municipally owned an operated bus system?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. Are you subject to State authority in any degree?

Mr. TAYLOR. Not in the operation of the bus system.

Senator WILLIAMS. I mean fares and service.

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir.

I think we are subject to the facts of life in not raising it from 25 cents to 41 cents, to try to break even.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.

You came all of the way from the west coast for this hearing?
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. We are very grateful indeed. Have a good journey back.

Mr. TAYLFR. Thank you.

(Mr. Taylor's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY JOHN L. TAYLOR, CITY MANAGER, FRESNO, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is John L. Taylor. I am the City Manager of the City of Fresno, California.

It seems likely that most of the testimony which you will hear today will be from representatives of extremely large metropolitan areas, such as New York. and Philadelphia, and Washington. I do not represent such an área. It seems appropriate, however, that the Committee consider the needs of the so-called intermediate sized cities in considering this legislation because, as you know, most cities in the United States are in fact relatively small cities. I suspect I might be most useful to this Committee by simply describing the Fresno situation as it relates to mass transportation.

The City of Fresno is the 90th largest in the nation. It is the 8th largest city in the State of California. It is the largest city between the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area and the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The Fresno metropolitan area consists of the City of Fresno with a population of 160,000 and a surrounding unincorporated area of about 125,000 population. This makes a total of about 285,000 persons in an area surrounded by agricultural land. The City bus system serves the entire metropolitan area, both the portion inside and outside the City.

Until 1961 the City of Fresno was served by a private bus line known as the Fresno City Lines of Western Transit Systems. In that year the company indicated it was suffering losses to the extent that it would be forced to go out of business. In order to save essential mass transportation service for the area, the City took over the operation of the bus lines. At that time the City acquired from the bus company approximately 30 buses. At the present time we are utilizing 27 of these old buses. We have since purchased 10 air conditioned, 45

passenger buses for new and better routing and better coverage. Both the old and new buses were acquired by lease or lease purchase under very unfavorable financial terms.

In 1965 the City carried 2,287,597 passengers and operated 1,346,739 bus miles. We have a basic 25 cent fare with additional fares for outlying zones. The bus system loses about $2 per capita per year.

The fact of life is that our city government finds it very difficult to continue to meet these operating deficits. For each quarter that the passenger puts in the fare box, the City of Fresno puts in about 16 cents. Yet raising fares to cover this deficit probably would drive many people away from riding the buses and would seriously penalize low economic level persons at a time when both federal and local governments are trying particularly hard to improve living levels of those persons.

Californians are undoubtedly more aware than others of the riots which took place in the Watts section of Los Angeles in August, 1965. However, there have been similar incidents throughout this country. The Watts incident in Los Angeles was investigated by an excellent commission appointed by the Governor of the State of California and chaired by John A. McCone, who is known to many of you, I am sure. The McCone Report was concerned primarily with law enforcement, education, and employment. However, the commission devoted a significant amount of space to the problems of transportation in the Watts area. It is worth quoting briefly from a section of the report.

"Our investigation has brought into clear focus the fact that the inadequate and costly public transportation currently existing throughout the Los Angeles area seriously restricts the residents of the disadvantaged areas such as south central Los Angeles. This lack of adequate transportation handicaps them in seeking and holding jobs, attending schools, shopping, and in fulfilling other needs. It has had a major influence in creating a sense of isolation, with its resultant frustrations, among the residents of south central Los Angeles, particularly the Watts area ***. We believe that adequate and economical public bus transportation is essential to our community and that it should not be ignored because of the debate over mass rapid transit * * *. Public transportation is particularly essential to the poor and disadvantaged who are unable to own and operate private automobiles."

The real necessity for adequate commuter transportation is obvious in relation to persons who have no private automobile. As shown in the Watts situation, bad transportation contributes to more problems than simply that of getting to work.

Perhaps it is also worth mentioning the problems involved when persons do have private automobiles. Drivers bring them into the center city. These automobiles occupy more space than the average worker occupies with his normal work space. They create congestion on the streets and on private land which can choke and kill a center city.

Although the City of Fresno is now much smaller than many of the areas which will be most seriously affected by this legislation, we feel we do have a substantial stake in proper mass transportation. Fresno is growing. Some day it will be larger than the City of San Francisco. Fresno's growth, incidentally, has been at a fairly steady rate of about 3 per cent per year, a rate which has not been so overwhelming that we cannot provide necessary and adequate planning. This has been a problem unfortunately in some of the more rapidly growing areas of the nation. We have been able to do a considerable amount of planning for the future. We had an extensive transportation study made three years ago as part of a 701 program comprehensive plan. One obvious conclusion is that not only the present but the future will be a matter of considerable dominance by the automobile. We have learned by others' mistakes and have used modern traffic engineering practices to provide well designed streets and good traffic control devices including lights, and signs, and markings. Clearly Fresno, like much of the West, happens to be more concerned than are many Eastern cities in this regard. And, incidentally, I don't say this in a sense of boasting about the West. I am myself an Easterner and only recently transplanted to Fresno. But it is a fact of life that the West is more conscious of good urban traffic engineering than the East.

Our study concluded in regard to mass transportation that a rail rapid transit system or a bus rapid transit system on a special rights-of-way were impractical for our metropolitan area because of the low population density. An express bus

system utilizing freeways and major arterials combined with an expanded system of local bus service should prove economical and create a favorable climate for transit usage.

Fresno, as indicated, has spent a large sum of money concerning planning. The plans for the development of our downtown area have received nationwide publicity. We have a good downtown plan, well implemented, complete with parking for shoppers. Many attractive physical improvements, including, our well known mall. We find, however, one glaring deficiency in the provision of adequate services for our commuters. We are simply not able to provide in our downtown area sufficient parking for commuters (as opposed to shoppers). To do so would not only be financially prohibitive but would use up too much of the valuable land area available in the central business district. It seems clear that a primary answer lies in the provision of adequate commuter transportation to the heart of our city. We find now that the number of passengers carried on our bus system is remaining steady and even increasing slightly. We do feel that if we had modern busses and other intermediate financial assistance for maintaining our transportation system, we could come closer to eventually put ting our transit operation on a self supporting basis. It is, however, almost impossible to do much with our system because of the relatively large deficit. When a City Councilman is faced with an operating deficit of $2 per capita per year he becomes extremely leery about adding to that figure, even if in the long run it may do something to help the system. In short, there is a real problem at this time of the survival of the municipal bus line. Such systems are essential to the well being of the community, and yet they cost so much to operate and maintain, there is danger of their being abandoned.

It is certainly true, as the findings proposed in S. 2804 suggests, that transportation is the life blood of an urban area society and that the health and welfare of the society depends upon provision of efficient, economical and convenient transportation. It is also true that in recent years the maintenance of even minimal commuter service in urban areas has become so financially burdensome as to threaten the continuation of this vital service.

Perhaps I should anticipate one question which the committee may ask, and that is whether the City of Fresno has applied for any grants under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. We have been actively concerned with helping our urban transportation program under that act. We have talked to appropriate federal officials and spent a considerable amount of staff work in our own shop. We have not, however, yet applied for any assistance. The reason for that is that we have been trying to look at the picture in the long run. We have tried not to simply ask for a federal donation of equipment to help our immediate problem. We have been trying to draft a proposal for making a really meaningful analysis of the motivations and needs of bus riders. Such surveys have been made on a very limited basis in the past. We have been working on a proposed in-depth study, which might help not only Fresno but other communities in the future. We have encountered tremendous problems in trying to define this type of study, and there is some chance we may conclude that such a study is not possible. At present, however, we feel that we would ask for whatever is going to help us the most in the long run, rather than to ask for more short-run benefits. Let me be quick to point out that, from where we sit, even a fairly short-term help in the field of urban mass transportation at this critical junction would help develop favorable habits among commuters, so that they would be using mass transportation rather than automobiles and would help obtain the survival of existing systems.

Fresno, like many other communities, is trying to do those things which will keep Fresno a dynamic and vital American city. We think that one of the most critical elements in determining whether we will continue to meet this challenge is urban commuter transportation. We think a solution to this problem is essential to Fresno and to many other cities our size and our future size. We, therefore, urge this committee to report favorably legislation which would most effectively help us solve the critical urban transportation problem, and we also urge that the Congress adequately fund such programs. Thank you.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Gene Schaefer, from Westinghouse Air Brake Co. I have your title described as Director of Mass Transit Operations.

STATEMENT OF GENE R. SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR, MASS TRANSIT OPERATIONS, WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE CO. (WABCO), PITTSBURGH, PA.

Mr. SCHAEFER. That is correct, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. We welcome you here, Mr. Schaefer. Where is your home office?

Mr. SCHAEFER. Pittsburgh.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you have a prepared statement? I have to make a phone call. Were you going to read the statement?

Mr. SCHAEFER. What I hoped to do would be to summarize it in the interest of time.

Senator WILLIAMS. All right.

Mr. SCHAEFER. As indicated, I am director of Wabco's worldwide transit operations. My company's interest in and knowledge in this area stems from a long history of solving transportation problems in this country and abroad. In a business sense, we live with the growing transportation problems of cities and States across this country. Our job is not only to recognize, understand and define a region's transit problem, to stay in business we must also provide total or partial solutions. Congress has a similar responsibility. I know, and I believe the members of this subcommittee know, and I know you, Senator Williams, understand completely that our growing metropolitan areas are faced with the necessity of providing significantly improved transportation facilities in the immediate future. This will, of course, require extensive Federal funding.

This complex problem of moving people efficiently and economically in our urban areas is acute. It will become worse. The inadequate, but badly needed, Federal program now underway to help urban areas relieve this creeping congestion is a vital first step. The program must continue. However, it should be greatly expanded in the amount of financial assistance available. At least, and I say as a bare minimum, $175 million per year should be available, and hopefully on a ratio of three-quarters-one-quarter, with extension guarantees for at least 10 years. This time period would enable a region to plan ahead with confidence for the major system developments that are required.

Your bill, I believe, is a realistic approach to assisting our deficitridden commuter operations. If some method of offsetting these deficits is not forthcoming in the immediate future, you can expect to see more commuter service abandoned or revert to State or Federal control.

In my own city, Pittsburgh, we have already abandoned 17 commuter lines, and there is no prospect, at least, no publicly known prospect, of reinstating this commuter service.

Consideration should also be given to establishing a local transit planning assistance group, with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Although, HUD's Office of Transportation has done a highly commendable job in the past of local-Federal liaison, a much greater level of effort will be needed to meet the increasing transit needs of our urban areas.

From my experience and observation, a number of cities who need transit assistance and request Federal transit aid do not know exactly where to start in their planning process.

American industry, particularly the established suppliers to the transit industry, are pouring ever-increasing resources into transit research and development programs. In this regard, I would like to enter into the record the feature articles on rail transit and railroad research and development appearing in the April 18, 1966, issue of Railway Age Weekly. (See p. 718.)

Much more needs to be done, and will be done, by the private sector to improve and expand transit products and services. The Federal Government can give added stimulus to desirable research and development, but it is vitally important they carefully study specific needs and insure that Federal funds are not used to create hardware development program in competition with private enterprise.

This country must and will have the finest urban mass transportation system that known technology can provide. The Federal Government can and should financially aid our cities in planning, designing, building, and equipping these needed systems.

I urge your favorable consideration of significantly extending and expanding the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. And I further ask that my formal written testimony, versus the verbal presentation I have given, be entered into the record.

Senator WILLIAMS. Very good. We will do that. Thank you very much.

(Mr. Schaefer's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY GENE R. SCHAEFER, DIRECTOR, MASS TRANSIT OPERATIONS, WEST-
INGHOUSE AIR BRAKE COMPANY (WABCO) PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

My name is Gene R. Schafer. I am Director of Mass Transit Operations for the Westinghouse Air Brake Coompany (WABCO) headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. My company's interest in and knowledge of urban and interurban transportation developments and deficiencies is based on many years of experience in supplying this industry, both in this country and abroad.

In a business sense we live with the growing transportation problems of cities and states across this country. Our job is not only to recognize, understand and define a region's transit problem, to say in business we must also provide total or partial solutions. Congress has a similar responsibility. I know, and I believe the member of this subcommittee know, that most of our growing metropolitan regions are faced with the necessity of providing significantly improved transportation facilities. Extensive Federal funding will be necessary.

With few exception in recent years, this country's urban mass transit facilities have been little improved and are generally inadequate to meet fast growing urban area transportation needs. As is often the case, this inadequacy was not publicly recognized until it became a serious problem in many cities. Today the lack of adequate means to efficiently move great numbers of people into, out of, and within urban centers is recognized as more than a local problem. It has become a dilemma of national importance.

This testimony is offered to lend emphasis to the documented need for legislation that will provide increased and continuing federal financial assistance for solving or substantially improving this country's urban transportation inadequacies.

Clearly, the Federal Government has a basic interest in the efficient functioning of our cities, where nearly 70 percent of our people live and where most of our services and wealth are generated. Our transportation system, moreover, has been a Federal interest since the founding of this Nation.

Congress has voted billions of dollars to help build highways and airports, dredge harbors, build canals, and improve river navigation. It voted substantial assistance to our railroads when they needed help in opening the undeveloped frontier areas for settlement. Not until the trial program authorized in the