people realized how realistic it is, I believe the Congress would be swamped with individual mail and communications.

Senator WILLIAMS. You know, on the other side of the coin, someone from New York, I don't know whether it was the mayor of Mr. Gilhooley, described what happened when the automobiles were barred from New York City.

Mayor CLARK. It was in a snowstorm.

Senator WILLIAMS. The city still operated very effectively.
Mayor CLARK. Much better, yes.

Senator WILLIAMS. Because of the basically good system of mass transit.

Mayor CLARK. That is right.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, we have been honored to have you here. I certainly welcome friends from New Jersey, particularly when you have added so much to our deliberations on this subject.

Mr. BRUDER. We could do no less than endorse your efforts and let you know how much we appreciate them.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, thank you. See you back home.

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Carmack Cochran, president of the Nashville Transit Co.

STATEMENT OF CARMACK COCHRAN, REPRESENTING AMERICAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. KOHL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Senator WILLIAMS. You are representing the American Transportation Association?

Mr. COCHRAN. American Transit Association, and I am accompanied by Mr. John C. Kohl, who needs no introduction.

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes, you are in good company. John Kohl has labored long and with distinction on the problems of transpor

tation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Kohl is the new executive vice president of the American Transit Association.

Mr. Chairman, we have filed a prepared statement. I would like, if possible, to have that considered as filed and myself to make a rather brief statement as to some of the high points in the statement.

Senator WILLIAMS. All right. We will be happy to include the entire statement in the record. I won't read it now, I will listen to you and read it later.

Mr. COCHRAN. Thank you.

As stated, my name is Carmack Cochran, I am president of Nashville Transit Co., which is a private capital local transit company, serving Metropolitan Nashville. Nashville Transit Co. also is affiliated with several other private capital companies, the names of which are given in the statement.

Senator WILLIAMS. All within Tennessee?

Mr. COCHRAN. No, sir. They are over various parts of the country: Virginia, Ohio, Louisiana, Nebraska, Delaware, Pennsylvania. Senator WILLIAMS. How many companies in all?

Mr. COCHRAN. Let's see. I think there are 12 companies, possibly

Senator WILLIAMS. So I would say your experience is not limited to an area, it is almost national in scope.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, it is.

Purely for the purpose of developing that and for no other reason, I serve on the board of United Transit Co., I am executive vice president of United Transit Co., and serve on the board of American Transportation Enterprises, and we meet regularly and discuss the problems not only in our local community, but to some extent I become familiar with the same situations in other communities. I am here

Senator WILLIAMS. Your findings and conclusions, would you say they apply uniformly or equally in the other areas that you are familiar with?

Mr. COCHRAN. Amazingly so. Actually fluctuations in passengers will occur almost-almost follow the same pattern all over the entire community, or the several communities with which we are connected.

I am representing the American Transit Association, which is a voluntary trade association and is made up of both the public ownership operations and private capital operations, transporting passengers by rapid transit systems, streetcar, motorbus, trolley coaches.

The members of this organization transport in excess of 80 percent of the passengers that are transported by mass transit systems in the country.

American Transit Association and its members are very much interested in the Federal aid to transit legislation; are interested in the continued effect of that legislation, and also possibly additional amounts.

I have had some personal experience with the type of assistance that is provided under the Federal aid program, in that the city of Nashville had among the first, if not the first, of the mass transit demonstration grants for demonstration purposes. And I know it was the first in which a private capital company participated.

We had three projects underway. Neither one of the three would have been possible financially without Federal aid.

We demonstrated that one of them was not effective. We demonstrated that the other two were

Senator WILLIAMS. What was the one that wasn't effective? Will you describe those?

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, sir. We had three types of programs. One of them was a proposal, and it was put into effect, to connect a series of shopping centers by a new bus route operating over a fringe through street. When I say a "fringe through street," I mean a through street on the fringe of the metropolitan area.

We found that that was not successful, and that was abandoned before the project was scheduled to end, because it appeared the money was being wasted and the money could be used in other places

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, every shopping center is fronted with a massive parking lot for automobiles.

Mr. COCHRAN. Each of these shopping centers had a massive parking lot. But this developed, Mr. Chairman; we found we were operating through a residential area where there were two- and threecar families, and the pattern of transportation already had been established. We could not break that habit.

Now, on the other hand, however, we set up another new bus service between the downtown and a satellite community with service in the satellite community connecting with the downtown service.

Senator WILLIAMS. What community is this?

Mr. COCHRAN. This was an unincorporated area called Donelson. It was a community of about 30,000 people located to the east of Nashville, in the Metropolitan Nashville area.

Service was inaugurated serving certain areas of Donelson, connecting with downtown express service. That was quite successful, and although the demonstration project has terminated, and the Federal money has run out, we are maintaining that service with some trimming here and there, where it was not essential and was not needed. Senator WILLIAMS. This is a new service that was demonstrated. now it is continuing?

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, sir, it is continuing, with some tailoring where it was demonstrated it was not needed, but the basic essential service is contnuing and we will continue it.

Senator WILLIAMS. That is comparable, and Mr. Kohl ca. address himself to this, to what we call here in Washington the minibus demonstration that is now being continued by D.C. Transit Co.

Mr. KоHL. That is correct.

Mr. COCHRAN. Then we had another project-the third one. have two university areas, the Vanderbilt-Peabody-Scarritt college area, and the Meharry and Tennessee A. & I. College, or Tenneseee University it is called now, area, where there was a flow of traffic between the two of them, we felt.

In addition, these two, Vanderbilt University and Meharry, had hospitals. We felt there was a possibility of a need for direct service between the so-called university and hospital areas, without coming downtown to make the transfers and going out again. That service was inaugurated. It did take some service off of the existing system, but based upon the studies which were made, we found we were actually getting new customers. We were generating new business and although the Federal money has terminated, that service is also continuing.

Now I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the underwriting of the community's part of that program was done by the local transit company. The municipality was simply the applicant. We committed ourselves to underwrite the one-third cost, and in that way the program was handled; and possibly that led to our interest in terminating the first one, which was not demonstrating successful results. and we continued the other two.

Senator WILLIMS. What was the cost of this last demonstration. total cost?

Mr. COCHRAN. The total cost was roughly $600,000. It may be $650,000, but it was between $600.000 and $650,000.

We underwrote one-third of it. And to the extent that the two projects were successful, they have been maintained.

I have gone into some detail on that, because I believe this does give me a somewhat unique position in this program, in that we are a private company which has used this demonstration money.

us, we feel that this Federal aid offers the solution to many of the

transit problems. We can modernize systems, consolidate systems, and private capital companies can work with the local communities. The general result will be a modernization, improvement of local mass transit.

Now I would make this suggestion, if I may do so: We speak of "long-range planning" in section 4 (a) and (b), section 4 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act. But 1 or 2 or even 3 years could hardly be considered as "long range" in an industry such as transit, particularly when it is tied into the overall plan of community development.

I don't believe we can confine community development to a 1-, 2-, or 3-year program, but if transit is to go parallel with that, I believe we will have to consider "long range" as something more than 2 or 3 years. And I suggest that consideration possibly could be given to a much longer authorization for the Federal program.

We feel that "long range" should go something further in that direction in point of time.

Another reason would be that if we have some money available just for a short period of time, there is a tendency for hasty action-and action that is based upon plans which are not really fully materialized. We feel more consideration could be given to the planning if everyone realized it was not just a 1-, 2-, or 3-year program, but if it is something we can look forward to on a real long-range basis.

Now insofar as the amount involved is concerned, we would hope there would be something more than the $95 million of new authorization proposed because we think the program is so important, and can be so effective. We have seen just the beginning that can well justify substantially larger amounts of money spent in the improvement of local transit.

Insofar as the private companies are concerned, there possibly may be some feeling that this money can be used by the public agencies, but not used by the private companies, and thereby the private companies are discriminated against to some extent.

Senator WILLIAMS. No; we have worked that out.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, sir, you covered in the act the program, and it is spelled out. And we have never, in my own situation, we have never felt any problem there, and as I said, we obviously have had the benefit of the funds. And I don't know whether this is practical or possible, but I have thought that if the private company cannot now be an applicant-if some method might be devised that the private company could be an applicant, and I don't now know what that method could be-it might be somewhat more encouraging to the private operator. But in essence, Mr. Chairman, we have seen the program in action.

Senator WILLIAMS. Who was the applicant on the demonstrations that you described?

Mr. COCHRAN. The Nashville Transit Authority, now Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Senator WILLIAMS. A governmental unit.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes. The governmental unit was the applicant and we committed ourselves to the governmental unit to underwrite their share, or its share. We enjoy a very pleasant desirable relationship with our regulatory agency and have for a number of years.

We have a relationship, if I may say so, that I think is one of mutual trust and confidence and it has redounded to the benefit of the riding public.

On behalf of American Transit Association and its members, for the reasons set out in the statements filed, we hope that this program will be continued, will be extended, and will be expanded.

Thank you.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, that comes right from the mouth of the horse. You are on the firing line of transit, speaking for the private companies that are associated in this association. It is weighty testimony indeed.

We started with a program of demonstration to see whether improved methods could attract people to mass transit. And you have said that two of your programs not only succeeded, but succeeded on the demonstration, but after the demonstration was over, you have continued the service?

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, sir.

Senator WILLIAMS. After that we went to a capital grant on a proportionate match, and I think that is working pretty well where it has been applied. Is that right, Mr. Kohl?

Mr. KоHL. Yes.

Senator WILLIAMS. Now we have still a gap in the whole thing. We have the last link, which is missing in law today, we have a lot of transportation systems that are losing money, faced with operating losses, and indeed want to get out of the whole business of commuter transportation altogether. Maybe they need demonstration, maybe they need capital grants for improvement. But if they don't just keep their nose above water on operating expenses, the capital grant would mean nothing. Because they are just sinking day by day. week by week, year by year.

Now that is one of the bills before us, an emergency measure for a period of years, defined in the bill, to keep them alive until the improvements can come.

You haven't addressed yourself-Mr. Cochran hasn't-and I don't know whether you have an opinion on that bill or not. If it is adverse. why, you will certainly upset Miss Kessler greatly. You wouldn't want to do that, would you, Mr. Kohl?

Mr. KOHL. Not at all, Senator. Yet, while we appreciate the objectives of S. 2804, there are certain reservations that are inevitable in looking at it from the standpoint of the operator and also from the local community.

The general objectives are extremely farsighted, and constructive. But the actual mechanics of such a program of subsidy require, I think, a great deal more study in order to avoid the removal of incentives toward improvement.

One of the basic objectives of the whole Federal program is that of accelerating the local area's efforts to plan and accommodate their local transportation systems to the changes and growth of metropolitan areas. It has been adequately demonstrated that, where these adjustments are realistically made, in accordance with sound planning, a stable financial base of operation can be achieved.

If, however, those efforts are postponed or abandoned because of the removal of the incentive of the financial-loss spur, there will be no such