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? make a phone call. Were you going to read the statement?

I have to

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, WESTINGHOUSE 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

Housing Act of 1961, however, did we recognize the Federal responsibility to aid in the mass transportation systems of our urban economy.

At present, 50 to 90 percent grants are available for urban highways under the Federal-aid highway program. Under this program about $20 billion will be spent, and should be, on the urban portion of the Interstate System alone, and additional hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent each year on the urban primary and secondary systems. Thus, massive and continuing grant assistance is available for needed urban highways, whereas the only Federal assistance for vital urban mass transportation has been the temporary $40 million loan program of 1961, and the soon to expire $375 million capital grant program. In this situation, it is very difficult for local officials to make objective decisions as to whether particular urban transportation needs are to be met by private automobile or mass transportation facilities. In order to stimulate objective long range planning and development, there must be reasonable assurance that financial assistance will be available to implement a new or improved transportation system once the planning is completed. This is not the case today.

Our mass transportation problem is national in scope. It is a major problem and a difficult burden in all our large cities. And it is equally critical in many of our small ones as well. There are today at least 60 cities with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 that have no organized transit service at all. Yet they want and need this service.

The problem is no longer one that can be dealt with on a local basis alone. It has long since spilled over the boundaries of local political jurisdictions and even over State lines. Some 53 of the country's approximately 200 metropolitan areas either border or cross over State lines, with their transit needs ignoring local boundaries.

Even more acute than the judisdictional difficulties are the financial difficulties of the local governments. Many are hard pressed to pay for essential services to growing populations. Many have reached maximum debt limits.

Yet the revenue from fares alone cannot provide the capital needed to meet growing urban transit needs at fares that are economical for the riders and the operating company or authority. Private capital must be supplemented by public investment-as we have done in the past for airlines, railroads, shipping, and automobile travel-in order that our transit systems can help to meet the urgent needs of our expanding urban areas.

Again I would like to emphasize that increased and continuing Federal financial assistance is needed. To make the short and long range transportation improvements necessary will take billions of dollars. States and urban areas cannot alone afford the total cost of these improvements. Nor can they be expected to spend large sums to plan needed transportation systems unless there is a sound basis for financing the systems' construction and operation.

S. 2804, introduced by Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr. of New Jersey outlines a forward thinking proposal to provide operating subsidies for commuter services. Although some operating authorities fear that such funds would open the door to Federal intervention in or control of their operations, the alternative in some cases may be abandonment of service.

Certainly some form of financial operating assistance program is needed and needed now. Senator Williams' proposal was drafted with the realistic kowledge that our fast growing residential-suburban areas are experiencing an increasing need for modern, efficient economical commuter service. With few exceptions, this form of urban transportation is not self supporting through fares alone. I recommend that this subcommittee give favorable consideration to including many of the provisions of S. 2804 in continuing urban mass transportation legislation.

The question of research and development also deserves your careful consideration. Much has been said recently about the need for a "crash program" of federally funded mass transit research. In some areas of research particularly statistical and economic studies, the need is immediate. However, I have serious reservations about the wisdom of appropriating large sums of Federal money for hardware research and development until there is a better definition of urban needs.

For example, WABCO's transit research and development program, which we do not publicize for competitive reasons, is extensive. Our international complex of companies supplying the transit industry keeps us in close touch with technological developments throughout the world. Other major suppliers have significant R&D programs underway which are seldom discussed publicly. The April 18, 1966 issue of Railway Age Weekly has a very interesting feature on

the extent of present R&D in the rail transit and railroad industry which I direct to your attention. It is pertinent to legislation being considered by this subcommittee.

I can say to you without reservation that the technological progress applicable to mass transit, now going forward in this country, is second to none. As the market for mass transit products and services expands, private industry will quickly supply new and significantly improved products. One of the major problems facing all of us in the transit supply industry is the limited information available from most cities regarding their specific mass transit system and hardware needs or desires.

In this regard I suggest that you give consideration to a new, local planning assistance provision as part of expanded and extended mass transit legislation. Such provision would make professionally competent planning assistance as well as financial assistance for transit planning available to urban areas needing this help.

Provision for such a group under the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would assist responsible local and state leadership, on request, in developing effective regional transportation plans, action programs and long range objec tives. Today, many communities with ill defined transportation problems are having difficulty organizing a program that would eventually provide efficient urban transportation appropriate to the circumstances, needs and desires of the area and its people. Many of these communities would and could help themselves but do not know where to start. The availability of a professionally competent transit planning assistance group would be of great help.

In conclusion, the 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 and have extension guarantees of at least ten years. Senator Williams' bill offers a realistic approach to assisting our deficit ridden 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. Consideration should also be given to establishing a local transit planning assistance group within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Although HUD's Office of Transportation has done a highly commendable job of local-federal liaison in the past, a much greater level of effort will be needed to meet the increasing transit needs of our urban areas.

American industry, particularly the established suppliers to the transit industry, are pouring ever increasing resources into transit research and development programs. 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 should carefully study specific needs and insure that Federal funds are not used to create hardware development programs in competition with private enterprise.

This country must and will have the finest urban mass transportation systems 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.

Senator WILLIAMS. Next we have a fine panel from New Jersey. Mr. Higgins and Mr. Bruder.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS G. HIGGINS, CHAIRMAN, MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION IN RIDGEWOOD, N.J.; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES F. BRUDER, VICE PRESIDENT, SINGER CO.; AND MAYOR GEORGE W. CLARK OF RIDGEWOOD, N.J.

Mr. HIGGINS. We have Mayor Clark, too.

Senator WILLIAMS. Where is Walter Frank? Is he up there moving the stock exchange to Hoboken?

Mr. HIGGINS. He had a conflicting date.