Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

cushion vehicle, the hydrofoil, or even the helicopter or some other vertical flight vehicle. We in the United States have, in our fascination with the automobile, fallen for the idea that it could do the whole transportation job. We are only beginning to turn our formidable technology and our governmental powers to the encouragement of improved forms of urban mass transportation. That is the job ahead, and it is of this I wish now to speak.

In this Congress we have seen a fresh surge of legislative interest in urban problems. Literally dozens of bills have been introduced proposing the creation of departments of urban affairs on “urbiculture," changing the rules of the housing or urban renewal and redevelopment programs, expanding Federal aids for community facilities, or offering new aids for urban transportation. The most promising of these last is the bill you have under consideration, S. 3278, and which I am glad to endorse as the most logical, promising, and feasible of many similar measures to help cities deal with their transportation problems.

Under present circumstances, the existing Federal highway programs are bribing cities to do the wrong thing. They are not only disorganizing the collapsing existing urban systems of mass transportation, they are disorganizing the metropolitan city itself, and making it increasingly impossible to serve it economically in the future by any form of mass transportation. We are fastening upon future generations an undesirable burden of extra travel time and cost, one that will considerably offset the gains otherwise being made in shorter hours and higher wages, and will go far toward increasing the difficulties of life in large cities.

What S. 3278 offers is not a patent-medicine kind of solution for metropolitan transportation ills, but an opportunity to make a fresh start on the basis of local initiative. It holds out the prospect of transportation planning coordinated with land use and other aspects of regional development. Location of the program in the Housing Agency should assure this. It stimulates transportation planning that embrace all forms of transportation; not just transit, not just highways, but a balanced system. The bill offers a line of Federal credit that is both small when measured by the cost of urban highways it would eliminate, and as self-liquidating as any other forms of Federal loans to municipalities such as housing and community facilities.

The program described appears well adapted to the special interjurisdictional areas as distinguished from the needs of States, counties, or cities.

In conclusion, to deal with an immediately urgent situation, S. 3278 offers a program of commendable flexibility. In this it contrasts sharply with the concrete straightjacket of the only other form of Federal transportation relief now available to cities-the expressways of the Interstate System. It opens the door to a period of experimentation, in which programs can be developed suited to the varying needs of cities of different sizes and requirements, that can be tailored further to the progress they have made on their own in meeting local transportation needs. Most significantly, the bill makes it easy for Congress to take this first step. I hope it can enlist the favorable attention of your distinguished committee and reach Congress in time for action before adjournment. Senator WILLIAMS. We will receive the testimony of Mr. Maxwell Lehman, executive secretary of the Metropolitan Regional Council. Sorry we are getting underway so late, Mr. Lehman.

STATEMENT OF MAXWELL LEHMAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, METROPOLITAN REGIONAL COUNCIL

Mr. LEHMAN. You got me up earlier that I have been used to getting up in a long time, Senator.

Senator WILLIAMS. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes, I have a short prepared statement. I will see that you get it.

Senator WILLIAMS. All right. Proceed any way you care to.

Mr. LEHMAN. I am here in my capacity as executive secretary of the Metropolitan Regional Council.

The council consists of the chief elected officials of the 21 counties and 15 major cities in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region.

55869-60-51

This region is inhabited by 15.5 million people, and it has an area of some 7,000 square miles. It is the largest and most diverse region in the entire world, not only in terms of population but in terms of its economy, its port, it industries, and, of course, its consequent impact upon the entire Nation.

In addition to its diversity and its bigness, this metropolitan area has another important characteristic-the movement of people. Each day 5 million riders use the subways and the commuter railroads servicing the New York region. Eighty-five percent of the 33 million people who enter Manhattan's business district every day travel by subway and commuter trains.

There is no parallel to this amount of passenger service anywhere in the world.

In addition to the movement of people circulating in the region daily, there is also the movement of goods. Half the output of the region's manufacturing plants is shipped to markets outside the region.

It is sometimes overlooked that the New York metropolitan area is the Nation's largest industrial center.

It is obvious that transportation is a matter of survival to us. The transportation of people within our region is provided by an extensive network of suburban railroads, buslines, urban rapid transit, and arterial highways. The network of railroads provides service between New York City and the suburban communities and includes over a thousand miles of routes. Nine different railroads provide some form of commuter service.

In addition, of course, we have rapid transit service provided by the subways and buses of the New York City Transit Authority.

Without question, the most compelling of the region's transportation problems is the continuing deterioration and contraction of suburban rail service. The carriers point out that in the present economy they operate at a loss constantly. Service is being curtailed. Mass transit, which is an absolute must for us, is in losing competition with other and subsidized modes of transportation.

I checked out yesterday just what had happened within the past 2 years.

We had one railroad knocked out of service altogether-the Westchester branch of the New York Central. It is on the Jersey side of the Hudson River. It used to carry 5,000 passengers.

On May 19 of last year eight daily commuter trains were knocked off the Delaware, Lackawanna Railroad.

In February the Erie Railroad was given permission by the New Jersey Public Utilities Commission to discontinue 33 trains on one of its divisions.

In Westchester 2 years ago the Putnam division of the New York Central was cut off.

The Jersey Central discontinued six daily commuter lines on one of its routes.

The ferries going from New Jersey to New York have all shut down, with the exception of those coming from Staten Island to New York City. They serviced 5,000 commuters.

Senator WILLIAMS. The Jersey Central ferry still is operating.
Mr. LEHMAN. Still going. It is a small operation.

Service on the Susquehanna has been reduced to 14 weekday trains. A total of 65 trains on this line were just lopped off recently. On the Erie Railroad, suburban service was cut from 101 to 64 trains.

This is the sort of thing that is happening. It cannot continue to happen.

Senator CLARK. Why can it not continue to happen?

Mr. LEHMAN. It cannot continue to happen because our survival depends on transportation. If we cannot get people in and around and through the city and the metropolitan area, it means that our industry suffers, our business suffers, and we cannot plan for the future.

Senator CLARK. Substitute forms of transportation would not solve the problem?

Mr. LEHMAN. Senator, let me give you an idea of what substitute forms of transportation would mean. And there is only one substitute form of transportation. That is the automobile.

Senator CLARK. No; there is also the bus.

Mr. LEHMAN. I include the bus with the automobile.

If all of the trains now coming in from Westchester were to stop running and that is a distinct possibility-we would need for the commuters coming from that county alone an additional 250 acres of space in downtown Manhattan to handle the cars coming in.

We just do not have 250 acres of space in downtown Manhattan. Senator CLARK. What would happen if they all came in by bus? Mr. LEHMAN. If they all came in by bus we would have the same problem of determining what to do with those buses when they came in, and we do not have the road space today to take on the passengers by bus who now come in by railroad.

There are 200,000 that come in every day by railroad. We do not have the space on the roads.

Senator CLARK. You need a lot less space on the roads for buses than you do for private automobiles, do you not?

Mr. LEHMAN. That is correct, Senator.

Senator CLARK. And a lot less parking space when they get there? Mr. LEHMAN. That is correct, Senator. But when you consider that all of our roads are overcrowded at the present time, we could not handle the buses that would have to take on 200,000 passengers. Senator CLARK. Much less the automobiles?

Mr. LEHMAN. Much less the automobiles.

This is a continuing process the real ending of service. It is not a matter of theory with us. In Rockland County, which is the fastest growing county in the entire region, there is no longer any commuter rail service.

I was out there the other day, by the way, and I just could not get back to New York.

Senator CLARK. What State is that in?

Mr. LEHMAN. That is New York State, but it is on the other side of the Hudson River, just north of Bergen County, N.J.

The Susquehanna Railroad in New Jersey is seeking to end all its passenger service right now, while in Connecticut the New Haven claims it will need another $20 million between now and next February in order to provide proper commuter service

We do not buy that figure of $20 million, but we do know that this railroad cannot continue in operation unless it gets some help.

With this crisis in mind, the region's local officials, through the metropolitan regional council, have adopted a series of policies with respect to transportation, and I would like to outline them for you.

These public officials they are the top elected officials of the counties and cities in our area-are from both political parties. They are from the cities, the suburbs, and the rural portions of the region.

They argue that the transit mess must be solved and there is no Democratic or Republican way to solve it.

First, the council maintains that we must stop passing the buck. Only a cooperative effort by all levels of government will do the job. The council has, therefore, urged, as Mayor Wagner pointed out yesterday, the creation of a tristate transportation agency including representatives of the three States to begin immediately to negotiate to find means of preserving existing commuter service.

This tristate agency could also provide the groundwork for longrange solutions.

Governors Rockefeller, Ribicoff, and Meyner have indicated some interest in this approach, and we are exploring the matter further with them.

In New York State we are already providing substantial tax abatement to the railroads, and the local governments are participating in this abatement.

Second, the metropolitan regional council affirms that the Federal Government ought to recognize a responsibility to assist the urban areas in meeting their transportation needs.

We argue that the problem is not local but national. What happens to our urban areas has a bearing on the welfare of the entire Nation. In the present posture of international events it is a national defense necessity to see that our railroads do not go under.

We note that the Federal Government has recognized a responsibility in the field of air and sea transport, highway construction, housing, and urban redevelopment. Mass rail transportation in urban areas we feel is entitled to equal treatment as a responsibility of the Federal Government.

I would like to point out that in comparison with expenditures for highway construction the amounts needed for assistance to the railroads would be tiny.

For example, over $3 billion is presently committed to highway and bridge construction in our tristate metropolitan region. The major proportion of these funds comes from the Federal Government. Nevertheless, we are not here to propose a subsidy.

A report prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce last March stated this:

Jointly with communities the Federal authorities should consider the total urban transportation situation so that the Federal participation may contribute to the efficiency with which urban transport as a whole is performed.

We buy that.

You will recall that the Secretary of Commerce in his report recommended that the Federal Government encourage local authorities to do more long-range land-use planning, in which transportation has a critical part. The legislation under consideration by your committee

would help us do just that with its provision for urban planning grants to encourage comprehensive transportation systems.

The provisions in Senator Williams' bill for planning grants would mark an important forward step in providing for an orderly development of urban areas, but a step for which there is plenty of Federal precedent.

The proposal for long-term, low-interest loans is a portion of the bill which is, of course, of great interest to us. It is not a subsidy. It is merely the use of Federal credit to help us help ourselves.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Lehman, let me be the devil's advocate for a moment.

Why is this not a subsidy? It seems to me it is a subsidy. You are going to pay interest at a lower rate than you can get it on the open market. You would get it to some extent at the expense of the Federal Government. It looks to me like a subsidy. Why is it not a subsidy? Mr. LEHMAN. It is not a subsidy because the Federal Government would not be asked to put up straight cash which would never be returned to it. The money would be returned to the Federal Govern

ment.

I would not argue with you, because I think it would be just a matter of semantics on whether 314-percent interest or 4-percent interest, that difference, would constitute a subsidy.

Senator CLARK. How important to you is that low interest rate? Why can you not get the same thing done by going out and paying the market rate for interest?

Mr. LEHMAN. Senator, we know that the railroads in our area find it difficult to borrow at all at any rate.

The provisions in this bill through which the municipalities or their instrumentalities, like the tristate agency we are proposing, would act would serve as a channel through which the railroads would get the funds to solve this important problem.

The railroads cannot borrow themselves. They would be getting their money through the municipalities via Federal credit.

Senator CLARK. I understand that, but the administration says they do not object seriously to the Federal Government guaranteeing these bonds, but they think that the interest rate ought to be the market rate instead of a subsidized rate based on what the Treasury pays for its money.

Mr. LEHMAN. We take the position that if railroads cannot borrow at the market rate, we have to help them borrow at a rate that will keep them in business.

Since our view is that the first job is survival, we have to do everything we can. If we do not do this now, we may have to do a lot more later. You may have to provide tremendous subsidies far beyond what are now being provided for the construction of new highways, if you do not go through with this little bit at the present time.

That is it, gentlemen.

We urge you to go ahead with this legislation.

I

may add one thing: That all of the mayors and all of the county heads in the tristate metropolitan area have unanimously endorsed the bill before you.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much.

Senator CLARK. Could I ask another question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator WILLIAMS. Yes, Senator.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »