I don't think we can move at an unlimited rate and I think where we have situations such as the city of Akron-this is their community renewal program, virtually the entire part of the city here needs treatment as you can see on this cover [indicating]. It is idle to talk about a program-in definitive terms, in terms of a given dollar amount.

I have referred to the $160 million program for Akron that we have suggested here, but I am not even completely sure that this is a realistic figure. I think what we should be talking about is beginning on a total program as this act does, in terms of providing the full meas ure of powers and the strong objectives defined in the act, and then let us see where this can take us over a period of years during which we will have some experimentation.

Mr. WIDNALL. From your own experience, what would you say is the percentage of money that should be devoted to physical reconstruction as against social reconstruction?

Mr. CANDEUB. Here, again, the experience to date would be poor on which to base it because most of the funds have been for physical reconstruction. I feel that the efforts made, serious efforts in social reconstruction have been terribly limited and I am not sure that all of this need be from renewal funds or even from the Demonstration Cities Act funds.

I think other funds should be better tied into this-the antipoverty funds, education funds-other social services. To date there has been relatively little of this tied in.

Mr. WIDNALL. That is all.

Mr. BARRETT. Mrs. Sullivan?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I really do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman, but I want to congratulate the witness on his intelligent presentation. I admire you, Mr. Candeub, for trying to find out how you can do something in helping to meet a problem instead of just complaining over what cannot be done.

Mr. CANDEUB. Thank you very much.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I think your testimony extremely helpful. Thank you.

Mr. CANDEUB. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Fino?

Mr. FINO. On page 4 you suggest that we enter upon a special training program to provide a sufficiently large number of qualified individuals available to serve as Federal coordinators. Are you implying there is now a shortage of trained personnel?

Mr. CANDEUB. Yes, sir.

Mr. FINO. Is it not a fact, that the best training that one can receive is a lifetime of experience with city government and municipal problems?

Mr. CANDEUB. Yes. However, I am speaking, really, with regard to problems that we have been facing in the field in the last decade, where, for instance, in the work of the local level we find some representatives of the URA that we have to work with are young, inexperienced, and really, in many cases, lacking in training.

This has been a perennial problem and the point that I am making is, if we expect to get any real partnership from the Federal level. working partnership, not just a matter of funds—but a working part

nership to pull these programs together, it can't come from sending an inexperienced man into the field.

That chap would be a burden to us, not a help. He will not be able to perform responsibly. What I would like to see is this coordinator role given a rather high rating in terms of taking people out of government who do have experience and giving them special training so that they can really be helpful in the field. Because, otherwise, the appointments will be made, but the kind of results that we want will be lacking.

Mr. FINO. Do you think a 6-month, or even a 4-year course, crash course, in Federal coordinating, would sufficiently acquaint an individual with the problems of a particular city?

Mr. CANDEUB. Well, I am not too concerned about his knowing the problems in a particular city. What I am concerned about is that these individuals know enough about the individual programs and requirements so that when, on a local level, going back to the point that Congressman Widnall made, at the local level, when we go to the FHA, that this individual be prepared to come along and to effectively play a coordinating role.

He can't unless he knows something.

My concern is that he be trained, whether 6 months or a year-that he have enough effective training so that he can operate at a responsible level. Otherwise, his role would be a myth. It won't function.

Mr. FINO. Apropos to this colloquy, suggestions have been made regarding Federal coordinators, that they be people or men from the city in question, so that they would not have any doubt-so that they would know what the problems are rather than picking someone from Washington that had never been in Akron, Ohio, or Philadelphia, and has to learn from scratch what the problems are. Mayors who have testified before this committee have indicated that they would like to see a coordinator from the particular city and that they would like to have a choice, or they would like to have a say in the choice of a coordinator.

How do you feel about that?

Mr. CANDEUB. I think that they would like to have the say because they are suspicious about what they might otherwise get in the way of a coordinator. This might be desirable, I would think, but I would still feel that more important than anything is that there be a pool of people to take from. Actually, as far as the local level goes, presumably, the operating agency at the local level will know the city. I am not sure the coordinator has to know the city that well. He has to know Federal local programs. He has to be able to speak effectively.

Mr. FINO. Some fear has been expressed that these so-called Federal coordinators, whom I referred to as commissars, will ask the city governments to change building codes, zoning laws, and even the city administrations, and reorganize themselves along their own suggestions. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. CANDEUB. I think that the role of the Federal coordinators has to be a specifically limited role. If he is made into a czar, no matter how good he is, the burden of power will be such that he will become arbitrary and he will become dictatorial and extremely difficult to work with. I think this would be a serious error. I think he has to be in the field operating according to rules and regulations.

Mr. FINO. Are you satisfied with the language in the bill, H.R. 12341, or page 8, where we talk about the Office of the Federal Coordinator? It says―

This person shall perform such functions as the Secretary from time to time shall prescribe with respect to helping to achieve the maximum effective coordination.

Mr. CANDEUB. As long as he operates by rules handed down, and assuming that the Secretary will hand down effective rules and regulations.

My concern is that he not operate simply on his own as a czar and unto himself. Because that would make him an impossible person to work with. He is needed. The role is needed, as a coordinator, as an assistant, as a partner of the local government from the Federal Government in the field to help with the problems of the related agencies. Mr. FINO. What we are talking about is cutting redtape? Mr. CANDEUB. Right.

Mr. FINO. Would an expediter, a Federal expediter, do that job? The fear that I have is that a coordinator, as outlined in this bill, has more power than he should have and the Secretary of the Department is telling him exactly what to do and what not to do. And I think he may be stepping on the toes of local governments.

Mr. CANDEUB. I think this is a danger, and I think this is a danger with regard to almost anyone that the Federal Government sends in the field. There are occasions when officials overstep their bounds and tell the city what to do instead of discussing with the city what the city wants to do.

However, the function is an important function. We need it. So that I think danger should be recognized and some provision should be made to control the coordinator but I believe that the function of coordinator is an important function.

Mr. FINO. Would you say the control should be from a local government to some extent?

Mr. CANDEUB. Let me put it this way. I think the coordinator should be a partner with the local government and if the local government finds that the coordinator is overstepping his bounds, they should have some means of appeal and request possibly to have him changed, because I think his role should be a helper and not a dictator.

Mr. FINO. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Candeub. All time has expired and we are certainly grateful for your coming down.

Mr. CANDEUB. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARRETT. Your testimony is among the finest of the witnesses we have heard.

Mr. CANDEUB. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 17, 1966.)

DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING OF THE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William A. Barrett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representative Barrett, Mrs. Sullivan, Moorhead, St Germain, Reuss, Fino, and Mrs. Dwyer.

Mr. BARRETT. The committee will come to order, please.

Our first witness this morning will be Dr. Thomas E. Stelson, Alcoa, professor of civil engineering and head of department of civil engineering, Carnegie Institute of Technology, and Dr. James P. Romualdi, professor of civil engineering, head of Transportation Research Institute, Carnegie Institute of Technology.

I hope we can make you doctors here feel at home this morning. I have heard so much about you two from our distinguished colleague and my close associate from Pittsburgh, Pa., and I know that he wants to say a kind word in introducing you to this committee this morning. Therefore, I will turn now to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Moorhead.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say a few words, not only of these two witnesses who appear before us but to say a little bit about the institute which they represent, the Transportation Research Institute of Carnegie Institute of Technology in my congresional district in the city of Pittsburgh.

This institute was very recently established by a grant of $300,000 over a 3-year period by the Richard K. Mellon Foundation and it is one of the first institutes designed particularly to attack this problem which faces cities across the Nation, which is the problem of moving people into the center city in the morning and moving them out again in the afternoon.

While this is a very new institute, the gentlemen who appear before us are not new in this field. They have been for a number of years studying the feasibility of the so-called Keystone corridor, which, I think, my friend from Wisconsin who is here, will be particularly interested in. It is to link up the Midwest with the so-called Northeast corridor. This institute has also been working with the Port Authority of Allegheny Authority which handles our mass transportation. They pointed out to me, and I hope their testimony will reveal, that when we think of research in the field of mass transit, rapid transit, we

are not just thinking of scientific breakthroughs but also economic. psychological, and other great things of this nature.

In this connection, I think the Carnegie Institute of Technology is particularly well suited to administer such an institute, because, among other things, it has the great, well-known school of business administration, and it is also one of the leading computer centers in the Nation I think that the application of the problems of a particular city of mass transportation can be worked into the computer system and a more accurate answer obtained therefrom.

For that reason, I think, Mr. Chairman, you will find that the testimony of Dr. Romualdi and Dr. Stelson will be particularly interesting and helpful to this committee, and I look forward eagerly myself to hearing their testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Moorhead.

Dr. Romualdi, we are, of course, desirous of making you feel a home here this morning as well as your associate, Dr. Stelson. We want you to choose as to how you want to make your presentation. If you feel that you would like to make it in full, without being asked any questions until you complete your statement, we will certainly be willing to go along with you.

We want you to have the freedom and give you the comfort that we try to give every other witness, and we will abide by whatever decisio you make along this line.

Dr. ROMUALDI. We have a prepared statement, and it might be convenient if we read it. If you have any questions, or if anyone desires any clarification while we are reading it, please do not hesitate to interrupt and we can discuss it. It is not necessary to formally go through it.

If there are no other questions at the moment, perhaps this can be started off by reading the prepared statement as it appears.

Mr. BARRETT. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES P. ROMUALDI, DIRECTOR, AND DR. THOMAS E. STELSON, CODIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CARNEGIE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Dr. ROMUALDI. We appreciate this opportunity to express our views on the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Demonstrations and Urban Development Acts. In particular, we wish to comment or amendment No. 4: Expedited program for research, development, and demonstrations of new systems of urban development.

Transportation--the movement of men and materials-is a vital function of all urban centers. It might appear redundant to repeat this, but it deserves repetition.

Free-flowing movement in traffic arteries is a sign of urban health. Congestion and strangulation in these arteries is a prelude to death. Even the most casual observer can plainly see the critical conditions of ill health suffered today in many urban centers due to transportation arteriosclerosis. Furthermore, what once seemed to be an obvious cure the construction of more and better highways, streets, and parking facilities—is now obviously inadequate if not downright wrong.