PAGENO="0001" GOV. DOG. HIGH~SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION-EXTENSION HEARINGS BEFORE TUE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND AERONAUTICS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R.. 16024 A BILL TO EXTEND FOR ONE ~YEARi~ ACT OF SEPTEMBER 30, 19~5, RELATI~G TO HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION I ` / ~7I JUNE 12; 13, 1968 Serial No. 90-37 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1968 PAGENO="0002" OOM~ITTEE ON INTEItSTATE AND ~OREI~N COMMEROE HARLEY 0, STAGGEI~S, West Virginia, Chairman SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, Maryland ~ WILLIAM L SPRINGER, Illinois TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massaehusetts `SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma ANCHER NELSEN, Minnesota JOHN E. MOSS, California HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan * * ~ ~ GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida ~ JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina HORACE L KORNEGAY, N&rtl~ Carolina JAMES BARVEY, Michigt~n LIONEL VAN DEERL~N, California ~ *~ ALBERT W. WA~SQN, `So~ith Carolina J. J. PICX(LE, Texas TIM LE~ CARTER, kentucky FRED B. ROONBY, Peuns~ivanh~. G. ROBBR~ WATKINS, Pennsylvania JOHN M. MIJt~PHY, New york DOI~LD ~ BROTZMAN, Colorado DAVID E. SATTERFIELD III, Virginia CLARJ3~NCE J. BROWN, Ja., Ohio DANIEL J. RONAN, Illinois DAN KCJYKENDALL, Tennessee BROCK ADAMS, Washington JOE SKTJBITZ, Kansas RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York RAY BLANTON, Tennessee W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, Ja., Georgia PETER N. KYROS, Maine W~ E. WILLIhMSoN, Clerk KENNErI~ J~ r~I~a, Msfn~ant~Clerk Pro! ess4 on/al ~taff~ WILLIAM J. DIXON Ito~Ea~ r. GuT~aIE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND AERONAUTICS SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, Maryland, Chairman SAMTLTEL L. DEVINE, Ohio GLEWN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska ALBER!U~. ~WATSON, South Carolina DAN KUYKENDALL, Tennessee I I ANp~EW STsvEssol~ ~1AMIIS M. i~ENdI&~, Jr. JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan J. J. PICKLE, Texas DANIEL J. RONAN, Illinois BROCK ADAMS, Washington (`I) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held on- June 12, 1968 June 13, 1968 Text of H.R. 16024 Report of- Bureau of the Budget Commerce Department Statement of- Boyd, Hon. Alan S., Secretary, Department of Transportation Fox, Dr. Thomas G., science adviser to the Governor of Pennsylvania, chairman, Governor's Science Advisory Committee, and chairman, Pennsylvania Science and Engineering Foundation Irwin, Hon. Donald J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut Jones, Hon. Clifford L., secretary of commerce, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Lang, A. Scheffer, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation Marburger, John H., Jr., administrator, Prince Georges County (Md.) Department of Public Works Minor, Robert W., senior vice president, Penn Central ~ Nelson, Robert A., Director, Office of High Speed Ground Transpor- tation, Department of Transportation Speliman, Hon. Gladys N., chairman, Board of County Commission- ers, Prince Georges County, Md., presented by John H. Marburger, administrator, Prince Georges County Department of Public Works_ Additional material submitted for the record by- Connecticut State Transportation Authority, letter from Frank M. Reinhold, chairman Council of State Governments, letter, with resolution, from James A. R. Johnson, legislative assistant Gilbert Systems, Inc., letter from Milton A. Gilbert, chairman of the board Illinois Central Railroad, letter from William B. Johnson, president_ National Association of Railroad Passengers, letter from Anthony Haswell, executive director New Jersey State Department of Transportation, letter from David J. Goldberg, commissioner of transportation Railway Labor Executives' Association, letter from G. E. Leighty, chairman Transportation Department: Estimated expenditures for high speed ground transportation program for fiscal years 1969-71 (table) High speed ground transportation legislative extension, statement in explanation of request for (III) I Pags 1 61 1 2 2 [4 76 74 68 4 80 61, 71 4 80 82 86 87 83 8ô 83 85 57 9 PAGENO="0004" 1 PAGENO="0005" HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION- EXTENSION HousE o~ REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND AERONAUTICS, COMMIrPEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. FRIEDEL. Phe committee will now come to order. The Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics is meeting this morning to open hearings on H.R. 16024, ~ bill to extend for 1 year the so-called High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. (H.R. 16024 and departmental reports thereon follow:) [HR. 16024, 90th Cong., sek~ond s~ss.] A BILL To extend for one year the Act of September 30, 1965, relafing to high-speed grounti' tr!ans'portation Be it enacteit by the &~nate awi House of Representatives of the United States of America in Uongress assen'i~bled, That (a) the first section of the Act entitled "An Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to undertake research and development in high-speed ground transportation, and for other purpeses", ap- proved September 30, 1965 (79 Stat. 893 ; PUbli~ Law 89-220 ; 49 U.S.C. 1681), is amended by st'r~king out "Secretary of Commerce" and inserting in lieu thereof "the Secretary of Transportation". (b) Section 5 of such Act of September 30, 1965, is amended by striking out "Department of Commerce" and inserting in lieu thereof "Department of Trans- portation". (c) Secti~n 7 of such Act of Septhmber 30, 1965, is amended by adding at the end thereof thefollowing : "In furtherance of these activities, the Secretary may acquire necessary sites by purchase, lease, or grant and may acquire, con- struct, repair, or furnish necessary support facilities." (d) `Section 9 of such Act of September 30, 1965, is amended by striking out "Administrator of the Housing and' Home Finance Agency" and inserting in lieu thereof "Secretary of Housing `and Urban Development". (e) The fir~t sentence of seotiot~ 11 of such Act of September 30, 19~5, `is amended by striking out "nn'd" and by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon `and the following: "and $16,200,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969." (f) The first sentence of section 12 of such Act o'f September 30, 1905, i~ amended by striking out "1969" an'd inserting in lieu thereof "1970". WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1968 I, (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ` BuRi~Au OF THE BUDGET, Wa~shington, D.C., April 29, 194f8. Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, Chaitrman~ Coii~m'ittee o~ Interstate and Foreign Uonvmerce, Rayburn Hov~se Office B~41d~ing, Wo~shi~gton, D.C. DEAI~ MR. CHAIRMAN. : This is in reply to your request for the views af the Bureau of the B~dget on H.R. 10024, a bill "To extend for one year the Act of Septemher 30, 19G5, relating to high~speed ground transportation." The draft bill originally submitted by the Secretary of Transportation pro- posed a two-year extension of the High~speed Ground Transportat~on Act ~n order to allow continuation of the program and facilitate its planning and administra- tion. We support the recommendation of the Department of Transportation to extend the Act and authorize appropriations for an additional two years. ~nactment of such nn extension would te ccsisistent with the Administration's ~bjectives. Sincerely yonrs, ~ WILFRED H. ROMMEL, . Assistar&t Director for Legislative Reference. . EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1968. Mon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Rayburn House Office BnildAng, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ma. CHAIRMAN : This is tn reply to your letter of May 15, 1008, concern- ing H.R. 16024, a bill "To extend for one year the Act of September 30, 1965, relating to high-speed ground transportation. The Bureau of the Budget continues to recommend enactment of the draft bill submitted to the Congress by the Department of Transportation which would extend the Act for two years, from June 30, 1969 to June 30, 1971, and authorize appropriations for the fiscal years subsequent to 1968. In answer to your specific questions, we support the request in the President's 1969 budget of $16.2 million new obligational authority for this program. At this time we are unable ~ determine the precise appropriation needs for fiscal 1970 or beyond, hut in order to facilitate planning and administration `of the program we believe that the Act should he extended as recommended. Sincerely yours, WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Assistant Director for Legi8iative Reference. . DI~PARTMRNT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., April 29, 1968. Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, Chairman, Committee on Inter$tate and Foreign Commerce, Howie of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department concerning KR. 16024, a bill to extend for one year the Act of September 30, 1965, `relating to high-speed ground transportation. The Act of September 30, 1965 (Public Law 89-220 ; 49 USC 1631) authorized the Secretary of Commerce to undertake research and development in high-speed ground transportation. Subsections (a) and (b) of H.R. 16024 would amend the Act to' reflect the transfer of responsThility for programs under the Act from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary of Transportation pursuant to Public Law 89-670, the "Department of Transportation Act." These amendments are desirable and we recommend their enactment. IT.R. 16024 also amends the Ac:t in a number of other respects, including an extension of the `termination date of the Act for one ye'ar, from June 30, 1969, to June 30, 1970~ We would defer to the views of the Department of Transporta- tion concerning snch other amendments. PAGENO="0007" I 3 We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report to the Congress from the standpoint cxf the Administration's program. . Sincerely, PEDRO R. VAZQUEZ (For General Counsel). Mr. FRIEDEL. That act authorized the Secretary of Commerce, now the Secretary of Transportation, to undertake research and develop- ment in high-speed ground transportation and authorized total appro- priations of $90 million for the 3 fiseal years ending in 1968. Unless that act is extended, further authorizations cannot be made although the Secretary has authority to obligate the funds which have been appropriated and not obligated through fiscal year 1969. The authority to engage in research and development in high-speed ground transportation was recommended by this committee and authorized by the Congress 3 years ago as the result of the request of the President and of the Department of Commerce for legislation to explore the feasibility of an improved ground transportation system for heavily traveled corridors such as that here in the northeast between Washington and New York. I think it appropriate here to quote from this committee's report accompanying the House bill as to what we had in mind in enacting the legislation: It is unnecessary to set forth here a~t length the evidence respecting the over- burdening of these facilides~ Every Member of the House personally has expe- rienced the inadequacies of our crowded air terminals and facilities, has oiserved the overcapacity loading of our highways, and is well aware of the demand constantly being made for the enlargement of both types of facilities. But what every Member has experienced and what he has observed is as nothing compared with what lies ahead. The time has come to see whether passenger traffic on the ground can be made attractive to people ; to see whether it is possible to provide facilities that are convenient and economical and which people will use ; to see whether this kind of transportation might relieve air congestion and save on the coSt of adcli- tional air facilities. I think it unnecessary for me further to document the fact that the authorization made by the Congress for the expenditure of $90 mu- lion, much of which was for research in high-speed ground transpor- tation and the operation of certain demonstration projects, was predi- cated on the desire to relieve aviation and highway facilities from overcrowding, and attempt to meet transportation demands by increased use of rail facilities, especially in the northeast corridor. Accordingly, this morning in considering an extension of this authority we are desirous of hearing from the Department of Trans- portation just what it has done under this legislation (1) to relieve aviation and highway facilities from overcrowding ; (2) what it ~ intends to do in further research and development if the act is ex- tended ; and (3) just how it is that at a time that the Congress author- izes the expenditures of these funds for the relief of aviation and highway facilities, the Department of Transportation continues to enlarge its aviation facilities particularly those for attracting north- cast corridor passengers which would seem to be directly in opposition to the purpose of this legislation. We welcome the witnesses here this morning and hope that we can understand just what is the policy of the Department of Transporta- PAGENO="0008" 4 tion for it seems as though its left hand does not know what its right hand is doing. On the one hand it proposes to put passengers on the rails between here and New York ; on the other, it appears to propose a vast eiilargement of Washington National Airport to take these same passengers off the rails and put them in the air. In connection with the hearings also I am hopeful that it will be developed the reasons for the delay in the Washington-New York demonstration project which we had thought was to be inaugurated last year, and some of the results which we thought would be avail- able to the committee in its consideration of any further authorization to be made under this act. Now, we have the pleasure of having as our first witness, the Secre- tary, Mr. Alan S. Boyd, and I understand he has to leave here within an hour because he has to attend a Cabinet meeting so w~e could like to hear your statement, Mr. Boyd. STATEMENT OP HON. ALAN S. BOYD, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; ACCOMPANIED BY A. SCHI~PPER LANG, AD- MINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; AND ROBERT A. NELSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION Secretary Bo~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I am accompanied this morning by Mr. A. Scheffer Lang, Federal Railroad Administrator, and Dr. RObert Nelson, Director of the Office of High-Speed Ground Transportation. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you on the extension of the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act proposed by H.R. 16024. The bill would extend the act for 1 year and establish June 30, 1970, as the expiration date of the act. Other prpcedural amendments would take account of the establishment of the Department of Transporta- tion and the transfer to it of elements previously in the Department of Commerce. A more substantive change is the `amendment to section 7 which would clarify the authority to acquire necessary real property by purchase, lease, or grant and to construct, make repairs, or furnish necessary support facilities. This clarification is necessary in order for the Department to acquire a test site for the development of advanced ground transportation systems. The amendment would not change in any way theprohibition now in the act against the Secretary's acquisi- tion of any interest in any line of railroad. The bill which the administration proposed provided for a 2-year ex- tension of the High-Speed Ground Transnortation Act. We believe the 2-year extension is essential to orderly planning and execution of the program. We are aware of this committee's policy that no authori- zation legislation be introduced ~ without an accompanying dollar authorization level. We have not yet fully analyzed what that request would be as submitted by the President. But we would estimate that the maximum figure would be $36.5 million and that would be an appropriate figure if one was required to fulfill the committee's policy. PAGENO="0009" 0 The High-Speed Ground Transportation Act was passed in 1965 \\Tjth a sense of urgency that the demand for transportation in the urbanized intercity corridors which have grown up about the Nation will far exceed our present capability to hancUe it. The purpose of the act was to try, through research, development and demonstrations, to stimulate alternative modes of transportation which could better handle high volumes of movements in densely populated regions. Today there is an even greater sense of urgency than there was in 1q65. Travel volumes have increased at a greater rate than predicted and the period of time before we will completely run out of trans- portation capacity in the Northeast Corridor has been shortened. The growth in air transportation has been most dramatic. Between 1962 and 1966, intercity air passenger miles in the United States nearly doubled. Intercity passenger miles by all modes increased by more than 17 percent. In the Northeast Corridor the problem of congestion is now critical at several major airports. According to Federal Aviation Administra- tion estimates, delay time at J. F. Kennedy, Newark, La Guardia, Washington National, Boston, and Philadelphia Airports in 1965 amounted to 49,000 hours. Estimates indicate that at three airports- Kennedy, La Guardia, and Newark-there will be an increase in delay time from 33,000 hours annually in 1966 to 133,000 hours in 1970 and the delays will become very much larger by 1975 if nothing is done to expand capacity. Estimates by the Bureau of Public Roads indicate that high- way travel on intercity routes in the Northeast Corridor will almost double between 1965 and 1985 and that approximately $21/2 billion will be needed just on the intercity portion of the Corridor highway system. The total cost to Federal, State and local authorities of all street and highway construction in the Northeast Corridor for the same 20-year period is estimated at more than $33 billion. These new facilities will have to be accommodated into what is already ~ the most heavily developed region in the country-14 percent of the Nation's total road mileage is concentrated on less than 2 percent of the land area. As income levels go up, we can anticipate that transportation de- mand will continue to expand at a very rapid rate. There is no doubt that most of the cost of meeting this demand can be, and should be, irnpos~d on the users of these services. In today's economically and technologically complex world, however, the direction whi~h the de- velopment of new systems and the improvement of the old should take is not clear. Research and development, testing and demonstra- tions should be carried on in several directions until we begin to see clearly the more useful and productive path. It is unrealistic to expect completely private sponsorship during this experimentation phase. The costs are too hig~h and the risks are too great. Government must provide the seedbed and must stimulate and encourage involvement by private firms. This is essentially what this program has tried to do and, I believe, has done with a high degree of success. We estimate that over the 3-year period, Federal appropriations of $52 million have been met by $75 to $100 million of expenditures and commitments by private firms. 95-447-68-2 PAGENO="0010" 6 The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation of the Federal Railroad Administration has direct responsibility for the Northeast Corridor transportation project under my general authority to carry out research and development in intercity transportation, and . has responsibility for the research and development and demonstrations in high speed ground transportation under the Act of 1~G5. In carry- ing out its responsibilities, the Office of High Speed Ground Trans- portation has retained essentially a task ~ force orientation to the problems of transportation in urbanized regions. Close integration and coordination has, therefore, been m .a intained between the North- east Corridor transportwbion project and the research and develop- nient. and demonstration activities pertaining to high-speed ground transportation systems. The High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 authorized appropriations ~ of $20 million for fiscal year 1966, $35 million for fiscal year U~67, and $35 million ~or fiscal 1968 for research, develop- ment and demonstrations in high-speed ground transportation and for the national transportation statistics prOgram. Of the authorized $90 million, $52 million have been appropriated. I should like to describe briefly what we have accomplished since the High Speed Ground Transportation Act was passed. The major categories of activity have been research and development, and demon- strations. Section 1 of the High Speed Ground Transportation Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation "to contract for demonstrations to determine the contributions that high speed ground transportation could make to more efficient and economical intercity transportation systems." The purpose of demonstrations carried out under the act, is "to measure and evaluate, such factors as the public response to new equipment, higherspeeds, variations in fares, improved comfort and convenience, and more frequent service." In connection with con- tracts for demonstrations under the section, the Secretary shall "pro- vide for financial participation by private industry to the maximum ex- tent practicable." Within this pattern of objectives, two rail passenger service demon- . strations were set up for the Northeast Corridor. One was to operate between NewYork and Washington and the other between New York and Boston. A third demonstration of auto-on-train service between Washington, D.C., and Jacksonville, Fla., was planned and partly funded. The three demonstrations would help to determine the role that rail passenger service, based on generally contemporary tech- nology, can play in transportation in the future. In both the New York-Washington and New York-Boston demonstrations substan- tial improvements in rail passenger service were to be made. Terminal to terminal time were to be reduced, new equipment was to be acquired, and roadbeds and stations were to be upgraded. In carrying out the Washington-New York demonstration, the De- partment entered into a contract with the Pennsylvania Railroad- now Penn-Central. Under the contract the railroad was to acquire a fleet of not less than 28 and not more than 50 new MU, multiple-unit, cars capable of sustained speeds of up to 150 miles per hour. The rail- road was to upgrade its roadbed to very high standards specifically PAGENO="0011" 7 set out in the contract ; to build high level platforms at Wilmington, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. ; to retrain personnel to be utilized in the new service and to operate the new trains on schedules of not more `than 3 hours between Washington and New York. The con- sideration to be paid to the Penn-Central Railroad for the perform- ance of the contract was $9.6 million. The Penn-Central Railroad was to bear all costs which, excluding the Government's contribution, were estimated at the time of the signing of the contract to be be- tween $20 and $25 million. The contract also provided that the De- partrnent of Transportation would be able to collect data on passenger movement on board trains between New York and Washington prior to and during the demonstration. The conduct of the demonstration between New York and Boston posed a different situation. There the New Haven Railroad has been in bankruptcy for 7 years. The Department of Transportation had to take full responsibility for the conduct of the demonstration. Early in 1966 the Department contracted with United Aircraft for the lease of two trainsets for a 2-year period at a cost of $1.7 million. The Department agreed to pay maintenance costs for the 2-year period which would amount to $2.8 million. We estimate that the operating and other costs of the New York-Boston demonstration will be about $9.5 million. Some of this expenditure may be returned through rev- enue sharing arrangements with the New Haven Railroad. From the New York-Boston demonstration we expect to make a determination of the prospective usefulness of equipment which can operate at a substantially higher speed than conventional equipment over curved roadbed. If this equipment is successful and is attractive to the public it may be tried out in short and intermediate rail pas- senger hauls through many areas of the country. It offers the prospect of substantially upgrading service at minimum cost. Both the Washington-New York and New York-Boston demon- strations have `been delayed beyond starting times we originally hoped for. Very clearly we were unduly optimistic about the time that would be required for the design, building and testing of new equipment. In both cases the equipment is a substantial advance in the state of the art. United Aircraft TurboTrains are relying on turbine power for propuTsion and have adopted `an advanced suspension system. The cars for the Washington-New York demonstration, built by the Budd Co., are electronically the most complicated ever built. They will have a sustained speed capability of 150 miles per hour and will have automatic controls of speed, braking, and wheel slide. If the speed requirement of 150 miles per hour had not been imposed, it is probable that the cars could have been built much more quickly. This would have precluded the possibility in the future, however, of advanced improved performance with better roadbed. The target dates for the start of the demonstration were set to convey a sense of urgency in the program. When it was apparent that the project would not meet these target dates, I called a meeting of the major industry participants in the demonstration program. At that meeting I suggested that all of us form a task force to identify and establish the priority of the unresolved technical problems. The task force identified these as follows: PAGENO="0012" I 8 ( 1) Electronic maintainability ; ( 2) Wheel thermal stress under specified deceleration when using air brakes alone; (3) Pantograph-catenary current collection stability at high speed during winter months, particularly under the remaining light wire ; and that light is opposed to heavy wire ; and (4) Acceptability of ride quality. The task force found that many of the individual problems which delayed the demonstration had been identified by the contractors and that substantial resources were now being devoted to their resolution. The task force also found that all concerned with the project-Gov- ernment, railroad, car builder, and equipment operator-were overly optimistic with respect to the planning and scheduling, given the magnitude and complexity of the project. The task force concluded that a reliable demonstration could be initiated within 7 months given prompt action in the major problem areas. The implementation of the task force report is now being planned by all concerned. It should be perfectly clear that the hold up in the delivery of equipment for these demonstrations has been completely without funding cost to the Government. In completing this discussion of the demonstrations, I should like to commend the Penn~Central Railroad and the rail supply firms in- volved in the construction of ecjuipment for the demonstrations. The rail industry and the rail equipment industry have clearly not en- joyed financial proseprity since the end of World War II. Yet the firms involved here have been willing to commit sizable resources to research and development and to the improvement of their en- gineering and production capability. This has been done, moreover, with the prospect of only a relatively small Federal financial participation. The research and development in high-speed ground transportation has proceeded more slowly than anticipated at the time of the passage of the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act. Almost all of the re- duction in appropriations has been taken by this activity. Nevertheless, in addition to specific advances in technology in several areas, the program has marked out the general directions for research and development in high-speed ground transportation for the future. Work has been done in systems engineering, research and development in high-speed rail operation, research and development in ew high-speed ground systems, and research and development in tunneling, power pickup, and guideway surveillance. Among the accomplishments of the program are the construction of four rail research cars which have been operated under test conditions at speeds of 150 miles per hour on upgraded roadbed ; the design and current construction of a 2,500-horsepower linear electric motor ; the development of designs for tracked air cushion vehicles; and breakthroughs in tunneling technology. These accomplishments will lead to the building of test vehicles, guideways, and propulsion systems and ultimately to com- mercial demonstrations. The work in the high-speed ground transportation program has been done with a total authorized staff for the first 2 years of 27. This was increased for fiscal year 1968 to 34. PAGENO="0013" 9 I should like to request that a detailed "Statement in Explanation of Request for High-Speed Ground Transportation Legislation Ex- tension" prepared by the Office of 1-ugh-Speed Ground Transporta- tion be entered into the record. This statement is intended to provide detailed information in review of the program and in explanation of work which remains to be done. It outlines the major areas in which the new authorizations which we have requested will `be obligated. I strongly urge upon this committee the passage of H.R. 16024, with the amendments proposed. . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The document referred to follows :) STATEMENT IN EXPLANATION OF REQUEST FOR HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANS- PORTATION LEGISLATIVE EXTENSION, PRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, OFFICE OF HIGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION The High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 authorized research, de- velopment, and demonstrations in high speed ground transportation and author- ized appropriations for these purposes for the fiscal years 1966, 1967 and 1068. Although, at the time the Act was being considered, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Senate Commerce Committee rec- ognized the desirability of a continuing program, they recommended that ~t be reviewed in three years. If the high-speed ground transportation program is to be continued and funded with 1969 appropriations, the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 must be extended, and authorization for appropriations must be grantd for fiscal year 1969 and such succeeding years as the Congress deems appro- priate. The Secretary of Transportation has requested that Congress extend the expiration date of the Act (PL 89-220) to June 30, 1071, and authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1969 and 1970. The only significant change in the proposed legislation from the existing Act is in clarification of the authority for site acquisition for development testing of proposed new high-speed ground transportation systems and components. The national transportation information program provided for in Section 4 of FL 89-220 will not terminate on June 30, 1900, along with the rest of the Act. The intent of the 1965 legislation was to consolidate the existing powers of the Secretary of Commerce to collect data for transportation planning, but not in any way to limit his existing authority. The Secretary of Transportation has separated administratively the transportation information and high speed ground transportation programs and has included appropriations requests for the in- formation program with those of his office. This request for extension, therefore, is concerned only with the provisions of the High Speed Ground Transportation Act referring to research and development, and demonstrations. This statement will- 1. Discuss the need for continued focus on the intercity transportation problems of urbanized regions; 2. Review the background and administration of the high speed ground transportation program and summarize its major accomplishments; 3. Discuss the status of the program ; and 4. Outline the proposed continuing program activity. THE TRANSPORTATION CRISIS IN IIRBANIZED REGIONS The work of the Office of High Speed Ground Transpoi'tation Is being carried on with a sense of urgency which arises from the realization that the demand for transportation in urbanized regions of the United States will more than double in the next twenty years. The economic cost of adding to existing capacity to meet these increased demands' will be gr~at; however, the economic and social costs of failing to meet them would be greater still. Transportation is a moving force in a technologically oriented society. It enhances personal mobility, brings people closer to work and recreation, and provides business and industry with broader markets, fostering specialization of effort, decreasing average cost, and other economies of scale. PAGENO="0014" 10 If the nation's transportation system is to continue to benefit society, it must grow to handle the flood of people and products which will need to be served over the next 20 to 30 years. Over this period of time, the population of the United States will increase by an estimated 50 to 75 per cent and the production ~of goods and services will expand even faster. The demand for transportation will increase most rapidly of all in response to rising incomes and greater use ~of transportation in the productive and distributive processes. Much of this anticipated growth will take place in our cities and metropolitan areas. Currently about two thirds of the population resides in urban places. By 1985, this proportion will rise to 80 per cent ; with much of this increase being concentrated in a few regions. Transportation growth will be greatest within the metropolitan areas themselves and in the urbanized corridor regions between cities. ~ The extent to which intercity passenger travel on each mode has changed since 1950 is shown in the following table: INTERCITY PASSENGER TRAVEL IN THE UNITED STATES tin billions of passenger-miles~ Airline Bus Auto Total Rail 1950 1951 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 8. 0 10.5 31.1 33. 6 38. 5 44. 1 51.9 60.6 26. 8 29.7 16.2 15.9 14.4 14.0 13.3 12.9 22.3 402.8 22.3 457.8 19.7 714.0 21.3 736.0 21.9 766.0 22. 7 802. 0 23. 3 24.8 838. 0 880.0 458. 8 502, 3 780.9 806. 8 840. 8 882.9 926.4 978.3 Year Over the fifteen year period covered by these data, total intercity travel more than doubled. Air travel increased eight-fold. or at a rate approximately four times that of the average for all modes combined. These airline passenger data also show a generally increasing growth rate changes for the years since 1961. For example, the percentage increase in air travel between 1961 and 19~2 was 8 percent, for 1962 through 1964 it was 15 percent annually, and 17 percent for each year between 1964 through 1966. On the basis of these trends, it is evident that intercity travel will again more than double over the next twenty years and that air travel will increase more rapidly still. This growth, were it to be distributed uniformly over the nation, would pose a serious challenge to government and the transportation industry ; focused, as it will be, on a relatively few urban complexes, this projected demand assumes crisis proportions. Taking each of the modes separately and projecting the requirements using the Northeast Corridor as a base, the following statements indicate the magul- tude of the problems which will have to be faced over the next 20 to 30 years. A fourfold projected increase in air traffic will be superimposed on the air space which is already virtually saturated. in 1005, for example, delay times using the operators' own measures for 23 large 1Jr~ited States hub air terminals totalled 115,000 hours. This figure represents 34.2 per cent of total delays for the 292 airports in the United States receiving scheduled flights. Total Sir carrier delay costs for these same 23 airports due to extra crew and fuel requirements amounted to $31.7 million, or 68.4 percent of the total operator dilay costs for the same 292 aIrports. The situation is even ~ thore critical in the six major Northeast Corridor airports : J. F. Kennedy, Newark, La Guardia, Washington National, Boston and Philadelphia. According to Federal Aviation Administra- tion estimates, delay time and increased cOsts for air carriers in 1965 for those six airports were 49,000 hours and $13.1 million. The estimates indicate that three airports, Kennedy, La Guardia and Newark, will have a rise in delay times from 33,000 hours annually in 1966 to 133,333 hour~ hours in 1970 and the delays will become very much larger by 1975, if nothing is done to increase capacity. These cost and time figures do not, of course, take into account the personal loses in inconvenience and delay to millions of air passengers on taxiways waiting for runway clearance or circling airports awaiting landing instructions. Solutions which have leen proposed include the construction of larger jet aircraft and the separation of common carrier airports from general ~ aviatioz~ airports. Both of these solutions will create severe ~ problems of ~ ia~d use in PAGENO="0015" 11 heavily populated areas, noise pollution, air pollution, and access to and from new airports. The current minimum standards for an average jet port require 10,000 acres of land which must often be taken from other productive uses. In addition, airport construction is a relatively expensive activity. For example, estimates of federal and local expenditure for 19G7 amounted to $515 million on new airport facilities, with an additional $120 million being provided from air- line fnnds for improving existing facilities. Fro~n the table above it can be seen that in spite of the exploding rates of growth from 1950 to 19641, air transportation cOxñprised only 6 per cent of the intercity passenger travel in the United States during 1966. Forecasts of the requirements to 1975 indioate a need to do~ble airport facilities, involving a planned expenditure of $G bjllion for airports in the next 8 years. Of these planned expenditures at least one half of the ftnds will have to be found before 1970. If the 19'~5 demand for air support facilities is to be satisfied, the Air Transport Association estimates that the airlines will have to invest an addi- tional $18 billion for ground and flight equipment. Estimates by the Bureau of Thiblic Road~ Indicate that highway travel on intercity routes in the Northeast Corridor will almost double between 1965 and 1985 and that approximately $2.5 billion will be needed just on the intercity por- tion of the corridor highway sy~tem. The total e~st by Federal, State, and Local Authorities of all street and `highway construet~on in the Northeast Corridor for `the `same 20-year period is estimated at more than $33'biliion. These new facilities will have to be accommodated into what is already the most heavily developed region in the country-fourteen percent of the Nation's total read mileage is concentrated on less than 2 percent of the land area. Phe freeway network alone in the Corridor now occupies an area equi~alent to one- quarter of the State of Rhode Island ; the entire read an~l `street network covers an area equal to all of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the District of `Columbia. The significance of such demands for ~spa~ should be considered within \the context of land values in `the Northeast Corridor, which have `a mid-range of approximat~ly $4000 per acre in imral areas of one person per acre to $1/~ million for urban land at a density of 100 persons per acre. More efficient use `of the highway system would result from greater use of bus `transportation as a substitute for travel by private auto. However, there is little evidence in the figures presented above that such a `shift is likely. `Intercity passenger-miles by bus have risen only slightly over the past 25 years. `Althongh increases in population improved vehicles, `and further development of limited access highways will probably result in a contipued `growth in bus volumes, the degree `of relief to highway congestion which this would represent would be slight. The one existing intercity `ti~ansportat'ion mode with excess `passenger capacity and which Is relati~rely economb~al' `in its `land use is the railroad. Passengers can be transported at oignlficafltl3r higher rates than at present, with considerable expansion of capability possible at an investment cost which is reiati~ely minor compared with the ether transportation modes discussed above. Railroads have a huge sunk cost in the NortheaSt Corridor ; there are 2~5,100 miles of track or 12 percent of the national total in the States encompassed by the Corridor. Recent estlmates indicate that a $500 million improvement could grea~ly improve comfort and time on the 229 mile rigbt-o'f~way `between New York and Washing- ton to permit 24iour schedules en trains. Eten less, possIbly half this amount, need be spent If the schèduh~ requirement l's raised to 2~1y~ thoure. Si~ieh Improve- ments would permit at a maximum a tripliag of passengers serv4ced over the nun~ber of passen~ers' Who used `this trans'porta'tion mode in 1q63. Given the continuing concentration of popul~'tion `and economic activity in. and around urban areas, it Is evident that the capacity of . transportation net- works in the Northeast Corridor and in similar corridors In other parts `of the Nation will have to be substantially expanded over the next ten to `twenty years. Many of our present problems of congestion, inefficiency, `and deteriorating service arise out of the mis-match between a massive and relatively fixed system of facilities and a rapidly growing demand for a wide variety of transportation services. Without concerted action to redress this imbalance, there is a danger that congestion and delay will increase in many areas while excess capacity will continue to exist elsewhere. More efficient use will have to be `made `of existing facilities; and new systems, less deman'ding `of `space than tho'se presently in use, will have to be introduced to accommodate dense corridor flows. High speed ground transportation, which PAGENO="0016" 12 in the near term can take advantage of the availability of existing track and right-of-way, offers the prospect of efficiently transporting large volumes of people at high speeds in safety and comfort. The potential of this technology is, as yet, relatively untapped; the pay-off from a vigorous program of research, development, and demonstrations could, therefore, be correspondingly great. The reports of the Office of fligh Speed Ground Transportation, which will be based on systematic research, will focus o~ the most effective and efficient use of resources to n~aintaiu ipobility in the Northeast and lii other densely populated regions of the flnited States. BACKGROUND, ADMINISTRATION, AND SUMMARY OF 4000MPLTSUMENTS or THE a10H-SPEED GROUND PRARSPORPAP~O~ AOT OF 1965 Background In June 1962, Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Is'and Introduced into the Congress a resolution ( S.T. Res. 194, 87th Congress, 2d Session) which would have authorized the District of Columbia and eight Northeastern States to ". . . enter into a compact to establish a multi-etate authority to construct and operate a rail passenger transportation system within the area . . ." Th the following October, Senator ~ Pell requested that the. Administration provide assistance in analyzing the transportation . problem which had prompted his resolution. The President responded by directing that an interagency task force be assembled ". . ~ to survey available Information, to identify issues and to estimate the time, expense and staff required to prepare such proposals as may be appropriate." The interagency task force reported to the President on Decem- her 10, 1962, recommendIng that a ". . . comprehensive analysis of transportation problems in theNortheastern Megalopolis . . ." be carrIed on by the U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce. Work began on the Wa~hington-Boston study In June 1963 with funds which had been previously appropriated by Congress. for transportation research in the COmmerce Department. In September 1964 the study was given formal project status as the Northeast Corridor Transportation Project, first, in the Office of the Secretarr'of Commerce and, in, April 1965, in the. Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation. ~. It soon became epparent that, in order adequately to evaluate alternative ways in which the transportation needs of the Northeast Corridor could be met, much more and better information was needed, including technological and cost data for both current high speed ground systems and possible new systems. The President, therefore, asked the . 89th Congress for legislatioi~ which resulted in the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. ThIs Act authorized the Secretary of Commerce to undertake re~earcb and development in high speed ground transportation, to contract for dei~nonstratiOns in high speed ground transportation and to collect and collate transportation data, statistics, and other information. , Although the demonstration projects described li~ the legislative `background were to be In the Northéa~t Corridor, the single area o~ greatest regional popula- tion density and transportation congestion, the High Speed Ground Transporta- tion program was to be national in scope. The information gained in the Corridor would have general application in other highly urbanized regions. rianners, builders and `operators of urban and Interurban transportation systems through- out the United States `would have' available to them the new technology coming out of high speed ground transportation research and development, as well as the data obtained in testing public acceptance of. improved r~ll service, The systems engineering, costing, and system simulation and evaluation techpiques to be developed for analyzing alternative transportation systems for the North- east Corridor would also be available for application in other regions of the nation. I PAGENO="0017" Total Data Administration ~ . The O1~Ice of Hj~b speed Ground Transport~tj~~ ~r~s esta~li~M~O~ober lc$35 in the Department of Commerce to admhuisthr the High ~péed ~ Ground Transportation Act. TheNorthe4~t Corridor Transportation J~roJect, a task force organization formerly in the Oflice Qf the Under Secretary o1~ 1J~mn~erce for Transportation, w~s made an element of `the Qffics~ of fligh Speed Ground Trans- portation along with research and development and demonstrations. On April 1, 1967 the office became a component of the Federal Railroad Administration in the new Department of Transportation. It has responsibility for the Northeast Corridor Transportation Project under the general authority of the Secretary of Transportation to carry out research and planning in intercity transportation, and has responsibility for the research, development, and demonstrations in high speed ground transportation under the Act of 1965. In carrying out its responsi- bilities, the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation has retained essentially a task-force orientation to th~ problems of transportation in urbanized regions. Close integration and coordination has, therefore, been maintained between the Northeast Corridor Transportation Project and the research, development, and demonstration activities pertaining to high speed ground transportation systems. The activities of the office are carried out through three divisions ~ Transport Systems Planning, which conducts the Northeast Corridor Transportation proj- ect ; Engineering Research and Development, which is responsible for the engi- neering work of the office and for research and development under the Act ; and Demonstrations, which administers the demonstrations. All three divisions report to the Director of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation, whose own staff includes administrative and clerical personnel, as well as an Intergovern- mental Relations unit to handle liaison and specialized résearcb projects asso- elated with the Northeast Corridor project. The 3O~man professional staff of the Office, which includes engineers, econo- mists, operations research specialists, data specialists, planners, political scien- tists, and a lawyer, is exceptionally Well trained in many academic disciplines relating to transportation. Six hold doctorates and fourteen more hold master's degrees. (See Appendix A.) Fun,ding The High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 authorized appropriations of $20,000,000 for FY 66, $35,000,000 for FY 67, and $5,000,000 for FY 68 for research, development, and demonstrations in high speed ground traiisportatton, and for the national transportation statistics program. Of the a~uthorized $90,000,000, $52,000,000 has been appropriated, of which $2,028,000 was, allocated to the statistics program in the Offiee of the Secretary. The amounts appropriated have been expended or allocated * as follows : ~ ~: Systems engineering ~ ~ $~, 2OO~ 000 I~igb-speed railrQad R. & D ~ ~3, 755, 000 Unconventional systems R. & D~---~~ ~ 3,075,000 Advanced technology and test facility ÷-- ~ 6, 74~, 000 Washington-New York deiaonstration ~____~_~ U, 74~, 000 Boston~New ~ York demunstration~ . ~, 426, .000 Auto-train demonstration ~_ ---- . 3~ 887, 000 Data collection ~ ,~ 1, 521, 000 Administration , ___-~ ~. .1; 614~ ooo ~ . -~, 972~ 000 program ~ 2,028,000 52,000,000 The Office has obligated or committed most of these funds. The chart of pro- gram activity in Appendix B provides a detailed accounting for funds appropriated. Total appropriations -- 95-447-68----3 PAGENO="0018" 14 D~MowsrRAT1oNs AT~T STATE ~OVERNMENT$ W~ST1NGUOV~E UNFr~D A~C~AFT REVENUE S~R1wG ~ BosToN N. Y- WASH~ rINAL E~PEN~rrUREs $ 81 MILLION CompUa4toe With sta4~tory requirem~ents The record of committee h~ari~igs in 1$65 made it clear that the Congress cUd not intend the 111gb Speed Ground `TransportatiQn Act to provide for continued support for rail passenger service, and that maximum private participation should be obtained. The following chart breaks out e~tirnated total private and public funding. The High Speed Ground Transportation legislation specified that activities under the Act not be confined to any particular mode of tr~n~portation. The Congress required in the Act that contractual expenditures of IISGT funds should be givsn wide geographical distribution. Contrac1~s under the program to date have been awarded to firms domiciled In the District of Columbia and 17 St~tes-Oalifornia, Colorado, Connecticut, 1~'krida, ~ Illinois, Kentucky, Mary- land, Massachusettu, Michigan, Missou~r1, New Jersey, New Mexice, New York, Ohio, ~Pennsylvunia, Rhode Island, atid lTirginia. The atito~train demonstration project was proposed for Washington, D.O.-Jacksonville, Florida. A complete breakdown of contract information is contained in Appendix B. To assure protection of the Government's interest in any patents that might be developed under any OHSGT financed research, contracts are written in accordance with the Presidential "Statement of Government Patent Policy", Issued on October 10, 1963. The Act r~uired the appointment by the Secretary of an advisory committee to ~tdvise him with respect to policy matters arising in the administration of the Act. 1~he full membership of the Advisory Committee apooint~d by the Secretary is: PAGENO="0019" Mr. Donald W. Douglas, Jr., President, Douglas Aireraft Oompany, Inc., Long Beach, Calitornia Mr. William B. Johnson, President, Illinois Central Industries, Chicago, Illinois Professor Raymond R. Tucker, Washington Unlirersity, St. Louis, Missouri The Advisory Committee first met in formal session on June 21, 1966, and has met on six subsequent occasions with the Secretary (or his designate) and the Director and functional staff of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. The Committee has been organized and has functioned in accordance with Execu- tive Order 11007 of February 26, 19G2, and supplementing orders of the Depart- ment of Transportation. In addition to formal meetings, the Committee has also contributed advice on the program through exchanges of correspondence between the Director and the members. Professor Pucker was designated Committee Chairman. In its demonstration contracts, OHSGT has been careful to comply with the employee protective arrangement~ In Seetion 6a of the HSGT Act. The Secretary of Transportation has appointed the President of the Railway Labor Executives Association as a member of the Advisory Committee required by the Act~ in order to assure a continuing and open relationship with the railroad eniplo~yec orga~ nizations that may be most directly concerned with changes in service that affect numbers of positions or conditions of employment. Contracts with consultants and research and development firms are also written to assure compliance with all Federal labor standards as required by Section 6b of the Act. Reports on HSGT activities were submitted to the Congress by the Secretary of Transportation at the end of fiscal years 1961$ and 1967 In keeping with the re- quirements of the Act. (A report reviewing and evaluating existing and proposed progrnms and projects was also submitted In February 1968 at its request to the Subcommittee on Trausportatiop of the Hopse Appropriations Committee.) ,S1igniflcaiat achIevements In authorizing the original $91) million for the HSGT program, the Congress recognized the need for public investment in seeking solution's to the problems of ground transportaltion and anconraging fututre private transportation investment. Spendii~g at the rate of ap~roxim~tely ~ million per year for research, develop- ment, and demou~trations was deterrtiined to be needed for the conduct of th~ program and to insure the coIrtiilulThg interest and participation of the transpor- tation Indrastry and its equ1pment~siaj~lIei~s. The Office of High Sj~eed Grour~d Transportition l~as not yet reached `all of Its three-year objectives. Ap~ropriations for the program have been ~ubstantiaily less than the amounts requested; recruiting of qualified technical personnel has been difficult; hardware proJ~ects have been slowed by shortages; and time has been needed for careful design of the program. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made as `shown in `the followipg: AchIevements in research and development 1. The most promising `areas for high speed ground transportation research and development ha~ee been identified ~tud a etsnprehenslve research and development program h'ss `been laid out to exploit the full potential iii each area. 2. Pertinent engineering efforts In other public and private technical sectors hate becen investigated for application to transport~tion. Technical information has been exchanged with foreign governments and firins.~ I 15 Mr. Robert M. Jenney, President, Jenney Manufacturing Company, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Mr. George E. Leighty, Chairman, Railway Labor Executives Association, Washington, D.C. Mr. Charles A. Webb, President, National Association of Motor Bus Operators, Washington, D.C. Mr. Milton A. Gilbert, Chairman of the Board, Gilbert Systems, Inc., New York, New York PAGENO="0020" 16 3. Four-f~U~ instrumented rail test cars have be~i acquirec~ and a 21-mile section of mainline track has been upgraded and in~trupat~ted toprovide a unique test facility for acquiring ~o~prehensive data on the eff~ct~ o~ hig1i~ ap~e4 rail oper- ations. In this operation, all parameters of track geometry and vehicle motion are recorded s~mu1taneously, permitttng d'ii~ç~tanaiysis o1~ the many h~teractions which govern the performance ~ o~ ~ rail vehic1es,~ ~ra~1~s~ ` ~nd ~ power collection systems. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4. Researoh and deyelepment in unconventional systems has provided the basic understanding necessary for e~alnating 1~1~e potential of grQund operations ~tt speeds about 250 miles per hour~ 5. Laboratory testing has shown the potential of radically irnproved tunnel- ing techniques in reducing the cost of underground tube systems to a level corn- petitive with surface~yStems. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 6. Knowledge transferrable from aircraft and space, techriçlogy has been substantially enhanced by pioneering research in the aerodynaipics ~f rube and tracked air cushion vehicles. 7. New s.ystem~s of ground transportation have been developed to the point where large sdale testing th now feasible. 8. A linear electric motor baa been designed and is under construction. This motor will provide the first test in a vehicle of a completely new electric pro- pulsion system. Demonstration achievem~ents 1. PlannIng and engineei~ing ha~e been completed for high speed rail demon- strations between Washington and Boston. Service will begin when testing of the equipment is finished. 2. Track upgrading has been completed on the Penn Cent~al and is continuing, on the New Haven. 3. Station improvements have included construction of raised platforms to cx- pedite the loading and unloading of pass~ngers, some major refurbishing, and an experimental baggage-b'arnlling system ; two suburban stations are under construction. 4. An on-train public telephone system which will connect Penn Central demon- stration train riders with the worldwide telecommunIcations network has been designed and installed at no cost to the Government. 5. A new food handling system has . been put into use by the Penn Central Railroad. ` . 6. Data colleetion and processing procedures have been refined for gathering, analyzing and dissem&uating information on passenger res~ys~se to changes and improvements in rail service. Data is now available on all rail passenger move- ments between major points in the Northeast Corridor, and also on the charac- terisitics of rail passengers. ~ ~ ~ , PROGRAM STATUS-RESEARCH AND D~VELOP~IENT ~ The *High~ Speed Ground Trans~ort~tion 4ct authorized the .Sécretar~y . Transportation ~O ". . . undertake.researçharni deveiopmentin high. speed ground transportation." In carrying out this responsibility, three major objectives of the program basbeen established. ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 1. To advance the technology of groun4 transportation, ~ including railroads as well as nioreadvanced systems. ~ ~ * . ~ 2. To cqndu~t. research and development to mak~i pc~ssible the design and demonstration ~ oJ~ advanced. ground t~ansporta~ion ~qi~ipnieut,. . ~ys'tems~ and services. , ~ ~ ~ 3. To develc~p cost and performance data on existing potential systems for the Northeast Corridor. ~ ~ ~ . ~ The n~agniitude of this resear~ `and~ developm~i~t. activity has made it omen- tial that it be doue witJ~in a strong analy~ical framework that will highlight research opportupitiesand * assure sound allQcatiQn of resources. Hence, a large proportion of the ~eseareh anddevelopment e~ort is going into systen~s engineer- mg/cost analysis. The other major areas into which the research ~tnd develop. mont activities fall are High ~ J~aiJroad R&D, TJnco~ventlonal Tran~porta~ tion Systems R&D, and Advanced Technology R&D. In the following sections, each of these major activities is highlighted in terms of why research and development should be undertaken, what has been accomplished so far, and what else must be done in the near future. The timing of the work is discussed at the conclusion of this section. PAGENO="0021" 17 ~S~ystems engineering Systems engineering should be done because: The rapid advance of technology in recent years provides a base from which to develop transportation sys4efl~is which wotild be faster, more efficient, and more comfortable than present ones. The systems engineering undertaken by the Office of High Speed Gronnd Transportation will provide information essential to determining what systems and what combinations of systems could serve to meet future transportation needs in urbanized regions of the `United States. The systems engineering work was begun in fiscal year 1967 and is continuing in accordance with procedures initially recommended by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A major part of `the work has been contracted to TRW Systems, Inc. The primary tasks in systems engineering are to ai~alyze key technical features of alternative transportation systems, to prepare performance and cost estimates, and to evaluate subsystem alternatives. Accomplishments in systems engineer'iag 1. Studied potential improvement in ride quality at high speed to be gained by varying track structure stiffness. 2. Investigated design requirements in detail of tracked air cushion vehicle system for operation at speeds up to 300 mph. 3. Reduced candidate technological configurations of HSGT systems to mean- ingful number of alternatives. 4. Developed specification and technology base so that detailed descriptions of physical, performance, and cost characteristics of unit elements for each sig- nificant HSGT alternative could be examined. ~ 5. Developed methodologies for comparative system evaluation and for making rapid cost estimates. 6. Determined system requirements for fleet and vehicle control, including vehicle allocation, fixed fleet scheduling, detection of vehicles and foreign objects, hardware systems for fixed and mobile installation, and system evaluation of advanced concept alternatives. 7. Evaluated requirements for electromagnetic suspension and developed a system-oriented research and development program. 8. Determine human factor requirements to insure passenger comfort. 9. Determined aerodynamic characteristics of tube vehicles. :i 0. Progressed in evaluating critical problem areas in evacuated tube systems. 11. Developed techniques for sizing terminals according to passenger flow rates and system schedules. 12. Collected cost data and developed cost estimating relationships. 13 Completed research for preliminary design study of tracked air cushion vehicle. Work to be done in systems engiiaeering 1. Perform Northeast C~rridor Pransportation project simulation of baseline High Speed Ground Transportation system definitions to be completed in FY 60. 2. Analyze inter-modal transfer of passengers and goods with a view toward improving overall system performance. 3. Assemble cost estimating r~lationsI~ips into total system cost model. 4. Analyze and evaluate ways to improve the transfer of passengers and goods between and within transportation modes. 5. Develop a model to select right-of-way routes which will minimize impact of noise on the adjacent community. 6. Analyze the feasibility of electromagnetic suspension systems. Hig1~-speed railroad R. ~ D. High speed railroad research and development should be done because: High speed railroad research and development has been undertaken in order that the potential of wheel-supported concepts may be explored fully befor~e major decisions are made on radically new systems. Rail passenger service will benefit from these efforts as will the future development of rail freight transporta- tion, whether or not totally new systems are ever built. The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation, in order to evaluate and advance wheel-rail technology within the broad framework of lone-range needs, is probing the underlying phenomena of rolling support and guidance, the theory of track structure be- havior, and the application to this area of modern technology from other* fields. Very little fundamental data exist on the physical phenomena involved In rolling support and wheel-rail interfaces especially at high speeds. Such knowledge is PAGENO="0022" therefore 1 be developE nentati a compr~ pgradlng ~ ading o-~ lephone nts of li of steel-p 18 I analysis of current test results and for rnulation of future d railr iimits -stem inves gations fa power cor ilitioning and control. I here ; radical departures~ for very In Advanced Technology. Accon - ~ - ~ ~ _ ~ çih-spe :1. ~ UIf cat 3. 4. 5. for th 6. 1 throu~ 7. I 8. C 9 ] )eveloped comp iter simi. cat iry. . 1 ). Initiated study to determine re study of interaction and upper speed rails. 11. Evaluated alternative 12. Initiated. design of servo 13. Determined aerodynami thereto. 14. Initiated industry-Government study of automatic Ireight Ca trainlined control systems, and t1ieU~ resulting operational econc flexibilities. 15. Designed surveillance equipment for high-speed rail vehicles. 16. Analyzed an developed new track structure de~lgns. 17. Analyzed. active suspensions and made initial design of prototype for rail applications. 18. Initiated study of adhesion improvement through rail cleanIng by plasma torch. 19. Supervised technk~al progress of Metroliner and TurboTrain development programs. ~ . . 20. Made initialdesign of 250 mph truck fer the linear electric motor project. 21. Derived extenSIon of theory of rolling contact. 22. Evaluated . turbine drive concepts. Work io be done in Mgh-speed raiiroa4 R. c~ D. 1. Utilize Office of High Speed Ground Transportation rail research vehicles and previou~1y developed computer ~imuJation Lu r~t~dy phenomena of: (a) truck stability and adhesion, (b) ride quality as a function of speed and guideway quality, and (c) pantograph-catenary interaction. PAGENO="0023" 19 2. Continue monitoring a1i~nment of track and quality of ride on Perm Central and New Haven demonstration projects. 8. Build, instrument, teat, and analyze performance o1~ short test sections of experimental track structures previously d~ve1oped. 4. Determine deterioration of experimental track structures versus time with researth cars. 5. Establish performance capabilities of industry-loaned evo1utionar~V railroad equipment at higher speeds. 6. Design and construct research laboratory for simulating rolling dynamics at speeds up to 300 mph, with industry support, if possible. 7. Build and test prototype active suspension system. 8. Determine capabilities of developmental servo-pantograph at high speeds using rail research cars. 9. Stndy cetenary structures to determine most cost-effective design for new electrifications. 10. Cooperate with industry in rail electrification feasibility studies and devel- opinent of advanced drive systems. 11. Collaborate with industry on improved maintenance and inspection pro- cedures, using demonstrations as case studies. U~co~ventioiia~ tra'i~sporta~tion systems R. ~ c~ D~ Unconventional transportation systems research and development Is being done because: A need exists to determine the relative ad~antages of improved existing systems and unconventional systems in meeting future transportation nee~1s. Much of this work is therefore directed toward defining promising new transportation system alternatives. The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation has concentrated research in unconventional systems during the past few years on high speed tracked (or guided) air cushion vehicle systems and tube (or enclosed guldeway) vehicle systems. Both offer promise for operation well above 250 miles per hour. The tracked air cushion vehicle (TACY) systems can be brought into operation earlier. Initiation of research on other novel systems will depend on the results of the systems engineering studies. A very major reason for research on tube vehicle systems is the possibility of attaining high speeds with relatively low i~ower consumption. In addition, tiThes can provide all-weather operation, increased safety, reduced use of surface right- of-way, and higher acceleration. No base of experience exists for high speed vehicles operating In tubes. Thus, research and development is needed before the potential of the tube vehicle systems can be estimated. Aceomplishme~iits ffi uncoiwentiOnal trqM~8portation systems R. ~ D. Tracked air cushion vehioZes ~ 1. Completed trade-off analyses and developed alternate feasible configurations for operational TACY s~retem5. ~ . 2. * Identified critical aerodynamic problem areas for wind tunnel investigation. 3. Completed wind tunnel tests of PAOV body configurations ; partial comple- tion of PACV cushion configuration wind tunnel tests. 4. Acquired French "Aerotrain" TACIT research vehicle test data. 5. Continued analytical investigation and subscale experiments on air cushion dynamics. Investigations to date show a need for secondary suspensions. 6. Prepared and issued RFP for the Office of High Speed Ground Transporta- tion TACV Research Vehicle Design Study. Proposals received and evaluated. Research objectives based on results of analytical stbdtes and subscale testing results. 7. Acquired results to date of British TACV development progrnm. 8. Developed basic cost data for TAOV siThsystems ; e.g., guideway, vehicle, propulsion, suspension. 9. E~valuated the "Hovair" principle as applied to high spoed TACIT. 10. Investigated active controls for TAOV suspension systems. Tube vehicles 11. Developed theory for predicting stability of vehicles travelling in tubes. 12. Investigated drag of vehicles in tubes on subscale experimental basis. 18. Developed experimental facility for validating theory oi~ internal propul- sion of tube vehicles. PAGENO="0024" 20 14 Investigated radiative rower traimfer to tube vehicles on theoretical and subscale basis. 15. Studied feasibility of vehic1~ in evacuated tube system. 16. Developed system engineering and cost tools for future evaluation of alternate tube vehicle systems. TVork to be done in unconventional transportation systems R~D 1. Design, fabricate, and test a PACV research vehicle and guideway. 2. Conduct scale model tests of tube vehicles to gain further knowledge of system dynamics and of scaling effects prior to initiation of full-scale tests. Advanced technology ft. c~ D. Advanced technology research and development is being done because- High speed ground transportation systems can be no better than the subsystems of which they are composed, the construction methods by which they are built, or the materials of which they are made. This R&D is being carried out in the following major areas : guideways, com- munications and control, power collection, obstacle detection, linear electric motors, and magnetic suspension, and planning for a high speed ground trans- portation test facility. Significant advantages are to be gained by * the use of subsurface routes for HSGT systems. Unfortunately, present costs for tunnel construction tend to make tunnels less attractive economically than surface routes. Wholly insufficient efforts have been devoted in the past, either by Government or by industry, to advancing ~ scientific and engineering knowledge of tunneling. Advancements in tunneling technology create many possibilities ~ for the ~future development of economically feasible subsurface systems. High speed ground transportation will require improved communications to maintain safe and efficient operations. Unfortunately, there are an insufficient number of radio fi~equencies available to provide the necessary level of corn- munications capacity. Reseai~cb is therefore being carried out in nonradiating communications to determine their feasibility for HSGT systems. For speeds above 200 mph, it is apparent that a stiff contact-rail approach or a noncontac.t technique for electric traction power pick-up is necessary. Studies have been performed on noneontact electric ~ energy transfer. This work evaluates possible techniques for transferring large amounts of electrical energy without physical contact, such as through induction or arc plasma transfer. Results so far are not encouraging for the early use of noncontact methods. Safety is one of the most vital aspects of a HSGT system. since the conse- quences of accident are more serious at higher speeds. HSGT systems must, therefore, employ a separate guideway having no crossings at grade. It may be necessary to have an obstacle detection system protecting against possible collision with foreign objects oh the güideway to guarantee the safety required by the speeds envisioned for HSGP. Obstacle detection systems may have ap- plication to conventional railroads as well. Propulsion of ground transportation vehicles is typically accomplished by transmitting power through axles and wheels to a roadway or rails. This method requires adhesion for the vehicle to accelerate or decelerate. To eliminate the need for adhesion for wheeled vehicles, or~ to propel an air cushion vehicle, research has centered On linear electrië motors. Propellers and turbo-jet en- ginOs also eliminate the requirement for adhesion ; however, they are less desirable because they are nolser, less safe, and create more air pollution. Magnetic suspension is being evaluated for use in those applications where neither wheels nor air cushions are feasible. A high speed vehicle operating in an evacuated tube may be one case where a magnetic suspension system is required. The final step in the evaluation of new ground vehicles and components must be full scale testing. Evperimental vehicles, when tested at high speed, cannot be operated in close proximity to commercial traffic. A test facility is therefore needed where test and evaluation can proceed unhindered and without en dangering public transportation. Initial tests of the linear electric motor would require a track several miles long. Tests at 300 mph would necessitate a track from 10 to 20 miles in length.. The TACV research vehicle would reguire tracks of the same length but of entirely different crOss section. This facility r~iay ultimately serve as the testing site for early tube vehicles. I PAGENO="0025" 21 Accomplishme~t8 in alvanoed technology 1. Started on construction of full-scale 2500 HP linear induction motor and test vehicle. 2. Undertook approaches to communications and control without use of radio frequency spectra. 3. Established feasibility of surface conduction line for communications and control. ~ Undertook desigi~i of optical laser system for obstacle detection. 5. Established feasibility of flame-jet tunneling system 6. Established practicability of using lasers for fracturing rock. 7. Improved on teehnh~ue of using chemical surfactants to weaken rock. 8. Pioneered use of high velocity fluid jets for fracturing rock. 9. Advanced the technique of using light gas gull for firing high velocity pro- jectiles for fracturin~ rock. 10. Initiat~d study to improve materials and techniques for lining tunnels. 11. Examined use of cavitation for eroding rock. 12. Developed new methods of predicting nature of and magnitude of rock slippage. 13. Developed mathematical models to predict settlement of fills and heave of excavations. Work to be done in advanced technology 1. Investigate various communication and control techniques including sur- face wave transmiss'ion lines, \V-type continuous access communications wave- guides, leaky waveguides, and millimetter waves in special waveguides. 2. Conduct studies to deterudne best configurations, voltage levels and supply point spacing for a stiff ~ontact-rai1 system for power collection. 3. Continue to study nencontact techniques for power collection. 4. Pest optical laser device for detecting obstacles on guideways. 5. Test prototype linear induction motor on wheeled research vehicle as preparation for installation of later model on TAOV research vehicle. 6. Investigate feasibility of electromagnetic suspension, examining possible configurations, transient magnetic field effects, and cryogenic insulation strengths. `7. Continue rock fracture research using high power lasers. 8. Research the `phenomena of rock weakening by chentical agents. 9. Conduct studies as to feasibility of using lasers and chemical weakening agents in combination with hard rock tunneling machines (moles). 10. Conduct system development and field testing of flame jet tunnelers. 11. Develop tunnel excavation systems using high velocity fluid jets. 12. Develop design fOr a high velocity water jet nozzle using multiple low- speed orifices. 13. Continue light gas gun fracture research by field experiments. 14. Continue anlysis of requirements and costs for tunnels in the Northeast Oornidor. 15. Fabri~ate scale models of advanced-technique tunneling systems. 16. Conduct field experiments and demonstrations of new techniques on actual tunnel construction projects in Chicago, New York, and other locations. Timi'ag The fulfillment of the growing transportation requirement places an increas- ing demand on the best possible use of technology, Continuing research and de- velopment is required to improcve st~adi1y the performance pGtential of HSGT subsystems. High priority is now being given to alternative system selection so that efforts can be focused on the more promising concepts. It is estimated that HSGT classes such as auto-train, high speed rail, and multi-modal systems could be operational in the early 1970's, tracked air cushion vehicle systems in the mid-1970's, and tube vehicle systems in the later 1970's. Research and cle- velopment on advanced systems is now underway and includes analytical studies and small-scale laloratory experiments. This should progress to larger-scale expertments, prototype hardware and passenger demonstrations. Full-scale field experiments are already utnierway with the high speed rail research vehicles and track structures; and large-scale laboratory rail-vehicle dynamics experi- ments are planned to commence In FY71. Full-scale field experiments of a tracked air cushion vehicle are planned to commence in FY71 and of a tube vehicle in FY74. The present laboratory phase of the Advanced Technology research will likewise require larger-scale field experiments In the next few years. 95-447-68---4 PAGENO="0026" 22 PROGRAM STATUS 1~MONSTRATIOT~S Section 2 of the High Speed Ground Transportation Act authorizes the Secre- tary of Oonmteree (ixow Traus~ortatiop) "to contract for demonstrations, to determine the oontr~butions that high-speed ground transportation could make to more efficient aiid econotmical intercity transportation systems." The purpose of demonstrations, carried ont under the Act, is "to measure and eva1ua~e, such factors as the public resprnse to new equipment, higher speeds, variations `in fares, improved comfort and convenience, and more frequent serv- ice." In `Oonnection with contracts for demonstrations under the section, the Secretary ~lia1l "provide for financial participation by private industry to the maximum extent practicahie." Ps~rpose of the demonstrctt'ion project President Johnson emphasized the need for demonstration In his letter o~ March 4, 1965, which proposed the High Speed Ground Transportation Act to the Congress-namely, that ". . . We must learn about travel needs and prefer- ences, In part through the use of large-scale demonstration projects." ` Congress authorized the demonstrations on the finding that there is insuffi- dent information about traveler needs and desires, particularly in intercity movements, to provide a sound basis for public and private investment policies. Within this broad context there may be cited two specific and immediate end uses for the data generated by the demonstrations. One is input for the Northeast Corridor Transportation Project. The infor- mation on public response to improvements in railroad intercity passenger serv- ice will shed light on the contribution that rail transportation can make toward meeting the need for additional transportation facilities in densely populated urbanized corridor-type areas ai~ound the country. Jn addition, by providing detailed analysis of public preference, shown by actual use and by payment for varying combinations of service, the demonstrations will indicate the relative weight of individual service components in attracting public patronage. The demonstrations will evaluate the influence of speed, schedule freç~uency, terminal convenience, comfort levels, and fare structure and will identify the relative impact of each on public acceptance. since these basic elements of serv- ice are common to all modes of passenger transportation, the results of the Corridor rail passenger demonstrations will be important in determining pas- senger preferences for all modes. The second immediate application of information produced by the demonstra- tions is to indicate `the limits of economic viability and customer acceptance of improved railroad passenger service over the country as a whole. The findings would provide a more up-to-date and realistic determination of the capacity of. the present railroad network to meet~new needs by testing, under revenue service conditions, the reliability and traveler reaction to equipment improved to the limit of existing railroad technology. The demonstrations now planned will produce information about , public re- spouse to improvements In the quality and range of railroad service which can be obtained with relatively modest expenditures and without significant develop- mental lead time. The demonstration between Washington and New York, for example, costing the Government about $12 million, will help decide whether investments ranging from one-quarter to five billion dollars in new rail facilities between these points would be worthwhile. A by-product of the demonstrations `is the physical improvement of the rail- road properties selected for the experiments. Although these improvements are related directly to requirements for data-gathering and evaluation, they will produce measurable long-term benefits for passengers using other trains on the demonstration routes, including commuters, and shippers and receivers of railroad freight. In the Washington-New York demonstration program, the contribution by the Federal Government of $12 million has encouraged the rail- road to invest more than $45 million in upgraded facilities and in new equipment. The two demonstration projects in the Northeast Corridor at the time of com- pletion will have cost the Government approximately $21.4 million. In addition to information for decision-making by both the railroad industry and Govern- ment `the demoijstratkns will provide seed nioney for inunediate improvements in railroad passenger, equipment, track all(l station facilities. The railroad and equipment manufacturers involved have greatly exceeded the Government's contribution to the demonstration cost. PAGENO="0027" [ 23 Criteria for selection of demonstration projects have included the following: :1. MinImum duplication In the factors to be tested In each project, including natural limitations such as terrain and route location. 2. Use of limited available resources to provide improvements which will provide most efficiently and promptly the positive service improvements and innovations needed for a valid test of public reaction. 3. Train speeds measurably faster than, and standards of riding comfort substantially superior to those, now attained, as a basis for an adequate test of the market. The timing of both the Washington-New York and the New York-Boston demonstrations of rail passenger service deserve an explanation. Undoubtedly in the winter and early spring of 1966 when the demonstrations were being set up an optimistic view prevailed as to the time that would be required for the engineering, the building and the testing of new equipment. Considering that none of the equipment suppliers had built equipment of this kind before delivery commitments could not be based on prior experience. Nevertheless the car builders for both demonstrations accepted in their contracts penalty provisions for late delivery. Based on the estimates of time of delivery for equipment starting dates were set for the demonstrations. In the case of the demonstration between Washington and New York the time required for up-grading of the roadbed was thought to be the critical element and it governed the starting date. In April 1966, before the contract for the building of the Washington-New York demonstration cars was awarded, the Department of Commerce and the Pennsylvania Railroad agreed that ". . . the demonstration was expected to start in October 1967." About 8 months after the award of contracts for construction of the equip- inent it became apparent that the Budd Co. would have difficulty in delivering equipment on time for the Pennsylvania ~ Railroad to start the demonstration on October 29. A decision had to be made by the Railroad and the Government as to whether to hold to the original starting date. The Government took the view that an extra effort should be made by the Budd Co. to get equipment built as soon as possible. On this basis the Government agreed to pay for over- time and extra costs incurred by Budd up to a total of $220,000. Also the Government insisted that October 29 be retained as a target for starting the demonstration and public statements were made to that effect by the director of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. Vary clearly at this time the Pennsylvania Railroad, the Budd Co. and the electrical suppliers had very serious doubts that enough equipment could be ready for service by October 29. The office of High Speed Ground Transporta- tion is responsible for holding to the original starting date. The Government believed that ~ there was an urgency (and there still is) to get the information which would be provided by the Washington-New York demonstration and in light of this urgency that it wa~ desirable to set an early date for the start. The measure of success or failure, however, in getting equipment designed, built, tested and into Operating condition expeditiously should probably rest more on a comparison with the time required to carry out other similar projects than on whether or not an early estimate of time oj~ delivery was met. In making this determination it should be understood first that there is not an easy basis of comparison between this equipment and other rail passenger equipment which has been built in recent years. The electrically propelled cars which are to operate between Washington and New York are the most tech- nologically advanced ever built. The complexities in the control system have required much more testing than was anticipated. It may be noted that the ~Japanese National Railroad cars, the only ones comparable to the Metro-liners, were engineered, built, te~ted and put into service over a three year period. The delivery time for transit cars, without major design improvements, averages 14 months. Also it may. be pointed out that a study of 12 U.S. Air Force weapon system development programs has revealed that on the average the time required for these programs has ~ been 36% longer than estimated. Looked at in this light and considering the amounts of their own money . committed over the contract price, ~ the record of the equipment suppliers in this project does not seem to deserve mnch censure. In any case the holdup in the delivery of the cars has been completely without funding cost to the government. The chart following shows the present expendi- tures by the government and estimated expenditures by the private parties. PAGENO="0028" OEM ONSIRATlONS 24 BOSTON~ N.Y. WASa ~YP~NPITURES TI4RV 4~148 ~ 71 MiLLION 11EP1. OFT~ANS1 WESTIN 6I4OUS~ GEN~R~L gL~CTRIC UNiTED AiRCRAFT The order for the metro-liners wa~ given to the Budd Co. in late May I9~343. The cars have been completely built in ~ess than 24 rnonth~ after the award of the order. They must, however, go `through further testing before they can go into operation. Equipment and roadway facilities to provide improved performance are at- tamable under ~re~ent technology, but do not now exist in this country. Hence, an important coiisequei~ce of the demonstration will be the testing in actual revenue service, under ~ severe operating conditions of advanced designs and components of railroad equipment. This will eontrthute significantly to' the re- search and developme'nt.aspect of the HSGP program. Improvements such as automatic doors and gas turbine propulsion have been considered in the selection of equipment ~ for the demonstration hecause they promise to cut operating costs while enhancing, rather than diminishing, service standards. Ait the same time, equipment specifications rnnst lQok toward high relia~ii1ity of opei~ating performance and minimum of down time so that the primary purpose of the demonstrations-determination of public reaction to improved service-will be satisfied. Washington-New York demonstratio% A demonstration between New York and Washington on the Penn Central will measure public response to a wide range of substantial Improvements in service. The rout selected has the largest existing inte'rcity rail passenger volume in the country. It is well located with regard to station access and will sustain increased speeds and frequency with the least new outlay. It serves a greater population than any rail of similar length in the UnWed States. A completed operating contract letween the Government and the Penn Central Railroatl specifies all identifiable ` elements of the demonstration service, including penalties for schedule failures. Under its provisions the railroad has prepared its fixed property to meet service standard's, including snbstantial improvement of roadway and station facilities. The contract estaMishes four consecutive operating phases, in each of which the mix of varialbie service elements-such as food service, seating anrtngements and crew complements, fares, frequencies, etc.-can be modified. Among the special contractual obligations the railroad is required to meet throughout the two-year demonstration are PAGENO="0029" 23 1. An advert~sing and promGt!on campaign designed `to inform the traveihig public fully of ~igniflieant service features bGth before they are introduced and during their availabilIty; 2. A comprehensive training program for public-contact railroad employees. Nearing completion are negotiations with the State of New Jersey, Prince George's County, Maryland, and the Maryland State Roads Oeiflmisslon to build two suburban rail stations. Each would be near a major highway net. The sta- tion~s will permit a test of the attractiveness of ample, iifexpensive parking in connection with intereity ~ran~sportation service. A~dditional experiments sponsored or encouraged by the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation include a new type of `baggage handling facility at the Baltimore station and the installation of newly-designed on-train telephone service over `which passengers can receive as well.as initiate calls oil the standard commercial telephone network. The American Telephone `and Telegraph Company ha's paid `the entire cost of developing `and installing the mobile telephone system. Public `shrvice operation of the Washington-New York project for a period of two yea'r~s will `start as soon as the Penn Central has accepted 28 of its total order for 50 new high-speed electric cars to provide a partial demonstration service. Developmental testing and modification required to meet the high standard's established for the equpiment-including a speed capability of 160 mph, rapid conversion to commercial power frequencies, and compatibility between equip- ment produced by individual builders-have delayed the start of operations. RO5TON-NCW YORK DEMONSTRATION A demonstration between Boston and New York on the New Haven Railroad will test public response to a light-weight, turbine-powered train of advanced design. The Government entered into a two-year lease with the United Aircraft Corporation in fiscal year 19436 for two 3-car TurboTrains. Demonstration service will be in addition to regular schedules on the route and will be designated in public timetables as experimental. The trains are designed to accomplish several important objectives: 1. The use of gas-turbine engines is expected to cut operating, repair and fuel costs as well as to provide faster acceleration. 2. Use of a suspension `system which has a novel self-banking mechanism which should permit the trains to `take curves at sp~eeds at least 30% higher than can be achieved with conventional equipment. 3. A three-hour and fifteen-minute schedule between Boston and New York, with i~ou'r intermediate stops. More stops will `be made if `they can be accom- modated in the three-hour and fifteen-minute schedule. The Purb'oT'rain `is well suited for fast rail `shuttle service for distances of 200 to 300 miles. If the equipment meets expectations, its' use could lead to improve- ments without electrification in passenger service in many parts of `the country. It could provide an ecotiomic int'ercity train service faster and more comfortable than can `be produced presently. Phe present status of the Boston-New York project is as follows: Under a contract with the Government for maintenance and servicing of the two TurboTrains~ the builder `and lessor, United Aircraft Corporation, has corn- pleted a shop facility in Providence, Rhode Island, designed specifically to support new methods of preventive maintenance, including rapid change-out of compo- nents. The builder has established procedures for detailed statistics of inainte- nance, and operating costs which the Government will evaluate and distribute to the' railroads and others who are interested. The Government and the New Haven Railroad have reached tentative agree- ment on schedules, meal service, fares, public information and reservations systems. Although the demonstration is planned primarily as a' test of equip. ment, ` the Department will utilize it also as an opportunity to test the effect on passenger demand of experimental fares, control of passenger seating, modern quick-preparation food service and ~icketing. Since the railroad is in bankruptcy and has,~greed to operate the den~onstration only if no loss is suffered from it, `the Government has agreed to pay up to $1.7 million for upgrading roadway maintenance levels required directly to prepare the property for higher speeds and increased passenger comfort. To date a totul of $1.4 million has been authorized on work orders approved by the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation for additional maintenance expenditures. PAGENO="0030" 26 T~ie Department ~pects to draw upon the amowit of $500,000 authorjzed by the ~tate o1~ çrniuectieut for work perfor~ned ~vitM~ the State. The two trainséts to be operated in the demonstration are currently undergoing m~dj&atiou ft~1Iowing e~te~isive development testing and will be made available to the railrotid ~or scheduled-service testing ~nd employee. training as soon as the equipment meats the 4lovernment's pei~oru~ance specifleations. ~ iWTO-TRàIN MARKETING AND FIM5IRILIT3~ STonIns ~ Prior to the decision by Congre~s not to provide additional funds ~or an Auto- P~ain demon~stration 1~or fiscal year 1908, the Offlce of High Spee~I Groui~d Prams- portation had planned the purchase of loeomotives and' cars and an operating demonstration of an auto-ti~ain, a new rail service for motorists. This was to test the usefulness of an automobile-carrying rail service in which passengers could keep their automobiles with therm and use them for seating en route. fl was based on the recognition that long-haul rail passenger service is no longer corn- petitive with air and highway, and that this service might provide a means for the railroads to obtain greater utilization of their planta The risks involved in experimenting with the service seemed to be greater than the railroads would accept in their present ~ condition of a ç~apital shortage. Also, only the Govern- ment had the means to carry out the necessary research for the service. At the tirn~ when Congress indicated it favored greater private capital for the auto-train equipment and operation and refused further appropriations, the Departrnen.t had completed studies and tests which gave clear indication, that at equipment standards and costs then contemplated, a profitable service could be operated on a proposed 750-mile route between Washington, D.C., and Jackson- yule, Florida. Initial economic and public acceptance studies of . all experiments to date, world-wide, of the movement of private motor vehicles by rail had led to the conclusion that service of a wholly new kind was required to produce speed, cost and convenience competitive with driving over modern American highways. The emphasis, it was clear, would have to be on rapid terminal han- dung, non-stop operation between facilities strategically located with respect to the highway network, and use of the autos themselves as the main occupancy unit during the rail journey, supported by quick-service utility amenities designed for volume use. Extensive marketing studies showed a 500,000 automobiles yearly, far more than the for which conceptual designs had been comr operating and maintenance arrangements a the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. It comp' Investment and operating coats and preba point where a viable fare si - In the lasts months the - ~ nfn [ness underta] ~ ride qt venture. Ground often is lr effective use OL ultra-high-capaci also likely to bec against noise ani uses of i\ ~ - In addition to air travel infor] local origins and destinations, ~ portation. Included are the den traveler-connected visitors and e~ ad ~. LCIU.t ~ -train and are cc AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS PAGENO="0031" 27 If funds and program authorization are granted, the Department will take the next step-namely, an estimate of future traffic patterns and levels. This infor- mation will be obtained in coordination with other agencies involved in airport access in the Baltimore-Washington area. If the surveys' show market viability, the Department would Initiate preliminary engineering feasibility analyses of a high-speed ground access system. Particular attention wiZl be given to the possi- bility of' a ra4l shnttle service between Washingtoa, and the Uaptia~ Beltway sta~ tion, Friendship Airport, and Baltimore. DATA COLLECTION Since the collection and evaluation of information on traveler response is the prime purpose of the demonstrations projects, the Office of High Spced Ground Transportation has well in advat~ce of the start of the demQi~strations given priority of the formulation and implementation of ~tatlsticai systems. rphr~ principal means of obtaining inforn~atlon have been in operation and will be expanded and amended as the demonstrations move through successive phases: 1. Dataoheck Passenger Uount.-The Department devised, and has had in effect since 19436, a new means of obtaining prompt counts of passenger travel, identified by stations, of origin and destination and individual train, by means of a machine-readable, hand-punched seat check. This technique meets the need for a "cash register" measurement of public reaction and, also important, a firm basis for identifying the changes in patronage which determine the sharing of expenses and revenues in the Penn-Central and New Haven service contracts. A computed linked with a tag reader hhs been installed in the OIISGP and provides details of travel on all through~ trains on demonstration routes of both railroads within a few days after its' performance. Data of this quality had been unobtainable prior to installation of the system. 2. On-Train Survey.-Po obtain more comprehensive information about tray- elers' behavior and needs, the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation man- gurated in November 1966 a continuing questionnaire survey of a sample of rail passengers presently on the demonstration routes. Continuing controls will main- tam sampling reliability. Questionnaires will be modified periodically to get a wide range of information as the demonstration develops, specifically as to reasons for choice of mode and reactions to various changes. 3. Total Population Survey.-Changing travel habits of the total population in the Northeast Oorridor are to be measured prior to and during the demonstra- tion periods. In March 1966 arrangements were made with the U.S. Bureau of the Census to increase the coverage In the Northeast Corridor region of the Bureau's 1967 National Travel Survey. The survey has been in operation this past year and shot~ld be continued in the Northeast Corridor for the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation during calendar years 1969 and 1970. GRADE CROSSING SATETY ACTION The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation Is actively Involved in a national program for elimination of, or improved safety features for, railroad- highway crossings at grade. This parti4~lpatlon is related directly to the prospect of more frequent and somewhat faster service on the Washington-New York and Boston-New York demonstration routes. By direction of the Secretary, the Department of Transportation formed a joint Federal Eailroad and Pederal Highway Administration Action Committee to launch a program to upgrade protection measures. special emphasis is to be placed on the heavily-traveled Northeast COrridor. An OIISGT representative participated in a safety inventory of each public crossing on the Penn Central between Washington and New York and will shortly participate in a similar inventory on the New Haven Eailroad between New York and Boston. It is expected that these inventories will produce recommendations for better grade crossing protection across the Nation. In addition, OHSGT is participating financially in a joint program for imme- diate crossing protection improvements on the Penn Central. This effort involves the Federal Government, the State of Maryland and, thus far, its constituent counties of Prince George's and Baltimore, A similar program is being nego- tiated with the State of Delaware. The OHSGT will provide partial funding to implement such recommendations for crossing improvements on the New Haven route as may be advanced by an inventory team. PAGENO="0032" 28 WHAT REMAINS TO EE ACCOMPLISHED 1'Vashingto~-New York Demo'i~stratioii A date for the start of reVenue demonstration service on the Washington-New York route is tied directly and solely to completion of developmental testing, modification-principally of eh~etrical coffipenents-and final acceptance by Penn Central of new self-propelled electric cars designed for the operation. It is antici- pated that the railroads may be able to provide initially nonrevenue and excursion runs, using the first ears accepted. The full demonstration service cannot start until 28 cars meet acceptance tests. All of the other elements of improvements for which the Penn Central is respon- sible, and which are required to support the experimental desiga of the demon- stration experiment, have been completed. These include roadway improvemente, station modernization, and changes in overhead catenary for electric power distribution. Schedules, fare structures, food service, employee training, adver- tising and public information an~1 all other administrative elements of tb~ demonstration service are ready for immediate Implementation. Construction of suburban automobile-parking station facilities in New Jersey and Maryland, which are a shared responsibility of the railroad, the Federal Government and local authorities (as noted) , is proceeding. Start of the work has been delayed by the need to scale down standards set forth in original plans for the stations. Excessive costs not foreseen in the planning stage, which relate chiefly to modifications in railroad plant to meet operating problems have forced these changes. Penn Central will operate the new demonstration trains as an integral part of its New York-Washington service. The Government and the railroad have agreed, however, on detailed conditions of the service to be provided. These are precisely set forth in a 60-page operating contract providing four separate service phases over a two-year test period of revenue operation. Each phase will effect a new combination of service elements. The operating contract calls for experiments in varying types of meal service, luggage handling aboard cars, use of coach attendants, fixed or reversible seating and deletion or addition of intermediate station stops, among others. Food service in the new Metro Club (parlor) cars, for example, will be varied in price from phase to phase, and in one period will be included in the ticket price. The parties may agree upon experiments in fare levels beyond those already planned. These may include, for instance, premium charges for nonstop service, fees for coach seat reservations, bargain rates for off-peak hours, or special inducements for non-commuter patrons to increase the frequency of their travel on the route. Variation of a number of service elements simultaneously is required because the two-year limitation on the period of the demonstration will not permit isolated exposure to the test of public acceptance of individual changes. The task of testing the maximum possible number of service elements in a relatively short time span requires that the Office of fligh Speed Ground Trans- portation exercise continuous, detailed surveillance over the demonstration serv- ice and, in coordination with the operating railroad management, plan for prompt corrections and changes as necessary to carry out the overall design. of the experiment. The contracting parties must inform the public fully and rapidly of forthcoming changes. The Government staff must modify its ~ continuing data collection and evaluation procedures accordingly. The contents of on-train eurvey questionnaires, for example, must be reviewed constantly so that they will reflect service modifications and identify, so far as is possible by statistical techniques, public acceptance of the individual elements of successive service combinations. Bo$ton-New York demonstration As is true of the demonstration to be conducted on the Penn Central, the most critical step to be accomplished before operation of the Boston-New York dem- onstration can start is acceptance by the Department of Transportation, as lessee, of the two trainsets which will perform the service. It has been necessary for the builder to carry out important modifications, after development testing showed original noise levels, ride quality, braking rates and reliability of power and gearing to be unsatisfactory. As revised, the equipment must again be subjected to road testing. If the two trainsets meet the Depa~tment's specifications, they must undergo next a period of scheduled-service testing by the New Haven Rail- road lasting approximately six weeks, during which training of employees will PAGENO="0033" 29 be carried on simultaneously. These tests may turn up the need ~or additional modifications~. Unlike the Penn Central operation, however, there are also other tas1~s to be accomplished before any level whatever of a demonstration service on the New Haven Railroad can start. These include cQmpletion of roadway upgrading, curve adjustment at a critical point on the route and provisions for electrical operation within New York OLty. At this writing, it appears probable that these Improve- ments can be completed in short order. Planning and preparation of all administrative elements of th~ service-such as schedules, fares, ticketing, reservation sys~tem and meal service-are in general completed. Since the TurboTrains have not been subjected to intensive daily scheduled nse under actual service conditions, and no spare, or relief, equipment will be available in substitution, OHSGT plans to start the demon- stration at a reduced level of service for an initial period until reliability and speed of repairs have been proven-perhaps two to three months. The demon- stration on the New Haven is not designed . to coordinate with or serve in substitution for the existing service on the route ; it will be superimposed on a reduced level of conventional train service. The public, therefore, will not be inconvenienced by postponement of full level of service (equivalent of four round trips between Boston and New York daily). In contrast to the Washington-New York demonstration, where the Penn Central is responsible for carrying out all of the requirements of the experi- mental design imposed by the Department of transportation, the demonstration on the New Haven Railroad is entirely a Government res:ponsibility. The rail- road will perform transportation and traffic functions only, under direction of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. The `two Tur~oTrains, as noted earlier, will be leased by the Government from United Aircraft and furnished to the railroad for operation. In view of their advanced and novel design and propulsion, the trainsets will be maintained and serviced by Utdted at its own shop in Providence. The railroad will turn over the equipment to United Air- craft each night. The OHSGT must, therefore, coordinate the responsibilities of the New Haven Railroad and United Aircraft, respectively, which are covered under separate contracts, but require joint action at numerous points. This task requires that the Government's sitaff give cdntinuous, detailed surveillanee and evalñation to activities of both contracting parties throughout the period of the demonstration. Complete estimates of operating costs will not be available until the railroad has had~ experience with the equipment. Hence, the net co~t to the Government will not be known until it can be determined to what extent the demonstration trains will attract new revenues which would offs~t the Goveriiih~t'S burden. DATA oo*LtYrIoN~ Collection and evaluation of. the data on public reaotien to service elements and changes will be a continuous responsibility of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. throughout the two-year span o~ the tworailroad passen- ger * service demonstrations ~in the Northeast Co~ridor ~ Government `staff will revise information source~~o c~rresponU ~ith service ç~hp~nges, It wilialso makeS modifications in both source and handling which appra~isn~l~ of theda~t~. received indicates is necessary to meet the objectives of the Projects. It is likely that successive changes will be necessary also to satisfy the requirements of the Northeast Corridor Transportation Project, as experiments' and testing of trans- portatiOn demand models dictate. ~ ` Oo~tinuous coordiitationi of `demonstrations~ data handling with the evolving Corridor analysis will be: ~equired particularly because the u~eftliiessr of sta- tistics of public response to actual rail demonstratldn service Is not ~ confined to determining the role of that mode in meeting future needs. De'monstrations~ produced data will also be used as a control in testing the validity of mathe- matical model's of future demand's based on so'cio-econom'ie factors and price- time-convenience characteristics of all modes of transport. Finally, since the basic individual service elements-such as speed, frequency, fare, etc-are common to all modes, determination of their relative weight in public aeneptance of the demonstration service will assist the Corridor Project staff in evaluatrig the influence of these factors on the effectiveness of any other mode. In additioii to the traveler-rea~tion data obtained from the three sources described in an earlier section of this report, the demonstrations staff will be responsible for 95-447-68----5 PAGENO="0034" 30 collecting, evaluating and summarizing operath~ig and equipment maintenance cost data covering the two rail demon~trtaions. An important objective of the demonstrations is to determine whether ne~v equipment and advanced prevent maintenance techniques which will reduce operating costs substantially. Added to increased revenues these savings may move certain essential intercity rail services out of the ~ direct-cost deficit status, in which many now fall, to a more economic `basis. To make a valid determination, the Office of High `Speed Ground Transporta- tion must administer a continuous and sophisticated cost study of the major expense elements of the demonstrations obtained from the railroads and, in the, Boston-New York operation, from Unjited Aircraft. ` At the conclusion of the demonstrations, the Government's ~taff must under- take a task without which the demonstrations project would be essentially fruitless. This is the ev'aiuation of the large amounts of demand and cost data collected. There also will be a complete review of the effectivnness of equipment performance, operating methods, pricing, and other elements of the merchan- dising process utilized in the testst. The final report on the demonstrations project should furnish the Government and the public, including carriers, the suppliers of transportation equipment and local authorities the detailed inf or- mation they require for future planning. AIRPORT GROUND ACCESS DEMONSTRATION On the basis of present demand data relating to the Ba1timore~Washington area airports now in hand, an estimate of future traffic patterns and demand levels should be compiled to determine the range of ground transportation loads and schedule patterns required to meet these demands. If these studies show that sufficient potential demand exists, market studies, including service and price chara~tieristics of alternative means of transport, will be conducted fol- lowed by engineering feasibility studies of a high-speed service between the city centers of Baltimore and Washington and Friendship Airport. This project would utilize existing transport technology and the present main line of the Penn Central Railroad and would require the construction of only a new short loop rail line to the airport terminal. The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation will also give attention on a broader basis, and with a view to more advanced technology, to airport accOss problems of application generally to other areas of the country. There is a need for analysis of paterns and volumes of ground travel to and from those airports where it appears high-speed ground transportation could be used. These findings would be used to determine at what points it would be profitable to make more dE~taiied engineering studies of alternative systems of high-speed, exclusive~route ground transport systems. The purpose of these investigations would be to determine the best approach to a solution at each of the selected airports~ The feaeibility studies would draw upon the technical information on potential forms of high~speed ground transport compiled under the research and development program. If one or more new systems show promise of successful application in the solution of a local problem, the Office would then seek to undertake an actual demonstration, Including the eon~tructlon of fixed facilities and procurement of the equipment required. CONTINUING PROGRAM ACTIVITIJSS The program of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation for the next three years will emphasize development of components of transportation systems which research has proven feasible for the improvement of transporta- tion in densely populated areas. PAGENO="0035" 31 If projects now underway are continued, it is po~sib1e that the United States in the next decade could have operational tracked air cushion vehicle and tube vehicle transpertation systems. The experiments which have already been planned for such systems will result in the development of prototype hardware and, eventually, in the conduct of demonstration projects., The Office of High Speed Ground Transportation will continue to coordinate with the research and development programs of other Federal agencies, foreign governments, and private corporations to assure iminedllate application o4~ tech- nological innovations from these sources to the wor1~ of the Department to in- crease the speed, efficiency and economy of our intercity transportation systems. The work of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation has already had and will continue to have the effect of encobraging private industry to increase its attention to research and development related to intercity transportation. This cooperative Government~industry undertaking will, if continued, provide many benefits to the American public. Another obvious `but indirect benctit of a continued Federal effort to improve ground transportation will be the `development of new academic programs in this field and the renewal of concern within universities in this significant area of research. The transfer of certain urban mass transportation programs from the Depart- nient of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Transportation will provide new opportunities to relate intercity and intracity research, de- velopment, and demonstrations. Finally, the Northeast Corridor Transportation Project's investment planning analysis can adequately evaluate alternative systems only if current and accurate data are available on the cost and performance characteristics of both conven- tional and advanced systems as well as on passenger acceptance of the equipment and `services to be tested by the Office of High ~peed Ground Transportation demonstration projects. Not only is each of the three activities of the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation important in it~ own right, therefore, but also each is dependent on results from the others for success. APPENDIX (A) -STAFFING ORGANIZATION AND PERMANENT EMPLOYEES Professional fields . Divisions Authorized Filled Office of total May 1, 1968 Director Demon- Transporta- R. & D. stration tion systems planning Engineering Economics 1 2 9 1 9 . -- ~ 2 5 5 1 1 3 Operations research Transportation Intergovernmental Statistics 4 3 1 ~ ~ 3 4 4 3 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 Data systems ----- 4 3 1 3 Legal 1 1 1 Administrative and clerical 21 20 6 4 7 4 Total 56 48 - 11 15 - 14 16 Fiscal year 1969 requests + 5 +5 Note: Education :~Mastersdeg~ees, 14;Idoctorates, 5;~law, 1. PAGENO="0036" APPENDIX (B )-PROIRAM AOTIVITY-FINANOLAL * [In thousands of dollarsi Scope of work Contracts obligated fiscal year- 1966 1967 1968 Planned use, fiscal year 1968 avail- ability Future funding requirements (5 year) Contractors and location Estimated completion, month/year Systems engineering: ~ Systems engineering procedures 130 53 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass~_ Completed. Technical evaluation of systems engineering proposals -7 Mitre Corp., Bedford, Mass Do. Specialized engineering support 5 National Bureau ofStandards, Washington, D.C Do. Effect of capacity on operating cost 33 Planning Research Corp., Los Angeles, Calif Do. Cost study definition Resource Management Consultants, Inc., Bethesda, Md~_ Do. Parametric cost model theory 2 . Richard Soberman, Toronto, Canada Do. Systems cost relationships - 199 223 Resource Management Consultants, Inc., Bethesda, Md...... May 1969. Technical support of major research programs_ 170 621 Mitre Corp., Bedford, Mass December 1969. Systems analysis 2,884 1,747 9 TRW Systems, Redondo Beach, Calif May 1969. Scheduling techniques 78 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass~.~ December 1968. Systems engineering 5, 000 Contractors to be selected Total 130 3, 193 2, 567 High speed railroad R. & D.: Research car field testing program: Purchaseof4testcars 1,015 19 Budd Co., Philadelphia, Pa Completed Improvement and maintenance of testtrack 1, 555 30 300 Penn Central Railroad, Philadelphia, Pa Continuing. Simulation of test track operations 35 University of California, Los Angeles, Calif Completed. Modification of test car circuitry 2 General Electric Co., Erie, Pa Do. Design and operation of test car instrumentation~_ 200 608 390 Melpar, Inc., Falls Church, Va Continuing. Operation and maintenance of test cars 250 150 12 1,250 Penn Central Railroad, Philadelphia, Pa Do. Total 2,770 912 572 PROGRAM ACTIVITY, MAY 1968 ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 310 5,000 12 1,550 PAGENO="0037" Rail vehicle dynamics: Use of plasma torch to increase adhesion 36 British Railways Research Department, Derby, England June 196g. Laboratory facility design 54 General American Transportation Corp., Research Division, July 1968. Miles, Ill. Wheel rail dynamics 6, 710 Contractors to be selected Total ~ 54 36 6,710 Vehicle suspension and guidance: Active suspension feasibility 4Q 63 38 MIT, Cambridge, Mass Sept. 1968. Dynsmic simulation of suspension systems 100 200 Melpar, Inc., Falls Church, Va June 1968. Dynamic simulation of autotrain suspension 31 Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, Chicago, Completed. Active suspension prototype design 52 Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa October 1968. Development of prototype 130 4, 700 Contractors to be selected Total 140 294 38 182 4,700 Experimental track structures: Computer simulation of track structure 40 19 Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio __~_~__ Completed. Design of mare stable track structure 15 Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa ~___~______ Do. ResearchonuseofpolymersforstabilizingRRballast 50 19 Materials R. & D. Inc., Oakland, Calif July 1968. Test of track structures 870 i, 110 Contractors to be selected Total 105 38 870 1,110 Vehicle drive systems: Gas turbine electric propulsion system 59 United Aircraft Corporate Systems Center, Farmington, November 1968. Conn. Servo-operated pantograph 147 UACSC-Farmington, Conn December 19~& Survey of European electrification technology 5 Transport International, California, Carmel, Calif Completed. New drive systems 9,300 Contractors to be selected___ Total 211 9,300 Other rail related R. & Ii: Feasibilityofautotrainequipment 165 L.T.Klauder&Associates,Philadelphia,Pa Do. Ride test for auto train 2 Atlantic Coastline Railroad, Jacksonville, Fla Do. Windtunneltestingoffreightcaraerodynamics 14 Naval Ship R. & D. Center, Washington, D.C Do. Develop specifications for and inspect new equip- 112 116 30 L. T. Klauder & Associates, Philadelphia, Pa June 1968. ment. Develop surveillanceequipmentfor rail cars 14 31 American Machine & Foundry, Alexandria, Va September 1968. Track, wheel, axle, and wheel profileengineering 4 - 26 Association of American Railroads, Chicago, Ill May 1969. Potential use of linear electric motor as booster for 7 AiResearch Corp., Torrance, Calif September 1968.1 locomotives. Total 293 165 63 PAGENO="0038" APPENDIX (B )-PR0GEAM ACTIVITY-FINANCIAL PROGRAM AcTIVITY, MAY 1968 ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT [In thousands of dollars] Co Scope of work 1966 ntracts obligated fiscal year- 1967 1968 Planned use, fiscal year 1968 avail- ability Future funding requirements (5 year) Contractors and location ~ Estimated completion, nlonth/year ~ Unconventional systems R. & D. : Tracked air cushion vehicle: Aerotrain test data 25 92 Aeroglide, Inc., New York, N.Y August 1968. Self-stabilized air cushion vehicle 8 UniversitY of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky ~ampleted~ Air cushions 45 40 71 MIT, Cambridge, Mass September 1968. Potential of flexible diaphragm air cushion 72 G~nera1 Motors Research Labs., Santa Barbara, Calit.. . ~ . Completed. Investigation of air cushion seal riiaterials 10 11 Johns-Manville, Manville, NJ December 1968. Designs and tests 1, 434 24, 778 Contractors to be selected Total 45 145 ~ 173 1,445 24,778 := Tube vehicle systems : - Feasibility ofcryopumping 26 Celestial Research Corp., South Pasadena, Calif Completed. Technical background data on gravity vacuum tube - 3 Tubelransit, Inc., PaloAlto, Calif ~ Do. system. - Feasibility of air-supported vehicles in a rsonevacu- 225 323 - 60 118 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y Feb. 1969. ated tube and microwave transmission. - - -- - Aerodynamicsoftubevehiclestability 29 85 Oceanics, Inc., Plainview, N.Y June1968. Application of Coanda effect to TACV's and tube sys-__~_. 62 Illinois Institute ofTechnology, Research Institute, Chicago, July 1968. tems Ill. Drag of vehicles in tubes 75 58 44 MIT, Cambridge, Mass Sept 1968. Research in aerodynamic drag 37 Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa Dec. 1968. Longtube resistanceto high speed vehicles 10 OhioState University, Columbus, Ohio Do. Designs andtests 112 18,605 Contractors to be selected. . TotaL~ -3-35 - 496 203 240 18,605 Advanced technology R. & D. : ~ - - Communication and control: Literature survey on communications and control of 2 Hughes Aircraft Corp., Fullerton, Calif Completed. 9SGF. Feasib Iffy of surface wav~ guide transmission line 295 Environmental S tences S rvices Administra on Boulder June 1969 Cob. System control requirements 50 27 19 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass_ - September 1968. PAGENO="0039" C;' Coupled waveguide systems 13 Sumitomo Electric, Osaka, Japan December 1968. New communications devices 310 11, 240 Contractors to be selected Total 52 322 19 323 11, 240 Power collection: Simulation 52 48 General Electric, Schenectady, N.Y October 1968. Noncontact method 19 do Completed. Design and test new methods 8, 460 Contractors to be selected Total 52 67 8,460 Obstacle surveillance: Laser beams 100 259 Radio Corporation of America, Princeton, N.J November 1968. New detection methods 2, 300 Total 100 259 2,300 L!near induction motor: Feasibility of linear induction motors in HSGT 30 41 AiResearch Corp., Torrance, Calif Completed. Feasibility of advanced electric systems 90 50 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass~ September 1968. Design arid fabricate test LIM propnlsion system 1,200 531 AiResearch Corp., Torrance, Calif July 1969. Lateral stability of test vehicle 35 British Railways Research Department, Derby, England~ February 1969. Test LIM propulsionsystem 2, 030 8, 110 Contractors to be selected Total 120 91 1,200 2,596 8,110 Magnetic suspension: Preliminary research 4,950 Contractors to be selected Tunneling: Feasibility of tunneling by flame jet 75 94 United Aircraft Corp. Research Laboratory, East Hartford, Completed. ~ Conn. External augmentation of velocity of fluid jets for 12 18 Bowles Engineering, Silver Spring, Md Do. tunneling. Research in high pressure water jet delivery optimi- 21 32 do June 1968. zation for tunneling. State of the art, hypervelocity water jets 11 14 University of Missouri, Rolla, Mo Completed. Soil mechanics and chemical, thermal, and laser 90 287 78 MIT, Cambridge, Mass September 1968. techniques for rock fracture. ~ Rock tunneling by water jet using cabitation principle 37 ~ 21 Hydronautics, Inc., Laurel, Md May 1968. National Academy of Science, tunneling research 9 U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C Completed. requirements. Geological mapping of Northeast Corridor 103 U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, Washington, Do. D.C. Reference and bibliography service 2 Library of Congress, Washington, D.C Do. Hypervelocity fluid jet driver system 25 Bowles engineering, Silver Spring, Md June 1968. Design of tunnel liners 60 University of Illinois, Champaign, III February 1969. Correlation of rock properties to fracturability 29 University of Missouri, Rolls, Mo December 1968. Rock breakage by light-gas guns firing liquid pellets 40 10 Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute Do. Design and test 161 5,750 Contractors to be selected Total 90 555 413 171 5,750 PAGENO="0040" APPENDIX (B )-PROGRAM ACTIVITY-FINANCIAL PROGRAM ACTiVITY, MAY 1968 ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT [In thousands of dollars] Scope of work Contracts obliga fiscal year- 1966 1967 ted ~ 1968 Planned u~e, fiscal year 1968 avail- ability Future funding requirements (5 year) Contractors and location Estimated ~ompletion, month/year HSGT test facility: Construction, maintenance, a-nd operation Analytis of prospective facility sites - Total 17 284 -14 11,268 Contractors to be selected Limbaugh Engineering, Afbuquerque~ TIMex June 1968. 11,268 17 298 DEMONSIRATION Washington-New York demonstration: - - Operation of demonstration service 5, 400 4,200 532 15 400 Penn Central RR., Philadelphia, Pa 1970. Preliminary car engineering design 100 L. 1. Klauder & Associates, Philadelphia, Pa Completed. Railroad baggage handling systems 31 Drake, Sheehan, Sweeney & Hupp-New York, N.Y Do. Preparation of auditing procedures program____. 2 Peat, Marwick & Mitchell, New York, N.Y Do. Survey of cost and revenue data - 37 30 Price Waterhouse, Philadelphia, Pa Oecember 1969. Plans for improvement of Washington, D.C., Union Station 2 8 Cuccio & Chieda Design Associates, Westport, Cona Completed. Computer simulation of Penn Central RR. train operations 72 University of -California, Los Angeles, Calif August 1968. Suburban stations 1,300 600 Penn Central RR 1968. Grade crossing safety 40 10 Maryland State Roads Commission; Delaware State Roads 1968. Commission. Total 5,533 4,239 652 1,325 1,030 PAGENO="0041" Boston-New York demonstration: Lease of2 turbo trains 1,220 274 175 50 United Aircraft Corporate Systems Center, Farmington, 1970. c~ Conn. o~ Maintenance and servicing of trains 940 100 I, 266 500 United Aircraft Systems Corp., Providence, R.I 1970. ~L Survey of cost and revenue data 1 15 60 Not yet determined ~ Survey of track conditions 3 2 New Haven Railroad Completed. Training railroad personnel 2 do Do. Installation of transformer at Grand Central Station 46 Penn Central RR., Philadelphia, Pa 1968. ~ Track upgrading and operation of demonstration 1, 379 2, 953 500 New Haven RR., New Haven, Conn 1970. Total 2, 160 380 2, 822 3, 064 1, 060 ~ Data collection activities : . .Data-tag supplies and lease of EDP equipment 158 169 157 700 Kirnba!l Systems, Inc., Washington, D.C Continuing. Procedures forand analysis of airport passenger data 101 44 . Abi Associates, Cambridge, Mass . May 1968. Passenger survey for Washingtoh-New York project 104 48 45 750 Opinion Research Corp., Princeton, NJ Continuing. Develop, tabulate and analyze travel data iii NEC 85 265 960 U.S. Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C Do. Computer programing 2 4 10 Smithsonian lnsti.ution, Washington, D.C - June 1968. Rental of ADP machines 54 33 200 IBM Corp., Washington, D.C Continuing. Rental of Tick-O-Meters 6 2 5 Pitney-Bowes, Inc., Washington, D.C.~ Do. Passenger survey of DuNes-National-Friendship 145 13 Human Sciences Research, McLean, Va Complete. Experimental design for demonstration 50 Mathematica, Inc., Princeton, N.J August 1968. EPata utility 35 EconomicSciences Corp December1968. Marketanalytes... ~ Notyetdetermined ~- Total 601 681 239 3,200 Auto-train demonstration: . ~ Determination of feasihif~ty 4 24 H. 0. Whitten & Associates, Washington, D.C Completed. Researclsanri testingof autos on railroad cars S Association of American Railroads, Chicago, Ill Do. Equipment and facilities tor ride test 3 Baltimore & Ohio RR., Baltimore, Md Do. Develop scale model 2 Sundberg Ferar, Detroit, Mich Do. i~etermine markst potential for auto-train service 40 12 Center for Advanced Administrative Research, Boca Raton, Do. Fla. Detail designand engineering of equipnient 1,700 1,043 United Aircraft Corp.. S'istems Center, Farmington, Conn.... Do. Storage of materia;s 10 11 Budd Co., Philadelphia, Pa 1968. Terminals 1,030 Not yet determined Total ~ 15 1,766 1,065 1,041 PAGENO="0042" 38 Mr. PICKLE (presiding) . Mr. Secretary, if we could just accomplish the speed on these high-speed ground transportation projects with the speed with which you have delivered your testimony this morning, we would have the problem solved. Secretary BOYD. Sometimes I think it would be better not to have the fastest tongue in the East. [Laughter.] Mr. PICKLE. We did appreciate your testimony and we are glad that you are here. Now, I realize that you must go to another meeting shortly, and we will respect your time. If you and your associates will help us to keep you on schedule, why, we would appreciate it. But as I understand it, Mr. Lang and Dr. Nelson will stay for further questioning. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. I want to make clear that what you are asking for first, you are simply asking for * an extension of the bill this committee and the Congress passed about 21/2 years ago, and you are asking for a 2- year extension. Have you added in the measure other things that would be different other than the straight extension? Secretary BOYD. There is one amendment we would propose, Mr. Chairman, which would have to do with the authorization to purchase land for test facilities. I understand, or let me say this, our lawyers are concerned about the authority contained in the original act for us to purchase or lease land for use as a test facility for the high-speed equip- ment which we must have if we are going to pursue this program. I also understand that there is some feeling on the part of the com- mittee that that was clearly authorized in the original legislatioi~, that that was clearly the intent of the committee, and all we are con- cerned with is being sure that when we move to set up a test facility by purchase or lease of land that we are not violating the law. Mr. PICKLE. Now, I was a member of the committee when this mat- ter was brought to our attention and in which we put a provision in the law. The intent primarily was that the Department of Commerce then and the Department of Transportation now, would not be acquir- ing any railroad or railroad facilities as such. You weren't getting into the railroad business or the management of railroads. Is that the intent of your Department at this time ? You have no intention of buying a railroad, railroad company? Secretary BOYD. No, sir. Mr. PICKLE. In no shape, form, or fashion? Secretary BOYD. No, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Then the reason for your section (c) being in the meas- ure then would be primarily to participate in demonstration projects to find better answers to the overall high-speed ground transporta- tion problems, and it is not for the operation or maintaining of any kind of railroad or railroad system ; is that correct? Secretary Bo'rn. It is strictly for reseftrch and development and it is not to engage in operating a railroad. Mr. PICKLE. I notice your testimony said that this particular amend- ment would not change in any way the prohibition 110W in the act. against the Secretary's acquisition of any interests in any line or of any railroad. Secretary BO~tD. That is corr~t, Mr. Chairman. One of the major purposes of this act and of our efforts under it is to provide through PAGENO="0043" 39 research, development, and testing the kind, o~ ~aci1ities which rail- roads can operate so that somewhere down the line the Fçcleral Govern- ment doesn't have to buy the railroads, ~ ~ ~ ~ . Mr. PICKLL In the pursuit of a proper site for demonstration projects, and assume that language. is left in ~ the measure either as written or similar, would it not be the intent of the Department ` to obtain those sites for research that would be Government owned, or where the Department would not have to go out and buy or lease land at high expense to the Government ~ Secretary BOYD. That would certainly be our hope. We have not sought appropriations to purchase land. We are as yet unable to identify a location where we want to place a test site, but of the ones which are under review at the moment, it would appear that we will be able to obtain the land or the use of the land for a nominal figure. Now, we will have to spend some money on drainage and fill and other things of that nature because in the high-speed testing we have got to have pretty level trackage. Mr. PICKLE. Well, the intent of your Department, would be to use those lands, if such sites would be deemed advisable, that would be governmently owned and obtained at the lowestminimum cost ~ Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. But with the right, of course, to purchase or add to any particular tract if it was necessary to complete the overall picture. Well, that makes sense to me, because we are in a bind moneywise and that would be a sensible approach. Now, one other question and then I will pass you on to the other members. I notice that your bill, and I see it includes the additional sum of some $16 million, this would be `authorized for fiscal 1969. Could you tell me in a general sense again just how this would be used ? Would it be for the continuation of the northeast corridor, the one or two different phases we have in operation now, or for such other demonstrations that might be entered into or that you might carry on? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. It is a total figure, then? Secretary BOYD. That is right. Dr. Nelson can give you `a rundown either orally now or for the record of how we would propose to spend thatmoney. Mr. PICKLE. Well, Dr. Ne1son~ I will ask you to give that to us at a later point and not infringe on the Secretary's time at this particular point. Mr. Devine? Mr. Di~vINE. Ill that connection, Mr. Chairman, I see in your state- ment, Mr. Boyd, that I think $90 million was authorized `and only $52 million had been appropriated for this? Secretary Boyn. Yes, sir. Mr. DEvINE. I would ask you, either you or Mr. Nelson, whether this $16,200,000 that is contained in the bill, section (e) of the bill, is in addition to those amounts; whether this is new money or whether it is budgeted? Secretary BOYD. It is new money, but it is within the $90 million authorization. Mr. DEvIN~. I see. PAGENO="0044" 40 I~ it contained in the budget? Seen~tary Bom. Yes, sir. Mr. DEVINE. The only other question, Mr. Secretary, has to do with your statement in which you said the Government, the railroad, the car builders, and the equipment operators had all been optimistic on this. This doesn't cothe as any particular snrprise to you. Did you really anticipate that this wcuid be off the ground as quickly as they had estimated? Secretary Boyn. Well, I have learned a lot since then, Mr. Devine. One of the things I have learned is that our colleagues in the Depart- ment of Defense who have had vast experience in this area seem to, on the average, miscalculate by about 36 percent on their time, so I don't feel too bad about it. But we were, sure we were, optimistic, and I don't think `any of us fully appreciated the complexities of the interfacing of the different systems that had to be put together. Mr. DEITINE. Do you think the provisions of this ~particular bill, J-T.R. 16024, give you sufficient time to at least complete the study and to know the direction in which you are going? Secretary Bom. Well i Mr. DEvINE. Or is this aiiother stopgap measure? Secretary Boirn. Well, let me say this : I think this gives us-we sought a 2-year authorization. Now, the bill that was introduced is a 1-year authorization. So in that context we certainly would like to have the 2-year authori~ation to complete this series of projects. I would not want to leave any inference, however, that we think there will be no further requirement for governmental research and development activities in this area after this is completed. Mr. DEvINE. But you feel that this particular extension asked for in this legislation gives you sufficient elbow room for your present demands? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. DEvINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PIoxLE. Mr. Kuykendall? Mr. KTJYKENDALL. It is good to have you, Mr. Boyd. Secretary BOYD. Thank you. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Can we determine yet this great big $64 million . question as to whether it is going to be feasible to have multipurpose road'beds ? In other words, are we going to be able to maintain the proper ride characteristics on a roadbed that is used daily by freight trains also ? Are you that far along yet? Secretary Bo~r. I will have to ask Mr. Lang. He has the technical competence if we have any. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Don't you agree this is probably one of the first big ones we are going to have to really answer here? Secretary Boyn. I would guess that the answer is going to have to depend, Mr. Kuykendall, largely on the type of track that is used. I think that it would be possible, and probably is the case today, over some roads in this country. But the track itself is usually not sufficiently heavy to handle freight cars with the weights they have today, with the roadbed being maintained as it generally is, and still provide a decent ride on a passenger train. Now, the Penn-Central has at its own expense spent a great deal of money to upgrade its track between Washington and New York, and PAGENO="0045" 41 w~ think that it is going to prove out to be satisfactory provided they keep their maintenance standarcI~. Is that a fair statewent? Mr. EjJYKEND~LL. I am sure all three of you gentlemen have visited the flay area system, probably a great deal wore throughly than we have, but in my visit with those people I am very impressed mci- dentally, with their over~l1 project~ I was impressed with the extreme amount of care that they seemed to feel they were going to have to take over their roadbed to have an acceptable, and as an ex-soap $alesman, may I say merchandisahie ride on their car, and you are familiar with their abrasive machines they have for the constant grinding of their roadbed, and the thing that bothered me in seeing this as a necessity here, is whether or not hundreds of miles of roadbed on a widespread commercial system can ever demand that much attention or whether or not we are going to maybe dream of getting steels that will eliminate this almost monthly care to give a kind of a cradle-like ride. Secretary Born. Let me give you two answers to that. One is that the train which we are leasing from United Aircraft to operate between New York and Boston has a novel suspension system in it, which we think will have some beneficial effect on ride quality on What you might call run of the mill maintenance of the roadbed. This we don't know yet. The other is that in various aspects of our research activities, we are going into this whole question of the rail itself, and it may well be that we come up with a different kind of rail, different kind of connection of the rail to the tie, different kind of ballast. These are all areas which are being researched at the present time. So either or both of these may, in fact, become a reality. Mr. KTJYKENDALL. .rf\\~o more quick questions : Let me get back to my ancient history background and ask you at what point do you have plans, I am sure you must have plans, at what point do you have plans, to study the merchandising and advertising of this type service, because I think in the end this is going to be one of the 1~eys to the whole thing. Secretary Boyp. We have been riding the trains for, I think, the last year doing surveys so that we could get a base period and a basic. data hank on who the people are now, why they are riding the trains, where they come from, whei~e they go, and so forth, so we have got a base. As soon as we can get the demonstration moving with scheduled service we will go through the same apprqach and make a comparison to see what we have accomplished in a market sensp. Now, this is also going to iuvolve, hQwever, in the course of the demonstration, some variations in the dem9ustra.tiQn itself, such~ as differential fare, pricing, depending on time of the day and day of the week. It will also have variations ~fl f~)o~i$ervice ; service at your seat, airline style ; and IL believe we will have some automatic vending machines, sort of Horn & Hardart, ypu p~t your quarter in and you get a bowl of beef stew out, and regular `snack bar service. All of these things are going to go into, the mix of the stndy that we will make. Mr. KUYE~NDALL~ If you will yield there'just a moment. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KtYKE~NDALI~. I would like to get a little more spec~fie because I am very sold on the necessity of this and this is, I think, a terribly PAGENO="0046" 42 important pint because I am convinced that no matter how good this demonstration is if we don't have some Madison Avenue hooked onto it we are not g oing to suc~ssfu1 b~cau~e we have got to merchandise our product' and I mean, in my opithon; really merchandise it, and- Secretary Bo~irr. Let ` the add one more thing : The Pennsylvania Railroad in cooperation with HEW and Labor is putting, I believe, 4,000 of its employees through charm school. This is the kind of thing that sounds funny but it is an indication of the seriousness, and sin- cerity, on the part of the Pennslyva.nia to try to see to it that the public feels wanted when they get on the train and that the fellows who work the traihs have all the answers' about "what's that going on outside," and "where do I get off," and "what time does the 9 &clock leave," and things like that. Mr. SPRINGER. ` Will the g~itleman yield at `that point? May I sa~y to the distinguished Secretary `that if you can get them over at Union Station, to answer the telephone you have accomplished a great deal. My wife was on the telephone for an hour, a week ago Sunday, and never did get any answer for just `anyone, anybody even picked up the telephone. I finally called the roundhouse and found out what time the train was going. Some of this at Union Station is outlandish. I hope you won't talk about getting on the train. I, hope you will talk about some service to let one know what time the train leaves, and also some ticket sales to improve the situation over at Union Station. Secretary Bo~im. Mr. Lang and I have just delegated this to Dr. Nelson. Mr. PI0XLE. Mr. Secretary, I noticed in an article that came over the wire services yesterday, an AP story or UPI, which wrote of the case, of `the vanishing passanger train, and the inference was that the railroad companies themselves were shedding no tears over the fact that the passenger train was out of, going out of, existence. Is this a fact ? Is this, in your judgmetit, an improper interpretation of their attitude or is that story an improper interpretation ? Secretary Bom. Well, that story, as I understand it, was related to the publication `by the Association of American Railroads of a `pamphlet called, "The Case of the Vanishing Passenger Train" and it was-the wire service ` story did not provide the same sort of interpretation of what was involved in this pamphlet that I get out of it. On page 9 of the pampM~t the report says: ` Washington-New York-Boston Corridor is ~ an , area, where there appears to be a growing need for train service. This is talking' about passenger trains.' "New multiple high-speed trains develOped' in cooperation with the U.S. Departmimt of Transportation will be introduced on runs this year In an expensive experiment to `determine~the `extent to ~hieh th'e'pubUc will support Tokaldo-like passenger service." Tokaido is ~he line which r~ns between Tokyo and Osaka. "There is a `growing belief ~ln some quarters that passenger trath~ on 200 to 300 mIle runs through heavily fopulàted dOrridors will be an essential part of the overall .trans- portation J5Ieture in "futnre years just as commuter trains already are. If this proves trfle the rail lities will still be there. Broad new equipment designed and developed to meet the needs of these future years can ru~ on these rails. lVte'an- while there is nothing to gain and much to lose by cOntinuing these runs with present equipment." ` ` This ~s not an ihdication on the part of the railroad industry tha't they think the passenger service is gone. What I g~t out of it is `they PAGENO="0047" , 43 are saying with the present (?quiprnent they are just not making any headway. . Mr. PICKLI~. Your testimony indicated that the railroad companies or at least private sources had invested some $75 million or more. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. Piciw~. On this venture, more than had been appropriated by the Congress. ~ Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. PIoKn~. To me then that would be an indication that they are joining hands and making vast expenditures trying to find an answer. That would in effect refute the fact they are trying to do away with passenger service. I keep thinking, whether we like ~ this particular approach or not, that generally speaking, railroad transportation is probably the cheap- est means of transportation we have, or at least I am led to believe that, and it is about the only hope for mass transportation in some~ form. So it would seem to me like we must pursue it, at least do the best we can on it. Mr. Springer? Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Chairman, I don't have but just one or two obser- vations that I would like to get the Secretary's `thinking on. There have been a lot of changes in 18 years and I will admit when I first came to Washington I went to New York all the time on the train, very seldom flew. Now, I never think of going on the train be- cause I can get there any hour on the hour by airplane. I can be down- town roughly in an and hour and 30 minutes if I can get a taxi and it is not too busy a time of day. Did your studies indicate that with high-speed transportation you can equal this between here and New York City ? Secretary BOYD. Well, there are a couple of factors involved, Mr. Springer. One is that there is a limitation on the amount of and nun-i- ber of aircraft that can fly between New York and Washington. The airways are not limited, but the runways are limited. Mr. SPRINGI~R. Now, my second observation. If you are going t up- date, as you ~ay here, the National Airport, Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, Boston, arid Philadelphia, aren't you intending to make them keep up with the times so that they can carry the load. Secretary BOYD. Well, let me say in that connection `that these- I didn't mean to indicate in my testimony that we were going to upgrade these airports. Mr. SPRINOI~R. It was my understanding that you have requests in for that; isn't that true ? You have statements by the Department of Transportation that certain things will have to be done at O'Hare, Kennedy, LaGuardia, National in ~ the near future if we are going to meet this problem? Secretary BOYD. Oh, there is no question about that. But my point is that even with the upgrading of these airports, the Department has stated, that all of these airports need to be upgraded-even with that we are not going to be able to handle the traffic demand which is being placed on the system. This i~ the key item in this whole business, Mr. Springer. PAGENO="0048" 44 I don't know how valid it was, but in 1965 the State of New ~Jersey Highway Department ran a survey and concluded that by 1980 they would need 60 additional highway lanes in and out of Manhattan. Well, you just think about that and it is a ~ manifest impossibility. We are trying all over the country in the airways and airports side to improve the use of th~ airiort through developments of blind landing systems, for example, high-speed turnoffs and things of that nature. But there is still a limit. You can just get so much use of one runway, you can get so many planes on and off no matter how you do it. I was told by the Port of New York Authority, in connection with the so-called fourth jet airport for New York, that from the time they are able to get a site where they can build the thing, it will be 10 years before the first airplatie, commercial airplane, operates off that airport. Mr. SPRINGER. That was about the story on O'Hare. Secretary Bom: Yes, sir. ~ Mr. SPEINGEE. Eight, 81/2 to be exact. Secretary Boyn. The demand is growing at a rate which is just phenomenal. Now, 3 weeks ago at Washington- Mr. SPRINGER. Are you taking into consideration though the im- provement in aircraft with thejumbo jets? Secretary Bo~m. Yes, sir. Mr. SPRINGER. in small runs such as Chicago to Champaign, Ill., you are increasing your load in the next 10 years. They will tend to more than double their load capacity. Secretary BOYD. Right. Mr. SPRINGER. Yes. Secretary BOYD. The people at MIT had a study, on the impact of the Boeing 747~ which is the jumbo jet on air traffic in the N~w York area, and what they came up with was a line which shows a continual growth up to the advent of the 747, and then a plateau for 6 months and then the line goes U~; again. That is the kind of traffic growth we have. And every indication- Mr. SPRINGER. I would like to see a chart on that because I am not quite getting that kind of information, but if you say that is true you are an expert in the fie~id and your staff ought to. know. I would like to have a memorandum on that if I could. Secretary BOYD. All right, sir. ` - Mr. SPRINGER. I have seen the figures between now and 1075, but I didn't anticipate we were going to be able to take care of them, I am talking about air growth. . Secretary Boni. We can't possibly take care of it. Three weeks ago at Wastthigton National A14'ort, three weeks ago today, were 4,000 movements of aircraft at Washington National,' landings and take- offs, in a 24-hour period, and Washington National is geared to a capacity of 2,500 movements. The result was that many planes were waiting on the ground, or in the air, as much as an hour and 40 minutes. This is getting to be corn- rnonplaee in LaGuardia. Mr. SPRINGER. Is this commonplace in Dulles? Secretary Born. No, Dulles is a great airport in every sense of the ~word. PAGENO="0049" 45 Mr. SPRINGER. W~ are going to have to make some adjustments soiñ,e Way. To wind this up in one thing, this comes in three parts, and you have answered this quite well, as I get your viewpoint at least, are you anticipating higher than the present railroad fares on these Wa~hing- ton to New York, Boston to New York runs Secretary BOYD. We anticipa~te they will be higher fares, we also anticipate some of them will be lower. As I mentioned to Mr. Kuy- kendall in the course of this demonstration we expect to vary the fares to see what happens, what the impact is on volume of movement. Mr. SPRINGER. All right. I was thinking the other day, my daughter coming home from Durham, N.C., on a sthndby fare, and she shouldn't ride a bus half way for that much money, tourist class, we will say, by air, so this raises some questions in my mind if you are anticipating higher fares; than present railroad rates. Secretary BOYD. Well, even where~-- Mr. SPRINGER. But to sum it up, what you are going to do is make a study to determine what would attract them on the railroad mstead1 of going by bus or by airplane? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir, but I want to make; clear, Mr. Springer;; we don't visualize this rail service as being a substitute for bus, auto- mc~bile, or air. What we visualize is a tremendous increase in the~ number of people who; desire to move. We have absolutely limited capacity, both in our highways and in our airways, and we have to~ use the railroad, as we see it, as a; safety valve. If that doesn't work then we have to go to something else. But that is the way we; look at; it for the moment. Mr. SPRINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Adams? Mr. ADAMs. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate very much your coming be- fore the committee;. I really don't have to read your statement because I have been strongly supporting this project for such a long time, and Dr. Nelson and I have discussed it so many times that I hope we can produce this. Some of us who have worked at great length with the 747 and the airport problems can assure members of this committee that it will not solve the problem particularly in the northeast corridor. So I just want to state we appreciate your being here and I am looking for- ward to discussing this with Dr. Nelson some more and I hope we can report it out and I hope we can make this project move and that WC will not be just creating another "to hell with the day coach" situation. Secretary BOYD. Thank you, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Secretary, 2 years ago; one provision of the legis- lation that was added was an advisory committee of all component parts of the transportation industry to sit in on a conference. Would you care to express an opinion on the development of the advisory committee as we have gone `along or would you have one of your people do' it? Secretary BOYD. I would like to provide for the committee the names of the members of the committee, and then give you some views on it. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0050" 46 The full membership o~ the advisory committee is as follows : Mr. Robert M. Jenney, president of the Jenney Manufacturing Co., Chestnut Hill, Mass. ; Mr. Donald W. Dougias, ~ Jr., president of Douglas Aircraft Co., Long Beach, Calif. ; Mr. William B. Johnson, president, Illinois Central Industries, Chicago, Ill. ; Prof. Ray- mond R. Tucker of Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., a former mayor of St. Louis, by the way ; Mr. George E. Leighty, chairman of the Railway Labor Executives Association, Washington, D.C. ; Mr. Charles A. Webb, president of the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, Washington ; and Mr. Milton A. Gilbert, chairman of the board of Gilbert Systems, Inc., New York, N.Y. We have worked very closely with the advisory committee, and they have taken a very deep interest in this work and have been far more than figureheads. We have worked up our programs in conjunction with them, and I would say that their efforts have been most helpful indeed. Mr. Lang or Dr. Nelson may want to comment further on this, but I think they have been very helpful. Mr. PIcKI~E. I am g'ad to know they have met regularly and you are keeping it all tied together because I think this is important, because this is not just simply a rail matter, but related to the entire transportation field. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Before you go I want to ask your judgment on one other matter that is somewhat different from the high-speed prob- 1cm we have this morning, but it might be tied in. When we built Duiles Air Field there was an access road, of course, running from the air field to a point near the Beltway, at the silo. Secretary Bo~i. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. We turn off then at the access road onto the Beltway or into the Madison Highway and then the problem starts. What are the possibilities, and are there any plans, for extending that access road from its present terminating point on into the heart of the city, some 12 a dditional miles, so that we would have a straight shot from Dulles into the heart of the city ? If that extension were advisable could it be adjusted so that the centerlane of that road, the dividing section, might possibly be the high-speed ground system that could take passengers to and from ~ Secretary BOYD. There is a possibility of using the right-of-way of the Washington and Old Dominion Railroad which ties in some- where in that vicinity as part of Route 66, interstate Route 66, which would bring you right down to the Roosevelt Bridge on a limited access highway. There is also the possibility of using the median strip for high- speed rail facility. Mr. PICKLE. There is a time for this discussion, and not related directly to this, but I think there is a great deal to be said for ex- tending that access road into a point near the center of the city and provide the median strip a rail system for access to and from the airport. Secretary BoYD. There has been a very considerable amount- Mr. PICKLE. You have the making of a perfect demonstration proj - ect not only for the airfield which is the largest and probably the best operated in the country but because it has access to a big metro- politan area and I think it has unlimited possibilities. PAGENO="0051" I Mr. Secretary, we thank you for coming and we appreciate your time schedule and you are always welcome before the committee. Secretary Bom. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you. Mr. PICKLE. W e have the other men with the Secretary. Do you gentlemen care to submit your testimony first ? ~ Mr. Lang, are you poised and ready? Mr. LANG. I am poised, Mr. Chairman, but I don't have a prepared statement over and above what the Secretary had and I don't believe Dr. Nelson has either. Mr. PIcKi~. Then neither of you have any prepared testimony and you are therefore available for questioning by the committee. We will start off then wiTh the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Kuykendall. Mr. KTJYKENDALL. I am always surprised when the chairman doesn't say ex-Texan from Tennessee. I would like to carry the chairman's line of questioning just a little bit further on this matter of Dulles, not so much specifically I)ulles but the general attitude here. You know we start talking about high-speed ground transportation as a competitor to air trans~ portation, yet it is going to be both a competitor and a contributor at the same time. Do you anticipate that, let's say, the high-speed ground transpor- tation system from here to Dulles, which we all know is ultimately going to he essential, do you anticipate this being a publicly or pii- vately owned operation? Mr. LANG. Well, Mr. Kuykendall, I don't believe we have addressed ourselves specifically to that aspect of the problem yet, because we are concentrating still on the more fundamental question of what kind of a high-speed ground system, that is what kind of technology, can best serve this very special sort situation that we have between here and Dulles and between here and Friendship Airport and which, of course, we have in many other cities throughout the country. One of the areas that we plan to' look into in greater depth than we have had an opportunity to so far under the present program is this specific question of airport access and at this point in time we are particularly interested in the possibility that we could use the existing right-of-way and facilities of the Pennsylvania, or Penn-Central Rail- road now, between here and Friendship to put together a "high-speed service" from downtown to the airport which would give us an oppor- tunity to learn more about the characteristics of that market, what kind of people would use a high speed facility if it existed, where would they come from in the metropolitan area, and what kind of terminal facilities would you have to provide for the high speed part of the service, that is in the downtown area? We have under the existing program collected a large amount of data on the origins arid destinations of passengers and others using the three airports in the Washitigton area. We do nbt yet have the final report from the researoh org~fiizatioh that did that work for us although I think we do expect to have it relatively soon. *What we have found in looking~ at this problem so far is' that we still need to know more about the chai'acteristics of these trips to the airport. They are not all by airiiiie passeligers, in fact air passengers 47 PAGENO="0052" 48 are in the minority, it tunis out, and they are not all by any means coming from the downtown part of the metropolitan area. In fact, an increasing number of these trips are starting out in suburban see- tions of the metropolitan area, and many of them, therefore, will not be reached conveniently by a high-speed system that had its terminus right in the downtown area. So, to sum this all up, and Dr. Nelson may want to comment further on this problem, we feel that we have both a prc~blem in identifying what the best kind of technolo~y is to be used in this sort of situation, and also a problem in identifying more precisely the structure of the market, both present ~nd future, as it will affect the location of any facilities that might be used, not just in the Washington area but in any major metropolitan area. Mr. KTJYKENDALL. In the testimony before this subcommittee con- cerning the discontinuance of passenger service by the railroads, I have continually, in my questions and in discussion, pleaded with the rail- roads not to lose this capability of the whole passenger outlook and I would hope they would just not limit their interest and their invest- ment in things like up and down the Northeast Corridor. I would like to ~ see them interested in things like from here to Friendship, from here to Dulles and so forth because, personally, I would rather see it run by private enterprise if at all possible. Let me ask one other quick question here just for the record because I think this is something that might well be asked on the floor. What is your experience in the area covered under section (c) of the compara- tive cost of contracting this testing on land owned by the railroads under specifications, that is contracting under spe?cifications as op- posed to buying the land and conducting your own tests. Let's talk not about the philosophy of ownership but simply the matter of cost. What would be your thinking, either of you would answer that? Mr. NELSON. We have one instance of carrying on a test program on rail property. \)~Te had a 21-mile stretch of track upgraded between Trenton and New Brunswick in New Jersey on the main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad. We ~ were able to upgrade to the point where it was the finest 21 miles of railroad anywhere in the world without any question-and to operate test cars on this stretoh of track at a cost which was very, very much less than what the cost would have been if we had had to go out and build a 21-mile stretch of track. Now, we have had some prthlems with that in the sense that we have had to carry on the testing program on an operating railroad which has a pretty high volume of traffic. Thus, we have not had the test facility available for 24 hours a day. On the other hand, we haven't needed it for 24 hours a day, and furthermore some of the conditions associated with an operating railroad have been valuable in the test . program. * . , Mr. * KUYKENDALL. All right, now, just for the record and to make some history here, would either of you gentlemen care to state here what the (conditions could possibly be that would cause you to pur- chase instead of contract? Mr. NELSON. Well, we undoubtedly will have to establish our own facility or contract with a firm to establish a facility, and we will have to pay the `entire cost for an advanced system, a system' that is PAGENO="0053" .49 n~t in eQmmercial operation anywhere in the TJnited~States or possibly .. anywhere in the world. . . . . . . . What weparticularly have in mind is a test ~acility-~and..th~s would be nonoommeroial-a test facility for a tracked cushion vehicle. Th&re is such a vehicle operatifig on the Continent in Europe, iione in this country., and at this point it has no commercial usefulness in France . although it is expected to within the next year or two. So for.a facility of that kind we would have to acquire it directly or pay a contract for the full amount. I don't think there is much question about that. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Adams ~ Mr. ADAMS. Dr. Nelson, I have gone over in some degree the more detailed report as well as the Secretary's remarks, but I can't from this get in my mind specifically where we are with the three projects. I ask this because I want to see them go ahead much faster than where we are now and I would like to know where we are and what we ought to be doing aibout it. First, I would like to take the Jacksonville-Wash- ington, D.C., project. There were some announcements, as I remember several months ago we were going to start this and try the piggy- back between here and Jacksonville. Would you tell me precisely where we are in this now, what happened to it, because I notice in your statement it is still in a proposal stage and so far as I know it has never been implemented. I want to ride it oi~ce, and I haven't seen it yet. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. As you probably will recall, we were moving ahead pretty rapidly on this project. However, we did need funds appropriated in fiscal year 168 to go ahead with the project. These funds were denied entirely by the Appropriations Committee. Now, we have spent from fiscal year 1966 and 19t~7 appropriations enough money to have done a number of tests, both of a technical kind and a mai~keting exploration of the demand fQr the service.. We had also expended some money for the design of equipment. This was after we had made the market evaluations and after we had done the tech- nical testing of the feasibility of carrying an automobile o~i a railcar. Then we went `ahead and we expended about $2 million on the design of the train of about 15 cars. We have `also had extensive discussions with the Seaboard Coast Line `and we have understandings with that railroad as to how this service `should `be operated. We `also have in mind the terminal's in the Washington area and in the Jacksonville area and the Seaboard `Coast Line has options on the land. However, we are unable to go `ahead with the project until we obtain funds to build the cars. This is where we have a shortfall, and the Appropriation's Committee indicate.d to us that it felt we `should at- tempt to get private funds to `complete the project. Mr. ADAMS. How much money do you need for the cars? These are the fiatoars on which you would drive `the automobiles? Mr. NELsoN. These are not fl'atcars. Mr. ADAMS. What are they, `tell me what `they are. Mr. NELSON. They are newly designed cars, completely new bilevel cars, onto which a `driver would `be able to `drive `his `automobile. Mr. ADAMS. And this has been designed? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0054" 50 . Mr. ADAMS. Has a company indicated that it would produce them for you based on thedesign ? Mr. Nr~i~soN. Yes * sir ; several companies have indicated a great de- sire to build those cars provided someone pays them to build them. Mr. ADAMS. Atwhat.cost? ~ Mr. NELSON. The cost of one train would be about, somew~iere about $7 and 71/2 million. That is a train of 15 cars exclusive of the locomo- tives, the locomotives would add about ~ another million. Mr. ADAMS. Now have you asked for that in this authorization ~ Mr. NELSON. No, sir. It is not included in the $16.2 million. Mr. ADAMS. In other words, the Jacksonville-Washington project is at a standstill? Mr. NELSON. Yes~ sir. Mr. ADAMS. Until more money is appropriated into it, and you have felt in this program you couldn't go with it, OK? ~ . Mr. NELSON. Well, if.I may add- Mr. ADAMS. You haven't even asked for it? . Mr. NELSON. No ; we haven't asked for further money but we have been. asking for money from private sources, and the announcement that you are referring to came from the Ford Motor Co., not from the Department of Transportation. The Ford Motor Co. stated that it was interested in this project, and very seriously considering putting up its own money. Mr. ADAMS. If you got the money from a private source, you could start the Jacksonville to Washingtion project ? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. ~ ~ Mr. ADAMS. All right. ~ Let's take th~ Washington, D.C., to New York project which was over the Penn-Central. . . . . ~ ~ . Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. ~ Mr. ADAMS. 1 read in here you have made some contract with them. The. first question, did you ever strengthen~the total roadbed or what i~ the status of the roadbed work between ~ Washington, D.C., and New York ? Is it capable of handling speeds over 70 miles an hour? ~ Mr. NELSON. Oh, yes. . ~. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ Mr. ADAMS. Up to what speed ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. NELSON. `It is easily capable of handling higher speeds through- out most of the run. Of oo~irse,~thi~ varies in different stretches of the track, hut throughout a good part of the railroad it can handle speeds 1~lp to 120 mil~s an hour. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ Mr. ADAMS. Could you make your 3-hour schedulewith the present roadbed? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir, very easily. Mr. ADAMS. All right. What is your status of equipment, are you going to use the TBudd cars on the Penn-Central or another method? Mr. NELSON. The Penn-Central has ordered from the Budd Co. a fleet of 50 MU cars~ Mr. ADAMS. They have ordered? Mr. NELSON. They are all, bui1t.~ Mr. ADAMS. They are built? PAGENO="0055" 51 , Mr. NELSON. They are built. And they are being sort of burned in. They are having technical- Mr. ADAMS. So that on this project of the 3-hour schedule between Washington, D.C., and New York it is possible for this now to occur within how many months ? . ~ Mr. NELSON. Well, the task force, which was set up by the parties involved in the demonstration, made a prediction that it could be in operation within 7 months. I think that is conservative. ~ ~ . Mr. ADAMS. In other words, within the next fiscal year, by July of next year, you think it will he possible for some of us to get on a Budd car in Washington, D.C., and ride it to New York in 3 hours? Mr. NELSON. By July first of 1969? Mr. ADAMS. Well- . Mr. NELSON. I guess if you can't I would have to carry you myself. Mr. ADAMS. All right. in other words, you feel within the fiscal year, people are going to be able to see something and get on and ride it? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Much beforethat I hope. Mr. ADAMS. Now, the ~ last one is the New Haven to-can I ~ ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to ask about the third project? Mr. PICKLE. The gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. Mr. ADAMS. On the third project between New York and Boston. Mr. NELSON. The equipment has been built. Mr. ADAMS. You are going to use their- Mr. NELSON. Two turbotrains. ~ Mr. ADAMS. Terminal trains? Mr. NELSON. Turbotrains. These are gas-turbine-propelled trains Of a new light design. I might point out to you they ar~ oyer at Union Station this morning, and the committee was invited to go . Over and I am sure that some of the committee- Mr. ADAMS. Will they be there during the day today ? ~ Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ADAMS. So we can get over there and look at them ? * ~ Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. * , ~ ~ ~ ~ Mr. ADAMS. The turbotrains are in the terminal and they exist? Mr. NELSON. YeS,sir, they surely do. * ~ Mr. ADAMS. All right. What is your roadbed situation on the New Haven ? ~ ~ Mr. NELSON. We have put in up to now a little over a million dollars into the roadbed on the New Haven. We will add about another $500,- 000 or $600,0000. This will not by any means result in as good a road- bed as we have between Washington and New York, * but it is * going to be- Mr. ADAMS. New Haven roadbed is pretty bad? Mr. NELSON. Well, it is pretty curvy. Mr. ADAMS. What sort of speed and schedule and when would you take off on them? Mr. NELSON. We would hope sometime in the summer, I say hope sometime this summer, and unless there is some unforeseen technical breakdown we will be in operation by the end of the summer, with four round trips a day between New York and Boston. Mr. ADAMS. How many hoi rs? PAGENO="0056" 52 Mr. NELSON. In 3 ]~ours and 15 minutes which is a 1-hour reduction from present schedules. Top speeds. will be about~ 120 miles an hour. ~ Mr. ADAMS. Anduewly designed ears you mentioned. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir, completely new. Mr. ADAMS. In addition to the turbine power, you will have newly designed cars ? Mr. NELSON. These are integrated. ~ Mr. ADAMS. These are integrated? Mr. NELSON. These are self-propelled cars. Mr. ADAMS. Who `designed these cars ? Who are they by? Mr. NELSON. United Aircraft Corp. Mr. ADAMS. And they are over in the station where you can see them? ~ Thank you very much, thank you Mr. Nelson, I appreciate it. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Watson? Mr. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was not here to hea~r~the i~ariier testimony, but I want to ask perhaps one or two questions related to this. I strongly support the effort being made in this field, but as Mr. Lang knows and certainly the other members of this committee and probably a number of people listening know, we have justgone through some experiencesin the full committee in refer- ence to rail safety, and, Dr. Nelson, we have had quite a problem there. We were convinced by the Department and many other agencies that railroads, even in their present state, are very unsafe. You stress the fact that we are trying to. get tii~ roadibeds to accommodate trains with speeds of 150 miles per hour. What is the ~fety factor ; how is that going to be affected ? Mr~ NELSON. Well,. we know that the main-line roadbed between Washington and New York on which the demonstration trains will run is at a par in every respect with any . roadbed anywhere in the world with the ~possihle exception of the level of the catenary wire. There we have some shortcomings in comparison, for example, with the Jap- anese. But with that exception, most of that line is at a par with any railroad anywhere. We have paid particular attention to safety matters in the building of the equipment, and the cars have built into them redundancies in several respects, in braking, in speed control, and so on. We have put into these cars, and the U.S. Góyérnment has paid for this, popout windows so that, in the event of a crisis situation, the passengers can get out of the train quickly. So, these cars have every safety feature `that is available at the present time and in some cases we have redundancies in the system which make it almost impossible for any situation to occur which would cause damage or injury. Mr. WATSON. I heard you earlier say that you have raised- Mr. PICKLE. Would'the gentleman yield? Mr. WATSON. Yes. Mr. PICKLE. I want to ask a question related to theaspect of safety that the gentleman from South Carolina has raised. Do you have any figures to indicate thesafety record of the Japanese train system, the Tokaido high-speed system? Mr. NELSON. Yes, we do. Mr. PICKLE. What have they been? PAGENO="0057" 53 Mr. NELSON. There have been no accidents of any ` kind involving passengers in the years since the Japanese system has been in opera- tion. However, there have been quite a number of injuries and fatal- ities of workmen on the roadbed, but no accidents involving passengers. Mr. PIcKLE. All right, thank you, and I yield. Mr. WATSON. Let's pursue that a little further. You say there have been quite a number of accidents and fatalities involving workmen on the roadbed. What about other cars and so forth ? I have been over to Japan and it is amazing to me that I drive a block without killing people because they are just like this all the time. But what about your crossings, what particular features would you have or would they all be elevated? Mr. NELSON. Well, as to the Japanese on the new Tokaido line-my comments are to that stretch of railroad-there are no crossings on the new Tokaido line. We have crossings on the main line of the Penn- ~ entral between Washington and New York. There are no grade crossings north of the State of Delaware. We are going to be able to close up some of the crossings. We have spent a good deal of time in conjunction with the States and the counties to improve crossing protection. Everything is being done, I believe, that can be done, to make the crossings that must remain open as safe as possible. You understand we just cannot eliminate the crossings even if we wanted to in time for this 2-year demonstration. Mr. WATSON. I am sure yOU will have practical troi~ble there, but I just thought it would be wise to bring in the safety factor and have a little dialog on that. I imagine Mr. Lang knows thatwe wr~stled with this problem and it is certainly serious. If we increase the speed pcr-~ haps, in turn, it would jeopardize the safety factor. Mr. NELSON. The Penn-Central, formerly the Pennsylvania Rail- road, has spent a good deal of money on improvement of the right-of- way. It has already spent some $32 million and they will finally spend some $35 million. This has included bridge strengthening ~nd a good part of it has gone into areas where safety is involved. * ~ Mr. WATSON. Just one final question, Mr. Chairman, ~ if If may : I believe we expect'the 747's to be in operation by the latter part of 1969 orl9lO,Mr.Lang? Mr. LANG. Yes. Mr. WATSON. What is the number of passengers they will carry? ~ ~ Mr. NELSON. It has a variable configuration. Boeing ha~ a number of mockups. One of them is 400, for example. It can go, as I under- stand it, up to 450. S S ~ Mr. WATSON. 450 people. Well, I should think we would be looking at the transportation, ground transportation, problem in trying to take care of these 74Vs. Someon~ said, or at least I heard it said, that they have about 19 scheduled to come into Dulles here. With 450 people per plane, there is going to be a problem of getting baggage and people into Washington and over to Friendship, and so forth. Mr. NELSON. Well, making a determination of the role that high- speed ground transportation can play in the improvement of airport access is a very important part of this program. Mr. WATSON. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Picii~.. I believe the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Kuyken- dali, has a question. PAGENO="0058" 54 Mr. KtTYKENDALL. I would like to pursue something we got into just momentarily with the Secretary. It is both near and dear to me and something I consider just essential if we are to succeed in this overall program, no matter how good our equipment is. Do you anticipate the employment under contract, of course, of an advertising agency upon the launching of the really serious part of our tests? Mr. NELSON. Well, so far as the Penn-Central demonstration is concerned, our contract provides that this is the responsibility of the Penn-Central. The contract is specific, however that the Penn-Central will conduct sufficient advertising to assure the public full informa- tion of the availability and the nature of the service. This is stipulated in our contract with the railroad. To my knowledge, the railroad has made very substantial plans for carrying out advertising programs. Mr. KIJYKENDALL. Even not knowing whether the Penn-Central for instance, intends to employ or use a capable advertising agency? I see a gentleman over here nodding his head. Mr. NELSON. I would not care to comment on the capability of the advertising agency, but the Penn-Central-- Mr. KuYi~i~NnAi.L. The reason I am saying this is because I want to make myself clear. I think it is absolutely essential that, no matter how many charm schools the crews have gone to, if an ad is not run telling the public about the charm schools you are not going to get any customers from the charm school. This is a fact of life in mer- chandising. I respect the railroads' great ability in hauling freight and running railroads, but I have not been a great admirer of their merchandising techniques over the past few years and this is one reason for it. Mr. NELSON. I agree with you, and that is one of the reasons why we tried to be just as specific as we could in our contract. Mr. KIJYKENDALL. I am trying to be specific here today. I hope they get competent people. Mr. PIcici~E. Dr. Nelson, in the general sense with respect to the project we have been carrying on, are you satisfied with the progress that has been made in your department ? Have you been scheduling as much as expected or what is your overall recommendation at this point? Mr. NELSON. No, sir, I am not satisfied. But maybe I was asking for too much. We have h~d difficulties in a number of areas. I am afraid that these difficulties tend to ~be endemic so I guess I shouldn't complain too loudly. We have had problems in getting qualified personnel onto our staff. This is partly as a result of a general scarcity of knowl- edgeable, capable and competent people in this field, which is a heritage of a number of years of lack of attention to these problems. However, I must say that the current very buoyant level of economic activity of the economy as a whole has made it much more difficult to attract good people into the Government. So I would say we have not been as successful there as 1 wish we had been. PAGENO="0059" 55 Secondly, I think it is fair to say we have not been as successful in dealing with the industry, despite the fact that I believe the industry is doing the very best job it can. I am speaking now of the rail in- dustry and the rail equipment supply industry. I would have hoped that the industry would have been able to attract more resources and to commit more resources to this field. ji am particularly disappointed that we have not had a greater interest in this program from the industries which have been associated with space, defense and aero- nautics. Mr. PIcKu~. Now, have you asked them for assistance? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. In what way have they not cooperated? Mr. NELSON. Well, in my judgment, we have not had as much inter- est in our program in the sense of following up with proposals for re- search and developments. I p~rfectly well understand why they haven't. Vietnam has had a great. impact on these firms, and the tre- mendous expansion in demand for air transportation has affected a good many of them, but you asked me where I felt we had not~- Mr. PICKLE. Are you saying that, if these defense industries or defense-oriented industries could pursue this type of a project with the same resources that we would make a great deal of progress? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. But on what basis should we have expected this ? We haven't had money really to pursue this with them. Mr. NELSON. I think this certainly is a major problem. We had au- thorization for $90 million, but we were cut back to $52 million in appropriations. Mr. PICKLE. Well, the appropriation we have before us now, the~ $16.2 million that you are asking can't do much more than carry on the present work and possibly set up a demonstration site somewhere at the same time. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. And your sum, your request of $16.2 million is for a 1 year appropriation ? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. That is fiscal year 1969. Mr. PICKLE. Now then, a year later you will submit then a recom- mendation for fiscal year 1970 or 1971 ? ~ Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. ` Mr. PIoKu~. And would it b~ anticipated that it would be larger than $16 million ?, ~ Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Assuming our financial picture is improved. Mr. NELSON. The figure the Secretary mentioned in his testimohy was $36'/2 million. Mr. PICKLE. I see. Mr. NELSON. But that is not in the President's budge.t. The 161/2 million is in the President's budget. Mr. PICKLE. Yes, that is budgeted. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PTCKLE. And we have a letter from the Bureau of the Budget indicating that was in the budget for that particular year? PAGENO="0060" Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Has there been any delay with respect to the building of cars ? Have you had to wait for the cars to be manufactured or the roadbeds to be prepared or have they been dovetailed close together. Mr. Ni~tsoN. Well, the Pennsylvania Railroad had its roadbed largely upgraded by October of 1967 when we had hoped to start the demonstration. Mr. PICKLE. At their expense? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir, at their expense. The cars were not built at that time. To some extent this reflects an underestimation of the complexity involved in building the cars, but also to some extent it does involve the generally strained situa- tion of the resources in the American econom~y today. It is difficult to get competent people in sufficient numbers. There have been delays in materials. For example, United Aircraft was held up for some 54 days because the Air Force had taken an aluminum press. There have been a number of iflstances of that kind where the Department of Defense has had prio&y and the needs of the carbuilders have simply had to stand aside. Mr. PICKLE. Did you wish to ask any questions, Mr. Adams? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, I wanted to ask a question and make this state- merit. Last Friday I went to New York on the shuttle which. was to leave at 4 o'clock. I left the office at about 3 :15 and the shuttle finally left at 4 :30. I got into LaGuardia about 5 :30 and downtown sometime after 6. I just want you to know that when you start the train schedule between New York and Washington, D.C., if we can go to that terminal here in a cab and be dropped in the center of New York City in 3 hours, it is very attractive to at least sOme of us. So I hope you will inform us in accordance with the question of the gentleman from Tennessee about advertising. I think if you let us know we will be there, thank YOU, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PICKLE. Dr. Nelson, I wish that you would furnish for the committee for possible inclusion In the re~ord a breakdown of how the $52 million has been spent. Mr. NELSON. Yes,. sir. ThOse figures appear hi the expianatory statement submitted earlier by Secretary Boyd. (See p.9 and appendix B, p. 32.) Mr. Picicti~. Also in what ~ategories and, as much as you can,. how you anticipate the additional sum you are asking .for now will be spent. ., (Information requestedfoliows:) 56 I PAGENO="0061" 57 ifiGH-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION 3-YEAR PROGRAM tIn thousands of dollarsi Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year 1969 1970 1971 I. Research and development: Systemsengineering 1,000 1,000 1,000 High-speed railroad R. & D.: Research car field testing 300 500 500 Railvehicledynamics. 1,900 2,305 . 470 Vehicle suspension and guidance 400 300 3, 500 ~ Experimental track structures 200 200 ~ 200 Vehicle drive systems 800 1,300 300 Unconventional systems R. & D.: TACV 2,900 10,800 2,900 Tube vebicles 1, 000 4,260 2,475 Advanced technology: Communications and control 340 2, 050 5, 900 Obstacle detection 300 500 1,350 Linearelectric motor 1,400 1,085 1,000 Magneticsuspension 146 300 500 Powerc~Ilection 400 2,820 3,250 Guideways 750 1,000 2,000 Safety and human.engineering 370 571 Testfacility 950 1,800 1,375 Administration 434 500 500 Total 13,220 31,090 27,791 II. Demonstrations: New York-Washington demonstration 630 400 100 New York-Boston demonstration 260 800 100 Data collection 1, 200 1, 000 1, 000 Airportgroundaccess 500 2,850 2,500 Administration 390 390 390 Total 2,980 5,440 4,090 Grand total 16,220 36,530 31,881 Mr. PICKLE. I want also to voice what I am sure is the feeling of every member of this committee and the Congress that, as we consider this problem, we must keep in mind we are trying to find ways to improve passenger service and not ways that we can cut out passenger service. I get discouraged sometime about the lack of volume on the trains, but I think we must admit it is because railroad passenger service simply has not kept pace, hasn't been modern. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. And I think the railroad companies themselves will admit they have spent their money in other areas not in passenger ServicEs. I said earlier this morning that railway transportation ought to be probably the cheapest mode of transportation we have and it is about the only hope to move large bodies of people, so we must pursue the possibility in this thing. Two years ago we had some concern, I was one, that this might be pouring good money after bad. I am convinced that we must carry it on. I personally think that the answer will lie perhaps not in our rail system we are talking about now, but something entirely innova- tive, even a tube type of train system. PAGENO="0062" 58 Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir ; right. Mr. PICKLE. But we must find ways to move these large bodies of people and I just hope that you pursue this demonstration project with all the vigor that your Department has, and that you institute a good test facility somewhere so that all phases of these types of sys- tems can be tried, because therein lies our answer and our hope of mass transportation. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Does anybody else have any questions? Mr. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Lang, as I understand some of these turbotrains or at least some cars are down at the station now? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir, Union Station. Mr. WATSON. I recall we were invited to take a ride to Bowie or something. Will that be available during the day? Mr. LANG. Unfortunately, Congressman Watson, they are going to have to take the trains north at noon, so I am afraid that the oppor- tunity has been missed. Mr. NELSON. We. have 10 minutes. Mr. LANG. They made runs at 9, 10, and 11 o'clock. The runs were originally scheduled last week and we had to take them off. Mr. WATSON. At what speeds? Mr. LANG. 110 miles an hour. I rode the 9 o'clock run. It was the first opportunity I had had to ride the trains. I had seen them before, and I must say the ride was extremely gratifying to me, because they do a good job and I think they offer real promise for a little bit of revitalization of passenger business in this country. Mr. PICKLE. When are these trains going to come back that you just made reference to? Mr. NELSON. These trains will not be back in Washington now. This is the last time they will be in Washington. They will now go up to New England and run, to be seen in New England for a week or two, and then we are going to start crew training and hope that we will go into operation very shortly. Mr. PICKLE. I noticed that there was a statement by one official in the paper this morning which was in considerable criticism of the Pennsylvania system, the manner in which the train bearing Senator Kennedy's body and the group accompanying him was conducted. Do you care to comment on the conditions of the cars, the tracks, the safety provisions or the lack of them? Mr. NELSON. I would be happy to, but I think Mr. Lang should. Mr. LANG. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know that It am fully in- formed of the precautions and the special arrangements that the Penn- Central made in connection with that train, but I do know they felt they had done everything they could to assure safety of bystanders and watchers. Mr. PICKLE. Well, I thank you geutlemen for appearing before the committee. If there are no other questions Mr. LANG. Mr. Chairman, there is just one other slight thing I think perhaps would help clear up the record. PAGENO="0063" . 59 The Secretary earlier when h~ was here in referring to the authori- zation levels associated with this program suggested, I think moor- rectly, that the $16.2 million, which is in the President's budget for fiscal year 1969, were under the original $90 million authorization. That, of course, is not so since the $90 million authorization was for fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 1968, and the $16.2 million in the Presi- dent's budget for fiscal year 1969 would have to be authorized by the bill which is before you this morning. Mr. PICKLE. I don't know as I understand you. You are asking for a sum of $16.2 million in addition to the original $90 million that was asked? Mr. ADAMS. The $90 million was asked but never given. Mr. NELSON. The remainder of the $90 million has now expired. Mr. PICKLE. So this is not in addition, you are just asking for a total of $16.2 million? Mr. LANG. That is right, we are starting out all over again, so to speak, with this new authorizing legislation. Mr. PICKLE. I understand. Well, thank you, gentlemen, again for coming. The committee is adjourned. (Whereupon at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 13, 1968.) PAGENO="0064" PAGENO="0065" I RIGIHE-SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION- EXTENSION THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBOOMMITrEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND AERONAUTICS, OOMMI~TEE ON 1NTERSTATJ~ AND FoREiGN COMMERCE, Washington, D.C. ~ The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2318, Raybum House Office Building, Hon. Samuel N. Friedel (chairman of the siibcommitthe) presiding. Mr. Fiw~aEL. The meeting will come to order. This is a continuation of the hearing we had yesterday on H.R. 16024 to extend for 1 year the act of September 30, 1965, relating to high-speed ground transportation. ~ ~ ~ I am sorry I had to leave for another committee yesterday, and one thing I want to have cleared up is that the House bill calls for 1 year, the Senate bill calls for 2 years, and the Secretwry would like to have it extended for 3 years. I have the figures here, requested at yesterday's session. The amount requested for fiscal year 1969 wouldbe $16,220,000, for the year 1970 it would be $36,530,000, and for fiscal year 1971 it would be $31,881,000. , Our first witness this morning will be the senior vice president of the Penn Central Railroad, Mr. Robert Minor. You may proceed. Mr. DEvINE. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield, I would like to say Mr. Minor is an old friend of mine originally from the Columbus, Ohio, area, and who has made great progress in `the railroad indus- try and I am happy to welcome him as awitness. Mr. MINoR. Thank you, Mr. Devine. Mr. FRIEDEL. I understand you are a former Marylander. Mr. MINoR. Yes, sir. STATEMENT OP ROBERT W. MINOR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PENN CENTRAL RAILROAD Mr. MINoR. I am very happy to support the extension of the High Speed Ground Transportation Act. Penn Central recognizes the need for orderly and efficient program planning and concurs with the recom- mendation made yesterday by the Secretary of Transportation that you consider extending the act for 2 years instead of 1 year. We at Penn Central are optirnist~ic over the prospects for success of this marketing demonstration. The so-called Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston-with its burgeoning population, high concentration of industry and ever-increasing urbanization- (61) PAGENO="0066" 62 offers a tiimely ~nd promising opportunity to test the market de- mand for modern, high-speed rail passenger service. We are convinced that high-speed rail transportation offers the best sdlution to the transportation problems in our multiplying urban corridors. It is clearly the most economic means of moving large numbers of people through crowded metropolitan areas. The unacceptable alternative is a steady worsening in the ability of our highways and airways to handle peakloads. The resulting con- gestion threatens health and safety and represents a growing economic loss in wasted man-hours. We cannot continue to strangle our cities and stifle our economy for want of solutions that are obtainable today through technological innovation, creative marketing, and ambitious promotion. The time to unclog our arteries of commerce is now-before the spiraling rise in intercity passenger traffic overwhelms us. The High Speed Ground Transportation Act is the vehicle by which we may determine the sure course to our objective-the maintenance of the high degree of personal mobility that is essential to a dynamic society. Under the leadership of Transportation Secretary Alan S. Boyd, Federal Railroad Administrator A. Scheffer Lang, and Dr. Robert A. Nelson, director of the Office of High Speed Ground Transporta- tion, we have made significant progress in developing the potential for high-speed rail passenger service in the Northeast Corridor. Penn Central's participation in the development of high speed passenger service between Washington and New York has been right on schedule. We have dedicated our best efforts, assigned top engineers and technicians and have spent substantial amounts of money to help assure the success of this program. Once the decision was made to participate in this program with the Department of Transportation and various railways suppliers, Penn Central embarked on an extensive 2-year program to upgrade its roadway and related facilities between New York and Washington. The track upgrading program alone included the following require- ments : new welded rail, 298 miles : rail surface grinding, 302 mi1es; track raising and tie renewals, 352 miles ; ties renewed, 388,000; switch timbers installed, 160,000 lineal feet ; joint welding and reformed splices, 67 miles. Tn addition, we constructed the new high-level train platforms at Wilmington, Baltimore, and Washington, and at Baltimore we now have in operation a moving ramp for the convenience of passengers and their baggage. We completely rebuilt Penn Central Station in New York and extensively modernized Union Station in Washington. Other improvements included upgrading our electrical system, install- ing the most modern signaling devices and replacing `the standard- weight overhead power wire, the catenary system, with heavy-weight wire. By October 196t all necessary plant improvements were completed and Penn Central was ready. for operation of the Metrolmer service. We have already spent $31,740,000 of our own funds on plant imnrovement to prepare for high-speed service. We have an additional $17 million scheduled for investment in the project. The Penn Central roadbed between New York and Washington now is the finest in the Nation. PAGENO="0067" 63 1*11 addition we are investing approximately a million dollars in a training program for some 2,600 employees in all categories of service. This is in cooperation with the Departments of Labor and the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare which are supplying an additional half million dollars to assist in the training of employees for the Metroliner service. We are experimenting now with a new dining service on our regular trains in which parlor car passengers are served meals in their seats. This airline style food service will be a feature of the Metroliner service and has been extremely well received by our customers. The new Metroliner cars will be the finest passenger cars in the world for this type of service. We are employing the best of the tried and proven componei'~ts combined with the latest developments in all fields of technology. The performance characteristics of the new Metroliners far exceed those of the cars on Japan's new Tokaido line, the world's only true high-speed service in daily operation. The Metroliners have an acceler- atmg rate of 1 mile per hour per second from . zero to 100 miles per hour compared with 0.68 mile per hour per second for the Japanese trains. Motors produce a maximum of 2,560 horsepower per car versus only 1,120 per car on the Tokaido line. Many of the freight locomotives in service today on the major railroads have 2,500 horsepower so you can compare the power in these passeno~er cars. The Japanese trains have reachecf' 159 miles per hour in testing, but in production operate at speeds up to 130 miles per hour. Our specifications call for a maximum speed of 160 miles per hour with a six-car train, and we have already exceeded that figure and reached a speed of 164 miles per hour with two cars. Because of our high strength and higher performance requirements and our different electrical supply system, the Metroliners are some- what heavier than the Tokaido cars. To complement such safety features as the strongest car body, sturdy cast steel trucks, the largest passenger car axles, and the absence of any flammable fuels aboard the train, we have also insisted upon a superior braking system. In fact, there are three braking systems : dynamic (electric brakiug), electro-pneumatic which is a cOmb~nation of electric and air, and straight pneumatic in the air brake system. We specified these systems not only to make these high-speed cars safe, but to provide the high rate of deceleration essential to our reliability meeting the proposed operating schedule. Another development is the new hook-type coupler, designed es- pecially for this service. It represents a complete departure from any- thing ever before used in long-distance intercity railroad operations. We were able to specify such a coupler because the equipment is not being interchanged with other railroads. The new design gives us a strong, tight, self-locking coupling between cars. Instantaneously, it makes or breaks the mechanical, electrical, and pneumatic connections. There `are 102 contacts in the couplers which provide passage for the various electrical circuits between `the cars. One of the two propulsion system's employs a silicon controlled rectifier system using thyristors for phase-shift voltage control. This is the first `time that such solid state devices have been employed on PAGENO="0068" 64 railway passenger cars in the United States or on any railroad propul- sion equipment having such high horsepower. We have in these cars a high degree of sophistication unmatched anywhere in the world. When the Metroliners are operated as an eight-car train (with a seating capacity of 472 passengers) , lhey in effect are equivalent to a train of eight locomotives. They will contain more than 70 miles of wire and some 25,000 electronic components. Obviously, we were disappointed when the cars were not ready at the same time our plant improvements were completed. However, many of the individual problems delaying our acceptance of the cars and, ultimately, the demonstration, have already been identified by the various builders and equipment suppliers. Substantial resources have been ~ and are being dedicated to the prompt resolution of the remaining problems-and we are confident they will be overcome soon. When the Metroliner service is ready to begin, we will employ every practical modern marketing technique to "merchandise" the new concept. The public will be advised, informed, and enticed through an extensive multimedia advertising campaign. Now, our motives are not purely altruistic. As I said we have invested $32 million in the Metroliner project already. By the time the demon- stration begins we will have some $50 million of our own money at stake. We want to get a return on it and we are confident-and will make every effort to insure-that our investment will produce a rea- sonabie return. Moreover, and perhaps more important, in terms of long range public benefit, the return will more than justify the relatively modest Federal investment in this program. We strongly urge that the High Speed Ground Transportation Act be extended for an additional 2 years. Thank you very much. Mr. FRIEDEL. I want to thank you, Mr. Minor, for your very fine statement and for the progress you have made. One thing I was hoping you would dwell on is something which has been in my mind for a very long time. To get passengers: back on the trains, you have to provide ~wple parking at the stations, and I think that ought to be one of the things brought into the picture, too, because people nowadays don't mind driving a few miles to a train station if they can get the proper. parking space there. I hope in the future your plans will provide for ample parking space around the station. If this is done I think you will get a lot of passengers back on the train that you have lost. Mr. MINOR. We are well aware of that problem, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, the plans for the National Visitors Center here at Union Station contemplate the building of a quite large garage. Mr. FRIEDEL 4,000 cars. Mr. MINoR. 4,000 cars over the train sheds in back of the existing station. In our suburban areas, and this will apply to certain of the stations between New York and Washington, there are plans for building new stations to serve large `areas of the surrounding suburb and areas with `ample parking space. This is true in Maryland and also in New' Jersey. PAGENO="0069" 65 Mr. FRrI~nEL. I am glad to hear that. ~ Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Devin~ ? Mr. D~v~E. Mr. Minor I see in your statement where you say your industry is right on soh&lule. Yesterday, Mr. Boyd testified, I don't believe you were here at the time, but he pointed out and I quote from his statement. The Task Force also found that all concerned with the project, government, railroad, oar builder and equipment operator, were overly optimistic with re- spect to the planning and scheduling. And apparently you haven't run into this problem in Penn Central. I would also like to commend your company for investing what ultimately will be $50 million in this project of your own funds, and it is a good thing to have people coming before congressional corn- mittees not asking for Federal funds to do everything. I think your position on the bill is quite sound and I appreciate your testimony. Mr. MINOR. Thank you. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Kuykendall. Mr. KUYKENDALL. It iS good to have you, Mr. Minor. Let me delve into an area that we talked about some yesterday and which I think is awfully important. I know you are not quite at this stage yet but I know enough about `this phase of the business world to know that you have `to start considering this quite early. Basically how are you going to market this commodity? Mr. MINOR. Well, as I included in my statement, Mr. Congressman, we intend to market this through advertising to insure that the public is well aware that the service exists and what the service is. In other words, that they can travel from the heart of New York to the heart of Washington in 3 hours. Now, this in and of itself, I think, when they begin to compare the driving time to the airports, spend an hour and a half circling Wash- ington Airport like I did last night, when you measure this time from center city to center city against the elapsed time center city to center city by air I think we are going to be competitive and I think a lot of businessmen who will need to come from Washington or from Phil- adeiphia down to New York will want to use our convenient service. Mr. KUYRENDALL, Let's be a little more specific here. How long do you anticipate giving to this marketing test? Do you not agree with me you are not going to have a sudden success? Mr. MINoR. No, sir ; I agree with that, yes, sir. Mr. KUYEENDALL. And I think if we give the impression here we are going to get a sudden success we have done a disservice. Mr. MINOR. Let me put it this way, Mr. Kuykendall, we are going to push an advertising campaign and a marketing campaign, and by marketing campaign this includes adjustment of schedules, changes in the confirmation of the cars, whatever is necessary to maximize the number of people who are going to ride this train, and we. are going to push it as long as we have to until it is successful because we have got too big a stake in this. Now, I am talking over a period of a couple of years. Mr. KUYKENDALL. I heard the remark yesterday given, I don't know whether it was Dr. Nelson or someone else, who mentioned the fact PAGENO="0070" 66 you were sending some of your people to charm school, and this rather excited me, only if it is merchandised right. I like to see the old con- servative, staid railroad industry thinking about something glamorous because, in my opinion, it is going to have to be glamorous to sell it, just that glamorous, because I don't think the fact and figures are going to sell it. I think you are going to have to get people excited and get people talking about it. I think it is going to have to become the thing somehow to ride a train Washington-New York instead of ride an airplane. Mr. MINOR. We are very hopeful that we will be-that this will be done with enormous competence. I might point out to you that the Penn Central and its predecessor companies were the initial companies in the U.S. rail companies to set up marketing departments in our companies, based primarily at that time on freight marketing but certainly the same principals are applicable to the passenger traffic. I appreciate your comments and we intend to have a real go at it. Mr. KUYKENDALL. Thank you, sir ; and I appreciate the very con- structive part your company is playing in this far-moving program. Mr. MINoR. Thank you. Mr. Fiui~nEr~. Mr. Devine ? Mr. DEVTNE Mr. Chairman, may I ask two clarifying questions, please~ Mr. Minor, I don't understand what a thyristor is. Would you for the sake of the record-it says "our propulsion system employs a silicon controlled rectifier system using thyristors for phase-shift voltage con- trol." Will you describe what this is? Mr. MINoR. I told Dr. Stevenson earlier that I knew I was going to get that question. Yes, sir. A thyristor, as I understand it, is an electronic device, solid state, which operates as a valve does on a hydrant, it slows down or increases the amount of voltage which flows through, and these are set in series so this tremendous voltage can be brought down to workable levels in the * operation of the train, for cQntrol purposes. Mr. DEVINE. Fine. The other question, perhaps you can describe it in layman's terms, you have a new type hook coupler, is there any way you can describe that? Mr. MINoR. Yes ; I can describe that. In appearance the coupler is unlike any of the couplers w~ are all familiar with, the standard inter- locking coupler. Mr. DEVINE. Yes. Mr. MINOR. In appearance this coupler has a face of approximately 1 square foot, perhaps a little larger, and across this face are 1Q~ differ- ent connections, so that when the two faces of the cars being coupled come together each of the 102 electronic control circuits is automati- cally- Mr. DEVTNE. Drawn together. Mr. MINOR. Drawn together. Phe pneumatic system, the air hose system is also drawn together in this way. PAGENO="0071" You see the problem with an innovation of the sort in the railroad industry is that we are, we necessarily must be, uniform throughout the industry because we interchange cars so much. Now, in this case, happily, we don't have to interchange these cars with anyone, we keep them local to our railroad so we can innovate all we like and this is an enormously significant development not only for this train, but for all trains in the future. Mr. DEvINE. Thank you very much. Mr. KIJYKENDALL. Will you yield? You mentioned electronic connections for coupling, and the first thing that pops into my mind is the possibility of the electronic failure creating a lack of coupling. I know this-I think we ought to clarify it in the record. Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir. It would not create the lack of coupling. It might create an inter- ference in the control system. These electronic connections have noth- ing to do with holding the car together, the two cars together. They have to do with relaying impulses through the control system of the entire string of cars to make them responsive to the engineer's elec- tronic controls. Mr. KUYKENDALL. I see. Mr. MINoR. Someone described this car as being a rolling computer in a very unfriendy environment, and I think it is a very good description. Mr. FRIEDEIL. Mr. Minor, I just want to ask two questions ; One, in your opening statement you said that you consider extending the act for 2 years instead of 1 year? Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir. Mr. FinEDEL. And my opening remark was that I understand Dr. Nelson would like to have it extended for 3 years. What is your opinion on that? Mr. MINOR. I have no feel for that, Mr. Chairman. If the subcom- mitte would like-we think that 1 year is probably too short. We think that in the interests of orderly planning and programing 2 years would be better, but *3 years would be fine. Mr. FRIEDEL. All right. One other question now : On page ~, you said track operating pro- grams are including the following requirements, and I notice one is track `raising and tie renewals 352 miles. What is the track raising? Mr. MINoR. `\~\T~ have highly mechanized. equipment, Mr. Chairman, which operates both on and off track. This particular device goes down the track and lifts the rails off the ties in order to permit a reahnernent of the rails and replacement of the tie bars, the rail anchors, where necessary, and generally a renovation of the rail, and we have gone ~352 miles this shows. Mr. FRTEDEL. Thank you. Mr. MINOR. Thank ycai, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Our next witness will be the Secretary o~ Commerce of the Corn- monwealth of Pennsylvania, Mr. Clifford Jones. I 67 PAGENO="0072" 68 STATEMEflT. OP HON. CLIFFORD L. JONES, SECRETARY OF C!OMMEROZ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and m~rnbers of the sub- committee. I most appreciate being allowed the opportunity to testify. We did not realize the hearing would be on as short notice as it was and thus I do not have preparedtestimony. I will have to speak from notes. My name is Clifford L. Jones. I am Secretary of Commerce of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I would like to speak to you not only in that capacity but also as vice chairmall of the Governor's Science and Engineering Foundation and as the ~overnrnental coun- selor assigned to Governor Shafer's Science Advisory Committee. 1 am here to testify in favor of the extension of the high-speed ground transportation program for 3 years. The Commonwealth is most appreciative, without even having been asked, to have the Northeast corridor extension run through one of our metropolitan areas, namely the Philadelphia area, and we are also cognizant of the fact that some of our Pennsylvania industries have been responsive and have bid successfully on various contracts in what we consider to be the new mode of transportation for the very near future. We have not been just "reaping where we sowed not" for we,too, have sowed. Our research and evidence and facts that we have uncovered to date in Pennsylvania make us believe that the new technology in the field of ground transportation is a must for Pennsylvania if we are to continue our economic de.vel9pment. I thought you would be interested in our commitments on this new role of high-speed ground transportation from the Commonwealth's point of view since 1t~66, and I have present in the hearing room our staff member, Mr. William llJnderwood who will help me if I falter in questioning, who has been responsible for our coordination on high- speed rail projects in, high-speed projects of all types in, Pennsylvania. Our commitments include a study, with the then Carnegie Institute of Technology, on the Keystone corridor in Pennsylvania. It also in- eludes a study of the transportation industry of Pennsylvani a which was completed in 1966, what we call the Klauder report, which is a study also financed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on high- speed passenger service connecting between Philadelphia and Harris- burg on electric lines and connecting to the Northeast Corridor which is under discussion today ; and finally a much larger study and we have had such a demand for it I only have mimeographed copies of it now, on what we call the Westinghouse study on the demand, supply, and economic impact of transport in the Keystone corridor through Penn- sylvania and the metropolitan area and markets of the Midwest, This study covers the entire section of Pennsylvania from the point of view of all types of high-speed ground transportation. We feel in Pennsylvania, because of our geographical location, that we have had to be a pioneer in transportation. `fl~ fact of the wagon trails and old turnpikes, and these had State monetary support and local and State government helped the canals and the railroads; the first east and west highway pioneer of the turnpikes was the Peunsyl- I PAGENO="0073" 69 vania Turnpike, `and our present highway program in Pennsylvania is the astronomical sum for us of a billion dollars, and this is ~ot just for Pennsylvania,. but to open up arteriesto the east and west and north and south, and we have been conscious, too, that this can't be done with just Federal doflars~ * In the Appalachia program where we have been allowed 70 percent for north-south highways per mile, the State has used less `than 50 per- cent, we have purchased our own right-of-way, we paid for our own engineering and design, and because we I~elieve in the tomorrow as well as today we have built these highw~tys four lanes instead of two lanes so we can open up Appalachia north and south for tomorrow as well as today. I mention that because our past secretary of highways, Henry Harrel, and our present secretary of highways, Robert Bartlett, believe firmly that it is not possible for new highways alone to solve the prob- lems of passenger and freight transportation. One of our metropolitan areas alone is costing now to acquire, just acquire, not build, a new highway, $40 million a mile. We do not believe that you can continue with just highway develop- ment with its displacement of people and businesses, it is bisecting of important and vital recreation and wilderness areas, and we believe there must be new methods of technology and ground transportation particularly when existing rights-of-way can be used with costs for welded steel rails at $60,000 a mile or $120,000 for two tracks, and we came here to tell you that we are going to continue to do our part in advancing the goal and developing this new technology in ground transportation now and you have our commitment.that our State, both at a governmental level and at a private industry level, will do every- thing it can within our capabilities and resources of funds to help pioneer this new effort. Therefore, we would like to urge that you continue in your efforts here which have been so pioneering and we think will be so worth while in the future. Thank you for letting me testify. ~ Mr. FRIEDtL. I want to thank you, Mr. Jones, for your very fine statement, and for the work that you have done to help speed up this ground transportation system. . . Could we have a copy of those three reports of your studies there for our record or files? ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ Mr. JoNEs. Yes, sir, I will be happy to supply these to you. May I mai' them or would you-shall I leave these three that are here ?* . ~ . We further have committed ourselves to joining the northeastern corridor on a ground transportation rail project for passenger service between central Pennsylvania, specifically Harrisburg as its terminal point, and PhiladeJphia with connecting links through your Northeast corridor proj ect. ~o date we have committed ourselves for $2,035,000 for this project ~~hich involyes th~ purchase. andY engitieeriiig of these Costs. ~ ~As of yesterday, awards were made from our Scienceand Engineer- ing Foundation to Carnegie-Mellon in Pittsburgh for a grant for resi- dent professorships and visiting professorships in the field of high- speed ground transportation and a scholarship grant to the Urban Transit Council of Pittsburgh for the University of Pittsburgh, again in this same ~field, PAGENO="0074" 70 The Governor has recently cr~tthd a transportation committee with a budget of $600,000, $300,000 of which are appropriated funds and $300,000 were donated by Pennsylvania industries and foundations to make a systems approach to all forms of transportation in Pennsyl- vania, and in particular studying high speed and new methods of transportation. Recently the Olmsted. Air Force Base phased out of existence in Pennsylvania and the majority of this property had been turned over to the Commonwealth for airport usage, educational usage and some industrial usage, and among the plans in mind for the huge parking lot in that airport in conjunction with the city of Harrisburg we are planning a new transportation terminal to include both air, bus, and rail, at which this new demonstration study that we are proposing will undertake in the 4 years of its life, and incidentally that is one of the reasons that I am testifying for 3 years is that our contract with the Penn Central Railroad lasts for 4 years on our demonstration project on this route. Gentlemen, I don't think I have to say to you, because you know it better than I do, *th~t commerce, growth, and jobs depend on trans- portation. As evidence, you have heard of the Penn Central Railroad commitments, they have made a commitment to us of $2.5 million for the purchase of these cars, or 11 cars for our demonstration project, plus operating and maintenance costs for the 4 years, and in Pittsburgh a group of industrialists, Westinghouse, Mellon's, United States Steel, universities have formed an Urban Transit Council, they have helped organize a transportation institute at Carnegie-Mellon and they have funded two transportation conferences in the city of Pittsburgh which have been international in scope and character. Mr. FRTEm~L. Leave them with the staff. Mr. JONES. All right, I will do that. (The documents referred to were placed in the committee files.) Mr. FRn~DEL. Mr. Pickle, any questions? Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Jones, I certainly agree with your statement in the first page in which you point out-I stand corrected, I was reading the statement of Mr. Minor. May I ask then what is your organization, whom do you represent? Mr. JoNi~s. I am secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Com- merce. I am also vice chairman of their Science and Engineering Foun- dation in Pennsylvania. Mr. PICKLE. Well, I was handed the statement of Mr. Minor, and I though you were Mr. Minor. Mr. JONI~S. I must `apolog~e because I did not realize the hearing would be today and I did not know it until yesterday and I was at a meeting all day and d'~d not have time to prepare written testimony. Mr. PICicLE. I will ask you in general, do you think that the com- panies, that is Peirinsyhrania Railroad system, and the Department of Transportation are working in harmony and that you are making significant progr~ss on this, the east corridor problem? Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. We will be meeting on our o~n corridor proieet this afternoon with the Pennsylvania Railroad in Philadelphia. I feel they are making every effort, there has been some, as you know technological problems PAGENO="0075" 71 in cars but from the Penn Oentral's point of view I think on this project they have really demonstrated they want to move ahead and not hold back. Mr. PICKLE. Is Mr. Minor still here, Mr. Chairman? Mr. MINOL Yes. Mr. PICKLE. I don't propose to call you to the stand now, but after other witnesses are finished I would like to ask Mr. Minor some ques- tions. Mr. DEVINE. I want to compliment th~ gentleman. The absence of a prepared statement certainly did not bother your testimony. Thank you very much. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Devine. Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you. PURTIIIR STATEMRNT OP ROBERT W. MINOR Mr. PICKLE. If Mr. Minor will take the stand I would like to ques- tion him briefly. I was saying, I thought you were Mr. Minor. I did agree that the high-speed rail system properly was the most economi- cal and probably held the best hope for us to economically move people and, therefore, we must pursue our efforts on it now. On page 2 of your statement- Mr. MINOi~. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE (continuing) . You point out that you have dedicated your best interests, assigned your top engineers and technicians and spent a substantial amount of money to help assure the success of this program. Yesterday I was handed a little pamphlet of "The Case of the Van- ishing Passenger Train," which led one of the wire services to prepare a feature story which said the passenger train was going if not gone and the railroad companies were sheding no tears over it. Does this represent the sentiment of your organization? Mr. MINOR. No, sir. ~\There there is a public need for rail transportation, demonstrated public need capable of supporting rail transportation, we are all for it, and I think the boat evidence of that is the fact that we intend to spend and have spent already a sub~tantial part of $50 million in this program. Mr. PICKLE. I thought you testified it was around $32? . Mr. MINOR. $32 so far, we have $17 more to go. Mr. PICKLE. That was going to be my additionai question, $17 you plan. Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. During the pursuit of this pr~jeot 9 ~. Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir ; that is correct. Mr. PICKLE. I am glad to hear that. One reason I ask you that, 2 years ago I had some rather heated conversations with a representa- tive of the Penn Central and I had the feeling then that your official, I hope it wasn't you- Mr. MINOR. I don't think so, Mr. Congressman. Mr. PICKLE. I had the feeling then that they just more or less re- sented the fadt that we were raising questions about what the company or the lack of things that the Penn Central and other railroad corn- PAGENO="0076" 72 panies were doing. To methough, after 2 years of operation, if you have spent $32 and are going to spend another $17 or $18 million it would indicate to me your intent is to pursue this to the fullest, and I compliment you for itandI hope you maintain tius position. We. must find an answer. Mr. MINOR. Indeed we do. I must make our position perfectly clear, Mr. Congressman. When you are talking about the longer runs then there is doubt as to the future of the long haul passenger train. Mr. PICKLE.. I would agree with this. I think surely we are talking about the metropolitan or the urban movement between urban areas. Mr. MINOR. We think there is a great i~iarket there and we are gowg to find out.. . . Mr. PICKLE. Now, I noticed yesterday or the day before yesterday that one representative of the trainmen, brakemen, but anyway one of the employee representatives, had considerable criticism about Penn Central about the movement of the train and entourage of Senator Kennedy as his body was being brought from New York to Wash- ington. He had several things to say about the poor service, the poor cars, the brake going out, the accident that occurred on the tracks. Would you care to comment on this? Mr. MINOR. In general ; yes, sir. I hope you wrill forgive me if I do not comment in detail on the acci- dent at Elizabeth. That is a matter that involves legal liability. We ar~ at `present conducting a thorough investigation of that, the in- vestigation is not complete, and I think anything I would say about the details of that would be at best premature. As far as the other comments made by Mr. Charles Luna, whp is president of the Brotherhood of Railway rrrainmen, who was the author of th~ editorial- Mr. PICKLE. Yes, sir. * Mr. MINOR. We think it was both unfair and unwarranted. He corn- mented about the consist of the train and the mixture of cars. But those cars w~reselected~ from our available inventory of cars by rep- resentatives ~ of th~ Keirnedy organization by type * or car. Conse- quently, *it was ~ impossible for us to provide a train that was ~nade up entirely of, `for' example, stainless steel cars. We simply don't haive a stainless steel car with the configuration they needed. As far as the scheduling of the operation is c~ncerned, that train was scheduled to make that run in 4 hours and lOminutes. The train was delayed for two reasons. One, for safety, and two, at the request of the members of the Kennedy organization who were aboard ~ the train, so that the people lining, the tr~tcks would `have an opportunity to pay their last tribtdie to'Senator Kennedy. Mr. PICKLE. I would assume then that your report will be put In gether as qui~kly-. Mr.. MINOR. On the accident;' yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. As quiokly as you can. Mr. MINOR. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0077" 73 Mr. PIcKi~. Would you furnish this committee a oopy of such re- port that you make? Mr. MINOR. We will be glad to supply the committee any material which can be made public as a result of the investigation ; yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. I imderstand. Mr. Ohairman, if I may make one more observation to the gentle- men who is representing the Penn-Central. Two years ago I was some- what of a reluctant dragon on this demonstration project. I didn't kiiow whether we were going to be pouring good money after bad and we have had some delays and some heartbreaks in the progress of the schedule of this project. The more and more I look at it it seems to me we have got to pursue the possibilities on this thing. I think your organization as just representing one railway company in the United States, you will have to admit you have been derelict in your business in pursuing improvement in the field of passenger service or these mass transportation approaches, at least I think that we have also in Government been slow to do something about it and I think you people have. I think we have to join hands and do this thing with full intent about it. Mr. MINOR. Let me say in answer to that, Mr. Congressman, we have-I would not accept the word "derelict." We have devoted our less than adequate `capital each year to projects on which we could show some return, but to ask us to invest capital in a business which overall is running at an annual rate of loss of $100 million a year for the Penn-Central alone, is something that we cannot in the best interests of our company do. Mr. PICKLE. I can't accept that, Mr. Minor. I don't wish to argue the point. I can't accept it at all. The fact you are suffering this $100 million loss is because you haven't done soinethin~ about it in the last 50 years, you have basically the same type of service you had 50 years ago and I think we could have prevented this type of loss if we had done something about it 50 years ago, perhaps the Government was shortsighted about it, but the fact is we haven't. But there is no use arguing the point. We have to go from here forward as I see it. Mr. MINoR. I don't want to argue, certainly, but the New York Central alone spent a quarter of a billion after World War II in corn- pletely reequipping its passenger fleet and advertising that fleet and trying to attract people to the rails, and the consequence of that was that our deficit went to $58 million in 1957. We have made the effort. You know what the experience of the Santa Fe Railroad has been. No one has been more aggressive in trying to get the long-haul passen- ger back to the rails and they finally have given up. We will serve the market where the need is, Mr. Congressman. Thank you very much. Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr. Thomas 0. Fox, Mellon Institute, Pitts- burgh, Pa. Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen- Mr. FRIEDEL. Pardon me, Mr. Fox. Congressman Irwin is now here to testify. The Ohair recognizes our colleague from Connecticut. PAGENO="0078" 74 STATEM~LNT OP HON. DONALD J. IRWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP CONNECTICUT Mr. IRwIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me for being late. I should have been here at 10 but I had an appointment that kept me. Mr. FRIEDEL. We understand. Mr. IRWIN. I have come here to testify briefly and informally on the matter that is before you. I want, first of all, to congratulate the committee for the work it has done in this field, and to encourage you to continue to give a hand in this field. I know the chairman of the subcommittee lives in that great northeastern metropolitan area which faces a very critical problem in this field right now. The other two gentlemen come out from the open spaces, and I am very, very grateful to them for the thought and attention they have given this problem which isn't as serious for them as it is for us. Mr. Pickle just said that he was a reluctant supporter of this legisla- tion when it first came before the committee. Yesterday morning I was on the turbotrain that United Aircraft is working on under this pro- gram, and I wish that I had thought of calling you all up to come out and look at it. I don't know if any of you got to see it yesterday. Mr. PIoKr~. No, we did not, Mr. Irwin. We had wanted to, `but it left. Mr. IRWIN. I don't know whether it is still in town. It is not in town. But the next time it is in town I will make a special point of getting you down because I think it really forcefully indicates what can be done and what should be done and what perhaps hasn't been done. Your colloquy with Mr. Minor just now, I think, underlines what the problem has been. We are all delinquent in a way. The great high- way expansion programs of the last 15 to 20 years have had their impact and, in fact, they have accelerated the loss of revenue traffic to the railroads, and I don't know who we blame for that. The public itself has enjoyed this great new freedom that the auto- mobile has given it, and yet in the Northeast we see that this is not the long-term solution. I come down here once a week and return every weekend, and I find myself, for example, driving by automobile from Norwalk, Conn., into LaGuardia Airport because that is where the frequent service is from. The traffic tangles around New York in the morning are fantastic and I really wonder how the people who drive into the city every day do it, and whether any one has given much thought to the tremendous expenditures involved in driving cars `into the city every day, the pollu- tion that is created, the ulcers that are promoted. What it does to their health, it seems to me, must be brutal, and yet no one has thought about stopping this. We do need some real breakthroughs in ground trans- portation, something between the plane and the automobile. I think here in Washington we have a very dramatic situation and that is the Dulles Airport and its use, and I think the breakthrough some day will come when we figure some way to get people out there quickly. You are going to need real high speeds. There is no question, for example, that unless trains can get close to the 200 miles an hour speed you are not going to get a change in travel `habits. PAGENO="0079" 75 Mr. FRIEDEL. Include Friendship in there, too. Mr. IRwIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. But I hope that the subcommittee will be able to approve the request that has been made. I think that a long-term commitment will be help- ful and, as I said, this turbotrain shows what can be done. For example, one of the things that this train has is a radically new form of suspension. Now, you made the point we have got old equipment and . old ideas. This is true not only in terms of the technology but even in the atti- tudes toward travel. I mean the railroads really haven't been trying to get people to travel by train for quite a few years now. They don't advertise that way, they don't service that way, they are stuck even with old attitudes as to how you get people to travel. But we are all to blame, I think. I don't think it would pay us to try to retrace our steps and find out where the fault lies because we will find every one of us shares in the inability to see what we should have done. So I hope the committee will be able to approve a program that will look beyond just the next year, hopefully for 3 years, because I think some real good work has been done. Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you very much. Any questions? Mr. IRWIN. Thank you. Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to welcome our colleague here this morning. He rightfully points out that he lives in the North- east area, and in a sense my heart goes out to you, but you have to accept things. Mr. IRWIN. We are happy to see the growth that is going on in Texas, Mr. Pickle, and we want to assure you that sooner or later if you do as well as you should you are going to have the same problems. Mr. PIOKLE. We may have but our situation will be a little different inasmuch as the gentleman before you pointed out the passenger service for long hauls may not be as feasible as it was 50 years ago and we have to accept that. Mr. IRwIN. I understand that. I am talking about~- Mr. PICKLE. Between our areas between Dallas and Fort Worth, yes. Mr. IRwIN. That is what I am talking about. Mr. PICKLE. Perhaps even in that area into the Houston area. Mr. IRWIN. Yes. Mr. PICKLE. I compliment you on your interest come here and I am glad to know you lend The gentleman from Connecticut is a ianditi fact you easur~ PAGENO="0080" 76 problems with progress and whether or not passenger traffic is econom- icafly feasible, my experience in coming from Co~unibus, Ohio, to Washington, it costs me $48.10 and 13% hours by train where I can come for less than $25 and less than an hour by air. So these are progress problems, and we would hope this high-speed ground transportation would help solve our problems. Mr. IRWIN. I think, Mr. D.evine, that that illustrates the problem in such a clear way. We have spent tremendous amounts of money to make the air transportation what it is today, and it is absolutely magnificient. We shouldn't for a minute ~ forget what a great convenience it is. When I first started coming to Congress I used to drive from Connecticut here by car and it would take me, I will say, a little over 5 hours to make it, and it is a rough, rough trip. I hope there is nobody from the State police here. But it was a tough, tough trip. It took a lot out of me and dangerous, frankly, to do that every week. So we have got a lot to be grateful for. But it is very obvious that there is one very weak link and that is that mode of transporta- tion that is halfway between the automobile and the plane, and there we have to make some real progress. We have to put money into it. We put money into all these other areas of transportation, large amounts, and now we have to do the same thing here so we can catch up at this level. Mr. FRIEDEL. Thank you very much. Now, Dr. Fox, you may proceed. STATEMENT OP DR. THOMAS G. POX, SCIENCE ADVISER TO THE GOVERNOR OP PENNSYLVANIA, CHAIR1~AN, GOVER1~TOR'S SCI- ENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING FOUNDATION Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressmen. I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you here. First, I am the Governor's science adviser in Pennsylvania and chairman of his Governor's Science Advisory Committee, and chairman of the Penn- sylvania Science & Engineering Foundation. I too, do not have a prepared script. I learned about this yesterday as I was giving a lecture in a university in New York State. The airway system, which I also find inconvenient in this instance, delayed us 4 hours sitting in the airport and I got in at 3 a.m. this morning, so if I am a little incoherent I hope you will excuse me. Now, I think I don't really have anything to add in specifics to what I have heard here this morning and what I am sure you have heard many times. But I do want to-I think I represent the scientific community in Pennsylvania. Back in 1962 Governor Scranton said to the science community "we have a lot of new knowledge and a lot of new science. There are needs, human needs. What is it that we should be doing for the future ? " And the question of economic growth, of course, was involved in that, and the question of meeting the needs of our society. Now, I don't want to draw this out, but we did send out a letter to 400 Pennsylvanians in the science community, in industry, in universi- ties, and in Congress, generally. This was in 1963 before this present program. Of course, defense and space were the technological ad- PAGENO="0081" 77 vances that were most in people's minds and receiving most attention in those days. I am very proud of the fact that our science community, our techno~ogica1 community, our industrial community in Pennsyl- vania spotted a lot of the growing human needs at thattame, the needs to control environment, to clean up pollution, the needs to move people around. So this led to a dedicated effor~ in Pennsylvania to these prdblems. You have heard the Secretary of Commerce report to you on several studies in depth that have been going on since then. I think it boils down to this, I am from the science community, we put a lot of money in science and new knowledge and now the question is how can we use it to meet human needs today, to advance our economy, to move pee- plo around and make our society viable and to improve the quality of life. I think, I am not talking about long-distance transportation of people, although I think I am talking about long-distance transporta- tion of freight which we are-the growth of the freight load is tre- menclous, it clogged up our highways, it is now going to the rail, but the growth in the volume of rate ahead is terrific. The problem of urban transportation and inner-city transportation, of course, is a tremendous one. So I think, in shoit, what we have is a shortage of capacity. We cannot build highways fast enough, air cannot carry the volume of freight and the volume of people, so in our transportation system we face a shortage of capacity, particularly for freight and particularly, high-speed freight and for people between cities, and in urban areas. Now, we have the technology~ we have the scientific know-how to create any technology we wish, and the question is will we turn now to develop the technology needed for this. Now, the urban problem is critical right now, and the quality of life, moving people around locally and between cities, that is a critical problem right now. I believe that the business of moving freight will be a critical prob- lem within the last quarter of this century. If we are to meet this we must develop technology fnm knowledge. Developing it efficiently and economically you can't do it overnight. So we must turn to this question and begin now, as we have, and con- tinue developing the technology needed fOr this purpose. I think the history of this country is of developing the technology it neeids, particularly in ti~ansportation. We had the turnpikes in the early days, we had rail and steel developed just at the time we needed them and they were a tremendous impact on our Nation and our econ- omy. The auto came along at a time, we were coming out of a country industrial life to an m~ban life, air came along, the air transportation came along at `a good time. We have emphasized those. We have the highways of the midcentury, we have the air traffic, air technology is terrific, both of these have received big Government support. We have rail technology of the last century, and I submit we can't enter the last part of this century and the beginning of the next century comfort- ably with the rail technology of the last century. We are very pleased in Pennsylvania to support efforts along this line as you have heard. We are very pleased that the Federal Government has been so ag- gressive in supporting this, and I think that prudence would dictate PAGENO="0082" 78 that we continue to support the program of high-speed ground trans- portation now and in the ooming years. Thank you. Mr. ~ I want to thank you, Dr. Fox. Mr. Piokie, any questions? Mr. PICKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fox, I enjoyed your testimony. As I understood what you were saying is that we have actually got an urban crisis now. Mr. Fox. That is right. Mr. PICKLE. In moving not onily people but of freight, is that `correct? Mr. Fox. In the sense that the highways get clogged by the truck- ing and complicate the movement of people and goods partieWarly in the uthan areas, I think we have a problem right now, yes. Mr. PIOELE. This questionnaire that you said your institute sent out- Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE (continuing) . To some 400 scientists.. Mr. Fox. And industria1i~ts. Mr. PICKLE. This was sent out in 1963 Mr. Fox. 1963, yes, sir. Mr. PICKLE. Has anything been sent out in the last 5 years? Mr. Fox. We have a continuing program, as a result of this there was a Governor's Science Advisory Committee formed and on that are 20 Pennsylvanians representative of indñstry and of uni- versities and of various technologies throughout the State. This is a voluntary, unpaid committee which nevertheless works very hard both in its committee meetings and in its panels which add other Pennsylvanians to its committees, so we have had a continuing. Also we have had a Governor's Transportation Committee which is a larger segment of Pennsylvania, I think there are 50 Pennsylvanians on it and there is a technical committee, representatives of the main committee, with `also about 50 representatives so we have worked very hard on these matters in a continuing fashion. Mr. PICKLE. The study of your urban crisis just one of the projects that the Mellon Institute is pursuing. Mr. Fox. Sir, I happen to be a scientist at the Mellon Institute which is now part of Carnegie-Mellon University. My role as Gover- nor's science adviser is an unpaid part-time role although over 50 percent of my time and the studies we are making are not Mellon Institute studies, they are Pennsylvania studies made by these corn- mittees and subcommittees and by paid consultants and grants and so on. We have, for example, established the Pennsylvania Science and Engineering Foundation in Pennsylvania attached to the depart- ment of commerce. Now, the purpose of this is to invest moneys in looking into problems of the future and to seed activities in the universities, like the Transportation Research Institute at Carnegie- Mellon, for example, it happens to' be local but it is just an accident, and we have invested $1.4 million of Pennsylvania's taxpayers money PAGENO="0083" 79 into these kinds of things, in environmental pollution, health care, transportation and so on. Mr. Jones, secretary of commerce, I think commented on this and I think if I have any purpose here it is to try to impress you that the scientific community and the industrial community and the political community in Pennsylvania are working together very hard, and voluntarily~ a lot of high paid men working free for this, seriously on these problems. What can science do to develop technology to better the human condition. Mr. PICKLE. Do you speak f9r this group of scientists, generally speaking? Mr. Fox. Well, I am the Governor's science adviser. I am the chairman of the Governor's science advisory committee and I am the chairman of the Pennsylvania Science and Engineering Founda- tion so in an official sense, yes, sir. Mr. PIoKi~,. Your statement that you need to develop a technology is a rather strong statement particu'arly when you add that you have got the rail technology of the last century. Mr. Fox. Yes, sir, I think - Mr. PICKLE. That is some sort of an indictment `to the entire industry. Mr. Fox. No, sir ; I would agree with those who have said that, here that, I don't think anybody is to blame. I believe when we needed rail we developed it and we utilized it. When we needed the automobile and the highways we put our energies in that and we became enamored over them. They served us well up until this point of getting clogged locally. We needed the airplant and we put the effort in and we are still putting it in to make sure we have an advanced techncilogy there. When I say we, transportation has been mainly developed with not private funds over the history of our country but private and govern- mental funds. This is an area, I believe that we have agreed that the private sector can't do it alone. We, as a group, we as a people must work on it. So I think that if you-if highways are serving you well and aircraft are serving you well and you don't yet have a critical problem railroads aren't going to make money out of it and it is going to be difficult to put money into it. I think that must be turned around. I think your efforts and th~ efforts in Pennsylvania and other places are turning it around and I think that is important. Mr. FRiuDm~. They will pay off, that is your opinion? Mr. Fox. Yes, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. Anything else? Thank you, Dr. Fox. Mr.Fox. Thankyon. Mr. FRimEL. I was looking forward to the pleasure of hearing from the next witness, Mrs. Gladys Spellman, chairman of the Board of Superivsors of Prince Georges County. She is a dynamic figure and I was looking forward to seeing her, but I understand she was taken ill yesterday and I hope it is nothing serious and she will have a rapid recovery. But we have Mr. John Marburger to present her `case. You may proceed. PAGENO="0084" 80 STATEMENT OP GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN, CRAIRMAN, BOARD OP COUNTY cOMMISSIONERS, PRINCE GEORGES ~OUNTY, MD'.; PRPA.. SENTED BY JOHN H. MARBURGER, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, BE- PARTMLNT OP PUBLIC WORKS Mr. MARBURGER. Mr. Chairman, my name is John H. Marburger, Jr., and I ~m the administrator of the Department of Public Works for Prince Georges County. I have a statement that Mrs. Gladys Noon Speliman, chairman of the board of county commissioners has asked me to present for her as she could not be here in person because of a rather sudden virus attack. Here is her statement: "My name is Gladys Noon Speliman and I am chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Prince Georges County, Md. "I am delighted to appear before this committee in support of H.R. 16024 to extend for 2 years the High Speed Ground Transporta- tion Act of 1965. "The Washington-to-New York demonstration project has special meaning to the people of Prince Georges County and we commis- sioners who serve them. "As I am sure all of you know, we hope to have in the near future a new railroad station in our county at the junction of the Penn-Central Railroad and the Capital Beltway and near the John Hanson High- way Highway to Annapolis. "This station, first suggested by our own citizens and chamber of commerce, has received the wholehearted support of the county gov- ernment. Obviously, the Capital Beltway station, used in conjunc- tion with the new high-speed trains, will be a boon to the entire Washington metropolitan area. "Prince Georges County was asked ~ more than 21/2 years ago to demonstrate its concrete interest in this new facility. This we did- both with time and money. And we know that a lot more will be needed before the station is built. These we will also provide. "To abandon this project and others equally worth while at this stage of development would be costly and illogical. "I claim no special knowledge of railroads or their problems. But I do read a lot about the disappearance of passenger trains from the American scene. It seems to me that the Office of High-Speed Ground Transportation, which is directly afFected by this legislation, is the only organization I have heard about that is trying to put passenger trains back into our way of life. In cooperation, of course, with the Penn-Central. "We have enjoyed an excellent working relationship with representa- tives of the Office of High-Speed Ground Transportation and the entire Department of Transportation. To us, this relationship has represented the best in intergovernmental cooperation-a field in which I have a special interest. "Thus, I urge you to approve speedily H.R. 16024-not solely for our new station, but for all the other fine programs currently under- way by this agency which hold out such great promise for the future of mass transportation." PAGENO="0085" I 81 That is Mrs. Speilman's statement. I would like to add that the county, at its own expense has spent a considerable amount of time and money making feasibility studies for location of this station, and we have completed plans for the grading and construction of a 2~acre parking lot adjacent to the pro- posed station, the construction of this work can be advertised for bids immediately and construction could be completed in 60 days. We have entered into an agreement with the Maryland State Roads Commission for a 15-acre parcel of land, if that much is necessary for parking facilities, and all arrangements have been made for access roads. In other words, Prince Georges County is ready to go. I understand that there has been some difficulty about the station platform being erected on railroad property, and then reverting to the railroad at the end of the demonstration period. I sincerely hope that this problem can be speadily resolved, and that this very needed project can get on its way. We believe that this station at Lanham will serve the people, not only of Prince Geor~res County, but the people of southern Maryland in St. Marys, Calvert, and Anne Arundel Counties because it would be so easy to get to because of the beltway, and we certainly would like to see this project on its way. Mr. FRIEDEL. I am very familiar with that. Mr. MARBUROER. Thank you, sir. Mr. FRIEDEI~. I want to thank you for your statement. I am very familiar with the site and extend my best wishes for a speedy recovery to Mrs. Spellman. Mr. MARBURGER. Thank you, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. Just a little bit about Lanham : You made a statement there was a little legal problem about building the platform in the station. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Mr. MARBuRGER. This I have been informed by the Department of Transportation people. We, of course, have all the necessary facili- ties ready to go or rather planned for the parking lot itself. Now, of course, the station platform would be on the railroad prop- erty, and I am certain that Dr. Nelson can expand on this. Mr. FRIEDEL. Now, this parking lot that you are speaking of, will that cost the Government any money? Mr. MARBTJRGER. The county government ; yes, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. The Federal Government? Mr. MARBTJRGER. No, sir. Only the county government. and we have already spent approximately $20,000 for feasibility studies and plans and we are prepared to spend approximately $160,000 to develop the first portion of this. We have an agreement with the State roads commission, this was surplus land that the State roads commission had, and they have given us an option, a 3-year option, on this land, for 2 acres at this time and the remainder if we need it for this project. Mr. FRIEDEL. Well, I want to compliment the people of Prince Georges County for being so farsighted. Mr. MARBUGER. Thank iou, sir. Mr. FRIEDEL. And looking ahead, and as I said earlier I believe a lot of passengers will come back to the trains if they can provide park- PAGENO="0086" 82 ing at the station, and you are already way ahead, you have ample space. Mr. MARBTJRGER. We think we are. Mr. FRIEDEL. I want to thank Mr. Marburger. Any questions? Mr. Pioiw~. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the testimony of Mr. Mar- burger and 1 also want to compliment Prince Georges County for the initiative they are showing for providing the parking space and for preparing in other ways to be ready to take advantage of this demonstration project. I would also want to say to you simply that we think highly of Mr. Dixon here, our counsel, and when he thinks highly of someone, you come highly recommended. Mr. MARBURGER. Well, thank you, sir. He has been very kind- Mr. FRIEDEL, Thank you. The meeting now stands adjourned. (The following material was submitted for the record:) CONNECTICUT STATE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Ha'rtford, June 12, 1968. Hon. IL~nLn~ 0. SmGonRs, Cha4rm~an, I~ter.~tate a~ut Foreign Commerce Uoinim~ttee, House of Representa~tives, Washingto~iz, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE STAGGERS : It has been brought to our attention that your Committee has scheduled hearings on Thursday, June 13, 19G8, on the matter of continuation of the High Speed Ground Transportation Act. I regret that we cannot have representation at this meeting, but ask that this letter be made a part of your record. We would be pleased to testify at any future session of your hearings on this matter. Pursuant to existing legislation, a high-speed demonstration program will be operated between Boston and New York, through Connecticut, over the New Haven Railroad shoreline route, by use of high-speed turbine powered trains. This demonstration program is vital to the continuation and improvement of essential rail service serving the State of Connecticut and the northeast area of the nation. The results of initial tests have indicated that this newly designed railroad equipment can greatly reduce the rail travel time between Boston, Massachusetts and New York City, which will result in relieving highway and air travel congestion, since this fast rail service will be competitive with these other modes of transportation. We urge most strongly that your Committee report favorably upon the con- tinuation of this vital program. We must breathe new life into this essential industry in which virtually no research has been conducted for many years. The State of Connecticut, in cooperation with the States of New York, Massa- chusetts and Rhode Island, is presently supporting the operation of the bank- rupt New Haven Railroad with both tax relief and almost $7 million per year in cash support. Connecticut and New York, with the assistance of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, are sponsoring an $80 million Connecticut- New York modernization program. We are committed to improve railroad facil- ities, purchase 144 new high-speed cars and rehabilitate 100 of the most recentLy built New Haven cars. The New York-Boston high-speed train demonstration Is not a subsidy program for the New Haven Railroad. This demonstration will develop potential utility of high-speed rail passenger service. For this reason, Connecticut has committed $500,000 per year in cash support for this program. We believe that the nation cannot rely on our crowded highways or congested airlanes to meet our transportation requirements. We must make more effective use of our most efficient means of ground ~transportation-our indispensable rail system~ We ask your favorable action on this bill. Sincerely, FRANK M. REINHOLD, Cha4rmaGv. PAGENO="0087" I 83 ` . STATI~ OF NEw JEBSEY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Trei~ton, N.J., June 12, 1968, Hon. HAni~m~ 0. STAGGERS, Chairma'n~, HoRse Uomiinlttee oi~ Interstate a~id Foreign Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DXI. DEAR CONGRESSMAN STAGGERS : I understand that bearings have been scheduled by the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeromautics of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with regard to HR. 16024 which will extend the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 and authorize ftrther appropriations for this important program. The New Jersey Department of Transportation has worked closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Office of High Speed Ground Trans- portation since the inception of this program. We believe that the experimental and research programs being conducted by `this `agency are of great benefit to the `entire spectrum of transportation. The demonstration projects, particularly for the Boston to Washington corridor, are also of inestimable value to this nation at a `time when transportation modes complementary to our highway system are des~ara'tely being sought. This Department has been gratified by the fact that the Governor and the legislative leaders of this State have publicly indicated their support for this Department's ptiblic transportation program. Last March, the New Jersey Depart- ment of Transportation recommended that the sum of $200 million be provided for public transportation purposes in this State by way of a bond referendum. Legislation to authorize a bond issue of this size for public transportation has been agreed upon and is now pending before the New Jersey Legislature. The New Jersey program is predicated upon a continuing and reasonable level of effort by the Federal government. We, therefore, strongly support the request of the U.S. Department of Transportation as it is set forth in H.R. 16024. Sincerely, DAVID J. GOLDBERG, Commissioner of Transportation. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD, Chicago, Iii., 14, 1968. Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, Rayburn House Office Building, Wasl~4ngton, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : My purpose in writing you is to recommend extension of the High Speed Ground Transporta:tion Legislation as proposed in HR. 16024. As, I am sure you are aware, the Illinois Central Railroad has one of the larger commuter operations in this country, and operates several intermediate and long-distance intercity passenger trains including the Panama Limited-Magnolia Star, the City of New Orleans, and the City of Miami. I an~ a member of the High Speed Ground Transportation Advisory Corn- mittee whose Chairman is Professor Raymond R. Tucker of St. Louis, Missouri. Other members include Mr. Robert M. Jenney, President, Jenney Manufacturing Company ; Mr. Donald W. Douglas, Jr., President, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. ; Mr. George E. Leighty, Chairman, Railway Labor Executives Association; Mr. Oharles A. Webb, President, National Association of Motor Buu Operators; and Mr. Milton A. Gilbert, Chairman of the Board, Gilbert Systems, Inc. In addition to functioning as required by Executive Order, the Committee has car- ned on correspondence and participated in field trips. The principal demonstrations, on the Penn Central between Washington and New York, and on the New Haven between New York and Boston, have not pro~ gressod as anticipated because of various technical difficulties;. As a result there is not sufficient time to gather information and get meaningful results before the expiration of existing legislation, which would be in June of 196g. Hopefully, however, the demonstrations will be in operation soon and the operational re- suits would begin to' became available' for evaluation. It would be wasteful of the effort, time and money spent so far' if this project were not followed through with a thorough analysis' of these demonstrations', while they are in operation. The research and development funding under the High Speed Ground Trans- portation Legislation has been cut back and, therefore, has' not been emphasized PAGENO="0088" to the extent contemplated under the original legislation. Extension of the project, i~f funded a~ set forth, would allow for catchin.g up on the research and ~1evelopme~nt, which is really the most significant part of the entire High Speed Ground Transportation pro~jeet. Although originally contemplated, the pro~ject was to consi~t of demonstrations WTithjfl the Northeast Corridor, it was recognized that such demonstrations would have application elsewhere in the country. Unlem the legislation is extended as set forth in the bill which I have mentioned, there will be no possibility f~r extending the demonstrations or even passing on the information gained to other parts of the country. It is my understanding that you have been quite fully apprised of the technical difficulties with the demonstrations both between Washington and New York, and between New York and Boston, which have delayed the actual operation of new railroed equipment between those points. We, on Illinois Central, had similar setbacks when installing on our commuter operation, what was then the first fully operational automatic revenue collection system (ARCS). The booklet attached entitled "Private Breakthrough for a Public Cause" details rather candidly the history of the ARCS system, with its setbacks and pitfalls, as well as its accompLishments. In early 1q67 the sçystem was functioning so badly, with thousands of ticket failures each day, the the Illinois Central was at a point of making a decision on whether to rip out the entire installation. At the eleventh hour, a new read-write mechanism was developed by the manufacturer, solving the ticket rejection problem, and the automatic revenue collection system has now been extended to practically the entire 49 statiens of the commuter operation and is doing a superior job. We have had days with as few as three ticket failures out of 100,000, which is much lower than might be expected. My point is that there is a parallel here between the High Speed Ground raidroad demonstrations and the ARCS pioneering. As a private enterprise, it would probably have been easier for us to reach a decision to rip out the equip- ment and write it off as a failure, but we stick with the project and really gained because of our fortitude. It is my sincere recommendation that similarly the time for the High Speed Ground tests be extended so that the demonstra- tions can be carried out as planned. With the accelerating disappearance of long-distance intercity passenger trains in this country, there may be a tendency on the part of some interested parties to involve the High Speed Ground Transportation Legislation with the passenger train issue. I emphatically urge that the Congress not be so tempted and rather continue the development of high speed ground transportation sys- tems on its present liegislative base. The question of whether or not to provide passenger train service to some particular town in one of our states, has' not any relationship to the High Speed Demonstration. To attempt to weave such an issue into the High Speed Project would only result in dilution of effort and, in my opinion, absolutely nothing would be accomplished from what otherwise appears to be a rather proinis*iiig project. Our Committee has given some consideration to the impending transfer of Urban Transportation Administration from the Department ~f Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Transportation. We felt that some of the research that was being carried out in the urban transportation areas, par- ticularly having to do with access to airports, might also be applicable in the intercity ground transportation arena and vice versa. I suggest that no definite steps be taken at this time to merge the research and development efforts in the two areas of Urban Transportation and High Speed Ground Transportation. There should first be an assimilation of the Urban Transportation Administra- tion in its new department. Administratively, coordination has been effected and will continue with both of these administrations now being in one department. At the end of the recommended extension of the High Speed Ground Transporta- tion Legislation, the two important areas of urban transportation and intercity ground transportation can perhaps then be folded together based on the working knowledge that will be gained. . F~inally, I wish to comment on the decision which will be facing Congress on this legislation. If the High Speed GrOund Transportation Legislation is not extended, the Congress would in affect be pre-judging the merits of this type of transportation, without giving it the benefit of a full investigation through the demonstration program which, considering all factors, has been proceeding quite well. It is easy to set target dates' that are too ambitious and perhaps prove to 84 PAGENO="0089" I 85 be a little unrealistic. This is a trait common to development of new systems which frequently turn out to be more complicated technologically than considered at the outset. I have every confidence that the technical difficulties will be over- come as a result of the demonstration trains, and that the operation of these trains in public service will tell us whether improved rail passenger systems can play a significant future role in the intermediate distance travel market and heavily populated sectors of the country. In conclusion, I urge that the legislation be extended. Sincerely, WILLIAM B. JOHNSON, Presiden,t, RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, WashingtoH, D.C., Jwne 18, 196.8. Hon. SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, Chatrma~, SvMcomawttteo on TraHsportatioi~ and Aeron.a~tic8, Comnvittee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce, Hou$e of Reprerentatives, Wa,shington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN : On behalf of the Railway Labor Executives' Association, a voluntary association the chief executive officers of the 2~ standard national and inteimational railway labor organizations, I would urge your favorab'e con- Sideration on HR. 16024, amended to provide for a two year, rather than the presently included one y~ar extension. It is our conviction that the High Speed Ground Transportation Act must be eXtended and broadened if this nation is to effect a rational and integrated passenger system. That we do not presently have such a system is altogether too apparent. Air transportation, only a dedade ago thought to be the wave of the future, has reached a saturation point at many city airports. A TIME magazine article of June 14, l~68, cites Los Angeles Airport, designed to handle 15 million passengers a year with their seven highly antomated "satellite termin'als" as already obsolete. The article also reports that O'Hare airport of Chicago has almost reached the saturation point. In short, as put by New York Port Authority Aviation Director, John R. Wiley, "What we have is an air transportation crisis." Auto transportation, too, has reached a saturation point in terms of expense, in terms of death and destruction. Last year 55,000 persons were killed in auto accidents and another 4 millIon were injured. The property damage resulting from automobile ~tccidents was approximately $12 billion. The pollution which hovers over every metropolitan area owes much of its existence to the internal combustion engine. As a nation, we have spent in excess of $50 billion for high- way construction, `thinking that it could fulfill our needs. Now, even before the completion of Interstate befense Highway program, it is obvious to all that no highway system can relieve pressnre of increased passenger transpoi,t~tion. Side by side with this saturationof higliwaysand airports, we are witneSsing the dismantling of ~ur railroad passenger system, which could, with. proper. planning, technology and financing pro~lde a comfortable, tuid efficient alterna- live. The High Speed Ground Transportation pràgram is the only means by which that alternative mlght.be developed. Railroad management genetally has shown no desire to develop the kind of railroad riassenger service which could meet today's needs with their own money or their own planning. Penn Central's corn- rnitrnent of funds and organization is the exception, not the rule.. Much of today's lopsided and inefficient transportation System is a consequence of railroad management's failure to meet the challenge of modernizing i'ts seg- ment of the passenger transportation industry. Their steadfast refusal to uphold their. portion of the transportation sector has placed the initiative for doing so at the doors of Congress. . The promis~ of the High Speed Ground Transportation Act is not only that it can help relieve the congestion in the northeast corridor, but that its snccess can pér~made the nation's railroads to accept their responsibility for intereity trans~ portation by showing them its ptofitability. We have never accepted the proposi- tion that rail passenger service must be limited, to those areas where, . due to congestion in air transportation, the train. is thefastest `transportation available. Comfortable, efficient ground transportation when a~flailable is always in demand.* Certainly, the present carnage on our highways suggests a need that could be trai~slated into sales and profit for efficient rail service. Consequently, it is our hope that your subeornmithee will continue to impress upon the industry the need for service which the present demonstration projects promise. Yours very truly, G. E. LEIGnTY, Chairman. PAGENO="0090" Hon. SAMTJnL N. FRIE~DEL, ChaA~rma~ $ubcom~ttee on Tra~n8pOrta~tion ani Aero~a'utics, House Thter~ta~te a4id Foreign~ Oo~mmerce Coin'mittee, Wa~sMn~gton, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : The National Assoelation of 1~ai1road Passengers strong- ly supports HR 16024, which would extend the High speed around Pransporta- tion Act. We concur with the recommendation that the bill `be amended t& provide for `a two-year extension instead of one year as presently drafted. NARP's 2400 rnen~bers throughout the country are users of rail passenger service. They believe that exclusive reliance on air and highway transport alone will not meet future needs. The "Northeast Corridor" program holds great promise not only for improving transportation in that crowded area, but for pointing the way towards improved passenger train service in all parts of America. Certainly the technology and experience developed in the Northeast Oorridor can be applied to similar intercity corridors throughout the country. In recent weeks, attention has been focused upon the regrettable delays in beginning high-speed "Metroliner" service between New York and Washington. While we too are concerned about this problem, we urge that these temporary difficulties not stand in the way of prompt action by Congress on extension of the program. Since our formation a year ago, NARP has often been critical of the railroad industry's `attitude and policies towards passenger service. Hence, it is a pleasure to commend Penn Central for the time, money, and energy it is' committing to the "Northeast Corridor" project. NARP believes that this kind of attitude and com- mitmeilt by responsible railroad management can and will attract new passengers who `will use efficient and comfortable trains. We would appreciate it if this letter could be made part of the hearing record. Very truly yours, ANTUONY HASwELL, I3Ja~ecutive Director. P~in COUNCIL O~ StA~n Govni~mxTh, Was1th~gton, D.C.~ J~øw 14, 196~S. Iio~. `H~RLit~ 0. `S'rAolnns, Chairman, C&mmit~eg o~ I~te~8ta~tei a~I Forèig~ Co~nerce, Ho~e of ~ WashinUtOn~ D.C. DEA1~ MR. ChAIRMAN Enclosed for ins~rtion in the reeor~1 of the hearings on the nigh Speed Groiltid Pransportâtionlegisiatlon Is a resolution by the National Legislative Highway Cemrrilttee. ` This committee, composed of key Stare legislators eoncernE$d with transpor~a- tion matters, hhs asked that this statement be made part of the committee recora. Your cooperation Is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, JAMES A. H. JOIU~SQN, Legiskz~tivø 48s~tstaGvt. Whereas we live in a tithe when it is increasingly easier~ safer, and faster to fly between cities, or drive from one state to another, than It is to drive from our suburban homes to the office `downtown, and, Whereas the challenge of mass transportation in the Nation's growing metro- politan areas is one of the most ` serious problems facing the states' today, and, Whereaa population, motor vehicle registration, aiad miles traveled b~r all vehicles in urban areas will almost double in a decade, and, Whereas prOblems of traffic eongestioñ~' lack of parking facilities, decline in patronage of public transit' syst~mS,' and lack of adeqt~ate Integratibu of different modes of transportation add up te a oThaotiC urban transportation situation: Now, therefore, be it 86 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION or. RAILROAD PASSENGnaS, Ckica4o, IZ1L, Junc 19, 1968. NATIONAL LEarsLA~tiVE niaixwiy COMMITTEE RESOLUTION PAGENO="0091" GILBERT SYsTEMS, INC., ca~wv~s, N.J., June 14, 1968. Prof. RAYMOND R. TUCKER, ~t. Lowis, Mo. DEAR PROFESSOR : The question of contimiing the work of the Advisory Comrn inittee Office of High Speed Ground Transportation is of lesser importance than that of increasing the soope of its acth~ites, and of providing the increased funds needed for it to effectively achieve its objectives. In response to the first question, the almost paralyzing nature of the trans- portation congestion problem plaguing so many areas of the country is monnting ill its severity. Unless solutions are found to alleviate these conditions, stagnation conditions ~ ~ will evolve that will have repercussions affecting all facets ~f our society, eco- nomic and sociological, Aa one example `that can lireetiy be related to both these factors and current civil unrest is a need for opening up job opportunities ~ emerging in the industrializing suburbia to the populations `of our inner cities. In anOther conte*t, the overall economic growth of the country is directly affected by the ability to `move both peoples and merchandise from their avail- able locations to their points of need. The High Speed Ground Transportation committee does not presui~ie to claim it will solve the nation's transportation ills. Its research, experimentation ~tnd demonstration projects, however, are forming the foundation from which will emerge new directions in trgnspo.rtation concepts that will contain the solution. A specific purpose of the committee Is to explore all of the ~ar!ed concepts ~ available, along with theoretical altèi~natives ttnd their pra~ticalities, and ulti- mately executing such demonstratk~ns projects that might offer the answers to these prob1en~s. Alread~, reseai~oh and study c~nd~cted by the office has produced the embryonic stages out of which Will emerge new directions in trans- ~ portation concepts. One Ott the most 1m~ortant demonstration projects now nearing fruition Is the high speed . rail experiment between Washington, D.C. and New york-part of the overall Northeast Corridor program. A similar demonstration between ~ New York and Buston soon will follOw. The February 1908 "1~eport on Continuing and Planned Program A~tivfty in High Speed Ground Transportation" by the `Seeretary of Pransportation to the Oommlttee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, comprehensively details these programs and effectively evaluates the results anticipated. The report not only comprehensively details work accomplished to date, but provides compelling reasons why this work must be continued. However, it wouhi ~ S also seem essential that this work~-the objectives and goals-must be broad- ened beyond the specific program `of moving peopl~s between the terminal points of the Northeast Corridor. The total problem *is far more complex. In this ~ respect, and to cite a specific, it is eqi~~lly important to solve the congestion problem of intra-city transportation as it is tç solve the inter-city situation. There is a need for establishing a coordinated study of intra-city rapid transit concepts as they can be integrated into an overall regional program. This should involve research into new subway theories, moveable sidewalks concepts, road 87 Resolved, That the National Legislative Highway C~mmittee express its sup- port for federal grant programs enabling statewide and regional transportation planning and coordination of all transportation modes with other aspects of urban development. The Committee maintains that the most logical point for such coordination is at the State Government level ; and be it further Resolved, That the Committee support United States Senate Bill 3237, and similar legislation in the louse of Representatives, to extend for two years the program of research and development undertaken by the Secretary of Trans- portation in high-speed ground transportation systems: and be it further Reso'ved, That the Committee express its support for further study of alterna- tive means of financing the development of public transit systems, by both United States Congressmen, and State Legislators. April 16, 1968. Washington, D.C. I PAGENO="0092" 88 improvement, etc. Particularly important is the need for moving persons from commuter lines into local transit systems. In terms, too, of the commuter, we cannot assume that new concepts in rail transpocrtation will represent the panacea that solves all current problems. It must be viewed as one of the modes that is and will be available for `such travel. This is a nation of the private autemobile, and it would be thoroughly impractical to invis4on any reduced importance in this phenomenon. Studies, therefore, must be initiated to seek new concepts in our ba* highway approach. In this area, we include stud~es into both vehicle design for all types of free- wheel automotive products-cars, trucks, and buses-as well as the highways themselves. Are there possibilities, for example, of developing automated highways to control traffic flow and movement ? flow practical, too, are the concepts of exclusive bus lanes or truck lanes? We believe deeper research must be made into the potentials for the recently introduced rail-and-road bus, and how this can be coordinated into existing transit systems~ Moving from rail and road, shorter or Intermediate air distance travel has a proportionate importance in the overall objectives of bringing order out of chaos. The vertical take off and landing plane apparently holds great promise for a number of purposes. Currently, there are discussions being held on the possibilities of setting up a YTOL airport on the ~Iudson River alongside Manhattan's West Side. The primary purpose, apparently, is to provide an air service link between New York and intermediate distance cities, thus freeing New York major international airports for exciunive long distance service. Here, again, there must be some coordinated plan of utilizing local transit systems and suburban links to bring passengers in and out of the VTOL port, partciularly as we develop new tech- niques in all these areas. The importance of moving products has an importance equal to that of moving peop'e and, within the framework of all these studies, this factor should be given proportionate consideration. In this respect, product movement utilizes the same basic transportatioi~ modes available for passenger or commuter travel. And here, too, we already are wit- nessing almost revolutionary changes taking place in the techniques of materials handling and shipping, particularly in the emerging of container concepts. Without studies on methods of coordinating such merchandise traffie postsibil- ttie~s wit~ evolving e~mmuter travel, changes taking, place, now and in the future, the probabilities for massive confuaion are ~uormous. In essence, it is suggested that the role of the committee should be broadened, Regional tran~portat&on congestion is the baste problem, and ~ny ultimata solu- tions in solvhig the regional probl~m must take into consideration all trans- portation modes avai~abJe within the area, To take the No~theast Oorridor. as a case in point, since this has been the focal point of our programs to date, it should be obvious that the re~u1ts of our research in i.mpr~ving rail travel will have a pround effect on all the other transportation modes in this corridor. It is not a~ qt~estion of "High .. Speed Groui~id Transportation," but rather "High Speed Region~t1 Transportation~" ~ ~ ~ To achieve all of these objectives, adequate funding is ~ essential. It is equally important that this be considered of immediate importance, Delays will have serious ramifications effecting ~t1l fac~ts of society, economic and sociological. Delays, too, will make the final costs of achieving success that much more expensive. Very truly yours MILTON A. GILBERT, Chq4rman of the Board. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.rn., the hearing was adjourned.)