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.)