consideration here. Mr. Hatfield, Vice-president of the D.C. Transit System, Inc. stated in reply to a question, that the Maryland operation "pays 16.35% of the revenue" and the District of Columbia "pays 83.7.%" The Committee should take into account that the D.C. Transit System may not need either a fare increase or a subsidy in its District of Columbia operations. In the testimony proffered by the Urban Law Institute there is evidence that the District of Columbia bus riders are effectively supporting the suburban bus service. Certainly any public subsidy should be applied with great care to avoid such a discriminatory effect in the future. Subsidization methodology has not been wholly successful in the past, using again the D.C. Transit as an example, shoring up only portions of the bus operation does not solve other difficulties of a bus company. (Testimony and Exhibits of Michael Williams) In the publication of the Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, Transit for the 708, Stephen Swaim and Tom Kelly note that "trying to make transit economical by adding demonstration projects such as the Shirley Highway Express and the Capital Flyer is like trying to revive a cut Christmas tree by watering it during January." (Swaim Exhibit, attached) Any subsidy of bus systems in the District area should require that the companies themselves pay attention to transportation studies which have been prepared by the Metropolitan Council of Goverments. To this end, any subsidy should incorporate the study which is being sponsored already by public monies under the auspices of the Metropolitan Council of Governments. In this fashion, a subsidy in lieu of a fare increase could be useful in holding the operation together while other methods are found to improve the transportation in the nation's capital, and other solutions are being found to improve the debt capital situation. Such a study should hopefull result in a model publicly run transportation system in the nation's capital. The Committee should also take pains to investigate the situation of D.C. Transit as to whether or not it would and/or should be also subsidizing the contract operations of the company. Mr. CABELL. Miss Camer, will you identify yourself. STATEMENT OF DR. DOROTHY CAMER Miss CAMER. My name is Dorothy Camer. I reside at 7008 Aspen Avenue, Takoma Park, Md. I am a native Washingtonian and finished college at George Washington University. I have lived for varying periods of time in rural and urban areas including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, a small dairy town in New York State, Charlottesville, a small college town in Oregon, and San Jose. After finishing my doctoral at Oregon State University I traveled for year and a half in Japan, India, Italy, and France, using the available public transportation for the most part. I returned to the United States to work in northern New Jersey where I was during the civil unrest of 1968. I lived 2 miles outside of New Brunswick and witnessed a record unemployment in New Brunswick while industrial parks within a 10-mile radius displayed huge help wanted signs. The lack of adequate public transportation in New Jersey is one of the reasons for the high number of drivers without licenses, registrations, and/or insurance. If the only way to get to work is to drive, even if it is illegal, people will drive. The lack of adequate public transportation in the Washington Metropolitan area is a factor in the increased drug problem, the increase in hitch hikers, and the high unemployment among the young, the elderly, and the handicapped. Nor is it just on the impovished, the aged, the handicapped, and the young the lack of transportation hits 1972 Application for Fare Increase, No. 752, W.M.A.T.C. Transcript of Hearings at 371. hard. It is on all busy people trying to keep up with the demands of the hectic pace of modern living, on the parents of active youngsters, and on the students, more of whom die each year from auto accidents than from any other single cause. I have been searching for a solution to the transportation problem since the summer of 1968. It is my view that the only reason for declining patronage of public transportation is the inadequacy of the system. The principal reasons for this inadequacy, as far as I can determine, are the incompetency of transit management, the failure of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission to properly regulate, and the failure of the local and state governments to hold WMATC accountable to the provisions of the compact. I am opposed to both H.R. 2500 and H.R. 13019 because: 1. Any subsidy to private enterprise frustrates the will of the people. and is thus contrary to the principles of our democracy, 2. The provision for WMATC to certify the eligibility of a company for subsidy amounts to taxation without representation, and 3. Passage of any kind of relief for the transit industry at this time undermines efforts of myself and other intervenors in the current D.C. Transit rate case to hold D.C. Transit and WMATC responsible for adequate mass transportation in the Washington metropolitan area. D.C. Transit was granted a franchise by Congress thus protecting it from any direct competition in the District of Columbia. It seems to me that it was not the intent of Congress in so doing to provide a captive market for D.C. Transit but rather to protect the citizens of the District from a poorly planned disorganized transit system of routing a scheduling. Yet D.C. Transit operates with a poorly planned routing and scheduling system and appears to assume a captive market in its whole approach to providing transit service. Although it has by its own admission been unable to fill its quota for bus drivers since 1966 and has been unable to operate at least 2 percent of its scheduled system miles because of claimed lack of manpower, it has increased its charter service by 14 percent since July 1970 and plans to increase it by another 14 percent in the coming year. Although accidents have increased over 15 percent in the past year and a half and road calls average 20 a day, the Company is proposing (with the concurrence of WMATC) to decrease its maintenance expense allowance by an amount which is one-third of the increase that it wishes to allow for a reserve for injuries and damages. The Company has been unable (or unwilling) to provide adequate information of its service. The Company sells charter service at below cost and yet proposes to increase regular transit rates. The Company cannot admit to decrease revenue due to missed service because it presumes that a rider will continue to wait at a bus stop until a bus comes no matter how long his wait. The Company determines frequency of service on the basis of peak load counts rather than of the market demand. Its only measure of service is in terms of miles per 100 passengers rather than on travel time door to door or availability of service to rider. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission was established in 1960 on the presumption that better transit was desirable and that a unified commission could assure better transit. In its twelve years of operation it has failed to improve mass transportation or to aggressively regulate the transit industry. The Commisison has not creatively or imaginatively developed or implemented policies and programs to protect and enhance the public interest. It has refused to provide the proper incentives to the transit industry to improve their services as though they were operating in a competitive free market atmosphere. WMATC has repeatedly raised rates rather than face its responsibility to pressure industry to improve the efficiency and economy of its operations. WMATC's calculations of expenses implicitly assumes the company's criteria of efficiency and economy. WMATC's calculation of revenue implicitly condons the company's assumption of a captive market with no obligation to develop new markets. The Commission staff does not verify the data submitted by the company concerning missed service and the causes for such. The Commission staff examines all bills which the company pays which comprise less than 18 percent of its expenses, but does not examine the payroll to determine whether it was calculated properly or whether the service was actually performed. The payroll is 52 percent of the expenses of D.C. Transit Commission staff does not verify the maintenance schedule to determine whether buses are indeed being properly maintained. The Commission staff inspects the service and operations of D.C. Transit only to determine whether or not it is adequate by the predetermined Company standards not as to whether or not it could be improved. The Commission failed to properly investigate charges of mismanagement filed by a stockholder of WVM against O. R. Chalk and D. C. Transit. Instead the Commission approved the purchase by D. C. Transit of 838 shares of WVM stock for $80,000. This was at a time when the value of a WVM share was less than $50 and D. C. Transit had not yet paid off the original price of WVM. There are currently at least four rate increases being appealed by the citizens of the Washington Metropolitan area. This includes the last increase to the 40-cent fare. The membership of the Commission at present is made up of a Washington lawyer appointed by President Nixon, a Baltimore lawyer appointed by Governor Mandel, and a Richmond lawyer appointed by the Virginia State legislature. None of these commissioners are responsible to the citizens of the Washington Metropolitan area. The Commission has daily communications with the transit companies but has not seen fit to establish comparable lines of communication with the organized citizens of the area. As a citizen of the Washington Metropolitan area, I need and want a public transportation system which is a viable alternative to my driving an automobile. I do not think I am alone in this position. There are many citizens who have been in the battle for better mass transportation and fewer freeways longer than I. We want to force D. C. Transit and WMATC to meet their responsibilities. Our reluctance to Use D. C. Transit is effectively a vote against it. If you grant a subsidy, it makes it that much harder for us to bring the proper economic pressures to bear on the company to make it meet its obligations. If the primary purpose of a subsidy is to help the poor, it would seem to me that a transportation stamp issued along with food stamps would be more suitable. If the purpose of the subsidy is a mistaken belief that it might eventually provide better transit service, I think that a faster assurance of better transit service is for Congress to revoke the D. C. Transit franchise and provide for the establishment of a public cooperative corporation which could be more directly controlled by the citizens of the Washington Metropolitan area. Thank you for giving me your time. Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Miss Camer, for some very thought-provoking testimony. Mr. Gude. Mr. GUDE. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CABELL. Thank you very much. That being the last of the witnesses, I would like to ask that the Subcommittee go into executive session. (Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the Subcommittee went into executive session.) (Subsequently, the following material was submitted for the record :) WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Authority with respect to H.R. 2500, a bill "To provide public assistance to mass transit bus companies in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." H.R. 2500 is identical to S. 1813, a bill considered during the 91st Congress by the Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia. The bill would provide for public financial assistance by the District of Columbia Government as determined necessary by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission to privately-owned mass transit bus companies operating in the District of Columbia. In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs on S. 1813, then Deputy Mayor Thomas W. Fletcher, on behalf of Mayor Washington, stated that of the two approaches to the transit problem, i.e., public subsidy of the privately-owned transit companies, or public ownership, the District Government prefers the public ownership solution. In explanation of this position, he stated further: "But if public funds are to be spent for the provision of urban transportation service, then the public should directly own and control the system. Public ownership must, of course, recognize the need to provide adequate mass transit service at reasonable fares. Finally, and perhaps most important, public ownership of the mass transit bus system would facilitate its coordination with the rail rapid transit system which is planned for this region, thereby making it possible for the area to have a well-coordinated mass transportation system consisting of surface transportation and subway transportation operating as a single entity. This, Mr. Chairman, is what I believe we should aim for. "To this end, the District government supports ultimate public ownership of D.C. Transit." From the Authority's standpoint, certainly a healthy bus system is essential to our plans. These are based upon the assumption that this community will have a bus system equal to or better than we have today to provide service to the thousands who live beyond walking distance of our transit stations. Together, bus and rail will offer quick, efficient and easy access to all parts of the metropolitan area. Our traffic studies indicate that more than two-thirds of the persons using the rail system will accomplish some part of their journey by means of bus. In addition, while Metro will serve 275 million people on the rail transit system each year, many will still rely on the bus system for transportation. I should also point out that the Authority's financial plans are based on a fare structure which is related to the prevailing basic bus rate. Any rollback of current bus fares would conflict with this basic assumption. Our financial plans also assume that Metro fares will cover operating costs and provide income sufficient to support revenue bonds to fund approximately one-third of Metro's construction cost. In addition, the plans provide that any jurisdiction desiring free or reduced fares will underwrite the revenue loss to the Authority resulting from such an arrangement. In considering any public subsidy for the private transit companies, the Congress should be mindful of these facts and recognize that any mechanism to fix bus fares does have a significant impact on the financial plans for the subway and would impose an additional cost burden on the District Government to cover revenue losses to the Authority. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the Committee not favorably consider H.R. 2500. Sincerely, JACKSON GRAHAM. INTERFEDERATION COUNCIL, Washington, D.C., April 26, 1972. Subject: Public assistance to Washington area transit companies. Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: Pending acquisition of area bus companies, the riding public is faced with the problem of paying increased fares before a purchase bill can be enacted. This will not only cause hardship to the transit riders, but will decrease transit patronage and inhibit the proper development of rapid transit. At its regular meeting on April 17, 1972, at which delegates from four area Federations were present, including both Federations from the District of Columbia, the Interfederation Council voted unanimously to support H.R. 2500, with the proviso that “25 cents" be changed to "40 cents", the prevailing fare in the District, in order to avoid a heavy burden on the taxpayer. It was further specified that the bill was to be only an interim measure pending acquisition by the Transit Authority of area bus companies. We therefore urge that H.R. 2500 as modified be enacted at the earliest possible date to avoid a long period of high fares adversely affecting the use of mass transit. The purchase-lease plan used for Shirley Highway buses in Virginia, and proposed for Montgomery County and in connection with the subject bill has the advantage of using Federal transportation grants, but since in the long run the buses will (hopefully) be owned by the Transit Authority anyway, the process introduces an additional step in a purely interim measure. It is thought that since time is of the essence, the plan which can be put into effect with minimum delay would be preferable. Respectfully, ALFRED S. TRASK, Chairman, Public Utilities Committee. [From the Sunday Washington Star, Feb. 13, 1972] WE MUST SUBSIDIZE THE BUS OPERATIONS A news item a few days ago noted that because of its "precarious" financial condition the WMA Transit Co., operating in Prince Georges County and Southeast Washington, had been authorized to reduce bus service. And no doubt most readers, as is often the case with yesterday's bad news, promptly forgot it. Indeed, why not? Everybody knows public transit is a mess, and has been for a long time. The WMA, after all, is the smallest of four privately owned bus com |