Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. KAMEROW. In round figures, the company is losing in excess of a thousand dollars a day at the present time. And by a rough calculation, we would estimate that we would have to get approximately 500 additional riders per day to make up this deficit.

Mr. FAUNTROY. One of the arguments made for interim measures to improve the service and thus the revenues is that of improved rate structures. It appears, at least in Washington, that many of the routes as outlined and as followed run through areas which were highly populated and highly active 20 years. They are not quite as functional today. Other reports which have read indicate that perhaps the suburban jurisdictions or lines are even more antiquated in terms of their functional alignments. I wonder to what extent a more effective and coordinated radial system, as suggested in one City Council report, is under consideration by you to improve the attractiveness of the lines to people who might use them.

BUS SERVICE

There is also the question of the relative slowness, given the lack of functionality in the alignment of the routes, that serves as a deterrent to people coming into the District on the buses which you and others operate.

Mr. KAMEROW. Well, I can say this, that we maintain a research department that is constantly seeking to improve our service, that is improve it by going into areas that need transportation, and realigning the routes that we have. And we have made changes. And we have had a great deal of cooperation from the Washington Metropolitan Transit Commission, of course. I think, sir, what you are thinking about is a radical change, such as abandoning everything and going into a radial system that would go straight out. That is one of the problems that we as a company shudder to think about in our financial condition, because while there is a possibility that something like that would work, we just don't have the resources to take a gamble that something like that would work, unless we were given a subsidy where we would know that we could pay our wages the following week if the thing fell flat on its face, or that we could pay our wages during the time that we made changes in the original approach, certainly. And this thing has been given a lot of thought. But to completely revamp the system and take chances which we know would run into problem areas where some would work and others wouldn't work, if we were to do that, there a Federal subsidy would be a great help to us, and it would be a great help to putting such a system in.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I think you understand the concern that Federal subsidy of a disfunctioning system might continue to waste money that might be reclaimed, and that many people would be attracted to use the system had we the express routes that have been suggested, and had we more functional routes, and had we seriously considered public ownership. I just wondered what your views on that subject were. Mr. KAMEROW. Under the subject of public ownership?

Mr. FAUNTROY. Ownership of your firm.

Mr. MILLER. I will answer that, sir.

I think there is no question in my mind that in the ultimate end all transit companies in the metropolitan area must come under one

grouping, when the rail system is put in. Now, as to whether it should be public ownership or private, I have a question in my mind. As to whether a private contractor should operate it, some of our systems around the country have gone into this. Baltimore City just recently started having a private contractor operate its system, and they seem to be doing very well. And I think ultimately these companies must come under one head. But as to whether it should be public or private, I have a big question in my mind.

Let me add one other thing to back up Mr. Kamerow's statement. We basically do operate a radial system in the county. We work with the Model Cities Program in the Seat Pleasant area, which I think you are familiar with, in fact, just yesterday our research and development met with these people to try to work out some in and out business to help some of these people who cannot get out to the highways where we travel mostly.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CABELL. Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. Not at this point.

Mr. CABELL. Then I will excuse you, in the absence of any other questions.

Thank you very much for your testimony and the courtesy of your appearance.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, in deferrence to the scheduled witnesses that we have here this morning, I should like to submit a statement for the record.

I note that the statement given by Mr. Waterman very well summarizes the problem with which we are confronted. There is undoubtedly a crisis in the public transportation industry. It is something like an irresistable force meeting an immovable object. The costs of transit are going up, and we find that the riding public will not pay this increased cost of transportation. This means that there will be more vehicular traffic, more private automobiles on the streets, which we cannot stand at this time. And we also find that with the consequent reduction of service to those people who must ride public transportation, they have no alternative available.

So. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have any choice in the matter. We have got to face up to the fact, the reality that the public is going to have to do something in the way of providing a subsidy for public transportation. Whether we do this through these bills or some other formula, or through outright public ownership, we have got to face up to the fact that the riding public no longer can neither afford to pay nor is willing to continue to pay the cost of operating public transportation.

So I am grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings this morning so that we can get at the root of this problem and come up with some answer that might help us to solve it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Mr. BROYHILL.

And without objection, your entire statement will be received in the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Broyhill follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, as the principal sponsor of this bill, I wish to express my appreciation for the opportunity of this hearing, on this and other pending legislation on the highly important subject of subsidies to assure the continued operation of the several bus transit companies in the Washington Metropolitan Area.

There is no question that the financial situation confronting these companies today is critical. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission conducted a hearing as recently as December 22, 1971, in the Arlington County Court House; and on this occasion, the testimony of more than 200 citizens attested to the grim fact that all the regular route bus transit operations in the area-including the D.C. Transit System, the W.V. and M. Coach Co., the A.B. and W. Transit Co., and the W.M. and A. Transit Co.-have reached the point where they can no longer support their regular route bus operations through the revenues from the fare box. Operating costs have continued to rise steeply in recent years, and as fares have been increased in an attempt. to meet these additional costs, the number of riders has decreased as a result. This pattern of diminishing ridership has persisted over the years, and hence it has been proved conclusively that fare increases cannot produce sufficient additional revenues to offset the rising costs of operation.

The very real prospect facing these companies today, therefore, is that they simply cannot continue to operate unless some relief is made available to them. But the seriousness of this situation goes much deeper than the prospect of these long-existing transit companies being forced to go out of business. The greater problem is that thousands of citizens in this area do not have the means to purchase automobiles, and hence are totally dependent upon public bus transportation. With a substantial number of people in the Metropolitan area daily users of the bus lines, through necessity as well as choice, we obviously must use every means possible to keep this service in operation.

I am convinced that the only way we can keep the regular route common carrier buses in operation is through the means of a subsidy, whether the transit company be publicly owned or privately owned. All the problems that exist in the present transit service have their bases in the financial situation confronting public bus service. The fact is that competition with the private automobile has caused a continuing decline in bus patronage which, in turn, has contributed to making public transportation by regular route bus service an unprofitable industry.

This situation prevails throughout the entire United States. There is no doubt that urban mass transportation is suffering from a service cost-price squeeze. Resulting deficits have caused both the transit operators and the communities they serve many problems. At present, the bus companies are obliged to choose between two generally unattractive alternatives: (1) either cut back on service or raise fares, or both, with the result of further loss in ridership; or (2) accept public subsidies out of scarce local resources to preserve service and stabilize fares at reasonable and productive levels. At this time, therefore, every Metropolitan Area in the United States, as far as I am aware, is confronted with the identical problem now facing the four principal com

panies here in the Washington area, and must face these same alternatives.

The bill H.R. 13019 is designed to solve this dilemma, by providing for a government subsidy to the local area bus companies amounting to the difference between a just and reasonable fare for regular route transportation within the Washington Metropolitan Transit Area, as determined by the WMATC, and 30 cents. The bill defines the Transit Area as being comprised of the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland; Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax in Virginia.

The certifications of the WMATC shall be made monthly, as will the monthly payments, which are to be made by the Commissioner of the District of Columbia.

I realize that modifications and changes may be proposed which would improve this bill, and wish to make it clear that I am receptive to any such suggestions which may result in a better bill.

In the testimony of the Honorable George A. Avery, former Chairman of the WMÄTC, before the House District Committee in 1969 when the Committee was considering a proposal to provide public assistance to mass transit companies in the District of Columbia, Mr. Avery made it perfectly clear that the "cost of operating the transit system in this City as in every other major city in this country has been escalating susbtantially each year for the past several years. Naturally, revenues must be forthcoming to meet these additional costs." Continuing his testimony, Mr. Avery further stated that:

In broad outline, then, this is the problem: Continually increasing costs have pushed fares to ever higher levels. At the same time, ridership has been declining. Despite repeated fare increases, the company has been unable to cope with advancing costs and it has incurred losses which have significantly impaired its financial

health.

What, then, is to be done about this situation? If we follow the courses of the past, the response would be a further increase in fares. In our judgment, while such action might be perfectly legal, it would be contrary to sound public policy and sensible transportation planning.

Anyone in the least concerned with coping with the problems of urban transportation can tell you that public policy should be directed toward achieving the maximum use of the mass transit system. It is the cheapest, most efficient means of moving people within the city. To the extent the system is used, the problems created within our cities by the automobile are lessened. Yet, I can state unreservedly that each of the past fare increases, and any future ones, will drive substantial numbers of persons off the buses and into their automobiles. Our figures, tested in repeated rate cases, show that for each 1 percent increase in fares, the transit system will lose .25 percent in riders.

Thus, a 20 percent increase in fares, e.g., from 25 cents to 30 cents, will cause a 5 percent loss in ridership. There are about 100,000,000 riders annually in the District of Columbia. A 5 percent loss constitutes about 5,000,000 riders annually. The impact upon traffic conditions is substantial.

Further quoting Mr. Avery:

Moreover, those most dependent upon the mass transit system are the urban poor. For them, use of the system is not a matter of choice but of necessity. If we simply allow the fares to escalate in response to economic forces, we are aggravating the very social problems which, in other spheres of activity, we are attempting to solve.

Mr. Avery, in concluding his statement in support of the then proposed subsidy bill, said:

We believe that payment of a subsidy is a fully justifiable expenditure of public funds. The taxpayer will be getting very real benefits from his funds. First, maximum utilization of the transit system, and its significant improvement, benefits far more than those who ride on it. The motorist fighting for space on the highway would find traffic conditions substantially worse if a large portion of the 400.000 daily trips made on the bus were instead made in automobiles. The problems which the city dweller already encounters in coping with the impact of the automobile on his environment would be aggravated by the increased auto traffic which would stem from less effective use of transit. Conversely, he would benefit if transit provides an attractive alternative to automobile use. Finally, the impact of increasing fares is heaviest upon lower income groups which are most dependent upon public transportation. Easing that burden is but a part of the community's responsibility toward such groups. In any event, the mass transit system is so inherently essential to the economic, cultural, and social life of the community that the entire community should share in its cost at a time when imposing that cost on the user alone is unwise public policy.

The problem confronting us today is no longer solely the problem of the bus companies, but a problem that must be faced and the solution to which must be found by the general public.

The community as a whole must undertake the finding and accomplishment of a solution to this problem in order that we may provide all of our citizens with a means of transportation that is so necessary to business and social life in this day and age.

Responsibility for the present condition of urban mass transportation certainly cannot be placed solely on transit management. Local public officials and administrators, planners, regulatory and zoning authorities, police and traffic officials, and State governments also share responsibility. They have acquiesced in or promoted auto-oriented urban development patterns. The Federal government shares this responsibility through inequities in its programs, promotions, taxations and regulations. They have reinforced such patterns through the provision of under-priced parking at public expense. They have managed access to, and traffic flow on, streets and highways on the basis of vehicle, rather than people, throughout; refused to consider regulation or restriction of automobile use. Ultimately, of course, responsibility for all these policies and actions is shared by the citizens who condone or support them, or who are simply indifferent.

Local and state governments have responded to the transit dilemma in a variety of ways, ranging from no help at all to a surprising number of devices for delivering financial assistance to cover operating

« PreviousContinue »