Public participation is essential in the development of Amtrak's routes. The future viability of railroad passenger service depends on service that will be used. The rail passenger business got into trouble in the first place because when ridership started to fall, instead of trying to improve service to attract more riders, the railroads started to curtail service and discouraged people from riding even more. At that time Congress made the decision that we must maintain rail passenger service and, if necessary, subsidize it. I think this was a wise decision, and I have been an active advocate of continued Amtrak funding.

I support the approach taken in H.R. 11493 which provides for $550 million for nationwide operation and $341 million in capital grants. The alternative funding suggested in H.R. 11089 of only $460 million for operations and $100 million for capital grants can only lead to a drastic decline in rail service.

The guidelines which the bill, H.R. 11493, sets forth for preparation of the Department of Transportation study I think are particularly important if we are to make rail passenger service a vital part of our overall public transportation system.

Social and environmental factors, such as the adequacy of other transportation modes and the needs of areas without adequate alternative forms of transportation, need to be taken into account. Presently, the people who live and work along the Empire Builder and North Coast Hiawatha routes have only little or no alternative means of public service transportation.

Newspapers reported during last winter's storms on the East Coast that Amtrak was the only form of public transportation to continue to serve Boston when buses and planes were forced to halt service. Although not noted in the papers here, Amtrak also performed vital services for Montana and North Dakota during our February blizzard. Amtrak was the only transportation service available to deliver perishable goods to the small town of Beach on the North Dakota-Montana border.

Amtrak also serves the business communities in Montana by providing daily service in bringing in machinery parts, auto parts, drugs, flowers, and other supplies on an overnight basis from the Chicago and Seattle areas.

Another guideline directs the consideration of the role that passenger rail service can play in helping meet the Nation's transportation needs while furthering the national energy conservation efforts. I believe the energy efficiency of rail transportation needs to be a major factor in the planning process. The northern tier States are already facing shortages in the availability of crude oil for gasoline and other fuels.

An adequate capital budget for Amtrak is needed, as well as operating funds. Many first time riders will not be easily attracted back for future travel if the cars are too hot or too cold, or service is delayed because of equipment failures. On some routes Amtrak now is unable to run enough passenger cars to meet the demand which is causing a needless loss of revenue.

Thank you for your consideration. Your favorable action on H.R. 11493 and rejection of the alternative approach in H.R. 11089 will

give Amtrak the means to provide a viable rail passenger network for the future.

Mr. ROONEY. Our next witness will be Mr. James R. Snyder, chairman, legislative committee, Railway Labor Executives' Association, who will be accompanied by Mr. William G. Mahoney, attorney. You may proceed, Mr. Snyder.

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. SNYDER, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM G. MAHONEY, ATTORNEY

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon again before your committee and your staff here.

On behalf of the Railway Labor Executives' Association, its members and the employees of the Nation's railroads whom they represent, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to present to you their views on a subject which we believe to be most vital to a balanced transportation system for this country, new and in the future.

My name is J. R. Snyder. I am chairman of the legislative committee of the Railway Labor Executives' Association and the national legislative director of the United Transportation Union. My office is located in the Railway Labor Building at 400 First Street NW, Washington, D.C. Accompanying me is Mr. William G. Mahoney, counsel to the Railway Labor Executives' Association.

The Railway Labor Executives' Association is an unincorporated association with which are affiliated the chief executive officers of all of the standard national and international railway labor unions in the United States. The organizations whose chief executive officers are members of the RLEA are listed below:

American Railway Supervisors Association.
American Train Dispatchers Association.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes.

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen.

Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada.
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks.

Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.

Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Int'l. Union.

International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers & Blacksmiths.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers.

International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots of America.
National Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association.

Railroad Yardmasters of America.

Railway Employes' Department, AFL-CIO.

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association.

Seafarers International Union of North America.
Transport Workers Union of America.

United Transportation Union:

When Congress created Amtrak, it was fully aware that only a massive Federal financial effort could preserve this vital mode of transportation. It was obvious to all that this new creature of Congress had to revivify the corpse of railroad passenger service in this

country. All who participated in the consideration of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 knew that the resurrection of rail passenger service could not be accomplished in a day or in a decade. The equipment made available to Amtrak was virtually worthless; the right-of-way, for the most part, was totally inadequate.

A great deal of time and adequate financial aid are essential to Amtrak's ultimate success.

Amtrak has proved successful. The traveling public of this Nation has demonstrated beyond any question that it enthusiastically supports the rail service Amtrak offers, despite its obvious deficiencies such as abysmal on-time performances in some cases brought on by inadequate track and equipment facilities. Intercity rail ridership has increased an astonishing 54 percent since Amtrak began operation in 1971. No one expected so great and consistent an increase in ridership when the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 was enacted. Indeed, it has exceeded everyone's fondest hopes in this regard.

It is most significant that Amtrak was required to reverse a 20year downward trend in rail passenger ridership. Indeed, it had to reverse the traveling habits of a significant segment of the public. It had accomplished that result. In doing so, it has performed well, cutting service costs and acquiring and expanding its maintenance facilities thereby enabling it to produce an even higher quality of service which in turn should attract more riders. In short, the Amtrak experiment is succeeding-Amtrak is succeeding. It must be aided and encouraged in all its efforts to carry out the declared purpose and findings of Congress when the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 was enacted.

H.R. 11493 performs at least two distinct functions. In addition to the authorization of funds for continued operation of Amtrak through the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, H.R. 11493 would direct the Secretary of Transportation in cooperation with Amtrak to conduct a study with the objective of developing a preliminary recommendation for a route system for Amtrak which would provide:

An optimal intercity railroad passenger system, based upon current and future market and population requirements, including where appropriate, portions of the corporation's basic system.

It is our conviction that Amtrak cannot succeed unless adequate funds are provided, both for operating and capital purposes. If Amtrak is provided less than 60 percent of the capital funding it needs, as we understand is allocated by the Department of Transportation, then, obviously, its entire future must be reassessed. One can reasonably assume that under such a reduced capital funding program, operating subsidies would have to be increased to compensate for revenues lost from failure of expansion and improved service.

Adequate capital funding is essential to the continued existence of Amtrak. The Department of Transportation recommended about $111 million in capital funding programs for fiscal 1979. That funding would result in wholly inadequate motive power, rolling stock, and maintenance of way requirements. In short, it would be $111 million literally thrown away. Amtrak should be adequately funded or it should be abandoned.

The RLEA supports the full capital funding necessary to implement Amtrak's ability to develop an operationally viable rail passenger system.

A most important source of revenue for Amtrak has been sorely neglected. Development of Amtrak's full potential for the transportation of mail would mean an income of $50 million a year; the salvation of numerous needed, but economically marginal passenger trains and an improved potstal service to our citizens.

For decades, the passenger trains of this country carried the mail, but from a financial viewpoint, the mail carried the passenger trains. It was publicly admitted by the post office department that in the 1950's and 1960's when the railroads wished to discontinue passenger trains, the post office would remove the mail to make that train a losing proposition. The practice should now be reversed to make the passenger trains paying propositions.

A second function of H.R. 11493 is the redesignation of the Amtrak system throughout the United States. The Secretary of Transportation is directed to develop a preliminary recommendation for such a redesignated system on the basis of certain listed criteria.

Following submission of the Secretary's preliminary recommendations, the Rail Services Planning Office is directed to conduct hearings on them, after which the Secretary is to issue the final recommendations which would include a recommended route structure for Amtrak by end points and principal intermediate points to be served. Thereafter, the recommended route structure is to be submitted to both Houses of Congress and will take effect unless one House of Congress vetoes these recommendations within 60 days. In the event of a veto, the Secretary shall then submit a revised recommendation of a basic system which meets the objections of the Congress. The bill is silent as to what would occur if Congress rejected-if indeed it could reject-the revised final recommendations.

The RLEA is not opposed to or particularly concerned about an objective study which would have as its recommendation of a basic Amtrak system for this country. We are concerned, however, with the proposed study because the very Department which would conduct this study only a few months ago was testifying before the Congress that Amtrak-at least beyond the Northeast corridorcould be abandoned because there exists "fine intercity bus systems and air transportation systems" which "could easily absorb" those passengers driven from the rails by abandonment of Amtrak routes. Under H.R. 11493, the same Department manned by many of the same people who prepared that testimony for Secretary Adams' predecessor to present to the Congress, is now asked to conduct a study and to consider first among the listed criteria: "(6) the adequacy of other transportation modes serving the same points to be served by the recommended route system."

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we fear that the issue may have been prejudged and the conclusion already reached to recommend abandonment of Amtrak on the primary ground that other forms of transportation are available and adequate to carry the passengers who would be driven from the rails by abandonment of passenger trains. We respectfully suggest that if this committee does not intend the issue to be prejudged that it remove as a criterion the "ade

quacy" consideration set forth above and in H.R. 11493 or that it state very clearly in its report on this bill that the "adequacy" issue is not a prime criterion to be considered. Unless this is done, our experience compels us to conclude that the "adequacy" consideration contained in the bill, which I just quoted, will be used to destroy the Amtrak system by those within the Department who remain of the same opinion they were 2 years ago.

Amtrak now carries about 20 million passengers a year. Its trains average well over 200 passenger-miles per train miles on 6 different routes, which average over 702 miles in trip length. Nine other routes average between 160 and 197 passenger-miles per train-mile and, when the two short routes of Washington-Martinsburg and Los Angeles-San Diego are excluded average 549 miles in trip length. Consideration of the existing and future energy crisis facing this country compels the conclusion that a rail passenger network capable of attracting ridership in the future, as it has in the past, is essential to this Nation's welfare. Today we have 20 million people riding Amtrak annually. By 1982, it is estimated that over 26 million people will be riding Amtrak each year. In terms of energy conservation; savings in lives otherwise lost in highway fatalities; dependability of transport in times of weather disasters, such as these last two winters; reduction of highway congestion; and simple public preference, Amtrak is the necessary answer. Public preference for rail travel plays a great part in the need for and success of Amtrak. For example, despite a miserable on-time performance of only 13 percent, the 592-mile trip between Chicago and New York City via Pittsburgh averages 302 passengers per train-mile, one of the highest, if not the highest, passenger train-mile ratio on the system.

There is an additional provision of H.R. 11493 upon which I would like to comment. Section 8 of the bill apparently would remove Amtrak from the jurisdiction of State and local laws with respect to repair of overhead highway bridges. I suppose the effect of such a provision would be to place the responsibility for such repairs upon the States or local communities with the funding to be provided from Federal highway funds. We believe that Congress should make quite sure that funding to continue repair of such bridges is not interrupted by enactment of a provision such as section 8, without current erection of a similar provision in another appropriate law providing adequate funding from another source.

Amtrak, I understand, has submitted a "5-year Corporate Plan" which sets forth a detailed study of what the future appears to be for Amtrak. It is an expensive future as we have always known it would be, but it is encouraging and it indicates the basic need which this Nation has for the continuation of an operationally viable rail. passenger system.

Adequate, safe, efficient rail passenger transportation is essential to our future well-being in the areas of energy, economy and ecology. The RLEA, of course, supports Amtrak because we represent its employees. But we also support it because we are convinced that rail passenger service is more necessary today than ever before since the train is the mode of transportation most efficient in use of energy and the mode which is least offensive to our environment.