Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12004521
label
1974/11/26 S386 National Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12004521
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1974/11/26 S386 National Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 (2)
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Federal aid
Legislation
Local transit
Vetoes
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12004521
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-11-30
month
11
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-11-01
month
11
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c5e9636ba2c4e8c4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 13, folder "1974/11/26 S386 National
Transportation Assistance Act of 1974 (2)" of the White House Records Office: Legislation
Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 13 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
93D CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
2d Session
No. 93-1427
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT
OF 1974
OCTOBER 3, 1974.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. PATMAN, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 386]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S.386) to amend
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 to authorize certain
grants to assure adequate commuter service in urban areas, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed
to follows: recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an amend-
ment, as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amend-
ment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "National Mass Transportation
Assistance Act of 1974".
FINDINGS
SEC. 2. The Congress finds that—
(1) over 70 per centum of the Nation's population lives in
urban areas;
(2) transportation is the lifeblood of an urbanized society and
the health and welfare of that society depends upon the provision
of efficient economical and convenient transportation within and
between its urban area;
(3) for many years the mass transportation industry satisfied
the transportation needs of the urban areas of the country capably
and profitably;
(4) in recent years the maintenance of even minimal mass
transportation service in urban areas has become so financially
burdensome as to threaten the continuation of this essential pub-
lic service;
FORD
38-006 0
LIBRARY
3
2
FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM
(5) the termination of such service or the continued increase in
its cost to the user is undesirable, and may have a particularly
SEC. 103. (a) The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 is
serious adverse effect upon the welfare of a substantial number
amended by striking out section 5 and inserting in lieu thereof the
of lower income persons;
following new section:
(6) some urban areas are now engaged in developing prelimi-
nary plans for, or are actually carrying out, comprehensive proj-
"URBAN MASS TRANSIT PROGRAM
ects to revitalize their mass transportation operations; and
"SEC. 5. (a) As used in this section-
(7) immediate substantial Federal assistance is needed to en-
"(1) the term 'construction' means the supervising, inspecting,
able many mass transportation systems to continue to provide
actual building, and all expenses incidental to the acquisition, con-
vital service.
struction, or reconstruction of facilities and equipment for use in
TITLE I-INCREASED MASS TRANSPORTATION
mass transportation, including designing, engineering, locating,
surveying, mapping, acquisition of rights-of-way, relocation as-
ASSISTANCE
sistance, and acquisition and replacement of housing sites;
"(2) the term 'Governor' means the Governor, or his designate,
AUTHORIZATION
of any one of the fifty States or of Puerto Rico, and the Mayor of
SEC. 101. (a) The first sentence of section 4(c) of the Urban Mass
the District of Columbia; and
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended by striking out "$6,100,000,000"
(3) the term 'urbanized area' means an area so designated by
and inserting in lieu thereof $10,925,0000,000".
the Bureau of the Census, within boundaries which shall be fixed
(b) Section 4(c) of such Act is further amended by adding at the
by responsible State and local officials in cooperation with each
end thereof the following new sentence: "Of the total amount avail-
other, subject to approval by the Secretary, and which shall at a
able to finance activities under this Act (other than under section 5)
minimum, in the case of any such area, encompass the entire ur-
on and after the date of the enactment of the National M ass Transpor-
banized area within the State as designated by the Bureau of the
tation Assistance Act of 1974, not to exceed $500,000,000 shall be
Census.
available exclusively for assistance in areas other than urbanized areas
(b) The Secretary shall apportion for expenditure in fiscal years
(as defined in section (3)
1975 through 1980 the sums authorized by subsection (c). Such sums
shall be made available for expenditure in urbanized areas or parts
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
thereof on the basis of a formula under which urbanized areas or
SEC. 102. Section 3(a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
parts thereof will be entitled to receive an amount equal to the sum
of-
1964 is amended-
(1) by inserting "(1)" after "SEC. 3. (a)
"(A) one-half of the total amount so apportioned multiplied
(2) by redesignating clauses (1) and (2) of the third sentence
by the ratio which the population of such urbanized area or part
thereof, as designated by the Bureau of the Census, bears to the
as clauses (A) and (B) respectively;
(3) by striking out the sixth and seventh sentences; and
total population of all the urbanized areas in all the States as
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
shown by the latest available Federal census; and
(2) It is declared to be in the national interest to encourage and
"(B) one-half of the total amount 80 apportioned multiplied
promote the development of transportation systems, embracing various
by a ratio for that urbanized area determined on the basis of
modes of transport in a manner that will serve the States and local
population weighted by a factor of density, as determined by the
communities efficiently and effectively. To accomplish this objective
Secretary.
the Secretary shall cooperate with the States in the development of
As used in the preceding sentence, the term 'density' means the num-
long-range plans and programs which are properly coordinated with
ber of inhabitants per square mile.
plans for improvements in other affected forms of transportation and
"(2) The Governor, responsible local officials and publicly-owned
which are formulated with due consideration to their probable effect
operators of mass transportation services, in accordance with the
on the future development of urban areas of more than fifty thousand
procedures required under section (g) (1), with the concurrence of
population. The development of projects in urbanized areas under this
the Secretary, shall designate a recipient to receive and dispense the
section shall be based upon a continuing, cooperative, and comprehen-
funds apportioned under paragraph (1) that are attributable to ur-
sive planning process covering all modes of surface transportation and
banized areas of two hundred thousand or more population. In any
carried on by the States and the governing bodies of local communities
case in which a statewide or regional agency or instrumentality is
in accordance with this paragraph. The Secretary shall not approve
responsible under State laws for the financing, construction and opera-
any project in an urbanized area after July 1, 1976, under this section
tion, directly, by lease, contract or otherwise, of public transportation
unless he finds that such project is based on a continuing comprehen-
services, such agency or instrumentality shall be the recipient to re-
sive transportation planning process carried on in conformance with
ceive and dispense such funds. The term 'designated recipient' as used
the objectives stated in this paragraph."
5
4
year for which the funds are made available; but nothing in this
in this Act shall refer to the recipient selected according to the pro-
sentence shall be construed as preventing State or local tax revenues
cedures required by this paragraph.
which are used for the operation of mass transportation service in the
'(3) Sums apportioned under paragraph (1) not made available for
area involved from being credited (to the extent necessary) toward
expenditure by designated recipients in accordance with the terms of
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for purposes of the
paragraph (2) shall be made available to the Governor for expenditure
preceding sentence.
in urbanized areas or parts thereof in accordance with the procedures
"(g) (1) It is declared to be in the national interest to encourage
required under subsection (g) (1).
and promote the development of transportation systems, embracing
(c) (1) To finance grants under this section, the Secretary may
various modes of transport in a manner that will serve the States and
incur obligations on behalf of the United States in the form of grants,
local communities efficiently and effectively. To accomplish this objec-
contracts, agreements, or otherwise in an aggregate amount not to
tive the Secretary shall cooperate with the States in the development
exceed $3,975,000,000. There are authorized to be appropriated for
of long-range plans and programs which are properly coordinated
liquidation of the obligations incurred under this paragraph not to
with plans for improvement in other affected forms of transportation
exceed $300,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1975; not to exceed
and which are formulated with due consideration to their probable
$500,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1976; not to exceed $650,-
effect on the future development of urban areas of more than fifty
000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1977; not to exceed $775,000,000
thousand population. The development of projects in urbanized areas
prior to the close of fiscal year 1978; not to exceed $850,000,000 prior
under this section shall be based upon a continuing, cooperative, and
to the close of fiscal year 1979; and not to exceed $900,000,000 prior to
comprehensive planning process covering all modes of surface trans-
the close of fiscal year 1980. Sums so appropriated shall remain avail-
portation and carried on by the States and the governing bodies of
able until expended.
local communities in accordance with this paragraph. The Secretary
"(2) Sums apportioned under this section shall be available for
shall not approve any project in an urbanized area after July 1, 1976,
obligation by the Governor or designated recipient for a period of two
under this section unless he finds that such project is based on a con-
years following the close of the fiscal year for which such sums are
tinuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried on in
apportioned, and any amounts 80 apportioned remaining unobligated
conformance with the objectives stated in this paragraph.
at the end of such period shall lapse and shall be returned to the
'(2) The Governor or designated recipient shall submit to the
Treasury for deposit as miscellaneous receipts.
Secretary for his approval a program of projects for utilization of the
"(d) (1) The Secretary may approve as a project under this section,
funds authorized, which shall be based on the continuing compre-
on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, (4) the acquisition,
hensive planning process of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall act
construction, and improvement of facilities and equipment for use, by
upon programs submitted to him as soon as practicable, and he may
operation or lease or otherwise, in mass transportation service, and
approve a program in whole or in part.
(B) the payment of operating expenses to improve or to continue such
(3) An applicant for assistance under this section (other than a
service by operation, lease, contract, or otherwise.
Governor) shall submit the program or programs to the Governor of
"(2) The Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems neces-
the State affected, concurrently with submission to the Secretary.
sary to administer this subsection and subsection (e), including regula-
If within thirty days thereafter the Governor submits comments to
tions regarding maintenance of effort by States, local governments,
the Secretary, the Secretary shall consider such comments before
and local public bodies, the appropriate definition of operating expen-
taking final action on the program or programs.
ses, and requirements for improving the efficiency of transit services.
(h) (1) The Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized
(e) The Federal grant for any construction project under this
area shall submit to the Secretary for his approach such surveys, plans,
section shall not exceed 80 per centum of the cost of the construction
specifications, and estimates for each proposed project as the Secretary
project, as determined under section 4(a) of this Act. The Federal
may require. The Secretary shall act upon such surveys, plans, specr-
grant for any project for the payment of subsidies for operating ex-
fications, and his entering into a grant or contract agreement with
penses shall not exceed 50 per centum of the cost of such operating
respect to any such project shall be a contractual obligation of the
expense project. The remainder shall be provided in cash, from sources
Federal Government for the payment of its proportional contribution
other than Federal funds or revenues from the operation of public
thereto.
mass transportation systems. Any public or private transit system
"(2) In approving any project under this section, the Secretary
funds 80 provided shall be solely from undistributed cash surpluses,
shall assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environmental
replacement or depreciation funds or reserves available in cash, or new
effects relating to the proposed project have been fully considered in
capital.
developing the project, and that the final decisions on the project are
(f) Federal funds available for expenditure for mass transporta-
made in the best overall public interest, taking into consideration the
tion projects under this section shall be supplementary to and not in
need for fast, safe, and efficient transportation, public services, and
substitution for the average amount of State and local government
conservation of environment and natural resources, and the costs
funds and other transit revenues such as advertising, concessions, and
of eliminating or minimizing any such adverse effects, including-
property leases, expended on the operation of mass transportation serv-
(A) air, noise, and water pollution;
ice in the area involved for the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal
7
6
the Secretary shall enter into a formal project agreement with the
"(B) destruction or disruption of manmade and natural re-
Governor, his designee or the designated recipient of the urbanized
sources, esthetic values, community cohesion, and the availability
area. Such project agreement shall make provision for non-Federal
of public facilities and services;
funds required for the State's or designated recipient's pro rata share
(C) adverse employment effects, and tax and property value
of the cost of the project.
'(2) The Secretary may rely upon representations made by the
losses; (D) injurious displacement of people, businesses, and farms;
applicant with respect to the arrangements or agreements made by
the Governor or the designated recipient where a part of the project
and "(E) disruption of desirable community and regional growth.
involved is to be constructed at the expense of, or in cooperation with,
section, the Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized
"(i) Upon submission for approval of a proposed project under this
local subdivisions of the State.
'(3) The Secretary is authorized, notwithstanding the provisions
area shall certify to the Secretary that he or it has conducted public
of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, to make advance
hearings (or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings) and
or progress payments on account of any grant or contract made pur-
that these hearings included (or were scheduled to include) con-
suant to this section, on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe.
sideration of the economic and social effects of such project, its im-
"(b) The Secretary shall not approve any project under this sec-
pact on the environment, including requirements under the Clean Air
tion unless he finds that such project is needed to carry out a pro-
Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and other applicable
gram, meeting criteria established by him, for a unified or officially
Federal environmental statutes, and its consistency with the goals
coordinated urban transportation system as a part of the compre-
and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by
hensively planned development of the urban area, and is necessary for
the community. Such certification shall be accompanied by (1) a re-
the sound, economic, and desirable development of such area, and that
port which indicates the consideration given to the economic, social,
the applicant or responsible agency has the legal, financial, and tech-
environmental, and other effects of the proposed project, including,
nical capacity to carry out the proposed project. A project under this
for construction projects, the effects of its location or design, and
section may not be undertaken unless the responsible public officials
the consideration given to the various alternatives which were raised
of the urbanized area in which the project is located have been con-
during the hearing or which were otherwise considered, and (2) upon
sulted and, except for projects solely to pay subsidies for operating
the Secretary's request, a copy of the transcript of the hearings.
expenses, their views considered with respect to the corridor, location,
"(j) (1) The Secretary may discharge any of his responsibilities
and design of the project.
under this action with respect to a project under this section upon the
(m) The Secretary shall not approve any project under this sec-
request of any Governor or designated recipient of the urbanized àrea
tion unless the applicant agrees and gives satisfactory assurances, in
by accepting a certification by the Governor or his designee, or by the
such manner and form as may be required by the Secretary and in
designated recipient of the urbanized area, if he finds that such project
accordance with such terms and conditions as the Secretary may pre-
will be carried out in accordance with State laws, regulations, direc-
scribe, that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during
tives, and standards establishing requirements at least equivalent to
nonpeak hours for transportation utilizing or involving the facilities
those contained in, or issued pursuant to, this section.
and equipment of the project financed with assistance under this sec-
"(2) The Secretary shall make a final inspection or review of each
tion will not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to other
such project upon its completion and shall require an adequate report
persons at peak hours, whether the operation of such facilities and
of its estimated and actual cost, as well as such other information as
equipment is by the applicant or is by another entity under lease or
he determines to be necessary.
otherwise.
"(3) The Secretary shall promulgate such guidelines and regula-
"(n) (1) The provisions of section 13(c) and section 3(e) (4) shall
tions as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
apply in carrying ut.mass transportation projects under this section.
"(4) Acceptance by the Secretary of a certification under this section
(2) The provision of assistance under this section shall not be con-
may be rescinded by the Secretary at any time if, in his opinion, it is
strued as bringing within the application of chapter 15 of title 5,
necessary to do so.
United States Code, any nonsupervisory employee of an urban mass
"(5) Nothing in this section shall affect or discharge any respon-
transportation system (or of any other agency or entity performing
sibility or obligation of the Secretary under any other Federal law,
related functions) to whom such chapter is otherwise inapplicable.".
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
(b) Section 4(a) of such Act is amended by striking out "Except as
4321 et seq.), section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
specified in section 5, no" and inserting in lieu thereof "No".
(49 U.S.C. 1653(f), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 200 (d) et seq.), title VIII of the Act of April 11, 1968 (Public
ELIGIBILITY OF QUASI-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
Law 90-284, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and the Uniform Relocation As-
sistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601
Sec. 104. (a) The first sentence of section 3(a) of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended by inserting "(1)" after
et seq.).
(k) (1) As soon as practicable after the plans, specifications, and
"financing", and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the
estimates for a specific project under this section have been approved,
9
8
'(g) No Federal financial assistance shall be provided under this
following and (2) the establishment and organization of public
Act for the construction or operation of facilities and equipment for
or quasi-public transit corridor development corporations or entities".
use in providing public mass transportation service to any applicant
(b) The second sentence of section 3(a) of such Act is amended to
for such assistance unless such applicant and the Secretary shall
read as follows: "Eligible facilities and equipment may include per-
have first entered into an agreement that such applicant will not en-
sonal property including buses and other rolling stock and real prop-
gage in schoolbus operations, exclusively for the transportation of
erty including land (but not public highways), within the entire zone
students and school personnel, in competition with private schoolbus
affected by the construction and operation of transit improvements, in-
operators. This subsection shall not apply to an applicant with re-
cluding station sites, needed for any efficient and coordinated mass
spect to operation of a schoolbus program if the applicant operates
transportation system which is compatible with socially, economically,
a school system in the area to be served and operates a separate and
and environmentally sound patterns of land use."
exclusive schoolbus program for this school system. This subsection
shall not apply unless private schoolbus operators are able to provide
COORDINATION OF URBAN MASS TRANSIT PROGRAMS WITH MODEL
adequate transportation, at reasonable rates, and in conformance
CITIES PROGRAMS
with applicable safety standards; and this subsection shall not apply
SEC. 105. Section 103 (a) of the Demonstration Cities and Metro-
with respect to any State or local public body or agency thereof if
politan Development Act of 1966 is amended-
it (or a direct predecessor in interest from which it acquired the
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
function of 80 transporting schoolchildren and personnel along with
(5) and (6) respectively, and
facilities to be used therefor) was 80 engaged in schoolbus operations
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
any time during the twelve-month period immediately prior to the
paragraph: "(4) any program which includes a transportation component
date of the enactment of this subsection. A violation of an agreement
under this subsection shall bar such applicant from receiving any
as a project or activity to be undertaken meets the requirements
other Federal financial assistance under this Act."
of section (e) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964;".
(b) The first sentence of section 3(f) of such Act is amended by
striking out "purchase of buses" each place it appears and inserting
PROCUREMENT
in lieu thereof "purchase or operation of buses".
SEC. 106. The fifth sentence of section 3(a) of the Urban Mass
ALTERNATE USE OF CAPITAL GRANTS
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended by inserting before the period
at the end thereof the following " nor shall any grant or loan funds
Sec. 110. Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
be used to support procurements utilizing exclusionary or discrimina-
is amended by adding at the end thereof (after the new subsection
tory specifications".
added by section 109 of this Act) the following new subsection:
'(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, or of any
INVESTIGATION OF SAFETY HAZARDS IN URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
contract or agreement entered into under this Act, up to one-half of
SYSTEMS
any financial assistance provided under this Act (other than under
SEC. 107. The Secretary of Transportation shall investigate unsafe
section 5) to any State or local public body or agency thereof for the
conditions in any facility, equipment, or manner of operation fi-
fiscal year 1975 or any subsequent fiscal year may, at the option of
nanced under this Act which creates a serious hazard of death or
such State or local public body or agency, be used exclusively for the
injury for the purpose of determining its nature and extent and the
payment of operating expenses (incurred in connection with the pro-
means which might best be employed to eliminate or correct it. If the
vision of mass transportation service in an urban area or areas) to
Secretary determines that such facility, equipment, or manner of
improve or to continue such service, if the Secretary finds (in any
operation is unsafe, he shall require the State or local public body or
case where the financial assistance to be 80 used was originally pro-
agency to submit to the Secretary a plan for correcting the unsafe
vided for another project) that effective arrangements have been
facility, equipment, or manner of operation, and the Secretary may
made to substitute and, by the end of the fiscal year following the
withhold further financial assistance to the applicant until such plan
fiscal year for which such sums are used, make available (for such
is approved or implemented.
other project) an equal amount of State or local funds (in addition
to any State or local funds otherwise required by this Act to be con-
FARES FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERONS
tributed toward the cost of such project). Any amounts used for the
SEC. 108. Nothing contained in this title shall require the charging
payment of operating expenses pursuant to this subsection shall be
of fares to elderly and handicapped persons.
subject to such terms and conditions (including the requirement for
local matching contributions), required for the payment of operating
SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS
expenses under other provisions of this Act, as the Secretary may
deem necessary and appropriate."
SEC. 109. (a) Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964 is amended by adding at the end thereof (immediately after
subsection (f)) the following new subsection:
10
11
DATA AND FINANCIAL REPORTING SYSTEMS
(3) a high level of innovative service must be provided includ-
SEC. 111. Section 15 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
ing the provision of crosstown and other transportation service
is amended by striking out the entire section and inserting in lieu there-
to the extent necessary for central city residents and others to
reach employment, shopping, and recreation; and
of the following:
"REPORTING SYSTEM
(4) to the extent practicable, projects utilizing different modes
of mass transportation shall be approved.
"SEC. 15. (a) The Secretary shall by January 10, 1977, develop,
SEC. 204. The Secretary shall study fare-free systems assisted pur-
test, and prescribe a reporting system to accumulate public mass trans-
suant to this title, and other financially assisted urban mass trans-
portation financial and operating information by uniform categories
portation systems providing reduced fares for the purpose of deter-
and a uniförm system of accounts and records. Such systems shall be
mining the following:
designed to assist in meeting the needs of individual public mass trans-
(1) the effects of such systems on (i) vehicle traffic and attend-
portation systems, Federal, State, and local governments, and the
ant air pollution, congestion, and noise, (ii) the mobility of urban
public for information on which to base planning for public trans-
residents, and (iii) the economic viability of central city busness;
portation services, and shall contain information appropriate to assist
(2) the mode of mass transportation that can best meet the
in the making of public sector investment decisions at all levels of
desired objectives;
government. The Secretary is authorized to develop and test these.
(3) the extent to which frivolous ridership increases as a result
systems in consultation with interested persons and organizations. The
of reduced fare or fare-free systems;
Secretary is authorized to carry out this subsection independently, or
(4) the extent to which the need for urban highways might be
by grant or contract (including working arrangements with other
reduced as a result of reduced fare or fare-free systems; and
Federal, State, or local government agencies). The Secretary is au-
(5) the best means of financing reduced fare or fare-free trans-
thorized to request and receive such information or data as he deems
portation on a continuing basis.
appropriate from public or private sources.
SEC. 205. The Secretary shall make annual reports to the Congress
(b) After July 1, 1978, the Secretary shall not make any grant
on the information gathered pursuant to section 204 of this title and
under section 5 unless the applicant for such grant and any person or
shall make a final report of his findings, including any recommenda-
organization to receive benefits directly from that grant are each sub-
1975. tions he might have to implement such findings, not later than June 30,
ject to both the reporting system and the uniform system of accounts
and records prescribed under subsection (a) of this section."
SEC. 206. In carrying out the provisions of this title, the Secretary
shall provide advisory participation by interested State and local
TITLE II-FARE-FREE MASS TRANSPORTATION
government authorities, mass transportation systems management per-
sonnel, employee representatives, mass transportation riders, and any
DEMONSTRATIONS
other persons that he may deem necessary or appropriate.
SEC. 201. The Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter referred to
SEC. 207. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to
as the "Secretary") shall enter into such contracts or other arrange-
exceed $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending on June 30, 1975,
ments as may be necessary for research and the development, establish-
and title. June 30, 1976, respectively, to carry out the provisions of this
ment, and operation of demonstration projects to determine the feasi-
bility of fare-free urban mass transportation systems.
TITLE III-RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS
SEC. 202. Federal grants or payments for the purpose of assisting
SEC. 301. The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into such
such projects shall cover not to exceed 80 per centum of the cost of the
project involved, including operating costs and the amortization of
arrangements as may be necessary to carry out a demonstration project
in Hammond, Indiana, for the relocation of railroad lines for the
capital costs for any fiscal year for which such contract or other ar-
purpose of eliminating highway railroad grade crossings. The Federal
rangement is in effect.
SEC. 203. The Secretary shall select cities or metropolitan areas for
share payable on account of such project shall be that provided in
section 120 of title 23, United States Code.
such projects in accordance with the following:
SEC. 302. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
(1) to the extent practicable, such cities or metropolitan areas
title not to exceed $14,000,000, except that two-thirds of all funds
shall have a failing or nonexistent or marginally profitable tran-
expended under authority of this section in any fiscal year shall be
sit system, a decaying central city, automobile-caused air pollu-
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund.
tion problems, and an immobile central city population;
And the House agree to the same.
(2) several projects should be selected from cities or metro-
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
politan areas of differing sizes and populations;
the House to the title of the Senate bill and agree to the same with
an amendment as follows:
12
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment of
the House to the title of the Senate bill, insert the following: "An Act
to amend the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 to provide
increased assistance for mass transportation systems."
And the House agree to the same.
WRIGHT PATMAN,
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE
JOSEPH G. MINISH,
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
ToM S. GETTYS,
JIM HANLEY,
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the con-
PETE STARK,
ference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amend-
EDWARD KOOH,
ments of the House to the bill (S. 386) to amend the Urban Mass
WILLIAM COTTER,
Transportation Act of 1964 to authorize certain grants to assure ade-
ANDREW YOUNG,
quate commuter service in urban areas, and for other purposes, submit
JOE MOAKLEY,
the following joint statement to the House and the Senate in explana-
GARRY BROWN,
tion of the effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL,
recommended in the accompanying conference report:
STEWART B. McKINNEY,
The House amendment to the text of the bill struck out all of the
Managers on the Part of the House.
Senate bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
JOHN SPARKMAN,
The Senate recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of the
WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
House with an amendment which is a substitute for the Senate bill and
HARRISON WILLIAMS,
the House amendment. The differences between the Senate bill, the
JOHN TOWER,
House amendment, and the substitute agreed to in conference are noted
ED. BROOKE,
below, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made neces-
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
sary by agreements reached by the conferees, and minor drafting and
clarifying changes.
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
The short title of the House amendment was cited as the "Urban
Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974". The Senate short title
of the bill was cited as the "Emergency Commuter Relief Act". The
conference report cites the bill as the "National Mass Transportation
Act of 1974".
The House amendment contained no Congressional statement of
findings. The Senate bill contained seven statements of findings which
outlined the importance and necessity of quality urban mass trans-
portation for the United States. The conference report contains the
Senate findings.
INCREASED MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
On September 25, 1974, the conferees on the bill, S. 386, conducted
a public hearing to explore means of improving and modifying S. 386,
the Emergency Urban Mass Transportation Act. At these hearings,
witnesses, including members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, transit
industry officials, labor representatives, business and community
leaders, and the Administration testified on the need for a long-term
comprehensive mass transit program this year. In particular, the
Administration testified that they would oppose legislation that was
not a long-term comprehensive bill. The Administration also raised
additional objections to S. 386 as it was reported to the House on Feb-
ruary 26, 1974 (House Report 93-813). During discussions with mem-
bers of the conference committee and in a letter dated July 26, 1974,
to House Minority Leader John Rhodes, Secretary Brinegar stated
that S. 386 had the following "critical weaknesses":
(13)
14
15
(1) it effectively eliminates participation by State governments in
This multiple purpose of these funds and the development levels of
planning and executing public transportation programs;
funding are very similar to the formula grant program embodied in
(2) the formula for distributing funds in S. 386 is unsound; and
the Administration's UTAP proposal.
(3) the funding authorizations in S, 386 are out of line with the need
One of the bases of criticism of the original S. 386 was the distribu-
to fight inflation.
tion formula. The use of revenue passenger and vehicle miles as factors
In addition, the Administration argued for a long-range bill in
in the formula were criticized because they were not reliably ascer-
order to deal comprehensively and effectively with the mass trans-
tainable numbers and were potentially susceptible to manipulation.
portation needs of the country. In an effort to accommodate the Ad-
Therefore, the conference adopted the factors of population and popu-
ministration and in the spirit of cooperation with the new President,
lation weighted by density that are based upon the 1970 census figures.
the conferees agreed to make major modifications in this conference
The 50 percent population and 50 percent population weighted by
report.
density factor formula was initially recommended by the Administra-
AUTHORIZATIONS
tion.
In urbanized areas of 200,000 population, a designated recipient will
The conference report amended section 4(c) of the Urban Mass
be selected by the Governor, local officials, and officials of the transpor-
Transportation Act of 1964 by striking $6.1 billion and inserting $10,-
tation authority. In any case in which a State agency is responsible
925,000,000. Of this $3.1 billion was obligated as of the end of Fiscal
under State law for financing, construction, and operation, directly
Year 1974. $3 billion is previously authorized authority. Thus, this
by lease, contract, or otherwise public transportation services, the Sec-
conference report provides $4,825,000,000 of new authority. This pro-
retary shall designate such State agency as the designated recipient
vides for a 6-year capital program of $7,825,000,000 available for
to receive and dispense funds apportioned. In urbanized areas under
obligations of which $500 million will be reserved for a new rural
200,000 population, the State will be the recipient of these funds.
public transportation capital assistance program. By combining the
The apportioned funds, if used by the Governor or designated recip-
existing authority and the new authority in this conference report,
ient for capital purposes, shall be on an 80 percent Federal share.
approximately $1.2 billion on the average per year will be authorized
Where the Governor or designated recipient uses these funds to pay
for the existing capital grant program. The obligation for Fiscal Year
operating expenses, they shall be on a 50 percent share basis.
1974 for this program was $1.2 billion and the estimate for 1975 is
The conference report would make the charter bus restrictions in
$1.350 billion. Thus, no substantial major increases are anticipated
section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 applicable to
in the existing capital grant program. This conference report will have
grants under this section. To be eligible for grants under this provi-
little or no budgetary impact during Fiscal Year 1975.
sion, the recipient must continue to maintain State and local operating
and capital funds, and the transit system must maintain other reve-
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
nues such as advertising, concessions, and property leases. This main-
tenance of effort provisions is to be a two-year average of the total of
All projects approved under the existing capital grant program
State and local funds used to finance operating costs and other non-
have had to be in compliance with regional comprehensive plans. In
farebox income. The State and local revenues and other incomes can
many urbanized areas in this country, regional planning has not been
be used as local matching share but that revenues gained by farebox
coordinated with state transportation planning. A new section would
shall not be eligible.
be added to the capital grant program which would provide for long-
Mass transportation systems receiving assistance under this provi-
term coordination of mass transit planning and the Governors, along
sion must charge half fares to the elderly and the handicapped during
with local officials, would be required to develop long-range plans to
nonpeak hours. In the case of areas served by privately owned public
improve and coordinate all forms of transportation within urbanized
transportation systems, the applicant will be the Governor or desig-
areas as a condition to receiving Federal funds. This addition would
nated recipient who by lease contract or otherwise shall make the funds
add Governor participation to the planning requirements which are
available to these privately-owned public transportation systems.
not now required under existing law.
The Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized area
shall submit to the Secretary for his approval such surveys, plans,
FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM
specifications, and estimates for each proposed project as the Secre-
tary may require. In addition, the Governor or the designated recipient
A new formula grant program is authorized by this conference
must certify to the Secretary that he has conducted public hearings
report. $3,975,000,000 is authorized in the next 6 years with the fol-
or afforded the opportunity for such hearings.
lowing liquidation schedule provided:
The conferees recognize that in order to minimize the deficits now
Million
Million
being incurred, all possible efficiencies of operation should be encour-
1975
$300
1978
$775
aged. There is also a need to improve the operating systems and elim-
1976
500
1979
850
inate inefficiencies in them. The conferees desire that no part of this
1977
650
1980
900
conference report shall be construed to limit or alter the responsibility
These funds would be available to be allocated to states or urbanized
of each recipient of assistance from initiating and implementing all
areas on a formula basis and would be available to finance capital
necessary and desirable efficiencies.
projects or pay operating costs of public transportation systems.
16
17
SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS
COORDINATION OF URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS WITH MODEL
Recipients under the existing capital grant program who have not
CITY PROGRAMS
engaged in school bus operations are not eligible to do SO. A similar
The House amendment contained a provision requiring that model
restriction for recipients of formula grant funds under section 5 is
city transit programs must comply with the labor provisions of the
provided.
Urban Mass Transportation Act. The Senate bill contained no similar
ALTERNATE USE OF CAPITAL GRANT PROGRAM
provision. The conference report retains the House provision.
Up to one-half of any financial assistance provided under the dis-
cretionary capital grant provisions of the Urban Mass Transporta-
SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENTS
tion Act of 1964 may be used, at the option of the grantee, for the pay-
The House amendment contained a provision prohibiting, except in
ment of operating expenses if the Secretary finds that effective
unusual circumstances, sole source procurements utilizing exclusionary
arrangements have been made to make available an equal amount of
or discriminatory specifications. The Senate bill contained no similar
State or local funds for completion of the project for which the Fed-
provision. The conference report contains the House provision with an
eral funds were to have been used. Where a grantee chooses to use
amendment that strikes out the reference to sole source procurements,
funds for operating rather than capital assistance under this provision,
the terms and conditions applicable to other operating expense projects
but would retain the prohibition on exclusionary or discriminatory
under the Act (including local share and maintenance of effort) shall
specifications.
INVESTIGATION OF SAFETY HAZARDS
be applied to projects under this subsection. The substitute funds must
actually be made available to the project no later than the end of the
The House amendment contained a provision directing the Secre-
fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the sums were used for
tary of Transportation to conduct investigations into unsafe condi-
operating expenses.
tions in any facility, equipment, or operation financed under the Act
which creates serious safety hazards and would direct the Secretary to
DATA AND FINANCIAL REPORTING SYSTEMS
require mass transit systems to submit a plan for correcting any unsafe
conditions and directs him to withhold further financial assistance
Governors designated recipients or public transportation systems
who are beneficiaries of funds apportioned under section 5 shall be
until such plan is approved or implemented. The Senate bill contained
required to adopt and operate a uniform reporting system.
no. similar provision. The conference report retains the House
The Secretary has until January 10, 1977, to devise such a uniform
provision.
reporting system. After July 1, 1978, all recipients of beneficiaries of
FARES FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
grants must be participants in this national system of uniform
The House amendment contained a clarification with regard to the
accounts. In addition, the establishment of a new formula grant pro-
fares for elderly and handicapped persons. The clarification specified
gram will insure an equitable distribution of funds among the vari-
that fares for such persons may be lower than one-half the regular
ous cities and States throughout our Nation as does the new rural
fare. The Senate bill contained no similar provision. The conference
capital grant program. Therefore, in the opinion of the conferees,
section 15 of the present Act is unnecessary; and, thus, the conference
report contains the House provision.
committee deleted this section.
TITLE II-DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR FREE FARES
ELIGIBILITY OF QUASI-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
The Senate bill contained provisions authorizing the Secretary of
DOT to enter into contracts or other arrangements for research, de-
The House amendment contained a provision making eligible for
velopment, establishment, and operation of demonstration projects
capital grants quasi-public transit corridor corporations and would
to determine feasibility of free fare urban mass transit systems. Fed-
expand the definition of facilities eligible for such grants to include
station sites and transit corridors. The Senate bill contained no similar
eral grants for such payments shall cover not to exceed 80 percent
of the cost of the project. This provision authorizes not to exceed
provision. The conference report contains the House provision.
$20 million for fiscal year 1974 and $20 million for fiscal year 1975.
18
TITLE III-RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS
Title III of the conference report would authorize an appropria-
tion not to exceed $14 million to be used to carry out a demonstration
program in Hammond, Indiana, for the relocation of railroad lines
for the purpose of eliminating highway railroad grade crossings.
WRIGHT PATMAN,
JOSEPH G. MINISH,
ToM S. GETTYS,
JIM HANLEY,
PETE STARK,
EDWARD Koch,
WILLIAM COTTER,
ANDREW YOUNG,
JOE MOAKLEY,
GARRY BROWN,
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL,
STEWART B. McKINNEY.
Managers on the Part of the House.
JOHN SPARKMAN,
WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
HARRISON WILLIAMS,
JOHN TOWER,
ED. BROOKE,
M anagers on the Part of the Senate.
93D CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
2d Session
No. 93-813
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
FEBRUARY 26, 1974.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. PATMAN, from the committee of conference,
submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany S. 386]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the House to the bill (S. 386) to amend
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 to authorize certain
grants to assure adequate commuter service in urban areas, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed
to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment of
the House to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House amend-
ment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Emergency Urban Mass Trans-
portation Assistant Act of 1974".
TITLE I-EMERGENCY COMMUTER RELIEF
FINDINGS
SEC. 101. The Congress finds—
(1) that over 70 per centum of the Nation's population lives
in urban areas;
(2) that transportation is the lifeblood of an urbanized society
and the health and welfare of that society depends upon the pro-
vision of efficient economical and convenient transportation
within and between its urban areas;
(3) that for many years the mass transportation industry
satisfied the transportation needs of the urban areas of the coun-
try capably and profitably;
FORD
99-006
LIBRARY
2
3
(4) that in recent years the maintenance of even minimal mass
(B) one-fourth of such total. amount multiplied by the ratio
transportation service in urban areas has become so financially
which the total number of revenue. passengers carried by mass
burdensome as to threaten the continuation of this essential pub-
transportation systems in such urbanized area or part thereof
lic service;
bears to the total number of such passengers carried by mass trans-
(5) that the termination of such service or the continued in-
portation systems in all the urbanized areas in all the States; and
crease in its cost to the ruser 28 undesirable, and may have a par-
(C) one-fourth of such total amount multiplied by the ratio
ticularly serious adverse effect upon the welfare of a substantial
which the total mass transportation vehicle miles traveled in such
number of lower income persons;
urbanized area or part thereof bears to. the total mass, transporta-
(6) that some urban areas are now engaged in developing pre-
liminary plans for, or are actually carrying out, comprehensive
States. tion vehicle miles traveled in all the urbanized areas in all the
projects to revitalize their mass transportation operations; and
"(2) In any urbanized area in which at least 75 per centum of the
(7) that immediate substantial Federal assistance is needed
population is served by a public transit authority or by a local public
to enable many mass transportation systems to continue to provide
body providing transit services, a'designated recipient of the urbanized
vital service.
area shall receive the funds apportioned under paragraph (1). The
Secretary, after consultation with the transit authority or the local
URBAN MASS TRANSIT PROGRAM; ASSISTANCE TO MEET OPERATING EXPENSES
public body providing. such services, and with other State and local
SEC. 102. (a) The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 is
public. bodies providing financial support to the transit authority or
amended by striking out section 5 and inserting in lieu thereof the
public body, shall designate such recipient.
following new section:
(3) Where a recipient is not designated under paragraph (2),
funds apportioned for use in any urbanized area shall be made avail-
"URBAN MASS TRANSIT PROGRAM
able to the Governor of the State in which such area or part thereof
is located for use in such area or part thereof, for expenditure on proj-
"SEC. 5. (a) As used in this section-
ect development or distribution to a public transit authority or local
"(1) the term "construction" means the supervising, inspecting,
public body providing transit services in occordance with subsection
actual building, and all expenses incidental to the construction
(l) and in cooperation with appropriate local officials, including the
or reconstruction of facilities and equipment for use in mass
chief elected officials of general units of local government within such
transportation, including designing. engineering, locating, sur-
urbanized area or part thereof.
veying, mapping, acquisition of rights-of-way, reloçation assist-
"(c) (1) Sums apportioned to the designated recipient of any urban-
ance, and acquisition and replacement of housing sites;
ized area or to the Governor under subsection (b) shall be available
"(2) the term "Governor" means the Governor, or his desig-
for obligation by the recipient or the Governor for a period of two
nate, of any one of the fifty States or of Puerto Rico, and the
years after the close of the fiscal year for which such sums are appor-
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and
tioned, and any amounts so apportioned remaining unobligated at the
"(3) the term 'urbanized area' means an area 80 designated
end of such period shall lapse and shall be returned to the Treasury
by the Buręau of the Census, within boundaries which shall be
for deposit as miscellaneous receipts.
fixed by responsible State and local officials in cooperation with
(2) To finance grants under this section the Secretary is author-
each other, subject to approval by the Secretary, and which shall
ized to incur obligations on behalf of the United States in the form of
at a minimum, in the case of any such area, ençompass the entire
urbanized area within the State as designated by the Bureau of
grant $800,000,000. agreements or otherwise in amounts aggregated not to exceed
the Census.
"(d) (1). The Secretary may approve as a project under this section,
"(3) (1) Upon the enactment of the Emergency Urban Mass
on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, (4) the acquisition,
Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, the Secretary under regula-
construction, and improvement of facilities and equipment for use, by
tions appropriate thereto shall apportion the sums authorized by sub-
operation or lease or otherwise, in mass transportation service, and
section (c) for apportionment in the fiscal years 1974 and 1975 to
(B) the payment of operating expenses to improve or to continue
urbanised areas in various Stàtes on the basis of a formula under
such service.
which each urbanized area or part thereof will be entitled to receive
"(2) The Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems neces-
an amount equal to the sum of
sary to administer this subsection and subsection (e), including regula-
"(A) one-half of the total amount 80 apportioned multiplied
tions regarding maintenance of effort by Stutes, local governments,
by the ratio which the population of such urbanized area or part
and local public bodies, the appropriate definition of operating ex-
thèreof, as designated by the Bureau of the Census, bears to the
total population of all the urbanized areas in all the ,States as
services. penses, and requirements for improving the effciency of transit
shown by the latest available Federal census;
"(e) The Federal share payable on account of any project financed
with funds made available under this section shall not exceed 80 per
5
4
section, the Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized area
centum of the cost of the project. The remainder of the cost of the
shall certify to the Secretary that he or it has conducted public hear-
project shall be provided from sources other than Federal funds. Fed-
ings (or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings) and that
eral funds available for expenditure for mass transportation projects
these hearings included (or were scheduled to include) consideration
under this section shall be supplementary to and not in substitution
of the economic and social effects of such project, its impact on the
for the average amount of State and local government funds and other
environment, including requirements under the Clean Air Act, the
revenues expended on the operation of mass transportation service in
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and other applicable Federal
the area involved for the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for
environmental statutes, and its consistency with the goals and objec-
which the funds are made available; but nothing in this sentence shall
tives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the com-
be construed as preventing State or local tax revenues which are used
munity. Such certification shall be accompanied by (1) a report which
for the operation of mass transportation service in the area involved
indicates the consideration given to the economic, social, environ-
from being credited (to the extent necessary) toward the non-Federal
mental, and other effects of the proposed project, including, for con-
share of the cost of the project for purposes of the preceding sentence.
struction projects, the effects of its location or design, and the consid-
"(f) (1) As soon as practicable after the apportionment pursuant to
eration given to the various alternatives which were raised during the
subsection (b) has been made for any fiscal year, any applicant desir-
hearing or which were otherwise considered, and (2) upon the Secre-
ing to avail himself of the benefits of this section shall submit to the
tary's request, a copy of the transcript of the hearings.
Secretary for his approval a program, or programs, of proposed proj-
(i) (1) The Secretary may discharge any of his responsibilities
ects for the utilization of the funds authorized. The Secretary shall
under this section with respect to a project under this section upon the
act upon programs submitted to him as soon as practicable, and he may
request of any Governor or designated recipient of the urbanized area
approve a program in whole or in part.
by accepting a certification by the Governor or his designee, or by the
(2) An applicant for assistance under this section (other than a
designated recipient of the urbanized area, if he finds that such project
Governor) shall submit the program or programs to the Governor of
will be carried out in accordance with State laws, regulations, direc-
the State effected, concurrently with submission to the Secretary. If
tives, and standards establishing requirements at least equivalent to
within 30 days thereafter the Governor submits comments to the Sec-
those contained in, or issued pursuant to, this section.
retary, the Secretary shall consider such comments before taking final
"(2) The Secretary shall make a final inspection or review of each
action on the program or programs.
such project upon its completion and shall require an adequate report
"(g) (1) The Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized
of its estimated and actual cost, as well as such other information as he
area shall submit to the Secretary for his approval such surveys, plans,
determines to be necessary.
specifications, and estimates for each proposed project as the Secre-
"(3) The Secretary shall promulgate such guidelines and regula-
tary may require. The Secretary shall act upon such surveys, plans,
tions as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
specifications, and estimates as soon as practicable after they are sub-
"(4) Acceptance by the Secretary of a certification under this sec-
mitted, and his approval of any such project shall be deemed a con-
tion may be rescinded by the Secretary at any time if, in his opinion,
tractual obligation of the Federal Government for the payment of its
it is necessary to do so.
proportional contribution thereto.
"(5) Nothing in this section shall affect or discharge any responsi-
"(2) In approving the plans, specifications, and estimates for any
bility or obligation of the Secretary under any other Federal law, in-
proposed project under this section, the Secretary shall assure that
cluding the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects relating to
4321 et seq.), section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
the proposed project have been fully considered in developing the
(49 U.S.C. 1653(f)), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
project, and that the final decisions on the project are made in the
U.S.C. 2000(d) et seq.), title VIII of the Act of April 11, 1968 (Pub-
best overall public interest, taking into consideration the need for
lic Law 90-284, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and the Uniform Relocation
fast, safe, and efficient transportation, public services, and conserva-
Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601
tion of environment and natural resources, and the costs of eliminating
et seq.).
or minimizing any such adverse effects, including-
'(j) (1) As soon as practicable after the plans, specifications, and
"(A) air, noise, and water pollution;
estimates for a specific project under this section have been approved,
"(B) destruction or disruption of man-made and natural re-
the Secretary shall enter into a formal project agreement with the
sources, aesthetic values, community cohesion, and the availability
Governor or designated recipient of the urbanized area. Such project
of public facilities and services;
agreement shall make provision for non-Federal funds required for
(C) adverse employment effects, and tax and property value
the State's or designated recipient's pro rata share of the cost of the
losses;
project.
(D) injurious displacement of people, businesses, and farms;
"(2) The Secretary may rely upon representations made by the
and
applicant with respect to the arrangements or agreements made by
(E) disruption of desirable community and regional growth.
the Governor or the designated recipient where a part of the project
(h) Upon submission for approval of a proposed project under this
6
7
involved is to be constructed at the expense of, or in cooperation with,
transportation system (or of any other agency or entity performing
local subdivisions of the State.
related functions) to whom such chapter is otherwise inapplicable."
(k) (1) The Secretary may in his discretion, from time to time as
(b) Section 4(a) of such Act is amended by striking out "Except
the work progresses, make payments to the applicant for costs of con-
as specified in section 5, no" and inserting in lieu thereof "No".
struction incurred by him or it on a project. Such payments shall at
INCREASE IN BASIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY
no time exceed the Federal share of the costs of construction incurred
to the date of the voucher covering such payment plus the Federal
SEC. 103. (a) The third sentence of section 4(c) of the Urban Mass
share of the value of the materials which have been stockpiled in the
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended-
vicinity of such construction in conformity to plans and specifications
(1) by striking out all that follows "which amount may be in-
for the project. Such payments may also be made in the case of any
creased"; and
such materials not in the vicinity of such construction if the Secretary
(2) by inserting in lieu thereof "to not to exceed an aggregate of
determines that because of required fabrication at an offsite location
$310,000,000 prior to July 1, 1972, not to exceed an aggregate of
the materials cannot be stockpiled in such vicinity.
$1,000,000,000 prior to July 1, 1973, not to exceed an aggregate of
(2) After completion of a project in accordance with the plans and
$2,000,000,000 prior to July 1, 1974, not to exceed an aggregate of
specifications, and approval of the final voucher by the Secretary, an
$3,000,000,000 prior to July 1, 1975, not to exceed an aggregate of
applicant shall be entitled to payment out of the sums apportioned to
$4,500,000,000 prior to July 1, 1976, not to exceed an aggregate of
him of the unpaid balance of the Federal share payable on account
$5,500,000,000 prior to July 1, 1977, and not to exceed an aggre-
of such project.
gate of $6,100,000,000 thereafter."
(3) No payment shall be made under this section except for a
(b) The first sentence of section 4(c) of such Act is amended by in-
project covered by a project agreement.
serting immediately before the period at the end thereof the follow-
(4) In making payments pursuant to this section, the Secretary
ing: "to the extent that such amounts are or were appropriated to
shall be bound by the limitations with respect to the permissible
finance such grants and loans and have not been reserved or made
amounts of such payments contained in subsection (e).
available for any other purpose".
(5) Such payments shall be made to such official or officials or
(c) The fourth sentence of section 4(c) of such Act is amended by
depository as may be designated by the Governor or designated re-
inserting after "Act" the following (to the extent that such amounts
cipient of the urbanized area and authorized under the laws of the
are or were appropriated to finance the grants and loans described in
State to receive public funds of the State.
the first sentence of his subsection and have not been reserved or made
(l) The Secretary shall not approve any project under this sec-
available for any other purpose)".
tion unless he finds that such project is needed to carry out a pro-
gram, meeting criteria established by him, for a unified or officially
PROHIBITION AGAINST CHARGING OF EXTRA FARES ON ASSISTED TRANSIT
FACILITIES
coordinated urban transportation system as a part of the comprehen-
sively planned development of the urban area, and is necessary for
SEC. 104. Section 5 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
the sound, economic and desirable development of such area. A project
(as added by section 102(a) of this Act) is amended by adding at the
under this section may not be undertaken unless the responsible public
end thereof the following new subsection:
officials of the urbanized area in which the project is located have
(o) No financial assistance shall be provided under this section
been consulted and, except for projects solely to pay operating ex-
to any designated recipient or Governor unless the applicant agrees
penses, their views considered with respect to the corridor, location,
and gives satisfactory assurances, in such manner and form as may be
and design of the project.
required by the Secretary and in accordance with such terms and con-
" (m) The Secretary shall not approve any project under this sec-
ditions as the Secretary may prescribe, that the rates charged for trans-
tion unlèss the applicant agrees and gives satisfactory assurances, in
portation utilizing or involving the facilities and equipment financed
such manner and form as may be required by the Secretary and in
with such assistance will be uniform (subject to any reasonable charges
accordance with such terms and conditions as the Secretary may pre-
which may be made for transfers), and will not vary on the basis of
scribe, that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during
length of route or distance traveled except in accordance with a zone
nonpeak hours for transportation utilizing or involving the facilities
system or other uniform system which is in effect throughout the area
and equipment of the project financed with assistance under this
served by such facilities and equipment, whether the operation of such
section will not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to
facilities and equipment is by the applicant or is by another entity
other persons, whether the operation of such facilities and equipment
under lease or otherwise."
is by the applicant or is by another entity under lease or otherwise.
" (n) (1) The provisions of section 13(c) and section 3(e) (4) shall
ELIGIBILITY OF QUASI-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
apply in carrying out mass transportation projects under this section.
(2) The provision of assistance under this section shall not be con-
SEC. 105. (a) The first sentence of section 3(a) of the Urban Mass
strued as bringing within the application of chapter 15 of title 5,
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended by inserting "(1)" after "fi-
United States Code, any nonsupervisory employee of an urban mass
8
9
nancing", and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the
submit to the Secretary a plan for correcting the unsafe facility, equip-
following and (2) the establishment and organization of public or
ment, or manner of operation, and the Secretary may withhold further
quasi-public transit corridor development corporations or entities".
financial assistance to the applicant until such plan is approved or
(b) The second sentence of section 3(a) of such Act is amended to
implemented.
read as follows: "Eligible facilities and equipment may include per-
sonal property including buses and other rolling stock and real prop-
FARES FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS
erty including including land (but not public highways), within the
Sec. 110. Nothing contained in this title shall require the charging
entire zone affected by the construction and operation of transit im-
of fares to elderly and handicapped persons.
provements, including station sites, needed for an efficient and co-
ordinated mass transportation system which is compatible with so-
TITLE II-FARE-FREE MASS TRANSPORTATION
cially, economically, and environmentally sound patterns of land use."
DEMONSTRATIONS
COORDINATION OF URBAN MASS TRANSIT PROGRAMS WITH MODEL CITIES
PROGRAMS
SEC. 201. The Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter referred to
as the "Secretary") shall enter into such contracts or other arrange-
SEC. 106. Section 103 (a) of the Demonstration Cities and Metro-
ments as may be necessary for research and the development, establish-
politan Development Act of 1966 is amended-
ment, and operation of demonstration projects to determine the feasi-
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
bility of fare-free urban mass transportation systems.
(5) and (6), respectively, and
SEC. 202. Federal grants or payments for the purpose of assisting
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new para-
such projects shall cover not to exceed 80 per centum of the cost of the
graph:
project involved, including operating costs and the amortization of
(4) any program which includes a transportation component
capital costs for any fiscal year for which such contract or other
as a project or activity to be undertaken meets the requirements of
arrangement is in effect.
section 3(e) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964;"
SEC. 203. The Secretary shall select cities or metropolitan areas for
such projects in accordance with the following:
PROCUREMENT
(1) to the extent practicable, such cities or metropolitan areas
SEC. 107. The fifth sentence of section (a) of the Urban Mass Trans-
shall have a failing or nonexistent or marginally profitable transit
portation Act of 1964 is amended by inserting before the period at
system, a decaying central city, automobile-caused air pollution
the end thereof the following. ", nor shall any grant or loan funds
problems, and an immobile central city population;
be used to support procurements utilizing exclusionary or discrimina-
(2) several projects should be selected from cities or metropoli-
tory specifications".
tan areas of differing sizes and populations;
(3) a high level of innovative service must be provided includ-
STUDY OF RURAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
ing the provision of crosstown and other transportation service
to the extent necessary for central city residents and others to
SEC. 108. The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a full and
reach employment, shopping, and recreation; and
complete study and investigation of the public transportation needs
(4) to the extent practicable, projects utilizing different modes
of rural and other nonurban areas in the United States, giving partic-
of mass transportation shall be approved.
ular attention to the needs of cities, towns, and other political subdivi-
SEC. 204. The Secretary shall study fare-free systems assisted pur-
sions (outside urban areas) having a population of 50,000 or less, and
suant to this title, and other financially assisted urban mass transpor-
of any changes in the Federal law which would be required in order
tation systems providing reduced fares for the purpose of determin-
to meet such needs. The Secretary shall report his findings and recom-
ing the following:
mendations to the Congress within one year after the date of the enact-
(1) the effects of such systems on (i) vehicle traffic and attend-
ment of this Act.
ant air pollution, congestion, and noise. (ii) the mobility of urban
INVESTIGATION OF SAFETY HAZARDS IN URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
residents, and (iii) the economic viability of central city business;
SYSTEMS
(2) the mode of mass transportation that can best meet the
desired objectives;
SEC. 109. The Secretary of Transportation shall investigate unsafe
(3) the extent to which frivolous ridership increases as a re-
conditions in any facility, equipment, or manner of operation financed
sult of reduced fare or fare-free systems;
under this Act which creates a serious hazard of death or injury for
(4) the extent to which the need for urban highways might be
the purpose of determining its nature and extent and the means which
reduced as a result of reduced fare or fare-free systems; and
might best be employed to eliminate or correct it. If the Secretary
(5) the best means of financing reduced fare or fare-free trans-
determines that such facility, equipment, or manner of operation is
portation on a continuing basis.
unsafe, he shall require the State or local public body or agency to
H. Rept. 93-813-2
10
SEC. 205. The Secretary shall make annual reports to the Congress
on the information gathered pursuant to section 204 of this title and
shall make a final report of his findings, including any recommenda-
tions he might have to implement such findings, not later than June 30,
1975.
SEC. 206. In carrying out the provisions of this title, the Secretary
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE
shall provide advisory participation by interested State and local gov-
crnment authorities, mass transportation systems management person-
COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
nel, employee representatives, mass transportation riders, and any
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the con-
other persons' that he may deem necessary or appropriate.
SEC. 207. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to ex-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment
ceed $20,000.000 for each of the fiscal years ending on June 30, 1974,
of the House to the bill (S. 386) the Emergency Urban Mass trans-
and June 30. 1975, respectively, to carry out the provisions of this title.
portation Assistance Act of 1974, submit the following joint statement
to the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the action
And the House agree to the same.
That the House recede from its amendment to the title of the bill.
agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying
conference report:
WRIGHT PATMAN,
The House struck out all of the Senate bill after the enacting clause
JOSEPH G. MINISH,
and inserted a substitute amendment.
Tom GETTYS,
The Committee of Conference has agreed to a substitute for both
JIM HANLEY,
the Senate bill and the House amendment. Except for clarifying,
FRANK J. BRASCO,
clerical, and conforming changes, the differences are noted below:
EDWARD I. KOCH,
WILLIAM COTTER,
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
ANDREW YOUNG,
JOHN J. MOAKLEY,
The short title of the House amendment was cited as the "Urban
GARRY BROWN,
Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974". The Senate short title
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL,
of the bill was cited as the "Emergency Commuter Relief Act". The
LAWRENCE G. WILLIAMS,
conference report cites the bill as the "Emergency Urban Mass Trans-
STEWART McKINNEY,
portation Assistance Act".
Managers on the Part of the House.
The House amendment contained no Congressional statement of
JOHN SPARKMAN,
findings. The Senate bill contained seven statements of findings which
WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
outlined the importance and necessity of quality urban mass trans-
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS,
portation for the United States. The conference report contains the
JOHN TOWER,
Senate findings.
EDWARD BROOKE,
OPERATING ASSISTANCE
M anagers on the Part of the Senate.
The House amendment contained a provision providing that operat-
ing assistance grants would be on a formula basis to reflect equally (1)
the population of the area served by the mass transit system in relation
to the total population of the U.S.A., (2) the number of revenue pas-
sengers carried by a mass transportation system in relation to the total
number of passengers of mass transportation systems throughout the
country, and (3) revenue vehicle miles traveled by an urban mass
transit system in relation to the total number of revenue vehicle miles
traveled by mass transit systems throughout the country. Operating
assistance grants would be 100 percent Federal grants. The House
amendment also provided that no assistance shall be provided under
this provision unless the rates charged the elderly and handicapped
during nonpeak hours of transportation will not exceed one-half of
the rates generally applicable to other persons.
(11)
12
13
The Senate bill provided the Secretary with discretionary contract
authority to allocate funds under the bill in the form of either grants
legislation was short term and that the issue of local taxing effort
or loans. However, the Secretary could not allocate more than 121/2
would be thoroughly explored in subsequent hearings.
percent of the total authorization to any one state except that 15 per-
The conference report provides that the $800 million will be in the
cent of the aggregate amount of grant funds may be used by the Sec-
form of contract authority to be used for either operating assistance
retary without regard to this limitation for grants in states where
or capital grants at the option of local authorities. These funds may be
more than two-thirds of maximum amounts of funds permitted under
made available immediately for obligation during fiscal years 1974 and
this provision has been obligated. The Senate bill provided a grant
1975. These funds would come solely from general treasury revenue
ratio of two-thirds Federal and one-third local contribution, and pro-
funds and would in no part come from the highway trust fund.
hibited financial assistance unless the applicant has submitted to the
The grants under this provision would be made to designated re-
Secretary a comprehensive mass transportation plan including reason-
cipients in urbanized areas in which at least 75 percent of the popu-
able fare structure and the assurance that the system is providing
lation is served by a public transit authority, or by a local public body
efficient operations in accordance with regulation promulgated by the
providing transit services. These designated recipients shall be chosen
Secretary. The Senate bill provided that any grant shall not exceed
by the Secretary of Transportation after consultation with the appro-
twice the amount of financial assistance provided by the State or local
priate State and local public bodies. Where such a recipient is not in
source. The Senate bill required the submission by the applicant of
existence, the funds apportioned for the urbanized area shall be avail-
an annual report describing the implementation of its mass transpor-
able to the Governor of the State for distribution to these areas. Mass
tation service improvement plan.
transportation systems receiving assistance under this provision must
The conference report contains generally the House formula based
charge half fares to the elderly and the handicapped during non-peak
on three factors of population, revenue passengers, and vehicle miles.
hours. In the case of areas served by privately owned bus operators, the
The funds would be distributed according to a formula to the ur-
applicant will be the Governor or designated recipient as who shall
banized areas of each State. The conference report would allocate
include only those elements of population, ridership and vehicle miles
the funds under a formula based upon three factors weighted as fol-
it intends to seek financial assistance for. The Governor or designated
lows: 50 percent of the population of the area served by the mass
recipient may add criteria to condition the pass through of the funds
transportation system, 25 percent of the total number of revenue pas-
to the private body, but it is intended that the private operator should
sengers carried by the system, and 25 percent of the total revenue ve-
receive its proportionate share.
hicle miles travelled by the system. The population, passengers, and
The Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized area
miles of each eligible recipient would be weighted against the total
shall submit to the Secretary for his approval such surveys, plans,
population, passengers, and miles of all designated recipients and
specifications, and estimates for each proposed project as the Secre-
the funds distributed accordingly.
tary may require. In addition, the Governor or the designated recipient
The Federal share for such grants would not exceed 80 percent of
must certify to the Secretary that he has conducted public hearings
the cost of the project with the remaining funds to be provided by the
or afforded the opportunity for such hearings.
applicant. State or local tax revenues which are used for the opera-
The conferees recognize that in order to minimize the deficits now
tion of mass transportation service in the area involved may be cred-
being incurred, all possible efficiencies of operation should be encour-
ited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project. To be
aged. There is also a need to improve the operating systems and elim-
eligible for grants under this provision, the recipient must continue
inate inefficiencies in them. The conferees desire that no part of this
to maintain State and local operating and capital funds, and the
conference report shall be construed to limit or alter the responsibility
transit system must maintain other revenues such as advertising, con-
of each recipient of assistance from initiating and implementing all
cessions, and property leases. This maintenance of effort provisions is
necessary and desirable efficiencies.
to be a two-year average of the total of State and local funds used to
REALLOCATION OF CAPITAL GRANT FUNDS
finance operating costs, and State and local funds used to finance the
local share of Federal capital grant funds.
The House amendment provided for the establishment of a new
The conferees agreed that every effort would be made to hold hear-
schedule for the disbursement of the existing $6.1 billion in capital
ings as soon as possible on the Administration's mass transit proposals.
grant funds already authorized to be appropriated to liquidate con-
Included in these hearings would be consideration of whether the
tracts: $310 million for fiscal year 1972; $1 billion for fiscal year 1973;
contributions of local government to operating deficits should become
$2 billion for fiscal year 1974; $3 billion for fiscal year 1975; $4.5
part of the distribution formula. The conferees discussed the measure-
billion for fiscal year 1976; and $5.5 billion for fiscal year 1977, and
ment of local taxes as a factor in the distribution formula, but because
not to exceed $6.1 billion thereafter. The Senate-bill contains no simi-
of insufficient information and the emergency situation that now exists
lar provision and the conference report retains the House provision.
in mass transit, a decision was deferred. The conferees agreed that the
The House amendment contained a provision that capital grant
contracts shall not be reserved or made available for any other pur-
14
15
pose than is otherwise stated in section 4(c) of the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Act. The Senate bill contained no similiar provision. The
directly in transporting school children or school personnel in com-
conference report retains the House provision.
petition to or supplemental service concurrently provided by public
transportation companies except that it would not apply with respect
PROHIBITION AGAINST CHARGING EXTRA FARES ON ASSISTED TRANSIT
to a mass transit system that was SO engaged at any time during the
FACILITIES
12-month period immediately prior to the date of enactment of this
provision. The Senate bill contained no similar provision and none is
The House amendment contained a provision prohibiting financial
contained in the conference report.
assistance under the Urban Mass Transportation Act to any mass
STUDY OF RURAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
transit system charging fares that vary on the basis of length of route
or distance travelled except in accordance with a zone system or other
The House amendment contained a provision directing the Secre-
uniform system which is in effect throughout the area served by such
tary of Transportation to conduct a full and complete study and in-
mass transit facility and equipment. The Senate bill contained no simi-
vestigation of the public transportation needs of rural and other non-
lar provision. The conference report retains the House provision with
urban areas of the United States giving particular attention to those
an amendment limiting this prohibition to those assisted under sec-
communities having a population of 50,000 or less. The Senate bill con-
tion 102 of this Act.
tained no similar provision. The conference report retains the House
provision.
ELIGIBILITY OF QUASI-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
INVESTIGATION OF SAFETY HAZARDS
The House amendment contained a provision making eligible for
The House amendment contained a provision directing the Secre-
capital grants quasi-public transit corridor corporations and would
tary of Transportation to conduct investigations into unsafe condi-
expand the definition of facilities eligible for such grants to include
tions in any facility, equipment, or operation financed under the Act
station sites and transit corridors. The Senate bill contained no similar
which creates serious safety hazards and would direct the Secretary to
provision. The conference report contains the House provision.
require mass transit systems to submit a plan for correcting any unsafe
conditions and directs him to withhold further financial assistance
COORDINATION OF URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS WITH MODEL
until such plan is approved or implemented. The Senate bill contained
CITY PROGRAMS
no similar provision. The conference report retains the House
provision.
The House amendment contained a provision requiring that model
city transit programs must comply with the labor provisions of the
ELIMINATION OF ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF PROJECT LOANS
Urban Mass Transportation Act. The Senate bill contained no similar
provision. The conference report retains the House provision.
The House amendment contained a provision that eliminated assist-
ance in the form of loans under the capital grant program. The Senate
SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENTS
bill contained no similar provision and none is contained in the con-
ference report.
The House amendment contained a provision prohibiting, except in
unusual circumstances, sole source procurements utilizing exclusionary
FARES FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED
or discriminatory specifications. The Senate bill contained no similar
The House amendment contained a clarification with regard to the
provision. The conference report contains the House provision with an
fares for elderly and handicapped persons. The clarification specified
amendment that strikes out the reference to sole source procurements,
that fares for such persons may be lower than one-half the regular
but would retain the prohibition on exclusionary or discriminatory
fare. The Senate bill contained no similar provision. The conference
specifications.
report contains the House provision.
LIMITATION OF MASS TRANSIT FUNDING RELATED TO PUPIL
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR FREE FARES
TRANSPORTATION
The Senate bill contained provisions authorizing the Secretary of
The House amendment contained a provision prohibiting financial
DOT to enter into contracts or other arrangements for research, de-
assistance to any eligible mass transit agency involved directly or in-
velopment, establishment, and operation of demonstration projects
to determine feasibility of free fare urban mass transit systems. Fed-
eral grants for such payments shall cover not to exceed 80 percent
16
of the cost of the project. This provision authorizes not to exceed
$20 million for fiscal year 1974 and $20 million for fiscal year 1975.
WRIGHT PATMAN,
JOSEPH G. MINISH,
ToM GETTYS,
JIM HANLEY,
FRANK J. BRASCO,
EDWARD I. Koch,
WILLIAM COTTER,
ANDREW YOUNG,
JOHN J. MOAKLEY,
GARRY BROWN,
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL,
LAWRENCE G. WILLIAMS,
STEWART McKINNEY,
Managers on the Part of the House.
JOHN SPARKMAN,
WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
HARRISON A. WILLIAMS,
JOHN TOWER,
EDWARD BROOKE,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Calendar No. 341
93D CONGRESS
SENATE
REPORT
1st Session
No. 93-361
EMERGENCY COMMUTER RELIEF ACT
JULY 31, 1973.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 386]
The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to which
was referred the bill (S. 386) to amend the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Act of 1964 to authorize certain grants to assure adequate com-
muter service in urban areas, and for other purposes, having con-
sidered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
INTRODUCTION
The bill, S. 386, was introduced in the Senate on January 16, 1973,
and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Af-
fairs. Hearings were subsequently held on February 6 and 7, 1973.
Later on, the 1973 provisions of this bill were included in the Federal
Aid Highway Act of 1973 by Senate floor amendment. However, these
provisions were deleted in the House-Senate conference reported on
July 27, 1973.
The bill is identical to chapter VI of the Housing and Urban Devel-
opment Act of 1972, S. 3248 which passed the Senate on March 2,
1972. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation to make grants or loans to State and local public bodies
in order to assist them in maintaining adequate transportation serv-
ices and by providing financial assistance to defray operating expenses.
Recognizing that transit industry deficits are spiraling, wital serv-
ices are being reduced, and that the solution to urban and environ
99-549-73
LIBRARY
2
3
mental problems is to require adequate mass transit services, the
committee recommends passage of this bill as an urgent legislative
matter.
COMMITTEE ACTION
The committee in executive session voted to amend the bill to
incorporate a provision providing for a reasonable fare structure.
This amendment was based on findings by the committee which
Other
indicated that in many areas of the Nation mass transit systems
which lack State and local operating assistance operate at unreason-
ably high fare structures; 50-, 60-, and 75-cent fares are present in
many areas. Inequities of unreasonably high fares are readily apparent,
SOURCE OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE
private operator under city control; guaranteed profit of $15,000
private operator under city contract: subsidy is $50/day/bus
subsidy produces $400,000/year for operating and capital costs
subsidy from six months sales tax levied 1969 will cover losses
through 1971: relief from property tax
transit district has no ceiling on designated tax rate
private operator under contract basis is used to
on mass transportation systems.
calculate subsidy
receives 50% of revenues from fare box; pays all costs except
especially with regard to the elderly and poor who are SO dependent
driver wages and benefits
subsidy covers part wages and cost special route operation
private operator under contract to city: $2 head tax on employers
and employees
The common result of high fare structures is a reduction in the
number of passengers and passenger revenues which support these
transportation systems. The committee feels that enactment of a
**I Property
Federal aid program providing operating assistance would serve the
3.75c/$100
29.1c/$100
5c/$100
10c/$100
5c/$100
10:/100
purpose of reducing unreasonable fare structures, and particularly
provide our lower income and other dependent citizens with adequate
transportation services.
LOCAL TRANSIT OPERATING SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
IMAGUED
"2" Year
TABLE III-3
1969
1970
1961
696
1963
1970
1960
1959
1963
1962
1963
1953
1967
1911
1970
1965
1958
1966
1971
1969
1969
1971
The committee is mindful of the fact that it is impossible to pre-
Receives
scribe in an equitable manner a national transit fare applicable for
09
80
363
57
Definit
306
5,103
4,790
126
46
10,374
162
162
23
116
Unknown
106
201
50
every locality because of the varying circumstances which exist. Never-
Unknown
theless, the committee, in amending the bill, established that a rea-
sonable fare structure be prescribed for each area according to its
None
291
114
100
177
2
16,906
120
particular local needs. The committee emphasized that determination
None
of a reasonable fare structure should be in accordance with sound
#215
55
135
210
211
22
132
19
financial practices.
Private
Public
ASSISTANCE FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
The bill, S. 386, would amend section 3 of the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Act of 1964 to prevent reduction of essential transportation
service in the Nation's urban centers by authorizing assistance to
defray operating expenses. Grants or loans, requiring at least one-third
local contribution, would be provided to State or local public bodies
TRANSIT PROPERTY
(by State)
(asterisk indicates absence
any State or local assistance)
in order to assist any mass transportation system which maintains
mass transportation service in an urban area to pay operating ex-
penses incurred as a result of providing such service. Included within
Phoenix Transit Corporation
Bakersfield Municipal Transit System
Long Beach Public Transportation Company
Los Angeles-S. California Rapid Transit District
Ornard Municipal Transit System
Palo Alto (Peninsula Transit Lines, Inc.)
San Bernadino Municipal Transit System
San Buena Ventura Citizens Transit Lines
San Francisco Municipal Railway
Santa Earbara Metropolitan Transit District
Stockton Metropolitan Transit District
Vallejo Citizens Transit Lines
Connecticut Railway Corporation
(Tallahassee) Citics Transit, Inc.
Alaske
Tucson Transit Corporation
Arkansas
Chula Vista (Aztec Bus Lines)
California
Fresno Transit
Gardena Municipal Bus Lines
Oskland Transit
Sacramento Transit Authority
Lines
Diego
Santa Rosa Municipal Transit
Torrance Municipal Bus,Lines
the terms of such assistance are grants to State and local public
Denver Metro Transit
Pueblo Transportation Company
bodies for debt servicing for mass transit investments.
Arizona
San
San
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
While the passage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970
was a significant advance in Federal assistance for mass transportation,
the committee has concluded that a program of capital grants cannot,
by itself, alleviate the increasing financial distress faced by the
growing number of municipalities which now own and operate transit
systems in order to provide needed transportation services. Information
received by the committee indicates that in the decade from 1961-71,
the number of municipalities which were forced to initiate programs of
operating assistance to transit systems increased by nearly 400
percent. Deficits incurred by transit systems in localities throughout
the Nation are currently running at the rate of $360 million a year.
The following table, presented in the Department of Transportation's
November 1971 report sets forth this information:
SOURCE OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE
a
Size
Private
Flest
Operating Deficit
State / START
Year Began
General Gas/Electric Revenue
(thousand S)
Property a
TRANSIT PROPERTY
1970
Other
1969
(by State)
Illinois
Champaign-Urbana City Lines
%
40
None
170
1970
x
Chicago Transit Authority
x
4,311
2,781
Unknown
1965
Greater Peorie Mass Transit District
X
61.
Unknown
Unknown
1970
X
$250,000 earnarked property tax
Rock ferd Transit Corporation
*
56
Unknown
Unknown
*
1970
Springfield
*
129
155
x
1968
1/2c/$100
Indiana
Fort Wayne Public Transportation
M
60
127
761
1968
*
Greater Lafayette 3-18 Company
*
a
15
Unknown
1970
*
Michisan City Municipal Casch Service
x
10
76
91
1945
*
private operator under contract; small contribution from 4
surrounding communities
Muncle City Lines
*
31
19
15
1009
*
private operator under contract: guaranteed operating ratio of
942, maximum payment of $30,000
Smith Bend Public Transportation
*
57
524
492
1968
x
Terre Haute
x
12
40
69
1965
*
I-wa
Burlington Transit Lines
X
6
15
30
1970
*
city pays $1,000 month; owner garage and leases for $1/year
Cedar Rapids Regional Transit Corporation, Inc.
X
26
30
175
1969
*
Sioux City Lines
*
20
159
78
1969
*
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Transit Company
x
30
46
58
1969
X
city OWNER buses; private operator is non-profit corporation
Kansas
Wichita Metropolitan Transit Authority
X
49
150
165
1967
X
Kentucky
Louisiana
Baton Reuge Buc Company
*
40
None
78
1970
subsidy from dedicated parking mater revenues in excess of $300,000
Infayette Hunicipal Transit System
X
1.
23
50
1965
X
x
20
76
80
1961
X
Honroe
New Orleans Public
x
494
5,727
3,844
x
Owned by public utility
Maine
Street Railway
x
5
23
52
1969
Reduced rent for city owned garage; no taxes paid; Se per school ride
Masaschusetts
Boston META
*
1,981
31,325
51,659
x
1969
detailed in text
Brockton-Union Street Ratiway
x
18
x
1970
city guarantees $.92 per mile up to $102,000; remburses 1/2 of
senior citizen fares
x
14
None
167
x
1970
X
Lowell
New Bedford-Cafor Street Reflway
*
55
None
34
1970
reimburses 1/2 school fare
Springfield Street Railway
X
171
32
30
X
1968
reimburses for reduced school fares
Michigan
Ann Arbor Transportation Authority
x
2
230
205
X
1969
.
Detroit Street Railways
x
1,171
606
5,865
%
1970
x
General revenue meets about $1.5 million; remainder comes from
deferring payments to pension fund (as of 6/30/10 DSR owed $9.4
million with additional $7 million in FY 71)
Flint Transportation Authority
x
91
666
637
X
1966
x
Grand Rapids Transit
x
55
200
409
*
1965
X
60
200
240
1967
x
Kalamazoo-Metro Transit
x
Mustegon City Transit
x
10
41
59
x
1968
SOURCE OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE
Ownership
SLA
Public
TRANSIT PROPERTY
Fleet
Operating Deficit
State
THE sease
General Revenue
(thousand
(by State)
1969
1970
Property
Other
Minnesota
Duluth Transit Authority
X
78
None
183
1971
M
Twin City Area Metropolitan Transit Commission
*
635
None
None
1971
seven county property tax
Mississippi
(Bilexi-Sulfport) Municipal Transit Lines
*
25
16
20
1971
<
deficit covered by Mississippi Coast Transit Authority
Missouri
(Columbia) Municipal Lines
*
12
87
100
*
1967
x
Kansas City Area Transit Authority
R
349
725
749
1/2% sales tax ********* for transit
Springfield City Utilities
x
66
on
395
*
1951
x
Mont ana
Bus Lines of Billings
*
3
12
12
1970
*
leased to private operator
* Mebraska
* Nevada
New Hampshire
Manchester Transit Union Street Railway
*
UNK
None
59
1970
cubsidy through school contracts and reimbursements
New Jersey
Atlantic City Transportation Company
X
66
185
232
*
1970
X
Cliftoc-Community Bus Lines
K
36
109
120
1970
*
5
Coast City Coaches
*
37
None
112
1970
*
State subsidizes 75% of loss and local match 25% is met
Newark-Public Service Coordinated Transport
2508
1,003
3,823
x
1970
from general revenues
Paterson-Inter City Transportation Company
x
214
304
549
*
1970
x
Trenton-Mercar-Matro
*
100
None
327
*
1970
x
New Mexico
Albuquerque Transit System
*
58
377
428
1966
%
New York
(Albeny) Capital Area Transportation
*
250
370
500
*
1971
subsidy from 25c override in State mortgage transfer tax
(Binghamton) Broome County Transit
31
225
300
1968
K
Utica Transit
K
46
None
120
1970
*
Metropolitan Transit Authority and subsidiaries
*
9728
97,228
51,200
BAC Appendix
North Carolina
Duke Fower Company
x
44
80
119
x
North Baketa
Holiday Transportation (Fargo)
x
3
None
26
1970
x
city subsidizes up to $1,600/month
Chio
Akron Metropolitan Regional Transit Authority
x
60
167
1970
*
Alizon pays 80% and five surrounding communities pay residual based
51
on route mile formula
ringfield Bus Lines
x
10
34
1
1970
*
City subsidizes up to $2,200/month for 9 months, $2,500/month for
3 months
todo) Regional Transit Authority
Y.
155
115
500
1971
mil/$100
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma Transportation is Parking Authority
*
60
119
149
1967
y
Tulsa Transit Company
*
45
60
65
1968
*
Oregon
(Eugene) Lane County Mass Transit District
%
20
Unknown
593
1971
.3% payroll tax: will produce $700,000 first year
Portlend-Tri County Metropolitan District Authority
x
234
210
2,495
1969
.5% payroll tax; produced $82 million for 1970
Salem Transit
*
17
100
97
1966
x
limited to $100,000 annually
6
7
The committee finds that the financial structure of the mass transit
industry is certain to deteriorate further unless immediate financial
assistance is made available. Without Federal aid, the transit in-
SOURCE OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE
State provides 2/3; local 1/3 from general revenue
State provides 2/3; local 1/3 from general revenue
State provides 2/3; loca 1/3 from general revenue
State provides 2/3; local 1/3 from general revenue; county also
subsidy from loan of $3.5 million (bond issue); $155,000 remaining
dustry will continue to experience increasing operating expenses,
city guarantees operating ratio of 92; paying approximately
surrounding communities contribute based on of route miles:
increasing fares, and declining ridership.
On the basis of testimony and reports received, it has become
Other
has sepior citizen reduced fare reimbursement
meet operating expenses; that the problem is national in its dimen-
program financed from State general fund
$20,000 month
exempt from all city taxes except payroll taxes
State suthorised "transit tax."
private operator under contract; "transit tax."
city parking commission subsidizes at $2,500/month rate
evident to the committee that increasing passenger revenues cannot
sions; and that if mass transit is to perform an essential public service,
Federal support for operating expenses is a prerequisite.
Accordingly, the committee recommends that mass transit legis-
"transit-tax"
temporary subsidy only
limit to $12,000/year
lation be amended to authorize grants under section 3 of the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964 for operating expenses as well as
for capital costs. The major purpose is to assist in revitalizing the
Nation's mass transportation systems by allowing States and localities
**1
to determine which systems in their jurisdiction are in need of operating
assistance and, on this basis, to submit to the Secretary of Trans-
portation a comprehensive mass transportation service improvement
program to improve such service and to place mass transportation
***** Yes,
operations on a sound financial basis.
1968
1971
1969
1969
1961
1967
1967
1970
1968
1971
1970
1968
1969
1951
1969
1970
1970
The amendment would authorize the sum of $800 million over a
DEPARTMENT SEALS
2-year period to be utilized in funding grants and loans for operating
220
124
7,865
8,188
423
570
15
518
100
Unknown
204
11
92
200
1970
expenses. Grants would be disbursed on a two-thirds Federal, one-
Operating Deficit
third local sharing basis.
(thousand
55
150
70
6,080
278
317
1969
None
591
100
Unknown
176
70
None
C
169
27
Provisions of this bill would direct the Secretary of Transportation
to issue such regulations as he deems necessary to administer the
was soath
RS
Ownership
1,050
2,706
170
86
54
300
***
$25
67
%
operating subsidy program in an equitable manner and to include in
x
the regulations appropriate definitions of (a) operating expenses and
Public
(b) the sources of State or local financial assistance which may be
considered in computing the maximum allowable Federal grant. It is
expected that criteria established by the Secretary of Transportation
for evaluating applications for operating assistance would be com-
TRANSIT PROPERTY
Altoons and Logan Twp. Bus Authority
Pittsburgh-Port Authority of Allegheny County
Rhode Island Transit Authority
(Columbia) S. Carolina Electric and Gas Company
Chattanooga-Southern Coach Lines
(Corpus Christi) City Transit Syatem
(Appleton) Fox River Bus Lines
(Creen Bay. Wisconsin) Public Service Corporation
(Kenosha) Pathfinder City Trasit
SOURCE: National League of Cities/U.9.
Conference of Mayors, Profiles
Mass Mass Tranait. Unpublished Working
Paper prepared for Department of
Transportation (June 1971)
parable to criteria employed under the existing capital grant program.
(by State)
COST OF CARRYING OUT THE BILL
Pennsylvania
Erie Metropoliten Authority
New Castle Transil Authority
SEPTA
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Sious Transit, Inc.
Memphis Transit Authority
Abilene Transit
Amarillo Bus Company
Austin Transit
Lubbock Transit Corporation
San Angelo Transit System
Salt Lake City-Deah Transit
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Seattle Transit System
Spokane Transit
Oshkosh City Transit Lines
Existing
Wisconsin
Madison But Company
In compliance with section 252 of the Legislative Reorganization
Income Transit
West Virginia
Act, the committee reports that the bill provides for an additional
Wyoming
$800 million in obligational authority, with authority for appropria-
Texas
Deah
tions to liquidate these obligations in an amount not to exceed $400
million prior to July 1, 1974, and a total of $800 million prior to
July 1, 1975.
CORDON RULE
In the opinion of the committee, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing Rules
of the Senate in order to expedite the business of the Senate in con-
nection with this report.
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF MR. TAFT
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MESSRS. PROXMIRE, TOWER,
BENNETT, AND BROCK
I have consistently supported legislation to provide operating
subsidies for mass transit systems. In view of the environmental
Although we support fully the purpose of S. 386 to assure adequate
problems and congestion caused by automobiles, as well as the neces-
commuter service in urban areas, we do not feel that the legislation will
sity to provide an alternative means of transportation for our poor,
achieve that end. The fact of the matter is that it could have the
young, and elderly citizens, I believe that improving our mass transit
opposite result by rewarding inefficiency.
systems must constitute a very high priority at the present time.
Simply offering to divide up $400 million next year amongst the
Testimony before this committee has convinced me that the additional
Nation's transit systems certainly will not arrest rapidly increasing
capital grant assistance provided in the new highway bill will not do
deficits. These deficits are being financed by local and State govern-
this job sufficiently, and that additional emergency funding for mass
ments from their tax resources and the funds they receive under
transit systems is necessary.
general revenue sharing. This problem cannot be handled by yet
Nevertheless, we will simply be throwing money down a rat hole if
another categorical grant program. Real solutions can only come from
the subsidies provided are used to allow existing systems to continue
local initiatives and local pressures for efficient operations.
operating exactly as they have in the past. In that respect, I consider
In addition, this is not an equitable approach to the problem. We
the language in the bill requiring applicants to submit a comprehensive
are asking for the poorer sections of the country to finance the
mass transportation service improvement plan to be extremely im-
wealthier. For example, just five of the systems-New York, Boston,
portant. I am extremely concerned, however, that there is nothing in
Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles-appear to be responsible
the bill which requires any follow-up once the plan is submitted.
for some 70 percent of the reported national operating deficit, which is
If provision is not made for the Secretary of Transportation to
some $500 million.
review the progress of the subsidy recipients in this respect and take
A more realistic approach is taken under the present Urban Mass
action to insure that all recipients are at least making a major "good
Transportation Capital Grant Program, which is directed at moderniz-
faith" effort to implement their plans, it is all too possible that the
ing and restructuring urban transit systems SO that efficient and
major effect of the comprehensive plan requirement would be to
effective operations can in fact be achieved. We support increasing
occupy a few lines in the United States Code.
the contract authority for this program which will in turn free local
ROBERT TAFT, Jr.
money for other uses including operating assistance.
(9)
WILLIAM PROXMIRE.
WALLACE F. BENNETT.
JOHN TOWER.
BILL BROCK.
(8)
93D CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
1st Session
No. 93-141
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT
OF 1973
APRIL 16, 1973.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. PATMAN, from the Committee on Banking and Currency,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
MINORITY, SUPPLEMENTAL, ADDITIONAL, AND
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 6452]
The Committee on Banking and Currency, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 6452) to amend the Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964 to provide a substantial increase in the total amount authorized
for assistance thereunder, to increase the portion of project cost which
may be covered by a Federal grant, to authorize assistance for operat-
ing expenses, and for other purposes, having considered the same, re-
port favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the
bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Page 6, line 3, strike out "1972" and insert in lieu thereof "1973".
Page 9, after line 2, insert the following new section:
ELIGIBILITY OF QUASI-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
SEC. 6. (a) The first sentence of section 3 (a) of the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964 is amended by inserting
"(1)" after "financing", and by inserting before the period at
the end thereof the following: ", and (2) the establishment
and organization of public or quasi-public transit corridor
development corporations or entities".
(b) The second sentence of section 3 (a) of such Act is
amended to read as follows: "Eligible facilities and equip-
ment may include personal property including buses and
other rolling stock and real property including land (but not
is
FORD
83-006
LIBRARY
-
2
3
public highways), within the entire zone affected by the con-
percent of Americans now live in urban areas, transit patronage today
struction and operation of transit improvements, including
station sites, needed for an efficient and coordinated mass
is less than three-quarters of what it was 15 years ago, and only a
third of what it was 25 years ago.
transportation system which is compatible with socially, eco-
State and local taxes are supporting transit operation in 150 cities
nomically, and environmentally sound patterns of land use."
to the extent of more than $500 million annually, but it is apparent
Page 9, line 5, strike out "Sec. 6," and insert in lieu thereof "Sec. 7.".
that this present contribution by overtaxed localities in no way guar-
Page 9, line 16, strike out "Sec. 7." and insert in lieu thereof "Sec. 8.".
antees a stemming of the tide of financial difficulties besetting transit
Page 10, line 10, strike out "Sec. 8." and insert in lieu thereof
operations. The self-defeating pattern of raising fares to meet increas-
"Sec. 9.".
ing costs merely results in less service and more and more transit
Page 11, strike out line 14 and all that follows down through page
riders opting for the private automobile. It is also apparent that there
12, line 20, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
are countless thousands who do not have the luxury of that choice and
are totally dependent on public transit for their mobility.
ELIMINATION OF ASSISTANCE IN FORM OF PROJECT LOANS
While there is always great reluctance to subsidize the operations
of any public service-on a local or Federal level-there is little doubt
SEC. 10. (a) Section 3(a) of the Urban Mass Transporta-
about the consequences of delay in facing the decision. The Congress
is amended-
tion Act of 1964 (as amended by section 2(a) of this Act)
recognized the possibility of Federal operating subsidies in 1970 when
the Urban Mass Transit Assistance Act of 1970 directed the Depart-
(1) by striking out "or loans (directly, through the
ment of Transportation to investigate the scope of the problem and to
purchase of securities or equipment trust certificates, or
make appropriate recommendations on how it might best be solved.
otherwise) in the first sentence;
The Department reported to the Congress in November 1971 that
(2) by striking out "or loan" in the fourth sentence;
the problem was indeed "severe." The 1972 National Transportation
and
Report, issued by the Secretary of Transportation, stated "The De-
(3) by striking out "The Secretary may make" in the
partment supports making funds available to States and local govern-
fifth sentence and inserting in lieu thereof "The Secre-
ments for general public purposes or for general transportation pur-
tary is also authorized to make".
poses, including operating subsidies, SO that a State or local govern-
(b) Section 3 (c) of such Act (as amended by section 2(b)
ment could determine locally how the funds would be used."
of this Act) is amended by striking out "No loans" in the first
More importantly, the many locally subsidized transit operators in
sentence and all that follows down through "this section" in
our largest cities have testified before this committee on how such a
the second sentence, and insert in lieu thereof "Interest on
program might work, how much it would cost, and what the prospect
loans made under subsection (b)".
is if such a program is not initiated now. It is to this prospect that the
(c) Section 3(d) of such Act is amended by striking out
committee bill is addressed.
"or loan".
The spectre of the fifty cent transit fare is all too real in many of
(d) Section of such Act is amended by striking out
the Nation's larger cities, and the timetable for achieving it in other
"loan or".
cities is all too predictable. Statistics have shown that as fares rise
(e) Section 13 (a) of such Act is amended by striking out
beyond the 35 cent level, a greater percentage drop in ridership re-
"loans or" and "loan or".
sults, leading to the situation where a fare increase actually produces
(f) Section of such Act is amended by striking out
a net loss in revenue. Many transit operations are at the point where
loans". "and loans" each place it appears, and by striking out "or
retrieving such riders will be difficult and expensive, if not impossible.
Your committee accepts the goal of substantially increasing transit
Page 12, line 22, strike out "Sec. 10." and insert in lieu thereof
ridership-not just to rejuvenate an economically ailing industry-
"Sec. 11.".
but, more importantly, to produce a more balanced transportation sys-
tem in and around this Nation's cities. It is true that the Federal com-
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT
mitment to improved mass transit has increased in recent years. How-
OF 1973
ever, under the Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 1974,
only 6 cents of each transportation dollar would be available for mass
INTRODUCTION
transit, while 571/2 cents would be spent for highways. The fact is that
a single transit vehicle can represent between 30 and 60 individual
The Nation's mass transit systems-from Boston to Los Angeles,
automobiles commuting to work. If more and more cars are not merely
Chicago, St. Louis, Seattle and scores of other cities-are clearly fast
to justify more and more highways, with the attendant problems of pol-
approaching a do or die situation. Dwindling revenues and passengers,
lution and congestion, ecological destruction, higher relocation costs,
along with rising costs and fares, have combined to make the public
and unwise land use, mass transit will have to become a viable commu-
transit crisis national in scope. Despite the fact that more than 70
4
5
tation alternative. It is not SO now and it will be less SO in the near
future without strong public action.
The 1970 Act increased the Federal Government's capital grant assist-
It should be noted that the Clean Air Law, now scheduled to take
ance to urban transit systems almost tenfold, from a program channel-
full effect in 1975 will result in various restrictions on the use of the
ing to the transit systems approximately $150 million annually to one
automobile and in a drastic alteration in commuting habits. Many
providing approximately $1 billion annually. The 1970 Act provided
communities are considering action to boost the cost of downtown
assurance of funding by the use of contract authority, rather than di-
parking, prohibit further construction of parking facilities, impose
rect appropriations, guaranteeing a local transit system by a contrac-
special auto-use taxes, and, in extreme cases, ban the auto from down-
tual agreement with the Secretary an amount of funds known in
town areas altogether. The current national concern over availability
advance.
of petroleum products further emphasizes the need for more and better
This expanded urban transit program provided more certainty in
mass transportation.
funding capital improvements at considerably greater funding levels,
In light of the Department's studies and of the testimony on the
and also provided additional research and development funds. It did
state and prospects of many of the Nation's transit systems, it is ob-
not, however, address itself to the increasing problems of the declining
vious that there is a severe problem and that the Federal Government
transit fare box revenues needed to enable transit systems to obtain
has a legitimate and justifiable role in its solution. While the Depart-
enough revenue to continue their operations.
ment's report suggested that there appeared to be no acceptable meth-
The massive financial failures of transit systems have mushroomed
od to guarantee the workability of an operating subsidy program, the
within the past few years. By 1970, 65 private urban transit companies
experience of many State and local programs of operating assistance
had been taken over and operated by the local government; by 1972
suggests otherwise.
more than 235 transit companies had been taken over. In almost every
One hundred and forty-two communities are already providing op-
case the local government assumed the responsibility of subsidizing
erating assistance enabling transit systems to continue their operations.
a growing annual deficit from its own tax revenues. Information pro-
vided the committee by the American Transit Association showed
STATE AND LOCAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR URBAN TRANSIT
State and local governments providing nearly 20 percent of the total
[Number enacted since 1965 by year]
operating transit costs. The annual deficits for transit systems
Before
amounted to $510 million in 1971, compared to only $380 million in
and
1969.
during
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
The committee believes that State and local governments are pro-
viding to their maximum financial ability the money to subsidize tran-
Enacted during year
22
4
8
10
17
30
28
21
Accumulative
26
34
44
61
101
129
150
sit operating deficits; and that it is incumbent on the Federal Govern-
ment to begin to provide assistance to local communities to help meet
these deficits.
Contrary to the popular belief that subsidies would put the public
SMALL CITIES
purse in severe danger, experience shows that subsidies can produce
increased ridership, lower fares, stable or declining deficits, and im-
Too often in the past, urban mass transportation has been looked
proved service.
upon as a big city problem. It is true that the original Federal assist-
With a subsidy, Atlanta dropped its mass transit fares from 40 cents
ance to mass transit looked to the larger cities. The 1970 Act recog-
to 15 cents and patronage increased by approximately 11 million pas-
nized that medium to small cities had real transit needs as well, and
sengers. In San Diego, a subsidy has lowered fares from 40 cents to
the Congress encouraged their participation in the program. The real
25 cents and ridership has surged 36 percent.
crisis in urban transportation today is the almost total breakdown of
As a dramatic example of how subsidies may be successfully em-
private bus companies in small cities. Many small cities which had
ployed, we would point to the Shirley Highway Project right here in
strong private bus companies as recently as a decade ago, have no bus
the Washington area. This project, with an average fare of 70 cents,
operations at all today. Information provided the committee shows
has grown from 4,000 riders per day to 18,000 on that section of the
that over 100 bus companies in small cities are no longer in operation.
busway where the new exclusive bus lane has been provided. The proj-
These small local governments, in most cases, do not have the financial
ect has taken 3,000 commuter automobiles a day off Shirley Highway
and taxing ability to purchase and run a bus company. Those which
(I-95).
have assumed the operations of the private transportation system sim-
The Federal Government has been providing financial assistance to
ply are unable to meet the increasing cost of subsidizing operating
urban transit systems since the enactment of the mass transportation
deficits.
demonstration program in the Housing Act of 1961 and the Urban
Although operating deficits are greatest in our large cities, it is the
Mass Transportation Act of 1964. This program of basically provid-
large number of small and medium size cities where the problem is
ing capital grant assistance for the purchase of rolling stock, right of
greatest. The number of these smaller cities trying to continue to oper-
way, stations, and modernization of existing equipment was greatly
ate a public transportation system with no future assurance of the
expanded by the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970.
needed local funds to continue subsidizing public transit systems is
growing every day. The issue of Federal assistance for operating sub-
6
7
sidies is most critical for these smaller cities and towns. This legisla-
systems and their service to the public. This is obviously desirable,
tion contains a provision authorized by Congressman Tom Gettys
especially if more and more commuters are to be attracted to transit
(S.C.) mandating a study of rural transportation needs by the Secre-
and if those dependent on transit are to be adequately served. Part
tary of Transportation.
and parcel of such "attractiveness" is the reasonable or "stabilized"
BACKGROUND
fare. The infusion of new Federal funds into transit operations would
achieve any one or a combination of desirable effects: a stable or re-
Recognizing that the Nation's mass transit systems are in a crisis
duced fare, a lessened tax burden for local taxpayers, or expanded
situation and that there exists a need for greater balance in overall
transit service. Given the present levels of fares, taxes and transit serv-
Federal transportation policy, the Banking and Currency Committee
ice, the committee hopes that all three would become possible for the
decided this Congress to establish a new subcommittee to deal with the
users of the Nation's transit systems.
problems of urban mass transportation.
In deciding on an annual level of funding for such Federal operat-
On March 21 and 22, 1973, the Subcommittee conducted full day
ing assistance, your committee rejects the idea that this program would
hearings on H.R. 5424, sponsored by its chairman, Representative Jo-
be just the beginning of an escalator for a vast new program. If the
seph Minish of New Jersey, and on H.R. 5919, sponsored by the rank-
built-in incentive in the bill is correctly implemented, then it would
ing minority member, Representative Garry Brown of Michigan. The
follow that if the goal of substantially increasing ridership is met,
Subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. Frank Herringer, Admin-
greater transit revenues would lessen, not increase, the need for Fed-
istrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, the U.S.
eral operating funds.
Conference of Mayors-League of Cities, the National Governors Con-
It should be noted that while the deficit of New York City, for ex-
ference, the American Transit Association, the Institute of Rapid
ample, is indeed large, and its allocation under the formula similarly
Transit, and others from the transit and roadbuilding industry.
large, this Federal contribution would by no means meet the city's
The Subcommittee held a markup session March 29 and ordered a
total operating deficit. On the other hand, smaller cities, would have
clean bill, H.R. 6452, reported to the full Committee. The full Bank-
much of their total annual deficits met by operating subsidy grants.
ing and Currency Committee met April 10 and adopted the H.R. 6452,
No assistance would be provided under this section unless the Sec-
as amended, by a vote of 23 yeas, 4 nays.
retary had received from the State or local body a comprehensive mass
transportation service improvement program designed to improve
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
service and to place its operations on a sound business and financial
Section 2 of the bill amends section 3 of the Urban Mass Transporta-
basis. The committee believes this to be a very important provision and
tion Act to authorize grants for operating subsidies to States and local
absolutely necessary to make the new program workable.
public bodies and agencies thereof. This provision would direct the
Section 2 also directs the Secretary to issue such regulations as he
Secretary of Transportation to allocate operating subsidies under a
deems necessary to administer the operating subsidy program in an
formula based upon the following three factors: population of the area
equitable manner, and to develop criteria for evaluating applications
served by the mass transit system, the total number of revenue pas-
for assistance under this new operating subsidy provision comparable
sengers carried by the system, and the total revenue vehicle miles
to criteria employed under the capital grant program. Your committee.
travelled by the system. The population, passengers, and miles of each
wishes to emphasize that the establishment of the operating subsidy
eligible applicant would be weighed against the population, passengers,
program shall in no way be construed as to reduce the funding of the
and miles of all eligible applicants and the funds distributed
capital grant program or to compete with the important needs and
accordingly.
requirements under that program. In addition, it is your committee's
Your committee believes that this formula is just and equitable. It
belief that the Secretary, in choosing eligible applicants, should con-
seeks to serve all systems proportionately and it would tend to prevent
sider steps taken by local and State governments to provide disincen-
concentration of the operating funds in only a few very large urban
tives for the use of the automobile in heavily congested urban centers.
areas.
To finance the operating subsidy program, the committee bill author-
The simple device of basing payments for operating assistance
izes $400 million for fiscal year 1973 and $400 million for fiscal year
partially on the number of revenue passengers carried provides an
1974, respectively. The funding authorization is at a reasonable, even
incentive that, in the opinion of the committee, would help insure
modest, level in view of the demonstrated need for assistance to the
progressive and responsible management. As for any ill effects of such
country's mass transit systems.
new Federal money for operations, it seems inconceivable that with
The committee wishes to emphasize that no part of the Act provid-
fares and local funds providing from 80-85 percent of the cost of oper-
ing for operating assistance to local mass transportation systems shall
ations, the vastly smaller amount of Federal funds provided by the bill
be construed to authorize the Secretary to regulate, directly or in-
would be wasted or used injudiciously.
directly, matters of labor relations which, by law or practice, have
Federal operating assistance based on the three part formula would
traditionally been subject to negotiation and bargaining between the
undoubtedly produce a certain amount of innovations. experiments
operating management of the mass transportation system and its
and analysis of service-all geared to breathing new life into transit
employees.
9
Any urban mass transportation system receiving assistance under
The Council, to be appointed or elected by the chief executive of
the operating subsidy program must provide the elderly and hand-
the localities involved in a mass transit project, shall consist of repre-
icapped half-fares during non-peak hours, subject to terms and condi-
sentatives of the general public, the business and professional com-
tions the Secretary may prescribe. Your committee feels that those
munity, the labor force, community organizations, and at least one
representative of each of the affected local governments. Membership
transit systems receiving operating subsidies should provide additional
shall reasonably reflect the composition of the ridership of the mass
benefits to the elderly and handicapped. For purposes of this provi-
transit facilities to be included in a project.
sion, elderly are defined to mean individuals 62 years of age and over.
The Council will function as a consultant to the State, locality, or
The fares paid by such passengers shall be construed as revenue passen-
agency responsible for mass transit operations in its area. It will pos-
gers for the purpose of the operating subsidies distribution formula.
sess no power to overrule, veto, modify, or otherwise change the poli-
cies or decisions of the responsible State or local body. It will, however,
INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE FOR CAPITAL GRANTS
be permited to review mass transit policies and decisions with respect
Section 3 of the bill amends section 3 of the 1964 Act to increase the
to planning, design, and architecture; construction contracts and sub-
grant ratio from a two-thirds Federal-one third local contribution
contracts; the purchase of equipment and supplies; maintenance; re-
to a flat 80 percent Federal-20 percent local contribution.
lated services such as concessions; hiring and training; the location
Concurrent with the need to achieve a truly balanced transportation
of routes and stations; and fares.
system in our Nation's cities, is the consideration of a proper Federal
percentage for both the capital grants program. Since the 1970 High-
ELIGIBILITY OF QUASI-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
way Act set new levels of Federal funding for both the Interstate and
Section 6 authorizes financial assistance under the Urban Mass
ABC highway programs-which work out to an average share of Fed-
Transportation Act for the establishment of public or quasi-public
eral funding of 80 percent-it is logical to extend the same Federal
transit corridor development corporations or entities and expands the
consideration to programs for mass transit. Similarly, transit pro-
definition of facilities and equipment eligible for financial assistance
grams should be available at the 80 percent level on an absolute basis,
to include the area (excluding highways) within the entire zone
and not on an "up to" basis at the discretion of the Secretary, as they
affected by the construction and operation of transit improvements,
are now. Testimony received by the subcommittee emphasized the need
including station sites.
for a fixed Federal share in order to intelligently plan for mass transit
The purpose of this section is to encourage more socially, economi-
improvements. Most localities meet their share of the capital grants
cally, and environmentally sound patterns of land use in the areas
program through general obligation revenue bonds and they must have
immediately adjacent to transit corridors and station sites. Your com-
a clearer indication of the level of assistance they can expect from the
mittee believes this section will help prevent hodgepodge development
Federal Government.
and environmentally unsound land speculation along transit corri-
dors and near transit stations.
INCREASE IN CAPITAL GRANT FUNDS
COORDINATION OF URBAN TRANSIT PROGRAMS WITH MODEL CITIES
The 1970 Act provided for contract authority for capital grants in
PROGRAM
the amount of $3.1 billion, and provided for an updating of authoriza-
tion levels after two years. Cities and transit systems which had geared
During its hearings on urban mass transportation, your committee
up and planned for commitments. based on the promise of full contract
heard considerable testimony regarding certain transportation activi-
authority being available, find themselves with a severe backlog of
ties being carried on under the Model Cities Program, such as special
unmet project funding requests.
bus service routes for residents of model cities areas. In some pro-
Testimony before the committee revealed that State and local gov-
grams, the pay scale adopted is below that required to be met by transit
ernments have taxed and bonded themselves to provide about $2.7
companies receiving the benefits of assistance under the 1964 Mass
billion in local matching funds for the mass transit capital grant pro-
Transit Act. Section 7 requires model cities transit programs to com-
gram over the next five years. If the 80 percent Federal share in this
ply with section 13(c) of the 1964 Act.
legislation is adopted, the $2.7 billion in local funds would indicate a
demand for more than $10 billion in Federal contract authority over
GRANTS FOR TECHNICAL STUDIES
the next five years.
Your committee adopted an authorization for additional contract
Section 8 amends section 9 of the 1964 Act to expand the list of
authority for the capital grant program of $3 billion in line with
activities for which grants may be made to include evaluation, and to
the Administration's recommendation.
authorize the Secretary to contract for grants. It also eliminates the
limitation on the amount of a planning grant, permitting the Secre-
STATE AND LOCAL MASS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCILS
tary to increase the Federal share of planning funds from two-thirds
to as high as 100 percent.
Section 5 requires an applicant for Federal mass transit assistance
to establish a Mass Transportation Advisory Council.
H. Rept. 141, 93-1-2
10
11
Transit planning should be in equity with highway planning. There-
The Secretary is directed to give particular attention to the needs of
fore your committee feels that it is imperative that transit planning
cities, towns, and other political subdivisions having a population of
funds be available on a 100 percent basis, as they presently are for
50,000 or less, and of changes in Federal law which would be required
highway planning.
to meet such needs. The Secretary is further directed to report his
Part of such a change would be restructuring of the present rela-
findings and recommendations to the Congress within one year after
tionship between HUD and DOT as it relates to transit. Under present
enactment of this legislation.
administrative procedures, HUD issues its planning certification on a
project-by-project basis to the Urban Mass Transit Administration.
Cost OF CARRYING OUT THE BILL AND COMMITTEE VOTE
Such a planning overview is quite properly the role of HUD, but it
should apply to all transportation projects and not just to mass transit.
In compliance with Clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
The planning process is an essential element in achieving a balanced
of Representatives, $3 billion in contract authority for capital grants
transportation system and HUD should provide its expertise to DOT
will be made available beginning in Fiscal Year 1974; $400 million in
on a departmental basis.
grants for operating expenses to be authorized for Fiscal Year 1974,
The results of the present system have been inordinate delays while
and $400 million for Fiscal Year 1975.
the amount of the Federal share of the grant has been in doubt. This
In compliance with Clause 27 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House
has been an unnecessary complication for municipalities which have
of Representatives, the following statement is made relative to the
been struggling to provide local matching funds through taxation or
record vote of the motion to report a bill. A total of 23 votes were cast
bonding. It has also resulted in HUD second-guessing UMTA on the
for reporting; a total of 4 were cast against reporting the bill.
quality of individual projects. All these hazards would be eliminated
under a new Federal percentage and the new role of HUD in giving a
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
planning overview to an area's balanced transportation needs. It would
In compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
also seem desirable for HUD to accept an area's workable planning
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as re-
process and not try to superimpose on differing political circumstances
a set of inflexible institutional standards for the planning process.
ported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, existing
PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSISTANCE TO PUBLIC TRANSIT AUTHORITIES
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman)
ENGAGING IN CERTAIN SCHOOL Bus OPERATIONS
URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964
Section 9 amends section 3 (e) of the Act to prohibit financial assist-
ance under the Act to any State or local public agency, subsequent to
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
the date of enactment, which engages directly or indirectly in the trans-
porting of school children and school personnel to and from school and
SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary is authorized, in accordance with the pro-
school authorized functions (other than transporting such children
visions of this Act and on such terms and conditions as he may pre-
and personnel along with other passengers as part of its regular opera-
scribe, to make grants [or loans (directly, through the purchase of
tions), in competition with, or supplementary to, service provided by
securities or equipment trust certificates, or otherwise) to assist
a private transportation company engaged in transporting school chil-
States and local public bodies and agencies thereof in financing (1)
dren and personnel. This provision would not apply to any State or
the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and improvement of fa-
local public agency that was SO engaged at any time during the twelve-
cilities and equipment for use, by operation or lease or otherwise, in
month period immediately prior to the date of enactment.
mass transportation service in urban areas and in coordinating such
service with highway and other transportation in such areas, and (2)
ELIMINATION OF ASSISTANCE IN THE FORM OF LOANS
the establishment and organization of public or quasi-public transit
Section 10 would strike the existing loan provision in the capital
corridor development corporations or entities. Eligible facilities and
grant program of the Urban Mass Transportation Act. This authority
equipment may include personal property including buses and other
has never been employed to any great extent and has fallen into almost
rolling stock and real property including land (but not public high-
complete disuse in recent years. In the few cases where loans have been
ways), Tbuses and other rolling stock, and other real and personal
extended, they have been subsequently paid off with an Urban Mass
property within the entire zone affected by the construction and op-
Transportation grant. Your committee has, however, retained the loan
eration of transit improvements, including station sites, needed for
an efficient and coordinated mass transportation system which is com-
authority for the advanced acquisition of land.
patible with socially, economically, and environmentally sound pat-
STUDY OF RURAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
terns of land use. The Secretary is also authorized, on such terms and
conditions as he may prescribe, to make grants to assist States and
Section 11 requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a
local public bodies and agencies thereof in the payment of operating
full and complete study and investigation of the public transportation
expenses incurred in connection with the provision of mass transpor-
needs of rural and other nonurban areas in the United States.
tation service in urban areas, allocating any funds made available for
12
13
assistance under this sentence among the various State and local public
(d) Any application for a grant [or loan] under this Act to finance
bodies and agencies thereof in the manner provided in subsection (g) :
the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or improvement of facili-
Provided, That no assistance shall be provided under this sentence to
ties or equipment which will substantially affect a community or its
any State or local public body or agency thereof unless the applicant
mass transportation service shall include a certification that the
agrees and gives satisfactory assurances, in such manner and form as
applicant-
may be required by the Secretary and in accordance with such terms
(1) has afforded an adequate opportunity for public hearings
and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, that the rates charged
pursuant to adequate prior notice, and has held such hearings
elderly and handicapped persons during nonpeak hours for transpor-
unless no one with a significant economic, social, or environmental
tation utilizing or involving the facilities and equipment financed
interest in the matter requests a hearing;
with such assistance will not exceed one-half of the rates generally
(2) has considered the economic and social effects of the project
applicable to other persons, whether the operation of such facilities
and its impact on the environment; and
and equipment is by the applicant or is by another entity under lease
(3) has found that the project is consistent with official plans
or otherwise. No grant [or loan] shall be provided under this section
for the comprehensive development of the urban area.
unless the Secretary determines that the applicant has or will have—
Notice of any hearings under this subsection shall include a concise
(1) the legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out
statement of the proposed project, and shall be published in a news-
the proposed project; and
paper of general circulation in the geographic area to be served. If
(2) satisfactory continuing control through operation or lease
hearings have been held, a copy of the transcript of the hearings shall
or otherwise, over the use of the facilities and equipment.
be submitted with the application.
The Secretary [may] is also authorized to make loans for real prop-
erty acquisition pursuant to subsection (b) upon a determination,
(e) (1) No financial assistance shall be provided under this Act to
which shall be in lieu of the preceding determinations, that the real
any State or local public body or agency thereof for the purpose, di-
property is reasonably expected to be required in connection with a
rectly or indirectly, of acquiring any interest in, or purchasing any
mass transportation system and that it will be used for that purpose
facilities or other property of, a private mass transportation company,
within a reasonable period. No grant or loan funds shall be used for
or for the purpose of constructing, improving, or reconstructing any
payment of ordinary governmental or nonprofit operating expenses.
facilities or other property acquired (after the date of the enactment
An applicant for assistance under this section for a project located
of this Act) from any such company, or for the purpose of providing
wholly or partly in a State in which there is statewide comprehensive
by contract or otherwise for the operation of mass transportation facil-
transportation planning shall furnish a copy of its application to the
ities or equipment in competition with, or supplementary to, the service
Governor of each State affected concurrently with submission to the
provided by an existing mass transportation company, unless [1] (A)
Secretary. If, within thirty days thereafter, the Governor submits
the Secretary finds that such assistance is essential to a program, pro-
comments to the Secretary, the Secretary must consider the comments
posed or under active preparation, for a unified or officially coordinated
before taking final action on the application.
urban transportation system as part of the comprehensively planned
development of the urban area, [2] (B) the Secretary finds that such
program, to the maximum extent feasible, provides for the participa-
tion of private mass transportation companies, [³], (C) just and ade-
(c) No loans shall be made under this section for any project for
quate compensation will be paid to such companies for acquisition of
which a grant is made under this section, except-
their franchises or property to the extent required by applicable State
(1) loans may be made for projects as to which grants are
or local laws, and [4] (D) the Secretary of Labor certifies that such
made for relocation payments; and
assistance complies with the requirements of section 13 (c) of this Act.
(2) project grants may be made even though the real property
(2) No financial assistance shall be provided under this section to
involved in the project has been or will be acquired as a result
any State or local public body or agency thereof which engages di-
of a loan under subsection (b).]
rectly or indirectly in the transporting of schoolchildren and school
Interest on loans made under [this section] subsection (b) shall be at
personnel to and from school and school-authorized functions, or pro-
a rate not less than (i) a rate determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury, taking into consideration the current average market yield
poses to expand present routes, schedules, service, or facilities for the
on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with re-
purpose of providing transportation for schoolchildren and school
maining periods to maturity comparable to the average maturities of
personnel to and from school and school-authorized functions, in com-
such loans adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum, plus (ii)
petition with or supplementary to the service currently provided by a
an allowance adequate in the judgment of the Secretary of Transpor-
private transportation company, or other person, engaged in 80 trans-
tation to cover administrative costs and probable losses under the pro-
porting such schoolchildren and school personnel; except that this
gram. No loans shall be made, including renewals or extensions there-
paragraph shall not apply with respect to any State or local public
of, and no securities or obligations shall be purchased, which have
body or agency thereof if it (or a direct predecessor in interest from
which it acquired the function of 80 transporting such schoolchildren
maturity dates in excess of forty years.
and school personnel along with facilities to be used therefor) was so
14
15
engaged at any time during the twelve-month period immediately
proved (through modernization, extension, addition, or otherwise)
prior to the date of the enactment of this paragraph.
that they will better serve the transportation needs of the area. The
(f) No financial assistance shall be provided to any State or local
Secretary, on the basis of engineering studies, studies of economic
public body or agency thereof for payment of operating expenses in-
feasibility, and data showing the nature and extent of expected utili-
curred in connection with the provision of mass transportation serv-
zation of the facilities and equipment, shall estimate what portion of
ice unless the applicant State or public body or agency has submitted
the cost of a project to be assisted under section 3 cannot be reasonably
to the Secretary a comprehensive mass transportation service improve-
financed from revenues-which portion shall hereinafter be called
ment plan which is approved by him and which sets forth a program
"net project cost". The Federal grant for [such a project shall not
meeting criteria established by the Secretary for capital or service im-
extend two-thirds] any such project to be assisted under section 3
procements to be undertaken for the purpose of providing more effi-
(other than a project for payment of operating expenses) shall be in
cient, economical, and convenient mass transportation service in the
an amount equal to 80 percentum of the net project cost. The remain-
urban area or areas involved, and for placing mass transportation
der of the net project cost shall be provided, in cash, from sources
operations in such area or areas on a sound financial basis.
other than Federal funds. Such remainder may be provided in whole
(g) The funds made available for assistance in the payment of
or in part from other than public sources and any public or private
operating expenses under the third sentence of subsection (a) for any
transit system funds SO provided shall be solely from undistributed
fiscal year shall be allocated by the Secretary among the various States
cash surpluses, replacement or depreciation funds or reserves avail-
and local public bodies and agencies thereof (without regard to section
able in cash, or new capital. No refund or reduction of the remainder
15) on the basis of a formula under which the urbanized areas of
of the net project cost shall be made at any time unless there is at the
eligible applicants in any State will be entitled to receive an amount
same time a refund of a proportional amount of the Federal grant.
equal to the sum of-
(1) one-third of the total amount 80 allocated multiplied by a
*
fraction the numerator of which is the total population of the
urbanized areas of eligible applicants in that particular State,
(c) To finance grants and loans under sections 3, (b), and 9 of this
and the denominator of which is the total population of the ur-
Act (other than grants made under the third sentence of section 3(a)),
banized areas of eligible applicants in all the States;
the Secretary is authorized to incur obligations on behalf of the
(2) one-third of the total amount so allocated multiplied by a
United States in the form of grant agreements or otherwise in amounts
fraction. the numerator of which is the total number of revenue
aggregating not to exceed [$3,100,000,000,] $6,100,000,000 less amounts
passengers carried by mass transportation systems in the urban-
appropriated pursuant to section 12(d) of this Act and the amount
ized areas of eligible applicants in that particular State and the
appropriated to the Urban Mass Transportation Fund by Public Law
denominator of which is the total number of such passengers
91-168 to the extent that such amounts are or were appropriated to
carried by mass transportation systems in the urbanized areas of
finance such grants and loans and have not been reserved or made
eligible applicants in all the States; and
available for any other purpose. This amount (which shall be in addi-
(3) one-third of the total amount 80 allocated multiplied by a
tion to any amounts available to finance such activities under sub-
fraction the numerator of which is the total mass transportation
section (b) of this section) shall become available for obligation upon
revenue vehicle miles traveled in the urbanized areas of eligible
the date of enactment of this subsection and shall remain available
applicants in that particular State and the denominator of which
until obligated. There are authorized to be appropriated for liquida-
is the total mass transportation revenue vehicle miles traveled
tion of the obligations incurred under this subsection not to exceed
in the urbanized areas of eligible applicants in all the States.
$80,000,000 prior to July 1, 1971, which amount may be increased [to
not to exceed an aggregate of $310,000,000 prior to July 1, 1972, not to
exceed an aggregate of $710,000,000 prior to July 1, 1973, not to exceed
LONG-RANGE PROGRAM
an aggregate of $1,260,000,000 prior to July 1, 1974, not to exceed an
SEC. 4. (a) Except as specified in section 5, no Federal financial
aggregate of $1,860,000,000 prior to July 1, 1975, and not to exceed an
assistance shall be provided pursuant to subsection (a) of section 3
aggregate of $3,100,000,000 thereafter to not to exceed an aggregate
unless the Secretary determines that the facilities and equipment for
of $310,000,000 prior to July 1, 1972, not to exceed an aggregate of
which the assistance is sought are needed for carrying out a program,
$1,000,000,000 prior to July 1, 1973, not to exceed an aggregate of
meeting criteria established by him, for a unified or officially coordi-
$2,000,000,000 prior to July 1, 1974, not to exceed an aggregate of
nated urban transportation system as a part of the comprehensively
$3,000,000,000 prior to July 1, 1975, not to exceed an aggregate of
planned development of the urban area, and are necessary for the
$4,500,000,000 prior to July 1, 1976, not to exceed an aggregate of
sound, economic, and desirable development of such area. Such pro-
$5,500,000,000 prior to July 1, 1977, and not to exceed an aggregate of
gram shall encourage to the maximum extent feasible the participation
$6,100,000,000 thereafter. The total amounts appropriated under this
of private enterprise. Where facilities and equipment are to be ac-
subsection and section 12(d) of this Act shall not exceed the limita-
quired which are already being used in mass transportation service in
tions in the foregoing schedule. Sums SO appropriated shall remain
the urban area, the program must provide that they shall be SO im-
available until expended.
16
17
(d) To finance grants to assist States and local public bodies and
plies; maintenance; related services (such as concessions); hiring and
agencies thereof in the payment of operating expenses under the third
training (managerial, technical, and professional) by local agencies
sentence of section 3(a), there is authorized to be appropriated not to
having responsibility for mass transportation service in the area and
exceed $400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and
their contractors and subcontractors; the location of routes and sta-
$400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975. Any amount so
tions; and fares.
appropriated shall remain available until expended; and any amount
authorized but not appropriated for either such fiscal year may be
appropriated for any succeeding fiscal year.
[(d)] (e) The Secretary shall report annually to the Congress
GRANTS FOR TECHNICAL STUDIES
with respect to outstanding grants or other contractual agreements
executed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section. To assure program
SEC. 9. The Secretary is authorized [to make grants] to contract for
continuity and orderly planning and project development, the Secre-
and make grants to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof
tary, after consultation with State and local public agencies, shall sub-
for the planning, engineering, [and designing] designing, and evalu-
mit to the Congress (1) authorization requests for fiscal years 1976
ation of urban mass transportation projects, and for other technical
and 1977 not later than February 1, 1972, (2) authorization requests
studies, to be included, or proposed to be included, in a program (com-
for fiscal years 1978 and 1979 not later than February 1, 1974, (3)
pleted or under active preparation) for a unified or officially coordi-
authorization requests for fiscal years 1980 and 1981 not later than
nated urban transportation system as a part of the comprehensively
planned development of the urban area. Activities assisted under this
February 1, 1976, and (4) an authorization request for fiscal year 1982
section may include (1) studies relating to management, operations,
not later than February 1, 1978. Such authorization requests shall be
capital requirements, and economic feasibility; (2) preparation of
designed to meet the Federal commitment specified in the first section
engineering and architectural surveys, plans, and specifications; [and
of the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970. Concur-
(3)] (3) evaluation of previously funded projects; and (4) other
rently with these authorization requests, the Secretary shall also sub-
similar or related activities preliminary and in preparation for the
mit his recommendations for any necessary adjustments in the sched-
construction, acquisition, or improved operation of mass transporta-
ule for liquidation of obligations.
tion systems, facilities, and equipment. A grant or contract under this
(f) (1) No financial assistance shall be provided under this Act to
section shall be made in accordance with criteria established by the
any State or local public body or agency thereof, with respect to any
Secretary [and shall not exceed two-thirds of the cost of carrying out
project, unless (A) there has been established by the State or locality
the activities for which the grant is made].
involved, as provided in paragraph (2), a Mass Transportation Ad-
visory Council to advise and assist such State or local public body
or agency as provided in paragraph (3), and (B) the application for
such assistance has been reviewed by such Council.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(2) The Mass Transportation Advisory Council established with
respect to any State or local public body or agency thereof shall in-
SEC. 12. (a) In the performance of, and with respect to, the func-
clude one or more members representing each of the political sub-
tions, powers, and duties vested in him by this Act, the Secretary
divisions to be served by the project; and each such member shall be
shall (in addition to any authority otherwise vested in him) have the
elected, or appointed by the chief executive officer of the locality in-
functions, powers, and duties set forth in section 402, except subsec-
volved, unless applicable State or local law specifically provides an-
tions (c) (2) and (f), of the Housing Act of 1950. Funds obtained or
other method for the selection or designation of such member. The
held by the Secretary in connection with the performance of his func-
Council shall consist of representatives of the general public in the
tions under this Act shall be available for the administrative expenses
area to be served by the project and representatives of the business and
of the Secretary in connection with the performance of such functions.
professional community, the labor force, community organizations,
(b) All contracts for construction, reconstruction, or improvement
and local government in such area; but in any event the membership
of facilities and equipment in furtherance of the purposes for which
of the Council shall reasonably reflect the composition of the rider-
a [loan or grant is made under this Act, entered into by applicants
ship of the mass transportation facilities to be included in the project.
under other than competitive bidding procedures as defined by the
(3) It shall be the function of the Mass Transportation Advisory
Secretary, shall provide that the Secretary and the Comptroller Gen-
Council established with respect to any State or local public body or
eral of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representa-
agency thereof to advise and assist such State or local public body or
tives, shall, for the purpose of audit and examination, have access to
agency in the establishment of policies and the making of decisions in-
any books, documents, papers, and records of the contracting parties
volving mass transportation service in the area involved. All policies
that are pertinent to the operations or activities under such contracts.
and decisions ffecting the provision of such service in that area shall be
subject to the review of the Council, specifically including policies and
decisions with respect to planning. design, and architecture; construc-
(e) None of the provisions of this Act shall be construed to author-
tion contracts and subcontracts; the purchase of equipment and sup-
ize the Secretary to regulate in any manner the mode of operation
H. Rept. 141, 93-1-3
18
19
of any mass transportation system with respect to which a grant is
SECTION 103 (a) OF THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND METROPOLITAN
made under section 3 or, after such grant is made, to regulate the rates,
DEVELOPMENT Act OF 1966
fares, tolls, rentals, or other charges fixed or prescribed for such system
by any local public or private transit agency; but nothing in this sub-
ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE
section shall prevent the Secretary from taking such actions as may be
necessary to require compliance by the agency or agencies involved
SEC. 103. (a) A comprehensive city demonstration program is eli-
with any undertakings furnished by such agency or agencies in con-
gible for assistance under sections 105 and 107 only if-
nection with the application for the grant, or from enforcing the limi-
(1) physical and social problems in the area of the city covered
tation described in section (e) (2).
by the program are such that a comprehensive city demonstration
(f) The provision of assistance for the payment of operating ex-
program is necessary to carry out the policy of the Congress as ex-
penses under the third sentence of section 3(a) shall not be construed
pressed in section 101;
as bringing within the application of chapter 15 of title 5, United
(2) the program is of sufficient magnitude to make a substantial
States Code, any nonsupervisory employee of an urban mass transpor-
impact on the physical and social problems and to remove or arrest
tation system (or of any other agency or entity performing related
blight and decay in entire sections or neighborhoods; to contribute
functions) to whom such chapter is otherwise inapplicable.
to the sound development of the entire city; to make marked prog-
ress in reducing social and educational disadvantages, ill health,
LABOR STANDARDS
underemployment, and enforced idleness; and to provide educa-
tional, health, and social services necessary to serve the poor and
SEC. 13. (a) The Secretary shall take such action as may be neces-
disadvantaged in the area, widespread citizen participation in the
sary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors
program, maximum opportunities for employing residents of the
or subcontractors in the performance of construction work financed
area in all phases of the program, and enlarged opportunities for
with the assistance of [loans or grants under this Act shall be paid
work and training;
wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction
(3) the program, including rebuilding or restoration, will con-
in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance
tribute to a well-balanced city with a substantial increase in the
with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended. The Secretary shall not ap-
supply of standard housing of low and moderate cost, maximum
prove any such [loan or grant without first obtaining adequate as-
opportunities in the choice of housing accommodations for all
surance that required labor standards will be maintained upon the
citizens of all income levels, adequate public facilities (including
construction work.
those needed for education, health and social services, transporta-
tion, and recreation), commercial facilities adequate to serve the
residential areas, and ease of access between the residential areas
and centers of employment;
PLANNING AND DESIGN OF MASS TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TO MEET
SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY AND THE HANDICAPPED
(4) any program which includes a transportation component as
a project or activity to be undertaken meets the requirements of
SEC. 16. (a)
section (e) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964:
[4] (5) the various projects and activities to be undertaken in
*
connection with such programs are scheduled to be initiated with-
in a reasonably short period of time; adequate local resources are,
(b) In addition to the grants [and loans otherwise provided for
or will be available for the completion of the program as sched-
under this Act, the Secretary is authorized to make grants [or loans]
uled, and, in the carrying out of the program, the fullest utiliza-
for the specific purpose of assisting States and local public bodies and
tion possible will be made of private initiative and enterprise;
agencies thereof in providing mass transportation services which are
administrative machinery is available at the local level for carry-
planned, designed, and carried out SO as to meet the special needs of
ing out the program on a consolidated and coordinated basis;
elderly and handicapped persons. Grants [and loans] made under the
substantive local laws, regulations, and other requirements are,
preceding sentence shall be subject to all of the terms, conditions,
or can be expected to be, consistent with the objectives of the
requirements, and provisions applicable to grants [and loans made
program; there exists a relocation plan meeting the requirements.
under section (3) (a), and shall be considered for the purposes of all
of the regulations referred to in section 107; the local governing
other laws to have been made under such section. Of the total amount
body has approved the program and, where appropriate, appli-
of the obligations which the Secretary is authorized to incur on behalf
cations for assistance under the program; agencies whose coopera-
of the United States under the first sentence of section 4(c), 11/2
tion is necessary to the success of the program have indicated
per centum may be set aside and used exclusively to finance the
their intent to furnish such cooperation; the program is consistent
programs and activities authorized by this subsection (including
with comprehensive planning for the entire urban or metropolitan
administrative costs).
area; and the locality will maintain, during the period an ap-
proved comprehensive city demonstration program is being car-
*
*
20
ried out, a level of aggregate expenditures for activities similar
to those being assisted under this title which is not less than the
level of aggregate expenditures for such activities prior to initia-
tion of the comprehensive city demonstration program; and
[5] (6) the program meets such additional requirements as
the Secretary may establish to carry out the purposes of this title:
MINORITY VIEWS
Provided, That the authority of the Secretary under this para-
graph shall not be used to impose criteria or establish require-
Even though H.R. 6542 might never see the light of day, we feel it
ments except those which are related and essential to the specific
incumbent upon ourselves to express our opposition to various por-
provisions of this title.
tions of this bill.
(b) In implementing this title the Secretary shall-
This legislation throws authority to the Secretary of Transporta-
(1) emphasize local initiative in the planning, development,
tion which he does not want, (i.e. operating subsidies). It then ties his
and implementation of comprehensive city demonstration pro-
hands in the area where he requests discretion (i.e. mandatory federal
share of capital grants). The Secretary is proclaimed as fully capable
grams; (2) insure, in conjunction with other appropriate Federal de-
to exercise supreme wisdom when it comes to administering a night-
partments and agencies and at the direction of the President,
marishly complex program of operating subsidy grants involving the
maximum coordination of Federal assistance provided in connec-
Federal government in the local decisions of an estimated 1,000 transit
tion with this title, prompt response to local initiative, and maxi-
systems. However, the Secretary is not deemed fit to exercise discre-
mum flexibility in programing, consistent with the requirements
tion as to the percent of Federal contribution to the capital grant
of law and sound administrative practice; and
request of a much smaller number of transit systems.
(3) encourage city demonstration agencies to (A) enhance
That merely points out the inconsistency in this bill. We should
neighborhoods by applying a high standard of design, (B) main-
now like to address ourselves to the merits of the provisions and ex-
tain, as appropriate, natural and historic sites and destinctive
plain why we oppose operating subsidies and favor allowing flexibil-
neighborhood characteristics, and (C) make maximum possible
ity in determination of Federal capital grants. We will also explain
use of new and improved technology and design, including cost
our opposition to the creation of Mass Transportation Advisory
reduction techniques.
Councils.
(c) The preparation of demonstration city programs should in-
FIRST-OPERATING SUBSIDIES
clude to the maximum extent feasible (1) the performance of analyses
that provide explicit and systematic comparisons of the costs and
Section 2 provides for Federal grants for operating expenses of
benefits, financial and otherwise, of alternative possible actions or
urban mass transit systems. It sets out a formula based on population,
courses of action designed to fulfill urban needs; and (2) the estab-
revenue passengers and vehicle miles traveled which allegedly is de-
lishment of programing systems designed to assure effective use of
signed to do equity among the cities involved. Also, it allegedly has
such analyses by city demonstration agencies and by other govern-
built-in incentives to encourage improvements and expansion of the
ment bodies.
transit systems. It is difficult to see how the formula proposed in this
(d) Nothing in this section shall authorize the Secretary to require
bill would do more than favor large obsolete systems with only minor
or condition the availability or amount of financial assistance au-
encouragement for improvement and expansion.
thorized to be provided under this title upon the adoption by any
Statistically, we find that New York City's transit systems are by
community of a program (1) by which pupils now resident in a school
far the largest and operate at a deficit greater than the combined
district not within the confines of the area covered by the city demon-
deficits of Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago, the three cities with the
stration program shall be transferred to a school or school district
next largest deficits. Approximately one-third of the $400 million per
including all or part of such area, or (2) by which pupils now resident
year authorized in this bill would be required to satisfy last years
in a school district within the confines to the area covered by the city
deficit for New York City alone. The massiveness of the ridership
demonstration program shall be transferred to a school or school dis-
factor for that system dwarfs any incentive value relative to other
trict not including a part of such area.
systems.
During hearings held before the new Mass Transit Subcommittee,
witnesses admitted that the voters of their respective states had re-
cently voted against referenda which would have aided mass transit
systems. They claimed that the voters rejected them because too much
of the money was slated to be spent on highway projects and not
enough on mass transit. The witnesses stated that, if bond issues re-
lated solely to mass transit were proposed to the voters of their states,
these bond issues would be approved. If this is true, there would be no
(21)
22
23
need for this legislation. If it is not true, then we should consider care-
For these reasons we favor providing flexibility so that capital
fully why Federal taxpayers should be asked to pay for that which the
grants would be "not more than" 80 percent.
local taxpayers have rejected? On the other hand, the people in the
Atlanta metropolitan area have imposed a one cent sales tax upon
THIRD-MASS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCILS
themselves in order for the rapid transit authority to reduce fares and
improve equipment.
One last point, which is disturbing to us, is the inclusion of Section 5
Also, the Administration is opposed to enactment of a Federal sub-
in the bill. This section requires that a Mass Transportation Advisory
sidy for operating expenses and any such legislation is sure to face a
Council be established to oversee policies and services of the transit
Presidential veto. In testimony before the Subcommittee, Frank C.
system before that system would be eligible for assistance under the
Herringer, Urban Mass Transit Administrator said that the bill
Act.
requires:
In short, the section is excessively cumbersome, duplicatory and un-
"
the Secretary to make a determination that the local
realistic. It creates more questions than its answers, and ties a mill-
plan provides efficient, economical, and convenient mass
stone about the neck of transit systems-systems that already are in
transportation service and that it would place mass transit
SO much difficulty that they must seek Federal operating subsidies.
operations on a sound financial basis. To carry out this
By way of specifics, the bill provides that no financial assistance
charge could immerse the Federal Government in myriad
shall be provided unless a Mass Transportation Advisory Council is
local issues relating to such matters as fare levels and struc-
established, and the application for such assistance has been reviewed
tures, maintenance standards, management practices, labor
by that Council. It further states that the Council shall include one
work rules and practices, and the like.
or more members representing each of the political subdivisions served,
"The paradox we are faced with is that on the one hand
(which could number well over a hundred) but it does not say whether
for the Federal Government to allocate operating subsidies
such representation is to be proportional on the basis of subdivision
without setting standards and controls would provide abso-
population, investment in the system, passenger use or miles traveled,
lutely no assurance that the monies were being used effec-
or whether one representative from each subdivision will suffice re-
tively-while on the other hand to establish controls and
gardless of other factors.
standards at the Federal level would require that we involve
The section also requires representatives of the general public, plus
ourselves in making local decisions that we are not competent
virtually all other interested groups, and insists that the membership
to make."
"reflect the composition of the ridership" of the facilities, whatever
It appears to us, that providing for the Federal Government to
that means. The Council will also "advise and assist" in all policies and
decisions which will then be subject to review of the Council. This re-
subsidize the operations of virtually every mass transit system in the
view specifically includes:
country will open the flood gates on a never-ending stream of Federal
"
dollars without assuring a corresponding benefit to the taxpayers. We
planning, design and architecture; construction con-
therefore reiterate our opposition to this provision of the H.R. 6542.
tracts and subcontracts; the purchase of equipment and sup-
plies; maintenance; related services (such as concessions)
SECOND-MANDATORY FEDERAL SHARE OF CAPITAL GRANTS
hiring and training (managerial, technical and professional)
by local agencies having responsibility for mass transporta-
Section 3 provides that Federal grants for capital improvements be
tion service in the area and their contractors and subcontrac-
a mandatory 80 percent of the cost. This rigidity should surely be re-
tors; the location of routes and stations; and fares."
jected on its face without the necessity of going into the merits.
This, we assert, is cumbersome. Possibly, if other more realistic safe-
Such a provision will force the Department of Transportation into
guards of community interest were not present, it would make sense
outright rejection of an application where performance standards of
the applicant are not completely satisfactory. By having discretion in
to try and establish a form of advisory council. But, even a cursory
review of the statutes pertaining to Federal assistance for mass trans-
determining the Federal share, better performance by the applicant
portation activities shows the following:
can be encouraged. Federal funds could thus be better managed and
1. All applications for Federal assistance must be submitted for
also give a wider distribution of dollars among those who need some
review of an area-wide planning organization which is composed
Federal aid but do not really require full 80 percent Federal funding.
of representatives of a unit of area wide government or general
Other grant programs, such as those administered by HUD, have
local governments. (Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan De-
maximum Federal shares with the Secretary given discretion to fund
velopment Act, 1966) ; and
the request in accordance with his judgment of the applicants ability
2. All viewpoints-national, regional, State and local are re-
to effectively utilize the funds. It also allows for the orderly distribu-
quired to be considered and taken into account for all federally
tion of funds to a larger number of applicants-especially smaller ones
assisted development programs and projects. (Intergovernmental
which would not receive their share if the large grant-seeking appli-
Cooperation Act 1968)
cants were guaranteed a mandatory share of 80 percent.
24
Requirements such as these inherently involve citizen participation.
If anything, citizen groups are over-mobilized and ready to throw
down the gauntlet over the slightest variance to their desires. To add
another layer upon this would surely bring all progress to a grinding
halt. In addition, other basic safeguards exist through:
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF WILLIAM B. WIDNALL
(1). Application of Title VI-Nondiscrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs (Civil Rights Act of 1968) ;
In 1964, I played a part in getting the first Mass Transit Act
(2). Protection of public lands used as a park, recreation area,
adopted. I have continued in that role ever since, supporting increased
wildlife and water fowl refuge, or historic site as determined by
authorizations and appropriations for what I regard as basic to the
Federal, State or local officials. (Department of Transportation
needs of our time and this country.
Act of 1966) ;
While I am quite sure that what I have done has had the considera-
(3). Environmental protection coverage on virtually all deci-
ble backing of my constituents and that of other citizens of my native
sions affecting our surroundings (National Environmental Pro-
state of New Jersey, I also believe that my activity has not been in
tection Act, 1969) ; and others.
the narrow, parochial sense that has characterized some legislation. I
Surely we do not need the Mass Transportation Advisory Council.
believe that the transportation problems of my district-which
brought about my strong advocacy of mass transit as a solution to
CONCLUSION
them-are common to all parts of the country that they have become,
and are becoming even more troublesome as our population builds.
For all of the above reasons and more we feel compelled to oppose
In expressing this firm conviction, I am not without misgivings.
H.R. 6542 in its present form.
More funds for mass transit are essential. I have taken this position
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL.
again and again. Beyond that I am searching for innovative ideas, not
J. WILLIAM STANTON.
just a larger slice of the mass transit "pie" for the interests directly
CHALMERS P. WYLIE.
concerned. My principal concern is for the people who ride mass tran-
PHILIP M. CRANE.
sit of necessity, that they receive the best possible service, and that they
CLAIR W. BURGENER.
not be charged an outrageous price for it.
ALBERT W. JOHNSON.
One of the witnesses before us mentioned "better services, increased
BEN B. BLACKBURN.
ridership, and equitable fares" as incentives that must be present. I am
MARGARET M. HECKLER.
in entire agreement.
JOHN H. ROUSSELOT.
I mentioned, however, my misgivings. I do not want to see us sub-
BILL FRENZEL.
sidize to the point that the subsidized operations gain an unfair ad-
vantage over the unsubsidized. Neither do I want advisory bodies that,
coming from hundreds, even thousands, of communities within the
area served, bog down in local, multi-voiced, parochial disputes that
have only a peripheral relation, if any, to mass transit.
We have, as a committee, waited too long to do something about
mass transit. We have not exercised our function of oversight to the
degree needed. We are still short of essential knowledge. It is my fer-
vent hope, therefore, that legislation to this end will shortly reach the
floor of the House and enable us to produce workable solutions that
stretch beyond the realm of wishful thinking.
WILLIAM B. WIDNALL.
(25)
27
option, they often provide public subsidies to preserve service or sta-
bilize fares at levels considered desirable by the affected communities.
The basic transit ills of decreasing ridership and rapidly increasing
costs are completely interwoven with our total urban problems and
cannot be treated in a vacuum. The fundamental aspects of the prob-
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN GARRY
lem needing attention are within the purview of State and local au-
BROWN TO H.R. 6452
thorities, rather than the Federal Government. This would include
such things as the use of traffic regulation to affect the choice of
I would like to begin my supplemental views on this legislation by
modes, land use control authority, the pricing and supply of parking
quoting the text of a letter that I have received from the Secretary of
facilities, and the formation of institutions capable of dealing with
Transportation regarding his assessment of the reported bill, and then
these subjects effectively at the metropolitan level. A Federal operat-
conclude with my own comments.
ing subsidy program that would mandate Federal involvement in
As the Committee completed its consideration of H.R. 6452, I asked
these areas is not acceptable to the Administration.
the Secretary of Transportation to assess the features of the bill from
The Federal general revenue sharing program offers one means of
the Department of Transportation's standpoint. He has graciously
meeting the problems faced by mass transit. Funds from this pro-
complied with that request, and, as my further remarks show, while I
gram, which is returning at least $6 billion a year to States and cities
have some differences with the Department's position especially in re-
for a broad array of local uses, depending on local priorities, could
gard to the question of operating subsidies, I think inclusion of the
be used for operating subsidies.
Secretary's comments at this point is appropriate.
We do not believe that a categorical grant program for operating
The letter reads as follows:
assistance will necessarily result in improved transit service. Such an
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
approach would likely result in the substitution of Federal dollars for
Washington, D.C., April 16, 1973.
State and local funding and thereby significantly reduce the incentives
at the local level to face up to the fundamental problems responsible
Hon. GARRY BROWN,
for the decline of transit over the years. Removal of these incentives
U.S. House of Representatives,
by providing a Federal subsidy would result in little more than pres-
Washington, D.C.
sure to increase the level of Federal funding in the years ahead.
DEAR MR. BROWN This letter is in response to your request for the
We do not deny the seriousness of the problems caused by increasing
Administration's position on H.R. 6452, the proposed "Urban Mass
operating losses. We are, however, convinced that a categorical grant
Transportation Assistance Act of 1973" reported recently by the
program for operating subsidies is not a solution. In short, inclusion
House Banking and Currency Committee. The most significant feature
of such a program in the proposed legislation is not acceptable.
of the bill is the establishment of a transit operating subsidy program
Contract Authority.-We support the provision of an additional
authorized at $400 million for each of fiscal years 1974 and 1975. As we
$3 billion in contract authority for the UMTA program. We believe
testified before the Banking and Currency Committee, we would not
that this authorization is consistent with our commitment to provide
find such a program acceptable. We urge that it be deleted from the
improved mass transit facilities for the Nation.
bill when it comes before the full House of Representatives.
Increase in the Federal Share for Capital Grants.Section 3 of the
There are also several other significant features in H.R. 6452 which
bill would amend Section 4(a) of the 1964 UMTA Act to provide that
I wish to comment on. Specifically, these are sections which would:
the Federal share of all capital grant projects be a mandatory 80
Provide $3 billion in additional contract authority for the UMTA
percent of the net project cost, rather than the current discretionary
program; Increase the Federal share for capital grants to a mandatory 80
maximum of 662/3 percent. We oppose any mandatory level of Fed-
eral participation. Having discretion to vary the level of Federal par-
percent rather than the current discretionary maximum of 662/3 per-
ticipation permits the Department to encourage better performance
cent;
Require the establishment of mass transportation advisory councils;
by grantees without requiring outright rejection of applications when
administrative criteria are not fully satisfied.
Prohibit assistance to local public agencies if they are involved in
Our second major concern with this section is the proper level of the
school transportation; and
Federal share. In our proposed highway and mass transit legislation
Require a study of rural public transportation needs.
submitted to the Congress we urged the increase of the Federal share
Mass Transit Operating Subsidies.-The Administration is aware
that urban mass transit service faces severe problems which affect both
to 70 percent for mass transit capital grants. We believe that this level
the transit operator and the local community. With fare box revenues
is sufficient to assist the States and localities, while ensuring their con-
tinued involvement. Further, it provides the same Federal share as
unable to finance local transit service, both local officials and private
non-Interstate highway programs, SO that the Federal share will not
operators feel obliged to choose between cutting back on service, rais-
become a determinant of local trade-off decisions between highway
ing fares, or both, with the prospect of further loss in ridership. As an
and mass transit capital investments.
(26)
28
29
Mass Transportation Advisory Councils.-Section 5 of the bill
would require the establishment of transportation advisory coun-
reached only after a great deal of listening and thinking on the sub-
cils. The councils would be responsible for reviewing all applications
ject and, in my opinion, reflect a reasonable alternative.
for assistance under the 1964 UMTA Act. While it is desirable to in-
The question of operating assistance for mass transit is controversial
sure adequate citizen participation in local transportation decisions,
in itself and the issues posed are not adequately dealt with by Section
we believe that present planning requirements adequately satisfy
2 of the Committee bill. The Administration has stated its opposition
this need. Further, the administrative delays and the red tape attend-
to any new kind of categorical grant program and yet, as written, that
ant with the establishment of these councils on a national level will
is exactly what Section 2 is. On the other hand, the Administration tes-
tified before the Committee that operating assistance is an essential in-
more than offset any benefits resulting from marginal improvement in
gredient of a successful transit system-hower, it argues such sub-
the level of citizen participation in the planning process.
sidy should be initiated locally. The Administrator of the Urban Mass
School transportation service exclusion.-Section 8 of H.R. 6452
Transportation Administration testified that no one expects mass
would amend the 1964 Act to prohibit UMTA financial assistance to
transit to be supported exclusively from the farebox-the question,
public bodies which transport persons to school or to school functions
therefore, is where will the subsidy come from?
if a private operator is engaged in providing such service. Despite
It should be noted that in the 1972 National Transportation Report,
the exemption of public bodies which were engaged in such operations
the Department of Transportation outlined the terms which would
at any time in the 12 months prior to its enactment, we consider this
make federal funds for operating assistance workable. The report
to be an undesirable restriction and are opposed to its enactment. We
said: "The Department supports making funds available to states and
are in full agreement with the current provisions of the 1964 Act
local governments for general public purposes or for general transpor-
prohibiting the use of UMTA funds for the purchase of buses to be
tation purposes including operating subsidies, so that a state or local
used primarily for school bus service, which is normally funded on a
government could determine locally how the funds would be used."
totally separate basis. However, when a locality has acquired equip-
Subsequently, the administration embodied this concept in its Trans-
ment for use in urban mass transportation service, it should be per-
portation Special Revenue Sharing proposal.
mitted to use the equipment for the purpose of furnishing incidental
In view of this, it seems clear there are several modifications which
school bus service which is compatible with its regular transit opera-
can be made in Section 2 to make it both more workable and more
tions. Any source of revenue is important to the local transit operator,
acceptable.
and this provision could arbitrarily foreclose a significant source of
First, it is important that the problem of operating costs be tackled
revenues for many systems.
on a partnership basis among the levels of government. One hundred
Rural Transportation Needs.-Section 10 of H.R. 6452 would re-
percent federal funds for the purpose precludes such a partnership
quire a study of rural transportation needs along with legislative rec-
and could well result in disincentives. Local governments should be
ommendations for meeting such needs. Last year we submitted to the
stimuated to adopt those revenue raising measures which involve local
Congress the National Transportation Report which fully covered
citizens in the support transit.
this subject. Further, on February 21, 1973, we submitted to the Con-
It has been well documented that states and localities cannot long
gress our proposed "Federal-aid Highway and Public Transporta-
tion Act of 1973", which would permit States to spend funds au-
continue bearing the whole operating cost burden without transit
thorized for rural primary and secondary roads for highway related
service suffering. Therefore, I would suggest that local operating
public transportation investments as well as for road construction. We
subsidies be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the federal gov-
do not believe that requiring further reports or legislative recom-
ernment. This would mean that the federal government recognizes the
mendations is necessary. We, therefore, recommend deletion of this
problem without disproportionately assuming it.
requirement.
Testimony was given at the hearings that there are presently more
We would hope that when the bill comes to the floor, it will be
than 150 local areas which have instituted local programs of operat-
amended along the lines I have discussed. In particular, I wish to re-
ing assistance, totalling $511 million a year. Testimony was also re-
iterate that any bill which includes a transit operating subsidy pro-
ceived that many more areas will be facing such decisions in the com-
gram would not be acceptable to the Administration.
ing year. A federal program of operating assistance on a 50-50 basis
We have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget
would spur such local actions without placing an undue burden on
that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Con-
the local taxpayer. Federal operating funds on a 100 percent basis,
gress, and enactment of H.R. 6452 as ordered reported by the Banking
as the Committee bill provides, may well stifle such efforts.
and Currency Committee would not be in accord with the program
To further clarify the message that the locality has control of the
of the President.
operating assistance problem, I would suggest a second modification in
Sincerely,
the Committee bill. The federal funds for operating assistance should
CLAUDE S. BRINEGAR.
be available for equipment needs as well. There is no overwhelming
reason to make this program SO strictly categorical by limiting it to
My own view of the bill differs, basically, from that of Secretary
operating costs-and there is good reason to give localities the kind of
Brinegar only in the area of operating subsidies. My conclusions were
flexibility that leaves the operating costs and capital needs decisions
squarely in their hands.
30
31
There has been evidence that the existing capital grants program
on the other hand, measurably increase the utility of funds to many
which will be continued by the Committee bill, has spawned some
more areas.
neglect of maintenance and has accelerated equipment deterioration.
The last point to be made about Section 2 is that I feel that the
Availability of capital grants has resulted in the concentration on
criteria for capital and service improvements should include the uti-
newer and more expensive technology and has shifted some local
lization of local regulatory and taxing powers to lessen vehicular con-
operating funds to federally shared capital costs. Therefore, it is
gestion in central city areas. There is no question but that transit's
advisable in the provision of federal operating assistance to build in
problems have increased in direct proportion to the increasing reli-
an option which relates to capital expenditures.
ance on the private automobile. Such reliance has been fostered by
In a recent report to the Joint Economic Committee, William Tye
public policy which has provided access, parking traffic practices and
of Harvard University cited the necessary relationship between cap-
other measures which make automobile usage downtown much more
ital and operating needs: "This distortion of premature replacement
economic and convenient.
decisions is estimated to result in the waste of a minimum of 22 percent
If the federal government is to recognize the imbalance among
of the federal funds appropriated for bus replacement. A subsidy to
modes of urban transportation by subsidizing transit operations, then
transit operations allocated among states and localities on a transpor-
local areas must respond by doing what they can to make the auto-
tation revenue-sharing basis available for both capital and operating
mobile a little less convenient and economical to bring into urban
expenses would avoid this costly waste."
areas. I do not feel that criteria which relates only to the improvement
By building into the Federal Transit Aid Program a relationship
of equipment and services does this.
between operations and capital, funds for both needs become more
I concur on the other sections of the bill dealing with the capital
productive.
grants program. The only modification that should be made has to do
The third modification I would make embodies another principle
with the federal share of the program. The Committee bill raises the
that was part of the administration proposed Special Transportation
present level to a mandatory 80 percent. While 80 percent may be a
Revenue Sharing-and that is the involvement of the states.
fair maximum in relation to the average share of the federal aid to
One of the administration's objections to the proposed federal op-
highway programs, I believe that 80 percent should be an allowable
erational assistance program was that it would put the federal govern-
ceiling. By making capital grants on an "up to 80 percent" basis, the
ment into a direct operating relationship with 1,000 local transit sys-
Department of Transportation will have the necessary leverage to
tems and that this would involve Washington in a multitude of local
achieve the goals set by the Congress and to assure compliance with
program criteria.
fare, wage and service decisions. Federal operating funds should go
only to regional authorities and in those areas where there is no
In view of the present status of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1973 with its mass transit Title III, it should be recognized that this
regional transportation authority, operating assistance should go to
Committee bill might not reach the floor. If it does, I would offer an
the state, which would then decide how funds would be apportioned
amendment which would contain the specifics of these additional
among the other areas not served by such authorities. The Committee
views.
bill would allocate operating funds directly to about 1,000 transit
Finally, Section 5 of the Committee bill would amend Section 4 of
systems. This would mean, in urban areas not served by a regional
the Mass Transportation Act by requiring that State and local transit
transportation authority, that there would be no incentive for coordi-
authorities must have a Mass Transportation Citizen's Advisory
nation, system planning and cooperation among small systems serving
Council. This amendment defines the makeup of such councils and
the same area. It is important that regional transportation authorities
makes their existence a condition to receive assistance under the act.
be established SO that an area's total transportation needs can be
Clearly the existence of community involvement in the planning
planned and financed with maximum efficiency, coordination and
and operations of transit systems is important. Most transit author-
economy. Where such authorities do not exist, the state is the only
ities have boards made up of community leaders. Some authorities
proper institution to decide how the remaining funds are used.
have Citizen Advisory Committees. The makeup of the authorities
The states have increasing experience with operating subsidy pro-
must reflect local government organization and traditions. To rigidly
grams. Two years ago only two of the ten most populous states had
prescribe the organization of an Advisory Council on governments is
such programs. Now eight of the top ten have them.
counter productive in a system which has as its aim greater not lesser
To bypass the states completely, as the Committee bill would do,
acceptance of responsibility at the local level.
could well result in the dimunition of state assistance. It certainly
Almost as a post-script, I would be remiss if I did not add that I,
would preclude the leverage a state could have on achieving a regional
too, generally oppose categorical programs and feel even the compro-
approach to local transportation needs.
mise proposals I am suggesting is not a complete answer. Not until
A fourth point goes to the formula by which operating assistance
the whole transportation function
highways, railways, airways
funds are allocated. I feel that greater weight should be given to the
are combined in a single funding system from which each community
ponulation factor SO that funds will receive broad and equitable dis-
can select funds for its priority needs, will we make a real inroad on
tribution. Dropping the revenue passenger and vehicle mile percent-
transportation problems.
ages to 25 percent would in no way decrease the incentives they are
GARRY BROWN.
designed to provide. Raising the population factor to 50 percent would,
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE
DISSENTING VIEWS OF MR. CRANE, MR. BLACKBURN,
STEWART B. McKINNEY
AND MR. ROUSSELOT
I wish to associate myself with the supplemental views of Repre-
We are strongly opposed to the urban transportation aid bill as it
sentative Garry Brown. The concepts he has proposed are essential
was favorably reported by the Banking and Currency Committee.
components in the development of a sound responsible federal role in
We are persuaded that this is bad legislation and should be defeated
the subsidization of local mass transit systems.
by the Congress on a number of compelling grounds:
The question of operating subsidies for mass transit is certainly
(1) This bill is an excellent example of another case where Congress
controversial. All too often in the past when Congress has provided
is completely abdicating its responsibilities by recommending action
such assistance in other areas, we have been faced with an annual raid
which delegates to the Executive Branch the real authority for deter-
on the federal treasury with little or no improvement in the program
mining the allocation of funds and for deciding under what conditions
and services subsidized. Understandably, past experiences with sub-
transit systems can qualify for funds and which leaves the door wide
sidies have left many Members of Congress reluctant to support oper-
open for complete control of local transit operations by the Secretary
ating subsidies for mass transit.
of Transportation. We would have opposed this kind of sweeping
However, as an alternative to the Committee Bill, H.R. 6452, and as
legislative "give-away" had it been proposed a decade ago, five years
a refinement of Representative Brown's substitute, I offer an alterna-
ago or even last year. But especially now when Congress is facing up
tive-a four-year program of declining federal assistance. Under this
to what some have termed a "constitutional crisis" over the power of
plan, the federal government would provide a $1 billion authorization
the Executive Branch this seems to be the worst possible time for leg-
over a four year period with the amount provided for each year de-
islation of this sort. Of course, a vote on this bill on the House floor
clining from $400 million in fiscal year 1974 to a final $1 million pay-
will certainly help to unmask those who pretend to be concerned about
ment in fiscal year 1977.
Executive encroachments, but who, when given a clear cut opportunity
Combined with the declining federal payment is a requirement
to do something about this problem, will turn their backs on principle,
that the localities wishing to participate in such a program must pro-
and will vote the Executive Branch the power for sweeping control
vide new monies for their transit systems in increasing percentages
over local transit operations.
in order to match the federal level of assistance. The mechanics of this
(2) In our view, it is absolutely impossible for a reasonable formula
concept-a limited federal program with an increasing local financial
to be calculated which could treat all mass transit systems in the Na-
commitment-in my judgment provides the operational framework
tion equitably. Were a formula for distribution of these funds to be
which avoids the pitfalls of past federal subsidy programs while pro-
calculated by the Secretary of Transportation, large portions of the
viding the financial assistance SO desperately needed by our local mass
nation would be treated unfairly. No wonder some Members of Con-
transit system.
gress prefer to permit the Executive Branch to handle this question.
If, as it now appears, H.R. 6452 does not reach the Floor, I plan to
For when the day of reckoning comes, Congress will want to have
offer this program as a substitute to Title III of the Federal Highway
someone to blame for the inequities created by this legislation. Natur-
Assistance Act.
ally, if Congress would exercise its responsibilities by creating its own
STEWART B. McKINNEY.
distribution formula, its own criteria for funding, and its own admin-
(32)
istrative regulations, Congress would have to blame itself for the in-
evitable mess. Should this legislation pass, Congress can wash its
hands of mass transit subsidies and hereafter blame the Administra-
tion for the problems which will result from it.
We contend that no equitable operating subsidy formula can be de-
vised simply because urban mass transit systems are So diverse in the
United States that to compare one system with another is not merely
to compare apples and oranges, it is to liken cucumbers and bananas,
hot dogs and pumpkin pie, Kool-Aid and Seagrams.
Some American cities have 20 cent transit fares. Others charge 60
cents. Some systems have zone fares. Others have uniform fares. Some
charge for transfers-others give free transfers and some do not per-
mit inter-system transfers. Others do. Some systems operate service
(33)
34
35
all day and all night. Others operate only during working hours,
ated as they have them presenty operated, then New Yorkers should
Monday through Friday. Some transit systems operate 10 car heavy
be asked to tax themselves to pay for that service. This bill, however,
rapid transit trains in subways on 30 second headways. Others oper-
leaves the door open for a possibility which we feel is even more dan-
ate 16 passenger buses on hourly headways. Drivers in some towns
gerous. Since the Federal subsidy would be increased upon an in-
with local systems earn $2.50 per hour. Some motormen on transit
crease in transit ridership in a given community, then what is to pre-
vehicles earn $6 to $7 per hour. Some systems are purely urban. Others
vent a given community from lowering its fares to nothing or next to
are mostly suburban. Some companies have school and tourist operat-
nothing SO that its ridership might increase four or five fold? Possibly
ing rights. These kinds of trips make money. Other systems may not
the Secretary would promulgate regulations to prevent this, but this
have these rights, but may actually carry more passengers per year
legislation leaves the door open for the day when transit systems all
than the systems with the school and tourist contracts. Yet the sys-
over the nation could offer service at no charge to the rider, while
tem with the outside contracts may run up a large deficit by providing
asking the Federal taxpayer to pick up the tab. Imagine the advan-
better actual transit service. Which system should receive the most
tage to an incumbent mayor of a city like New York or Boston where
federal aid?
subway fares have traditionally been a major campaign issue, to be
Some systems use electrical power and have the cost of maintaining
able to lower fares or eliminate them completely and then charge the
expensive power distribution systems. Other systems use only diesel
bill to the pople in Arizona and Vermont and Alabama and Alaska
powered buses. Some systems will give discount fares to the poor and
and the rest of the states.
elderly. Others will not.
The MBTA in Boston is a notorious haven for political patronage.
The point is, that local transit systems are SO different and operate
The citizens of Boston might wish to support such an arrangement by
under so many diverse conditions that it is impossible for a formula
continuing in office those who perpetuate it; but it is patently wrong
to be created which would not short-change one system or another.
to ask people all over America to pay for political patronage which
Of course, under this legislation, the Secretary of Transportation is
runs up huge deficits. Since the MBTA carries a great number of pas-
given such broad authority that he might well be dictating uniform
sengers, though, it would receive a large share of the Federal money.
regulations designed to eliminate some of the differences between
(4) The hearings on this legislation, which were held before the new
systems. No Secretary could ever eliminate the difference between a
Mass Transit Subcommittee, produced no convincing evidence that the
heavy rapid transit train and a small bus. But, the Secretary might
Federal Government ought to pick up the tab for mass transit opera-
promulgate regulations which would eventually result in bus drivers
tions. Quite to the contrary, witnesses from both New York and New
in a city of 25,000 earning New York-style wages; or a bus system in a
Jersey, two of the States which would benefit most from this legisla-
city of 100,000 being required to operate all night service even though
tion, admitted under questioning that the voters of their respective
there is no demand for it.
states had recently voted against referenda aimed at assisting mass
(3) The bill provides a major portion of its transit subsidies on
transit systems. Both witnesses claimed that the voters rejected the
the basis of number of riders carried. Supposedly this provision will
bond issues because too much of the money was slated to be spent on
provide an incentive for transit systems to improve service since the
highway projects and not enough on mass transit projects. When
more people systems carry, the more federal money they would be-
asked, both witnesses stated that, in their opinion, if bond issues related
entitled to receive. Of course, this amounts to a subsidy bill for the big-
solely to mass transit were placed before the voters of their states, these
cities. Even if half of the riders were to switch to other forms of
bond issues would be approved. If that is correct, there is no compelling
transportation, New York's transit system would still carry far more-
need for this legislation. If their assertions are not correct, then why
people than virtually every other transit operation in the United
should the Federal taxpayers be asked to pay for that which local tax-
States. The major systems in the five or six largest cities in this na-
payers believe is unnecessary and unwarranted? Local and state juris-
tion-the systems. we might add, with the largest deficits-would'
dictions possess the authority to come to the aid of transit systems
gobble up the $400 million yearly authorization in this measure SO.
which are in need of assistance. If the voters, or their local or state
fast that smaller communities no matter how desperately they may
representatives approve such aid, mass transit service can be main-
need aid, will be shortchanged. This is another example of legislation.
tained. If they reject the aid, mass transit should be curtailed because
promoted on the theory that problems of the nation's largest cities,
local people are unwilling to pay for it. We believe that even if, in
no matter how much they may be self-created, should always be given
extreme cases, transit systems were to cease operations because of local
first priority when it comes to Federal funding. We contend that the
disinterest, private entrepreneurs would devise satisfactory service for
bus service rendered in a small Midwestern town may be just as im-
those who really need it.
portant to that community's well-being as the New York subway
(5) The Administration is opposed to the Federal subsidy approach.
system is to that metropolitan area. We contend that if the residents
As Urban Mass Transportation Administrator, Frank C. Herringer,
want mass transit service in that small Midwestern town, the local
recently said:
residents should be asked to support it through local taxes. If the
"
we are strongly opposed to enactment of any program
local people can make the case for it, then local taxpayers will pay the
of Federal operating assistance for mass transit. No one can
bill and can keep track of how well their dollars are being spent. By
question the seriousness of the status of the Nation's urban
the same token, if New Yorkers want their subways and buses oper-
36
transportation systems as they struggle to cope with rising
operating costs, falling ridership, and other ills. This is a
problem that must be dealt with, both on the Federal and
local level. However, we do not believe that the proper Federal
rose is to provide operating subsidies.
"The dilemma we are faced with is that on the one hand for
the Federal Government to allocate operating subsidies with-
out setting standards and controls would provide absolutely
no assistance that the monies were being used effectively-
while on the other hand, to establish controls and standards at
the Federal level would require that we involve ourselves in
making local decisions that we are not competent to make.
"The determination of fares, routes, wages, and other char-
acteristics of the transit system can best be made at the local
level, where local knowledge and responsibility exists. Intro-
ducing a new factor-Federal subsidies-into this local equa-
tion will not provide answers. In fact, it may allow local au-
thorities to avoid taking tough, non-monetary steps, such as
traffic regulation, pricing of parking facilities, and the like.
Instead, what we would probably be faced with is a contin-
ually accelerating demand for greater and greater subsidies,
while the basic problems remained untouched."
(6) The alternative offered in Committee, (H.R. 6432) although it
failed to obtain a majority of votes in the Committee, is far preferable
to this approach. It would implement some type of revenue sharing for
transportation SO that local jurisdictions could better serve local needs.
It would unsnarl the bureaucracy SO that those local jurisdictions
which are serious about making mass transit improvements could do
SO. It would provide substantially expanded Federal assistance for
capital programs, but would do SO on the basis of the very equitable
90-10 formula used in Federal highway construction over the years.
Even the most enthusiastic backers of Federal programs have been
unwilling to go that far in putting mass transit on an equal footing
with highways. It would eliminate the need for unneeded labor pro-
tection agreements which tend to increase costs on the local level, while
decreasing efficiency. The substitute plan offered by Mr. Crane pro-
vides the kind of mass transit assistance that works, while avoiding the
terrible pitfalls and inevitable consequences of the Committee bill.
PHILIP M. CRANE.
BEN B. BLACKBURN.
JOHN H. ROUSSELOT.
S. 386
FORD
LIBRARY
Ainety-third Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty-first day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-four
An Act
To amend the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 to provide increased
assistance for mass transportation systems.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may
be cited as the "National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974".
FINDINGS
SEC. 2. The Congress finds that-
(1) over 70 per centum of the Nation's population lives in
urban areas;
(2) transportation is the lifeblood of an urbanized society and
the health and welfare of that society depends upon the provision
of efficient economical and convenient transportation within and
between its urban area;
(3) for many years the mass transportation industry satisfied
the transportation needs of the urban areas of the country capably
and profitably;
(4) in recent years the maintenance of even minimal mass
transportation service in urban areas has become SO financially
burdensome as to threaten the continuation of this essential pub-
lic service;
(5) the termination of such service or the continued increase in
its cost to the user is undesirable, and may have a particularly
serious adverse effect upon the welfare of a substantial number of
lower income persons;
(6) some urban areas are now engaged in developing prelimi-
nary plans for, or are actually carrying out, comprehensive proj-
ects to revitalize their mass transportation operations; and
(7) immediate substantial Federal assistance is needed to enable
many mass transportation systems to continue to provide vital
service.
TITLE I-INCREASED MASS TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE
AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 101. (a) The first sentence of section 4(c) of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended by striking out "$6,100,000,000"
and inserting in lieu thereof "$10,925,000,000".
(b) Section 4(c) of such Act is further amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new sentence: "Of the total amount avail-
able to finance activities under this Act (other than under section 5)
on and after the date of the enactment of the National Mass Trans-
portation Assistance Act of 1974, not to exceed $500,000,000 shall be
available exclusively for assistance in areas other than urbanized areas
(as defined in section (a) (3))
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
SEC. 102. Section 3(a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964 is amended-
(1) by inserting "(1)" after "SEC. 3. (a)";
(2) by redesignating clauses (1) and (2) of the third sentence
as clauses (A) and (B) respectively;
S. 386-2
(3) by striking out the sixth and seventh sentences; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
"(2) It is declared to be in the national interest to encourage and
promote the development of transportation systems, embracing vari-
ous modes of transport in a manner that will serve the States and
local communities efficiently and effectively. To accomplish this objec-
tive the Secretary shall cooperate with the States in the development
of long-range plans and programs which are properly coordinated
with plans for improvements in other affected forms of transportation
and which are formulated with due consideration to their probable
effect on the future development of urban areas of more than fifty
thousand population. The development of projects in urbanized areas
under this section shall be based upon a continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive planning process covering all modes of surface trans-
portation and carried on by the States and the governing bodies of
local communities in accordance with this paragraph. The Secretary
shall not approve any project in an urbanized area after July 1, 1976,
under this section unless he finds that such project is based on a con-
tinuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried on in
conformance with the objectives stated in this paragraph."
FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM
SEC. 103. (a) The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 is
amended by striking out section 5 and inserting in lieu thereof the
following new section:
"URBAN MASS TRANSIT PROGRAM
"SEC. 5. (a) As used in this section-
(1) the term 'construction' means the supervising, inspecting,
actual building, and all expenses incidental to the acquisition, con-
struction, or reconstruction of facilities and equipment for use in
mass transportation, including designing, engineering, locating,
surveying, mapping, acquisition of rights-of-way, relocation
assistance, and acquisition and replacement of housing sites;
(2) the term 'Governor' means the Governor, or his designate,
of any one of the fifty States or of Puerto Rico, and the Mayor of
the District of Columbia; and
" (3) the term 'urbanized area' means an area SO designated by
the Bureau of the Census, within boundaries which shall be fixed
by responsible State and local officials in cooperation with each
other, subject to approval by the Secretary, and which shall at
a minimum, in the case of any such area, encompass the entire
urbanized area within the State as designated by the Bureau of
the Census.
" (b) (1) The Secretary shall apportion for expenditure in fiscal
years 1975 through 1980 the sums authorized by subsection (c). Such
sums shall be made available for expenditure in urbanized areas or
parts thereof on the basis of a formula under which urbanized areas or
part thereof will be entitled to receive an amount equal to the sum
of-
(A) one-half of the total amount SO apportioned multiplied
by the ratio which the population of such urbanized area or part
thereof, as designated by the Bureau of the Census, bears to the
total population of all the urbanized areas in all the States as
shown by the latest available Federal census; and
S. 386-3
"(B) one-half of the total amount SO apportioned multiplied
by a ratio for that urbanized area determined on the basis of
population weighted by a factor of density, as determined by the
Secretary.
As used in the preceding sentence, the term 'density' means the num-
ber of inhabitants per square mile.
"(2) The Governor, responsible local officials and publicly-owned
operators of mass transportation services, in accordance with the
procedures required under section (g) (1), with the concurrence of
the Secretary, shall designate a recipient to receive and dispense the
funds apportioned under paragraph (1) that are attributable to
urbanized areas of two hundred thousand or more population. In any
case in which a statewide or regional agency or instrumentality is
responsible under State laws for the financing, construction and opera-
tion, directly, by lease, contract, or otherwise, of public transportation
services, such agency or instrumentality shall be the recipient to
receive and dispense such funds. The term 'designated recipient' as
used in this Act shall refer to the recipient selected according to the
procedures required by this paragraph.
"(3) Sums apportioned under paragraph (1) not made available for
expenditure by designated recipients in accordance with the terms of
paragraph (2) shall be made available to the Governor for expenditure
in urbanized areas or parts thereof in accordance with the procedures
required under subsection (g) (1).
(c) (1) To finance grants under this section, the Secretary may
incur obligations on behalf of the United States in the form of grants,
contracts, agreements, or otherwise in an aggregate amount not to
exceed $3,975,000,000. There are authorized to be appropriated for
liquidation of the obligations incurred under this paragraph not to
exceed $300,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1975; not to exceed
$500,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1976; not to exceed
$650,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1977; not to exceed
$775,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1978; not to exceed
$850,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1979; and not to exceed
$900,000,000 prior to the close of fiscal year 1980. Sums SO appropriated
shall remain available until expended.
"(2) Sums apportioned under this section shall be available for
obligation by the Governor or designated recipient for a period of two
years following the close of the fiscal year for which such sums are
apportioned, and any amounts so apportioned remaining unobligated
at the end of such period shall lapse and shall be returned to the
Treasury for deposit as miscellaneous receipts.
"(d) (1) The Secretary may approve as a project under this section,
on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe, (A) the acquisition,
construction, and improvement of facilities and equipment for use, by
operation or lease or otherwise, in mass transportation service, and
(B) the payment of operating expenses to improve or to continue such
service by operation, lease, contract, or otherwise.
"(2) The Secretary shall issue such regulations as he deems neces-
sary to administer this subsection and subsection (e), including regula-
tions regarding maintenance of effort by States, local governments,
and local public bodies, the appropriate definition of operating
expenses, and requirements for improving the efficiency of transit
services.
"(e) The Federal grant for any construction project under this
section shall not exceed 80 per centum of the cost of the construction
project, as determined under section 4(a) of this Act. The Federal
S. 386-4
grant for any project for the payment of subsidies for operating
expenses shall not exceed 50 per centum of the cost of such operat-
ing expense project. The remainder shall be provided in cash, from
sources other than Federal funds or revenues from the operation of
public mass transportation systems. Any public or private transit sys-
tem funds SO provided shall be solely from undistributed cash sur-
pluses, replacement or depreciation funds or reserves available in cash,
or new capital.
"(f) Federal funds available for expenditure for mass transporta-
tion projects under this section shall be supplementary to and not in
substitution for the average amount of State and local government
funds and other transit revenues such as advertising, concessions, and
property leases, expended on the operation of mass transportation serv-
ice in the area involved for the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal
year for which the funds are made available; but nothing in this
sentence shall be construed as preventing State or local tax revenues
which are used for the operation of mass transportation service in the
area involved from being credited (to the extent necessary) toward
the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for purposes of the
preceding sentence.
"(g) (1) It is declared to be in the national interest to encourage
and promote the development of transportation systems, embracing
various modes of transport in a manner that will serve the States and
local communities efficiently and effectively. To accomplish this objec-
tive the Secretary shall cooperate with the States in the development
of long-range plans and programs which are properly coordinated
with plans for improvement in other affected forms of transportation
and which are formulated with due consideration to their probable
effect on the future development of urban areas of more than fifty
thousand population. The development of projects in urbanized areas
under this section shall be based upon a continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive planning process covering all modes of surface trans-
portation and carried on by the States and the governing bodies of
local communities in accordance with this paragraph. The Secretary
shall not approve any project in an urbanized area after July 1, 1976,
under this section unless he finds that such project is based on a con-
tinuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried on in
conformance with the objectives stated in this paragraph.
"(2) The Governor or designated recipient shall submit to the
Secretary for his approval a program of projects for utilization of the
funds authorized, which shall be based on the continuing compre-
hensive planning process of paragraph (1). The Secretary shall act
upon programs submitted to him as soon as practicable, and he may
approve a program in whole or in part.
(3) An applicant for assistance under this section (other than a
Governor) shall submit the program or programs to the Governor of
the State affected, concurrently with submission to the Secretary.
If within thirty days thereafter the Governor submits comments to
the Secretary, the Secretary shall consider such comments before
taking final action on the program or programs.
(h) (1) The Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized
area shall submit to the Secretary for his approach such surveys, plans,
specifications, and estimates for each proposed project as the Secretary
may require. The Secretary shall act upon such surveys, plans, speci-
fications, and his entering into a grant or contract agreement with
respect to any such project shall be a contractual obligation of the
Federal Government for the payment of its proportional contribution
thereto.
S. 386-5
"(2) In approving any project under this section, the Secretary
shall assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environmental
effects relating to the proposed project have been fully considered in
developing the project, and that the final decisions on the project are
made in the best overall public interest, taking into consideration the
need for fast, safe, and efficient transportation, public services, and
conservation of environment and natural resources, and the costs
of eliminating or minimizing any such adverse effects, including-
"(A) air, noise, and water pollution;
"(B) destruction or disruption of manmade and natural
resources, esthetic values, community cohesion, and the avail-
ability of public facilities and services;
"(C) adverse employment effects, and tax and property value
losses;
"(D) injurious displacement of people, businesses, and farms;
and
"(E) disruption of desirable community and regional growth.
"(i) Upon submission for approval of a proposed project under this
section, the Governor or the designated recipient of the urbanized
area shall certify to the Secretary that he or it has conducted public
hearings (or has afforded the opportunity for such hearings) and
that these hearings included (or were scheduled to include) consider-
ation of the economic and social effects of such project, its impact on
the environment, including requirements under the Clean Air Act,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and other applicable Fed-
eral environmental statutes, and its consistency with the goals and
objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the
community. Such certification shall be accompanied by (1) a report
which indicates the consideration given to the economic, social, environ-
mental, and other effects of the proposed project, including, for con-
struction projects, the effects of its location or design, and the
consideration given to the various alternatives which were raised
during the hearing or which were otherwise considered, and (2) upon
the Secretary's request, a copy of the transcript of the hearings.
"(j) (1) The Secretary may discharge any of his responsibilities
under this action with respect to a project under this section upon the
request of any Governor or designated recipient of the urbanized area
by accepting a certification by the Governor or his designee, or by the
designated recipient of the urbanized area, if he finds that such project
will be carried out in accordance with State laws, regulations, direc-
tives, and standards establishing requirements at least equivalent to
those contained in, or issued pursuant to, this section.
"(2) The Secretary shall make a final inspection or review of each
such project upon its completion and shall require an adequate report
of its estimated and actual cost, as well as such other information as
he determines to be necessary.
"(3) The Secretary shall promulgate such guidelines and regula-
tions as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.
"(4) Acceptance by the Secretary of a certification under this section
may be rescinded by the Secretary at any time if, in his opinion, it is
necessary to do SO.
"(5) Nothing in this section shall affect or discharge any respon-
sibility or obligation of the Secretary under any other Federal law,
including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
(49 U.S.C. 1653(f)), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 200(d) et seq.), title VIII of the Act of April 11, 1968 (Public
Law 90-284, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and the Uniform Relocation
S. 386-6
Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
4601 et seq.).
"(k) (1) As soon as practicable after the plans, specifications, and
estimates for a specific project under this section have been approved,
the Secretary shall enter into a formal project agreement with the
Governor, his designee or the designated recipient of the urbanized
area. Such project agreement shall make provision for non-Federal
funds required for the State's or designated recipient's pro rata share
of the cost of the project.
"(2) The Secretary may rely upon representations made by the
applicant with respect to the arrangements or agreements made by
the Governor or the designated recipient where a part of the project
involved is to be constructed at the expense of, or in cooperation with,
local subdivisions of the State.
'(3) The Secretary is authorized, notwithstanding the provisions
of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, to make advance
or progress payments on account of any grant or contract made pur-
suant to this section, on such terms and conditions as he may prescribe.
"(1) The Secretary shall not approve any project under this sec-
tion unless he finds that such project is needed to carry out a pro-
gram, meeting criteria established by him, for a unified or officially
coordinated urban transportation system as a part of the compre-
hensively planned development of the urban area, and is necessary for
the sound, economic, and desirable development of such area, and that
the applicant or responsible agency has the legal, financial, and tech-
nical capacity to carry out the proposed project. A project under this
section may not be undertaken unless the responsible public officials
of the urbanized area in which the project is located have been con-
sulted and, except for projects solely to pay subsidies for operating
expenses, their views considered with respect to the corridor, location,
and design of the project.
" (m) The Secretary shall not approve any project under this sec-
tion unless the applicant agrees and gives satisfactory assurances, in
such manner and form as may be required by the Secretary and in
accordance with such terms and conditions as the Secretary may pre-
scribe, that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during
nonpeak hours for transportation utilizing or involving the facilities
and equipment of the project financed with assistance under this sec-
tion will not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to other
persons at peak hours, whether the operation of such facilities and
equipment is by the applicant or is by another entity under lease or
otherwise.
"(n) (1) The provisions of section 13(c) and section 3(e) (4) shall
apply in carrying out mass transportation projects under this section.
" (2) The provision of assistance under this section shall not be con-
strued as bringing within the application of chapter 15 of title 5,
United States Code, any nonsupervisory employee of an urban mass
transportation system (or of any other agency or entity performing
related functions) to whom such chapter is otherwise inapplicable.".
(b) Section 4(a) of such Act is amended by striking out "Except as
specified in section 5, no" and inserting in lieu thereof "No".
ELIGIBILITY OF QUASI-PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
SEC. 104. (a) The first sentence of section 3(a) of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964 is amended by inserting "(1)" after
"financing", and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the
S. 386-7
following: ", and (2) the establishment and organization of public or
quasi-public transit corridor development corporations or entities".
(b) The second sentence of section 3(a) of such Act is amended to
read as follows: "Eligible facilities and equipment may include
personal property including buses and other rolling stock and real
property including land (but not public highways), within the entire
zone affected by the construction and operation of transit improve-
ments, including station sites, needed for an efficient and coordinated
mass transportation system which is compatible with socially, eco-
nomically, and environmentally sound patterns of land use."
COORDINATION OF URBAN MASS TRANSIT PROGRAMS WITH MODEL CITIES
PROGRAMS
SEC. 105. Section 103(a) of the Demonstration Cities and Metro-
politan Development Act of 1966 is amended-
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively, and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
"(4) any program which includes a transportation component
as a project or activity to be undertaken meets the requirements
of section 3(e) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964;".
PROCUREMENT
SEC. 106. The fifth sentence of section 3(a) of the Urban Mass Trans-
portation Act of 1964 is amended by inserting before the period at the
end thereof the following ", nor shall any grant or loan funds be used
to support procurements utilizing exclusionary or discriminatory
specifications".
INVESTIGATION OF SAFETY HAZARDS IN URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS
SEC. 107. The Secretary of Transportation shall investigate unsafe
conditions in any facility, equipment, or manner of operation financed
under this Act which creates a serious hazard of death or injury for
the purpose of determining its nature and extent and the means which
might best be employed to eliminate or correct it. If the Secretary
determines that such facility, equipment, or manner of operation is
unsafe, he shall require the State or local public body or agency to
submit to the Secretary a plan for correcting the unsafe facility,
equipment, or manner of operation, and the Secretary may withhold
further financial assistance to the applicant until such plan is approved
or implemented.
FARES FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS
SEC. 108. Nothing contained in this title shall require the charging
of fares to elderly and handicapped persons.
SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS
SEC. 109. (a) Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of
1964 is amended by adding at the end thereof (immediately after
subsection (f)) the following new subsection:
"(g) No Federal financial assistance shall be provided under this
Act for the construction or operation of facilities and equipment for
S. 386-8
use in providing public mass transportation service to any applicant
for such assistance unless such applicant and the Secretary shall have
first entered into an agreement that such applicant will not engage
in schoolbus operations, exclusively for the transportation of students
and school personnel, in competition with private schoolbus operators.
This subsection shall not apply to an applicant with respect to
operation of a schoolbus program if the applicant operates a school
system in the area to be served and operates a separate and exclusive
schoolbus program for this school system. This subsection shall not
apply unless private schoolbus operators are able to provide adequate
transportation, at reasonable rates, and in conformance with appli-
cable safety standards; and this subsection shall not apply with
respect to any State or local public body or agency thereof if it (or
a direct predecessor in interest from which it acquired the function
of SO transporting schoolchildren and personnel along with facilities
to be used therefor) was SO engaged in schoolbus operations any time
during the twelve-month period immediately prior to the date of
the enactment of this subsection. A violation of an agreement under
this subsection shall bar such applicant from receiving any other
Federal financial assistance under this Act."
(b) The first sentence of section 3(f) of such Act is amended by
striking out "purchase of buses" each place it appears and inserting
in lieu thereof "purchase or operation of buses".
ALTERNATE USE OF CAPITAL GRANTS
SEC. 110. Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
is amended by adding at the end thereof (after the new subsection
added by section 109 of this Act) the following new subsection:
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, or of any
contract or agreement entered into under this Act, up to one-half of
any financial assistance provided under this Act (other than under
section 5) to any State or local public body or agency thereof for the
fiscal year 1975 or any subsequent fiscal year may, at the option of
such State or local public body or agency, be used exclusively for the
payment of operating expenses (incurred in connection with the pro-
vision of mass transportation service in an urban area or areas) to
improve or to continue such service, if the Secretary finds (in any
case where the financial assistance to be SO used was originally pro-
vided for another project) that effective arrangements have been
made to substitute and, by the end of the fiscal year following the
fiscal year for which such sums are used, make available (for such
other project) an equal amount of State or local funds (in addition
to any State or local funds otherwise required by this Act to be con-
tributed toward the cost of such project). Any amounts used for the
payment of operating expenses pursuant to this subsection shall be
subject to such terms and conditions (including the requirement for
local matching contributions), required for the payment of operating
expenses under other provisions of this Act, as the Secretary may
deem necessary and appropriate."
DATA AND FINANCIAL REPORTING SYSTEMS
SEC. 111. Section 15 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
is amended by striking out the entire section and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
S. 386-9
"REPORTING SYSTEM
"SEC. 15. (a) The Secretary shall by January 10, 1977, develop,
test, and prescribe a reporting system to accumulate public mass trans-
portation financial and operating information by uniform categories
and a uniform system of accounts and records. Such systems shall be
designed to assist in meeting the needs of individual public mass trans-
portation systems, Federal, State, and local governments, and the
public for information on which to base planning for public trans-
portation services, and shall contain information appropriate to assist
in the making of public sector investment decisions at all levels of
government. The Secretary is authorized to develop and test these
systems in consultation with interested persons and organizations. The
Secretary is authorized to carry out this subsection independently, or
by grant or contract (including working arrangements with other
Federal, State, or local government agencies). The Secretary is
authorized to request and receive such information or data as he deems
appropriate from public or private sources.
(b) After July 1, 1978, the Secretary shall not make any grant
under section 5 unless the applicant for such grant and any person or
organization to receive benefits directly from that grant are each
subject to both the reporting system and the uniform system of
accounts and records prescribed under subsection (a) of this section."
TITLE II-FARE-FREE MASS TRANSPORTATION
DEMONSTRATIONS
SEC. 201. The Secretary of Transportation (hereinafter referred to
as the "Secretary") shall enter into such contracts or other arrange-
ments as may be necessary for research and the development, estab-
lishment, and operation of demonstration projects to determine the
feasibility of fare-free urban mass transportation systems.
SEC. 202. Federal grants or payments for the purpose of assisting
such projects shall cover not to exceed 80 per centum of the cost of the
project involved, including operating costs and the amortization of
capital costs for any fiscal year for which such contract or other
arrangement is in effect.
SEC. 203. The Secretary shall select cities or metropolitan areas for
such projects in accordance with the following:
(1) to the extent practicable, such cities or metropolitan areas
shall have a failing or nonexistent or marginally profitable transit
system, a decaying central city, automobile-caused air pollution
problems, and an immobile central city population;
(2) several projects should be selected from cities or metro-
politan areas of differing sizes and populations;
(3) a high level of innovative service must be provided includ-
ing the provision of crosstown and other transportation service
to the extent necessary for central city residents and others to
reach employment, shopping, and recreation; and
(4) to the extent practicable, projects utilizing different modes
of mass transportation shall be approved.
SEC. 204. The Secretary. shall study fare-free systems assisted
pursuant to this title, and other financially assisted urban mass
transportation systems providing reduced fares for the purpose of
determining the following:
S. 386-10
(1) the effects of such systems on (i) vehicle traffic and attend-
ant air pollution, congestion, and noise, (ii) the mobility of urban
residents, and (iii) the economic viability of central city business;
(2) the mode of mass transportation that can best meet the
desired objectives;
(3) the extent to which frivolous ridership increases as a result
of reduced fare or fare-free systems;
(4) the extent to which the need for urban highways might be
reduced as a result of reduced fare or fare-free systems; and
(5) the best means of financing reduced fare or fare-free trans-
portation on a continuing basis.
SEC. 205. The Secretary shall make annual reports to the Congress
on the information gathered pursuant to section 204 of this title and
shall make a final report of his findings, including any recommenda-
tions he might have to implement such findings, not later than June 30,
1975.
SEC. 206. In carrying out the provisions of this title, the Secretary
shall provide advisory participation by interested State and local
government authorities, mass transportation systems management per-
sonnel, employee representatives, mass transportation riders, and any
other persons that he may deem necessary or appropriate.
SEC. 207. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to
exceed $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending on June 30, 1975,
and June 30, 1976, respectively, to carry out the provisions of this
title.
TITLE IH-RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS
SEC. 301. The Secretary of Transportation shall enter into such
arrangements as may be necessary to carry out a demonstration project
in Hammond, Indiana, for the relocation of railroad lines for the
purpose of eliminating highway railroad grade crossings. The Federal
share payable on account of such project shall be that provided in
section 120 of title 23, United States Code.
SEC. 302. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title not to exceed $14,000,000, except that two-thirds of all funds
expended under authority of this section in any fiscal year shall be
appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 26, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
UPON SIGNING THE
NATIONAL MASS TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1974
THE EAST ROOM
10:40 A.M. EST
Thank you all very, very much. I apologize for
being late, but we had a meeting with the joint leadership,
where I reported on the trip to Japan, to Korea and to the
Soviet Union.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to see all
of my old friends in the Congress and some of the mayors
and some of the Governors.
On this occasion, the news of the passage of
this legislation reached me overseas, and I considered
this legislation a top priority of the 93rd Congress,
and I congratulate the Senate and the House for acting
so quickly and so decisively.
This marks a long-term and vital major Federal
commitment to mass transporation. This legislation
represents a compromise in the best sense of the term.
Although different positions were set forth in the
beginning, the views of the Administration, the Congress,
Governors, mayors and others; we were able to reconcile
our differences and develop legislation to meet our
most urgent needs in mass transportation at a cost which
is not inflationary.
This legislation is significant in our fight
against the excessive use of petroleum, in our economic
battle and in our efforts to curb urban pollution and
reduce congestion. It assures that$11.8 billion in
Federal assistance will be available to States and to
cities to meet transit needs for the rest of the decade.
This assurance of steady and predictable support
for public transit for the first time will enable localities
to plan intelligently for their long-term needs. Also, for
the first time this legislation will permit the Federal
Government to provide limited assistance toward the
operating expenses of transit systems.
MORE
FORD
Page 2
Provisions of the bill will minimize possible
adverse effects of Federal involvement in such deficits.
The act contains funds, again, for the first time, which
can be used for rural public transportation.
Many in the Congress, and elsewhere, worked
very hard to develop this legislation, and I am pleased
that so many of you could be here today. Secretary
Brinegar, Frank Herringer, John Tower, Pete Williams,
Joe Minish, Bill Widnall, Garry Brown, Jim Delaney, John
Anderson, Ray Madden -- and I could go on -- deserve
special mention, and so do many mayors who made numerous
journeys to Washington, all for a good cause.
I am encouraged here and now to use the excessive
use of certain energy; that is, the kind of energy
expended to enact this legislation by the Congress and
by its supporters around the country. Let us put more
and more of this personal energy into the effective
solution of the important problems facing the Nation today.
We surely will find solutions at a price that is right.
It is with a great deal of personal pleasure that
I sign the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act
of 1974.
Thank you all again. It is so nice to see so
many of you, and I compliment in a personal way the
cooperation, the assistance and the understanding. This
is what produces results, and I thank each and every one
of you very, very much.
END
(AT 10:45 A.M. EST)
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
November 26, 1974
UNTIL 10:15 A. M., EST
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
ACT OF 1974 (S. 386)
The President today signed the National Mass Transportation Assistance
Act of 1974 (NMTA), S. 386 which establishes an $11. 8 billion, six-year
program to support mass transit capital and operating programs.
FUNDING LEVELS
NMTA establishes an $11. 3 billion, six-year urban mass transit program
and an additional $500 million program for rural mass transit capital
assistance over the same period.
Of the $11. 3 billion provided by the Act, $3. 975 billion will be distributed
by formula for use in either mass transit capital or operating programs.
The balance, $7.325 billion, will be distributed to the cities for major
mass transit capital projects on a categorical basis.
FORMULA PROGRAM
The distribution formula is based one-half on population and one-half
on population density. The Federal matching share for funds used for
capital purposes is up to 80 percent and for operating purposes, up to
50 percent.
The schedule provided by NMTA calls for distribution of the formula
funds through fiscal year 1980 as follows:
1975
$300 million
1976
$500 million
1977
$650 million
1978
$775 million
1979
$850 million
1980
$900 million
Funds will be distributed directly to urban areas of over 200, 000
population to an agency agreed upon by the Governors of the respective
states and appropriate local officials. The Governors will distribute
the formula funds to cities with populations of 50,000 to 200, 000.
OTHER PROVISIONS
NMTA requires recipients of funds to charge no more than half-fare
for the elderly and handicapped during off-peak hours, authorizes fare -
free demonstrations and makes quasi-public development corporations
eligible for grants.
#####
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
November 26, 1974
UNTIL 10:15 A. M., EST
-
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
ACT OF 1974 (S.386)
The President today signed the National Mass Transportation Assistance
Act of 1974 (NMTA), S. 386 which establishes an $11. 8 billion, six-year
program to support mass transit capital and operating programs.
FUNDING LEVELS
NMTA establishes an $11. 3 billion, six-year urban mass transit program
and an additional $500 million program for rural mass transit capital
assistance over the same period.
Of the $11. 3 billion provided by the Act, $3.975 billion will be distributed
by formula for use in either mass transit capital or operating programs.
The balance, $7.325 billion, will be distributed to the cities for major
mass transit capital projects on a categorical basis.
FORMULA PROGRAM
The distribution formula is based one-half on population and one-half
on population density. The Federal matching share for funds used for
capital purposes is up to 80 percent and for operating purposes, up to
50 percent.
The schedule provided by NMTA calls for distribution of the formula
funds through fiscal year 1980 as follows:
197
$300 million
197
$500 million
1977
$650 million
197
$775 million
1979
$850 million
1980
$900 million
Funds will be distributed directly to urban areas of over 200, 000
population to an agency agreed upon by the Governors of the respective
states and appropriate local officials. The Governors will distribute
the formula funds to cities with populations of 50,000 to 200, 000.
OTHER PROVISIONS
NMTA requires recipients of funds to charge no more than half-fare
for the elderly and handicapped during off-peak hours, authorizes fare -
from demonstrations and
eligible for grants.
EMBARGOED
RELEASE
November 26, 1974
UNTIL A.M., EDT
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
NATIONAL MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT
OF 1974 (S.386)
The President today signed the National Mass Transportation
Assistance Act of 1974 (NMTA), S.386 which establishes an
$11.8 billion, six-year program to support mass transit
capital and operating programs.
FUNDING LEVELS
NMTA establishes an $11.3 billion, six-year urban mass transit program
and an additional $500 million program for rural mass transit capital
assistance over the same period.
Of the $11.3 billion provided by the Act, $3.975 billion will be
distributed by formula for use in either mass transit capital or operating
programs. The balance, $7.325 billion, will be distributed to the cities
for major mass transit capital projects on a categorical basis.
FORMULA PROGRAM
The distribution formula is based one-half on population and one-half
on population density. The Federal matching share for funds used for capital
purposes is up to 80 percent and for operating purposes, up to 50 percent.
The schedule provided by NMTA calls for distribution of the
formula funds through fiscal year 1980 as follows:
1975
$300 million
1976
$500 million
1977
$650 million
1978
$775 million
1979
$850 million
1980
$900 million
Funds will be distributed directly to urban areas of over 200,000
population to an agency agreed upon by the Governors of the respective
states and appropriate local officials. The Governors will distribute
the formula funds to cities with populations of 50,000 to 200,000.
OTHER PROVISIONS
NMTA requires recipients of funds to charge no more than half-fare
for the elderly and handicapped during off-peak hours, authorizes fare
free demonstrations and makes quasi-public development corporations
eligible for grants.
#
#
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 26, 1974
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
CLAUDE S. BRINEGAR
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
FRANK C. HERRINGER
ADMINISTRATOR, URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATION
JOSEPH D. ALIOTO
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
AND
ABRAHAM D. BEAME
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
THE BRIEFING ROOM
11:00 EST
MR. HUSHEN: As you know, the President has just
signed the National Mass Transportation Assistance Act of
1974, which establishes an $11.8 billion, six-year program to
support mass transit capital and operating programs.
We have Secretary of Transportation Brinegar
and Frank Herringer, the Administrator of the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration, here to answer your questions.
Following the briefing a fact sheet on the city-by-city
breakdown will be available in the Press Office.
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: Thank you, Jack.
I have a brief statement, but first I would like
to ask two mayors who are on the wrong side of the podium
to join me. I don't think these gentlemen need any
introduction.
A few weeks ago the President asked the Congress
to pass a comprehensive, long-term transit bill. In a
spirit of cooperation, the Congress has responded with a
good bill, a bill that reflects the proper balance of fiscal
prudence and sound transportation principles.
This bill provides nearly $12 billion over the
next six years. Nearly $8 billion of the funds are to be
used as direct capital grants in response to applications.
About $4 billion of the funds are to be allocated to urban
areas of 50,000 or over over this six-year period on the
basis of population density.
MORE
- 2 -
These allocated dollars will be available
depending upon local choice, for use either for capital
investments or for operations. Our Department will shortly
issue guidelines so the Governors, the mayors, and transit
authorities who are eligible will know how to apply and when
the funds will be available.
While this bill is only a part of the solution
to the Nation's overall mass transit problems, it should
do a great deal to help our cities improve the quality and
quantity of their public transportation. And with this
improvement will come energy savings, reduction in
pollution, and less urban congestion.
Now Frank Herringer and I will certainly be
happy to answer your questions on this bill, and perhaps
even the mayors. I will take your questions.
Q
Mr. Secretary, when does the money begin?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: It begins right away. The
allocated funds, the calculations have now been made. There
is a table available at the end of the session that shows
what the urban areas will get under the allocated portion
and, Frank, right after the first of the year?
MR. HERRINGER: Shortly after the first of the
year. There is a process in the bill that everyone is going
to have to go through, but we would hope within the next
couple of months to actually have cash going out.
Q
When do you expect the first checks to
actually go out? What date?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: It depends on their
responses to the requirement in the Act whether they .
have to provide certain information. Certainly in the
first quarter.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Mr. Secretary, if an urban area cannot
come up with its 50 percent match for the first year,
will those funds to which it is entitled be held over to
a subsequent fiscal year?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: There is a two-year holding
process, yes.
Q
Did the President make any telephone calls
from overseas to Congressmen?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: He sent some telegrams.
Since our counting of the votes and the way it was going,
it was not necessary to actually call, but he did send
telegrams, one of which was read on the Floor, and made, I
think, a very favorable impact on the vote. He worked
hard and watched it from Japan very closely.
Q
Mr. Secretary, may I ask you about a
specific transit system, one which is supposed to be a
model of sorts, because it is the Nation's capital here in
Washington? How is this bill going to help out Metro,
which is encountering quite a few difficulties?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: The construction of metro,
the capital construction of Metro is handled through a
different process. That has been handled by Congress through
specific appropriations targeted through this to this
agency. Our department has not been a part of that process,
and we would not expect to be under this bill, the construction.
This bill will provide money through the
formula allocation that once it is operating -- and in
fact, the bus systems now could help with the operational
side of Metro. But the capital side is handled outside
of this bill. This is for the rest of the Nation's
cities.
Q
Mr. Secretary, follow-up question on that.
The Metro board, the Metro staff has proposed a new formula
and new legislation for increased Federal aid. What is
your initial response to that proposal?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: We have not, our department
has not, been a part of that decision-making process.
The Metro organization has dealt directly with the Congress.
It was under construction and well along when we started.
Mr. Herringer and I started our own roles in the Department
of Transportation, and we are not a part of what is going
on. Again, we are administering the rest of the country.
MORE
- 4 -
Q
Could we ask Mayor Beame and Mayor Alioto
for their opinions of the bill?
MR. BEAME: I would be delighted. I would say
this is anhistoric occasion and one which is going to be
of tremendous value, not only to New York City, but to the
rest of the entire country, and I believe ranks with revenue
sharing in its importance to urban centers of America.
It is going to help us in New York City keep
the fare at 35 cents, and this is a very important economic --
and as Secretary Brinegar indicated -- air pollution
fighter and an energy saver. So, we are very happy that
this took place today, and I want to congratulate the
President on the wonderful job he did, the Congress and the
leadership and, of course, Pete Williams, Senator
Williams, and Congressman Minish for what they did.
Without them, we would not have had it.
Q
Mayor Beame, just a few weeks ago, as I
recall, at least this past month, you and Mayor Alioto
and other mayors were here asking for emergency help
for operating expenses, and the President said, "We have
this bill to provide $11 or $12 billion. Let's wait on
that." You still said, as I recall, you still needed
emergency assistance. Now, is this bill going to provide
the kind of assistance that you required?
MORE
- 5 -
MR. BEAME: Yes, because under this bill there
is a provision and I might say the emergency dealt with
the operating subsidy. Under this bill there is a provision
which permits one-half of the allotment of capital funds up
to one-half to be used for operating expenses plus additional
appropriation, purely for operating expenses, so in that
sense it is very helpful.
Q
But you were looking for very short term
help. Are you going to get it quickly enough?
MR. BEAME: We certainly wanted the help quickly.
Now we have a long-term bill which gives us the help
quickly.
MR. ALIOTO: I wanted to add one word. I think
this is historic because it marks the day when the
automobile stops getting monopoly of favorite treatment
from Governmental sources. While the Conference of Mayors
made a very significant lobbying effort, I think it is
fair to say that without the great effort made by President
Ford, Secretary Brinegar, this could not have been
accomplished. I think it is fair to say President Ford
has now accomplished more than any President in the history
of the United States for public transportation. It is our
part now to take it up and carry it through.
Q
Mr. Mayor, do you believe -- you were
talking about this in effect has broken the highway lobby,
do you believe it is fair that automobile users pay for
mass transit?
MR. ALIOTO: Yes, because it directly affects
automobile users to the effect, for example, that you
take 10,000 cars off the San Francisco Bridge, by reason
of barring them or otherwise, that obviously helps those
who are even driving. Now we are trying to reduce that
significantly, but I think transportation is an integrated
whole, and to the extent you have balanced transportation
all of it helps the other segments of it, so I think it
absolutely fair to the automobile user. After all,
automobile taxes are just taxes you know. There is a user
concept that I think the idea of having balanced transpor-
tation helps everybody. It helps congestion. It helps
pollution, and obviously that helps everybody.
Q
Mayor, is the important part of this bill
the fact that this is the first time the Federal Government
is going to help people with operating expenses? There have
been other programs that paid for capital systems before.
Is that the key provision?
MORE
- 6 -
MR. ALIOTO: The key provision, of course, is
the fact we are now going to be permitted to subsidize
operating deficits and operating deficits is just something
that is going to follow on public transportation. If it
were not so it would be in private hands. We would not be
getting this great exodus of private enterprise from the
public transportation area. So that is critical.
The fact we are going to be able to subsidize
operating deficits to keep that fare box down. The ride
has to be cheap, and it has to be good to be effective.
So' that is an element in the bill in which subsidies of
operating deficits is critical. It is key. We need the
capital as well. I think for the first time we are
beginning to recognize that we ought not to be spending
$15 billion a year in America on highways alone, that we
ought to have a balance, and this is the great significance
of this bill.
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: Let me supplement the
Mayor's comments. We see the bill as being important in
at least three respects. First, it is a long-term bill.
We have lacked that in the past. The mayors and the
Governors and others can now look long-term. We cannot
plan a transit solution to a city if you every year are
having to come down and plead for a new program. So they
now know what the Federal role is; they can think
long-term.
Second, a part of this money, about a third,
that will be allocated by formula can be used on local
option for either capital or, as the mayor needs it, for
operational assistance, for subsidies. So there is now
a local decision. - He has to decide if he is going to
put it here or if he is going to give you something. So
that kind of local trade-off we think is the right role
to decide how to support the operational side. So, local
flexibility for operational assistance was the key
principle.
The third one is it strengthens the planning
process between the Governors and the mayors and the
Administration. Those, I think, are very fundamental
points that will shape for a decade or more the Federal
role in mass transit, and that is the reason we held out,
fought and won this long-term bill.
Q Mr. Secretary, with respect to the
planning process, will DOT tell urban areas how much of
the $8 billion pot they can expect to receive over the
next eight years to develop transit systems?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: No, we will not. What we
will do is describe the kind of planning process we want
the major cities to go through so that we can help
understand and help them understand the alternatives and
the kinds of mass transit solutions that might be available
to them. But we will not say in advance this city gets so
much, this city gets so much. We are going to respond to
worthy applications in a cost benefit, national benefit
sense. That is the kind of role that we see we have been
trying to do in a smaller way, and will now do in a larger
way.
MORE
- 7 -
Q Mr. Secretary, will those capital projects be
funded over a full six year period or might all that money
be spend within three or four or five years?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: It is our hope to fund multi-year
projects so that cities can in fact know what our role is
for several years. That has been, in my judgment, a flaw
of the prior practice. They would basically get a little
bit of money and they would have to come down and fight
for some more. I would like them to know what the Federal
involvement is.
Q It will be over a full six years? Come six years
you will still have money for mass transit projects?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: Yes.
Q May I ask a question of either of the two mayors
here? Both of you were laudatory of this bill and the
President's part in it. I assume that you are speaking for
the Conference of Mayors and this is a virtually unanimous
opinion, or are you expressing personal opinions now?
MR. ALIOTO: I think this is a position of the
Conference of Mayors. I am President of that Conference
this year, and year after year in our resolutions, which have
been adopted at conventions, we have called for operating
subsidies for mass transit to give us a balanced system of
transportation. The short answer is Mayor Beame and I are
speaking for the Conference of Mayors.
Q Is the amount of money adequate?
MR. ALIOTO: You know, we first started out talking
about $20 billion but $11.6 billion, in view of the
inflation we have to struggle against, is going to be adequate
to get us started on this road to get a balanced transportation
system. I think as the virtues of public transportation
become evident to the American public, that there is going
to be more and more a tendency to develop systems like BART,
systems such as you are developing here, and to improve the
public transportation systems we have. So it is a good
adequate start. It is a very, very good start.
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: There is more money available
through the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act. A part of that
Act -- and that was, I think an earlier and very landmark piece
of legislation that helps mass transit -- a part of the
Federal Aid Highway program, the urban systems part, about
$800 million a year, can be traded into mass transit dollars,
so there are otherdollars available if cities decide in
the States to give up some highway projects and to take a
mass transit project.
MORE
- 8 -
Some of that is happening in addition to this
program. Boston, for example, has traded in several hundred
million dollars of unbuilt interstate segments within the
city in return for a long-term commitment of the Highway
Trust Fund. So other dollars are available th rough this
other program. So this is not just the only thing that we have.
Q
These other dollars will not be into
operating subsidies?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: No, they are capital only.
Q
Are you suggesting or promoting the idea that
cities give up their highway projects and turn them over to
transit?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: I am promoting good local
planning. If they decide that is the: right thing, wwe have the
process to provide the dollars. If they decide they want the
highway and can build it, we have that money also.
Q
There has been a good deal of confusion in
the past over the 80-20 share. Can cities expect to get
80 percent Federal funds for capital improvements under this
program?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: That is what the bill calls for,
80 percent.
MR. HERRINGER: That does not mean, though, that any
project that a city decides to build that we decide to
participate in, that we are going to fund 80 percent of the
full cost of that system. It is 80 percent of the approved
project. The approved project might be somewhat less than
the city is planning in total.
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: If the thrust of your question
was will we fund 80 percent of anybody's idea, the answer is no.
If we will fund 80 percent of an approved project, the answer
is yes.
Q
Mr. Secretary, at a time when the Administration
is going to make budget cuts -- the President is going to send
budget cuts up to the Hill -- the President is now not only
lobbying on behalf of the bill but he is going to spend a lot
of money. Does this indicate the President regarded this
as critical or does it indicate the Administration regarded it
as politically not realistic to oppose mass transit at this time?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: It is a critical bill, and it
is also a bill in which in the near term years the expenditures
are within budget levels. The first year, the 1975 fiscal
budget, for example, the amount of money that is provided is
within the budget of dollars, so it is not a budget buster
in the sense of the first year or two.
MORE
- 9 -
As the years go on,, the amount of money increases.
And certainly it is our strong intention to have today's
inflationary crisis under control as the years go ahead. So
I see it as a high priority bill. The President certainly
saw it that way, and the near term dollar levels, as we get
started on this new program, are within budget levels.
Q
Mr. Secretary, do you still need appropriations
legislation to make this money available?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: We need some reprogramming
authority. We have adequate appropriations authority.
Q
You are saying you have the money, you just have
to transfer it?
SECRETARY BRINEGAR: Yes.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:15 P.M. EST)
November 25, 1974
Dear Mr. Director:
The following bills were received at the White
House on November 25th:
S. 386
S. 1064
S. 2299
Please let the President have reports and
recommendations as to the approval of these bills
as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Linder
Chief Executive Clerk
The Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C.