Imagens das páginas

Statement of interstate passenger fare changes of the classes shown, 1947-64, inclusive-Continued

Description of fare change

Class of fare

1 way


10 ride

1st class increased 5 percent from 5.209 to 5.469 cents per mile; coach class increased 5 percent from 3.907 to 4.102 cents per mile....

60-ride and 46-ride commutation increased 5 percent.. 10-ride increased 5 percent.

1st class increased 5 percent from 5.469 to 5.742 cents per mile; coach class increased 5 percent from 4.102 to 4.307 cents per mile.

60-ride and 46-ride commutation fares to and from New York City also between Boston and stations in Rhode Island lower than New York Central fares for comparable distances increased to the level of N.Y.C. fares.

10-ride increased to 85 percent of 10 times the 1-way coach fare...

1st class and coach class increased 10 percent not to exceed
10 cents.

60-ride and 46-ride commutation increased 10 percent..
10-ride increased approximately 8.5 cents per ride account of
being based on 1-way fares which were increased 10 percent
with maximum of 10 cents..

1st class and coach class increased 5 percent.

60-ride and 46-ride commutation increased 10 percent.

10-ride increased approximately 5 percent..

1st class and coach class increased 5 cents.

60-ride and 46-ride commutation increased 10 percent.
10-ride The increase of 5 cents in 1-way fares increased
these fares proportionately as they were based on the 1-way
coach fares.

10-ride calendar week commutation established on basis of
25 percent of adult 46-ride commutation fare..
10-ride unrestricted ticket limit changed from 6 months to 30
days to avoid payment of 10 percent Federal transporta-
tion tax. Fares to apply between stations up to 125 miles

60-ride and 46-ride monthly and 10-ride weekly; commutation
increased 10 percent.

10-ride unrestricted-Account 10 percent increase in commutation fares, adjustment was made in 10-ride fares for distances 6.5 to 19.5 miles inclusive to prevent diversion from commutation....

60-ride commutation canceled; 46-ride commutation tickets
made valid for passage on Sundays; 10-ride calendar week
commutation canceled..

1st class and coach class increased 10 percent account repeal of
the 10 percent Federal transportation tax.
10-ride unrestricted ticket limit extended to 60 days. Be-
tween New York City and main line stations to New
London and Windsor Locks, also on New Canaan, Dan-
bury, and Waterbury branches, fares reduced on basis of
5 times the 2-day round trip fare plus 50 cents in an en-
deavor to provide a ticket which would be attractive
enough to appeal to patrons now purchasing a series of
2-day round trip tickets....

[blocks in formation]

NOTE. Similar fare changes were made for intrastate traffic on the same or subsequent dates.


Average revenue per passenger (system) 1947 through 1964

[blocks in formation]

New Haven, Conn., March 17, 1965.

New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: You will recall that at the Commerce Committee hearings held in New Haven on March 11, the trustees agreed to furnish the committee with certain data concerning the number of employees who would be affected by elimination of the New Haven's passenger service.

As of March 1, 1965, some 9,600 persons were employed by the New Haven. Of this number it is estimated that almost one-half, or approximately 4,500 would no longer be required by the road if all passenger service were discontinued. This number includes personnel assigned exclusively to passenger service plus an estimate of the employees not specifically involved in passenger service whose number would be reduced if passenger operations ceased.

This figure does not include personnel who are employed by other railroads at joint passenger facilities, such as Grand Central Terminal in New York City, Springfield, Mass., Station, Pennsylvania Station in New York City, and Boston Terminal Corp. at South Station in Boston, whose number would undoubtedly be reduced if those terminal facilities were operated without any need to service New Haven passenger operations.

It is anticipated that at the time the New Haven trustees apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission for the discontinuance of all passenger service, they will have a more detailed breakdown of the figures which are cited above. Accordingly, the above figures should be considered an approximation based on present estimates which are in the process of refinement.

Very truly yours,


New Haven, Conn., March 23, 1965.

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR PASTORE: I am writing to you concerning a so-called direct subsidy to the New Haven Railroad for the maintenance of its passenger service. I am doing this for a number of reasons. The first and primary one is because of your abiding interest in the destinies of the New Haven and because of your leadership in attempting to find some solution. A second reason is that at the recent Commerce Committee hearings, over which you presided, a question was raised, perhaps by you, as to whether there was any precedent for a direct Federal subsidy for passenger service.

There is, for example, in relation to the airlines and helicopter service.

Before taking this matter up, I believe it would clarify matters if we examine into the meaning of subsidy. As New Haven's evidence at the Commerce Committee hearings showed, our passenger service has operated at a deficit for a great many years. In other words, the public who were using the New Haven passenger service were not paying for the full cost of the service. The public was being subsidized. A very rough example, for instance, would be that a passenger was obtaining a ride costing say $1.50, but paying only $1.20. When our freight service was profitable, the freight service was directly subsidizing the public who rode the New Haven. When the freight service dwindled to a point that it was no longer capable of absorbing the passenger deficit, the creditors of the New Haven began subsidizing the New Haven passengers, and certainly since the inception of the reorganization, about 31⁄2 years ago, the New Haven's creditors have subsidized the riding public. This state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. One, economics will not permit; and two, the law of the land forbids. It is time for the public, in one way or another, to pay for the passenger service that it wants continued. This will not constitute a subsidy to the New Haven. It will merely reimburse the New Haven for performing a service which it is now required to do. If Federal and/or State governments make up the deficit, the New Haven will be reimbursed; and the public will be subsidized by the governmental authorities.

Turning now to an example of airline precedent for so-called direct subsidy, I enclose a memorandum prepared, at my request, by Mr. Coyle, the New Haven's comptroller. It shows, among other things, a direct Federal contribution to Allegheny Air Lines of approximately $6,500,000 in 1962 and approxi

mately $6 million in 1963. I ask you to bear in mind that Allegheny is in direct competition with the New Haven.

In more general terms, Chairman Webb of the ICC in his prepared statement at the Commerce Committee hearings stated:

"First, the large deficits incurred in many essential passenger train operations are attributable in part to Federal programs for the promotion of competing modes of transportation. During the last 12 years, for example, subsidy payments to one domestic trunkline and two local service airlines serving New England have amounted to almost $100 million. These subsidies have been increasing annually since 1959. In fiscal 1965, these subsidies were almost three times those paid in fiscal 1954. We do not condemn these Federal subsidy programs. We do say that the impact of such programs and the Federal highway program on railroad passenger train operations has been devastating."

I realize, of course, the tremendous task which you have of reconciling the various conflicting governmental interests. A constructive solution is indeed difficult, but I venture the thought that it would be a constructive act of statesmanship if you could convince the Federal Government that the New Haven problem is a Federal problem-not wholly, but nevertheless a substantial Federal problem. And that direct financial aid to reimburse the New Haven for passenger service rendered the public is in the public interest.

With high regards, I am

JAMES WM. MOORE, Counsel for Trustees.


The income account of Allegheny Air Lines, Inc., for the years 1962 and 1963, as published in Moody's Transportation Manual, indicates total operating revenue in 1962 of $23,539,575 of which $6,490,204 or 23.6 percent was "public service revenue," i.e., the direct subsidy from the Federal Government. Since total passenger revenue was $15,518,227, the Federal subsidy represented almost 42 cents for every dollar of passenger revenue. In 1963, the "public service revenue" was $6,092,186 or 24.4 percent of total revenue of $24,952,177. It was 36.6 percent of total passenger revenue of $16,678,032. In other words, for each dollar of passenger revenue the subsidy in 1963 was 36.6 cents.

In the year 1963, Allegheny Air Lines carried 1,116,911 passengers compared with 25,880,977 for the New Haven Railroad. In other words, the New Haven Railroad carried 23 times as many passengers as Allegheny in 1963. Of course, Allegheny's average ride per passenger was substantially greater than that of the New Haven. Even so, however, New Haven's passenger miles of 1,066 billion were 5.2 times the 204 million passenger miles of Allegheny.

Moody's does not give as much detail for Mohawk Air Lines as for Allegheny but it does show that the Federal subsidy in 1962 was $4,631,579 which was 19.9 percent of total revenue of $23,343,862 and 27.2 percent of passenger revenue of $16,998,329. In 1963 the Federal subsidy of $4,710,757 was 17.6 percent of total revenue of $26,744,378 and 23.2 percent of passenger revenue of $20,266,948.


Mr. BASSETT. May I interrupt to inquire whether it would please you, Mr. Chairman, or members of your committee, to have a trustee give some contribution to this hearing?

Senator PASTORE. The trustees have testified at length.

Mr. BASSETT. Thank you, sir.

Senator PASTORE. We came here to New Haven to take the testimony of the people who might be interested and could not come to Washington, without some hardship or expense.

Mr. BASSETT. Thank you.

Senator PASTORE. The trustees have already testified.

Mr. BASSETT. Thank you, sir.

Senator PASTORE. And the record will be a public record. There

is no need to repeat it.

All right, Mr. Caverly.

Mr. CAVERLY. Mr. Chairman, I am Gardner Caverly, executive vice president of the New England Council. I am speaking here today on behalf of Robert Kidder, the chairman of the General Transportation Committee of the council, who regrettably was not able to be here in my stead.

I must confess, Senator, if I were to sit here for another hour and hear more testimony, everything would have been said that I could possibly say.

I think the mere fact we are gathered here today indicates that all of us realize the crisis that faces us, not only in Connecticut, Rhode Island and in Massachusetts, but all of New England.

I am sure that there is little need of taking up your time and your distinguished colleagues' time in reiterating the problems of the New Haven that have been with us now for quite some several years.

I do, however, want to stress one fact that has not been touched upon, that I do think is important.

It concerns the passenger service of the New Haven Railroad. Desirable though this is, without any question, it must, in my estimate, and I believe in the estimate of the Transportation Committee of the New England Council, be put second to the absolute necessity of maintaining freight service to provide industries with the necessary freight service here in this area.

Now, it is our feeling that we would not want to see this passenger service continued at the possible cost of the freight service.

We would urge upon you gentlemen here today, and I can assure this group here you need no urging, every one of you sitting here at this table, on many occasions, have done things over and above the call of your duty for your own State, and you did this for this New England region.

Personally, I rather question whether or not, or at least the extent of aid that might be coming from the Federal Government.

You are well acquainted with our needs, without any question. But I think it is going to be awfully hard, for example, to convince a distinguished Senator from South Dakota that he should vote money for the New Haven Railroad. If it is possible, more power to you. I am sure you will convince him, Senator, if anyone will. But I think that the primary responsibility comes right back here at home, to our State government, because we are the people concerned. We are the people affected.

I do want to comment about the State of Connecticut, the State of Massachusetts, by way of the MBTA, the State, everyone, by way of past contributions and other help they have been to the railroad.

Of course, I agree with my gentleman friend over here on my left, that it is going to take a great deal more than that which has been coming, or, under the present program, is to be coming, if this problem is going to be solved.

But I do hope that every effort will be made to endeavor to divorce the support of the passenger service from the railroad service.

I think, gentlemen, this has not been touched upon to any degree up to this point.

I think that it is of utmost importance that this railroad be put into a position that it can logically be merged with the Penn-Central Railroad, because if we don't have that merger, and if we don't have

strength and knowledge of the system, I am not at all certain that the New Haven can exist even as a freight carrier.

And I am quite aware, by conversations I have had with the PennCentral officials over a period now of some 3 or 4 years, that they will fight like bloody hell before they will ever take on this moneylosing passenger operation.

I think there is a reasonably good chance that they would subscribe to the idea of taking the freight service of the New Haven, but I think support must come from elsewhere for the passenger service, to get that divorced from the freight service, to the end that freight service of the New Haven may be incorporated in the freight service of the Pennsylvania Railroad.

And with that particular comment thank you very much.
Senator PASTORE. Thank you, Mr. Caverly.

Mr. Rosan, I understand that you are going to be given all the protocol of a distinguished witness, and I am going to call upon your distinguished Congressman to introduce you.

Mr. IRWIN. Thank you very much. I am pleased to introduce Mr. Richard A. Rosan, who appears today on behalf of the United Communities for Railroad Action. Mr. Rosan comes from a group of people in the lower Fairfield County area, which is most immediately affected by commuter problems, and has been involved in them for a long time now, and has done a very conscientious and careful effort to educate their daily commuters and the public generally in Fairfield County, as to the real economic interest that we all must have in the preservation of this railroad system.

And I am pleased to introduce Mr. Rosan. I want to congratulate him and his friends for the work they've done, and they have been a tremendous help and an illustration of the grassroots work which goes into effective government.

Mr. Rosan.

Mr. ROSAN. Senator Pastore and other distinguished people, I want to say that I wrote this prepared statement yesterday afternoon. And in the meantime, so many things have happened it is almost out of date.

After listening to you, Senator Pastore, today, I realize a great deal of it is repetitious.

I would like to start the discussion and say we greatly appreciate the fact that you took the time and effort to come and hold this meeting here today.

You apparently were somewhat disappointed in the number of people that were present. I can assure you that through our organization we could have had over a thousand people here today. The only reason we didn't do it was that we have been observing the dedicated work of people like yourself, Senator Pastore, Senator Ribicoff, and Senator Dodd, and the hard work of the Representatives in Congress, and we thought it was unnecesary to try to have a mass demonstration here on something that seemed so obvious.

So I want to assure you that it is not because of lack of interest, that it was because we felt it would be an unnecessary demonstration. Now, our organization is relatively new, and yet we are already organized, and we represent organized groups in about 20 communities in Westchester and Fairfield County.

« AnteriorContinuar »