Sunday Forum; Alternatives For Transportation In Light Of the Energy Crisis

The settlers started on the 1st of July 1970 with 400 people we now have over 620. We started that year with $18 billion budget. We now have over 40 million. The TSC role is to support the federal Department of Transportation. Mission by providing program management and technical support. For the OTS research and development program and by providing through social economic research and other research and data management and information services to supply. Data and information to the office of the secretary to support policy formulation. In this particular case however I am welcoming you as a host and tenant of this building.

The program is being put on by the county extension service of Union University in Massachusetts. Well I at this time am very glad to introduce. Governor Frank Sargent and to hear his words on our transportation situation. Thank you very much Jim Elam's and I certainly do remember very well the exciting development that we perhaps didn't realize was as important as it was at the time the decision was made and that was to establish here the transportation system center and I think as we look on into the future we can realize that perhaps one of the most critical problems that we have in this country particularly in relation to energy is is related directly

to transportation and how man transports goods and services and particularly people so that I'm very pleased and honored to be here and I might say that as I see the weather and as I came in this morning I've decided I've finally done something right. And I would like to just say this also I recall being on this exact same stage in the same auditorium back a number of months ago in fact was about a year ago when at that time we were predicting an energy crisis. We weren't predicting an energy emergency but we were predicting a crisis. And the interesting thing is that if this meeting had been held in the middle of the emergency. When people couldn't get gas and when they were lined up outside of the gasoline stations somehow or other. This auditorium would have been filled

this morning even though people would have had difficulty getting here because of gasoline. But this is one of the parts of the problem that we have I think in America that when there's an emergency everybody flocks towards the problem complains and bellyaches and then if it is alleviated a little bit they forget about it. And I just want you to know that the energy crisis is still with us. It's going to be with us for a number of years. The immediate emergency of this past winter may not still be with us but the crisis is going to be with us for years to come and we still are going to have I believe emergencies in the future. We want to try to avoid them. Six months ago this nation's Lifesigns style was actually turned upside down for the first time in our history Americans ran against the unavoidable truth that our resources are limited. We discovered that the days of reckless consumption that passed today in

May the emergencies of this winter are behind us as I've just mentioned. But the hard realities of the energy situation and the equation remain with us. Demand continues to exceed supply and that's what it's all about. We've scrambled to survive a short term crisis but now we must address the long term challenge. It's clear that we must change the way we live especially we must change the way we move our people and our goods. 53 percent of all oil used in this nation goes to transportation. So even if all else stays the same transportation must change in America. It's a time it's a change that we're witnessing all around us the impact of this winter's gasoline crisis was swift and it was dramatic and it was frightening exasperating drivers panicked and

overnight small big game became more desirable than big. And this is a switch in America because we've always thought that everything that was bigger was better than anything small. The auto industry was caught out on the end of a limb and mass transit suddenly became much more attractive. And this was recognized by people across the country by March of this year. The switch was in full swing. Amtrak rail patronage A jumped an extraordinary 45 percent the Boston tune into New York run was up 60 percent. The Chicago to Detroit. Chicago to Oakland and Los Angeles to Seattle runs were each up more than 80 percent. And here in Massachusetts and I see leaders of the MBT Jack Doolittle and

others they can testify to that the fact that ridership on the NBA is leaving very rapidly even though our construction program obviously is only really starting a new awareness has gripped the American people were finally beginning to realize that the way we consume energy affects nearly all aspects of our life the environment. Balance of Payments the national security and even our national sovereignty in this state we've understood for some time the need to balance our demand with available supplies. In 1970 Massachusetts broke the rest of the nation on the issues of interstate highway construction. We call an end to the uncontrolled expansion of expressways and began the fight to break the Highway Trust Fund. In 1971 we challenge still another accepted policy that

even bigger jet ports should be built. We challenge that concept instead of blindly pushing ahead with airport expansion we paused to examine the situation. We discovered that fully one half of all of the passengers leaving Logan Airport were heading to only four cities New York Philadelphia Baltimore and Washington. That being the case very clearly high speed rail in the northeast corridor could ease the pressure at Logan Airport. Therefore we began a fight which finally ended early this year with the approval of the rail reorganization act of 9900 in 73. In addition the Congress has pledged 500 million dollars to begin high speed passenger service in the New England car. The Department of Transportation has estimated that by 1980 rail patronage will increase

two and a half times. And by the year 2000 the number of passengers will soar to a staggering 37 million. High speed rail makes sense economically environmentally but even more it makes good sense. As a matter of energy policy the transportation consumes 40 times more fuel per passenger mile Lindas rail transportation and freight services well rail transportation isn't an energy saver. For example if we had to replace the Boston and Maine with trucks the fuel required to transport today's rail tonnage would more than double from 17 million to 43 million gallons a year. A few years ago such energy calculations might have seemed utterly absurd. But today they require.

Fortunately Massachusetts began to think in energy terms. Several years ago. So today we find ourselves in a leading position in mass transportation. What have we what we have accomplished I believe is significant. But it by no means represents the end of the challenge though our first energy emergency has passed. The energy crisis is still with us. And I've said this several times and I think this is the message is has got to go out to the people of this country that the crisis is still with us though the emergency may have passed. We must learn to accept the reality of the energy waste. We must search for greatest sources of supply. But above all we must learn to use what energy we do as efficiently as possible far more efficiently.

Than we ever have in the past. As an American people I'm very pleased and honored to be with you. And sorry I can't stay with you throughout your conference and I thank you very much. Is be. Well thank you Governor. Sorry I didn't I enjoyed hearing your remarks at this time. I would like to introduce. Assistant Secretary Robert a Fender. Bender is Secretary Brenner's. Principal adviser. In transportation policy. He has a large staff of experts in Washington. Who. Helped formulate that policy. And he

asked us to give them a little help by doing some of the research and. Development work here. I'm very anxious to hear what. Mr. Bender. Well will add to it. Governor Sargent said about the situation. Thank you Jim. I'm happy to join Governor Sargent this morning and Jim Elmes and my fellow speakers. To discuss the plans and impacts of federal programs and transportation as they pertain to energy problems. And I certainly want to endorse the thrust of the governor's remarks this morning. Every audience tells the speakers something.

And this audience is telling these speakers something. One of the things it's telling us is the point that the governor made and that is that it's it's not a jam packed room. We're talking about the impact of an energy crisis and energy shortages and issues that that that threaten and indeed have already affected the very lifestyle of almost everybody living in this country. And yet because the emergency appears to have passed. Less than half the seats are filled. Let me look at the other side of that coin however. When you look at a glass it's only half full with water. You either call it half empty or half full. I'd like to take a half full attitude about this audience this morning. Those of you who are here. Quite clearly have the perception.

To understand that because the emergency has passed the problem has not gone away. I want to compliment you for understanding that even before the governor told you so. And before I repeat it and I'm hopeful that the balance of this seminar. Will enlarge and improve our understanding of how we propose to deal with the problem that we still have. For more than half a century. We've made increasing and carefully use of the automobile in this country because gasoline was plentiful. And cheap at least until recent years. The few voices of warning. That were sounded occasionally. Were drowned out as we accelerated our cars with four on the floor or whatever we had

two new speeds. And the greater distances from home. Automobiles became bigger and more powerful and more wasteful of fuel. The American dream. Was to have. A car maybe two. And to go. Your own way. When and where you choose. In the car. That you control. The cars came to be the symbol of freedom for many Americans. And I think still are. But as this was happening some of us were becoming aware that there are too many of these symbols of freedom in urban areas and they're causing a Grappelli rolling problem traffic congestion and air pollution and noise pollution and all this was before the energy crisis broke on us.

We knew something had to be done before these problems reached intolerable levels Well amidst all the shot and shell in Washington these days I'm pleased to tell you that the Department of Transportation is dealing with these transportation problems as we strive to achieve a safe efficient and economic transportation system that. Meets the needs of all of our citizens. We are systems oriented. We're concerned with the smooth operation of all the elements of the transportation network and we're concerned about the impact of transportation on fuel consumption and vice versa on the impact of fuel shortages on transportation right here at this magnificent Transportation System Center. We're heavily involved in research and development on a wide range of problems designed to improve various elements of the transportation complex. This work includes studies on improving fuel conservation

techniques. Last spring for example a departmental task force undertook a series of studies on current and projected usage of fuel by each major mode of transportation and to to find out what the opportunities were for conservation by mode that would minimize the impact of fuel cutbacks. The Transportation System Center heavily contributed to that work and the results of these studies were used widely throughout Washington and throughout the rest of the country as we dealt with the impact of the embargo last year and early this transportation energy conservation is a vital objective transportation service is a fundamental underpinning of a healthy national economy and a satisfactory way of life for our citizens. But we've got to make transportation service more fuel efficient. I agree with Governor signs of the potential energy crunch is not over. It

won't be over. Until we can develop the capacity in the United States to be self-sufficient in the production of energy free of dependency on foreign sources. This is the thrust of the president's Project Independence a national commitment designed to free America from the threat of energy blackmail. That we experienced so recently a big boost to easing the short term problem was the lifting of the Arab oil embargo. And I frankly was impressed with the way the public and the carriers of all modes reacted to the fuel shortage. But are we out of the woods. My answer must be no we're not. There's the risk that the embargo could return. And there's also the risk. Much closer to home. That we may return as a country to our fuel wasting ways. Unfortunately I received signs that some of us are already lapsing into old and bad fuel

habits despite a national speed limit of 55 miles an hour. I'm sure some of you have noticed that many drivers are already zooming along at 60 or 70. I want to ask you to raise your hand if you're doing it too. But I suspect some of you probably are. And I'm sure you know that car pools have not yet become the byword of the American commuter. If we're to avoid another crisis then we've got to continue our own individual and corporate conservation efforts as we strive to achieve the benefits from the president's project independence. Over the longer range we must also look to resolving those energy related problems that are solvable now in the short range. We have tough medicine to swallow and belts to be tightened. We're going to need to conserve

fuel this year next year and for years into the future. And most important of all we cannot afford. To continue the widespread and wasteful practice of individuals traveling to work in their own cars alone. It's not too difficult to understand why we cannot continue that practice at present. Eighty two percent of all working Americans commute to their jobs by car more than half of them travel alone. This means that on a typical day there are some 50 million commuter cars traveling our highways annually. This burns up some 27 billion gallons of fuel each workday. Commuter cars consume 30 percent of all the liquid petroleum consumed. To lessen this wastefulness we must persuade more people

to leave their cars at home and take either car pools or mass transit to work. At the Department of Transportation we're encouraging such needed changes. We have urged a nationwide effort to put the individual auto commuter into a car pool. We're backing that initiative with funding contained in legislation signed by the president in January. That provides for designated highway carpool lanes and exclusive bus lanes related traffic control devices and preferential parking in publicly owned facilities for carpoolers. We've developed a computerized carpool matching program that's being applied to many large urban centers. Last January Secretary of Transportation Berninger wrote to each of the nation's governors requesting their direct help in reducing unnecessary fuel usage in urban

areas and calling on them to support our activities in the transportation sector. Most of the governors were enthusiastic and supportive although we didn't ask at that time for formal responses many of them did respond and specified their plans and programs in energy conservation and pledged their support to our activities. I'm glad to note that your governor Governor Sigyn is also endorsed the use of carpools and conservation and transportation under provisions of the emergency highway energy conservation act six car pool demonstration projects were approved for federal highway funding and our federal highway administration distributed its computerized carpool matching program to over 300 organizations around the country as well as over 27000 copies of its carpool and bus pool matching guide. Overall we estimate that car pooling and public transit offer a near-term

potential for fuel savings in the order of 10 percent. 10 percent of total transportation energy usage. In addition to carpooling which we continue to believe should be heavily stressed at all levels of industry and government. More attention also needs to be given to the potential for energy savings through greater efficiency in urban goods movement goods movement in urban areas for example recommendations coming out of our new york city garment center study for low capital methods of reducing congestion in Manhattan's garment center may be applicable to energy conservation efforts in other large cities. Some of the proposals contained in that study include a truck parking reservation system. No standing bans at intersections and sensual receiving shipping rooms for each building. These proposals and others for improving the energy efficiency of urban goods movement need evaluation and if warranted promotion and

implementation We're also attempting to shift motorists into public transportation systems which are helping to bolster in a number of ways. The federal aid highway active 1973 provided highway funds for transit programs and legislation recently proposed by the administration known as the unified transportation assistance program where you tap. For short will when enacted add an effective dimension and a new dimension to solving urban transit problems. You tap is intended to meet the pressing problems of urban areas now while continuing to give full attention to our rural transportation needs you tamp would build on prior federal programs such as provided by the federal aid highway active 73 and provide a nineteen point three billion dollar program over the next six years. Eleven point six billion of which is new money.

We believe that you will strengthen urban transit systems by providing additional capital assistance and by authorizing payments to provide operating funds for public transit systems where such payments will result in service improvements. It would also permit local officials who best know what their own community's needs are to meet those needs whether they be highways transit or some mix of the two. Beginning in 1978 you tap would vest the governor of a state with the allocated funds to help avoid the possibility of unbalanced competition for funds at the state and local levels between public transportation and highway interests and certain transportation projects some would be earmarked for use in urbanized areas of 400000 or more population. Theres been some discussion of the formula developed for distribution of tap funds based on the state's population in urbanized areas according to the legislation we sent to the

Congress. But as Secretary Berninger said recently in congressional testimony we are not locked in to this formula and we have been and fully intend to continue to work closely with Congress and elected officials and others in examining alternatives to that formula. The small urban and rural transportation program is a very important element of you tap. It would extend the two year rural highway public demonstration program authored by the 1973 Highway Act for another year and authorize an additional 45 million dollars for it and expand its coverage to include small urban areas. The intercity movement of passengers in commodities is also undergoing a change. By mid December of last year with new funding to Amtrak approved Congress voted to restructure seven bankrupt Northeast and Midwest railroads early in this session of Congress the administration introduced the transportation improvement

act of 1974 which is aimed at a dramatic revitalization of all the nation's rail carriers. The proposals incorporates financial stimulus to rail investments an easing of federal regulations that restrict operations innovations by the carrier managements and provisions to avert a repetition of the potential wreckage like that raised by the imminent or collapse of the Penn Central. Last year that brought back congressional and presidential reaction. And provisions in the proposed bill will improve rail road bed and track. That in turn will translate into better freight and passenger operations. Governor Sargent talked about the increased efficiency of using rail instead of truck in this part of the country. That applies to other parts of the country. This is not a pro israel and anti truck approach. It's an effort to restore rail transportation to its competitive posture so that it attracts that traffic for

which it is best suited and for which it it creates a comparative efficiency of operation. During the remainder of this year and through fiscal year 1975. We have the Department of Transportation intend to continue development of our fuel monitoring systems to provide us with key indicators concerning the effects of fuel conservation and allocation measures traffic volume changes and levels of service provided and impacts on safety. We also plan to continue to obtain data on consumer behavior patterns which should permit development of improved fuel demand estimates. These monitoring systems and data should also weight us in refining our assessments of mid and long range potentials. As far as fuel conservation options are concerned and they should help us evaluate alternative regulatory tax and other policies that may be needed to assure

implementation of conservation and efficiency measures. Throughout this work we've got to remember that the immediate crisis and the causes of it are not over. Even though it seems to have become a less pressing issue in the minds of many people. We would be doing the country a vast disservice. Where we understand the problem. To slacken our transportation related efforts to change the public's energy consumption habits. Lest we lose the positive gains we've already made in adapting to reduced fuel. We must continue taking positive steps to strengthen our conservation efforts. I thank you for inviting me to be with you this morning. As you proceed with the balance of this seminar. I hope that you will develop the kind of productive interaction that our transportation energy issues need and that the sponsors of this seminar hoped to attain. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Must have been very stimulating message and I hope that from these ideas we can at least stimulate our thinking in trying to improve and maintain a more efficient transportation system in the nation. Our next speaker Mr. John T. Doolittle is chairman of the NBA board of directors. His responsibilities are the development management and planning of the M.B.A. transportation facility services. Mr. Hill has previously served as general manager of the capital district transportation authority in Albany New York. That agency was responsible for rail marine and aviation services and facilities in a four county capital district. From 1968 to 1970 Mr doodles served as executive director of the Twin Cities metropolitan transit commission. Minneapolis St. Paul Minnesota. In that capacity Mr. Doolittle

managed the development of a regional transit plan the acquisition and coordination of several private bus companies and major transit improvement programs for the seven county metropolitan transit area. Mr. Doolittle is a graduate of Georgetown University and the Worcester school of Danbury Connecticut. Christodoulou like you around much. Gentlemen good morning. I prefer to take a more positive view of the turn out. I think everybody is waiting for the time time to start and around the NTA and BTA when they did. My guess is that in about five minutes or so. That Faron Center program begun by the end BTA in anticipation of the energy crisis will begin to yield a more sensitive audience to deal with these issues. Looking at the program on the back this morning it was interesting to note the land use around this station there's a little map

that shows what's going on around the transportation system center so that those of you who are not familiar with it can come. There are seven parking lots. By my count not including the parking lot across the street which is 40 users and there was a little notation down in the corner of the map. With a T. Now those of you who don't know what T stands for. I'm sure you all know what the parking lot stands for. Te is the NBA and if you prefer to leave by the tee when you go home there's a station right across the street. I think the NBT I am also some of you know undersecretary of transportation for the Commonwealth and one of the things that I've been involved in in the last couple of years of course is the governor's transportation policy. And in addition to that during the 1973 I was active in the strategy developing a strategy for the air quality control. Now in that process I can recall very explosively some debates among the technicians and the people who were involved in the the air quality control strategy about what happened. From the point of view

of deterring automobile use in the center city and in the areas where the air quality was a particular problem. If we adopted a pricing strategy for a fuel to deter the use of automobiles and how what would happen if we increased the price per gallon of a nickel say by a dime say by 15 cents say. And the general reaction of all those policy oriented people was that it would cause a revolution. So we we declined that particular strategy and adopt another. And in the meanwhile of course although fuel presently is available in most places and generally in the quantities that are sought the price at this point is something in the order of 20 or 25 cents a gallon more than it was before we developed the air quality control strategy. And in the end in the process declining tax increases on gas for the purposes of improving public transit by a penny or two or anything.

On the basis that it was unreasonable and unreasonable impact on the price of fuel. Those of you who are trying to pay your. Home heating fuel bills these days know that the crisis is not over. But the problem is not over that the demand and supply of process is still at large. Whether it is a natural one or not I think the the. The plans that the NBA has to deal with the fuel crisis are in fact not plans to deal with the fuel crisis. They are plans to deal with the future of public transportation. And in the meantime the fuel crisis has come along like the collapse of the Mystic River Bridge and it's provided a major incentive for people who otherwise would not consider public transit to take a try at using public transit as the way to get around the metropolitan area of our revenues as a gauge of our ridership during the months of December January February and March show

directly a direct relationship to the length of the automobile lines the length of the lines of the gas stations the length of the extent of the difficulty in getting gasoline. And as well Joe the effectiveness of the alternate day plan because as soon as the alternate day plan went into effect our ridership began to trail off again from in some cases up as high as 10 and 12 percent to back approximately where it was a year ago. And we are basically where we were a year ago which in turn is probably three or four percent ahead of where we would be without the fuel crisis. Given our normative our reduction in ridership of course the 3 or 4 percent benefit residual benefit to the transit system also in my opinion reflects to other counter acting influences one is the influence on revenues of Dime time which is the reduction basically if some of you know of the rapid transit

fare from 25 cents to 10 cents during the off peak hours and on Sundays. And to some extent our new prepaid pass system which changes the nature of our cash flow has some of you know we have instituted a system now through which employers right now John Hancock and the Commonwealth and that's really the only two participating employers. But we will we do have a backlog now of something like 45 other applicants which allows the an employee to deduct from his payroll pay from his pay the same way he would deduct say a blue cross blue shield program. The amount of his discounted fares for using the BTA system the employer then gives us the money that so deducted and he gets a pass which at this point is good for a specified period on coated in such a way as to indicate to the operator where and to the user where the patches can be used. We are

that program in turn was developed before the fair fuel crisis and has produced so far about 4000 users approximately 500000 of our present riders. We don't have any estimate as to how many of those subscribers are people who previously did not use the system. We hope to be in Guinea soon with the hope with the assistance of the Federal Department of Transportation a demonstration program to analyze the effectiveness of the prepaid pass system. Now one of the things that T is beside. A provider of public transit it is also a consumer of fuel and it is also a consumer of many byproducts which are affected by the fuel availability. And in turn of course the implementation of improvements of the system are subject to all of the normal of environmental protections. All of the procedures that are in effect today which

constrain the development of public facilities in order to prevent the further deterioration of the environment. Now one of the things which was the expectation at the outset of the fuel crisis and particularly was a specific part of the national policy at the time was a case by case review of the requirement for environmental impact statements and for the the to take a look at each project or to take a look at programs involving the conservation of fuel the provision of alternative means of transportation and other things. And we hope that in some case by case review of the need for environmental statements environmental impact statements and so forth will be allowed not a wholesale reduction not in the elimination of them but for instance where the project is environmentally

preferential that they should be allowed to be a prima facia case made that it is environmentally preferential that some alternative for instance the relocated Orange Line on the Penn Central embankment as compared with the Southwest Expressway. And that evidence should be used to assist in the development of the project at this point with an environmental. They've been we can do one of two things make a negative environmental impact statement that is to say prepare a statement that says there is no environmental impact adverse environmental impact and and sustain if we sustain that case we can proceed with a project or we have to do a thorough complete environmental impact statement and there is sort of no in-between. And I think we need some kind of a procedural in between which will allow the further exploration of transit projects on the ground so they're both environmental non-mental preference and on the grounds of their preference their effectiveness as fuel consumers

as fuel conservers rather. Now the tea also burned something like 33 million gallons of fuel a year. Our fuel unit cost over the last six or seven years has gone from something like a dollar 75 cents a barrel to something like 13 and change. Now when you look at our $13 and change when you look at our operating expenses of that Inka rate of increase is in excess of any other rate of increase in the expenses of the authority. In addition to that our present construction program is highly dependent on both fuel for our contractors and on products which are. Have a heavy component of petrochemical byproducts and our rate of progress on many of our project has been severely reduced during the past several months because of this. Now how we can translate the need to improve transit as an energy conserver into some kind

of an operational policy which will provide relief to contractors over the long term and the expectation that with the return of the winter months and with the perseverance of the fuel problem that that will be a continuing problem I think it is something we need to address now. Unfortunately. One of the things that is true of the world we live in is that. When when something like the fuel crisis presents itself. The ability of bureaucracies and the democratic process to respond in time to take advantage of it is something less than effective. And I think that the the extent to which our residual benefit from the fuel crisis will be realized will depend on the extent to which we as a transit operator can provide high quality service and improve the frequency of service the reliability of service during the opportunity that that's available to us

now to respond to a more receptive market in the context of the relative shortage of fuel. At the same time as you know we have rather severe budgetary constraints. Our present financial authorization for the for the county or 1974 is something in the order of $45 billion less than we will need in order to continue operations through the year of the budgetary constraints do not at this time include improvements of service which are directed at in fuel conserving activities but nevertheless they are inextricably intertwined with the basic financial situation of the authority from the operating point of view. I look forward to the success of the federal legislation this year which will provide more assistance from the federal government. And in this case specifically for the purpose of operating subsidies

which is in our view a a critical and very creditable change in federal policy which will help. The improvement of public transportation to a major extent when it becomes a reality. And I think it will become a reality due to both the congressional and the administrations leadership on these issues. This year the capital plans of the authority really are as you know very extensive We have a capitol program which is now under revision. Final Stages of revision which amounts to something in the order of a billion $700 billion. Of. Which is a rough equivalent to the amount of money that's being spent in other cities to build entire new rail systems. And what we really are doing here in Boston is building an entirely new rail system both the resuscitation rebuilding of the commuter rail system. We have something in the order of 300

miles of Kreuk commuter rail operation in the metropolitan area now. We have purchased the Penn Central rights of way and are proceeding with the acquisition of the BNN rights of way. We have basically a plan to rebuild the entire orange line with the exception of the central system Central Subway system the Haymarket North project as you know from one station north is under construction. We hope to get in operation as far as all that and square as soon as possible. Then from Solomon square to Malden at some point later in the process and the President Washington Avenue elevated structure is scheduled to come down within the decade and be replaced with the relocated Orange Line and the Penn Central thereby effectively leaving the only only the section of the system between Essex and North Station in Essex and Haymarket in effect left the Green Line is presently the Riverside line is presently being rebuilt. Many other parts of the green line are being improved in order to accommodate the new light rail

vehicles which will go in service in the green line and in the in late 1975 those cars are now in production in various places around the globe and being assembled in Philadelphia. When we start being cut off the production line at the end of this year and we go into testing at the deity's test track in Pueblo Colorado. And we hope to be to have some of those in service by the end of 1975. Virtually our whole rolling stock fleet will be replaced in the next five years with the exception of the Quincy line cars. And perhaps the Dorchester cars all of the Orange Line cars will either be replaced or rebuilt. All of the blue line cars will either be replaced or rebuilt. All of the PCC cars on the green line will either be replaced or rebuilt. And all of the present commuter rail fleet will either be replaced or rebuilt. The. We are well underway now to be to end to replacing our entire bus operation our bus operating fleet. We have some 300 new buses on the street now and we have applications filed with up to the urban

mass transportation administration for some 476 more. And within a five year period they will all be replaced or rebuilt. We have plans for extending the blue line as you know extending the red line to the south and to the northwest. We have plans for and money for it at the local level for rebuilding a commuter rail system. But all of these capital plans are really at this point anywhere from one year to six years 10 years 12 years away from it being in being and reality. And the real the real efforts at the BTA to deal with the fuel crisis have concentrated for now on a rather modest effort to deal specifically with the rate our own rate of consumption which we have attempted to reduce. And at our. Emergency fuel program or agency fuel crisis program to reason to rehabilitate 100 buses which are presently on the property and to deal with several pieces of rolling stock in the rail transit side of the operation which for

one reason or another have been out of service due to major problems. The logic of that program is in the order of $4 billion. But even that is severely inhibited by the lack of availability of parts and those parts are unavailable in most cases because of the relationship between there. The fact that they are largely byproducts of some petrochemical activity. So even the short term effort at dealing with improvements are in fact inhibited by the lack of parts the lack of supplies by those people who are trying to help us put this equipment back on the street. Now there is also of I think a major question at large before the authority and that is the extent to which the experience in the last four months will be repeated and how we should respond to that in the short term. I don't think there's any question about the long term capital

program. I think to the extent that most of our efforts in dealing with the fuel crisis in the short term are highly dependent on operating expenses which are totally little local tax dollars. But there I think we have a much more critical question to the extent to which we hire people to do work on an emergency basis if they are not temporary employees they are employed permanently by the authority uncovered by no layoff clauses in effect if we hire somebody to do work that does not end up being a temporary employee. He ends up being a permanent employee of the authority for the duration of his career of making these kinds of decisions in response to the changing response by the public to public transportation in the last several months is a very difficult one to do. If we the extent to which we have not been able to carry out our fuel crisis program and getting the equipment that I spoke of back on the street is my reaction to it is mixed.

I'm sorry that we were not able to do what we had planned to do. On the other hand I wonder what the return on investment would be in getting 100 more buses on the street and hiring people to operate a hundred more buses. In the context of the changing market over the last four months from 4 percent less than it is now to something like probably 15 percent more than it is now to back where it is today. In other words we've had basically as much as a 20 percent variation in ridership but we are back where we were whether we should make a an investment out of out of our operating funds to accommodate that kind of the version which creates a long term commitment and long term financial obligation to the authorities is something which is open to question. It depends I think whether the pattern which has developed in this for months will repeat itself whether in fact the availability of fuel for private automobiles will become a critical problem again.

At this point I think we are. Gambling. On the likelihood that our improvements in our capital facilities are improvements in work rules are improvements in our rolling stock will create an increased public convenience and comfort and increased attractiveness in the system along with our marketing program that through the liability and the normal kinds of management objectives of a public transit operator we will be able to attract more people and accommodate them without counterproductive short term operating expense outlays. Now I think of other things which should be done to accommodate low capital intensive in which the team should be involved in to some extent has been involved. Are such things as the stiring of work hours which would spread the demand for public transit over a longer period time during the peak hours and thereby reduce our peak demand for equipment and manpower revisions

school systems school hours in order to accommodate and spread the demand over a longer period of time for an example of what kind of impact that can have on us. Our Quincy garage has something like 86 buses in it. The afternoon service in Quincy calls for in the order of 42 to 44 buses the morning service in Quincy call for something in the order of 80 buses. And the difference of that 35 or so buses is the fact that in the morning the school children go to school at the same time that the peak transit need occurs. And we effectively have to increase our operating service there by of by about 70 percent. While in the afternoon schoolchildren go home at a time which is different from when the peak hour of commuter traffic takes place. And so we can have. Perhaps as few as 40 instead of as many as 80 buses in service and still provide the same quality of service for each individual rider. I think that says something about the effectiveness of staggering the demand on the operating expenses of the system while still providing a high quality of

service. I think it is in this area where operating plans need to be directed where public policy needs to be directed in the short term. If public transportation is going to be called upon as we hope it will to take up the slack. Now I don't like to leave with the thought that public transit is should only take up the slack. I think that public transit has in and of itself obviously in particularly in Boston one of the where we have one of the highest quality services in the country local opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. I think that those of us who have not lived with a system for years those of us who have come here and have had the opportunity to choose living here and they choose using the system find it to be a very effective means of getting around the metropolitan area. If you decide that you want to be a public transit user you can adapt to your lifestyle without any major sacrifice.

And I live 30 miles outside of the city and I work six miles south of the city have to cut through the city every day. I almost always use the system at least four times a week rely on a system for my daily commuter trip. Mostly use it to get around the city during the midday. And it is a very high quality service and I'm not a transit nut. I use at least three parts of the system continually and find it to be flexible my is say my hours can be very flexible my activities can be very flexible. I work a strange strange day off and I find a system able to accommodate me and pretty much every way I call upon it to do so. Fortunately where it cannot I also have a car available. So to some extent I might not be the typical market for public transit. But I do think that public transit has a place of its own with or without a fuel crisis. And obviously the transportation policy the

Commonwealth is clearly that public transit is that the critical element of the urban transportation part of the Commonwealth. We have set the pace in the country in trying to balance our transportation system to reestablish a balance of by through the Governor's Highway moratorium that we're killing the the I-95 north and I-95 south the inner belt. We have made available some $650 million which through our legislative efforts and through the congressional and administrative efforts in 1973 have resulted in the 1973 Federal Highway Act which makes those $660 million or so available to the Commonwealth for public transit investments. And we look forward to accelerating that investment program improvement program over the next several years. We will I think we are at this point the first come first aid in the in the in the country to have in Washington an application for the withdrawal of our interstate system. And we will by the end of next week I hope be one of the first states if not

the first to have the substitute program in Washington for approval and perhaps by the end of this fiscal year we'll have the first allocation of Urban Urban of interstate monies for urban transit in the history of the country. And I think that that represents our basic positive attitude toward the role of public transit in the urban areas. And I hope that yet with or without the energy crisis will result in a major. Change a major improvement in public transit service and usage in the coming years. Thank you very much. Thank you Jack. The next speaker was scheduled to be Mr. John McClennan who is the EPA regional one administrator. However he has been called to Washington on urgent business on environmental protection agency. But laws and regulations and in this place we have a very able deputy administrator. He is Mr.

Tamez be Bracken with the regional council for the New England regional office of the EPA. His responsibilities include giving legal advice on EPA problems and laws pertaining to them prior to his position with the EPA. Mr Bracken was an associate with the law firms of Rose Guthrie and Alexander in both Washington and New York. He has also served as attorney adviser in the office of the general counsel of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Mr. Bracken received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Carleton College of Northfield Minnesota where he was graduated with distinction in the field of government and industrial relations. Mr. Bracken at the outset I would like to say that the Environmental Protection Agency concurs completely with the with Governor Sargent and assistant secretary binder's assessment that the energy crisis indeed is still wethers

that in fact it probably will worsen in the future if we don't start changing our patterns of consumption both industrial and private consumption. However what I'm going to talk about this morning is something that the governor omitted to mention and that is that the environmental crisis is also still with us. It has not abated and in fact it is worsening in those areas which are concerned with pollutants emitted by the automobiles the the. Transportation control plans specifically which are designed to bring the automobile pollutants under control were announced or proposed by EPA. About a year ago. And last summer hearings were held in some 40 urban areas throughout the country on these proposed plans.

These plans that put controls on the unfettered use by American automobile to go where he wants whenever he wants and however he wants were attacked by many as being an unconscionable unconstitutional and un-American. In fact in Indianapolis a business association branded the plan a communist plot and so inform Senator Muskie. However the purpose of the transportation controls is not an insidious scheme as suggested by the businessman in Indianapolis to subvert the form of government under which we have lived. But as to reduce the pollutants emitted by the automobile which are causing an extreme hazard to public health specifically it is the health related primary standards under the Clean Air Act that EPA and the states are seeking to obtain. That

has brought about these transportation controls and they're necessary in urban areas where they customary stationary controls are not sufficient to reduce the carbon monoxide hydrocarbon photochemical oxidant. Levels. And although. It appeared that the public was probably vaguely aware that their health might be impaired by continuing to breathe carbon monoxide the general reaction last summer was that so are a lot of other things that people tolerate harmful to their health. They seem to feel that traffic congestion while annoying and tedious was probably inevitable and that in any event it represented some sort of barometer of economic progress and in short the public simply wasn't prepared to accept what EPA proposed that in the fall of last year the energy crisis hit and it

appeared that the Arab countries might be able to more effectively and sooner limit the use of the automobile in this country than EPA had planned. Of course at that time there were those who said that the environmental effort itself was responsible for the energy crisis and that the solution to the energy problem was to get rid of all environmental restrictions including the onerous controls on the automobile. Moreover many people told us that a little pollution never hurt anybody anyway and that it was a small price to pay for keeping the country from running short of energy. What these people claimed however is simply untrue. The environmental effort was not responsible for the energy crisis. It did not start the Arab-Israeli war. It did not make us deeply dependent upon Arab oil. It had nothing to do with our failure over the years to expand storage capacity for refined oil products or to build new refineries.

Nor are those people who are concerned for the environment though the ones who are primarily responsible for the incredible waste of energy long practice in this country by industry advertisers commercial operators and many individuals with only 6 percent of the world's population. We have 35 percent of the world's energy man demand. What this represents is not so much a shortage of energy in this country as an acute case of galloping consumption which by some economists has been called Cowboy capitalism. We have an annual growth rate in energy demand of nearly 5 percent and that is rising. We're never going to bring the energy demand and the supply balance into focus and tell as a matter of explicit national policy. We make it a primary objective to cut this apparently insatiable demand for energy

and to do this is going to require some wrenching changes in both our personal and business habits. So really the energy and the environmental crisis have converged in what we call transportation control plans. As I mentioned the outset the governor omitted to mention the environmental crisis and he omitted to mention controls on automobiles. However it was the governor of this commonwealth who a year and a half ago announced a very bold transportation plan for Massachusetts which included putting a freeze on the construction of new parking. It included putting a surcharge on existing parking spaces. It included exclusive bus and car pool lanes and other restrictions to discourage people from using their automobiles. More recently in the early part of 1970 three the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held

hearings on a proposed plan which it was going to submit to EPA to comply with the clean air requirements. However because of a court case that. Accelerated the period and time in which these plans had to be developed and submitted. The Commonwealth did not submit its plan. And EPA held a hearing in Boston last summer on its proposed plan. However although there was considerable public controversy on the plan proposed by EPA after the hearing the state EPA sat down and had long discussions about what would be a viable and reasonable plan for Boston and the EPA and the governor Governor Sargent reached almost complete agreement on a plan for Boston and on September 4 1973 the governor held a press conference in which he announced a plan to solve the air pollution problem problems the Boston identical to the EPA plan except for one minor problem that was

the catalytic converter retrofit to be applied to one model year car. However he agreed with parking controls the freeze the employer employee parking space reduction requirements and various other things that was on September 4 1973. However today he does not mention that. There are. There are time schedules set forth in the plan jointly agreed to by the state and EPA calling for the state to submit implementation plans regulations and programs. The dates for all of these things have passed and to date nothing has been submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth to carry out this very critical plan. Now let me just say briefly that the plans in general which EPA

has proposed and incidentally some 15 states submitted their own plans to EPA which were approved including New York which has one of the most serious problems outside of Los Angeles. Governor Rockfeller submitted a plan and it was completely approved by EPA now the plans work this way. There are two principal methods of controlling pollutants from automobiles. One is through what's called a new car program which means that the Detroit manufactures are required to put certain controls on cars at the point at the time of manufacture. This program actually started in 1968. But the most stringent controls are required for the 1975 model cars and those manufactured thereafter which require a 90 percent reduction of hydrocarbons and carbon

monoxide over the 1970 levels. Now the second method. Is relates to controls that are placed on the pre 1975 automobiles. And then those areas where the changeover of the older cars for the newer cars will not occur rapidly enough to achieve the primary standards within the time specified by the act. There are approximately 88 million people in this country who live in areas where transportation controls on the pre 75 cars are necessary. Now these controls on the 375 cars are also sort of divided into two categories. One is what's called the tailpipe strategy. These are retrofit devices that include such things as air bleed the vacuum spark advance disconnect and the controversy or oxidising

catalyst. Now in addition most of the plans including the Boston One include a program for inspection and maintenance which ensures that cars will operate at their peak environmental and energy efficiency. Again this was an area in which the governor and his transportation secretary strongly supported. However the the the rudiments of such a plan which have long overdue now has still not been submitted to EPA by the state. The catalyst unfortunately is expensive. The cost is regressive and it's caused a great deal of controversy. However it will not cause a fuel penalty as some people have suggested. In fact General Motors has announced that the catalyst that it has developed to meet the 1975 standards will in fact result in a 13 percent fuel savings. Now there are these retrofit controls. The other category

are the use restrictions on vehicles. In other words what's called VMT reduction vehicle miles traveled. The statistics show that the average occupancy of cars in the metropolitan areas is about 1.1 percent one point one person per vehicle. And our estimates are that if that percentage in Boston for instance could be increased to 1.7 persons per car there would be no need for any further controls. So some of the incentives to try to bring about this switch of 1.1 percent to 1.7 include bridge and tunnel tolls on street parking bans limitation on the use of off street parking spaces during peak commuter hours a freeze on additional parking facilities and in the Boston plan

restrictions on the number of employee parking spaces provided by employers in New York for instance further VMT reductions are achieved by putting limitations on the time for truck deliveries as well as a ban on the cruising of taxicabs. Now at the same time that these plans contain disincentives to the use of the automobile they also include incentives to increase the attractiveness of mass transit such as as Jack Doolittle mentioned the exclusive bus and carpool lanes expanded and more convenient mass transit the discount transit tickets which again Mr. Doolittle mentioned French parking lots with convenient connecting commuter buses the car pool matchin services and bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths as well as pedestrian malls. Also some of the plans contain surcharges the Boston plan

Washington D.C. plan at one time had a surcharge on parking and the funds raised by the surcharge then were to be used or could be used for the development of further mass transit. Unfortunately Congress I think in a misguided moment passed legislation that would prohibit EPA from from promulgating and carrying out surcharges. This prohibition was in the emergency energy bill which as you know was passed by Congress but vetoed by the president. However Russell Train administrator took this as a clear indication of congressional intent and withdrew the surcharges from the plans. However the surcharges still could be imposed by states and submitted to EPA for EPA approval. We have repeatedly suggest the Commonwealth do this. So far nothing has been forthcoming. The mass transit of course as you've heard is considerably more energy efficient

than the individual automobile. And it's at least 25 times cleaner than driving the individuals automobile. We also estimate that if these transportation measures are all put into effect it will result in an annual gasoline savings of about 8 million gallons per day. That's three to five percent demand reduction. Now the actor has written has very stringent the Clean Air Act that is has very stringent deadlines for doing all this. Namely 1975 or under certain circumstances an extension for two years. Up to 77 now in Los Angeles this is virtually impossible because if to achieve those standards by 77 would require an 80 percent. And in fact I think it's an 88 percent VMT reduction which of course would bring

commercial social life to a standstill as it is known in Los Angeles. Incidentally the figure in Boston in the regional area is a VMT reduction of something like 14 percent which we consider reasonable. So to give more leeway and in the Los Angeles type areas EPA has recommended to Congress that amendments be passed that would allow up to five year extensions in meeting the deadlines. However in the interim the amendments would provide that a community impose all measures which are reasonable to implement the plan and reasonable measures are defined as those that would not cause serious adverse social or economic effects. And it's EPA is opinion that all of the strategies in the Boston plan meet the test of reasonableness with the possible exception of the

of the catalyst the oxidising catalysts. Now as you've heard from other speakers the energy crisis this winter really had great benefits for everyone. It save lives through reduced speeds on the highways. It made people who didn't want to wait in gas lines for one or two hours or pace of 70 cents a gallon. Aware that alternate mass transit facilities do in fact exist. In fact Jack Doolittle mentioned the figure 20 percent increase in ridership which I think is a phenomenal figure when you consider people saying that you can't have this insanity because there is no alternative. Apparently a number of people found that when pressed to it when the price of gas got to too high or when the convenience of getting gas proved too intolerable they did in fact find the mass transit. That's a 20 percent increase which is to say nothing of the car pools that were

formed as a result of the energy crisis. So. The problem though is that you cannot rely on an energy crisis itself to achieve the standards because although the automobile was less used the principal reductions in the use of the automobile during the energy crisis were that there were fewer pleasure trips and fewer weekend trips. The the commuter reductions we're not as substantial as the regional weekend reductions. So it's no coincidence that the clean air effort and the energy crisis are I think. Inevitably bound together. And at the same time they give tremendous promise to all of these 40 urban areas of the country if the people will only continue their awareness of the problems. In fact the whole idea of the city

is to give people access to a broad range of working opportunities and recreational and social activities that they need and want without having to spend a great deal of energy time and money in order to get them. Now by contrast the low density patterns of suburban development that have sent this country sprawling all over the countryside are very energy inefficient. The Regional Plan Association of New York recently released the results of a study on energy use in the New York metropolitan area. The study demonstrated that energy consumption in the low density areas outside the city was almost twice as great as in the city itself. And the study concluded that the automobile was almost entirely responsible for this energy disparity. We do know how to design cities to make use of space light and air in a way that can bring people closer together and closer to their jobs without overcrowding and congestion. The clean

air effort and the energy crisis can give us a chance to undo the damage that we've done to the cities and make them once again a place that's pleasant as pleasant to live. So now the Arab embargo has been lifted. The other speakers have pointed out that the attendance today is not what it might have been had the Arabs not have cooperated. Mr. Kissinger's diplomacy the gas lines have disappeared. Highway speeds have gone up. Deaths are back up to their normal rate again. And everyone seems to be happy driving to work alone in his gas guzzling car. Well you can of course continue to speed along at 70 and 80 miles an hour. We can keep the neon signs blinking and blazing away at all hours of the day and night and shopping centers and other commercial areas we can allow and encourage patterns of metropolitan growth and development that entail horrendous energy and environmental costs. But if we do this sooner or later one of two things are likely to happen. Either our energy is going

to give out even without an oil embargo or our increasingly polluted air and the urban areas is going to do us in. In my opinion we should seize the opportunity afforded to us by the energy crisis and by the Clean Air Act we should develop and expand the convenient and comfortable mass transit. We should encourage commuters to shift from driving to work alone into car pools and on public transit. We should cool the American love affair with the automobile. We should draw in the reins on our cowboy capitalism the result of which will be a savings in money and energy air that we can breathe without shorting in our lives and in a truly improved quality of life for everyone. Thank you. Thank you miss the day for your timely information on maintaining plans to make

have a clean urban air. Our next speaker who is scheduled wants to be Mr. Hughes saucy but again he was called to Washington on this very crises of fuel allocations and in his position to deliver a message this morning will be the deputy regional administrator. Mr. Duan day. A native of Pennsylvania. Mr. DAY joined the Federal Energy Administration in December of 1973. His energy experience includes 25 years with the Gulf Oil Corporation where he served over the years as director of standards and performance evaluation as well as Director Marketing research and planning a graduate of Muskingum College in Ohio. Mr. DAY received his MBA in 1949 from Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. Mr. DAY will present

the views of the administrator on fuel sources supply and conservation. Mr. DAY. All right I'm going to start with what I was going closed with. You know I want to commend you all for being here. I've learned a lot this morning about what is being done and what can be done. But my wife of my Chinese friends said that the that the Chinese symbols for crises are danger and opportunity. And we live in a time. Of danger. We have we've heard if we don't change our ways. But tremendous opportunity. And as a result of my work the last few months with the Federal Energy Agency I can witness to the fact that I have changed some of my lifestyles just cause when I had opportunities like this I wanted to be able to say that and it's been great. And so we can do the things that we've talked about and I'm excited about meeting John and hearing about the plans for the AM and beat

day here in Boston. I had I didn't live in Boston for six years back in the late 40s and the early 50s and we came back here by choice last year before we knew that there was going to be an energy crisis actually. And Boston has the best mass transit system that I have ever experienced. The the five month. Oil Embargo Certainly though does highlight the potential vulnerability of the US because of our growing dependence on foreign oil. In fact we're suffering increasingly from an imbalance between supply and demand. Even with the embargo we were importing about five million barrels per day. And now that that standard we're back up to about seven million barrels per day. Our demand for oil would be normally this year about 18 and 19 million barrels a day.

Our domestic production is about 11 million barrels a day and it's it's precisely that imbalance that is is creating the energy problem that we had for two decades a succession of warnings. I think they began back in 1952 as the first one I remember. And during my work with one of the major oil companies we struggled internally to come up with a with a recommendation that we could consensus upon to make the national government for an energy policy and we couldn't because we had we had too many internal points of view. So the challenge that the federal government has to develop an energy policy that will move us toward all the goals that we've heard about is and that's the only group that can do that. I concur fully with Governor Sargent of the crisis is still with us and will be unless we change U.S. coal production was at a higher level in 1947 than it was last year and natural gas use has expanded at a rate of 6 percent while domestic supply

since 1961 has been decreasing. That's reflected in the decline in the reserves to the production ratio. U.S. proved reserves of natural gas and lower 48 states dropped for the sixth straight year last year. The reserve figures are at their lowest level since 1954. But consumption is twice what it was in 1954. Well last year we were importing a third of our oil and imports were increasing at the rate of over a million barrels per day each year even before the embargo was thought about. And as you know if you go back to last summer early last summer we were facing potential shortages and in New England go back to the winter before that in heating oil. It was touch and go. Now the promise of nuclear power which today only provides us with 1 percent of our energy needs has

been delayed by citing problems and administrative procedure it takes four to five years to bring on a nuclear plant. We're told in France or Japan as compared to historically 10 to 11 years in the United States. We rely on imports. The extent of 38 percent of our needs and that has gone up now in the last quarter. The latest numbers I've seen say that our imports of petroleum products products in crude now are accounted for about 43 percent of our consumption in the last three months. Certainly it is better to have an embargo on our reliance on imported products. Was that in the 30 percent range and if it had happened when we were up in the 50 to 60 percent range because that gives us a chance to consent upon an improvement to plans that are necessary to achieve the objectives of Project Independence.

Now the Federal Energy Agency which is I guess must be one of the newest federal agencies and I stand here kind of inexperienced as a federal servant but I assure you that I have found the last five six months. Among the most challenging and demanding of my life in terms of the of the opportunities we have for creative change. Now in order to accomplish or to move us toward a higher degree of energy self-sufficiency in the United States FDA has been charged with a full scale effort which has been named Project Independence. All it does is provide for government leadership and coordination of energy resource management. But the major responsibility is going to fall on you and your neighbors. And that's me and my neighbors too because we are the people that have to do the planning and in the key implementation of those plans. And that takes that means that we have got to buy the

plans that we work on and we have got to weigh the alternatives and decide. And we've got to look at the short term the medium term and the long term and then make those compromises that will be necessary. That certainly seems to me that the first major objective of Project Independence should be and I believe will be the need to eliminate waste through energy conservation programs. The aim. Is to reduce our energy consumption growth rate our energy demand growth rate by 50 percent over the next decade from what has been a historic growth rate of 4 to 5 percent per year in our total energy consumption in the United States to a growth rate of 2 to 3 percent. All of that that doesn't mean we're not going continue to grow but we got to grow at about half that rate and that's essential in the short term because of the long lead times necessary for improved services. We heard

about the lead times on improving mass transit and also production domestic production nuclear power generation and all the other things. So our highest priority goal immediately is conservation. We've heard about how we can get major savings in energy consumed by transportation. And what an important segment of our energy business transportation is. It does account for over half of our total petroleum consumption. Now give you another figure. Haven't heard this morning. We have 6 percent of the world's population but 46 percent of the world's automobiles and certainly a you know all the rest of the world must look at us with with wonder. Are questions because a personal car is the biggest single user of Art in America we've got to find a way an acceptable way to improve gasoline economy and the American people are

demanding that already I think the automotive industry which is one of our fastest growing most sophisticated was caught flat footed by the rapid shift you see in the consumer demand for the economy car and a low mileage car. Seems to me our objective should be something like coming down or achieving an average consumption rate of 17 or 18 miles per gallon. That would be an improvement from something like I guess 14 miles per gallon is our current national average or less than 14 miles and has been going down. We can also improve mileage by observing the Lord highway speed limits and eliminating unnecessary trips carpooling. And certainly we have to take advantage with our with our patronage of mass transit and the improvements in mass transit. We've got to keep our air conditioner set at 78 degrees this summer you know and that's going to be

kind of That'll give the Southerners their fair share of the conservation that we produced here in the east. And last last winter a second major objective of Project Independence is to stimulate the development of domestic energy resources. We must accelerate the development of oil and natural gas in Alaska and on the Outer Continental Shelf. And the biggest area potential area there as you know is off of New England where we must boost coal production and bring online coal liquefaction and gas station capacity. We must develop our vast oil shale reserves and expand our nuclear and geothermal power. We have an abundance of natural resources that can meet our needs. US has it. Sheila came Reid is not a trillion five hundred billion tons of identifiable coal reserves or one half of the known free world reserves and a third of these reserves are economically recoverable now.

We have upwards of 80 billion barrels of oil and 490 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the outer continental shelf for which intensive drilling is now becoming feasible as it as the federal government. Accelerates the leasing program. We have an estimated one trillion eight hundred billion barrels of oil shale resources in the western states enough to meet our total needs for decades. And we're now beginning to see dramatic increases in new oil drilling in parts of the country and offshore which have never before been developed. We're pumping oil wells and getting more oil. We're increasing coal production to supply our electric utilities and for pilot plants to convert coal into synthetic oil and gas. We're speeding up new construction of nuclear power plants and we're spending over a hundred million in five years to research and develop future energy technology including doing the research for solar and geothermal energy. At least 50 percent of domestic production at the present time is derived from secondary and

tertiary sources. We are at last able to get all the oil possible out of the old wells. And since a long lead time is involved putting new production on stream we expect that domestic supplies will increase. We're going to have to take a careful look at the transportation sector we've said some examples of that in addition to the mass transit system where where the energy efficiency is so much greater than. The automobile. The we see the success of the auto train Corp. Petersburg's Sanford an example of a dampening mass transportation to our automotive habits both Amtrak and train Corporal open ferry services to Florida from the Midwest. This summer we're told we need to move rapidly to extend stablish sound policies to stimulate domestic production. And at the same time conserve supplies if conservation does not continue and the indications are that it is not continuing and that seems to me as our biggest

job is is the is the making that the right thing to do. The stylish thing to do. There will be further upward pressure on prices and we will. Face recurring severe shortages the supply demand balance. The best data that we have is is precarious for this summer on gasoline being in balance is based on. An overall reduction in petroleum consumption in 1974 of about 1 percent against our normal growth rate of four to five percent. Now if everything holds and we don't have a coal strike and the winner is near-normal not colder than normal and we we should we should get by. But there's been evidence of increased energy use for transportation since the middle of March some of the examples you've already heard about there's more traffic higher speeds in West Virginia Turnpike traffic for

the first eight days of April was reported up 1 percent from the year ago and had been down 4 percent in the first quarter. Negat toll roads had seen a drop of 55 percent in total collections in February. On the first Sunday in February. On the first Sunday in April they were down only 3 percent from a year ago. Police in many states have reported a number of speeding citations has increased in Washington state. For example they report that they shoot 3000 tickets in the first week of April this year compared with the weekly average. In 1973 of less than half that number. Now maybe they're working harder to enforce the 55 mile limit using mass transit is declining. Baltimore. Said they had Express same type again that we had here in Boston up 25 percent mid-February. Currently has dropped back not as low as ours only to about seven or eight percent level.

The Norfolk Virginia transit system said its ridership increased 14 percent in January set over in January 74 over 73 but it went up less than 1 percent last month. So. The FIA thrust is going to be moving. We hope from spending our time and effort on managing an allocation program which was essential and was designed to minimize economic impact and that meant to to put the available supply where it would have the least impact on jobs. And as there were shifts in the system that was an ever changing thing. But we hope to be able to move into supporting all the efforts that are necessary the communication efforts the planning the implementation efforts to get a high degree of conservation. And in that effort we need the help and the wisdom and the support of every one of us in in being excited about change in our lifestyle. Now some of the things and really that's

where the conservation has got to come which has come from individuals you know nobody is going to do it except us and it comes in two places. If it's not going to impact the jobs it has to come into homes and with our automobiles I have listed 10 items I knows is we must be using generally the same statistician's guys the numbers have been quoted here this mine have been have been pretty good as they've been pretty consistent with the ones that I had. So either we're using the same sources or making the same mistakes that all nine items that add up to about 4 million barrels a day which is about 25 percent of our consumption. And five of them were in a home and that means. And New England has demonstrated we can do that a six degree heating oil reduction will save 700000 barrels a day last winter New England did that and we couldn't prove it even after the adjustment to normal temperature. We had better than a 15

percent reduction in heating oil consumption on the same number of accounts and that can be measured because many of the fuel deliveries fuel suppliers are on automatic delivery and it's computerized. The new engine fuel line Institute. Pioneered that program and finished that data the Federal Energy Agency the six degree cooling increase summer cooling increase will save surprisingly if my numbers are correct only 60000 barrels a day. In other words if we increase our thermostats in the summer time six degrees to about 78 degrees we're only going to save about 10 percent as much as we can save by reducing our winter temperatures. But still it's a significant amount 120000 barrels a day can be saved the equivalent of that in power generation if we take out one light bulb and every one of our homes if you remove it and don't use it. And and go to the next lower wattage all the other bulbs you know

as you replace the bulbs just to boil them down. And ladies I didn't realize this but they say 140000 barrels a day. If when we use our washers and dryers we use them on fuel loads only if we don't do part modes. And another 160000 barrels a day if we wash in cold water. And I'm not an expert on the detergents but I know they sell those cold water detergents I don't know if they wash as well but 160000 barrels a day. Now that adds up to about twelve hundred barrels a day in the homes each and every one of us can do those kinds of things. Now in the automobile area now I have a little different number here but my data says that if we can add one person per car to the average from 1 1 or 1 3 whatever it is to 2 1 to 2 3 we can save 700000 barrels a day and still everybody get where they need to go. If we just reduce our average consumption one gallon a week everyone owns a

car that be 300 40000 barrels a day. But the big one really the biggest one that I have in my list is if we can increase the average. Mileage per gallon from the 14 miles to 19 miles and that's possible. My son just bought a dats and I'm going to sell my Chevrolet station wagon because he's getting about 22 and I'm getting about 10 and that doesn't make any sense. Say five million 500000 barrels a day and 500000 barrels a day if we get the mileage up and if we have those cars tuned up twice a year the mechanics tell us it will save another 140000 barrels a day now that adds up to approximately three point nine million barrels a day and that's a lot of that's a lot of fuel. Now due course solve also the biggest problem that we have and that is the increase in the price. Because as soon as we bring the supply and demand back into better balance nobody is going to pay you know 11 12 13 dollars a barrel for

crude oil and and then the prices will begin to come back into line. Add one other item I don't have a figure on that but I think Department apartment Transportation has verified those figures that the the average increase in mileage by dropping speed limits say from 70 mile an hour to 50 mile an hour on our turnpike driving is it comes down from 19 from 15 mpg goes up to 19 miles a gallon. So. All those things add up. As we say 20 25 percent savings. And. If we all decide that we're going to do those things we will we will manage our. Crisis problem. However we want to define it. And I think we will enrich our life in the process. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. De for some of the measures that you mentioned and conserving our most

important energy source and that is fuel for automobiles and for our homes. At this time we like to open up to the question and answer period. You know. When it comes to. Those problems. Here. In.

This. School. Well. I think you certainly raise a very valid very significant point because the question that was raised at all of public hearings as if EPA is going to put on the stringent controls and there have to be all of the means of transportation and obviously EPA recognizes that and in order to carry out this the second phase which is to provide the other means of transportation while EPA has no direct authority in that area under the Clean Air Act. We have met at. Both the highest levels in Washington with Russell Train and his predecessor Bill

Ruckelshaus. With the secretary of transportation and the staffs of the two agencies in Washington that have been meeting. You know it has resulted in a presidential position to to allow some of the highway trust funds to be. Invaded so to speak to be used for public transportation. And it's also resulted in the initiatives that. Secretary. This morning referred to also here at this level that the technical people in our air branch of the EPA have been meeting. A number of meetings with. The Transportation Center here in Cambridge. And so there has been a considerable amount of cooperation. You mentioned the environmental impact statement and of course that is sort of a two pronged. Affair from the federal level. It comes into play when when federal funds from the Department of Transportation. Are used

and this this the federal environmental. Procedure. Under neber is invoked in EPA. Carswell will take. An environmental lead there in common and through the public comment. So you're wrong on that. The plan at the state level as you know is there is the. State procedure which would require the BTA. To prepare an environmental impact statement unless some adjustment is made in the law and the regulations as Jack Doolittle. Mentioned. But. I think the. Point to be made here is that although a lot of people said the transportation controls were extreme and that we were putting the cart before the horse. And that we should wait until there were the alternatives and the mass transit alternatives before coming in with these controls. The problem with that approach is that people have been saying that for the last 20 years and nothing significant has been done to

get mass transit under way for example in Los Angeles. I think the only thing that has brought about this change in the administration in the Congress and at the local levels. Has been the requirement of the Clean Air Act by mid 1975 or at the latest in a two year extension by 1977. Certain areas of the country shall achieve. Standards to protect the public health. And it's been that imperative and the cleanup and the end of the admittedly very stringent and very tough transportation controls that EPA held hearings on last year that have I think had a major role in getting people conscious of the need for mass transit and opening up legislatures to appropriate money and getting construction underway and getting the Department of Transportation to support the EPA effort to invade the highway trust. Funds.

Complex subjects that we could find transportation to land use. But it must be related. I. Think we can make. Some basic statements. Number one. Is easy. About 80 percent of all trip making money in. Urban areas is. Home based. Number two. That. Housing. Is a basic need for everyone. Those two statements add up to. Quite a bit of trouble. I met a gentleman this morning. Who mentioned that he had come by car because. Number one was no parking. At. The. At a. Transit Station Number two there was no bus. For him to take from his home. Housing is quite a choice that we all must make. I suggest. That there are many people living in conditions like this throughout the urban area. Who made

their choice. To. Live in suburbia for complicated reasons. Where there was. Or where there is no public transportation. And they the people who made this choice probably involved many of us. Made that choice knowing there was no transportation. If an attitude were taken that I will live where there is an alternate. Other than the automobile tax policy would be different. We get mixed up in here. And I'm just throwing out a lot and that's where we get mixed up here. That's why the. American dream is for every. Worldwide dream for that matter. Is to have a home with a little piece of land in which to house. A Family. Of course the. Family life has something to do with that. And the other thing has been involved has been the cost of housing. People see. The actual or the seeming costs. Over the last

several decades. Availability of federal money to develop the suburbs versus the availability of federal money to develop the inner city. And the ability for individuals to afford housing one place or the other all in the inner part of the city of course there's a great struggle going on now. Between. Availability of low cost housing and development of high cost country housing. Dilemmas here and yet to achieve what Dr. Myers suggested that is a. Location of homes more rationally or more easily accessible to the activities that are undertaken is a goal and we can. Do it. It's going to hit us one way or the other. I just thought those remarks as a dilemma. Perhaps to. Point out how. Frustrated I get being close to this sort of thing. When.

I mentioned that EPA had recently submitted amendments to Congress to the Clean Air Act specifically they talked about extension the transportation controls. However. There are other amendments that EPA has proposed which specifically relate to the conversion of utilities from oil to coal. This is really an outgrowth I guess of the EPA Clean Fuels policy that has developed over the last couple of years to allow the burning of either higher sulfur oil or coal to the extent that conforming fuel is not available in those areas where primary

health related standards will not be jeopardized. And for a short period of time until a coal or conforming coal or oil become available this was the situation last winter in the winter before. However the policy now has really changed because rather than addressing this on a short term basis as we've done in the past it does appear that for the long term we are going to have a crunch in the oil area. So the the the thrust of the amendments would be to allow utilities to convert to coal and those are over. Five. We recommend the five year periods that the conversion would be completed by January 1 of seventy nine. It could be 80 I forgotten there was some negotiation there. In any event a period of time to make the conversion in those areas where in the interim primary standards would not be exceeded. And

on the condition that the utility either commit itself to the scrubber. Technology that the installation of scrubbers to reduce the sulfur oxide from the high higher sulfur coal or to commit itself to obtaining the long term commitments for conforming coal which would mean opening the Western mines there's been some discussion of that now that the dilemma that EPA is in in the moment is that under the Clean Air Act we do not have the authority to approve this type of conversion that would extend beyond the mandatory deadline of mid 1975. So at the present time I can only say that that is EPA thinking that's what we're trying to get Congress to approve. Senator Muskie's committee has not been too receptive to these proposed amendments and we don't know what course they'll take.