Hoping for your kind consideration in this Uinta County plea for continued rail operation without further restrictive regulations, Senator McGee, and the rest of the committee, I close my case.

Senator MCGEE. As the county commissioner, do you have available any figures or has anybody sought any figures as to what percentage or fraction of your county income might come from bus stops or truck stops within the county? I assume the businessmen don't frown upon their stopping there?

Mr. TAYLOR. Senator, we have perhaps one cafe and there is one station that dispenses food and another one that dispenses diesel fuel. Outside of that, there is no property that is owned by any of the trucking companies in Uinta County.

Senator MCGEE. I was thinking not so much of the property, but the other economic impacts it might have to keep the picture rounded. Mr. TAYLOR. It is so small as compared to our tax picture we didn't bring it in.

Senator MCGEE. Your point is very well taken. I would suggest I think it is appropriate that we do not seek to remove the Union Pacific Railroad from Uinta County or put it out of business, nor the trucks the other way, and that we are trying to strike this balance here so we would hope that they would find it possible to make a lot of truck stops in Evanston at the same time they keep the Union Pacific going full tilt.

Mr. TAYLOR. We want to lose neither one.

Senator MCGEE. Did you have any questions?

Mr. BARTON. No questions.

Senator MCGEE. The next witness, Mr. Ted Hayes.

STATEMENT OF TED HAYES, UINTA COUNTY STATE
REPRESENTATIVE, EVANSTON, WYO.

Mr. HAYES. My name is Ted Hayes and I am employed by the railroad company at the Evanston reclamation plant.

I want to thank you for giving me a few minutes before this committee today that I may give a few facts that are very important to the people I represent in Uinta County.

The first important statement I wish to make is that I am not representing the railroads nor am I being paid by anyone to be here this afternoon.

Senator MCGEE. That is, you came here at your own expense?

Mr. HAYES. That's right. I was elected by the people of Uinta County to represent them in the State, and while it is my duty to do all in my power to preserve the economy for the people I represent, this is the reason I am here today.

I realize the amount of taxes that is paid by the railroads in each county of the State; therefore, I am asking that very serious consideration be given at this hearing today.

If the railroads are further restricted by more legislative regulations, I feel, as do my constituents, that more burden will be placed on each taxpayer in Uinta County and everyone here today knows that the people have reached the limit on taxes.

For the benefit of this committee here today I have asked for the following information as a representative of Uinta County.

The railroad employs 301 men and women in Uinta County with a monthly payroll of $159,000 and an annual payroll of $1,908,000. There are now 113 employees at the Evanston reclamation plant but in normal times this number reached 175 to 200 employees.

Senator MCGEE. Normal times being what? Do you mean summertime or some other year?

Mr. HAYES. I mean not a recession.

Of the present 113 employees, 93 own their own homes with an assessed valuation of $141,113, which brings a tax return to the county of over $7,000.

It is my contention if any other regulations are applied against the railroads to curtail free competition in transportation of piggyback system of automobiles, our present employment in this county would be further reduced, which in turn would affect the economy of our entire area.

I hope you will give my foregoing statements your favorable consideration in your recommendations to the Senate committee.

Again I thank you for the time that I have taken at this hearing. Senator MCGEE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Woodward.

STATEMENT OF TOM WOODWARD, OASIS SERVICE STATION & CAFE, MEDICINE BOW, WYO.

Mr. WOODWARD. Senator McGee, members of the committee, my name is Tom Woodward. I am the owner of a partnership business known as the Oasis Service Station & Cafe in Medicine Bow, Wyo.

Senator MCGEE. I have stopped there several times, mostly two or three o'clock in the morning, coming back from the northern part of the State. The coffee is good. I wasn't driving a truck.

Mr. WOODWARD. Thank you. We are not here to testify to the fairness or the lawfulness or unlawfulness of piggyback operations, merely to point out at this hearing the effects it has on a small business such as ours, which we presume it has affected other business of similar nature across the country.

The figures that I will give will be brief, but these are based on figures of 1960 as compared with 1959. Gallonage figures on a retail basis pumped through our pumps-and I might say that 80 percent of the fuel dispensed at our place of business is to the trucking industry-in 1960 we had a decrease of 204,273 gallons of fuel, of gasoline, and 201,665 gallons in diesel fuel, for a total of 405,938 gallons decrease in 1960 as compared to 1959. This represents a 4 cents a gallon loss to the Federal Government or $16,237.32.

We realize this is a comparatively small figure as compared to the figures that were given this morning in some cases, but again we point out that this is a very small business.

Along the same lines our gross sales for the year 1961 were down $103,005.42 as compared with 1959. Also, in regards to our employees, we employed at our peak in 1959, 29 employees, where now we have a total of 16, and we feel that these facts are also reflected on the economic condition in Wyoming.

I thank you for the opportunity of appearing.

Senator MCGEE. May I ask you only a point or two? I don't imagine your books would be in a position to show this, but I think the record ought to indicate nonetheless that it is a factor, the gas drop, you said, was $103,000?

Mr. WOODWARD. Approximately. That probably wouldn't be just piggyback because there is so much of it you can't determine just exactly how much would be due to piggyback operation.

Senator MCGEE. That was the question I was going to raise. With the decline in auto transport business in general, that is, fewer automobiles being moved, there is no way that you could measure what fractions of that would reflect the ordinary decline in that business or that which was taken up, on the other hand, by piggyback?

Mr. WOODWARD. The only thing that I could say in regard to that, by talking to owners of service stations, which are strictly passenger stations, they all more or less indicate business in 1960 was better than 1959.

Senator MCGEE. Yes. I was thinking rather in terms of the decline in the movement of automobiles by auto trailer. Auto inventories are very high. They haven't been able to sell as many as they thought they were going to be able to sell. I assume that means they were moving less by auto transport. Whether there would have been a piggyback operation or not there would have been some decline.

Mr. WOODWARD. There probably would have been some. Depends on the amount of automobiles manufactured in 1960 as compared to

1961.

Senator MCGEE. I think the market shows the inventory is still very high because of the holdover.

You have been very helpful. Thank you very much, Mr. Woodward.

Mr. Fiala.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. FIALA, CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILROAD CO., CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. FIALA. My name is Robert J. Fiala. I am manager of merchandise traffic for the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. at Chicago. I report to the freight traffic manager-system on all matters pertaining to piggyback sales and service and have worked for various departments of the railroad for the past 23 years.

My prepared testimony is very brief and I will try to make it briefer, but before getting into it I wanted to clear up a couple of points from this morning. You inquired of Mr. Roddewig if he had figures for 1959 as to the percentage of transportation of new automobiles. I have a statement here prepared by the Association of American Railroads, Bureau of Railway Economics in Washington, which shows that in 1958 the percentage was 89.7 percent by tonnage on the highway, and that in 1959 it was 91.9 percent. In my testimony I refer to a figure of 92 percent. I merely rounded out that

91.9.

This same statement shows that in 1959 the truck revenue was 84.9 percent of the total. In other words, they handled 91.9 percent of the tonnage and collected 84.9 percent of the revenue. I wanted to get that in the record.

Also, the first witness this morning submitted a paper as to the five plans of piggyback. That witness was not a railroad representative and it wasn't read, so I have introduced into the record the accepted definitions of the five plans that have appeared in all the national magazines, and so forth, so there won't be any question about the proper definition.

Senator MCGEE. Thank you. That will be in the record.

Mr. FIALA. I would also like to submit two paragraphs because the definition of the various types of plans don't define piggyback as such. We have been talking about it here but we haven't had a definition. I would like to inject one paragraph defining it and one telling what it isn't, so we will know exactly what we are talking about, and if anyone wants to take issue with me they can at a later date.

Senator MCGEE. Yes.

Mr. FIALA. Piggyback is a transportation service under which freight shipments are loaded in or on trailers and/or containers equipped with under carriages for movement by highway to a railroad facility where the trailers or containers are placed on railroad flatcars for line haul transportation to another railroad facility where the procedure is reversed and delivery made by highway.

Senator MCGEE. In other words, a trilevel car, for example, on a railroad is not piggyback?

Mr. FIALA. The second paragraph takes care of that. The second paragraph is: A piggyback is not a transportation service under which the freight shipment itself is placed in or on a railroad car for movement in rail service. This effectively rules out the movement of new automobiles on multilevel flatcars as a piggyback service.

The reason I inject those two paragraphs is because my testimony has to do with the piggyback service of our railroad and I do talk a little bit about rates and other things and I don't want to confuse it with the carload movement on multilevel cars.

We must not permit the present controversy over the hauling of automobiles to obscure the basic issues of railroad piggyback service. These issues are simply these:

1. Shippers prefer and, in some instances, require piggyback transportation.

2. Our railroad desires to provide this service to meet the needs of these shippers.

3. Burlington's piggyback rate policy is to meet the rates of highway competitors, not undercut them. Where the shippers themselves provide some of the transportation equipment and costly terminal services, they receive the benefit of substantial

economies.

I will outline this procedure later in my testimony.

The hauling of new automobiles on specially equipped flatcars has no more relation to standard piggyback service than does the hauling of farm tractors, mobile homes, or other wheeled vehicles on flatcars. At one time practically all new automobiles were shipped in specially equipped railroad boxcars, but most of this traffic-92 percent, to be exact was lost to the truckers because they made lower rates and were able to offer auto dealers the advantage of delivering the cars directly to their doors. The recent development of multilevel, auto

carrying flatcars has brought back a small amount of this traffic to the rails, but this is in no way related to the steady growth of regular piggyback service during the past several years.

Many shippers and receivers require door-to-door transportation service because of their off-track locations or relatively slow switching service in certain terminal areas. For off-track shippers, the transfer of large quantities of freight from trucks to boxcars, or from boxcars to trucks, is not only costly but can lead to loss, damage, or delay to the freight shipment. In many cases consignees are unable to receive carload shipments either because they have no rail siding or because their business volume is not large enough to warrant buying in such quantities.

The Burlington has provided door-to-door service for less-carload freight shippers for many years. Piggyback service is simply an extension of door-to-door service to larger freight shipments, in this case trailer loads.

Our railroad's piggyback service is offered at rates comparable to those of competing motor carriers. The shippers are using this service in steadily increasing volume. After the Burlington announced the availability of piggyback service to the shipping public in 1955, the number of trailer loads handled in piggyback service increased steadily until, in 1960, 56,331 trailers were carried over our rail network. This was a gain of 9,037 trailers over the previous year, which attests to the increasing popularity of this service with shippers. In view of the fact that our piggyback rates are comparable with truck rates, the increase in our piggyback business is obviously not attributable to rate considerations but to such other factors as the furnishing of good equipment, dependable service in all kinds of weather, prompt settlement of claims, and the general benefits that result from dealing with an experienced transportation organization.

While a considerable portion of our piggyback traffic has been recaptured from private, contract, or common carrier trucks, in many cases we have substituted piggyback trailers for boxcars to improve the service. Other carload traffic has been transferred to piggyback to prevent its loss to trucks. While piggyback trailers move in railroad freight service and thus maintain railroad employment, additional employment has also been created for teamsters at terminal locations. Mr. Wheeler's statement of our trucking subsidiary definitely substantiated that.

The Burlington also offers shippers the substantial economies of a special piggyback plan (plans III and IV were mentioned this morning) when they provide trailers and/or flatcars and also furnish their own costly terminal handling service. These shippers subsequently benefit from our realistic pricing of this terminal-to-terminal transportation.

I want to stop right there and emphasize that where we are providing the complete transportation we are meeting the rates of the truckers, but where the shipper himself provides the trailer or the flatcar or the terminal services, which cost a lot of money, we have then attempted to price the terminal-to-terminal or ramp-to-ramp transportation realistically to give him the benefit of the fact that he has performed some of the service himself.