Cochairman MUSKIE. We have not set those standards at the level which we think will have maximum favorable impact upon health. They have been geared to what the state of the art permits. Dr. HOLLOMON. Any state of the art? Cochairman MUSKIE. The state of the art of the internal combustion engine. The standards do not say in any way that you have got to achieve the level of pollution levels that you get from the electric automobile. If we did that tomorrow we wouldn't have any new cars produced in 1968. Dr. HOLLOMON. I quite agree with you. Cochairman MUSKIE. So that the standards that you set must realistically be geared to what the state of the art permits, and we have not made the decision, and I don't think we are likely to make the decision in the next 10 years, that the internal combustion engine from the air pollution point of view is obsolete. Dr. HOLLOMON. I agree. Cochairman MUSKIE. So what we are trying to do with this legislation is to stimulate the development of an alternative to the internal combustion engine, not one that we are now prejudging as inevitable, but as a choice that we will have when the time comes. I don't think that we can rely on the standards that are applicable to the internal combustion engine as a way of stimulating the development of the electric automobile because there are other resistances. The oil industry is much more concerned than the automobile industry about the possible obsolescence of the internal combustion engine. Dr. HOLLOMON. I agree with you. Cochairman MUSKIE. And for understandable reasons. I think we have to take their position into consideration. And I think as part of this research job that must be done, we must consider the part that the electric automobile will play in our total transportation picture. We must also consider whether it will be a viable alternative, not only technologically but otherwise, and whether or not it would be wise to press it, to accept it, with the risk that it has for the oil industry and the disruptions in the economy that it might produce. This is why I think we need to look at this possibility from something other than the pure technological point of view, something other than the market approach. This is what concerns me. I am sure that there is this activity going on in the industry. I have seen evidence of it in Detroit. Whether or not it is as great as it ought to be, is a question. But I am not ready to discard yet the idea that in order to really achieve the breakthroughs that we need, we need some kind of push as well as pull in the Government. When I urge that, I am not discounting the integrity or good faith of anybody in the industry. Dr. HOLLOMON. I understand that. I am not ready to discard it either. There is only a slight difference, I think, really. Cochairman MUSKIE. I think so. I think it is slighter than you suggest. I notice, for example, that vour panel to which you referred is called the Panel on Electrically Powered Vehicles. There is nothing about steam in that. Dr. HOLLOMON. The charter of the Panel says, "Look at all the alternatives." Cochairman MUSKIE. In other words, you have an escape clause, too. [Laughter.] Dr. HOLLOMON. I have had a little trouble with my Panel on that subject, too, Mr. Chairman. Cochairman MUSKIE. Senator Spong? Senator SPONG. You have suggested three solutions for combating air pollution from vehicles. I gather that you feel that the third one will take such a long time that we had best be working on the other two. Dr. HOLLOMON. My general view is that you look at the problem practically, from a pragmatic point of view, to do something about this. My own feeling is, as the chairman has stated, we are not going to get rid of the internal combustion engine for many, many years, no matter what we try to do. Second, there are inherently good reasons for looking at new, unique systems of transport in the cities. Third, I think we ought to look at possibilities of alternate sources. My point is, if we are going to get at these problems, the two objectives of the committee, one to reduce pollution, and the other to provide better transportation, the fact of the case is there is going to be a mixture of answers. I therefore think and feel that very strongly. Senator SPONG. Mass transit is certainly related to this problem. Dr. HOLLOMON. It certainly is. Not only mass transit, but I am sure that the people from HUD would agree that there are alternate ways of what you call new types of bus systems, for example, that could be more efficient, and so on. So I think that these are related. Of course, in the case of mass transit, you also have to ask the question: Under what conditions and when will people use it, as contrasted to what they consider to be the convenience of the vehicle. You have to take that into account. Senator SPONG. I think you have to consider under what conditions would people use electric automobiles. Frankly, I am inclined to agree with you that a market is going to have to be created in some way. The public is not ready to give up these deep breathers. They are not at all ready for electric automobiles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. HOLLOMON. Thank you, Senator. Cochairman MUSKIE. I must apologize to Senator Pearson for apparently overlooking the fact we have two committees involved. Senator PEARSON. I thought I was in the wrong place for a few minutes. [Laughter.] I think the Secretary gave a sense of balance in his testimony in pointing out the combination of solutions. I received your emphasis on the market requirement in somewhat different sense than the chairman, I guess. In that regard, let me ask you this: Do you know what is being done in England or the Common Market countries, or Japan, in relation to 79-607 067-27 the development of some type of engine that would not require such a heavy amount of petroleum? Dr. HOLLOMON. I know that there is activity in England. I think that there is activity in Japan. The Panel that I referred to hopes to give a complete-as complete as proprietary considerations allowanalysis of the world's activity in this regard. I can't give it to you this morning. They are working at that problem. They are looking into the Japanese, the British, German, and other activities in this field. Senator PEARSON. They have a pollution problem, too, particularly in Western Europe? Dr. HOLLOMON. Yes, they do. Furthermore, we have a market there for vehicles if they could be produced. So that I cannot answer your question explicitly. Senator PEARSON. You have touched on the point that was in the back of my mind, and that is—if there is a development, say, in the European Common Market where they have a greater strain on reserves, their petroleum supplies of vehicles not requiring such a heavy amount of petroleum, this could be a real force in our automobile design and use for at least a few years. What the Europeans and what foreign trade do could have a great impact on our market. And it might be that emphasis would come from some of those directions. And I quite agree with Senator Spong, if we just build a dandy electric automobile that has less horsepower and gets passed on the highway by everybody else, they will not sell very many of them very long. I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman, I think the Secretary has given a sense of balance to the testimony this morning. I cannot help but recall the days when we had the pesticide hearings and the testimony on "Silent Spring" that came in so dramatically and had such great impact on the hearings before that committee, until we heard from the agricultural people who illustrated what would happen to American agricultural production in all fields if we immediately abandoned chemical pesticides and herbicides on the basis of the unconfirmed possibility that they created a present danger. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator SPONG. The Secretary might like to know, Mr. Chairman, that we had testimony that in Britain they have created a market for electric delivery vehicles by waiving the sales tax. A great percentage of all dairy trucks in Britain presently are electric vehicles. There are economic factors involved, but the Government has helped create the market by giving certain subsidies. Dr. HOLLOMON. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just comment. Perhaps I answered Senator Baker too quickly about the creation of markets. I would like to reiterate that from what I have read, and the experience that I have had in industry and government, that that is the most effective way to get technology developed. I think there is a report you would be interested in, Project Hindsight, by the Department of Defense, illustrating that many-a large fraction of the technological developments came by creating a market. And they were not anticipated by the research activities, but were really brought into being when somebody had to make something to sell. I feel that that is a very powerful stimulus. It does another thing. You are really talking about something as radical as a new kind of vehicle for broad use, with low maintenance and reliability, as far as parts and all the things that go with it. One of the best ways to test their performance is to have a lot of them running on the highways. Cochairman MUSKIE. I don't think there is any disagreement. I think there is agreement that we do not now have an electric automobile which would appeal to a mass market. There is agreement that we ought to have an electric automobile that more people would use. There is agreement that some Government stimulus to this development would be appropriate. So the remaining question we are exploring in these hearings is what additional means, if any, we can provide to provide that stimulus. Dr. HOLLOMON. That is correct. Cochairman MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Cochairman MUSKIE. The next witness is the Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development, HUD, Mr. Charles M. Haar. It is a pleasure to welcome Mr. Haar. STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. HAAR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Mr. HAAR. I thought I would read through the statement. It is brief. Mr. Chairman and members of the committees, it is a pleasure to be here and present the views of the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the two bills being considered at this hearing. One bill, S. 451, would authorize an investigation and study to determine means of propelling vehicles so as not to contribute to air pollution; the other bill, S. 453, would authorize a program of research, development, and demonstration projects for electrically powered vehicles. Both bills have the same worthy objective-to find a means of eliminating the air pollution or bringing it down to manageable proportions, resulting from the present internal combustion engine. Vehicular air pollution is primarily an urban problem. The city generates the dangerous densities of poisoned air; the city dweller suffers the consequences. Much of the danger is created by the flood of cars that daily ebbs and flows to and from urban centers during the peak hours. Thus, congested streets and urban highways are more than an inconvenience; they are a primary source of the pollution which so endangers the health and welfare of urban dwellers. There are unmistakable signs that the urban air pollution problems will become worse. First, increasing numbers of people and cars are becoming concentrated in urban areas. In 1960, 70 percent of the Nation's people lived in cities; this percentage is rising steadily. The Nation's population is expected to increase from 195 million in 1965 to 223 million in 1975. There are now 90 million registered automobiles in the Nation, and the American families are buying automobiles at an even faster rate than the rate of population increase. We know that there are serious air pollution problems inherent in these concentrations of people and cars in urban areas. Gasoline consumption in the United States rose from 40 billion gallons per year in 1950 to about 70 billion gallons in 1964, and it is now known that 3 pounds of poisonous carbon monoxide and 2 ounces of oxides of nitrogen are formed for every gallon of gasoline used. In Chicago alone, some 10 tons of vehicular hydrocarbons are emitted daily into a 1.2-square-mile area which includes the Loop and its environs. In other words, the central business area. The conclusion is that the air pollution source requiring the highest priority or attention is the motor vehicle. The urgency of the priority for dealing with the pollution potential of motor vehicles is confirmed by other facts developed by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee. Transportation is a major source of air pollution in the Nation, accounting for about 60 percent of the total annual emission of pollutants, including carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and hydrocarbons. This problem, of vehicular pollution, must be viewed in its urban context, for, in addition to changing the automobile engine, there are actions we can take with respect to the city and its transportation system. One set of actions, comprehensive and long-range in nature, would lead to better planned cities which require less travel and shorter travel distances. Another set of actions is to provide transportation alternatives to the automobile, so that less travel by car is required. Both short range and longer range solutions are possible in this second category. I would first like to direct my remarks to measures which can be taken to reduce air pollution by improving the form and activities structure of our cities. Programs already underway in the Department of Housing and Urban Development demonstrate steps which can be taken. IMPORTANCE OF BETTER URBAN PLANNING Obviously, the length and frequency of trips in a metropolitan area are functions of its structure. The relationship of homes to jobs, and to shopping and cultural facilities, are the basic determinants of the amount of urban travel-within the suburban, within the metropolitan area and, to an appreciable extent, the amount of air pollution. Sound metropolitan planning can minimize the distances and provide for improved transportation linkages between the different urban land uses. Thus, vehicular air pollution should be considered as only one |