The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-12-12
WESTERN ROADS WIN
Big RATE INCREASE|
nommcrce Boards Order Ad-
yances Passenger Fares in
Eleven States.
LOCAL TRAFFIC INCLUDED

w~,suuNGrov, Dec. 11.-Suhstantial
,creases in passenger rates. opening the
$40 for additional revenue. were issued
Nv tho Interstate Commerce Commits.
.son to-day IN h Western passenger
,s,c cases. The commission makes no
estimate Of the aggregate amount In
yoIyed. but it is probable thai the roads
viii benefit Ivy IN millions OF dollars.
Tie Increases authorised by the COM
mission follow ,
.,, the upper peninsula OF Michigan.
sWnpeso,,. Iowa, Nebraska. Missouri
nor,h of the Missouri River from 1t.
Inris TO Kansas City. and north of the
,,oIr line OF the Union Pacific Railroad
f-om Kansas City to the Colorado State
,i,s in Kansas, from 2 cents to "a
o.nts a mile. In Missouri, south OF the
Nissoui River and in Kansas south OF
No main line of the Union Pacihc. from
20 26 cents a mile.
,r accordance with the advance IL
,.rnd in this territory increases in fares
!. points on the main lines Of the roads
s1ec,ed toward the Pacific coast. ana
sou,berly through Oklahoma and Arkan-
as. arc restricted to the basis nxed,
and A baSis of ga cents a milo In North
And South Dakota and OF 3 cents q mile
West and south.
Tho rate for 1000 mile tickets In ter
,,o,y north Of the Missouri River In
Missouri and north of the main line OF
ma Union Pacific in Kansas 10 hxed at
ii, e.nts, and south Of the limo At ~
cents a mile.
In reaching a decision the COMMISSION
ala no, allow itself to be Influenced BY
inc fact that In practically all OF the
states where Increases are granted the
8ta,e controlled fares are two cents q
mile. After finding by comparative
ne,hods that the rates in the territory
mentioned are relatively low and In
s~udicient 10 meet the rising cose Of
ooAration the commission says on this
point:
This increased revenue. which ap-
~parently should come from passenger
iYafic, should not be Altogether Imposed
upcn the interstate traffic. Manifestly
person j~ourneying by rail- within the
boundaries of a state cannot expect to
travel at the expense in any degree Of
the interstate passenger. State and In
terstate traffic should each contribute
pouitably to the return the carrier Ia
entitled to earn on the value OF ite prop
~ytr devoted to passenger service While
We should permit reasonable Interstate
fares We cannot sanction fares higher
than are reasonable for the service per-
formed because interstate fares are
shown to be urduly low"
In summing up the evidence presented
b. the roads as Justification for the in
ereases the commission hnds:
Substantial improvements in the pas
senger service ave been made since
1899 at large expense to carriers. result
- ~
veniente and safety to the travelling
public.
The conditions under which the pas.
snger service Is performed do not ad-
nit of all the corresponding economies
IN operation hat have been effected In
the freight service.
The increased cost OF service due 70
greater cost for labor. materials and
taxes not offset by corresponding econo-
mics which are practicable In operation
10 entitled to consideration.
The passenger business in the ter
ri,ory affected Is less profitable than
the freight business.
THE basis for the fares now applied
for transportation Of interstate passen'
gers is less in this territory tina in the
States southwest thereof
Although the railroads were not giver
ali they asked for the major portion o.
their requests were granted. Opposed
10 them were the State Railroad ant
Public Service commissions OF Mime
sofa, Nebraska, Kansas. South Dakota
North Dakota, Louisiana, Arizona. Ar
kansas. Colorado, Idaho. Montana, Ne
vsda ard New Mexico and the traff'
bureau Of Utah.
The decision OF the commission ma!
be taken to mark a definite line be
tween It's attitude and State agencies
for the regulation Of passenger rates
and gives rise TO a question as Il
whether the state bodies will be infu
ArcAd hv tho aGtiop If the EAdpral hoard