The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1920-08-30
PUBLIC. SHOULD OWN
ELECTRIC CAR LINES


OF the Federal Electric Railways Gem
miss1en's report recently filed with
President Wilson and released for
publication last week. DIR. Wilcox is
the public untility expert whose SER
vices were engaged by the Commits
sion to aid in the analysis of the tes-'
tfmony taken last year at the pubic
hearings in New York and Washing
ton. when the American Railway As
ISOLATION. the Ama1gamated Associa-
ton of Street and Electric Railway
Employees of America, and many of
the state commissions and municfp-
alities presented their special claims.
Wilcox made a comprehensive anal
yEts of the evidence, including de-
tailed traffic and revenue figures
from most of the important street
railway systems of the country show
ing the effect Of fare increases. The
figures indicated that as fares go up
the usefulness of the street railways
goes down. Wilcox reached the con-
clusion that the only permanent So
luton Of the electric railway problem
would be in public ownership anG
operation. The Commission. in its
report to the President, called Will
cox's analysis "a complete and mas
terfu1 study of the whole electric rail-
way problem" and followed many Of
public ownership and in favor of SER
vice-at-cost, the plan advocated by
the electric railways. Furthermore.
the Commission voted not to print
Wilson'S analysis and recommends
lions, thus excluding from the record
the tables showing the detrimental
effect of increased fares.
Wilcox's sta tement discloses that
the funds for printing and distribut-
mo fhn md
sion's own report are being supplied
by the American Electric Railway
Association. His principal criticisms
relate to the Commissfon's stand
against public ownership and to the
commissions failure to make his
analysis a part of the printed record
which is to be deposited with the
principal libraries of the country and
with the state public service COM
missions and the mayors of the prin-
cipa1 cities.
Along with his statement, Wilcox
gave out a letter addressed by him to
Chairman Elmquist of the Commits
sion, under date of June 8, 1871
summarizing his conclusions of fact
and of public policy; a table of street
railway traffic and revenue statistics
] showing the effect of fare increases;
and an article from the Electric Rail
way VI ulS
| the contents of his analysis and re-
port. DR.. Wilcox's statement Iol-
| lows
| Commission says public ownership
cannot be recommended because it is
| experimental.
The report of the Federal Electric
| Railways Commission to Preslden
| Wilson is in many respects strong
/ and progressive document, and I have
| no doubt that most of it's recommen
dations would have been general!
| acceptable to all parties if the Com
| mission had not failed in it's treat
| ment of the most fundamental o
| all the questions involved in the cleo
| trio railway problem. What we neet
| in this country is policy, not plea
| of avoidance. The Commission ha
! not outlined any clear-cut policy, al
| though it evidently favors a continu
| alton of private management of pub
lie business. The Commission is op
| posed to municipal ownership AM
| operation but rests it's position en-
tireIy on general Judgment, unsup
ported by any citation of evidence
| 1t says:
'tThe experience of Boston, Sa!
Francisco and Seattle is being watche
| with great interest, but it has no
continued long enough to Justify an
| conclusion as to the relative merit
of municipal as against private oper
alton. The Commission is unanlmou
on this point that there has not bee
sufficient experience with public ow
nership and operation of street rail
ways in this country to enable US t
recommend it as the permanent sc
luton of this problem. In some c
the foreign countries it is apparent
working well. We do not believe IN
der present conditions that this meth
cd of operation would be successfr
| in most of the cities of the Unite
| States today
Commission says service at cost
experimental, but strongly recon-
mendS it.
1t will be noted that the Commis
sion bases it's opposition to mun1clE
al ownership and operation on tn
ground that in this country as ar
piled to street railways it is new an
practically untried policy, although
' is not disputed that in other countrie
, municipal ownership of local tractio
' lines has worked well. The Commis
sion's fundamental attitude is we
brought out by its contrasting trea
ment of the service-at-cost plal
r which, it says, was favored by prat
t tically all the witnesses for the elet
, trio railway industry" After outllr
ing the main features of service
!. I cost the report says:
1.-The service-at-cost contract is st1
in its experimental stage, and natul
ally number of criticisms have bee
, made. These have been considere'
:, but with the limited experience ur
der this contract we believe that tt
criticisms are more theoretical tina
real
Then the Commission goes on
say
1--WE strongly recommend the pr11
| ciples of the service-at-cost contract
Service at cost never tried anywhel
, in the world before 1910.
It is not clear why serv1ce-at-cos
which is admitted to be in the e;
4 detrimental STAGE should be strong
! recommended, while municipal ov
;. nership and operation, also said to
s in the experimental stage, is reJec
i ed and put off as something that ma
have to be accepted in spots as a la
resort. The fact is that the serv1c
at-cost plan, which the electric raj
way industry urged upon the Conn
sion and TO which the COmm1SS1t