The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1920-02-26
City Asks For
 5 Cent Fare
 In City Limits
Continued from Page One,

On December ], 1919, the Com
 mon Council of the City of Bridgeport 1 adopted a report of a Special Com ! nittee appointed by the mayor, which committee had entered protest with l the Public Utilities Commission against the establishment of the Zone | System by the Connecticut Company. i This report contained an instruc- 1 l tion to the City Attorney to further !
 prosecute this petition, the substance 1 1 of which was as follows: | That the rate of fare was unrea- 1
 sonable and discriminatory, that the i i service was inadequate, and that the |
 Zone System was not practical for the I 1 City of Bridgeport.
 | The problem before the Public , | Utilities Commission today is of much . | larger proportions and embodies more l significant questions than the mere l proposition of what the effect of the l Zone System is on any particular ! community of the State This Zone : 1 System protest has merely given us ; 1 another opportunity to dig into the | roots of the fundamental question un- 1 deriving the whole situation Shall 1 l the trol1eyS continue to exist as the {, 1 means of transportation for the Pub i l lic?" There are a great many advo- | 1 cates of the negative of this ques- ton but we are not prepared to and do not make thlS claim m Dehalf of the City of Bridgeport. u Assuming the trolIeys are to re-
 main, our next proposition is Upon what basis shall they be operated" Naturally enough, conditions have changed since their institution and it is quite logical that changes in their system of operation and rates of fare { be adjusted accordingly.
 2-Your honorable body is so thor | l the trolley problem in Connecticut generally that it is unnecessary for I me to go into this generally. It does q i seem important for us to recognize 4 and admit that the last State legis- lature, the one hope for the trolleys. 5 who were well informed of their 2 task, failed miserab1y and absolutely lodged Q very vital issue. The his tory in Bridgeport has been briefly popular protest upon the increase 2 from five cents to six cents and an q increased objection on the advent of S the Zone System together with a S marked decrease in travel by trol1eys $ and increase for the jitneys. Per- haps the outstanding feature in our H City was the report of the Special a Traffic Commission appointed by the q Mayor which recommended the fol- # lowing solution '@The operation of the bTluSepOEI llIlSS dS d separate 8 and the petitioning to the United S States District Court for permission 5s to do so."
 ;z There is no especial malice held in a Bridgeport for the Connecticut Com Fl pany, although the company is in- ss clined to feel that this is the case. s2 This is due to the fact, we believe, # that the jitney competition is so s heavy here that this cuts most deep- a 1u Nnhndxr af fn {I, sa character of the service afforded by 8 jitneys with that of the trolley. Ii Ea can only be said in fairness however v that the jitney in Bridgeport saved ss the day during the recent War. The sS Connecticut Company recognizes this s7 and realizes their inability to furnish # the service, due probably to be sure as to no fault of their own but to labor M and fuel difficulties and war condi- H tions generally. We hold no i'll vii E against the Connecticut Company spe- 4 officially. What is true of the Con. nectcut Company is true of other SS companies all over the country tha $ are facing the same situation. Man! A of them are in receivers hands, somt E have pulled up their rails, some ar, @ operating in as high as a ten cen E fare, others on a Zone System infer 8 for to our present one.
 E4 It is clear to us that the Connec s | ticut Company is insolvent. The, N have not paid a dividend to say moth s3 ing of rentals, interest, taxes, etc, il ss several years. I honestly believe B Receivership is one solution as tha ES is one way of securing the divorce O s3 the non-paying lines of the company E. On the other hand, we do not asl ss this as it has been the experienc s5 throughout the country that receiv az erships have not worked well as
 matter of affording public service. I Another remedy we believe to be ss cure for the situation is one tha M might be enacted by your Honorab1 M Body and one which we urge mos
 8 forcibly to your attention, althoug N you have but recently ruled contra E "A change in the policy of the Stat E in treating all the lines of the Cor E necticut Company as 8 wsv-a." Tn Ks policy we believe manifestly unfa W in view of present conditions and M result in gross injustice to the peop Ks of the cities especially. Why shou1 w the city rider pay for more than u M service costs him? I direct your e
 peciaI attention to MT. Punderford E statement in the record on page T.
 @ (near bottom),
 "a "Yes, if it was not for that zoe
 E natured fellow who lives in the ci
 B and perhaps doesn't think about
 you people who live outside wou
 have to pay more. There is no que
 tion about it-''
 E Also to the testimony of Walter
 E Moves before the Specfa1 Commissit
 E of the Legislature appointed to inve
 8 tigate the trolley situation Con pa
 H 161, Record of Special Commission
 E Legislature).
 f'In sparsely settled portions of t
 E State, you know, the street railw
 M was built some years ago, when the
 was not this great diversion of tra
 E4 fic and when operating costs we
 H very much lower than they are no
 A But since they were built great pe
 E of the traffic has been taken aw
 # and the operating expense has be
 ss increased. It is very doubtful in I
 % raI communities that street railw
 service can be rendered at a pr
 N that man will be willing to pay a
 # the vital problem is whether sol
 other affirmative state aid in additi