The New York herald., 1921-10-15
Untermyer's Transit Plan.

Untermyer's Transit Plan.
Mr.. UNTERMYER's proposed amend
ment of the Transit Commissions
plans has enough good points, along
with those not so good, to assure it
careful consideration by the Com
mission. AS the Untermyer scheme
differs for the most part in method
rather than in principle from the
Commissions preliminary draft, and
as the Untermyer suggestions would
for Governor M1LLER's fundamental
conception and enabling legislation,
Mr.. UNTERMYER's very criticisms are
testimony to the Governors great
programme and the efforts of his
Commission to put it into workable
shape.
There is much to be said in favor
of Mr.. UNTERMYER's contention that
new capital going into the vast un-
dertaking, whether city capital or
private capital, should have prefer
ence lien over bankrupt capital al
ready in. This Is rule of necessity
in all business reorganization, be-
cause the new capital would refuse
to go into. a financial failure unless
it had a better chance to get out
whole than the old capital which,
needing to be rescued, cannot die
tate that it shall be saved at the ex-
pense of the rescuer.
On the other hand, In this particu-
lar instance, 1t is not fact that all
the capital already involved is ask
ing to be salvaged in the Miller way,
the Untermyer way or any similar
way. Owners Of traction sc .urities
of some of the companies would be
perfectly content to go on as they
are now going, with the Improbable
consultations falling to pieces, the
transfers disappearing and the cost
OF thousands Of rides day gradu-
ally rising until the average fare is
not five cents but six cents. The
traction owners that may have moth
Ing to gain and much to lose by COM
ing into the municipal plan must
have something better to draw them
in than would serve to gain the as
sent of those that may be crying for
help at any price. But, at that, there
should be some way of working out
a satisfactory compromise between
the one plan and the other.
Mr.. UNTERMYEE is reasonable, for
another thing, when he says that the
Commissions barometer or sliding
scale fare, governed by operating
costs and other financial needs, would
tend to put premium on wasteful
and costly management, since the bills
always could be passed along to the
public. Pretty nearly all the present
economic troubles of this country
originated with the national Govern
ment, as an employer and buyer, pay
ing any wages that were demanded
in munition plants, in ship yards,
In training camps. on railroads and
elsewhere, paying any charge that
was demanded for materials and sup
plies, because the bills, no matter
how outrageous, could be passed
along to the taxpayer.
No transit management that did
not have to think about where the
money was coming from to meet it's
payrolls. and satisfy its bills could be
relied on to fight against operating
costs increasing excessively the way
a management would fight to the last
ditch against rising expenses that
would mean ruin when there was no
inexhaustible reservoir Of funds TO
tap for whatever demand. Neverthe.
less, Mr.. UNTERMYER's proposal OF an
absolutely fixed fare, whether the
service should actually cost the trac-
tion system half as much or twice as
much as the fare, cannot commend
itself to sound business judgment.
AS for his contention that the city
should have the majority control Of
the holding company, this inevitably
would throw the operating com.
panies and the whole problem into
politics when the very salvation of
the enterprise requires that II be kept
out Of politics. Mr.. UNTERMyER would
be the last man to want the rapid
transit system to be mismanaged as
the New York dock system Is under