New-York tribune., 1921-03-03
Amendments Needed

IS To man of the keen mind of Gov
ernor Miller it must be obvious
that even though he establishes that
control over municipal transit sys-
tens is a state function, concerning
whose exercise the communities af-
fected should have no right to judge
so, he has established little.
Traction matters relate not so
much to law as to policy. Though
there were no cities with devolved
powers of home rule, and everything
. were managed by a bureaucracy
with its seat at Albany, the issue
would remain Of what were the wise
course to pursue. The discussion
concerning prerogatlves which has
marked the traction debate largely
relates to legal metaphysics, and all
metaphysics is in certain sense
barren and lacking in practical
nutriment.
1t is a wise traction policy both
state and city would have followed.
1t is not of primary consequence who
does the deciding, provided the de-
cision is judicious, and cold logic, in
aexibly pursuing deductions to
d mathematical conclusion, seldom
clearly lights the way to judicious-
ness. Often two proposals are al
most equally balanced, yet they are
so mutually exclusive that both can
not be embraced 1t has seemed at
times as if the Governor attacked
the traction problem too much as a
lawyer and Judge.
Consider some of the questions of
policy that must be passed on. There
is the matter of how far the cost
plus system is a good one. Is it safe
to proceed on the theory that oper-
ating costs, whatever they are, and
interest on investment, whatever is
allowed, shall be factors which shall
automatically determine rates Of
fare? What would be the incentive
to good management if manage
ment gets the same whether efficient
or inefficient?
There is the matter of whether
an excellent traction service is so
s vital q social matter that part Of
the burden should be borne by the
general taxpayers. Now a subway
traveller pays five cents and the city
treasury two cents more. Should the
whole weight be placed on the for
4ner?
There is the matter of whether
fares should be zoned, something
that has an intimate effect on con
gestidn. Is scattering out a popula-
'tion so desirable that the residents
of outlying districts should be car
lied for less than cost? A spread
tout city means a greater burden OF
taxation, for streets and schools and
fire and police protection must be
provided.
There is the matter of how far the
vevenue of main lines can be drawn
pn to sustain feeder lines. 1t has
Seen the habit to tear up tracks
~hen they become grossly uneco-
nomic. If there were one unified sys-
fem, with one fare. there would be
great waste. Neighborhoods would
resist efforts to deprive them of their
trolleys, and real estate exploiters
would demand service for their
9acts
There is the matter of the terms on
Ehich the owners of the thirty-five
existent traction companies can be
4nduced to surrender their franchises
Fnd sell or transfer their securities,
no one has the slightest idea of
what they would ask, yet their terms
might tip the scale of the whole plan
either way.
If the Knight-Adler bill is cor
-rectly understood it leaves all or
: rnoen OF these policy questions open.
:. There is q devolution of all power
o- three men yet to be named, but
rae instructions are indefinite. The
commissioners would need to be su-
permen to judge justly after a short
3 scrutiny questions that lie at the
roots of urban life and have col
lateral effects on thousands of prob
lems.