The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-08-01

P.U. BOARD
|S0PPOSED
Newman Believes Independent
Commission Would Not
Bring Lower Fares.
BY MAJ. OLIVER r. NEWMAN.

~ AsA<AOs VII A<Av - &NA~ w s'-~~~~'
Formerly President, Board Of Commis-
sioners, District Of Columbia.
Whenever two Washingtonians
talk about the street car problem,
you are pretty sure to hear one of
them say:
I'VE ought to have a separate
Public Utilities Commission"
That plsn--the eighth on my list
Of ten schemes for solving the trae-
tion tangle ,asecms TO find consid-
erable favof, and we're going to
look it over today. :.
In the meantime, let's keep clearly
In mind all the plans suggested by
various people and interests. 30 as to
think about each in its relation to the
others. The ten are as follows:
j. The status quo.
2. The Oyster plan.
3. The different-far plan.
4. The zone-fare plan.
5. The taxation plan.
8. The competition plan.
2. The plan to abolish the commits
sion.
8. Tho separate commission plan.
8. The merger plan.
10. The public-ownership plan.
In each of the seven plans hereto
fore analyzed we have found one
general principle that cannot be over
looked in striving to reach a solution
OF the traction problem. That is:
Merger OF the two major street car
systems.
We have found that, IL any one of
the seven plans were actually put
into operation, our problem would not
be solved. There would still remain
the necessity Of merging the two big
companies y before FARES COULD
BE REDUCED to any appreciable
The fact holds true as to every one
OF the seven.
Public Utilities Plan.
Now. as to Plan No. Eight, which
involves the creation of a Public
Utilities Commission whose members
shall NOT be the District Commits
sioners. but three people selected by
the President and confirmed by the
Senate, having no connection with
the District government and havinn
nothing to do but regulate our public
utilities.
l. W. icnSoiiS cAist lOT tne extent OF
the belief that the Public Utilities
Commission should be q separate, in
dependent body. They are:
Ffrst--The fact that, under the
commission as Il has existed for eight
years, all public utility rates in the
District, except that on electricity,
have been INCREASED.
Second-The belief that the District
Commissioners (who are also the UtiI-
tiles Commissi0n) have so much else
to do that they have TO neglect their
work rs Utilities Commissioners.
We discussed the first Of these con-
ditions yesterday in considering the
plan under which II is proposed to
abolish the commission and go back
to regulation by the clumsy methods
necessarily applied under direct Con.
gressional control.
II Is true that under utility commits
sion regulation rates have been IN
CREASED, whereas the main reason
for the creation of a commission was
a demand that rates be DECREASED.
This. however, was due to the war
rather than to the commission, or to
the fact that the District Commission
ers happen to be the Utilities Com
All costs on everything
everywhere went up, and there Is no
reason to believe that results here
would have been any different II We
had had a separate commission.
The second point--that the District
Commissioners haven't time to be
Public Utility Commissioners-is an
Continued on Page s, Column ~