Norwich bulletin., 1921-01-15

bilee and auto buses, commonly termed
 "jitneys." for public transportation have
 been demonstrated. Your committee iS
 convinced that jitneys, without bearing
 equivalent burdens as to taxation, paving,
 bridge building and service requirements. should not be allowed to compete with the trolley companies. Further than this, our state statutes forbid the establishment of | . rival trolley line parallel to an existing trolley line without finding by the su- perior court, after hearing, that public i convenience and necessity require the
 construction of such a line. Your commit l tee feels that if this. is. required ul an i electric railway, which is bound of neces- i.sity to have some financial responsibility
 and which is able to operate in, all kinds | of weather, and which can be made to ] serve the public, certainly similar require nlents should be exacted of irresponsible l jitney- drivers, who have been free to l drive when and where they chose, staying at home during severe weather and driy- ing only where the traffic was heaviest to I skim the cream of" the business of the trolley company. There is, however, a place for jitneys in substitution for exist ing non-paying trolley lines and in ex- tension of the service into new territory
 where there are now no trolleys, and pos
 sibly to supplement trolleys during the
 rush hours.
 Your committee recommends (a) that
 street railway companies should have au.
 thority to operate motor buses in substi ' tuition for. or auxiliary to- existing. lines
 and to establish new bus lines, with tn,
 permission of the public utilities commis sion after duly advertised hearing; (bI Ii that all common carriers doing a stree .> passenger transportation business, includ
 ing street railway companies and jitneys al All l11r5- s-1
 livery business, be subject to the jurisdic
 tion of the public utilities commission al - to routes, rates. of fare, schedule and ser } vice required, and that no. new stree }, transportation line, whether trolley O. bus, should be established wit f3ut find ] ing of public convenience and necessity b,
 the public utilities commission, after i
 duly advertised hearing.
 bF. Abandonment and Municipal Owner
 -+ ship and Control
 .,ii All forms of ownership and control 0 : street railways have been tried in thi
 country, from unreGulated private owner ship through. privately owned and stat and municipally controlled to municipall, owned railways. Your committee believes }. that municipality - cannot operate e , street railway as efficiently and econom ioally as can: g private concern and that municipality owned railway will not giv
 as good service to the public, and 1t is } therefore, opposed to municipal owner . ship
 : However, a trolley company should no : be required to indefinitely operate line , or substantial portion of a line, at loss, hence your committee believes tha
 a railway company should have the righ
 to discontinue non-paying line. or DOT , ton of line. with the permission of tn public utilities commission; after hearing
 In a number of cities notably in Cleve
 land. a service at-cost contract betweel
 the city and the street railway compan, ! has given satisfaction to both partiei The essential features of this system are The company is allowed certain divi dend return upon its investment upon al agreed valuation a so-called balancin \ fund is. established into which is paid al earnings above this allowed dividend an from which the balance of expenses an allowed dividends are paid if the cSs sren income is insufficient to pay them Whe tthis balancing fund exceeds a. certai figure the company is required to reduc tits' fares, and when 1t falls below a cer tain figure the company Is automaticall J permitted to increase its fares.
 z The chief arguments in favor of such 4i system are that there Is no possibility 0 I the company's making excessive profit. 4 fares are adjusted automatically with tn s rise and fall of operating costs. and tn public sees that 1t is to its interest t