Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-30
TRUCK OUTPUT BREAKS
ALL EXISTING RECORDS
More Than $4,000 Units Produced in 1926 Elk.
ceeds 1925 Mark by 33,OOO-Wider Uses
of Every Type Noted.

| from their rail lines a great deal OF
| passenger revenue and in some in
| stances freight revenue. Most of the
| ran officials have testified that it was
their belief that the lions share of the
loss of passenger revenues is due tc
the increasing use of passenger auto
| mobiles.
80 Railroad officials have been prac
tically unanimous in asserting that
the truck and the bus, in so far as
they are common carriers, should be
/ regulated in interstate commerce by
| Congress, and that consideration
| should be given to the investment of
| the rail lines and to the effect of the
! loss OF revenues upon the rail carriers
business in considering an application
for a certificate of convenience and
, necessity from a truck and bus com.
mon carrier.
.. Bus and truck operators are di-
Vlded as to the desirability of Federal
| ana State regulation of their business.
Ihey are practically unanimous, how
ever, that the bus and the truck con
Stltute new transportation medium
giving service entirely different
from that of the rail lines. and that
regulation, if necessary, should be
predlcated upon the purpose of stabil-
'ztng truck and bus transportation
rather sAan upon protecting the rail
carriers investment.
Position of Operators.
q. Almost all the bus operators
favor both State and interstate regu-
lation of bus traffic, based upon what
they consider successful experience
with bus regulation as now existing
in Al of the As States.
.. a majority of the truck opera
tors are opposed to both State and in
terstate truck regulation on the ground
that they cannot obtain a monopoly
In return for regulation, as given rail
carriers and the bus carriers. They
point out that the regulated truck
common carrier has no protection
against the contract truck carrier
who cannot be regulated. according to
decisions by the United States Su-
preme Court. They further point out
that the public does not need protec-
ton in the form of regulation, because
it is always possible for a shipper to
purchase one or more trucks If his re
lations with truck common carriers
are not satisfactory
IS. Shippers have testified unani-
mously that truck service is essential
to their business, that it gives them
expedited service which the rail car
riers cannot give, and that they do
not want any type of regulation which
will deprive them of a new form of
transportation necessary to their bust
ness. A large ma jority of shippers
have voiced opposition to Federal reg
ulation Of interstate trucking, and a
majority have also opposed State reg
ulation. largely on the ground that
the trucking industry is new and
needs time to develop, and that any
regulation at this time would serve to
restrict rather than encourage expan-
sion Of useful service. Many Of
them pointed out that no attempt was
made to regulate the steam railroads
in interstate traffic for so years, and
that Congress then debated the sub
ject for five years before passing
very limited and loose form of regu-
lation in 1876.
Changes Now Appreciated.
while changes in the methods Of
using motor trucks have been going
on gradually, the radical nature of
these changes has only been appreci
ated during the past year as result
of the discussions about truck regula-
ton.
I'm some sections of the country
motor truck service is available over
regular routes on fixed schedules. This
type of common carrier operation,
moving generally from truck terminal
to truck terminal. Is very similar to
railroad service In some parts of the
country such operations are conducted
for distances as long as 800 miles.
This phase Of motor trucking is in
significant as compared with the use
of trucks as agents of short-haul dis
tribution. 1t is estimate that about
80 per cent of the use of the $500 900
motor trucks in the country is for
hauls of less than 40 miles. +