The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-03-24
Low Street Car Fares

There isn't any good reason why street railway Sc
curities throughout the country shouldn't be
sound basis as the securities of any other legitimate
industry. Yet they are not. Because of nterminable
controversies between the companies and municipal
tiles over fares and the terms of franchises, many
street railway securities lack stability
Mostly the differences grow out of fares 1t is
true that roughly tencent fare isn't really higher
than 1ve-cent fare twenty years ago, consider
ing changes in the purchasing power of a nickel. If
that all that involved in the fare problem logic
would be the side of the higher fare.
The basic trouble is that everybody has taken it
for granted that the entire cost of constructing,
equipping, maintaining and operating a municipal
transportation system should be paid in the fare of
riders. Because that always has been the policy
it generally was taken for granted that it always
should remain the policy.
In taxing street railway companies, the impress
sion prevailed that it is good public policy to soak
corporations. Yet every tax transportation sys
tenn tax car riders
1t has been and still is the practice to make the
companies pay for the paving between tracks and
eighteen inches or two feet outsde-and to make
the companies clean the streets Of snow Yet every
nickel of the expense came out of the pockets Of
riders
In every city every citizen is interested in an ade-
quate rapid transit system whether he rides in street
cars or automobiles The owner of store or fac
tory may ride to and from his Office in an automobile
but it is important to his business that rapid transit
system gets his employees to and from their work
And he should pay his just portion of the cost of
transportation system.
Low fares are good thing for the entire COM
munity just as rapid transit is good thing. But
with rising costs, low fares can not be maintained
so long the entire cost of transportation system
is paid by riders.
But should the entire cost of any city's transpor.
tation system be paid by the car riders?
Should not the COST properly be distributed among
all who benefit by having rapid transit system?
This problem is before the people of the city Of
New York. The people have been taxed to pay for
the building of subways Then the city-but subways
were leased to private operating companies. 1t has
been shown that the two companies earned profit
Of more than $6oO0O0O each at flve-cent fare from
the city-owned subwayS, but lost money on their
prvately-owned elevated and surface lines
1t has been shown also that private property has
increased greatly in value along the lines of the sub
ways-in some instances than 300 per cent
But in every instance there has been some increase
in property values.
So the question is raised as to whether benefited
property should not stand part of the cost of rapid
transit system; and, Also whether the community as
a whole should not pay part Of the cost through
general taxation.
If New York solves the problem, it will have its
influence the same problem in other cities but it
can be set down an economic fact that the only
way to maintain low street car fares is to distribute
equitably the cost of a transportation system ac-
cordng to benefits instead of putting the entire
burden car riders.
And this may be the solution of the low fare prob
lem throughout the country and the sterilization of
the securities OF legitimate and necessary industry