Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-15
|. c. c. TO WIND UP
AUTO-RA|L INQUIRY
Transportation World Await
Ing Report on Rivalry With
Keen Interest.

TIE Interstate Commerce Commission
this week winds up here its Nation wide
investigation into the subject of bu:
and truck operation, which has beer
In progress since last Fall, with the
prospect that its findings may have
vital bearing on the future of the whole
transportation industry.
The inquiry, conducted by Ere
Braipard, tr,, chairman of the commits
sion, and Leo j. Flynn, examiner was
instituted in an effort to devise a plan
for co-ordinated rail and motor opera
ton. In effect. developments have made
1t the battle-ground between rail and
motor interests. with the former con-
tending for regulation Of the latter Ito
equalize competition" and, in turn,
meeting bitter defense.
In between these two so many con-
nieting elements have developed that
the problem in its entirety constitutes
a verttable maze.
Railroads Face Fight.
In the background of the whole sub
jeet is this indisputable fact:
The railroads, as whole, both steam
and electric, face the fight Of their
lives. Their very existence is at stake,
due to the inroads from bus and truck
competition, inland waterways and pipe
lines. For the moment, however, at
tention has been shifted from the latter
two, and is concentrated on the highway
carriers, which railroad men themselves
admit are here to stay.
The matter then, in its principal
phase, narrows down to the question
of Just what is to be done to work out
q plan that will be fair to both sides,
and at the same time, guarantee to the
public adequate transportation at the
lowest possible cost.
The principal contention advanced by
the opponents of unrestricted bus and
truck operation is that these do not
pay a share of highway costs compar-
able TO the BENEFITS which accrue to
them from improved roads, and that
this. coupled with the fact that they
do not have to comply with the rigid
regulations imposed on rail carriers,
allows them to operate at rates which
the latter cannot possibly meet.
Rate Cutting Charged.
Further, they assert thai these high
way carriers resort to rate cutting to
get business, which In the end Is ac-
tually destructive, but that as fast as
one Of these carriers drops OF, another
arises to take its place.
This opposition has expressed itself
Recommendations
from rental charge" for highway use,
and application of regulations to con-
form TO those under which the rail-
roads operate, including rate fixing, to
the nat assertion that the highway
carriers should be put out of business
where they have entered into COMPETE
ton with the rail lines in sections where
there Is not Living wage" for both.
The highway carriers have countered
with the assertion that this will increase
rates to the public; the opposition says
the public already is paying hidden
costs" in taxes and other leVies, for
which the motor operators benefit.
The highway carriers come back with
the declaration that they are paying
their full share Of the costs, and that,
in general, regulation Of their business
is impracticable, in that it would reach
q very small minority Of operators.
Trucking Field Cited.
Common carriers, operating over
specified routes, they say, would bear
the burden. This argument has been
particularly emphasized in the truck
ing Aeld in relation TO rates. There,
contact carriers, who have no fixed
routes. and privately-owned trucks,
handling the product Of the operator,
constitute almost all of this class, and
that these could not be reached.
But the railroads themselves are not
at agreement on this program of re-
strietive regulation.
Some Of the lines have gone into the
bus field, either as supplementary serv-
ice, or as q substitute for non profitable
lines. and are satisfied with the way the
scheme is working out.
In the question of handling freight
A. L. r..
quarters, and this includes some 4na-
portant systems where some truck
ing is coming into vogue, q joint rail-
motor plan is favored, with the rail-
roads transporting loaded truck bodies
or containers to principal rail heads,
where they would be picked up by
trucks for way station and store door
delivery. This truck service also is
available for freight pick-ups. Pro-
ponentS Of this plan believe they have
a solution for their problem at hand,
and say it is cheaper either than all
rail OF all-truck hauls.
Other Roads Object.
Again, other railroads say their geo.
graphical location is a barrier to such
operation on a profitable basis.
Then the railroad brotherhoods enter
the picture and ask how they fit in with
the railroads going into the motor field.
A War Department spokesman, advo-
eating coordination, has warned that
the railroads, as the backbone of ma
tional defense, should not be destroyed
A great many of the operations COM
planned of do not have interstate ma
ture, but here the compliments have
asserted that the State regulatory bodies
have fallen down, and that It Is neces.
sary in the interest Of the tranSporta.
FfPffIVG q a
eminent step in. Highway operators
respond that the States have Fegula.
tons, in so far as they may be pFae-
tically invoked.
There is no doubt but that the rec
concentrations Of the interstate Com
merce Commission 70 Congress will be
awaited with as much. II not more, In
terest than has ever attached TO q
transportation report.