Evening star., 1937-12-26
Transit Diagnosis by Congress
May Provide Cure for Ills
Promised Inquiry May Cover the Possibilities Of
Public Ownership and Subways With Other
Angles of Local Problem


and increased wages, and greater perma-
nency of employment.
"6-Full publicity of costs and values.
"a change of purpose from private
to public service, from management in the
interest of few people to management in
the interest of the whole people"
The Commissioners, who at that time
constituted the Public Utilities Commits
sion, approved the public ownership bill
in principle. The attitude Of the Com
missioners was reflected in an excerpt from
their report on the bill which read:
The management Of q street railway
privately owned and operated is chiefly
concerned in collecting as many fares and
at as low cost to the company as possible,
and this for the obvious purpose Of max
ing the largest dividend returns for its
stockholders-that is, private profit.
THE passengers are chiefly concerned
in securing the largest number Of rides
and best service for the least amount Of
money-that is, the most efficient public
service. If this public service is performed
by public authorities they can have no
other motive than to do these things that
the travelling public demands. They have
but to maintain a proper relation between
efficient service and the cost thereof"
Cry Raised in Cycles.
Nothing ever happened to the public
ownership bill, but since its death there
lation be revived. These demands, as q
rule came in cycles with each new fare
raise, or failure on the part Of the two
former street car companies to provide
the service the riders expected.
The merger negotiations in 1892 and
1888, however, put temporary quietus on
public ownership talk. In merger of the
car lines the public was led to believe q
panacea would be found for all of the
Districts transportation ills. What more
could the public desire than lower fares.
improved service and universal transfers?
But four years of merger have not DEM
onstrated that these objectives have been
achieved. Again public ownership is sug-
gested.
There is question whether public own
ership of transit lines in other cities has
been q success. A. H. Markwart, writing
in Government and Business. a publica-
ton Issued by the Edison Electric Insti-
tute. says:
Municipal ownership of street car lines
has not taken on serious proportions, less
than per cent of our 1,500-odd cities of
5000 population and over having embarked
on such enterprise. Despite the reduction
in gross revenue, as result Of the intro
duction of individually owned power-driven
vehicles, most Of the mileage Of street
railways is still in private hands. Since
1918 the city of Seattle has been carrying
white elephant in the shape of 'mu-
nicipal railway which is a serious tax bur-
den to the city, despite 10-cent fare.
San Francisco's Scent Fare.
"The San Francisco situation is unique
in that it is one OF the few systems still
operating on a Scent fare and in compe-
tition with privately owned lines. Should
the city take over the private company, 1t
is to be expected that the fare will be
raised. At the present time the private
company is not receiving = fair return on
the value Of It's properties after paying its
taxes, nor is the city, though free from
taxes, properly taking care Of its deprecia-
ton reserves, Notwithstanding the fact that
in many particulars San Francisco Is an
ideal street car city"
For three years, according to the Edi-
son Electric Institute, the Seattle munic-
ipal railway was not able to meet its pay
rolls regularly. In January, 1882, employees
threatened to strike because their pay was
not forthcoming. It operated at a loss
Of $586,198 in 1881, or at the rate of ST.
400 day. In 1882 the loss amounted to
1925, 1862, or $2.250 a day. The 1884 in
stallment of $S34,000 due on the purchase
price has been extended 10 years. This
was the fifth extension granted.
Detroit also has q municipality owned
railway system. 1t acquired the lines in
1921 and lost nearly $25,o0000o on the
venture in the first Is years. Those who
sponsored the municipal system promised
lower fares, but instead Detroit Is paying
higher fares.
In New York City the transit system
is subsidized by the municipality, and .
scent fare prevails. Taxpayers annually
make up the losses. For many years the
transit problem in New York represented
both political football and, at the same
time, political plum
Proponents Of the public ownership plan
believe that under public ownership and
operation it will be possible to reduce
fares and provide a superior service to
that now offered by the company.
But why did the commission authorize
the latest fare raise? Since the merger
the company has seen its business increase
by leaps and bounds. At least $4,000, 900
more persons rode It's cars and buses last
year than in 1894, when the merger was
consummated. What was the reason for
its financial dilemma?
Answer Found In Records.
The oficial financial records of both the
company and the commission contain the
answer in cold figures. Labor costs alone
provide = good index
The records show the company's pay roll
is now $l,225,ooo year larger than it
was at the time Of the merger. Taxes also
have cut deeper every year into the COM
panys revenue. One Of the major items,
social security taxes, unknown in 1884,
added materially to the increase.
There also are many other items cost
ing the company considerably more titan
| in 1894. These include buses cars tracks