Evening star., 1947-08-15
Arnold Line 10 Reply
To Protests Of Boost
In Arlington Fares

virginia & Maryland COacn 20.
(Arnold Line) said today the firm
will answer protests of proposed
fare increase which were filed with
the Interstate Commerce Commits
sion yesterday by three Arlington
groups. The bus firm has 10 days
in which to file answers.
The protests filed yesterday by the
Arlington Public Utilities Commits
sion, the Arlington Bus Riders AS
sociation and the Public Utilities
Committee of the Arlington Civic
Federation were in the form of ex-
ceptions to an ICC examiners report
recommending that fare increases
be granted in the Arnold Lines first
and fourth zones.
The new fares would be Is and rs
gents instead of lao andS2o cents as
Fatspfssent. In adeitiose the sale of
tokens at two fors25 ceuts would be.
EdhTfHlted for uMsodiy An the frst
or 10-cent zone. 'lss Ss@& :Tys q
PUG Cites Objections.
I'm 50-page mimeographed "ex-
ceptions to examiners report and
recommended ORDER" the Public
Utilities Commission set forth the
following:
l. The examiner failed to give
due consideration to the testimony
of record"
2. The examiner, having found
that the Arnold Lines practices with
respect to intraownership transac-
tions. payments to officers and main
tenance expense were not essential
to the economical and efficient man
agement of the bus firm = = should
have required the w., v. & NJ
forthwith to eliminate such objec-
tionable practices and, by reason of
their highly Objectionable nature,
should have found that such prac-
tices precluded respondent from OBJ
tanning any rate increase whatever.
3. The examiner erred in conclud-
ing that the adequacy of the service
rendered by the respondent has no
relationship to sthe revenues re-
ceiyed -" ."
4. Having concluded the relation
between revenue and expenses could
not be ascertained from the record
as made the examiner should
have found that, on the basis of
the record as made, there is no
means available by which a maxi
mum reasonable fare may be de-
termined."
Cites Increased Expenses.
5. The examiner should have
found that the deficits claimed by
the Arnold Line arose by reason Of
increased expenses incident to the
recent merger of the Arlington &
Fairfax Motor Transportation Co.
and by recognized seasonable in
creases in operation expenses; that
the expenses incident to such mer.
ger would not be reoccurring, and
that the company was premature
in requesting a rate increase prior
to the time it had accorded itself
an opportunity to determine whether
the merged operations would be
profitable"
s. The examiners proposals would
afford the company IAN excessive
net income return"
7. The examiner, in proposing a
rate increase, erred in failing toI
establish a rate base from which
a determination as to the reason
ableness of the increase proposed
might be made.
8. The examiner errer in not con-
cluding that the firms inability to
meet current liabilities was self
imposed"
8. The examiner enormously con-
cluded that the average fare per
mile in the first zone was lower than
the average fare per mile in the
other zones operated by the line.
10. The examiner has acted ar
bitrarily, and in disregard of the
evidence, in finding rate increase
justified, in any of the zones in
volved, and especially in finding a
rate increase justified in the 10-cent
zone
Three Exceptions Filed.
The Arlington Civic Federation
filed three exceptions. The first
said the examiner failed to comply
with the requirement of the Inter-
state Commerce Act that consid-
Grafton be given to the effect of the
increased fares upon the movement
of traffic" Evidence of record. the
exception stated, shows that the in
creased fares will encourage travel
by private automobiles, including
club cars thereby reducing traf-
fic and revenues of the Arnold Line
The second was to the finding of
the examiner that the bus firms
present aggregate operating rev.
enues are less than its reasonable
expenses.