Evening star., 1947-11-14
Transit Rider Seeks Answers

To the Editor Of The Star:
In the Transit News" of November "a
remarkable house organ) the company bemoans
the fact that recent 15-cents-per-h wage
raises amounting to $2,650,000 annually total
more than 10 times the $246,000 net income OF
the company for the first nine months of 1947!
And almost 80 times the estimated net income
of the next IL months" And continuing, this
read-as- -you-ride-if if-you-can publication states:
1.-THE award completely wipes out the net in
come and puts the company deeper in the red
than 1t was in May, 1947. :"
So, what happens? Poor Joe Rider deducts
900 from $246o00 and sees visions Of Mr..
Merrill and his potential fellow bankrupts at
the door of the money lender pawning the old
family streetcars for enough to meet the next
days power bill or payroll. Poor Joe doesn't
realize that Capital Transit Company has
thrown him a verbal hook to the intellect The
difference between met income" and met
profit" should be brought to light, and Joe
should be allowed to go back to wondering where
the money for the babys milk is coming from.
Isn't met income" percentage return on the
total investment of Capital Transit Company
after everything is paid, including the stock
QOlQeTS! 1Sll IleG pIOlG lllc 0LlclciCC bo-
tween all costs and all income during given
fiscal period? I believe so but am open to
correction.
And where Is the PUG statement in clear,
concise terms? Has the PUG passed on to the
public statement from Capital Transit Com
pany on its equipment -amortization-cost plan?
Is Capital Transit Company buying a great
many new streamlined streetcars and buses and
charging them to current expenses, while oper-
ating 40-year- -old vehicles that have long since
outlived their amortization cost, and yet still
charging this double-cost to operating expenses?
Is the underground rail system so prohtbitive
that 1t requires such additional fare? If bus
service is so much better than streetcar serv-
ice as claimed by the company, Is the
abandonment of streetcar lines written off the
books so as not to be figured in met income"
on capital investment? Does the transit COM
pany include in its proft-and-loss statement
such considerations of income as leased con-
cessions at its terminal points? Demurrage and
haulage charges on its freight tracks df any?
Income from car-card advertising? Income df
any from operating of, or interest in said
operation of, Glen Echo? Each of these things
Is possible only because of public franchise.
Another thing: Capital Transit Company
steadily reduces service to it's nonproftable
points. Surely, there is a precedent in the his
tory OF public service transportation that in
dicates, If not stating definitely, that an over
all operating profit of Sufficient percentage re-
turn on all investment is fair and just, even
though certain lines may be Improbable
whereas other lines are quite profitable.
Capital Transit Company points out, self
righteously, that "The hourly wages Of top
rated streetcar and bus operators Is now $1.35
per hour. This is 719o increase, or Sc cents
per hour, since 1910. Even before the increase
Capital Transit employees enjoyed better work
ing conditions, extra allowances and hourly
wage rates as good or better than transit work
ers in most cities in the United States" Equiv
ocation! Why doesn't Capital Transit publish
statement of those cities transportation sit
uations in comparison-or contrast-with or to
Washington? Also, their profit and loss.
Frankly, if the transit company's case can
be honestly proved valid, We'll pay Is cents and
like 1t. JAMES w. YOUNG.
Philadelphia Movie Boycott
To the Editor of The Star:
am surprised that there has been no COM
ment on the recent ultimatum by Dennis Car
A1r~f~S