Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1948-02-08

Transit Co. Contends
Capital Should Begin
Commercial Spread
By WiIIium A. MiIIen

Iment agencies as the limits of the
urban unit called Greater Wash
ington. ..."
While there are various political
ubdivisions-towns, cities, counties
and States, as well as voting dis
tricts-all within the Washington
Metropolitan Area. the demands OF
commerce and industry vault these
artificial lines. They dictate the
true economic circle the public de-
mands as the result of a fast-grow-
ing community, one of the fastest in
all America.
The Greater Washington orbit Is
accumulated now by case pending
before the Interstate Commerce
Commission. The Capital Transit
Co. wants the commission to wider
the official Washington commercial
zone set up in 1887.
The commission established an
area embracing Garret Park, Ken
sington, Chillum, Riverdale, Seat
Pleasant and Hyattsville in Mary
land, and Arlington and Alexandria
in Virginia. The Capital Transit
Co. contends that Greater Washing
ton, boosted in the interim during
World War II, has far outstripped
those narrow confines.
Wants Away Expansion
The transit company wants the
ICC to extend the commercial zone
at least to embrace an area well
south of Alexandria, west of Falls
Church, and near Tyson's Corner In
Virginia, and to Carderock, north OF
Wheaton and -Four Corners, Branch
vile and Greenbelt, and below Suit
land in Maryland.
Attorney Daryl A. Myse for the
company asked that the commits
sion include Rockville, Carderock
and Beltsville to embrace an area
now served by the company.
The lawyer pointed out the COM
pany is asking for an area less
than that defined as Metropolitan
Washington, both by the Census
Bureau and the Chesapeake & Po-
tomac Telephone Co.
On the basis of commission de-
cision in the fall Of 1916, Mr.. Myse
argued it should extend the COM
mercial zone to a wider area. He
pointed out that Washington was
exempt from the 1916 ruling, be-
cause the commission specifically
had laid out the commercial zone
here.
One Company Opposed
None Of the Virginia transporta-
ton companies appeared in the 1CC
hearing.
The Anchorage Transportation
Co. is opposing the Capital Transit
Co. request before the ICC, however.
The Anchorage firm has a request
before the Public Utilities Commits
sion in Washington to compete with
the Capital Transit Co. within the
city. Anchorage operates the Wash
ington Suburban Co. and runs
buses in Montgomery County.
In the Interstate Commerce Com
missions book, there are number
of these commercial zones" as 1t
officially calls them, In the United
States. There are zones surround
ing St. Louis, New York, Chicago,
Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Bos-
ton.
In Washington, as well as other
major cities. the area embraced is
, adjacent to and commercially part
of the mother city. Under the Motor
Carrier Act, the ICC delineates the
urban unit.
Zoning Affects Licenses
Within the commercial zone, an
ICC license is not required, as 1t Is,
ordinarily, in interstate commerce.
If transportation begins and ends
within the zone, 1t is exempt from
great many 1CC regulations. No
certificate of public convenience or
necessity is required. Rates or fares
are not subject to regulation. But
the carriers are subjected to safety
regulations of the ICC and to labor
regulations that affect hours of en-
ployment. Weighing of goods car
ried is also dispensed with within
the commercial zone.
Certain trucking firms that hold
ICC licenses are fighting the transit
company request for expansion. But
others are supporting the move. At
least one of the Washington de-
partment stores, Hechts, through an
official at the hearing, pointed to
the widespread deliveries it is
making. Some furniture movers
want the area extended by the ICC
also, claiming this will make for less
burden on the public.
Some Washington department
stores have established branches in
, Nations Grid