Evening star., 1950-05-03
PUG Contends
Capital Transit
Firm Asked if 1t
Buses PIeu for Rise
In Fares on Judgment

Counsel for the Public Utilities
Commission today contended that
the Capital Transit Co. is going
on Judgment" not concrete facts,
in the current fare increase con-
troverSy.
Lloyd B. Harrison. commission
counsel. cross-eXamined J. E.
Heberle. transit company control
ler. on the sources Of the figures
he used in saying that the fare
by the PUC's top
accountants. V. A. McElfresh,
would produce inadequate returns
to the company.
Mr.. Harrison asked If Mr..
Heberle'S contentious were based
on Judgment rather than ex-
perience."
After a moment OF reflection.
Mr.. Heberle replied 1t was based
on Judgment developed by ex-
perience." The exchange took
place today as the PUG continued
its hearing on the transit COM
panys request for fare increases.
Mr., McElfreSh has recommend
ed these fares: Is cents cash.
tokens at four for so cents. and q
S225 weekly pass. The company
is asking for a l5-cent fare, tok-
ems at six for 80 cents and elim-
ination Of the pass now sold for
SITS.
Mr.. Heberle and Mr.. McEl-
fresh are about 81 million apart In
their estimates of what the return
to the company would be from
Mr.. McElfresh's proposed fares.
These points also stood out at
today's hearing in the District
Building:
l. The company believes the
fares are confiscatory.
2. Mr. Heberle said that Mr..
recommendation OF Q
trial period for the higher fares
he recommended was excellent III
the period of trial is left to the
control of the company" He
added: II don't think the com
pany should be asked to take
risks after being in the red for
so long"
In another passage. Mr.. Har-
rison turned TO Mr.. Heberle'S con-
tention that Mr.. McElfreSh had
made errors In his figures Of COM
pany expenses. Yesterday he had
said these errors amounted to
S620.2 He picked out what he
said were specific errors totalins
$349,423. Today he added $l49.-
876 to this figure. bringing the
total to $499 ,298. which he said
would decrease the company's re-
turn by 1872 per cent.
Mr.. McElfresh has estimated
the fares he recommended-would
give the company passenger reve-
niue of 26,150,220. He estimated
the net operating income at ST.
$40 .692. or a return at the rate
of 6.72 per cent on the value of
the property the company uses
in its District operations.
HeberIe's Estimates.
Mr.. Heberle's estimates OF the
results of Mr.. McElfreshs fare
recommendation were much low
er. He testified the passenger
revenue would be $25. .662, sos. He
put the net operating income at
1868. or a 3.16 per cent return.
The commission has held that q
712 per cent return would be
reasonable.
The two experts. 1t should bs
pointed out, used slightly different
periods for their estimates. Mr..
McElfresh's computations were for
the IL months ending May 81.
1851; Mr.. Heberle'S, for the IL
ending February %, 1851.
The two differ, but not so widely.
on the result OF the fares for
which the company is petitioning.
Maryland Phase Challenged.
Mr.. McElfresh has estimated
these fares would yield the COM
pany net of $2.448.758. or an
8.9 per cent return. Mr.. Heberla
has put the return at $l.95s.e79.
Or IL per cent.
Both computations are on the
basis of District operations alone.
But Mr.. Heberle, in rebuttal testi-
mony. challenged Mr.. McElfreshs
figures in allocating certain system
expenses to Maryland operations.
rather than to District operations.
and to dismissing certain other
expenses which Mr.. Heberle said
should have been counted by Mr..
McElfreSh in his estimates.