Evening star., 1952-06-19
Area Basis Is Urged
For Better HANDLING
|0f Transit Problems

of the transit problem here on an
area basis rather than through
separate Jurisdictions as at pres
ent is made by the Lands report.
A partial text of the report on
this phase follows:
Some suggestions have been
made to transfer the jurisdiction
of the Public Utilities Commission
to the Interstate Commerce Com
mission. These have stemmed in
the main from dissatisfaction with
the work of the Public Utilities
Commission and from the belief
that the Interstate Commerce
Commission is more expert in
transit matters and less subject
to the local influence Of the Capt.
tai Transit Co. These proposals
are essentially wrong. The Inter-
state Commerce Commission has
no special expertness in local
transit problems as distinguished
from railroading. 1t is an Or
ganization whose prime concern
is national rather than local.
The specific local problems of
the Capital Transit Co. could not
possibly receive continuing atten-
ton from a division of that COM
mission and would in all prob
ability be handled at lower eche-
Ions with only formal attention
by the commission. Experience
has demonstrated generally that
the local handling of transit prob
lens by local authorities, duly en-
powered and reasonably compe-
tent. is far superior to their ham
ding by some distant and only
casually informed bureaucracy.
The loyalties of the Interstate
Commerce Commission are to the
Nation as such and not to the City
Of Washington.
Division of Jurisdiction.
Recently, pursuant to the stat
ute and at the suggestion of civic
associations within the District,
the Public Utilities Commission
for rate-making purposes has seq
regated operations within the
District and in Maryland. The
appropriate rate of return is theo-
retically provided only on the
company's property within the
District in that rates are pre-
scribed only for the District. Ac-
tually the rate of return earned
by the company on it's Maryland
operations falls far short of that
earned on it's District operations.
Residents of the District. believ-
ing their interests are primarily
in the District. believe that this
is the right approach in that they
should not be burdened with the
cost of the Maryland operations
since they have no control over
these costs, particularly taxes i'm
posed by Maryland, or over the
revenues desirable from the Mary
land operations.
This approach is fallacious. Ad-
mittedly, operations in Maryland,
due to the fact that they are in
suburban areas more sparSely
populated. are more costly per rev.
enue mile than those in the Dis
trict. But the Metropolitan Area
is an entity economically and
transit wise. It's expansion into
Maryland rebounds to the benefit
of the District and the cost OF
that expansion transit-wise should
be borne by the Metropolitan Area
as a whole.
Leads to Unfortunate Results.
The existing situation. indeed
leads to unfortunate results. Since
the Maryland commission can
only look to Maryland revenues
to support Maryland operations. il
hesitates to thrust losses on the
Capital Transit Co. which by law
cannot be compensated for by
revenues derived from the Dis
trict operations. This leads to
reader acquescence by that COM
mission in the abandonment OF
curtailment of Maryland opera
tions and less rigorous require
ments for the extension and ex-
pansion of Maryland operations
Complaints of Maryland patrons
are generally more voluble and
relatively more numerous than
those of residents of the District,
and they tend to have more con-
tent. but under the existing legal
situation both commissioners are
substantially forced to this posi-
ton which works an undue hard
ship on the Maryland operations.
Again, the Maryland commits
sion having a far more extensive
jurisdiction than the Public Util-
tiles Commission is less close to
and less intimate with the affairs
of the Capital Transit Co. than
the Public Utilities Commission.
Complaints of patrons are con-
sequently less readily handled as
access to the regulatory authori-
ties is made more remote.
There is furthermore a natural
divergence in the standards with
regard to service applied by the
two Commissions. together with a
considerable variation in the form
of the fare structure. All of this
tends against that degree of inte-
grafton that should characterize
the Capital Transit Co. as a sys-
tenn.
Integration of Operations.
It is obviously desirable for
regulatory purposes to bring about
an integration of the Maryland
and District operations. Not only