Evening star., 1954-09-04
Reasons for Transit Veto

Following is the tert of Pres
ident Eisenhotper's nlemordn-
dunn in connection tDith the
Ueto of the Metropolitan Area
transit bill:
I have withheld my approval
from H. r. 2236, entitled "An
Act to Provide for Commission
to Regulate the Public Trans
portation of Passengers by Mo-
tor Vehicle and Street Railroad
Within the Metropolitan Area OF
Washington, District of Colum-
bia. and for the Establishment
of a Metropolitan Commission"
Title I of this enactment
would establish a Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Com
mission to regulate public trans
portation by bus, streetcar and
taxicab in the District of Colum-
bia and the counties Of Mont
gomery and Prince Georges in
the State of Maryland. The bill
would grant to the proposed
new commission, in strengthened
form, most of the powers now
separately exercised in this re-
gard by the Interstate Commerce
Commission and the public utili-
ties commissions Of the State OF
Maryland and the District OF
Columbia.
Title II Of the bill would create
O temporary Metropolitan Wash
ington commission to study, in
vestigate and make recommended
tions with regard to certain as
poets of the Washington Metro
politan Area transportation
problem.
Integral Community.
The regulation of public trans
portation in the greater Wash
ington area must contend with
the growth of an integral eco
nomic community, spreading far
beyond the boundaries of the
District of Columbia to include
Montgomery and Prince Georges
Counties in Maryland and Ar
lington and Fairfax Counties and
the cities of Alexandria and Falls
Church in. Virginia. Within this
community, the daily travel OF
persons back and forth across
State lines has reached dimen-
sions with which present facili-
ties cannot cope.
Under these circumstances, it
is understandable that the pres
ent division of responsibility for
regulation among four different
agencies no longer meets the
needs of the area. This division
of responsibility has contributed.
as it could not help but do. to
the development of an made
quate system of public transpor-
tation. The situation plainly re-
uuires the unification of regula-
tory authorities over public
transportation throughout the
Metropolitan Area.
The present enactment. how
ever, falls substantially short OF
this objective. It's failure to in
clude the Virginia segment OF
the Metropolitan Area within
the Jurisdiction of the proposed
commission Is fundamental de-
ficiency. Through this omission
of an integral and important
part of the greater economic
community, a system of frag-
mented and divided regulatory
authority is continued.
Different Treatment.
What is worse, the Federal
Government is placed in the
position of treating the carriers
and persons within one segment
of the area on a different and
discriminatory basis from those
In the remainder of the area. In
the absence of any substantial
grounds for this differentiation,
the measure is unacceptable even
as q temporary expedient.
This bill is also unsatisfactory
because it extends, without suf-
fiicient safeguards. the authority
of the Federal Government to
matters that have, hitherto. been
considered as primarily the con-
Germ Of the District of Columbia
and Of the States. The problem
is difficult because the urgency
of need and the extent of Federal
interest in the Nations Capital
both argue for unifiication of
regulatory authorities under
Federal auspices. at least for the
time being.
However, in any such arrange
ment, means must be found to
give adequate recognition to the
rights and responsibilities Of the
District and of the States in
- ~,