Evening star., 1960-03-12

| ClClOn between ~. y. transit
and charter and sightseeing
businesses here.
Problem Outlined
The P. U. C. report submitted
lin January concluded the main
problem is that D. C. Transit's
bigness gives it a competitive
advantage over other sightsee-
ing companies. but this "eco-
nomic strength does not in it
self constitute unfair compe-
ltition."
To divorce the physical
equipment of transit and
sightseeing operations would
be taking property without due
process and would violate the
contractural right guaranteed
ID. C. Transit in its franchise,
the P. U. c. report said.
P. U. c. officials had opposed
the bill when hearings were
held by a House subcommittee
last spring.
Representative Rogers, Dem
ocrat of Texas, who in 1856
helped formulate the D. C.
Transit franchise and is spon-
sor of the pending bill, told
Mr.. Harris the P. U. C. report
carries no words of reassur-
ance for the worried" sightsee-
ing operators.
These operators have charged
that D. c. Transit has been
taking losses on its charter
and sightseeing business to
drive out competition. The
losses, they say, are borne by
the mass transit operations.
They contend this is unfair to
them. particularly in view of
1.-THE tax and other benefits D. c.
Transit enjoys exclusively be-
cause of the mass transit op-
erations.
Losses Specified
The P. U. c. lists D. c. Tran
sits limousine, charter and
sightseeing losses for the IL
months ending August 81, 1859,
as $l33,965. But tax benefits
resulting from the loss reduces
the actual loss to about S55,-
400, according to the P. U. C.
D. c. Transit claims there
are no losses, that the sideline
ventures bring in revenue
where otherwise the company
would be paying for idle equip
ment and labor. The compet-
ing sightseeing operators say
P. U. C.'s accounting doesn't
reflect a great enough amount
Of loss which should be shown.
"One thing has become in
creasingly clear" said Mr..
Rogers in his letter, ID. C.
ITransit's competitors cannot
count on the P. U. C. to aid
in the solution of their prob
Ilems."
He also noted that he has
since last October sent the
P. U. c. queries regarding
ID. c. Transit's sideline ven-
lures but many of his ques-
tions, most of which concern
accounting procedures and fig-
ures, remain unanswered. Mr..
Rogers added:
Judging from the answers
I have received to date and
judging from the P. U. C. re-
port, one of the most arresting
facts now visible is that the
commissions policy, with re-
gard to regulation of D. c..
Transit, appears to be too lax"
GAO Help Suggested
Mr.. Rogers suggested that
the General Accounting Office
be asked to help make a study
of D. c. Transit operations and
the auditing methods and pro-
cedures of the P. U. C.
Mr.. Rogers said that the
P. U. c. has officially told him
that its staff has been tied up
for the past several months on
the latest D. C. Transit fare
increase request.
A P. U. c. spokesman said
yesterday that one of the
agency's principal problems was
the lack of manpower to regu-
late sightseeing and charter
operations. He noted that a
request for a $4,000 appropria-
ton to set up a transportation
bureau is now before Congress.
Representative Patman,
chairman of the House Small
Business Committee and a
strong backer of the bill, also
wrote to the committee chair
man that he was shocked at
the commissions report Gt)
shows callous disregard of the
problems confronting D. C.
Transit's competitors"
Mr.. Patman noted that a
P. U. c. proposal to eliminate
D. c. Transit's tax exemptions
on its charter and sightseeing
operations would cost the COM
pany $12,748 compared to its
total tax exemptions amount
ing to about 81 million annu-
ally.