Minutes 07/20/1954 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~56 TUESDAY JULY 20, 1954 Quoting further from Mr. Simpson: nCompared va th the war peak of 1944-45, transit has lost 30 per ce nt of its passengers, despite a population increase of almost one-fourth in cities of over 25,000 population. Transit riding habit is dovm 43 per cent and passenger car registrations divided by population, is up the same amount. fI In discussing what to do about the problem, I quote Dlrther from the report: "A more radical remedy may be indicated--one which :Ls:;holly novel in the utility field--simply complete freedom from the conventional form of utility regulation, local or ot~ervvise, combined 1vith a cooperative approach by municipal officials to problems of mutual concern." IIA half century ago when the electric street car ViaE: in its hey-day, regulation of the f1traction barons II vras a prime necessity. But Henry Ford changed all that. Today there are 45,000,000 competitors to the 85,000 transit vehicles, a ratio of better than 500 to 1. It is idle to suggest that bus s~stems should be regu- lated as monopolies when such a highly competitive situation exists."* It would seem to me then that two courses of action present themselves. Either grant no franchise or grant a franchise with a minimum of regulation while retaining ultilnate control. Considering first the granting of no franchise, it does not seem likely that any pers ODS would readily inves t in one or more busses at $5,000.00 or more each to go in competitio~1 with a going concern giving satisfactory service when a minimum of investigation will reveal t~1at there is not enough business for both. Should this beC0171e a problem, however, the Council always has the right to restrict the operation of public carriers on tile public streets by the issuance of certificates of convenience and necessity, just as it did a few years ago with taxi cabs. With respect to health certificates for drivers, liability insurance on the buses, etc., Council has authority to regulate these matters by ordinance "ivi th or without a franchise. Likew:Lse, Council can levy taxes for the privilege of doing business and using the City streets without the necessi~ of a frai~hise. If, however, Council feels that a more substantial investment of capital in a bus company can be attracted by the granting of a franchise and that when the pros and cons are considered, the public interest would best be served by the granting of an exclusive franchise, then it is s1J.gcested the Company be allowed and encouraged to operate the business on the principal of lithe better the service, within the law of economics, the better the return on the investment. II The Company should not be faced with constant goverru"0.ont interference and dictation, nor should it be dependent on the government to work out its problems for it vdth the implied expectation that if a solution is not readily forth- coming that government subsidies will be the solution. The public should look to the bus company and not the City Council to meet their transportation needs within the laws of sound economics. It is recognized, of course, that if the Council sees fit to grant an exclusive franchise it has no alternative in return but to require tha.t the public conven- ience and necessity be served to the optimum, connnensurate "lith a fair return on the investmerrlJ of the business. I believe, however, this can be done va thout day to day supervision, interference, aid or regulation of the bus company by the City. * Underscoring supplied.