Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

why cannot the street railway raise its fare and all the people still ride? The placing of two coins in the fare box, even if one is only a penny, seems much larger than placing the nickel alone, and the purchase of metal tickets, or other emblems, is not satisfactory because it cannot be spent in other ways. We believe that if the Government could coin a six-cent piece and a seven-cent piece that it would go a long way to destroy the phychological effect of the increase in street car fare.

The relief from all franchise obligations is imperative, and under public ownership and management there can be no just reason advanced why any portion of the nickel fare should be taken to pay other than legitimate railway expenses; in fact, if the City is deemed to owe a duty in the way of transportation, and everyone admits that transportation is a vital element in urban life, then the street car patrons should be placed on an equality with patrons of other conveyances.

The City, by its local improvement district, builds and paves streets free of charge to the automobile and maintains the street from its general fund. Our position is that the street car rider and the motor car rider should be placed on an exact equality. The jitney rider must pay fares such that out of it can come wages for the driver, cost and maintenance of car and motive power. The roadway or track for the motor car, either privately-owned or operated as a jitney, is originally built and maintained at no cost to the owner or patron of the motorcar or the jitney. The car riders' nickel or fare has to pay the cost of the street car and its maintenance, the motive power and operating expenses of the street car, and must also build and maintain not only its own track, but, to a large extent, the track of its competitors in the field of transportation.

com

We doubt if any one can say at this time just what position the street railways will hold in the field of urban transportation in the future, but at least no one who is unselfishly interested in the subject of urban transportation should be SO mitted to any particular type or system of transportation that he would want it to continue if it might be supplanted by a better one. If the motor car can render service equal to the electric railway car at a less cost, the sooner Seattle or any other city is convinced of that fact, and acts upon it, the better. But before any city can intelligently choose between rival systems of transportation, it must first place them on an equal competitive basis, removing handicaps and equalizing burdens.

From what knowledge we now have there is no indication that the motor car can fill the place now occupied by the street railways. They can perhaps take the cream of the business away from the street railways and make their operation unprofitable. Where the railway systems are privately owned, the motor car

might drive them into bankruptcy. Under city operation, unregulated jitney competition, while it cannot bankrupt the city, can make its street railways unprofitable and result in placing a burden upon the tax payers that they would not have if the street car and the jitney were placed on an equal basis.

Municipal Ownership an Accomplished Fact-No Longer a Theory

It is sometimes said that in purchasing the railway properties from the Puget Sound Traction, Light and Power Company, Seattle began the greatest experiment in municipal ownership that has ever been made in this country. That impression is somewhat misleading. Municipal ownership of the street railways in this city is not an experiment-it is not a moot question concerning which our citizens are to decide favorably-or unfavorably—it is an accomplished fact. In this city at least we have burned all our bridges. True friends of our municipal enterprise should welcome nothing but the truth concerning it. We are not in the propaganda state, wherein partisans on both sides are tempted to distort facts and misrepresent and color statements to prove their preconceived notions.

Seattle is in a peculiarly favored position in which to determine the relative merits of the electric street railways as compared with any and every system of transportation, and if it places them all upon an equal footing, can demonstrate real truths in connection with the present uncertain transportation problem in the larger cities.

NOTE: Seattle has been spoken of as having the largest publicly-owned street railway system in the world. This is only true in regard to mileage of tracks. The City of Seattle is now operating approximately 230 equivalent single track miles of street railway. The City of Glasgow, Scotland, operates less than 200 equivalent single track miles of street railway, while the City of San Francisco operates approximately 60 equivalent single track miles of street railway. The City of Glasgow, however, serves a population three times as large as Seattle and carried annually four times the number of passengers that the street railways of Seattle carry, while the City of San Francisco, with approximately one quarter the mileage carried one-half as many passengers.

PLAN FOR PEOPLE'S OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF CHICAGO STREET RAILWAY SYSTEM

Address by Frank B. Ayers, representing Hon. William Hale Thompson, Mayor of Chicago

MR. AYRES: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I feel highly honored that I am going to have the attention for a few minutes of this splendid audience made up of representatives of the best people from all over the United States and Canda, and I also feel I am honored, that in the unavoidable absence of the mayor, I have the honor to represent a man who was condemned because he stood for America first. (Applause.) I represent a real mayor, not the theoretical mayor that you think you know because of the exparte evidence that you receive through the subsidized press. I represent the mayor who stood for free speech. (Applause.) I represent the mayor who said the constitutional rights of the people will be observed in Chicago if nowhere else in the United States. I represent the mayor that is known in Chicago and not the mayor as he is known where only the subsidized press has been taken for the statements that it has made. The subsidized press that has been referred to here this evening, that represents the interests that have been so bitterly complained of before this body this evening, is the same press that has attempted to humiliate and to scare, if you please, the mayor of Chicago and prevent him from performing his duty as the chief executive of this city of three million people. There has not been a minute since he has been the mayor of this city that he has not observed and enforced the law, and has given the people their rights, and therefore I think that I am honored two ways, first in being asked to address this body, and second in representing the mayor of Chicago.

As your chairman has said, the mayor is in favor of municipal ownership of the street railways. You would think that everybody would be in favor of the municipality owning its own transportation system, yet the people that own 75 per cent of the wealth of the city are against it; but those people represent only about 3 per cent. of the three million population of Chicago. Yet their representatives on some of the newspapers of Chicago think for a time at least they can fool the people, and so long as they are able to fool the people they can bring to their support a greater per cent. of the population. But, thank heavens, that per cent. is growing smaller every day.

Why The People Should Own The Street Car Lines.

There are three things that are essential in a transportation system like our street railways here in Chicago: first, you must have streets; second, you must have a railroad track; third, you must have cars. The streets are owned by the people. Sometimes the tracks and cars are owned by private interests. The people own the greatest value that is in the street car enterprise the public is a partner in the street car business, and I want to say if the public can be a partner in the street car business it can own the entire enterprise. The people could not divorce themselves from the ownership of the streets if they wanted to. It is truc that they give the use of the streets to private interests. It is true that they could give the management of the street cars to private interests, but as long as private interests control your street railways just that long you have no real interest. The interest of the public and the interests of the private individuals who own and operate your public utilities, such as street cars, are antagonistic to each other.

Now the street cars must be run by the servants of somebody. The wealth of the city seems to be a unit in claiming that the servants should be the servants of private interests. The mayor of Chicago insists that the servants who operate the street railways should be the servants of the people. The great question seems to be how can the people get control of the street railways. If you will stop to think over that problem for a moment you cannot help but arrive at this conclusion-that the money to build the street railways and to operate them and to pay large salaries and to pay dividends, not only on real estate and stock and watered stock, all comes from the same source; it comes from the pockets of the people, and it is only a question as to the best manner of taking the money out of the pockets of the people and building the street railways, and if private interests are permitted to do that it takes more money from the pockets of the people than if the public does it.

Companies Keep Their Contracts When It Pays.

Now in 1907 the street car companies of this city wanted a franchise. They offered to give to the people of Chicago a five cent fare, universal transfers, the best railway system and the best service for 20 years for a franchise. The people took them at their word and voted to give them a franchise in the streets of the City of Chicago for that length of time under such a contract. There was what we call a contract ordinance passed by the city council and submitted to the vote of the people and adopted by a referendum vote and accepted by the street railway companies. Now as long as the street railway companies were making

a lot of money there were no objections from the street car companies in carrying out their contract, but because they could not count their millions by the month during the war and since the war they went before the Public Utilities Commission of Illinois and asked that they be relieved of their part of the contract while the city be held to its part of the contract; and the mayor of Chicago has insisted that the contract is just as binding on the part of the company as it is on the part of the city.

The Public Utilities Commission of the State of Illinois is not selected by the people; it is selected by one man. It is only one step removed from the people. The people could not remove any member of the Public Utilities Commission. The personnel of that commission is not under obligations to the people they are supposed to represent. They are not answerable to anybody except one man, the appointing power. The three million people of Chicago have nothing to say about it. The Public Utilities Commission gives their decision and the City of Chicago must pay the price. The constitution that says that contracts shall be held inviolable has been declared a scrap of paper so far as the wealthly is concerned, but is binding as far as the common public is concerned, and that is the condition we find ourselves in today.

Mayor Thompson's Plan For Public Ownership.

The mayor of this city has advocated a plan and presented it to the city council, and it is a simple plan. The following are the main features:

I. A new local government to be known as "The Transportation District of Chicago." It may be argued that we have too many local governing agencies now. That is true and consolidations should be effected. But this is one agency that should be separate and distinct from all others, bear no relation to political coliditions which surround others, and be so organized and constituted as to be directly responsible to the people who compromise it. This proposed government should have the power to levy taxes and issue bonds in order to raise a sufficient revenue to purchase or build and equip street railway properties sufficiently extensive to serve the City of Chicago, and its environs in the most modern and efficient manner.

II. A governing board of trustees elected by the people. The governing body of this proposed "Transportation District" should be a board of five trustees elected by the people. These trustees should be elected at the out set one for one year, one for two years, one for three years, one for four years, and one for five years, and thereafter one each year for a five-year term. The election each year for trustees to take place at the time of the aldermanic elections, thereby involving no extra expense. By this system

« ForrigeFortsett »