Higher Fares Alone Are Not the Answer

THE COMMUTER PROBLEM

TO railroaders, the U.S. commuter is a deadhead who does not pay his way. Even worse, he is now one out of every two passengers--and last year U.S. passenger traffic went $700 million in the hole. Railroaders have howled for years about commuter losses. But now, they insist, the losses have brought on a rail crisis. Last month the New Haven Railroad announced that it had a $15 million passenger deficit in 1956, asked for outright commuter subsidies from the states. Last week the New York Central, moaning that it is losing nearly $30 million a year on commuters, sued the New York State Public Service Commission to force it to grant fare boosts. The Boston & Maine, claiming a $13.6 million passenger deficit last year, told Massachusetts authorities that it will soon go broke if it cannot cut commuter service to save a minimum of $3,000,000 a year. And in the face of the "grave situation" confronting the entire industry, nine top U.S. trainmen went to the White House to beg for help to get a complete overhaul in rail regulations and rates.

To support their commuter complaints, railroaders cite impressive statistics. The Southern Pacific says it spends 57-c- for every 48-c- of revenue from its 14,200 San Francisco commuters. The Illinois Central has netted a profit on its $42 million Chicago commuter facilities only twice since 1947. The I.C. says it needs a 55% fare boost just to get a 2.1% return. Its estimated $955,000 loss on the service this year will still be the lowest of any Chicago commuter line; Rock Island alone will drop $1,500,000. In Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania rings up a yearly $4,000,000 commuter deficit, which a requested 15% fare boost would slash by only $700,000.

Such dire reports are regarded skeptically by rail users. Though no longer robber-barons, the railroaders often take a public-be-damned attitude in trying to cut passenger traffic. The New York Public Service Commission reported last week that the New York Central had deliberately left trains out of a timetable, presumably to discourage patronage. And though passenger traffic losses are accurately recorded under the bookkeeping system approved by the ICC, many experts quarrel with the system. They argue that losses are actually far less, simply because the passenger business, only 7% of overall rail business, carries too big a share of overall costs.

Railmen argue that passengers must carry more of the load because of the railroads' sharply falling freight business. Passenger losses ate up 52% of the Pennsylvania's freight profit in the first eight months of 1957, and 61% of the New York Central's. Says an official of Illinois Central, whose overall net is down from last year's $23.8 million to $16.5 million: "We've just got to sew up some of the holes in our pockets."

Taxes are one big item in making commuter traffic a losing proposition. Airlines, trucks and buses serving Manhattan use modern, publicly built terminals and highways. But the New York Central and New Haven shelled out an $11.5 million city tax bill in 1956 on Grand Central Terminal and its 5.4-mile approach, a $2,000,000 increase since 1952. Furthermore, railroads must maintain cut-rate "incentive" commuter fares in hours of peak demand. A New Haven commutation ticket between New York and Greenwich, Conn, cuts the round-trip fare to $1.06 (v. straight-ticket cost of $2.20). Park Forest to Chicago round-trip commuters pay only 88-c- (v. $2.04).

Even where other facilities such as buses exist, the roads must keep unprofitable lines running, though suburban travel is now compressed to rush periods twice a day. Nearly 90% of the Pennsylvania's suburban trains stand idle in off-peak hours, and the New York Central uses its $60 million commuter facilities at full capacity only 13% of the time.

Is train commuting worth saving? To thoughtful railroaders and passengers alike, it certainly is, because in the growing tangle of U.S. urbanization, railroads are the most efficient method for moving commuters. But bigger fare increases alone are no real solution; they cause more commuters to use their own cars. Into Manhattan every day last year, some 18,000 more New Jersey commuters came by car than by rail. To move the bumper-to-bumper traffic, New York and other big cities are spending billions on highways and off-street parking sites--thus encouraging even more car commuters.

In the face of such competition, railroaders think that a new overall approach, including lower taxes and higher fares, and possibly involving subsidies from commuting communities to help make up losses, is needed to keep commuter trains on the tracks. The railroaders argue that if some method is not found to have the public pay the bill, the alternatives will be steadily poorer commuting service or none at all.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.