Board of Public Utility Commissioners

You Are Viewing an Archived Report from the New Jersey State Library Fourteenth Annual Report OF 'I'HE Board of Public Utility Commissioners FOR '!HE STA TE OF NEW JERSEY FOR THE YEAR 1923 You Are Viewing an Archived Report from the New Jersey State Library COMMISSIONERS HARRY V. OSBORNE. Prcsident1 HARRY BACHARACH,* JOSEPH F. AUTENRIETH, FREDERICK V./. GNICHTEL. *Commissioner Bacharach's term expired March 15th, 1923, and Commis sioner Gnichtel was appointed March 23d, 1923. You Are Viewing an Archived Report from the New Jersey State Library REPORT To the H onorablc George S. Sifoer) Go'Uern.or of the State of New Jersey: Sm-The law defining the powers and duties of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners provides that the Board shall re port annually, on or before the first day of January, to the Governor, "making such recommendations as it may deem proper." In the performance of this duty the Board respectfully sub'"' mits its report for the year 1923. In so doing the Board deems it proper to direct attention to what, in its opinion, are defects in the existing law and to suggest legislation for their correc tion. The year has been marked by a discontinuance of service for a period of two months by the Public Service Railway Com pany, to which the people of 146 municipalities of the State look for service in accordance with the franchise obligations of the company; and by a conflict between the company and a large number of operators of auto busses, both seeking public co-opera tion and support. The discontinuance of. service by the railway company, and the failure of the existing law to provide a method whereby the Public Utility Commission may deal promptly and effectively with a situation of this kind, will be referred to more in detail hereinafter. The public is vitally interested in the maintenance of an ef ficient method of transportation with reasonable rates charged for the service afforded. The conflict of interests between the railway company and the bus operators, therefore, cannot be re garded as competition between rivals in business, seeking the patronage of the public, without public concern as to whether one or the other shall be ultimately forced out of business. While the auto bus has become popular with many thousands. and is affording a useful service, it is evident that the fadlities (3) You Are Viewing an Archived Report from the New Jersey State Library 4 PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. afforded by street railway companies cannot be dispensed with without great public inconvenience. \i\Tith two methods of local transportation, and with neither sufficient alone to meet the public demand, it is important for both to be maintained with due regard to the need for transporta tion and with just treatment of each. This is not the case if without regard to the public convenience, or the question whether the street rail way facilities are adequate, the right to operate buses is denied merely because such operation may affect un favorably the street railway. On the other hand, it is not just to the street railways, nor ultimately in the public interest, to permit buses to operate and carry passengers for whom the rail way provides ample accommodations, and subject the railway company to duties and burdens of which the bus operators are relieved. A marked case of this is where the operation of buses has been permitted by local authorities on streets, large parts of which the street railway is under an obligation to pave and keep in re pair. The Board respectfully suggests the paving obligations have no logical relation to present day operation as conditions have entirely changed since they were first imposed. They must be considered in fixing the rate of fare; are an obstacle in the way of fare reductions. and it is respectfully suggested that con sideration be given to the enactment of legislation to modify them. There is a widespread impression that the Board of Public Utility Commissioners is vested with broad authority to regulate and control the operation of buses. This is erroneous. The Board has but a limited jurisdiction applying to buses the routes of which parallel on the same streets the lines of street railways. Those operating on such routes under licenses granted prior to March I 5th, I 92 I or under renewals to them of licenses for the same routes are expressly excluded from the Board's jurisdic tion. Referring to this the Supreme Court has stated: "The exclusion from the jurisdiction and control of the Board of such of the jitneys as were in operation prior to March 15th, 1921 applied only to such operation as long as the owner continued in the business." (P. S. Ry. Co. vs Board of Public Utility Com., decided March, 1922.) You Are Viewing an Archived Report from the New Jersey State Library PuBI,IC UTILITY CoMMISSIONERs' REPORT. 5 In this decision the Court held that if an owner of a bus li censed prior to March I 5th, I 92 I sells his bus ~he new owner cannot legally operate until he obtains municipal consent; that such consent is not valid until approved by the Board and that the Board's approval cannot be lawfully given except after hear ing and a finding that the operation of the bus is necessary for the public convenience. Subject to these conditions, buyers of buses, the owners of which are licensed prior to March r 5th, I 92 r, have in many cases sought by various expedients to evade the jurisdiction of the Board. There being submitted to the Board a list of parties, who it was alleged were operating unlawfully, these parties were cited to appear before the Board. The parties so appearing denied the Board's jurisdiction and refused to answer questions asked them. Application was made to the Supreme Court for an order to compel the witnesses to testify, which was granted. The investi gation developed that in a number of cases buses were being operated under conditions that required the Board's approval to make lawful the operation; that such approval had not been ob tained and that the parties so operating did not intend to apply for approval. The municipal officials, apparently regarding the matter as one to be dealt with by the Public Utility Commission, have not made, except in a very few cases, any attempt to prevent the operation of buses held by the Board to be unlawful. It is respectfully submitted that if it is the intention of the Legislature that this Board should have authority to determine to what extent buses should be operated in competition with street railways, and to regulate the operation, consideration should be given to the en actment of a law which will be free from doubt as to the Board's jurisdiction and provide an effective method for its enforcement. If this is done it should be, in the Board's judgment, by a sup plement to rather than an amendment of the public utility act. When the public utility act was passed it was designed to vest with an administrative board authority to regulate public utility corporations such as railroads, street railways, gas, electric and water companies, operating under franchise grants. It is obvious that a law framed with this end in view is not adapted to the You Are Viewing an Archived Report from the New Jersey State Library 6 PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. regulation of a transportation service which had no existence when the law was enacted. Yet all the jurisdiction the Board now has, comes from an enlargement of the term "public utility" so as to include jitneys operated under certain conditions, thus bringing them within the scope of an act framed with a very different purpose in view. It is respectfully suggested that if this Board is to have juris diction the law should state the extent of the jurisdiction, whether over all auto buses or over those operated on the same streets as street railways. It should state definitely the condi tions under which the Board's approval should be obtained and prohibit, under penalty, operation without such approval. It seems to the Board also that no municipal license to operate, under conditions requiring the Board's approval, should be is sued until such approval is obtained. At present the local per mission must be given before the question of the Board's approval arises. If the foregoing suggestions are adopted it would be advisable also to dearly define the authority and duty of mu nicipalities with regard to the operation of buses. As a measure of enforcement, violation of an order of the Board, or operation without the Board's approval under con ditions requiring such approval, should be a cause for forfeiture of the license issued by the motor vehicle department. ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS TO SUPPLY SERVICE. The discontinuance of service by the Public Service Railway Company and its failure to resume service upon the issuance of an order by the Board led to a widespread and not unwar ranted popular impression that the Board lacks power to deal promptly and effectively with a situation of this kind. Under existing law, a public utility is allowed thirty days from the date an order of the Board becomes effective to appeal to the Su preme Court for a review of the order. No appeal was taken from the order referred to until the thirty days had nearly passed and the company in the meantime did not comply with it.

Load more