8. That applicant be authorized to charge to the Reserve for Injuries and Damages the sum of $1,900,000 per year, in equal monthly installments, beginning July, 1970; provided, however, that seventy percent of the amount of each monthly installment be placed in a special fund at or before the end of each month, expenditures there from to be limited to payment for judgments and claims for injuries and damages, exclusive of charges for administrative costs and legal fees chargeable against the Injuries and Damages Reserve.

9. That Transit immediately undertake a survey of senior citizen ridership patterns during off-peak hours to determine to what extent such persons presently ride during those times.

10. That within ninety days of the date of this Order, Transit shall file with the Commission a proposal for instituting a reduced, off-peak fare for senior citizens on an experimental basis, provided, however, that such plan need not be filed if Transit has not operated at a profit during that time.

11. That tokens are to be sold at the newly authorized rate beginning immediately upon the issuance of this Order.

12. That commutation tickets are to be sold at the newly authorized rates immediately upon the issuance of this Order, except for purchases made by mail and bearing a postmark as of the date of this Order or any date previous thereto.

13. That Transit submit a report on its plans to improve its marketing performance no later than thirty days after the issuance of this Order.

14. That Transit set up a special fund in the amount of $150,000, in equal monthly installments, beginning July, 1970, for the purpose of financing its marketing program as described in this Order, page 25, supra. Expenditures for this purpose from this fund may be made after receiving approval of the Commission. Any monies in the fund not used for the express purpose described will be subject to disposition as directed by the Commission for the benefit of the riding public.

15. That the staff of the Commission engage the services of a qualified consultant to determine the amount of deficiency, if any, in Transit's Reserve for Injuries and Damages, the cost of such study to be assessed against Transit.

16. That Transit report to the Commission, within sixty days from the date of this Order, a plan to provide token sales outlets at Transit terminals at Thirteenth and Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Friendship Heights, Chevy Chase Circle, and Mt. Rainier. Transit shall include in this report

- provision for changing its tariff to permit stop-over privileges for patrons desiring to purchase tokens.

17. That any interest earned by funds set aside under the provisions of this Order shall be credited to Account No. 1214, "Other Operating Revenue."

18. That the Commission shall retain jurisdiction in this proceeding for the purpose of adjusting the special funds established herein as such adjustments may appear necessary in the future.

DOUB, Vice Chairman, CONCURRING: Applications by D. C. Transit System, Inc., for fare increases have been before the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission on three occasions since I became a member of the Commission in September, 1968. Prior to that date on behalf of the State of Maryland, I participated as People's Counsel, representing Maryland riders, in still another proceeding involving the fares of this company. In each of these proceedings the Commission, in the exercise of its judgment, based upon the individual case records, has found it necessary to grant this carrier fare increases.

Again, in this case, the Commission has authorized a fare increase. The constant pattern of decreasing riders and increasing expenses as evidenced in cases before the Commission presents a problem of grave concern to me (as I am sure it does to my colleagues on the Commission). Even a most casual review of the prior opinions of this Commission indicates that the Commission is faced with what appears to be an unsolvable dilemma.

The primary statutory responsibility of this Commission is to regulate the carriers in the public interest so as to insure adequate service at reasonable fares, while permitting the carrier to earn a fair return on its investment. In carrying out this mandate, the Commission has decided the various fare increase applications of this carrier within the limitations imposed upon the Commission by the Compact between the three jurisdictions entered into in 1961.

Again, in this case the Commission, in my judgment, has met its responsibility, albeit the public must now assume an even greater burden in insuring the financial stability of the carrier through increased fares and in turn its ability to render adequate public service.

In considering the evidence in this case, I gave great attention to the testimony of several protestants (notably the Deputy Mayor of Washington) who urged that this fare application be denied in its entirety. In substance, the protestants argued that the level of fares has already reached a point which imposes an intolerable burden upon the riding public. When faced with the choice between another round of fare increases or the prospect of an eventual insolvency proceeding, the argument was made by the intervenors, which I cannot discount lightly, that the long-range public interest may be better served by a denial of this application. If such a denial were possible under the law and would have the effect of providing an impetus to Congress to enact legislation for a prompt public takeover, it could well be a desirable action. This Commission has testified in favor of such legislation before the House and Senate District Committees on several occasions.

Unfortunately, under the terms of the Compact, the Commission has no choice but to award another fare increase. Any other action would be an evasion of my responsibilities under the law. However, I do express again the need for legislation that will either permit lower fares through permanent public subsidy or public ownership. This would be the only real insurance against the prospect of any further increases by a continuation of "regulation by crisis."

I find little comfort in passing the Commission's order in this case. If there is any solace to be gained whatsoever, it is perhaps our direction to the company to propose a schedule of reduced fares applicable to service for the elderly residents riding within the service area of the carrier. However, this action may be termed by some, and perhaps the Commission itself, as nothing more than making the best of a "bad" situation.

The Compact delineates clearly the latitude within which this Commission must decide such fare application proceedings. Our order meets fully this responsibility under the law. These comments express nothing more or less than my personal concern that because of a legal requirement we have provided at best another short-term period of relief at the expense of the riding public, many of whom should not be taxed as riders for the maintenance of an essential public service. Permanent relief must come from sources other than the fare box.

* Minimum purchase, four; purchases permitted in any quantity beyond four.

(a) Or valid transfer or token plus 38¢ cash

(b) Valid token has 32¢ value toward total cash fare

(c) Valid transfer or token has 32¢ value toward total cash fare

(d) Available only in addition to D.C.-Md. Interstate or Md. Intrastate fare (e) Or valid transer or token plus 35¢ cash

(f) Valid token has 40¢ value

(g) Valid transfer or token has 40¢ value

Note:

Combination of tokens may be used for payment of fare.
O