| OCR Text |
Show to the ore and coal movements across the Great Lakes which the railroads could hardly equip themselves to handle profitably, but which contribute greatly to the production of manufactured articles which in turn provide a heavy volume of railroad traffic. There would seem to be no need, from the standpoint of the railroads, regulated water carriers, or the shipping public, to subject this transportation to regulation. There doubtless are competitive situations as to par- ticular commodities, or in particular areas, where regula- tion instead of exemption would be beneficial to the par- ticipating carriers as a whole and therefore in the public interest, but there are other situations where this would not be true. It is plain that lifting of the exemptions in their entirety and without condition would impose an un- necessary burden on the regulatory agency and presently exempt carriers. While it is to be doubted that sufficient experience has been gained in the regulation of domestic water trans- portation since the war to permit of a sound conclusion respecting the future policy toward presently exempt operations, it seems clear, as indicated, that any lifting of the exemptions should be conditional only. That is, the exemptions should remain, with power in the Commission to subject the transportation of any particular bulk traffic, or in any particular area, to the provisions of the act where competitive or other conditions appear to require regulation in the public interest. In examining the nature and effect of conflicts between Federal promotion and regulation of inland waterway transportation the following question can be asked: Has Federal promotion of waterways interfered with and impaired the effectiveness of regulation of the trans- port industry and conversely, has Federal regulatory policy lessened the effectiveness and value of Federal expenditures for waterways? With respect to the primary proposition as to the nature and effect of conflicts between promotion and regulation of inland waterway transportation, there may be some con- flict in the sense that waterway projects have been deter- mined upon independently of the resulting effect upon the national transportation system comprising all modes of transport and for the economic welfare of each of which the regulatory agency has a responsibility under the na- tional transportation policy and other statutory provisions. Whether a particular project would be an over-all public benefit or, on the other hand, would reduce the use and value of the existing transportation system, would seem to be a proper initial question. In the sense that added complications and difficulties impair effectiveness, the answer would seem to be in the affirmative. The expansion of waterway and motor trans- portation, and the extension of regulation to these modes in addition to the railroads, necessarily has brought to regulation difficult and complex questions relating to intercarrier competition and rates. The Commission's efforts to properly discharge its equal duty properly to- ward each of the modes of transportation cannot be ex- pected to satisfy all interests concerned in the complex situations with which it has to deal. In consequence the feeling may grow that regulation has not been wholly ef- fective. In short, in many of these situations there is no answer satisfactory to all. However, the fact that growth in some of the modes of transportation has increased com- petition and added difficulties to regulation should not operate against further expansion which would promote the public interest. It is to be doubted that Federal regulatory policy has materially lessened the effectiveness and value of Federal expenditures for waterways. Federal regulation, so far as it embraces waterway transportation, has existed for prac- tical purposes only since the end of the war. In that time there has been a continual and substantial increase in the volume of traffic on the inland river system. Of course, in the various instances in which the Commission has approved reduced rates proposed by railroads to meet water competition the result has been diversions of traffic from the waterways or divisions of it between water car- riers and the railroads. This has lessened to some extent the use of waterways and therefore the effectiveness and value of the expenditures therefor. But this relates more particularly to the question of rate regulatory policies. The value of expenditures for waterways must be gaged by the multiple benefits derived, including the attraction of industries seeking low-cost mass transportation, which gen- erate traffic not only for the waterways but for the rail- roads as well. They are" increasing in number, in volume, and in demands for reliable, low-cost transportation. 440 |
