Who Gets to Run Seattle's Streetcars?
A proposed thirty-year franchise for the Consolidated Street Railway cleared its first reading at city hall, but fights over fares, paving and transfers were far from over.
The new franchise of the Consolidated Street Railway Company, after an almost interminable time in committee, has at last passed through the first reading in the board of aldermen. Yesterday afternoon at 3 o'clock both houses of the city council met in special session to consider the ordinance, but the aldermen offered numerous unimportant amendments in considering the matter section by section, and it was after 7 o'clock when that body adjourned. In the meantime the delegates, who had been present during most of the afternoon, had met and adjourned. The ordinance will be taken up on second reading in the board of aldermen tomorrow evening at 7:30, and on passage will immediately be transmitted to the house of delegates. It is thought the franchise will finally be acted on tomorrow evening.
The parts of the proposed franchise over which there has been the widest discussion are the percentage clause, the paving clause and the clause relating to transfers. Minor changes were made in those provisions yesterday. For each year from and after January 1, 1900, until January 1, 1910, the company is to pay the city 1 percent of the gross receipts, and from the latter date until the expiration of the franchise on December 31, 1914, the percentage is fixed at 2 percent.
Most of the discussion as to the paving clause was over a provision that when the street car company shall have once laid down a pavement according to requirements the city may not in its discretion order its renewal or change its character while it is in good repair and condition. Some of the aldermen favored striking the provision from the ordinance, and a motion was made to change "may" to "shall." The paragraph was finally allowed to stand as read.
The clause relating to transfers, originally drafted by Clise, came in for extended discussion. It provides that when the city shall have reached a specified population the company shall be required to issue transfers to cross lines and to accept tickets from such cross lines, good only on the first connecting car, and within the city limits, and for one continuous passage in a general direction to the end of the line crossed. Within the meaning of the section the Third Street and Suburban line shall be considered a cross line so far as concerns travel in either direction so far as the state university. Dr. Sweeney, in discussing the provision, remarked that the phrase "cross line" ought to be changed to "cross-town line," and interpreted to mean any line approaching within 1,000 feet of the line under consideration. A motion to that effect was lost.
A great deal was said as to section 13, or the forfeiture clause, and the provisions of the ordinance are now in such shape that forfeiture of the franchise will not occur for a trifling issue, such as a failure to cut a wire in case of fire, but only for a substantial violation, as to pay the percentage, or to run cars properly. Judge Burke addressed the aldermen and introduced a provision that the reservation by the city should not be held to authorize amendment, modification or repeal of the grant in such a manner as to impair the value of the company's property without just compensation, and with due regard to present and prospective earning capacity of the road. Such a provision, Judge Burke said, would be of value in disposition of the bonds and would not in the least impair the rights of the city.
The franchise is to be granted to the Seattle Consolidated Street Railway Company, and is in the form of an amendment to an ordinance granting a franchise to the Seattle Electric Railway and Power Company under the old charter of the city. The discussion was general, and was taken part in by Clise, Sweeney, Brewer and Anderson. Paulson was in the chair. Compton, who was present when the meeting was called to order, asked to be excused before the session continued any length of time. Jordan and Miller were absent, the latter having been excused. Delegates were present and were extended the privileges of the floor. Corporation Counsel Scott, Paulson, assistant George Hyde, President [blank] and Judge Burke were also present, and watched proceedings with deep interest.
“The parts of the proposed franchise over which there has been the widest discussion are the percentage clause, the paving clause and the clause relating to transfers.”
Streetcar franchises were the public-private deals of their day: private companies used city streets, and the city tried to extract payments, service and transfers in return. Seattle still argues over who pays for transit and utility infrastructure, and who gets to profit from public rights-of-way.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.