clusion that there are 632 potential passengers per day who would ride over its proposed direct service through the tunnel.

The area which the proposed route traverses is the only portion of Hudson County, N. J., which does not have direct interstate bus service to and from New York City. In recent years numerous business establishments have located along such route. The nearest interstate bus service available is on Hudson County Boulevard which is some distance east of Tonnelle Avenue and at a higher elevation.

The joint board recommended that Public Service be granted the authority sought. Joint exceptions were filed thereto (1) by InterCity Transportation Co., Inc., and New Jersey-New York Transportation Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as Inter-City), (2) by Manhattan Transit Company and Manhattan Coach Lines, Inc., and Westwood Transportation Company and Westwood Transportation Lines, Inc., and (3) by Rockland Coaches, Inc., and Spring Valley Motor Coach Co., Inc. The latter two protestants have applications pending in which authority is sought, among other things, to operate over Tonnelle Avenue and the tunnel approaches. They contend that they can render a more adequate service, and request that disposition of the instant application be deferred until their applications can be considered at the same time. Such action does not appear appropriate.

Inter-City, which operates between Paterson, N. J., and New York City over a route through Passaic, Secaucus, the southern part of North Bergen, Union City, and the Lincoln Tunnel, contends that a grant of authority to Public Service to serve all intermediate points along the proposed route will divert from it the traffic which it now. transports between Union City and New York. The traffic to which it refers is that which now has a prior or subsequent movement to or from points on Tonnelle Avenue in Public Service's intrastate service along the proposed route. The record is clear that no great number of passengers now transfer from Public Service's intrastate busses to interstate busses at Union City. While Inter-City does receive some of such traffic in Union City, Public Service and North Boulevard Transportation Co., do also; and it is apparent that even though Inter-City were to lose all of the traffic which now moves part way in the intrastate busses of Public Service, the loss would not materially affect its ability to continue its present service and would be outweighed by the benefit to the public of the proposed service.

Inter-City has no objection to a grant of authority to use the proposed route for operating convenience only, but states that any grant made should be conditioned upon a request for revocation by Public Service of its right to operate over its present route along Hudson County Boulevard.

Manhattan and Westwood contend that Public Service has failed to show that public convenience and necessity require service at intermediate points on the proposed route, whereas such a showing was made by them in connection with their applications hereinafter discussed, in which substantially similar rights are sought; and that the substitution by Public Service of operations over the proposed route, serving all intermediate points, in lieu of its present express service over Hudson County Boulevard, will affect adversely service rendered to passengers originating at points on Public Service's interstate routes rorth of the proposed route. They have no objection to a grant to Public Service to operate over the proposed route for operating convenience only.

Nos. MC-3699 (Sub-No. 3), MC-3700 (Sub-No. 3), MC-3701 (SubNo. 3), and MC-3705 (Sub-No. 3).-The two Manhattan companies, applicants in Nos. MC-3699 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-3700 (Sub-No. 3) are commonly controlled as are the two Westwood companies, applicants in No. MC-3701 (Sub-No. 3) and MC-3705 (Sub-No. 3). In addition, all four have the same president, and the Manhattan companies have the same vice president-treasurer who is also the treasurer of the two Westwood companies. Two holders of a majority of the stock in the Manhattan companies also hold a substantial portion of the stock in the Westwood companies, and they, with other members of their family, control the Westwood companies. In Lincoln Tunnel Applications, 12 M. C. C. 184, joint certificates were issued to the Manhattan companies and to the Westwood companies covering operations hereinafter described. Each pair of companies renders a joint service over the routes covered by their respective joint certificates, and where the Manhattan companies and the Westwood companies have authority to operate over the same routes, they render a coordinated service.

The Manhattan and Westwood companies all seek authority to operate a bus service over the proposed alternate route between the junction of Broad and Fairview Avenues, in Fairview, and the junction of Hudson Boulevard East and Marginal Street, in Weehawken. Manhattan now has authority to operate a bus service over a regular route between Paterson, N. J., and New York City through Passaic, Hasbrouck Heights, Palisades Park, Ridgefield, Fairview, North Bergen, Guttenberg, West New York, and Weehawken, N. J., and thence through the tunnel to New York City, serving all intermediate points. It also operates over an authorized alternate route (New Jersey Highway 6) between Paterson and Hasbrouck Heights serving no intermediate points, and thence to New York City through the New Jersey points named above. Westwood has authority to operate a bus service between Rochelle Park and New York City, through

Hackensack, Bogota, and Ridgefield Park, to Palisades Park, and thence over the same route over which Manhattan operates to New York City. For convenience that portion of the present routes of Manhattan and Westwood which is between the termini of the proposed route will be called the Boulevard East route. Westwood also has authority to operate between Palisades Park and New York City, through Fort Lee and over the George Washington Bridge.

As proof of public convenience and necessity Manhattan and Westwood rely upon the testimony of public officials of North Bergen, representatives of commercial enterprises located on Tonnelle Avenue, and that of a traffic consultant. The latter was engaged by Manhattan and Westwood to make a study of the need for the proposed service. He made a study of the territory involved, of the transportation facilities, and of the trends of traffic. Through him there were put in evidence, in both the Manhattan and Westwood records, (1) a diagram disclosing the proposed routes of Manhattan and Westwood, their present routes, and the present and proposed routes of competitive carriers; (2) a list of applicant's equipment; (3) tables showing the proposed schedules; (4) exhibits based upon traffic checks made at specified points of the service of Manhattan, Westwood, and competitive carriers; and (5) exhibits listing returns from questionnaires and computations based thereon as to potential traffic over the proposed route. Protestants, while they admit the expert is qualified, unsuccessfully objected to the receipt in evidence of the latter group of exhibits. Exhibits 6, 7, 10, and 11 in the Manhattan cases and exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11, in the Westwood cases, respectively, are identical, and the figures in each group were drawn from or based on the same questionnaires. These questionnaires were distributed to firms located along Tonnelle Avenue and solicited from them information as to the name and address of the company, the daily number of employees commuting or travelling on business to or from New York, the number of visitors from New York, the hours of employment, and the percentage of employees or callers using public transportation and private vehicles. They were filled out by an officer or employee of each firm, but the expert was not informed as to whether a poll or survey of its employees was made by any firm. In at least one instance, one of such employees made an estimate of the number of employees travelling to and from New York, despite a previous notation on the questionnaire that such number was unknown

After identification and discussion of the questionnaires and computations based thereon, the expert, when asked in the Manhattan cases for his opinion with respect to the need for the proposed service, stated that there is a definite and urgent need. He did not, however,

specifically set forth the basis for such opinion. In the Westwood cases he stated "upon my studies and surveys taken of transportation facilities, the territory to be served by the proposed extension between Fairview and Weehawken, it is my opinion that there is an urgent need by the public for a direct service from this territory to New York City

*"

Protestants on brief and in their exceptions renew their objection to the receipt in evidence of statistical exhibits based upon the returns to the questionnaires, urging that they are double hearsay and are wholly inadmissible. In reply, applicant contends that these exhibits are competent evidence to show a present and future need for the proposed service.

In the past, we have on numerous occasions recognized as sound the general principle that, over objection, petitions, letters, affidavits, and returns to questionnaires such as here involved are not admissible because of their hearsay character and the inability of opposing parties to cross-examine persons who made the statements set out in such documents. Compare Rocky Mountain Lines, Inc., Ext.-Alcoholic Liquors, 27 M. C. C. 57, and Calgary-Spokane Exp. Common Carrier Application, 29 M. C. C. 746. In this proceeding the returns to the questionnaires and the calculations based thereon clearly were not admissible. The expert's opinion was based in part upon data other than the questionnaires and is entitled to some weight.

At the present time persons residing on Tonnelle Avenue, or employed by, or having business with, firms located thereon, have no through interstate bus service available to and from New York City. To travel by public transportation between points on Tonnelle Avenue and New York City, prospective passengers have two alternatives. They may board the intrastate busses of Public Service, which operate along Tonnelle Avenue, and transfer to interstate busses at Union City or continue to Jersey City and take the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad to New York City. The other alternative is to walk to Hudson County Boulevard and board the interstate busses of the North Boulevard Transportation Company. Hudson County Boulevard is located east of Tonnelle Avenue at distances ranging from one-quarter to one-half mile and has a much higher elevation. Generally, persons are reluctant to walk the long steep grade to Hudson County Boulevard.

The township of North Bergen has been encouraging manufacturers to locate their businesses along Tonnelle Avenue and in recent years a number have moved there. Further expansion of the industrial area along Tonnelle Avenue is being delayed to some extent by the lack of a direct transportation service to and from New York

City. The testimony of the public witnesses who attended the Manhattan and Westwood hearings clearly establish that there is a need for such a service. They expressed no preference, however, as to the carrier or carriers which should render such service.

If the authority sought is granted Manhattan and Westwood each proposes during nonrush hours to render service over Tonnelle Avenue at 30-minute intervals, coordinated so that between the two a 15-minute service will be available. During rush hours more frequent service will be given. They propose to render such service by diverting a number of the busses which they now operate over Boulevard East to Tonnelle Avenue. They also point out that, during the morning rush hours, equipment which normally returns to New Jersey, lightly loaded or empty, can be used to render service to points along Tonnelle Avenue, and that the reverse applies to traffic moving during the evening rush hours. They anticipate that by the use of present equipment and the rerouting of busses from Boulevard East they can render the proposed service without materially affecting service over Boulevard East. Protestants contest this, and it seems indisputable that some diminution of service on Boulevard East must result from any removal of present schedules therefrom. Whether the moved schedules would be adequate to meet the needs of the public on Tonnelle Avenue may also be questioned, though it is clear that Manhattan and Westwood, individually and collectively, intend, and are in the position, financially and otherwise, to render adequate service over their present and proposed routes, whether with the equipment now in use or with additional equipment.

Manhattan and Westwood would also use the proposed Tonnelle Avenue route for the movement of loaded busses between more remote points and they claim that they can thereby reduce their longhaul operating time by 5 or 10 minutes. The Boulevard East route now used has more turns than the Tonnelle Avenue route and one particularly steep winding hill almost a mile in length. The actual distances between the termini which are common to the Boulevard East and Tonnelle Avenue routes are substantially the same over either route. There are a number of traffic lights on Boulevard East, but no trucks are allowed thereon. Tonnelle Avenue is a four-lane highway with few traffic lights, but it is travelled by trucks. The evidence is not clear that the claimed saving in time will result from operations over Tonnelle Avenue in express service, but there is an indication that there might be some small saving. In any event, the proposed route is a straighter and more level route than Boulevard East, and to a certain extent will be more economical and safer to operate over. The joint board recommended that Manhattan and Westwood be granted authority to operate over the proposed route for operating