No. MC-43482 RELIABLE VAN & WAREHOUSE COMPANY CONTRACT CARRIER APPLICATION Decided May 29, 1941 On reconsideration, findings in prior report, 9 M. C. C. 141, modified so as to authorize applicant to operate as a contract carrier of explosives and electric blasting caps, (1) between points within 8 miles of Oklahoma City, Okla., on the one hand, and Oklahoma City, on the other; and (2) from Galena, Kans., to Oklahoma City and points within 8 miles thereof, and from Oklahoma City and the described territory to points in Kansas, over irregular routes. Appearance shown in prior report. REPORT AND ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 5: The prior report and order herein, 9 M. C. C. 141, authorized the issuance to applicant, Reliable Van & Warehouse Company, of Oklahoma City, Okla., among other things, of a permit, under the "grandfather" clause of section 209 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, to operate as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of explosives, over irregular routes, from Galena, Kans., to Oklahoma City, and from Oklahoma City to points in Kansas. Pursuant to a petition by applicant, the matter has been reopened for reconsideration. Applicant points out that because of the fact that the magazine buildings of the shipper are not located in Oklahoma City but at a point approximately 8 miles therefrom it should be permitted to conduct operations between points within 8 miles of Oklahoma City, on the one hand, and Oklahoma City, on the other, and from Carl Junction, Mo., or Galena, Kans., to the Oklahoma territory noted, and to transport electric blasting caps in addition to explosives. It desires that the prior findings in the prior report be modified accordingly. It is our opinion that a change in the authority previously granted is warranted to the extent indicated by our findings below. We find that the prior report and order herein should be, and they are hereby, amended so as to authorize applicant to operate as a contract carrier by motor vehicle, in interstate or foreign commerce, of explosives and electric blasting caps, (1) between points within 8 miles of Oklahoma City, on the one hand, and Oklahoma City, on the other, and (2) from Galena to Oklahoma City and points within 8 miles thereof, and from Oklahoma City and the afore-mentioned territory to points in Kansas, over irregular routes, in lieu of the contract-carrier authority granted in the prior report; and it is so ordered. No. MC-60851 (SUB-No. 2) MOTOR EXPRESS, INC., EXTENSION OF OPERATIONS— U.S. HIGHWAY 71 Decided May 29, 1941 On reconsideration, findings in prior report, 26 M. C. C. 815, reversed. Public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities, with certain exceptions, from Shreveport, La., to Texarkana, Ark.-Tex., over U. S. Highway 71, serving no intermediate points. Issuance of a certificate authorized upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions. Application in all other respects denied. Appearances shown in prior report and, additional appearances, C. H. Moses for applicant and Frank C. Brooks for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON RECONSIDERATION DIVISION 5, COMMISSIONERS LEE, ROGERS, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 5: In a prior report herein, 26 M. C. C. 815, we found that public convenience and necessity do not require operation by applicant, Motor Express, Inc., of Little Rock, Ark., as a common carrier by motor vehicle of general commodities between Shreveport, La., and Texarkana, Ark.-Tex., over U. S. Highway 71, and entered an order denying the application. On petition of applicant, to which a protestant motor common carrier replied, the proceeding was reopened for reconsideration on the present record, and the order denying the application was vacated and set aside. For the sake of convenience, the essential facts shown in the prior report will be restated here. Applicant's present routes, insofar as pertinent to this application, extend (1) between Little Rock and Texarkana through Hope, Ark., over U. S. Highway 67, and (2) between Hope and Shreveport, over Arkansas Highway 29 and Louisiana Highway 10. Service is now rendered between Shreveport and Texarkana over these routes with a transfer at Hope. Applicant here seeks authority to serve these termini over a more direct route, U. S. Highway 71, with no service at any intermediate point on this highway. The comparative distances between the termini are 74 miles, including 10.5 miles of gravel road, over the proposed route, and 125 miles, including 48.9 miles of gravel road, over the present route through Hope. The gravel section of the present route is said to become almost impassable during the rainy season. Under the authority sought, applicant proposes to transport all north-bound shipments from Shreveport over the proposed route and all south-bound shipments from Texarkana over the present route through Hope. North-bound shipments, from Shreveport to Texarkana, would be hauled directly over the proposed route, thus eliminating the transfer at Hope. North-bound shipments from Shreveport to intermediate points on the present route between Shreveport and Hope would be hauled over the proposed route to Texarkana and thence over the present route to Hope, where they would be transferred to a south-bound truck for delivery to destination. This transfer would only involve a small volume of traffic as these intermediate points receive few shipments from Shreveport over applicant's line. South-bound shipments, from Texarkana to Shreveport, would usually be transported over the present route through Hope and there transferred to a south-bound truck. Although authority is sought to use the proposed route in both directions, applicant intends to use it north-bound primarily, and south-bound only on occasions when suited to the convenience of its shippers and itself. Applicant assigns four principal reasons why the proposed service should be authorized. First, it points out that the proposed service would eliminate operation over 38 miles of gravel road a day, thereby resulting in a saving in operating costs. In this connection, two expert witnesses, a foreman and a salesman of a truckmanufacturing company, explained that trucks operated over gravel roads have higher maintenance costs, higher rates of depreciation, and lower "trade-in" values than those operated over paved roads. Second, applicant asserts that the proposed service would result in more efficient and economical transportation by reason of the elimination of the transfer at Hope. It is to be noted, however, that this transfer would be continued on all south-bound shipments from Texarkana to Shreveport and that a similar transfer would be instituted on north-bound shipments from Shreveport to intermediate 29 M. C. C. points on the present route between Shreveport and Hope. Third, applicant states that the proposed service would enable it to provide a later schedule, about 6 p. m., from Texarkana to Little Rock. This reason was not explained in detail, but it appears that such a schedule could be arranged without regard to the service here considered. Fourth, applicant contends that the proposed service would occasion no change in the existing schedules from Shreveport to intermediate points on the present route between Shreveport and Hope. In conclusion, applicant takes the position that the application should have been granted without a hearing, since the proposed service merely involves the use of an alternate route and since no new point would be served. As proof of public convenience and necessity, applicant presented the testimony of four shipper-witnesses, two each at Shreveport and Texarkana. One of the witnesses at Texarkana is an industrial traffic manager who represents four shippers. These shippers are interested principally in shipments of caskets, furniture, brooms, fruits and vegetables, and packing containers. They ship from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds a day between Texarkana and Shreveport, mostly south-bound, from Texarkana to Shreveport. Their witness favors the proposed service because it would provide another route and additional schedules for the transportation of less-than-truckload freight, particularly rush shipments. The other witness at Texarkana, who receives shipments of tires, batteries, and repair parts from Shreveport, believes that the elimination of the transfer at Hope would result in better service over applicant's line. One witness at Shreveport, who ships approximately 3,000 pounds a month to Texarkana, believes that the elimination of this transfer would reduce the risk of damage to his shipments, which consist of various articles, including light globes. The other witness at Shreveport is the traffic manager of an oil company, which distributes petroleum products, tires, batteries, automotive accessories, gasoline pumps, and filling-station equipment. This company does not employ motor common carriers to any great extent on shipments to Texarkana as it uses company-owned trucks to this point. Protestants, three motor common carriers and a railroad, presented evidence as to their schedules and facilities for the purpose of showing the adequacy of the existing service between Shreveport and Texarkana. The Southwestern Transportation Company operates over U. S. Highway 71, with no service at intermediate points. It provides two daily schedules each way between the termini with a running time of 2 hours 45 minutes. Ozark Motor Lines operates over U. S. Highway 71, serving all intermediate points. Its daily service consists of two schedules from Texarkana to Shreveport and one schedule covering a local and a through truck from Shreveport to Texarkana. East Texas Motor Freight Lines operates three daily schedules each way between the termini over an all-paved route through Atlanta, Tex., 82 miles. The service of the Kansas City Southern Railway Company between Shreveport and Texarkana includes two through freight trains each way a day and a local freight train which goes north one day and south the next. None of the protestant carriers is operating at capacity, and all have sufficient equipment available for the movement of additional traffic. Nothing of record indicates that the service by protestant carriers has been unsatisfactory or inadequate. As it is clear that applicant would use the proposed route over U. S. Highway 71 only on north-bound shipments from Shreveport to Texarkana, no consideration need be given to south-bound movements over such route. By operating over the proposed route applicant will undoubtedly be able to prolong the usefulness of its equipment and reduce operating costs. Furthermore, while it was stated that no great time saving is involved, it is apparent that some such saving will be made as the proposed route is 50 miles shorter than the present one, is over better roads, and there is no interchange involved. Protestants oppose the application on the ground that they are now rendering adequate service between such points and have available equipment to take care of any additional traffic. They further maintain that the granting of the application will create a new service and a new competitor. Applicant now operates between Shreveport and Texarkana in competition with protestants, and it does not follow that because applicant is seeking a more direct route between such points new and additional competitive service will result. Applicant will serve no additional points, and the granting of authority to operate north-bound over U. S. Highway 71 should not affect the competition except to the extent that applicant can reduce or equalize the running time between the points in question. As to the adequacy of protestants' service and equipment, it is our opinion that, inasmuch as no new service is involved, such fact has no probative value. It is clear that applicant will be able to operate more efficiently and more economically, with ultimate indirect benefit to the public. Where the granting of an alternate route, not involving service to additional points, will enable a carrier to render a more expeditious and economical service, and thus more adequately serve the public, without adversely affecting the rights of any competing carrier, such authority should be granted. On reconsideration, we find that public convenience and necessity require operation in interstate or foreign commerce by applicant |