Whitestone Parkway, and Central Boulevard to La Guardia Airport, and (2) from New Haven and Fairfield to Whitestone Bridge as specified in (1) above, thence over the bridge, Whitestone Parkway, Central Parkway, and Van Wyck Expressway to Idlewild Airport, in neither case serving intermediate points. The Greyhound Corporation, Trailways of New England, Inc., (hereinafter called Greyhound and Trailways) and the New Haven oppose the application. The joint board in substance recommended that the authority sought be granted. On exceptions the New Haven contends that a grant of this authority will have a marked adverse effect on its rail passenger operations, pointing out that, on the basis of applicant's proposal, about 48,000 seats a year would be furnished. It asserts further that the only factor in support of the grant here is the convenience to the public of a single-line motor service, and that such passenger convenience cannot justify a grant of authority unless that convenience balances favorably against the probable adverse effect on existing transportation services. In reply applicant urges that no carriers or class of carriers are entitled to protection from competition, and consequently from diversion of their traffic, when the public is shown to require a new and improved service. The evidence, the joint board's recommendation, the exceptions, and the reply thereto have been considered. We find the board's statement of the facts to be complete and adequate, and we adopt it as our own. Applicant holds no permanent authority from the Commission. Initially he proposes to operate 3 limousines, each with a capacity of 11 passengers in addition to the driver. Baggage space would be available in the limousine trunks, and top racks would accommodate additional luggage. Two vehicles would be used for the proposed operations, and the third would be used in the event of a failure of one of the other vehicles. On the basis of experience, he envisions elapsed time of about 22 hours from New Haven through Fairfield to the airports, entailing an over-the-road distance of about 79 miles. He proposes six conveniently scheduled round trips a day, 7 days a week, between the involved points, and he would adhere to these schedules whether or not passengers were available. Three international airlines which utilize the involved airports, three travel agents located, respectively, at Bridgeport, Hamden, and New Haven, Conn., a local hotel association, the New Haven Chamber of Commerce, an arena located in New Haven, and three individuals located, respectively, at Hamden, New Haven, and North New Haven support the application. Their testimony has been summarized in detail by the joint board and will not be restated here. It establishes that present transportation to and from the involved airports is accomplished primarily by rail between the Connecticut communities and New York, with airport limousines used between New York and the airport. Occasionally private automobiles are used. Combination rail and limousine travel involves substantially longer traveltime than contemplated here by applicant, with occasional vexing delays and difficulties in baggage handling. Air passengers require convenient and expeditious surface motor transportation to and from the airports in question in order to take maximum advantage of the time savings inherent in air travel. The New Haven operates 37 trains daily from New Haven to New York, serving intermediate points on its lines, and 36 trains in the reverse direction. Several daily nonstop trains are operated between New Haven and New York City with scheduled running time of approximately 21⁄2 hours. Such time, however, does not include transfer time and travel time between New York City and the airports. Passenger train traffic has decreased in recent years. The New Haven has an unsatisfactory overall earning record. It opposes this application because of its view that any loss of passenger traffic will reduce further the possibility of its future profitable operations. Greyhound and Trailways are large regular-route motor common carriers of passengers with routes, as here material, extending between Boston, Mass., and New York City, serving New Haven and other intermediate points. Greyhound offers about 16 round trips a day, and Trailways offers 8 such trips. Two labor organizations with over 7,500 members engaged in railroad employment also oppose the application. They assert that existing bus and rail service between the involved points is adequate, and that a grant of authority herein, particularly in view of the present financial condition of the New Haven, would have an adverse effect on its passenger operations with a resulting detrimental effect on employment of their members. Two other associations with 12,000 memberemployees of the New Haven oppose the application for substantially the same reasons. None of the opposing carriers provides a direct service between the considered points, and clearly their service does not meet the reasonable transportation requirements of that portion of the traveling public here considered, inasmuch as use of this service necessitates transfer from one carrier to another with resultant delays in traveltime and other inconveniences. Moreover these services are designed primarily for the mass transportation of passengers, rather than to meet the particular needs of the persons here involved. On the other hand, applicant proposes a scheduled regular-route service designed specifically to fulfill the transportation needs of these persons. Consequently we agree with the joint board that a grant of authority to applicant to the extent recommended is warranted. We are not oblivious to the plight of the New Haven and its current difficulties with its passenger service. However, we are unable to accept its conclusion that a grant of authority here will have any appreciable adverse effect on these operations. Although the evidence here establishes that rail service is used to some extent to make air connections, we do not believe that rail transportation, as coupled with surface motor transportation to and from the airports, is adapted to the requirements of this type of passenger, whose prime motivation for utilizing air transportation is the resulting speed and convenience. Consequently we do not think that this grant of authority, coupled as it is with the restriction to a maximum number of passengers, poses any threat to the New Haven. The restriction to a certain number of passengers in a single vehicle has been imposed a number of times previously in similar cases. See Teterboro Motor Transp., Inc., Com. Car. Application, 47 M.C.C. 247, 255–256. Here it will ensure that the service rendered will be responsive to the need shown and will not pose a threat to the operations of protestants. We find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicant, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle of passengers and their baggage having an immediately prior or an immediately subsequent movement by aircraft, limited to the transportation of not more than 11 passengers in any one vehicle, but not including the driver thereof, between New Haven and Fairfield, Conn., on the one hand, and, on the other, La Guardia Field Airport, New York, N.Y., and New York International Airport, Idlewild, N.Y., from New Haven over city streets and access roads to U.S. Interstate Highway 95 (also called the Connecticut Turnpike), thence over U.S. Interstate Highway 95 to Fairfield, thence over city streets and U.S. Interstate Highway 95 to New York, thence over city streets and highways to La Guardia Field Airport and New York International Airport, Idlewild, serving no intermediate points; that applicant is fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; that a certificate authorizing such operation should be granted; and that the application in all other respects should be denied. Upon compliance by applicant with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221 (c) of the act and with our rules and regulations thereunder, within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herewith, an appropriate certificate will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered. COMMISSIONER WEBB, dissenting: In my opinion, the proposed operation comes within the partial exemption of section 203 (b) (7a) relative to “*** the transportation of persons *** by motor vehicle when incidental to transportation by aircraft***” The application itself contains this limitation. The fact that some air travel service is available at New Haven does not disturb the fact that the service applied for is incidental to transportation by aircraft. The mileage involved should not be regarded as an important consideration. Economic factors are sufficient to prevent motor transportation incidental to travel by air from traversing excessive distances or becoming line haul in character. I would dismiss the application. 84 M.C.C. No. MC-102567 (SUB-No. 79)1 EARL CLARENCE GIBBON EXTENSION-TALL OIL PRODUCTS Decided March 3, 1961 1. In No. MC-102567 (Sub-No. 79), public convenience and necessity found to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of tall oil products, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Springhill, La., to points in nine States, with exceptions. Issuance of a certificate approved upon compliance by applicant with certain conditions, and application in all other respects denied. 2. In No. MC-112497 (Sub-No. 161), public convenience and necessity found not shown to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of tall oil and tall oil products, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Springhill, La., to points in 16 States. Application denied. Jo E. Shaw for applicant in No. MC-102567 (Sub-No. 79). Harry C. Ames, Jr., for applicant in No. MC-112497 (Sub-No. 161). Jack Blanshan, K. C. Elliott, Harold R. Ainsworth, Charles L. Ford, Jr., Ralph W. Pulley, Jr., and Thomas F. Kilroy for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS MURPHY, WEBB, AND HERRING BY DIVISION 1: These applications were heard on a consolidated record, were the subject of a single report and recommended order by the examiner, involve common issues, and will be disposed of here in a single report. Exceptions to the recommended order were filed by the motor protestants in both proceedings, and applicant in the title proceeding replied. In No. MC-112497 (Sub-No. 161) applicant petitioned for leave to file a late-tendered reply to protestants' exceptions. No reply was filed to the petition. Inasmuch as this applicant's failure to file a timely reply to the exceptions was due to an excusable oversight on the part of its counsel, we hereby waive the requirements of the rule 1.23 of the Commission's General Rules of Practice, and accept the late-tendered reply for filing. Our conclusions herein differ from the examiner's recommendations in both proceedings. In No. MC-102567 (Sub-No. 79), by application filed April 21, 1 This proceeding also embraces No. MC-112497 (Sub-No. 161), Hearin Tank Lines, Inc., Extension-Tall Oil Products. |