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

convenience only. Applicants and Inter-City excepted thereto and each replied to the other. Public Service replied to applicants' exceptions.

Applicants' exceptions relate principally to the alleged failure of the joint board to give proper weight to the evidence with respect to service at intermediate points. Inter-City objects to the grant of authority to Manhattan to operate over the proposed route even for operating convenience only.

Discussion.-As seen above, it has been established that public convenience and necessity require service at points on the Tonnelle Avenue route. The remaining issue is which applicant or applicants should be authorized to perform such service. The evidence submitted in the Manhattan cases and the Westwood cases is substantially the same and due to their corporate relationship Westwood supports the application of Manhattan and vice versa. The substantial question, therefore, is whether Public Service or Manhattan and Westwood should be granted the authority sought.

Public Service's claim to authority is based upon the facts that it and its predecessor have fostered development of the area for more than 100 years supplying streetcar service over the proposed route until 1927 and an intrastate bus service over the same route thereafter, transporting in its intrastate busses passengers travelling between points on such proposed route and New York City; that it now operates an interstate operation over Hudson County Boulevard, serving no intermediate points; and that the proposed service can be rendered by it merely by rerouting busses now using Hudson County Boulevard without serving any points thereon over the proposed route. As stated herein before, Manhattan and Westwood claim that Public Service has failed to establish public convenience and necessity with respect to its proposed service; that such proof was submitted by them; that they are entitled to the authority sought; that they will render a more frequent service than Public Service; and that such service can be rendered by them without the use of additional equip

ment.

As pointed out above, public convenience and necessity require interstate service over Tonnelle Avenue. Public need is, however, a fact and not something which can belong to any applicant. Having been proven by any one of several applicants for the same authority or by all of them collectively, the public interest must control the determination as to which shall receive the operating right. If all applicants were equally well qualified and if all other things were equal, authority might be granted to that carrier which had been most prompt in proposing and diligent in proving a need for the service, but both priority in filing, and diligence in making, proof of need must yield

to the public interest should it appear for any reason that operation by one applicant is more desirable from the standpoint of public interest than another. Mack's Transport Service, Inc., ExtensionMontana, Idaho, 27 M. C. C. 367.

Here priority of filing lies with Public Service. Although its showing of public convenience and necessity is not as strong as that of the Manhattan-Westwood group, it is sufficient to support the finding sought. All applicants submitted figures on the potential traffic available, which of necessity are largely conjectural. The consensus, however, is that there is not sufficient traffic to warrant a grant of authority to more than one carrier.

Public Service now operates various intrastate schedules over Tonnelle Avenue and Bergen Turnpike to and from Jersey City. Rerouting its interstate schedules from the Hudson County Boulevard route to the proposed route will apparently supply all the service needed. Since this carrier does not now serve intermediate points on Hudson County Boulevard such a rerouting would not result in any curtailment of service over any present routes. Its proposed schedule over Tonnelle Avenue is not entirely clear, but apparently a halfhour non-rush-hour service is intended, with more frequent service during rush hours. As above stated, this service will be coordinated with the service now given over this route on intrastate schedules.

Manhattan and Westwood, on the other hand, propose to reroute some of their busses from Boulevard East to the proposed route so that each will render a 30-minute non-rush-hour servce, or a 15-minute coordinated service. This proposal has already been discussed. That it would be attended by some diminution of service on Boulevard East is indisputable. Whether adequate service would still remain cannot be determined on this record.

While the fact that Public Service now has intrastate authority over its proposed route does not in itself support a grant of corresponding interstate authority, it is an element to be considered, particularly in view of the fact that no interstate bus line now serves the territory through which the proposed route passes. Persons now desiring to use public transportation between points on the proposed route and New York City now use Public Service's intrastate service and transfer to the interstate busses of Public Service or other carriers operating through Union City, or to the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad in Jersey City. If authority were granted to Manhattan and Westwood to serve all intermediate points on its Tonnelle Avenue route it would result in a material diversion of traffic from the intrastate schedules of Public Service. The present routes of Manhattan and Westwood, on the other hand, are not located near the major portion of the Tonnelle Avenue and the grant of authority to

Public Service to perform interstate service at all intermediate points thereon will not affect the present traffic now handled by Manhattan and Westwood.

Manhattan and Westwood point out that they propose to serve points along the full length of Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen, whereas the proposed route of Public Service leaves Tonnelle Avenue at Bergen Turnpike, approximately two-thirds of a mile from the tunnel approaches, over which a number of interstate bus lines operate. The exhibits of Manhattan and Westwood show 60 industrial plants located along the entire length of Tonnelle Avenue, 20 of which are located between Bergen Turnpike and the tunnel approaches. Of the 20, only 4 appear to be more than 1,500 feet from Bergen Turnpike over which Public Service proposes to operate, or from the tunnel approaches over which numerous carriers operate; and such four are within 2,000 feet of the described streets. On the present record, there is no basis for a conclusion that those desiring transportation to and from the short segment of Tonnelle Avenue south of Bergen Turnpike cannot adequately be served either by Public Service over its proposed route or by other interstate carriers operating over the tunnel approaches. Considering all of the facts set forth above, we conclude that Public Service should be granted authority to operate over its proposed route serving all intermediate points.

Having concluded that Public Service is entitled to authority to serve in interstate commerce all intermediate points on the proposed Tonnelle Avenue route, we now pass to the question of whether Manhattan and Westwood should be granted authority to operate over the Tonnelle Avenue route for operating convenience only. As previously stated herein, both Manhattan and Westwood now operate over Boulevard East which is a winding road with steep inclines. Traffic thereon is heavy and numerous traffic signals tend to delay service. By operating express busses over the proposed route both Manhattan and Westwood will be able to render a more safe and economical operation. No objection has been raised to Westwood operating over such route. Inter-City objects, however, to such a grant to Manhattan on the ground that by operating over the proposed route in express service the latter will be in a position to divert traffic from the former. Inter-City and Manhattan now are competitive carriers between Paterson, Passaic, and Hasbrouck Heights, on the one hand, and New York City on the other. Inter-City urges that a grant of authority to operate over Tonnelle Avenue for operating convenience will place Manhattan in a more advantageous position with respect to such traffic, particularly from Paterson. Inter-City renders a 45-minute service between Paterson and New York City, and Manhattan advertises a like service over its New Jersey Highway 6 route, but its