City of St. Petersburg v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry.

7 Fla. Supp. 75
CourtFlorida Public Service Commission
DecidedJune 30, 1955
StatusPublished

This text of 7 Fla. Supp. 75 (City of St. Petersburg v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Florida Public Service Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of St. Petersburg v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry., 7 Fla. Supp. 75 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1955).

Opinion

BY THE COMMISSION.

This matter came on to be considered by the commission as the result of a formal petition by the city of St. Petersburg for re[76]*76location of the passenger and freight depots of the Atlantic Coast ■Line Eailroad Co. (hereinafter referred to as “the railroad.”)

The city’s petition filed April 7,1954 in substance alleged that the railroad’s passenger station is old, unsightly, obsolete, poorly arranged and no longer adequate from the standpoint of the convenience and necessities of the traveling public; that it is situated only one block south of Central Avenue — the city’s main thoroughfare — and causes serious traffic congestion; that the congested conditions in its vicinity resulting from its location in the heart of the business section and the inadequate parking facilities provided for those having business with the railroad have conspired to make it grossly inaccessible for the traveling public and others having business on the station premises.; that the frequent movement of trains to and from the station across heavily traveled streets in the main business section causes serious traffic congestion, prevents the free flow of traffic, subjects the public to undue hazards and constitutes a continuing, threat to public safety by impeding the free movement of fire, police and ambulance traffic; that the freight station, also in the heart of the business district, is inadequate in size and accessibility and is a menace to the public’s safety and welfare; that the freight station because of its location and arrangement causes serious traffic congestion on heavily traveled streets in its vicinity — and that the passenger and freight depots should be relocated to sites not inimical to the public welfare and safety and in keeping with the public convenience and necessity.

Under its rules of practice the commission served a copy of the petition on the respondent, directed it to satisfy the complaint or plead thereto within 15 days from the receipt of such notice.

Before respondent filed a response to the petition the city filed a petition for leave to. take depositions by written and oral interrogatories. The city sought authority to take the depositions of railroad officials before a notary public in Wilmington, N. C., where the railroad’s home office is located. The petition stated that depositions would be taken for the purpose of eliciting information material to the issues in this proceeding. Ninety-seven written interrogatories were proposed therein, and in addition an authority was sought to propound oral interrogatories.

After the foregoing pleadings had been filed respondent filed a motion to strike an allegation in paragraph 11 of the original petition, also filed its answer thereto. The city then filed a motion for a more definite statement relating to allegations in respondent’s answer as to the commission’s jurisdiction, also filed a motion to strike portions of the answer.

[77]*77The commission served notice on the railroad of the petition for leave to take depositions, directed it to show cause on June 1, 1954 at the commission offices in Tallahassee why we should not enter an order authorizing such depositions. Notice was also served on the parties of a hearing to be held on June 1 in Tallahassee on the motions of both parties to strike and the city’s motion for a more definite statement.

The railroad thereafter filed a motion to quash the commission’s notice and order on the petition for leave to take depositions and the commission notified the parties that such motion would also be heard on June 1. The railroad then filed a motion for continuance of the June 1 hearing and we notified the parties that on June 1 we would hear oral argument on the motion for continuance and all other pending motions then filed or which might be filed prior to that date. Subsequent to this notice the railroad filed a motion to quash and objections, to the petition for leave to take depositions.

After due consideration of the pending pleadings the commission denied the city’s motion for a more definite statement, its motion to strike portions of respondent’s answer, and the railroad’s motion to strike portions of the city’s original petition. At the same time the commission designated one of its members to hold a pre-hearing conference in St. Petersburg for the purpose of determining! which of the proposed interrogatories should be answered by respondent— directing the commissioner to hold a hearing thereafter in Wilmington, N. C., for the purpose of receiving the railroad’s answers to those interrogatories which might be approved by the commission.

On July 8,1954 the designated commissioner held the pre-hearing conference as directed for the purpose of determining which of the city’s interrogatories should be answered. At that conference the respondent objected to answering any of the interrogatories. Thereupon the petitioner discussed the individual questions by groups. The first group of questions related to the adequacy of the present stations. The second group related to the present cost of the railroad’s operations as compared to such cost in the event the stations are relocated. The third group pertained to the location of the present stations as they affect traffic, and their effect on the growth of the city’s business district. The last group related to the convenience of the public. After the petitioner advanced various reasons why the railroad should be required to answer the individual questions in each category, respondent raised specific objections to each individual question in each classification. The parties supported their positions by the expert testimony of well-qualified engineers.

[78]*78After hearing argument concerning the various interrogatories and being fully advised of the vast scope of the various questions involved, the designated commissioner concluded that the interrogatories. were premature at that time and that the city should first be required to submit evidence at a public hearing in support of its petition.

The full commission concurred in the findings and opinion of the designated commissioner, entered an order setting the matter down for a public hearing in St. Petersburg on October 5, 1954. When the hearing convened we announced that two primary questions were involved — (1) Should the railroad’s passenger and freight stations be relocated and replaced at new locations by new, modern and adequate facilities capable of fully meeting the public convenience and necessity, and (2) where such new facilities should be located. The October hearing was limited to the first question. At that time, we announced that a determination of the second question would be the subject of further hearings — if we should enter an affirmative order concerning the first question.

Voluminous testimony and exhibits were received at the October hearing from petitioner. A subsequent hearing was held in December 1954 at which time respondent presented testimony and exhibits in opposition to the petition. A third hearing was held in March 1955 for the purpose of receiving rebuttal evidence from petitioner. At the conclusion of that hearing we requested the parties to file briefs, together with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law — and announced that we would subsequently set a date for oral argument on the various issues involved.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Fla. Supp. 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-petersburg-v-atlantic-coast-line-ry-flapubserv-1955.