Reading Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

159 A.2d 61, 191 Pa. Super. 635, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 397
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 24, 1960
DocketAppeal, 496
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 159 A.2d 61 (Reading Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reading Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 159 A.2d 61, 191 Pa. Super. 635, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 397 (Pa. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

The matter involved in this appeal is the application of Reading Company for approval of a change in the status of its Wernersville Station in the Borough of Wernersville, Berks County, from that of an agency passenger and freight station to that of a nonagency passenger and freight station. A previous similar application was denied by the Commission on March 14, 1955. In the present proceedings, protests were filed by the Order of Railroad Telegraphers and Gloray Knitting Mills, who were represented by counsel at the hearing. No direct testimony was offered by protestants. The Commission denied the application and the company appealed.

The factors to be considered in eliminating a passenger agency have been so thoroughly and recently considered by this Court that we deem it unnecessary to repeat them in this opinion. See Rydal-Meadowbrook Assn. v. Pa. P. U. C., 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 380, 98 A. 2d 481; Pa. Railroad Co. v. Pa. P. U. C., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 228, 132 A. 2d 887.

What was so well said by the Court in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 77 F. Supp. 675, 685, 686, is applicable to the present application: “The court cannot close its eyes to conditions as they exist and which are well known to every one. As was pointed out by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Blease v. Charleston & W. C. Ry., 146 S.C. 496, 144 S.E. 233, a railroad company has but limited powers of management. It has no power to fix rates *637 and thus has little control over its revenue. Its control over expenses, particularly wages, is also strictly limited as the spiral of recent wage increases abundantly indicates. It is restricted in its managerial functions by rules arising from contracts with well-integrated and nation-wide labor organizations. It is in competition with bus and truck lines as well as private automobiles which travel over highways built, not by private capital, as is the case with rail carriers, but by public expenditures. It is in competition with government subsidized waterways, and, in recent years, with the expanding activities of the air lines. Recent rate increases, which in the final analysis have to come from the public pocket, are in recognition of the impact of these forces. In such circumstances it is the duty of a carrier to seek, and of regulatory agencies to permit, the elimination of those services and facilities that are no longer needed nor used by the public to any substantial extent.”

Wernersville station is an agency passenger and freight station located on applicant’s Lebanon Valley Branch, Reading Division, in the Borough of Wernersville, Berks County. The nearest agency stations on the Lebanon Valley Branch are at Sinking Spring, 2.9 miles by rail and about 3.2 miles by improved highway to the east, and Womelsdorf, 5.8 miles by rail and about 6.2 miles by improved highway to the west. The agent at the Wernersville station is on duty daily, except Saturday, Sunday and holidays, from 8:30 a.m. to 10 :Q0 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., or a total of four hours per day. The Wernersville agency station is “dualized” with the Womelsdorf agency station where the agent spends the rest of his eight-hour tour of duty. Also, the Wernersville station has jurisdiction over and performs the accounting and billing for carload freight handled at the South Mountain station, a nonagency freight station for carload freight on pri *638 vate siding only, and which services the Wernersville State Hospital. The company proposes to close the passenger station but the freight house will be left open. The Sinking Spring agency will have jurisdiction over and would perform all the accounting and billing for freight handled at the Wernersville and the South Mountain stations.

The Commission found the following facts, all of which were favorable to the application: “A review of the evidence presented shows that there has been a decline in carload freight handlings at Wernersville of about 18 per cent, comparing the year 1955 with 1958. Less-than-carload freight shipments during the same period show a decrease of about 48 per cent, with about 70 per cent of these shipments in 1958 coming to or from the Gloray Knitting Mills. There was only one outbound carload freight shipment in the four-year period—a car of scrap copper shipped in December 1958.

“As to passenger ticket sales, the record shows that in 1958, the agent sold a total of 51 tickets, or about one every five working days. Since 1955, passenger ticket sales decreased from 375 in 1955 to 51 in 1958. . . .

“Applicant’s Exhibit 16 shows that the ratio of station expenses to revenue has increased from 132.47 per cent in 1955 to 148.94 per cent in 1958. Deficits resulting from operation of the station amounted to $4,305.50 in 1955; $4,564.64 for 1956; $4,999.62 for 1957; and $4,366.81 in 1958.” The Commission really made no findings of fact contra the company. As to the decline in the sale of passenger tickets, it said: “Protestants account for this by pointing to the substantial reduction in train service to and from Wernersville during this period.” The fact remains, however, that the number of passengers using the service *639 declined to such an extent that in 1958 the agent sold but about one ticket in every five working days.

As to the mounting deficits resulting from the operation of the station, the Commission said: “However, the record discloses that, although the agent at Wernersville performs certain work and uses agency facilities at Wernersville in connection with substantial carload shipments made to the State Hospital at South Mountain, the entire expense of maintaining the Wernersville station was included in compiling these expenses with no compensating credit for the revenue produced from the South Mountain carload shipments.”

The Commission made no attempt to find the results if the revenue from South Mountain were added to the revenue at Wernersville. Counsel for the Railroad in its brief points out, however, that “the inclusion of the South Mountain station revenues with the Wernersville station revenues for the year 1958 would serve to reduce the station ratio from 148.94 per cent to about 70.0 per cent, but we must not overlook the fact that it costs something to transport the freight to and from the South Mountain station, and when we do that we find that the application of the cost of transportation which amounted to 75.89 per cent of revenue for 1958, total transportation and station costs amount to $1.45 per dollar of station revenue, hence a deficit. In other words, by such inclusion the deficit for Wernersville station for 1958 would be reduced from $4,-366.81 to $3,403.18.”

The Commission did not find but could have found from the evidence that the gross station revenue at the Wernersville station declined from $8,491.00 in 1952 to $3,498.00 in 1958. The station ratio of expenses to revenue increased from 75 per cent in 1952 to 149 per cent in 1958. It must be remembered that the passenger trains (there being only one each way each day) will continue to stop at Wernersville station. *640 Tickets may be purchased on the train without penalty.

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

Related

Southern Pacific Co. v. ARIZONA CORPORATION COM'N
404 P.2d 692 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1965)
Koehler's Bar, Inc. Liquor License Case
201 A.2d 306 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1964)
Erie-Lackawanna Railroad v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
202 Pa. Super. 511 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1964)
Pa. Railroad Co. v. Pa. Puc
199 Pa. Super. 158 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)
Pennsylvania Railroad v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
197 Pa. Super. 382 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)
Reading Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
194 Pa. Super. 577 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)
Chemical Tank Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
165 A.2d 668 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
New York Central Railroad v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
193 Pa. Super. 636 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
NY Central RR Co. v. PA. PUC
193 Pa. Super. 636 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
159 A.2d 61, 191 Pa. Super. 635, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reading-co-v-pennsylvania-public-utility-commission-pasuperct-1960.