Sherwood v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

109 A.2d 220, 177 Pa. Super. 6, 1954 Pa. Super. LEXIS 251
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 15, 1954
DocketAppeal, No. 56
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 109 A.2d 220 (Sherwood 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
Sherwood v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 109 A.2d 220, 177 Pa. Super. 6, 1954 Pa. Super. LEXIS 251 (Pa. Ct. App. 1954).

Opinion

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

This is an appeal from an- order of tbe Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission granting Tbe Pennsylvania Railroad Company the right to abandon all passenger train service between Lancaster, Lancaster County, and York, York County. At approximately the same time the Commission, by order, authorized Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., an affiliate of the Railroad Company, to operate a substituted bus service for the rail service on substantially identical time schedules, with identical termini and substantially identical intermediate stops.

The facilities involved consist of a single track branch line railroad extending from Lancaster to York, a distance of 24.7 rail miles. Existing rail service is furnished by a self-contained self-propelled Diesel electric car with a capacity of 66 passengers, acquired in 1931, placed in this service in 1935 and completely rebuilt in 1948. A similar car is held in reserve. The substituted bus is a modern inter-city, air-conditioned highway coach, equipped with comfortable reclining seats and three baggage compartments beneath the bus proper, one of which is in the rear of the bus, extending across its entire width. There are seven racks inside on each side of the bus, each rack being 12 inches high, 22 inches deep and 38 inches in width. Arrangements have been made to furnish additional trips if the need arises. Extra drivers and buses are always available.

The City of York is located on the main line tracks of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company extending from Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland, to Harrisburg, at which latter point the line connects with the main line of the Railroad between New York City, Philadelphia and the West.

[9]*9“Our scope of review on appeal is the same whether the Commission’s order is a certification of new service or permits abandonment of existing public service. In either event, we determine whether there is error of law or lack of evidence to support the finding, determination, or order of the Commission, or violation of constitutional rights.” Commuters’ Committee v. Pa. P. U. C., 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 596, 600, 88 A. 2d 420; Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co. v. Pa. P. U. C., 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 411, 415, 85 A. 2d 646.

“The jurisdiction of the Commission to grant certificates authorizing abandonment or curtailment of service by a public utility, as expressly granted under section 202 of the Public Utility Law, is clear. . . .” New Castle v. Pa. P. U. C., 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 569, 571, 94 A. 2d 57.

“The question of whether such approval shall be given or withheld is an administrative one to be determined within the discretion of the commission.” Phila. & West Chester Traction Co. v. Public Service Commission, 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 355; Borough of Carlisle v. Public Service Commission, 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 475.

“The weight to be given evidence and conflicts in testimony are matters exclusively for the commission, the fact finding body, to determine.” Lyons Transportation Co. v. Pa. P. U. C., 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 335, 337, 338, 61 A. 2d 362.

“We are not permitted to exercise our independent judgment, nor to weigh conflicting evidence.” Hutchison v. Pa. P. U. C., 168 Pa. Superior Ct. 319, 321, 77 A. 2d 744.

In this appeal there is no violation of constitutional rights or other error of law involved and, con[10]*10sequently, tlie sole question at issue is whether the Commission’s order and the findings therein are supported by substantial evidence with rational probative force in the record. Arsenal Board of Trade v. Pa. P. U. C., 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 548, 72 A. 2d 612.

In Commuters’ Committee v. Pa. P. U. C., supra, we said that the following factors are to be considered: “(1) The extent of the carrier’s loss on the particular branch or portion of the service, and the relation of that loss to the carrier’s operation as a whole; (2) the use of the service by the public and the prospects as to future use; (3) a balancing of the carrier’s loss with the inconvenience and hardship to the public upon discontinuance of such service; (4) the availability and the adequacy of service to be substituted.”

The gross revenue received from passenger service on this branch line for 1951 was $41,344.00. The out-of-pocket operating expense was $87,823.00. These figures do not include the cost of any track, right-of-way, personnel other than the crew, and overhead. The out-of-pocket loss from the operation of passenger service on this branch is approximately $45,000.00 per annum or 51 cents per train mile. This branch has been losing money for a number of years in spite of the fact that it was operated by a Diesel electric rail car, which is the most economical type of equipment for such an operation. The loss from passenger service on the entire system is offset by freight revenues. However, the net return, after accrued depreciation on its investment in railroad property devoted to public use, varied from 1.45 per cent in 1947 to a high of 3 per cent in 1948 for the five years preceding the application. In Commuters’ Committee v. Pa. P. U. C., supra, the rate of return after accrued depreciation on its investment in railroad property varied from [11]*114.63 per cent in 1945 to 3.58 per cent in 1950. In both of these cases the return is substantially less than has been allowed for other public utilities.

In Commuters’ Committee v. Pa. P. U. C., supra, at page 605, we said: “In arriving at an ultimate conclusion as to partial discontinuance of service, the entire system of the utility or carrier should be viewed as a unit. Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 96, 107, 63 A. 2d 391. The mere fact that a branch line fails to earn its estimated proportionate share is not sufficient to justify its abandonment; a test is whether the loss to the carrier is unreasonable under all the circumstances, having regard to the interests of the public as well as the utility. Borough of Carlisle v. Public Service Commission, 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 475, 481, 482; Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia, 242 U. S. 603, 607, 608, 37 S. Ct. 234, 61 L. Ed. 520; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co., 341 U. S. 341, 347, 71 S. Ct. 762, 95 L. Ed. 1002.”

However, we are not unaware of the serious problem confronting the railroads in the loss of passenger service. In 1947 the Railroad Company here involved had a passenger service loss of $39,536,470.00 and by 1951 the annual loss had grown to $71,687,700.00. In 1946 the loss from railroad passenger operations in general throughout the United States was $139,700,-000.00 and in 1951 the loss had grown to the enormous sum of $615,500,000.00. The Interstate Commerce Commission has constantly called attention to the increasing deficits from passenger operations and has advocated that corrective measures be taken. In their 1949 annual report they said: “Abandonments of unprofitable train services or the substitution of motor services are steps in the right direction.” 63rd [12]*12Animal Report I.C.C. November 1, 1949, p. 4.

In the case of Atlantic Coast Line R. R. v. Public Service Commission, 77 F.

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

Related

City of Philadelphia v. Baker
370 F. Supp. 22 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
Allegheny County v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
201 Pa. Super. 417 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Pittsburgh Railways Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
182 A.2d 80 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)
Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
138 A.2d 698 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 A.2d 220, 177 Pa. Super. 6, 1954 Pa. Super. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwood-v-pennsylvania-public-utility-commission-pasuperct-1954.