199 Pa. Super. 303 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1962
Opinion by
This appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission involves the right of the Shafer Coach Lines, Inc. to operate buses as a common carrier over the Airport Parkway between Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh Airport.
The commission, after application and hearing, granted Shafer this right over the protests of Gradison Auto Bus Company, Inc., The Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh and the Airlines Transportation Company, all of which now have authority to operate over the same route. The three protestants appealed.
Shafer operates a bus service between Aliquippa and Pittsburgh along the Ohio River through Coraopolis and McKees Rocks. It also operates a bus line between the Greater Pittsburgh Airport and Coraopolis, serving a part of Moon Township, a rapidly growing community in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Shafer can thus transport passengers between the airport and Pittsburgh by way of Coraopolis and McKees Rocks.
By the order before us, Shafer obtained authority from the commission to operate bus service from the village of Stoops Ferry, which is on its route between Aliquippa and Coraopolis, through Moon Township to the Greater Pittsburgh Airport and thence over the Airport Parkway to Pittsburgh “with the right to render shuttle service between points on said route . . .” The order thus gives Shafer authority to operate a bus service over the parkway between the airport and Pittsburgh in direct competition to the appellants. Although it is evident that the application was to secure the right to operate a bus service between the airport and Pittsburgh, the evidence presented by the appli
The commission had no authority to grant Shafer the right to establish this competing service over the Airport Parkway unless it was shown to be “necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public”. Public Utility Law of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1053, §203, 66 P.S. §1123.
This determination is for the commission. “The order of the commission shall not be vacated or set aside, either in whole or in part, except for error of law or lack of evidence to support the finding, determination, or order of the commission, or violation of constitutional rights.” The Public Utility Law of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1053, §1107, as amended, 66 P.S. §1437.
We have stated repeatedly that our duty on appeal is not to exercise our independent judgment on the record or to weigh conflicting evidence, but it is limited in this respect to the question whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings and order of the commission. Modern Transfer Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 110, 113, 125 A. 2d 463 (1956); Motor Freight Express v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 622, 626, 627, 121 A. 2d 617 (1956); Follmer Trucking Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 204, 211, 150 A. 2d 163 (1959). The desired flexibility in administrative pro
There is no substantial evidencé of the need for additional service between the Greater Pittsburgh Airport and Pittsburgh. The commission’s order sets forth that two witnesses “testified that it would be most convenient for them to [use the proposed service] by taking the bus from the Airport, where they could find shelter in bad weather.” The reference was to a witness who resides in Moon Township approximately one mile from the airport terminal. He testified that he would prefer to have his wife drive him to the airport and take a bus to Pittsburgh from there, than to take the bus where it passes within a block of his home. The other witness testified that he “probably” would take the bus from the airport, a half or three quarters of a mile from his home rather than take it where it passes within a quarter of a mile of his home.
The commission also makes reference to the testimony of one of the protestants’ witnesses who said that two persons interviewed by him had “expressed a desire for the proposed services”. The names of these two persons were on a list containing the names of 39 persons who, according to the applicant, desired its proposed service. None of these 39 persons was called as a witness. Counsel for the applicant admitted on the record that none of those on the list needed transportation from the airport. This list was placed in the commission’s files, but it was not admitted into evidence. A protestant’s witness had attempted to interview these 39 persons and said that only two had expressed a desire for the proposed service. This testimony had no
Over 30,000 persons travel by public conveyance between the airport and Pittsburgh each month. If there is a need for additional service, there should be no difficulty in establishing that need by competent evidence. It is too clear for discussion that there is no evidence in this case which supports a finding of any such need. It is evident that the applicant here is attempting to secure a right through the back door Avhich it is unAvilling to seek by the front door. It has been unwilling to apply for, and present the necessary evidence to support, a shuttle bus service between Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh Airport, yet that is what it is seeking, and that is what the commission gave it.
The commission contends that it is not necessary for Shafer to present evidence of a need for bus service between the airport and Pittsburgh over the parkway because Shafer now has the right to serve these two points over a different route. Neither Shafer nor the commission cite any authority for this contention. It is not necessary to establish need every time a carrier seeks to take advantage of a neAvly constructed highway between two points which it has authority to serve. On the other hand, a carrier may not obtain a right to compete with other carriers over a new route Avithout showing need merely because it has authority to operate over a different route between the two communities.
The applicant has not met the burden of proving public necessity for the new and additional service of carrying passengers over the parkway between the City of Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh Airport. If there is any public necessity for the additional service between these points, Shafer should have no difficulty in presenting evidence of such necessity. In its present application, it has not met the burden of establishing the need for such additional service.
The order appealed from is amended by striking out the authority given to the applicant to pick up or dis