OBEY GENERAL

OFTEXAS .

December 20, 1957

Honorable Olin Culberson Opinion WW-328 Chairman,Railroad Commission of Texas Austin, Texas Re: Railroad Commlssion jurisdiction of motor carrier and motor bus operations over Dallas-FortWorth. Dear Judge Culberson, Turnpike.

We are in receipt of your letter of October 22, 1957,wherein you request our opinion on the following questions:
"1

. Is the Dallas-FortWorth Turnpike and the use of it for hauling for hire under the jurisdictionof the Railroad Commissiona8 isprovided by Texas Civil Statutes, Article glib?
"2

. Is It necessary for any person operating a truck and hauling for hire to have a certificate of authority from the Railroad Commission to engage in such activity?'

as well as another letter from you dated October 22, 1957, in which you ask the followingadditional question,which we designateas No. 

### 3, to-wit:



### “3

. Is it necessary for the operator of a bus in the Dallas-FortWorth area to have a permit from the Railroad Commissionauthorizinghim to operate over the Dallas-FortWorth Turnpike under Texas Civil Statutes,Article glla?"

You state that the Railroad Commission of Texas is confrontedwith a growing situationwith reference to transportation for hire in the area between Fort Worth, Arlington, Orand Prairie and Dallas on the new Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike; that the-city limits of each of the above named cities are contiguous to each other with the exception of a small area on the Fort Worth end, where the Turnpike from the Dallas directionhas already traversedabout three and one-halfmiles within the Incorporatedcity of Fort Worth, then goes into an unincorporatedarea for about two miles, and again enters the incorporatedlimits; and that the city limits of each of the adjoining and oontlguousHonorable Olin Culberson, Page 2 WW-328

cities have been extended inmost instances to the north line of the right-of-way of the Dallas-FortWorth Turnpike, so as to include the Turnpikewithin the limits of the respective cities.

While you have submitted the questionswith reference to motor carrier transportation separate from the questionas to motor bus transportation,we have considered that the questions submitted should be disposed of In one opinion since they deal with related subjects.

The authority of the Railroad Commission of Texas to regulatemotor carrier operations over the public hlghways of this State Is found in Article glib of Vernon's Civil Statutes of Texas, as amended. Prior to the passage of the Texas Turnpike Statute (Article6674V,) the answer to the first two questionsabove listedwould be made to depend on the construction of the term "motorcarrier" as that term is defined in Article glib, Section 1, subparagraph (id9wherein it is stated:

"The term 'motorcarrier'means any person, firm, corporation, company, co-partnership,association or joint stock association,and their lessees, receivers or trusteesappointed by any Court whatsoever owning, controlling,managing, operating or causing to be operated any motor-propelledvehicleused in transportingproperty for compensation or hire over any public highway in this State, where in the cburse of such transportationa highway be~tiveen

two or more Incorporatedcities, towns, or villages is traversed;provided, that the term 'motorcarrier" as used in this Act shallnot include, and this Act shallnot apply to motor vehicles operated excluslve~ly within the incorpoPated limits of cities or towns."
The authority of the Railroad Commisslon’ofTexas. to regulatemotor bus'transportationover the public hlghways of this State is found in Article glla of Vernon's Civil Statutes of Texas, as amended. Prior to the passage of the Texas Turnpike Act above mentioned, the answer to the third question above listedwould depend on the construction of a "motorbus company" as that term is defined in Article glla, Section 1, subdivision (c),wherein it Is stated: "(c)The term 'MotorBus Company' when used in this Act means every corporation or persons as " herein defined, their lessees, trustees,receivers, or trustees appointed by any courtwhatsoever, owning, controlling, operatlng or managing anyHonorable Olin Culberson, Page 

### 3 ~~-328

motor propelled passenger vehicle not usually operated on or over rails, and engaged in the business of transportingpersons for compensation or hire over the public highways within the State of Texas,whether operating over fixed routes or fixed schedules,or otherwise;provided further, that the term 'MotorBus Company' as used in this Act shall not include corporations or persons, their lessees, trustees, or receivers, or trustees appointedby any court whatsoever, insofaras they own, control, operate, or manage motor propelledpassenger vehicles operatedwholly within the limits of any incorporated town'or city, and the suburbs thereof, whether separately incorporatedor otherwise."
Under these definitions of a "motorcarrier" and "motorbus companyU, the jurisdictionof the Railroad Commission over transportation for hire over the DallasFort Worth Turnpike would turn on whether the Turnpike is and whether the provisos in Art. glib, Art. glla, Section l(c) which exclude strictly local operations from the statutorydefinition of a motor carrier and motor bus company, re,sp;ctd$;y, are applicable to the operations involved. TurnpikeAct, however, authorizing the constructionof the Dallas-FortWorth Turnpike, specificallycovers this subjectmatter and clearly confers jurisdictionof transportation for hire over the Turnpike to the Railroad Commission. This Act,~ now carried as Article 

### 6674V, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes (HouseBill 4, chapter 410, Acts, 53rd Legislature,Regular Session,page 

### g67), provides in Section 4(c) thereof as follows:

"Provided,however, any 'Project'or 'TurnpikeProject'which the Authoritymay constructunder the authority of this Act shall at all times be deemed a public highway within the meaning of Chapter 270, page 399, Acts, Fortieth Legislature, 1927, as amended, by Chapter 

### 78, page 196, Forty-first Legislature, First Called Session, 1929, and Chapter 

### 314,page 698, Acts, Forty-first L-eislature,

& 1929, as amended by Chapter 277, page 80, Acts, Forty-secondLegislature, 1931, as amended by Chapter 290, page 

### 463,Acts, Forty-seventh Legislature, 1941, and to that end no motor bus company, common carriermotor carrier, speciallzeamotor carrier, c0rrePgct carrier or othermotor vehicle operation POr compensationand hire shall be conducted thereon except in accordancewith the terms and Provisions of Chapter 270, page 399, Acts, flortlethJ-eglsa ure, 1 ntii
,page 196,Honorable Olin Culberson, Page 4 WW-828
Acts, Forty-first Legislature, First Called Session, 1929, and Chapter 314, page 698, Acts, Forty-firstLegislature, 1929, as amended by Chapter 277, page 480, Acts, Forty-second Legislature, 1931, as amended by Chapter 290, p&T .~6~~~~~~~s~~~~dS~venth Legislature,

The Acts of the Legislaturereferred to in the above Article are Articles 911a and qllb, and Vernon's Ann. P.C. Articles 16goa and 16wb.

Considering the Texas TurnpikeAct 

### in conneation with the Texas Motor Bus Act and the Texas Motor Carrier Act, we answer each of the three questionsabove listed in the affirmative. The language of the Legislature in the above quotedportion of the Turnpike Act clearly evidences a legislative Intent that all operations for hire over any turnpike constructedunder the provisions of that Act are operations over a public highway "withinthe meaning" of the Motor Bus and Motor CarrierActs, and that a motor bus or motor carrier certificate or permit is required to conduct any operations for compensationand hire over all or any part of such turnpikes.

We 

### are of the further opinion that even without the specificprovisions of the TurnpikeAct quoted above, the answers to your questionswould be in the affirmative. A person operating a motor truck for hire from Dallas to Fort Worth, under the facts stated,necessarily traverses a highway between two incorporatedcities and such vehicle Is not operated exclusivelywithin the lncorporated limits of cities or towns, and he is thus a motor carrier as that term is defined In Art.gllb, Section l(g). Similarly,a person engaged in transportingpersons for hire by motor bus from Dallas to Fort Worth Is 

### amotorbus company 

### as that term is defined in Art. glla, Section l(c), as suchpassenger vehicle is not operatedwholly within the limits of any incorporatedcity or the 

### suburbsthereof.

Some questionmight arise under Article glib as to whether motor carrier operations between the other cities on the Turnpike are excluded from the Jurisdiction of the Commission because the cities are contiguous. ThiS departmenthas had occasion to construe the Motor Carrier Act, and specifically Section l(g), on various occasions. In opinion No. O-1592 an exhaustive review of the legislative history of Section l(g) is set forth, including the definition of a motor carrier as oontained In the 1929 Act and the committee recommendations,House and Senate amendments and committee reports on the 1981 Act, which among other changes not here pertinent, amended the definition of a motor carrier to itspresent form. This opinion,-

Honorable Olin Culberson, Page 

### 5 W-328

and other opinions on this subJect such as opinionsNo. O-1497,No. O-3449 and 0-3449-A, and No. 

### O-3535,uniformly hold that the Railroad Commission does not have jurisdiction over transportation from an incorporatedcity or town to an unincorporated town or area, where there are no incorporatedtowns between the two, since no portion of the transportation or route Is between or through two or more incorporatedcities; but if the route passes into or through a second incorporatedcity, then such transportation is under the jurisdictionof the Commission.

In none of these opinions, nor In any part of the Motor Carrier Act, do we find anything to Indicate that the distance between the Incorporatedcity and the unincorporated town or the distance be~tween the two incorporated cities or the contiguity of each to the other determines the jurisdictionof the Railroad Commission.

It;is true that the use of the word between In the phrase

. . .where in the course of such transportation a highway between two or more incorporatedcities, towns or villages is traversed" could be argued as denoting or requiring an intervening space or distance between the two cities. Such a strict construction is not in keeping with the overallpurposes of the Act. In Texas Turnpike Authority v. Sheppard, 279 S.W.2d 302 (Sup.Ct., 1955), the Court disposed of a contention that the bond Issue , approval was properly refused because the Turnpike Authority was not empowered to build the toll road from a point within the city of Fort Worth to a point within the city of,Dallas, because the statuteauthorized and direated the construction of a toll road between "thetwo cities," by stating:

"Asused in its literal sense the word 'between'usually denotes an intervening space or distance between two objects and has the effect of excluding the boundaries. Blackstone(s La ictlonary, 1 

### 5 ,p. 833 Louisville & N.R. Cow v Loyd, 

### 186Ala. 119, 

### 65 So. 

### 153;City of Philadell phia v. Citizens' Pass. Ry.Co., 

### 151 Pa. 128, 

### 24 A. 1099. However, from a constructionof the entire Act we think the word was not used by the Legislature in an exclusionary sense or to prohibit the constructionof the toll road partly within the limits of the two cities. Rather the word designates the termini of the route.

. . . "If the construction of the road was limited to begin at the boundary line of one city to the boundary of the other the value of the road and the purposes 

### forwhich it is designed, namely: to-- ,

Honorable Olin Culberson, Page 

### 6 WW-328
facilitatevehicular traffic, to effect traffic safety, to constructmodern expressways, to provide better connectionsbetween highways of this and adjoining cities,would be largely lost and rendered ineffectual. If traffic is to be facllltated the congestionand hazardswithin the city must be to some extent eliminated."
The streets of incorporatedcities or towns are also public highways. State v. City of El Paso, 

### 135Tex. 359, 

### 143 S.W.2d 

### 366;Lamkin v. State, 123 S.W.2d 

### 662.

objectives

Considering the Motor CarrierAct 

### as a whole, the sought to be accomplishedand the obvious legislative intent, as well as the previous opinions of this department,we conclude that the Railroad Commissionhas jurisdictionover all motor carrier operations over the public highways of this State except local operationswithin the limits of an incorporatedcity or town and operations from an incorporatedcity or town where such servicedoes not pass into or through another incorporatedcity or town.

The definition of a motor bus company,Art. glib, Sec. l(c), differs from that of a motor carrier. The only motor bus operations excluded from the Commission's jurisdictionare those "whollywithin the limits of 

### any incorporatedtown or city, and the sslburbs thereof,whether separately incorporatedor otherwise." (Emphasissum)

What constitutesa suburb of a city and whether a city, town or village adjoining or adjacent to another city Is a suburb thereofwithin the meaning of the Motor Bus Act, Is necessaril Holguin, 

### 146Tex. 1 a fact question. InVillalobos vs. 

### 74, 208 S.W.2d 

### 871,the Supreme Court held that the Railroad Commission of Texas did not have authority to regulate transportationof passengerswithin the limits of an incorporatedcity or town and the suburbs thereof. The questionhad arisen whether Ysleta, Socorro, San Eliziarlo and Clint and the territory between these villageswere suburbs of El Paso. The Supreme Court held that because therewere farm lands between Ysleta, Socorro, San Eliziario, Clint and El Paso, the smaller towns 

### named were not suburbs of El Paso. We do not believe that the existence of farm lands between towns is the sole criterion for determiningwhether or not a town or village or 

### an Incorporatedcity adjacent to or adjoining 

### a larger town is a suburb thereof. Itmay be that under the Motor Bus Act the Railroad Commission of Texas would be authorized to considerwhether the smaller adjacent or adjoining town had such industry and transportationproblems as to be considered separate and independent from the larger town adjoining it. The existence of terminals and depots In theHonorable Olin Culberson, 

### Page7 WW-328

smaller town, the existence of separate industries,stores and businesses therein,which allow It to draw from the trade territory adjoining it,may- be factors to be considered in determiningwhether it exists independentlyor as a suburb of an adjacent town.

It is our opinion that the courtswould take judicialnotice that Fort Worth is not a suburb of Dallas or vice versa. As towhether Grand Prairieand Arlington, or other communities in this general area, are suburbs of each other or of either Dallas or Fort Worth, if any doubt exists and if the occas,ion arises, the Commission can hear testimony on the question, in accordancewith our opinion No. O-2737. With reference to the jurisdictionof the Commission over a motor bus applicationproposing service from Fruitdaleacres to Preston Hollow via Dallas,Highland Park and University Park, it was there statedas follows:

"The Commission can hear testimony on the question. If the evidence shows conclusively that all points involved in the operation are either within the city limits of Dallas or its suburbs, or If the Commission so findsupon disputed evidence, then the application should be dismissed, since the Railroad Commissionwould be without jurisdiction. On the other hand If the evidence shows beyond any dispute that someparts ofthe operationwould be conducted outside the limits of Dallas and its suburbs, or if the Commission so finds upon contradictory testimony, the Commissionwould have jurlsdlctionto entertain the applicationupon itsmerits."

SUMMARY
1. The Dallas-FortWorth Turnpikeand ~the use of it for hauling for hire is under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission of Texas.
2. It is necessary for any person operating a truck and hauling for hire to have a certificate of authority from the Railroad Commission of Texas to engage in such activity, and


### 3. It is necessary for the operator of a bus Inthe Dallas-Fort,Wortharea to have a permit from the Railroad Commission,authorizinghim to operate over the Dallas-FortWorth Turnpike

### HonorableOlinCulberaon, Page8 WW-328

underTexasCivilStatutee,Article911a. Verytrulyyours,

nt AttorneyGeneral,

APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMITTEE:
Geo.P. ,Blackburn, Chairfnan

W.V.Gemert
JohnWebster‘
Milton 

### Richardson