Evening star., 1938-10-17
AUT0-RA|L ROUTE
IN D. c. OPPOSED
ASHEAR|NCOPENS
CAPITAL Transit and Coach
Company Ask Plea Be
Turned Down.
WASHINGTON SERVICE
NOT AIM, FIRM SAYS
Question of Pickup and Delivery
Operations Occupies Most Of
First Two Hours.

The Capital Transit Co. and the
Washington Virginia IL Maryland
Coach Co. at public hearing before
the Public Utilities Commission today
vigorously opposed a proposal of the
Arlington e. Fairfax Auto-Rail Co. to
extend its service into the District.
Attorneys for the auto-rail COM
pany insisted, however, that the op-
posing companies had no right to
appear in the case. contending that
any question of public convenience
or competition with the other COM
panies was not at issue.
A Capital Transit Co. motion to
dismiss the application for designa-
ton of route for operation OF the
auto-rail cars into the District from
Virginia was accepted tentatively by
the commission pending later ruling
on whether it legally was admissible.
The first two hours of the public
hearing were devoted largely to ar
gument by the opposing attorneys over
the question of whether the proposed
pickup and delivery service for the
railroad passengers or would amount
to a new bus line.
No Business in District.
E. D. Campbell, attorney for the
auto-railroad company, emphasized
that the company was asking the
commission only to designate route
for operation of pickup and delivery
service and it did not propose to en-
gage in any business within the Dis
trict. He also emphasized that
certificate of convenience and neces-
sity was not being sought on the
ground that it was not necessary for
such a service.
S. r. Bowen and G. Thomas Dunlop.
representing the Capital Transit Co.,
and Edward Brashears. appearing for
the Washington, Virginia g. Maryland
Coach Co., contended on the other
hand that the autorail company must
first procure a certificate of public con-
venienee and necessity before operating
the proposed service.
The Interstate Commerce Commits
sion has ruled that sno such certificate
would be required for the extension of
railway service within the company'S
terminal area under part one of the
Interstate Commerce Act concerning
railroads. The opposing companies
contend that the proposed operations
would amount to a bus line. which
would come under part two OF the act.
Dismissal Sought.
The motion filed by Mr.. Bowen and
Mr.. Dunlop asked the commission to
dismiss the auto-rail companys appli-
cation on the grounds that:
81. The application fails to meet
the requirements of law.
%. The application fails to disclose
that the applicant has secured a
certificate of convenience and neces-
sity from the Interstate Commerce
Commission under either part one or
part two of the Interstate Commerce
Act. or a determination made by COM
petent authorities that no such cer-
tificate is required.
"3. The application fails to show
ANA
of motor vehicles within the contem-
plation of the Motor Carrier Act OF
1895.
4. The application fails to show
that the applicant is engaged at the
present time in the transportation OF
passengers in interstate commerce.
IS. The application in effect asked
authority of the Public Utilities Com
mission for the right to do an intra-
state business on the streets OF the
District of Columbia, and without a
certificate Of convenience and neces-
sitv, and in direct competition with
the lines of the Capital Transit Co. and
other carriers"
1888 Act Is Cited.
The motion also contended that the
auto-rail company in effect asked the
commission to refuse to be bound oy
provisions of the 1923 act authorizing
the merger of street railway companies
In the District, which stipulated that
mo competitive street railway or bus
line shall be esta ablished without the
.prior issuance of certificate by the
Public Utilities Commission to the ef-
feet that the competitive line is neces-
sary for the convenience OF the public
Mr.. Campbell opposed admission OF
the motion on the ground that there
was no question of convenience and
necessity at issue under which the
Capital Transit Co. could conceivably
appear ;,
I'VE stand or fall on this position.
Mr.. Campbell said. The auto-rall
company is not a competitive street
railway or bus line, but is an inter-
state railroad, not competitive WITHIN
the District" He contended the Merger
Act referred to in the Capital Transit
Co. motion could not be applied to the
interstate railways because they were
Under the jurisdiction of the l. G. e.
and the Public Utilities Commission
could not interfere with the free flow
of interstate commerce.
The service would be similar, he ex-
plained, to the pickup and delivery
service operated by the Baltimore &
Ohio Railroad, which runs buses be-
tween its terminal in New Jersey and
New York City to pick up and de-
liver passengers.
Franklin K. Lane, president of the
Arlington and Fairfax Auto-Rail Co.,
testified that under the proposed serv-
ice its auto-rail cars-which operate
either on rails like street car or on
rubber tires like a bus-would leave
their rails at Rosslyn, Va, to bring
passengers into downtown Washing
ton, and pick up passengers at the
downtown terminus for points along
the rail line in Virginia. He en-
phasiZed that no passengers would be
carried between points in the District
or just between the District and the
Rosslyn terminal. The majority of
the rail lines passengers now travel
between the Roeslyn terminal and the
District by Capital Transit street cars