Opinion ID: 108614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Direct Access

Text: As a reading of Part I reveals, there seems to have been a certain amount of confusion below as to whether or not actual operation over the main tracks of Peninsula by any of the four line-haul carriers was at issue in this case. Early in the Commission's discussion of the merits, for example, it said: [W]e find that since neither SP nor Milwaukee now connect with Peninsula, and have never connected with it in the past, their direct service to Peninsula's industries over the objections of SP&S and UP would constitute a new operation and an invasion of the joint applicant's territory. 334 I. C. C., at 433 (emphasis added). Laying aside the substantive policy involved in this statement, we do not see how the italicized words can refer to anything but physical operation over tracks wholly owned by Peninsula. Yet, as we have already seen supra, at 828-829, and n. 20, and 832 n. 21, the hearing examiner did not recommend the granting of such trackage rights to Milwaukee and SP; and neither of these two railroads filed exceptions to the hearing examiner's report requesting such rights. As for Burlington Northern and UP, the third condition which the Commission imposed on their purchase of Peninsula (quoted supra, at 833) seems to acknowledge that Peninsula will continue to operate as a separate railroad, handling all the switching from industries located upon its lines to the North Portland interchange tracks. This matter was not resolved before this Court. The briefs filed by the appellants and by the United States contain many references to direct access by the line-haul carriers to Peninsula and Rivergate, again strongly suggesting physical operation over Peninsula tracks. The Commission argues that physical operation on the part of Burlington Northern and UP is not at issue, because ownership aloneall that these two railroads seekgives no right to operate over the tracks of the purchased railroad. Brief for Interstate Commerce Commission 23 n. 15; Tr. of Oral Arg. 30. Milwaukee denies that it ever sought to switch cars to Peninsula industries with its own engines and crews, Supplemental Brief for Appellant Milwaukee 34, but no similarly direct statement has been forthcoming from SP. We have set forth but one of the confusionsfactual and proceduralthat plague this case. Such confusions might have been resolved before the case reached us had the three-judge court that initially reviewed these orders written an opinion.