Opinion ID: 1829127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Patronage

Text: The record contains the testimony of a number of witnesses who testified that at times they had been passengers upon the two trains and that so far as they were concerned the passenger service was needed and most convenient. However, the number and cumulative effect of such witnesses so testifying was not so impressive as to merit an immediate conclusion that passenger service on this route was in fact necessary or that public patronage warranted it. The use of the railroad made by a good many of these witnesses was somewhat sporadic and the length of their trips was of the short-haul type, covering very small distances. Moreover, many of these witnesses testified that they had access to automobiles or that bus service was available nearby. The total number of passengers carried by trains 19 and 20 during the first ten months of 1956 was 17,276. And for the entire previous year the number was 23,159. The figures for the preceding years create a striking picture. They are as follows: 1948126,096; 1949 89,871; 195057,099; 195152,181; 195244,246; 195337,502; and 195428,754. Naturally, the revenue from passenger receipts declined during these years in correspondence to the declining number of passengers. Total passenger revenue for the twelve month period, November, 1955 through October, 1956, was $32,416.42. This figure can be compared with the total wages paid to the train crews operating these two lines during the same period of $137,764.56. The train crew consisted of five men, plus a mail messenger except on Sunday, and an express messenger, except on Saturday and Sunday, a total of seven service personnel for five days each week. During the twelve month period, beginning in November, 1955 and running through October, 1956, there was an average of 6.4 passengers per train mile. The comparison of the number of passengers to crewmen displays an unusual situation. Statistics also show that the average passenger rode approximately only 1/5 of the distance of the whole line. The average number of passengers per trip dropped from 172 in 1948 to 28.32 during the first ten months of 1956. And these passengers, as shown, did not ride the entire distance. Compared with 6.4 passengers per train mile on trains 19 and 20 are the corresponding figures of 37.2 for the state and 65.2 for the entire company system. There was also quite a bit of testimony by merchants and other business men and professional persons relative to the need for continued express service. Indeed, some necessity was shown by many of those who so testified. The effect of the evidence was to show that inconvenience will be caused to many who now use the express service. Express on this line is now handled in a railway express car with an express manager as a part of the regular train complement. There are a number of express agencies between Selma and Mobile, but only three intermediate points between Selma and Birmingham now have express service, viz., Maplesville, Plantersville, and Wilton. Appellee proposes to handle through express between Birmingham and Selma in sealed freight cars, or alternately through Mobile in a regular express car with messenger when necessary. Express for or from Plantersville will be handled according to appellee's proposed plan, in a box car hauled by a local freight and set out for loading. The Wilton-Montevallo area will be served similarly by a freight car on a freight train out of Anniston, Alabama. Maplesville express will be handled by a motor express truck operated by the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad. On the other hand, between Selma and Mobile, a regular express car with an express messenger will be hauled by local freights which have substantially the same schedules as trains 19 and 20. Appellee points out that the Commission in its order determined that the only change in the type of express handled will be the elimination of live express at Wilton and Plantersville. Review of the record shows that many of the witnesses testifying on the subject of express service were unfamiliar with the proposed new express service. Several of these witnesses did not testify directly as to the insufficiency of the proposed service, and the evidence aimed towards establishing the unsatisfactory character of the proposed service, although evincing hardship in isolated cases, is not probatively convincing. It must be expected that the removal of the express service as presently operated will work hardship and inconvenience in certain individual instances. The record here, and its overall picture in this respect, reflects no general public need for the express service exactly as it is carried on today and suggests that actual need and convenience require the present setup in individual situations only.