Court Opinion

ID: 9845832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:29:10.132468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:23.182569
License: Public Domain

Eggleston, J.,
dissenting.
I am of opinion that the order of the Commission is erroneous and should be reversed.
As the majority opinion points out, the Eailroad applied to the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to substitute for its carriage by rail of less than carload lots of freight between the stations along its road in Virginia, from Norfolk and Portsmouth to the North Carolina line, an identical service by motor vehicle carrier.
The proposed service would be co-ordinated with the Eailroad’s existing rail service and auxiliary to or supplemental of that service. The operation would serve only stations on the Eailroad’s existing rail line, transporting less than carload freight tendered to it for shipment at rail rates and on rail bills of lading to' and from its freight stations along this line. Except for the utilization of a highway truck rather than a railroad freight car for the movement of the freight between such stations, a particular shipment would be handled in the same manner as it is now handled.
The majority opinion holds that the Commission has the authority under the statute to grant the permit, but sustains the Commission’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Eailroad falls short of proving the public convenience of and necessity for the proposed service. I disagree with the latter conclusion.
In Petersburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 152 Va. 193, 203, 146 S. E. 292, 67 A. L. R. 931, we quoted with approval this definition of the crucial words: “In the phrase ‘public convenience and necessity’ the word ‘necessity’ means that which is needful, essential, requisite or conducive to ‘public *813convenience.’ When more convenient and adequate service is ' offered to the public, it would seem that necessity requires such public convenience should be served. ’ ’
While the evidence comes from the officials of the Eailroad Company it is uncontradicted and, in my opinion, sustains the position of the Eailroad. It shows beyond question that by the proposed service less than carload shipments between these stations in Virginia would be transported more expeditiously and promptly, in some cases saving as much as twenty-four hours in the time of delivery, and at less cost to the Eailroad. Local trains would be relieved of their less than carload local business and by the elimination of stops would materially advance their schedules and expedite deliveries of carload business which they would continue to handle. Freight cars now required for the handling of less carload freight and badly needed throughout the nation to relieve the acute railroad car shortage, would be released for the handling of carload business. These uncontroverted benefits to the shipping public constitute important elements of public convenience and necessity.
It is uncontradicted that the difficulty of schedule coordination and other details of operation preclude the satisfactory handling of this business by the existing motor carriers which serve a part of this territory.
Moreover, it clearly appears that the proposed service is not competitive with the services of existing motor carriers. It differs essentially from the service of an ordinary motor carrier operation in that it is merely an adjunct to the Eailroad’s existing rail service. The Eailroad would serve only its rail stations and transport only such shipments as are offered to it as a rail carrier at railroad rates. It would not provide store-to-door pickup and delivery service such as is supplied by motor vehicle carriers.
The record shows that the Interstate Commerce Commission, in the interest of public convenience and necessity, has granted the Eailroad a permit to substitute such motor carrier service for less than carload lots of freight moving along this line in interstate commerce. Like authority has been granted for handling similar intrastate shipments along the extension of this line within the State of North Carolina.
Upon the record before us I am of opinion that the Eailroad should be permitted to put into operation the proposed service in Virginia.