Court Opinion

ID: 9636767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:42:18.883406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:49.160395
License: Public Domain

William J. Brennan, Jr., J.
(dissenting). I fully agree that in this type of case “the- Board must be governed'by the test of public convenience and necessity,” but in the circumstances here I think both the Board of Public Utility Commissioners and the majority unduly emphasize the inconvenience of- the passengers of train 613 at the expense *291of the larger public interest in the continuance of the overall operation of this railroad. The majority sustains the finding of the board that there was public need requiring the continuance of the operation of train 613 in that otherwise the passengers using it must suffer the inconvenience of a 19-to 28-minute delay in arriving at their destinations after their day’s work. However, the record suggests that both the entire railroad and the train have' long been and are and probably will continue to be operated at substantial annual deficits. In such case there looms the prospect of an even more undesirable disservice to the public interest, namely, the discontinuance of the operation of the railroad and of all of its trains. The railroad cannot of course be asked to go on indefinitely as a losing venture. It does not seem to me that the board gave adequate, if indeed any, consideration to that fact and to the possibility of the eventuality that the railroad may go out of business, and whether this greater threat to the public need does not require relief to the road to avert that prospect, either by granting the application notwithstanding the resultant inconvenience to the passengers of train 613 or by the allowance of some alternate form of relief in the way of curtailment of other service or rearrangement of the entire service to effect a saving of expense. The relative importance of the larger public interest is shown by the fact that the discontinuance of this one train, according to the railroad’s figures, would effect a reduction of some 20% in the railroad’s overall net operating loss.
I agree with the majority, however, that the railroad did not sustain its burden to present proof of the propriety of its expenditures and to establish that its operating deficit is bona fide, and agree also that in this regard the relationship of the applicant with Erie necessarily implicates both the bona fides and the reasonableness of the expenses charged or allocated by Erie to the applicant. I would reverse and remand to the board for a further hearing with direction that if the bona fides and reasonableness of the claimed continuing deficits are established, there be granted such relief as *292reasonably may be allowed consistent with a proper balancing of the several elements of public interest involved.
This dissent is joined in by Justice Jacobs.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Oliphant, Wachenfeld and Burling—4.
For reversal — Justices Heher, Jacobs and Brennan — 3.