Appendix — Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Supreme Court brief1984
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Office - Supe . i:
PILED
3-985
No. | ALEXANDER 1 STEVAs,
IN THE nt
Supreme Court of the United States
OcTOBER TERM, 1983
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CoO.
Appellant,
Vv.
PuBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Appellees.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO. et al.,
Appellants,
Vv.
PusLic UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Appellees.
On Appeal from the Supreme Court of California
Appendix to Jurisdictional Statement — State Civil Case
THORMUND A. MILLER
JOHN MACDONALD SMITH
(Counsel of Record)
CarROL A. HARRIS
ANN FINGARETTE HASSE
813 Southern Pacific Building
One Market Plaza
San Francisco, California 94105
(415) 541-1756
Attorneys for Appellants
December 13, 1983
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Opinions Appealed From
Order Denying Writ of Review, S.F. No. 24525
tas UID Saacheeniesucicadsntpseviidncebiciienecstanicanesnnns la
Order Denying Writ of Review, S.F. No. 24573
CIE OR, OID cttctciesesconsnnccsacstindsececnsssineniocse 2a
Public Utilities Commission
Decision 91847, Case No. 10575, 3 Cal.PUC 2d. 679
I i cas uniiamanaus 3a
Decision 92230, Case No. 10575
(September 30, 1980) ( unreported ) ................006. 66a
Decision 92862, Case No. 10575
(April 7, 1981) (unreported ) ...........cccccccccscrecsereeee 73a
Decision 92863, Case No. 10575, 5 Cal.PUC 2d 773
OR 5 PRRREUIM I Ret LA a ne Da SeenON 82a
Decision 93118, Case No. 10575
(June 16, 1981) (unreported ) ...... cc ecceeeeees 100a
Decision 93211, Case No. 10575
(June 16, 1981) (unreported ) ..............csscccsssereeeees 102a
Decision 82-06-045, Case No. 10575
(June 2, 1982) (unreported ) ............sscccssscccssceseees 11Sa
Decision 82-10-031, Case No. 82-08-01
(October 6, 1982) (unreported ) 00.0.0... cece 125a
Decision 82-10-041, Case No. 82-08-01
( October 8, 1982) (unreported )...........:cccceeeeeeee I3la
Decision 83-02-079, Case No. 82-08-01
( February 17, 1983) (unreported )...................000. 146a
Decision 83-03-027, Case No. 82-08-01
(March 11, 1983) (unreported ) .......... cece ceeeee 1SSa
Interstate Commerce Commission
Ex Parte No. 388, State Intrastate Rail
Authority—P.L. 96-448
Order, November 3, 1980, 45 Fed.Reg. 74571
PI SI Dsccntcccnesecnstsmshesiswansneindecen 178a
Order, 364 ICC 881 (April 17, 1981), 46
Fed.Reg. 23335 ( April 24, 1981)... cece 180a
PAGE
Order, 365 ICC 700 ( May 4, 1982), 47 Fed.Reg.
yoo Tt 8 sh ee 188a
Special Tariff Authority No. 83-1876
COI We, HIIIEE cicesitiiascepesitinetiniiaccdeksneesnduiinnate 190a
Suspension Case No. 70965, California Special Train
Service, Southern Pacific
IOSD CEAUCRENOOE 1, TDG ) qc ccccscesevsecevescsctdeeccesences 192a
Erockedees (Famery 17, -1GGD ) vacsesssusscsvcesccsssssesenseserss 194a
Finance Docket 30123, Southern Pacific Trans-
portation Company Discontinuance of Passenger
Train Service in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties,
California
Decision (December 2, 1983) ( unprinted )............ 197a
Federal Court Proceedings
Texas v. United States, No. A-80-CA-487 (W.D. of
Texas, filed December 20, 1980)
Order ( November 3, 1982 )................cccccceeecesseeseeees 247a
Southern Pacific Transportation Company v. Public
Utilities Commission, No. C-82-3074 MHP
U.S.D.C., N.D. Cal.
EE CF BB icssiiesincnsssinsccpceinnbinnnnniendyiags 250a
Amendment to Order ( August 11, 1982) ............... 257a
Order ( November 4, 1982 ) ..................ccccccesesessseeee 259a
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. The Public
Utilities Commission, et al., No. 82-4466, 9th Cir.
Opinion (September 27, 1983) ...........cccccccceeseeeeeeees 26la
Notices of Appeal
Notice of Appeal, S.F. No. 24526...........cccccccssccsscscessseees 272a
Notice of Appeal, S.F. No. 24573...........ccccssscssscssssssseeees 273a
Statutory Provisions
Interstate Commerce Act, including Staggers Rail Act
of 1980, P.L, 96-448, 94 Stat. 1985
ries BNET Scpieensitincatldaniecicinallagatlenieclcptianicaies 274a
BP Th ie Pe BP iccsicneiecnesassectceiiinaedlanninianints 275Sa
FP ise SOO EF B itrisnsiessitbatinhinivestnicatiniiagaialincline 275a
ct de I ig 4 OTE AT EAN 8 ST 276a
PE Bole GE CIE icsintiiccesinecsennncinininepeceninmestiabaeaion 277a
PAGE
Staggers Rail Act of 1980, PL 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895 ,
eae ss etiapbensbinenecensentouios 283a
California Civil Code
a 283a
California Public Utilities Code
a. a ceaeenesincengeennobacens 284a
Coie D Lal ts. sungussnbcsoedeinesevecevtnbuees 284a
A ne EE 286a
Additional Materials
Letter to R. D. Krebs, Southern Pacific Transportation
Company, from Gretchen Dumas, Public Utilities
Commission ( January 6, 1981 )..........cccccccceeceeeeteeees 287a
SUPREME COURT
FILED
AUGUST 18, 1983
LAURENCE P_ GILL.
Clerk
ORDER DENYING WRIT OF REVIEW
S.F. No. 24525
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN BANK
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORATATION
COMPANY, etc.,
Petitioner
Vv.
PuBLic UTILITIES COMMISSION,
etc., et al.,
Respondents;
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, etc.,
Real Party In Interest
Petition for writ of review DENIED.
BIRD
Chief Justice
2a
SUPREME COURT
FILED
SEPTEMBER 14, 1983
LAURENCE P. GILL
CLERK
ORDER DENYING WRIT OF REVIEW
SF No. 24573
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN BANK
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY, et al.
Ve
PuBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Petition for writ of review DENIED.
BirD
Chief Justice
3a
680 Dec. 91847
DECISION NO. 91847. CASE NO. 10575
(June 2. 1980)
Complaint of County of Los Angeles v. SoPac Transp. Co. to operate pamenger train
service between Los Angeles and Oxnard granted.
(1) Onpers oF Commission—CONCLUSIVENESS AND FINALITY. We determined that
SP's argument had no merit and denied its motion on February £7, 1979 in D 90018.
SP did not pursue its right to seek judicial review of this determination and it thereby
became final by operation of law. (PU Code Secs. 1709 and 1756.)
(2] Depicarnon. From the onset of State regulation over railroads as public utilities,
the scope of their dedication has been primarily defined in terms of the rights-of-way
over which they provide railroad service with no distinction made between passenger
and freight service.
{3} Rattroaps. We know of no cases restricting the application of this section [763] to
service presently being provided. The Commission may also, after hearing, order
additions, extensions to, or changes in existing equipment of facilities, “to promote
the security or convenience of its employees or the public, or in any other way to
secure adequate service or facilities, . . .“ (Section 762.)
(4) CERTIFICATES—CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY—IN CENERAL. The concept of
convenience and necessity is necessarily fluid. The factors which determine
re eget py at ot an ye ge Map wa andes a opera pemeed
Se ee
[5] COmMMISSION—JURISDICTIONAL LIMITATIONS—FEDERAL BOaARDs. We acknow!l-
edge that where a railroad has contracted with Amtrak for the latter to take over
intercity passenger service, the railroad is relieved of its responsibilities under State
law as a common carrier of passengers, but in intercity only (45 U.S.C.A. Section
561 (a) (1)). This does not affect any responsibilities SP may have to provide com-
muter service, nor does it affect the Commission's jurisdiction to determine the
extent of such responsibility.
(6) SERVICE—SERVICE AND FACILITIES REQUIRED. We wish to stress that it is essential
that the Commission staff have full access to public utility property and facilities in
order to conduct the examinations and tests pertaining to the powers afforded the
Commission and its staff in the Public Utilities Act.
Owen L. Gallagher and Douglas Ring, Attorneys at Law, for County of Los Angeles; and
Robert A. Munroe, O. /. Solander, and Robert B. Patterson, Attorneys at Law, for
State of California, Department of Transportation; complainants.
John MacDonald Smith and Carol A. Harris, Attorneys at Law, for Southern Pacific
Transportation Company, defendant.
OO ie katie dies vat mer at A gary ae
Given and Lat J. Celmins, Attorney at Law, for Greyhound Lines, Inc.; intervenors.
K D. Walpert, for Department of Transportation, City of Los ; Dana Reed,
Attorney at Law, for Los Angeles Taxpayers Association; Thomas E- Malley, Attorney
at Law, for Ventura County Bar Association; and Benson T Buck, Attorney at Law,
for General Motors Corporation; interested parties.
Vincent MacKenzie, Attorney at Law, for the Commission staff.
iad
Reasons for Filing Complaint
seeeeeeeee
Supervision "
(3) Growth of Area and Expansion of Conflict Problem
(4) Estimated Costs for Providing Service
(5) SP’s Current Financial Condition
Complainants’ Showing
gvgagsssszaeeeeeeseeseeessssagasagal
ts’ Rebuttal Showing .....................
1. Laurence A. Brophy
2 Donald H. King
3. Donald Church 710
4. William W. Whitehurst, Jr 710
Greyhournd’s Showing... cesses 712
Discussion 713
Jurisdiction 714
Public Con ON NOCORBITY o.occcccccscseccesesseeneeneees 718
Adequacy of Existing Track Facilities................. 718
| ARE 719
Reliability of Service 720
Equipment ........ 721
Locomotives 721
Schedules 721
IN cihitechtersticovestsicenasensernions 722
Station Facilities 722
Home Terminal 722
Equipment Maintenance 723
Supervision 723
Costs . 7%
* Motion to Strike SP’s Surrebuttal Showing 74
SP's for a Protective Order 7%
SP’s Motion for an Environmental Lmpact Report =
™
ain an
682 Sa Dec. 91847
OPINION
By their complaint filed May 18, 1978, the County of Los Angeles
(County) and the State of California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) request an order of the Commission directing Southern
Pacific Transportation Company (SP) to operate passenger train
service between Los Angeles and Oxnard.
On October 6, 1978 SP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction. Following oral argument on November 13, 1978 the
motion was denied by Decision No. 90018 dated February 27, 1979. By
Decision No. 90412 dated June 5, 1979 rehearing on the motion was
denied.
Public hearing on the complaint was held before Administrative Law
Judge Daly at Simi Valley, Los Angeles, and San Francisco and was
submitted on January 22, 1980 upon concurrent briefs, which were filed
on March 12, 1980.
Reasons for Filing Compleint
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors member Baxter Ward and
Ms. Adriana Gianturco, Director of Caltrans, testified on behalf of
complainants.
Supervisor Ward testified that in June 1974, County allocated
$4,125,000 for developing a pilot commuter rail service in three
corridors: (1) San Fernando Valley, (2) San Bernardino, and (3) Santa
Ana. He further testified that following a meeting with Amtrak's
president, County was advised that Amtrak would provide service only
in the Santa Ana corridor and only upon the condition that service was
extended to San Diego and County purchased the equipment. County
thereupon purchased and refurbished eight passenger cars and The
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company agreed to operate the
service for Amtrak with Caltrans as the prime contractor. Following a
six-month trial period, Caltrans agreed to undertake full responsibility
for financing the service. This freed the eight rail cars, which were
replaced by Amtrak fleet coaches.
On March 9, 1978 representatives of the County met with SP and
requested that it “haul” the County's railroad cars or initiate the sought
train service. SP refused and the instant complaint followed.
Ms. Gianturco testified that approximately 86 percent of all travel is
by automobile and less than one percent is by train. According to Ms.
Gianturco, the extensive use of the automobile has placed large costs on
the general public in terms of environmental deterioration, traffic
congestion, energy consumption, and the use of large amounts of land
for roads and parking. As a result, Caltrans now has second thoughts
Dec. 91847 6a 683
about the desirability of unrestrained auto use, particularly in urban
areas. The goal of Caltrans is to develop a balanced transportation
system that considers all transportation modes within realistic funding
levels. Caltrans contends that there is an existing need for commuter
rail service between Oxnard and Los Angeles Union Terminal and that
inauguration of such a service would be responsive to the Legislature's
support for alternative rail service as expressed in Chapter 1130,
Statutes of 1975, as amended by Chapter 1067, Statutes of 1977, wherein
it stated:
“It is the policy of the state to encourage rail nger service as
an alternative to the automobile because of such services’ high fuel
efficiency and in order to relieve heavily traveled highways.”
History
On October 29, 1901, the Pacific Electric Railroad System (PE),
consisting of eight interurban street railroads, was organized for the
purpose of providing local and commuter rail service within the Los
Angeles Basin. Mr. Henry E. Huntington, who was the largest single
shareholder, was also a vice president of SP. On September 11, 1911 PE
became a wholly owned subsidiary of SP and was used as a feeder
service to SP’s transcontinental and San Francisco Bay Area trains.
Service by PE from Los Angeles to the San Fernando Valley was
commenced in 1911. By 1937 SP operated five daily passenger trains
between Los Angeles and Oxnard over the Coast Line, three of which
served numerous stations between those points.
The peak of the PE service was between 1923 and 1927 when it
carried as many of 109,185,650 passengers annually and operated over
1,164 miles of track, exclusively in the Los Angeles Basin.
In 1904 SP completed dedication of the final portions of its “Coast
Line” south of Santa Barbara through Oxnard and the Santa Susana
Tunnel to Los Angeles as part of its mainline passenger service. Prior
thereto train service between Los Angeles and Oxnard was serviced via
Saugus over the “Santa Paula Branch” along the Santa Clara River.' SP
had operated various trains in local service between Santa Barbara and
Los Angeles and between Oxnard and Los Angeles over the Santa Paula
Branch until 1934 and through the Santa Susana Tunnel route
subsequently.
With the advent of the freeway system, PE service was gradually
discontinued pursuant to Commission authorization and was
completely discontinued in 1967. By the same token, SP passenger train
service over the Coast Line was in large part discontinued pursuant to
various Commission decisions or tariff filings from 1934 to 1968. The last
trains operated by SP over the Coast Line were the Coast Daylight
‘ See Appendix A
684 7a Dec. 91847
Trains Nos. 98 and 99, which were taken over on May 1, 1971 by Amtrak
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Rail Passenger Service Act of
1970.
Proposed Service
In addition to the eight “E] Camino” passenger cars owned by
County, eight additional passenger cars for the second train would be
acquired by Caltrans. Both trains would be operated on weekdays
between Los Angeles and Oxnard in accordance with the following
schedules, each would have a running time of one hour and thirty
minutes:
Tran Train Train Train
axe 300 201 ja3
am am Mile Stanon pm p.m
62 600 «78 Oxnard 6 700
62 609 4166 Camarillo 621 651
60 62 az i Moorpark 610 60
652 6322 a7 5 Santa Susana 558 628
704 6% “55 Chatsworth 546 6.16
710 60 “99 Northndge 5 610
717 657 4550 Panorama $33 60
7% 7104 05 Airport 5.26 5:56
712 710 4716 Burbank 521 551
7% 716 4771 Clencile 514 5“
780 7” 428 Los Angeles 500 5.30
According to a senior marketing consultant for the Division of Mass
Transportation of Caltrans, the running time result in an average speed
of 44 mph based upon the assumption of a 30-second dwell-time at each
station with reasonable assumptions for acceleration and deceleration.
In the event that the proposed running time cannot be met, it is the
intention of complainants to protect the Los Angeles Union Terminal
arrival and departure times.
The proposed zone fares are as follows:
90-RAide
Between (Day) “Family” Sungle Fide
Los Angeles Ticket One-was
And Commutation @-Day Limit Fare
Red Clendale
Zone | Burbank Airport 3 75 140 16
Creen
Zone 2 Panorama Bo 7790 1.70
Orange
Zone 3 Northndge 45 00 314 210
Blue
Zone 4 Chatsworth 50 60 %6 60 255
Yellow Sante Susans
Zone 5 (Sirni Valley) 5625 rie 300
Brown
Zone 6 Moorpark @ & 606 jw
Dec. 91847 8a 685
It is estimated that less than 20 percent of the tickets sold would be
one-way tickets. Monthly tickets would be sold at both the Los Angeles
and Oxnard stations and vending machines would be used at
intermediate stations. Tickets would also be sold on the trains and could
be purchased by mail or at banks as well as at places of employment.
Complainants presented evidence supporting a significant current
demand for the proposed passenger service. This demand was based on
complainants’ forecast of ridership, future anticipated problems and
costs related to fuel, the success of the current rail passenger service
between Los Angeles and San Diego, and current State and local
planning policies directing and urging rail transit service. Complainants
estimate that between 1,100 and 1,400 riders would use the proposed
commuter service daily in each direction if two trains are operated. The
estimate is based upon the regional travel computerized model
developed by the Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study
(LARTS), which was used for projecting transit ridership for the
Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) regional
transportation plan.
The model projected potential demand of 1,825 riders for a 24-hour
home-to-work transit service. The projection was reduced to reflect the
service of two trains operating at a 30-minute interval. This was done
by assuring that the proposed service would attract 60 percent to 75
percent of the peak-hour patronage for each station served.
Cost end Subsidization of Proposed Service
Senate Bill 620, which was approved by the Governor of California
on June 28, 1979, provides a total of $36 million to be allocated over a
three-year period for the payment of actual and reasonable deficits
resulting from rail passenger service within the State. Of this amount
$21 million may be used to meet operating expenses and $15 million
may be used for capital improvements.
The chief of the Division of Mass Transportation for Caltrans
estimates that the first year costs for operating the proposed service
would be $3.54 million and $5.25 million for the three years covered by
the legislation.
A breakdown of his estimates is as follows:
FIRST-YEAR COSTS
IEEE wristesesssasineccesvecioasecervesaveivsntecosonsésshsses ssapiesqnbnstnsesbesesebosecssedbenseetooinesensaneetes 44 million *
rs £00 million
Less income from fares... sinsieidedeienigtoniesinivisindenin — 60 milbon
DOE cccceenncninnsinnicersnemnsennnie scvcssanbovceensegesasenniensesesccesenenssenies $2.94 milbon
SECOND-YEAR COSTS
RNINIUTIGIIT »<cascesssovesoseventsenssnsscoseneesuneeeneneunsscnuessatsstissonsennes 8.4 million
IIE ssssessssscocesenrscosssssevepevevesennneccneceenvevnrnnutesnstovvesabinescsanssshessneinscansesservsssnnetoendeneesin 200 milbon
STINE -ssxsscsaisdoteeignesithacopecnsmensnnentinatvsnse veveinessbeesvetetaunbtinsdpacesvestennubniaanenenstesnesitanstts $2.4 million
BN any GNU cscssonscssnvcopnsiniioesenintescouevetninnnstionssoveeneounsdetninsstonanéensenentednnianineenienees —.18 million **
Lew income from fares ... - " — @ million
Total ..... $1.66 milbon
* Cost for one train. No cost included for the cost of County passenger cars
+* Estimated federal funds thet the service would qualify for under Section 5 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.
Caltrans’ estimate of capital costs gave no consideration to extensions
of sidings, improvement of switches, dispatching, signalized traffic
control, nor additional traffic.
Of the 11 stations to be served, only the Los Angeles, Oxnard, and
Glendale stations are presently in use as passenger stations. The
remaining eight stations would have to be provided with platforms and
parking lot facilities.
The cost of constructing a platform, parking facilities for one-half of
the patrons expected to board, and installing of automatic ticket
machines at each station is as follows:
Burbank . $164,800
Airport ....... 140,900
Panorama City 178,000
Northndge ... 182,500
inaiaal 138,300
Santa Susana an 166,000
Moorpark ... 130,000
Camarillo . Ssssssi iacouncatiiestnsslabeisienaadenmaeuelilceciaaiatasesiiaacdadiabt dec babappidasiptapenenseavisiieasveedniad 130,000
RSI TORS teccaeen eet. ENE rae een CO vods eo REDE eR Te oe 1,300,000
No cost was provided for the acquisition of property because all
proposed sites are on public or SP property. Shelters were excluded
because Caltrans estimated that each shelter would cost $68,000. No
provision was made for restrooms, fencing, or lighting at the parking
lots; however, lighting would be provided at all station platforms.
Public Witnesses
A total of 96 individuals expressed support for the proposed service,
16 under oath and the rest in the form of statements of position.
Included were a number of public officials as well as representatives of
public and private agencies.*
* Geen ben Seen 0) Sete Olen (e) ae Se ee oe
!
|
|
ie
!
i
‘ansportation
Commuter Rail Service; (p) Sensor Cinzens—Simi Valley, and (q) Citizens for Rail California
Dec. 91847 10a 687
The majority are residents of Simi Valley, a few reside in Camarillo,
Claremont, and Moorpark. In general, they indicated that they would
use the proposed service to and from work in the Los Angeles area
primarily because of the high cost of gasoline and to avoid those
problems experienced during gas shortages. Others indicated that rail
service offered a more convenient and comfortable mode of travel than
the freeway and that use of the trains would help to reduce smog.
Many of those who attended the hearings work for Lockheed in
Burbank and several were concerned because the schedules as
proposed would arrive too late for employees who must be at their jobs
by 7:00 a.m.
Representatives of public agencies also emphasized the
environmental impact that rail passenger service would have in
reducing the use of the private automobile. They pointed out the need
to reduce traffic congestion in the densely populated southern
California area as well as the pressing need to conserve energy.
A representative of Southern California Rapid Transit District
(RTD) testified that RTD does not have enough equipment to meet the
demands for local metropolitan bus service, much less the number and
type of buses that would be required to provide extended service to and
from points in Ventura County; however, he stated that the district
would be ready, willing, and able to provide bus service that would
interface with the proposed rail service at the Los Angeles Union
Terminal station.
Testifying in opposition to the proposed service were representatives
of General Motors Corporation (General Motors), Weyerhaeuser
Company, Anheuser-Busch Inc., and Northridge Company. All
expressed concern that the proposed passenger service would interrupt
and delay rail freight shipments moving to and from their respective
plants.
General Motors operates an assembly plant at Van Nuys, which is
equipped with 10 industrial tracks used for the purpose of receiving rail
cars via SP consisting of components shipped from eastern points. The
plant, which was built in 1946, has grown to the point where it presently
employs 5,500 individuals and is capable of producing 1,080 cars a day.
The general manager of the plant testified that SP acts as an extension
of the production line and any delay in the delivery of freight cars could
adversely affect production.
Anheuser-Busch Inc. also operates a plant in Van Nuys that has 1,000
employees and is served by SP. In addition to inbound rail shipments
and approximately 40 outbound rail shipments, the plant also receives
one switch movement a day. A proposed expansion program, which is
688 lla Dec. 91847
scheduled for completion in 1981, will result in an additional 1,000
employes and tripled capacity.
The assistant traffic manager for Anheuser-Busch Inc. testified that
any delay in the switch movement would result in higher labor costs.
The manager of Weyerhaeuser Company, which is located at
Sepulveda in the San Fernando Valley, testified that the company
receives 60 to 70 rail car shipments per month of lumber and plywood
via SP as well as two switch movements a day, and if the mid-day switch
is late for any reason, it would have an adverse effect on production and
would result in additional overtime to unload the cars.
The president of Northridge Lumber Company, a retail lumberyard
located at Northridge, testified that SP provides a switch service at
approximately 2:00 p.m. daily and any delay to the switch would result
in overtime because it takes two hours to unload and his crew works
from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Defendant's Showing
SP contends that, if authorized, the rail commuter service would
seriously interfere with and disrupt its freight operations. Defendant
also contends that a dependable rail commuter service cannot be
provided between Los Angeles and Oxnard.
The proposed operation falls within SP’s Santa Barbara subdivision
which extends from Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo. The track facilities
between Los Angeles and Oxnard, a distance of 66.1 miles, consist of
double tracks from 11.2 miles between Los Angeles and Burbank
Junction and single tracks for 54.9 miles between Burbank Junction and
Oxnard. The tracks, both double and single, are protected by automatic
block signals which warn of tne presence of a train ahead but do not
instruct the engineer. Trains meet and pass according to timetable
schedules, rule book, and train orders issued by the dispatcher. In
contrast to other subdivisions where Central Traffic Control (CTC) has
been installed and communications are almost instantaneous,
operations over the proposed tracks are less flexible because of the
lag-time between the dispatcher's train movement decision and its
execution by the train crew. The basic points at which trains can be
contacted are:
Los Angeles Yard 4.3 miles
Burbank Junction 11.2 miles
Gemco 18.4 miles
Oxnard 66.1 miles
The Los Angeles Union Pacific Station (LAUPT) is a train order
station for Amtrak and does not issue orders to the Santa Barbara
7
Dec. 91847 12a 689
subdivision. Los Angeles Yard is a train order station for freight
operating to and from Taylor Yard. Gemco is used only for trains or
engines originating or terminating at Gemco and is not staffed to
handle train orders for through trains. At the present time the only
points that could be used for providing train orders along the single
track would be Burbank Junction and Oxnard. Side track facilities that
are available for the purpose of meets and passes on the single-track
segment between these points are located at the following locations:
Miles Station Capecity
REE IRE SR ee neers ores cooee Chatsworth 5.544 feet
68........ siniapicensintahninrmianiiencsiitin Moorpark 4,056 feet
ea eee ere eke Lemme Camarillo 7,108 feet
Another siding is located at Hewitt 15.5 miles from Los Angeles, but
it has been taken out of use as a siding and is presently used as a makeup
track in connection with operations at Gemco.
Amtrak trains range up to 200 feet, local haulers and switchers 200
feet to 6,000 feet, and freight trains from 8,000 feet to 10,000 feet.
According to defendant, the effective lengths of track for
Chatsworth, Santa Susana, and Moorpark are substantially reduced
because said rail facilities are intersected by busy public streets and
roads. This requires trains to be cut so that the intersections are not
blocked.
When a siding is not long enough to accommodate a train, “saw-by”
and “back-saw” activities are then employed. A “saw-by” requires the
inferior train to pull into the siding leaving its rear cars on the main
tracks, while the superior train moves along the main tracks up to the
rear cars. The inferior then pulls the rear car clear allowing the superior
train to bass. A “back-saw” results from one train overtaking another on
a single track and requires the inferior train to pull through the siding
until the rear cars clear the main tracks. After the superior train clears
one end of the siding, the inferior train backs up until the head end is
in the siding allowing the superior train to proceed. Such movements
can take from 10 to 45 minutes to complete, but apparently are not too
frequently used on this segment of track. During the month of June
1979 no “back-saw” movements were employed and “saw-by” activities
were used on only four occasions.
(1) interference Study
To determine the extent of possible conflicts SP conducted an
interference study covering the period July 1, 1978 to and including
June 30, 1979. (Exhibits 46 and 47.) The study was prepared by
the commuter schedules over train operations
actually conducted between Los Angeles and Oxnard during that
690 13a Dec. 91847
Before considering the interference problems or the feasibility of the
proposed operation, it is necessary to have some understanding of the
Gemco and Taylor Yards and the part they play in SP's overall
operation in serving the area between Los Angeles and Oxnard.
Gemco
Gemco is the heart of SP’s freight operations serving the San
Fernando and Simi valleys. Freight cars are brought to Gemco from
Toylor Yard by trains known as the Chatsworth Haulers. Upon arrival
at Gemco the cars are switched for delivery to local industries by
industrial switchers.
The yard consists of nine yard tracks, which are supported by a drill
track and two ladder tracks. Track 109 with a length of 4,300 feet is the
longest in the yard. The west end of the yard adjoins a drill track known
as Budweiser Extension.
The major movement into Gemco consists of freight cars loaded with
auto parts for General Motors. On the return trip to Taylor Yard the
haulers take empty auto parts cars destined to eastern suppliers,
multilevel rail carloads of new automobiles, and carloads of general
commodities loaded by local industries for out-of-state distribution.
The 12:30 a.m. hauler leaves Taylor Yard between 2:00 a.m. and 4:00
a.m. and arrives at Gemco between 3:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. It then
occupies the main track for approximately 90 minutes in order to switch
out the train. About 9:00 a.m. it departs Gemco for the return to Taylor
Yard with a consist of empty auto parts cars.
The 10-00 a.m. hauler departs Taylor Yard at approximately 1:30 p.m.
and arrives at Gerco between 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Again, switching
operations take about 90 minutes. In preparation for its return the
hauler begins to build its train of tri-level cars loaded with new
automobiles at approximately 6:00 p.m., which would be after the east
commuter train had passed. Because of the length of such trains, this
activity is done on the main track.
An extra Chatsworth Hauler operates five days a week to handle
loaded auto parts from the east and its on-duty time is dependent upon
the arrival time of an inbound auto parts train at Los Angeles. There
are occasions when it is necessary to operate as many as four or five
extra haulers a day in order to bring urgently needed loaded auto parts
cars (hot cars) to Cemco and their arrival at Gemco could be any time
during the night or day.
Teyter Verd
Taylor is the principal freight yard for general commodity traffic
serving the Los Angeles area and is located west of SP's main line
between Los Angeles and Burbank Junction. Five major arteres of SP's
operations in the Los Angeles Basin converge on the yard, i.e, the Santa
Barbara Subdivision, the Bakersfield /Mojave Subdivision, the Colton
Subdivsions (Alhambra Line and State Street Line), and the Los
Angeles Terminal District.
Dec. 91847 l4a 61
Trains are received in “A" yard, inspected and then brought over the
“hump” and allowed to roll down to a series of classification tracks,
where outbound trains are made up.
The yard contains engine repair and servicing facilities, car shops, car
repair facilities, scales, load-shifting tracks, and cleaning tracks
On those occasions when the yard's capacity has been reached, tracks
not normally used for the receipt of inbound trains are used by trains
that are waiting to be yarded. The main tracks are also used for the
purpose of making up of trains.
All movements into, out of, and within the yard are subject to the
control of the yardmaster who may hold them out or within the yard
to facilitate operations. A dispatcher is, therefore, unable to exercise
complete control over the times that freight and passenger trains leave
the yard.
Enlarging the capacity of the Taylor Yard's existing bypass tracks
poses a problem because the yard extends up to the river. SP extimates
that it would cost approximately $43,379,000 to construct a bypass track
on a cantilever structure that would extend out over the river for a
distance of 4,000 feet.
With existing facilities SP contends that all through freight trains and
many Los Angeles Basin locals could possibly conflict with the
commuter trains.
The current schedule for trains arriving and departing Taylor Yard
is as follows:
|
Time
BSMFF @a00 LABRT 000)
BSMFZ aa00 LAEVY Q@00
CULAP 800 LAEST 0400
AVLAT 800 LAEVE 0400
CILAY B00 LABKY O00
OALAY 1290 LADAT 0890
BSMFY 1300 LARIP oss
WCLAY 1300 LAOAF 0600
BRLAT 1348 0690
RUCITY 1400 LAAUT 700
RVLAY 1400 LAPXT e000
OALAT 1300 AMTRAK @13 1015
OAEPY 1890 LAWCY 1290
WCOAY 1700 LAESH \3Jon
EULAY 176 LAOAY 1400
PrTcty 1@00 LAPKY 1400
AMTRAK @12 1600 RUCTY 1490
yd 200 LASSH ao
Y 100 OaEPY 1700
WCLAZ 00 wooay 170
HOLAT m0 LAwcy 160
MBSMF 00 1900
APLAA mse Lawcz goon
Pir)
mw
200
692 15a Dec. 91847
Amtrek Trains
The afternoon commuter trains would conflict with the Amtrak
Coast Starlight train which is due in Los Angeles at 6:55 p.m. Although
the actual performance of the Coast Starlight train is unpredictable on
a daily basis, it is scheduled to leave Oxnard at 5:11 p.m. and is due at
Burbank Junction and double track facilities at 6:17 p.m. The commuter
trains would leave Los Angeles at 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. and are due
at Burbank Junction at 5:21 p.m. and 5:51. If on schedule, the commuter
trains and the Coast Starlight would meet on the single track. The last
point that the dispatcher could control the commuter trains would be
Burbank Junction. Based upon past operations of the southbound
Amtrak train, the dispatcher would probably allow timetable meets to
take place.
Chateworth Haulers
According to SP, the Chatworth Haulers would have the following
number of delays if the commuter trains had operated during the 149
service days covered by the period from January through July 1979:
Delays Attributable to
oe i
1979
JONUATY 6.0.6.0 66 a7 7 10
February ...... 61 3s é 7
March .......... 4 v7 13 8
| a Aa m2 . 14
MBY orrccceesnes t) +] 8 12
JUNE oooocccseees 87 s 8 14
Total ... ene oor 51 TS
industriel and Plant Switchers
Five regular plant switchers are used to serve General Motors and
SP’s subsidiary Pacific Motor Trucking Company at Gemco. Also,
operating out of Gemco are four regular industrial switchers that serve
industries within the Gemco area. Two additional industrial switchers,
operating out of Taylor Yard, are used to serve industries in the
Glendale and Burbank areas.
Operating out of Gemco are: the Van Nuys Local, the 8:00 a.m.
Industrial Switcher, the Northridge Local, and the Vega Switcher.
Operating out of Taylor Yard are the Glendale Switcher and the
Burbank Switcher.
Dec. 91847 16a 693
Ven Nuys Locel
The Van Nuys Local leaves Gemco at 8:30 a.m. and returns at 5:00
p.m. It serve Adolph Food Products, Aetna Lumber, American Forest
Products, Apollo Tire Co., Georgia-Pacific, Gold Key Furniture,
Hendricks Builders Supplies, Hull Lumber Co., MacKay Lumber Co.,
Neiman-Reed Lumber Co., North Hollywood Glass, Oroweat Baking
Co., Tarzana Lumber Co., Terry Building Center, and team tracks at
North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Encino, Tarzana, and Canoga Park.
If the Chatsworth Hauler is delayed as a result of a meet with one of
the morning commuter trains, then such customers as Adolph Food
Products, Aetna Lumber, American Forest Products, Georgia-Pacific,
Corp., Oroweat Baking Co., and Tarzana Lumber would lose 24 hours
transit time on inbound traffic because of their cars would not make
connection with the Van Nuys Local.
630 a.m. Industrie! Switcher
This switcher usually takes about an hour and a half to line up its work
and is ready to go out on the main track at 8:30 a.m. after Amtrak goes
by. It serves Anheuser-Busch, Bell Brand Foods, Chandler Lumber,
Continental Can, Joseph Schlitz, Safeway Stores, McMahans
Warehouse, Department of Water & Power, East Valley Distributors,
Weyerhaeuser, and the team tracks at Raymer.
It normally switches Weyerhaeuser in Sepulveda at 11:00 a.m.;
Safeway, Bell Brand, and Continental Can at approximately 11:15 a.m.;
East Valley Distributors (Coors) at approximately 11:30 a.m., and
Anheuser-Busch at 11:45 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Because of coordinated
activities relating to supervision, loading and unloading crews, and
connecting tracks, these customers depend upon timely switches. Any
delay to the Chatsworth Hauler could delay their switches.
Northridge Locel
The Northridge Local goes on duty at 9:10 a.m. and serves Andrew
Lumber, Joseph Schlitz Container Division, Morse Electric Products,
Waadt “ppliance, Serv-a-Portion, Sears Roebuck, Rekir Laboratories.
Levitz Furniture, A. M. Lewis, Frye Copying System, Northridge
Lumber, Far West Plywood, Terry Building Center, Scipter Mfg., Simi
694 17a Dec. 91847
Valley Lumber, Southern Standard, and the team tracks at Northridge,
Chatsworth, Santa Susana, and Simi.
The cars for the Northridge Local are switched out by the 8:30 a.m.
Industrial Switcher at Gemco. If they cannot be switched out because
of a delay to the Chatsworth Hauler, the departure of the Northridge
Local from Gemco would also be delayed.
Vege Switcher
The Vega Switcher goes on duty at 6:30 p.m. serving Bestway
Distributors, Joseph Schlitz, Neckerson Lumber, Frontier Building
Supply, Container Service, Forest Plywood, Purified Down, Mullen
Lumber, Bohemian Distributors, J. J. Newberry, Wates Lumber, and
the team track at Hewitt.
Glendele Switcher
The Glendale Switcher goes on duty at Taylor Yard at 3:59 p.m. and
departs between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to serve Van De Kamps
Bakeries, Freight Distributors Corp., Glendale Depot Team Track,
West Glendale Team Track, Transco Envelope Co., Empire Tire Co.,
Pride Products, Rail Chemical Co., and the Burbank team track.
One of its customers, Freight Distributors, has to have all freight cars
removed before 6:00 p.m. so that the company’s own trucks can be
loaded with the freight that had just been delivered.
Van De Kamps Bakeries also requires an early switch so that its own
trucks can be spotted and loaded for distribution of its products.
Burbenk Switcher
The Burank Switcher commences at 11:59 p.m. and covers the same
district as the Glendale Switcher carrying new inbound cars to various
customers. At about 6:00 a.m. this switcher reverses directions and
serves Burbank Lumber, Swaner Lumber, Dietel Lumber, Terminal
Refrigeration, Borman Steel, Andrew Jergens Co., American Can Co.,
Economy Packaging, Levitz Furniture, Glass Insulators Co., Jack Isbell
Co., Glendale Ready Mix Co., Ceuch Products, Ralph's Grocery,
Sanetek Products, and Interpace, Inc.
If this switcher is held at Burbank for the morning commuter trains,
all switching on the return trip to Taylor Yard would be delayed
accordingly.
According to SP’s interference study, train and switcher movements
would have experienced the following delays for the period January
through July 1979 if the commute trains had been operating:
No Yeah — em
Delays veragr
19 313 lo
9 ig7 2
> i t) 2
» Rs) 14
21 Ad 2)
15 313 2)
: 3 oi 13
2 1,023 aa
2 389 iT)
9 145 16
5 170 u
4 1% 49
1 17 17
é 107 18
i 8 6
7 0 7
3S 2,98) 4
21 266 13
14 369 2A
» 1249 42
i 0
4 x” 15
8 106 13
13 178 14
2 P~) 13
esmessnecaneces 2 306 ll
semmneninnncinni @ 1,715 2
6 305 »
1 2 i
10 177 18
honseudessnene 9 1% 17
ieipetaiohiensaeese 2 2 il
2 6 KX}
13 4% an
Me 2517 “7
9 600 La
a 2.988 64
19 1,042 )
EE 1 a a
1 106 106
1 6 %6
2) 866 4
2 n 19
alee 8 154 19
2 | 16
ejuiesiniasneneennees 3 i 7
ienetnonne 2 3S + a]
asain 2 au is
WAP: 19 473 b
eesegenecens 3 132 “
WCERY ... - 1,708 eX)
Lo 0 en i7 716 2
, | a 216 %
The APLAA (auto parts train), which originates in East St. Louis, is
handled on an expedited basis and in reality is part of the General
Motors Assembly operation. General Motors has limited storage at the
plant and any delay of this train could result in a shutdown.
606 19a Dec. 91847
The LABRT departs Taylor Yard at 12:01 a.m. daily except Saturday
carrying new automobiles as well as other highway competitive traffic
for points in the Pacific Northwest. To protect the scheduled departure,
the new automobiles from General Motors should leave Gernco by 8:00
p.m. and arrive at Taylor Yard no later than 9:00 p.m. for transfer,
blocking, mechanical inspeciion, and train makeup. It takes an hour and
a half to make up the Chatsworth Hauler on the main track, and this
could not be commenced until the second commuter train had passed
Gemco about 6:00 p.m. If Amtrak #13 were running late, the makeup
of the hauler would be further delayed, and it is quite possible that the
new automobiles could miss the 9:00 p.m. deadline.
The highest priority coastline freight train is the LAOAF, comprised
primarily of Bay Area trailer-on-flat car and container-on-flat car
merchandise and auto parts. This train is scheduled out of Taylor Yard
at 6:00 a.m. If held until 8:00 a.m. to avoid conflict with the commuter
trains, it would risk poor meets with the Amtrak train which would
further delay its arrival in the Bay Area.
The LAOAF makes two important connections at San Jose. The first
is the Permanent Local, which is scheduled out of San Jose at 12:30 a.m.
carrying freight forwarder traffic which must be spotted at the freight
forwarders in San Francisco by 2:00 a.m. The second is with the SJOAH,
which leaves San Jose by 1:00 a.m. carrying automobile parts to
assembly plants in Warm Springs and Milpitas.
In addition, the LAOAF handles time-sensitive traffic to the Port of
Oakland that must be placed prior to 7:00 a.m. According to SP, it is
presently working close to the limit in making scheduled connections
and delivery times, and any further delay to the performance of the
LAOAF would assertedly have extremely serious consequences.
The OALAT carries high priority trailer-on-flat car, container-on-flat
car, and automobile traffic from the Bay Area to Los Angeles. It is
scheduled to connect with expedited trains scheduled to depart Los
Angeles between 4:00 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. with automobiles and other
high priority traffic for St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, and
connecting railroads at these points. It must arrive at Taylor Yard by
6:00 p.m. so that cars destined for eastern cities and southern cities can
be switched out and blocked, mechanically inspected, and placed in the
proper connecting schedule such as LAEST, LAHOT, LAAVT, and
LAPXT. If the OALAT is delayed, its traffic will miss the expedited
trains from Los Angeles, which cannot be held because they carry other
high priority traffic.
The OAWCY carries traffic for City of Industry and connecting
schedules at West Colton. It must arrive at City of Industry before 8:00
Dec. 91847 20a 697
p.m. so that cars destined to the Buena Park and Anaheim areas can be
humped and switched to connecting local services. Traffic on the
OAWCY destined to eastern and southern points must arrive at West
Colton before 10:00 p.m. to make necessary connecting schedules.
The OALAY carries general freight from Oakland to points in Los
Angeles Basin. Cars on this train are transferred to satellite yards which
cover the various industrial areas surrounding Taylor Yard. They must
be transferred by 12:00 midnight in order to be placed on local
switchers that will be going out on the day shift.
Another expedited train is the ECWJS which seasonally carries sugar
beets from the Imperial Valley to the sugar beet factory at Betteravia
near Guadalupe. Sugar beets have little or no storage life and must be
handled promptly.
The LAWJ trains operate along the coastline serving customers at
outlying points. SP claims that it has received complaints from
customers located between San Luis Obispo and Burbank Junction
concerning service by this train and is trying to improve its
performance. Additional delays will aggravate the problem.
WCERY trains carry traffic for points on the Northwestern Pacific
Railroad. Interference with these trains could result in service delay to
such points as San Rafael, Santa Rosa, and Ukiah.
(2) Reliability of Proposed Service
SP contends that the proposed commuter service would be
extremely unreliable because of the inherent problems relating to the
nature of the track facilities, the type of equipment to be used, the lack
of station facilities, and complainants’ failure to adequately plan for the
sale and collection of tickets as well as the personnel necessary to
conduct the overall operation.
Schedules
A study prepared on behalf of SP by Reimer Associates concluded
that the public need and support for the rail commuter service should
be substantiated before commencement and that an alternative
analysis should be made.
According to the SP study, an additional 24 minutes should be added
to the schedule because of the nine commuter stops and the amount of
dwell-time that would be related to each stop.
SP argues that if the public witnesses had been told that the running
time would be closer to one hour and 54 minutes, without any conflict
delays, the enthusiasm voiced would have been markedly dampened.
The modified schedule, taking into account acceleration and
deceleration factors and statior « ‘ell-time, is as follows:
e201 osm e300 CP
Leave Leave Ste mon Arnve Arnve
500 pm 5pm Los Angeves 71Dam 7390am
&17 57 Glendale 712 732
5.26 5.56 Burbank 7% 72
5.33 60 Airport 656 7.16
54 €13 Panorama 66 706
55) 621 Northridge 638 638
5.58 62 Chatsworth 631 65)
615 68 Stens-Santa Susana 614 6H
629 630 6-00 6.20
64 714 Camarillo 545 605
654 p.m. 724 p.m. Omard 5.3% am 5:56 a.m.
Arrive Arrive (66.1 miles) Leave Leave
Because of possible freight and Amtrak conflicts, the study concluded
that the modified schedule could be prolonged another 45 minutes
resulting in an overall running time of two hours and 39 minutes.
SP contends that the longer running time would substantially reduce
complainants’ estimated patronage because the LARTS estimates
assume a high quality rail service that is reliable and dependable day
in and day out. Erratic performance, serious delays, and unavailability
of back-up transportation would, according to SP, be intolerable to
prospective commuters.
SP further contends that complainants’ patronage estimates are
overstated by at least one-half because complainants erroneously
assumed that peak hour service could be provided at all points on the
line. It claims that complainants designed the proposed schedules to
accommodate patrons working in the Los Angeles central business
district and failed to consider the commuter requirements of those
working in the areas of intermediate stations. According to the SP study
only 516 of potential riders as identified by the LARTS model would
work in the downtown Los Angeles area.
Equipment
The basic difference between complainants’ proposed schedule and
the modified schedule set forth in the SP study is in station dwell-time
or the time allowed for the purpose of picking up and discharging
passengers. The proposed schedule allows for a 30-second dwell-time
and the SP study concludes that a 3-minute dwell-time will be necessary
at each intermediate station.
According to SP the major factor contributing to the longer
dwell-time is attributable to the type of equipment to be used. Although
the second train has not as yet been acquired, the E] Camino set consists
of cars built in the 1940's for long-distance passenger service having
conventional narrow doors of the era. Modern commutation equipment
Dec. 91847 22a 699
has not only wide doors, but also low-slung steps so that passengers can
step directly onto the platform. Although the modern commutation car
is used chiefly in most rail commutation service, the E] Camino type is
still used to a limited extent in commuter service on the San Francisco
Peninsula and in the Chicago area.
SP claims that each doorway on the E] Camino train would require
a train employee to raise the vestibule trap, lower the swinging stair,
and position a step-box on the platform. If three train employees are
used as proposed by complainants, then only three doors will be
opened; and with passengers getting on single file, the traffic flow will
be reduced, resulting in a longer dwell-time. All eight of the E] Camino
cars are Waukesha-equipped. SP claims that repair parts for Waukesha
units are no longer available.
Fare System
The proposed fare system appears to be modeled after SP’s San
Francisco Peninsula commuter operation, but SP contends that the El
Camino train is not compatible with the inspection and collection
system used on the peninsula. Because five of the eight cars are medium
density intercity coaches with reclining seats, two are buffet lounge
cars, and one is a vista-dome observation car, SP claims they would not
facilitate an expeditious inspection of passes or fare cards nor the
punching of tickets. This would require a system of holders for
multiple-ride tickets, passes, and fare cards to be installed at a uniform
height so that the fare collector could move quickly throughout the car.
Under the proposed plan, 20 percent, or approximately 140
passengers, would purchase their tickets from the conductor on the
train. This, SP contends, is unrealistic because it would take anywhere
from 70 to 140 minutes of the conductor's time because each cash fare
delays the conductor or helper conductor from 30 seconds to one
minute.
Except for the terminal stations, all intermediate stations would be
unattended and tickets would be sold by way of automatic ticketing
machines, which SP believes is not feasible because the machines do not
have a high reliability factor. Based upon an earlier review of available
automatic ticketing machines for possible use at peninsula
commutation stations, SP was led to conclude that the automatic
ticketing machine would require frequent service, frequent collection
of funds, and a human agent nearby to adjust patron complaints,
retrieve torn bills or bent coins, and post the “out-of-order” signs when
necessary.
23—42159
700 23a Dec. 91847
Station Facilities
All SP station operations between Los Angeles and Oxnard have been
discontinued pursuant to Commission procedure or as a result of service
instituted by Amtrak. All station facilities at Los Angeles, Glendale, and
Oxnard are operated by Amtrak personnel.
Although complainants propose to enter a contractual arrangement
with Amtrak to provide station facilities and services, including the sale
of tickets, at Los Angeles, Glendale, and Oxnard, SP is of the opinion
that the proposal to construct platforms equipped only with lights at all
other intermediate stops is too bare-boned and lacks the amenities that
should be provided to passengers waiting for the trains.
According to SP, the proposal contains nothing for the passengers’
comfort and convenience, such as shelters, waiting rooms, toilets, and
drinking fountains. No provision is made for lighting and security for
cars left in the parking lots. Nor does complainants’ proposal make any
provision for police protection against pickpockets, offensive
panhandlers, aggressive inebriates, bullying, and violence.
SP points out that complainants’ proposal is further deficient because
the stations will be unattended and no provision has been made for
informing waiting passengers when a train is running late or when a
train can be expected. Provision would also have to be made for
providing the public with information as to schedules, rates, fares, and
lost property.
SP further points out that complainants failed to take into
consideration that many of the old station properties, as well as
properties designated by complainants as possible parking areas, are
presently under lease to tenants who have made substantial alterations
and improvements at their own expence.
Locomotives
In their proposal complainants envisioned the use of three
locomotives in the range of 2,500 to 3,000 horsepower. Based upon its
experience in pulling the Amtrak Coast Starlight, which has equipment
similar to the E) Camino train, SP believes that at least six horsepower
per ton is needed to operate at maximum speeds required by the
schedule. SP contends that a large locomotive would be required to pull
the one percent grade leaving Simi Valley and also to provide the
necessary acceleration after leaving stations and restricted curves. SP
believes that even a 3,000 horsepower locomotive would fall short of
maximum and that a 3,600 horsepower unit would be required.
SP also believes that four locomotives would be required rather than
three. Although a third locomotive at Oxnard would provide a backup
Dec. 91847 24a 701
if the regular locomotive could not start in the morning, it would not
provide a solution to a problem of breakdown en route or a failure on
the return from Los Angeles in the evening.
Another problem which SP calls attention to is the fact that the E]
Camino cars require a steam line for heating purposes and for hot water
in the lavatories. At one time this was provided by steam locomotives.
With the advent of the electric diesel locomotives an auxiliary steam
generator was installed in each locomotive. With normal retirements
and rebuilding programs, the steam-generator-equipped units have
virtually all been removed from SP’s service, with the exception of units
which are assigned to the San Francisco Peninsula commutation fleet.
Because of the heavy demands on its own operations, SP claims that
it cannot lease any of its own locomotives. As of August 31, 1979, it
assertedly was leasing 141 units from other railroads.
Home Terminal
SP believes that Oxnard would probably be the home terminal for the
commuter trains. If so, SP claims that it not only has no track facilities
to accommodate the trains overnight, but it has no extra board at
Oxnard. If a crew member calls in sick, his replacement would have to
come from the Los Angeles extra board. Because a reasonable time to
report is provided after a call has been received, a last-minute sick call
or layoff would assertedly cause a delay to the train.
Equipment Maintenence
At one time SP had an extensive passenger coach yard in Los Angeles
where periodic heavy repairs were made and it maintained a large
force for the purpose of sweeping and vacuuming the interior of cars,
dusting, washing windows, mopping floor, cleaning lavatories,
restocking paper towels, and washing the exterior of cars. ©
All of the repair facilities have since been dismantled and the
maintenance forces have since been disbanded. According to SP it has
no such forces at Los Angeles nor at Oxnard.
Supervision
The commutation service and al! supporting services would have to
be coordinated and supervised. SP claims that it has no passenger
service supervisors in the Los Angeles area.
(3) Growth of Aree and Expansion pf Conflict Problem
The Los Angeles sales distri er testified that during the past
30 years he had seen a growth and development of
manufacturing, merchandising, and service industries along the
right-of-way from Los Angeles and extending through the San
702 25a Dec. 91847
Fernando Valley to Ventura County. With the growth of industry there
was a corresponding development of new homes.
According to the witness, SP’s traffic volume for the years 1974
through 1979 also experienced a substantial growth which he expected
would continue in the foreseeable future. With increases in carload
business, he testified, there has been a constant service problem
because of the physical limitations of the railroad plant. Because a
number of industries on the coastline receive a switch every working
day and plan their operations around the rail deliveries, a delay of even
one or two hours in switching would, according to the witness, lead to
a flood of customer complaints.
The witness expressed the opinion that freight service demands on
the railroad will increase and the proposed commuter trains would
seriously impair SP’s efforts to provide efficient rail transportation
which is vitally needed to meet the requirements of existing timetables
and the future economic needs of the area.
(4) Estimated Costs for Providing Service
A transportation analyst in the Bureau of Transportation Research of
SP prepared an estimate of costs for operating the proposed service
including an estimate for interference with SP’s freight trains, but
excluding locomotive and car costs, and it is as follows:
Estimated Costs
Interference ~ $243,961
Supervision and support 107,484
Station forces 341,916
insurance $00,000
Property rents 900,000
Breakdowns 4.417
Banking
Crew expense 1,050,873
Uniformae..........
Locker rooms 1,000
Deadhead bodiging ...........:0...:00: sess $,080
TROOTRIICI a canscceseecovereessnvnsennssocsenrenseocrorcereeeseeeeeseeensnenvannanseeneccesees 1357
Train and engine crew expense 630,461
training expense a
crew training expense
Fringe benefit expense, replecement employees 107,614
Extra board costs 313%
Police and security 557 250
Patrotman positions 313,399
Police and security to guard train et Oxnard 3 920
Estimated annual fuel consumption would be 216,734 gallons.
The estimate is based upon long-run variable costs and makes no
provision for maintenance of ways, because of incomplete data. No
allowance was made for a possible Caltrans subsidy.
Dec. 91847 26a 703
The interference cost of $243,961 was based upon SP’s interference
study, which showed that January through July 1979, 55 through trains
would experience 23,975 train minutes of delay waiting for the
commuter trains, or 685 hours per year, on an annualized basis. It also
indicated that there would be 28,814 minutes of delay to 19 identified
local and yard engine movements, or approximately 823 hours 15
minutes on an annualized basis. The estimated cost per minute is as
follows:
Through Train Component Cost per Minute
Locomotive ownership cost $.000293 /h.p. minute
Car uwnership cost 0361 /car minute
Caboose ownership cost 218/cab. minute
Local Train Delay Costs
Locomotive ownership cost $.000293 /h.p. minute
Car ownership cost 0061 /car minute
Caboose ownership cost 0218/cab. minute
Labor cost 1.0482 / minute
Delay costs made no attempt to measure traffic losses that would
result from missed connections.
The estimated cost of $500,000 for insurance was based upon a
quotation given by the London brokerage firm of Cedrick, Forbes,
Beard & Paine, which gave a range of $435,000 to $535,000 on a $1.5
million deductible.
SP’s present coverage, including its San Francisco commuter
operation, provides for a $5 million deductible and covers up to $46
million per occurrence. The premium is $3.5 million annually. It is
possible that complainants could be added to the existing policy at a cost
less than $500,000 annually, but SP contends that it would be better to
have a lower deductible on a new operation where no past experience
is available for the purpose of comparing prior commuter operations on
the same tracks.
The $200,000 cost for property rents covers incomes that SP would
lose on that property upon which proposed stations, platforms, and
parking lots would be located and which is presently under lease to
others or being held for future commercial lease.
(8) SP’s Current Finenciel Condition
SP contends that it cannot afford to provide the proposed service
because of its poor financial condition. It claims that its financial
condition at the end of 1978 was weaker than it was in 1969 and,
although 1979 showed improved financial results, they are still,
assertedly, below a satisfactory level. According to SP’s manager of
financial services in its Treasury Department, the company’s financial
deterioration during the past ten years has resulted from an erosion of
704 27a Dec. 91847
earnings accompanied by increasing capital requirements. Inflation, he
testified, has had an impact not only with respect to higher wages,
material, fuel, and equipment costs, but through increased interest
rates on borrowed money. According to the witness, SP’s rate of return
has been inadequate over the past ten years and will continue to be
below its cost of borrowing. SP, he testified, cannot afford to see its line
capacity reduced with a resulting loss of future freight profits.
The witness further testified that SP is presently experiencing
difficulty in raising new capital at reasonable rates because of
inadequate earnings; over the last ten years SP had to raise $826 million
through the issue of debt securities and approximately $230 million of
new debt will be issued to finance its 1979 capital program; SP’s rate of
return during the past ten years has fluctuated at depressed levels; in
1978 the rate of return was 1.62 percent and during the best year it was
only 3.22 percent, with an average of 2.36 percent; and before SP would
inaugurate any new service, including the proposed commuter service,
the new service would have to make a contribution to the company’s
financial standing.
SP also introduced as an exhibit “Result of California Intrastate
Freight Traffic’. Exhibit 85 was prepared and introduced in an
unrelated proceeding to show that a general freight increase, as applied
for, would result in an increase in revenues that was not unreasonably
high. The exhibit claims that SP’s California freight operations were
earning less than a break-even amount.
Complainants’ Rebuttal Showing
In rebuttal to SP’s presentation, complainants introduced the
testimony of four witnesses. Their testimony is summarized as follows:
1. Laurence A. Brophy
Mr. Brophy is presently employed by A. T. Kearney, Inc., a
management consultant firm located in Chicago, Illinois. For
twenty-five years he was associated with the Illinois Central and
the Elgin Joliet and Eastern ne, in various capacities
including Assistant Trainmaster, rainmaster, Assistant
Superintendent and Superintendent. For a period of time he was
r nsible for the operational supervision of yard switch engines
and industrial switch engines working inside a large stee] plant, U.
S. Steel South Works in Chicago, Illinois. He was also
vice-president and chief operatin cer of the Chicago Railroad
Terminal Information System, which was founded in 1972 by the
24 railroads of Chicago for the purpose oo all carriers
with freight train and car movement information within the
Chicago rail terminal.
He testified that after reviewing the testimony of SP witnesses and
inspecting the proposed facilities he concluded that:
Dec. 91847 28a 705
(1) Two additional trains would not adversely affect operations at
Taylor Yard and within the Los Angeles Terminal.
(2) The proposed commuter trains would not represent a
tential congestion problem between LAU Dayton
aly Los Angeles Transportation Center, and Mission
ower.
(3) The proposed commuter trains would not interfere with
operations at Gemco.
With =e to specific operations Mr. Brophy made the following
observations:
(a) Taylor Yard
Operations at Taylor Yard are controlled by the Dayton
Avenue interlocking station operator. Crossover tracks into A
we from the west to the east main are also controlled by the
ayton Avenue tower and switches from the eastward main
to the lead as well as switches to tracks in A and C yards are
controlled by the main line tower. There was little or no delay
to er trains entering A yard or departing C yard because
most of these switches are electronically controlled.
Trains were frequently left on the westward main for train
crew oer even though yard tracks were available for such
purposes. practice reduces yard operation flexibility. The
main tracks should be _ clear at all times. If for any reason
a train is on the westward main, two yard tracks immediately
adjacent to the eastward main can be used to run westward
trains around the blocking train.
Checked Assistant General Yard Master's turnover at Taylor
Yard to determine the number of Coast and Valley Division
trains sapeens west (north) from C yard during the week of
July 1979. Out of 37 trains 21 experienced terminal delay.
(Terminal delay occurs when a train does not leave the yard
within 75 minutes from the time the crew is called.) Checked
to determine the method used to call trains and the time
when trains —— Trains frequently didn’t depart until
two hours after being called. This is because SP does not yard
trains properly and fails to use its yard facilities as dictated by
operating conditions. The flexibility of yard operations is
greatly —— by the practice of main lining trains instead
of yarding :
The main line tracks and the auxiliary tracks in A and C yards
between the west and east end of La ed Yard are under the
direct control of operators and switchtenders, which should,
and does, expedite ger, freight trains, and light engines
over this portion of the terminal tracks.
The pectiom of trains being held out on the main tracks is one
of SP's making and would not be attributable to the operation
of the proposed commuter trains.
706
(b) Operations Between Dayton Tower, Los Angeles
(c)
(d)
ransportation Center, Mission Tower, and LAUPT
Train movements to and from Dayton Tower and Los Angeles
Transportation Center are controlled at the west end by
Dayton Tower and at the east end by Mission Tower
Movements into and out of LAUPT are controlled by Mission
Tower. Although the traffic was heavy, no unusual delays
were noted. The movements to and from Taylor Yard by the
Alhambra Switcher, Torrance Switcher, City of Industr
Assignment, Junction Hauler, the Yard Hauler, and the U
Hauler would not be affected by the addition of two passenger
trains in the morning and afternoon hours. These yard
transfer movements are controlled between Dayton and
Mission Towers.
During June 4, 1979, and June 8, 1979, there were 54 train and
light engine movements between Dayton and Mission Towers
between the hours of 5:30 and 7:30 a.m., and 4:30 and 6:00 oo
Only eight movements could have possibly been delayed by
operation of the commuter trains.
SP's problem in this area is one of coordination. The
scheduling of two first-class trains will force a certain amount
of discipline in the matter in which SP conducts its freight
train operations.
Burbank Switcher
Industries located between Taylor Yard and Burbank
Junction, which are served by the Burbank Switcher, would
not be adversely affected by the operation of the proposed
commuter trains. There are ten different locations on the
double track segment in which the Burbank Switcher can
clear for other trains and still do its job. It will not be delayed
for an hour each day as SP claims. A review of the Burbank
Junction Station records for the first, week of June 1979
indicates that Burbank Switcher had returned each day to
Taylor Yard in time for the same engine to be used on the
midnight Burbank Switcher assignment. The records also
indicate that during the same period the Burbank Switcher
spent from 22 minutes to two hours daily at Burbank.
Gemco Yard
Gemco has a total of 31,309 feet of track room, which is
equivalent to approximately 150-89 feet 9 inch auto rack
freight cars and over 300-32 feet 6 inch box cars. Auto rack and
x cars constitute the major types of og ye used
at Gemco. During the month of June 1979 (Saturdays and
Sundays excepted) the consist of inbound trains averaged 131
cars with an average train — of 9,976 feet. The dail
average of cars outbound, excluding the automobiles, was |
with an average train length of 13,036 feet There is sufficient
yard room to accommodate the freight cars originating at and
destined to Gemco.
Dec. 91847 30a 707
_—
(e
(f)
The yard tracks are presently underutilized because cars from
Taylor Yard are usually yarded on Track 109, which is the
longest track in the Gemco facility. Track 109 and its
— (Budweiser Lead) can hold 10,000 feet of train
ength.
SP presently pulls cars from the Gemco Yard and makes up
trains on the main line. These trains could be made up on
Track 109 and the Budweiser Lead, thereby leaving the main
line clear.
A check of train movements for the month of June 1979
indicates that there were 94 inbound trains and 7 of them
would have been using the railroad during the commuter
hours. During the same period there were 109 trains
departing Gemco. Only 8 would have had any possible
conflict with the commuter trains.
SP's Gemco Yard records indicate that during the month of
June 1979 not one of the regular Chatsworth haulers nor any
of the extra Chatsworth haulers carrying automobiles
departed Gemco before 8:00 p.m.
Based upon a review of SP records and personal observations
the commuter trains would not have delayed freight train
movements, nor would they have delayed tn t trains
moving in and out of Gemco, nor would they have interfered
with the make up automobile trains if they were made upon
Track 109 and the Budweiser Lead.
Empty auto parts cars are taken from Gemco and placed on
the Hewitt siding and the engine returns to co. A
subsequent movement of empties are taken from Gemco to
Hewitt where they are connected with the first consist and al
are then hauled to Taylor Yard. This not only results in double
handling, but it ties up the Hewitt siding for 12 to 14 hours
daily. It places a restriction upon the dispatcher because the
siding could be used for the meeting and passing of trains.
“Hot” Auto Parts Cars For Gemco
Observed movements of extra Chatsworth assignment from
Taylor Yard to Gemco, but they moved during time periods
when the commuter trains would not be operating.
“Hot” cars are those that have been delayed somewhere on
the SP system and must be expedited. A search of SP's records
indicated that such movements were not frequent. Gemco is
only seven miles from Burbank Junction, the start of the
double track segment. Any “hot” car movement conflicting
with the commuter trains would result in only minimal delay
because of the short distance involved.
Yard Operations at Gemco
Yard operations at Gemco primarily consist of switching for
the General Motors plant. There is a considerble amount of
“slack time” or “spot time”. (The engine remains stationary
708
3la Dec. 91847
for more than two hours.) There is plenty of time to switch and
line up cars that are to be set in auto Tracks 5, 6, 7, and
8. There is also time to classify the loaded automobile cars off
Tracks 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The yard provides a great deal of flexibility, which if properly
used would eliminate the need for tying up the Hewitt siding
and —_— eliminate the need ioe tae up trains on the
main line.
Siding Capacity Between Burbank Junction and Omard
During June 1979, 50 freight trains operated between Burbank
Junction and Oxnard and only 8 of them would not have fit in
the Leg at Camarillo, Moorpark, Santa Susana, Chatsworth,
or Hewitt.
To ascribe the possibility of delays to eastern bound trains to
the operation of the’commuter trains is without merit. Such
—— are occurring at the present time and are attributable
to SP’s operating personnel. The introduction of the proposed
commuter trains would impose a discipline in SP's practice of
calling and operation of freight trains and thereby minimize
any possible delay to passenger or freight trains.
2. Donald H. King
Mr. King retired as Regional Vice President of the Burlington
Northern Railroad (BN) on December 1, 1977. At the time of his
retirement he was in charge of the Chicago Region, which
included 4,400 miles of track with approximately 9 a
He was in —- of all commuter trains operating beteen Chicago
and Aurora, a distance of 38 miles, and all freight movements. In
addition, 4 Amtrak trains operated daily within the region. The
region also included an important classification freight yard
located at Cicero, which is approximately 28 miles east of Aurora.
He made an inspection of the E] Camino car, the terminals at Los
Angeles and Oxnard, and the proposed intermediate station sites.
As a result thereof he is of the opinion that the proposed service
is feasible. Mr. King's observations and opinions are as follows:
(a) Equipment
The eight E] Camino cars are in excellent condition and there
is no reason why they cannot be operated successfully in
commuter service. Railroads have used conventional coaches
with single vestibule openings in commuter service for over
50 years; however, BN now uses gallery-t coaches with
double vestibule doors that are automatically controlled.
Because of California's favorable weather conditions there
would be no heating problems if the locomotives could not
rovide steam for heating the cars and hot water for the
avatories.
He believes that the installation of ticket holders or chips in
the El Camino cars would facilitate the collection of tickets.
° Dec. 91847 32a 709
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Home Terminal
Believes that the home terminal should be Los Angeles,
because it is an existing source of supply for crews. Crews
could make the run to Oxnard, lay over and return to Los
Angeles in the morning. Although this would require meals
and lodging at Oxnard, it would eliminate the need for an
extra board for enginemen and firemen at Oxnard. In the case
of illness a yo: — ‘ae from . switch engine
assignment at Oxnar eles, or if necessary a
supervising officer could be used.
Cleaning and Handling
There appears to be sufficient space for storing the trains
overnight on a house track next to SP’s station at Oxnard or
they could be stored on the nearby Ventura Railroad.
The cleaning at Oxnard would be minimal and would not
require the services of more than one person to do a fast
— of floors and to pick up debris. More extensive cleaning
could be done at Los Angeles.
Ticketing
BN's experience on the sale of tickets has been:
(1) 50 percent purchased at station.
(2) 40 percent purchased by mail.
(3) 7 percent cash fares, sold on train.
Daily cash sales on the BN totaled 3,200 for 72 trains or 56 cash
sales per train. Using the same ratio the proposed trains would
average approximately 21 cash fares per train, which can be
handled with minimum difficulty. In any event the crew can
always be increased to meet any lem, whether it be
passenger loading or collecting tickets or fares.
Passenger Loading
As the pattern of passenger boarding and unboarding
develops management will determine the most efficient way
of accommodating them by way of spotting cars at the
platform stations and the number of coaches to be opened.
The BN No. 244 departs Aurora at 8:05 a.m. and stops at 20
intermediate stations before arriving at Chicago at 9:18 a.m.,
a distance of 38 miles. The dwell-time averages less than one
minute per station. By prespotting cars at each station a
minimum of coaches would have to be opened.
Crews could advise passengers what coaches to use to detrain.
The E] Camino train is ane Sonpees with a public address
system, which could be to direct passengers to the
proper cars.
In any event commuter ers soon learn where cars will
be spotted and what doors be opened.
Station Facilities
BN has 26 stations on its commuter line, 13 of which are
and 13 are unmanned. Shelters are provided at most
710
33a Dec. 91847
stations, but of a windbreak type. There is no public address
system at any of them. Most commuters wait in their cars and
arrive at the platform just before train time. Very few use the
stations or shelters. With California's nice weather, standing
on the platform would be no problem. No toilet facilities are
available at unmanned stations. The BN operates through
ted areas, which are serviced with adequate street
ts. The proposed area is quite similar.
BN does not provide parking on its property, except at
Aurora. This can be provided by local authorities.
3. Donald Church
Mr. Church is Chief of Special Services Division of Los Angeles
County, Chief Administration Office.
Mr. Church testified that E] Camino cars were purchased by the
County of Los roy for $200,000; that each car had traveled
approximately 40; miles at the time of acquisition; that
pursuant to public bid the El] Camino cars were complete!
refurbished according to the specifications set forth in Exhibit 98,
and that the E] Camino train is in a good and operable condition.
William W. Whitehurst, Jr.
Mr. Whitehurst is Executive Vice-President of L. E. Peabody &
Associate, Inc., economic consultants, Landover, Maryland.
When the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of
1976 was passed the Rail Services Planning Office (RSPO), which
was required under the Act to issue standards for the
determination of subsidies necessary for the continuation of rail
commuter passenger service, commissioned the firm of L. E.
Peabody & Associates, Inc. to make a study.
The firm also assisted in developing and sap soe Sed costing
concepts and methodology by which the New Jersey Department
of Transportation reimbursed various railroads for operating rail
passenger service in New Jersey.
Mr. Whitehurst gave an historical account of the development of
subsidy agreements between railroads and commuter authorities,
= problems relating thereto and the methods explored to resolve
them.
In general, the major items of revenue are solely related to either
nger or freight service and pose no serious problem;
owever, problems do arise in apportioning railroad costs for
activities which are common to h freight and passenger
services.
Items such as train and engine crew wages, fuel, maintenance, and
servicing of equipment can usually be determined and will be
essentially the same under any reasonable analytical approach, but
items such as Maintenance of Ways costs and neral and
Administrative expenses can vary widely.
Dec. 91847 34a 711
One approach is to determine costs on an avoidable basis by
determining which costs would no longer exist or be reduced in
the absence of a given service.
In each instance the railroad and public agencies had to deal with
various components of cost including:
(a) Operating expenses chargeable to passenger service;
(b) Return on investment far rolling stock and fixed facilities;
(c) Responsibility for liability;
(d) Impact on other rail operations.
Amtrak operates over the lines of various railroads which are part
of the Amtrak system under a basic agreement and amendments
thereto. The basic agreement was entered into on April 16, 1971,
iy 4 oe perenne of — om ptr Ba solely
or the t e er ce plus av e costs
reasonably and nececsielly incurred.
In the case of insurance, Amtrak indemnifies the railroad from
liability for Amtrak employees, ngers, rolling stock, other
property, and Amtrak train accidents at highway crossings. The
railroad indemnifies Amtrak for railroad employees equipment,
and property. In consideration Amtrak pays the railroad $0.0367
per Amtrak train-mile.
None of the Amtrak agreements include provision for payment of
claims arising from interference with freight operations.
The RSPO commuter standards (49 CFR 1127) provide for an
interpretation of the standards by the filing of a written petition.
The RSPO standards rely primarily on a Facilities Utilization Plan
and a Manpower Utilization Plan for determining costs chargeable
to a commuter service. The facilities plan iden and itemizes
the road and ae properties used in the commuter service
and also identifies the road properties that are avoidable upon
discontinuance of the commuter service. The manpower plan
identifies the railroad forces used in providing the service. The
methodology for tomar the variable portion of common
costs is also provided.
In determining a return on investment for stock and fixed
facilities, the RSPO standards identify and establish values for
avoidable properties. The total value is Crrecsninies Sy Sens the
net’ book value as of April 1976, plus a value of additions and
betterments for the commuter service, less the accrued
depreciation from that date and all cost of modifying the
—— seeperty so that noncommuter operations can be
continued. Property owned by public bodies is not included. RSPO
commuter standards provide for 7.5 percent per annum as a
reasonable return.
In eee case - liability me wah qny = merely ancieene ee the
su zer i ge e for any loss, e, Or perso ury
resulting from the commuter service, but does not at ae
such costs should be determined.
712 35a Dec. 91847
Greyhound’s Showing
The purpose of Greyhound’s presentation was to urge Caltrans to
consider and implement a balanced transportation policy with due
consideration of the inherent transportation advantages of all modes.
According to Greyhound’s Director of Operations, Programs,
Greyhound is ready and willing to make an offer for a purchase service
contract to Los Angeles County and Caltrans for a commuter bus
service between Oxnard and Los Angeles.
According to the Greyhound witness, the United States’ intercity bus
industry is the largest and possibly the best public bus transportation
system in the world; it is the most energy-efficient, least polluting, and
most cost-effective; because of its flexibility, routing and capacity can
be changed with minimal investment and equipment; and Greyhound
has the range of resources to provide reliable and high-quality service
between Oxnard and Los Angeles.
Pursuant to a written agreement, similar to one that Greyhound has
with SamTrans in San Mateo County, Greyhound would provide the
equipment, drivers, vehicle maintenance, and management that is
required to operate the service.
The points to be served and the equipment to be provided based
upon the LARTS ridership projections are as follows:
Stanon Projecton Required Bus
Oxnard 173 4 it]
Camarillo ...... ” 2 ef
Moorpark .... 101 3 14)
Sante Susana (Sim: Valley) em 5 25
Chatsworth . 14 2 =
Northndge Le) 2 4
Panorama 2 l a
Burbank Airport 167 os 186
Burbank 70 1 “7
Clendale 0 - -
mes Angees a a. _
1,064 Pz) 1,126
The travel time in the morning would be 1'4 hours from Oxnard to
Los Angeles and the evening travel time would be a maximum of 2
hours
Greyhound estimates the annual cost to provide the service would be
$63,657 per bus or a total of $1,528,000 annually for 24 buses. Deducting
an estimated revenue of $600,000 the annual subsidy as of the time of
hearing would be approximately $928,000, which according to
Greyhound, would be substantially less than Caltrans would have to pay
to subsidize the rail commuter service as proposed. Based upon an
Dec. 91847 36a 713
inflation factor of 15 percent per year the projected cost would be
$1,757,000 with a net cost of $1,157,000, which Greyhound claims
compares favorably with Caltrans’ estimate of $1,844,000 and SP's
estimate of $2,400,000 for annual operating cost. In addition to the
financial savings, Greyhound also points to the substantial fuel savings
that could be realized by using buses rather than rail service.
Greyhound estimates that the buses would use only 85,584 gallons of
fuel annually as opposed to the 217,000 gallons of diesel fuel that SP
estimated would be required to operate the locomotives.
George Woodman Hilton, professor of economics at the University of
California at Los Angeles, who appeared on behalf of SP, cited
authorities supporting Greyhound’s position that buses can move
people more cheaply than rail systems because operation of lighter
vehicles require smaller fuel and labor inputs. According to the
professor, the proposed rail service might take 900 cars off the highways
daily, but this, he concluded, would only shorten the peak commuter
period. He testified that people evaluate the convenience of an
automobile in a fashion that can be quantified and believes that the
expenditure on freeways could better be used by stretching out the
commuter period by variable user charges. The professor claims that
this would alleviate congestion moving in and out of metropolitan areas
and could be accomplished by the installation of a technologically
available metering process, which would require a highway user to pay
a higher fee during the rush hours.
Discussion
Just as southern California generally has experienced a phenomenal
growth in population and industrial development over the past thirty
years so too has the area along the proposed rail route between Los
Angeles and Oxnard. With the advent of freeways, two-car garages, and
cheap gasoline the automobile has become the workingman''s first love
in the field of transportation. Resulting freeway congestion, pollution,
rece: ‘ fuel shortages, and skyrocketing gasoline prices have slowly, but
surel /, turned that beautiful romance into a nightmare. This unhappy
transformation was strongly evidenced by the large number of public
witnesses, as well as public officials, who appeared in support of the
proposed commuter service.
With hindsight one can only wish that the “Big Red Cars” were still
in operation in Southern California, but they are a thing of the past and
the only solution to the problem is that suggested by Professor Spencer
Crump, who testified that the same imagination that was used 75 years
ago to build the Pacific Electric system should be used to build a new
transit system for the Los Angeles area in the 1980's.
714 37a Dec. 91847
In the meantime, alternate modes of public transportation are
necessary, particularly to meet the needs and requirements of
commuters between home and work. Unfortunately, this Commission
cannot conduct the type of study that was suggested for assessing
alternatives that a community might consider prior to filing an
application for funds with the federal government.’ Nor can we decide
whether a county, a transit district, or Caltrans should enter into a
purchase service contract with Greyhound or with Mr. Nathaniel
Walter Anderson, Sr., General Manager of GLH Tours, Inc., who
testified that his minority-owned charter-party carrier company would
be willing to provide a commuter service between Los Angeles and
Oxnard if subsidized.
Greyhound may be in earnest in seeking to operate buses in this
corridor under a subsidy similar to that offered to S.P. However, at the
present time Greyhound is not authorized to serve all of the points
along the proposed route. If Greyhound had filed an unconditional
request for such certificated authority as a passenger stage corporation
we could have considered the merits of both bus and rail services in
detail before reaching a final decision. Since that is not the case, the only
things we must decide are: (1) whether we have jurisdiction to require
SP to provide the proposed commuter service; (2) whether the
proposed commuter service is required by public convenience and
necessity; and (3) whether a rail service would be feasible under
existing conditions.
Jurisdiction
{1} SP has maintained throughout this proceeding that we have no
jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by this complaint. This argument
was first formally presented in a motion to dismiss the proceeding,
which SP filed on October 6, 1978. We determined that SP’s argument
had no merit and denied its motion on February 27, 1979, in Decision
No. 90018. SP did not pursue its right to seek judicial review of this
determination and it thereby became final by operation of law. (Public
Utilities Code Sections 1709 and 1756.)
However, SP reiterates its argument herein on the grounds that a
jurisdictional challenge can be raised at any time; moreover, one of SP's
witnesses claims that SP has subsequently developed additional facts
supporting its position. SP’s primary contentions are that it is not a
common carrier of passengers in the southern California area and that
it has never dedicated its facilities to the provision of commutation
service on the line in question; therefore, the Commission lacks
* According to Asustant Director and Transportation Policy spect with the Senate Office of Re
search of the California State Senate, Senate Bill No 630 require an alternative analyss
before funds can be issued and none was ever intended
Dec. 91847 38a 715
jurisdiction to order it to provide such service. While we disagree with
these arguments, we will address the issue again herein for the purposes
of clarifying the rationale underlying our assertion of jurisdiction.
First, under its own certificate of incorporation on file with this
Commission, there can be no doubt that SP is a common carrier of both
passengers and freight in the State as a whole. That certificate states
that the nature of SP’s business and the objects and purposes thereof,
are to:
“. . . doa general transportation business; to transport, carry, haul,
dictriouns, deliver and Roadie pemengeee, freight, baggage, mail,
express, goods, wares, merchandise and other property of every
kind oo nature by railroad, steamship, airplane, truck, bus,
pipeline, and other means of transportation or by any thereof . . .”
Section 2169 of the Civil Code sets forth SP’s common carrier
responsibilities:
“{A common carrier such as SP] must, if able to do so, accept and
carry what is offered to him, at a reasonable time and place, of a
kind that he undertakes or is accustomed to carry.”
In the course of this proceeding, County and Caltrans have offered
evidence concerning the public's need for passenger service along SP’'s
monopoly rail corridor and the abilty of such agencies to provide the
necessary train equipment and to reimburse SP for expenses incurred
in running the trains. Moreover, much evidence has been presented
concerning the degree to which SP’s present freight operations would
or would not be impeded if SP began hauling County's trains. Under
these circumstances, we believe we have the authority to examine
whether or not under Section 2169 of the Civil Code SP has a duty to
accept County's proposal.
Secondly, we do not dispute the basic principle that dedication is a
necessary element in this case. However, we disagree with SP's
argument that the requisite dedication is not present.
{2) From the onset of State regulation over railroads as public
utilities, the scope of their dedication has been primarily defined in
terms of the rights-of-way over which they provide railroad service with
no distinction made between passenger and freight service. Moreover,
the record is clear that not only does SP still use the Los Angeles-Oxnard
right-of-way and attendant structures and facilities for freight service,
it formerly used that right-of-way to operate both local and long-haul
passenger trains. While it received Commission authorization to
discontinue certain trains‘* and was relieved from the operation of
others by the federal Amtrak legislation, we do not consider this to be
* Pubhe Utilities Code Section 7532, which the Commission discretion to discontinue certain
specific lines, says nothing about abandonment of service, nor do any of the Commis-
mon's decisions authonzing SP to discontinue certain lines
716 39a Dec. 91847
tantamount to authorizing abandonment of its dedication to provide
passenger service along this route should we determine that public
convenience and necessity so require.
Concerning local service along the coast route, historical records
indicated that SP as of March 20, 1904 completed the final link in what
was termed the “Coast Line” by construction of the track, ties, ballast,
and attendant structures on its right-of-way south of Santa Barbara
through Oxnard . nd the Santa Susana Tunnel to Los Angeles. Local
passenger service between Oxnard and Los Angeles was begun
sometime thereafter. In 1934 the Commission permitted SP to
discontinue local train service operating between Oxnard and Los
Angeles via Saugus over the Santa Paula Branch. The order granting
discontinuance specifically reserved to the Commission the right to
“revoke the authority” to discontinue and “the right to make such
further orders, relative to the matter, as to [sic] it may seem right and
proper ... if in its judgment, public convenience and necessity demand
such action.” (Decision No. 27612, Application No. 19352 (1934) 39 CRC
873 (unpublished); see Appendix B.) In this “reservation” the
Commission clearly indicated its intent to authorize discontinuance
only for that period of time in the fuiure that public convenience and
necessity so permitted. If in the future public convenience and
necessity required passenger service, restoration would be ordered. We
have not found any record of SP’s having appealed this decision.
Coupled with the authority cited below, this decision fully affords the
Commission the right and obligation to consider the question of
whether public convenience and necessity presently require the
reinstitution of local, i.e., commute, passenger train service between
Los Angles and Oxnard.
It cannot reasonably be disputed that the Commission has the
responsibility of ensuring that SP is properly carrying out it: public
utility * and common carrier duties. Section 761 provides in reievant
pert thet whenever the Commission, after a hearing:
. finds that the . . . service of any public utili is] inadequate,
or insufficient, deo comaniodien tel 40 weed er bare oo
fix the ... service... to be. . . employed. The commission ae aati
preveribe rules for the performance any service ..., and, on
r demand and tender of rates, such public utility ‘shall |
r such service within the time and upon the conditions
Fender § in such rules.”
Section 763 further provides that when the Commission, after a
heering:
, finds that any railroad corporation . . . does not run a sufficient
number of trains or cars, .. . reasonably to accommodate the traffic,
* See Sections 211 (a), 216(e), and 41
Dec. 91847 40a 717
nger or freight, rted 8 ad owe for
fo it, poe order drecang sich
to it, .. . the commission may mak
co oration to et = — of i its tains or Cars or .
e any other order that it determines to reeasnably noseenery
to accommodate and transport the traffic, passenger or freight,
transported or offered for transportation.”
[3] We know of no cases restricting the application of this section to
service presently being provided. The Commission may also, after
hearing, order additions, extensions to, or changes in existing
equipment or facilities, “to promote the security or convenience of its
employees or the public, or in any other way to secure adequate service
or facilities, .. .” (Section 762.) In City of Oakland (1935) 39 CRC 308,
the Commission held that it had jurisdiction under the predecessor of
this section to consider a request for reinstatement of electric railway
service that had been discontinued pursuant to Commission
authorization.
[4] We consider the above authority to be fully consistent with our
position that public convenience and necessity cannot reasonably be
measured for all time on the basis of conditions existing in 1904, 1934,
or 1965. The concept of public convenience and necessity is necessarily
fluid. The factors which determine the level of service and the
equipment adequate to serve the public will necessarily differ as
populations grow or diminish and as other forms of transportation
become more or less dominant. It is our opinion that if the right-of-way
in question remains intact, if service similar to that proposed was once
offered, and if no abandonment of either the right-of-way or of the duty
to provide service along it has been authorized, SP’s obligation to
render both common carrier freight and passenger service remains and
the Commission has the authority to reconsider whether or not public
convenience and necessity require changes to present service.
{5} We do not consider the Amtrak legislation to be relevant to the
question of the scope of SP’s dedication under State law. Until October
of 1978, that statute involved exclusively what is termed “intercity” rail
passenger service.* The distinction between “intercity” and
“commuter” services is germane to the scope of federal jurisdiction, but
not to the issue of SP’s dedication under State law. We acknowledge
that where a railroad has contracted with Amtrak for the latter to take
over intercity passenger service, the railroad is relieved of its
responsibilities under State law as a common carrier of passengers, but
in intercity service only (45 U.S.C.A. § 561 (a) (1)). This does not affect
any responsibilities SP may have to provide commuter service, nor does
it affect the Commission's jurisdiction to determine the extent of such
responsibilities.
* in October 1978 an amendment to the statute gave states the option of requesting thet Amtrak ran
commuter trains pursuant to contract, as long as the state would pay a certain percentage of the
operating costs. (45 USCA §563(d).)
718 4la Dec. 91847
Public Convenience and Necessity
We are convinced that the extensive use of the private automobile
has placed large costs on the general public in terms of traffic
congestion, environmental deterioration, energy consumption, the use
of land required for roads and parking, and other socio-economic
impacts. The Legislature has clearly announced its policy and intent to
develop and encourage a balanced transportation system within
realistic funding levels. Congress and the President support expanded
rail transit. The transportation officials and regional planning agencies
support the need to encourage and begin rail passenger service in this
corridor. Caltrans’ estimates of 1,100 to 1,400 passengers per day for the
proposed tfain service, based on the regional transportation studies and
plans, appear reasonable, if not conservative, measured against the
success of other local passenger service in southern California and on
the San Francisco Peninsula. Increased gasoline costs and potential fuel
supply difficulties are also important elements in our decision that
public convenience and necessity require this service to be instituted.
Several passenger stations remain along the route and other points to
be served can be accommodated by platforms and parking lot facilities.
A sizable number of public witnesses support and urge the proposed
service. We also believe that the support for this service from the local
public officials, bodies, and organizations is an important element in our
determination that the public convenience and necessity require this
train service.
Adequacy of Existing Track Facilities
The single track segment of track between Burbank Junction and
Oxnard does pose certain operational problems, but they are the same
problems that railroads in the United States have dealt with for many
years.
From Chatsworth south there are numerous support sidings on either
side of the tracks that could be used if clear. Santa Susana with a length
of 7,108 feet is obviously a dispatcher's best siding. Camarillo, Moorpark,
and Chatsworth range from 4,056 feet to 5,544 feet. Although SP made
frequent reference to the long freight train, a review of train activities
during the month of June 1979, which SP indicated was an active and
representative month, discloses that no freight trains were operated in
excess of 7,108 feet and only eight exceeded 6,000 feet.
The movements of trains could be further facilitated if the Hewitt
siding were returned to operation and if Chatsworth and Santa Susana
were made train order stations. Another factor that would facilitate the
Dec. 91847 42a 719
movement of trains would be the more extensive use of radio for giving
train orders. SP claims that use of its radio raises certain labor-related
cost problems when a train conductor performs the function of a train
order operator. The important thing should be the movement of the
trains and in a subsidized operation such as this, the additional cost for
use of the radio should be the concern of Caltrans and not SP’s.
Train Conflicts
SP’s interference study was prepared by Michael R. Chavez, who is
employed as Train Dispatcher, Los Angeles Division. He has worked as
coast dispatcher on both day and night shifts, dispatching trains
between Los Angeles, Burbank Junction, Oxnard, Santa Barbara, and
San Luis Obispo and also serves as Relief Chief Train Dispatcher. Mr.
Chavez was instructed to superimpose the schedules of the proposed
commuter trains over the rail operations actually conducted between
Oxnard and Los Angeles during the period covered by the study, noting
the delays that would have been incurred had those trains been
operating. He was not authorized to reschedule or redispatch trains to
avoid conflicts, but was told to designate all train operations within the
period of 5:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. as conflicts
attributable to the commuter trains. Mr. Chavez admitted that if SP
were ordered to operate the commuter trains they would be meshed
with the freight operations so as to reduce the possibility of delays as
much as possible. As a consequence SP’s interference study does not
provide a true picture of what its coast line operations would be like if
the commuter trains were authorized and it is of little or no value for
the purposes of this proceeding.
If SP were so concerned about the potential of train interference it
had the best possible source available to demonstrate the realities of the
problem. If a study had been made of the actual operations of the
Amtrak Coast Daylight Trains Nos. 12 and 13 for a one-year or six-month
period we would have had before us far more helpful information in
determining the merits of SP’s contention. The Amtrak trains not only
operate between the same points daily, but they are first-class trains
that raise the same operational problems for SP that the commuter
trains would raise. They operate over the same single track segment
and past the same Gemco and Taylor yards. They have the same
potential for conflict with the Chatsworth haulers, the “hot-cars”, the
eastern and north-western trains, and the various switchers and locals.
If the study had been prepared, actual conflicts could have been
tabulated and evaluated. From the very fact that such a study was not
prepared we can only assume that SP, by appropriate dispatching, has
720 43a Dec. 91847
operated the Amtrak trains over its coast line routes without any
significant problem of conflicts with other trains.
The morning commuter trains would post no problem for the
morning Amtrak train leaving Los Angeles, but if on schedule the
evening Amtrak train would meet the commuter trainy on the single
track. SP'’s contract with Amtrak rovides that the trains will be
considered “on-time” if the performance between Portland and Los
Angeles is within 14 minutes of the schedule time. Since its new
agreement was entered into in July 1977, SP has complied 75.4 percent
of the time.
In the preparation of its interference study SP held the commuter
trains in a siding to allow the Amtrak train to proceed claiming that it
is a common railroad operational practice in the case of first-class trains
to give priority to long-distance passenger trains over local passenger
trains. Rule S-72 of the Operating Department Handbook provides that
westward trains (in this case the commuter trains) are superior to trains
of the same class if operating in the opposite direction. But, regardess
of which train is given priority it is important to note that Mr. Chavez
was of the opinion that it may be possible to arrange for a scheduled
meet between the first commuter train and the Amtrak train at
Chatsworth and if a siding is available a scheduled meet between the
second train at Gemco.
The potential conflicts with the Chatsworth haulers appear to result
more from the hour and a half that each handler spends on the main
track at Gemco making up or switching out cars. We do not believe that
this practice lends itself to an efficient operation, particularly if yard
facilities for such purposes are available.
We are also of the opinion that there is merit in Mr. Brophy’s
observation that the inauguration of the commuter service would
impose a discipline that would have a beneficial effect upon SP’s overall
coast line operation. It was not so long ago that SP operated a number
of passenger trains and a vast number of freight trains over these same
tracks with efficiency and a high standard for “on-time” performance.
Reliability of Service
A major portion of SP’s presentation was introduced for the purpose
of pinpointing deficiencies in the proposed commuter service. This
included a detailed analysis of schedules, equipment, fares, station
facilities, locomotives, home terminal, equipment maintenance,
repairs, and supervision. The slightest operational problem was
highlighted and magnified. A close review of this evidence discloses
that it is primarily directed towards the quality of the proposed service
Dec. 91847 44a 721
rather than its feasibility. Admittedly, the quality of a service can have
a material effect upon patronage, but in the final analysis public
acceptance or rejection can be determined only after a reasonable
period of time has been allowed for necessary adjustments to be made
by both the railroad and the commuting public.
Equipment
The Ei Camino cars have been completely reconditioned and
refurbished. For all practical purposes their condition is the same as
when they were first placed into service. By way of design they may not
lend themselves to the high capacity nor expeditious means of loading
and unloading passengers as the more modern type of commuter rail
cars, but they would afford passengers a very comfortable means of
commuting between home and work.
Locomotives
If the success of the proposed service requires the operation of four
3,600 horsepower locomotives then it will be SP's responsibility to see
that they are made available. Whether the locomotives are equipped
with steam generators is not essential. Stearn-heated cars and hot water
in the lavatories during certain periods of the winter months would be
desirable, but not absolutely necessary.
Schedules
The estimated range of 1,100 to 1,400 potential patrons appears to be
reasonable. Although SP questioned the reliability of the LARTS trip
estimates because of the assertedly erroneous assumptions as to train
schedules, headway, and performance, it did not question the accuracy
or methodology of the study. In fact, the SP study adopted for its
purposes the LARTS forecast of 1,825 passengers on a 24-hour basis.
Although a longer schedule could reduce the estimated patronage the
feasibility of the proposed schedules can only be determined from
actual operations.
Whether it takes 30 seconds or three minutes at each station to load
and unload passengers remains to be seen. To achieve the 30-second
dwell-time it may be necessary to use a larger train crew so that more
doors can be opened, or it may be accomplished by opening fewer doors
and spotting cars at station platforms. As in all new operations, there
undoubtedly will be a number of procedural and operational problems
that will have to be tried and tested before the best methods are finally
adopted. Hopefully, the testing period will be of short duration.
722 45a Dec. 91847
Ticket Sales
By an arrangement with Amtrak, tickets will be sold at the Los
Angeles, Glendale, and Oxnard stations, Except for the occasional rider
it is safe to assume that most passengers will purchase the discount
tickets and it is further safe to assume that most of the commuter
passengers will purchase their tickets by mail or at one of the attended
stations.
A problem could arise for the commuter who has not had an
opportunity to purchase a ticket by mail, and boards and unboards at
unattended stations. The effectiveness of automatic ticket machines is
questionable because of problems relating to breakdowns and change.
Under the present proposal the alternative for the commuter would be
to purchase one-way tickets on the train until a discount ticket could
be acquired by mail.
The sale of cash fares by conductors presents no problem that cannot
be solved by adding conductor-helpers to the crew as needed. If the
number of cash fares should exceed the 20 estimated for each train, the
helpers could be used not only for the sale and collection of tickets, but
also to open additional doors at intermediate stations.
Station Facilities
An adequately lighted station platform and an easily accessible
parking area should be sufficient to meet the needs of most commuters.
The convenience of an enclosed station equipped with restroom
facilities would be desirable but is not necessary. As a practical matter
most commuters drive, or are driven to the station and remain in their
cars until their train arrives. If any time is spent waiting un the station
platform it is usually minirnal and on most occasions a pleasant
experience, particularly in Southern California with its favorable
weather.
Police protection can be provided by local authorities and if the
support for the proposed service is evidenced by local governmental
authorities is any criterion, security should be no problem.
Home Terminal
Establishment of a home terminal is strictly an operational matter
with which SP is fully familiar. On the surface it would appear that Los
Angeles would be the logical choice because it would alleviate the need
for establishing an extra board for enginemen and trainmen at Oxnard.
The only additional costs would be for meals and lodging for crews
laying over at Oxnard and replacements could be made from switch
engine assignments at Oxnard or by supervising personnel. In any
event, we feel sure that SP’s decision will be operationally practical and
cost-efficient.
Dec. 91847 46a 723
Equipment Maintenance
SP may have substantially reduced its passenger maintenance
facilities and personnel with the inauguration of the Amtrak service but
it did not completely eliminate them. Pursuant to a contract with
Amtrak the Southwest Limited trains which operate between New
Orleans and Los Angeles and the Coast Daylight trains, are presently
serviced by Amtrak at Los Angeles. Before leaving Los Angeles the
trains receive a turn-around inspection and cleaning. All heavy
maintenance and repair work for these same trains is done at SP’s
Oakland facilities, which are equipped with a drop-pit, Joyce electric
jacks, and elevator tracks that are used for minute inspections.
There is no reason why a similar arrangement cannot be made for the
r’ aning and repair of the proposed commuter trains. Except for
ye ding up discarded papers and debris at Oxnard, the major
inspection, cleaning, and maintenance could be done at Los Angeles,
while heavy repairs could be done at SP’s Oakland facilities.
Supervision
Whether the successful operation of the commuter trains requires
someone to supervise and coordinate the proposed service is an
operational matter that can best be answered by SP. It would appear,
however, that if necessary it could be performed by the same person
or persons who performs these functions in SP's operation of the
Amtrak trains.
Costs
There is no dispute that the proposed commuter service, i!
authorized, would be operated at a deficit. Since state subsidy funds are
available there is no merit to SP’s contention that the proposed service
would constitute a financial burden. The only question is how the
deficit is to be calculated. This can best be decided by SP, Caltrans, and
County after a period of negotiations. We believe that a period of six
months should be sufficient for such purposes. If not, additional time
will be provided. During this period a subsidy account should lx
established and payments made as necessary to inaugurate anc
maintain service. Adjustments can be made after an agreement h.::
been reached and actual costs are known.
We are of the opinion that SP should be compensated for those costs
that are a direct result of the commuiter service in addition to common
costs as well as fixed costs that are a direct result of such service. The
parties should use an avoidable or incremental cost methodology in
Socniatae cnn ef esemans eet ailiaibes
T2A 47a Dec. 91847
During the period of negotiations we do not believe that any
allowance should be made for costs attributable to the interference
with freight trains. It is possible that a more disciplined effort will be
made to coordinate the movements of the commuter and freight trains
if there is no monetary cushion to soften the effects of conflicts to
freight trains. By the same token this period of service will provide a
more accurate account of the coordinated operations as well as a basis
upon which such costs can be determined and paid if justified.
With respect to insurance we believe that until a claims history can
be developed a new policy with a $1.5 million deductible would be
prudent. At « future date it may be advisable and more economical to
have Caltrans and County added to SP’s system policy.
In addition to costs we believe that SP is also entitled to a reasonable
rate of return. This should satisfy SP’s requirement that a new service
must have a contributing effect on its financial standing. We are of the
opinion that a 7% percent return would not only be reasonable, but,
according to figures presented in this proceeding, exceed SP’s rate of
return on net investment in transportation property for the past ten
years.
Finally, while Caltrans does appear willing and able to reimburse SP
for all reasonable deficits resulting from the operation of this needed
service, it may be the case that SP will incur certain expenses that are
not anticipated by the parties during negotiations. Should this
circumstance arise, we will require that subsequent recognition be
given to such expenses and that reimbursement be made. However,
because of the sound overall financial health of SP, as well as its holding
company, Southern Pacific Company, we believe SP is fully capable of
absorbing a reasonable portion of such unanticipated expenses, if for
some justifiable reason they should remain unreimbursed or if
reimbursement is delayed.
SP should also be paid a reasonable rental for any of its properties
used for parking or station platform purposes.
Compleinents’ Motion to Strike SP’s Surrebutta! Showing
In accordance with Rule 57 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure the complainants were entitled to open and close. In this
however, the ALJ in the exercise of his discretionary
authority (Rule 63) agreed to a surrebuttal presentation on the part of
SP and upon completion of complainants’ rebuttal presentation on
December 5, 1979, continued the matter for a four-day presentation by
SP commencing January 22, 1980.
Dec. 91847 48a 725
In conformity with the established hearing procedure SP served
copies of prepared testimony and related exhibits upon all parties ten
days prior to the January 22 hearing. In addition, Greyhound Lines, Inc.
and General Motors Corporation also served copies of prepared
surrebuttal testimony and related exhibits on all parties, even though
no provision had been extended to either party to make a surrebuttal
presentation.
In reply to complainants’ rebuttal presentation, which covered a
period of two and a half days and called for the testimony of four
witnesses, SP proposed to call eleven witnesses. The testimony of
several of SP's surrebuttal witnesses would have covered as many as
forty or fifty pages of prepared testimony. If taken with the testimony
and exhibits that Greyhound and General Motors proposed to
introduce, the total time that would have been necessary to complete
the surrebuttal showing would have required an additional two or three
weeks of hearing.
On January 21, 1980, complainants filed a motion requesting that all
surrebuttal exhibits be set aside and te matter taken under submission.
On January 22, 1980, following argument on the motion the ALJ
sustained the motion.
On January 31, 1980, February 11, 1980, and March 6, 1980, General
Motors, Greyhound, and SP, respectively, filed petitions to set aside
submission for the purpose of receiving surrebuttal exhibits.
The petitions will be denied. No authority was ever extended to
either Greyhound or General Motors to make a surrebuttal
presentation. A review of SP's exhibits indicates that a substantial
portion of its surrebuttal presentation would have been repetitious,
argumentative, and rehabilitative of SP’s case in chief.
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the ALJ in sustaining
the motion and we affirm his decision. All parties were afforded a full
opportunity to be heard.
SP’s Motion for e Protective Order
During the course of hearing, by letter dated October 25, 1979, staff
counsel requested that the ALJ direct SP to provide a guided Hy-Rail
inspection of SP’s railroad properties between the Los Angeles station
and Montebello, commencing at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 6, 1979,
for the purpose of transporting staff members on the requested
inspection tour
(6) The tour was never provided because SP claimed that the ruling
was not received by SP’s counsel until 12:00 p.m., November 6, 1979. On
November 9, 1979 SP filed a motion for a protective order that it not
726 49a Dec. 91847
be required to provide the Commission staff and staff counsel with the
requested inspection. Because the staff never renewed its request, the
issue is now moot; and the motion will be denied. However, SP is placed
upon notice that had such a tour been necessary for the staff to have
a better understanding of SP operations and had the staff pursued its
request for a tour the motion for a protective order would have been
denied on the merits. SP’s motion appears to be inconsistent when one
considers that it was SP which raised the issue relating to the adequacy
of its track facilities. More importantly, we wish to stress that it is
essential that the Commission staff have full access to public utility
property and facilities in order to conduct examinations and tests
pertaining to the powers afforded the Commission and its staff in the
Public Utilities Act. Public Utilities Code Section 771, as well as other
sections, provides that authority. SP will not be permitted to frustrate
our staff's exercise of the Commission's powers and functions by
suggesting that the proposed inspection was not legitimate. We expect
SP to recognize and cooperate with our staff's reasonable requests for
inspection and examination of common carrier properties devoted to
public utility purposes.
SPs Motion for an Environmental impect Report
On August 8, 1979 SP filed a motion pursuant to Rule 17.1 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting an order of
the Commission directing complainants to either submit a negative
declaration or an environmental data statement in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Senaté Bill 849, Chapter 791 of the Statutes of 1978 (Pub. Resources
Code Section 2108.5) provided for the following exemption from
CEQA:
“A project for the installation or increase of passenger or commuter
service on rail lines in use, including modernization of existi
stations and parking facilities, shall be exempt from this decision.
Although the exemption applies only to existing stations and parking
facilities the type of construction proposed by Caltrans (i.e., open
platforms and paved parking areas) is categorically exempt from the
Environmental Impact Report requirements of CEQA.
“(C) Class 3 Exemptions
“3. Accessory (appurtenant) structures to utility structures
carports, patios and fences.” (Rule
17.1 (h) ( » (35 '
The motion will be denied.
=
Dec. 91847 50a 727
Findings of Fect
1. SP completed construction of the final portion of its main line over
its right-of-way known as the “Coast Line” between Santa Barbara and
Los Angeles, through Oxnard and the Santa Susana Tunnel, in 1904,
which right-of-way, with attendant trackage structures and facilities,
continues to be used for common carrier purposes.
2. SP has never been authorized to abandon its “Coast Line”
right-of-way between Los Angeles and Oxnard by the ICC or by this
Commission.
3. SP has operated various trains over the years since 1904 which
provided local passenger train service between Oxnard and Los
Angeles over the Santa Paula line until 1934, as well as through the
Santa Susana Tunnel until at least 1937.
4. The Commission in 1934 in Decision No. 27612 permitted
discontinuance of certain local train service between Oxnard and Los
Angeles, but reserved the right to revoke the authority to discontinue
such service if public convenience and necessity so demanded, and said
decision and order was not appealed by SP.
5. SP has never been authorized by the ICC or this Commission to
abandon or discontinue all passenger train service in the State.
6. SP refused a formal request to haul certain passenger cars owned
by County between Los Angeles and Oxnard.
7. Extensive use of the private automobile has helped to cause traffic
congestion, environmental deterioration, energy consumption, and the
use of land for roads and parking, as well as other detrimental
socio-economic impacts.
8. A policy of the State Legislature, as well as that of the U.S.
Congress and the President, is to encourage and develop a balanced
transportation system, including expanded rail transit service.
9. Regional and local governmental officials and planning agencies
support and encourage commuter rail service in the corridor between
Los Angeles and Oxnard.
10. A significant segment of the public witnesses supports commuter
rail passenger service between Los Angeles and Oxnard.
11. It is reasonable to expect that from 1,100 to 1,400, or morc.
passengers per day will use the proposed commuter train service.
12. We find that based on the evidence adduced on this record,
public convenience and necessity require that SP commence passenger
train service between LAUPT and Oxnard consisting of two trains daily,
each way, between 6:00-8:00 a.m. and between 4:00-6:00 p.m., with
intermediate stops at stations or platforms at Camarillo, Moorpark,
Santa Susana (Simi Valley), Chatsworth, Northridge, Panorama.
Airport, Burbank, and Clendale.
728 Sla Dec. 91847
13. SP’s overall financial condition, as well as that of its holding
company, will enable it to bear anv reasonable expenses of the service
not fully reimbursed by Caltrans.
14. The complainants and SP should engage in negotiations leading
to an agreement to render the service ordered herein.
15. SP can accommodate its existing freight service offered along the
coast line between Oxnard and Los Angeles with the proposed
commuter trains with minimal impact with the adoption of reasonable
measures by SP to eliminate conflicts and impose greater discipline in
its overall coast line operation.
16. A major portion of the SP coastline track facilities between Los
Angeles and Oxnard is single track with side tracks at four locations.
The movement of trains, including the commuter trains, could be
greatly facilitated if the Hewitt siding were returned to operation and
Chatsworth and Santa Susana were made train order stations. The use
of radio for the purpose of issuing train orders would also be a factor in
facilitating the movement of trains over the single-track segment.
17. SP’s interference study does not accurately reflect the train
conflicts that would result if the proposed commuter service was
authorized because the study was prepared by superimposing the
commuter operation over past freight operations without any attempt
to avoid conflicts by redispatching trains. A more accurate and helpful
study would have been an account of the conflicts resulting from the
operation of the Amtrak Coast Daylight trains, which also operate daily
over the same track facilities.
18. SP’s Gerco and Taylor yards pose a potential problem for
conflicts with the proposed commuter trains, but a major contributing
factor is SP’s practice of making up trains on the main tracks adjacent
to both yards. Better utilization of yard facilities, more efficient yard
operations, and a stricter discipline in the calling and operation of
freight trains would minimize possible delays to passenger and freight
trains because of conflicts.
19. The proposed rail commuter service is feasible. Initially certain
operational problems will be experienced but these can and should be
resolved following a reasonable period for operational and public
adjustment.
20. It will be the responsibility of SP to provide adequate
locomotives. If it is necessary to use four 3,600 horsepower locomotives
to assure a dependable on-time service and an adequate source of
backup power, then this requirement will have to be met if public use
and confidence are to be established and maintained.
21. To achieve and maintain a 30-second station dwell-time may
require a larger train crew in order that more train doors can be opened
for the loading and unloading passengers. As an alternative cars may be
strategically spotted along the platform and fewer opened, but this is
a procedure. that could be tried during the period of adjustment.
22. Discount tickets may be purchased at the Los Angeles, Glendale,
and Oxnard stations; they may also be purchased by mail, and one-way
tickets may be purchased from the train conductor. This should provide
a reasonable opportunity for all who are interested in using the
proposed service. The proposed use of automatic ticket machines at
unattended stations may pose some probiems, but if so the other
methods of purchasing tickets should be sufficient.
23. Adequately lighted station platforms with access to parking areas
will meet the needs of most commuters. Construction of enclosed
shelters equipped with restroom facilities is not necessary.
24. Selection of a home terminal for the proposed commuter trains
is an operational matter that will have to be determined in accordance
with practical and economic considerations.
25. Complainants have eight passenger cars available for service,
which have been reconstructed and refurbished. They are in excellent
condition and are more than adequate for use in the proposed service.
Complainants will provide eight additional passenger cars to make up
the consist of the second train and they will be made available prior to
the commencement of service. )
26. All heavy maintenance and repair of the passenger cars will be
the responsibility of complainants. Heavy repairs and major cleaning
can be performed pursuant to an agreement with Amtrak.
27. All light cleaning and running repairs of the passenger cars will
be the responsibility of SP and can be performed by SP personne! at its
Los Angeles facilities.
28. Operating deficits resulting from the service are to be subsidized
by state funds pursuant to an agreement to be negotiated by the parties.
The agreement sliould compensate SP for direct out-of-pocket costs.
During the course of negotiations consideration should be given to the
RSPO Commuter Standards, which provide a reasonable method for
determining direct, indirect, and common costs. A period of six months
would be required to negotiate such an agreement. In the event the
parties desire this Commission's assistance by way of interpretation it
will be available.
29. Pending final agreement between the parties a subsidy account
in the amount of $1.3 million should be established for the purpose of
inaugurating the proposed service and for construction by SP of station
730 53a Dec. 91847
platforms and parking facilities in accordance with plans and
specifications to be prepared by CalTrans and filed with this
Commission for its approval.
30. No allowance should be made for costs attributable to the
interference with SP’s freight trains.
31. Until a reasonable claims history can be developed a new
insurance policy with a $1.5 million deductible should be obtained to
cover the proposed service.
32. In addition to meeting deficit costs, the subsidy should provide SP
with a 7% percent rate of return, which we find to be just and
reasonable.
33. Certain SP properties, upon which station platforms and parking
areas would be installed, are presently subject to written leases
containing 30-day cancellation clauses. SP should be paid a reasonable
rental for any properties that are used for such purposes.
Conclusions of Lew
1. SP is a common carrier of freight and passengers between Los
Angeles and Oxnard and subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission.
2. SP completed legal dedication of its right-of-way with attendant
structures and facilities to common carrier purposes between Oxnard
and Los Angeles following completion of said construction in 1904.
3. SP is a common carrier of passengers and freight over its dedicated
rights-of-way. The obligation remains for SP to render that service
which the Commission finds is required by public convenience and
necessity.
4. The authority granted SP to discontinue certain local passenger
trains in service between Los Angeles and Oxnard was not an
irrevocable grant of the right to cease all passenger train service
thereafter nor was such authority to discontinue specific trains an
acknowledgment that SP had “retracted” its dedication to passenger
service.
5. If the Commission subsequent to discontinuance of certain train
service finds that public convenience and necessity require
reinstitution of passenger train service along a railroad's right-of-way
dedicated to common carrier service, it may order that train service be
operated. ‘
6. The passage of the National Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 did
not authorize SP to refuse to render commuter passenger train service
thereafter.
7. Civil Code Section 2169 sets forth, in part, SP’s common carrier
Dec. 91847 54a 731
8. Public Utilities Code Sections 761 through 763 provide additional
statutory authority for the Commission to consider the merits of
County's and CalTrans’ complaint
9. Pursuant to the conditional grant of authority to discontinue
passenger train service in Decision No. 27612, the right to revoke such
authority if public convenience and necessity so require remains with
the Commission. SP’s failure to seek review of said decision renders the
matter final on the merits.
10. The evidence in this public record indicates that public
convenience and necessity require that SP commence operation of rail
passenger service between Los Angeles and Oxnard as proposed by
complainants.
11. We affirm the conclusion reached in Decision No. 90018 that SP
is acommon carrier of freight and passengers between Los Angeles and
Oxnard and subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission. A copy of
Decision No. 90018 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
12. This Commission has no statutory or constitutional authority to
determine how subsidy funds available under Senate Bill 620 should be
distributed or apportioned.
13. Inauguration of a rail commuter service between Los Angeles
and Oxnard requires no alternative analysis study nor environmental
impact report. Construction of station platforms and parking lot
facilities is exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
14. SP should be required to operate the proposed commuter trains
in accordance with the requirements of the ensuing order.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days after the effective date hereof, the State of
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) shall submit to
Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) and file with this
and parking facilities.
2. Within ninety days after receipt of the plans and specifications
provided for in Ordering Paragraph 1 hereof, SP shall construct the
platforms and parking facilities in accordance with said plans and
specifications and shall, upon ten days’ notice to the Commission and
the public, commence operations of two commuter passenger trains
between Los Angeles and Oxnard with intermediate stops at Camariilo,
Moorpark, Sante Susana (Simi Valley), Chatsworth, Northridge,
Panorama, Airport, Burbank, and Glendale. Said service shall be
24—42159
732 55a Dec. 91847
provided subject to the condition that CalTrans shall subsidize deficits
resulting from such operation.
3. SP shall operate the rail service provided for in Ordering
Paragraph 2 hereof between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and
between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, Monday through Friday, holidays
excepted.
4. Within thirty days prior to the commencement of service by SP,
complainants shall establish to the Commission's satisfaction that:
(a) Two consists of eight rail passenger cars each are available and
ready to be used in service.
(b) Arrangements have been made for the maintenance of rail
cars and for the sale of tickets.
(c) An escrow account has been established containing ts of
$1.3 million for the purpose of constructing station platforms
and parking facilities and a deposit of at least one-half of the
estimated cost of first-year operations as set forth in Exhibit 9.
5. Within one hundred eighty days after the effective date hereof SP,
CalTrans, and the County of Los Angeles shall negotiate and submit to
this Commission for its approval an agreement relating to the
equipment and facilities to be used in providing said commuter service
and the method to be applied in subsidizing deficits that may result
therefrom.
6. During the period of negotiations funds deposited in the escrow
account provided for in Ordering Paragraph 4(c) hereof, shall be used
for the purpose of inaugurating and maintaining the commuter service.
When an agreement has been reached and actual costs have been
determined adjustments will be made accordingly.
7. Within sixty days after the effective date hereof, and on not less
than ten days’ notice to the Commission and to the public, SP shall
amend its tariffs and timetables on file with the Commission to reflect
the service herein authorized and ordered.
8. The petition for a proposed report as well as the motions to set
aside submission for the receiving of surrebuttal evidence and the
motion for a protective order that a “Hy-Rail” tour need not be
provided are denied.
9. All objections, motions, and petitions filed in this proceeding and
not specifically ruled upon are denied.
The effective date of this order shall be thirty days after the date
hereof.
Dec. 91847 S6a 733
Dated June 3, 1980, at San Francisco, California.
JOHN E. BRYSON
President
VERNON L. STURGEON
RICHARD D. GRAVELLE
LEONARD M. GRIMES JR.
Commissioners
Commissioner Claire T. Dedrick, io
ily absent, did not participate in the di tion
this proceeding.
EXHIBIT A
Owen L. Gallagher and Douglas , Attorneys at Law, for County of Los Angeles; and
Robert A. Munroe and O / , Attorneys at Law, for State Department of
Transportation; complainants.
Charles W. Burkett and Carol A. Harris, Attorneys at Law, for Southern Pacific Transpor-
tation Company, defendant.
D.H. Brey, for Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; James P._ Jones, for United Trans-
portation Union, California Legislative Board; and Eugene C Given, for Greyhound
Lines, Inc.; intervenors.
William J] Jennings, Attorney at Law, and Richard C Collins, for the Commission staff.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
By this complaint filed May 18, 1978, County of Los Angeles and State
of California Department of Transportation request an order of the
Commission directing Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP)
to operate passenger train service between Los Angeles and Oxnard.
On October 6, 1978, SP filed a motion requesting that the
complainant be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to grant the relief
sought.
Oral argument on the motion was heard before Administrative Law
Judge Daly on November 13, 1978, at San Francisco at which time and
place the motion was taken under submission.
Based upon the following jurisdictional facts, which were introduced
as Exhibits 1 and 2, SP contends that the Commission is without
jurisdiction to require SP to provide a passenger commute service on
its Coast Route between Oxnard and Los Angeles:
Exhibit 1
C. H. Howard fies
Southern Fn bere ve = pegred
Assistant General t
and, Pasenger agent and Asan ‘afc ‘Manage, tn te
TH 57a Dec. 91847
California er operations on SP Coast Route between
Oxnard onl py involved intercity trains, and commute
passenger trains were never operated between said points. With
the passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, SP entered
into contracts with the National Rail Passenger Corporations
(Amtrak). As of that time SP’s er trains in California were
intercity passenger trains with the ex of its peninsula
commute trains which operate between Francisco and San
sae Exhibit A, attached to Exhibit 1, is a copy of SP’s “Cancellation
upplement” issued March 22, 1971, canceling its local
interdivision, and joint r tariffs pursuant to the Rail
Passenger Service Act of 1970. All local, interdivision, and joint
California intrastate tariffs issued by SP as shown in Exhibit A were
canceled effective May 1, marta or» eeceeapetion in joint tariffs
issued by the a Passenger Association, the
tion,
Railroad Passenger Association was canceled effective September
1, 1971, for intrastate passenger traffic. By order served April 12,
1972, the Interstate Commerce Commission ordered that all joint
re ip tariffs in which SP icipated and all individually
passen tariffs of SP rela to passenger service
terminated un sey deny ag ay wats aba pg eT ice Act
of 1970 be stricken from its files. As of May 1, 1971, SP has not
furnished any rail service between Oxnard and Los Angeles or on
any line in Los Angeles wp ee Area. Amtrak presently
operates “The Coast Starlij‘ht” over SP’s Coast Route main
line to and from Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal with stops
at Oxnard and Gl e. SP has leased to Amtrak its former
passenger-related space at all three stations.
Exhibit 2
A. M. Cole
Special Assistant to the Superintendent of the Operating Division,
Los Angeles Division
Was employed by Pacific Electric, a wholly owned subsidiary of SP,
which operated an electric interurban railroad service for the
commutation of passengers and some freight in the Los Angeles
basin from 1911 until its merger into SP in 1965. Pacific Electric
never furnished i er commutation services between Los
Angeles and G e or over the rail lines of Southern
SP argues that when it canceled its tariffs and discontinued all
passenger operations in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, it was no
longer a common carrier of passengers in that area, and the
Commission lacks jurisdiction to compel it to provide service as
requested in the complaint.
SP takes the position that, although it is a common carrier of freight
between Los Angeles and Oxnard, it no longer is a common carrier of
Dec. 91847 58a 735
passengers between said points; and in the absence of a finding of
rededication, the Commission cannot require SP to provide the service
requested.
Exhibits 1 and 2 clearly establish that SP was engaged in the
transportation of persons and property within the meaning of Article
XII, Section 3 of the California Constitution and Section 211 (a) of the
California Public Utilities Code between Los Angeles and Oxnard until
1971. When SP entered into contracts with Amtrak, it assertedly was
relieved of all of its responsibilities as a common carrier of passengers
by rail in intercity rail passenger service under Part 1 of the Interstate
Commerce Act or any state or other law relating to the provisions of
intercity passenger service. Although it emphasizes the fact that its
passenger service between Angeles and Oxnard was intercity as
opposed to commute, it provided no statutory or case authority for the
distinction insofar as dedication is concerned.
SP also failed to cite any authority from this Commission to abandon
its responsibility and obligation to provide passenger service between
Oxnard and Los Angeles, and such prior authorization is required.
(Marin Co. Elec. Rwys. (1914) 4 CRC 503; Key System Transit Co.
(1924) 25 CRC 363; and Lennon et al. v Bayside Lumber Co. (1916) 10
CRC 116.) In the latter decision the Commission specifically held that:
“If defendant was a common carrier, it could not y escape its
obligations to the public by the simple expedient prj ros its line
of railroad and part of its equipment. Furthermore, defendant, if
it was © CONDE cartier, Could Het couse Gnerations 0a Sach cartier
unless the Railroad Commission's consent had first been secured.
No application for such consent was ever made by defendant.”
Applications for the discontinuance of specific trains operating
between San Francisco and Los Angeles over the Coast Route were
granted, but the last train that SP operated over its Coast Route
between said points was “The Coast Daylight” and it was discontinued
on May 1, 1971, by a tariff filing, as evidenced by Exhibit A attached to
Exhibit 1. No application was ever filed with this Commission
requesting authority to abandon passenger service.
We are not prepared to say whether the Rail Passenger Service Act
of 1970 constitutes a preemption by the federal government of the
Commission's jurisdiction to regulate intrastaste rai] passenger service
because of the recent amendment to the California Constitution
(Article 3, Section 3'), which states that a state agency has no power to
'"(1) See 33 An admin:stratve agency. including an edmmunistrative agency created by the Consti-
tuhon or an wutetve stetute. has no power
“(a) To declare 2 stetute unenforceable. or refuse to enforce a statute. on the basis of its bring
unconshtutonal uniew an appellete court has made « determination that such statute is unconst:
“(2) To declare « statute unconstitutional.
“(3) To declare » astute unentorcesble or to retuer t enforce s tstute on the bens thet lederal
736 59a Dec. 91847
declare a statute unenforceable or to refuse to enforce a statute on the
basis of preemption by a federal law unless such a determination has
been made by an appellate court.
We are unaware of any appellate court determination of this issue
and will therefore pursue our constitutional and statutory authority
with respect to the regulation of intrastate rail passenger service.
For the above-discussed reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of Southern Pacific Transportation
Company to dismiss the complaint filed in this proceeding for lack of
jurisdiction is denied.
The effective date of this order shall be thirty days after the date
hereof.
Dated at San Francisco, California, this 27th day of February, 1979.
JOHN E. BRYSON
VERNON L. STURGEON
LEONARD M. GRIMES JR.
Commissioners
law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has
made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal
regulation ~
Dec. 91847 60a 737
APPENDIX A°*
Map A
Rell Trackege Routes
Los Angeles-Santa Berbera
SANTA SALEAEA
VESTULA
Sealawe
Oswasy (Ja daue
‘ Cutten
a "leon yads
|
! OS Ameti@:
COAST masa liad
Los Angeles—Santa Barbara:
103.2 miles via Coast Main Line
110.2 miles via Santa Paula Branch
* Source: Exhibit 106
738 6la Dec. 91847
APPENDIX B
R. S. Myers and E J. Foulds, by R. S. Myers, for Applicant.
Don R. Holt, Chief Deputy District Attorney of Ventura County, for Ventura County,
Protestant.
F. Mark Durley, for Ventura County Chamber of Commerce, Protestant
Jack C. Miller, for Oxnard Chamber of Commerce.
R. H. Blanchard, City Attorney, for the City of Santa Paula.
Harry See, for Brotherhood of Reilroad Trainmen.
W. H. Glover, for Ventura County Chamber of Commerce, Protestant
M. H. Cobb, for the City of Fillmore, Protestant.
F. M. Erskine, for Fillmore Chamber of Commerce, Protestant.
G. A. Koechig, for Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce, Protestant
Fred Pidduck, for Law and Utilities Committee, Ventura Farm Bureau
BY THE COMMISSION:
OPINION
In this proceeding, Southern Pacific Company seeks authority to
discontinue the operation of its passenger trains numbered 351-352 and
353-354 between Los Angeles and Oxnard. These trains are operated
over applicant's main line between Los Angeles and Saugus, over its
so-called Santa Paula Branch between Saugus and Montalvo and over
its main line between Montalvo and Oxnard.
Public hearings were conducted in this matter by Examiner Gorman
at Santa Paula on April 5th and September 19th and at Los Angeles on
October 19th, 1954, on the latter date the matter having been duly
submitted.
Applicant seeks authority to discontinue the operation of passenger
train service between Los Angeles and Oxnard via the Santa Paula
Branch and alleges that such authority is sought on account of the fact
that the revenue derived from such passenger service is insu‘ficient to
meet the out-of-pocket cost of operation; that the financial condition of
the company has made it imperative that all reasonable economies be
effected; that other passenger common carrier service is being afforded
the territory; and that the discontinuance of said service will not
constitute an unreasonable inconvenience to the travelling public.
Passenger service, consisting of one round trip daily, is now provided
by applicant's motor trains, designated as trains Nos. 351-352 and
353-354, between Los Angeles and Oxnard, a distance of 83.2 miles.
Exhibit No. 4 shows the direct service expense and revenue per
annum, applicable to operation of the trains involved herein, which are
as follows:
Dec. 91847 62a 739
Total Out-of-Pocket Expense. ”m sacnenescbcoebeetaatein lation 819.291 31.769
Out-of-pocket Loss in Operation .... a 17 839
The actual out-of- lta cost of operating said passenger service for
1933 was considerably higher than shown above, since during a part of
that period distillate was used as fuel previous to the introduction of the
butane gas, which substantially reduced the fuel cost and, in addition,
steam trains were used when the motor cars were out of service for
repairs. The out-of-pocket cost of operation, as set forth above, is 31.76
cents per car mile; however, the total cost of operation was
approximately 52 cents per car mile.
A traffic check (Exhibit No. 9), taken on said trains during the period
April Ist, 1933 to March 3lst, 1934, shows an average of approximately
eight passengers per trip.
Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc. operates a passenger motor coach
service between Los Angeles and Ventura, which practically parallels
the route of the rail service proposed to be abandoned and serves all
the communities of any consequence now being served by said rail line.
A comparison of the rail schedule of trains Nos. 351-352 and 353-354
with that of the Pacific Greyhound is as follows:
Train 331-358 Te mie Grerhound _
jenture
Lv. Oxnard. 6G AM 7:15AM 420 P.M
Lv Senta Paule................. 7:18 7:43
Lv. Fillmore 7:3 60 &10
As. Los Angeles ........ 935 10-40 7:30
Train 253~35¢ ;
Lv. Los Angeles ................ 728 P.M. P.M.
Lv Seugus 619 910
ERI RTES. 007 957 7:40
NE EEO TEE eee. CP [te]
Ar. Oxnard ...... 953 (Ventura) 1100 900
740 63a Dec. 91847
The above tabulation shows that the scheduled time for the bus
service is more or less comparable with the rail service. It may be noted
that the running time for the rail service between Los Angeles and
Santa Paula is two hours and seventeen minutes, while the running time
for the bus service between the same points varies from two hours and
forty minutes to three hours and seven minutes. At the present time the
busses operating through the Santa Paula Valley require a transfer to
main line busses at Saugus, involving a layover at said point of from
three to thirty-eight minutes.
A witness for Pacific Greyhound testified that during the past few
months passenger traffic has shown a substantial increase; that it was
hoped that business would continue to increase sufficiently to warrant
the operation of through motor coach service between Los Angeles and
Oxnard via Santa Paula, as was formerly operated; ard that his company
is equipped to handle any increased business which may result from the
discontinuance of the train service involved herein.
The bus schedules through the Santa Paula Valley are so arranged
that practically direct connections are made with both northbound and
southbound Southern Pacific main line trains at Ventura or Oxnard.
A representative of Railway Express Agency, Inc. testified that in the
event the train service involved herein is abandoned, his company
would provide at least an equivalent service at rates identical with
existing rates.
Resolutions filed by the Ventura County Chamber of Commerce and
Santa Paula Chamber of Commerce protested the granting of this
application, on the grounds that the discontinuance of passenger train
service through the Santa Paula Valley would result in delay to express
and mail service and remove the station of Santa Paula from the
passenger railroad time-tables, thereby breaking rail passenger contact
with other communites. The protestants who appeared at the hearing
presented no evidence in support of the allegation that public
convenience and necessity justified the continued operation of said
passenger train service.
Protestants also averred that the earnings of the passenger service on
the Santa Paula Branch should not be considered independently of the
freight earnings (both intra and interstate), derived from the
operations of said branch line. This information was introduced in
evidence by applicant; however, it does not appear necessary to set
forth same, inasmuch as the Commission held in a previous case
(Decision No. 28474, dated October 30th, 1933, on Application No.
19000), that the freight earnings were not the determining factor in
deciding whether or not passenger service should be continued, as it
Dec. 91847 64a 741
did not appear to be in the public interest to require passenger trai: s
to be operated over a line where a substantial out-of-pocket loss is
incurred, which must be borne by the carrier or made up through other
forms of revenue, if the public can be provided with reasonably
adequate and efficient service by other means of transportation.
This application does not in any way involve freight operation or
agency service.
After carefully considering the record in this proceeding, it is
concluded that this application should be granted. This conciusion is
supported by the fact that existing bus lines are able to take care of
passengers and baggage and an equivalent express service will be
provided. This substitute service, under prevailing conditions, will be
reasonably adequate to meet public convenienve and necessity.
ORDER
Public hearings having been held in the above entitled proceeding
and the matter being now under submission and ready for decision;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Southern Pacific Company be and
it is hereby authorized to discontinue operation of its passenger trains
numbered 351-352 and 353-354 between Los Angeles and Oxnard via
its so-called Santa Paula Branch, subject, however, to the following
conditions:
(1) The public shall be given not less than ten (10) days’ advance
notice of the proposed discontinuance of passenger service, by
ting notices in all passenger trains rated over the Santa
aula Branch and at all prey oa affected.
(2) Applicant shall advise this Commission, in writing, within
thirty (30) days thereafter, of the discontinuance of the
passenger service authorized herein.
(3) The authorization herein granted shall lapse and become void
if not exercised within one é 1) year from the date hereof,
unless further time is granted by subsequent order.
(4) Applicant shall make any necessary changes in its tariffs and
station lists on not less than five (5) days’ notice to the
Commission and the public.
(5) The Commission reserves the right to make such further
orders, relative to this matter, as to it may seem right and
roper and to revoke the authority granted herein if, in its
lament, public convenience and necessity demand such
action.
For all other purposes, the effective date of this order shall be twenty
(20) days from the date hereof.
742 65a Dec. 91848
Dated at San Francisco, California, this 22nd day of December, 1934.
LEON O. WHITSELL
W. J. CaRR
M. B. HARRIS
WALLACE L. WARE
FRANK R. DEVLIN
Commissioners
Certified as a True Copy
Asst. Secretary, Railroad Commission
State of California
C.10575 L/saw
Decision No. 92230
"September 3, 1980
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
Complainants,
Vv. > Case No. 10575
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORATION
COMPANY, a corporation
Defendant.
4
ORDER MODIFYING DECISION NO. 91847,
GRANTING LIMITED REHEARING TO DEFENDANT
AND DENYING REHEARING TO INTERVENOR
A petition for rehearing of Decision No. 91847 has been
filed by Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The Coun-
ty of Los Angeles and the State of California have filed their
Opposition to the petition for rehearing. A petition for rehear-
ing has also been filed by Greyhound Lines, Inc. We have
carefully considered all the allegations of error contained in
SP’s petition for rehearing and are of the opinion that good
cause for granting a limited rehearing of Decision No. 91847 on
the terms specified herein has been shown. We have carefully
considered all the allegations of error contained in Greyhound’s
petition for rehearing and are of the opinion that good cause for
granting rehearing has not been shown. However, we shall
modify our discussion, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law to reflect the further study which has been given to this
matter upon consideration of the petitions for rehearing.
Therefore,
It Is HEREBY ORDERED that proceedings in Case No. 10575
shall be reopened for the following purposes:
67a
1. Exhibits 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 and 126 shall be
admitted into evidence. Complainants shall have the right
to cross-examine the witnesses whose prepared testimony
is contained therein. Pursuant to Rule 57 of the Commis-
sion’s Rules of Procedure, Complainants shall also have
the right to close the proceedings through presentation of a
sur-surrebuttal case. No further exhibits or witnesses shall
be submitted or tendered by Defendant.
2. Complainants are hereby directed to present
substantial evidence of a reasonable solution to the prob-
lem of delays incurred by the afternoon commuter trains
due to the arrival of the Amtrak “Coast Starlight.” Such
evidence may but need not necessarily consist of an
agreement with Amtrak for rescheduling the Amtrak train
to avoid delays to the afternoon commuter trains.
3. Complainants are hereby directed to present
evidence of an agreement with Amtrak regarding servicing
and maintenance of the passenger cars.
4. Defendant is hereby put on notice that the
Commission stands unimpressed with its insistent efforts to
magnify minor operational problems into insurmountable
obstacles. The Administrative Law Judge shall have
discretion to limit proceedings regarding Exhibits 114-118
and 126 to such major issues of service feasibility as he
finds consistent with fairness to all parties.
5. We have carefully reexamined each and every
exhibit (nos. 111-126) offered by Greyhound and SP as
part of SP’s surrebuttal presentation. In view of the
modification of Decision No. 91847 which follows, Exhib-
its 111 and 112 shall not be admitted into evidence.
Exhibits 113 and 119-125 shall not be admitted into
evidence, as they are argumentive, repetitive and merely
cumulative of SP’s case in chief and Exhibits 114-118 and
126. Except as specifically granted herein, the petitions to
set aside submission are denied.
It Is FurTHeR OrpereD that Decision No. 91847 is
modified as specified herein:
68a
1. The discussion appearing in the last paragraph of
page 49 and continuing thorugh page 50 and footnote 3
are deleted. In their place are substituted the following
eight paragraphs:
“In the meantime, alternate modes of public
transportation are necessary, particularly to meet the
needs and requirements of commuters between home
and work. We do not have the statutory or con-
stitutional authority to determine how subsidy funds
available under Senate Bill 620 should be distributed
or apportioned. We do not have the authority to
decide whether a county, a transit district, or Caltrans
should enter into a purchase service contract with
Greyhound or with Mr. Nathanael Walter Anderson,
Sr., General Manager of GLH Tours, Inc., who testi-
fied
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.