Appendix — Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.
Supreme Court brief1974
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
App. Page
VV 873
Vv 1070
Vv s1118
V1143
V_1183
V_ 1240
V 1244
V 1253
V 1267
X 1287
1291
X 1293
Line Para.
3rd
ERRATA SHEET
2nd
2nd
insert “that” between the words
“further” and “any”
“approxi-maetly”’—s hould be
“approxi-mately”
under “Commodities Requiring
Refrigeration” insert comma
after the word “Transport”
“Twe” should be “Two”
“wv
substitute a “.” instead of the “,
following the .words “United
States”
the word “carries” should be “car-
rier”
“34.3 percent” should be “35.4
percent)
entitled “Operations:”"—the word
“cvarrier” should be “carrier”
2nd line from bottom “28,770”
under the column Tonnage—
should be “280,770”
“ir” should be “or”
“carfuel” should be “careful”
“enteres” should be “enters”
App. Page Line Para.
X 1295 l Ist “transittime’ should be “transit
time”
X 1295 10 2nd = Sentence beginning on that ‘line
should read as follows: “No
one challenged ‘this fact at the
hearing or on exceptions. In
finding that they were entitled
to little weight for the reasons
assigned, the Division acted ex
moro motu, thereby depriving
protestants of any opportunity
to defend their propriety or
correct the alleged deficien-
“cies.”
X 1299 28 Ist insert the word “between” before
“Charlotte”
X 1301 4 3rd “much of the” should be “much
of such”
1303 16 2nd “Albama” should be “Alabama”
1303 18 2nd insert “the” before the word “au-
thority”
1305 8 No.3 “evidenec” should be “evidence”
1305 21 No.3 “F.Sup.” should be “F.Supp.”
1307 3. No.6 “questions” should be “question”
1308 4 No.8 “eject” should be “reject”
~ ~ KH K x
1313
i)
Zz
°
.17 “prelicated™ should be “predi-
cated”
X 1314 4 No.2] “camparative” should be “com-
parative”
INDEX
Volume Il
Appendix °
U
V
The Relevant Docket Entries ....0......
The Report and Order Recommended by Gerald E.
Jessup and Edward EF. Kobernusz, Hearing Exam-
Irers, in Herrin Transportation Company. Exten-
s‘on—Atlanta, Georgia, served November 19, 1969
The Order of the Interstate Commerce Commission
dated October 6, 1972, denying petitions secking
a declaration by the Commission that Herrin Trans-
portation Company. Extension— Atlanta, Georgia,
involved an issue of General Transportation Im-
portance... .. PO Se So eee
Order and Judgment of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Fort
Smith Division, in Arkansas-Best Freight System,
Inc.. et al. v. United States of America and Inter-
State Commerce Commission and Red Ball Motor
Freight. Inc., et al. entered September 11. 1973.
(originally printed as Appendix J in the Joint Ap-
pendix to Jurisdictional Statements, pages 739-794,
inclusive. Reprinted in full herein) ...........
Page
863
QE Sar ers:
APPENDIX U
The Relevant Docket Entries
ASR I AAP LOGE api LE.
oe BAT os
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ARKANSAS-BEST FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC.. an Arkansas
‘Corporation, et al.,
: Plaintiffs,
v. Civil No. FS-72-C-65
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and INTERSTATE COM-
MERCE COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.
DOCKET ENTRIES
Certificate
I. EF. A. Riddle, Clerk of the United States District Court
tor the Western District of Arkansas, do hereby certify that the -
record in the capticned case consists of ninety-eight original
documents. ten briefs, two reporter's transcripts of proceedings
in District Court. and fourteen volumes of abstracts of evidence,
set forth on the lists attached hereto, together with a record of
the proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission
which was filed as part of the record in the case.
All of the record. except the voluminous record of the pro-
ceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, is for-
warded herewith in one registered package. The record of the
* proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, in
tour cardboard boxes, as received and filed in this office, is
being forwarded by motor freight in one box in accordance with
directions of appellants.
This November 15, 1973, at Fort Smith, Arkansas.
s E. A. RIDDLE
Clerk
(Seal)
pe mes anata
—- 848 ——
INDEX Volume I
Document
No. Description of Document
1. Complaint filed October 4, 1972.
4
Order entered October 4, 1972. requesting Interstate
Commerce Commission to refrain from issuing and
putting into effect certificates complained of.
3. Telegram from firm of Rea, Cross & Knebel addressed
to Clerk requesting that it be notified of filing of
this action, filed Oct. 4. 1972.
INDEX Volume Il
Document
No. Description of Document
4. Order entered October 11, 1972, designating mem-
bers of three-judge court.
5. Motion of Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., for Leave to
Intervene as Defendant, filed Oct. 12, 1972.
6. Order Granting leave to Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., to
intervene as defendant, entered Oct. 12, 1972.
7. Answer of Intervenor Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.,
filed Oct. 12. 1972.
8. Motion of Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., for Leave
to Intervene as a Defendant, filed Oct. 12, 1972.
9. Order granting leave to Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc.,
10.
to intervene as defendant, entered Oct. 12, 1972.
Answer of Intervenor-Defendant, Red Ball Motor
Freight, Inc., filed Oct. 12, 1972.
16.
$40.2
Summons to Interstate Commerce Commission re-
turned by Marshal. as executed. filed Oct. 12,
1972.
Marshals Return on summons to United States of
America. as executed, filed Oct. 12, 1972.
Statement of court suggesting that counsel suggest date
for hearing on prayer for interlocutory injunction
and also suggesting possible agreement that instead
of hearing only for interlocutory injunction that
it may include hearing on final merits, filed Oct.
17. 1972.
Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants of Lorch-
Westway Corporation, et al., Shippers, filed Oct.
18. 1972.
Certificate of Service, filed Oct. 18, 1972.
&
Order allowing plffs and other parties until Oct. 30,
1972, in which to prepare, serve and submit briefs
in Opposition to motion for leave to intervene.
entered Oct. 18, 1972.
Letter from Judge Miller to Mr. Donald E. Cross,
dated Oct. 19, 1972, fixing date for hearing on ap-
plication for temporary restraining order as Nov.
1. 1972. at 9:30 a.m., filed Oct. 19, 1972.
Order entered Oct. 19, 1972. setting hearing on plffs’
application for temporary restraining order for
Nov. 1, 1972, at 9:30 a.m.
Motion of Bowman Transportation. Inc.. for Leave
to Intervene as a Defendant, filed Oct. 25, 1972.
Order allowing Bowman Transportation, Inc., to in-
tervene as ‘defendant, entered Oct. 25. 1972.
23:
24.
30.
31.
— 850 —
y
Answer of Intervenor, Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
filed Oct. 25, 1972.
Motion in Opposition to Intervention of Lorch-West-
way. et al., filed Oct. 30, 1972.
Piffs’ Brief in Opposition to Intervention by Lorch-
Westway and Forty-One Other Defendants, filed
Oct.-31, 1972.
Motion of Roadway Express, Inc., and Roadway Ex-
press, Inc., of Mississippi for Leave to Intervene,
filed Oct. 31, 1972.
Order entered Oct. 31, 1972. allowing Roadway Ex-
press, Inc., and Roadway Express, Inc., of Missis-
sippi to intervene as plaintiffs..
Opposition of Intervening Defendant Johnson Motor
Lines, Inc., to Plaintiffs’ Application for Tempo-
rary Restraining Order, filed Oct. 31, 1972.
’ Affidavit of Thomas G. Sloan, Vice President—Com-
merce, Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., filed Oct. 31,
1972.
Affidavit of Larry T. McCarthy, Vice ‘President, Red
Ball Motor Freight, Inc., filed Oct. 31, 1972.
Memorandum Supplementing Motion for Leave to In-
tervene as Defendants of Lorch-Westway Corpora-
tion, et al., Shippers, filed Nov. 1, 1972.
Affidavit of Garfield Salyers, Jr., President and Gen-
eral Manager of Bowman Transportation, Inc., filed
Nov. 1, 1972.
Memorandum Brief of Intervening Defendant, Bow-
man Transportation, Inc., in Opposition to Mo-
tion of Plaintiffs for Temporary Restraining Order,
filed Nov. 1, 1972.
_— 851 —
' INDEX VOLUME III.
Document Description of Document
No. °
32. = Affidavit of Gary D. Bronson, filed Nov. 1, 1972. -
33. = Affidavit in Support of Application for Temporary
Restraining Order, filed by H. M. Cook on Nov.
1, 1972.
34. Affidavit of John M. Records, filed Nov. 1, 1972.
35. — Affidavit of L. D. Davis, Red Line Transfer & Storage
Company, Inc.. filed Nov. 1, 1972.
36. = Affidavit ot J. Montague Williams, Mercury Motors.
Incorporated, filed Nov. 1. 1972.
37. Affidavit of Clarence Levi, Mercury Freight Lines,
Inc., in Support of Application for Temporary Re-
straining Order and Preliminary Injunctions, filed
Nov. 1, 1972.
38. = Afhdavit of Frank G. Campbell, President, Campbell
Sixty-Six Express, Inc., filed Nov. 1, 1972.
39. — Affidavit of James W. Conner, Commerce Attorney
of Roadway Express. Inc., and Roadway Express,
Inc., of Mississippi, in Support of Motion for Tem-
porary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunc-
tion, filed Nov. 1, 1972. ,
40. Affidavit on Behalf of Gordons Transports, Inc., in
Support of Application for Temporary Restraining
Order filed by William F. Goodwin on Nov. 1,
1972.
41. Order entered Nov. 1, 1972, granting intervention of
Lorch-Westway Corporation and the forty other
Shippers.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
LAMP ATL rr ot
Answer of Intervenor Shippers Lorch-Westway Cor-
poration. et al.. filed Nov. 1. 1972.
Memorandum of Points and Authorities Submitted by
Plaintiffs in Support of Application for Tempo-
rary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injune-
tion. filed Nov. 2. 1972.
Certificate of Service. tiled Nov. 2, 1972.
Statement of Counsel Regarding Affidavit in Support
of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction of Roadway Express, Inc.,
and Roadway Express, Inc., of Miss.. filed Nov.
3, 1972.
Court's Opinion. re: plffs’ application for temporary
restraining order. filed Nov. 7, 1972.
Order entered Nov. 7. 1972, restraining and enjoin-
ing Interstate Commerce Commission from imple-
menting or making effective orders entered in
Docket No. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206) that author-
ize the issuance of Certificate of Public Conven-
ience to Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., in Docket
No. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132): to Bowman Trans-
portation. Inc., in Docket No. MC-94201 (Sub-
No. 56): and to Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., in
Docket No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18). until fur-
ther orders of this court.
Order entered Nov. 17, 1972, directing that counsel
for all parties of interest serve and submit briefs
in support of their contentions on or before dates
mentioned in schedule set forth.
Joint Answer of the United States of America and the
Interstate Commerce Commission, filed Dec. 4.
1972. ‘
S50).
Ie
S2.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
— 853 —
First Amended Answer of Intervenor and Defendant,
Red Ball Motor Freight. Inc.. filed Dec. 4. 1972.
Motion of Jack Cole—Dixie Highway Company for
Leave to Intervene as a Plaintiff, filed Jan. 2, 1973.
Order allowing Jack Cole—Dixie Highway Company
to intervene as a plaintiff, entered Jan. 2, 1973.
Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Brief
of Plaintiffs. filed Jan. 5. 1973.
Order entered Jan. 9, 1973, granting plffs’ motion for
extension of time in which to file briefs and direct-
ing counsel for all parties to serve and submit
briefs in support of their contentions on or before
dates mentioned in amended schedule.
Nerox copies of pages 176, 179, 180, 185 and 186
of plaintiffs’ brief correcting typographical errors
in brief. filed March 26, 1973.
Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Briefs
by Defendants and Intervening Defendants, filed
April 5. 1973.
Order entered April 5, 1973, extending time for all
defendants and intervening defendants to file their
answer briefs to May |, 1973: and extending time
for plffs to file their reply briefs to June 1, 1973.
Order entered April 24, 1973, extending time for
deft. Interstate Commerce Commission to serve
and submit brief to May 11, 1973, and extending
time for plffs to serve and submit reply brief to
June 11, 1973.
Order entered April 26, 1973, extending time for in-
tervening defts. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., Red
APU ARNE RAMI: Si EN ete Nm Sey Tae ay
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
66.
67.
= B54 ow.
Ball Motor Freight, Inc., and Lorch-Westway Cor-
poration, et al., to serve and submit briefs to May
11, 1973; and extending time for plffs to serve and
submit reply brief to June 11, 1973.
Order amending order of April 26, 1973, to extend
time for plffs to serve and submit reply brief to
brief of Bowman Transportation Company to June
11, 1973, entered May 7, 1973.
Order entered May 10, 1973, extending time for defts.
Interstate Commerce Commission and United
States of America to serve and submit brief to
May 23, 1973; and extending time for plffs to
serve and submit reply brief to June 23, 1973.
Order entered May 22, 1973, giving deft. Interstate
Commerce Commission and deft. United States of
America until May 30, 1973, to serve and submit
brief; and giving plffs until June 30, 1973, to
serve and submit their reply brief. ;
Order entered June 13, 1973, granting leave to firm of
Crouch, Blair, Cypert & Waters to withdraw file
for purpose of photocopying portions, file to be
returned to Clerk’s Office no later than 9 a.m.,
June 18, 1973.
Pliffs’ Motion for Extension of Time in Which to Fie
Brief, filed June 25, 1973.
Order entered June 26, 1973, extending time for plffs
to file reply brief to July 16, 1973.
Piffs Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, filed
June 29, 1973.
Order entered June 29, 1973, setting hearing on plffs’
motion to file supplemental complaint for July 24,
1973, at 10 a.m.
—855— «.
68. — Piffs)s Memorandum in Support of Motion to’File Sup-
plemental Complaint. filed July 9. 1973.
68!'>. Motion of Intervening Defendant Johnson Motor
Lines. Inc.. to Dissolve Temporary Restraining
~. Order: to Convene Three Judge Court to Hear and
Determine Plaintiffs’ Application for Preliminary
Injunction and Motion to File Supplemental Com-
plaint, filed July 16, 1973.
69. Motion of Daisy Manufacturing Company to Intervene
as Defendants, filed July 19, 1973.
INDEX VOLUME IV.
Document
No. Description of Document |
70. Opposition of Intervening Defendant Johnson Motor
Lines, Inc., to Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Supple-
mental Complaint, filed July 23, 1973.
71. Motion of Intervening Defendant Red Ball Motor
Freight, Inc., to Dissolve Temporary Restraining
Order: and to Determine Plaintiffs’ Application for
Preliminary Injunction and Motion to File Sup-
plemental Complaint, filed July 23, 1973.
72. Objections of Bowman Transportation. Inc., to Plain-
tiffs’ Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, filed
July 24, 1973.
73. Affidavit of Phineas Stevens, Counsel of Record for
Red Line Transfer & Storage Co., Inc., filed July
24, 1973.
74. Crder entered July 30, 1973, denying without preju-
dice plffs’ motion to file a supplemental complaint.
7:
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
= §56--
Order entered July 30, 1973, reciting that parties may
proceed to submit requested Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law and case is submitted upon
complete record now in possession of court, the
arguments of counsel heretofore presented and
all briefs heretofore submitted.
Order entered July 30, 1973, allowing Daisy Manu-
facturing Company, et al., to withdraw motion to
dismiss, motion in opposition to granting tempo-
rary restraining order and motion to file answer.
Order entered Aug. 3, 1973, extending time for at-
.torneys for defts to file requested findings of facts
and conclusions of law to Aug. ‘13, 1973, and
extending time for plffs to file requested findings
of fact and conclusions of law to Aug. 13, 1973.
Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law Submitted by the United States of America
and the Interstate Commerce Commission, filed
Aug. 13, 1973.
Proposed Opinion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions
of Law of Defendants Red Ball Motor Freight,
Inc., Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., and Lorch-West-
way Corporation, et al., filed Aug. 13, 1973.
Court’s Opinion, filed Sept. 11, 1973.
Judgment entered Sept. 11, 1973, permanently sus-
pending, annulling and setting aside and declaring
void orders of Interstate Commerce Commission
issued in Docket No. 1124 (Sub-No. 206) styled
Herrin Transportation Company, Extension—At-
lanta, Ga., to the extent that said orders authorize
issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity to Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., in
82.
83.
84.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
257 —
Docket No. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132); to Bowman
Transportation, Inc., in Docket No. MC-94201
(Sub-No. 56); and to Johnson Motors Lines, Inc.,
in Docket No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18).
Motion of the United States of America and The In-
terstate Commerce Commission for Amendment
of Judgment, filed Sept. 17, 1973.
Memorandum of the United States of America and
The Interstate Commerce Commission in Support
of the Motion for Amendment of Judgment, flied
Sept. 17, 1973. .
Plaintiffs’s Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for
Amendment of Judgment, filed Sept. 24, 1973.
Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Sept. 27, 1973. by Johnson Motor
Lines, Inc., intervening deft.
Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Sept. 27,
1973.
Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Oct. 2, 1973, by Bowman Transporta-
tion, Inc., intervening deft.
Copy of Clerk's letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Oct. 2, 1973.
Court's Opinion re: motion of United States of Amer-
ica and Interstate Commerce Commission seeking
an amendment to judgment, filed Oct. 4, 1973.
Order entered Oct. 4, 1973, overruling and denying
motion of United States of America and Inter-
state Commerce Commission for amendment of
judgment entered Sept. 11, 1973.
Ce ees
— 858 —
91. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Oct. 10, 1973, by Red Ball Motor
Freight, Inc., intervening deft.
92. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Oct. 10, 1973.
93. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Oct. 19, 1973, by Bowman Transpor-
tation, Inc.
94. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Oct. 19, 1973.
95. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Nov. 5, 1973, by Lorch-Westway
Corp., et al.
96. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Nov. 5, 1973.
97. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States filed Nov. 9, 1973, by United States of
America and Interstate Commerce Commission,
defendants.
98. Copy of Clerk’s letter transmitting filed copy of No-
tice of Appeal to other parties, filed Nov. 9,
1973.
INDEX TO TRANSCRIPTS
Document
No. Description of Document
1. Court Reporter's Transcript of hearing held before the
Honorable John E. Miller, Senior District Judge,
on November 1, 1972, filed Feb. 5, 1973.
ant S59 —
2 Court Reporter's Transcript of hearing held before the
Honorable Pat Mehaffy, Honorable John E. Miller
and Honorable Paul X Williams on July 24, 1973.
filed Oct. 19. 1973.
INDEX TO BRIEFS
Document ~
No Description of Document
1. Initial Brief of Plaintiffs and Intervening Plaintiffs.
filed Feb. 15, 1973.
>. Brief of Bowman Transportation. Inc.. tiled Apr. 18,
1973.
.. Brief of Lorch-Westway Corporation, et al., Defend-
ants-Intervenors, filed May 8, 1973.
4 Exhibits to Brief of Lorch-Westway Corporation, et
al... Defendants-Interyenors.
S._ Brief of Intervening Defendant, Red Ball Motor
Freight. Inc. filed May 10, 1973.
6. Briet of Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., filed May 15.
ivi.
Exhibit No. 1 to Brief of Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.,
Intervening Defendant, filed May 15, 1973.
K. Joint Brief of the United States of America and the
Interstate Commerce Commission, filed June 1,
1973.
Y. Appendix to Joint Brief, filed June 1, 1973.
10. Reply Brief of Plaintiffs and Intervening Plaintiffs,
filed July 16, 1973.
CEMA ERR RE SOLO LOA
— 860 —
INDEX TO ABSTRACTS OF EVIDENCE
Document
No.
1.
9.
10.
11.
Description of Document
Volume I, Abstract of Evidence on Behalf of Bow-
man Transportation, Inc., Jones Truck
Lines, Inc., and Johnson Motor Lines,
Inc., before the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission in Herrin Transportation Com-
pany, Docket MC-1124, filed Nov. 12,
1973.
Volume II,
Volume III,
Volume IV,
Volume V, “
Volume VI,
Volume VII,
Volume I, Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented
by or Specifically Relating to Public Wit-
nesses Supporting the Ten Applications
as Prepared by Certain Protestants and
Certain Applicant-Protestants before the.
Interstate Commerce Commission in Her-
rin Transportation Company, MC-1124
(Sub No. 206), filed Nov. 12, 1973.
Volume II,
Volume III,
Volume IV,
— X6]
12. Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented by Appli-
cants as Operating Testimony as Prepared by Cer-
tain Protestants and Certain Applicant-Protestants
before the Interstate Commerce Commission in
Herrin Transportation Company. MC-1i24 (Sub
No. 206), filed Nov. 12. 1973.
13 Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented by Protes-
tants as Prepared by Certain Protestants and
Certain Applicant-Protestants before the Interstate
Commerce Commission in Herrin Transportation
Company. MC-1124. Sub No. 206, tiled Nov. 12.
1973.
14. Joint Abstract of the Evidence Presented by Appli-
. cants in Rebuttal to -Evidence of Protestants as
Prepared by Certain Protestants and Certain Ap-
plicant-Protestants before the {nterstate Commerce
Commission in Herrin Transportation Company,
MC-1124 (Sub No. 206). filed Nov. 12. 1973.
APPENDIX V
The Report and Order Recommended by Gerald E. Jessup
and Edward E. Kobernusz, Hearing Examiners, in Herrin
Transportation Company, Extension—Atlanta, Georgia. served
November 19. 1969.
eS
— $63 —
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
Served November 19, 1969
Notice to the Parties
Exceptions, if any, must be filed with the Secretary, Interstate
Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., and served on all
other parties in interest, within 30 days from the date of serv-
ice shown above, or within such further period as may be au-
thorized for the filing of exceptions. At the expiration: of the
period for the filing of exceptions, the attached order will be-
come the order of the Commission and will become effective
unless exceptions are filed seasonably or the order is stayed or
postponed by the Commission. To be seasonably filed, excep-
tions must reach the Commission on or before the date they are
due. If exceptions are filed, replies thereto may be filed within
20 days after the final date for filing exceptions. If the recom-
mended order becomes effective as the order of the Commission,
a notice to that effect, signed by the Secretary, will be served.
oe
ee es
— 864 —
No. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206)!
HERRIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
EXTENSION—ATLANTA, GA.
Decided
In each proceeding public convenience and necessity found not
shown to require operation by applicant in interstate or
foreign commerce as a common carrier by motor vehicle
of general commodities, with exceptions, over the routes,
or between the points and’ territories described in the re-
' spective applications. Applications denied.
Maurice F. Bishop, John P. Carlton, William P. Jackson, Jr.,
James B. Blair, W. T. Brunson, William A. Chestnutt, A. Alvis
Layne, Kim D. Mann, R. W. Collinsworth, Donald E. Cross,
Douglas Faris, Leroy Hallman, Ralph W. Pulley, Jr., William
E. Livingstone, I11, Carl L. Phinney, Claude N. Knox, Donald
B. Lockridge, Charles D. Mathews, David Crockett, Jerry Prest-
ridge, Robert S. Richard, Samuel W. Taylor, Thomas G. Sloan,
1 This report also embraces: (1) No. MC-2202 (Sub-No. 273),
Roadway Express, Inc., Extension—New Orleans, La., (2) No. MC-
2229 (Sub-No. 132), Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., Extension—
Auanta, Ga., (3) No. MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233), Deaton Truck
Line, Inc., Re-entitled Deaton, Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex., (4)
No. MC-18088 (Sub-No. 36), Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company.
Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex., (5) No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147),
Strickland Transportation Co., Inc., Extension—Atlanta, Ga., (6)
No. MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304), Baggett Transportation Company
Extension—Dallas, Tex., (7) No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56), Bowman
Transportation, Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex., (8) No. MC-106401
(Sub-No. 18), Johnson Motor Lines, Inc., Extension—Dallas, Tex.,
and (9) No. MC-111231 (Sub-No. 67), Jones Truck Lines, Inc.,
Extension—Atlanta, Ga.
A — 865 —
and William O. Turney for applicants. and for certain of the ~
applicants as protestants to other applications.
M. Ward Bailey, Lennox O. Boyles, € lifford E. Hillerby.
Leon E. Ledford, Drew L. Carraway, John §S. Fessenden, James
NV. Clay, Ill, Morris G. Cobb, S. Earl Dove, James H. Epps,
i, Charles L. Ford, Jr., Robert W. Gerson, S. E. Somers, Jr.,
Charles O. Gillogly, W. F. Goodwin, Wentworth E. Griffin, Ste-
phen L. Grossman, G. F. Gunn, Jr., B. W. Latourette, Jr., John
C. Henderson, Rollo E. Kidwell, W. C. Mauldin, Lewis B.
Doggett, J. E. May, James W. Nisbet, Ed White, Richard M.,
Gleason. V. R. Oldenburg. Sol H. Proctor, John M. Records,
R. J. Reynolds, Jr., R. J. Reynolds, 11, Lloyd M. Roach, Phil-
lip Robinson, Dan Felts, C lifford E. Sanders, John Schwab, Paul
M. Daniell, Alan E. Serby,’Keith Y. Sharpe, Phineas Stevens,
F. T. Stroud, Robert E. Tate, Eugene K. Walburn, Guy H. Pos-
tell, Harold G. Hernly, Harold G. Hernly, Jr.. and Richard A.
Bishop for protestants.
REPORT AND CRDER
Recommended by Gerald E. Jessup and Edward E. Kobernusz
Hearing Examiners
Opening Statement:
Each of the ten applicants herein filed an appropriate appli-
cation to extend its motor common carrier authority for the
transportation of general commodities (with exceptions) so as
to permit additional operations in a portion of the country gen-
erally lying between Atlanta, Ga., Birmingham. Ala., and Pen-
sacola, Fla., on the east and Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth,
Tex.. on the west. The extent of the authority sought varies
with each applicant. In general, however, the four Texas or
— 866 —
southwestern applicants, namely Herrin,” Red Ball, Strickland,
and Jor 2s, seek to extend their operations to Birmingham and
Atlanta on the east; the five southern carriers, namely Deaton,
Floyd & Beasley, Baggett, Bowman, and Johnson are seeking
to extend their authority into the Southwest, primarily to Texas
points (Bowman also seeking extension to Kansas City, Mo.,
and Topeka, Kans.); and Roadway proposes to extend its au-
thority from Montgomery, Ala., to Pensacola, Fla., and New
Orleans and Baton Rouge, La. Regular route authority is sought
by all but one of the applicants. Each applicant proposes to
tack the authority sought with its present operations.
There is set forth in Appendix A the name, headquarters,
docket number, application filing date and authority sought (as
amended) for each of the ten applicants. In addition there is
included in this appendix information concerning each of the
applicant's present authority, motor vehicle equipment, terminal
facilities and financial statements.
The applicants are established interstate motor common car-
riers of general commodities having been engaged in such op-
erations under authority of this Commission for many years.
Each operates a sizable fleet of trucking equipment, maintains
terminals in the territories served, has an active safety program,
and is capable of performing the operations proposed.
Hearing
The applications were referred to the examiners for hearing
and the recommendation of appropriate orders. Because of the
- Herrin Transportation Company was merged .into McLean
Trucking Company, effective October 1, 1969, pursuant to author-
ity in No. MC-F-10121, McLean Trucking Company—Control and
Merger—Herrin Transportation Company (not printed), decided
August 5, 1969.
mt AGT
extensive nature of the hearings proposed and the burdens that
would be imposed upon counsel, and the parties by a continu-
ous hearing session, both applicants and the protestants sought
and were permitted to have the hearings scheduled at intermit-
tent intervals.” By agreement of the parties 3 separate sessions
of the hearings were held at each Washington, D. C., Atlanta,
Ga.. and Dallas, Tex., and single sessions at Houston, Tex.,
New Orleans, La., Kansas City, Mo., Tulsa, Okla., and Mem-
phis, Tenn., during a period extending from March 1966 to
August 1967. In all there were 149 days of hearing of which
113 days were devoted to the applicants’ presentation of evi-
dence and 36 days to the protestants’ presentation. The tran-
script of testimony covers 23,423 pages and there are 1,989
exhibits. A total of 950 witnesses testified on behalf of appli-
cants including 933 public witnesses who are engaged in ship-
ping or receiving freight by motor carrier.* Many of the public
witnesses testified on behalf of more than one applicant. The
total number of public witnesses called by each carrier and the
number supporting the various carriers is as follows:+
* Included are 12 motor common carrier witnesses testifying on
behalf of certain of the applicants concerning the need for additional
connecting line services which would be available through the grant
of the particular application supported.
‘ Appendix B is a listing of the public witnesses appearing on be-
half of applicants, numbered in the order of their appearance and
containing the name of the company represented and the epplicants
Supported.
— 868 —
Witnesses Witness
Carrier Presented” Support
Herrin 86 116
Roadway 97 123
Red Ball 130 171
Deaton 33 58 )
Floyd & Beasley 19 4]
Strickland 103 134
Baggett 38 52
Bowman 192 363
Johnson 105 256
Jones 130 222
Appearances were entered on behalf of a total of 66 protes-
tants although 6 subsequently withdrew their opposition. Forty-
eight of the protestants offered evidence in support of their
opposition through the testimony of 62 witnesses and numerous
exhibits."
Public Witnesses
General: The ten applicants, as a group, operate over a wide
area extending from Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas on the
west and southwest to the eastern seaboard from Florida to
New England, and from the Gulf Coast on the south to Wis-
* Where more than one counsel conducted direct examination of
the witness credit is}given to the carrier represcated by the lead
counsel presenting the witness.
* The evidence on behalf of protestants is set forth in Appen-
dix D.
— 869 —
consin and the Canadian border on the north. Indeed the 933
public witnesses supporting these applications came from the
four corners of this expansive territory, including two from
Canada. To facilitate consideration of their evidence the wit-
nesses have been grouped into a number of categories, in gen-
eral according to the type of commodities they handle. The
grouping itself is somewhat superficial, especially as some of
the witnesses may handle freight in more than one category.
The important point is that their testimony has been considered
and evaluated. It is set forth in Appendix C.
A review of the testimeny of these 933 public witnesses dis-
closes that a substantial number of them had made no investiga-
tion of existing motor carrier transportation services available
to handle their shipments. Many who supported an applicant
for single-line service into its proposed new territory had not
tried all of the existing single-line services available, nor had
they used the joint-line service which that applicant had avail-
able to serve them. Many of the receivers of freight testifying _
as to their need for the proposed services of one or more of
the applicants. heretofore had left the routing and selection of
carrier services entirely up to their suppliers. Some stated that
they would have no objection to trying the existing services
now that they knew of them. Others indicated that while they
were aware that other services were available they had made
no effort to use them: and some stated that they had no inter-
est in using a carrier that had not solicited their traffic, con-
tending that the burden is upon carriers to inform shippers of
their services through personal solicitation. The Commission
has never accepted this view.
The failure of these shipper witnesses to investigate and try
the existing carrier services available to them, or to show that
such action would be useless as a means of meeting their trans-
portation needs, reflects adversely upon the weight to be given
their testimony. Certainly it indicates that the problems they .
— 870 —
were experiencing with respect to their transportation services
were not sufficiently important or serious to spur them to seek
other carrier service prior to being requested to testify in this
proceeding.
Aside from an indication of the nature and volume of their
traffic, the testimony of such witnesses, who have no knowl-
edge of the existing transportation services available to them
and who are not in a position to testify as to the inadequacies
of such service, is neither sufficiently probative nor substantial
enough to be of value in determining whether the present or
future public convenience and necessity require the additional
services proposed.‘
Public Need—Quantum of Service: Many of the shipper wit-
nesses have experienced growth in their business in line with
the population, economic, and industrial growth in the area
involved in these applications, and for the immediate future
they anticipate a continuing increase in the amount of freight
they ship or receive. The transportation services and facilities
in the area likewise have grown to meet these needs and the
existing carriers have very substantial investments for the main-
tenance of such service. Appendix C discloses that these wit-
nesses ship or receive a wide variety of commodities and that
with but few exceptions they have a number of carriers of serv-
ices available to them.
In analyzing the evidence of the public witnesses from a
commodity standpoint, the only need shown for additional
service relates to less-than-truckload shipments of commodities
requiring refrigeration (including meats, candy and pharmaceu-
ticals). Truckloads of these shipments generally are transported
by carriers specializing in refrigeration service, or they move
Warren Transport, inc. Common Carrier Application, 69 M.C.
C 241, 246 (1956); Miller Extension—Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 61
M.C.C: 631, 637 (1953).
S871 —
|
in private carriage. The handling of less-than-truckload freight
of this type, however, poses a number of practical problems
especially to general freight carriers, and many of them (includ-
ing some of the applicants and protestants) do not offer that
type of service, or have very limited facilities for handling such
traffic. Some of the witnesses testifying as to their need for
this service have not requested it from the general freight car-
riers serving their cities even though they provide it. One wit-
ness supporting an application on the basis of a proposed daily
pickup of its less-than-truckload shipments requiring refrigera-
tion, previously had made arrangements with one of the protes-
tants whereby that carrier would pickup its less-than-truckload
shipments once a week rather than daily, and that service
proved to be mutually beneficial. It is possible that with a
more cooperative effort and better communication between the
shippers and carriers the existing carriers can answer the needs
for this service and eliminate or minimize difficulties in pro-
viding it. In any event, the evidence of the need for additional
service in this limited area is neither sufficient to support a grant
of general commodity authority nor adequate to make a deter-
mination that the volume of such freight will sustain that type
of operation by one or more of the applicants.
The evidence further shows that shippers of comfnodities re-
quiring the use of flat-bed trailers may not always be able to
obtain such equipment immediately upon request. However,
there is no indication of unreasonable delay and no showing
that the existing carrier services cannot handle the volume of
freight available with reasonable dispatch.
Geographically, there is a multiplicity of single-line and joint-
line service between major points within the areas involved in
these applications. As noted in other portions of this report
some of the applicants now offer single-line service between
points which other applicants are here seeking authority to in-
stitute new single-line services; and the joint-line services avail-
.
Weer errs. cnr SINE HF PT AE RUS
—s2=
able between these applicants virtually blanket the area insofar
as any substantial volume of freight may be involved.
Single-line motor carrier operations by general commodity
carriers between Atlanta and or Birmingham on the one hand.
and, on the other, D&llas, include those of ETMF, Roadway.
Gordons, Transcon, Braswell, Mercury Freight, and Herrin
(now merged into McLean). Between Atlanta and or Birming-
ham on the one hand, and, on the other. Housto: most of these
same carriers and Ryder are authorized to operaie. Between
Atlanta and or Birmingham on the one hand, and, on the other,
Jackson, Miss., such carriers as Deaton, Dixie, Campbell Sixty-
Six, Braswell, West, and Ryder operate. Between Atlanta
and, or Birmingham and New Orleans Johnson, Dixie, Baggett,
West, Deaton, and Campbell Sixty-Six operate. Between At-
lanta and or Birmingham, on the one hand, and, Kansas City
on the other, single-line service is offered by Watson-Wilson,
T.I.M.E., Gordons, Campbell Sixty-Six. and Transcon. Be-
tween Mobile and various points in Mississippi, Louisiana and
Texas there are such carriers as Red Ball, Herrin. West and
Johnson. Between Atlanta and or Birmingham on the one
hand, and, on the other, Oklahoma City and Tulsa there are
such carrier services as T.I.M.E. and Transcon. These carriers
also are authorized to serve many additional intermediate points
and to provide single-line services as heretofore stated between
substantially all the major cities and communities in the area
involved in these applications particularly in the States of Ala-
bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas. Other
single-line services are available between the Houston and Dal-
las areas on the one hand, and various points in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Arkansas on the other. In addition, it will be
observed from Appendix D that there are numerous single-line
services between points in the east and midwest on the one
hand, and, on the other, the Dallas, Houston, New Orleans.
Baton Rouge, Little Rock, Memphis, and Gulf Coast areas.
— 873 —
The applications of three of the applicants admittedly repre-
sent efforts by them to keep pace with any realignment of exist-
ing motor carrier operational patterns, it being their position
that if the Commission grants any of the applications, theirs
also must be granted in order for them to survive and remain
viable competitive carriers in the area. Two of these applicants
on brief urge that the Commission find that the evidence fails
to show a need by the shipping public for the services of any of
the applicants, and iurther any need for motor carrier service
expressed by the public witnesses can be met by full utilization
of existing carriers including those authorized to perform addi-
tional services in the involved territory following the closing
of this record. We believe that the evidence fully warrants such
a finding. 4
Public Need—Quality of Service: Most of the public wit-
nesses supporting the applications expressed varying degrees of
dissatisfaction with their existing services. Their complaints
embrace poor tracing and claim service, interline difficulties,
loss and damage, refusals to handle shipments, inconsistent and
excessive transit time, poor pickup service, and desire for single-
line service. The entire scope of these complaints fall upon
both applicants and protestants, as well as upon other carrier
services which the witnesses use. For example, witnesses sup-
porting one particular applicant often complain of poor service
by other applicants as well as by protestants and other carrier
services. The record discloses that many of the witnesses sup-
porting an applicant for an extension of its operation have not
used the service of the applicant, either in single-line or in joint-
line service although the applicant is authorized to serve the
witness's shipping or receiving facility. Some of these major
complaints are discussed under separate portions of this report.
The complaints of the supporting witnesses with respect to
loss and damage, claim handling, and tracing problems, are,
in fact, minimal. The crux of such complaints is that single-
Let RFRA at
— 874 —
'
line service minimizes these difficulties, and with that conclu-
sion there appears to be little argument. These are problems
common to all carrier services and which carriers struggled to
overcome. The evidence does not warrant a conclusion that
any of the applicants will perform a materially superior service
in these respects than the other carriers operating in a particu-
lar area.
The record contains evidence of carriers refusing or failing
to perform properly under their certificates. Included in such
failures are some of the applicants as well as some of the
protestants. These incider: include what appears to be action
in the nature of an unauthorized temporary embargo in an effort
to overcome some traffic imbalance or remedy an equipment
distribution problem: some involve a freight selectivity by a di-
rect suggestion that the shipper use other carriers or by various
tariff restrictions or delayed pickup service. While these prac-
tices are not widespread and some only temporary, none of
them is to be condoned. To the extent that carriers may be
failing properly to perform under their certificates and under
the terms of section 216(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act,
remedies are available other than the yranting of authority to —
more carriers. We 4o not believe that authorization of addi-
tional carrier services in a area served by an adequate number
of carriers fosters sound economic conditions in transportation;
nor is it the only way to minimize the service failures and im-
prove service to the public. Where complaints of these failures
have been made to the carriers or proper authorities, remedial
action has been taken.
The evidence does not warrant a finding that the general
quality of service of the applicants, or any of them, is sufficiently
superior to that of the existing carrier services to support a con-
clusion that the public convenience and necessity require the
operation proposed.
$15
Schedules—Transit Time
One of the primary points ‘sought to be established by appli-
cants as a basis for granting their respective applications is that
the shippers and. receivers of freight moving to, from, oF be-
tween ‘points in the areas here in question are dissatisfied with
the length of time it takes for the transportation of their goods
and with the inconsistency of the transportation services used.
Faster and more dependable service will enable them to reduce
costly inventories, better maintain production schedules, and to
meet customer demands. Certainly shippers are entitled to
transportation services which will enable them to move their
merchandise or replenish their stock with the least delay and
inconvenience consistent with economically and efficient oper-
ation of all transportation agencies serving their localities.
The applicants propose certain service standards or schedules
for the operations they intend to offer the public under their
" respective applications.” Without restating these various pro-
s Throughout the hearing the terms “elapsed time from billing
date” or “between billing dates” were used when evidence was pre-
sented pertaining to the time that freight was in transit as determined
by delivery receipts showing the carrier's freight bill date and date of
delivery of the freight to the consignees Or connecting carriers or the
latter's billing date. Witnesses for the carriers testified that in most
instances the billing date would be the actual date the freight was
received for transportation. For the purposes of uniformity Satur-
days, Sundays and holidays are excluded from the elapsed calendar
days unless the freight was actually picked up or delivered on one
of those days. It is recognized that to some extent this practice dis-
torts the performance records of the carriers who do conduct some
operatjons over the road on weekends and holidays. Throughout
this report unless otherwise indicated reference to schedules or tran-
sit time embraces this concept and also refers to less-than-truckload
freight.
% Deaton, an irregular route carrier, is not proposing scheduled
service. However, the testimony indicates that on the basis of a con-
templated minimum volume of freight being available, shippers could
reasonably count on second or third day service between most of
the points proposed to be served and first day service between some
of the nearer points.
Ker as
— 876 —
posals in detail the applicants here are proposing in general
first and second day service between Atlanta and Birmingham.
on the one hand, and, on the other, the Mississippi, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Texas and Missouri points involved in these appli-
cations. Some of the applicants also offered evidence of sched-
ules they propose between points on their existing routes and
points on the, proposed new routes.
A great deal of evidence was offered by certain of the appli-
cants intending to show that the schedules they propose are
feasible and that they are capable of performing such service
for the public. Protestants on the other hand testified that
certain of the applicants’ schedules are not feasible and used
the applicants’ own evidence as well as other evidence of their
operations to show that the actual operations of applicants over
similar distances in some instances will not support the practi-
cality of some of the schedules proposed. The anomaly of the
situation is emphasized by the fact that most of the applicants
also are protestants and in some instances one applicant has
seriously questioned the feasibility and practicality of the sched-
ules proposed by other applicants.
A major portion of the public witnesses testifying on the
behalf of the various applicants voiced some degree of dis-
satisfaction with the length of time required for the transporta-
tion of their shipments or with the inconsistence of the service.
Many of the public witnesses so complaining of slow and in-
consistent service submitted abstracts of freight bills showing
service they have received from some of the carriers used, in-
cluding applicants, protestants and other carrier services. In
some instances these bills were selected specifically to show
poor service, or the abstracts were prepared from records of
shipments upon which there had been some difficulty. In other
instances they comprised only a few shipments made over a
very extensive period of time; and in some instances the bills
represented substantially all shipments in a given period be-
Kon
—- $77 =
tween certain points or areas. It was not unusual for the wit-
nesses to have permitted the applicant they supported to select
the bills and prepare the abstragts. The transit time studies of
these public witnesses reflect many instances of poor transporta-
tion service by protestants, applicants, as well as other carriers.
They also reflect instances of goou service. |
Some of the public witnesses acknowledge that their present
transportation service is adequate and satisfactory, but testified
that if their freight would be delivered consistently on the sched-
ules proposed by the particular applicant they supported it
would be an improvement over their existing service. Many
of the public witnesses based their support of a particular appli-
cant upon the service schedules proposed, and assuming a high
degree of adherence to those schedules.
In many instances a public witness supporting one applicant
was critical of the service of other applicants as well as some
protestants. The same applicant carrier service has been both
praised and condemned by different witnesses from the same
locale, and in some instances a witness supporting 4 particular
applicant has been critical of the service he has received from
that carrier in the past.
The number of witnesses complaining of unsatisfactory tran-
sit time and inconsistency-of service by the transportation agen-
cies being used is impressive at first blush, but palls with analy-
sis. While the many transit time studies of the supporting
shipper witnesses reflect numerous instances of service defi-
ciencies, the evidence also discloses that many of these same
witnesses have made no investigation of the carrier services
available nor experimented with the various combinations of
available service to improve their transportation. Concerned
shippers would hardly route their freight from the Carolinas to
Dallas by way of Houston as reflected by some of the exhibits
when much shorter routings are available; nor would they over
MATA Kee gt Ott A
— a
— 878 — JI
‘
the years fail to specify routing of their shipments for cither the
single-line or joint-line services available to them. The im-
portance of rapid transit time is questionable for some of the
supporting shippers who make a practice of accumuiating ship-
ments for certain stores or areas for once-a-week or other peri-
odic shipments. Little weight can be given to the testimony of
some of the shippers supporting an applicant for faster transit
time when the witness uses 4 combination of the slower water
carrier service from eastern origins to the Gulf Coast and rail
or motor service to destination: nor to those witnesses who have
not tried the joint-line service of the applicant they are support-
ing nor have used the service of that applicant to the point it
is now authorized to serve.
Almost every shipper is interested in getting his products to
destination as economically and quickly as possible, and is in-
clined to support the application of any carrier who promises
better service than he already has available. As the Commis-
sion has noted in other proceedings.'” the number of shipper
witnesses which an applicant can present at a hearing to testify
that their service is inadequate appears to be governed largely
by the energy put forth and the expense it is willing to incur.
A study of the many exhibits depicting the service perform-
ance of applicants and protestants discloses that in the main
the carriers participating in these proceedings are substantial
and responsible carriers. They all have substantially the same
problems affecting pickups, checking, sorting, billing, and trans-
porting the freight (including operation through break-bulk
points as necessary to effect proper loading factors), unloading
freight from the line-haul trailers, loading it into delivery trucks.
and effecting delivery to the consignees or connecting carriers.
‘© Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc.—Purchase (Portion)-—AI-
len Motor Lines, 59 M.C.C. 695, 722 (decision reversed on other
grounds 65 M.C.C. 163).
— ¥79 —
They all have experienced service failures in their operations.
They all also can point to commendable service records.
Operating schedules and procedures are functions of manage-
ment and are subject to change 4s economic, technological, and
other circumstances and factors may dictate. Although motor
common carriers have an obligation to transport the property
tendered to them with reasonable promptness and with the
exercise of reasonable diligence and care they are not guaran-
tors of schedules. The testimony of the several shipper witnesses
who supported certain applicants for their proposed schedules
which would be of particular assistance to them in making emer-
gency shipments (such as drugs or repair parts) must be weighed
in-the light of the practicalities involved. In the face of other-
wise normally satisfactory service by existing carriers, demands
for emergency service are not a sufficient basis to support a
grant of authority to additional carriers.’
Notwithstanding the proposed schedules of any particular ap-
plicant, the record does not establish that applicants, or any of
them. afford in general transportation services which are so
superior to those of the existing comparable carrier services
available to the shippers as to warrant a finding on that basis
that public convenience and necessity require the proposed new
services. Stated differently, the transit time studies of the par-
ticipants in these proceedings, as 4 whole, and considering the
circumstances under which they were made, do not warrant the
conclusion that the existing carrier services are not reasonably
adequate to meet the real needs of the shipping public.'* The
solution to the instances in which the public has been subjected
11 M & M Fast Freight, Inc., Extension—General Commodities,
68 M.C.C. 513, 519 (1956).
12 Cf. Terminal Transport Co., Inc., Ext.—Birmingham, 103
M.C.C. 699, 714, Hancock Trucking, Inc., Ext.—Gulf and West
Coast Routes, 62 M.C.C. 513, 535-536.
— 880 —
to poor transportation services in the circumstances here in-
volved does not lie in the authorization of additional carrier
services but rather in the exercise of more diligence and care
by the carriers and shippers.
Single-Line vs. Joint-Line Service
Many of the Witnesses support these applications for the pur-
pose of obtaining single-line service in lieu-ef the multiple line
services they are using. Their reasons for desiring single-line
service are that it will improve transit time, avoid interchange
delays, reduce damage by less handling, and improve claim
and tracing experience by providing a single line responsibility.
At present the southeastern applicants interline their freight
moving to or from the Southwest at the primary gateway points
of Atlanta, Birmingham, New Orleans and Memphis, with some
minor connections at such points as Mobile, Jacksqn, and
Shreveport. The southwestern applicants interline their freight
moving to or from southeastern and eastern points primarily at
Memphis, New Orleans, and Dallas, and to a lesser extent, at
Jackson, Shreveport. and Macon. To the extent that they can
control or influence the routing of traffic the carriers generally
seek to long-haul their interline freight to or, from their most
distant gateway. Thus the noted gateway points reflect to a
significant degree the long-haul terminal points of these apphi-
cants, other than Roadway. Under their respective proposals
the southeastern applicants seek to break through their existing
gateways to DaJlas and Houston (and Bowman also to Kansas
City), and conversely the southwestern applicants seek to break
through their existing gateways to Atlanta and Birmingham.
Starting with the assumption that normally an interchange of
less-than-truckload freight adds a day to the time a shipment
is in transit, these witnesses favor elimination of that delay. At
—
times the delay may be longer, especially if the originating
carrier encounters difficulty in effecting the interline. They also
complain that tracing shipments is more difficult and slower
when the origin carrier must attempt to locate shipments
through its connecting carriers. The same situation prevails
with respect to the handling of claims. Several of the witnesses
testified that their products are susceptible to damage through
excessive handling and for that reason they desire to have avail-
able as much single-line service and to as many points as pos-
sible.
A great majority of the supporting witnesses express prefer-
ence for single-line service and we recognize that in the absence
of other factors single-line service has a number of potential
advantages and fewer operational problems than joint-line serv-
ice and normally is more satisfactory. We note, however, that
a number of the witnesses favoring single-line service use joint-
line service even though single-line service is available. At
times this is done in an effort to divide the traffic among the
carriers serving the particular shipper. Sometimes it is the
result of giving the first carrier arriving all of the freight avail-
able regardless of destination as a means of clearing the loading
platform. Sometimes it results from a preference of the shipper
to use a particular local carrier to originate all of its freight
even though there are numerous other carriers authorized to
serve the shipper, many offering single-line services. Some of
the other witnesses favoring single-line service do not route
their freight, leaving it up to their suppliers or others, and some
have made no investigation of the services available to them.
A number of the witnesses support two applicants, each for
single-line service, but have not tried the joint-line services
offered by them either together or with other carriers. Such
evidence although indicating a possible preference for single-
line service is not sufficient to support a grant of additional
carrier authority.
AERP LBIOLE LINED ALG
necial
Res SY ete
— 882 —
Some of the witnesses seek to reduce the number of participat-
ing joint-line carriers handling their freight; for example, reduc-
ing their service from three line to two line services. Often
these witnesses have two-line service available which they have
not tried or are not using. Others seek merely a change of the
interlining gateway point from one locality to another. In this
connection some witnesses want to route their freight over the
Atlanta gateway, rather than over the Memphis gateway which
they are using, because of purported heavy freight congestion
at Memphis. Others wanted to avoid the Atlanta gateway as
an interline point because of its purported congestion. The
testimony of a number of these witnesses indicates_that they
were under the impression that the proposal of the applicant
which they support would offer a single-line service whereas in
fact the service would remain joint line even though the applica-
tion bé granted.
The carrier proposals to some extent involve contemplated
improvement of service between smaller towns and communi-
ties, on the one hand, and, on the other, the larger supply and
distribution centers. Depending upon the particular applicant
supported the evidence of many witnesses relate to service be-
tween the smaller communities in the, Southwest and the distribu-
tion and supply centers of Atlanta and Birmingham: or between
many of the cities, towns and communities in the East and
Southeast and the supply and distribution centers of Dallas and
Houston.- As an example Red Ball, Herrin and Jones serve
many of the smaller communities in the Southwest and seek
authority which will permit singleline service between these
communities and primary supply and distribution points of
Atlanta and Birmingham. On the other hand, Johnson serves
many communities in the East and Southeast and describes the
basic purpose of its application as being to provide an overhead
single-line service between those areas and the primary supply
and distribution points in the Southwest, working closely with
connecting carriers on joint-line traffic. Bowman and Roadway
_— 883 —
also suggest that their present broad territorial coverage would
provide new single-line services for many shippers and to many
areas.
The result is that these applications involve the extension of
operations by some applicants into areas normally served by
other applicants, as well as by numerous other carriers includ-
ing protestants. For example, Roadway. (as well as a number
of the protestants) now provides single-line service between
Atlanta and or Birmingham, on the one hand, and, on the
other, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and other Texas points.
The other applicants are here seeking such authority. Applicant
Johnson now provides single-line service between Atlanta and
east coast points, on the one hand, and, on the other, such
points as Mobile, Pensacola and New Orleans. .
Applicant Roadway here seeks authority to perform that
service. Applicants Johnson. Baggett and Deaton now provide
single-line service between Atlanta and /or Birmingham, on the
one hand, and, on the other, New Orleans, which authority
applicants Herrin, Red Ball and Strickland would obtain under
their proposals. Applicant Bowman now provides single-line
service between Atlanta and Birmingham and applicant Deaton
between Birmingham and certain Mississippi points. Applicants
Jones, Strickland and Red Ball here seek such authority between
Atlanta and Birmingham, and applicants Bowman, Johnson,
_ Red Ball and Strickland between one or both of those cities and
certain Mississippi points.
While these examples do not purport to represent all of the
instances in which one applicant seeks authority to duplicate
the single-line service of another applicant, they will suffice to
‘llustrate the fact that in many instances witnesses supporting
one applicant for single-line service have available the single-
line services of other applicants. In addition there are single-
line services of a number of protestants and other carriers. For
— 884 —
example, in addition to applicant Roadway providing single-line
service between Atlanta and Dallas, there are also such other
carriers as ETMF, Gordons, Transcon and T.1.M.E.'* Between
Atlanta and Houston in addition applicant Roadway ETMF,
Ryder and Transcon provide single-line service.'* Between
Atlanta or Birmingham and Jackson, Miss., single-line service
is provided by Dixic, Deaton, Ryder, West (from Birmingham
only), Campbell Sixty-Six, Braswell, and Gordons although the
latter’s route is circuitous. Between Birmingham and Baton
Rouge single-line service is provided by Ryder, Campbell Sixty-
Six, Mercury Freight and Braswell (subsequent to the hearing).
There are many other single-line services available between
other points involved in these proceedings as for example, Trans-
con, Watson-Wilson, Gordons and Campbell Sixty-Six between
Kansas City and Atlanta; Transcon and T.I.M.E. between
Atlanta in the Southeast and Little Rock, Tulsa and Oklahoma
City. ETMF and Ryder between Atlanta or Birmingham and
Shreveport; and Mason & Dixon, Consolidated Freightways,
T.I.M.E., Transcon, ABF, Viking, Jack Cole and ET&WNC
between points in the East and Midwest. on the one hand, and,
on the other, various points specified in these applications.
A number of the witnesses testifying in support of single-line
service were from small communities located some distance
from the larger production and distribution centers. The plan
for less-than-truckload service at these communities generally
calls for operation through at least one break-bulk terminal
even though the service be single-line. This is dictated by the
economic practicalities of operations and understandably in-
volves some delay in transit. Most of these witnesses admittedly
use a substantial amount of joint-line service to reach many
points and areas throughout the country. Their interests in
'* Since the close of the hearing Herrin, Braswell and Mercury
Freight also obiained authority to operate between Atlanta and
Dallas and Atlanta and Houston.
—. 885 —
these applications is to obtain as much single-line service as
possible.
The evidence also discloses some instances in which carriers
authorized to perform a single-line service between certain
points, in practice interline the freight with other carriers. This
is done by some of both protestants and applicants for various
reasons but primarily because the small volume of freight in-
volved does not economically justify the operation. In general
there are smaller local carriers operating between the normal
distribution terminals of the line-haul carriers and the particular
smaller points involved, performing a daily service. Also in
some instances one of the applicants performing an intensive
service in a particular area has been used in joint-line service
by other cagers with authority to serve the particular point in
question singte-line. It is reasoned that the public is served
better by interlining the freight to these local carriers who per-
form a daily service rather than holding it to accumulate a
sufficient volume to warrant single-line service. It is also
reasoned that this practice is “cneficial in enabling the local
carrier to have a sufficient volume of freight to maintain its
operations. Generally, the volume of traffic moving to or from
a point dictates the service which can be offered profitably.
We recognize that carriers must operate in an efficient and
practical manner in order to be able to provide a service capable
of meeting the transportation needs of the public generally.
The extent to which carriers may hold out to the public a
single-line service but render a joint-line service is not here
in issue. In the event authorized carriers are failing to perform
properly under their certificates and pursuant to the provisions
of the Interstate Commerce Act'! procedures other than au-
thorizing additional carrier services between the points are
available to remedy that situation. Nevertheless the evidence
14 49 U.S.C. 316(b).
per TSE ME ae
— 886 —
of this practice is relevant and is given consideration in reach-
ing our conclusions.
The key to applicants’ ability to perform and sustain the
services proposed for witnesses at many of the smaller towns
lies primarily in developing a volume of freight moving between
the major cities, namely between Atlanta and Birmingham in
the Southeast and Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Tulsa, and
Kansas City in the Southwest and Midwest. As has been noted
single-line services are now available between many points in
this area, particularly between the larger cities, and in addition
there are available many- connecting line services to meet the
needs of the shipping public, including the joint-line services
available between these applicants. To the extent the testimony
of the witnesses is based largely upon the proposition that to
the disregard of other considerations single-line service should
be made available to them we need only refer to the position
“of the Commission as siated in other cases that the national
transportation policy docs not tolerate the proposition that all
shippers at all points are entitled to single-line motor carrier
service.'* This is particularly true in a proceeding embracing
the extensive geographical area of these applications, both in-
dividually and collectively.
The evidence fails to establish a need for the additional
single-line services as proposed by the applicants, or any of
them, in these proceedings. Neither does it warrant the realign-
ment of traditional traffic patterns and competitive relationships
among the existing carrier services as may result from the
proposals. To the contrary, the conclusion is warranted that
the addition of more single-line services to transport small less-
than-truckload shipments between the smaller communities and
the production and distribution centers will result in dilution
1% Hancock Trucking, Inc. Ext.-—Gulf and West Coast Routes,
‘62 MAC. 313, 335. MN
Ay
— 887 —
of the freight available for the existing carriers and may ad-
versely affect the quality of services of all of the carriers now
operating in the area.
Pickup Service
An appreciable number of the witnesses supporting certain
applicants complain of poor pickup service by the motor car-
riers being used. These complaints embrace the applicant car-
riers as well as protestants and other carrier services. In some
instances their difficulties appear to result from their limited
dock facilities or their location in congested areas with little
or no space available for carriers to await their turn. These
difficult physical conditions require special handling. particu-
larly where unreasonable delay of the equipment and driver
may be involved or undesirable or unlawful traffic congestion
may result. Some shippers and carriers have solved this diffi-
culty by scheduling pickups as well as deliveries when such
conditions exist.
Some witnesses complain that certain carriers which serve
them have removed them from their regular daily pickup sched-
ules making it necessary to call the carriers for pickup. The evi-
dence discloses that the carriers normally make daily pickup
calls on their regular shippers, but if their service is being used
only sporadically, pickups are scheduled only upon a specific
call from the shipper. That practice appears adequate and
economically sound.
Some of the shippers complaining of unsatisfactory pickup
service by one carrier have adequate and satisfactory services
by other carriers which often are their preferred carrier serv-
ices. Some of these complaints are without substance, and
some involve isolated pickup failures which may occur to any
carrier. In some instances the complaining witness has an
eee ae ae
Pegs —s
— 888 —
early closing hour for his platform employees making it diffi-
cult to effect the pickup particularly if the call for service should
be late; and some of the witnesses complain of failure of their
carrier services to make more than one pickup a day at their
place of business.
Some of the complaints of poor pickup service really relate
to other basic difficulties the solution of which lies in pro-
cedures other than authorizing additional general freight car-
rier services as here proposed. For example, shippers of furni-
ture have complained that they have experienced difficulty in
getting general freight carriers to pick up their shipments es-
pecially when destined to off-line points. The carriers explain
their reluctance to pick up such shipments because of the diffi-
culty they experience in finding a connecting carrier willing to
accept the shipment for transportation to destination. Other
shippers of articles which may be regarded as somewhat un-
desirable freight experience difficulty in getting prompt pickups.
Often these difficulties can be overcome by cooperation between
the shippers and the carriers and an understandin if the prac-
tical problems involved in handling such freigh fal
shippers or receivers of such articles are enthusiastic supporters
of applicants who promise to give them a regular and consistent
scheduled service for their undesirable freight.
Unquestionably the record contains instances of poor pickup
service by both applicants and protestants. Some of it occurred
during a period when one of the protestants was merging into
it another carrier operating in the area here involved and con-
solidating the terminal facilities of the two carriers. In this
record the pickup service of the same carrier (including that
of both applicants and protestants) has been criticized as well
as praised by different witnesses. A number of the witnesses
testified that their pickup service improved after they com-
plained to the appropriate carrier officials. Their experience
suggests and warrants the conclusion that the existing carriers
— 889 —
4
are/not apathetic to the shortcomings of their services and are
responsive to the needs of the shippers as well as the exigencies
of competition.
Adverse Atfect on Existing Carrier Services
The interests Of existing carrier services must be carefully
considered in determining whether additional grants of operat-
ing authority are warranted. Normally existing carriers should
have an opportunity to show that they can render adequate
service and also the opportunity to transport all of the traf-
fic they can handle adequately and efficiently in the territory
they are authorized to serve without the competition of new
operations.*" While special circumstances at times may war-
rant departure from the norm as stated we find no reason here
for such departure. The existing carrier services have sub-
stantial investments in their motor carrier properties and have
increased their facilities and services with the growing needs of
shippers in the areas they serve. In some of the areas here
involved certain protestants have received additional operating
authority since the close of this hearing as we have noted -
The very serious adverse affect which these 10 extension ap-
plications collectively may have upon the existing carrier serv-
ices is noted in Appendix D. It is difficult to predict accu-
rately the effect that approval of any one of the applications
may have upon any single existing carrier, but the evidence leaves
little doubt that some of the smaller carriers likely could not sur-
vive if certain of the applications were granted. For example,
Holloway which receives 71 percent of its operating revenue
from one account that is here supporting one of the applicants
for service duplicating that of Holloway. is faced with a pos-
16 Eazor Exp. Inc. Extension—Alternate Routes, 89 M.C.C. 345.
351 (1961); Garrett Common Carrier Application, 83 M.C.C. 795.
798 (1960).
Sr 2 a
‘
4
3
é
és
a
}
‘7
de
4
fi NIRA AICI Lic LEIA NSARM OF ER
— 890 —
sible diversion to that applicant of all of its westbound and
most of its eastbound freight notwithstanding the admission
of the shipper that Holloway’s service is adequate and satis-
factory. The entire operations of Red Line would be seri-
ously threatened by the grant of these applications; in fact a
grant of the Strickland application alone could put Red Line
out of business. United, operating only between Atlanta and
Birmingham, is completely vulnerable to diversion.
Gordons’ traffic is exceedingly susceptible to diversion from
these applications as noted in Appendix D, page 21, including
virtually all of its traffic at certain of its terminals. Overall 54
percent of all shipments handled on its entire system in 1966
would be subject to diversion, representing 54.6 percent of its
tonnage and 58.5 percent of its operating revenue. Braswell's
operations threatened by these applications represent over 25
percent of its tonnage producing about 16 percent of its operat-
ing revenue ($1.98 million). Fifty-two percent of the combined
revenues of Jack Cole and Dixie are involved in these proceed-
ings as are 12 to 14 percent of the operating revenucs of MR&R.
A major portion of the freight handled by Campbell Sixty-Six
would be subject to diversion including freight moving to or
from each of its terminals.
Further reviewing Appendix D it will be observed that Ryder’s
operations (not including those of Harris) subject to diversion
represent approximately $7.5 million of its revenue per year;
Transcon approximately $13 million; Herrin $2.7 million;
Mason & Dixon $2 million; Viking $2.8 million; Watson-
Wilson $1 million; Consolidated Freightways $1.9 million;
T.I.M.E. $8 million; ABF $1.6 million: Eagle $1 million:
Deaton $3 million; and Floyd & Beasley and Southwestern
Transportation about $215,000 each. Approximately 8 percent
of Roadway’s total shipments are subject to diversion by these
applications and a large portion of the interline freight of Pilot
at its Atlanta terminal would be affected. The evidence shows
- $91 —
that from 200,000 to 300,000 pounds of freight transported
daily by GFA is subject to, diversion. Approximately 18 million
pounds of the freight handled by Mercury Freight in 1966
would be subject to diversion as would over 36 million pounds
handled by A&H and 270 million pounds by ETMF. Other
trucking companies ustimate possible diversion of their freight
by these applications as follows: Ellis Trucking Co. 2 million
pounds per month; Southern Forwarding Co. 168,000 pounds
per month; Mid-South Transports over 100,000 pounds per
month; ET&WNC approximately 24 million pounds per year,
Mercury MX approximately 3.5 percent of its operating reve-
nue: Mercury Motors approximately $23,000 in revenue per
year, and Wilkerson Freight Lines from 45 to 60 percent of its
total freight. Other protesting carriers have freight subject to
diversion which is important to their operations.
Not only is the possible diversion of such large quantities of
freight posed by these applications but they also involve pos-
sible adverse affects through a further imbalancing of the traffic
flow of these carriers. While the evidence does indicate a few
isolated areas involved in these applications where a grant of
a particular application may not seriously affect the existing
carrier services, it cannot be found as to those areas that the
proposed additional services are required by the present or
future public convenience and necessity. e
The overall affect of these 10 applications upon the existing
carrier services is reflected by an opening statement of counsel
on behalf of two of the applicants noting that these applications
propose significant alterations in the interline relationships
among carriers, in competition for existing traffic, and in the
pattern of motor carrier service in the South and Southeast.
The granting of any or all of the applications will affect (1) serv-
ice to the public in a broad and economically important area
of the country, and (2) the efficiency and economy of the motor
carrier operations conducted by applicants and other carriers
Seay "es
<uintieemantenenne 4 ' '\ ‘
7 — 892 —
in this area. While fully aware of the need to avoid monopolistic
tendencies in evaluating the existing motor carrier services in
order to encourage competition, innovation, and improvement
of service ‘to the public, yet this need must be balanced against
the wasteful duplication of services and the creation of excessive
‘ capacity that would adversely affect the continuance of efficient
operation by the existing carrier services.
The evidence warrants the conclusion that the benefits which
may be realized by some few of the public witnesses supporting
any of these applications are far outweighed by the serious ad-
verse effect the granting of these applications, or any of them,
may have upon existing carrier services.
The Roadway Application
The Roadway application differs from the others in that it
does not involve operations between the Atlanta-Birmingham
aréas, on the one hand, and the Houston-Dallas areas, on the
other. Roadway already holds that authority. Instead, Road-
way seeks to extend its present network of routes south from
Montgomery to Pensacola, Fla.,.Mobile,. Ala.. and New Orleans
and Baton Rouge, La., serving all intermediate: points along the ~
routes (restricted as noted in Appendix A-II).
In No. MC-F-10178, Roadway—Control—West Bros. (not
printed), decided June 26, 1969, the Commission. approved
Roadway’s application to control West Bros., a protestant in
this proceeding, with the understanding that an application to
merge the two carriers will be filed as the tax writeoff advantages
have been depleted. The ‘West operating authority includes
substantially all of the authority sought by Roadway with the
exception of authority to serve Pensacola, Gonzales,-and Can-—
tonment, Fla., intermediate and off-route points between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge, especially Plaquemine, and authority
* '
_ $93 —
to operate over a route between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
The latter point is included in West's certificate No. MC-3009
(Sub-No. 57), dated September 26, 1969 and is to be served
by routes extending from Memphis, Jackson and Hattiesburg.
but not from New Orleans. Roadway urges that it is vitally
interested in prosecuting its application to the extent the au-
thority sought is not duplicated by that of West Bros.'*
Some of the witnesses supporting the proposed new service
to or from North Florida points ship or receive very substantial
quantities of freight. Without attempting here to again review
the evidence of each of these witnesses it is sufficient to note
that the north Florida points are served by a number of cer-
riers including GFA, Mercury Motor Express, Mercury Freight,
MR&R, Howard Hall, Herrin, Johnson and Bowman. Single-
line service is available to the castern and northeastern areas of
the country and for the most part it seems to be reasonably satis-
factory to the witnesses who testified. In many instances the
witnesses had not tried some of the services available to them
and their support of the Roadway application was based pri-
marily upon a desire for as much single-line service as could
be made available and upon their preference for the Roadway
service.
Between the midwest States and the north Florida points the
transportation service is mostly joint line. Again the complaints
against the existing services involve extensive transit time, diffi-
cult tracing on multiple line hauls, delays and damages resulting
from interline, and most especially a desire for single-line serv-
ice with its natural advantages. However, there are an abun-
dance of joint-line services available and the freight moving to
or from the north Florida points is very important to the car-
~
17 The creation of duplicate operating authorities in carriers un-
der a common control is not normally approved. Dealers Transport
Co. Extension—Willow Run, 48 M.C.C. 199: Fleet Lines, Inc.—
ee ontrol—O sbourn Trucking Co., 58 M.C.C. 748.
SIGE ne
— 894 —
riers serving that area. For instance, Howard Hall in 1966 had
operating revenues of about $3.77 million of which $405,000
was derived from freight moving between its Birmingham and
Pensacola terminals. Revenues on freight moving between its
Atlanta and Pensacola terminals constituted 12 percent of the
1966 revenue of MR&R Trucking Company, and 14 percent
of its revenue during the first five months of 1967. In 1966
Mercury Freight interlined 1,494 shipments weighing 2.4 mil-
lion pounds to Roadway at Birmingham and received from
Roadway 7,588 shipments weighing almost 5 million pounds,
most of which were moving to or from its Pensacola and Mobile
terminals. GFA interlines a very large amount of freight with
Roadway at Atlanta, much on a trailer exchange basis. Its only
difficulty in handling such freight has been an occasional equip-
ment shortage on the part of Roadway at Atlanta.
These carriers hold out a first day service between Pensa-
cola, on the one hand, and Atlanta and Birmingham, and meet
that holding out for a very substantial portion of their ship-
ments. They experience a heavy imbalance of freight south-
bound and need all of the northbound freight they can get.
For example, in the first six months of 1966, Mercury Freight
dispatched 86 empty vehicles from Pensacola for lack of freight.
Diversion of the available freight from the existing carrier serv-
ices will have a serious adverse effect upon a number of them.
We must conclude that in the circumstances applicant Road-
way has failed to show that the present or future public con-
venience and necessity requires the services it proposes to and
from North Florida points.
Through the control of West, Roadway has gained entrance
to the Mobile and New Orleans areas serving intermediate
points, and as previously noted to Baton Rouge through the
Memphis, Jackson and Hattiesburg gateways, but not through
New Orleans. The testimony of witnesses supporting service to
" ¥
— 895 —
or from Baton Rouge relates to freight which would or could be
moved through these West gateway points. The freight moving
between the Baton Rouge area on the ‘one hand, and, on the
other, points in the midwestern, eastern and New England areas
to a considerable degree is routed through the Memphis gate-
way. This also is true with respect to freight from the Middle
Atlantic area and the Carolinas although it may also move over
the Atlanta or Birmingham gateways and thence through Missis-
sippi and to some extent througii New Orleans. In any event
operation through New Orleans is not necessary. In fact, some
of the witnesses specifically want to avoid having their freight
move through the New Orleans gateway which they consider
to be too congested.
Although there may be a convenience and flexibility of opera-
tions which Roadway would gain in having available a route
from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, this record does not sup-
port a finding that such a service is required by the present or
future public convenience and necessity. Neither has the pro-
posed service at intermediate points on such a route been shown
to be required by the present or future public convenience and
necessity. The primary witness in this respect is a large shipper
at Plaquemine who supported the Roadway application. The
shipper is presently served by Gordons, Herrin, Red Ball, Ryder,
Saia, Missouri Pacific Truck Lines and Consolidated Copper-
state. Poplarville Trucking also serves the community and more
recently Mefeury Freight has received authority to serve Plaque-
mine. This witness proposes to continue to use the joint-line
services which these carriers offer in conjunction with their re-
spective connecting lines. His support of the Roadway applica-
tion is for the purpose of obtaining additional single-line service
as a means of securing faster transportation, reducing damage
and contamination, and speeding tracing service.
The quality of the service which this witness has been receiv-
ing especially with respect to transit time is included and con-
LAAT
z
— 896 —
sidered in the general discussion under that topic heading. The
evidence discloses some very good service on inbound shipments
as well as much that appears to fall below the standards which
the carriers have prescribed for themselves. This situation pre-
vails as to both the various applicants and the protestants who
are involved in serving this witness. Gordons is one of the pri-
mary delivering carriers for this witness. A large portion of the
shipments handled are received from other carriers. An analysis
of the exhibits depicting Gordons’ inbound services indicates a
71.7 percent on-time performance from Chicago to Plaquemine,
with an additional 20.7 percent of the shipments being only one
day laie under Gordons’ standard. Its service from Memphis to
Plaquemine however, indicates only a 47.5 percent on-time de-
livery, an additional 29.5 percent one day late, and 23 percent
over one day late. Although the witness is a major shipper of
products outbound from the area, data with respect to its out-
bound service is not of record.
Again there is a heavy imbalance of traffic southbound and
any dilution of the available northbound traffic may impair the
services of existing carriers. Considering the amount of motor
common carriers service available, its quality, and the adverse
effect upon these services that may result from a grant of the
Roadway application for service at intermediate points between
New Orleans and Baton Rouge it is necessarily concluded that
there also is no showing that the present or future public con-
venience and necessity requires this proposed service.
Petitions— Motions
Following the closing of the hearing a number of parties
filed petitions and motions seeking some specific relief or further
action. The motion of Georgia-Florida-Alabama Transporta-
tion Co. (GFA) dated September 30, 1968, to withdraw its pro-
test to the Bowman application is granted. GFA remains a
— 397 —
protestant to the applications of Herrin, Roadway. Red Ball,
Floyd & Beasley. Strickland and Baggett.
Protestants Campbell Sixty-Six and Gordons filed a petition
dated April 17, 1968, urging that the Commission reopen the
Strickland application (MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147)) for the limited
purpose of receiving additional evidence pertaining to the pro-
posed schedules of Strickland. Specifically petitioners ask to
have received in this record testimony of a representative of
Strickland given April 1. 1968, in another proceeding before a
joint board with respect to service between Houston and New
Orleans (applications Nos. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 131). Red Ball
Motor Freight, Inc.: MC-875i1 (Sub-No. 11), Saia Motor
Freight Line, Inc.: and MC-111383 (Sub-No. 17), Braswell
Motor Freight Lines, Inc.). This testimony notes that it takes
from 4 to 6 hours to strip a trailer of less-than-truckload freight
and that trailers of such freight must arrive at either New
Orleans or Houston not later than 5:30 a.m. for less-than-truck-.
load freight to be stripped, sorted, segregated, routed and loaded
in city units so that any substantial amounts may be delivered
the day of arrival. It is alleged that this is incompatible with the
proposals submitted by Strickland as an applicant in this pro-
ceeding as set forth in Appendix D to its Exhibit No. 38 listing
proposed regular schedules to and from major points in its ap-
plication No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147). in that in some in-
stances those schedules propose same day deliveries of freight
arriving at the terminal as late as 11:49 a.ma«—12:15 pa_and
12:50 p.m.
These arrival times do not relate to deliveries at either
Houston or New Orleans. Specifically, they relate to deliveries
at Texarkana. Ark. (arrival time 12:50 p.m.) Atlanta, Ga.
(arrival time 11:49 a.m.) and Birmingham. Ala. and Dallas,
Tex (arrival time 12:15 pm.) The testimony therefore in the
Houston to New Orleans proceeding 1s not in itself contradic-
tory of the schedules proposed herein Furthermore the Stnck-
— 898 —
land witness in this proceeding is not the same person as the
Strickland witness in the Houston to New Orleans proceeding.
In addition the Strickland witness in this proceeding was cross-
examined upon these particular schedules. As to the compati-
bility of the testimony in the Houston to New Orleans pro-
ceeding with the proposed schedules herein, the present record
contains sufficient data with respect to carrier practices in the
terminal handling of freight, and the pickup and delivery serv-
ices and practices of the applicants to reach appropriate con-
clusions without the need of any further data. In these circum-
stances the receipt of additional evidence is not warranted and
the plea of protestants will be denied.
A number of parties to these proceedings filed pleadings
seeking leave to file supplementary briefs for the purpose of
having the examiners take notice of the Commission’s actions.
subsequent to the close of this record in several proceedings
involving some of the applicants and protestants in which the
issues therein have some bearing upon the issues in this con-
solidated proceeding. Johnson Motor Lines replied to these
pleadings. The Commission properly may take notice of its
actions and findings in other proceedings (although not of the
evidence contained in those records)'* and of the outstanding
certificates it has issued.'® The examiners accordingly have
taken notice of the Commission action and of certificates issued
in certain proceedings as reflected in this report. No useful pur-
pose therefore will be served by adding these pleadings in this
already voluminous record. Accordingly, except for the fore-
going discussion, no further consideration will be given to those
pleadings. .
's Ayers Extension—Cheyenne, Wyo., 99 M.C.C. 795, 797
(1965); Consolidated Freightways, Inc.—Purchase—Revmers, 36
M.C.C. 623, 625 (1941).
1% Liquid Carriers, Inc. Extension—Liquid Alum, 72 M.C.C.
285, 287 (1957), West Brothers, Inc. Extension—Baton Rouge,
La., 108 M.C.C. 485, 489 (1969).
— 899 —
Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., and Campbell Sixty-Six
Express, Inc., filed a joint petition to reopen the proceedings for
further hearing to present evidence of certain facts occurring
since the close of the hearing. Specifically Braswell wants to
present evidence that the validity of its certificate No. MC-
111383 (Sub-No. 16) which is noted in Appendix | to its Ex-
hibit No. 1977 authorizing extension of its operations between
Jackson, Miss., and Atlanta, between Birmingham and Atlanta,
between Tuskegee, Ala. and Atlanta, and between Opelika, Ala.
and Columbus, Ga., has been upheld by the courts, and that
it instituted operation thereunder September 3, 1968. It further
is desirous of introducing evidence of such operation, its in-
creased facilities, solicitation program, and its need for addi-
tional traffic in connection with those new operations.
Campbell Sixty-Six proposes to introduce evidence of its cer-
tificate No. MC-75320 (Sub-No. 106) issued February 26, 1969,
authorizing extension of its operations between Birmingham and
Atlanta in connection with traffic originating at, destined to or
interlined with other carriers at authorized service points on its
regular routes in Mississippi and Missouri except Gulfport,
Miss., Kansas City and St./Louis, Mo., and points within the
commercial zones of each. It also wants to introduce evidence
of operations being conducted under that certificate, the new
single-line services it is now performing. its additional facilities
and equipment, its solicitation program, and its need for addi-
tional traffic. Applicants Johnson, Bowman, Red Ball and
Herrin replied to the petition.
It is not unusual that in a lengthy proceeding such as this
considerable time passes before a final order is reached during
_ which circumstances and conditions may change. It is there-
fore necessary that the C ommission exercise its discretionary
power to reopen such lengthy proceedings to receive evidence
of changes with extreme care, otherwise the administrative
tt.
process may never achieve a just and effective conclusion.*°
Notice of the status of the two certificates has been taken by
the examiners, and a further hearing for the purposes proposed
is neither necessary or desirable. Findings can be made prop-
erly upon the original record and they will not be altered by
the receipt of the proposed additional evidence.*! In these cir-
cumstances the joint petition of Braswell and Campbell Sixty-
Six to reopen these proceedings for further hearing is denied.
On brief certain of the protestants renewed their objections
to certain rulings of the examiners. It is contended that Ap-
pendices A and B to Exhibit No. 1985 constituting a supple-
mental time-in-transit study of Bowman should be rejected as
not properly constituting rebuttal evidence. It is urged that if
the supplemental study is intended to corroborate Bowman's
. transit study in its case in chief (Exhibit 47) it is merely cumula-
tive. If intended to modify the exhibit it is not proper rebuttal
evidence and should have been presented only after a reopening
of the case in chief for that purpose; and if only a transit study,
it does not constitute a proper rebuttal of any evidence pre-
sented by protestants. In any event it is argued that preparation
of the data contained in the exhibit is sufficiently defective to
render it of little value and reliability. The examiners reaffirm
their ruling receiving Appendices A and B to Exhibit 1985 in
evidence. It constitutes rebuttal data relating to information
and transit-time studies presented by protestants pertaining to
Bowman’s service in connection with certain interlining carriers
particularly in respect of freight moving to or from Bowman’s
present territory and points in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas,
Kansas, Missouri and points west thereof. The objection as to
=0 New Orleans Shippers Assn., Inc., Investigation, ae 1A,
619, 639-640 (1964).
*! Pere Marquette Ry. Co. Merger, 271 1.C.C. 667, 670: Marion
Trucking Co. Inc.—Purchase—Harwood Trucking, 45 M.C.C. 377,
386 (1947).
— 901 —
the method of preparation of the appendices relates only to
the weight to be accorded the exhibit.
Objections were renewed to the recegpt in evidence of Ex-
hibits 343. 347 and 349 sponsored = gen witnesses on
behalf of applicant Red Ball. These exhibits reflect service by
Red Ball for these particular witnesses where Red Ball is the
delivering or intermediate carrier. They were prepared by Red
Ball for the witnesses from its own delivery receipts and the
witnesses then checked the exhibits from their respective rec-
ords. The Red Ball bills underlying the exhibits were avail-
able for inspection and were used in cross-examination. Aside
from testifying that the exhibits reflected shipments made by
them the respective witnesses were unable to testify further
concerning the data shown on the exhibits or the manner in
which the underlying documents were prepared. From time
to time these witnesses have requested copies of the delivery
receipts from carriers and rely upon such documents. but for
these particular exhibits prepared specifically for use in testi-
fying in these proceedings at the request of Red Ball. the
witnesses merely requested Red Ball to furnish copies of de-
livery receipts covering shipments they had made to a specified
area in a given period. While the witnesses were unable to
testify as to the practices of Red Ball in preparing its bills
underlying these exhibits, the bills are documents which car-
riers are required to prepare when transporting property in
interstate commerce, and no one questioned the authenticity of
the documents underlying the exhibits. In these circumstances
the examiners reaffirm their ruling receiving the exhibits in evi-
dence to be given such appropriate consideration as the cif-
cumstances warrant.
Renewal also is made for the receipt in evidence of an offer
of proof on behalf of witness Goodwin for protestant Gordons.
Mr. Goodwin, a man of long and respected experience in the
field of motor carrier operations, testified concerning various
— 902 —
factors to be considered in establishing a cutoff time for the
receipt of line-haul less-than-truckload freight at a particular
terminal after which delivery normally would not be made
until the following day. When asked whether in his opinion
an arrival time at either Dallas or Atlanta around noon
normally would permit delivery of less-than-truckload freight on
the day of arrival an objection to the question was sustained
unless the response was confined to Gordons. An offer of proof
was then made to the effect that in the opinion of the witness
based upon his experience, such arrival time (as contained
in certain of the applicants’ proposed schedules) would not
normally or reasonably be expected to afford delivery of mis-
cellaneous less-than-truckload freight on the day of arrival.
That general conclusion is not material unless related spe-
cifically to the factors and conditions under which the appli-
cants propose such schedules. Accordingly, the examiners re-
affirm their ruling.
Several protestants moved for dismissal of the Bowman ap-
plication on the ground that it proposed to connect regular
route operations in the East with the proposed regular route
operations in the Southwest by use of its irregular route au-
thority in the middle contrary to- past Commission cases and
procedures. The issuance to Bowman of a certificate extend-
ing its regular route operations over various routes between
Greensboro, N. C. and Gadsden, Ala. has rendered that issue
moot and requires no further discussion. (Certificate No. MC-
94201. (Sub-No. 35) issued June 12, 1969 embracing among
others No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 61)). Renewal of a motion
to strike Exhibit No. 62 in its entirety also is denied. Portions
of the exhibit were stricken during the course of the hearing
by the examiners and no basis has been shown for modification
of that ruling. .
ett WOR ns
Summary and Conclusions
We have heretofort’ discussed at some length the principal
issues involved herein. © All matters raised on brief. including
requested findings, heve been considered. Those which have
not been specifically discussed in our report are deemed not of
controlling significance or necessary to the proper disposition of
the issucs. or are not warranted by the record.
A substantial volume of traffic moves between the areas and
points involved in these applications. The areas have grown
in population and have experienced industrial and economic
expansion as well. Many of the witnesses anticipate a con-
tinuing increase in the amount of freight they ship or receive.
Almost all of the testimony of the public witnesses relates to
such freight moving in less-than-truckload quantities, which
generally requires a considerable amount of handling in its
movement from point of origin to destination.
There are numerous motor carriers operating and providing
service, both single-line and joint-line, between the major cities
and points in the area, and they have expanded their service
and facilities to meet the growing need. These applications
propose the addition of single-line service between points and
areas where single-line services are now available, and also
they seck to provide single-line service between other points
and areas in lieu of the existing joint-line services. or to add
new joint-line services and new gateways. The evidence dis-
closes numerous existing motor carrier services available to
the public in the areas involved.
The primary issuc is not so much the availability of service.
but whether the quality of the existing authorized services is
adequate to meet ihe needs and requirements of the public.
A large percentage of the public witnesses expressed some dis-
satisfaction with the service they have been receiving, especially
CROLL iA ee
— 904 —
with respect to the length of time it takes for the transportation
of their freight, inconsistency of the transportation services used,
poor tracing, poor pickup and delivery service, interline diffi-
culties, and refusal of carriers to handle their freight. Yet many
so complaining had made no investigation of the availability
of other services, nor tried them in an effort to find a more
satisfactory transportation service.
Applicant and protestant carriers normally make regular
daily pickups where there is sufficient traffic to warrant such
service. When carriers are called for specific pickups, the
pickup service is adequate and responsive to the needs of the
shippers.
There are instances in which both applicants and protestants,
although holding authority to perform a single-line service be-
tween certain points, for various reasons actually interline the
traffic with other carriers. There also is evidence of some car-
riers (including some of the applicants and protestants) having
failed at one time or another in other ways to provide service
as authorized under their certificates. To'the extent such ac-
tions are violative of the terms of their certificates and the
provisions of section 216(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act,
remedial procedures are available other than authorizing addi-
tional carriers in an area already served by, an adequate num-
ber of carriers.
Some witnesses criticized the existing single-line services, but
for the most part their criticism was minimal. Many of them
had not tried all of the available single-line services, nor the
joint-line services, in an effort to remedy their complaint.
Applicants propose certain service standards or schedules
for the operations they intend to offer the public as improve-
ments over the existing services. The record, however, fails
to show that applicants will be able to provide a general trans-
portation service which is so superior to that of the existing
903 .--
carriers as to warrant a finding that public convenience and
necessity require the proposed new Services.
Much of the evidence deals with alleged deficiencies of the
existing interline services. We recognize that normally single-
line service is more satisfactory than joint-line service, and that
many of the lesser problems and irritants mentioned by the
witnesses would be eliminated or minimized by single-line serv-
ice. However, the national transportation policy does not
tolerate the conclusion that all shippers and all points are ¢n-
titled to single-line service. The traffic involved is of major
‘jmport to the economy and efficiency of a number of the exist-
ing carriers, and to their ability to continue an adequate serv-
ice to the public under their certificates. Competition with its
advantages must be balanced against wasteful duplication and
the creation of excessive capacity that would adversely affect
the continuation of efficient operations by existing carriers.
Moreover, the applicants themselves provide important seg-
ments of the existing joint-line services available, and the evi-
dence shows that the shippers could obtain better interline
service by more careful attention to desirable routings and
gateways and by more cooperation between the carriers. We
conclude that the existing carrier services are adequate to, mect
the reasonable needs of the shippers, and that applicants’ pro-
posed services could not improve substantially thereon without
materially diverting traffic from existing carriers to the detri-
ment of their service and contrary to the public interest.
Based upon the evidence as herein discussed and as noted
in the appendicies which are a part of this report we conclude
that the applicants have failed to establish that the present or
future public convenience and necessity require the operations
proposed in their respective applications and that each of the
applications should be denied.
> 2% A Ree <a
— 906 —
Findings
In all proceedings, upon consideration of. all evidence of
record, the examiners find that public convenience and neces-
sity do not require the operations for which certificates are
sought.
In view of the findings, the examiners recommend that the
appended. order be entered.
By Gerald E. Jessup and Edward E. Kobernusz, Hearing
Examiners.
(Signature) GERALD E. JESSUP
(Signature) EDWARD E. KOBERNUSZ
Recommended by Gerald E. Jessup and Edward E. Kober-
- nusz, Hearing Examiners.
(Signature) GERALD E. JESSUP
(Signature) EDWARD E. KOBERNESZ
Order
At a Session of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Division
1, held at its office in Washington, D. C., on the .......
ac sks kind bsie 1969.
No. MC-1i24 (Sub-No. 206)
HERRIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY EXTENSION— |
ATLANTA, GA &
No. MC-2202 (Sub-No. 273)
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., EXTENSION—
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
with
2
- 907 --
No, MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132)
RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC.. EXTENSION —
ATLANTA, GA.
No. MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233)
DEATON TRUCK LINE, INC.. RE-ENTITLED DEATON,
INC.. EXTENSION—DALLAS, TEX.
No. MC-18088 (Sub-No. 36)
FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER COMPANY, INC...
EXTENSION—DALLAS. TEX.
/
No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147)
STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION CO.. INC..
EXTENSION—ATLANTA, GA.
®
No. MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304)
BAGGETT TRANSPORTATION C OMPANY
EXTENSION—DALLAS. TEX.
No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56)
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC., EXTENSION—
DALLAS. TEX.
No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18)
JOHNSON MOTOR LINES, INC., EXTENSION—
DALLAS, TEX. :
No. MC-111231 4Sub-No. 67)
JONES TRUCK, LINES, INC., EXTENSION—
ATLANTA, GA. :
Investigation of the matters and things involved in these
proceedings having been made, said applications upon due no-
%
QOS
tice having been heard by the examiners who have made and
filed a report herein containing their findings of tact and con-
clusions thereon, which report is hereby made a part hereof,
and said proceedings having been duly submitted: ~
It is ordered, That said applications be, and they are hereby.
denied.
It is further ordered, That to the extent not granted in the
report, the pleas of certain of the parties to introduce addi-
tional evidence and requesting that notice be taken cf certain
matters occurring since the closing of this record be. and they
are hereby, denied.
And it is further ordered, That these orders shall be effective
By the Commission, division 1}.
H. NEIL GARSON,
(Seal) Secretary.
APPENDIX A
Applicant information, including the name, headquarters,
docket number, application filing date, authority sought, Present
authority, motor vehicle equipment, terminal facilities, finan-
cial data.
Page
A- | Hertin Transportation Company .......... A- 1- 5
A- 2 Roadway Express, Inc. .......0.......... A- 6- 7
A- 2 Red Ball Motor Freight, MAG, cago aden ees A- 8-10
A- 4 Deaton, Inc. . 2... cc ce wwe esues A-11-2
YOY
Page
A. 5 Floyd & Beasley Transter Company. Ine A-13-15
A 6 Strickland Transportation Co., Inc, - A-16-17
\. 7 Baggett Transportation Company. . _. A-18-20
A. & — Bowman Transportation, Inc.\.... -... A-21-26
A. 9 Johnson Motor Lines, Inc. ... 26+: ee? -A-27-29
4-10, Jones Truck Lines, Ine. A-30-32
Appendix A-1
HERRIN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY*
HOUSTON, TEX.
No. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206) .
a. Application Filed: June 18, 1965
b. Authority Sought:
General commodities including classes A and B explosives
(but excepting commodities of unusual value, household
goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk.
and those requiring special equipment):
(1) Serving the points of Birmingham, Mobile, Montgom-
ery. Ala.. Columbus, Ga.: Jackson, Miss., and Pensa-
cola, Fla., as intermediate points on applicant's pres-
ently authorized regular routes:
* Herrin Transportation Company was merged into McLean
Trucking Company, effective October 1, 1969. as authorized in No.
MC-F-10121, McLean Trucking Company—Control and Merger—
Herrin Transportation Company (not printed), decided August 5,
1969.
J
ae
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
—~ 910 —
Serving as points of jominder only, the points of At+
more, intersection of U.S. Highways 29 and 80 near
Tuskegee, Flomaton, Woodstock and Selma, Ala.. and
Poplarville. Miss.
Between Jackson, Miss.. and Atlanta, Ga.:
From Jackson, Miss., over U. S. Highway 80 to
Macon, Ga.. thence over Georgia Highway 8&7 to
Jackson, Ga., thence over U. S. Highway 23 to At-
lanta, and return over the same route. serving the
intermediate points of Montgomery, Ala., and Colum-
bus, Ga.: and serving Selma and the junction of U. S.
Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee. Ala., as points
of joinder only.
Be.ween Jackson, Miss... and Atlanta, Ga.:
From Jackson over U. S. Highway 80 to junction
U. S. Highway 11, thence over U. S. Highway 11 to
Birmingham, Ala., thence over U. S. Highway 78 to
Atlanta, and return over the same route, serving the
intermediate point of Birmingham, Ala.
Between New Orleans, La., and Birmingham, Ala.:
From New Orleans over U. S. Highway !1 to Bir-
mingham, and return over the same route, serving
no intermediate points; and serving Woodstock, Ala.,
and Poplarville, Miss., as points of joinder.
Between Pensacola, Fla., and Flomaton, Ala.:
From Pensacola over U. S: Hignway 29 to Floma-
ton, and return over the same route, serving no in-
termediate points; and serving Flomaton, Ala., as a
point of joinder only.
(7)
(s
(9
—_—
(10)
(11)
911
Between Woodstock. Ala.. and Mobile. Ala.
From Woodstock over Alabama Highway 5 to
junction U.S Highway 43 near Thomasville. Ala..
thence over U. S. Highway 43 to Mobile. and retum
over the same route. serving no intermediate points:
and serving Woodstock, Ala.. as a point of joinder.
Between Montgomery, Ala., and Atlanta, Ga.:
From Montgomery over U. S. Highway 80 to Tus-
hegee. Ala., thence over U. S. Highway 29 to Atlanta
(also from Montgomery over Interstate Highway 85
to Atlanta) and return over the same route, serving
no intermediate points: and serving the junction of
U.S. Highways 29 and 80 near Tuskegee, Ala., as a
point of joinder only.
Between Atlanta, Ga’, and Columbus, Ga.:
From Atlanta. Ga., over Georgia Highway 85 to
Woodbury. Ga., thence over Georgia Highway 85E
to Manchester, Ga., thence over Georgia Highway 85
and alternate U. S. Highway 27 to Columbus and
return over the same route, serving no intermediate
points.
Between Birmingham, Ala., and Mobile, Ala.:
From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 31 (also
over Interstate Highway 65) to Mobile and return
over the same route, serving the intermediate point
of Mentgomery, Ala.; and serving the point of Flom-
aton, Ala., as a point of joinder only.
[ 12.
Between Selma, Ala., and Montgomery. Ala.:
from Selma over Alabama Highway 14 to Pratt-
ville, Ala., thence over U. S. Highway 82 to Mont-
~ — 9}?
gomery and return over the same route. serving no
intermediate points: and serving Sclma as a point of
joinder only.
~~
—
i)
_—
Between Mobile, Ala.. and Baton Rouge. La.:
From Mobile over U. S. Highway 98 to [ ucedale.
Miss., thence over Mississippi Highway 26 to the Mis-
sissippi-Louisiana State line, thence over Louisiana
Highway 21 to Covington, La.. thence over U. S.
Highway 190 to Baton Rouge and return over the
Same route, serving no intermediate points: and serv-
ing Poplarville, Miss., as a point of joinder only.
(13) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Columbus, Ga.:
From Birmingham, Ala., over U. S. Highway 280
to Columbus and return over the same route, serving
no intermediate points.
Restriction: Service proposed at the points and over
the routes specified in paragraphs | through 13 above
is restricted to traffic moving to, from or through
Memphis, Tenn., or Monroe, New Orleans or Baton
Rouge, La.
c. Present Authority:
Herrin holds authority to operate as a common cartier of
general commodities including explosives over regular and ir-
regular routes within an area bounded generally on the west
by Houston, Waco, and Fort Worth, Tex.. on the north by
Little Rock, Ark., and Memphis, Tenn., on the south by New
Orleans, La., and on the east by Jacksonville, Fla., and Savan-
nah, Ga. Within this area Herrin serves over 1,000 points.
More specifically, these routes which include service to nu-
merous intermediate points extend between (1) Houston and
New Orleans through Orange, Tex., (2) Houston and Dallas-
os
fort Worth, Tex.. (3) Houston and Waco. Tex.. (4) Dallas and
New Orleans through Lufkin. Tex. and De Ridder. La. (5)
Dallas and Monroc, La. through Shreveport, La, (6) Shreve-
port and New Orleans through Alexandria, La. (7) New Or-
leans and Baton Rouge. La.. (8) Shreveport and Memphis
through El Dorado, Ark... (9) El Dorado and Little Rock, Ark.
(JO) New Orleans and
1
ae
'
Jacksonville. Fla.. through Crestview. Manianna. Tallahassee,
Pensacola, and Lake City, Fla.. and numerous points in south
Georgia, including Macon, Savannah. Valdosta, Thomasville,
and Waycross. Its routes into Macon and Savannah extend
along U.S. Highway 80 through Jackson. Miss.. Montgomery.
Ala. Columbus, Ga., which points are traversed for operating
convenience only. It operates from Memphis to Jacksonville,
Fla. Via Tupelo, Miss.. Birmingham, Ala.. end Columbus, Ga.,
the latter three points being traversed for operating convenience
only.” :
Herrin’s proposal basically 1s to obtain authority to serve the
points of Birmingham, Mobile. and Montgomery, Ala., Colum-
- bus. Ga.. Jackson, Miss.. and Pensacola, Fla., as intermediate
points on its presently authorized regular routes, extend Its op-
erations to Atlanta (now accomplished), and have connecting
routes between its primary routes to facilitate operations.
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment: |
(1) Present
Tractors-—252
Trailers —441 (including 5 refrigerated vans)
Trucks—225 (pickup and delivery)
* In January 1968. Herrin acquired authority to operate between
Macon and Atlanta, Ga., restricted against service between Memphis
or Littke Rock and Atlanta. and also containing the restriction as
herein proposed. No. MC-F-9730, Herrin Transportation Co.—
Purchase (Portion)—-Tamiami Freightways, Inc. (not printed). de-
cided December 22, 1967.
— 914 —
(2) Contemplated additions to operate proposed authority
Tractors—4 1
Trailers—80
Trucks---67
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present—13 terminals and 7 agency stations located
at various points in Texas, Louisiana, Ar-
kansas, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.
_4-
Proposed—6 additional terminals located at Atlanta
and Columbus, Ga., Birmingham. Mobile
and Montgomery, Ala., and Jackson, Miss.
f. Financial Data:
Herrin’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, shows assets
aggregating $2.28 million including current assets of $2.16 mil-
lion. Its current liabilities are $907,272. Its capital account
shows $700,00 capital stock and $228,967 as net income for
1964-1965. In 1965, Herrin’s operating revenues were $12.9
million with a net income of $334,024 before provision for
taxes, and $162,802 after such provision.
Its 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and statistics
to the Commission reflect operating revenues of $14,565.386
and $16,993,965, respectively.
da.
91S
Appendix A-2
ROADWAY EXPRESS. INC.
AKRON, OHIO
No. MC-2202 (Sub-No. 273)
Apphiation Filed: December 7. 1964
b. Authority Sought:
General commodities (except those of unusual value.
classes A and B explosives. household goods as defined by
the Commission, commodities in bulk. and those requiring
special equipment)
Between Montgomery, Ala., and Baton Rouge. La.:
Krom Montgomery over U. S. Highway 31 to junction
U.S. Highway 29. thence over U S. Highway 29 to
Pensacola, Fla.. thence over U. S. Highway 90 to New
Orleans. La.. thence over U. S. Highway 61 to Baton
Rouge, and return over the same route, serving all
intermediate points and the off-route points of Plaque-
mine. La., and those in Louisiana within 10 miles of
U. S. Highway 61 between New Orleans and Baton
Rouge.
Restriction: Restricted against traffic originating at.
destined to, or interchanged at Birmingham or Mont-
gomery. Ala., or their respective commercial zones, and
further restricted to traffic moving through Montgomery,
Ala.
c. Present Authority:
Roadway holds authority to operate as a motor common
carrier of general commodities with the usual exceptions over
an extensive network of routes in States generally east of and
— 916
.
including Amarillo, Tex.. Kansas City, Kans.. and Milwaukee.
Wis., except Florida, Maine. New Hampshire. and Vermont. It
also is authorized to transport both general commodities and
specified commodities over irregular routes.
Note: In No. MC-F-10178. Roadway—Control—VW est
Brothers (not printed), decided June 26, 1969, the
Commission approved Roadway’s application to control
West Brothers, Inc., a protestant in this proceeding.
West's operations extend over routes between Birming-
ham, Montgomery and Mobile on the cast. New Orleans
on the south, Baton Rouge, Natchez
-6-
and Jackson on the west, and Memphis on the north,
subject to certain restrictions. See Appendix D.
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
Tractors—2,196
Trucks—273
Trailers—3,712 (including 8 refrigerated, 25 insu-
lated, 379 open tops, and 19 converta vans)
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present—119 located at various points throughout system.
Proposed—8 additional terminals, with major terminals at
Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge,
and smaller terminals at Gulfport and Pascagoula,
Miss., and Greenville and Brewton, Ala.
f. Financial Data:
Roadway’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, shows
assets aggregating $50 million. Its current assets of $20.9 mil-
-Y¥|7
hon includes 514.8 million in cash and marketable securities
Current liabilities are S141 million. The capital account shows
| capital stock $9 million and retained earnings of $19.9 million.
For the year 1965 its operating revenue was about $120 mil-~
hon and its net income before provision for federal income tax
$10.9. and after. $5.9 million.
Its 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and statistics
filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues of $150.-
780,934 and $184,.120.328. respectively.
a
Appendix A-3
”
RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT. INC.
DALLAS. TEX.
No. MC-2229 (Sub-No. 132)
4. Application Filed: May 17. 1965
b. Authority Sought:
General commodities including classes A and B explosives
(but excepting houschold goods as defined by the Com-
mission. commodities in bulk. and those requiring special
equipment):
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga., and Texarkana, Ark.:
From Atlanta over U. S Highway 78 to Birmingham.
Ala.. thence over U. S. Highway 11 to junction LU. S.
Highway 82, thence over U. S. Highway 82 to Tex-
arkana. and return over the same route. serving the |
intermediate points of Birmingham, Ala.. Greenville,
Miss.. and those on U. S. Highway 82 in Arkansas.
— 918 —
(2) Between Jackson, Miss., and Atlanta. Ga.:
From Jackson over U. S. Highway 80 to junction
U. S. Highway 29. thence over U. S. Highway 29 to
Atlanta, and return over the same route, serving no
intermediate points.
(3) Between Meridian, Miss., and Tuscaloosa, Ala., for
purposes of joinder only:
From Meridian over U. S. Highway 11 to Tuscaloosa,
and .return over the same route, serving no inter-
mediate points.
Restriction: Restricted against the transportation of prop-
erty moving between Memphis, Tenn., and its commer-
mercial zone, on the one hand, and, on the other, Green-
ville, Miss., Birmiagham, Ala., or Atlanta, Ga., and -
their respective commercial zones. ;
c. Present Authority:
Red Ball is authorized to operate as a common carrier of ©
general commodities (with exceptions) over extensive routes
within a territory generally bounded by Denver, Colo., and
Santa Fe, N. Mex., on the west, Houston, Tex., ‘
2
and-New Orleans, La., on the south,’ Mobile, Ala., Jackson,
Miss., and Memphis, Tenn., on the east, and Kansas City, Mo.-
Kans., and Denver, Colo., on the north. Within this area Red
Ball serves over 1,450 points, including 544 in Texas, 478 in
Louisiana, and 135 in Arkansas.
More specifically, these routes which include service at many
intermediate and off-route points, extend (1) between Denver,
Colo., and Dallas, Tex., via Pueblo, Colo.; Clayton, N. Mex.;
Amarillo and Wichita Falls, Tex.; and also via Lamar, Colo.,
919
ind Botse City. Okla (2?) between Denver. Colo. and Mem-
his. Tenn.. 1a Oklahoma City. Okla. and Little Rock. Ark.
3) between Dallas and Forth Worth. Tex.. and Houston. Tex..
4) between Houston, Dallas and Forth Worth, Tex. and Jack-
on. Miss... Via Shreveport and Monroe. La: (5) between Dallas
vad Porth Worth, Tex. and Memphis. Tenn. sia Shreveport.
ha and Little Rock. Ark.: (6) between Dallaseand Fort Worth.
Tex. and Baton Rouge and New Orleans, La.. via Shreveport.
417) between’ New Orleans and Baton Rouge. La.. and Jack-
con. Miss... and Memphis. Tenn.: (8) between Memphis. Tenn..
ind Kansas City. Mo.. and Kansas City. Kans. via Little Rock
and Fort Smith. Ark.. (9) between New Orleans and Baton
Rouge. La.. and Natchez, Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss.: (10)
between Memphis, Tenn.. and Jackson, Vicksburg. Natchez and
Gulfport. Miss.: (11) between Dallas. Houston. and Fort Worth,
Tex. and Mobile. Ala.. via Shreveport and Monroe. La.. and
Jackson. Miss.. and also via Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
La. (12) between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. La.. and
Kansas City, Mo.. and Kangas City, Kans.
af
d Moter Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
Tractors: (Road)—654 (includes over 100 sleeper cabs)
: Trailers (Road) —1.520 (includes 47 refrigerated. 20
insulated. 40 open top, and 25 converta vans)
Pickup and delivery trucks—-712
» Pickup and delivery trailers—71
(2) Proposed
To add equipment. as it becomes neéded to serve the
routes
-9-
— 920 —
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present—92 terminals (includes 44 in Texas, 17 in Loui-
siana, 8 in Arkansas, 4 in Mississippi, 1 in Mis-
sourl, 1 in Alabama, | in TennesSte, 6 in New
Mexico, 2 in Oklahoma, 8 in Coborado)
Proposed—3 additional terminals located at Atlanta, Ga..
Birmingham, Ala., and Greenville. Miss.
f. Financial Data: .
Red Ball's balance sheet as of February 28, 1966, shows
assets aggregating over $12. million. Its current assets of
$9.3 million includes approximately $1.48 million cash. Its
current liabilities are about $4.8 million, and its capital ac-
count reflects $1.9 million in capital stock and $4.6 million
earned surplus. Its operating revenues for 1965 were $36.
million with a ret income before provision for income tax of
$2.67 million.
Its annual reports of revenues and statistics for 1967 and
1968, filed with the Commission, show operating revenues of
$42,372,324 and $45,384,538, respectively.
-10-
Appendix A-4
DEATON, INC.
BIRMINGHAM, ALA.
No. MC-11207 (Sub-No. 233)
4. Application Filed: May 28, 1965
d. Authority Sought:
General commodities (except those of unusual value,
classes A and B explosives, livestock, household goods as
Ben ee :
defined by the Comnnission, commodities in bulk, and
those requiring special equipment). over irregular routes:
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga.. on the one hand, and, on the
other, Monroe and Shreveport, La.. Dallas and Fort
Worth, Tex., and points within 10 miles of Dallas
and Fort Worth.
Between New Orleans, La., on the one hand, and, on
the other, Baton Rouge. La.. Orange, Beaumont, Texas
City. and Houston, Tex.. and points within 10 miles
of Houston.
_
tv
Restriction: Restricted against local service between
New Orleans and the points specified.
Applicant: proposes to tack the above authority with its
present authority in the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Missis-
sippi. Georgia and Flonda.
c. Present Authority:
Deaton is an irregular route common carrier of general and
specific commodities between certain points and territories lo-
cated in the States of Florida, Georgia., South Carolina, North
Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabarna, \Mis-
sissippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Mis-
souri, Colorado, and New Mexico. _ Its general commodity
authority involves primarily transportation between Atlanta,
Ga., and Birmingham, Ala. (including points within 65 miles
of Birmingham), on the one hand, and. on the other, New
Orleans, La., and points in Mississippi.
oe
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment: “
(1) Present
Tractors — 310 (30 on order for which there
are to be 15 trade-ins)
==
— 922 —
Trailers — 553 (20 additional on order.
These include 253 vans,
278 flat beds, and 22 spe-
cialized units)
Pickup and de-
livery units — 100
(2) Proposed
Addition of-20 tractors and 40 trailers.
e. Terminal Facilities: |
Present — 12 terminals located at Atlanta, Ga., Bir-~
mingham, Mobile and Anniston, Ala., Co-
é lumbus, Greenville, Tupelo, Jackson, and.
Natchez, Miss., New Orleans, La.. Mem-
phis, Tenn., and Tampa, Fla.
Proposed— Proposes to establish terminals at Dallas,
Houston, and Beaumont, Tex., Monroe,
Baton Rouge. and Shreveport, La.
f. Financial Data:
Deaton’s balance sheet as of November 30, 1965, >shows
assets aggregating $3.8 million, including current assets of $1.9
million. Current liabilities were $838,254. Its capital account
of $1.69 million consists of $141,600 in capital stock and $1.55
million retained earnings. For the eleven month period end-
ing November 30, 1965, Deaton’s operating revenues were $8.8
million. Its net income before provision for income tax was
$934,147. and after, $546,946.
Deaton’s annual reports of revenues and statistics for 1967
and 1968 filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues
of $10,758,227 and $11,584,817, respectively.
ee
~
|
Appendix A-5
FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER COMPANY. INC.
SYCAMORE. ALA.
No. MC-18088 (Sub-No. 36)
Apphcation Filed: May 18. 1965
Authority Sought:
General commodities (except those of unusual value. classes
A and'B explosives. livestock, household goods as defined
by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those re-
quiring special equipment:
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga. and Fort Worth, Tex.:
Ekrom Atlanta over UL. S. Highway 78 to Birming-
ham. Ala.. thence over U. S. Highway 1] to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 80. thence overt U. S. Highway
40 to Monroe. La., thence over Interstate Highway
2%) to Shreveport. La., thence over U. S. Highway
&() to Fort Worth, and return over the same route.
Intermediate and off-route points: Monroe and
Shreveport. La.. Dallas, Tex., and points within 10
miles of Dallas and those within 10 miles of Fort
Worth. |
(2) Between Atlanta, Ga., and Houston, Tex.:
From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 29 to Opelika,
Ala. thence over Interstate Highway 85 to Mont-
gomery, Ala. (also from Opelika over U. S. Highway
29 to junction U. S. Highway 80. thence over U. S.
Highway 80 to Montgomery), thence over U. S. High-
way 31 to Mobile, Ala. thence over U. S. Highway
YQ to junction U. S. Highway 190, thence over U. S.
(3)
(4)
(5)
05
Highway 190 to junction U. S. Highway 165 at
Kinder, La., thence over U. S. Highway 165 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 90 at Iowa, La.. thence over
U. S. Highway 90 to Houston, and return over the
“Same route.
Intermediate and off-route points: Baton Rouge and
Lake Charles, La., Orange, Beaumont and Texas
City, Tex., and those within 10 miles of Houston.
its
Between Montgomery, Ala., and junction U. S. High-
ways 11 and 80 near Cuba, Ala., over U. S. Highway
80, for purpose of joinder only, serving no intermediate
points.
Between junction of U. S. Highways 71 and 190 west
of Baton Rouge, La., and Shreveport, La., over U. S.
Highway 71, for purpose of joinder only, serving no
intermediate points.
Between junction U. S. Highway 78 and Alabama
Highway 21 near Anniston, Ala., and the junction of
U. S. Highways 231 and 80 near Montgomery, Ala.,
for purpose of joinder with applicant's irregular-route
operations:
From junction U. S. Highway 78 and Alabama High-
way 21 over Alabama Highway 21 to junction U. S.
Highway 231, thence over U. S. Highway 231 to
junction U. S. Highway 80, and return over the
same route, serving the intermediate point of Syca-
more.
Restriction: Restricted to traffic moving between points
east of the Mississippi River except Baton Rouge,
La., on the one hand, and, on the other, points west of
the Mississippi River and Baton Rouge.
— 925 —
« Present Authority:
Floyd & Beasley is.a regular and irregular route common
carrier of general and specific commodities—the latter being
predominantly textile machinery and textile products—in the
States of Alabama. Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Its
authority to transport general commodities includes transporta-
tion from Atlanta. Ga.. Chattanooga. Tenn.. and all points in
South Carolina to Birmingham, Ala. The authority to trans-
port textile products includes service from 54 /abama points
to points in Alabama. Tennessee. Georgia and South. Carolina.
Seventy-five percent of Floyd & Beasley's traflic ‘consists of
textile products and the remainder is of general commodities.
Approximately SO percent of its traffic is connecting line freight.
_14-
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
Tractors—101
Trailers—208
Pickup and
delivery —25
e. Terminal Facilities: >
ww
Present —Six terminals located at Atlanta, Ga.,
Greenville, S. C., Chattanooga, Tenn.. Bir-
mingham, Sycamore and Lanett, Ala.
Proposed—Proposes to establish terminals at Baton
Rouge, Lake Charles, Monroe, and Shreve-
port, La., Beaumont. Dallas, Fort Worth,
Houston, Orange. and Texas City, Tex.
om
— 926 —
f. Financial Data:
Floyd & Beasley’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965,
shows assets aggregating $2.64 million, including current assets
of $1. million. Current liabilities were $278,246. Its capital
account shows a net worth of $920,018 consisting of capital
stock $80,000, and earned surplus $840,018. For the year
1967 its operating revenues totaled $3.7 million. Net income
before. provisions for income taxes was $181,309, and after
$150,672. For the year 1968 its operating revenues totaled
$4.3 million.
215
Appendix A-6—
STRICKLAND TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
DALLAS, TEX.
No. MC-59680 (Sub-No. 147)
a. Application Filed: June 16, 1965
b. Authority Sought:
.
General commodities (except those of unusual value,
classes A and B explosives, household goods as defined by
the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those requiring
special equipment):
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga., and Texarkana, Ark.:
From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 tq Birmingham,
Ala., thence over U. S. Highway 11 to junction U. S.
Highway 82, thence over U. S. Highway 82 to Tex-
arkana, and return over the same route.
Intermediate points: Birmingham, Ala.. Greenville,
Miss., and those on U. S. Highway &2 Tn Arkansas.
2007 =
(2) Between Atlanta. Ga.. and Shreveport, La.:
From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birmingham,
Ala.. thence over U. S. Highway 11 to junction U. S.
Highway 80. thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Shreve-
port, and return over the same route.
Intermediate point: Jackson, Miss.
Joinder point: Monroe, La.
¢. Present Authority:
Strickland is a regular route common carrier of general com-
modities operating over a network of routes extending from the
Southwest to the midwest and northeast portions of the United
States. More particularly, the routes in the Southwest embrace
portions of Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas and extend to such
major cities as Memphis. St. Louis, Milwaukee. Racine, Ke-
nosha. Aurora, Joliet, Chicago. South Bend, Detroit, Cleveland,
Philadelphia. Camden, Atlantic City, South Kearny. New York.
Bridgeport. Orange. New Haven, Hartford. Springfield and
Boston.
-16-
By the proposed additional routes Strickland would add serv-
ice between Atlanta, Birmingham, and Jackson, on the one hand,
and, on the other. presently authorized service points in Arkan-
sas. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, via Monroe and Shreve-
port, La., and Texarkana, Tex. Strickland is of the opinion
that route circuity would make impractical the use of the addi-
tional routes in connection with Strickland’s service to or from.
Memphis and its points north and east thereof.
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
Tractors (Road )—207
Trailers (Road )—787
— 928 —
City pickup trucks—190
City pickup tractors—251
City pickup trailers—261
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present—36 located throughout system including terminals
at Dallas, Houston, Memphis, Shreveport, New Or-
leans, Monroe, San Antonio and Texarkana.
Proposed—4 additional terminals at Atlanta, Birmingham,
Jackson, and Greenville.
f. Financial Data:
Strickland’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, shows
assets aggregating $11.3 million, including current assets of $2.7
million. Current liabilities also were $2.7 million. Its capital
stock and surplus totaled $4.35 million. In 1965 Strickland’s
operating revenues were $30.3 million with a net income, be-
fore provision for income taxes, of $550,632, and after, $320,-
428.
Strickland’s 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and
statistics filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues
of $28,065,709 and $33,880,723, respectively.
“ids
—- 929 —
Appendix A-7
BAGGETT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
BIRMINGHAM. ALA.
No. MC-76177 (Sub-No. 304)
:. Application Filed: July 30. 1965
bh. Authority Sought:
General commodities (except those of unusual valuc. classes
A and B explosives, blasting supplies, household goods as
defined by the Commission. commodities in bulk. and
those requiring special equipment):
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga.. and Forth Worth, Tex
From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 29 to junction
U.S. Highway 8&0 (near Tuskegee. Ala.) thence over
U.S. Highway 80 to Montgomery. Ala. (also from
Atlanta over Interstate Highway 85 to Montgomery).
thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Fort Worth. and
return over the same route.
Intermediate and off-route points: Montgomery and
Selma. Ala.. Dallas, Tex., those within 15 miles of
Dallas. and those within 15 miles of Fort Worth.
(2) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Fort Worth. Tex.:
From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 11 to junction
U. S. Highway 80 (near Cuba, Ala.) thence over
U. S. Highway 80 to Fort Worth, and return over the
same route.
Intermediate point: Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Ps ee pi 8 e990
— 930 —
(3) Between Montgomery, Ala., and Houston, Tex.:
From Montgomery over U. S. Highway 31 to Mobile,
Ala. (also from Montgomery over Interstate Highway
65 to Mobile), thence over U. S. Highway 90 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 190, thence over U. S. Highway
190 via Baton Rouge to Kinder, La., thence over
U. S. Highway 165 to the junction of U. S. Highway
90 at Iowa, La., thence over U. S. Highway 90 to
Houston, and return over the same _ route.
-18-
Intermediate and _ off-route points: Mobile, Ala..
Beaumont, Port Arthur, Smith’s Bluff, Texas City.
and those within 15 miles of Houston.
(4) Between the junction of U. S. Highways 190 and 71
west of Baton Rouge, La., and Shreveport. La., over
U. S. Highway 71, serving no intermediate points, for
purpose of joinder only.
(5) Between Meridian, Miss., and the junction of U. S.
Highways 11 and 190 near Slidell, La., over U. S. High-
way 11, serving no intermediate points, for purpose of
joinder only.
c. Present Authority:
Baggett holds authority as a common carrier of general
commodities (with exceptions) over regular and irregular routes.,,
The regular routes extend generally between the terminal points
of Chattanooga, Tenn., Rome, Atlanta, and Columbus, Ga.,
Florence, Decatur, Birmingham, Montgomery and Mobile, Ala.,
and New Orleans, La. Over irregular routes its authority. em-
braces the transportation of general commodities from Mont-
gomery to points in Alabama within 125 miles of Montgomery
and of specified commodities in a rather extensive area. In
4 oe
addition Baggett is engaged in the transportation of explosives
from and to points and areas in 44 States including Alabama,
Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas.
Baggett Bulk Transport, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, and
Alabama Highway Express, Inc.. a carrier controlled by Bag-
gett, also are engaged in the transportation of property in inter-
state commerce.
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
City trucks and tractors—272
Road tractors—-334
Trailers—750 (including open tops. beam racks, side
doors. atomic energy, temperature control, and
dry freight vans)
(2) Proposed
Equipment adequate for present.
-19-
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present-—20, located in Georgia (3), Tennessee (1).
Mississippi (1), Louisiana (1), Alabama (14).
Proposed—3 additional terminals at Dallas-Fort
Worth, Houston, and Beaumont.
f. Financial Data:
Baggett’s balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, shows as-
sets aggregating $7.5 million, including current assets of $2.5
million. Current liabilities were $1.3 million. Its capital stock
($144,000) and earned surplus reflect a net worth of $2.6 mil-
lion. In 1965 Baggett’s operating revenues were about $11 mil-
pene LOM ae CA Mace
— 932 —
lion with a net before provision for income taxes of $134,841,
and after such provision of $129,469.
Baggett’s 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and
- statistics filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues
~ of $14,056,881 and $14,113,906, respectively.
- 20 -
: Appendix A-8
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC.
General Office: Principal Terminal:
EAST GADSDEN, ALA. ATLANTA, GA.
No. MC-94201 (Sub-No. 56)
a. Application Filed: July 12, 1965
b. Authority Sought:
General commodities (except those of unusual value, classes.
A and B explosives, household goods as defined by the
Commission in Practices of Motor Common Carriers of
Household Goods, 17 M.C.C. 46% commodities in bulk,
commodities requiring special equipment and those in-
jurious or contaminating to other lading):
(1) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Houston, Tex.:
(a) From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 31 (also
over Interstate Highway 65) to Atmore, Ala., thence
over, Alabama Highway 21 to the Alabama-Florida
State line, thence over Florida Highway 97 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 29, thence over U. S. Highway
29 to Pensacola, Fla., thence over U. S. Highway
kee .
4
90 to New Orleans. La.. thence over U. S. Highway
61 to Baton Rouge. La.. thence over U. S. Highway.
190 to Kinder. La.. thence over U. S. Highway 165
to junction U. S/Highway 90) (also Interstate Highway
10). thence over LU. S. Highway 90 (also over Inter-
state Highway 10) to Houston and return over the
same route, serving the intermediate points of Pensa:
cola. Fla.. Mobile. Ala.. Grand Isle, Lockport and
Golden Meadow, La.. Pascagoula and Moss Point,
_ Miss.. New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake Charles,
La.. and Orange and Beaumont, Tex.. and the off-
route points of Port Arthur, Baytown and Texas City,
Tex.. and those off-route points within a 15 mile
radius of Birmingham and Mobile, Ala.. Pensacola,
Fla.. New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Lake Charles.
La.. and Port Arthur. Beaumont and Houston. Tex.:
ot.
—
(b) From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 11 (also
over Interstate Highway 59) to New Orleans, ee
thence over U. S. Highway 61 to Baton Rouge. La.,
thence over U. S. Highway 190 to Kinder, La.. thence
over U. S. Highway 165 to junction U. S. Highway
90 (also Interstate Highway 10). thence over U. S.
Highway 90 (also Interstate Highway 10) to Houston,
and return over the same route, serving the inter-
mediate points of Meridian, Laurel and Hattiesburg.
Miss., and those off-route points within a 15 mile
radius of Birmingham, Ala., New Orleans, Baton
Rouge and Lake Charles. La.. Port Arthur. Beau-
mont, and Houston, Tex., and Hattiesburg and Meri-
dian, Miss.
(2) Between Brewton. Ala.. and Pensacola. Fla.:
— 934 —
Over U. S. Highway 29, serving no intermediate
points, as an alternate route for operating conveni-
ence only.
(3) Between Birmingham, Ala.. and Mobile, Ala.:
From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 11 to Bucks-
ville, Ala., thence over Alabama Highway 5S to Thom
asville, Ala., thence over U. S. Highway 43 to Mobile
and return over the same route, serving no intermedi-
ate points, as an alternate route for operating con-
venience only.
(4) Between Poplarville, Miss., and Baton Rouge, La.:
From Poplarville over Mississippi Highway 26 to the
Mississippi-Louisiana State line. thence over Louisi-
ana Highway 10 to Bogalusa, La., thence over Lout-
siana Highway 21 to Covington, La. thence over
U.S Highway 190 to Baton Rouge and return over
the same route, serving no intermediate points, as an
alternate route for operating convenience only.
(5) Between Montgomery, Ala., and junction U. S. High-
ways 11, 80, and Interstate Highway 59:
Over U. S. Highway 80; serving all intermediate
points.
ry ae
(6) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Fort Worth, Tex.:
(a) From Birmingham over.U. S. Highway 11 (also
over Interstate Highway 20) to Meridian, Miss.,
thence over U. S. Highway 80 (also over Interstate
Highway 20) to Fort Worth and return over the
same route, serving the intermediate points of Meri-
dian, Jackson, and Vicksburg, Miss., Monroe, Ruston
and Shreveport, La., and Marshall, Gladewater, Long-
Oe SP a
— 935 —
view and Dallas, Tex.. and those off-route points
within 15 mile radius of Birmingham. Ala.. Fort
Worth. Tex.. and Meridian, Jackson and Vicksburg.
Miss.;
(b) From Birmingham over U. S. Highway I] to
junction U. S. Highway 82. thence over U. S. High-
way 82 to Texarkana, Tex.-Ark.. thence over U. S.
Highway 67 (also over Interstate Highway 30) to
Dallas, Tex., thence over U. S. Highway 80 to Fort
Worth and return over the same route, serving the
intermediate points of Columbus, Greenwood and
Greenville, Miss., El] Dorado and Crosset, Ark., Téx-
arkana, Tex.-Ark., and Greenville and Dailas, Tex.,
and the off-route points of Plano and Garland, Tex.,
and Camden, Ark., and those off-route points within
a 15 mile radius of Birmingham, Ala., Dallas and
Fort Worth, Tex., Texarkana, Tex.-Ark., Columbus,
Greenwood and Greenville, Miss.
=
(7) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Topeka, Kans.:
From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 78 to Mem-
phis. Tenn.; thence over U. S. Highway 70 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 63 (also Interstate Highway 55),
thence over U. S. Highway 63 to junction U. S. High-
way 60 at Cabool, Mo., thence over U. S. Highway
60 to Springfield, Mo., thence over U. S. Highway
66 to Carthage, Mo.; thence over U. S. Highway 71
to Kansas City, Mo., thence over Interstate High-
way 70 to Topeka and return over the same route,
serving the intermediate points of Memphis, Tenn.,
Jonesboro and West Memphis, Ark., Springfield and
Carthage, Mo., and Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., and
those off-route points within a,15 mile radius of
Birmingham, Ala., and Kansas City, Mo.-Kans., and
Springfield, Mo.
Pay
id
— 936 —
(8) Between Memphis, Tenn., and Little Rock, Ark.:
From Memphis over U. S. Highway 70 to West Mem-
phis, Ark., thence over Interstate Highway 40 to Lit-
tlhe Rock, and retum over the same route. serving
off-route points within a TS mile radius of Littie Rock,
Ark.
(9) Between West Memphis. Ark.. and Litthe Rock. Ark.
From West Memphis over U. S. Highway 70 (also
over Interstate Highway 40) to Little Rock, Ark.,
serving off-route points within a 1S mile radius ot
Littie Rock, Ark.
(10) Between Little Rock, Ark.. and Greenville. Miss.:
From Little Rock over U. S. Highway 65 to junction
U.S. Highway S2°> near Lake Village. Ark. thence
over U.S. Highway 82 to Greenville and return over
the same route, serving no intermediate pots, as an
alternate route for operating convenience only.
(11) Between Houston, Tex., and Dallas, Tex.:
Over U. S. Highway 75 (also over Interstate Highway
45), serving no intermediate points, as an alternate
route for Operating convenience only.
(12) Between Little Rock, Ark., and Texarkana, Tex.:
Over Interstate Highway 30 (also over U. S. Highway
67), serving no intermediate points, as an alternate
route for operating convenience only.
Restrictions:
(a) Restricted to service on traffic moving from, to,
or through Birmingham, Ala., Mobile, Ala., Pensa-
cola, Fla., or Memphis, Tenn.
=<
(br Service at New Orleans. La.. restricted to. traffic
originating at oF destined to points in Tennessee and
points in Alabama on and north of U. S. Highway 78.
ay
(c) Restricted against the movement of traffic to or
from Memphis, Tenn., and its commercial zone (but
not as to traffic moving through Memphis, Tenn., and
ity commercial zone) on the one hand. and points
west of the Mississippi River, on the other hand.
©. Present Authority:
Bowman is a regular and irregular route carrer of general
commodities (with exceptions) operating generally throughout
the six southeastern States of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Ten-
nessee, South Carolina and North Carolina: and between those
States and numerous points in Virginia, Maryland, Delaware.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. As
here pertinent, it 1s authorized to operate (A) over irregular
routes (a) between points in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, North
Carolina. South Carolina and Tennessee, on the one hand, and,
on the other, 5 named points in northwest Georgia, namely
Cedartown, Lindale, Mount Berry, Rome, and Summerville
(known as Bowman's “five-point authority”); (b) between points
in South Carolina and Georgia: (¢) between points in South
Carolina. on the one hand, and, on the other, points in North
Carolina, and Richmond, Va.. and Baltimore, Md.; (d) between
points in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey within 35
miles of Columbus Circle, New York, N. Y.. and (B) over reg-
ular routes (a) between Birmingham, Ala., and Chattanooga, |
Tenn. (b) between Gadsden and Anniston, Ala.. (c) between
Charlottesville, Va.. and New York, N. Y.. (d) between Win-
ston-Salem, N. C.. and Baltimore. Md. Bowman also holds ex-
tensive operating authority for the transportation of various
specific commodities.
— 938 —
By combining with its present authority over regular and
irregular routes Bowman seeks to extend its operations beyond
its present terminal points at Atlanta, Birmingham, Pensacola,
Mobile, and Memphis to serve 8 new points in Arkansas, 2 in
Kansas, 9 in Louisiana, 10 in Mississippi, 3 in Missouri, and 15
in Texas.
Note: In August 1968 Bowman acquired a portion
of the operating rights of Alabama Highway Express
which included among other authority the transpor-
tation of general commodities (with exceptions) be-
tween Birmingham and points in Alabama within 65
miles of Birmingham, on the one hand. and. on the
other, Louisville, Ky., and points in Indiana, Ten-
nessee, and portions of Florida, Illinois, and Ohio
No. MC-F-9921, Bowman Transportation, Inc.—Pur-
chase (Portion}—Alahbama Highway Express, Inc. Mot
printed), decided July 8, 1968.
25.
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
Tractors—478 (includes 14 straight and 359 sleeper-
cab; 105 pickup and delivery)
Trucks—120 |
Trailers—940 (van trailers-over-the-road) ‘
38 (pickup and delivery)
(2) Contemplated additions to serve proposed new territory
Tractors—100
Trucks—100 (pickup and delivery)
Trailers—200
|
-— 939 —
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present--25 terminals located throughout its system.
but primarily in the 6 southeastern States.
Proposed—20 additional terminals and 3 agency sta-
tions located in the States of Arkansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas. Missouri and
Kansas.
i. Financial Data:
Bowman's balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, shows
assets aggregating $11.4 million. Its current assets of almost
$4. million includes $2. million cash. Current liabilities are
approximately $2.4 million, and the Capital account of about
$4.3 million consists of $50,000 in capital stock and the re-
mainder in retained earnings. Operating revenues for 1965
were $18.3 million and net income before provision for taxes
was $2. million, and after provision for taxes (including appli-
cation of investment credit in the amount of $101,500) $1.3
million. Its investments in real property, leasehold improve-
ments, and operating equipment total about $6.6 million.
Bowman's 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and
statistics to the Commission reflect operating revenues of $28,-
785.137 and $35,356,298. respectively.
26 -
Appendix A-9
JOHNSON MOTOR LINES, INC.
CHARLOTTE. N. C.
No. MC-106401 (Sub-No. 18)
a. Application Filed: March 23, 1965
— 940 —
b. Authority Sought: . \
General commodities (except those of unusual value, classes
A and B explosives, livestock, household goods as defined
by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those «re-
quiring special equipment):
\
(1) Between Atlanta, Ga.. and Fort Worth, Tex.:
From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birming-
ham, Ala., thence over LU. S. Highway 11] to june-
tion U. S. Highway 80, thence over U. S. Highway
80 to Monroe, La., thence over Interstate Highway
20 to Shreveport, La., thence over U. S. Highway
80 to Fort Worth, and retum over the same route)
Intermediate and off-route points: Jackson, Miss.,
Monroe and Shreveport, La., Dallas, Tex.. and points
within 10 miles of Dallas and those within 10 miles
of Fort Worth.
Restriction: Restricted to traffic moving from, to, or
through Atlanta, Ga.
(2) Between New Orleans, La.; and Houston. Tex.:
From New Orleans over U. S. Highway 61 to Baton
Rouge, La., thence over U. S. Highway 190 to junc-
tion U. S. Highway 165 at Kinder, La., thence over
U. S. Highway 165 to junction U. S. Highway 90
at Iowa, La., thence over U. S. Highway 90 to Hous-
ton, and return over the same route.
Intermediate and off-route points: Baton Rouge, La.,
Orange, Beaumont, and Texas City. Tex., and those
within 10 miles of Houston.
Restriction: Restricted to traffic moving from, to, or
through Gulfport, Miss. (no local service between New
Orleans and points on the above route).
os ae
seer’
94) —
(3) Between Montgomery, Ala.. and the junction of U. S.
Highways |] and 80 near Cuba. Ala., over U. S.
Highway 80 for operating convenience only.
(4) Between Shreveport, La. and the junction of U. S.
Highways 71 and 190 near Baton Rouge. La., over
U. S. Highway 71 for operating convenience only.
c. Present Authority:
Johnson is a Motor common carrier of general commodities.
with exceptions operating over regular and irregular routes. Its
regular routes extend between Boston and Worcester, Mass.. on
the north and Pensacola, Fla., Mobile, Ala., and New Orleans,
La.. on the south. The network of regular routes also spreads
through the eastern half of Pennsylvania and throughout North
and South Carolina to Atlanta, Ga. The irregular route au-
thority extends generally to areas in Massachusetts. New Jersey.
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
Trucks—22]
Tractors—475 (including 335 road tractors)
Trailers—929 (including beam racks, open tops, con-
verta. vans, insulated. and temperature con-
trolled )
(2) Proposed
Tractors—50 additional
Trailers— 100 additional
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present-—35 located throughout system (with 2 more un-
der construction in Rhode Island and Massachusetts )
— 942 —
Proposed—7 additional terminals. Major terminals at
Dallas, Houston, Baton Rouge, and Jackson; agency
stations at Shreveport, Monroe, and Beaumoni.
-28 -
f. Financial Data:
Johnson's balance sheet as of December 31, 1965, show assets
aggregating $16 million. Current assets of almost $5 million
includes over $2 million cash. Current liabilities are $3.4 mil-
lion. Its capital account shows $65,481 common stock, and
surplus of over $5 million. Johnson’s operating revenue for
1965 was $28 million with a net income before provision for
income taxes of $1.6 million, and after, $1 million.
Johnson's annua! reports of revenues and statistics for 1967
and 1968 filed with the Commission reveal operating revenues
of $31,431,165 and $36,064,832, respectively.
-29-
Appendix A-10
JONES TRUCK LINES, INC.
SPRINGDALE, ARK.
°
No. MC-111231 (Sub-No. 67)
a. Application Filed: June 14, 1965
b. Authority Sought:
General commodities including classes A and B explosives
(but excepting commodities in bulk, household goods as
defined by the Commission, and commodities requiring
special equipment) :
— 943 —
(1) Between Atlanta. Ga., and Texarkana, Ark.:
From Atlanta over U. S. Highway 78 to Birmingham,
Ala.. thence over U. S. Highway 11 to junction U. S.
Highway 82. thence over U. S. Highway 82 to Tex-
arkana, and return over the same route.
Intermediate points: Birmingham, Ala., Greenville,
Miss.. and those on U. S. Highway 82 in Arkansas.
(2) Between Texarkana, Ark., and Sherman, Tex.:
From Texarkana over U. S. Highway 82 to Sherman,
and return over the same route.
All intermediate points.
(3) Between Birmingham, Ala., and Memphis, Tenn.:
From Birmingham over U. S. Highway 78 to Mem-
phis, and return over the same route.
No intermediate points.
(4) Between Texarkana, Ark., and Dallas, Tex.:
From Texarkana over U. S. Highway 67 to Dallas,
and return over the same route.
All intermediate points.
Restriction: Service is restricted against the movement
of traffic to or from Memphis, Tenn., and its commercial
zone (but not on traffic moving through Memphis and
its commercial zone), on the one hand, and, on the
other, points east of the Mississippi River.
30-
c. Present Authority:
Jones is a common carrier of general commodities (with ex-
ceptions) over regular and irregular routes. Its regular routes
EN
— 944 —
extend generally between its concentrated network of routes lo-
cated in eastern Oklahoma, southwestern Missouri, and north-
western Arkansas, and the major Jones terminal points of Chi-
cago, Ill., St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield, Mo., Wichita,
Kans., Tulsa, Muskogee and Oklahoma City, Okla., Dallas, Tex.,
Memphis, Tenn., and Little Rock and Fort Smith, Ark. Within
portions of this area Jones also is authorized to transport gen-
eral commodities over irregular routes. It is authorized also to
transport a number of specific commodities including frozen
foods, prepared foodstuffs, canned goods, and steel and steel
products. :
».
d. Motor Vehicle Equipment:
(1) Present
Tractors—310 (180 road and 130 pickup)
Trucks—120
Trailers—636 (400 vans, 111 refrigerated, 125 pick-
up)
(2) Proposed
Tractors—10 additional
Trucks (pickup )—20 additional
e. Terminal Facilities:
Present—-24 located throughout system in Arkansas (6),
Oklahoma (6), Missouri (3), Mississippi (3), Kan-
sas £2), Texas (2), Illinois (1), and Tennessee (1).
\ Proposed—4 additional terminals to be located at Atlanta,
Ga., Birmingham, Ala., El Dorado, Ark., and Tex-
arkana, Ark.-Tex.
~ at.
— 945 —
f. Financial Data:
The Jones balance sheet as of December 31. 1965. shows
assets aggregating $6 million. Current assets of .$2.7 million
includes $1.5 million cash. Current liabilities were $1.3 million.
Its capital account totals $4.7 million including $964,800 capi-
tal stock.and $3.7 million surplus. Operating revenues for 1965
were $13.7 million with a net income before provision for in-
come tax of $1.1 million, and after $633,486. ,
Jones’ 1967 and 1968 annual reports of revenues and sta-
tistics filed with the Commission reflect operating revenues of
$16.117.746 and $18,687,408, respectively.
n 'o
No. MC-1124 (Sub-No. 206)
APPENDIX B
Index of Witnesses
Abbreviations
Baggett Transportation Company ...-------0 sess BA
Bowman Transportation, Inc. ..... +--+. 025s e errs BO
Deaton, Inc. .....--- cece eee tee eet erent co, D
Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company, Inc. ...---- 000+ + +) F
Herrin Transportation Company .....---- 000s eres H
Johnson Motor Lines, Inc. .....-- +. ere re JM
Jones Truck Lines, Inc. 0.2.66. eee ees JT
Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. ... 6... 066-2 e eee eee RB
Roadway Express, Inc. ....---- 0-005 ee RE
\
Strickland Transportation Co.. Inc.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Witness
Name
Phillips, HS»
Langdon, C W
Solberger, S
Bertolotti, J
Burge, L
Govus, R
Heflin, K
Alley, AK
Ceder, RE
Skelton, RG #
Myers, Duane I
Keeton, J
Bland, BR
McCarley, L J
Baker, WS
Cheshire, T L
Steely, DR
King, JM
Weaver, OH
Culpepper, C
Bailey, RE
Duke, E
Pollard, WS
Howard, W F
Hohman, W P
—
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.