INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET No. 5615 1 DRAWING ROOM AND COMPARTMENT CHARGES, EAST AND SOUTH

Submitted February 16, 1949. Decided July 11, 1949

1. Proposed increased fares to be applied when there is single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms on trains operated through Washington, D. C., to and from stations on the lines of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, New York, N. Y., and south thereof and The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Boston, Mass., to New York, N. Y., which move in through service to and from points on lines of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company, Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, and Florida East Coast Railway Company (Scott M. Loftin and John W. Martin, trustees), found unjust and unreasonable. Suspended schedules ordered canceled and proceeding discontinued.

2. Application for authority to establish and maintain the increased fares between stations on the Pennsylvania and stations south of Hamlet, N. C., without observing the aggregate-of-intermediates provision of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act, denied.

Guernsey Orcutt and Paul V. Miller for respondents and applicants. J. R. Stanfield for protestant.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 2, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, SPLAWN, AND ALLDREDGE BY DIVISION 2:

By schedules filed to become effective December 18, 1948, and later, respondents proposed (1) to increase from one and one-tenth adult fares to one and one-half adult fares the transportation charges for application when there is single occupancy of compartments and from one and one-half adult fares to two adult fares when there is single occupancy of drawing rooms in cars of trains operated through Washington, D. C., between stations on the line of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, New York, N. Y., and south thereof, and stations

1 This report embraces also fourth-section application No. 23844, Passenger Fares between the East and South.

on certain southern lines, and (2) increased fares on this basis for like accommodations in through cars between The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company stations, Boston, Mass., to New York, and the same stations on the southern lines.

Filing of the schedules was accompanied by fourth-section application No. 23844 whereby the Pennsylvania, the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac, and the Seaboard Air Line seek authority to establish and maintain through rates for single occupancy of drawing rooms higher than the aggregate of intermediate fares for like service to and from Hamlet, N. C., in contravention of the aggregate-ofintermediates provision of section 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act. Upon our own motion, operation of the schedules was suspended to and including July 17, 1949. The investigation and suspension proceeding and the fourth-section application were assigned for joint hearing which has been held. Except as indicated, fares and charges referred to herein do not include the Pullman fares for single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms.

The transportation charge when there is single occupancy of a compartment in travel from Washington to southern points on lines of respondents, or in the reverse direction, is one and one-half adult passenger fares and when there is single occupancy of a drawing room it is two adult fares, except to and from Hamlet. Hamlet is a station at which a line of the Seaboard branches westward to Atlanta, Ga. On account of the competitive necessity of maintaining fares equal to those of the Southern Railway Company to and from Atlanta, which are on bases of one and one-tenth fares, and one and one-fourth fares, when there is single occupancy of a compartment and a drawing room, respectively, fares on the higher bases generally maintained, are not exacted by the Seaboard Air Line on travel over its line to and from Atlanta, and the Atlanta fares apply as maxima to and from all points including Hamlet on the line of the Seaboard Air Line northward from Atlanta. Hamlet is a station on which there can be computed aggregates of intermediate fares lower than the proposed through fares, but this would be true only of fares applicable to single occupancy of drawing rooms between stations on the Pennsylvania and stations on the Seaboard Air Line. Compartments and drawing rooms are room accommodations supplied with individual toilet facilities, and two and three berths, respectively, individually closed off from the remainder of the car by metal partitions. For single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms, requirements as to fares

Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac Railroad Company; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company; Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company; Florida East Coast Railway Company (Scott M. Loftin and John W. Martin, trustees).

throughout the eastern part of the United States since March 1, 1914, were as follows: On that date uniform bases established were one and one-half fares for a compartment, and two fares for a drawing room. On June 10, 1918, those bases were increased to a basis of two fares for both types of accommodations, which basis was continued until, by successive reductions in 1931 and 1936, the requirements were reduced to one and one-tenth fares for a compartment and one and one-fourth fares for a drawing room. Those reduced bases were established for the purpose of stimulating the sale of the special accommodations during the so-called lean years of the thirties. The reduced bases of fares has continued except on certain southeastern lines, which now apply one and one-half fares and two fares for compartments and drawing rooms, respectively. Proposed increases in through fares to these bases range approximately from 60 cents for a compartment to $6.68 for a drawing room.

The cars for which the increased fares are proposed are not regularly available for travel between Boston and Washington and intermediate stations. For such travel other like services are provided.

One of the stated purposes of the schedules under suspension is simplification of the computations now required of ticket agents and train conductors in determining the amount of the fare when there is single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms. It is not indicated that the publication of computed applicable through fares is impracticable. Increased fares are not justified merely because of the difficulty of computing or publishing the lower through fares.

Another purpose of the schedules under suspension is to promote increased utilization of the cars assigned to the Florida service. Reference is made to the criticism that has been directed at the carriers by the traveling public for the carriers' inability to meet the demand for sleeping-car space particularly for the Florida travel during the peak season. By increasing the fares required when single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms may be desired, the carriers seek to discourage the use of the accommodations for such occupancy.

On this record it does not affirmatively appear that the demand for compartments and drawing rooms for use by more than one person is greater than the present supply of such accommodations. Assuming that these increased fares would in fact discourage the use of single occupancy of these facilities, the traveling public would benefit so far as increased sleeping car space is concerned, only in the event that the additional space thus made available would be purchased for use by more than one person. There is nothing in this record to indicate that this would occur.

The only protestant is the Florida Rate Conference, a nonprofit organization of traffic representatives in several major cities of Florida. It is opposed to any change in the rules and regulations governing the occupancy of private rooms in sleeping cars that would result in increased charges to passengers traveling to and from Florida; and it urges that increased charges would have a tendency to reduce travel to and from that State. Attention is directed to the need for single occupancy of rooms by passengers advanced in years or ill. Approximately 78 percent of the various kinds of room space available for passengers to and from Florida consists of compartments and drawing rooms. The remainder, 22 percent, is available for single occupancy without additional fare for such occupancy.

Fourth-section departures.-Contravention of the aggregate-ofintermediates provision of section 4 of the act, by the maintenance of fares to and from Hamlet that would, when there is single occupancy of a drawing room, total less than the through fares proposed for such accommodations, between stations on the Pennsylvania and stations on the Seaboard Air Line, is illustrated in the following discussion: The first-class fare from New York to Jacksonville, Fla., is $36.58 and, under the proposed requirement, the transportation charge for single occupancy of a drawing room would be twice that amount, or $73.16. If, however, two separate arrangements were made, one for like travel to Hamlet and another for like travel beyond to Jacksonville, the aggregate of the railroad transportation charges to and from Hamlet would be $68.53. The addition of the Pullman fares, $27.75 from New York to Jacksonville, $17.10 from New York to Hamlet, and $14.40 from Hamlet to Jacksonville, results in an aggregate of intermediate charges that is 88 cents less than the proposed through charge.

In Compartment and Drawing Room Fares in the South, 229 I. C. C. 157, division 2 denied an application filed by the Southern and other southeastern lines for authority to establish and maintain fares applicable when there is single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms, between Washington and Charlottesville, Va., and points north thereof, and southern points, without observing the long-and-shorthaul provision of section 4 of the act. Because of that denial of fourthsection relief, the Southern maintains the transportation charge of one and one-fourth fares when there is single occupancy of a drawing room, and one and one-tenth fares for single occupancy of a compartment to and from Atlanta and observes them as maxima to and from all stations north thereof, and the Seaboard, because of the competition, maintains fares to and from Atlanta the same as those maintained by the Southern and observes them as maxima at intermediate points

including Hamlet. As hereinbefore also indicated, the Atlanta basis is maintained also by lines in territory north of Washington. There is no sufficient justification for the use, as proposed, of a factor north of Hamlet upon a higher basis.

Conclusions-We find that the proposed increased fares to be applied when there is single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms of cars in trains operated through Washington between stations on the Pennsylvania, New York and south thereof, and stations on southern lines, and also between stations on the New York, New Haven & Hartford, Boston to New York, and the stations on the southern lines, are unjust and unreasonable.

We further find that applicants have not justified authority to establish and maintain the proposed fares for application when there is single occupancy of drawing rooms from the stations on the Pennsylvania to stations on the Seaboard Air Line south of Hamlet, and in the reverse direction, without observing the aggregate-of-intermediates provision of section 4 of the act.

An order will be entered requiring cancellation of the schedules under suspension, discontinuing the investigation and suspension proceeding and denying the fourth-section application.

ALLDREDGE, Commissioner, dissenting:

In my opinion, the increased fares here proposed for the single occupancy of compartments and drawing rooms are just and reasonable and the fourth-section relief sought in connection with the establishment and maintenance of such fares should be granted.

In Mosley v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 33 I. C. C. 521, decided March 18, 1915, the Commission found unanimously that the basis here proposed by respondents and then maintained by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company for the single occupancy of compartments, namely, one and one-half fares, had not been shown to be unreasonable. It was pointed out in the report in that proceeding that this basis applied generally on rail lines west of Chicago. In Nevada R. Comm. v. Southern Pac. Co., 36 I. C. C. 250, decided October 5, 1915, the Commission unanimously reached the affirmative conclusion that the bases proposed by the respondents in this proceeding and then maintained by the Southern Pacific Company for the single occupancy of both types of accommodations here considered were reasonable, emphasizing that these bases applied at that time for interstate traffic on the lines of nearly every railroad in the United States. The contentions by the parties there made and the basic factors there considered by the Commission were essentially similar to those with which we are here confronted.