Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PHILADELPHIA v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (02/11/58)

February 11, 1958

PHILADELPHIA, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeals, Nos. 70 and 71, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, September 9, 1957, Application Docket Nos. 83937 and 59145, Folder 111, in case of City of Philadelphia v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, and Philadelphia Transportation Company. Order, as limited, affirmed.

COUNSEL

William D. Valente, Assistant City Solicitor, with him David Berger, City Solicitor, for appellant.

Howard L. Criden, Assistant Counsel, with him Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Peter Platten, with him Hamilton C. Connor, Jr., and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, for applicant, intervening appellee.

Thomas M. Hindman, for School District of Cheltenham Township and Cheltenham Township School District Authority, intervening appellees, submitted a brief.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Hirt

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 600]

OPINION BY HIRT, J.

On December 13, 1956 Philadelphia Transportation Company (which we will refer to as the Company) filed an application with the Public Utility Commission at A83937, for leave to abandon service and facilities on the portion of Rail Route 6 between Cheltenham Avenue (Philadelphia City Line) and the village of Willow Grove to the north, in Montgomery County. In a second concurrent application at A59145, the Company sought the right to substitute bus service for

[ 185 Pa. Super. Page 601]

    that of the abandoned street railway between Willow Grove and the City Line, and to continue the bus service from that point to the Broad Street Olney Avenue Subway terminal in Philadelphia. The two related applications were consolidated and public hearings were held on the combined applications during the months of March, April and June, 1957.

Both applications before the Commission were supported by resolutions of the Commissioners of Abington Township; by the School District of Cheltenham Township and by the State Highway Department. The township of Cheltenham, by resolution of its commissioners, went on record as not opposed to the applications and the County of Montgomery also indicated that it had no objection to the changes in service. In opposition to the applications, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia filed a protest (which however was subsequently withdrawn on assurances from the Company that adequate transportation service would be provided for a proposed Diocesan School, when constructed, at Royal Avenue in Wyncote). There were objections directed specifically to the bus service, over Edgehill Road. The Glenside Board of Trade, with a membership of about 100, by letter indicated that it did not favor the proposed bus service as routed in the application. And a number of residents living on Edgehill Road joined in a petition and several of them appeared as witnesses in definite opposition to the change in service. The Abington Community ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.