Appeals from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Nos. 92031 and 60298, in case of William Wagner et al. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.
Lawrence F. Flick, with him John B. Taulane, for appellant.
Raymond E. Larson, for township, appellant.
John E. Forsythe, for township, appellant.
William A. Goichman, Assistant Attorney General, with him Joseph C. Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.
John F. Cramp, with him Cramp and D'Iorio, for intervenor, appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Ervin, P. J.
[ 209 Pa. Super. Page 103]
These appeals are from the consolidated order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, dated June 27, 1966, granting applications of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company for permission
[ 209 Pa. Super. Page 104]
(1) to abandon street railway service on its Ardmore Division and (2) substitute motor bus service therefor. The Ardmore Division extends from the 69th Street Terminal of the Philadelphia Transportation Company, Upper Darby, Delaware County, to a westerly terminus in Ardmore. In general, the Ardmore Division consists of a private right of way in the middle of West Chester Pike to Llanerch, then between Darby Road and East Darby Road to Turnbull Avenue, then over a private right of way and certain streets to the Ardmore Terminal. Except for a short distance where the trolley runs in the bed of the streets near the Ardmore Terminal, this latter segment of the private right of way is to be paved and used by the buses, and apparently will not involve competition with vehicular traffic on the public streets. The proposed substituted bus service parallels, generally, the street railway service, but, with the exception beyond Turnbull Avenue just mentioned, would involve use of the public highways, rather than the private right of way.
At hearings on the application, testimony in opposition to that of the applicant was produced by the Township of Haverford, Pennsylvania Department of Highways, William Wagner and other individuals. Following argument, the commission, by its order of June 27, 1966, approved the applications as "necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public." Appeals were taken to this Court by William Wagner, the Township of Haverford and the Township of Lower Merion. The Department of Highways did not appeal.
Appellants' main attack is that there was lack of substantial evidence to support the commission's finding that approval of the applications was necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience and safety of the public. Our scope of review is ...