Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. King

• Decision Date: 20 July 1962
• Docket Number: No. 31676,31676
• Parties: TAMIAMI TRAIL TOURS, INC., and Clarence Wilkinson, d/b/a Pinellas Central Bus Line, Petitioners, v. Wilbur C. KING, Jerry W. Carter and Edwin L. Mason, as members of and constituting the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 313

143 So.2d 313

TAMIAMI TRAIL TOURS, INC., and Clarence Wilkinson, d/b/a Pinellas Central Bus Line, Petitioners, v. Wilbur C. KING, Jerry W. Carter and Edwin L. Mason, as members of and constituting the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission, Respondents.

No. 31676.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 20, 1962.

A. Pickens Coles, Tampa, James E. Wharton, Lakeland, and Coles, Himes & Litschgi, Tampa, for petitioners.

Lewis W. Petteway and Kenneth Gatlin, Tallahassee, for Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Com.

John M. Allison, David C. G. Kerr, and Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for Southern Tours, Inc.

O'CONNELL, Justice.

In its application, as twice amended, Southern Tours, Inc., referred to as Southern, sought authority to offer bus service over at least two of three proposed routes between the cities of St. Petersburg and Pinellas Park, Florida. It also asked permission to conduct its operations, under several certificates previously issued to it by the Florida Railroad and Public Utilities Commission and those sought in this proceeding, as a unified system.

After public hearing the Commission entered the order under attack here in which Southern was granted the authority to operate a bus service in the common carriage of passengers over two of the three proposed routes between St. Petersburg and Pinellas Park.

As to the request of Southern to unify its operations the Commission stated in its order that:

'The Commission has given careful consideration to the applicant's request to unify the operations under its various certificates and is of the opinion that this portion of the application should be granted upon the clarification of its present operating authority. Some of the routes under Southern Tours' present authority are designated by outdated highway numbers which need to be brought up to date before a new certificate can be issued. * * *'

The petitioners in this Court, Tamiami Trial Tours, Inc., referred to herein as Tamiami, and Clarence Wilkinson, d/b/a Pinellas Central Bus Line, referred to herein as Wilkinson, were protestants before the Commission.

Greyhound Corporation, Southern Greyhound Lines Division, also appeared as a protestant but withdrew its protest upon entry into the record of a stipulation between counsel for Southern and Greyhound in which Southern agreed that it would not '* * * offer of sell direct transportation between St. Petersburg and Tampa and agrees that it is not seeking unifications of its operations east of Pinellas Park except direct service to Sunshine Park Racetrack at Oldsmar and the Greyhound Racetrack at Derby Lane during seasonal operations.' Greyhound is therefore not one of the petitioners here.

To set the stage properly the operations of Southern, Tamiami and Wilkinson need to be explained as does the geography involved.

Prior to entry of the order here involved Southern held certificates authorizing it to operate sightseeing buses to points of interest within a 150 mile radius of Tampa; to transport racetrack patrons from both Tampa and St. Petersburg to Sunshine Park Racetrack; to operate common carrier bus service between St. Petersburg and the Gulf Beaches, north to Redington Beach and south to Pass-A-Grill Beach; and to operate common carrier bus service between Tampa and the Gulf Beaches.

This last mentioned service made it possible for applicant to take a passenger from Tampa to the Gulf Beaches, on one bus, and then, by transferring to another one of applicant's buses, on into St. Petersburg. Thus, applicant was not operating a direct common carrier passenger service between Tampa and St. Petersburg. Protestants Greyhound and Tamiami at that time did operate such a direct service between those two cities.

Under applicant's existing authority to transport passengers from Tampa to the Gulf Beaches, it followed a route which caused its buses to go through Pinellas Park. The authority sought by it in these proceedings to operate between Pinellas Park and St. Petersburg would thus permit it to operate a second indirect service between Tampa and St. Petersburg.

Further, absent the stipulation above quoted, Southern, if the unification of its operations is granted, would be able to operate a direct bus passenger service between Tampa and St. Petersburg via Pinellas Park.

As above noted both Tamiami and Greyhound are interested in this proceeding because both operate direct bus service between Tampa and St. Petersburg.

Wilkinson, at the time of the Commission's hearing and prior thereto, was authorized to operate a common carrier bus service between Pinellas Park and St. Petersburg. The route of Wilkinson's service runs north and south between the two cities and is one of three routes over which Southern sought authority to operate. It should be noted here that the Commission did not grant Southern authority to service this route. Rather, it gave it authority to service two parallel routes, one 25 blocks east and the other 15 blocks west of Wilkinson's route. The latter route, however, did not run north and south, parallel to Wilkinson's but ran in a northwesterly direction, thus approaching the northern extremity of Wilkinson's route.

At one time prior to the hearing Wilkinson had been the recipient of a subsidy from the City of Pinellas Park, but when the subsidy arrangement expired he had not attempted to negotiate a renewal or extension of the agreement. Without such a subsidy Wilkinson operates at a considerable loss.

Pinellas Park lies north of St. Petersburg, the boundaries of the two cities, as pertinent here, being twenty-two blocks or approximately tow miles apart. However the main streets, or 'downtown' areas of the two cities are some seventy-four blocks apart. The two cities are connected by several major streets which run north and south. The testimony indicates that the area between the two cities is of urban character and is being rapidly developed and inhabited.

The petitioners, Tamiami and Wilkinson, urge first that the Commission erred in granting Southern permission to unify its operations under the various certificates held by it.

We agree with the Commission and Southern that this question is premature. A reading of the pertinent portion of the Commission's order above quoted shows that Southern has not been granted permission to unify and no order has been entered authorizing it to do so. The Commission only expressed an opinion favorable to allowing unification. When an order is entered on the question the petitioners will then have the right to review of that order by this Court. No such order is now before us.

Petitioners next contend that Southern failed to prove by competent substantial evidence that public convenience and necessity required the service proposed to be offered by Southern over the two additional routes between the two cities.

The scope of our appellate review of an order of the Commission is to determine whether the order accords with the essential requirements of law and is supported by competent substantial evidence. Coast Cities Coaches v. Florida Railroad & Public Utilities Comm., Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 674, citing Greyhound Corp., etc. v. Carter, Fla.1960, 124 So.2d 9.

If these essentials are found to have been met the order must be approved. If there is competent substantial evidence in the record which is sufficient to support the order it matters not that there is also in the record evidence which would have supported a contrary order.

Our review of the record reflects that there is in the record competent substantial evidence to support the granting to Southern of the authority to operate bus service between the two cities on the two additional routes.

A summary of the evidence of this point is unnecessary. There was evidence both as to need of the proposed service and lack of need. Likewise there was evidence as to the sufficiency and insufficiency of the existing service offered by Wilkinson.

We think it worthy of mention, however, that the two routes granted Southern are respectively 25 and 15 blocks east and west of the route served by Wilkinson; the routes are comparatively short; and the area served is urban in character. The new service, as is that...