interchanges. Respondent submits that its proposal is consistent with the normal routing practices of other railroads including protestant. It asserts that the proposal not only preserves its long haul between Theodore and the involved gateways consistent with the congressional policy expressed in section 15(4) of the act, but also fosters efficiency and economy in transportation through single-line movements. In support of its position that the proposal is just, reasonable, and in the public interest, respondent submits evidence of its survey of all the traffic to and from Theodore during the year 1976 which indicated a total of 1,008 cars originated and terminated at Theodore, 309 outbound and 699 inbound. As to shipments from Theodore routed via the SLSF over routes restricted by the proposal, there were 44 inbound shipments and no outbound shipments, which represents 6 percent of Theodore inbound traffic and 4 percent of all Theodore traffic.

Emphasizing that this is strictly a gateway routing case between two competitive carriers, respondent points out that as to railroads other than the SLSF, the absence of protest or comment demonstrates that they will not be affected adversely by its proposed restricted routing.

With regard to its burden of proof and statutory standards, respondent asserts that the nonsuspension by the Commission of the proposed restrictions is significant and controls the standard of proof it must meet in this proceeding. Respondent points out that absent suspension, the provisions of section 15(3) of the act, which require proponent to prove that the cancellation is in the public interest, are not applicable in this proceeding, and that respondent need only comply with a less stringent standard of proof and show the proposal is just, reasonable, and lawful in accordance with the provisions of section 15(8) of the act. Respondent, however, points out that although the standards for determining consistency with the public interest need not be considered in this proceeding, the proposal, in fact, is not contradictory or hostile to the public interest. Citing Seaboard Air Line R. Co. Routing Cancellation, 301 I.C.C. 129, 134 (1957), and Seaboard A. L. R. Co. Routing Cancellation, Phosphate Rock, 300 I.C.C. 747, 750 (1957) it asserts that the public interest standard of section 15(3) means "not contradictory or hostile to the public interest," and that is it not necessary to prove an affirmative benefit to the public to meet that standard.

In support of its position respondent relies on Routing from or to Cantonment, Fla., 288 I.C.C. 708 (1953), where the Commission

approved schedules filed by the L&N proposing cancellation of routing permitting participation of the SLSF in joint rates on traffic via Atmore, Ala., and Pensacola, Fla., which originated or terminated at Cantonment, Fla., on the one hand, and other points on the L&N, on the other. The Commission there found that the only shipper-protestant would suffer no inconvenience or injury as the services over the single-line route of the L&N was superior to the joint-line routes, and that the same rates would continue to apply over both the single-line and joint-line routes. Respondent submits that Cantonment is particularly apposite here, and that despite shipper opposition and a higher standard of proof, the Commission found that L&N's cancellation of joint routing to and from Cantonment was just and reasonable.

Protestant takes the position that the proposed restrictions are apparently part of a general program of restrictive routing initiated by the Family Lines System in an attempt to eliminate other southern territory railroads from routes between points on its carriers' lines and the junctions and gateways located throughout the United States. Protestant indicates that it has filed complaints and protests against other publications containing routes which are restricted so as to eliminate SLSF participation in joint rates and routes, and that the proposed restrictions will commercially close SLSF routes within southern territory on interterritorial traffic moving through gateways to and from Theodore.

area

SLSF points out that Theodore Industrial Park, an encompassing approximately 3,000 acres owned by the Alabama State Docks Terminal Railway, is presently in the initial stages of development, with two companies in the process of construction of facilities for the processing of various chemicals. Some of the industries presently located at the industrial park are involved in the shipment of various commodities including coke, lumber and lumber products, linseed oil, mineral wood, and ferrochrome alloys. It stresses that although Theodore has not been, in the past, a significant shipping or receiving point, SLSF considers its traffic involving Theodore to be important to its economic well being, and anticipates the continued development of the industrial park will result in increased production and a large volume of outbound traffic in chemicals and chemical products, and other commodities.

"The Family Lines System includes; The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (SCL); carriers under its control through stock ownership, as the L&N; and carriers controlled through lease arrangements as the Clinchfield Railroad, the Georgia Railroad, Atlanta and West Point Railroad, and The Western Railway of Alabama.

SLSF submits that the 50 carloads of coke, 7 cars of lumber, 1 car of insulating material inbound, and 4 carloads outbound, handled by it during the first quarter of 1977 compares favorably to the 44 carloads of inbound freight it handled in 1976, and the 3 trailerloads it handled during 1975, and is indicative of increasing SLSF participation in traffic to and from Theodore.

Protestant argues that the L&N's restrictive routing action is being taken without regard to (1) whether the routes eliminated had been utilized by the public, (2) whether such routes are of long standing and are, therefore, reasonable through routes within the meaning of section 1(4) of the act, (3) whether diminution of service would result to the public, or (4) whether the routes to be retained are in many instances longer than those to be eliminated.

In response to the L&N's assertion that this proceeding is a gateway routing case, the SLSF points out that schedules under investigation in this proceeding name routes from or to Theodore on the L&N to the various gateways when movement beyond the gateways is to SWL, WTL, IFA, CFA, and TCFB territories, and that the proposal either completely eliminates or greatly restricts the routing from Theodore to the various territories, notwithstanding these routes have been of long duration.

Protestant's evidence demonstrating the distance between Theodore over routes published by the L&N as compared with distance over routes using the SLSF from Birmingham, is shown in table 1 of appendix B. In table 2 of appendix B distance from representative origins from which traffic actually moved to Theodore routed SLSF from Kansas City to Birmingham, is compared by protestant with routing to either New Orleans or to St. Louis, thence L&N.

In reply respondent argues that the evidence establishes that its direct routes between Theodore and the gateways are shorter and more direct, that its train service is better than train service over the canceled L&N -SLSF routes, and that the canceled routes have not been used by the shipping public to any significant extent.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Since the routing guide only provides routes between Theodore and Northern and Western Gateways for use in constructing through routes from and to points beyond in CFA, IFA, WTL, SWL, and TCFB territories, our consideration in this proceeding cannot be

limited to the situation which exists solely between Theodore and the relevant gateways, as argued by respondent. The proposed restrictions would effectively cancel joint through routes presently available to shippers over routes of the protestant, and section 15(8) of the act imposes upon respondent the burden of proving the lawfulness of the proposal.

Moreover, section 15(3) of the act authorizes the Commission not only to require that reasonable through routes be established, but obligates the Commission to consider carefully the proposed cancellation of existing through routes. It places upon carriers proposing to cancel through routes and joint rates, without the consent of all carrier parties thereto or authorization by the Commission, the burden of showing that such cancellation is consistent with the public interest. The term "public interest" as thus used means more than a mere general reference to public welfare, or to the desire of a particular carrier or group of carriers to gain additional traffic. Consideration must also be given to the interests of the general public as manifested by the traffic moved over the routes proposed to be closed, as well as to the carriers which participate in those routes. Reciprocal Switching, Richmond, Va., 306 I.C.C. 97, 103.

We are not persuaded by respondent's argument that the routes to and from Theodore via the SLSF are not utilized and therefore their cancellation would not affect the public. Nor do we view the SLSF's involvement in the traffic moving to and from Theodore as inconsequential. In Routing, Jacksonville, Fla., to Seaboard A.L.R. Co. Stations, 303 I.C.C. 103 (1958), respondent railroad's proposal seeking to cancel routes over which, on an annual basis, only two cars moved was found not shown to be just and reasonable even though not a single shipper protested the cancellation, and the remaining routes would not have been excessively circuitous. Similarly, in Routing, Furniture, Carolina & N.W. Ry. to St. Louis, 310 I.C.C. 134 (1960), the Commission found the cancellation of a route over which only 21 carloads had moved in a 13-month period not shown to be just and reasonable.

Repondent has offered no persuasive evidence to establish that the proposed restrictions are just and reasonable. Respondent contends that the present routes have not been used by the shipping public to any significant extent, that the routes over gateways it proposes to retain provide better service than those it proposes to cancel, and that there would be no adverse affect on the public

through cancellation of those routes. The evidence, however, establishes that there is presently under construction at Theodore an industrial park of substantial size, and with its continued development, the volume of traffic generated there would necessarily increase as the plants under construction are completed. It is also established that there has been a considerable increase since 1975 in the amount of traffic moved to and from Theodore in which protestant has participated. Although respondent contends that this generally represents nonrecurring traffic, of insignificant volume, its very action in seeking cancellation of the present routes would suggest that traffic is moving and will continue to move over these routes in sufficient volume to be valuable and attractive to both parties to this proceeding.

Respondent submits that the proposal preserves its long haul between Theodore and the involved gateways consistent with congressional policy expressed in section 15(4) of the act. It points out that both the Commission and the courts have interpreted section 15(4) to allow a railroad, particularly an originating carrier, to preserve its long haul. In support it cites Chicago, M. St. P. & P. R. Co. v. United States, 182 F. Supp. 81 (E.D. Wisc., 1960), affirmed 366 U.S. 745 (1961), where the Supreme Court stated at page 750 that the overriding congressional purpose behind section 15(4) was "the protection of the traffic of the controlling line." Section 15(4) specifically places limits on the Commission's power to prescribe through routes, when to do so would require a carrier to participate in a through route embracing substantially less than the entire length of its line between the points in question. Respondent, however, fails to draw the critical distinction between the establishment of through routes and joint rates by this Commission and the proposed cancellation of existing through routes which have been in effect for some time, and under which traffic has moved. Although the parties have not specifically addressed their testimony to section section 15(3) as amended by the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act), our conclusions necessarily must reflect consideration of certain additional criteria. The 4R Act adds the additional sentence to section 15(3):

With respect to carriers by railroad, in determining whether any such cancellation or proposed cancellation involving any common carrier by railroad is consistent with the public interest, the Commission shall, to the extent applicable, (a) compare the distance traversed and the average transportation time and expense required using the