Phoenix, and apparently 35 percent of its gross operating revenues are derived from its operations between Denver and Phoenix.

Santa Fe is a regular-route, motor common carrier of general commodities serving numerous points in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and several other States. More specifically, it holds authority between Denver and Albuquerque, serving the intermediate points of Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Trinidad, Raton, Springer, Las Vegas, and Santa Fe. It maintains full terminal facilities at Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las •Vegas, and Denver and agency stations at Raton and Pueblo. Santa Fe operates a fleet of 1,926 vehicles, including 209 line-haul tractors and 606 line-haul trailers. Overnight service is offered between Albuquerque and Trinidad, and between Denver and Raton; and second-morning service is offered between Albuquerque and the involved points north of Trinidad, and between Denver and the involved points south of Raton. It indicates a substantial imbalance of traffic between the involved New Mexico points and Denver, the latter generating far more outbound than inbound traffic.

Thunderbird holds certain regular- and irregular-route authority to transport general commodities, with exceptions, generally within an area bounded by Los Angeles and Orange Counties, Calif., on the west and Santa Fe, N. Mex., on the east. Specifically, it is authorized to serve (1) between Phoenix, Mesa, Carrizo, Show Low, Concho, St. Johns, Sanders, Houck, and Lupton, Ariz.; (2) between the Arizona points in (1) above and Albuquerque, Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Romeroville, Glorietta, Las Vegas, Wagon Mound, Watrous, Springer, Maxwell, Raton, Shiprock, Fruitland, Farmington, Aztec, and Cedar Hill, N. Mex. (except between Phoenix and Albuquerque); and (3) between all the New Mexico points in (2) above, including Albuquerque. Its regular-route authority extends from Phoenix to the Arizona-New Mexico State line and also between Santa Fe and Albuquerque, which latter authority, however, is restricted against the handling of interline traffic. Oakley which is being operated under common control with Thunderbird, is authorized to transport general commodities, over irregular routes, between points in a number of specified counties in the involved area of northern New Mexico. Thunderbird maintains terminals at Albuquerque and Gallup, N. Mex., and Phoenix and Show Low, Ariz., and Oakley maintains terminals at Albuquerque, Clovis, Farmington, and Gallup, N. Mex. The combined fleet of equipment of these two carriers totals 491 vehicles, including 53 tractors and 195 trailers.

T.I.M.E.-DC is a general-commodities carrier operating over an extensive network of regular routes extending from Boston, Mass., and New York, N.Y., on the east, to Seattle, Wash., and Los Angeles, Calif., on the west. As pertinent herein, it operates between Phoenix and Denver and serves the intermediate points of Pueblo and Colorado Springs and maintains terminals at Phoenix, Denver, and Fountain, Colo. Its operations between Denver and Phoenix at present appear well balanced. T.I.M.E.-DC holds itself out as providing third-morning service between Denver and Phoenix, and the traffic study which it presented reflects an average transit time of approximately 3.5 days (excluding weekends) for shipments moving between these two points.

Western Gillette holds regular and irregular-route, general commodities authority to operate between numerous points in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Illinois. Its expressed interest in this proceeding is limited to applicant's proposal to provide service between Phoenix and Globe and intermediate points on U.S. Highway 70 in Arizona. It maintains terminals at Flagstaff, Globe, and Phoenix. Western Gillette holds itself out as providing overnight service between Phoenix and Flagstaff. However, its exhibit introduced to indicate its existing traffic which would be subject to diversion if the application were to be granted, reflects that only 57 percent of such traffic did, in fact, receive overnight service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In accordance with section 207 of the Interstate Commerce Act, an applicant for motor common carrier authority has the statutory burden of showing that its proposed service is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. In considering whether an applicant has met this statutory requirement, we must determine whether the new operation will serve a useful purpose, responsive to a public demand or need; whether this purpose can or will be served as well by existing carriers; and whether it can be served by applicant without endangering or impairing the operations of existing carriers contrary to the public interest. Pan-American Bus Lines Operation, 1 M.C.C. 190, 203 (1936). Applying these criteria to the evidence of record in the instant proceeding, we conclude that applicant has not met the requisite burden of proof; and that, therefore, the application must be denied.

More than 130 witnesses have appeared in support of this application, and have indicated their desire for the availability of the proposed service between the points involved herein. However, the application may not be granted unlesss the evidence of record demonstrates that a genuine present or future public need exists for the proposed service, and mere quantity of support fails to meet this requirement. In a proceeding of this nature the number of supporting firms which an applicant can present at a hearing to testify that existing service is unsatisfactory may largely be determined by the effort it is willing to expend in procuring witnesses. It is generally recognized that shippers continually seek to obtain better transportation service and that few would concede that they at all times have service adequate to meet their needs. Shippers and receivers of freight frequently are convinced that it is to their advantage if an additional carrier can be added to those already available to serve them. Their support frequently stems, as is apparent herein, from a personal preference for a particular carrier rather than a need for additional service. Although the record clearly reveals that the supporting firms desire the availability of the proposed service, it fails to establish that reasonably adequate service is not presently available. It has frequently been observed in proceedings of the instant type that the mere desire for additional service as a "convenience" or "benefit" does not indicate that a shipper's reasonable transportation requirements are not already being adequately met by existing carriers. See P. C. White Truck Line, Inc., Ext.-Atlanta, Ga., 120 M.C.C. 824, 843-844 (1974).

A yariety of reasons for a need for either consistent overnight or second-day service have been advanced. Some of the supporting firms seek more expeditious service in order to reduce their inventories. Others wish to please their customers or to obtain an advantage over their competitors. Many simply assert that all of their traffic requires expeditious transportation. While claims for a need for expeditious service are entitled to particular consideration when dated commodities are involved, or in those instances in which construction or production schedules must be met, significantly little of the support herein has been prompted by such circumstances. In general, the firms supporting the instant application complain that protestants are not providing satisfactory service, and in some cases are able to specify certain instances in which shipments were delivered late. Numerous shippers and receivers presented abstracts purporting to show excessive transit times for shipments handled by protestants. Such evidence fails,

however, to establish that existing carrier service involves inordinate delays. The evidence of damaged lading is similarly unconvincing. Complaints of late deliveries are not supported by evidence indicating that as a result there of the business operations of these firms have been adversely affected or in any way significantly impaired. As such, these complaints are entitled to little probative weight. Compare Hine Line Extension-Hides, 123 M.C.C. 161, 189 (1975); and Onley Refrigerated Transp., Inc., Ext. Conn., 118 M.C.C. 127, 133 (1973). Moreover, even those few complaints concerning existing service which are justified, represent no more than occasional service failures of the type which occur in the normal course of most transportation businesses. They are not of such a kind or number sufficient to warrant the characterization of existing service as inadequate or unsatisfactory. Compare Martin Trailer Toters, Inc., Common Carrier Application, 111 M.C.C. 841, 857-858 (1970); and Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., Ext.-Council Bluffs, 94 M.C.C. 187, 193 (1963). Considering the paucity of concrete evidence in the record regarding damage to or loss of goods, sales or business, or other adverse results of the asserted lack of consistent overnight or second-day service, it must be concluded that the proposed service is merely preferred rather that needed. A number of shippers complain that existing carriers on occasion fail to pick up freight on time. It must be recognized, however, that motor common carriers have obligations to the general public which from time to time create abnormal and conflicting demands upon their equipment and cannot reasonably be expected to respond immediately to each and every shipper request for service. Examples of slow pickups by existing carriers, therefore, have little probative value in the absence of evidence tending to establish a pattern of disinterest or wrongful refusal to provide service or to indicate a general quantum and quality of service inadequate to insure the consistent flow of goods. Such evidence is lacking in this proceeding. The evidence of record indicates that many of the supporting shippers' complaints resulted from requests for service within a few hours or for pickups only at a specified time or from afternoon requests for same-day service. As in any business endeavor involving more than one entity, cooperation among parties is a necessity. Shippers must bear some responsibility for planning reasonable distribution schedules.

Several of the supporting firms admit that their support for the instant application is based, at least in part, upon their desires for lower rates. It has long been established that a grant of operating

authority will not be predicated simply upon a showing that a rate advantage would result or that a protestant's rate structure is unacceptable to shippers. See Detroit-Pittsburgh M. Freight, Inc., Ext.-Asphalt Roofing, 79 M.C.C. 197, 203 (1959); and Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., Ext.-Newburgh, N. Y., 99 M.C.C. 6, 9 (1965). Exceptions have been made in such circumstances where it is established that a protestant consistently refuses to negotiate with a shipper or has made no attempt to meet its reasonable demands, see Edwards Extension-Jackson, Tenn., 88 M.C.C. 318, 320-321 (1961); or when it is found that a protestant's rate is so high that it serves as a clear indication of disinterest in particular traffic and constitutes in effect, an embargo. See H. L. & F. McBride Extension-Ohio, 62 M.C.C. 779, 790 (1954); and National Freight, Inc., Ext.-Pittsburgh, Pa., 110 M.C.C. 433, 434-435 (1969). Neither of these situations is present here, and it is noted that substantial quantities of traffic are moving under the complained-of rates.

Some of the supporting firms are making use of several of the available joint-line services between the points involved herein. To a certain extent the instant application seeks to replace these existing joint-line services with a single-line service. Several of the supporting firms emphasize their desires for reduced transit times to satisfy customer demands, to forestall interruptions in production, or to reduce damage to lading resulting from the interchange of freight. As noted previously, however, the record does not establish that shorter transit times are genuinely required or that incidents involving damage to lading are unreasonably frequent or even whether such damage is in fact the result of interchange. The mere desire for single-line service is an insufficient basis upon which to grant authority, see Bowman Transp., Inc., Ext.-Jackson, Ala., 113 M.C.C. 633 (1971), and Poole Truck Line, Inc., Extension-Pensacola, 117 M.C.C. 1 (1972). In the absence of a clear showing that service provided pursuant to joint-line operations is inadequate, a new competing direct single-line service should not be authorized, see Colonial Refrig. Transp., Inc., Ext. Confectionery, 123 M.C.C. 255, 263 (1975).

Another factor requiring consideration is the failure of a number of the firms supporting this application to make full utilization of existing service. Many of the supporting firms have not tried one or more of the protestants' services. Many others have tried an existing

"Applicant does not contend that it is faced with the deterioration or loss of its interline arrangement nor that it is seeking needed authority in order to continue providing such interline service. Cf. Burnham Van Service, Inc., Household Goods-13 States, 98 M.C.C. 58 (1965).