6. Staff's Case for Commission Jurisdiction

Staff contends that the Legislature has delegated safety oversight of mass transit guideway systems to the Commission. It argues that, through § 99152, the Commission is charged not only with the duty to "inspect all work done on those guideways" but also with the responsibility to develop an oversight safety program "to be met by operators in the design, construction, and operation of those guideways."

As to whether AirTrain is a "public transit guideway" under § 99152, Staff asserts that the definition of "transit" under various provisions of the Public Utilities Code is "the transportation of passengers and their incidental baggage by any means" (§§ 24505, 50005, 100012, 102012, 103012), and "the transportation of passengers only and their incidental baggage by means other than by chartered bus, sightseeing bus, taxi, or any other motor vehicle not on an individual passenger fare-paying basis and includes carpools and ridesharing in private vehicles" (§§ 30005, 40005, 70005, 90005, 95005, 98005). Staff contends that AirTrain provides transportation to passengers and their incidental baggage by means other than a chartered bus, sightseeing bus, or any other motor vehicle not on an individual passenger fare-paying basis, and so falls within each of these definitions.

While there is no definition of "public mass transit guideway" in the California Codes, Staff notes that the California Attorney General has applied a dictionary definition to the term "exclusive public mass transit guideways," stating that the phrase


...is limited ("exclusive") to a publicly owned ("public") channel controlling the line of motion ("guideway") for conveyances ("transit") carrying large number of people ("mass"). (Cal. Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 119 (May 27, 1987).)

Since 1991, the Commission has defined "public transit guideway" as "A system of public transportation utilizing passenger vehicles that are physically restricted from discretionary movement in a lateral direction." (GO 143-B, Section 2.11.)

Staff argues that the Commission since 1911 has been the state agency with authority over rail systems in California, and that the courts have held that the state's interest in public transportation is controlling and supersedes that of cities, counties and local governments. (Civic Center Ass'n v. Railroad Com. (1917) 175 Cal. 441.) Staff notes that the Commission, unlike other state agencies, derives much of its jurisdiction by direct grant from the California Constitution, as well as that delegated by the Legislature. Staff asserts that, in People v. Western Air Lines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, the California Supreme Court reasoned that "forms of transportation unknown at the time the Constitution was adopted" (like public transit guideways) "are within the regulatory powers of the commission..." (42 Cal.2d at 641.)

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page