Parties' Contentions

Complainants assert that the crossing is a public crossing and that the public acquired an easement and right of way in the Summit Truck Trail by implied-in-law dedication. Complainants further assert that exclusive jurisdiction to close the crossing resides with the Commission, and that BNSF did not obtain or seek the Commission's authority to close the crossing. Finally, complainants state the Commission can find that the Summit Truck Trail crossing is a publicly used private crossing reasonably necessary or convenient for ingress and egress to other lands.

BNSF asserts that there is no evidence to support a Commission finding that the Summit Truck Trail crossing is a statutorily required private crossing, and that there is no judicial determination of any public easement or right of way where it crosses BNSF's right of way. BNSF states it has not dedicated the crossing, and the County has not agreed to accept such dedication. BNSF asserts that the public convenience and necessity do not require keeping the crossing open. Finally, BNSF states that the Summit Truck Trail crossing is not a private crossing publicly used because no private lands immediately adjoin the crossing.

The County joins in complainants' position that the Commission can find the Summit Truck Trail a private crossing publicly used.