III. Crossing Removal

A. Facts

The crossing at issue is located in a rural area within Red Bluff city limits at railroad milepost 225.71. It connects two sections of an unpaved maintenance roadway located on railroad right-of-way that is used by UP to access its track and signal facilities. UP's operating rules require train crews to sound the locomotive horn as they approach this crossing. Whistle boards (which tell the engineer when to commence sounding the horn) are placed alongside the tracks in advance of the position at which the locomotive horn must be sounded, i.e., at least 1,320 feet from the crossing pursuant to Public Utilities (PU) Code Section 7604. Complainants' home is located to the south of the crossing in the vicinity of one of the whistle boards.

B. Position of Complainants

Complainants state that when they moved into their new home in September 1999, they were able to adjust to the sounds of the trains running nearby. However, they say the situation changed in May 2001, when UP placed a "private crossing" near their home. Train crews now sound locomotive horns at the crossing causing a major impact on Complainants' health and well-being. Complainants argue that UP has access to its track approximately 3 miles north of this location and does not need the crossing. According to Complainants, the noise pollution from the locomotive horns and the safety hazard caused by the access road also affect homeowners in the nearby residential development.

C. Position of UP

UP states that, contrary to Complainants' assertions, a private maintenance crossing has existed at this location for many years while the line was operated by the former Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC). According to UP, the crossing was temporarily taken out of service in connection with a major rail renewal program that was undertaken by UP following its acquisition of the former SPTC; the crossing was restored by UP in 2001. UP argues that there is no alternative to this crossing that meets its needs for performing critical maintenance and repair work along this stretch of track.

D. Discussion

There can be no dispute that the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over public railroad crossings. Cal. Pub. Util. Code sections 1201 and 1202; Los Angeles Ry. Corp. v. Los Angeles, (1940) 16 Cal. 2d 779, 785; City of San Mateo v. Railroad Com. Of California, (1937) 9 Cal. 2d 1, 5-6; City of Union City v. Southern Pac. Co., (1968) 261 Cal. App. 2d 277, 279. However, the crossing here does not concern a "public or publicly used road or highway." Similarly, the crossing is not a farm or private crossing as contemplated within Pub. Util. Code § 7537 to "permit reasonably necessary or convenient . . . ingress to or egress" from a farm or private property. Instead, this crossing is the railroad's own crossing, serving the railroad's line for purposes of maintenance and service, located on the railroad's private property.

Complainant has not demonstrated that public safety requires this crossing to be closed, reconfigured or relocated. Likewise, the complainant has not shown a legal basis for the Commission's interference with the railroad's chosen use of its private property in furtherance of its rail operations. While complainant has raised issues of noise and enjoyment of his private property,

discussed infra, he has otherwise failed to provide us with the necessary authority on which we might require the railroad to close, reconfigure, or relocate this crossing. Without such authority, the Commission is precluded from interfering with the railroad's operations at its own access road and crossing.