5. Discussion

Pub. Util. Code § 1201 provides that no public road, highway or street shall be constructed at grade across a railroad track without prior approval of this Commission. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to require, where practicable, a separation of grades. (Pub. Util. Code § 1202.) The Commission has stated that the reason for this latter requirement is that:

Railroad grade separations constitute ultimate protection, since all grade crossing accidents and delays then are eliminated. It has long been recognized that the Commission should not grant applications for crossings at grade where there is a heavy movement of trains, unless public convenience and necessity absolutely demand such a crossing (Mayfield v. S.P. Co. (1913) 3 CRC 474). The advantages which might accrue by way of added convenience and financial benefit are outweighed by the dangers and hazards attendant upon a crossing at grade. Accident incidence is related to increases in the number of crossings; therefore, grade crossings should be avoided whenever it is possible to do so (Kern County Bd. Of Supervisors (1951) 51 CPUC 317). (City of San Mateo (1982) 8 CPUC2d at 580-81.)

The Commission has set the bar high for approval of a new at-grade crossing:

Today in this State a proponent who desires to construct a new at-grade crossing over mainline railroad trackage carrying any appreciable volume of passenger traffic has a very heavy burden to carry. Against the aforestated formidable backdrop of fundamental statutory and professional opprobrium, he must convincingly show both that a separation is impracticable and that the public convenience and necessity absolutely require a crossing at grade. (City of San Mateo, supra, at 581.)

The proposed at-grade crossing here will traverse the mainline of the Union Pacific tracks which, on average (i) carries 18 through freight trains per day, (ii) one local train that operates six days a week, and (iii) two daily Amtrak intercity passenger trains. It is estimated that, under Year 2025 conditions, the proposed new at-grade crossing will carry about 1,600 vehicles during the morning peak hour and about 1,800 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour, with daily average crossings of 5,000 vehicles.

The Commission has provided further guidance regarding the standards it will apply to determine whether a separated grade is practicable and whether an at-grade crossing is justified by public need and convenience, indicating that it will give consideration to the cost of a separation in comparison to the cost of an at-grade crossing.2 (In re Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction, 2002 Cal. PUC LEXIS 301, *15.) In evaluating an application to construct an at-grade, rather than a separated crossing, the Commission has stated that it will look to the following:

All parties agree that a new crossing over or under the railroad tracks into the industrial park would be the ideal way to proceed, since traffic then would be unaffected by the relatively heavy train activity, and the West Liberty crossing would be minimally affected. The City's witnesses acknowledged, however, that a grade separation was never seriously considered during the environmental review process because of its cost ($15 to $20 million versus $250,000 to $500,000 for an at-grade crossing). The City's engineer testified without contradiction that an overpass crossing was technically infeasible due to the limited distance between SR 99 and the tracks, required clearances and an excessive longitudinal slope created for the street. Apart from that, the City's claims of infeasibility were undercut by the City's engineer, who agreed with Union Pacific's engineering witness that drainage and groundwater issues associated with an undercrossing could be dealt with using available engineering techniques. More importantly, the City presented no evidence that it had investigated the availability of public funding sources such as the grade separation fund administered by this Commission and by CalTrans. While the Commission is willing to consider lack of funds as an element in the request to construct an at-grade crossing, it requires at least a showing that an applicant has thoroughly investigated funding sources for a grade-separated project before rejecting that safer alternative.

Similarly, the City has presented no evidence of the concurrence of local emergency authorities to the plan to have two rail crossings within a quarter-mile of each other. The City acknowledged that it had not yet planned when and how it would limit access to the industrial park from the West Liberty crossing. The City's witness said that he presumed that the park entrance would be barred by locked wooden gates for which fire stations and other emergency crews would have keys.

For cost reasons, the City has rejected the recommendations of CalTrans to either close the West Liberty crossing or to signalize and realign it to mitigate a likely queuing problem. Similarly, the City is considering but has not at this time accepted the recommendation of Union Pacific to widen the proposed roadway and install larger medians for the new crossing at Industrial Park Way.

Finally, the Commission's Rail Crossings Engineering Section has not made a recommendation concurring in the safety of the proposed new at-grade crossing, but it is clear that staff has encouraged the City to consider closing of crossings more significant than the lightly used crossing at Laurel Street if it intends to add a major new crossing within city limits.

The City is candid in assessing the implications of its requests in this proceeding, stating:

Gridley recognizes that there is a natural inclination to trade any new at-grade crossing for closure of a comparable existing crossing and also expects the Commission to be skeptical about Gridley's proposal for straight-up trade of closure of the more lightly traveled Laurel St. crossing for construction of a more heavily used new at-grade crossing to serve the Gridley Industrial Park. It is also natural for the Commission to be inclined to require what it considers to be a better trade-off from a public safety perspective, i.e. closure of the problematic West Liberty crossing in exchange for authority to construct a new, needed at-grade crossing.

Despite the seeming logic of connecting construction of a new at-grade crossing with closure of the West Liberty crossing, Gridley asks the Commission to carefully consider whether insistence by the Commission on closure of West Liberty will, at the end of the day, increase or decrease the level of public safety in Gridley and its environs. If the application to construct an at-grade crossing is denied (or granted contingent upon the closing of West Liberty), the only other alternative point of access to the industrial park, i.e. the West Liberty crossing, will experience increased congestion. Traffic from the industrial park, unable to be diverted, would be routed to the existing West Liberty crossing, a much less desirable situation from both a traffic and safety standpoint. (Gridley Reply Brief, at 9-10.)

Union Pacific takes a different view of the situation:

The City's posture in this matter seems to be that the Commission's role in considering applications for new grade crossings is limited to technical review and engineering and construction details. The City argues that the Commission would be invading the traditional land use planning province of local government if it engages in second guessing the City's decision to swap out the Laurel Street crossing instead of the crossing at West Liberty. The City reasons that it should not be required to close or improve West Liberty in this proceeding because the City did not put that option on the table. But this overlooks the fact that the situation at West Liberty currently poses and will continue to pose an unacceptable risk to public safety that the Commission cannot ignore.

If applicants in crossing cases are permitted to narrowly prescribe the parameters of the Commission's inquiry, the Commission would be abdicating its statutory responsibility to promote and safeguard public safety at public grade crossings generally. The determination of whether the new grade crossing is required by public convenience and necessity requires a thorough and intensive investigation of all relevant circumstances, including the impact of the project on adjoining crossings and the ability to consider and approve alternatives that will provide a greater margin of safety but still satisfy the needs of local traffic government to improve traffic circulation. (Union Pacific Reply Brief, at 14-15; citation omitted.)

The City obviously needs the jobs and revenue that its developing industrial park promises to provide. It has done yeoman work in attracting new industry to the complex, with at least three businesses already planning construction at the site. A convenient and direct connection between the industrial park and SR 99 crossing the railroad tracks is an important part of encouraging businesses to locate in the new industrial park.

However, the City also has the burden of convincing the Commission that in proposing a new at-grade crossing, it has explored all alternatives and adopted all available measures to be certain that the crossing will not increase risks of death and injury to the public. Testimony at hearing confirmed that California is among six states with the most public grade crossing accidents. Accident statistics maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration show that California, with 5% of the total at-grade crossings in the country, averaged 36 incidents involving fatalities and 53 injury accidents per year in highway-rail incidents during the period 2001 through 2004.3 (Ex. 4, at 5.) George L. Grochol, Union Pacific's manager of train operations for the area including Gridley, noted in his testimony that the average freight locomotive weighs between 140 and 210 tons and that it takes a 4,000-foot train traveling 40 miles per hour a distance equal to its length - 4,000 feet - to stop once the emergency brakes are applied. He testified that an engineer can do everything right and not avoid a crossing accident.

The proximity of Gridley's proposed crossing and its existing West Liberty crossing, and the undesirable queuing conditions that already exist at West Liberty, present safety concerns that this Commission must acknowledge. We believe that the City can and should do more in addressing and resolving these safety concerns. Accordingly, we will at this time deny the application for construction of the new crossing, without prejudice to the City refiling the application with additional data and alternative measures to assuage the very real safety issues that have been raised in this proceeding. We approve the City's plan to close the Laurel Street crossing.

At a minimum, a new filing by the City should (i) explore the possibility of public or other funding of a grade-separated crossing at the industrial park; (ii) determine the feasibility of a detour of West Liberty traffic through the park in a manner suggested by Attachment A; (iii) reexamine the CalTrans recommendation for signalization of the West Liberty Road intersection with SR 99 and realignment of West Liberty Road; (iv) compile and present traffic analyses for the West Liberty Road crossing that either contradict or support closure; and (v) consider widening the new Industrial Park Way to better control traffic and prevent dangerous queuing at peak hours.

2 The Blue Line Construction decision involved light rail transit system crossings rather than the high-speed freight and passenger rail line at issue here. The Commission's Rail Crossings Engineering Section takes the position that evidence supporting an at-grade crossing for a rail line must be much greater than that for a light-rail transit line.

3 Gridley has recorded four rail crossing accidents since 1979, including two fatalities in 1979 and 1997, and two non-injury accidents in 1978 and 1980.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page