8. Assignment of Proceeding
Susan P. Kennedy is the Assigned Commissioner4 and Glen Walker is the ALJ in this proceeding.
1. Notice of the application was published in the Commission Daily Calendar on March 17, 2004.
2. Union Pacific on March 26, 2004, filed a timely protest to the application.
3. The City seeks authority to construct a new at-grade crossing of Union Pacific tracks on a roadway serving a developing Gridley Industrial Center.
4. The Gridley Industrial Center has the promise of providing 800 to 1,000 new jobs in this economically depressed rural community.
5. In exchange for the new at-grade crossing, the City proposes to close an existing crossing at Laurel Street.
6. The new crossing at buildout will serve an average of 5,000 vehicles daily, while the Laurel Street crossing serves 700 vehicles daily.
7. The proposed at-grade crossing will traverse the mainline of Union Pacific tracks that, on average, carries 18 freight trains per day, one local train operating six days a week, and two daily Amtrak passenger trains.
8. For cost reasons, the City has rejected the recommendations of CalTrans to either close a nearby West Liberty Road crossing or to signalize and realign it to mitigate queuing problems.
9. The City has not seriously considered a grade-separated crossing at the new industrial park because the cost ($15 to $20 million) far exceeds the cost of an at-grade crossing ($250,000 to $500,000).
10. The City has not explored the possibility of state or federal funding for a grade-separated crossing at the new industrial park.
11. The City is the CEQA lead agency for the project.
12. The Commission is a responsible agency for the project under CEQA.
13. The Commission does not at this time state its concurrence with the City's Negative Declaration under CEQA.
1. Commission approval of new rail crossings in this state is required by Pub. Util. Code §§ 1201 through 1205.
2. A proponent of a new at-grade crossing over mainline railroad tracks has a heavy burden because of the inherent safety hazards created by roadway-railway crossings.
3. A proponent of an at-grade crossing must show that a grade-separated crossing is "impracticable."
4. The Commission will give consideration to the cost of a grade-separated crossing provided, among other things, an applicant shows that it has made every effort to secure funds for such a crossing and makes a convincing showing that its at-grade proposal eliminates all potential safety hazards.
5. The City has not met its burden of showing that a grade-separated crossing at the new industrial park is impracticable and that public convenience and necessity absolutely require the type of crossing proposed.
6. The application for construction of the new crossing should be denied, without prejudice to a subsequent filing by the City with additional data and alternative measures to deal with the safety issues raised in this proceeding.
7. To the extent the Commission's approval is necessary, the request to close the lightly traveled Laurel Street crossing should be granted.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The application of the City of Gridley (the City) to construct a new at-grade crossing to serve the developing Gridley Industrial Park is denied.
2. To the extent the City seeks Commission authority to close the crossing at Laurel Street in Gridley, the application is granted.
3. The denial of authority to construct the new at-grade crossing is without prejudice to a new filing by the City that more compellingly addresses safety issues raised by the California Department of Transportation, Commission staff, and the Union Pacific Railroad Company.
4. Hearings are necessary for this proceeding.
5. Application 04-02-031 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated ____________________, at San Francisco, California.
4 This proceeding has been transferred to President Peevey.
