REED.docx

August 27, 1996
Scott W. Reed
PO Box A
Coeur d’Alene, ID 83816
RE: Railroad Crossing Closure
Dear Scott:
In your letter of July 26, 1996, you inquired whether the Idaho Public Utilities Commission should resolve a dispute regarding the closure of a railroad grade crossing.  The crossing in question runs from the “old” US Highway 95, across the Union Pacific rail line, and intersects with the “new” US 95.    After reviewing the materials you have provided and pertinent provisions of the Idaho Code, I do not believe the Commission has the authority to resolve this crossing dispute.
The Commission’s jurisdiction over this dispute hinges upon whether the crossing is a “public” crossing or a “private” crossing.  Title 62, Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code generally provides that the Commission is vested with the authority to resolve disputes between railroads and “public highway authorities” concerning the elimination, construction or maintenance of a railroad grade crossing.  The statutes in this chapter generally refer to “state highways [and] other public street, road or highway.”  Idaho Code § 62-305 (emphasis added).  Reading these statutes together, the Commission’s authority to hear disputes involving the closure of railroad crossings is limited to public crossings, not private crossings.
During the last ten years, the Commission has only had one case involving the disputed closing of a railroad grade crossing.  In Case No. R-2004-6, a business owner objected to the closure of a public street maintained by the City of Ponderay that crossed a Union Pacific rail line at the Bonner Mall.  In that case, the Commission adjudicated the “public” dispute between the City and Union Pacific.
In summary, it is my opinion that the Public Utilities Commission does not have the requisite jurisdiction to resolve this crossing dispute.
Sincerely,
Donald L.  Howell, II
Deputy Attorney General
DLH/vld
cc:Steve Parry
Ron Law
SCOTT W.  REED
PO BOX A
COEUR D’ALENE, ID 83816