heusser_bp.doc

May 5, 1999

Honorable Jay B. Heusser
Mayor
City of Preston
70 W. Oneida
Preston, ID 83263

Dear Mayor Heusser:

This is in response to your letter to me dated April 22, 1999 in which you request an interpretation of Idaho Code § 62-306 pertaining to responsibility for maintaining railroad crossings. After having considered the matter, I offer you the following opinion which is that of my own and does not represent a formal ruling by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.

As your letter notes, Idaho Code § 62-306 pertains to the maintenance of railroad crossings. Specifically, that statute states

Whenever a state or county highway crosses or shall hereafter cross a railroad at grade, the railroad company shall at its own expense construct and maintain that portion of such highway between the rails for a distance of not less than two (2) feet outside the outer rails. The crossing shall be planked or surfaced with other suitable material for the full width of the traveled way, including shoulders, and shall be maintained at all times in a smooth and firm condition. Where a public agency having jurisdiction of the highway crossing the railroad wishes to have the crossing surfaced with material of higher quality, the public agency and the railroad company may agree that the railroad company install the material and that additional cost, over and above the cost of the railroad company’s standard installation, may be paid for by the public agency with public funds.

Your letter indicates that there are two or more crossings within your city that are of concern to you. First, you should determine for yourself whether those crossings fall within the purview of Idaho Code § 62-306.

Second, it is my opinion that Idaho Code § 62-306 does and was intended to apply to a “crossing” regardless of whether that crossing involves one or more railroad tracks. Where there exists double tracks at what otherwise constitutes a single crossing, it is my opinion that the railroad is responsible for maintaining the entire area within two feet of the outside of the two outer rails. To interpret the statute otherwise would defeat its clear intent and purpose. I believe that whether two railroad tracks crossing the same state or county highway constitute a single crossing must be determined based upon the facts and circumstances unique to each crossing. For instance, if there is a single set of signage and or lighting for the entire crossing, that would be indicative of a single crossing.

Moreover, I believe that there are practical considerations for why the railroad would want to assert its sole responsibility for maintaining crossings involving double tracks. For example, whenever it is necessary to perform routine maintenance or repairs to the roadway between the two sets of tracks, it would be necessary to do so in a manner that would not disrupt rail traffic and pose a threat to the safety of the workers and train crews. Not only that, but the work itself might physically alter the tracks themselves in a way that the railroad would deem unsuitable.

The Commission is empowered to resolve disputes pertaining to the maintenance of railroad crossings. Idaho Code § 62-308. It has been my experience, however, that these matters are often best resolved through a coordinated effort between the municipality or other governmental agency involved and the railroad in question. For example, the municipality might have resources available to it that it would be willing to offer the railroad to assist it in maintaining double track crossings. I urge you to keep this in mind when discussing this matter with the railroad company. I would be happy to be involved in any discussions or negotiations that you have with the railroad or to otherwise offer my assistance in any manner possible.

Very truly yours,

Ron Law
Executive Administrator

bls/L:heusser_bp.doc

Mayor Heusser
May 3, 1999
Page 2