Appeal, No. 36, Oct. T., 1957, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, August 7, 1956, Docket No. 81516, in case of New York Central Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Decision affirmed.
Paul W. Reeder, with him Furst, McCormick, Muir & Lynn, for appellant.
William A. Donaher, Assistant Counsel, with him Jack F. Aschinger, Assistant Counsel, and Thomas M. Kerrigan, Acting Counsel, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 184 Pa. Super. Page 611]
This is an appeal by The New York Central Railroad Company from an order of the Commission, in which the Commission directed that the railroad company install automatically operated flashing-light railroad crossing warning signals, in lieu of existing automatically operated crossing warning bells, and allocated
[ 184 Pa. Super. Page 61250]
% of the costs incurred in the installation upon the railroad company.
The order of the Commission, dated June 13, 1955, approved the Application of the Department of Highways of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to alter the crossings, at grade, where State Highway Route 41022 is crossed by a track of The New York Central Railroad Company in Brown Township, Lycoming County. The order of the Commission insofar as it relates to this appeal required the railroad company to remove an existing warning bell and control apparatus and to install automatically operated flashing-light signals. The costs thereof were to be borne equally by the Department of Highways and The New York Central Railroad Company.
The appellant contends that the decision of the Commission was unreasonable, and an abuse of administrative discretion, and further that the Commission failed to make findings of fact sufficient under the law.
We cannot agree with these contentions. By order, dated August 7, 1956, the Commission denied the petition, dated August 26, 1955, for modification of the Commission's order issued on June 13, 1955, in this proceeding. The Commission stated that "Although the record shows that there are only 89 vehicular movements daily on the existing highway and that certain siding tracks of the railroad company have been removed from within the vicinity of the crossing since the date of the issuance of our prior order, we are of the opinion that the restricted sight distances at the crossing constitute a hazard and that the ...