Appeal from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. A93067, in case of Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et al.
Edward L. Springer, with him Louis M. Tarasi, Jr., and Burgwin, Ruffin, Perry, Pohl & Springer, for Port Authority, appellant.
Anthony L. Marino, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph C. Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.
Thomas S. White, Assistant City Solicitor, and David Stahl, City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh, intervening appellee.
Donald A. Brinkworth, for Pennsylvania Railroad Company, intervening appellee.
Gilbert E. Morcroft, for Borough of Crafton, intervening appellee.
William D. Sutton, with him Harry H. Frank, and Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, and McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for Pittsburgh Railways Company, intervening appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Ervin, P. J.
This is an appeal by the Port Authority of Allegheny County from the order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, dated October 24, 1966, granting the application of Pittsburgh Railways Company (Railways) to be relieved of the obligation to maintain the present Black's Bridge, carrying Crafton Blvd. across two tracks of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and directing the Authority to maintain the bridge until further order of the commission.
The present appeal follows our decision in Allegheny Co. Port Authority v. Pa. P. U. C., 207 Pa. Superior Ct. 299, 217 A.2d 810 (March 24, 1966), wherein the commission at A.86350 apportioned the cost of a new bridge at the Black's Bridge crossing, directing that Railways and the Authority pay 30%, jointly, of such costs. Reversing the commission and remanding for further proceedings, we there stated, at pages 310
and 311: ". . . whether or not the Authority acquired rights and succeeded to liabilities as to Black's Bridge crossing, does not appear clearly of record in these proceedings. . . . Undoubtedly the Commission has jurisdiction and power, in a proper case, to assess the Authority for costs in rail-highway crossing proceedings, under §§ 409 and 411 of the Act. . . . The consistent refusal of the Commission at the May 8, 1964 hearings to allow the Authority to present evidence as to whether the Authority acquired any rights or obligations as to this crossing, was error." On April 26, 1966 Railways filed its petition at A.86350 with the commission requesting that future maintenance of the present Black's Bridge be transferred to the ...