Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (07/28/83)

decided: July 28, 1983.

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, PETITIONER
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT. LOYALSOCK TOWNSHIP ET AL., INTERVENORS



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in case of In Re: Application of Loyalsock Township for approval of the construction of a crossing, at grade, where a proposed bikeway will cross the tracks of Consolidated Rail Corporation at Service Road No. 4 in connection with State Highway Route 1073, Section 316, in Loyalsock Township, Lycoming County, No. A-00103370.

COUNSEL

Joel E. Mazor, for petitioner.

John J. Gallagher, Assistant Counsel, with him John B. Wilson, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Lester L. Greevy, Solicitor, with him Stephen Dittmann, Assistant Counsel, Herbert G. Zahn, Assistant Counsel, Ward T. Williams, Chief Counsel, and Jay C. Waldman, General Counsel, for intervenor.

Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 76 Pa. Commw. Page 26]

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) has petitioned for the review of an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission adopting the decision of

[ 76 Pa. Commw. Page 27]

    an Administrative Law Judge granting the application of Loyalsock Township, Lycoming County, for approval of the construction of a crossing, at grade, of Conrail's tracks for a bikeway. We affirm the Commission's order.

The bikeway is proposed to be seven miles in length. It would be four feet in width at the crossing of Conrail's tracks and at other places where it is not to be located on existing wider service roads. It is intended for the use of persons riding bicycles, other non-motorized vehicles and for pedestrians. Vehicles wider than four feet will be banned from the crossing by permanent barriers and motorized vehicles would be prohibited from using the bikeway by law, enforced by township authorities.

At the conclusion of the hearing conducted by the Administrative Law Judge, Conrail moved to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction of the Commission over the subject matter. The motion was overruled by the jury. The question of the Commission's jurisdiction was certified to the Commission, which, as noted, adopted the judge's ruling.

Conrail's authority for its contention that the Commission has no jurisdiction is Section 2702(a) of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. ยง 2702(a):

(a) General rule. -- No public utility, engaged in the transportation of passengers or property, shall, without prior order of the commission, construct its facilities across the facilities of any other such public utility or across any highway at grade or above or below grade, or at the same or different levels; and no highway, without like order shall be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.