Opinion
No. 34805
Decided January 23, 1957.
Railroads — Grade crossings within municipal corporation — Flasher lights and short-arm gates — Installation ordered by Public Utilities Commission — Order not unlawful or unreasonable — Court will not substitute its judgment for that of commission, when.
APPEAL from the Public Utilities Commission.
A proceeding was instituted before the appellee Public Utilities Commission by the filing by the city of Galion of a resolution requesting the appellant railroad company to replace in that city the present gates and warning signals at the Harding Way East Street crossing with electric manually operated half-gates, pedestrian crossing gates and electric flasher signals, and to install electric flashers at the Sherman Street and Pershing Avenue crossings.
A hearing was had before an attorney examiner of the commission, at which much testimony was taken and many exhibits presented on behalf of both the city and the railroad. Based on the evidence presented, the examiner recommended that the commission should order the railroad company to replace its pneumatically operated gates at the Harding Way East Street crossing with electric manually operated half-gates and sidewalk gates and to install automatic flasher-light signals; to install automatic flasher-light signals at the Sherman Street crossing; and to order a period of time within which the railroad may make certain changes in the physical features causing visual obstruction at the Pershing Avenue crossing, after which time the commission should set the matter for further hearing.
The commission, on final consideration, overruled the railroad's exceptions to the examiner's report and ordered the railroad to install electric automatic flasher-light signals at the Sherman Street and Pershing Avenue crossings; to install electric manually operated flasher-light signals at the Harding Way East Street crossing; and to remove the pneumatic manually operated highway and sidewalk gates at the Harding crossing and install in their place electric manually operated highway half-gates and sidewalk gates to operate simultaneously.
An appeal from the order of the commission brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. W.A. Wilkinson and Mr. A.C. Russell, for appellant.
Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, Mr. Paul Tague, Jr., and Mr. Ralph N. Mahaffey, for appellee.
The Harding Way East Street crossing is located just east of the center of the city's business district and embraces two main tracks and two sidetracks. The crossing is protected by pneumatic manually controlled gates to each of which three electric lights to illuminate the gates are attached. The gateman operates the gates from a tower. As disclosed by the exhibits, buildings located on two corners of the intersection interfere with a clear view of the tracks. A 12-hour traffic check disclosed that 5,504 vehicles, 1,098 pedestrians, 17 through trains and 24 switching trains passed over the crossing. The speed of westbound trains at this crossing is one or two miles an hour and that of eastbound trains is 10 to 20 miles an hour.
The Sherman Street crossing, located in the northern part of the city, embraces two main tracks and one sidetrack, intersecting the street at an angle. Buildings, a mound of earth and trees interfere with clear visibility of the tracks. A 12-hour traffic check disclosed that 997 vehicles, 48 pedestrians and 21 trains passed over the crossing. Train speed at the crossing is limited to 30 miles an hour.
The Pershing Street crossing, located in the southern part of the city, embraces a single main track. The speed of eastbound trains at this crossing is limited to 30 miles an hour and westbound to 20 miles an hour. In the approach to this crossing from the west, visibility of the tracks to the north is obstructed by an industrial plant, overhead crane and wire fence. A 12-hour traffic check disclosed that 243 vehicles, 104 pedestrians and 13 trains traversed the crossing.
The commission, in its order, determined all three crossings to be dangerous. Ordinarily, this court will not substitute its judgment on questions of fact for that of the commission. It does not appear from an examination of the record that the order of the commission is against the manifest weight of the evidence or is otherwise unlawful or unreasonable. The order is, therefore, affirmed. Baltimore Ohio Rd. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 156 Ohio St. 282, 102 N.E.2d 246.
Order affirmed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HERBERT, JJ., concur.