COMMISSION WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, ) ) Petitioner, ) DOCKET NO. TR-961002 ) VOLUME 3 vs. ) Pages 147 - 414 ) BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE ) RAILROAD, ) ) Respondent. ) ----------------------------------) A hearing in the above matter was held on September 9, 1997 at 9:35 a.m., at 323 NE First Street, City Hall, Winlock, Washington, before Administrative Law Judge C. ROBERT WALLIS. The parties were present as follows: BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, by REXANNE GIBSON, Attorney at Law, 110 - 110th Avenue NE, Suite 607, Bellevue, Washington 98004. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, by DEBORAH L. CADE, Assistant Attorney General, 905 Plum Street, P.O. Box 40113, Olympia, Washington 98504. THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STAFF, by ANN E. RENDAHL, Assistant Attorney General, 1400 South Evergreen Park Drive Southwest, P.O. Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504. Cheryl Macdonald, CSR Court Reporter APPEARANCES (Cont'd.) THE CITY OF WINLOCK, by MARK C. SCHEIBMEIR, Attorney at Law, 299 NW Center Street, P.O. Box 939, Chehalis, Washington 98532. Š I N D E X WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT EXAM HAUG 161 179 190 MESFORD 194 198 199 STUDEMAN 204 219 227 SPJUT 230 240 SNAPP 241 247 255 253 FOULKE 256 259 263 BRADSHAW 271 313 MARKLEY 349 371 405 EXHIBITS: MARKED ADMITTED 10R 150 150 13 161 194 14 161 194 15 161 194 16 193 203 17 203 229 18 269 269 19 270 270 20 280 280 21 350 408 22 352 412 P R O C E E D I N G S JUDGE WALLIS: Let's be on the record for our September 9 session in the matter of docket No. TR-961002. We are convened in Winlock, Washington pursuant to notice. By way of preliminary matters, I understand that there's been agreement as to a revision to Exhibit 10; is that correct? MS. GIBSON: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Scheibmeir and I have reached agreement on the admissibility of Exhibit 10 as modified, and I have given you copies of that. JUDGE WALLIS: So that the record is straight I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 10R for revision and we will admit Exhibit 10R, and we will note that Exhibit 10 original is withdrawn; is that correct? (Marked and Admitted Exhibit 10R.) MS. GIBSON: That's right. JUDGE WALLIS: Okay. And the Department of Transportation has concluded its presentation; is that correct? MS. CADE: That's correct. JUDGE WALLIS: And we're ready to take up this morning with Burlington Northern Santa Fe. MS. CADE: I would briefly like to point out, though, that there may be a rebuttal witness that the department plans to call. JUDGE WALLIS: That's understood. Before we do so we had earlier agreed that if there were opening statements that counsel would like to present them this morning. Is that still the case apart from Ms. Cade did present hers yesterday? MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Fine. Do you wish me to -- JUDGE WALLIS: Why don't we start with the railroad and then the city and then the Commission staff. MS. GIBSON: Well, Your Honor, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company supports the position of the DOT in this matter to close the Walnut Street crossing because of the inherent danger of that crossing, also taking into consideration the federal mandate to consolidate or eliminate at least 25 percent of the crossings nationwide and obviously that includes in this area as well. Historically, the track here was laid by the Northern Pacific which is a predecessor railroad of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe in 1872. The town then built up as a logging town around the railroad track. Records of the accident history have just been kept since the 1940s, but in reviewing those -- and these are going to be presented to the court as a WUTC staff exhibit -- in reviewing those records we find that there have been between two and five accidents at the Walnut Street crossing every decade. Now, so far in the 1990s, I believe there's only been one, but history would tell us, and statistics would tell us, that there are probably more waiting to happen this decade. It makes much more sense to close the Walnut Street crossing given the factors, the dangerous factors associated with that crossing, and consolidate it with the Fir Street crossing along with making the improvements to Front Street that will benefit this community in spite of the resistance to change. This community has a goal of improving its roads and improving sidewalks in the area, and the Front Street program would include widening the road substantially and adding a new sidewalk for the entire three blocks, or I think it's a one-tenth of a mile between Walnut Street and Fir Street. The closure would also be consistent with statutory requirements in this state, referencing RCW 81.53.060, which requires that closure occur when the public convenience and need do not outweigh the danger of the crossing remaining open. Under the circumstances presented in this case we believe that the danger in the crossing remaining open is not outweighed by the public convenience and need in this community. We will be presenting five witnesses. First, Mr. Haug, Glen Haug, from the engineering department of Burlington Northern Santa Fe. He will give some background on the track here, the crossings, and indicate why he is of the opinion that the closure sought is the best option available here in this town. Next I will call Dan Mesford, the roadmaster responsible for maintenance and repair of the track in this area. Then Ken Studeman. He's a conductor for the Union Pacific. He has worked a job which brings him to Winlock on almost a daily basis since, well, about a year and a half now, so he will talk about the kinds of switching activities that the Union Pacific performs here. Next I will call his supervisor Roger Spjut, who will testify to the enforcement of safety rules including rules against blocking crossings that the Union Pacific uses in supervising its crews, and last, Dan Snapp who is Mr. Spjut's counterpart for Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Longview Switching Company regarding supervision of Burlington Northern crews using the crossings in this area and the kinds of switching maneuvers that they do here. So that's what we would plan for today. JUDGE WALLIS: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Scheibmeir. MR. SCHEIBMEIR: Thank you. Winlock is one of the oldest cities in the state of Washington. Actually it may be the oldest city in the state of Washington. Walnut crossing was created at the very time the city was platted. That was 125-plus years ago making the Walnut Street railroad crossing the oldest if not one of the -- one of the oldest if not the oldest railroad crossing not only in the state but in the entire northwest. Not surprisingly, the town of Winlock, now the city of Winlock, grew up and from that Walnut Street crossing growing in each direction from it so now the Walnut Street crossing constitutes the hub of this wheel, so to speak. The city is equally divided by the railroad lines that emanate from the Walnut Street crossing so that one half of the city of Winlock lies to the west of these railroad tracks and an equal one half lies to the east of the railroad tracks. This creates a dichotomy of services and locations which rely and are entirely dependent upon those railroad crossings because of the unique history to our town so that we have a situation where the city -- Winlock city hall is located on the east side of the tracks; the city fire station is located on the west side of the tracks. The city police station is located on the east side of the tracks; the ambulance service is on the west side of the tracks. Senior housing is located on the east side of the tracks; the senior center is located on the west side of the tracks. The high school is located on the east side of the tracks; the grade school is located on the west side of the tracks. Post office, banks and downtown are located on the east side of the tracks; many residential neighborhoods who walk to those services are located on the west side of the tracks. Highway 505 and Interstate 5 are located on the east side of the tracks; what is commonly referred to as SR 603, now Kerron Street, the connecting highway, is located on the west side of the tracks, and in fact it is the Walnut Street interchange that forms the connecting point between these two major forms of transportation. The cemetery is located on the east side of the tracks; the funeral home is located on the west side of the tracks. In short, to sever Walnut Street would be to sever the town entirely. As testified to yesterday, the proposal to close Walnut Street would impact -- impart a 400 percent increase in traffic on the only other remaining viable crossing, that is Fir Street. There would be a fourfold increase in vehicle traffic. There would be a much greater increase in truck traffic. There would be at least a tripling in school bus traffic. There would be literally hundreds of log trucks diverted to this interchange daily, and all of this would forever alter and impair the flow of traffic in and through both the town of Winlock and its downtown core. Unexpectedly, we learned yesterday that not only does the Department of Transportation propose to close Walnut Street but it then intends to give up its responsibilities altogether. This is entirely new information not previously imparted upon the city of Winlock. It was never known that the state then intended to abandon the roads it proposed to impair and leave those to the city for once and forever to maintain thereafter. In city talk that's called an unfunded mandate where someone else tells the city how it's to spend its monies. No proposals have been provided to maintain that road nor to provide for the constant maintenance of what will obviously be a major arterial as proposed. Furthermore, the more recent proposed designs, which the city was never contacted about nor asked to be a part of, now take away all of the parking that was proposed on the west side of that proposed new arterial for the existing 25 parking spaces and would be forever lost, parking spaces that are instrumental to the downtown core. Furthermore, we learned yesterday that the design for this roadway is purely conceptual, that it's at least a year away from any real design. There has been no traffic analysis performed for that proposed road so we're asked to consider an alternate -- alternative that hasn't even begun to be evaluated or designed. We have done our own traffic analysis and that analysis finds that this is a poorly conceived idea. More so than the questions of unfunded mandates, more so than the questions of incredibly complex and burdensome traffic is the question of life and death safety. Mr. Schultz couldn't have said it better yesterday when he indicated that this issue is not about money, it's about life and death and you can't put values or dollars on the safety of an individual. The city of Winlock couldn't agree more. DOT and Burlington Northern are fretting over the potential expenditure of $2 million for a permanent fix to what has been a problem for 125 years, yet at the same time without Walnut Street our witnesses will testify that houses and buildings will burn that would otherwise not have burned; that heart attack and stroke victims will die that otherwise would not have died; that accident victims will bleed to death that otherwise would have lived; that evacuation needs will not be available that currently are; and that pedestrians who now have access to cross tracks will be denied access. In every possible way which personal safety is an issue the safety of the citizens of Winlock will be impaired. To explain all of that we intend to present roughly 10 witnesses. There has been some slight modification along the way of our witness list trying to consolidate where we can, but we will have the mayor of Winlock provide us with the history of the town, how all of this impacts it from a global perspective. We will have a representative from M and M Transport, Brian Wentzel, the operations manager, to testify as to the effect of a closure upon trucking traffic. It's interesting that it was Mr. Wentzel's company whose truck did stick on the road a decade ago.Š We have an expert in traffic analysis, David Markley, coming from Seattle area to speak to traffic analysis. We have Bill Lotto, a qualified expert in economics who is also the director of the Lewis County Economic Development Council speaking to the significant impact upon economic development by this proposed closure. We have the police chief, Chief McPherson, speaking to police and public safety issues relating to this proposal. We have Randy Pennington who is -- wears at least five different hats. He is a professional truck driver. He is a certified ambulance operator. He is a paramedic, he is a police officer, and he is a firefighter, and he will speak to all of those areas of emergency services and the extraordinary impact all will face by this proposed closure. Nita Millman is the director of the Olequa Senior Citizens Center and will speak to the impact on senior citizens. Denny McNelly is a business person who is president of the South County Chamber of Commerce and will speak to business-related issues. Fred Stanley is the superintendent of the school bus delivery system for the community of Winlock and outlying areas and will speak to the impact upon school children delivery, if you wish to call it that, or school bus routes. Auti Desmarais operates the local post office and will speak to the impact upon postal service, and we may or may not have testimony from city council members at the conclusion of that, so as all of that I think will show very clearly, yes, you can't measure this analysis in terms of the cost of repair. You have to measure it in terms of human lives and what we really have here is an enormous impact upon the local human life. JUDGE WALLIS: Thank you. For Commission staff. MS. RENDAHL: Very briefly, Your Honor. It's staff's position and it's basically the rule in the state that all highway and railway grade crossings are inherently dangerous, and that the test for considering whether to close a crossing is that whether the public convenience and necessity outweigh the danger of keeping the crossing open. Along that line Commission staff is concerned about safety at the Walnut Street crossing, and after considering the appropriate factors such as the amount and type of travel at the crossing, whether there are alternate crossings, and whether the alternative crossings are less hazardous, the effect of the closure on the alternate crossing and any effect of the closure on public safety including fire and police services, staff will make a recommendation. In particular, staff will make a recommendation after considering the testimony and evidence presented by the Washington state DOT, the railroad, the city and the public witnesses. That's all I have to say at this point. JUDGE WALLIS: Very well. Thank you all very much. Let's proceed then and ask our first witness to come forward. I believe that's Mr. Haug. As Mr. Haug steps forward I will note that there have been prefiled three exhibits for his presentation: GH-1, a crossing inventory; GH-2, profile; and GH-3, cost estimate, and I will mark those as Exhibits 13, 14 and 15 respectively. (Marked Exhibits 13, 14 and 15.) Whereupon, GLEN HAUG, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. GIBSON: Q. Would you please say your full name for the record, please. A. My name is Glen E. Haug. My first name is spelled with one N. My last name is H A U G. Q. And your occupation, Mr. Haug? A. I am construction engineer for Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad. I'm headquartered in Seattle. Q. What are your duties in that position? A. My primary function is as project manager for large projects. My specific territory assigned is the corridor between Vancouver B. C. and Portland, Oregon. Q. What is your educational background? A. I have a degree in construction science from the University of Nebraska. Q. And when did you obtain that degree? A. In 1970. Q. How long have you worked for Burlington Northern? A. For 26 years. Q. Have you done any research regarding the date that the track was laid here in Winlock? A. Yes, briefly. Q. And what did that indicate? A. Our condensed profiles indicate that the track was first built through Winlock in 1872. Q. And what railroad was it that built the track at that time? A. The Northern Pacific Railway. Q. What is the current ownership of the track that runs through the city of Winlock? A. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway. Q. Does the Burlington Northern Santa Fe operate the track under any sort of a joint operating agreement? A. Yes, we do. Q. And who is that? With what other railroad is that with? A. The Union Pacific Railroad and Amtrak also uses the track. Q. And so does that mean -- well, what does that mean in terms of which railroad takes care of the maintenance and repair of the track? A. That's the Burlington Northern railroad. Q. Handing you then what has been marked Exhibit 13, can you identify what that is? A. Yes. Q. What is it? A. It is a U.S. Department of Transportation AAR crossing inventory form for the crossings at Fir Street and Walnut Street and the city of Winlock. Q. The first page then pertains to Fir Street crossing? A. Yes. Q. Do you know how these documents are compiled? A. I believe that they're compiled by our public works department. Q. And is that in conjunction with someone else? A. Yes. Q. Who else is active in compiling the information as seen on these reports? A. Mike Cowles of our engineering office in Seattle. Q. Now, on Exhibit 13 does it indicate for Fir Street what the milepost is? A. Yes. Q. What does it say there? Š A. It's milepost 71.293. Q. And on the second page of Exhibit 13 for the Walnut Street crossing what is the milepost that's indicated? A. 71.438. Q. And so does that mean that the two crossings are roughly, what, .14 mile apart? A. That's correct. Q. Looking at the first page again, the page pertaining to Fir Street of Exhibit 13, down under part Roman numeral II, No. 6, it indicates the warning devices that are located at the crossing. Do you see any things that are reported there incorrectly vis-a-vis the devices that are present at the Fir Street crossing today? A. Yes, I do. Q. What would that be? A. The information on this form indicates that there's no cantilevered flashing lights over the traffic lane, and there are cantilevered flashing lights over the traffic lane on both sides of the crossing. Q. What other warning devices are located at the Fir Street crossing? A. The crossing is equipped with gates, flashing lights and bells. Q. And to your knowledge is that state-of-the-art equipment? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what the signalization circuitry is at Fir Street crossing? A. I believe so. It's what I think we commonly refer to as the constant warning circuitry. Q. Would you explain what that is? A. It's circuitry that's designed to provide a constant minimum warning time at the crossing regardless of train speed. Q. And what sort of warning time is it designed to give to people who are using the crossing? A. I believe the standard calls for a minimum of 20 seconds. Q. And so if you have a train that is approaching at 50 miles per hour what kind of warning is provided to the users of the crossing? A. 20 seconds. Q. And if you have, let's say, switching activities that are being performed in the vicinity and you have a rail car that is moving less than five miles an hour toward the crossing, what kind of warning time are the users of the crossing going to be given in that situation? A. It still should be approximately 20 seconds. Q. And then I would like to hand you -- actually I'm going to ask you with the judge's permission to move over to the exhibit that we have on the easel which is a larger copy of Exhibit 14. MS. GIBSON: May the witness do that? JUDGE WALLIS: Yes. Q. Here are three copies. I have highlighted some of the roads that weren't on the original so I gave it to you. Would you identify Exhibit 14 for us, please, tell us what it is. A. Yes. This is a blow-up picture of a portion of the railroad's track profile through the town of Winlock. It covers the area roughly between milepost 71 and milepost 72. Q. And we've highlighted the milepost. Can you just point those out using that pointer that's there on the easel. A. In the upper right-hand corner milepost 71 is highlighted in blue and milepost 72 is in the upper left-hand corner and it's highlighted in green. Q. And the green marking at the far left of Exhibit 14, what does that designate? A. The green marking at the far left is the Campbell Avenue crossing. Q. So that's just beyond milepost 723? A. Yes. Q. And then the yellow marking designates what street? A. The yellow marking designates the Walnut Street crossing. Q. And the blue marking? A. The blue marking designates the Fir Street crossing. Q. Is the siding track shown on Exhibit 14? A. Yes, it is. Q. And can you point out where that is? A. The siding track is designated by this line (indicating). The south end of the siding is directly north of the Fir Street crossing, and then the siding is on the west side of the two main lines and proceeds north up to the north switch which is really not shown on the map. Q. And just above the siding track, then, it's written 1,147 foot private track? Is that what that says? A. That designation is on the drawing, but that particular figure does not refer to the siding. Q. But just in terms of identifying the siding, it is the line directly under that writing; is that right? A. Well, there are actually two sidings. This track is the private track, but the siding is actually this line which diverges from the main line right in this area south of milepost 71, but at the milepost and north thereof it converges on the main lines and is normal track centers to the main line. Q. Just for the record, how does one looking at this exhibit identify the main line tracks? Can you describe what they look like on Exhibit 14? A. Well, I hope it's clear. The main lines are a little darker line than the side tracks and so the main lines are represented by these two lines that are darker. They're actually a thicker line than the side tracks. Q. You can take your seat again. Thank you. Mr. Haug, do you know whether Burlington Northern has raised the elevation of the track in any significant manner over the years? A. I don't know that they have, no. Q. Do you know that they have not raised the level? A. I don't know necessarily that they haven't raised it a little bit. They haven't raised it to any dramatic level to speak of. Q. When you say "a little bit," what do you have in mind? A. A few inches. Q. And how do you know this? Š A. I based it primarily on visual observation at the crossing and of the surrounding railroad facilities in the vicinity of the crossing. Q. And was your visual observation the result of your years of experience with the railroad? A. Yes. Q. And what is it that you see that leads you to believe that the track has not been elevated more than a few inches? A. The surrounding area, particularly at the depot area, appears to be the ground level. At the tracks appears to be relatively at the same elevation with the depot platform, which from photographs and recollections of the time that I've spent out here appears to be the same. Q. What is the classification of the track that runs through Winlock, the main line track? A. It's classified as FRA class 4. Q. What does that mean to have a particular classification for track? A. Track is classified by FRA, and the speed of the railroad traffic over the track and the level of maintenance is determined by the track class. Q. So you say it's class 4 track. What is the maximum permissible speed for that classification? A. For class 4 the maximum permissible speeds are 79 miles per hour for passenger trains and 60 miles per hour for freight trains. Q. And does the Burlington Northern Santa Fe timetable set a different speed for passenger and freight trains? A. At Winlock it does, yes. Q. And what are those speeds here? A. 50 miles an hour for passenger and 50 miles an hour for freight trains. Q. Have you had the opportunity to observe the Fir Street and Walnut Street crossings and approaching? A. Yes. Q. Based on your engineering background and the observations that you've made of those areas, would you now compare and contrast the Fir Street crossing and approach with the Walnut Street crossing and approach? A. Yes. The Fir Street crossing and approach on the west side of the tracks is at a much flatter profile than the Walnut Street crossing and the location of the tracks with respect to the intersection of either Fir Street or Walnut Street with Kerron Avenue is a greater distance at Fir Street than it is at Walnut Street. Q. Which approach and crossing do you feel is better from an engineering perspective? A. I believe the Fir Street crossing is better. Q. And is that because, as you've said, the Fir Street has a flatter profile and a better location relative to Kerron Avenue? A. Yes. Q. Can you describe in a little more detail how the flatter profile and the location adjacent to Kerron make it a better crossing, in your opinion? A. Well, the flatter profile reduces the possibility that vehicles that have low clearance would get hung up on the crossing, and it also provides more space between the signals, the crossing, and Kerron Avenue for queuing the vehicles that would be parked between the railroad tracks and Kerron Avenue. Q. What do you see as the primary hazard of the Walnut Street crossing? A. I would say the profile of the approach on the west side plus the lack of queuing space. Q. And would you say that both of those circumstances are lessened at the Fir Street crossing? A. They are lessened? I would say they're preferable at the Fir Street crossing. Q. Now, there was testimony yesterday -- And you were present at the hearing yesterday, were you not? A. Yes, I was. Q. -- regarding the alternatives that had been considered in lieu of closing the Walnut Street crossing. Were you involved in the discussions about the different alternatives that might have been available? A. Yes, I was involved in some of the discussions. Q. What did those conclude? A. They asked -- I think both the state and the state's consultant asked the railroad for input on the possibility of lowering the tracks at Walnut Street, and the railroad provided certain information to the state and to the consultant. Q. Were you ever present at any meetings with city representatives? A. Not that I am aware of. Q. The alternatives that were testified to yesterday were first closing Walnut Street and making some modifications to Front Street; number two, raising Kerron five feet; number three, lowering the Walnut Street, the track at Walnut and closing Fir Street; and four, straightening the track. To begin with number three, that alternative of lowering the track at Walnut and closing Fir, were you involved in generating a cost estimate for that, for the portion of lowering the track for that? A. I am aware of the cost estimate. I didn't request the cost estimate, but I am aware that it was requested from our estimating department, yes. Q. And showing you what we've marked as Exhibit 15, is that the cost estimate that was generated at Burlington Northern? A. Yes, it is. Q. Do you know how this was made or how it came to be made? A. I understand that it was -- all estimates are generated by our estimating depa