Court Opinion

ID: 9946794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 15:21:47.227366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:41.157428
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.,    :
                   Petitioner           :
                                        :
            v.                          :
                                        :
Pennsylvania Public Utility             :
Commission,                             :   No. 489 C.D. 2023
                  Respondent            :   Argued: December 4, 2023

BEFORE:     HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
            HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                         FILED: March 1, 2024

            Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. (BPRR) petitions this Court for
review of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s (Commission) April 20,
2023 opinion and order (Opinion and Order) requiring BPRR to remove three
railroad bridge structures in Knox Township (Township), Jefferson County
(County), Pennsylvania. BPRR presents four issues for this Court’s review: (1)
whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s decision; (2) whether the
Commission arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded competent testimony and
relevant evidence; (3) whether the Commission improperly relied upon the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) Design Manual Part 2,
Highway Design (PennDOT Publication 13M) (Design Manual) despite competent
testimony from BPRR’s professional traffic engineer that the Design Manual does
not apply to existing structures; and (4) whether the Commission improperly applied
its holding in Mahoning Township v. Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.,
Commission Docket No. C-2017-2585787, filed Aug. 2, 2018 (Putneyville
Crossing). After review, this Court affirms.
               BPRR operated a railroad line through the Township and maintained
the attendant rights-of-way thereto. Ramsaytown Road (T-841), East Bellport Road
(T-405), and Harriger Hollow Road (T-420) crossed BPRR’s rights-of-way
(collectively, the Crossings). The Ramsaytown Road and East Bellport Road
Crossings consist of concrete arch structures over which the railroad tracks ran. The
Harriger Hollow Road Crossing had been the location of a steel girder single-span
bridge structure with concrete abutments. BPRR abandoned the railroad line in 2005
or 2006 and salvaged the track at the Crossings. BPRR also removed the steel
superstructure at the Harriger Hollow Road Crossing.
               On April 10, 2019, after receiving complaints from Township residents
of falling concrete, and in light of concerns regarding dangers from the concrete
abutments’ presence where the roadways narrow at the Crossings and run between
the concrete abutments, the Township filed a Complaint with the Commission
seeking the removal of the Crossings.1

      1
          Section 2702(c) of the Public Utility Code provides:
               Upon its own motion or upon complaint, the [C]ommission shall
               have exclusive power after hearing, upon notice to all parties in
               interest, including the owners of adjacent property, to order any such
               crossing heretofore or hereafter constructed to be relocated or
               altered, or to be suspended or abolished upon such reasonable
               terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by the
               [C]ommission. In determining the plans and specifications for any
               such crossing, the [C]ommission may lay out, establish, and open
               such new highways as, in its opinion, may be necessary to connect
               such crossing with any existing highway, or make such crossing
               more available to public use; and may abandon or vacate such
               highways or portions of highways as, in the opinion of the
               [C]ommission, may be rendered unnecessary for public use by the
               construction, relocation, or abandonment of any of such crossings.

                                                 2
              On June 14, 2019, the Commission’s Rail Safety Division (Division)
convened a field conference at the Crossings sites, which the Division’s Senior Civil
Engineer Manager, William M. Sinick, P.E. (Sinick), and representatives of the
Township, the County, Brookville Borough, BPRR, and PennDOT attended. During
the field conference, the parties discussed the Crossings’ conditions. For public
safety reasons, the parties agreed to mitigation measures for each Crossing site.
              On September 10, 2019, the Commission served a Secretarial Letter
(September 2019 Secretarial Letter) on the parties that memorialized the parties’
observations, identified safety issues, and directed the parties to perform interim
remedial safety work at the Crossings. See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 27a-32a.
Pursuant to the September 2019 Secretarial Letter, the Township was required to (1)
furnish and install advance warning signs for the vertical clearance restrictions at
each Crossing; (2) furnish low clearance overhead signs which BPRR would install
on each structure; (3) furnish and install advanced warning signs and an advisory
speed placard for the horizontal clearance restriction at the Ramsaytown Road
Crossing; (4) furnish and install roadway clearance markers at the edge of the
abutments and arch end walls at each Crossing; and (5) establish and maintain any
detours or traffic controls that may be required during BPRR’s work. BPRR was
required to (1) install the low clearance overhead signs the Township provided; and,
(2) remove all loose and delaminated concrete and debris from the inside and outside
of the concrete arch supports at Ramsaytown Road and East Bellport Road, and
remove all material that had fallen into or adjacent to the roadways.

              The [C]ommission may order the work of construction, relocation,
              alteration, protection, suspension[,] or abolition of any crossing
              aforesaid to be performed in whole or in part by any public utility or
              municipal corporation concerned or by the Commonwealth or an
              established nonprofit organization with a recreational or
              conservation purpose.
66 Pa.C.S. § 2702(c) (emphasis added).
                                                3
               By letters dated December 13, 2019, and February 10, 2020, BPRR
informed the Commission that it had completed the work described in the September
2019 Secretarial Letter. On February 21, 2020, the parties held another field
conference. Following unsuccessful settlement negotiations, the Division requested
that the Commission refer the Complaint to the Office of Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) for hearing.
               On January 25, 2022, ALJ Mary D. Long (ALJ Long) held a telephonic
evidentiary hearing during which expert structural engineer Wayne Duffett, P.E.
(Duffett),2 expert traffic engineer Charles Wooster (Wooster), and Chad Boutet
(Boutet)3 testified for BPRR. In addition, Township Supervisor James M. Berry
(Berry) testified on the Township’s behalf, and Sinick testified for the Commission’s
Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (I&E). PennDOT witness Charles P.
Keilman, IV, P.E., also testified.4
               On June 24, 2022, ALJ Long issued a Recommended Decision
(Recommended Decision), wherein she proposed that the Commission grant the
Township’s Complaint and order BPRR to demolish the three Crossings “at its sole
cost and expense.” R.R. at 870a. BPRR filed Exceptions to the Recommended
Decision and I&E filed a reply to the Exceptions.

       2
           Duffett is a licensed professional engineer concentrating in structures and transportation.
He has been in practice since 1988 and has been devoted almost exclusively to railroad bridges.
BPRR has been his client for approximately 32 years. See R.R. at 99a.
         3
           Boutet is Director of Engineering Grants for the Northern Region Railroads of Genesee
& Wyoming, Inc., including BPRR.
         4
           Counsel for the County appeared, but he did not offer any exhibits or call any witnesses
to testify, and no one appeared on Brookville Borough’s behalf.
                                                  4
               On April 20, 2023, the Commission issued its Opinion and Order
denying BPRR’s Exceptions and adopting ALJ Long’s Recommended Decision.
Specifically, the Commission ordered:

               5. That the [Crossings] cross, below grade, the right[-]of[-
               ]way of [BPRR], in [the Township], shall be altered in
               accordance with the work ordered herein.
               6. That [BPRR], at its sole cost and expense, within nine
               (9) months of the date of service of the Commission’s
               [Opinion and] Order, shall furnish all material and perform
               all work necessary to alter the [Crossings] by: (1)
               demolishing and removing the existing railroad structures,
               which includes the reinforced concrete arch structures,
               reinforced concrete abutments, and/or bridge structure
               material, in their entirety from the public crossing
               locations and surrounding areas; (2) backfilling and
               grading the area thus disturbed; (3) providing 28-feet
               minimum of graded roadway and shoulder area between
               the embankments at Ramsaytown Road (T-841) before
               sloping the embankments behind the removed structures
               to a safe 2:1 grade; (4) providing a 24-feet minimum of
               graded roadway and shoulder area between the
               embankments at Harriger Hollow Road (T-420) and East
               Bellport Road (T-405) before sloping the embankments
               behind the removed structures to a safe 2:1 grade; and (5)
               grading and seeding the area thus disturbed on the
               embankments and surrounding areas to prevent soil
               erosion, all in safe and satisfactory condition.

Opinion and Order at 40. BPRR appealed to this Court.5, 6

       5
          “This Court’s review is limited to determining whether the Commission violated
constitutional rights, committed an error of law, rendered a decision that is not supported by
substantial evidence, or violated its rules of practice.” Romeo v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 154 A.3d
422, 427 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).
        6
          On July 11, 2023, BPRR filed a motion for stay in the Commission, which the
Commission denied on October 19, 2023. On October 31, 2023, BPRR filed an expedited
application for stay in this Court. On November 16, 2023, following argument on the application,
this Court granted the application for stay.
                                                5
               Initially,

               Section 2702 of the Public Utility Code[, 66 Pa.C.S. §
               2702,] vests the Commission with exclusive power to
               allocate costs and determine the manner in which a
               highway-rail crossing may be constructed, altered,
               relocated, suspended[,] or abolished. (Emphasis added.)
               See E[.] Rockhill T[wp.] v. P[a.] Pub[.] Util[.] Comm[’n],
               . . . 540 A.2d 600, 603 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1988). The
               Commission is not limited to any fixed rule, but may
               take into consideration all relevant factors, with the
               only requirement being that the order is just and
               reasonable. Borough of S[.] Greensburg v. P[a.] Pub[.]
               Util[.] Comm[’n], . . . 544 A.2d 82 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1988);
               Dep[’t] of Transp[.] v. P[a.] Pub[.] Util[.] Comm[’n], . . .
               469 A.2d 1149 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1983).

Mun. of Monroeville v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 600 A.2d 655, 656-57 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1991) (bold emphasis added; footnote omitted).7

       1. Substantial Evidence
               BPRR first asserts that substantial evidence does not support the
Commission’s factual findings. Specifically, BPRR argues:

               The record below demonstrates a lack of substantial
               evidence that the railroad bridges at issue are unsafe for
               the motoring public. The only bridge inspections and
               traffic engineering inspection were performed by BPRR
               and its experts, and revealed that the bridges are
               structurally safe, have only superficial deterioration that
               can be, and has been, addressed by routine maintenance,
               and that all of the bridges safely and efficiently
               accommodate their traffic volumes. No competing
               opinions or expert testimony based on engineering

       7
          In Monroeville, this Court affirmed the Commission’s order directing that a bridge
carrying a single-lane road over railroad tracks be closed indefinitely. The Monroeville Court
found that the Commission’s order was just and reasonable because the Commission balanced the
benefit and harm to the traveling public and took into consideration the effect on traffic congestion,
the road’s condition and its need for repair, and the requisite public safety concerns.

                                                  6
             inspections were submitted by either [the] Township or
             I&E.

BPRR Br. at 19-20. BPRR maintains that Berry’s and Sinick’s testimony was biased
and lacked credibility and, thus, is insufficient to constitute substantial evidence.
             This Court has observed:

             In Energy Pipeline Co[.] v. Pennsylvania Public Utility
             Commission, . . . 662 A.2d 641 ([Pa.] 1995), our Supreme
             Court explained that[,] pursuant to Section 335(a) of the
             [Public Utility] Code:
                 [I]f exceptions are filed, then the matter is taken to
                 the [Commission], where “the [Commission] has
                 all the powers which it would have had in making
                 the initial decision . . . .” 66 Pa.C.S. § 335(a). The
                 [Commission] has the power to conduct its own
                 fact finding, to adopt or reject the ALJ’s decision,
                 or to come to an entirely different resolution.
                 Thus, if exceptions are filed, only the
                 [Commission] can take action, and the ALJ’s
                 decision cannot take on the force and effect of an
                 order.
             Energy Pipeline Co., 662 A.2d at 644. Thus, under
             Section 335 of the [Public Utility] Code, once exceptions
             are filed or once the Commission takes a decision for
             review sua sponte pursuant to [Section 5.536 of the
             Commission’s Regulations,] 52 Pa. Code § 5.536, the
             Commission may review the ALJ’s decision in its entirety
             without limit. Thus, the Commission may confine its
             review to issues raised in exceptions or may review issues
             not raised in exceptions.

Romeo v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 154 A.3d 422, 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (footnote
omitted).
             Further,

             [w]hen reviewing an agency’s findings of fact, this Court
             will defer to those factual findings if they are supported by
             substantial evidence. The Commission is the ultimate
             fact[-]finder. See . . . P[a.] Power Co[.] v. P[a.] Pub[.]
             Util[.] Comm[’n], . . . 625 A.2d 719, 726 ([Pa. Cmwlth.]
                                           7
             1993) (holding that “an ALJ’s decision may always be
             overruled based upon contrary findings by the
             [Commission] if the [Commission’s] findings are based on
             substantial evidence”). Substantial evidence is “such
             relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
             adequate to support a conclusion.” Peak v. Unemployment
             Comp[.] B[d.] of Rev[.], . . . 501 A.2d 1383, 1387 ([Pa.]
             1985). “[I]n a substantial evidence analysis where both
             parties present evidence, it does not matter that there is
             evidence in the record which supports a factual finding
             contrary to that made by the fact[-]finder, rather, the
             pertinent inquiry is whether there is any evidence which
             supports the fact[-]finder’s factual finding.” Mulberry
             M[kt.], Inc. v. City of Phila[.], B[d.] of License [&]
             Inspection Rev[.], 735 A.2d 761, 767 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).

Metro. Edison Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 22 A.3d 353, 359 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)
(citation omitted).
             Here, Berry testified that in his capacity as Township Supervisor, he
had received complaints that concrete had fallen from the Crossings’ bridges. See
R.R. at 173a-174a.     In addition, Berry explained that the Ramsaytown Road
underpass prevents him and other local farmers from moving farm equipment along
the roadway because the farm equipment is too wide to fit through the narrow
underpass. See R.R. at 185a-186a. BPRR asserts that Berry’s testimony regarding
workers removing fallen concrete is limited to the Ramsaytown Road Crossing and
does not reflect his personal observations, since he was not present at the time the
concrete was removed from the roadway.
             Sinick, “a civil engineer [with] a professional engineering license” and
a “certified bridge inspector in the State of Pennsylvania” who has “been dealing
with bridges and structures for the whole course of [his] professional engineering
career[,]” R.R. at 242a, described the Crossings as of October 21, 2021. With respect
to the Ramsaytown Road Crossing, Sinick stated:

             The railroad bridge structure along Ramsaytown Road
             (T-841) is a concrete arch structure. This type of bridge
                                         8
structure is known as a concrete closed spandrel arch. Its
bridge elements consist of an arch barrel, spandrel walls,
abutments, and wings. The arch barrel is the portion of the
bridge that you would drive through. The arch barrel
length in the direction of the roadway is approximately
100 feet. The spandrel walls are located above the arch
barrel oriented in the direction of the railroad grade and
are directly above the roadway. They retain the earthen
material above the arch barrel to the top of the railroad
grade. The railroad tracks, ties, and ballast normally
would be located on top of the earthen material but have
been removed.
The abutments are the portion of the bridge located on
each side of the roadway that the arch barrel ties into and
then extends down to the footing below the ground. The
wings flare out from the abutments and retain the earthen
embankment that makes up the entire railroad grade prior
to the bridge. The condition of the concrete of the arch
barrel and spandrel walls show heavy deterioration,
delamination, cracking, and spalls. See [R.R. at 663a-
664a, 666a, 669a, 673a, 675a]. This delaminated concrete
is most certainly falling on the roadway. Concrete from
the structure was visibly noticed along the roadway within
and outside of the arch barrel and spandrel walls. See
[R.R. at 662a, 668a, 672a]. Concrete inside the barrel
along the roadway was clearly delaminated and ready to
fall off. The delaminated condition was easily determined
by sounding the concrete. In layman’s terms, to sound the
concrete you tap on the concrete and if you hear a hollow
sound the concrete in that area is in a delaminated
condition. The concrete in the arch barrel is largely in a
delaminated condition along the roadway. This condition
of the concrete is indicative of the structural breakdown in
the chemical composition of the concrete itself due to its
age, lack of maintenance, and its exposure to water and
salt spray.
The approaching roadway to the structure is a two-laned
paved roadway with an average width of approximately 16
feet with 3-to-5[-]foot gravel shoulders on each side of the
roadway. This shoulder area is part of the roadway clear
zone. The traversable roadway width within the barrel of
the arch is limited, approximately 12 feet. See [R.R. at
670a]. The minimum vertical clearance is 14 feet, 1 inch

                             9
            measured from the top of roadway to the minimum
            distance of the arch barrel above the traversable roadway.
            The total structure height above the roadway to the top of
            the spandrel wall above the vertical clearance sign is
            approximately 20 feet. The earthen material above the top
            of the spandrel wall is heavily vegetated and presents a
            public safety issue of its own. Debris, logs, trees, rocks,
            and people could fall off the edges of the spandrel walls
            onto the roadway as there is no preventive measures in
            place to restrict this from happening. See [R.R. at 666a,
            670a, 678a-680a].

R.R. at 602a-604a (underline emphasis added; citation omitted).
            Sinick described the East Bellport Road Crossing as follows:

            The railroad bridge structure along East Bellport Road
            (T-405) is a concrete arch structure similar in design to the
            Ramsaytown Road bridge structure. It is in better
            condition than the Ramsaytown Road structure, but it also
            has cracks, delamination, and spalls throughout the
            concrete structure. See [R.R. at 626a-632a, 635a]. The
            earthen material above the arch barrel and within the
            spandrel walls [is] heavily wooded and vegetated which
            presents its own public safety issues, as previously stated.
            See [R.R. at 633a, 641a-643a]. The approaching roadway
            to the East Bellport [Road] structure is a two-laned gravel
            roadway with an average width of approximately 15 feet
            with 3-to-5-foot shoulders on each side of the roadway.
            This shoulder area is part of the roadway clear zone. The
            traversable roadway width within the barrel of the arch is
            approximately 13 feet. See [R.R. at 636a]. The minimum
            vertical clearance is 12 feet-8 inches measured from the
            top of [the] roadway to the minimum distance of the arch
            barrel above the traversable roadway. The total structure
            height above the roadway to the top of the spandrel wall
            above the vertical clearance sign is approximately 20 feet.

R.R. at 604a-605a (underline emphasis added).
            Regarding the Harriger Hollow Road Crossing, Sinick recounted:

            The railroad bridge structure along Harriger Hollow
            Road (T-420) is a steel girder simple span bridge
            structure. The clear span between edge of concrete
            abutment to edge of concrete abutment is 17 feet. As
                                         10
             stated earlier, the steel superstructure has been removed
             and placed adjacent to one of the abutments. See [R.R. at
             650a]. The concrete condition of the abutments is fair,
             there are cracks and spalls on both abutments. See [R.R.
             at 646a, 656a-658a, 660a]. The abutments appear to be
             stable and not in danger of rotating, settling, or
             overturning. However, the concrete abutments are in the
             roadway clear zone and restrict sight distance and are a
             detriment to public safety. There was noticeable scarring
             on the abutments due to vehicle contact. The steel
             superstructure is within the Commission’s jurisdiction and
             is a hazard on the railroad grade for [all-terrain vehicles],
             snowmobiles, children, etc.
             The approaching roadway to the Harriger Hollow Road
             structure is a two-laned gravel roadway with an average
             width of approximately 15 feet with 3-to-5-foot shoulders
             on each side of the roadway. This shoulder area along the
             roadway is part of the roadway clear zone. The traversable
             roadway width between the abandoned abutments is
             approximately 14 feet. The height of the abutments above
             the roadway is approximately 14-15 feet. The length of
             the abutments/wingwalls in the direction of the roadway is
             approximately 51 feet. There is steel fencing affixed to
             both abutments[;] as I stated previously this fencing was
             added without a Commission application. See [R.R at
             646a, 650a, 655a].

R.R. at 605a-606a (underline emphasis added; citation omitted).               Sinick
acknowledged that he does not have experience in traffic engineering.
             With respect to the deteriorating concrete, BPRR’s witness, Duffett,
testified:

             All three [Crossings/]bridges [were] constructed at
             approximately the same time, about 100 years ago. All
             three bridges are constructed of mass concrete. And
             by that, I mean generally un-reenforced concrete, but
             significant size, significant cross section. That’s typical of
             bridge construction of that era. Each of the three bridges
             exhibits typical surface deterioration of the concrete
             that is typical of 100[-]year[-]old concrete. That is the
             condition we generally call spalling, which the outer
             surface of the concrete at an inch or two deteriorates

                                          11
             from exposure to freeze[,] thaw or salt from roadways.
             And these bridges exhibit that condition. It’s very
             typical of structures of this vintage.

R.R. at 101a (emphasis added). Nonetheless, Duffett added that “[t]he concrete in
these structures flakes off in very small pieces. If you were to examine what’s
accumulated along the roadway, it’s like dust. And having no evidence that any
person has ever been struck by a piece of concrete[] here, I can’t say that it’s a hazard
here.” R.R. at 113a-114a.
             In reaching its decision, the Commission observed:

             The two structures at Ramsaytown and East Bellport
             Roads are arch structures. ALJ Long considered the
             testimony of the [p]arties and concluded that the structures
             presented a hazard to the public and should, therefore, be
             abolished.
             Of significance to this conclusion was the visual
             evidence of the deteriorating condition of the concrete
             at the [C]rossings[,] in addition to the testimonial
             evidence of the observance of falling/spalling concrete.
             ALJ Long noted and acknowledged, as did all the
             [p]arties, that the expert witness testimony of BPRR
             witness, [] Duffett, that the condition of the bridges was
             sound, was not disputed. Therefore, based on this
             testimony, there was no finding of immediate or
             imminent hazard of structural failure, i.e., of collapse
             regarding the [C]rossings. Notwithstanding, ALJ Long
             found that such testimony regarding the overall
             structural integrity of the structures was not
             dispositive of the issue of safety to the traveling public
             in [the] Township. The pertinent reasoning of [] ALJ
             [Long] was, as follows:
                 The testimony of [] Berry and [] Sinick
                 describing the concrete falling from inside the
                 arch barrels of Ramsaytown Road and East
                 Bellport Road [is] more credible than the
                 testimony of [] Duffett. [] Duffett was overly
                 dismissive of the risk of falling concrete
                 damaging vehicles or harming pedestrians and

                                           12
                   is contradicted by the photographic evidence
                   which clearly shows cobbles of concrete along
                   the roadway which are much larger than
                   “flakes” or “dust.” Moreover, photographs also
                   show sections of concrete which are missing
                   from the walls and ceiling of the arch barrels.
                   Although [] Duffett claimed he had inspected the
                   [C]rossings at some point in the 1990s, [] Duffett
                   did not have a progression of inspection reports
                   which would support his position that these
                   sections came from the walls gradually over time
                   as “dust” or “flakes.”
                   BPRR has neglected these [C]rossings for many
                   years. There is no evidence that any of the
                   structures had been inspected before 2019,
                   shortly after [the] Township filed its
                   [C]omplaint. There is no evidence of any
                   inspection done when rail service was abandoned
                   sometime in 2005 or 2006. Although [] Duffett
                   testified that he recalls inspecting the [C]rossings
                   in the 1990s, he did not have copies of any
                   reports.[8] Further, it is not credible that, given
                   the thousands of bridge inspections that []
                   Duffett performs, he would have a reliable
                   memory of two crossings in a rural area of
                   Pennsylvania.
              [R.R. at 859a (footnotes omitted)].

Opinion and Order at 23-24 (bold and underline emphasis added; citations and
footnote omitted).
              The Commission reasoned:

              On review of the record, we disagree with what we
              observe as the trivialization of the hazard to the
              travelling public from conditions of the concrete at
              each of the structures and presence of the remaining
              abutments. We shall, therefore, deny the Exceptions of
              BPRR. Review of the visual evidence in this proceeding
              is compelling in support of the preponderance of the

       8
         Notably, BPRR provided no evidence that, prior to the Township filing the Complaint, it
had ever inspected the Crossings following its abandonment thereof. See R.R. at 859a.
                                              13
               evidence in support of the Complaint and the overall
               recommendations of . . . ALJ [Long]. We shall, therefore,
               adopt the recommendations of [] ALJ [Long]. In pertinent
               part, the following reasoning supports our determination:
                   [] [T]here is also no dispute that two cars cannot
                   pass safely through any of the [C]rossings. As
                   explained above, the abutments themselves, as
                   immovable objects in the roadway clear zone, pose
                   a crash risk regardless of their placement in
                   relation to the roadway. The Commission reached
                   a similar conclusion in its disposition of the
                   Putneyville Crossing [d]ecision, relying in part on
                   I&E’s recommendation that the railroad should
                   remove the abutments because they are located in
                   the roadway clear zone.
                   BPRR points out that [] Sinick conceded that if
                   there [was] rail traffic on the line, he would not
                   take the position that the abutments should be
                   removed. It is important to keep in mind that
                   the risk posed by the abutments as a vehicle
                   hazard is not offset by any public benefit.[9]
                   Indeed[,] the Commission is not limited to any
                   fixed formula in evaluating any crossing that
                   safety can be broadly construed and considers
                   many relevant factors.

               [R.R. at 864a (footnotes omitted)].
Opinion and Order at 36-37 (emphasis added).
               With respect to Sinick’s testimony, BPRR contends that Sinick did not
perform bridge inspections during his visits and the only such inspections were
performed by its expert, Duffett, who opined that the bridges were structurally sound
and that any deficiencies were merely superficial. It emphasizes that, under such
circumstances, the Commission should have given more weight to Duffett’s

       9
        “The benefit a party receives from a crossing is a relevant factor in assigning maintenance
responsibilities[.]” Bell Atl.-Pa., Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 672 A.2d 352, 355 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1995).

                                                14
testimony.     Notwithstanding, the Commission, as it was empowered to do,
determined that Duffett’s testimony regarding the superficial deterioration was not
credible given that he unreasonably discounted the risk of falling concrete.
               The Commission’s analysis reveals that the Commission did not base
its decision on any perceived deficiencies in the bridges’ structural integrity as might
be revealed in a formal inspection. Instead, the Commission focused on the danger
to the public from falling concrete at the Ramsaytown Road and East Bellport Road
Crossings resulting from the purportedly superficial deterioration and the lack of
public benefit, given BPRR’s abandonment of the Crossings.                           Thus, the
Commission’s focus was not on the bridges’ structure, but on the danger that the
deterioration presented to the public. The lack of a formal bridge inspection by
Sinick does not undermine the value of his observations of the readily-visible
deteriorating concrete conditions.          This deterioration was also evidenced by
photographs showing interior sections of missing concrete and concrete debris, see
R.R. at 626a-632a, 635a, 662a-664a, 669a, 672a-675a, by Berry’s testimony
regarding concrete remains on the roadway and nearby grass, and by Sinick’s
testimony regarding the potential for additional deterioration and resulting falling
concrete.10
               With respect to the dangers caused by the concrete abutments’ presence
resulting in the roadways’ narrowing, and the sight restrictions, the Commission
considered that the immovable concrete abutments constituted hazards, and that

       10
            The Dissent’s repeated references to “loose and flaking concrete,” ignores the
photographic and testimonial evidence demonstrating the “heavy deterioration, delamination,
cracking, and spalls” Sinick observed. R.R. at 603a. See Buffalo & Pittsburgh R.R., Inc. v. Pa.
Pub. Util. Comm’n (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 489 C.D. 2023, filed Mar. 1, 2024) (Leavitt, S.J., dissenting),
slip op. at 4.

                                               15
there was no public benefit justifying the continued presence of such hazards since
BPRR abandoned the rail lines along the subject bridges.
              In Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission, 651 A.2d 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), this Court found that evidence of
similar conditions constituted substantial evidence justifying a Commission order
directing removal of several train crossing structures. There, a railroad petitioned
the Commission to abolish 11 railroad crossing structures on property owned by a
private landowner and the Pennsylvania Game Commission (Game Commission).
Following hearings before an ALJ, the Commission entered an opinion and order
addressing the crossings’ condition. The private landowner petitioned this Court for
review of the Commission’s order as it related to crossings 7, 8, and 9.11
              In addressing the private landowner’s appeal, the Game Commission
Court emphasized the Commission’s power to promote public safety under Section
2702 of the Public Utility Code and its authority to consider all relevant factors in
that regard, reasoning:

              [A] review of the [Commission’s] order and the evidence
              upon which its decision was based, particularly as set forth
              by the ALJ, demonstrates that the [Commission] balanced
              the relevant factors. As for [c]rossing [n]o. 7, the ALJ
              found that the structure should be removed because the
              pedestals adjacent to the roadway were a danger to
              vehicles using the roadway. The structure at [c]rossing
              [n]o. 8 was ordered removed by the [Commission], based
              on evidence that an at-grade crossing would provide safer
              access for the Game Commission’s heavy trucks using the
              railroad right-of-way. The ALJ’s findings concerning
              [c]rossing [n]o. 9 indicated that the road curvature
              caused poor sight distances at the crossing and that
              people could fall off the bridge because no guardrails were
              in place on the bridge. These findings, based on
              substantial evidence in the record, provided for a just

       11
            The Game Commission also petitioned this Court for review of the Commission’s order
as it related to crossing numbers 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
                                              16
               and reasonable order, which demonstrated the
               [Commission’s] concern and consideration for public
               safety needs.

Game Comm’n, 651 A.2d at 603 (emphasis added).
               Here, the Commission found that the former public benefits from
BPRR’s then-active rail lines no longer exist, given BPRR’s abandonment of the rail
lines and, thus, they no longer offset the inherent dangers from the Crossings’
concrete deterioration, sight restrictions, and the abutments’ presence in the
roadways’ clear zones. As in Game Commission, substantial record evidence
supports the Commission’s conclusions and accordingly, this Court discerns no
error.12

       2. Capricious Disregard
               BPRR next contends that the Commission capriciously disregarded
competent evidence. Specifically, BPRR asserts:

               The [Commission’s] Opinion and Order focused on three
               separate and distinct conditions or issues with the bridges.
               A review of the entire record shows that the
               [Commission’s] findings with respect to these conditions
               were not supported by substantial evidence, and that
               competent relevant evidence submitted by BPRR was
               capriciously disregarded, including unrebutted expert
               testimony.

BPRR Br. at 20.
               This Court has explained:

       12
         “While this Court may have weighed the evidence differently than the [Commission] . . .
this Court is not a super [Commission] with the authority to reweigh the evidence in favor of
[BPRR].” Dep’t of Transp. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1773 C.D. 2010, filed
May 13, 2011), slip op. at 16. Unreported decisions of this Court, while not binding, may be cited
for their persuasive value. Section 414(a) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the
Commonwealth Court, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). Department of Transportation is cited for its
persuasive value.
                                               17
             “A capricious disregard of evidence occurs when there is
             a ‘willful, deliberate disbelief of an apparently trustworthy
             witness[] whose testimony one has no basis to challenge.’”
             Cerasaro v. Workers’ Comp[.] Appeal B[d.] (Pocono
             Mountain Med[.], Ltd.), 717 A.2d 1111, 1113 (Pa.
             Cmwlth. 1998) (quoting Gallo v. Workmen’s Comp[.]
             Appeal B[d.] (United Parcel Serv[.]), . . . 504 A.2d 985,
             988 n.2 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1986)). However, there is no
             capricious disregard of record evidence merely because
             the Commission reaches a different conclusion than that
             argued by the proponent of the evidence. Where the
             Commission is presented with a choice of actions, each
             fully developed in the record, its decision is an implicit
             acceptance of one and a rejection of the other.

Metro. Edison, 22 A.3d at 359-60 (citations omitted).
             The Commission’s rejection of Duffett’s testimony that cracking and
deteriorating concrete on the Crossings would not fall and cause injury was not
“willful, deliberate disbelief of an apparently trustworthy witness[] whose testimony
one has no basis to challenge.” Id. at 359-60 (quoting Cerasaro, 717 A.2d at 1113).
Rather, the Commission considered the witnesses’ testimony and the photographic
evidence and simply “reache[d] a different conclusion than that argued by [BPRR].”
Metro. Edison, 22 A.3d at 359-60. Therefore, the Commission did not capriciously
disregard evidence.
             Moreover, despite Wooster’s testimony regarding the low traffic
volume at the subject crossings, the lack of reported accidents, and his inspections
of the abutments for vehicle impacts, the Commission believed that the abutments’
presence was an unnecessary risk even absent such accidents. In Pennsylvania
Railroad Co[.] v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 195 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super.
1963), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Commission decision requiring
a railroad to build a pedestrian crossing over its tracks. The Superior Court held that
“[a]lthough there is no substantial evidence of the occurrence of any serious
accidents at this crossing, we do not believe that fact limits the power of the

                                          18
Commission to correct a condition which it believes may lead to the injury or death
of persons subjected to such condition.” Id. at 164. Thus, the Commission was free
to credit Wooster’s testimony and still conclude that the abutments posed an unsafe
condition requiring remediation. Accordingly, the Commission did not capriciously
disregard Wooster’s testimony.

      3. Design Manual
            BPRR next argues that the Commission improperly relied on
PennDOT’s Design Manual to conclude that the abutments are dangerous despite
expert testimony that the Design Manual does not apply to existing structures.
            Importantly, the Commission relied on Berry’s and Sinick’s testimony
and on the photographic evidence regarding the alleged hazards caused by the
abutments. The Commission relied on the Design Manual in concluding that the
abutments caused unnecessary roadway hazards. Sinick stated:

            The main purpose of the Commission’s involvement after
            an abandonment and discontinuance of railroad service
            through the [Surface Transportation Board] is to assess the
            public safety of the highway/rail crossings and to make
            improvements to the roadways and/or railroad facilities to
            improve the safety of the highway/rail crossing[s] for
            pedestrians and the motoring public. Secondly, the
            Commission’s involvement is necessary to abolish the
            public crossing and dissolve the Commission’s
            jurisdiction at that location since the public utility is no
            longer in service at that location. In short, the final
            disposition of the Crossings, including abolishment, needs
            to be addressed to ensure the current and future safety of
            the [C]rossings in light of the railroad’s decision to
            abandon and/or discontinue service at the [C]rossing[s].
            In this case, the safest practical option for public safety and
            the motoring public is the outright removal of the concrete
            fixed objects within the roadway clear zone.
            [The] Design Manual . . . is very clear on this and is an
            important tool on reestablishing the roadway geometry,
                                          19
            the roadway clear zone, and addressing public safety
            within the Commission’s jurisdiction at these public
            [C]rossings. While there may not be a pending roadway
            improvement or project proposed by [the] Township or
            any other party at this time, the pending litigation before
            the Commission is to address the public safety issues
            posed by the presence of the railroad structures, and thus
            can be viewed as a roadway or crossing improvement
            project if the Commission orders the outright removal of
            the railroad [C]rossing structures or other remedial
            measure to address public safety. This proceeding is
            essentially a proposed and/or requested roadway
            improvement project.

R.R. at 615a-616a.
            The Commission similarly relied on the Design Manual in its
Putneyville Crossing decision, wherein the Commission adopted the ALJ’s
recommended decision that stated:

            PennDOT’s [Design Manual] sets forth [PennDOT’s]
            policy for highway design criteria. PennDOT’s [Design]
            Manual designates abutments at underpasses as fixed
            objects in the roadway clear zone and therefore hazardous
            to the traveling public. PennDOT’s traffic engineer,
            David P. Tomaswick, explained[:] “The term, “clear zone”
            is used to designate the unobstructed traversable area
            provided beyond the edge of the traveled way for the
            recovery of errant vehicles.” [Putneyville Crossing] Tr.
            [at] 153 . . . . “A fixed object would be something that
            when it’s struck by a vehicle, it’s not going to move. A
            utility pole, a tree, bridge piers, abutments.” [Putneyville
            Crossing] Tr. [at] 153. Thus, PennDOT concedes that the
            safest option for the Putneyville Crossing in its current
            condition is removal of the remaining abutments.

Putneyville Crossing, June 12, 2018 Recommended Decision at 21 (citations
omitted).
            “[T]he Commission is not limited to any fixed formula when
determining whether to abolish a rail crossing, but may take into consideration all
relevant factors, with the only requirement being that the order is just and

                                        20
reasonable[.]” N. Lebanon Twp. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 962 A.2d 1237, 1247 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2008). BPRR’s contention that the Design Manual does not apply to
existing structures does not diminish the common-sense observation noted therein
that fixed structures within a roadway’s confines are hazardous to vehicles traveling
on the roadway - whether the roadway is newly proposed, or already existing. The
Design Manual is a PennDOT manual and is not binding on the Commission. Thus,
even if the Design Manual applies only to new projects or new construction when
used by PennDOT, the Commission may consider the information therein. Although
the Design Manual was not made a part of the record, Wooster testified as to its
meaning and Sinick referenced the Design Manual in his testimony.13 Accordingly,
the Commission’s consideration of conditions described in the Design Manual as
hazardous was relevant evidence and was not error.14

       13
            Sinick explained:

                 [PennDOT] is the authority for Pennsylvania public highways and
                 public safety along public highways. Though the Commission
                 supersedes [PennDOT] and has exclusive jurisdiction within a
                 public crossing, to recommend less than mandated or prescribed by
                 [PennDOT’s] specifications, policies, and procedures would be
                 problematic and could negatively impact public safety.

R.R. at 608a.
       14
            The Dissent observes: “The uncontroverted testimony of . . . Wooster, established that
the Design Manual does not require the modification of existing roadways and bridges, even those
that may be substandard. The ALJ acknowledged that [the] Design Manual serves as a guide only
for new roadway construction or improvement projects.” Buffalo & Pittsburgh R.R. (Leavitt, S.J.
dissenting), slip op. at 3 (citations omitted). Although the Design Manual purportedly applies to
new road construction, the Commission is not bound by the Design Manual, and although the
Design Manual may inform new construction, the dangers identified therein are not limited to new
construction. A dangerous condition is a dangerous condition regardless of whether the road is
newly constructed or existing. I&E’s witness Sinick referenced the clear zone hazards identified
in the Design Manual. Such was not improper even though the Design Manual was not in evidence
given that Sinick relied on the Design Manual in formulating his opinion and the opposing witness
also testified regarding the Design Manual.

                                                21
       4. Putneyville Crossing
              Finally, BPRR contends that the Commission erred by relying on
Putneyville Crossing in deciding the instant matter. According to BPRR, Putneyville
Crossing is factually distinguishable, and the Commission improperly applied the
holding for the proposition that the absence of any accidents at the subject Crossings
does not establish that the Crossings are safe.
              The Commission noted in its Opinion and Order:

              ALJ Long expressly referenced and was influenced by
              considerations addressed by the Commission in the
              September 2019 Secretarial Letter, which expressly
              included findings, and made reference to, conclusions and
              deliberations of the Putneyville Crossing [d]ecision. See
              [R.R. at 862a-863a]:
                  The history of other crossings abandoned along the
                  railway at issue here was addressed by the
                  Commission in the Putneyville Crossing
                  [d]ecision and referenced in the September [] 2019
                  Secretarial Letter. As explained below, I conclude
                  that there is no compelling reason to treat the []
                  Township [C]rossings differently than the
                  Putneyville Crossing or the PennDOT crossings
                  described in that decision.

              The Pennsylvania Superior Court has stated:
                     It is well[]established that an expert may express an
                     opinion which is based on material not in evidence,
                     including other expert opinion [sic], where such
                     material is of a type customarily relied on by experts
                     in his or her profession. Collins v. Cooper, 746 A.2d
                     615, 618 (Pa. Super. 2000); Primavera v. Celotex
                     Corp., . . . 608 A.2d 515 ([Pa. Super.] 1992). . . .
             Boucher v. Pa. Hosp., 831 A.2d 623, 628 (Pa. Super. 2003)[].
In re Condemnation of Parcel ID No. 02-033-004 v. Lands of Tarlini, 185 A.3d 1177, 1184 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2018).

                                              22
               The September [] 2019 Secretarial Letter noted
               that PennDOT had “removed three (3) of the
               overhead railroad structures along their roadways
               in conjunction with a larger federal/state funded
               roadway project . . . .” In the Putneyville Crossing
               [d]ecision, the Commission explained that
               PennDOT had removed overhead railroad
               structures, including the concrete abutments[,] “to
               enhance the safety for motorists by providing
               improved visibility and less restrictive clearances
               through the former crossings.” The Commission
               found this factor was persuasive in concluding that
               the Putneyville Crossing, including the abutments,
               was not safe for the motoring public.
            [R.R. at 862a-863a (footnotes omitted)].

Opinion and Order at 22.
            In the Recommended Decision, ALJ Long further explained:

            The Commission [in Putneyville Crossing] also relied, in
            part, on the “clear zone” concept described in the
            PennDOT Design Manual. The Commission concluded
            that the abutments at the Putneyville Crossing “are
            designated as hazardous structures in the roadway clear
            zone.”
            Finally, the Commission held the lack of accidents is not
            dispositive of the determination of whether a crossing is
            safe and observed:
               [t]he Superior Court’s holding in Pennsylvania
               Railroad . . . , is dispositive of [BPRR’s]
               argument. . . . In affirming the Commission’s
               decision, the Superior Court held, “[a]lthough
               there is no substantial evidence of the occurrence
               of any serious accidents at this crossing, we do not
               believe that fact limits the power of the
               Commission to correct a condition which it
               believes may lead to the injury or death of persons
               subjected to such condition.” [Pa. R.R.,] . . . 195
               A.2d at 164.        Considering the holding in
               Pennsylvania Railroad, the absence of any
               accidents at the Putneyville Crossing does not
               establish that the crossing is safe. Therefore,
                                       23
                [BPRR’s] argument, that is, the Putneyville
                Crossing is safe because of a lack of accidents at
                the site, is without merit.
            Like the Commission in the Putneyville Crossing
            [d]ecision, I also conclude that the evidence weighs in
            favor of the conclusion that the three railway [C]rossings
            in [the] Township are unsafe in their present condition.
            First, the potential for falling concrete from the arch
            barrels of Ramsaytown Road and East Bellport Road
            poses a hazard to both the motoring public and to
            pedestrians who may be struck by falling cobbles or larger
            pieces of concrete as the barrel arches continue to
            deteriorate. After decades of neglect, I find BPRR’s
            promise to inspect the [C]rossings annually is not
            sufficient to alleviate this risk.
            Second, the sight distance at the Harriger Hollow
            [C]rossing clearly poses a hazard. Although [] Wooster
            cites the curvature of the road as a cause, he also concedes
            that the existence of the abutments also plays a role in the
            narrow sight distance.
            Third, there is also no dispute that two cars cannot pass
            safely through any of the [C]rossings. As explained
            above, the abutments themselves, as immovable objects in
            the roadway clear zone, pose a crash risk regardless of
            their placement in relation to the roadway.           The
            Commission reached a similar conclusion in its
            disposition of the Putneyville Crossing [d]ecision [sic],
            relying in part on I&E’s recommendation that the railroad
            should remove the abutments because they are located in
            the roadway clear zone.

R.R. at 863a-864 (footnotes omitted).
            BPRR contends that Putneyville Crossing is inapposite because there
was significantly greater traffic volume at the subject roadway. BPRR further
emphasizes that Putneyville Crossing involved a state highway, while the roads at
issue in the instant matter are Township roads. BPRR asserts that, although the
Commission in Putneyville Crossing improperly applied PennDOT’s Design

                                        24
Manual to an existing structure, at least the road was a state highway subject to
PennDOT’s Design Manual.
              In the instant matter, the Commission was free to weigh the evidence
and to conclude that the subject Crossings were unsafe given the bridges’ conditions
and the abutments’ locations despite that the roads were less traveled. A hazard in
a roadway does not necessarily become less so because fewer cars travel the road.
Thus, traffic volume was not a sufficient reason to render Putneyville Crossing
inapposite.
              Although the roads at issue here are Township roads, the Crossings are
nonetheless regulated by the Commission.           The Commission “may take into
consideration all relevant factors, with the only requirement being that the order is
just and reasonable[.]” N. Lebanon Twp., 962 A.2d at 1247. As stated above, it was
not error for the Commission to consider PennDOT information regarding vehicle
safety even if the material relates to state highways rather than Township roads.
Further, regardless of whether the Design Manual only applies to a new structure,
nothing prohibits the Commission from considering the concept of clear zones as
described therein when evaluating the safety of crossings under its jurisdiction.
              Finally, BPRR contends:

              The ALJ who presided over [Putneyville Crossing]
              interpreted Pennsylvania Railroad [] to mean that a lack
              of accidents does not prove that a crossing is safe. This is
              inherently inconsistent with the Superior Court’s holding,
              which simply provided that the Commission can still
              regulate a facility even if there is no evidence of accidents.

BPRR Br. at 35.
              BPRR’s characterization of the Superior Court’s ruling in Pennsylvania
Railroad is erroneous. The Superior Court in Pennsylvania Railroad was clear:
“Although there is no substantial evidence of the occurrence of any serious

                                           25
accidents at this crossing, we do not believe that fact limits the power of the
Commission to correct a condition which it believes may lead to the injury or
death of persons subjected to such condition.” Pa. R.R., 195 A.2d at 164 (bold
and underline emphasis added). This Court declines BPRR’s invitation to interpret
the Superior Court’s holding as simply permitting the Commission to regulate a
facility absent evidence of accidents.15 The Pennsylvania Railroad Court did not
merely refer to Commission authority to regulate but, rather, the Commission’s
power to “correct” a hazardous condition, even where there is no record evidence
of any serious accidents. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the lack of prior accidents
does not prevent the Commission from concluding that a condition is hazardous and
directing that the hazardous condition be abated. Accordingly, the Commission did
not err by relying upon Putneyville Crossing.16
              For all of the above reasons, the Commission’s Opinion and Order is
affirmed. The November 16, 2023 stay this Court ordered shall continue for 120

        15
         See Monongahela Connecting R.R. Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 211 A.2d 113 (Pa.
Super. 1965) (wherein the Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected a similar argument, stating:
              The appellant makes much of the fact of the prior good safety record
              of this operation and that there is no evidence of prior accidents
              resulting in wrecks or personal injury during the many years of
              operation. However, if we were to decide these problems only on
              that basis in the face of evidence of a probably dangerous situation
              that could be corrected with air brakes and the next month personal
              injury or death result from an accident caused by inefficient braking
              on the hot bridge, there would indeed be a red-faced court.[).]
Id. at 116.
        16
          The Dissent maintains that the Commission should not have evaluated the safety of the
Crossings constructed many years ago. To the contrary, the Commission must decide whether the
Crossings pose a safety risk now, not whether they did so 100 years ago. Given changes to
transportation over the last 100 years, a manual that describes dangers to modern drivers from
objects in a road’s clear zone is relevant to the Crossings that continue to be used today whose
abutments are in the clear zone.

                                               26
days from the date of the Order herein so BPRR may complete the work directed in
the Commission’s Opinion and Order.17

                                             _________________________________
                                             ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

       17
           The Dissent contends that “[w]hile there was evidence of loose and delaminated
concrete, there was no evidence that this superficial deterioration could be solved only by
demolition.” Buffalo & Pittsburgh R.R. (Leavitt, S.J. dissenting), slip op. at 1 (emphasis added).
However, nothing in the Commission’s statutory authority requires that removal or demolition be
ordered only as a last resort. See Section 2702(c) of the Public Utility Code (which provides in
relevant part that the Commission “may abandon or vacate such highways or portions of highways
as, in the opinion of the [C]ommission, may be rendered unnecessary for public use by the
construction, relocation, or abandonment of any of such crossings.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 2702(c)).

                                               27
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.,      :
                   Petitioner             :
                                          :
            v.                            :
                                          :
Pennsylvania Public Utility               :
Commission,                               :   No. 489 C.D. 2023
                  Respondent              :

                                       ORDER

            AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2024, the Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commission’s (Commission) April 20, 2023 opinion and order (Opinion and
Order) is affirmed. The November 16, 2023 stay this Court ordered shall continue
for 120 days from the date of this Order so that Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.
may complete the work directed in the Commission’s Opinion and Order.

                                        _________________________________
                                        ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Buffalo & Pittsburgh                :
Railroad, Inc.,                     :
                         Petitioner :
                                    :
            v.                      :                 No. 489 C.D. 2023
                                    :                 Argued: December 4, 2023
Pennsylvania Public Utility         :
Commission,                         :
                         Respondent :

BEFORE:        HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
               HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge
               HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

DISSENTING OPINION
BY SENIOR JUDGE LEAVITT                                       FILED: March 1, 2024

               The majority affirms the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s
(PUC) adjudication in favor of Knox Township (Township) on its complaint that
Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc. (Railroad) be ordered to demolish three railroad
bridges that pass over township roads.1 The PUC ordered their demolition even
though the evidence established that they were structurally sound and in no danger
of collapse. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Proposed Adjudication at 24. While
there was evidence of loose and delaminated concrete, there was no evidence that
this superficial deterioration could be solved only by demolition; nor did the PUC
so find. With respect, I dissent.

1
  The PUC’s order contains 24 directives on the full contours of the demolition project, effectively
placing the PUC in the role of construction supervisor. For example, the order requires not just
demolition of the bridge structures but directs the dimensions, slopes, grading and seeding of the
“surrounding areas.” PUC Order, ¶6. It directs that “all work necessary to complete the removal
of the railroad structures and grading at the subject crossing shall be done in a manner satisfactory
to the [PUC.]” Id., ¶15.
               By way of background, the railroad bridges that cross Ramsaytown,
East Bellport, and Harriger Hollow Roads were constructed more than 100 years
ago. ALJ Proposed Adjudication, Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 10. Two of the railroad
bridges are supported by concrete arches, or tunnels, that take these roads through
the embankment where the railroad tracks were positioned before their removal.
Each road is approximately 12 feet wide as it passes through the underpass. Id., F.F.
Nos. 29, 35. All that is remaining of the Harriger Hollow Road overpass are the two
concrete abutments that once supported a steel railroad bridge, which has been
removed. The road between the abutments is approximately 13 feet wide. Id., F.F.
No. 16. Of the three roads, Ramsaytown Road is the only one that is paved. The
other two are dirt roads. The three township roads narrow by approximately two to
four feet as they enter the railroad underpass. Id., F.F. Nos. 15-16, 28-29, 34-35.
See also Reproduced Record at 541a. (R.R. __).
               The ALJ identified roadway design issues with all three railroad
bridges. For example, two vehicles cannot travel at the same time through any of
the three underpasses, which is inconsistent with modern road design.                            The
abutments on Harriger Hollow Road are located in the so-called “clear zone,”2 which
is also inconsistent with modern design. There are no guide rails to prevent the
motorist who leaves the road from hitting the abutments or the wing walls supporting
the embankment. Because of the bend in Harriger Hollow Road, the abutments limit
the sight distance. These design issues are not disputed, but they miss the mark.

2
 The clear zone is “the total roadside border area starting at the edge of the traveled way, available
for safe use by errant vehicles.” ALJ Proposed Adjudication at 28. This “area may consist of a
shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/or a clear run-out area.” Id. The
concept of a “clear zone” applies to new construction. Notably, any object along a road, whether
a tree, rock, or traffic sign, presents a risk, should the vehicle leave the road and hit the object.
                                              MHL-2
              First, in finding the railroad bridges unsafe because of their design, the
ALJ relied on testimony that, in turn, relied upon the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation’s (PennDOT) Design Manual.                  However, this Design Manual
expressly provides that it applies only to new construction, not to existing railroad
bridges erected in 1906. Even so, as the majority points out, PennDOT’s Design
Manual was not entered into the record.3                The uncontroverted testimony of
Railroad’s expert, Charles A. Wooster, established that the Design Manual does not
require the modification of existing roadways and bridges, even those that may be
substandard. Wooster Prepared Direct Testimony at 6; R.R. 374a. See also Notes
of Testimony, 1/25/2022, at 117-19; R.R. 142a-44a. The ALJ acknowledged that
PennDOT’s Design Manual serves as a guide only for new roadway construction or
improvement projects. ALJ Proposed Adjudication at 28-29; R.R. 861a-62a. In
short, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that the design of the
railroad bridges renders them unsafe and in need of immediate demolition,
notwithstanding their relatively safe use for over 100 years.4
              Second, in finding design problems, the ALJ also noted the absence of
warning signs and guide rails to prevent collisions by motorists with the overpasses.
These installations are the responsibility of the owner of the road. See 42 Pa. C.S.
§8542(b)(6) (authorizing tort claims against local governments for condition of their
roads). Further, motorists have a responsibility to use roadways in the ordinary and
usual manner and with reasonable care. Felli v. Department of Transportation, 666

3
  Although experts may rely upon information that is not admitted into evidence to develop their
expert opinion, “an expert cannot base his [or her] opinion upon facts which are not warranted by
the record.” Harley-Davidson Motor Company v. Springettsbury Township, 124 A.3d 270, 286
(Pa. 2015) (quoting Collins v. Hand, 246 A.2d 398, 404 (Pa. 1968)).
4
  PennDOT accident data established 2 accidents in 10 years, both of which involved driving in
snow at excessive speed. R.R. 373a-74a.
                                            MHL-3
A.2d 775, 777 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). This includes taking care when approaching a
point in the road that allows the passage of only one vehicle at a time or where sight
distance is limited. Again, the need for signs and guardrails on the roadways does
not justify demolition of the railroad bridges.
               In sum, to the extent the ALJ found the bridges unsafe because of their
design, this finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ capriciously
disregarded Railroad’s uncontroverted evidence of the low traffic volume 5 as well
as its uncontroverted expert report that the railroad crossings can safely
accommodate the expected traffic volume on each road. R.R. 379a-86a.
               Likewise, the ALJ’s findings on loose and flaking concrete did not
demonstrate that all three bridges require demolition.              The testimony of the
Township supervisor that a worker removed a piece of concrete from Ramsaytown
Road was hearsay and, even so, irrelevant to the other two roads. There was no
testimony from a witness who actually saw concrete fall from the Ramsaytown Road
railroad bridge or could attest that the concrete piece originated with the railroad
bridge, as opposed to falling off a truck.
               To be sure, the record did establish that the concrete supports for the
railroad bridges show loose and flaking concrete on the walls and ceiling of the
underpasses. However, there was no evidence, or finding, that this problem cannot
be addressed by more diligent maintenance, resurfacing, or measures short of total
destruction.
               The PUC’s adjudication casts a wide net. The design issues identified
by the ALJ apply to an untold number of railroad overpasses in Pennsylvania, as

5
 Ramsaytown Road carries an average of 312 vehicles a day, East Bellport Road carries 30 a day
and Harriger Hollow Road carries 15 a day. ALJ Proposed Adjudication, F.F. Nos. 102-04.
                                          MHL-4
acknowledged by the PUC’s engineer witness, William M. Sinick. R.R. 253a. This
is concerning because of the precedential effect the PUC affords each adjudication.6
              I would vacate the PUC’s adjudication and remand the matter to the
PUC to fashion an order to Railroad to abate the loose and flaking concrete surfaces
of the otherwise structurally sound railroad overpasses. The existence of surface
deterioration is the only factual finding of the ALJ supported by substantial
evidence.

                           MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge Emerita

6
  The PUC relied upon its adjudication in Mahoning Township v. Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad,
Inc. (Docket No. C-2017-2585787, filed August 2, 2018), which is factually and legally
indistinguishable, to support its order in the instant case.
                                          MHL-5