RCW 81.53.271 Crossing signals, warning devices—Petition contents—Apportionment of installation and maintenance costs.

The petition shall set forth by description the location of the crossing or crossings, the type of signal or other warning device to be installed, the necessity from the standpoint of public safety for such installation, the approximate cost of installation and related work, and the approximate annual cost of maintenance. If the commission directs the installation of a grade crossing protective device, and a federal-aid funding program is available to participate in the costs of such installation, installation and maintenance costs of the device shall be apportioned in accordance with the provisions of RCW 81.53.295. Otherwise if installation is directed by the commission, it shall apportion the cost of installation and maintenance as provided in this section:

(1) Installation: (a) The first twenty thousand dollars shall be apportioned to the grade crossing protective fund created by RCW 81.53.281; and

(b) The remainder of the cost shall be apportioned as follows:

(i) Sixty percent to the grade crossing protective fund, created by RCW 81.53.281;

(ii) Thirty percent to the city, town, county, or state; and

(iii) Ten percent to the railroad:

PROVIDED, That, if the proposed installation is located at a new crossing requested by a city, town, county, or state, forty percent of the cost shall be apportioned to the city, town, county, or state, and none to the railroad. If the proposed installation is located at a new crossing requested by a railroad, then the entire cost shall be apportioned to the railroad. In the event the city, town, county, or state should concurrently petition the commission and secure an order authorizing the closure of an existing crossing or crossings in proximity to the crossing for which installation of signals or other warning devices shall have been directed, the apportionment to the petitioning city, town, county, or state shall be reduced by ten percent of the total cost for each crossing ordered closed and the apportionment from the grade crossing protective fund increased accordingly. This exception shall not be construed to permit a charge to the grade crossing protective fund in an amount greater than the total cost otherwise apportionable to the city, town, county, or state. No reduction shall be applied where one crossing is closed and another opened in lieu thereof, nor to crossings of a private nature.

(2) Maintenance: (a) Twenty-five percent to the grade crossing protective fund, created by RCW 81.53.281; and

(b) Seventy-five percent to the railroad:

PROVIDED, That if the proposed installation is located at a new crossing requested by a railroad, then the entire cost shall be apportioned to the railroad.

[ 2003 c 190 § 2; 1982 c 94 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 189 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 77 § 1; 1969 c 134 § 2.]

NOTES:

Findings—2003 c 190: "The legislature finds that grade crossing, rail trespass, and other safety issues continue to present a public safety problem.

The legislature further finds that with the increased importance of rail to freight and commuter mobility, there is a direct public benefit in assisting local communities and railroads to work together to address rail-related public safety concerns." [ 2003 c 190 § 1.].

Application—1982 c 94: See note following RCW 81.53.261.