PUC following the rules on G-line approval

Many residents, businesses and city officials along RTD’S Gold commuter rail corridor — the G-line — are understandably frustrated by the delays in the opening of the corridor. There is a perception that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) somehow is dragging its feet in approving the highway/rail crossings along the new line. This could not be further from the truth.

More than three years ago, the Regional Transportation District applied for and received approval for these crossings from the PUC. The problem is that RTD and its vendor have not been able to get the gates operating according to the design proposed by RTD and approved by the commission. Had they done so, the lines would have been fully operational long ago.

PUC cannot act on a case without the examination of evidence in a formal record. Recently, RTD submitted a filing asking the PUC to approve crossing warning times that do not conform to previous commission decisions. However, the filing did not include any evidence about the impact of the proposed changes on motorists, bikers and others that will be using the crossings, so the filing was denied.

The PUC has given RTD an opportunity to bring forth additional evidence to support its contention that the modified crossing warning times are safe at a re-hearing in either February or March, depending on whether there is opposition to the company’s new testimony. RTD proposed the procedural schedule for the re-hearing, on the belief that it would provide a decision in the most expedited manner, and the PUC granted it.

The PUC is bound by the State Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which contains the same rules that govern the courts. The APA contains time frames that must be followed to ensure due process for all parties. Due to the requirements of the APA, we are not allowed to shorten time frames except as allowed by law. If we did, any decision the commission would reach would be subject to challenge in district court, which would significantly delay the process.

We understand the urgency of the situation and the need to expedite a decision on this matter as quickly as possible. I have personally instructed the administrative law judge on this case to act as quickly as the APA allows. But our first and foremost obligation is to protect the public by ensuring the safety of railroad crossings in Colorado, and we will continue to fulfill that obligation.