Bd. did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner-Village’s motion to reconsider denial of its request to require third-party railroad to pay 58 percent of cost of grade separation at U.S. Route 14 railroad crossing located in Village as mitigation for alleged increased railroad traffic caused by acquisition of subject track. Record showed that Bd. had denied similar requests by petitioner when subject track was acquired by third-party railroad in 2008 and in subsequent petitions seeking similar relief in 2011, 2014 and 2017, and plaintiff failed to establish that reconsideration of original 2008 denial was warranted based on either plaintiff’s submission of new evidence or evidence of substantially changed circumstances. Bd. actually considered Route 14’s status as SRA and that Route 14 had federal and state funding when denying prior requests for instant mitigation, and thus petitioner’s reference to said factors in instant request did not constitute new evidence. Moreover, increased railcars containing highly flammable materials through Route 14 crossing did not create new threat because said materials moved over subject track prior to third-party’s acquisition of track. Also, information regarding any increased vehicle delay at subject crossing arising out of acquisition of track was available to petitioner at time of prior petitions, and thus did not constitute new evidence to support instant request for reconsideration. Too, petitioner failed to show that any surge in railcar traffic or any potential of railroad to add second track over existing line was insufficient to alter original 2008 denial of instant mitigation request.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Railroads