(a) Remain under the joint control of the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe. (b) Be consolidated with the Southern Pacific. (c) Be consolidated with the Santa Fe. (4) What disposition should be made of the short lines. The Interstate Commerce Commission having, as noted above, authorized the Southern Pacific to acquire control of the Central Pacific. and the Commission having taken a position in favor of such action, it was not only logical but necessary that the same position be taken with respect to the Central Pacific and the consolidation proceedings. The answer to the first point of the our above was then clear. In its order of August 3, 1921, and promulgating its "Tentative Plan of the Commission," the Interstate Commerce Commission says: Under our direction, Professor William Z. Ripley, of Harvard University, has prepared a report to us, which is the appendix. In some respects our tentative plan does not follow his recommendations, but presents alternatives thereto for like consideration. We indicate the main differences. We have sought to minimize dismemberment of existing lines or systems. This tentative plan is put forward in order to elicit a full record upon which the plan to be ultimately adopted can rest, and without prejudgment of any matters which may be presented upon that record. Whenever we refer to a property, the properties controlled thereby under lease, stock ownership or otherwise, should be understood as included unless otherwise indicated. We find for the purposes of this tentative plan that the railway properties of the continental United States may be consolidated under the statute into the following systems. There are then listed nineteen "systems," each one with its constituent roads and with numerous notes. The concluding two paragraphs of this tentative plan are: The carriers included in this tentative plan comprise most of the Class I steam railroads, but very few of those in Class II and Class III. Those not so included whether industrial common carriers, terminal carriers, interurban electric railways operated as a part of general steam railroad systems of transportation or engaged in the general transportation of freight, "short lines," or others, will be considered at the hearings to be hereafter assigned so that in the plan to be ultimately adopted, provision can be made for their inclusion in the systems. We have not specifically mentioned water carriers. Where these carriers are now controlled by carriers by rail they will be considered as being included tentatively in the systems in which the controlling rail carrier has been included. The tentative "systems" of particular interest to this state and to the so-called "western transcontinental region" are System No. 13, Union Pacific-Northwestern; System No. 14, Burlington-Northern Pacific; System No. 15, Milwaukee-Great Northern; System No. 16, Santa Fe, and System No. 17, Southern Pacific-Rock Island. It should be understood that the Interstate Commerce Commission under the present law has not the power to force railroad consolidations in accordance with its tentative plan or any other plan. It merely is under mandate to "prepare and adopt a plan for the consolidation of the railroad properties of the continental United States into a limited. number of systems." The act provides, however, that once such a plan is adopted, consolidations made voluntarily by the railroads, or otherwise, "must be in harmony with and in furtherance of the complete At the hearings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, Mr. Richard Sachse, chief engineer of the Commission, testified in its behalf, submitting a memorandum dealing with all of the above questions, except the disposition of the short lines. This memorandum dealt in great detail with the effect of the various proposed plans of consolidation upon the California conditions. Each of the proposed plans were carefully analyzed and recommendations made in general that the Southern Pacific-Central Pacific combination should continue; that it would probably be advisable from the California standpoint that the Western Pacific be consolidated with the Santa Fe and that the Northwestern Pacific be made a part of the Santa Fe. It was also suggested that the San Diego and Arizona Railway be made a part of the Southern Pacific System. A comprehensive report was also submitted by the transportation engineer of the Commission relative to the numerous short line railroads in California, in which recommendations were made as to the advisability of the consolidation or combination of short line railroads with through line railroads. This report contains suggestions relative to 58 short line railroads in California operating a total of 3345 miles of track. The following consolidation was recommended to the Interstate Commerce Commission by the Commission's transportation engineer: To Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company: Central California Traction Company. California Western Railroad and Navigation Company. Kings Lake Shore Railroad Company. Modesto and Empire Traction Company. San Francisco, Napa and Calistoga Railway Company. To Southern Pacific Company: Amador Central Railroad Company. Camino, Placerville and Lake Tahoe Railroad Company. Chowchilla Pacific Railway Company. Holton Interurban Railway Company. Nevada County Narrow Gauge Railroad Company. Pacific Electric Railway Company. Peninsular Railway Company. Petaluma and Santa Rosa Railroad Company. San Diego and Arizona Railway Company. Santa Maria Valley Railroad Company. South San Francisco Belt Railway Company. Visalia Electric Railroad Company. Yosemite Valley Railroad Company. Yreka Railroad Company. Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Joint Control: Richmond Belt Railway. Sunset Railway Company. Independent: Albion Lumber Company Railroad. Arcata and Mad River Railroad Company. Bay Point and Clayton Railroad Company. California Shasta and Eastern Railway Company. Death Valley Railroad Company. Diamond and Caldor Railway. Hetch Hetchy Railroad. Howard Terminal Company. Humboldt Northern Railway Company. Indian Valley Railroad Company. Iron Mountain Railway Company. Lake Tahoe Railway and Transportation Company. Mojave Northern Railroad Company. Mt. Tamalpais and Muir Woods Railway. Pajaro Valley Consolidated Railroad Company. Sacramento Valley and Eastern Railway. San Joaquin and Eastern Railroad Company. Sugar Pine Railway Company. Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad Company. Trona Railway Company. Ventura County Railway Company. RAILROAD CROSSINGS AND SAFETY. General Grade Crossing Survey-In January, 1916, the Commission on its own initiative prepared a program and held hearings in several of the principal cities with the view of obtaining public opinion and to secure the cooperation of the public and railways in the amelioration as far as possible of the hazards existing at all grade crossings within the state. At these public hearings representatives of counties, cities and railroads expressed the opinion that much good would result from a general investigation and the cooperation of all interested parties was assured. In April, 1916, a survey was started by the Engineering Department of the Commission and work was continued until October, 1917, when it was discontinued on account of war conditions, and the forces employed on the survey were assigned to the preparation of data requested of the Commission by the War Department. Early in this fiscal year (1922-1923) the survey was again taken up and grade crossings in eighteen counties were investigated. In some localities where the crossings were surveyed in 1916 and 1917 conditions have so materially changed that it was deemed advisable to make an additional inspection. In this connection fifty-six crossings were re Following is a tabulation showing the crossings surveyed during the general grade crossing survey during the year ending June 30, 1923, by counties: Joint investigation, with Highway Commission and U. S. Bureau of Roads, of state highway grade and separated grade crossings. 560 1,709 7,218 Total Crossings surveyed prior to June 30, 1922 Total crossings surveyed.... 8,927 This total represents about 85 per cent of all the grade crossings in the state. State Highway Grade Crossings-In addition to the general grade crossing survey, an investigation was made of all state highway grade and separated grade crossings in conjunction with the United States Bureau of Roads and the California Highway Commission. This investigation was made at the instigation of the United States Bureau of Roads for the purpose of formulating a program of separating the grades at state highway crossings. All of the 446 railroad grade crossings on the state highway were inspected including 22 overgrade and 33 undergrade crossings, which existed at the time the inspection was made. In addition 127 crossings on state highway routes but located in incorporated cities were inspected. All crossings were classified according to a classification made by the Bureau of Public Roads and may be numerated as follows: Class I Grade crossings to be eliminated by relocation. Class II Crossing of primary highway and trunk line railway of two or more tracks. Class IIIb Crossing of single track, moderate traffic and primary highway. Class IVa Crossing one important single track and primary highway. Class IVb Crossing of spur and switch track with highway. Total. Crossings . (Not included) 24 71 58 124 114 391 At the same time inspection was made the approximate estimate of the cost of grade crossing elimination was made and this may be summarized by classes as follows: The detail of the above figures classified as to state highway routes is presented in the following tabulation: |