Background and Procedural History

We initiated this proceeding by issuing an Order Instituting Investigation (OII) on July 12, 2001, to create the State's Grade Separation Program Priority List for Fiscal Years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The list, which is created anew in alternate years, establishes the relative priorities for funding qualified projects to eliminate or alter hazardous railroad crossings under the Program. Projects for construction of new grade separations, alteration of existing grade separations, or elimination of grade crossings by removal or relocation of streets or railroad tracks are included in the list.

Section 190 of the Streets and Highways Code requires the State's annual budget to include $15 million for funding these projects. Section 2450 et seq. of the Code sets out the procedure for administering these funds, and Section 2453 gives the California Transportation Commission (CTC) responsibility for allocating (distributing) the funds to qualified projects. Section 2452 requires this Commission by July 1 of each year to establish the priority list for projects and furnish it to the CTC for use in the fiscal year beginning on that date. Our procedure is to promulgate the list for the first fiscal year by issuing an interim decision, and then to revise the list for the second year by deleting projects for which funds were actually allocated in the first. We adopt the revised list by final decision in the second year of the proceeding, and begin the funding cycle again the following year by instituting a new proceeding.

To initiate the cycle for the current biennial proceeding the Commission's Rail Safety and Carriers Division (Staff) mailed written notification to railroads, transit agencies, cities, counties, and other interested parties on May 1, 2001, notifying them of the deadline to file a nomination for each grade separation project they sought to have us include in the current priority list. The assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established a procedural schedule for the proceeding by Ruling dated August 31, 2001, and accepted nominations in accordance with that schedule.

We received a total of 59 timely nominations for projects to be included in the current priority list. After conducting site inspections for each nominated project Staff produced a preliminary priority list, utilizing formulas developed by the Commission some time ago, but recently revised by Staff.¹ As in past proceedings, the OII required nominating parties to appear personally at hearings to update, clarify, or explain each nomination as necessary, so that we could accurately finalize the list in this order.

The ALJ held these hearings in San Francisco and Los Angeles between February 25 and March 5, 2002. At the conclusion of the hearings the ALJ struck one nomination by the City of Redding and two by the Union Pacific Railroad from the record, because the nominating party either had not attended the hearing as required by OP 8 of the OII, or had indicated an intention to abandon a nomination. Certain parties submitted supplemental information following the hearing at the request of Staff or the ALJ, or on their own motion. The record was closed and the proceeding was submitted on April 15, and Staff has used the updated and corrected information to rework the list into its present form.

The order instituting this investigation categorized this proceeding as quasi-legislative. The Scoping Ruling confirmed this categorization.