Disputed Scoring Of Projects

During the hearing, several nominees disputed Staff's assignment of points for various categories in scoring the projects. Staff assigned points to projects for the categories and criteria, which are input into one of two formulas above in order to derive a total score for the project. The presiding officer preliminarily resolved the adjudicative facts as described below. We affirm the presiding officer's rulings.

City of Redding

At the hearing in San Francisco, the City of Redding challenged Staff's rating for the hazard factor of its South Street project. Vehicles approaching this crossing are forced to wait on the railroad tracks in order to make a left turn because the traffic in this location backs up to the corner. Therefore, Robert M. Barton, witness for the City of Redding, believes a greater rating should be given due to this extreme hazard. Staff did not allocate any points in the "Other Factor (OF)" category for this hazard.

The presiding officer ruled that this condition of traffic back-up which leaves cars waiting or stranded on railroad tracks creates the likelihood of a serious and unavoidable accident in the event of a train passing through these crossings. At the hearing, several witnesses testified about this same traffic back-up problem that currently exists at other proposed project sites. Therefore, the presiding officer ordered revisions to the City of Redding and other similar projects commensurate with the hazard this back-up condition creates. Staff revised its evaluation of this and similar projects by adding one point to the OF. (Appendix C, Attachment 1, pp. 1-3.)

Kern County Standard Road Project

At the hearing in San Francisco, Barton challenged Staff's rating of the crossing geometrics of Kern County's Standard Road project. Barton believes the 135% angle turn which causes trucks to hit the railroad crossing arm 2-3 times a week when making the turn warrants a greater rating. Staff rated this factor as 8.72 based upon the description of the project.

Based upon comparable ratings in other projects with hazardous conditions, the presiding officer concurred with Staff's rating.

City of Torrance

At the hearing in Los Angeles, Staff opposed the blocking delay (BD) and cost estimate factors in the proposed Del Amo Boulevard project submitted by the City of Torrance (the City). The presiding officer's ruling is discussed below.

1. Blocking Delay

BD is the average wait and traffic delay created by a train passing through a railroad crossing. D.90-06-058 mandates that BD be measured at a crossing based upon reliable data supplied for similar grade crossings in close proximity to the one proposed. The City contends there is no comparable crossing near the proposed site and the proposed site has no existing crossing, therefore, it used the traffic delays at the proposed site of the train traffic in an adjacent switching yard. However, Staff points out that these trains in the switching yard create delays that exceed 10 minutes, a violation of G.O. 135, which will not be allowed at the regulated crossing once it is completed. At the hearing, Staff recommended that we exclude delays over 10 minutes used to compute the average delay. Alternatively, Staff recommended that the City perform a traffic delay study at a comparable site or that five minutes be used instead of the original nine-minute average blocking delay submitted in the nomination. The City contends there is no comparable site and will not agree to perform a study.

The presiding officer concluded that a five-minute average BD was appropriate.

2. Cost of Project

Staff contends that the qualifications for an eligible project contained in S&H Code § 2450(b) require that the project cost must include all approaches, ramps, connections, drainage and other construction required to make the grade separation operable and to effect the separation of grades.¹ The City contends the cost to acquire the right-of-way and construct a new roadway are not a necessary part of this proposed grade separation project. However, Staff points out that these costs were included in applications for funding in two prior years. Moreover, Staff contends that this proposed grade separation will not be operable without the additional road construction.

The map of this project indicates that this grade separation will be built on currently vacant land between the ends of two city streets. In order to enter and exit the grade separation, the road must be extended to meet both ends of the grade separation. Therefore, the presiding officer concluded that the project is not operable without this additional road construction and this cost must be included in the total project cost.

¹ § 2450(b) "Project" means the grade separation and all approaches, ramps, connections, drainage, and other construction required to make the grade separation operable and to effect the separation of grades. Such grade separation project may include provision for separation of nonmotorized traffic from the vehicular roadway and the railroad tracks. If a separation of nonmotorized traffic is not to be included in a project, there shall be an affirmative finding that the separation of nonmotorized traffic is not in the public interest. On any project where there is only one railroad track in existence, the project shall be built so as to provide for expansion to two tracks when the Director of Transportation determines that the project is on an existing or potential major railroad passenger corridor. Such project may consist of:

(1) The alteration or reconstruction of existing grade separations.

(2) The construction of new grade separations to eliminate existing or proposed grade crossings.

(3) The removal or relocation of highways or railroad tracks to eliminate existing grade crossings.