Formula Revision
At the PHC, Robert M. Barton of DeLeuw, Cather and Company representing the City of Bakersfield and Kern County, proposed revisions to the existing formula by which projects are prioritized. As requested, he submitted in writing his proposed revisions to the formulas. Five parties, including the Commission Rail Safety & Carriers Division (Staff), filed timely comments.
Barton recommends that accident history and blocking delay be added as part of the "Special Conditions Factor" instead of a multiplier in the current formulas and that a "Readiness Factor" be added. Four parties3 agree that the existing formulas need revision, yet each party offers a variance of Barton's proposal. All four parties request that a workshop be held to discuss the appropriate formula revisions. Edward Ohannesian, Senior Engineer for the Fresno County Public Works Department, offers to host the workshop.
A fifth party, John Clifton, while testifying during the hearing regarding the Wine Train Project, recommended that projects be ranked on the Priority List by need, safety, and hazard and that the Commission become more involved in the communities of proposed projects.
Staff, on the other hand, believes Barton's proposal was considered at length in Investigation 89-09-021 when the Commission adopted the present priority formulas in D.90-06-058. Staff recommends that the Commission review these proposals after July 1, 2000 given the short time framework to complete the priority list.
Barton's proposal and the parties' comments on his proposal require review and analysis of the historical basis of the existing priority formulas as well as evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing formulas since they were established in 1990. The schedule outlined in the scoping memo would not accommodate the time Staff obviously needs to assess the existing formulas, research Barton's proposal, hold workshops, and take any other necessary steps to attempt to reach a resolution on any revisions.
In addition, a wider group of potential parties interested in this proceeding had no notice of the proposed new formulas and existing parties had no notice prior to submitting nominations for the two-year list process to be established in this proceeding. It would be unfair to establish a Priority List for two years, as we had planned, and change the formulas for the established list in the second year. Therefore, this issue was removed from this to the next such proceeding. We herein instruct Staff to provide notice to all cities, counties and interested parties and conduct a workshop on the proposed revisions to the priority formulas, submit a workshop report and make its recommendations to the Commission prior to the OII in the next Grade Separation Program proceeding.
