Financing

Blue Line contends that it is constructing the project on a very limited budget and that there is insufficient money to construct any separations that were not in its plan as it was presented to this Commission. Yet it proceeded to commence construction between crossings where we have no jurisdiction and sought permission to construct in the crossings. It continues to seek additional authority to build its project while the remaining crossings are being considered by this Decision. (Motion dated February 1, 2002) But it alleges that rejection of any of the at-grade crossings would put into jeopardy hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars already invested in the project. (Tr 824) This is the argument foretold in the beginning of this opinion.

We find this rationale to be disingenuous. Blue Line's budgetary problem does not excuse us from our statutory duty to examine proposed crossings for safety. Blue Line proceeded with the expenditure of funds knowing that there may be objections to some or all of its proposed crossings. It "bet" this Commission would approve everything it proposed, or at least settle for inexpensive fixes. It appears that Blue Line has lost this bet. The bootstrap contentions now before cannot prevail. We should not and will not approve what we believe to be an unsafe condition.

Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Rosenthal in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(d) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were received on May 6, 2002.

NOBLAG once again raised the issue of compliance with CEQA. This issue was covered in the Proposed Decision (PD) and will not be addressed again.

Staff asks that the determination regarding Ave. 45 be reconsidered. We are not persuaded to change the PD.

Staff, Applicant, and LAMTA dispute that portion of the order that waives the requirement of a horn or whistle being sounded between Aves. 45-57. GO 143-B, Title 3.04 requires light-rail vehicles to be equipped with a bell or horn. It does not require that the bell or horn be sounded at every at-grade crossing. The many days of hearing in this matter in which noise problems were addressed provide sufficient background for our order relating to these specific crossings. (GO 143-B, Title 1.07)

A more serious problem is the assertion that Staff has not received final plans for the Pasadena East/West crossing proposed in Exhibit 55, a one-page exhibit. Applicant represented this to be a change in its testimony. (Tr 1729-30) Detailed plans should have been presented to Staff. We will not permit construction of any crossing at Pasadena East/West until appropriate plans have been submitted to and approved by Staff. We shall expect Applicant to notify the record when the plans have been delivered to the Staff and the Staff to inform the record as to its approval of the plans or to seek further hearings.

Applicant asserts that the PD confuses ATCS with a safety device. It is true that ATCS is a traffic control device, but there were repeated assertion that ATCS would contribute to the safety of crossings where it was used, and thus Applicant's comments will not be adopted. Applicant and LAMTA state that the ATCS systems are to be installed by the municipalities. We hold Applicant responsible for installation of these devices.

Applicant asserts that there is no reliable evidence of unusual safety hazard at Aves. 45 and 50 to justify a reduced speed. Similarly, it discounts assertions of noise problems. The evidence of Association, MWHA, and Staff satisfy us on these matters.

Applicant and Staff point to the lack of specific mention of certain crossings. Fairview and Magnolia Streets were originally proposed as at-grade crossings in A.00-11-015. Subsequently, the City of South Pasadena agreed to close these crossings, and they were dropped from the application. Thus, there is no need to include them in this decision. Hope, Fremont/Grevalia Streets, and Fair Oaks Ave. were inadvertently omitted from the Ordering Paragraph and will be included.

Association asks us to reconsider the environmental and noise issues. No new arguments are presented and no further action is required.

Findings of Fact

1. Blue Line was established to construct a light-rail project between Los Angeles Union Station in Los Angeles and Sierra Madre Villa Blvd. in Pasadena.

2. The completed project will be turned over to MTA for operation.

3. To complete its project, Blue Line must make numerous street crossings, both separated and at-grade, for which it seeks Commission authority.

4. Blue Line has obtained funds from the Legislature for this project.

5. Blue Line has adopted the "design-build" method, which requires constructing portions of the project before obtaining permission to build all of the proposed crossings.

6. All of the proposed crossing authorizations needed from this Commission have been obtained other than at-grade crossings at Avenues 45 to 59 in Los Angeles, and Del Mar and California Blvds. and Glenarm and Fillmore Sts. in Pasadena.

7. Civic officials and emergency authorities in both of these communities endorse the proposed at-grade crossings.

8. Grade separations are many times more expensive to build than at-grade crossings.

9. Blue Line did not budget for separations at any of the crossings subject to this Decision.

10. Grade separations are safer than at-grade crossings.

11. Public opinion is divided between at-grade and separated crossings.

12. Two residential groups in the Mount Washington neighborhood favor separations at Avenues 45 and 50, but propose conditions if at-grade crossings are authorized.

13. Blue Line proposes to construct 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, an adaptive traffic control system to regulate motor traffic on nearby streets, install a vehicle detection system signaling a train to stop if a vehicle is in the crossing, change pedestrian crosswalks, engage crossing guards during school hours, change the location of a nearby bus stop, and impose speed restrictions on its trains to provide for safety at Avenue 45.

14. Blue Line proposes to construct 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates and an adaptive traffic control system at Avenue 50.

15. Staff does not believe an at-grade crossing at Avenue 45 is safe, but does not oppose at-grade crossings elsewhere.

16. All interested parties favored eliminating the need to sound a train horn or a whistle every time a train approaches either Avenue 45 or Avenue 50.

17. All interested parties agree that audible devices on crossing gates need not be active after the gates reaches the horizontal position at Avenues 45 and 50.

18. There is a restricted line of sight to trains for motorists at the northeast corner of the Avenue 45 crossing.

19. Traffic analyses of Avenues 45 and 50 do not reveal a large projected increase in usage.

20. Avenue 45 is a preferred route for school children.

21. Avenue 45 cannot be separated without substantial changes to the Southwest Museum Station.

22. Avenue 50 cannot be separated without also separating Avenue 51.

23. There is no opposition to the at-grade crossings at Avenues 51 to 57.

24. Blue Line proposes to run at 20 miles-per-hour between Avenues 51 and 57.

25. Blue Line proposes to obey all traffic lights between Avenues 51 and 57, rather than preempt them.

26. The crossings between Avenues 51 and 57 will not be gated.

27. Blue Line proposes to install 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, and an ATCS at Del Mar and California Blvds.

28. A grade separation at Del Mar Blvd. can be constructed without causing separations at nearby at-grade crossings.

29. Blue Line proposes to install a raised median, standard No. 9 gates, and an ATCS at Glenarm St.

30. The ATCS to be employed by Blue Line at various crossings has not yet been developed or tested.

31. Blue Line proposes to close Fillmore St. to motor traffic and install pedestrian swing gates.

32. NOBLAG protests all of the at-grade crossings proposed for Pasadena.

33. Del Mar Blvd. is the most heavily traveled of Blue Line's proposed at-grade crossings.

34. A new project authorized at the Del Mar Blvd. crossing will create 357 apartments, many businesses, and 1,250 to 1,500 parking spaces.

35. The new project will impair the sight line of train operators heading south as they emerge from the project at Del Mar Blvd.

36. There has been no evidence of impaired sight lines at California Blvd., Glenarm St., or Fillmore St.

37. Traffic projections for California Blvd. and Glenarm St. do not require creation of grade separations.

38. The Commission is a responsible agency under CEQA.

39. The environmental documents for the Blue Line only identify and locate the at-grade crossings in the project and do not show grade separation alternatives.

40. The environmental documents do not identify any significant effects attributable to the discretionary approval of at-grade crossings subject to this decision.

Conclusions of Law

1. As a responsible agency the Commission need only make findings on significant environmental effects resulting from its discretionary approvals identified in the environmental documents of the lead agency. No such significant effects were identified.

2. Practicability embraces more than the concept of whether a crossing can be physically built. When making a judgment about practicability we must consider the effectiveness of safety measures, the analysis of our staff, the opinion of local civic and emergency authorities, the opinion of the public, and the cost of a separation in comparison with an at-grade solution.

3. Separations over Avenues 57 through 45 can be physically built but in our judgment need not be separated.

4. The Commission may order a train not to sound its bell or whistle in a city and may condition the audible warning requirements of GO 143-B and GO 75-C.

5. Separations over Glenarm and Fillmore Sts. and California Blvd. can be physically built but in our opinion need not be separated.

6. Based on the record in this proceeding a separation over Del Mar Blvd. is practicable because Blue Line has not met its very heavy burden of proof that it will be safe without being separated.

7. We cannot abandon our duty to authorize only safe crossings merely because the party proposing a crossing only has funds for an unsafe at-grade crossing.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The applications of Blue Line to construct at grade crossings at Avenues 45 through 57, California Blvd., Fillmore, Glenarm, Hope, and Fremont/Grevalia Streets, are granted, as conditioned by this order. Permission is granted to construct a grade separation at Fair Oaks Ave. Permission to construct an at-grade crossing at Pasadena Ave. East/West is granted, conditioned on a detailed plan being submitted to Staff for approval. Staff shall approve the plans or request a hearing.

2. The application to construct an at-grade crossing at Del Mar Blvd. is denied.

3. Avenue 45 shall be protected by 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, an Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS), a vehicle detection system, and crossing guards during school commute hours. The pedestrian crossings and bus stop on Marmian Way shall be altered to enhance the safety of pedestrians at Avenue 45. Trains shall not travel faster than 20 miles-per-hour across Avenue 45. Train horns shall not be used except in emergencies. Audible warning devices on gates shall cease operations after the gate has reached the "down" position.

4. Avenue 50 shall be protected by 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, and an ATCS. Trains shall not operate faster than 20 miles per hour across Avenue 50. Trains horns shall not be used except in emergencies. Audible warning devices on gates shall cease operations after the gate has reached the "down" position.

5. At Avenues 51 through 57 the train shall not operated faster than 20 miles-per-hour across the crossings. Trains shall obey all traffic signals. No gates are required.

6. Glenarm St. shall be protected by standard No. 9 gates, a raised median, pedestrian swing gates, and an ATCS.

7. Fillmore St. shall be closed to motor traffic. Pedestrians shall be protected by pedestrian swing gates.

8. California Blvd. shall be protected by 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, and an ATCS.

9. Operation over the project shall not commence until it has been proven to the satisfaction of the Staff that an ATCS has been installed and that it is working properly.

10. An at-grade crossing at Del Mar Blvd. is denied.

11. All motions not previously granted are denied.

12. These proceedings are closed.

This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.

APPENDIX A

LIST OF APPEARANCES

MARTIN A. MATTES

JOSE E. GUZMAN JR., Esq.
RICHARD THORPE
TOM STONE
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOT LLP
50 California Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4799
Appearing for Applicant, L.A.-Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority

JOHN C. MILLER
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Appearing for Applicant, L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

AUGUSTIN M. ZUNIGA
JEFF LYON
JAMES ESPARZA
205 S. Broadway, #310
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Appearing for Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Interested Party

JOHN JONTIG
100 North Garfield Avenue
Room 309-6
Pasadena, CA 91109
Appearing for City of Pasadena Public Works & Transportation
Department, Interested Party

N. ENRIQE MARTINEZ
100 N. Garfield Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91109-7215
Appearing for City of Pasadena, Interested Party

MARTHA VAN ROOIJEN
1414 Mission Street
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Appearing for South Pasadena, Interested Party

JO ANNE BARKER, Protestant
6039 Piedmont Avenue
Highland Park, CA 90042-4250

LARRY M. HOFFMAN
Attorney at Law
16130 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
Encino, CA 91436
Appearing for Mount Washington Association, Protestant

DOUGLAS D. BARNES
Attorney at Law
LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS D. BARNES
4620 Glenalbyn Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Appearing for Mount Washington Association

SHARON ROESLER
JIM LEONG
STAN SOSA
P.O. Box 65146
Los Angeles, CA 90065-0146
Appearing for Mt. Washington Homeowner's Alliance, Protestants

JAMES D. SQUERI

ALEXANDRA OZOLS
Attorney at Law
GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI, RITCHIE & DAY, LLP
505 Sansome Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Appearing for NOBLAG, Protestant

WILLIAM D. ROSS
Attorney at Law
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM D. ROSS
520 So. Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610
Appearing for NOBLAG, Protestant

DR. JAMES A. CUTTS
KAREN CUTTS
P.O. Box 51028
Pasadena, CA 91115
Appearing for NOBLAG, Protestant

PATRICK S. BERDGE, Staff
Legal Division
505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 4300
San Francisco, CA 94102

HANI MOUSSA
Staff, Rail Safety & Carriers Division
320 W. 4th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90013

(END OF APPENDIX A)

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page