Pasadena Crossings
NOBLAG opposes the proposed at-grade crossings at Del Mar Blvd., California Blvd., Fillmore St., and Glenarm St., arguing that Blue Line has not met its burden of demonstrating that these at-grade crossings would be safe and therefore should be separated. Fillmore St. will be closed to motor traffic and only available to pedestrians. Del Mar and California Blvds. are to have four-quad gates and pedestrian swing gates. Glenarm St. will be equipped with a raised median, two standard PUC No. 9 automatic gates, and swing gates. All other than Fillmore Ave. will be equipped with an Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS), about which Witness Korve testified,
But as designed, this system will also virtually assure that there will be no accidents. (Tr 1134)
Furthermore, there appears to be some conflict as to whether ATCS is currently available. Witness Rix, City Engineer of Pasadena, testified that software for the system has yet to be designed. (Tr 780) Witness Korve stated that ATCS is
"...a standard concept used in many places throughout the world. So it's just as average or standard as an aspirin." (Tr 1130)
We understand that ATCS is in use on other systems and that an ATCS must be specifically adapted to the geometrics of the Pasadena crossings in order to be effective. We are convinced that a properly adapted ATCS will interconnect the traffic signals on the city streets with the warning devices at the crossings to sufficiently prevent excessive vehicular speeds and queuing near or on the tracks.
Blue Line presents extensive analyses of the present and anticipated traffic at the Pasadena crossings, all of which lead to the conclusion that the proposed at-grade crossings will be safe. Staff does not oppose at-grade crossings. The local civic and emergency authorities support the at-grade crossings. As with Avenue 45, public opinion expressed at the PPH and in letters and petitions to the Commission is mixed. All favor construction of the Blue Line, but there are fervent supporters for both at-grade and separated solutions.
The evidence presented by Blue Line and the City of Pasadena was questioned at the hearing, and NOBLAG presented extensive opposing testimony. Though it insists that separations are essential for all crossings NOBLAG concentrated its efforts at Del Mar Blvd. crossing. This is the most heavily used proposed at-grade crossing in the entire project. (Tr 1858)
Since the close of the evidentiary hearings the local Zoning Hearing Officer announced approval of a major project at the Del Mar Blvd. intersection. By Ruling dated January 18, 2002 the ALJ permitted NOBLAG to file a declaration stating the effect of the new complex on safety at a Del Mar at-grade crossing.
All parties were permitted to file responses. Only Blue Line availed itself of this opportunity. In addition to the evidence presented during the regular hearing NOBLAG's declaration raised significant issues concerning the added traffic that would result from 347 new apartments, several businesses, and 1,200-1,500 parking spaces associated with the new complex. The declaration also depicts how the new complex will be built over and around the track of Blue Line, so that the train will emerge as from the mouth of a tunnel. Train operators will have restricted sight lines to traffic at the intersection when heading south, as will motorists to the train.
In reply Blue Line states that this is not new information, in that it was mentioned as a possibility in NOBLAG's testimony. The declaration also disputes the severity of the sight line reduction claimed by NOBLAG. In fact, traffic engineer Korve, sponsored by Blue Line, testified:
Q So is it your testimony that the installation of crossing gates obviates the need to be concerned about sight, line of vision, line of sight, rather?
A If you have gates, then the line of sight is not as important. You always would like to have line of sight just so both sides could see each other, but it's not necessary when you have positive controls such as gates.
Q Well, focusing though on line of sight, is there some minimal distance down the track that you would consider it necessary for a motorist to be able to see a train or a pedestrian to be able to see a train to have a safe crossing?
A With gates you don't need it. (Tr 1138-39)
The Blue Line goes so far as to imply that any threat to safety is eliminated with the use of positive controls, such as 4-quadrant gates. We generally agree, but believe that such an implication overstates the benefits of positive controls. The benefit of 4-quadrant gates is not an elimination of risk, but rather an overwhelming reduction of that risk. Additionally, the use of ATCS can address the problem of queuing and other safety related issues. Finally, the LRV will be traveling at a maximum of 25 miles per hour from the Del Mar Station platform to the Del Mar crossing. (Declaration of Thomas Stone p 14) A relatively low speed of 25 miles per hour does provide an additional level of safety. However, in looking at the specific crossing, we note the limited sight lines for pedestrians, especially at the North-West corner of the crossing heading east. Several factors improve sight visibility at a crossing. Formulas calculating the sight distance for a vehicle or train are based on speed. The proposed ATCS and traffic signals on Del Mar will control vehicles approaching the crossing, but to address train speeds, we will set a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour between the Del Mar Station and the Del Mar crossing. We will direct the Rail Safety and Carriers Division to monitor this segment and adjust the maximum speed as it deems appropriate.
We also impose other mitigating conditions to keep the area free from obstruction. Parking on the North side of Del Mar Blvd. will be prohibited at all times. Landscaping will be properly maintained so as not to impede the visibility of the railroad signal lights. Driveways for access to the new complex will not be constructed on Del Mar Blvd. With these conditions, we find that an at-grade crossing at Del Mar Blvd. be adequately equipped. A separated grade crossing is not practicable.
Should conditions arise that would compromise the public safety at any of these at-grade crossings, Staff should promptly commence a formal proceeding for the purpose of re-evaluating the need for a grade separation or a road closure.
As for the other at-grade crossings contested by NOBLAG we find the measures proposed by Blue Line will provide adequate safety. The crossings are not skewed, the sight lines are not obscured, and the traffic is not so heavy as to indicate the need for further protection. We determine that at-grade crossings at California Blvd., Fillmore St., and Glenarm St. will be adequately equipped and should be authorized without any additional conditions. Separations are not practicable.
Comments on Alternate Proposed Decision
The alternate decision of Commissioner Duque 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. Reply comments were received on May 13, 2002.
NOBLAG once again raised the issue of compliance with CEQA. This issue was covered this decision and will not be addressed again.
Staff asks that the determination regarding Ave. 45 be reconsidered. We are not persuaded to change this decision.
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)
In its opening comments, Staff asserts that it has not received final plans for the Pasadena East/West crossing as proposed in Exhibit 55. Applicant represented this to be a change in its testimony. (TR 1729-30) This change was made to address the concern of two crossings in close proximity to one another as raised by the Staff. Staff also alleges that the crossing as proposed in Exhibit 55 has been changed. We have reviewed the changes and find that they will not have any significant effect on the safety of the Pasadena East/West crossing.
Applicant asserts that there is no reliable evidence of unusual safety hazard at Ave. 45 and 50 to justify a reduced speed. The evidence of Association, MWHA, and Staff satisfy us on this matter.
Applicant and Staff both cite GO 143-B as the appropriate rule to follow regarding the sounding of an audible warning device. Both parties identify legal requirements that this Commission must follow. We therefore have made the appropriate changes in this decision to remove the exemption. We are sympathetic to the residence of the Mt. Washington area, and therefore will recommend that a "quacker" type horn be considered.
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 approve 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.
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 45-59 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. Grade separations are safer than at-grade crossings.
10. Public opinion is divided between at-grade and separated crossings.
11. Two residential groups in the Mount Washington neighborhood favor separations at Avenues 45 and 50, but propose conditions if at-grade crossings are authorized.
12. Blue Line proposes to construct 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, an automatic 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.
13. Blue Line proposes to construct 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates and an automatic traffic control system at Avenue 50.
14. Staff does not believe an at-grade crossing at Avenue 45 is safe, but does not oppose at-grade crossings elsewhere.
15. All interested parties favored eliminating the need to sound a train horn or whistle every time a train approaches either Avenue 45 or Avenue 50, except that the Authority proposed the use of "quacker" type horns as an alternative to the elimination of the horn requirement and suggested that the Blue Line's operator, the MTA, determine whether to seek a pilot program to establish a no horn zone.
16. 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.
17. There is a restricted line of sight to trains for motorists at the northeast corner of the Avenue 45 crossing.
18. Traffic analyses of Avenues 45 and 50 do not reveal a large projected increase in usage.
19. Avenue 45 is a preferred route for school children.
20. Avenue 45 cannot be separated without substantial changes to the Southwest Museum Station.
21. Avenue 50 cannot be separated without also separating Avenue 51.
22. There is no opposition to the at-grade crossings at Avenues 51-57.
23. Blue Line proposes to run at 20 miles per hour between Avenues 51-57.
24. Blue Line proposes to obey all traffic lights between Avenues 51-57, rather than preempt them.
25. The crossings between Avenues 51-57 will not be gated.
26. Blue Line proposes to install 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, and an ATCS at Del Mar and California Blvds.
27. A grade separation at Del Mar Blvd. can be constructed without causing separations at nearby at-grade crossings.
28. Blue Line proposes to install a raised median, standard No. 9 gates, and an ATCS at Glenarm St.
29. The ATCS to be employed by Blue Line at various crossings has not yet been installed in Pasadena.
30. Blue Line proposes to close Fillmore St. to motor traffic and install pedestrian swing gates.
31. NOBLAG protests all of the at-grade crossings proposed for Pasadena.
32. Del Mar Blvd. is the most heavily traveled of Blue Line's proposed at-grade crossings.
33. A new project authorized at the Del Mar Blvd. crossing will create 357 apartments, many businesses, and 1,250-1,500 parking spaces.
34. The new project will impair the sight line of train operators heading south as they emerge from the project at Del Mar Blvd.
35. Use of 4-quadrant gates, ATCS, and a 20 mile-per-hour speed limit at the Del Mar crossing will adequately protect that at-grade crossing.
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. allow for at-grade crossings.
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.
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 opinions 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 57-45 can be physically built but in our judgment need not be separated.
4. GO 143-B does not provide a suitable exemption from the sounding of an audible warning device in this case.
5. Separations over Glenarm and Fillmore Sts. and California Blvd. can be physically built but in our opinion need not be separated.
6. A grade separation at Del Mar Blvd. can be physically built, but in our judgment need not be separated. However, a speed limit of 20 miles per hour should be imposed.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The applications of Blue Line to construct at grade crossings at Southwest Museum Ave., Avenues 45-57, California Blvd., Fillmore St., Glenarm St., Hope, and Freemont/Grevalia Streets, are granted, as conditioned by this order. Permission is granted to construct a grade separation at Fair Oaks Ave. Permission to construct and at-grade crossing at Pasadena Ave. East/West is granted. Fairview Ave. and Magnolia Street will be closed, and therefore, we deny any grade crossing authority.
2. The application to construct an at-grade crossing at Del Mar Blvd. is granted with the condition that the LRV shall not exceed 20 miles per hour. Rail Safety and Carriers Division shall monitor this segment of the route and make modifications to this speed limit as it deems appropriate.
3. Avenue 45 shall be protected by 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates, an Automatic 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. Trains shall be equipped with "quacker" type horns. 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 shall be equipped with "quacker" type horns. Audible warning devices on gates shall cease operations after the gate has reached the "down" position.
5. At Avenues 51-57 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 two standard No. 9 automatic 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. Del Mar Blvd. shall be protected by 4-quadrant gates, pedestrian swing gates and an ATCS.
11. All motions not previously granted are denied.
12. These proceedings are closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated May 16, 2002, at San Francisco, California.
HENRY M. DUQUE
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
Commissioners
We will file a joint dissent.
/s/ LORETTA M. LYNCH
President
/s/ CARL W. WOOD
Commissioner
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)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
August 01, 2002
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 00-10-012 et al.
Decision 02-05-047 was mailed on May 21, 2002, without the Joint dissent of President Lynch and Commissioner Wood. Attached herewith is the dissent.
/s/ CAROL A. BROWN
Carol A. Brown, Interim Chief
Administrative Law Judge
CAB:mnt/epg
Attachment
Joint Dissent of President Loretta M. Lynch and Commissioner Carl Wood
Our dissent to this decision is based on two primary concerns. First, we disagree that the Commission should approve the proposed at-grade crossing at Del Mar boulevard. Secondly, we believe that the Blue Line Construction Authority has not provided full information about several issues to the Commission and other parties throughout this case. The decision approved by the majority, in its silence, condones this behavior.
First, after reviewing the plans, staff reports and multitude of comments from the parties on these crossings, we share the concerns of the "No Blue Line at Grade" (OR "NOBLAG) Group, our own staff and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) about the future complex at Del Mar. This complex will add 347 new apartments, several businesses, and 1,200 to 1,500 parking spaces. This development will only add to what is already one of the busiest, if not the busiest, crossing along the entire project. Train operators will have restricted sight lines to traffic at the intersection when heading south, as will motorists and pedestrians to the train. Although 4-quadrant gates will add some measure of safety, as the proposed decision states, "if gates were the definitive solution to crossing protection there would never be instances where drivers or pedestrians crash through them on their way to an accident." The sight lines for both train operators and motorists will be severely restricted as compared with sight lines for the remainder of the project.
The decision adopted by the majority mitigates the restricted sight lines by requiring a somewhat slower speed through the Del Mar portal. The decision cautions that "should conditions arise that would compromise the public safety at any of these at-grade crossings, staff should promptly commence a formal proceeding for the purpose of re-evaluating the need for a grade separation or a road closure." What kinds of conditions other than pedestrian and motorist injuries or fatalities would motivate such a re-evaluation? Why not prevent any such possible tragedies now, while the project is still under construction and it might be possible, economically, to do so? A significant amount of digging is going on right now for the 1,500 space garage. We believe that the Blue Line should take advantage of this opportunity, coordinate the parking structure and grade separation construction, and provide what we know would be a safer crossing and Del Mar station for the Pasadena community.
Unfortunately, coordination has been lacking in this proceeding from the outset. We are very concerned at the Blue Line Authority's lack of disclosure to PUC staff and to other parties about the full scope and scale of the Del Mar development. Indeed, the PUC would not know about the full magnitude of this development but for the efforts of NOBLAG. The lack of disclosure on Del Mar, as well as the last minute change to the agreement with the staff, on Pasadena Avenue East/West are very troubling. In our view, we should not reward the Blue Line Construction Authority's lack of disclosure on Del Mar by looking the other way at real safety issues.
We should be clear that we share the Blue Line's, the community's, and our colleagues', enthusiasm for this project. We are familiar with the Pasadena area and fully appreciate how critical this transportation link will be for Pasadena families and businesses. We strongly support transit villages. But we are concerned that allowing safety issues to persist will compromise their future success, not only in Pasadena. We join the Commission's safety experts in cautioning our colleagues to recall that our primary role is to ensure that all crossings, including Del Mar, are constructed in the safest way possible. The artist's rendition of the future development at the Del Mar station promises an attractive addition to the Pasadena community. We doubt that approving it at grade, even with the protections proposed, will be the safest option. Ultimately, we believe that the ALJ's proposed decision most appropriately balanced safety with the construction of much needed transit lines, and therefore dissent from the alternate decision adopted by the majority.
Dated July 31, 2002 in San Francisco, California.
/s/ LORETTA M. LYNCH
Loretta M. Lynch |
|
President |
/s/ CARL WOOD
Carl Wood |
|
Commissioner |
