5. Evidence Submitted

Evidentiary hearings were held on March 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2003. The parties filed initial and reply briefs. The evidence submitted by each party is summarized below. The matter was submitted for consideration on May 23, 2003.

5.1 City of San Diego

The City of San Diego presented 15 witnesses. Walter Rask, Manager of Architecture and Planning for the City Centre Development Corporation, an agency of the San Diego Redevelopment Agency, testified that Centre City Community Plan calls for development in the area to be guided by several goals, including connecting Balboa Park to the San Diego Bay, a nearly century-old idea. The City plan for "Park- to-Bay Link" to be a multi-modal transportation corridor, providing an attractive boulevard-type setting for trolley, vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, with broad tree-shaded sidewalks, shops and cafes. Hal Sadler, City Centre Development Corporation Board member, also testified that a grade separation structure would divide the downtown, as well as wall off the Bay from residents and visitors. Sadler also noted that the Corporation is considering a long-range plan to underground trains throughout downtown but that the proposal is extremely expensive and requires careful coordination among all affected parties.

Lieutenant Paul Dyresen, San Diego Police Department, testified that, when completed and open, the Park Boulevard intersection will provide an important route for police and other emergency vehicles to access the waterfront area of San Diego. Park Boulevard will provide one of the few direct routes to Harbor Drive and will keep response times low.

Civil Engineer George Paulsen testified that he prepared the Grade Separation Alternatives and Feasibility Study, which evaluated five alternatives for Park Boulevard to cross the tracks before intersecting with Harbor Drive. Placing Park Boulevard under the tracks was found to be infeasible due to groundwater levels. Placing the tracks under Park Boulevard was also rejected due to the need for over half a mile of descending ramp on either side of the crossing, and the "domino effect" of having to similarly underground adjacent crossings to allow the trains an ample interval to return to grade. A mile-long, 32-feet deep ramp would require displacing the BNSF yard and would require building below the level of groundwater.⁶ A similar rationale, less the groundwater problem, led Paulsen to reject the alternative of elevating the tracks over Park Boulevard. The approach and descent ramps necessary to elevate the trains to 26 feet would interfere with the BNSF yard, as well as have significant visual impacts. The two remaining alternatives are an at-grade crossing, as proposed by the City, and a grade separation structure elevating Park Boulevard and Harbor Drive. Paulsen's study concluded that the grade separation structure would (1) require that the City purchase additional right-of-way, (2) have severe visual impact on the area, and (3) cost approximately $30 million more than the at-grade alternative.

Mark Peterson, Transportation and Traffic Engineer, explained his study evaluating the near and longer-term traffic implications with and without the Park Boulevard crossing to Harbor Drive. The study concluded that closing the Park Boulevard crossing would result in a broad diversion and redistribution of trips throughout the southern and eastern portions of the City. Traffic volumes also would increase on the east west streets, Market, Island, and J, as traffic seeks alternative connections to Harbor Drive. Traffic at nearby crossings⁷ to Harbor Drive will also increase.

Railroad engineering expert Eric Harkinson presented an analysis of the public safety features and the hazards at the proposed crossing. The primary hazards to motorists listed in the report were queuing across tracks on southbound Park Boulevard, and northbound vehicles queuing on the tracks for the private drive just north of the tracks. Presignals will impede the southbound traffic from entering the crossing when a train is approaching, and the Harbor Drive signals will be phased to allow the vehicles on the tracks to clear before the train arrives. Northbound traffic seeking to enter the private drive will have 200 feet of queuing area in the driveway to ensure that all vehicles seeking to enter the driveway can do so and clear the tracks. The analysis also addressed pedestrian hazards, which are reduced by pedestrian bridge and through the use of pedestrian barriers and removal of sidewalks. Harkinson explained that no other crossings in downtown San Diego have four-quadrant gates and a grade-separated pedestrian crossing. Harkinson concluded that the safety features at the Park Boulevard crossing will be significantly greater than what exists at any other downtown crossing.

Stephen P. Celniker, Traffic Engineer for the Metropolitan Transit Development Board testified that the gates and traffic signal preemptions in use at the seven at-grade crossings in San Diego have been very successful at keeping the at-grade crossings clear of conflicts. He also pointed out that the alignment of the proposed Park Boulevard crossing would be better than the other nearby crossings because motorists will have a direct view of the crossing. At the other crossings, the streets have an approximately 45-degree curve just north of the crossing. Celniker also reported that BNSF had briefed the City on its intention to upgrade its track and all crossings in San Diego, perhaps to include four quadrant gates.

Wayne Terry, Superintendent of Transportation for the San Diego Trolley, testified that 163 trolleys pass through the bayside corridor each day, with special events adding between 10 and 20 trains, operating at an average speed of 15 miles/hour. Terry stated that conventional crossing gate equipment would be adequate for the crossing. Terry also explained the actions the trolley took to correct a signal-phasing problem observed by RCES the day of the PPH in San Diego. In rebuttal to RCES' testimony, Terry explained that the sight lines at the crossing will be improved due to a large building located near the tracks being replaced by the Ballpark, which will be set back much further. Photographs of the intersection were accepted into the record.

Brad Jacobson, Associate Traffic Engineer, City of San Diego, presented the City's Event Transportation Management Plan. Required as a mitigation measure for the Ballpark, the Plan provides for vehicular and pedestrian movement to and from on Ballpark event days. The Plan requires closure of southbound Park Boulevard before, during, and after events, as well as traffic control officers to be stationed at the crossing to guide pedestrians to the overpass. The Plan will be modified based on experience.

Timothy L. Smith, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, opposed grade separating the crossing because the structures necessary to separate the crossing would interfere with the train engineers' line of sight to the crossing. He supported the use of four quadrant gates as a more effective and cost efficient option.

Christine Anderson, San Diego Unified Port District, described the effects closing or grade separating the crossing would have on the Port, and supported the City's request. John W. Hagggerty, MTDB's design engineer, stated that the crossing had safety features beyond that necessary for a safe crossing. Theresa Hall, City of San Diego Fire and Life Safety Services, testified that the Park Boulevard crossing would decrease public safety response time. The architect for the new Ballpark, Jim W. Handley, stated that a grade separation structure would have a major impact on the design of the Ballpark. Representing residents of the Barrio Logan neighborhood, Rachel Ortiz opposed closing the crossing because it would send a stream of traffic into their neighborhood. Carol C. Wallace, President and Chief Executive Officer of the San Diego Convention Center Corporation, explained that a grade-separated crossing would make it very difficult for trucks to access the convention center, and the structure would interfere with views of the Bay.

5.2 RCES

RCES' Supervisor, Haji Jameel, calculated the hazard index and accident prediction factors for crossings in the downtown San Diego area and concluded that the Park Boulevard crossing scored significantly higher than the other crossings in San Diego. Jameel also compared the Park Boulevard scores to crossings being considered for grade separation, and found that Park Boulevard exceeded those crossings as well. Due to the significant accident potential at the Park Boulevard crossing as compared to other crossings in the area, Jameel recommended that the crossing remain closed, or be grade-separated.

The hazard index is calculated by multiplying the average daily vehicle count by the average daily train count and a "protection factor" which is determined by the safety devices present at the crossing. The product is then divided by 1000. Jameel calculated the hazard index for the proposed Park Boulevard crossing and three other nearby crossings in San Diego and found that Park Boulevard's is 464, compared to 219, 108 and 86 for the other crossings. He also compared Park Boulevard's result to the hazard index for other at-grade crossings currently being considered for grade-separation and found that Park's substantially exceeded all the others.

The United States Department of Transportation has developed an accident prediction formula. Like the hazard index, this formula is based on the amount of vehicular traffic and train traffic. The formula also reflects the number of tracks, number of highway lanes, and safety features present at the crossings. Using this formula, Jameel calculated the accident prediction factor for the Park Boulevard crossing as well as three other nearby crossings in San Diego and showed that Park Boulevard's factor would be substantially higher than the factors for the other crossings.

Jameel next described a study by the Oregon Public Utility Commission which showed that as the number of tracks at a crossing increases, the probably of an accident increases proportionally.

Jameel next turned to the Federal Highway Administration's "Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook" which lists criteria for closing at-grade crossings. A criterion for railroad mainline sections recommends closure for any mainline section where more than five crossings occur within a one-mile segment. Here, Jameel pointed out, seven existing at-grade crossings occur within a one- mile segment, and thus meet the criterion for closure.

Jameel stated that the City's development plans for the area around the crossing would substantially increase daily vehicular traffic. The Ballpark and large hotel, plus other development projects, will bring numerous visitors unfamiliar with the intersection into the area.

Specific safety issues at the crossing include: the design of the four quadrant gate system, the six tracks, and the potential for queuing of vehicles on the tracks. Jameel observed that there is about 80 feet of clear storage distance from the Harbor Drive intersection to the tracks on southbound Park Boulevard. A 69-foot truck and one 15-foot car would fill this space, with subsequent vehicles queuing on the tracks and in danger of being hit by trains. He also noted that the sight lines at the intersection would limit motorists' ability to see approaching trains.

Jameel concluded by recommending that the Park Boulevard crossing should not be constructed at-grade over MTDB's four tracks and BNSF's two tracks. The crossing should be closed, or grade separated.

George Elsmore, RCES, testified that the stopping distance of freight trains varies due to train speed, train weight, and operator reaction time, among other things, and that reasonable fluctuations of these variables could result in a freight train being unable to stop at the Park Boulevard crossing. He also stated that it would not make sense to exclude light rail train traffic from consideration of hazards analysis of any rail crossing.

Mike N. Anderson, United Transportation Union, supported RCES and recommended closing the crossing due to the number of tracks and trains, and the heavy automobile and pedestrian traffic. As an alternative, he supported grade separation.

5.3 Public Participation Hearing

On September 25, 2002, the assigned Commissioner and ALJ convened a duly noticed Public Participation Hearing (PPH) in San Diego. Thirty-three members of the public offered comments for the record.

Convention center representatives strongly supported the City's proposed at-grade crossing, which will provide vehicular access via Park Boulevard to the convention center. These representatives particularly opposed a grade separation due to the steep grade trucks would have to negotiate to obtain access to the convention center, and pointed out that the California Coastal Commission is opposed to constructing structures that interfere with views of the Bay.

The Deputy General Manager and Counsel for the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) explained that the MTDB has offices immediately adjacent to this intersection. The San Diego Trolley and the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railroad Company are subsidiaries of MTDB. In total, 172 MTDB trains a day would pass through the proposed Park Boulevard crossing. This crossing will be one of 83 at-grade crossings in the MTDB's system. The most significant difference between these and other crossings is that the trains would be running at relatively low rates of speed, compared to other crossings where the trains operate at up to 55 miles per hour. In response to a question from the assigned Commissioner, the Deputy General Manager stated that the traffic level at this crossing is not unusually high and that other crossings in San Diego exceed the level expected here. The Deputy General Manager concluded by supporting the four quadrant gates and the pedestrian overpass particularly, and the application generally.

The president of the Downtown San Diego Partnership explained that they are finally seeing the long-planned redevelopment program come to fruition: The convention center has been expanded, a new 1,200 room hotel is being constructed to serve it, the new Ballpark, main library, and several new commercial, retail and residential projects. A grade-separation structure would interfere with access to these new developments, as well as cut off views of the Bay.

The Executive Director of Barrio Station explained that Barrio Logan is a predominantly Latino neighborhood located southeast of the proposed crossing, and that a grade-separation structure would thwart their efforts at redevelopment. She also opposed closing the crossing as that would lead to increased traffic, particularly truck traffic, in this residential neighborhood. The San Diego City Council recently approved a residential parking permit program for the neighborhood to discourage downtown workers from parking in the neighborhood. Five residents of Barrio Logan presented detailed statements opposing the grade-separated structure.

The San Diego Chapter of the American Institute of Architects stated that the park-to-bay link is an essential visual and physical link from the upland areas to the bay. While closing the crossing would preserve the view, it would grossly inconvenience guests at the convention center, the ballpark, and residents of Barrio Logan.

A representative of the North County Transit District, which operates the Coaster train service, explained that it supported the at-grade crossing with the additions of four quadrant gates and a pedestrian overpass. The representative also noted that the freight trains which occupy the crossing for extended periods of time are waiting for clearance to enter the main line, and that efforts are underway with BNSF and Caltrans Division of Rail to upgrade the central traffic control of the main line to eliminate the need for the trains to wait.

The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce supported the at-grade proposal but encouraged the City to work with BNSF to address the pedestrian safety issue.

The president of the Sedona Pacific Corporation, a real estate development firm, stated that the chief safety issue in this rail corridor is BNSF building trains on the tracks, and that he has witnessed such a train blocking an intersection for 45 minutes. He recommended that BNSF cease this activity. For a longer-term solution, he supports under grounding the entire rail corridor, but acknowledged that such a project would be extremely expensive.

Gas Lamp Quarter Associates opposed closing the crossing because it would put additional traffic in their heavily used pedestrian neighborhood and would cut off access from the convention center. The representative further noted that the greatest numbers of pedestrians cross the tracks at Fifth Avenue, and that any pedestrian bridge should be built there, not at Park Boulevard.

Additional speakers who supported San Diego's request:

San Diego Imperial Valley Railroad

San Diego Downtown Residents Group

Rocky Wilson (truck driver)

Armando Freire (transportation company owner)

Center City Advisory Committee

San Diego Imperial County Labor Council

San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation

Committee of 2004

Lankford & Associates (real estate development firm)

San Diego Port Tenants Association

San Diego Port Commission

Downtown Partnerships Urban Design Committee

Jankovich Company (marine fuel storage tank owner)

Caryl Iseman (East Village Resident)

San Diego Council of Design Professionals

San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau

San Diego Hotel Motel Association

East Village Association

Senator Dede Alpert, 39^th District

Letters supporting the City's application were received from:

Greg Cox, San Diego County Supervisor

Steve Peace, State Senator

Christine Kehoe, Assemblymember

Dede Alpert, State Senator

Howard Wayne, Assemblymember

Juan Vargas, Assemblymember

Nicholas Delorenzo and Michael Stepner, San Diego Council

Of Design Professionals

Ron Roberts, San Diego County Supervisor