6. Discussion

6.1 Factual Setting and Factors to be Evaluated

In evaluating the safety of this crossing, we begin by noting that this crossing is part of an urban rail corridor that more or less follows the bay front in downtown San Diego. Harbor Drive, a major arterial street, is located on the bay side of the rail corridor, as is the San Diego convention center, port facilities, and several planned developments. Downtown traffic requires access to Harbor Drive and to the businesses located on the bay front. Seven other at-grade crossings provide this access. Essentially all trains, both light and heavy rail, which would pass through the proposed Park Boulevard crossing, also pass through the seven other at-grade crossings. Light rail trolley trains, about 170 per day, predominantly use this corridor. Seven heavy rail trains pass the crossing each day, one BNSF⁸ and six Coaster trains. Because the BNSF and Coaster yards are just west of the proposed Park Boulevard crossing, the heavy rail trains operate at unusually slow speeds, between 5 and 10 miles per hour.

As noted above, the assigned Commissioner's scoping memo set out the factors that the Commission would consider in evaluating San Diego's request for an at-grade crossing.

When adopting these factors in the Blue Line decision, we further described how we would approach evaluating these issues:

When a hearing is deemed necessary we expect the evidence to include these issues. The weight to be accorded each issue will vary, depending on our evaluation of the overall presentation made. Applicant bears the heavy burden of proving safety, rather than protestants proving unsafe conditions. Where there is a request for an at-grade crossing a mere preponderance of evidence will not suffice. The safety of the proposed at-grade crossing must be convincingly shown. We start with the presumption that a separation is appropriate. To overcome this presumption we expect evidence on future pedestrian and vehicle traffic over the crossing, the protective measures to be employed, the sight lines for trains and vehicles, the speed of trains and vehicles at the crossing, the number of train movements and length of trains, the ease of evasion of crossing protection by vehicles and pedestrians, and any other factors peculiar to the crossing. The detailed analysis of the crossing placed in evidence by our staff and the staff recommendation will be of great concern.

Blue Line, D.02-05-047, mimeo., at pages 11 - 12.

6.2 Evaluation of Factors Other than Safety

Consistent with our precedent, we begin with the presumption that grade separation is appropriate. The City bears the burden of overcoming this presumption, with convincing evidence that this particular crossing will be safely operated as an at-grade crossing. To determine whether the City has met this burden, we turn to the factors set out above. We will begin with the factors other than safety: public need, concurrence of emergency officials, the opinion of the general public, and the cost of a grade-separated structure.

The record shows a substantial public need for the crossing. As described above, the City presented extensive testimony from government, business, and community leaders explaining the important symbolic and physical role the Park Boulevard will play in connecting the bay to Balboa Park. The environmental documents project average daily vehicular traffic of 21,000 at this intersection with full build out of all contemplated development. This crossing will allow vehicles to access the convention center and port facilities, without impinging on adjacent residential neighborhoods. RCES did not contest the City's evidence on the public need for this crossing. Thus, we can conclude that there is a public need for the crossing.

Similarly, RCES did not dispute local emergency authorities testimony that an at-grade crossing would enhance rapid emergency response times to certain areas of the city.

The members of the public who spoke at the public participation hearing unanimously supported an at-grade crossing. Many objected to a grade-separated structure as a large and unsightly structure in a residential neighborhood, which would obscure the view of the bay as well. Several residents of Barrio Logan, the neighborhood that would be most directly affected by grade-separation, strongly opposed it. These residents also opposed closing the crossing because the re-directed traffic would go through their residential neighborhood. Accordingly, the record shows that the affected public supports an at-grade crossing.

While less persuasive than safety issues, we also consider the cost of a grade-separated structure. The City stated that a grade-separated structure would cost approximately $30 million more than an at-grade crossing. RCES did not dispute this estimate. The City indicated that if this Commission did not approve the requested at-grade crossing, Park Boulevard would be permanently closed at an unspecified location prior to crossing the tracks.

In sum, on the four factors that are not related to rail safety, the record shows convincing evidence in favor of an at-grade crossing.

6.3 Evaluation of Safety-Related Factors

The three safety-related factors - that the City has eliminated all potential safety hazards, RCES' recommendation, and our precedent - were the primary focus of this proceeding. The City offered extensive testimony that it had addressed all safety issues and that the safety features at the proposed Park Boulevard at-grade crossing would exceed those at all other San Diego crossings. RCES, however, contended that the safety hazards at the crossing, as currently designed, are substantial and are not averted by the safety features.

As noted above, we begin with the presumption that the crossing must be separated. To overcome the heavy burden of this presumption, the City must present convincing evidence that the crossing is safe.

The City's witness Hankinson, a registered Professional Engineer with extensive railroad construction experience, testified that:

The proposed public safety features for the Park Boulevard at-grade crossing would be significantly greater than what exists on any other downtown at-grade rail crossing as well as what exists at the vast majority of other at-grade crossings in the country. Compared to the existing Eighth Avenue crossing, the safety of pedestrians and motorists at this crossing would be greatly improved with the proposed Park Boulevard crossing design.

As support for this conclusion, Hankinson pointed out that four-quadrant gates and grade-separated pedestrian crossing are not present at the vast majority of crossings in this country.⁹

RCES did not dispute that the pedestrian bridge provides an adequate level of safety for pedestrians. Thus, the remaining safety issues relate to vehicular traffic.

RCES' witness Jameel, a registered Professional Engineer with extensive experience in railroad crossing design, contended that the proposed Park Boulevard "crossing poses a significantly greater risk of accident than all the other San Diego crossings used in [his] comparison." Id. Jameel based this conclusion on his application of the hazard index and accident prediction formula to the proposed Park Boulevard Crossing and three other nearby crossings in San Diego.

Careful consideration of the hazard index, however, undermines RCES' conclusion. The hazard index is calculated by multiplying the average daily vehicular traffic by the average daily train traffic and a factor for warning devices at the crossing. RCES' tables, Exhibit 20, show that the train traffic and warning device factor are identical for all four crossings.¹⁰ The only variable is the average daily vehicular traffic. For the four crossings studied by RCES, the differences in the calculated hazard indices are solely a function of the number of vehicles that use the crossing. Thus, for these four crossings, whichever crossing has the highest average projected daily traffic under build out conditions, will have the highest hazard index.

The hazard index calculations are of limited usefulness in determining whether to approve the Park Boulevard crossing because the calculations do not comprehensively address traffic needs. For example, if the Park Boulevard crossing were not authorized, the traffic could be redistributed to other crossings, with a resulting increase in those intersections' hazard indices. The record does not show the resulting hazard indices and we cannot conclude that this would be a preferable outcome. The City further undermined RCES' reliance on the hazard index by presenting hazard calculations for five other at-grade crossings in unrelated proceedings where RCES did not oppose the applications, four of which substantially exceeded RCES' calculation for the Park Boulevard crossing.

RCES' accident prediction formula suffers from the same failings. Six of the seven components used in the calculation are identical for all four crossings.¹¹ Under RCES' calculation the number of main tracks is higher for Park Boulevard, because RCES counts the BNSF track that splits between Fifth and Park as two tracks. As trains cannot be present on both tracks simultaneously, double-counting this track results in a disproportionate formula calculation. This leaves only the average daily vehicular traffic and number of highway lanes as variables among the crossings. Again, if Park Boulevard is not approved, the vehicular traffic would be distributed among the other crossings, and perhaps require additional lanes. This formula does not show that disallowing the Park Boulevard crossing and diverting the traffic to other crossings will enhance vehicular safety.

In contrast to RCES's conclusions, the city contends that the Park Boulevard crossing will have a safer configuration than the nearby crossings. The City points out that unlike the nearby crossings, Park Boulevard vehicular traffic will cross the tracks at nearly a right angle. This is the preferred configuration because it maximizes drivers' view of the tracks and minimizes the width of the crossing. Fifth Avenue, First Avenue, and Front Street all have significant westward curves immediately prior to crossing the tracks, thus diminishing sight lines. The City also contends that the clear storage distance¹² for cars stopped at the Harbor Drive intersections at the other crossings is far less than at Park Boulevard.

In sum, neither the accident prediction formula nor hazard index calculations rebut the City's expert testimony that the safety level at this crossing would be higher than other crossings in San Diego due to the enhanced safety features. Moreover, RCES has not shown that its preferred option-closing the crossing-would provide the traveling public with safer crossings.

The City's environmental studies show that traffic is expected to increase substantially in this area. The public interest requires that we consider what will happen to traffic redirected by a decision denying the City's request for an at-grade crossing at Park Boulevard. We are required to evaluate whether planning for traffic to cross at Park Boulevard is safer than planning for traffic to cross elsewhere. As discussed below, comprehensive safety planning for this entire rail corridor, rather than each crossing in isolation, is needed.

RCES argued "the safety features proposed by the City, while clearly worthwhile, provide adequate safety only in an ideal or perfect environment, where everything functions as designed. Failure of any components or any car . . . accident . . . could result in the queuing of cars on the track . . .."¹³ RCES' point is aptly illustrated by the safety equipment deficiency found by its staff member during a site visit prior to the PPH, which is discussed in more detail below. While the validity of RCES' observation, that safety equipment fails, is undisputable, it also applicable to all safety equipment,¹⁴ not just the Park Boulevard crossing safety equipment.

RCES also raised the issue of sight lines at the crossing due to the Ballpark construction. The City, however, presented photographs and testimony of train operators that the redevelopment efforts have removed a building close to the tracks, thus improving sight lines, and the Ballpark will be located well back from the crossing. The City's evidence supported their contention that the sight lines are safe and adequate.

The City proposes to install presignals. To the average driver, presignals look like traffic signals, but the presignals are a secondary safety feature with their operation linked to either a railroad-warning device or other traffic signal. The City proposes to install two presignals at Seventh Avenue to

control southbound vehicles on Park Boulevard. The presignals would work in conjunction with the traffic signals on Park Boulevard and Harbor Drive. Upon notice of a train approaching, the traffic signals and the presignals would adjust their timing cycles to coordinate with the gates and warning lights. The presignals would turn a solid red concurrently with the railroad's flashing warning lights. The traffic signals at Park Boulevard and Harbor Drive would turn green for a determined amount of time to clear any vehicles in the rail crossing. When a train is not approaching, the red lights on the presignal will cycle a few moments prior to the traffic signals on Park Boulevard and Harbor Drive. The City explains that this coordination will prevent any vehicles from being trapped in the rail crossing.

RCES questioned the usefulness of presignals at this complex crossing. RCES contended that presignals confuse drivers and are often ignored. RCES showed a video of a presignal being almost entirely ignored by vehicles. The City, however, pointed out that the presignal in video was located mid-block with no intersection to alert drivers of the possibility of stoplight. The City pointed out that, in contrast to the presignal in the video, the Park Boulevard presignals are located at an intersection and on the gates at the crossing. These locations are places where drivers would reasonably expect to find a stoplight.

The City has made a convincing presentation that presignals will enhance the safe operations of this crossing. The particular geometry of this crossing is well suited to placing presignals in a reasonably expected stoplight location. Moreover, the presignals play a critical role in controlling vehicles from queuing on the tracks. The City will provide RCES with the preemption timing cycles for each intersection interconnected with the railroad warning devices for review.

RCES next contended that the proposed crossing "will be blocked or closed during most of the daily business hours" due to the noontime BNSF train and Events Management Plan's requirement that that southbound Park Boulevard be closed before, during, and after ballgames. RCES concluded that the "real purpose" of the crossing was to provide for convenient truck access from the freeways to the convention center and port facilities. The City dismissed RCES' conclusion about truck traffic, and pointed out that trucks can access the convention center from either direction on Harbor Drive. The City also rebutted RCES' assertion that the crossing will be frequently closed for ballgames as required by the Events Management Plan by noting that most ballgames occur at night and on weekends, not during high traffic business hours. Thus, the City concluded that the approximately four-hour closure of southbound Park Boulevard for each game would not significantly impact traffic.

The City bears the burden of overcoming the presumption against an at-grade crossing, which requires convincing evidence that the proposed at-grade crossing is safe. The City presented a comprehensive, crossing-specific analysis by recognized experts addressing each identified hazard in this particular crossing and concluding that this crossing would be safer than other existing at-grade crossing in San Diego. The City has also closed the Eighth Avenue crossing so that there will be no net increase in at-grade crossings in San Diego. The City has met its initial burden. RCES has not shown a material flaw in the City's analysis that renders the conclusions invalid. RCES presented mathematical analysis that was substantially undermined on rebuttal by the City.¹⁵ Based on this record, we conclude that the City has comprehensively identified and assessed the potential safety hazards, and has proposed a variety of safety features to diminish these hazards. We conclude that the proposed Park Boulevard Crossing will be at least as safe as the existing at-grade crossings in San Diego.

The final factor for our consideration is our precedent in factually similar crossings. The City contends that our decision approving two at-grade crossings near the San Francisco Giants Ballpark is an analogous precedent, but RCES disagreed and offered a declaration setting out the differences. The City also referred to D.02-06-020, which approved seven at-grade crossings, where there would be 266 light rail and one heavy rail train crossings per day, and average daily traffic counts of up to 25,000. In addition, our Blue Line decision, cited above, extensively discussed Commission precedent and authorized at-grade crossings. Each of the cited precedent has some factual differences with the proposed Park Boulevard crossing.

Our decision today, however, requires that we consider that specific facts of this crossing. We begin with the presumption that the crossing should be separated. Our analysis for determining whether an applicant has overcome this presumption is guided by the factors listed in the Blue Line decision. In reviewing those factors, the City has presented essentially uncontested evidence that there is a public need for this crossing, that all local government, business, residents, and public safety officials support the at-grade crossing, and that the cost of grade-separation in terms of dollars and lost view for the city are prohibitive.

As discussed above, the City proposes to install safety features that will exceed all other crossings in this rail corridor. With these features, the City's expert concludes that this crossing will be safer than the other crossings in San Diego. RCES opposes the crossing, and contends that even with the additional features, the crossing will be unsafe at-grade.

On balance, we find that the unique facts of this case overcome the presumption against an at-grade crossing. The City's evidence establishes that this crossing has particular and substantial urban planning significance to San Diego. The record shows unanimous community support for the crossing. The City will permanently close the Eighth Street crossing, such that the overall number of at-grade crossings in San Diego will be unchanged. This crossing will have more safety features than any other crossing in San Diego, which is consistent with the high level of vehicular traffic expected. Overall, we are satisfied that the City has engaged in a comprehensive effort to identify, assess, and address all known hazards.

We do not, however, lightly dismiss RCES opposition to this crossing. We respect and rely on our staff for their professional judgment, developed through years of public service, particularly with regard to issues of safety. Mindful of RCES' opposition to this crossing, and the other issues detailed below, we will impose significant limitations on our approval for this crossing.

RCES also noted that the City's plans for this crossing do not yet contain all construction details. For example, questions were raised about the location and southern terminus of the pedestrian crossing during the hearing. As the City resolves these and other details of this crossing, we expect RCES to be involved and to assist the City in ensuring that all safety features are fully implemented. We will, therefore, require that, prior to construction, the City file and serve a compliance filing showing specific construction details of all safety features of this crossing. The City should confer with RCES prior to its filing, and RCES may review and formally comment on the filing.

6.4 Four Quadrant Gates

The City's amended application proposes four quadrant gates for the Park Boulevard crossing but the City has left it to this Commission to decide whether the gates are necessary.¹⁶ RCES contended that four quadrant gates do not necessarily enhance safety at any crossing, and that a detailed study was needed for this crossing. BNSF initially opposed the City's at-grade crossing proposal. Based on the safety features added in the second amendment, including four quadrant gates, BNSF withdrew its protest. The City's witness Hankinson stated that "it is generally acknowledged within the railroad engineering and planning community" that crossings with four quadrant gates, in addition to automatic gates, are safer than crossings with automatic gates alone. He also cited to the Commission's Resolution SX-41, Guidelines for the Use of Four Quadrant Gates, for factors¹⁷ that support installing four quadrant gates at this crossing. The City's witness Terry, however, felt that conventional crossing equipment was preferable due to the potential for vehicles to be trapped between the gates.

Although the crossing entrance gates will be timed to descend such that vehicles can clear the crossing before the exit gates descend, traffic conditions may prevent vehicles from actually exiting the crossing. To ensure that all vehicles have cleared the crossing, the City proposes to install a vehicle detection system. The City's preferred system is based on using in-pavement loop detectors. These detectors use the same technology found in typical street crossings where traffic lights respond to the presence of vehicles in particular lanes. The City considers this technology to be "proven" and supported by all stakeholders.

We will order the City to install, inspect, maintain, and evaluate, four-quadrant gates with a vehicle presence detection system that uses in-pavement loop detectors at the Park Boulevard crossing. As we found in a recent decision: "installation of the four-quadrant gate system at each crossing is necessary to enhance public safety at each crossing by closing off the entire crossing area from the rest of the roadway upon activation of the warning devices by the actuation circuitry." Alameda Corridor - East Construction Authority, D.03-06-064 (June 19, 2003). The City shall also comply with all applicable regulations for four quadrant gates, including Resolution SX-41, as it may be amended.

6.5 Enhancing Safety in the Entire Rail Corridor

The substance of RCES' testimony is that increased vehicular traffic increases the probability of an accident. The City's testimony and environmental documentation make clear that the City is planning additional commercial and residential development along this rail corridor. Such development will lead to additional vehicular traffic, with resulting increase in hazards and accidents.

From a safety perspective, the location of this rail corridor is far from ideal. Additional development around the corridor only exacerbates the situation. Civic leaders are understandably seeking to capitalize on the attractive qualities of the bay for both visitors and residents. The series of at-grade crossings in this corridor will see increased vehicular traffic and, based on RCES' accident prediction formula, increased accidents.

RCES recommended that the City take a corridor approach to enhancing the safety of all crossings in this area. We agree. The City's near-term development plans should include efforts to (1) close at-grade crossings, (2) reduce traffic crossing the rail tracks, (3) redirect traffic to the safest crossings, and (4) implement additional safety measures on a corridor-wide triage basis. The City's long-term planning should include options for under grounding, or otherwise grade separating, this entire corridor.

The City's development planning to date appears to have given inadequate prospective consideration of these objectives. The City amended its application three times after filing, each time adding a significant safety feature. As amended, the crossing design exhibits the high level of safety features that is consistent with the high level of vehicular traffic expected. The need for these amendments strongly suggests that crossing safety in this rail corridor was not a paramount concern in the planning process.

We are, however, greatly encouraged that interested organizations are considering grade separation for the entire corridor as a long-term objective. We strongly support this objective, and direct our staff to provide all feasible assistance to the City.

Although we are satisfied that the proposed safety features are sufficient at this crossing for current and near term traffic levels, we are far less confident for the longer term. To enable us to re-evaluate this crossing in light of residential and commercial development and resulting changes in traffic conditions, we will limit the City's authorization for an at-grade crossing to 12 years from the effective date of this order. This time period will allow the City to fully consider and implement a rail corridor approach to safety enhancement, and will provide a date certain for our subsequent review.

At least one year before the expiration of its authority, the City shall submit an application requesting authorization to (1) continue at-grade operations, (2) modify the at-grade crossing (3) close the crossing, or (4) grade separate the crossing. The application shall demonstrate that the City has implemented a long-term plan to enhance safety in the entire rail corridor, and that the proposed operation of this crossing adds to the safety of the corridor.

6.6 Signal Coordination Failure
at Front Street Crossing

On September 25, 2002, RCES staff member Jose Pereyra observed the traffic signal lights at the Front Street and Harbor Boulevard intersection inappropriately forcing traffic to queue across the tracks for a red light. Pereyra presented testimony on what he observed at the PPH, citing this as an example of the potential dangers with at-grade crossings.

The City's witness Wayne Terry of the San Diego Trolley testified that Trolley personnel investigated Pereyra's report and corrected the problem with modification in the relay case and the signaling case for crossing. Terry also testified that to the best of his knowledge the signal had been incorrectly set since its installation in 1990, that the crossing had passed its monthly inspections, and that there had been no "incidents" caused by the incorrect setting.

Terry also explained the coordination challenges in the San Diego downtown rail corridor. The City is responsible for setting the street traffic lights; the Trolley is responsible for the gate crossings on the north or inland side of the tracks; and BNSF is in charge of the other side of the tracks. These three entities must work in close concert to ensure that vehicular and train/trolley traffic move safely through the crossings.

The Front Street crossing management issue illustrates the on-going safety and coordination challenges presented by this rail corridor. While the safety records are good, increased vehicular traffic throughout this corridor will necessitate continuous inspections and improvements to maintain this level safety. Given the complexity of the crossing, we will require the City, RCES staff, the railroad and the transit agency to develop a regular maintenance schedule.

6.7 Compliance with CEQA

Along with its application, the City submitted its Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA), comprised of the September 1999 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR), for large-scale redevelopment project in East Village area of downtown San Diego.¹⁸ The primary feature of the redevelopment project is a baseball park for the San Diego Padres, with would seat 46,000 people, and include up to 200,000 square feet of retail space and an equal amount of professional office space. In addition, the first phase of ancillary development projects would include up to 850 hotel rooms, 600,000 square feet of office buildings, and 150,000 square feet of retail development. The FSEIR considered a range of alternatives, including a no project alternative that would have retained the existing street grid in the area, and included extensive documentation.

In its application, the City contended that the proposed crossing was a minor alteration to the existing eight avenue crossing which was categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Rule 17.1(h)(1)(A).6. The City also stated that even if the Commission finds that the crossing is not categorically exempt, then the FSEIR conducted for the larger redevelopment project included all necessary environmental review.

In response to CEQA compliance issues raised by BNSF, the City completed and distributed to the parties a Secondary Environmental Study (SES) dated February 20, 2002. This study was prepared specifically to address the potential environmental effects of modifying the Eighth Avenue and Harbor Drive crossing. This study noted that the modified crossing, as proposed in the City's application, was addressed in the previous environmental report. One of the purposes of the SES was to evaluate the potential effects of an alternative crossing which would elevate the Park Boulevard/Harbor Drive intersection to separate the roadway from the railroad tracks. The Secondary Environmental Study discussed the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed at-grade crossing and the grade separated option for each. The SES determined that the proposed activity would not have any significant effect on the environment other than as identified in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report and the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. The SES did not adopt any mitigation measures for the proposed activity.

On the issue of Aesthetics/Visual Quality, the SES stated that the grade-separated structure would have a negative impact on the aesthetic and visual quality of the area. The structure would extend for a half-mile along Harbor Drive, and block views of the San Diego Bay and Coronado Bridge from numerous points. The SES concluded that a grade-separated crossing would provide additional protection for pedestrians from trains and trolleys but would also create substantial disadvantages due to the steep grade of the crossing (7%) and the disorienting effect of the large structure seeming to impede access. The SES also noted that the large structure would eliminate view opportunities and thus diminish the pedestrian experience. The SES found no significant differences between the two options with regard to Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic.

The San Diego Redevelopment Agency is the lead agency for CEQA under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. The Commission is in the role of responsible agency under CEQA. CEQA requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences of a project that is subject to its discretionary approval. In particular, to comply with CEQA, a responsible agency must consider the lead agency's environmental impact report or negative declaration prior to acting upon or approving the project (CEQA Guideline Section 15050(b)). The specific activities that must be conducted by a responsible agency are contained in CEQA Guideline Section 15096.

Commission staff has reviewed the Redevelopment Agency's environmental documents. We find that these environmental documents are adequate for our decision-making purposes. The scope of our permitting authority under the present Application is limited to the proposed crossing of Park Boulevard and the railroad and trolley tracks. We are not approving the overall redevelopment plan, and accordingly we are not in a position to make findings relating to any other aspect of the ballpark development project. With respect to the proposed crossing, the City found that the activity will not have a significant effect on the environment and the City adopted no mitigation measures for the proposed activity. We find that the City reasonably concluded that the proposed activity will not have any significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, we adopt that finding for purposes of our approval.