Uca Comments On Supplemental Info

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority for an order authorizing the construction of a two-track at-grade crossing for the Exposition Boulevard Corridor Light Rail Transit Line across Jefferson Boulevard, Adams Boulevard, and 23rd Street, all three crossing located along Flower Street in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California.

Application 06-12-005 (Filed December 6, 2006)

Application 06-12-020 (Filed December 19, 2006) Application 07-01-004 (Filed January 2, 2007) Application 07-01-017 (Filed January 8, 2007) Application 07-01-044 (Filed January 24, 2007) And Consolidated Proceedings. Application 07-02-007 (Filed February 7, 2007) Application 07-02-017 (Filed February 16, 2007) Application 07-03-004 (Filed March 5, 2007) Application 07-05-012 (Filed May 8, 2007) Application 07-05-013 (Filed May 8, 2007) UNITED COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION’S COMMENTS TO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION BY EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

II. UCA’S COMMENTS TO EXPO AUTHORITY’S S UPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE HARVARD PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS ........................................................................................ 1 A. An Evidentiary Hearing Is Required Because Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That The Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Will Be Accessible Or Safe. ............................................................................................................... 3 1. Expo Authority’s Supplemental Information Fails to Establish That Its Current Proposal For The Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Provides Adequate Safety or Accessibility. ..................................................................................................................... 3 2. Expo Authority’s Supplemental Information Fails to Establish That Any Of Its Putative “Alternatives” Are Safe Or Accessible.............................................................. 4 (a) Expo Authority’s Supplemental Information Fails to Establish That Keeping the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Open At All Hours Would Be A Safe Alternative. ................................................................................................................... 4 (b) Expo Authority’s Supplemental Information Fails to Establish That Providing A Pedestrian Overcrossing Would Be A Safe and Accessible Alternative. 5 (c) Expo Authority’s Supplemental Information Fails to Establish That Closing the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Would Result In A Safe Alternative. ................. 6 (d) Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That Alteration Of The Final Height, Design, or Construction of The Fence Between Western Avenue and Denker Avenue Would Result In A Safe Alternative............... 6 B. Without First Determining The Accessibility Of The Harvard Pedestrian Underpass, The Commission Cannot Be Properly Evaluate The Impact On And Safety Of The Western Avenue and Denker Avenue Crossings. ................................................... 6 III.

UCA’S COMMENTS TO S UPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON THE FARMDALE CROSSING 7

A. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That The Proposed At-Grade Crossing at Farmdale is Safe............................................................................... 8 1. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Regarding the Current Farmdale Proposal Only Highlights The Need For An Evidentiary Hearing................................. 8

i

2. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails To Consider Hazards That May Be Created By The “Holding Area” Design At Farmdale. ..................................... 9 B. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That The Alternate Options, Including The Safest Crossing Design At Farmdale, Are Impracticable. ..........10 1.

The LRT Undercrossing Option Is the Safest Practicable Alternative..................10

2. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information on the LRT Overcrossing Options Does Not Establish That They Are Safer or Less Practicable Than the LRT Undercrossing Option. ....................................................................................................11 3. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information on the Pedestrian Overcrossing Options Does Not Establish That They Are Safer Than the LRT Undercrossing Option. .............................................................................................................................12 4. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information on the Pedestrian Undercrossing Option Demonstrates That It Is An Unsafe Alternative. ...............................................13 IV.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................13

ii

I.

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Administrative Law Judge Koss’s March 27, 2008 Ruling On Results Of

Prehearing Conference in this matter before the California Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”), United Community Associations, Inc. (“UCA”) respectfully submits these comments to the Supplementary Information on the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass and the proposed Farmdale Avenue at-grade crossing, served on the parties by the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (“Expo Authority”) on March 28, 2008. By way of background, United Community Associations, Inc., a nonprofit public benefit corporation, was formed by Expo Communities United (Baldwin Neighborhood Homeowners Association, Baldwin Village Gardens Homeowners Association, Expo Neighbors Association, Jefferson-Buckingham-Adams-Crenshaw-La Brea Block Club), Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw Homeowners’ Coalition, and Save Leimert Neighborhood Coalition to represent the collective interests of these organizations. UCA was organized for the specific purposes of: (1) addressing issues important to the quality of life of South Los Angeles residents, (2) preserving South Los Angeles communities, and (3) seeking social, economic and racial justice. UCA hereby replaces Expo Communities United as a party in these proceedings. The law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal LLP hereby appears on behalf of UCA and substitutes in as counsel for ECU, replacing Mr. Lawrence Heller, Esq., who had been representing ECU in these proceedings.1 II.

UCA’S COMMENTS TO EXPO AUTHORITY’S S UPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE HARVARD PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS In response to Judge Koss’s order at the March 12, 2008 prehearing conference that Expo

Authority submit supplementary information containing its “review and analysis” of other options to the Harvard Avenue Undercrossing,2 Expo Authority submitted a DVD with 18 1

Counsel for UCA was retained only this month (April 2008) and, therefore, did not have the benefit of participating in the prior proceedings in this matter. 2

At the March 12, 2008 hearing, Judge Koss gave the following direction regarding the Expo Authority’s Supplemental Filing: “ . . . [W]hat I’m looking for going forward is . . . supplemental information filed from Expo Authority showing your review and analysis of other options for each crossing.” (3/12/08 Transcript 178:26-179:2.) 1

separate exhibits which include excerpts from previously filed documents, plans and diagrams of the proposed crossings, video clips and photographs of the current crossing, information on other crossings in the Transit System, and electronic simulations of pedestrian movements at this crossing. Unfortunately, this Supplementary Information includes only cursory information and analysis of the alternate options at the Harvard Avenue crossing site. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that: (1) under the current proposal, the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass will be an accessible or safe alternative to the proposed at-grade Western Avenue or Denker Avenue crossings; (2) under any of the alternate options, the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass will be an accessible or safe alternative to the proposed at-grade Western Avenue or Denker Avenue crossings; or (3) the proposed at-grade pedestrian crossings at the Western and Denker Avenues will be safe in light of the unresolved access and safety issues plaguing the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass. These unresolved factual issues concerning safety must be evaluated at an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing is required when there are disputed issues of material fact concerning the safety of a proposed rail crossing. In re Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority, 2000 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1132 at *16 (noting that Commission’s duty to provide notice and opportunity to be heard “has generally been interpreted to require evidentiary hearings when there are disputed issues of fact that are material to the case.”); see also Application of Merced Irrigation District, 2007 Cal. PUC LEXIS 597 at *48 (denying evidentiary hearing where no disputed issues of material fact). Consequently, an evidentiary hearing is required to consider evidence on the appropriate design of the Harvard, Western and Denker crossings which best serve to protect the safety and access of Foshay Learning Center’s student body as well as the public at large.

2

A.

An Evidentiary Hearing Is Required Because Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That The Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Will Be Accessible Or Safe.

In response to Judge Koss’s request to the Expo Authority that it submit supplementary information containing its review and analysis of alternate options to the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass, Expo Authority submitted a ream of materials, virtually none of which provides an analysis of different options. Instead, Expo Authority’s submission consists mostly of excerpts of its previous filings along with information about the current condition of the Harvard, Denker, and Western crossings. The only information submitted regarding alternatives to the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass is a three page summary discussion entitled “Harvard Pedestrian Underpass and Alternatives” (Supplementary Information - Harvard Pedestrian Underpass (“Harvard Supplementary Information,” Ex. H-12) and a rendering of a “Pedestrian Overcrossing Plan and Elevation” (Harvard Supplementary Information, Ex. H-13). Like of the rest of the submission, neither exhibits H-12 nor H-13 offer any information which establishes that the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass will be accessible or safe under either the current proposal or any of the identified alternate options. 1.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That Its Current Proposal For The Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Provides Adequate Safety or Accessibility.

Expo Authority’s supplementary information includes several documents containing information about the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass as well as examples of crossings purportedly in close proximity to other schools. However, none of this supplementary information, either considered collectively or individually, establish that the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass will be sufficiently safe or accessible once the Expo line is built. According to Expo Authority’s own study and analysis, the Underpass is only open for a total of 75 minutes a day (between 7:00-7:40 a.m. and 3:00-3:35 p.m.) and utilized by 40% of Foshay students crossing Exposition Boulevard. It appears that even this 40% figure is incomplete as it is derived from a count of the number of students that use the Underpass only after school. (See Harvard Supplementary Information, Ex. H-12.) Expo Authority’s own

3

information acknowledges that it fails to account for the number of students arriving to school who typically use the Underpass. (Id.) Such information is critical especially since students arriving at school, as a general matter, be more rushed and therefore more inclined attempt a dangerous crossing of Exposition Boulevard in an attempt to arrive to class on time. In addition, according to Expo Authority’s supplementary information, the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass is kept safe and accessible by volunteers. Expo Authority’s supplementary information provides no analysis of the effect that a temporary (or extended) closure of the Underpass, due to the unavailability of volunteers, might have on the safety of the students who would then be forced to cross Exposition Boulevard in much larger numbers at Western or Denker Avenues. Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information also fails to consider how safe the Underpass will be in the event it is not monitored by volunteers. 2.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That Any Of Its Putative “Alternatives” Are Safe Or Accessible.

Expo Authority discusses four “alternatives” to the current proposal for the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass: (1) keeping the underpass open at all hours; (2) providing a pedestrian overcrossing; (3) closing the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass; and (4) altering the proposed height of the fence between Western Avenue and Denker Avenue. Expo Authority fails to demonstrate that any of these “alternatives” will be safe and accessible, therefore an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the disputed materials facts regarding the safety of these identified alternatives. (a)

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That Keeping the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Open At All Hours Would Be A Safe Alternative.

Expo Authority’s supplementary information offers no analysis of the impact that keeping the Underpass open all the time might have on safety. In its discussion of this option, Expo Authority states that the Underpass is “well lit, secure, and clean for the student’s use, and the hours of operation are totally controlled by the volunteers . . . .” However, Expo Authority offers no information regarding how the “well lit, secure and clean” conditions of the Underpass

4

might change if the Underpass were kept open at all hours. In fact, in its analysis of the Farmdale Crossing, the Expo Authority concludes that a pedestrian underpass is not a safe crossing option. In particular, the Expo Authority recommends against further study of a pedestrian undercrossing at Farmdale, at least in part, because “it requires pedestrians to descend . . . to a confined unsecured space” and therefore creates “security risks.” (See Supplementary Information - Farmdale Avenue Crossing (“Farmdale Supplementary Information”), Ex. F-13, 12/6/2007 Memo to Board of Directors re: “Re-evaluation of Farmdale Grade Crossing Options” p. 7.) Therefore, Expo Authority’s own analysis of the Farmdale Crossing options concludes that a pedestrian undercrossing poses significant security risks which precludes it from being a viable option. Likewise, in light of the increased dependence on the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass under the current proposal, further fact finding must be undertaken to determine whether the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass will provide a safe and accessible option to the Western Avenue and Denker Avenue at-grade crossings. (b)

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That Providing A Pedestrian Overcrossing Would Be A Safe and Accessible Alternative.

According to the supplementary information provided by the Expo Authority, a pedestrian bridge “would require more vertical travel and take longer than using the underpass to cross the street . . . [and] the longer time required to cross a pedestrian bridge might divert more students to using the nearby at-grade crossings, which would be easier and faster to cross.” (Harvard Supplementary Information, H-12, “Discussion of Harvard Pedestrian Underpass and Alternatives” p. 2). The Expo Authority’s supplementary information, however, fails to provide any analysis of the amount of diversion to Western or Denker Avenues that would be caused by a pedestrian bridge and whether such diversion would create a hazard at these intersections. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the issues of fact concerning the impact of building a Harvard Avenue pedestrian overcrossing on overall safety at each of the Harvard, Western and Denker crossings.

5

(c)

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That Closing the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass Would Result In A Safe Alternative.

Closing the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass would have a significant impact on the Denker and Western crossings. Expo Authority itself acknowledges that the closure of the Underpass may result in “undesirable densities” at the intersection of Denker and Exposition. (H-12, “Discussion of Harvard Pedestrian Underpass and Alternatives” p. 3). An evidentiary hearing is required to determine the impact should the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass close permanently, become unsafe, or otherwise be unavailable. (d)

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That Alteration Of The Final Height, Design, or Construction of The Fence Between Western Avenue and Denker Avenue Would Result In A Safe Alternative.

Finally, the Expo Authority discusses the alteration of the final height, design or construction of this fence as another possible alternative to the its current proposal. However, again, Expo Authority’s brief discussion of this “alternative” raises more questions than it answers regarding whether the current proposal is safe. For example: (1) Why has LAUSD expressed concern over the proposed fence design and a desire for a different one?; (2) Is there evidence that students or others may jump two six-foot fences to cross Exposition Boulevard at Harvard Avenue?; (3) If so, was this evidence considered in designing the proposed crossings at Harvard, Western and Denker Avenues; and (4) How many students (or others) currently cross Exposition Boulevard above ground at Harvard Avenue when the Underpass is closed? These are only a small sampling of the many unresolved factual issues that remain and must be answered at an evidentiary hearing. B.

Without First Determining The Accessibility Of The Harvard Pedestrian Underpass, The Commission Cannot Be Properly Evaluate The Impact On And Safety Of The Western Avenue and Denker Avenue Crossings.

The ultimate accessibility and security of the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass will have a direct impact on the volume of pedestrian traffic at both the Western Avenue and Denker Avenue Crossings. Although Expo Authority’s Supplementary information includes information about current pedestrian behavior and totals at the Western Avenue and Denker Avenue 6

crossings (see H-8, H-9 & H-10), it fails to provide any projections of the impact that each discussed alternative for the Harvard Underpass would have on the pedestrian safety at these two adjacent intersections. To properly assess the merits of each alternative for the Harvard Underpass, there must be a thorough analysis of how the Western Avenue and Denker Avenue crossings will be affected and whether they will be safe in light of particular alternative for the Underpass. Therefore, at the evidentiary hearing, in addition to hearing evidence regarding the alternatives for the Harvard Underpass, the Commission must also consider alternate proposals for the Western Avenue and Denker Avenue crossings which might be appropriate in light of the different alternatives for the Harvard Pedestrian Underpass. III.

UCA’S COMMENTS TO S UPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE FARMDALE C ROSSING Like its submission regarding the Harvard Undercrossing, Expo Authority’s

Supplementary Information on the Farmdale Crossing fails to establish either the soundness of its current proposal or the impracticability of the safest identified alternative. Again Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information (submitted on a DVD with 22 exhibits) mostly includes excerpts from previously filed documents, plans and diagrams of the proposed crossings, video clips and photographs of the current crossing, information on other crossings in the Transit System, and virtual simulations of pedestrian movements at this crossing. Although the Expo Authority’s submission with respect to the Farmdale Avenue Crossing includes a more considered analysis of alternatives to the proposed crossing than its treatment of the Harvard Crossing, it nevertheless remains a grossly deficient record upon which to predicate any determination regarding the impracticability of the grade-separated crossing alternatives. The fundamental shortcoming with this Supplementary Information is that it fails to provide a basis on which the Commission can properly evaluate the degree of safety of the current proposal or the practicability of its alternatives. In particular, the proposed mitigation measures for the current at-grade crossing are presented in a vacuum, leaving the Commission

7

with no meaningful sense of the proposed crossing’s ultimate safety. An unduly dangerous proposal that is made “better” with mitigation measures does not necessarily become “safe.” An evidentiary hearing is required to resolve disputed factual issues regarding safety issues associated with the proposed at-grade crossing as well as the practicability of grade-separated crossing alternatives. A.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That The Proposed At-Grade Crossing at Farmdale is Safe.

Much of Expo Authority’s “supplementary” information on the proposed Farmdale Avenue crossing fails to add any new information to the record. In fact, as with the information provided for the Harvard Crossing, several of the submitted items are not even supplementary in nature, but rather excerpts of items previously filed by Expo Authority. The other material, some of which is supplementary, fails to provide a meaningful basis upon which the Commission can evaluate the proposed crossing’s relative safety. However, for the reasons set forth below, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine the safest practicable solution. 1.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Regarding the Current Farmdale Proposal Only Highlights The Need For An Evidentiary Hearing.

Most of the “supplementary” information submitted by the Expo Authority focuses on the proposed at-grade crossing. However, without an opportunity to challenge the sufficiency of this information, the Commission is unable to make a reasoned determination regarding the necessity and safety of this design. For example, using pedestrian counts for the intersection of Farmdale and Exposition, Expo Authority has submitted information attempting to simulate pedestrian movements at Farmdale both currently and following construction of an at-grade crossing. However, the Commission cannot make a meaningful determination based on this information because the Expo Authority’s assumptions regarding compliance with traffic rules and signage have not been examined, much less established. In light of the fact that the majority of 8

pedestrians using the Farmdale intersection are Dorsey High School students, it is particularly important to hear evidence testing the validity of these assumptions. In addition to these virtual simulations, Expo Authority submitted a series of presentation slides depicting other schools along both the Gold Line and the Blue Line. These slides, however, do not provide any meaningful comparison points, such as relative proximity of the crossing to the school or pedestrian behavior near the crossing. For example, one of the schools identified in these slides is Los Angeles Trade Technical College where, presumably, most of the students are adults and prophylactic safety measures may not be as critical as at Farmdale Avenue where the at-risk population is comprised primarily of high school students. As with the simulated pedestrian movements information addressed above, the only proposition that these slides tend to prove is that an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve disputed material factual issues regarding whether the proposed plan for an at-grade crossing is safe and, if not, what alternative would be. 2.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails To Consider Hazards That May Be Created By The “Holding Area” Design At Farmdale.

Among the features of the Expo Authority’s proposed at-grade crossing are two “holding areas” which are designed to contain large groups of Dorsey High School students while they wait for trains to cross Exposition Boulevard. The proposed north “holding area” is approximately 800 square feet and the proposed south “holding area” is approximately 1900 square feet. The Expo Authority supplementary information fails to provide any analysis of the hazards that may accompany a design which forces large groups of high school students to be confined in these “holding areas” while they wait for trains to pass. To the extent that conflicts among students arise in such “holding areas,” there is a risk not only of injury within these “holding areas,” but also an increased risk that students may attempt to flee a “holding area” and cross the rail tracks ahead of on-coming trains. A thorough analysis of these risks must be completed before any at-grade crossing proposal at Farmdale Avenue is approved. 9

B.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information Fails to Establish That The Alternate Options, Including The Safest Crossing Design At Farmdale, Are Impracticable.

Of the 22 exhibits included in Supplementary Information regarding the proposed Farmdale Avenue crossing, only five exhibits are responsive to Judge Koss’s request for information on the considered alternatives: F-13 (12/6/07 “Re-Evaluation of Farmdale Crossing Options”), F-14 (“Estimation of Construction Costs for Alternatives at Farmdale”), F-15 (“Discussion of Farmdale Closure and Grade Separation Alternatives”), F-16 (“Preliminary Traffic Study Results Evaluating Farmdale Crossing Alternatives”), and F-22 (“Consideration of Crossing Options”). These exhibits identify the following seven alternatives to the proposed crossing: (1) a pedestrian overcrossing, leaving Farmdale open; (2) a pedestrian overcrossing, closing Farmdale; (3) a Light Rail Transit (“LRT”) overcrossing with a minimum requirement; (4) a LRT overcrossing extended to La Brea; (5) a pedestrian undercrossing, leaving Farmdale open; (6) a pedestrian undercrossing, closing Farmdale; and (7) a LRT undercrossing. While the supplementary information indicates that the Expo Authority is willing to consider a LRT overcrossing option, the supplementary information does not demonstrate that the safest of these options -- a LRT undercrossing -- is impracticable. 1.

The LRT Undercrossing Option Is the Safest Practicable Alternative.

The LRT undercrossing option is indisputably the optimal plan for both pedestrians and motorist safety. Expo Authority, in fact, expressly acknowledges that this alternative creates the safest conditions by eliminating the interface between the rail on the one hand, and pedestrians and vehicles on the other.3 Expo Authority goes on, however, to summarily dismiss the safest

3

Expo Authority’s memorandum, “Re-evaluation of Farmdale Crossing Options,” notes that while an LRT undercrossing eliminates the interface between rail and pedestrians, “it does not eliminate the existing conflict between pedestrians and vehicles in front of Dorsey High school or the interface with east-west vehicular traffic on Exposition Boulevard.” (F-13, 12/6/07 “ReEvaluation of Farmdale Crossing Options” p. 7.) While this may be true, UCA notes that Expo 10

alternative purportedly due to potential design and construction challenges, in addition to estimated high cost. Neither design nor construction challenges involved with this alternative, however, render it impracticable. “‘Practicable’ means being possible physically of performance, a capability of being used, a feasibility of construction.” City of San Mateo, 8 CPUC2d 572, 581 n.8 (1973). Given the premium placed on public safety over economy, grade separation is required where practicable. Id. at 580-81. “The advantages which might accrue by way of added convenience and financial benefit are outweighed by the dangers and hazards attendant upon a crossing at grade.” Id. Here, where the safety of hundreds of high school students is at issue on a daily basis, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine why this alternative, the indisputably safest option, should not be adopted. 2.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information on the LRT Overcrossing Options Does Not Establish That They Are Safer or Less Practicable Than the LRT Undercrossing Option.

The Expo Authority’s supplementary information indicates that they are willing to consider the third alternative above, a LRT overcrossing.4 In support of this position, Expo Authority relies on two assumptions. First, they rely on the assertion that “there are no safety differences between an underground and elevated grade separated train crossing.” (F-13, 12/6/07 “Re-evaluation of Farmdale Crossing Options p. 8) Second, they rely on the assertion that a LRT undercrossing poses more construction considerations and greater capital expenditure. Both of these assumptions need to be tested at an evidentiary hearing. Metro’s charge is to eliminate safety concerns created by the proposed railway and its accompanying impacts. Further, the current proposal likewise does not eliminate the existing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles in front of Dorsey. 4

Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 except that it remains elevated until the La Brea grade separation instead of going down to grade just west of Farmdale. UCA’s comments on Alternative 3 are also applicable to Alternative 4.

11

The assumption that a LRT overcrossing and a LRT undercrossing are equally safe has not been established. A LRT overcrossing, for example, may pose certain visual or auditory safety hazards to motorists and pedestrians passing underneath. A LRT undercrossing, by contrast, poses no such impact on motorists or pedestrians. The Commission should conduct an evidentiary hearing to properly understand and consider all evidence concerning relative safety between a LRT Overcrossing and Undercrossing at Farmdale. 3.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information on the Pedestrian Overcrossing Options Does Not Establish That They Are Safer Than the LRT Undercrossing Option.

Expo Authority’s supplementary information also indicates that they are willing to consider the second alternative above, a pedestrian overcrossing while closing Farmdale Avenue.5 However, as the Expo Authority discusses, this alternative will have an adverse effect on surrounding traffic, which in turn could create additional adverse impacts on pedestrian safety, notwithstanding the pedestrian overcrossing. In particular, both Expo Authority and LADOT advise against such closure because it would divert a large number of students to the crossing at Buckingham Road, about 1,700 feet east of Farmdale Avenue, and because it may result in greater traffic congestion at the Buckingham and Exposition intersection. (F-15, “Discussion of Farmdale Closure and Grade Separation Alternatives.”) Therefore, even with mitigation measures, a pedestrian overcrossing option is sub-optimal as compared to a LRT undercrossing, which presents no traffic impacts and would create no new pedestrian crossing safety issues. These alternatives and their impact on safety are material issues that must be resolved at an evidentiary hearing.

5

Expo Authority does not propose further study on Alternative 1, which is like Alternative 2 but without limited street closure on Exposition and without a barrier along the at-grade rail right-ofway. UCA comments on Alternative 2 are applicable to Alternative 1. 12

4.

Expo Authority’s Supplementary Information on the Pedestrian Undercrossing Option Demonstrates That It Is An Unsafe Alternative.

Expo Authority also discusses and dismisses pedestrian undercrossings at Farmdale. While UCA does not support a pedestrian undercrossing option, it is important to note that this alternative is dismissed by Expo Authority, in part, because it creates security risks similar to those created by certain of the alternatives identified for the Harvard Pedestrian Undercossing. (See F-13, 12/6/07 “Re-evaluation of Farmdale Crossing Options p. 5-6.) Given the apparent inconsistency here, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve this seriously disputed material fact regarding safety hazards identified with a Farmdale undercrossing option, and whether such hazards are also likely to occur at the Harvard Pedestrian Undercrossing. IV.

CONCLUSION The Supplementary Information submitted by the Expo Authority is gravely deficient.

Rather than resolving disputed issues of material fact, much of the Supplementary Information only highlights these, as yet, unresolved issues regarding the Farmdale Crossing and Harvard Pedestrian Undercrossing. Consequently, an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve these disputed issues and ensure that the Commission has adequate information to ensure the public safety at these crossing.

13

April 18, 2008 Respectfully submitted, SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP Ivor E. Samson Christopher E. Prince Demian L. Pay Donald E. Chomiak Manuel Alvarez

By: __________________________________ Ivor E. Samson 525 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 882-5000 Fax: (415) 882-0300 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for UNITED COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

14