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 crossings located along Flower Street in )
the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles )
California.
_______________________________________ )
And Consolidated Proceedings.
________________________________________)
)
)
Application 06-12-005
) (Filed December 6, 2006)
)
) Application 06-12-020
) (Filed December 12, 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)
)
) 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)

PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF

EXPO COMMUNITIES UNITED AND NEIGHBORS FOR SMART RAIL
 Pursuant to Rule 7.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and

the Ruling of Administrative Law Judge Kenneth Koss of February 27, 2008, Expo

Communities United (“ECU”) and Neighbors for Smart Rail (“NFSR”) herein submit their

Pre Hearing Conference Statement (“PHC”).

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Respectfully, the party representatives of ECU and NFSR will be unable to give

their consent, if it is necessary, to any of the issues discussed at the Prehearing

Conference (“PHC”) in light of their inability to have counsel present to represent them

at the PHC.

Expo Authority has stated in its Prehearing Conference Statement that it will

argue at the PHC that the Commission should reconsider its ruling to proceed with an

evidentiary hearing for the Harvard Tunnel Pedestrian Crossing and rule on the safety

of that crossing as defined in the papers previously submitted by Expo Authority and

NFSR. Also on the PHC agenda is the decision whether to proceed with an evidentiary

hearing on the Farmdale crossing prior to the Expo Board’s exploration of various

alternative crossing applications and mandated environmental review of those

alternative crossings.The inability of ECU and NFSR to have counsel of their choosing

to argue these, and other, important and dispositive issues throws substantial doubt

upon the efficacy and validity of any rulings made as a result of the PHC.

II. ISSUES IN DISPUTE

A. The Harvard Tunnel

Expo Authority argues in its Prehearing Conference Statement that there are “no

2
credible issues regarding the safety of the Harvard Boulevard crossing” and that if there

should be any “factual issues”, they are solely between the school and transportation

authorities. Expo Authority then pledges that it, and the Los Angeles County

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), “are committed to pursue ongoing

discussion regarding these issues.”1 Based on these vague promises that another body

(the LACMTA), which has yet to utter a word about this crossing, will “discuss” these

safety issues, Expo Authority argues that the Commission should reconsider its

decision to hold an evidentiary hearing with respect to the Harvard Tunnel and “move

forward with a completely safe grade separated pedestrian crossing.”

According to the Expo Authority the lives and safety of the thousands of children

that will cross the tracks next to the Foshay Learning Center (“Foshay”) on a daily basis

do not dignify the time necessary to conduct an Evidentiary Hearing. But the Expo

Authority has not yet identified which safe crossing remedy is available to the general

public who, for the safety of the students, are not allowed to share the Harvard

Pedestrian Tunnel, but nevertheless make extensive use of Foshay.

ECU and NFSR assume that the Commission set this crossing for an

evidentiary hearing because it recognizes that there are highly compelling reasons to

hold such a hearing. Foshay serves over 3,500 students, over twice as many as

Dorsey High School, with students as young as 5 years old, many of which are

English-learners. But Expo Authority has failed to propose any plan for channeling

these students, particularly those that arrive from west of Foshay, blocks past the

1
Expo Authority’s promises ring somewhat hollow in light of their failure to
substantively discuss any of the crossings with LAUSD to date.

3
unprotected crossing at Western Avenue to what the Authority construes as the safety

of the Harvard Tunnel.2

Western Avenue is one of the most heavily traveled north-south thoroughfares

west of downtown Los Angeles3 and will be even more heavily traveled as a result of

Expo’s closing of three adjacent crossings (Hobart Boulevard, Harvard Boulevard and

LaSalle Avenue). Western Avenue also runs one of the busiest bus line in the city. Add

to this the fact that Expo is going to construct two light rail platforms, both east and west

of Western Avenue, which it admits will increase area pedestrian traffic through the

daily addition of some 1,200 passengers and will block the line of sight of east/west

vehicular traffic traveling along Exposition Boulevard, right next to the trains.

At present, the tunnel is only open one hour a day, which fails to comport with

the normal hours that these children will be going to and from their classes, after-school

activities, weekend and evening activities, and for public access to the multitude of

community services offered at the school. Expo Authority has not even begun to

address how the tunnel alone will accommodate the following activities, which serve

and affect not only the school but the entire community:

2
Expo Authority views the Harvard Tunnel in a vacuum, without any
consideration of the dangers of the wholly uncontrolled Western Avenue crossing or the
six foot fence which is meant to prevent children and others from crossing the tracks.
Indeed, this raises yet another “substantive” issue to be discussed at the PHC, e.g. to
what extent is evidence of the design of the Western Avenue crossing, controlled solely
by traffic signals and an LED sign, and any other efforts at preventing students from
crossing the tracks rather than using the Harvard tunnel, relevant to the Harvard
crossing? Needless to say ECU and NFSR believe it is integrally relevant.
3
The heavily impacted crossing at Western reveals many hazards to both
vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Please access the video link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25yuyxJmxfc .

4
1. Foshay holds California High School Exit Examination classes and

student enrichment classes that service upward of 500 students

every Saturday throughout the year.

2. Foshay is classified as a “Program Improvement Status 5 School”

and every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday holds enrichment

classes for up to 250 students until 5:00 p.m.. The tunnel is closed

when they leave school grounds.

3. Foshay fields numerous girls’ and boys’ athletic teams which have

after-school practices, games and activities, many continuing into

the evening, all after the tunnel closes at 3:30 p.m.

4. The Foshay Elementary School commences its classes at 7:45

a.m. Accordingly, many of those students, walking or dropped off,

go to school when the tunnel is closed. They cross Western or

Exposition unattended, warned only by an LED sign and regular

traffic signals (there are no gates, bells or whistles, other than

the one the train blows).

5. Foshay maintains an on-campus free health care center which is

open all day, all year, where residents meet not only with health

care professionals, but social workers as well. Consequently, there

are generally over 4000 community residents, clinic staff and

students on campus, many of them late into the evening taking

advantage of the only health care facility available to them.

5
 6. Foshay is a “collector site”, where hundreds of area students

assemble at 6:30 a.m. (well before the tunnel is opened) to be

bussed to schools at other locations.

7. Foshay is a “Concept 6 School”, in session year round, often at

times (summer, holidays) when there is no staff available to open

and supervise the tunnel.

8. Foshay is building another facility some 10 blocks away from its

existing campus. How will the students of that school cross the

tracks? The tunnel is not an 4 option to them because of its lack of

proximity.

9. The “Foshay Family Center” holds classes for parents that

generally take place in the evening when the tunnel is of course

closed.

10. 33% of the student population at Foshay are “English Learners”,

identified as a “special population” who can at best be

characterized as not proficient in the English language and thus at

higher risk for accidents in the train environment.

11. Foshay has an unknown, but significant enough, disabled student

population. Yet the tunnel is not ADA compliant.

In an effort, one assumes, to not only prevent students from crossing the tracks,

but to also promote use of the tunnel, Expo proposes construction of a six foot chain

6
link fence along the railway. But chain link fences are made for children to climb. Many

of the school high students will be able to virtually leap over the fence and it is no more

than a simple climbing exercise for all of the younger students.

Against this backdrop Expo Authority’s assertion that an evidentiary hearing is

not necessary, and indeed a waste of everyone’s time and resources, probably best

speaks to its “promise” to continue with their “frank discussions aimed at optimizing

use” of the tunnel (p. 6 Expo PHC Statement), as the sole mitigation for school

pedestrian safety.

B. Postponement of An Evidentiary Hearing Until Completion of The

Board’s Study of Alternative Crossing Options

Expo Authority argues that “the environmental review of alternatives would only

become relevant should the Commission decline to approve the at-grade crossing” (p.

5 of PHC Statement). There is absolutely no evidence that the alternative crossing

study was to be considered only if the Commission disapproved an at-grade crossing.

Expo Authority does not, because it cannot, cite to any record of the proceedings

authorizing this alternative crossing study that would support that position.

In fact, in view of the substantial sum being spent on the environmental review

portion of this study ($250,000), that contention is wholly illogical. No doubt the Expo

Board would have waited to expend such a sum until a ruling from the Commission on

the proposed at-grade crossing if its intent was to consider the study’s alternative

crossings only in the event the Commission failed to approve an at-grade crossing. It

seems as if the Expo Authority is at odds with the intent of its ruling Board. Proceeding

7
with the Evidentiary Hearing prior to at least the staff’s recommendation to the Expo

Authority Board is a waste of both the Commission’s, the Expo Authority’s and the

taxpayer’s time and money. The Expo Authority has made claims and assertions as to

practicability in these proceedings whose factual basis may change with the results of

the crossing analysis and environmental review. It is the Expo Authority Board and the

LACMTA which must be consulted and approve any substantial changes to the

Farmdale crossing and they have expressed their intention to examine options that

might lead to a change. ECU and NFSR may well accept the staff’s recommendation,

thereby obviating the necessity for an Evidentiary Hearing. In view of the fact that a

quarter of a million dollars is being expended on this crossing study it seems more

than reasonable to let it take its course prior to engaging in any further proceedings

before the Commission.

It is further impossible to determine if any issues can be “resolved through

workshops, settlement discussions or mediation” (item 4 of February 27, 2008 Order)

or to “discuss (or for that matter even define) procedural recommendations” (item 5 of

Order) until all parties involved know how the Expo Authority Board intends to proceed

based on the publication of their crossing alternatives study and environmental review.

III. CONCLUSION

The only ruling which should be made at the PHC is the postponement of the

Evidentiary Hearing until, at the very least, the Expo Authority’s staff completes its

study and environmental review of alternative crossings for Farmdale. In that Expo

Authority has yet to lay one foot of track, this delay will not in any sense prejudice the

8
Authority. Quite clearly the intent of the Expo Board is to await the alternative crossing

study.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/
Lawrence E. Heller
HELLER & EDWARDS
Attorneys for Expo Communities United
and Neighbors for Smart Rail