BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ile Serhan o aan ink armen MARK RIDUEY-THOMAS ‘SUPERVIGOR, SECOND STRICT January 21,2010 ‘Arthur T. Leahy Chief Executive Officer Metro One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit Dear Art, |Lam writing to request a careful review of Metro's Grade Crossing Policy for Light Rail Transit. Itis my understanding that this Policy was drafted by Korve Engineering IN 2003, based on guidelines from a variety of sources including other transit agencies, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The Policy was adjusted by the Metro Board prior to its approval at the Board meeting on December 4, 2003, and has been subject to some review and adjustments since, This Policy, unfortunately, has become the source of considerable controversy and dissatisfaction in the communities that we serve. inadequacies in the policy have been further highlighted by our inabilty to obtain Public Utiltios Commission approval for several crossings on Phase | of the Expo Line, even though construction of the line is now more than 40% complete. Above all, continuing instances of fatal accidents at grade crossings throughout the Metro system continue to trouble us deeply. This pattem of dissatisfaction, injury and death must be foremost in our minds as we consider application of this—or any— Policy to future decisions of such consequence. Accordingly, | am requesting a review and reevaluation of the 2003 Grade Grossing Policy for three reasons: 1. Technical challenges The Grade Crossing Policy uses vague estimates of future automobile traffic in its calculations. These estimates do not properly consider future ‘economic growth. The Policy states that “it is preferable fo evaluate the‘Arbut T.Leaby Grade Grossing Polcy for Light Rall Transt danuary 21,2010, Page 2 of 4 ‘year of opening volumes and the 20-year forecast volumes, if available. If these are not available, existing volume data factored to a future year may be used." ‘The Policy provides no definition of the method to be used to “factor” future traffic growth. Perhaps this is because litle, or no, economic development is assumed. Further, and of great concer to our communities, is the fact that the Policy’ prescribed grade separation analysis is focused on automobile volumes per lane of traffic, and with detailed attention to possible automobile traffic delays, “queuing’ and geometry of automobile flow around crossing locations. ‘The first six evaluation criteria in the Policy's “Tratfic Operational and Safely Engineering Study Procedure" (pages A10 to A13) all deal with the flow of automobile traffic at crossing intersections. Safety considerations are listed as the seventh, and last, criterion in this Procedure, Criteria in the Policy are highly subjective, as opposed to the precise technical calculations used in the Policy's voluminous consideration of traffic flow. ‘As a result, grade crossings seem to be approved with questionable mitigation measures, such as the provision of additional traffic lanes which often require the condemnation of private property and reduction of pedestrian sidewalks, Making streets wider and sidewalks narrower, in order to accommodate the Grade Crossing Policy, actually makes intersections more dangerous for pedestrians and automobiles alike, ‘A more balanced and safety-oriented methodology for arriving at grade separation decisions is clearly possible, and desirable. 2. Community safety and regulatory challenges In virtually every instance in which it has been applied, the current Grade Crossing Policy has drawn almost unanimous approbation from the Communities it is intended to serve. This continuous chorus of complaints from our constituents cannot be ignored by the Metro Board. When an engineering calculation produces results that are contrary to human intuition, and contradict the concems of our constituents regarding the safety of their neighborhoods, then these technical calculations must be carefully reviewed, and revised where appropriate. Criticism of the Grade Crossing Policy has not been unique to local communities. In fact, the State of California Public Urtities Commission,‘Arthur T. Leahy ‘Grade Crossing Poicy for Light Rall Transit anvary 21,2040, Pages of4 which has ultimate jurisdiction over these matters, has not yet approved ‘wo of the most controversial grade crossings on the Expo Line; grade ‘crossings which were, of course, expeditiously “greenghted" under the current Metro Policy. 3. Embedded bias ‘Several months ago | wrote to your predecessor, Roge’ Snoble, and to ‘Senator Barbara Boxer regarding embedded inequities in the Federal New Starts funding program. As you may recall, | suggested that the New Starts formula favors projects in thoroughly developed neighborhoods, while effectively precluding Federal funding from transit systems that right serve neighborhoods in need of economic growth. | am encouraged to note that this Issue has been recognized by the Federal Transportation ‘Administration, under the current President, and by members of the U.S. Congress. It is now likely that this embedded bias in New Starts will be reviewed and revised A similar bias exists in Metro's Grade Crossing Policy It is clear that fheavily congested intersections, such as might be found along Wilshire Boulevard, currently have traffic counts that merit grade separation under the current Policy. Grade separating intersections on the Purple Line, for example, will serve existing development, and wil also allow continuous new development, if entitlements can be dbtained, in neighborhoods such ‘8 Century City and Westwood. ‘At the same time, the Grade Crossing Policy suggests that intersections Con the Crenshaw and Exposition Lines, which do not have traffic counts comparable to Wilshire Boulevard, can be adequalely served by crossings at grade. What the current Policy does not consider is the development potential of these sites. These sites are often located in less developed portions of our County, in neighborhoods that desperately need and want ‘economic development to bring them to parity with their more affluent peers, Because traffic counts today are not sufficient to merit grade separation under the current Policy, intersections in these neighborhoods are offered at-grade transit crossings. These crossing not only expose residents and Visitors to safety concerns; they also effectively eliminate the possibilty of intense future development in the future by restricting the traffic-handling capacity of local streets. In other words, the current Grade Crossing Policy discriminates against underdeveloped neighborhoods, denying them opportuniies to enjoy theArthur T Leahy Grade Grossing PocyforLight Rall Transit January 21,2010, Page dof ‘same economis prospects as areas which have already been substantially developed. For all of these reasons, and because of intense pressure from the communities | represent and from otrer regions of the County, | request a careful reexamination of the Grade Crossing Policy. | further request a suspension of grade separation decisions on the Crenshaw and Exposition Lines until a clearly underwritten Policy that supports community safety and, where appropriate, local economic development is approved by the Metro Board, With hope, — Mark Ridley-Th« ‘Supervisor, Second District,