We have carefully considered the arguments raised in the applications for rehearing and do not find grounds for granting rehearing. We modify D.16-09-002, as set forth below, to clarify an ambiguity regarding the importance of safety and how safety is considered by the Commission and to correct some minor errors. Rehearing of D.1609002, as modified, is denied. DISCUSSION D.16-09-002 properly interprets Commission precedent in evaluating the proposed Jennings Avenue crossing. SED argues that D.16-09-002 is unlawful because it misinterprets Commission precedent with respect to at-grade crossings. (SED Rehg. App., p. 1.) SED contends that D.16-09-002 wrongly relies on factors found in D.02-05-047 Line”) (“Blue which it argues applies only to light-rail and not to heavy-rail passenger and freight systems. (SED Rehg. App., p. 1.) SED argues that the Commission committed legal error in applying the factor test to a heavy-rail crossing in contradiction to Blue Line Commission precedent. (SED Rehg. App., p. 2.) SED is not correct. In we rejected Pasadena Metro Blue Line Blue Line, that a different legal standard should apply to light Construction Authority’s argument rail. (D.02-05-047, p. 10.) We stated: Our determination in this and future applications will continue to apply the and “heavy burden” “convincing” standard enunciated in When an City of San Mateo, supra. application is filed to construct an at-grade, rather than separate crossing, we shall look for the following: 1. A convincing showing by applicant to eliminate all potential safety hazards. 2. The concurrence of the local community authorities. 3. The concurrence of local emergency authorities. 4. The opinions of the general public, and specifically those who may be affected by an at-grade crossing. 5. Also relevant, though much less persuasive than safety considerations, should be the comparative costs of an grade crossing in comparison with [] grade separation.
We have carefully considered the arguments raised in the applications for rehearing and do not find grounds for granting rehearing. We modify D.16-09-002, as set forth below, to clarify an ambiguity regarding the importance of safety and how safety is considered by the Commission and to correct some minor errors. Rehearing of D.1609002, as modified, is denied. DISCUSSION D.16-09-002 properly interprets Commission precedent in evaluating the proposed Jennings Avenue crossing. SED argues that D.16-09-002 is unlawful because it misinterprets Commission precedent with respect to at-grade crossings. (SED Rehg. App., p. 1.) SED contends that D.16-09-002 wrongly relies on factors found in D.02-05-047 (“Blue Line”) which it argues applies only to light-rail and not to heavy-rail passenger and freight systems. (SED Rehg. App., p. 1.) SED argues that the Commission committed legal error in applying the Blue Line factor test to a heavy-rail crossing in contradiction to Commission precedent. (SED Rehg. App., p. 2.) SED is not correct. In Blue Line, we rejected Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority’s argument that a different legal standard should apply to light rail. (D.02-05-047, p. 10.) We stated: Our determination in this and future applications will continue to apply the “heavy burden” and “convincing” standard enunciated in City of San Mateo, supra. When an application is filed to construct an at-grade, rather than separate crossing, we shall look for the following: 1. A convincing showing by applicant to eliminate all potential safety hazards. 2. The concurrence of the local community authorities. 3. The concurrence of local emergency authorities. 4. The opinions of the general public, and specifically those who may be affected by an at-grade crossing. 5. Also relevant, though much less persuasive than safety considerations, should be the comparative costs of an crossing in comparison with [] grade separation. grade
193790520.docx