|
Post by kenalpern on Apr 26, 2009 21:59:11 GMT -8
I think it's up to each city to determine how much extra it'll throw in for mitigation. USC and Culver City threw in nothing and a fraction of the costs, respectively, for local mitigation/operational improvements and that's why I respect Culver City a lot more than I do the leadership of USC.
Methinks that the Expo Authority and the City of L.A. are playing chicken with each other as each tries to get the other to pay what it considers "a fair share".
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 26, 2009 18:09:55 GMT -8
Here we go again with another highly nonscientific poll; so, cast your vote!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 3, 2009 7:48:51 GMT -8
Grade crossings for Phase 2 have now been determined, as presented at a focused community meeting in Cheviot Hills last night. Expo and LADOT have now fully agreed on these grade crossings and there are now no obstacles to proceed with them. The grade-crossing decisions were all based on the Metro grade-crossing policy, and traffic delay, intersection levels of service, spillover to adjacent intersections, and backup across the tracks were taken into account:
Overland: at-grade with gates. Maximum year-2030 rush-hour delay to traffic between National and Pico will be between 15 - 35 seconds.
Westwood: at-grade with gates. Since there is no existing signal there, street running like Crenshaw showed no benefits to traffic and would slow the line; so, gates will be used. Remaining determinations will be what combination of trees, street parking, and front lawns to remove, which will be determined after community meetings.
Sepulveda: if Casden development is built with a driveway, it will represent a Dorsey-like configuration and will have to be grade-separated. Otherwise, it's sufficiently below Metro criteria and will be at-grade. Elevated station will cost a $26 million extra. But adding a third-lane on Sepulveda will cost $13 million. So, Casden will have to pay $13 million for an elevated station if they want to build a driveway. Therefore, an elevated station will be studied in the FEIR but at-grade station will be the initial locally preferred alternative. My worry here is that Casden EIR is not completed and may delay Phase 2 substantially, like the Venice/Robertson Station delayed Phase 1. Phase 2 design and build may be substantially delayed as it may need to be coordinated with the Casden development at the location of the cement-mixing plant.
Barrington: at-grade with gates. It becomes one-lane further north and doesn't accommodate much traffic as a result.
Centinela: grade-separated, with the Bundy bridge extended. Grade separation was required after further traffic analysis on Olympic and spillover and backup resulting from traffic stopped at gates and adjacent traffic lights, respectively.
Expo is currently holding meetings with CPUC and they will ensure that all these crossings will be promptly approved. They are confident that they won't run into Farmdale-like problems this time, as they are very careful with their study and communications.
On an interesting note, a count done for Overland Avenue Elementary showed that not more than a few students cross the tracks. So, it's nothing like Dorsey or Foshay.
Again, the only possible delay for Phase 2 might result from the Casden project. This is my only worry at the moment.
We were told that the FEIR is on schedule and it will be voted on by the Expo Board at their early-January meeting.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2009 9:14:07 GMT -8
I realize this is very late in the game for me to be showing my ignorance. But I find it hard to visualize this line, heading west, with the following:
* Sawtelle: grade-separated * Pico/Gateway: grade-separated * Barrington: at-grade * Bundy: grade-separated * Centinela: grade-separated
Seems like an unnecessary rollercoaster. From Pico to Barrington is 1300 feet, give or take. So Metro wants to take this line in a sharp drop to Barrington, only to come back up again to Bundy?
I know all about the grade-separation policy. But in this case I just wonder what is the difference in cost (construction and operational costs) of this, as compared to simply keeping Expo aerial from Sawtelle to Centinela.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 3, 2009 11:07:41 GMT -8
^^ It's true that ramps and vertical curves required by ad hoc, roller-coaster-like grade separations done for light-rail slow down the trains quite a bit and result in a lot of waste of electricity in comparison to gated at-grade crossings or true grade separation by means of a fully elevated and/or trenched line. But I'm not sure how cost-effective it is to grade-separate Barrington.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 3, 2009 11:22:21 GMT -8
^^ It's true that ramps and vertical curves required by ad hoc, roller-coaster-like grade separations done for light-rail slow down the trains quite a bit and result in a lot of waste of electricity in comparison to gated at-grade crossings or true grade separation by means of a fully elevated and/or trenched line. But I'm not sure how cost-effective it is to grade-separate Barrington. True, Except if the station is at the top of the hump. In which case it naturally saves electricity and break ware-n-tear. As the train approaches the station it slows down due to gravity and as it leaves it gains momentum for the same reason thus requiring less electricity to get going again. The Moscow subway was one of the first train system to incorporate this gravity assist by intentionally having the tunnel dip between stations.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 3, 2009 11:42:59 GMT -8
True, Except if the station is at the top of the hump. In which case it naturally saves electricity and break ware-n-tear. As the train approaches the station it slows down due to gravity and as it leaves it gains momentum for the same reason thus requiring less electricity to get going again. The Moscow subway was one of the first train system to incorporate this gravity assist by intentionally having the tunnel dip between stations. I remember engineers for L.A.'s Red Line in downtown saying it was designed that way. Expo's bridges at La Brea, La Cienega, Venice, and Bundy will work that way. Here's my elevation drawing of the "Great Wall of West L.A." that could have resulted from all grade separations. Centinela is closer to Bundy than Barrington is to either Bundy or Pico.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 3, 2009 12:36:01 GMT -8
Thanks for the responses, and Darrell also for the elevation. If there are good engineering-related reasons to do it this way, then I'm all for it.
A "Great Wall" is more of an issue in residential areas. The area near Barrington is primarily industrial, so the visual impact of the "Wall" on that area would be minimal. And don't forget, the entire stretch from Centinela to Sawtelle would only be just over a mile.
Seems to me if you're going to grade-separate 75%+ through this area, you might as well grade-separate 100%. To avoid having any traffic impacts. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 3, 2009 12:44:48 GMT -8
By the way I am very, very glad that Overland and Westwood got at-grade. This area is very residential and massive aerial structures would ruin it. It was the right decision to have Overland and Westwood at-grade, given the residential nature and the fact that they are easily mitigated by adding an extra traffic lane. And the Overland School doesn't necessitate grade separation, as Expo showed in their presentation that only three kids crossed the tracks before and after school.
|
|
Adrian Auer-Hudson
Junior Member
Supporter of "Expo Light Rail - Enabler for the Digital Coast".
Posts: 65
|
Post by Adrian Auer-Hudson on Sept 3, 2009 15:48:20 GMT -8
I'm not sure when the lines of the Moscow Subway opened. The Central London Railway (Now the London Transport Central Line) opened on July 30, 1900. It deliberately dipped between stations. Not only did this mean that gravity helped accelerate, and slow, the trains. It also meant that stations are closer to the surface, and required short elevator shafts and stairwells.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 3, 2009 17:53:09 GMT -8
I think that the biggest question of Overland has never been about the school (although I'm sure the hype and fears have been there, and I think that the Authority and the LAUSD have done a poor job of communicating to the students and their parents how to separate the heat from the light, the fears from the reality).
The fact is that Overland is a major street (much more akin to La Brea and Venice Blvds. than to Farmdale), and I do hope that the Environmental Justice canard of comparing Farmdale to Overland when Farmdale is much more like Military will be placed aside for the ultimate question of whether the increased lanes of traffic on Overland will make it a good candidate for an at-grade crossing in light of the tremendous traffic and width of the street.
The question of whether the Overland lane widening is just a way to misinterpret and escape the Metro guidelines will certainly be thrown out there for the LADOT to answer to and for the PUC to evaluate, but if the LADOT and the Mayor want it at-grade then it will be difficult for the locals to fight this decision. Still, the big question lurking in my cynical brain is whether the Overland decision was a political or a transportation-based one...and whether this at-grade crossing is bullet-proof enough for the PUC to accept in light of the inevitable lawsuits to come.
An at-grade crossing is much less noisy and visually impacting than an elevated crossing, and in light of the $385 million pricetag to dig the Green/Crenshaw Line trench between Aviation/Imperial and Century/Aviation I think that the "big dig" at Overland idea needs to be vigorously reconsidered.
I still favor the idea of a slightly-elevated crossing with a lowering of Overland if any grade crossing is deemed necessary by the PUC, and I entirely favor an elevated crossing and rail station at Sepulveda...with the extra parking there and at Westside Pavilions to obviate any parking lot at the Westwood station.
Methinks that the ultimate war may shift to whether that parking lot at the Westwood station, which is opposed even by most of those who favor the Expo Line in order to make more room for a park and the Expo Bikeway, will be built. The proposed park on the ROW has an ENORMOUS amount of local support (and would suffer from the visual impact of a big elevated Overland grade crossing), and it might be the mitigation necessary to reduce the opposition in the region.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 3, 2009 18:04:00 GMT -8
I might add that the biggest reason why the Overland kids are let on/off at the northern end of the Overland elementary school campus (a residential street) is because Overland is such a major street and with such significant traffic. I think that the safety of an elevated bridge might be offset by the increased visual/noise impacts on the students.
However, the traffic issue on busy Overland is one that will probably take a lot more convincing to regional commuters. Westwood has considerable problems as well...but I think it will be Overland that proves to be the most contentious of the streets in question.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 4, 2009 14:43:14 GMT -8
As others have noted, there were four criteria evaluated within the Metro Grade Crossing Policy: 1. Cars queued from an adjacent intersection across the tracks 2. Cars queued from a grade crossing into an adjacent intersection 3. Added delay time 4. Degraded nearby intersection LOS Number 3 was the focus of the Overland crossing analysis. Here are the numbers I copied down from their presentation, applying LADOT's Synchro model to travel times (in seconds) between National and Pico in the year 2030, without and with the addition of the gated crossing (essentially adding another intersection signal). So the average additional peak-period delay would be 24.5 seconds. | | No crossing | Expo crossing | Avg addl delay | SB | AM | 199.2 | 233.5 | 34.3 | | PM | 265.8 | 291.4 | 25.6 | NB | AM | 299.3 | 321.8 | 22.5 | | PM | 303.6 | 319.2 | 15.6 |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 5, 2009 20:42:49 GMT -8
Announcement today: Friends 4 Expo general meeting ________________________
A lot has been happening on the Expo Line light rail Phase 1 construction (downtown L.A. to Culver City) and Phase 2 planning (the rest of the way to Santa Monica)! Please join us at Friends 4 Expo Transit's next general meeting:
September 15, 2009, Tuesday, 7:00-9:00 p.m. Hamilton High School library, 2955 South Robertson Blvd., just north of the Santa Monica Freeway (map).
* Phase 1 construction progress photos * Phase 2 update from the Expo Authority — Final EIR schedule, grade crossing decisions, bikeway plans, Santa Monica maintenance yard, and Q&A
________________________
See the NEWS page at friends4expo.org for more.
If you'd like to be added to our email list (or removed), please email mail@friends4expo.org.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 5, 2009 22:40:02 GMT -8
Number 3 was the focus of the Overland crossing analysis. Here are the numbers I copied down from their presentation, applying LADOT's Synchro model to travel times (in seconds) between National and Pico in the year 2030, without and with the addition of the gated crossing (essentially adding another intersection signal). So the average additional peak-period delay would be 24.5 seconds. I think everybody could live with less than 30 seconds of rush-hour driving delay across the tracks on Overland for quality light-rail transit! As a bonus of doing it at-grade, you don't ruin it for many homeowners there by building a massive light-rail bridge. So, it's a win - win situation. As Samantha Bricker, COO, Expo Authority, explained to me and Jerard at the Light-Rail for Cheviot meeting, the traffic at Overland is only too heavy in the vicinity of the freeway ramps, and it's OK to go at-grade at Exposition where the traffic is already light enough. Moreover, the tracks will also serve to further calm the traffic a little bit and reduce the congestion past them. It's like freeway metering lights: they add some delay to your freeway trip but they reduce the congestion on the freeway.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 11, 2009 17:11:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 12, 2009 19:49:56 GMT -8
I'm sorry, Ken, but I strongly disagree with you.
The Expo Authority has been closely working with the people and processing all the comments to the DEIR (draft EIR). Now, the EIR has been completed, that is we have an FEIR (final EIR). There is full agreement between Expo and LADOT regarding the grade crossings at Centinela, Barrington, Sepulveda, Westwood, and Overland.
I don't think that we will have the same problem with the CPUC this time. The Farmdale was a unique case, with 1,000 students crossing the tracks in ten minutes. In the case of Overland, only ten students are crossing the tracks, a factor of 100 difference, that is two orders of magnitude.
What is similar with Farmdale is if Casden builds a driveway across Exposition just west of Sepulveda. In that case there would be hundreds of people and cars moving across the tracks; the grade separation would be built, and Casden would pay for it.
Westwood is the busiest station along the entire alignment because of bus connections and proximity to Westwood, UCLA, and Century City. You can't do without building some parking for such a station.
Greening of the line is important but secondary to its transit efficiency for obvious reasons.
Note that LADOT is already adding lanes on Overland. So, the third-lane is a must, one way or the other.
The bottom line is that FEIR is virtually finished, and grade-crossing issues have been resolved. There will not be grade separation at Overland, simply because it's not in FEIR. To fight for grade separation after the FEIR is as counter productive as Fix Expo's fights, with the notable difference that this time there will not be the same CPUC circus, as they've been very careful with the study and cooperative with CPUC, with lessons learned from Farmdale.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 20, 2009 1:11:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 20, 2009 19:45:38 GMT -8
Ken, I strongly disagree with you for the second time, after the Part 2 of your letter.
You are asking for an elevated station at Westwood. Can you imagine how this would look among the single-story houses? Nobody has ever dared asking for it before. I don't know how you can sell it to the NIMBYs.
I think that at-grade is better at Overland than a bridge in order to preserve the neighborhood there. In fact with at-grade you are not changing the neighborhood and with grade separation you are building large infrastructure. As the answer to your other question, this has been thoroughly researched and discussed in the past: it is not possible to depress Overland because of the storm drain.
Some parking is necessary at the Westwood Station, given the high ridership there. It's necessary for the station to be useful for the people in Rancho Park, Cheviot Hills, and nearby areas. It's hard to maintain parking at the Palms Station because of very high demand for parking there due to high-density-residential nature of Palms.
You don't have a whole lot of space there to build a park anyway, but the bike and pedestrian path and landscaping would basically be your park.
There might be a lawsuit or not. The authority has been really careful and the lawsuit won't go anywhere. Grade separations have been vetted by LADOT. A subway, which the NIMBYs would based their lawsuit on, has been ruled out both because of the cost and storm drains.
We all had ideas about how this line should be built and we input these during the EIR stage. But our ideas need to be dynamic and respect, at least partially, all the studies that have been done for the EIR. We can't just refute the EIR studies that have just been completed and ask the line to be built exactly the way we imagined it from Day One.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 20, 2009 23:01:39 GMT -8
Well, I don't know if I simply favor an elevated station at Westwood, as you've suggested, although I favor one at Sepulveda, combined with the elevated rail/bikeway crossing that probably enjoys widespread support.
I think that there are a great deal of discussions that need to go on between the City of Los Angeles and the Authority, and that I am a great deal more concerned with the former than I am with the latter. In particular, if there was any decent Planning on the part of the City for that stretch between Sepulveda and Overland (despite current rather feeble attempts to update the West L.A. Community Plan, which can but does not really include the Expo Line in its efforts right now), there wouldn't be any problem.
Even before there was an Authority, Metro staffers were concerned about the lack of Planning for the Expo Line by the City of Los Angeles that was in stark contrast to the efforts by the Cities of Culver City and Santa Monica.
Were there enough discussions and outreach by the City that could be achieved over the past few years, it would be ready with water reclamation and parks money to provide a good blueprint for the Authority to work with. Alas, the City of L.A. has a laissez faire policy that ignores its own City Charter and zoning laws, and is part of the reason why overdevelopment has been such a problem in the region.
As for the parking lot, it's quite the conundrum because:
1) The region is as parks/open space-poor as it is transit-poor 2) A parking lot at Westwood station, while very attractive for commuters who live in my area would be horrible for the quiet, R1-zoned neighborhoods to have in their midst as their parking and left-turn options onto Westwood and Overland are reduced 3) We want the traffic low on Westwood and Overland to keep things cool with the Metro grade crossing policy, right, so intensifying car traffic to Westwood station would not be as smart as directing that car traffic on Sepulveda and Pico
Hence I am one of those who count themselves among the "park, not parking" contingent--and I think I can safely say that the majority of Expo supporters who fought for the Expo Line for the past decade feel the same way I do at this site. The response to my articles among these supporters have, overall, been rather supportive.
I'm extremely torn on the idea of a parking lot on Westwood and Palms/National, and perhaps the only thing, as I am about the whole way the Expo Line should be mitigated; the last thing I want is to prove the NIMBY's right that the Expo Line would indeed turn the neighborhood into a more upzoned, dense and traffic-choked one that even Expo supporters oppose.
To summarize, anyone who thinks that the current plan is an easy, obvious final plan that doesn't merit more grassroots and political discussions is probably not thinking this through. I do not want the legal hassles that took over the Dorsey/Farmdale issue, but I do fear that any aggressive actions by the Authority, and any lack of mitigations by the City and the Authority, will invite more legal action.
...and I again blame the City (much, much more than I ever can for the Authority) for lack of Planning, mitigation and political leadership for not preparing for this turn of events.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 21, 2009 8:28:42 GMT -8
You are asking for an elevated station at Westwood. I read the article, and I didn't see that at all. I think the key sentence is: "Exposition/Westwood will be a wonderful “neighborhood” station for bus, bicycle, and pedestrian/local access, but the best Land Use principles point to the nearby, freeway-adjacent Exposition/Sepulveda station as a better location for a “regional” station that is part of a Westside Transportation Center." I too hope that Sepulveda is built as an above-grade station, and that parking is located there. By contrast, Westwood should be at-grade and lower profile, not a massive park-and-ride station in the middle of Cheviot Hills. Thank you Ken for the comprehensive analysis. While some NIMBY's just don't like transit, others are nurtured by strong-arm tactics. Certainly the residents of Cheviot Hills, Palms, etc. do not deserve to be antagonized by Metro or ignored by their city representatives. Land-use policy does not have to be a zero-sum game. Better to work with them to get the result we all want - a quality transit line.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 21, 2009 8:33:15 GMT -8
You are asking for an elevated station at Westwood. Can you imagine how this would look among the single-story houses? Nobody has ever dared asking for it before. I don't know how you can sell it to the NIMBYs. Warning bells may be more disruptive to the neighborhood then a bridge in which a quite train goes over. I think that at-grade is better at Overland than a bridge in order to preserve the neighborhood there. In fact with at-grade you are not changing the neighborhood and with grade separation you are building large infrastructure. As the answer to your other question, this has been thoroughly researched and discussed in the past: it is not possible to depress Overland because of the storm drain. It is possible but perhaps it's prohibitively expensive. You just have to go a bit deeper or realign the sewer. I know it's not going to happen but going briefly underground would create room for extra green space. Some parking is necessary at the Westwood Station, given the high ridership there. It's necessary for the station to be useful for the people in Rancho Park, Cheviot Hills, and nearby areas. It's hard to maintain parking at the Palms Station because of very high demand for parking there due to high-density-residential nature of Palms. I agree, it will releave congestion at the other nearby stations. I think a compromise can be reached however that limits amount of parking spaces so as to free up some extra green space. I don't know if parties would agree but Westside Pavillion is a short walk. They could offer some overflow parking for patrons willing to do the five minute walk. Also, this station in particular should have A LOT of bicycle infrastructure as it is the closest station to UCLA and within easy biking distance for a twenty or thirty something student. You don't have a whole lot of space there to build a park anyway, but the bike and pedestrian path and landscaping would basically be your park. While these things are very nice a park they are not. The ROW here is a little wider. I don't really see it happening because of the desired sound buffer, but if the tracks were pushed to one side of the alignment a larger parcel of greenspace could be created.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2009 10:16:52 GMT -8
You are asking for an elevated station at Westwood. I read the article, and I didn't see that at all. I think the key sentence is: "Exposition/Westwood will be a wonderful “neighborhood” station for bus, bicycle, and pedestrian/local access, but the best Land Use principles point to the nearby, freeway-adjacent Exposition/Sepulveda station as a better location for a “regional” station that is part of a Westside Transportation Center." I too hope that Sepulveda is built as an above-grade station, and that parking is located there. By contrast, Westwood should be at-grade and lower profile, not a massive park-and-ride station in the middle of Cheviot Hills. Thank you Ken for the comprehensive analysis. While some NIMBY's just don't like transit, others are nurtured by strong-arm tactics. Certainly the residents of Cheviot Hills, Palms, etc. do not deserve to be antagonized by Metro or ignored by their city representatives. Land-use policy does not have to be a zero-sum game. Better to work with them to get the result we all want - a quality transit line. If you don't widen the street at Westwood, you can't go at-grade; hence, the Westwood Station would be elevated.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2009 10:29:00 GMT -8
You are asking for an elevated station at Westwood. Can you imagine how this would look among the single-story houses? Nobody has ever dared asking for it before. I don't know how you can sell it to the NIMBYs. Warning bells may be more disruptive to the neighborhood then a bridge in which a quite train goes over. It is possible but perhaps it's prohibitively expensive. You just have to go a bit deeper or realign the sewer. I know it's not going to happen but going briefly underground would create room for extra green space. I agree, it will releave congestion at the other nearby stations. I think a compromise can be reached however that limits amount of parking spaces so as to free up some extra green space. I don't know if parties would agree but Westside Pavillion is a short walk. They could offer some overflow parking for patrons willing to do the five minute walk. Also, this station in particular should have A LOT of bicycle infrastructure as it is the closest station to UCLA and within easy biking distance for a twenty or thirty something student. You don't have a whole lot of space there to build a park anyway, but the bike and pedestrian path and landscaping would basically be your park. While these things are very nice a park they are not. The ROW here is a little wider. I don't really see it happening because of the desired sound buffer, but if the tracks were pushed to one side of the alignment a larger parcel of greenspace could be created. Fortunately the quacker horn and bells are now directional and quiet, and they are also reduced in duration. The disturbance to the neighborhood should be minimal. Realigning the storm drain that is roughly 12 ft x 12 ft is cost-prohibitive if not impossible. Remember that these things were built by WPA in the 1930s where this used to be a mostly open area. That is they are not meant for future modification once there is development over them. Going below the drain would create all kinds of inequalities and wouldn't be very nice from an engineering perspective because of the depth. That's why you either build a bored subway or go at-grade or above grade. Trenches are usually not practicable because of existing utilities. Also, contrary to what some people think, a trench wouldn't result in more green space at all, as the trench is open. Moreover, it would require obtrusive six-foot-high retaining walls.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 21, 2009 11:05:17 GMT -8
Probably a good time to repost my South Pasadena Indiana Ave. grade crossing video. I find the track noise louder than the crossing bells and quacker horn. (Click the video, then click HD, finally click full-screen.)
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 21, 2009 11:12:30 GMT -8
And the profile drawing of what it would take to tunnel below the storm drains at Overland and Rountree - a quarter mile long portal-to-portal like the Flower-Figueroa underpass, but 55 feet deep vs. 25 feet deep.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 21, 2009 12:03:34 GMT -8
I see the Phase 2 grade crossing decisions as pretty technically constrained by the Metro Grade Crossing Policy, and expect little or no change from the Final EIR and its one option at Sepulveda. Conversely, the decision about parking vs. park at Westwood seems to have more policy leeway. Staff say that following an Expo Board policy of providing parking where possible on Metro-owned land, they proposed the surface parking lot at Westwood. However, it appears the Expo Board members could come to a different decision about that location, especially if the relevant L.A. City Councilman took a position against parking there on the land the City owns (the 50-foot strips beyond the 100-foot Metro right-of-way). How much would the parking lot contribute to ridership at Westwood? Not much! Table 2.5-2 projects 5,213 boardings at Westwood and 5,097 at Sepulveda. But parking proposed to be added is approximately 170 spaces at Westwood and 260 spaces at Sepulveda. See the Expo Greenway proposal for more on the park option. Here's an older sketch of the park surrounding the tracks that could be there.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2009 12:41:49 GMT -8
And the profile drawing of what it would take to tunnel below the storm drains at Overland and Rountree - a quarter mile long portal-to-portal like the Flower-Figueroa underpass, but 55 feet deep vs. 25 feet deep. And that's fitting it tight. The station might not even fit if they have to go a little deeper in order not to disturb the storm drain and sewer.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2009 12:58:59 GMT -8
See the Expo Greenway proposal for more on the park option. Here's an older sketch of the park surrounding the tracks that could be there. The problem is that the creeks/drains cut the right-of-way perpendicularly and as a result the right-of-way is not a good location to bring the water to the surface. Perhaps they can have parking on one side only. Only a few people would be able to use the park unless you provide parking. And perhaps we could have the pond with ducks and fish between Military and Westwood. It's hard to fit it between Westwood and Overland because of the station. Also, the strip between Military and Overland is longer. I think there is always a solution that still makes the light-rail line useful to many people, rather than "we want no parking" or "we want no station" or "the strip between Overland and Westwood can be nothing but a park" or "the park can be nowhere but between Westwood and Overland." Build landscaped parking and a nice bike and pedestrian path between Overland and Westwood and build the pond between Military and Westwood -- you still have a nice park and yet people can actually get to it and to the line (by being able to find parking).
|
|
|
Post by Jason Saunders on Sept 21, 2009 18:26:02 GMT -8
Also, contrary to what some people think, a trench wouldn't result in more green space at all, as the trench is open. Moreover, it would require obtrusive six-foot-high retaining walls. Yeah I agree with you cats that a tunnel is probably not feasible. However, the reason I postulate that more green space would be available is because the train would have to travel below ground a greater distance to clear the two storm drains. Also because the tunnel is deeper it takes a greater length of tunnel to get back to grade because the slope of the deep tunnel can not exceed 6% percent. Because of the depth it wouldn't be a trench until the line comes close to the surface again. The portion that the line is "deep bore" allows for room at the surface for green terrain. Now this is only academic. I'm not advocating taking the train deep just to have a few yards of green space. I am reminded of the proposals to put a cap on the Santa Monica and Hollywood freeways to create park space. Too bad money doesn't grow on trees.
|
|