|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 21, 2009 21:11:50 GMT -8
^^ I think the trenches are left open for ventilation.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 21, 2009 21:22:11 GMT -8
Thank you for the kind words, and thank you for those who question my conclusions (which are very few because they are NOT conclusions, but rather pointing out conundrums).
For the record: 1) I'm not at all in favor of an elevated Westwood station at this time, but I'm also not in favor of a widened Westwood Blvd. that rips out lots of trees and leaves NO room for north-south bike lanes on Westwood; hell, I might even conclude someday that we should just have Westwood at-grade and widen it only for bike lanes in order to preserve the neighborhood while exempting this street from complying with Metro guidelines
2) At this time, I am much more in favor of depressing Overland and keeping the train flat (or with a slight elevation) because it's cheaper and less financially and technologically difficult...yet I recognize that, too, may be infeasible
3) I fully recognize that a parking lot by the Westwood station would be great if we thought only about commuters...but this is NOT a major commercial thoroughfare and as we update the West L.A. Community Plan we have to recognize that this is both a transit-poor and a parks-poor region.
4) I only bring up the idea of a parking lot at Palms/National because it IS a valid complaint to criticize the lack of parking between Sepulveda and Venice stations, and because that station is freeway-adjacent--but there are lots of valid complaints about a parking lot at Palms/National, too
If I didn't make it clear in my previous arguments and articles, this is a classic case of Transportation vs. Land Use/Neighborhood Preservation...for which light rail is supposed to enhance both. There is NO obvious answer as much as there is lots of discussions to figure out the best (or least lousy) solution for each unanswerable conundrum.
I deal with this all the time with my involvement in the Mar Vista Community Council Planning and Traffic Committees, and as a MVCC Boardmember. The MVCC both pushed loud and hard for this line to exist and to go on the ROW...but has concerns about how it's immediately proceeding forward.
I'd rather have consensus and community buy-in than what's "right" from any one group's perspective...and I also know from my own experience that the overall conclusion of the group will bring about a more acceptable and brainy answer than any one person (and that certainly includes me).
I've gotten a ton of e-mails from ardent Expo supporters concerned about what's going on here, and I intend to listen to them....and I will again say (because it really bears repeating) that the City of Los Angeles is really the entity that needs to bring this forward.
If the City funds the grade-separation at Sepulveda and doesn't give Casden an excuse to build an overdeveloped project, and if the City uses available parks/water reclamation funds, and if it creates north-south bikeways on Sepulveda and Westwood, then most--never all, but most--parties will be partially or entirely mitigated.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 21, 2009 21:22:46 GMT -8
By the way, didja all note how divided the poll is at the top of the page?
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 21, 2009 21:36:31 GMT -8
I'm equally concerned about the question of sound walls between Overland and Military. This was once a rather nice boulevard from everything I can see. Sound walls would visually North/South partition the neighborhood. There is so much land along that right-of-way betwen the two streets i noted, that trees could serve as a natural counterpoint to the rail line.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 21, 2009 21:38:27 GMT -8
Regarding the poll, unfortunately only 13 of us have voted so it doesn't quite say much about what the "community" would like.
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Sept 21, 2009 22:41:45 GMT -8
2) At this time, I am much more in favor of depressing Overland and keeping the train flat (or with a slight elevation) because it's cheaper and less financially and technologically difficult...yet I recognize that, too, may be infeasible 'Fraid so. With the storm drain only a few feet below Overland - plus nearby houses fronting on Overland - it would not be feasible to depress the street. I can imagine the owners of the self-storage warehouse on National next to the Palms station redeveloping into TOD and including parking for train riders.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 22, 2009 5:15:38 GMT -8
Interesting, Darrell, and thanks. I recognize the storm drain problems, but also recognize that the LADOT is going along with political support for transit over traffic at Overland--the LADOT is recognizing that traffic on Overland absolutely WILL be impacted...
...but the problem with the City of L.A. is that overdevelopment and its pro-growth-at-any-cost problems will make the wait on Overland much, much longer than the projected 30 seconds between National and Pico.
I still recommend at least considering the option of digging a few feet down on Overland and having a less-elevated rail bridge there because of the greater traffic problem there than any other street, and because that street will almost certainly explode with traffic over the next two decades, a situation worsened by any parking lot between Westwood/Overland.
Lord knows I don't have the answer to any parking lot at the Palms/National station, but I suspect there will be no concern by the community as a whole to preserve the self-storage warehouse on National (which, like Sepulveda station, is freeway-adjacent) as much as there will be to make the ROW into a park where it's so wide by Westwood station (and where we do NOT want to spruce up car traffic and aggravate the Westwood and Overland traffic levels and bring them up over Metro grade separation thresholds.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 22, 2009 7:05:18 GMT -8
Commuters want convenience and speed. Locals care about aesthetics and appropriate land use. Both care about bike and bus access. But getting the right balance between commuter needs and local needs is tough.
Both commuters and locals need to be less ideological and listen to the other side. Like I said before, this isn't a zero-sum game. The station at Westwood is more than just a stop on a transit line. It is an opportunity to create a hub of transit, pedestrian and bike activity that is integrated into the community. The challenge is to find a design that involves and respects everyone.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Sept 22, 2009 7:12:15 GMT -8
Regarding the poll, unfortunately only 13 of us have voted so it doesn't quite say much about what the "community" would like. The poll covers five grade crossings. My vote would be Sepulveda and Barrington only. But this option is not available.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2009 10:34:10 GMT -8
Regarding the poll, unfortunately only 13 of us have voted so it doesn't quite say much about what the "community" would like. The poll covers five grade crossings. My vote would be Sepulveda and Barrington only. But this option is not available. I should have put all 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 32 alternatives, but at that time I only put the most popular ones.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2009 10:39:32 GMT -8
I'm equally concerned about the question of sound walls between Overland and Military. This was once a rather nice boulevard from everything I can see. Sound walls would visually North/South partition the neighborhood. There is so much land along that right-of-way betwen the two streets i noted, that trees could serve as a natural counterpoint to the rail line. You brought up a good point. In Phase 1 the distance between the property lines on the north side of Exposition Blvd (between Arlington and Farmdale) and the trains is only 65 ft and there is no sound wall (on the north side of the tracks). In Phase 2 the distance between the trains and the property lines is 90 ft between Military and Westwood and 80 ft between Westwood and Overland. I would think there should be no sound wall there either. I will check it with the Expo Authority.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2009 10:43:30 GMT -8
Ken, I don't think it's possible to operate the trains (backup across the tracks, spillover of traffic on nearby intersections) without widening the single-lane Westwood Blvd northbound. Widening is also needed in order to accommodate the bus connections. The Metro grade-crossing policy is not just there as bureaucracy but it's a technical document to ensure efficient operations.
I believe there was a community meeting last night to discuss the optimal amount of property acquisitions (from the front laws), tree removal, and parking removal on Westwood. I hope it was productive. I will check with the attendants. You should have gone given that you are so interested in this.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 22, 2009 22:32:44 GMT -8
I'm afraid that I was at another community meeting last night.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 22, 2009 23:16:46 GMT -8
Regarding a National/Palms Bl. adjacent parking garage: First, I would like to have seen National straightened out somewhat rather than witness the building of the trackside Lycée Francais de Los Angeles and the 2 storage facilities--one on either side of the school.
Replacing the eastern-most storage facility with parking is an idea, but I am concerned with Palms Boulevard & National Boulevard traffic that already stacks up during rush hour in both directions from Castle Heights down to Motor, not to mention the impact on National Boulevard on both sides of Motor.
I think the population density in Plans is such that a station without parking would still be very effective.
The two locations that I believe could support parking and the additional traffic such parking would generate are: 1) Robertson-Venice (only a short distance away, where parking is already planned) and 2) adjacent to the ROW between Sepulveda and the 405 or possibly just north of the ROW, west of Military.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Oct 9, 2009 14:53:26 GMT -8
I was just walking on the right-of-way between Overland and Westwood, doing sound measurements. Here are my latest thoughts:
(1) At-grade light-rail is the best for this neighborhood. An elevated line wouldn't fit to the characteristics of this neighborhood. An underground line would be too deep, too costly, not compatible with light-rail standards, not practicable from various points, too expensive, waste of the existing right-of-way, etc., etc. I know NFSR is trying to use the underground card in order to kill the project. The "Smart" in Neighbors for Smart Rail has always meant "No." They are the "Neighbors for No Rail." But the city, as well as the neighborhood, needs this line, and there are actually a lot of neighbors who support it. If some neighbors don't want the line, here is a simple solution: Move out! Then, people who really want to have the convenience of living next to light-rail can move in.
(2) I'm now inclining towards eliminating the parking between Overland and Westwood. This area is too beautiful to be converted into a parking lot.
(3) Whether we like it or not, I think Westwood would have to be widened. It's a great connection to the line and it would be problematic for the pedestrians and buses and the traffic if it stays one-lane.
I will pass the results of my sound measurements later.
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Oct 9, 2009 21:54:41 GMT -8
Do earthen berms rather than sound walls stand a chance on the stretch between Overland and Military? My concern remains splitting the neighborhood through the use of sound walls.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Oct 13, 2009 7:23:17 GMT -8
Here is an interesting article on safety and trains compared to walking and driving from Frank Gruber www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/columns/FrankGruber/FG_2009/10_2009/10_12_09_Just_Who_Is_Unsafe.html: Just Who is Unsafe?By Frank Gruber October 12, 2009 -- In the course of researching last week's column about the controversy over where to build the Expo line maintenance yard one issue that came up frequently was whether light rail is safe. The tour of the Hawthorne maintenance yard that I joined came two days after the Los Angeles Times, on Sept. 27, had published articles about the safety problems that had plagued the Metrolink regional commuter rail system since it opened 15 years ago. According to the Times, through Sept. 2008 244 people had been killed on the Metrolink system. Although some of these fatalities had occurred in crashes involving trains only, most notably the head-on crash in Chatsworth in 2008 that killed 25, most of the deaths resulted from smaller accidents at grade crossings where trains hit motorists or pedestrians. While the articles contrasted Metrolink's record and response to these accidents with what the newspaper's reporter saw as a more safety-conscious attitude at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), which runs the County's light rail and subway lines, the articles made some people on the tour nervous about Expo. Over the years, many people have died at grade crossings involving Metro's light rail lines, too. Aside from the Times article, the Santa Monica College comment letter to the Expo draft environmental impact report that I referred to last week included many comments relating to the College's fears that a grade crossing at Stewart Street, which would be used by trains entering and exiting the maintenance yard, would be dangerous for motorists and pedestrians. Going back a little further, although earlier this year most of the testimony at City Council meetings supported the City of Santa Monica's successful effort to persuade Expo to run trains at street level down Colorado Boulevard, instead of on an elevated line, there was a minority view that running trains on the street would be dangerous. So -- will the Expo line be dangerous when it runs through Santa Monica? The answers to this question must begin with an acknowledgement of reality that some may consider cavalier: modern life is fraught with dangers (although it's probably not as dangerous as pre-modern life). When I took torts (personal injury law) in law school, I learned that what determined whether an injury-causing action was negligent was whether the accident was foreseeable even though the person who took the action didn't mean for the injury to occur. Of course, if an injury-causing person knew that the injury would result from his action, he could be liable for willful misconduct - something more serious than negligence. The professor then gave us statistics that showed that for every X amount of construction one could predict that there would be Y amount of injuries. He then asked us if that meant that a builder of a skyscraper, or a dam, or a highway, or whatever, should be held to be "negligent per se", or even willfully liable for any injuries that occur during construction? There's no question that if you run trains across streets, sooner or later there will be an accident. In that sense, trains are dangerous. But that's not how we typically measure danger. The question is, what is the comparative level of risk? The Times reported that in 15 years, 244 people had died in Metrolink-related incidents. Here's another number: 201. That's the number of pedestrians, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics, who were killed in traffic accidents in Los Angeles County in 2008 - just one year. Twenty-seven bicyclists were killed, and 118 motorcyclists. The county had a total of 711 traffic fatalities in 2008. Motorists rather predictably kill people who get in their way, but no one is saying that we must put crossing gates at intersections along auto sewers like Olympic Boulevard, or make cars ring bells as they approach intersections. Most people who vote or otherwise have power in our society own cars and drive. They don't want to be told that driving at 50 miles per hour on a boulevard like Wilshire or Olympic is inherently (and ridiculously) dangerous. At that speed, which L.A. motorists consider to be their right, it takes about 300 feet to stop a car even if the driver is not talking on a cell phone or texting - too long to see a pedestrian crossing a street and then stop in time. If you don't expect to use transit, or if you expect to be inconvenienced by it, then it's easy to find statistics that make transit look dangerous. But the additional risk is trivial compared to what we accept every day with cars. All transit facilities should be designed with safety in mind. Because motorists have proven over the decades to be breathtakingly stupid, grade crossings in particular need good design and appropriate equipment. In all fairness, however, 100 or so passengers in a train should have priority at an intersection over a dozen or so people in their cars. Light rail stop in downtown Denver] Trains and trams have operated on streets for a long time all over the world. People - yes, including school children and motorists -- coexist safely enough with them. * * * In case you were wondering what was happening with the lawsuit between residents of Seaview Terrace and the City of Santa Monica that I wrote about last month, it turned out that because of a scheduling error with the court, the settlement conference that was to have taken place Sept. 29 has been postponed to Oct. 30. Meeting notices: As mentioned last week, Expo will be holding a community meeting in Santa Monica to discuss the status of the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Expo line. Here are the details: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 6:00pm Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, 1855 Main Street East Wing Meeting Room Unfortunately for meeting junkies, Santa Monica College will be holding a "community and scoping" meeting the same night with regard to an update to its Facilities Master Plan. Here are details about that: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 7:00pm SMC Main Campus, Business Room 111 1900 Pico Blvd.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Oct 13, 2009 8:24:30 GMT -8
"There's no question that if you run trains across streets, sooner or later there will be an accident. In that sense, trains are dangerous. But that's not how we typically measure danger. The question is, what is the comparative level of risk?"
Yes, this is the crux of it. Everything in life comes with some risk, i.e., is somewhat 'dangerous'. The question is, how much risk, in the context of both costs and benefits, are we willing to tolerate?
Looking at it this way, the statement 'at-grade rail is dangerous' is completely subjective. What I consider dangerous is different from what Gokhan, Damien, Ken, Darrell, etc. consider dangerous.
Of course at-grade rail brings more risk of collisions than grade-separated rail. But as the author notes, the millions of cars on our streets and highways carry far more risk for all parties than any form of rail. We as a community (by which I mean, Angelenos) need to decide how we are going to deal with 'dangerous' interactions between pedestrians, autos and trains, as we enter a phase of Los Angeles history where rail transit has returned.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Dec 18, 2009 13:24:15 GMT -8
This is the grade-separation discussion from the FEIR, from Chapter 2 -- Alternatives. After reading it, it's no-brainer that Overland and Westwood should be at-grade. Laying tracks at-grade would take only a few months as opposed to many years of trench construction or bridge construction with a lot of noise, dust, trucks, and heavy machinery for years. A trench would have to be flood-proof because this is in a federal flood zone and this would make the costs astronomic. A bridge would divide the neighborhood like a Berlin Wall. At-grade has at least the same speed as grade-separated because of the use of gates, actually faster because of elimination of grade-separation ramps, and has very little traffic impacts.
Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard Grade Separations—Segment 1: Expo ROW The analysis of environmental, safety, technical engineering, and other considerations established that Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard would operate safely at-grade, with impacts mitigated to a less-than-significant level per CEQA. In response to comments on the DEIR, the Expo Authority conducted additional analysis of these crossings in coordination with the LADOT. LADOT concurred that the at-grade crossings at these locations, with the improvements described in FEIR Section 3.2 (Transportation/Traffic), Table 3.2-8 (Grade Crossing Analysis—Proposed Improvements), would be operated safety and would not have other significant impacts. Refer to Section 3.2 (Transportation/Traffic), as well as the Transportation/Traffic Technical Background Report for a detailed discussion of the additional analysis. As part of a multi-faceted evaluation process, including the above mentioned CEQA requirements, the analysis of the Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard crossings also involved the application of the Metro Grade Crossing Policy, as adopted by the Metro Board of Directors on December 4, 2003. The policy provides guidance for determining where grade separations should be considered for Metro LRT projects. The same methodology was applied to all other crossings along both Expo Phase 1 and Expo Phase 2. This ensures that all communities along the Expo Line were treated in an equitable and consistent manner and avoids potential cumulative impacts associated with treating one neighborhood different than the other relative to grade crossing decisions. However, many comments were received from the public on the application of the Metro Grade Crossing Policy and the evaluation of safety issues associated with at-grade crossings, as well as the potential impacts on students and/or school sites relative to noise and vibration; safety, security, and emergency access; aesthetics; and air quality. Concerns were specific to Overland Avenue Elementary School, which is located immediately north of the Expo Phase 2 alignment and east of Overland Avenue. As such, the issues associated with grade separations at Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard were examined based on their ability to achieve the project purpose and objectives taking into account technical, environmental, and economic factors. Various grade separated configurations at Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard were considered, including both below and above ground options. The grade separation discussion provided herein focuses on grade separating both Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard as a continuous structure since it was the main emphasis of the community’s comments. Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard—Trench An underground grade separation would involve a trench extending from east of Overland Avenue and continuing below grade under Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard before ascending back to grade west of Westwood Boulevard within the Exposition ROW. The below ground section would be approximately 3,500 feet in length. The station could remain between Westwood Boulevard and Overland Avenue, but a more complex underground station would be constructed. Further, significant ventilation and vertical circulation for patron access would be needed due to the length of the covered section. As noted previously, a large gravity fed storm drain runs north/south under Overland Avenue across the Exposition ROW, with interior dimensions of 11 feet wide by 9.5 feet high. In addition, a second storm drain runs north/south at Midvale Avenue, with interior dimensions of 8 feet wide by 7.5 feet high. Construction of a shallow LRT trench at this location would require that the existing storm drains be pumped under the LRT trench; a significant pump station would need to be constructed to handle the volume of water. Another option would be the construction of an inverted siphon where water pressure is used to bring water under a structure and then back up to the storm drain. This arrangement is not recommended because of the risk of failure in a storm drain system where debris could clog the siphon. Alternatively, a deeper LRT trench below the existing drainage structures would require that the LRT trackway be placed at about 40 to 45 feet below ground surface. In addition, as noted previously, this area is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone AO that is subject to shallow flooding depths and inundation. The construction of a trench would create a large depressed area, which could become flooded in the event of a major storm. As such, the facility and associated systems would need to be flood-proofed. “Flood proofing” means any combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures that reduce or eliminate flood damage to property, facilities, and structures. Given the engineering and environmental challenges associated with the existing storm drains and flood zone, the construction impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhoods and Overland Avenue Elementary School would be substantially greater for a trench than the proposed at-grade guideway. Based on experience with other transit projects, the approximate 3,500-foot trench and underground station would substantially increase the scope, size and magnitude of construction activities compared to an at-grade configuration, especially considering the challenges that would be incurred with the storm drains and flood zone. The construction of a trench would result in greater noise and vibration impacts due to the type of equipment and construction methods required for excavating and building a trench. Further, more visual or aesthetic impacts would be incurred during construction due the increase in scope and size of the construction footprint and equipment used on site. In addition, the amount of excavated material required for the trench would increase haul loads and routes through the adjacent neighborhoods and near the school. An increase in dust emissions due to the amount of excavated material and construction activity would also impact air quality. Trenching under Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard would also require greater traffic detours and lane closures. In addition, the duration of construction would last longer, and larger staging areas would be needed to accommodate excavated material and more equipment. These construction impacts would be contrary to comments received on the DEIR relative to reducing impacts in neighborhoods and near the Overland Avenue Elementary School. The costs associated with the trench, including an underground station and structural floodproofing elements would be significantly higher than the proposed at-grade alignment and station. No ridership benefits would be realized with an underground grade separation in this location, as the operating plan and running times would remain the same. Therefore, the trench would not be cost effective in comparison to the at-grade alignment. Plus, it would worsen the cost effectiveness and efficiency of the entire project relative to FTA standards. While federal funding is no longer being pursued for the Expo Phase 2 project, the FTA’s cost effectiveness criteria was used to evaluate and screen alternatives, as discussed previously. Further, a significant increase in overall project costs could jeopardize local funding availability. Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard—Aerial Structure An aerial structure would extend from east of Overland Avenue and cross over Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard before coming back to grade west of Westwood Boulevard within the Exposition ROW. An aerial station would be constructed between Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard, involving a larger aerial structure to accommodate the platforms, elevators, and pedestrian access with stairways from street level. This aerial structure would reach approximately 30 feet in height and extend approximately 3,000 feet in length, creating a large physical barrier that would bisect the neighborhood. Given the length and height, the aerial structure would contribute a dominant visual element to the neighborhood/community and Overland Avenue Elementary School. As such, the visual impacts would be significantly greater than the proposed at-grade alignment. As with the trench, experience on other projects has proven that an aerial structure would result in more extensive construction impacts (e.g., noise, vibration, aesthetics, traffic detours, lane closures, haul loads, and air quality), with a longer construction duration and larger staging areas in comparison to an at-grade alignment. The amount of fill material that would be required to build an aerial structure would increase haul loads and routes through neighborhoods and near the school even more than the trench. Further, the visual impacts during construction would also be greater, as the fill material would be put into place and the station would be constructed above ground. The noise and vibration during construction would also be elevated adjacent to the neighborhoods and school. The aerial structure would also have greater costs and no ridership benefits compared to the at-grade configuration, worsening the cost effectiveness of the overall project based on FTA standards and potentially jeopardizing local funding availability. Summary of Grade Separation Analysis In summary, the proposed at-grade alignment at Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard could operate safely and minimize impacts to a less-than-significant level, as required by CEQA. As such, a grade separation in these locations would not be needed to mitigate significant impacts, and if anything, would generate other environmental impacts. Construction impacts associated with a grade separation at Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard would be more extensive and disruptive to the adjacent community and nearby school. In addition, grade separating Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard would substantially increase costs, requiring more local funding and reducing the project’s overall cost effectiveness with respect to FTA standards. Further, the at-grade crossings would be consistent with Metro’s policy guidance for evaluating grade crossings relative to safety, traffic, and other considerations. As a result of the community impacts, constructability issues, and cost implications, the Expo Phase 2 project objectives are better accomplished and CEQA significance thresholds are achieved with an at-grade configuration of both Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard. Therefore, a trench under Overland Avenue and Westwood Boulevard is not recommended to be retained in the FEIR for further consideration, nor is an aerial structure. Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards Trench—Segment 1a: Venice/Sepulveda An aerial structure is proposed at the intersection of Overland Avenue on Venice Boulevard. The alternative of a trench41 could be possible at this location but would need to be covered in the vicinity of the intersection to accommodate double left-turn lanes (from Venice Boulevard onto Overland Avenue) that would bridge over the trench. This covered section would result in significant ventilation and patron exiting requirements due to the length of the covered section. In addition, the construction impacts (e.g., noise, traffic detours, dust) associated with trench construction would be substantially greater than an aerial structure. An aerial structure is also proposed at the corner of Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards. A trench could be possible at this location but, similar to Overland, would need to be covered in the vicinity of the intersection and would have significant ventilation and exiting requirements. In addition, the construction impacts would be substantially greater as the trench would have to be constructed under the westbound lanes of Venice Boulevard and the northbound lanes of Sepulveda Boulevard, both heavily used streets. Further, on Sepulveda Boulevard, the existing 97-inch Metropolitan Water District (MWD) water line would have to be relocated to allow for the trench. By comparison, construction of the proposed median columns associated with the aerial structure would be less complicated and would result in less construction impacts. An aerial structure is also proposed along a large portion of the LRT alignment along Sepulveda Boulevard. Given the width of Sepulveda Boulevard and the required lanes for through and turning traffic, an open trench would not be feasible. As such, a covered trench would be required, which would have significant ventilation and patron exiting requirements as well as significant construction impacts. Further, the existing 97-inch MWD water line would have to be relocated between Venice Boulevard and the I-10 Freeway to allow for the trench. By comparison, construction of an aerial structure is less complicated and would result in less construction impacts.
|
|