|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 22, 2009 14:51:13 GMT -8
I'm very worried about this. So, I'm starting a new thread. In Phase 1 the right-of-way is narrower; so, the trains go closer to the residences. Yet, there are either no sound walls or the sound walls are on the south side of the tracks only. In stark contrast it looks like the Phase 2 alignment will be completely walled off, making it impossible to see the line from the outside or the outside from the line, taking away all the light-rail experence. The light-rail sound walls usually end up as 8-ft-high. That's because even though the recommended height were only 4 ft, the people would ask for "as high as possible" and the resultant wall would be 8 ft everywhere. In fact this is what happened in Phase 1: all sound walls were built to an 8 ft height, even in sections where the recommended height was only 4 ft. The segment between Overland and Sepulveda will be entirely surrounded on both sides by 8-ft-high sound walls, according to the DEIR:    |
|
|
|
Post by rajacobs on Sept 22, 2009 22:55:46 GMT -8
Your research, Gokhan, reveals that current plans will have the Expoline visually splitting the community between Overland and Military, which is what I feared. Currently the ROW between Overland and Military functions, effectively, as an unincorporated park. Sound walls will cut the neighborhood in half. For 18 years I lived in an upscale community (Shaker Heights, Ohio) that was tri-sected by two light rails lines. (Yellow PCC cars until 1981 when the tracks were upgraded and the PCCs were replaced with Breda LRV cars.) No sound walls or other shielding separate the rails from the front doors of hundreds of homes and there were no complaints while I was there, and searching the Internet, apparently none since! The LRVs continue to ride in the medians of residential home-lined boulevards. If the rail line had erected sound walls, all the residents, including those along the line, would have suffered. Despite the trains, there is a quiet residential feel that remains. With sound walls …well, I can’t imagine it continuing to feel like a neighborhood, and that’s my issue with Overland to Military sound walls here in West Los Angeles. (Note: Picture of Greater Cleveland Rapid Transit Authority Blue Line LRV is gratefully provided by Dr. Jon Bell, Presbyterian College, Clinton SC.)Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 23, 2009 12:56:40 GMT -8
I've done more research on this and made my own dbA measurements, and I confirmed that the Phase 2 segment has more ambient noise than the Phase 1 segment because of the freeways and heavy Westside traffic. On top of that the tracks are much further away than the homes in the Phase 2 segment. The determination on the sound walls is done by the current ambient noise and how far the tracks are from the homes. The less the current ambient noise and closer the tracks, the more need for sound walls. Yet, Phase 1 got only one sound wall on one side and Phase 2 may end up enclosed by two walls on either side. This is completely against the common sense and logic, given the ambient noise and distance from the tracks.
The problem seems to be arising from the fact that in the Phase 2 segment, they made measurements at only two locations, one at Ashby St, which makes no sense, and the other one at Military Ave and the right-of-way. Ashby got a low ambient noise because it's so secluded by trees etc. and they discarded the Military reading for being too high and therefore anomalous and they manually overrode it with a much smaller number. I'm trying to have the Expo Authority do new measurements. It's obvious that their environmental studies are done arbitrarily at best.
Also note that the FTA criteria for sound walls is very, very strict. As a result these sound walls are becoming an overkill, and given the arbitrary environmental studies of the Expo Authority, whether you will get them or not by your house is determined basically by the toss of a coin. The way the government business is done sometimes sickens me.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 23, 2009 15:23:02 GMT -8
I think that the visual impact of these sound walls, just like the visual impact of a parking lot or an elevated rail bridge, really needs to be thrown out there to the residents so that they can decide. These sound walls are also graffiti magnets unless they're covered with ivy, and I think the residents in the area will do the right thing if presented with the pros and cons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 23, 2009 15:31:20 GMT -8
I think that the visual impact of these sound walls, just like the visual impact of a parking lot or an elevated rail bridge, really needs to be thrown out there to the residents so that they can decide. These sound walls are also graffiti magnets unless they're covered with ivy, and I think the residents in the area will do the right thing if presented with the pros and cons. Well, what happened in Phase 1 was, when the residents were questioned about to the sound walls, they asked them to be built as high as possible. Therefore, they were built to the maximum sound-wall height of 8 ft wherever sound wall was indicated. So, unfortunately, to expect the right thing from the residents is only a bound-to-fail optimism, and this is what will likely happen in Phase 2 as well, except this time the 8-ft-high sound walls will surround the line from both sides. What happened in the Gold Line was residents also cried for sound walls. After the sound walls were added to the line, they were saying, "Oh, we were actually OK with the noise. These walls are blocking our view!" This is in fact the best way human stupidity is manifested -- by not seeing they are willfully and miscalculatedly headed into a bad thing until the outcome actually occurs, for example like the Iraq war. |
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Sept 23, 2009 15:41:49 GMT -8
Its so bizarre considering that this is a wide Right-of-way in this section and the there are few homes actually fronting this section, having soundwalls there would be overkill! They should re-use the earth excavated to the for the sub-grade and ballast of the new tracks and build a short berm about 2-3 feet in height to soften the noise and plant mature trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Sept 23, 2009 15:54:43 GMT -8
Its so bizarre considering that this is a wide Right-of-way in this section and the there are few homes actually fronting this section, having soundwalls there would be overkill! They should re-use the earth excavated to the for the sub-grade and ballast of the new tracks and build a short berm about 2-3 feet in height to soften the noise and plant mature trees. And, yet, remember that Steve Polechronis of AECOM (head of the consultants for the Expo EIR) stated at the Light-Rail for Cheviot meeting that the authority can't/won't build berms because there is not enough space! |
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Sept 23, 2009 18:43:32 GMT -8
I'm not so certain that the public comment in Phase 1 was as organized and diverse as it will be in Phase 2. If the Westside chooses a park there (which was not on the option list in Phase 1), I'm not so certain that sound walls/graffiti magnets will be as universally desired to surround what should be an open, beautiful and green park.
|
|
