- ':. :

COASTAL CORRIDORRAIL TRANSIT PROJECT

~ NORTH SEGMENTF

, ~'<'- '~.'

August 1988, ~ ",'

~.: ,,_ ..

,.. ,<.':n··""

'l-

. Prepared byBechtel Civil Team. ", "~~;':' {f:i'f~ .

'-,'W·-'

':-

~:::.<. f , . •

vlNITIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATIONREPORT

Summary Report

III:44Stl.073C665rB7

.~.-->,

""..

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.1 Background

I. 2 Purpose

1.3 Methodology

1.4 General Description of Alignments1.5 Summary of Findings

LIST OF FIGURES

Fi 9ureI

2

3A,3B,3C,3D

Table

I

Title

Route I~ap

Hazardous Materials Sites

Station Sketches

LIST OF TABLES

Title

Alternatives Evaluation Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In November 1980, the voters of Los Angeles Countypassed proposition A, an LACTC sponsored measure whichraised the sales tax in the county by a half-cent toimprove public transportation. Subsequently, corridorswere evaluated on the Proposition A map in order toidentify high priority rail lines for development. TheNorth Segment of the Coastal Corridor was selected to beof high priority, and in 1984 a route refinement studyof this corridor was undertaken by LACTC. The reportsummarizing the results was published in December 1984by LACTC entitled Coast Route Refinement Study. centuryFreeway to Marina Area. The rail alignment thatresulted from this study was incorporated into theCoastal Transportation corridor specific plan forpurposes of reserving the physical requ~ements for theroute.

In February, 1988, LACTC issued a Request for Proposalswith the principal objective of providing theprofessional assistance necessary to prepare anEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Segment.The Bechtel Civil team was selected for this project andon April 22, 1988, the work proceeded on stUdyingalignment alternatives and variations as a routerefinement step necessary in determining the alignmentsto be carried into the EIR.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this Initial Alternatives EvaluationReport (IAER) is to report on the findings of the routerefinement task for the North Segment and to make arecommendation on the more feasible alignment takinginto consideration the engineering and environmentalfactors assessed. The findings of this report,considered along with the comments and recommendationsof agencies and parties that may review it, shouldestablish the preferred alignment and alternatives orvariations, if any, to be carried into the EIR.

1.3 Methodology

The alignment alternatives and variations as defined inthe request for proposals and those later introducedinto the study were developed and refined to SUfficientdetail to allow an evaluation of engineering, cost, andenvironmental factors essential for preparing the IAER.

-1-

In preparing the IAER, and in performing the engineeringnecessary to evaluate the alternatives, the followingactivities were conducted:

Technical coordination with the Federal AviationAdministration, City of Los Angeles Department ofTransportation, City of Los Angeles Department ofAirports, State of california Department ofTransportation, AT&SF RR, LACTC engineering staff,and other parties as necessary.

Review of development plans for roadways andfacilities in the area and coordination withconsultants designing these projects.

Review of North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS)project.

Research and analysis of existing geotechnical andhazardous waste data.

Research of existing utility and structure foundationlocations.

Analysis of ridership experienced at some majorairports accessed by rail transit.

Review of FAA clearance restrictions.

The Long Beach-Los Angeles Rail Transit Project Designand Performance Criteria was followed in performing thework. The decision by LACTC in June 1988 to fullyautomate the Norwalk-El Segundo Rail Transit Projectdictated that the Coastal Corridor be studied as agrade-separated guideway, and this major change incriteria was taken into account.

Conceptual level construction costs in 1988 dollars weredeveloped utilizing unit costs from similar types ofconstruction on other projects. The costs were notdeveloped from a detailed calculation of quantities andshould be considered in this context. A contingencyfactor was included to cover the unforeseen, which maybe significant, especially in underground constructionor in contaminated areas. Construction costs includeall civil/structural, track, electrification, andsystemwide components, but do not include the cost ofreal estate, maintenance facilities, and vehicles.Engineering, construction management, administration,and contingency are included.

-2-

Cost figures are not developed accurately enough to befurnished in a concise manner, so a range of costs areprovided for purposes of furthering the evaluation ofalternatives.

1.4 General Description of Alignments

(Please refer to Figure 1, Route Map, Figure 2,Hazardous Materials sites, and to Figures 3A, B, C andD, Station Sketches.)

The Coastal Corridor will operate as an extension of theCentury Freeway Rail Transit Project. The North Segmentof the Coastal Corridor extends northwesterly from theNorwalk-El Segundo Rail Transit line some 5.75 miles toa temporary end along CUlver Boulevard near LincolnBoulevard. The North Segment has three alternatives, asshown in Figure 1, Route Map. Alternative A providesrail service directly to the Los Angeles InternationalAirport (LAX) terminal area. Alternative B providesservice to the airport Lot C parking lot, as doesAlternative C (which is basically a variation ofAlternative B), and to the Westchester community.

More specifically, the North Segment begins on aerialstructure at the wye connection to the Norwalk-ElSegundo Project near Imperial Highway and AviationBoulevard and continues northward on aerial structure inthe AT&SF Railroad right-of-way until lllth Street iscleared. Due to Federal Aviation Administration heightrestrictions, the guideway drops to an at-grade profilein the AT&SF right-of-way between lllth Street and theaccess road opposite l04th street, which is crossed onaerial structure. For a portion of this at-gradesegment, the AT&SF siding is removed in order for theright-of-way to accommodate the guideway.

Aerial guideway continues northward in the AT&SF right­of-way, and then turns westward along the south side ofCentury Boulevard, where Alternatives A, Band Coriginate. The alignment from the beginning to thisarea is common for all alternatives, and is discussed inSection 4.

For Alternatives A and B, a center platform aerialstation (Century station) straddles Airport Boulevardwith entrances on the east and west side of the street.Alternative A portals west of the station and continuesinto the airport terminal area in subway with a station(LAX station) near Terminal 1 and continues underneathLAX runways 24L and 24R into Lincoln Boulevard insubway, while Alternative B remains aerial beyond the

-3-

Century station and bears north near the west propertyline of Dollar Rent-A-Car continuing northerly acrossLot c, with an aerial center platform station (LAX/LotC, near the existing transit center. For Alternative C,a center platform aerial station (Century station) willbe located east of Airport Boulevard on the south sideof Century Boulevard with the aerial guideway turningnorthward and following the west side of AirportBoulevard until 96th street is reached. It thenproceeds westerly on the north side of 96th street andenters Lot C with an aerial center platform station(LAX/Lot C station) located near the existing transitcenter.

Alternatives Band C become common on aerial guideway inLot C north of the existing transit center, and fromthat point Alternative B continues aerial and bearswesterly in Sepulveda Boulevard and continues aerialeither center, southside, or northside along theproposed Westchester Parkway extension until Lincoln

Boulevard is reached. An aerial center platform station(Westchester station) is situated just west of SepulvedaWestway for both the center and northside of parkwayalignment variations, and straddle of Sepulveda Westwayfor the southside alignment. In all cases, the stationcalls for a park-ride lot to be located south of theparkway in this area. An aerial center platform station(Manchester Station) is located as the alignment entersthe Lincoln Boulevard right-of-way on the easterly side.A station is not shown for Alternative A at thislocation, but the geometry does not preclude a subwaystation. Alternative B then goes into portal andproceeds in subway under Lincoln Boulevard becomingcommon in profile with the Alternative A subway north ofManchester Boulevard, very near to the portals in thebluff area. It should be noted that while Alternative Bis mostly aerial, there is a stretch of cut and coversubway construction in Lincoln Boulevard.

The common alignment then continues northwesterly insubway along Lincoln Boulevard with portals near HughesTerrace, in the bluff area, where three variations ofaerial guideway; the west side, center, and east side ofLincoln Boulevard are developed as options, orvariations.

Continuing along Lincoln Boulevard, these three aerialguideway options are aligned to acknowledge proposedimprovements to Lincoln Boulevard. An aerial centerplatform station (Jefferson station) is sited for thethree alignments at the Jefferson Boulevard

-4-

intersection. The center alignment places the stationjust southerly of Jefferson Boulevard, while the stationon the east and west sides straddle JeffersonBoulevard.

The three aerial alignments continue northwesterly alongLincoln Boulevard, becoming one as the guideway crossesCUlver Boulevard and swings northeasterly to a temporaryterminal aerial station (Marina del Rey Station) whichis proposed to have a park-ride lot. Tail tracks formidday storage are proposed at-grade beyond the stationand parallel to CUlver Boulevard.

1.5 Summary of Findings

The engineering and environmental factors assessed inthis report are summarized in Table 1, ALTERNATIVESEVALUATION MATRIX.

The engineering assessment involved constructiontechniques, alignment geometry (which has an impact onoperation speeds and maintenance costs, as well asconstruction costs), utility conflicts, right-of-wayimpacts, geotechnical and seismic conditions, and costsof construction.

The stations were sited for service to the community andanalyzed for modes of access and the relationship to thesurrounding community.

Environmental analysis identified impacts on adjacentland uses that may require further consideration.Contaminated sites were researched and initiallyidentified. Please refer to Figure 2, HazardousMaterials Sites. The engineering assessment discussesthe conflicts with these sites.

Because the alignments are completely grade separated,traffic impacts, except during construction, are limitedto conflicts with column spacings (Which can beminimized along Westchester Parkway and LincolnBoulevard, where new roadway designs are emerging) andstation access driveways and surrounding intersections,due to increased traffic volumes around station sites.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate alternativealignments and variations sufficient to select the mostfeasible path. Please refer to Figure 1, Route Map andTable l, ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION !lATRIX.

-5-

TABLE 1ALTERNATIVES EVAL~TION MATRIX

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

AI temet ives T",. Geometry Utility ·COsts Station Site Environmental Issues Traffic Inpacts P~t iminary Assessment(Mi les) Confl lcts 1988$ Issues

Carmon Sl!!9"l!!Ot (f rOlll Aerial 1.0 Fair, one tight Major ''''- No Stations Low-moderate potential Minor, No m8jor difficultiesIlI'perial Higtney to At-grade 0.4 radius, 2 steep draiMge ,,_ for hazardous sites I~cts OurirQCentury Station grades confl icts Construction

Alternative A (fran Aerial o. , Fair, one tight Major ""'- LAX Teminal - Moderate • high Minor, illplCts durirQ Shorter than AlterroativeCentury Station to T.....' 2.' radius, 2 steep confl icts "'" good servi ce potential for hazardous construction B, lIlOI"e expensivebluff area) .,.... (better than sites. Oisplacf!llll!f'lt of construction•

Alternative B) four gates dJrirQ LAX contaminated siteWestchester - m Station construction. conflicts, no service toservice Minor nolse/Vlbration westchester

concern.

Alternative B (fran Aerial 2.4 fair, one tl;nt Moderllte, 131)4- LAX TemiMl - Low-moderate potential Minor, inpactl ctJring Moderate to expens lveCentury Station to cut l cover radius curve, conflict ,60< fair service (not for contaminated sites. coret ruet i on, IOIIlt construction, fairbluff area via Lot C) IlbIIy 0.6 one steep grede with radar as good as Alt. A) Possible displacement at perking losses, station airport service, good

site Westchester - good dollar tot. Business access. Park access cOlmU"lity service.service disruption dJring ",,-.

construction inWestchester. Moderate .noise/Vibration concern.Minor park displacement.

Alternative C (fran Aerial 1.0 Poor, three Low • 45_ . lAX Terminal-fair Low-moderate po;entlal Minor, inpacts dJring Moderate to expensiveCentury Station to tight radius moderate ,,_ service (not as for contaminated sites. construction, IOIIlt construction, poorLot C via Airport and curves conflicts good as Al t A) Postal service parking losses ge<:metry, service96th) displacement. Minor similar to Alt B, postal

noise/vibration concern. service displacement.Minor park displacement.

·Construction costs; not total project costs

Table 1

Page Two

ENGINEERING ASSES~ENT

Altemlltlves r"", G...""" Utility ·COSts Station Site Envlrt:mlerltat Issues Traffic Illp8Cts Prell.inery Asse5sme'lt

(fillies) Conflicts ,.... ,..""Variations along Aerial Fair. (B) tfght Moderate. Incl. (A)falr 8CCHS (A)fIlinor pedestrian (A)Conatructfon It'Id tum (A) fIlo~ difficult

Westchester Boulewrd (A)(B)(C) radius conti ict fn (B)Best access t. safety concern pocket confl fctl corctruction(A) Center (I) North 1.~ Total with radar Alt B deYelopwlt (B)Encr~t on (I)(C) "Inor (B) TIWlt curve(C) South length fncl. site (C)Best «cess to alrpo4"t property. (A)(B)(C) fIllnor for (C) Business displaee.

in Alt B P'1l and 5epJlnde prl .... te deYe topIIent n station «cess (S)(C) Best station

b.aslntss gol f CClU"5e (C)Surfaoe Plrking ."...(C)O;splltCment of two

comrrcill wi Idings

variations along Aerill Fair (A)(B)(C) L~ • 75Il • (A) least (A)(B)(C) No ..jor (A) conatructlon n turn (A) lealt viSUIt IiplCts

lincoln loulaVllrd (A)(B)(C) 1.4 one steep grade, IIOderate 9011 ~font illp8Cts, one InfHI. rocket conflicts aoet traffic conflict

(A) Center (I) West one tfght radius contt Icts (B) lest for evto .Inor visual f~ts (I)(C) "Inor and difficult c:orstruct.

(C) East (C) Most (B) (C) More visual and (I)l"st corl"l'ft"lient

COl'YWnlent for nolse/vlbl-ation lepeets service (C) Most

IIIOS t PIt f"OI'1S to proposed developllents convenient service

·Constructlon costs: not totll project costs

ALTERNATIVES A. B AND C

Alternative A, which serves the LAX Terminal in subway,is the much more expensive segment to build, even thoughit contains two stations as opposed to four stations andis shorter in length by about one quarter mile thanAlternative B, which traverses Lot C and the WestchesterCommercial District. within a given funding limit,Alternative B allows considerably more line to bebuilt.

Alternative A may present major utility conflicts andconstruction complexities at the portal and at the LAXstation location, and could encounter significantcontaminated sites and minor subsidence of the LAXrunways it crosses under. Restraints of a comparablenature are much less severe for Alternative B.

Geometry restrictions for Alternative A are slightlyless than Alternative B, as the horizontal alignment ismore sweeping. Each has one tight radius curve and asteep grade at the portals.

Displacement for Alternative A is significant for airpassenger service at Terminal 1 and 2, as constructionof the station will temporarily close two gates at eachterminal. Otherwise, Alternative B has potentially moreenvironmental and traffic impacts, as it is mostlyaerial. The subway portion of Alternative B is cut-and­cover construction that would cause constructionimpacts. However, it should be noted that due to theland uses in the area, environmental impacts should notbe sUbstantial for Alternative B. Because of a gradeseparated guideway, traffic conflicts would be minimal,except during construction, where some disruption wouldbe expected, especially in Lincoln Boulevard.

Alternative A serves two airport terminals more directlythan does B, and an assessment of direct rail service atother terminals in the United states indicates the Lot Cservice may be less effective. (Please refer toAppendix A, Rail Service to u.s. Airports: AnEvaluation of Service to LAX Station.) Alternative B,however, serves the Westchester community in twolocations. Alternative A does not serve Westchester,even though it could for the major expense of a subwaystation along Lincoln Boulevard.

Alternative C, which is really a variation toAlternative B disrupts loading dock operations at theWorldway Postal Center, and has poor horizontal geometryby virtue of three tight radius curves that create

-6-

construction difficulties, slows operations, andincreases maintenance costs. Alternative C wouldprobably cost more than a comparable segment ofAlternative B. The aerial crossing of theAirport/Century intersection would be expensive. Thetwo common stations, century Boulevard and LAX/Lot cstations, are served better by Alternative B.

Westchester Parkway Variations

Along the proposed Westchester Parkway, the guidewayvariations differ less distinctively than the majoralignment alternatives. The center alignment is moredifficult to build and requires more complexconstruction due to variable span lengths and createsmore traffic impacts (although these can be minimized),but has better horizontal geometry and provides betterstation access from the park and ride lot.

The north alignment may cause more potentialenvironmental impacts to the proposed development andthe golf course, has one tight radius curve just west ofthe Westchester Station, is more readibly constructibleby virtue of being out of the roadway and in anexclusive right-of-way, and provides the best stationaccess from the proposed development to the north sideof the parkway. The construction costs for the twovariations would be similar, with the center guidewayslightly higher due to inconsistent column spacing. Thecosting done for purposes of this report is not insufficient detail to discern the difference.

A third option for Westchester Parkway is to have theguideway on the south side of the proposed street.Initial discussion with the Federal AviationAdministration indicated that this option was probablyinfeasible because of the runway clearance criteriaestablished by the FAA. Nevertheless, after meetingwith the city of Los Angeles Departments of Airport,Planning and Transportation, the LACTC staff will studythis option in greater detail to determine if it isviable. At this time, it appears that the south sidealignment would better serve the businesses alongSepulveda, but would require the displacement of twobuildings.

Lincoln Boulevard Variations

There are three variations along Lincoln Boulevardbetween Hughes Terrace (the portal area) and theterminal Marina del Rey Station near the Culver/Lincolninterchange. The variations include an aerial guideway

-7-

on the east, west and center of Lincoln Boulevard. Thevariations along Lincoln Boulevard are similar in thatthey all portal in an area that will require someadditional right-ot-way along Lincoln Boulevard, are allaerial guideway of conventional construction, and, oncebeyond the portal, are within the right-of-way of theproposed improved Lincoln Boulevard. All threevariations converge at the Marina Station. Thehorizontal geometry for all three alignments iscomparable, but the east alignment is less desirablebecause of the curve that swings it to the east side ofLincoln Boulevard.

steep grades near the portal, and relatively tightcurves (500 foot radius) into the Marina Station arecommon for the three alignments.

The more difficult, and maybe slightly more expensive,construction could be expected in the center of thestreet, due to the difficulty of gaining an even andsymmetrical spacing of columns, especially in turnpockets and the Jefferson Station area, and because oftraffic conflicts during construction. constructioncosts should be about the same for all three alignments.The slightly longer west side alignment has a shortsection of at-grade construction near the portal thatmay offset the costs created by being longer.

The side of Lincoln Boulevard variations can be moreefficiently constructed in the exclusive transit right­of-way. These variations, however, may be moreenvironmentally sensitive to proposed developments oneither side of Lincoln Boulevard.

The east side alignment may be more substantially inconflict with a landfill near the portal, but thislandfill apparently extends to the west side of LincolnBoulevard. It is classified as completed with no groundwater contamination.

The center alignment may be in the least conflict withthe existing and planned land uses in the area. Thehorizontal geometry is slightly better than the eastside and about the same as the west. Station access isnot as desirable, partially because of the pedestrianconflict with traffic, but some safety concerns can beaddressed in design. Although construction for thecenter alignment may be more difficult, thecomplications could be minimized by careful designcoordination between the guideway and the improvedLincoln Boulevard. Being in the center of theestablished transportation corridor reduces

-8-

environmental impacts to proposed developments on eitherside. The east side alignment, however, provides thebest access to the proposed development.

The Jefferson Station is best for auto access for thewest side alignment due to the park-ride lot that wouldbe located on that side. The east side station site isconsidered more convenient for the largest number ofpatrons. The center median station is considered theleast convenient, as all patrons would have to crosspart of Lincoln Boulevard, and some patrons would haveto cross Jefferson Boulevard, in both cases at streetgrade. As with all stations accessed from a busy streetmedian, there may be some pedestrian safety concerns.These could be mitigated with pedestrian overcrossings.

-9-

BLVD

LEGEND

CENTURY

,.•••w"•oo•oz••

CENTURY FREEWAY

A1RPOFl1

-ALTERNATIVE C

o>"•""o•"•

,t A l( I LOT C SU•

"'," C;"ESTEA

PARM;WAY

CENTURY Sf'"ALT A&8

\NiERN.,,"nONAL

o>"••o•>J,•••

ALONG WESTCHESTER PARKWAY

FIGURE 1

COASTAL CORRIDOR RAil TRANSIT PROJECT

NORTH SEGMENT ROUTE MAP

IMPERIAL HIGHWAY

'-...;:,......"1()- ........

&-94- "..,J)t". \,

~ ,~ '\:ALTERNATIVE 8-

I CENTURY Sf...l AII Sl'" AU A'" ~ .l..._~'.":..;C::......

...,o.NCtIESTER S,'" ...l' B -

.,.ANCHE$TER AVE

,0.-

,.WII:

-'Wo..zii'..:l'

l""r~~rl!O ~~SOtIICaS

~/<."'O,<r C~.. r~1/( ~/orT

,

.-;.: .- - -- - - =-::'"'. '- -

ALT~TIV~ 'e l

~: ,I'#JQ:)'

CENT/J/(Y STATION

--

-----,PO'T~JC~

CVIJra>/£II(

...""""....~

or0

~-~

~or-c

=

_._-CENTURY

AL r~~rl"t!~~A ~.. ~'

~~: ".'00'

CENTUICY STAT/ON

....- .,,_._-----cll==_--=~,~-=---==ij .~_~_O_'_._- _

::====-'=:;'l.r::;:::~~ - - - --

Jl "11:;rr

II

N

€W(R~r~t.lCr ~

/wo 6l)ILoWr; ~ ","ceo­IKJD'lTE "rA TIM)

~ TO ':<AN6/T C~NT~

\96TH

~t---cLO'IalJ;;~

L-4,l1: ~lJrr~

•"

96TH

rrI," r~rl!NOC4~MD

'<~~y'l! QoY'e """ 4-\r'

~..~ _I' ,--<I'D r~",r~Nr~1C';ri-, ::(C' - _. f~LDIi .- c:~ ~-.u.J--~~-., - --I

- - _ C.;.J t '--. _--.'-. r-_ ../

.~ YI;:;~;Z:xlOC ,-' ---_. ;~=:.. ,1-'--·-----5T.

,-"'=----_.-' ...==~-=_..=~., . - ===---_.=...'" ,>C

>

,,\ .I tII I.. --

AL Te/CNATJv'~ Ie I'

!JGJILe: "'100'

BECHTEL CIVIL, INC, ,MIlT_itSTA T/ON Sl(eTCHE~

.. ,Acoun.CAI. ••AI.UI' ",uoelun0"' A$$OC:IUII..........1. _ AUoe'UIl.ICUlI. ....-A. AuoelATn,""14 _. U'INEUI";, JIlIC.IIAU'M n01l1 ANO COIU'A"'••.

LAX!LOT 'c'STATlON

LOS ANOELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONCOASTAL (0Il.1001t lUlL TIlAMSI" ".OJECTo

'0

L,A,X/LOT 'c'STATlONAL T'EI'JWA, TIV~ ".6"

:JGA,Le: 1"/00'

LA X ST,A, TION

,

,'&100'~e;

W€STClfeSTE~ STATION""eDt"vi ALrelCllAr/'le

<I,w>

ALreAHArlYe ~;

XAL~: ,'. KJO'

~< ......",~ zr.. ,~c: :o>n)

,,~c L~W!L­

~."'~'4'

N

-, ,, .-

- ,/ -

I

,,

lJo,cTH·~~ALr~...nvc!!GALe: ,""co'

•. '

,.=-

MANCHE5TC't' ST;A,TION

At"Mf}tIeNr~

(VK~ t»;Ie77{(}CTKW)

ALfZ,I(N;4,Tlve ;e'~e: 1""00'

tfi.,GH~~ -"""CE~.50:.~ c:._ ...a~ ...~Jt(.~p

+ .....~..ev" ~/LOJN~,""W~ .~~ 7M:4v!,T ~,(IAL $r.<U:'rvA'~1 _

-----

••11:LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO.... ISSION

COASTAL COIlAIOO« l'lA1L TllAlriISlT 1I'1l000<:T

I:O."••C:' II

."w"'. 110-"1<:lJl<e ....

0. .,

BECHTEL CIVIL, INC,"..c:oustu:..1. """I.YSIS ""O(;IUII

DU £550(:I.IIUIAA_I. ,.,;llIOft "SSOC:I"'(S1I1C1lJl(L I..-AII USOC:I.t.fIS.1Ilc:.'1" 110111 lJIIIIIU.IIIl;.-e:.141.'" STOIlI "110 C:OW"'". 1ItC:.

-STATION SI<ETCHES

-o>Jm

--JIe"~

•><<,...

~e:

JEFF£I':SON STAnONJtf~OliV'l AL~rlVe

... -'~-'

LINCOLN

: J

BLVD.

zo

'"'"w~

~

w,

I~ Ia: I

'---- --- - - - •.-- -_._-,cow WIOTH ro oe «reJCMINeo

~sr 51De A.LT~nVe

~: '~/CO'

I

II

__._J

"'OSS/lJLE PM/(/NWa" 51'. q,,;.,.:xwr

"'LoA)"'" VI~rA

oeV~LOt'N~vr

~o)

LINCOLN

-----,)

'C o~m

)1..---------------LINCOLN BLVD,

WIDeNIM; L/AIIT TO« Dt!r£'CMIN~

CULVER BLVD.

MAf(/NA Ol!L MY STATION

o LOS ANGElES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO..MISSIONI •~ COASTAL CCNlIUOOft lUll TltAHSIT I'llo.lECT

CO.'• .IoC' .0.••••• ItO.

r~Ujl.e. ~

BECHTEL CIVIL, INC.

, , "ACOUIJICAl "ALYSIt ...OCI.ITUon USOC:l,ut:S.......l _ usoc..Ans.ICUll .~•••ssoc,,,,... IlC."III WONS flrJIIII(IUIIlli, 00::.Il.&l..'ll IIOU .>10 cow.-IIT, IIIC.

~TATION S!<£TCH£S

L-;--· -

/

o>-'..

- -._.- --

WESTCHESTER STATION50lITH SlOt! ...-..Lr4~I'JATIV4

~"4: I~. 100'

_1.l_ .C

o LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION•~ COASTAL COflIfIOOfl flAIL TltANSIT I'lto.lKT

CO." .... (:l 100•........0 .

~1(;LJU ~D

AJM

F-""""--i BECHTEL CIVIL, INC.000

".cOUlTlI;Al. ...A\'Y$IS AnGeI,un0-, AUCl(lATltIUo"'L _ "SSOC'.'UIIIK:1t41:L ,"-A,. U$OClATU, IIIIC.'lOll WOII. EIlGIIIU.H.... IltC..• .I.L"'" STOIII[ .110 COWA.n, IIIIC.

-STATION SKETCHES .,...,_.