Opinion ID: 1093456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arbitrary Size and Location of the Overpass

Text: There is ample evidence, which we will not detail, in the record to support the decision of the City of Lake Charles to locate this overpass on Enterprise Boulevard. It is an essential part of the plans of the city, developed over many years, designed to handle the vehicular transportation of its citizens. Although we are not convinced that another route (for example, the Shattuck Street suggestion made by the plaintiff) would be better in any respect for the city than the proposed Enterprise Boulevard overpass, it is not necessary that the decision of the city to build its overpass at Enterprise Boulevard be the best or most desirable. Legislation and administrative decisions of municipal bodies will not be disturbed by the courts in the absence of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or capriciousness. Everhardt v. City of New Orleans, 253 La. 285, 217 So.2d 400 (1968); Hi-Lo Oil Co. v. City of Crowley, 274 So.2d 757 (La.App.), writ refused, 277 So.2d 673 (La.1973). See also, Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, 262 La. 391, 263 So.2d 333 (1972). There is no evidence in the record to indicate that such decision of the city was arbitrary or unreasonable. The record supports the argument that the city has attempted to develop a satisfactory plan for the construction of this crossing for fourteen years. Plaintiff contends that the overpass planned by the city is wider than necessary and longer than necessary. We conclude that the same rule must be applied to the improvement that is applied to the decision to locate the improvement at a particular place. Unless the improvement is unreasonably wide and unreasonably long, the courts will not substitute their judgment for the judgment of the appropriate legislative and administrative bodies. There is ample evidence in the record to show that the proposed overpass should be wide enough to carry four lanes of traffic. The railroad complains that the overpass is unnecessarily long. The city answers that its length is essential for two reasons. First, to minimize the grade in order to achieve the necessary clearance of the railroad tracks; second, to clear street intersections which might otherwise be blocked by the construction of the overpass. Both reasons are well-founded. The record supports the conclusion that the grade of 5.8%, as proposed, is reasonable and that the design is effective and not excessive. The testimony of engineers on behalf of the City of Lake Charles was to the effect that an increased grade would not be recommended nor should the Jackson Street intersection be blocked. To counter the estimate of one of the plaintiff's engineers that an underpass would be cheaper, the record will support a conclusion that, even if an underpass could be constructed for somewhat less money initially, the increased costs of drainage and maintenance of an underpass would be a valid consideration in choosing to build an overpass over the tracks.