710 Project Committee Recommends Caltrans & MTA Recirculate Draft 710 EIR Re Two Build Options Using New Assumptions/Updated Data And Include "Community Alternative 7"

LB Councilman Johnson pushes for plan to use early action funds for pilot project to test zero-emission truck system in Port area; his motion fails for lack of a second; 710 consultant says engineering and funding aspects coming in report shortly

Public speaks in crowded COG meeting room. Councilman James Johnson is seated at the Committee desk (white shirt, red tie). Photo by Laurie Angel

In mid-January, the I-710 Technical Advisory and Community Advisory Committees (TAC & CAC) cited new updated assumptions and updated data and studies, plus comments received to the draft EIR/EIS, in recommending recirculation of two build options: Alternative 6C modified (zero emission freight corridor + 10 gen'l purpose lanes) and 6D (refining Alternative 6C to provide zero emission freight corridor + 8 gen'l purpose lanes [but see Feb. 1 consultant comment re number of lanes in alternative 6D, noted below])

At the Jan. 31 meeting of the I-710 Project Committee, members voted without dissent to approve recirculation recommendations (details on those recommendations om memo cited in LBREPORT.com coverage click here).

However the 710 Project Committee went further on Jan. 31 by voting to include "Community Alternative 7" in the recirculation process. "Community Alternative 7" is a proposal by a coalition of groups that opposes widening the 710 freeway and supports a comprehensive public transit element, a committed zero emission freight corridor, a public-private partnership for an employer operated freight system, river improvements, a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle element, and community benefits including expanded open space and other enhancements.

Long Beach Councilman James Johnson pressed to use early action funds to conduct a demonstration project of a zero-emissions catenary type system (using trolley-like overhead electrical wires to power trucks) for testing in the Port area (possibly Alameda Blvd., the TI Fwy, or Navy Way)...but his motion died for lack of a second, despite the presence on the Committee of Long Beach Harbor Commissioner Tom Fields.

Veteran North Long Beach neighborhood advocates Laurie Angel and Linda Ivers attended the 710 Committee meeting, held at the Gateway COG's Paramount HQ. Ms. Angel captured audio of salient parts of the meeting and both attendees conveyed information to LBREPORT.com about what took place.

Councilman Johnson argued that a pilot project would show at a cost of roughly $10 million whether the electrified zero emissions technology would work before sinking much larger sums into building a 30 mile freight corridor and said he preferred to have the test done here in the Port area rather than on a test track in Germany (where designer Siemens is located).

Councilman Johnson moved to have staff come back to the 710 Committee at its next meeting with a plan on how a pilot project can move forward using early action funds to test zero emissions technology in the Port area for use on the 710 project...but there was no second. An unidentified speaker said he didn't see a need for a motion...and an MTA rep said the current process for early action projects is a recommendation from the Technical Advisory Committee, then recommends and if approved moves to the Project Committee for its support and then goes to the Metro Board. .

An unidentified voice [sounds like project consulant Jerry Wood] indicated that Siemens is working on a proposal, and working on a design for the 710 catenary sstem (overhead wires) and one issue is how to get the substantial electrical power needed for such a system to the Port. He indicated he would speak with funding partners and would return with a report at the next I-710 Project Committee meeting in a month or so.

Councilman Johnson responded, "Let's work it out now...[so] we can move the technology along and I think in a way that makes 6D, 6C or 7 real, so we'll be able to show this is a feasible project that doesn't just work on paper or in Germany...but actually in the Port..."

Ultimately, Councilman Johnson's motion wasn't voted on...although (as indicated in the colloquy) further information about a zero emissions system is now expected at the next I-710 Project Committee meeting. To hear Councilman Johnson's motion and resulting colloquy/exchange at the Feb. 1 meeting, click here

Ms. Ivers tells LBREPORT.com that a project consultant who presented the TAC report told the Project Committee that in selecting modified versions of alternatives 6C and 6D for recirculation, 6D was included because it allows for further expansion of the general purpose lanes if it becomes necessary.

As previously reported by LBREPORT.com, consultant Wood told the LB City Council's I-710 Oversight Committee on Jan. 29 that only eight general purpose lanes -- not ten -- would be needed in Long Beach south of the 405 under a new set of assumptions that might include analysis of two proposed container transfer railyards (BNSF's SCIG and UP's ICTF, pending proposals that have drawn opposition from neighborhood groups). The initial I-710 draft EIR/EIS didn't assume/didn't analyze the effects on 710 truck traffic if the two rail facilities were built.

[Jan. 29 statement to LB Council Committee] Mr. Wood: We don't know right now, until the modeling is redone with a new set of assumptions -- that's why it says "up to 10 general purpose lanes" -- we don't know now with this new set of assumptions which might include a sensitivity analysis if the SCIG and ICTF go forward -- whether we need 10 general purpose lanes. I will tell you at the south end of the project, south of 405, we don't need 10 general purpose lanes, especially with this new set of assumptions. As you go further north you accumulate traffic, and the TAC was fairly comfortable with 8 general purpose lanes south of the 105. North of the 105, we're not sure. You just start building up as you go north.

Near the end of the Jan. 31 Project Committee meeting, consultant Wood (speaking on engineering matters) made reference to aspects of Alternative 7 and to a zero emissions catenary (trolley type/electrified truck) system...and indicated aspects of these items are currently being considered and would be discussed in a report to be brought to the Project Committee shortly. To hear his comments, click here.

The CAC/TAC memo indicates the recirculated draft EIR/EIS will include previously released portions of the draft regarding alternatives 5A, 6A, 6B and "no build" and [based on our reading of the memo text] those portions won't be updated as part of the recirculation process. Instead, an entire recirculated document -- including Caltrans/MTA responses to objections/issues raised by the public and the City of Long Beach regarding portions of the draft EIR/EIS that aren't slated for updating/revision in the recirculated document -- will be released 12 to 18 months from now.

Preparing the draft EIR/EIS for recirculation is expected to take from 12-18 months, Jack Joseph of the Gateway COG separate told LBREPORT.com on Feb. 1.

Ms. Angel says that the Jan 31 meeting crowd exceeded the 85 person capacity of a Gateway COG meeting room when roughly 120 people showed up to support Alternative 7. Ms. Angel said there were roughly 40 other attendees at the meeting consisting of committee members, officials and independent community advocates (like herself and Ms. Ivers).

Written material available to the public at the meeting was scanned by Ms. Angel and is linked here:

[Written material text] Five alternatives emerged from the alternatives development and screening process and were evaluated in the 1-710Draft EIR/EIS for the planning horizon year of 2035. These are:

• No-Build
• Alternative 5A - Modernize and improve 1-710with 1a-general purpose lanes only
• Alternative 6A - Alternative 5A plus include a 4-lane freight corridor for conventional trucks
• Alternative 6B - Alternative 5A plus include a 4-lane freight corridor for zero emission trucks with automated guidance
• Alternative 6C - Alternative 5A plus include a tolled 4-lane freight corridor for zero emission trucks with automated guidance

After review and assessment of the comparative benefits, costs and impacts of the alternatives disclosed in the Draft EIRJEIS, along with careful consideration of the comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS, Caltrans, Metro and the Funding Partners have recommended that Alternative 6C Modified and Alternative 60 (a refinement of Alternative 6C that eliminates the feature to add general purpose lanes to 1-710) be assessed as the build alternatives in the RDEIR/SDEIS. In their comments on the Draft EIR/EIS, the Coalition on Environmental Health and Justice (CEHAJ) presented a new alternative for consideration, Community Alternative 7. [A table in the document compares the alternatives. To view the full handout, click here.)

Ms. Angel says the COG Board agreed to include early action projects in anticipation of the project including sound walls and other amenities, and indicated it would include a bike and pedestrian plans in the project.

Ms. Angel said that Signal Hill Councilman Larry Forester (Signal Hill's representative) twice emphasized hydrology issues (lacking in parts of Alternative 7, which show landscaping/terracing in parts of the L.A. river bed).

The 710 Project Committee's vote doesn't auotmatically recirculate the draft EIR/EIS; its vote is to recommend that Caltrans and MTA do so.

Developing...with further to follow on LBREPORT.com.