(June 18, 2011) -- A 14 lane I-710 freeway -- 10 lanes (five in each direction) plus four truck lanes (two in each direction now dubbed a "freight corridor" -- is among the options advancing again...and project consultants and a city staffer told a LB City Council Committee earlier this week that they will show graphics to some officials in coming months, but intend to keep the graphics out of public view until the EIR release currently planned for early 2012.

On June 14, 2011, consultants to the Los Angeles County Metropolitian Transportation Authority's (Metro) I-710 project told the LB City Council's I-710 Oversight Committee (chair, Gabelich; vice chair, Neal; member, Johnson) that discussions with Southern CA Edison have resolved right-of-way issues involving high voltage power line towers north of the 405 freeway.

The consultants indicated that the four-lane freight corridor/truckway is now planned to be at ground level (not elevated) north of the 405 freeway. However, previous descriptions of the 14 lane option south of the 405 freeway remain "unchanged," the consultants said.

As LBReport.com first reported last year, previous conceptual drawings indicated an elevated truckway for at least part of a 14-lane 710 freeway option south of the 405 freeway.

On April 27, 2010, LBReport.com was the only LB media outlet present at an I-710 Oversight Committee meeting at which conceptual drawings were displayed for Council Committee members and the public during the meeting. Marked "Preliminary Draft. Do not cite, quote or distribute," they indicated elevated truck lanes alongside part an expanded 710 freeway south of the 405 freeway.

LBReport.com photographed the publicly displayed graphics and published them immediately (see below).

At the June 14, 2011 Committee meeting, the project consultants didn't bring any graphics. Asked several times by Committee chair Councilman Gabelich when graphics would be available, the consultants indicated they don't plan to show any until later this year -- and then only to officials -- with the public not shown graphics until officials release the project's formal EIR, currently scheduled in early 2012. The project consultants' June 14 Committee testimony included a Power Point presentation that was mainly text with a sparse location map.

LB City Engineer Mark Christoffels, representing city staff at the meeting, told the Committee that the graphics aren't being released to the public until the formal EIR release on grounds because they're drafts for intental discussion. He said they might include portions that might be inconsistent with other options being discussed and might never advance, and if released might be "out of context." To hear Mr. Christoffels' statement on this point to the Committee, click here.

With consultants and officials withholding updated graphics, LBReport.com republishes below for reference the 2010 displayed conceptual images (which to our knowledge are the latest publicly released). They show 10 mixed flow 710 freeway lanes, plus a four lane elevated truck "freightway" lanes south of the 405 along the east side of the 710, in this conceptual image looking northeastward at Willow St. The image is taken from a larger power point slide (also below).

Metro preliminary image presented at April 27, 2010 meeting of I-710 Oversight Committee

Metro preliminary image presented at April 27, 2010 meeting of I-710 Oversight Committee

The April 2010 conceptual graphic envisions using the strip of land between the east side of 710 freeway and the western L.A. River levee for a four-lane "freightway" to be used exclusively by trucks (although trucks could also use ten ground level "mixed flow" lanes). The freightway would be elevated in parts of Long Beach but descending to ground level closer to the 405 freeway...including going under a reconfigured 710-405 interchange (rebuilt with high "flyover" type ramps to replace the existing cloverleafs).

A July 15, 2010 Power Point presentation to the project's Corridor Advisory Committee included the illustration below of Alternative 6A.

From presentation to Corridor Advisory Committee, July 15, 2010

The 14-lane 710 freeway option south of 405 freeway parallels the western levee of the L.A. River, separated by a relatively narrow strip of land. Maintaining the integrity of the L.A. river levees is key to maintaining 100 year flood protection, which was restored less than ten years ago to Corps of Engineers' standards by raising the levees in a costly public works project.

Although the main 14-lane option (dubbed Alternative 6A) is officially one of several options, it addresses the growth desires of government and industry interests. Alternative 6B, a 14 lane sub-option, is the same as 6A but with zero emissions technology for freight vehicles (trucks) and "automated guidance for freight vehicles (a so called "Jetsons" type system). Other 710 options, while officially being "considered," include fewer lanes and a legally required "no build option." The 710 project ultimately selected might also include elements from several options (creating a "hybrid option"), the project consultants said.

Councilman James Johnson, who is seeking inclusion of a "zero emissions option" in an EIR now being prepared for the proposed expansion of the WLB-adjacent ICTF railyard, voiced enthusiasm for the "zero emissions" option for the truck lanes in the 14-lane 710 freeway option, and a project consultant said the trucking industry has embraced such technologies.

When Committee chair Gabelich asked for an estimate of future truck traffic. one consultant said he forecasts 90,000 trucks/day at the southern end of the 710 by 2035 compared to roughly 25,000 trucks/per day now...with the 90,000/day figure if the ICTF (UP) and SCIG (BNSF) railyards aren't expanded as the railroads propose.

WLB residents and others have opposed enlarging (proponents say "modernizing") the two railyards which don't provide "on-dock" rail connections to ships. Both projects propose to continue using trucks to haul containers from ships to trains through WLB. BNSF has proposed directing the trucks on routes through industrial parts of WLB. Advocates of the railyard projects say that although they will be larger, they will be cleaner than the current facilities.

Councilman Johnson, whose district includes neighborhoods adjoining the 710 freeway, has drawn fire from some WLB residents and the Teachers Ass'n of Long Beach for declining to flatly oppose expansion of the ICTF railyard At this point, Councilman Johnson is pressing for inclusion of a "zero emissions option" as part of the ICTF EIR.

Including a zero-emissions option in the ICTF railyard EIR doesn't require its inclusion in the final project; that decision won't be made by the City Council but by an ICTF "Joint Powers Authority" comprised an LB and LA Harbor Commissioner + the Exec. Directors of the two Ports (no elected officials).

In May 2011, LBReport.com was first to report that Councilman Johnson has joined a Los Angeles law firm listed among the major financial supporters of "Future Ports," a 501 (c)(6) non-profit policy advocacy group whose other major financial backers include UP and BNSF (proponents of the expanded railyards). "Future Ports" states in pertinent part on its website, "We must meet the ports' environmental challenges. But to do this, it is essential that we build needed marine and landside shipping facilities and improve our transportation corridors. Without these improvements, congestion and air quality will only worsen. Inaction or delay is not an option .In order to green the ports, we must grow them."

The 710 freeway (with or without the ICTF/BNSF expanded railyards) is expected to carry some quantum of truck traffic invited by the Port of LB's recently approved Gerald Desmond bridge project. The $1 billion teardown of the current less than fifty year old Desmond Bridge will replace it with a higher bridge enabling larger cargo ships (proponents say they're "greener") carrying larger container volumes to enter LB's inner harbor. Those container volumes will then have to be carried out by truck, either to the railyards (and the Alameda Corridor) or to the 710 freeway.

In 2010, LB's Harbor Commission (non-elected, Mayor nominated, Council approved) certified the bridge EIR, which didn't analyze the bridge's cumulative impacts to the 710 freeway north of 9th St. The bridge EIR was appealed to the City Council, but the issue raised by the more high visibility appellants was whether the bridge should include a dedicated bicycle lane.

Councilman Robert Garcia, whose 1st district (like Johnson's 7th district) is bisected by the 710 freeway, also asked for inclusion of more attractive bridge lighting.

Metro is preparing the I-710 EIR/EIS with what it calls "partner agencies" including the CA Department of Transportation, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments, the I-5 Consortium Cities Joint Powers Authority, the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, and the So. Cal Association of Governments.

The ultimate voted decision on which I-710 expansion option to pursue won't be made by the Long Beach City Council. Amid multiple advisory committees and working groups, Metro acknowledges [after several inquiries] that the ultimate voted decision on which I-710 option(s) to pursue rests with Metro's governing board. It consists of all five L.A. County Supervisors plus elected officials from a few area cities (currently not including Long Beach; Lakewood Councilmember Diane DuBois is among Metro's current boardmembers).

Developing. Watch for further detailed coverage on LBReport.com.