AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)  (Read 5484 times)

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1414
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 10:58:01 PM
    • AARoads
710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« on: January 07, 2014, 09:45:00 AM »

While looking for something else, I found the following documents related to I-710 improvements that are under consideration:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710corridor/

This is from August 2012.  It includes various possible improvements including additional lanes and a separate truck route for I-710 between the ports of LA and Long Beach and SR 60.

Regards,
Andy
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 12:51:40 AM by andy3175 »
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

hm insulators

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1140
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ
  • Last Login: October 19, 2017, 04:01:16 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2014, 02:37:14 PM »

I like the idea of a separate truck route but where would they put it? You've got the LA River channel, a major power line corridor and devlopment crowded right up against the freeway.
Logged
Remember: If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

I'd rather be a child of the road than a son of a ditch.


At what age do you tell a highway that it's been adopted?

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4361
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 06:37:13 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2014, 04:22:58 PM »

I like the idea of a separate truck route but where would they put it? You've got the LA River channel, a major power line corridor and devlopment crowded right up against the freeway.

Random thought: Elevated viaduct much like the Harbor Freeway express lanes?
Logged
Chris Sampang

sdmichael

Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2014, 06:45:28 PM »

With the Alameda Corridor and other improvements to rail facilities, why all this effort for the inefficient trucks? I would rather see more effort put into an outlying facility to transload from truck to rail than have more trucks coming into the harbor area.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1414
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 10:58:01 PM
    • AARoads
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2015, 12:36:28 AM »

An article looks at the proposal for dedicated truck lanes on I-710 between the ports and CA 60. The article wonders why more freight traffic is not diverted onto the parallel Alameda Corridor rail line that roughly parallels Alameda Street (partially CA 47).

http://la.streetsblog.org/2015/04/07/more-lanes-on-the-710-means-more-trucks-more-trucks-means-more-pollution-get-it-caltrans/

Quote
The study for the northern section came out in March and looked at the "gap closure" from Alhambra to Pasadena, where the 710 would join the 210. The study for the southern section was released in June 2012 and looks at widening and double-decking the segment that runs 20 miles from the ports to the Pomona Freeway south of downtown. This chunk is mostly about freight and would cost around $8 billion. Together, the environmental studies cost millions and number 2300 pages, with over 26,000 pages of supporting documents.

Most people know that Los Angeles had a comprehensive mass transit system, the Pacific Electric. But the Pacific Electric, along with other railroads of Southern California, also delivered freight. All the building materials and manufactured goods that made the economy of Los Angeles was once delivered on local rail spurs directly to warehouses, many of them in downtown LA.

So what killed local rail freight delivery? "It was the Interstate Highway System," explained Don Norton, a spokesman for the Pacific Harbor Line, a railroad that assembles long-distance freight trains full of containers offloaded from cargo ships. "But railroads still compete on cargo that’s heavy, bulky, and traveling extremely long distances."

Railroads have to maintain their own infrastructure—meaning thousands of miles of tracks, switches, spurs, bridges, signals, yards, etc. So they focus on their long-distance mainlines where they get the most bang for the buck. Trucking companies, on the other hand, get an all-but free ride on roads built by state and local governments. They also cause a disproportionate amount of damage.

As a result, when cargo comes off a ship in Los Angeles, if it's staying in the region or going no farther than Nevada or Arizona, trucks cost less. If it's going to Memphis, Chicago or anyplace east of the Rockies, or around 550 miles or more, it’s more cost-effective to combine the shipments onto a single freight train—often more than a mile in length—rather than paying some 300 truck drivers to do the same job. Some long distance trains are put together right on the docks. Others are assembled in what's called "near dock" yards—trucks scoot containers from ships to rail yards a few miles away, where they are transferred onto those giant freight trains.

But today’s largest ships carry 19,000 containers. There isn't enough area near the docks to handle it all. So over 800 trucks a day use the 710 and other connecting roads to get to giant rail yards in Commerce.

The situation was worse before the Alameda Corridor, a dedicated, 20-mile freight train "expressway," with a three-track mainline, roughly paralleling the 710. Completed in 2002, it greatly improved the connection between the ports to the rest of the national rail system. The Alameda Corridor handles about 45 trains a day, helping them get back and forth to the docks quickly. Each train carries the cargo equivalent of 250 to 300 trucks, explained John Doherty, chief officer of the authority that operates the Alameda Corridor. It would take over 11,000 trucks, every day, to do the job of these trains. But the Corridor is operating at 36 percent capacity, he explained. It could handle 105 more trains every day, or the equivalent of another 26,000 trucks.

Policy makers have a choice: add more lanes to the 710 or figure out how to get more stuff onto trains.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

emory

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 350
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: August 20, 2020, 12:40:23 AM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2015, 07:46:16 PM »

An article looks at the proposal for dedicated truck lanes on I-710 between the ports and CA 60. The article wonders why more freight traffic is not diverted onto the parallel Alameda Corridor rail line that roughly parallels Alameda Street (partially CA 47).

http://la.streetsblog.org/2015/04/07/more-lanes-on-the-710-means-more-trucks-more-trucks-means-more-pollution-get-it-caltrans/

Ah CA 47. Another freeway they think they'll finish someday.
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2203
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 10:24:29 AM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2015, 09:37:13 PM »

"Trucking companies, on the other hand, get an all-but free ride on roads built by state and local governments. They also cause a disproportionate amount of damage."

That is so untrue.  Go buy an 18-wheeler and see how much the government will squeeze out of your pocket for taxes, fees and tolls.  Add in the smog laws in California that make it so only the most modern diesels, which are problem-laden engines, are allowed to be used in the Golden State.  You gotta pay to play the trucking game!

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3088
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 02:06:44 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2015, 04:08:16 PM »

Will the truck lanes be constructed? Or will the proposal be shot down due to opposition?
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1414
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 10:58:01 PM
    • AARoads
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2018, 02:00:44 AM »

https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/03/01/major-step-forward-for-6-billion-710-widening-metro-board-backs-plan/

Major step forward for $6-billion 710 Freeway widening: Metro board backs plan
By Andrew Edwards | aedwards@scng.com | Press-Telegram
PUBLISHED: March 1, 2018 at 2:16 pm | UPDATED: March 1, 2018 at 5:19 pm

Quote
A controversial proposal to widen the 710 Freeway along portions of its run from Long Beach to East Los Angeles received a significant boost Thursday when officials who run the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority decided to select the plan as their preferred option.

The vote arrives in the face of concerns the project may oust residents from their homes without guaranteeing better air quality.

The decision in favor of the $6-billion plan is not final, however – and some doubt exists as to when or if the full project will be accomplished.

Thursday’s decision by board members leading the authority, which also goes by the shorter name of Metro, means that further environmental analysis of the freeway project will focus on how plans to widen the 710 Freeway may affect the surrounding area. By favoring an option that may result in the 710 getting additional lanes, board members rejected the alternatives of building a double-decker freeway for trucks or doing nothing.

It’s up to Caltrans, not Metro, to certify the final analysis.

Metro’s board acted to support plans to widen the 710 Freeway after unanimous votes in favor of additional actions that include a delay of any widening until the project’s “early action program,” a set of work expected to include improvements to on-ramps, off-ramps and streets can be completed.

Officials also decided to double the funds that may be made available through the project to support the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles to $200 million – with the additional proviso that those dollars can only support zero-emissions technology.

Project supporters say the 710 expansion is needed to upgrade the freeway, which is heavily burdened by truck traffic related to goods moving in and out of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Opponents countered that the plan may simply lead to more pollution and other problems, with one women condemning the plan as “environmental racism.” ...

“This is a modernization project of a gateway to our ports that is falling apart,” Long Beach Mayor and Metro board member Robert Garcia said during the early part of Thursday’s board discussions. “That is sometimes dangerous.” ...

If Caltrans grants approval, Metro staffers would have to figure out exactly what improvements are in the early-action program and get board approval before assigning any work.

The early-action program is expected to include on- and off-ramp improvements at arterial streets – such as Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach Boulevard, Imperial Highway and Washington Boulevard – that meet the 710 along its path from downtown Long Beach to the 60 Freeway.

Garcia and Supervisor Hilda Solis were among the Metro board members who asked for any widening of the 710 to wait until the early-action program could be completed. A Solis spokesman said Wednesday that work may take 10 to 15 years to get done.

Widening may not do much to alleviate congestion, Metro leaders conceded. Supervisor Sheila Kuehl said as much during the meeting, and Garcia said by telephone after the vote that improvements to on- and off-ramps, the kind of work that’s likely to be included in the early action program, may do more to improve traffic flows along the freeway’s path.

If whoever leads Metro after more than a decade or so decides to pursue the widening plans, the agency’s favored alternative calls for truck bypass lanes to built alongside the 710 near its junction with the 405 Freeway in Long Beach. Plans also call for the freeway to get new lanes between Del Amo and Alondra boulevards, and also along another stretch between Imperial Highway and near its junction with the 5 Freeway. ...

The 710 plan doesn’t mandate zero-emissions vehicles, but the Clean Air Action Plan calls for fees to be assessed on trucks that do not use zero-emissions technology after 2035.

Environmental documentation shows construction of the full project may result in the displacement of nearly 440 people and about 160 businesses.

Metro’s Highway Program Director, Ernesto Chaves, said it’s not yet known how many people may be displaced if only the early action program tasks are conducted. When Metro’s board voted to wait on the widening project, they also assigned staffers to minimize or eliminate any displacements that may occur during any freeway widening work.

Paying for the freeway work is also something that requires more analysis. The scope of projects that may be included in the early action program may cost some $2 billion. At this point, Chaves said Metro officials have identified some $1.2 billion worth of funding from sales tax revenues, as well as potential state and federal sources.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1878
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 05:28:24 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2018, 09:47:48 AM »

I really liked the plans for the elevated truck lanes but it came with a price tag of 11 billion dollars. That coupled with a widening would have gone a long way in reducing congestion on this freeway for a long time to come. I just don’t think just a single lane each way added and some ramp improvements will do that much to help. The main issue with this freeway is lack of capacity though it does need to be modernized regardless and that will be nice.

I think with the current plans at billion dollars and 5-10 years later(just for the smaller improvements), you won’t see much improvement if any in the traffic flow on the mainline. Plus you have other projects that need to happen such as widening the 5, 105, and the 405 close to this freeway.

The only projects of those are the 105 and the 5 widening to downtown. The 5 widening to downtown is still a long ways away per metro. The 105 widening(possibly two new express lanes in each direction) from this freeway to LAX is fast tracked to be finished by 2028 but I have my doubts because it seems like the anti freeway crowd will surely throw a fit and delay it.

Off topic but the 405 is schedule have two express lanes in each direction from the 10 to the 101 while number of GP lanes are maintained. Wait until that project becomes well known and grab some popcorn.
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2203
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 10:24:29 AM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2018, 11:47:33 AM »

"The 105 widening(possibly two new express lanes in each direction) from this freeway to LAX is fast tracked to be finished by 2028 but I have my doubts because it seems like the anti freeway crowd will surely throw a fit and delay it."

Calling a 10 year time frame "fast tracking" shows what kind of mess we are in when it comes to rebuilding our nation's transportation infrastructure.

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3461
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 07:47:42 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2018, 05:30:53 PM »

It is surprising to me that I have not seen any reports that would suggest that making these improvements would make the existing 710 gap even more of a problem.  More traffic on the southern section of 710 will induce more traffic trying to make their way through the gap along Fremont.  If there is a good argument for these improvements, there is certainly an argument to make a significant improvement in the gap.

(And while a true freeway connection to 210 would be best, there are many satisfactory lesser alternatives that could address the gap, like a surface boulevard on the ROW between Valley and Huntington (that I mention on the other thread).

Oh and if the gap is dead, the 710's northern control city should become Los Angeles (Alhambra north of I-5) because people need to find a new way to Pasadena.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1878
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 05:28:24 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2021, 05:27:34 PM »

Well, it looks like we can chalk this up to being canceled:

Quote
In a statement released today, Metro CEO Phil Washington changed his agency’s stance on its proposed $6 billion 710 Freeway widening project. After the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the head of Caltrans came out against the project, Washington committed Metro to bringing stakeholders together to reimagine the principles of the 710 project.

https://la.streetsblog.org/2021/05/18/after-federal-and-state-partners-criticism-metro-shifts-stance-on-710-freeway-widening/

I can only imagine the fun possibilities of what such a vague and cryptic statement means to the agency who has canceled several freeway projects in the last decade.

Of course we all know this means virtually no new GP lanes. So far the HDC, 710 Tunnel Gap, and as well know this project which was put on the back burner several years ago knowing damn well they’d likely scale it back outright. I’ll see you guys next on the 605 project thread when that project too is ultimately scaled back if not “shelved.”

I’ll honestly be surprised if the 105 project doesn’t end up as a simple conversation of the HOV lane to HOT. That’ll be metros definition of a freeway project after they widen the 5 in Santa Clarita which finishes in 2026. Geeze.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1878
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 05:28:24 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2021, 06:52:21 AM »

Another article on it from the LA times: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-22/710-freeway-expansion-stalls?fbclid=IwAR085jymoAY1euUZsho9LU6HpFddVlj6iMLfVL1t-2Bx3cuKA0U7hQvE4YU

I’m seriously going to be interested to see what Metro does with its other future freeway expansion proposals.

Pie in the sky idea I know, but purchase 1,000 feet of ROW on each side of the 105, 110, 605, 710, CA 91 in LA. Demolish the development and add one way service roads like Texas. Rezone properties for commercial and “clean” industrial where appropriate.

Build massive developments to rehouse those who were impacted with newer, bigger, and nicer homes/apartments that they own. Place these developments strategically along existing/future transit routes. On top of that, give them a certain amount of cash that is reasonable for their time relocating. It’s a win win win. It also gets them away from being next to freeways.

I know that’s a complete fantasy and radical but the funny thing is we’ve done things like that before just went about it in the worst way possible. This does the same thing but does it in a way that takes care of people while still expanding freeways and increasing access to infrastructure. The other alternative is to simply tear out the freeways but then what about commuters and long distance traffic?

Of course nothing will happen, that idea will be discounted as too expensive/radical, and the freeway will continue to be choked with traffic that emits toxic fumes and particulates with homes stacked right up against the freeway.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 03:31:11 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2021, 05:30:59 PM »

Another article on it from the LA times: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-22/710-freeway-expansion-stalls?fbclid=IwAR085jymoAY1euUZsho9LU6HpFddVlj6iMLfVL1t-2Bx3cuKA0U7hQvE4YU

I’m seriously going to be interested to see what Metro does with its other future freeway expansion proposals.

Pie in the sky idea I know, but purchase 1,000 feet of ROW on each side of the 105, 110, 605, 710, CA 91 in LA. Demolish the development and add one way service roads like Texas. Rezone properties for commercial and “clean” industrial where appropriate.

Build massive developments to rehouse those who were impacted with newer, bigger, and nicer homes/apartments that they own. Place these developments strategically along existing/future transit routes. On top of that, give them a certain amount of cash that is reasonable for their time relocating. It’s a win win win. It also gets them away from being next to freeways.

I know that’s a complete fantasy and radical but the funny thing is we’ve done things like that before just went about it in the worst way possible. This does the same thing but does it in a way that takes care of people while still expanding freeways and increasing access to infrastructure. The other alternative is to simply tear out the freeways but then what about commuters and long distance traffic?

Of course nothing will happen, that idea will be discounted as too expensive/radical, and the freeway will continue to be choked with traffic that emits toxic fumes and particulates with homes stacked right up against the freeway.

The one constraint regarding I-710 is the need to encroach fully on one side of the freeway or another, since it follows the bank of the L.A. River south of the City of Commerce, and construction that would involve either narrowing the river channel or building atop it would draw environmental opposition -- so adding two lanes would pretty much wipe out housing on at least one side of the nearest parallel street to accommodate such expansion.  It's an old freeway (mid-late '50's); it was constructed where it was more or less as a buffer between the river and the adjacent neighborhoods, which were for the most part built about the same time; any need for lateral expansion just didn't occur to the DOH back then -- no massive consumer-product trade with China in 1957 -- a phenomenon that has obviously impacted the zone between the port and the railyards near the City of Commerce. 

The alternative transport method is the Alameda Corridor rail line completed in 2002 -- but vastly underutilized because the two rail companies serving L.A. -- UP and BNSF -- have deemed it inefficient to assemble transcontinental container trains directly at or near the port, since most of the loading and classification facilities to do so are at the west end of their main E-W lines at the yards up in Commerce.  Thus cargo is loaded onto trucks at the port and shuttled 20 miles north to the yards where they're reloaded.  While there are loading facilities at Terminal Island and Wilmington, their capacity is severely limited; accommodating only a couple of tracks, where in Commerce a train can be assembled simultaneously from cars loaded on multiple tracks and then switched/pushed in succession onto a train where the cars to be switched out at specific points on its journey east can be simply dropped off at a location (like with BNSF, where TX-bound container cars are uncoupled from the main KC or Chicago-bound train at Clovis, NM to be taken to either the offloading facility north of Fort Worth or one south of Houston on a regional train).  The key here is that the main train not have to "dwell" at any particular point for more than an hour before resuming its journey east. 

So the key is getting the containers from the port up to Commerce where they can be appropriately classified.  But the RR's have no intention of either (a) moving those classification facilities 20 miles south to the port area or (b) deploying short-run trains to haul the containers through the Alameda Corridor.  It would be up to the port -- or its governing public entity -- itself to supply that rail-bound drayage.  Since the railroads are already ponying up the bucks for short-run truck transport, if the means to get the containers up to their loading facilities were supplied by trains operated by or under contract to that entity (the Alameda trackage is owned jointly by Metro, the port, but operated by the two railroads plus L.A.'s terminal switching service), much of the traffic currently clogging I-710 could be shifted to the currently underutilized rail corridor.  Right now much of the rail traffic through the corridor is biased toward southbound movements -- export containers heading overseas from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach; northbound is mostly "baretable" movement -- empty container cars heading back to Commerce for placement in the eastbound loading queue, with the overall volume of such being only about 15-20% of the total northbound movement, including loaded containers.  The corridor is designed to accommodate almost continuous rail movement north -- but is only currently operating at a small percentage of its overall capacity.  Even so, the ports expect about a 10-15% drop in volume as Panamax diverts east coast-bound shipments through the expanded canal; something that will occur gradually over then next decade or so as ocean transport patterns are readjusted.  But any relief to I-710 will be marginal at best; it is also probable that the overall volume level will again rise to current figures if an when the total volume of Asian-made goods increases once more production facilities in places like Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries come on line.  The railroads aren't going to do anything that affects their bottom line (particularly since their coal-transport business is in decline), so it will be up to local and/or public entities to devise solutions -- hopefully involving increased utilization of the existing rail lines -- that will "do the job" without having to continually expand older and inadequate freeways to address the situation.       
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1878
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 05:28:24 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2021, 11:02:15 PM »

Sparker, do you know if there are any plans to improve the rail connection to make it worthwhile?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 03:31:11 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2021, 05:57:59 AM »

Sparker, do you know if there are any plans to improve the rail connection to make it worthwhile?

Nothing from either the public nor private sector at this time.  It's not the actual rail connection that needs improvement; the layout on both ends is quite efficient, particularly at the north end, where the sunken corridor surfaces and splits into two connectors, one to the UP yard north of Washington Blvd., and the BNSF yard to the south of that street.  It's just that the container traffic started increasing in the mid-80's, and both rail lines beefed up their existing facilities east of downtown L.A. to handle that traffic; that preceded the plans and development of the Alameda Corridor by 10-15 years.  As private companies (although UP is traded on NYSE, while BNSF is presently owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway holding company), neither is currently willing to duplicate the extensive carloading facilities -- that have been functioning in the City of Commerce for over 30 years -- with equally extensive facilities at or near the port.  It's not all their choice -- there's not a lot of available unused property either on Terminal Island or across the bridge in Wilmington, and RR's don't have the use of eminent domain to condemn needed property adjacent to the small facilities they do maintain near the ports.  So the principal loading capacity remains 20 miles north of the actual port.  Interestingly, the CA 47 segment of Alameda Ave., which coincidentally terminates at CA 91, also the southern end of the sunken rail "trough" that makes up most of the corridor, was expanded explicitly to expedite truck movement from the port to CA 91, where it would head east to I-710 or farther east to the Inland Empire (BNSF maintains a secondary container loading facility in San Bernardino a couple of blocks west of I-215 -- not that schlepping containers east on 91 through the Santa Ana Canyon is a picnic!).  Back about 2004-05 there were plans to build a loading facility along the corridor next to the CA 91 overcrossing that would have been the largest south of the existing Commerce yards; it was to have been a joint project of the port authority and private developers, but the financing for the project didn't materialize and it was scaled down to two or three short loading tracks serving a couple of the container services that actually financed the scaled-back operation.  It seems any attempt to kick-start full rail service on the corridor goes astray, either due to a shortfall of public funds or a downturn in the fortunes of the two major rail lines. 

One of the obstacles to full public participation in an effort to move traffic to the rail corridor is environmental; while diesel locomotives have improved over time in terms of pollutant release, both the port authority and the L.A. county air quality board have insisted that such service be accomplished by, in the near term, zero-emission motive power.  This would in effect mean full electrification of the corridor (which technically wouldn't be all that difficult, since the configuration of the rail trench was intended to support overhead catenary wire).  However, that would be an exceptionally costly project, requiring not only stringing high-voltage wire but also purchasing high-horsepower electric locomotives from Alstom or Siemens, the major companies supplying such equipment (both GM and GE exited the electric-locomotive field over a decade ago).  Maybe the Biden infrastructure bill could be tweaked -- or earmarked -- for such an endeavor; otherwise, don't expect the parties involved in current port-to-loadout operations to commit to any upgrades.   
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3461
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 07:47:42 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2021, 09:55:11 PM »

^^^^^^^

All of this is sad, but not unexpected given how things are going in CA.

In the days of the three grand railroads (SP, UP, ATSF) each had their own corridor into the ports: Alameda Street, UP Harbor line (Downey Rd-Salt Lake Ave-Garfield Ave), and the Harbor Subdivision (Slauson-Aviation-Torrance).  SP's line was the most direct, of course, and once UP acquired SP it paved the way for making some real upgrades to the corridor, the most important of which was grade separation.  This was a hugely expensive project and a significant amount of taxpayer money was put in, largely as a way of freeing truck traffic on the freeways.  It was supposed to be the primary means of freight transport between the port and Commerce.

Alas, it has not lived up to its full potential, for the reasons that you have said.  So we still have very significant truck traffic on 110 and 710.
Logged

fungus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 36
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:51:41 AM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #18 on: June 03, 2021, 06:38:09 PM »

Metro's highway program director Abdollah Ansari tried gamely to defend the 710 freeway improvements, but it looks like it's dead from a political standpoint and a new EIR will need to start from scratch.
https://la.streetsblog.org/2021/06/03/metro-spokespersons-criticize-caltrans-epa-and-public-input-for-pausing-710-freeway-widening/
Logged

California405freeway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5
  • Location: California
  • Last Login: July 14, 2021, 07:10:35 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #19 on: June 07, 2021, 09:10:37 PM »

I think they canceled this project in 2018. They planned to build a Tunnel/extension of 710 to 210 Fwy. People did not want it so Caltrans ended up ending the project. I hope they can find another solution to I-710 Truck Traffic as it gets really bad during Rush Hour.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8261
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: July 25, 2021, 03:31:11 PM
Re: 710 Improvements (Ports of LA/LB to SR 60)
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2021, 12:29:55 AM »

I think they canceled this project in 2018. They planned to build a Tunnel/extension of 710 to 210 Fwy. People did not want it so Caltrans ended up ending the project. I hope they can find another solution to I-710 Truck Traffic as it gets really bad during Rush Hour.

Not quite; this was a plan to widen I-710 from I-405 north to CA 60 to accommodate the increased truck traffic using that route from the port to convey containers to the City of Commerce railyards.  The project you mention is north of there over territory not presently served by an existing freeway facility; it is too effectively dead after a nearly 5-decade knock-down/drag 'em out political skirmish.   
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.