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 3678 times)

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1300
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 03:29:25 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: 3817
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:10 AM
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: 1300
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 03:29:25 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: 348
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: March 31, 2020, 02:56:39 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: 1946
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 05:35:09 PM
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: 2510
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 12, 2020, 06:05:15 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: 1300
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 03:29:25 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: 1219
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 02:09:50 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: 1946
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 05:35:09 PM
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: 2558
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 01:18:51 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

 


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.