PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE

APRIL 18, 2002

SUBJECT: I-710 MAJOR CORRIDOR STUDY STATUS REPORT BETWEEN THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH AND SR-60 POMONA FREEWAY.

ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE

RECOMMENDATION

Receive and file this status report on the I-710 Major Corridor Study which focuses on the area between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and SR-60 Pomona Freeway.

ISSUE

This report presents the findings from the completion of two project milestones: 1) Approval of the Purpose and Need Statement by the Corridor Oversight Policy Committee, and 2) Identification of an initial set of alternative strategies for the Corridor.

BACKGROUND

Per Metro Board approval, a professional services contract was executed with Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. on January 29, 2001 to initiate work on the I-710 Major Corridor Study (Study). The Study is funded by monies committed by SCAG, Caltrans, the 13 cities which are in the Study Corridor area, and Metro. The Study area is defined by the following boundaries: South – Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach; West – Alameda Street/Central Avenue; North – SR 60 – Pomona Freeway; and East – Garfield Avenue/I-5 Lakewood Boulevard. (Attachment A is a map of the Study Corridor area).

A total of 13 cities which are part of the Gateway Cities Council of Governments are located along the Corridor. To ensure substantive participation by the affected jurisdictions, an Oversight Policy Committee (OPC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) were formed. The OPC is composed of elected officials from the 13 cities, a commissioner of the Port of Long Beach, and representatives of the other funding partners – SCAG, Caltrans and Metro. Correspondingly the TAC membership is composed of the public works/city engineers from the 13 cities, Port of Long Beach staff, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), FHWA, SCAG, Caltrans and Metro. In addition, ad hoc representatives for SC-AQMD, County of Los Angeles-Public Works, and Southern California Automobile Club (AAA) regularly participate on the TAC. Attachment B is a listing of cities and respective representatives who are members of the OPC and TAC. These committees have

been meeting on the average of once a month to review and oversee the consultants work efforts. Metro staff functions as the Study Project Manager. The study has identified several interrelated problems ranging from high levels of congestion which have been exacerbated by extraordinarily large numbers of trucks that make up over 20 percent of the traffic stream, safety problems which the California Highway Patrol considers to be among the worst in the State, projected increases in truck traffic from 34,000 per day in 2000 to over 91,000 per day by 2020, frequent spill-off of traffic from the freeway onto arterials as a result of an accident so creating additional congestion on the surface streets as well, and air quality which is heavily affected by air contaminants which are generated by diesel engines per recent Air Quality Management District (AQMD) studies.

A key milestone which has been completed is the “Statement of Purpose and Need” (adopted by the OPC and TAC in December 2001) which defines eleven key problems with 22 clear objectives to frame the development of solutions. Attachment C is a copy of the Purpose and Need Statement with the 11 problems and 22 study objectives elaborated. The consultants also completed an additional document called an “Informal Value Analysis” which has provided the Study participants with a sense of the range of concerns, which the public at large recommends, be included in the Study.

The OPC and TAC are currently reviewing an initial set of 12 alternative strategies, listed from lowest relative investment envisioned to the highest. The initial set of 12 alternatives is as follows:

Efforts are currently underway to reduce these alternates to 5 for in depth analysis. Please see Attachment D for a more detailed description of the 12 initial alternatives.

The upper end of cost estimates for these alternatives range upwards of $11 billion. The participating agencies recognize that this level of funding is far more than can reasonably be expected to be available for this one corridor. Therefore the OPC and TAC committees have charged the consultant to develop a carefully phased implementation plan and a funding strategy which could generate revenues from both historical public transportation sources and additional sources such as fees on the truckers, contributions from Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and others.

Selection of the reduced set of alternatives is scheduled to be completed in June, 2002. The selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative is anticipated in March, 2003. Subsequently work on the preparation of up to three Project Study Report-Project Development Studies (PSR-PDS) is tentatively scheduled for November 2003. The study is scheduled to be completed by December 2003. This delivery schedule will allow key preliminary findings/recommendations to be incorporated into the Short Range Transportation Plan, which is currently under development. Metro staff will report back to this Committee as additional milestones are achieved.

1.	No Build
2.	TSM/TDM
3.	Low General Purpose
4.	Low Truck
5.	Medium HOV
6.	Medium General Purpose
7.	Medium Truck
8.	High General Purpose
9.	High Truck
10.	High Goods Movement
11.	High HOV
12.	High Rail