I-710 Technical Advisory Committee

Transcription

1 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Wednesday, 1:30PM 3:00PM Gateway Cities Council of Government Offices Paramount Boulevard, 2 nd Floor Conference Room Paramount, CA AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II. III. IV. ROLL CALL BY SELF-INTRODUCTIONS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA This is the time and place to change the order of the agenda, delete or add any agenda item(s) V. PUBLIC COMMENTS Three minutes for each speaker VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approve Minutes of the January 21, 2009 Meeting VII. REPORTS A. Report on the 1 st Phase from Los Angeles/Anaheim to San Francisco Presentation by Bruce Armstead, Regional Program Manager, California High Speed Rail SUGGESTED ACTION: Receive and File Report

2 B. Update on Metrolink Strategic Plan Presentation by Kate Froemming, Strategic Development Planner, Metrolink SUGGESTED ACTION: Receive and File Report C. Status Report Engineering 1. Review of Schedule and Upcoming Meetings. 2. Status of Comments and Responses on Geometric Concept Report SUGGESTED ACTION: Receive and File Report D. Status Report Environmental Studies 1. Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment (AQ/HRA) Protocol Report Update SUGGESTED ACTION: Receive and File Report E. Status Report Community Participation 1. Local Advisory Committees 2. Corridor Advisory Committee 3. Subject Working Groups 4. Meetings List SUGGESTED ACTION: Receive and File Report F. Alternative Technology Workshop Discussion of Results and Follow-up SUGGESTED ACTION: (1) Receive and File; (2) Continue to the Next Meeting; or (3) Recommend with any Comments or Changes to the Project Committee G. Screening Alternative(s) Analysis and Recommendations SUGGESTED ACTION: (1) Receive and File; (2) Continue to the Next Meeting; or (3) Recommend with any Comments or Changes to the Project Committee VIII. IX. COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT IN COMPIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT THE GATEWAY CITIES COG OFFICE AT (562) NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENT TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING.

3 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Minutes of Page 3 January 21, 2009 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR Item A. Approve Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2009

4 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Minutes of Page 4 January 21, 2009 I. Call to Order MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE I-710 CORRIDOR PROJECT EIR/EIS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Paramount Blvd., Paramount, CA January 21, 2009 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bill Pagett at 1:42 PM. II. Roll Call PRESENT: Bill Pagett, City of Paramount; Carlos Alvarado, Cities of Bell and Cudahy; Joe Dyer, City of Bell Gardens; Victor Rollinger, City of Carson; Bob Zarrilli, City of Commerce; Dave Hewitt, City of Compton; Patrick Fu, City of Huntington Park; Mark Christoffels, City of Long Beach; Daniel Ojeda, City of Lynwood; Tom Melendrez, City of Maywood; Charlie Honeycutt, City of Signal Hill; Mohammad Mostahkami, City of South Gate; Kevin Wilson, City of Vernon; Amir Alam, LACDPW; Ron Kosinski, Caltrans; Ernest Morales, Metro; Kerry Cartwright, POLA; Jolene Hayes, POLB; Philip Law, SCAG; Peter Greenwald, SCAQMD; John Doherty, ACTA; Arevik Petrosyan, SCE. ABSENT: Ed Norris, City of Downey; Michelle Noch, FTA/FHWA; Mark Sedlacek, LADWP. Other attendees included: Adrian Alvarez, Metro; Jerry Wood, GCCOG; Jack Joseph, GCCOG; Abdi Saghafi, Caltrans; Mario Gutierrez, Caltrans; Gary Garrigue, SCE; Chi Hua Ho, LAUSD; Dave Levinsohn, URS; Rob McCann, LSA; Jack Waldron, URS; Dave Levinson, URS; Julia Lester, Environ; Shannon Willits, URS; Esmeralda Garcia, MIG. III. Pledge of Allegiance The pledge of allegiance was led by Daniel Ojeda. IV. Amendments to the Agenda There were no amendments to the agenda. V. Public Comments There were no public comments.

5 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Minutes of Page 5 January 21, 2009 VI. Consent Calendar It was moved by Mark Christoffels, seconded by Bob Zarrilli, to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 14, The motion passed unanimously. VII. Reports A. Screening Alternative(s) Recommendations Rob McCann reviewed the discussions on screening alternatives that were provided at the previous meeting. That presentation concluded with the following recommendations from the consultants: o o Recommended Alternative 6 be carried forward into EIR/EIS Includes Alternatives 1, 2, 4 and 5A Alternative 5B eliminated: similar impacts to 5A, but lower benefits Recommended Advanced Technology (Alternative 3) be carried forward into EIS/EIR As variation of Alternative 6 Jerry Wood of GCCOG handed out and discussed some recommendations from GCCOG for these alternatives. A copy of that handout is attached. Comments on this material were requested. Kerry Cartwright said that the project should entail some sort of electrification apparatus to be evaluated. Ron Kosinski said he questioned how a theoretical alternative can be carried in Alternative 6. Bill Pagett said that it could be assumed that four lanes will ultimately be used for alternative technology, but initially used by trucks. Peter Greenwald said that the SCAQMD strongly supports a zero emission system. He said rail electrification is used now elsewhere in the world. Ron Kosinski said it would be cleaner if Alternatives 3 and 6 were evaluated separately. Mark Christoffels said it makes a huge difference if the wording in Alternative 6 is up to 10 general purpose lanes rather than 10 general purpose lanes. It was the consensus of the TAC to continue this item to the next TAC meeting in February, following the workshop to be held on Alternative Technology where the screening recommendations will be developed for transmittal to the Project Committee at its April meeting. It was moved by

6 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Minutes of Page 6 January 21, 2009 Kerry Cartwright, seconded by Bob Zarrilli, to continue this item to the next TAC meeting on February 18. The motion passed unanimously. B. Presentation of Draft Studies 1. Los Angeles River Impact Review 2. Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment Status/Protocols Review 3. Utility Impacts Review 4. Freight Corridor Access Analysis Review The consultants made power point presentations summarizing the status and results to date of the above listed studies. SCE asked to have some language inserted into the utility impact presentation for subsequent presentations. SCE will provide the language for insertion. It was the consensus of the TAC to have the subject working groups review the Air Quality/Health Risk Assessment and then bring it back to the TAC. After further discussion it was moved by Bob Zarrilli, seconded by Mohammad Mostahkami, to receive and file the presentations and information. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. Comments from Committee Members Chairman Bill Pagett and staff reminded the TAC members to provide their comments on the refined geometric plans. Bill Pagett reminded the TAC members of the January 29 Project Committee meeting and encouraged them to brief their respective members. Mohammad Mostahkami asked how TAC members can get information about the activities of the community advisory committee. Esmeralda Garcia of MIG responded that she can report on these at each TAC meeting. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 3:42 PM.

7 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 7 VII. REPORTS Item C Status Report Engineering Item D Status Report Environmental Studies Item E Status Report Community Participation

8 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 8 TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Members Richard R. Powers, Executive Director, Gateway Cities COG Project Team Representative and Consultants Status Report Engineering (C) Status Report Environmental Studies (D) Status Report Community Participation (E) BACKGROUND The consultants will provide an update on the status of the project. This will include a review of the schedule with key milestones for each meeting and for upcoming meetings, current environmental studies and the status of the community participation process for all the subject working groups. A schedule of these meetings, key decision items, etc. will be handed out at the meeting. SUGGESTED ACTIONS Receive and File Reports.

9 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 9 VII. REPORTS Item F Alternative Technology Workshop Discussion of Results and Follow-up

10 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 10 TO: FROM: BY: I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Members Richard Powers, Executive Director, Gateway Cities COG Project Team Representatives and Consultants SUBJECT: Alternative Technology Workshop Discussion of Results and Follow-up BACKGROUND The initial alternatives identified for the I-710 EIR/EIS included Alternative 3, which includes Alternative Technology to move containers as one of its features. A report on Alternative Technology has been prepared and reviewed with the TAC previously. This report and subsequent work identified the types, capacities and issues with respect to deploying alternative technology to move containers along the I-710 Corridor. The Screening Analysis that was performed for evaluating the affect of the selected Cargo Forecast on the 6 initial alternatives showed that a fixed guideway type system that moved a significant number of containers resulted in significant improvements in air quality. However, the deployment of alternative technology, the capabilities of different types of technology, applicability and effectiveness in addressing the purpose and need for the project and fitting into the project required further analysis and work. As a result a 4-hour workshop was held on January 27 to go into more detail for Alternative Technology. At the conclusion of that workshop it was decided for the consultants to prepare a screening analysis in more depth of the differing alternative technologies and present that to the TAC for review and recommendations at its next meeting. This would also be presented to the SWG for transportation (and perhaps others at their requests) and to the CAC before being presented to the PC at its April meeting. DISCUSSION AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND FOLLOW-UP The screening analysis matrix that was prepared to evaluate alternative technologies will be presented at the TAC meeting. In advance of presenting that information, a summary of the material presented at the workshop will be made followed by discussion of the results and follow-up of the alternative technologies screening analysis matrix. SUGGESTED ACTIONS 1. Receive and File Reports; (2) Continue to the Next Meeting; or (3) Recommend with any Comments or Changes to the Project Committee.

11 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 11 VII. REPORTS Item G Screening Alternative (s) Analysis and Recommendations

12 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 12 TO: FROM: BY: I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Members Richard Powers, Executive Director, Gateway Cities COG Project Team Representatives and Consultants SUBJECT: Screening Alternative (s) Analysis and Recommendations (continued) BACKGROUND At the preceding TAC meeting, the TAC recommended the High Port Growth Cargo Forecast without Near-Dock Expansion for use in the Alternative Screening Methodology. That recommendation was concurred with by the Project Committee at its January meeting. The draft studies that were presented at the two TAC meetings in January are described below: 1. Alternative Screening Methodology Study/Decision Matrix (Summarized from Previous meeting) The purpose of this study was to present an evaluation framework by which existing and potential new alternatives can be screened for the I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS. To identify viable alternatives, specific qualitative and quantitative measures were chosen to draw upon key issues within the draft I- 710 Purpose and Need. These criteria provided comparative information, which was then used to highlight major differences, determining the varying levels of performance for each alternative. The ultimate objective of this screening process was to identify viable alternatives that best meet the Purpose and Need, to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS. The presentation for this study was to explain the proposed approach and screening methodology for review and comment. The presentation summarized the approach that was explained briefly at the previous meeting. A decision matrix that was used in the screening of alternatives was also presented and reviewed. Finally, the role for alternative technology in this decision process was presented for review and consideration by the TAC. 2. Screening Alternatives Review and Recommendations The purpose of this study was to present an evaluative framework by which existing and potential new alternatives can be screened for the I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS. The study identified viable alternatives, specific qualitative and quantitative measures to draw upon key issues within the draft I-710 Purpose and Need. These criteria provide comparative information, which was then used to highlight major differences, determining the varying levels of performance for each alternative. The ultimate objective of this screening process was to identify

13 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 13 viable alternatives that best meet the Draft Purpose and Need to be analyzed in the EIR/EIS based on the selected cargo port forecast. The results of these studies was presented at the TAC meeting and continued to the next meeting. Based on the analyses for both alternative technologies (previously presented), the screening analysis of alternatives and subsequent analyses and meetings, the alternative recommendations for the TAC is found in Attachment A. SUGGESTED ACTIONS 1. Receive and File Reports; (2) Continue to the Next Meeting; or (3) Recommend with any Comments or Changes to the Project Committee.

14 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 14 Attachment A I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS Recommended Screened Alternatives for study in the Draft Project Report/Environmental Document Alternative 1 (No Build): Required to be evaluated under CEQA and NEPA. Alternative 5A (Widen to 10 general purpose lanes): Recommended as a less impacting alternative than Alternative 6, but one which still provides measurable benefits. The number of general purpose lanes will be evaluated and modified, if necessary, for each segment of I-710 based upon refined traffic forecasting. Study of this alternative at the same level of detail as Alternative 6 will also allow for a meaningful comparison of the benefits, costs and impacts of the freight movement corridor in Alternatives 6A and 6B. Alternative 5A includes all of the TSM/TDM/Transit elements of Alternative 2 and the arterial highway/freeway congestion relief elements of Alternative 4. Alternative 6A (Widen to 10 general purpose lanes + 4 Freight Movement lanes [conventional trucks]): Recommended due to the high level of benefits and consistency with the original community-based LPS and Purpose and Need. The number of general purpose lanes will be evaluated and modified, if necessary, for each segment of I-710 based upon refined traffic forecasting. Alternative 6A includes all of the TSM/TDM/Transit elements of Alternative 2 and the arterial highway/freeway congestion relief elements of Alternative 4. This alternative will assume design and usage of the freight movement corridor by conventional trucks. Alternative 6B (Widen to 10 general purpose lanes + 4 Freight Movement lanes [zero emissions trucks]): Recommended due to the high level of benefits and consistency with the original community-based LPS and Purpose and Need. The number of general purpose lanes will be evaluated and modified, if necessary, for each segment of I-710 based upon refined traffic forecasting. Alternative 6B includes all of the TSM/TDM/Transit elements of Alternative 2 and the arterial highway/freeway congestion relief elements of Alternative 4. This alternative will assume design and usage of the freight movement corridor by zero emission trucks, which would include but not be limited to battery powered trucks as well as trucks powered by overhead electrical lines designed as part of the Freight Movement corridor. This alternative is recommended as a way to integrate consideration of alternative goods movement technology into the alternatives analysis of the EIR/EIS. The Alternatives Screening analysis showed that, while the alternative technology component of Alternative 3 offers the greatest potential benefits with regard to improving air quality and reducing public health risk in the I-710 Corridor as a stand alone alternative it does not achieve the mobility and safety goals articulated by the community in the project Purpose and Need.

15 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 15 Alternative 6B would be designed to allow for future conversion of the Freight Movement corridor to a fixed guideway system. Alternatives Not Recommended Alternatives 2 (TSM/TDM/Transit), 4 (Arterial Highway and I-710 Congestion Relief Improvements) and 5B (8 general purpose lanes + 2 HOV lanes) are not recommended to be carried into the engineering and environmental technical studies for the EIR/EIS. Alternatives 2 and 4 do not provide adequate improvements by themselves to address the purpose and need for the project as required by future traffic generated by population growth and the selected cargo forecast. However, the referenced studies indicated the value of the improvements identified for Alternatives 2 and 4 and, therefore, they are included as part of the recommended Alternatives 5A, 6A, and 6B. Alternative 5B is not recommended as it has similar impacts as 5A and lower benefits. Alternative 3 (Goods Movement Enhancement by Rail and/or Advanced Technology) is not recommended to be carried forward as a stand alone alternative for the EIR/EIS; since technology choices are still unclear, and a presumption about advanced technology design concept and scope is premature to be evaluated at a detailed project level in the EIR/EIS. However, the I-710 Funding Partners wish to continue to encourage the goods movement industry to explore different options for Advanced Technology for Zero Emissions Container Movements Systems (ZECMS) that can serve the minimum required future container volumes such as Freight Movement lanes, fixed guideway systems, co-location within the SCE or DWP utility corridor rights-of-way, or another alignment (e.g., electrifying the Alameda Corridor). Should a viable advanced technology design concept and scope emerge through these further exploration efforts, the I-710 Funding Partners would then consider whether to integrate such an alternative into the I-710 Corridor EIR/EIS effort.

16 I-710 Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Page 16 Attachment A I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS Recommended Screened Alternatives for study in the Draft Project Report/Environmental Document This attachment includes some additional technical details that should be considered to be included with the Recommended Alternatives: 1. The list of projects that was previously developed for Alternative 1 should be updated. 2. The maximum rail components of Alternative 3 should be included in the analysis of the recommended alternatives, excluding the expansion or addition of new near dock intermodal facilities. 3. The freight corridor design should include the following design factors: a. The freight corridor should be designed so as not to preclude conversion to a fixed guideway system in the future. b. Performance criteria should be established for the design and operation of the freight corridor. 4. The Alternative Technology Report is recommended to be sent to the industry representing the technologies evaluated in the Ports Zero Emissions/Electric Container Systems study for the purposes of providing them an opportunity to comment and make subsequent presentations on how their technologies would operate and fit within the I-710 freight corridor. 5. That the consultants contact other industries concerning zero emission trucks (or technologies to move trucks with zero emissions) and request information, comments and presentations. 6. An analysis of arterial highway improvements should be identified early in the environmental process as possible for review by the staffs of the local communities. 7. A phasing plan should be developed for the alternatives (this would include an analysis of population and cargo forecast capacities). 8. Projects are requested to be identified for early implementation that would address existing congestion and safety issues. 9. The recommended alternatives should be presented to the relevant Subject Working Groups and Corridor Advisory Committee.