63
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented to : I-710 Corridor Advisory Committee December 13, 2017

Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

  • Upload
    doduong

  • View
    223

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results

Presented to :I-710 Corridor Advisory Committee

December 13, 2017

Page 2: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measures TAC CAC

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

March 2017

Key Technical Findings: TAC and CAC Committee Presentations

Benefits Costs Impacts

Dec. 2017

August 2017

Sept. 2017

Feb. 2017

March 2017

Dec. 2017

August 2017

Sept. 2017

Feb. 2017

2

Page 3: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measure TAC CAC

6. Mobility Benefits Reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay

7. Congestion Relief Improvement in I‐710 Level of Service (LOS) 

8. Travel TimesI‐710 Auto / Trucks

Freight Corridor ‐ Trucks

9. Safety BenefitsRemoves Operational Conflicts

Separates Cars & Trucks

10. 4f ImpactsDe Minimus Impacts

Non‐De Minimus Impacts

11. EJ Impacts Least Adverse Effect to EJ Populations

12. Visual Impacts Fewest Visual Impacts

Benefits Costs Impacts

Feb. 2017

Feb. 2017

Sept. 2017

Sept. 2017

April 2017

April 2017

March 2017

Feb. 2017

Feb. 2017

Sept. 2017

Sept. 2017

April 2017

April 2017

March 2017

Key Technical Findings: TAC and CAC Committee Presentations

3

Page 4: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Summary of Key Technical Findings

Compare the Two Build Alternatives:Alternative 5CAlternative 7

4

Page 5: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measures Alternative 5C Alternative 7

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Best

Best

No

Best

No

NoYes

Best

Best

Best

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7

Benefits Costs Impacts 5

Page 6: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Air Quality Results6

Page 7: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Air Quality Results7

Page 8: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

I‐710

 Freew

ayZE/NZE Trucks Only Address Tailpipe Emissions

Air Quality Results8

Page 9: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Greenhouse Gas Tailpipe Emissions

Air Quality Results9

Page 10: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measures Alternative 5C Alternative 7

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Best

Best

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7

Benefits Costs Impacts 10

Page 11: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Cost of ZE / NZE Trucks(in millions $’s)

Reduction in Diesel Particulate Matter(lbs, over the 8 year life of the vehicles)

Cost ‐Benefit($’s per lb. reduced)

Diesel Particulate Matteron I-710

11

Page 12: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Cost of ZE / NZE Trucks(in millions $’s)

Reduction in NOx(million lbs, over the 8 year life of the vehicles)

Cost ‐Benefit($’s per lb. reduced)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)Throughout the AOI

12

Page 13: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measures Alternative 5C Alternative 7

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Best

Best

No

Best

No

NoYes

Best

Best

Best

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7

Benefits Costs Impacts 13

Page 14: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Project Cost

I-710 Cost EstimatesCurrent Year Dollars (in Billions)

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

Alt. 5C Alt. 7 Alt. 7‐ZE

$’s,

in B

illion

s

ProgrammaticFeatures

Freight Corridor

I‐710

14

Page 15: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Affordability

I-710 Cost EstimatesCurrent Year Dollars (in Billions)

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

Alt. 5C Alt. 7 Alt. 7‐ZE

$’s,

in B

illion

s

ProgrammaticFeatures

Freight Corridor

I‐710

$1.179Billion

Total Amount of Funding that is Reasonably

Foreseeable

Note: Funding Scenarios developed by CH2M (Sept. 2017) to estimate funds available for highway construction through 2046/47. Funding for programmatic features such as near zero- and zero-emissions trucks would require supplementary, non-highway funding sources (i.e., air quality, clean energy funding sources).

15

Page 16: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measures Alternative 5C Alternative 7

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Best

Best

NoYes

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7

Benefits Costs Impacts 16

Page 17: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

I-710 Cost EstimatesCurrent Year Dollars (in Billions)

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

Alt. 7

$’s,

in B

illion

s

Finish  I‐710

Build  Freight Corridor

Minimum Build  I‐710

Minimum Build I-710$ 5.26 Billion

Alternative 7 Constructability Dilemma

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

I-710 must be rebuilt first to make way for the Freight Corridor in

Alternative 7

17

Page 18: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

I-710 Cost EstimatesCurrent Year Dollars (in Billions)

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

Alt. 7

$’s,

in B

illion

s

Finish  I‐710

Build  Freight Corridor

Minimum Build  I‐710

Alternative 7 Constructability Dilemma

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

$1.179Billion

Total Amount of Funding that is Reasonably

Foreseeable

Minimum Build I-710$ 5.26 Billion

Note: Funding Scenarios developed by CH2M (Sept. 2017) to estimate funds available for highway construction through 2046/47. Funding for programmatic features such as near zero- and zero-emissions trucks would require supplementary, non-highway funding sources (i.e., air quality, clean energy funding sources).

The Freight Corridor in Alternative 7 Cannot be Constructed and Utilized

18

Page 19: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Time

Phasing & UtilizationA

ltern

ativ

e 7

Ben

efits

Alte

rnat

ive

5CB

enef

its

Scenario: Funding & Phasing: $2 Billion per Decade

110%Relative

to 5C

2035 2045 20552025

$4B $6B$0 $2BConstruct Freight Corridor

Construct Freeway

Construct Freeway

100%Safety & Mobility

Benefits

$1.2B

ReasonablyForeseeable

Funding

10% of BenefitsRealized

20% of BenefitsRealized

50%Safety & Mobility

Benefits

19

Page 20: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measures Alternative 5C Alternative 7

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Best

Best

No

Best

No

NoYes

Best

Best

Best

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7

Benefits Costs Impacts 20

Page 21: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Right of Way Impacts

Acquisitions

Homes Businesses

Alt. 5C 109 158

Alt. 7 121 206

21

Page 22: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Relocations or Direct Impacts

Community Facilities and Parks

Alt. 5C Alt. 7Multi-Service CenterLong Beach

Compton Hunting & Fishing ClubCompton

Compton Homing Pigeon ClubCompton

Parque Dos Rios (Planned)South Gate

Salvation Army ShelterBell

Fire Station No. 4Vernon

* Alternative avoids impact to facility, but would require temporary construction easement at edge of property.

Avoids

Avoids

Avoids*

22

Page 23: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measure Alternative 5C Alternative 7

6. Mobility Benefits Reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay

7. Congestion Relief Improvement in I‐710 Level of Service (LOS) 

8. Travel TimesI‐710 Auto / Trucks

Freight Corridor ‐ Trucks

9. Safety BenefitsRemoves Operational Conflicts

Separates Cars & Trucks

10. 4f ImpactsDe Minimus Impacts

Non‐De Minimus Impacts

11. EJ Impacts Least Adverse Effect to EJ Populations

12. Visual Impacts Fewest Visual Impacts

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7, Continued

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Benefits Costs Impacts 23

Page 24: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Vehicle Hours of Delay

I-710Study Area

Existing 83,500

Alt. 1 (No Build) 105,800

Difference 22,300% Change 26.7%

Alt. 1 (No Build) 105,800

Alternative 5C 102,400

Difference (3,400) % Change - 3.2%

Alt. 1 (No Build) 105,800

Alternative 7 99,400

Difference (6,400) % Change - 6.0%

Changes in Delay (Daily Hours of Delay)

Increase / Decrease in hours of Delay

I-710 Study AreaTravel Time Savings

24

Page 25: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

25

PicoAnaheim

PCH

Willow

Del Amo

Long Beach

Alondra

Rosecrans

Imperial

Firestone

Florence

Washington

Atlantic-Bandini

Slauson

3rd

91

Alt. 7PicoAnaheim

PCH

Willow

Del Amo

Long Beach

Alondra

Rosecrans

Imperial

Firestone

Florence

Washington

Atlantic-Bandini

Slauson

3rd

91

Alt. 5CPicoAnaheim

PCH

Willow

Del Amo

Long Beach

Alondra

Rosecrans

Imperial

Firestone

Florence

Washington

Atlantic-Bandini

Slauson

3rd

91

Alt. 1

I-710 General Purpose Lanes

Year 2035

Peak Hour LOS Results

Level of Service

LOS Dor Better

LOS E

LOS F

AM

Page 26: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Travel on I-710 Corridor (Northbound)

Alternative 5C Alternative 7Average Speed(mph)

TravelTime(min)

Average Speed(mph)

TravelTime(min)

AM Peak Hour 59 19.3 58 19.4

MD Peak Hour 59 19.4 57 19.8

PM Peak Hour 59 19.4 58 19.4

I-710 Freeway (Mixed Flow Traffic)Year 2035

End-to-End Travel Times and Average Speeds

26

Page 27: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Travel on I-710 (Northbound)

Alternative 7I‐710 Freeway

Alternative 7Freight Corridor

Average Speed(mph)

TravelTime(min)

Average Speed(mph)

TravelTime(min)

AM Peak Hour 58 19.4 62 18.0

MD Peak Hour 57 19.8 60 18.7

PM Peak Hour 58 19.4 63 18.0

Alternative 7 (Freeway vs. Freight Corridor Trip)Year 2035

End-to-End Travel Times and Average Speeds

XX.X Best Travel Time

27

Page 28: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measure Alternative 5C Alternative 7

6. Mobility Benefits Reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay

7. Congestion Relief Improvement in I‐710 Level of Service (LOS) 

8. Travel TimesI‐710 Auto / Trucks

Freight Corridor ‐ Trucks

9. Safety BenefitsRemoves Operational Conflicts

Separates Cars & Trucks

10. 4f ImpactsDe Minimus Impacts

Non‐De Minimus Impacts

11. EJ Impacts Least Adverse Effect to EJ Populations

12. Visual Impacts Fewest Visual Impacts

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7, Continued

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Benefits Costs Impacts 28

Page 29: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Safety Evaluation - No Build Alternative

Alondra

I-405

SR-91

I-105

Olympic

North

Florence

LB Blvd Pico-Anaheim

RosecransImperial

PCH WillowDel Amo

Atlantic-Bandini WashingtonFirestone

I-5

SR-60

Safety Rating by Subarea

Good Poor Marginal

Severity of Operational Conflict Points Severity Rating (1 - 3)Severity Rating (4 - 5)Severity Rating (6 - 7)

Severity Rating (8)Severity Rating (9 - 10)Severity Rating (11 - 12)

Shoreline/7th

29

Page 30: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Alondra

I-405

SR-91

I-105

Olympic

North

Safety Evaluation - Alternative 5C

Florence

LB Blvd Pico-Anaheim

RosecransImperial

PCH WillowDel Amo

Atlantic-Bandini WashingtonFirestone

I-5

SR-60

Safety Rating by Subarea

Good Poor Marginal

Severity of Operational Conflict Points Severity Rating (1 - 3)Severity Rating (4 - 5)Severity Rating (6 - 7)

Severity Rating (8)Severity Rating (9 - 10)Severity Rating (11 - 12)

Shoreline/7th

30

Page 31: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Alondra

I-405

SR-91

I-105

Olympic

North

Safety Evaluation - Alternative 7

Florence

LB Blvd Pico-Anaheim

RosecransImperial

PCH WillowDel Amo

Atlantic-Bandini WashingtonFirestone

I-5

SR-60

Safety Rating by Subarea

Good Poor Marginal

Severity of Operational Conflict Points Severity Rating (1 - 3)Severity Rating (4 - 5)Severity Rating (6 - 7)

Severity Rating (8)Severity Rating (9 - 10)Severity Rating (11 - 12)

Shoreline/7th

31

Page 32: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

32

I-710 General Purpose Lanes

AM Peak Hour

PicoAnaheim

PCH

Willow

Del Amo

Long Beach

Alondra

Rosecrans

Imperial

Firestone

Florence

Washington

Atlantic-Bandini

Slauson

3rd

91

PicoAnaheim

PCH

Willow

Del Amo

Long Beach

Alondra

Rosecrans

Imperial

Firestone

Florence

Washington

Atlantic-Bandini

Slauson

3rd

91

Alt 5CPicoAnaheim

PCH

Willow

Del Amo

Long Beach

Alondra

Rosecrans

Imperial

Firestone

Florence

Washington

Atlantic-Bandini

Slauson

3rd

91

Alt 7Alt 1

- 0%

- 5%

- 10%

- 15%

- 20%

- 25%

- 30%

- 100%

Truck Percentages

Best

Worst

Page 33: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Alternative 7 - Daily Truck Volumes

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

I-710 Freight Corridor

Alte

rnat

ive

7 D

aily

Tru

ck V

olum

es(I-

710

Cor

ridor

, bot

h di

rect

ions

, Yea

r 203

5)Under Alternative 7, about two-thirds of the trucks use the Freight

Corridor and about one-third of the trucks remain on I-710

33

Page 34: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measure Alternative 5C Alternative 7

6. Mobility Benefits Reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay

7. Congestion Relief Improvement in I‐710 Level of Service (LOS) 

8. Travel TimesI‐710 Auto / Trucks

Freight Corridor ‐ Trucks

9. Safety BenefitsRemoves Operational Conflicts

Separates Cars & Trucks

10. 4f ImpactsDe Minimus Impacts

Non‐De Minimus Impacts

11. EJ Impacts Least Adverse Effect to EJ Populations

12. Visual Impacts Fewest Visual Impacts

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7, Continued

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Benefits Costs Impacts 34

Page 35: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Section 4(f) Impacts (De Minimis)

Alternative 5C(Seven Properties)

Alternative 7(Eight Properties)

• Parque dos Rios (temporary construction easement)

• Cesar E. Chavez Park & Drake/Chavez Greenbelt (incorporation of land and TCE)

• Bandini Park/Batres Community Center (aerial easement)

• LA River & Rio Hondo Trails (temporary occupancies)

• De Forest Market Street Basin (aerial easement and TCE)

• UP Railroad (incorporation of land)• Dale’s Donuts (incorporation of land)

• Cesar E. Chavez Park & Drake/Chavez Greenbelt (incorporation of land and TCE)

• Bandini Park/Batres Community Center (aerial easement)

• LA River & Rio Hondo Trails (temporary closures)

• Dominguez Gap Wetlands – West Basin (incorporation of land and TCE)

• De Forest Market Street Basin (aerial easement and TCE)

• UP Railroad (incorporation of land)• Boulder Dam/Los Angeles Transmission

lines (incorporation of land)• Dale’s Donuts (incorporation of land)

35

Page 36: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Section 4(f) Impacts (Non-De Minimis)

• Impacts to Section 4(f) properties under Alternative 5C:– Parque dos Rios (1.68

acres permanently incorporated)

36

Page 37: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Section 4(f) Impacts (Non-De Minimis)

• Impacts to Section 4(f) properties under Alternative 7:– Parque dos Rios (entire

8.6-acre park would be acquired due to limited functionality of parcel outside area of project footprint)

37

Page 38: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Alternative 5C is predicted to result in a lower AQ impact to EJ populations and sensitive receptors as compared to Alternative 7

Areas of increase in maximum annual PM10 impact

Areas of increase in maximum annual PM10 impact

Environmental Justice

Areas of increase in maximum 24-hour PM10 impact

Areas of increase in maximum 24-hour PM10 impact

Sensitive Receptors

Daycare

Healthcare

Nursing Home

School

Environmental Justice

Area exceeds County average for Poverty

Area exceeds County average for Minority Population

Alternative 5C Alternative 7

38

Page 39: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Key Technical Results Measure Alternative 5C Alternative 7

6. Mobility Benefits Reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay

7. Congestion Relief Improvement in I‐710 Level of Service (LOS) 

8. Travel TimesI‐710 Auto / Trucks

Freight Corridor ‐ Trucks

9. Safety BenefitsRemoves Operational Conflicts

Separates Cars & Trucks

10. 4f ImpactsDe Minimus Impacts

Non‐De Minimus Impacts

11. EJ Impacts Least Adverse Effect to EJ Populations

12. Visual Impacts Fewest Visual Impacts

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7, Continued

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Benefits Costs Impacts 39

Page 40: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Visual Impacts

View from LARIO Trail, Looking Southwest at the I-710/SR-91 Interchange, in the City of Long Beach

Alternative 5C Alternative 7

40

Page 41: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Evaluation Factor Measures Alternative 5C Alternative 7

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Best

Best

No

Best

No

NoYes

Best

Best

Best

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7

Benefits Costs Impacts 41

Page 42: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Evaluation Factor Measure Alternative 5C Alternative 7

6. Mobility Benefits Reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay

7. Congestion Relief Improvement in I‐710 Level of Service (LOS) 

8. Travel TimesI‐710 Auto / Trucks

Freight Corridor ‐ Trucks

9. Safety BenefitsRemoves Operational Conflicts

Separates Cars & Trucks

10. 4f ImpactsDe Minimus Impacts

Non‐De Minimus Impacts

11. EJ Impacts Least Adverse Effect to EJ Populations

12. Visual Impacts Fewest Visual Impacts

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7, Continued

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Benefits Costs Impacts 42

Page 43: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Public Review of I-710 RDEIR/SDEIS

43

Page 44: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Public Circulation

• July 21, 2017: Recirculated Draft Environmental Document released to public

• October 23, 2017: 90-day comment period closed

• Public Hearings:

− 8/23/17 Commerce− 8/26/17 Paramount− 8/31/17 Long Beach

• Community Briefings:− 10/18/17 East Los Angeles− 10/19/17 Long Beach

44

Page 45: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Summary of Public Comments

Key Issues & Concerns:• Preference for full zero emissions

technologies• Avoid right-of-way impacts (i.e.

residential relocations and impacts to Bell Shelter and Long Beach Multi-Service Center)

• Concerns about peak-hour parking restrictions on nearby streets

• Impacts during construction including ramp and street closures

• Need for more bike and pedestrian connections to LA River trail

• Environmental justice and air quality concerns for communities near I-710

• Need to include local hire provisions (in construction)

• Need to fully utilize freight rail and the Alameda Corridor

45

Page 46: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

I-710 Zero- and Near Zero- Emissions Truck Program

46

Page 47: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

The air quality benefits come from the Zero and Near Zero emissions trucks included in the alternatives, as well as cleaner port operations and regional/state regulations, not the freight corridor infrastructure.

Air Quality & Public Health

Cost of ZE / NZE Trucks(in millions $’s)

Reduction in Diesel Particulate Matter(lbs, over the 8 year life of the vehicles)

4,000ZE/NZE

18,350ZE/NZE

18,350ZE

4,000ZE/NZE

18,350ZE/NZE

18,350ZE

47

Page 48: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

I-710 Capital Cost Estimate*

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Alt. 5C Alt. 7 Alt. 7‐ZE

$’s,

in M

illio

ns

ZE Truck Fueling / Power StationsZero- / Near Zero- Emissions Trucks

* Costs are Order of Magnitude Estimates Only. Final costs will be determined based upon funding availability.

$134Million

Total Amount of Funding that is Reasonably

Foreseeable by 2035

Note: Funding Scenarios developed in collaboration with SCAQMD, examining known and potential funding sources for ZE and NZE trucks through 2035 (i.e., air quality, clean energy funding sources).

Funding for I-710 ZE/NZE Trucks48

Page 49: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Compare NZE & ZE Truck Performance Conventional Diesel Truck

Near Zero Emissions Truck

Zero Emissions Truck

Diesel Particulate Matter* (DPM) (lb/10,000 miles) 0.12 0 0

Nitrogen Oxides* (NOX)(lb/10,000 miles) 38.7 3.9 0

Greenhouse Gases* (GHG)(MT CO2/10,000 miles) 15.1 15.1 0

Subsidy: per Truck** $ 0 $25,000 $65,775

Number of Trucks per $100 million of Funding Not Applicable 4,000 Trucks 1,520 Trucks

* Running Exhaust emission factors are based on EMFAC2014 for heavy-heavy duty trucks in Los Angeles County for calendar year 2035.

** Unit costs represent incremental, average costs of zero emissions trucks (battery electric, fuel cell vehicles) from I-710 Zero Emissions Truck Commercialization Study, assuming pre-2035 deployment (Calstart, 2013).

49

Page 50: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

How Many ZE / NZE Trucks Can We Get?

AQ Benefits to the Community

AQ Benefits to the Community

The number of “clean emissions” trucks that can be delivered depends upon the option and, ultimately, on AQ / Clean Energy funding levels.

Pro

babl

e Fu

ndin

g Th

roug

h 20

35

Pro

babl

e Fu

ndin

g Th

roug

h 20

35

50

Page 51: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

I-710 ZE/NZE Deployment Strategy

Maximize Number of “Clean Emissions” Trucks and Air Quality Benefits – Begin with mix of zero and near zero emissions trucks in the near term. – Transition to pure zero emissions trucks in the future years, as zero

emissions truck technologies become commercially available and as unit prices drop.

– Partner with SCAQMD, EPA, CARB to pursue grant funding outside of the project programmed funds to support health-benefit investments.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Num

ber o

f ZE/

NZE

Tru

cks*

AQ Funding Levels (in millions)

Option 3 Maximize Deployment of ZE/NZE Trucks

AQ Benefits to the Community

Short Term Long Term

* Number of number of “clean emissions” trucks that can be delivered depends upon the option and, ultimately, on AQ / Clean Energy funding levels.

51

Page 52: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Design Options

52

Page 53: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Design Options

East Los Angeles Area:

• Summary of Public Comments:Most Oppose Design Options 3A/3B

• Key Trade-Offs:− ROW Impacts / Displacements− Visual Impacts− Loss of Access− Cost ($173 million)

versus− Mobility− Safety Benefits

East LA Residences Businesses

Alternative 5C 0 0

Alternative 7 0 0

Design Option 3A 19 6

Design Option 3B 19 6

Displacements: East LA

Eliminate Design Options 3A/3B from further consideration

Design Options 3A/3B

Finding:

53

Page 54: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Design Options

Long Beach Area:

• City of Long Beach supports Design Option 2A

• Key Trade-Offs:− Improved Access to downtown

Long Beachversus

− Added Cost ($120 million)− Adds Three (3) Business

Displacements Carry forward Design Option 1A into Alternative 5C Design

Design Option 2AVernon/Bell/Commerce Area:

• Key Trade-Offs:− Avoids One (1) Business

Displacement− Avoids impacts to Hobart Yard

Operations− Saves $35 million

Design Option 1A

Finding:

54

Page 55: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Questions

55

Page 56: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Major Milestone: Select Alternative

Comment Review Process Extended to October 23, 2017

56

Page 57: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Purpose & Need

TechnicalFeasibility

Affordability

PublicComments & Environ. Impacts

How is the Preferred Alternative Determined?

Pref. Alt.

Air Quality, Safety, Congestion Relief, Mobility Benefits, Travel Time Savings

Funding, Cost & Affordability

Constructability, Ability to Implement

or Constructin Phases,

Independent Utility

Air Quality & Health Risk,

Displacements, Visual, Section 4f, & Environmental

Justice

57

Page 58: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Evaluation Factor Measures Alternative 5C Alternative 7

1. Air Quality

Diesel Particulate Matter / Cancer Risk

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Least Amount of PM 2.5

Greenhouse Gases

2. Air Quality Cost Benefit

$ per lbs. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduced

$ per lbs. NOx Reduced

3. Cost / AffordabilityTotal Project Cost

Affordability

4. Constructability Can the Alternative be Phased and Utilized?

5. ROW Impacts

Residential Displacements

Business Displacements

Sensitive Facilities Displacements

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Best

Best

No

Best

No

NoYes

Best

Best

Best

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7

Benefits Costs Impacts 58

Page 59: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Evaluation Factor Measure Alternative 5C Alternative 7

6. Mobility Benefits Reduction in Vehicle Hours of Delay

7. Congestion Relief Improvement in I‐710 Level of Service (LOS) 

8. Travel TimesI‐710 Auto / Trucks

Freight Corridor ‐ Trucks

9. Safety BenefitsRemoves Operational Conflicts

Separates Cars & Trucks

10. 4f ImpactsDe Minimus Impacts

Non‐De Minimus Impacts

11. EJ Impacts Least Adverse Effect to EJ Populations

12. Visual Impacts Fewest Visual Impacts

Compare Alternative 5C and Alternative 7, Continued

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Best

Same Same

Benefits Costs Impacts 59

Page 60: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

I-710 ZE/NZE Deployment Strategy

Maximize Number of “Clean Emissions” Trucks and Air Quality Benefits – Begin with mix of zero and near zero emissions trucks in the near term. – Transition to pure zero emissions trucks in the future years, as zero

emissions truck technologies become commercially available and as unit prices drop.

– Partner with SCAQMD, EPA, CARB to pursue grant funding outside of the project programmed funds to support health-benefit investments.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

$100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700

Num

ber o

f ZE/

NZE

Tru

cks*

AQ Funding Levels (in millions)

Option 3 Maximize Deployment of ZE/NZE Trucks

AQ Benefits to the Community

Short Term Long Term

* Number of number of “clean emissions” trucks that can be delivered depends upon the option and, ultimately, on AQ / Clean Energy funding levels.

60

Page 61: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Preferred Alternative

• Include Project features that improve air quality and mobility within the I-710 Study Area:– Zero and Near Zero “Clean Emissions” Trucks– I-710 Community Health and Benefit Program– Intelligent Transportation Systems / Advanced

Technologies– I-710 Congestion Relief Program for intersections

and local arterials– Transit Improvements– Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Connections

61

Page 62: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Preferred Alternative

• Eliminate problematic project features and design options from further consideration:– Peak period parking restrictions on arterials– Design Options 3A and 3B in East LA

62

Page 63: Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Resultsmedia.metro.net/.../cac_presentation_2017_1213_technical_findings.pdf · Summary of Technical Findings / Evaluation Results Presented

Next Steps

63

Winter 2018• Select Preferred Alternative for FEIR/FEIS • Coordinate with Air Agencies to:

− Refine and Enhance I-710 Zero and Near Zero Emissions Truck Program− Develop and Seek AQ Funding

• Initiate Work on FEIR/FEIS for Preferred AlternativeSpring 2018• Identify Initial Construction Stages for Roadway Improvements based on

Independent Utility, Benefits, Costs and Impacts • Define Integrated Packages (Roadway Improvements, Programmatic

Features) based on Funding AvailabilitySummer 2018• Finalize the Environmental ProcessWinter 2019• Release RFPs for Final Design of Early Action Projects

63