Well, it’s true that you don’t exactly see the bulldozers out yet.  It’s not that kind of progress.  But it is progress in the long and detailed process of deciding what to do with our favorite local freeway.

 

On April 30^th the Project Committee met in Paramount to make a few decisions.  The Project Committee (blandly named though it may be) is the key decision-making group where the future of the I-710 is concerned.  In an earlier post I tried to describe the complex public participation structure that is informing these decision makers.  I won’t repeat all that, but I will observe that Long Beach Mayor Foster has appointed Vice-Mayor Val Lerch to represent him on the Committee.  There is also a Long Beach local advisory committee that consists of councilmembers from districts adjacent to the freeway.

 

The April 30^th Project Committee meeting ran about three hours and was well attended, both by committee members and by the public (though many of the folks sitting in the back of the room, including me, were consultants on the project).  Still, there were quite a number of guests listening to simultaneous Spanish translation through headsets.  Lining the sides of the room were large poster boards on easels, each depicting a section of the freeway as it might one day be.

 

The Project Committee heard one in an ongoing series of informational presentations from engineers and vendors eager to provide us with alternative ways to move cargo containers.  This one was from a team that proposes to use the L.A. River to barge containers northward to the railyards east of Los Angeles, instead of leaving quite so many to travel by truck on the 710.  Several of us had heard this presentation before, and yes, we do all wonder how to get enough water into that river to allow barge navigation – and (conversely) what on earth will happen when it rains.  The proponents have been referred to the Army Corps of Engineers for a further “read” on feasibility.

 

In my view the Project Committee made two key decisions.  One was to select project alternatives for further detailed environmental analysis.  Getting to this point has been laborious.  The alternatives are complex:  for example, there’s one called the “no build”, which means that we don’t do anything to the freeway, but we still do hundreds of other projects in the general vicinity of its 18 miles that we have already planned and committed to do.  The others are “build” alternatives, which means that we will do something under this project, though still not necessarily on the freeway itself.  For example, Alternative 4 involves making improvements to arterials – the major streets with which 710 intersects – but not to the mainline freeway.  There’s also an “advanced technology” alternative, and while it won’t move ahead as a stand-alone alternative, it still will be considered as an aspect of the alternatives still to be studied.

 

I’ll try to summarize the Committee’s action by saying it approved – though not unanimously – the more detailed environmental analysis of two alternatives that are anticipated to meet the project goals, which include cleaner air (first), greater mobility and greater safety, among others.  Now the consultant team, myself included, will begin a lot of hard, detailed work to assess whether these alternatives will, in fact, meet all the goals.

 

Second, the Project Committee decided to alter the way it accepts public comment.  Up until this meeting, public comment was heard only at the beginning of the agenda.  This is valuable in that a member of the public wishing to comment need not wait until the end of a meeting of unpredictable length.  On the other hand, by the time I arrived (about five minutes late) I had missed the public comment altogether – as had anyone who actually hoped to speak.

 

The Committee decided to add the opportunity for public comment on each agenda item; if you want to speak to an item, submit a card, and you’ll have three minutes to speak.  Or you can speak at the start of the meeting on topics not on the agenda.  I thought this was a very fair way to increase the channels for public input on this critical project.  These committee members are not making easy decisions and they need to hear all the issues – even beyond what may come from all the existing public participation committees.

 

For ongoing project information, or the opportunity to submit comments any time via e-mail, please visit the project website.