ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act
DPM = diesel particulate matter
EFC = Equity Focus Community
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
6.1.1.8 Sustainability
Five Benefit metrics were used to measure potential project effectiveness in advancing sustainability throughout the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-8.
In contrast to the equity criteria, which applied an “overlay” evaluation to measure benefits relative to need and existing conditions, sustainability criteria were designed to measure how well projects integrate benefits across goal areas to advance positive systems change and innovate to protect and enhance community well-being. Although the distinction between equity and sustainability led to different evaluation approaches, the sustainability criteria were also summarized into one average sustainability score per project or program (on a scale of 0-3, or N/A),
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 172 of 305
6-15 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan which contributed to the sum of the total project score. Therefore, a project or program’s average equity and sustainability score contributed equally to the project’s total score.
Table 6-8. Sustainability (SA) Benefit Metrics
Metric Number Metric Name Description
SA1 Reduces Reliance on Polluting and
Energy-Intensive Modes of Travel
and Goods Movement
Supports health outcomes
associated with clean air by
reducing consumption of
fossil fuels in mobility through
projects or programs that
support electrification, cleaner
fuels, or travel behavior that
reduces per capita VMT
SA2 Promotes Physical Activity
and Health through Active
Transportation and Recreation
Supports physical and mental
health outcomes associated
with activity by providing
or enhancing access to
infrastructure or services that
promotes physical activity
SA3 Improves Climate Resilience through
Mitigation of Flooding and Extreme
Heat Impacts
Supports improved health
outcomes associated with
reducing exposure to hazards;
improves community and
infrastructure resilience
by mitigating the risks and
impacts of flooding or extreme
heat
SA4 Supports Job Creation in and
Workforce Transitions to Green
Technology and Infrastructure
Sectors
Provides workforce
development opportunities and
job training in green sectors
or supports the transition to
green jobs
SA5 Improves Cargo Efficiencies
to Minimize Trip Volumes and
Emissions from Goods Movement
Activity
Improves cargo efficiencies
to minimize trip volumes
and emissions from goods
movement activity
Note:
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
6.1.1.9 Concerns
Sixteen Concern criteria were identified through consultation with the CLC and Task Force and a thorough review of each Benefit criterion to ensure that any associated potential adverse impacts were captured with the Concern criteria. For example, if a project could get credit for adding new green space, there may also be potential disbenefits if it removes green space. The full Concerns rubric document, including the process for identifying new Concern criteria, is included in Appendix 6-A.
Concern scores contributed to the adjustment of overall Benefit score, assignment of equity flags, and prioritization. For instance, Outcome Concerns, which are less easy to mitigate during the project’s development, were used to adjust the project’s evaluation results during the project tiering process described below. The implication of Concern scores varied depending on the type of Concern and other project-specific factors, such as the share of project area within EFCs. Concerns were classified into three categories based on the type of impact and how much the potential impact depended on project design: Outcome Concerns, Design Concerns, and Construction Concerns. The 16 total Concern criteria included eight Outcome Concerns, seven Design Concerns, and one Construction Concern.
Outcome Concerns refer to unintended impacts that are typically experienced on a system-wide or regional scale rather than confined to the project area. These are difficult to avoid through project planning and design.
Design Concerns refer to direct physical impacts to the project area that can typically be avoided or minimized through project design.
Construction Concerns refer to temporary disruptions to the project area related to project construction activities.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 173 of 305
6-16 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Table 6-9. Outcome, Design, and Construction Concerns (Con) 73 This would occur through induced demand for car trips.
Concern
Number Concern Name Description
Outcome Concerns
Con3 Potential for Increased Commute Times Evaluates potential for increased commute times Con4 Potential for Traffic Diversion Evaluates potential for traffic diversion/emission shifting Con5 Potential to Increase Localized Emissions/
Emissions Shifting
Evaluates increases in localized DPM and PM2.5 emissions from on-road vehicles that may be related to Health Concerns
Con7 Potential for Concentrated Congestion Impacts Evaluates potential for concentrated congestion impacts Con9 Potential for VMT Increases Evaluates whether a project or program has the potential to increase VMT73 Con10 Potential to Increase User Costs Evaluates whether a project or program has the potential to increase user costs, either directly or indirectly Con12 Potential to Increase Economic Displacement Captures potential for increased vulnerability to economic (as opposed to physical) displacement of residents or businesses as an adverse effect of infrastructure investment, which may result in new development interest, increasing land prices, property values, and ultimately housing/business costs Con14 Potential for Reduced Transit Ridership Evaluates whether a project or program has the potential to decrease transit ridership Design Concerns
Con1 Potential for Displacements Captures the potential displacements of residences or businesses caused by the construction of a project Con2 Potential for Physical Impacts (ROW) Captures the potential physical impacts to adjacent ROW caused by the construction of a project Con6 Potential for Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Impact Captures the potential of the project/program to introduce new safety hazards or modal conflicts for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other active transportation users
Con11 Potential to Increase Impervious Cover Captures the potential negative impacts related to the addition of impervious surfaces that could increase stormwater runoff, environmental heat gain, or worsen water quality—all of which have negative impacts on ecosystems and human health
Con13 Potential to Increase Noise Pollution Evaluates whether a project or program has the potential to increase noise pollution Con15 Potential for New Barriers/Decreased Access Evaluates whether a project or program has the potential to decrease access through the addition of a new physical barrier
Con16 Potential for Increased Stormwater Runoff and/or
Increased Flood Risk
Captures the potential negative impacts related to the addition of infrastructure that does not include specific features that address stormwater runoff or flood management (the risk of flooding is increased when water cannot soak into the ground and instead runs off of impervious surfaces; when rain is heavy, this can lead to flooding, erosion and damage to surrounding infrastructure; these risks increase with weather changes associated with global warming) Construction Concern
Con8 Potential Construction Impacts Captures the potential for construction impacts to communities and travelers caused by the construction of a project Notes:
DPM = diesel particulate matter
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ROW = right-of-way
VMT = vehicle mile traveled
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 174 of 305
6-17 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6.1.1.10 Health Considerations in Evaluation
The project team, with input from the Task Force, CLC, and Corridor communities, identified public health as a priority consideration and outcome in developing the Investment Plan for the LB-ELA Corridor. Several communities in the project area have historically faced significant health disparities (such as high asthma and cardiovascular disease rates) and experienced disproportionate pollution burdens (such as PM2.5 and Diesel PM emissions) compared with other communities in Los Angeles County.
These health impacts were documented through health and environmental justice screening tools such as CalEnviroScreen, CA Healthy Places Index, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Environmental Justice Index Explorer, and several studies related to vehicular pollution and health outcomes surrounding the I-710 freeway and throughout the region.74 ,75,76,77
In addition to the high overall health burdens facing the LB-ELA Corridor communities relative to the county and state as a whole, health burdens within the Corridor disproportionately impact people of color and lowincome populations.
In developing the evaluation criteria, the project team carefully considered the most effective way to evaluate Project Outcomes that would support the Task Force’s desired Community Results as identified in the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. A Project Outcome is “a clearly defined future state of being at the program, local, or agency level resulting from the proposed action that ultimately supports the community result.” A Community Result, as defined in the project team’s Pilot Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool (EPET), is “the community level condition of well-being we would like to achieve. It lacks disparities based on race, income, ability, or other social demographic.”
74 The Gateway Cities Air Quality Action Plan I-710 CORRIDOR PROJECT HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT. https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HIA-I710-Air-Quality-Plan.pdf 75 Community Health in the I-710 Corridor, https://la.myneighborhooddata.org/2019/09/community-health-in-the-710-corridor/ 76 Race, Class, and the Production of and Exposure to Vehicular Pollution in Los Angeles, https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/psr-20-19_boeing_final-report_v2.pdf 77 Improving Environmental Justice and Mobility in Southeast Los Angeles Executive Summary, https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/psr-18-sp91_giuliano_final-report.pdf The evaluation criteria were primarily categorized under the Task Force’s adopted Goals and Guiding Principles. However, to consider health more comprehensively in the evaluation process, several criteria related to each Goal were also presented to the Task Force, CLC, Equity Working Group, and Corridor communities through a framework of Social Determinants of Health to demonstrate how the Investment Plan may support the improvement of health equity in the corridor. As illustrated in Table 6-5, this approach related 27 criteria to one or more health-related project outcomes (“Project Health Outcomes”), which can contribute to various health-related community results in the long-term, as discussed in literature from the CDC, U.S. Department of Transportation, and South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Project Health Outcomes are listed in Figure 6-3 with example community results.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 175 of 305
6-18 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 6-3. Project Health Outcomes and Example Community Results
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 176 of 305
6-19 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 177 of 305
6-20 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6.2 Prioritization
78 California Environmental Quality Act: https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/ and National Environmental Policy Act: https://www.epa.gov/nepa The evaluation process resulted in the ranking of projects within each travel mode: Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets, Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements, Goods Movement, and Transit. The rankings were based on the total summary scores across each Benefit criteria and adjusted for the number of Outcome Concerns (Appendix 6-C).
These rankings did not automatically represent funding recommendations but rather the first step in identifying which projects were most in alignment with the LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. Appendix 6-B displays the list of projects and programs by ranking, mode, and evaluation results. The evaluation results were only one part of the prioritization process. The ranked project scores were combined with a project readiness assessment in the Tiering analysis and an implementation assessment described in the following sections to provide the project team with important information in developing recommendations for the Investment Plan.
6.2.1 Tiering
Tiering describes the project team’s process of grouping projects and programs into two categories based on their evaluation results (Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles alignment) and readiness for future implementation (readiness category, described below). The LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles supported the evaluation process described earlier in this chapter; this resulted in each project being categorized, with its mode type, as Tier 1 (higher alignment) or Tier 2 (lower alignment) as an outcome of their evaluation results. Tier 1 projects generally scored well across many evaluation criteria; Tier 2 projects generally received lower scores across the evaluation criteria, or only scored well for a limited number of Goals or Guiding Principles. Projects were categorized into tiers based on their percentile rank within their respective mode, meaning projects with different modes were not compared across modes for placement in Tier 1. Different thresholds were established for each mode based on the number of projects within the mode and the natural breaks in the scoring results (Appendix 6-C).
Projects were also organized into readiness categories of “Implementation,” “Pre-Implementation,” or “Development” to identify the right pathway for each project and program. For instance, some projects were conceptual and would need feasibility studies to refine the best solutions, while other projects, such as freeway improvements, would require the time and resources for developing scope, design and environmental clearance (subject to CEQA/NEPA).78 Thus, the “Implementation” category indicated projects or programs that were ready for construction or launch of the program, and likely eligible to compete for discretionary grant funding in the next few years. The “Pre-Implementation” category indicated well-defined projects or programs that required funding and support for pre-construction activities such as planning, design, community engagement, and environmental review. The “Development” category indicated project or program concepts that required substantial work to define scope, agency roles, and agency responsibilities and may require technical assistance to define them better through the Investment Plan's START-UP (Strategic Technical Assistance for Reparative Transportation Uplifting People) Fund.
The assignment of projects into tiers and readiness categories helped determine suitability for Investment Plan prioritization as an investment priority for the Metro Board. The Tier 1-Implementation and Tier 1-PreImplementation categories included projects and planning efforts that will be competitive for near-term or mid-term discretionary grant opportunities.
Tier 1-Development projects may receive project development funding to support seeking future discretionary grant opportunities and implementation. Tier 2-Implementation projects had two possible pathways for selection: to provide complementary benefits as part of a package with other Tier 1 or Tier 2 projects; or to be eligible and competitive for a specific, available grant opportunity tailored to such a project.
Tier 2-Development projects would not be considered for investment at that time but could be reconsidered as part of the Modal Program development process in future years.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 178 of 305
6-21 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Once the proposed project tiering was determined, findings were presented for feedback from Task Force, CLC, Metro Board, and other stakeholders in November 2023. Based on feedback received and further analysis, a revised set of tiered results was released in January 2024 displayed in Appendix 6-C. Figure 6-4 displays this process graphically.
6.2.1.1 Implementation Assessment
In addition to project alignment and readiness, the project list was further refined against several strategic implementation factors to determine whether the projects should be considered for initial funding or assigned to a Modal Program for future funding consideration. These factors helped the project team and the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force to prioritize projects and make final recommendations for funding.
The additional prioritization factors included:
Identified Roles and Responsibilities: Metro was not considered the lead agency for implementing many of the projects under consideration, particularly those on local roads. For a project to be prioritized for Metro funding and to successfully secure discretionary funds, the roles and responsibilities for implementing the project must be understood and agreed upon. For projects under consideration, Metro is expected to play one or more of the following roles: Lead, Partner, Fund, Support, or Collaborate (Appendix 6-C).
Discretionary Grant Strategy: This factor examined how well candidate projects and programs aligned with and competed for funding from regional, state, federal, and other discretionary grant programs to leverage Figure 6-4. Funding Pathways for Tiered Projects and Programs Implementation
Construction,
pilot studies, and
program launch
Pre-Implementation
Mode
Active Transportation / TDM
Arterial Roadways /
Complete Streets
Freeway Safety &
Interchange Improvements
Good Movement
Transit
Development
Support further development
of projects concepts and
technical assistance
Tier 1
More Ready
Higher Evaluation Score Lower Evaluation Scoring
Packaged Projects
Less Ready
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 1
Planning, design, and
environmental phases
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 179 of 305
6-22 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan local funding. Chapter 7 (funding) describes the methodology used to review the alignment between candidate Investment Plan projects and prospective grant opportunities.
Project Cost/Local Match Required: Combined with the discretionary grant strategy assessment, the review also considered project cost and how much local match would be needed to deliver the project, considering the amount of funding available—and when it would be available—to serve as a local match. This factor was important to ensure that the recommendations included a full program of projects, considering limitations on Measure R and M funding available (Chapter 7) and potential project costs for larger, more complex projects.
Political/Institutional/Jurisdictional Support: The review considered any existing or expected legitimate concerns to be raised by relevant institutions or political jurisdictions that could undermine the project’s potential for implementation.
Equity Considerations: The projects for initial funding align with the Investment Plan’s Guiding Principle of Equity, deliver benefits to EFCs and under-resourced jurisdictions, and consider equity-based concerns in the design, construction, and outcomes phases of Investment Plan implementation. This factor assessed the equitable geographic distribution of funds, considered opportunities to provide technical assistance (START-UP Fund) to jurisdictions with fewer shovel-ready projects, and identified a path forward for concerns to be addressed after approval of the Investment Plan.
Practical Feasibility/Constructability: Projects and programs were assessed for any potential limitations to their construction or implementation.
Design Concerns: Projects that were more ready for implementation and had a high number of Design Concerns were scrutinized more carefully before finalizing recommendations.
These prioritization factors were presented to the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force and CLC for review and input. The project team used these factors, the evaluation scores, the tiering analysis, and the flags discussed below to develop a set of projects to receive Initial Investment under this Investment Plan.
6.2.2 Flags
“Flags” are additional outputs of the evaluation and community engagement process and serve as supplementary considerations for prioritization and future project development and implementation processes. Appendix 6-C displays the full list of Community Input Consideration (CIC) and Equity Flags by project or program.
6.2.2.1 Equity Flags
Equity flags were derived from the Concerns evaluation, highlighting projects that had the potential to negatively impact equity focus communities (EFCs) and that required specific, additional guidance to minimize those impacts. An equity flag was raised when a project was located or partially located in EFC areas (at least 1/3 or 33% of project area) and had at least one total Concern (see Appendix 6-C). Projects were assigned Low, Moderate, and High Flags based on their total number of Concerns. For Metro-led projects, flags specify strategies to address the Concerns and minimize impacts. For some projects led by other agencies or jurisdictions, equity flags informed specific requirements for project sponsors to address Concerns as part of funding eligibility. Moderate and High Equity flags were also applied as a factor in prioritization. All projects recommended for initial funding do not have a high equity flag.
In Modal Programs and future project development, flags may be used to prioritize investments or ensure potential disbenefits are addressed during project planning.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 180 of 305
6-23 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6.2.2.2 Community Input Consideration Flags
Community Input Consideration (CIC) flags captured community input that would not be reflected in the technical project evaluation results. CIC flags included project-specific Implementation Concerns, recommendations for improvement of project concept or design, and indications of general community support. CIC flags were synthesized from meeting notes and discussions with the Task Force, CLC, and other community members and stakeholders. However, it is important to note that a detailed public engagement campaign was not carried out for each project. The CIC flags should not be considered an exhaustive list of potential community concerns, and additional outreach is recommended as projects move toward implementation.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization
..
Item 20 Page 181 of 305
7-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
7. Funding Strategy
The success of the Long Beach – East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan) in implementing projects and programs that advance the Task Force’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles relies upon leveraging limited local sales tax dollars allocated to the Corridor through Measure R and Measure M with a robust level of regional, state, and federal funding. This chapter describes the processes, information, and constraints to developing the overarching funding strategy for the Investment Plan Programs, Community Programs Catalyst Fund and START-UP Fund Program and projects identified for the Initial Investment of Measure R/M funding in the LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan.
The funding strategy presents the considerations and criteria used to allocate available Measure R/M funds to these programs and projects over the next decade and beyond, including an assessment of how these funds can be leveraged to maximize access to regional, state, and federal discretionary dollars. An overview of relevant regional, state, and federal discretionary funding programs, their sought-after project outcomes, and their eligibility requirements is provided. A full listing of the Investment Plan projects and the funding programs for which they are potentially eligible is included in Appendix 7-A.
7.1 Approach
Developing a funding strategy is a multi-step process that required a targeted approach. The following stages of analysis have helped develop the funding strategy:
LB-ELA Corridor project and program evaluation: This analysis involves developing a holistic understanding of candidate projects and their attributes to determine their suitability for Measure R/M funding and eligibility for discretionary grant opportunities.
Identification of projects and programs for use of Measure R/M funding (ongoing): Based on the analysis conducted, subsets of Modal Programs and projects were identified as suitable candidates for receipt of Measure R/M funds. These funds may be used as preliminary seed funding to progress phases of project development or, for projects at a more advanced level of project readiness, may be used as a local match to meet the requirements for regional/state/federal implementation and construction funding programs.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 182 of 305
7-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Assessment of regional, state, and federal funding programs, including eligibility and match requirements (ongoing): This analysis element includes identifying and evaluating suitable regional, state, and federal discretionary programs across various modes of transportation and community programs. The attributes and sought-after outcomes of these relevant funding programs were matched with the attributes and forecast impacts and benefits of the Investment Plan.
Continued development of project readiness, positioning, and partnership opportunities (ongoing and planned): Throughout the process, non-construction development activities and other actions will be undertaken to progress and position projects to improve their competitiveness and to provide a greater chance for successfully accessing discretionary funding—including conducting design, initiating technical studies, and establishing partnership opportunities.
An overview of the funding strategy development process is shown in Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1. Funding Strategy Development
Measure R/M Strategy
Discretionary Funding Strategy
Projects &
Programs
prioritization
Funding Program
eligibility
assessment
Evaluation of
Projects and
Programs
Projects &
Programs
recommended for
Metro funding
Assessment of
leveraging need
(match/cost sharing)
Funding Strategy
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 183 of 305
7-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
7.2 Measure R and Measure M
79 LA Metro Board Report: https://boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2023-0044/ 80 Please refer to the Investment Plan fact sheet for further details on this program. Project ID: LB-ELA_0004 Los Angeles County voters have approved four separate, non-sunsetting transportation sales tax initiatives since 1980 that assess a combined twopercent county sales tax to be dedicated to various transportation uses, from the construction, operation, and maintenance of bus and rail transit systems to the implementation of local roadway and multimodal programs and projects. Each sales tax will generate approximately $1.2 billion in revenues for LA County transportation uses in fiscal year (FY) 2024.79 The first two sales tax initiatives, Proposition A (1980) and Proposition C (1990), created general categories of projects, recipients, and uses to which revenues were programmed. In addition to identifying funding commitments to various categories of uses, Measure R (2008) and Measure M (2016) also included an expenditure plan that outlined exactly how much and in what year funding would go to vital projects across modes, purposes, and regions of LA County. Thanks to this specificity on how these initiatives would expend taxpayer dollars, voters overwhelmingly approved Measure R (67%) and Measure M (71%), surpassing the required two-thirds vote threshold for new sales taxes.
The Measure R and M expenditure plans each identified the Interstate 710 (I-710) South Corridor (now the LB-ELA Corridor) as a priority for investment, allocating $590 million and $500 million, respectively, to the Corridor. Of the $1.09 billion total allocated to the Corridor, $743 million remains and is available to be programmed through the Investment Plan, as follows:
• $243 million of remaining Measure R I-710 South highway funds are available for Investment Plan projects, including $50 million programmed by the Metro Board to be used as seed funding for the $200 million LB-ELA Corridor Zero Emission Truck program.80 - The Measure R expenditure plan makes these funds available immediately to implement projects in the Corridor. The
Investment Plan recommends using these funds to invest
in eligible projects and Modal Programs demonstrating
high project readiness, aligning highly with the LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, and needing implementation funding before FY 2026.
• $500 million of Measure M funds will become available for implementation purposes in FY 2026 ($250 million) and FY 2032 ($250 million). These funds are available earlier than the fiscal year stated in the expenditure plans for planning, development, and preimplementation purposes.
The Investment Plan recommends using these funds to provide nearterm investment in pre-implementation activities to support the future implementation of longer-term prioritized projects and to help fund the Investment Plan’s Modal Programs and future implementation commitments.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 184 of 305
7-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Table 7-1. Estimated Project Costs and Recommended Programming of Measure R/M Funds Mode
A. Estimated
Investment Leveraging
Measure R/M Funding
($m)
B. Measure R/M Funding Recommendation ($m)
Estimated Grant
Funding Required ($m)
(A – B.3)
B.1. Projects for Initial
Funding B.2. Modal Programs B.3. Total (B.1 + B.2)
Active Transportation/TDM $195 $44 $56 $100 $95
Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets $1767 $116 $72 $188 $1,579 Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements $894 $171 $39 $210 $610 Goods Movement $332 $62 $18 $80 $252
Transit $478 $57 $68 $125 $353
Community Programs $340 $40 $0 $40 $300
Total $4,005 $490 $253 $743 $3,262
Notes:
Rounding may affect totals.
TDM = travel demand management
LA County voters expect Metro to leverage local sales tax funding with regional, state, and federal funding to increase possible investment in vital transportation projects and programs. Table 7-1 demonstrates that the total amount of available Measure R/M funding would only be sufficient to address a modest number of the most highly ranked Investment Plan projects. Metro and its partners will need to apply for other sources of external funding (regional/state/federal funding programs); in many cases, Measure R and/or Measure M funds will be leveraged to meet the various minimum local match requirements required by those funding programs.
The following section outlines the discretionary funding programs identified and evaluated for suitability and applicability to the Investment Plan’s Initial Investment projects and Programs. Taking these into account, along with the availability of Measure R/M funding, Chapter 6 discusses the evaluation and prioritization of Investment Plan projects and the regional/state/federal funding opportunities identified as suitable for those specific projects.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 185 of 305
7-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
7.3 Suitable Discretionary Grant Programs
A variety of regional, state, and federal grant programs may be suitable and applicable for the various projects and programs encompassed within the Investment Plan. With the signing of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law in 2022, an unprecedented number of funding programs and discretionary dollars are available to fund transportation projects. IIJA enables approximately 380 formulaic and discretionary funding programs across all infrastructure types, with approximately 120 of these programs addressing surface transportation projects and programs. IRA will provide hundreds of billions of additional federal dollars for infrastructure development, with its programs largely targeting sustainability outcomes. These new federal programs complement ongoing state discretionary grant programs funded through Senate Bill 1 in 2017, established programs like the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program, and programs dedicated to reducing air pollution and advancing zero-emission technologies at the state and regional levels. As new funding programs emerge or existing funding programs change, expand, or conclude, the Investment Plan will adapt to these changing conditions and identify new approaches to funding priority projects and programs.
Although the breadth of available funding programs represents a significant opportunity for transportation agencies, the augmented number of funding programs and levels of available discretionary dollars can also potentially be daunting if the funding strategy is not clear and targeted. Applying to every possible program for every Investment Plan priority project will not yield an effective outcome. To ensure a focused approach, the project team first conducted a high-level program-wide assessment for the Investment Plan followed by project-level assessments to determine each project’s suitability for accessing the various funding programs. This analysis aimed to identify discretionary funding programs that could be accessed over the short-to-medium term to leverage available local measure funds. For this assessment, formulaic funding programs were not considered because the inclusion of projects and programs in the State Transportation Improvement Program and other state transportation programs largely determines the use of these funds.
7.3.1 Funding Program Eligibility Assessment
The assessment of funding programs and their suitability for Investment Plan Modal Programs and Initial Investment projects were evaluated using a “crosswalk” analysis. In the crosswalk analysis, the full suite of available federal and state funding programs was evaluated against Investment Plan programs and projects, with suitability determined based on the following factors: • Alignment of likely candidate program and project outcomes (safety improvements, travel efficiencies, improvements to sustainability and equity) with merit criteria and/or stated objectives of the specific funding programs;
• Attributes of candidate programs and projects and alignment with the typologies of infrastructure (e.g., freeways, active transportation, ports, transit, and complete streets) that specific funding programs target;
• Program and project cost estimates evaluated against forecast discretionary funding pools, maximum grant award amounts, and typical award sizes noted by the funding program;
• Availability of local (or nonfederal, nonstate) funding that can be leveraged and minimum match (cost sharing) requirements for the relevant funding programs; and
• General project readiness and status of planning and development of candidate projects.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 186 of 305
7-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
7.3.2 Federal Discretionary Funding Programs
Table 7-2. Federal Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects provides a summary of federal discretionary grant programs that were identified for Investment Plan projects and programs. Further details on these programs are provided in Appendix 7-B.
Table 7-2. Federal Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects Issuing Agency Grant Program Abbreviation
FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities BRIC FHWA Bridge Investment Program BIP
FRA Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements Program
CRISI
FRA Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program RCE
FTA Transit-Oriented Development Planning Grants TOD
FTA Capital Investment Grants Program (Small Starts) CIG MARAD Port Infrastructure Development Program PIDP
USDOT Rebuilding American Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity
RAISE
USDOT Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods RCN
USDOT Safe Streets and Roads for All SS4A
USDOT Infrastructure for Rebuilding America INFRA
USDOT Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing
Transportation
SMART
USDOT Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities RTEPF USDOT Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program CFI Notes:
7.3.3 State Discretionary Funding Programs
Table 7-3. State Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects provides a summary of state discretionary grant programs that were identified for Investment Plan projects and programs. As shown in Appendix 7-B, the funding pools and typical grant award sizes associated with these programs are generally lower than most federal discretionary programs. However, given a smaller pool of applicants, many of these state programs may generally offer a higher probability of award.
Table 7-3. State Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects Issuing Agency Grant Program Abbreviation
CalSTA Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program TIRCP Caltrans Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program LCTOP
CARB Community Air Protection Program (AB617) AB617
CNRA Urban Greening Grant Program UGG
CSGC Transformative Climate Communities TCC
CSGC Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
Program
AHSC
CTC SB-1 – Solutions for Congested Corridors Program SCCP CTC State Active Transportation Program State ATP
CTC SB-1 – Local Partnership Program – Competitive LPP-C CTC SB-1 – Trade Corridor Enhancement Program TCEP
Notes:
FEMA = Federal Emergency Management
Agency
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
FRA = Federal Railroad Administration
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
MARAD = Maritime Administration
USDOT = United States Department of
Transportation
AB = Assembly Bill
CalSTA = California State Transportation
Agency
Caltrans = California Department of
Transportation
CARB = California Air Resources Board
CNRA = California Natural Resources
Agency
CSGC = California Strategic Growth Council
CTC = California Transportation
Commission
SB = Senate Bill
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 187 of 305
7-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
7.3.4 Regional Discretionary Funding Programs
Table 7-4. Regional Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects provides a summary of regional discretionary grant programs that were identified for Investment Plan projects and programs.
These regional funding opportunities typically have a more focused objective and smaller funding pools. However, the projects and programs in the Investment Plan will likely be strong candidates given their expected impact on local communities and stakeholders and alignment with the regional programs’ sought-after outcomes. The list of potential regional and local discretionary grant programs will continue to be reviewed and augmented following discussions with local partners.
Table 7-4. Regional Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects Issuing Agency Grant Program Abbreviation
AQMD Community Air Protection Program (Incentives) CAPP AQMD Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust VEMT
MSRC Clean Transportation Funding CTF
MSRC Transformative Transportation Strategies and Mobility Solutions Program
TTSMS
Note:
AQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
MSRC = Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee
7.3.5 Local Match Requirements
An important aspect to consider when seeking access to federal and state discretionary programs is that most have local cost share requirements.
Also known as the local match, this cost share represents the minimum contribution of nonfederal or nonstate funding an applicant must commit toward delivering a candidate project if it were to be awarded federal or state funding. Most funding programs require a local match of at least 20%, though this minimum threshold can vary from program to program— and may differ within a program, depending on whether the applicant is seeking funding for planning or construction activities. Additionally, the location of a candidate project can factor into local match requirements, with the minimum threshold lowered, or even waived, for projects in state and federally designated areas of economic, social, and/or environmental disadvantage. Suitable funding programs which address community program projects will be added to the Investment Plan following development by each community program’s working group.
Table 7-5. Local Match Requirements by Funding Program provides the range of local match requirements for the funding programs outlined above.
Suitable funding programs which address community program projects will be added to the Investment Plan following development by each community program’s working group.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 188 of 305
7-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Table 7-5. Local Match Requirements by Funding Program
Federal/State Grant Program Abbr. Minimum Match Requirement Federal Bridge Investment Program BIP Planning: 10%
Construction: 20%/50% (<$100 million/>$100 million Categories) Federal Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities BRIC 25% Federal Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program CFI 20% Federal Capital Investment Grants Program (Small Starts) CIG 20% Federal Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program CRISI 20% Federal Infrastructure for Rebuilding America INFRA 40% Federal Port Infrastructure Development Program PIDP 20% Federal Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity RAISE 20% (Urban Areas), 0% (Rural, HDC, or APP) Federal Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program RCE 20% Federal Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods RCN 20% (RCP Planning and NAE Capital/Planning), 50% (RCP Capital) Federal Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities RTEPF 20% Federal Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation SMART No match requirement for planning grants 20% for capital projects Federal Safe Streets and Roads for All SS4A 20%
Federal Transit-Oriented Development Planning Grants TOD 20% State Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program AHSC 10% State State Active Transportation Program State ATP No match required State Low-Carbon Transit Operations Program LCTOP No match required State Local Partnership Program-Competitive LPP-C 50%
State SB-1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program SCCP No match required State Transformative Climate Communities TCC 50%
State SB-1 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program TCEP No match required if nominated by Caltrans. 30% local match required if nominated by regions.
State Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program TIRCP No minimum match requirement, but funding leverage is desirable and will be considered in the evaluation
State Urban Greening Grant Program UGG No match required Regional Transformative Transportation Strategies and Mobility Solutions Program
TTSMS No match required
Notes:
APP = Areas of Persistent Poverty
Caltrans = California Department of Transportation
HDC = Historically Disadvantaged Communities
NAE = Neighborhood Access and Equity
RCP = Reconnecting Communities Pilot
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 189 of 305
7-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
7.4 Summary and Considerations
The estimated funding needed for Investment Plan projects and programs recommended for funding is shown in Table 7-6 and is estimated to exceed $3 billion. Metro and partners will need to leverage available and forecast Measure R/M funding to develop and deliver the Investment Plan Programs and projects. These funds must be used judiciously as seed money for project development and local cost share to leverage the maximum funding from suitable regional, state, and federal discretionary programs.
The project team must consider a wide range of additional funding sources to address the significant gaps between Measure R/M funding and the capital levels required to deliver the prioritized Investment Plan projects and Modal Programs. This chapter has highlighted a range of federal, state, and regional grant opportunities that align with the array of different Investment Plan projects and Modal Programs, building off a detailed crosswalk analysis (Appendix 7-A) and an assessment of the key attributes for funding programs that should be considered (Appendix 7-B).
Table 7-6. Funding Need and Discretionary Grant Programs to Target Mode
A. Estimated Investment
Leveraged from
Measure R/M ($m)
B. Measure R/M Funding Recommendation ($m) Estimated Grant Funding Required ($m)
(A – B.3)
Examples of Suitable
Funding Programs
B.1. Projects for Initial
Funding B.2. Modal Program B.3. Total (B.1 + B.2)
Active Transportation/
TDM
$195 $44 $56 $100 $95 RCN, SS4A, ATP, TCC,
UGG, SCCP
Arterial Roadways/
Complete Streets
$1767 $116 $72 $188 $1,579 RAISE, SS4A, ATP, BIP,
SCCP, TCEP, SMART
Freeway Safety
and Interchange
Improvements
$894 $171 $39 $210 $610 RAISE, SMART, BIP,
INFRA, RCN, SCCP,
TCEP, CFI
Goods Movement $332 $62 $18 $80 $252 TCEP, PIDP, RAISE, INFRA
Transit $478 $57 $68 $125 $353 RAISE, SCCP, TIRCP,
CRISI, RCE, TOD
Community Programs $340 $40 $0 $40 $300 UGG, AHSC, AB617, CAPP
Total $4,005 $490 $253 $743 $3,262
Notes:
TDM = travel demand management
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 190 of 305
7-10 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
7.4.1 Implementation and Considerations
This chapter has set out a framework for how the funding strategy for the Investment Plan has been developed and will continue to evolve. The following chapter (Chapter 8) applies this framework to evaluating the Initial Investment recommendations for projects to receive Measure R/M funding and evaluates which federal/state/regional grant opportunities should be targeted to address the remaining funding gaps for those prioritized projects.
Going forward, the funding strategy will continue to be refined as Investment Plan Modal Programs and projects develop and evolve and new discretionary funding opportunities emerge. It should, therefore, be considered a “living document” subject to updating and adaptation in line with changing opportunities and challenges during the investment plan’s multi-decade timeframe. Throughout this time horizon, the development of Modal Programs and projects should incorporate the following positioning themes, which can contribute to the strategy’s successful implementation:
Right-sizing and packaging of projects: This could involve bundling projects where synergies or minimum project sizes apply or splitting larger programs into individual projects, phases, or groups of projects to access specific funding programs more easily and address maximum grant award limits.
Positioning projects: This entails framing candidate projects to show multifaceted and, where possible, direct alignment with the desired outcomes and objectives of the targeted discretionary funding program(s).
Interim actions to progress project readiness: Project readiness is often a major consideration for discretionary programs, with federal and state agencies seeking to invest in projects that can be delivered over a near-term time horizon (e.g., present-day to five years). Accordingly, to increase the competitiveness of a candidate project, it is important to continue to progress pre-construction development activities including, but not limited to, design and planning (for capital projects), cost estimation, environmental regulatory analysis (CEQA/NEPA), technical studies (safety, traffic, and goods movement) and/or economic modeling (impacts, job creation, and benefits).
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
..
Item 20 Page 191 of 305
8-1
8. Recommendations
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) initiated the development of the Long Beach-East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan) following the Metro Board’s decision to suspend the prior I-710 South Corridor project that threatened to displace residents and local businesses, increase air pollution, exacerbate public health concerns, and create more environmental impacts for some of LA County’s most vulnerable communities adjacent to the freeway. In its place, the Metro Board directed its CEO to develop a new, consensus-based process to engage impacted residents, communities, and stakeholders in developing a comprehensive, multi-modal, community-responsive, and regionally significant transportation Investment Plan. This Investment Plan stands in marked contrast to its predecessor and signals a point of inflection for Metro in how it engages communities and stakeholders in developing a comprehensive approach to investment in freeway corridors through robust, ongoing, and consequential community engagement.
To achieve the Metro Board’s vision, staff created the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force and the Community Leadership Committee (CLC) to give impacted residents and communities a meaningful voice in developing the Investment Plan’s values, processes, and recommendations.
The Task Force is the main advisory body for Metro, comprising representatives of Corridor communities, institutions, governmental agencies, and industries that are impacted by or dependent upon the movement of people and goods in the Corridor (as described in Chapter 2).
The CLC allowed Metro to convene a diverse and committed group of community representatives who live along the LB-ELA Corridor to advise the Task Force throughout the Investment Plan process (see Chapter 2).
The Task Force and CLC provided an opportunity for direct engagement to impacted communities that felt excluded or unheard during the prior I-710 South Corridor project process. As a result, the Investment Plan reflects a dedicated focus on addressing the myriad issues facing residents impacted by I-710, including poor air quality; high levels of pollution; significant health and environmental impacts; heavy traffic congestion; poor traffic safety for automobiles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians; a lack of multi-modal transportation infrastructure; low levels of economic opportunity for residents; and high levels of poverty (see Chapter 3).
The Task Force and CLC met separately and jointly to review and advise on Investment Plan goals, proposals, and recommendations throughout the process. Members from both groups Photo courtesy of Caltrans District 7
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 192 of 305
8-2
also participated in working groups, helped ground truth data, and shared upcoming outreach and engagement efforts with their communities.
Over the 30-month Task Force process, the Task Force and CLC members worked together to re-evaluate the many needs and goals for investment in the Corridor, develop multi-modal strategies to meet these needs and identify potential projects and programs in the short and long-term based on those strategies. The stakeholders’ lived experience in the Corridor and desire to improve regional mobility, safety, and air quality while fostering economic vitality, social equity, environmental sustainability, and access to opportunity played an integral role in creating this multi-modal, community-focused, and regionally significant Investment Plan.
As a strategic planning document, the Investment Plan establishes an overarching vision for identifying and securing investment in projects and programs that align with and support the Corridor’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles over the next 20 years. Although the primary focus of the Task Force and CLC was the identification of projects and programs for Metro to invest and leverage Measure R and M funding dedicated to the Corridor, the comprehensive goal of the Investment Plan is also to attract regional, state, and federal investment to implement other projects and programs that also advance the Corridor’s values. The Investment Plan’s overall need for investment consists of projects that are fully or partially funded through external grant funding, those that will receive other Metro funding, and projects that will receive Corridor Measure R/M investment as identified in this Investment Plan. The topline amount of investment the LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan seeks to secure is more than $20 billion, which includes the Measure R/M commitments, anticipated leveraging from the measure funding, as well as other external grant sources. This amount will likely increase as new projects and programs are identified, prioritized, and incorporated into the Investment Plan.
8.1 Projects with Outside Funding
Through collaboration with its LB-ELA Corridor stakeholders, Metro has supported and helped deliver investment in a series of multimodal transportation projects since initiating the Task Force in September 2021, from local bicycle lanes to major port infrastructure projects. On July 6, 2023, the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) awarded $643.5 million to implement port projects and freight rail projects valued at over $3 billion through its one-time Port and Freight Infrastructure Program (PFIP)81. These include initial funding for major freight rail efficiency projects that will support greater movement of cargo by rail, including the Commerce Flyover project and the Hobart/Commerce Intermodal Facility, which received a combined $27 million toward their total cost of $2.139 billion and the Port of Long Beach System-Wide Investment in Freight Transport (SWIFT) with $225 million in state funds toward the estimated cost of $593.7 million.
Additionally, the Task Force also identified a set of projects that received investment through the Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity (PIPO), which allowed Metro to seek grant funding for Corridor projects before the Investment Plan could be finalized to take advantage of available funding opportunities. In 2023, the PIPO yielded $46.6 million in grant funding to support a $76 million investment in the Corridor82. In Cycle 6 of the State Active Transportation Program83,15 projects in Corridor cities and unincorporated communities valued at $114.8 million received $92.6 million in grant funding, including one project that was included in the PIPO. In total, these recent Federal and State grant commitments total over $1.33 billion that will help deliver Corridor projects valued at over $4.9 billion as part of the Investment Plan (see Table 8-1). 81 For more information on CalSTA’s program: https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/pfip-awards-summary-narrative-7-6-23-a11y.pdf 82 To read about this investment: LPP-C funding for SELA TIP: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/local-partnership-program/competitive/2022-guidelinescompetitive/tab-18-4-6-a11y.pdf 83 For more information: MPO: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/atp/2023/2023-atp-staff-reccomendations-mpo-component-a11y.pdf and State level:
Statewide: https://catc
.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/atp/2022/2023-atp-staff-recommendations-final-a11y.pdf Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 193 of 305
8-3
84 CalSTA: https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/pfip-awards-summary-narrative-7-6-23-a11y.pdf 85 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-01/MEGA%20Fact%20Sheets%20FY%202023-2024_Final.pdf 86 USDOT - CMAQ: https://www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/federal-programs-directory-congestion-mitigation-and-air-quality-cmaq 87 https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/tcep/4192022-tcep-program-of-project-amendment-a11y.pdf 88US DOT 2023: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/2023-11/PIDP%202023%20Awards%20Fact%20Sheets_0.pdf and 2022: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/ Mode and Project Name
Committed
Amount
($M)
Estimated
Total Cost
($M) Funding Source
Goods Movement
System-Wide Investment in Freight Transport (SWIFT) - Electrification Projects $225.0 $593.7 Port Freight and Infrastructure (PFIP)84 Maritime Support Facility (MSF) Improvement and Expansion Project $149.3 $198.3 Port of Los Angeles Rail Mainline/Wilmington Community and Waterfront Pedestrian Grade Separation Bridge $42.1 $57.9 State Route 47-Seaside Avenue and Navy Way Interchange Improvement Project $41.8 $63.0 Commerce Rail Flyover $12.0 $939.0
Hobart/Commerce Intermodal Facility $15.0 $1,200.0
America’s Green Gateway: Pier B Rail Program Buildout $283.0 $1,547.0 U.S. DOT MEGA Grant85 - SWIFT - Pier B Component $158.4 PFIF
- Pier B Street Freight Corridor Reconstruction Project $26.3 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)86 - America’s Green Port Gateway: Pier B Early Rail Enhancement Project $70.4 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP)87 - America’s Green Port Gateway Phase 1: Pier B Early Rail Enhancements $52.2 US DOT Port Infrastructure Development Program88
- North Harbor Transportation System Improvement Project $52.6 Middle Harbor Terminal Zero Emission Conversion Project $30.1 $37.7 Goods Movement Work Force Training Facility $110.0 $150.0 CA State Budget Pier 300 Wharf Expansion/Vessel Emission Reduction Project $300.0 $300.0 Port of Los Angeles Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT LLC) Electrification Advancement Project (LEAP) $35.0 NA U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration Reduction of Truck
Emissions at Port Facilities grant program WattEV Inc. to purchase heavy duty electric trucks at the Port of Long Beach $9.0 NA Voltera Power to build a large-scale charging projects near the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles $1.7 NA Table 8-1. Corridor Investments Supported by Other* Funding Sources Metro is also supporting Corridor projects that will not necessarily be eligible for or receive Measure R and M funds dedicated to the Corridor.
Roughly $7.2 billion of federal, state, and Measure M transit capital funding will be needed to deliver the first segment of Southeast Gateway Light-Rail Transit (LRT) Line (formerly the West Santa Ana Branch Line). Overall, the Investment Plan supports the delivery of projects valued at more than $12 billion that will be funded through sources other than the Corridor’s Measure R/M funds described below.
Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 194 of 305
8-4
89CA CTC: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2023/2023-06/19-4-9.pdf 90 LA Metro Board Report: https://boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2020-0562/ 91 US DOT FY23: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities/reconnecting-communities-fy23-awards Mode and Project Name
Committed
Amount
($M)
Estimated
Total Cost
($M) Funding Source
Active Transportation
City of Bell Gardens Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements $3.0 $3.0 California Active Transportation Program Cycle 689
City of Carson City-wide Community Safety Improvements $3.5 $3.5 City of Carson Master Bicycle Plan $0.9 $0.9
City of Long Beach Mid-City Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections $8.8 $9.8 Huntington Park Safe Routes for Seniors and Students** $4.3 $4.8 Metro A Line Connections for Unincorporated Los Angeles County $9.9 $12.3 Randolph Street Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Project $0.2 $1.4 Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project $7.1 $7.1 Slauson Avenue Corridor and City-Wide Pedestrian, Bike, Transit Improvements $2.1 $2.1 South Downey Safe Routes to School (Project Phase 2) $1.2 $1.2 Tweedy Boulevard Active Transportation Improvements $5.3 $6.6 Southeast Gateway Light Rail Station First-Last Mile Bikeway Safety and Access Project $3.4 $3.4 Walnut Park Pedestrian Plan Implementation $2.5 $9.7
Wilmington Safe Streets: A People-First Approach $32.3 $40.8 West Paramount Utility Easement Multi-use path Phase 1 $9.7 $9.7 Randolph Street Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Project $6.7 $8.5 Metro Active Transportation Program90 Rail Mainline/Wilmington Community & Waterfront Pedestrian Grade Separation Bridge $5.0 $62.6 Reconnecting Communities & Neighborhoods (RCN FY23)91
Reconnecting North Long Beach - Hamilton Loop Project (Planning Study) $1.2 $1.5 Reconnecting East Los Angeles: 60 Green Bridge Project for Belvedere Park (Planning Study) $0.8 $1.0 Table 8-1. Corridor Investments Supported by Other* Funding Sources (continued) Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 195 of 305
8-5
92 US DOT: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-02/RCP%20Fact%20Sheets%202022.pdf 93 CA CTC: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/local-partnership-program/competitive/2022-guidelines-competitive/tab-18-4-6-a11y.pdf 94 Measure M Expenditure Plan: https://www.metro.net/about/measure-m/ 95 US DOT CIG Dashboard: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-01/Public-CIG-Dashboard-01-05-2024.pdf Mode and Project Name
Committed
Amount
($M)
Estimated
Total Cost
($M) Funding Source
Arterial Roadway/Complete Streets
I-710 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM)** $27.8 $40.2 TCEP Shoreline Drive Gateway $30.0 $60.0 Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Pilot (RCN FY22)92
Transit
Southeast LA Transit Improvement Program** $14.5 $31.1 Local Partnership Program93 Southeast Gateway Line LRT (Slauson A Line Station to Pioneer Segment)*** $1,435.0 $7,167.0 Measure M94 US DOT CIG (TBD)95 Removing Barriers and Creating Legacy - A Multimodal Approach for Los Angeles County $139.0 $162.0 RCN FY23 Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 $3,000.0 $10,169.0 Measure M, TIRCP, Measure R; to pursue RIP, SCCP and LLP (SB-1), CIG,CMAQ, MEGA. and
RAISE programs
Table 8-1. Corridor Investments Supported by Other* Funding Sources (continued) Notes:
This table is not an exhaustive list of all committed investments in the Corridor. Project costs are subject to change. * “Other” funding sources exclude the available Measure R/M funding for the Investment Plan ** Projects included in Metro’s PIPO
*** Measure M commitment is for entire LRT corridor
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 196 of 305
8-6
8.2 Projects and Programs Receiving Measure R/M Investment The Investment Plan recommends the investment of $743 million in Measure R and M funding dedicated to the LB-ELA Corridor to catalyze more than $4 billion in local, state, and federal investment in priority projects and programs consistent with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles of the LB-ELA Corridor, as adopted by the Task Force and approved by the Metro Board as official policy for the Corridor. Taken together, the total investment generated from Measures R and M funding is expected to be more than $4 billion.
These projects and programs were selected through a Task Force process that initially identified more than 200 projects and programs throughout the LB-ELA Corridor, serving a wide range of travel modes and communityidentified needs. After evaluating each project and program’s potential to advance the Task Force’s adopted Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, highly rated projects were considered in the LB-ELA Corridor context and prioritized by assessing each project and program for technical, logistical, and political feasibility. This evaluation and prioritization process resulted in a comprehensive list of Initial Investment projects and programs (see Table 8-1) recommended for Metro’s fixed Measure R/M funding for the Corridor, as identified in each Measure’s respective expenditure plan.
The Measure funding represents a small portion of the total needed to deliver these Corridor improvements; to be successful, Metro and its partners must leverage these funds with additional regional, state, and federal discretionary grant awards and other sources. These projects recommended for initial funding represent meaningful steps toward fulfilling the Investment Plan’s long-term vision for the LB-ELA Corridor.
As previewed in Chapter 6, the Investment Plan aims to use Measure R/M funds as follows96
.
• Funding for Implementation: The Investment Plan will fund projects that are (1) highly rated in achieving the Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles as defined by the Task Force and CLC and (2) are ready for near-term funding opportunities through existing and available Measure R dollars97. This category could include ready-to-go projects identified through the Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity (PIPO) process (as described in Chapter 5). • Funding for Pre-Implementation: The Investment Plan will allocate funds to advance other highly rated, but less-ready projects through their remaining planning and pre-implementation steps. Due to their scale and complexity, these medium to long-term projects need more time to be ready for future funding cycles (with nearterm planning funding, medium-term environmental funding, and longer-term implementation funding reserved for these projects). • Funding for Development: To support the Plan’s commitment to equity, the plan will allocate funds through Modal Programs to support equitable project planning, development, and ultimately, implementation of future projects that address the Corridor’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. Given that some communities did not have project concepts ready for inclusion in the MSPP, this funding will focus on identifying gaps or needs and help prioritize Equity Focus Communities (EFC), in addition to those considered in the first two categories. It will provide needed technical assistance and planning resources currently lacking within under-resourced communities to fully develop project concepts, currently in their early stages, to advance toward implementation. The funding is called the START-UP (Strategic Technical Assistance for Reparative 96 These categories are displayed by project in the project fact sheets in this document as “phase” or in the online visualization dashboard as “status”. 97 See Chapter 7, Funding, for more on this.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 197 of 305
8-7
Transportation Uplifting People) Fund and will result in additional candidate projects that address the Equity Guiding Principle that will qualify for future funding.
• Funding for Community Programs: Community Programs are a hallmark of the Investment Plan’s commitment to equity and improving the lives of those in the community. These programs are designed to provide unique, equity-centered benefits to impacted LB-ELA Corridor residents, reflecting the input received from community members throughout the Investment Plan development process. The Investment Plan includes $40 million in funding, called the Community Programs Catalyst Fund, and is targeting additional grant funding for a total of $300 million—an average of $20 million for each of the 15 Community Programs. The intent of the Catalyst Fund is to allow each program to be further developed into a fundable project or program, develop priorities for projects and programs, and create strategies for ongoing funding from local sources and discretionary grant sources. Because the community programs feature varying degrees of transportation-related scope, leveraging outside grant and local funding will be an important focus of this effort, as Metro cannot fund most of the community programs beyond the planning stage due to the transportation nexus requirements of Measure R/M funding. Metro commits to collaborating and partnering with other assigned lead agencies to identify eligible funding sources, implementation pathways, and appropriate sponsors for these programs. Community Program development will be supported by Working Groups that will include community members and community-based organizations, further described in Chapter 9.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 198 of 305
8-8
8.3 Initial Investments: Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Funding Based on the project outreach and evaluation processes, the projects recommended for the initial funding allocation of Measure R/M funds assigned to the LB-ELA Corridor are included in Table 8-2 and are explained in more detail in the Fact Sheets in Section 8.4. The projects recommended for Initial Investment are in various stages of project development, from planning through implementation. All applicable projects will adhere to Clean Air Act conformity analysis requirements.
These projects/programs are displayed in Figure 8-16.
In addition to the projects and programs identified for Initial Investment, the Investment Plan also looks to the future of the LB-ELA Corridor by supporting, planning, developing, identifying, and refining projects, programs, and strategic initiatives, and addressing unmet equity needs to advance the Corridor’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. Modal Programs, detailed in a subsequent section, will serve as the mechanism by which these ongoing planning and development activities leading to implementation will occur following the adoption of the Investment Plan.
The Investment Plan features five Modal Programs centered around the following modes of transportation to categorize projects during the development of the plan: Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/ Complete Streets, Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements, Goods Movement, and Transit. Metro, its partners, and stakeholders will need to continue collaborating to advance the projects in the Modal Programs toward implementation to further the goals of the Investment Plan.
Furthermore, the Investment Plan will reserve funding within each Modal Program to carry out these planning and development activities and implement some projects that eventually emerge from this future work.
Further detail is provided for projects and programs recommended for Initial Investment in the following tables. Project descriptions reflect project details available at the time of the Investment Plan project collection and evaluation process. The description and scope for projects that will require additional pre-implementation work may be modified in the future based on these planning and design processes. Projects and programs may include Equity and/or Community Input Consideration Flags described below. • Equity Flags - Highlight potential Concerns that impact EFCs, as identified through the technical evaluation criteria. A high Equity Flag refers to more or greater potential impacts, and medium or low Equity Flags refer to fewer or lesser potential impacts respectively. Where a project includes an Equity Flag, implementation requirements and guidance are provided to address the equity issues identified.
• Community Input Considerations (CIC) Flags - Highlight recommendations or Concerns raised by community members through the Investment Plan development process that were not captured through the technical evaluation criteria (see Chapter 6 for more information).
The projects and programs recommended for Initial funding are listed in Table 8-2. Equity and CIC flags are noted in project Fact Sheets within this chapter and in Appendix 6-C, Table 8.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 199 of 305
8-9
Active Transportation / TDM
Arterial Roadways / Complete Streets
Freeways Interchanges and
Safety Improvements
Goods Movement
Transit
Symbol Project Name
Projects by Mode
PROJECTS FOR INITIAL FUNDING
1 IN = 15,000 FT
Equity Focus Communities
SEAL BEACH
LOS ALAMITOS
CYPRESS
LA PALMA
ROLLING HILLS
ROLLING
HILLS
ESTATES
LOMITA
SIGNAL HILL
ARTESIA CERRITO
S
LAWNDALE
CUDAHY
SANTA FE
SPRINGS
BELL GARDENS
MAYWOOD
BELL
VERNON
COMMERCE
HAWAIIAN
GARDENS
LAKEWOOD
CARSON
BELLFLOWER
GARDENA COMPTON
HAWTHORNE
LYNWOOD
SOUTH GATE
HUNTINGTON
PARK
PICO RIVERA
WHITTIER
MONTEBELLO
REDONDO BEACH
PARAMOUNT
TORRANCE
NORWALK
DOWNEY
INGLEWOOD
LONG BEACH
DOWNTOWN LA
Figure 8-1. Projects/Programs for Initial Investment
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 200 of 305
8-10
98The Humphreys Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing project was selected for the Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity (PIPO) by the Metro Board in September 2022 as a priority for the LB-ELA Corridor. This project received a $9.9615 million USDOT Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Grant.
Project/Program Name
Investment Plan
Amount ($M) Project ID
Bus Stop Improvement Projects/Programs $19.0 LB-ELA_0203 Complete Street Corridor: Alondra Boulevard $9.0 LB-ELA_0060 Complete Street Corridor: Atlantic Boulevard $68.6 LB-ELA_0057 Complete Street Corridor: Florence Avenue $24.9 LB-ELA_0058 Complete Street Corridor: Long Beach Boulevard $0.8 LB-ELA_0062 Complete Street Corridor: Slauson Avenue $3.6 LB-ELA_0061 Clean Truck Infrastructure** LB-ELA_0023
Compton Creek Bike Underpasses $0.5 LB-ELA_0165
Compton Transit Management Operations Center Enhancements $2.0 LB-EVA_0168 Freight Rail Electrification Pilot Project $10.0 LB-ELA_0217 Goods Movement Freight Rail Study $2.0 LB-ELA_0151
Humphreys Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing98 $9.0 LB-ELA_0139 I-710 Freeway Lids, Caps and Widened Bridge Decks $5.0 LB-ELA_0181 I-710 MOSAIC Program $153.6
I-710/Firestone Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0033
I-710/Florence Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0034
I-710/Willow Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0028
I-710/Del Amo Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0029
I-710/Long Beach Boulevard Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0030 I-710/Alondra Interchange Improvements and Modification of SB I-710 to SR 91 Connectors LB-ELA_0031 I-710/Imperial Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0032
I-710/Auxiliary Lanes (Willow to Wardlow) LB-ELA_0035
I-710/I-405 Connector Project Improvements LB-ELA_0036
I-710/I-105 Connector Project Improvements LB-ELA_0037
I-710 Auxiliary Lanes (Del Amo Boulevard to Long Beach Boulevard) LB-ELA_0038 Table 8-2. Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Investments (alphabetical) Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 201 of 305
8-11
Project/Program Name
Investment Plan
Amount ($M) Project ID
I-710/Anaheim Interchange Improvement LB-ELA_0091
I-710/PCH Interchange Improvement LB-ELA_0092
I-710/Wardlow Interchange Improvement LB-ELA_0093
I-710 Particulate Matter Reduction Pilot Project $2.0 LB-ELA_0157 I-710 Planning Study: Reconnecting the Long Beach-East LA Corridor Communities*** $2.5 LB-ELA_9318 I-710 Traffic Controls at Freeway Ramps $10.0 LB-ELA_0156 LA-ELA Corridor Bus Transit Priority (Eight Corridors) $31.1 • Atlantic Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0146 • Long Beach Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0141 • Florence Avenue Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0144 • Slauson Avenue Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0142 • Gage Avenue Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0143 • Firestone Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0145 • Whittier Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0178 • Olympic Boulevard Bus Priority Lane Corridor LB-ELA_0179 Metro A Line First/Last Mile Plan Improvements $9.8 LB-ELA_0008 Metro A Line: Quad Safety Gates at all A Line [Blue Line] $5.0 LB-ELA_0175 Rail to River Active Transportation Corridor Segment B $3.2 LB-ELA_0006 Regionally significant bicycle projects from the Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan $15.7 LB-ELA_0017 Shoemaker Bridge/Shoreline Drive $9.0 LB-ELA_0010
Southeast Gateway Line Bike and Pedestrian Trail** $3.8 LB-ELA_0111 Zero-Emission Truck Program $50.0 LB-ELA_0004
Community Programs Catalyst Fund $40.0 NA
Table 8-2. Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Investments (alphabetical, continued) Notes:
I-710 = Interstate 710
* Clean Truck Infrastructure investment included as part of the Zero-Emission Truck Program (LB-ELA_0004) ** Formerly called the "West Santa Ana Branch" trail. Bikeway project name updated to reflect new rail corridor name. *** See Section 8.3.1
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 202 of 305
8-12
8.3.1 New Project Recommended for Initial Investment
I-710 Planning Study: Reconnecting the Long Beach-East LA Corridor Communities (LB-ELA_9318)
This planning study will advance the work of the Task Force in collaboration with project partner METRANS to identify crossings of I-710 at which capital improvements are needed to reconnect communities on either side of the freeway. This study meshes well with the Alternatives Analysis study of the I-710 MOSAIC Program projects (see fact sheet below). These crossing improvements will increase access to jobs, healthcare, education, grocery stores, and green space in this disadvantaged corridor that has long been deprived of quality connections to these necessities, especially by foot and bike. The planning study will identify which crossings are in highest need of improvements, and which specific capital improvements address those needs. To achieve this outcome, the planning study will advance the work of the Task Force and use METRANS research expertise to analyze existing travel patterns along the corridor and across the I-710 freeway. The analysis will also identify out-of-standard crossings and locations that would benefit the most from safety, active transportation, and transit improvements. The analysis will consider how to improve mobility, provide safe access to jobs, healthcare, and grocery stores, as well as green space and recreational areas such as the LA River Path. It will develop prioritization criteria to identify the most critically needed improvements in consultation with the community and Community Based Organizations (CBOs).
Metro applied for a Reconnecting Communities & Neighborhoods grant to fund this study but was unsuccessful. Metro believes this is vitally important for helping to prioritize future funding to address critical gaps and connect communities that are divided by the I-710 freeway.
8.4 Fact Sheets: Projects and Programs
Recommended for Initial Investment
Fact sheets to follow.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 203 of 305
8-13
Collaborate with the local jurisdictions (cities
and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles
County) to implement bus stop improvements
in the LB-ELA Corridor. Bus stop
improvements would include items such as
lighting, security features, benches, shade and
shelters, drinking fountains, solar-powered
arrival displays, trashcans, landscaping,
signage, crosswalks, and improved ADA
accessibility, including repositioning of utility
boxes on the sidewalk. Provide financial
support to help leverage local funds for
project implementation. Funds would be made
available based on criteria such as project
need, project readiness, and project benefits
relative to costs, among other factors.
The Investment Plan investment would be
used to purchase and install bus shelters with
real-time displays and security lighting at 100
of the bus stops that currently lack shelters
as well as 1,000 curb ramps to improve ADA
accessibility to bus stops in the LB-ELA study
area. The $19 million can be used to leverage
additional grant funding to implement
additional locations as well as to support the
installation of additional amenities mentioned
above, such as lighting, security features,
benches, drinking fountains, solar-powered
arrival displays, trashcans, landscaping,
and signage. Additionally, Metro is currently
piloting portable public restrooms at Metro
rail stations; this pilot could be expanded to
specific bus stop locations if there is adequate
space.
The exact locations of the shelters and
curb ramps will be determined using a
prioritization process that focuses on areas
of highest need. Metro anticipates that it
will use the EFC designations, coordination
with cities and Access Services, areas with
high ridership, and areas that lack shade
and are vulnerable to heat impacts to inform
prioritization. Investment in this program
will also address several city-wide bus
stop improvement projects, including Bus
Shelter Upgrades (LB-ELA_0118 – Signal
Hill), Bus Stop Improvements (LB-ELA_0077
– Commerce), and Bus Stop Improvements
(LB-ELA_0103 – Maywood). Metro also
anticipates that cities will be responsible for a
city funded local match for these projects, to
be determined.
Location: Study-area wide
Metro Role: Partner
Lead: Metro, Long Beach Transit, and local
jurisdictions
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Safety, Community Health, Opportunity, and Prosperity
Flags Equity Flag: None
CIC Flag: Add design specification for paving materials to ensure bus stop accessibility for mobility devices
Modes Transit, Active Transportation, Arterials
Phase Development/Implementation
Potential for
packaging
Related projects include Southeast Los Angeles (SELA)
Transit Improvements Project (TIP) [LB-ELA_0169], Bus
Shelter Upgrades (LB-ELA_0118 – Signal Hill), Bus Stop
Improvements (LB-ELA_0077 – Commerce), and Bus Stop
Improvements (LB-ELA_0103 – Maywood).
Estimated cost $19 million:
$60,000 per shelter (100 shelters)
$13,000 per curb ramp (1000 ramps)
Potential funding
sources
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (7300 series)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit facilities grants
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
20% – FTA grants
$19million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* Metro will expect cities to provide at least a portion of the local funding match for these projects and generally be expected to be responsible for the future operations and maintenance costs of these facilities.
Bus Stop Improvement Projects/Programs
LB-ELA_0203
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 204 of 305
8-14
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality, Safety, Community
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Assess potential for roadway reconfiguration
to impact existing truck routes, and how changes may
reroute truck traffic that will impact neighboring streets.
Maintain existing parking where possible and facilitate alternative parking solutions where street parking
reductions are needed.
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete
Streets, Transit
Phase Implementation/Pre-implementation
Potential for
packaging
Alondra Boulevard Intersection Improvements (LBELA_0109) Alondra Boulevard Bridges (LB-ELA_0107)
I-710/Alondra Interchange Improvements and Modification of SB I-710 to SR 91 Connectors (LB-ELA_0031)
Estimated cost $45 million
Potential funding
sources99
State ATP, SCCP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – State ATP, SCCP
Alondra Boulevard, between Central Avenue
and Lakewood Boulevard. Reconstruct
Alondra Boulevard to establish a Complete
Street Corridor, including bicycle facilities,
pedestrian facilities and crosswalks, transit
stop features and amenities, safety and traffic
calming features, landscaping, hardscaping,
public art (aesthetic treatments), public green
spaces, trees, and water quality features such
as bioswales and tree wells.
Design Guidance: While multimodal travel
options and throughput are important,
Complete Streets projects should prioritize
safety for all users.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, major arterial roadway redesigns
should use the existing right-of-way wherever
possible and minimize roadway expansions
that require displacements or right-of-way
impacts. Wherever these impacts are under
consideration, jurisdictions should proactively
engage residents, businesses, and property
owners to understand site-specific conditions
and discuss opportunities for relocation
assistance and other community benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Location: Compton, Paramount
Metro Role: Fund
Lead: Compton/Paramount/Gateway
Cities COG
Complete Street Corridor: Alondra Blvd
LB-ELA_0060
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
$9million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
99 The list of funding sources and their abbreviations can be found in Tables 7-2 through 7-5 in Chapter 8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 205 of 305
8-15
$69million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Atlantic Avenue/Boulevard, between
Ocean Boulevard and State Route (SR) 60.
Reconstruct Atlantic Avenue/Boulevard
to establish a Complete Street Corridor,
including bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities
and crosswalks, transit stop features and
amenities, safety and traffic calming features,
landscaping, hardscaping, public art (aesthetic
treatments), public green spaces, trees, and
water quality features such as bioswales and
tree wells.
Design Guidance: While multimodal travel
options and throughput are important,
Complete Streets projects should prioritize
safety for all users.
The Atlantic Corridor project passes
through ten jurisdictions, including Bell,
Commerce, Compton, Cudahy, Long Beach,
Lynwood, Maywood, South Gate, Vernon, and
communities in unincorporated Los Angeles
County. Given the differing schedules for
this project, with some segments ready
for implementation in 1 to 2 years and
other sections needing 4 to 5 years before
construction, this Corridor will require nearterm and long-term measure funding. Given the high project cost, this Corridor will need
to leverage significant funding from state and
federal grant programs and will need to be
developed in phases.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, major arterial roadway redesigns
should use the existing right-of-way wherever
possible and minimize roadway expansions
that require displacements or right-of-way
impacts. Wherever these impacts are under
consideration, jurisdictions should proactively
engage residents, businesses, and property
owners to understand site-specific conditions
and discuss opportunities for relocation
assistance and other community benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Complete Street Corridor: Atlantic Blvd
LB-ELA_0057
Description
Location: Bell, Commerce, Compton, Cudahy, Implementation Requirements/Guidance Long Beach, Lynwood, Maywood, South
Gate, Vernon, East Los Angeles, East Rancho
Dominguez
Metro Role: Support and/or fund
Lead: Gateway Cities COG/Cities
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality, Community, Mobility
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Assess potential for roadway reconfiguration
to impact existing truck routes, and how changes may
reroute truck traffic that will impact neighboring streets.
Maintain existing parking where possible and facilitate alternative parking solutions where street parking
reductions are needed.
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete
Streets, Transit
Phase Implementation/Pre-implementation
Potential for
packaging
Atlantic Bus Only Lane and Transit Signal Prioritization (LB-ELA_0019 and LB-ELA_0146)
Mixmaster Traffic signal Improvements
(Telegraph/Eastern/Atlantic) (LB-ELA_0071)
Atlantic Boulevard widening Over I-5 at Mixmaster
Intersection (LB-ELA_0221)
Estimated cost $457 million
Potential funding
sources
RCN, State ATP, SCCP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – ATP, SCCP
20% – RCN (Planning)
50% – RCN (Capital)
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 206 of 305
8-16
Atlantic Blvd:
Pulsing the LB-ELA Corridor
with Every Mile
Atlantic Blvd is a major North-South corridor within the Study Area. It passes through the cities of Alhambra, Monterey Park, Commerce, Vernon, Maywood, Bell, Cudahy, South Gate, Lynwood, Compton, Long Beach, and unincorporated East Los Angeles. The vision for this corridor is to promote a balanced, comprehensive, multimodal transportation system to enhance sustainability and mobility of the communities within the corridor. Metro Local Bus Line 260 runs along Atlantic Blvd. between Huntington Dr. and Artesia Blvd. Long Beach Transit Line 61 serves Atlantic Blvd. south of Artesia Blvd. These are the two major bus routes along Atlantic Blvd. with pre-pandemic annual ridership of 3,186,229 and 4,585,635 respectively. At the intersection of Atlantic Blvd and Pomona Blvd in East Los Angeles is Metro's Atlantic station, the current eastern terminus of the E Line. This station provides the East Los Angeles community service to Downtown Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and other Metro Rail lines. In addition to the communities along the E Line, Atlantic Blvd provides a regional connection through its significance connecting to other existing and planned Metro Light Rail Transit (LRT) Lines. Future connectivity will be provided at the proposed Firestone Station of the Southeast Gateway LRT project in the southern segment of Atlantic Blvd at Atlantic/Firestone. This regional connectivity will be further strengthened via the existing C Line Firestone/Alameda station west of the future Firestone Station. The efforts to achieve this vision include a series of projects and programs with a diverse range of project types such as, Active Transportation/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Arterial Roadways, and Transit.
The Investment Plan proposes projects and programs for Atlantic Ave./Blvd. recommended for both initial investment and modal programs. Photo courtesy of Caltrans District 7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 207 of 305
8-17
Project ID Project Name Description
Project/Program
Cost (M)
CMIP/Metro
Contribution
LB-ELA_0057 Complete Streets Planning Atlantic Ave./Blvd., between Ocean Blvd. and SR-60. Reconstruct Atlantic Ave./ Blvd. to establish a Complete Street Corridor, including: bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and crosswalks, transit stop features and amenities, safety and traffic calming features, landscaping, hardscaping, public art (aesthetic treatments), public green spaces, trees, and water quality features such as bioswales and tree wells. $457 $68.58
LB-ELA_0146 Bus Priority Lane Improvement BRT project along Atlantic to provide improved speed, reliability, and frequency. TBD $1+ LB-ELA_0017 Regionally Significant Bicycle
Projects from the Metro Active
Transportation Strategic Plan
Implement regionally significant active transportation projects adopted as part of the Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan including several proposed bikeways serving Atlantic Blvd.
$41.44 $15.65
Project ID Project Name Description
Project/Program
Cost (M)
CMIP/Metro
Contribution
LB-ELA_0019 Bus Only Lane and Transit
Signal Priority (TSP)
Improve bus times, speeds, and reliability along Line 260 (Atlantic Blvd.). Proposed improvements would include: transit signal prioritization, bus priority lanes and bus stop bulb outs, all door boarding, bus stop and layover improvements.
TBD NA
LB-ELA_0071 Mixmaster Traffic signal
Improvements (Telegraph/
Eastern/Atlantic)
Traffic signal upgrade at Telegraph / Eastern / Atlantic. Also consider improvements such as turning lane pavement markings, striping, and enhanced signage so that approaching traffic can get properly aligned well in advance of this intersection. $2 NA
LB-ELA_0095 Crosswalk Improvements Provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements (pedestrian buttons, signage, and electrical infrastructure) at Rosewood/Abbott, Mallison/Abbott, Long Beach/ Tecumseh, Imperial/Ruth & Atlantic/Brewster intersections (Phase 1). $2 NA
LB-ELA_0120 Safety Improvements Within the East Rancho Dominguez (unincorporated LA County), implement safetyrelated improvement projects along the following roadways: Compton Boulevard, Atlantic Avenue, Rosecrans Avenue, and Alondra Blvd.
$7 NA
LB-ELA_0221 Atlantic Blvd Bridge Widening Would widen Atlantic Blvd bridge structure over I-5 at intersection of Telegraph Road, Eastern Avenue, and Atlantic Boulevard in the City of Commerce. Would help relieve traffic congestion and provide a safer roadway for all modes of transportation. $50 NA
Initial Investment
Modal Program
Atlantic Blvd Projects
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 208 of 305
8-18
$0.8million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* Planning study
Long Beach Boulevard/Pacific Boulevard.
Reconstruct Long Beach Boulevard/Pacific
Boulevard, between Ocean Boulevard and
Slauson Avenue to establish a Complete
Street Corridor, including bicycle facilities,
pedestrian facilities and crosswalks, transit
stop features and amenities, safety and traffic
calming features, landscaping, hardscaping,
public art (aesthetic treatments), public green
spaces, trees, and water quality features such
as bioswales and tree wells.
Design Guidance: While multimodal travel
options and throughput are important,
Complete Streets projects should prioritize
safety for all users.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, major arterial roadway redesigns
should use the existing right-of-way wherever
possible and minimize roadway expansions
that require displacements or right-of-way
impacts. Wherever these impacts are under
consideration, jurisdictions should proactively
engage residents, businesses, and property
owners to understand site-specific conditions
and discuss opportunities for relocation
assistance and other community benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Complete Street Corridor: Long Beach Blvd
LB-ELA_0062
Description
Location: Compton, Huntington Park, Long Implementation Requirements/Guidance Beach, Lynwood, South Gate, Walnut Park
Metro Role: Support and/or fund
Lead: COG/Cities
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality, Community, Safety
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Assess potential for roadway reconfiguration
to impact existing truck routes, and how changes may
reroute truck traffic to impact neighboring streets.
Maintain existing parking where possible and facilitate alternative parking solutions where street parking
reductions are needed.
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete
Streets, Transit
Phase Development
Potential for
packaging
Micromobility Pilot Project (LB-ELA_0220)
Long Beach Boulevard Bus Priority Lanes (LB-ELA_0141)
I-710/Long Beach Boulevard MOSAIC (LB-ELA_0030)
Blue Line First/Last Mile Projects (Willow/Wardlow/PCH
Stations) (LB-ELA_0008)
Estimated cost $1.5 million (Planning study)
Potential funding
sources
SS4A, State ATP, SCCP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – State ATP, SCCP
20% – SS4A
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 209 of 305
8-19
$4million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Slauson Avenue, between Alameda Street
and Lakewood Boulevard. Reconstruct
Slauson Avenue to establish a Complete
Street Corridor, including bicycle facilities,
pedestrian facilities and crosswalks, transit
stop features and amenities, safety and traffic
calming features, landscaping, hardscaping,
public art (aesthetic treatments), public green
spaces, trees, and water quality features such
as bioswales and tree wells.
Design Guidance: While multimodal travel
options and throughput are important,
Complete Streets projects should prioritize
safety for all users.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, major arterial roadway redesigns
should use the existing right-of-way wherever
possible and minimize roadway expansions
that require displacements or right-of-way
impacts. Wherever these impacts are under
consideration, jurisdictions should proactively
engage residents, businesses, and property
owners to understand site-specific conditions
and discuss opportunities for relocation
assistance and other community benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Complete Street Corridor: Slauson Ave
LB-ELA_0061
Description
Location: Bell, Commerce, Huntington Park, Implementation Requirements/Guidance Maywood, Montebello, Vernon
Metro Role: Fund
Lead: COG/Cities
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community, Safety, Equity
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Assess potential for roadway reconfiguration
to impact existing truck routes, and how changes may
reroute truck traffic to impact neighboring streets.
Maintain existing parking where possible and facilitate alternative parking solutions where street parking
reductions are needed.
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete
Streets, Transit
Phase Implementation/Pre-implementation
Potential for
packaging
Metrolink Regional Rail Line between Union Station and
Long Beach (LB-ELA_0219)
Slauson Avenue Corridor and Citywide Pedestrian, Bike,
Transit Improvements (LB-ELA_0126)
Metro Bus Priority Lane Corridor along Line 108 (Slauson) (LB-ELA_0142)
Estimated cost $18 million
Potential funding
sources
State ATP, SCCP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – State ATP, SCCP
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 210 of 305
8-20
$25million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Florence Avenue, between Alameda Street
and Lakewood Boulevard. Reconstruct
Florence Avenue to establish a Complete
Street Corridor, including bicycle facilities,
pedestrian facilities and crosswalks, transit
stop features and amenities, safety and traffic
calming features, landscaping, hardscaping,
public art (aesthetic treatments), public green
spaces, trees, and water quality features such
as bioswales and tree wells.
Design Guidance: While multimodal travel
options and throughput are important,
Complete Streets projects should prioritize
safety for all users.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, major arterial roadway redesigns
should use the existing right-of-way wherever
possible and minimize roadway expansions
that require displacements or right-of-way
impacts. Wherever these impacts are under
consideration, jurisdictions should proactively
engage residents, businesses, and property
owners to understand site-specific conditions
and discuss opportunities for relocation
assistance and other community benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Complete Street Corridor: Florence Ave
LB-ELA_0058
Description
Location: Bell, Bell Gardens, Downey, Implementation Requirements/Guidance Huntington Park
Metro Role: Support and/or fund
Lead: Gateway Cities COG/Cities
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality, Community, Safety
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Assess potential for roadway reconfiguration
to impact existing truck routes, and how changes may
reroute truck traffic to impact neighboring streets.
Maintain existing parking where possible and facilitate alternative parking solutions where street parking
reductions are needed.
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete
Streets, Transit
Phase Implementation/Pre-implementation
Potential for
packaging
Florence Avenue Bridges (LB-ELA_0067)
Florence Avenue and Paramount Boulevard Intersection
Improvement (LB-ELA_0080)
Traffic Signal Upgrades (LB-ELA_0083)
I-710/Florence Interchange Improvements (LB-ELA_0034)
Metro Bus Priority Lane Corridor along Line 111 (Florence) (LB-ELA_0144)
Estimated cost $124 million
Potential funding
sources
State ATP, SCCP, UGG, TCC
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – ATP, SCCP, UGG, TCC (Development)
50% – TCC (Implementation)
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 211 of 305
8-21
$50million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality; Opportunity; Environment
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
Modes Goods Movement only
Phase Implementation
Potential for
packaging
Combined with LB-ELA_0004
Estimated cost $200 million
Potential funding
sources
PIDP, RTEPF, and CFI
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
10% – Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Program; 20% – Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP),
Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities
The Clean Truck Infrastructure project
(LB-ELA_0023) would install charging
infrastructure for ZE trucks.
Metro is committed to exploring all viable
zero-emission technologies, including
battery-electric and hydrogen, to meet
regulatory mandates and sustainability goals
without endorsing one solution. Metro is also
committed to investing its CMIP funds in a
manner that aligns with and advances the LBELA Corridor Task Force Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: Siting
of ZE truck infrastructure should avoid
displacements or right-of-way impacts.
Assess potential for roadway reconfiguration
to impact existing truck routes, and how
changes may reroute truck traffic to impact
neighboring streets. Wherever these
impacts are under consideration, Metro
and jurisdictions should proactively engage
residents, businesses, and property owners
to understand site-specific conditions
and discuss opportunities for relocation
assistance and other community benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Hydrogen Concerns: The environmental
impact of hydrogen production, particularly
its association with fossil fuels and significant
greenhouse gas emissions on already
impacted communities is a major concern.
In addition, safety risks associated with the
transportation and storage of hydrogen,
including risks related to pipelines, trucks,
rail, and ships are also of concern. Hazardous
emissions such as Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)
from hydrogen combustion and its impact on
respiratory health in vulnerable communities
should be assessed. Metro should engage
in community-centered decision-making
through the Air Quality and Health Working
Group with impacted communities and should
avoid endorsements of potentially harmful
applications without community input. Metro
should also conduct community education on
hydrogen fuel and related issues with regional
and community partners.
Environmental Review and Permit
Streamlining Concerns: Metro supports
robust public review and vetting for all
projects, including those projects labeled
zero-emission. Metro should engage in
community-centered decision-making
through the Air Quality and Health Working
Group with impacted communities and should
avoid endorsements of potentially harmful
applications without community input. Metro
should also conduct community education on
hydrogen fuel and related issues with regional
and community partners.
Flooding and Water Quality Impacts: Facilities
that require the expansion or addition of
paved areas should incorporate materials and
designs that maintain or increase pervious
cover, and/or landscaping elements that allow
for sufficient stormwater runoff.
Clean Truck Infrastructure
LB-ELA_0023
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Location: Study Area Wide
Metro Role: Partner
Lead: Metro/Caltrans/Ports
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 212 of 305
8-22
$0.5million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* Planning study
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Safety, Community, Equity
Flags Equity Flag: Low
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
Modes Active Transportation
Phase Planning (Conceptual Study)
Potential for
packaging
A Line First/Last Mile Plan Improvements (Artesia Station) (LB-ELA_0008)
Estimated cost $1 million for study. Results of feasibility study will include cost estimate for underpasses or other lower cost crossing options
Potential funding
sources
State ATP, TCC, UGG, RCN, Rails to Trails
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum Local Match:
0% – ATP, UGG
20% – RCN (Planning), Rails to Trails
50% – RCN (Capital), TCC (implementation)
Along Compton Creek Bike Path, between
120th Street and Greenleaf Boulevard,
construct a bike path under-crossings at
120th Street, El Segundo Avenue, Rosecrans
Avenue, Compton Avenue, and Alondra
Avenue. Add lighting, landscaping, benches,
and shade to the existing path.
The feasibility of adding underpasses has
not been studied. This recommended funding
will explore the costs and benefits of adding
underpasses, overcrossings, and other
crossing improvements.
Flooding and Water Quality Impacts: Class I
bikeways or other facilities that require the
expansion or addition of a paved right-of-way
should incorporate materials and designs that
maintain or increase pervious cover, and/or
landscaping elements that allow for sufficient
stormwater runoff.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Location: Compton
Metro Role: Lead and/or fund
Lead: Compton/Metro
Compton Creek Bike Underpass
LB-ELA_0165
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 213 of 305
8-23
$2million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community Health, Safety, Mobility
Flags Equity Flag: None
CIC Flag: None
Modes Transit, Active Transportation
Phase Development/Pre-construction
Potential for
packaging
Compton Boulevard bikeway as part of the MSPP project
LB-ELA_0017: Regionally significant bike projects from
the Metro Active Transportation Plan
Estimated cost $27 million (estimated based on all projects included in Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan)
Potential funding
sources
State ATP, TCC
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – State ATP, TCC (Development)
50% – TCC (implementation)
Project improvements would include beau-
tification, art, monuments, safety, increased
bike storage, bike parking, walkways, and bike
paths (Phases 1 through 5). Location: Compton
Transit Management Operations Center: 275
N. Willowbrook Avenue, Compton.
NA
Location: Compton
Metro Role: Partner and/or lead
Lead: Compton/Metro
Compton Transit Management Operations Center Enhancements LB-ELA_0168
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 214 of 305
8-24
Work with the Alameda Corridor
Transportation Authority (ACTA) along
with the railroads (Union Pacific (UP) and
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)) to
continue to develop and test various battery
electric locomotives and other electrification
technologies for operation on the in the
Alameda Corridor, with an ultimate goal
reducing air quality impacts in the corridor
with the advancement of a ZE technology
capable of entering commercial, revenue
service operation.
Location: Vernon; Huntington Park; FlorenceGraham; Firestone Park; South Gate; Lynwood; Compton; Willowbrook; Rancho Dominguez;
Long Beach
Metro Role: Fund
Lead: Railroad/Alameda Corridor/Ports
Freight Rail Electrification Pilot Project
LB-ELA_0217
Description
In response to draft CARB regulations on
locomotive emissions starting in 2030.
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
$10million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Environment; Air Quality; Community Health
Flags Equity Flag: None
CIC Flag: Concern to the extent the project serves only private industries that should fund electrification directly.
Modes Goods Movement only
Phase Implementation
Potential for
packaging
NA
Estimated cost $50 million
Potential funding
sources
FRA pilot programs, RAISE, INFRA, TIRCP, LCTOP, and
others
Grant
matching fund
requirements
TBD
Minimum local match:
0% – LCTOP, TIRCP
20% – RAISE, INFRA, FRA
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 215 of 305
8-25
$2million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* Study
Conduct an assessment to evaluate options
for deriving greater utilization of the Alameda
Corridor as a potential means for reducing
truck trips in the Southern California
subregion. This assessment would include
options such as opportunities to increase ondock freight rail mode share; implementation of short-haul, freight rail shuttle service
to new inland rail facilities; and increased
use/improved operational efficiencies of
existing near-dock and off-dock intermodal
facilities. This evaluation would take into
account updated cargo forecasts, economic
factors and projections, current trends
associated with the goods movement logistics
chain, including transload truck trips, and
railroad and intermodal capacity constraints
in the Southern California region. The Goods
Movement Freight Rail Study would assess
a variety of options and weigh the costs and
benefits from a systemwide perspective,
including changes in truck trip travel
patterns, land use implications, environmental
benefits and impacts, safety benefits and
impacts, as well as institutional constraints.
Location: Nevin; Clement Junction; Vernon;
Huntington Park; Nadeau; Firestone Park; South
Gate; Lynwood; Compton; Willowbrook; Rancho
Dominguez; Thenard; Long Beach
Metro Role: Partner
Lead: Metro/Ports/Railroads
Goods Movement Freight Rail Study
LB-ELA_0151
Description
Project Impacts: To ensure consistency with
the visions set out by the Task Force, Metro
should ensure that investment in this study
must come with a strong commitment to
study the impacts of the freight paths project
recommends, which would include impacts
on bike and pedestrian safety, concentrated
congestion, construction impacts, increased
impervious surface, and potential for new
physical barrier – particularly for inland port
and rail yards
Addressing Community Concerns: Recognizes
concerns regarding public health, emissions
during hydrogen production, transportation
safety, and potential leakage, affirming
Metro's dedication to minimizing impacts and
educating communities.
Implementation Requirements/Guidance Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Opportunity, Mobility
Flags Equity Flag: NA – this is a study.
CIC Flag: The study should focus on the potential for
pollution reduction and impacts on local communities.
Study should include assessment of long-term funding
needed to maintain environmental sustainability.
Modes Goods Movement only
Phase Planning
Potential for
packaging
NA
Estimated cost $10 million (Potential to leverage with $2 million investment)
Potential funding
sources
Fed: INFRA, PIDP
State: TCEP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – TCEP (if Caltrans nominated)
20% – PIDP
30% – TCEP
40% – INFRA
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 216 of 305
8-26
Humphrey's Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing100
LB-ELA_0139
100 Recommended for initial funding but also included in the Modal Programs in case it does not get funded. $9million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), in
collaboration with the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) and Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works (LADPW),
plans to construct a pedestrian and bicycle
overcrossing (Humphreys Avenue Crossing)
near the existing Humphreys Avenue vehicle
bridge in East Los Angeles. The project aims
to reconnect the historically divided East
L.A. neighborhood caused by Interstate 710
(I-710). The Crossing, serving as a dedicated
pedestrian/cyclist route, addresses the
barrier created by I-710 and enhances
accessibility for vulnerable populations,
connecting to essential facilities and
Humphreys Avenue Elementary School.
Description
NA
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community, Safety
Flags Equity Flag: NA
CIC Flag: NA
Modes Active Transportation/TDM
Phase Implementation
Potential for
packaging
NA
Estimated cost $24.3 million
Potential funding
sources
Reconnecting Communities Grant Award for $9.861M
$1 million committed from LA County
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
20% – RCP
Location: East Los Angeles
Metro Role: Fund
Lead: Metro
Originating from Metro Board's Motion 22.1
in 2015, the Humphreys Avenue Crossing
received approval and funding, signifying
a step towards rectifying past planning
decisions. This project recently received
$9.861M from the Reconnecting Communities
& Neighborhoods Grant program.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 217 of 305
8-27
$5million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* Pre-implmentation
I-710 Freeway Lids, Caps and Widened Bridge Decks
LB-ELA_0181
Widen arterial bridge decks at key locations
over the I-710 Freeway/LA River Channel to
provide “land islands,” “urban parklets,” and
“green belt” connections over I-710 and the LA
River. Include pedestrian/bicycle pathways.
Description
Follow Caltrans highway design requirements
and context-sensitive design guidance.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, freeway projects should use the
existing right-of-way wherever possible and
minimize displacements or right-of-way
impacts. Wherever these impacts are under
consideration, Metro should proactively
engage residents, businesses, and property
owners to understand site-specific conditions
and discuss opportunities for relocation
assistance and other community benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Implementation Requirements/Guidance Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community, Mobility, Safety, and the Equity principle
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: None
Modes Active transportation, arterial roadways
Phase Development/Pre-implementation
Will require an initial feasibility study to determine in which arterial interchanges these projects could be
incorporated. The implementation of some of these could be incorporated into the redesign of select interchanges that are part of the proposed I-710 MOSAIC Program.
Potential for
packaging
This program could also be packaged with the I-710
MOSAIC Program because that program starts with an
alternatives analysis/prioritization study that could be expanded to include assessing the redesign of some of
the interchanges to incorporate lids, caps, or widened
bridge decks.
Estimated cost $25 million (estimated amount to be leveraged) Potential funding
sources
RCN, State ATP, SCCP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – State ATP, SCCP
20% – RCN (planning)
50% – RCN (capital)
Metro Role: Lead, co-fund
Lead: Metro/Caltrans
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 218 of 305
8-28
Phyllis Ollison, CLC
This has been a massive
effort. I congratulate you
on what you're achieving.
For gathering different
people, including the
community, to come up
with the best plan for
this corridor.
The I-710 MOSAIC Program: Multimodal, Operational, Safety, and Access Investments for the Community.
This bundle of projects includes interchange upgrades and auxiliary lanes that include multimodal operations and safety improvements for autos, trucks, bicycles, pedestrians and transit. The interchange improvements are located where the freeway connects with local arterials and are also generally adjacent to the LA River, which provides the opportunity to improve the arterial river crossing bridges as well. The arterial interchange project concepts will have design elements that will address multiple modes, including bicyclists and pedestrians, not just autos and trucks. The freeway to freeway connector improvements and auxiliary lanes are proposed to improve auto and truck traffic safety and operations which will also invest in the community through safer travel. The I-710 MOSAIC Program naming of this bundle of projects is intended to better describe the nature of this initial investment.
I-710 MOSAIC Program
(Interstate 710 Multimodal, Operational, Safety, and Access Investments for the Community) Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 219 of 305
8-29
101 Caltrans Planning and Environmental Linkages Handbook, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/ser/ct-pel-guidebook-a11y.pdf Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Safety, Mobility, Opportunity
Flags Equity Flags:
I-710/Alondra MOSAIC Improvements and Modification of
SB I-710 to SR 91 Connectors (LB-ELA_0031): High
I-710/Florence MOSAIC Improvements (LB-ELA_0034):
High
I-710/I-105 Connector MOSAIC Improvements (LBELA_0037): Moderate I-710/PCH MOSAIC Improvement (LB-ELA_0092): High
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
Other projects: No Equity Flag
CIC Flag:
General: Concerns about potential displacements (LBELA_0028, LB-ELA_0031, LB-ELA_0034, LB-ELA_0037, LB-ELA_0091 and LB-ELA_0093 specifically, and others
generally), reduced access and increase in traffic for the local communities. Projects will require detailed traffic and impact studies. Develop designs that are inclusive of and emphasize safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Many of these Concerns can be addressed in an AA/Prioritization Study.
LB-ELA_0091; LB-ELA_0092; LB-ELA_0093: Update design
specifications to emphasize connections to west Long
Beach.
Modes Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements, Goods Movement, Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets, Transit,
Active Transportation.
Many of the I-710 MOSAIC project concepts are multimodal because they improve traffic safety and operations on the freeway mainline and the crossing arterial, they improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, reconnect communities, and improve transit operations. They are developed to respond to current and future traffic safety and operational issues on the freeway, as well as including the need for Complete Street Corridors and bus priority lanes and filling gaps in the Active Transportation network.
Include all the proposed Investment Plan
I-710 MOSAIC infrastructure projects
into one set of candidate projects for an
Alternatives Analysis/Prioritization study.
This is necessary because the Investment
Plan evaluation of the project design concepts
is not detailed enough to prioritize these
projects with respect to which ones should
be in the first group to be advanced in the
Alternatives Analysis study. The study will
assess the 14 Investment Plan I-710 MOSAIC
project concepts in more detail to ascertain
which ones to recommend to the Metro Board
to advance to preliminary engineering and
environmental analysis and in what order.
This will include new technical analyses
of the multimodal benefits of each project
including improvement of freeway mainline
safety and operations based on updated
traffic data, and refined design concepts,
and reassessment of key impacts, including
potential displacements, VMT, and air
quality conformity. Caltrans has completed
a Planning and Environmental Linkages
Handbook that provides additional information
about this approach101, which is designed to
formally document planning level analyses so
I-710 MOSAIC Program
(Interstate 710 Multimodal, Operational, Safety, and Access Investments for the Community)
Description
Location: Long Beach, Compton, Paramount,
South Gate, Cudahy, Bell, Bell Gardens
Metro Role: Metro may lead & fund in
cooperation with Caltrans & Gateway Cities COG.
Lead: Metro/Caltrans
that information and conclusions derived
from such processes can be incorporated
by reference (and not have to be revisited)
for later NEPA analyses. This Alternatives
Analysis process will include a robust public
and community involvement and engagement
process.
Also, as part of this Alternatives Analysis
study the independent utility and logical
termini of each proposed project will also be
assessed, which may lead to packaging some
of these projects into one combined project—
for example, packaging the proposed auxiliary
lane between the Del Amo Boulevard and
Long Beach Boulevard interchanges with the
redesign of them into I-710 MOSAIC projects.
This study will provide the more refined
assessment needed to determine which of
these projects are the most beneficial, without
significant impacts, and should move to the
next phase of their development. These will
be put before the Metro Board to approve the
short list of projects to move forward to the
next phase.
The next phase of I-710 MOSAIC project
development is the Project Approval/
Environmental Document of I-710 MOSAIC
project development phase. Each of the most
highly rated 4-6 project concepts from the
Alternatives Analysis study will be refined
and assessed in much greater detail following
required CEQA/NEPA project development
procedures.
Note: This Fact Sheet continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 220 of 305
8-30
Phase Development, Pre-implementation, and Implementation All Individual projects will start in the Development phase with a combined Alternatives Analysis/Prioritization study.
This study will include public involvement and engagement.
With Metro Board approval, the three to four highest
priority projects emerging from this study will be further advanced to the pre-implementation phase by conducting
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies (EIR/EIS). Finally, projects selected from that process by the Metro Board for implementation will move into the implementation phase of final design and then construction.
Potential for
packaging
The I-710 MOSAIC projects include active transportation connectivity and safety features and improve traffic flow to enable bus travel times to be more reliable.
There are opportunities to select arterial interchanges for improvement that not only improve traffic safety and operations but also align with and support the related
Complete Streets, Active Transportation, and Transit
projects along those crossing arterials.
Estimated cost Alternatives Analysis/
Prioritization for 14 project concepts:
$9 million
CEQA/NEPA studies for three to four project concepts:
$34 million
Design and construction for three to four concepts:
$573 million
Total estimated cost: $612 million
Potential funding
sources
Federal: SS4A, RAISE, RCN, INFRA
State: RIP, SCCP, TCEP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – RAISE (Rural, HDC, APP), TCEP (Caltrans nominated),
SCCP, RIP
20% – RAISE (Urban), RCN (planning), SS4A
30% – TCEP
40% – INFRA
50% – RCN (Capital)
$154million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
The CEQA/NEPA process includes ongoing
community and public review so that the
affected communities and the public can
provide input and feedback on design features
that maximize benefits while minimizing
impacts.
Following this process, the remaining I-710
MOSAIC projects will be prioritized for
implementation and these recommendations
will be made to the Metro Board for
consideration. Following Metro Board action
on the priority list of projects to move into
implementation, staff will advance those
projects for grant funding, final design, and
implementation.
I-710 MOSAIC Program
(Interstate 710 Multimodal, Operational, Safety, and Access Investments for the Community) (continued)
Further project development will need to take
into account Concerns and Flags. Community
involvement will be included.
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, freeway projects should use the
existing right-of-way wherever possible and
minimize displacements or right-of-way
impacts. Wherever these impacts are under
consideration, Metro and Caltrans should
proactively engage residents, businesses, and
property owners to understand site-specific
conditions and discuss opportunities for
relocation assistance and other community
benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Flooding and Water Quality Impacts: Facilities
that require the expansion or addition of
a paved right-of-way should incorporate
materials and designs that maintain or
increase pervious cover, and/or landscaping
elements that allow for sufficient stormwater
runoff.
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 221 of 305
8-31
$2million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
I-710 Particulate Matter (PM) Reduction Pilot Project
LB-ELA_0157
Implement a pilot project on I-710 to deploy
and evaluate measures to reduce exposure
of nearby populations to particulate
matter, specifically localized sources of
entrained/fugitive dust, tire wear, and brake
wear associated with traffic on the freeway.
These measures may include roadside
vegetation barriers within available Caltrans’
right-of-way, air filters for nearby schools or
community facilities, pavement materials,
frequent street-sweeping, and deployment of
air quality monitoring systems, among others.
In addition, include options to examine the
effectiveness of “cool pavement” applications
to reduce heat island effects. As part of the
work plan, the pilot project would include a
study element to assess and document the
efficacy of the various measures.
Description
NA
Implementation Requirements/Guidance Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community and Sustainability Principle
Flags Equity Flag: None
CIC Flag: Concerns about potential displacements
Modes Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements, Goods Movement
Phase Development
Define and conduct a study of the efficacy of various
methods to reduce particulate matter emissions from the I-710 freeway, especially from non-tailpipe emissions.
Also included in the study is determining the heat island reduction effects of “cool pavement.”
Potential for
packaging
The findings of this study may lead to projects that can be implemented by other programs and projects in the
Investment Plan.
Estimated cost $2 million feasibility study and launch of pilot program Potential funding
sources
CMAQ
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
11.5% – CMAQ
Metro Role: Partner/Fund
Lead: Metro
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 222 of 305
8-32
$10million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
I-710 Traffic Controls at Freeway Ramps
LB-ELA_0156
Add traffic signals with protected
pedestrian/bicycle phase(s), crosswalks,
lighting, landscaping, signing and striping, and
other safety-related pedestrian features at the
ramp termini of I-710 arterial interchanges.
Description
NA (improvements must conform to Caltrans
design standards)
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality, Community and Safety
Flags Equity Flag: None
CIC Flag: Concerns about potential displacements
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete Streets, Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Phase Development/Pre-Implementation
Caltrans will first need to study the feasibility of adding ramp termini traffic controls to I-710 interchange ramps that currently do not have them. The factors that affect the ability to add these active transportation safety features are dependent on the existing interchange ramp geometry and ramp traffic volumes. This feasibility study would then lead to Caltrans Project Initiation Documents to determine the more specific design changes, impacts, and costs associated with each proposed feasible interchange ramp terminus improvement.
The feasible interchange locations for traffic controls on ramps will be coordinated with the interchange improvement recommendations resulting from the MOSIAC freeway Alternatives Analysis/Prioritization study to avoid duplication of recommendations.
Potential for
packaging
These projects could become an initial interim active transportation safety improvement for the interchanges that are also selected to advance through the CEQA/NEPA process to assess the total redesign of those interchanges included in the I-710 MOSAIC Program described elsewhere in the list of projects for initial funding. Their development could be included in the multimodal freeway infrastructure alternatives analysis/prioritization study which is the first phase of that project recommendation.
Estimated cost $50 million (estimated leveraged amount) Potential funding
sources
SS4A
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
20% – SS4A
Metro Role: Partner/Fund
Lead: Caltrans
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 223 of 305
8-33
The LB-ELA Corridor Bus Transit Priority Program will fund capital projects that will enhance the quality of bus transit service in the Study Area. As part of the development of the MSPP list, there were eight corridors identified for transit priority. Each of these eight corridors will be considered for implementation of bus lanes and/or other treatments to speed up bus service and improve access to transit on priority corridors. The factsheet below describes the corridors analyzed and the path to implementation.
Additionally, not all corridors in the Study Area were evaluated through this process. This initiative will also consider other corridors and locations in need of transit priority treatments.
LB-ELA Corridor Bus Transit Priority Program
This initiative will study
the 8 transit corridors
identified for bus
priority treatments,
including the Atlantic
Blvd, Florence Ave, Long
Beach Blvd, Slauson Ave,
Whittier Blvd, Olympic
Blvd, Gage Blvd, and
Firestone Blvd. Other
Corridors not listed may
be considered for future
investment.
Metro's Orange Line busway in the San Fernando Valley. Credit: LA Metro Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 224 of 305
8-34
102 Average cost for BRT lite is $6.5 million/mile; total estimated cost of all projects is $462 million 103 The list of funding sources and their abbreviations can be found in Tables 7-2 through 7-5 in Chapter 7 $31million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* $3M for planning, $23.1M for implementation of two
corridors, and $5M for additional targeted improvements Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community Health, Mobility, Equity
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Establish project specifications to minimize
negative impacts on local businesses and support local
businesses with technical assistance (START-UP Fund).
Maintain existing parking where possible and facilitate alternative parking solutions where street parking
reductions are needed.
Modes Transit, Arterial Roadways/
Complete Streets
Phase Development/Pre-construction
Potential for
packaging
Related projects include the four funded Complete
Streets Corridor projects (LB-ELA_0057, LB-ELA_0058,
LB-ELA_0061, LB-ELA_0062) as well as the Atlantic BRT
project (LB-ELA_0019)
Estimated cost $462 million102
Potential funding
sources103
RAISE, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – RAISE (Rural, HDC, APP)
20% – RAISE (Urban)
40% – CIG Small Starts
Improve bus times, speeds, and reliability
along Atlantic Boulevard, Long Beach
Boulevard, Florence Avenue, Slauson Avenue,
Gage Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, Whittier
Boulevard, and Firestone Boulevard, with
the opportunity to study additional corridors.
Improvements would include transit signal
prioritization, bus priority lanes and bus stop
bulb outs, all door boarding, and bus stop and
layover improvements.
The Investment Plan will support the
enhancement of transit priority treatments
throughout the LB-ELA corridor. This initiative
will study the 8 transit corridors identified
for bus priority treatments, including the
Atlantic Blvd, Florence Ave, Long Beach Blvd,
Slauson Ave, Whittier Blvd, Olympic Blvd,
Gage Blvd, and Firestone Blvd. In addition,
corridors not listed on the initial MSPP list will
be considered for future investment, such as
Willow St in Long Beach, or others that were
not evaluated through this process.
The Investment Plan will provide $3M to
study and prioritize these corridors for
transit priority treatments. The CMIP will set
aside $23M to implement bus priority lanes
and transit priority treatments on 2 of the
8 corridors and an additional $5M for spot
treatments to improve transit speed and
reliability on other corridors.
Some of the corridors include those that are
also recommended for Complete Streets
funding, including Atlantic Boulevard, Long
Beach Boulevard, Florence Boulevard, and
Slauson Avenue. These corridors were also
studied as part of Metro’s BRT Vision and
Principles study and are the top performing
corridors in the LB-ELA study area.
Impacts on non-transit users: Bus lane
projects have the potential to increase travel
times for non-transit vehicles as well as
the potential for cut-through traffic onto
neighborhood streets. As part of the design
and outreach processes, Metro and partner
agencies will need to address travel time
and parking considerations, truck traffic
volumes, and the possibility of increased
cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets
when considering dedicating a lane to bus
only travel.
LB-ELA Corridor Bus Transit Priority Program
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Location: Multiple jurisdictions/Corridor-wide
Metro Role: Lead
Lead: Metro
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 225 of 305
8-35
Metro A Line First/Last Mile Plan Improvements
LB-ELA_0008
Implement projects identified in the A Line
First/Last Mile Plan (formerly the Blue Line)
in the LB-ELA Corridor, with an emphasis on
Del Amo Station. Projects to include ramp
reconfigurations, sidewalk, and bike lane
improvements, and crossing improvements,
among others. The First/Last Mile Plan for
the Blue Line was adopted in April 2018 and
represents a first-of-its-kind effort to plan
comprehensive access improvements for
an entire transit line. The Plan covered all
22 stations on the Metro A (Blue) Line and
piloted an inclusive, equitable project planning
community engagement process. The Plan
included planning-level, community-identified
pedestrian, and bicycle improvements within
walking (1/2-mile) and biking (3-mile) distance
of each A Line station.
The Del Amo project will expand existing
bicycling infrastructure through protected
bike lanes to ensure bicyclists can safely
connect to the Metro A Line Del Amo Station
along the route and the 18-mile LA River bike
path to the east. Del Amo Blvd is faced with
significant safety issues, exacerbated by the I‑110, I‑405, and I‑710 freeways bisecting the Corridor, creating barriers to transit access,
and contributing to pedestrian and bicyclist
fatalities. Improvements along Avalon Blvd,
which connects to the university, will help
ensure safe active transportation mobility for
students. Building on planning and outreach
efforts from the Metro A Line FLM Plan, the
Project proposes protected bicycle lanes,
seven intersection improvements consisting
of refuge islands, dual curb ramps with
truncated domes, high visibility crosswalks,
and leading pedestrian intervals to reduce
risks to people walking, bicycling, and rolling,
and to help LA County reach vision zero.
Location: Multiple Jurisdictions (Carson,
Compton, Long Beach, Los Angeles)
Metro Role: Lead
Lead: Metro/Cities
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality, Community, Equity
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete
Streets, Transit
Phase Pre-Construction/Implementation
Potential for
packaging
All: Regionally significant bike projects from the Metro Active Transportation Plan (LB-ELA_0017); City of Long
Beach 8-to-80 Bikeways (LB-ELA_0162); LB-ELA Corridor
Bicycle Gap Closure Projects (LB-ELA_0163)
Artesia Station: Artesia Complete Street Corridor (LBELA_0056); Compton Creek Bike Underpasses (LBELA_0165) Wardlow, Willow, PCH Stations: Long Beach Boulevard
Complete Street Corridor (LB-ELA_0062)
Compton Station: Compton Transit Management
Operations Center Enhancements (LB-ELA_0168);
Compton Creek Bike Underpasses (LB-ELA_0165)
Estimated cost $13.53 million (Del Amo Station)
Potential funding
sources
Station TOD, State ATP, SCCP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum Local Match:
0% – ATP, SCCP
20% – Station TOD
Description
Note: This Fact Sheet continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 226 of 305
8-36
Displacements and Physical Impacts: In
general, major active transportation projects
should use the existing right-of-way if adding
Class II or IV bike facilities to the roadway.
Class I bikeways or other facilities that require
the expansion or addition of a paved right-ofway should incorporate materials and designs that maintain or increase pervious cover,
and/or landscaping elements that allow for
sufficient stormwater runoff.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Metro A Line First/Last Mile Plan Improvements (continued) LB-ELA_0008
The Blue (A) Line First/Last Mile plan has
recommendations for all stations in the
Corridor, and the Investment Plan will invest
in advancing First/Last Mile projects with a
focus on the following stations: • Del Amo • Artesia • Wardlow • Willow • PCH Note: Compton Station First/
Last
Mile improvements are being funded
separately through LB-ELA_0168 (Compton
Transit Management Operations Center
Enhancements).
Implementation Requirements/Guidance $10million* Recommended Measure R/M
Investment:
* Recommended Investment Plan funding amount
includes half the project cost for Del Amo Station, plus $3 million for pre-implementation work on Artesia,
Wardlow, Willow, and PCH stations**
* Pending conversations with City of Long Beach for
Wardlow, Willow, and PCH stations
*
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 227 of 305
8-37
* A Line crossings must be within the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area $5million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Metro A Line: Quad Safety Gates at all A Line [Blue Line] Crossings LB-ELA_0175
Install Quad Safety Gates at all A Line [Blue
Line] Crossings* for safety and increased
speed/safety zones.
Description
The Investment Plan will invest $5 million to
install quad safety gates at 10 locations on
the A Line. These locations will be determined
based on need, including factors such as
equity, vehicular traffic, and accident data.*
Implementation Requirements/Guidance Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Safety, Equity, Community Health
Flags Equity Flag: None
CIC Flag: None
Modes Transit, Arterial Roadways/
Complete Streets
Phase Implementation
Potential for
packaging
TBD
Estimated cost $450,000 per location
Potential funding
sources
RCE, CRISI
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
20% – RCE, CRISI
Location: TBD - along Metro A Line
Metro Role: Lead
Lead: Metro
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 228 of 305
8-38
$3million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Metro A Rail to River Active Transportation Corridor Segment B LB-ELA_0006
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community, Safety, Equity
Flags Equity Flag: Low
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: None
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete
Streets
Phase Pre-Construction/Implementation
Potential for
packaging
Randolph Bike and Pedestrian Project (LB-ELA_0066)
Estimated cost $6.3 million
Potential funding
sources
State ATP, SCCP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum Local Match:
0% – State ATP, SCCP
An approximately 4.3-mile active
transportation corridor between the LA River
and the Slauson A (Blue) Line station that
connects to Segment A.
The Rail to River Active Transportation
Corridor Segment B [LB-ELA_0006] follows
the Randolph Street right-of-way between the
Slauson A Line Station and the LA River. The
Randolph Bike and Pedestrian Project [LBELA_0066] comprises the eastern half of this project, in the City of Bell, between Maywood
Avenue and the LA River.
Economic Displacement Impacts: To minimize
potential for economic displacement, local
jurisdictions (Huntington Park, Maywood,
and Bell) should implement residential and
commercial stabilization measures, and
proactively engage neighboring residents
and businesses to identify needs and connect
community members with resources to
financial and technical assistance (START-UP
Fund).
Flooding and Water Quality Impacts: In
general, major active transportation projects
should use the existing right-of-way if adding
Class II or IV bike facilities to the roadway.
Class I bikeways or other facilities that require
the expansion or addition of a paved right-ofway should incorporate materials and designs that maintain or increase pervious cover,
and/or landscaping elements that allow for
sufficient stormwater runoff.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Location: Multiple Jurisdictions (Unincorporated
LA County, Bell, Huntington Park, and Maywood)
Metro Role: Funding Agency/Technical
Assistance Provider
Lead: Metro/Cities/LA County
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 229 of 305
8-39
Regionally Significant Bicycle Projects from the Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan
LB-ELA_0017
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Community, Air Quality, Opportunity
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Ensure that projects limit the amount of new
impervious surface and/or ensure projects include
additional porous surface and green space
Modes Active Transportation, Arterial Roadways/
Complete Streets,
Transit
Phase Development/Implementation
Potential for
packaging
Artesia Boulevard (Alameda Street to Butler Avenue):
Artesia Complete Street Corridor (LB-ELA_0056)
Long Beach Boulevard (PCH to S. Pine Avenue): Long Beach Complete Street Corridor (LB-ELA_0062), Micromobility Pilot Project [LB-ELA_0220], Metro Bus Priority Lane Corridor along Line 60 (Long Beach Boulevard) (LB-ELA_0141),
I-710/Long Beach Boulevard Interchange Improvements
[LB-ELA_0030], Blue Line First/Last Mile Projects
(Willow/Wardlow/PCH Stations) (LB-ELA_0008)
Randolph Street (Atlantic Boulevard to River Drive):
Orange Avenue/Alamitos Avenue (E. Spring Street to
Pine Avenue): Orange Avenue Improvement Project (LBELA_0113) Firestone Boulevard (LA River Bike Path to Lakewood
Boulevard): Metro Bus Priority Lane Corridor along Line 115 (Firestone) (LB-ELA_0145); I-710/Firestone Interchange
Improvements (LB-ELA_0033)
Compton Boulevard (Paulson Avenue to Atlantic Avenue):
Blue Line First/Last Mile Projects (Compton Station) (LBELA_0008); Compton Transit Management Operations Center Enhancements (LB-ELA_0168)
Implement regionally significant active
transportation projects adopted as part of the
Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan.
Metro recently updated their Active
Transportation Strategic Plan (November
2023) with a new list of priority corridors
throughout the county. The plan identified
three first-tier corridors in the Gateway Cities
subregion, two of which are in the LB-ELA
study area. Additionally, there are several
second-tier corridors, some of which overlap
with existing corridors on the full project
list (see Chapter 5 for potential packaging
opportunities). The Investment Plan will
invest in advancing the priorities of the Active
Transportation Strategic Plan, with a focus on
these corridors from the ATSP’s top two tiers
that fall within the LB-ELA study area:
Description
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Location: Corridor-Wide
Metro Role: Partner
Lead: Local Jurisdictions (Project Dependent)
• Artesia Boulevard (Alameda Street to
Butler Avenue)
• Long Beach Boulevard (Pacific Coast
Highway [PCH] to S. Pine Avenue)
• Randolph Street (Atlantic Boulevard to
River Drive)
• Orange Avenue/Alamitos Avenue (E. Spring
Street to Pine Avenue) Firestone Boulevard
(LA River Bike Path to Lakewood
Boulevard)
• Compton Boulevard (Paulson Avenue to
Atlantic Avenue)
• Active Transportation and SF Railway
(Washington Boulevard to Long Beach
Avenue/Slauson Avenue)
• Southern Pacific RR (Active Transportation
and SF Railway to Atlantic Avenue)
• Union Pacific RR (Atlantic Avenue to Wood
Avenue)
Note: This Fact Sheet continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 230 of 305
8-40
Estimated cost $41.44 million (based on $2 million/mile investment level based on funding 50% of the mileage which is more ready for implementation (14 miles) and $500,000 per corridor for the three less ready corridors.
Potential funding
sources
State ATP, TCC, SCCP
Funding available to individual projects only
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum Local Match:
0% – State ATP, SCCP, TCC (Development)
50 Percent – TCC (Implementation)
$16million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Regionally Significant Bicycle Projects from the Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan (continued)
LB-ELA_0017
Flooding and Water Quality Impacts: In
general, major active transportation projects
should use the existing right-of-way if adding
Class II or IV bike facilities to the roadway.
Class I bikeways or other facilities that require
the expansion or addition of a paved right-ofway should incorporate materials and designs that maintain or increase pervious cover,
and/or landscaping elements that allow for
sufficient stormwater runoff.
Construction impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 231 of 305
8-41
$9million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* For partial design
Shoemaker Bridge/Shoreline Drive
LB-ELA_0010
Although the Investment Plan investment
is recommended for design-only, there are
several implementation recommendations
when the project continues to implementation:
Displacements and Physical Impacts: The
project entails a major roadway redesign and
bridge reconstruction with both temporary
and permanent impacts to the existing rightof-way and surrounding recreational facilities, however the project will result in a permanent
net gain in parkland acres due to roadway
consolidation. Design should minimize
impacts to existing facilities where possible,
and Long Beach should proactively engage
the community to set expectations around the
project’s potential impacts, in the context of
its broader benefits.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution,
dust emissions, traffic delays/diversion,
interruptions to recreational facility access,
and business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Implementation Requirements/Guidance Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Safety, Mobility, Equity
Flags Equity Flag: Moderate
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
Modes Arterial Roadway, Freeway Safety and Interchange
Improvements, Active Transportation
Phase Pre-Construction/Implementation
Potential for
packaging
I-710 LA River Bike Path (LB-ELA_0055)
Estimated cost $833M for Shoemaker Bridge
Potential funding
sources
BIP, RAISE, INFRA, TCEP
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum Local Match:
0% – RAISE (Rural, HDC, APP), TCEP (if Caltrans
nominated)
20% – RAISE (Urban), BIP (Planning, non-large bridge)
30% – TCEP
40% – INFRA
50% – BIP (large bridge)
I-710 Improvements/Shoemaker Bridge
Replacement: Replace the Existing Shoemaker
Bridge with a new bridge. The new bridge will
be reduced to have two mixed-flow lanes in
the NB and in the SB directions to tie the flow
into I-710. The new bridge will also include
pedestrian and bicycle access. Additionally,
bicycle, pedestrian, and street enhancements
will be provided on adjacent thoroughfares
such as Shoreline Drive.
Description
Location: Long Beach
Metro Role: Fund/Support City's Funding Plan
Lead: Long Beach
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 232 of 305
8-42
$4million Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
Southeast Gateway Line Bike & Pedestrian Trail
LB-ELA_0111
The City of Paramount is the lead agency
on this project and will be responsible for
coordination with the Union Pacific Rail Road
on issues surrounding the UPRR right-of-way.
Flooding and Water Quality Impacts: Class I
bikeways or other facilities that require the
expansion or addition of a paved right-of-way
should incorporate materials and designs that
maintain or increase pervious cover, and/or
landscaping elements that allow for sufficient
stormwater runoff.
Construction impacts: Noise pollution, dust
emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and
business interruptions should be carefully
assessed and planned with mitigation
strategies in place.
Economic Displacement Impacts: To minimize
potential for economic displacement, local
jurisdictions should implement residential
and commercial stabilization measures, and
proactively engage neighboring residents
and businesses to identify needs and connect
community members with resources to
financial and technical assistance (START-UP
Fund).
Implementation Requirements/Guidance Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air Quality, Community, Safety
Flags Equity Flag: Low
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: None
Modes Active Transportation
Phase Development/Pre-Construction
Potential for
packaging
Southeast Gateway Line Light Rail Station First-Last Mile Bikeway Safety and Access Project (LB-ELA_0213)
Estimated cost $17M
Potential funding
sources
$12.5 funding committed
Other sources: State ATP, Rails to Trails, TCC, UGG
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum Local Match:
0% – State ATP, TCC (Development), UGG
20% – Rails to Trails
50% – TCC (Implementation)
Implement Phases 1 through 4 of Bike and
Pedestrian Trail (Class I) along RR ROW
between LA River and Sommerset in the
City of Paramount. Includes lighting, fencing,
landscaping, flashing beacons, decomposed
granite, ADA curb ramps, and street furniture.
Description
Lead: City of Paramount with Downey and South
Gate
Location: Multiple Jurisdictions (Downey,
Paramount, South Gate)
Metro Role: Partner
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 233 of 305
8-43
$50million* Recommended
Measure R/M
Investment:
* Already committed by Metro board (shared with
LB-ELA_0023)
Zero-Emission Truck Program
LB-ELA_0004
Displacements and Physical Impacts: Siting of
ZE truck infrastructure should avoid displace-
ments or right-of-way impacts. Wherever
these impacts are under consideration, Metro
and jurisdictions should proactively engage
residents, businesses, and property owners
to understand site-specific conditions and dis-
cuss opportunities for relocation assistance
and other community benefits.
Zero-Emissions and Public Safety Strategies:
Metro is committed to exploring all viable
zero-emission technologies, including bat-
tery-electric and hydrogen, to meet regulatory
mandates and sustainability goals without
endorsing one solution. • Addressing Community Concerns: Rec -
ognizes concerns regarding public health,
emissions during hydrogen production,
transportation safety, and potential
leakage, affirming Metro's dedication to
minimizing impacts and educating com-
munities.
• Compliance with Clean Fleets Rule:
California's 2035 Zero-Emission (ZE)
drayage truck mandate focused on tail-
pipe emissions, highlighting the need for
comprehensive approaches to achieve ZE
outcomes.
• State and Federal Investments: Significant
investments in hydrogen and battery-elec-
tric technologies, including up to $1.2
billion Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub
(H2Hubs) award, indicating strong govern-
mental support for diverse ZE solutions.
• Community Advocacy and Education: Met-
ro aims to serve as a community advocate
in ZE Truck (ZET) technology policy dis-
cussions, ensuring community concerns
are addressed, supporting research, and
facilitating educational initiatives on ZE
technologies.
• Expert Panel Discussions and Symposia:
Plans to organize expert panels, symposia,
and community education events to deep-
en understanding of hydrogen technology,
its state of development, and its implica-
tions for the LB-ELA Corridor.
Implementation Requirements/Guidance
Top scoring
goals/principles
addressed
Air quality; Sustainability; Environment
Flags Equity Flag: Low
See related implementation requirements/guidance below to address equity issues
CIC Flag: Establish incentives for small business owners and truck drivers to switch to ZE vehicles.
Modes Goods Movement only
Phase Implementation
Potential for
packaging
Combined with LB-ELA_0023
Estimated cost $200 million
Potential funding
sources
May be eligible for federal funding sources such as RTEPF (0004) and CIF (AFC category). PIDP, RTEPF (0023); INFRA or State programs such as TCEP (0004 only).
Grant
matching fund
requirements
Minimum local match:
0% – TCEP (if Caltrans nominated);
20% – Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities,
INFRA;
30% – TCEP
In January 2021, the Metro Board approved
the 2021 Goods Movement Strategic Plan,
which included a Countywide Clean Truck
Initiative, with the 710 South Clean Truck
Program identified as a goods movement
strategic priority. At its October 2021
meeting, the Metro Board acted to recommit
$50 million from Measure R I-710 South
Corridor funds as seed funding for the 710
South Clean Truck Program, which has been
subsequently renamed the LB-ELA ZET
Program. The objective of this program is to
turn over diesel trucks in favor of ZE trucks
in the LB-ELA Corridor. The program would
contribute subsidy funding to deploy a number
of ZE trucks on I-710, as well as seed funding
to develop electric charging/refueling stations
for ZE trucks.
Description
Location: Study area wide
Metro Role: Partner
Lead: Metro+
• Collaborative Efforts for ZE Future: Continue collaboration with stakeholders to develop a ZE future that benefits the LB-ELA Corridor, emphasizing the importance of community input and guidance in educational and policy initiatives.
Construction Impacts: Noise pollution, dust emissions, traffic delays/diversion, and business interruptions should be carefully assessed and planned with mitigation strategies in place.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 234 of 305
8-44
The Investment Plan
recommends $40 million
in Community Program
Catalyst Funding as
part of Metro's initial
investment to help
support the prioritization
of this effort.
8.5 Community Programs Recommendations
As discussed in Section 8.2, the intent of the Community Programs Catalyst Fund is to be responsive to long-standing equity issues that residents in the LB-ELA Corridor face, and will proactively and intentionally advance community health and well-being in ways not typically addressed by transportation planning or eligible for funding through transportation funding sources. The LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan, thanks to the Metro Board's leadership and direction to include impacted communities in the development of the Investment Plan, features 15 Community Programs that will complement the Investment Plan’s multimodal transportation investments. These Community Programs were identified by members of the Task Force, CLC, and members of the public as priorities for the LB-ELA corridor. Some Community Programs are focused on addressing current burdens that exist because of past policy, disinvestment, and infrastructure development; others are proactive measures to sustain community stability and maximize benefits as projects are implemented in the future. In no case will these programs be used as a mitigation for negative impacts of other projects.
In discussions with the Task Force and CLC, community health in all its forms emerged as an overarching priority for the Investment Plan. While transportation investments can improve health outcomes by improving and encouraging non-polluting travel modes, increasing multimodal access to healthcare, and improving conditions for outdoor physical activity, not all aspects of community health can be addressed through transportation infrastructure. The Community Programs Catalyst Fund is designed to address various other social determinants of health, including those related to health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and economic stability.
Metro’s extensive community engagement, ongoing dialogue with the CLC, and Task Force members have collectively identified 15 Community Programs as priorities for Metro to support as part of the Investment Plan. Each program has been assigned one or more potential pathways for further development, partnership, and implementation. Given the transportation nexus required for projects to receive Measure R/M funding, Metro support for Community Programs may or may not include direct funding, depending on the program scope. Metro will provide alternative forms of support, including the facilitation of partnerships to identify and collaborate with other agencies better suited to lead these programs and seek eligible funding opportunities.
Metro will help to support the creation of partnerships through the facilitation of Community Programs Working Groups, described in more detail in Chapter 9, as well as provide staff time and technical assistance where appropriate.
The 15 Community Programs are organized into three general topic areas: • Health/Air Quality/Environment • Housing Stabilization/Land Use • Job Creation/Work Opportunities Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 235 of 305
8-45
The Investment Plan recommends $40 million in Community Program Catalyst Funding as part of Metro’s initial investment to help support the prioritization of this effort. Metro is targeting $300 million in additional funds, averaging $20 million per Community Program, that could be leveraged using the Community Program Catalyst funding, through local, regional, state, and federal funds that are more suitable to each Community Program. The catalyst funding is intended to launch each program, support its development, and foster a self-sustaining process whereby additional revenues are identified to support an ongoing set of priority projects and programs recommended through the Working Group process. In this way, the Community Programs will be co-designed with community members and community-based organizations, in keeping with the Equity guiding principle.
Some Community Programs may build upon the existing work of Metro or other jurisdictions and organizations in the LB-ELA Corridor, while others will require establishing new partnerships and work programs.
Thesepathways have been organized into the categories summarized in the following paragraphs:
Collaborate to Develop New Strategy/Program. Use the current program description as a starting point to establish a new initiative in partnership with relevant agencies, community-based organizations (CBOs), and technical institutions.
Support as Part of External Agency Program. Identify opportunities to support an existing program led by an agency, CBO, or technical institution other than Metro that meets one or more features of the Community Program description.
Support as Part of Existing Metro Program. Identify opportunities to support an existing program led by Metro that meets one or more features of the Community Program description.
Support as Part of LB-ELA Corridor Project Implementation. Identify opportunities to incorporate features of the Community Program description directly into the design and implementation of specific projects in the Investment Plan. It is important to note that Community Programs are not intended to be mitigations for negative impacts of other projects funded in the Investment Plan; they are projects or programs that support addressing the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles raised by the community.
Implementing the Community Programs Catalyst Fund will depend on the continued involvement of community-based partners. Metro will facilitate ongoing working groups for each of the three topic areas listed above, with participation open to current LB-ELA Corridor Task Force members, CLC members, and other partners identified by Metro and Task Force members. Working group participants will collaborate to define programs in each topic area further, identifying lead agencies/organizations, funding sources, objectives, implementation actions, and other details such as geographic parameters or priority areas. The LB-ELA Corridor Task Force’s Zero-Emission Truck (ZET) Program Working Group will serve as a model and case study for Community Program working groups, and lessons learned from the ZET process will inform the structure and process of future working groups. Through the creation of the Community Programs and the opportunity for them to be self-sustaining through Working Groups, Metro is empowering communities with opportunities to partner with Metro and stakeholders to achieve these investments.
The following section outlines each of the Community Programs, including the current program description, potential pathways for development, related existing programs internal and external to Metro, potential partners, a detailed pathway suggestion, and additional notes or guidance related to a program implementation. The Investment Plan provides a starting point for these Community Programs, which will be developed and refined in the months that follow the adoption of the Investment Plan by the Metro Board in April 2024.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 236 of 305
8-46
LB-ELA_0133 LB-ELA Corridor Community Health Benefit Program LB-ELA_0191 Zero-Emission Infrastructure for Autos
LB-ELA_0192 Bus Electrification Projects
LB-ELA_0218 Air Quality Monitoring Stations
LB-ELA_0134 LB-ELA Corridor Energy Reduction/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Program LB-ELA_0187 LB-ELA Corridor “Urban Greening” Initiative LB-ELA_0190 Public Art/Aesthetics
LB-ELA_0009 Southeast Gateway Line Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Implementation Plan and Program (TOD SIP)
LB-ELA_0193 Transit-Oriented Communities/
Land Use
LB-ELA_0194 Homeless Programs
LB-ELA_0135 Housing Stabilization Policies
LB-ELA_0197 Vocational Educational Programs
LB-ELA_0195 Targeted Hire Programs
LB-ELA_0196 Employment/Recruitment Initiatives
LB-ELA_0186 Economic Stabilization Policies
Community Programs by Topic Area
Health/Air Quality/Environment
Housing Stabilization/ Land Use
Job Creation/Work Opportunities
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 237 of 305
8-47
Health/Air Quality/Environment
LB-ELA Corridor Community Health Benefit Program
LB-ELA_0133
Under this program, funding would be made available to implement air quality projects to reduce exposure to air pollution as well as health education and screening programs in areas adversely affected by existing and proposed transportation infrastructure projects. The LB-ELA Community Health Benefit Program would serve the communities in the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area. This program would provide subsidy funding to implement projects and outreach activities to improve air quality and public health, including but not limited to: • Air Quality Projects for Schools and Community Facilities: air filtration, HVAC upgrades, replacement/sealing of windows and doors, vegetation barriers or buffer landscaping;
• Health Education and Screening: community health screening and diagnosis, health education, training for community health workers, outreach programs; • Providing support for air filtration systems and household whole-home retrofit programs, such as weatherization and abating toxic substances such as lead, mold, and asbestos; and
• Developing climate and air pollution and climate resilience centers with air filtration, temperature regulation, and proper sealing for use during emergencies.
Program primary pathway: Collaborate to Develop New Strategy/Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing Metro Programs:
None Existing, but link to I-710 Particulate Matter (PM) Reduction Pilot Project [LBELA_0157] recommended for funding as part of Investment Plan Existing external programs:
SCAQMD School Air Filtration Project
Assembly Bill (AB) 617 Community Air Protection Program – Community Emissions Reduction Programs (CERP) Strategies and Actions
CARB Community Air Protection Program (CAPP)
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma (LBACA)
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice (EYCEJ) Earthjustice
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
SELA Collaborative
Natural Resources Defense Council
Coalition for Clean Air (CCA)
LA County Department of Public Health
Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Southern California Clinics Association
Southern California (SoCal) Crossroads
SmartAirLA
Note: Continues on next page
Program Description
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 238 of 305
8-48
Health/Air Quality/Environment
LB-ELA Corridor Community Health Benefit Program
LB-ELA_0133
Metro can partner with CBOs involved in environmental justice and public health (such as EYCEJ and LBACA) to identify and develop a suite of new air quality improvement (exposure reduction) projects throughout the LB-ELA Corridor. Projects may support implementation of strategies and actions identified in the CERP for AB 617 Community Air Protection Program Communities. Metro can provide funding and/or technical assistance for targeted expansion of existing heath education and screening programs. This program may also support and expand upon the I-710 Particulate Matter (PM) Reduction Pilot Project (LB-ELA_0157) recommended for funding as part of the Investment Plan.
COVID-19-related public health education and outreach could be used as a model for educational outreach related to air quality and associated health outcomes.
Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential Funding Sources
LA Care Community Health Investment Fund
CDC Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) Community Air Protection Incentives
Clean Mobility Investments and the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP) E-Bike Incentive Project
AB 617 Community Air Grants
CA Enviro Grassroots Funds
Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP) Program
Sustainable Communities Competitive
Environmental Justice Action Grants
Youth Community Access Program
Community Resilience Centers Program
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Yes – relates to mitigation of environmental effects of public streets and highways
(continued)
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 239 of 305
8-49
Health/Air Quality/Environment
Zero-Emission Infrastructure for Autos
LB-ELA_0191
Work with local jurisdictions (cities, County of Los Angeles), public agencies, and private-public partners to develop and site additional charging stations for ZE vehicles in the LB-ELA Corridor. Provide grant writing assistance to help secure funding. In addition, provide technical support to share best practices such as identification of incentives and/or policy requirements for new development.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing external programs:
LA County Internal Services Department (ISD) Clean Transportation Team Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment expansion program
Southern California Edison (SCE) Charge Ready Program
SCAG Last Mile Freight Program (Zero-Emission [ZE] Delivery Zones) Metro can work with the County ISD, SCE, local jurisdictions, and private partners to identify electric vehicle charger siting priorities in the LB-ELA Corridor and provide grant writing assistance in pursuit of funding for ZE infrastructure in the Corridor.
Metro can support expansion of ZE delivery zones throughout the LB-ELA Corridor through SCAG’s Last Mile Freight program for lighter-duty delivery trucks and vans.
When selecting sites for ZE charging facilities, lead agencies and partners should proactively engage residents, businesses, and property owners to understand sitespecific conditions and challenges.
Hydrogen Concerns: The environmental impact of hydrogen production, particularly its association with fossil fuels and significant greenhouse gas emissions on already impacted communities is a major concern. In addition, safety risks associated with the transportation and storage of hydrogen, including risks related to pipelines, trucks, rail, and ships are also of concern. Hazardous emissions such as Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) from hydrogen combustion and its impact on respiratory health in vulnerable communities should be assessed. Metro should engage in communitycentered decision-making through the Air Quality and Health Working Group with impacted communities and should avoid endorsements of potentially harmful applications without community input. Metro should also conduct community education on hydrogen fuel and related issues with regional and community partners.
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
LA County ISD
SCE
Gateway Cities Council of Governments
Gateway Cities Regional Climate Collaborative
Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator
Southern California Association of Governments
Local Jurisdictions
Potential Funding Sources
California Energy Commission Clean Transportation Program California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) Communities in Charge
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Yes
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 240 of 305
8-50
Health/Air Quality/Environment
Bus Electrification Projects
LB-ELA_0192
Seek incentives to accelerate the deployment of ZE transit and vanpool vehicles in the LB-ELA Corridor. Projects could include bus electrification (public transit buses and school buses) as well as ZE charging infrastructure. Provide technical and grant writing assistance to define and develop potential projects.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Existing Metro Programs:
Metro Bus Electrification Program (100% ZE bus fleet by 2030) Metro can continue expansion of its own electrification efforts and coordinate with GCCOG and LB-ELA jurisdictions on related ZE transit efforts (e.g., ZE trolley on Atlantic through Maywood, Bell, Cudahy, and South Gate).
Set aside Measure M funding to study the feasibility of creating a ZE charging depot in the Gateway Cities area to support LB Transit, Metro, and other municipal operation needs, especially for transfer hubs and turnback areas.
Hydrogen Concerns: The environmental impact of hydrogen production, particularly its association with fossil fuels and significant greenhouse gas emissions on already impacted communities is a major concern. In addition, safety risks associated with the transportation and storage of hydrogen, including risks related to pipelines, trucks, rail, and ships are also of concern. Hazardous emissions such as Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) from hydrogen combustion and its impact on respiratory health in vulnerable communities should be assessed. Metro should engage in communitycentered decision-making through the Air Quality and Health Working Group with impacted communities and should avoid endorsements of potentially harmful applications without community input. Metro should also conduct community education on hydrogen fuel and related issues with regional and community partners.
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
NA
Potential Funding Sources
Measure M
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Yes
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 241 of 305
8-51
Health/Air Quality/Environment
Air Quality Monitoring Stations
LB-ELA_0218
Add new air quality monitoring stations in the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area. Sites to be identified in cooperation with the SCAQMD, community-based organizations, and residents as part of the Community Programs Working Groups.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing external programs:
California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Community Air Protection program/SCAQMD AB 617 Community Air Monitoring Program
Metro can partner with CARB and SCAQMD to identify locations for new air quality monitoring stations along the LB-ELA Corridor and provide technical grant writing assistance to seek funding for air quality monitoring stations through various state and federal grants.
NA
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
SCAQMD
CARB
Local Jurisdictions
Potential Funding Sources
United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Yes – relates to research/maintenance of public streets and highways and mitigation of their environmental effects Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 242 of 305
8-52
Health/Air Quality/Environment
LB-ELA Corridor Energy Reduction/GHG Emissions
Reduction Program
LB-ELA_0134
Under the Energy Reduction/GHG Reduction Program, funding would be made available to implement energy reduction as well as GHG reduction projects in areas impacted by transportation projects in the LB-ELA Corridor. This program would be an important element of any major transportation initiative that takes place in the LBELA Corridor. The program would provide subsidy funding to implement projects and educational activities intended to reduce GHG emissions. Examples of these projects include renewable energy projects, solar-power generation, energy efficient lighting, and tree planting, among others.
Metro can continue expansion of its internal bus electrification efforts and ZE truck program, commit to energy efficiency in delivery of Metro projects (with consulting services from SoCalREN), and offer collaboration on external efforts to reduce GHG emissions through transition to renewable energy throughout the county and region.
NA
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
SCAQMD
SoCalREN
Potential Funding Sources
EPA Climate Pollution Reduction Grants
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Yes
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing Metro Programs:
Metro I-710 ZET Program
Metro Bus Electrification
Existing external programs:
SoCalREN program
SCAQMD Air Quality Investment Program (Rule 2202)
SCAQMD Community Air Protection Program Incentives
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 243 of 305
8-53
Health/Air Quality/Environment
LB-ELA Corridor “Urban Greening” Initiative
LB-ELA_0187
There is a critical need to prioritize greenspace commitments in the CMIP, particularly for low-income communities of color in the Corridor. Under this initiative, Community Plan Working Groups will develop and refine “urban greening” projects that foster environmental resilience. They play a vital role in improving air quality, absorbing pollutants, and releasing oxygen, which is especially beneficial for these communities burdened by pollution from industrial and transportation sources. Additionally, green spaces provide valuable opportunities for active transportation, such as walking and cycling, encouraging sustainable modes of transportation and reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, green spaces can help mitigate the urban heat island effect, reducing temperatures in urban areas. This is crucial as temperatures rise due to climate change, contributing to the creation of more resilient and adaptable communities in the Corridor.
Urban greening elements may include items such as: provision of green space/greenbelts; parklets; tree planting; community gardens and community farms; drought-tolerant planting; habitat restoration and connectivity; stormwater capture/flood diversion/water management projects; brownfield remediation; natural trail restoration; and green infrastructure, among others. Through the LB-ELA Urban Greening Initiative, project proponents may also partner with other localities, nonprofit organizations, or communities to plan, design, and implement “green” projects that demonstrate that they provide publicly accessible open-space and ecosystem benefits such as urban heat island reduction in the LB-ELA Corridor.
Through the Community Plan Working groups, areas that are in the most critical need of new green space will be identified with input from community members.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of LB-ELA Project Implementation Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Metro can make funding available to lead agencies for LB-ELA projects to add or expand upon greening elements to maximize the environmental benefits of projects with a transportation focus. Metro can also provide technical support to external agencies and CBOs that lead greening efforts in the LB-ELA Corridor, such as community gardens, tree planting/maintenance, and LA River cleanup and restoration.
Finally, Metro is going to create a countywide Urban Greening program. This program was recommended in Metro’s Moving Beyond Sustainability plan104 .
NA – Green space and increased greenery should be consulted with local Indigenous peoples, tribes, and organizations to honor and restore local plant life.
Program Description
Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
GCCOG Regional Climate Collaborative
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
Communities for a Better Environment
Compton Community Garden
Eastmont Community Center
TreePeople
GrowGood
Friends of the LA River
Potential Funding Sources
Urban Greening Grant Program (CA Natural Resources Agency) Metro Countywide Urban Greening Grant Program (in development) Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely Yes – Relates to the improvement and maintenance of public streets and highways, including the mitigation of their environmental effects
104 https://www.metro.net/about/plans/moving-beyond-sustainability/ Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 244 of 305
8-54
Source: SPP Survey, SPP Mapping
Health/Air Quality/Environment
Public Art/Aesthetics
LB-ELA_0190
Policy initiative that would require that a percentage of transportation construction funds for major public work projects be earmarked for public art, landscaping, urban design elements, and other aesthetic features for the projects.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Program third pathway: Support as part of LB-ELA Project Implementation Existing Metro Programs: Metro Art program
Existing external programs: Caltrans Transportation Art program Metro can continue to bring arts programming and installations for Metro stations and/or other transportation/transit infrastructure. Metro can partner with Caltrans on its Transportation Art Program to identify sites and opportunities for local communities and public government agencies to place art and other aesthetic treatments on state-owned facilities and in state-owned rights-of-way. Metro can make funding available to lead agencies for LB-ELA projects to add art, landscaping, or other visual enhancements to projects with a transportation focus.
NA
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
Caltrans District Transportation Art Coordinator
Potential Funding Sources
Metro Art program
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely No
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 245 of 305
8-55
Source: Metro LRTP
Housing Stabilization/Land Use
Southeast Gateway Line Transit-Oriented Development
Strategic Implementation Plan (TOD SIP) and Program
LB-ELA_0009
The TOD SIP provides an overarching vision and strategic guidance for local Southeast Gateway Line jurisdictions to use as a resource as they develop and implement their own plans, policies, and economic development and mobility strategies in the 12 Southeast Gateway Line station areas along the alignment. Additionally, in 2019, the Metro Board approved a $1 million implementation program to fund Southeast Gateway Line jurisdictions to implement TOD SIP recommendations.
Metro can continue to provide guidance to local Southeast Gateway Line jurisdictions as they develop and implement plans, policies, and economic development and mobility strategies in the 12 Southeast Gateway Line station areas. Metro will continue funding implementation activities using the $1 million of implementation funds approved by the Metro Board in 2019.
NA
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
Local Jurisdictions
Potential Funding Sources
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely No
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing Metro Programs:
Southeast Gateway Line TOD SIP Implementation Funding Program Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 246 of 305
8-56
Source: COG Ad Hoc Committee, SPP Survey, SPP Mapping
Housing Stabilization Policies
LB-ELA_0135
Applying an integrated approach, work with cities, County of Los Angeles, and public agencies to propose and pass community stabilization policies to support disadvantaged communities in the LB-ELA Corridor, improve their resilience, and address the social determinants of health. Provide grant writing assistance to secure needed funding. Housing stabilization policies and incentives include measures such as: • Mandates for process improvement: engage the community/ form partnerships
with CBOs;
• Community benefits: establish a framework/menu/equitable development scorecard for new development projects;
• Develop community land trusts/land banks for new housing and/or to support naturally occurring affordable housing;
• Local wealth creation: encourage production of local for sale affordable housing, down payment assistance programs, and homeowner maintenance assistance programs;
• Inclusionary housing policies with or without the option of in lieu fees; • Housing Trust Fund to support and increase funding for affordable housing production;
• Density bonus programs to incentivize affordable and mixed-income housing production;
• Affordable accessory dwelling unit (ADU) programs and ADU amnesty programs; • Policies to reduce housing costs, such as parking reduction/unbundling, innovative construction techniques, fee waivers, and permit streamlining; • Anti-displacement programs for tenants: tenant rights programs, including antiharassment policies/just cause eviction policies, legal assistance for tenants, no net loss housing policies for new development, limits on residential demolition and conversion, tenant right-to-return policies, and local resident preference programs for new housing;
• Rent stabilization policies; • Low-income rental assistance programs, and low-interest loan programs for maintenance and improvement in rent stabilized units;
• Anti-displacement programs for homeowners: tax relief/loans/grants for maintenance/foreclosure assistance; and
• Basic Income Program.
Through the Community ProgramPlan Working groups, Metro will consult with mission-driven affordable housing providers, tenant advocates, and other experts to develop recommendations for programs and projects.
Program Description
Housing Stabilization/Land Use
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
GCCOG
Local Jurisdictions
Fair Housing Foundation
BASTA Long Beach
Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
Potential Funding Sources
GCCOG Housing Trust Fund
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely No
Program primary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing external programs:
GCCOG Housing Trust Fund
GCCOG Tenant Legal Assistance
Note: Continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 247 of 305
8-57
Housing Stabilization Policies (continued)
LB-ELA_0135
Housing Stabilization/Land Use
Metro can collaborate with GCCOG to identify opportunities for transit-oriented affordable housing in the LB-ELA Corridor through the Housing Trust Fund. Metro can support existing tenant assistance programs through local jurisdictions, GCCOG, and CBOs. Metro can provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions seeking to study and develop housing stabilization policies at a local level, particularly related to transit-oriented development.
NA
Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 248 of 305
8-58
Source: Metro, SPP Mapping
Transit-Oriented Communities/Land Use
LB-ELA_0193
Work with the local jurisdictions (cities, County of Los Angeles) to apply best practices and design guidelines to encourage transit-oriented development near rail stations and heavily used bus routes in the LB-ELA Corridor. Provide technical resources such as grant writing assistance and technical assistance for community development and land use planning. Assist local jurisdictions in coordination with property owners and developers to ensure safe construction and strengthen connections to transit.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Existing Metro Programs:
Metro TOC Policy and Implementation Plan
Metro TOC Programs (First/Last Mile, Joint Development, Systemwide Design, Economic Development, and Transit Supportive Planning)
Metro can enact the TOC Implementation Plan, which includes providing grant writing assistance and technical assistance for community development and land use planning. Metro can coordinate with local jurisdictions to better plan for housing near rail stations and heavily used bus routes along the LB-ELA Corridor. Metro can also collaborate with affordable housing organizations and developers to promote development in TOC areas through incentives.
Metro already has a TOC policy to support jurisdictions in TOC initiatives.
CIC Flag: Skepticism of transit-oriented development initiatives that lack the necessary guardrails to ensure they do not lead to gentrification and other displacement pressures on existing Corridor residents. Recommendation for Metro to consult with mission-driven affordable housing providers and tenant advocates in designing Transit Oriented Development initiatives.
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Flags
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
Local Jurisdictions
Potential Funding Sources
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely No
Housing Stabilization/Land Use
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 249 of 305
8-59
Homeless Programs
LB-ELA_0194
Support homeless initiatives in the LB-ELA Corridor, and support efforts and recommendations that have emerged from Metro’s Homeless Task Force, Reimagining Public Safety Initiatives, and other County initiatives and studies to address homelessness in and around the transit system, including provisions to:
enhance the customer experience; maintain a safe and secure system; and connect homeless persons in the transit system to services and resources.
Through the Community Programs Working Groups, Metro will consult with local community-based organizations serving the unhoused in developing these programs, with a focus on addresses the root causes of homelessness as opposed to policing.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing Metro Programs:
Metro Homeless Outreach Pilot program
Metro Room to Work program
Existing external programs:
CCOG/LA Care Enhanced Care Management Partnership
Program Description
Metro can support existing Metro Homeless Outreach Team (MHOT) efforts to connect unhoused individuals with services; assess MHOT performance statistics/need on rail and bus routes, and associated transit stations throughout the LB-ELA Corridor; and coordinate with homeless service providers in the LB-ELA Corridor to ensure that MHOT partnerships in the Corridor are effective and up to date. Metro can partner with other transit agencies in LB-ELA Corridor to expand services and coordinate across systems.
Metro can support its existing Room to Work program and identify opportunities for recruitment in the LB-ELA Corridor.
NA
Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
Local Jurisdictions
GCCOG
LA Care
East LA Women’s Center
Fair Opportunity for Change
Forgotten Children, Inc.
Jordan’s Disciples Community Service
Kingdom Causes Bellflower
Restoration Diversion Services
Salvation Army
Potential Funding Sources
Measure H
CA Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grants Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely No
Housing Stabilization/Land Use
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 250 of 305
8-60
Economic Stabilization Policies
LB-ELA_0186
Work with cities, County of Los Angeles, and public agencies to propose and pass community stabilization policies to support disadvantaged communities in the LBELA Corridor. Provide grant writing assistance to secure needed funding. Economic stabilization policies and incentives include measures such as: • Mandates for process improvement: engage the community/ form partnerships with
CBOs;
• Community financial empowerment programs: local hire agreements, workforce education and development, credit improvement programs; • Locally owned business support: small business interruption fund and loan funds during construction, guide for business support services, zoning to encourage small businesses, and lease-to-own programs for businesses and housing; and • Identify, protect, and encourage legacy and culturally significant businesses, and historical and cultural landmarks; and mandate inclusion of arts and culture spaces in new development.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Existing Metro Programs:
Metro Business Interruption Fund
Existing external programs:
LA County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) Business Support Program LA Conservancy Legacy Business Grant Program
City of LA Legacy Business Program
Long Beach Legacy Business Program
BREATHE LA County
LA County Commercial Tenant Protections Ordinance Education and Outreach Program Description
Metro can provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions for planning and policy studies to enact economic stabilization policies. Metro can also support GCCOG and other organizations that provide business support (technical assistance, microloans, education), and city-led legacy business programs (e.g., Long Beach, Los Angeles) that aim to preserve long-standing businesses facing displacement pressure. Metro can support LA County Department of Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services outreach efforts related to the Commercial Tenant Protections Ordinance.
NA
Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
LAEDC
Cambodian Association of America
United Cambodian Community
LA Conservancy
Long Beach Heritage
LA County Department of Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services (WDACS); Office of Small Business
Potential Funding Sources
Community Development Block Grants
Strategic Growth Council
California Endowment
Liberty Hill Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely No
Job Creation/Work Opportunities
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 251 of 305
8-61
Targeted Hire Programs
LB-ELA_0195
Support the development of targeted and local hire programs to increase the share of public dollars that is devoted to creation of local jobs for community residents in the LB-ELA Study Area. Include measures such as the establishment of Project Labor Agreements that specify local and targeted hire goals for specific construction projects, as well as first-source hire requirements. Collaborate with local jurisdictions and public agencies to align local and targeted hire policies, thresholds, and requirements.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Program third pathway: Support as part of LB-ELA Project Implementation Existing Metro Programs:
Metro Project Labor Agreement/Construction Careers Policy Existing external programs:
LA County Public Works Local and Targeted Hiring Program Metro and LA County Department of Water and Power both have local targeted hire programs already in place. Metro can collaborate with other local jurisdictions/agencies to tie existing hiring policies to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, or focus on hiring for specific types of jobs, such as “green” jobs. Metro can also support existing initiatives that include established local hire/workforce development opportunities and project labor agreements.
Targeted hiring policies should be in place during the implementation process to ensure that residents benefit from projects as they are developed/constructed.
CIC Flag: Community suggestion to set minimum residency length requirement that workers must meet to qualify for local hire benefits.
Program Description Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
Local Jurisdictions
Potential Funding Sources
TBD
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: Likely No
Job Creation/Work Opportunities
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 252 of 305
8-62
Employment/Recruitment Initiatives
LB-ELA_0196
Partner with public agencies, large employers, and local businesses to conduct recruitment drives at locations in the LB-ELA Corridor (both virtual and in person.) This initiative would also include job fairs and workshops at community facilities and community colleges to provide information to local residents regarding work opportunities and networking resources. Conduct promotional campaigns to actively publicize these events in the LB-ELA Corridor communities.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Existing Metro Programs:
Metro Workforce Initiative Now (WIN-LA) Program
Metro Room to Work program
Metro Internship and Entry-Level Trainee Program
Metro E3 (Expose – Educate – Employ) Initiative and Transportation School Metro Transportation Career Academy Program (TCAP)
Existing external programs:
GCCOG Workforce Development Programs
LA County Public Works Local and Targeted Hiring Program Program Description
Metro can support local implementation of its own employment/recruitment initiatives such as WIN-LA, Room to Work, E3, and TCAP in the LB-ELA Corridor communities. Metro can partner with GCCOG to support existing employment/recruitment programs in partnership with local educational institutions and labor unions. Metro can engage a variety of local nonprofit organizations providing job placement services to ensure that participants are aware of employment opportunities related to the LB-ELA Investment Plan and throughout the Corridor.
NA
Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance Potential partners (may include, but not limited to) GCCOG
CALSTART
Easterseals
GrowGood
ICAN California Abilities Network
Mexican American Opportunity Foundation
Project Return Peer Support – La Casita de Apoyo
Restoration Diversion Services
Potential partners (continued)
Soledad Enrichment Action
The Arc Southeast Los Angeles County
Veterans Stand Together
Potential Funding Sources
Metro Workforce Development Programs
GCCOG Workforce Development Programs
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: No
Job Creation/Work Opportunities
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 253 of 305
8-63
Vocational Educational Programs
LB-ELA_0197
Partner with public agencies, private-sector employers, community colleges, labor organizations, and nonprofit organizations to expand vocational and educational programs for community residents in the LB-ELA Corridor. Examples could include training for mechanics who work for small businesses that service ZE vehicles.
These programs would provide opportunities to establish a career pathway to work in key economic sectors and move up through the ranks by focusing on workforce development and skills training.
Program primary pathway: Support as part of External Agency Program Program secondary pathway: Support as part of Existing Metro Program Program third pathway: Support as part of LB-ELA Project Implementation Existing Metro Programs:
Metro WIN-LA Program
Metro Room to Work Program
Metro Internship and Entry-Level Trainee Program
Metro E3 (Expose–Educate–Employ) Initiative and Transportation School Metro TCAP
Existing external programs:
Port of LA High Road Training Partnership Grant
Program Description
Metro can partner with public agencies, private-sector employers, community colleges, labor organizations, and nonprofit organizations to expand vocational and educational programs for community residents in the LB-ELA Corridor. Examples could include training for mechanics who work for small businesses that service ZE vehicles. These programs would provide opportunities to establish a career pathway to work in key economic sectors and move up through the ranks by focusing on workforce development and skills training.
Vocational training programs should ideally focus on creating a qualified workforce that will most likely benefit from CIP projects.
Detailed Pathway Suggestion
Implementation Notes/Guidance
Potential partners (may include, but not limited to)
GCCOG
CALSTART
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Training Center Carpenters Union Training Center
Slawson Southeast Occupational Center
Assistance League of Long Beach
Empower Unlimited
Driving Hope
Grass Roots Community Network
Potential partners (continued)
Soledad Enrichment Action
EXP The Opportunity Engine
Unearth and Empower Communities
YWCA
EntreNous
Pacific Gateway
Long Beach City College
CSU Long Beach
Potential Funding Sources
High Road Training Partnership (HRTP) Grants
Metro Workforce Development Programs
GCCOG Workforce Development Programs
Measure R/M Funding Eligibility: No
Job Creation/Work Opportunities
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 254 of 305
8-64
Long Beach will be a major destination for the 2028 Games as one of the five major sports parks with four venues and six sports. The 2028 Games can serve as a catalyst to create permanent benefits and more sustainable and equitable mobility along the Long Beach-East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridors. In June 2023, Metro published the 2028 Games Mobility Concept Plan (MCP) in response to the Board of Directors' Motion 42. The plan identifies a list of projects that provide permanent benefits for Angelenos while enabling spectators and the workforce to get to the 2028 Games by transit, walking, or rolling. The project list will reconnect communities across highway and arterial barriers by creating multimodal investments: bus speed and reliability improvements, first/last mile strategies and projects, mobility hubs, and non-capital mobility solutions. These investments will improve connectivity in LA County, proving direct benefit to 1 million disadvantaged Angelenos. With an emphasis on equity, legacy, and the 2028 Games, three specific MCP projects are located within the LB-ELA Corridor. The first project is a new crossover track near the intersection of Anaheim Street and Long Beach Boulevard to improve service reliability for the A Line. The second project is a bus priority improvement project along Florence Avenue, Studebaker Road, and Imperial Highway to enhance connectivity between SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, the Metro C Line Norwalk Station, and the Metrolink Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Station.
A Line Crossover at Long Beach Blvd and Anaheim St: The existing A Line between the downtown loop and Anaheim St Station is located within the City of Long Beach. It consists of two mainline tracks in the northbound and southbound directions in the middle of Long Beach Blvd. At a diamond crossing south of Anaheim St, A Line trains pass through downtown Long Beach in a clockwise loop, crossing over from right-hand running to left-hand running. Immediately south of Anaheim St Station, there is a hand-throw single crossover that allows for movements in one direction only. To allow movements in both directions, a power-operator double crossover is proposed to replace both the existing diamond crossing and the existing single crossover. LA Metro would be the lead agency. The location of this transit Planning / Conceptual Study project is Long Beach. It is anticipated to cost $15M funding in park by 25% LPP and State sources.
A Line Willow Station Mobility Hub: To provide multimodal options at central locations where theres is the greatest potential for public transit use and active mobility, Metro will implement a mobility hub at the A Line Willow Station. The mobility hub improvements will consist of bike and scooter share stations, public art, concessions, and vendor spaces, accessible parking, electric vehicle charging and green vehicle parking, safe storage for and rental of personal 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games
In 2028, Los Angeles will host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games (2028 Games).
The 2028 Games will match the incredible scale and diversity of Los Angeles. According to its organizers, the 2028 Games is estimated to attract 12 to 15 million ticketholders and approximately 400,000 accredited personnel (athletes, officials, media, volunteers, and employees).
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 255 of 305
8-65
micro mobility devices, shade structures, solar panels, Wi-Fi, and device charging docks. While the areas immediately around the selected sites are nonresidential, nearby transit-oriented communities will provide a steady and growing stream of foot traffic once investments growth in bicycling, walking, and transit use. MHs are crucial because they support safe and convenient transfers between transportation modes, supporting first/last mile connections to transit through multimodal options, especially for those with limited mobility choices. LA Metro would be the lead agency. The location of this transit and active transportation Planning / Conceptual Study project is Long Beach. It is anticipated to cost $11M funding in part by 25% LPP and Federal EPA sources.
Florence/Studebaker/Imperial Bus Priority Improvements: The bus corridor enhancements on Florence Ave, Studebaker Rd, and Imperial Highway within the jurisdictions of Bell, Bell Gardens, Downey, Huntington Park, Norwalk, and the unincorporated community of Florence Firestone will tie into a fully funded 5.4- mile bus priority lanes project from the Metro K Line Fairview Heights Station to the Metro A Line Florence Station. These enhancements will extend improved transit connectivity and service frequency by another 9.4 miles from the Metro A Line Florence Station to Studebaker Rd and then south to Cecilia St.
Enhancements will consists of bus bulbs (to increase bus speeds and reliability by reducing the need for weaving while improving safety for transit users), 38 bus shelters at existing bus stops, all door boarding, and TSP along the entire corridor to serve Metro Line 111, which has connections to 12 Metro and seven non Metro bus routes with a weekday average ridership of 13,000. Over half of Florence Ave is part of the NextGen Bus Plan, as a key rapid bus line corridor. The bus priority improvements on Studebaker Rd south of Cecilia St to Interstate | 105 in Norwalk will provide improved bus speeds by 30% on 1.4 miles of roadway to improve connectivity to the Metro C Line Norwalk Station. Studebaker Rd bus priority lane improvements will tie into the 2.1 miles of Imperial Hwy bus priority lane improvements from Studebaker Rd to the Metrolink Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Station to improve connectivity between regional commuter rail service and Metro light rail service. The Metrolink Station is a top five ridership station for the 91/Perris Valley and Orange County lines and connects to the Norwalk Entertainment District, Civic Center, and LA County government jobs. LA Metro would be the lead agency. The location of this transit and arterial/complete streets Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 256 of 305
8-66
Planning / Conceptual Study project is multiple
jurisdictions in the corridor. It is anticipated to
cost $32M funding through RAISE and Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts.
These projects will economically benefit the LB
- East LA Corridor communities by enhancing
access between Equity Focus Communities
and major employment centers like Downtown
Long Beach and Inglewood. These projects
provide cost-effective mobility benefits that
can be realized in time to support the 2028
Games and create a lasting legacy. In March
2024, Metro was awarded $139 million from
USDOT's Reconnecting Communities Pilot/
Neighborhood Access and Equity Programs
that will support the implementation of several
projects, including the mobility hub and Florence
Avenue bus priority improvement projects.
While the projects identified for the 2028 Games
were not scored through the LB-ELA Task
Force evaluation process, they are funded and
scheduled for implementation in time for the
2028 Games. These projects further the vision,
goals and guiding principals of the investment
Plan by improving transit access in the corridor.
The unfunded crossover track project will be
included in the Transit Modal Program for the
Investment Plan for future consideration.
Projects for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 257 of 305
8-67
8.6 Modal Programs and START UP Fund
In addition to identifying projects and programs for initial funding, the Investment Plan also looks to the future of the LB-ELA Corridor by planning, developing, identifying, and refining projects, programs, and strategic initiatives that will advance the Corridor’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles into future years. Modal Programs and the START-UP (“Strategic Technical Assistance for Reparative Transportation Uplifting People”) Fund will allow the Investment Plan to be a flexible, dynamic, living document that addresses future priorities and needs as they evolve.
The Investment Plan is based on an intensive, community-engaged process, which determined that additional planning work is needed to identify emerging projects/programs that align well with the adopted Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. Several cities, particularly those without implementation-ready projects for investment consideration, also need technical assistance (through the START-UP Fund) to support this work in their respective EFCs and ensure equitable investments throughout the Corridor. The Projects and Programs under the Investment Plan are also displayed by location and goal focus area in Appendix 8-A. Modal Programs will serve as the mechanism by which these ongoing planning and development activities lead to implementation following the adoption of the Investment Plan.
The Investment Plan features five Modal Programs, in addition to the Community Programs Catalyst Fund described in Section 8.3, including:
active transportation, arterial roadways/complete streets, freeway safety and interchange improvements, goods movement, and transit105. Metro, its partners, and relevant stakeholders will need to collaborate to advance the projects in the Modal Programs toward their implementation, furthering the goals of the Investment Plan. Investment Plan elements that will be included in Modal Programs include the following:
• Near-term Tier 1 projects not selected for immediate funding; • Longer-term Tier 1 projects that require additional development to become implementation-ready;
• Tier 2 projects that will need additional development and refinement to become more aligned with the Investment Plan Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles to be considered for implementation in the future; • Equitable project planning to identify equity gaps, provide technical assistance (Through the START-UP Fund) for lower-resources communities, and develop projects for future implementation; and • Pilot programs, strategic initiatives, and planning studies.
The Investment Plan will reserve funding in each Modal Program to carry out these planning and development activities and implement some projects that develop from these activities. This includes some projects that were ranked highly in the evaluation process but were identified as not being ready for initial investment under the plan. In addition, the Modal Program funding may be used to advance other partially funded projects with a slight funding gap or those put forward by Metro and partners for grant applications that did not receive external funding. The following sections describe the START-UP Fund, the five Modal Programs, and the Investment Plan funding set aside to accomplish each program's planning, development, and implementation goals.
START-UP Fund
The Investment Plan’s function is to strategically distribute and leverage funding that will allow the Corridor’s various jurisdictions to develop and implement their own existing projects. While the evaluation process 105 Community Programs can be found in the previous section of this document.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 258 of 305
8-68
employed a distributive equity lens to prioritize projects that are most likely to benefit the highest-need communities, the distribution of project proposals received, and levels of project development/readiness reflect disparities in municipal capacity and historic investment. Project concepts gathered from community input are included in the Plan, but will typically require start-to-finish planning processes, and require municipalities to take ownership of technical development and implementation. As cities and neighborhoods that have faced historic underinvestment often have less funding and fewer technical staff members to plan, develop, fund, and implement capital projects, these areas may be underrepresented in the Investment Plan’s full project list, let alone the recommendations for initial investment.
To address this issue, Metro is setting up a START-UP (“Strategic Technical Assistance for Reparative Transportation Uplifting People”) Fund that provides targeted technical assistance to support communities with the highest needs, relative to their technical resources and capacity for project development and implementation. The START-UP Fund will help communities develop project concepts for grant eligibility, and help communities participate in implementation of the Investment Plan’s Corridor-wide programs (e.g., “traffic calming features”, “pedestrian gap closures”, and various Community Programs Catalyst Fund). The STARTUP Fund will not be tied explicitly to certain municipalities or geographic communities, but assistance will be prioritized for cities or neighborhoods: • Without any projects formally submitted for the Investment Plan • With only conceptual or development phase projects in the Investment Plan
• With high concentrations of Equity Focus Communities (EFCs) • Facing the greatest cumulative impacts as identified in existing conditions research
Active Transportation
The Active Transportation Modal Program category consists of projects and programs that support the safe movement of travelers using humanpowered methods of travel, such as walking, bicycling, or rolling, to get from one place to another. Metro’s commitment to advancing Active Transportation is reflected in its 2023 Active Transportation Strategic Plan106, which reaffirms the agency’s proactive role in countywide active transportation planning; and establishes proposals for regional bikeways, pedestrian districts, and first/last-mile improvement areas surrounding transit stations. While active transportation projects offer opportunities to advance equitable outcomes, projects that increase impervious cover disproportionately harm communities of color due to increased heat resulting from urban heat island effect. Metro-led projects will conform to requirements in Metro’s Tree Policy and Moving Beyond Sustainability Plan and modal programs will provide opportunities to incorporate urban greening into Active Transportation projects. Active Transportation investment is summarized in Table 8-3.
Table 8-3. Active Transportation Investment Summary
Total Investment Plan Investment $100 million
Potential Leverage Investment $150-200 million
Project/Programs Recommended for
Initial Investment
$44 million
Development $500,000
Pre-Implementation $4.5 million
Implementation $39 million
Modal Program $55.7 million
START-UP Fund $11.5 million
Pre-Implementation $3.0 million
Implementation $41.2 million
106 Document can be accessed here https://www.metro.net/projects/active-transportation-strategic-plan-atsp/ Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 259 of 305
8-69
The LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan will fund several active transportation projects and programs through initial investments (described in the Initial Investments: Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Funding, pages 8-10, 8-11) and the development of future projects through the Active Transportation Modal Program. The Investment Plan allocates $100 million in total investment in Active Transportation, including $44 million in recommended initial funding and an additional $57 million for the Active Transportation Modal Program. Many high-scoring Active Transportation programs are Corridor-wide or regional programs that focus on implementing bicycle and pedestrian safety projects from existing active transportation plans, including Metro’s 2023 Active Transportation Strategic Plan. Although several selected projects from these programs are recommended for initial funding, these plans include numerous other projects requiring further development and prioritization. Other Active Transportation program elements include greening and other sustainability features, personal security enhancements, and other elements to enhance the user experience and quality of life within the LB-ELA Corridor.
The Active Transportation Modal Program will support the planning and development of future bicycle and pedestrian safety projects, advance projects toward implementation, and fund the implementation of future projects. This approach includes providing equitable project planning technical assistance (START-UP Fund) and resources to help lower-capacity and lower-resourced jurisdictions and communities develop project concepts and strategies for future implementation. By prioritizing these communities for development funding within the Modal Program, the Investment Plan aims to help bridge the gaps in capacity and resources that have historically contributed to spatial inequities in the distribution of investment and within the list of implementation-ready initial projects recommended in the Investment Plan. Of the nearly $56 million available in the Active Transportation Modal Program, 20% ($11.5 million) will be reserved for equitable project planning development and technical assistance (START-UP Fund).
8.6.1.1 Active Transportation Project and Programs Recommended for Initial Investment
As described earlier in this chapter, the Investment Plan includes $44 million for initial investments in Active Transportation, including distinct projects on the MSPP list that rated highly and are more ready for implementation. In addition to those projects, there are important planning documents, such as Metro’s recently updated Active Transportation Strategic Plan107 and Long Beach’s Bicycle Master Plan108, which lay out the regionally important Active Transportation corridors in the LB-ELA Corridor.
Because many of the Tier 1 Active Transportation projects on the original MSPP received funding in 2023 from California’s Active Transportation Program, additional projects on the MSPP were elevated for inclusion in the initial funding recommendations. The Active Transportation funding investment is based on: • providing funding for projects that received state Active Transportation Program awards but still have a partial funding gap; • providing funding for projects that are prioritized in the Metro Active Transportation Strategic Plan, especially bike paths and cycle tracks that close gaps in the regional Active Transportation network and those that provide access to EFC areas; and
• providing funding to advance distinct projects that need support for implementation
8.6.1.2 Active Transportation Modal Programs
The projects listed in Table 84 are not included in the initial investment recommendations (or are only partially funded). Metro, its partners, and relevant stakeholders will refine, develop, and potentially package together (if appropriate) these projects and programs to make them ready for implementation through the Active Transportation Modal Program. 107 https://www.metro.net/projects/active-transportation-strategic-plan-atsp/ 108 https://www.longbeach.gov/lbcd/planning/advance/general-plan/mobility/bicycle/ Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 260 of 305
8-70
Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0212* Tweedy Boulevard Active Transportation Improvement South Gate1 Implementation LB-ELA_0213* Southeast Gateway Line] Light Rail Station First-Last Mile Bikeway Safety and Access Project
Multiple Jurisdictions1 Implementation
LB-ELA_0211* City of Long Beach Mid-City Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Long Beach1 Implementation LB-ELA_0206* City of Bell Gardens Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Bell Gardens1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0201 Pedestrian/
Bicycle Enhancements and Safety Features Study Area Wide 1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0214 I-710 Livability Initiative Multiple Jurisdictions1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0163 LB-ELA Corridor Bicycle Gap Closure Projects Multiple Jurisdictions1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0162 City of Long Beach 8-to-80 Bikeways Long Beach1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0204 Pedestrian Gap Closure Projects Study Area Wide1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0200 Bike Share Programs and Bicycle Amenities Study Area Wide1 Implementation LB-ELA_0102 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan improvements Maywood1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0170* Huntington Park Safe Routes for Seniors and Students Huntington Park1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0076 Pedestrian and Bike Facilities Commerce2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0220 Micromobility Pilot Project Multiple Jurisdictions2 Implementation LB-ELA_0094 Hill Street Pedestrian Bridge Overcrossing Long Beach2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0066 Randolph Bike and Pedestrian Project Bell2 Implementation LB-ELA_0055 I-710 LA River Bike Path (Western Levee Path)*** Multiple Jurisdictions2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0007 LA River Path – Central LA Maywood to Elysian Valley2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0070 Pedestrian Bridge Bell Gardens2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0208* Salt Lake Avenue Pedestrian Accessibility Project Cudahy2 Implementation LB-ELA_0207 City of Carson Citywide Community Safety Improvements Carson2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0159 Southern Ave. Pedestrian Connector Project South Gate2 Implementation LB-ELA_0128 Randolph Street Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Project Maywood2 Pre-Implementation Table 8-4. Active Transportation Modal Program
Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 261 of 305
8-71
Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0138 Spring Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Long Beach2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0158 Del Amo Pedestrian Gap Closure Project Rancho Dominguez/Long Beach2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0199 Telecommuting Programs Study Wide Area2 Development LB-ELA_0114 Walnut Pedestrian Pathway Signal Hill2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0095 Pedestrian Crosswalk Improvements Lynwood2 Development/ Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0216 Bicycle Safety and Education Program (BEST) Study Wide Area2 Implementation LB-ELA_0198 Carpool/Vanpool Program Study Wide Area2 Implementation LB-ELA_0090 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at Pedestrian Crossings Long Beach2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0082 Enhanced Pedestrian Crosswalk (Rives Ave. and Adwen St.) Downey2 Implementation LB-ELA_0210 Greenway Traffic Circle Improvement Project Downey2 Implementation LB-ELA_9300 Wilmington Safe Streets - A People First Approach Los Angeles NA/New LB-ELA_9301 Walnut Park Pedestrian Plan Implementation Walnut Park NA/New LB-ELA_9302 West Paramount Utility Easement Multiuse Path Phase I Paramount NA/New LB-ELA_9303 City of Carson Master Bicycle Plan Carson NA/New LB-ELA_9321 Hamilton Loop** Long Beach NA/New
LB-ELA_9311 Southern Connector Pedestrian Bridge South Gate LB-ELA_9312 SELA Bridge Park Connector Overcrossing Lynwood LB-ELA_9314 Compton Boulevard Bike Path*** Compton NA/New LB-ELA_9315 Terminal Island to Rio Hondo Bike Path*** Multiple Jurisdictions NA/New Table 8-4.Active Transportation Modal Program (continued) Notes:
* Project is mostly funded through state ATP program
** Project received planning funding through recent Reconnecting Communities & Neighborhoods Grant *** The three I-710 Corridor Bike Path Concepts were requested to be added to the list. One of the projects was already on the list (LB-ELA_0055)109 Projects deemed to be fully funded were removed from list.
New projects have not been evaluated. They may be eligible for future modal program funding as long as they align with the Vision and Goals of the Corridor. 109 https://www.metro.net/projects/710bikepath/
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 262 of 305
8-72
Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets
The Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets modal category includes major, multi-jurisdictional corridor projects, small-scale spot treatments, and intersection improvements. Arterial roadways are the primary transportation network for local travel throughout the LB-ELA Corridor for vehicular traffic, goods movement, transit, and active transportation.
Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets also function as an alternative to the I-710 freeway for regional and longer-distance vehicle and freight truck trips, especially when I-710 is congested due to collisions, delays, maintenance, and other impacts on freeway operation. Arterial Roadways/ Complete Streets investment is summarized in Table 8-5.
Table 8-5. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Investment Summary The LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan will fund several prioritized Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets projects and programs through initial investments (described in the Initial Investments: Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Funding, page 8-7 as well as the development of future projects through the Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program. The Investment Plan includes $188 million in total investment for Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets, including $116 million in initial funding recommendations and an additional $72 million for the Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program. The Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program will support the development and implementation of future projects that meet the vision and goals of the Investment Plan. The types of investments include the following: • Arterial roadway safety: Future arterial investments will be aimed to improve arterial roadway safety, especially at intersections with high rates of traffic collisions and truck/vehicle or truck/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts.
• Signal synchronization and operations: Future investment will focus on upgrading traffic signals, video detection*, and the coordination of traffic signal timing to improve arterial roadway efficiency.
• Technology: In addition to traffic operations, the Investment Plan will invest in technology to improve safety and facilitate the transition to lower emission and connected autonomous vehicles. • Complete streets and general arterial improvements: General Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets improvements will upgrade roadways to improve travel for all modes, including vehicular traffic as well as active transportation.
• Arterial Bridge/Overcrossing Improvements: Many arterial roadways provide connections to I-710 and other freeways.
Interchange improvements are described in the Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements section; however, independent improvements focused on arterial bridges will be funded through the Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program.
Total Investment Plan Investment $188 million
Potential Leverage Investment $1.2 to 1.8 million
Project/Programs Recommended for
Initial Investment
$116 million
Development $0
Pre-Implementation $10 million
Implementation $106 million
Modal Program $72.1 million
START-UP Fund $14.5 million
Pre-Implementation $4 million
Implementation $53.6 million
* Video detection not intended for surveillance.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 263 of 305
8-73
The Arterial Roadway/Complete Streets Modal
Program also includes funding for the provision
of equitable project planning technical assistance
(START-UP Fund) and resources to help lowercapacity and lower-resourced jurisdictions and communities develop project concepts and
strategies for future implementation. By prioritizing
these communities for development funding within
the Modal Program, the Investment Plan aims to
help bridge the gaps in capacity and resources
that have contributed to historic spatial inequities
in the distribution of investment, and in the list
of implementation-ready projects put forth in the
Investment Plan. Of the $72 million available in the
Arterial Roadway/Complete Streets Modal Program,
approximately 20% ($14.5 million) will be reserved
for equitable project planning development and
technical assistance (START-UP Fund).
8.6.1.3 Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Projects
and Programs Recommended for Initial
Investment
As described earlier in this chapter, the Investment
Plan will invest $116 million in specific arterial
roadway project improvements. The proposed
investments include developing and implementing
five priority Complete Streets Corridors: Atlantic,
Alondra, Florence, Long Beach, and Slauson. These
corridors provide crucial north-south alternatives
to the I-710 freeway and east-west travel to and
across the freeway. These corridors also serve
as key transportation thoroughfares, community
main streets, commercial districts, and residential
neighborhoods. Although the actual design and
treatments will be specific to each corridor’s unique
context (including its role in the Goods Movement
network), the description for each project
includes bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and
crosswalks, transit stop features and amenities,
safety, and traffic calming features, landscaping,
hardscaping, public art (aesthetic treatments),
public green spaces, trees, and water quality
features such as bioswales and tree wells.
8.6.1.4 Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal
Programs
The projects and programs listed in Table 8-6 are
not part of the initial investment recommendations.
These projects and programs will be further
refined, developed, and potentially made
ready for implementation through the Arterial
Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program. It
should be noted that not all projects in the modal
program will move forward to implementation.
Also, some projects, like those that contain traffic
cameras, have been opposed by some community
members due to concerns related to cameras being
used for potential surveillance.
It will be immensely
beneficial to have a
contiguous corridor that
is friendly for traveling in
ways other than by car.
Anonymous dashboard comment
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 264 of 305
8-74
Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0064 Gage Avenue Street Improvements Bell1 Implementation LB-ELA_0059 Imperial Complete Streets Corridor Lynwood/South Gate/Downey1 Implementation LB-ELA_0056 Artesia Complete Street Corridor Multiple Jurisdictions1 Implementation LB-ELA_0129 Garfield Avenue Improvement Project South Gate1 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0202 Traffic Calming Study Wide Area1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0044* Route 1 and De Forest Ave Bridge Upgrades Long Beach Long Beach1 Implementation LB-ELA_0127 Lakewood Boulevard Improvement Project Lakewood1 Implementation LB-ELA_0119 Wright Road Improvement Project South Gate1 Implementation LB-ELA_0205 Arterial/General Roadway Improvement Program Study Wide Area1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0041* Route 1 Pedestrian Upgrades Long Beach Long Beach1 Implementation LB-ELA_0120 Safety-Related Road Improvement Projects East Rancho Dominguez1 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0104 Rosecrans Ave. Bridge Paramount2 Implementation LB-ELA_0063 Gage Ave. Bridge Bell2 Implementation
LB-ELA_0073 Telegraph Road Improvements Commerce2 Implementation LB-ELA_0067 Florence Ave. Bridges Bell2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0115 California Ave. Improvements Projects Signal Hill2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0117 Burnett Street/Skyline Drive Improvement Projects Signal Hill2 Implementation LB-ELA_0040* Route 1 Storm Water Treatment Installation Wilmington/Long Beach Wilmington/Long Beach2 Implementation LB-ELA_0065 Slauson Ave. Bridge Bell2 Implementation
LB-ELA_0109 Alondra Blvd. Intersection Improvements Paramount2 Implementation LB-ELA_0068 Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) Improvements Bell Gardens2 Development/Implementation LB-ELA_0107 Alondra Blvd. Bridges Paramount2 Implementation LB-ELA_0108 Garfield Ave. Intersection Improvements Paramount2 Implementation LB-ELA_0086 Gage Avenue Operational and Safety Improvements Bell/Huntington Park2 Implementation Table 8-6. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 265 of 305
8-75
Table 8-6. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program (continued) Note: table continues on next page
Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0110 Rosecrans Intersection Improvements Paramount2 Implementation LB-ELA_0051* Route 1 Transportation Management System (TMS) elements Multiple Jurisdictions2 Implementation LB-ELA_0020 Sports Park Transportation Performance Modeling Network Long Beach2 Implementation LB-ELA_0078 Randolph Street Gap Closure Commerce2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0105 Garfield Avenue Improvement Project Paramount2 Implementation LB-ELA_0012 Garfield Widening Paramount2 Implementation LB-ELA_0166 LB-ELA Corridor Vulnerable Road User Connected Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment
Multiple Jurisdictions2 Development/Implementation
LB-ELA_0085 Intersection Improvements (Huntington Park) Huntington Park2 Development/Implementation LB-ELA_0069 Traffic/Ped Signal Upgrades Bell Gardens2 Development/Implementation LB-ELA_0074 Traffic Signal Upgrades Commerce2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0088 Protected Left Turns at Signals Long Beach2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0101 Video Camera installation** Maywood2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0071 Mixmaster Traffic signal Improvements (Telegraph/Eastern/Atlantic) Commerce2 Implementation LB-ELA_0167 I-710 Arterial Signal Performance Measurement Study Area Wide2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0215 I-710 Arterial Traffic Signal Control Communication Upgrades Multiple Jurisdictions2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0083 Traffic Signal Upgrades Downey2 Implementation LB-ELA_0100 Traffic Signal Upgrade Projects Maywood2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0013 Tweedy Blvd. Signal Sync Lynwood/South Gate2 Implementation LB-ELA_0072 Traffic Signal Coordination Projects Commerce2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0097 Traffic Signal Improvements Lynwood2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0084 Video Detection Upgrades** Downey2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0081 Firestone Blvd. Traffic Signal Upgrades and Safety Enhancements Downey2 Implementation LB-ELA_0099 Traffic Signal Synchronization Projects Maywood2 Development/Pre-Implementation Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 266 of 305
8-76
Table 8-6. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program (continued) Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0075 Video Camera installation** Commerce2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0096 Traffic Signal Improvements Lynwood2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0098 City Re-Striping Projects Lynwood2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0089 Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Long Beach2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0087 Traffic Signal Equipment Improvements Long Beach2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0116 Traffic Signal Operational Upgrade Signal Hill2 Implementation LB-ELA_0112 Signal Coordination/ITS Projects Signal Hill2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0113 Orange Avenue Improvement Projects Signal Hill2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0079 Florence Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation Downey2 Implementation LB-ELA_0221 Atlantic Blvd. widening Over I-5 at Mixmaster Intersection Commerce2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0080 Florence Ave. and Paramount Blvd. Intersection Improvement Downey2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_9306 ICM Phase 2: Arterial Signal Enhancements and Integration Multiple Jurisdictions NA/New LB-ELA_9316 Lomita Blvd. Punchthrough City of LA (Wilmington) NA/New LB-ELA_9320*** Terminal Island Freeway Decommissioning Long Beach NA/New Notes:
* Project is part of Caltrans State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) ** Video detection not intended for surveillance.
*** This project status is not yet resolved by the local jurisdiction and will not be considered in the Modal Program until then.
Projects deemed to be fully funded were removed from list (see Appendix 8-A) New projects have not been evaluated. They may be eligible for future modal program funding as long as they align with the Vision and Goals of the Corridor.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 267 of 305
8-77
Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements
As the primary transportation facility in the study area, I-710 serves a vital purpose in connecting millions of people to key everyday travel destinations. It is also one of the most important corridors for freight movement in the entire country due to its location, carrying tens of thousands of daily truck trips serving the San Pedro Bay Port Complex, intermodal freight rail facilities, warehouses, logistics hubs, and transloading facilities in the LB-ELA Corridor and beyond. Ensuring the safety and operational efficiency of vehicles on the freeway is of crucial importance to local communities that suffer from safety, congestion, air quality, and mobility impacts when freeway operations are degraded, as well as the state and national economy that depends on the flow of goods through I-710. Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements investment is summarized in Table 8-7.
Table 8-7. Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Investment Summary The earlier effort to modernize I-710 focused on widening the freeway and implementing general purpose travel lanes to increase capacity, which would have displaced residents and businesses adjacent to the Corridor while degrading air quality and public health in the Corridor communities. The Investment Plan will neither widen the freeway nor add general-purpose travel lanes to add freeway capacity, according to Metro Board policy and state and federal policy guidance. The Investment Plan’s approach, particularly through the I-710 MOSAIC (Multimodal, Operational, Safety, and Access Investments for the Community) Program, targets safety and operational improvements and develops a holistic approach to better manage the freeway and improve multimodal access and safety on and around I-710. This investment strategy will directly address the Vision and Goals of the Investment Plan, including improving safety and mobility, while addressing air quality, related public health issues, and historical underinvestment.
The Investment Plan will fund several I-710 MOSAIC projects through a holistic initial investment (described in the Initial Investments:
Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Funding, page 8-7) as well as the development of future projects and non-traditional freeway investments through the Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Modal Program. The Investment Plan is providing $177.6 million for the projects recommended for initial investment, which is planned to leverage up to $1 billion in freeway investments. Additionally, the Investment Plan will invest $32.4 million in the Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Modal Program to support and develop new and innovative ways to address safety, operational efficiency, integrated Corridor management, and air quality issues surrounding I-710. Examples of projects in the Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Modal Program include new higher soundwalls, stormwater treatment, facility upgrades, technology applications, and future initiatives to explore new freeway usage policies.
Total Investment Plan Investment $210 million
Potential Leverage Investment $800 million to $1 billion Project/Programs Recommended for
Initial Investment
$170.6 million
Development $9 million
Pre-Implementation $39 million
Implementation $129.6 million
Existing Metro Programs $39.4 million
START-UP Fund $0 million
Pre-Implementation $2 million
Implementation $37.4 million
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 268 of 305
8-78
8.6.1.5 Freeway Project/Programs Recommended for Initial Investment As described in Section 7-1, the Investment Plan will invest $170.6 million to develop and implement the I-710 MOSAIC Program, which includes project concepts that will rebuild and upgrade various freeway on- and off-ramps and auxiliary lanes for improved traffic safety, operations, and efficiency. The I-710 MOSAIC Program approach to investing in I-710 includes studying each of the 12 interchange project concepts and two auxiliary lane project concepts on the project list through an Alternatives Analysis that will feature community engagement and will evaluate each project concept for potential benefits (such as safety, operational flow, and reduction of conflicts) and impacts (such as VMT, GHG, possible displacement, and sound). Each project concept will be studied as part of a segment alongside other concepts related to and, in some cases, dependent on the other concept. In addition, these I-710 MOSAIC projects are directly related to projects and potential improvements on the intersecting roadways. Many projects on the MSPP list could be connected to the improvements on I-710, including several independent bridge upgrade projects, Complete Street Corridor projects, and transit enhancement projects that cross many interchanges. Additionally, the Investment Plan will invest $17 million in several non-traditional freeway projects and programs, including studying the concept of adding additional greenspace in the freeway right of way, improving traffic controls at interchanges, and testing methods to reduce the impact of particulate matter emissions from non-tailpipe sources.
The Initial Investment will fund the I-710 MOSAIC Program, through which there will be an Alternatives Analysis for the 12 interchanges and two auxiliary lane project concepts that will include community engagement, safety and operational assessments, data collection, modeling, and other considerations to allow Metro to identify four to six project concepts, or packages of project concepts, to recommend to the Metro Board for consideration to move into a preliminary engineering and environmental documentation (PA&ED) phase. The selected project concepts will provide the most safety and operational benefits to the mainline freeway and overall transportation system while minimizing the community impacts.
After PA&ED, under the condition they meet certain criteria, the projects will be prioritized as recommendations to the Metro Board for consideration to move forward into additional phases of implementation. Metro will ensure that freeway projects that move forward for implementation complete the appropriate project level transportation conformity requirements.
8.6.1.6 Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Modal Programs The projects and programs listed in Table 8-8 are not part of the initial list of projects for initial funding. These projects and programs will be further refined, developed, and potentially made ready for implementation through the Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Modal Program. It should be noted that some projects, like Congestion Pricing, Express Lanes Strategic Initiative, ZET Lane, and I-710 ZET Travel Zone Restriction Congestion Pricing, have garnered significant industry and/or community opposition. Projects listed as Tier 1 will not necessarily move forward in the future.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 269 of 305
8-79
Table 8-8. Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Modal Program Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0153* Congestion Pricing Multiple Jurisdictions1 Development LB-ELA_0046** I-405 Roadway Improvements Long Beach, Signal Hill, Los Angeles, and Carson (SHOPP) Multiple Jurisdictions1 Implementation LB-ELA_0182* Express Lanes Strategic Initiative Multiple Jurisdictions1 Development LB-ELA_0154* I-710 ZET Travel Zone Restriction Multiple Jurisdictions2 Development LB-ELA_0188 Freeway Landscaping/Maintenance Study Wide Area2 Implementation LB-ELA_0183* ZET Lane Multiple Jurisdictions2 Development LB-ELA_0039** I-710 Highway Worker Safety Improvements Long Beach/Compton Long Beach/Compton2 Implementation LB-ELA_0180 I-710 Truck Bypass Lanes Long Beach2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0045** Route 91 Bridge No. 53-2143F Rehabilitation Long Beach (SHOPP) Long Beach2 Implementation LB-ELA_0043** Hobart Railyard Bridge Rehabilitation Commerce/Vernon Commerce/Vernon2 Implementation LB-ELA_0137 Freeway Soundwalls Multiple Jurisdictions2 Implementation LB-ELA_0155 Drought Tolerant Landscaping, Hardscaping and Aesthetic Features along I-710 Multiple Jurisdictions2 Implementation LB-ELA_0050** Route 91 Upgrades Carson, Compton, Long Beach, and Bellflower (SHOPP) Multiple Jurisdictions2 Implementation LB-ELA_0048** Garfield Avenue Pump Station Upgrades Paramount2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0052** Route 47 at I-710 Roadway Upgrades Wilmington (SHOPP) Wilmington2 Implementation LB-ELA_0054** Humphrey Maintenance Station Upgrades East Los Angeles (SHOPP) East Los Angeles2 Implementation LB-ELA_0053** Pacific Place Maintenance Station Building Replacement Long Beach (SHOPP) Long Beach2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0049** South Gate Pump Plant and Florence Avenue Pump Plant Upgrades South Gate/Bell Gardens/ Downey (SHOPP)
South Gate/Bell Gardens/Downey2 Implementation
LB-ELA_9307 ICM Phase 2: Freeway Corridor Enhancements Multiple Jurisdictions NA/New LB-ELA_9317 I-710 SB On-Ramp at Firestone South Gate NA/New LB-ELA_9322 I-710 Active Traffic Management (ATM) Program Study Wide Area NA/New Notes:
* Industry members have expressed significant concerns about these projects that will be carried into the modal program for further evaluation ** Project is part of Caltrans State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). Projects deemed to be fully funded were removed from list (see Appendix 8-A).
New projects have not been evaluated. They may be eligible for future modal program funding as long as they align with the Vision and Goals of the Corridor.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 270 of 305
8-80
Goods Movement
The Goods Movement modal category includes projects and programs that impact the trucks and trains moving goods through the LB-ELA Corridor, particularly those accessing or leaving the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and the Port of Long Beach (POLB). The Investment Plan prioritizes several projects supporting goods movement in alignment with the Investment Plan’s Vision and Goals, including the accelerated adoption of zeroemission (ZE) heavy-duty trucks, ZE truck infrastructure, a freight rail ZE study, and the goods movement freight rail study. Many prioritized goods movement projects identified through this process will be led and advanced by POLA and POLB without direct investment from the Investment Plan due to limitations on using Measure R/M funds. Through this effort and the Investment Plan development process, Metro is committed to supporting our partner agencies to advance projects that support the vision and goals of the Investment Plan. Metro must also continue to engage the freight industry as a whole to develop solutions that help facilitate the movement of goods and services in a multimodal manner—while at the same time addressing the air quality, health, and safety issues facing the region and impacting local communities in the LB-ELA Corridor. Goods Movement investment is summarized in Table 8-9.
The Investment Plan will fund several goods movement projects and programs through initial investments (described in the Initial Investments:
Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Funding, pages 8-9, 8-10) as well as the development of future projects through the Goods Movement Modal Program. The Investment Plan includes $62 million for initial investments in pilot projects and the Zero-Emission Truck (ZET) Program (described in the Funding Recommendations section) and an additional $18 million for planning, implementing pilot programs, and the future development of additional projects through the Goods Movement Modal Program. This Modal Program will address key safety, operational, and air quality issues related to freight. It will help identify and advance new projects that better address issues related to ZE technology, freight rail, port efficiency, grade separations, truck routes, and truck-to-train cargo mode shift. The initial program list lacked specific projects that directly addressed some of the key truck safety issues in the Corridor, including preventing truck cut-through traffic into residential neighborhoods, truck routing through LB-ELA Corridor communities, and conflicts with other transportation modes on arterial highways. The Goods Movement Modal Program will support collecting better truck traffic and routing data and identifying key freight safety projects for future development and implementation. This program will allow Metro to partner effectively with industry and community stakeholders to support regional, multijurisdictional, multimodal approaches to improving the movement of goods through the LB-ELA Corridor while also advancing some of the key initiatives from the 2021 LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan110 that are relevant to the Corridor.
Table 8-9. Goods Movement Investment Summary
Total Investment Plan Investment $80 million
Potential Leverage Investment $250 to 350 million
Project/Programs Recommended for
Initial Investment
$62 million
Development $12 million
Pre-Implementation $5 million
Implementation $45 million
Existing Metro Programs $18 million
START-UP Fund $0 million
Pre-Implementation $1 million
Implementation $17 million
110 https://www.metro.net/about/goods-movement/
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 271 of 305
8-81
8.6.1.7 Goods Movement Project/Programs Recommended
for Initial Investment
As described earlier in this chapter, the Investment Plan will invest $62 million in initial Goods Movement projects.
This investment includes the ZET Program, which will invest $50 million in seed funding to grow the ZE infrastructure investment in the LB-ELA Corridor to more than $200 million to support the accelerated adoption of ZE technology for heavy-duty trucks. Within the ZE Truck Program, up to
$5 million will be reserved for technical assistance to support a community-focused scope to support the transition to ZE, including workforce development and supporting
lower-income truck operators accessing ZE trucks. The
Investment Plan will also invest in the study of freight rail in the Corridor to support moving more cargo by train versus truck—particularly through the Alameda Corridor—and a pilot study to evaluate the transition of freight locomotives to ZE technology.
8.6.1.8 Goods Movement Modal Program
The projects and programs listed in Table 8-10 are not part of the initial recommendations. These projects and programs will be further refined, developed, and potentially made ready for implementation by their respective sponsors, with possible support from Metro.
Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0024 Pier 400 On Dock Rail
Modernization
Port of Los Angeles1 Pre-Implementation
LB-ELA_0026 West Basin Container Terminal
Railyard Modernization
Port of Los Angeles1 Implementation
LB-ELA_0025 Terminal Island Transfer Facility
Modernization111
Port of Los Angeles1 Pre-Implementation
LB-ELA_0132b Pier 300 On-Dock Rail Port of Los Angeles2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0123 Pico Avenue Street Improvement Port of Los Angeles2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0122 Harbor Scenic Drive
Roadway and Infrastructure
Improvements
Port of Los Angeles2 Pre-Implementation
LB-ELA_0121 Pier D Street Realignment Port of Los Angeles2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0021 Alameda Corridor Terminus
Enhancements
Port of Los Angeles2 Pre-Implementation
LB-ELA_0124 Port of Los Angeles National
Multimodal Zero-Emission
Freight Network Improvement
Program: Rail System
Improvement Projects
Port of Los Angeles2 Pre-Implementation
LB-ELA_9305 Truck Safety and Truck Cut
Through Study
Multiple
Jurisdictions
NA/
New
Implementation
LB-ELA_9319 Zero Emission Truck Inductive
Roadway Charging Pilot
Multiple
Jurisdictions
NA/
New
Implementation
N/A ACTA Systems Efficiency and
Safety Upgrades Program
Alameda Corridor
Transportation
Authority
NA/
New
TBD
Projects deemed to be fully funded were removed from list (see Appendix 8-A) New projects have not been evaluated. They may be eligible for future modal program funding as long as they align with the Vision and Goals of the Corridor. 111 This is an issue that is being resolved by the local jurisdiction.
Table 8-10. Goods Movement Modal Program
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 272 of 305
8-82
Transit
The Transit modal category includes improved and new bus and rail service, transit safety, and amenities to increase rider experience and safety on transit services in the LB-ELA Corridor study area. The most notable projects in the study area include the Southeast Gateway Line (Light Rail Transit Corridor), the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 (E Line extension), and a conceptual new Metrolink connection between Long Beach and Los Angeles. Improvements are also proposed to existing Metro A and C Lines and Metrolink rail services and several new bus priority lane projects on key transit corridors. Transit investment is summarized in Table 8-11
.
Table 8-11. Transit Investment Summary
The Investment Plan will fund several transit projects and programs through initial investments (described in the Initial Investments:
Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Funding, page 8-7) and the development of future projects through the Transit Modal Program. The Investment Plan invests a total of $125 million in transit projects and programs, including $57 million in initial recommendations (described in the Funding Recommendations section) and an additional $68 million to develop future projects and initiatives through the Transit Modal Program.
Although the operational costs associated with increased service would not be eligible for Investment Plan funding, the Transit Modal Program could support the purchase of new or replacement buses, transitioning to ZE vehicles, and technology to support faster and more reliable service.
Furthermore, the Transit Modal Program can support the improvement of existing Metro and Metrolink rail corridors and advance the development of new rail corridors. Other projects and programs on the initial MSPPs list include improving passenger security on the transit system, better access to transit stations, station cleanliness, bus stop enhancements, and supporting the passenger experience with transit ambassadors and better access to transit service information.
The Transit Modal Program includes funding for the provision of equitable project planning technical assistance (START-UP Fund) and resources to help lower-capacity and lower-resourced jurisdictions and communities develop project concepts and strategies for future implementation. By prioritizing these communities for development funding within the Modal Program, the Investment Plan aims to help bridge the gaps in capacity and resources that have contributed to historic spatial inequities in the distribution of investment and the list of implementation-ready projects put forth in the Investment Plan. Of the $68 million available in the Transit Modal Program, approximately 20% ($14 million) will be reserved for equitable project planning development and technical assistance (STARTUP Fund).
Total Investment Plan Investment $125 million
Potential Leverage Investment $400 million to $600 million Project/Programs Recommended for
Initial Investment
$57 million
Development $3 million
Pre-Implementation $2 million
Implementation $52 million
Existing Metro Programs $68 million
START-UP Fund $14 million
Pre-Implementation $3 million
Implementation $51 million
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 273 of 305
8-83
8.6.1.9 Transit Project/Programs Recommended for Initial Investment
As described in Section 7-1, the $57 million initial investment for transit will focus on providing new and upgraded bus shelters and bus stop amenities in areas of most need, including 100 new bus shelters with lighting and 1,000 new curb ramps near transit stops. The initial investment will support safe access to the Compton A Line Station and neighboring Transit Center through bicycle and pedestrian improvements and will provide enhanced transit and vehicular safety through investment in quad safety gates along the Metro A Line within the LB-ELA study area. The initial investment for transit will focus on providing new and upgraded bus shelters and bus stop amenities in areas of most need, including 100 new bus shelters with lighting and 1,000 new curb ramps near transit stops. The initial investment will support safe access to the Compton A-Line Station and neighboring Transit Center through bicycle and pedestrian improvements and will provide enhanced transit and vehicular safety through investment in quad safety gates along the Metro A Line within the LB-ELA study area. The initial recommendations will also support studying the feasibility of implementing eight bus-lane corridor projects on Atlantic Blvd, Florence Ave, Slauson Blvd, Long Beach Blvd, Whittier Blvd, Gage Avenue, Olympic Blvd, and Firestone Blvd.
Additionally, four of those corridors are going to see multimodal improvements through the Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets investments.
8.6.1.10 Transit Modal Programs
The projects and programs listed in Table 8-12 are not part of the list of projects for initial investment. These projects and programs will be further refined, developed, and potentially made ready for implementation through the Transit Modal Program.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 274 of 305
8-84
Table 8-12. Transit Modal Program
Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0169* Southeast LA Transit Improvement Program Multiple Jurisdictions1 Development Implementation LB-ELA_0140 Metro Micro Transit Zone(s) Multiple Jurisdictions1 Development/Implementation LB-ELA_0164 Improved Frequency of Metro Buses in the LB-ELA Study Area Study Wide Area1 Development LB-ELA_0219 Metrolink Regional Rail Line between Union Station and Long Beach Multiple Jurisdictions1 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0001 Southeast Gateway Line Transit Corridor (LRT) Multiple Jurisdictions Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0136 Enhanced Transit Security Multiple Jurisdictions1 Implementation LB-ELA_0149 Increased Security Features at Metro's Existing and Planned Light Rail Stations Multiple Jurisdictions1 Implementation LB-ELA_0161 Transit Ambassador Program Study Wide Area1 Implementation LB-ELA_0172 Commerce Metrolink Station Improvements Commerce2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0160 Line A (Blue Line) Transit Priority/Signal Synchronization Multiple Jurisdictions2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0147 Transit Traveler Information System Application (ITS) Study Wide Area2 Development/Implementation LB-ELA_0148 Transit Fare Discount Program Study Wide Area2 Implementation LB-ELA_0171 Commuter Rail Maintenance, Repair, and Safety Projects Multiple Jurisdictions2 Development/Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0177 Add Second Elevator to Firestone and Slauson A Line [Blue Line] Stations Florence-Graham2 Implementation LB-ELA_0016 Connecting C Line (Green) and Metrolink Norwalk Station Norwalk2 Implementation LB-ELA_0152 Transit Marketing and Education Program Multiple Jurisdictions2 Implementation LB-ELA_0077** Bus Stop Improvements (City of Commerce) Commerce2 Implementation LB-ELA_0103** Bus Stop Improvements (City of Maywood) Maywood2 Implementation LB-ELA_0118** Bus Shelter Upgrades (City of Signal Hill) Signal Hill2 Implementation LB-ELA_0130 Long Beach Transit (LBT) Solar Charging Electrification Project Long Beach2 Pre-Implementation Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 275 of 305
8-85
Notes:
MCP: 2028 Games Mobility Concept Plan (MCP) to enhance mobility for the Olympic games and beyond. * Project funded through Local Partnership Program Grant ** These bus stops and shelter projects are likely to be combined with the Bus Stop Improvements Project (LB-ELA_0203) on the Initial Recommendation list. *** Projects funded with recent Reconnecting Communities & Neighborhoods Grant.
New projects have not been evaluated. They may be eligible for future modal program funding as long as they align with the Vision and Goals of the Corridor.
Table 8-12. Transit Modal Program (continued)
Project ID Project Name Jurisdiction(s) Tier Phase
LB-ELA_0002 C Line (Green) Eastern Extension (Norwalk) (LRT) Norwalk2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0176 Install Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System for A Line [Blue Line] Long Beach2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0173 Grade Separation(s) of the A Line [Blue Line] at Washington Street Los Angeles2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_0189 Transit System Cleanliness/Maintenance Study Wide Area2 Implementation LB-ELA_0174 New Metrolink Station at planned Commerce/Citadel Station Commerce2 Pre-Implementation LB-ELA_9308** MCP: A Line Willow Station Mobility Hub Long Beach NA/ New
LB-ELA_9309 MCP: A Line cross over at Long Beach Blvd and Anaheim St Long Beach NA/ New
LB-ELA_9310** MCP: Florence/Studebaker/Imperial Bus Priority Improvements Huntington Park, Bell, Bell Gardens, Downey
NA/
New
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 (E Line Extension) East Los Angeles (Los Angeles County), Montebello,
Pico Rivera, Whittier
NA/
New
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 276 of 305
9-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
9. Next Steps
The Investment Plan’s vision is to reconnect the underserved communities of the Long BeachEast Los Angeles Corridor that have been dealing with the effects of the freeway for generations and implement a comprehensive, multimodal transportation plan to rectify past harms in the corridor after the adoption of the Investment Plan. As the Investment Plan is a strategic planning document, many of the projects and programs recommended for funding will need to undergo planning, development, refinement, and/or strategic funding assessment work before they are ready for implementation. This work will take place in the Investment Plan Implementation Phase that will commence upon the plan’s adoption by the Metro Board. In this next phase, Metro will continue to engage Task Force and Community Leadership Committee (CLC) Members and convene industry experts, funding, research and resource partners, and community members to ensure we develop a work plan that supports collaboration in the refinement of projects and programs, consistent with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles of the Investment Plan. The following Chapter describes the next steps for the Implementation Phase of the Investment Plan.
This phase includes the formation of Working Groups that will shape and advance Community, Modal, and Initial Investment projects and programs and the establishment of a Technical Assistance program, the START-UP Fund, designed to support communities with the highest needs in developing project concepts—a cornerstone of our shared strategic vision for the LBELA Corridor. While the formal Task Force and Community Leadership Committee (CLC) process will conclude when the Investment Plan is adopted, members of these bodies will be able to participate in the Implementation Phase by joining the Working Groups identified in this chapter or attending bi-annual meetings at which Metro will provide updates and progress reports on the implementation of the Investment Plan. These opportunities for ongoing engagement will help provide accountability and transparency for our stakeholders and demonstrate progress toward the advancement of the plan’s projects and programs.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps
..
Item 20 Page 277 of 305
9-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
9.1.1 Modal Working Groups
Modal Working Group 1: Develop and refine the initial investment projects/ programs and modal programs for the Transit, Active Transportation, Arterial Roadway/Complete Streets, and micromobility modes.
Modal Working Group 2: Develop and refine the initial investment projects/ programs and modal programs for the I-710 MOSAIC/Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements and Goods Movement modes.
The general purpose of the Modal Working Groups, as referenced above, will include, but not be limited to, the following: • Further refine proposed projects and programs; • Ensure alignment with LB-ELA Investment Plan Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles;
• Provide ongoing feedback to Metro and other project sponsors; • Support community engagement efforts; • Support implementation of technical assistance/equity work elements of the Investment Plan;
• Develop and refine the modal programs; • Support planning/pilot/strategic initiatives; • Provide a forum for affected stakeholders and project sponsors to participate; and
• Assist Metro in generating the next wave of recommendations for project priorities and funding recommendations for the Modal Program funding.
9.1 Investment Plan Implementation
Working Group
Only a small number of projects and programs within the Investment Plan are fully defined and ready for implementation. Most projects and programs require further development, design, refinement, community engagement, and/or environmental review. Recognizing this need to continue development of projects and programs for which we have designated initial investment or modal program funding, Metro recommends the formation of five new LB-ELA Investment Plan Implementation Working Groups to support the Implementation Phase of the plan. These groups will meet on an ongoing basis following adoption of the LB-ELA Investment Plan to allow Metro to continue developing and defining projects and programs and to serve as a continuation of collaborative partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders, including Task Force, CLC, and community members, to help implement the Investment Plan. All Implementation Phase work will be conducted within the LB-ELA Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles framework.
Metro recommends the creation of two “Modal” Working Groups, which would lead efforts to develop and refine the initial investment projects/ programs and modal programs, and between three and four “Community Program” Working Groups, which would lead efforts to develop and refine the 15 Community Programs in the Investment Plan. The recommendation to create multiple Working Groups allows for natural connectivity among the projects and programs to be developed within each set of modes while reducing stakeholder fatigue and community concerns related to creating too many Working Groups in the Implementation Phase.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps
..
Item 20 Page 278 of 305
9-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
9.1.2 Community Programs Working Groups
Community Program Working Group 1: Develop and refine the Community Programs within the Health/Air Quality/Environment topic area.
Community Program Working Group 2: Develop and refine the Community Programs within the Housing Stabilization/Land Use topic area.
Community Program Working Group 3: Develop and refine the Community Programs within the Job Creation/Work Opportunities topic area.
The general purpose of the Community Program Working Groups, as referenced above, will include, but not be limited to, the following: • Develop the vision and goals for the Working Group to achieve success in advancing each included Community Program;
• Ensure alignment with LB-ELA Investment Plan Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles;
• Identify stakeholders, participants, and experts to support the work of the group;
• Identify funding sources and grant opportunities to support the funding needs of the programs;
• Identify potential projects and programs to develop, include, refine, and/or explore that could be priorities for each Community Program;
• Develop priorities and strategies for planning and implementation of these various projects and programs; and
• Provide support and input for community engagement strategies.
9.2 Technical Assistance (START-UP) Fund
The Investment Plan allocates $40 million to the START-UP (Strategic Technical Assistance for Reparative Transportation Uplifting People) Fund that provides targeted technical assistance to support communities with the highest needs, relative to their technical resources and capacity for project development and implementation. The START-UP Fund will help communities develop project concepts for grant eligibility and help communities participate in the implementation of the eligibility and help communities participate in the implementation of the Investment Plan’s Corridor-wide programs. The START-UP Fund will not be tied explicitly to certain municipalities or geographic communities, but assistance will be prioritized for cities or neighborhoods: • Without any projects formally submitted for the Investment Plan; • With only conceptual or development phase projects in the Investment Plan;
• With high concentrations of Equity Focus Communities (EFCs); and/ or
• Facing the greatest cumulative impacts as identified in existing conditions research.
Specific START-UP Fund priorities will be considered and recommended by the Modal Working Groups, as project opportunities and funding/technical assistance needs are identified through ongoing communication between Metro project staff and LB-ELA Corridor jurisdictions and other community partners.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps
..
Item 20 Page 279 of 305
9-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
9.3 Guidance for Project Development
While a robust approach was taken to evaluate potential benefits and concerns resulting from each project, as described in Chapter 6, many projects will be further developed through the modal programs. Some community members have shared their concerns about investing in projects that have not been fully developed and the potential disbenefits that could result from the development of new and conceptual projects without equal level of scrutiny applied. For new projects, not yet evaluated as part of the Investment Plan process, the Working Groups will be able to leverage aspects of the evaluation framework and criteria created for the Investment Plan to provide an evaluation of proposed projects’ alignment with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. Working groups will also review equity and CIC flags to refine project design and implementation, and projects will be subject to environmental review as part of the CEQA/ NEPA process.
In response to comments from community members, Metro is committed to using the following explicit guidance to shape project development across all modes:
• Air Quality: All projects will be screened to determine whether an air quality analysis would be required as part of the CEQA/NEPA process. As part of the CEQA/NEPA process, a project’s potential health risk impacts would also be evaluated during construction and operation, which may include a quantitative Health Risk Assessment, depending on a project’s location, construction duration, construction activities, potential sources of emissions and proximity to receptors.
• Displacements: This Investment Plan, in contrast to the prior I-710 South Corridor Project, does not recommend any projects or programs with any known displacements for funding and remains committed to ensuring the Board’s anti-displacement policies remain intact through the implementation of the Investment Plan.
For projects that need to be developed in the Modal Working Groups, further analysis will be performed to identify and design options to avoid any potential displacements in the future. Given the unique history in this corridor, Metro’s goal is to ensure zero displacement for future projects in this corridor.
• Surveillance: Any projects that include cameras or video technology will be evaluated with input from community members due to concerns about potentially compromising the privacy of corridor residents.
• Impervious cover and heat burden: Metro understands that increases in impervious cover exacerbates disparities in tree canopy and urban heat island effect. In addition to the Urban Greening Community Program, all relevant projects funded in the Investment Plan will prioritize incorporating urban greening, native and drought-tolerant landscaping, permeable surfaces, and tree canopy, with input from the Working Groups.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps
..
Item 20 Page 280 of 305
9-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
9.4 Tracking Investment Plan Progress and Success
Given the breadth of issues this Investment Plan addresses, and its nature as a strategic planning document, performance metrics will need to measure the Plan’s impacts across modes and on multiple scales of progress and success. Metro recommends the establishment of an LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Performance Tracking Program to track and measure progress and impacts. The program will establish consistent methods and tools for tracking project outcomes across similar projects and set performance tracking expectations for project sponsors and lead agencies to support the intent of understanding the Investment Plan’s cumulative benefits and impacts over time.
In coordination with the modal program working groups and other Metro efforts such as the Long Range Transportation Plan, Metro will develop a framework for tracking Investment Plan progress and success that builds upon the metrics used for the existing conditions analysis and project evaluation methodology. Metrics will be organized into the following three categories:
Process Metrics • Metrics that quantify or qualify the Investment Plan’s implementation progress based on process milestones and project and program delivery
Project Outcome Metrics • Metrics that track progress against the Investment Plan’s goals, which can be attributed to specific projects and programs Community Result Metrics • M Metrics that track progress against the Investment Plan’s desired community results, which cannot be directly attributed to specific projects and programs
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps
..
Item 20 Page 281 of 305
9-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan A summary of potential performance metrics, for discussion with the Modal and Community Programs Working Groups, is included below:
*Examples of potential performance metrics to be applied - Subject to change
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps
..
Item 20 Page 282 of 305
9-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
9.5 Planning for the Next Phase
In response to stakeholder and community feedback throughout the Investment Plan process leading up to the Plan’s approval in 2024, Metro continued to cultivate the development of the next phase of plan—the Implementation Phase. Metro utilized feedback from the Task Force, CLC, and Working Group meetings as a platform for discussing, through the lens of equity, the Investment Plan’s ongoing impact on topics such as community health, air quality and existing disparities in the corridor.
Metro held an Equity Working Group meeting on March 25, 2024, to discuss the incorporation of community health in implementation of the Community Programs as well as key objectives for the Environment, Air Quality and Health-related Working Group. Equity Working Group members were asked to help Metro design the future working group structure, initiate the next steps, and prepare for the launch of the Community Programs Catalyst Fund once the Investment Plan is adopted; they provided initial ideas during this planning discussion, including feedback about taking a broad view of defining community health, in alignment with the range of Community Programs. Metro will also identify and incorporate lessons learned from the ZET and Equity Working Groups when establishing a new Working Group structure and will continue to engage stakeholders to finalize this new phase in the months ahead.
The success of the plan relies on a team effort moving forward—Metro looks forward to continued work with community members, local organizations, industry experts and researchers, funding and regulatory agencies, and elected officials as the Investment Plan becomes a reality.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations 9. Next Steps
..
Item 20 Page 283 of 305
10-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
10. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations,
Glossary of Terms, and
Local, State and Regional Resources
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 284 of 305
10-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADA Americans with Disabilities
Act
AHSCAffordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
Program
APP Areas of Persistent
Poverty
ATPActive Transportation
Program
BIP Bridge Investment
Program
BIPOC Black, Indigenous or
People of Color
BNSF Burlington Northern
Santa Fe
BRT bus rapid transit
Btu British thermal unit
Caltrans California Department of
Transportation
CARB California Air Resources
Board
CBO community-based
organization
CEC California Energy
Commission
CEP community engagement
program
CEQA California Environmental
Quality Act
CES WG Community Engagement
Strategy Working Group
CIC community input
consideration
CLC Community Leadership
Committee
CMCP Comprehensive
Multimodal Corridor Plan
CRISI Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements
CSTAN Countywide Strategic
Truck Arterial Network
DPM diesel particulate matter
EFC Equity Focus Community
EIR Environmental Impact
Report
EIS Environmental Impact
Study
EPA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPET Equity Planning and
Evaluation Tool
FEMA Federal Emergency
Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway
Administration
FRA Federal Railroad
Administration
FTA Federal Transit
Administration
FY fiscal year
GCCOG Gateway Cities Council of
Governments
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS Geographic Information
Systems
HDC Historically Disadvantaged
Communities
HOV high-occupancy vehicle
HQTA High-Quality Transit Area
I-105 Interstate 105
I-405 Interstate 405
I-5 Interstate 5
I-710 Interstate 710
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 285 of 305
10-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan IIJA Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act
INFRA Infrastructure for
Rebuilding America
Investment Long Beach-East
Plan Los Angeles Corridor
Mobility Improvement
Plan
IRA Inflation Reduction Act
ITS Intelligent Transportation
System(s)
LA County Los Angeles County
LADOT Los Angeles Department
of Transportation
LADWP Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power
LB-ELA Long Beach-East Los
Angeles
LPA Locally Preferred
Alternative
Metro Board Los Angeles County
Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
Board of Directors
Metro Los Angeles County
Metropolitan
Transportation Authority
MSPP multimodal strategies,
projects, and programs
NAE Neighborhood Access and
Equity
NEPA National Environmental
Policy Act
NOxoxides of nitrogen
PA&ED preliminary engineering
and environmental
documentation
PIDP Port Infrastructure
Development Program
PM2.5 particulate matter equal to
or less than 2.5 microns in
diameter
POLA Port of Los Angeles
POLB Port of Long Beach
RAISE Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity
RCN Reconnecting
Communities and
Neighborhoods
ROW right-of-way
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California
Association of
Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality
Management District
SCCP Solutions for Congested
Corridors Program
SCE Southern California Edison
SMART Strengthening Mobility
and Revolutionizing
Transportation
SR State Route
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for
All
STP Strategic Transportation
Plan
TCEP Trade Corridor
Enhancement Program
TDM travel demand
management
TIRCP Transit and Intercity Rail
Capital Program
TOD Transit-Oriented
Development
TSM transportation systems
management
TSM transportation systems
management
UHIE Urban Heat Island Effect
UP Union Pacific
USDOT United States Department
of Transportation
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 286 of 305
10-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Glossary of Terms
This glossary defines keywords featured in the Long Beach-East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan.
Glossary Overview
General Terms are included at the beginning of the Glossary. These include background terms and other helpful definitions that are not reflected in the Type or Subtype Sections.
Type (Category) Subtype (Subcategory)
Active
Transportation/
Travel Demand
Management (TDM)
• Bicycle Routes/Facilities • Pedestrian/First Last Mile • Safety and Amenities • TDM Strategies Arterial Roadway
• Complete Streets • Signal Coordination, Transportation Systems Management (TSM), Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS)
• Traffic Calming • General Local/Regional Roadway
Evaluation Criteria
• Data Analysis • Modeling • Qualitative and Quantitative Metrics Community Programs
• Air Quality/Community/Health/Environment • Housing Stabilization/Land Use • Job Creation/Work Opportunities Goods Movement
• Truck Programs/ITS • Freight Rail, Goods Movement, TDM • Ports Transit
• High-Capacity Transit (Rail & BRT) • Rail Line/Station Improvements • Bus Transit • Transit Amenities Freeway
• Freeway Improvements • Freeway Amenities/ITS • Zero Emissions Lanes on I-710 • Congestion Pricing
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 287 of 305
10-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Glossary
Activity-Based Model
(ABM):
Estimates household socio-economic characteristics
and simulates daily activities to estimate chains of trips to complete those daily activities.
Accessible Pedestrian
Signals (APS):
A pedestrian push button that communicates when
to cross the street in a non-visual manner, such
as audible tones, speech messages, and vibrating
surfaces.
Active Transportation: Human powered transportation and low speed electronic assist devices: Examples include but are not limited to pedestrians, bicycles, tricycles, wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, scooters, skates, and skateboards.
Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA):
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with
disabilities in public accommodations, employment,
transportation, state and local government services,
and telecommunications. It prescribes federal
transportation requirements for transportation
providers.
Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADU) amnesty
programs:
Intended to provide a low-cost, penalty-free pathway
to improve all unpermitted accessory dwelling units
to a safe and habitable condition without requiring the removal of the units or displacement of any residents.
Advance
Transportation
Management Systems
(ATMS):
Provides real-time roadway monitoring, incident
detection, and rapid response capabilities.
Affordable accessory
dwelling unit (ADU)
programs:
Legal and regulatory term for a secondary house or
apartment that shares the building lot of a larger,
primary home. They may be built within a converted
garage or accessory structure, as a newly built
structure, or as a conversion of part of the main house.
Air Quality: The degree to which the air in a particular place is pollution-free.
Air Quality Modeling: Mathematical and numerical techniques to simulate the physical and chemical processes that affect
air pollutants as they disperse and react in the
atmosphere.
Alameda Corridor: A 20-mile-long rail high-capacity freight expressway linking the port cluster of Long Beach and Los Angeles
to the transcontinental rail terminals near downtown
Los Angeles.
Amenities: Roadway features that help to provide comfort, convenience, and safety.
Anti-Displacement
Programs:
Programs that advocate for intentional development
that reduces displacement as the path forward towards
equitable, affordable, and inclusive communities
Arterial Roadway: A high-capacity road that carries longer-distance flows between important centers of activity.
At-grade crossing: A crossing or intersection of highways, railroad tracks, other guideways, or pedestrian walks, or combinations
of these at the same level or grade.
Auxiliary Lane: An extra short distance lane(s) of the highway adjoining the through travel lanes to allow for speed change,
turning, weaving, truck climbing, maneuvering of
entering and leaving traffic, and other safety and
operational purposes supplementary to through-traffic
movement.
Basic Income Program: Government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. The goals
of a basic income system are to alleviate poverty
and replace other need-based social programs that
potentially require greater bureaucratic involvement.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 288 of 305
10-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Bicycle Routes/
Facilities:
A portion of a right-of-way for the exclusive use of
bicyclists which has been designated by pavement
markings, curb, cross-hatched paint, planting strip or
parked cars. Bike facilities come in many forms and
are categorized into classes, typically from Class I
to Class IV, with the latter including a buffer/barrier and is considered as the most protective for cyclists/
pedestrians.
Bike Facilities/Paths –
Class I (1):
Paved rights-of-way completely separated from
streets. Bike paths are often located along waterfronts, creeks, railroad rights-of-way or freeways with a
limited number of cross streets and driveways. These
paths are typically shared with pedestrians and often
called mixed-use paths.
Bike Facilities/Paths –
Class II (2):
On-street facilities designated for bicyclists using
stripes and stencils. Bike lanes are the preferred
treatment for all arterial and collector streets on the bikeway network, and not typically installed on lowvolume, low-speed residential streets.
Bike Facilities/Paths –
Class III (3):
Streets designated for bicycle travel and shared with
motor vehicles. Streets are designated as bike routes
because they are suitable for sharing with motor
vehicles and/or provide better (or needed) connectivity than other streets. Routes are marked with signs
and/or shared lane bicycle (aka “sharrow”) pavement
markings intended to encourage bicyclists to ride clear of the “door zone” and to alert motorists to expect
bicyclists to occupy the full lane.
Bike Facilities/Paths –
Class IV (4):
Separated bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles,
physically separated from the roadway by a buffer or
vertical feature.
Bike overcrossing: Also called pedestrian/bicycle bridges, provide critical links in the bicycle/pedestrian system by joining areas separated by a variety of “barriers.” Overcrossings can address real or perceived safety issues by providing
users a formalized means for traversing “problem
areas” including transportation corridors, such as
arterial roads, freeways, and railroad tracks.
Bike Share: A service that provides bicycles for a daily, monthly, annual, or trip-based fee. Bike share is recognized as
an option for first and last mile transit connections.
Learn about Metro’s Bike Share program at https://
bikeshare.metro.net/
Bioswales: Channels designed to concentrate and convey
stormwater runoff while removing debris and pollution,
which could include vegetated, shallow, landscaped
depressions designed to capture, treat, and infiltrate
stormwater runoff as it moves downstream.
Bobtail: A freight-carrying truck without a trailer.
Bollards: A short post used to divert traffic from an area or road.
Bridge Decks: The functional area on top of a bridge or overcrossing that allows vehicles and non-motorized traffic such
as pedestrians and bicyclists to cross over a roadway,
freeway, railroad, or river channel.
Brownfield: An area with abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion,
redevelopment, or reuse is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination.
Buffered Bike Lanes –
Class II(IIB):
Buffer striping to provide greater separation between
bicyclists and parked or moving vehicles.
Bulb outs: A curb extension which allows a bus to stop within the travel lane. This helps buses move faster and more
reliably.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 289 of 305
10-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Bus Priority Lane
Corridor:
Typically involves the conversion of the rightmost
traffic lane into a travel lane primarily dedicated to
buses (allows for right turns and bike lane uses) during specific times and days of the week. These are typically installed to increase service frequency and reliability, as well as enhancing mobility by moving more people
without adding more infrastructure.
Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT):
Bus Rapid Transit is a mobility or bus option with
many of the same benefits as light rail service, but at significantly less cost and with a faster build time. BRT offers reliable, frequent transit service in LA County
with bus speed improvements over local bus service,
operational enhancements and minimal infrastructure
needs. Local examples of BRT service include the G
Line (Orange), serving the San Fernando Valley, and the J Line (Silver), which serves El Monte, downtown Los
Angeles and San Pedro.
Carpool Lane: Also known as High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV), is a lane restricted to vehicles with two (and in some cases
three) or more occupants to encourage carpooling.
Vehicles include automobiles, vans, buses, and taxis.
Changeable Message
Signs (CMS):
Primarily used to give motorists real-time traffic
safety and guidance information about planned and
unplanned events that significantly impact traffic on
the State’s highway system, such as traffic congestion
or AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergence
Response) Alerts
Chassis: The base frame of a motor vehicle.
Closed Circuit
Television Camera
(CCTV):
Camera system in which signals are not publicly
distributed but are monitored, primarily for monitoring traffic and security purposes.
Community Based
Organizations (CBOs):
Public or private nonprofit organization that are
representative of a community and provide educational
or related services to individuals in the community.
Community Health
Screening:
Opportunity for anyone to receive free or inexpensive
health evaluations to help determine their risk of
developing a medical condition
Community Health: Non-clinical approaches for improving health, preventing disease, and reducing health disparities
through addressing social, behavioral, environmental,
economic, and medical determinants of health in a
geographically defined population
Community Indicator: Quantifiable measures of community results, disaggregated by race/ethnicity and income.
Community Land
Trusts (CLT) /land
banks:
Nonprofit organizations governed by a board of
CLT residents, community residents, and public
representatives that provide lasting community assets
and shared equity homeownership opportunities for
families and communities
Complete Streets: Streets that are designed and operated to enable safe access for all roadway users of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders. Complete Streets strategies can include traffic calming, bicycle priority streets (bicycle boulevards)
and pedestrian connectivity to increase physical
activity, improve connectivity to the regional bikeway/ greenway networks, local businesses and parks.
Congested Speeds: Speeds of less than 35 miles per hour.
Connected Vehicle
Infrastructure:
Infrastructure supporting vehicles that use any
number of different communication technologies to
communicate with the driver, other cars on the road
(vehicle-to-vehicle), roadside to infrastructure (vehicleto-infrastructure), and the “Cloud”. Connected vehicles are part of the Internet of Things (IoT) concept that
many cities and municipalities are beginning to adopt
to tackle some of the biggest challenges in the surface transportation industry. For instance, safety, mobility, and environment.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 290 of 305
10-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Container Terminal
Wharf:
An area designated for storing cargo in a container,
usually accessible by truck, railroad, and marine
transportation.
Density Bonus
Programs:
Incentive-based tool that permits a developer to
increase the maximum allowable development on a
site in exchange for either funds or in-kind support for specified public policy goals
Design Pollution
Prevention Infiltration
Areas (DPPIAs):
Could include stormwater treatment devices that
would treat stormwater runoff from sites along the
transportation facility and contribute to pollution
prevention infiltration.
Distributive Equity: 1) Allocation of benefits and amenities proportionate to levels of need and historic investment and based
on self-identified community priorities rather than
‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions. 2) Policies and resource management to ensure benefits reach intended
recipients.
Drayage truck
movements:
The transport of freight from an ocean port to a
destination
Economic
empowerment:
The transformative process that helps move
marginalized individuals from limited power, voice, and choice to have the skills, resources, and opportunities needed to attain economic security as well as the
agency to control and benefit from financial gains.
Ensuring the opportunity to participate in and benefit
from the community’s economic growth.
Economic resilience: To build an equitable and sustainable economy where communities and residents can recover quickly from
or withstand or avoid a shock to their economic
conditions, especially in the overall transition to a
carbon-neutral economy.
Economic
sustainability:
Focuses on practices that support long-term
economic growth without negatively impacting social,
environmental, and cultural aspects of the community.
EFC Lens: Equity Focus Community Lens
Emergency vehicle
pre-emption (EMVE):
A vehicle pre-emption or priority system that is
integrated into a local street traffic signal management system designed to move emergencies vehicles
faster through signalized roads. As an emergency
vehicle approaches an intersection, the traffic light
will turn green for the emergency vehicle, and red for
the opposing traffic to clear the intersection for the
emergency vehicle to pass through when responding to
an emergency.
EMFAC: A computer emissions modeling software that
estimates emission rates for motor vehicles for
calendar years from 2000 to 2050 operating in
California.
Emission Reduction
Program:
Program to lower the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
generated by an individual, organization or country.
Environmental
sustainability:
The responsibility to conserve natural resources and
protect global ecosystems to support health and
wellbeing, now and in the future.
EQ QUAL: Equity qualitative analysis
Equitable development
scorecard:
An evaluation tool that ensures that residents’ voices
are centered in decision-making processes while also
building community power by using a point based
on how well projects promote equity across several
criteria.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 291 of 305
10-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Equity Guiding
Principle:
“A commitment to: (1) strive to rectify past harms; (2) provide fair and just access to opportunities; and 3)
eliminate disparities in project processes, outcomes,
and community results.”
“The plan seeks to elevate and engrain the principle
of Equity across all goals, objectives, strategies,
and actions through a framework of Procedural,
Distributive, Structural, and Restorative Equity, and
by prioritizing an accessible and representative
participation process for communities most impacted
by the I-710.”
Equity: 1) Both an outcome and a process to address
disparities to ensure fair and just access to
opportunities. 2) An end state in which all groups have access to the resources, benefits, and opportunities
necessary to improve the quality of their lives, which
can include a more just decision-making process.
Equity-Focus
Community (EFC):
Metro created a community designation called Equity
Focus Communities (EFCs) to help identify where
transportation needs are greatest. EFCs consider
where there are higher concentrations of resident and
household demographics associated with mobility
barriers including low-income households, BIPOC/nonwhite households, and households without a vehicle.
EFCs reflect percentile ranges of combined metrics
and refer to tracts above the 60th (high need) and 80th (very high need) percentiles.
Equity Opportunity: A decision that is designed to enhance positive impacts or reduce negative impacts for historically
marginalized communities or others facing disparities
in access to opportunities.
Evaluation Criteria: A benchmark, standard, or factor against which performance and suitability of an activity, product, or plan is measured.
First/Last Mile: The first and last part of the journey that riders walk, bike or roll to and from their nearest station or bus
stop is called the “first/last mile connection.”
Flag: Tool used to capture additional information not
captured in the evaluation score of a project or
program.
Freeway Lids, Caps: Type of deck bridge built on top of a controlled-access highway or another roadway. It is commonly used to
create new parkland in urban areas. In some locations,
freeway caps or lids are used to describe overpasses
containing widened bridges that accommodate wider
sidewalks or small amenity space beside the roadway
above the highway.
Freeway: An expressway with fully controlled access
Freight Rail: The use of railroads and trains to transport cargo, sometimes on railroad track that also carries human
passengers.
Geofence alerts: A virtual geographic boundary, defined by GPS (Global Positioning System) or RFID (Radio Frequency
Identification) technology. When a mobile device
crosses the “fence,” the geofence triggers a response.
Essentially, geofences use virtual GPS points to trigger responses that send alerts to mobile devices when
users enter or exit the geofenced territory.
Geographic
Information System
(GIS):
Computer-based tools used to store, visualize, analyze, and interpret geographic data.
Geographic
Information Systems
(GIS) analysis:
A type of computer software that allows the user to
manipulate geographic information and to produce
maps of data.
Goal: Desired outcomes for general areas of concern to
support the overall Vision.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 292 of 305
10-10 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Goods Movement: The distribution of freight (including raw materials, parts, and finished consumer products) by all modes of
transportation including marine, air, rail and truck.
Grade Separation: A crossing of two highways, highway and local road, or a highway and a railroad at different levels. For
example, a multimodal bridge over or under the
railroad tracks.
Greenbelts: A band of the countryside surrounding a city or urbanized area on which building is generally
prohibited. Similar concepts are greenways or green
wedges, which have a linear character and may run
through an urban area instead of around it.
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (GHG)
Emissions
Gases that absorb and emit radiant energy at thermal
infrared wavelengths, causing the greenhouse gas
effect. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth’s
atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, and ozone.
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions:
Emissions of any gas caused by human activity that
have the property of absorbing infrared radiation
(net heat energy) emitted from Earth’s surface and
reradiating it back to Earth’s surface, including carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor.
Guiding Principle: A value that guides all processes and outcomes through a cohesive and intentional framework.
Hardscaping: Refers to any man-made structure within landscaping design that is made of inanimate materials like gravel, brick, wood, pavers, or stone. Any solid structure in
an outdoor area that is not plant life is considered
hardscape.
HAWK beacon: Also known as Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), HAWK beacons can warn and control traffic at
unsignalized locations and assist pedestrians in
crossing a street or highway at a marked crosswalk.
Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests in the dark until a pedestrian activates it via pushbutton or other form
of detection. When activated, the beacon displays a
sequence of flashing and solid lights that indicate the pedestrian walk interval and when it is safe for drivers to proceed.
Housing/Rent
Stabilization:
A form of control over housing prices so that the given cost of rent for a property only increases by a small
amount each year.
Hybrid work
schedules:
An arrangement that informs when employees
should work remotely or from the office. Here, each
employee’s needs are considered while prioritizing
your organization’s goals.
Inclusionary Housing: Local policies that tap the economic gains from rising real estate values to create affordable housing. This
policy includes reserving a certain percentage of
new housing units for low and moderate-income
households.
Intelligent
Transportation
Systems (ITS):
Improves transportation by integrating advanced
information and communications-based technologies
(ICT) into transportation infrastructure and vehicles.
ITS refers to a system of technologies and operational
advancements that, when combined and managed,
improve the capabilities of the overall transportation
system.
Interchange: Road junction that uses grade separations to allow for the movement of traffic between two or more roadways
or highways
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 293 of 305
10-11 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Intermodal yards: Any transportation facility primarily dedicated to the business of freight rail and/or intermodal freight rail operations where cargo is transferred to or from a train and any other form of conveyance (usually a truck).
Internet service
provider (ISP):
A company that provides individuals and organizations
access to the internet and other related services
Land Use: The human use of land. It represents the economic and cultural activities practiced at a given place. Public and private lands frequently represent very different uses
Light Rail Transit
(LRT):
Light Rail Transit (LRT) Is a public transit system with vehicles that are electrically self-propelled by overhead catenary wires and usually operate in one or two-car
trains (at peak times, Metro trains can have up to three cars). LRT train cars have passenger capacity of 135
per car and can carry up to 405 passengers per train,
operating every five to six minutes. An LRT system has
an average speed of 24-35 mph the top speed of 55-65
miles per hour (MPH) and operates above, below or
at street level with a typical station spacing being one mile. Metro currently operates LRT on the Metro A Line
(Blue), C Line (Green), L Line (Gold), E Line (Expo), and the recently opened K Line (Crenshaw/LAX).
Metro Micro Transit
Zone(s):
Metro Micro service areas designed to replace short,
solo trips by offering a flexible, on-demand service
operated by Metro employees in vehicles that hold up
to 10 passengers. Along with other safety measures,
capacity is currently limited to five passengers to
reduce risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Mobility
on Demand pilot began by offering shared rides to or
from transit stations in select zones as a way to expand equitable, affordable and efficient access to Metro’s
existing transit network. For more information about
Metro Micro, visit https://www.metro.net/micro/.
Mixed-Flow Traffic
Lanes:
Travel lanes used by autos, buses, carpools, and trucks.
Model: An analytical tool to provide information to planners; A means to quantitatively forecast the effects of
transportation planning, policy, or investment decisions – or external factors – on transportation demand and
system performance.
Multimodal options: 1) A mixture of several modes of transportation, such as public transportation (i.e., bus, light rail, commuter rail, etc.), autos, trucks, freight rail, and non-motorized systems of transportation. 2) Includes walking, taking
public transportation, driving, rolling (riding a bike, scooter, wheelchair, skates).
On Dock Rail: Railroad tracks that are located adjacent to port terminal ship berths and allows containers to be
moved by cranes from a ship directly to a rail car and
vice versa, and does not require the container to exit
the terminal’s gate via truck.
On-demand bus
(Micro-Transit):
A form of bus demand-responsive transport vehicle for
hire. This transit service offers a highly flexible routing and/or highly flexible scheduling of minibus vehicles
shared with other passengers.
Operational Lanes: A type of lane that is operated with a management scheme, such as lane use restrictions or tolling, to
optimize traffic flow.
Overcrossing: A structure carrying a road or street over a highway, freeway, or river channel.
Parklets: A small seating area or green space created as a public amenity on or alongside a sidewalk, such as in a former roadside parking space.
Pedestrian: Any person who travels by foot or a wheeled conveyance that is not a bicycle, including scooters,
wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 294 of 305
10-12 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Performance Measure: Quantifiable measures to forecast and track how well the proposed action will work or is working. They may
be quantitative, qualitative, or otherwise describe
actual impact. They may also be short-term, mid-term,
or long-term.
Person Miles Traveled
(PMT):
A standard measure of mobility that combines both the
number and length of trips
Park and Ride (PNR) to
Transit:
A traveler drives and parks at a transit stop to continue a trip via transit.
Port Railyard: A rail facility in which cargo is transferred from drayage truck to train or vice-versa.
Port Transportation
Analysis Model
(PortTAM):
Uses Port Cargo Forecasts, Port Facility activities,
and related facilities to estimate port-related cargo
movements by both Rail and Truck trips.
Procedural Equity: 1) Proactive and accessible community engagement that bridges linguistic, technology, and ability gaps
to meet communities where they are and enable
participatory and representative decision-making
processes. 2) Ongoing systems of accountability and
communication to build and maintain trust.
Proposal Outcome: A clearly defined future state of being at the program, local, or agency level resulting from the proposed
action that ultimately supports the community result.
Public-private
partnerships:
Public-private partnerships involve collaboration
between a government agency and a private-sector
company that can be used to finance, build, and operate projects, such as public transportation networks or
parks. Financing a project through a public-private
partnership can allow a project to be completed sooner
or make it a possibility in the first place.
Quad Safety Gates: A type of boom barrier gate protecting a grade crossing. It has a gate mechanism on both sides of the
tracks for both directions of automotive traffic. The exit gates blocking the road leading away from the tracks
are equipped with a delay and begin their descent
to their horizontal position several seconds after the
entrance gates do, to avoid trapping highway vehicles
on the crossing.
QUAL: General qualitative analysis
Qualitative
Assessments:
Use of a set of methods, principles, or rules for
assessing risk based on nonnumerical categories or
levels.
Quantitative Analysis: Analysis of a situation or event by means of complex mathematical and statistical modeling.
Raised islands: Provides a raised median that serves as a physical separation between opposing vehicle travel lanes while
also offering an opportunity for landscaping or visual
enhancements to a roadway corridor, and a place of
refuge for a pedestrian crossing a multi-lane street –
all in support of improved and safe traffic flow.
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
(RRFBs):
RRFBs are pedestrian-actuated conspicuity or
luminosity enhancements used in combination with
a pedestrian, school, or trail crossing warning sign to improve safety at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks.
The device includes two rectangular shaped yellow
indications, each with an LED-array-based light source, that flash with high frequency when activated.
Rental Assistance
Programs:
Programs intended to help eligible households cover
rental and utility costs, to assist with prospective
payments for rent and utilities, and provide funding
for housing stabilization services and other housingrelated expenses
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 295 of 305
10-13 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Restorative Equity: 1) Acknowledgement of, and atonement for historic and ongoing systemic harms resulting from planning
practice and policy. 2) Commensurate actions,
resources, and investments dedicated to remediation
and prevention of further systemic harms.
Right-of-Way: Land legally designated for use by a transportation facility(ies) such as roadways, freeways, and transit
lines.
Road Diets: Typically involves repurposing an existing roadway – for example, a four-lane, undivided roadway segment
to a three-lane segment consisting of two through
lanes and a center, two-way left-turn lane – to make
additional space available for other transportation
modes such as pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition
to low cost, the primary benefits of a Road Diet include enhanced safety, mobility and access for all road users and a “complete streets” environment to accommodate
a variety of transportation modes.
Roundabouts: An intersection where traffic travels around a central island in a counterclockwise direction. Vehicles
entering or exiting the roundabout must yield to
vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
SA QUAL: Sustainability qualitative analysis
Safety: Safety pertains to the measures taken to reduce the risk of road traffic injuries and death.
Shared-Use: 1) Facilities that have multiple users. For example, some freight rail lines have shared use with Metrolink
and Amtrak. Highways have shared use between
trucks and cars and transit (sometimes). Roads have
shared use between transit, cars, bicycles, pedestrians, delivery trucks, etc. 2) A transportation system that
responds to the needs of all users of a transportation
corridor that is shared by cars, bicycles, buses, trucks, etc.
Shore-side power: Providing electrical power from the shore to a vessel at berth, thereby allowing the auxiliary engines to be
turned off.
Signal Coordination
(Synchronization):
Traffic Signal Synchronization is a traffic engineering technique of matching the green light times for a series of intersections to enable the maximum number of
vehicles to pass through, thereby reducing stops and
delays experienced by motorists. Synchronizing traffic
signals ensures a better flow of traffic and minimizes
gas consumption and pollutant emissions.
Social equity: Fairness and justice for all people in social policy.
Social equity considers systemic inequalities to ensure that everyone in a community has access to the
same opportunities and outcomes. Equity of all kinds
acknowledges that inequalities exist and works to
eliminate them.
Societal sustainability: Focuses on the basic social needs of humans including health and well-being, education, dignity, equality,
peace and justice.
Socioeconomic Data: Data of a combined economic and sociological measure of a person’s work experience and family’s economic
access to resources and social position in relation to
others.
Soundwalls: A wall installed parallel to highways with the intent of minimizing the traffic noise for nearby residential
areas.
Structural Equity: 1) Evolution of decision-making bodies to reflect the communities they serve. 2) Restructuring of
organizational systems and hierarchies to empower
historically marginalized groups.
Subtype: A secondary or subordinate type or genre, a specific one considered as falling under a general classification.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 296 of 305
10-14 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Supervisory Control
and Data Acquisition
System (SCADA):
A system of software and hardware elements that
allows organizations to (1) control operations locally or at remote locations, (2) monitor, gather, and process
real-time data (3) directly interact with devices such
as sensors, valves, pumps, motors, and more through
human-machine interface (HMI) software, and (4)
record events into a log file.
Sustainability Guiding
Principle:
“Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. A commitment
to sustainability to satisfy and improve basic social,
health, and economic needs/conditions, both present
and future, and the responsible use and stewardship of
the environment, all while maintaining or improving the well-being of the environment on which life depends.”
Sustainability: The satisfaction of basic social and economic needs, both present and future, and the responsible use of
the natural environment, all while maintaining or
improving the well-being of the environment on which
life depends. Generally made up of three pillars
Sustainable
community:
A community that can maintain and support itself
and its residents generationally and sustains itself
economically, socially, and environmentally over time.
Sustainable
development:
Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs.
Transportation
Demand Management
(TDM):
Used to forecast traffic flows on the transportation
system. Although the transportation system may
include other modes of travel such as walking, bikes,
or trains, the models are typically used for evaluating roadway improvements or improvements to bus
service.
Telecommuting: The ability for an employee to complete work assignments from outside the traditional workplace by
using telecommunications tools, such as phone, email,
and other online communication tools.
Thoroughfare: A road or path forming a route between two places.
Traffic Calming (speed
calming):
Local street design techniques that reduce traffic
speeds and discourage traffic incursion in residential
neighborhoods to improve local street safety and
neighborhood quality of life. Techniques include
physical traffic barriers (e.g., speed humps), revised
street configurations, and traffic speed enforcement.
Traffic controls (traffic
signals, stop signs):
The control of traffic via any of a number of passive
rules or signs (including travel way delineations,
rights-of-way and other rules-of-the-road, and traffic
markings and signs) or active human agents or control
devices (police officers and traffic signals), to optimize safe and efficient flows.
Traffic Controls: Directing vehicular and pedestrian traffic around a construction zone, accident, or other road disruption,
thus ensuring the safety of emergency response teams,
construction workers, and the public.
Traffic Volumes: Volume of traffic moving on roads at a particular section during a particular time period.
Transit Mode Share: The percentage of travelers using a particular type of transportation or number of trips using said type.
Transit Oriented
Communities (TOC):
Community development that, by design, enable people
to access and use transit more often by centering
housing, jobs, services, and shopping around public
transit. For more information about Metro’s TOC
Program, visit https://www.metro.net/about/toctechnical-assistance-program/
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 297 of 305
10-15 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Transit Oriented
Development (TOD):
Moderate- to higher-density development, located
within easy walk of a major transit stop, generally
with a mix of residential, employment, and shopping
opportunities designed for pedestrians without
excluding the auto. TOD can be new construction or
redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design
and orientation facilitate transit use.
Transit: The carrying of people, goods, or materials from one place to another. Public transit includes buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge
set fares, operate on established routes, and are
available to the public.
Transload Model: Model used to unload goods from one container to another or from one container into a warehousing
facility.
Transportation
Networks:
Set of links, nodes, and lines that represent the
infrastructure or supply side of transportation.
Transportation
Systems Management
(TSM):
A comprehensive strategy to coordinate many forms
of transportation (such as car, bus, carpool, rail transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes) to reduce the impact
of additional development on transportation capacity.
TSM focuses on using existing highway and transit
systems more efficiently rather than expanding them.
Computerized traffic signals, metered freeway ramps,
one-way streets, rideshare matching services and
other TSM measures are characterized by their low
cost and quick implementation time frame.
Travel Demand
Management (TDM):
A strategy for reducing demand on the road system by
reducing the number of vehicles using the roadways
and/or increasing the number of persons per vehicle.
For example, TDM attempts to reduce the number of
people who drive alone during the commuting period
and to increase the number in carpools, vanpools,
buses or trains, or walking or biking. TDM can be an
element of Transportation Systems Management (TSM;
see below).
Tree wells: Tree wells are the space around a tree under its branches.
Truck Bypass Lanes: Roadway that provides physical separation of trucks from passenger vehicles at a freeway interchange to
eliminate weaving between passenger cars traveling at
higher speeds and trucks traveling at lower speeds.
Type: A primary type or genre that allows other similar types to be categorized into group, more or less precisely
defined or designated into a class or category
Underserved
communities:
Groups with limited or no access to resources or
otherwise disenfranchised.
Urban Greening: Public landscaping and urban forestry projects that create mutually beneficial relationships between city
dwellers and their environments
Urban Heat Island: An urban or metropolitan area is significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas due to human activities.
Vanpools: A vanpool is generally a group of between 5 to 15 people with similar travel patterns who ride to work or other places in a shared vehicle (most often a van).
Vegetation Barriers/
Buffer Landscaping:
Practical environmentally friendly solution to minimize soil erosion and off-target field movement of debris
and pollutants
Vision Statement: A concise statement that captures the collective aspirations, desires, and outcomes of the project or
program.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT):
A measure of total vehicular travel that accounts for
the number of vehicle trips and the length of those trips Vulnerable Road User: Those unprotected by an outside shield, as they sustain a greater risk of injury in any collision with a vehicle and are therefore highly in need of protection against
such collisions.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 298 of 305
10-16 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Walk to Transit: Transit within walking distance
Zero Emission
Infrastructure:
Fueling or electric charging stations for vehicles that produce no emissions
Zero Emissions Truck
Lanes:
Explore options and assess the feasibility of converting the right-hand lane on I-710 to create a Zero Emissions Truck Lane. Only zero-emissions trucks could travel in
this lane, while fossil-fuel vehicles would be excluded.
No new lanes would be added to the existing footprint
of I-710.
Zero-Emission Vehicle
(ZEV):
Trucks or vehicles that produce no tailpipe emissions
of criteria pollutants. Generally, ZEVs feature electric powertrains. Technically, ZEVs are still responsible for some greenhouse gas emissions, as the GHG content
from the electricity generation must be accounted for.
ZEVs include battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in
electric hybrids (PHEV) when powered by an electric
engine, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCV).
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 299 of 305
10-17 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Local, State and Regional Resources
Metro’s Equity Platform
https://www.metro.net/about/equity-race/
Metro’s Equity Platform, adopted by the Metro Board in 2018, is the agency’s guiding framework to address disparities by incorporating equity in all aspects of Metro’s budget and decision-making on a continuing bases to create equitable access to opportunities for all who live, work and play in Los Angeles County. The Equity Platform is structured around four pillars: 1) Listen and Learn, 2) Define and Measure, 3) Focus and Deliver, and 4) Train and Grow. In 2020, the Metro Board adopted an agencywide equity definition which states that “Equity is both an outcome and a process to address racial, socioeconomic and gender disparities, to ensure fair and just access -[...]-to opportunities, including jobs, housing, education, mobility options and healthier communities. It is achieved when one’s outcomes in life are not predetermined, in a statistical or experiential sense, on their racial, economic or social identities. It requires community informed and needs-based provision, implementation and impact of services, and programs and policies that reduce and ultimately prevent disparities.” The LB-ELA Investment Plan is responsive to Metro’s Equity Platform and acknowledges the necessity to work intentionally to eliminate racial and socioeconomic disparities within and along the corridor. 2021 LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan
https://media.metro.net/2021/Goods-Movement-Strategic-Plan-Spreads. pdf
The Plan is Metro’s response to the many freight-related transportation planning challenges that undermine our county’s efforts to be economically competitive, environmentally sustainable, and socially equitable. By creating a vision for goods movement needs in LA County, Metro seeks to engage our regional, state, and federal partners to develop and enrich planning efforts at these levels of government with the priorities of the county in mind. This plan aligns with Metro’s Vision 2028 Strategic Plan and 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan and sets forth the strategic initiatives and priorities for Metro’s goods movement planning activities over the next five years.
Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/first_last_mile_ strategic_plan.pdf
The Plan was prepared for all 22 stations on the Metro Blue Line, representing a first-of-its-kind effort to plan comprehensive access improvements for an entire transit line, its greater innovation is in piloting an inclusive, equity-focused community engagement process. As part of the consultant team for this effort, Metro partnered with a coalition of CBOs to lead outreach efforts on the project, and to help shape the overall direction of this plan. Among the improvements the plan calls for are better sidewalks, more and safer crosswalks, more lighting for pedestrians, better and safer bike lanes and facilities, more trees to supply shade, bus stop improvements, pickup/drop-off locations near stations and landscaping.
Measure H (County of Los Angeles)
https://homeless.lacounty.gov/measureh/#:~:text=Created%20by%20 the%20Board%20of,to%20addressing%20and%20preventing%20
homelessness
Measure H is the landmark ¼-cent sales tax approved by 69.34% of Los Angeles County voters in March 2017, the first revenue stream dedicated to preventing and addressing homelessness countywide. It is projected to raise $355 million annually for 10 years, or a total of $3.5 billion, to implement the County’s Homeless Initiative strategies. It is set expire in 2027, unless renewed by voters. A Citizen’s Oversight Advisory Board reviews Measure H spending. Independent audits and performance evaluations also help ensure transparency and accountability.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 300 of 305
10-18 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Measure HHH (City of Los Angeles)
https://housing2.lacity.org/housing/supportive-housing-prop-hhh Los Angeles voters passed Proposition HHH in 2016, which enabled City officials to issue $1.2 billion in bonds for the development of permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing homelessness. In addition to funding permanent supportive housing development, the bonds can be used to help build temporary shelters. The passage of Proposition HHH is notable because it received the support of a broad and unique coalition of public and private stakeholders in LA, including labor unions and private and nonprofit housing developers. Learn more at: localhousingsolutions. org/housing-policy-case-studies/los-angeles-proposition-hhh/ Measure R (Los Angeles County)
https://www.metro.net/about/measure-r/
A two-thirds majority of LA County voters approved the Measure R half-cent sales tax in 2008 to finance new transportation projects and programs, and accelerate those already in the pipeline. The Measure R Expenditure Plan devotes its funds to seven transportation categories: 35% to new rail and bus rapid transit projects; 3% to Metrolink projects; 2% to Metro Rail system improvement projects; 20% to carpool lanes, highways and other highway related improvements; 5% to rail operations; 20% to bus operations; and 15% for Local Return programs. The Measure contains an Expenditure Plan that identifies the projects to be funded and additional fund sources that will be used to complete the projects.
Metro 2016 Active Transportation Strategic Plan (ATSP)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dtuy70ydn1pxf8o/
AADhHaYBOnWX06uVDQ0K-Ssva?e=1&dl=0
The Active Transportation Strategic Plan is Metro’s overall strategy for funding and supporting the implementation of active transportation infrastructure and programs in Los Angeles County. It identifies strategies to improve and grow the active transportation network, to expand the reach of transit, and develop a regional active transportation network to increase personal travel options. “Active Transportation” refers to any nonmotorized mode of travel, including walking, bicycling, rolling, skating, or scooting. S For more, visit: www.metro.net/projects/active-transportationstrategic-plan-atsp Metro 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)
https://www.metro.net/about/plans/long-range-transportation-plan/ The LRTP provides a detailed roadmap for how Metro will plan, build, operate, maintain, and partner for improved mobility in the next 30 years.
The LRTP will guide future funding plans and policies needed to move LA County forward for a more mobile, resilient, accessible and sustainable future.
Metro 2028 Games Mobility Concept Plan
https://boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2022-0781/
The 2028 Olympic and Para-Olympic Games Mobility Concept Plan (MCP) outlines mobility strategies, including capital and operating improvements, to support the transportation infrastructure needed to enhance mobility for the Games and beyond. At its December 2020 meeting, the Metro Board approved Motion 42 which directed staff to work with regional partners to develop a regional investment plan to include a federal engagement strategy and funding proposal to implement transportation improvements that would provide permanent, longterm benefits to the people of Los Angeles County. Metro’s 2028 Games Task Force developed the initial project list of over 200 projects. Staff augmented and refined the Draft Initial Project List presented to the Board in January 2022 as a result of an extensive agency stakeholder outreach process to create the Comprehensive Project List covering over 300 projects. The Comprehensive Project List includes capital and operational improvements, such as bus stops, bus lanes, transfer centers, mobility hubs, communications and security equipment, and system reliability investments; state-of-good-repair and maintenance work; and optimized customer experience improvements, such as wayfinding, digital
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 301 of 305
10-19 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan information, and payment technology. Moving through a 6-step evaluation process, Metro and partner agencies. Identified and prioritized 50 projects for the Mobility Concept Plan Project List. The 2022 Prioritized MCP Project List consists of a broad range of multimodal projects (for example, active transportation, bus, congestion management, rail, and systemwide), and aligns with MCP goals. The project list has a diverse mix of project types:
58% capital projects, 28% operations-related improvements, and 14% expansion of existing Metro programs. Projects on this list have either no funding or partial funding.
Metro Active Transportation (MAT) Corridor
https://www.metro.net/about/metro-active-transport-transit-and-firstlast-mile-program/ Measure M established the Metro Active Transport, Transit and First/Last Mile (MAT) Program, which, over the course of 40 years, is anticipated to fund more than $857 million (in 2015 dollars) in active transportation infrastructure projects throughout the region. This is a competitive discretionary program available to municipalities in LA County and will fund projects to improve and grow the active transportation network and expand the reach of transit. The purpose of the MAT Program is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety. The Active Transportation Strategic Plan and Equity Platform Framework are the core policies shaping the program. Projects will be funded based on need, with priorities established using a variety of data, such as socio-economic factors, safety for active mode users, health and existing conditions of physical infrastructure for active modes. The Program will operate in two five-year cycles. The Metro Board of Directors approved projects receiving Cycle 1 awards in January 2021.
Next Gen Improvements
https://la-metro.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.
html?appid=8decc337ba35474ba28d0b4e9ad71647
The Bus Plan was approved in October 2020 to help transition towards a reimagined bus system that focuses on providing fast, frequent, reliable and accessible service to meet the needs of today’s riders. The project was developed through consideration of both technical data and all the priorities and personal experiences heard from nearly 20,000 LA County residents via over 400 meetings, events, presentations and workshops.
NextGen Bus Plan
https://www.metro.net/about/plans/nextgen-bus-plan/
In 2018, Metro launched an initiative to reimage their bus system to better meet the needs of current and future riders through the NextGen Bus Study. The NextGen Bus Plan was developed through consideration of both technical data and all the priorities and personal experiences heard from nearly 20,000 LA County residents through questionnaires and over 400 meetings, events, presentations and workshops. The process yielded thousands of comments and input from the public, including local stakeholder groups, riders and agencies and that input was used to develop the NextGen Bus Plan. The Plan was reviewed through the public hearing process and Metro Service Councils, and then approved by the Metro Board of Directors in October 2020.
The NextGen Bus Plan proposed bus improvements that would: • Double the number of frequent Metro bus lines • Provide more than 80% of current bus riders with 10 minute or better frequency
• Improve and expand midday, evening and weekend service, creating an all-day, 7-day-a-week service
• Ensure a ¼-mile walk to a bus stop for 99% of current riders • Create a more comfortable and safer waiting environment
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 302 of 305
10-20 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan The Investment Plan transit recommendations are designed to complement the NextGen Bus Plan recommendations with a focus on the public input received from the communities along the LB-ELA Corridor.
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-connect-socal-2020 Also known as the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, is a long-range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. It charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians. This Investment Plan vision, goals, and guiding principles are responsive to the policies and supportive strategies of the RTP/SCS ensuring consistency with the regional needs to mitigate congestion, enhance safety, and balance investments through equitable and multimodal transportation solutions.
State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP)
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/financial-programming/state-highwayoperation-protection-program-shopp-minor-program-shopp The 2022 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) is a four-year program of projects that collectively improves the condition, operation, and sustainability of State Highway System (SHS) and associated transportation infrastructure in California. The SHOPP funds safety and condition improvements, damage repairs, and highway operational and modal improvements on the State Highway System. By continuously repairing and rehabilitating the SHS, the SHOPP protects the enormous investment that has been made over many decades to create and manage the approximately 16,000 miles SHS. The SHS includes all Interstate routes, numbered highway, and other state owned assets including bicycle and pedestrian facilities, culverts, Transportation Management Systems (TMS), safety roadside rest areas, and maintenance stations. The SHOPP also funds projects necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and stormwater control requirements. All projects funded by the SHOPP are limited to capital improvements that do not add new through highway lanes.
Los Angeles County Metrolink Station Assessment and Improvement Plan
https://metrolinktrains.com/about/agency/score/
A Metro/Metrolink program that assessed the condition and accessibility of each Metrolink station in Los Angeles County to determine an initial set of proposed improvements for each Station.
Annual Commuter Rail State of Good Repair (SOGR) Program https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1
California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 provides transportation funding annually to repair aging infrastructure, make strategic investments in congested commute and freight rail corridors, and improve transit service. This a SB 1 program provides approximately $105 million annually to transit operators in California for eligible transit maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital projects. This investment in public transit is the State of Good Repair Program.
710 South Clean Truck Program (NOW: LB-ELA Zero Emissions Truck Program)
https://lede-admin.la.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/50/2021/05/I-710-Clean-Truck-Program-LongDescription-09.20.20.pdf The Metro Board acted in October 2021 (Motion 16) to commit $50 million as seed funding for a LB-ELA Zero Emission (ZE) Truck program that would become part of the work of the Task Force. In response, staff initiated a ZE Truck Working Group as part of the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force’s
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 303 of 305
10-21 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan engagement process. The Working Group is charged with developing the ZE Truck Program under the guidance of the ZE technology parameters adopted by the Board.
Metro Task Force 2022/2023 Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity Projects (PIPO)
https://www.metro.net/calendar/i-710-task-force/
Recognizing the unprecedented amount of discretionary grant funding made available at the State and Federal levels in 2022, the Metro Board directed staff via Motion 9 to return with a “minimum of three initiatives that will apply for available State and Federal funding opportunities in Calendar Year 2022,” in advance of the 710 Task Force Investment Plan being finalized in 2023. To fulfill this directive Metro staff put out a request to the Task Force membership, the CLC, cities, local agencies, and organizations to provide nominations for projects and received from stakeholders 22 project nominations ranging from categories such as Transit, Clean Air/Energy, Goods Movement, Corridor Mobility, Complete Streets, and Roadway. Staff also identified 13 additional projects for which Metro played a role in developing or supporting for grant funding.
After analyzing the projects, understanding the concerns raised and input provided by the CLC, EWG, Task Force and other stakeholders, and identifying projects for which a grant application had not yet been submitted, staff identified a full PIPO for Board review and a set of 4 early initiative projects for Board approval.
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/supervisory_control_and_data_ acquisition
Transit authorities, including Metro, use SCADA technology to regulate electricity to subways and LRT; to automate train traffic signals for rail systems; to track and locate trains and to control railroad crossing gates. It allows Metro to operate trains more frequently while maintaining safety of rail operations.
City of Long Beach Bicycle Master Plan
https://www.longbeach.gov/lbcd/planning/advance/general-plan/ mobility/bicycle/
The 2016 updated Bicycle Master Plan (Plan) continues to build upon a long-standing effort to make Long Beach a city known for its bicyclefriendliness and as an active, healthy, and prosperous place to live, work, and play. The Plan expands upon the Mobility Element of the Long Beach General Plan by providing further details on bicycle planning and design. It also recommends a series of bicycle facility projects and programs to be implemented by Long Beach over the next few decades. https://longbeach. gov/lbds/planning/advance/general-plan/mobility/bicycle/ The Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/climate-action-plan The Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) provides a holistic framework to better align the state’s transportation funding with the state’s climate, social, and health equity goals. The CAPTI identifies a set of strategic areas to support and be responsive to the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 or Senate Bill (SB) 1 goals of fixing California’s infrastructure and investing more in transit and safety. The CAPTI supports the goals of the California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2050, which is the state’s vision to achieve greater safety, reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), and increased equity and accessibility for the future of California’s transportation system. The CAPTI also builds on the principles of California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan to achieve the state’s 2030 GHG target and other climate goals.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
..
Item 20 Page 304 of 305
10-22 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
Metro Board Members, 2023-2024
Chair
Karen Bass
Mayor of the City of Los Angeles
1st Vice Chair
Janice Hahn
Los Angeles County Supervisor
District 4
2nd Vice Chair
Fernando Dutra
Appointee of Los Angeles County City
Selection Committee
South East Long Beach (Gateways Cities)
sector
Board Member
Kathryn Barger
Los Angeles County Supervisor
District 5
Board Member
James Butts
Appointee of Los Angeles County City
Selection Committee
Southwest Corridor sector
Board Member
Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker
Appointee of the Mayor of the City of Los
Angeles
Board Member
Lindsey Horvath
Los Angeles County Supervisor
District 3
Board Member
Paul Krekorian
Los Angeles City Council President, District 2
Appointee of the Mayor of the City of Los
Angeles
Board Member
Holly J. Mitchell
Los Angeles County Supervisor
District 2
Board Member
Ara J. Najarian
Appointee of the Los Angeles County City
Selection Committee
North County/San Fernando Valley sector
Board Member
Tim Sandoval
Appointee of Los Angeles County City
Selection Committee
San Gabriel Valley sector
Board Member
Hilda L. Solis
Los Angeles County Supervisor
District 1
Board Member
Katy Yaroslavsky
Los Angeles City Councilmember, District 5
Appointee of the Mayor of the City of Los
Angeles
Non-Voting Board Member
Gloria Roberts
District 7 Director
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans)
Appointee of the Governor of California
Thank you!
Visit lb-ela-cmip.com to read the
Investment Plan.
Contact Us
Michael Cano
LA Metro, Executive Officer
Countywide Planning & Development
213.418.3010
[email protected]
April 2024
..
Item 20 Page 305 of 305
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
From: Daniel S. Wall, P.E., Director of Public Works
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: Efren Peregrina Renteria, Procurement Specialist Subject
Encumbering Funds for City Contract No. 20240038, City Hall Roof Replacement Recommendation
Authorize the Finance Department to encumber $121,900 from Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 to FY 2024-25 for City Contract No. 20240038 City Hall Roof Replacement with Southland Roofing Inc.
Background
Following a formal bid process, on April 2, 2024, City Council awarded Contract No. 20240038 to Southland Roofing Inc. for $411,500 to replace the City Hall roof. The project began in May 2024 and was on track to be completed within the FY 2023-24. Two progress payments totaling $289,600 were made to the vendor. However, due to delays in the materials supplied by Tremco Roofing & Building Maintenance, the company providing the roof warranty, the project was completed in mid-July of 2024. The project was completed to the City’s satisfaction, however because the work was completed in FY 2024-25 and contract funds were not budgeted in FY 2024-25, there remains a balance of $121,900 yet to be paid to the contractor.
Due to the delayed schedule, the Public Works Department is requesting that the remaining FY 2023-24 funds of $121,900 for this project be re-allocated to the FY 2024-25 budget. The reallocation is necessary in order to pay Southland Roofing Inc. the outstanding balance of $121,900 for their work.
Fiscal Impact
Funds for the City Hall Roof Replacement were included in the FY 2023-24 budget. Approval of this action requires an appropriation of $121,900 to General Fund, Public Works Department, Facilities Maintenance Division, Capital Outlay Account No. 011-040-415-660000 for FY 2024- 25 from available General Fund Unassigned Balance.
Attachments
None. ..
Item 21 Page 1 of 1
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
From: Deborah Harrington, Interim City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Submitted by: Sandra Dolson, City Clerk Specialist
Subject
League of California Cities 2024 Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate Recommendation
Appoint a voting delegate and alternate to represent the City of Vernon at the General Assembly, convening during the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, scheduled October 16-18, 2024 in Long Beach, CA.
Background
The League of California Cities (CalCities) assists its members by defending and expanding local control through advocacy efforts. They also provide education and training programs designed to teach city officials about new developments in their field and exchange solutions to common challenges facing cities. Each year, the League hosts a Conference and Expo featuring a variety of speakers and timely presentations on key topics and opportunities for peer-to-peer sharing with other California city officials. During the Conference, CalCities convenes a member-driven General Assembly and Resolutions process, providing for member engagement on a range of significant policy issues to protect local control.
In order to vote at the Annual General Assembly, CalCities requires City Council action designating a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates. Cal Cities must be notified of the City’s representatives by September 25, 2024.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
Attachments
1. League of California Cities Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate ..
Item 22 Page 1 of 1
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.
To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.
Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.
Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.
Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024
..
Item 22 Page 1 of 4
For a city t
o cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.
Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].
Attachments: • General Assembly Voting Guidelines • Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly ..
Item 22 Page 2 of 4
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.
6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
..
Item 22 Page 3 of 4
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved
1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.
2 During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). ..
Item 22 Page 4 of 4
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 17, 2024
From: Michael Earl, Director of Human Resources
Department: Human Resources
Submitted by: Michael Earl, Director of Human Resources Subject
Appointment of Gigi Decavalles-Hughes to serve as Interim Director of Finance/City Treasurer Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 2024-020 affirming the appointment of Gigi Decavalles-Hughes to serve as Interim Director of Finance/City Treasurer of the City of Vernon and approving and ratifying the execution of a related temporary at-will employment agreement.
Background
Due to the vacant Director of Finance/City Treasurer position, there is a need in the Finance Department to appoint an individual on a limited duration temporary basis to perform special project work and provide extra help in support of the City’s Finance Department functions.
Under Government Code sections 7522.56, 21224, 21227, and 21229, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) allows contracting agencies to appoint CalPERS retired individuals to fill extra help positions, subject to certain restrictions.
Gigi Decavalles-Hughes has more than twenty-six years of municipal finance experience and possesses the desired experience and specialized skills needed to perform the special project work. She held a variety of positions in the Finance, Human Services, and Housing & Economic Development departments with the City of Santa Monica. During the most recent twelve years of her public sector career, Ms. Decavalles-Hughes served as the City of Santa Monica’s Finance Director/City Treasurer where she directed the budget, investments, financial and revenue operations, and risk management functions for an agency with a $745M budget, $1.5B in net assets, and 2300 full-time equivalent employees. Ms. Decavalles-Hughes holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in History from Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania and a Master’s in Urban Planning from New York University.
Ms. Decavalles-Hughes is appointed as a retired annuitant to perform extra help and special project work in the position of Interim Director of Finance/City Treasurer and will be compensated at an hourly rate of approximately $128.25 per hour consistent with the City of Vernon’s publicly available compensation schedule.
The temporary at-will employment agreement between the City and Ms. Decavalles-Hughes has been executed with an effective date of September 4, 2024, and is attached as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2024-020 . The agreement was reviewed and approved as-to-form by the City Attorney prior to its execution.
At its regular City Council meeting of September 17, 2024, prior to taking final action to approve this resolution, the City Council received an oral report summarizing the recommended appointment and compensation, in accordance with Government Code Section 54953(c)(3).
Fiscal Impact ..
Item 23 Page 1 of 2
The fiscal impact is estimated at $123,604. Sufficient funds are available in the General Fund, Finance Department, Salaries Account No. 011-010-130-501010 for the current fiscal year.
Attachments
1. Resolution No. 2024-020
2. Temporary At-Will Employment Agreement Decavalles-Hughes ..
Item 23 Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON
AFFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF GIGI DECAVALLES-HUGHES TO
SERVE AS INTERIM DIRECTOR OF FINANCE/CITY TREASURER OF
THE CITY OF VERNON AND APPROVING AND RATIFYING THE
EXECUTION OF A RELATED TEMPORARY AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. Due to the current vacancy of the Director of Finance/City Treasurer, there is a need for the appointment of a temporary employee for a limited duration to perform extra help and special project work.
B. The Finance Department requires someone with specific skills and experience to provide oversight and complete special project work in the areas of organizational assessment, financial forecasting, and investment oversight.
C. Gigi Decavalles-Hughes (Decavalles-Hughes) possesses the specialized skills needed to perform the required duties because of her many years of experience in the field of municipal finance.
D. The City and Decavalles-Hughes have executed a Temporary At-Will Employment Agreement (Agreement), subject to ratification by the City Council.
E. Decavalles-Hughes will be paid within the published salary range for the Director of Finance/City Treasurer position.
F. The City Council of the City of Vernon desires to appoint Decavalles-Hughes to serve as Interim Director of Finance/City Treasurer on a limited duration temporary basis, effective September 4, 2024.
G. At its regular meeting on September 17, 2024, prior to taking final action to approve this resolution, the City Council received an oral report summarizing the recommended appointment and compensation, in accordance with Government Code Section 54953(c)(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Vernon finds and determines that the above recitals are true and correct. ..
Item 23 Page 1 of 10
SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby affirms the appointment of Gigi Decavalles-Hughes to serve as Interim Director of Finance/City Treasurer of the City Finance Department of the City of Vernon effective September 4, 2024.
SECTION 4. The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby approves and ratifies the execution of the Temporary At-Will Employment Agreement with Gigi DecavallesHughes to serve as Interim Director of Finance/City Treasurer of the City of Vernon, in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. The Interim City Clerk, or any authorized officer, shall administer the Oath of Office prescribed in the Constitution of the State of California to DecavallesHughes and shall have her subscribe to it and file it with the Human Resources Department.
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby directs the Interim City Clerk to give a fully executed Agreement to Decavalles-Hughes.
SECTION 7. The Deputy City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED September 17, 2024. ________________________ Judith Merlo, Mayor
ATTEST:
YONNIE PARKER, Deputy City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ZAYNAH N. MOUSSA, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2024-020