ZERO-EMISSION
EQUITY • SUSTAINABILITY • AIR QUALITY • COMMUNITY • ENVIRONMENT • MOBILITY • OPPORTUNITY • PROSPERITY • SAFETY APRIL 2024
Long Beach - East Los Angeles
Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
A QUALIFYING I-710 COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN Michael Cano
Executive Officer
Countywide Planning & Development
[email protected]
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Communities
47 47
22 103
91 91 91
60 60
710
110
710
10 5
105
105
605
110
405
405
405
5 605
1 IN = 15,000 FT
SEAL BEACH
LOS ALAMITOS
CYPRESS
LA PALMA
ROLLING HILLS
ROLLING
HILLS
ESTATES
LOMITA
SIGNAL HILL
ARTESIA CERRITOS
LAWNDALE
CUDAHY
SANTA FE
SPRINGS
BELL GARDENS
MAYWOOD
BELL
VERNON
EAST LOS ANGELES
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
Port of LA
Port of LB
LGB
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
i Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Long Beach-East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan:
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-4 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5 Transportation, Access, and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-7 Community Health, Air Quality, and Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8 Task Force and Charter Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9 Vision Leading the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-11 Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-13 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-18 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-22
1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Investment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Brief History of the Corridor before the LB-ELA Corridor Project . . . . . 1-5
1.3 The Need for LB-ELA Corridor Improvements – Decades in the Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.4 Goods Movement Strategic Plan and I-405 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan – Precursors and Framework for the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
2. Task Force and Task Force Charter Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Creation of the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force (Staff Response to Board Motions 47 and 48) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.2 Task Force Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.3 Task Force Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.3.1 Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.4 Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.4.1 Coordinating Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.4.2 Community Leadership Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.4.3 Community Engagement Strategy Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.4.4 Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
2.4.5 Equity Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.4.6 Zero-Emission Truck Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
2.5 Community Values and Agreements to Build Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
2.6 Work Plan Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
2.7 Public Engagement Process, Including CBO Partnering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
3. Existing Conditions and Future Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 LB-ELA Corridor Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2 Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.2.1 Equity Focus Communities Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.2.2 Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3 Community Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.3.1 Air Quality and Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.3.2 Health Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
3.3.3 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
3.3.4 Access to Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
3.4 Land Use Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
3.5 Transportation Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34
3.5.1 Goods Movement.........................................3-34
3.5.2 Travel to Work Mode Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36
3.5.3 Active Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
3.5.4 Arterial Roadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
3.5.5 Freeway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
3.5.6 Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 ii Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
4. Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Identification of Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.1.1 Winter 2021 – Spring 2022: Existing Conditions Analysis . . . . . . 4-4
4.1.2 Summary of Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.2 Task Force, CLC, and Working Group Input and Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
4.3 Overview of Adopted Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.3.1 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.3.2 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4.3.3 Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.4 Board Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
5. Development of Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 Development Process of Initial List of Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.1.1 Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity (PIPO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.1.2 Previous Studies and Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.1.3 Public and Community Input to the MSPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.1.4 Initial and Revised Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.1.5 Active Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.1.6 Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.1.7 Community Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5.1.8 Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
5.1.9 Goods Movement.........................................5-14
5.1.10 Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16
5.2 Other/Additional Projects for Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
6. Evaluation and Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.1.1 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6.2 Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20
6.2.1 Tiering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20
6.2.2 Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22
7. Funding Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.2 Measure R and Measure M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7.3 Suitable Discretionary Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
7.3.1 Funding Program Eligibility Assessment.....................7-5
7.3.2 Federal Discretionary Funding Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.3.3 State Discretionary Funding Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.3.4 Regional Discretionary Funding Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.3.5 Local Match Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.4 Summary and Considerations.....................................7-9
7.4.1 Implementation and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
8. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.1 Projects with Outside Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
8.2 Projects and Programs Receiving Measure R/M Investment . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8.3 Initial Investments: Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8
8.3.1 New Project Recommended for Initial Investment . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
8.4 Fact Sheets: Projects and Programs Recommended for
Initial Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
8.5 Community Programs Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44
8.6 Modal Programs and START UP Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-67 iii Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
9. Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.1 Investment Plan Implementation Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
9.1.1 Modal Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
9.1.2 Community Programs Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
9.2 Technical Assistance (START-UP) Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
9.3 Guidance for Project Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4
9.4 Tracking Investment Plan Progress and Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5
9.5 Planning for the Next Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
10. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, Glossary of Terms, and Local, State and Regional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2 Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4 Local, State and Regional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-17 Appendices
Appendix 2-A Task Force Membership Roster
Appendix 2-B Task Force Charter
Appendix 2-C Coordinating Committee Membership Roster
Appendix 2-D Community Leadership Committee Membership Roster Appendix 2-E Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool Documentation Appendix 2-F Zero-Emission Truck Working Group Presenters and Presentation Information
Appendix 5-A Full List of Multimodal Strategies, Projects and Programs (MSPPs)
Appendix 6-A Rubrics for Benefit and Concern Criteria
Appendix 6-B Evaluation Results
Appendix 6-C Tiering Results
Appendix 7-A Full List of Investment Plan Projects and Potential Funding Appendix 7-B Summary of Federal Discretionary Grant Programs Identified for Investment Plan Projects and Programs
Appendix 8-A Investment Plan Projects and Programs by Location and Goal Focus Area
iv Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
Tables
Table 2-1. Demographic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 Table 2-2. Initial Community Leadership Committee Membership Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10 Table 3-1. Bridge Condition Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40 Table 3-2. Pavement Condition Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40 Table 5-1. PIPO Early Initiative Candidate Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Table 5-2. Active Transportation Project Types by Sub-Category . . . . . . . . . 5-7 Table 5-3. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Project Types by Sub-Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 Table 5-4. Community Programs Project Types by Sub-Category . . . . . . . . 5-10 Table 5-5. Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Project Types by Sub-Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 Table 5-6. Goods Movement Project Types by Sub-Category . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14 Table 5-7. Transit Project Types by Sub-Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 Table 6-1. Air Quality (AQ) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 Table 6-2. Community Health (CH) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 Table 6-3. Mobility (MB) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 Table 6-4. Safety (SF) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10 Table 6-5. Environment (EN) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11 Table 6-6. Opportunity and Prosperity (OP) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12 Table 6-7. Equity (EQ) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13 Table 6-8. Sustainability (SA) Benefit Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 Table 6-9. Outcome, Design, and Construction Concerns (Con) . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16 Table 7-1. Estimated Project Costs and Recommended Programming of Measure R/M Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 Table 7-2. Federal Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 Table 7-3. State Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 Table 7-4. Regional Discretionary Grant Programs to Target for Investment Plan Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7 Table 7-5. Local Match Requirements by Funding Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 Table 7-6. Funding Need and Discretionary Grant Programs to Target . . . . . 7-9 Table 8-1. Corridor Investments Supported by Other* Funding Sources . . 8-3 Table 8-2. Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Investments (alphabetical) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10 Table 8-3. Active Transportation Investment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-68 Table 8-4. Active Transportation Modal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-70 Table 8-5. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Investment Summary . . 8-72 Table 8-6. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Modal Program . . . . . . . . . 8-74 Table 8-7. Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Investment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-77 Table 8-8. Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Modal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-79 Table 8-9. Goods Movement Investment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-80 Table 8-10. Goods Movement Modal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-81 Table 8-11. Transit Investment Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-82 Table 8-12. Transit Modal Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-84 v Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
Figures
Figure 2-1. Task Force Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 Figure 2-2. Consensus-Building Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Figure 2-3. LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 Figure 2-4. Zero-Emission Truck Metro Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14 Figure 2-5. Five-Step Decision-Making Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19 Figure 2-6. Work Flow Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21 Figure 2-7. Charter Work Plan and Consensus Checkpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22 Figure 2-8. Geographic Coverage of Community Engagement Activities . . 2-26 Figure 3-1. LB-ELA Corridor Study Area (LA County Context) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 Figure 3-2. LB-ELA Corridor Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 Figure 3-3. LA Metro Equity Focus Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 Figure 3-4. Median Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Figure 3-5. Poverty Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Figure 3-6. Age 65 and Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Figure 3-7. Percentage of Individuals with Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Figure 3-8. Auto Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Figure 3-9. Youth and Senior Age Groups Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 Figure 3-10. Black or African American Alone, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Figure 3-11. Asian Alone, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Figure 3-12. Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Figure 3-13. White Alone, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Figure 3-14. Race and Ethnicity Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 Figure 3-15. Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 Figure 3-16. Employment Density...................................... 3-11 Figure 3-17. Commercial Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 Figure 3-18. Industrial Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 Figure 3-19. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 Figure 3-20. Other Services Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 Figure 3-21. Unemployment Rates Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 Figure 3-22. Unemployment Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 Figure 3-23. Individuals with No High School Degree or Above . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 Figure 3-24. Cost Burdened Renters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15 Figure 3-25. Cost Burdened Homeowners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15 Figure 3-26. Housing Burden Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16 Figure 3-27. Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 Figure 3-28. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 Figure 3-29. Particulate Matter 2.5 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19 Figure 3-30. Diesel Particulate Matter Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19 Figure 3-31. Tree Canopy Coverage Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 Figure 3-32. Percentage of Population Covered by Tree Canopy . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 Figure 3-33. Urban Heat Island Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22 Figure 3-34. Ground Toxic Cleanup Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22 Figure 3-35. Asthma Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23 Figure 3-36. Asthma Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24 Figure 3-37. Cancer Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24 Figure 3-38. Bicycle or Pedestrian Crashes Location and Severity . . . . . . . . 3-26 Figure 3-39. Bicycle or Pedestrian Crashes Fatality and Serious Injury . . . . 3-26 Figure 3-40. Truck Crash Location and Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 Figure 3-41. Truck Crashes Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28 Figure 3-42. Truck Crashes with CSTAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29 Figure 3-43. All Crashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29 Figure 3-44. I-710 Crashes – Locations and Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-29 Figure 3-45. Lack of Park Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 Figure 3-46. Lack of Supermarket Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 Figure 3-47. High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) (2045) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31 Figure 3-48. LA River Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32 Figure 3-49. Public School Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32 Figure 3-50. Land Use Map............................................ 3-33 vi Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
Figure 3-51. Countywide Strategic Truck Arterial Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34 Figure 3-52. Daily Truck Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35 Figure 3-53. Public School Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36 Figure 3-54. Mode Share Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-37 Figure 3-55. I-710 Active Transportation Crossing Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 Figure 3-56. Bicycle Lane Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38 Figure 3-57. Major Arterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Figure 3-58. Street Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39 Figure 3-59. Bridge Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 Figure 3-60. Pavement Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41 Figure 3-61. Arterial Roadway Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43 Figure 3-62. Morning Arterial Roadway Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43 Figure 3-63. Evening Arterial Roadway Speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43 Figure 3-64. Study Area Arterial Roadway Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled . . . . 3-44 Figure 3-65. I-710 Freeway Morning Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45 Figure 3-66. I-710 Freeway Evening Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45 Figure 3-67. Daily Vehicle and Person Trips on I-710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-46 Figure 3-68. Northbound Bottlenecks Along I-710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47 Figure 3-69. Southbound Bottlenecks Along I-710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47 Figure 3-70. Freeway Pavement Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-48 Figure 3-71. Transit Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-49 Figure 3-72. Transit Rail Boarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50 Figure 3-73. Transit Bus Boarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50 Figure 5-1. Phase 3 Overview of the LB-ELA Investment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Figure 5-2. Example Formation of Multimodal Groupings of Strategies, Projects, and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 Figure 6-1. Evaluation Process Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Figure 6-2. Project Benefit and Concern Rating Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 Figure 6-3. Project Health Outcomes and Example Community Results . . . 6-18 Figure 6-4. Funding Pathways for Tiered Projects and Programs . . . . . . . . 6-21 Figure 7-1. Funding Strategy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 Figure 8-1. Projects/Programs for Initial Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9 vii Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Vision
A concise statement that captures the collective aspirations, desires, and outcomes of the project An equitable, shared LB-ELA Corridor transportation system that provides safe, quality multimodal options for moving people and goods that will foster clean air (zero emissions), healthy and sustainable communities, and economic empowerment for all residents, communities, and users in the Corridor.
Foreword
The Long Beach-East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan) is a comprehensive strategic planning initiative focused on enhancing the transportation infrastructure and services in the LB-ELA Corridor, and serves as a qualifying Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan for the California Transportation Commission’s Solutions for Congested Corridors Program. The Investment Plan represents a significant milestone in regional transportation planning, embodying an innovative collaborative approach that integrates community insights, technical expertise, and a commitment to equity and sustainability.
The Investment Plan is not just a roadmap for infrastructure development; it reflects the collective vision and aspirations of the communities and stakeholders it serves. As a part of the process, the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force and Community Leadership Committee (CLC) members agreed to a shared Vision Statement for the Investment Plan.
“An equitable, shared LB-ELA Corridor transportation system that provides safe, quality multimodal options for moving people and goods that will foster clean air (zero emissions), healthy and sustainable communities, and economic empowerment for all residents, communities, and users in the Corridor.”
The Investment Plan lays out the strategies, projects, and programs proposed, and highlights the key elements that make the Investment Plan a transformative project for the LB-ELA Corridor. It underscores the importance of multimodal transportation solutions and their benefits to the community, the environment, and the economy. The Investment Plan also looks to the future, identifying working groups to help develop and refine projects and programs identified for funding or as a modal program candidate. The Community Programs Catalyst Fund and technical assistance program (START-UP Fund) created through this strategic vision will provide an important, targeted, and innovative approach to meeting community needs and providing benefits that complement and exceed those found in a traditional transportation investment strategy, reflecting the great needs found in these communities that have faced so many impacts over decades.
By presenting a detailed account of the development process, engagement strategies, and the diverse range of improvements planned, the Investment Plan aims to provide stakeholders, policymakers, and the public with a clear understanding of the objectives, scope, and expected outcomes.
The LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan is more than just a transportation project; it is a testament to the power of collaborative planning in creating a more connected, accessible, and vibrant region. This Investment Plan closes the door on policy and investment decisions that have impacted local communities over many generations and marks the beginning of a new chapter – one focused on bringing together diverse voices and innovative solutions for a thriving LB-ELA Corridor that supports the generations of tomorrow.
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
viii Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Dedication
In heartfelt remembrance of Martha Fierro, a remarkable community member and passionate activist.
Martha’s legacy is one of unwavering dedication to the well-being of her community of Cudahy. A proud member of Metro’s LB-ELA Corridor Community Leadership Committee, she consistently championed public health and community-led initiatives.
Her commitment was evident in her fierce advocacy for green spaces in park-poor communities profoundly impacted by the 710 freeway. Martha played a pivotal role in shaping a vision of multi-modal mobility options and community improvements along the corridor.
As a fierce Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) member and community leader, Martha’s dedication extended beyond meetings and committees—she rallied her neighbors, leading transformational efforts to enhance parks and green spaces in the City of Cudahy. Martha’s enduring legacy is etched in her dedication to projects that prioritize people and public health over goods and profit. She is an inspiring example for Southeast Los Angeles residents advocating for the right to environmental justice.
Written by her friends at Communities for a Better Environment (CBE) In Memoriam
Martha Fierro
Community Leadership Committee Member, City of Cudahy
January 6, 1965 – February 1, 2023
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
ix Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Acknowledgements
Task Force
Community-Based Organizations and
Advocacy Groups
Jennifer Ganata, Senior Staff Attorney,
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
Janeth Preciado Vargas, Southeast LA Youth
Organizer, Communities for a Better Environment
(CBE)
Ambar Rivera, Researcher, Communities for a
Better Environment (CBE)
Dilia Ortega, Youth Program Coordinator,
Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
Laura Cortez, Community Organizer/Co-Director,
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice
(EYCEJ)
Taylor Thomas, Co-Director, East Yard
Communities for Environmental Justice (EYCEJ)
Angela McNair Turner, Managing Attorney,
Housing and Communities Workgroup, Legal Aid
Foundation of LA (LAFLA)
Sean Bigley, Senior Staff Attorney, Housing and
Communities Workgroup, Legal Aid Foundation of
LA (LAFLA)
Cassidy Bennett, Staff Attorney, Housing and
Communities Workgroup, Legal Aid Foundation of
LA (LAFLA)
Jonathan Jager, Staff Attorney, Housing and
Communities Workgroup, Legal Aid Foundation of
LA (LAFLA)
Ghirlandi Guidetti, Staff Attorney, Housing and
Communities Workgroup, Legal Aid Foundation of
LA (LAFLA)
Sylvia Betancourt, Project Manager, Long Beach
Alliance for Children with Asthma (LBACA)
Marlin Dawoodjee Vargas, Community Outreach
Liaison, Long Beach Alliance for Children with
Asthma (LBACA)
Alberto Campos, Associate Director, Southeast Los
Angeles Collaborative (SELA Collaborative)
Dr. Wilma Franco, Executive Director, Southeast
Los Angeles Collaborative (SELA Collaborative)
Labor and Economic/Workforce Development
Louie Diaz, Vice President, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 848
Eric Tate, Secretary-Treasurer, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 848
Chris Wilson, Public Policy Manager, LA County
Business Federation (BizFed)
Stephen Cheung, President and CEO, LA County
Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC)
Jermaine Hampton, Sr. Director of Workforce
Development and Special Projects, LA County
Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC)
Transportation Agencies
Randy Johnson, Director of Government Affairs
and Outreach, Access Services, Inc.
Steven Wrenn, Community Liaison, Access
Services, Inc.
Louis Burns, Community Liaison, Access Services,
Inc.
Michael Leue, Chief Executive Officer, Alameda
Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA)
Roderick Diaz, Director of Planning and
Development, Metrolink
David Huang, Planning Manager, Metrolink
Lisa Patton, Executive Director/VP, Finance and
Budget, Long Beach Transit (RideLBT)
Marisol Barajas, Manager of Government
Relations, Long Beach Transit (RideLBT)
Scott Strelecki, Program Manager II, Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Allison Linder, Clean Cities Coalition Director and
Senior Regional Planner, Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG)
Freight and Logistics Industry
Lena Kent, General Director, Public Affairs, BNSF
Railway
Robert Loya, Chief Operating Officer, Harbor
Trucking Association (HTA)
Matt Schrap, Chief Executive Officer, Harbor
Trucking Association (HTA)
Michele Grubbs, Vice President, Pacific Merchant
Shipping Association (PMSA)
Thomas Jelenić, Vice President, Pacific Merchant
Shipping Association (PMSA)
Theresa Dau-Ngo, Director of Port Planning, Port
of Long Beach (POLB)
Rick Cameron, Deputy Executive Director, Planning
and Development, Port of Long Beach (POLB), in
memoriam
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
x Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Sharon Weissman, Member, Port of Long Beach
(POLB)
Kerry Cartwright, Director of Goods Movement,
Port of Los Angeles (POLA)
Tony Gioiello, Deputy Executive Director of
Development, Port of Los Angeles (POLA)
Lupe Valdez, Senior Director of Public Affairs,
Union Pacific Railroad
Vic La Rosa, CEO, President & Co-Founder, Total
Transportation Services (TTSI), in memoriam
Tony Williamson, Director of Compliance &
Sustainability, Total Transportation Services (TTSI)
Environmental Organizations
Dr. Joe Lyou, President and CEO, Coalition for
Clean Air (CCA)
Christopher Chavez, Deputy Policy Director,
Coalition for Clean Air (CCA)
Fernando Gaytan, Senior Attorney, Earthjustice
Vanessa Rivas Villanueva, Research and Policy
Analyst, Earthjustice
Adrian Martinez, Senior Attorney, Earthjustice
Cecilia Segal, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC)
Natalia Ospina, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC)
Kimberly Leefatt, Staff Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Heather Kryczka, Staff Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Najah Louis, Legal Fellow, Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC)
Alec Cronin, Attorney and Legal Fellow, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Kala Babu, Summer Legal Intern, Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Academic/Research/Policy/Foundations
Alyssa Haerle, Director, Infrastructure Incentive
Administration, CalStart
Alycia Gilde, Vice President, Clean Fuels and
Infrastructure, CalStart
Niki Okuk, Deputy Director, CalStart
Fidencio Gallardo, Education Innovation Deputy,
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Edward Muna, Project Manager, USC Equity
Research Institute (ERI)
Dr. Manuel Pastor, Distinguished Professor of
Sociology and American Studies & Ethnicity
and Turpanjian Chair in Civil Society and Social
Change, USC Equity Research Institute (ERI)
Dr. Marlon Boarnet, Director, USC METRANS
Transportation Consortium
Sue Dexter, Researcher, USC METRANS
Transportation Consortium
Dr. Genevieve Giuliano, Executive Committeer, USC
METRANS Transportation Consortium
Local Jurisdictions
Ali Saleh, Councilmember, City of Bell, I-710 Ad
Hoc Committee
Maria Davila, Councilmember, City of Bell
Elizabeth Alcantar, Councilmember, City of
Cudahy, I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Kevin Lainez, Councilmember, City of Commerce,
I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Oralia Rebollo, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Commerce,
I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Tina Backstrom, Senior Director of Transportation,
Office of Mayor Karen Bass, City of Los Angeles
Kidada Malloy, Planning Deputy, City of Los
Angeles
Daniel Rodman, Deputy Director, Transportation
Services, City of Los Angeles
Roberto Uranga, Councilmember, City of Long
Beach, I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Dr. Suely Saro, Councilmember, City of Long
Beach, I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Chork Nim, Chief of Staff for Dr. Suely Saro, City of
Long Beach, I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Tyler Curley, Deputy City Manager, City of Long
Beach, I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Marisela Santana, Councilmember, City of
Lynwood, I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Steve Burger, Deputy Director, Transportation, LA
County Department of Public Works (DPW)
Hank Hsing, Project Manager, LA County
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Elaine Kunitake, Principal Engineer, LA County
Department of Public Works (DPW)
Waqas Rehman, Board of Supervisors, Los
Angeles County Supervisorial District 1
Benjamin Feldman, Special Projects Deputy, Los
Angeles County Supervisorial District 1
Karina Macias, Senior Transportation and
Infrastructure Deputy, Los Angeles County
Supervisorial District 1
Martin Reyes, Transportation Deputy, Los Angeles
County Supervisorial District 1
Aydin Pasebani, Environmental and Special
Projects Deputy, Los Angeles County Supervisorial
District 1
Lilly O’Brien-Kovari, Senior Deputy, Transportation
and Infrastructure, Los Angeles County
Supervisorial District 2
Viviana Gomez, Transportation Deputy, Los
Angeles County Supervisorial District 4
Luke Klipp, Senior Transportation Deputy, Los
Angeles County Supervisorial District 4
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
xi Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Task Force Ex-Officio
Tigran Agdaian, Manager, Breathe Southern
California
Ivan Fonesca, Public Policy and Communication
Coordinator, Breathe Southern California
Raj Dhillon, Senior Manager of Advocacy & Public
Policy, Breathe Southern California
Gisele Fong, Long Beach Program Manager,
California Endowment
Matthew O’Donnell, Branch Chief, Risk Reduction
Branch, California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Robert Krieger, Branch Chief, Risk Reduction
Branch, California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Dr. Tom O’Brien, Executive Director, Center for
International Trade and Transportation, California
State University, Long Beach (CITT CSULB)
Hector De La Torre, Executive Director, Gateway
Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)
Marisa Perez, Transportation Policy Advisor,
Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG)
Nancy Pfeffer, (Former) Executive DIrector/VP,
Finance and Budget, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments (GCCOG)
Dan Meylor, Vice Chair, Seaport CBP, LA Customs
Brokers and Freight Forwarders Association, Inc.
Dan Monnier, Board Member, Treasurer, and Chair
of the Logistics Committee, LA Customs Brokers
and Freight Forwarders Association, Inc.
Leanna Noble, Interim Program Director, Long
Beach Residents Empowered (LIBRE)
Dr. Aaron Katzenstein, Deputy Executive Officer,
Technology Advancement Office, South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Dr. Sarah Rees, Deputy Executive Officer, Planning,
Rule Development and Implementation, South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Matt Miyasato, Deputy Executive Officer and Chief
Technologist, South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)
Morgan Capilla, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (US EPA 9)
Connell Dunning, Environmental Scientist, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (US
EPA 9)
Francisco Dóñez, Environmental Justice
Coordinator and Diesel Program Staff, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (US
EPA 9)
Noora Shehab-Sehovic, Environmental Justice
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (US EPA 9)
Andrew Zellinger, Environmental Reviewer, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (US
EPA 9)
Matthew Means, Vice President, Asset
Management, Watson Land Company
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
xii Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Coordinating Committee
Task Force Representatives
Sharon Weissman, Port of Long Beach
Sylvia Betancourt, Long Beach Alliance for
Children with Asthma
Elizabeth Alcantar, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments I-710 Ad Hoc Committee
Community Leadership Committee
Representatives
Phyllis Ollison, Compton
Tiesha Davis, San Pedro
Viridiana Preciado Cervantes, Walnut Park
Community Leadership Committee
Leticia Rodriguez, Bell
Luis Mesa, Bell
Natalie Diaz, Bell Gardens
Emmanuel Godinez, Boyle Heights
Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga, Carson
Alfonso Garate, Commerce
Phyllis Ollison, Compton
Irma Lopez, Cudahy
Martha Fierro, Cudahy, in memoriam
Amelia Carballo, Downey
Marjorie Wall, Downey
Guadalupe Arellano, East LA
Kathleen Barajas, East LA
Miyuki Gomez, East LA
Sinetta Farley, East/Rancho Dominguez
(Unincorporated)
Jose Rodolfo Vallejo, Huntington Park
Dan Wamba, Lakewood
Marcos Lopez, Long Beach
Maria Reyes, Long Beach
Marlene Sanchez, Long Beach
Aide Castro, Lynwood
Ivan Rojas, Lynwood
Elizabeth Zamarripa, Lynwood
Jamila Cervantes, Maywood
Andres Duarte, Montebello
Amber Bobadilla, Paramount
Esmeralda Hernandez, South Gate
Dora Douglas, Vernon
Viridiana Preciado Cervantes, Walnut Park
Tiesha Davis, Wilmington/San Pedro (San Pedro)
Manuel Arellano, Wilmington/San Pedro (Wilmington)
Kevin Shin, At-Large
Susan Adams, At-Large
Equity Working Group
Task Force Representatives
Randy Johnson, Access Services
Michael Leue, Alameda Corridor Transportation
Authority
Niki Okuk, CalStart
Ali Saleh, City of Bell
Kevin Lainez, City of Commerce
Dr. Joe Lyou, Coalition for Clean Air
Janeth Preciado Vargas, Communities for a Better
Environment
Jennifer Ganata, Communities for a Better
Environment
Ambar Rivera, Communities for a Better
Environment
Dilia Ortega, Communities for a Better
Environment
Karina Macias, LA County Supervisorial District 1
Lily O’Brien Kovari, LA County Supervisorial
District 2
Luke Klipp, LA County Supervisorial District 4
Viviana Gomez, LA County Supervisorial District 4
Fernando Gaytan, Earthjustice
Vanessa Rivas Villanueva, Earthjustice
Adrian Martinez, Earthjustice
Taylor Thomas, East Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice
Laura Cortez, East Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice
Louie Diaz, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local Union 848
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
xiii Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Ghirlandi Guidetti, Legal Aid Foundation of Los
Angeles-Long Beach
Marlin Dawoodjee Vargas, Long Beach Alliance for
Children with Asthma
Sylvia Betancourt, Long Beach Alliance for
Children with Asthma
Marisol Barajas, Long Beach Transit
Lisa Patton, Long Beach Transit
Waqas Rehman, Board of Supervisors, Los
Angeles County Supervisorial District 1
Najah Louis, National Resources Defense Council
Kimberly Leefatt, National Resources Defense
Council
Natalia Ospina, Natural Resources Defense Council
Thomas Jelenić, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association
David Libatique, Port of Los Angeles
Sharon Weissman, Port of Long Beach
Dr. Wilma Franco, Southeast Los Angeles (SELA)
Collaborative
Alberto Campos, Southeast Los Angeles (SELA)
Collaborative
Lupe Valdez, Union Pacific Railroad
Edward Muna, USC Equity Research Institute
Community Leadership Committee
Representatives
Kevin Shin, At-Large
Susan Adams, At-Large
Luis Mesa, Bell
Natalie Diaz, Bell Gardens
Emmanuel Godinez, Boyle Heights
Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga, Carson
Alfonso Garate, Commerce
Phyllis Ollison, Compton
Irma Lopez, Cudahy
Guadalupe Arellano, East LA
Kathleen Barajas, East LA
Miyuki Gomez, East LA
Sinetta Farley, East/Rancho Dominguez
(Unincorporated)
Jose Rodolfo Vallejo, Huntington Park
Maria Reyes, Long Beach
Marlene Sanchez, Long Beach
Aide Castro, Lynwood
Jamila Cervantes, Maywood
Amber Bobadilla, Paramount
Esmeralda Hernandez, South Gate
Dora Douglas, Vernon
Tiesha Davis, Wilmington/San Pedro (San Pedro)
Viridiana Preciado Cervantes, Walnut Park
Ex-Officio Representatives
Tigran Agdaian, Breathe Southern California
Gisele Fong, California Endowment
Hector De La Torre, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments
Nancy Pfeffer, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments
Andrew Zellinger, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9
Morgan Capilla, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
xiv Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Zero-Emission Truck (ZET) Working Group
Task Force Representatives
Randy Johnson, Access Services (Task Force)
Steven Burns, Access Services (Task Force)
Michael Leue, Alameda Corridor Transportation
Authority (Task Force)
Chris Wilson, BizFed (Task Force)
Lena Kent, BNSF Railway (Task Force)
Niki Okuk, CalStart (Task Force)
Blair Schlecter, CalStart (Task Force)
Alycia Gilde, CalStart (Task Force)
Ali Saleh, City of Bell (Task Force)
Chork Nim, City of Long Beach (Task Force)
Tyler Curley, City of Long Beach (Task Force)
Daniel Rodman, City of Los Angeles (Task Force)
Marisela Santana, City of Lynwood (Task Force)
Dr. Joe Lyou, Coalition for Clean Air (Task Force)
Christopher Chavez, Coalition for Clean Air (Task
Force)
Dori Chandler, Coalition for Clean Air (Task Force)
Jennifer Ganata, Communities for a Better
Environment (Task Force)Ambar Rivera,
Communities for a Better Environment (Task
Force)
Dilia Ortega, Communities for a Better
Environment (Task Force)Fernando Gaytan,
Earthjustice (Task Force)
Vanessa Rivas Villanueva, Earthjustice (Task
Force)
Adrian Martinez, Earthjustice (Task Force)
Taylor Thomas, East Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice (Task Force)
Laura Cortez, East Yard Communities for
Environmental Justice (Task Force)
Lynda Bybee, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Hector De La Torre, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Norman Emerson, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Karen Heit, Gateway Cities Council of Governments
(Task Force Ex-Officio)
Marisa Perez, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Matt Schrap, Harbor Trucking Association (Task
Force)
Robert Loya, Harbor Trucking Association (Task
Force)
Louie Diaz, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Local Union 848 (Task Force)
Eric Tate, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local Union 848 (Task Force)
Ghirlandi Guidetti, Legal Aid Foundation of Los
Angeles-Long Beach (Task Force)
Sylvia Betancourt, Long Beach Alliance for
Children with Asthma (Task Force)
Marlin Dawoodjee Vargas, Long Beach Alliance for
Children with Asthma (Task Force)
Waqas Rehman, Board of Supervisors, Los
Angeles County Supervisorial District 1
Benjamin Feldman, Los Angeles County
Supervisorial District 1 (Task Force)
Martin Reyes, Los Angeles County Supervisorial
District 1 (Task Force)
Aydin Pasebani, Los Angeles County Supervisorial
District 1 (Task Force)
Lily O’Brien Kovari, Los Angeles County
Supervisorial District 2 (Task Force)
Luke Klipp, Los Angeles County Supervisorial
District 4 (Task Force)
Viviana Gomez, Los Angeles County Supervisorial
District 4 (Task Force)
Andrew Ross, LA County Department of Public
Works (Task Force)
Elaine Kunitake, LA County Department of Public
Works (Task Force)
David Huang, Metrolink (Task Force)
Najah Louis, Natural Resources Defense Council
(Task Force)
Natalia Ospina, Natural Resources Defense Council
(Task Force)
Kala Babu, Natural Resources Defense Council
(Task Force)
Michele Grubbs, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (Task Force)
Thomas Jelenić, Pacific Merchant Shipping
Association (Task Force)
Sharon Weissman, Port of Long Beach (Task
Force)
Maria Vannoy, Port of Long Beach (Task Force)
Theresa Dau-Ngo, Port of Long Beach (Task Force)
Christina Skacan, Port of Long Beach (Task Force)
Kimberly Ritter, Port of Long Beach (Task Force)
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
xv Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Tony Gioiello, Port of Los Angeles (Task Force)
Matt Miyasato, South Coast Air Quality
Management District (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Alberto Campos, Southeast Los Angeles (SELA)
Collaborative (Task Force)
Scott Strelecki, Southern California Association of
Governments (Task Force)
Alison Linder, Southern California Association of
Governments (Task Force)
Connell Dunning, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Morgan Capilla, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Karina O’Connor, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Andrew Zellinger, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9 (Task Force Ex-Officio)
Dr. Genevieve Giuliano, USC METRANS (Task Force)
Sue Dexter, USC METRANS (Task Force)
Community Leadership Committee
Representatives
Natalie Diaz, Bell Gardens
Fa’alagilagi Meni-Siliga, Carson
Phyllis Ollison, Compton
Kathleen Barajas, East LA
Miyuki Gomez, East LA
Maria Reyes, Long Beach
Aide Castro, Lynwood
Jamila Cervantes, Maywood
Dora Douglas, Vernon
Tiesha Davis, Wilmington/San Pedro (San Pedro)
Industry Representatives
Elizabeth John, California Energy Commission
Mark Wenzel, California Energy Commission
Hannah Walter, California Transportation
Commission
Michael Samulon, City of Los Angeles
Will Mitchell, Forum Mobility
Yvette Kirrin, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments
Kekoa Anderson, Gateway Cities Council of
Governments
Jack Symington, Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator
Val Amezquita, Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
Scott Briasco, Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
George Payba, Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
Jose Maria Paz, Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
Jermaine Hampton, Los Angeles County Economic
Development Corporation
Lynda Bybee, LSA Associates
Matt Arms, Port of Long Beach
Leela Rao, Port of Long Beach
Morgan Caswell, Port of Long Beach
Chris Cannon, Port of Los Angeles
Amber Coluso, Port of Los Angeles
Tim DeMoss, Port of Los Angeles
Jacob Goldberg, Port of Los Angeles
Yolanda Mativa, Port of Los Angeles
Teresa Pisano, Port of Los Angeles
Miranda Von Roishmandt, Port of Los Angeles
Tanya Peacock, SoCalGas
Philip Law, Southern California Association of
Governments
Jason Groves, Southern California Edison
Damon Hannaman, Southern California Edison
Steven Tilk, Southern California Edison
Jennifer Krope, U.S. Department of Energy
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
xvi Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Metro Team
Metro Project Team
Michael Cano, Executive Officer, Multimodal
Integrated Planning
Ernesto Chaves, Senior Executive Officer, Office of
Strategic Innovation
KeAndra Cylear-Dodds, Executive Officer, Office of
Equity and Race
Lilian De Loza-Gutierrez, Executive Officer,
Community Relations
Lucy Delgadillo, Senior Manager, Complete Streets
& Highways
Jessica Medina, Manager, Office of Equity and Race
Akiko Yamagami, Senior Manager, Goods
Movement Planning
Metro Project Team Support
Sona Babayan, Senior Transportation Planner,
Grants Management and Funds Administration
Avital Barnea, Senior Executive Officer, Multimodal
Integrated Planning
Ginny Brideau, Senior Director, Community
Relations
Anthony Burton, Senior Manager, Federal/State
Policy and Programming
Jennifer Butler, Deputy Executive Officer, Public
Relations
Patrick Chandler, Manager, Public Relations
Missy Coleman, Director Public Relations
Ricardo Corona, Transportation Planner, Strategic
Financial Planning
James de la Loza, Chief Planning Officer,
Countywide Planning & Development
Pamela Del Valle, Sr. Marketing and
Communications Officer, Marketing
Mark Dierking, Director, Community Relations
Nicole Hernandez, Transportation Associate I,
Complete Streets & Highways
Craig Hoshijima, Executive Officer, Strategic
Financial Planning
Maria Hsin, Transportation Associate I, Office of
Equity and Race
Laurie Lombardi, Senior Executive Officer,
Strategic Financial Planning
India Mandelkern, Senior Manager
Community Relations Transportation Planning
Allison Mannos, Senior Manager, Office of Equity
and Race
Mey Mitteenn, Senior Public Communications
Officer, Public Relations
Carlos Montez, Deputy Executive Officer, Complete
Streets & Highways
Kevin Pascasio, Transportation Planner, Complete
Streets & Highways
Shelly Quan, Manager, Federal/State Policy and
Programming
Andres Roa, Transportation Associated I, Complete
Streets & Highways
Erick Robles, Transportation Associated I, Goods
Movement Planning
Dominica Smith, Senior Director, Chief of Staff
Administrative
Ray Sosa, Chief Planning Officer, Countywide
Planning & Development
Linda Tam, Assistant Administrative Analyst,
Federal/State Policy and Programming
Jose Ubaldo, Manager, Public Relations
Zoe Unruh, Manager, Comprehensive Multimodal
Corridor Planning
Metro Contributors
Matthew Abbott, Manager, Mobility Corridors
Ed Alegre, Deputy Executive Officer, Intelligent
Transportation Systems
Paul Backstrom, Senior Director, Long Range
Transportation Planning
Neha Chawla, Senior Manager, First and Last Mile
Frank Ching, Deputy Executive Officer,
Transportation Demand Management Policy and
Programs
Joseph Forgiarini, Senior Executive Officer,
Service Development
Fabian Gallard, Senior Manager, Grants
Management and Oversight
Steve Gota, Executive Officer, Intelligent
Transportation Systems
Meghna Khanna, Deputy Executive Officer, Mobility
Corridors
Wells Lawson, Deputy Executive Officer, Joint
Development
David Leyzerovsky, Manager, Long Range
Transportation Planning
Cris Liban, Deputy Chief Sustainability Officer,
Sustainability Policy
Jacob Lieb, Senior Director, First and Last Mile
Eva Moir, Senior Manager, Intelligent
Transportation Systems
Eva Pan Moon, Senior Manager, Intelligent
Transportation Systems
Zachary Popp, Manager, Federal/State Policy and
Programming
Heather Repenning, Executive Officer, Chief of
Staff Administrative
Jacqueline Su, Manager, Mobility Corridors
June Susilo, Deputy Executive Officer, Program
Management
StephenTu, Deputy Executive Officer, Station
Experience
Wayne Wassell, Senior Manager, Service Planning
Hector Gutierrez, Senior Manager, Office of
Strategic Innovation
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
xvii Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Caltrans District 7 Team
Gloria Roberts, District Director
Monica Benavides, Chief Deputy District Director
Kelly Ewing-Toledo, Deputy District Director,
Divsion of Environmental Planning
Marlon Regisford, Deputy District Director, Division
of Planning and Local Assistance
Jeff Newman, Chief of Staff
James Shankel, Senior Freight Planning Specialist
Project Team
AECOM
Dave Levinsohn, Vice President, Project Director
Susan Ambrosini, Principal
Lilia Scott, Task Lead, Deputy Project Manager,
Senior Transportation Planner
Laura Adleman, Senior Outreach and Engagement
Specialist
Aryeh Cohen, Urban Planner, Technical Lead
Tatum Lau, Senior Associate
Julie Rush, Senior Deputy Project Manager,
Transportation Planning
Siyuan (Tom) Li, Technical Director of Urban
Analytics
Shengao (Victor) Xie, Senior Transportation
Planner
Lala Yi, UI/UX Designer, Technical Lead
Cambridge Systematics
Keir Opie, Principal
Jonathan Overman, Task Lead
Samuel Zneimer, Senior Project Manager
Cal Strategic Management
Robert Cálix, Principal
Here LA
Amber Hawkes, Co-Director
Shannon Davis, Co-Director
Serena Powell, Urban Design Fellow
Sofia Gulaid, Urban Designer II & Project Manager
Morales+Morales Partners
Erika Morales, Partner
Ramboll
Julia Lester, Principal
Varalakshmi Jayaram, Senior Managing
Consultant
Arellano Associates
Melissa Holguin, Staff and Project Director
Susan DeSantis, Senior Project Manager
Laura Herrera, Project Manager
Nora Casillas, Deputy Project Manager
Nancy Verduzco, Senior Tech Coordinator
Julie Nieto, Senior Project Coordinator
Xochitl Medrano, Senior Project Coordinator
Adrian Farran, Senior Project Coordinator
Trey Grogan, Senior Project Coordinator
Eric Davidian, Project Coordinator
Parker Wojciechowski, Project Coordinator
Allison Crook, Project Coordinator
Samantha Sosa, Project Coordinator
Leticia Bustamante, Assistant Project Coordinator
Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices
ES-1
ZERO-EMISSION
EQUITY • SUSTAINABILITY • AIR QUALITY • COMMUNITY • ENVIRONMENT • MOBILITY • OPPORTUNITY • PROSPERITY • SAFETY Long Beach-East Los Angeles
Corridor Mobility Investment Plan: Executive Summary
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-2
Overview
The Long Beach-East LA (LB-ELA) Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan) is Metro’s commitment to invest in a wide range of transportation-related improvements throughout the LB-ELA Corridor–– an approximately 19–mile-long and 5-mile-wide region that includes 18 cities and 3 unincorporated communities surrounding I-710 between Long Beach and East Los Angeles. The Investment Plan identifies, prioritizes, budgets, and plans for needed transportation improvements and complementary community health and social and economic opportunity initiatives for these diverse communities.
An Unprecedented Effort. This Investment Plan reflects an unprecedented planning process and investment approach for Metro. The robust, community-centered planning process allowed Metro to integrate a diverse and representative range of voices in its decision-making process and build trust with the Corridor’s impacted communities. The Investment Plan recognizes the connection between the regional transportation system and all aspects of social and economic opportunity, including community health, and strives to repair past harms and ongoing inequities facing LB-ELA Corridor communities as a result of the past century of planning and policymaking.
An Equitable Process. Metro heard clearly from the community that they want to take part in shaping the future of this Corridor.
In response, Metro formed a Task Force, Community Leadership Committee (CLC), and Working Groups to find common ground, build trust and consensus, and ensure mobility options that meet the needs of all users of the transportation system are integrated into the Investment Plan. The planning process was informed by extensive, multilingual public engagement and enhanced through partnerships with community-based organizations and compensation reflecting the value of community voices, leadership, and knowledge.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-3
A Collective Vision. The Investment Plan is not just a roadmap for infrastructure development; it reflects the collective vision and aspirations of the LB-ELA Corridor communities. From top to bottom, the Investment Plan is built upon the Vision, Goals (Air Quality, Community, Environment, Mobility, Opportunity, Prosperity, Safety) and Guiding Principles (Equity, Sustainability) crafted and adopted by the Task Force, CLC, and Working Groups, drawing upon community-identified priorities.
Our community-generated vision statement:
“An equitable, shared LB-ELA Corridor transportation system that provides safe, quality multimodal options for moving people and goods that will foster clean air (zero emissions), healthy and sustainable communities, and economic empowerment for all residents, communities, and users in the Corridor.”
A Multimodal Plan. The Investment Plan includes a collection of over 200 projects and programs that serve the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles through investment in active transportation facilities, transit service, and rider experience, multimodal complete street designs, zero-emissions goods movement infrastructure, and targeted investments to I-710 infrastructure that repair multimodal connections across the freeway and improve safety and operations to reduce the freeway’s impacts on surrounding communities. In contrast to previous planning efforts for this Corridor, no proposed improvement funded by the Investment Plan would widen the I-710 freeway or require the displacement of residents or businesses. The development of 15 Community Programs will proactively and intentionally advance community health and well-being in ways not typically addressed by transportation planning.
A Strategic Investment Approach. The Investment Plan applies a strategic, multi-phase investment approach to leverage $743 million in sales tax revenue to attract an additional $3.3 billion in state and federal funding to develop and implement projects and programs in the Corridor.
A New Chapter. The LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan is more than just a transportation project; it is a testament to the power of collaborative planning in creating a more connected, accessible, and vibrant region. This Investment Plan closes the door on policy and investment decisions that have impacted local communities over many generations and marks the beginning of a new chapter – one focused on bringing together diverse voices and innovative solutions for a thriving LBELA Corridor that supports the generations of tomorrow.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-4
Background
The LB-ELA Corridor is the nation’s most prominent and impactful freight corridor. It connects the Western Hemisphere’s busiest seaport complex— the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles—with the transcontinental railroad intermodal yards near Downtown Los Angeles and warehouse destinations along the corridor and beyond.
As Southern California’s population has grown since the 1960s when I-710 was built, so has the demand for I-710 to carry commuters and goods movement trucks. Growing demand strains the freeway’s limited capacity, resulting in traffic congestion, safety concerns, and spillover traffic onto local roadways, while daily travel of personal vehicles and diesel-fueled trucks compounds air quality and health impacts on communities already impacted by industrial pollution. The most impacted communities have also endured decades of racial discrimination and economic disadvantage, contributing to health burdens and other inequities along the corridor.
After decades of studying these issues, Metro and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposed widening and modernizing I-710, in a process that spanned from 2005 to 2020. However, the approach of expanding lane capacity to meet demand and solve related issues of congestion and pollution reflected an outdated approach to freeway modernization that failed to balance industry priorities and regional economic prosperity with the needs and health of the surrounding community.
In addition to untenable displacement impacts to residents and businesses, Metro and Caltrans could not demonstrate the previous project’s ability to add freeway lane capacity without inducing demand and additional air quality impacts on the surrounding communities. Despite a proposal to meet air quality conformity through the development of a zero-emission truck program, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the freeway widening project remained a project of air quality concern even with investment in zero-emission technology. This determination, along with significant community opposition to the project, Investment Plan Figure 3-1. LB-ELA Corridor Study Area (LA County Context) triggered a change in course; Metro and Caltrans suspended the process, and a new approach for the Corridor was needed.
The Investment Plan reflects the Metro Board’s leadership in responding to these policy shifts and community concerns. This new approach reenvisions the processes and investments needed to move people and goods seamlessly, equitably, and sustainably throughout the LB-ELA Corridor. Developed in close collaboration with residents and local and regional partners, this plan reflects Metro’s commitment to build trust and lasting partnerships with the community and bring multimodal, community-centered, and regionally significant investment to the Corridor.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-5
Existing Conditions
The LB-ELA Corridor includes 18 cities and 3 unincorporated communities within about a mile on each side surrounding the 19- mile extent of I-710 between East Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Corridor is home to 1.2 million people, or roughly 12% of the County’s population, and contains 11% of the County’s jobs.
Serving as the primary gateway to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Corridor’s transportation system is an economic wellspring, but also a source of major traffic congestion, pollution, and safety impacts for people work live, work, play, and move in the corridor.
Investment Plan Figure 3-2. LB-ELA Corridor Study Area
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-6
Despite the Corridor’s regional and national economic significance, Investment Plan Figure 3-3. LA Metro Equity Focus Communities the past century of planning and policy decisions have created and reinforced patterns of racial segregation, disinvestment, and economic disparities facing the same communities bearing the worst environmental burdens of the Corridor’s economic activity.
Many of these impacts are concentrated in the Corridor’s Equity Focus Communities (EFCs), defined by Metro as census tracts where transportation needs are greatest. The EFC Map considers the concentration of three factors associated with mobility barriers: lowincome households; Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) residents; and households with no access to a car. Approximately 73% of the LB-ELA Corridor population lives in an EFC area.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-7
Transportation, Access, and Safety
The I-710 freeway carries nearly 40,000 heavy-duty trucks, and hundreds of thousands more commuter vehicles daily, contributing to air quality, noise, congestion, and safety and environmental impacts to the surrounding communities. The I-710’s aging infrastructure is not designed to meet the Corridor’s growing demand for freight capacity, which creates safety and operational impacts both on and off the freeway. Because the freeway hasn’t been improved in 60 years, safety issues have gotten worse over time and congestion has led to trips on local roads and in residential neighborhoods.
High levels of congestion along the freeway and significant arterials impact community members’ ability to reach their jobs, schools, and other needs by increasing travel times for drivers, bus riders, and goods movement vehicles. Travel times are also an issue for pedestrians and active transportation users in the corridor, who are often forced onto indirect routes given a lack of safe and connected infrastructure. In addition, the original I-710 bridges were designed to get vehicles on and off the freeway, without a focus on pedestrian movement or safety.
Given high volumes of vehicles entering and exiting the freeway, bike and pedestrian safety is of particular concern surrounding freeway on/off-ramps and overcrossings. The I-710 also reinforces and expands the division between communities on either side of the LA River. Most east/west overcrossings do not have safe bicycle infrastructure, and some crossings have missing, unpaved, or narrow sidewalks. Other freeways and rail infrastructure in the Corridor also impede connections between neighboring communities.
Streets within the Corridor are designed for high volumes of vehicular traffic with limited or poorly maintained active transportation and pedestrian infrastructure. While some agencies have introduced safer street design in recent years, a cohesive network of safe, dedicated bike and pedestrian infrastructure is lacking throughout the Corridor.
While the Corridor is well-served by bus services and the Metro A Line light rail, the transit system faces challenges related to frequency, reliability, security, and comfort. The Corridor has a higher proportion of zero-vehicle households than the County, and an absence of high-quality transit services is an issue that directly affects access to resources and opportunities for the Corridor’s transit-dependent residents and workers.
Investment Plan Figure 3-27. Active Transportation
Infrastructure. I-710 Active Transportation Crossing
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-8
Community Health, Air Quality, and Environment
The I-710 South Corridor accounts for 20% of all particulate matter emissions in Southern California. The high pollutant levels affecting the nearby communities have earned the name “diesel death zone,” referring to the linkage between diesel pollution and respiratory and cardiovascular health conditions. The Corridor’s respiratory and cardiovascular health burdens resulting from freeway emissions and other sources of air pollution are compounded by long-standing disparities in health and access to healthcare.
The LB-ELA EFC areas experience higher pollutant levels than the rest of the Corridor and the County overall.
Limited access to safe and comfortable active transportation and outdoor recreational infrastructure, as well as exposure to heat through a lack of shade and greening, contribute to health burdens faced by these communities.
The presence or lack of tree canopy and green space is a major equity issue aligned with patterns of racial and economic segregation in the Corridor, with wide-ranging impacts on the urban heat island effect, air quality, stormwater runoff, pedestrian sun exposure, and overall streetscape quality. The lack of publicly accessible green space also limits access to opportunities for outdoor recreation, which affects community health and quality of life.
Investment Plan Figure 3-20. Health Indicators, Asthma Rate Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-9
Task Force and Charter Process
Metro launched the Task Force in the fall of 2021 in response to Metro and Caltrans’ decision to suspend the earlier I-710 project, with consideration of communities who voiced the need for a different vision for improving mobility, safety, air quality and quality of life in the corridor. The Task Force was composed of a diverse group of 40 stakeholders who represent the interests of community-based organizations; environmental advocacy groups; community serving organizations; cities and governmental agencies; as well as goods movement, logistics, transportation, labor, and business groups. Early in the process, the Task Force approved a Task Force Charter that defined the organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities. (See Appendix 2-A, Task Force Membership Roster and Appendix 2-B, Task Force Charter)
Coordinating Committee
The Coordinating Committee (CC) worked with the project team to plan Task Force meetings and give input on meeting content and approach.
The CC had five members, including two from the Community Leadership Committee and three from the Task Force. The three Task Force representatives included one from a community-based organization, a government agency, and the goods movement/transportation industry/ labor.
The CC played a crucial role in shaping how the Task Force operated with input on meeting agendas, project timelines, and community engagement strategies. They received regular project updates and discussed highlights from Task Force, Community Leadership Committee, and Working Group meetings. The Coordinating Committee held 21 virtual monthly meetings at least two weeks before each Task Force meeting from April 2022 through January 2024. (See Appendix 2-C, Coordinating Committee Membership Roster)
Community Leadership Committee
To meet the Metro Board’s directive to re-engage impacted communities and their members and to implement Metro’s Equity Platform, a Community Leadership Committee (CLC) was formed to incorporate resident voices. Formed in March 2022 with 26 members, the CLC advised the Task Force, contributing crucial recommendations during consensus checkpoints.
To achieve the most equitable outcome, selection criteria for CLC membership included living in the study area, working in the corridor, commitment to be engaged, of BIPOC background, language, and age.
The establishment of this group for a large-scale planning effort marked an unprecedented move for Metro and the region and underlined a commitment to equity and community engagement in the decision-making process. (See Appendix 2-D, CLC Membership Roster)
Working Groups
The Working Groups included Community Engagement Strategy, Equity, and Zero-Emission Truck. The groups played pivotal roles in enhancing collaboration and decision-making and shaping the Task Force’s efforts and results.
Combined Task Force and CLC Meeting to discuss Draft Investment Plan Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-10
A Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Integrating Equity in the Process
Equity was integrated into all aspects of the Task Force process and the Investment Plan based on the framework created by Metro’s Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool (EPET) developed by Metro’s Office of Equity and Race.
The EPET informed the technical approach and decision-making process in all aspects of the Investment Plan including developing the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles; analyzing existing conditions data; selecting the initial list of multimodal strategies, projects, and programs; developing and using the evaluation methodology; the community engagement process and discussions during stakeholder meetings. In addition, the Task Force and CLC adopted an Equity Guiding Principle to guide decision-making throughout the process.
Inclusive Community Engagement
Public engagement efforts included in-person and virtual meetings, office hours, community surveys, pop-ups, and community events. Communication tools such as a website, story map, project dashboard, project hotline, social media posts, newsletters, printed copies mailed directly or handed out, and multilingual support ensured broad project updates and feedback opportunities, emphasizing an equitable approach. Collaboration with over 40 local community-based organizations further amplified outreach and awareness efforts. To ensure all persons were provided access to available materials and information, Task Force meetings were conducted with simultaneous Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog interpretation, and CLC Meetings with Spanish interpretation.
Diverse Voices Contributing to Inclusive Outcomes
The Task Force’s commitment to consensus building, transparent decisionmaking, and representative community engagement, established a robust framework for the Investment Plan. Metro also responded to feedback by adjusting the process and schedule to allow for input, reevaluation of the outcomes and more time, resulting in a comprehensive approach that ensured diverse voices contributed to informed and inclusive outcomes.
Investment Plan Figure 2-5. Five-Step Decision-Making Model A Commitment to Zero-Emissions
Metro is focused on a 100% shift to zero emissions by 2025, which is 10 years ahead of the state’s mandate by 2035. By transitioning to zero emission trucks and buses, and working with cities to implement charging stations, Metro is helping to combat greenhouse gases. The Metro Board of Directors established a $200 million Zero-Emission Truck Program to alleviate public health impacts on local communities from diesel and other emissions from diesel trucks. Metro’s initial $50 million seed funding will be leveraged with contributions from private, regional, state, and federal sources to deploy zero-emission trucks and needed infrastructure.
The program’s strategies include fostering proactive collaboration with community and regional partners, identifying regional funding partners, pursuing discretionary grant opportunities, assessing policy and legislative challenges, exploring short and long-term possibilities, and anticipating potential community impacts to formulate strategies for community benefits. Metro is steadfast in its commitment to exploring all workable zero-emission technologies, such as battery-electric and hydrogen, to meet regulatory mandates and sustainability goals without endorsing any specific solution. Metro understands the commitment to zero-emissions is crucial to address the health burdens of people suffering from asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and pollution impacts.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-11
Vision Leading the Plan
To identify the Corridor’s key issues and opportunity areas, the project team initially reviewed planning studies and community responses from the past two decades of planning and community advocacy to show context, lessons learned, and to establish a starting point for the new visioning process. This initial research was followed by community listening sessions, a Vision and Goals public survey, public meetings, and a robust analysis of existing conditions, all of which were discussed across a series of meetings with Task Force and CLC members.
The Task Force, CLC, and the Equity Working Group collaborated to envision a future that balances the diverse needs of the Corridor’s stakeholders.
Over several months, these groups thoughtfully composed and refined the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles as a framework to guide and focus the Investment Plan’s development process and outcomes.
The Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles align with the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the 2020 Metro Long Range Transportation Plan, the Equity Platform, Los Angeles County and City ballot measures, and the Metro Board approved plans, policies, and initiatives, providing the foundation for the evaluation framework to assess projects against multiple criteria.
The Vision is supported by two Guiding Principles and seven Goals informed by Metro’s policy priorities and the many interconnected challenges facing the LB-ELA Corridor today within the historical context of the I-710 and its generational impacts on surrounding communities.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-12
Vision
A concise statement that captures the collective aspirations, desires, and outcomes of the project Guiding Principles
Values that guide all processes and outcomes through a cohesive and intentional framework Goals
Desired outcomes for general areas of concern to support and realize the overall Vision An equitable, shared LB-ELA Corridor transportation system that provides safe, quality multimodal options for moving people and goods that will foster clean air (zero emissions), healthy and sustainable communities, and economic empowerment for all residents, communities, and users in the Corridor.
EQUITY
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.
AIR QUALITY
Foster local and
regional clean air
quality.
OPPORTUNITY
Increase community
access to quality jobs,
workforce development,
and economic
opportunities.
COMMUNITY
Support thriving communities
by enhancing the health and
quality of life of residents.
PROSPERITY
Strengthen LA County’s economic competitiveness and increase access to quality jobs, workforce development, and economic opportunities for all communities, with a focus on strengthening the LB-ELA Corridor communities, which have been and continue to be harmed by economic activity and development.
ENVIRONMENT
Enhance the natural and
built environment.
SAFETY
Make all modes
of travel safer.
MOBILITY
Improve the mobility
of people and goods.
SUSTAINABILITY
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.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-13
Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs
ES-1 Due to an unprecedented amount of available discretionary grant funding, the Board provided early direction to create a list of Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity (PIPO) projects in 2022, before defining the Investment Plan project list, to find projects Metro could support and submit for grant funding ahead of the Investment Plan’s adoption in 2024.
ES-2 The community programs were prioritized on a separate track (i.e., they weren’t ranked and tiered) given the Investment Plan’s commitment to equity and improving the lives of those in the community.
Identifying Projects and Programs
Once the Metro Board adopted the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, the project team started developing Multimodal Strategies and Identifying Projects and Programs (MSPPs)ES-1. More than 200 MSPPs were identified for evaluation, ranging from early concepts to projects that are ready for implementation. The Task Force used a broad engagement approach to get input from residents, community groups, interested stakeholders, partner agencies, and other parties to inform the MSPPs, which included the following:
• Community programs for job creation/work opportunities, environment, air quality/community health and housing
stabilization/land use;
• Active transportation projects to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure;
• Arterial roadways/complete streets, including traffic calming, general roadway improvements, signal coordination/transportation systems management (TSM), and intelligent transportation systems (ITS);
• I-710 multimodal, operational, safety, and access investments for the community (MOSAIC), including interchange upgrades and auxiliary lanes with multimodal operations and safety improvements for autos, trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. • Goods movement investments, including safety and air quality improvements; and
• Transit projects, including new and improved high-capacity bus and rail public transit systems and various transit amenities.
Because regional and local partners played a key role in compiling these MSPPs, the Investment Plan is intended to be consistent with their planning frameworks such as local land use plans. The project team screened the full list of candidate early action projects to exclude project concepts that would displace residences or businesses in local communities or could not be feasibly redesigned to avoid significant displacement. Overall, the MSPP was informed by:
• Earlier studies and initiatives;
• Social pinpoint interactive map and public surveys;
• Public workshops and community-based organization engagement; and
• Task Force, CLC, and Working Group meetings.
Evaluating and Prioritizing Projects and Programs
To determine which projects and programs to prioritize, the project team worked with the Task Force and CLC to develop and use an evaluation process to assess each MSPPs alignment with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles by considering potential benefits and concerns and implementation readiness.ES-2
The Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles provided the foundation for the evaluation process and were translated into 82 metrics (66 ‘benefit’ and 16 ‘concern’) by which each project or program was assessed to determine its relative benefits to impact. Some metrics were qualitative with defined rules to assess each metric. The remaining metrics were quantitative based on travel demand forecasting model results and a geographic information system (GIS). Each project was ranked against these metrics Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-14
on a scale of 0 to 3 or “not applicable” (N/A). The evaluation process combined the metrics by Goal and Guiding Principle which resulted in the ranking of projects within each MSPP travel mode:
• Active Transportation
• Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets
• Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements
• Goods Movement
• Transit
The ranked project scores were combined with a ‘project readiness assessment’ that separated the projects into two tiers:
• Tier 1: MSPPs well-suited to receive Measure R and M funding in the Initial Investment Recommendations due to their high level of alignment with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles and more advanced project readiness; and
• Tier 2: MSPPs that need planning or development to be better defined and/or aligned with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles.
Investment Plan Figure 6-4. Funding Pathways for Tiered Projects and Programs Implementation
Construction,
pilot studies, and
program launch
Pre-Implementation
Mode
Active Transportation
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 Score
Packaged Projects
Less Ready
Tier 2
Tier 2
Tier 1
Planning, design, and
environmental phases
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-15
The LB-ELA Corridor Task Force’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles supported the evaluation process resulting 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 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 relative evaluation score within their respective mode, i.e., projects with different modes were not compared across modes for placement in Tier 1.
Projects were also organized into readiness categories of “Implementation,” “Pre-Implementation,” or “Development” to find the path forward for each project and program. The disparity in project readiness reflected equity gaps for lower-resource communities in the LB-ELA Corridor and resulted in inconsistent information for each project or program under review.
The tiers include projects that will be competitive for near-term or midterm discretionary grant opportunities. Tier 1 projects may receive funding to support seeking future discretionary grant opportunities ES-3 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. 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 and, recommendations for improvement of project concept or design and implementation. Tier 2 projects have two pathways: 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 projects would not be considered for investment at this time but will be reconsidered as part of the Modal Program development process in future years.
Added prioritization factors included:
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Discretionary Grant Strategy
• Project Cost/Local Match Required
• Political/Institutional/Jurisdictional Support
• Equity Considerations
• Practical Feasibility/Constructability
• Design Concerns
• Equity and Community Input Consideration (CIC) FlagsES-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-16
Funding Strategy
The Investment Plan recommends the investment of $743 million in Measure R and M funding dedicated to the LB-ELA Corridor to catalyze an additional $3.3 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. Taken together, the total investment generated from Measure R and M funding is expected to be more than $4 billion. When including port-related projects, the Southeast Gateway Light-Rail Transit line, and the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 that are not directly funded by the Investment Plan, the total project local, state, and federal funding for projects/programs being implemented in the corridor totals more than $20 billion.
The success of the Investment Plan in implementing projects and programs that advance the Task Force’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles relies on leveraging limited local sales tax dollars allocated to the Corridor through Measure R and Measure M along with robust regional, state, and federal funding. The Investment Plan is a “down payment” for future improvements in communities that need them the most. Developing a funding strategy is a multi-step process that requires a targeted approach, including:
• Evaluate LB-ELA Corridor projects and programs for Measure R/M funding: This analysis involves developing a holistic understanding of candidate projects and their attributes to figure out their suitability for Measure R/M funding and eligibility for discretionary grant opportunities.
• Identify projects and programs receiving Measure R/M funding (ongoing): Based on the analysis conducted, subsets of programs and projects were identified as suitable candidates to receive Measure R/M funds that can be used as seed funding to progress project development or as a local match to meet the requirements for regional/state/federal implementation and construction funding programs.
• Regional, state, and federal funding programs, including eligibility and match requirements assessment (ongoing): This ongoing assessment includes finding 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 Modal Programs and projects.
• 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.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-17
Investment Plan 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
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-18
Recommendations
The Investment Plan has several recommendation
categories, including projects recommended for
initial investment based on their high ranking in the
evaluation process and project readiness,
15 Community Programs that are recommended for
initial investment given the Plan’s strong emphasis
on equity in the corridor, and projects suitable to
receive Measure R and M funding through the Modal
Programs, which group projects by primary travel
mode.
Projects/Programs for Initial Investment
Projects and programs recommended for Initial
Investment, shown to the right, are in various stages
of project development, from planning through
implementation.
Name
Total Cost /
Leveraged
Target ($M)
Investment
Plan ($M)
Community Programs Catalyst Fund $340.0 $40.0
Bus Stop Improvement Projects/Programs $38.0 $19.0
Complete Street Corridor: Alondra Blvd $45.0 $9.0
Complete Street Corridor: Atlantic Blvd $457.2 $68.6
Complete Street Corridor: Florence Ave $124.5 $24.9
Complete Street Corridor: Long Beach Blvd $1.5* $0.8
Complete Street Corridor: Slauson Ave $18.0 $3.6
Compton Creek Bike Underpasses $1.0* $0.5
Compton Transit Management Ops. Center Enhancements $27.0 $2.0 Freight Rail Electrification Pilot Project $50.0 $10.0
Goods Movement Freight Rail Study $10.0 $2.0
Humphreys Avenue Pedestrian/Bike Overcrossing $24.3 $9.0 I-710 Freeway Lids, Caps & Widened Bridge Decks $15.0 $5.0 I-710 MOSAIC Program (Interstate 710 Multimodal, Operational, Safety, and Access Improvements for the Community)
$612.0 $153.6
I-710 Particulate Matter (PM) Reduction Pilot Project $10.0 $2.0 I-710 Planning Study: Reconnecting the Long Beach-East LA Corridor Communities $2.5 $2.5 I-710 Traffic Controls at Freeway Ramps $50.0 $10.0
LB-ELA Corridor Bus Transit Priority Program $461.5 $31.1 Metro A Line: First/Last Mile Improvements $12.3 $9.8
Metro A Line: Quad Safety Gates at all A Line Crossings $10.0 $5.0 Rail to River Active Transportation Corridor, Segment B $6.3 $3.2 Regionally Significant Bike Projects $41.4 $15.7
Shoemaker Bridge/Shoreline Drive $832.6 $9.0
Southeast Gateway Line Bike and Pedestrian Trail $17.0 $3.8 Zero Emission Truck (ZET) Program $200.0 $50.0
Projects/Programs for Initial Investment
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-19
Investment Plan Figure 8-16. Projects/Programs for Initial Investment 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 CERRITOS
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
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-20
Community Programs
Community Programs incorporate a range of benefits that are responsive to long-standing equity issues that communities of the Long Beach corridor face, and will proactively and intentionally advance community health and well-being in ways not typically addressed by transportation planning or eligible for transportation funding sources. The LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan, thanks to Metro Board leadership which called for the inclusion of impacted communities in the development of the Investment Plan, features a $40 million Community Programs Catalyst Fund for 15 Community Programs that will complement the Investment Plan’s multimodal transportation investment. 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. Metro expects that approximately $300 million in additional funds, targeting an average of $20 million per Community Program, could be leveraged using the Community Program Catalyst funding, through local, regional, state, and federal funding programs that are more suitable to each Community Program.
In discussions with the Task Force and CLC, community health emerged as an overarching priority for the Investment Plan. While transportation investments can benefit health through the improvement of non-polluting modes, access to healthcare, and conditions for outdoor and physical activity, not all elements of community health can be addressed through transportation infrastructure. Community Programs address direct health impacts, such as asthma and cancer risk related to particulate matter exposure, as well as various social determinants of health, including social and community context, neighborhood and built environment, and economic stability. The 15 Community Programs are organized into three general topic areas:
• Health/Air Quality/Environment
• Housing Stabilization/Land Use
• Job Creation/Work Opportunities
Health/
Air Quality/
Environment
LB-ELA_0192 Bus Electrification Projects
LB-ELA_0133 LB-ELA Corridor Community Health
Benefit Program
LB-ELA_0191 Zero-Emission Infrastructure for Autos
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
Housing
Stabilization/
Land Use
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
Job Creation/
Work
Opportunities
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 Areas
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-21
Modal Programs
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. Investment Plan elements that will be included in Modal Programs include:
• Near-term Tier 1 projects not selected for immediate funding; • Longer-term Tier 1 projects requiring additional development to become implementation-ready;
• Tier 2 projects that will need additional development and refinement to become more aligned with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles to be considered for implementation in the future;
• Equitable project planning to find equity gaps, provide technical assistance for lower-resourced communities, and develop projects for future implementation; and
• Pilot programs, strategic initiatives, and planning studies.
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 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 Investment Plan but will require start-to-finish planning processes in most cases, and need 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 aside a START-UP Fund (“Strategic Technical Assistance for Reparative Transportation Uplifting People”) 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 Investment Plan’s Corridor-wide programs (e.g., “traffic calming features,” “pedestrian gap closures,” and various Community Programs). Modal Programs and the START-UP Fund will allow the Investment Plan to be a flexible, dynamic, living document that addresses future priorities and needs as they evolve.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
ES-22
Next Steps
The Investment Plan’s vision is to reconnect the underserved communities of Long Beach-East Los Angeles that have been dealing with the effects of the I-710 freeway for generations and implement a comprehensive, multimodal transportation plan to rectify past harms in the corridor through adoption of the Investment Plan. In the next phase, we will continue to engage Task Force and CLC Members, industry experts, funding, research and resource partners, and community members to ensure we dedicate the time needed to refine the projects and programs and remain consistent with the sustainable, equitable, community-centered implementation of this plan. This Investment Plan will act as a living document and will require additional actions after Metro Board adoption. Over the next several years, Metro will continue to update and move the Investment Plan forward.
Only a small number of projects and programs within the Investment Plan are fully defined and ready for implementation. The majority of projects and programs require further development, design, refinement, community engagement, and/or environmental review. Recognizing this need to continue the development of projects and programs for which we have designated initial investment, community programs, or modal program funding, Metro recommends the formation of five new LB-ELA Implementation Working Groups. These groups will meet on an ongoing basis following the adoption of the Investment Plan to allow Metro to continue developing and defining projects and programs that are not fully developed, and to serve as a continuation of collaborative partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders, including Task Force, CLC, and community members, in implementing the Investment Plan after adoption. This 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 three “Community Program” Working Groups, which would lead efforts to develop and refine the fifteen Community Programs in the Investment Plan. The Community Program Working Groups will likely be organized by topic and will include Community Health/Air Quality/Environment, Housing Stabilization and Land Use, and Job Creation and Work Opportunities.
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 a LB-ELA Investment Plan Performance Tracking Program to track and measure progress and impacts, using consistent methods and tools to set performance-tracking expectations for project sponsors and lead agencies to support. Metrics will include process metrics, project outcome metrics, and community result metrics.
While a robust approach was taken to evaluate potential benefits and concerns resulting from each project, 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. Projects that are found to be unaligned with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles of this process will not move forward. For new projects, not yet evaluated as part of the Investment Plan process, the Working Groups will be able to leverage the evaluation framework and criteria created for the Investment Plan. Working Groups will also review equity and Community Input Concern (CIC) flags to refine project design and implementation, and projects will be subject to environmental review as part of the CEQA/NEPA process. In addition, in response to comments from community members, Metro is committed to using the explicit guidance on air quality, displacement, surveillance, and impervious cover to shape project development during the Implementation Phase. Metro intends to deliver on the promise to generate additional benefits for the LB-ELA communities that complement the transportation improvements the Investment Plan recommends. 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, and elected officials as the Investment Plan becomes a reality.
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Executive
Summary
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
8. Recommendations
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
1-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
1. Background
1.1 Purpose of the Investment Plan
The Long Beach-East LA (LB-ELA) Corridor is home to many vibrant, multicultural, and unique communities that together represent 12% of Los Angeles County’s population. These historic communities include four of LA County’s oldest incorporated cities—Compton (1888), Long Beach (1897), Vernon (1905), and Huntington Park (1906)—and feature a rich mosaic of ethnicities, culinary experiences, religious denominations, and cultural traditions that help make LA County a diverse and dynamic place to live and work.
The future opportunity for the LB-ELA Corridor communities to thrive and enjoy a high quality of life, from clean air and good health to safe and plentiful mobility options and access to opportunities, remains challenged and unclear due to the compounded, generational legacy of transportation infrastructure decisions, policies, and investment priorities that have served more to fracture and dim the LB-ELA Corridor mosaic than to unify and illuminate it.
Transportation infrastructure investment, at its best, uplifts and connects communities in need and, at its worst, disconnects and burdens vulnerable communities with consequences and concentrated localized impacts at the expense of dispersed regional benefits. The history of the planning, construction, and purpose of I-710, a 19-mile freeway completed in 1964, represents the latter outcome. With the decision to route this freeway alongside the LA River to connect the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles with the Central Manufacturing District and intermodal rail yards located near East LA, the I-710 tore through LB-ELA Corridor communities that preexisted the freeway, displacing numerous residents, and adding to the shared harmful legacy of freeway construction intentionally routed through BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities to serve regional economic interests.
Decades later, I-710 serves as the nation’s most important freight highway corridor, supporting the movement of goods that support the regional, state, and national economies. Tens of thousands of heavy-duty diesel trucks travel on the freeway daily, serving the nation’s busiest seaport complex, intermodal railyards, warehouses, logistics centers, and transloading facilities.
The LB-ELA Corridor’s shared-use transportation system—anchored by I-710 and supported by
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 1. Background
1-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan five intersecting freeways (I-405, State Route [SR] 91, I-105, I-5, and SR-60), the Alameda Rail Corridor, and major arterial highways—is responsible for moving the growing volume of cargo handled by the nation’s busiest seaport complex to the transcontinental rail terminals near Downtown Los Angeles and other national and local destinations.
I-710 is also the nation’s most community-adverse freight highway corridor. As Southern California’s population grew over the decades, so did the demand on I-710 to carry
regional commuters and goods, straining the freeway’s
limited capacity, resulting in traffic congestion, safety concerns, and spillover traffic onto arterial roadways parallel to the freeway that serve the LB-ELA Corridor communities.
As the nation, state, and regional economy prospered from the increased movement of goods and international trade supported by I-710, the communities through which the
freeway was constructed bore the burden of increased air pollution and freight traffic, deteriorated public health and mobility, displacement, and an overall poorer quality of life.
These negative community health impacts and externalities have tragically earned the LB-ELA Corridor the apt moniker “Diesel Death Zone.”
From the communities’ perspective, the echoes of these
open wounds reverberated when, after two decades of
study and evaluation, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposed widening I-710 to expand the freeway’s capacity to accommodate generalpurpose travel lanes. These extra lanes were intended to absorb increased truck and vehicle travel to reduce traffic congestion and collisions, improve freight movement
through the region, and support the region’s economic
needs. However, this widening would also cause even more
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 1. Background
1-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan displacement of people and jobs in communities already separated and harmed by the freeway, increased impacts to local air quality, public health, and the environment, and a continued focus on serving the region’s economic needs at the expense of the LB-ELA Corridor communities’ quality of life and health.
Following the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) expression of concerns during this proposal’s environmental review that the agency did not believe the project would meet air quality conformity, Metro and Caltrans suspended its advancement. This decision marked a watershed moment for Metro, recognizing that the proposed project developed years ago did not comply with updated federal, state, and regional policy frameworks, did not align with current approaches to transportation investment from a multimodal, air quality, climate, and community-supportive perspective, and did not address, repair, and overcome the long-standing impacts of I-710 on the LB-ELA Corridor communities.
Metro heard these concerns and envisioned a first-of-its-kind communitycentered process to develop the LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan)1
, which would re-envision how to invest in the corridor’s transportation infrastructure in a multimodal, locally-focused, yet regionally significant manner through a process that brought communities to the table with regional stakeholders to find common ground. To support this approach, Metro created a Task Force and Community Leadership Committee (CLC) to serve as advisory bodies that would determine the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles of the Investment Plan, help identify and evaluate proposed projects, develop strategies to leverage funding, conduct robust community engagement, find ways to reach consensus, and finalize funding recommendations for Metro Board consideration.
Empowering the community and stakeholders to participate in this process helped Metro develop an Investment Plan that reflects the community’s voice and the Metro Board’s direction to ensure that regional planning for 1 The name of this project was formerly the I-710 South Corridor. Through a community involvement survey and input on recommended names, the project was renamed Long BeachEast Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Improvement Plan. 2 Letter from Metro CEO to Board of Directors, Re-imagining highway improvements, May 25, 2021. highway improvements “must include a renewed commitment to inclusive and meaningful engagement of communities as well as a steadfast commitment to addressing the equity, displacement, air quality, congestion and economic concerns that have plagued communities around major freeway corridors.”2
One main concern raised consistently by Corridor residents was the need to produce an Investment Plan that would not re-introduce freeway widening or displacement of people from their homes given the existing challenges to community cohesion, home ownership, and housing costs.
This pervasive public input is reflected in several Metro policies. In June 2022, the Metro board adopted its Multimodal Highway Investment Objectives policy which includes the following objective: “Recognizing LA County’s history of inequitable highway investment policies and construction, work with local communities to reduce disparities caused by the existing highway system and develop holistic, positive approaches to maintain and improve the integrity of and quality of life of those communities with minimal or no displacement during the implementation of highway improvements.” Additionally, the Metro Board adopted a policy that removed from Investment Plan consideration any “capacity enhancing freeway widening” projects. With this community input and Metro Board policy in mind, staff eliminated from consideration projects proposed for evaluation that had known displacement impacts and carefully evaluated every project and program recommended for funding in the Investment Plan.
Metro is pleased to affirm that the 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 these anti-displacement Board policies remain intact through the implementation of the 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 1. Background
1-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Metro developed the Investment Plan with the belief that equitable processes would result in equitable outcomes and with the intention of restoring trust with and centering Corridor communities that have been historically harmed and disproportionately impacted by I-710 over the years. The Investment Plan recommends funding a community-centered, balanced, and multimodal array of projects and programs, including support for zero-emission truck and locomotive technology, prioritized bus lanes for faster transit service, complete street treatments for more integrated mobility options on arterial roadways, safer pedestrian and bicycle pathways, active transportation corridor gap closures, bus shelters and first/last mile transit improvements to improve customer experience, reduced particulate matter from roadway sources to improve air quality and public health, and connecting communities to the LA River Bikeway.
The Investment plan also proposes an innovative approach to improving the I-710 freeway facility and bridges through the I-710 MOSAIC (Multimodal, Operational, Safety, and Access Investments for the Community) Program, which will improve how community members access the freeway through safer on and off ramps and cross the freeway with safety and mobility improvements for bus, bicycle, and pedestrian travel to reconnect communities separated by the freeway and LA River.
Equity is a hallmark of the Investment Plan. In addition to the community inclusive process and transportation projects and programs recommended for funding that will help address equity needs in the LB-ELA Corridor, the Investment Plan also creates and funds two innovative programs that Metro will implement to deliver holistic, equity-focused community benefits. One program is the START-UP (Strategic Technical Assistance for Reparative Transportation Uplifting People) Fund, which will provide support for lower-resourced communities to develop projects for implementation. The other program is the Community Programs Catalyst Fund, which supports the development of 15 Community Programs (not normally eligible for funding in a transportation investment plan) to allow Metro to lead the region to convene communities and stakeholders to plan, develop priorities, and identify funding strategies to deliver projects and programs related to community health, air quality, zero-emission technology, urban greening, greenhouse gas reduction, workforce development and targeted hiring, economic and housing stabilization, transit oriented development and communities, and public art/aesthetics.
Finally, the Investment Plan is a living document that will be reviewed and updated every few years to ensure that projects and programs are advancing and delivering benefits as expected and that new priorities can be evaluated and developed over time to take advantage of funding reserved within the plan’s Modal Programs.
This Investment Plan represents the consensus support of Metro stakeholders who live and work along the LB-ELA Corridor. This multidimensional, multimodal investment strategy enhances regional and local mobility and air quality while fostering economic vitality, social equity, environmental sustainability, improved public health, and access to opportunity. Through the development and implementation of the Investment Plan, Metro hopes to restore and illuminate the LBELA Corridor mosaic—comprising vibrant, resilient, and multicultural communities—with transportation investments complemented by community programs designed to uplift people in the Corridor and fulfill their hopes for a safer, cleaner, healthier, more mobile, and more prosperous future for generations to come.
This document fulfills the requirements of the California Transportation Commission for Metro to adopt a qualifying Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan for the I-710/LB-ELA Corridor to allow projects in the Investment Plan to be eligible for funding from the Senate Bill 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors 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 1. Background
1-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
1.2 Brief History of the Corridor before the LB-ELA Corridor Project The founding of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach dates back to the turn of the 20th century, and the multiple global events that shaped the current day flow of goods and supply chain practices unfolded since. In 1897, the federal government selected San Pedro Bay over Santa Monica Bay for harbor development, paving the way for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Shortly after that decision, the City of Los Angeles created the Board of Harbor Commissioners in 1907, and the City of Long Beach followed in 1917 to oversee the operations of their respective ports. Fast forward to 1956, an innovative shipping concept called containerization started in the U.S. East Coast, and the Sea-Land Services (now A.P. Moller - Maersk) made the first container ship call at the Port of Long Beach in 1962. Containerization has since revolutionized the way goods are moved across the world. Indeed, the container volume at Port of Long Beach grew at an average annual growth rate of nearly 40 percent between 1969 and 1980.
1980s was the beginning of China’s ascendance as a global manufacturing superpower. China’s success was a result of a combination of centrallyowned manufacturing plants, innovations in manufacturing practices, low labor costs, and its strong business ecosystem, but also attributed to a lack of regulatory compliance and low taxes and duties. Many U.S. manufacturers offshored their production activities to China to take advantage of China’s low-cost production and high productivity.
The areas near the Ports historically attracted various industries, including fishing, canneries, oil drilling and shipbuilding in the early days of the 20th century, and logistics infrastructure investments including rail and roadway transportation networks and warehouse and goods handling facilities since the latter half of the 20th century. Rapid population growth took place as waterfront businesses flourished. When China emerged as a global manufacturing powerhouse, many U.S. manufacturers and retailers favored San Pedro Bay as a strategic global trade node because of its proximity to China and shorter shipping time as compared to the East Coast ports, well-developed goods movement transportation infrastructure, and a large population base to support logistics activities.
Since the first port call of the Sea-Land Services, the container volumes at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach surged, making the Ports the largest container port complex in the Western Hemisphere.
The development of I-710 (formerly California Routes 15 and 7) in 1964 connected the Central Manufacturing District in Southeast LA to the expanded San Pedro Bay Port Complex, facilitating the burgeoning movement of goods and commerce. The economic pursuits of the region at the time, however, did not equitably consider the needs of all communities in the path of the I-710.
The LB-ELA Corridor comprises 18 incorporated cities and three unincorporated communities that are diverse, with unique development and growth histories. Though the Corridor overall is an important economic driver for the region, the benefits and burdens of that historical development have not always been equitably distributed. Some communities of color and low-income households suffer the impacts of inequitable planning and policy decisions made long before I-710 was built.
The redlining, discriminatory lending practices and exclusionary zoning that solidified residential racial segregation in LA County in the middle of the 20th century split some neighborhoods apart, destroyed others, and forced some communities to bear the brunt of freight and commuter traffic that supports the region, the state, and a significant part of the country.
The resulting inequities in community impacts have been exacerbated by the construction and changes to the I-710 to meet the increased volume of international trade in recent decades.
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 1. Background
1-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
1.3 The Need for LB-ELA Corridor Improvements – Decades in the Making 3 Case Study - California I-710 – Engaged Community Supports Corridor Study Partnership, https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_CS_C01_California-I-710.pdf.
By the 1990s, the I-710 South Corridor faced a convergence of challenges arising from increased traffic, local population expansion, growth in trade at the San Pedro Bay Port Complex, and deteriorating transportation infrastructure, giving rise to safety and mobility concerns that could not be ignored. Portions of the freeway were experiencing delays of 3 or more hours daily.3
The following timeline outlines efforts made over two decades to relieve congestion and improve safety along the LB-ELA Corridor:
continue on
next page
2000
Initiation of a major
study by Caltrans, Metro,
SCAG, and GCCOG to
draft a locally preferred
strategy addressing safety,
congestion, and quality-oflife along the I-710 Corridor. 2005
Completion of the Major Corridor
Study, recommending separate
truck lanes, an increase
in general-purpose lanes,
interchange improvements,
and improvements to Corridor
arterial streets.
2008
Start of the I-710 Corridor Project
EIR/EIS, addition of Subject
Working Groups and Local Advisory
Committees to the Community
Advisory Framework, and passage
of Measure R with identified
funding for the I-710 Corridor.
2012
Public release of the draft EIR/EIS, proposal
of Community Alternative 7 by local
environmental groups advocating for increased
transit service and zero-emission trucks and
separate Zero Emissions Truck Lanes, and
release of the Air Quality Action Plan identifying
strategies to reduce emissions.
2003
Community concerns about air quality
and residential displacement led to the
creation of the Community Advisory
Committee by the Oversight Policy
Committee to focus on key issues
affecting communities along the I-710
Corridor.
2007
Metro and GCCOG launched
the Air Quality Action
Plan in response to the
study’s findings, aiming to
improve health for residents
and employees of the
transportation corridor.
2011
A Health Impact
Assessment
conducted by Metro
and GCCOG as part of
the Air Quality Action
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 1. Background
1-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan 2017
The revised draft
EIR/supplemental
draft EIS was
released for public
review, offering
detailed analyses
on the proposed
improvements and
their impacts within
the corridor.
2013
CALSTART prepared the I-710 Project ZeroEmission Truck Commercialization Study, contributing to the Technology Plan for Goods
Movement undertaken by Metro and GCCOG.
Metro, Caltrans and GCCOG proceed to start the
development of a revised Draft EIR/EIS based on
community feedback and changes in freight cargo
logistics transport. A revised set of alternatives
was analyzed including the No Build, a freeway
modernization combined with a Zero-Emission
Truck Program, and a freeway modernization
combined with separate truck-only lanes
accessible only to zero emissions trucks.
2021
In May 2021, the Metro Board suspended the environmental review of the I-710 South Corridor Project’s Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) 5C (herein referred to as Alternative 5C) due to significant concerns that the proposed project would not meet air quality conformity standards; would create untenable displacement in disadvantaged communities adjacent to the freeway; and would contradict updated local, state, and federal policies related to freeway widening or expansion projects.
The GCCOG formed the I-710 Ad Hoc Committee in July, aiming to integrate locally supported solutions after the halt of approval of Alternative 5C.
In September, the Metro Board and Caltrans launched a
comprehensive approach to re-engage communities and
stakeholders, forming the I-710 South Corridor Task Force for a more multimodal, equitable, and sustainable approach to corridor challenges.
2016
Voters in LA County passed
Measure M, providing additional
funding for the LB-ELA Corridor.
This measure aimed to alleviate
traffic congestion, repair
infrastructure, and expand public
transit, while also subsidizing fares
for vulnerable groups.
Concurrently, Metro and the
GCCOG completed a Strategic
Transportation Plan, proposing a
comprehensive set of projects to
enhance regional transportation
through advancements in
technology and infrastructure to
accommodate growing demands.
2024
Board adoption
of the LB-ELA
Investment
Plan.
2018
The Metro Board reviewed the three
alternatives from the revised draft EIR/
supplemental draft EIS: “No Build,”
Alternative 5C, and Alternative 7. Ultimately,
Alternative 5C was approved as the Locally
Preferred Alternative, which included the
I-710 Zero-Emission Truck Program and
aimed for a comprehensive modernization
of the I-710. This decision also introduced an
Early Action Program to deliver immediate
benefits in safety, mobility, and air quality,
prioritizing several projects before any
mainline freeway work commenced.
The development of the Final EIR/EIS
documenting the selection of Alternative 5C
as the Preferred Alternative was initiated.
2020-2021
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) reiterated
through a letter to Caltrans and Metro that
a hotspot analysis would be required for
the LPA (Alternative 5C) due to the project
resulting in increased truck-related
diesel emissions and resulting potential
challenges meeting air quality standards..
In response to these actions and
continued community concerns, the Metro
Board suspended work on the Final EIR/
EIS for Alternative 5C.
2022
The project was renamed to the
LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment
Plan, reflecting a broader focus.
The Metro Board, responding to a
request from Caltrans and state
policy changes aimed at improving
climate change effects, formally
rescinded Alternative 5C as the
Preferred Alternative in favor of the
“No Build” alternative and directed
development of the Final EIR/EIS to
document that decision.
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 1. Background
1-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
1.4 Goods Movement Strategic Plan and I-405 Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan – Precursors and Framework for the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Process
As the world shut down in response to COVID-19, it was clear how vital the goods movement industry is to keeping people fed, businesses open, and hospitals fully stocked. The pandemic also shone a light on how pre-existing inequities and poor health caused by the movement of freight were further exacerbated by the health and economic impacts of this devastating global pandemic.
In response to these local and global challenges, Metro recognized the importance of creating transformative plans to make LA County more economically competitive, environmentally sustainable, and socially equitable. Metro’s 2021 LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan and 2022 Interstate 405 (I-405) Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP) meet this need and are transformative plans that serve as precursors to the framework for the Task Force process.
Metro initiated the LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan in the wake of this heightened commitment. The plan sought from the onset to understand better the relationship between goods movement and equity and how best to acknowledge past impacts, mitigate existing issues, and identify future opportunities to improve the lives of county residents most affected by the movement of goods through the region —today and for generations to come.
Metro recognized that it was crucial to engage affected communities in the development, refinement, and implementation of the plan’s programs and strategies to achieve the goals of the plan – namely, to support transportation and economic investments in the LA County goods movement system that will elevate well-being and improve environmental conditions of our most impacted communities. The plan and the sustainable freight competitiveness framework that emerged reflect the collective commitment of Metro and goods movement stakeholders to establishing equity as the fundamental driver for shaping policies, initiatives, and projects intended to result in inclusive economic competitiveness.
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 1. Background
1-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan From this framework emerged five near-term equity-conscious strategies to implement the plan’s Vision:
partnering across the region to foster workforce development programs that support the freight labor needs of tomorrow. creating a formal, recurring equity freight working group; forming a high-level freight rail partnership to drive
investment into LA County;
leading a countywide discussion on the role of goods movement needs in curbside management planning and policies; and deploying cleaner truck technology to displace diesel
operations on freight-intense highway corridors;
1 3
2 5
4 Following the development of the LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan, Metro adopted the I-405 CMCP in September 2022. The I-405 CMCP seeks to improve mobility along the entire length of the I-405, one of the most congested corridors in LA County and the nation. The goal of this planning effort was to understand the diverse users and communities relying on and impacted by the I-405 Corridor, solicit their feedback, and show how multimodal improvements could reduce congestion, move more people, increase accessibility for all users, and support and advance equitable outcomes for historically disadvantaged communities. 4 2022 California Code Streets and Highways Chapter 8.5 Congested Corridors, https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-shc/division-3/chapter-8-5/section-2392/. 5 The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1), https://www.metro.net/about/sb1/.
Both plans were developed within an evolved policy framework that prioritized stakeholder engagement and addressed quality-of-life issues when securing state and federal funding. This approach was codified in the creation of the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, whose enabling statute indicates that “preference shall be given to corridor plans that demonstrate that the plans and the specific project improvements to be undertaken are the result of collaboration between the department and local or regional partners that reflect a comprehensive approach to addressing congestion and quality-of-life issues within the affected corridor through investment in transportation and related environmental solutions.” 4
This Investment Plan also provides a qualifying I-710 CMCP to compete for and secure a portion of the $250 million in state funding made available annually through the Senate Bill 15
Solutions for Congested
Corridors Program. This critical funding supports Metro’s ability to deliver Measures R and M.
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 1. Background
2-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2. Task Force and Task Force
Charter Process
6 Refer to Metro Planning and Programming Committee Report, May 2021: Agenda Item 8. 7 The project name change from the I-710 South Corridor to the Long Beach-East LA Corridor was a formal change made by action of the Metro Board in 2022.
In May 2021, the Metro Board suspended the environmental review of the I-710 South Corridor Project’s Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) 5C (herein referred to as Alternative 5C) due to significant concerns that the proposed project would not meet air quality conformity standards; would create untenable displacement in disadvantaged communities adjacent to the freeway; and would contradict updated local, state, and federal policies related to freeway widening or expansion projects.
At the same time, the Metro Board directed the CEO to re-engage impacted communities along I-710 South, convene stakeholders, and develop a new, multimodal, community-focused, and regionally significant transportation investment plan for the Corridor, which is a corridor of national freight significance and regional mobility, with substantial impacts borne by residents adjacent to the I-710 freeway.6
To accomplish this directive, Metro established the Long Beach to East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor Task Force in September 2021 to serve as its advisory body to the Board to develop recommendations for the LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan).7 The
Metro Board was highly focused on ensuring that this new process, in contrast to the prior one, included people from impacted communities who would provide meaningful feedback toward a shared vision and promote an inclusive and representative decision-making process. The invitation to participate as part of the Task Force membership was deliberately formulated to ensure that members could fully engage, represent their communities and interests, commit their time, and support the goal of creating a community-supported 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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.1 Creation of the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force (Staff Response to Board Motions 47 and 48) 8 Refer to Metro Board of Directors Meeting, May 2021.
9 I-710 Ad Hoc Committee Final Report the COG Board, June 2022, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qwjnsyur2i0o4q9/AADu1hgmROsU_SwfE9IfA57ua/710%20Task%20Force%20Meetings/Task%20 Force%20Meeting%20%2311%208.8.22?dl=0&preview=GCCOG+Ad-Hoc+Committee+Report.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1 In May 2021, the Metro Board of Directors approved Motions 47 and 488 effectively clearing the path forward for the Task Force to provide a new set of projects, programs, and legislative recommendations in place of the suspended and ultimately terminated Alternative 5C proposal to widen the Interstate. The Task Force was also charged with developing an Investment Plan for Metro Board consideration to deliver much-needed investment for the communities directly impacted by the movement of people and goods through the I-710 South Corridor.
Metro also requested that the Task Force partner with the Gateway Cities Council of Governments (GCCOG). Through the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force process, this partnership created and delivered an Investment Plan that recommends funding for projects and programs designed to realize multimodal strategies that address the re-established purpose and need. Input from the GCCOG, particularly through its I-710 Ad Hoc Committee recommendations9
, was incorporated into the Investment
Plan. Additionally, three city officials from the Ad Hoc Committee and representatives from Long Beach, the Port of Long Beach, and all three county supervisorial districts in the study area are voting members of the Task Force, with the GCCOG Executive Director serving as an ex officio member. For the Task Force to be effective, the members needed to represent a broad set of community and regional voices reflecting the many challenges facing the Corridor, and that would help this group re-evaluate the purpose and need of the Corridor project and develop multimodal and multipurpose strategies, projects and programs, and investment priorities accordingly. The broad and diverse Task Force membership was selected to explore and address the myriad challenges facing their respective LB-ELA communities and Corridor travelers—from traffic congestion and safety concerns, poor air quality and public health, and lack of opportunity and multimodal mobility options.
Task Force members also needed to represent viewpoints from community-based organizations to elected officials, from business to labor, and from environmental advocates to the goods movement industry.
Bringing all these voices “to the table” in a collaborative effort proved to be a pivotal difference from prior efforts and will be beneficial for the development and ongoing implementation of future improvements, including strategies and funding advocacy.
The group comprised approximately 40 community and regional stakeholders from a vital cross-section of communities, industries, public entities, policy experts, businesses, and labor agencies. All these stakeholders represent people or interests that were directly impacted by or dependent on the movement of people and goods in, through, and around the LB-ELA Corridor (Appendix 2-A). From September 2021 through April 2024, the Task Force convened 34 times—typically in the evenings, to ensure optimal participation for members.
The Task Force:
• Reaffirmed the boundaries of the LB-ELA Corridor study area; • Reviewed and reassessed the purpose and need for improvements to the LB-ELA Corridor between the Ports and State Route 60; • Collaborated to define the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles which are outlined in Chapter 4 and align with the existing regional and state policy framework;
• Identified an array of strategies, projects, and programs, prioritized in the near-term to long-term, that will realize the goals to meet the needs of stakeholders and Corridor users;
• Created a multimodal, equity-focused, community-supportive, and regionally significant Investment Plan, in alignment with the Task
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Force’s established Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, that will allow Metro and Caltrans—in partnership with Task Force members and local, regional, state, and federal agencies—to implement these projects and programs; and
• Regularly reported the outcomes of the Task Force to the Metro Board and the State of California throughout the process through coordination meetings.
Furthermore, to meet the Metro Board’s directive to re-engage impacted communities and their members and to implement Metro’s Equity Platform, the project team, based on input from Task Force members, recommended creating a forum to bring together residents from the communities along the LB-ELA Corridor to help advise the Task Force.
The goals of this forum were to help the Task Force and project team ground-truth ideas, establish a process for broader community input, review project information and recommendations, and bring forward priorities and concerns to be considered by the Task Force in developing its recommendations.
With this request, the project team established a new group named the Community Leadership Committee (CLC), which consisted of residents from the project area and aimed to include at least one member per LBELA Corridor jurisdiction or neighborhood, as defined by the Task Force study area. Applicants that lived close to the freeway or to heavy industrial uses were prioritized, and jurisdictions that had more people living within “Impacted Areas” (as defined by being located within 1/2 mile of Freeways, Ports, or Intermodal Yards), were allotted more than one CLC seat. CLC selection criteria also included people who not only live but also work in the corridor, are engaged through social and community organizations, can represent youth or senior populations, are Black, Indigenous, or people of color, and non-native English speakers. The CLC’s purpose was to advise 10 Metro CEO Letter to Board of Directors, Reimagining Highway Improvements, May 25, 2021. the Task Force on proposals and recommendations throughout its process.
The CLC began with 24 CLC members in March 2022. Over the course of two years, some CLC members were added, others resigned, and some seats were replaced. We sadly lost a member during this planning time (see Memorium). By April 2024, there were 26 CLC Members. The creation of this group, with its central role in such a large-scale planning effort, has been unprecedented for Metro and the region. It has also been a significant step forward in contrast to previous planning efforts such as Alternative 5C, reflecting the Metro Board’s leadership and recognition that its regional planning for highway improvements “must include a renewed commitment to inclusive and meaningful engagement of communities as well as a steadfast commitment to addressing the equity, displacement, air quality, congestion and economic concerns that have plagued communities around major freeway corridors.”10 The CLC has proven pivotal in the Investment Plan process, providing critical recommendations to the Task Force on goals, proposals, and recommendations at key consensus checkpoints.
Working groups were also added to the structure, as described in the following section. These groups, which were also attend by CLC members and provided key direction and input during the Investment Plan process, included the Coordinating Committee, the Community Engagement Strategy (CES) Working Group, the Equity Working Group, and the ZeroEmission (ZE) Truck Working Group.
By comprising these many working groups and integrating community members into the decision-making process, the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force development signified a tremendous commitment by the Metro Board and staff to incorporate equity fully into the Investment Plan as both a process and an outcome. The Investment Plan reflects this commitment through its recommendations for funding.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.2 Task Force Activities
11 Nine additional criteria were subsequently added.
The Task Force process was launched in 2021 and, with its establishment, created a new project that superseded the previous project’s environmental phase (Alternative 5C), which was suspended at first and ultimately terminated. This significant step initiated by the Metro Board acknowledged the need to consider what did not work in the prior process to address Corridor needs and understand the concerns and frustrations the community had historically voiced toward Metro and Caltrans related to the I-710 South Project. Metro created the Task Force as a forum to foster dialogue and repair and build trust among Metro, the community, and the Corridor stakeholders, many of whom had not worked together before, had differing or conflicting viewpoints, or had not been part of the prior project’s decision-making process.
To center equity throughout the process, Task Force members helped pilot the Metro Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool (EPET), a tool that helps assess existing conditions and related data, engage the community, explore potential impacts of different projects and programs, and ultimately, determine an equitable outcome and path forward for a project.
The EPET was used throughout the Task Force’s process.
Throughout 2022, Task Force members learned about the Corridor Existing Conditions and discussed the future each member preferred to see for the Corridor while engaging in an extensive consensus-based process, checking the group’s pulse, and voting at key checkpoints. This ultimately resulted in establishing an agreed upon Task Force and CLC-approved Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles to provide a clear framework for the decision-making and priority setting described in Chapter 4.
By the close of 2022 and into early 2023, the Task Force reached the significant milestone of confirming more than 200 Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs (MSPPs) to advance into the evaluation phase.
The Task Force sought as inclusive a set of MSPPs as possible, using a broad outreach and engagement approach to receive input from Corridor residents, community groups, interested stakeholders, partner agencies, and other parties. An extensive public engagement effort was developed to contribute to the list of candidate MSPPs, with a particular focus on engagement with impacted communities supplemented by partnerships with CBOs. The MSPP phase is outlined in Chapter 5.
In 2023, Task Force and CLC members voted to apply 73 evaluation criteria11 aligned with and advancing the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles to the list of over 200 projects. They also provided feedback on applying the approved evaluation criteria to the list of potential multimodal projects and programs. Three hybrid meetings were conducted to create opportunities for engagement between the Task Force and CLC members and the ability to discuss the proposed evaluation criteria. Five additional virtual and hybrid meetings were held for the CLC to provide additional opportunities to promote discussion and to provide detailed input on the proposed evaluation, prioritization criteria, and tiering analysis. To refine draft ranking scores of projects, Task Force Members met in Small Group Meetings with the project team, with open participation for CLC Members.
Figure 2-1 illustrates the major milestone phases leading up to the presentation of the Investment Plan to the Metro Board.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 2-1. Task Force Process
Stakeholder
Engagement
Building Trust &
De ning Consensus
De ning
Vision, Goals
& Guiding Principles
Developing
Multimodal
Strategies &
Identifying Project
& Program
Evaluating &
Re ning Projects
& Programs
Creating an
Investment &
Policy Strategy for
Implementation
Reporting
to the MetroBoard
FALL
2021
– WINTER
2022
WINTER – FALL
2022
– WINTER
2023
SPRING – SUMMER
2023
Board Action and Milestone Decision Board Status Report SUMMER – FALL
2023
SPRING
2024
FALL
2022
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan In furtherance of Metro’s Equity Platform, the project team sought to bridge the divide for impacted residents in the Corridor whose primary language is not English and to ensure all persons have access to available materials and information. Table 2-1 shows a demographic analysis that considers the need for these languages as identified through community profiles for the Corridor cities and unincorporated communities.
Table 2-1. Demographic Analysis
City / Community Tagalog Khmer Korean Chinese Spanish
Long Beach ● ● ● ● ●
Signal Hill ● ● ● ● ●
Carson ● ● ● ● ●
Lakewood ● ● ● ● ●
Bellflower ● ● ● ● ●
Paramount ● ● ● ● ●
Compton ● ● ● ● ●
Downey ● ● ● ● ●
Lynwood ● ● ● ● ●
South Gate ● ● ● ● ●
Huntington Park/Cudahy/
Bell/Bell Gardens ● ● ● ● ●
Commerce ● ● ● ● ●
Vernon/Maywood ● ● ● ● ●
East Los Angeles ● ● ● ● ●
Boyle Heights ● ● ● ● ●
East Rancho Dominguez ● ● ● ● ●
Walnut Park ● ● ● ● ●
Wilmington ● ● ● ● ●
San Pedro ● ● ● ● ●
● ≥5% of population (5 years or older) of one or more census tracts within jurisdiction speak language indicated
● <5% of population (5 years or older) of one or more census tracts within jurisdiction speak language indicated
Source: U.S. Census Data 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS) data for Limited English Proficiency.
Note: Percentages used as they applied to more than one city/community. Additionally, the project team offered services in any other language upon request.
It was determined that the top three limited English-proficent languages represented would be accounted for in the Task Force process. All Task Force meetings were conducted in English with simultaneous Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog interpretation, and CLC Meetings were conducted in English with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. All presentation videos were made available to the public in English, Spanish, Khmer, and Tagalog for Task Force Meetings, and presentation videos for CLC Meetings were made available in Spanish. Meeting materials and handouts were also made available in English and Spanish, and in additional languages by request.12 For the most part, Task Force and CLC meetings were conducted in a virtual format, with select sessions offering the option of in-person attendance. All Task Force and CLC meetings were open to the public.
12 All LB-ELA Corridor public meeting materials and resources can be found on the Project Hub at https://www.metro.net/projects/lb-ela-corridor%20 plan/#documents.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.3 Task Force Charter
The Task Force created a Charter and Governance Structure Working Group to determine a clear set of guidelines, agreements, and structure for how the Task Force would function. Members of the working group examined various consensus-building and decision-making models employed in other relevant project team planning efforts (I-710 EIR/EIS and Public Safety Advisory Committee). This group provided feedback on the draft LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Charter prepared by the project team, including a potential leadership structure, consensus and decisionmaking process, and roles and expectations of different groups.
The Charter and Governance Structure Working Group proposed a consensus-building model (Figure 2-2) in which individuals commit to supporting a decision, even in the absence of unanimous agreement. This approach involved the introduction of a discussion topic, followed by a proposal presented by the project team. Subsequently, members shared their perspectives on the proposal. Through an iterative process, the project team revised proposals to accommodate concerns until a majority actively “supported” the proposals or found it acceptable enough to “live with.”
Figure 2-2. Consensus-Building Model
I SUPPORT
the
Proposal
I CAN LIVE WITH
the Proposal
I HAVE
CONCERNS
about the Proposal
I WILL
STAND ASIDE
on this one
Subsequently, the Task Force and the CLC implemented the consensusbuilding model, employing it consistently throughout the process to assess the degree of agreement for the proposed recommendations. After this consensus-seeking approach ended, the Task Force and the CLC voted in their respective groups to finalize recommendations.
The Charter and Governance Structure Working Group met in November 2021, January 2022, and for a final meeting in February 2022, following the adoption of the Task Force Charter. All Charter and Governance Structure Working Group meetings were open to the Task Force and CLC Members. The meetings included Spanish interpretation.
The charter (Appendix 2-B) also established the CLC and other working groups to support the work of the Task Force. The working groups, which included Task Force and CLC members, as well as subject matter experts, met to research and have a deeper analysis and discussion of specific project-related issues and develop proposals for consideration by both the Task Force and the CLC. Figure 2-3 provides a detailed overview of the various meeting types, frequency, purpose, membership, and format.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan LB-ELA Corridor Task
Force* Meetings
■ Frequency: Monthly
■ Purpose: Discuss and
come to consensus on
recommendations
■ Members: Up to 50
representatives from a
broad cross-section
■ Format: Virtual, Hybrid
and In-Person Meetings
Coordinating
Committee** Meetings
■ Frequency: Monthly,
one week following each
Task Force meeting
■ Purpose: Plan meetings
and support CLC and
LB-ELA Corridor Task
Force
■ Members: Three existing
Task Force members
and two CLC members
■ Format: Virtual
Meetings
Community Leadership
Comittee*** Meetings
■ Frequency: At least
once a month and will
be open to the public,
including opportunities
for public comments
and engagement
■ Purpose: Advice on
LB-ELA Corridor Task
Force proposals and
recommendations
■ Members: Residents
from the project area
■ Format: Virtual, Hybrid
and In-Person Meetings
Working Group
Meetings
■ Frequency: As needed
■ Purpose: Research and
analyze specific issues
to develop proposals
and recommendations
for consideration by the
LB-ELA Corridor Task
Force and CLC
■ Members: No more
than 25 Task Force and
CLC members
■ Format: Virtual
Meetings
Listening Sessions
and Other Community
Meetings
■ Frequency: Monthly,
one week following each
Task Force meeting
■ Purpose: Plan meetings
and support CLC and
Task Force
■ Members: Three existing
Task Force members
and two CLC members
■ Format: Virtual and
In-Person Meetings
* LB-ELA Corridor Task Force (Previously called the I-710 Task Force) ** Coordinating Committee (Previously called the Executive Steering Committee) *** Community Leadership Committee (Previously called the Community Advisory Committee) Figure 2-3. LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting Descriptions
2.3.1 Compensation
Consistent with Metro’s Advisory Body Compensation (ABC) Policy,13 eligible Task Force and CLC members were compensated at a rate of $200 per meeting for regular advisory body members and $50 for working group meetings. All eligible Task Force members decided not to accept compensation. From January 2022 to April 2024, Metro compensated 13 More information regarding Metro’s ABC Policy can be found at: https://equity-lametro.hub.arcgis.com/pages/engagement-resources#ABCP 27 CLC members for their role in the Task Force process, a total of $148,250 (as of 4/29/2024). This was one of Metro’s first applications of the ABC Policy on the advisory body of a project of this scale. In furtherance of the Equity Platform, the ABC Policy recognizes the expertise of community members and the value of their time, experience, and insights. Its initial use in the LB-ELA Investment Plan process yielded a high level of quality engagement and commitment from CLC members.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.4 Working Groups
14 The Coordinating Committee was formerly known as the Executive Steering Committee; this name change reflected the role of this group and was updated in early 2022.
The committees and working group bodies played a crucial role in ensuring that the broader Task Force’s efforts remained focused and incorporated the unique needs of the LB-ELA Corridor communities.
2.4.1 Coordinating Committee
The Coordinating Committee (CC)14 worked with the project team to plan Task Force meetings and to provide input regarding content and approach to Task Force meetings.
The Coordinating Committee comprised five members, including two from the CLC and three from the Task Force. Among the three Task Force representatives, one representative was elected by the Task Force from each of the following membership categories: Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), Cities/Government agencies, and Goods Movement/Transportation Industry/Labor (Appendix 2-C) Members of the Task Force and CLC were selected through a nomination process. Individuals either nominated themselves or were nominated by their respective members. The Task Force formally voted to approve the Coordinating Committee’s final composition at its seventh meeting held in March 2022.
The Coordinating Committee played a crucial role in shaping the Task Force’s operational framework. This included offering insights on various aspects such as meeting agendas, project timelines, and strategies for community engagement. Additionally, the Committee received regular project updates and discussed insights on key highlights from prior Task Force, committee, and working group meetings.
The Coordinating Committee met monthly, at least two weeks before each Task Force meeting, for 22 meetings from February 2022 through January 2024. Coordinating Committee meetings were held virtually and were closed meetings.
2.4.2 Community Leadership Committee
The Community Leadership Committee (CLC) comprised committed corridor residents who advised the Task Force (see Appendix 2-D). The Metro Board made clear in its direction to the CEO in May 2022 that the voice of impacted communities and residents would need to underpin any new recommendations brought forth to replace Alternative 5C from the prior project’s environmental process. In the Alternative 5C process, Local Advisory Committees were created in each of the LB-ELA Corridor Communities to ensure feedback Metro is working to improve its
efforts to listen and learn from
the communities that we serve.
We recognize that to increase
access to opportunities for all,
we must understand how to
increase access for those who
face barriers. No matter our
intent, we will not be successful
unless we work to address their
needs first. Metro can only serve
those with the greatest needs
by understanding their needs
through intentional listening.
Authentic listening and
learning requires meaningful
engagement.
Community-driven
conversations are essential, but
they require trust. In order for
Metro to build trust, the agency
must intentionally collaborate
and listen to community
experiences. Our engagement
efforts must also work to ensure
that community members are
left feeling heard, reflected and
respected. Hence, Metro must
work to show how community
input informs and shapes
our decisions, actions, and
investments.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-10 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan from stakeholders from the “bottom-up”. However, the Local Advisory Committees were either not established or not active in all the LB-ELA communities. In contrast, this Task Force process sought to integrate the full participation of each corridor community through a new local community representative body, the Community Leadership Committee.
Although the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force initially consisted of a wide range of stakeholders and leaders, this group did not fully represent the diverse range of experiences, needs, and voices within the community. Including community residents directly in the decision-making process was necessary to ensure that the decisions made by the Task Force reflected the lived experiences and priorities of those directly impacted by living in the Corridor. The CLC reviewed and advised on Task Force goals, proposals, and recommendations every month. CLC members also participated in working groups, helped ground-truth data, and advised on community engagement efforts.
The CLC comprised diverse and committed community members living along the LB-ELA Corridor. At least one member represented each city or unincorporated community along the LB-ELA Corridor, while additional representatives were included from jurisdictions deemed to be highly impacted. These jurisdictions are characterized by a significant population living near the ports, intermodal yards, or the I-710 freeway. The most impacted jurisdictions had two additional members each (Long Beach – 3, East Los Angeles – 3), and the next highest impacted jurisdiction has one additional member (Lynwood – 2). There was also one at-large representative for any communities not represented in the jurisdiction list but in the project area. In total, there were 29 available CLC seats.
To achieve the most equitable outcome, considerable attention was given to the selection criteria for CLC membership. The applicant(s) with the highest score was chosen in each jurisdiction. From December 2021 through January 2022, the Task Force and working groups provided input on a point system to select CLC members. These criteria included:15 15 Community Leadership Committee (CLC) Meeting 1, March 2022. • Lives in the study area (required)
• Works in the Corridor (1 point)
• Engaged community member (1 point)
• Lives in a highly impacted area (1 point)
• Lives in two or more highly impacted areas (2 point)
• Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) (1 point) • Primary language is non-English (1 point)
• Under the age of 25 (1 point)
• Over the age of 64 (1 point)
Table 2-2 showcases the membership demographics of the initial CLC membership. Two members were monolingual Spanish speakers.
Table 2-2. Initial Community Leadership Committee Membership Demographics Category Percentage Demographic
Race/Ethnicity*
75 Latino
13 Black/African-American
13 Asian/Pacific Islander
4 Prefer not to respond
Age**
8 Under 18
8 18 – 24
17 25 – 34
25 35 – 49
33 50 – 64
8 65+
Notes:
* Rounded. Respondents could select more than one response, does not equal 100% ** Rounded
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-11 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Throughout the Task Force process, the composition of the CLC changed, and departing members were succeeded by applicants who represented the same or similar communities. These replacements were confirmed through a voting process conducted by the CLC and the Task Force.
To create an accessible and inclusive process, project team members provided additional support to ensure that CLC members were clear about their roles, the goals of each phase of the Investment Plan development process, and the goals of each meeting. Before the first CLC meeting, project team members met with CLC members for an in-person orientation on using the Zoom platform for virtual meetings to support effective participation. Project team members made regular check-in phone calls to answer questions about the process and remind members about upcoming meetings. The project team also implemented specialized outreach tactics to ensure that CLC members stayed informed during the process. They sent bilingual email correspondence and video messages explaining every step in the process before CLC meetings. Several CLC Members also attended “Office Hour” sessions, an opportunity to ask questions of and provide input directly to the project team in a small group setting.
The CLC convened for thirty-two meetings between December 2022 and April 2024, three of which were combined Task Force and CLC meetings.
CLC meetings were conducted in English with simultaneous Spanish interpretation. In advance of all meetings, presentations and materials were also made available in English and Spanish. CLC members also frequently received printed, bilingual materials before meetings. All CLC meetings were held virtually, with select sessions offering an in-person attendance option. All CLC meetings were open to the public.
2.4.3 Community Engagement Strategy Working Group
The Community Engagement Strategy (CES) Working Group was established early in the Investment Plan development process to provide initial guidance on community engagement strategies. Members discussed lessons learned from previous community engagement and how the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force could take new approaches to conduct better community engagement. These efforts were aimed at fostering an environment where the community’s voices are not only acknowledged but also genuinely respected throughout the information-gathering process and the subsequent formulation of recommendations made by the Task Force.
Four CES Working Group meetings were held in November 2021, January 2022, February 2022, and July 2022. The first three meeting topics included an overview of the Task Force process, and an opportunity for community members to provide input on the CLC and CC membership composition, the CLC application evaluation criteria, and strategies for promoting CLC membership.
At its February 2022 meeting, working group members finalized recommendations for the CLC membership composition and evaluation criteria and discussed effective outreach strategies and workshop formats to increase public awareness and involvement in establishing the Task Force’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. At the July 2022 meeting, the CES Working Group received an update on the finalization of the Task Force consensus values, the CLC and Task Force nomination of three initiatives/ projects that will seek state and federal funding opportunities through the Metro “Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity,” and the opportunity to rename the project to be more inclusive of the impacted communities, priorities, and approaches that will be advanced in the future of the project; and participated in a robust discussion of how CBOs can support Task Force efforts in local communities.
CES Working Group meetings were conducted virtually and were accessible to the public. Spanish interpretation services were provided for all CES Working Group meetings. After July 2022, discussions on community engagement were brought to CLC, the Equity Working Group, and the Coordinating Committee, given the overlap in participation between the three and the importance of inclusive and effective engagement in advancing equity.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-12 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.4.4 Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool
As noted above, the Investment Plan was developed using the Metro Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool (EPET); making this one of a handful of projects piloting the tool. The EPET was developed by Metro’s Office of Equity and Race to support implementing projects and programs that eliminate racial and social disparities and give all people in LA County an enhanced quality of life. Metro recognizes that deep-rooted and pervasive racial and socioeconomic inequities exist that create disparate impacts, even when the intention is to help all. We must understand the root causes of those inequities to develop solutions that help those faring the worst to improve access to opportunity for all.
The EPET, consisting of six categories of questions (referred to as sections), assisted the project team in 1) identifying disparities that impact how Metro’s services, programs, and projects are experienced; 2) understanding the root causes of those disparities; and 3) developing and implementing projects, programs, plans, policies, and initiatives in a manner that provides more equitable outcomes. Because the scope of the Investment Plan does not include project/program implementation or post-implementation evaluation, the application of the EPET to date has focused primarily on the first four of the six sections listed below:
• Connect Community Results to Project Outcomes
• Analyze Data
• Engage the Community
• Plan for Equitable Outcomes
• Implement Proposal
• Evaluate, Communicate, and Stay Accountable
The EPET was applied as a guide throughout the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Process and the development of the Investment Plan. Although it was primarily used in discussions within the Equity Working Group (composed of Task Force and CLC members), it was also useful in guiding discussions in the CLC and Task Force. The EPET informed the technical approach and decision-making process in all aspects of the Investment Plan, including the development of the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles; analysis of existing conditions data; selection of the initial list of multimodal strategies, projects, and programs; development and application of the project evaluation methodology; and the community engagement process and discussions during stakeholder meetings.
Section 1: Connecting Community Results to Project Outcomes helped the project team, Task Force, CLC, and working groups build a foundational understanding of the issues facing communities within and surrounding the LB-ELA Corridor, identify opportunity areas for the Investment Plan’s projects and programs to support meaningful improvements, and identify the desired community results (equitable future states of well-being) to which these improvements of the Investment Plan will contribute. The outcomes of this process were distilled in the Investment Plan’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles adopted by the Task Force.
Section 2: Analyze Data supported extensive qualitative and quantitative data analysis to identify existing conditions, needs, and disparities among various communities in the Corridor, and in comparison, with Los Angeles County. The EPET’s guidance helped to identify appropriate data sources and impacted areas, building on the issues and opportunity areas identified in Section 1. Data were primarily analyzed for socioeconomic conditions, environmental conditions, community health, and travel patterns related to mode share, emissions, throughput, and safety. Community survey data and anecdotal insights from CLC and Task Force members were used to supplement and validate quantitative data to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the LB-ELA Corridor communities.
Section 3: Engage the Community supported various efforts in developing the Task Force and Public Engagement process and informed an in-depth documentation of Community History in the LB-ELA area and the broader region. The EPET’s guidance helped to identify groups historically and currently marginalized, particularly by transportation planning processes and decisions in the Corridor, and to examine the investments, decisions,
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-13 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan events, developments, or disinvestment strategies that have contributed to current community conditions. The EPET helped guide and document the various engagement strategies employed throughout the Investment Plan process and use findings from the engagement to produce root cause analysis and identify groups most likely to be benefited or burdened by the Investment Plan’s outcomes.
Section 4: Plan for Equitable Outcomes supported the development of a robust evaluation methodology to capture potential benefits and concerns related to the Investment Plan’s various goals and guiding principles to apply across project modes, geographies, and scales. The EPET’s guidance helped to connect the evaluation criteria to key equity issues, community input, and root cause analysis to determine which prioritized projects and programs are best equipped to ensure equitable outcomes and contribute to the desired community results.
A full summary of the EPET findings can be found in Appendix 2-E.
2.4.5 Equity Working Group
The Equity Working Group (EWG) was open to all Task Force and CLC members as an opportunity to engage more deeply with equity issues in the LB-ELA Corridor, support the implementation of the EPET pilot, provide equitable project planning input on all steps of the Task Force process, and support the Task Force in understanding equity-related issues and strategies. Members of the Equity Working Group brought extensive lived and professional experience advocating for environmental justice, health equity, and economic equity in their communities, the larger LB-ELA Corridor, and beyond.
Sixteen Equity Working Group meetings were convened between April 2022 and March 2024. Meetings were conducted in English, with simultaneous Spanish interpretation and translated meeting materials available in Spanish. Equity Working Group meetings typically consisted of a presentation and discussion relating to technical work phases in 16 Substitute Motion - 710 South Clean Truck Program - Attachment A https://metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5524278&GUID=92641BD0-6BC4-4590-BD62-96E4C05354C4 project selection and evaluation, development of EPET documentation, and the overall Task Force and Investment Plan process. Although the Equity Working Group is not a formal decision-making body, occasional votes were held to provide recommendations to the Task Force preceding formal votes.
Throughout 2022, the Equity Working Group contributed to developing project Goals and Guiding Principles (particularly the Equity Guiding Principle), existing conditions data analysis, community outreach processes, and the history of policy, infrastructure, and demographic change in the Corridor area. These discussions addressed questions posed in EPET sections 1 through 3: Connect Community Results to Project Outcomes, Analyze Data, and Engage the Community.
In 2023, the Equity Working Group provided feedback on the initial list of multimodal projects and programs, draft evaluation criteria, and evaluation results, prompting additional discussion, research, and coordination to integrate Health Equity more effectively in the project evaluation process and plan implementation approach. These meetings significantly guided the overall technical process and addressed questions posed in EPET section 4: Planning for Equitable Outcomes. The Equity Working Group also provided review and feedback on draft EPET documentation, specifically for the community history timeline and narrative.
2.4.6 Zero-Emission Truck Working Group
As part of its commitment to improve air quality for communities along the Corridor, the Metro Board acted in October 2021to commit $50 million as seed funding for an I-710 South Zero-Emission Truck (ZET) Program that would become part of the work of the Task Force.16 In response, Metro initiated a Zero-Emission Truck (ZET) Working Group. The working group, which includes Task Force, CLC members, and industry representatives, was charged with developing the ZET Program under the guidance of the ZE technology parameters adopted by the Board.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-14 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Twenty regular ZET Working Group meetings were convened from November 2021 to February 2024. These meetings typically included presentations and discussions among ZET Working Group members across a variety of topics to determine priorities in advancing the deployment of ZE trucks and infrastructure throughout the LB-ELA Corridor (see Appendix 2-F). ZET Working Group members (made up by Task Force and CLC members) and key partners vetted the following topics in shaping the ZET Program:
• Goals and objectives for the ZET Program in the context of Motion 16 (Directors Hahn and Dutra);
• Industry perspectives and the role of stakeholders in the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force;
• Air quality and environmental justice challenges and opportunities for the LB-ELA Corridor, as presented by the EPA;
• Air quality context from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the challenges in meeting upcoming federal air quality attainment deadlines due to the slow rollout and scaling of ZET technology and infrastructure to displace the large volume of diesel trucks moving goods in the region;
• State of clean truck technology and efforts to accelerate the commercialization of the ZE Class 8 heavy-duty trucks;
• Governor Newsom’s fiscal year 2022 budget and the prospects for ZE trucks and infrastructure funding opportunities;
• Federal funding opportunities and collaboration with United States Department of Transportation representatives;
• Strategies to ensure proper community participation through engagement activities at key planning decision points regarding ZE Infrastructure siting;
• Strategies to best leverage Metro’s $50 million in seed funding with the state and federal governments’ existing and future resources, while exploring partnerships with organizations already funding incentives to deploy ZE truck technology and infrastructure, such as the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the California Air Resources Board, and SCAQMD.
From March to June 2022, the ZET Working Group sought to finalize the framework and principles to leverage the $50 million in seed money allocated for this effort by the Metro Board to reach a $200 million minimum funding target, as shown on Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-4. Zero-Emission Truck Metro Funding
$50M
Metro Board approved funding
for ZE Class 8 Heavy Duty
trucks infrastructure
$3M
for technical assistance to
support small eet owners
who live and work in the
corridor
90%
10%
approved for a publicly
available truck charging
facility (April 2023)
Leverage $150M+
private, regional, state,
and federal funding
ZE CORRIDOR
The ZET working group met to address additional topics, including workforce development, investigating parcels of land for potential siting of publicly accessible ZE charging infrastructure, and developing effective community engagement strategies at the regional level for planning purposes and at the local level for site-specific proposals. As a result, the
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-15 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan working group decided to dedicate $45 million of its seed funding to invest in ZE infrastructure development and leverage the remaining $5 million as a strategic set-aside to support small fleet owners in the transition. In addition, the working group adopted the following principles to guide its efforts.
Since adopting these principles, the ZET Working Group held focus group discussions with industry, infrastructure, and community stakeholders to identify needs in pursuit of Metro’s vision for regionally significant ZE infrastructure facilities. These focus group discussions were critical in developing Metro’s Vision for Regional ZE Infrastructure Facilities.
Community-identified needs focused on impacts on safety, public health, reduced congestion, and avoiding sensitive receptors. Community members who participated in the focus group discussion also emphasized their desire for Metro’s investment to result in benefits to the surrounding communities, including job opportunities and neighborhood beautification.
Industry and Infrastructure needs focused on grid capacity and identifying locations that complement the needs of existing goods movement patterns.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-16 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan In April 2023, the working group approved a request from the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator to dedicate up to $3 million in seed funding to support the development of a publicly available ZE charging facility in Wilmington, California. The estimated total cost of this facility is $15 million. The working group agreed that this project aligned with the ZET Program Principles, offered appropriate leveraging of the $50 million seed funding, and represented an opportunity to collaborate with regional partners to accelerate the deployment of ZE infrastructure in the LB-ELA Corridor.
The ZET Working Group received presentations and discussed opportunities for job training and workforce development.18 These included guest presentations and discussions with the Center for International Trade and Transportation, South Bay Workforce Investment Board, and vocational programs to identify opportunities for regional coordination to advance the working group’s principle of workforce development.
Key outcomes from these discussions included the need to create a structured outreach plan to target potentially interested individuals, collaborate with community colleges and LA County’s Workforce Board to implement workforce development and training opportunities and engage with stakeholders directly to increase community readiness.
The ZET Working Group also received presentations on grant opportunities. These included guest presentations and discussions from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
In the summer of 2023, the work focused on convening a series of stakeholder interviews to discuss the development of a regionally coordinated legislative and governmental affairs platform to reduce barriers and increase incentives that will advance the adoption of zero-emission technology. The interviews coalesced around several key initial recommendations for the Metro Board:
• Creating a regional collaborative—including representatives from Caltrans, Metro, LA Department of Water and Power, Southern California Edison, SCAQMD, California Energy Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, and others—to improve coordination, sequencing, and efficiency in developing Corridor-specific ZE charging infrastructure; • Leveraging a portion of the $5 million set-aside to assist small fleet owners in transitioning to ZE trucks; and
• Exploring a strategy to dedicate more resources to publicizing ZE sector jobs by collaborating with regional partners on existing workforce efforts.
18 All LB-ELA Corridor ZET Working Group meeting materials and resources can be found on the Project Hub at https://www.metro. net/projects/lb-ela-corridor%20plan/#documents.
CEC Approved a
$1.9 Billion Plan to
Expand Zero-Emission
Transportation
Infrastructure that
accelerates progress on
the state’s electric vehicle
charging and hydrogen
refueling goals.
California is investing an
unprecedented amount
of funding to build a
bigger, better network of
charging and refueling
infrastructure for zeroemission cars, trucks and
buses.17
17 California Energy Commission
Approves $1.9 Billion Plan to Expand
Zero-Emission Transportation
Infrastructure, https://www.
energy.ca.gov/ news/2024-02/cecapproves-19- billion-plan-expandzero-emission-transportationinfrastructure
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-17 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan These interviews also identified several initiatives that require the need for additional research, including:
• A California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption and statutory permit approval deadlines for ZE charging facilities; and need to protect community interests.
• Improved awareness of statutorily created streamlining opportunities for municipalities to improve the timing and sequencing of ZE infrastructure development;
• Allocation of additional funding for increased road maintenance because of the increased weight of battery electric trucks; and • Support for small fleet owners burdened by high vehicle insurance costs.
Additionally, recent discussions with community members and advocacy groups have highlighted the need to understand the current and future state of hydrogen as an alternative clean transportation fuel. The ZET Program considers both battery-electric and hydrogen as viable zeroemission technologies. However, lack of familiarity and uncertainty surrounding hydrogen production, transportation, storage, and fueling within an urbanized context poses many concerns about hydrogen. The ZET Working Group will consult with the federal and state guidance on hydrogen, and closely coordinate with communities to explore ways to meet their expectations.
Unlike the ZE passenger vehicle space, which is already well-established after decades of research, development, and investment, ZE trucks are still in the development phase. This means that technologies are still rapidly changing, and both public and private stakeholders are racing to meet the growing demand while also delivering community, health, and climate benefits. Realizing a network of ZET infrastructure within the LB-ELA Corridor will require a strong commitment and close collaboration from all stakeholders. The ZET working group’s upcoming priorities in 2024 are to advance the above-listed objectives by conducting ZE truck feasibility studies to identify site locations and coordinate with regional partners to streamline site identification and development that aligns with the ZET Program Principles and the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles of the LBELA Corridor Task Force.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-18 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.5 Community Values and Agreements to Build Consensus
Consensus building serves as the cornerstone of the Task Force process, playing a pivotal role in effective decision-making and collaborative efforts.
It encourages open dialogue and the inclusion of diverse perspectives, resulting in choices representative of the Task Force, CLC, and the communities they represent. By involving all stakeholders, consensus building not only improves the quality of decisions but also fosters a sense of ownership and commitment, which will be vital to implementing these priorities.
The following values, which were included in the Task Force Charter, demonstrate the decision-making approach used by all Task Force members, fostering commitment and active participation:
• Cooperation among Equals – All Task Force members are seen as equals in the process and as sharing power across different communities and stakeholder groups so there is a respectful and trusting atmosphere.
• Exploration of Differences – The Task Force explores the different needs and perspectives of as many communities and stakeholders as possible before forming a proposal.
• Building Common Ground – Space is created for open discussion and identification of information and ideas to be considered, enabling the Task Force to find commonalities.
• Identification of Inclusive and Actionable Win-Win Solutions – Members of the Task Force work together to find solutions that everyone actively supports, or at least does not actively oppose, and that can be implemented through the process and/or integrated into the Investment Plan recommendations for consideration by the Metro Board and Caltrans.
The Task Force adopted a five-step consensus-based decision-making model (Figure 2-5).
In the initial step, a topic was introduced, and questions and concerns surfaced. Subsequently, a proposal was presented. In the third step, consensus was gauged using various degrees of agreement. (for example:
“I support,” “I can live with,” “I have concerns,” or “I will stand aside”) amongst working group, CLC, or Task Force members.
If consensus was not reached, members were provided the opportunity to refine the proposal after exploring underlying issues. In cases where consensus was achieved, the pivotal fifth step involved a vote, resulting in a recommendation based on a supermajority (60% threshold) vote by the members. A successful supermajority vote allowed the decision or proposal to move to the next step or phase in the work plan process. For Task Force votes, members who strongly disagreed were given the chance to express their dissenting opinions along with the final recommendations to the Board.
The five-step decision-making model prioritized transparency throughout the process. During consensus tests and voting procedures, members and the project team collectively refined recommendations. Degrees of agreement and votes were determined through a roll call vote, with realtime documentation of input and outcomes prominently displayed during meetings. This information was then integrated into meeting summaries for reference.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-19 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 2-5. Five-Step Decision-Making Model
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-20 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.6 Work Plan Process
To carry out the goals of the Task Force and deliver an Investment Plan to the Metro Board, the project team developed a Work Flow designed to support each stage of the Task Force’s Work Plan.
Figure 2-6 illustrates the sequential stages guiding the progression toward milestone and consensus checkpoints. It visually represents the flow of information and collaborative efforts among the project team, the Task Force, the Coordinating Committee, the CLC, the working groups, the public, and the Metro Board.
Work started with the project team, which included Metro, Caltrans, subject experts and professional services staff. The project team was responsible for preparing meeting materials, technical information, and other resources in support of the Task Force, the Coordinating Committee, the CLC, and working groups.
In Step 1, the project team provided meeting materials, technical information, and other resources in collaboration with the Coordinating Committee.
In Step 2, the agenda topics confirmed by the Coordinating Committee were introduced to the Task Force at its monthly meeting. Task Force members and the public discuss proposals and were notified of the specific topics to be discussed in the working groups.
The Coordinating Committee also recommended agenda items for the CLC that emanated from Task Force members and public discussion at the monthly Task Force meetings. The CLC was represented on the Coordinating Committee by two members selected by the CLC.
In Step 3, the Task Force requested specific working groups to clarify issues, surface questions, and concerns; and to develop proposals that aligned with the Task Force values.
The working groups were represented by a mix of Task Force members, CLC members, and additional stakeholders and experts as needed to advance the working group’s objectives. Working groups were not open to the public.
In Step 4, after working groups prepared a proposal for consideration by the Task Force and CLC, the CLC met at least one week before the next Task Force meeting to review, discuss, and advise on the proposal for the Task Force. If there were concerns or further questions regarding the working group proposal, the CLC advised the working group to reevaluate the proposal. The project team worked with the CLC to summarize community feedback that would be shared with the Task Force at its next monthly meeting.
The CLC also validated data and findings and advised on community engagement strategies and efforts.
In Step 5, the recommendations of the working groups were shared with and evaluated by the CLC. If the CLC agreed with the recommendations, they shared the recommendations with the Task Force. If there were pending concerns, the issue would go back to the working groups to reevaluate the recommendations and address concerns.
In Step 6, the Task Force presented its final recommendations for the Investment Plan to the Metro Board which made the final decision to approve the Investment Plan. The Metro Board made the final decision on the Investment Plan. The recommendations of the CLC and public input for each phase of the Task Force process were provided to the Metro Board as part of the final report. Note that Step 6 occured once in the work plan— following the final Task Force consensus checkpoint.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-21 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 2-6. Work Flow Process
Project Team
Coordinating
Committee+
Long Beach-East
Los Angeles Corridor
Task Force
Zero-Emission
Truck Working
Group++
Community
Engagement
Strategy (CES)
Working Group^
Equity
Working
Group
1 2 3*
*Steps 1-5 depict normal process for proposals. If needed, Steps 3-5 will be repeated.
Refer to Decision-Making Process chart for an explanation of decision points. **Step 6: Metro Board will consider and make the nal decision on the LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan. +The Coordinating Committee was previously referred to as the Executive Steering Committee. ++The Zero-Emission Truck Working Group was previously referred to as the Clean Truck Working Group. ^Due to CES Working Group member unavailability to meet, the tasks of the CES Working Group were shared among the Task Force, CLC, Coordinating Committee, and Equity Working Group members.
The Charter and Community Agreements Working Group met for three meetings from November 2021 through February 2022 to create the project Charter. legend
Yellow - CLC Participation
Green - Public Participation
Working Groups
Metro Board of Directors
6**
4* Community Leadership Committee (CLC)
Community Engagement Activities +
Public Comment Opportunities
5*
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-22 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan The Task Force worked through the various topics identified by the project team and membership and sought consensus on each phase of the Work Plan before advancing to the next phase. The Consensus Checkpoint included reaching internal consensus within the Task Force to proceed to the next phase, community outreach and discussion, and notification of the Metro Board regarding Task Force progress. The consensus checkpoint process (Figure 2-7) was developed by the Charter and Governance Structure Working Group and adopted by the Task Force.
Figure 2-7. Charter Work Plan and Consensus Checkpoints Purose, Formation
& Working Protocols
of the LB-ELA Corridor
Task Force
▫ Introduction and
History of the
LB-ELA Corridor
▫ Purpose of Task
Force
▫ Community
Engagement
Strategy
▫ Charter and
Community
Agreements
▫ Introduction to the
Equity Planning and
Evaluation Tool
Developing
the LB-ELA Corridor
Vision & Goals
▫ Identifying
Community Needs
and the Regional
Context
▫ Analyzing Corridor
Conditions and
Identifying
Disparities
▫ Developing a
Corridor Vision
and Goals
▫ Equity Planning
and Evaluating Tool
Chekpoint
Developing the
Multimodal Strategies
for the LB-ELA
Corridor
▫ Identifying
Multimodal
Strategies to meet
Corridor Vision
and Goals
▫ Equity Planning
and Evaluation
Tool Checkpoint
Identifying the
Priority Projects &
Programs
▪ Identifying Projects
and Programs
responsived to
the Multimodal
Strategies
▪ Assessment of
Benets and
Potential Negative
Impacts of
Proposed Projects
and Programs
Creating the
LB-ELA Corridor
Program
▫ Preliminary Scope,
Schedule, and Costs
for Projects and
Programs
▫ Equity Planning and
Evaluation Tool
Checkpoint
▫ Development of
Criteria for
Prioritizing Projects
▫ Prioritizion of
Projects and
Programs
▫ Finalize Scope of
LB-ELA Task Force
Project and Program
Developing the
Implementation of the
LB-ELA Corridor Program
▪ Develop overview of local,
state, federal and private
funding opportunities
▪ Create cashow
considerations for
priority projects
▪ Create overview of
legislative/policy
opportunities for and
challenges to
implementing Program
▪ Equity Planning and
Evaluation Tool Checkpoint
▪ Create advocacy program
in support of
implementing Program
▪ Finalize Investment,
Legislative and Advocacy
Strategy
▪ Board Presentation
Preview
▪ Presentation to
Metro Board
▪ Follow up Task
Force Meetings to
support
implementation of
LB-ELA Task Force
Program
▪ Metro Board will
consider and
make the
nal
decision on the
LB-ELA
Investment Plan
Consensus
Checkpoint
Consensus
Checkpoint
Consensus
Checkpoint
Consensus
Checkpoint
Consensus
Checkpoint
Consensus
Checkpoint
Presentation of LB-ELA
Corridor Program and
Implementation
Follow-through
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-23 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
2.7 Public Engagement Process, Including CBO Partnering Central to the success of the Task Force’s work is a commitment to community outreach and public engagement. Involving the public in decision-making processes ensures more informed and inclusive outcomes. Throughout the Task Force process, the public has been integral, receiving project information and providing feedback through various avenues such as attending public meetings, providing comments, contributing to surveys, and engaging in community meetings, and events, and via partnerships with various local community-based, faith-based and community-development based organizations.
Between December 2021 and January 2022, the project team actively sought public engagement to gather recommendations regarding the formation of the Community Leadership and Coordinating Committees.
Through this outreach effort, the project team also sought input on strategies for recruiting Community Leadership Community Members and solicited feedback on the decision-making process.
The project team implemented its initial Community-Based Organization (CBO) Partnering Strategy with 17 CBOs from the LB-ELA Corridor following the best practices outlined in Metro’s CBO Partnering Strategy. The project team worked with the CBOs that serve the communities along the Corridor during the Multimodal, Strategies, Projects and Programs (MSPP) phase.
The project team’s goal was to engage these communities by gathering input from CBOs and the people they serve to identify multimodal strategies, projects, and programs that constitute needs and priorities for these impacted communities. From September to November 2022, CBOs helped gather one‐on‐one input from stakeholders and residents in their networks through a survey and interactive mapping tool at CBO-hosted community workshops, virtual meetings, and event pop‐ups.
Twenty-one community workshops were conducted along the Corridor to gather input from community members, the public, and other local stakeholders. Some of the workshops were coordinated directly with CBOs and local government agencies. As part of an equitable approach, the project team offered multilingual support at all community workshops and meetings by providing interpretation services and drafting collateral material in Spanish, Tagalog, and Khmer (languages determined based on community profile data derived from the U.S. Census ACS data). The workshops included a presentation of the project, followed by an activity that leveraged the Social Pinpoint survey and mapping tool. Most of the community workshops (76%) were conducted in person, while 24% were conducted virtually. The in‐person workshops included staff support to complete the digital survey, particularly for events with seniors and communities with a “digital divide”. Paper copies were also provided to make the survey more accessible. The virtual workshops included staff support to gather comments that were later entered into the survey and interactive mapping tool.
With the support from local CBOs, the public outreach team also hosted 18 events along the Corridor, including pop-up events to support notification and engagement efforts to gather input from different communities. During this phase of the efforts, $69,820 in stipends were paid directly to CBOs as part of this Task Force effort.
The survey and interactive mapping tool were originally open from August 2, 2022, through September 8, 2022, with two extensions—to October 15, 2022, and once more to November 14, 2022—to accommodate more time for public feedback from community members. These extensions were supported by the engagement efforts that continued through early November. The extensions also allowed the Task Force and CLC members to provide additional input using the Social Pinpoint online survey. The public completed 1,920 surveys and 985 mapping comments during this 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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-24 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan SELA Collaborative
The Southeast Los Angeles (SELA) Collaborative is a network of organizations working together to strengthen the capacity of the nonprofit sector and increase civic engagement in Southeast LA. SELA’s mission is to strengthen the SELA communities, build collective power, and encourage innovation to drive regional systemic change. SELA creates awareness and opportunities for the public and communities affected along the I-710 Corridor to participate.
The Coalition for Environmental Health and Justice
The Coalition for Environmental Health and Justice (CEHAJ) is a coalition of organizations, associations, and community groups working to achieve environmental justice, improving air quality, community health, and overall quality of life for residents living in the I-710 corridor in Southern California.
CEHAJ is committed to ensuring the right of community residents to be part of the decision-making process as it relates to proposed expansion projects for the I-710 freeway.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-25 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan • Avance Latino
• Black Women Rally for Action
• Cal State University, Los
Angeles/Pat Brown Institute
• Calvary Chapel Compton
• Cambodian-Scholar Long
Beach
• Center for International
Trade and Transportation
(CITT)
• COFEM (SELA Collaborative)
• Communities for Better
Environment (CBE)
• Compton Advocates Coalition
• Eastmont Community Center
• East LA College (ELA)
• East LA College (South Gate)
• FoodCycle
• Good Faith Missionary
Baptist Church
• Hoops 4 Justice
• La Comadre (Somos Sureste)
• Long Beach Gray Panthers
• MAOF – Downey
• MAOF – HQ Montebello
• Mujeres Unidas Sirviendo
Activamente
• National Council of Negro
Women (Long Beach Section)
• Northwest Downey Little
League
• Para Los Niños
• Promesa Boyle Heights/
Proyecto Pastoral
• Rancho Los Amigos National
Rehabilitation Center/
Foundation
• Regional Hispanic Institute
• Streets Are for Everyone
(SAFE)
• Salvation Army Red Shield
• South Gate Junior Athletics
Association
• Southeast Los Angeles
Collaborative (SELA
Collaborative)
• Tower of Faith Evangelic
Church
• Unearth and Empower
Communities
• YMCA – Montebello/
Commerce
• YMCA – Southeast Rio Vista
(Maywood)
• YMCA – Weingart East LA
The overall outreach efforts continued during this phase and generated public awareness and encouraged community input on the draft LBELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan. A summary of these engagement activities, included:
• Community meetings;
• Virtual meetings;
• Meetings with cities, city officials, and their staff; and • Informational booths at community events and pop-up events.
A wide variety of communication tools were also employed to ensure that key project updates and opportunities to elicit feedback were shared broadly throughout the Corridor, including:
• Social Media posts;
• E-blast messages;
• Project hotline;
• Project Emails;
• Project newsletters;
• Project fact sheets;
• Meeting flyers; and
• Corridor-wide mail distribution.
An equitable approach was employed to ensure that all jurisdictions with Equity Focus Communities had at least one activity. In addition to the 15 CBO partners engaged in the first phase of outreach to generate community input and awareness, the project team partnered with an additional 20 local CBOs to amplify outreach efforts across the Corridor during the release of the Investment Plan, culminating in 35 CBOs that have actively participated in engagement activities for this project. Over both rounds of engagement, $128,000 in stipends were paid to CBOs for their partnership, averaging to about $3,600 per CBO. The 35 CBO partners engaged throughout this process are:
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-26 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan The levels of involvement for the CBOs included notification activities such as posting on their social media, e-blasts, newsletters, and public calendar on their website. Additional notification campaigns included text messages, phone banking, and placement of banners and lawn signs near meeting locations to draw in passersby. Engagement activities included hosting a location to convene and watch virtual community meetings; providing time on their agendas at their regularly scheduled meetings for the project team to provide project updates; providing staff to assist at informational booths, pop-up events, and transit intercepts; and providing staff to canvass neighborhoods or events with flyers (Figure 2-8).
Including these key CBOs in the Investment Plan process proved to be an effective approach to reaching stakeholders who might not otherwise have participated in the important corridorwide process for future investment in mobility projects, programs, and strategies.
Metro released the Draft Long Beach to East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan) on January 31, 2024, including a 30-day review period for additional feedback and input. On February 28, 2024, Metro extended the review period for an additional 30 days to allow stakeholders and community members more time to review the document and for Metro to host supplemental community meetings. The comment period ended on April 1, 2024.
To enhance community awareness and involvement, Metro led a community engagement program that targeted all communities along the Long Beach to East Los Angeles corridor.
Metro successfully onboarded 28 Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) as part of its CBO Partnership Program. This collaborative initiative aimed to leverage the extensive networks and local insights of these organizations to effectively disseminate information regarding the project. The partnership facilitated a comprehensive series of notification and engagement activities designed to reach a broad audience. Notification efforts encompassed the distribution of flyers and posters, door-to-door notices, the sending of e-blasts/e-newsletters, placement of banners and lawn signs, creation of notification toolkits, as well as phone banking and SMS text campaigns. Furthermore, social media posts, website updates, and local announcements served to amplify the message.
Figure 2-8. Geographic Coverage of Community Engagement 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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-27 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan On the engagement front, the initiative featured:
• Event information booths/pop-up outreach booths at key locations along the corridor (15).
• Transit-intercepts at heavily used bus stops and rail stations within the corridor (10).
• CBO co-hosted live streaming meeting locations (7)
- Monterey Park, Maywood, Downey, Long Beach, South Gate, Bell19
• Direct outreach to businesses and schools.
These efforts not only ensured widespread dissemination of projectrelated information but also fostered an inclusive environment where community members could engage, inquire, and provide feedback on the project, strengthening the bond between Metro and the communities it serves.
Additionally, the project team conducted a series of meetings along the corridor. These meetings aimed to engage community members and stakeholders to provide them with information about the Investment Plan and the projects included and solicit feedback. Over 4,000 community members across the corridor were engaged during this phase..
The project team collected feedback through various meeting modalities and question/comment collection avenues. These included:
• In-person Community Meetings (5)
- Commerce, Lynwood, Long Beach, Compton, Paramount
• Virtual Meetings (5)
• Community Leadership Committee Meetings (2)
• Small Group Meeting (1)
• Task Force Meeting (1)
19 One location had two meetings
• CBO-Led Meetings/Events (3)
• Project Dashboard and Email
• Project Hotline
Feedback collected throughout all the meetings mainly came from community members, Community Leadership Committee (CLC) members, Task Force members, and freight industry representatives.
From January 31, 2024 through April 1, 2024, the project team received 354 questions and comments. General themes of the comments and questions submitted by community members and stakeholders included:
Freeway and Roadway Infrastructure:
Concerns about the impact of the 710 freeway on local communities, specifically concerns about freeway widening, truck traffic, pedestrian safety, congestion, and the Alameda Corridor.
None of the proposed projects will lead to displacement or involve widening the freeway.
Other concerns will be noted as projects continue being developed through their planning stages.
Public Transit Enhancements:
Interest in additional public transit options, requests for improvements to existing bus stop infrastructure, and requests for increased bus service frequency.
Community Involvement and Transparency:
Interest in seeing more community involvement in meetings.
Questions about specific project details, methods of keeping the community informed, and the process of community participation.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
2-28 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Funding and Allocation:
The feedback received in this category included diverse perspectives on funding allocation, including the balance between investments in freeway projects and green initiatives. Additionally, the feedback emphasized the importance of financial transparency throughout the project.
Safety and Security:
There were some concerns about public transportation safety issues related to Metro’s enforcement of its Code of Conduct and the general cleanliness of transit vehicles.
Health and Environmental Impact:
Feedback highlighted issues relating to air quality and health impacts and expressed interest in zero-emission initiatives and Vision Zero efforts for traffic safety.
Active Transportation and Green Spaces:
Feedback supported additional bike lanes, pedestrian pathways, green buffers, and general improvements to active transportation infrastructure.
Equity and Social Issues:
Some comments focused on equity initiatives, hiring practices, job opportunities created by the project, and ensuring that improvements benefit all population segments.
Project Implementation and Management:
Feedback requested clarity over the management of community programs, project timelines, funding kick-offs, and maintenance of completed projects.
Specific Projects and Areas of Focus:
Some responses highlighted a desire for enhanced links along the corridor, particularly advocating for a pathway joining Bristow Park with Bandini Park, the installation of facilities for electric vehicles, and a call for the creation of additional green spaces as well as programs that prioritize local employment opportunities.
Technological and Future Planning:
Responses indicated an interest in the comparative evaluation of technological choices, like hydrogen and electric, for transport solutions and forward-thinking strategies for initiatives like congestion pricing and the shift to electrified freight rail systems.
Incorporating Youth Perspectives and Inclusivity:
Some feedback encouraged the future inclusion of youth perspectives in the planning process.
There were some questions regarding the interpretation of equity and the identified community requirements and preferences in relation to the corridor.
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
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
3-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3. Existing Conditions and
Future Projections
18 Agenda Item #2 - I-710 South Corridor Existing Conditions, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ qwjnsyur2i0o4q9/AACsAVh4IuY6TWiyJoqeFwkEa/710%20Task%20Force%20Meetings/ Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%234%201.10.22?dl=0&preview=Agenda+Item+%232+-+I710+South+Corridor+Existing+Conditions.mov&subfolder_nav_tracking=1 19 Equity Working Group Meeting #4 Presentation- 6-30-22, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ qwjnsyur2i0o4q9/AAArfPe9GGGZqstTfxgvxz3ha/Working%20Groups/Equity/Meeting%20 %234-%206-30-22?dl=0&preview=Equity+Working+Group+Meeting+%234+Presentation-+6-30-22. pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1
This chapter presents existing characteristics, conditions, issues, and disparities in the Long Beach–East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor. First, this chapter defines the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area and provides an overview of who lives there through socioeconomic and demographic information. Next, the chapter highlights key community impacts related to the environment, health, safety, and access facing Corridor residents continuously elevated by community voices. Lastly, the chapter provides a more detailed set of data on existing conditions relating to the Corridor’s land uses and multimodal transportation system, including infrastructure conditions and travel characteristics.
The project team presented an initial existing conditions video18 to the Task Force, Community Leadership Committee (CLC), and Working Groups in January 2022, inviting discussion of the data and input on additional metrics that should be added to the analysis, specifically from an equity perspective. The project team subsequently produced an equitable project planning existing conditions presentation19 in June 2022, which incorporated new metrics based on community and Task Force input, and applied Metro’s Equity Focus Communities (EFC) as an overlay to identify patterns and disparities in conditions for EFC and non-EFC areas within the Corridor. This chapter compiles the findings from both sets of existing conditions, which were critical to developing the LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles; Multimodal Strategies, Projects and Programs List; Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria; and Funding Recommendations.
Photo courtesy of Caltrans District 7
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
THE LB-ELA CORRIDOR AT A GLANCE
12% of LA
County VMT
50% of the daily VMT in
the Study Area is generated
on freeways.
1.2 MILLION
Residents are living in the Study Area
500,000
of the population
in LA County
11% of the jobs in LA County, including over
170 THOUSAND
jobs related to goods movement
Most of the Study Area contains census tracts with over Daily vehicle trips range from
144 - 300
THOUSAND+
trips per day on I-710, In 2019, there were over 111,000 total Metro bus and rail boardings
and almost
50,000 Long Beach Transit
boardings on a daily basis in the
Study Area
From 2017 to 2019,
11% of
all collisions
in LA County
occurred in the
Study Area,
13%of
LA County
collisions
involving
trucks and
29% of
collisions
involving
bicyclists and
pedestrians
occurred in the
Study Area.
Diesel Particulate Matter
(DPM) rates are
53% HIGHER
in the Study Area than
the County average
75% of that cargo moves by
RAIL
or TRUCK
through the Study Area
About 30% of national cargo, valued at roughly
$500
BILLION,
is handled at the Ports of Long
Beach and Los Angeles, and
An estimated
93.5 MILLION
vehicle hours of delay occurred in 2016, in the
Study Area, including the mainline segments,
on-ramps, and off -ramps. This number is
projected to increase by about
18 PERCENT by 2045.
of the residents in the Study
Area reside within a half mile of
the LA River (LARIO) Bike Path.
The Study Area vehicle
miles traveled (VMT)
VMT is over
26 MILLION
miles per day –
23%
jobs are located in
the Study Area
12%
80% of residents identifying as
Latino and Black.
including
30 - 35
THOUSAND
truck trips.
29% HIGHER
in the Study Area, respectively,
than the LA County average.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.1 LB-ELA Corridor Study Area
As shown in Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2, the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area (referred to throughout this chapter as “the Study Area” or “the Corridor”) includes the 19-mile extent of Interstate 710 (I710) from State Route (SR) 60 in East Los Angeles to its southern terminus in Long Beach, plus key parallel and intersecting arterial roadways, and all or part of eighteen cities and some portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County surrounding I-710. The Study Area’s western boundary includes portions of Alameda Street, Central Avenue, Wilmington Avenue, and Interstate 110 (I-110).
The Study Area’s eastern boundary includes segments of Garfield Avenue, Interstate 5 (I-5), Lakewood Boulevard, and Cherry Avenue. The Task Force adopted the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area boundaries in early 2022. The Study Area breadth allows for it to contain major arterial roadway and freight rail infrastructure that complements the movement of people and goods along I-710.
Figure 3-1. LB-ELA Corridor Study Area (LA County Context) Figure 3-2. LB-ELA Corridor Study Area
Source: LA Metro, Caltrans, Los Angeles Times
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.2 Population Characteristics
20 equity-focus-communities-overview, https://www.dropbox.com/s/ew25aelmuvwqizv/ equity-focus-communities-overview.pdf?dl=0
Approximately 1.2 million residents (12% of LA County’s population) live within the LB-ELA Corridor. The following sections provide an overview of Metro’s Equity Focus Communities (EFC) designation, which applies to a substantial portion of the Study Area, followed by detailed socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the Study Area’s population.
3.2.1 Equity Focus Communities Overview
Metro defines EFCs20 as census tracts with greater transportation needs by considering the concentration of three criteria associated with mobility barriers: low-income households earning less than $60,000 per year, residents who are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC), and households with no access to a car. The Metro Equity Need Index (MENI) ranks all census tracts in LA County by level of need in terms of equitable access to opportunity and places census tracts into quintiles, with the top 40% (High Need and Very High Need categories) categorized as EFCs.
People in these census tracts face more mobility barriers than people in non-EFC census tracts. About 842,650 residents (73% of the LB-ELA Corridor population) live in an EFC area. Figure 3-3 shows the prevalence of EFCs throughout the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area. Areas with low populations are excluded from the MENI and EFC analysis, such as the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, Long Beach Airport, intermodal rail yards in Vernon, and other heavily industrialized areas.
3.2.2 Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics
On their surface, socioeconomic characteristics such as unemployment rates, educational attainment, and housing cost burden may seem disconnected from transportation planning; however, major infrastructure investments can have a substantial impact on employment and educational opportunities through the introduction of new jobs to pay for higher education, and increased access to educational institutions and job Figure 3-3. LA Metro Equity Focus Communities
Source: LA Metro
centers. New investments can also potentially impact housing stability and economic displacement pressure. For these reasons, it is important to understand the Corridor’s existing conditions and disparities to plan for investment equitably. Some selected metrics are illustrated in charts with disparities summarized as ratios to compare the value for the County to the Corridor and the value for Corridor EFCs to Corridor non-EFCs.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.2.2.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics
The Study Area’s median household income of $56,005 is 26% lower than the County’s median of $75,887. Compared to the County, the Study Area contains a higher proportion of households earning less than $100,000 annually. The “Median Household Income” map in Figure 3-4 shows that the communities west of I-710 tend to have lower household income, and the northern portion of the Study Area has the lowest household income overall.
The “Poverty Level” map in Figure 3-5 shows that there are concentrations of residents below the poverty level throughout the Study Area, including Long Beach, Wilmington, Lynwood, and much of the northern part of the Study Area. Overall, the Study Area has a poverty rate of 18.3% compared to the County’s poverty rate of 15%. The Poverty Level is defined by the Census Bureau, which uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s income is below that threshold, that family and all its members are considered to be in poverty.
The “Age 65 and Over” map in Figure 3-6 shows that areas with the most individuals older than 65 include Lakewood, Downey, and portions of Long Beach. Generally, communities to the west of I-710 tend to have a younger population than those to the east. As shown in Figure 3-9, the Study Area also has a higher proportion of residents under 10 years old than LA County as a whole.
The “Percentage of Individuals with a Disability” map in Figure 3-7 shows varied disability rates throughout the Study Area. The Study Area contains a greater proportion of individuals with a disability than LA County as a whole. Overall, the Study Area has a disability rate of 8.5%, compared to the County’s disability rate of 6%.
The “Auto Ownership” map in Figure 3-8 shows the highest Zero Vehicle Households (ZVH) rates located in census tracts of Long Beach, East Los Angeles, Huntington Park, South Gate, Lynwood, and Compton.
Overall, the Study Area has an average ZVH rate of 3.8%, compared to the County’s ZVH rate of 2.9%.
Census data demonstrate existing disparities in outcomes among demographic groups in the Corridor, such as the average per capita income of $33,870 for non-Hispanic white residents compared to $18,297 for Hispanic or Latino residents.21 Due to the size of the study area and wide range of relevant data sets, it was not possible to disaggregate all data related to environmental conditions, infrastructure, or services by race/ethnicity or income levels. However, Metro’s EFCs were applied as an overlay and geoprocessing filter to document disparities for areas with the highest concentrations of low-income households, BIPOC residents, and share of households with no access to a vehicle. 21 Data from the U.S. Census, Findings by race: NH White ($33,870), Asian ($29,904), Black/African American ($25,120), Other ($18,540), Latino/Hispanic ($18,297).
The Study Area’s median
household income of
$56,005 is 26% lower
than the County’s median
of $75,887.
The “Poverty Level” map
in Figure 3-5 shows that
there are concentrations
of residents below the
poverty level throughout
the Study Area, including
Long Beach, Wilmington,
Lynwood, and much of
the northern part of the
Study Area.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.2.2.2 #
Figure 3-4. Median Household Income
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Figure 3-5. Poverty Level Figure 3-6. Age 65 and Over
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.2.2.3 #
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Figure 3-7. Percentage of Individuals with Disability Figure 3-8. Auto Ownership
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.2.2.4 #
Source: LA Metro, 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Figure 3-9. Youth and Senior Age Groups Comparison 3.2.2.2 Race and Ethnicity Figures 3-10, 3-11, 3-12 and 3-13 show the breakdown of population by Race and Ethnicity in the Study Area. These maps use data and categories from the United States Census Bureau, so it is important to acknowledge that these categories do not capture the full range of identities represented in the Study Area, or the preferred terminology with which some communities and individuals identify. Residents who identify as Hispanic or Latino are the most prevalent population within the Study Area (77% of the Corridor population). Wilmington, Downtown Long Beach, and areas generally north of SR 91 include a higher density of residents who identify as Hispanic or Latino. Residents who identify as Asian are the least prevalent in the Study Area, with the highest concentrations of Asian residents located south of SR 91 and within West Long Beach. Residents who identify as White are generally concentrated in areas of Lakewood, Long Beach, and the northern portion of the Study Area near downtown Los Angeles. Residents who identify as Black or African American are generally concentrated south of Interstate 105 (I-105), specifically around areas of Compton and Lynwood. As indicated in Figure 3-14, the Study Area has a much higher percentage of Hispanic or Latino residents, and a lower percentage of white and Asian residents, than LA County as a whole.
Most neighborhoods within the Study Area contain more than 80% of residents who identify with a race other than White.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan #
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Figure 3-10. Black or African American
Alone, non-Hispanic
Figure 3-11. Asian Alone, non-Hispanic Figure 3-12. Hispanic or Latino Figure 3-13. White Alone, non-Hispanic
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-10 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 3-14. Race and Ethnicity Comparison
Source: LA Metro, 2015-2019 American Community Survey
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-11 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.2.2.3 Population and Employment Densities
As shown in Figure 3-15 and 3-16, the northern
portion of the Study Area and downtown Long
Beach have the highest population densities,
with scattered high-density areas in locations
such as Lynwood, Paramount, North Long
Beach, and Wilmington. About 11% of jobs in
Los Angeles County (0.5 million) are within
those boundaries. In terms of employment
density, pockets of higher employment density
areas include downtown Long Beach, East
Los Angeles, City of Commerce, Carson/
Dominguez Hills, west of I-710 between SR 91
and Interstate 405 (I-405), and the Long Beach
Airport vicinity.
3.2.2.4 Occupation
The Corridor’s manufacturing history and
proximity to the ports have created a largely
industrial and commercial economy, with nearly
twice the share of industrial jobs in the Corridor
(29%) as in the County as a whole (16%), and a
lower share of service and professional jobs.
Likewise, the study area has more industrial and
residential land uses than the County as a whole,
with proximity between residential and industrial
land uses contributing to pollution impacts and
associated health risks.
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 2019 Longitudinal Employer-Housing Dynamics (LEHD) Figure 3-15. Population Density Figure 3-16. Employment Density Figure 3-17 through Figure 3-20 show the
distribution of different job categories in the
Study Area. The job categories are based on
the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) and include “Commercial,”
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-12 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan #
Source: 2019 Longitudinal Employer-Housing Dynamics (LEHD) Figure 3-17. Commercial Jobs Figure 3-18. Industrial Jobs Figure 3-19. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Figure 3-20. Other Services Jobs
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-13 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan “Industrial,” “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,” and “Other Services.”22 “Commercial Jobs” includes wholesale trade, retail trade, arts, entertainment and recreations, and accommodation and food service. “Industrial Jobs” include construction, manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, and utilities. “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services” includes finance and insurance, real estate, educational services, and health care and social assistance jobs. “Other Services” includes repairs, religious activities, grantmaking, advocacy, laundry, personal care, death care, and other personal services.
The job distribution by industry is fairly even for the top two job categories. “Other Services” jobs have the highest percentage, at 30.2%, and “Industrial” jobs are 29.2% of the total jobs in the Study Area; “Professional Services” have 21.9%; and the remaining 18.7% are “Commercial” jobs. “Commercial” and “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services” jobs are scattered throughout the Study Area, with larger clusters to the north close to downtown Los Angeles. “Industrial” jobs are clustered near the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach (collectively, the Ports) and areas directly adjacent to the LB-ELA Corridor such as Wilmington, Carson, South Gate, and Vernon. High concentrations of the “Other Services” jobs that make up the greatest number of jobs overall, can be found in most parts of the Study Area other than the industrial areas. The Study Area has more “Industrial” and “Commercial” jobs and fewer “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services” jobs than the county averages.
3.2.2.5 Unemployment Rate
Despite its importance to the regional economy, the Corridor has a slightly higher average percentage of the workforce who are unemployed (7.8%) than LA County (6.1%), with a majority of the Corridor’s highest unemployment rates (as high as 42%) associated with EFCs.23 As shown in Figure 3-21, high unemployment rates appear to reflect areas with lower 22 North American Industry Classification System, 2022, https://www.census.gov/naics/ reference_files_tools/2022_NAICS_Manual.pdf
23 East Los Angeles, Commerce, Compton, East Compton, Long Beach, Wilmington, and San Pedro.
educational attainment rates, such as Compton, Lynwood, Huntington Park, and East LA. In Figure 3-22, the ACS data indicates that people in the Corridor and EFCs experience moderate disparities in unemployment rates in comparison to the County and non-EFCs, respectively. The discrepancy between the Corridor’s regional economic significance and its local employment outcomes is a primary concern raised by Corridor communities. Figure 3-23 displays the distribution of residents with no high school degree or higher level of education. Metro is committed to ensuring that Corridor residents are well-positioned to benefit from economic opportunities generated by the projects and programs within the Investment Plan. The Investment Plan has significant potential to create, expand, and increase access to employment opportunities for Corridor residents by catalyzing new infrastructure projects that provide highquality jobs through construction and operation, improve travel options to connect residents to job centers, schools, and vocational institutions, and supporting policies and community programs that promote local economic and workforce development.
Figure 3-21. Unemployment Rates Comparison
Source: LA Metro, 2015-2019 American Community Survey
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-14 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan X
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Figure 3-22. Unemployment Rate Figure 3-23. Individuals with No High School Degree or Above
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-15 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.2.2.6 Housing Burden Indicators
Housing burden for renters is defined as the
percentage of renters within a census block
group who spend more than 30% of their
household income on rent each month. As
shown in the map of Cost Burdened Renters
in Figure 3-24, the Study Area has a relatively
low rate of cost burdened renters. In certain
areas, such as Downtown and Central Long
Beach, the higher rates of cost burdened renters
reflect the high cost of living and competitive
rental markets in urbanized locations with
high renter populations. In the LB-ELA Corridor
Study Area, we can also see high renter
burdens in commercial activity centers with
greater constraints on rental housing stock. It is
important to note that high renter cost burden
rates in predominantly industrial areas likely
reflect very small populations within those large
census block areas.
Housing burden for homeowners is defined
similarly to that for renters but using mortgage
payments instead of rent. As shown in the map
of Cost Burdened Homeowners in Figure 3-25, a
much higher share of Corridor homeowners are
cost burdened compared to renters. High rates
of cost burdened homeowners are distributed
fairly evenly throughout the Study Area, but
generally appear in low-density residential
areas.
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Figure 3-24. Cost Burdened Renters Figure 3-25. Cost Burdened Homeowners
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-16 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan The Housing Burden Comparison chart in Figure 3-26 indicates a notable disparity in the share of Housing Burdened Low-income Households in EFCs (27%) compared to non-EFCs in the Corridor (19%).24 Figure 3-26. Housing Burden Comparison
Source: LA Metro, 2015-2019 American Community Survey
24 Data from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-17 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.3 Community Impacts
25 Pope CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.
JAMA. 2002;287(9):1132–41.
This section highlights key data points related to the Corridor’s equity issues identified and elevated in previous planning efforts and various stages of community input. These issues, referred to in this section as Community Impacts, relate to air quality and other environmental conditions, health outcomes, safety outcomes, and access to resources.
Where County comparisons and EFC overlays are applied (to select metrics), a consistent pattern of disparity is revealed, with the LB-ELA Corridor generally facing greater burdens than the rest of the County, and EFCs facing greater burdens than the non-EFC areas within the Corridor.
3.3.1 Air Quality and Environmental Conditions
3.3.1.1 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) and diesel particulate matter (DPM) are used as indicators to map out the air quality in the Study Area.
PM2.5 are small particulates that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
Breathing in particle pollution can be harmful to health. Several studies have evaluated the relationship between PM2.5 and the ensuing risk of lung cancer occurrence and fatality. Their findings have indicated that PM2.5 may be a risk factor for lung cancer. A study based on prospective cohort data gathered by the American Cancer Society25 declared that prolonged exposure to PM2.5 significantly affected survival, with each increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3
) being associated with an
approximately 8% increase in the risk of death from lung cancer. The level of PM2.5 is measured in μg/m3
. Levels above 12 μg/m3 exceed the federal
standard for PM2.5. Figure 3-27 shows that the highest concentrations of PM2.5 occur in the middle and northern portions of the Study Area.
DPM comes from exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, ships, and other equipment with diesel engines. The DPM map in (Figure 3-28) displays tons of DPM emitted per year by mobile and stationary sources in the nearby populated parts of each census tract. DPM concentrations occur throughout the Study Area, including around the Ports, south Long Beach, near the I-710/SR 91 interchange, along I-710, and in the northern portion of the Study Area.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-18 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan #
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Figure 3-27. Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) Figure 3-28. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-19 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 3-29 shows slight PM2.5 disparities facing the Corridor and Corridor EFCs but suggests that major variations in PM2.5 generally occur at a larger, regional scale.
Figure 3-30 shows that DPM pollution is a critical air quality disparity impacting the Corridor and Corridor EFCs.
Figure 3-29. Particulate Matter 2.5 Comparison
Source: LA Metro, CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Figure 3-30. Diesel Particulate Matter Comparison
Source: LA Metro, CalEnviroScreen 4.0
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-20 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.3.1.2 Environmental Indicators
Analysis of other environmental indicators is shown in Figures 3-32 through 3-37, including “Percentage of Population Covered by Tree Canopy,” “Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE),” and “Ground Toxic Cleanup Sites” throughout the Study Area.
“Tree canopy” refers to the layer of tree leaves, branches, and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above. A robust tree canopy can help reduce temperatures and air pollution, provide shade, improve neighborhood aesthetics, enhance property values, and attract residents/businesses. The map shows the population-weighted percentage of the census tract area with tree canopy (the percentage of land covered by tree canopy, weighted by people per acre). The LB-ELA Corridor has many areas that lack tree canopy. Areas with less than 3% of the population covered by tree canopy are scattered throughout, including Commerce, Vernon, and portions of Compton, Paramount, and Long Beach. Areas with a higher percentage of the population covered by tree canopy (7 to 10%) are also scattered throughout, including neighborhoods in and around Lakewood, South Gate, and Long Beach. As shown in Figure 3-31 and Figure 3-32, the Corridor and EFCs face disparities in tree canopy coverage. The average tree canopy in LA County is 5.5%, compared to 4.2% in the Corridor. In EFC areas within the study area, tree canopy is slightly lower at
4.1%, compared to non-EFCs at 4.6%.26
Figure 3-31. Tree Canopy Coverage Comparison
Source: LA Metro, Healthy Places Index 3.0, CDPH/National Land Cover Database 26 CDPH/National Land Cover Database, accessed via the California Healthy Places Index Figure 3-32. Percentage of Population Covered by
Tree Canopy
Source: Healthy Places Index 3.0, CDPH/National
Land Cover Database
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-21 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan The northeastern section
of our Study Area
experiences the greatest
heat increase from the
UHIE. This condition
reflects that the heat
generated by urban heat
islands in coastal areas
tends to move inland,
where mountains trap
warmer air. On a more
localized scale, a lack
of tree canopy and
vegetative ground cover
can also contribute to the
UHIE
Heat islands are created by a combination of heatabsorptive surfaces, heat-generating activities, and the absence of vegetation, typically associated
with highly urbanized areas. The index score
measures the UHIE by calculating the difference
in temperature for urban areas relative to rural
areas. The UHIE increases health risks from both
heat exposure and the enhanced formation of air
pollutants, especially ozone. It also contributes to
significant energy consumption due to additional
air conditioning needs. Figure 3-33 shows that the
northeastern section of our Study Area experiences
the greatest heat increase from the UHIE. This
condition reflects that the heat generated by urban
heat islands in coastal areas tends to move inland,
where mountains trap warmer air. On a more
localized scale, a lack of tree canopy and vegetative
ground cover can also contribute to the UHIE.
Contaminated sites indicate degradation to
the natural environment, pose health risks to
surrounding communities, and contribute to an
overall lack of land area available for communityserving land uses due to the presence of hazardous substances. Contaminated sites are aggregated
into CalEnviroScreen’s “Cleanup Sites” indicator,
which applies weighting to sites based on the
nature and magnitude of threat and burden posed,
and proximity to populated areas. The Cleanup
Site database of points contains information on
numerous types of cleanup sites, including Federal
Superfund, State Response, Corrective Action,
School Cleanup, Voluntary Cleanup, Tiered Permit,
Evaluation, Historical, and Military Evaluation sites.
Figure 3-34 shows that substantial concentrations
of Cleanup Sites are located throughout the
northern and western portions of the Study Area,
within and surrounding the Ports, and in areas of
Paramount, Long Beach, and Signal Hill.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-22 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Source: CalEPA
Figure 3-33. Urban Heat Island Effect
Source: EnviroStor Cleanup Sites Database
Figure 3-34. Ground Toxic Cleanup Sites
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-23 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.3.2 Health Outcomes
Communities within the LB-ELA Corridor face significant health disparities, which have been consistently elevated by Task Force, Working Group, CLC, and community members throughout the Task Force’s planning process, and are documented by health and environmental justice screening tools such as CalEnviroScreen, CA Healthy Places Index, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Environmental Justice Index Explorer, and a number of studies related to vehicular pollution and health outcomes surrounding I-710 and throughout the region.27,28,29,30 The analysis in this section highlights how key indicators impact communities throughout the Corridor and examines disparities facing Corridor and EFCs. 27 The Gateway Cities Air Quality Action Plan, November 2011, https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HIA-I710-Air-Quality-Plan.pdf 28 Community Health in the I-710 Corridor, September 2019, https://la.myneighborhooddata.org/2019/09/community-health-in-the-710-corridor/ 29 Race, Class, and the Production of and Exposure to Vehicular Pollution in Los Angeles, July 2021, https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/psr-20-19_boeing_final-report_v2.pdf 30 Improving Environmental Justice and Mobility in Southeast Los Angeles Executive Summary, August 2021, https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/psr-18-sp91_giuliano_final-report.pdf
3.3.2.1 Health Indicators
“Asthma Rate” can be measured by estimating the number of emergency department visits for asthma per 10,000 people. Figure 3-35 shows that high rates of asthma incidents can be found throughout the Study Area, particularly south of I-105, and in Vernon and East LA to the north. Figure 3-36 shows that a substantial disparity exists in asthma hospitalization rates when comparing the Corridor with LA County.
Figure 3-35. Asthma Comparison
Source: LA Metro, CalEnviroScreen 4.0
“Cancer Risk” is expressed as the number of extra cancer cases occurring over a 70-year lifetime per 1 million people exposed to toxic air contaminants. Figure 3-37 shows the highest Cancer risk in the POLB and Downtown Long Beach areas and the lowest risk in the central-eastern portion of the Study Area.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-24 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Source: Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study V Figure 3-36. Asthma Rate Figure 3-37. Cancer Risk
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-25 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.3.3 Safety
3.3.3.1 Bike and Pedestrian Crashes
The “Bicycle or Pedestrian Crashes Location and Severity” map in Figure 3-38 shows that downtown Long Beach has a high concentration of bicyclist or pedestrian-involved crashes. Other areas with concentrations of bicycle and pedestrian crashes include parts of Lakewood/North Long Beach, Carson, Compton, East Los Angeles, Wilmington, and the northwestern portion of the Study Area.
The “Bicycle or Pedestrian Crashes Fatality and Serious Injury” map in Figure 3-39 shows the locations of only serious injuries and fatalities in the Study Area. Similar to total bicycle and pedestrian crashes, higher concentrations of crashes with a fatality or serious injury occur in downtown Long Beach, Carson, Compton, Lakewood, the northwest part of the Study Area, and East Los Angeles.
Concentrations of bicycle and pedestrian crashes are predominantly located in EFCs in the Study Area, highlighting the importance of safe active transportation infrastructure as a key equity issue for Corridor communities.
Concentrations of bicycle
and pedestrian crashes
are predominantly
located in EFCs in the
Study Area, highlighting
the importance of safe
active transportation
infrastructure as a key
equity issue for Corridor
communities.
Photo courtesy of Caltrans District 7
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-26 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2017-2019 Figure 3-38. Bicycle or Pedestrian Crashes Location and Severity
Figure 3-39. Bicycle or Pedestrian Crashes Fatality and Serious Injury
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-27 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.3.3.2 Truck Crashes
Figure 3-40 shows the location and severity of the truck crashes. Truck crashes predominantly occur along truck
routes—including all freeway and arterial roadways that allow truck movements, such as Alameda Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Concentrations of truck crashes also occur in the areas with more industrial and warehousing land uses, such as the northern portion of the Study Area, the Ports, and the Rancho Dominguez area west of I-710 and south of SR-91
(Figure 3-41).
Fatalities and serious injuries are small in volume, but they occur throughout the Study Area. The I-710 freeway has a high level of truck crashes. Hot spots include the northwestern portion of the Study Area and along several Countywide
Strategic Truck Arterial Network (CSTAN) routes: Del Amo Boulevard, Anaheim Street, Pacific Coast Highway, Alameda Street, and Long Beach Boulevard. (Figure 3-42)
3.3.3.3 All Crashes
Figure 3-43 and Figure 3-44 show the locations and severity of all crashes in the Study Area, including those on I-710.
Looking at all crashes—including vehicle, bicyclist-involved, and pedestrian-involved crashes—the northern portion of the Study Area and downtown Long Beach have the highest concentration of crashes.
Finally, along I-710 itself, more fatalities and serious injuries occur at the I-710/SR 91 interchange, near the Pacific Coast Highway, south of I-105, and at other isolated locations along I-710. These crash data indicated a critical need for safety improvements specifically at I-710 interchanges, which is reflected in the types of freeway improvement concepts that performed well in the evaluation of potential safety 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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-28 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan These crash data
indicated a critical need
for safety improvements
specifically at I-710
interchanges.
Figure 3-40. Truck Crash Location and Severity Figure 3-41. Truck Crashes Concentrations Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2017-2019
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-29 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 3-42. Truck Crashes with CSTAN
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2017-2019 Figure 3-43. All Crashes Figure 3-44. I-710 Crashes – Locations and Severity
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-30 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.3.4 Access to Resources
Access to resources is measured by five indicators in this section: “Lack of Park Access,” “Lack of Supermarket Access,” “High-Quality Transit Area (HQTA),” “LA River Access,” and “Public School Access” (see Figure 3-45 through Figure 3-49).
3.3.4.1 Lack of Park Access
Park access is defined as the percentage of the population living within walkable distance (½ mile) of a park, beach, or open space of 1 acre or more. Having parks nearby can encourage physical activity, reduce chronic diseases, improve mental health, and foster community connection. Areas with the lowest percentage of the population with park access include neighborhoods in and around Huntington Park, South Gate, Downey, Paramount, Compton, and Long Beach. Large portions of the remainder of the Study Areas have a higher percentage of the population with park access, including neighborhoods like Commerce, Compton, Lakewood, and Long Beach.
3.3.4.2 Lack of Supermarket Access
Supermarket access is defined as the percentage of the population in urban areas who live less than ½ mile from a supermarket/large grocery store. Having access to a nearby supermarket can encourage better diet and eating behaviors; lower the costs of obtaining food; reduce chronic diseases; and lower the risk of food insecurity, which is the lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life. Areas with the lowest percentage of the population with supermarket access include the neighborhood of Commerce; portions of Long Beach and Paramount; and the neighborhoods directly south of Compton and SR 91, west of I-710. Some of these are industrial areas with no grocery stores and low population. Areas with a higher percentage of the population with grocery store access include neighborhoods like South Gate, Compton, Downey, Lakewood, and Long Beach.
3.3.4.3 High-Quality Transit Area (2045)
High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) are defined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as an area within ½ mile of a wellserviced transit stop or a transit corridor with a service frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. SCAG’s 2045 HQTAs are based on the planned transit system according to the SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan. Frequently, convenient transit service is a key driver in creating viable nonmotorized transportation options for traveling to work, school, home, or other destinations, especially for those without a car who rely on the service as the primary mode of travel.
Fortunately, transit access is not an area of disparity for the Corridor or EFCs. A substantial portion of the study area (78%) is located within an HQTA. An even higher proportion of study area EFCs are located in 2045 HQTAs (85%), but only 60% of LA County falls within a 2045 HQTA.
3.3.4.4 LA River Access
The LA River is a regional amenity that provides walking paths, bicycle paths, access to river adjacent parks, and other activities. Specifically, the Study Area contains the LA River Bikeway, 29.1 miles of continuous bikeway between Vernon and Long Beach. The Lower LA River Revitalization Plan identifies proposed multi-use path enhancements, complete streets, river channel enhancements, and bridge crossing improvements. About 23% of residents in the LB-ELA Corridor reside within ½ mile of the LA River Bikeway.
3.3.4.5 School Access
School access is defined as the distance less than ½ mile from a school.
The industrial areas in the Study Area do not include school locations.
Nearly all of residents in the Study Area reside within ½ mile of a public school.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-31 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 3-45. Lack of Park Access
Source: LA County Park Needs Assessment
Figure 3-46. Lack of Supermarket Access Figure 3-47. High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) (2045) Source: Healthy Places Index 3.0, USDA Food Access
Research Atlas (2017)
Source: Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG)
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-32 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
Figure 3-48. LA River Access
Source: LA Metro
Figure 3-49. Public School Access
Source: California Department of Education
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-33 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.4 Land Use Characteristics
The Study Area land uses are primarily industrial and residential, with less commercial and office uses, unlike much of LA County. In several locations residential and industrial uses are close to, or adjacent to one another, for example the Ports which is associated with larger pollution impacts and for those residents. Figure 3-50 shows the land uses of the Study Area and highlights the industrial concentrations.
Figure 3-50. Land Use Map
Source: SCAG
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-34 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5 Transportation Conditions
3.5.1 Goods Movement
In the LB-ELA Corridor, I-710 serves as the principal transportation connection for goods movement between the Ports, both at the southern terminus of I-710 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe/Union Pacific rail yards in the cities of Commerce and Vernon, along with warehouses and freight trans-shipment facilities within and beyond the Corridor.
3.5.1.1 Goods Movement Infrastructure
The CSTAN, as indicated in Figure 3-51 identifies the primary truck arterial network in LA County and prioritizes truck related improvements. CSTAN helps to create the inter-jurisdictional truck route system and supports the Federal Primary Freight Network.
Figure 3-51. Countywide Strategic Truck Arterial Network Source: LA Metro
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-35 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.1.2 Goods Movement Travel
Figure 3-52 maps the daily truck trips
along I-710. Clearly, heavier truck volumes
occur at the southern end of the Corridor,
near the Ports, with nearly 40,000 daily
heavy-duty truck trips. In addition,
the goods movement activities can be
segmented by the east-west freeways that
intersect with I-710. The truck volumes
and the truck percentage are extremely
high south of SR 91 when compared with
typical freeways. However, truck trips
decrease substantially north of I-105.
Most of the heavy-duty trucks south of
I-405 are oriented toward Port activities.
Figure 3-52. Daily Truck Trips
Source: PorTAM
These impacts include
truck traffic diversion
from the freeway to
parallel arterials such as
Atlantic Boulevard and
Long Beach Boulevard.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-36 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.2 Travel to Work Mode Share
This section discusses how people travel to work through the Study Area, reflecting the availability and quality of multimodal infrastructure and user preferences. Note that the analysis in this section uses 2019 data.
Figure 3-53 shows that driving alone and carpooling are the predominant modes for people to get to work, indicating a strong dependency on the private automobile in the Study Area. The existing mode split means that I-710 carries high volumes of vehicles and suffers from the resulting congested conditions and traffic-related impacts. These impacts include truck traffic diversion from the freeway to parallel arterials such as Atlantic Boulevard and Long Beach Boulevard. These conditions affect the quality of life of those traveling through and living in the Corridor and region.
Figure 3-53. Public School Access
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-37 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 3-54. displays the share of work trip travel each travel mode: work from home, transit, walk/bicycle, carpool, and drive alone. As indicated in Figure 3-54, the work trip mode share in the Study Area is similar to that of the County as a whole, with a higher percentage of carpooling and less work from home but double the use of transit.
Figure 3-54. Mode Share Comparison
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey
Photo courtesy of Caltrans District 7
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-38 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.3 Active Transportation
3.5.3.1 Active Transportation Infrastructure
Active transportation infrastructure is lacking
throughout the Corridor, particularly throughout
much of the northern Corridor cities. Much of the
existing active transportation network suffers
from fragmentation and maintenance issues, with
few safe active transportation connections across
I-710 and LA River.31 Figure 3-55 shows the active
transportation deficiencies which include pedestrian
and bicycle crossing gaps along I-710 and the bicycle
lane network in the Study Area. A major north-south
protected multiuse path for bicycles and pedestrians
along the LA River provides continuous north-south
access for active transportation travelers. However,
there are many issues related to active transportation
infrastructure, such as a lack of sidewalks,
crosswalks, designated bicycle routes in much of
the Study Area, a lack of designated bicycle lanes at
many of I-710 and LA River east/west crossings, and
difficulty in crossing both the freeway and the river
due to the lack of bicycle lanes or missing/unpaved/
narrow sidewalks. As also shown in Figure 3-56,
many of I-710 and LA River east/west crossings do
not have designated bicycle lanes or other bicycle
facilities. Some crossings have missing, unpaved, or
narrow sidewalks, which creates gaps in the active
transportation network. In addition to high volumes
of private vehicles entering and exiting the freeway,
these gaps make crossing the freeway and river
safely difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians.
31 Bikeways Data from Southern California Association of Governments and LA County
Figure 3-55. I-710 Active Transportation Crossing Gaps
Source: SCAG, LA County Bikeways Data
Figure 3-56. Bicycle Lane Network
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-39 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.4 Arterial Roadway
3.5.4.1 Study Area Arterial Roadway Network
As shown in Figure 3-57, I-710 extends
19.2 miles in the Study Area. There are four
freeway interchanges with east/west freeways,
including I-5, I-105, SR 91, and I-405. No highoccupancy vehicle lanes nor truck lanes were constructed as part of I-710. In addition, many
key arterials are paralleling I-710.
Figure 3-58 also shows that I-710’s pavement
condition is considered “Good,” as are most
of the local streets in the Corridor. Generally,
the roadway conditions of the streets in the
southern portion of the Study Area are better
than those in the north.
Figure 3-57. Major Arterials Figure 3-58. Street Conditions
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-40 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.4.2 Study Area Bridges and Pavement
As indicated in Table 3-1 below, the LB-ELA Corridor Study Area features higher percentages of bridges in poor and fair condition than LA County as a whole. Several bridges along I-710 are in “Poor” condition, as the map in Figure 3-59 indicates.
Pavement condition is classified for local and arterial roads using four levels: “Poor,” “Fair,” and “Good.” As shown in Table 3-2 and Figures 3-59 and 3-60, no jurisdictions in the Study Area have their roads classified as “Poor”; however, more than half of the area is classified as “Fair.” Table 3-1. Bridge Condition Comparison
Table 3-2. Pavement Condition Comparison
The LB-ELA Corridor
Study Area features
higher percentages of
bridges in poor and fair
condition than LA County
as a whole.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-41 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
Figure 3-59. Bridge Condition Figure 3-60. Pavement Condition
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-42 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.4.3 Arterial Roadway Travel Characteristics
Figure 3-61, Figure 3-62, and Figure 3-63 illustrate the infrastructure characteristics for vehicles in the Study Area through congestion and travel speeds, specifically “Arterial Roadway Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay,” “Morning Arterial Roadway Speeds,” and “Evening Arterial Roadway Speeds.” The Study Area contains many arterials with high levels of delay and significant congestion. Routes with higher delay include Long Beach Boulevard, Atlantic Avenue, Cherry Avenue/Garfield Boulevard, Lakewood Boulevard, and several other east/west routes.
Vehicle speeds during the morning hours tend to remain greater than 18 miles per hour, and there seems to be greater morning congestion in the northbound direction. The arterials with the lowest speed during the morning hours include Long Beach Boulevard, Atlantic Avenue, westbound Whittier Boulevard, Slauson Avenue, Florence Avenue/Mills Avenue, Alameda Street northbound, and Manchester Avenue eastbound/Firestone Boulevard. Four additional corridors contain vehicle speeds less than 18 miles per hour in the evening peak hours compared to the morning peak hours. They include Whittier Boulevard eastbound, Slauson Avenue, Atlantic Avenue southbound, and Santa Fe Boulevard southbound.
The Study Area contains
many arterials with
high levels of delay and
significant congestion.
Routes with higher
delay include Long
Beach Boulevard,
Atlantic Avenue, Cherry
Avenue/Garfield
Boulevard, Lakewood
Boulevard, and several
other east/west routes.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-43 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
Figure 3-61. Arterial Roadway Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Source: Metro Arterial Performance Measurement (Measure Up) Figure 3-62. Morning Arterial Roadway Speeds Figure 3-63. Evening Arterial Roadway Speeds
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-44 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan “Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)” was chosen
to quantify and visualize the number of trips
taken on arterials roadways in the Study Area.
The VMT in the Study Area is about 12% of LA
County’s VMT. As shown in Figure 3-64, the
Study Area contains many arterials with high
levels of VMT and they generally match the
arterials with high daily vehicle hours of delay.
This is because more vehicles are filling up the
freeway space, creating congestion; that is, the
more miles people are driving their vehicles,
the more vehicles there are on the roadway at
any given time. The routes with higher VMTs
include Santa Fe Avenue, Cherry Avenue/Garfield
Boulevard, Lakewood Boulevard, Paramount
Boulevard, and several other east/west routes.
Figure 3-64. Study Area Arterial Roadway Daily Vehicle
Miles Traveled
Source: SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model
The VMT in the Study
Area is about 12% of LA
County’s VMT.
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-45 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.5 Freeway
3.5.5.1 Freeway Travel Characteristics
Figure 3-65 and Figure 3-66 shows that driving
on I-710 itself features speeds under 45 miles
per hour, with a substantial portion of the
Corridor under 35 miles per hour. The highest
speeds in the morning are in the mid-Corridor
area southbound between I-405 and I-105. In the
evening, the northbound has one segment with
higher speeds in the Commerce area, and the
southbound has one segment of higher speeds
from north of I-105 to SR 91.
Figure 3-65. I-710 Freeway Morning Speed Figure 3-66. I-710 Freeway Evening Speed Source: National Performance Management Research Data Set
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-46 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan “Daily Vehicle and Person Trips” was chosen to quantify and visualize the number of trips taken along I-710 in the Study Area. Figure 3-67 indicates that daily vehicle trips range from 144,000 trips per day south of I-405 to more than 300,000 between SR 91 and I-105. Daily person trips range from 224,000 south of I-405 to more than 500,000 between SR 91 and I-105.
The segment between SR 91 and I-105 has the highest number of vehicle and person trips. The southern segment contains the lowest number of vehicles and person trips. Figure 3-70 displays freeway pavement conditions in the study area.
Figure 3-67. Daily Vehicle and Person Trips on I-710
Source: Caltrans
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-47 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.5.2 Freeway Bottlenecks
Congestion and slow speeds cause bottlenecks
in the roadway system; bottlenecks are
locations that experience specific increases
in delay. As shown in Figure 3-68 and Figure
3-69 bottlenecks occur throughout the LB-ELA
Corridor along I-710. The worst northbound
bottlenecks occur at Willow Street, Long Beach
Boulevard, Imperial Highway, and Atlantic
Avenue. The worst southbound bottlenecks
occur at Florence Avenue and the vicinity where
I-405 meets I-710.
Figure 3-70 displays freeway pavement
conditions in the study area.
Figure 3-68. Northbound Bottlenecks Along I-710 Figure 3-69. Southbound Bottlenecks Along I-710 Source: Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS)
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-48 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.5.3 Freeway Pavement Conditions
Source: Caltrans High Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Figure 3-70. Freeway Pavement Conditions
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-49 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.6 Transit
3.5.6.1 Transit Infrastructure
In terms of infrastructure for transit, multiple transit services are in or touch the Study Area as shown in Figure 3-71. These transit services including LA Metro rail and bus, Metrolink, Long Beach Transit, Amtrak, Los Angeles Department of Transportation Dash, and local community bus circulators.
Figure 3-71. Transit Infrastructure
Source: LA Metro, Amtrak, Long Beach, and LADOT DASH Route Lines
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
3-50 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
3.5.6.2 Transit Usage
Currently, there are about 111,000 total Metro
bus and rail boardings and nearly 50,000 Long
Beach Transit boardings on a daily basis in
the Study Area (Figure 3-72 and Figure 3-73).
Metro rail boardings in the Study Area constitute
8.5% of all Metro Rail boardings. The highest
ridership stations are at transfer stations, and
many rail passengers board at the end of the A
Line in Long Beach. The pandemic that began in
2020 imposed a significant negative impact on
ridership, and ridership is still slowly recovering.
Source: 2019 LA Metro Ridership Data
Figure 3-72. Transit Rail Boarding Figure 3-73. Transit Bus Boarding
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
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
4-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision, Goals,
and Guiding Principles
The Long Beach-East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan) expresses and advances myriad investment priorities identified by the Corridor’s residents and stakeholders to support their Vision for the LB-ELA Corridor. The Vision is supported by seven Goals and two Guiding Principles, which are informed by Metro’s policy priorities while also responding to the many specific and interconnected challenges facing the LB-ELA Corridor today within the historical context of Interstate 710 (I-710) and its generational impacts on surrounding communities.
The Plan’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles further Metro’s Equity Platform, respond to the communities’ needs and priorities along and within the corridor. The Plan builds on California’s ambitious transportation decarbonization goal set by Executive Order N-79-20, and support the principles outlined in the State of California’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, the framework and goals in the California Transportation Plan 2050, the California State Transportation Agency’s Core Four Priorities, and California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. The Plan’s commitment to a zero-emission future for the LB-ELA Corridor also reflects the current national and state policies and guidance set forth by the National Zero-Emission Freight Corridor Strategy, designation of the National Highway Freight Network as the National Electric Vehicle Corridors, and the state’s SB671 Clean Freight Corridor Efficiency Assessment. This plan is a qualifying CMCP under CTC SCCP guidelines.
The Investment Plan’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles also closely align with the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the 2020 Metro Long Range Transportation Plan, Metro’s Vision 2028 Goals, and the Metro Board approved plans, policies, and initiatives providing the foundation for the evaluation framework to assess projects against multiple criteria. This chapter introduces the LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles and describes the process through which these statements were inspired, drafted, refined, and adopted.
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Vision
A concise statement that captures the collective aspirations, desires, and outcomes of the project Guiding Principles
Values that guide all processes and outcomes through a cohesive and intentional framework Goals
Desired outcomes for general areas of concern to support and realize the overall Vision An equitable, shared LB-ELA Corridor transportation system that provides safe, quality multimodal options for moving people and goods that will foster clean air (zero emissions), healthy and sustainable communities, and economic empowerment for all residents, communities, and users in the Corridor.
EQUITY
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.
AIR QUALITY
Foster local and
regional clean air
quality.
OPPORTUNITY
Increase community
access to quality jobs,
workforce development,
and economic
opportunities.
COMMUNITY
Support thriving communities
by enhancing the health and
quality of life of residents.
PROSPERITY
Strengthen LA County’s economic competitiveness and increase access to quality jobs, workforce development, and economic opportunities for all communities, with a focus on strengthening the LB-ELA Corridor communities, which have been and continue to be harmed by economic activity and development.
ENVIRONMENT
Enhance the natural and
built environment.
SAFETY
Make all modes
of travel safer.
MOBILITY
Improve the mobility
of people and goods.
SUSTAINABILITY
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.
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4.1 Identification of Issues
The issues Metro intended to address through the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force process and Investment Plan are wide-ranging, reflecting the geographic scale of and the depth of unmet investment need in the Corridor. These issues are compounded by the many challenges associated with serving the nation’s busiest seaport complex, a highly populated region, and the residual effects of the project history from which the renewed LB-ELA Corridor planning process emerged. In addition to the travel characteristics and infrastructure conditions typically assessed for transportation planning efforts, issues identified in this process encompass the last century of racial, economic, and environmental injustice that was reinforced by public policy and infrastructure decisions and continues to impact the Corridor’s communities today.
To identify the Corridor’s key issues and opportunity areas, the project team initially reviewed planning studies and community responses from the past two decades of planning and community advocacy around the LBELA Corridor to establish context and lessons learned for the new LB-ELA Corridor visioning process. This initial research was followed by community listening sessions, a vision and goals public survey, a public meeting, and a robust analysis of existing conditions, all of which were discussed across a series of meetings with Task Force and Community Leadership Committee (CLC) members. Applying a shared understanding of the Corridor’s issues, the Task Force, CLC, and Equity Working Group collaborated to envision a future that balances the diverse needs of the Corridor’s stakeholders. Over several months, as described below, these groups thoughtfully composed and refined the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles as a framework to guide and focus the Investment Plan’s development process and outcomes.
This effort aligns with Metro’s Multimodal Highway Investment Objectives policy, adopted in June 2022, which includes the following objective: “Recognizing LA County’s history of inequitable highway investment policies and construction, work with local communities to reduce disparities caused by the existing highway system and develop holistic, positive approaches to maintain and improve the integrity of and quality of life of those communities with minimal or no displacement during the implementation of highway projects.” SAFETY
Nearly 10% of all the year 2021 traffic deaths in the
U.S. occurred on California roadways. Fatalities for
Active Transportation users are also at a 16-year
high. By embedding the Safe System approach into
our investments, planning, design and innovation, we
will be able to achieve better outcomes on this urgent
responsibility.
EQUITY
Historically, transportation decisions prioritized movement of vehicles over the movement of people. We also built a transportation system that in some cases had detrimental impacts in underserved communities. We aim to create an equitable and accessible transportation network and to
provide equitable opportunities for all people.
CLIMATE ACTION
Nearly half of all climate-changing pollution in California comes from the transportation sector, and this demands
our action for a cleaner future for all Californians. We must continue making our carbon footprint smaller by investing in a more multimodal system, embracing smarter land use development and utilizing innovation around zero emission vehicles.
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
Transportation policy done right creates well-paying
jobs, provides affordable options, supports housing
opportunities and powers our economy. This must be our
focus as we strive for all people to be on equal footing, resulting in more thriving, robust communities.
The Investment Plan is consistent with
CALSTA’s (California State Transportation Agency) Core Four Priorities
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan December 2021: Listening Sessions
In December 2021, the project team held two LB-ELA Corridor Project Listening Sessions intended to engage members of the Corridor communities in developing a plan and investment strategy centered on local needs. The project team shared information regarding the process for creating a new plan for the Corridor and provided updates on the function and work of the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force. Community members expressed pride in the community outcry that resulted in the halting of the freeway widening project and shared a desire to move forward with a transparent process led by the community. Participants identified community priorities, including reduced traffic and emissions, improved public health and green space, expanded bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and no displacement of homes and businesses as proposed in the original I-710 South Corridor project (Alternative 5C).
March 2022: Vision and Goals Development Public Meeting The project team held a Vision and Goals Development public meeting (virtually) in March of 2022. It was attended by 83 participants, including 11 Task Force members or alternates and 50 members of the public. The meeting included an interactive discussion and poll, in which participants identified their priorities for potential improvements in the Corridor. The top priority areas included Air Quality (selected by 73% of participants as one of their top three areas of concern), Travel Options (50%), and Community Health (50%). Other areas of concern included Street Safety (43%), Environment (40%), Jobs and Economic Opportunity (13%), and Other (13%).
Participants shared specific recommendations for goals related to the various areas of concern in the interactive discussion. Air Quality recommendations included a requirement that projects meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Standards and that the Investment Plan support adding more trees and plants along the Corridor to promote clean air and reduce the heat island effect and air pollution. Mobility recommendations included establishing access to high-quality, multimodal mobility options and considering Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Safety recommendations included safer paths for pedestrians and bicyclists and the incorporation of guidelines prioritizing safety policies. Economy recommendations included the creation of good-paying jobs with local hiring as a priority and support for commercial land uses.
February – March 2022: Vision and Goals Survey
From February to March 2022, the project team administered a Vision and Goals survey, through which the public identified their priorities for potential improvements in the Corridor, selecting up to three of the following: Air Quality, Community Health, Environment, Street Safety for all Transportation Users, Travel Options, Jobs and Economic Opportunities, and Housing. More than 3,000 stakeholders received the survey, and the 451 responses comprised 427 members of the public and 24 Task Force members. 53% of respondents selected air quality as one of their top three priorities for improvements in the Corridor, 51% selected travel options, and 50% selected street safety for all transportation users.
4.1.1 Winter 2021 – Spring 2022: Existing Conditions Analysis As detailed in Chapter 3, the LB-ELA Corridor planning process was informed by extensive qualitative and quantitative data analysis to identify existing conditions, needs, and disparities among various communities within the Corridor and compare them with LA County. Based on the issues and opportunity areas identified through public input and prior studies, data were primarily analyzed for socioeconomic conditions, environmental conditions, community health, and travel patterns related to mode share, emissions, throughput, and safety. Community survey data and anecdotal insights from CLC and Task Force members were used to supplement and ground-truth quantitative data to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the LB-ELA Corridor communities.
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan A subsequent existing conditions analysis produced for discussion with the Equity Working Group incorporated new metrics based on community and Task Force input and applied Metro’s Equity Focus Communities (EFCs) as an overlay to identify patterns and disparities in conditions for EFC and non-EFC areas within the Corridor. This project planning analysis further helped identify that people along the LB-ELA Corridor are overburdened in many ways compared with other parts of the region. Given the high percentage of BIPOC populations in the Corridor, these issues were identified as reinforcing racial inequities and demonstrating how structural racism persists in urban communities.
4.1.2 Summary of Key Issues
Key issues highlighted by initial research and engagement, which informed the development of the LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, are summarized below:32
• high freeway emissions and poor air quality;
• cumulative community health burdens;
• unsafe and hostile streets for pedestrians and bicyclists; • poor transit service reliability;
• slow travel times;
• lack of green space and shade;
• goods movement capacity and impacts;
• disconnected communities;
• historic disinvestment and disenfranchisement;
• lack of trust from the previous I-710 project and process; and • disparities in municipal capacity and resources within the LB-ELA Corridor.
32 For additional equitable project planning discussion of LB-ELA Corridor issues, see Appendix 2-E Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool Documentation Photo courtesy of Caltrans District 7
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4.2 Task Force, CLC, and Working Group Input and Approval 33 For additional equitable project planning discussion of LB-ELA Corridor issues, see Appendix 2-E Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool Documentation Between April and September 2022, the Task Force, CLC, and Equity Working Group each spent several meetings crafting the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles to balance the various stakeholder priorities represented carefully and to develop language that provides accurate and actionable statements of the Task Force and CLC’s shared values. The Task Force served as the formal voting body to approve the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, with the CLC and Equity Working Group providing multiple rounds of input and voting on recommendations for the Task Force. The following timeline summarizes key points of Task Force33, CLC, and Equity Working Group Input and Approval:
• April 2022: Preliminary Vision and Goals statements were presented to CLC, Task Force, and Equity Working Group for review and discussion. The Equity Working Group made a recommendation to consider elevating Equity as a Guiding Principle.
• May 2022: The CLC discussed and provided input on the language of the Vision and Goals. The Task Force voted to approve the proposed Equity Guiding Principle and continued discussing the Vision and Goals. The project team proposed elevating Sustainability as the second Guiding Principle.
• June 2022: The CLC and Task Force continued to discuss refinements to the Vision and Goals. The CLC voted to recommend a version of the Vision statement to the Task Force. The Task Force voted to approve the proposed Sustainability Guiding Principle. • July 2022: The Vision statement was formally approved at the July 2022 Task Force meeting, along with the Goals of Air Quality, Mobility, Community, and Environment.
• August 2022: The Safety goal and the Opportunity Goal were formally approved at the August 2022 Task Force meeting, with the contingency with that a new Prosperity goal with a regional focus would be developed with input from the CLC. The CLC discussed the proposed Prosperity goal.
• September 2022: The Prosperity goal was refined and formally approved at the September 2022 Task Force Meeting. The Metro Board adopted the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles at its September 2022 meeting as official policy.
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4.3 Overview of Adopted Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles 34 The Vision Statement was adopted with reference to the “An equitable, shared I-710 South Corridor transportation system…”. However, since then, the project name has been formally changed to the “Long Beach-East LA Corridor,” which is reflected in this document.
4.3.1 Vision
4.3.1.1 Vision Statement
An equitable, shared LB-ELA Corridor transportation system that provides safe, quality multimodal options for moving people and goods that will foster clean air (zero emission), healthy and sustainable communities, and economic empowerment for all residents, communities, and users in the corridor.34
The Vision statement reflects the collective input of the public between December 2021 and March 2022, and four months of thoughtful deliberation and refinement in the Task Force, CLC, and Equity Working Group meetings between April and July 2022. The central themes of the Vision statement were consistent throughout these discussions, with consensus that the Vision should expand beyond the operation of the freeway and support a multimodal transportation system that improves the quality of life for people living and working in communities throughout the LB-ELA Corridor. The approved Vision Statement reflects the CLC’s desire to include several key terms and concepts in the statement:
• including mention of both the “community” and “residents” in the statement;
• using the term “fosters” versus the previously used “support,” to make the Vision Statement more action-oriented;
• including the phrase “economic empowerment” versus “economic resilience” to lift up Corridor community members; and
• including direct reference to zero emission to set the goal for how to achieve “clean air.”
Members of the Task Force and CLC did not always agree on the use of specific words in the Vision statement, demonstrating the importance of the language used to express the Task Force’s values and aspirations for the Corridor. Debate within these meetings primarily focused on whether to incorporate a direct reference to goods movement in the Vision statement.
Members in favor highlighted that goods movement is a significant function of the Corridor, contributing to the regional economy and the needs of community residents and small businesses. Additionally, the project team reminded the Task Force and CLC that goods movement is included in the mission statement of Metro’s enabling legislation. However, many CLC and Task Force members expressed concern over the explicit inclusion of “goods” and “users” in the Vision statement, emphasizing that planning efforts in the Corridor have historically prioritized goods movement at the expense of Corridor residents and that this focus contributed to the ongoing environmental and health burdens impacting these communities.
These members argued that reference to a “multimodal” transportation system sufficiently captured goods movement among other modes of transportation and that omission of language specific to goods movement would reflect a commitment to prioritizing Corridor residents. In an unsuccessful motion to remove the language “goods” and “users,” the following alternative Vision statement was raised to a vote:
“An equitable, shared I‐710 South Corridor transportation system that provides safe, quality multimodal options that will foster clean air (zero emissions), healthy and sustainable communities, and economic empowerment for all residents, communities in the Corridor.”
Ultimately, the Task Force voted to adopt the Vision statement that contained direct references to goods movement and all users of the Corridor.
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4.3.2 Goals
Air Quality: Foster local and regional clean air quality Air quality was the number one area of concern for respondents to the Vision and Goals survey, and air quality issues in the Corridor were documented extensively in prior research and existing conditions analysis for the project. The LB-ELA Corridor accounts for 20% of all particulate emissions in Southern California.35 The high levels of diesel pollutants affecting communities within a quarter mile of the freeway have earned the Corridor the name “diesel death zone,” referring to the linkage between diesel pollution and respiratory and cardiovascular health conditions.36 Task Force discussion around the Air Quality goal highlighted that the Investment Plan has an opportunity to impact air quality at both local and regional scales, which is reflected in the adopted Goal statement.
Community: Support thriving communities by enhancing the health and quality of life of residents.
The Task Force, CLC, and members of the public have consistently advocated for prioritizing public health issues throughout the planning process.
The health and quality of life of LB-ELA Corridor communities is deeply connected to the transportation system, land uses, and quality of other public facilities and infrastructure in the Corridor. The Corridor communities’ respiratory and cardiovascular health burdens from freeway emissions and other polluting land uses are compounded by long-standing health disparities and healthcare access.37 Limited access to safe and comfortable active transportation and outdoor recreational infrastructure,38 and exposure 35 South Coast Air Quality Management District, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/JETSI-aug31-2021.pdf 36 Nelson, Laura J. “710 Freeway is a ‘diesel death zone’ to neighbors,” Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2018. 37 OEHHA CalEnviroScreen 4.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 38 SCAG Regional Bikeways Data, https://gisdata-scag.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/e4734b0af74b4405b0c9772d6f1f2c06_0/explore?location=33.852814%2C-118.181178%2C12.26 39 Tree People, LA County Tree Canopy Map, https://www.treepeople.org/los-angeles-county-tree-canopy-map-viewer/ 40 Tree People, LA County Tree Canopy Map, https://www.treepeople.org/los-angeles-county-tree-canopy-map-viewer/, Los Angeles County Park Needs Assessment, https://lacountyparkneeds. org/pnaplus-home/
41 LA Metro NextGen Bus Plan, https://www.metro.net/about/plans/nextgen-bus-plan/, Southeast LA (SELA) Transportation Study (Giuliano et al., 2018), https://calstatela.patbrowninstitute. org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Giuliano_ForWeb.pdf
to heat through a lack of shade and greening39 also contribute to health burdens in the Corridor.
Environment: Enhance the natural and built environment.
The Environment Goal as an area of concern captures a range of issues related to the natural and built environment, from biodiversity, water quality, and extreme heat to noise pollution and the visual quality of infrastructure and development. The presence or lack of tree canopy and green space is a major equity issue aligned with patterns of racial and economic segregation in the Corridor, with wide-ranging impacts on the urban heat island effect, air quality, stormwater runoff, pedestrian sun exposure, and overall streetscape quality. The lack of publicly accessible green space also limits access to opportunities for outdoor recreation, which impacts community health and quality of life.40 Initially considered as a combined Goal of “Sustainability and Environment,” the adopted Goal title was simplified to “Environment,” and Sustainability was elevated to a Guiding Principle applying broadly across all Goals.
Mobility: Improve the mobility of people and goods.
A reliable and efficient system of multimodal travel options for people and goods is a top priority for Corridor stakeholders. For individuals traveling throughout the Corridor, the quality of a multimodal transportation system contributes both to the user experience and to the systemwide mode share, with individuals’ decisions to use transit or active transportation over a personal vehicle having broader impacts on air quality, congestion, and street safety.41 Vehicle congestion results in impacts to travel times for drivers, bus riders, and goods movement vehicles, who all rely on major freeway and arterial routes. Travel times are also an issue for pedestrians
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan and active transportation users in the Corridor, who are often forced onto indirect routes given a lack of safe and connected infrastructure. Reliable transit service directly impacts access to resources and opportunities, particularly for the Corridor’s transit-dependent residents and workers.
Opportunity: Increase community access to quality jobs, workforce development, and economic opportunities.
Expanding access to economic opportunities is another top priority for the LB-ELA Corridor, both in terms of the quantity and quality of jobs, workforce development opportunities, and other quality-of-life needs and amenities, and the accessibility and reliability of transportation options to get to those jobs, opportunities, and amenities. High congestion levels on the freeway and significant arterials, combined with the lack of safe, accessible, timely, and reliable active transportation and transit options, all impact community members’ ability to reach these destinations. The I-710 as a facility reinforces and expands the division between communities on either side of the LA River, and other freeways and rail infrastructure in the Corridor also impede connections between neighboring communities and opportunities, creating a major need to “reconnect communities” divided by this infrastructure. In response to CLC and Task Force input, an initially considered “Economy” Goal was separated into two Goals – “Opportunity” and “Prosperity” – to account for the distinction between and the need for both access to economic opportunities for Corridor residents, and regional economic growth and competitiveness. The CLC felt strongly that this goal must ensure that project outcomes first and foremost benefit the communities in the Corridor rather than focusing on the larger “region.” Prosperity: Strengthen LA County’s economic competitiveness and increase access to quality jobs, workforce development, and economic opportunities for all communities, with a focus on strengthening the LB-ELA Corridor communities, which have been and continue to be harmed by economic activity and development.
42 LA Metro, LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan, 2021, http://media.metro.net/2021/Goods-Movement-Strategic-Plan-Spreads.pdf The LB-ELA Corridor plays a nationally significant role in transporting goods to and from the nation’s busiest seaport complex comprising the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, contributing to LA County’s global stature, economic strength, and workforce opportunities. However, tens of thousands of daily truck trips along I-710 contribute to air quality, noise, congestion, and other environmental impacts on the surrounding communities.42 Additionally, the past century of planning and policy decisions in the Corridor, including the development and construction of I-710 in the 1960s, have created and reinforced patterns of segregation and disinvestment, leaving many communities vulnerable to adverse impacts of regional and national commerce without the resources and opportunities to participate fully in economic development. A subset of CLC and Task Force members felt that a Goal relating to regional prosperity may reinforce an extractive condition under which LB-ELA Corridor communities have historically been exploited and subjected to environmental harm for the region’s benefit. Responding to these concerns, the adopted language of the Prosperity Goal indicates that the Investment Plan has an opportunity to strengthen the LB-ELA Corridor’s role in regional prosperity while recognizing past harms and intentionally prioritizing LB-ELA Corridor communities as the beneficiaries of future economic growth.
Safety: Make all modes of travel safer.
Safety for all modes of travel is a primary area of concern in the Corridor.
Streets within the Corridor are generally designed for high volumes of vehicular traffic with limited or poorly maintained active transportation and pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally, the heavy presence of trucks in the Corridor contributes to a higher-than-usual prevalence of conflict points between trucks and cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Due to the increased severity of truck-involved collisions, safety improvements to the I-710 and surrounding roadways are critical to reducing traffic injuries and fatalities for all users. Although some jurisdictions have introduced dedicated infrastructure and safer street design in recent years, a cohesive network of safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is lacking throughout the Corridor. The I-710 freeway has also yet to be modernized since it was constructed 60 years ago, and
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-10 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan existing conditions have led to safety issues that spill over into neighboring communities. Given high volumes of vehicles entering and exiting the freeway, bicycle and pedestrian safety is of particular concern surrounding freeway on/ off-ramps and overcrossings.43 Improvements to the on and off ramps serving the freeway have the potential to significantly improve safety for all users of the roadway especially bicyclists and pedestrians.
4.3.3 Guiding Principles
During the discussion and refinement of the preliminary Goal statements, the Equity Working Group recommended elevating the concern areas of Equity and Sustainability to serve as overarching Guiding Principles rather than individual Goals, given their broader applicability to each of the other Goal areas and the overall Task Force process. This approach provides a clear commitment by the Investment Plan to speak to these vital issues, unlike the prior I-710 South Corridor project and process.
Guiding Principle: Equity
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 is at the core of the LB-ELA Corridor’s renewed Vision and planning process. The Guiding Principle of Equity reflects Metro’s expanding agency-wide commitment to equity, as demonstrated by the establishment 43 SCAG Regional Bikeways Data, LA County Bikeways Open Data, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2017-2019, https://tims.berkeley.edu/ 44 East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, I-710 Corridor, https://eycej.org/index.php/campaigns/i-710/ 45 Metro defines equity as “both an outcome and a process to address racial, socioeconomic, and gender disparities, to ensure fair and just access with respect to where you begin and your capacity to improve from that starting point 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, programs, and policies that reduce and ultimately prevent disparities. Equity means that Metro’s service delivery, project delivery, policymaking, and distribution of resources account for the different histories, challenges, and needs of communities across Los Angeles County; it is what we are striving toward.” of Metro’s Office of Equity and Race, the adoption of the Metro Equity Platform, and the piloting of the Equity Planning and Evaluation Tool (EPET) to guide the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force process. In discussions of equity— initially considered as a Goal—the Equity Working Group determined that a standalone goal of Equity would not capture its broader application to each Goal area and the planning process.
Beyond addressing inequities in the distribution of benefits and impacts of public infrastructure and services, the LB-ELA Corridor planning process was grounded in repairing broken trust and building new trust between Metro and the communities it serves within the LB-ELA Corridor. The previous I-710 South Freeway project featured the expansion of the freeway right-of-way into adjacent communities to accommodate new generalpurpose travel lanes to create greater capacity for growing traffic and population. This project’s scope was widely perceived as a continuation of harmful 20th-century transportation planning practices, prioritizing industry over the health and livelihoods of Corridor residents. Despite emerging from an extensive public engagement and environmental review process, the board-approved Alternative 5C failed to address the needs and concerns of communities that would bear the project’s adverse impacts, thus eroding trust in Metro and Caltrans among many Corridor residents and environmental stakeholders.44
The definitions of Procedural, Distributive, Restorative, and Structural equity were introduced in the Equity Working Group to support focused discussions of equity throughout this planning process. Note that these detailed definitions are not part of Metro’s official definition of Equity.45
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-11 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Procedural
Equity
• Proactive and accessible community engagement bridges linguistic, technology, and ability gaps to meet communities where they are and enable participatory and representative decision-making processes. • Ongoing systems of accountability and communication to build and maintain trust.
Distributive
Equity
• 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.
• Policies and resource management to ensure benefits reach intended recipients.
Restorative
Equity
• Acknowledgement of, and atonement for historic and ongoing systemic harms resulting from planning practice and policy. • Commensurate actions, resources, and investments dedicated to remediation and prevention of further systemic harms.
Structural
Equity
• Evolution of decision-making bodies to reflect the communities they serve. • Restructuring of organizational systems and hierarchies to empower historically marginalized groups.
Guiding Principle: Sustainability
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 is at the core of the renewed vision and planning process for the LB-ELA Corridor. The Guiding Principle of Sustainability reflects Metro’s expanding agency-wide commitment to sustainability, as demonstrated by the establishment of Metro’s Sustainability Council, adoption of numerous sustainability plans and policies, and development of sustainability toolkits and regional collaboration efforts. Sustainability was initially considered as part of a combined “Sustainability and Environment” Goal, however, further discussions of Sustainability in the Task Force touched upon the overlap between Sustainability and each of the other Goals. Sustainability addresses the potential of projects to integrate benefits across goal areas to advance positive systems change and innovate to protect and enhance community and environmental well-being. Following the precedent set by the Equity Guiding Principle, the project team proposed elevating Sustainability to serve as a second Guiding Principle and introduced the proposed language to the Task Force for discussion and refinement.
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-12 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4.4 Board Adoption
46 Metro Board Motion / Motion Response, https://metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5844793&GUID=BEDCE3EF-A791-4ACD-AA1D-DB2C13CD61BB The Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles were recommended to the Metro Board of Directors at the regular Board Meeting on September 22, 2022, along with the Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity and the Project Name change from the I-710 South Corridor Mobility Investment Plan to the Long Beach-East LA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan.46 The Metro Board formally adopted the recommended Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, the PreInvestment Plan Opportunity, and the new Project Name as policy.
The Board’s adoption of the LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles was a significant milestone in the development of the Investment Plan, representing the first formal success of the Task Force, CLC, and Working Groups’ collaborative decision-making process. The six-month decision-making process was an immense and challenging effort, informed by previous planning efforts and decades of lived experience in the Corridor, which required participants to confront differing perspectives and work through tension to reach consensus on shared aspirations for the Corridor.
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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
4-13 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
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
From the start of the Long Beach-East LA (LB-ELA) Corridor Mobility Investment Plan development, Metro consistently heard from community stakeholders that air quality impacts on public health were a top concern for remediation. During the development of the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, community members made clear their desire for zero-emission (ZE) technology to be the goal for local, state, and federal investment in the Corridor.
Metro shares the vision of transforming the LB-ELA corridor into a ZE corridor with the communities adjacent to I-710. This goal was articulated in the Vision Statement approved by the CLC and Task Force and speaks to the community’s desire to invest strategically in the LB-ELA Corridor to promote ZE technology across all modes of transportation – from the freight sector to public transit.
This vision is supported by the federal and state governments, which have sent strong policy signals toward transportation decarbonization and the transition to ZE technology as a vehicle to achieve this goal. At the federal level, the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation was formed through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, with a series of funding programs made available through the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. At the state level, the California Air Resources Board has adopted the Advanced Clean Truck (ACT) Rule, which requires manufacturers to sell ZE trucks, and the Advanced Clean Fleet (ACF) Rule, which requires a phased-in use of ZE vehicles for targeted fleets and that manufacturers only manufacture ZE trucks starting in the 2036 model year. The ACT Rule has been adopted by 11 other states across the country. In December 2023, the California Transportation Commission approved the SB671 Clean Freight Corridor Efficiency Assessment, identifying priority freight corridors across the state to accelerate the transition to ZE goods movement. The Assessment includes the LB-ELA Corridor as part of its Priority Clean Freight Corridors.
The Investment Plan supports this ZE vision through several significant investments, as follows:
• Heavy-duty freight trucks: $50 million in seed funding will support the delivery of $200 million in ZE infrastructure designed to support the accelerated deployment of ZE heavy-duty freight trucks in the LB-ELA Corridor. (LB-ELA_0004 / LB-ELA_0023)
• Freight locomotives: $10 million to support a multi-partner effort to advance the development and use of ZE locomotives in the Corridor with the goal of converting the Alameda Corridor into a ZE-only locomotive facility.
• Community Program – Zero-Emission Infrastructure for Automobiles:
Catalyzed with $40 million for Community Programs Catalyst Fund, this program would work with local jurisdictions, public agencies, and privatepublic partners to develop and site additional charging stations for ZE vehicles in the LB-ELA Corridor.
• Community Program – Bus electrification projects: Catalyzed with $40 million for Community Programs Catalyst Fund, this program would 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) and ZE charging infrastructure.
These investments complement existing policies and programs adopted by Metro intended to support decarbonizing transportation and sustainability throughout the region, including Metro’s Climate Action Plan, Zero-Emission Electric Bus and Infrastructure Program, and the Electric Vehicle Parking Strategic Plan. The Investment Plan takes the ZE and sustainability approach and includes a zeroemission freight rail pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and potential of transitioning freight rail locomotives to ZE.
Transforming the LB-ELA Corridor into a ZE corridor will require unprecedented coordination with many stakeholders in many policy areas to deliver a comprehensive approach to eliminating tailpipe emissions, improving public health, and providing community benefits in the Corridor. The Investment Plan will serve as the foundation to realize the LB-ELA Corridor’s vision to be transformed into a ZE Corridor in a way that reflects and advances the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles set forth by the Corridor’s residents and stakeholders.
A Vision for a Zero-Emission Corridor
5-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5. Development of
Multimodal Strategies,
Projects, and Programs
This chapter describes the technical, Task Force, Community Leadership Committee (CLC), and public engagement efforts that led to the development of the initial list of Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs (MSPPs) to be evaluated for inclusion in the projects recommended for implementation in the Investment Plan. This list is based directly on input from community members, Corridor jurisdictions, partner agencies, and planning work previously conducted in the Corridor. The input of local and regional partners and jurisdictions in compiling these MSPPs has helped align the Investment Plan with local land use planning frameworks.
Ultimately, a meticulous evaluation and prioritization process was conducted that was integral in identifying which Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs (MSPPs) would be included in the Investment Plan, considering the alignment with the Corridor’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles that the Task Force and subsequently, the Metro Board, adopted. (see Chapter 6 – Evaluation and Prioritization).
This chapter presents a summary of the MSPPs by mode, project type, and subtype as adopted by the Task Force and its committees. It includes a discussion of how the list was developed based on relevant input from community involvement efforts, including community-based organizations (CBOs) and public meetings. This chapter also includes a discussion of the projects and programs included from other planning efforts that have been conducted in the Corridor and address the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. The initial list of MSPPs is included in Appendix 5-A, organized by mode, project type, and subtype for each project and 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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Figure 5-1. Phase 3 Overview of the LB-ELA Investment Plan In addition to receiving input from the community and public, the project team also reviewed a wide range of current and prior programs and initiatives from local, subregional, and regional agencies related to the Long Beach–East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor. The project team included select elements of the original Interstate 710 (I-710) South Corridor project, including envisioned “I-710 early action projects,” defined by the Metro Board in Motions 5.1 and 5.2. The project team screened these candidate early action projects to exclude project concepts that would intrinsically result in displacements of residences or businesses in local communities or could not be feasibly redesigned to avoid significant displacement. A set of recommendations created by the Gateway Cities Council of Governments’ (GCCOG’s) I-710 Ad Hoc Committee and the “Community Alternative 7” proposed by community activists in 2014 before the I-710 South Corridor Project were also included45. The project team also included planned projects from Corridor cities and LA County, the Ports, Caltrans, Metro’s Measure R/M expenditure plans, the Metro Long-Range Transportation Plan, the Metro 2028 Mobility Concept Plan, the Metro Active 45 Community Alternative 7 https://eycej.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CEHAJs-DEIR-comments-regarding-the-CA7-1.pdf
5.1 Development Process of Initial
List of Multimodal Strategies,
Projects, and Programs
Following the Board’s adoption of the Task Force’s
recommended Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles,
the project team initiated the next phase of the
work plan: Developing Multimodal Strategies and
Identifying Projects and Programs (Figure 5-1). The
Task Force sought as inclusive a set of MSPPs as
possible, using a broad outreach and engagement
approach to receive input from Corridor residents,
community groups, interested stakeholders, partner
agencies, and other parties. An extensive public
engagement effort was conducted to contribute
to the list of candidate MSPPs, with a particular
focus on engagement with impacted communities
supplemented by partnerships with CBOs. Involving
more than seven months of public engagement,
this effort included an online survey and interactive
map that provided an opportunity for residents,
community leaders, and other stakeholders to
give direct input into the process. Metro’s outreach
campaign engaged approximately 5,400 community
members and stakeholders through 46 events hosted
by 18 CBOs and 18 pop-up events. Additionally, the
project team hosted four workshops in Spanish (with
English translation) and two workshops in English
(with Spanish translation). As a result, almost 3,000
responses to the survey and interactive mapping
tool were submitted, generating new approaches to
making improvements within the Corridor by those
residents most impacted within the Corridor.
Initial List of Projects & 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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Transportation Strategic Plan, and the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Projects and programs from these sources that met the Task Force Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles and other Metro policies, such as the Metro Multimodal Highway Investment Objectives46 were included in developing the initial MSPP list. In addition, projects and programs from partner agencies such as the San Pedro Bay Ports, Long Beach Transit (LBT), California Air Resources Board (CARB), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and California Transportation Committee (CTC), to name a few, were also considered in developing the MSPP list.
Overall, the MSPP was informed by:
• previous studies and initiatives;
• social pinpoint interactive map and public surveys;
• public workshop meetings/CBO engagement; and
• working group, CLC, and LB-ELA Corridor Task Force meetings.
At first, more than three hundred strategies, projects, and programs were identified through all these various efforts; however, over the 18 months it has taken to develop the Investment Plan, this list has evolved due to changes in project development status or scope and advancements in project implementation, including the fact that some projects have been funded for implementation or have initiated construction during that timeframe.
Similar MSPPs are grouped into modal categories for two purposes in the Investment Plan: general organization and supporting their readiness for the evaluation phase. However, the project team recognized that most projects or programs will advance multiple goals and that the full set of MSPPs work together from a multimodal transportation system perspective.
46 Metro Objectives for Multimodal Highway Investment approved by the Metro Board on 6/23/22 47 All Community Programs are all in the “Initial Investment” category as described in chapter 8 Recommendations.
The MSPPs were sorted into the following six categories, listed in alphabetical order:
• Active Transportation/Traffic Demand Management
• Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets
• Community Programs47
• Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements
• Goods Movement
• Transit
Figure 5-2 displays an example of how an initial list of the MSPPs aligned with modal categories and the Goals and Guiding Principles of the Investment Plan.
The Multimodal Groupings of Strategies, Projects, and Programs represent the transportation modes and community programs and align well with the Task Force’s adopted Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles. Each category comprises four sub-categories that help classify and group the broad range of projects and programs that compose the Initial List of MSPPs into similar projects that can be evaluated in the next phase of the plan’s development. The project team also presented information on the Initial List of MSPPs to the CLC at seven meetings and the Equity Working Group at five meetings between August 2022 and February 2023. Input received from these groups was used to refine the Initial List and provide feedback to the Task Force for consideration at its meetings reviewing the MSPPs.
Some key questions and concerns centered on ensuring impacts on local communities, particularly safety and air quality, were drawn from the assessment process.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.1 Pre-Investment Plan Opportunity (PIPO)
Recognizing the unprecedented amount of discretionary grant funding made available at the State (through programs administered by California’s Transportation Commission and State Transportation Agency) and Federal levels (through existing, augmented, and new programs funded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act/Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) in 2022, the 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, Task Force membership, the CLC, cities, local agencies, and organizations to provided nominations for projects it had or could submit for State or Federal grant funding in 2022 - with the understanding that these projects must be located within the LB-ELA study area and would not draw down on the remaining Measures R and M funding for the I-710 South Corridor Project to be leveraged by the Task Force’s Investment Plan.48 This outreach generated 22 project nominations and Metro identified an additional 13 projects. 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, Metro identified a full PIPO for Board review and a set of early initiative projects (Table 5-1) for Board consideration.
48 The latter criterion assuaged concerns raised by Task Force members that the local funding available as the foundation for the Investment Plan (approximately $743 million) could be siphoned away in support of projects not yet fully vetted nor recommended by the Task Force. 49 ATP = Active Transportation Program
LPP-C = Local Partnership Program - Competitive TCEP = Trade Corridor Enhancement Program Other Federal = USDOT’s Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity, and Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program.
This table displays the project information as it was approved in the PIPO stage. Project information has been updated through the Investment Plan process and may differ elsewhere.
These projects comprise pedestrian and bicycle safety, active transportation, transit enhancement, goods movement, corridor mobility, intelligent transportation system, and Zero-Emission technology project components. Collectively these projects represent an approach to investment in the LB-ELA Corridor that advances Metro’s Multimodal Highway Investment Objectives policy and aligns with the Goals recommended by the Task Force. All four PIPO projects were awarded grants from state and federal programs prior to the adoption of the Investment Plan, signaling the strength of these projects, which represent various modes of transportation, in leveraging significant funding as envisioned by the Investment Plan.
Table 5-1. PIPO Early Initiative Candidate Projects49
Project
Funding
Program(s)
Project Cost
(est.)
Local
Match
Awarded
Amount
Humphreys Avenue Bike/
Pedestrian Crossing over
I- 710 in East LA
LPP-C Other
Federal
$12.0 M $6.0 M $8.9 M
Huntington Park Safe
Routes for Students and
Seniors
State ATP $4.8 M N/A $4.26M
I-710 Integrated Corridor
Management Project
State TCEP $30.2 M $7.2 M $27.84
Southeast LA Transit
Improvement Program
State LPP-C $29.5 M $15.0 M $14.5 M
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan The Task Force concluded the Developing Multimodal Strategies and Identifying Projects and Programs phase of the work plan at its February 2023 meeting and supported moving the Initial List of MSPPs into the Evaluating and Refining Projects and Programs Phase (Figure 5-2 provides an example).
Figure 5-2. Example Formation of Multimodal Groupings of Strategies, Projects, and Programs Vision Statement & Guiding Principles (Equity, Sustainability) Air Quality Mobility Community Safety Opportunity Prosperity Environment Multi modal, Packaging
Framework
Acti ve Transportati on
(Bicycle/Pedestrian)
Arterial Roadway
Community Programs
& Policies
Goods Movement
Transit (Bus & Rail)
Freeway
Zero Emissions
Infrastructure
Zero Emissions
Truck Program
Vegeta� on
Barriers to Reduce
Par� culate Ma� er
Landscaped
Medians
Community
Health & Benefi t
Program
Improved
Transit Stops
ADA
Improvements
Targeted Hire
Transit Fare
Assistance
New Bike Routes
Signal
Coordina� on on
Major Arterials
Bus Priority Lanes
New Bikes/Peds
Overcrossings
Traffi c Calming
Grade
Separa� on
Projects
Traffi c Controls
at Freeway
Ramps
Housing
Stabiliza� on
Policies
Connec� ons to
LA River
Energy
Effi ciency
Programs
New Higher
Sound Walls
on I-710
Goals:Mul� modal Strategies, Projects & 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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.2 Previous Studies and Initiatives
Previous studies and initiatives relevant to the scope of Investment Plan that were referenced include the Metro Long Range Transportation Plan, SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the Metro 2028 Mobility Concept Plan, Metro’s Active Transportation Strategic Plan, City Bicycle Master Plan(s), GCCOG I-710 Ad Hoc Committee recommendations, CEHAJ proposed Community Alternative 7, Caltrans State Highway Operations and Protection Program, and Metro Board Motions 5.1/5.2 I-710 Early Action Concepts. Collaborative efforts across municipalities and jurisdictions are essential to addressing challenges such as traffic congestion, environmental sustainability, and equitable transportation access, and developing effective and sustainable solutions that meet the diverse needs of the entire region. The wealth of insights, data, and lessons learned from these past efforts can be leveraged to improve the future development of the LB-ELA Corridor.
5.1.3 Public and Community Input to the MSPP
As briefly described above, Metro’s LB-ELA Corridor Mapping Tool and Survey served as another channel for collecting input on potential MSPPs.
This interactive mapping tool allowed respondents to express concerns and provide Metro staff and the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force with geographicspecific recommendations regarding the mobility requirements of communities along the Corridor.
• Metro understands that many needs for Equity-Focus Communities may not have been captured adequately due to their historical lack of technical assistance, resources, and outreach that could have prepared projects for development and readiness as near-term investments. Consequently, Metro has identified equity planning gaps to overcome and to ensure the needs of all communities are fully understood and addressed throughout the life of the Investment Plan through Modal Programs (See Chapter 8 Recommendations).
Metro undertook an extensive community outreach and consultation effort to “ground truth” the proposed strategies, projects, and programs included in the MSPP.
Responses from stakeholders to surveys, that were in digital and paper formats, were another layer of input leveraged to select the MSPPs that enhance future mobility for individuals and the efficient movement of goods by identifying mobility improvements. The survey sought input from respondents regarding their experiences and their community’s needs. Specifically, it inquired about the projects, programs, and strategies respondents would most like to see implemented in their local community and the Corridor.
5.1.4 Initial and Revised Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs Lists
The Initial MSPP List includes more than 200 projects and programs organized into six “Improvement Categories.” Outreach yielded the full MSPP list. Each MSPP aligns with multiple elements of the Investment Plan’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles that aim to create an equitable and sustainable future for the Corridor. The improvement categories have been thoughtfully crafted to encompass a wide range of transportation modes, exemplifying Metro’s dedication to offering diverse and inclusive transportation choices that align with each of the seven overarching Goals.
These subcategories are described in greater detail later in the following sections. The improvement categories (in alphabetical order) are as follows:
• Active Transportation
• Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets
• Community Programs
• Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements
• Goods Movement
• Transit (Bus or Rail)
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.5 Active Transportation
Active Transportation improvements include infrastructure enhancements that promote a variety of walking and cycling needs. These improvements aim to foster safer, more accessible, and more appealing environments for pedestrians and cyclists, ultimately inducing a larger number of individuals to opt for active transportation options instead of relying on motorized ones. The sub-categories for active transportation improvements are:
• pedestrian and first/last-mile improvements;
• bicycle routes and facilities;
• safety and amenities; and
• travel demand management
Table 5-2 showcases specific project types by sub-category for active transportation improvements.
Table 5-2. Active Transportation Project Types by Sub-Category Sub-Category Project Types
Pedestrian
and first/lastmile
improvements
New pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings
New pedestrian/bicycle pathways
New pedestrian/bicycle connections to rail, transit, LA River New crosswalks, sidewalks
Bicycle routes
and facilities
New bicycle paths/trails
New buffer/barrier-protected bicycle routes
New bicycle lanes
New, signed bicycle routes
Safety and
amenities
High-visibility crosswalks
Wider sidewalks
Pedestrian/bicycle crossing enhancements
Bicycle parking, lighting, repair stations
Bicycle share programs
Traffic controls for pedestrians/bicycles
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements
Shade structures, trees, landscaping
Security and lighting
Travel demand
management
Vanpools/carpool programs
Telecommuting programs
Promotional campaigns to encourage alternative modes of travel Source: LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting #16, January 2023.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan LA River Path Project
The LA River Path Project is an eight-mile shared-use bicycle and pedestrian path along the LA River between Elysian Valley and the City of Maywood, through downtown Los Angeles and the City of Vernon. It is the central bike/pedestrian facility through the LB-ELA Corridor. This project will close the gap in the LA River Path, creating a safe, efficient active transportation travel option connecting the San Fernando Valley and Long Beach.
https://www.metro.net/projects/lariverpath/
The project is currently conducting environmental analysis and technical studies based on the below schedule. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in anticipated in Spring 2024.
Schedule
Public Scoping
Public meetings and project
scoping comment period
Environmental Analysis and
Technical Studies
Conduct environmental
analysis and technical studies
Draft EIR Release
Public hearings and public
comment period
Final EIR Release
Record of decision with response to
public comment and board meeting
2019 2019-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.6 Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets
Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets improvements encompass enhancements and updates made to major roads, referred to as arterial roads, to improve their traffic flow, safety, efficiency, and overall effectiveness. These arterial roads serve as vital transportation arteries, managing substantial traffic volumes and connecting diverse neighborhoods within a city or linking cities together. These enhancements aim to increase transportation efficiency, alleviate traffic congestion, enhance safety for all road users, and foster improved connectivity among the LB-ELA Corridor communities.
The sub-categories for arterial roadways/complete streets improvements are:
• complete streets;
• traffic calming;
• general local/regional roadway; and
• signal coordination/transportation systems management (TSM)/intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
Table 5-3 showcases specific project types by sub-category for arterial roadways/complete streets improvements.
Table 5-3. Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets Project Types by Sub-Category Sub-Category Project Types Sub-Category Project Types
Complete streets
New green spaces, trees, bioswales
Traffic calming
Speed reductions
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements Speed bumps
Public art Truck restrictions in neighborhoods
Signage Roundabouts
Transit stop amenities (furniture, shelters) Road diets Operational/safety improvements Stop signs, traffic signals ADA upgrades Speed enforcement cameras
LED street lighting Flashing crosswalks
Stormwater retention School zone warning devices
General local/regional roadway
Stormwater treatment
Signal coordination/
Transportation Systems Management
(TSM)/
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Traffic/pedestrian signal upgrades
Upgrade traffic signals, crosswalks,
sidewalks, driveways, curb ramps, etc.
Video camera installation
New/improved bridges Equipment upgrades
ADA upgrades Emergency vehicle priority
Intersection improvements Signage
Pedestrian circulation and safety Signal synchronization Streetscape improvements Advanced technologies to manage traffic and to inform the traveling public
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
Roadway widening/realignment
Source: LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting #16, January 2023.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-10 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.7 Community Programs
Community Programs are improvements that involve enhancing existing programs or creating new ones that directly benefit the local communities more comprehensively than typical transportation investment. These enhancements address specific needs, issues, or interests within the community and foster inclusivity and participation. Several of these programs are not eligible to use Metro funding for implementation; however, because they are very important to the communities within the Corridor and support the Investment Plan’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles, the project team recommends Metro commits to identifying and partnering with other agencies and entities that are responsible for those issues—for example, the LA County Department of Health—to help develop, support, fund, and lead these programs. The sub-categories for community program improvements are
• job creation/work opportunities;
• health/air quality/environment; and
• housing stabilization/land use
Table 5-4 showcases specific project types by sub-category for community program improvements. The program also includes the Community Catalyst Fund which will allow each category 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.
Table 5-4. Community Programs Project Types by Sub-Category Sub-Category Project Types
Job Creation/Work
Opportunities
Targeted local hire
Employment recruitment initiatives
Vocational educational programs
Economic stabilization policies
Workforce education and development
Partnerships with employers
Partnerships with academic institutions
Health/Air Quality/
Environment
GHG emissions reduction
Renewable energy/solar power project
Urban greening, tree canopy, green space
Greenbelts, drought-tolerant planting parklets
Habitat restoration and connectivity
Public art/aesthetics
Zero-emission infrastructure for automobiles
Bus electrification
Community health benefit program
Air filters for schools and community facilities
Environmental building improvements
Health education/outreach
Community health screening
Vegetation barriers/buffer landscaping
Housing Stabilization/
Land Use
Housing/rent stabilization policies
Anti-displacement programs
Rental assistance programs
Inclusionary housing
Transit-oriented communities
Homeless programs
Partnership with community organizations
Density bonus programs
Community land trusts
Grant writing assistance
Source: LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting 16, January 2023.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-11 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.8 Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements
Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements involve redesigning and modernizing select interchanges and auxiliary lanes on I-710 to improve freeway mainline traffic safety and operations, reduce freeway congestion, and therefore reduce traffic diversion through the arterial interchanges onto the arterials and adjacent community streets. These improvements will help reconnect communities separated by I-710 by reducing transit 50 Arterial Roadways/Complete Streets funding can also be used for reconnecting communities. delays and enhancing the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians crossing the I-710 and, at some locations, the LA River arterial crossing.50 Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements projects included in the plan must show alignment with the project’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles for the Corridor and other related policies, such as Metro’s Multimodal Highway Investment Objectives policy. That is why the interchange improvement projects are being renamed as I-710 MOSAIC Program: Multimodal, Operational, Safety and Access Improvements for the Community Program.
The sub-categories for freeway safety and interchange improvements are congestion pricing, freeway improvements, freeway amenities/ITS, and zero-emission lanes on the I-710. These are described in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5. Freeway Safety and Interchange Improvements Project Types by Sub-Category Sub-Category Project Types
Congestion pricing
Congestion Pricing concepts to charge single-occupant vehicles; carpools, buses, zero-emission trucks, and zero-emission automobiles would travel free
Freeway
improvements
Interchange improvements
Ramp safety and redesign
Auxiliary and operational lanes
Traffic controls to protect bicycles/pedestrians at freeway ramps Truck bypass lanes
Freeway lids, caps, and widened bridge decks to provide “greenbelt” connections over I-710/LA River
Freeway
amenities/ITS
Particulate matter reduction pilot project
Freeway repair and safety projects
Soundwalls
Drought-tolerant landscaping
Zero-emission
lanes on I-710
Zero-emission truck travel zone restrictions
Zero-emission truck lanes
Source: LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting 16, January 2023.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-12 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Port of Los Angeles Maritime
Support Facility Improvement
Source: https://www.californiaconstructionnews.
com/2023/07/24/port-of-la-receives-233-million-forinfrastructure-projects/.
Port of Los Angeles (POLA) is the largest
U.S. port by cargo volume. In 2023, POLA
received $233 million as part of a $1.5
billion State of California initiative to
improve critical infrastructure, fostering
a more efficient and sustainable supply
chain with a focus on decarbonization
efforts in goods transportation. This historic
investment supports projects like the
Maritime Support Facility Improvement,
Rail Mainline/Wilmington Pedestrian Grade
Separation Bridge, and State Route 47/
Seaside Avenue and Navy Way Interchange
Improvements.[1]
Port of Long Beach America’s
Green Gateway Project (Pier B)
Source: https://polb.com/port-info/news-and-press/
port-receives-283-million-for-americas-greengateway-12-18-2023/.
Port of Long Beach (POLB) is the secondlargest U.S. port by cargo volume. The “America’s Green Gateway” project, known
as the Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility
at POLB, involves a $1.6 billion investment
to enhance on-dock rail capacity and is
expected to begin construction in 2024. This
project aims to expedite national supply
chain deliveries, reduce congestion, and
improve air quality, positioning the Port to
strengthen competitiveness and alleviate
truck traffic on regional freeways. The
project has received almost $650 million
from state and federal funding programs,
including a recent $283 million award from
the US DOT’s MEGA program. [2]
San Pedro Bay Port Complex
Source: United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)/ Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), 2023, https://geodata.bts.gov/ datasets/usdot::principal-ports/about.
The “Clean Truck Express” lane at Pier 400 Los Angeles
terminal was launched on December 5th in support
of sustainable transportation. This dedicated lane is
exclusively for vehicles registered in the Port of Los
Angeles “Clean Truck Program” and powered by battery
electric, natural gas, or other zero emission technologies.
By providing a dedicated lane for these trucks, APM
Terminals aims to reduce gate-in times for customers,
thereby minimizing energy consumption, promoting
lowering emissions, and improving operational efficiency.
This approach reflects APM Terminal’s commitment to
environmental stewardship and supporting its customers
in achieving their sustainability goals.
[1] Port of Los Angeles secures $233 million in state infrastructure grants - Port Technology International [2] Port Receives $283 Million for ‘America’s Green Gateway’ - Port of Long Beach (polb.com) [3] San Pedro Bay Portwide Rail Planning for Today and 2040 | Proceedings | Vol , No (ascelibrary.org) (continued on next page)
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-13 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan APM Terminals will look to expand its
express lane initiative where aligned
to customer needs after collecting
performance data during a pilot period.
The introduction of these priority lanes
is one small part of APM Terminal’s
broader commitment to decarbonization
and lifting the standard of responsibility
to secure a sustainable future.
You can read more at: https://www.
apmterminals.com/en/los-angeles/
practical-information/news-andalerts/2023/231201-clean-truckexpress-lane-opens-at-pier-400 Goods Movement Training Center
The Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach are creating the nation’s first training facility specifically devoted to supply chain workers, located within the San Pedro Bay ports complex. The Goods Movement Training Campus will provide a single and centralized location aimed at attracting, recruiting, and retaining workers in the goods movement sector. The state allocated $110 million to be spread across three fiscal years, which started with the 2022-23 state budget and included additional amounts in 2023-24 and 2024-25. The training center will provide new job opportunities for residents of nearby communities while strengthening skills for the existing logistics workforce. Dockworkers, truck drivers, warehouse employees and other essential logistics workers will have an opportunity to learn how to operate the cutting edge equipment that will help the San Pedro Bay ports enhance air quality, combat climate change and transition to zero-emissions operations by 2035.
The 20-acre campus, expected to open by 2029, is a partnership between the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, the California Workforce Development Board, the ILWU and the Pacific Maritime Association. The ports will equally split the balance of the project cost while working with partners to secure additional funding for training equipment and curriculum. (continued from previous page)
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-14 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.9 Goods Movement
Goods Movement improvements encompass the implementation of various enhancements to policies, transportation infrastructure, and logistics practices, with the goal of optimizing the efficient movement of goods and freight within and through the Corridor, and supporting economic benefits. The zero-emission rail and truck programs, and zero-emission infrastructure are specifically intended to reduce harmful emissions and health impacts to Corridor communities and improving quality of life.
The sub-categories for Goods Movement improvements are:
• freight rail/goods movement travel demand management; • ports; and
• truck programs/intelligent transportation systems.
Table 5-6 showcases specific project types by sub-category for goods movement improvements.
Table 5-6. Goods Movement Project Types by Sub-Category Sub-Category Project Types
Freight rail/goods
movement travel
demand management
On-dock rail expansion
New inland port, greater use of freight rail
Port railyard expansion and modernization
Freight rail grade separations
Zero-emission freight rail pilot
Ports
Interchange improvements
Grade separations
Roadway realignments, safety, and landscape improvements Wharf expansions and vessel emission reductions
Cargo operational efficiencies
Truck
programs/intelligent
transportation
systems
Zero-emission truck programs
Zero-emission infrastructure
Empty container management
Use of advanced technologies to optimize sequencing of
container delivery and pick-ups to reduce congestion near railyards and ports
Source: LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting 16, January 2023.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-15 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Reducing Tailpipe Emissions Improves Public Health
Vehicle emissions, their impacts on air quality, and the resulting cumulative community health burdens are among the top priority issues repeatedly raised by the Corridor communities throughout the engagement process for the Investment Plan. The zero-emission (ZE) truck program funded through the Investment Plan is a vital strategy to eliminate tailpipe emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks that travel along the Corridor and will help meet state regulations governing the transition of diesel trucks to ZE technology. However, harmful particulate matter (PM) is also produced from non-tailpipe sources, including fugitive road dust, tire wear, and brake wear associated with vehicular traffic— particularly heavy-duty trucks—on freeways and local roads. The amount of PM emitted from non-tailpipe sources is proportional to the traffic volume and correlates to vehicle weight, traffic, and weather conditions.
The presence and exacerbation of non-tailpipe emissions on I-710 was a primary reason the United States Environmental Protection Agency did not find the prior I-710 South Project met air quality conformity standards.
The health impacts of PM, including its causal relationship to lung cancer and respiratory diseases, are well documented. Increasingly, research findings link tire wear emissions to certain types of cancer, developmental, reproductive, and heart diseases as people breathe the air that contains toxic chemicals and heavy metals from tire wear emissions.
As cargo throughput is expected to increase through the Ports, so is the number of trucks serving the Ports and traveling through the LB-ELA Corridor. Furthermore, battery-electric (BE) vehicles, including trucks, are up to 30 percent heavier than non-BE vehicles due to the battery weight, and this heavier vehicle weight will likely result in an increase in nontailpipe emissions. As we look forward to a ZE future for every truck and car traveling on I-710 and in the LB-ELA Corridor, we recognize that the roadway will still generate PM that will continue to cause public health impacts for communities in the Corridor.
The Investment Plan includes the Particulate Matter (PM) Reduction Pilot Projects to address these non-tailpipe emissions and evaluate various concepts and strategies to eliminate, capture, reduce, or mitigate non-tailpipe PM emissions. The project aims to test and evaluate various concepts and strategies, including roadside vegetation barriers within available Caltrans’ right-of-way, air filters for nearby schools or community facilities, pavement materials, tire materials, frequent street-sweeping, and deployment of air quality monitoring systems.
Green canopies, groundcover vegetation, and bioswales included in the Investment Plan capture non-tailpipe emissions and alleviate heat island effects when incorporated into freeways and roadway designs.
One concept that may prove effective related to pavement materials is using Rubber Modified Asphalt (RMA). RMA is a cost-effective pavement overlay material that reduces road dust and tire wear emissions compared to conventional asphalt or concrete. RMA mixes recycled and broken-up tire materials into asphalt and is considered a more sustainable pavement material because it reduces waste that would otherwise go to landfills than conventional asphalt.
Caltrans has been using RMA on state highways since the 1990s.
Caltrans considers many factors when selecting pavement material for its facilities. However, given RMA's known air quality and sustainability benefits compared to conventional concrete or asphalt, Caltrans may consider broader use of RMA to reap health and environmental benefits.
As vehicles transition to ZE technology, non-tailpipe source emissions will likely become a more prominent issue to be addressed. Recognizing this outlook, the Investment Plan considers creative solutions for the current conditions exacerbating air quality and public health outcomes and includes pilot projects to test and evaluate the effectiveness of various strategies as they get incorporated into projects elements.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-16 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.1.10 Transit
Transit (Bus or Rail) improvements encompass the implementation of various service and infrastructure projects and in the public transportation systems in a region or city. The objectives of these enhancements are to improve service quality, expand accessibility, and boost overall mobility for commuters and other travelers. By making public transit more attractive, convenient, and rapid, these improvements are intended to improve travel for existing transit users and promote a shift toward public transportation as a viable and sustainable alternative to using private vehicles.
The sub-categories for Transit improvements are:
• high-capacity transit (rail/bus rapid transit [BRT]); • transit amenities;
• bus transit; and
• rail line/station improvements.
Table 5-7 showcases specific project types by sub-category for transit improvements.
Table 5-7. Transit Project Types by Sub-Category
Sub-Category Project Types
High-capacity transit
(rail/BRT)
New light-rail stations/lines
Rail line extensions
BRT projects
Transit amenities
Bus shelters and lighting
Transit security features
Web app for transit times
Transit discounts/free passes
Transit education program
Customer experience program
Real time displays
Transit cleaning and maintenance
Station furniture and shade
ADA improvements
Traffic control for pedestrians and bicycles
Bus transit
Express service
Shuttles
Electric bus charging
On-demand bus (micro-transit)
Improve bus speeds
Increased bus frequencies
Bus priority lanes
Bus electrification projects
Rail line/station
improvements
Station improvements
Signal prioritization for trains
Station maintenance
Pedestrian safety improvements at stations
Improved bicycle-pedestrian connections
Train reliability improvements
Grade separations for trains
Source: LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting 16, January 2023.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
5-17 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
5.2 Other/Additional Projects for Consideration
51 LB-ELA Corridor Task Force Meeting 17, February 2023.
This MSPP is defined at the time of this document’s release, which can be viewed as a “living” Investment Plan. These have either been 1) projects included in prior lists based on prior policy guidance or funding available for their development, 2) projects directly suggested by the community, 3) concepts that need to be developed to be assessed for future implementation. Going forward, the Investment Plan will use the Modal Programs to receive new projects for consideration and to refine and complement MSPPs to advance the Corridor’s Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles.
After integrating feedback from the LB-ELA Corridor Task Force, the CLC, and working groups in early 2023, the Revised Initial MSPP was created with newly added projects, programs, features, and improvements.
Revisions to project and program descriptions were also developed based on the feedback received.51 Meanwhile, the corresponding agencies and project sponsors clarified how the Revised Initial MSPPs were developed.
Long Beach Transit STAR Initiative
Long Beach Transit (LBT) offers public transportation services including but not limited to fixed-route service, demandresponse service, and water taxi service within southeastern Los Angeles County and northwestern Orange County. Spanning across 14 cities and covering over 107 square miles, LBT logged over 17.3 million annual ridership, 5.6 million service annual service miles and 571,000 service hours during Fiscal Year 2022, operating on 38 fixed routes with a fleet of 250 buses.
In 2018, LBT released recommendations for improvements
to their bus transit system. This was the result of extensive outreach and analysis and is called the Systemwide Transit Analysis and Reassessment, or STAR Initiative. The ShortTerm Roadmap includes targeted improvements that address mobility needs with minor modifications to the existing service network. These improvements will result in better connections to local and regional destinations, increased access to frequent service and higher ridership. Please note, LBT’s STAR initiative was conducted in 2018 and the assumptions at that time may not apply today because of the pandemic and its impacts on public transit ridership. LBT expects to conduct another similar initiative in the coming years. The Long-Term Roadmap includes the improvements necessary to meet mobility needs that were identified through the STAR Initiative throughout the existing service area and beyond. Costs were not analyzed in the development of the Long-Term Roadmap.
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
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
6-1 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6. Evaluation and
Prioritization
This chapter describes the Long Beach – East Los
Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor Task Force and Community
Leadership Committee’s (CLC) evaluation and
prioritization process to review more than 200 LBELA Corridor Multimodal Strategies, Projects, and Programs (MSPPs). It describes each step of evaluation
and prioritization, including:
• the evaluation process, criteria, and results;
• the tiering process and initial results within
each mode;
• the role and use of equity flags and community
input consideration (CIC) flags; and
• how the evaluation results and additional
prioritization criteria are used for the
investment recommendations.
This process is illustrated in Figure 6-1.
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
6-2 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan The MSPPs (see Chapter 5) for the LB-ELA Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (Investment Plan) yielded more projects and programs than the Investment Plan could fund through the use and leveraging of available Measure R and M funds. To develop investment recommendations, the Goals and Guiding Principles were translated into specific metrics. Each project was ranked against these metrics on a scale of 0 to 3 or “not applicable” (N/A). Metric scores were summarized, including consideration of N/A scorings, which resulted in the first stage of project ranking. Projects received individual metric rankings as whole numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, or N/A) while goals category averages had decimal points when these numbers are averaged together. 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, Transit, and Community Programs. The ranked project scores were combined with a project readiness assessment in the Tiering analysis and an implementation assessment. Community Programs went through Figure 6-1. Evaluation Process Chart
START-UP Fund
Vision, Goals, and
Guiding Principles
Evaluation, Tiering,
and Prioritization
AIR QUALITY MOBILITY
PROSPERITY ENVIRONMENT
COMMUNITY SAFETY
OPPORTUNITY
Projects/Programs
for Initial Funding
Modal Program
Projects Community
Programs
Catalyst Fund
Active
Transporation /
Travel Demand
Management
(TDM)
Arterial
Roadways /
Complete
Streets Transit
Community
Programs
Freeway Safety
& Interchange
Improvements
Goods
Movement
EQUITY SUSTAINABILITY
200+ Multimodal Strategies,
Projects, and Programs
The Origin of MSPPs
Investment
Plan
Community/Stakeholder Input,
Existing Plans/Policies, and Other Sources
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
6-3 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan the same evaluation as other projects, but the project team determined after evaluation that all the community programs should be prioritized on a separate track (i.e., they would not be ranked and tiered) given the importance of advancing equity in the corridor. The evaluation process was followed by a prioritization process that assessed the potential leveraging of Measure R and M investment with regional, state, and federal funding and the impediments to implementation. The outcome of these processes was the identification of:
• MSPPs well-suited to receive Measure R and M funding through inclusion in the Initial Investment Recommendations in the Investment Plan due to their higher level of alignment with the Vision, Goals and Guiding Principles and more advanced project readiness;
• MSPPs that needed planning or development—to be better defined and/or aligned with the Vision, Goals, and Guiding Principles— through the Modal Programs that complement the Investment Plan implementation to then be considered for funding in future years.
6.1 Process
6.1.1 Evaluation
The LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals and Guiding Principles, as outlined in Chapter 4, provided the foundation for the evaluation process, resulting in 82 metrics52—in Benefit (66) and Concern (16) form—by which each project or program was assessed to determine its potential benefits. Projects were also assessed to identify whether there were additional considerations or potential Concerns tied to a project but not yet identified in the 82 metrics.
Summary findings for each MSPP were presented to the Task Force, CLC, and Corridor communities to better understand how well each project and program meets and advances the LB-ELA Corridor Vision, Goals and Guiding Principles. This process resulted in the draft evaluation scoring 52 The draft metric list included 73 metrics. Through the development of the plan, nine additional concern criteria were added to the evaluation process for a total of 82 metrics. results and project rankings by mode, which were used to organize projects and programs into two tiers.
As outlined in Chapter 2, the Task Force, CLC, Equity Working Group, and other stakeholders and community members provided input to the project team at each step of the evaluation phase from March 2023 to December 2023. Similarly, the list of MSPPs was compiled through existing plans, programs, and community inputs. This list included a wide range of concepts at all development stages, from merely a concept to being “shovel-ready,” as outlined in Chapter 5. More than 200 MSPPs were identified for evaluation, ranging from concepts to actual projects ready for implementation. This disparity in project readiness reflected equity gaps for lower-resource communities in the LB-ELA Corridor and resulted in inconsistent information for each project or program under review.
Considering this challenge, the project team used all available information for each project and program to determine scores for each metric in this evaluation process.
Scoring methodology rubrics were developed for each of the 66 Benefit and 16 Concern metrics to define how they would be applied to assess the potential performance of each MSPP in addressing that metric. The project team assigned experienced technical project team members to develop each rubric based on their area of expertise and knowledge of evaluation methods and tools. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation metrics were applied, depending on the criterion’s nature and the data available to assess each of the 82 metrics. Specifically, quantitative assessments were based on data available from the Southern California Association of Governments Travel Demand Forecasting Model, which was tailored to the LB-ELA Corridor, Air-Quality Modeling, and Geographic Information Systems analyses. Qualitative assessments were based on professional expertise from experience with similar projects, literature on expected benefits and potential adverse impacts related to project types, and stated features of the project or program based on the information available from project sponsors.
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
6-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Each evaluation rubric included assumptions, data sources, and any additional literature or information used. It established thresholds for projects and programs to receive a score, as listed below and illustrated in Figure 6-2:
• 0 (No Benefit or No Adverse Impact),
• 1 (Low Benefit or Low Adverse Impact),
• 2 (Medium Benefit or Medium Adverse Impact),
• 3 (High Benefit or High Adverse Impact), or
• Not Applicable (N/A) typically where a project or program could not realistically be planned or designed to provide the benefit associated with a given criterion or any impact on it. Likewise, projects or programs that do not have any impact on the specific Concern metric.
The detailed rubrics for each Benefit and Concern criterion are shown in Appendix 6-A, which documents the evaluation methodology, with individual scoring rubrics for each evaluation criterion. The results of the evaluation process, including individual and summary Benefits and Concern scoring for each project, are shown in Appendix 6-B. The following section provides a more detailed explanation of each evaluation category.
Figure 6-2. Project Benefit and Concern Rating Scale
Potential Project Benefits
Potential Project Concerns
Potential Project Benefits
No Benefit
No Negative
Impact
0 0
N/A
N/A
1 1
2 2
3 3
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Low Benefit
Low Negative
Impact
Medium Benefit
Medium Negative
Impact
High Benefit
High Negative
Impact
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
6-5 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Air Quality and Health Disparities in the Long Beach-East Los Angeles Corridor 53 Disparities in Air Pollution Exposure in the United States by Race/Ethnicity and Income, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34908495/ 54 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/Proposed_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf 55 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Brake Tire Wear Emissions, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/brake-tire-wear-emissions 56 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 57 I-710 Health Impact Assessment 2017, https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HIA-I710-Air-Quality-Plan.pdf 58 SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final2022-aqmp/appendix-i.pdf?sfvrsn=6 Regional and local transportation infrastructure investments have disproportionally impacted low-income communities and communities of color, who bear the greater share of pollution burdens and environmental stressors53. Mobile sources used for goods movement (trucks, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels) are responsible for generating significant amounts of criteria pollutants, defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead and particulate matter, that negatively impact the health of communities near the Ports and along major trade corridors54. In addition to exhaust emissions from these mobile sources, non-tailpipe emissions, which are released from vehicle components other than the exhaust of a vehicle such as brakes, tires and the road itself, are expected to dominate particulate matter emissions in the coming years.55
The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool:
CalEnviroScreen56, a tool developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), is used by government agencies to evaluate pollution burden and account for potential vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. As shown in the following figures, CalEnviroScreen results for the Long Beach-East Los Angeles (LB-ELA) Corridor have identified apparent disparities for asthma rates and cardiovascular disease. Further, the rate of Emergency Room visits among the population living within 1 mile of the Interstate 710 is higher than that in Los Angeles County.57 These health disparities are intrinsically tied to pollutants from vehicle traffic, particularly from particulate matter emissions that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) and diesel particulate matter (DPM).
In the United States, exposure to ambient PM2.5 is responsible for the largest share of premature deaths associated with air pollution58 and diesel particulate matter is lead evaluation indicator for air toxic impacts
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
6-6 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan (including cancer risk).59,60 Subsequently, CalEnviroScreen61 results for PM2.5 and diesel particulate matter concentrations in the Long Beach-East Los Angeles Corridor are significant and exist at the highest statewide percentiles ranges.
Given that diesel particulate matter and PM2.5 are primary indicators of air-related health outcomes, Metro has included these pollutant concentrations as proxy criteria for a project’s positive or negative impact on human health.
59 Mortality risk from PM2.5: A comparison of modeling approaches to identify disparities, https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP9001 60 SCAQMD MATES V Final Report, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v 61 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 relies on 2015-2017 PM2.5 monitoring data and 2016 DPM data which are outdated due to the continued progress made in improving regional air quality by existing and recently adopted regulatory actions. OEHHA. 2022. Summary of Changes in CalEnviroScreen Version 4.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/document/ calenviroscreen40summaryofchangesf2021.pdf
62 Clean Air Action Plan 2017 Update, https://cleanairactionplan.org/2017-clean-air-action-plan-update/ The 2017 Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP)
The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) 2017 Update62, proposed for adoption by the joint Long Beach and Los Angeles Boards of Harbor Commissioners in November 2017, built upon previous versions of the Clean Air Action Plan to help the region reduce air emissions and support the statewide vision for more sustainable freight movement.
The Clean Air Action Plan 2017 Update established several key emission reduction targets and contained 14 strategies to cut emissions from sources operating in and around the Ports, with the ultimate goal of making progress towards a zero-emissions goods movement future while strengthening the ports’ economic interests. These targets and strategies included:
Clean Air Action Plan Emission Reduction Targets:
• Reduce residential cancer risk of Port-related DPM emissions by 85% by 2020.
• Reduce port-related emissions by 59% for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 93% for Sulfur Oxides (SOx), and 77% for Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) by 2023.
• Reduce greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions from port-related sources to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050.
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
6-7 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Clean Air Action Plan Strategies:
• Advancing the Clean Trucks Program to phase out older trucks and transition to near-zero emissions (NZE) in the early years and zeroemission (ZE) trucks by 2035 with a truck rate to take effect in 2020. • Requiring terminal operators to purchase zero-emission equipment if feasible, or near-zero emissions or cleanest available when procuring new equipment.
• Reducing emissions from ships at-berth, and transitioning the oldest, most polluting ships out of the San Pedro Bay fleet.
• Accelerating the deployment of cleaner engines and operational strategies to reduce harbor craft emissions.
• Expanding use of on-dock rail to shift more cargo leaving the port to go by rail.
Progress Since Adoption
Since the adoption of 2017 CAAP Update, the Ports have published quarterly Progress Reports63 on the status of Clean Air Action Plan targets and strategies, two feasibility assessments for Drayage Trucks (released in 201864 and 202165), and annual emission inventories66. As reported in their respective 2022 Emission Inventories, both the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles have achieved their Clean Air Action Plan 2023 emission 63 Clean Air Action Plan 2017 Update, https://cleanairactionplan.org/2017-clean-air-action-plan-update/ 64 2018 Draft Drayage Truck Feasibility Assessment, https://cleanairactionplan.org/documents/final-drayage-truck-feasibility-assessment.pdf/ 65 Final Drayage Truck Feasibility Assessment, https://cleanairactionplan.org/2017-clean-air-action-plan-update/# 66 San Pedro Bay Ports Annual Emission Inventories, https://cleanairactionplan.org/results/emission-reductions/ 67 CARB ACF Webpage, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/about 68 CARB CHC Regulation, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/commercial-harbor-craft 69 CARB In-Use Locomotive Regulation, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/reducing-rail-emissions-california/locomotive-fact-sheets 70 CARB At-Berth Regulation, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ocean-going-vessels-berth-regulation 71 CARB Cargo Handling Equipment Regulation to Transition to Zero-Emissions, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cargo-handling-equipment-regulation-transition-zero-emissions reduction targets for
diesel particulate
matter (DPM), Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) and Sulfur
Oxides (SOX). These
reductions occurred
during a time where
numbers of container
cargo increased by 36%
and 32% in Port of Long
Beach and Port of Los
Angeles respectively.
Emissions are expected
to further decline due to
recently adopted State
level regulations, such
as the CARB Advanced
Clean Fleets (ACF)67
Regulation, the CARB Commercial Harbor Craft Amendments (CHC)68, the CARB In-Use Locomotive Regulation69, and the CARB Ocean Going Vessels At-Berth Rule70, which requires the deployment of ZEV and NZEV technologies at the ports. Additionally, CARB is also developing a cargo handling equipment (CHE) regulation to convert 90% of the State’s CHE fleet to ZE equipment by 2036.71
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
6-8 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6.1.1.1 Air Quality
Three Benefit metrics were used to measure project effectiveness to improve air quality in the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Air Quality (AQ) Benefit Metrics
Metric
Number Metric Name Description
AQ1 Reduces Emissions (Oxides of
Nitrogen [NOx], Fine Particulate
Matter [PM2.5])
Reduces NOx and PM2.5 emissions
from on-road vehicles or offroad
mobile equipment
AQ2 Facilitates Clean Technologies and
Lower Emissions Vehicles
Facilitates the deployment of ZE
vehicles/equipment; examples
include but are not limited to
funding clean vehicle/equipment
technology purchase and ZE fueling
infrastructure
AQ3 Mode Shift to Cleaner Modes Increases the share of trips made by transit, walking, and bicycling
Notes:
NOx = oxides of nitrogen
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter ZE = zero-emission
6.1.1.2 Community Health
Five Benefit metrics were used to measure project effectiveness to improve community health in the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-2.
Acronyms list
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool:
CalEnviroScreenCargo Handling Equipment (CHE)
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
Greenhouse Gas (GHGs)
Long Beach-East Los Angeles Corridor (LB-ELA)
Near-Zero emissions (NZE)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Particulate matter emissions that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5)
Port of Long Beach (POLB)
Port of Los Angeles (POLA)
San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP)
Sulfur Oxide (SOx)
Zero-Emission (ZE)
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
6-9 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Table 6-2. Community Health (CH) Benefit Metrics
Metric
Number Metric Name Description
CH1 Reduces Emissions (Health Effects
Metrics: DPM, PM2.5)
Reduces DPM and PM2.5 emissions
from on-road vehicles, which in
turn can generate health benefits
CH2 Reduces Exposure at Receptors
(HVAC/HEPA, Near-Roadway
Vegetation)
Reduces exposure at sensitive
receptors (e.g., schools and
day care centers, hospitals and
healthcare clinics, senior centers,
and residences) by installing
filtration systems at these
receptors and/or installing nearroadway vegetation between major roadways and these receptors
CH3 Mode Shift to Active Transportation,
Transit
Increases the share of trips made
by transit, walking, and bicycling
CH4 Improves the User Experience (May
be different metrics for different
modes)
Provides intuitive roadway
network for all users; gap closures;
exclusive pathways for active
transportation; wayfinding; access
to information regarding directions
or transportation options; and
technological solutions that make
travel information, including
directions and modal options, more
available to the user
CH5 Bicycle/Pedestrian Access to Parks,
Recreational Areas, or Open Spaces
Provides new or upgraded bicycle/
pedestrian facilities that connect
with parks, recreational areas,
or open spaces; for the purposes
of this analysis, this is defined as
within ¼ mile of a recreational
space
Notes:
DPM = diesel particulate matter
HEPA = high-efficiency particulate air
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
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
6-10 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6.1.1.3 Mobility
Seven Benefit metrics were used to measure project effectiveness to improve mobility in the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3. Mobility (MB) Benefit Metrics
Metric
Number Metric Name Description
MB1 Ridership Increases transit ridership by shifting trips to transit from other modes
MB2 Speeds/Travel
Times (People,
Goods)
Increases roadway speeds (or reduces travel times) for
people and goods
MB3 Reduces
Congestion (Hours
of Delay for People
and Goods)
Reduces hours of delay for people and goods
MB4 Modal Accessibility
(by Zone)
Improves access to new transportation facilities for
residents; quantifies the population benefiting from the improvement based on a ¼ mile distance from the new
transportation facility
MB5 Reliability (Transit,
Roadway, Goods
Movement)
Improves transportation travel time reliability, providing consistent range of predictable travel times across all modes; reliability is improved by optimizing existing
transportation systems and expanding travel capacity
and reducing travel delay; examples of things that
improve reliability include improving safety (reducing
crashes/unexpected delay), signal timing, transit signal priority, dedicated transit lanes, separate facilities for active modes, transportation demand management, and
dynamic road user charges
MB6 Gap Closures Addresses a gap in the transportation network, or removes a transportation barrier, by providing a new
service or new transportation facility
MB7 Increases Travel
Options
Makes a range of (sustainable, non-SOV) transportation
options more realistic for likely user trips
Note:
SOV = single-occupancy vehicle
6.1.1.4 Safety
Seven Benefit metrics were used to measure project effectiveness to improve safety in the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4. Safety (SF) Benefit Metrics
Metric
Number Metric Name Description
SF1 Protections for Bicycles/Users (Bike
Class)
Provides exclusive and separated
pathways for bicycles
SF2 Traffic Protections (Bicycle/
Pedestrian)
Provides new or upgraded
separation between bicycles/
pedestrians and automobile traffic
SF3 Personal Security Provides features and/or services to protect individual users from crime
and personal harm
SF4 Includes Safety Features Provides safety from automobile collisions, primarily for other
modes using the roadway; includes
roadway safety for truck use, but
not Metro rail safety unless it is
interacting with roadway users in
the project
SF5 Reduces Conflict Points (Vehicle
Safety)
Reduces the number and severity
of conflict points between vehicles
traveling on highways and roadways
to improve vehicle safety; this
metric focuses on vehicle versus
vehicle safety and does not address
any interactions of vehicles with
active transportation modes such as
bicycles or pedestrians
SF6 Traffic-Calming Features Has the effect of slowing down automobile traffic
SF7 Preserves /Rehabilitates Existing
Infrastructure
Contains elements specifically
targeting state of good repair or
makes tangible improvements
to existing transportation
infrastructure
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
6-11 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6.1.1.5 Environment
Eight Benefit metrics were used to measure project effectiveness to improve the environment in the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5. Environment (EN) Benefit Metrics
Metric
Number
and Name
Metric Number
and Name Description
EN1 Improves Environment
from Mode Shifts
Considers the impact of the mode shift resulting from the project on the surrounding community and environment; takes into consideration the likelihood of mode shift from the project and the benefit of that mode shift on others in the community72 EN2 GHG Reduction
Potential
Reduces tailpipe GHG emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles
EN3 Protects Natural
Habitat (Greening
Features)
Supports improved health outcomes associated with clean air and water by protecting or enhancing natural habitats through green infrastructure investments, primarily through the provision of trees, parks, and vegetation
EN4 Water Quality,
Drainage, and Flood
Management Features
Improves water quality and/or drainage and flood management EN5 Reduces Energy Use Measurably reduces overall energy use in the Corridor (BTUs per passenger-mile and/or BTUs per ton-mile)
EN6 Reduces Heat Island
Effect; Provide Cooling
Features for Users
Reduces heat island effect by deploying cooling features like planting urban shade trees, installing reflective roofs, and using light-colored or high-albedo pavements and surfaces
EN7 Potential for Noise
Reduction
Reduces transportation noise pollution or includes noise reduction features, such as sound barriers or low-noise technologies EN8 Supports
TransportationEfficient Land Use
Principles
Benefits, and benefits from, surrounding land uses that foster connectivity with public transit, multimodal trips, and high-density and mixed-use land development
Notes:
BTU = British thermal unit
GHG = Greenhouse gas
72 The opposite of this metric is induced demand for automobile trips which are measured in Con9:
Potential for VMT Increases.
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
6-12 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
6.1.1.6 Opportunity and Prosperity
Seven Benefit metrics were used to measure project effectiveness for the combined Goal of improved opportunity and prosperity in the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6. Opportunity and Prosperity (OP) Benefit Metrics Metric
Number Metric Name Description
OP1 Access to Jobs Average number of jobs accessible within a 30-minute time-period by transit or a 45-minute time-period by
automobile
OP2 Accessibility
(Improving Mobility
Challenges for All
Ages and Abilities)
Provides new or improved transportation options, or
removes barriers, for users of all abilities, including serving people with disabilities, very young and very
old travelers; projects include ADA accessibility,
protected active transportation facilities, and other
programs that make the transportation network more
available to its most vulnerable users
OP3 Increases Regional
Competitiveness
Increase the region’s competitive economic advantage
compared to other locations in the U.S.; generates
jobs throughout the five-county Greater LA region and
stimulates regional economic activity
OP4 Work Force
Development
Project/program includes a workforce development
component
OP5 Potential Targeted
Hire, New
Construction Jobs
The responsible agency/city has a targeted hiring
policy, and scale of construction/infrastructure project OP6 Access to Qualityof-Life Amenities
(Grocery Stores,
Healthcare Services,
Schools)
Provides new transportation facilities near quality-oflife amenities; quantifies the number of quality-of-life amenities within ¼ mile of new transportation facility
OP7 Access to Open
Space, Recreation
and Parks, LA River,
etc.
Provides new transportation facilities near parks and
open spaces; quantifies the acreage of parks within
¼ mile of new transportation facility
Note:
ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act
6.1.1.7 Equity
Equity criteria were designed to evaluate whether projects were likely to provide benefits related to existing LB-ELA Corridor disparities and, if so, whether those benefits would be directed to geographies and populations of highest need. Most equity metrics were adapted from other goal-related evaluation criteria (“base criteria”) to reinforce that the Guiding Principle of Equity applies holistically across all Goal areas. This process involved the application of an overlay evaluation to the corresponding rubric for the base criterion. In most cases, the overlay was Metro’s Equity Focus Communities (EFCs) (see call out box). In this “EFC-Lens” approach, the equity criterion score was calculated as the base criterion score, with points added or subtracted based on the share of the project area within EFCs. Other data overlays used to evaluate equity criteria included High Asthma and Cardiovascular Disease Rates (CalEnviroScreen 4.0); Priority Areas for Increasing Access to Regional Recreation (LA County Park Needs Assessment PNA+); and Low Tree Canopy areas (California Healthy Places Index). As with all of the evaluation metrics, the equity metrics underwent extensive review with the EWG, Task Force and CLC.
The purpose of these overlay-style equity criteria was to give additional credit to projects that were not only providing benefits but were providing benefits specific to the needs of a specific area or population. For example, if two projects provided the same features related to shade and cooling, they would receive the same score for the EN6 base criterion. However, if one of those projects was located in a well-shaded neighborhood and the other was located along a busy arterial with few existing street trees, the EQ-EN6 criterion score would raise the overall equity score for the second project located in a low tree canopy area.
Twenty-four Benefit metrics were used to measure potential project effectiveness in advancing equity throughout the Corridor, as shown in Table 6-7. All twenty-four equity criteria were summarized into one average equity score per project or program (on a scale of 0-3 or N/A), which contributed to the sum of the total project score. Therefore, while many equity criteria closely reflect their corresponding base criteria, the scores were not double counted in the total project score.
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
6-13 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Table 6-7. Equity (EQ) Benefit Metrics
Metric
Number Metric Name Description
EQ-AQ1 Reduces Emissions (NOx, PM2.5) in EFC Areas Reduces NOx and PM2.5 emissions from on-road vehicles or offroad mobile equipment in EFC areas EQ-AQ3 Mode Shift to Cleaner Modes in EFC Areas Increases the share of trips made by transit, walking, and bicycling EQ-CH1 Reduces Emissions (Health Effects Metrics: DPM,
PM2.5) in EFC Areas
Reduces DPM and PM2.5 emissions from on-road vehicles, which in turn can generate health benefits EQ-CH2 Reduces Exposure to Air Pollution in Communities Facing High Pollution Burden and Asthma Rates
Reduces exposure at sensitive receptors (e.g., schools and day care centers, hospitals and healthcare clinics, senior centers, and residences) by installing filtration systems at these receptors and/or installing near-roadway vegetation between major roadways and these receptors
EQ-CH3 Mode Shift to Active Transportation, Transit in EFC Areas
Increases the share of trips made by transit, walking, and bicycling EQ-CH5 Increases Access to High-Quality Recreational
Facilities in Areas Lacking Active Transportation
Infrastructure and Parks
Supports improved health outcomes associated with physical activity and recreation by providing direct linkages to parks and recreation facilities and providing active transportation infrastructure, particularly in areas lacking access to these facilities and infrastructure elements
EQ-MB1 Ridership in EFC Areas Increases transit ridership by shifting trips to transit from other modes EQ-MB2: Speeds/Travel Times (People, Goods) in EFC Areas Increases roadway speeds (or reduces travel times) for people and goods movement EQ-MB3 Reduces Congestion (Hours of Delay for People and Goods) in EFC Areas
Reduces hours of delay for persons and goods
EQ-MB4 Modal Accessibility in EFC Areas Improves access to new transportation facilities for residents; quantifies the population benefiting from the improvement based on a ¼ mile distance from the new transportation facility EQ-MB5 Reliability (Transit, Roadway, Goods Movement) in EFC Areas
Improves transportation travel time reliability, providing a consistent range of predictable travel times across all modes
EQ-MB6 Gap Closures in EFC Areas Addresses a gap in the transportation network, or removes a transportation barrier, by providing a new service or new transportation facility
EQ-MB7 Increases Reliable and Accessible Transportation Options for Those Who Cannot or Prefer Not to Drive
Provides reliability and accessibility improvements to support the viability of non-driving travel modes such as active transportation and transit for populations currently marginalized by auto-centric infrastructure, including zero-vehicle households; children; seniors; individuals with disabilities; and those who choose not to drive for environmental, health-related, or other reasons
EQ-SF1 Improves Physical Safety for People Walking,
Bicycling, and Rolling
Supports health outcomes associated with physical injuries and fatalities by improving safety from automobile collisions or modal conflicts, primarily through the provision of protected and separated pathways and ADA features EQ-SF3 Improves Perceptions of Personal Security for
People Walking, Bicycling, Rolling, and Taking
Transit
Provides features and/or services that may increase the sense of safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and particularly for those from marginalized groups, from crime and personal harm EQ-EN3 Contributes to Remediation of Environmental
Damage or Loss of Natural Features
Supports health outcomes associated with clean soil, air, and water; contributes to remediation or restoration of natural features such as vegetation, soil, or bodies of water that have been lost or damaged due to previous infrastructure, development, and land use decisions
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
6-14 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Metric
Number Metric Name Description
EQ-EN6 Includes Urban Greening and Cooling for Areas of Low Tree Canopy and High Heat Island Burden
This equity metric builds off EN6, either adding a +1 Benefit if a project is in an area with low tree canopy and/or a +1 if it is in an area with high heat island temperatures (>= 40 degrees) to the original score in EN6 (added Benefit). (EN6 scores were used as the basis for calculating EQ-EN6.)
EQ-EN7 Potential for Noise Reduction in EFC Areas Reduces transportation noise pollution or includes noise reduction features, such as sound barriers or low-noise technologies
EQ-OP1 Access to Jobs for Persons in EFC Areas Increases the average number of jobs accessible within a 30-minute time period by transit or a 45-minute time period by automobile
EQ-OP6 Access to Quality-of-Life Amenities (Grocery Stores, Healthcare Services, Schools) in EFC Areas
Provides new transportation facilities near quality-of-life amenities (grocery stores, health care, and schools) EQ-OP7 Access to Open Space, Recreation and Parks for
Persons in EFC Areas
Provides new transportation facilities near parks and open spaces EQ-OP8 Increases Quantity and Quality of Employment
Opportunities for Underemployed and Low-Income
Workforce
Provides new job opportunities for underemployed and low-income individuals in the workforce EQ-OP9 Reduces Housing or Transportation Costs for LowIncome HouseholdsHas the potential to reduce housing or transportation costs through improvements in transit frequency, rail lines, pedestrian projects, bicycle projects
EQ-OP10 Reduces Residential or Commercial Displacement
Risk
Reduces risk of economic (as opposed to physical) displacement as an adverse effect of infrastructure investment, which may result in new development interest, increasing land prices, property values, and ultimately housing/ business costs
Notes:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ($250 million). These funds are available earlier than the fiscal year stated in the expenditure plans for planning, development, and preimplementation purposes.
The Investment Plan recommends using these funds to provide nearterm investment in pre-implementation activities to support the future implementation of longer-term prioritized projects and to help fund the Investment Plan’s Modal Programs and future implementation commitments.
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
7. Funding
Strategy
7-4 Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan Table 7-1. Estimated Project Costs and Recommended Programming of Measure R/M Funds Mode
A. Estimated
Investment Leveraging
Measure R/M Funding
($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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 $4.9 billion as part of the Investment Plan (see Table 8-1). 81 For more information on CalSTA’s program: https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/pfip-awards-summary-narrative-7-6-23-a11y.pdf 82 To read about this investment: LPP-C funding for SELA TIP: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/local-partnership-program/competitive/2022-guidelinescompetitive/tab-18-4-6-a11y.pdf 83 For more information: MPO: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/atp/2023/2023-atp-staff-reccomendations-mpo-component-a11y.pdf and State level:
Statewide: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/atp/2022/2023-atp-staff-recommendations-final-a11y.pdf Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
8-3
84 CalSTA: https://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/pfip-awards-summary-narrative-7-6-23-a11y.pdf 85 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-01/MEGA%20Fact%20Sheets%20FY%202023-2024_Final.pdf 86 USDOT - CMAQ: https://www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/federal-programs-directory-congestion-mitigation-and-air-quality-cmaq 87 https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/tcep/4192022-tcep-program-of-project-amendment-a11y.pdf 88 US DOT 2023: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/2023-11/PIDP%202023%20Awards%20Fact%20Sheets_0.pdf and 2022: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/ Mode and Project Name
Committed
Amount
($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 $12 billion that will be funded through sources other than the Corridor’s Measure R/M funds described below.
Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
8-4
89 CA CTC: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2023/2023-06/19-4-9.pdf 90 LA Metro Board Report: https://boardagendas.metro.net/board-report/2020-0562/ 91 US DOT FY23: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/reconnecting-communities/reconnecting-communities-fy23-awards Mode and Project Name
Committed
Amount
($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 $1.0 Table 8-1. Corridor Investments Supported by Other* Funding Sources (continued) Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
8-5
92 US DOT: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-02/RCP%20Fact%20Sheets%202022.pdf 93 CA CTC: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/local-partnership-program/competitive/2022-guidelines-competitive/tab-18-4-6-a11y.pdf 94 Measure M Expenditure Plan: https://www.metro.net/about/measure-m/ 95 US DOT CIG Dashboard: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-01/Public-CIG-Dashboard-01-05-2024.pdf Mode and Project Name
Committed
Amount
($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
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
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
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
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 CERRITOS
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
8-10
98 The 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 $153.6
I-710/Firestone Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0033
I-710/Florence Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0034
I-710/Willow Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0028
I-710/Del Amo Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0029
I-710/Long Beach Boulevard Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0030 I-710/Alondra Interchange Improvements and Modification of SB I-710 to SR 91 Connectors LB-ELA_0031 I-710/Imperial Interchange Improvements LB-ELA_0032
I-710/Auxiliary Lanes (Willow to Wardlow) LB-ELA_0035
I-710/I-405 Connector Project Improvements LB-ELA_0036
I-710/I-105 Connector Project Improvements LB-ELA_0037
I-710 Auxiliary Lanes (Del Amo Boulevard to Long Beach Boulevard) LB-ELA_0038 Table 8-2. Projects/Programs Recommended for Initial Investments (alphabetical) Note: table continues on next page
Long Beach – East Los Angeles Corridor Mobility Investment Plan
4. Corridor Vision,
Goals, and Guiding
Principles
2. The Task Force
and Task Force
Charter Process
6. Evaluation
and Prioritization 9. Next Steps
5. Development
of Multimodal
Strategies, Projects,
and Programs
3. Existing
Conditions and
Future Projections
7. Funding
Strategy 1. Background Appendices Executive
Summary
8. Recommendations
8-11
Project/Program Name
Investment Plan
Amount ($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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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