REDESIGNING THE 710: EVERY (HIDDEN) PICTURE TELLS A STORY, DON’T IT?
By Dave Wielenga
[Editor's note: The facts that underpin this opinion piece were culled from stories researched and published by LBReport.com. The perspective, outrage and smartassery are pure GreaterLongBeach.com.]
Taxpayers bought and own the graphics that illustrate the plans most likely to be incorporated into a massive expansion of the 710 Freeway. Taxpayers fund the salaries of the private consultants and public employees entrusted with the redesign. Taxpayers will bear the costs, in dollars and inconvenience, of construction. And when the project has been completed, every one of its impacts—from commuting times to air quality to noise levels to its sheer physical presence—will be felt by taxpayers.
But the taxpayer-paid private consultants and public employees who are preparing to set all of these taxpayer consequences into mostion have decided that the illustrations of their plans graphics will be hidden from taxpayers until at least early 2012.
On June 14, Long Beach City Engineer Mark Christoffels, flanked by project consultants, told the City Council’s three-member 710 Oversight Committee—Rae Gabelich, Steve Neal and James Johnson—that the graphics will not be shown to the public until the formal Environmental Impact Report is released.
Christoffels defended the decision on the grounds that the graphics are drafts, meant for internal discussion. Christoffels warned that the graphics could include portions that might be inconsistent with other options being discussed—options that might never advance—and that releasing them might place them “out of context.”
Speaking of out of context, the most-favored options for the 710 makeover appear to be those that will transform the current cramped and clattering transportation corridor into a super-duper highway with the geographic profile of a minor mountain range.
Planners conceive of a 710 Freeway that is 14 lanes wide—10 regular traffic lanes (five in each direction), plus four truck lanes (two in each direction). Those truck lanes were ominously elevated south of the 405 interchange in conceptual drawings publicly displayed at an April 2010 meeting of the 710 Oversight Committee. However, now that right-of-way issues involving Southern California Edison power line towers have been resolved, those truck lanes may come down to ground level south of the 405 interchange.
So … uhh … did you notice that? The reference to the public display of conceptual illustrations at that April 2010 meeting? Sure, they were marked “Preliminary Draft. Do not cite, quote or distribute.” Sure, LBReport.com photographed and published them, since, after all, they had been publicly displayed. And it’s almost sure that something from those drawings was taken out of context by somebody in the general public. Whatever it might have been, however, it doesn’t appear to have done any damage.
But when the project consultants showed up for the June 2011 meeting of the 710 Freeway Oversight Committee, they didn’t bring any graphics. Gabelich asked them several times when graphics would be available. The consultants asserted that no graphics would be shown until later this year—and then only to officials. The public would have to wait until next year.
Apparently, times have changed.
Or maybe that’s just the judgement of a handful of mid-level public officials and consultants who seem to fear that people can no longer be exposed to illustrations of tentative freeway plans without substantial risk of “out-of-context” hysteria.
Or maybe that’s just political pretext for the more likely fear that exposure to illustrations of tentative freeway plans heightens the risk of well-informed scrutiny of the public officials and consultants.
In other words, maybe times are the same as they ever were.
Meanwhile, the consultants testified, using a Power Point presentation that was mainly text with a sparse location map.
The taxpayers shelled out for that, too.
13 Comments
I don’t get it. Why are taxpayers having top pay for this AGAIN. After all, taxpayers already paid for the Alameda Corridor Project and the Route 103 Terminal Island Freeway expansion which was never completed and was supposed to do most of what this project is RE-proposing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Island_Freeway
The original Alameda Corridor Project was supposed to widen and expand the existing route 103 industrial freeway section from Ocean Blvd to Interstate 10 in Downtown Los Angeles. The intention being to relieve Interstate 710 truck traffic. However, the modifications to the Terminal Island Freeway were not built to freeway standards which is why trucks barely use it and instead are crowded onto Interstate 710.
http://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-047.html
In August 1989 the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority was formed. In March 1993, the ACTA Governing Board adopted the Alameda Corridor plan and certified the EIR, as did SCAG, LACTC, Caltrans and all the cities along the 20-mile corridor. After the project was defined and the EIR certified, the Corridor‟s official response to accommodating the increase in truck traffic was that “the Alameda Corridor will decrease the growth rate of trucks on the I-710.”
But that’s NOT what happened. The majority of the Alameda Corridor Project money was used to expand the rail system. Proposed Terminal Island Freeway expansions were never completed as advertised when the spending was approved. Go figure.
Here’s another question City Council’s three-member 710 Undersight Committee—Rae Gabelich, Steve Neal and James Johnson—should be asking.
How does City Council’s approval of the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement fit into this remake of the 710 freeway?
After all, the proposed replacement of the Gerald Desmond Bridge ties into the 710 freeway with all of its exit and on-ramps. Will the Gerald Desmond Bridge need to be REDONE to accomodate the remake of the 710 freeway?
The next question the Undersight committee should be asking is why isn’t city staff and their hired gun consultants showing them the conceptual drawings. After all, I thought it was City Council’s responsibility to set policy and those concepts, not the people who make money off those conceptual decisions.
If the taxpayers truly paid for and own these illustrations, whether draft, preliminary or scratched on a napkin, and if they are not among the few documents that are legally exempted from FOIA disclosure, then the public has a right to review them. Period.
If accurately attributed, Christoffels’ arguments against making these illustrations available to the public have no legal standing. I would love to see GLB or LBR complete a simple CPRA request for the illustrations and see what sort of response the City Attorney/City Clerk offers should they fail to provide them.
We outgrew the current 710 footprint decades ago. The only question is in which direction to expand it, upward, outward, or both. It seems as if outward would see all of the planted areas on both sides completely removed…not a particularly “green” option. I personally like the upward idea, but with passenger vehicles above. Put 6 lanes up above, forget the carpool lane silliness, and make the center divider moveable based upon traffic demand.
And please, PLEASE expand the transition from n/b 710 to s/b 405 to at LEAST two lanes…preferably three…rather than the current traffic-flow-choking, two-lanes-merging-to-one ugliness!
Maybe Greet should consider doing his own California Public Records Act (CPRA) request rather than always asking other people for information.
Maybe Mr. Ruehle should avoid assuming that I have not done so. Maybe Mr. Ruehle should consider that I understand, implicitly, that any information a private individual might report tends to have far less substance and credibility than the very same information as reported by editors of and reporters from local news/opinion sites such as these. Maybe Mr. Ruehle should set aside his knee-jerk hostility for once and realize that not everyone is his enemy.
http://ag.ca.gov/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf
EXEMPTION FOR PRELIMINARY NOTES, DRAFTS AND MEMORANDA
(Gov. Code, § 6254(a))
Under this exemption, materials must be (1) notes, drafts or memoranda (2) which are not retained in the ordinary course of business (3) where the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This exemption has little or no effect since the deliberative process privilege was clearly established under the balancing test in section 6255 in 1991, but is mentioned here because it is in the Act.47
….
In order to withhold a record under section 6255, an agency must demonstrate that the public’s interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure. A particular agency’s interest in nondisclosure is of little consequence in performing this balancing test; it is the public’s interest, not the agency’s that is weighed. This “public interest balancing test” has been the subject of several court decisions.
Thanks, janis! This is precisely as it should be. I also dislike, to a very great degree, that segment that states: “(2) which are not retained in the ordinary course of business.”
This came up not long ago in Long Beach when a number of email communications between Council, staff, and certain special interest groups seemed to have been excluded from CPRA requests. If I remember correctly, when asked about the missing emails, a representative from the City Attorner’s office opined that if the emails in question had not been retained, then they would not be subject to disclosure. The clear message to Council members and staff seemed to be “delete whatever emails you may not want to have to disclose later.”
The challenge with this, of course, is that emails and all other electronic communications are *included* in document retention schedules that each city department must adhere to. So if a Council or staff member deletes them, he or she is technically violating his or her department’s records retention schedule. Unfortunately such a violation is very difficult to prove.
This is also why I advocated at the time -and continue to advocate now- that *all* emails sent to or from city email accounts be automatically archived on a seperate secure server from which they *cannot* be deleted until such time as the retention schedule dictates that they can or must be.
Citizen Journalist “Smartassery” of the Day – Regarding Comment Pissing Contests
Perspective — “Do not piss into the wind.”
Outrage — “It is better to be pissed-off than pissed-on.”
Smartassery — “Do not eat yellow snow.”
(Source: Unknown… possibly learned while serving three years in the United States Marine Corps or a misspent youth in a pool hall.)
…..How much traffic from the Port of LA traffic is the Desmond bridge, and 710 freeway expansion going to accommodate?
I see no expansion for the 110 freeway. http://www.portmod.org/POLICY/Infrastructure%20Projects.htm
http://www.3plwire.com/2007/07/01/los-angeles-long-beach-port-expansion-projects/
Looks to me like Long Beach residents may be breathing the dirty diesel truck exhaust from BOTH port’s expansion. Anyone seen the truck routes to and from the POLB AND POLA?
When is the last time you saw the POLA show any interest in Long Beach?
They dropped a boatload of $$$ on improvements in San Pedro. Here’s their plan… http://www.portoflosangeles.org/transportation/i_110.asp
“Interstate 710 is a major artery for trucks hauling cargo containers to and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and inland distribution centers run by many of the nation’s major retailers.
Regional planners are currently studying ways to improve air quality as well as safety, mobility and congestion on I-710. They are also assessing alternative technologies that could improve cargo movement along this important transportation corridor.
Preliminary work is under way for an Environmental Impact Report on these major improvements. Metro, the regional mass-transit agency, is leading the planning effort, along with six participating agencies that include Caltrans, the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, the Southern California Association of Governments, the Gateway Cities Council of Governments and the I-5 Joint Powers Authority.
710Planning for I-710 improvements is being conducted with extensive input from residents and elected officials in cities along the I-710 corridor.”
While I might agree that the 710-405 interchange can be safer, my jury is still out on the actual expansion. It begs for the bigger question: how far should the PoLA and PoLB ultimately expand? How much is enough?
@Brian: It is my understanding that the port district in Long Beach has specific and well-defined boundaries and that the only expansion on the land side occurs within those existing boundaries (e.g. into the former Navy Shipyard and the former Ford Plant property. Expansion does proceed offshore and I think this is necessary to remain competitive with other west coast ports. I once saw plans to expand our port out past the breakwater (back in the ’90s this was part of the POLB’s 2020 plan, I believe.) Ultimately, I think the global economic climate should drive decisions about whether we expand POLB further. If the global market can justify the expense, I think we would be foolish to not coninutally invest in POLB expansions and improvements. As for the 710 freeway, I think we need to expand and improve that just for the passenger vehicles, let alone for the thousands and thousands of trucks that use it throughout the year.
They can’t show it because the concepts include hovercars, monorails, and a Segway lane. In short, it was designed by Suja Lowenthal.