“Back then, you could literally see the smog hovering over the port. On summer days, it would literally be like a rustic red, and you could feel it burn in your lungs,” he said Wednesday night, during a port-hosted community-input meeting. “We’ve made a lot of progress since those good old days. But still— you know, I was going down the freeway the other day, and you could still feel the pollution on the freeway. So, anything that we can do to minimize the pollution, the noise, the traffic, just as a citizen, I’m 100-percent for that, and this project addresses that.”
Javier is now 2nd vice president of the Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce, and the project of which he— and others that night— spoke is the Port of Long Beach’s proposed reconfiguration, expansion and enhancement of the existing Pier B rail facility located along Anaheim Street and the 710 Freeway.
According to port officials, the undertaking will support more efficient use of “on-dock” rail at the port’s shipping terminals, which will, consequently, alleviate roadway traffic congestion and improve air quality.
More specifically, through the project, port officials are proposing to: eliminate the existing railroad crossing at the 9th Street and Pico Avenue intersection to improve traffic flow and increase motorist and rail safety; reconfigure tracks already in place and add more tracks to permit trains up to 10,000 feet long to directly connect to the on-dock rail facilities and the Alameda Corridor railway; potentially acquire more land to the north of the Pier B facility to provide for additional railcar storage and staging; and potentially remove the ramps connecting 9th Street and the Shoemaker Bridge.
Currently, the Pier B facility serves as a train storage and staging area and is an important juncture in the port’s network of rails, officials say. Pacific Harbor Line (PHL), which provides rail dispatching and switching services, is presently the primary user of the facility. According to port officials, PHL has been recognized as the country’s “greenest” railroad for converting its fleet to clean diesel locomotives.
The Port of Long Beach has devised four different options for the project, three of which include expanding the storage and staging yard and a fourth being no work done to the yard.
Its preferred approach would be providing increased railcar storage and staging capacity, including 10,000-foot staging tracks to facilitate more efficient assembly of trains. The footprint of the rail yard would extend into the North Harbor area to just south of 12th Street; relocations and/or condemnations may be required. The facility would include additional storage/staging tracks, locomotive fueling tracks and railcar repair tracks.The project would require realignment of Pier B Street, closure of the existing 9th Street grade crossing and additional tracks along Pico Avenue between 9th Street and Ocean Boulevard. The Project would remove the existing ramps to/from the Shoemaker Bridge. In addition, the project would include a grade separation over existing tracks crossing Pier B Street and from Pier B Street to Anaheim Street.
This approach includes two options.
As a first option, the railyard would include railcar setout/repair tracks and locomotive layover/fueling tracks, and the other components of the project would remain the same.
A second option would be realigning 9th Street slightly to the north and maintaining the ramp connections to the Shoemaker Bridge, with the goals of minimizing the encroachment of the railyard into the North Harbor area and maintaining local traffic circulation. Ramp connections to the 710 Freeway would also be slightly reconfigured. The other components of preferred Project would remain the same.
[aesop_image imgwidth=”300px” img=”https://signal-tribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Rail.png” align=”left” lightbox=”on” captionposition=”left” revealfx=”off”] An alternative to this approach would be the inclusion of a new near-dock intermodal railyard on the north side of the project site.
The Port has released a draft environmental-impact report on the overall project and hosted two community meetings this month to receive public input on its proposal— one on Jan. 11 and another on Jan. 18. The second took place at the port’s interim administrative offices at 4801 Airport Plaza Dr.
At that second meeting, in which speakers were each given three minutes to share comments, only three of the 25 stakeholders who took to the podium to share remarks expressed concern regarding the project. The majority of those who spoke were union representatives who said they supported the project because it would provide jobs for local residents.
One of those advocates was Alex LaFarga of Laborers’ Local 1309, who said he supported the project as a worker and as a resident.
“As a business representative, I would love to see this project being built,” LaFarga said. “I would love to see the man hours. It can put people to work. It could create good jobs. It could support families, bring the protections, the pensions, the health and welfare [and] provide for these people. As a resident of Long Beach, I also applaud it because […] it opens up the freeways. It would create a ‘greener’ environment for places where we live.”
Although LaFarga was one of the 22 individuals who vocally supported the project Wednesday night, there were a few others at the meeting who expressed concerns about how it will affect their businesses, especially if they are forced to relocate because of the facility.
One of those dissenting voices was Stan Janocha, owner and COO of Superior Electrical Advertising, which is located in a former Coca-Cola bottling plant on Anaheim Street and Santa Fe Avenue.
Janocha said the railyard, if approved, will be located directly behind his business. He expressed concern with the fact that trains will be coupling and uncoupling day and night, so close to where his employees enter and exit the building.
“We employ 135 employees. About 40 of those are Long Beach residents,” he said. “This just wouldn’t be right for us, with the clients that we serve. We build signs for Disney, for Starbucks, for McDonald’s, and we have a lot of clients come in, and we’re going to have a railyard right behind us. Nothing in the EIR lets us know what you’re going to do to mitigate the train tracks from the back yard. We’ll have train tracks probably 50 feet from the back of our business. It’s going to open us up to lawsuits from employees who get sick, who have noise pollution, etc. So, I’d like to see something that lets us know how you’re going to handle the problems we’re going to encompass so close to my business.”
Another speaker who is worried about the project was Kevin Donaldson, who is the operations manager for Lan Logistics, located at 1520 W. 11th St.
“We are one of the many businesses that would be displaced as a result of the proposed project,” Donaldson said. “My family has occupied this location for over 25 years, spanning several generations. Our business specializes in oversized import and export handling and warehouse services for some of the country’s leading manufacturers, as well as the U.S. military. We take pride in that what we do contributes to the economic health and the nation’s national defense. The reason I’m here today is because I feel there has not been enough consideration on what would happen to the private businesses that currently occupy the site.”
Donaldson said the EIR does not adequately address the needs of the people who would be most directly affected by the rail project.
“We are not just dealing with numbers on a piece of paper,” he said. “We’re making decisions that affect real people— people who have families and countless others relying on them and the work they do and people who provide permanent jobs and have for generations.”
Donaldson, who said he found out about the project through a press release, added that his company is not one that can be relocated just anywhere.
“The services we provide and the customers we represent have taken decades to cultivate and can only be properly serviced within the…corridor, where alternative locations are limited at best,” he said. “There are very few businesses in the country that can do what we do, and our location is essential to our operations. The private businesses and property owners who occupy the proposed site deserve to be part of the planning process. We deserve more than a press release. We deserve more than three minutes of alloted time. The port is what it is today with the help of companies like us, and we hope to be part of your future.”
