Saturday, November 19, 2011

Map of CFASE Suggested Alternate SCIG Sites

The Coalition for a Safe Environment; an affiiate of EastYard Communities for Environmental Justice, under the The Impact Project umbrella has identifed three (3) alternaitve sites inside the port, for hte SCIG project.  See the map below. Icons appearing like Blue Line light rail systems car-fronts mark these spots.

Please keep in mind that the Port of Los Angeles, Southern California Intermodal gateway (SCIG) is located within the governmental jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles.

  1. Low-center of picture; POLA Pier 500 is a future land fill project.  Neither diesel powered, MagLev(tm), LSM or LIM powered trains operate well underwater.  Suggesting an underwater site for a project that is already five years (almost six) into the process of obtaining approvals, after spending millions of dollars on planning, and studies, is completely unreasonable.  This is obstructionism, not an environmentally sound, helpful alternative.  The site, even if existing today, would be unsuitable for a SCIG.  It is at the furthest reach of the Port! SCIG is a container sorting & consolidation yard.  Not all containers coming off ships are going to the same geographic parts of the country.  Even if dock side tracks existed, there is still a need for the containers to be taken to a near-dock SCIG!  Then there is also the issue of whether the environmental extortionists, will also be opposing the land fill itself.
  2. The Pier S site under development is located adjacent to where the old Terminal Island Marina was located.  It is an area of significant past subsidence.  The site is comprised of extensive fill soil and may or may not be suitable for heavy rail use.  More importantly, IT IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH!  The Port of Los Angeles has no authority to grant an approval for a location in Long Beach.  The City of Long Beach has not invited the applicants to use the Pier S site for a SCIG, nor is there any reason to believe they would approve such a use even if it were a practical site (which it is not).  Being located on Terminal Island, the same issues exist as would exist if the site were built on Berth 500 (assuming that site was above water)- it is too far into the harbor to be practical.  Linkage is inadequate.
  3. The "Toyota Site"  like # 2 above, is a Long Beach jurisdictional location.  It is not physically suited to existing use ( imported car storage), plus the SCIG.  It would require construction of several car parking structures - and a City willing to negotiate or impose it's will on existing tenants, for a project that it may or may not want!
The suggested alternative sites are no realistic efforts at finding a viable or reasonable solution.  They are as ridiculous on both the surface as they appear to be, and more so after careful consideration.

They also fail to demonstrate an understanding of what a near dock intermodal facility is, or is supposed to do.

With the only site within the jurisdiction of the Port of Los Angeles being 35 to 50 feet underwater, it is disingenuous of the CFASE or EYCEJ to pretend they have identified "alternative sites within the port" as they claim.

  1. An architectural scale quickly demonstrates that the so called 1/4 mile buffer market line is not uniformly 1/4 of a mile.  It appears to be a less than accurate hand to mouse outlined (freehand) guesstimate.
  2. NONE of the Wilmington sites noted are adversely impacted by this project; they are buffered by the oil refinery between them and the project! (aside from which, prevailing winds are in the opposite direction).  The lower "dogleg" portion is on dedicated truck routes already.  It is only peripherally related to the BNSF SCIG project area which starts NORTH of Pacific Coast highway-not South of it.  The map is unclear, but this appears to be the area that had already been buffered from residential areas by recently built parks; a raised bem, and sound attenuation walls.
  3. The Long Beach side has greater potential for impact in the neighborhood, IF any adverse impact exists at all.  The Villages at Cabrillo are built just North of the trash recycling center, on the East side of the freeway. SCIG has less impact than the trash The previous sentence is incorrect re location in relation to the recycling center, I apologize for the error, and any confusion that results (MFFord 126/2011).  It's also located West of the police station.  It is clearly an "in-fill" project itself, and must not dictate land uses of older, existing industrial zones established long before it was.
  4. The same holds true with the schools and parks identified oon the West side.  There is probably little impact aside from noise potential.  SCIG proponents have offered to build sound attenuation walls at their expense though it would be on City of Long Beach land between the residents and the freeway (reducing an existing noise generator in the process.  They will also have walls and vegetation around the SCIG on the West side of the freeway.
  5. SCIG itself stops at Sepulveda (Willow), although CFASE has chosen to show it extending northward along an existing rail line, up toward another project.
  6. Frankly, in the unlikely event that elements within the oil refinery ever blow up (again), I'd prefer having a railroad with (hopefully) high stacks of containers between my neighborhood and that event.  The last time it happened and I lived on a sailboat in the harbor, and it felt as though the boat had been dismasted when the concussion wave from the blast hit.  IF it ever happens again, I'd rather it be containers and trains that  take the brunt of the hit, than my house.

No comments:

Post a Comment