Long Beach: Terminal Island Freeway Removal (Once Again) Attempts to Find Funding for Study

The proposed area of the Terminal Island Freeway to be removed.

Last night, the Long Beach City Council voted unanimously to (once again) approved a motion to pursue a grant in order to further a study on the removal of the northern portion of the Terminal Island Freeway (I-103) that sits above Pacific Coast Highway in West Long Beach.

This marks the second bold decision by the council–following last year’s vote to seek a CalTrans grant that was ultimately not achieved–to push forward on what could mark one of the largest freeway removals in Southern California history, stretching from slightly south of PCH all the way to Willow Street.

The Terminal Island Freeway has been at the center of a proposed restructuring since 2010, when community leaders pointed out a simple thing: the existing northern length of the freeway, following the development of the 20-mile long Alameda Corridor and the still-underway modernization of the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) by Union Pacific Railroad, is redundant.

Not only do shipping companies use it less and less, the traffic itself matches those of 4th Street along Retro Row (some 13,700 AADT). And if plans for ICTF follow through, you can drop that down to 8,700 AADT–less than the traffic 3rd Street receives in the quiet neighborhood of Alamitos Beach.

Detractors of redundant freeway stretch removals in general have, also in general, the evidence stacked against them. Freeway removals from Portland, Oregon (Harbor Drive Freeway) to Boston (Central Artery), from Seoul, Korea (Cheonggye Expressway) to Toronto (Gardiner Expressway) have proven multiple things that are commonly not considered or otherwise misinterpreted. Benefits of freeway removal include:

  • The traffic congestion feared by having a lesser roadway capacity can be absorbed by alternate routes (regard San Francisco’s Central Freeway removal discussed below as well);
  • Fewer people use their cars when roadway capacity is lessened1
  • The removal of certain spans of roads does not mandate nor necessarily guarantee a needed shift in the entirety of transit paths (regard the removal of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway);
  • And the excessive right-of-way paths can be altered into public, open space that generate activity on multiple levels–communal, civic, commercial–rather than simply diminish transit2

Take in depth one of the most known freeway removals in California, the Central Freeway that connected the 101 near downtown San Francisco to northern and western neighborhoods. The demolished segment of the freeway–the entire portion of it north of Market Street that extended into Hayes Valley–was part of a transit way that at its peak carried some 100,000 AADT.

That’s a lotta cars.

The demolished area of the Central Freeway in SF. Source: Nelson/Nygaard.

Following the damage to the Central Freeway due to the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake as well as a partial closure in 1996, people began to reconsider retrofitting the extension. During the 1996 closure, the expected traffic congestion ultimately never appeared and a 1999 ballot initiative was approved to remove the freeway.

Officially closed in 2003 with the new-and-improved Octavia Boulevard opening in 2005, the boulevard’s northern end not only rejuvenated the entirety of Hayes Valley’s commercial and residential development, but also dropped traffic rates by over half since automobiles automatically diverted themselves to alternate routes.

With regard to Terminal Island, there is just as much possibility. Given that the state transfered ownership of this northern one-mile portion to Long Beach, the city has the jurisdiction over its fate–and if it can muster up the financial strength to continue forward (i.e. fund an EIR), the new space can open up some 25-acres of land that could be used to create one Long Beach’s largest parks.

Perhaps this year will be more promising than last.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Evidence of this is shown in places such as the removal of I-264 in Virginia in 1996 (decrease of 14%); Bay Street in Toronto in 1990 (decrease of 21%); Ormeau Road in Belfast in 1994 (decrease of 18%); Europa Bridge in Zurich in 1991-92 (decrease in 5%). For more information, re: Cairns, S., Hass-Klau, C., and Goodwin, PB (1998). Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions: Assessment of the Evidence. Landor Publishing, London.

2. Examples include not just the Central Freeway removal discussed in the article but the Embarcadero Freeway removal which in turn created a “complete street” with serving multiple modes of exploration (walking, biking, driving, public transit) with enhances civic and commercial activity; the removal of the Harbor Drive Freeway in Portland, OR to create the 37-acre Tom McCall Waterfront Park; the removal of the Cheonggye Expressway in South Korea that ended in a 3.6 mile park; the reconfiguration of the Riverfront Parkway in Chattanooga, TN opened up access to the river as well as safer pedestrian access; and the removal of the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee that opened up massive redevelopment and reinvestment into the area.

  • Anonymous

    According to Caltrans, the daily volume at the Anaheim St overpass is 4950, and at PCH it’s 10800. So no one can even make a case that removing this freeway would cause congestion even if every single vehicle stayed. Throw in the improvements that the Alameda Corridor folks want to make between the 47/103 split and the corridor, and it’s an open and shut case for getting rid of the 103 freeway.

  • BrianU

    We actually think that converting the freeway into a street can reduce local traffic congestion, by replacing the TI Freeway with a street that integrates into the local grid, it can take pressure of the only complete north-south street a half-mile away.

    To recap: removing the freeway can reduce public health impacts on those in adjacent schools and homes, create a 20-30 acre, mile-long greenbelt and reduce traffic. It’s hard to beat that!

  • Anonymous

    I would strongly suggest considering development on some of the former ROW. I’m thinking both of what Jane Jacobs wrote about parks being “edges” and personal experience from living in Boston before/during/after the Big Dig saga. The city looks a lot better with the highway gone… but don’t let anyone fool you and say that the North End and Waterfront feel integrated into the rest of downtown.

    That said, there isn’t much to connect to west of the 103 since it is heavily industrial… so maybe it’s not an issue.

  • I’m thinking a model similar to Rynerson Park in Lakewood on Studebaker is a good direction for that. Also how the 710 and Cesar Chavez park are almost integrated but minus a freeway of course.

  • Those are overpasses though right? I think the majority of those drivers are going east-west and not on this freeway. I think they should lose the free way and keep it as a local street that’s connected from say Anaheim to Willow and include a park/utility area alongside. I think this should happen after the expansion of the 710 though.

  • BrianU

    Agreed on active edges. Part of the issue is the poor land-use adjacency with schools/homes next to freight/industry/refineries. The greenbelt is as much about open space as a land-use buffer between the two. There are north-south connectivity issues within West LB that this hopes to partly resolve but there are larger regional issues of connectivity east-west that needs greater consideration.

  • Anonymous

    Those volumes are for the freeway, not the east-west streets. They are well below the capacity of an at-grade intersection. So yes, the freeway is not needed and can come down.

    (For comparison, the 405 has over 300,000 veh/day… more than 30x what the TI Freeway has)

  • BrianU~ There’s a convo on Facebook that suggests instead of spending money to remove the freeway, convert it into a High Line-like park/public space (“an elevated park with a bikeway & space for artists/performers and cafes like the High Line in NYC”). What do you think about this idea?

  • BrianU

    The freeway is at-grade and most of the 20-30ac of surplus land is weeds and dirt. Not as sexy as the High-Line but there is certainly opportunity for park space, just this component would increase West LB’s open space by 50%. There is much much more to come. Maybe even the train-track repurposing. Stay tuned,

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

CNU Deems Terminal Island Freeway Top 10 ‘Freeway Without Future’

|
The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU)—the country’s premiere organization which is founded on creating walkable, neighborhood-based development—released its 2014 “Freeways Without Futures” report, listing Long Beach’s own Terminal Island (TI) Freeway amongst its top 10 prospects for removal. Calling it a “perfect example of obsolete infrastructure,” CNU echoes the time-consuming efforts put forth by […]

Santa Monicas That Weren’t

|
Santa Monica Causeway at A+D’s Never Built: Los Angeles (Photo: Gary Kavanagh) (Want to see more coverage of Santa Monica? Contribute to our Kick Starter to support the launch of a unique Santa Monica news source, Santa Monica Next.) If you haven’t been to see the A+D (Architecture and Design) Museum exhibit Never Built: Los […]