LONG BEACH, Calif. — A major rail expansion project at the Port of Long Beach has fallen at least a year behind schedule, an official says, as the port waits for the U.S. Maritime Administration to approve an environmental report.
The Long Beach Post reports the $870 million Pier B On-Dock Support Project is awaiting the Maritime Administration’s final approval of an Environmental Impact Statement first released by the port in 2016. The agency’s approval is needed because the project is set to receive $16 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and will seek additional federal funds to help pay for construction.
Elements of the $870 million project include expansion of an existing yard to 38 tracks, expansion of staging tracks to accommodate up to five 10,000-foot trains, and a facility able to handle up to 30 locomotives, as well as realignment of existing streets and tracks. It aims to increase the percentage of port cargo handled by rail from 285 to 35%. The first part of the project was expected to be built by 2024 with completion by 2032.
I agree the five year delay is unconscionable.
But if the EIS were to be approved tomorrow the activists groups would take it to court soon after and produce longer delays.
We have to respect the environment but we also have to build things. There are now something like 40 ships sitting idle out in the ocean because the ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles do not have the capacity to unload/load them.
Stuff like this will just kill our economy. And I think that’s pretty much the real objective.
I think these EIS requirements are to “hopefully block any new construction” but only of rail projects. Highway expansion projects fare much better. Because it’s the American way.
Unconscionable!!! Five years and waiting to approve an EIS???????????
The major purpose now of an EIS is to at least delay but hopefully block any new construction. It took the BNSF over three years to get approval for the second track up Abo Canyon, longer than construction took.
Which is why the EIS rules have to be changed — so that the process is measured decision making, not full-bore obstructionist.