[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6318689,"mediaKeyId","2364662-46846d342036982b0b78adebd95e12fb","parentId",2364662,"title","Commissions hear scale and cost of freight: ports, truck corridors and targeted freight investments","audioSeconds",1433,"startMs",3061000,"endMs",4494000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2364662-46846d342036982b0b78adebd95e12fb&start=3061&end=4494","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2364662-46846d342036982b0b78adebd95e12fb/thumbnail_3061000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6318689/California/Commissions-hear-scale-and-cost-of-freight-ports-truck-corridors-and-targeted-freight-investments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6318689-990510678dcae4b9af584b76fe7e7bf0/orig.mp4?Expires=1775920437&Signature=FmwY2-SHxqNThrzC8uO51oE9fhYJ2T72fc~E0T8PJnB2IaJo4RFmcDxINeeN2~ywIV0TslgCQFtAZiVQMF4bSMQuOodBtAcxGU90DDN1p4c1xVFxru474YXcMtKex-2S6z614mrIn59xkf4a8a2BZ8Z1ON8jaMTY3rFCIX9EgC~r2AKCak8SPDnyBNbAeMJTb5YZpopzhXdjYU7U8XFvMQFPVBTc70eE36F~~ASGoIFIk1GpZSDkdsPYne14thue--hXcGtf-fSyEj1UsmmgXz6nIICO1InBXZq~KyT7I6aFShppsV6XQmkLCyfUKVZyGDz0Rwg32rks9ippclBziw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Transportation Commission","date","2025-02-21T00:42:46.523Z","article","Commissioners from both states heard a sustained briefing on freight and goods movement that ranged from Southern California scale and air‑quality concerns to Washington State’s institutional approach to funding freight bottlenecks.

Hassan (presenter) described goods movement in Southern California as a major economic engine: a six‑county Southern California region with about 18.4 million people, the largest port complex in the United States and extensive warehousing capacity. He said the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle a large share of U.S. container traffic and that the region’s goods movement supports nationwide supply chains.

Hassan presented demand forecasts and infrastructure pressures. He cited a 2013 baseline of about 14.6 million twenty‑foot equivalent units (TEUs) and a capacity‑constrained forecast of about 38.2 million TEUs by 2035; he also noted unconstrained demand forecasts that are higher. He said truck volumes on key corridors are large and rising (he cited examples such as roughly 24,000 trucks daily on the I‑710 corridor today, projected to about 53,000) and that rail intersections and rising train volumes increase gate and grade‑crossing delays.

Hassan argued the region needs a mix of investments — grid separations, truck‑focused lane capacity (he described an East‑West freight corridor proposal with two truck lanes each direction), port access projects and expanded freight rail capacity — and he noted a regional proposal list totaling about $70 billion in freight projects. He emphasized the role of tolling, technological improvements (including automated vehicle concepts for trucks that he said could increase throughput) and the economic return of accelerating major projects, citing Alameda Corridor as a long‑term example of collaboration and large public works delivery.

Ashley Probart, director of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) in Washington, described the agency’s role and methods. She said FMSIB is a 12‑member board appointed by the governor that focuses on freight projects, leverages limited state funds and seeks to catalyze multi‑partner investments. Probart said the board typically receives roughly $12 million per biennium in state freight funds (divided between road‑only and multimodal categories) and that historically FMSIB funding has leveraged roughly $4–$5 in other public and private funds for every state dollar invested.

Probart reviewed project selection and examples from Washington. She highlighted the Port of Vancouver loop‑track project, which improved throughput and supported private investment, and a Central Washington multimodal project that shortened local queuing and increased daily loading rates at a refrigerated produce facility. She also described FMSIB’s work to compile freight needs for MAP‑21 and to stand up a state freight advisory committee under federal guidance.

Both presenters and commissioners discussed environmental and community impacts: Hassan noted that goods movement contributes a large share of regional nitrogen‑oxide emissions and that communities near ports bear disproportionate exposure; Probart said Washington’s approach includes looking for co‑benefits, emphasizing projects that improve mobility and reduce environmental impacts where possible.

Commissioners from both states and staff emphasized the need for national and state funding, coordinated permitting and consistent freight definitions so projects can be prioritized. Speakers urged continued collaboration across jurisdictions, accelerated project delivery to capture economic benefits, and systematic approaches to at‑grade crossing funding and first/last‑mile corridor definition.

No formal votes were taken; presenters and commissioners identified areas for follow up including continued interagency coordination, freight advisory committee work and pursuit of dedicated freight funding at the federal level.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","August 19, 2014 California Transportation Commission Meeting Part 4","oneSentenceSummary","Presenters from Southern California and Washington outlined freight’s economic scale, infrastructure pressures and targeted projects — from Alameda Corridor examples to Washington’s Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board project pipeline and the need for coordinated funding and at‑grade crossing solutions.","taxTitle","Transportation Commission, Agencies under Office of the Governor, Executive, California","taxId",70065,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6318694,"Washington Transportation Commission outlines update to statewide plan tied to Growth Management Act",1058,1376000,2434000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2364662-46846d342036982b0b78adebd95e12fb&start=1376&end=2434","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2364662-46846d342036982b0b78adebd95e12fb/thumbnail_1376000.jpg","/articles/6318694/California/Washington-Transportation-Commission-outlines-update-to-statewide-plan-tied-to-Growth-Management-Act","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6318694-a4bf5c57f087281679e370770ea02984/orig.mp4?Expires=1775920437&Signature=KtfxWKDAEQff6DumebucN2q3vsdpMHzKO6x5Mc0wndMT-wQ3U60dV2Ap06w9YPSV8C9lD~fVe8V4XcicuA-XxcHlaOr4AeQvzHW77hiNQVykmQITTtLqS7l1b8XDsTLBOm61Lstj6yYk~twTMVjvUJnfHZTl3p3nzvTSvftog97TMTnJ~Dvod6OHi6Rc0kkAfL6~~uyMFc2tDmxnUSkWnm4vJbIUdVkU0YC11O9miY-gmwM20HwbKJGH8jPjaUl2qurz3jpLjDOFfzT3Peb4zbj1nFwWIaL56ejbWhkwuqmRI2N~Cpu9bxBwUNcoUwlWElIHEkb1Xff7YhGospwjvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Paul Parker, deputy director of the Washington State Transportation Commission, told the joint meeting that Washington’s statewide transportation plan is a statutory requirement used to coordinate federal, state and regional transportation priorities.

Parker said state law requires the commission to prepare a statewide plan that is consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA — enacted in 1990 — directs cities and counties to include transportation elements in local comprehensive plans, to align land use with transportation investments, and to identify how needed transportation infrastructure will be funded. He said the law also requires concurrency or other multimodal alternatives so that infrastructure keeps pace with development.

Parker described the commission’s current update to the Washington Transportation Plan (WTP 2035). He said the document is shorter and more focused than many plans (about 60 pages) and that the commission formed a three‑member steering committee (a commissioner chair, a DOT representative, and a representative from the state’s 15 regional transportation planning organizations) to make policy recommendations.

The statewide effort is being carried out jointly with the Washington State Department of Transportation and a consultant team led by Cambridge Systematics, Parker said. He said the update will identify gaps from the 2030 plan, revise the state vision and strategies under six statutory policy goals, incorporate outreach findings and respond to public comment.

Parker outlined four key messages emerging from the planning work: the update is incremental rather than a wholesale change; economic vitality and quality of life require a multimodal, well‑maintained system; the state’s role in certain modes (air, public and special‑needs transit) needs clearer definition; and there is a continued need for sustainable long‑term funding at all levels of government.

He also discussed emerging themes for preservation, safety, mobility and environment. Parker noted a court‑ordered DOT cost of about $2 billion to replace culverts on state roads to improve fish passage as an example of infrastructure obligations that affect transportation funding and priorities.

Parker said the commission issued a public review draft of WTP 2035 earlier in the month and is conducting public forums and webinars; the commission expects to revise the plan after comments and adopt it for transmittal to the governor and legislature by December.

He said an important part of the process is bringing cities, counties, transit agencies and state agencies (including the department that houses state housing programs) together so that bottom‑up and top‑down priorities can be reconciled in a single statewide document.","Paul Parker, deputy director of the Washington State Transportation Commission, described a jointly produced statewide transportation plan (WTP 2035) that must align with the Growth Management Act and federal requirements and is currently in public review ahead of a planned adoption by December.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6318699,"Bay Area ties SB 375 targets to transit-oriented housing in Plan Bay Area",1171,204000,1375000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2364662-46846d342036982b0b78adebd95e12fb&start=204&end=1375","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2364662-46846d342036982b0b78adebd95e12fb/thumbnail_204000.jpg","/articles/6318699/California/Bay-Area-ties-SB-375-targets-to-transit-oriented-housing-in-Plan-Bay-Area","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6318699-5ecb5936dd21b2bcb5cdbb4d8cf184e2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775920437&Signature=T6t2S6j6jLrS9Mv~qPhW4wwjxfLzFEE24XQptZBweY3D9rGptloVxF~DdvoCdOgC3SMA6ILci3kjIKHuHe1A8j21O6J66ffHdJE9Cr2uQRXUnM-Fp5wtYqQa3KH4InxXiEEZBgRLUm2ek4EPGIramMXyeFGgtX1DnI5y5QwNPDSCrF8nOn0sQfuLXmEAhovNvAd~NOSMz6q3no2W-QxGe4KwrkNoQ7J2du6B6LCLFt0ZN0-dxbaGOj3vBkTzTrlis7tJBLWy8q-bFFAn67-2DLe93a14KJGtRG1Y49o6vMIDBeczXnMaYbp9L-yDIsAW7usMiQi-YB6AQPJoEH9wiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Alex Bockelman, with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, told a joint meeting of California and Washington transportation commissioners that California’s sustainable-communities laws and federal performance rules have reshaped regional planning.

Bockelman said the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) required metropolitan planning organizations to develop “sustainable community strategies” that align land use and transportation planning with greenhouse‑gas reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board. He said regions must plan for housing at all income levels to avoid assuming in‑commuting reductions that would undercut the targets.

Bockelman described Plan Bay Area — the region’s sustainable community strategy adopted in July 2013 — as the product of a multi‑year scenario process, hundreds of public meetings and an environmental review that drew more than 600 written comments. He said the plan uses a three‑part framework (economy, environment and equity), adopted 15 performance targets, and directed growth to Priority Development Areas so that 80 percent of new homes and 60 percent of new jobs would be located on about 5 percent of the land area.

The presentation included the plan’s finance and investment assumptions. Bockelman said the 25‑year Plan Bay Area forecasted about $300 billion in transportation investments, with roughly 88 percent allocated to maintaining existing infrastructure and about 63 percent aimed at transit. Shortly after adopting Plan Bay Area, the commission approved a nearly $7.5 billion package over 15 years to invest in the region’s core transit system, he said.

To encourage local jurisdictions to plan and build housing near transit, MTC launched the One Bay Area Grant program, Bockelman said. He described the program as tying transportation funding to jurisdictions’ willingness to adopt state‑approved housing elements and zone near transit.

Commissioners asked about litigation and implementation. Vice Chair Dunn noted that San Diego’s sustainable‑communities plan had been sued and asked how regions should reconcile that litigation risk with housing incentives. Bockelman responded that CEQA review in California opens regional plans to litigation and that the state’s requirement to subject regional plans to CEQA makes the planning process more costly and legally exposed than in states without the same review requirement.

Bockelman concluded by noting coordination challenges between federal performance measures (MAP‑21), the state California Transportation Plan (CTP 2040) and regional measures, and he said that expected cap‑and‑trade funds and other revenue sources will test the cooperative relationships among agencies.

Plan Bay Area and SB 375 remain active parts of the region’s planning and funding strategy, he said, while acknowledging that redevelopment funding loss and the affordable‑housing shortfall leave substantial implementation challenges.

The commission discussion that followed emphasized litigation risk under CEQA, the continuing difficulty of producing affordable housing even where jurisdictions accept RHNA allocations, and the role that targeted funding — including cap‑and‑trade‑linked programs — may play in implementation.","Metropolitan Transportation Commission officials described how California laws AB 32 and SB 375 shaped Plan Bay Area, a 25-year regional plan that emphasizes housing near transit, performance targets and large investments in transit and maintenance.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissions hear scale and cost of freight: ports, truck corridors and targeted freight investments

Washington Transportation Commission outlines update to statewide plan tied to Growth Management Act

Bay Area ties SB 375 targets to transit-oriented housing in Plan Bay Area