ADOPTED APRIL 2012

Southern California Association of Governments

GOODS MOVEMENT APPENDIX
GOODS MOVEMENT

System Vision 1

The Regional Goods Movement System 2

Components of the Regional Goods Movement System 2

The Supply Chain System and Southern California 4

Key Functions and Markets 7

Drivers of Modal Decisions 9

Goods Movement Trends and Drivers 12

2012–2035 RTP/SCS Goods Movement Strategies 13

2012–2035 RTP/SCS Background 13

Highway Strategies 13

Rail Strategies 25

Other Strategies 36

Goods Movement Environmental Strategy 38
System Vision

Goods movement and freight transportation are essential to support the SCAG regional 

economy and quality of life. The goods movement system in the SCAG region is a 

multimodal, coordinated network that includes deep-water marine ports, international 

border crossings, Class I rail lines, interstate highways, state routes and local roads, air 

cargo facilities, intermodal facilities, and regional distribution and warehousing clusters. 

In 2010, over 1.15 billion tons of cargo valued at almost $2 trillion1 moved across the 

region’s transportation system. Whether carrying imported goods from the San Pedro 

Bay Ports to regional distribution centers, supplying materials for local manufacturers, 

or delivering consumer goods to SCAG residents, the movement of freight provides the 

goods needed to sustain regional industries and consumers on a daily basis. 

Working with its public and private partners, SCAG has established a vision for a comprehensive regional goods movement system that is reflected in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.

RTP/SCS Goods Movement Vision Statement

A world-class, coordinated Southern California goods movement 

system that accommodates growth in the throughput of freight to 

the region and nation in ways that support the region’s economic 

vitality, attainment of clean air standards, and the quality of life for 

our communities

This vision promotes the improvement of the goods movement system by:

 Maintaining the long-term economic competitiveness of the region

 Promoting local and regional job creation and retention

 Increasing freight and passenger mobility

 Improving the safety of goods movement activities

 Mitigating environmental impacts of goods movement operations

1 FHWA Freight Analysis Framework: http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/Extraction0.aspx.

In support of this vision, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS describes a goods movement system with regional initiatives and projects totaling nearly $50 billion through 2035. Key 

regional initiatives include a comprehensive system of zero- and/or near-zero-emission 

freight corridors, alleviation of major bottlenecks, a rail package totaling approximately 

$12 billion, and an environmental strategy to address emissions through both near term 

initiatives and a long term action plan for technology advancement. The comprehensive 

system of zero- and/or near-zero-emission freight corridors includes I-710, which is currently undergoing environmental review, and an east west corridor extending to an initial 

segment of I-15. The rail package includes main line capacity enhancements, on-dock 

and near-dock rail facility improvements, and 71 grade separations. In addition, critical 

projects to facilitate access to the San Pedro Bay Ports (e.g., improvements to the Gerald 

Desmond Bridge) and the Port of Hueneme, and to alleviate congestion at critical border 

crossings, are underway.

This plan was developed as part of the SCAG multi-year Comprehensive Regional Goods 

Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. Through this effort, SCAG has worked with 

diverse regional stakeholders to develop a multimodal regional freight plan. A final version of the Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy, 

documenting the full breadth of study findings, will be released in coordination with adoption of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS.

This appendix includes an overview of regional goods movement activities and specific 

initiatives to facilitate a world-class goods movement system. The first section provides 

an introduction to the regional goods movement system, describing key components and 

how they work together to support the regional economy. The following section describes 

critical markets served by the regional goods movement system and how these markets 

depend on transportation infrastructure. The final section identifies regional strategies 

and initiatives, including an action plan to support the development and commercialization 

of technologies necessary for a zero- and near-zero emissions goods movement system.

Goods Movement 1
The Regional Goods Movement System

The goods movement system in the SCAG region is a complex series of interconnected 

infrastructure components designed to serve commercial activities spurred by regional 

and national demand. This goods movement system provides the backbone for the 

movement of goods between businesses and consumers. Numerous demand factors 

(e.g., types of products, destinations, urgency, costs, etc.) create unique markets that 

must be accommodated by varying types of goods movement activities. Markets in the 

SCAG region range from those that move goods directly from manufacturing centers to 

local consumers, to those traveling from the San Pedro Bay Ports, to distant destinations 

across the U.S. These markets depend heavily upon an extensive regional transportation 

network that provides the mobility necessary to ensure economic growth. These mobility needs, coupled with the accompanying air quality, environmental, and community 

challenges posed by regional goods movement activities, serve as the driving force for 

developing a comprehensive plan to enhance the regional freight system.

Components of the Regional Goods Movement System

Both international and domestic trade thrive in Southern California in large part due to the 

extensive existing transportation and goods movement infrastructure in the SCAG region 

(EXHIBIT 1). This system is comprised of the following major elements:

 Seaports: The ports in the SCAG region (Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hueneme) 

handled just under 120 million metric tons of cargo imports and exports, valued 

at $336 billion in 2010.2 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach represent the 

largest container port complex in the U.S., and the sixth largest in the world. In 

2010 the San Pedro Bay Ports handled 14.1 million twenty-foot equivalent units 

(TEUs) of containerized cargo. The Port of Hueneme, in Ventura County, specializes 

in the import and export of automobiles, fresh fruit, and produce, and serves as the 

primary support facility for the offshore oil industry.

 Land Ports: The international border crossings in Imperial County (Calexico 

West-Mexicali I, Calexico East-Mexicali II and Andrade-Los Algodones) are busy 

2 U.S. Census Bureau, Exhibit 1: U.S. Exports – Domestic and Foreign Merchandise by Customs District 

and Method of Transportation and Exhibit 6a – U.S. General Imports by Customs District and Method 

of Transportation, Vessel data only, for calendar year 2010.

commercial land ports responsible for over $10.4 billion in trade in 2010 despite 

the recent economic downturn.3 Driven by the maquiladora trade and movement of 

agricultural products, the volume of goods passing through these international ports 

of entry is expected to increase over the time horizon of the RTP.

 Air Cargo Facilities: The SCAG region is home to numerous air cargo facilities, 

including Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Ontario International Airport 

(ONT), which combined handled over 96 percent of the region’s air cargo in 2010.

 Interstate, Highways, and Local Roads: The region has about 53,400 road miles, 

1,630 miles of which are interstate and freeway type.4 Sections of I-710, I-605, 

SR-60, and SR-91 carry the highest volumes of truck traffic in the region, averaging 

over 25,000 trucks per day in 2008.5 Other major components of the regional highway network also serve significant numbers of trucks, including I-5, I-10, I-15, and 

I-210, with some sections carrying over 20,000 trucks per day.6 These roads carry a 

mix of local, domestic trade, and international cargoes. The arterial roadway system 

also plays a critical role, providing “last mile” connections to the ports, manufacturing facilities, intermodal terminals, warehouses, and distribution centers.

 Railroads: Two Class I railroads, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) 

and Union Pacific (UP), carry international and domestic cargo to and from distant 

parts of the country. The BNSF operates on the Transcontinental Line (Cajon and 

San Bernardino Subdivisions) as well as the Orange and Olive Subdivisions. The UP 

operates on the Coast, Santa Clarita, Alhambra, Los Angeles, Mojave, and Yuma 

Subdivisions. Both railroads operate on the Alameda Corridor that connects directly 

to the San Pedro Bay Ports. The railroads are served by six major intermodal terminals in the region as well as multiple on-dock railyards at the Ports of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach. The SCAG region also has Class III railroads (Pacific Harbor Line, 

Los Angeles Junction Railway, and the Ventura County Railway).

3 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface 

Freight Data. 4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hpms/hpmslibrary/hpmspdf/2009PRD.pdf (last accessed on 

December 10, 2010). 5 2008 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Traffic and Vehicle 

Data Systems, California Department of Transportation, September 2009. 6 2008 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Traffic and Vehicle 

Data Systems, California Department of Transportation, September 2009.

2 Goods Movement
 

3

EXHIBIT 1Existing SCAG Regional Goods Movement System
 Warehousing and Distribution Centers: As of 2008, the region had about 837 

million square feet of warehousing space. Another 185 million square feet7 could 

be developed on vacant land that is zoned for warehousing. In 2008, an estimated 

15 percent of the occupied warehouse space8 served port-related uses while the 

remaining 85 percent supported a mix of domestic and international cargo.9 Many of 

these warehouses are clustered along key goods movement corridors. Port-related 

warehousing tends to be concentrated near the Ports, while distribution facilities for 

domestic cargo tend to be located in areas farther away from the Ports including the 

Inland Empire.

The Supply Chain System and Southern California

As previously mentioned, regional transportation infrastructure supports the movement 

of goods to discrete markets dependent upon diverse business and consumer needs. The 

goods movement system in Southern California provides critical network connections 

between freight origins and destinations. Transportation infrastructure in the SCAG region 

facilitates multiple types of supply chains (also called logistics or supply networks). These 

supply chains are coordinated systems of organizations, people, activities, information, 

and resources involved in moving products from suppliers to customers.

All industries depend on reliable and efficient transportation services to meet their business objectives. Understanding the impacts and linkages between improvements in the 

transportation system and typical supply chains for key goods movement-dependent 

businesses in Southern California is critical for making decisions to support the regional 

economy. Supply chains are dependent on many variables, including the weight, size, and 

perishability of raw materials or finished product, as well as the availability and cost of 

different transportation modes. However, it is possible to summarize some general supply 

chain characteristics for key goods movement industries in the SCAG region:10

7 Potentially developable warehouse space estimates are based upon suitable land that is zoned for 

warehouse development. 8 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. 9 Some domestic warehouse space may include international goods as well. 10 There are many approaches to categorizing supply chain types. This particular approach is based on 

an approach developed by Boston Logistics Group, Inc. and is referenced in “Guide to Quantifying the 

Economic Impacts of Federal Investments in Large-Scale Freight Transportation Projects,” prepared 

by Cambridge Systematics, Economic Development Research Group, and Boston Logistics Group for 

the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, August 2006.

1. Extraction Industries: This sector includes industries that ship forest products, 

grain, and coal. In general, raw materials and products associated with these 

industries are heavy and not as time-sensitive as other products. Therefore, they 

generally prefer supply chains structures with low unit transportation costs and high 

asset utilization.

2. Manufacturing Industries: These industries – and their inputs / outputs – vary 

widely. In the SCAG region, top manufacturing subsectors include computer and 

electronic product manufacturing, fabricated metal products, apparel, food, and 

transportation equipment manufacturing. Each of these industry subsectors has different supply chain needs, depending on the weight, size, and time-sensitive nature 

of their raw inputs or products. However, in general, manufacturing industries are 

characterized by companies that run continuous processing facilities. They typically have few sites and highly specialized equipment, such as chemical and plastic 

companies. These industries generally prefer supply chain structures with low unit 

transportation costs and a high degree of service reliability.

3. Make-to-Stock Industries: These industries typically have multiple sites and a 

complex set of inbound and outbound product flows, and use roughly equal parts 

of labor and machinery. Industry examples include lumber and paper shippers, auto 

assembly plants, and heavy machinery manufacturers. These industries generally 

prefer supply chain structures with consistent and reliable service.

4. Make-to-Order Industries: Supply chains for this technologically advanced industry 

group are typified by few sites with limited flows of inbound and outbound materials. 

Examples include airplane manufacturers or the defense industry. These industries 

generally prefer supply chain structures with reliable service and fast delivery.

5. Distribution Industries: Industries in this group have many locations, numerous 

transactions, and product flows in various quantities. Many shipments are small and 

rely on the use of a number of vehicles. Examples might include small-package carriers and specialty electronics and aftermarket parts distributors. These industries 

generally prefer supply chain structures with predictability and reliable service.

6. Retail Industries: This includes all retail sales products. These supply chains tend 

to be the longest and most far reaching, usually requiring transportation flexibility, 

agility, and the ability to respond to forecast changes quickly. Examples include 

computer makers, discount retailers, and grocery stores. These industries generally 

4 Goods Movement
Goods Movement 5

prefer supply chain structures with the ability to handle high velocities and provide 

flexible service.

These goods movement industries contribute substantial public benefits to the region. 

As shown in TABLE 1, manufacturing and retail trade, alone, are responsible for approximately $142 billion in overall regional GDP (over 18 percent) and almost 1.7 million jobs 

(nearly 20 percent of all regional jobs).11 In fact, despite the recent economic downturn, 

SCAG’s manufacturing sector remains one of the largest in the nation. In 2009, Los 

Angeles County was ranked as the top manufacturing center in the country in terms of 

manufacturing shipment volume, with Orange County and Riverside-San Bernardino also 

ranked in the top 15 manufacturing centers nationally.12 Understanding the supply chain 

characteristics of key industries helps to target transportation system investments into 

projects that support key job and GDP-producing industries. This is particularly critical 

as goods movement-dependent industries are projected to grow. Between 2009-2035, 

manufacturing is projected to grow at 3.4 percent annually, retail trade at 2.9 percent 

annually, and transportation and warehousing at 2.7 percent. The transportation system 

demands of these industries will also grow steadily throughout this time period.

TABLE 1 Regional GDP and Employment Contribution of Key Goods 

Movement-Dependent Industries (2010)

Key Industries

Regional Contribution

Jobs (in Thousands) GDP (Billions)

Manufacturing 744 $88 

Retail Trade 950 $54 

Wholesale Trade 429 $51 

Construction 431 $21 

Transportation and Warehousing 330 $20 

Other Goods Producing 70 $12 

Source: SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy 

11 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy.

12 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW Data as found in Manufacturing: Still a Force in Southern 

California completed by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, Kyser Center for 

Economic Research, 2011.

MANUFACTURING AND RETAIL TRADE SUPPLY CHAINS

Trade splits for manufacturing output in the SCAG region suggest that the region develops products that are in demand by local, national, and international markets. In 2010, 

35 percent of sales from SCAG’s manufacturing industries was destined for international 

markets, compared to 38 percent of sales with other regions in the U.S. and 27 percent of 

sales within the SCAG region itself.13 The geographic distribution of sales for manufacturing industries means that they will benefit from investments into the local and regional 

transportation systems, including their connections to national and international markets.

As a whole, higher-value manufacturing industries (such as computer and electronics 

manufacturing–the top subsector in the SCAG region) have increasingly adopted “justin-time” inventory strategies that are focused on delivering goods as needed, with very 

little inventory requirements. Though this strategy lowers the costs of carrying inventory, it requires a high level of flexibility from suppliers and responsiveness in the supply 

chain. Goods that are part of “just-in-time” supply chains are extremely time-sensitive, as 

missing parts may cause disruptions in the manufacturing process. These products are 

increasingly dependent on an efficient, reliable, and safe freight movement and transportation infrastructure. Expenditures on transportation industries by the manufacturing 

sector in the SCAG region totaled over $17.5 million in 2010 (TABLE 2).

13 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy.
TABLE 2 Expenditures on Transportation by Manufacturing Industries 

(2010)

Transportation Mode Spending on Different Transportation Modes 

(Insourced and Outsourced)

Millions of Dollars Percent of Total

Truck $3,711 21%

Rail $3,261 19%

Air $5,116 29%

Water $2,471 14%

Courier $2,101 12%

Warehousing and Storage $876 5%

Total $17,536 100%

Source: SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy

Retail industries also include a wide variety of subsectors (including clothing and household goods). In general, retail industries are heavily dependent on international trade to 

receive materials and products, usually through containerized cargo imported through 

the San Pedro Bay Ports. The output sales of retail industries in the SCAG region are 

dominated by local markets. In 2010, roughly 86 percent of sales was to local markets, 

compared to 14 percent of sales to other domestic U.S. locations and less than 1 percent 

to international locations. Retail industries in the SCAG region therefore depend heavily on 

the region’s transportation system to move goods to market, and will benefit from investments into local connector facilities, access roads, and other facilities providing interregional mobility. Expenditures on transportation by the retail sector in the SCAG region 

totaled nearly $11 billion in 2010 (TABLE 3).

TABLE 3 Expenditures on Transportation by Retail Industries (2010)

Transportation Mode Spending on Different Transportation Modes 

(Insourced and Outsourced)

Millions of Dollars Percent of Total

Truck $7,136 65%

Rail $542 5%

Air $1,619 15%

Water $709 6%

Courier $506 5%

Warehousing and Storage $416 4%

Total $10,929 100%

Source: SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy

Though individual shippers utilize different types of supply chains, lowering transportation 

costs and improving reliability across logistics networks are a critical and constant focus. 

While significant investments in processes, technologies, and assets have made supply 

chains increasingly productive and cost-efficient, shippers regularly evaluate transportation costs to drive business decisions. Given the impact of transportation infrastructure 

on efficiencies, and thereby operating costs of supply chains, a world-class goods movement system is crucial to attract and retain businesses in Southern California. Through 

ongoing dialogue with regional transportation interests, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS offers 

a portfolio of initiatives and projects to ensure that the SCAG region continues to benefit 

from goods movement activities.

6 Goods Movement
Key Functions and Markets

The goods movement system has developed in the SCAG region to serve a wide range 

of user markets. Each of these markets has unique performance needs that dictate the 

components of the system that they will use. A brief summary of international, domestic, 

and local trade, follows.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

The SCAG region is the largest international trade gateway in the U.S. International trade 

moving through the San Pedro Bay Ports, international border crossings with Mexico, 

and regional airports is supported by an extensive transportation system that includes 

a highly developed network of roadways and railroads, air cargo facilities, intermodal 

facilities, and an abundance of regional distribution and warehousing clusters. While the 

SCAG region has made great strides in building infrastructure and planning for the future, 

significant investment is needed to support the expected growth in the nation’s largest 

and most important integrated freight system.

San Pedro Bay Ports

Containerized trade between the U.S. and Asia comprises the majority of international 

cargo entering the SCAG region, with over 31 percent of all containers in the U.S. moving through the San Pedro Bay Ports.14 While there has been a modest shift recently in 

container volumes to other U.S., Canadian, and Mexican ports, total container volume for 

the San Pedro Bay Ports is still expected to grow to 43 million by 2035, more than three 

times current volumes (FIGURE 1). This projected increase in freight moving through the 

region will place greater strain on an already congested transportation system, directly 

affecting residents and businesses alike.

14 Source: American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), North American Container Traffic (1990-

2010), http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/CONTAINER%20TRAFFIC%20NORTH%20AMERICA%20

1990%20-%202010%20for%20the%20web.pdf.

FIGURE 1 San Pedro Bay Ports Containerized Cargo Forecasts

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2007 (actual) 2010 (actual) 2015 2020 2030 2035

Freight Containers (Millions 20-Ft Equivalent Units, TEUs)

Imports, which constitute most of the containers that move through the San Pedro Bay 

Ports, may be categorized as local or discretionary. Local containerized traffic is that 

which is ultimately consumed in a geographical area local to the San Pedro Bay Ports 

(Southern California, Southern Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico, and southern portions of Utah and Colorado). Discretionary containerized traffic is that which terminates 

outside this region. Recent analysis indicates that local traffic accounts for approximately 

23 percent of San Pedro Bay Ports’ total traffic. The other 77 percent is assumed to be 

discretionary traffic, routed through the San Pedro Bay Ports for economic reasons.15

Imports can be further categorized as Local, Direct Shipping or Transloaded. When 

containers arrive at the San Pedro Bay Ports, the way they move are determined by the 

economics of inventory and transportation costs (see TABLE 4).

15 SCAG Port and Modal Elasticity Study, Phase II.

Goods Movement 7
TABLE 4 Modal Strategies for Imported Cargo

Import Cargo Type Modal Strategy

Local: Imports consumed within the greater region (i.e., imports 

consumed within Southern California, Southern Nevada, Arizona, New 

Mexico and southern portions of Utah and Colorado) for which San 

Pedro Bay serves as the closest container port with the lowest landside transportation costs. 

1. Movement of marine containers to destinations within the greater SCAG region using local trucks.

Direct-shipping: Imports moving to destinations outside the SCAG 

region that simply pass through Southern California while remaining 

intact in the original marine container.[1]

1. Direct movement of marine containers to destinations outside the greater SCAG region (e.g., Chicago, 

Kansas City, etc.) using on-dock rail facilities found at the San Pedro Bay Ports. These containers are then 

moved to their final destinations by local dray trucks upon arrival via rail.

2. Direct movement of marine containers to destinations outside the greater SCAG region using near-dock 

or off-dock rail facilities at locations in the SCAG region (usually close to the San Pedro Bay Ports). The 

container requires movement from the port terminal to the origin rail terminal using a local dray truck. These 

containers are then moved to their final destinations via rail plus a local dray at the destination end.

Transloaded:[2] Imports that are unloaded from the original marine 

container in Southern California and moved to local warehouses where 

the contents are reloaded into larger domestic containers or trailers 

for reshipment. A portion of transloaded imports are reloaded immediately using a cross-dock facility, but most are warehoused in Southern 

California for some time before reshipment.

1. Movement of marine containers to an import warehouse/transloading facility within the SCAG region using 

local dray trucks. This is followed by the final movement of the newly transloaded domestic container to 

destinations both within and outside the greater SCAG region using trucks.

2. Movement of marine containers to an import warehouse/transloading facility within the SCAG region using 

local dray trucks. This is followed by the movement of the newly transloaded domestic container to a local 

rail terminal using local dray trucks where it is transported using an intermodal train.

[1] This type of import movement is also known as inland point intermodal (IPI) movement.

[2] In the 2012 RTP, transloading is broadly defined as activities that involve the deconsolidation of the contents of marine containers, which are usually forty-foot equivalent units (FEUs), and reloading of their 

contents into 53-foot domestic trailers that can be transported by trucks. Transloading allows for the movement of increased amounts of goods while utilizing less equipment, resulting in significant cost savings 

through economies of scale and other transportation-related savings. Transloading sometimes provides value-added services as well. Existing infrastructure, equipment, and trade flows in the SCAG region 

provide a substantial competitive advantage and serve as a major economic incentive for importers to move freight requiring transloading through Southern California.

8 Goods Movement
Goods Movement 9

International Border Crossings

International border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico are critical components of 

the freight transportation system in Southern California. Mexico is the third-largest trading partner of the U.S. behind Canada and China, with a $367.5 billion trade volume in 

2008, accounting for 11 percent of total U.S. foreign trade. It is also the largest market for exports of goods made in California, accounting for approximately $20.5 billion 

(14.1 percent) of California’s overall goods exports in 2008. Most of the merchandise 

flows in the California-Baja California region are made by truck, often to support the 

export-oriented manufacturing and maquiladora industries that lie on the Mexican side 

of the international border.

Increased trade across the border has been bolstered by the existence of multiple free 

trade zones (FTZs). As a result of the associated tax savings and lower wages in Mexico, 

FTZs have been used by U.S. companies to export raw materials into Mexican manufacturing firms (maquiladoras), where goods are processed or assembled, and then exported 

back in their finished state to the U.S.17 The ability to transfer goods from one FTZ to 

another within Mexican territory without losing any of the fiscal incentives (tax savings) 

is slowly creating a logistic and manufacturing network of FTZs that is expected to boost 

Mexican foreign trade with the U.S. (Intermodal México, 2010).

The future economic performance of Mexico faces strong competition as low-wage 

manufacturing jobs from Asia have eroded the maquiladoras’ once-traditional competitive 

advantage. However, studies show that some maquiladoras have evolved from primarily 

labor-intensive factories to organizations with greater complexity, technology utilization, 

and research and skill specialization. As such, the future of the maquiladora industry in 

the Baja California region is likely to have a positive future.18

Accommodating expected growth in cross-border trade will require close coordination 

and partnership among federal, state, regional, and local agencies on both sides of the 

17 Originally these FTZs were located primarily along the border, but recent changes to the Mexican 

Customs Law now allow them to operate anywhere in the Mexican territory, and several FTZs have 

opened in mainland Mexico, creating logistic hubs such as San Luis Potosí and Guanajuato. 18 Carrillo, Jorge and Arturo Lara (2005). “Mexican Maquiladoras: New Capabilities of Coordination and 

the Emergence of a New Generation of Companies.” Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, vol. 

7/2 - April 2005.

Drivers of Modal Decisions

The SCAG region consists of broad modal segments. Transportation mode 

choice is often a complicated process that reflects the type of industry being 

served.16 Considerations include:

 Product Characteristics (including the size, weight, value, and 

perishability of the commodity): Commodities that are perishable, high 

value, or small tend to be carried by air cargo or truck modes, but will 

likely not make sense as a rail commodity. Similarly, heavy, low-value, or 

bulky materials will likely be carried by rail or truck, but are highly unlikely 

to be an air cargo commodity. Construction materials—including sand, 

gravel, and wood—are generally best moved by trucks because of their 

flexibility and ability to carry heavy loads. High-tech manufacturing components normally favor truck or air cargo modes to provide safe shipment 

for high-value, lightweight materials.

 Trip Characteristics (including the length of the trip being made 

and product demand): According to the 2007 Commodity Flow Survey, 

the average length haul of U.S freight shipments was over 600 miles. 

However, the average rail shipment was over 850 miles in length, air-truck 

combination was almost 1,100 miles in length, and truck trips were about 

200 miles.

Supply Chain Characteristics: Many companies now operate using a “just-intime” logistics strategy where on-site inventory is limited and a constant supply 

of goods serves to replenish raw materials. A product that is part of a “just-intime” supply chain process will select a transportation mode that is fairly fast, 

such as truck or air. Inventory-rich industries requiring materials that are not as 

time-sensitive may use a transportation mode such as rail.

16 Source: The Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, 

2002. Analysis of Freight Movement Mode Choice Factors. Florida Department of 

Transportation.
border. This coordination must consider investment in transportation infrastructure to 

maintain the regional economic benefits provided by these international border crossings.

International Air Cargo

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) handled over 1.8 million tons of cargo in 2010, 

making it the fifth-busiest cargo airport in the United States and the 13th busiest in the 

world.19 Most often used for time-sensitive and higher-value goods, international air 

cargo plays a significant role in the regional economy, with $78 billion in trade.20 Over 

82 percent of the international air cargo at LAX is handled by scheduled passenger 

airlines or their cargo divisions that operate freighter aircraft. According to the recent air 

cargo forecast completed for SCAG, air cargo activity has been steadily declining over 

the past decade. However, this decline has been entirely confined to domestic air cargo. 

International air cargo reached a peak in 2007, declined in 2008 and 2009 with the 

recession, then recovered in 2010. It seems likely that international air cargo will continue 

to grow in the future.

19 Almost all international air cargo moves through LAX. Ontario International Airport (ONT) handles a 

very small proportion (about 3 percent in 2010) and the other regional airports handle the remainder. 20 International Trade Trends and Impacts, The Southern California Region, Los Angeles Economic 

Development Corporation Kyser Center for Economic Research and World Trade Center Association, 

Los Angeles, Long Beach.

DOMESTIC AND LOCAL GOODS MOVEMENT

While the region is a major gateway for international container movements, local and 

domestic freight is dominant. An overwhelming majority of goods movement activity in 

the SCAG region is generated by local businesses moving goods to local customers and 

serving national domestic trade systems. These local goods movement-dependent industries rely on transportation as a key part of their business model and generally utilize a 

more geographically dispersed transportation network than the international container 

market. Over 85 percent of truck trips are associated with intra-regional goods movement. Domestic manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers also use the rail system and 

the air cargo system, though to a much more limited extent than international shippers.

The regional transportation system provides the infrastructure to allow these businesses 

to ship and receive the materials necessary to perform daily operations. Examples include 

shipments of raw supplies to support manufacturing processes and the delivery of refined 

or finished products to market. Major goods movement-dependent industries include 

those related to the manufacturing, wholesale trade, construction, transportation and 

warehousing, and mining sectors.

In 2010, local goods movement-dependent industries employed over 2.9 million people 

throughout the region (FIGURE 2), and contributed $253 billion to the regional GDP 

(FIGURE 3). These industries are anticipated to grow substantially by 2035 (FIGURE 4).

10 Goods Movement
FIGURE 2 2010 Employment Contribution of Goods Movement-Dependent 

Industries (in Billions)

FIGURE 3 2010 Economic Contribution of Goods Movement-Dependent 

Industries (in Billions)

Regional GDP is a broad indicator of the level and strength of economic activity in a 

region. In the long term, the region’s GDP is projected to grow steadily through 2035 at 

a rate slightly faster than the U.S. economy as a whole. The region’s total GDP was $792 

billion in 2009 and is projected to top $1.59 trillion by 2035, growing by over 100 percent 

at an average rate of 3.9 percent between these years. In comparison, the U.S. economy 

(U.S. GDP) is expected to grow about 99 percent from 2009 to 2035 (about 3.8 percent 

annually).21

Mirroring national trends, this GDP growth is anticipated to be accompanied by an 

increasing transition toward a higher value-added manufacturing and service economy. 

The highest-growth industry sectors from 2009 to 2035 include the manufacturing, 

wholesale trade, and construction sectors, all of which are highly dependent on the 

regional goods movement system. All three of these sectors will more than double in size 

in the next two decades and will contribute a combined $380 billion to regional GDP by 

2035 (FIGURE 4).

FIGURE 4 2010–2035 Average Real Annual Growth Rates by 

Major Goods Movement-Dependent Sectors 

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Construction Wholesale Trade Manufacturing Retail Trade Transportation and

Warehousing

21 Bureau of Economic Analysis (www.bea.gov) for 2009 and 2010 data; REMI PI+v1.2.4 forecasts for 

future year projections. Growth in U.S. GDP was based on REMI data in percentage terms pivoting 

base year (2009) and future year (2035).

Goods Movement 11
Goods Movement Trends and Drivers

There are a number of key trends that are anticipated to have major impacts on the goods 

movement system over the RTP horizon. These trends include:

 Population and Economic Growth: As previously referenced, regional population 

and employment in the SCAG region, key indicators of economic health, are both 

projected to grow rapidly in the next two decades. The 2010 Census revealed that 

the SCAG region is home to just over 18 million people, or about 48 percent of the 

entire population of the state of California.22 Despite the current economic downturn 

brought on by challenging global conditions, population and employment in the SCAG 

region are expected to grow by 24 percent and 22 percent by 2035, respectively. 

This growing population will be accompanied, after an initially slow period of growth, 

by healthy job creation.23 However, employment in California has suffered recently, 

declining by 1.3 percent in 2008 and 6 percent in 2009.24 Though unemployment 

rates in the state, as a whole, will remain high in the foreseeable future, employment 

in the SCAG region is projected to climb steadily.25 This growth will create increased 

consumer demand for products and the goods movement services that provide 

them. The increased demand will drive stronger growth in freight traffic on shared 

highway and rail facilities.

22 http://factfinder2.census.gov (last accessed on July 3, 2011). 23 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. 24 California Regional Progress Report, November 2010. http://www.scag.ca.gov/publications/pdf/2010/

CARegionalProgress2010.pdf. 25 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy.

 Recovery and Expansion of International Trade: Within the RTP time horizon, 

international trade is anticipated to recover with renewed demand for both import 

and export capabilities. Despite competition with other North American ports and 

the expansion of the Panama Canal, the San Pedro Bay Ports anticipate cargo 

volumes to grow to 43 million containers annually by 2035 – more than tripling from 

today’s levels. This will create the need to expand marine terminal facilities, improve 

highway connections (particularly those connecting directly to the San Pedro Bay 

Ports, like I-710 and SR-47), and address on-dock and off-dock intermodal terminal 

capacities. If port-related rail traffic and commuter demand are to be satisfied, additional main line capacity improvements will be required. Mitigating the impacts of 

increased train traffic on communities will continue to be a considerable challenge.

 Continued Expansion of Warehouse and Logistics Activity: Southern California 

is an ideal place for expanded distribution and logistics activity and will continue to 

be a significant source of well-paying jobs in the region through 2035.26 Demand for 

port-related warehouse space is projected to grow at a faster pace than demand for 

domestic warehousing. As space near the San Pedro Bay Ports reaches capacity, 

port warehousing will push out to the Inland Empire and other parts of the region. 

Expansion in national and regional distribution facilities is also likely to occur in the 

Inland Empire, resulting in substantial congestion problems due to the increased 

truck volumes on regional highways. By 2035, the region may experience a shortfall 

of more than 228 million square feet in warehouse space relative to demand.27

 Air Quality Issues: Much of the SCAG region does not meet federal ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) air quality standards. Goods movement is a major source 

of emissions that contribute to these regional air pollution problems (NOX and PM2.5). 

While emissions from goods movement are being decreased through efforts such as 

the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, these reductions are unlikely to be 

sufficient to meet regional air quality goals. 

26 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. 27 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy.

12 Goods Movement
2012–2035 RTP/SCS Goods Movement Strategies

Infrastructure in the SCAG region must serve a variety of markets and be able to support diverse supply chains, each having distinct operational needs to continue to ensure 

continued economic growth. In addition, various policy strategies must be developed to 

address many of the impacts of regional goods movement including air quality, environmental, and communities concerns. To realize the benefits of efficient and sustainable 

goods movement, it is critical to identify strategies and projects that address expected 

growth trends.

2012–2035 RTP/SCS Background

In May 2004, SCAG, the six county transportation commissions in the SCAG region, San 

Diego County, and Caltrans began development of a plan to deal with regional goods 

movement challenges. This plan, also known as the Multi-County Goods Movement Action 

Plan (MCGMAP), identified freight movement constraints and included strategies that 

would lessen community and environmental impacts. Using the MCGMAP as a foundation, SCAG completed additional analyses to develop policies reflected in the 2008 RTP. 

The goods movement portion of the 2008 RTP identified a number of strategies aimed at 

facilitating regional freight movement in an economically viable and responsible manner.

Following the completion of the 2008 RTP, SCAG began the multi-year Comprehensive 

Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy to develop a refined 

regional goods movement plan along with an accompanying implementation strategy. 

Through this effort, SCAG has worked with diverse regional stakeholders to conduct 

in-depth evaluation of the region’s goods movement system and associated regional 

freight patterns. A final version of the Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and 

Implementation Strategy documenting the full breadth of study findings will be released 

in coordination with adoption of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS. The study integrates existing 

strategies and projects with newly developed regional initiatives advanced through recent 

analyses. The following sections highlight key regional initiatives evaluated for the 2012–

2035 RTP/SCS. 

Highway Strategies

EXISTING AND PROJECTED HIGHWAY CONDITIONS

Due to continued growth in freight and market demands, regional truck-related activities 

are expected to increase over the RTP time horizon. Trucks must be able to efficiently 

carry freight between businesses and consumers throughout the SCAG region to ensure 

that Southern California continues to capture the economic benefits of goods movement.

As part of the SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation 

Strategy, considerable enhancements were made to SCAG’s existing heavy-duty truck 

(HDT) model to support the region’s goods movement policy decisions. The HDT model 

is the primary analysis tool to evaluate the impacts of truck traffic and highway goods 

movement strategies on the regional transportation network. Major sources of truck traffic are grouped into the following categories in SCAG’s HDT model:

 Internal Truck Trips: These are truck trips that have both an origin and a destination within the SCAG region and are generated by local industries, construction 

sites, domestic warehouses and truck terminals, and residences. 

 External Truck Trips: These are interregional truck trips that reflect trade between 

the SCAG region and the rest of the U.S.

 Port Truck Trips: These are truck trips with an origin or destination at the San 

Pedro Bay Ports.

 Secondary Port Truck Trips: These are truck trips with an initial origin or destination at the San Pedro Bay Ports that are moved a second time after the first trip to or 

from the San Pedro Bay Ports. Transloading trips are in this category.

 Intermodal (IMX) Truck Trips: These are domestic intermodal truck trips that have 

origins or destinations at regional intermodal rail terminals. These truck trips do not 

include those that have either an origin or destination at the San Pedro Bay Ports.

TABLE 5 shows the number of regional truck trips in 2008 by category and county. 

Goods Movement 13
14 Goods Movement

TABLE 5 Daily Regional Truck Trips by Category by County Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura

TotalPercent

Internal 10,271 562,841 186,547 94,469 111,621 46,244 1,011,993 87.3%

External 4,816 38,794 6,815 11,183 18,140 1,271 81,019 7.0%

Port 25 37,060 2,499 855 2,752 165 43,356 3.7%

Intermodal 

(IMX) 17 3,376 306 271 3,143 57 7,170 0.6%

Secondary 37 11,944 1,102 714 2,224 268 16,289 1.4%

Total 15,166 654,015 197,269 107,492 137,880 48,005 1,159,827 

Percent 1.3% 56.4% 17.0% 9.3% 11.9% 4.1%

In 2008, the San Pedro Bay Ports were responsible for approximately 50,000 direct daily 

regional truck trips.28 As shown in TABLE 5, this consitutes only 3.7 percent of regional 

truck trips. That number is expected to grow to approximately 120,000 daily regional 

truck trips, an increase of nearly 150 percent, by 2035. Recent data indicates that the 

vast majority of trips leaving the San Pedro Bay Ports are destined for locations in the 

southern Gateway Cities, off-dock railyards near downtown Los Angeles, and other locations along the I-710 corridor (EXHIBIT 2). Although most truck trips originating at the San 

Pedro Bay Ports remain in the port vicinity, some still move to destinations throughout the 

SCAG region, contributing to local challenges on area transportation networks.

However, this pattern is expected to shift in the future with an increase in the number of 

daily trucks traveling to warehouses in the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire. For 

example, in 2008, 0.5 percent and 2.3 percent of all truck trips from the San Pedro Bay 

Ports moved to eastern San Bernardino Valley and western San Bernardino Valley, respectively. By 2035, it is anticipated that 8.8 percent and 7 percent of those truck trips will 

move to eastern San Bernardino Valley and western San Bernardino Valley, respectively. 

28 This figure includes inter-terminal truck trips that do not move on the regional highway system, while 

the figure provided in the table includes only trips on the regional highway system. 

Although some areas may show a decline in the percentage of daily truck trips from the 

San Pedro Bay Ports, all areas will experience higher truck volumes in absolute terms. 

All key regional highway corridors used to move goods are expected to see an increase in 

overall truck volumes by 2035 (EXHIBIT 3 reflects 2035 baseline conditions). At the corridor level, the highest growth in truck traffic is expected on I-710 as a result of significant 

growth in port-related traffic. While considerable growth in truck traffic is anticipated on 

I-10 and I-210, overall growth on SR-60 is forecast to be the highest of all of the eastwest corridors. EXHIBIT 4 illustrates expected speeds on the regional highway network 

during the PM Peak period in 2035 if no action is taken.
 15

EXHIBIT 2San Pedro Bay Ports Truck Distribution
16 

EXHIBIT 3 Rising Truck Volumes on Key Truck Corridors (2008 and 2035 Baseline)
 17

EXHIBIT 4Baseline 2035 Highway Speeds – PM Peak
18 Goods Movement

REGIONAL HIGHWAY STRATEGIES

As truck volumes continue to increase, especially eastward beyond the traditional service 

areas surrounding I-710, it is critical that regional infrastructure accommodate and mitigate the impacts of this growth. As part of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG has identified 

strategies to relieve congestion, reduce delay and harmful emissions, and improve safety 

on major truck corridors.

Regional Clean Freight Corridor System

In past RTPs, SCAG has envisioned a system of truck-only lanes extending from the 

San Pedro Bay Ports to downtown Los Angeles along I-710, connecting to an east-west 

segment, and finally reaching I-15 in San Bernardino County. Such a system would 

address the growing truck traffic on core highways throughout the region and serve key 

goods movement industries in a manner that mitigates impacts on communities and the 

environment. Physically separated from mixed-flow traffic and with fewer ingress/egress 

points than typical urban freeways, truck-only freight corridors effectively add capacity in 

congested corridors, improve truck operations, increase safety by separating trucks and 

autos, and provide a platform for the introduction and adoption of zero- and/or near-zero 

emission technologies

SCAG recognizes I-710 as the first segment of a comprehensive regional system of truckonly freight corridors. In the 2008 RTP, SCAG recommended the inclusion of dedicated 

lanes for zero-emission trucks on I-710. Since that time, significant progress has been 

made on I-710 as evidenced by recent work on an environmental impact report (EIR) 

that is expected to be completed in 2013. In the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG identifies a 

refined east-west corridor concept and connections to an initial segment of I-15.

EAST-WEST FREIGHT CORRIDOR

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS identifies a corridor concept that would connect to the north 

end of the I-710 freight corridor and roughly parallel the Union Pacific Railroad Los 

Angeles Subdivision before finally following a route adjacent to SR-60 just east of SR-57 

(EXHIBIT 5). While numerous east-west freight corridor options were examined, the RTP/

SCS identifies a corridor concept to be explored further. The potential use of two nonroadway routes provides an opportunity to move the facility away from neighborhoods 

and closer to the industrial activities that it would serve. Utilizing a right-of-way of 

approximately 100 feet, the bi-directional corridor would be restricted to truck traffic and 

have limited ingress/egress points. The East-West Freight Corridor would be a catalyst for 

the use of zero-and/or near-emission truck technologies, improving air quality for communities near the corridor and throughout the region. 

EXHIBIT 5 Potential East-West Freight Corridor

Following adoption of the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, additional study of this alignment 

concept, will be conducted. Additional work for the East-West Freight Corridor would 

be explored through a full environmental impact report. This would provide substantial 

opportunity for further community input.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE EAST-WEST FREIGHT CORRIDOR

The preferred East-West Freight Corridor concept included in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS is 

the culmination of extensive analysis and stakeholder feedback. EXHIBIT 6 shows the area 

most likely to be influenced by the development of the East-West Freight Corridor.

EXHIBIT 6 East-West Corridor Analysis Influence Area

Steps to identify the East-West Freight Corridor are summarized in FIGURE 5 and 

explained further below.

FIGURE 5 Process for Idenfication of the East-West Freight Corridor

Definition of the Ideal EWFC

Identification of Hybrid Alignments

Identification of Highway and Non-Highway Alignments

Relative Evaluation - Preliminary Screening Criteria

Proximity

to Markets

ROW

Constraints

Operational

Characteristics

Modeling of Remaining Alignments - Measures of Effectiveness

Current Preferred EWFC Alignment

VMT

Impacts

VHT

Impacts

Vehicle Hours

of Delay

Goods Movement 19
20 Goods Movement

Step 1: Definition of the ideal characteristics for the East-West Freight Corridor. An ideal 

East-West Freight Corridor would support mobility for key industries; serve goods movement markets efficiently; be acceptable to neighboring communities; satisfy regional 

environmental goals; contribute to regional congestion mitigation; and not conflict with 

other regional projects under consideration. Satisfying all of these criteria may be a significant challenge, but any East-West Freight Corridor should satisfy as many as possible.

Step 2: Identification of the highway and non-highway alignments that could serve as the 

East-West Freight Corridor. This included highway corridors such as I-210, I-10, SR-60, 

and SR-91. It also included an SCE utility Right-of-Way (ROW) and a UPRR-adjacent facility, including the San Jose Creek Alignment. These facilities are identified in EXHIBIT 7.

EXHIBIT 7 Initial East-West Freight Corridor Alignments

Step 3: Relative comparison of corridors against initial screening criteria. The potential 

corridors were evaluated for their proximity to current and future markets, their ROW 

feasibility and constraints, and corridor operational characteristics including the volume 

of trucks carried and the incidence rate of truck-involved accidents.

Step 4: Creation of new “hybrid” alignments that minimized community impacts. 

Following initial screening, the facilities identified below were further analyzed:

 UPRR-adjacent to San Jose Creek to SR-60

 UPRR-adjacent to San Jose Creek terminating at SR-57

 SR-60 to San Jose Creek to SR-60

 SR-91 to I-605 to San Jose Creek to SR-60

 I-105 to I-605 to San Jose Creek to SR-60

Step 5: Modeling of five remaining corridor alignments with the SCAG HDT model, including their impacts on Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs): VMT, VHT, and VHD. MOEs were 

calculated for the influence area. Results of the modeling analysis are summarized in 

TABLE 6. 

Based on this analysis, Alternative 1 (UPRR-adjacent to San Jose Creek Channel to 

SR-60) was identified as the preferred corridor for further analysis and refinement. It is 

anticipated that this corridor concept could fall within a five-mile span of Alternative 1 

(route illustrated in EXHIBIT 5.) 
Goods Movement 21

TABLE 6 Modeling/Summary Comparison of Six Potential East-West 

Freight Corridor Alignments

ID Alignment Summary/Key Points

1 UPRR-Adjacent to San Jose Creek 

Channel to SR-60

Carries the second-highest truck volumes – 

within 5% of Alt. 5

Reduces truck traffic on SR-60 by 65%–85%

Shows greatest reduction in total delay for all 

traffic (-4.3%) in influence area, as well as highest reduction (-10%) for heavy-duty truck delay

2 UPRR-Adjacent to San Jose Creek 

Channel Terminating at SR-57

Results in negative traffic impacts – 18% more 

traffic on SR-60 east of SR-57

Shows increase in total delay for all traffic (1%) 

in influence area, as well as the medium reduction for heavy-duty truck delay

3 SR-60 to San Jose Creek Channel 

to SR-60

Carries the same truck volume as Alt. 1 – within 

5% of Alt. 5

Reduces truck traffic on SR-60 by 70%–85%

Shows high reduction in total delay for all traffic 

(-3.7%) in influence area, as well as high reduction (-9%) for heavy-duty truck delay

4a SR-91 to I-605 to San Jose Creek 

Channel to SR-60

Carries lower truck volumes than Alt. 1, 3, 4b, 

and 5

Shows greatest heavy-duty truck delay reduction (-10.9%) but fairly low (-1.3%) overall total 

delay for traffic

4b I-105 to I-605 to San Jose Creek 

Channel to SR-60

Shows high heavy-duty truck delay reduction 

(-10.7%) but fairly low (-1%) overall total delay 

for traffic

5 SR-91 Carries the most trucks of all screenlines – up to 

57,780 (two-way volumes)

Has little impact on parallel freeways east of 

SR-57

Shows high heavy-duty truck delay reduction 

(-10.5%) but fairly low (-1%) overall total delay 

for traffic

BENEFITS OF THE EAST-WEST FREIGHT CORRIDOR

Continuing to move freight efficiently is critical to retain Southern California’s trade 

competitiveness. The East-West Freight Corridor (Alternative 1) offers the opportunity to 

address many of the goods movement challenges, including congestion, air quality, and 

safety concerns. The East-West Freight Corridor will support mobility for key industries, 

serve goods movement markets in an efficient manner, promote the region’s environmental goals, and contribute to alleviating the region’s congestion. In addition, it will not 

conflict with other major regional projects under consideration. Analysis completed as 

part of the SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation 

Strategy for the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS indicates that major benefits of the potential EastWest Freight Corridor include:

 Mitigation of Future Truck Traffic: Truck traffic is projected to grow significantly 

on all existing key east-west freeway segments. These dramatic increases in truck 

traffic on east-west corridors will cause increased congestion and longer delays to 

both trucks and general traffic on existing routes. The construction of the East-West 

Freight Corridor would increase capacity to accommodate the projected growth in 

truck activity. The corridor’s traffic mitigation impacts would be significant, especially considering that some segments of the East-West Freight Corridor are forecast 

to carry between 58,000 and 78,000 trucks per day in 2035.

 Reduction in Regional Delay: The East-West Freight Corridor is projected to result 

in substantial delay reduction for both trucks and autos. Within the identified influence area, all traffic is expected to experience a reduction of approximately 4.3 

percent, with heavy-duty trucks seeing a nearly 10 percent decrease. This reduced 

delay would provide demonstrable travel time savings as well as reduce emissions 

from idling vehicles on congested roadways.

 Impact on Parallel Routes: The East-West Freight Corridor is projected to draw 

significant volumes of truck traffic away from parallel routes, easing congestion and 

creating capacity for other vehicles on general purpose lanes. Estimates indicate 

that the East-West Freight Corridor could reduce daily traffic on portions of SR-60 

(between 42–82 percent), I-10 (up to 33 percent), SR-91 (up to 19 percent), I-210 

(up to 17 percent), and major regional arterials (up to 21 percent).
22 Goods Movement

 Mobility Benefits for Critical Markets: The East-West Freight Corridor would offer 

considerable benefits to regional businesses and industries served by the numerous 

clusters of warehousing and manufacturing facilities near the route. Portions of the 

recommended potential East-West Freight Corridor lie within a five-mile radius of 

52 percent of the region’s warehousing square footage and 27 percent of regional 

manufacturing employment. Supplemental EXHIBITS A1–A6 show the proximity of 

major truck corridors to regional warehousing and manufacturing.

 Reduction of Truck-Involved Accidents: The East-West Freight Corridor offers 

the potential to reduce truck-involved crashes as a result of the separation between 

trucks and other vehicles. Safety analysis revealed that several existing east-west 

corridors have high rates of truck-involved crashes, including segments of SR-60, 

SR-91, and I-10. Over a five-year period, the average of truck-involved crashes 

on key east-west corridors showed that SR-60 between I-605 and SR-57 has the 

highest average number of truck accidents—10 to 15 truck crashes per mile on 

an annual basis. A short segment near the intersection of SR-60 and SR-57 had 

an average of 20 to 30 crashes per mile annually. The East-West freight corridor 

designed specifically for use by heavy duty trucks has the potential to improve 

safety and decrease the number of accidents for trucks and autos on parallel routes. 

 Preservation of Jobs and Income: Increasing congestion is making Southern 

California a less attractive place to do business, threatening jobs and the positive 

economic impacts of the goods movement sector. The East-West Freight Corridor 

delivers a transportation system with greater capacity and less congestion in 

support of industries that depend on efficient freight movement throughout the 

SCAG region.

 Reduction of Harmful Emissions: The East-West Freight Corridor provides an 

opportunity to reduce harmful pollutants through the use of zero- and/or near-zero 

-emission technologies for freight transportation. Although the technology to be 

used will be determined as the market evolves, the East-West Freight Corridor offers 

a significant opportunity to catalyze development, deployment, and commercialization of zero- and/or nearemission technologies for freight transportation.

TABLE 7 Benefits of an East-West Corridor Strategy

Mobility

 Truck delay reduction of approximately 11%

 All traffic delay reduction of approximately 4.3%

 Reduces truck volumes on general purpose lanes—42–82% 

reduction on SR-60

Safety  Reduced truck/automobile accidents (up to 20–30 per year on 

some segments)

Environment  100% zero-emission truck utilization removes: 4.7 tons NOX, 

0.16 tons PM2.5, and 2,401 tons CO2 daily 

Community

 Preferred alignment has least impact on communities

 Removes traffic from other freeways

 Zero-emission technology (ZET)—reduces localized health impacts

Economic  Supports mobility for goods movement industries, which 

comprise 34% of SCAG regional economy and jobs
Goods Movement 23

Bottleneck Strategy

In a recent analysis of critical issues affecting the trucking industry conducted by the 

American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), traffic congestion ranked near the top 

in 2011 after being less of a concern in 2009–2010 as a result of the economic downturn.29 Besides causing delays to other highway users, heavy truck congestion results in 

wasted labor hours and fuel. In 2010, it was estimated that the cost of truck congestion 

in 439 major urban areas was approximately $23 billion.30 Truck congestion in urban 

areas within the SCAG region resulted in approximately $2.6 billion in costs.31 Given that 

driver wages and fuel costs represent over 50 percent of total motor carrier costs, truck 

congestion has major impacts on the bottom line of the trucking industry. Truck bottlenecks are also emission “hot spots” and generally have significantly degraded localized 

air quality caused by increased idling from passenger vehicles and trucks.

A coordinated strategy to address the top-priority truck bottlenecks may be a cost-effective way to improve the efficiency of goods movement in the SCAG region. Additionally, 

the East-West Freight Corridor concept, alone, will not address congestion on all the 

major truck corridors; the bottleneck strategy reduces congestion in areas outside of the 

East-West Freight Corridor. Though some bottleneck projects (such as auxiliary lanes) are 

large, capital-intensive, projects, others (such as ramp metering) are less complex and 

would therefore be relatively easier to implement. Regardless of their complexity, bottleneck alleviation projects positively contribute to the region’s environmental goals (by 

reducing emissions “hotspots”), and result in substantial, tangible benefits to commuters 

and goods movement industries alike.

SCAG recently studied regional truck bottlenecks through a four-step process (FIGURE 6) 

that utilized Caltrans truck data, INRIX and PeMS truck traffic data, feedback from key 

regional stakeholders, and information from the completed Corridor System Management 

Plans (CSMPs).

This analysis resulted in a list of the top 44 regional priority bottlenecks (EXHIBIT 8). 

Top priority bottlenecks include those that had the highest truck-related annual delay 

29 http://www.atri-online.org/2011_top_industry_issues.pdf. 30 Texas Transportation Institute 2011 Urban Mobility Report. 31 Texas Transportation Institute 2011 Urban Mobility Report. Urban areas as defined in the report 

include Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, Riverside-San Bernardino, Lancaster-Palmdale, 

Bakersfield, Indio-Cathedral City-Palm Springs, and Oxnard-Ventura.

according to the bottleneck assessment performed with INRIX and PeMS data. 32 Also 

included on this list are high-priority bottlenecks identified through the CSMP process 

and stakeholder involvement process.

FIGURE 6 Key Steps in the Bottleneck Analysis STEP 1: Define Key Truck Highways for Analysis

STEP 2: Defining

Priority Truck

Bottlenecks

STEP 3: Identifying 

Planned Improvement 

Projects

STEP 4: Compare Priority 

Bottlenecks to Known

Project Concepts

Determine bottlenecks 

using INRIX, PeMS, 

Caltrans AADT data

Determine queue length 

and average speed

for each bottleneck

per time period

Gather input from 

regional stakeholders on 

RTP projects

Incorporate TIP

& CSMP Projects

Overlay bottlenecks map

with project map

Determine bottlenecks with 

already planned improvement 

projects and associated costs

Calculate the Truck 

Delay Indicator for each 

bottleneck and rank 

bottlenecks accordingly

Added high-priority 

bottlenecks identified by 

stakeholders and CSMP

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS allocates an estimated $5 billion toward goods movement 

bottleneck relief strategies. Examples of bottleneck relief strategies include ramp metering, extension of merging lanes, ramp and interchange improvements, capacity improvements, and auxiliary lane additions. Some bottleneck relief concepts have been identified 

through the CSMP process and others are currently programmed for implementation. 

Additional project concepts will continue to be refined through SCAG’s Comprehensive 

Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. 

The top 44 congested areas and bottlenecks in the SCAG region, combined, contribute 

over 1 million hours of truck delay annually to SCAG regional roadways in congested time 

periods. Addressing these congested areas and bottlenecks could contribute to a reduction in this delay, as well as associated emissions and air pollution benefits. 

32 “Highest annual delay” is defined as all bottlenecks that exhibited 20,000 or more hours of truckrelated delay on an annual basis.
24 

EXHIBIT 8 Priority Truck Bottlenecks in the SCAG Region
Goods Movement 25

Rail Strategies

The health of the Southern California economy depends on an efficient rail system with 

the capacity to accommodate projected growth in international and domestic freight. The 

rail system in the SCAG region provides a critical connection between the largest port 

complex in the country and producers and consumers throughout the U.S. Over half of the 

international cargo arriving at the San Pedro Bay Ports utilizes rail, including on-, near-, 

and off-dock rail. Regional rail also serves domestic industries, predominantly for longhaul freight leaving the region. The extensive rail network in the SCAG region is a critical 

link in the regional supply chain that offers shippers the ability to move large volumes of 

goods over long distances at lower costs versus other transportation options. As part of 

the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS, SCAG has highlighted a comprehensive package of improvements to the regional rail system. The rail package includes goals such as long-term economic competitiveness, job creation and retention, increased freight and passenger rail 

mobility, improved safety of at-grade crossings, and mitigation of environmental impacts 

of rail operations. By presenting these goals as a complete rail package, SCAG aims to 

promote collaboration and coalition building and to develop a unified message to attract 

leadership support for the program. 

EXISTING AND PROJECTED RAIL CONDITIONS

Southern California is served by two Class I railroads:33 Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and 

the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). Pacific Harbor Line, Inc. (PHL), a Class 

III railroad, provides rail transportation, maintenance, and dispatching services within the 

San Pedro Bay Ports area. The Port of Hueneme is served by the Ventura County Railway 

(VCR), a Class III railroad, which connects to the UP Coast main line in Oxnard. Another 

Class III line, the Los Angeles Junction Railway (LAJ), provides industrial switching services in the Cities of Vernon, Maywood, Bell, and Commerce. The LAJ provides connections to both UP and BNSF. EXHIBIT 9 shows key segments of the rail system described in 

more detail below. 

33 For purposes of accounting and reporting, the Surface Transportation Board designates three classes 

of freight railroads based upon their operating revenues for three consecutive years using the following scale: Class I–$250 million or more; Class II–less than $250 million but more than $20 million; 

and Class III–$20 million or less. These operating revenue thresholds are stated in 1991 dollars and 

are adjusted annually for inflation using a Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS).

North of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, UP and BNSF trains operate on the 

Alameda Corridor, which was completed in 2002. All harbor-related trains of the UP and 

BNSF use the Alameda Corridor to access the rail main lines that originate near downtown Los Angeles. East of downtown Los Angeles, freight trains operate on the BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision, the UP Los Angeles Subdivision, or the UP Alhambra Subdivision. 

North and west of Los Angeles, freight trains operate on the UP Coast line toward Santa 

Barbara, the Antelope Valley line from the San Fernando Valley to Palmdale, or the UP 

Mojave Subdivision from West Colton to Palmdale.

To transition from the Alameda Corridor to the Alhambra Subdivision, the UP utilizes 

trackage rights over Metrolink’s East Bank Line, which runs parallel to the Los Angeles 

River on the east side of downtown Los Angeles. The UP Los Angeles Subdivision terminates at West Riverside Junction where it joins the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision. The 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision continues north of Colton Crossing and transitions to 

the BNSF Cajon Subdivision. The Cajon line continues north to Barstow and Daggett, and 

then east toward Needles, CA, and beyond. UP trains exercise trackage rights over the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from West Riverside Junction to San Bernardino and 

over the Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Daggett, which is a short distance east 

of Barstow. UP trains continue north of Daggett on the UP Cima Subdivision to Las Vegas. 

The UP Alhambra Subdivision and the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision cross at Colton 

Crossing in San Bernardino County. East of Colton Crossing, the UP operates its transcontinental Sunset Route main line, also known as the UP Yuma Subdivision. The Yuma 

Subdivision passes through the Palm Springs area, Indio, and continues to Arizona 

and beyond.

The UP Yuma Subdivision has two main tracks from Colton to Indio. East of Indio, the 

Sunset Route still has stretches of single track, but construction of a second main track 

is underway.

The BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision has at least two main tracks with segments of 

triple track between Hobart and Fullerton. On the Cajon Subdivision, the BNSF recently 

completed a third main track from San Bernardino to the summit of Cajon Pass. 

The UP Alhambra Subdivision is mostly single track, while the UP Los Angeles Subdivision 

has two main tracks west of Pomona and a mixture of one and two tracks east 

of Pomona.
26 Goods Movement

North from West Colton, the single-track UP Mojave Subdivision closely parallels the 

BNSF Cajon Subdivision as the two lines climb the south slope of Cajon Pass. There 

are connections at Keenbrook and Silverwood to enable UP trains to enter/exit the main 

tracks of the BNSF Cajon Subdivision. Beyond Silverwood to Palmdale, the UP Mojave 

Subdivision has very little train traffic. UP uses this line to reach points in Northern 

California and the Pacific Northwest.

The BNSF operates intermodal terminals for containers and trailers at Hobart Yard (in the 

City of Commerce) and at San Bernardino. UP operates intermodal terminals at:

 East Los Angeles Yard at the west end of the UP Los Angeles Subdivision

 Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) at the west end of the UP Alhambra 

Subdivision

 City of Industry on the UP Alhambra Subdivision, and the 

 Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) near the south end of the Alameda 

Corridor

In addition, both UP and BNSF operate trains hauling marine containers that originate or 

terminate at on-dock terminals within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

UP also has a large carload freight classification yard at West Colton (at the east end of 

the Alhambra Subdivision). A large automobile unloading terminal is located at Mira Loma 

(mid-way between Pomona and West Riverside on the Los Angeles Subdivision). 

CURRENT AND FUTURE VOLUMES AND 

POTENTIAL CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS

Rail is expected to continue to play a key role in goods movement transportation in the 

SCAG region. Significant growth in passenger and freight rail traffic is expected on most 

segments of the SCAG regional rail system by 2035. This anticipated growth is highlighted in TABLE 8, which shows 2010, and the projected 2035 peak day train volumes 

on key segments. Freight train volumes include container trains, also called intermodal 

trains (marine and domestic), and non-intermodal trains (unit automobile trains, unit 

oil trains, unit bulk, and carload trains). Passenger trains include Amtrak and Metrolink 

service. Increases in railroad traffic will require ongoing infrastructure investment to 

maintain current levels of service. Increased rail traffic also has an impact on highway 

traffic and congestion, as more trains will result in increased wait times for vehicles at 

at-grade crossings.
Goods Movement 27

TABLE 8 Peak Day Train Volumes 2010, 2035 

(Metrolink Volumes in Parenthesis)

Line Segments Type 2010 2035

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision

Hobart–Fullerton

Passenger 54(28) 77(51)

Freight 45 90

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision

Atwood–W. Riverside

Passenger 26(24) 42(40)

Freight 49 99

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision

W. Riverside–Colton

Passenger 10(8) 42(40)

Freight 67 147

BNSF Cajon Subdivision

San Bernardino–Silverwood PLUS

UP Mojave Subdivision

W. Colton–Silverwood

Passenger 2(0) 2(0)

Freight 93 147

UP Los Angeles Subdivision

East LA–Pomona PLUS

UP Alhambra Subdivision

Yuma Jct.–Pomona

Passenger 13(12) 21(20)

Freight 52 98

UP Los Angeles Subdivision 

Pomona–W. Riverside PLUS

UP Alhambra Subdivision

Pomona–West Colton

Passenger 13(12) 21(20)

Freight 51 109

UP Yuma Subdivision

Colton–Indio

Passenger 1(0) 1(0)

Freight 45 93

Note: A “peak day” experiences the 90th percentile of the distribution of daily train movements.

Source: 2011 Regional Rail Simulation Study, SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and 

Implementation Strategy. Forecasts performed through rail simulation conducted by Dr. Robert Leachman, 

Leachman and Associates, LLC. These numbers do not represent forecasts made by BNSF Railway or 

UP Railroad. Passenger volume totals include Amtrak and Metrolink.

REGIONAL RAIL STRATEGIES

The proposed regional rail package has several components. These include main line 

rail improvements (rail-to-rail grade separations, double or triple tracking, new signal 

systems, universal crossovers, new sidings, etc.) that would benefit both freight rail and 

passenger rail service depending on their location; rail yard improvements (upgrades to 

existing yards as well as construction of new yards); rail operation safety improvements 

such as Positive Train Control (PTC) that could greatly reduce the risk of rail collisions and 

increase capacity; grade separations; and emissions reduction strategies. 

Main Line Capacity Enhancements 

The 2011 SCAG Regional Rail Simulation Study updates the 2005 Inland Empire Main Line 

Rail Study. The effort evaluates the main line capacity requirements for projected levels 

of train traffic on the BNSF and UP lines by considering routing alternatives to meet the 

following goals: 

 Reduce capital costs

 Reduce safety risks and impacts 

 Reduce train volumes through the worst bottleneck (Riverside–Colton) 

 Avoid the most costly line expansion (UP Pomona–Riverside line) 

 Separate Metrolink from heavy UP traffic 

 Route freight lines where most environmentally friendly (but sustain service to all 

rail terminals)

Currently, the UP Alhambra and Los Angeles Subdivisions are used to some extent as 

a paired double track, with eastbound trains operating via the Los Angeles Subdivision 

from Redondo Junction or East Los Angeles to West Riverside, via trackage rights over 

the BNSF line through Riverside to Colton (FIGURE 7). Because of the locations of certain 

rail terminals, approximately one-fourth of the UP trains must move against the current of traffic. FIGURE 7 shows the existing routing of the UP Alhambra and Los Angeles 

Subdivisions. As an example, trains carrying automobiles that terminate at Mira Loma 

must use trackage rights over BNSF Colton–West Riverside and then operate westbound 

over the Los Angeles Subdivision to Mira Loma.
28 

EXHIBIT 9 Regional Rail Segments
Goods Movement 29

FIGURE 7 Schematic of Status Quo Routing of Union Pacific Trains

Silverwood

San Bernardino

Colton

West Colton

Pomona

Montebello

Mira Loma

Industry

East L.A.

Alhambra

ALHAMBRA SUB

LA SUB

Yuma

Junction

To Alameda

Corridor

Riverside

Source: 2011 Regional Rail Study completed by Dr. Robert Leachman, Leachman and Associates, LLC 

for SCAG

A complete description of the various routing alternatives considered can be found in the 

2011 Regional Rail Simulation Study. One option studied was the Modified Status Quo 

(FIGURE 8). Operations west of Pomona are the same as in the Status Quo (i.e., most UP 

trains follow a one-way loop westbound on the Alhambra Subdivision and eastbound 

on the Los Angeles Subdivision). East of Pomona, however, trains that do not have to 

use the Los Angeles Subdivision are routed via the Alhambra Subdivision from Pomona 

to West Colton. The Modified Status Quo alternative reduces the total through-train 

counts in 2035 through downtown Riverside and downtown San Bernardino by 41 and 10 

trains, respectively. This alternative concentrates about 92 percent of UP through-train 

movements via West Colton versus only 8 percent via the UP Los Angeles Subdivision 

through Riverside.

FIGURE 8 Schematic of Modified Status Quo Routing 

of Union Pacific Trains

Silverwood

San Bernardino

Colton

West Colton

Pomona

Montebello

Mira Loma

Industry

East L.A.

Alhambra

ALHAMBRA SUB

LA SUB

Yuma

Junction

To Alameda

Corridor

Riverside

Source: 2011 Regional Rail Study completed by Dr. Robert Leachman, Leachman and Associates, LLC 

for SCAG

There are a number of key advantages to the Modified Status Quo routing scenario:

 Routing trains via the UP Los Angeles Subdivision involves use of trackage rights 

over the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision between Colton Crossing and West 

Riverside. This is the most heavily utilized line segment in the Los Angeles Basin. 

Expansion of the capacity of this segment to accommodate 2035 traffic levels is 

relatively difficult and expensive under the Status Quo alternative, requiring a fourth 

main track plus flying junctions to enter and exit BNSF tracks. Moreover, double 

tracking the remaining portions of the UP Los Angeles Subdivision would be very 

costly, involving duplication of the lengthy Santa Ana River Bridge and significant 

property-taking and earth removal in Riverside.

 The cost of main line rail improvements under Modified Status Quo routing is 

$670 million less costly than the improvements needed under Status Quo routing. Expansion of capacity along the UP Alhambra Subdivision between West 

Colton and Pomona is much less costly and is consistent with UP’s stated capital 

investment plans.
 Shifting UP trains operating between Cajon Pass and Pomona off the BNSF line 

and the UP Los Angeles Subdivision and onto the UP Mojave and UP Alhambra 

Subdivisions reduces conflicts between Metrolink commuter trains and UP 

freight operations.

For these reasons, the main line track improvements in the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS update 

are associated with the Modified Status Quo alternative. It is recognized, however, that 

only UP controls the actual routing of UP trains. While neither BNSF nor UP have committed to route trains as assumed in the study, UP investments to date suggest that the 

Modified Status Quo represents their plans.

Estimated costs of the recommended main line track improvements are shown in 

TABLE 9. The Colton Crossing rail-to-rail grade separation (already programmed with 

state, federal, and private funds) involves elevating the east-west Union Pacific tracks 

over the north-south BNSF line. This project is funded by a $33.8 million TIGER34 I grant, 

$91 million from Prop 1B TCIF,35 and railroad funds.

Improvements to the BNSF Cajon Subdivision include installing a third main track and a 

fourth main track on specific segments, exceptional earthmoving, crossovers, and bridges 

across multiple culverts.

Improvements to the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision include a third main track, as 

well as a fourth main track along the Hobart to Fullerton segment. Caltrans has provided 

$121.8 million for the triple tracking from Serapis (MP 151.1) to Valley View (MP 158.7).

Improvements to the UP Mojave Subdivision include a second main track over a key segment and a “flying junction” at Rancho (West Colton).

Improvements to the UP Alhambra Subdivision include double tracking key segments and 

route connections in Pomona.

34 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery. 35 Trade Corridor Improvement Fund.

TABLE 9 Estimated Cost of Main Line Rail Improvements 

(Millions of Nominal Dollars)

Main Line Rail Improvements Estimated Costs

Colton rail-to-rail grade separation–BNSF Cajon Subdivision $243.60 

Barstow to Keenbrook–BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision $762.10 

Colton Crossing to Redondo Junction–UP Mojave Subdivision $1,188.70 

Devore Road to West Colton (inc. Rancho Flying Junction)–UP 

Alhambra Subdivision $522.00 

West Colton to City of Industry–UP Los Angeles Subdivision $376.10 

UP Yuma Subdivision $0 

Total Main Line Rail Improvements $3,092.40

Note: Estimates consistent with Modified Status Quo Alternative. Colton Crossing grade separation cost 

updated. Estimates have been escalated to nominal dollars using 3.2 percent annual inflation rate. Source: 

2011 Regional Rail Simulation Study, SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. 

On-Dock/Near-Dock Rail Capacity Enhancements

In 2010, approximately 35 percent of the Ports’ containers were shipped by rail “intact,” 

meaning the cargo was moved by rail in marine containers without being transloaded or 

deconsolidated first (TABLE 10). An additional market segment is transloaded into 53-foot 

domestic containers or trailers at deconsolidation facilities in the region. The larger containers are then trucked to off-dock rail yards for loading onto trains and transported out 

of the region. The 53-foot wheeled trailers are also typically transported out of the region. 

Containers that are neither shipped by rail intact nor transloaded are trucked directly to/

from local warehouses or distribution facilities.

TABLE 10 shows the percentage of direct intermodal cargo handled at on-dock and neardock rail yards. In 2010, 23.5 percent of direct intermodal cargo was handled using ondock rail. Containers moved using on-dock rail do not have to be trucked to/from more 

distant rail yards. In 2010, 11.7 percent of port containers were handled at off-dock yards 

(e.g., Hobart, East Los Angeles) or existing near-dock yards (i.e., ICTF). These containers 

must be trucked to/from these yards.

30 Goods Movement
Goods Movement 31

TABLE 10 San Pedro Bay Ports Direct Intermodal Volumes as a 

Percentage of Total Port Container Throughput (2003–2010)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% On-Dock 15.9% 18.1% 20.7% 24.1% 23.0% 23.7% 24.6% 23.5%

% Near-/

Off-Dock 23.4% 21.2% 19.5% 18.7% 18.4% 18.5% 15.3% 11.7%

Total % Direct 

Intermodal 39.3% 39.3% 40.2% 42.8% 41.4% 42.2% 39.9% 35.2%

Total 

Throughput 

(POLA + POLB) 

Millions of 

TEUs

11.8 13.1 14.2 15.8 15.7 14.3 11.8 14.1

Source: Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

PORT AREA RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have proposed almost $2.7 billion in rail 

improvements within the harbor area (TABLE 11). These projects are designed to facilitate 

an increase in on-dock rail service, to reduce railroad delay associated with train meets 

and passes, and to reduce conflicts with highway traffic. By allowing more on-dock rail, 

truck traffic between the San Pedro Bay Ports and distant rail yards can be reduced. Use 

of on-dock rail eliminates truck vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and associated emissions by 

allowing trains to be loaded and unloaded inside marine terminals. 

Assuming the proposed improvements to on-dock infrastructure are made, on-dock rail 

is estimated to account for the movement of approximately 30 percent of all port TEUs 

by 2035. On-dock rail is not expected to be able to accommodate 100 percent of direct 

intermodal moves. It is limited by factors such as shipper/steamship line logistics (transloading, transportation costs, etc.), railroad operations (equipment availability, the need to 

generate destination-specific unit trains, train schedules, and steamship line contracts/

arrangements), and terminal operation and congestion.

TABLE 11 Estimated Cost of Port-Area Rail Improvement 

(Millions of Nominal Dollars)

Port Area Rail Improvements (excluding SCIG and ICTF) Estimated Costs

Port of Long Beach

 On-Dock Railyards $765.30 

 Rail Infrastructure Outside Marine Terminals $1,321.80 

 Subtotal Port of Long Beach $2,087.10 

Port of Los Angeles

 On-Dock Railyards $232.80 

 Rail Infrastructure Outside Marine Terminals $216.10 

 Subtotal Port of Los Angeles $448.90 

Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) $152.40 

Total Port Area $2,688.50

Source: Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Cost estimates in 2011 dollars were escalated for five years 

at 3.2 percent per year

The “Rail Infrastructure Outside Marine Terminals” category in TABLE 11 includes the following key projects.

 On-dock Rail Support Facility on Pier B (POLB)

 Cerritos Channel Bridge (triple tracking)

 Third Track at Thenard Junction

 Reconfiguration of Control Point (CP) Mole on Terminal Island

 Reeves Avenue Grade Separation

 Wilmington Avenue Grade Separation

 Pier F Support Yard

 Terminal Island Wye

 Track Realignment at Ocean Boulevard

 Pier 400 Second Lead

 West Basin Rail Improvements 
32 

EXHIBIT 10 Regional Mainline Rail Enhancements
Goods Movement 33

EXPANSION OF NEAR-DOCK RAIL

Additional lift capacity at near-dock yards is needed to accommodate projected demand 

and to reduce the number of truck trips to off-dock yards. Near-dock rail terminals 

provide rail accessibility to import and export cargo, using drayage trucks for the connection to and from port terminals. Expansion of near-dock rail will reduce truck VMT 

and emissions by eliminating the need to access more distant off-dock rail facilities. 

Two near-dock rail projects are currently undergoing environmental review: BNSF’s 

Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) and modernization of UP’s Intermodal 

Container Transfer Facility (ICTF). Potential benefits of these railyards include a reduction in regional VMT and therefore emissions. Without the SCIG and ICTF expansion, it 

is estimated that the growth in Marine IPI container volumes would require that at least 

1.5 million container lifts would have to be handled at different yards throughout the 

SCAG region. While the number of truck trips would not be significantly changed, VMT 

would be reduced due to the shorter distance from the ports to the SCIG terminal (3–4 

miles), versus the distance to Hobart and East Los Angeles yards terminal (20 miles). The 

Alameda Corridor has sufficient capacity to handle the projected increase in railroad traffic from the ICTF and SCIG. Although regionally beneficial, local congestion and emission 

impacts may affect the communities near the railyards. However, the ongoing environmental review process will identify these impacts and require that they be mitigated to 

the extent possible.

Intermodal Transfer Container Facility (ICTF)

The UP has proposed to invest $500 million in a modernization project that will increase 

container throughput at the ICTF even as it reduces the size of the existing facility from 

277 to 233 acres. The project will include the replacement of diesel cranes and yard hostlers with electric ones as well as the addition of six new railroad tracks totaling 50,000 

ft. Clean technologies will be utilized to cut facility emissions by 74 percent. An EIR is 

currently being prepared for this project.

Southern California International Gateway (SCIG)

SCIG is a $500 million project that will create a new near-dock facility for the BNSF 

adjacent to the San Pedro Bay Ports with direct access to the Alameda Corridor. BNSF 

forecasts the new facility will take millions of truck-miles off regional freeways, easing congestion and reducing air pollution. Although on-dock rail capacity is expected to 

increase, on-dock rail expansion alone will not be sufficient to keep up with projected 

growth in demand. The SCIG will include the use of electric and low-emission equipment 

and requirements that only lower emission trucks serve the facility. The draft EIR for this 

project was released in September 2011.

Rail Grade Separations

Due to increasing railroad and highway traffic, vehicle delays at grade crossings are 

expected to increase substantially from 2010 to 2035. Allowing two intersecting axes of 

traffic to move concurrently, grade crossings eliminate vehicle delay and decrease associated emissions by reducing vehicle idling times. Grade separations reduce traffic congestion and delays, as well as emissions from idling vehicles, and address other critical rail 

crossing–related concerns such as noise and safety.

Seventy-one grade crossings throughout the SCAG region were identified for inclusion in 

the financially constrained 2012–2035 RTP/SCS as shown in EXIBIT 11. Constrained and 

strategic grade separation projects are included at the end of this Technical Appendix, 

along with constrained grade separation maps by county (EXHIBITS B1–B6). Another 56 

projects were identified for inclusion in the Strategic Plan. The estimated costs of the 

grade separations in the financially constrained plan total approximately $5.6 billion.
34 

EXHIBIT 11 Regional Grade Separations – Constrained
RAIL PACKAGE SUMMARY

As shown in TABLE 12, the combined rail package has been estimated to cost approximately $12.3 billion, including main line rail improvements, port area rail improvements, 

near-dock railyard improvements, and rail-highway grade separations.

TABLE 12 Estimated Cost of the Proposed Package of Rail Projects, 

by Major Category (Millions of Nominal Dollars)

Category Estimated Costs

Main Line Rail Improvements $3,092.40 

Port Area Rail Improvements $2,688.50 

Near-Dock Railyard Improvements $1,000.00 

Rail-Highway Grade Separations $5,568.90 

Total $12,349.80

BENEFITS OF THE REGIONAL RAIL STRATEGIES

The benefits of the rail strategies to the region are considerable, and include mobility, 

safety, and environmental gains. As shown in TABLE 13, these strategies could eliminate 

almost 6,000 hours of vehicle delay per day at grade crossings, decrease emissions 

(NOX, CO2, and PM2.5) by almost 23,000 lb. per day, and reduce overall train delay to 

2000 levels.

The capacity enhancements in the rail package would reduce delay so that it does not 

exceed 2000 levels and provides enough capacity to handle projected tripling of intermodal cargo at the San Pedro Bay Ports. The delay per train is reduced depending on the 

train type and railroad line. For instance, trains on UP lines would experience almost 50 

percent less delay per train, as compared to trains on UP lines in 2000. The rail package 

therefore allows more cargo to move with less delay than in previous years even with 

expected rail volume increases.

TABLE 13 Benefits of the SCAG Regional Rail Strategy

Mobility  Reduces train delay to 2000 levels

 Provides main line capacity to handle projected demand in 2035 

(includes 43.2 million twenty foot equivalent units, or TEUs, port 

throughput)

 Eliminates 5,782 vehicle hours of delay per day at grade crossings 

in 2035

Safety  Eliminates 71 at-grade railroad crossings

Environment  Reduces 22,789 lb. of emissions per day (CO2, NOX, and PM2.5

combined) from idling vehicles at grade crossings

 Facilitates on-dock rail

 Reduces truck trips to downtown railyards and associated 

emissions

Goods Movement 35
36 Goods Movement

Other Strategies

San Pedro Bay Ports Access Projects

Landside access to the San Pedro Bay Ports is provided by highway facilities, including 

I-110 and I-710, and the Vincent Thomas (SR-47), Commodore Schuyler Heim (SR-103), 

and the Gerald Desmond Bridges. The San Pedro Bay Ports have long worked with 

regional and state transportation planning organizations to identify and promote projects 

that will alleviate congestion to and from port areas and improve air quality in the region. 

Some key projects to improve direct access to the San Pedro Bay Ports are already 

underway, including:

 The Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement – The bridge, which has been designated 

as a National Highway System Intermodal Connector Route and part of the Strategic 

Highway Network, carries nearly 15 percent of the nation’s waterborne cargo 

and is a critical access route for the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, 

downtown Long Beach, and surrounding communities. A final EIR for the bridge 

replacement was recently certified by the POLB Board of Harbor Commissioners and 

the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). They have identified the 

North-side Alignment Alternative as the preferred alternative linking Terminal Island 

to I-710. This project is important, as it improves the safety of the bridge, which 

was previously deemed to be seismically deficient. In addition, the new bridge will 

be able to accommodate increased vehicular and vessel traffic. Moreover, the new 

bridge will provide additional vertical clearance for vessels passing through the Back 

Channel to the Inner Harbor.

 The I-110/SR-47 Connectors Improvement Program is composed of three major projects that will improve freeway access to port facilities and surrounding neighborhoods, reduce congestion and conflicts between truck and rail traffic, and improve 

safety. The port has already begun collecting public comments on this project.

 The Schuyler Heim Bridge Replacement and SR-47 Expressway Project includes 

replacement of the seismically deficient bridge and development of a truck expressway that will transport port truck traffic on an elevated structure from the new 

bridge 1.7 miles northwest to Alameda Street. This project is already in the design 

phase. This project will improve safety (by bypassing three signalized intersections 

and five rail at-grade crossings) and reduce congestion and delay at many of the 

Port of Los Angeles’ terminals.

 South Wilmington Grade Separation. This project will eliminate the conflict between 

vehicular traffic and two existing at-grade railroad crossings and provide unimpeded 

grade-separated vehicular access to the South Wilmington area (including for emergency vehicles), eliminate truck queues on surrounding streets, reduce accidents, 

and improve safety in the area.

 C Street/I-110 Access Ramp Improvements. This will consolidate two closely 

spaced intersections and improve connectivity to Figueroa Street and Harry Bridges 

Boulevard and access to several shipping terminals.

 I-110/SR-47 Interchange & John S. Gibson Intersection/NB I-110 Ramp Access. This 

project will provide an additional lane from the SR-47 connector to NB I-110 and 

extend the existing off-ramp at John S. Gibson Boulevard. It will eliminate weaving between the slow-moving, on-ramp traffic from San Pedro and the fast-moving 

bridge traffic from Long Beach to improve the connection between SR-47 and the 

I-110 Freeway.

Port of Hueneme Access Projects

In addition to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the SCAG region is also home to 

the Port of Hueneme in Ventura County. Although smaller, the Port of Hueneme supports 

important economic activities in the region, generating over $650 million for Ventura 

County’s economy every year and supporting 4,500 jobs. The Port of Hueneme Harbor 

District estimates that $7 billion in trade moves through the port annually. Unlike the San 

Pedro Bay Ports, the Port of Hueneme does not focus on containerized cargo. Instead, 

its primary imports and exports are refrigerated goods and produce, automobiles, bulk 

cargo, and fuels.

Data collected in 2008 indicated that the Port of Hueneme generated approximately 

25 percent of truck trips in areas close to the Port. Many of these trucks use the interchanges close to U.S. 101. Average daily traffic counts of heavy-duty trucks on local 

routes range between 400 and 2,600 trucks per day. In a 2008 study, six out of 25 
Goods Movement 37

intersections evaluated had a level of service (LOS) grade of D or F in the AM and PM 

peak periods.

As residential areas expand into previously agricultural areas in Ventura County, a greater 

number of people will be exposed to noise, vibration, and pollution impacts of truck 

traffic along key routes. Encouraging trucks to remain on truck routes through additional signage or restrictions and strategic design of proposed developments can reduce 

these impacts.

The following projects and strategies are among those anticipated to reduce truck congestion and other impacts:

 Hueneme Road widening between Ventura Road and Rice Avenue 

 Reconfiguring the interchange at Rice Avenue and U.S. 101 

 Rice Avenue UP Grade Separation

 Rose Avenue UP Grade Separation

 SR-118/Coast Line Grade Separation Maintain Port Hueneme Road/Hueneme Road 

and Rice Avenue as the primary truck access corridors to the Port of Hueneme and 

encourage trucks to use this route through additional signage 

Imperial County International Ports of Entry

As discussed previously, international border crossings between the U.S. and Mexico in 

Imperial County are critical components of the freight transportation system in Southern 

California. Within Imperial County, the three ports of entry (POEs)–Calexico West-Mexicali 

I, Calexico East-Mexicali II, and Andrade-Los Algodones–accounted for over $10 billion in 

international trade in 2010.36

While most goods in Imperial County move by truck, the border areas also are served by 

the UP and Carrizo Gorge Railway (CGR). The Calexico East border crossing is the only 

international rail crossing in the SCAG region and provides the only rail connection from 

California into Central Mexico.

36 The vast majority of goods traded between the U.S. and Mexico through Imperial County are transported through the Calexico East-Mexicali II port of entry, including nearly all Mexican imports to 

the U.S. amongst these POEs. The Calexico West-Mexicali I and Andrade-Los Algodones POEs serve 

significantly less commercial traffic, handling only exports from the U.S. to Mexico.

According to the Overall Economic Development Commission (OEDC), there are a number 

of challenges in Imperial County that could constrain future economic development.37

A significant concern is the lack of adequate transportation infrastructure, especially 

at the U.S.-Mexico border. Some of the most noticeable gaps in the county’s truck 

network include:38

 The lack of direct freeway connections to railyards and intermodal facilities;

 The lack of dedicated truck lanes, passing lanes, and truck bypass routes;

 High truck traffic through urban areas including Brawley and Westmorland; and

 Empty trucks returning to Mexico after unloading their cargo in Calexico.

Key transportation strategies identified to date to improve the flow of goods in the 

area include:

 Improving interchanges and developing bypasses to the “main streets” in the region 

 The Brawley Bypass (SR-78/SR-111) (an eight-mile, four-lane divided expressway 

connecting SR-86 north of Brawley to 1.5 miles south of the eastern junction of 

SR-111 and SR-78)–expected completion in 2013.

 The I-8/Imperial Avenue Interchange reconstruction and Imperial Avenue Extension 

projects in the City of El Centro and expansion of the Calexico East POE

High Desert Corridor

Some trucks in the region traverse SR-138, linking the Antelope and Victor Valleys. 

However, SR-138 currently lacks adequate infrastructure to handle heavy truck volumes. 

The proposed High Desert Corridor between I-15 and I-5 is anticipated to accommodate 

an expected three- to six-fold increase in traffic, providing a new level of accessibility, 

carrying trucks and other through traffic.

Truck Climbing Lanes

Additional highway projects that would facilitate goods movement activities in the region 

include truck climbing lanes. Examples of corridors identified suitable for truck climbing 

37 Imperial County (2009), Planning and Development Services Department, Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategy 2008–2009, September 2009. 38 Imperial Valley Association of Governments (2008), Imperial County 2007 Transportation Plan 

Highway Element. Prepared by KOA Corporation, March 2008.
38 Goods Movement

lanes and currently programmed with funding and/or under construction include I-15, 

SR-57, and SR-60. Truck climbing lanes are additional lanes located outside mixed-flow 

lanes, which permit slower-moving trucks to operate at their own pace. This enables 

other vehicles to move at a faster pace, thereby reducing congestion. These lanes are 

typically placed where slow-moving trucks would cause an obstruction to other vehicles, 

such as hillsides or other areas with significant grade increases.

Goods Movement Environmental Strategy

EXISTING AND PROJECTED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 

It is a regional priority to reduce and mitigate the environmental impacts of moving goods 

through our region. Ships, trucks, trains and other goods movement equipment are among 

the largest contributors to regional air pollution, which must be reduced to comply with 

federal law. Freight emissions contribute to local health risks, which have raised community concerns and opposition, challenging some freight infrastructure projects. Criteria 

pollutants such as as NOX, PM2.5, SOX, and CO can have significant public health impacts, 

including asthma and other respiratory ailments, increased stress, and increased cancer 

risk. In addition, noise, safety issues, aesthetic changes, vibrations, and natural resource 

depletion impact quality of life and may have health implications. Freight transport is also 

a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions and a user of energy in the form of diesel 

fuel; cleaner sources of secure, reliable energy must be part of the solution.

Much of the SCAG region does not meet federal ozone and fine particulate air quality 

standards as mandated by the federal Clean Air Act. NOX released from goods movement 

activities combines with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere to form 

ozone pollution. In the South Coast Air Basin,39 there is a strict deadline to reduce ozone 

concentrations to 80 parts per billion (ppb) by 2023 with a future deadline of 75 ppb by 

approximately 2031.40 Failure to adopt sufficient measures to attain these standards in a 

timely manner will trigger federal sanctions such as curtailment of transportation funds. 

To attain the federal ozone standards, the region will need broad deployment of zero-and 

near-zero-emission technologies in the 2023 to 2035 timeframe.

39 Los Angeles, Orange, and non-desert portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 40 The attainment deadline for the 75 ppb standard (adopted in 2008) has not yet been established by 

U.S. EPA, but is expected to be by approximately 2031.

Goods movement sources include trucks, locomotives, cargo handling equipment, marine 

vessels, and aircraft. These sources, combined with all mobile sources in the region, emit 

approximately 90 percent of regional NOX.41 Currently, heavy-duty trucks contribute 58 

and 75 percent of PM2.5 and NOX emissions, respectively, and locomotives contribute 4 

and 5 percent, respectively, from goods movement related sources. FIGURE 9 shows the 

distribution of emissions from various goods movement sources.

FIGURE 9 Goods Movement NOX and PM2.5 Emissions in SCAB by Source

Heavy HD

47%

Freight Trains

4% Ocean Going

Vessels

33%

Cargo Handling 

Equipment Harbor Craft 3% 2%

Light HD

2%

Medium HD

9%

Heavy HD

47% Freight Trains

5%

Ocean Going

Vessels

14%

Cargo Handling 

Equipment

4%

Harbor Craft Light HD 2% 11%

Medium HD

17%

Total HDT - 75% Total HDT - 58%

NOx Emissions 2010 PM2.5 Emissions 2010

Source: ICF analysis based on EMFAC 2007 (modified for recession effects), ARB regulatory documents for 

marine fuel requirements, ARB emission inventory, ARB Goods Movement Plan, ARB and U.S. EPA locomotive analyses. Work completed for SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy.

Goods movement activities are also a source of GHG emissions. Although a reduction in 

goods movement related GHG emissions is not required under SB 375, which focuses 

solely on light-duty vehicle emissions, the State has established GHG reduction goals 

under AB 32 as have a number of local governments. Several measures have been passed 

by the EPA and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) to reduce GHG from heavy-duty 

41 South Coast Air Quality Management District, The Need for Zero-Emission Technologies, presentation 

for Zero-Emission Transportation and Roundtable Discussion, April 20, 2011.
Goods Movement 39

trucks and rail. Despite reductions attributable to these measures, GHG from heavy-duty 

trucks in the SCAG region are expected to increase by 30 percent from current levels by 

2023 and 60 percent from current levels by 2035. GHG emissions from rail in the South 

Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are expected to increase by 50 percent from 2010 levels by 2023 

and by 123 percent from 2010 levels by 2035.42

Heavy-duty trucks are usually powered by diesel, which contributes to regional NOX and 

PM emissions. As shown in TABLE 14, federal and state regulations will contribute to a 

decrease in NOX and PM2.5, but as VMT increases, these gains become relatively smaller 

over time. In addition, these regulations do not lead to reductions in CO2 emissions. In the 

2008 RTP, recommendations for truck emissions strategies included truck replacement, 

engine repowering, exhaust treatment device retrofits, and alternative fuels. CARB’s truck 

and bus regulation, as well as state and local incentive programs, were put into place 

to accelerate the introduction of cleaner technology.43 By 2023, nearly all HDVs will be 

model year 2010 or newer. But further reductions in truck emissions are critical to the 

region’s air quality and must come from the introduction of advanced technology HDVs.

TABLE 14 Percent Change in Truck Emissions from 2010 Measurements 

(Tons per Day)

2010 (Tons per Day) 2023 2035

NOX 352.59 -67% -58%

PM2.5 12.00 -65% -53%

CO2 64,319 30%+ 60%+

Source: SCAG Regional Comprehensive Goods Movement Study

It is a regional priority to reduce rail pollutants and work toward the objective of a 

zero-emission freight rail system as well. Reduction of emissions from rail would help 

eliminate pollution hotspots and would improve associated health impacts in neighboring 

42 SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. 43 Regulations such as the California truck and bus rule that requires all trucks to have a 2010 or 

cleaner engine by 2023; HHDT GHG regulation; truck idling limit; low carbon fuel standard, and 

the EPA’s HDV fuel economy and GHG standards will contribute to a decrease in truck emissions 

over time.

communities. At the federal level, regulations are in place that will contribute to future 

reductions in rail emissions, including the U.S. EPA Locomotive Engine Standards, the 

2008 EPA rulemaking to reduce locomotive idling, and the EPA non-road locomotive and 

marine (NRLM) fuel sulfur rule. At the state level, the CARB has passed an intrastate 

locomotive fuel use regulation and has several agreements with the railroads such as a 

1998 MOU between CARB and the railroads to accelerate Tier 2 locomotive use and a 

2005 agreement to reduce railyard emissions. In addition, the CARB is finalizing a series 

of 2010 commitments that will further reduce diesel PM2.5 at four high-priority railyards. 

These regulations will lead to a reduction in PM2.5 emissions and a smaller reduction in 

NOX emissions, as shown in TABLE 15. These regulations, however, do not address reductions in CO2 emissions.

TABLE 15 Percent Change in Rail Emissions from 2010 Measurements 

(Tons per Day)

2010 2023 2035

NOX 16 -3% -18%

PM2.5 0.62 -47% -61%

CO2 1,313 50%+ 123%+

Source: SCAG Regional Comprehensive Goods Movement Study
In the South Coast Air Basin, attaining the national ozone standards will require reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) well beyond reductions resulting from current 

rules, programs, and commercially-available technologies.44 Because most significant 

sources are already controlled by over 90 percent, attainment of the ozone standards will 

require broad deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission45 technologies in the 2023 

to 2031 timeframe. With the projected changes in both truck and rail emissions, greater 

advancements in technology are needed to meet regional attainment objectives. As such, 

the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes an action plan to facilitate technology development and 

reduce emissions.

This RTP Goods Movement Environmental Strategy was developed to address community 

health concerns, federal attainment requirements, and climate change issues, while contributing to our economic and energy security goals. Accordingly, the strategy emphasizes 

coordinated solutions for mobility, economy, energy, and environment so that investments 

can provide multiple benefits. A two-pronged approach for achieving such a strategy 

is identified. For the near term, the regional strategy supports the deployment of commercially available lower-emission trucks and locomotives while centering on continued 

investments in improved system efficiencies. In the longer term, the strategy focuses on 

taking critical steps now toward phased implementation of a zero- and near-zero emission freight system. This includes planning for new infrastructure to incorporate evolving 

technologies—to fuel vehicles as well as to charge batteries and provide power.

44 Preliminary SCAQMD projections indicate a need to reduce regional NOX emissions by about twothirds by 2023 and three quarters by approximately 2030. South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, The Need for Zero-Emission Technologies, presentation for Zero-Emission Transportation 

and Roundtable Discussion, April 20, 2011. 45 The term “near zero-emissions” refers to emissions approaching zero and will be delineated for individual source categories through the process of developing the Air Quality Management Plan/State 

Implementation Plan. Based on current analyses, on-land transportation sources will need to achieve 

zero-emissions where possible, and otherwise will need to be substantially below adopted emission 

standards-including standards with future effective dates. Near-zero-emissions technologies can 

help meet this need, particularly if they support a path toward zero emissions (e.g., electric/fossil fuel 

hybrids with all-electric range).

GOODS MOVEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN

In order to implement this strategy with both near-and long-term objectives, the 2012–

2035 RTP/SCS includes a four-phased action plan with key milestones. This plan calls 

for collaborative decision-making about how to advance research, development, and 

deployment of new technologies and expands on the use of existing technologies. Where 

needed, evaluation will be conducted to better understand costs and operational impacts 

to guide decision-making. The timeline for this action plan is shown in FIGURE 10. The 

four phases of the action plan are:

Phase 1 – Project Scoping and Evaluation of Existing Work

Phase 2 – Evaluation, Development, and Prototype Demonstrations

Phase 3 – Initial Deployment and Operational Demonstration

Phase 4 – Full-Scale Demonstrations and Commercial Deployment 

The phases above provide a structured means to further develop, evaluate and deploy 

the technologies that will help the region to meet the objective of a zero-emissions goods 

movement system. The timeframe represents an estimation of when various technologies 

may be available for full deployment. However, the development and evaluation process 

may vary depending on the technology. As this plan is technology neutral, this proposed 

timeline serves as a general framework for making the decisions necessary to advance 

technology in the region. It is acknowledged that the timeframe may be subject to further 

revisions as additional information about specific technologies becomes available with 

further research and development as well as stakeholder input. The ability to create partnerships and procure funding for research and development efforts may help to accelerate the timeline for specific technologies. As explained below, this plan of technology 

development, evaluation and eventual deployment will be undertaken in close cooperation 

with all goods movement stakeholders.

40 Goods Movement
Goods Movement 41

FIGURE 10 Timeline to Implement a Zero-and Near-Zero-Emission 

Freight System

pre-2012 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2035

ONGOING ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

PHASE I

PHASE II

PHASE III

PHASE IV

 2012 – Identify potential funding to support truck, wayside power, and rail 

evaluation and prototype demonstration efforts; incorporate into financially 

constrained RTP

 2012 – Implement plan of advocacy to secure action by federal or other governments

 2012–2013 – Continue to evaluate truck technology implementation and funding 

mechanisms; initiate testing of zero-emission container movement system along the 

Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports (or alternative routes 

serving the same locations)

 2012-2013 – Continue to evaluate practicability of applying electrified rail or other 

zero-/near-zero-emission technologies, and evaluate funding and implementation 

mechanisms

 2015–2016 – Resolve need for wayside power for trucks (in 2015) and incorporate 

decisions on wayside power and technology direction, including strategy, funding, 

and timeframe into 2016 RTP update and SIP revisions; if existing rail technologies 

are practicable for freight, identify technologies, infrastructure, and implementation 

mechanisms in RTP update and SIP

 2015–2020 – Begin deployment of appropriate zero- and near-zero-emission trucks 

and continue operational demonstration

 2018–2020 – If existing rail applications were determined not practicable for freight, 

resolve need for wayside power for new rail technologies (in 2018) and incorporate 

planning into the 2020 RTP and next major SIP

 2017–2035 – Full deployment of appropriate zero-and near-zero-emission trucks 

for substantially all regional transport; if existing electrified rail technologies can be 

practicably applied to the region, fully deploy such technologies
42 Goods Movement

ACTION PLAN FOR ADVANCEMENT OF ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGY

Phase 1: Project Scoping and Evaluation of Existing Work 

Key Action Step:

 Continue to research goods movement user-markets and associated infrastructure needs while exploring a range of technologies as appropriate with equipment 

manufacturers

The first phase of this environmental strategy has already been initiated through the 

cooperative efforts of regional stakeholders. Our long-term objective of an economically 

viable zero-emission freight transport system requires continued coordinated efforts and 

funding from multiple stakeholders. In addition to the work SCAG has recently undertaken 

with the Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy, 

other organizations such as the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, CALSTART, and 

Los Angeles County Metro are working toward the objective of zero-emission freight 

transport.46 47

Over the last several years, numerous studies have evaluated our regional transportation 

corridors that carry high volumes of freight truck traffic. Recent assessment of the I-710 

corridor identifies key freight segments as high priority for the introduction of zeroemission technology.48 Selection of an east-west freight corridor and evaluation of the 

potential regional penetration of zero-and/or near-zero-emission technology are ongoing 

additional priorities.

Additionally, significant effort has gone into analyzing the options for a zero- and/or 

near-zero emission rail system in the Basin. These include recent efforts by the Ports 

46 Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, Roadmap for Moving Forward with Zero-Emissiona 

Technologies at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Technical Report, August 2011. 47 California Hybrid, Efficient and Advanced Truck Research Center (CalHEAT), Vehicle and Technologies 

Characterization and Baseline. Draft Report. January 31, 2011. 48 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Alternative Goods Movement Technology 

Analysis-Initial Feasibility Study Report. Final Report. I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS. Prepared by URS. 

January 6, 2009.

of Los Angeles and Long Beach in their Roadmap study49 and by SCAG in the freight rail 

electrification report.50 Each of these efforts highlights the technical opportunities and 

the need to pursue a zero-emission freight transportation system for the future. However, 

they also highlight the difficult challenges associated with this sector, especially with 

regard to operational needs, integration of the technologies into the national rail system, 

federal safety requirements, and costs. These challenges will be addressed through various phases of the environmental strategy. Further discussion of potential technologies for 

locomotives and trucks are addressed in later sections of this appendix.

Phase 1 requires the continued effort of various stakeholders to work through the technical, operational, practical and financial issues to define a long-term zero-emission freight 

system for the SCAG region. This scoping work will be done by the conclusion of 2012, 

however communication among stakeholders about various regional efforts will continue 

throughout the technology development process.

Phase 2: Evaluation, Development, and Prototype Demonstrations

Key Action Steps: 

 Convene logistics working groups

 Determine a set of market criteria to move truck vehicles forward to successful 

commercialization.

 Secure funding commitments for the development of vehicle prototypes and infrastructure demonstrations

 Advance pathway technologies through regulatory, financial, and marketing 

mechanisms

 Develop and demonstrate truck and truck wayside power prototypes

49 Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, Roadmap for Moving forward with Zero-Emission 

Technologies at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Technical Report, August 2011. 50 Southern California Association of Governments. Task 8.2 Analysis of Freight Rail Electrification 

in the SCAG Region, Technical Memorandum. Draft Version, Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, 

August 26, 2011.
Goods Movement 43

 Further study operational impacts of zero-emission rail technologies 

 Evaluate practicability of applying existing electrified rail technologies 

 Select truck technologies for continued fleet evaluation under Phase 3 

 Identify vehicle technologies and wayside power applications to be tested under 

operational demonstrations in Phase 3

Phase 2 involves the development, design validation, and initial demonstration of several 

types of advanced prototype vehicles (trucks). Phase 2, and Phase 3 if necessary, also 

includes initial proof of concept and testing of several types of zero-emission locomotive 

technologies and supporting infrastructure.

To foster regional collaboration during this phase, a logistics working group will be 

convened to assess logistics decisions and efficiencies as they relate to changes with a 

long-term freight system. Two additional groups will be formed, one to focus on trucking, 

the other on rail. One responsibility of these groups will be to collaborate with public and 

private partners to secure funding commitments for the development of vehicle prototypes and infrastructure demonstrations. These groups may overlap with or draw upon 

membership from existing regional forums. For instance, the Southern California National 

Freight Gateway Collaboration provides a forum composed of leaders from regional transportation as well as state and federal resource agencies. One mission of this group is to 

advocate for a first-class goods movement system and the funding necessary to support 

such a system.

Phase 2 includes performance assessment of new technologies, including addressing 

market risks/uncertainties. As prototypes are developed and demonstrated, significant 

evaluation will also occur. For instance, a truck corridor market mechanism study will 

assess effective models for financial and regulatory structures to support and enable 

zero- and/or near-zero-emission truck commercialization and widespread deployment. 

Models may include incentives, buy-down rebates, preferred or exclusive access to port 

service, exclusive or preferred access to corridors, regulatory inducements, etc. Truck 

manufacturers and technology developers will be included to determine a set of market 

criteria–minimum market size and volumes of vehicles needed to move forward to successful commercialization.

For rail, uncertainties associated with new technologies would be addressed through a 

rail operational assessment study that evaluates the potential operational impacts of a 

zero- and/or near-zero rail system both within the Basin and on the larger national freight 

railroad system. This study would build on the work of SCAG’s 2011 Rail Electrification 

Study, but would further clarify total capital and operating costs for such a system. 

Because overhead catenary systems have already been proven for passenger and some 

freight applications, this study would also evaluate the practicability of utilizing existing 

technologies for rail service.

For rail technologies, initial demonstration would include technology optimization along 

prescribed routes under conditions applicable to goods movement activities. An initial 

step in Phase 2 or Phase 3 if necessary, would entail creating a test track to allow for 

the demonstration of various technologies to move containers. For rail prototypes, basic 

performance requirements include, but are not limited to, sufficient tractive power to haul 

a double-stacked railcar, adequate braking capability and other parameters to support 

safe operation, and the ability to operate in zero-emission mode.

For trucks, certain pathway technologies are currently available but have had limited 

applications to date. For example, plug-in hybrid technologies are being demonstrated 

in parcel delivery and utility bucket truck applications; these systems could be scaled to 

larger vehicles for drayage and local service. 

Additionally, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS includes demonstration and initial deployment 

for zero-emission truck technologies along the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports, (or alternative routes serving the same locations.) The shorter 

distance (approximately 5 miles) reduces technological and cost obstacles and is an 

important part of the initial effort to develop a regional zero- and/or near-zero freight 

transportation system. Please see the text box for more information on this important 

near-term project.

At the conclusion of Phase 2, efforts would be evaluated and technologies selected to 

continue into Phase 3.
Phase 3: Initial Deployment and Operational Demonstration

Key Action Steps:

 For trucks, scale up efforts to develop, deploy, and evaluate full truck fleets

 Demonstrate wayside power and ability for multiple trucks to enter, exit, and be 

powered on a corridor

 Conduct advanced technology locomotive demonstrations on test tracks that have 

sufficient length, switches, and grades to validate operational feasibility within 

the Basin 

 Move the most promising technologies to initial demonstration of operational service

 Select advanced locomotive technologies for Phase 4 initial deployment 

 Select truck technologies and infrastructure for Phase 4 deployment and incorporate 

needed infrastructure into financially constrained RTP for high-priority corridors

In Phase 3, technologies that have been advanced by the Logistics Working Group will be 

further tested in an operational demonstration. This phase entails initial deployment of 

multiple vehicles or test tracks as appropriate, with on-going data collection and analysis 

for rapid iterative design improvement.

Phase 4: Full Scale Demonstrations, Commercial Deployment, and 

Infrastructure Construction (if wayside power is needed)

Key Action Steps:

 Continue to launch and expand commercialization of zero-emission trucks using 

regulatory and market mechanisms identified in prior phases

 Continue expanding plans for any needed wayside power infrastructure along highpriority corridors (e.g., the East-West Freight Corridor)

 Foster integration of advanced technologies into regional transportation networks

 Advance rail technologies from small-scale demonstration to full-scale demonstration in operational service, as locomotive technologies will likely require additional 

field demonstrations prior to full commercialization

 Coordinate locomotive technology deployment with any needed infrastructure 

improvements

The prior stages of technology testing and demonstrations will have prepared the region 

for Phase 4 deployment using the commercialization, regulatory, and market steps determined in prior phases. Any new technology deployment must be coordinated with infrastructure planning, and key decisions will be incorporated into RTP updates and future 

SIP revisions. During Phase 4, technologies will be deployed as they meet the criteria for 

deployment established by regional stakeholders. As various technologies are currently 

in different stages of readiness, it is assumed that their deployment will be staggered 

throughout Phase 4.

44 Goods Movement
Goods Movement 45

Near-Term Zero-Emission Technology 

Demonstration and Initial Deployment

Description: This project is for near-term demonstration and, if successful, initial 

operational deployment of zero-emission trucks receiving wayside electric power.

Location: The project will be located in Los Angeles County along the Terminal 

Island Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports, (or alternative routes serving 

the same locations).

Schedule: 

 By 2013 – Demonstration: Develop and build trucks and wayside power infrastructure sufficient for demonstration within the transport corridor consisting 

of the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to the Ports (or alternative routes serving the same locations); commence demonstration upon 

completion of trucks and infrastructure.

 By 2015 – Initial Operational Deployment: Build wayside power infrastructure 

sufficient for operation on the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes 

to the Ports (or alternative routes serving the same locations), and build maximum number of trucks for initial operational deployment allowed by available 

funding (with all feasible leveraging of private resources), unless a zeroemission technology not utilizing wayside power is determined to be superior 

and can be implemented in a similar or earlier timeframe. In the latter case, 

remaining funds allocated to this project will be applied to demonstration and 

deployment of zero-emission trucks not utilizing wayside power.

Cost: Project cost is $35 million, for both demonstration and initial operational 

deployment phases. This includes construction of infrastructure, design and build 

of demonstration trucks, and acquisition of a small fleet for initial operational 

deployment.

Funding: AQMD will actively partner in supporting this effort by providing available funding for vehicle technology or infrastructure (staff will make a proposal 

to the AQMD Board in 2012), seeking funding partners, and developing other support. Additionally, SCAG will work with local transportation agencies, the Ports, 

and other private and public stakeholders in 2012 to identify funding for this 

project. Other potential co-funding sources include:

 California Energy Commission AB 118 program

 California Air Resources Board

 California greenhouse gas cap and trade auction revenues

 Federal grants

 In-kind contributions and public private partnerships with technology developers, drayage companies, etc.

 Funds available for project mitigation

Project Rationale: The Ports, vehicle manufacturers, and other entities are currently demonstrating new zero-emission truck technologies, including batteryelectric, fuel-cell, and hybrid-electric trucks with all electric range (AER). The 

purpose of this project is to demonstrate and initially deploy wayside power 

technology to provide power to these and other types of vehicles along certain 

high-volume corridors, thus allowing extended zero-emission range. Wayside 

technology has been used for many decades to power electric buses, mining 

trucks, and rail systems. It is thus a particularly proven and promising technological approach to achieving zero-emission transport. If coupled with hybrid AER 

technologies currently in use for passenger cars and now being demonstrated for 

heavy trucks, wayside power could provide flexibility, range, and compatibility 

with current port, railyard, and warehouse operations. Hybrid AER trucks could 

produce zero-emissions along key high-volume corridors (e.g. Terminal Island 

Freeway, I-710, east-west freight corridor), but could operate off the electrified 

corridor powered by conventional natural gas or diesel fuels, by fuel cells, or—

within certain range—by batteries. Such vehicles thus could provide zero emissions where most needed, and would have range to travel long distances in other 

modes. The Terminal Island Freeway corridor, as a short, high-volume transport 

corridor with substantial air pollution impacts to local communities, is an important and ideal venue to initially deploy such technology. Deployment of wayside 

power technology is compatible with, and builds upon, the current Port efforts to 

develop and demonstrate electric and hybrid-electric trucks.
AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ACTION

TABLES 16 and 17 describe the actions needed by SCAG and its air quality partner 

agencies to develop plan revisions and implementation mechanisms (e.g. funding and 

regulatory mechanisms) to deploy zero and near-zero-emission truck and rail technologies 

as part of a long-term freight system that meets the performance objectives described 

earlier. These actions will be made through an open process with the collaboration of 

our stakeholders.

TABLE 16 Trucks: Agency Major Implementation Actions

Year(s) Agency Agency Action

2012 SCAG  Incorporate “footprint” for regional truck lanes to accommodate potential use of wayside power in financially constrained 

2012 RTP

 Include funding to support truck and wayside power evaluation and demonstration efforts into financially constrained RTP 

See text box for more information.

 Implement plan of advocacy to secure action by federal or other governments where required to implement any related elements of the SIP or RTP; include evaluation of impacts of zero- and/or near-zero-emission technologies on national priorities, 

(e.g. energy security, energy cost certainty, interstate transportation, climate protection).

2012–2014 SCAG, with AQMD/ARB 

on SIP, other transportation 

agencies and private sector 

partners on demonstration 

and funding efforts

 Evaluate potential truck technology implementation and funding mechanisms, including: regulatory requirements; incentives 

(local, state, federal, interstate cooperative); differential tolls; and public-private partnerships

 Evaluate potential funding mechanisms for truck infrastructure (e.g. wayside power), including federal, state, local government funding; tolling; public-private partnerships; and electric utility funding of corridor construction

 Demonstrate trucks and wayside power infrastructure sufficient along the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to 

the Ports, (or alternative routes serving the same locations)

2015 SCAG, with AQMD/ARB 

on SIP, other transportation 

agencies and private sector 

partners on demonstration 

and funding efforts

 Resolve need for wayside power infrastructure for trucks on I-710 and other corridors beyond near-dock rail yards, including East-West Freight Corridor; decision would be based upon whether zero-and near-zero-emission technologies would 

have sufficient range without wayside power; if wayside power is needed, incorporate such technology description into RTP 

constrained plan and next major SIP

 Build wayside power infrastructure sufficient for operation along the Terminal Island Freeway and connecting routes to the 

Ports, (or alternative routes serving the same locations), and build maximum number of trucks for initial operational deployment allowed by available funding (with all feasible leveraging of private resources), unless a zero-emission technology not 

utilizing wayside power is determined to be superior and can be implemented in a similar or earlier timeframe

 Develop and incorporate recommendations regarding type of funding and implementation mechanisms (including infrastructure needed) into RTP constrained plan and next major SIP, including:

 Strategy description and timeframe for any rules

 Strategy description, potential funding sources and timeframe for any incentives

46 Goods Movement
Goods Movement 47

TABLE 17 Locomotive/Rail: Agency Major Implementation Actions

Year(s) Agency Agency Action

2012 SCAG, with AQMD/ARB on SIP, 

other transportation agencies and 

private sector partners (UP/BNSF) 

on demonstration and funding 

efforts

 Identify funding to support rail evaluation and demonstration efforts

 Implement plan of advocacy to secure action by federal or other governments where required to implement any related elements of the SIP or RTP; include evaluation of impacts of zero and near-zero-emission technologies on national priorities, 

(e.g. energy security, energy cost certainty, interstate transportation, climate protection)

2012–2014 SCAG, with AQMD/ARB on SIP, 

other transportation agencies and 

private sector partners (UP/BNSF) 

on demonstration and funding 

efforts

 Evaluate and determine practicability of applying existing electrified rail technologies to region (by 2013)

 Evaluate potential funding and implementation mechanisms for zero-and/or near-zero-emission locomotives, and wayside 

power, including: Private (railroads); federal, state, local governments; public-private partnerships; electric utilities

2015–2016 SCAG, with AQMD/ARB on SIP, 

other transportation agencies and 

private sector partners (UP/BNSF) 

on demonstration and funding 

efforts

 If existing electrified rail technologies are determined practicable for the region, identify technologies, infrastructure, and 

implementation mechanisms in RTP amendment and next major SIP 

2018–2020 SCAG, with AQMD/ARB on SIP, 

other transportation agencies and 

private sector partners (UP/BNSF) 

on demonstration and funding 

efforts

 If existing electrified rail technologies were determined to not be practicable for the region, resolve need for wayside 

power for new rail technologies; decision would be based upon whether new technologies can achieve sufficient zero-or 

near-zero-emission range without wayside power

 If wayside power is needed, include planning for wayside power for rail lines into 2018 constrained RTP 

 Include recommendations regarding type of funding and implementation mechanisms into constrained RTP and next major 

SIP, including:

 Strategy description and timeframe for any rules

 Strategy description, potential funding sources. and timeframe for any incentives.

Near-Term and Long-Term Technologies for Commercial Deployment

The 2012–2035 RTP/SCS recommends a two-pronged environmental strategy to be 

implemented in the four phases outlined in the previous section. SCAG recognizes that not 

all technologies have advanced to the stage where they can be implemented immediately. 

As the region works to advance and deploy current prototype technologies, focus should 

be placed on commercializing and implementing existing solutions as well. For trucks, an 

aggressive program to bring more currently available clean-fuel and hybrid trucks into 

service represents the best near-term strategy. In the longer term, our infrastructure can 

serve as a catalyst for the development of longer-range hybrid, dual-mode or batteryoperated trucks. For rail, near-term technologies for switcher locomotives can reduce 

emissions at railyards. A longer-term objective of a zero-emission rail system can be 

reached through further technology development. This section will briefly describe both 

near- and long-term technologies that have the potential to reduce emissions and help 

the region meet attainment deadlines. The technologies identified in this section serve as 

examples of potential near- and long-term options for further study and do not constitute 

specific technologies under the financially constrained RTP/SCS.
48 Goods Movement

NEAR-TERM TRUCK TECHNOLOGIES

Natural gas trucks use compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) to 

power an internal combustion engine. Natural gas trucks have already been deployed at 

the Ports, and have the potential for greater deployment based on provision of fueling 

infrastructure. Range can be a concern due to limited on board fuel storage; however, 

adequate fueling infrastructure and/or the use of LNG could address the range issue. 

Several efforts are underway to expand use of natural gas trucks in the region as a nearterm solution. Southern California Clean Cities Coalition is currently assisting with the 

marketing and education outreach for three projects funded through U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Clean Cities ARRA 2009 Petroleum Reduction Technology Projects solicitation. These projects include the UPS Ontario–Las Vegas LNG Corridor Expansion Project 

and the Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Drayage Truck Replacement Initiative, both with the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A third project is being implemented in partnership with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and 

Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. to deploy 202 heavy-duty natural gas trucks and construct two 

liquefied natural gas fueling stations.

Hybrid-electric trucks contain an internal combustion engine as well as an electric motor, 

generator, and energy storage device (e.g., a battery). The electric motor and generator 

absorb energy via regenerative braking and store that energy to offset acceleration and 

power demands of the vehicle. Several hundred hybrid-electric trucks are on the road due 

to the ARB’s Hybrid Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). The incremental cost 

of this truck is its largest barrier to market penetration; some of this has the potential to 

be offset through incentive programs or reduced fuel costs for operators. 

NEAR-TERM TRUCK OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES

In addition to deployment of new technologies, several programs that address truck 

operations have the potential to reduce emissions, including increased enforcement of 

anti-idling regulations, truck inspection and maintenance programs, and use of conditional use permits for warehouses. These are operational changes that do not require new 

technologies, but may require changes in business practice and enforcement of these 

changes. Many of these strategies may also reduce noise and vibration impacts.

LONG-TERM TRUCK TECHNOLOGIES

Plug-in hybrid-electric trucks and battery-electric trucks are examples of technologies 

that may be used in the future. Plug-in hybrid-electric trucks differ from hybrid-electric 

trucks in that they have a larger battery and can draw energy from the electric grid. This 

enables the truck to travel under all-electric power when on electrified corridors. These 

trucks are currently in the development and demonstration stage. The cost and weight of 

the battery is the most significant barrier to further developing this truck type. Currently, 

plug-in hybrid technologies are being demonstrated in parcel delivery and utility bucket 

truck applications; as previously discussed, these systems could be scaled to larger 

vehicles for drayage and local service. Arvin Meritor is currently developing a dual-mode 

hybrid, and Vision Motor Corporation has a contract with the Port of Los Angeles to test 

units made specifically for drayage, using a combination of lithium-ion batteries and 

fuel cells.

Battery-electric trucks replace the entire engine and drive train of a conventional vehicle 

with an electric motor and generator. Battery-electric trucks could run entirely on battery 

packs that are charged when the vehicle is plugged into the grid and via regenerative 

braking or possibly using an on-board hydrogen fuel cell. Alternatively, these trucks 

could receive power from an external power source in the roadway, such as an overhead 

catenary system or through electromagnetic induction from a contact-less power system 

embedded in the roadway. Zero- and near-zero-emission truck prototype testing is 

underway with funding from the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach, and AQMD. 

For instance, a demonstration of the Balqon lead-acid battery-electric truck was initiated 

in 2007. The battery was upgraded to a lithium-ion battery, and testing of the upgraded 

system is underway. Balqon has a contract at the Port of Los Angeles to test five on-road 

drayage trucks.

TRUCK TECHNOLOGIES FOR ZERO-EMISSION FREIGHT CORRIDORS

Development of both the proposed I-710 freight corridor and East-West Freight Corridor 

provide opportunities to commercialize technologies and create incentives for development. Recent studies, such as the I-710 EIR/EIS, research completed by the San Pedro 

Bay Ports, and the SCAG Comprehensive Goods Movement Study, suggest that fixed 

guideway systems are less practical to serve the region’s needs, as they lack the flexibility to serve the various markets. Zero-emission trucks, however, that either charge 
Goods Movement 49

through wayside power infrastructure, at charging stations off the system, or through fuel 

cell systems, show promise for goods movement corridors.

Wayside power offers a potential advantage to trucks that move on key freight corridors 

as it offers the potential to extend the range of the vehicle while operating in a zero-or 

near-zero-emissions mode. There is always a tradeoff between the weight of battery 

systems (which reduce payload carrying capacity) and the range of the vehicle. Current 

battery technologies have range limitations of approximately 40 miles in common truck 

duty cycles. A wayside power system on a freight corridor (truck lanes), for example, 

could charge batteries so that the truck can continue to operate with a 40-mile range 

when it leaves the freight corridor. This could provide a more extended range system 

than would charge stations located at truck stops and fuel stations similar to the current 

fueling infrastructure. Ongoing efforts are underway to evaluate the costs and operational 

parameters associated with either method.

Wayside power technologies include overhead catenary, in-road power such as third 

rail or linear synchronous motor (LSM), and fast charging. All three technologies must 

be integrated closely with the zero and/or near-zero-emission trucks, and all have the 

potential to significantly increase the functionality and range of trucks utilizing batteries, including dual-mode hybrids. (It is unlikely that fuel cell trucks would need wayside 

power, due to their range and relatively quick refueling capability.) In overhead catenary 

systems, power is delivered from the electrical grid through the overhead wire to a 

pantograph on the vehicle itself. Catenary systems are well-established and efficient in 

light-rail applications, trolley cars and buses, and even mining trucks. For in-road power, 

the roadway itself provides power to the vehicles, which must be equipped with pick-up 

devices. Alternatively, fast charging is a high-power charging system used to quickly 

recharge the batteries in an electric vehicle at destination points, e.g., rail yards or distribution centers. While technically not “wayside” power, fast charging is similarly grouped 

with other approaches that require infrastructure to be designed and built into the freight 

facilities and corridors. These systems have different operational requirements. Ideally, 

the system would allow for trucks to enter and exit the system seamlessly, change lanes 

and could be shared with standard trucks. 

NEAR-TERM RAIL EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES

Switcher locomotives contribute only a small share of total locomotive emissions; however, their activity is concentrated in railyards and greatly impacts surrounding communities. Nevertheless, low-emission technologies are available, or soon to be available, and 

have relatively low costs. To reduce emissions from switcher locomotives, one option is 

to replace remaining Tier 0+ switchers with cleaner engines, such as Tier 4 switchers 

when they become available. NOX and PM2.5 emission rates from a Tier 4 switcher would 

be approximately 10–15 times lower than a Tier 0+ engine. Another option is to rebuild 

existing Genset switchers with engines that meet the U.S. EPA Tier 4 non-road emission 

standards, which could cut NOX and PM2.5 emissions by a factor of 10. The emission 

reductions of these strategies could reduce emissions for switcher engines between 27 

and 53 percent. However, since switchers are a small part of the overall fleet, these two 

switcher strategies would reduce total freight locomotive NOX and PM2.5 emissions by 

only 1 to 3 percent. Tier 4 engines are not currently available, but are required by the EPA 

for all new purchases after 2015. TABLES 18 and 19 show emissions reductions associated with upgrading all engines to Tier 4 after 2015. Such a strategy can be implemented 

on a voluntary basis, subject to funding availability. This strategy is presented for illustrative purposes and is not part of the financially constrained RTP/SCS.

TABLE 18 Emission Reductions from Replacing Tier 0 

with Tier 4 Switchers (Tons per Day)

NOX PM2.5 CO2

Year

Switcher baselineWith Strategy% ChangeSwitcher baselineWith Strategy% ChangeSwitcher baselineWith Strategy% Change

2010 1.37 1.37 0% 0.041 0.041 0% 94 94 0%

2023 0.68 0.35 -49% 0.017 0.001 -45% 123 123 0%

2035 0.37 0.37 0% 0.010 0.010 0% 153 153 0%

Source: SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy
50 Goods Movement

TABLE 19 Emission Reductions from Repowering Gensets with Tier 4 

Non-Road Engines (Tons per Day)

NOX PM2.5 CO2

Year

Switcher baselineWith Strategy% ChangeSwitcher baselineWith Strategy% ChangeSwitcher baselineWith Strategy% Change

2010 1.37 1.37 0% 0.041 0.041 0% 94 94 0%

2023 0.68 0.50 -27% 0.017 0.011 -36% 123 123 0%

2035 0.37 0.18 -50% 0.010 0.004 -62% 153 153 0%

Source: SCAG Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy

LONG TERM EMISSION REDUCTIONS STRATEGIES FOR RAIL

Electrification

Several U.S. commuter rail systems use overhead lines to power electric trains, and electrified systems for both passenger and freight trains are common throughout Europe and 

Asia. There are no major electrified freight rail systems in North America. Electrification 

technologies require further evaluation to more precisely address questions about cost, 

funding, and how to best implement such systems with minimal operational impacts. 

Because of the cost and potential operational challenges associated with main line electrification, such a strategy should be considered a longer-term initiative, requiring further 

studies as well as proof of concept and prototype testing of zero-emission locomotive 

technologies which have the potential to minimize cost and operational impacts, as discussed under the phased implementation section of this Appendix. 

Three electrification options were analyzed for consideration in SCAG’s recent rail electrification study, each with varying costs and levels of technological readiness. Electric 

catenary rail systems are perhaps the most technologically ready. Dual-mode locomotives are in use for passenger service and, if they could be adapted for freight, could 

reduce the operational difficulties of removing and switching locomotives, as they can 

operate both on a catenary or with traditional diesel power. A third option would use 

linear synchronous motors in the railway to generate a propulsive force by creating an 

electromagnetic field, thereby avoiding the need to acquire or switch electric locomotives. 

Construction of any electrified rail system in Southern California would be a large investment, and would need the participation of the BNSF and UP railways.

Electrification of the railroad main lines would reduce line-haul NOX and PM2.5 emissions 

produced in the SCAG region by introducing cleaner, more efficient electric-powered 

locomotives and also by shifting the location of emissions to power plants. Although some 

emissions would still be produced in electricity generation, power plants are highly regulated and release fewer emissions. Furthermore, all power plants in the SCAB region are 

natural gas powered and also release fewer emissions. Most power plants are located 

outside the SCAB region and therefore emissions from these sources would be further 

from population centers. 

Battery Hybrid And Fuel Cell Rail Technologies

In future analyses, other additional viable technologies would be considered outside of 

electrification options. Two promising technologies that are under development include 

hybrid diesel-electric locomotives and battery-electric tender cars. Each requires additional development and a more thorough understanding of operational considerations. 

Hybrid diesel-electric locomotives (utilizing advanced batteries) are under development 

by General Electric (GE). The prototype is based on GE’s Tier 2 Evolution locomotive 

platform (4,400 hp) that will capture energy dissipated during braking and store it in a 

series of sodium-nickel chloride batteries housed in the locomotive frame. Fuel savings 

would allow for a small fuel storage tank and provide space for storage of the necessary 

batteries on individual locomotives. The locomotives would therefore switch between 

Tier-4 diesel-electric and battery modes. The batteries would recharge as the locomotive 

is operating in diesel-electric mode. 

Also, battery-electric tender car technology could be used with current locomotives. 

Battery tender cars would be placed behind diesel-electric locomotives and would carry 

batteries that could power locomotives through environmentally sensitive areas. Such a 

system could have many of the same advantages as the hybrid diesel-electric locomotives, including zero-emission operation, but would also have the added benefit of being 

compatible with current locomotives and reducing or eliminating the need for wayside 

power such as from overhead catenary wires. 
Goods Movement 51

IMPLEMENTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY

Broad deployment of zero-and near-zero-emission transportation technologies in the 

2023 to 2035 timeframe is a critical and significant undertaking with technological, cost, 

and operational challenges. As outlined above, the 2012–2035 RTP/SCS delineates a 

path forward–a series of steps and decision points to move the region to that objective. 

Industry stakeholder participation will be necessary, including the efforts of numerous 

state and federal resources agencies, transportation agencies, along with commercial 

technology developers/manufacturers, and logistics experts. The 2012–2035 RTP/

SCS, developed in coordination with many of these stakeholders, reaffirms zero- and 

near-zero-emission technologies as a priority and establishes the regional path forward to 

such a goods movement system.
52 

EXHIBIT A.1 Manufacturing and Warehousing Concentrations Along I-210 (5-Mile Radius)
 53

EXHIBIT A.2Manufacturing and Warehousing Concentrations Along I-10 (5-Mile Radius)
54 

EXHIBIT A.3 Manufacturing and Warehousing Concentrations Along SR-60 (5-Mile Radius)
 55

EXHIBIT A.4Manufacturing and Warehousing Concentrations Along SR-91 (5-Mile Radius)
56 

EXHIBIT A.5 Manufacturing and Warehousing Concentrations Along Union Pacific Railroad Adjacent Alignment (5-Mile Radius)
 57

EXHIBIT B.1Regional Grade Separations – Constrained and Strategic Plan
58 Goods Movement

TABLE B.1Constrained Grade Separations 

(Not Listed in Priority Order)

County Grade Separation

ORANGE RAYMOND AVE 

ORANGE STATE COLLEGE BLVD

ORANGE PLACENTIA AVE UNDER CROSSING

ORANGE KRAEMER BLVD 

ORANGE ORANGETHORPE AVE 

ORANGE TUSTIN AVE / ROSE DR

ORANGE LAKEVIEW AVE 

ORANGE JEFFERY RD 

SAN BERNARDINO LENWOOD RD

SAN BERNARDINO GREEN TREE BLVD

SAN BERNARDINO GLEN HELEN PARKWAY

SAN BERNARDINO PALM AVE

SAN BERNARDINO MT. VERNON AVE

SAN BERNARDINO RAMONA AV

SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANTONIO AVE

SAN BERNARDINO CAMPUS AVE

SAN BERNARDINO NORTH VINEYARD AVE

SAN BERNARDINO SOUTH ARCHIBALD AVE

SAN BERNARDINO S. MILLIKEN AVE

SAN BERNARDINO LAUREL ST

SAN BERNARDINO MAIN ST 

SAN BERNARDINO HUNTS LN

VENTURA RICE AVE

RIVERSIDE AUTO CENTER DRIVE

County Grade Separation

RIVERSIDE JOY ST

RIVERSIDE MCKINLEY ST

RIVERSIDE MAGNOLIA AVE

RIVERSIDE PIERCE ST

RIVERSIDE BELLGRAVE AV

RIVERSIDE JURUPA RD

RIVERSIDE CLAY ST

RIVERSIDE TYLER ST

RIVERSIDE ADAMS ST

RIVERSIDE STREETER AVE

RIVERSIDE MADISON ST

RIVERSIDE MARY ST

RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE AVE

RIVERSIDE 3RD STREET

RIVERSIDE SPRUCE ST 

RIVERSIDE CHICAGO AVE

RIVERSIDE IOWA AVE

RIVERSIDE VIELE AVE

RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA AVE

RIVERSIDE SUNSET AVE

RIVERSIDE 22ND ST

RIVERSIDE SAN GORGONIO AV

RIVERSIDE HARGRAVE ST

RIVERSIDE AVENUE 52 

RIVERSIDE AVENUE 56 

RIVERSIDE AVENUE 62

County Grade Separation

RIVERSIDE AVENUE 66

LOS ANGELES DEL AMO BLVD 

LOS ANGELES SOUTH WILMINGTON AVE

LOS ANGELES REEVES AVE

LOS ANGELES VALLEY VIEW AVE 

LOS ANGELES PASSONS BLVD

LOS ANGELES GREENWOOD AVE (MONTEBELLO)

LOS ANGELES RAMONA ST (SAN GABRIEL)

LOS ANGELES MISSION RD (SAN GABRIEL)

LOS ANGELES DEL MAR AVE (SAN GABRIEL)

LOS ANGELES SAN GABRIEL BLVD (SAN 

GABRIEL)

LOS ANGELES BALDWIN AVENUE (EL MONTE)

LOS ANGELES DURFEE AVE (PICO RIVERA)

LOS ANGELES PUENTE AVENUE (INDUSTRY/LA 

COUNTY)

LOS ANGELES TURNBULL CYN RD (INDUSTRY/LA 

COUNTY)

LOS ANGELES FULLERTON RD (INDUSTY/LA 

COUNTY)

LOS ANGELES NOGALES ST (INDUSTRY/LA 

COUNTY)

LOS ANGELES FAIRWAY DRIVE (INDUSTRY/

WALNUT)

LOS ANGELES FAIRWAY DRIVE (INDUSTRY/LA 

COUNTY)

LOS ANGELES HAMILTON BLVD (POMONA)

LOS ANGELES MISSION BLVD (POMONA)
Goods Movement 59

TABLE B.2 Strategic Grade Separations (Not Listed in Priority Order)

County Grade Separation

IMPERIAL WARD ROAD (IMPERIAL COUNTY)

IMPERIAL SR-78/SR-111 (BRAWLEY)

IMPERIAL MALAN STREET (BRAWLEY)

IMPERIAL MEAD ROAD (BRAWLEY)

IMPERIAL KEYSTONE ROAD (IMPERIAL COUNTY)

IMPERIAL ATEN ROAD (IMPERIAL)

IMPERIAL EVAN HEWES HIGHWAY (IMPERIAL COUNTY)

IMPERIAL DOGWOOD ROAD (IMPERIAL COUNTY)

IMPERIAL HEBER AVENUE (IMPERIAL COUNTY)

IMPERIAL WEST COLE ROAD (CALEXICO)

LOS ANGELES SAN ANTONIO AVE (POMONA)

LOS ANGELES LEMON AVE (LA SUBDIVISION)

ORANGE JEFFERSON ST (ANAHEIM)

ORANGE VAN BUREN AVE (PLACENTIA)

ORANGE RICHFIELD RD (PLACENTIA)

ORANGE KELLOGG DRIVE UNDERCROSSING (ANAHEIM)

SAN BERNARDINO HINCKLEY AVE (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY)

SAN BERNARDINO SHADOW MOUNTAIN RD (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY)

SAN BERNARDINO PHELAN RD (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY)

SAN BERNARDINO ARCHIBALD AVE (RANCHO CUCAMONGA)

SAN BERNARDINO CENTRAL AVE (MONTCLAIR)

SAN BERNARDINO VINE AVE (ONTARIO)

SAN BERNARDINO SULTANA AVE (ONTARIO)

SAN BERNARDINO BON VIEW AVE (ONTARIO)

SAN BERNARDINO VINEYARD AVE (ONTARIO)

SAN BERNARDINO OLIVE ST (SAN BERNARDINO)

SAN BERNARDINO BEAUMONT AVE (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY)

SAN BERNARDINO ALESSANDRO RD (REDLANDS)

County Grade Separation

VENTURA ROUTE 118 (VENTURA COUNTY)

RIVERSIDE SMITH AVE (CORONA)

RIVERSIDE RAILROAD ST (CORONA)

RIVERSIDE COTA STREET (CORONA)

RIVERSIDE RADIO ROAD (CORONA)

RIVERSIDE BUCHANAN ST (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE RUTILE STREET (JURUPA VALLEY)

RIVERSIDE HARRISON STREET (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE GIBSON STREET (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE JACKSON STREET (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE JEFFERSON STREET (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE PALM AVE (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE WASHINGTON STREET (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE BROCKTON AVE (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE APACHE TRAIL (RIVERSIDE COUNTY)

RIVERSIDE PANORAMA ROAD (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE CRIDGE STREET (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE PALMYRITA AVE (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE CENTER ST (RIVERSIDE COUNTY)

RIVERSIDE MAIN STREET (RIVERSIDE COUNTY)

RIVERSIDE SAN TIMOTEO CANYON (CALIMESA)

RIVERSIDE SHERIDAN ST (CORONA)

RIVERSIDE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE (BEAUMONT)

RIVERSIDE 7TH ST (RIVERSIDE)

RIVERSIDE BROADWAY (RIVERSIDE COUNTY)

RIVERSIDE TIPTON ROAD (PALM SPRINGS)

RIVERSIDE AVENUE 54 (COACHELLA)

RIVERSIDE AVENUE 58 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY)
60 

EXHIBIT B.2 Los Angeles County Grade Separations – Constrained Plan (Not Listed in Priority Order)
 61

EXHIBIT B.3Orange County Grade Separations – Constrained Plan (Not Listed in Priority Order)
62 

EXHIBIT B.4 Riverside County Grade Separations – Constrained Plan (Not Listed in Priority Order)
 63

EXHIBIT B.5San Bernardino County Grade Separations – Constrained Plan (Not Listed in Priority Order)
64 

EXHIBIT B.6 Ventura County Grade Separations – Constrained Plan 

REGIONAL OFFICES

Imperial County

1405 North Imperial Avenue

Suite 1 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Phone: (760) 353-7800 

Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County

OCTA Building 

600 South Main Street

Suite 906 

Orange, CA 92863 

Phone: (714) 542-3687 

Fax: (714) 560-5089 

Riverside County

3403 10th Street

Suite 805 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Phone: (951) 784-1513 

Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County

Santa Fe Depot 

1170 West 3rd Street

Suite 140 

San Bernardino, CA 92410 

Phone: (909) 806-3556 

Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County

950 County Square Drive

Suite 101 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Phone: (805) 642-2800 

Fax: (805) 642-2260 

818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Phone: (213) 236-1800 

Fax: (213) 236-1825

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2347 2012.04.09