Clash of Long Beach port, 4 cities may endanger Alameda Corridor.

The Port of Long Beach suspended its funding Aug. 11 for the organization created by the Cities of L.A. and Long Beach to design and construct Alameda Corridor.

The port was reacting to a suit filed last June by four cities located along the proposed corridor route and where truck and train traffic from the ports now travels. They sued to block the Port of Long Beach from expanding until the corridor project is further along, or perhaps even completed, because the expansion would boost truck and train traffic in their communities, officials from the cities say.

But now the project itself may found over the port's suspension of funding in reaction to the suit, sources say.

This port action comes a week after Union Pacific Railroad Co. tentatively agreed to use the corridor. This agreement was expected to be the last major hurdle before construction on the corridor could begin.

Also, officials from the suing cities and the port all sit on the board of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, the joint-powers authority created to construct and design the project. Disputes among them don't look good in the eyes of government officials, sources said.

Thus, if the corridor isn't derailed altogether, this dispute could make it harder for those working on the project to secure federal funding for it, sources said.

The Alameda Corridor is a planned $1.8 billion, 18-mile corridor that would consolidate rail and truck traffic traveling between the ports and downtown Los Angeles warehousing facilities, factories and rail yards.

The suit filed by Vernon, Compton, Lynwood and South Gate alleges the environmental impact report for proposed construction of new on-dock rail facilities at two terminals there is inadequate and asks that it be redone and recirculated. The port project is unrelated to the Alameda Corridor.

The expansion, said Albert Robles, the mayor of South Gate, would result in increased train and truck congestion in the suing cities -- Vernon, Compton, Lynwood and South Gate.

The Alameda Corridor would ease this congestion, but the ports are not doing their best to get the project off the ground as quickly as possible, Robles said. Thus, the suit is intended to make port expansion as difficult as possible, he said. But he said the expansion "doesn't necessarily" have to wait until the corridor is complete.

According to a Port of Long Beach statement, though, the cities "have filed suit to block the Port of Long Beach from further expansion until the $1.8-billion rail project is complete."

Furthermore, "the port has committed more than $200 million toward construction of the (Alameda Corridor), and plans to issue revenue bonds to provide additional financing," said Steve Dillenbeck, executive director of the Port of Long Beach, in the statement. "Without the ability to expand and develop the port, we will not be able to retire the bonds needed for the corridor."

Representatives from the four suing cities, the ports of Long Beach and L.A., the cities of L.A. and Long Beach and others all sit on the board of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, a joint powers authority created to design and construct the corridor.

In response to the suit, Dillenbeck and Long Beach Harbor Commissioner David Hauser announced at the corridor authority's Aug. 11 board meeting that the Long Beach port was suspending funding for and participation in it, according to a port statement. Subsequently, the two walked out of the meeting, sources said.

The loss of funding from the Port of Long Beach, which supplies half of the corridor authority's budget, threatens its very existence once current funds run out, said ACTA General Manager Gill Hicks. ACTA is financed by matching funds from the ports of L.A. and Long Beach.

And without the corridor authority, the Alameda Corridor project "would be comatose if not dead," he said.

The ports each contributed $3.5 million to the corridor authority when it was formed in 1989. In February each port again pledged $4 million, to be given on an incremental basis.

The ports have paid the first $500,000 installment to the corridor authority, and this funding should last at least through year-end because there are no big contracts pending, said Gerald Swan, attorney for the corridor authority and the Port of L.A.

However, since the ports are under agreement to match each other's funds, the Port of L.A. would have to take specific action to fund the corridor authority on its own if the Port of Long Beach was still suspending its funding when existing funds ran out, Swan said. No decision on this has yet been made.

In addition, the internal strife among the corridor authority's board members, together with the months of haggling between the ports and Union Pacific Railroad Co. over fees to be charged for using the corridor, doesn't look good to federal politicians, Hicks said. The ports are trying to secure hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government for the project.

Meanwhile, representatives from the four suing cities announced last week that Assemblywoman Martha Escutia, D-Huntington Park, has offered her services as a mediator on the issue regarding the suit, Robles said.

However, "When the port says, 'Drop the suit or we're out of here,' it doesn't leave much room to find common ground," Robles said.

Others said they believed the issue would be resolved. "There is an enormous amount at stake. If it's not resolved, everybody loses," Hicks said.