Ron White from the Los Angeles Times wrote an interesting article today about the Clean Trucks Program.  The article examines the hurdles that have been placed in front of the Port of Los Angeles in implementing its landmark program to clean up the dilapidated fleet of jalopy trucks that service the ports.  Among the myriad of tough factors that have led to this skid in the road, the article references one obstacle that could be eradicated through simple good government practices-namely, the Federal Maritime Commission halting its full court press to stop the ports from succeeding in cleaning up the air.  My blog post and a blog post from my colleague, David Pettit, go into greater detail on this issue.  If I could channel the ability of Doc Brown and Marty McFly to help me go back in time, I would show the Federal Maritime Commission Ron's article from today before it decided to effectively block the collection of the fee in December of 2008.  Since that time, millions of dollars could have been collected to help alleviate the problems discussed in this article.  But until NRDC scientists can develop a time machine -- believe me I have put in my request -- we are left with the current situation and an imperative that calls on the Federal Maritime Commission to stop its obstructionist behavior. 

The Los Angeles Times article addresses many interesting issues, but I found quite intriguing the point that the economics of the port trucking system were hard to predict when the program was being developed.  Some entities, including Federal Maritime Commission staff, economists, and even advocates assumed that independent drivers would be chomping at the bit to participate in incentive programs.  These incentive programs that provide funds directly to independent drivers are facing some serious speed bumps too.  For example, I spoke with a port driver yesterday. He told me that he had only two loads last week and earned a whopping $100 of take-home pay.  Now, I was not a math major in college, but adding a loan payment, even on a heavily subsidized truck, would be hard to make under those conditions.  I'm not saying all drivers couldn't make a payment on a subsidized new truck, but I acknowledge that we are facing some tough times to implementing clean up programs.  However, this acknowledgement of speed bumps should not be taken to mean that we should not continue these efforts. The imperative to clean up the toxic air near the ports must continue because cleaning up this system will only get harder the longer we wait.    

There was no question that cleaning up the ports would result in hiccups along the way.  As today's article noted, the task the ports of LA and Long Beach face is massive, and the ports should be applauded, not ridiculed, for undertaking this effort. These air pollution measures installed at the ports have never been previously attempted at any other port, let alone the busiest ports in the country. The naysayers are probably sitting back on the sidelines saying "I told you so."  But, let them flap their mouths.  For decades, the goods movement industry has used the Southland's air as its sewer system to emit the noxious fumes that have resulted in many premature deaths, asthma cases, missed school days and many other impacts to residents and it's time they stop.  To be fair, it has also employed many people and created viable economic opportunities for some, but we have the technology and incentives available to allow both for expanded commerce at the ports and clean air programs.  So the success of the clean trucks program is not only needed to help the bank statements of the port trucking companies mentioned in Ron's article, but also to help the lungs of residents near the ports and freight freeways.  Me personally, I am rooting for a win by the ports in tackling this huge problem.