Conveniently, there is an upcoming opportunity to do something about it. The Department of Transportation recently released its second round of criteria for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER). This program provides a unique opportunity for Los Angeles to find dollars for biking and walking projects.
For example, in the last round of TIGER grants, the Department of Transportation provided $23 million for the Philadelphia Area Pedestrian and Bike Network. The Department of Transportation provided the following description of the project—
The overall project will repair, reconstruct and improve 16.3 miles of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that will complete a 128-mile regional network in six counties around Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey. TIGER funds will be used to improve the primary commuter routes closest to downtown, in some of the communities hardest hit by the current economic downturn including Southwest Philadelphia and Camden, NJ. Non-motorized commuting options will connect residents in these areas to more prosperous communities that provide employment opportunities, including Philadelphia and Cherry Hill, NJ.
These are the types of projects we should be pushing in Los Angeles if we want to execute the Mayor's vision of more biking and walking. The guidelines for the next round of TIGER grants will use “Innovation” and “Partnership” as criteria. What is more innovative than pushing non-auto travel in the nation’s smoggiest city? Also, what about the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health and the South Coast Air Quality Management District partnering together on a biking/walking project that promotes non-auto travel, fights obesity, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and reduces air pollution? I just hope our agencies in Los Angeles aren't afraid of the TIGER this time around.
]]>While this California pollution epidemic poses severe health threats, it provides us an opportunity to rethink how we do things in the Golden State. There have already been significant efforts undertaken by the California Air Resources Board to adopt life-saving measures to reduce diesel pollution from trucks, construction equipment and ships. It is no surprise that all three of these landmark regulations have been attacked by industry lobbyists—to read more about the various obstructionists tactics used to stop these life-saving measures, go to these links: truck obstruction, construction obstruction, and ship obstruction.
Even with these measures, there is more work that needs to be done. For example, we need to continue to push cleaner vehicles and power sources. In Los Angeles, we need our decision-makers to stand up to the oil refineries to make sure they are adopting state of the art pollution controls. We also need to rethink how our transportation system works in our major urban areas. Instead of building road after road that will only exacerbate our chronic air pollution problems, continue our addiction to foreign oil, and drain our funding, we should support more efficient ways of transporting people. Finally, in places in the San Joaquin Valley, we need to make sure agricultural sources of pollution are reducing their fair share.
Beyond the public health and environmental justice concerns with our failure to meet clean air standards, we are facing big economic consequences. Dr. Jane Hall of California State University at Fullerton has determined that residents of the Los Angeles region are paying a hefty price for failing to meet federal clean air standards: $1,250 per person per year, according to a recent study she released. She estimated the cost of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley is $1,600 per person per year.
So, in the upcoming months as our California political leaders and voters are asked to weaken air pollution regulations, delay action in adopting strong measures to clean the air, or fund bad projects that will exacerbate our air pollution woes, we should stand up and say no. The American Lung Association's report confirms that California needs to continue its leadership with precedent setting efforts to push clean air technologies and strategies. California has achieved great strides in reducing pollution over the decades, but this report confirms that we have a lot more work to do.
]]>In an odd turn of events, the Federal Maritime Commission Chair, Richard A. Lidinsky, gave his Inaugural Earth Day Award to the Port of Los Angeles for its Clean Trucks Program yesterday. My assumption is that this olive branch serves as an official apology for the prior administration’s tenacious attempts to throw every roadblock possible in front of the Port of Los Angeles in implementing its vision for a more sustainable port trucking system.
This award has special significance because it signals that the Maritime Commission, instead of seeking to stand in the way of progress in cleaning up our seaports, has a renewed vigor to support and applaud significant efforts to clean up the operation of diesel engines that contribute to sickness in port communities throughout the nation. Chair Lidinsky is right on the money when he states—
"One of my top priorities at the Federal Maritime Commission is advancing the Obama Administration's goals of creating green jobs and seeking a more sustainable approach to maritime issues. And the Port of Los Angeles has been piloting the way on these issues. I look forward to continuing to work with Mayor Villaraigosa and Director Knatz as a helpful partner."
The Chairman’s realization of how good the Port of Los Angeles program is despite the emotional disdain of lobbyists in the trucking industry should be applauded. Although the award is from the FMC Chair, a note of thanks for all those who breathe the foul air in Los Angeles must go out to Commissioner Joseph Brennan, who throughout the skirmish between the Maritime Commission and the Port of Los Angeles provided striking dissents noting the absurdity of the maritime commission’s actions in trying to stop the Port of Los Angeles’ efforts to advance its business interest by resolving critical public health issues that had essentially grinded growth at the port to a halt.
Who knows? Perhaps, the American Trucking Association will give the Port of Los Angeles an award for its Clean Trucks Program. However, based on what I saw Tuesday in the courtroom and David Pettit’s recent analysis of the litigation brought by the Virginia-based trucking lobbyist organization against the Port of Los Angeles, I’m not holding my breath.
]]>In the hyperpolitical Washington, D.C., there are going to be attacks to any proposed change from the business-as-usual approach. However, at the end of the day, biking and walking is not a conservative, moderate or liberal issue. People just need to get around, and our government needs to provide better options for transportation that can help us kick our addiction to oil. If I want to ride a bike, I should have infrastructure to do so. For example, in Los Angeles, there are some bike lanes that mysteriously end leaving bikers with no designated routes to travel. It's untenable to think projects that fix this problem and allow safer bicycle transport should not be funded. At the end of the day, bicyclers are at a disadvantage because they don’t have thousands of pounds of steel protecting them as they travel.
We should thank Mr. LaHood for continuing to listen to Americans and pushing this issue despite some in the peanut gallery trying to stop this more rational approach to funding transportation projects.
]]>Let’s use Los Angeles as an example because the American Trucking Associations generally has a disregard for the health and welfare of residents in Los Angeles. One project in Los Angeles, the Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement in the harbor area, will cost taxpayers more than $1 billion dollars. The damage and need to replace this bridge was basically caused by one thing—the constant number of trucks that have rumbled over this bridge and made it deteriorate over the years. You see, the environmental report for the Desmond project notes that trucks cause three times more damage to roads than passenger vehicles, yet it is those passengers that will foot the bill for trucking companies to have nicely paved roads and bridge. Now, I wonder how much more of an impact a truck has on a road compared to a bike.
At a recent meeting in Los Angeles, it came out that it would cost about $280 million to put in place all of the “shovel-ready” bike projects in the Los Angeles region. Currently, transportation planners in the region want to spend more than $1 billion on the Desmond Bridge, $6.3 billion on the I-710 South project, which is designed to allow more and more trucks to go into the harbor in Los Angeles and Long Beach, and many more billions of dollars on infrastructure in the Los Angeles region geared towards subsidizing the trucking industry. Despite the predictions from lobbyists at the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Trucking Associations, I seriously doubt we will see some biking-induced economic apocalypse if our planners spend more dollars fixing and developing the desperately underfunded biking infrastructure in places like Los Angeles.
Bill Graves has no facts to support his hyperbolic position, but instead the Virginia-based trucking lobbyist is simply evoking fear that bicycling may become a more effective means to travel in cities across the country. As a multimodal commuter, I want effective bicycling infrastructure in my community, and trucking companies should want that too. In fact, the Alaska Trucking Association had positive things to say about the Anchorage Bike Plan. Also, we are talking peanuts when compared to the billions of dollars proposed to be spent on earmark projects to fix the problems on our roads caused by trucks. I know it is hard for road builders and truck lobbyists to share the taxpayers’ transportation funds that they have spent so many billions of dollars lobbying for over the years in Washington, D.C. and states throughout the nation. However, the day has come for a more responsible way to fund transportation where Ray LaHood, our Secretary of Transportation, and others will ask that not all the money be blindly spent on roads to fix damage caused by big trucks. Will it help if Mr. LaHood says “please”?
]]>A barrage of studies have highlighted the major impacts on the health and welfare of residents associated with living in close proximity to highways. For example, a recent study from researchers at the University of Southern California (“USC”) found that artery wall thickening among people living within 100 meters of a Los Angeles highway progressed twice as quickly as those who lived farther away. Another Southern California study from the USC research team documented the impairment of normal lung development from long term exposure to highway pollution among children between the ages of 10 and 18.
This severe public health issue impacts many throughout the country. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 35 million Americans live within 100 meters of major highways. In the Los Angeles region, there are approximately 1.5 million people residing near major roadways. Thus, significant populations are suffering from the lack of action to clean up the air in our highway corridors.
But, we are seeing more and more attention given to this issue, and now it is just a matter of our regulators catching up. A recent article in LA Weekly by Patrick Range McDonald highlighted this issue through the lens of the stylish lofts that are popping up around Los Angeles near our major highways. I suppose the real question these days is how much more information needs to be generated before our agencies take serious action to protect the millions of residents impacted by living close to highways.
Fed up with a lack of action, a coalition of health, environmental, and environmental justice groups asked top environmental officials in California to take this critical public health threat more seriously. The groups asked that our lead air pollution control agencies, including the California Air Resources Board, work together to more fully monitor the levels of pollution near highways. Currently, there has been an unwillingness to even place long-term air pollution monitors near highways in California. Apparently, some fear that we might uncover a public health issue that may be difficult to solve. This approach is akin to going to a doctor and having that doctor not run a test for fear that she may have to prescribe some medicine. We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the harm highway pollution is imposing on those living close to roads. The stakes are just too high.
]]>Rob McConnell, principal investigator on the study and professor of preventative medicine at the USC Keck School of Medicine, noted recently that:
The traditional approach to estimating the burden of air pollution-related disease has markedly underestimated the true effect...Our results indicate that there is a substantial proportion of childhood asthma that may be caused by living within 75 meters (81 yards) of a major road in Long Beach and Riverside. This results in a much larger impact of air pollution on asthma symptoms and health care use than previously appreciated. This is also one of the first studies to quantify the contribution of ship emissions to the childhood asthma burden.
In fact, NRDC, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, the Coalition for a Safe Environment and the Endangered Habitats League are currently mired in litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency, the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Southern California Association of Governments on the issue of protecting the 1.5 million near highway residents in the Los Angeles area from harmful air pollution impacts. Read more about that effort here.
The study also found that 21% of all asthma incidents in Long Beach were caused by the contribution of nitrogen dioxide levels from ships. As shipping interests have fought relentlessly against efforts to clean up their filthy engines and fuels over the decades, this fact becomes even more disturbing.
This study reminds us that unfettered economic exploitation of an area can have immense consequences on local health, including our most important populations--children. Freight and public health protections can coincide, but we need to end the industry obstructionism and lack of forward thinking that is currently infecting our decision-makers. Efforts such as pushing forward with alternative transportation systems championed by the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and the South Coast Air Quality Management District's push for electrification of our rail lines are the types of efforts we need to keep moving forward. Highway widening projects (e.g. the proposed 14 lane expansion of the I-710 and the State Route 47 project, which creates a new diesel highway in the City of Wilmington) that ignore these near-highway communities should not be given so much attention.
All in all, the study ended with some very useful commentary on the application of the results of this study. It stated--
Our results demonstrate that the burden of asthma prevalence and exacerbation caused by traffic proximity can be substantial in communities with large numbers of homes in close proximity to major roadways. There is an urgent need for more detailed evaluation of the health consequences both of large-scale transportation infrastructure development and of port-related air pollution in areas that already have a high burden of disease associated with air pollution.
This should provide a call to action for all transportation planners that seek to expand freight facilities (e.g. the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, the California Department of Transportation, and other agencies). Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District must also implement policies to protect these most vulnerable near-highway communities from the deleterious impacts of air pollution. Business as usual is not working, and if we are going to expand, these projects must embrace modern low pollution technologies. If we fail in this respect, our future generations will end up spending too much time sucking on inhalers and in the hospital instead of schools. This is an untenable result.
]]>Chairman Brennan was also probably concerned about the lawsuit because the Commission made a decision to intervene against the clean truck programs without complying with several federal environmental laws. Therefore, the Commission acted in an uninformed manner of the environmental consequences of its actions. Earlier this year, NRDC, Sierra Club, and the Coalition for Clean Air called the Commission on this and filed suit in District Court in California. If Judge Leon grants the Commission's motion, a large part of our lawsuit will go away. However, there is one piece remaining.
The FMC still has an investigatory proceeding that could force the Ports to "cease and desist" from implementing an agreement that sets a framework for cleaning up harbor area pollution. We hope the Commission will make the wise decision to stop this investigatory proceeding as well because it solely serves as an attempt to divert attention from where it should be placed -- namely cleaning up the filthy air in harbor area. At a minimum, if the investigation goes forward, the FMC should comply with federal environmental laws.
]]>Over the last year, the Commission filed a lawsuit against the ports, initiated an administrative investigation, and used procedural hurdles to delay collection of a dirty truck fee that was designed to raise money for cleaner trucks and spur deployment of cleaner, more efficient trucks in the harbor area of Los Angeles and Long Beach. All these decisions were made in closed session without review from the public. Before we submitted the request and even now, we continue to receive questions about the Maritime Commission and its efforts to dismantle the clean truck programs. Despite claims by the Maritime Commission, it has been less than forthright in providing explanation for why it got involved in challenging the ports' clean-up efforts.
Almost seven months after filing the FOIA request, the agency has put us in a position where we are forced to file a lawsuit to receive the information we requested. Public Citizen, an organization that promotes Health, Safety and Democracy, is working with us on this case. The Maritime Commission continues to clench onto these documents despite many affirmations by the highest court in the land about the importance of FOIA. The Supreme Court has said that FOIA was designed to protect citizens' "right to be informed about what their Government is up to." U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) (internal quotations omitted). "The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed." Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).
NRDC also asked for a fee waiver for these documents because of their importance to explain the Maritime Commission's unprecedented actions. Under FOIA, requesters are entitled to a waiver of fees if the disclosure of the information is in the public interest and not in the commercial interest of the requester. The documents NRDC requested are most certainly in the public interest because they deal with two of the most critical programs to clean up air pollution near the nation's two largest ports. In denying the request, the Commission put up blinders as to the importance of these programs and claimed there was no additional public interest in receiving the plethora of information they are not releasing. Also, the Commission denied our fee waiver request by creating a commercial interest out of thin air. Despite the fact that as a nonprofit, we have no commercial interest in the requested documents, the Commission claimed that since the documents might end up in the hands of people who may have a commercial interest, then we are not entitled to the fee waiver. Once the documents are made public, we cannot guarantee that they will not end up in the hands of people who may have a commercial interest. FOIA allows people to disseminate information broadly, and in fact, it encourages this. The Maritime Commission's approach would throw FOIA on its head by effectively precluding fee waivers for any public interest pursuit that may end up in the hands of somebody with a commercial interest.
At the end of the day, the Commission needs to remember the "Freedom" in the Freedom of Information Act. It is not called the OGDPDA -- "Opaque Government Don't Provide Documents Act." Hopefully, the Commission will see the light. It may take an order from a judge though.
]]>Many industry lobbyists and businesses came to testify against the rule today. However, the most relevant factor related to the Board's decision to take a turn down illegal road was testimony by an industry lobbyist who claimed the Clean Air Act contained flexibility to allow exemptions for certain polluters like those that have already placed pollution controls on their equipment. Upon actually reading the text of the Clean Air Act, it becomes apparent that the lobbyist was interpreting what this lobbyist wished the law states, instead of what it actually states. While I would relish the ability to make lawful my fanciful interpretations of the law based on my whims, courts throughout the nation, including the United States Supreme Court, have determined that this is an invalid approach. Our court system operates in the real world, not some fanciful Alice in Wonderland state. In fact, I agree with one of the industry lobbyists who claimed the Clean Air Act provision is a "regulatory gun" that requires the SCAQMD to adopt a fee rule and does not permit exemptions for some of the largest polluters in the region. At the end of the hearing, a Board member asked the staff to come back at the June meeting with a proposal that allows exemptions for certain polluters. Stated bluntly, the Clean Air Act does not support this approach.
The Board has asked its staff to turn the Clean Air Act on its head. I understand we are in a recession, and I think adding a fee is a delicate, tough issue. However, the recession itself does not provide cover for people -- especially our government -- to break the law. If this were the case, we would have mayhem and lawlessness in the streets. The appropriate remedy in this case if the District thinks the fee is unfair is seeking a legislative change. However, I must admit that this is like a loser in Monopoly trying to change the rules near the end of the game to make the winner the person with the least amount of money. Here, the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board and other agencies took a gamble in not having a viable plan to meet clean air standards. Now, penalties are being put in place, and these penalties are tough for some. We are willing to work with stakeholders to help develop approaches that will minimize the impacts from this regulation (e.g. developing a program to help those small, highly polluting businesses that will be subject to this rule). We will also work with everybody to make sure the funds collected by this rule are distributed to clean the air in a fair, transparent manner. All in all, we simply want compliance with the law, and we will demand just that at the June hearing.
]]>"World Health Organization data indicate that about 240,000 people die each year from respiratory causes in the United States," said Jerrett. "Even a 4 percent increase can translate into thousands of excess deaths each year. Globally, some 7.7 million people die from respiratory causes, so worldwide the impact of ozone pollution could be very large."
According to these World Health Organization's statistics, over the next four years, we will lose approximately 960,000 people prematurely due to respiratory causes in the United States -- that loss over a four year period is greater than losing the entire population of Detroit, San Jose, or San Francisco. Thus, the stakes are high, and this is not just an environmental issue but a moral issue.
The New England Journal of Medicine study found that places like Los Angeles, Riverside, the San Joaquin Valley, and Houston are more vulnerable to premature death because of the higher ozone levels. The increased chances of dying from a respiratory cause can be as much as 50% greater in these most extreme ozone areas. Thus, we need even greater anti-smog leadership in these ozone hotspots. Places like Minneapolis faired better on the ozone front.
All in all, this additional study cements the fact that we need strong plans to reduce pollution in these high ozone/densely populated areas. The timing of this study is also fortuitous because it will hopefully help push the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to adopt a stronger standard for ozone under the Clean Air Act. Two days ago, the EPA, represented by the Department of Justice, asked for more time to review the controversial ozone standards it set during the Bush era -- for previous blogs about the ozone debacle from my colleagues at NRDC, click here, here and here. The court case stems from a lawsuit filed by several states and environmental groups in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. David Baron, the Earthjustice lawyer representing the environmental groups that challenged the Bush EPA ozone standard, identified EPA's request as "an encouraging step."
Luckily, many efforts to reduce pollution concurrently reduce ozone and climate change impacts. A recent NRDC report discusses just this issue -- namely how implementing California's landmark AB 32 legislation will also improve air quality and health throughout the state.
So, today, I am officially reaffirming my commitment as a soldier in the War on Smog. Care to join me?
]]>Overall, the shipping industry continues to inflict its harmful diesel exhaust on residents in Southern California. The voluntary effort to clean up this pollution has been about as successful as a Bernie Madoff financial seminar would be today. I would not try to cure the Ebola virus by taking an aspirin. So, the ports should take the same tact when dealing with one of the largest sources of pollution in the most polluted metropolitan area in the nation. Ship pollution wreaks havoc on people's health, and accordingly demands a real solution. The ports should work quickly to adopt a tariff that requires the use of this cleaner fuel while we are waiting for the California Air Resources Board's rules to be implemented (and importantly to be in place even when the state regulations are implemented -- in case of a legal challenge). We have wasted enough time on a voluntary program that has not worked thus far. With the economy this bad, families can ill afford expensive treatment for asthma and other respiratory illnesses caused by diesel pollution.
Finally, I hope the shipping industry keeps this failure in mind as it decides whether to challenge legally the regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board to protect residents from deadly diesel ship pollution. Attempts to defeat these regulations could be disastrous for public health in Los Angeles and Long Beach. In addition, attempts to topple this critical regulation could trigger penalties under the Clean Air Act that will harm the region economically. At least the failure of the ports' voluntary program will show the shipping lobbyists that even when they are involved in devising a program, they still have problems reining in their own members to participate.
To end, this is not an issue of feasibility -- Maersk has been using this cleaner fuel off of California's coast for more than two years -- but rather it appears to be a continual failure by the shipping industry to realize that it needs to do its part to clean up our air. I challenge the shipping industry to prove me wrong.
]]>Despite increased scrutiny by the Federal Maritime Commission, the Ports have forged ahead to create a more appropriate system to ensure the right people are paying for clean trucks-namely the shippers and their clients. I actually think it is a good idea that the Federal Maritime Commission is taking the following actions:
Perhaps, by monitoring the polluting industry that operates out of the ports, the Maritime Commission will realize that it needs to serve the public interest, not the parochial interests of a few dissenting members of industry. Understanding that there needs to be appropriate economic incentives in place to make the trucking industry more accountable and sustainable instead of an industry that treats the community and the environment as its dumping ground is important for our officials in Washington D.C. to understand. Hopefully, the agency will get this picture by monitoring the port trucking system.
All in all, I feel proud to have worked with the ports, local officials, environmentalists, health advocates, environmental justice advocates, labor advocates, and industry advocates in advancing a program that places the economic incentives in the right place. Despite some in industry kicking and screaming along the way, the ports prevailed in finally assessing a fee to fund clean trucks. With a clean truck fee in place, I expect to see fewer decrepit trucks in the harbor area and more trucks that are newer, cleaner and less damaging to the environment and surrounding community. This effort could not have come at a better time because the trucking companies that have stepped up to the plate to be more accountable need this infusion of money to ensure cleaner operations.
]]>The California Air Resources Board ("CARB") recognizes that "air pollution studies indicate that living close to high traffic and the associated emissions may lead to adverse health effects beyond those associated with regional air pollution in urban areas." EPA estimates that in a moderate sized city, particle pollution causes 25 to 50 increased deaths for each 0.5 mg/m3 above the national standard. The studies conducted in the L.A. basin show that concentrations of black carbon (one of the most hazardous components of the fine particles) downwind from highways with heavy truck traffic can be 12-13 mg/m3 times greater than concentrations found in urban air upwind of the highways. Particle concentrations greater than the regional average are measured at least 300 meters from heavily trafficked highways. In the four county Los Angeles air basin, census data show that approximately 1.5 million residents live within 300 meters of major freeways. Using EPA's methodology, for these 1.5 million Angelinos living in this high pollution zone, increased mortality is estimated to range from 300 to 500 deaths per year.
Despite this troubling scientific evidence, the quest for clean air in the basin appears to be a joke for some. In jest during the meeting on Thursday night, several decision-makers on how the I-710 expansion project should proceed mentioned that they wish they had a "clean air fairy" that could come forward and clean up the toxic mess that is air quality near areas where diesel equipment is highly concentrated (e.g. highways, ports, etc). The implication from their tone was that environmental and environmental justice advocates are living in a mythical world in desiring clean, healthy air for all Angelinos. Despite these attempts to diminish the advocates' message, they mentioned that our region is doing the best it can. This led me to question whether that is in fact true. Are we in fact doing the best we can?
Upon thinking about the current direction of the I-710 project is taking and other projects like the SR-47 (another pollution-plagued thoroughfare in LA), it is becoming clearer that we are not doing our best. As debates are brewing in D.C. about adding more and more funds for capital-intensive highway expansion projects, this issue becomes more critical. Our transportation planners continue to desire to add freeway lanes by default throughout communities in the basin, and I am left wondering how we will reduce our severe air pollution problems in the region, battle climate change, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
The letter sent today lays out several alternatives that could be used to dramatically reduce pollution, including electrified trucks, electrified rail, and implementation of an advanced container transport system. These are the technologies that our leaders need to be implementing and laying the groundwork for now instead of continuing the stale tactic of continuously adding highway lanes.
I recall the day in my childhood when someone alleged that the Tooth Fairy did not exist. I denied these assertions and still believed in this mythical being because I did not want to lose out on cash under my pillow. Like my childhood self, our region is in denial that its actions are not exacerbating LA's notorious air pollution problems. The impacts of this denial are far greater than losing a couple of bucks under a pillow. We are left with premature death, asthma attacks, children missing school days, and many other chronic problems. That is a lot to lay our head on at night. So, I encourage our planners and air quality agencies to work with NRDC and other groups to realize that we do not live in a fairy tale land where someone can wave a wand and our pollution disappears. Our air pollution woes are real and deserve real attention and solutions.
]]>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.
]]>