The Port of Oakland Passes the Buck Again, Letting Oakland Stew in More Air Pollution
- Diane Bailey
- Senior Scientist, San Francisco
- Blog | About
- Posted November 25, 2008 in Curbing Pollution , Health and the Environment
When the Port of Oakland falls on tough financial times, they have no problem jettisoning critical health and environmental programs. Last Wednesday, the Port of Oakland Board of Commissioners did just that in a surprise move that will delay and potentially strip critical funding needed to upgrade hundreds of trucks serving the Port. With a stream of studies documenting the staggering health impacts from port air pollution, and especially dirty, old trucks, you have to wonder: Why the blatant act of disregard for community and worker health from the Port?
It's no secret that diesel pollution kills people and that there's plenty of diesel pollution coming from the Port of Oakland operations. Scores of studies have documented a long list of health ailments and even premature death caused by or related to diesel pollution. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), pollution from ports and freight transport was responsible for 3,700 premature deaths in 2005. The health risks are especially high in West Oakland, where a recent study showed greatly elevated cancer risks from port pollution. And residents aren't the only ones suffering from port pollution, workers at the port, and particularly truck drivers, face high health risks as well.
As the Port of Oakland stalls action on this pressing issue and rolls back truck clean up programs that are spurred by public funding from the state and region, public health suffers. Every week that the Port delays clean up efforts, community members and workers impacted by port pollution likely experience an additional 100 or more asthma attacks and other severe illnesses. And as the port talks about financial hardship, the health costs associated with all this extra pollution run up to $50 million every week the Port refuses to take action to reform the trucking system.
So, why does the port continue to fumble and bumble truck clean up programs that have already been successfully adopted by the Port's neighbors to South? We have been working with the Port of Oakland for the past two years to come up with solutions for the broken port trucking system that currently fails to provide a safe work environment or healthy air quality for the community. As port staff have dithered over the details and waffled on commitments, the ports in Southern California have moved forward with comprehensive truck programs addressing these issues. In fact, the ban on dirty, old trucks at these ports that went into action last month produced a fifty percent reduction in toxic diesel soot pollution overnight. Air monitoring data near those ports indicates a substantial reduction of pollution on average comparing pre- and post-truck ban dates.
This latest move to pull funding from a truck clean up program spearheaded by the air district is shocking, yet tracks with the Port's record on environmental programs. Without the $5 million pledged by the port, the $10 million of public funds secured from the state and region may disappear, never to be spent on port truck clean up programs in Oakland. Alternatively, if the air district chooses to continue with the program, drivers will be forced to cover much greater expenses to modernize their trucks, creating an unfair and unsustainable burden on low-income workers.
Good jobs and clean air can and must coexist at our port. If the Port doesn't get its act together and reform the system, it will continue to be plagued with inefficiencies and potentially face massive disruptions to service without enough clean trucks to meet the CARB Port Truck regulation on time. The Port of LA provides a great example of a smart, sustainable and cost-effective approach. The Port of Oakland needs to end the foot dragging by reinstating the truck clean up program and adopting a sustainable comprehensive truck program immediately.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Mark Caipo — Nov 25 2008 10:49 PM
Hello Diane,
I run a small trucking company in the Port of Oakland since 1991.
We too are concerned about the environment, and we are committed to meeting CARB requirements and deadlines, with or without help from the goverment agencies, although their help is welcomed and appreciated.
We work with independent drivers that do well, and the vast majority do not want their choice to be independent taken away. Why is it that a person that has the necessary rights to work in California, has a CDL, has a TWIC Card, has the necessary authority by the Federal and State Goverment, has the necessary insurance, has a truck that meets all CARB requirements, operates meeting the safety regulations by US DOT and California Highway Patrol, is not a convicted felon, nor a terrorist, loves his/her independence and does not want to give it up, makes good money, why is it that this person will not be allowed to do business in the Ports, this person is many thousands of Owner Operators. Why is it so important for your organization and your coalition to vanquish them from the whole system, in many cases to the detriment to the environment.
This person embodies the American dream in many ways, entrepreneurial spirit at its best. Many of them are legal immigrants that want a better future for their families, many of them are living their American Dream.
Why is it that your organization and coalition advocates for larger trucking businesseses to the detriment of small businesses that have been supporting Port operations for many years, that seems to me wrong for the communities and the environment.
I wander why in the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, we, trucking companies that have been providing the Port with our dedication and service have no representation, nor the thousands of independent drivers that like their independence and the opportunity to run their small business.
I appreciate your efforts to clean up the ports, and like to share with you that many of us support your clean objectives and ideals. Dirty trucks should be banned not just out of the Ports, but out of Califonia, we will strongly advocate to a system that brings efficiency to our Ports and avoids idling trucks, something that has been overlooked and we have consistently point out, and has an impact on our environment and the operations of thousands of trucks, just sitting there, polluting the environment because we cannot work smarter due to a failing system that does not give the neccessary priority on getting the trucks out of the Ports quickly, the ships are much more important, so is labor, we too support port trucks out of West Oakland and other adjacent neighborhoods, trucks should not belong on our residential areas.
we will just hope that your organization listens to our small businesses, we have comprehensive amd sustainable solutions to the problems we experience every day, at the end we all breath the same air, and we want a better world for our kids,
Mark Caipo
PCTI
Bill Aboudi — Nov 25 2008 10:59 PM
Diane, you are missing the lawsuits the port of LA/LB are dealing with, which will delay full implementation of the program. In Oakland it must be different NO lawsuits or delays. Truckers have spent years working with the community to reduce pollution and with the communities help educate the drivers about the effect of diesel on both community and workers. Truckers support the CARB regulations and will do whatever it takes to be compliant and working. Work with us (truckers) to achieve our common goal.
Bill
Ron Cancilla — Nov 26 2008 10:58 AM
Diane,
Did you not meet the real Oakland Truckers that stood up for their rights last week? Do you not see and understand that the LA modal will DELAY any progress in Oakland as small business is READY TO FIGHT? Do you really think the LA plan is over and will succeed?
SUGGESTION: IF your real goal is only to progress with cleaning up the air, pull away from the politics that WILL continue to delay it. Where is the DIGNITY in that?
Ron
Libby Stahl — Nov 26 2008 11:10 AM
Diane,
I dont understand how you can say there wont be enough clean trucks to do the work if Oakland doesnt adopt the Los Angeles plan. Many independent owner operators at the Port of Oakland already have clean trucks and many others are working on retrofit. I believe you and your organizations might want to become educated about the independent owner operators at the Port of Oakland, these are some very professional people who do a good job of moving cargo, they pay taxes they keep their trucks maintanied to DOT standards they have their TWIC cards and just want to continue to provide for their families. GET EDUCATED!!!
John Berge — Nov 26 2008 12:50 PM
Diane,
I was surprosed to read about your dissapointment with the Port for not moving ahead with retrofits.
Although the BAAQMD and CARB wanted to move forward with retrofits for early reductions, I seem to recall the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports and yourself opposed to a retrofit program. At the Air District Ad-Hoc Port Committee hearing last week I thought you and the Coalition provided testimony in opposition to retrofits as opposed to replacement.
I understand and share your desire to have clean trucks at the port (and in all of California - the other 98% of the trucks), but I am not sure whether you support or oppose retrofits. Can you clarify?
Diane Bailey — Nov 26 2008 02:12 PM
Hi there. I appreciate all the good comments - many important points have been raised. I want to add a few clarifications on NRDC's position on port trucking.
First, we believe it is paramount for small business to have a place within any reformed trucking system. In fact, the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports is hard at work on recommendations to ensure that small businesses can participate in any new system. We support the inclusion of all small businesses that can meet the health protective standards of any new system.
We strongly support the Port of Los Angeles model for a sustainable, comprehensive truck program, and we are working to defend this important program. We encourage the Port of Oakland to follow this program, however, we also encourage the Port to tailor the program to meet the needs and circumstances within Oakland.
Finally, NRDC strongly supports the use of diesel retrofits as a cost-effective way to achieve significant reductions in pollution and improvements to air quality and public health. When it comes to ports trucks, there are many complicating factors. We would prefer for older trucks to simply be replaced with cleaner new models. However, where full fleet replacement is not feasible for lack of funds or other reasons, retrofits are a suitable second choice.
Thank you for the lively discussion. I look forward to continuing to work on these important issues with all of you.
Sincerely,
Diane Bailey