|
|
Long
Beach agrees to ban old diesel trucks from port
The mayors of the cities agree to replace
the fleet of 16,500 rigs
with cleaner modelsby 2012, but implementation is still
unclear.
In a rare display of partnership, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa and Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster on Monday touted a joint
plan to scrap old diesel rigs and replace them with newer, cleaner models
as part of an effort to slash port-related pollution linked to 2,400
premature deaths a year.
Against a backdrop of massive cranes unloading a freighter as it spewed
dark columns of diesel smoke, the often rival leaders embraced during
a news conference held after the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners
agreed to a progressive truck ban identical to one approved last week
by the adjacent Port of Los Angeles.
For the time being, however, it's a ban with out an implementation plan.
Unless the ports can reduce pollution, expansion projects likely to produce
thousands of local jobs will face protracted legal challenges. With so
much on the line, Villaraigosa and Foster turned from competition to
cooperation.
"For the longest time, we were working on separate tracks," Villaraigosa
told a crowd of about 75 truckers, environmentalists and shipping company representatives. "Let's
join hands and work together."
"Long Beach and Los Angeles," Foster added, "continue to lead
the world in pushing for cleaner air and healthier environment with our shared
goal of having the cleanest ports in the world."
However, leaders from both cities forecast intense negotiations to come
as port authorities, truckers, environmentalists, shippers and health
officials begin devising a plan to implement the program, which calls
for replacing the port complex's entire fleet of 16,500 trucks by 2012.
Now the big question is who will pay to own, operate and maintain the
new trucks, worth an estimated $1.6 billion.
Many of the fleet's mostly low-income, Spanish-speaking independent contract
truckers insist they cannot afford to buy new trucks, let alone maintain
them. They want trucking companies and shippers to buy the trucks and
hire the truckers.
Trucking companies and shippers argue that the ports lack the legal authority
to force them to purchase the fleet. Employing drivers also would attract
union organizers, something most port businesses would oppose.
"Ultimately, the consumer will pay for it -- a nickel on a pair of tennis
shoes and a quarter on every television set," said S. David Freeman, president
of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners. "So let's get on with
it."
The truck ban, which must be approved by both city councils, is scheduled
to begin Oct. 1, 2008. On that day an estimated 3,000 trucks built before
1989 would be denied access to the nation's busiest port complex.
"In just 11 months the people of the Southland can begin breathing easier," Villaraigosa
said in a statement. "We will no longer sacrifice public health for the
sake of adding a few pennies to the profit margins."
Pressure to reduce port pollution has been motivated in part by booming
trade. Annual trade at the ports, currently about $305 billion, is expected
to double by 2020, port authorities said.
Cleaner trucks would save up to $5.9 billion in health costs to workers
and local residents, according to an economic impact study commissioned
by the Port of Los Angeles. The study predicts the cleanup also would
clear the way for port expansion projects that could generate 300,000
to 600,000 jobs by 2025.
But because the ports account for 25% of diesel particulate emissions
in the Los Angeles Basin -- and more particulate-forming nitrogen oxide
emissions than all 6 million cars in the region -- neither port has been
able to complete an environmental impact report for any infrastructure
improvement project in six years.
Julie Sauls of the California Trucking Assn. said the truck ban, which
is only a portion of the landmark Clean Air Action Plan endorsed by the
two ports a year ago, would improve air pollution by only less than 10%
during the next five years.
Also, the plan "does not spell out how to cover the tremendous costs
associated with such a transition," she said in a prepared statement.
Long Beach Harbor Commissioner James Hankla believes a compromise is
inevitable.
"How are we going to pay for all this?" he said. "I don't know.
But I believe we will find a way, not that it's going to be free or cheap,
because if we are not able to grow green, we will not see a million new jobs
created for this region."
Source: Los Angeles Times
November 6, 2007
back |
|
