Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I don't think that, that ultimately,
we're going to be able to, to restrain trade.
Trade is gonna continue to come.
A percentage of it will be siphoned off, if you will,
to some of the alternative gateways
that are being discussed in Mexico and Canada.
But by our projections,
even if all of, um, those projects
come to fruition within the next five years,
at best, it will buy us the capacity
to handle about three years worth of U.S. trade growth.
So, in the long term, we have got to deal
with our issues in Southern California
and on the West coast,
in place in Southern California.
[narrator] >>Infrastructure improvement is clearly required
to continue operating the L.A/Long Beach Harbor
efficiently,
especially when the projected growth materializes.
The effects of larger ships
bringing in massive quantities of goods,
coupled with the U.S. population growth
feeding the ever-increasing demand
for containerized imports,
could make local freeway travel nearly impossible.
More rail service to send containers
directly to the nation's interior will be essential.
This is a problem of national scope.
However, Southern California
disproportionately bears the environmental cost
of bringing in the cargo.
Simultaneously, though, the region benefits,
from jobs created, businesses stimulated,
and tax revenues generated.
>>There was a mandate in the, um, mid to late-90's
from the commission at that time
to grow the port,
and to really increase it's, um, profitability
as an asset to the city.
And that made sense.
And it continues to make sense
as an economic engine for the city, for the region,
for the country, for that matter.
Um, but I think that at that time,
there was no recognition that there would be
these detrimental environmental effects.
And, I think, as time has gone on,
those have become more and more
a major concern to, to residents.
[narrator] >>There are basically two challenges with growth
in Los Angeles/Long Beach goods movement.
The first challenge
is the additional congestion and air pollution
that would inevitably result
without major mitigation efforts.
The community's concerns about clean air
and maintaining a healthy quality of life
must be addressed.
Recently published studies
about the ominous health impacts of air pollution
generated by activity at the ports
cannot be disregarded.
Many in the community
don't believe the jobs and economic benefits
are worth the environmental impact.
Striking the balance becomes more difficult
as communities perceive threats
to their quality of life.
>> Within a year, we know that hundreds of people
die from diesel emissions that are directly linked
to, you know, the goods movement industry.
Now, if that was to happen in one day or in one hour,
um, we would call it a disaster.
But because it's in slow motion,
we perceive it to be different.
Um, so...You know...You know...We really, um,
would like people to look at this
as an environmental justice issue,
that no one should pay the cost
of, um, you know, cheap goods.
>> From our perspective,
we try to focus on the health risks
associated with port activity.
Um, I think if we can do that,
and, and, we can get those levels
down below to the insignificant level,
then we can achieve that balance.
And I think we want to go a little bit further
in terms of, um...
You know, we just don't want to do this
for the level of growth we have here now.
Um, I think we want to look towards the future.
And, um, recognizing that our volumes
are going to increase,
we want to be able to facilitate the growth
that, um, our customers are forecasting
and provide the types of facilities that they need,
and um...
But we're going to have to do that hand-in-hand
with working on this air emission issue.
[Music]
[narrator] >>The second challenge is finding the funding
for infrastructure improvements
that can increase capacity, reduce congestion,
and mitigate environmental impacts.
The amount of money needed
to upgrade the current infrastructure
with environmental mitigation
is estimated at 36 billion dollars.
The federal government has provided some funding,
but it's only a fraction of the amount required.
State government typically has limited dollars available,
and struggles with deficits.
Bond initiatives, however, may show promise.
Private industry also will be asked to pay a share.
Fees and surcharges for goods movement
may be a partial solution,
though agreement on the processes and the amounts
is uncertain.
>> If there is no improvement in infrastructure,
uh, the demand here is quite elastic.
Even a fee of 60 dollars per 40-foot container
would result in 6% of the volume,
uh, leaving for other ports.
On the other hand,
if there is a major program of infrastructure improvement,
a specific program involving dedicated truck lanes,
uh, to the, uh-- where the trans-loading warehouses
are connected them with the ports,
if there's expansion of the railroad terminals and network
to accommodate higher volumes
with increased reliability of transit times,
uh, then even a fee as large as $200
per 40-foot equivalent unit,
uh, would not result in a loss of total traffic.
>> We're looking to get the best value
for the people of California.
And to do that, we want to make sure
that we bring all the parties to the table.
That's why this is uh, uh, uh, system's approach...
to look at all the needs comprehensively
so that we don't waste resources.
We're looking for, uh, all the federal sources
that we normally go after.
But also there's other federal funds
that we believe are quite appropriate:
Homeland Security, and uh, energy-related appropriations
that will be available to California.
So we want to tap all of that.
In addition, we see that there is an opportunity
for private investment.
And for that we're looking to get passed
public/private partnership legislation
that will enable the state
to pursue these partnerships
in a way that will attract foreign,
or other investment potential,
uh, so that we can get the, uh, the best
***-for-the-buck for the people of California.
[Music]
[narrator] >>Ultimately, the communities,
the goods movement industry, cargo owners,
government agencies, end-users, and local politicians,
must come to a consensus
with state and federal legislators
on the urgency of the infrastructure problem
and the methods required
to mitigate the environmental impact.
Funding for solutions must come
from a combination of public and private sources.
This is now a national problem
because of the economic stakes involved.
The voice of California needs to be heard
as a united chorus of shared interests and vital needs
in this ongoing debate and dialogue.
[Music]
♪