Comment Log Display

The three strategies considered for addressing emissions from the
fleet of short haul trucks serving ports all share a stated
assumption:  that 12000 trucks serve the ports.

I question the wisdom of simply accepting that state of affairs. 
Rail travel is far less polluting (including GHG emissions) per
ton-mile of cargo.  While recognizing that some cargo never leaves
the central port area, shouldn't the ARB ascertain where the cargo
is ultimately bound, and consider measures designed to encourage
use of rail transport instead of trucks whenever possible? 

In the case of goods imported from Asia bound for the midwest or
even eastern US, isn't rail transport essentially the BACT, rather
than hoping to use newer trucks?  Can't some warehousing and
container unpacking be done far from the affected air basin? 
Perhaps central cargo facilities, with direct rail connections
from the ports, in unpopulated areas could become the locus of
container handling, unpacking, re-shipping, etc.

In this age of computer sophistication, cannot cargo owners, ocean
carriers, and stevedoring companies apply some sophistication at
the packing/loading/shipping stage to maximize the number of
containers that can be loaded directly onto trains?  A transport
fee assessed on trucks, but not trains, or simply assessed on
total voyage emissions would force cargo owners to internalize the
costs of air pollution when they are choosing the fastest and
cheapest way to move goods.  As things stand now, the dirty
40-year-old truck idling on a Long Beach offramp is the cheapest
alternative only because our citizens are paying the health cost
of some bad choices made by overseas cargo owners and their local
agents.  Assuming rail transport will reduce the health costs,
traffic, and other societal impacts, why not pass those reductions
on to shippers who make cleaner choices, and pass more of the
health costs on to those who engage diesel trucks?

Will Brieger
916.324.2512