CA: Idling at the port

Press Telegram ^ | 11/27/04 | Op/Ed

[NormsRevenge]

When Assembly Bill 2650 was introduced by Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, two years ago, we supported the measure, which limits truck idling at port terminal gates to 30 minutes. The Los Angeles Basin has the worst air in the country, and the twins ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are the single biggest contributors of diesel emissions to that toxic soup. Anything that would decrease that witches brew would help, or so we thought.

Now, more than a year after the law went into effect, we have some doubts about its effects on pollution. Here's why:

— The bill mandates that the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) monitor compliance. Since the bill did not provide for funding any monitors, the AQMD assigned one of its staff members to monitor some of the tens of thousands of inbound truck trips each day. However, the AQMD is open only four days per week. No monitoring is done on Mondays. That's akin to pulling all the CHP cruisers off the freeways on Mondays, and hoping that motorists would obey speed limits and other freeway laws.

— The law applies only to trucks that have appointments to drop off their loads. Of the estimated 35,000 truck trips per day to the ports, appointments range from 10 percent to 100 percent at the terminals; no one seems to have a handle on the exact number. Terminals that are open 70 or more hours a week are exempt, as are the overwhelming majority of trucks that just show up.

— Truckers can't be forced to turn off their engines. This is especially true for more than half of the trucks, whose engines pre-date 1980 and are the most polluting ones on the road. Nor would it help movement at the port — or pollution, for that matter. Those old trucks may not be be able to start again, and when they do fire up, they emit a plume of diesel smoke that is far worse than the pollutants they emit while idling.

— The law calls for a $250 citation for violations of the truck idling law; none have been issued. The monitor has observed trucks with appointments in line for as long as 90 minutes, but idling time has been less than 30 minutes, because the truck driver turned off the engine after each move forward. At many terminals, trucks with appointments have a separate lane, which moves quickly. When the port is jammed, however, it's much like the 710 Freeway during rush hour. Trucks sit idling, and certainly one monitor can't do much about that.

— Fines, which are levied on terminal operators would have been used to replace older trucks. But since there have been no fines …

— The law does nothing to limit truck idling once the truck is inside the terminal gate waiting to offload or pick up a new load.

Which all means that:

— The AQMD is uncertain whether the truck-idling law has improved air quality, considering all the other factors that contribute to port pollution and the fact that there are so many ways to avoid even dealing with it.

In the best of situations, terminals would operate beyond normal business hours, require appointments for dropoffs, keep idling time to 30 minutes or less, attract newer, less-polluting trucks and run an operation that is a model of efficiency — so efficient that monitors aren't required.

The real world, however, is one in which grossly polluting trucks show up without appointments, idle their engines for hours (because getting them started again would be uncertain), idle even longer inside the terminal gate waiting to unload or pick up, and descend on the 710 Freeway at rush hour and creep along in low gears, diesel exhaust belching out of their pipes — without having to worry about AQMD monitors who are powerless to cite them.

Without a more aggressive program to get older, grossly polluting trucks off the road, what will diesel pollution be like in 2020, when truck trips to the port will increase from the current 35,000 a day to 90,000 a day? Perhaps as older trucks are junked and newer ones with greatly reduced emissions come on line, the effect won't be totally disastrous. Or perhaps a truck-idling law with some teeth in it, rather than the current feel-good, do-little measure will make its way through the Legislature.

Don't hold your breath. Or breathe too much, either.

[glock rocks]

bonk.

[sionnsar]

Those old trucks may not be be able to start again

Huh?

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.


ALOHA


Port of Long Beach,

now formerly...

Port of Los Angeles tenant:



MATSON Steamship Lines to Hawaii


http://www.Matson.com




Signed:.."ALOHA RONNIE"Guyer
Veteran-MATSON Steamship Lines,
Post of Los Angeles -32 Years


ALOHA

.

[Pete-R-Bilt]

9/30/04-A bill that would have put strict controls on emissions at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach – including emissions produced by trucks – has been vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
AB2042 would have required the ports and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates air quality in that part of California, to agree on a “baseline” level of pollution, based on the amount at the ports in 2004. It would then require the ports and agency to develop a plan to control pollution based on that baseline level.
The bill passed a final vote before the Assembly 46-31 in late August; it passed the Senate earlier that month by a vote of 21-16. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill Sept. 29.
In his veto message, the governor indicated that he supported the ideas behind the bill, but thought that the measure would not accomplish those goals.
“This bill will not reduce pollution in any way,” the governor wrote in the veto message. “We need to focus our scarce resources on substantive, prompt action that will make real progress toward our shared air quality goals.
“Ports and federally regulated sources of air pollution must do more to reduce emissions in order for California to meet its mandates and to reduce negative air impacts in the communities in which these facilities operate.”

[Pete-R-Bilt]

10/19/04-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill into law expanding the list of who can be fined for making truckers wait at port terminals in the state.
The new law, previously AB1971, modifies existing state law requiring every marine terminal in California to operate in a way that keeps trucks from idling any more than 30 minutes while waiting to load or unload or face a fine. The new provision expands those fines to include port operators.
It applies only to facilities at ports that handle 100,000 or more containers a year.
Previously, marine terminal operators who try to divert trucks to freeways or staging areas away from the ports to avoid the law faced an additional fine. The new law has an additional provision prohibiting the terminals from passing the cost of the fines on to truck owners and operators.
Terminal operators could face a $250 fine for every truck left idling more than 30 minutes; if the terminal diverts the idling trucks, that fine increases to $750.
The law also requires each of the state’s air quality districts to determine the level of monitoring and enforcement necessary, based on the truck idling problems within each district.
Under the new law, fines expand to include terminals that make truckers “queue,” or wait in line. It also expands the duties of air-quality districts to cover queuing trucks as well as idling ones.
The measure received final approval from the Senate and Assembly in August. It was signed by the governor Sept. 18.

[B4Ranch]

Pete
Why did I know you would be uptodate on this measure? LOL

[glock rocks]

Pete
Why did I know you would be uptodate on this measure?

He reads all this stuff while he's idling?

[Ptarmigan]

Insanity. If California got rid of all the blue counties, it would be a very conservative state. Problem with California is all the coastal cities and coastal Northern California counties.

[Pete-R-Bilt]

He reads all this stuff while he's idling?

its not just a terminal thing!

nor just a california thing!

article

[janetgreen]

Don't you think this problem could be lessened by keeping the terminal gates open 24 hours a day?

[Pete-R-Bilt]

That and by coordinating the way cans are checked in and out.

interstate shipments should be handled on a 24 hour ship and recieve schedule, while local cans may be limited to local business' schedules.

they should be segregated according to catagory so road trucks and local cartage trucks aren't stumbling over each other...

imo

[Syncro]

I never had that problem when I was driving truck.

In fact a diesel can start all by itself, it happened to me once.

I had parked at the yard, and was walking to dispatch, and I heard my truck start up. It was weird to say the least.
That's why you always set the brake and leave the tractor in neutral.

I had to find a mechanic to shut it off.

[janetgreen]

Adding a shift from 3AM to 8AM would ease a lot of the day truck traffic. The shippers say this is too expensive, but it seems to me that it would actually be more profitable for them to get the cargo moving out faster in the early hours of the morning, rather than have a glut of trucks idling and waiting during the day. It would ease the traffic on the freeways too.

[snopercod]

"If we could just ban everybody doing anything productive in LA, the air would be really clean."

[B4Ranch]

its not just a terminal thing!

nor just a california thing!

I don't believe you read the article. You don't have that kind of time. Satellite radio is where your intel comes from.

[B4Ranch]

>>In fact a diesel can start all by itself, it happened to me once.<<

Red Sovine and Dave Dudley know all about that kind of thing.

[Pete-R-Bilt]

in that respect, the unions are the bigest obstacle to what makes sense...

[janetgreen]

It's not the unions, it's the shippers who won't agree to a 3AM to 8AM shift. The unions are willing to work at any hour, but no one has asked them to. The big money is in the shipping companies bank accounts. Always follow the money. The enormously rich companies would hire illegal alien labor if they could.

[SierraWasp]

You just cut right through ALL the crap, don'tcha? Ha Ha Ha!!!