State’s Promotion of Cargo Transit Carries Concerns

In a fast-moving new initiative, the Schwarzenegger administration is attempting to promote cargo transportation statewide, garnering strong support from the rapidly growing industry but stirring skepticism among residents and environmentalists who fear air quality and public health will suffer.

In a draft report just released in Sacramento, the administration encouraged the growth of the so-called goods movement industry, hailing it as a powerhouse that contributes more than $200 billion annually to California’s economy and supports one out of seven state jobs.

But the report acknowledges potential problems with accelerating the growth of an industry based on moving goods via ships, rail and trucks. Although the transportation of cargo creates jobs and tax dollars statewide, it is taking a dangerous toll on communities by polluting the air and threatening public health, according to the draft report written by the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the state Environmental Protection Agency.

The report offers a blueprint of the tough policy questions that California faces amid predictions that the amount of cargo traversing the state could triple in 20 years, driven largely by Asian-made imports. Those questions will be detailed Thursday when the two agencies seek comment at an all-day public hearing starting at 9 a.m. at the Caltrans district office in downtown Los Angeles.

The initiative, which some call the first of its kind, is already raising concerns among some community activists, who say they fear Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is placing the transport of cargo ahead of the health of state residents, especially in areas of the Los Angeles Basin near seaports, rail yards and freeways. The Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, for instance, would rank as Southern California’s worst air polluter if it were a single facility.

“We have communities that are absolutely being destroyed as these industries expand,” said Penny Newman, who heads an Inland Empire group seeking curbs on air pollution from the rail yards and warehouses springing up to handle goods from the ports. “We’ve expanded so fast already that we’ve created unbearable living conditions for communities.”

But Schwarzenegger administration officials say they recognize those concerns. They cite the administration’s new goods-movement policy, which they say supports growth in a way that promotes job expansion while improving air quality and public health, relieving traffic congestion and enhancing port safety.

The report estimates that an investment of $42.7 billion is needed to improve roads, bridges and other infrastructure statewide to meet the potential tripling in cargo. It outlines new ways to obtain federal funding, spur private investment and educate the public on the transportation industry’s role in the economy.

One key goal is to identify potential projects statewide that would most benefit the transportation industry, said Barry Sedlick, undersecretary at the state Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,

“We want to get input from a wide range of stakeholders: ‘Here are the projects on the table right now. How do we determine which ones should go first?’ ”

The report weighs the environmental costs of that growth, projecting that the reduction of air pollution would cost between $2 billion and $4 billion. The overall goal is to reduce emissions to roughly 2000 levels in five years and then continue to make improvements, said Mike Scheible, deputy executive director at the state Air Resources Board, which helped write the report.

Industry leaders say they appreciate the state’s recognition of the growing importance of cargo movement and the challenges it faces statewide.

“We are committed to working with the administration and others to address those challenges and to assure this industry continues to make the important contributions it makes to the California economy,” said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn., which represents ocean carriers and marine terminals.

“We think it’s a great effort,” added David Mattewson, director of planning and environmental affairs at the Port of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest seaport. “There’s been a lot accomplished in not a lot of time here.”

Some want to see more issues addressed. Stephanie Williams, senior vice president at the California Trucking Assn., said she has been urging those crafting the report to look at what she described as dismal working conditions truckers face as they pick up cargo at state ports. She said shipping firms and terminals are charging truck companies unreasonable fees and truckers face four-hour waits inside terminals.

The report comes at a turbulent time for the industry, as communities around the state’s major ports call for cleaner air and less congestion. At a recent conference in Long Beach sponsored by the USC Keck School of Medicine, attendees called on those writing the state plan to make health and environment a priority, and they urged a slowing of the current pace to allow more public participation. The public did not receive sufficient notice to attend this winter’s meetings, say several community leaders.

Some say the report pays too much attention to growth and not enough to its costs.

“I would say that this report gets a solid F in terms of truly evaluating all the potential effects of tripling trade over the next two decades,” said Todd Campbell, policy and finance director at the Coalition for Clean Air.