Bridge to Breakwater and More
For those of you wanting to vent your opinions re: the Bridge to Breakwater project, tonight provides another opportunity.CEQA/NEPA Final Scoping Meeting
Tuesday, October 11 at 6:00 PM
Los Angeles Harbor Hotel
601 S. Palos Verdes St. San Pedro, CA
In other news since the last round-up:
Life on the Edge blogs a great news summary
San Francisco Chronicle: A new sheriff at Port of L.A. takes dead aim at air pollution/Former state energy czar adopts lofty goals for reducing toxics
LONG BEACH (CNS) - The Long Beach Harbor Commission today released a draft environmental impact study on a contested proposal to build a liquefied natural gas terminal at the Port of Long Beach. The two-volume, 700-plus-page report is available for review at local libraries, Long Beach City Hall and the Port Administration Building, 925 Harbor Plaza. The report is also available online at www.polb.com and www.ferc.com.
Daily Breeze: Cancer risk from ports gets personal
Daily Breeze: Is restoration of the wetlands a viable option for the San Pedro waterfront?
Business Wire: Sound Energy Solutions Helps Bring World's First Clean Burning LNG-Powered Yard Hostlers to Southern California Ports
LA Times: Proposed Rail Yard Angers Residents of Nearby Long Beach Community
Daily Breeze: Study confirms port air quality health dangers*
Business Wire: Public Input Sought on Port's Draft Leasing Policy
Long Beach Press Telegram: Local ports to try out cleaner-fuel tractors
LA Times: Neighbors Urge L.A. Port to Rethink Rail Yard Plan
Long Beach Press Telegram: 710 project pits health, traffic concerns
Posted by Anonymous @ 10/11/2005 07:10:00 AM
8 Comments:
Thank you, once again for presenting these issues. We have a glimmer of hope that the chickens may finally come home to roost.
It is distressing to read the newspaper headlines and see how the press has somehow bought into the spin that the BNSF rail yard is somehow a "traffic reduction measure" for the 710 freeway. This is simply not true.
The Port of Los Angeles' (POLA) own traffic study forecasts that, by 2025, the number of trucks at peak hours on the 710 will be 50% higher than today. This is factoring in both this rail yard and the so-called "Pier Pass" extended hours proposal.
This is why the ports and the industry are lobbying every day for billions of dollars in public money to expand the freeways to carry their stuff.
This is a project to allow the ports to grow even after they create total gridlock on the 710. This means more ship calls by filthy ships, more yard equipment, more trucks from the port to this facility, and more trips by dirty railroad "line-haul" locomotives, which they refuse to clean up.
They may provide cleaner yard equipment, but these savings will be wiped out by the increased "line-haul" activity. According to POLA's own air pollution study, by 2025 railroad operations will cause over twice as much pollution as trucks, while hauling 32% of the cargo. How is this cleaner?
According to the same study, "line-haul" operations create 89% of the air pollution from railroads, with switching operations contributing the remaining 11%.
Welcome to the grand world of spin. The BNSF has recruited a small army of PR consultants, lobbyists and lawyers to sell this project. The public is being mislead.
The Port of Los Angeles has spent millions of dollars on PR consultants to create the illusion that there is community "consensus" behind their "Bridge to Breakwater" plan. There is no such consensus. The press reports of the EIR scoping meetings clearly show that there is strong opposition to the massive over industrialization and commercialization of the San Pedro waterfront.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said that the purpose of this project is to "give something back to the community in return for 40 years of unmitigated industrial development."
3,000,000 square feet of commercial development, 14,000 parking spaces, a 6 lane arterial street blocking the community off from the waterfront, and hundreds of additional visits by high polluting cruise ships every year is not "giving something back"
If someone tried to do this on the Westside, the lawsuits would go on forever. In San Pedro, it's called "mitigation"
Last Sunday's Times "CURRENT" section had several articles about the tragic lack of park space in Los Angeles. Mayor Frank posted an especially perceptive one by D. J. Waldie. This is the opportunity to actually "give something back", not only to San Pedro, but to the whole City. Come on MAV, let's do something really "green".
With the number of containers set to come into the ports growing at such a rate, how can we possibly hope to keep the air clean?
This really seems like an impossible situation for local politicians to handle.
It seems to me that, in light of such a marked increase in traffic at the ports, air pollution is due to global supply and demand, federal emissions regulations, and federal fiscal policy.
City and State politicians don't seem like the right groups to lobby for these changes.
Man, commerce and trade are good - but the negative effects of all this pollution and traffic seem to negate their value.
Amen.
Currently the air pollution is directly linked to global supply and demand, yes. But it doesn't have to be that way. The City of Los Angeles and the Port of Los Angeles have the opportunity to step forward and revolutionise the Port's operations.
By embracing a green vision for future Port operations, the Port could step outside of the current dynamic where inevetible growth and environmental and health risks are dangerously mated to each other.
Failure to take that opportunity continues the embarassment that the Port currently creates. Yesterday I had a visitor from New York City in my office and she was practically keeling over from the local air. It was embarrassing.
This untenable situation of crappy port air is most certainly not impossible for local and state politicians and decision makers to handle. Whether they desire or are motivated to is an entirely different question. Obviously, most of our recent "leaders" have failed in this regard. But even with the macroeconomic forces at work, we can't and shouldn't let them off the hook. They're an important link in the chain and they represent us.
It will take more residents to get pissed off enough to demand action and accountability. And probably more litigation. Keep up the pressure on all levels.
Regarding the B to B business, my opinion: We need better security (on ground and in the water) and cleaner air. Spend money on this.
Cut the chatter Mr Mayor, Where is our Mitigation for 10 YEARS of unconstrained port growth?
For 10 YEARS the air quality and truck traffic has gotten worse here in Wilmington - Where is our Mitigation?
How is it FAIR that Pedro gets $800 MILLION for a waterfront promenade, new parks, new hotels & new marinas, and Wilmington gets a $2 million postage stamp size park on Toxic Soil - Where is our Mitigation?
I didn't hear you Mr. Mayor - oh, did you say our Mitigation is the New Rail Yard, which will bring 500,000 new truck trips from the 710 freeway onto our Wilmington Streets. Oh, Thank You Mr. Mayor, with friends like you, who needs..........mitigation.
Speaking as a San Pedro resident, I totally agree with anon 11:56 PM.
Actually, it's more like 30 years of unconstrained growth, but that's not the point.
Thank you anon 11:56 PM.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home