|
Home >
Track the Issues
> Port of Long Beach
 August
27, 2008
Middle Harbor
Will Bring Long Beach Port Towards Modernity
 By
Randy Gordon, President and CEO, Long Beach Chamber
These are interesting times. Oil is over $100 a barrel, the
phrase “subprime” is part of the household terminology, and
business and unions are on the same side. Yes, you read that
right, business and labor are actually getting along, at least
on one issue. Recently the Port of Long Beach released their
Environmental Impact Report (or an EIR) on a massive overhaul of
two old piers, known as the Middle Harbor project.
This 10-year project is expected to bring in 1,000 temporary
construction jobs and 14,000 permanent jobs. It will also create
a state-of-the-art green facility that would expand the amount
of good movement for the Port. The project, when completed, is
expected to haul over 3.3 million twenty-foot equivalents (TEU)
annually, doubling the current 1.3 million volume movement,
while reducing air pollution by 50%.
The Port of Long Beach is the second busiest port in the nation;
combined with the Port of Los Angeles the San Pedro ports are
the 5th busiest internationally. The trade value of
the Long Beach Port is at $87.4 billion which is ranked 8th
in the nation. It also brings in over $5 billion annually in
sales tax revenue, supports over 370,000 jobs and moves over
$100 billion in cargo each year.
Despite this, the Port is at a crossroads between modernity and
antiquity as infrastructure restrictions threatens the growth
and economic engine of this port. Already the southern
California ports have seen a slip in tonnage while its west
coast counterparts have seen growth. Also, Mexico is planning on
developing a 21st century port which would cost
significantly less to move cargo than its San Pedro
counterparts.
If the Port is restricted from building the Middle Harbor
project, we will continue to see a reduction of shares which
could threaten the commercial and employment opportunities this
port helps generate.
Your Chamber has been vocal in support of this project, knowing
that in order for Long Beach to continue thriving through these
tough times, it needs to be willing to improve and modernize its
facilities. Jill Morgan, our President for the Chamber’s
International Business Association, Lori Lofstrom, our
Chairman-elect of the Board and Blake Christian, our Chairman of
the Board have all voiced support for this project during public
hearings. We have also led the efforts by partnering with
stakeholders in promoting the importance of this project.
This project contains things for everyone. It is a green project
that will produce high paying jobs and helps increase commercial
and economic development. With something for everyone, no wonder
traditional foes, business and unions, are getting along.
February
4, 2008
Chamber Supports
BNSF Project, Improves Traffic and Goods Movement
As one of the busiest ports in the world, the Long Beach Chamber
supported moving forward with an environmental impact report (EIR)
that will allow BNSF Railway to construct the Southern
California International Gateway (SCIG) near the Long Beach
Port. The SCIG will establish a near-dock facility that will
allow fewer trucks on the 710 Freeway while at the same time
improving air quality in the region. Once the EIR is finished it
will be available for public comment and is one of the final
hurdles to start the project.
“BNSF Railway’s project is designed to improve goods movement
within the port area and alleviate some of the trucks and
traffic we all experience when traveling on the 710 freeway,”
stated Randy Gordon, President and CEO of the Long Beach
Chamber. “The project also has implications of being green
“ready” and lessening the impact on the surrounding
environment,” Gordon continued.
The SCIG will utilize existing capacity in the Alameda Corridor
while taking trucks off of the 710 freeway. According to reports
by BNSF Railway, the ports’ cargo volume has tripled since 1995
and is expected to double again by 2015. The SCIG will attempt
to meet the rising demands of cargo volume while keeping
conscience of the impact on surrounding communities. BNSF
Railway has been proactive in seeking community input, which it
has received, and has adjusted the SCIG to conform to the
request of many community members. Sound walls, new and cleaner
trucks used in and around the near-dock facility and
workforce-training programs are just some of the enhancements
BNSF Railway has agreed to with help from the community.
The current status of the project consists of all public scope
meetings have been held after the issuance of a notice of
preparation for the EIR along with the required public review
period. Once the EIR is released the public may comment on the
report. The earliest the facility could open is in 2010.
November
5, 2007
Long
Beach Chamber Opposes Federal Rail Legislation
The Long Beach Chamber of Commerce took a stance against two
pieces of Federal legislation that would re-regulate freight
railroads. S. 953 and H.R. 2125 would essentially turn back
clocks to a time when the rails were regulated and revenues and
earnings were at a low.
S. 953 and H.R. 2125 contain many counter-intuitive elements.
One allows the board to find anticompetitive actions by a rail
carrier without any evidence of anti-competitive activities
being presented. It also requires that rail carriers (which may
have built certain rail lines) be forced to share those lines
with competitors. This is something that is now accomplished on
a cooperative and voluntary basis, and under these bills, would
no longer be a choice.
Since rail was largely deregulated in 1980, rail service has
improved, rail productivity has gone way up and average rates
have gone down.
Productivity is up 168%.
Railroad productivity improvement (measured in revenue ton-miles
per constant dollar operating expense) has been among the
highest of all U.S. industries.
Volume
(revenue ton-miles) is up 86%.
Revenue
(inflation-adjusted operating revenue) is down 21%.
Rail rates
(inflation-adjusted revenue per ton-mile) are down 57%,
even after an increase in average rates in 2005. These rate
reductions have directly translated into $10 billion or more
per year in savings for U.S. businesses and consumers.
Reregulation would mean lower prices for select shippers in the
short term and severe consequences for all shippers over time.
As past experience has shown, excessive regulation would lead to
lower rail revenue, which would cause a capital drain and
disinvestment. In short, re-regulation would shrink rail
capacity when the nation needs more as the US Department of
Transportation has estimated. In fact, it has estimated a 70
percent increase in freight demand by 2020. These bills would
be the beginning of the end, again, as railroads would be unable
to cover their costs and the meet our transportation needs.
Letter to Congresswoman Laura Richardson
November 5, 2007
The Honorable Laura Richardson
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0001
VIA FAX: (202) 225-7926
Dear Representative Richardson,
The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce is OPPOSED to S. 953 and
H.R. 2125 which would re-regulate freight railroads.
Both pieces of legislation contain many counter-intuitive
elements. One allows the board to find anticompetitive actions
by a rail carrier without any evidence of anti-competitive
activities being presented. It also requires that rail carriers
(which may have built certain rail lines) be forced to share
those lines with competitors; thus, something now accomplished
on a cooperative and voluntary basis would, under these bills,
no longer be a choice.
Reregulation would mean lower prices for select shippers in the
short term and severe consequences for all shippers over time.
As past experience shows, excessive regulation would lead to
lower rail revenue, which would cause a capital drain and
disinvestment. In short, re-regulation would shrink rail
capacity when the nation needs more.
Since rail was largely deregulated in 1980, rail service has
improved, rail productivity has gone way up and average rates
have gone down.
- Productivity is up 168%. Railroad productivity improvement
(measured in revenue ton-miles per constant dollar operating
expense) has been among the highest of all U.S. industries.
- Volume (revenue ton-miles) is up 86%.
- Revenue (inflation-adjusted operating revenue) is down 21%.
- Rail rates (inflation-adjusted revenue per ton-mile) are down
57%, even after an increase in average rates in 2005. These rate
reductions have directly translated into $10 billion or more per
year in savings for U.S. businesses and consumers.
The US Department of Transportation estimates that there will be
a 70 percent increase in freight demand by 2020. The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
calls for increased public and private investment in freight
rail infrastructure to meet the nation’s looming and complex
mobility challenges. While highways carry the majority of
freight in this country and will continue to do so, we can
lessen the impact of highway congestion and improve quality of
life by shipping more freight by rail.
Reregulation would turn back the clock on these successes and
again give regulators wide control over crucial areas of rail
operations. Reregulation would result in sharply lower rail
revenues and earnings. Railroads would be unable to cover their
costs and meet the transportation needs of our nation.
For these reasons, the Long Beach Chamber must OPPOSE S. 953 and
H.R. 2125. We are available to discuss our concerns with you or
your staff at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Randy Gordon
President/CEO
July 17,
2007
Long Beach
Chamber Position on
SB 974 (Lowenthal) Container
Fee
The objective of this policy briefing is to communicate the Long
Beach Area Chamber of Commerce’s position on assessing container
fees at the San Pedro Port/Port of Oakland to satisfy the
media’s inquiry into this area.
Position:
Oppose
Background
Senate Bill (SB) 974, (formerly SB 927) is a bill by state Sen.
Alan Lowenthal, D-27th, that would assess a fee on cargo that
passes through the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland,
which would be used for enhancing security, reducing air
pollution and improving infrastructure.
The business community throughout the entire Pacific Northwest
is in a situation where we really need to band together and
organize our activities in opposition to this legislation.
Therefore, the Chamber has joined a coalition, including the
California Chamber of Commerce, which opposes SB 974. This Bill
imposes a tax on containerized cargo that is being shipped in to
or out of the aforementioned ports. This means that members of
the Chamber who export any goods through these ports, or receive
goods that are imported through these ports, will be facing new
costs. This is a $500 Million per year tax on business. Finally,
the State Legislatures of Hawaii and Alaska have signaled that
they will sue the state of California for violation of the 10th
Amendment of the US Constitution (Interstate Commerce Clause).
What other groups oppose the bill?
California Chamber of Commerce
California Retailers Association
National Retail Federation
Retail Industry Leaders Association
American Apparel and Footwear Association
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
United States Council for International Business
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
National Association of Manufacturers
International Association of Automobile Manufacturers
American Electronics Association
California Farm Bureau Federation
Western Growers
Agricultural Council of California
Wine Institute
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Citrus Mutual
California Grocers Association
California Business Properties Association
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties –
California
NAOIP Inland Empire
NAOIP SoCal
American Chemistry Council
California League of Food Processors
Nisei Farmers League
California Cattlemen’s Association
Travel Goods Association
American Import Shippers Association
California Railroad Industry
California Metals Coalition
Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Murrieta Chamber of Commerce
Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
Corona Chamber of Commerce
Voit Development Company
Hedley Construction and Devlopment
Wal Mart Stores, Inc.
Nike
Gap, Inc.
Target
Sonnet Technologies
Home Depot
Blue Diamond Growers
Securakey
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Issues
What is the gist of the bill?
Goods Movement Consumer Fee - Increases the cost of exporting
and importing goods in California by assessing a container fee
of $30 per twenty foot equivalent unit (TEU) and $60 per forty
foot equivalent unit (FEU) on goods processed through the Los
Angeles and Long Beach ports.
What is the Interstate Commerce Clause?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States
Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United
States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled
that the power to regulate interstate commerce also included the
power to regulate interstate navigation. Accordingly, if SB 974
becomes law, the states of Alaska and Hawaii have a valid
judicial grievance with the state of California, given the
economic dependence of these states on the San Pedro and Oakland
Ports.
The significance of
the Commerce Clause over this measure cannot be emphasized
enough, due to the financial drain that will ensue in other
states, especially that of Alaska and Hawaii. The Commerce
Clause is an important source of powers delegated to Congress,
and therefore its interpretation is very important in
determining the scope of federal legislative power, and the
limits to the power conferred upon the state of California in
regard to assessing shipping/trade fees and duties on other
states.
Essentially, if
passed and signed into law, this will set off a legal battle
between states that can only be decided by the US Supreme Court.
Under Chief Justice Roberts, it is likely that the court will
weigh in favor of Congress’ right to regulate commerce among the
states, in deference to case law established under Gibbons v.
Ogden.
What happened to SB 760 and SB 927?
The original container fee bill that Lowenthal was pushing, SB
760, didn’t make it out of the suspense file—effectively killing
the bill. Lowenthal reacted by gutting and amending SB 927
adding the provision that ports would collect the fee from cargo
owners instead of from terminal operators. Finally, SB 927
exempted the Port of Oakland from the fee.
SB 927had two problems: the Governor vowed not to sign “gut and
amended bills” upon taking office; moreover, the Governor vetoed
similar legislation earlier in the year. After passing both
houses last fall, SB 927 was met with a gubernatorial veto.
How would the money be split?
The fees would be split in thirds: port security, environmental
mitigation, and infrastructure (sans roadways).
Where does the Governor stand on SB 927 and what is the
likelihood of it getting signed into law?
The fate of the new bill (SB 974) is uncertain, given that the
Governor will not have to stand for re-election. Other factors
that could influence the bills passage include Lowenthal’s
decision to include the Port of Oakland—effectively taking the
wind out of the “equal footing” argument. Additionally, with the
passage of AB 32 (Nunez), Governor Schwarzenegger could sign SB
974 in an attempt at securing his legacy as a Teddy Roosevelt
environmentalist/conservative. Conversely, in light of the
Governor signing AB 32 into law, he has solid environmentalist
credentials, should he be seeking a “legacy” item. What is
certain is that this bill will more than likely pass both houses
of the Legislature with relative ease.
Talking Points
- This bill violates
the United States Constitution and breaches basic international
law by imposing a TAX on each shipping container processed at
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach;
- The HALF-BILLION
DOLLAR CONSUMER TAX on exports and imports imposed by this bill
will drive economic activity from California to neighboring
states and countries and is ill-timed, especially in light of
the Legislature's passage of nearly $20 billion in bonds to
improve the state's transportation infrastructure system;
- Passage of the
bonds last November, and the continued pursuit of public-private
partnerships already encourage significant additional investment
by the private sector, local jurisdictions, and the federal
government;
- The Chamber along
with several other associations has opposed the legislation as
not being sufficiently explicit regarding the collection and
disbursement of fees. Efforts will be made by the same interests
that have opposed the legislation to ask California Governor
Schwarzenegger to veto the bill.
September 22,
2006
Long Beach
Chamber Responds to Veto of Damaging Port Bill
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce Vice Chair for Public Policy &
Government Affairs Council Chair Lori Lofstrom issued the following
statement today regarding the Governor’s veto of SB 927:
“The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce is pleased to hear of California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of Chamber opposed legislation that
would have imposed a $60 fee on containers moving through two of the
nation's largest ports.
"The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the source of imported goods
that are sold across the nation, as such; the ramifications would have
reverberated throughout not only the Long Beach economy, but the entire
global market. This fee would have amounted to a tax that would have driven
up the price of consumer goods for working Americans shopping in retail
stores in virtually every state, not just California. This would have been a
tax on consumers, not foreign entities.
“Today the Governor showed that he is serious about keeping the Long Beach
economy strong and healthy with his veto of the Chamber opposed SB 927. We
concur with the Governor, in that this bill is laudable in its intentions;
however, SB 927 is flawed in its construction, application, lack of
accountability and failure to coordinate with other public and private
financing sources while ignoring opportunities to leverage additional
funding.
“As the voice of business in Long Beach, the Chamber now looks to the
future—we look forward to holding a dialogue with local, state, and
international stakeholders in addressing environmental externalities at the
nation’s largest port. The Long Beach business community is actively
committed to finding meaningful solutions to congestion relief, improving
security and reducing pollution at California’s ports.”
August 28, 2006
Long Beach Chamber Comments on San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan
 Today
Randy Gordon, President and CEO of the Long Beach Chamber sent a letter to Richard Steinke, Executive Director of the Port of Long
Beach, outlining the Chamber's position on the San Pedro Bay
Ports Clean Air Action Plan. The text of the letter follows:
Dear Mr. Steinke:
On behalf of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, we appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP).
Among the largest membership chambers of commerce in Los Angeles County, the
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce is the platform for business to provide
leadership, education and advocacy so that the Long Beach area thrives in
the 21st century. Accordingly, the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce is
only as strong as the Port of Long Beach.
The Long Beach Chamber of Commerce members share the Port’s goal of
improving the air quality for the community and businesses. We would like to
congratulate the Port and the Harbor Commissioners for taking this bold step
to develop this plan. We are very pleased to see the actions taken by the
ports and their tenants have reduced emissions over 50% from all the cargo
handling equipment at the terminals. We are also pleased to see the
voluntary efforts by the railroads in their MOU with the California Air
Resources Board to reduce emissions. These significant results are a great
example of the power of businesses working together to improve the air
quality in Southern California.
As a business community, we have an interest in cleaning the air and
supporting the growing investment in our region. Because the ports support
over 500,000 jobs in Southern California, we feel it is important for us to
comment on some concerns we have with the draft CAAP. The following comments
are intended to ensure we are improving the air quality in away that does
not cause economic harm:
Cost Impacts
Private businesses are expected to make substantial investment in procuring
equipment, paying for infrastructure, and incurring increased operational
costs that are not included in the Plan. While the contributions of the
Ports and SCAQMD are highlighted, we believe that these contributions will
be a small compared to the costs that will be imposed on businesses. The
final version of the plan should provide an estimate of the costs imposed on
the business community to support the plan.
Cost Effectiveness
We do not see in the plan a cost effectiveness evaluation for the various
measures. As a public agency, the ports need to ensure each dollar spent
will provide the largest reduction in air emissions. We request the final
plan include a detailed cost-effectiveness evaluation of all the measures.
Consistency with federal and state standards
It is critical for businesses to have the CAAP be consistent with federal
and state standards. These federal and state standards have been established
to allow for a timeframe for the equipment to be available in the
marketplace. The draft CAAP provides specific compliance dates that is
inconsistent with federal (e.g., locomotive standards) and state (e.g.,
cargo handling equipment) regulations in both timing and emissions
performance. As currently drafted this would result in the CAAP requiring
companies to purchase equipment in a timeframe that will not be available in
the market.
Impede growth
We are concerned portions of this plan will impede growth. As stated
earlier, the ports have proven through their existing efforts that you can
grow and reduce emissions concurrently. Unfortunately, the CAAP outlines
very specific source standards and measures (See CAAP pages 33-112) that do
not allow for flexibility and innovation. It is critical the Ports must
create an atmosphere where advancement in technology is encouraged. We
recommend that incentives and flexibility in achieving the goals be used
instead of specific mandates of technology.
Increasing rail infrastructure and improving operational efficiencies
Increasing rail infrastructure and improving operational efficiencies are
critical to reducing traffic congestion in Long Beach. The railroads and the
marine terminals have been innovative in changing business practices to
absorb some of the container growth through the ports. Pier Pass has been a
very good example of changing business practices to reduce congestion on the
I-710. We encourage continued innovation in the area of reducing congestion
on our freeways. Near-dock facilities, such as BNSF's proposed SCIG facility
will reduce over 1 million truck trips off the I-710 freeway and is an
important project that will improve the movement of goods through Long
Beach.
Additionally, we would like to voice our concern in the area of Guidelines
and Clean Trucks.
Board of Harbor Commissioners need guidelines not restrictions
We are concerned the requirement that projects must meet the 10 in 1,000,000
excess cancer risk threshold before the Board of Harbor Commission may
approve it, is a no growth policy. The SCAQMD uses 10 in a million as their
“significance threshold” for CEQA analysis. For permitting of stationary
sources (such as refineries) SCAQMD uses 25 in a million as their risk goal
and their Board can approve permits with risks less than 100 in a million
based on lack of technology and other factors. In addition, the port is
using California’s very conservative diesel risk factor in their analysis.
EPA has not yet adopted a diesel risk factor. We request the Ports to revise
this policy to one that allows Boards of the Harbor Commission to evaluate
each project on its own merits and not one that disqualifies the project
based on an overly restrictive 10 in 1,000,000 standard.
Clean Trucks
We support the goal of transforming the fleet of trucks that service the
Ports to “clean trucks”. We are concerned though that by the port passing a
regulation that port trucks may only operate on alternative fuel could
disqualify thousands of owner operator drivers whose living depends on port
business. We have not seen the data that shows alternative fuel trucks are
“cleaner” than the new diesel technology. In addition, passing this
regulation could disqualify the port from receiving matching funds from the
Bond, should it pass in November.
In closing, the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce and its members supports
the use of a combination of on-dock and near-dock rail infrastructure, as
well as, improvements in operational efficiencies, to improve air quality.
The Chamber recognizes that the railroads, particularly BNSF, have been
innovative in changing intermodal business practices to absorb some of the
container growth through the ports. We encourage continued innovation in
this area; however, we also understand not all containers can be loaded onto
rail at on-dock facilities due to track configurations, working space and
other conditions. Consequently, near-dock facilities, such as BNSF's
proposed SCIG facility, must be available to load containers near the ports.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. We look forward to
working with you to increase trade and improve the air quality for our
businesses and community.
Sincerely,
RANDY W. GORDON
President & CEO
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
Cc:
Dr. Geraldine Knatz, Executive Director, Port of Los Angeles
Byron Schweigert, Chair, Long Beach Chamber Board of Directors
Lori Lofstrom, Chair, Long Beach Chamber Government Affairs Council
Email
us for more information. |
