Photo: U.S. Department of Transportation
(Updated on Friday, April 28 to reflect a new Wall Street Journal article and Datamyne Port Report)
American taxpayers have spent billions of public dollars to dredge harbors, raise bridges, and make other infrastructure improvements to East Coast ports in anticipation of new larger container ships bringing manufactured goods from Asia by way of the Panama Canal, bypassing the West Coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
As we have reported here several times, international shipping experts have long been dubious of the wisdom of some of those investments. See Florida – Land of ‘build it and they will come” port dreams for one example.
Some of the costs have been dearer than money. In the process of reckless and poorly planned dredging, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has done irreparable damage to our environment. See Florida port dredging projects under attack after Port of Miami dredging destroys hundreds of acres of coral reef.
And ports want tens of billions more in public dollars, as evidenced by a near constant drumbeat of news articles touting the necessity of more spending. See the recent article in Dredging Today, U.S. Ports Plan Big Investments In Capital Projects.
“AAPA then contrasted that number with what it believes is the “best-case” scenario for investments by the federal government into U.S. (East, West, and Gulf Coast) ports, including their land and water-side connections, through 2020. The answer was just $24.825 billion.”
Large investments are needed to implement zero emissions technologies to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions, and protect the health of port workers and the millions of people who live near ports, railyards, and freight routes. But are additional investments by US taxpayers to expand the capacity of East Coast ports a prudent use of tax dollars?
Though East Coast ports have experienced volume increases in the last few years (See the Datamyne Port 2015 Port Report, released on Thursday), an article published in today’s Wall Street Journal casts doubts there will be any substantial shift going forward:
“The change in volumes “is going to be pretty minor,” said David Egan, head of industrial research in the Americas for CBRE. ‘Most of what we thought was going to happen has already happened.'”
An article in the LA Times makes a similar point about shifts in shipping volumes.
“… estimates by cargo analysts suggest that only around 5% of those products would be diverted through the canal, because the trip from Shanghai directly to the East Coast is two weeks longer than the one from Asia to Los Angeles, O’Connell said.
Check out these news articles. What do you think?
Opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Moving Forward Network or its members. All errors are the responsibility of the author.
Share Tweet Share +1 RedditThis is an excellent article written by Luis Olmedo and Humberto Lugo of MFN member organization Comite Civico Del Valle, and others. Check it out and consider – could this be a roadmap for your community group? To learn more, register for the Community-Based Air Monitoring Webinar to be held on Thursday, August 24 from […]Read More ›
Share Tweet Share +1 RedditPhoto: Group photo from the 2016 MFN meeting in Portland On October 13-14, 2017, more than 600 community leaders, advocates, scientists, and industry leaders will gather in Carson, California to confer, collaborate, and conspire to address the negative health and environmental impacts of freight transportation in communities. For two days, attendees […]Read More ›
Share Tweet Share +1 Reddit Photo: CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE Many of the effects of diesel exhaust and other traffic-related air pollution are known and widely accepted – including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and triggering of asthma attacks. In addition, studies have shown that the more air pollution a person is exposed to, the more likely […]Read More ›
Share Tweet Share +1 RedditA study of over 60 million American seniors recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows that long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution raises the risk of premature death of people over 65 years of age, even at levels well below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. […]Read More ›