L. A. area's economic engine, and leading polluter. Will the metro area allow it superport status? Updates on the Alameda Corridor and routes out of the basin. Has the dredging been done for future big ships?

What redevelopments have been planned for the port? I never knew that there were projects planned for the port. Converting it into a superport can open up a plethora of opportunities for my birthplace of Long Beach... and we already know how L.A. can benefit from this.

i found this

http://www.sanpedrowaterfront.com/

it be nice if there was a train that went down there seeing that the old redcar ROW still exists. at least in the San Pedro area. I love eating shrimp on the weekends there.

i found this

http://www.sanpedrowaterfront.com/

it be nice if there was a train that went down there seeing that the old redcar ROW still exists. at least in the San Pedro area. I love eating shrimp on the weekends there.

That website won't allow me to link images, but from what I can see on that website San Pedro has come a looooong way. I never knew there were plans to develop around the port. I'll have to pay San Pedro a little visit... the angel lights are definitely a nice touch to the project.

LA/LB is a "superport", its the largest port complex in the Western Hemisphere for heaven's sake.

L.A. Port Plans Massive Marine Facility

By RICHARD CLOUGH
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff
October 18, 2007

The Port of Los Angeles is rolling out preliminary plans today to build a massive marine research facility that officials hope will stimulate economic activity and help revitalize the San Pedro community.

Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the port, has been working behind the scenes for nearly two years to generate support for the project, which would be built on a 28-acre patch of land currently serving as a petrol chemical terminal.

The site, adjacent to downtown San Pedro, is a key battleground in the port’s waterfront development efforts and planners expect the high-level research facility to be a catalyst for the area’s economic resurgence.

“We have this vision of a premier research institution that attracts people from around the world,” Knatz said. “We’re talking about bringing a new industry to San Pedro and new jobs. These are good, high-paying jobs that would be a boost to the San Pedro economy.”

Knatz is expected to unveil the concept for the project, called City Dock No. 1, at tonight’s Los Angeles Harbor Commission meeting. Part of the impetus to move forward with the project, she said, came last week when the Annenberg Foundation said it will commit $50,000 in grant money to begin planning the facility.

The proposed research facility would include academic laboratories, government research facilities and real estate for future maritime-related businesses – what planners are calling a “business incubator.” Ideally, Knatz said, the facility would become a global leader in the study of climate change and sea level rise.

It is too early, she said, to estimate the cost or timeline of the project.
The move comes after the port announced in August it was terminating the lease of New Orleans-based liquid bulk operator Westway Terminal Co. Inc., which has occupied the site since 1996, as part of a larger effort to make the San Pedro waterfront more community-friendly. The port bought out the remaining 18 years of Westway’s contract for $17 million.

The terminal is zoned for commercial activities and local business leaders envision an economic rebirth in San Pedro built, in part, around this new research institute.

“This is the kind of thing that over the long term can lead to an economic wealth cycle for the community,” said Herb Zimmer, chairman of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce committee to promote waterfront economic development. “It breeds ideas and innovations and things that are going to become the basis of the new economy.”

Zimmer, owner of PriorityOne Printing, Copying & Graphics in downtown San Pedro, opened his shop 28 years ago and said he has seen the local economy deteriorate as years of neglect and the decline of the once-thriving fishing industry have eliminated many jobs from the blue-collar community.

“I want to see the ports replace the jobs that we lost during the ’70s,” he said.
The port is currently in the middle of multi-year San Pedro waterfront improvement project, which includes the construction of a cruise ship promenade and the development of new parks and walkways. In all, the redevelopment efforts span 400 acres.

As part of those efforts, the port evicted Westway from its Main Channel terminal, which Knatz said was viewed as a hazardous area by the community.

The port already has a marine research facility known as the Southern California Marine Institute, which is a partnership of eight California State University schools, as well as USC and Occidental College. But with its cramped facilities hidden within Terminal Island, the institute has welcomed the idea of expanding its laboratory space and moving to a more attractive location along the Main Channel, which has almost 500,000 square feet of warehouse space and nearly 5,000 feet of wharf.

Knatz said the institute may relocate to the proposed research facility, but that has not yet been determined.

This project is already almost two years in the making for Knatz. She first had the idea to push for a marine research facility a little before she took over as executive director in January of 2006. The notion stagnated until this summer, when the Westway agreement changed the landscape. At that point, she said, her ideas seemed to become more viable.

Though she said she “wasn’t really out hunting” for financial support, she received word last week that the Annenberg Foundation, a Radnor, Pa.-based philanthropic institution, would give a $50,000 grant to help move the project along.

“It helped spur a recent flurry of activity,” she said.

The port will likely lose future revenue by dedicating an entire terminal to research and related pursuits – a sacrifice the port seems willing to make.
“We recognize that it’s not going to make us the kind of money as if it was a container terminal, and that is not part of this plan,” she said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles Business Journal (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/industry_article.asp?aID=94782374.1890482.1541579.7540644.1541696.105&cID=b&page=1)

^^^ Nice. Although we may lose money for a while, we're gonna get it all back with that facility by all of the jobs it will create and we'll still be able to maintain our status as a superport.

now all we need is light rail to take us down there once the development is built. The old Pacific electric did.

Port expansion expected to win approval

By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 6, 2007

The Los Angeles Harbor Commission today is expected to approve a long-delayed port expansion project that may generate as many as 6,000 new regional jobs and double the acreage of one of the West Coast's largest shipping facilities.

The commission, which has not approved an expansion project at the port in six years because of lawsuits filed by environmentalists, has already strongly endorsed the TraPac Terminal's environmental impact report. The report estimates that the firm will be able to process nearly 70% more shipping containers while generating less pollution than it creates now.

The proposal would require various measures aimed at combating pollution in the Los Angeles and Long Beach port complex, the largest fixed source of air pollution in Southern California. Docking ships would be required to plug into on-shore power, rather than idle their engines in port. Diesel-powered cranes would have to be replaced with less-polluting electrical cranes.

But commission members also acknowledge that the project will increase air pollution in the short term, particularly while it is under construction. Environmental groups are demanding stricter emission standards at the project.

The city estimates that the project will add more than 1,800 truck trips a day to the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-port7dec07,1,3046776.story?coll=la-headlines-california)

Commission OKs L.A. port expansion

Backers cite 'green' elements, but homeowners and environmentalists raise various concerns.

By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 7, 2007

The Los Angeles Harbor Commission on Thursday approved a controversial proposal to increase ship calls by 30% at one of the West Coast's largest shipping terminals and add 1,800 daily truck trips to an area already struggling to cope with some of Southern California's most polluted air.

About 200 people attended the commission hearing at Banning's Landing Community Center in Wilmington.

The panel voted 4 to 0 to certify the environmental impact report for the $1.5-billion upgrade at the TraPac Terminal.

Public testimony on the matter stretched more than six hours.

"This is the best thing that's happened here in two years," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles.

"We're on our way. We're going to do it. We're going to clean it up," she said with a broad grin.

Andy Mardesich, president of the San Pedro and Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, was not impressed.

"This EIR continues to conduct port business in the very same manner that it always has," he testified, "and that, my friends, is with a resolute dedication to conduct commerce without conscience."

The commission's action elated business leaders led by Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce President Gary Toebben, who had strongly endorsed the project.

He predicted that the expanded terminal would create as many as 6,000 new jobs, generate $200 million a year in tax revenue and provide a template for green-lighting at least 15 port expansion projects long delayed by other environmental challenges.

"If it fails," Toebben said before the vote, "it will be a dramatic failure for the concept of green growth at the ports."

The proposal would require various measures aimed at combating pollution in the Los Angeles and Long Beach port complex, the largest fixed source of air pollution in Southern California. For example, diesel-powered cranes would have to be replaced with less-polluting electrical cranes.

Some port projects have been held up since 2001, when the Los Angeles City Council approved plans for a 174-acre terminal for China Shipping Container Lines Co., prompting lawsuits by environmental groups that wanted assurances that environmental reviews would be thorough.

That suit ended in 2003 with the port and city announcing an unusual $60-million settlement with the environmental groups. Most of the money will go to a wide array of projects to reduce air pollution.

In an effort to avoid confrontations over the TraPac project, port authorities spent more than four years developing its environmental impact report.

In her comments before the board Thursday, Knatz said: "Last January, port management and staff agreed on five important things this organization had to achieve in 2007. No. 1 on our list was 'deliver an EIR to the board that you could feel good about certifying.' We believe we have done that."

But attorneys representing the National Resources Defense Council and concerned local residents said the report tucked potentially damaging information about the project's environmental impacts into its back pages.

For example, the report acknowledges in Appendix D that air pollution will increase in the short term while the project is under construction.

"No one has ever agreed to an increase in emissions in the short term," said Janet Schaaf-Gunter of the homeowners coalition. "Increasing emissions is not growing green."

Over time, however, the project will generate significantly less in dangerous air particulates and other emissions than there would have been without the "green" mitigation measures.

But port authorities surprised environmentalists in attendance by announcing that they have no means of curbing anticipated increases of greenhouse gases from the project, including carbon dioxide.

Environmentalists were also distressed that the board had approved a massive expansion before the port's Clean Air Action Plan is fully implemented.

Although the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach agreed in November to scrap old diesel rigs and replace them with newer, cleaner trucks, they have yet to develop a means of enforcing the ban, intended to help slash port-related pollution linked to 2,400 premature deaths in the region a year.

"They put the cart before the horse," said Adrian Martinez, an attorney with the National Resources Defense Council, one of eight groups represented in a letter of concern delivered Wednesday to Ralph G. Appy, the Port of Los Angeles' director of environmental management.

On Thursday, Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn, whose district includes the port, urged the board to advance the TraPac project but "to be bold" and amend the EIR to require extra environmental protections.

She wants a more aggressive timeline to require use of low-sulfur fuel in diesel-powered vessels and on-dock electrical power to eliminate idling in port.

"Certify this EIR today for the community of Wilmington," she said, "but also amend it to protect the health of the community of Wilmington and all of Los Angeles."

In Knatz's argument for approval, she said the particulars could be worked out later.

Schaaf-Gunter compared Knatz's promise to "the check is in the mail."

However, Knatz said a lawsuit challenging TraPac's environmental impacts would only delay realization of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's call for "green growth" at the nation's busiest port.

"That would be a darn shame," she said.

In a related matter, Villaraigosa and state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown Jr. were expected to announce today an agreement to ease future terminal expansions by constructing solar panels to provide a clean source of energy for the ports and thus reduce harmful emission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-port7dec07,0,4182878,full.story?coll=la-home-local)

Wow. That's pretty impressive, seeing how we're the busiest port in America already... this combined with the marine research facility is gonna create a lot of jobs and some nice tax revenues for the city.

LOS ANGELES HARBOR COMMISSION CERTIFIES EIR AND APPROVES BERTH 136-147 TraPac CONTAINER TERMINAL EXPANSION PROJECT

Terminal Build-Out to 2025 will Apply Unprecedented Environmental Measures as First EIR Under San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan

SAN PEDRO, Calif. - Dec. 6, 2007 - Los Angeles Harbor Commissioners Thursday evening approved the Berth 136-147 TraPac container terminal expansion project - first major capital improvement project in the San Pedro Bay Port in seven years. The TraPac container terminal project is also the first major project in the nation’s leading seaport complex to apply groundbreaking emissions mitigation measures outlined in the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) which was approved a year ago by Los Angeles and Long Beach port commissioners.

“Today we move from talking about how we’re going to “grow green” at the Port of Los Angeles to actually doing it out on the terminals,” said S. David Freeman, president of the Los Angeles Harbor Commission. “This project sets the new industry standard for responsible and environmentally sustainable cargo terminal expansion.”

Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D., added: “Our main goal for 2007 was to bring a major construction project to our Board with an environmental document that everyone could feel good about, and we’ve done it. For the first time ever, we’ve addressed the health risks associated with a terminal expansion project and we’ve found ways to significantly reduce pollutants – all while addressing increased trade, adding a rail yard and creating hundreds of jobs at TraPac.”

The TraPac Terminal expansion, between Berths 136 and 147 on the northwest perimeter of the Port, will allow TraPac to expand cargo handling in an efficient manner from 900,000 TEUs (baseline year 2003) to 2.4 million TEUs by 2025. At the same time, particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns will be reduced by 75 percent and nitrogen oxides (NOx) will drop by 55 precent below baseline levels as a result of mitigation measures applied during project operations. By 2015, total project emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) will be reduced approximately 50 percent. The health risks associated with the modernized terminal operations will be well below regulatory standards of significance and will reduce the estimated cancer risk associated with terminal operations to below baseline levels in large parts of Wilmington and San Pedro.

A variety of environmental mitigation measures are included in the project: requirements of vessel speed reductions when ships are transiting within the South Coast Air Basin; use of lower-sulfur fuel in ships; plugging ships into shore-side electric power while at berth (AMP or Alternative Maritime Power); use of clean container handling terminal equipment; construction of a new on-dock rail facility; traffic-relieving surface road and terminal entry improvements; clean trucks meeting EPA 2007 standards; and energy-efficient “Gold” LEED standard terminal offices.

Benefits to the local community incorporated in the project include an open, 30-acre buffer area between the TraPac container terminal and the Wilmington community, 300 new terminal jobs and a total net employment of as many as 5,433 regional jobs annually connected directly or indirectly to terminal operations at build out, and 2,800 construction jobs at peak construction. The Berth 136-147 container terminal operation will generate approximately $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion in revenues. Annual tax revenues associated with construction jobs for the peak year of build-out activity could be as much as $24.1 million in federal taxes, $5.6 million in state taxes and $2.4 million in local taxes.

Celebrating its Centennial in 2007, the Port of Los Angeles is America's premier port. As the leading seaport in the nation in terms of shipping container volume and cargo value, the Port generates 919,000 regional jobs and $39.1 billion in annual wages and tax revenues. A proprietary department of the City of Los Angeles, the Port is self-supporting and does not receive taxpayer dollars. At the Port of Los Angeles, high priority is placed on responsible and sustainable growth initiatives, combined with high security, environmental stewardship and community outreach. For its industry leading environmental initiatives, the Port received two Environmental Protection Agency awards in 2006. The Port of Los Angeles - A cleaner port. A brighter future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Port of Los Angeles (http://www.portoflosangeles.org/News/news_120607trapac.htm)

Benefits to the local community incorporated in the project include an open, 30-acre buffer area between the TraPac container terminal and the Wilmington community, 300 new terminal jobs and a total net employment of as many as 5,433 regional jobs annually connected directly or indirectly to terminal operations at build out, and 2,800 construction jobs at peak construction. The Berth 136-147 container terminal operation will generate approximately $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion in revenues. Annual tax revenues associated with construction jobs for the peak year of build-out activity could be as much as $24.1 million in federal taxes, $5.6 million in state taxes and $2.4 million in local taxes.

Celebrating its Centennial in 2007, the Port of Los Angeles is America's premier port. As the leading seaport in the nation in terms of shipping container volume and cargo value, the Port generates 919,000 regional jobs and $39.1 billion in annual wages and tax revenues.

:cheers: :yes: Although I wonder what's gonna be done with that 30 acre buffer spot?

^What? Whats on your mind maaaan?

^What? Whats on your mind maaaan?

I had some Hennessy when I typed that out. :-/ Only after being sober do I realize how dumb that sounds.

SHIPPING
Export surge helps keep L.A.-Long Beach on top

Overall traffic in '07 is down at the nation's busiest port complex.
By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 17, 2008
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach remained the nation's busiest seaport complex for cargo containers in 2007, even though they saw a decline in traffic for the first time in at least 20 years. But in a shift, exports grew as the dollar's declining value helped U.S. companies ride into new markets and to record-breaking sales.

One of those benefiting was Los Angeles Grain Terminal in Long Beach, a 49-year-old company that packs cargo containers with grain from the Midwest for sale in Asia. A year ago, the company was running a single work shift five days a week with about 20 employees. Now it is running two full-time shifts with 35 workers on the job six days a week.

"We are absolutely at capacity as far as loading goes. The dollar has fallen and American agricultural products are a bargain in the world. All of a sudden, there was this huge demand," said company President Howard Wallace.

The company added customers in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam and had strong sales in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, he said.

Experts say the export surge is a clear sign of the reversal of fortunes that comes with a slowing economy, increasingly cautious consumers, tighter credit due to the real estate slowdown and a weak dollar. Compared with 2006, boxed imports through the two ports in 2007 remained flat at 8.1 million containers while exports grew by more than 18%, to 3.2 million containers from 2.7 million.

Overall, the ports moved 15.7 million containers in 2007, down 100,000 from 2006. The other big change was a reduction in the number of empty containers shipped back to Asia. With imports slowing, there was simply no rush to send them back.

"When the U.S. economy is growing more slowly relative to foreign economies, this is what you see," said Jerry Nickelsburg, an economist with the UCLA Anderson Forecast. "That export growth is one of the strengths of the U.S. economy right now."

"Our sales are easily up 100% over the past year," said Brad Heier, president of San Juan Capistrano-based Globe Runners Inc., another company involved in moving agricultural goods to Asia, mostly grain and soybeans. The boom came in the last half of 2007, Heier said -- thanks to China.

"We were not doing a lot of business there before, but they have an economy that's growing, and what we ship out is needed to feed them," he said.

Although the rise in exports has boosted a few local companies, experts say the Southern California ports overall won't see employment growth until imports pick up again.

"It hurts Southern California because we have so much of a logistics base built around moving those imports on to the rest of the nation," said John Husing, an economist who follows the goods transport industry.

Finished goods such as furniture, apparel, toys and electronics are the biggest categories of imported goods. U.S. exports tend to be lower-value goods such as wastepaper, fabrics, cotton, animal feed and scrap metal, said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles.

Nathan Frankel, owner and president of Fontana-based Advanced Steel Recovery Inc., patented a machine that breaks scrap metal down into a form that is easily loaded onto cargo containers.

"Our invention has allowed us to take advantage of the demand from developing nations, and we have an unencumbered supply. We have doubled the tonnage we moved in 2006," Frankel said.

Experts expect more of the same this year.

"This will be a year of sluggish economic growth, with recovery and more normal growth next year. And we're not seeing the dollar gain in value significantly in the near future," UCLA's Nickelsburg said.

ron.white@latimes.com

L.A., Long Beach port officials split over truck pollution
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/35799864.jpg

DECISION: Port of Long Beach officials will vote today on their version of a plan to deal with diesel emissions from trucks.
Program to cut diesel fumes may be affected as officials appear divided over how to treat truckers who haul cargo in old, polluting vehicles.
By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 19, 2008
For months, officials in Los Angeles and Long Beach have touted plans to jointly combat air pollution generated by their adjacent ports, but a much-vaunted program to replace thousands of polluting trucks has hit a significant snag.

The problem reveals that officials at the cities' ports have sharply differing views on how to treat the 16,500 truckers serving the nation's busiest port complex.

In a move that disappointed environmentalists and Los Angeles port officials, the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners on Friday released a plan to slash truck-related diesel pollution that would allow trucking companies to use employee drivers, independent contractor drivers or a combination -- as they do now. The commissioners are expected to vote on the proposal today.

Environmentalists and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters had hoped Long Beach would take a radically different approach -- that trucking and shipping companies would be compelled to hire the truckers. The burden of owning, operating and maintaining the fleet of cleaner big rigs would fall to the companies.

"Their announcement caught us all by surprise," said Patricia Castellanos, chairwoman of the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, an environmental group. "We're all holding out hope that Long Beach will rethink its decision to move forward on Tuesday because it jeopardizes the success of the landmark clean air action plan they approved in 2006."

That plan was approved with much fanfare by both ports, which had viewed each other with distrust for decades.

Last November, when the ports took further steps to implement the plan, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said, "For the longest time, we were working on separate tracks. Let's join hands and work together."

Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster added, "Long Beach and Los Angeles continue to lead the world in pushing for cleaner air and healthier environment with our shared goal of having the cleanest ports in the world."

But that was November.

Although the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners is still studying the matter, it has expressed interest in the option Long Beach has rejected -- of having trucking companies hire the independent truckers.

That option has the backing of the Teamsters, along with the environmental groups.

"Two entities that have worked together toward cleaner air are not exactly on the same page at the same time," said David Freeman, president of the Los Angeles harbor board. "Even in the best of marriages there is a need for discussion every once in a while when one partner decides to move out a little ahead of the other.

"We're not going to turn aloof from this issue until we have a program that provides a fair shake for the drivers," Freeman added. "We cannot leave these drivers on the short end of the stick."

Becki Ames, chief of staff for Foster, agreed, up to a point. "It doesn't scare us that there is a difference of opinion," she said. "What scares us is not acting to clean the air as quickly as possible.

"If their board is not ready to go yet, fine," she added. "Ours is."

Underlying one element of the dispute are opposing views of a continuing effort to try to unionize the ports' independent truckers.

Change to Win, a Washington, D.C.-based labor coalition has partnered with the Teamsters to expand union membership. The coalition in late December gave $500,000 to Villaraigosa's Prop. S campaign, a $243-million telephone tax passed Feb. 5.

Critics of the employee provision of the clean truck program, however, are concerned that it could be used by the Teamsters as a springboard to launch unionization efforts at ports nationwide.

A less controversial element in the Long Beach plan would make trucking firms register their drivers with the port, and tag trucks with radio-frequency identification devices so authorities could monitor compliance with security, maintenance and insurance requirements.

It would also establish a $2-billion financing plan with three options to help truckers acquire clean vehicles: a lease agreement; a grant for an engine retrofit, and grants for up to 80% of the cost of buying a truck.

A new 18-wheeler costs about $100,000 to $120,000, port authorities said.

"In order to get one of our grants, an operator would have to agree to scrap their old truck," said Long Beach Port spokesman Art Wong. "The goal is to modernize the truck fleet here and ensure we don't push the old trucks into some other community where they would continue to pollute the air."

In a statement, Port of Long Beach Executive Director Richard Steinke described the proposal to be considered today as "the fastest and most effective way to meet our critical environmental objectives and provide the accountability we need for clean air, while giving the trucking industry the flexibility to meet its business challenges."

But David Pettit, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Long Beach proposal was "just the same old pig with a fresh coat of lipstick."

"It doesn't have any more accountability built into it than the current plan," he said. "The burden won't be on some well-capitalized trucking company, it will be on people taking home eight to 10 bucks an hour."

Long Beach port officials did not dispute speculation that their plan might force some already struggling independent drivers out of business.

"It may bring new people into the industry," Wong said, "but the oldest, dirtiest trucks will be pushed out and scrapped."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

Long Beach harbor panel OKs plan to reduce pollution

By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 20, 2008
Over the objections of environmental, public health and labor organizations, the Long Beach harbor commissioners on Tuesday unanimously approved a clean-air plan that continues to place the burden of owning and maintaining diesel big rigs on drivers rather than on shipping companies that hire them.

Port authorities called the move a "victory for clean air" and a final element of a clean trucks program that will replace and modernize the entire fleet of trucks serving the Long Beach ports.

The vote by the Board of Harbor Commissioners followed a six-hour meeting marked by emotional testimonies from dozens of drivers.

The truckers said they could not afford to buy or maintain new trucks and urged the port to compel shipping companies to hire the drivers.

Also testifying before the board were representatives of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Assn., who blasted the plan as a "tarted-up" version of the current system, which allows trucking companies to use employee drivers, independent contractor drivers or a combination of the two.

As a result, the representatives argued, commodities are kept low at the expense of drivers. They criticized the board for passing the plan without the support of the Port of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners.

A letter to the board from the Natural Resources Defense Council said, "Perhaps the most glaring flaw in the port's program is the lack of its key partner and neighbor, the Port of Los Angeles."

"If Los Angeles decides to go in a different direction in its clean-trucks program, the result could be chaos at the ports," the letter said. "Staff has failed to address what will happen if a Long Beach-approved truck is not allowed access to the Port of Los Angeles or vice versa."

Long Beach board members, however, said they worried about the health risks of delaying the program. They also questioned their authority to force a company to hire drivers. "I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposal," said board President Mario Cordero. "But time is of the essence." louis.sahagun@latimes.com

Rail chief thinks 'green' at ports

Executive wants to build a $300-million facility where cargo containers would be loaded onto trains.
By Jeffrey L. Rabin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 26, 2008
The chief executive of one of the nation's biggest railroads spent Monday promoting a plan to build a $300-million rail yard close to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, where cargo containers would be loaded directly onto trains instead of being trucked up the Long Beach Freeway.
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/36079034-25213646.gif

Matthew K. Rose, chairman, chief executive and president of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, touted the project, which would be located four miles from the ports. Proponents say the plan would substantially reduce air pollution and chronic traffic congestion on the 710 Freeway.

Rose pushed the plan in a variety of locations -- aboard a posh, private dining car at Union Station, in a closed-door meeting with officials from the Port of Los Angeles and during a speech at a cargo industry conference in downtown L.A. Rose said the project would enhance the environment while expanding the ability to handle a tidal wave of goods flowing through the ports from Asia.

"We need to grow, but grow green," Rose said, echoing remarks by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at the same meeting.

If the Southern California International Gateway facility is approved for industrial land in west Long Beach, Wilmington and Carson, Rose said the cleanest trucks available would be used to haul containers up the Terminal Island Freeway from the ports. There, the steel containers would be loaded onto rail cars using state-of-the-art electric-powered cranes. Yard locomotives and vehicles would be powered by cleaner-burning natural gas.

"It is BNSF's commitment to build the cleanest and greenest [truck and rail] facility in North America," Rose said.

A report on the environmental effects of the project has yet to be finished by the Port of Los Angeles.

But S. David Freeman, president of the Los Angeles Harbor Commission, said in an interview that the facility would do "tremendously beneficial things in terms of the environment."

Freeman and Michael Christensen, deputy executive officer of the Port of Los Angeles, met privately with railway officials a short time later.

Environmental groups are skeptical about building a vast rail yard in an area near a high school and elementary school.

"Even if you have the cleanest trucks possible, if you're dropping 750,000 of them into a heavily impacted community, I'm thinking that's not going to be good," said David Pettit, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The environmental group has filed suit against other port projects and recently warned Long Beach officials that it would go to federal court unless that port moves quickly to clean up the air.

Although railroad officials say the project will dramatically relieve truck traffic on the Long Beach Freeway, Martin Schlageter, campaign director for the Coalition for Clean Air, said the new rail yard could still have a major effect on harbor-area communities.

"The closer you are to it, the more worrisome it is to you," he said. "The reality of increasing trade is these trucks are nearer to your neighborhood and your school."

Schlageter said locomotives that would haul the trains up the Alameda Corridor and through the Inland Empire need to be upgraded with the cleanest technology possible to cut nitrogen oxides that contribute to the Los Angeles area's smog problem and to reduce microfine particulates that can cause cancer and respiratory disease.

Railroad officials have met with residents in the area around the proposed rail yard and say they have addressed some of their concerns in designing the facility. A sound wall would be built and trees planted between the rail yard and the neighboring community.

A professionally produced DVD in English and Spanish has been distributed to residents and officials, promoting the importance of the project in providing jobs and keeping the ports at the forefront of expanding international trade.

jeffrey.rabin@latimes.com

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

Court rejects California limits on ship emissions

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/36165348.jpg

Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times
The ship engines targeted by California’s rule account for about 15% of the Los Angeles region’s total diesel emissions, according to a 2005 state air board report.

Appellate judges say the state needs federal approval for the regulation, which was designed to cut pollution generated by ports.
By Marla Cone, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 28, 2008
A federal appeals court Wednesday rejected a state regulation that reduced emissions from ships, dealing a blow to California's attempt to combat one of the major sources of smog-forming pollution in the Los Angeles region.

The ruling means that the state must seek federal approval before imposing pollution limits on the thousands of cargo ships, cruise ships and other marine vessels that visit its ports.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that California's new regulation is preempted by federal law. The Clean Air Act allows California to set its own standards for various vehicles and engines if it receives waivers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The state argued that in this case it didn't technically need a waiver, but the judges disagreed.

Ships sailing into the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are considered a major source of particulates, nitrogen oxides and sulfur, pollutants that cause the region to frequently violate federal health standards.

Microscopic soot from diesel engines can lodge in lungs, triggering heart attacks, asthma and other cardiovascular and respiratory problems, scientists say. Diesel exhaust has also been linked to lung cancer.

The ruling is the second setback in two months to California's efforts to combat air pollution rather than wait for federal action.

For four decades, the state has adopted its own regulations for cars, trucks, factories, consumer products and other sources of air pollution, often prompting the federal government to set similar standards.

Since the 1970s, the EPA has granted California hundreds of waivers allowing it to set its own emission standards.

But in December, the agency denied the state's request to impose standards to reduce greenhouse gases from automobiles.

The EPA administrator has argued that, unlike smog and diesel fumes, climate change is a global problem, not a state one.

The California Air Resources Board immediately stopped enforcing the ship rule Wednesday as its attorneys debated their options. They will either appeal to the Supreme Court or seek a waiver from the EPA.

Air board officials said the court ruling will delay, but not stop, emission limits on the ships.

"This is critical to protecting public health, particularly around ports," said air board spokeswoman Gennet Paauwe. "It is part of our large plan to cut emissions, particularly for the ports and goods-movement sectors."

The ship rule was adopted by the air board in 2005 and implemented last year. It addressed the use of auxiliary diesel engines within 24 nautical miles of the coast. Such engines, which often run on highly polluting bunker fuel, provide power for onboard electricity.

The engines emit an estimated 1,400 tons a year of particulates in the L.A. Basin and account for about 15% of the region's diesel emissions, according to a 2005 air board report.

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Assn., a San Francisco-based group of shipping companies, filed suit to block enforcement of the rule. A federal district court sided with the association in August, and Wednesday's ruling reaffirms that decision.

In June, the air board is scheduled to consider a separate regulation for the main engines that propel ships. The court ruling could mean that California would first have to seek EPA authorization.

John McLaurin, president of the shipping association, said the industry prefers federal or international standards, "which will ensure consistent application of air quality rules and meaningful emissions reductions throughout the world."

Some shipping companies have already complied with the rule by switching to low-sulfur fuels, lowering speeds voluntarily or using shore-side electrical power. In 2004, nearly 10,000 oceangoing ships visited California ports, half of them container ships.

"This lawsuit was not about whether emissions from vessels should be reduced but about who should have the jurisdiction to impose and enforce requirements on international trade," McLaurin said.

Attorneys for the air board contended that the regulation applied only to old engines, not to new ones, so they argued that they did not need EPA authorization because it was not an emissions standard.

Two environmental groups, the city of Long Beach and the South Coast Air Quality Management District intervened in the case in support of the state board.

"Our staff decided to go ahead and regulate because we felt we did have regulatory authority," Paauwe said.

The court rejected that argument, calling the regulation an emissions standard and citing similar rulings by other courts.

State officials do not know whether the EPA is likely to approve a waiver for the ship rule. State and local control of air pollution from ships, airplanes and railroads has long been controversial because of laws safeguarding interstate commerce and concerns that such rules should be international.
marla.cone@latimes.com

L.A. backs cargo fee as part of port clean-air effort

The Harbor Department will charge $35 for each loaded container carried by trucks, with the proceeds going to buy vehicles that use cleaner fuels.
By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 28, 2008
The Los Angeles City Council backed the first phase of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's clean-truck program Wednesday, imposing a cargo fee that will raise roughly $800 million to buy new and alternative-fuel trucks for haulers operating at the Port of Los Angeles.

The council unanimously endorsed a Board of Harbor Commissioners ban on all diesel trucks built before 1989 from the port starting Oct. 1. The ban, which is also taking effect in the Port of Long Beach, will be expanded in 2012 to include diesel trucks built before 2007.

The vote paves the way for the Los Angeles Harbor Department to impose a $35 fee on each loaded container that moves through the harbor, except those moved by rail. The fees will be used to subsidize the purchase of trucks retrofitted with cleaner diesel technology or engines that run on liquid natural gas.

The Harbor Commission, whose members are appointed by Villaraigosa, are scheduled to vote this year on a spending plan for the truck money. The panel also must decide whether to approve a proposal backed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters that would eliminate independent truck drivers at the Los Angeles port, requiring all drivers to be employed by trucking companies.

The Port of Long Beach balked at that provision last week. But Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn urged harbor commissioners in Los Angeles to pass the measure, which is backed by environmental groups and the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, a nonprofit group focused on increasing wages and health benefits for workers across the region.

"The missing piece of this is making sure these truck driving jobs are good-paying jobs," said Hahn, who represents the port neighborhoods of San Pedro and Wilmington. "We need people driving these trucks who are well paid and can afford to keep these beautiful new trucks in good working condition."

Harbor Commission President S. David Freeman would not say how he will vote on the employee provision of the truck plan until he hears from port Executive Director Geraldine Knatz. "When the staff makes a recommendation and puts it on the agenda, I will express myself at the meeting," he said.

Also Wednesday, the council voted to spend $13.5 million to help 10 private companies buy 117 trucks powered by liquid natural gas. The Port of Long Beach will contribute an additional $8 million as part of that purchase.

david.zahniser@latimes.com

West Coast ports have sinking feeling

Soaring fuel prices, economic doldrums and rising competition raise fears that the Los Angeles and Long Beach complex could see a reversal of fortune.
By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 5, 2008
At Southern California's twin ports, there is a growing feeling that the economic tide has begun to turn.

Imports are down. Experts expect another year of little or no cargo growth in 2008. And other harbors are getting serious about luring business away from Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation's largest seaport complex, and other West Coast ports. Competitors along the East and Gulf coasts, once content to take on whatever Los Angeles and Long Beach couldn't handle, have embarked on major expansion projects. Billions of dollars are being spent to transform the Panama Canal so that it can handle the largest ships. In Canada, a port project once viewed as little more than a safety valve for times of congestion has been elevated to a national priority.
In response to the economic stresses, A.P. Moller-Maersk Group last year pulled about 30% of the vessels that the world's biggest shipping line used to run between Asia and the U.S. West Coast, most of which had been routed through Los Angeles. There may be more to come from other companies.

"The West Coast is threatened," said Wayne R. Schmidt, an associate with British consultant Drewry Supply Chain Advisors.

Schmidt analyzed the Panama Canal expansion projects, strains on rail lines from the West Coast and confidential service contracts and concluded that more shipping lines and retailers will decide they are "better served on a cost basis at East and Gulf Coast ports."
About two-thirds of the cargo arriving from Asia to the West Coast is routed through Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Schmidt was speaking at this week's Trans-Pacific Maritime Conference, sponsored by the Journal of Commerce, which annually brings together West Coast port officials, shipping lines, terminal operators and their customers to discuss the outlook for trade between Asia and the U.S.

The outlook: rough sailing.

Speakers at the Long Beach conference talked about how the dollar's downward spiral was making imports more expensive, the high cost of fuel was driving shipping lines to cut costs and falling home prices and tight credit were damaging consumer confidence.

The financial returns for shipping lines, because of extraordinarily high fuel costs and freight rates that have not kept up with the increase, are "pretty grim," said Ron Widdows, chief executive of the APL shipping line and chairman of the Transpacific Stabilization Agreement, a group of 15 of the world's largest shipping companies. Widdows said that about 6% of the group's Asia-to-West-Coast fleet had been transferred to routes between Asia and Europe, where trafficincreased a strong 19% from 2006 to 2007.

During the same period, the East Coast's share of Asian cargo increased from 24.6% to 26.3%, a steady pace that will continue, said Michael Andrews, chief economist for PIERS Global Solutions, a maritime information service. Andrews said expansion projects in the East faced less opposition than those planned for Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Noting that one of his terminals had lost a longtime customer to Canada's Prince Rupert port, Edward DeNike, president of Seattle-based SSA Marine's SSA Containers division, said that West Coast harbors were in danger of falling into a situation where "we're not going to control our own destiny" as customers find lower-cost options.

Even if the economy improves by 2009, as most speakers predicted, there are questions about whether Los Angeles, Long Beach and other West Coast ports will be able to handle more growth.

If it can't happen on the West Coast, "then it will have to happen somewhere else. Infrastructure is the limiting factor, and it takes a lot longer than just building a ship," said Nils S. Andersen, chief executive for A.P. Moller-Maersk Group.

The Port of Los Angeles, for example, is trying to get approval to expand the TraPac terminal, which officials say will allow twice as much cargo to be moved while emitting less pollution than the facility produces now. But the project faces significant opposition from environmental groups and neighbors and still must be approved by the City Council.
Meanwhile, the Panama Canal expansion project is expected to increase cargo traffic there by as much as 73% over the record 4 million containers handled in 2007, said Schmidt of Drewry Supply Chain Advisors.

In Canada, government officials are pouring $3.3 billion into an effort to transform the newly opened Port of Prince Rupert, north of Vancouver, and the connecting CN railroad into the trade gateway of choice for container cargo destined for Midwestern U.S. states and other areas. "This is a true national priority for us," said John Higginbotham, principal advisor to Transport Canada's Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative.

The message is sinking in locally.

"Los Angeles doesn't own the market," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the city's port. "So our priority right now must be on modernizing and growing our ports in very smart and sustainable ways."

ron.white@latimes.com

Nimbyism is a cancer that is killing the growth of this city

From what I hear, most of the opposition here is from environmental groups. And neighbors should be complaining about the pollution. However, the ports are trying to curb pollution, but because some more pollution will be created while the mitigations are built to curb pollution, the environmental groups are against the plan. Talk about nutjobs.

Status of truckers is a big hitch in port plan
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/36453114.jpg

Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times
Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster says the provision to have truckers work for firms would attract lawsuits, be hard to defend in court and possibly delay the clean-air efforts for years.
L.A. and Long Beach mayors agree on all other key aspects of the clean-air strategy.
By David Zahniser and Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers March 6, 2008
The mayors of Los Angeles and Long Beach have spent nearly a year marching in lock-step, crafting a groundbreaking $1.6-billion plan for removing nearly 17,000 exhaust-spewing diesel trucks from the nation's two busiest harbors.

With remarkable ease, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster spurred their respective ports to pass initiatives that would have been unthinkable a few years ago: first a ban on older trucks moving through the ports; then a $35 fee on each cargo container to pay for newer, cleaner trucks.

But last month, Foster broke ranks with Villaraigosa by rejecting the plan's final piece, a proposal backed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to require independent truck drivers at the Long Beach harbor to be employees of trucking companies, a move that would make it easier for them to organize.

Foster's decision drew an outcry from the region's labor leaders and environmentalists, who have joined forces in the truck campaign. That, in turn, has thrown the two mayors' views into stark relief.
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/36453075-06093124.jpg

On one side is Villaraigosa, who grew up in Los Angeles and entered public life as a union activist. On the other is Foster, who spent his childhood in Brooklyn, N.Y., and worked for years in the management ranks of Southern California Edison, ending up as the utility's president.

Villaraigosa and his allies argue that truck drivers, most of whom are now independent contractors, need to be well paid in order to take care of the new trucks that the ports plan to help them buy. On the other side, Foster and his supporters say the union-backed provision will attract lawsuits and be difficult to defend in court, delaying the clean-air plan by two to three years -- or killing it altogether.

The fight has quickly made Long Beach, a community once known as Iowa by the Sea, a target of big-city politics, L.A. style. Since last month's vote by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners against that provision, a coalition of unions and clean-air advocates has bought at least five full-page, color advertisements denouncing Foster in the Long Beach Press-Telegram. With encouragement from Villaraigosa, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who represents the neighboring Port of Los Angeles, has been pressing Long Beach to reverse itself.

Two weeks ago, the Teamsters got tougher, urging the California Transportation Commission to deny Long Beach as much as $550 million earmarked for such projects as the repair of the aging Gerald Desmond Bridge. Teamsters legislative representative Barry Broad said state transportation money should continue flowing to Los Angeles, which is expected to approve the employee provision.

"We're optimistic that the Port of Los Angeles will move forward with a rational plan," Broad said. "Meanwhile, it's going to be pandemonium and anarchy in Long Beach."

The Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners is expected to begin reviewing options at a meeting tonight.

Each mayor insists that he has the right strategy for cleaning up the port complex, considered the largest stationary source of air pollution in Southern California. But the disagreement has left some industry leaders wondering whether politics will prove the undoing of the clean-air plan, which was supposed to ban every port truck built before 2007 by Jan. 1, 2012.

"This is something that has national implications beyond the harbor," said lobbyist Barna Szabo, who has a client that just received $737,000 from the ports to buy trucks fueled by liquid natural gas."So I think the schedule will be lost. The clarity will be lost. I'm just not sure where it's going to go, and it's a darn shame."

The mayors' two distinct styles were on display last week at a conference attended by shipping industry leaders, alternative fuel makers and advocacy groups. Villaraigosa, who typically shows up late to public appearances, threw the conference an hour behind schedule by the time he finished his luncheon address, which called for truck drivers to receive better wages and benefits.

"These truckers [are] working jobs that most of us -- and I'm looking at all of you in your suits and ties, you're doing very well -- that most of us would never accept," he told the crowd. "These are jobs that are dirty. They are jobs that don't provide healthcare. These are independent contractors who could never afford to do what we need to do to retrofit our [truck] engines."

A day later, Foster made a more punctual appearance, staying 20 minutes after his speech to greet a group of admirers. Chewing gum as he spoke, Foster talked of children getting sick from diesel exhaust and warned that the union-backed measure would be a distraction from the goal of rapidly cleaning the air.

"We cannot wait, and I'm not going to stand around and see kids in Long Beach continue to contract asthma, continue to have truncated lung development . . . or continue to miss school," he told the crowd.

Because he has been so vocal on the clean-truck program, Foster has borne the brunt of the criticism since the five-member Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners voted to allow trucking firms to continue using independent owner-operators.

Moments after that vote, one Villaraigosa ally declared that the region's environmental and labor groups would sever their ties to Foster forever, dooming his political future.

"He's done," said Jonathan Parfrey, who heads Green L.A, a coalition devoted to shaping and promoting Villaraigosa's environmental agenda.

Foster refused to back down, saying that until this fight, he has had good relations with the region's labor unions."My job is not to promote their interests. My job is not to promote corporate interests. My job is the public interest, and I take that seriously," he said. "So the end result is, if this happens to be the only office I ever hold and the only term I ever serve, I'm comfortable with that."

The Teamsters-backed provision is favored by an array of clean-air advocates, public health groups and a dozen unions, as well as the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, an ally of Villaraigosa. But it is opposed by business leaders, particularly the American Trucking Assn.

Despite the acrimony, environmentalists and business leaders agree on one thing: Neither can imagine the side-by-side ports having separate systems for regulating truck drivers. To David Pettit, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the boundary between Los Angeles and Long Beach means little when it comes to air pollution.

"In practical terms, this is one big port, and the best way to clean it up is for the ports to act as one," he said.

A trucking industry representative agreed, but warned that his organization would sue Los Angeles if it followed follows through with Villaraigosa's plans for requiring that truck drivers be employees.

"The mayor's biggest problem is he has good intentions, but they are not legal," said Curtis Whalen, executive director of the intermodal motor carriers conference of the American Trucking Assn.

The political elites in Los Angeles and Long Beach have a web of relationships that go well beyond the one-year alliance between Foster and Villaraigosa. Foster was Hahn's boss at Edison a decade ago, before she became a city councilwoman. Long Beach Harbor Commission President Mario Cordero has a daughter, Celine Cordero, working for Villaraigosa.

The coalition pushing the truck plan, meanwhile, is based at the office of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, a labor advocacy group whose executive director, Madeline Janis, is a high-profile Villaraigosa appointee at the Community Redevelopment Agency.

Janis' organization has been a major Los Angeles player in battles over raising the wages of hotel workers near Los Angeles International Airport and a recent push for hospital expansion in the San Fernando Valley. The group is so focused on the truck campaign that it registered two of its employees as lobbyists. And on the day of the vote in Long Beach, it sent Foster an extensive public records request demanding copies of all correspondence between him and business entities.

The truck fight has exposed other differences between Long Beach and the nation's second-largest city. Villaraigosa, a national political figure, met personally with Teamsters President James Hoffa Jr. in November 2006 to discuss the truck proposal. Foster, 61, heard from the union's West Coast representatives.

Villaraigosa also has not hesitated to raise huge campaign contributions from groups with a stake in special interests pushing the clean-truck plan. He secured $500,000, the largest donation of the campaign for the ballot measure known as Proposition S, from Change to Win, a labor coalition organization pushing the truck plan. Villaraigosa said last this week that he still believed the Teamsters-backed proposal would ensure that truck drivers maintain the new alternative-fuel trucks. And although his close allies have made Foster a target, Villaraigosa said he planned to keep working with Long Beach.

david.zahniser@latimes.com

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

Risk seen in port plan
L.A.'s cargo business could shrink under a proposal on truckers.
By Ronald D. White and Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers March 8, 2008
The nation's busiest seaport could lose at least 3% of its cargo container business if it adopts a controversial proposal requiring shipping companies to employ the thousands of short-haul truck drivers who work on a contractual basis, a new study says.

The analysis, conducted by Boston Consulting Group, said that "substantial diversions" of the Los Angeles port's business probably would shift to the neighboring port of Long Beach or to other harbors. The port moved 8.5 million containers in 2007, easily topping its sometime partner and rival, No. 2 Long Beach.

"Some CEOs will say, 'Well, maybe it will cost more to move goods through L.A. so let's go someplace else,' " Boston Consulting Group spokesman Simon Goodall said. "Higher prices will cause diversions as high as 3%," and that figure could rise if Long Beach follows through in adopting a plan that businesses could find more palatable, he said.

The report adds another note of concern to the increasingly contentious issue of cleaning up the high levels of pollution emitted by old and often dilapidated trucks used to haul containers.

Long Beach harbor commissioners last month agreed to replace polluting trucks with cleaner models starting Oct. 1. The plan satisfies the call for environmental improvements in the clean-air plan adopted by both ports last year, but it doesn't require shipping companies to employ drivers.

Now, what began as an unusual show of cooperation between the ports could deteriorate into court battles for both. The ports' boards had agreed to a groundbreaking $1.6-billion plan for removing 17,000 exhaust-spewing diesel trucks from service. A $35 fee on each cargo container handled would pay for cleaner trucks.

But Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster and the Long Beach board decided that the plan's final piece, the employee mandate and subsequent driver unionization, would be impossible to defend in court. A coalition of environmental groups and unions has threatened to sue them for the shift.

In Los Angeles, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his commissioners argue that truck drivers, most of whom are independent contractors, need to be well-paid employees to take care of the trucks that the ports plan to help them buy. That would give the International Brotherhood of Teamsters a window to recruit the drivers, who hold some of the cargo industry's lowest-paying jobs. The American Trucking Assn. has said it would sue over the issue.

Caught in the middle are the businesses that use the ports to import and export goods. In what already figures to be a lean year for many, the headache of trying to figure what they will have to do to comply is hardly appreciated.

"Why do we need all this social engineering detracting from the real issue, which was cleaning up the air?" asked Brian Oken, chief executive of Ventura Transfer Co. in Long Beach. Oken's firm uses Teamsters and independent drivers.

He's hardly the only person who isn't happy.

"The idea of having separate plans is not something I wanted to see," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles.

The Boston Consulting Group argued that L.A. had the better plan in the long term and probably could win back any lost cargo.

But it's also the third report commissioned by one or both ports to study the issue. And the author of the first one, economist John Husing, said fundamental issues remained unresolved, such as how to deal with the turnover of as many as half of the drivers. Many won't be able to replace their trucks, won't want to be company employees or might not meet strict requirements for new federal identification cards for seaport workers, he said.

One important player in the debate said he wasn't worried about losing business because of the clean-truck plan.

"They're not going to send tennis shoes to Anaheim through Seattle," said S. David Freeman, president of the Los Angeles harbor board.

ron.white@latimes.com

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

March 9, 2008

Your article about the West Coast ports losing business to other ports is music to my ears. ("West Coast ports have sinking feeling," March 5.)

Many of us who live near the twin beasts of the ports of L.A. and Long Beach would love to see expansion stop and go backward, if possible. The ports use "fuzzy green" math to justify deadly expansion.

Let's pray they stop growing and stop lying to us about the health hazards of living near them. Typical...

^^Was that a PM?

People don't realize that we're living in a city. It's sad.

^^Was that a PM?

People don't realize that we're living in a city. It's sad.

A big city, who's port is incalculable in its importance to the economy. Claiming that expanding the port is deadly, or that we should reduce the port is both hyperbole and ridiculous. We have to make a two front effort that will both aid the port's development and improve living conditions in the area. Some may think this is impossible or wont happen, but its not true.

if they don't like the ports, why even be living by ports?

it is not as if every inch of our coastline is a port, it is only one area, if they want to live in a coast city there is many more to choose from.

what do people want, us making a big ass park fulls of tree to surround the ports? well, then their house and many other houses will be gone, i am sure they don't want that.

^^Was that a PM?



No, it was just a blog response from the Times. I didn't put the guy's name down 'cause I thought he was sick in the head or something. Let's all stop the progression of this city, Ok? Let's stop all production, let's stop all expansion, let's stop all construction! That way, we'll all be at peace and sing campfire songs and all the other cities in the country can pass us by- but we don't care, right! Then, when the nimby's realize they just killed the economy and the very spirit of the place, they'll blame someone else for the freefall of their property's worth- and only then will they shut the fuck up! Only then will they finally leave...and the rest will be stuck with a mammoth third world shit hole and a lot of "if only's" floating around in everyone's minds. I'll tell you what Los Angeles and Long Beach better start worrying about: Keeping the lights on at the port complex by retaining its ability to supply the midwest areas of the country by rail. The East coast has already gotten it in its mind that they're sick of taking everything from the LA/LB complex, and are pushing the widening of the Panama Canal to bypass us. That's fine, but when they start to supply areas in the interior states, then we will have utterly failed. While they're building for future capacity, we should be strengthening the infrastructure so the logistics of feeding the interior states will remain sound, and suppliers won't have the need to go elsewhere. Transportation out of the port complex was always the weakest link. Start building!

Port of Los Angeles plan weighs on shippers

The Harbor Commission will require trucking companies to shoulder costs of the clean air program, a move rejected by Long Beach.
By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 21, 2008
The Los Angeles Harbor Commission on Thursday unanimously approved a clean air plan requiring shipping companies to buy and maintain a modernized fleet of big rigs and employ thousands of independent truckers who currently operate under contract.

A spokesman for the American Trucking Assn. derided the plan as a "scheme to unionize port drivers" and vowed that his group would sue the port. Spokesman Curtis Whalen said the plan violates court rulings allowing the trucking industry unrestricted access to markets nationwide.

Nonetheless, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told about 300 truckers at Banning's Landing Community Center in Wilmington, "It's a great day. In a few months from now, your children will begin to breathe easier, and so will your grandchildren.

"Today, Los Angeles has said enough is enough," he added. "When 1,200 lives are cut short every year by a barrage of diseases, ranging from emphysema to cancer of the mouth, we have a moral obligation to act fast."

The mayor's comments capped an emotional commission hearing marked by sharp comments directed by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn at Port of Long Beach Harbor Commission President Mario Cordero, who was a guest.

Pointing a finger of blame at Cordero, whose commission recently rejected the employee provision on grounds that it would invite a lawsuit that could delay the clean truck program, Hahn said, "Shame on those who say 'no' to the relationship between labor and clean air."

"I want you to go back to your side of the bridge and urge your commissioners to do the right thing," said Hahn, whose district includes the L.A. port. "You have broken faith with us."

Hundreds of truckers in the audience responded with loud applause, a standing ovation and an ebullient chant: "Janice! Janice!"

In an interview later, Cordero declined to comment, except to say, "The issues before us are political, and people who have a political agenda will be strong advocates."

The move by the Port of Los Angeles launches a landmark program to reform a broken freight hauling system and accelerate the replacement of a fleet of 16,800 trucks that spew harmful diesel emissions.

Both ports recently approved a progressive five-year ban on dirty trucks that starts Oct. 1. It aims to slash air pollution 80% in four years. But the ports parted ways over who should be responsible for ensuring that trucks meet air quality standards.

Los Angeles authorities believe the low-income drivers cannot afford the new $100,000 trucks needed to achieve the desired environmental standards.

They also forecast a shortage of drivers because as many as 3,000 truckers are expected to fail pending federal background checks.

With the support of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, environmental groups and health advocates including the American Lung Assn., L.A. port commissioners unanimously adopted the employee model as the best strategy for achieving a stable work force and cleaner fleet.

"The existing system is a scam," Los Angeles Harbor Commission President David Freeman said in an interview. "It's a scheme by shipping companies to avoid responsibilities of an employer, and we're calling a halt to it."

But Whalen, the trucking association spokesman, called the plan illegal.

"We're going to go after Los Angeles with every thing we've got so their plan goes to hell in a handbasket," he said in an interview. "We will win and we will win handily."

Whalen said the association was working toward an agreement with the Port of Long Beach and that city's mayor, Bob Foster, whom he called "a reasonable guy, unlike that other one."

He was referring to Villaraigosa, who has long argued that port truckers deserve better wages and benefits.

"There may be lawsuits that will delay our effort, but we will not be deterred," Villaraigosa said in an interview. "We think we have a strong legal case, and we are moving ahead with the most ambitious plan to clean up a major port in the United States and perhaps the world."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

Mexico plans big splash with new Baja port

Some doubt the $4-billion project will be built, but backers dream of dominating West Coast cargo traffic.
By Marla Dickerson and Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
March 25, 2008
PUNTA COLONET, MEXICO -- Mexico's government is preparing to open bidding on the largest infrastructure project in the nation's history, a $4-billion seaport that could transform this farming village into a cargo hub to rival the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

If completed as planned by 2014, the port would be the linchpin of a new shipping route linking the Pacific Ocean to America's heartland. Vessels bearing shipping containers from Asia would offload them here on Mexico's Baja peninsula, about 150 miles south of Tijuana, where they would be whisked over newly constructed rail lines to the United States.

The massive development, which is to be privately funded, is attracting interest from heavyweights such as Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. The world's second-richest man is part of a consortium planning an "aggressive" run at the project, according to Miguel Favela, general director of Mexican operations for cargo terminal operator MTC Holdings of Oakland.

Favela said MTC had teamed up with Slim's IDEAL infrastructure company and Mexican mining and railroad giant Grupo Mexico in an effort to nab the 45-year concession.

Mexico's transportation secretariat will release the request for proposal in June and hopes to select a winner by summer 2009, Subsecretary Manuel Rodriguez Arregui said in an interview earlier this month.

Competition promises to be fierce. Hong Kong-based Hutchison Port Holdings, a major port developer and operator whose parent company is chaired by billionaire Li Ka-Shing, said it planned to study the bid documents. So will terminal operators SSA Marine of Seattle and Dubai's DP World.

Ditto for railroads Union Pacific Corp. of Omaha and Fort Worth-based BNSF Railway Co. Several companies had previously expressed interest in the deal but backed off after repeated delays in the launch of the bidding.

"All the major players . . . they'll be here," said a confident Rodriguez Arregui, who will oversee the selection process.

The Punta Colonet proposal will be structured as a joint port and rail project, requiring terminal operators, railroads and construction companies to join forces to win the deal. Hutchison and Union Pacific had formed an earlier alliance that dissolved last year. Sources said SSA had partnered with leading Mexican construction firm Empresas ICA. Those companies declined to comment about their arrangement.

Rodriguez Arregui said Mexico would choose the group that could guarantee the most volume, and he estimated the facility would be capable of handling a minimum of 2 million containers annually at start-up.

The prospect of billionaires duking it out over this remote stretch of Baja underscores just how lucrative the movement of goods between Asia and North America has become. About 30 millioncontainers crossed the Pacific last year, a flow that had been increasing by about 10% annually for more than a decade until recently. And, though transpacific trade has slowed because of weakness in the U.S. economy, experts said those figures would continue to grow over time.

With the West Coast's largest port complex, L.A.-Long Beach, constrained by urban development and environmental regulations, shippers are searching for alternatives.

Punta Colonet has emerged as an attractive option. It's close to the United States. It possesses a wide, natural harbor. And it's located in a rural, lightly populated area offering almost unlimited room for expansion.

"In the long run . . . it could get to the size of Long Beach-L.A.," which last year handled 15.7 million containers combined, Favela said. "Without a doubt, this is one of the biggest green-field projects ever to be done" in the industry.

The plan is nothing if not ambitious. Punta Colonet would be the first major seaport built in North America in nearly a century.

The harbor would have to be dredged and protected with breakwaters. The rail links could prove costly and complicated. Hundreds of miles of new track must be laid in Mexico.

But the ultimate route and U.S. crossing points would depend on which railroad snared the deal and how it would link up with existing networks on both sides of the border.

Mexico's transportation secretariat estimates the winning consortium will have to invest at least $4 billion to get the project launched.

Some industry experts are skeptical. Dubbed the "Port of Illusion" by one Baja newspaper, Punta Colonet has been plagued by legal squabbles and other setbacks since it was first proposed in 2004. While Mexico dithered, competitors forged ahead.

Panama is in the midst of a $5.3-billion expansion of its landmark canal. Canada, whose coast is the shortest sailing distance from Asia, is looking to capitalize on that advantage with $3 billion in port and rail improvements to speed cargo to the United States.
Ports along the West, East and Gulf coasts of the U.S. have begun their own upgrades. So has Mexico's own Puerto Lazaro Cardenas on the Pacific Coast of the state of Michoacan.

"The logic for [Punta Colonet] is not as strong now," said Asaf Ashar, research professor with the National Ports and Waterways Institute in Washington. But others insist there will be plenty of boxes to go around. The Punta Colonet project could be especially appealing to U.S. railroad interests, which don't want to lose business to Canada or Panama.

Union Pacific owns a 25% stake in the Mexican railroad firm Ferromex, which is part of Grupo Mexico. And it controls the U.S. side of the tracks at half a dozen key border crossings from Calexico, Calif., to Brownsville, Texas, making it an obvious contender.

Union Pacific spokeswoman Zoe Richmond said the company was waiting to see the Mexican government's request for proposal. She wouldn't comment on whether the railroad was contemplating renewing its partnership with Hutchison or joining a new consortium to bid on Punta Colonet.

Some industry veterans say Mexico's timetable may be overly aggressive and that its insistence on awarding the contract as a package deal rather than divvying it up into separate infrastructure, port operation and railroad pieces will make a complex project even more unwieldy.

Mexico has a spotty track record when it comes to executing big public-works projects on time, on budget and with top-flight quality. Much is riding on the outcome.

"What's at stake here is much more than the project itself," Rodriguez Arregui said. "It's our capacity to show the world that we can do big things."

Not everyone is likely to share his enthusiasm.

A new Baja port could dilute the power of Southern California's unionized longshoremen, whose muscle depends in part on shippers having few options on the West Coast. Surfers will lose a prized spot for catching waves near Punta Colonet. Environmentalists are already worried about potential destruction of some of the area's unique plants and sea creatures.

Some U.S. border communities might not welcome a major new rail development in their backyards. Union Pacific met stiff resistance from vegetable growers near Yuma, Ariz., after it floated the idea of routing Punta Colonet containers northeast out of Baja through prime farmland there.

Punta Colonet dwellers, in contrast, are thrilled. Their dusty hamlet of about 2,500 souls will need to be reinvented as a modern city with massive upgrades to its roads, housing, water system and power supply. State and local officials are planning for a city of about 200,000 to spring up around the port.

Such a thought is enough to fill even a hardened urban dweller with regret. The winding two-lane highway heading south into Punta Colonet crosses mist-covered foothills and tranquil valleys. The natural harbor is an azure collision of sky and sea.

But the farmers who scratch out a living here in this stunningly beautiful but impoverished stretch of oceanfront say they are willing to trade a little paradise for prosperity.

Many are hoping to get rich selling land to the port's developers or to other businesses that would sprout to support the project. At a minimum, they'd like to see the streets paved and their kids have a shot at landing jobs beyond the produce packing houses.

Looking out at a stretch of unbroken water that someday may shelter massive tankers and humming cranes, Jesus Lara, the representative for several peasant landowner groups, was pragmatic. He said Punta Colonet was too arid to become an agricultural powerhouse. It's too remote to capitalize on tourism. And many of its residents are getting too old to count on something better coming along.

"This port may be the last opportunity any of them gets," he said. "You can't eat the view."

marla.dickerson@latimes.com

ron.white@latimes.com

The US is a huge, wealthy market. We import everything nowadays, and Port LA/LB is at the forefront (by far) of US shipping ports. Also, we have much stronger ties with Asia.

We also have new competition from Mexico, Washington, Canada, New York, Houston, Miami, Boston.... ain't you worried?

I might add that U.S. companies are also going to try to take advantage of this development. Why don't we just give it all away...

^ We have fared relatively well against our competitors up to this point, so, not as much as the article would have one concerned. It does raise eyebrows, but like I said, we have much stronger ties with Asia - economically, politically, culturally, and socially. That works to our advantage.

In fact, if you remember, Villaraigosa had his Asia Trade Mission in 2006, where he visited China, Japan, and South Korea and promoted LAX and the Port. Also, wasn't it you who posted an article in the Civic Pride thread about how LA is becoming increasingly popular with Chinese tourists?

Secondly, the US is a huge consumer market. We import goods from other countries, China being the main trading partner. Imports have been down as of late due to the state of the US economy, but on the flip side, exports have been up. This also works to our advantage (against competitors in other markets).

Lastly, our civic leaders realize how vital the Ports are to LA/SoCal's economy, that they're not just going to let Port LA/LB lose its spot as the preeminent port complex of the Western Hemisphere. Bring it on, bitches! :cheers:

Bring it on, bitches!

Yeah, basically. :dunno:

We already have a few advantages...

1) California did not earn the title of "Gateway of the Pacific" by coincidence. We have working relationships with every single country across the pacific, from Asia to Oceania.

2) We're already an established port that can get things done now. Nobody is trying to wait for anything. Look at this quote from the article above:

"In the long run . . . it could get to the size of Long Beach-L.A.," which last year handled 15.7 million containers combined, Favela said.

:lol: Yeah, ok. "In the long run" by the time they get their shoelaces tied, we'll have run so many laps around them that it's going to take them a ton of money to catch up. By then our port and relationships with the countries across the Pacific will have gotten stronger. Same thing with the other ports in the other cities, I wouldn't even sweat them right now or "in the long run".

I'm concerned about ships from elsewhere that don't have to upgrade to run their power from shore, and can just run their diesel generators at will. I'm worried about Mexico laying down miles of unobstructed track leading up to and through our own country, bypassing our infrastructure. An infrastructure which seems to be straining currently to move everything into the interior states. If other states can act in accordance with Mexico to bypass Los Angeles and California for that matter, they will relish the opportunity. It is up to L. A. to make sure foreign companies can be assured that if they stay with LA/LB, their product will make it with no logistical problems that may have them thinking twice. Also, other ports will be cheaper, so much so that it will be almost impossible to compete in that regard. Just like the film industry going out of its way to uproot and travel anywhere the price is lower. Same old global story. Which way, L. A.?

Ports to target diesel trucks
in $400M push for cleaner air
By Kristopher Hanson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/26/2008 09:20:03 AM PDT


LONG BEACH - Port authorities plan to spend most of an expected $400 million in public clean-air grants to subsidize the replacement of diesel trucks working in the sprawling San Pedro Bay port complex.

The money, some of which may be available in coming months, is culled from a $20 billion infrastructure bond, Proposition 1B, passed by voters in November 2006.

"The largest piece is going to (diesel) trucks because that's where the greatest need is, but we certainly won't be ignoring other source needs," said Thomas Jelenic, a Port of Long Beach environmental specialist. "But the state has said they'll be favoring (funding) programs that achieve air-quality improvements quickly."

Jelenic was speaking at a public forum Tuesday in Long Beach as the ports prepare to apply for those state grants.

A smaller, as-yet-undetermined slice of funding will be used for locomotive replacement, fuel-saving technologies and shoreside electricity for ships, said Port of Los Angeles environmental coordinator Kevin Maggay.

Under pressure from the public to minimize health risks from diesel soot, the ports have jointly agreed to ban pre-2007 diesel trucks from port properties by Jan. 1, 2012.

Officials estimate it will cost more than $2 billion to replace the about 16,000 diesel trucks currently hauling containers and other goods around the sprawling seaport complex by 2012.

But those trucks are blamed for only about 22 percent of diesel particulates and 32 percent of total nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions produced by port industries.
Ships, meanwhile, are responsible for about 40 percent of NOx and 65 percent of diesel particulate matter in the ports, said Port of Long Beach spokesman Lee Peterson.

Wilmington resident Jesse Marquez urged the ports to dedicate more money to shoreside electricity for ships, and electrification of the Alameda Corridor rail line connecting the ports to downtown Los Angeles.

"(Electrification) is something the public has wanted for the past 15 years, since the Alameda project was first announced," said Marquez, an activist who also heads the Coalition for a Safe Environment.

Others urged more investment in alternative-fuel trucks and better cargo-handling equipment.

In late February, the state agreed to grant the Long Beach-Los Angeles-Riverside region with $550 million of the $1 billion dedicated in Prop 1B monies for clean air to fund regional programs that reduce pollution from goods movement.

Money may be used to fund cleaner diesel trucks, emission filters on cargo-handling equipment, trains and ships, new tug boats, upgraded harbor craft, shoreside power for ships and cleaner fuel blends, among other measures.

In Long Beach-Los Angeles, authorities said they want to focus most of the resources on trucks, but may use some money to build shoreside power outlets for ships and purchase Vycon's "Flywheel" regeneration system.

Long-term tests show the flywheel, developed and manufactured in Cerritos and used to supplement power on port cranes, reduces fuel consumption by 25 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions 67percent.

Several are in use at marine terminals across San Pedro Bay.

kristopher.hanson@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1466

Won't be seeing any 'flywheels' down Mexico way...

L.A.'s port gets barrier to stop any boat-bomb attack on ship
By Art Marroquin, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 04/23/2008 10:00:05 PM PDT
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/20080423__BW_DN24-PORTPC2PL57_Galle.jpg
Steve McCrank/Staff PhotographerSeveral tugboats circled around the main channel at the Port of Los Angeles on Wednesday as crews linked pieces of a floating boom across the cruise-ship terminal.

Once in place, the bright orange-and-white barrier looked a little flimsy bobbing along the harbor's choppy waters.

While the foam and steel-cable barrier might not look like much, port authorities say they hope it will serve as a deterrent to small boats that could pose a threat to cruise ships and cargo vessels passing through the port.

"The barrier stops the vessel, then forces it to bounce back," said George Cummings, director of homeland security for the Port of Los Angeles.

"It's not intended to do damage to a boat," he said. "We just want to stop it and keep it from going where we don't want it to go."

Port officials purchased 5,000 feet worth of the barrier with funds from a federal Department of Homeland Security grant, according to port spokesman Gordon Smith.

Port officials said they hope the new security barrier will prevent a terrorist attack like the one in Yemen that killed 17 American sailors and wounded 39 others when a small boat laden with explosives blew a large hole in the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000.

"There isn't an imminent threat here, but the cruise terminal could be targeted for an attack, so it makes sense to test out the barrier here," Smith said. "It's also a good place to test the equipment without disrupting terminal
operations at the rest of the port."
About 50 port police officers used the occasion to conduct a drill and test several other tools aimed at bolstering security.

The port's trained dog sniffed for explosives around the cruise terminal. Five dive team officers clad in black wetsuits plunged into the harbor's cold water to look for suspicious devices. A hazardous materials team used biosensors to search for contaminants.

"It's an important day to get everybody together as a way to combine training and testing for all of our new, high-tech security systems," port police Capt. Mike Graychik said. "With this great weather, it's really a perfect day to get it all done at once."

Elsewhere, port police officers tested a new long-range acoustical device, which gives a loud alarm to deter wayward recreational boaters from entering restricted areas. Scofflaw boaters could face fines of up to $500 or six months in jail under an ordinance that went into effect in January.

"We were the first port in the U.S. to actually define areas where small vessels could go," Smith said. "The new devices we're testing are meant to enforce those rules while keeping everyone safe." art.marroquin@dailybreeze.com 310-543-6674

Dockworkers' walkout to protest U.S. in wars
By Art Marroquin, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 04/29/2008 09:13:36 PM PDT


West Coast dockworkers plan to walk off the job Thursday to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the action doesn't have the formal support of their employers or the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

It was unclear how successful the effort will be at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, where a group of longshore workers admitted uncertainty about how widely the plan will be received by other dockworkers.

"There are lots of members who are expressing their personal views and committing to this voluntary action," said Craig Merrilees, an ILWU spokesman.

ILWU executives had initially given their blessing to an eight-hour work stoppage during the busy day shift, which was suggested two months ago during a union caucus held in San Francisco.

A clause in the union's current contract allows workers to hold monthly "stop-work" meetings during the evening shift, when cargo activity is considered to be lighter.

The union withdrew its support shortly after the Pacific Maritime Association denied the union's request for the walkout. An arbitrator ruled last week that the union had to inform its members about the change in plans.

As a result, any work stoppage held Thursday will be initiated by the union's rank-and-file members, not by union executives, according to Merrilees.

"In light of those developments, we hope that May 1 will come and go without disruption," said Steve Getzug, a spokesman
for the PMA, which represents the West Coast's shippers. "We're anticipating that May 1 is a regular work day," he said.
Workers who choose to walk off the job Thursday might face some sort of discipline, but it is unclear what avenues employers would pursue. Immigration-rights groups also plan to hold a series of marches and rallies Thursday to call for reforms in immigration policies.
Daily News(P.S. from me: "You shitin' me? Get back to work!")

Stupid May Day. That's a terrible reason to go off the job. I hope they're all fired.

Los Angeles Port Officials Make a Move on Mouse (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/print.asp?aid=7801712.5621302.1618357.3543011.9450124.708&aID2=124480)

By RICHARD CLOUGH
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff
April 28, 2008

As Disney Cruise Line prepares to replace its two original ships in the lucrative Florida market, local officials are working to lure the vessels to Southern California.

The Port of Los Angeles is in talks with the cruise arm of Walt Disney Co. to home-port the two ships in San Pedro after they are pulled out of Florida within the next couple of years.

Disney Cruise Line, based in Kissimmee, Fla., plans on replacing the vessels – Disney Magic and Disney Wonder – with two larger ships, which are under construction.

At a recent meeting, Chris Chase, the port’s marketing director, said the Burbank media and entertainment company has been reluctant to negotiate a relocation plan for the ships. But the port hopes the company would want to bolster its local presence since its Disneyland theme park is in Anaheim.

“We’d love to have Disney Cruises become a permanent fixture of the San Pedro waterfront,” Chase said in an e-mail statement.

Disney Cruise Line did not return calls for comment. But next month, the company plans to bring the Disney Magic to Los Angeles for a three-month stint, offering 12 Mexican Riviera cruises.

The Magic was Disney’s first foray into the cruise business, entering operation in 1998, with the Wonder following one year later. The nearly identical ships, with 850 staterooms, were the first in the cruise industry designed to appeal to families.

Getting the ships in L.A. permanently could help offset some of the passenger losses expected in October when Miami-based Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. pulls its Monarch of the Seas ship out of the port. Currently, that ship carries about 440,000 passengers annually from Los Angeles and is what Chase called “the bread and butter of our cruise business.”

In addition to those efforts, port representatives have been lobbying the Department of Homeland Security to nix a proposal that would upend the L.A.-to-Hawaii cruise market. The government is looking to require those cruises to spend a greater amount of time in foreign ports, which would drive up costs.

The port also is putting finishing touches on a plan to build two cruise terminals in the outer harbor area. Currently, the port’s cruise terminals are difficult to access for many of the largest ships being built today. The outer harbor location would allow large ships to dock more easily, and it would help the port capture a greater share of the growing cruise business.

That's wonderful, but as it is with the parks, so it is with the cruise ships. Where Florida and California are concerned. Southern California is a lesser cruise realm compared to Florida's proximity to the Bahamas and such, but this thing with relegating us to second tier when it comes to the parks has always been beyond me, and embarrassing. Probably the one thing I truly hate about the organization.

So want if Florida has the bigger parks, we have the originals :yes:

true dat!^^

Stupid May Day. That's a terrible reason to go off the job. I hope they're all fired.

I totally agree!

Some people are really narrow-minded!!!

L.A. Port to Move Forward on Terminal Expansion (http://www.labusinessjournal.com/print.asp?aid=62336578.5787928.1625416.3668133.7199758.946&aID2=125023)

By RICHARD CLOUGH, Los Angeles Business Journal Staff
May 12, 2008

After a four-year delay brought on by environmentalists’ virulent opposition, the Port of Los Angeles is set to move forward with an expansion of the China Shipping Container Lines Co. terminal.

The port has released an environmental impact report for the project’s final phases – expected to cost $106 million – that will increase its cargo handling capacity threefold to 1.5 million containers per year.

The port has already spent $100 million on construction, which began in 2001 but was halted in 2004 over challenges from environmental groups. The groups were concerned about the increasing pollution of port operations and sought to block any expansion.

The port eventually settled with the groups to the tune of $50 million and paid more than $20 million to China Shipping to compensate for disruptions to their operations. The shipping company, based in Shanghai, is a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

As the landlord of the terminals, the port is responsible for expansion projects. Officials put a moratorium on growth after the China Shipping fiasco while they worked out a clean air initiative with the neighboring Port of Long Beach.

The port recently reached an agreement with a coalition of environmentalists that will allow the port to move forward with expansion projects, including the China Shipping project and nearby TraPac Inc. terminal.

Under the terms of the agreement, the port will put environmental mitigation measures into future projects and fund off-port projects that will help reduce the impact of port operations.

The revised China Shipping project includes measures that significantly reduce the terminal’s particulate matter, sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

“This project will demonstrate how we can systematically curb port-related air emissions and reduce local impacts,” said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, in a statement.

Port officials will hold a June 5 meeting to gather public comment.

Is this true?

^ You betcha. :cheers:

I've gotta say... at first my gut instinct was "Damn NIMBYs stopping the progress!". However, seeing the impact they had on the environmental friendliness of the port expansion... it gives me a moment of pause.

Cargo has L.A. traffic at a crawl

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/39548102.jpg
Richard Hartog / Los Angeles Times
An minivan fights for space on the northbound 710 Freeway, the main artery for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The complex handles 44% of all goods imported by cargo container into the United States, which is of value to the economy but is paralyzing traffic on the region's roads.
As trucks and trains haul a flood of foreign goods from Southern California ports, commuters fight for space with freight.
By Dan Weikel and Jeffrey L. Rabin: times staff writers
June 10, 2008
Frank Schiavone fumed inside his Acura MDX, stuck behind the gates of a railroad crossing in downtown Riverside.

Five minutes went by, then 10. Schiavone, a Riverside councilman, wondered how late he would be for an appointment at City Hall as he stared at the freight cars double-stacked with shipping containers. Around him, hundreds of other motorists sat, engines idling, their plans on hold.

Twenty minutes passed before the freight train cleared the crossing.

Schiavone had been trapped yet again by America's enormous appetite for imported goods -- an increasingly common experience in his city, which is trisected by rail lines carrying about 125 trains a day.

Municipal officials say freight trains have delayed more than 500 ambulances, police cars and fire trucks in Riverside during the last five years -- some for as long as 15 minutes.

"I'm glad I'm not in the back of an ambulance on my way to the hospital in this city," Schiavone said.

Whether the delay comes at a rail crossing or behind a line of big rigs on a clogged interstate, hundreds of thousands of Southern Californians routinely live with the side effects of the region's huge and growing role in international trade.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach make up the nation's largest harbor complex, handling 44% of all goods imported by cargo container into the United States. Last year, the equivalent of 7.85 million 40-foot shipping containers poured through the ports, with most then moving along the region's highways to massive rail yards and warehouses before heading to the nation's interior.

Trade has generated hundreds of thousands of jobs in Southern California. Moving goods is now one of the largest industries in the region, one that helps provide low-cost imports to consumers across the country. The ports are among the region's most valuable economic engines.

But that commerce also helps foul the region's air with diesel exhaust and contributes to paralyzing traffic on the region's streets and highways, many of which were built in the 1950s and '60s and never designed to handle so much cargo.

"If we weren't providing a gateway for the country to consume all these cheap products from Asia, we would have a lot better mobility," said Norm King, a founder of the transportation institute at Cal State San Bernardino.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, highways used for commerce in the Los Angeles area rank among the worst in the nation in terms of delay. That unfortunate distinction is not expected to change soon.

The volume of cargo, which has tripled in the last two decades, is forecast to almost triple again in the next 20 years. By 2025, the number of truck trips on the 710 and 60 freeways and the 10 in the Inland Empire is expected to double to accommodate port growth.

The cost to deal with congestion related to goods movement -- or simply to keep it at current levels -- is enormous, $18 billion statewide, mostly in Southern California, according to a recent report for the state Legislature.

A transportation bond measure passed by California voters in November 2006 set aside about $3 billion for such projects statewide. The ballot initiative is only a start, according to transportation experts who urgently tout a list of high-priced projects, which include:

* Eliminating 131 street-level rail crossings in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties -- cost $4.5 billion.

* Rebuilding an 18-mile stretch of the 710 Freeway from the harbor to the 5 Freeway, adding four new lanes exclusively for trucks -- cost at least $6 billon.

* A magnetically levitated train to haul cargo from the ports to warehouses in San Bernardino County -- cost $6 billion to $8 billion.

Who should pay for the construction remains hotly debated. Local government officials and regional planners say the federal government should pick up a larger share of the cost because trade through Southern California's ports benefits the nation as a whole.

Recent studies by UC Berkeley professor Robert C. Leachman show that as much as 80% of the containerized goods that arrive in Los Angeles and Long Beach are taken by train or truck to retailers, manufacturers and warehouses out of state.

"It is not California's job to deliver cheap televisions to Omaha. That is the job of the federal government and the transportation industry," said Lee Harrington, former president and chief executive of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

That road to Omaha begins at the region's two massive ports, where towering cranes pluck steel boxes off giant cargo ships as hundreds of small utility trucks hustle along the docks, moving containers to and from storage yards.

Inside are loads of furniture, electronics, clothing, toys, machinery and parts for manufacturers -- cargo worth an estimated $313 billion a year.

Some of the containers are loaded onto trains in port for direct shipment out of state. Most are picked up by big rigs and taken to rail yards and warehouses near downtown Los Angeles and in San Bernardino County, which is one of the nation's leading distribution hubs.

The first leg of this journey often involves the region's truck routes, particularly the 710, 91, 60 and 10 freeways.

The biggest impact is on the 710, the main artery for the port complex. Except for improvements to the median barrier and shoulders that are underway, the highway is in bad shape.

The cracked and broken pavement is heavily patched with asphalt overlays, an adequate but temporary fix in an age of tight state budgets. The short 1950s-style exits and onramps are obsolete. The lanes are often narrow, and the road lacks emergency shoulders in some places.

In 2006, trucks averaged about 39,000 trips per day on the 710 -- 20% of the road's traffic. The rigs -- the majority 80,000-pounders -- often line up nose to tail for miles in the two right lanes on each side of the freeway.

"There are a lot more cars out there today and a lot more big rigs," said Ike Talison of Gardena, a veteran trucker who has hauled cargo from the port on the 710 for almost 19 years. "I used to do five containers a day; now I can do four because of the congestion, if I'm lucky."

Partly because of the interplay of cars and trucks, the accident rate on the 710 Freeway is higher than the norm for state highways.

Truck-related accidents happen on average more than once a day there. From 2002 to 2006, the most recent year for which complete figures were available, the accidents resulted in 18 deaths and 677 injuries.

The steady flow of big rigs on the northbound 710 deposits much of its cargo at Union Pacific's East Yard in Commerce or the Hobart Yard operated by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.

Hobart, which spreads across 245 clamorous acres roughly five miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles, is the busiest rail yard in the country for transferring cargo containers between trucks and trains. Inside, trains up to 1 1/2 miles long are assembled or broken down with the help of global positioning technology, which locates cargo in the facility. The yard handles about 11 incoming trains a day and 11 departures for destinations including Houston, Chicago and Memphis.

Those transcontinental trains must pass through either Los Angeles County or northern Orange County before heading to the Inland Empire and points east. Along the way, they regularly clog traffic on surface streets.

Eliminating freight isn't an option.

"Goods movement is vital to the California economy," said Danny Wu, who managed goods movement planning for the Southern California Assn. of Governments, a regional planning agency. "There will be more congestion, delay, noise and health-threatening emissions unless we can come up with more efficient ways of moving freight."

The problems are most apparent in Riverside, which has 26 railroad crossings. Individual delays of 28 minutes per train have been recorded.

In January, an ambulance was delayed seven minutes while rushing a teenage motorcyclist with a serious head injury to a trauma center. The youth, who was hurt in a dirt-bike crash, was unconscious and having seizures. He is recovering.

"Transporting someone with a broken leg might not be a problem," said Peter Hubbard, a spokesman for American Medical Response, which provides the city's ambulance service. "But a person with a serious brain injury or in cardiac arrest needs to see a neurosurgeon or a heart specialist right away."

After the city threatened the railroads with fines and criminal prosecution last summer, railroad executives and Riverside officials agreed to work together to reduce delays for motorists.Railroad officials acknowledge the problems, but they blame roads and rail networks built years before the surge in trade, and a shortage of government funds to build overpasses and underpasses that separate streets from busy rail lines.

"Delay in one part of the rail system can trickle down into other parts of the system," said Zoey Richmond, a spokeswoman for Union Pacific. "We are working with the city on short-term solutions, but we need to take care of rail bottlenecks and old railroad crossings."

Some of this work is underway.

In 2002, the Alameda Corridor opened from the port to the rail yards near downtown Los Angeles.

At a cost of $2.4 billion, the project overhauled a 20-mile freight route and eliminated scores of grade-level crossings by lowering the track into a concrete trench. It now carries 50 trains each day.

Transportation officials are planning to extend the corridor east. Earlier this year, the California Transportation Commission earmarked $366 million for projects in the Los Angeles area and the Inland Empire to eliminate at-grade railroad crossings. Port officials and the railroads also want to build and expand rail yards close to the harbor or on the docks to reduce truck traffic.

In addition, the association of governments is studying a network of truck-only highway lanes that would stretch from the ports to the Inland Empire via the 710, 60 and 10 freeways.

Those projects come with big price tags but are a top priority for business leaders and regional planners, who fear the ports will lose business to competitors if congestion continues to worsen.

Traffic congestion regularly delays about a fifth of commercial trucks in the region, increasing the cost of shipping by 50% to 250%, studies show.

"There is increasing concern in the region about moving goods," said Joseph Magaddino, chairman of the economics department and the global logistics program at Cal State Long Beach.

"It does no good to off-load cargo in port if you can't move it quickly."

dan.weikel@latimes.com

jeffrey.rabin@latimes.com

Testing of electric truck for Los Angeles port sparks enthusiasm
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/40384984.jpg
Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times
Michael Fluegal, an L.A. Harbor Department employee, drives the Nautilus E30, one of the world's most powerful electric heavy duty trucks.
The driver, at heart a diesel fan, says the quiet, nonpolluting vehicle 'performs as well as any other truck its size in the port.
By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
June 26, 2008 Michael Fluegal is a self-described "diesel big-rig driver at heart," but he never realized how irritating the noisy, smoke-belching monsters were until he climbed into the cab of the world's most powerful electric heavy-duty truck and turned on the ignition.

"The only thing you hear is a hum and rolling tires -- and there's zero emissions," said Fluegal, the designated driver of the 30-ton prototype vehicle that Port of Los Angeles authorities view as a forerunner of a fleet of electric trucks to serve terminals and rail yards.

Stepping on the accelerator and making a hard left turn into harbor traffic on a recent weekday, the husky 6-foot-4 port maintenance worker said, "I don't come home from work smelling like diesel gasoline after breathing the fumes all day."

Added Fluegal: "Tell me that ain't nice."

In January, Fluegal was assigned the task of putting the big white truck through its paces. So far, he has chalked up 360 miles on the odometer "at all speeds and under all conditions including climbing up and over bridges with a fully loaded 40-foot trailer."

"It performs as well as any other truck its size in the port," said Fluegal, 42. "They say it can go 40 mph, but I got it up to 42 mph."

Port authorities believe electric trucks could substantially reduce emissions generated by an estimated 1.2 million diesel short-haul truck trips that are made each year between the L.A. and Long Beach port complex and local warehouses and rail yards. If those trips were made by zero-emission electric trucks, port officials said, about 35,600 tons of tailpipe pollution would be eliminated annually.

The electric truck was developed by Santa Ana-based Balqon Corp. in a jointly funded effort led by the port and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Balqon has agreed to establish an electric truck assembly plant near the port, where cargo container traffic is expected to double by 2020.

Although electric truck tests are still underway, the port has already ordered 20 more of the vehicles at a cost of $208,000 each.

"The reason I'm so excited about this electric truck program -- other than the fact it was my idea -- is that the world has changed, man," said Los Angeles Harbor Commission President S. David Freeman. "With diesel fuel selling for nearly $5 a gallon, this is the cheapest truck on the road.

"We think it's going to sell like hotcakes once it's mass produced. The fuel costs are less than an equivalent dollar a gallon, and when idling, they are not spewing pollution or guzzling fuel."

The electric truck, which takes about three hours to charge, has a range of about 30 miles while pulling a 60,000-pound cargo container, and about 60 miles empty. Although that distance may not sound useful, much of freight hauling within the port complex is from terminals to nearby train yards.

It costs about 20 cents a mile to operate, or about four to nine times less than a diesel truck, depending on fluctuating fuel costs and operating conditions.

Fluegal acknowledged that the experimental machine had generated mixed reviews from fellow port truck drivers.

"I get a little ribbing from old-timers who insist there's nothing like a good-old-fashioned diesel engine to get the job done," he said. "Tell you what, though. Putting more diesel pigs on the road isn't going to do anybody any good."

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

Long Beach at sea over breakwater removal planhttp://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/40254576lb.jpg Bob Chamberlin/LATimes
Some fear flooding if the barrier is removed, but others say waves would attract visitors to the city.
By Deborah Schoch, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 30, 2008
Long Beach has been preening its oceanfront image for more than a decade by pouring money and support into a wealth of new projects on its shores: a $117-million aquarium, gleaming Miami Beach-style condominium towers, a waterfront shopping center with sea-themed eateries, such as Gladstone's and Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.

What's missing amid all this sea fever, some say, is a Southern California style seashore.

One of the world's largest breakwaters stands between Long Beach and the Pacific Ocean, reducing mighty waves to mere lake-like lapping along the city's beaches. Without surf to cleanse them, those beaches were recently graded among the dirtiest in the state.

Surfers, environmentalists and some residents believe that restoring the surf would improve coastal water quality and draw visitors to the shoreline. They want officials to consider altering or removing the 2.2-mile eastern portion of the 8.4-mile San Pedro Bay breakwater -- the portion that sits offshore from the city's downtown, Bluff Park, Belmont Shore and Naples.

Known as the Long Beach Breakwater, that piece helped protect the U.S. Pacific Fleet when it was stationed in the city. After the Navy and its ships left in the mid-1990s, some began to wonder if the breakwater had become obsolete.

This month, the Long Beach City Council voted 6 to 2 to hire Moffatt & Nichol Engineers to conduct a $100,000 preliminary study of the federally owned breakwater, to be funded equally by the city and the California Coastal Conservancy.

Some local officials say that the key cause of the dirty beaches is not the breakwater but the Los Angeles River, which drains 51 miles' worth of trash, urban runoff and sewage into Long Beach Harbor. They said cleaning up the river, not just improving water circulation in the bay, would be a better solution.

The city's surf-free beaches are among the least popular in the region. Even families within walking distance drive their children to cleaner beaches in nearby Seal Beach and Huntington Beach.

"If you take the hottest day of the year and you go down to the ocean side of the beach, it's empty," said Councilman Patrick O'Donnell, who sponsored the June 18 motion to conduct the study.

Robert Palmer of Long Beach recalls that when he first moved to the city and bought a house three blocks from the ocean, he walked his 7-year-old daughter to the beach to test the water.

"She wasn't out there 20 minutes when she came back with two plastic bags around her legs," said Palmer, chairman of the local chapter of Surfrider Foundation, a national environmental group.

Surfer lore has it that the sport got its start in California in 1911 when two men returned from Hawaii with surfboards and began surfing at Long Beach. Early surfers ranked the city's beaches among the best for surf in Southern California, and the city hosted the first National Surfing and Paddleboard Championships in 1938.
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/40255353lb.jpg Historical Collection/Security First National Bank of Los Angeles

Old black-and-white photographs show the city's pre-World War II beaches teeming with swimmers, surfers and sunbathers. Then came the breakwater. The Long Beach segment was finished in 1949, and the waves ebbed.
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/40255218.jpgLos Angeles Times
Some believe that a return of waves would bolster the city's economy by drawing more beachgoers and tourists and recast the former Navy town as more of a beach city. The Long Beach chapter of the Surfrider Foundation has suggested three options: remove a piece of the breakwater, create holes in it large enough to let in part of the surf or remove the segment's upper 20 feet and place it on the ocean floor as an artificial reef to foster sea life.

Now, C.P. "Bud" Johnson, a local retired engineer, is proposing lowering 1,800 feet of the breakwater in one or two spots to sea level at low tide, so water can circulate twice a day at high tide.

News of his 44-page plan broke last week on two local news blogs, one trumpeting it with the headline, "The Man Who Solved the Breakwater."

Even before the city's proposed study has begun, numerous concerns are being raised.

Councilman Gary DeLong, who represents Belmont Shore and other beach areas, opposed it, troubled by the lack of guarantees that federal funding would be available for further study.

Some wonder how changing the breakwater would affect navigation into the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation's first and second largest seaports.

Long Beach port spokesman Lee Peterson said the facility had not taken a formal position on the breakwater issue. Ships can safely anchor outside the breakwater, although some prefer to anchor closer to shore for convenience, he said.
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/40254588lb.jpg Bob Chamberlin/Los Angeles Times

Many of the gracious older homes hugging the city's beaches were built before the breakwater and withstood major storms such as one in 1939 that wiped out several bridges. But others have been built or "mansionized" in the years since, including homes on the Long Beach Peninsula, where many residents fear flooding if the breakwater is removed or altered.

Such a project, peninsula resident Linda McCullough said, "would be an experiment, because no one knows what's going to happen."

Even some sea life could be displaced. Waters inside the breakwater now serve as a nursery for young fish, mimicking the function of long-gone coastal wetlands, said Robert J. Hoffman, an expert at the National Marine Fisheries Service. Full surf could mean more habitat for mature fish, but less for their young.

Wave scientists say there is little precedent to suggest how the surf would change without the Long Beach breakwater.

"I've heard of dams coming down. I've never heard of a breakwater," said coastal oceanographer Reinhard Flick, who studies waves and beaches at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, part of UC San Diego.

The beaches would change shape as waves shifted the sands, experts said.

Water quality would probably improve because the breakwater would no longer force dirty water from the mouth of the Los Angeles River back against the coast, and the waves would scour and clean the beaches, said civil engineer Hendrik Tolman, who does wave predictions at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Sea foam created when the waves break can increase the water's oxygen content, further cleaning it, he said.

On the same evening that the council approved the study, a 16,000-gallon sewage spill entered the Los Angeles River 33 miles north, in Glendale. A day later, it would force the closure of nearly two miles of shoreline in Long Beach.

For Palmer and other breakwater opponents, the spill underscored the reason they have spent 11 years fighting for surf.

"They say that dilution isn't the solution to pollution," Palmer said, "but in my opinion, it sure would help."

deborah.schoch@latimes.com LATimes

They're still going for this? Who's gonna want to swim in water that's right next to a huge port?

California port fee would fight pollution, congestion http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/LAHarbor.jpg about.com
Legislators vote for a $60 charge on shipping containers going through Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland. The measure would raise at least $400 million annually.
By Nancy Vogel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 16, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- Saying California children shouldn't breathe soot so people across the country can buy cheap televisions, legislators voted Tuesday to impose a fee on every container moving through the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles and Oakland.

The money -- at least $400 million a year -- would be used to ease the traffic congestion and air pollution generated by the ports, which handle more than 40% of the nation's goods. Similar bills were vetoed or failed in the last two years, but this measure's author, Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), said he was optimistic that his legislation would be signed into law soon.

"We have built a statewide coalition to support the container fee," he said.

SB 974 would impose on shippers a fee of $60 for every typical-size cargo container leaving or entering the ports. The money would be used across Southern California and in the Bay Area for such projects as installing cleaner-burning truck and train engines and building roadways under or over railroad tracks to avoid long lines of idling vehicles.

The Assembly voted 45 to 24 to pass Lowenthal's bill. The Senate, which passed the legislation earlier, is expected to give final approval to amendments soon. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has offered no official position on the bill but said through spokeswoman Rachel Cameron that "we do support finding a solution to ensure California's air quality is protected while facilitating the movement of goods throughout the state."

Democrats praised the measure as a smart way to try to mitigate the foul air and clogged roads that are a byproduct of the ports' immense economic activity.

Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate) estimated the total value of goods shipped through the Long Beach and Los Angeles ports at $378 billion and the total that would be generated by the fee at $500 million a year.

"So you're going to add on 0.13% to somebody's cheap TV in Peoria, Ill. Big deal," he said.

Assemblywoman Betty Karnette (D-Long Beach) said that people are dying of pollution in her district and that shippers bringing in cheap imports from China and elsewhere should pay.

"Who is profiting? I don't think it's our workers profiting from all these imports," she said. "Other countries are profiting at our expense."

A few other California cities, including Stockton and San Diego, have ports, but most cargo containers are unloaded in Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland.

The fee in Lowenthal's legislation is $30 per 20-foot-equivalent cargo containers. Most containers are 40 feet long. The fee would take effect in January.

Republicans predicted that the measure would push up the prices of many products and drive business to other ports, such as Seattle's.

"We can't be competitive, folks," said Assemblyman Rick Keene (R-Chico), "if we continue to tax the economic engine of the state."

Only one Republican member of the Assembly -- Bob Huff of Diamond Bar -- voted for the measure.

Huff said portions of eight freeways, all of them clogged with trucks hauling cargo, go through his district.

"This is huge," he said. "If we don't fund [congestion improvements] through this, what do we fund it through?"

Lowenthal said the amended bill approved Tuesday by the Assembly addresses concerns that led Schwarzenegger to veto a similar measure in 2006 and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to withhold his support last year. In June 2007, the Senate approved the bill, but Lowenthal held it in abeyance after the governor said he wanted the concerns of Villaraigosa, environmentalists and the retail and shipping industries to be addressed.

The senator said he worked hard with opponents, who didn't propose a better plan. He also said the bill was amended to include a list of specific projects -- such as separating vehicles from trains at the Colton crossing in San Bernardino County -- to address concerns by retailers that the money would just disappear into the state general fund. "We dealt with all of the governor's issues," said Lowenthal. "We are optimistic."

Villaraigosa had withheld his support over the way the money would be disbursed, saying he wanted some to be spent replacing two bridges on Terminal Island.

The mayor supported the bill after Lowenthal agreed to have spending overseen by a joint powers authority that would include a mayoral appointee.

The fee pending in the Legislature would come on top of those recently approved by the ports of Long Beach and L.A. to pay for infrastructure improvements within port territory and the retrofitting of diesel truck engines.

The Lowenthal bill had strong support from environmental groups, which were buoyed by the Assembly approval.

"This will be the most significant investment in air quality around our ports that we have ever had," said Martin Schlageter of the Coalition for Clean Air.

Elina Green, project manager for the Long Beach Alliance for Children With Asthma, said that about one in eight children in the city have been diagnosed with asthma and that port pollution contributes to that high rate. Lowenthal's bill, she said, "is one of the things we've been supporting for a long time. All of the mitigation measures we ask for -- even if folks are supportive, it always comes down to money."

The lengthy list of opponents to the measure includes commodity growers, such as cotton and almond farmers; clothing store chains; electronics manufacturers; and the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii.

Chamber President Jim Tollefson estimated that 90% of the goods in Hawaii are shipped from the West Coast, most from Long Beach and L.A.

"The cost will be borne by the shipping company," said Tollefson, "and then it will be passed on to the ultimate consumer -- in this case, the people of Hawaii. In simple terms, it's about $50 a year for every man, woman and child."

nancy.vogel@latimes.com

Times staff writer Patrick McGreevy contributed to this report. Los Angeles Times

The national government should just give us more aid to improve the infrastructure. All of that commerce that benefits the whole nation at the cost of communities immediately next to the port's truck routes. Its the least they can do. They probably lose more money in the proverbial national couch than it would cost to electrify the rail from the port and get more shipments onto trains.

California adopts stiff pollution rules for ships
California mandates that oceangoing vessels use cleaner fuels or face costly fines. The shipping industry is displeased.abbreviated:
By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 25, 2008
California regulators adopted the world's toughest pollution rules for oceangoing vessels Thursday, vowing to improve the health of coastal residents and opening a new front in a long battle with the international shipping industry.

The rules, which take effect in 2009, would require ships within 24 nautical miles of California to burn low-sulfur diesel instead of the tar-like sludge known as bunker fuel. About 2,000 vessels would be affected, including container ships, oil tankers and cruise ships.

Ships and air pollutionInternational negotiators have struggled for decades to reduce pollution from oceangoing vessels but have been stymied by opposition from shipping conglomerates.

Federal legislation to control vessel emissions in U.S. ports, sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both California Democrats, has been opposed by the Bush administration, which favors deferring to future international regulations.

California's new regulation will have a global effect: 43% of all marine freight imported into the United States, much of it from Asia, moves through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

California "needs to act now," Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said. "We've known for years that a large percentage of onshore pollution comes from activities in the water. Our ports need to expand and modernize, but the adjacent communities are not willing to tolerate the health risks."
margot.roosevelt@latimes.com Los Angeles Times

American Trucking Assn. intends to file suit against ports of L.A. and Long Beach
The organization is trying to halt a plan to replace 16,000 diesel-spewing trucks.
By Ronald D. White and Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
July 26, 2008
The American Trucking Assn. plans to file a lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court on Monday in an effort to block a plan by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to clean up the air by replacing an aging fleet of 16,000 trucks that spew deadly levels of toxic diesel emissions.

For decades, the ports have operated under a system in which individual truck owners transport a large portion of the container cargo that moves to and from the terminals. Because those drivers are legally considered independent operators, they cannot unionize, have no collective bargaining power and generally make so little money that they can afford only the oldest and more heavily polluting trucks.

But a coalition of grass-roots community groups, environmentalists and labor unions forced both ports to change their ways under threat of a separate lawsuit. Under a $1.6-billion cleanup plan, new trucks would be paid for through a $35 cargo fee on containers that move through the ports, which would be charged to the shippers.

The Port of Los Angeles' plan would set up trucking company franchises in which the drivers would become employees, based on the idea that only large-scale companies would have the wherewithal to maintain the new trucks.

The Port of Long Beach earlier had hoped to avoid a lawsuit by not mandating that drivers become employees, which would have left them responsible for their own maintenance and fuel costs. But like L.A.'s plan, it would require drivers to have special permits to operate at its terminals.

Curtis Whalen, head of the trucking association, stressed in an interview Thursday that his group was not opposed to the ports' goal of reducing diesel truck emissions by 80% within five years. Whalen added that he also supported the cargo fee, but he said that both ports have overstepped their authority in a way that "could not be tolerated."

The association is expected to argue in its lawsuit that both ports are trying to dictate terms to the nationally deregulated trucking industry, that the ports are making decisions governing interstate commerce and that their plans will make it difficult for small trucking companies to stay in business.

Whalen and other critics also contend that to obtain such operating permits would wrongly require delving deeply into the financial records of private businesses and interfere with the free flow of commerce.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement Friday that stopping the ports' plans would be an egregious mistake that would cost lives.

"When thousands of lives are cut short every year by toxic emissions from the port, we have a moral mandate to act. The health of our environment and the public is at stake, and it is time to hit the brakes on the 16,000 diesel-spewing trucks polluting our air every day," Villaraigosa said.

The pending legal battle has also forged some uncommon alliances. The Natural Resources Defense Council, which has pressured both ports to clean up their operations, will seek to intervene in the case on behalf of the ports to prevent the plans from being shelved, said David Pettit, a senior attorney in the council's Santa Monica office.

The Port of Los Angeles said it would have no comment until it had received a copy of the lawsuit. The Port of Long Beach's executive director, Richard D. Steinke, vowed to move forward.

ronald.white@latimes.com

louis.sahagun@latimes.com
Los Angeles Times

^^ It sucks that they would probably win if this were in Bush country. I can see their point of view though, since our government won't do shit about the environment, why should they?

Tall (ship) order: Help is needed at festival in San Pedro http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/363227464_f4a3d74aa7_b.jpg thadhogan on Flickr
08/05/2008 12:08:30 AM PDT
There's a call for volunteers to help with the Aug. 15-17 Tall Ships Festival in San Pedro.

Volunteers are needed to assist with the event in which more than a dozen tall ships will be in the Port of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Maritime Institute needs people willing to work minimum four-hour shifts.

Duties include working with ship liaisons, providing hospitality for visiting crews, running nautical demonstrations and entertainment, staff booths and providing information to visitors, selling souvenirs, tickets and programs, assisting the pubic to board ships, helping with youth educational activities, and running errands.

Groups and clubs are encouraged to volunteer as a team.

A volunteer orientation will be held Sunday at the Port of Los Angeles headquarters, 425 S. Palos Verdes St., San Pedro.

For more information, call 888-LAMI-808 or 310-833-6055. Information is available at http://www.lafestivalofsail.info and at www.portoflosangeles.org. dailybreeze.com

2 big haulers sign on to L.A. port's clean-truck plan
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/41763727.jpg
Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times
The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are trying to reduce diesel emissions from the trucks that serve them. Above, truck traffic at the Port of Long Beach.
The Arizona firms are both members of an industry group that has sued to block the new rules.
By Ronald D. White and Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
August 22, 2008
The Port of Los Angeles' clean-truck replacement effort received a significant boost Thursday when two Arizona-based freight haulers signed letters of intent to participate in the program.

Both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach have provoked opposition from the American Trucking Assn. over their plans to replace the aging fleet of about 16,800 mostly dilapidated rigs that produce a large portion of the diesel pollution at the nation's busiest cargo container complex.

The association, which represents 37,000 trucking companies, has filed suit in federal court to block the plans, arguing that they would impose "intrusive regulatory systems" that would "result in far fewer trucking companies being able to service the ports."

The Port of Los Angeles plan would require the formation of concessions, companies that would employ some of the thousands of drivers who now operate as independent owner-operators. That is part of what prompted the ATA lawsuit, which seeks an injunction against the concession requirement.

But the potential participation of the two Phoenix-based companies -- Swift Transportation Co., with 37 major terminals in 26 states and Mexico, and the publicly traded Knight Transportation Inc., with nearly half of its fleet consisting of 2008 model trucks -- was seen as a significant development. Both are members of the ATA.

"It's a big deal, a major breakthrough," said John Husing, an Inland Empire-based economist and a logistics and supply chain expert who was called on to evaluate the port's truck replacement plan.

Paul Bingham, managing director of trade and transportation markets for economic research firm Global Insight, said, "These are both well-known, national trucking companies. They are very serious players."

ATA leaders had no immediate comment on the development. But some California trucking companies were irate over the idea that two ATA members, both based outside California, were signing on to the program -- and potentially putting them out of business.

"I'm taken aback. Now, they are going to out-of-state companies rather than dealing with California trucking businesses that have been hauling cargo in and out of the ports for the past 25 to 30 years," said Michael Lightman, owner of Long Beach-based Great Freight Inc., which does 99% of its business moving goods to and from the ports.

Others, though, were pleased by the development.

"It shows that the Los Angeles plan is attractive and trucking companies are biting," said Adrian Martinez, projects manager with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental justice group that supports the program.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a statement, "These commitments are proof that environmental, labor and business leaders agree that our plan will deliver the cleanest trucks for the long haul."

The two Arizona companies said that the letters of intent made sense because both already had customers who moved goods through the ports and had expressed concerns about their ability to get their products delivered promptly.

"We have 1,400 trucks equipped with the newest diesel technology. The ports have a need for clean trucks and we have customers that need that service," said Kevin Knight, chief executive of Knight Transportation. "I think it's a good fit."
ron.white@latimes.com

louis.sahagun@latimes.com
Los Angeles Times

Commission Wants to Get San Pedro Waterfront Project Started (http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_10504799)

By Art Marroquin, Staff Writer
September 18, 2008

Six potential designs for the San Pedro waterfront were unveiled Thursday, including a controversial plan that calls for building a new cruise ship terminal near Cabrillo Beach.

Concepts have come and gone over the last decade as developments stalled, expensive architectural designs were tossed aside and the community rejected proposals drawn up by the Port of Los Angeles.

This time, port officials intend to pick a plan and stick with it, according to S. David Freeman, president of the Los Angeles harbor commission.

"We've been at this for almost a decade as an institution," Freeman said. "We could comment on all this forever, and we have it seems. This commission is prepared to get this show on the road."

A draft environmental impact report is due out next week and port officials hope to select a design as soon as March. They are prepared to spend $1 billion on whatever plan is selected.

The port's latest proposal calls for installing pedestrian and bicycle paths along the waterfront, stretching from Western Avenue to Swinford Street.

Port officials also plan to build new harbor basins downtown, near Seventh Street and the cruise terminal in northern San Pedro.

Plans also call for doubling the size of Ports O' Call Village to 300,000 square feet, complete with retail expansion, a new conference center and a fire boat museum. A Red Car museum would be built nearby, or in Wilmington, while an elaborate town square would be the new center of attention in front of the Los Angeles Maritime Museum. Port officials also want to build a new cruise terminal near Cabrillo Beach.

The new terminal would also help reduce diesel emissions from cruise ships. Plans call for installing technology that would allow cruise ships to "plug in" and operate on electricity while berthed.

The proposed Outer Harbor Cruise Terminal would have either one or two berths capable of handling larger cruise ships.

"In some ways, we're kind of like LAX, which needs a bigger runway because the planes have gotten bigger," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles.

"The main channel is our runway," she said. "The ships that go down there are bigger than when we built that channel."

However, several community groups claim that the proposed cruise terminal would increase traffic and noise in San Pedro and could potentially wipe out recreation along Cabrillo Beach.

A so-called community alternative submitted by several neighborhood councils, local business and others calls for expanding the existing cruise terminal on the north side of San Pedro.

"We support the idea of expanding the cruise business by renovating and adding to cruise terminals already in place," said Peter Warren, a member of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council.

"Building a terminal down by Cabrillo Beach and Kaiser Point would take away a lot of the recreational and aesthetic value of the area," he said. "The port's plans don't make any sense."

Warren also suggested that a new cruise ship terminal could be built on land once occupied by the Westways bulk liquid terminal, just south of Ports O' Call Village.

However, Knatz said that the Westways terminal is considered to be a difficult area for port pilots to navigate.

Two of the options proposed by the port call for making little to no changes to San Pedro's waterfront.

Port officials were close to approving a waterfront development plan in 2005, but Knatz pulled the plug and went back to the drawing board shortly after she took over operations.

The move frustrated several people in the community, including Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who represents San Pedro.

"If only we had moved forward with the plans we had three years ago, I am confident that we would already be walking along the waterfront and enjoying an improved Ports O' Call, something we have all been waiting for," Hahn said. "We have been planning this waterfront for at least eight years and things are moving too slowly."

Los Angeles/Long Beach ports push projects despite rocky economy http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/untitlednhbbbbbbb.jpg
The expansion would cut pollution, create jobs and prepare the complex for a shipping rebound, officials say.

December 15, 2008
Union dockworkers are finding there isn't enough work to go around. Big cargo ships are joining the ranks of the unemployed. And yet, the people who run the nation's two largest container ports are convinced that now is the time to build for the future.

And they're bracing for lots of objections.

Los Angeles and Long Beach port officials see the signs of retrenchment in the shipping industry. The global economic downturn has cut the rates that some ships charge to carry cargo to less than $600 per 40-foot container from as much as $3,400 in 2007. Outside some of the world's busiest harbors -- Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai -- dozens of cargo vessels are idled with no goods to carry.

At the Port of Los Angeles, 7.3 million containers moved across the docks from January through November, down more than 5%.

The drop was bigger in Long Beach, with 6 million containers moving through the port, down about 10%.

Still, after stalling for several years, some projects are reaching crucial stages, and the ports' directors say it's time to push them through.

The more than $2 billion in projects in their capital improvement plans, officials say, would amount to an important economic stimulus package that would employ thousands of regional workers. The projects, they contend, would reduce the pollution endured by neighbors by using newer, greener technologies.

The developments also would help prepare the harbor for when the global economy gets hot again. Port officials note that the harbor was unprepared for the boom that started in 2004, and that made the pollution even worse as ships idled their diesel engines offshore for as long as a week, waiting to be unloaded.

"After years of robust growth, we have a chance to take a breath and concentrate on some infrastructure projects," said Richard Steinke, executive director of the Port of Long Beach. "We can stimulate economic growth, put people back to work and position ourselves for the turnaround."

With a slate of important projects, including the replacement of a cruise ship terminal that dates from the Kennedy administration, inching toward approval, Steinke's Los Angeles counterpart said she realized that this was a difficult time to move ahead.

"We are trying to implement the most far-reaching improvements ever, and we are trying to do that in a down year, with 2009 looking even worse. That makes it really tough," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the L.A. port.

One of her most ambitious projects stems from the fact that the nation's busiest cargo port has devoted so much to blue-collar big-box work that its cruise facilities are considered to have a high "ick" factor among the passengers who embark and debark there.

The early 1960s-era facility sits by a narrow channel "in an area filled with cranes and tankers and oily discharge. Passengers have nothing but a long wait of ugliness while they are there, breathing in continuous diesel fumes," said Judy Parker, vice president of sales and marketing for Worldview Travel, a travel agency with offices in California, Florida and New York.

Perhaps worse, the biggest cruise ships find the space so tight that they have to reach the terminal by backing up.

Parker is convinced that the cramped, unfriendly surroundings are part of why Los Angeles has lost cruise business. According to the Cruise Lines International Assn., Los Angeles ranks a distant fourth in the U.S. with only a 6% share of cruise embarkations.

"People have this image of how their ship will arrive in port, the wind in your hair, streamers flying, maybe a bottle of champagne, and here in Los Angeles you arrive creeping along in reverse. It's pretty hard to put your best face forward that way," Parker said.

Knatz said building a new cruise terminal in the port's Outer Harbor will "allow us to minimize risk in handling the largest cruise ships" while creating more than 7,300 direct jobs and 17,700 indirect construction-related ones during the five- to seven-year building period. An additional 438 permanent jobs would be created at the facility while reducing pollution emissions.

One of Long Beach's biggest undertakings is a 10-year, $750-million project that would combine two terminals that are too old, inefficient and dirty to meet the port's goals for pollution reduction and greater productivity.

It would be the second-most-expensive development in the history of the No. 2 container port, largely because of measures proposed in the face of threatened lawsuits to force Long Beach and Los Angeles to clean up emissions tied to higher rates of asthma and cancer.

Vessels would have to be able to plug into the electrical grid through a shore side connection and turn off their auxiliary diesel engines. The terminal equipment that moves and stacks cargo containers would have to operate on the cleanest energy. As planned, Middle Harbor would be permitted to emit no more than half of current pollution levels.
"It's an opportunity for us to provide for green growth by taking trucks off the road and reducing emissions even as we put people back to work," Steinke said.

The projects at both ports are being fought by environmentalists and neighbors concerned about premature deaths and a higher incidence of asthma.

Jesse N. Marquez, executive director of the Wilmington-based Coalition for a Safe Environment, said the ports' expansion projects weren't very green or forward-thinking. Both ports should be exploring the ability to load containers directly onto zero-pollution maglev trains that move on magnetic fields, he said.

"They're not modernizing at all," said Marquez, who lives four blocks from the Port of Los Angeles' Trapac container terminal.

Further complicating the expansion picture: Both are landlord ports that derive their income from the rent their terminal operators and shipping lines pay. And more of those businesses are cutting back.

Denmark-based A.P. Moller-Maersk, for example, not only is the world's biggest shipping line, it is the single biggest contributor to cargo business at the Port of Los Angeles. The company recently decided to pull most of its business from Tacoma, Wash., and some from Los Angeles while consolidating its operations in Seattle.

"We will have to determine what the overall impact will be, but Maersk is big in our overall volume numbers," Knatz said. "We will have to be judicious about our spending. It's not the best time to be trying to spend money."

But some maritime experts say that the two ports and their communities would be best served by trying to forge ahead.

"These ports will have to become much cleaner and much more efficient in order to compete effectively, otherwise they will lose more business, and they have already lost some to Canada and Mexico and the Panama Canal," said Asar Ashaf, head of the Washington, D.C., office of the University of New Orleans' National Ports and Waterways Institute.

John Husing, an Inland Empire economist who specializes in goods movement, said the U.S. economy "won't be down forever and global trade will come back. A lot of that trade will still enter the West Coast in spite of new competition."

"Getting ready for that now, in a way that sharply reduces pollution, just makes good sense."
ron.white@latimes.com
Ronald D. Whitephoto Bob Chamberlin LOS ANGELES TIMES

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Mexico to postpone and may cancel Punta Colonet port
A drop in traffic on the Pacific Coast has made it more difficult for possible bidders to get financing, an official says. The port could potentially compete with Southern California terminals.
abbreviated
January 13, 2009

Mexico will postpone construction of its planned Punta Colonet port on the Pacific Coast and may scrap the project entirely as interested bidders struggle to find financing for the $4.88-billion complex.

The first simultaneous recession in the U.S., Japan and Europe since World War II has led to a 30% drop in port traffic on the U.S. and Canadian Pacific coasts, making it difficult for potential bidders to get financing, Mexican Communications and Transportation Minister Luis Tellez said in Mexico City. Bloomberg

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/mickey_salute.jpg The Mouse To Drop Anchor in the Port of Los Angeles in 2011 . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/orladosentinel.jpg orlandosentinel.com . Disney Cruise Line and the Port of Los Angeles announced today that in 2011, Disney's "Wonder" will be setting sail from our shore. The vessel is one of a trio of ships currently offering family-friendly cruises from Port Canaveral, Florida; no itinerary has been announced, but the Mexican Riviera is the rumored destination. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/shipsinfoinfo.jpg ships-info.info . Bringing another cruise ship to LA is a revenue booster for the city: "It will bring about 250,000 passengers through the Port of Los Angeles, create about 2,600 new jobs, and yield for L.A. and the state of California $7 million in state and local taxes," boasts L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Disney's "Wonder" has 875 staterooms and a crew size of 945, per their official site. It's smaller than Royal Caribbean's Mariner of the Seas, who made the move from Florida last month and is now sailing from San Pedro. Lindsay Williams-Ross LAist

And the port gets a little bigger...

Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners approves port expansion

The $750-million project will merge two aging terminals and create an estimated 14,000 jobs.

By Louis Sahagun
April 14, 2009

The Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners on Monday unanimously approved a 10-year, $750-million expansion project that will merge two aging terminals and create an estimated 14,000 jobs.

Work on the Middle Harbor Redevelopment Project will be done in phases, according to James C. Hankla, president of the board of commissioners. Construction could begin as early as December.

"This is a chance to move these two terminals into the modern era, into the container shipping industry's greener and more business-friendly future," Hankla said in a statement.

The project aims to improve the port's competitive position and implement measures to head off threatened lawsuits to force reductions in port-related pollution. About 65,000 feet of railroad track will be added so that nearly one-third of Middle Harbor's cargo will be moved by train and, with dockside electrical power to become available, vessels will be able to turn off their auxiliary diesel engines.

greener and more business-friendly future.... As a result, today, we just lost a line of 6000-container ships from AP Moeller-Maersk- to Seattle! Los Angeles, and it's gubernatorially minded 'Mayor', are literally killing this city now. I'm glad there's expansion, but will there be clients? Expansion may be threatened like it is at L A X because of the drop in volume!

in someone else's position... "less business coming in just so i can appear to the world that i did some green work! no way."

it takes forever to get anything done around here these days

$1.2 Billion Waterfront Redevelopment OK'd (http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_13449379?source=rv)

By Art Marroquin and Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writers
September 30, 2009

A $1.2 billion plan aimed at redeveloping San Pedro's waterfront was approved by the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners early Wednesday morning, including the construction of a controversial cruise terminal near Cabrillo Beach.

The commission voted 4-0 to approve a plan that calls for building an east-facing berth as part of the first phase of the Outer Harbor Cruise Terminal, located at the southern end of the Port of Los Angeles' Main Channel.

The move was an about-face from the port staff's recommendation to spruce up a west-facing berth that's already equipped to handle ships, but would have been about 700 yards away from Cabrillo Beach.

"I think there is so much potential to build goodwill with this condition and really win a lot of respect from the community, who felt they were heard and that our decision-making process was impacted by what we heard tonight," said Harbor Commissioner Jerilyn Lopez-Mendoza, who suggested that the east-facing berth be built first, despite a $14 million difference in construction costs.

The meeting, which lasted 7 ½ hours, drew a diverse mix of an estimated 500 San Pedro residents.

Business owners, dockworkers, neighborhood council activists, government officials and veterans of countless waterfront workshops that had been held over the past decade converged on the Liberty Hill Plaza in downtown San Pedro to express their feelings about the latest proposal.

"I have probably been to over a hundred meetings regarding this, and I'm so proud to see we're at this point," said Joe Gatlin of San Pedro, who has served on several community panels.

"I've been here when there were fish canneries, when we had jobs for everyone, when downtown was vibrant," Gatlin said. "It's no longer that way. Right now, we have an opportunity of a lifetime. Let's put some shovels in the dirt and get this thing going."

Even though it remained unclear which aspects would be built first, port officials said it could take up to a decade to construct all the waterfront upgrades. The harbor commission gave port staffers 30 days to outline which projects could move ahead.

In the meantime, about $14 million was budgeted this year to design the Seventh Street Pier and cuts into the existing waterfront to make room for three new harbors.

"After more than a decade of discussion ... it's exciting to move forward on this historic project," said Geraldine Knatz, the port's executive director.

"The port is committed to creating a world-class L.A. waterfront that benefits our city," Knatz said. "Tonight's board approval sets the wheels in motion for turning this planning effort into a reality."

Port officials said the new cruise ship terminal is needed to handle the next generation of larger luxury vessels visiting San Pedro. For now, extra-large cruise ship must back down the Main Channel to get in and out of the cruise terminal at the north end of the port.

"The new cruise terminal is needed because the luxurious new cruise ships coming out will be attracted to the newest of harbor facilities," said Gary Toebben, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

"In this day and age, unless you continue to upgrade your facilities, you will be left out because somebody else will do it," Toebben said. "It will only attract more tourist, which will significantly stimulate economic activity throughout the South Bay."

Port officials have also said they hope the new cruise terminal would keep Disney Cruise Lines in San Pedro. Disney is scheduled to start offering Mexican Riviera cruises from Los Angeles under the terms of a two-year agreement set to begin in 2011.

Vern Hall, the port's former director of engineering, said he was concerned that the Outer Harbor Cruise Terminal would become an exclusive home to Disney cruise ships.

"Disney is a wonderful organization, but they are very demanding," Hall told the harbor commission. "My greatest concern, however, is that most of your near-term activities will focus on satisfying the demands of Disney."

Knatz said that she was not negotiating an exclusive terminal agreement with any particular cruise line because it would be too costly.

Peter Warren, a member of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council, submitted a petition signed by more than 1,000 San Pedro residents opposed to building a cruise terminal near Cabrillo Beach, but supported an alternate plan to build cruise ship berths near downtown.

"What we support are modern terminals near downtown with space for simultaneously berthing the largest cruise ships," Warren said. "The (port) staff alternative lacks an expansion vision for our harbor's future. It doesn't focus on downtown first."

Proponents of the overall plan said that building a seamless connection between the waterfront and downtown San Pedro is crucial for the area's economic survival. Port officials said 64 percent of the project's spending would go toward linking the two destinations.

Pedestrian bridges will cross over Harbor Boulevard at Ninth and 13th streets to encourage more foot traffic, while the Seventh Street Pier would attract visitors to the foot of one of downtown's main corridors.

Plans also call for a meandering walkway from the Vincent Thomas Bridge to the southern end of San Pedro, 27 acres of new parks, a fireboat museum and an extended Red Car trolley line with stops at City Dock One, Cabrillo Beach and the new cruise terminal.

"What unifies us all in the end is the desire to have a destination unique to any place in the world," said Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, whose district includes the port and San Pedro.

"The fundamental guiding principle for the waterfront has always been connecting it to downtown," Hahn said. "We should capitalize on the only street car system in the region with trolleys that go into downtown San Pedro."

Port officials also said they hope to find a private developer to spruce up the ramshackle buildings at Ports O'Call Village and convert it to a tourist destination.

An adjacent parking lot would be turned into shops, eateries, parks and a 75,000-square-foot conference center, doubling the size of Ports O'Call Village to 300,000 square feet. Visitors would be able to park their vehicles in a new, green-topped garage that would be built into the bluff above Sampson Way.

Bill McWaid of Lomita, a volunteer on the SS Lane Victory, carefully studied the waterfront schematics before entering the meeting room. He supported plans to move the retired World War II vessel to a new dock in hopes that it would attract more visitors.

"I think that would be good for us," McWaid said, adding that many people can't find the SS Lane Victory at its current home near the cruise terminal.

"San Pedro needs help," he said. "It will make it more like Long Beach."

Not everyone was supportive of the plan.

Bernie Shepherd of Hollywood Hills owns rental properties in San Pedro and has attended the waterfront meetings since the began nearly 10 years ago. While Shepherd said the proposal was "long overdue," it still fell short in his eyes.

"It lacks world class," he said. "The real ground-breaking idea is not here. It's too timid. There are too many cooks and too many compromises. It's all watered down. Where's the world class?"

Andrew Silber, owner of the Whale and Ale Pub in downtown San Pedro, was feeling optimistic as he entered the meeting hall.

"In some ways it's never enough, but it will be a huge improvement," Silber said. "If they provide linkages from the waterfront to downtown, I can't see why downtown wouldn't thrive."

Port officials determined to move waterfront project forward (http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14392488?source=email)

Ready to roll on long-anticipated waterfront improvements in San Pedro and Wilmington, port officials say they're aggressively pursuing grant and private funding to help bankroll the 10-year, $1.2 billion project.

"I'm going to learn how to beg and I'm going to get that money," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles.

Her remarks were made this week at a "kickoff" waterfront meeting that drew more than 300 people.

The meeting was held to bring the community up to date on where the project stands. It is hoped, Knatz said, that several of the elements can be constructed simultaneously.

But finding funding in an era of cutbacks will require a new approach, she said.

"The reality is that you're going to see projects here that do not have funding," she told the crowd Thursday night at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in San Pedro. "Our plate is full.

"So we've got some projects on hold but that doesn't mean that every day we're not strategizing about how to move forward."

Among the projects:

The so-called downtown-harbor connection. "I lay awake at night thinking about how to get that going," Knatz said. Included will be a plaza in front of the Los Angeles Maritime Museum. The port also is working with downtown business leaders to bring back a rubber-tire trolley and to add kiosks on the waterfront, all by this summer.

Outreach to developers for Ports O' Call Village.

Cabrillo Marina improvements, now 40 percent finished and including 3,600 feet of promenade.

A makeover of the World Cruise Center. New gangway planks are now under construction along Harbor Boulevard and will be moved into place soon to serve the docking cruise ships to the north.

The $7 million "Ghost Fish" public art project - a 40-foot-tall metal tuna fish to be installed at San Pedro's historic fishing slips.

Red Car museum in Wilmington.

A buffer with park space in Wilmington.

Several supporters of berthing the USS Iowa battleship in San Pedro were on hand to ask the status of that proposal.

"We're in the process of evaluating their proposal and we will be coming to a conclusion on that fairly soon," Knatz told the audience.

PORTS OF L.A./LONG BEACH LOADING UP ON JOBS . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/ChrisSteve333.jpg . RETAIL ORDERS INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DOCKWORKERS 34.5% DURING FIRST THREE WEEKS OF FEBRUARY . The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are bringing in a surprising new commodity: jobs.

The first post-recession surge in employment at the nation's busiest seaport complex began this month and appears to be gathering momentum. There has been as much as a threefold increase in the number of longshoremen finding work on the docks in the first three weeks of February compared with the same period last year, a review of daily employment dispatches shows.

Through the first three weeks there was an average of 2,679 longshore jobs a day during the usual three work shifts at the two ports, according to the summaries. That's an increase of 34.5% over the 1,992 jobs that were available on average a year earlier.

The increase in dock work this month indicated that retailers were ordering goods again, even if it was just to refill depleted warehouses, said John Husing, an economist who tracks trade-related employment in the Inland Empire.

"Companies are restocking their inventories," Husing said, "and the weak dollar is helping our exports."

A strong recovery in international trade is vital to the regional economy, experts say. About 116,000 Southern Californians work in jobs related to goods movement. An additional 185,000 are employed in warehousing and wholesale distribution of various imports and exports, said Jack Kyser, an economist with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. Longshore jobs are among the highest paying blue-collar jobs in the nation, with wages of $22 to $35 an hour.

But the depth of the recession has tempered the enthusiasm of many involved in cargo movement. Most of the skepticism can be laid to one of the worst crashes in employment in the waterfront's history.

George Lujan, for instance, said he needed to see sustained employment improvement before he would believe that a strong recovery had arrived. Lujan is president of Local 13, in Long Beach, of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, the union that represents all West Coast dockworkers.

"It's picked up. It's a positive sign, but we have no knowledge of what the future holds," Lujan said.

Jim McKenna, president of the Pacific Maritime Assn., which represents ocean shipping lines and terminal operators in their labor negotiations with the ILWU, said that some customers were shipping ahead of schedule "before rate increases take effect. For the calendar year, I think a 3% to 7% gain is possible."

Others loosened the reins on their enthusiasm.

"It's wonderful news," Kyser said. "International trade is the industry that will lead the economic recovery."

But the ports still have a long way to go before they begin to rival the number of jobs available during the economic boom years that ran from 2004 through most of 2008.

In February 2006, an average of 3,773 jobs a day were filled by longshoremen, and that number increased to nearly 4,000 jobs a day in February 2007. During those two years, the ports sometimes employed more than 5,200 dockworkers a day. During the depth of the recession last year, that number dropped to as low as 1,000 jobs a day.

ron.white@latimes.com
PHOTO CHRIS&STEVE/FLICKR RON WHITE LOS ANGELES TIMES

It is going to change the whole fabric of how buildings are built by integrating green practices into our everyday building code, said David Walls, executive director of the California Building Standards Commission. "The rest of the nation will be looking at what we have done. The new code would require developers to slash water use in their buildings by 20%, using more efficient toilets, shower heads and faucets.

Jayden! More efficient toilets? It takes three flushes for me to clear the bowl as it is! Did you ever see the Seinfeld episode about the low flow shower head? No one's hair came out! Not a good time.

This Past Weekend i Was in Downtown Miami / Bayside and i thought of Long Beach. I took a Ferry Boat that took Me around many little Coastal Islands where some celebs reside... SO i thought to Myself.. Miami and Long Beach can be Very different but i know Long Beach has the Potential for Paradise aswell.. [some of u may disagree] I would make many more Waterfront Condos and Penthouses Highrise Offices etc. the Waterbreakers need to go!... For the advantage we consider LA as having tropical Weather we should make at least parts of its coast somewhat with a nice relaxing beach and tropical vibe besides commercial and pollution ... The city itself would make alot of money if people would be more attracted to living there and having decent housing. California has very nice Sunsets and is represented by amazingly tall gorgeous palm trees :) Those boring tan or brown mid rise buildings have to go.. more unique glass architecture or anything rather new to the city..imagine waking up and walking outside your balcony which is facing the noth towards SM Culver city etc. and looking west and in the distance get a glimpse of the distant skyline and wilshire with the mountains in the backround and looking back out east wherethe ocean seems endless.. waves crashing along the shore with the channel islands not so far. the evening sunsets where the city starts to light up and the hills sparkle bright with its mansions and the sun setting as you see its reflection along the pacific surface... Night is finally here music playing shops clubs restaurants and the queen mary lit up like the queen she really is. . . What do you think?? We dont necessarily have to go full MIAMI on it but a tropical downtown beach vibe would give the city more diversity and still keep the LA LOOK ;)

Here is a Little Something i whipped up as an example ... im not the worlds greatest editor and idk if i overdid the buildings but i guess thats my opinion ..

<a href="http://tinypic.com?ref=se80a1" target="_blank"><img src="http://i38.tinypic.com/se80a1.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

You never know; some of the pieces are certainly there. I think that highrises would be easier to put up there than other parts of the coast and there is a thriving DT entertainment district.

The obvious missing piece is weather. LB is cool in the evening even in the summer and quite cold (for a beach resort) during the winter months. It also has competition from some heavy hitters in the general area (SD, Disneyland, Hollywood, the Westside).

L.A. group gains in fight for USS Iowa battleship
By Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writer
Long Beach Press-Telegram
Posted: 11/18/2010 09:55:50 PM PST
Updated: 11/18/2010 10:08:56 PM PST

With a berth commitment in San Pedro finally in hand, members of the Pacific Battleship Center are set to submit their application for the donation of the USS Iowa before the Navy's Nov. 24 deadline.

More than 1,000 pages of text, graphs, comparison charts and backup material and letters are included in the massive document that will be sent by FedEx to the Navy on Monday, said Robert Kent, the center's president.

Nailing down a berth site was the final piece of information the group needed to formally ask the Navy for the donation of what is the nation's last World War II-era battleship available for use as a floating museum.

The ship now sits with the Navy's "ghost fleet" in Northern California's Suisun Bay. Millions of dollars will be needed to bring the vessel up to museum ship status.

Navy officials will review the applications - only two are being submitted for the Iowa - with an announcement expected by May 2011 or earlier.

In addition to the Pacific Battleship Center's application, an older and now updated bid from the Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square, a nonprofit group in Vallejo, remains on the table.

The Vallejo group in August submitted an updated application after the Navy earlier determined there was insufficient planning and funding in place.

Dissatisfied with the group's progress, the Navy reopened the bids in May, giving the Pacific Battleship Center an opportunity to also vie for the Iowa.

But Vallejo remains active in its pursuit of the historic ship, with a new fundraiser scheduled to benefit the HSMPS effort on Dec. 1 at the California State Military Museum in Sacramento.

If both Vallejo and Los Angeles submit qualifying applications, the Navy will conduct a comparison evaluation to choose the best plan.

Under the Navy's 60-year-old Ship Donation Program, 47 ships now operate as floating memorials and public education centers. Most are stacked along the East Coast, with only four on the West Coast between San Diego and Washington state. None is in Los Angeles or Long Beach.

If the Iowa is not donated, it will be destroyed.

That's a fate many would hate to see occur, particularly those veterans who have served aboard the Iowa over the course of four wars.

"We've taken the position that we'll support anybody trying to get the ship," said Gerald Gneckow of Homosassa, Fla., president of the USS Iowa Veterans Association.

But while the group remains neutral on the Vallejo and Los Angeles bids, Gneckow said it now appears that LosAngeles has the best shot at getting the ship.

Gneckow, commanding officer of the Iowa from 1984 to 1986, said the ship is a historic icon that should be preserved.

"This is one of the greatest ships of all time and it's the last one available as a memorial," he said. "It represents

50 years of history in sea power."

Veterans and history buffs will flock to the area to see the ship, Gneckow predicted, with those in the 1,500-member USS Iowa Association sure to be among them.

The association is quietly betting on the Iowa coming to Los Angeles, he said.

"We've already got our irons in the fire," Gneckow said, adding that plans for the association's 2012 reunion are just now getting under way.

The location already chosen? San Pedro.



Read More: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_16654426

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/h44538.jpg . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/ssrfanaticcom.jpg . FREEREPUBLIC SSRFANATIC

You never know; some of the pieces are certainly there. I think that highrises would be easier to put up there than other parts of the coast and there is a thriving DT entertainment district.

The obvious missing piece is weather. LB is cool in the evening even in the summer and quite cold (for a beach resort) during the winter months. It also has competition from some heavy hitters in the general area (SD, Disneyland, Hollywood, the Westside).

It's more than clear that SM doesn't want that and besides being able to look north while at the Pier and see that beautiful mountain meets ocean view would be spoiled by hi-rise condos. Now LB could def benefit from massive condos overlooking an ocean and port. But unfortunately LB doesn't yet know what it wants to be. If LB was anywhere else besides under the wing of this massive spectacle that is Los Angeles it would be flourishing. Basically LB has arrested development and ironically it's bigger in population than Miami! LB is like a overgrown kid.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/Fullscreencapture1121201011903AM.jpg http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/Fullscreencapture1121201011912AM-1.jpg

RWhlE9Xb88w CNN INTERNATIONAL

BIRTH 87 . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/Fullscreencapture1122201014338AM.jpg

Did she have an easy labor?

http://www.lbpost.com/images/image1290452732-96335.jpg

Gerald Desmond Bridge Readies For Replacement Project
by Daniel DeBoom, Long Beach Post
Monday, November 22, 2010

State Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Mayor Bob Foster chat in the shadow of the Gerald Desmond Bridge earlier today.

3:40pm | Officials from the Port of Long Beach and local government held a ceremony today to celebrate the future Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement that has been approved and green-lighted.

The state California Transportation Commission approved final funding and building plans for the bridge earlier this month. Construction on the five-year project is expected to begin in 2012. It is expected to generate about 4,000 jobs per year.

“It’s a proud day for the City of Long Beach, the County and the State,” said Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster. “We acted — in time — to replace this aging bridge, and in so doing, we will build a landmark structure that will create jobs now and guarantee a stronger Port and smoother transportation network for the future.”

Port officials estimate that the bridge carries about 15% of the nation's container goods as they enter the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and are shipped out across the country. The bridge replacement will create wider lanes for normal traffic and an additional emergency lane. In recent years, concerns had grown as concrete pieces had deteriorated and a netting "diaper" had to be installed beneath the bridge.

“The new Gerald Desmond Bridge will reduce congestion, enhance safety and improve traffic flow,” said Caltrans Director Cindy McKim. “By undertaking bold projects like this one, we’re improving mobility and encouraging commerce across California.”

The bridge replacement is a $950 million project, funded by $500 million in state highway transportation funds and $300 million in Federal sources. The Port of Long Beach is pledging $114 million and Los Angeles County Metro is committing $28 million.



Read More: http://www.lbpost.com/news/deboom/10702

Did she have an easy labor?

Oh, HA HA! Oh, you are so funny, Pest! Ha ......

Oh, HA HA! Oh, you are so funny, Pest! Ha ......

Aw, shucks, t'aint nothin'; they just sorta pop out natural like.

Local Ports Approve Strengthened Update To Clean Air Action Plan
by Ryan ZumMallen
Long Beach Post
Friday, November 26, 2010

7:00am | The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles approved an update to their joint San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) on Monday, allegedly strengthening the plan to reduce pollution produced by ships, trucks, rail and other machinery that operate at the harbors. Together, the two ports handle an estimated 40% of the nation's incoming goods.

First enacted in 2006, the CAAP was hailed in the industry as a preemptive environmental step to improve local air quality, which is historically very poor. On Monday, harbor commissioners from both ports approved an update that further strengthens some requirements and sets new eco-friendly goals.

The updated agreement

ADVERTISEMENT
could prove very important in the near future, as the Port of Long Beach recently approved a project that aims to double its cargo handling capacity; which means more ships, trucks and locomotives on a daily basis. With an estimated massive increase in harbor activity, strict and clear environmental requirements are vital to ensuring local air quality.

In a press release, President of the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners Cindy Miscikowski claimed that a 33-percent reduction in air emissions from the ports had been achieved since 2005. It was not immediately clear how this number was calculated as it is normally very difficult to measure such air quality improvements. Generally, statistics such as this are based on predictions and estimates and not exact air quality measurements. The Long Beach Post will be reviewing both the updated CAAP and claims such as President Miscikowski's thoroughly and reporting them here.

“Today’s action builds on the CAAP’s success, with updated goals for further curbing port-related pollution in the decade ahead,” Miscikowski said.

Officials say that the CAAP update aims to work with shipping lines on methods to use cleaner ships and possibly retrofit existing vessels to make them more environmentally-friendly. There are also new goals to increase the use of clean locomotives and near-dock rail.

“These two ports are making good on their pledge to improve air quality, even as we modernize and redevelop facilities to accommodate business and job growth. The reason we can do that is the CAAP,” said Nick Sramek, President of the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners, in a press release. “The CAAP Update now will take us to the next level, showing that we remain committed to finding the best ways to clean the air.”

You can read more about the CAAP update and even view the massive document in its entirety at cleanairactionplan.org or polb.com/caap.



Read More: http://www.lbpost.com/news/ryan/10706

World's First Hybrid Tug Beats Standard Vessel in Emissions Study
By Leslie Guevarra at Greener World Media
REUTERS
Thu, Nov 25 2010

The world's first hybrid electric tugboat, Foss Maritime's Carolyn Dorothy which plies Southern California's San Pedro Bay, emits 73 percent less soot, 51 percent fewer nitrogen oxides and 27 percent less carbon dioxide than a standard tug of comparable size, according to a study by the University of California, Riverside.

Researchers from UC Riverside's College of Engineering Center for Environmental Research and Technology charted the performance of the Carolyn Dorothy against that of the tugboat Alta June for the study released this week.

Both vessels are Foss "dolphin class" tugs and were tested in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, where the Carolyn Dorothy operates. The Alta June runs on four diesel engines; the Carolyn Dorothy, on four diesel engines and 126 batteries. All the engines meet EPA emissions standards for Tier 2 certification.

Researchers found that the Carolyn Dorothy's diesel electric drive train, rather than the vessel's batteries, was chiefly responsible for producing the emissions benefits. The researchers recommended that future studies include more running time without batteries to test the initial finding.

The team also said the tug's plug-in capabilities should be tested. The tug did not operate as a plug-in for the study because of insufficient shore power. As a result, the tug was plugged in only for about a third of its time in dock.

The Carolyn Dorothy started working the San Pedro Bay in January 2009. Here is the Port of Long Beach's YouTube video about the vessel's arrival:

The Port of Long Beach, which handles more cargo and containers than any other U.S. port, contributed $500,000 to the cost of $8 million tug boat built by Foss. Founded in 1889, the Seattle-based firm operates one of the larger tug and barge fleets on the U.S. West Coast.

Foss developed the hybrid tug to help cut pollution from merchant vessels and improve their fuel economy. The Long Beach and Los Angeles ports are the largest contributors to air pollution in California's South Coast Basin, according to UC Riverside.

The design for the Carolyn Dorothy received the EPA's Clean Air Excellence Award for Clean Air Technology in 2008. Last May, Foss received an Environmental Excellence Award for Green Enterprising Technologies from the Association of Washington Business. The tug boat also has received attention beyond environmental circles -- the vessel was featured in an April 2010 episode of The History Channel's "Modern Marvels" TV program.



Read More: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS37182365020101125

Chairman tapped to help Vallejo land the USS Iowa
By Sarah Rohrs / Times-Herald
Posted: 11/30/2010 01:01:09 AM PST

The former president and chief executive officer of a leading Silicon Valley technology startup firm is the latest addition to an organization aiming to bring a famed World War II battleship to Mare Island.

William Musgrave is the new chairman of Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square and its efforts to bring the USS Iowa to the former Naval shipyard.

"It's an honor to serve on this board and I think the timing is better now. We got a shot at raising the money and getting it all together," Musgrave said Monday.

Musgrave is the former leader of The Enterprise Network (TEN) of Silicon Valley, a leading accelerator for technology startups which helped launch eBay and similar companies.

He's no stranger to efforts to save the battleship, which is now part of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet north of Benicia.

In the late 1990s, Musgrave served on the board for several years and worked on a campaign to bring the battleship to San Francisco.

He said he left the organization because his work with burgeoning Internet companies grew and monopolized his time.

As Musgrave joins the board of directors now, he said he would like to focus on fundraising and helping spread the word about the benefits of Mare Island.

He would also like to find a role for wounded war veterans to play in bringing the ship to Vallejo, and performing other tasks should the vessel arrive.

Promoting the Iowa's educational opportunities for legions of school children to learn about its history and science is another opportunity Musgrave would like to explore, he said.

Historic Ships Memorial is in competition with a Southern California group to secure the famed battleship which once carried President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Merilyn Wong, who serves as Historic Ships board president, said Musgrave brings a experience and expertise to the organization. "He's had a tremendous business and military background in a nonprofit world," she said.

Wong said her organization has raised $1 million in pledges, and should bring in at least $12 million to cover the costs of moving the ship and getting it open for public tours.

The Navy re-opened bids to allow other groups to try to acquire the USS Iowa as a floating museum. That action allowed the Pacific Battleship Center to throw its hat in the ring.

Meanwhile, activity along the Mare Island waterfront has heated up as work begins on the dismantling of old ships within the Suisun Reserve Fleet, also known as the Mothball Fleet.

Wong said there's plenty of space along the Mare Island waterfront to accommodate the ship dismantling operation and the USS Iowa.

Musgrave previously served as a career U.S. Navy officer, completing his service in 1992 as a captain in the Supply Corps.

While in the Navy, he managed large-scale business and logistics operations and was engaged in weapons system acquisition and DOD procurement reform initiatives, according to Historic Ships Memorial.

A resident of San Jose, Musgrave is currently a professor of management at Silicon Valley University.



Read More: http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_16740771

Interesting. Now there is demand from the Bay Area, just a couple of miles from where the Iowa is tied-up now. Vallejo is a little isolated from tourism in general so I would think that LB/San Pedro would be better (also better weather).

Exports at L.A. and Long Beach ports are at a near-record pace
Sales growth spurred by demand from a rising middle class in countries including China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia is helping lead the region's rebound, experts say. LAX is on track for an all-time high for outgoing cargo.
By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times
3:27 PM PST, December 10, 2010

Southern California's twin ports are on track to post total exports for the year that approach the records set before the global recession, just as the region's preeminent air freight hub — Los Angeles International Airport — is on pace to set an all-time high for outgoing cargo.

Those are good signs for the local economy, despite a less robust showing by imports, which account for the bulk of cargo traffic through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Export-driven sales growth is helping to lead the region's rebound, experts say; overall, international trade provides work for more than 500,000 people in the Southland.

Nationally, the trade deficit narrowed more than anticipated in October, with exports jumping 3.2% and imports declining 0.5%, the Commerce Department said Friday. The trade gap fell to $38.7 billion from a revised $44.6 billion for September, well below analyst estimates for October of $43.6 billion, which suggests stronger U.S. economic growth. California exporters racked up their best October ever, according to Beacon Economics, shipping $12.91 billion in goods abroad during the month, up 16.5% from October 2009 and 1.1% better than the previous high for the month in October 2007.

Through October, the L.A. and Long Beach ports have moved 2.8 million export-carrying cargo containers, up 20% from the same period last year. If that pace continues through the end of the year, the two ports will handle about 3.4 million containers, which would rank second only to the 3.5 million moved in 2008. Imports are growing rapidly too, but both ports will fall well short of their 2007 best.

Air freight exports through LAX peaked at 457,899 U.S. tons in 2007, but the pace this year is running nearly 4% ahead of that, according to Jock O'Connell, international trade advisor for Beacon Economics.

Monetary value of exports was higher in 2007, but "the logistics industry makes money by moving weight and volume," O'Connell said. "They make more if the tonnages are going up."

Exporters are selling to new middle-class consumers in China, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and other countries, said Ferdinando Guerra, an associate economist at the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. who focuses on international trade.

"The middle class in these countries have begun to thrive," Guerra said. "Their countries are not really in recovery because they did not suffer as much as we did in the recession and their consumers are in a much better position overall."

One company looking to peddle even more internationally is Diamond Head Global Corp. of Gardena, a five-employee firm that sells reinforced steel framing and related components as a safe, sturdy home-construction alternative to wood, concrete, adobe or brick.

Chief Executive Darrell M. Sabihon said his biggest sales area has been the Philippines, and now he hopes to include other parts of Asia and earthquake-torn Haiti, where poor construction methods contributed to the massive temblor damage. Sabihon said he was looking to exceed his best year of about $6 million in sales in 2008.

"We're hopeful," he said. "Our products are better and they save a lot of time in construction."

Exports that originate in California are mostly high-value items, O'Connell said. In September, the most recent month for which statistics are available, California exported more than $12.3 billion to foreign markets, an increase of 19% over the year before, through its harbors and airports.

According to a UC Center Sacramento analysis of international trade data from the U.S. Commerce Department, the state's top exports were electrical machinery; industrial machinery and computers; optical, photographic and medical equipment; and aircraft and spacecraft components.

"In terms of sheer tonnage, airborne shipments typically account for no more than 1% or 2% of international trade. So there is no question that seaports do the heavy lifting in international trade. It's just that the cool stuff goes by air," O'Connell said.

With the U.S. economy still sluggish and lingering high unemployment still depressing that buying urge among consumers, exports are expected to help drive the recovery among businesses in Los Angeles and Orange counties, according to a report released last week by the Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies at Cal State Fullerton.

Co-authors Mira Farka and Adrian R. Fleissig said locally based exports would help lead the economic recovery here as the "rock bottom" levels of 2009 have given way to "record growth rates in 2010." Exports, they said, will be up 17.1% in Orange County and by 16.4% in Los Angeles and Long Beach compared with last year.

Although the amount of cargo sent out of Southern California is rising, local exporters still have a long way to go to regain the dollar volume they had before the recession, Fleissig said. After six straight years of gains in regionally based exports, which reached a value of $60 billion in 2008, exports plummeted by nearly 24% to $45.7 billion in 2009.

"We're definitely seeing good growth this year, but it's going to take some time to get back to where we were," Fleissig said. "We should get there by 2012."

Sabihon at Diamond Head Global is counting on it.

"I've got bids out on $50 million of potential business," he said. "We're hoping to get lucky."



Read More: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-exports-20101211,0,2006125.story

Port of Los Angeles Completes One Megawatt Solar Project on Rooftop of World Cruise Center
Business Wire
December 09, 2010 05:00 AM Eastern Time

Larger Than a Football Field, Thousands of Panels Will Increase Energy Capacity and Reduce 22,800 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide

SAN PEDRO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Port of Los Angeles has completed its World Cruise Center solar rooftop project, a 71,500 square foot, one megawatt system capable of generating approximately 1.2 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) energy grid.

The solar photovoltaic installation, which is expected to result in an annual $200,000 energy cost savings, is the first phase of a multi-location solar power program that will eventually produce 10 megawatts of solar system generation capacity. The $10.8 million project includes a total of 1.16 million square feet of rooftop solar panels, larger than the size of a football field. Three additional project phases are slated for completion over the next five years.

“Clean energy is essential if we are to meet the future growth and development needs of Los Angeles,” said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. “This solar project and others being initiated within our city will not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also add meaningful new jobs to our green sector workforce.”

“Solar power is one of many technologies being used at the Port of Los Angeles to promote environmentally responsible operations and development,” said Port Executive Director Geraldine Knatz, Ph.D. “We are thrilled to now be harnessing the power of the plentiful Southern California sun to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and increase economic opportunities for Los Angeles businesses and residents.”

Over the solar system's lifetime, it will reduce roughly 22,800 metric tons of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere, the equivalent of cutting the annual greenhouse gases of 4,367 cars, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA calculator)

The system is comprised of 5,140, 210-watt solar modules. It was installed by the Energy Alternatives Division of San Jose-based Cupertino Electric Inc. The roof-mounted system, which collects and converts solar radiation to electrical energy, features high-efficiency crystalline modules and utilizes a self-ballasted racking system that does not penetrate the terminal’s existing roof. Electricity generated is then routed back to the LADWP through an existing electric meter at the World Cruise Center facility.

Home of the original “Love Boat” in the 1970s, the World Cruise Center is an inner-harbor facility just south of the Vincent Thomas Bridge. The solar panel project is part of a $42 million upgrade at the World Cruise Center. Earlier this year, state-of-the-art walkways were installed to travel between the terminal building and cruise ships. Painting, lighting and audio-video upgrades have been completed, as well as a new fendering system and cushion-like bumpers on the wharf to protect the cruise ships and the wharf.

Additionally, Alternative Maritime Power (AMP), currently used at some container ship terminals, will soon be available so that cruise ships can “plug in” to shoreside electrical power instead of running on diesel power while at berth. Depending on the size of the ship, estimates are that AMP will reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by one ton (2,000 pounds) and reduce 85 percent of sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions out of the air each day a ship is at berth and plugged in.

The Port of Los Angeles is America’s premier port and has a strong commitment to developing innovative strategic and sustainable operations that benefit the economy as well as the quality of life for the region and the nation it serves. As the leading seaport in North America in terms of shipping container volume and cargo value, the Port generates 919,000 regional jobs and $39.1 billion in annual wages and tax revenues. A proprietary department of the City of Los Angeles, the Port is self-supporting and does not receive taxpayer dollars.

The Port of Los Angeles – A cleaner port. A brighter future.



Read More: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101209005379/en/Port-Los-Angeles-Completes-Megawatt-Solar-Project

PORTS OF L A AND LONG BEACH ARE SURGING BACK TWIN PORTS HANDLE 20.3% MORE CARGO OVER 2009 AS GLOBAL ECONOMY BEGINS RECOVERY . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/DaveToussaint44photographersnaturecom.jpg DAVE TOUSSAINT . The resurgent tide of international trade lifted nearly all major U.S. seaports this year, but none is gaining freight and jobs like Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation's busiest cargo complex.

Challengers competed harder than ever this year for cargo traffic that still trails the 2006-08 boom preceding the great global recession. They were aided in their efforts by retailers that spread their goods through more ports for greater flexibility. But sometimes size really does matter, as well as the local ports' relative proximity to Asia, trade experts said.

"Los Angeles and Long Beach have gotten their mojo back. They've just had their biggest single-year increase in cargo in 25 years," said John Husing, an economist and expert on international trade's effect on Southern California. "At first, customers were desperate to replenish inventories and get products back on store shelves, but then it didn't stop."

Other ports also did well this year, bouncing back from a dismal 2009. New York/New Jersey, ranked third in volume after L.A. and Long Beach, added 12.8% more cargo. Oakland, in fifth place, improved 15.3%.

But none gained as much traffic as Los Angeles and Long Beach, which together handled 20.3% more cargo boxes than in 2009. Cargo traffic through the twin ports grew by 2.4 million containers, for a total of about 14.2 million for 2010, including estimated December cargo movement. Line up the year's tally of 20-foot containers and there would be more than enough to circle the globe twice. Stack them and they would reach higher than a geosynchronous satellite.

Before the global recession, importers with long memories became concerned about their overwhelming reliance on Los Angeles and Long Beach in particular and on the West Coast in general as the dominant gateways for Asian trade.

Between 2002 and 2008, shippers had to contend with a parade of problems. There was a lockout of West Coast dockworkers; ships were delayed because of too few dockworkers and too few rail resources to haul the unanticipated flood of trade; El Niño deluges wiped out miles of railroad track.

National retailers were so troubled that they began regular monitoring of congestion at the nation's top ports.

"The haulers, freight forwarders and supply-chain experts who move that cargo were advising customers to adopt a 'four corners' strategy: Reduce your reliance on Southern California and the West Coast. Send some through Canada, to the East Coast and to the Gulf Coast, for flexibility," said Husing, who runs the Redlands firm Economics and Politics Inc.

That all changed as worldwide economies began slowing down, when U.S. importers, manufacturers, retailers and others cut their inventories of components and finished goods to record low levels, according to the Council of Supply Chain Management Officials.

By 2010, with importers desperate to refill their warehouses, factories and store shelves, the stakes had changed, according to Asaf Ashar, a professor with the University of New Orleans' National Ports and Waterways Institute. Why rely on ports that move a million cargo containers in six months to a year when Los Angeles and Long Beach can move that much in three weeks?

"If you have to replenish your inventory as fast as possible, you will probably go to Los Angeles and Long Beach," Ashar said. "Big ports are always more sensitive to changes in the economy. So coming out of the recession, Los Angeles and Long Beach were the first to benefit."

The ability to move more cargo than anywhere else in the country is an integral part of the marketing strategy of both ports. Long Beach's campaign, for example, features a map of the Pacific Ocean depicting a line for each of the weekly vessel calls to West Coast ports: two to Prince Rupert, Canada; 16 to Vancouver, Canada; eight each to Seattle and Tacoma, Wash.; and 40 to San Pedro/Long Beach.

"If you are looking for frequency and reliability, Southern California offers the major opportunities," said Richard D. Steinke, executive director of the Port of Long Beach. "Customers know they have more options here."

Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said she has a team crisscrossing the U.S. every month, touting the advantages of moving goods through the port.

"We have really ramped up our marketing-intensive visits to all of the cargo owners," Knatz said. "It's hard to say that this is what has caused the increases, but we are working hard to sell the advantages that we have."

The payoff has included brand-new cargo services for both ports. Long Beach added Pan Ocean Shipping Co. and TS Lines while Los Angeles added the Container Ship Co. — all of which added new sailings from China.

Los Angeles and Long Beach should flourish as long as China remains integral to the U.S. economy, said Jock O'Connell, international trade advisor to Beacon Economics of San Rafael, Calif.

"Theirs is a story of China in many respects," O'Connell said of the two ports. "As long as China remains the principal source of U.S. imports, then the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports should thrive."

Adrian Fleissig, a professor at the Cal State Fullerton Institute of Environmental and Economic Studies, said that another factor was the growing significance of locally based exports. Fleissig recently co-wrote a report predicting that by 2012, local exports would surpass the record levels set during the global economic boom.

"The share of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Santa Ana exports has risen steadily over the past decade, and now it is rising again after the end of the recession," Fleissig said. "That reflects the strength of those emerging Asian economies and the demand for products that are produced here."ron.white@latimes.com . PHOTO DAVE TOUSSAINT photographersnature.com RON WHITE LOSANGELESTIMES

Iowa governors back San Pedro bid for USS Iowa museum
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer
dailybreeze.com
Posted: 01/03/2011 07:05:08 PM PST

The USS Iowa, commissioned in 1943 for World War II, would need... (Kit Bonner USS Iowa at War)

Iowa Gov.-elect Terry Branstad has been joined by three of his predecessors - former Govs. Bob Ray, Tom Vilsack and Chet Culver - in endorsing plans to bring the state's namesake battleship to San Pedro as a permanent museum.

The U.S. Navy is reviewing two bids - the other is from Vallejo - in its effort to donate USS Iowa World War II vessel for tourist and educational uses.

"We are excited about the Pacific Battleship Center's plan to create a world-class museum and memorial to honor veterans and to educate all generations," the governors said in a Dec. 7 letter to Robert Kent, president of the nonprofit group that has proposed San Pedro as a site for the ship.

The letter is posted on the organization's website, www.pacificbattleship.com.

The Navy is expected to announce its decision early this year.

- Donna Littlejohn



Read More: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_17001207

. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/Fullscreencapture142011105518PM.jpg PACIFICBATTLESHIP.COM

Former Navy chief helps Vallejo's bid for the USS Iowa
Times-Herald staff report
Posted: 01/14/2011 01:08:33 AM PST

Former U.S. Navy Secretary Richard Danzig has joined efforts to bring the USS Iowa battleship to Mare Island as a floating museum.

Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square announced that Danzig will serve as honorary co-chairman of its board of directors.

Danzig served as Navy secretary from 1998 to 2001, and undersecretary between 1993 and 1997.

From 2007 through the 2008 presidential election, Danzig was a senior adviser to Barack Obama on national security issues.

He is currently chairman for Center of New American Security, a member of the Defense Policy Board and a RAND corporation director.

As Navy secretary, Danzig authorized the relocation of USS Iowa from Rhode Island to the ship's current home as part of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet north of Benicia, according to the foundation.

Silicon Valley entrepreneur William Musgrave, who serves as foundation chairman, said the organization is "thrilled to have Richard Danzig on board this effort. We are grateful for his help in bringing the battleship Iowa to Northern California."

The U.S. Navy is evaluating two proposals for the battleship.

Besides the Vallejo proposal, the Navy is examining a plan that comes from the Pacific Battleship Center, which proposes to have the vessel transported to San Pedro near Los Angeles.

The Navy's aim is to donate the ship as quickly as possible, but has no deadline on when a decision will be made, officials said earlier this month.

The Navy re-opened bids to allow other groups to try to obtain the ship as a floating museum after informing the Vallejo group that it had not made enough progress.



Read More: http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_17094929

Vallejo would be an easy location for a warship museum since it already has a lot of old ships there. But it is a little off the beaten track (the touristy stuff is mostly in SF). I'm afraid that it wouldn't get much patronage.

One last fight looms for the battleship Iowa
San Pedro wants the World War II ship on the waterfront, but so does a group from Vallejo. The U.S. Navy gets the final call.
December 28, 2010|By Steve Chawkins, Los Angeles Times

When San Pedro held its annual holiday parade a few weeks ago, the message to the Navy was unmistakable.

One of the grand marshals — although it couldn't be there in person — was the Iowa, the storied battleship that, with the Navy's blessing, could be permanently berthed on San Pedro's waterfront.

A cheering crowd gave the thumbs up to a float with a 40-foot-long billboard showing "the Big Stick," the vessel that carried President Franklin D. Roosevelt to crucial meetings during World War II. Veterans marched alongside, and a 93-year-old who was among the Iowa's first sailors waved, with other aging warriors, from atop a truck loaded with hay bales. Their aim was to show support for turning the vintage ship into a San Pedro tourist attraction.

Although other Navy vessels have been transformed into floating museums — including the aircraft carrier Midway in San Diego — there are no battleships available for boarding on the West Coast. That's why Bryan Moss, a radio operator aboard the Iowa during the Korean War, thinks passing up such an opportunity would be a loss.

"This is the last available battleship anywhere," Moss said. "I think a lot of people would miss an awful lot of history."

The Los Angeles City Council has unanimously endorsed the effort and the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners, after a previous rejection, approved it in November. By May 2011, the Navy is expected to decide between San Pedro and the Bay Area city of Vallejo.

Nearly 900 feet long and 15 stories tall, the 67-year-old Iowa is one of the biggest and most powerful battleships ever built. It also is the only Navy vessel with a bathtub — a feature installed for Roosevelt when he was shuttled to the Middle East to meet with Churchill and Stalin at the Teheran Conference in 1943.

Decommissioned in 1990, the iconic ship is languishing with about 50 other old vessels in the "ghost fleet" of Suisun Bay, a few miles northeast of San Francisco. In an agreement with environmentalists concerned about pollution from some of the mothballed ships, the federal government has promised to remove them by 2017.

The Iowa's fate has been debated for years. In 2005, San Francisco's county supervisors turned down a chance to acquire it, citing opposition to the Iraq war and the military's ban on gays and lesbians serving openly. In the wake of San Francisco's rejection, Stockton mounted a bid that was ultimately scuttled.

In Vallejo, a group called the Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square wants to place the Iowa at nearby Mare Island, the site of a naval shipyard that opened before the Civil War and operated until 1996.

"It's known as one of the most historic sites on the West Coast and it's a stunning location for the Iowa," said Merylin Wong, a former banker who is the group's president. Besides, she said, the Iowa would generate more revenue in the tourist-rich Bay Area than in comparatively off-the-beaten-track San Pedro.

Vallejo filed for bankruptcy in 2008 and the Iowa could be its "economic salvation," Wong said. It would be appropriate, she added, for the Navy to offer a lifeline to a struggling former Navy town.

But last May, the Navy, expressing concerns about Wong's ability to raise funds and secure a site, reopened the bidding process, enabling the 11th-hour attempt by San Pedro's Pacific Battleship Center.

Wong said that the Navy was misled about her group's finances and that the city of Vallejo is making a Mare Island berth available for the Iowa. Her competitors say the years-long effort in Vallejo has demonstrated "a lack of progress."

"Our site is ready to go," said Robert Kent, a battleship enthusiast who founded the Southern California center after breaking away from Vallejo.

Kent, an Orange County construction project manager, said the Iowa would be perfectly placed to attract the thousands of cruise-ship passengers who embark at San Pedro. It would breathe life into the waterfront and the nearby Ports O' Call Village mall, he said.

Many San Pedro residents seem to agree. In a letter of support, a neighborhood council said the ship would "provide the wow factor" needed to upgrade the waterfront.

The Iowa would be placed at Berth 87, a dock now used about six times a year, when San Pedro's other cruise-ship docks are occupied. AECOM, a San Francisco firm that consults for the harbor district, said the ship likely would draw an average of 188,000 visitors a year.

"They'll have one of the most high-profile berths in our port," said Geraldine Knatz, the harbor district's executive director. "We're trying to build a critical mass of activity along the waterfront. The Iowa is a small piece of a much grander plan."

Still, the Iowa could have some choppy seas ahead. Although Kent said his group has received a bank's letter of intent for a loan of $12.5 million, a harbor commission staff report pointed out that the cash isn't in hand. A letter from Torrey Pines Bank indicated that approval of the loan would be contingent on the Navy's decision and other unspecified factors.

Maintaining a battleship is costly and in the Iowa's case would run $2 million to $3 million a year more than projected ticket sales, according to AECOM'S Steven Spickard. But such a shortfall, he told the board, would be "very much in the range of typical, healthy cultural attractions," which usually get the extra money in donations from foundations, governments or individuals.

Kent's group is hoping that the state of Iowa will kick in $5 million, but a fund established by the state has drawn only about $3,000. He has lined up professional fundraisers in both Iowa and California.

Cyndi Pederson, director of the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs, said donations will probably start flowing once the Navy makes its decision. Schoolchildren touring the state Capitol always stop by a model of the Iowa, she said, adding that Iowans have a special place in their hearts for their namesake ship.

"I looked into bringing it back here," she joked, "but there was no way."



Read More: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/28/local/la-me-uss-iowa-20101228-1

San Pedro USS Iowa museum backers challenge need for study
Environmental review a waste of time, money, they contend.
By Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writer, Press-Telegram
Posted: 02/05/2011 09:07:24 PM PST

As the Navy continues to deliberate the fate of the USS Iowa battleship, supporters of a plan to bring the ship to San Pedro are questioning the port's assertion that a $1 million environmental study will be required for the endeavor.

Arguing that a simple addendum to the already certified waterfront study would suffice, John Miller of San Pedro said doing a separate and full report would result in an "outrageous expense" and delay.

"At a briefing in early January we were told that the Iowa project would have to analyze downstream effects which were already analyzed in Alternative Four of the waterfront project," said Miller, who serves on a port advisory committee.

Port officials and Iowa supporters have been meeting to discuss the project's specifics, which may include some flexibility on the scope of the study ultimately needed, said Port of Los Angeles spokesman Phillip Sanfield.

"It's still being discussed and we're working with the Iowa folks," Sanfield said, adding that some assessment, however, will be required for the ship's proposed location at Berths 87-90 in the space between the choreographed fountains on the north and the harbor fire boat station on the south.

"The USS Iowa project was not assessed in the waterfront plan. That space was to be a north (harbor) cut," Sanfield said. "So we're doing something completely different and we really do need to do an environmental assessment."

Robert Kent, president of the Pacific Battleship Center, the nonprofit leading the effort, said he remains positive about discussions that are ongoing with the port. Under the berthing site agreement with the port, Kent's group would pay for the cost of any environmental reports needed.

"We're just working through the process," Kent said. "Obviously we'd like not to do a full EIR (environmental impact report) if it's not required ... but we're looking at the options right now."

Miller and Richard Pavlick, chairman of the waterfront plan advisory committee, believe doing a full EIR could delay or even kill the project.

"This is no different than bringing a cruise ship in and berthing it," Pavlick said. "It's set up to have a ship in there."

"Requiring an outrageously expensive EIR behind closed doors would certainly be a way to kill (the project)," Miller said. "I'm not saying that's (the port's) motive, but you have to wonder if that's why they're requiring this."

Miller has written a letter to harbor commission President Cindy Miscikowski stating that the citizen's port environmental subcommittee believes a costly new study is not needed. His letter states that the port was given an estimate of more than $1 million to do a full EIR by one firm.

"The (Iowa) project as we understand it so far is basically to berth a ship where ships have historically been berthed and cars have been parked landside," the letter states. "Berth 87 is used intermittently for cruise ship berthing and has been used for other types of ships ... ."

The battleship, the letter goes on to say, would create fewer impacts than any of those other ships.

But Sanfield said a battleship tourist attraction would have different impacts than a cruise ship.

The port, he said, is obligated to examine impacts on traffic, parking and ship movements in the Main Channel.

"At this point we're working with the USS Iowa representatives in determining the scope of the work," Sanfield said. "But we do need to do an environmental assessment, these were not factors that were in the original waterfront plan approved in September 2009. This project did not exist then."

Meanwhile, the Navy is weighing two bids for the donation of the ship -- the other is from Vallejo -- and is expected to announce its decision by early summer.

Kent said the Navy recently requested clarification on 49 points in his group's 1,000-page application, with the answers due back by May 31.

"It's routine," Kent said of the follow-up questions. "They issued questions back to us and there's nothing that was insurmountable at all, nothing on there is a deal-breaker.

"The fact is, we're going to get this ship, there's no doubt about that in my mind," Kent said. "It's coming to L.A. and my mission right now is to get the ship here as quickly as possible



Read More: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_17306850

^^ THAT ... is what's considered a punt! L. A. style!

USS IOWA Long Term Viability Analysis
http://www.pacificbattleship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SanPedro_Vallejo_Feb_11_2011.pdf

Does seem to be a no-brainer. Vallejo and Mare Island are far off the tourism track; I would guess that even most Bay Area people have never heard of it. LB and San Pedro are much better known and accessible.

Pacific Battleship Center Preparing Berth 87 for USS IOWA
NewswireToday - /newswire/ - San Pedro, CA, United States, 03/17/2011 -

Nonprofit organization is moving forward with its development activities in advance of a Navy decision.

The Pacific Battleship Center, a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing the battleship USS IOWA to the port of Los Angeles, announced its commitment to move forward with its development efforts in advance of the Navy’s decision to award the ship.

“We’re confident in the strength of our application, ” said Robert Kent, the organization’s president. “We have the team; we have the local support; and we have the location. While our competitors to the north are desperately trying to find their berth, we are actively developing ours.”

Heading up the Pacific Battleship’s development team is Lucien Runge, principle at R2A Architecture of Costa Mesa, CA. “We’ve been working with the Port of Los Angeles, have completed the site analysis, and have moved onto design development.”

Design development activities include things such as mooring plans, fendering, passing-vessel analysis, utilities, and ingress/egress. When asked what types of improvements are required to transform Berth 87 into a home for a WWII battleship, Runge said, “These are minor improvements. The site already has a parking lot, a structurally-sound pier and most of the utilities at the berth. But more importantly, the site does not require dredging.”

R2A Architecture is one four organizations working on the effort. Their consulting engineering and design consultants also include: OMB Electrical Engineers (Electrical Engineering and lighting design), KNA Consulting Engineers (Structural Engineering), and G&G Civil Engineers, Inc (Civil engineering).

Although the Navy is not expected to make a decision on the fate of the USS IOWA until sometime after May 31st, the organization’s goal is to use this interim time to prepare for a Los Angeles-based decision.
“If the Navy awards the ship to the Pacific Battleship Center, we want to make sure that we can tow her immediately into her final home, ” said Runge.

Once the ship arrives, The Pacific Battleship Center expects it to take one-year to create exhibits, ship tours, and open her to the public.

About the Pacific Battleship Center

The Pacific Battleship Center (http://pacificbattleship.com/) is the Los Angeles-based nonprofit 501©3 organization dedicated to saving the last available battleship in the world, USS IOWA (BB-61). The organization's goal is to bring USS IOWA to North America’s busiest seaport, placing her at Berth 87 which is located immediately adjacent to the World Cruise Center, home of many cruise companies including Carnival, Disney, Norwegian, Princess, and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines.

Once here, the organization has detailed plans to develop an interactive experience that honors the historic contributions of USS IOWA and her crews. The history and technology of an American battleship creates a solid foundation by which to build education programs upon, teaching lessons in history, mathematics, physics, leadership, team-building, character development, and community service.



Read More: http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/87361/

^^ That .... is ballsy! Sure hope they get the nod!

Pending state Assembly measure calls for bringing USS Iowa to San Pedro
By Sarah Rohrs and Donna Littlejohn The Vallejo Times Herald and The Daily Breeze
Posted: 04/01/2011 03:20:34 PM PDT


A pending state resolution would urge the Navy to award the mothballed battleship USS Iowa to a San Pedro group for a museum rather than send it to Vallejo.

The resolution is nonbinding but supporters said it could help persuade the Navy that the Los Angeles area would be a better choice for the historic ship than Vallejo, which is also bidding for it.

A representative of the Vallejo group trying to bring the battleship to Mare Island, however, said Assembly Joint Resolution 8 is full of errors that could prove costly.

The joint resolution by Assembly members Warren Furutani, D-Gardena, and Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, recommends the World War II vessel be towed to the Pacific Battleship Center in San Pedro for use as a floating museum at the Port of Los Angeles.

Supporters will announce and discuss the measure at a 10 a.m. April 9 news conference and project exhibition event at Berth 87 in the Port of Los Angeles. The resolution is expected to be ready to be heard in committee during the week of April 13.

"We believe that San Pedro offers much better facilities and has a much better organization behind it to foster a good program for the USS Iowa," said Sandra Sanchez, Furutani's chief of staff. "We'd really like it in our community. It's a historic battleship and bringing it to San Pedro would be a great addition to the waterfront there."

Merilyn Wong of Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square, angling for a Mare Island waterfront site, said the resolution erroneously says the ship could be returned to the Navy.

"You cannot return the ship to the Navy in the event of a financial failure," Wong said.

Pat Dolan, director of communications at Naval Sea Systems Command, said there's no clear-cut answer to the question of whether the Navy could take a ship back after it has been awarded. She said it depends on the ship's condition.

But Robert Kent, president of the Pacific Battleship Center, said the Navy specifically requires the nonprofit group to set aside enough money to tow the ship back as part of the ship donation agreement.

"We have to have that money in reserve," Kent said.

The Navy took the USS Edson back after it served as a museum ship on the East Coast but only after it underwent substantial repairs, Dolan said.

The Navy rejected the USS Olympia after that ship also served as a history museum due to its deteriorating condition, Dolan added.

Wong said the Vallejo site is far superior and would draw more visitors to support a museum while the Southern California venture could end up being a financial failure and a costly liability to taxpayers.

Further, a feasibility report indicates the ship would struggle financially because of low attendance, Wong said.

Center representatives said the report is flawed and relies on an old study.

"We've addressed all those issues with the port to their satisfaction," Kent said, adding that business plans have been submitted to the Navy covering projected scenarios of 188,000 to 400,000 visitors a year.

"Los Angeles is one of the largest metropolitan markets in the world. The Iowa is probably going to be the most visited ship in the world," Kent said. "Our third-party marketing firm showed we'd be up around the 400,000 mark."

The Navy's aim is to donate the ship as quickly as possible, though no deadline has been given. The ship is in the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet north of Benicia.

The Navy last month requested more information from both organizations, giving them a May 31 deadline to submit a "final application." An announcement is expected to come by early summer.

Lowenthal's chief of staff, Will Shuck, said that although the resolution, if passed, would be nonbinding, it would serve to express the opinion of the Legislature on the matter.

"It's a worthy effort to give people in Southern California that kind of access to this very tangible link to our nation's history," Shuck said.

"When the Navy looks at the whole package of what San Pedro offers," Sanchez said, "this will be just one more (argument in favor of the location) - that the state Legislature stands with the local community in supporting this effort."



Read More: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_17752818

China Shipping unveils Port of L.A. facility improvements
By Art Marroquin Staff Writer, Daily Breeze
Posted: 04/18/2011 06:42:07 PM PDT

China Shipping Holding Co. on Monday unveiled $47.6 million worth of improvements as part of its ongoing, multiphase terminal expansion at the Port of Los Angeles.

The latest round of upgrades include a new 925-foot section of wharf, 18 additional acres of backland and four container cranes that will increase the amount of cargo processing at the shipping terminal.

An access bridge was also built, connecting the China Shipping and Yang Ming terminals as a way to improve truck access between the two facilities.

"The completion of this critical phase allows for the berthing of two ships simultaneously and positively positions China Shipping and the port for considerable growth opportunities," said Li Shaode, chairman of the China Shipping.

The entire $206.5 million China Shipping expansion project, set for completion in 2014, calls for building 2,500 feet of new wharf and doubling the entire terminal's size to 142 acres, port officials said.

When completed, the expanded terminal is expected to handle up to 1.5 million cargo containers annually, generating 8,400 jobs throughout the region.

Additionally, the project is expected to result in a 52 percent reduction in smog-forming nitrogen oxides, more than 70 percent less particulate matter and a 95 percent reduction in sulfur oxides, which come from ship exhaust fumes, according to the project's environmental impact report.

China Shipping "is a global company that has made a major financial investment in Los Angeles to significantly grow its business using the cleanest technology available," said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

China Shipping opened a 75-acre terminal at the Port of Los Angeles in June 2004, but the terminal operator ran into a series of legal hurdles that prevented any kind of meaningful expansion.

A coalition of homeowners and businesses had complained that the project's initial environmental review was incomplete. To make up for that, port officials took a second look at work already completed on the terminal, along with the proposed expansion plan.

The Los Angeles City Council approved a $22.2 million settlement with China Shipping in 2005 to cover the costs of a two-year delay in opening the company's terminal. The port also agreed in 2003 to pay for $50 million worth of environmental improvements in the Harbor Area as part of a settlement with community groups.

After six years of delays and litigation, China Shipping's expansion plan was approved in December 2008 by the Board of Harbor Commissioners, the five-member civilian panel that oversees the Port of Los Angeles.

"It is partnerships like this one with China Shipping that allow the port to grow smartly and efficiently while creating jobs and opportunity throughout the region," said Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles.

"This expansion enables China Shipping to continue its remarkable growth and better serve its customers around the world," she said.



Read More: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_17876371

Just so they keep business from mooooving down the coast and into the Panama Canal, it's fine with me.

Members of Congress pressure Navy secretary on USS Iowa decision
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer
Daily Breeze
Posted: 08/29/2011 05:17:10 PM PDT

Official pressure mounted over the weekend for the U.S. Navy to expedite its announcement on donating the USS Iowa.

Expressing concerns about the timing of towing the battleship before the stormy winter months arrive, several House members have urged Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus to decide quickly which suitor will be home to the icon.

Nonprofit groups in both Los Angeles and Vallejo have submitted applications that have been under review by the Navy for several months.

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, D-Iowa, mentioned in an Aug. 26 letter to Mabus that the Navy Ship Donation Office had made a formal recommendation to begin the process.

But Mabus still must sign off on the recommendation - and there is no word on what the recommendation will be.

"Something has been sent up to the secretary of the Navy," said Robert Kent, president of the Pacific Battleship Center, the Los Angeles group vying to bring the vessel to San Pedro's waterfront.

Timing is becoming crucial, Lantham wrote, because of the coming winter months and the limited opportunity for high tides.

"This unique situation demands a swift response to avoid the damaging effects of impending winter," Lantham wrote to Mabus in his letter, also signed by Iowa Reps. Leonard Boswell, Steve King, Dave Loebsack, Bruce Braley and U.S. Sens. Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin.

"If the USS Iowa cannot be moved before the winter months take hold, the battleship would silt and require the labor-intensive and costly act of dredging before towing to its final resting place can commence."

Rep. Janice Hahn, D-San Pedro, also wrote a letter earlier in the week to Mabus, specifically urging that the ship be donated to her district in Los Angeles rather than Vallejo and asking for a decision "as soon as possible."

A decision could come within days, Kent said.

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad recently signed off on an appropriation committing $3 million to the refurbishment of the ship, wherever it ends up. That apparently has been a key decision the Navy has been awaiting.

The ship, now sitting with the Navy's ghost fleet in the shallow Suisun Bay in Northern California, needs to be towed out of storage during a high tide, which will occur at the end of September and again at the end of October.

But the October time frame is complicated because it is the beginning of the winter storm month, Kent said.

The window is close to closing to make the preferred September deadline, he said.

Calling the ship the "Air Force One of its day" because it ferried President Franklin D. Roosevelt to and from the Tehran conference, Lantham wrote that the Iowa is a "symbol of American might" that "deserves immediate preservation to ensure it can be forever treasured by current and future generations."

The Iowa letter did not favor one location over the other, but simply urged quick action to make sure the ship is preserved.

Hahn's Aug. 18 letter to Mabus urged the Navy to choose the Port of Los Angeles site, where the ship would serve as a permanent floating museum.

"It will inspire and educate the estimated 450,000 visitors that will come to see her annually, bringing in $1 million in direct state and local tax revenues, as well as an estimated $240 million in direct and indirect economic impacts over 10 years," Hahn wrote.

"The Port of Los Angeles is prepared to immediately welcome the USS Iowa as a permanent fixture to the port and has the capacity to display the ship's wonders on a much grander scale to a vastly larger audience" than Vallejo.

Meanwhile, the port on Monday issued its formal Notice of Preparation for the required environmental study. A public meeting will be held from 6-8 p.m. Sept. 13 inviting comments about potential impacts the ship would have on the port and community.



Read More: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_18782131

USS Iowa supporter tells harbor commissioners he expects favorable decision
By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer
Daily Breeze
Posted: 09/01/2011 04:52:57 PM PDT

A supporter of moving the USS Iowa battleship to San Pedro told harbor commissioners Thursday they'd met the Navy's required benchmark fundraising goal and expect a nod from officials soon.

"It could happen any minute, I've got my cellphone ready to go," Robert Kent told commissioners after a staff presentation on the project.

Kent is president of Pacific Battleship Center, one of two nonprofit organizations - the other based in Vallejo - that have bids in to the Navy for donation of the historic vessel.

While the Iowa already received the go-ahead from the Port of Los Angeles last November, it's all contingent now on whether the Navy selects Los Angeles over Northern California.

Plans call for the ship to be docked at Berth 87 - just north of the harbor's fireboat station and south of the Vincent Thomas Bridge - along San Pedro's developing waterfront.

Kent said his group has collected $250,000 in early donations, with another $3 million to be made available from the state of Iowa and $5 million in an approved bank loan.

While he said that meets the Navy's initial benchmark for the ship donation, the group still must raise another $10 million in coming years should the ship come to the port as a floating museum.

In addition to ongoing questions about funding, commissioners expressed concerns about traffic and parking, especially in light of the tourist crunch seen this summer during Navy Week.

"It's already a reality as our events have become more successful," Commissioner David Arian said of handling the crowds.

"This is becoming a real critical question. ... We already have an overflow."

The Iowa group - which anticipates the ship will draw 350,000 to 400,000 visitors a year - has included a 300-space parking lot in its proposal. But port officials acknowledge that parking for the entire waterfront area will be a growing challenge.

The long-range solution included in the waterfront plans will be to build parking structures - one near the cruise terminal and the other near Ports O' Call Village.

Meanwhile, efforts are under way to establish shared parking plans along with making use of shuttle services and other amenities.

Dave Mathewson, director of port planning and economic development, told commissioners progress has been made on several issues over the past few months as port staff has worked with members of the Iowa group.

A public meeting is scheduled from 6-8 p.m. Tuesday to go over issues posed by the ship, including traffic, parking and views, that will be addressed in an upcoming environmental impact report.

Kent told commissioners that much headway has been made by his group already on engineering, towing and utility plans. Skilled volunteers - including former shipyard workers, carpenters, electricians and others with maritime construction and repair expertise - have pledged 48,000 hours of in-kind work on the ship, Kent said.

The Navy's announcement of whether Los Angeles or Vallejo would get the ship donation was expected to come sometime this summer.

A recommendation reportedly has been made within the Navy's ship donation unit, but it still awaits a signature by the Secretary of the Navy.

Timing is crucial because the Pacific Battleship Center wants to take advantage of the next "extreme high tide" conditions (at the end of September and end of October) so the ship can be towed out of Suisun Bay during daylight hours.

Without daytime high-tide conditions, there's the danger of silt building up and costly dredging that would become necessary, Kent said.

Congressional leaders from Iowa, in addition to Rep. Janice Hahn, D-San Pedro, have asked the Navy to expedite its announcement so the ship can be towed this fall.



Read More: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_18807895

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg/800px-Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

Los Angeles Wins USS Iowa Bid
The ship will be docked at Berth 87 in the Port of Los Angeles and is expected to draw as many as 500,000 tourists
By Scott Weber
NBC LA
| Tuesday, Sep 6, 2011 | Updated 2:35 PM PDT

The last surviving battleship in the world without a home has been awarded to Los Angeles.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced the United States Navy has donated the World War II Battleship USS Iowa to the Pacific Battleship Center, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit on course to turn the ship into a permanent museum and memorial at the Port of Los Angeles.

"Were all thrilled, it's been a year-and-a-half of hard work," said Robert Kent, the Center's President. "It will be unlike any museum ship in the world."

The ship will be docked at Berth 87 in the Port of Los Angeles and is expected to draw as many as 450,000 tourists each year. Local officials believe the Iowa will kick start a revitalization of the area and its attractions.

"Los Angeles is absolutely the right place for this historic battleship, and we are going to take great care of her,'' said Rep. Janice Hahn, whose district includes the port.

Hahn said she worked hard to secure the ship, which she said will generate $250 million of economic activity for the San Pedro economy over the next decade.

"We love the Navy in San Pedro, and we cannot wait to welcome the U.S.S. Iowa to her final home,'' she added.

The Battleship Center raised about $9 million to move and restore the ship, including $3 million from the state of Iowa. The group took out another $5 million in loans and raised the rest through donations and pro bono work.

The Iowa, once dubbed the "Big Stick," is about the length of three football fields, and is the last surviving battleship in the world that has either not been scrapped or turned into a museum.

Kent said the ship will go through an exterior renovation in San Francisco where it's currently mothballed, then be towed to San Pedro where its interior will be converted to a museum.

Plans call for the ship to be opened up in phases.

"Every part of the ship of interest" will eventually be open to the public, Kent said, including the command center, top decks, powder magazine rooms, and the historic wardroom that carried President Franklin Roosevelt across the Atlantic for meetings with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Formal transfer of the ship's ownership will occur after completion of various environmental and historical requirements, the Navy said.

The ship will be towed to Los Angeles sometime between December and January and could be open to the public by the summer of 2012.


Follow NBCLA for the latest LA news, events and entertainment: Twitter: @NBCLA // Facebook: NBCLA



Read More: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/129328813.html

That's what I've been waiting for! Thanks, 'Holmes!

L.A./Long Beach ports struggle to meet Panama Canal challenge
Business, labor and public officials push projects to make the L.A. and Long Beach ports competitive with a wider and deeper Panama Canal, but not everyone in the region is on board.
By Ronald D. White, Los Angeles Times
4:24 PM PST, December 28, 2011

A major expansion of the Panama Canal is raising alarms in Southern California, where business, labor and public officials are warning that the project threatens to dent the region's role in international trade.

The $5.25-billion project will make the canal wider and deeper, allowing huge freighters from Asia to bypass West Coast ports and head straight to terminals on the Gulf Coast and East Coast. The neighboring ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which together handle about 40% of the nation's imported Asian goods, could lose as much as a quarter of their cargo business by some estimates after the Panama expansion is completed in 2014.

The ports, neighboring towns and railroads have launched improvement projects aimed at keeping them competitive. One proposed project, for instance, would speed the loading of cargo onto trains; others eliminate bottlenecks or increase capacity so that the ports remain alluring to importers. But a coalition of business, labor and government contends that these efforts are jeopardized by opposition from some residents, environmental groups and others.

Two members of the Long Beach City Council, for example, sought to block the construction of a new railroad freight complex near the ports, saying it would increase pollution and force small businesses to relocate.

The coalition, which calls itself the Jobs 1st Alliance, says the rail and other projects are crucial if Southern California hopes to keep its place as a center for international trade. Directly and indirectly, economists say, cargo movement employs more than 500,000 people in the region.

"To protect these jobs, we need to get these projects completed," said Wally Baker, president of the alliance and a former executive with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., a jobs promotion group. "But every time it looks as though progress is being made, someone tries to move the finish line."

The coalition has launched a campaign called Beat the Canal, using Facebook and a website (BeatTheCanal.com), and plans to act as an advocate for specific projects, pushing for faster action and fighting against environmental and other reviews that become excessive, Baker said.

One of those on board is Maria Elena Durazo, executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

"We're trying to put the point across that business and government and labor need to be on the same page," she said. "We need to work together and recognize the ports for their broader importance to the economy of Southern California."

Few places host a system as complex as the Southern California seaports and the vast regional network of truck routes, rail lines, bridges, freeways and warehouses that serve it. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the biggest U.S. port complex and the world's sixth-busiest harbor.

The Jobs 1st Alliance fears that the ports could lose as many as 100,000 jobs when the Panama Canal overhaul allows much larger ships to bypass California.

"Worst case, there could be a 25% diversion from Los Angeles-Long Beach," said Paul Bingham, the group's chief economist. "That's upwards of 3 million cargo containers. That's a lot of dockworkers who don't get work, truckers with less to haul and trains that don't run."

The biggest ships that can squeeze through the Panama Canal now carry 4,400 to 5,000 containers. But modern cargo vessels routinely hold three times as many of the big metal boxes.

So importers often use West Coast ports to land their products from Asia. Then the containers crammed with apparel, toys and other goods move from ships to trucks or trains and on to warehouses and retailer shelves throughout the U.S.

A wider Panama Canal would accommodate some of the biggest ships afloat — 12,600-container vessels — which will present a vastly improved "all water" cargo movement option for Asian goods bound for the southern and eastern U.S.

Jobs 1st Alliance is worried by the efficiency that Panamanian authorities have shown in keeping the project on schedule and their zeal in pursuing business with other ports, Baker said.

By contrast, U.S public and private efforts launched in response to the Panama project are being slowed by red tape and lawsuits, said Baker, who noted that he has lent Jobs 1st Alliance about $200,000 of his own money. The group does no lobbying and is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, Baker said.

So far, Baker said, he's recouped about half of the loan from donations from Alliance members, such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, BNSF Railway, Union Pacific, the Southern California Assn. of Governments and the Southern California Leadership Council.

The biggest share of the money — $65,000 — went to produce a video the group has on its website that makes the case for expediting infrastructure improvements. It ends with several politicians and others, even Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, chanting, "Beat the canal." She is joined by the likes of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Gov. Gray Davis, former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown and business leaders such as Greg McWilliams, president of Newhall Land & Farming Co.

Other efforts include an assessment of every project underway involving competing ports.

About 65 projects totaling about $7.5 billion need to be expedited to keep Southern California on top, Baker said. Among those is BNSF Railway's Southern California International Gateway Project, designed to speed rail movement and reduce truck traffic and diesel emissions.

The project was proposed in 2005. But its 4,690-page draft environmental impact report wasn't completed for six years, a measure of the difficulty answering the objections.

And it's still not adequate, said Long Beach City Council members Rae Gabelich and James Johnson, who introduced a memorandum this month opposing the location of the yard.

The council meeting drew a crowd of Jobs 1st Alliance representatives, mostly union workers, to argue against the memorandum. The council voted to request more information from the ports about other possible locations and how many businesses would need to relocate.

Opponents of some of the projects say they are concerned because port-side neighborhoods already bear an inordinate burden of air pollution and traffic.

Community activist Jesse Marquez said that not enough had been done to assess health effects of various projects.

"How can the ports mitigate public health impacts when they do not know how many people are already sick, with what illness, the degree of illness and the cost of healthcare?" he said.

The Natural Resources Defense Council contends "giving people an either-or, promoting jobs or promoting public health, is a false choice," said Melissa Lin Perrella, a senior attorney at the council. "The environmental review processes are important and make sure that these projects provide good jobs and protect public health."

Baker says his group isn't promoting a full-speed-ahead agenda that would sacrifice public health.

"We're doing this to show people there is a threat to our regional economy and that we can do something about it," Baker said. "Who's the target? The target is anyone who doesn't believe that we have to be more competitive."



Read More: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-panama-canal-20111229,0,5890091.story

Hope the nimbys don't have a time wasting court
proceeding that could tie up progress in this fight.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site204/2012/0119/20120119__PN20-MIDDLE_HARBOR.gif

Port of Long Beach expansion to create thousands of jobs
By Karen Robes Meeks, Staff Writer
Press-Telegram LONG BEACH, CA
Posted: 01/19/2012 05:26:06 PM PST

LONG BEACH — After a year of negotiations, Port of Long Beach officials have reached a tentative lease agreement with Orient Overseas Container Line on the future Middle Harbor development — a partnership that could make Long Beach the nation's busiest seaport and create thousands of new jobs.

The 40-year lease with the Hong Kong-based container shipping and logistics service company is a $4.6 billion commitment to "the biggest port terminal project in North America," said Port Executive Director J. Christopher Lytle.

"This agreement will allow us to move ahead with construction of the most technologically advanced and greenest terminal in the world," said Lytle, who made the announcement Thursday at his first State of the Port address at the Long Beach Convention Center.

The agreement, which is expected to go before the Harbor Commission on Monday, validates the city's commitment to infrastructure, said Mayor Bob Foster.

"In order for this port to thrive, in order for it to remain the economic engine that it is, we have to expand and we have to be able to move greater volumes of cargo at greater velocities," Foster said.

Foster added that he had spoken to the president of OOCL at the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce event, which brought more than 600 city and business leaders.

"He said it's the largest commitment they've made anywhere in the world," the mayor said. "So it demonstrates that we are right in what we said. We're going to plan for the future. We're going to have a port for the future."

OOCL Chief Executive Officer Philip Chow said in a statement that he is very pleased with reaching an agreement with the port to operate the Middle Harbor project.

"It demonstrates our long-term commitment to the Port of Long Beach as the gateway of choice for North America and solidifies our economic partnership with the region," Chow said. "We look forward to seeing the positive impact that this commitment will have for years to come."

Chow declined requests for an interview after the State of the Port address.

Work is already under way on the $1.2 billion redevelopment project, which seeks to fuse two old shipping terminals encompassing 294 acres into a new 345-acre terminal. Improvements will include upgraded wharfs, water access and storage area and an expanded on-dock rail yard from 10,000 linear feet to 75,000, which means less local truck trips, Lytle said.

When completed in 2019, the Middle Harbor is supposed to help improve cargo movement by more than double, cut air pollution by as much as half and add about 14,000 permanent jobs to the local economy, officials said.

"This terminal will be the crown," Lytle said after the event. "It will be the terminal that will represent the highest efficiency, we think, of any terminal in the country. Customers will want to come to that terminal to have their cargo handled there."

The agreement comes at significant time, officials said.

"It's great, especially now with the down economy," Lytle said. "There's a lot of pessimism in the industry, but OOCL is taking that long-term view and looking ahead and realizing that this continues to be a premiere gateway."

OOCL, a Port of Long Beach customer since 1969, would take up roughly 305 acres, and could move into the new space as early as 2016, Lytle said.

"When they're up to capacity, that terminal would equate to the fourth largest port in the U.S. - that terminal alone, when it's up to 3.1 million TEUs (20-foot equivalent units)," Lytle said.

With the Middle Harbor, Long Beach has the potential to overtake Los Angeles as the nation's busiest seaport.

About 6.1 million 20-foot-equivalent containers were moved in 2011 by Long Beach port shipping terminals, while more than 7.94 million cargo containers passed through the Port of Los Angeles last year. If this trend continues and the Middle Harbor reaches capacity, the Port of Long Beach would top 9 million TEUs.

"This lease, if it gets approved, is really going to shape the Port of Long Beach and Long Beach for the next 40 years," said Susan E. Anderson Wise, president of the Long Beach Harbor Commission. "It secures the future for us."



Read More: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_19777252

This is very important, and frankly I don't care if Long Beach pulls ahead on capacity, just so long as this complex remains relevent and dominant. . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/p2sengcom.jpg P2SENG.COM . We're competing with supertanker access through the Panama Canal soon and, as I see it, they will have a slight problem with bottlenecking, along with some pirate trouble, but if we concentrate on turnaround, then nothing can impress our clients more than that! That, and delivering the product to our distribution centers across the country- in effect, beating the boats to our collective destinations! . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/lilesnetcom.jpg LILESNET.COM

this is indeed huge news. To lock in a this project as Panama is gaining is a big step in the right direction

Who knows what is the annual growth of the harbor load? semester? two months?..that it happens to the extension of the port? it will be realised?

Who knows what is the annual growth of the harbor load? semester? two months?..that it happens to the extension of the port? it will be realised?

List of world's busiest container ports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_container_ports

MAMMOTH CARGO SHIP ARRIVES AT PORT OF LONG BEACH . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/68868966.jpg WALLY SKALIJ/LATIMES . The largest cargo container ship to ever dock in the Americas made a fog-shrouded first voyage into the Port of Long Beachon Friday morning, sending a message to competitors that Southern California can handle the giant vessels most others can't welcome for at least two more years. . Out by the breakwater, it looked as though a man-made island had sprung up overnight, but the dark shape was a vessel called the Fabiola, gliding very slowly toward port. The Fabiola is one of a new generation of vessels that can carry 11,000 or more containers, favored by ocean cargo lines because packing more freight boxes onto each ship lowers costs. . "She's way beyond our previous record for size," said Dick McKenna, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern California, which logs the arrival and departure of all ships calling at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the nation's largest seaport complex. "This is quite a significant jump for us." . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Msc-Fabiola-609384.jpg VESSELTRACKER.COM . The Fabiola, owned by Geneva-based Mediterranean Shipping Co., can carry 12,500 containers. The ship is just 30 feet shorter than the Empire State Building is tall, as wide as a 10-lane freeway and big enough to carry the contents of eight 1-million-square-foot warehouses. But most harbors in North, Central and South America aren't deep enough and don't have the equipment to handle the biggest ships, though several are on a building spree to take market share and jobs from Southern California's ports. . In Panama, new canal locks that can handle such huge vessels won't be finished for at least two years. The Panama Canal is a vital link on a so-called all-water trade route that competes with Southern California for the movement of products from Asia, mainly from China. The Gulf Coast and East Coast ports that could benefit from the widened canal will have to spend billions of dollars to be ready. That gives the country's two largest cargo container ports — Los Angeles and Long Beach — an important head start in showing off their ability to handle ships like the Fabiola, which sailed from Yantian, China. . "When customers see that we welcome these ships now, it will affect their deployment decisions when they plan out how to ship their cargo," said Shawn Strawbridge, managing director for trade development and operations at the Port of Long Beach. "This ship's arrival here today is a very good example." . Wally Baker, president of the Jobs 1st Alliance, a jobs promotion group pushing to help the twin ports maintain their competitive dominance, said local residents "need these ships calling at our ports. It will lead to more jobs and more business." . The Fabiola's smooth arrival looked routine, but a lot of preparation had gone into bringing her into the port for the first time, said Tom Jacobsen, president of Jacobsen Pilot Service Inc., the 90-year-old family-run business that handles all of the Long Beach port's ship arrivals. Pilots are the maritime experts found at any major port who take over the handling of ships as they approach ports and guide them safely to dock. For the Fabiola's arrival, Jacobsen pilots went to the California Maritime Academy in Vallejo, northeast of San Francisco, to practice on its ship simulator the maneuver that would bring the vessel to dock with the assistance of three tugboats, swing her around in the port's turning channel and ease her past shoals on either side. . The normal route for a Mediterranean Shipping Co. vessel couldn't be used because the ship is too wide for the Long Beach port's back channel, Jacobsen said, and too tall to fit under the aging Gerald Desmond Bridge, which is due to be replaced. "This is just the beginning," Jacobsen said of the Fabiola's arrival. "We're going to see several ships after this one that are just as big or almost as big." . Mediterranean Shipping, for instance, has become the most prolific buyer of so-called very large container ships. The company, which commands a merchant fleet bigger than theU.S. Navy, with 484 ships it either charters or owns, now owns 43 such mega-ships, or more than twice as many as any other shipping line. ron.white@latimes.com LOSANGELESTIMES

Port of L.A. adopts 5-year plan aimed at competition from Panama Canal, others (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20434696/port-adopts-5-year-plan-aimed-at-competition)

A massive expansion of the Panama Canal prompted the Port of Los Angeles today to adopt a five-year plan aimed at remaining commercially competitive and financially fit.

The strategic plan is aimed at maintaining Los Angeles' distinction as the nation's busiest port by developing infrastructure projects, growing market share and advancing technology, according to David Mathewson, director of planning and economic development for the port.

"The plan identifies who we are, where we're going, how we're going to get there and how we know if we got there," Mathewson told the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners.

Some of the port's goals through 2017 call for timely completion of terminal expansion projects, wider use of zero-emission big rigs and bolstering trade with emerging markets such as Latin America and Vietnam. | » Ports efforts impress EPA chief

The move comes as the Panama Canal is undergoing a $5.25 billion widening project that would allow Asian container ships to bypass Los Angeles and Long Beach and move on to ports along the East Coast and Gulf Coast.

Additional competition is coming from a rapid growth of ports in Canada and Mexico, officials said.

"This plan is a blueprint for responsible growth and job creation that will guide us toward maintaining our competitive advantage as the nation's premier trade gateway,"

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in a written statement.

The port's five-year plan also is aimed at optimizing land use and strengthening its relationships with the surrounding community. Part of that calls for providing security and emergency response classes for dockworkers, terminal employees and those who live near the port.

Port officials also hope to bolster financial performance by increasing revenue, seeking more grants and breaking even on the Clean Trucks Program by 2014.

"There's something there for everybody in the sense that it's a good economic plan for the growth of the port and its a heck of a plan for our social responsibility to give back to the American people as an institution," Harbor Commissioner David Arian said.

"I think a lot of people can buy into this plan where it's not going to be based on some ideological position to the left or the right."

Just make sure we don't get too green! If we get too green they will swamp us! Also, more talk on increased capacity and the requisite improvements on the rail going out of the basin and into the nation. Without increase in rail, there is no increase in port operations needed to compete. . . . . . . . . THE MAN HAS VZN! HE IS A VZNARY! YOU WILL BE UNDER HIS SUPERVZN! VZN fOR MAYOR! http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Dennis-Haysbert-as-David-Palmer-24-15032852-550-600.jpg

Port of L.A. adopts 5-year plan aimed at competition from Panama Canal, others (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20434696/port-adopts-5-year-plan-aimed-at-competition)

If we plan to compete with the improved Panama Canal, then I assume we are going to offer new technology or systems that provide cheaper and faster loading and unloading of cargo. This article talks about environmental sort of changes, which may or may not be desirable, but don't seem to give us a better chance of competing with Panama.

Is anyone familiar with the "meat" of this process? Or is it just a spending of money with no real advantages regarding our competitive position?

This is exactly what I thought!

They tout this plan that's about upgrade and competition, then go in for the green
talking points as if people are going to be
satisfied and forget all about the topic of
the article in the first place.

All we have to do for our customers, both
here and abroad, is "guarantee" faster turn-
around on the ships and fast transportation
to the distribution centers in our markets.

If our system has the goods beating the ships
squeezing through what will still be a small
hole in Central America, then those cities with
ports on the East and Gulf coasts will have to
pay shipping companies extra for their docks
to be utilized.

The longer trips mean delayed turnaround, and
our rail system is established and can beat them.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/iowa1j.jpg . It's less than a month until the USS Iowa battleship is scheduled to leave the Port of Richmond and head south to Los Angeles, where it will open this summer as a floating museum. , So how's it doing? It's 50 foot, 52,000 pound mast has just been reattached after a decade (the Navy had removed it so it could fit under bridges on its tow route), and in what is apparently an old maritime tradition, a couple of Iowans dropped Iowa state quarters inside at the last minute. With its mast back up, the ship reaches 175 feet above sea level, which will make things tricky when it gets to the Port of LA's 185 foot tall Vincent Thomas Bridge. . The ship leaves Richmond on May 20. . CURBED LA

With its mast back up, the ship reaches 175 feet above sea level, which will make things tricky when it gets to the Port of LA's 185 foot tall Vincent Thomas Bridge.

Wait for low tide, I guess? Or perhaps there's a way to remove the mast again once it reaches the west coast, but before it goes under the bridge?

Wait for low tide, I guess? Or perhaps there's a way to remove the mast again once it reaches the west coast, but before it goes under the bridge?

Turn the boat on its side? Drain the ocean? Lift the bridge?

The only cruise I've ever been on came into port in the early morning
and they brought the ship under the bridge, turned it around in an
open area and then brought it back for docking not far from Berth 87.

They seem to do this all the time. They should just tow it backwards.

GUESS WHO'S IN TOWN! http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/iowa21.jpg DON BARTLETTI/LATIMESTHE 69 YEAR OLD BATTLESHIP U.S.S. IOWA AND HER OCEAN TUG, THE WARRIOR, ARRIVE OFF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COAST . BELOW IS WHERE SHE'S BERTHED FOR NOW, AT 50 AND 51 . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/iowa-towing-buscaino.jpg Councilman JOE BUSCAINO

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site577/2011/1201/20111201__C_TN02-CRAFTED+PC6FEUB_500.JPG

Bergamont Station developrs to open art studio/marketplace at Port
By Art Marroquin Staff Writer
Posted: 12/01/2011 06:13:03 PM PST

By next year, the developers of Bergamont Station will open an art studio and marketplace inside a pair of vacant wood-frame warehouses at the Port of Los Angeles under a 25-year lease approved Thursday by the Board of Harbor Commissioners.



Read More: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_19451047

http://bergamotstation.com/

A7dnhjj7RmQ

Congratulations to USC!Nice find, 'holmes.

Congratulations to USC!Nice find, 'holmes.
:lol::lol:

http://www.youtube.com/user/portoflongbeach/videos?view=0



tAdeZmkta1A

AMAZING Aerial Video! ----- HD

lMaHHi6ej6A