USC Price School of Public Policy

MPP Paper

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Clean Truck Program

TYLER DURCHSLAG-RICHARDSON | MICHAEL MCCREARY | PAUL VU
Master of Public Policy Candidates, 2011
University of Southern California
Price School of Public Policy

Click here to download full paper (PDF) »


The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the largest ports in the United States, handling more than 40 percent of trade coming into the country. Due to the pollution associated with the movement of goods in and out of the ports, the surrounding communities face significant health risks, including increased cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, cancer and even death.

The Clean Trucks Program is a component of the Clean Air Action Plan, which is a plan developed by the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach to mitigate the negative health impacts of goods movement on the surrounding communities. It places restrictions on the type of truck that is allowed to enter the port, applying standards that gradually increased through the four-year implementation period of the program.

Based on the positive NPV calculated in the baseline scenario and the majority of the sensitivity analyses conducted, we recommend that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continue the Clean Truck Program. The health benefits from the program outweigh the costs of replacing the trucks and the potential negative economic impact on port revenue over the 18 year period examined. Extending these health benefits into communities adjacent to transportation corridors heavily traveled by port trucks, while uncertain, further increases the benefits derived from the program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the largest ports in the United States, handling more than 40 percent of trade coming into the country. Due to the pollution associated with the movement of goods in and out of the ports, the surrounding communities face significant health risks, including increased cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, cancer and even death. This is largely due to the levels of Diesel Particulate Matter emitted from the movement of goods at the ports. Additionally, the health impacts from these emissions causes increased instances of missed work and school, and other restrictions in activity.

The Clean Trucks Program is a component of the Clean Air Action Plan, which is a plan developed by the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach to mitigate the negative health impacts of goods movement on the surrounding communities. The Clean Trucks Program was enacted in order to lessen the amount of Diesel Particulate Matter associated with drayage activities at the port. It placed restrictions on the type of truck that was allowed to enter the port, applying standards that gradually increased through the four-year implementation period of the program. These phases include:

  • By October 2008, all pre-1989 trucks were banned from entering the port;
  • By January 2010, all pre-1993 trucks were banned from entry and any truck made between 1994 to 2003 was required to be retrofitted;
  • By January 2012, any truck that does not meet 2007 federal clean truck emission standards will be banned from entering the port.

Since February 2010, clean trucks were associated with 84 percent of the goods moved at the Port of Los Angeles and 77 percent of the cargo at the Port of Long Beach.

Our analysis attempts to answer the following questions:

  • Do the benefits of the Clean Truck Program outweigh the costs?
  • Should the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continue the Clean Truck Program?

To answer these questions, we attempted to quantify values for the costs and benefits of the Clean Trucks Program. We were concerned with were the costs to upgrade the fleet of trucks traveling through the ports and the economic impact on the ports due to the Clean Truck Program. The benefits we quantified for our analysis were those associated with the decrease in pollution because of the cleaner trucks mandated by the program. These include avoided deaths, hospitalizations due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and reduced cases of cancer and asthma. Increased health is also associated with a reduction in missed school and work days, as well as a decrease in minor restricted activity days, which are days where normal activity is reduced because of the effects of pollution.

Our analysis evaluates the program over an 18 year period using a 3.75 percent real discount rate. The baseline scenario that we calculated produced a benefit-cost ratio of 1.33, with a total net present value of over $1.2 billion. Avoided deaths were the most significant benefit, accounting for over 95 percent of the total benefits associated with the project. The most significant cost was the price of a truck, which was over 98 percent of the total costs associated with the program.

We estimated a number of optimistic and pessimistic scenarios based on uncertainty regarding economic and health conditions as well as other alternatives for the program. The only sensitivity analyses that produced a negative Net Present Value were the ones that used conservative estimates for the number of avoided deaths associated with the decreased pollution.

Based on our calculations, we recommend that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continue the Clean Trucks Program. Should the large upfront cost of clean truck purchases become a budgetary concern, the program should focus on the 16,800 trucks that most frequently access the ports.

Our analysis shows that protecting public health and the environment does not preclude economic growth. The Clean Trucks Program at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is a pioneering example of this principle and sets the standard for other ports to follow. Advocating such policies in a time of economic uncertainty can be challenging for today’s leaders. However, such approaches are essential to the prosperity of the economy, communities and the environment.

OVERVIEW OF THE PORTS

The Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles are adjacently located ports on the San Pedro Bay in Southern California. They are 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles, directly next to the communities of Wilmington, San Pedro, and Long Beach.i

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are an integral part of the American economy. According to a report on the growth of California’s ports by the California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) (2007), the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) is the country’s largest port, followed by the Port of Long Beach (POLB). The metric that the industry uses to measure port traffic is in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), which is the measurement of the average container that trucks use to transport goods. Due to its massive size, POLA is able to store 7,480 TEUs, while the POLB has a maximum capacity of 6,170 TEUs. In comparison, the third and fourth largest American ports, New York/New Jersey and Oakland, have a TEU capacity of 4,790 and 2,270, respectively.ii POLB is one of the world’s fastest growing ports, with an increase of 16.1 percent in storage size each year. If POLA and POLB were combined, they would become the fifth-largest port in the world.iii

Together, POLB/LA handles more than 40 percent of all trade coming into the United States.iv It has been estimated that of the total amount of imported goods the ports handle, only 23 to 40 percent is used locally, with the majority being sent to other parts of the country.v Also, cargo stored at these ports is valued at over $120 billion dollars.vi Accordingly, this creates significant regional economic impacts, such as revenue and job creation. In terms of revenue, U.S. Customs collects more than $5 billion each year from these ports alone. State and local governments also generate $4.9 billion a year in generated state and local taxes from port-related trade. Yearly direct and indirect business sales are estimated to be well over $47 billion.vii There are 1.4 million jobs throughout the United States that have a direct correlation to ports-generated trade.viii Therefore, the ports make a significant contribution to the economy of the surrounding community, the State of California, and the U.S. as a whole.

HEALTH IN THE REGION

According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2004), air pollution due to shipping and drayage at the port is a growing concern for the surrounding communities as well as the entire state of California.ix The Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) (2007) has stated that the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are the “single largest fixed source of air pollution in Southern California”.x The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) found that the activities at the ports actually contribute more than 20 percent of the total diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration in Southern California.xi A major source of these pollutants is the many drayage trucks that travel through these two ports. By themselves, drayage trucks account for approximately 33 percent of the DPM emissions found in the air at these ports.xii DPM is known to be extremely hazardous and containing over 40 substances thought to contribute to an increased risk of cancer.xiii

The LAANE study further concluded that not only were the amount of pollutants being emitted an issue, but the routes that the trucks drove through made a significant contribution to health impacts in the surrounding communities. Trucks driving to and from the ports travel through many densely populated residential neighborhoods, affecting nearby schools and parks.xiv Since children and the elderly have a higher risk of the negative health impacts associated with pollution, these groups are most significantly impacted.xv Therefore, residents, especially children living near the ports are at a higher risk for developing many health illnesses associated with pollution from the trucks.

There are several health concerns correlated with DPM emissions and poor air quality, including cardiovascular disease, asthma, acute bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses, infertility, cancer, and premature death.xvi The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) (2004) found that in 1998, “the level of pollution for people living near the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex contributed to a lifetime risk of cancer…significantly higher than usual regulatory targets.”xvii This is because areas near the ports have elevated rates of oropharyngeal cancer and certain types of lung cancer.xviii In 2006, CARB estimated 3,700 premature deaths due to heart-related issues correlated to the bad air quality at the ports and goods movement pollution and emissions. CARB also concluded that each year there are 62,000 cases of asthma and asthma-like symptoms, which results in respiratory-related missed work days and school absences.xix

CLEAN TRUCK PROGRAM (CTP)

Due to the many health concerns discussed above that arise from the air pollution related to diesel truck emissions, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles sought to develop a strategy to improve the air quality at the ports and nearby communities. The Clean Truck Program was formulated and implemented in an attempt to reduce the levels of diesel particulate matter produced and to improve air quality. The CTP arose out of the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), which “addresses every category of port-related emission sources – ships, trucks, trains, cargo-handling equipment and harbor craft – and outlines specific strategies to reduce emissions from each category.”xx The CAAP was adopted on November 20, 2006 by the Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbor Commissions.xxi “The plan was developed with the cooperation of the “South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).”xxii

Goals of the CTP

The priority of the Clean Trucks Program is to reduce truck-related emissions levels by over 80 percent by the year 2012 for the roughly 40,000 trucks that travel through the ports.xxiiiThis involves drayage truck owners scrapping and replacing the oldest trucks that travel through the ports, and also retrofitting the other trucks to make them more environmentally-friendly. The program consists of three main phases:

  • The first phase consisted of banning all trucks that were made before 1989 from the ports by October 1, 2008.
  • The second phase, implemented January 1, 2010, banned all trucks made between the years 1989 and 1993 from entering the port. This phase also included the stipulation that any truck made between years 1994 to 2003 has to be equipped with a diesel emission control system (VDECS) and must reduce diesel particulate matter emissions by 85 percent and Nitrous Oxide (NOx) by 25 percent.xxiv
  • The last and final phase of the program is to ban all trucks from using the ports that “do not meet the 2007 federal clean truck emission standard,” which was established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.xxv The deadline for the last phase is January 1, 2012.xxvi

Current Progress of the CTP

In April 2010, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach prepared a Draft Update regarding the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report, which included the current progress of the Clean Truck Program. This update illustrated the milestones reached by the CTP. By October 2008, the first ban on the oldest trucks, those made before 1989, was successfully implemented. By September 2009, it was estimated that over half of all the trucks that traveled through the ports met the federal 2007 USEPA standards and guidelines. Since its implementation, the program has met or exceeded its goals. As of February 2010, clean trucks moved 84 percent of the goods at the Port of Los Angeles. At the Port of Long Beach, clean trucks moved 77 percent of the cargo.xxvii

RESEARCH QUESTION

As described above, the CTP seeks to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions from trucks at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. By all accounts, it has achieved a large portion of these reductions. However, the Clean Air Action Plan does not weigh these health benefits against the program’s costs. The remainder of this paper will focus on two research questions:

  • Do the benefits of the CTP outweigh the costs?
  • Should the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continue the CTP?

DESCRIPTION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS

For our baseline analysis, we quantified values for the costs and benefits of the Clean Truck Program (CTP) using information found in a variety of sources. The costs we were concerned with were the costs to upgrade the fleet of trucks traveling through the ports and the economic impact on the ports due to the CTP. The benefits we quantified for our analysis were those associated with the decrease in pollution because of the cleaner trucks mandated by the CTP. All of our benefits can be thought of as avoided costs, since their values are estimates of the number of health costs that would be avoided because of the CTP. These include avoided deaths, hospitalizations due to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and reduced cases of cancer and asthma.xxviii Increased health is also associated with a reduction in missed school and work days, as well as a decrease in minor restricted activity days, which are days where normal activity is reduced because of the effects of pollution1.xxix

Many of the values of the costs and benefits were presented in different years, so we converted all of these numbers into 2008 dollars by multiplying the number by the 2008 CPI and dividing by the CPI of the original year.

1 See Table 1, p. 11 for a comprehensive list of costs and benefits.

COSTS

Cost of a Truck

In order to calculate the cost associated with the purchase of a truck, we took estimates from a variety of sources.xxx For our baseline scenario, we settled on a value of $100,000 for each truck, but other sources had the price at $77,156.xxxi We found multiple estimates for the number of trucks traveling in and out of the ports, which are necessary to calculate a value for the total cost associated with the project. One estimate identified 16,800 individual vehicles that make 80 percent of the trips going in and out of the port.xxxii The total number of trucks serving the San Pedro Bay Ports, however, is estimated at 40,000.xxxiii In order to present a comprehensive picture of port activity, we used a 40,000 truck traffic level in our analysis.

Economic Impact

To calculate the potential economic impact of the Clean Trucks Program, we looked at an analysis by Moffit & Nicole and BST Associates. In their study on the CTP, they attempted to estimate the economic effects due to the implementation of the program., Truck drivers would incur increased costs and as a consequence, shipping to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach would be more expensive. Thus some shippers may want to divert trade to another port in order to avoid these increased costs. The study estimated that the amount of trade diverted would be between 0.5 percent and 1.1 percent of total trade moving through the ports, or between 75,000 and 175,000 TEUs.xxxiv Using these values, we were able to estimate upper and lower bounds for the amount of revenue lost for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. We assumed the annual economic cost to be constant through the life of the project, between $7,819,451 and $3,554,296, and used an average of these values, $5,686,874, for our baseline analysis.

BENEFITS

Calculating the health benefits of the Clean Trucks Program came with a degree of uncertainty for the projected health outcomes. However, the values outlined below represent best estimates from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Using epidemiological studies from the American Cancer Society (ACS) and others regarding the health impacts of diesel particulate matter (DPM), these entities created a methodology to model the avoided health cases resulting from a reduction in exposure to DPM. The SCAQMD used this methodology to estimate the health impacts from this reduction.xxxv This was calculated using an over 84 percent estimate for DPM reduction as a result of the CTP.xxxvi The values described below were all multiplied by the annual projected avoided health cases outlined in Appendix A to determine yearly benefits for reduced diesel air pollution. Our baseline results estimate these values using the mid-level health projections.

Asthma

Values for asthma and lower respiratory symptoms were calculated at $58 per day.xxxvii This was taken from the EPA, based on willingness to pay surveys that attempted to measure how much people would pay to avoid lower respiratory symptoms and bad asthma days.

Work Days Lost

For the value of work days lost, we found the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates of the low and high average daily wages of the area.xxxviii We took the average of these estimates, $168 per day, and multiplied this by the number of missed work days estimated as by the SCAQMD.xxxix

Missed School Days

To calculate a value for missed school days, we used information from CARB about the effect of DPM from California goods movement on all Californians. This included values of premature death, hospital admissions, asthma & lower respiratory symptoms, acute bronchitis, work day loss, and minor restricted activity. We then compared these values to similar health estimates associated with the POLA and POLB. Using low, medium and high estimates provided by these studies, we were able to calculate a ratio of port DPM emission effects to the overall effects for California.xl Thus, the ratio acted as a proportion proxy for the amount of emissions associated with the port of Los Angeles and Long Beach compared to the emissions in California overall. This ratio was then multiplied by the number of missed school days estimated by CARB for all of California in order to get a value localized to the port area. We utilized a value for missed school days estimated by the EPA. The EPA values a missed school day as the lost wages of the mother multiplied by the probability that the mother is in the workforce.xli This comes out to $124 per missed school day, in 2008 dollars.

Hospitalizations – Respiratory and Cardiovascular

The value of hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiovascular disease were calculated by looking at a California Air Resource Board study on the estimated costs of a hospital visit, medical costs, lost earnings, and decreased household and recreation production associated with the pollution averted by the Clean Truck Program.xlii Willingness to pay surveys gave similar values as to the cost of avoiding cases of these diseases.xliii

Minor Restricted Activity

Minor restricted activity days are defined as any day in which you are restricted from your normal behavior due to air pollution.xliv Minor restricted activity days were calculated at $51 per day.xlv This was based on willingness to pay surveys that asked people how much they value to avoid these restrictions.

Deaths

Avoided deaths represented about 95 percent of the benefits of the CTP. In order to estimate the value of an avoided death, we took an EPA estimate of the value of an avoided death in 1990 dollars, which was based on 1990 incomes.xlvi These values were calculated by taking willingness to pay studies that examined what people would pay or accept for a minor decrease or increase in the risk of premature death.xlvii These studies found that as incomes increased, people were willing to pay more to avoid the risk of death, so the values were adjusted to account for real income growth from 1990 to 2006. In order to be conservative and avoid making assumptions about income growth in the port area, we kept the 1990 value of an avoided death. Our final estimate comes by calculating the value in 2008 dollars using the CPI, which gives us a value of $7,907,073 per death avoided.

Cancer

To estimate the value of cancer cases avoided, we used data from the Clean Air Action Plan to find the percentage of DPM emissions from heavy-duty trucks at the port, which came out to 33%.xlviii We saw in the CAAP that by 2020, DPM truck emissions would be reduced by 84 percent. We then took 84% of 33%, which comes out to 27.2%, and used this number as an estimation of the reduced cancer risk due to the CTP.xlix The CAAP states that due to all of the methods employed by the CAAP, cancer risks would be reduced from 519 in a million to 143 in a million, a difference of 376 per million people. Since the population around the port is roughly two million peoplel, we found the total reduction in cancer due to the CAAP to be 752. Since the trucks represent 27.2 percent of the total DPM reductions, we took 27.2 percent of the 752 to get 208 cases of cancer avoided by reductions from the trucks. We then found a willingness to pay estimate of the value of an avoided case of cancer, which in 2008 dollars comes out to be around $5.8 million per case.li Since these avoided cases of cancer were projected over a 70 year period, we divided the 208 cases by 70 and multiplied this by the value for avoided cancer to find a yearly value for avoided cancer due to the CTP. We incorporated only the discounted values for the years 2020-2025 in our analysis.

PRESENTATION OF PRIMARY RESULTS

Using these primary benefits and costs, we conducted an analysis of the Clean Truck Program of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and its impacts on the ports and the surrounding communities. Our analysis evaluates the program over an 18 year period using a 3.75 percent real discount rate. While the benefits of the program may extend beyond the 18 year scope of evaluation, the South Coast Air Quality Management District study utilized to determine the reduced health impacts from the program cover this time frame.lii The analysis utilizes a City of Los Angeles municipal bond rate as the discount rate. This rate was determined by examining City of Los Angeles budgets for the period prior the economic downturn.2 We utilized a 2006 City of Los Angeles nominal rate for harbor project bonds of 6.250 percent.liii Using the 2006 inflation rate of 2.5 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index), determined by measuring the percent change in the core CPI3 from 2005-2006, we determined a real discount rate of 3.75 percent.

Our baseline scenario for the Clean Truck Program makes several assumptions about the distribution of the costs and benefits over the period covered in our analysis. As described above, we utilize mid-level projections of the health benefits associated with the program. However, the South Coast Air Quality Management District estimated these benefits in aggregate from 2008-2025. We have averaged these benefits annually over this period for our analysis. Under normal circumstances it would make sense to begin including the benefits when the program is fully implemented, but because of the progress already observed, we can assume that the health benefits begin immediately. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach report that, in its first year, the program reduced truck emissions by 70 percentliv and in year two of the program this was increased to 80 percent.lv The overall goal of the program is to reduce port truck emission over 84 percent,lvi which means that the projected health benefits should have already begun to be realized.

The health benefits of reduced cancer used in our analysis are not counted until 2020, or year 13. While the cancer risk may actually be reduced earlier due to the emissions reductions described above, the Bay Wide Health Risk Assessment Tool, developed by the ports in conjunction with the California Air Resources Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, begins modeling the reduced cancer risk from reduction in diesel emission beginning in 2020.lvii Due to the stated inability of the model to project reduced cancer risks before 2020, we have included reduced health cost of cancer for people living near the ports in this year.lviii Finally, the number of trucks purchased is spread over the first five years of the program based on progress identified by the ports. By September 2009, half of the cargo moves in the port were completed by clean trucks and this number grew to 84 percent by 2010.lix Thus, we estimated that 25 percent of the total truck population was replaced by a clean truck in 2008, 25 percent in 2009, 24 percent in 2010, and 16 percent in 2011 and 2012.

Furthermore, the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles both state that no retrofitted trucks meet the 2007 EPA truck standards, and thus, will not be allowed into the ports after 2012.lx Based on this reality, we assume that truck drivers will have no incentive to retrofit their truck, despite lower costs to retrofit, and instead all truck upgrades will be in the form of purchases.

Taking these assumptions into account, Table 1 shows the annualized costs and benefits of the Clean Truck Program from 2008-2025, as well as the total NPV and Benefit Cost Ratio.

2. Municipal bond ratings became artificially low during the downturn because they were seen as less risky and investors shifted their money to these sources (Painter, 2010). 3. The core CPI includes all consumer items except food and energy whose prices are more volatile (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index).

Table 1: Baseline Annual Benefits and Costs of Clean Truck Program (2008-2025)

In this scenario, the avoided health costs from the Clean Truck Program outweigh the price to replace the trucks and the potential lost economic profit from reduced port traffic by over $1.2 billion. What is readily apparent from these values is that avoiding premature deaths and the price of the trucks represent the majority of the benefits and costs, respectively. In fact, premature deaths accounts for 96 percent of the annualized benefits and truck price accounts for 98 percent of annualized costs. Thus, in essence, this analysis is primarily weighing the up-front cost of replacing polluting trucks with the long-term benefits of reduced premature deaths. This baseline scenario suggests that such a large initial expenditure is warranted, because for every $1 spent, the port communities receive $1.33 in benefits. Under these conditions, the Clean Truck Program becomes profitable in 2011, even before all of the trucks have been replaced (Appendix B: NPV Per Year).

To further analyze the relationship between the avoided costs from premature death and the price of a new truck, we have determined the threshold number of trucks replaced and deaths avoided for the program to break even. For the costs from the Clean Truck Program to exactly equal the benefits, it would need to help avoid at least 34.7 premature deaths per year or replace a maximum of 53,410 trucks (Appendix B: Threshold Analyses). This creates a buffer of roughly 12 fewer deaths or 13,410 more trucks under which the program would remain profitable.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The Clean Truck Program’s positive net benefit shown above represents a mid-level projection of the costs and benefits associated with the program. However, several potential scenarios could arise that would either raise or lower the expectations of the program. The costs and benefits from these scenarios are shown in detail in Appendix C.

We modeled six optimistic scenarios and six pessimistic scenarios to show a range of possible outcomes. In Scenarios 1 and 7, we looked at the impact of using the low and high estimates of potential economic diversion away from the ports on port revenue. This range between .5 and 1.1 percent economic diversion yields a NPV range from $1,197,131,712 to $1,252,239,481. This slight change in economic impact has a very small impact on the program’s total value. Additionally, scenario 10 adjusted another economic value, increasing the discount rate to seven percent, as suggested by the EPA.lxi This results in an NPV of $397,893,408, which has a substantial negative impact on the baseline NPV of close to $800 million.

We also conducted a sensitivity analysis on a number of issues related to the trucks themselves, Scenarios 2, 4, and 8. First, a report by the Southern California Association of Governments cites a lower price for a clean truck, $77,156, than found in other sources.lxii Using this truck price in Scenario 2 increases our NPV around $800 million from the baseline to $2,059,189,036. Also, much of the literature on truck operations in the port cites a total of 16,800 frequent users of the ports who account for 80 percent of all truck travel in the ports.lxiii In Scenario 4, we estimated our model only replacing these 16,800 trucks, while reducing the benefits to 80 percent of our baseline model. The total NPV increases to $2,364,972,998. Finally, in Scenario 8, we relax the assumption that no vehicles will be retrofitted. In this scenario, we assume that 25 percent of vehicles will be retrofitted in the first two years of the program at a cost of $16,800 each.lxiv This reduces our NPV to $1,065,684,284. Thus, the largest impact from changing our assumptions about clean trucks would come from only focusing the program on trucks that frequently use the port.

Scenarios 3, 5, 9, and 11 analyze the uncertainty regarding the health impacts from the Clean Truck Program. While recent emissions reports show that the Clean Truck Program has already made significant progress towards its emissions reductions targets,lxv Scenario 9 begins counting these benefits in 2012 when the program is fully implemented. This reduces total NPV to $844,864,154. Our baseline scenario utilizes mid-level health impact projections, Scenarios 3 and 11 look at the program using high and low health estimates. These estimates produce an NPV range of -$2,281,147,538 to $4,686,399,809. This range of health values produces a large swing in NPV and is perhaps the most volatile element of the analysis. However, a more recent study of avoided deaths as a result of reduced air pollution by Jerrett et. al suggest that the California Air Resources Board may be underestimating reduced deaths by a factor of 2.5.lxvi Using Jerrett’s estimate of reduced death in Scenario 5 produces the largest NPV of any scenario: $8,376,097,609.

Combining these optimistic and pessimistic scenarios into best and worst cases gives us Scenarios 6 and 12. The best case, in which all optimistic estimates are realized, produces an NPV of $19,528,392,566, while the most pessimistic scenario produces an NPV of -$2,868,365,815.

Impact on Surrounding Communities: 710 Corridor

The benefits described above are measured for the roughly two million residents directly adjacent to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. However, residents that live near the 710 freeway, the major transportation artery for port truck traffic, are impacted by diesel emissions as well. Studies have shown that Heavy Duty Diesel trucks traveling to and from the port account for roughly 25 percent of traffic on the 710 freeway.lxvii Communities such as Bell, Bell Gardens, Carson, Commerce, Compton, Cudahy, Downey, East Los Angeles, Huntington Park, Lynwood, Paramount, Maywood, Signal Hill, South Gate, and Vernon (Appendix D, SCAG, 2008) are adjacent to the 710 freeway and would expect to see reduced diesel emissions of up to 21 percent.4

These cities had a combined population of 926,628 in 2008, half of the estimated impacted port-adjacent population. If these communities saw increased health benefits from the Clean Truck Program at half the rate as the communities surrounding the ports, it would increase the total health benefits from the Clean Truck Program by 25 percent. This rough estimate would increase the baseline NPV to $2,447,789,816, an increase of over $1.2 billion.lxviii However, these estimates are uncertain and we cannot be sure that we are not double counting any of the residents already included in the baseline scenario. Ultimately, this scenario gives us a picture of the potential health benefits from the program on communities close to transportation corridors in the Los Angeles area.

4 The Clean Truck Program is expected to reduce DPM emissions by 84 percent by 2020. If truck traffic accounts for 25 percent of 710 freeway traffic, the total emissions on the freeway would be reduced by 21 percent.

UNCERTAINTY AND FUTURE STUDY

This analysis has incorporated the major costs and benefits associated with the Clean Trucks Program. However, it lacks several components that are either uncertain or difficult to quantify. The following section describes these elements.

Global Warming: Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction

Diesel particulate matter emissions contribute directly to black carbon particulate matter in the atmosphere, which has a substantial warming effect.lxix While the Clean Truck Program intends to greatly reduce these diesel emissions at the ports, the 2010 Clean Air Action Plan states that the actual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the program is still uncertain.lxx Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to discern the direct impact of diesel emissions from the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach on global climate change and link these global changes to local economic, social and health benefits.

California’s Green Economy and Environmental Legislation

The City of Los Angeles and the State of California have begun to implement a number of progressive environmental programs similar to the CTP. Investment in green technology and commitment to environmental initiatives has been shown to attract green venture capital and private investment.lxxi However, at this time it is difficult to determine a direct causal link between the CTP and increased investment in the Los Angeles area. The Clean Truck Program will also increase Los Angeles’ compliance with California’s global warming legislation, AB 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Federal Clean Air Act regulations, and proposed California Air Resources Board statewide goods movement regulations. However, determining the fines that could be avoided or the business that would be generated locally due to compliance with this legislation is outside of the scope of this study.

School Performance

Our study has evaluated the health benefits from reduced truck diesel particulate matter emissions, but several recent studies have gone beyond health effects for residents to develop a link between air pollution, increased childhood asthma, and school performance.lxxii We were unable to determine the number of school age children impacted by heightened levels of diesel related air pollution from port traffic in order to examine potential reduced performance or graduation rates. Establishing this link in future studies would further demonstrate the societal importance of reducing truck related diesel emissions.

Truck Drivers

While the Clean Truck Program is primarily focused on reducing the Ports’ health impact on port adjacent communities, the plan will have a significant impact on truck drivers themselves. Truck drivers of conventional trucks at the ports often come from impoverished communitieslxxiii and face extremely high levels of diesel particulate matter in their own truck and suffer health problems as a consequence. Furthermore, initial studies of the Clean Truck Program showed that its proposed restructuring of the Ports’ drayage industry could significantly increase driver salaries and health benefits.lxxiv However, recent court injunctions have put these potential benefits in limbo. Recent reports suggest that large truck operators are now pushing the cost of purchasing or leasing clean trucks on to the drivers, making conditions worse for drivers instead of better.lxxv Further study must be undertaken to clarify the net impact of the Program on truck drivers.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Based on the positive NPV calculated in the baseline scenario and the majority of the sensitivity analyses conducted, we recommend that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach continue the Clean Truck Program. The health benefits from the program outweigh the costs of replacing the trucks and the potential negative economic impact on port revenue over the 18 year period examined. Extending these health benefits into communities adjacent to transportation corridors heavily traveled by port trucks, while uncertain, further increases the benefits derived from the program.

However, if the ports are reconsidering the program because of the large upfront cost of truck purchases, two issues should be considered:

  1. The ports, other public entities and private companies have already invested over $900 million in the Clean Truck Program.lxxvi This expenditure is a non-recoverable sunk cost that reduces the outstanding costs associated with the program.
  2. The ports could also shift the focus of the Clean Truck Program from all trucks entering the ports to the 16,800 heavy users that account for over 80 percent of port truck diesel emissions. This would still allow the program to realize a majority of the estimated health benefits.5

Thus, if the ports do not seek to continue the full program, they should focus the program on trucks that frequently access the ports.

As this analysis demonstrates, ignoring the health impacts of economic activity does not make sound public policy. While it may be difficult for today’s leaders to advocate environmentally beneficial policies in a time of economic uncertainty, such policies are sometimes imperative to ensure the public good.

As the largest port complex in the U.S., the policies taken by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have a broad impact and influence on ports throughout the world. By taking the initiative to improve air quality in communities that surround the ports, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach demonstrate that economic growth does not have to come at the expense of the environment and public health. On the contrary, these actions can lead to increased productivity and improved economic outcomes for future generations.

5 See Appendix C, Scenario 14 for an example.

APPENDIX A: Annual Avoided Health Cases Table

APPENDIX B: Threshold Analyses

Appendix C: Sensitivity Analyses

Appendix D: I-710 Corridor Cities and Populations

BIBLIOGRAPHY

California Department of Finance. (2008, May). E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2007 and 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1_2006-07/

Painter, G. (2010, April 13). Review and Term Paper Presentations. Lecture presented at PPD 560: Methods for Policy Analysis in RGL 105, Los Angeles.

Pastor Jr., M., Morello-Frosch, R., & Sadd, J. L. (2006). Breathless: Schools, Air Toxics, and Environmental Justice in California. The Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 337-362. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/fulltext/118628017/PDFSTART

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Goods Movement Task Force. (2008, October 15). Presentation on I-710 Corridor Project EIR/EIS. Lecture. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from http://www.scag.ca.gov/goodsmove/documents/I-710CorridorProjectEIREIS.pdf

U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Consumer Price Index. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=CU_cpibrief

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009, April 29). Los Angeles–Long Beach– Riverside, CA National Compensation Survey April 2009. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.bls.gov/ro9/ncslosa.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). American Community Survey (ACS). Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/acs/www/index.htm

ENDNOTES

i California Air Resources Board. (2006). Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. (p. 17) Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/gmerp.htm
ii California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) (2007). Growth of California Ports: Opportunities and Challenges. (p. 7) Retrieved on 04/05/2010, from http://www.mtsnac.org/docs/2007/070517CALMITSAC%20Report%20E-version.pdf.
iii Ibid.
iv Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) (2007). The Road to Shared Prosperity: The Regional Economic Benefits of the San Pedro Ports’ Clean Trucks Program. Retrieved on 04/03/2010, from http://www.laane.org/downloads/Road-to-Shared-Prosperity.pdf.
v Haveman, J., & Thornberg, C., (2008). Clean Trucks Program. Beacon Economics. (p. 9) Retrieved on 03/28/2010, from http://www.beaconecon.com/dmdocuments/Clean-Trucks- Program.pdf
vi Port of Long Beach (2010). Facts at a Glance. Retrieved on 03/25/2010, from http://www.polb.com/about/facts.asp.
vii Ibid.
viii Ibid.
ix California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2004). Maritime Ports and Air Quality. (p.1) Retrieved on 04/02/2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/portfs111804.pdf.
x Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) (2007). The Road to Shared Prosperity: The Regional Economic Benefits of the San Pedro Ports’ Clean Trucks Program. (p. 23) Retrieved on 04/03/2010, from http://www.laane.org/downloads/Road-to-Shared-Prosperity.pdf.
xi Hricko, A. (2008). Global Trade Comes Home: Community Impacts of Goods Movement. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 116, no. 2 (February 2008), p. A80.
xii Ports of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (2010). Draft 2010 Update San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report. (p. 23) Retrieved on 04/20/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2441
xiii California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2008). Summary of Adverse Impacts of Diesel Particulate Matter. (p. 1) Retrieved on 04/01/2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7-5-05-1.pdf.
xiv Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) (2007). The Road to Shared Prosperity: The Regional Economic Benefits of the San Pedro Ports’ Clean Trucks Program. (p. 23) Retrieved on 04/03/2010, from http://www.laane.org/downloads/Road-to-Shared-Prosperity.pdf.
xv California Air Resources Board. (2006). Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/gmerp.htm
xvi Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) (2007). The Road to Shared Prosperity: The Regional Economic Benefits of the San Pedro Ports’ Clean Trucks Program. (p. 24) Retrieved on 04/03/2010, from http://www.laane.org/downloads/Road-to-Shared-Prosperity.pdf.
xvii Public Policy Institute of California (2004). California’s Global Ports: Just the Facts. (p. 1) Retrieved on 03/26/2010, from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_PortsJTF.pdf.
xviii Hricko, A. (2006). Ships, Trucks, and Trains: Effects of Goods Movement on Environmental Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 114, no. 4 (April 2006), p. A204
xix Hricko, A. (2008). Global Trade Comes Home: Community Impacts of Goods Movement. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 116, no. 2 (February 2008), p. A80.
xx Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (2007). San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan: Proposed Clean Trucks Program. (p. 1) Retrieved on 03/15/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2205.
xxi California Marine and Intermodal Transportation System Advisory Council (CALMITSAC) (2007). Growth of California Ports: Opportunities and Challenges. (p. 43) Retrieved on 04/05/2010, from http://www.mtsnac.org/docs/2007/070517CALMITSAC%20Report%20E-version.pdf.
xxii Ibid. (p. 43)
xxiii Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (2007). San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan: Proposed Clean Trucks Program. (p.1) Retrieved on 03/15/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2205.
xxiv Port of Long Beach (2010). Facts at a Glance. Retrieved on 03/25/2010, from http://www.polb.com/about/facts.asp.
xxv Ibid.
xxvi Ibid.
xxvii Ports of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (2010). Draft 2010 Update San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report. (p. ES-4) Retrieved on 04/20/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2441
xxviii California Air Resources Board. (2006). Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. (p. 2) Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/gmerp.htm
xxix Hall, J. V., Winer, A. M., Kleinman, M. T., Lurmann, F. W., Brajer, V., & Colome, S.D., (1992). Valuing the health benefits of clean air. Science, Vol 255, Issue 5046, 812-817.
xxx Husing, J. E., Brightbill, T. E., & Crosby, P. A., (2007). Economic Analysis: Proposed Clean Truck Program. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan; Haveman, J., & Thornberg, C., (2008). Clean Trucks Program. Beacon Economics. Retrieved on 03/28/2010, from http://www.beaconecon.com/dmdocuments/Clean-Trucks-Program.pdf
xxxi ICF International. (2008, March). Goods Movement Emission Reduction Action Plan (Rep.). Retrieved April 1, 2010, from Southern California Association of Government website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/goodsmove/
xxxii Husing, J. E., Brightbill, T. E., & Crosby, P. A., (2007). Economic Analysis: Proposed Clean Truck Program. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan.
xxxiii Ports of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (2010). Draft 2010 Update San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report. (p. ES-4) Retrieved on 04/20/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2441
xxxiv Moffitt and Nichol, & BST Associates. (2007, September 27). Container Diversion and Economic Impact Study Effects of Higher Drayage Costs at San Pedro Bay Ports (Rep.). Retrieved March 12, 2010, from The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach website: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/CTP/CTP_Diversion_092727.pdf
xxxv Husing, J. E., Brightbill, T. E., & Crosby, P. A., (2007). Economic Analysis: Proposed Clean Truck Program. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. p. 9; Appendix A
xxxvi Environ Corporation. (2009, December 14). BAY-WIDE REGIONAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) (Ports of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach). (p. 27) Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2434.
xxxvii U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Clean Air Nonroad Diesel- Chapter 9: Cost Benefit Analysis. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm
xxxviii U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Los Angeles–Long Beach– Riverside, CA National Compensation Survey April 2009. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.bls.gov/ro9/ncslosa.htm
xxxix Husing, J. E., Brightbill, T. E., & Crosby, P. A., (2007). Economic Analysis: Proposed Clean Truck Program. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan.
xl California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2006). Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Retrieved on 04/01/2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf.
xli U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Clean Air Nonroad Diesel- Chapter 9: Cost Benefit Analysis. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm
xlii California Air Resources Board. (2007). Appendix C: Health Impacts from Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/ordiesl07.htm
xliii Ibid.
xliv California Air Resources Board. (2006). Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/gmerp.htm
xlv U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Clean Air Nonroad Diesel- Chapter 9: Cost Benefit Analysis. Retrieved April 12, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/2004fr.htm
xlvi California Air Resources Board. (2007). Appendix C: Health Impacts from Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/ordiesl07.htm
xlvii Ibid.
xlviii Ports of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (2010). Draft 2010 Update San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report. (p. ES-4) Retrieved on 04/20/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2441
xlix Environ Corporation. (2009, December 14). BAY-WIDE REGIONAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) (Ports of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach). Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2434
l California Air Resources Board. (2005). Draft Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (p. 7) Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/marine2005.htm
li Abelson, P. (2007, November 21). Establishing a Monetary Value for Lives Saved: Issues and Controversies (Rep.). (p. 14) Retrieved April 12, 2010, from Sydney University website: http://www.finance.gov.au/obpr/docs/Working-paper-2-Peter-Abelson.pdf
lii Husing, J. E., Brightbill, T. E., & Crosby, P. A., (2007). Economic Analysis: Proposed Clean Truck Program. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. p. 19.
liii City of Los Angeles, Office of the Controller. (2006, January 30). Comprehesive Annual Financial Report. (p. 115) Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://controller.lacity.org/stellent/groups/ElectedOfficials/@CTR_Contributor/documents/Contributor_Web_Content/LACITYP_008652.pdf
liv Port of Los Angeles. (2009). Clean Truck Program: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.portoflosangeles.org/CTP/CTP_FAQs.pdf
lv Port of Long Beach. (2010). Port Reduces Truck Pollution by 80%. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from http://www.polb.com/environment/cleantrucks/default.asp
lvi Environ Corporation. (2009, December 14). BAY-WIDE REGIONAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) (Ports of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach). (p. 19) Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2434
lvii Environ Corporation. (2009, December 14). BAY-WIDE REGIONAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) (Ports of Los Angeles & Port of Long Beach). (p. 4) Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2434
lviii Ports of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (2010). Draft 2010 Update San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report. (p. 47) Retrieved on 04/20/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2441
lix Ports of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (2010). Draft 2010 Update San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report. (p. ES-5) Retrieved on 04/20/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2441
lx Port of Long Beach. (2009). Clean Truck Program Frequently Asked Questions. (p. 2) Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6573 p. 4; Port of Los Angeles. (2009). About the Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.portoflosangeles.org/ctp/idx_ctp.asp
lxi Ibid.
lxii ICF International. (2008). Goods Movement Emission Reduction Action Plan (Rep.). Retrieved April 1, 2010, from Southern California Association of Government website: http://www.scag.ca.gov/goodsmove/
lxiii Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (2006). Final 2006 Clean Air Action Plan: Technical Report. (p. 57) Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.polb.com/environment/air/caap.asp
lxiv Husing, J. E., Brightbill, T. E., & Crosby, P. A., (2007). Economic Analysis: Proposed Clean Truck Program. San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. p. 56.
lxv Port of Long Beach. (2009). Clean Truck Program Frequently Asked Questions. (p. 2) Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6573 p. 4; Port of Los Angeles. (2009). About the Port of Los Angeles Clean Truck Program. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.portoflosangeles.org/ctp/idx_ctp.asp
lxvi Tran, H. (2006, March 21). Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement Appendix A: Quantification of the Health Impacts and Economic Valuation of Air Pollution from Ports and Goods Movement in California (California Air Resources Board). (p. A-7) Retrieved February 20, 2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/gmerp/gmerp.htm.
lxvii Houston, D., Krudysz, M., & Winer, A. (2008, March 31). Diesel Truck Traffic in Port-Adjacent Low-Income and Minority Communities; Environmental Justice Implications of Near-Roadway Land Use Conflicts (Rep.). (p. 3) Retrieved http://www.lewis.ucla.edu/publications/reports/Diesel%20Truck%20Traffic%20-%20Doug%20Houston.pdf
lxviii See Appendix C, Scenario 13
lxix California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2008). Summary of Adverse Impacts of Diesel Particulate Matter. Retrieved on 04/01/2010, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel_health_effects_summary_7-5-05-1.pdf.
lxx Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. (2006). Final 2006 Clean Air Action Plan: Technical Report. (p. 72) Retrieved February 2, 2010, from http://www.polb.com/environment/air/caap.asp
lxxi California Air Resources Board. (2008). Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Retrieved on 04/01/2010 from http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.html
lxxii Pastor Jr., M., Morello-Frosch, R., & Sadd, J. L. (2006). Breathless: Schools, Air Toxics, and Environmental Justice in Californi. The Policy Studies Journal, 34(3), 337-362. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118628017/PDFSTART; Lewit, M. (2009, November 4). Pollution’s Impact May be Underestimated. USC News: Health. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://uscnews.usc.edu/health/pollutions_impact_may_be_underestimated.html
lxxiii Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) (2007). The Road to Shared Prosperity: The Regional Economic Benefits of the San Pedro Ports’ Clean Trucks Program. (p. 11) Retrieved on 04/03/2010, from http://www.laane.org/downloads/Road-to-Shared-Prosperity.pdf.
lxxiv Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) (2007). The Road to Shared Prosperity: The Regional Economic Benefits of the San Pedro Ports’ Clean Trucks Program. (p. 11) Retrieved on 04/03/2010, from http://www.laane.org/downloads/Road-to-Shared-Prosperity.pdf.
lxxv Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE). (2008, August). Foreclosure on Wheels Long Beach’s Truck Program Puts Drivers at High Risk for Default (Rep.). Retrieved April 13, 2010, from http://www.laane.org/downloads/B568P314C.pdf
lxxvi Ports of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (2010). Draft 2010 Update San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan Technical Report. Retrieved on 04/20/2010, from http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2441