Industry Opposed to Quick Implementation of Clean-Truck Plan at Port of N.Y./N.J.

This story appears in the March 22 print edition of Transport Topics.

A new diesel-emissions-reduction program at the Port of New York and New Jersey that will ban pre-1994 trucks beginning in 2011 will be costly and burdensome for motor carriers and comes at a time when fleets are reeling from the recession, state trucking officials said.

At the same time, American Trucking Associations applauded the port’s decision not to ban owner-operators, but urged officials to implement their plan slowly.

“We don’t support it,” Gail Toth, executive director of the New Jersey Motor Truck Association, told Transport Topics. “We don’t have as much freight moving through the port, therefore the truckers aren’t making as much money. To turn around and tell them that they have to get another truck is unfair.”

Kendra Adams, executive director of the New York State Motor Truck Association, agreed that the plan, which also will require 2007 Environmental Protection Agency emissions-compliant engines or newer for entry into the port beginning in 2017, is badly timed.

“I think everybody in our industry supports clean air initiatives,” Adams said. “However, to try and force folks into buying new equipment during one of the worst recessions that we’ve seen is very bad timing.”

Environmentalists and port officials have hailed the new clean-trucks plan as a positive step toward cleaning the air.

“The Clean Truck Program is the latest in our efforts to achieve cleaner air at and around our port,” Anthony Coscia, chairman of the port authority, said in a statement earlier this month.

“On top of our other investments — including $600 million to build on-dock rail and $60 million to acquire and preserve environmentally sensitive property — we believe this program will help build on our legacy as good environmental stewards,” Coscia said.

In a statement, ATA lauded port officials for not including a concession provision similar to the controversial Port of Los Angeles clean-trucks plan, which gradually phases out independent owner-operators. However, ATA encouraged the port to take a “go-slow approach” until the economy improves.

“Given the continuing effects of the recession that still grips our country and this region, the port authorities should be sensitive to the current economic conditions, including the very uncertain levels of future freight volumes, in determining the appropriate timing for full implementation of the program,” said Curtis Whalen, executive director of ATA’s Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference.

Toth said the port is moving too quickly in enforcing the ban on older trucks.

“They only officially announced this program on March 11, and these guys only have nine months to do something” Toth said.

“In a recession, government shouldn’t be putting people out of business,” Toth added. “They should be working with you to save businesses so you can pay your taxes and feed your family. It’s all so callous. We’ve got a large amount of very upset people.”

Toth said that a $28 million truck-replacement grant program funded by ports and the EPA, although helpful, does not provide enough funding.

The New York/New Jersey funding-assistance program is less attractive than those in place in Southern California because it requires replacement trucks to be 2004-2007 used models, Adams said.

In addition, Toth said truckers who provide drayage at the Southern California ports receive larger state and port grants because the ports implemented container fees and the state sold bonds to raise funds for truck replacements.

By comparison, the New York/New Jersey clean-trucks program will finance 25% of the cost of replacing more than 600 of the oldest, most polluting trucks serving the port. The program also is making available 5.25% interest rate loans for truckers who qualify.

Toth said a truck working group designed to solicit stakeholder comments was “stacked” with environmentalists, union officials and environmental regulators.

“They weren’t the ones who would have to pay any money out of their own pockets,” Toth said. “It was only the truckers.”