New trend in modern business has made the private sector to get more involved in the provision of public goods and services, a role previously left to the public sector. The Los Angeles port is a mega facility that owes its current standing to both sectors.
The private sector has indeed played a critical role in helping the port in quest of an environmental friendly operation. Being owners of financial capital, private parties have supplied investment for environmentally conscious infrastructure. Such private interests have seen the port lose suits in court, improve services, and adapt new technology. This idea has been supported by Hricko (80), “require ships to plug in to electricity rather than using diesel auxiliary engines when docked in the harbor”.
In examining the public role, it should be noted that all major ports in the U.S. are owned and operated by the government under public ports authority, thus, LA port falls under this category. A huge investment over the years coupled with proper government regulations has seen the port improve its capacity, effectiveness, safety, and responsiveness to social concerns. Regulations that have made the port better include agency rules as noted, “In 2004, the EPA announced plans to put in place new standards for ships and locomotives” (Hricko 80).
Development of the LA port has resulted in a wide range of outcomes, some of which have impacted positively and others negatively. Below is an analysis of these effects on national outcomes, social, environmental, and cultural scope. Given its ability to handle a bulk of over 40% of all imports, the port has contributed to an overall increase in levels of employment, income, and tax revenue (Hricko 79). The port’s development has impacted heavily and positively to the US trade.
Environmentally, the existence of the port has directly and indirectly caused a health concern for local communities adjacent to the port and passageway as well. “The ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach combined contribute more than 20% of Southern California diesel pollutio” (Hricko 80). It is also noted that emissions from ships are not regulated thus, increasing pollution around the port especially from docked vessels.
Social effects concern the change in people’s way of living and organization. With evidence of related complications and deaths resulting from the ports emissions, its existence has forced the community to adjust in a number of ways. “Estimated 60,000 lives are lost prematurely every year” (Hricko 80). It is also clear that the population around the port is less healthy. Children who live in this area were found to have lung incapacities as enunciated that, “an individual with a deficit at this time will probably continue to have less than healthy lung function for the remainder of his or her life” (Hricko 80). In terms of social awareness and information, the society around is able to grasp intricate aspects of the ports existence and form organized groups.
The politics of awareness and national concern have not eluded the LA port either. Major and legitimate concerns necessitating political action have raised mostly on the matter of pollution and its regulation. Hricko has included a great number of many lobbies indicating political oriented motives and actions in his article.
The culture of people has also been changing with every phase of LA port development. Construing culture as a manner of viewing things it is noted, “A new era had began-one that shifted the public attention from the role of international trade simply as a regions economic engine to the potential perils of uncontrolled” (Hricko 81).
In conclusion, it is clear that the port of LA is a fundamental cornerstone of the U.S. trade, but even with this acceptable fact losing thought of the ramifications of not cautioning the people against the impacts of this trade would be dire especially because it can be forgotten easily.