Well, the Road doesn't actually have a crystal ball, but we did see into the future: The American Trucking Association is taking legal action against the Long Beach Clean Trucks scheme.

Yep, even though Mayor Foster forced his harbor commissioners to roll over for the industry so the burden of repairing and replacing new clean-burning trucks would remain on the backs of immigrant drivers who average $29,000 a year, the ATA's Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference filed comments with the FMC to demand that the concession models of both Los Angeles and Long Beach be struck down.

The 26-page document boils down to the claim that the concession model enlists Marine Terminal Operators in an illegal "blockade" against non-concession motor carriers: "Implementation of the concession mechanism would violate the Shipping Act by excluding motor carriers with a lawful right to enter the ports."

We'll have an in-depth analysis on the ATA's legal case in a few days. Today's story is simple: Foster's primary rationale for rushing to adopt a half-baked scheme without the employee provision - to avoid delaying litigation - has been completely shredded by the ATA.

We can't help but say "We told you so," because we did. Heck, even the ATA told you so:

"If the ports actually implement this plan," Curtis Whalen, executive director of the ATA's Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference told the recent Coalition of New England Companies for Trade (CONECT) Northeast Cargo Symposium, "ATA will litigate."

The Road also wonders if the Los Angeles Times and the Long Beach Press-Telegram are also feeling a bit sheepish. Both editorial boards recently demonized environmental lawyers for supporting a comprehensive solution that relies on employee drivers so trucking companies would assume responsibility for the cost of clean air.

The papers' argument went like this: If L.A. sticks with its intent to follow a more sustainable path than Long Beach, ATA will sue to stop it - but there won't be a suit over the Long Beach scheme. Therefore, the good folks over at the Natural Resources Defense Council who support the comprehensive approach are actually the bad guys. In Sunday's Times, Martin Schlageter of the Coalition for Clean Air presciently countered that absurdity with this question:

Who is for delay, and who is for progress?

Now we know.