West Coast forwarders denounce Oakland truck plan

West Coast forwarders denounce Oakland truck plan    The Pacific Coast Council of Customs Brokers & Freight Forwarders Association on Wednesday urged the Port of Oakland Harbor Commission to refrain from passing a resolution that would lobby the federal government to give the port more power to regulate drayage operators.
   The port is seeking the power to require drayage companies employ salaried drivers, rather than independent owner-operators as the port attempts to implement a clean air program that would ban older, polluting trucks. However, the PCC said the port's plan would drive up costs to ship through the port and thus make it uncompetitive relative to other ports. The proposal is to be considered by the harbor board Thursday.
   'We strongly urge you this Thursday to reject the resolution which, despite all the other stated objectives, would dramatically increase the cost of shipping through the Port of Oakland, rendering it less competitive and driving cargo (and our livelihoods) away,' the council said in a letter to harbor commissioners. 'In fact, it is potentially so damaging to the Port of Oakland (and the Port of Los Angeles which is pursuing a similar program), that a joke now circulating in the national maritime circles is that the ports in the Atlantic and Gulf, from Norfolk around to Houston, must be promoting your resolution behind the scenes.
   'They certainly must be enjoying the spectacle of the ports of Oakland and L.A. 'shooting yourselves in the foot,' and driving away even more business. We cannot stand by and watch, because the maritime business you drive away is our business too.'
   The council said its primary problem with Oakland's proposal is that it is likely to drive up costs but without addressing the clean air issues at which it is aimed.
   'The proposal before you on Thursday goes far beyond 'clean trucks,' ' the PCC letter said. 'If the port's program was focused exclusively on reducing emissions of trucks serving the ports, it would have our wholehearted support. We support aggressive emission standards in California; after all, many of us live here. But your resolution would pave the way for implementation of a program, similar to the one being pursued at the Port of Los Angeles, to restrict who can own and drive the trucks. It prohibits individuals from owning the trucks they drive. These limitations on truck drivers/owners will significantly increase cost of drayage to and from any port that adopts such a program, without making the air any cleaner.'
   One of the criticisms of the plans in Oakland and Los Angeles requiring that drivers be salaried is that it would drive out of business the mid-sized trucking companies that cater to the business of smaller shippers.
   The council said a move that would bolster the strength of large companies would inevitably hurt those small- to medium-sized shippers the most.
   'In the face of this troubling trend, the proposal before you will limit the number of trucking firms that we will be able to deal with,' the PCC said. 'This will particularly injure smaller shippers that do not have enough volume to command reasonable pricing. It has been our experience that many of the large trucking companies now focus their efforts and best pricing on their larger customers. When there are two containers with the same urgency, we see that the larger customer gets his container first. Small and medium importers and exporters rely on the smaller trucking firms to hustle for them and to help move their cargo timely. Many of our customers are small companies that would find themselves lost among all the customers of those few large trucking companies.'
   The letter again stressed the competitive disadvantage more costs would place on Oakland.
   'The Port of Oakland cannot pick up and move, but carriers and cargo can and will,' the council said. 'In fact, the Port of Oakland is already losing freight and carriers to other West Coast ports, as well as East and Gulf Coast ports. It is widely recognized that with the widening of the Panama Canal, the pace of cargo shifting away from the West Coast ports will accelerate. It is absurd that in the face of these pressures, the commission would adopt a measure that would hasten the shift of cargo and carriers to other ports. It could be the fatal blow.'