Port of Oakland Accelerates Consideration of Clean-Air Plan

Last month, the Oakland Port Commission moved the voting date for the Comprehensive Truck Management Plan (CTMP), an effort intended to reduce air pollution caused by the hundreds of diesel trucks that carry goods to and from the Port of Oakland each day, from August to May. The Maritime Committee will vote on the CTMP on May 21, after which the plan goes before the full commission on June 2.

Shaving a few months off of the original voting date might seem like a less-than-bold step considering that the plan has been in the works for two years, but environmental advocates believe it makes clear the commissioners’ commitment to improving the quality of life for port workers and neighbors. Not only that, they say that, if the port is going to meet the new state-mandated clean air standards set to go into effect on January 1, 2010, it will need that extra time to implement the changes laid out in the CTMP.

We’re very excited, said Doug Bloch, Director of the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports. The commissioners basically said, ‘Look, we’ve been working on this thing for two years now. We need to wrap this up.’ And the executive staff at the port agreed.

The Coalition represents several dozen environmental, labor, public health, faith and community organizations concerned that diesel soot from port-related truck traffic is endangering the health and safety of those who live and work in and around the port.

Everyone agrees that air quality in West Oakland needs serious improvement. But how much of the area’s air pollution problem can be blamed on the Port of Oakland and, more specifically, the trucks that service the port is an open question.

After public health officials connected the dots between air pollution in West Oakland and the high rate of asthma among children in the area, the California Air Resources Board set out to find out exactly where the pollution was coming from.

We cooperated with them on that study, and what they found was that only 16 percent came from Port of Oakland sources, says spokesperson Marilyn Sandifur. Only 4 percent of the total was related to trucks going to and from the port. Sandifur points out that 84 percent was found to originate from other sources, one of which is the thousands of vehicles that pass through the nearby MacArthur Maze each day.

But Doug Bloch of the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports says that, based on what he’s seen with his own eyes, he believes that port truck traffic accounts for a bigger piece of the smoggy pie.

I see those trucks coming through the neighborhood, belching out thick, black smoke, he explains. If you go down to the port, you can see it and smell it in the air. I’ve actually heard drivers tell stories about the air being so bad that it made them sick, and they had to pull over to throw up.

Regardless of whether the trucks going to and from the port account for 4 percent of air pollution in West Oakland or more than that, the Port of Oakland and Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports members agreed back in February of 2007 that the problem was serious enough to warrant finding a way to ensure the trucks’ compliance with changing clean-air standards. In fact, the port has been working on cleaning up the air since the late 1980s. Since then, numerous projects have been implemented, including several pilot projects and the retrofitting and, in many cases, replacement of older terminal equipment.

Still, the question remains: Who should be responsible for bringing the trucks that service the Port of Oakland in compliance with state standards? In other words, who should foot the bill for cleaner air?

Under the current system, most drivers are independent contractors hired by the trucking companies to haul goods to and from the port. Right now, it’s up to the drivers to shoulder the costs for upgrading and maintaining their equipment, says Bloch. And that’s just not fair or realistic. Retrofitting older models of trucks generally costs between $15,000 and $30,000, with newer, cleaner-burning trucks starting at about $100,000. What the Coalition is recommending is that drivers be hired as employees, and that the trucking companies assume full responsibility for the trucks.

Last year, the Port of Oakland offered up a few million dollars to help drivers retrofit their trucks. The port has also set aside money in the past to help drivers purchase newer trucks. The latter program saw eighty cleaner-burning trucks hit the street. On average, newer trucks emit 70 percent less pollution than older ones.

But, even with the subsidies, most drivers aren’t in a position to retrofit their trucks, let alone buy new trucks, particularly in this credit market, says Bloch, who adds that the average annual income for a truck driver is $30,000. They can’t get credit. It’s much easier for the trucking companies to get credit.

The trucking industry has argued, however, that these added costs—employee benefits and truck maintenance—would have to be passed on to their clients, who would, in turn, be forced to pass them on to consumers. They also point out that free-wheeling truck drivers aren’t exactly excited about having to surrender the very thing that attracted them to truck-driving and the open road in the first place: independence.

Sometimes it’s not about what we as individuals want, says Bloch, who believes that the global shipping industry can absorb the added trucking costs without affecting its bottom line very much. It’s about what’s in everyone’s best interest. What we have right now is a Wild West situation. The port doesn’t have any direct relationship with the trucking industry or the truck drivers, so there’s no way to enforce any kind of regulations and, therefore, anything goes.

In 2008, the Port of Oakland hired a consulting company, Beacon Economics, to weigh all of these factors and come up with suggestions for fixing the trucking system at the port. Their findings and suggestions were to inform the policies and procedures being prescribed in the Comprehensive Truck Management Plan.

Beacon’s findings were posted last month on the port’s website. And, while the Economic Impact Analysis, as the report is titled, is careful not to tout an employee-based trucking system as the ultimate solution to the port’s air pollution woes, it does make a strong case for making the switch.

According to the report, complying with continuously changing and increasingly more stringent emissions standards under the current system will require large and continual subsidies. The Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports believes the switchover to an employee-based system is as good as recommended, because they say that this kind of a financial commitment, particularly now, is unlikely to come from anywhere else. Even most of the trucking companies have said that they are not in a position to offer any financial assistance to drivers. The study also points out that the switch would be fairly easy to implement, as nearly one-third of the drivers who service the port are already trucking company employees.

That said, the Beacon study makes clear that an employee-based trucking system is far from hitch-free. For instance, 60 percent of the drivers polled by Beacon said that they were not interested in becoming trucking company employees. If those drivers left the fleet, 800 new drivers would have to be recruited.

The most efficacious approach to cleaning up and minimizing inefficiencies in the drayage sector at a given port has yet to be established, the report says. However, in the coming years, the potential contribution of an employee driver requirement—that all drivers serving the port be employees of a [trucking company]—will become clearer in addressing these issues.

All eyes are currently on the Port of Los Angeles, which made the switch last year to an employee-based system under the Port of Los Angeles Clean Trucks Program. Under that program, more than 3,000 cleaner-burning trucks compliant with 2007 EPA standards have rolled into service, all of them privately financed by trucking companies.

In just six months, diesel emissions at the Port of Los Angeles have been significantly slashed, meaning better air for port workers and neighbors. But Port of Oakland spokesperson Marilyn Sandifur says that each port has its own unique set of variables that must be taken into account when considering serious policy changes. In other words, what was best for the Port of Los Angeles isn’t necessarily what’s best for the Port of Oakland.

The Beacon study has to be taken in the fuller context of maritime business here at the port, Sandifur explains. We have to look at the big picture and understand the economics of the drayage sector.

Sandifur also points out that the final CTMP is just one part of a much larger and broader plan to improve air quality at the port. In March 2008, the Port Commission set the clean air bar high for itself, committing to an 85 percent reduction of health risks associated with port sources of diesel emissions by 2020. The Maritime Air Quality Improvement Plan is the bigger picture that I was talking about, Sandifur says. It’s a roadmap for addressing air quality for the long term.

In the meantime, the team drafting the CTMP finds itself in the unenviable position of having to balance social responsibilities with economic ones, and presenting to the Commission on May 21 a plan that will satisfy all of the issue’s stakeholders—shippers, truckers, trucking companies, environmentalists and area residents. We really do appreciate everyone’s hard work, says Sandifur. Ultimately, I think we all want the same thing. We all want clean air.

We just need to bring this thing home, says Bloch. To use a football analogy, the coach has called the play. Now the port just needs to snap the ball and bring it to the end zone.