Harbor no illusions

In a perfect world, the truck plan being considered today by commissioners at the Port of Los Angeles would be a good solution to the deadly problem of diesel pollution. In the real world of lawsuits and endless court proceedings, it would stall progress on cleaning the air indefinitely.

The ports of L.A. and Long Beach have set out to clean up the drayage trucks that carry cargo between the ports and distribution centers. They agree on emission rules, declaring that trucks failing to meet federal air-quality standards for engines built in 2007 won’t be allowed to enter either port after 2012. Where they differ is on the best way to make this work. Long Beach has approved a plan that will let the market determine how truckers meet the standards, while creating a funding mechanism to help them buy new equipment. Los Angeles aims to reinvent the local drayage industry.

Currently, almost all of the 16,800 truckers working at the two ports are independent contractors. L.A.’s port staff has recommended a plan under which only trucking companies that have been awarded a concession agreement will be allowed to do business at the port, and only truck drivers who are employees of these concessionaires will be allowed through the gates. Those in favor of L.A.’s approach say it would raise standards of living for truckers (who would be eligible for unionization by the Teamsters), decrease cheating (because it would be easier for the ports to monitor a handful of concessionaires than thousands of independent truckers) and increase operational efficiency. Yet economists and consultants disagree on these points because market outcomes are very hard to predict.

Two things are nearly certain. First, truckers’ incomes stand to rise no matter which plan is adopted, because a Transportation Security Administration initiative this fall will force illegal immigrants out of the drayage business, leading to a driver shortage; compensation will have to rise to lure new drivers into the field. And second, both plans would severely disrupt goods movement in the short term.

Regardless of which approach is better for drivers, and the highly debatable questions of which would be less disruptive and more efficient, the key issue for everyone in Southern California who breathes the air fouled by port trucks is: Which will clean it up fastest? That’s where L.A.’s approach comes up short.

The ability of municipal agencies such as the ports to interfere with the trucking industry is limited. The Port of L.A.’s plan is an untested attempt at regulating the business that might run afoul of interstate commerce laws. By passing it, harbor commissioners will all but assure a legal battle that may go on for years.

Sometimes it’s better to pass a legally questionable reform and fight it out in court than to back down amid lawsuit threats from opponents. This isn’t one of those times. The Los Angeles plan has some advantages over Long Beach’s, but they are neither so conclusive nor so meaningful that they’re worth treading into a legal morass. Port pollution is responsible for an estimated 1,200 deaths a year in Southern California; people will die while lawyers argue.

The split between the ports represents a tragic failure by port officials, politicians, trucking interests, community activists and environmentalists to reach a compromise that might have avoided such deadly delays. There is still a chance to speed the cleanup: The L.A. Harbor Commission should reject its staff’s recommendation on the employee-trucker strategy and work with Long Beach toward a solution both ports can accept.