Impacts of Goods Movement Growth From Ports On Mobility & Environment Assessed By Jim Hankla

Jim, you've been a leader in port operations and goods movement in the L.A. basin for many years. Why don't we begin by having you describe for our readers the precipice upon which we stand today with regards to goods movement out of the Ports of Long Beach and L.A.

It's fair to say that we are in danger of becoming a bottleneck at both ports, and that is more a commentary on the rapidity with which the container trade has grown in a relatively short period of time. The struggle that the ports have is to try to get ahead of the curve-they just haven't been able to. And that brings with it a lot of environmental impacts with which the ports are also doing their very best. Yet, it's understandable that we have a very impatient constituency that is basically concerned with all of the impacts that come with the incredibly positive influence of foreign trade.

With the increase of goods predicted to move through our ports in the next decade and beyond, do you see the ports of Long Beach and L.A. successfully grappling with this challenge?

I don't think it's something that just the two ports can grapple with. The defined beneficiaries of the explosion of trade are the region, the state and then the nation, particularly in terms of customs revenues. My view is that there's going to have to be a new partnership with both the state and the federal government, as well as with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in order for us to be able to handle this increase in demand. In addition, the private sector-including the railroads, which are experiencing their own problems in terms of capacity, as well rolling stock-must also be involved in the strategy to accommodate the expected growth in goods movement. The ports can't do it alone. And if you take a look at the other great ports in the world, you'll see that the governments that are home to those ports are active partners in the provision of infrastructure to allow those ports to be successful.

Jim, you know that Assemblyman Lowenthal has pressed over the last year three bills to grapple with this issue. Your thoughts on his bills?

The truck idling bill was a bill that achieved its purpose. AB 2041, which is the bill that encouraged the private sector to come up with their own solution on extended hours was also very positive. Unfortunately, I have a disagreement with Alan on AB 2042, and we have closely collaborated on a number of issues over the years. That bill charges the ports with capping pollution related to port operations. But, the ports have not gotten the authority to do that. They don't have the authority. We just fought to limit pollution stemming from the yard equipment that our terminal operators used, and we submitted it to CARB for approval. They in no uncertain terms told us we lack the authority to do that, and they're working on it. I don't know how you can pass a bill that charges somebody with the responsibility to do something when they lack the authority to control it. That's the source of the disagreement between Alan and me on this bill.

What should be the appropriate role of the Legislature and the Governor in trying to craft a solution to mitigate the impacts of the explosive goods movement on your neighboring communities?

First of all, the problems created by international trade are impacting the constituencies around the two ports, and that causes a great deal of anxiety. So for agencies like CARB, they need to be charged legislatively with the responsibility of coming up with solutions that are unique to the ports, because the problems are unique to each port. I don't think they've paid enough attention to that reality. Metaphorically, the two ports are down in the arena with the lions, and everybody else is up in the stands cheering for the lions. So, that kind of support has not served us well, and it's time they took a hard look at the regulatory agency and focused them on operations at the port.

Jim, we did a companion interview in this issue with Alan Lowenthal, and he asserted the following regarding the Alameda Corridor: "From the beginning of the planning of the Alameda Corridor to today's economic situation, we did not understand not only the staggering growth that would occur, but also that we would need to develop inland distribution centers. The major retailers do not want their goods right off the ships. They want everything repacked and re-sent depending on what the needs of the individual stores are." Do you have a response to the Assemblyman's assessment of the the Alameda Corridor's success/ failures?

We'd be in a woeful condition if we didn't have the Alameda Corridor. That's from a number of standpoints, including the number of auto and train conflicts that were eliminated by the corridor, as well as the fact that there are 30 to 40 trains moving down that corridor that would otherwise be moving cargo by truck. So, the corridor is basically meeting a major portion of its goal already.

Having said that, Alan's absolutely right. The way goods movement has evolved is different than the model that was contemplated when the Alameda Corridor was first conceived. And that does call for something called trans-loading. As near as we can tell, about 13% of the goods that move through the two ports is trucked to a trans-loading facility, subsequently repackaged or manipulated, bar coded, repackaged, and re-stuffed into 48 and 53 foot domestic containers, and then ramped on railroad for eastward haul. That is something that was not contemplated when the Alameda Corridor was conceived and initiated. Now, it hasn't negatively impacted the financing of the corridor because of the tremendous growth of international trade. But that is a difference and Alan is correct.

And if we were to do a mitigation of that, what's needed at the corridor in addition to what's already been built?

We do need inland terminals, and those terminals need to have a rail-to-rail capacity as well as rail-to-truck capacity. Because an awful lot of the flat-top warehouses are in the Inland Empire and they need to be able to receive their goods by truck, we also need to be able to sort boxes into units and onto trains for subsequent eastward movement. So, inland terminals are a necessity, as are shuttle trains. But the Alameda Corridor is the infrastructure that had to be in place for that to take place, and it's already there. And, it's probably the most expensive part of the infrastructure. But, there's going to have to be new trackage, and there's going to have to be new terminals.

Jim, in a July interview with our newsletter, the Port of L.A.'s Larry Keller suggested that the next round of growth at L.A.'s facility would be vertical, not horizontal. Is this the case for Long Beach as well?

I think that's the case for both ports. It's going to be incumbent upon the two ports to make better use of the land that they currently have. And whether that's done through better opportunities for on-dock rail or, in some cases, through the construction of some vertical facilities as they have in Singapore and Hong Kong, where trucks are loaded with boxes in what amounts to a giant parking structure.

Let's bring this to a close regarding the ports by asking about homeland security. What's being done at the Port of Long Beach with regard to homeland security upgrades, and are you satisfied that everything's being done that needs to be done?

No, I'm satisfied that everything that's being done that can be paid for is being done. And the federal government has been woefully lacking in its support for port security, particularly as compared to the vast sums that have been expended, and continue to be expended, on airports. As a harbor commissioner, I'm not comfortable with the level of security that we have. I don't think there's a single harbor commissioner for either port that is satisfied. Do I think that the two ports have used their resources wisely and to the extent that we've been able to get federal support? Absolutely. Do I think the federal support has been adequate? Absolutely not.

Jim, the state Legislature just passed a new budget. In that budget, little was done with respect to structural reform of our state and local finances. As a former city manager and veteran public servant, how do you assess the reform efforts of this budget?

I'm happy with baby steps of reform, which is more than we've gotten out of this Legislature in the past. I'm always amazed that the legislators who were on city councils in various cities prior to arriving in Sacramento somehow lose the sense of urgency that they felt when they were grappling with their local budgets. The state is an irresponsible parent. It's the only state in the union that taxes cities. And it does so because it lacks the courage to face the challenges that have to be faced in order to bring California's financing back into some semblance of sanity.

I'm generally unhappy, but I've been discontent now for a lot of years with the Legislature after seeing California go from the top in virtually every category of services to the bottom. I don't know that I see any positive signs on the horizon, and sometimes I almost think that a collapse is necessary in order for true change to occur. It seems as though we've got an environment in Sacramento that can only respond to crises. They can't see crises coming and take appropriate steps to avoid them. That was abundantly clear in the energy crisis.

There will be mayoral battles in both Long Beach and L.A. next year. What do we need in the way of local leadership, and what should the campaigns be about?

What you have are two cities that are splitting into neighborhoods-and people live in neighborhoods, not cities. And, people deal with neighborhood issues, not city issues. I'm seeing a dynamic where you have citizens who love their neighborhoods and hate their cities. They don't understand what it takes to make a city go, and how to pay for the services that they demand in their neighborhoods. So, a situation has developed in which politicians pander to neighborhoods-and basically do whatever it takes-to the detriment of the whole.

We need politicians who understand the whole of the city, who understand what it takes to make that city move forward and pay the city's bills, and who are willing to stand up and say so. The inability of the state to get its financial house in order, which is stressing cities unbelievably and causing them to make bad land use choices, is causing all kinds of havoc and mischief at the local level. The mayoral candidates need to explain to their constituents the objectives that have to be fulfilled in order to meet the goals of the quality of life that the neighborhoods are demanding.