West Coast Ports Seek Piece of Highway Bill

West Coast ports want Congress and the Obama administration to look beyond highways and bridges and include more funding for seaports in the next surface transportation act.

Top executives from major West Coast ports came to Washington June 23 and 24 to lobby for a more port-friendly, intermodal and freight-oriented surface transportation bill and for more access to federal funding for port-related infrastructure projects.

“We’ve been a casualty of past highway bills,” said Richard D. Steinke, executive director of the Port of Long Beach in Southern California. This time, however, “we will work with other freight stakeholders to make sure freight doesn’t take a back seat.”

“Our West Coast ports are in need of dedicated infrastructure funds, and we have a perfect opportunity in the surface transportation bill,” said Steinke.

It's an unprecedented step by six West Coast ports — Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland, Calif., Seattle and Tacoma, Wash., and Portland, Ore. — to win a bigger share of federal infrastructure spending. It's also a harbinger of greater cooperation among ports feeling the heat of competition.

Traditionally, the bulk of that multi-year bill’s funding — perhaps as much as $450 billion this year — goes to federal-aid highways, bridges and transit authorities. The ports are calling for a dedicated freight movement program in the bill and funding that they could dip into as well as discretionary grants for port infrastructure projects.

Existing programs don’t meet port needs, said the port executives, claiming ports receive little assistance even from those programs under which they are eligible for funding.

“In this reauthorization we have to keep the pressure on,” said Steinke.

Pressure is mounting from all sides on Congress, which must pass a surface transportation bill by Sept. 30 or extend the current law.

Transportation leaders in the House want to press ahead with a bill they are working on, while the Obama administration wants to extend the current law by 18 months.

Whichever route Congress and the White House take, “We want to make sure it’s a good bill and has the elements the West Coast ports want in it,” said Steinke.

The port leaders also want to knock down modal barriers at the Department of Transportation and give DOT a more intermodal focus.

“We don’t want to get lost in the discussion” of intermodal priorities, said Omar R. Benjamin, executive director of the Port of Oakland, Calif.

Benjamin favors creating an intermodal office at DOT with an intermodal under secretary, as mandated by the House bill. “That person would give us more prominence” in the debate over funding and strategic transportation goals, he said.

The port leaders also want a more systematic approach to transportation planning, management and marketing at the federal level and stronger federal, state and regional partnerships. For an example, they reached across the U.S.’s northern border.

“Canada has a systematic approach to goods movement,” Steinke said. “The federal government, the provincial governments, the railroads and the ports are all involved, and when they market the Port of Prince Rupert, they go out and do it together.

“We’re here to impress on our federal government that we need to do the same.”

Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidy@joc.com.