Symbolism and substance

As the Teamsters and environmental groups continue with their all-out push to change the dominant business model for port trucking, they’ve won statements of support of several politicians calling for federal legislation to allow state and local pre-emption of trucking regulation.
How much weight should we attach to those endorsements? Probably not much.

It was no surprise when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa urged Congress to amend of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act to allow local regulation of transportation rates, routes and services. He’s championed employee drivers as part of a clean-air plan, and his city-owned port is locked in a legal battle over the issue with the American Trucking Associations, which is basing its case on the F4A.

The mayors of Oakland, New York and Newark also have lent their names to the proposed F4A change, but those statements seem to be more symbolism than substance. Does anyone really believe port trucking is on New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s list of 1,000 top issues facing his city?

As members of Congress, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., are at least in a position to push for the change in federal law that they've endorsed, but it’s still unclear how much effort they’re willing to expend on the issue. It’s not unheard of for public officials to sign a letter to satisfy vocal constituents, then quietly move on to other things.

Even the recent letter that Chris Ward, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, supporting changes in the federal law doesn’t mean the port authority is ready to impose an employee-driver mandate for port truckers. Such a requirement isn’t part of the port authority’s clean-air strategy, and it appears unlikely to be recommended by a working group that’s addressing the strategy’s trucking component.