Planned 'OakPass' Fees at Port of Oakland Draws Concerns from NITL

Plans for PierPass-like system of extended operations and associated fees at the port of Oakland is a cause for concern and deserves more exploration, said the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) in comments to the Federal Maritime Commission on Aug. 19 (here). The trade group's comments were in response to a recent amendment filing from the Oakland terminal operators that requested FMC approval for such a system. The plans are necessary "in view of the urgent need to ease congestion in the Port of Oakland," said the operators in the proposed amendment (here).

The amendment to the agreement calls for the creation of "OAKPASS," a limited liability company that would collect fees as part of an effort to reduce congestion at the port. "The Parties hereby agree that they shall open their terminals for one or more additional shifts per week" and will "establish a fee to be assessed on some or all of the cargo moving via their terminals at the Port of Oakland," said the operators in the proposal. Such fees and terms would be outlined in a terminal operator schedule, which could be revised when agreed upon by the operators, said the proposal. The FMC posted a brief notice on the amendment in the Aug. 7 Federal Register (here).

The NITL took issue with the notion that an "urgent need" is driving the effort. "Perhaps the named Marine Terminal Operators (MTO) in this Agreement have provided evidence of an 'urgent need' to the Commission, but no such evidence is available to the shipping public," said the NITL. "More importantly, even if we accept that there is an 'urgent need', we can find no basis in the amendment for concluding that inaugurating use of so-called 'off peak' terminal gate hours will cure the congestion problem." The terminal operators are Ports America Outer Harbor Terminal, Seaside Transportation Service, SSA Terminals, SSA Terminals (Oakland), and Trapac.

There's also too little information available about the plans, said the trade group. "While the MTOs may indeed have the right to establish this off-peak program" the specifics of the "program should be revealed to the Commission and made public," it said. "As the matter stands, the Commission is left to pass judgment on a blank check, and shippers, NVOs and other affected parties are left in the dark." While the FMC may have little authority to challenge the amendment, the agency should at least request more details, said the NITL. More information on the specifics "might help lift the veil of obscurity from this proposal and give those who will pay for it some measure of confidence that the off-peak program will in fact cure the congestion problem at these marine terminals," it said.

The success of PierPass at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which the proposal is modeled after, is also an open question. "Widely saluted and supported at its inaugural as a sure-fire way to move a substantial portion of marine terminal operations from daytime to nighttime, and thereby make a significant contribution to daytime traffic mitigation, PierPASS’s actual performance over time has raised numerous questions and concerns from the shipping public, which have yet to be addressed," said the NITL. For example, when cargo traffic fell during the recession, the fees were still collected without explanation, said the group.