I'm having trouble understanding the premise here.<p>> Why is there only one crane for every 50–100 trucks at every port in America? No ‘expert’ will answer this question.<p>Cranes should be THE bottleneck. They are massive, expensive and land intensive. Maybe LA needs more cranes, but it doesn't sound like that is the issue. The author states the problem is a trucker problem, "lines to get in, lines to get out" but that isn't a crane problem.<p>The author gets paid by the hour, others get paid by the job, job duration is variable and undefined, so wages are undefined. One solution is to pay drivers more, and pay them per hour. I've had containers full of goods waiting somewhere around the port of LA in the last year. If there were way to pay more to move them on through the system, I'd gladly pay, but its a giant black box.<p>My conjecture is that the REAL real issue is a very complicated and embedded union vs non-union vs contractor vs fed government vs state govt vs local govt pissing contest that could all be circumvented by federal government investing in alternative ports around the US border. Port of Louisiana, Port of Houston, Ports of Florida in the gulf. Lots of alternatives, and we are all sitting around like Port of LA is the sole option. Separately, I dont understand why Mexico isn't more prominent in container transport moved via trains into Texas.