From SCDigest's On-Target E-Magazine
Feb. 6, 2012
Logistics News: Legislation to Allow Heavier Trucks Dismissed from Highway Bill, in Blow to Shippers
Coalition for Transportation Productivity Vows to Fight On; Legislators Cite Safety, Infrastructure Damage and Job Concerns
SCDigest Editorial Staff
To the surprise of many, the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure voted on a bi-partisan basis to exclude new legislation that would have raised total truck weights on federal highways from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds from the new highway funding bill. Despite that setback, many in the industry applauded the passage by the committee of the larger transportation funding measure.
SCDigest Says: |
 |
| While the amount that capacity that could actually be used on any given shipment or in aggregate would vary, many believe the overall increase in truck productivity would rise by as much as 10% or more from the change. |
|
What Do You Say?
|
|
|
|
By a vote of 33 to 20, the committee voted to include the measure to ncrease truck weights in a series of trucking related productivity changes that will be part of a three-year study.
“It really is ‘Groundhog Day’ today because this very committee asked the Transportation Research Board to study this same issue back in 1998, and the Board strongly endorsed truck weight reform in its Special Report 267, issued in 2002,” John Runyan, executive director of the Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP), an industry group formed in 2008 specifically to push the proposed weight change into law. “There is no need to commit further study to this truck weight proposal. Voluminous academic research and practical on-the-ground experience has proven that states should have the option to put more productive, six-axle trucks on interstates. It is a safe and effective way to boost highway efficiency and productivity without increasing truck size or making trucks ‘bigger’ in any way.”
In recent months, it appeared like the Safe and Efficient Trucking Act (SETA) would be enacted, given strong bi-partisan support in both Houses. The SETA bill in the House was mirrored by SB 747 in the Senate.
But railroad industry interests, opposed to any changes that would lead to relative advantage gains for the trucking industry, lobbied fiercely against the bill, mostly arguing that such a change would not be safe for regular drivers, and lead to damage to infrastructure such as bridges, due to the higher weights. Consumer groups also opposed the bill on safety concerns.
The CTP and others argued that data from Europe and states such as Vermont that have rules in place allowing the heavier trucks showed no increase in accidents stemming from the change. The adding of a sixth axle provides the same breaking capacity as today's trucks, and the increase in productivity would naturally take trucks of the road, further reducing accidents and infrastructure damage overall, according to the CTP.
The sixth axle would add about 3,000 pounds to a Class 8 truck, meaning the increase in weight capacity would rise about 14,000 pounds, or some 31% additional capacity for loads that weigh out before the cube out. While the amount that capacity that could actually be used on any given shipment or in aggregate would vary, many believe the overall increase in truck productivity would rise by as much as 10% or more from the change.
Legislators Cite Jobs, Safety, Damage
After a debate that defied party lines, a bipartisan amendment from Reps. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) and Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) to require a study before passing the SETA language was approved on Thursday, ending SETA hopes for now. However, the committee did pass the full highway funding bill, which will now move on to the full House.
(Transportation Management Article Continued Below)
|
“America’s infrastructure is already crumbling,” Barletta said. “I believe it’s irresponsible for us to add these extra weights.”