ASET - Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation

In The News

TRUCKS GET AN EAR July 7, 2008

WASHINGTON REPORT Edition: TRAFFIC WORLD Page: 14

ARI NATTER

Those who want to increase the maximum truck weight say they have studies and a convergence of rising fuel costs and increasing highway congestion to make their case. Next week they will have something else - a congressional forum to hear their argument.

A subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is scheduled to study the issue of truck size and weight at a hearing this week. 'We think this is an appropriate time to start a national conversation about improved trucking efficiency,' said John C. Runyan, International Paper's senior manager of federal government relations. Allowing 97,000-pound trucks - a 21 percent increase from the current federal weight limit - would save shippers an estimated $15 billion annually, advocates of higher weight limits argue. Such a weight increase would save International Paper $27,000 a week at just one of their 16 mills alone, by reducing the number of truckloads of paper hauled from their mill in Alabama from 600 to 450, Runyan said. 'Many of our vehicles weigh out, before they cube out,' he said, a reference to the fact many of the paper shipper's trucks are left with unfilled space after reaching the federal weight limit.

International's case is one of several expected to be highlighted during the hearing, scheduled for July 9. The movement to allow larger trucks is being spearheaded by the Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation, which includes the American Trucking Associations and shippers such as Kraft Foods and Heidtman Steel.

The group is advocating the inclusion of pilot projects to allow heavier trucks in five or six states in the next highway reauthorization bill, and says rising fuel costs and increasing congestion gives them a better chance then ever. According to ASET, the increase would result in a savings of 1.9 billion gallons of fuel a year, a reduction of 6.5 million tons of pollutants and a reduction of vehicle miles that would equate to 8,000 fewer accidents and 450 fewer fatalities a year. 'Congress is getting to the point of understanding the importance of this,' said ASET's executive director, Jake Jacoby. 'I think it's a positive step.'

Opponents of allowing larger trucks, which include the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and a coalition of highway safety organizations, say they welcome the hearing as well. 'From our perspective, the brighter the light that shines on the issue and the more public attention there is on these issues the more chance Congress will maintain the existing common sense limits on truck size and weight,' said Russ McGurk of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks.

Expected to testify on their behalf is Mike Opat, a member of the Hennepin County, Minn., board of commissioners, which passed a ban on bigger trucks last April. Hennepin County was also the site of the I-35W bridge collapse last summer. 'Residents of Hennepin County and all Minnesotans know how important it is to take preemptive action to prevent future threats to bridges,' Opat said in a statement released earlier this year. 'No one has identified 'the straw that broke the camel's back' with regard to the I-35W bridge,' he said. 'But we do know that bridge loadings - including the weight of heavy vehicles crossing bridges - contribute to bridge fatigue and bridge damage.'

Still, industry insiders say the fact the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is holding the hearing is significant. 'It means it's in play as something to be realistically considered,' said Brigham McCown, former chief council for the Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. 'At first blush it looks like it's a positive development that at least the issue is going to be discussed on the merits,' he said. 'Given the Democratic-controlled House, it's interesting they are going to have a hearing on it.'