In The News

"Heavy Trailer Plan Splits Carriers, Customers"
Transport Topics - November 22, 2000

Six-Axle, 97,000-Pound Tractor Trailers Would Be Optional for States

In one corner are the truckers and their customers who believe they can improve their economic productivity by increasing the capacity of a trailer for additional cargo weight or more cubic space.

In the other corner are truckers who feel pressured by shippers to buy new trailers without earning a penny more to move their freight.

And in the middle of the ring is the new Congress, which will again be asked to consider a proposal to establish a federal truck weight limit of 97,000 pounds on six axles for use on the Interstate highway system. Under current law, the maximum allowed weight is 80,000 pounds on five axles for the entire federal-aid road system, although states may exercise their historical authority to set higher limits and issue permits.

American Trucking Associations has remained aloof from this conflict of business interests because it has members on both sides of the argument

Nine state trucking associations are opposed to either heavier or longer trucks or both, according to Dean Cotton, president of the 300-member Mississippi Trucking Association.

"Mississippi got the ball rolling, back in 1990, to go on record opposed to any size and weight increase," he said Nov. 15. "When we reorganize every three years, we take a look at the issue, but our opposition never changes. We would oppose it anywhere in the country where it is being debated, because it would greatly benefit the shippers, and truckers would not see anything from it."

Cotton identified the other eight state trucking associations as Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia.

There is no interest in increasing a vehicle's weight in Virginia, said Dale Bennett, executive vice president of the 400-member state association. "We haven't taken a position on the heavier trucks, but to be honest with you, no one has come up to me and said we should take a look at this." He said his association is opposed to the introduction of triple trailers into Virginia.

In contrast, the Kansas Motor Carrier Association would like a small weight increase in the federal law - to 85,500 pounds, because that is what Kansas allows on its state roads. "We don't have a policy at this point on increasing the weight limit to 97,000 pounds, but we would like to see the artificial barrier that exists on the Interstate eliminated," said Tom Whitaker, the association's executive director.

In Colorado, one carrier executive said it all comes down to dollars and cents. "Preliminarily, I don't think we could justify the expense of the added axle because I don't think shippers would pay us more to move their freight," said Bruce Kean president of Leprino Transportation in Denver. Leprino has more than 200 power units and double that number of trailers.

A spokesman for Hurley Transportation Cos. In Phoenix said he would be in favor of increasing the weight to 97,000 pounds because it would give the companies greater productivity. "With greater capacity to haul more, you could reduce the number of trucks on the road and it would satisfy what the shippers want," said Bob Campbell. "We would be in favor of it."

A spokesman for Werner Enterprises Inc. of Omaha, Neb., said the carrier's management has no opinion on the need for heavier freight vehicles. Truckload carrier CRST International of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, supports increasing the weight limit above 80,000 pounds. Jeff Bowron, CRST's executive vice president in charge of operations, said that running heavier vehicles can help get more cargo delivered, cargo that would be otherwise sitting in the warehouse or loading dock.

CRST is a member of Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation. The ASET coalition, which includes steel and cattle associations as well as trucking interests, so far has run into more opposition than sympathy on Capitol Hill (4-10, p. 4). But ASET's manager of legislative affairs, Jake Jacoby, said in an interview with TRANSPORT TOPICS that he is optimistic that lawmakers will recognize the need for legislation in 2001 and heed him - for several reasons:

For one thing, record-breaking fuel prices in 2000 have raised the ante. Trucks need to carry more payload to offset higher fuel costs. Diesel pump prices blew through the roof in 2000, forcing some carriers out of business. When fuel prices skyrocketed in 1975, Congress raised federal limits on gross vehicle weight and axle weight to provide additional cargo-carrying capacity for carriers faced with large fuel-cost increases.

Also, if heavier trucks were permitted to operate next year, fewer trucks would be needed to haul the same amount of cargo, and that would be beneficial to traffic, ASET maintains. And trucking productivity would increase by 21%, claims the National Private Truck Council.

In a 1998 study, the Department of Transportation concluded that heavier trucks would result in an 11% decrease in vehicle miles traveled and would have little impact on road congestion.

ASET's approach would give the states the option of allowing 97,000-pound, six-axle tractor-trailers. Not all states may want to go along with the proposal.

In 1999, transportation officials in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Minnesota and Rhode Island went on record in opposition to bigger, heavier trucks. At that time, New Jersey supported eliminating the right of states to allow trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds on federal roads.

Other states, such as Idaho, were concerned that heavier freight carriers could affect the structural integrity of bridges.

The 80,000 pound limit - for twin-trailer combinations as well as the standard tractor trailer - was enacted by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, which not only established a nationally uniform weight for interstate truckers, opened the door to coast-to-coast twin-trailers operations and cleared the way for the 48-foot trailer to become the standard van in the industry, but also added 5 cents per gallon to the federal diesel fuel tax and imposed a federal heavy vehicle use tax and a 12% excise tax on new trucking equipment purchases.

The federal cap on truck dimensions, however, has not prevented the states from using their so-called grandfather - or historical - rights to set their own standards, often allowing longer and heavier trucks to run under permit. Thus, the states became the object of lobbying efforts.

In the late 1980s, a coalition of shippers, carriers and suppliers set out to increase trailer length to 60 feet, and with no restrictions - hence the name, 60NR Committee. The committee was unsuccessful in getting state legislatures to go that long, but it apparently started the ball rolling for 53-foot trailers - one state at a time, until today, all 48 contiguous sates make some allowance for 53s.

In 1989, the 60NR Committee helped secure their use in Virginia and Georgia. Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina soon followed, creating, a major north-south corridor. By the mid-1990s, all states had accepted 53-foot trailers, and that length, for all practical purposes, is now the industry standard.

ASET hopes to at least open the door for the states to consider the six-axle tractor-trailer. In 1999, Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Merrill Cook (R-Utah) introduced a bill in the House but the legislation never made it to a vote. Nor did it this year.

The next attempt will be made in a new Congress with some of the same leaders - and some new ones.

There are no signs that the new chairman of the pivotal Transportation and Infrastructure committee of the House is inclined to approve legislation that would bring heavier rigs to the road. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the apparent successor to the outgoing chairman, Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), is an advocate of efficient transportation, but has not expressed any opinion on the need to lift the federal ceiling on truck weights, a spokesman said.

The ranking Democrat on the same committee, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), has deep safety concerns about larger trucks, and has consistently offered legislation to halt further increases and even roll back truck sizes. And he gets support from railroad-backed interest groups such as the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks.

Russell McGurk, national field director of CABT, told TRANSPORT TOPICS Nov. 14 that bigger trucks have negative effects on the safety and infrastructure that cannot be eliminated.

Railroads are adamantly opposed to any legislation that would allow heavier trucks to operate - for competitive reasons. Tom White, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, said that railroads have already lost significant volumes of freight to truck and do not want to lose anymore.

It is the same opposition and set of arguments that has been prevalent in all the truck size and weight struggles of the past two decades.

The next round is coming up.

By John Wislocki
Transport Topics Staff Reporter