In The News

TRUCKING WEIGHS IN -- May 12, 2008

Author: ARI NATTER - ASSOCIATE EDITOR Edition:

TRAFFIC WORLD Section: WASHINGTON REPORT

A select group of truckers and shippers will descend on Washington this week in an effort to lift a moratorium that has stood for more than three decades: the 80,000-pound maximum weight limit on tractor-trailers and other large trucks.I

t's an effort that has been tried and failed in the past - almost every time a highway bill comes up for reauthorization - but its advocates believe rising fuel prices, congestion and environmental concerns could tip the scales in their favor this time around.

'In 30 years, I cannot remember a time when people who wouldn't touch the issue are now looking at it and saying 'What can I do?'' said Timothy P. Lynch, senior vice president at the American Trucking Associations and the organization's top lobbyist.

Setting the stage for what could be the most significant change in trucking industry operations since deregulation, the ATA and a coalition of trucking companies and shippers want to raise the maximum allowed weight of trucks on the country's highways by 21 percent to 97,000 pounds.

The truckers and shippers are seeking increases in allowable weight but, for now, not expanded use of longer combination vehicles such as triples and doubles.

That would give truckers 'productivity' gains they've sought for years. For shippers, it would mean billions of dollars in savings.

The campaign signals an end to a truce between the trucking and rail industries and the start of the battle over the next multiyear highway bill. In 2003, the industrial rivals agreed not to seek changes in existing truck size and weight limits, though the exact expiration date of the truce appears to be a matter of dispute, with the rail industry arguing that truckers had agreed not to seek changes until the expiration of the current highway bill.

Truckers have a different interpretation.

'I don't care about the truce,' said Jake Jacoby, executive director of Americans for Safe & Efficient Transportation, a coalition of trucking companies, shippers and others that support heavier trucks. 'All the truce did was get a bunch of people to agree to do nothing.'

However, trucking interests hope the railroads, which are seeking support for an investment tax credit, may be willing to sit down and talk about bigger, heavier trucks.

Truckers and shippers say they will push to have the weight change included in the surface transportation reauthorization bill that will go before Congress in 2009.

They claim raising the weight limit to 97,000 pounds would reduce the number of truck vehicle miles traveled by about 11 percent, cutting more than 10 million miles from truck trips annually and reducing congestion on the highways.

The increase would result in a savings of 1.9 billion gallons of fuel a year and result in a reduction of 6.5 million tons of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere a year, they say, although they admit that more fuel would be needed per truck to haul heavier loads.

Supporters also contend the bigger trucks would be safer, with the reduction in vehicle miles traveled equating to 25,000 fewer accidents, 450 fewer fatalities and 8,000 fewer accidents a year.

'Highway capacity concerns are circulating today,' John Cutler, general counsel of the National Strategic Shippers Transportation Council, said at the annual meeting of the parcel and LTL shipper group in Orlando, Fla., April 28.

As a matter of common sense, freight volume is increasing, and if we don't have larger trucks we will need to have more 48- and 53-foot trucks, which adds to congestion,' Cutler said.

However, safety groups that have sharply opposed any change in the size and weight limits in the past say the changing economics of road transport don't make larger trucks any safer on highways.

'Most people don't want to see trucks get longer and heavier,' said Russ McGurk, of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks. The group was formed by a variety of public advocacy organizations and has received support from the rail industry.

Opponents also say heavier trucks also will place a heavy financial burden on the nation's infrastructure, adding to the wear and tear on roads and bridges even as highway planners and lawmakers struggle to find ways to pay for road maintenance and construction. 'There have been numerous studies showing if truck size and weight limits increase you would see highway and bridge wear and tear go up dramatically,' McGurk said.

Many shippers of steel, forest products, agricultural goods and other heavy goods have given the idea their full support and say they are willing to back up the benefits by paying more. 'We are going to be telling Congress that we are now willing to pay a higher highway user fee tax,' said ASET's Jacoby.

Among the members of his coalition coming to Washington for a 'fly-in' May 13-14 are representatives from Kraft Foods, Heidtman Steel and forest product company Georgia-Pacific.

According to the association, the increase to 97,000 pounds would save shippers $15 billion a year.

Georgia-Pacific, along with the company's main motor carrier, would knock off 15 percent of their total shipping costs, 24 percent of their trips a year, and 21 percent of their fuel use, according to an ASET case study on using 97,000-pound trucks.

The gypsum wallboard industry, which packs 1.5 million trucks a year with the industrial construction material, would see 300,000 fewer truck shipments, according to Wayne Johnson, director of logistics at American Gypsum and a member of the boards of ASET and the National Industrial Transportation League. At $550 to $600 a truck, that adds up to as much as $180 million in savings. 'It's quite substantial,' said Johnson.

And Johnson said shippers plan on passing some of those savings onto carriers, who will need to pay more to add a sixth axle and improved braking systems to their trucks, as well more money for extra fuel for heavier loads.

Railroads, which could see a decline in revenue by as much as $7 billion a year if truck size and weight limits are increased, have been the largest opponents of increasing truck size and weight limits.

'The current [truck size and weight] restrictions are essential to protect the nation's highway infrastructure, avoid increased highway congestion, and prevent environmental degradation,' the Association of American Railroads said earlier this year. 'Motor carriers already underpay their cost responsibility by billions of dollars a year.'

Shippers say that in private, however, railroads are warming to the idea in exchange for support for an investment tax credit they have been seeking that would provide a 25 percent federal tax credit for railroad infrastructure investment.

'A lot of shippers today would agree to a tax credit if [the railroad industry] would agree to size and weight adjustments,' said American Gypsum's Johnson. 'Of course, they want their tax credit too, so they are being more friendly.'

Advocates of increased size and weight must convince Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., to have a chance. Oberstar, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will have a very strong voice in drafting the next highway bill. '[Rep.] Oberstar has always been opposed to longer, heavier trucks for safety purposes, for wear and tear on highway purposes,' said spokesman Jim Berard. 'Safety has always been his highest priority, whatever mode we are talking about.'

Advocates of higher limits believe Oberstar opened the door a crack last year, when he told Traffic World he might consider the issue further after viewing 'real world' evidence on road impact and vehicle reduction and safety among other variables. 'We need to explore that,' Oberstar said. 'I'm not saying 'No, don't look at that,' by any means. I'm saying let's gather some realistic real-world data and see what happens to the road surface.'

They also were buoyed by remarks by acting Federal Highway Administrator Jim Ray, who this year indicated he was supportive of truck size and weight changes. Advocates plan on pitching their case again to Oberstar this week, asking him - and other lawmakers - to consider adding a 'handful' of pilot projects in his home state, as well as Georgia, Maine, South Carolina and possibly Texas to the next highway bill.

Lynch told a convention of shippers last month he has 'made it my personal quest to convince him.' Oberstar's staff say he is at least willing to listen. 'If a compelling argument can be made, he will be open to it. But so far he has not heard a compelling argument,' Berard said.

Truckers will have still plenty of opponents. The issue of increasing truck size and weight has been emotionally charged ever since Congress made 80,000 pounds the national weight limit in 1974, when it was at the center of national concerns over road safety.

'Large trucks already kill almost 5,000 people a year; this would increase truck-related crashes. It would be the equivalent of 52 major airlines crashes a year,' said Joan Claybrook, president of advocacy group Public Citizen. 'Large trucks are already 9 percent of all vehicles involved in fatal crashes.'

Some states have lifted the restrictions at times for special commodities such as logs in states with large forestry industries or agriculture shipping for farmers during harvest season in the Midwest. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty last month permanently lifted some weight restrictions on milk haulers.

Claybrook and other opponents said they were considering launching corresponding lobbying efforts of their own to fight any suggestions of changes in truck size and weight limits.

Also opposed to the measure is the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, whose members might face expensive alterations to stay competitive if 97,000-pound trucks become the norm. In past years, OOIDA has argued that bigger primarily benefit bigger trucking companies.

'Our 21 board members - current and former truckers - know what they are driving on the highway and they have consistently said that what they are driving is heavy and long enough,' said Michael P. Joyce, an OOIDA lobbyist.

'Eighty thousand pounds is a lot of weight going down the highway.'

HEAVYWEIGHT BATTLE -- May 26, 2008

WASHINGTON REPORT Edition: TRAFFIC WORLD Page: 13

ARI NATTER

Opponents of bigger trucks get louder in their fight against 97,000-pound legislation Copyright 2008, Traffic World, Inc. Opponents of heavier trucks are throwing their weight around. Moving to quell a renewed trucking industry effort to allow 97,000-pound trucks on the highway, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced legislation last week that would preserve the current 80,000-pound weight limit.

'If there was ever a recipe for disaster, this is it,' Lautenberg said of 97,000 pound trucks. He introduced the legislation along with Sen. Clair McCaskill, D-Mont. 'Our bill would protect our infrastructure and improve safety on our roads by helping keep dangerously large and heavy tractor-trailer trucks off of them,' Lautenberg said.

In addition to maintaining the current weight limits, the Safe Truck Operations and Preservation Act of 2008 would extend that limit, along with the 53-foot length limit to the entire 160,000-mile National Highway System.

'It defies common sense to let big trucks become super-giant trucks,' said McCaskill.

The legislation joins a similar bill introduced in the House last October by Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., whose staff hopes to have it included in next year's highway spending bill.

Supporters of heavier trucks - including many shippers of steel, agricultural products, forest products and other heavy goods - hope to use that legislation as a vehicle to include a 'handful' of demonstration projects in at least five states.

They say record-breaking fuel prices, growing highway congestion and mounting environmental concerns now make it important to consider changing the truck weight standards that have stood for three decades.

Lautenberg 'is saying 'let's get trucks smaller and smaller so we can put more and more of them on the road,'' said Jake Jacoby, executive director of the Americans for Safe & Efficient Transportation. 'They are not basing their argument on scientific facts, they are basing it on emotion.'

Jacoby, whose group includes shippers such as Kraft Foods and forest product maker Georgia-Pacific, said a switch to 97,000-pound trucks will save shippers $15 billion a year, and would cut truck miles traveled by 11 percent, and save 1.9 billion gallons of fuel annually.

ASET met with members of Congress and their staffs during a 'fly-in' last week, according to Jacoby, but one key member, Rep. James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., remains unconvinced, at least for now.

'This is a matter that requires a good deal more thought before we take any further action,' Oberstar told Traffic World. 'It's a matter that needs more elaboration and information than we have now.'

Oberstar, who as the chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will play a key role in crafting the next highway bill, would make a powerful advocate. Proponents, who envision getting 97,000-pound trucks by adding a sixth axle and paying more highway user fees, suggest pilot programs in Oberstar's home state of Minnesota, as well as Wisconsin, Maine, South Carolina, Georgia and possibly Texas.

Oberstar said more research is needed first. 'It's a work in progress,' he said.

In the meantime, expect opponents to be increasingly vocal in their concerns. Detractors note that heavier trucks would cause more damage to roadways and bridges, and have longer stopping distances. 'The idea of letting bigger trucks on the road is just crazy,' James P. Hoffa, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters general president, said.

Advocacy groups Public Citizen and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety say that reflects broader sentiment across the country, and they pointed to results from a national public opinion poll by Lake Research Partners, a Washington-based firm with largely Democratic clients.

The poll found 66 percent of respondents were against changing legislation to allow larger trucks, according to Public Citizen.

'The American people have to share the road with these super-sized trucks,' said Advocates Vice President Jacqueline S. Gillan, 'and are frighteningly aware of the dangers they pose.'

ROSE OPEN TO HEAVY TRUCKS -- May 26, 2008

WASHINGTON REPORT Edition: TRAFFIC WORLD Page: 13

ARI NATTER

In a signal of potential thawing relations between the railroad and trucking industry, BNSF chief Matthew K. Rose says he wouldn't maintain a blockade against longer and heavier trucks under the right circumsances.

Rose, chairman, president and CEO of BNSF, said in an interview he could accept increased size and weight restrictions on trucks if the heavier trucks pay "their fair share" to maintain roads under the wear and tear of larger vehicles. "As long as under these new standards, we fully allocated their costs to the roads and they paid those costs, then I would not stand in the way," he told Traffic World.

Rose stressed he was putting out "the BNSF position, not the railroad industry position." But his comments also suggest the landscape has changed since the two central freight hauling industries battled over truck size and weight standards in the 1990s before striking what they called a "truce" six years ago, setting the issue aside to work together on broader transportation funding. With jockeying over a new highway bill already under way, some truckers this month launched a new campaign this week to raise maximum truck weight limits from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds.

Rose said the greater flexibility is the result of changing patterns in freight shipping since the modes were at odds years ago, with the growth in intermodal now creating new business realities.

"Things are different from what it was when we had the truce six years ago," he said. "Now, our three largest customers are trucking companies, and they're saying, 'We want to give you more of our freight.'"