A coalition of more than 1,000 state and local officials is urging members of Congress to oppose companies’ calls for an increase in federal truck weight and size requirements as part of the omnibus spending bill.
The federal weight limit for trucks is 80,000 pounds. However, the Safer Hauling and Infrastructure Protection coalition, comprising more than 80 associations and companies such as Anheuser-Busch and Coca-Cola, support a pilot program permitting a small number of states to “opt-in and voluntarily study the overall impact of a modern, six-axle, 91,000-pound truck configuration.”
The group argues that heavier trucks are safer and more efficient because the current federal weight limit requires trucks to take less direct routes, since all states allow heavier trucks on certain roads.
They say this adds to greater traffic and congestion levels, and burns more fuel. Heavier trucks mean more cargo can be carried with fewer vehicles, which would alleviate congestion issues and reduce fuel expenses, they say.
But a group of 1,000 local leaders asserted in a letter to members of Congress late last month that heavier and longer trucks will damage their infrastructure, an expense they say they cannot afford.
“Millions of miles of truck traffic operate on local roads and bridges across the country, and any bigger trucks allowed on our Interstates would mean additional trucks that ultimately find their way onto our local infrastructure,” reads the letter, which was organized by the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks.
Although a federal weight adjustment would apply to interstates, communications director for the coalition Shane Reese said “no trucks start or stop on interstate highways” and would have to use local roads and bridges in order to unload goods.
He added that truck traffic is lawfully afforded “reasonable access” off of interstates to accommodate for food, fueling, and repairs. But “reasonable access” isn’t always defined, which could allow “trucks virtually unlimited travel through communities,” he said.
Sean Joyce, executive director for the Safer Hauling and Infrastructure Protection coalition, or SHIP, says larger weight requirements won’t harm local communities.
“Increasing weight limits for the interstate highways does not mean trucks at such increased weight can travel generally throughout a state, including in its cities and towns,” Joyce said. “State law controls weight limits for such movements.”
Joyce also criticized the letter for not addressing specific proposals on the table.
“This is a very generalized letter that does not look at specifics of the pilot program and lumps other efforts in with what our safety coalition is pushing for,” Joyce said.
Congress received a Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study Report from the U.S. Department of Transportation in 2016. Both sides have pulled conclusions from the report in making their cases.
The coalition against the increase has noted that the study claims 91,000-pound trucks would harm more than 4,800 bridges and would accrue an additional $1.1 billion in federal investment. Likewise, the group pointed to a finding that revealed the six-axle vehicles weighing more than 80,000 pounds had 18 percent higher brake violation rates.
But Joyce pointed out the same report showed that the additional axle reduces life-cycle pavement costs, and SHIP has also noted that the Minnesota Department of Transportation found that the addition of the sixth axle created a 37 percent reduction in road wear.
Additionally, SHIP has pushed back on safety concerns related to an increase in heavier trucks. The group references several pilot projects, such as a 10-year project in Idaho that determined there were no added safety risks or damage to infrastructure with a 129,000-pound weight limit.
Trailer size
The Americans for Modern Transportation coalition, which represents companies including Amazon, FedEx, and UPS, has also called for an increase in the national twin-trailer size from 28 feet to 33 feet. They argue that the added space would put fewer trucks on the road and reduce the amount of wear and tear on infrastructure.
The group did not respond to a request for comment.
The coalition against heavier trucks opposes both proposals from the Safer Hauling and Infrastructure Protection coalition and the Americans for Modern Transportation coalition, and argues that the increased weight or sizes of federal trucks will not reduce the number of trucks on the road.
“Bigger trucks will never mean fewer trucks, and that remains the case today,” Reese said.
He added that provisions to increase federal truck weight and size requirements have not yet been added to the omnibus spending bill that Congress is shooting to pass this month. Yet, he said his coalition will continue advocating to keep the current standards in place.
“CABT plans to continue amplifying to Congress the concerns of community leaders back home through grassroots advocacy like the 1,000 signature letter,” Reese said.
In reference to the proposals from other coalitions, he said, “These are simply too dangerous proposals for Congress to pass.”
