The Case Against Possible Legislation to Increase Truck Size or Weight
In the last Congress, numerous bills and amendments were offered to increase the weight and length of trucks operating on federal highways. Many of these same bigger truck provisions are expected to come up again for debate and votes in this Congress either as part of the reauthorization of the FAST Act or the FY2021 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill. These include:
- 91,000 pound pilot project
- Double 33 foot trailers
- A special exemption from federal weight limits for Connecticut
- Heavier log trucks in nearly 30 states
- Heavier trucks for perishable goods and other commodities in virtually every state
The case against any truck size or weight increases
- In 2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) delivered its three-year Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study Report requested by Congress. That report found that heavier and longer trucks had serious safety problems and would cause additional damage to our highway infrastructure. The Department recommended against any changes to truck size or weight limits.[1]
- In 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) reported there were 165,940 accidents and 4,967 fatalities involving tractor semitrailer trucks.[2] This is a 7.2 percent increase in accidents and 0.9 percent increase in fatalities from 2017. [3] Heavier and longer trucks would make this situation worse.
- More than half (54.6 percent) of bridges in the US are in poor or fair condition.[4] The total backlog for existing highways is $420 billion, and $123 billion is needed for bridge repair.[5] Heavier and longer trucks would make this bad situation even worse, adding billions of dollars to the existing backlog of highway and bridge repairs.
Arguments against heavier trucks, including the 91,000-pound pilot project
Various shippers have lobbied Congress for years to allow a 91,000-pound truck pilot project to operate in 10 states for 15 years. The 2016 USDOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study Final Report to Congress found significant problems with these heavier trucks:
- Heavier trucks have alarmingly higher crash rates compared to 80,000-pound, single-trailer trucks, from 47% to 400% higher.[6]
- Trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds had higher overall out-of-service (OOS) rates and 18 percent higher brake violation rates compared to those at or below 80,000 pounds.[7]
- USDOT estimated the 91,000-pound, six-axle configuration would negatively affect more than 4,800 bridges, costing $1.1 billion.[8]
Arguments against longer trucks, including Double 33s
A few large trucking companies want to force states to allow Double 33s, which are 10 feet longer than the standard double trailer truck on the road today. The vast majority of the trucking industry is opposed to these federally mandated trucks (see attached letter). The 2016 USDOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study Final Report to Congress found significant problems with these longer trucks:
- Double 33s take 252 feet to stop—which is 22 feet longer than today’s twin-trailer trucks.[9]
- A 2013 Marshall University-led study found that double-trailer trucks have an 11 percent higher fatality rate than single-trailer trucks.[10]
- Double 33s would increase pavement damage by $5.5 to $10.5 billion annually.[11]
Exemptions
Connecticut agriculture trucks
Last year, an amendment for heavier trucks was submitted in the Rules Committee to the INVEST in America Act that would allow agriculture trucks to operate at 100,000 pounds on Connecticut interstates. The amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor on the floor. Withdrawing the amendment, he cited the controversial nature of the proposal. There are known dangers of heavier trucks as described above and they would increase the damage to Connecticut interstates leaving all taxpayers to pay the bill. These heavier agriculture trucks are not legal on Connecticut state and local roads today. Even the neighboring states do not allow these heavier trucks off of their turnpikes. Adoption of this amendment would prompt other states to ask for similar exemptions from federal weight limits such as those described below.
Log trucks
An amendment for heavier log trucks was offered last year in the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee to the INVEST in America Act. The amendment would allow the heavier log trucks in as many as 30 states. This amendment was withdrawn by the sponsor prior to a vote. The amendment would replace the current national uniform interstate gross vehicle weight limit of 80,000 pounds with whatever each individual state allows on its state roads. The new weight limits would vary by state and very few of the states would have the same limits. The new limits would range from 84,000 pounds on five axles to 156,000 pounds on eight axles. There was nothing in the amendment to address the dangers caused by the extra weight like rollover and longer stopping distances. There was no requirement in the amendment for extra axles to mitigate the additional pavement damage caused by the heavier trucks. Nothing was provided to protect interstate bridges from the extra stress created by the heavier trucks; in some cases, the Federal Bridge Formula would even be violated.
- Logging trucks are more prone to rollover than other trucks. Logging trucks experienced rollover in 21% of fatal crashes, nearly twice the average for large trucks.[12]
- Logging trucks are older and tend to require more maintenance and may lack recent safety features.[13] Logging trucks had the oldest average age (13 years) of any class of truck involved in fatal crashes compared to an average of 7.6 years for all trucks.
- Logging trucks are more likely to be involved in crashes resulting in fatalities and injuries. In 2018, vehicles in logging truck crashes were 73% more likely to be involved in a fatality and 24% more likely to be involved in an injury.[14]
Multi-commodity trucks
An amendment for heavier trucks was submitted last year in the Rules Committee to the INVEST in America Act to allow heavier trucks hauling perishable goods and other commodities in virtually every state. These commodities included: perishable agricultural commodities, concrete in an unhardened state, live poultry, raw or unfinished forest products, livestock feed, or other products and commodities that could be deemed not useful after a specified amount of time. There was nothing in the amendment to address the dangers caused by the extra weight like rollover and longer stopping distances. There was no requirement in the amendment for extra axles to mitigate the additional pavement damage caused by the heavier trucks. Nothing was provided to protect interstate bridges from the extra stress created by the heavier trucks; in some cases, the Federal Bridge Formula would even be violated.
- Allowing individual overweight commodities sets a bad precedent. Piecemeal legislation sets the stage for future requests, where Congress is forced to favor or disadvantage specific industries.
- As more exemptions are passed, a more complicated patchwork is created that would fuel calls for nationwide weight increases, with devastating consequences for public safety and infrastructure.
[1] USDOT; 2016. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Final Report to Congress
[2] FMCSA; 2020. Analysis & Information Online- Crash Statistics
[3] Ibid
[4] FHA; 2019. Bridge Condition by Highway System, 2019
[5] American Society of Civil Engineers; 2017. 2017 Infrastructure Report Card
[6] USDOT; 2016. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Final Report to Congress
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] USDOT; 2015. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Highway Safety and Truck Crash Comparative Analysis Technical Report
[10] Marshall University, 2013. An Analysis of Truck Size and Weight: Phase I – Safety
[11] Roger D. Mingo and Mark L. Burton; 2015. Mandated Twin 33 Trailers Produce Costly Shifts in Freight Movement
[12] International Journal of Forest Engineering; 2019. An analysis of fatal log truck crashes in the United States from 2011 through 2015
[13] Ibid
[14] Ibid