The American Trucking Associations and the Coalition for Transportation Productivity on Tuesday, Jan. 31, both praised the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Chairman John Mica for their work to craft the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, a reauthorization bill the groups say also will modify federal transportation programs.
ATA said the surface transportation bill not only will make needed improvements to the nation’s highway system, but also will make that system safer for trucks and cars. “This bill is a major step forward, not just for trucking but for all users of our transportation system,” said Bill Graves, ATA president and chief executive officer. “From reforming how projects are delivered and refocusing the federal highway program on issues of national interest like freight movement, Chairman Mica has laid the groundwork for significant improvements in how Americans travel.”
Graves said ATA also is pleased that the bill includes a number of safety provisions, ranging from the creation of a drug and alcohol testing clearinghouse to stricter driver training requirements, and takes steps toward establishing crashworthiness standards for large trucks that ATA has championed. ATA also praised the legislation for addressing truck productivity and hours-of-service.
“We’re pleased that for the first time in 30 years, despite unfounded yet curiously well-funded attacks on the safety of our industry, the House appears set to make much-needed reforms to federal truck size and weight limits,” said Dan England, ATA chairman and chairman of Salt Lake City-based C.R. England Inc. “Allowing states to choose to open their interstate highways to more productive trucks is an important step to reducing costs to American consumers and reducing congestion on our highways.”
England said ATA also was thankful that the bill directs the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to initiate a field study of its proposed hours-of-service changes, specifically the impacts of the proposed modifications to the 34-hour restart provision. “The researchers whose work was used to justify these changes said a field study was needed to understand the safety, cost and operational implications of such a change, and we agree wholeheartedly,” he said.
CTP, a group of 200 shippers and allied associations seeking increased federal vehicle weight limit on interstate highways, praised the truck weight reform proposal’s inclusion in the bill. The legislation would reform the federal vehicle weight limit by giving states the authority to permit larger single-trailer trucks on interstate highways within their borders.
The proposal would allow states to opt into a higher federal interstate vehicle weight limit for single-trailer trucks equipped with six axles rather than the typical five. The required sixth axle would maintain all braking and handling characteristics at the new limit of 97,000 pounds, enabling shippers to utilize truck space that remains empty at the current 80,000-pound federal weight limit. CTP said this proposal will reduce the truckloads, fuel and vehicle miles necessary to meet demand, and that participating states will have full authority to exclude these trucks from operating on any route or bridge.
“The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act recognizes that states need the ability to create safer, greener, more efficient shipping on their interstate highways,” said John Runyan, CTP executive director. “Truck capacity has dropped by 16 percent since the recession started, and the 30-year-old federal vehicle weight limit compounds the problem by forcing many trucks to travel when they are only partially full. Now is the time to correct this inefficiency and help American shippers and manufacturers invest more funds in growth and job creation.”
Runyan said more than 90 percent of states already employ higher weight limits on state roads and bridges. Truck weight reform also would make American companies more competitive in the global marketplace, according to CTP; a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development compared truck productivity among developed nations and found that U.S. tractor semitrailers are the least productive due to highly restrictive vehicle weight limits.
“Current American truck weight regulations impose a significant competitive disadvantage in transport efficiency and results in significantly higher fuel use and emissions for a given freight task,” said John Woodrooffe, who helped author the OECD study and heads truck research at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. “In North America alone, U.S. tractor semitrailer productivity trails Canada by 43 percent and Mexico by 52 percent in terms of cargo weight capacity. The proposed limit of 97,000 pounds represents a relatively modest increase that will help reduce the competitive gap our country is facing.”
The truck weight proposal contained in the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act is based on federal legislation known as the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (SETA). The bill first was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. Michael Michaud (D-Maine) and Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) as H.R. 763. Identical companion legislation, S. 747, was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio).
Also of Interest »
As I understand it the weight limit increase did not pass. Hooray. Our roads are in disrepair, our bridges are classed as border line unsafe as it is now. Small fleets cannot afford to retrofit the equipment to meet the equipment standards required. Large carriers can but the real winner would have been the shippers. Getting more shipped for in reality, less money.
It is time for the workers in transportation, namely the drivers to stand up and be heard.
Carriers do not make money until the driver does his or her job safely.
Remember: The carriers dispatchers CEO, the billing clerks and the rest all work for YOU. Yes , they work for YOU.
If you do not do your job they do not make any money and no-one gets paid. It does not matter how good the salesmen are or the dispatchers are.
If you are not a happy driver with your company you are unsafe and an accident waiting to happen. You take your anger out on traffic, the shipper and receiver.
Something bad is going to happen. It is your carriers job to see that your happy and well taken care of. One serious wreck can put a carrier out of business over night.
More weight more PAY!!!!! Everything is going up in price but the rates paid to haul the freight . What's it gonna take to wake you under paid O/O up !!!!!!!!! The Gestapo is violating the Constitution and the Feds are REGULATING the O/O out of business. Wake Uppppppp !!!!
The 97,000 lbs on 6 axles shouldn't hurt our roads any faster than 80,000 lbs on five axles. The reduced traffic and polution should be a bennifit society.
The Hos rules are a joke. Did they do an economic study on hos or is it just another attempt by govt. to pacify some org. I estimate on a 100 truck fleet it will take at least 10 more trucks to do the same work. Ten more drivers with benefits, which are already in short supply. That will be more trucks on the road, more diesel burned, more traffic, more smog, more wrecks. The only thing the govt. needed to do with current hos is split sleeper berth. Concerning the weight issue all we need is for the govt. to give additional 2000 pound back that we lost because of emissons regulations. This means another 10 trucks, so now we have 20 more trucks to do same job. No Problem I am sure shippers will gladly raise rates. When are we going to see less regulatons like the politicians keep preaching? The only thing not regulated in the trucking industry is the rate. Wonder Who that benifits? Thanks, Dee
When the weight limit was increased from 73,280 to 80,00 we saw the same tired arguements about road conditions and safety of the equipment. The vehicles are getting safer and more able to transport the heavier loads. The overall weight of a vehicle is not what effects road stress, it is the weight per axle. When hauling heavy loads, such as sugar, frozen goods, or bulk (dry and liquid) an extra axle and a stronger load can mean the difference between a shipper choosing truckload or rail. Our industry needs these concessions in order to compete with rail and keep drivers employed. I recognize our industry has a driver shortage in some areas but if we hobble our industry and keep allowing loads to go to rail we will have a driver abundance, which means shortage of jobs.
Being a company owner, I would like to see 88k on 5 axels as in Ontario. This would benefit everyone. Although 97k on 6 axels may or may not benifit society, it wont do a thing to help trucking in general.
Higher taxes,higher truck overhead. I think overall the shippers will benefit greater in the long run. Same tonage shipped probably with the same under staffed shipping & rec. crews and not responsiable for detainment.The states can't repair the highways now, and this money is coming from where????
I agree with Jordon. Anyway, not every carrier will suddenly be running out to buy truck/tractors and trailers with three axles. For most carriers, it's a matter of cube, not weight. There is a lot more to carrying freight than just the weight. Sometimes, pallets cannot be stacked on top of another pallet and most shippers want longer box vans in order to get two or four more pallets per trip. Because shippers are charged by the mile, not the weight, the more freight transported per load is the goal. Some, of course, ship denser freight (low cube, high density) and higher gross weight limits would benefit those shippers. Truck and trailer manufacturers would have to tweak their specs somewhat, but I can say that I've grossed 113,000 pounds in a GCWR 80,000 pound rig. It's possible (but just a tad illegal), and not safe.
This is a good thing, We run 117,000 ibs in NY on 7 axles. Roads here in upstate area are as good or better than any other state I have traveled in, So road damage does not seem to be an issue here. This keeps hauling rates low and benefits all consumers in the end.
That increase in weight will come back and haunt the industry in the long run. States can't find enough money now to keep up with deteriorating roads and this will only compound the problem. If you don't like driving on rough roads and if you don't mind wondering if that next bridge will hold its wieght then just go ahead and up the limit. Personally I don't think it will benefit anyone but a few of the bigger trucking companies and their only concern is the almighty dollar. THEY DON'T HAVE ANYONES BEST INTERST IN MIND BUT THEIR OWN. CETAINLY NOT THE AVERAGE MOTORING PUBLIC.
DOES A BRIDGE IN MINNESOTA RING A BELL?
Pete, There's not much difference between 80,000 pounds on 5 axles or 97,000 on 6. It's still 16,000 pounds per axle. And an additional 17,000 pounds of cargo won't change fuel consumption at all. They're still going to get 5 miles per gallon. Even if they were empty, the savings would be marginal.
I agree with you Pete. It needs to stay at 80,000. I agree on the road repairs. The only exception is large equipment moved on RGN's that are spec'd to handle the extra weight. If they open up the 97,000lbs we will see companies adding axles to 53' trailers that are not made to handle this type weight. This could be a huge safety hazard.
I Think this is the wrong route to go because we will see more road repairs the ever due to the extra weight that will be carried of trucks i feel that we should stay at a strict 80,000 pounds maximum
to haul on our roads.
The money saved on fuel will be doubled in road repairs.
If the weights are increased then there will be fewer trucks on the road which means less jobs. All the politicians claim they want to create jobs and this is just another example of them cutting jobs. The only people to see any type of profit in this is the owners of large trucking companies. Does anybody in their right mind think that this is going to increase driver's wages or just pad the pockets of politicians and big companies?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like