More than 2,200 local government leaders countrywide are pressing congressional lawmakers to oppose increases in commercial truck size and/or weight, including heavier single-trailer trucks.
A joint letter, organized by the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT) and delivered to congressional leaders Monday, is co-signed by county and municipal officials as well as public works directors and county engineers from all 50 states.
"Much of our transportation infrastructure that connects people to jobs, schools and leisure is in disrepair, in part because local and rural roads and bridges are older and not built to the same standards as interstates," the letter reads. "The impacts of heavier or longer tractor-trailers would only worsen these problems."
Related: It's time for longer, heavier trucks
Legislative efforts to increase commercial truck weight limits have popped up in recent history and have traditionally been opposed by trucking stakeholders. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), Truckload Carriers Association (TCA), and the industry's largest labor union, the Teamsters, in 2023 opposed H.R. 3372, which would have established a 10-year pilot program allowing a gross weight of up to 91,000 pounds for certain six-axle trucks, or the maximum permitted by bridge formulas. States, even those that already allow gross weights of more than 80,000 pounds, had the ability to opt in or out of the program, but the measure never advanced past the House.
CABT asserts that shipping companies are currently pushing numerous proposals to raise the allowable federal weight limit on trucks from 80,000 pounds and attempting to attach the proposals to the Highway Bill.
These proposals, CABT claims, include a pilot program for 91,000-pound trucks to assess their crash rating and a provision allowing log trucks weighing up to 154,000 pounds. Also included, the group said, is a proposal that would give governors control over setting interstate weight limits in their states, creating a patchwork of state weight limits that would be devastating to interstate commerce.
"Local communities across the country feel the impact of policy decisions made in Washington, D.C. Congress needs to understand their decisions have real consequences for local governments, including our budgets," said Supervisor Jeff Krueger of New Market Township, Minnesota.
Many states have already undertaken commercial truck weight adjustments or have considered them. This legislative session, for example, Alabama considered a bill that included a per-axle weight increase for log trucks. The bill ultimately passed, but not until after the weight increase was removed.
Krueger, who also serves as executive director of the Minnesota Association of Townships and on the National Association of Towns and Townships Board of Directors, said that while these proposals are for interstate weight and length increases, local infrastructure will be impacted.
"It is very simple. Trucks do not load and unload on interstates," he said. "Whether for gas or meals or to deliver their freight, trucks ultimately make their way onto local roads and bridges. This impacts us all."
Studies have shown that heavier and longer trucks damage infrastructure, especially bridges, and the U.S. Department of Transportation recommended against any such increases in its 2016 Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study.
A recent study by CABT, The Impacts of Heavier Trucks on Local Bridges: 2025 Update, concluded that more than 68,000 local bridges would be put at-risk by 91,000-pound trucks, five-and-a-half tons over the current weight limit. The study found the cost to replace those bridges is over $78 billion, which would be borne by state and local governments. None of the various proposals to increase truck weight includes any additional funding for infrastructure.
"A number of our members worked on the initial report and the 2025 update. The results are alarming," said Kevan Stone, CEO/Executive Director of the National Association of County Engineers. "The cost to replace local bridges at-risk from 91,000 pounds has skyrocketed by $18 billion in just two years. Where does that money come from? Not from Washington, and state budgets are already stretched. Once again, local taxpayers will have to pay in both funding and public safety."
