FORT WORTH, Texas — Drivers could share the highways with much heavier trucks if Congress decides that the efficiencies of larger loads trump concerns about road damage and safety.
The Safe and Efficient Transportation Act would raise the maximum weight for commercial trucks that routinely travel on highways to 97,000 pounds in most states.
The current threshold in most places is 80,000 pounds unless the truck has a permit to be overweight.
Supporters of the proposal, including many companies that ship household goods in tractor-trailers, argue that it would reduce traffic, decrease fuel use and ultimately keep prices lower for consumers.
About 200 companies have banded together to support the bill as the Coalition for Transportation Productivity — including Hershey, Home Depot and MillerCoors, which operates a large brewery in south Fort Worth.
The bill is sponsored by members of Congress from Maine and Vermont.
Those states, where heavy trucks from logging operations are common, are taking part in a pilot program that allows trucks up to 100,000 pounds on highways for the next 20 years.
Also, states already have the power to control truck weights on nonfederal roads.
Critics say heavier trucks would severely damage roads and especially bridges, many of which are crumbling and need repairs that the nation can’t afford. In Texas’ Tarrant County, 29 bridges had poor scores on their most recent inspections, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported this month after reviewing the National Bridge Inventory.
The review also concluded that, nearly five years after a Minneapolis bridge collapse killed 13 people and injured 145, bridge conditions are arguably worse.
Driving safety is also a concern. Bill opponents say a heavier truck needs 25 percent more room to stop. In 2010, crashes involving large trucks killed 3,675 people, up about 9 percent from the year before, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s annual report.
Supporters of the bill, however, say the increased limit would apply only to trucks that have a sixth axle. They say such extra equipment gives the heavier trucks essentially the same braking capacity as an 80,000-pound truck with five axles.
While the safety effects can be debated, there is no denying the lack of funds for repairing the nation’s aging bridges.
The U.S. has a $70.9 billion backlog of bridge work, and heavier trucks could make the situation much worse, said Andrew Herrmann, president of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
“You have the prospect of shortening the lives of our bridges,” Herrmann said. “The trucks with their heavy loads are really what erodes our bridges faster. We’re lacking the funds right now to upgrade them.”
Even without the bill, record numbers of overweight trucks are already passing through Texas, documents show. Their owners pay $15 to $4,000 for permits, in part to offset damage to roads and bridges.
Last year, 590,980 oversize/overweight permits were issued to trucks — less than 1 percent of overall truck traffic in the state — generating $114 million for the state’s highway and general funds, according to Texas Department of Motor Vehicles records.
If Congress allows heavier trucks on U.S. highways, many could pass through the state as a matter of course, without a permit.
But heavier trucks don’t necessarily pose a threat to the concrete, steel and other weight-bearing components of roads and bridges, an official said.
“It really has to do with how you space the axles,” said Richard Goldsmith, a special-projects coordinator with the Motor Vehicles Department.
Texas has no maximum weight provided the carrier has a permit, said another coordinator, Kristy Schultz.
“We issue general permits for loads of up to 254,300 pounds,” she said. “Once you exceed that, or if you exceed 200,000 pounds with less than 95 feet of axle spacing, it becomes a ‘super heavy load,’ and there are multiple steps to go through for a permit.
“It’s a three-week to six-week evaluation that includes an analysis of the route by Texas Department of Transportation bridge and pavement engineers and, if you’re crossing any bridges, it also requires analysis by an external engineer.”
The Texas Department of Public Safety enforces state laws on truck weights, and troopers have portable scales to weigh vehicles on the roadside. Last year, $2.5 million in penalties were assessed for 37 oversize/overweight violations, state records show; $2.35 million was collected in 2010.
The bill would allow states to set their own truck weight limits up to 97,000 pounds for trucks with a sixth axle. Large trucks typically have five axles.
An extra axle would more than offset the additional weight, said Sean McNally, spokesman for the American Trucking Associations.
“A good way to think of it is, you’re standing on two feet instead of one,” he said.
“The 97,000 pounds on six axles configuration is consistent with offsetting the wear and tear on bridges, and, in fact, it takes trucks off the road.”
The bill would also impose a heavy-vehicle tax of up to $800 per year, depending on truck weight. That would be an increase for many drivers, who typically pay up to $550 a year under existing laws. The money would go into a special trust fund to help states improve bridges.
I’m all for getting our heaviest trucks off our city streets in Maine. Senator Collins did a great job getting that pilot program passed. My only concern is when I see a lumber truck that appears a bit top heavy swaying every so slightly on 95. I hope that these drivers continuously check these loads. Just one log through a minivan windshield would be the begining of the end for this program.
Actually the trucks that you don’t want to be near if they have to make a quick evasive action are those pully multiple trailers. The back trailers have a tendency to flip on their sides.
you are right, I’ve seen those units out west- they are even longer than the ones you see in New England. Again I like the new law, but when I see a piece of big wood along side the road it makes me think that some family lucked out that day.
I just don’t get this push for bigger and bigger trucks on our nations highways. Our highways and bridges are crumbling and the answer is heavier loads? Then, there are safety issues when you have a society transitioning to smaller more fuel efficient cars on the road with 50 ton trucks? Have we lost common sense?
The most logical safe efficient transport for these type of loads would be rail. However we have neglected the tracks for far too long in favor of the highway. The truth is rail receives only a tiny fraction of the federal transportation funds compared to highways.
The trucking lobby evidently has its “friends” in Congress though much to the detriment of the normal taxpayer. Unless you are naive enough to think that the 24.4 cent federal excise tax on diesel sufficiently covers the cost of highway and bridge maintenance,
this is another example of corporate welfare to a powerful industry.
Yes rail. More efficient use of fuel, safer, and I would assume that they could employ at least as many who work in trucking. Trucks should be used for local distribution and special freight situations only. Frankly I’d like to see more passenger rail too for all the same reasons.
It is all right there in the opening sentence:
“….efficiencies of larger loads trump concerns about road damage and safety….”
YOU do not count, profits do.
We need to make the legal limit 50K lbs, not 100!
Listening, Mike, Olympia, Susan, Chellie?
50 thousand pound limits? … probably wouldn’t even NEED 18 wheelers (let alone the 22-wheelers with their sixth axle) … just use 10-wheelers and vans.
Sounds like a great way to BUILD the American economy, HEY?
Smarten_What_?
When something is not working, doing more of the same is seldom a solution.
We need to start thinking outside of the “rubber tires on asphalt” model.
Those big loads belong on railroads, long distances (over 50 miles). Break up the cargo into smaller safer trucks, for local delivery.
More jobs, and we are all safer on the roads.
Imagine, roads without 18-wheelers? That would be progress!
Unfortunately , we have not kept our rail system in tip top shape and many rail lines have gone out of business due to many reasons. That leaves the the trucking industry to carry the burden of moving our goods through the country ! The largest reason for trucking companies to want heavier loads is the rising cost of fuel ! The more you can carry on a single trip the better chance you have of making some kind of profit. The upside to letting heavier trucks on our interstate systems is that it keeps them off the back roads. The downside is the highways will need to be maintained more often. After driving over one million miles myself hauling everything from crushed cars to the recycling place , transporting heavy equipment to construction sites, autos to auctions , dry vans full of assorted goods i am happy to say the percentage of accidents to total trucks on the highway ratio is very low. The sad thing is that when there is an accident it makes every form of media attention which never mentions the actual percentage of accidents to total trucks on the highways. There always will be issues when you have highways that are multi-use. There are no easy answers, however the next time you paddle your canoe, drink your wine, or play ball with your child, you did so because those goods were transported by trucks !
Nicely stated…..
rickytan you bring up some very valid points. That said, I would suggest that the reason our rail system is in such terrible condition is because the government will not subsidize rail as well as they subsidize our roads. As for the cost of fuel, that is, once gain, heavily subsidized by America via our military and foreign aid programs. Perhaps if this money was spent on rail instead of our military presence overseas we could afford to rebuild our rail system. People don’t understand the REAL cost of a gallon of gas must include a great deal of our foreign aid and military expenses. So further benefit would be realized if rail carried our freight for all but local distribution because we would dramatically decrease our use of fuel. Less pollution, less dependence upon the finicky world fuel market, less wear and tear on our roads, and though you rightly point out that for miles traveled there are remarkably few truck accidents one can still make the argument that there would be fewer deaths on our roads. Plus, an improvement in our rail system would make public transportation available to more folks and thus make further improvements in pollution reduction, military presence overseas, fewer accidents, etc. Improved rail would be a win win situation for all except perhaps the truck drivers themselves. I think that issue would be offset by the need to rebuild our rail system and then run it, which would surely employee many 10’s of thousands.