A peaceful coexistence?
AS MUCH OF THE NATION SWELTERED THROUGH THE FIRST
major heat wave of 2011, the war of words in Washington was heating up as well. But while the temperatures will eventually subside, the
tensions between rail and trucking interests seem unlikely to ease
anytime soon.
What makes the latest flare-up noteworthy isn’t so much the source
of the controversy—recent proposals to raise truck weight limits—
Fast forward to May 2011, when the American
Trucking Associations (ATA) issued comments that
were more than vaguely reminiscent of remarks
made by Clapp two decades ago. In a statement
responding to “fallacious claims about the trucking
industry,” ATA president Bill Graves launched a
full-frontal assault on rail interests.
“For years we’ve seen a number of organizations
proselytize about the dangers posed by the trucking
industry,” he said. “These groups have for too long
co-opted the legitimate grief of Americans who have tragically lost
family members on our nation’s highways in order to advance an
agenda designed to hurt our economy and our industry and benefit
trucking’s competitors and well-heeled union interests. Issues as
important as highway safety demand that legitimate stakeholders be
honest and upfront with the public and deal with facts and science.
“The fact is, the trucking industry has never been safer and the continued improvement is due in part to the hours-of-service rule these
groups have attempted to litigate and blackmail out of existence.
“These same concerned citizens claim to speak for many Americans
on the issue of truck productivity, but it seems pretty clear they speak
for the railroad industry, which lines its pockets at the expense of
shippers and consumers they hold hostage.”
Although he didn’t mention it by name, the target of Graves’
remarks was the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), a special
interest group that is fighting attempts to raise truck weight limits to
97,000 pounds from the current 80,000. Two weeks earlier, CABT,
which is supported by the rail industry, had
released a study showing that nearly three-quar-
ters of Americans “overwhelmingly and consis-
tently oppose allowing bigger, heavier trucks on
American highways.” Among the reasons cited
for their opposition was “the increased threat of
accidents posed by heavier trucks.”
The integrity of that study—and indeed the
credibility of the group itself—has since been
questioned by the Coalition for Transportation
railroad grade crossings—in its own advocacy
efforts. But a suspect study like CABT’s does
nothing to advance the argument; it merely
exploits public fears to promote its cause.
It has long been established that there’s a place
for both trucks and rails when it comes to moving the nation’s freight. It would be best to let the
market determine how that freight will be allocated between the two modes. And we would all
be better served if both sides accepted the fact
that a peaceful coexistence is in everyone’s best
interests.
