fastlane
A weighty disappointment
IN JUNE 2011, I WROTE A COLUMN (“THE 17,000-POUND SOLUtion”) endorsing proposed legislation that would allow states to raise
weight limits for trucks traveling on their interstate highways. I noted
at the time that this proposal appeared to have a lot of upsides and
virtually no downside. Raising the weight limit would allow companies to use fewer trucks to haul the same amount of freight, adding
much-needed capacity at a time when the supply of drivers and rigs
was shrinking. It would have the added benefits of conserving diesel
fuel and cutting carbon emissions as well as reducing wear and tear
on the roads. And it could be done in a way that would not compromise safety.
Although that particular piece of legislation remains stuck in
limbo, its backers were heartened in January of this
year when John Mica, chairman of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
unveiled a long-awaited transportation spending
bill, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs
Act. Among other provisions, the bill authorized
the states to raise truck weight limits on their portion of the interstate highway system to 97,000
pounds from 80,000 pounds, as long as each vehicle was equipped with a sixth axle to maintain
braking and handling stability at the higher
weights.
It was a short-lived celebration, however. Three
days later, the full committee voted to drop this provision from the
bill. As a compromise, it directed the Transportation Research Board
to conduct a three-year feasibility study into the size and weight
issue.
That might seem reasonable until you consider that there have
been dozens of studies on this subject along with several pilot projects. Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, already allow six-axle trucks weighing up to 97,000 pounds on their portions of the
interstate highway system—apparently without negative effects.
Even the House committee studied it 10 years ago, with positive conclusions. What we don’t need is another study. What more can we
possibly learn?
This is not a new battle. Truck weight reform has come up a number of times over the past 20 years, and each time, the railroads and
other opponents have come out swinging. This latest case has been no
exception, and once again, its opponents seem to have prevailed.
Ironically, many of their objections center on infrastructure and safety, despite evidence suggesting that raising truck weight limits would
actually have a beneficial effect on both counts.
As for infrastructure, a DOT study found little
evidence that heavier trucks would lead to additional road damage. In fact, it projected that raising weight limits would save $2.4 billion in pavement restoration costs over 20 years’ time
because it would cut down on the number of
trucks needed to move a given amount of freight.
And there have been similar findings regarding
safety. A 2009 Wisconsin study concluded that if
heavier six-axle trucks had been in use in that
state in 2006, there would have been 90 fewer
truck accidents.
On top of that, research has
shown that raising truck
weight limits would have a
positive effect on the environment. According to the
American Transportation
Research Institute, six-axle
trucks carrying 97,000 pounds
get 17 more ton-miles per gallon than an 80,000-pound
truck with five axles. A DOT
study estimated that the higher limits would save 2 billion gallons of fuel per
year and result in a 19-percent drop in emissions
and fuel consumption per ton-mile.
Despite the many arguments in its favor, in the
end, the provision fell victim to political expediency. Dropping the truck weight provision will
likely enhance the funding bill’s chances of passage—and it’s a bill we desperately need. But to
me, this is just another example of a myopic
Congress yielding to lobbying pressures and discouraging innovation and creativity in our
industry. ;
Clifford F. Lynch is principal of C.F. Lynch & Associates, a
provider of logistics management advisory services, and author of
Logistics Outsourcing – A Management Guide and co-author of The Role of
Transportation in the Supply Chain. He can be reached at
cliff@cflynch.com.
