ATA to Create Panel to Study Size, Weight
 | Related Stories |
|  Group Calls for Debate on Increase in Truck Weights. (June 21)Western Governors Request LCV Study. (June 21)Autohaulers Seek Higher Weight for Heavier SUV Loads. (June 2)Pressure Building to Remove Logjam Over Truck Weight. (May 26)Bill to Boost Truck Weights Sparks Renewed Debate. (May 26)Truck Size-Weight Study Still Punching Bag for All Sides. (May 26) |
|  |
Bob Hansen, chairman of the Highway Policy Committee, and David R. Free, chairman of UW Freight Line in Salt Lake City, will lead the task force.
“The 97,000-pound bill is not going anywhere,” Hansen said about legislation introducedin May by Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Merrill Cook (R-Utah) to allow states to increase the federal weight limit from 80,000 pounds.
Hansen made his comments June 16 after the Highway Policy Committee heard a congressional staffer predict that any legislation increasing truck sizes and weights is unlikely to pass Congress this session.
“The committee was in unanimous agreement that this is not the appropriate time to seek changes in federal law governing truck sizes and weight,” said Laurie T. Baulig, senior vice president at ATA.
Though the bill is consistent with ATA’s position of supporting productivity increases, the policy committee decided it was counterproductive to push the measure at this point.
“I don’t get a feeling there is a lot of stomach in Congress to look at the truck size and weight issue in the near future,” said Chris Bertram, a staff member of the House Ground Transportation Subcommittee.
Major changes in trucking productivity generally come when Congress considers a highway bill. The latest example was in 1991, when federal lawmakers froze truck weights at 80,000 pounds and prohibited expanded use of longer combination vehicles.
After a lengthy discussion, which included an explanation from Mississippi Trucking Association President Dean Cotten on his members’ decade-long opposition to any increase in truck productivity, the committee voted to create the task force (6-14, p. 5).
“Truck size and weight is just a part of it,” Hansen said after the meeting, which was closed to the media. Hours of service, waiting times at loading docks and weigh stations, truck inspections, maintenance and safety will be examined in the context of their impact on productivity, he said.
“We’re going to try and think outside the box,” Hansen said. “We want to try and set our own agenda instead of having others set it for us,” he added, referring to ongoing criticism from railroads and truck safety groups.
The task force’s recommendations will likely serve as the basis for ATA’s position in preparing efforts for the next reauthorization of the federal highway program, which is expected in 2003.
TA’s lukewarm support for the truck weight increase is not surprising,” said Peter Vroom, director of Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation. “Their members are split on it.”
Less-than-truckload carriers fear that any efforts to increase vehicle weights could result in efforts to roll back their use of triple-trailer trucks. Some truckload carriers don’t want to invest in tractors and trailers capable of hauling 97,000 pounds of freight.
The Truckload Carriers Association opposes the legislation, but the National Private Truck Council strongly supports it.
Unless trucking unites in support of the legislation, it is doomed to failure, warned Edward Emmett, president of the National Industrial Transportation League.
“If there is not some consensus that trucking wants it, it won’t go through,” he said.
