House Panel Drops Big-Truck Plan

Provisions that would have allowed states to permit larger, heavier trucks on interstate highways were voted down last week, just days after the highway reauthorization bill containing the measures was introduced in the House of Representatives.

Instead, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted Feb. 2 to adopt an amendment calling for a study of the effects of bigger trucks on safety and infrastructure.

On Jan. 31, Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the committee, formally unveiled a five-year, $260 billion surface transportation bill — dubbed the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012.

“This is the most important transportation reform bill since the creation of the interstate [highway system] in 1956,” Mica said.

His bill would have allowed states to permit trucks as heavy as 97,000 pounds with six axles on interstate highways. However, the heavier truck provision was defeated in committee by a 33-22 vote on Feb. 2.

“Our highways are not built for this weight; our municipalities do not have the money,” said Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), who sponsored the amendment with Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.).

Sean McNally, spokesman for American Trucking Associations, said ATA was disappointed the amendment deferring the weight change had passed.

“There have already been dozens and dozens of studies that show increasing truck productivity reduces truck miles traveled, which not only reduces accident risk, congestion and emissions but also will ultimately save money in reduced highway maintenance costs,” McNally said.

In the Senate, a two-year, $109 billion reauthorization bill has been approved by three committees. Bill sponsors said early in their deliberations they would not address issues such as bigger trucks because the controversy surrounding them would prevent passage of a bill.

If the House reauthorization bill passes and the larger truck study provision survives in conference with the Senate, the secretary of transportation would be directed to conduct a three-year study on heavier, longer trucks, including 5-axle vehicles that weigh 88,000 pounds.

The study would examine the effects on crash rates, vehicle-miles traveled, pavement performance, bridge reliability and other factors.

Mica’s original bill also would have required states that allow longer combination vehicles — those with three trailers — to increase the routes on which the LCVs are allowed to run. That provision was removed, said Darrin Roth, director of highway operations for ATA.

Roth said another provision, requiring that states allow rigs with double trailers up to 33 feet long each, was still in the House bill, as of press time.

In addition, a measure that allows trucks weighing 126,000 pounds to run on 25-mile segments of an interstate, providing they have special permits, was still alive.

While the trucking industry praised Mica’s bill for including increased size-and-weight proposals, the plan encountered heavy opposition from railroads, labor and highway safety groups.

“Americans don’t want 97,000-pound trucks or huge multitrailers up to 120 feet long on our nation’s highways,” said Ed Hamberger, president of the Association of American Railroads. “Nor is it fair that even more of the public’s tax dollars will be used to pay for the road and bridge damage inflicted by massive trucks.”

Before the House committee addressed the Mica bill, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said the provision for bigger trucks was a “poison pill” that would sink reauthorization efforts.

When he introduced the bill, Mica said it was free of earmarks. He said it is up to the House Republican leadership to find the funding for the bill.

On Feb. 1, the House Energy Committee passed a bill that Republicans said would help pay for transportation by expanding drilling offshore and on the North Slope of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Transportation projects and programs are now supported largely by revenue from federal fuel taxes, although that money has fallen short in recent years, requiring supplemental funds.

Democrats said expanded drilling would produce only $5 billion, which would not be realized in time and is not enough to cover what Democrats said is a $50 billion shortfall.

The House bill contains other provisions welcomed by the trucking industry, such as the establishment of a drug and alcohol clearinghouse for driver records, crashworthiness standards for trucks and a study of the 34-hour restart in the hours-of-service rule (see story, p. 34).

The House and Senate bills also would establish a national freight program to facilitate the movement of goods, but the House bill leaves more control over the program to the states.

Unlike the Senate reauthorization bill, which would mandate electronic onboard recorders for all trucks, the House bill would have the transportation secretary establish only EOBR standards.