Shippers Support Trucking Industry’s Campaign to Get Congress’ OK for Longer, Heavier Vehicles

As members of Congress race to pass a federal highway reauthorization bill by the end of March, many shippers are throwing their support behind legislation that would give states the authority to allow truckers to carry loads up to 97,000 pounds on interstate highways — a change they say would cut shipping costs considerably.

Although the political endgame is uncertain, supporters of the provisions contained in a draft version of the highway bill that Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced on Jan. 31 say they are convinced that the prospects for a heavy-truck law are now better than ever.

In the first round of the congressional battle, however, they got some disappointing news. On Feb. 2, transportation committee members raised safety and infrastructure damage issues and voted 33-22 on an amendment removing the weight increase from the House highway bill (2-6, p. 1).

The amendment requires that the Department of Transportation conduct a three-year study on a number of issues related to heavier trucks before any weight changes occur.

Despite the setback, supporters have not given up on the issue, saying it could be revived in a vote on the House floor or in conference with the Senate.

Although it was not stripped from the House bill, some shippers are not confident that a provision to allow double trailers to increase in length to 33 feet from 28 feet will withstand opposition in the Senate. Shippers that tend to ship lighter, higher-volume goods would tend to benefit most from longer trucks, shippers said.

The House weight legislation, taken from provisions contained in the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act introduced in the House last year, would give states the right to increase the allowable weight for big rigs by 21% but require the addition of a sixth axle to add braking power and help better distribute loads.

For nearly 30 years, the federal limit in the United States has been 80,000 pounds, unless a motor carrier has a special permit. But supporters said that, by comparison, Mexico’s current truck weight limit is 106,000 pounds, Canada’s is more than 95,000 pounds and the majority of countries in the European Union operate at approximately 97,000 pounds.

John Runyan, co-chairman of the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, said his organization faced “tremendous resistance” when it began lobbying for a weight bill in 2009.

“I think we’re finally getting some traction in Congress,” Runyan said, “but it’s going to take a committed, united industry to get this done, and we’re seeing, really for the first time in 20 years, that the industry is united around this proposal. That’s very significant.”

Today, the coalition has grown to nearly 200 shippers, trade organizations and other industry stakeholders, including American Trucking Associations.

Runyan said that, despite the discouraging news from the first round of House debate, he’s not giving up.

“While we are very disappointed in the outcome, our effort is far from over,” Runyan said hours after the Feb. 2 amendment vote. “We will be working with members of Congress to introduce a significant amendment during consideration of the highway bill on the House floor.”

Supporters of the weight legislation say it would go a long way toward not only making highways safer but also reducing the cost of shipping freight by truck.

They also said the weight gains would take some of the fat out of many motor carriers’ and shippers’ operating expenses and would play a role in expanding capacity and reducing future highway congestion, which appears inevitable, with truck freight projected to double, or even triple, by 2025.

“The efficiency improvements from shippers are the driving force behind the legislation,” Runyan said. “Yes, it provides safety improvements. Yes, we think, on balance, it’s better long-term for the infrastructure. But the reason companies care about it is because it’s going to lower the cost of transportation.”

Bruce Carlton, CEO of the National Industrial Transportation League, said his group has been a longtime supporter of the weight legislation.

“I think that shippers see a productivity advantage and a doing-business advantage that makes sense for the trucker, the service provider and for the shipper,” Carlton said.

As for the extra-axle requirement, he said, “It’s not about a 5-axle trailer. It’s about putting enough axle strength to spread the load — do the required physics so that you have additional braking power and a better spread of the weight so that you do not damage the roads and bridges.”

Carlton cautioned, however, that motor carriers probably will not buy 6-axle trucks on speculation but first will require a long-term contractual agreement from a shipper.

“Truckers are not going to say, ‘I’ll go out and order a while bunch of new equipment, hoping that somebody will come in with a heavy load,’ ” Carlton said. “It’s a lot of money.”

Carlton said the biggest benefactors of the heavier trucks likely will be those shippers transporting heavy goods. “It’s that classic transportation case of weight versus volume,” he said.

“If you’re moving feathers, you’re going to fill the volume, and it’s going to be a very light truck,” Carlton said, “but if you’re moving plywood, Sheetrock, lumber or heavy dense commodities, you fill the weight capacity of the truck long before you fill up the available volume.”

He also is encouraged about the chances for the bill’s passage.

“This initiative has probably never progressed this far,” Carlton said. “Is it done? No.”

Carlton said there is opposition in the Senate and the big railroads, who fear that it would alter the competitive balance.

“I can imagine that our colleagues in Class I freight rails are going to work overtime to stop it as well,” he said. “To them it’s about competing for that heavier load that might go on a train or might go on a truck.”

One of the weight-and-size legislation’s most vocal opponents, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), recently wrote a letter to House panel chairman Mica and ranking minority member Nick Rahall, (D-W.Va.), urging that the leadership not include any provision in the highway bill that would allow the operation of larger or heavier tractor-trailers.

“Several states have raised concerns about this approach and their ability to prevent larger and heavier trucks on their already overburdened highways,” Lautenberg wrote in his Jan. 27 letter. “Further, constituents in many of our states have raised significant opposition. Two April 2011 independent polls found that more than 72% of Americans oppose larger and heavier trucks on our highways.”

Last year, Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) introduced legislation that would keep truck-weight limits at 80,000 pounds and the length of tractor-trailers at 53 feet and would freeze the operation of long double- and triple-trailer trucks on the national highway system.

McGovern said that heavier trucks would increase wear and tear on bridges and highways, increasing costs for repair and maintenance.

“At a time when both the federal and state governments are facing projected budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2012, allowing increases to truck size or weight will exacerbate existing transportation funding problems,” McGovern said in a Transportation Committee hearing last year.

Runyan said opponents argue that any tractor-trailer rig carrying a heavier load, even with six axles, is going to get lower fuel economy per gallon,” Runyan said, “and that’s true.”

“But what they fail to note is that by adding additional cargo, these 6-axle trucks carrying 97,000 pounds get 17% more ton-miles per gallon than 5-axle trucks carrying 80,000 pounds,” Runyan said. “That translates into lower fuel costs, reduced environmental emissions and greater overall efficiency.”

Like some other shippers, Kelly Johnson, vice president of government affairs for Campbell Soup Co., said his company is working hard on the weight bill but will wait until a later date to push for longer trucks.

“We have the evidence and a good story to tell on the additional axle, but we have yet to see the evidence or the political support for the longer trucks,” Johnson said. “We want to support legislation that we think is actually going to pass.

“Given the strong opposition that we detected from a lot of safety groups over having the longer trucks, we’ve focused our energies on the legislation to allow the heavier trucks with an additional axle,” Johnson added.