ATA strongly supports the “Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009,” (H.R. 1799), introduced by U.S. Reps. Michael Michaud (D-Maine) and Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio). Since the proposed bill was introduced, anti-truck organizations have distorted facts and propagated lies to voice their opposition to this important legislation.
What is the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009?
The legislation authorizes states, if approved by their elected officials, to allow the use of single-trailer trucks with a gross (or total) vehicle weight of up to 97,000 pounds on the Interstate Highway System. The current limit is 80,000 pounds. The vehicle must have at least six axles, including a tridem (triple) axle group that is limited to 51,000 pounds. Current federal regulations limit single axles to 20,000 pounds and tandem axles to 34,000 pounds. States have the option of allowing a weight tolerance of up to 2,000 pounds on each axle group.
The federal Heavy Vehicle Use Tax (HVUT) is an annual registration fee that all heavy trucks pay and is currently capped at $550. This cap could increase to $800 if the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act is approved. This revenue is to be used for bridge projects in states that allow the operation of the heavier vehicles.
So-called “safety organizations” support opposing legislation, H.R. 1618, the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, and a companion bill S. 779. This legislation, introduced by Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), proposes to freeze existing truck weight and length requirements, prohibiting states from allowing trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds from operating on interstate highways.
Why is this change to 97,000 pounds needed?
Improving the productivity of the trucking industry by shipping more freight in each vehicle will lower the number of trips needed and the number of miles trucks put on the road. This will reduce the trucking industry’s chances of being involved in a crash, lower energy needs and reduce the output of pollution. The legislation introduced by Reps. Michaud and Schmidt will also reduce the country’s freight transportation costs, making U.S. businesses more competitive and consumer products less expensive.
Aren’t heavier trucks less safe? Don’t they take longer to stop?
A Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study compared the operating characteristics of the 6-axle truck to that of the common 5-axle truck. The 5-axle truck faired slightly better on rollover tendencies, mostly due to an assumed higher center of gravity for the heavier truck. However, the difference was not significant. Braking performance was judged to be equivalent, since the higher weight will be compensated for by the additional axle and additional brakes. Available research does not suggest that a 6-axle vehicle is less safe than the 5-axle vehicle.
Furthermore, adoption of heavier trucks will reduce the number of truck-involved accidents. FHWA estimated that nationwide adoption of 6-axle vehicles would result in an 11 percent reduction in truck vehicle miles traveled, thus also reducing accident exposure by 11 percent.
Don’t the heavier trucks cause more damage to highways?
The condition and performance of highway pavement depends on many factors, including:
• Pavement structure, materials, and layer depth
• Construction quality, including uniformity of pavement layers and maintenance practices
• Weather - amount of precipitation and freeze-thaw cycles
• Subbase characteristics that underlie the pavement
• Magnitude, spacing, and frequency of axle loads
• Dynamic interaction between pavement conditions and vehicle speed, number of tires per axle, tire pressures, and suspension characteristics.
The factors most relevant to this question are the magnitude, spacing and frequency of axle loads. Steer (front tractor) and drive (rear tractor) axle weights are not expected to change and split tandem axles, used on many trailers, exhibit no significant difference in pavement wear between a 5-axle, 80,000 pounds vehicle and a 6-axle, 97,000 pounds vehicle.
Because the 6-axle truck carries more payload, fewer loads are needed to deliver the same amount of product. When the pavement impacts of these vehicles are compared based upon the actual number of trips needed to carry an equivalent amount of tonnage, the 6-axle vehicle’s impacts are much lower than the 5-axle vehicle, whether on asphalt or concrete. As a result, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) estimated that allowing the 6-axle vehicle to operate nationwide would likely reduce pavement costs by nearly $2.5 billion over 20 years.
Won’t increasing truck weight cause bridges to collapse or deteriorate?
Trucks, among many factors, over time reduce the useful life of a bridge. However, with proper maintenance, trucks do not cause catastrophic failure.
Under the legislation, states will determine, based on their own analysis, whether or not to allow the use heavier vehicle configurations. States will establish which bridges to allow the vehicles to operate on, essentially determining for themselves how much they wish to save. States must keep in mind that the savings from less pavement deterioration, fewer accidents, less pollution and lower freight costs are likely to exceed any additional bridge costs.
It is highly unlikely that states would allow heavier trucks to operate on bridges which were not built to handle them or which have deteriorated to the point where it would be unsafe. It should be noted that many states allow heavier trucks to operate on the secondary road system, where the bridges were generally built to lesser standards than bridges on the Interstate System.
Shifting heavier trucks from secondary roads to Interstates, as the bill allows, will reduce highway agency costs. It is possible that some bridges will see accelerated deterioration with the operation of the heavier trucks. The proposed legislation’s increase of the federal Heavy Vehicle Use Tax for trucks compensates for any additional wear by dedicating the additional revenue to a new bridge fund for states that authorize the operation of the heavier trucks.
Who benefits from the legislation?
Ultimately, all Americans will reap the benefits of safer highways, less pollution, lower energy use and lower freight transportation costs. These benefits will translate into less expensive products on store shelves and more competitive U.S. industries that can generate more jobs.
The direct beneficiaries are companies whose products are heavy, causing the trucks to exceed federal weight limits before all of the space on a truck is filled. Products such as steel, paper, milk, grain and other goods that all Americans rely on in their daily lives are just a few examples of freight that could be hauled more efficiently if the bill passes.
Increasing truck weight to lower the number of trucks on the road will do little to reduce emissions and carbon output.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS) issued a “Fact” Sheet on April 1, 2009 that asserts the American Transportation Research Institute’s report, Energy and Emissions Impact of Operating Higher Productivity Vehicles – Update: 2008 (ATRI Report), “is seriously flawed.”
Without presenting any research to back their views, AHAS says that their concerns “offsets any claims of improved fuel use” from the operation of higher productivity vehicles. This claim cannot be supported, as the America Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) study clearly shows the environmental benefits of heavier, more productive trucks.
AHAS states that:
The study has not been peer-reviewed by an impartial group of researchers, and it has not been reviewed by FHWA.
ATRI originally issued the report in September 2004. A draft of this report was review by scientists from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. The final report was submitted to, and accepted by, the Transportation Research Board (TRB), of which FHWA is a sponsoring organization. This report was presented at a poster session at the 2005 TRB Annual Meeting and published in the Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board No. 1941.
The “Update: 2008” included the same methodology as the original study and incorporated use of the most current engines, quantified greenhouse gas emissions and “cubed-out” vehicle impacts, as well as modeling refinements. These additions are consistent with the original study’s methodology which was widely reviewed.
AHAS states that:
Some of the trucks tested for the ATRI Report at higher weights burned much more fuel and had poorer fuel economy. The ATRI Report admits that heavier gross weights will require larger engines that will decrease fuel economy on a miles-per-gallon basis. This will require more, heavier trucks to burn more diesel fuel than ever before. (ATRI Report)
As shown in the ATRI study, fuel economy, measured on a miles-per-gallon basis, did decrease as gross vehicle weights increased over the modeled route. In some cases, larger engines were used at higher weights. In other cases, the same-size engine was used for multiple weight categories.
A major point that was not mentioned was that the estimated decrease in fuel economy at higher weights was largely the result of the vehicle carrying more freight. This added payload, combined with the resulting reduction in the number to trips needed to move a given amount of freight, resulted in greater efficiency on a ton-mile basis. The greater efficiency resulted in both fuel savings and emissions benefits.
AHAS states that:
Major facts affecting the ATRI Report were ignored. These factors would have offset any claims of improved fuel use, especially from the operation of much bigger diesel engines needed to haul extra-heavy gross weights.
The ATRI study provided a comparative estimate of the potential energy and emissions impacts of operating different vehicles configurations at various weights. Given the variability associated with empty miles, it would be pure speculation to analyze these impacts without knowing what specific changes to vehicle size and weight are being proposed. There is a strong financial incentive for operators to avoid empty or partially laden miles. As shown in the ATRI study, only a small difference existed between the empty weights of the 5-axle and 6-axle configurations.
This difference is not likely to result in a significant increase in fuel consumption. In addition, the ability of the other configurations to move additional trailers, including empty ones, could ultimately reduce the number of truck trips, thereby reducing the number of empty miles. FHWA analysis states, “according to Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey, the percentages of miles that trucks are completely empty are rather small.” (FAF Freight Traffic Analysis: Chap. 3 – Development of Payload Equivalency Factor, FHWA, July 27, 2007.)
One of the additional analyses included in the ATRI study focused on the effects of increasing operating weights for trucks limited by the volume of freight they carry (i.e., cube-limited), which is generally associated with less-than-truckload operations. The ATRI study identified additional opportunities for improving energy use and emissions output, not only through increases in gross vehicle weights but also through increases in vehicle length or a combination of the two.
In addition to the ATRI study, a number of governments and academic institutions have studied the operation of higher productivity vehicles and have come to the same general conclusion. The operation of these vehicles is beneficial from both an energy and emissions standpoint.