Middle ground in truck weight debate?

Middle ground in truck weight debate?    Motor carriers and shippers could dampen the polarizing debate over creating federal regulations to increase truck size and weight by identifying selective applications where such productivity enhancements could provide tangible benefit, an official at a Class I railroad said Tuesday.
   Federal rules limit fully loaded trucks to 80,000 pounds and trailers to 53 feet in length. Some states, primarily in the Mountain West, were granted exemptions many years ago to allow longer tractor-trailer combinations with more weight on certain interstate routes. Those states were grandfathered when Congress subsequently froze weight limits on interstate highways in 1991. Efforts by the trucking industry to raise the caps elsewhere have proven unsuccessful in the face of opposition from safety groups who argue that bigger trucks are difficult to handle and pose a danger to motorists.
   Companies can obtain special permits from states to exceed the regular weight limits.
   Railroads have generally opposed efforts to increase truck size and weight limits, which potentially threaten their intermodal franchises that seek to convert truckloads to the rail network for long-distance moves. The American Association of Railroads (AAR) and the American Trucking Associations in 2003 agreed to abstain from efforts to change the limits through September 2009 in order to collaborate on issues of common interest and obtain funds for highway and rail freight projects in a multi-year transportation bill.
   The ATA and others are now working to obtain an increase in existing limits.

Branscum

   Freight transportation professionals should move away from broad-brush, generic discussions of truck size and weight and hone in on sectors where higher weights and double and triple trailers make sense, such as around ports and in logging areas, said Stephen G. Branscum, group vice president of consumer products at BNSF Railway, said at a freight transportation conference in Anaheim, Calif. The conference was organized by the National Industrial Transportation League, Intermodal Association of North America and Transportation Intermediaries Association.
   'If the trucking industry and shippers could identify those areas, and deal honestly about, 'This is really all we need and we're not looking for a carte blanche change in truck size and weight so we become more competitive relative to rail and put more freight on the highways,' ' then progress could be made towards a middle ground that meets shippers' needs, he said.
   The BNSF's official position is that it doesn't oppose an increase on truck size limits as long as the trucking industry pays its full share of wear and tear on the highway system, especially bridges. The AAR and other railroads are more absolute in their opposition.

Rose

   'We just want to make sure we're not creating an artificial subsidy' for motor carriers, BNSF Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Matthew Rose told reporters following a speech at an infrastructure conference in Washington, D.C. last December.
   The railroad industry points to a Department of Transportation study that tractor-trailers only pay half the cost of the damage they cause to highways, with trucks weighing more than 100,000 pounds only paying 40 percent of the repairs through fuel taxes and fees.

Cairns

   James Cairns, Canadian National's assistant vice president for intermodal, said any move towards bigger rigs would take freight away from the rails, which is not in the public interest from a safety and environmental standpoint. A single train can move as much cargo as 280 trucks with less fuel and carbon emissions.
   There is no consensus on bigger trucks within the trucking industry either. Some truckers worry the extra capacity would undercut their pricing power and smaller carriers are concerned they would be at a competitive disadvantage because they could not afford to swap out their equipment.
   Shippers in the home building industry, who often weigh out a trailer before they can fill it all the way, said they want the extra truck capacity, especially as congestion worsens around the country.
   Jeff Hoy, senior manager of western division transportation at the Home Depot, told industry colleagues in Anaheim that the retailer needs the 97,000-pound gross vehicle weight for trucks because it ships more than 3 million flatbed truckloads per year.

Johnson

   Railroads would benefit from the increase too because they would get bigger loads on their intermodal units and could charge more for the extra weight, said Wayne Johnson, director of logistics at American Gypsum Co.
   But intermodal executives cautioned that dumping more cargo in an intermodal box is not as simple as it sounds. Among the complications is that a change could make their equipment obsolete.
   Railroads and equipment providers would have to re-engineer the containers and specialized railcars they ride on to handle the extra weight at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, said Brian P. McDonald, vice president of intermodal at Union Pacific.
   'It's not just a load 'em up and move 'em out. That proposition will not work. And it's dangerous,' he said, noting that the western railroad can't double-stack 40-foot containers loaded with grain because the weight is too great.
   J.B. Hunt, one of the largest U.S. truckload and intermodal carriers, is taking a wait-and-see approach to the truck size issue because all the potential economic, safety and business ramifications aren't well understood yet, said Chad Thomas, the company's intermodal director.
   A carrier may charge more in proportion to the additional weight it is carrying, but it is not clear whether the higher price would cover any additional taxes the government might subsequently impose to pay for road maintenance, he said, noting the delay in passing a new surface transportation authorization bill with a defined funding mechanism only adds to the uncertainty.
   James A. Bolander, group vice president for domestic intermodal at Norfolk Southern Corp., was skeptical that shippers would sustain paying higher rates if railroads invested in bigger containers.
   'It's interesting to hear that shippers are going to be willing to pay more per lading with a higher lading weight. It's kind of like when we got more money when trains got longer — for at least a year,' he said.
   Branscum said a weight increase for interchangeable rail-truck containers that exceeds the capabilities of railcar fleets may end up backfiring on shippers — the intended beneficiaries — because they would lose the option of cheaper, more efficient intermodal rail transport That's why both sides need to engage in a common sense dialogue if there are going to be any changes to truck size and weight regulations, he said, hypothetically suggesting a 10 percent improvement in weight might stay within existing railcar tolerances and serve as a compromise for proponents seeking 20 percent to 30 percent weight increases.
   Johnson, the wallboard shipper, agreed that triple-trailers, for example, aren't required in big cities and urged the AAR and ATA to follow up on Branscum's suggestion for talks.
   The ATA is casting its push for 97,000-pound tractor-trailers, heavier double 33-foot trailers and triples as a pro-environment move that would reduce carbon emissions and fuel consumption by reducing the number of trucks needed on the road. The truck size and weight increases are listed in the trade association's sustainability program outlined in May 2008 to portray the industry's green credentials.

Michaud

   Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, in March introduced a bill that would allow states to increase truck gross vehicle weights to 97,000 pounds on national highways, consistent with the limit allowed in 21 states. Maine allows trucks up to 100,000 pounds on state roads, primarily to assist the forest industry and allow through traffic to surrounding states and Canada that have the same limit. State officials have requested an exemption from federal standards to allow trucks up to 105,000 pounds on two stretches of interstate, but Michaud wants to make weight limits consistent for all states to ease compliance for truckers and minimize the amount of heavy loads on secondary roads. H.R. 1799, the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act, would give states the option of increasing their weight limits for 53-foot trucks outfitted with a sixth axle to maintain braking capacity and minimize pavement wear. It would also adjust the overweight vehicle tax by raising the cap to $800 per year to help fund bridge repairs.
   Also supporting the bill is the Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP), which is heavily comprised of dozens of shippers from the food, agriculture, and paper industries such as Kraft Foods, Coca Cola, Weyerhaeuser, and the National Confectioners Association.
   A Maine Department of Transportation study found that the state would save $1.7 million to $2.3 million per year in reduced pavement repair using the heavier trucks, according to the congressman's Web site.
   In September, the Senate included language in the 2010 DOT appropriations bill enabling Maine to conduct a one-year demonstration allowing 100,000-pound trucks with six axles on interstates.
   The trucking industry has requested Congress authorize similar pilot programs in five other states.
   The ATA and CTP oppose competing legislation that attempts to permanently lock in the existing weight freeze, extend it to non-interstate highways in the federal system and make it more difficult for weight exemptions to be granted. The bill, and a Senate companion, would prohibit a state from allowing an oversize trailer unless operation of the unit was authorized as of June 1, 2008.

McGovern

   The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., disputes the assertion that bigger trucks will reduce truck traffic. He says that 18-wheeler highway miles have increased 63 percent since the government set the 80,000-pound national standard in 1982, and that further increases would divert freight from railroads. He argued that truck size increases lead to freight diversion from railroads, but didn't acknowledge to what extent population and economic growth contributed to the increased truck traffic.
   In a Sept. 29 letter to members of Congress, the CTP said transportation corridors feeding ports and intermodal hubs are areas where heavier weight limits would minimize the number of vehicles needed to move goods. And it disputed any adverse impact on railroads from heavier trucks.
   'Even if H.R. 1799 is fully implemented nationwide, average railroad rates would still be significantly less expensive than truck rates,' CRT Executive Director John Runyan wrote, pointing to a Wisconsin Department of Transportation study in January that predicted no significant displacement of freight rail by trucks with passage of truck weight limit reform.
   'Shippers need both industries to be as efficient as possible. Furthermore, the path to a more efficient rail industry should not lie in blocking productivity reforms for the trucking industry,' the letter said. ' Eric Kulisch