ATA Backs Bigger, Heavier Rigs

The proposals are not new, and arguments for most of them are still compelling. But don't count on Congress approving longer trailer combinations.

Tom Berg Senior Equipment Editor

Bigger, heavier trucks are again being promoted as a way to handle the substantial growth in freight expected with population expansion over the next 20 to 25 years. A formal list of proposals from the American Trucking Associations includes wider use of "long combination vehicles" that are already run in some areas, and high fuel prices are adding ammunition to long-standing arguments that LCVs offer greater productivity and safer operation, plus reduced fuel use and lower exhaust emissions.

However, one of ATA's suggestions would remove the 80,000-pound cap on gross weight for five-axle combinations, which would add 6,000 pounds of payload to existing rigs if their trailers are equipped with wide-spread tandems. Another proposal would create a new type of tractor-trailer, with six axles and grossing up to 97,000 pounds. The trailer would have three axles instead of two. Although ATA talks of a 51,000-pound "tridem," it purposely did not describe its configuration because federal weight laws would not accommodate any axle group that heavy. ATA wants Congress to authorize states to allow such a rig while letting states or motor carriers define the actual axle layout.

Supporting LCVs are multiple studies done here and in Canada that show the economic and fuel-saving benefits are real. ATA contends that hauling more freight with fewer but higher-capacity trucks on existing roads is the only reasonable way to meet future transportation needs. And while Congress needs to spend many billions of dollars to improve highways and bridges, it would need to spend less if it authorizes expanded use of bigger, heavier rigs.

This is the time to do it, ATA says, because Congress has begun debating another highway reauthorization bill. As in past legislation, the new highway bill will include funding as well as provisions affecting the configurations and operations of truck equipment.

"Barring unforeseen severe economic disruptions," said Michael J. Smid, president and CEO of YRC North American Transportation, "the demand for trucks to move more freight in the future is inevitable. However, the projected increase in the number of trucks required to move this freight is a controllable factor, and we believe that with reauthorization pending, the time is right for Congress to review size and weight restrictions." Smid read testimony prepared by ATA at a July 9 hearing before a House subcommittee on transit, transportation and infrastructure.

As before, strong opposition inside and outside of Congress, which would have to pass laws to allow wider use of LCVs and other heavier trucks, makes the outcome of the current crusade doubtful. And support for bigger, heavier rigs is not at all uniform among ATA members and truckers in general. Some fear they'll spend money for equipment that will haul more freight that shippers won't pay for, as has happened in the past.

ATA also asked Congress to eliminate its freeze on LCV equipment, because if it does, states alone could adopt several of the productivity-enhancing proposals. As it is, the freeze contained in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act, or ISTEA, and kept in subsequent laws, has prevented states from allowing LCVs on improved highways, and even kept the bigger trucks on less safe two-lane roads. State authorities in Oregon, Washington and South Dakota, among others, have asked federal regulators for exemptions to the ISTEA freeze, but the feds have refused, saying the law prevents them from making exceptions.

ATA emphasizes that most of the proposed equipment would adhere to the current federal Bridge Formula B, which governs axle weights and distance between axle groups for trucks traveling across state lines. This means that most existing roads and bridges would not be harmed by the heavier trucks, and the few bridges that are not strong enough could either be economically strengthened or placed off-limits by state highway authorities. The testimony cites multiple studies that support this, as well as reports that LCVs operate more safely than shorter, lighter rigs, including typical tractor-trailers.

ATA's list includes eight suggestions, many of which affect long combination vehicles. Today's LCVs usually include a tractor pulling three 28-foot "pup" trailers ("triples"); a pair of long semitrailers, usually 48 feet each (often called "turnpike doubles"); and one 48-foot trailer followed by one 28-foot trailer ("Rocky Mountain doubles"). Congress long ago required states to allow twin 28-foot "doubles" rigs, which are not considered LCVs. The ATA proposals say that Congress now should:

Allow western states to harmonize their laws on LCVs so they could be operated across borders instead of just within individual states. Now the rigs vary in length, axle configuration and allowable gross weight, so an LCV that's legal in Oregon usually cannot run in Washington or Idaho, for example.

Allow use of LCVs in areas outside the West and on certain toll roads in the East and Midwest, where they now run. Individual states should decide whether LCVs make sense and where they can legally operate. But the ISTEA freeze and other federal prohibitions now prevent state authorities and lawmakers from doing anything.

Allow states to alter their existing regulations so length limits affect trailers but not tractors. Federal law now limits five-axle tractor-trailers and doubles in this manner, with tractors exempt from any length restrictions except through practicality. The states' current overall length regs include tractors; many LCVs must therefore be pulled by heavy duty cab-over-engine tractors, which are no longer available for purchase in North America. This change would allow carriers to use popular conventional-cab tractors, as well as sleeper-cab tractors for some operations.

Allow states to authorize twin 33-foot trailers, which on nine axles would gross up to 110,000 pounds. Such doubles combinations have the same mild off-tracking and other performance characteristics as a tractor pulling a single 48-foot trailer.

Legally standardize the 53-foot trailer length. Under federal law, states must allow 48-footers but not necessarily the 53s that have become the industry standard. In the early 1990s, ATA and its state affiliates persuaded each state to allow 53s on major highways. But some states prohibit 53s from interstate highways in certain urban areas, like New York City, and from some non-interstate highways. They couldn't under this proposal.

Allow a 10 percent "bump" for auto transporters so they could carry extra vehicles when there's room aboard. The 80,000-pound limit means some rigs now go out less than full, especially when heavier minivans, pickups and SUVs are involved. Federal authorities last year rejected a similar petition from auto transporters, and ATA acknowledges that sales of pickups and SUVs have seriously declined. But new, more economical hybrid-drive SUVs are also heavy, and should be accommodated by the feds.

Require states to allow a 400-pound exemption for a tractor equipped with a fuel-saving auxiliary power unit, or APU. Recent federal legislation specified such an exemption, but the Federal Highway Administration's rules made the tolerance "permissive rather than prescriptive," and many do not allow an extra 400 pounds, according to the testimony.

Smid, whose companies already operate triples in many western states and on midwestern and eastern toll roads, pointed out that being able to pull three pup trailers rather than two automatically increases productivity because two rigs can do the work of three. This immediately reduces most operating costs, as well as the number of trucks on the road, which in turn cuts traffic congestion.

Fewer rigs also means less exposure to accidents. He cited numerous studies from the U.S. and Canada that show LCVs have a much lower accident rate than smaller, lighter rigs, though the latter admittedly travel on many more highways and have greater exposure than triples. And while an LCV tractor's engine burns a bit more fuel pulling extra weight, on a ton-mile basis it uses substantially less, which also reduces exhaust emissions. The testimony noted that the federal Environmental Protection Agency backs use of LCVs as a way to save fuel and cut exhaust emissions.

That the testimony was given by Smid, an executive at a major less-than-truckload carrier (YRC operates Yellow Transportation, Roadway, New Penn, several USF companies, and others), illustrates that most support for the LCV proposals within ATA comes from LTL interests. But Tim Lynch, an ATA senior vice president, contends that many more types of motor carriers could use longer, heavier rigs.

"I'm on the New York Thruway," he said during a phone interview, "where they can operate long combination vehicles (twin 48s). I've just seen Wal-Mart, steel, trash, dairy, some truckload carriers, various kinds of operations, all using these. So there's a variety of trucking" that could gain productivity with LCVs.

Opponents of bigger, heavier trucks include Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee. He refuses to consider any such ideas because he believes that bigger and heavier rigs are dangerous. He and others do not acknowledge the superior safety records that LCVs have racked up, nor testimonials from turnpike officials who state that LCVs are simply not a safety concern. Oberstar could bottle up any productivity legislation in his committee, where it would die.

Lynch wouldn't comment on Oberstar or any other individual member of Congress, but said the current crisis over fuel costs has made some senators and representatives "able to look at these proposals dispassionately, to and at least look at these issues." Whether they are enough to make a difference remains to be seen.

Other opponents include the American Automobile Association and its state affiliates, as well as safety advocacy groups. They tend to cite examples of horrific accidents involving big trucks as proof that fewer of them, not more, are what's needed. And they'd prefer that trucks get smaller, not larger.

The nation's railroads have opposed LCV proposals in the past because they see freight jumping from rails to more efficient trucks. Through an understanding between ATA and the Association of American Railroads, the rails remained silent when ATA proposed LCVs several years ago. Lately the railroads have again voiced disapproval.

"Their position is that you're going to put more freight on the highways," Lynch says. "But the trash trucks I just told you about - does anybody believe that this kind of freight will ever go on the rails?" In isolated cases it actually does, when the distance between a city's trash-transfer station and a landfill is in the hundreds of miles, but this is rare.

Long hauls are usually an absolute requirement for any rail shipments to make economic sense, so motor carriers are likely to continue dominating regional and local freight carriage. Also, many communities, especially in the West, are far from rail lines, which is why western states long ago authorized LCVs. Thus any call to "put the freight back on the rails" is unrealistic.

As for opposition from motor carriers, Lynch says he realizes that many truckload carriers don't like the proposals because they were financially burned when in the early 1990s they traded in their 48-foot van trailers for 53s. For low-density freight, a "truckload" was what used to fit into a 48, and then it became what would fit into a 53. Some shippers initially paid extra to send more freight, but eventually rates tumbled and carriers realized they had made big investments for little or no return.

For the same reasons, today some haulers of high-density freight on flatbeds and in tankers, which the 97,000-pound, six-axle proposal would affect, are opposed to the idea. Minus the weight of the extra axle, they might get 15,000 more pounds of payload, but that doesn't mean shippers would pay an equivalently higher rate. "But some of them say they can negotiate the rate issues with their customers," Lynch says.

Still, business realities like this are what rankle truckers, even if the extra productivity makes sense from the lofty standpoint of national transportation policy.