Trucks at Work Blog

Poll seems to favor heavier trucks

Sean Kilcarr July 16th, 2009

“How far would Moses have gone if he had taken a poll in Egypt?” –Harry S. Truman, 33rd president of the United States

I bring the great President Harry Truman into this post over polling results about heavier trucks for a reason – simply put, you cannot fully trust polls. Like President Truman said, polls can often muddy the waters significantly and even throw you off the correct path in life if you put too much faith in them.

The recent poll conducted by the Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP) offers a prime example. Obviously, for a coalition of more than 100 shippers and allied associations dedicated to increasing the federal weight limit for commercial trucks on interstate highways, poll numbers that show heavy favoritism of their position on this issue are going to get hawked about quite a bit.

It’s also true that, upon reading how the questions within this poll were structured, the poll itself might have skewed a good portion of people’s responses. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Americans would favor increasing the weight limit by a margin of 51% to 39% IF … and there is that all-important “if,” which is the middle word in “life” … IF higher weight limits contribute to safer roads, greater fuel economy and more productive highway transportation. I mean … DUH!!! … who WOULDN’T be in favor of heavier trucks if those are the payoffs?

All that being said, though, it is important get a glimpse of the American’s public thinking on this issue of heavier trucks. Obviously, they clearly favor it if [there’s that word again, always making things more complex!] there big benefits to be gained. It’s the standard, and appropriate, American response: if change is going to bring us more benefits with lower costs, let’s go for it.

Here are some of the other factoids released by the CTP from its poll:

• Americans are more likely to support increasing weight limits when they learn that additional axles would make the tractor-trailers safer and better for road surfaces.

• A strong majority (66%) would be more likely to support legislative action to allow trucks to carry more weight on interstates if those trucks add an extra axle.

• Americans are also more likely to support a weight limit increase due to positive environmental implications.

• Some 63% of those surveyed would be more likely to support an increase in weight that trucks can carry on interstates if it would reduce carbon emissions and fuel consumption.

The survey itself canvassed 1,000 American adults by leading pollster Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) June 16–22 this year via live operator telephone calls and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3.1%. WRS noted its poll sample was stratified to be demographically and geographically representative of the national adult population.

None of these responses should come as a big surprise to anyone. And these results are going to become part of the debate by CTP and other heavier truck advocates as they try to get the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act of 2009 (H.R. 1799), sponsored by Reps. Michael Michaud (D-ME) and Jean Schmidt (R-OH), passed in House of Representatives.

Again, this particular bill would allow for heavier – but not larger – trucks on interstates by giving each state the option to increase its interstate vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for trucks equipped with a sixth axle for safety, stresses CTP Co-Chair John Runyan, (at right) who is also the senior manager of federal government relations for International Paper.

Without changing truck size, the additional axle maintains current braking capacity and weight-per-tire-distribution and minimizes pavement wear, he says, while a user fee imposed by the bill would help fund vital bridge repair should there be any damage incurred from the increase weight limits.

“Americans solidly back the same truck weight reform proposed by H.R. 1799 – providing strong support for Congress to responsibly raise the federal vehicle weight limit,” Runyan notes in a press release. “With truck traffic already increasing 11 times faster than road capacity and freight expected to double by 2025, H.R. 1799 would make sure America’s shipping needs are met in a way that improves highway safety and reduces our carbon footprint.”

Yet those firmly opposed to raising weight limits won’t be furling their sails anytime soon. They continue to back House bill H.R. 1618, entitled the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act or simply the “SHIPA” bill – introduced March 19 by Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) with Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) as the lead minority cosponsor.

SHIPA seeks to freeze current truck size and weight limits for all states to those rules on the books as of June 1, 2008 – limiting truck trailer size to 53-ft long and weight limits to 80,000 lbs., unless a state allowed longer and heavier trucks to operate on its roads as of that date. Also under the McGovern bill, any group of two or more consecutive axles would stay consistent with the weights enacted under the Federal Aid Highway Amendments of 1974.

[And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see a poll come out in favor of THEIR position, either, in the near future.]

One thing is for certain – the debate over increasing weight limits for heavier trucks isn’t going away anytime soon. So stay tuned for more developments when Congress comes back from its summer break.

 Email This Post

Related Topics: Regulation

5 Comments to “Poll seems to favor heavier trucks”

1. Steve Myers Says:
   

   July 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

   Sean,
   Very interesting. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the interstates supposed to be built to handle 100,000 lbs on 5 axles? Also, how many of the people polled have ever driven on the roads in Michigan where heavier trucks are allowed with several extra axles? The financial aspect is another matter. If memory serves, in 1981 the Surface Transportation Assistance Act passed. Every state went to 80,000 lbs legal. IN, TN, IL, and PA were no longer the stumbling block for coast to coast traffic. Then the freight rates went down and O/O’s were hauling 80,000 lbs for the same money they used to get for hauling 73,280 lbs. I’m all for productivity, efficiency, and a better quality of life, but I don’t think raising the weight limits and adding axles is the answer. Two major retailers both have the same weight restrictions and yet one gets their goods to the store for less than the other. They have a better communication system and better inventory control. I believe that is the answer.
   Thank you,
   Steve

2. Dave Meekhof Says:
   

   July 16th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

   Eventually eyes will turn toward Michigan with its’ 160,000 lb GVW limit. From operating a fleet of trucks in this State, I can testify that an 11 axle 154,000 lb GVW rig can stop in less distance than a 6 axle 89,000 lb GVW rig on dry pavement. That weight difference is between a 11 axle train (tractor, lead and pup trailers) and a 6 axle single (minus the pup). Also, there is savings for the customer who can accomodate the train. It translates into about a 33% reduction in the rate ($/ton) on a 100 mile haul. The longer the haul, the greater the savings.

   Accident wise, I can’t say there is any difference in the ratio of occurances between singles vs. trains. Most accidents are caused by the motoring public. Driver error is second. Very rarely are accidents caused by equipment malfunction. The down side is, when they do occur, trains make a bigger mess.

   I predict the argument will turn to the conditions of the roads in Michigan. They are deplorable. Being involved in the aggregate industry for most of my career, I am not too quick to blame heavy trucks. Allowable axle loads are 18,000 on the steer (which no sane operator carries that much up there), 16,000 on the drives and 13,000 on each of the 8 trailer axles. Loads are being distributed better than in most other states. The concern then becomes bridges. An operator in Michigan has to know the location of weight restricted bridges.

   Michigan Counties as well as the State enforce weight restrictions during frost abatement for about a month during the spring on roads that are not built to “all weather specification”. And that brings me to my main point. The poor condition of the roads in Michigan are due largely to an inadequate material specification. States Departments of Transportation write their own specs. This allows them to take advantage of local materials to reduce cost. Michigan is primaraly made up of glacial till. Round sand and round stone, marbles if you will. Crushed or angular material is what gives road beds strenght. The lack of crushed material in the MDOT 22-A (road gravel) spec is the first problem. Low strenght makes for a pliable road bed which can wick or “pump” moisture up by capillary action. Now we have frost. The moisture now being close to the surface freezes and expands. Traffic continues to wick moisture and an ice lens forms under the pavement. Once this melts in the spring, there is a void and the pavement caves in causing a pothole. Adding deicing salt to the freeze thaw cycle does not help.

   I understand that heavier truck weights will contribute to the problem mentioned above. But is it understood if the 80,000 lb rigs with higher axle loads, or the 154,000 lb rigs with less lbs per axle does the most damage? My contention is; that States specifying crushed materials in their road beds should not expect the level of road deterioation as experienced in Michigan. I hope it is not used as an arguement against increasing GVW.

   Dave

3. Steve Grantham Says:
   

   July 20th, 2009 at 5:23 am

   Unmentioned are the frost laws of the northern states. Mostly used on secondary roads they still come into play. Mr Meekof alluded to the problem but not the laws. The driver will still be responsible for routing and proper loading. the problems are not the same for the driver as they were when the weight went to 80,000#. The engines of today will laugh at another 20,000#. Back in the day, a 238 jimmy had a pretty tough time with an added 7,000.

   I’m not sure that this is a good time to be raising the weights on the IH highways. Washington doesn’t seem to be too interested in repairing roads and bridges. The ones that are bad now will just get worse. The cost is not justified by the savings. As far as lowering traffic? I was driving when they upped the weight in ‘81, I did not see a reduction in traffic at that time. It was also one of the arguements used.

   One more item to consider….when you go to the expense of adding the extra axle, with the added weight, how much are you really getting in the box? Will it pay out?

4. charles guintard Says:
   

   July 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm

   this is BS, pay me more if you want me to haul more tired of trucking in 2000’s for 1990’s pay
   this is just another way for mega carriers to try to weed out owner/operators just like eobr’s,speed limiter’s,etc,

5. David Obermark Says:
   

   July 30th, 2009 at 6:08 am

   Without increases in the kingpin to tandem setback length required in most states, wouldn’t just adding an additional axle and another 17,000 lbs to the gross vehicle weight just make it more difficult to meet the existing bridge law? If bridges can safely handle the increased weights without increasing the axle spreads, why do we then even have the bridge law in the first place?

   (Please be aware that the majority of truckers describe the kingpin to tandem axle setback laws as being the “bridge law” but that is not the case. The bridge law is the same no matter what state you are driving in, while the setbacks required vary from state to state.)

Leave a Comment