 |
1/31/2012
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) is gearing up to fight provisions in the House Republicans’ long-awaited surface transportation bill that would allow states to increase truck size and weight limits.
The bill to improve the nation’s “crumbling” transportation infrastructure would accelerate road and bridge damage and result in taxpayer subsidies to the trucking industry, said AAR President and Chief Executive Officer Ed Hamberger in a prepared statement.
The truck size and weight provisions — proposed as part of the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, a five-year, $260 billion transportation bill unveiled by House Republicans today — would allow states to increase the truck weight limit to 97,000 pounds from the current 80,000-pound limit, and would allow double- and triple-trailer trucks to travel over longer distances.
“Americans don’t want 97,000-pound trucks or huge multi-trailers up to 120 feet long on our nation’s highways,” Hamberger said. “Nor is it fair that even more of the public’s tax dollars will be used to pay for the road and bridge damage inflicted by massive trucks.”
Currently, heavy trucks pay only a fraction of the cost to repair the nation’s highways damaged by truck transport, he said. An 80,000-pound, five-axle single truck pays about 80 percent of the maintenance cost it inflicts on roads; a 97,000-pound, six-axle single truck would pay about 50 percent of the damage it causes, he said.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the additional cost of repairing bridge damage caused by raising truck weights to 97,000 pounds could be as much as $65 billion, he added.
“Rather than increasing the taxpayer burden, this bill should ensure that all modes of transportation pay their fair share,” Hamberger said, noting that the freight railroad industry pays for its maintenance of the nation’s rail network with private capital.
Meanwhile, there are rumblings among rail lobbyists that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will take up the bill on Thursday. In a Jan. 27 email, the Railway Supply Institute (RSI) told its members that the committee was "set to vote on SAFETEA-LU reauthorization legislation that would allow for an increase in truck size and weights as a state option as well as allow longer combination vehicles nationwide" as early as Thursday, Feb. 2, adding that "the bill is then expected to be on the House floor for a vote as early as the week of Feb. 13."
Terming the measure a "very serious threat," RSI asked its members to call their congressmen and senators to urge them to oppose "any bill or amendment that allows for an increase in truck size and weight regulations."
However, the head of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is at least “encouraged” that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and a U.S. Senate Banking Committee have introduced bills this week that address public transportation.
“Our initial analysis of both the House and Senate bills shows that they include positive policy changes that the public transit industry sought,” said APTA President and CEO Michael Melaniphy. “These include improvements in project delivery, innovative financing and public/private sector partnerships.”
Still, both the House and the Senate “will need to address the financing required to support the legislation,” Melaniphy added.
Larry Kaufman wrote re: AAR to fight truck weight, size provisions in surface transportation bill
on 2/2/2012 1:58:46 PM
Well-done, anmccaff. You seem to know who dlmreport is; care to share that knowledge with the rest of us, as he doesn't seem willing to do so.
His argument in favor of higher truck weights and larger trucks is about as sophomoric as any I have seen. That it was included in Mica's draft bill says more about Mica and his bona fides than it does about dlmreport. It causes my parnoia to rise over the thought that the fix might be in. If this issue were subject to real legislative debate and amendment, the ATA wouldn't allow him to offer such a feeble argument. Am I being overly harsh and/or suspicious? I sure hope so.
anmccaff wrote re: AAR to fight truck weight, size provisions in surface transportation bill
on 2/2/2012 11:21:05 AM
DM>"I guess your math is different than mine. If an industry is providing 40% of funding for infrastructure,"
That's a number, as you should know, supportable only by making three questionable assumptions. First, it assumes the infrastructure cost of a contractor's van or a light delivery truck is the same as that of the heaviest vehicle - which is, frankly a blatant lie - since it aggregates all commercial trucking, and includes some portion of non-commercial trucks. Second, it assumes that transit spending has no impact on the trucking industry. Yes, the road congestion argument is overused, but it is real to some extent, and critical in some hubs. Finally, it suffer from a bit of selective rounding up, both because 37% does not equal 40, and because a substatial number of truck-miles are, by their nature, off of the interstates, and, in the case of municipally owned vehicles, exempt from some taxation.
DM>"and is responsible for 15% of miles driven on that infrastructure, you call that 'subsidy'. "
As you know, or should, heavy trucks occupy a much greater footprint on the road, and the ratio of road damage of a single heavy truck to a car - or for that matter, a bus, light truck, or slow-speed agricultural vehicle - a matter of thousands to one, increasing disproportionally with weight. Your proposal would, roughly, double the maintenance costs due to wear and injury.
DM> "Incidentally, in most cases, heavier trucks have lower fuel economy, and therefore buy more fuel - ergo, they pay more fuel tax."
...and occupy more of the road physically, and require a wider clear area around them. You are aware that a truck is the equivalent of at least three passenger cars when evaluating road capacity?
RAILWAYIST wrote re: AAR to fight truck weight, size provisions in surface transportation bill
on 2/2/2012 10:30:39 AM
Looong-Haul Truckings' Last Stand.
In an attempt to match capacity and efficiency with rail, pampered, entrenched & subsidized trucking interests are pulling out their big bazookas in DC.
Most Short/Medium-Haul Trucking linked to rail intermodal-yards/stations/terminals/depots/sidings/ could be the most efficient future of North American surface freight transport.
Larry Kaufman wrote re: AAR to fight truck weight, size provisions in surface transportation bill
on 2/2/2012 10:27:26 AM
You play with number, dlmreport. Every independent (not rail related or financed) study of highway cost allocation concludes that heavy trucks do not pay their allocable share of the cost of the highways they use. The shortfall for 80,000 lb. rigs is about 21%. That, sir, is a subsidy to heavy trucks. Now, you would increase their maximum weight by another 21% to 97,000 lb. Pay more? Merde! Why would we want to do that? Your numbers are just plain silly. They assume that all vehicles have the same cost responsibility. If you don't know better, then you have even less credibility to participate in this debate than I think you don't have already. Your big trucks may pay 40% for use of the highways while driving only 15% of the miles. If those same trucks are causing 50% of the maintenance burden, then they are grossly underpaying. How do you like those numbers? I just made them up, but I think the rational readers of this blog will understand.
dlmReport wrote re: AAR to fight truck weight, size provisions in surface transportation bill
on 2/2/2012 5:04:23 AM
I guess your math is different than mine. If an industry is providing 40% of funding for infrastructure, and is responsible for 15% of miles driven on that infrastructure, you call that 'subsidy'. Incidentally, in most cases, heavier trucks have lower fuel economy, and therefore buy more fuel - ergo, they pay more fuel tax.
If there are any inaccuracies in what I shared in my original comments, please share the correct data.
Browse articles on Association of American Railroads on Progressive Railroading
