Truckers rail against federal LCV study

By Staff -- Logistics Management, 4/1/1999

The debate over heavier trucks and multi-trailer or longer combination vehicles (LCVs) may not heat up in Congress until next year. But the issue already is simmering in some sectors of the transportation industry, and it may boil over into a showdown between truck and rail interests.

What has sparked the latest round of debate is the imminent release of the latest installment in an ongoing study by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA is publishing the findings from its United States Department of Transportation Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study in several volumes over a period of years. "Issues and Background" was released in 1997, and "Scenario Analysis" was released last December. The final volume, "Guide to Documentation," will be available later this year.

Findings contained in the most recent volume, "Scenario Analysis," suggest that bigger trucks are not as safe as single-trailer combinations. For example, the study reports that "unrestricted use" of multi-trailer combinations, "as they are currently designed and configured, could be expected to [result in] an 11-percent higher overall fatal crash rate than single-combinations."

Statements like these have prompted an outcry from trucking interests. "[This study] is deeply flawed and a waste of taxpayers' money," charges Walter B. McCormick, president and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA). Although the study aims to help lawmakers understand the productivity, safety, and environmental issues associated with bigger trucks, he argues, it is of "no real utility to Congress."

Others, however, have praised the study. The Association of American Railroads and other groups opposed to bigger trucks already have begun touting its findings. "The new study has produced powerful new evidence that bigger trucks are more dangerous, destructive, and costly to taxpayers," says Russell McGurk, national field director of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks.

The ATA, claiming that it does not seek unrestricted use of LCVs, counters that the study makes presumptions about LCV networks that do not account for roadway geometry, state permitting processes, traffic levels, shipper needs, or other practical considerations that would make certain routes legitimate candidates for LCV expansion. "In the real world," says McCormick, "the FHWA's own study of truck-trailer combinations in actual operation shows that LCVs are among the safest vehicles on the road, with an accident rate half that of other configurations."

Adds Motor Freight Carriers Association (MFCA) President Tim Lynch: "The proven safety record of triple trailers is one factor in any discussion of truck size and weight that can be quantified. Yet DOT refuses to acknowledge this real-world operating experience." The report bases many of its safety and environmental findings on questionable assumptions, says the MFCA, in comments filed with the DOT. One of those assumptions--that triples will operate at 132,000 pounds--"inflates the operating weight of typical trailer combinations by at least 20,000 to 25,000 pounds," the group contends.

Impact on rails

Safety aside, another aspect of the study has raised concerns in the industry. Among other findings, the study projects that LCVs will draw freight from rail to road, which could sap the financial strength of railroads. To replace this lost revenue and restore return on investment, railroads would need to increase their rates on all traffic by 11 percent, the study says.

"[LCVs] would cause substantial damage to our revenue and earnings levels," agrees Tom White, a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads (AAR). "Bigger trucks are not in our best interest. They would have a devastating impact on service levels as well."

McCormick counters that any diversion of freight from rail will have little to do with size and weight reforms, but rather with "trucking's ability to meet service levels that the railroads have demonstrated they are incapable of handling."

In addition to its competitive concerns, the rail industry also claims that bigger trucks increase highway congestion, underpay highway costs, and harm the environment. Furthermore, LCVs are not compatible with existing highways and traffic volumes, says an AAR position paper.

McCormick invited railroad executives to meet with trucking industry leaders to discuss the issue, but the AAR says discussions are premature. White says that any action on size and weight reform should take place next year, after Congress reviews the study's final volume.

Although the AAR continues to oppose bigger trucks, it has not shut the door on trucking interests. "Truckers are our customers," White says. "And we are always willing to talk to our customers."