Study: DOT's hours-of-service proposal carries hidden costs

By Staff -- Logistics Management, 10/1/2000

A new study of the proposed hours-of-service rules for truck drivers says the cost of implementing the new rules would be five times greater than the projected benefits. National Economic Research Associates (NERA), a private economic consulting firm, reviewed the economic analysis the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) conducted of its proposed hours-of-service rule at the American Trucking Associations' request. NERA has concluded that the cost of implementing the new rules would be $19.1 billion over the next 10 years.

"This study confirms what responsible truck drivers have said all along: This plan could make the roads less safe, it is unworkable, and it will have a negative effect on our economy," said Walter B. McCormick Jr., the ATA's CEO, in announcing the report's release.

The NERA report concludes that the government's analysis contains a number of flaws. Specifically, the report charges, the FMCSA's analysis:

Ignores research suggesting that the majority of fatal crashes involving a truck are not caused by the truck driver, and that therefore many crashes are inappropriately included in DOT's calculations;

Overestimates the safety benefits of the proposed rule by more than 500 percent;

Underestimates the cost of mandated new on-board data-recording equipment;

Claims that the number of fatigue-related crashes caused by long-haul drivers would fall by 20 percent, without reference to any scientific literature;

Dismisses unintended "side effects" of the plan that are likely to increase the number of fatal crashes on America's highways, such as putting more trucks on the road during peak traffic hours, creating incentives for high-speed driving, and putting more inexperienced drivers behind the wheel; and

Misleads the public by falsely implying that the major benefit of the plan would be far fewer crashes. The majority of "benefits" the government cites in its analysis would actually come from "paperwork reduction," not from reduced fatalities or injuries.

Importantly, the NERA study also charges that the FMCSA miscalculated by several billion dollars the cost of hiring new drivers and buying new trucks that would be required to comply with the plan and still meet the current needs of the U.S. economy. NERA says the government agency failed to count non-wage expenses such as recruiting, training, support staff, and infrastructure, along with the cost of 50,000 new trucks needed to put the plan into action at today's freight-volume levels. The study further charges that the FMCSA has failed to recognize the devastating consequences the rule would have on smaller trucking companies that suffer from thin profit margins and competition from other transportation modes that would be unaffected by the proposed rule.

Opposition to the proposed rules by truckers and shippers remains steadfast. John Cutler, general counsel to the shippers' group NASSTRAC, told the organization's fall meeting, "The proposal is so bad that everyone recognizes it as a non-starter."

Meanwhile, the FMCSA is taking the discussion directly to the public via the Internet. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater has announced that the public can review drafts of safety-action plans and submit suggestions for improvement at http://spp.fmsca.dot.gov. "This communication process," Slater says, "will enable us to increase our ability to listen to our stakeholders and the public, and develop strategies for preventing crashes involving large trucks and buses."

Copies of the NERA study are available from David Osiecki at ATA, who can be reached through the organization's Web site (www.ata.org).