Changes in truck size and weights gaining “buoyancy” on Capitol Hill

John D. Schulz, Contributing Editor -- Logistics Management, 10/24/2007

LAS VEGAS—Shippers could be enjoying as much as $50 billion in savings through greater productivity from their motor carriers if longer and heavier trucks are allowed when Congress crafts the next federal-aid highway bill in 2009.

Miles Mittelstadt, associate general counsel of Schneider National, the nation’s second-largest truckload carrier, said at the 21st annual membership meeting of the North American Transportation Employee Relations Association (NATERA) that the long-term trend in logistical savings has reversed. During World War II, logistics was as high as 30 percent of Gross Domestic Product. It is now about 10 percent of GDP, compared with about 18 percent when trucking was deregulated in 1980.
 
“It seems like those improvements have bottomed out,” Mittelstadt said, noting that congestion, environmental concerns and higher fuel costs have hurt trucking productivity.
 
Still, longer and heavier trucks would not come without costs. Larger vehicles would cost the public about $6 billion per year in improvements in bridges, intersections and pavement improvements. That amounts to a “tax” of about 4 cents per mile for carriers. That would be offset somewhat by alleviating congestion.
  
“The people who would really benefit would be the shipper community,” Mittelstadt said. “They would benefit from economies of scale.”

Schneider National’s internal estimate is that as much as $50 billion in shipper savings would be gained by greater use of longer, heavier trucks.
   

Truck size and weights have largely been unchanged since the railroad lobby won a freeze on trucking productivity in 1991. The trucking industry’s safety record has improved substantially since then with trucking fatalities per million miles traveled at an all-time low. That record would seem to help the industry’s case on Capitol Hill.
  
American Trucking Associations President and CEO Bill Graves said that trucking productivity issues are receiving “buoyancy” on Capitol Hill these days. That’s because greater use of longer and heavier trucks are seen by some legislators as a way to combat global warming because there would be a need for fewer trucks to haul the same amount of freight.
 
While nothing is set in stone in Washington, the truckers are hoping for some cooperation from the rail lobby if they should try and obtain greater use of longer and heavier trucks as part of an overall package when the next federal-aid highway bill is crafted in 2009.
     
“A great deal of the debate on Capitol Hill with the whole global warming thing has brought focus on the kind of fuel savings you get with more productive vehicles,” Graves said. “There are a lot of pieces that are coming together that give it buoyancy that previously we didn’t have.”
  
C. Randall Mullet, vice president of government affairs for Con-way, said trucking productivity is always a “politically negotiated settlement” in Washington. ATA’s official position is to increase weight on six-axle units to 97,000 pounds, up from the current 80,000-pound limits.
 
“You cannot decouple transport growth from economic growth,” Mullet said. “So transport capacity constraints will result in economic constraints. That’s where this debate has to take place. If you want to grow the economy, the transportation system has to grow.”
 
Not all the truckers are on the same page, either. Many large truckload carriers are against increasing the truck weight limit to 97,000 pounds, up from the current 80,000. That’s because of the increased capital expenditures that carriers would face to buy additional new equipment to handle the greater payload.
  
Graves admitted the increase to 97,000 pounds (currently the limit in Canada) is the “most contentious” part of the push for increasing trucking productivity.
 
Washington veterans know any such attempt to change these limits is a tough sell.
 
“Any change in truck sizes and weight is a heavy lift,” Mullet said. “Sides are being formed now, both covertly and overtly. It’s a huge deal.”
 
Shippers are an integral part of the push for greater productivity, Mullet said. “The solution will probably be driven by the shipper community,” Mullet said. “It’s going to require a broad coalition of stakeholders.”
 
Stakeholders are all over the map, however. Besides the safety advocates and railroads, environmentalists, labor interests and pavement advocates are usually lined up against larger, heavier trucks. The trucking industry is even far apart on the issue.
 
“Different segments of the industry want different things,” Mullet said. “This is not a slam-dunk, even within the industry.”
   
Still, Mullet said there is a “once in a 20-year opportunity” with the 2009 highway bill to try and win trucking productivity gains. Still, there’s always a risk of a backlash.
 
George Matkov, an attorney with Ford & Harrison law firm who has specialized in transport law, said trucking often has to fight to maintain the productivity that it has currently because of the push by safety advocates, rails and organized labor to roll back those limits.