House bill would increase Interstate weight limit to 91,000 pounds

[kscarbel2]

Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ) / September 10, 2015

U.S. Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wisc.) introduced Thursday the latest version of his Safe, Flexible and Efficient Trucking Act (Safe Trucking Act), which would give states the flexibility to allow 91,000-pound (41.28 metric ton) trucks with six axles on U.S. Interstate highways within their borders.

Ribble, at a press conference on Thursday, said increasing the weight limit to 91,000 pounds with six axles would increase the industry’s productivity by increasing capacity. It would also reduce congestion and boost safety, he said.

“Having the sixth axle is critical to weight displacement and braking power,” Ribble said. “The interstates are the safest and most efficient places for trucks to move.”

He added that, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s recent Truck Size and Weight Study, a 91,000-pound configuration would be suitable for the current Interstate system, resulting in no additional rehabilitation costs for the roads or bridges.

ohn Runyan, executive director of the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, said most states already allow trucks that weigh more than 80,000 pounds to travel on state and county roads.

“It’s also important to recognize that more than 90 percent of states allow trucks which are heavier than the federal weight limit to travel on state roads, often on just five axles,” Runyan said. “The Safe Trucking Act gives these states a critical opportunity to promote the use of safer, six-axle vehicles while transitioning heavier traffic to more capable Interstate highways for at least a portion of their route. Paired with the U.S. DOT’s ability to require even more safety technology, the Safe Trucking Act is an opportunity for our nation to create a world-class standard vehicle for the movement of heavy goods.”

The American Trucking Associations generally supports increasing size and weight limits, while the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association generally does not.

Ribble said that by 2025, tonnage moved by trucks is expected to increase by 25 percent, and the bill would help reduce the number of trucks on the road as the amount of freight being moved increases, he said.

James Sembrot, senior director of transportation for Anheuser-Busch InBev, said the trucks they load leave the facilities only half full because they meet the 80,000-pound (36.29 metric ton) weight limit well before they fill the trailers.

“By allowing us to increase the weight and by adding the sixth axle, Anheuser Busch would reduce its number of loads by 14 percent,” Sembrot said. “This would take 100,000 trucks off the highways over the course of a year. Removing trucks also helps us reach our goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent in 2017.”

Ribble said the act will be introduced in the House as an amendment to a proposed highway bill in an effort to keep the base bill clean. He said he’s had conversations with Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and feels Shuster won’t oppose the legislation.

“The Chairman has always wanted broad, bipartisan support, and he’d rather keep the base bill clean and let the members of the committee decide,” Ribble said.

The cost to retrofit a traditional trailer to add an extra axle would be approximately $7,400 for each trailer, according to Sembrot, who said he’s looking into it for Anheuser Busch’s trailers.

Runyan said many shippers he spoke with said the change to add another axle to the trailer would likely come when they turn over their equipment.

“This will be a gradual change that takes some time,” he said.

[kscarbel2]

Congress can give US economy the truck it needs

By Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) - 09/10/15

U.S. manufacturers are struggling with a major supply chain capacity crisis – one that is threatening not only the movement of goods, but our nation’s economic productivity.

While the U.S. is producing and shipping more goods to meet the resurgence in consumer demand, this record freight volume—combined with increasing railroad bottlenecks, tight highway lane capacity and escalating truck driver shortages—has created a perfect storm.

Companies are not only struggling with the price tag associated with getting goods to market; they are often hard-pressed to get them there at all.

Even though rail is often the first shipping choice for American manufacturers, the reality is that more than 70 percent of freight must, at some point, be shipped via truck, and that tonnage will only increase as demand grows. In fact, industry experts estimate that overall freight tonnage will increase nearly 25 percent over the next decade alone.

Our transportation network is in no shape to keep up with this growth. The U.S. population has nearly doubled since the Interstate highway system was built, and over the last 30 years, truck miles traveled have increased 20 times faster than road capacity—often with limited-to-no room for expansion.

Fortunately, Congress has the power this fall to give our Interstate productivity a critical, yet safe, boost.

Safer, more efficient trucks that can carry 91 thousand pounds as opposed to the current 80 thousand on our highways exist, and our major trading partners already use them successfully. In Canada and Europe, many trucks are already carrying over 100 thousand pounds safely on the road. These trucks, which are the same size as typical 18-wheelers but equipped with six axles rather than five, can safely ship more goods while braking faster, handling the same, polluting less and reducing pavement wear—all this according to the U.S. DOT’s recently completed Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study.

Congress just needs to give states the power to put these better trucks to work. The Safe, Flexible and Efficient Trucking Act, known as the “Safe Trucking Act,” now pending in the House, would answer the call by giving each state the option to allow more productive, yet safe, six-axle trucks to travel on Interstate highways.

The Safe Trucking Act would responsibly alleviate the capacity crisis and create a more efficient transportation network in which U.S. manufacturers can safely use fewer truckloads, fuel and emissions to meet demand. The legislation also enables the U.S. DOT to require additional safety equipment for these trucks, creating a world-class standard for truck shipment.

The U.S. DOT has already confirmed that the Safe Trucking Act configuration complies with existing bridge weight requirements and would not cause additional strain. Still, implementation of the Safe Trucking Act is completely voluntary. Each state would retain the ability to control when and where these trucks travel.

Yet given that more than 90 percent of states already allow heavier, five-axle rigs on state and local roads, the Safe Trucking Act also presents a critical opportunity for states to transition to safer, more capable six-axle trucks which can operate on Interstate highways—the safest place for truck shipments.

Five years ago, Congress granted Maine the ability to do what the Safe Trucking Act would do on a national scale: give higher weight vehicles access to the state’s Interstate highways. Since then, fatalities on Maine’s roads have reached their lowest levels in 70 years—a reduction which officials have attributed to this truck weight change.

It’s time for U.S. truck productivity to match that of the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries that already utilize these trucks, and with the Safe Trucking Act, we can do so in a way that empowers and respects state autonomy while making our shared roads safer.

Our transportation network is facing big challenges, and the Safe Trucking Act represents an essential part of the solution.

Ribble has represented Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District since 2011. He sits on the Foreign Affairs and the Transportation committees.

[kscarbel2]

New bill would permit 91,000-lb. rigs with extra axle

Fleet Owner / September 11, 2015

Pointing to productivity and safety benefits, Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI) announced Thursday that he will introduce legislation to allow 91,000-lb., six-axle tractor-trailers on the federal interstate highway system.

The Safe, Flexible and Efficient Trucking Act (Safe Trucking Act) will be offered as an amendment to the surface transportation reauthorization, or highway bill, expected to be taken up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) next week.

Speaking on a teleconference with members of the news media, Ribble explained the extra axle would distribute the weight load and actually improve braking power, compared to a 5-axle rig at 80,000 pounds. And current infrastructure standards can support 91,000-lb., six-axle loads without additional “rehab costs” to Interstate bridges, based on a “deep dive on the data” in the recently released DOT truck size and weight study.

Additionally, he expects an increased weight limit on federal interstate highways would shift some truck traffic away from those state highways where higher limits are currently permitted.

“For me, it’s not just about productivity, but it’s the increased safety by having fewer trucks moving more product in a safer manner,” Ribble said. “Our roads are already heavily crowded. This 13% increase in capacity is heavily significant in moving more freight with fewer vehicles. This would also result in reduced fuel costs and CO2 emissions.”

He cited the immediate benefits to Wisconsin’s paper mills as an example of improved freight efficiency with heavier trucks.

Indeed, the congressman’s remarks were followed by representatives from a variety of industries that contend the truck weight increase would aid global competitiveness.

American Forest & Paper Assn. President and CEO Donna Harman, who noted that competitors in Canada and Mexico already benefit from higher truck weight limits, said that the number of truck trips for forest products could be reduced by approximately 1.4 million each year under Ribble’s bill. More specifically, Connie Tipton, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Assn., said that a 5,000-truck dairy fleet could serve its 150,000 delivery locations with 500 fewer trucks.

James Sembrot, senior director of transportation at Anheuser-Busch InBev, called the Safe Trucking Act “common sense policy that everybody can support,” and explained that his company ships more than a million truckloads of beer and raw materials each year—and many of those trailers are 60% empty due to the current weight restrictions. The 91,000-lb. limit would permit Anheuser-Busch to take 100,000 trucks a year off of the highway. He also estimated the cost of adding a sixth axle would be about $7,400 per trailer.

The Coalition for Transportation Productivity (CTP), a group of 200 manufacturers, shippers, carriers and allied associations whose primary aim is to support such legislation, organized the press conference.

“Truck travel has grown 22 times faster than road capacity since the federal weight limit was last changed in 1982,” said John Runyan, executive director of CTP. “Recognizing that more than 70 percent of freight must be shipped by truck, we need to confront the highway capacity crunch now if our country is to remain competitive. The Safe Trucking Act safely improves the productivity of truck shipments so we can decrease the truckloads necessary to meet demand and make our entire transportation network more efficient.”

That the 6-axle configuration is “bridge-formula compliant” and actually saves money on pavement restoration makes the bill “a game changer,” Runyan added. He also pointed out that the legislation would allow DOT to specify additional safety equipment for any trucks operating at the 91,000-lb. limit.

“They have the ability to make this a world-class truck for the movement of heavy goods, if they so choose,” Runyan said.

Ribble explained that the bill will be offered as an amendment to the highway bill, noting that T&I Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster prefers the base legislation to be as “clean” as possible to garner bipartisan support. And Ribble conceded his bill will face opposition, both from the rail industry and some highway safety groups. But, he suggested, the 91,000-lb. limit should be more acceptable than previous attempts at a 97,000-lb. limit.

The Coalition Against Bigger Trucks has led the opposition on those previous attempts, but those efforts came under scrutiny earlier this year when a New York Times investigation revealed that the rail-backed group was paying law enforcement officers to lobby Washington legislators about potential dangers of longer and heavier trucks.

Still, his bill shouldn’t be about trucks vs. rail, Ribble noted.

“This is as old as rail is, and they’re going to continue to oppose anything that might affect competition in the marketplace,” Ribble said. “That’s to be expected, but we believe they have a strawman argument, based on how goods and services are moving about the county right now.”

Ribble also emphasized that his bill shouldn’t be confused with legislation that would increase twin-trailer length from 28 feet to 33 feet. Such legislation is attached to a pending bill to fund the DOT, and the trailer provision faced vocal opposition from Democrats in both the House and the Senate (where the rider made it out of committee by a single vote).

Supporters of the longer trailers have emphasized that the configuration is safe because the combination does not add any weight, while Ribble made the case the heavier trucks are safe because they are not longer, under his bill.

“We don’t touch the size of the trucks at all,” Ribble said. “Different groups and different organizations, whether for or against, will make their case as it relates to vehicle size, but I deliberately didn’t address it in this bill because I didn’t want to go down that rabbit trail.”

Still, the Coalition for Efficient & Responsible Trucking (CERT)—which backs longer trailers—on Thursday issued a notice to address the “misleading language” of the opposition, who are "doing everything possible to undermine proposals to make freight transportation safer and more efficient.”

CERT was responding to a recent CQ Roll Call report ("Ribble Bill Would Add Trucks' Weight to Debate on Length") in which a spokesman for the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety “conflates” the separate issues of truck length and weight, and contends there’s a “significant overlap” in the membership of CERT and CTP—and “they all want bigger and heavier trucks.”

CERT rejected the claim, and said the two organizations do not share any common member companies.

And, to complicate matters, a lot of truckers don’t like the idea of heavier trucks, either. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA) reiterated its objection Thursday, saying the 91,000-lb. limit doesn’t overcome the problems with 97,000-lb. rigs.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer called the proposal “a dumb idea on every level.” OOIDA contends the bill just provides an interim step to the higher limits, and that these limits are to benefit shippers and a just few large carriers.

Ribble said the T&I leadership would meet Friday to finalize a schedule for introducing its highway bill, with the tentative plan calling for a Thursday, Sept. 17 date for committee mark-up.

[Marcel67]

It's all in benefit for the shipper. Rates will not increase if loads are heavier. Also more cost for us the trucking company, need to replace two axke trailers for tri axke trailers more wear And cost in maintanace in additionele tires.

[RowdyRebel]

If anything, rates will drop...same # of trucks competing for the reduced # of loads. Supply & demand.

[blackdog2]

Gas trailers Conn 8900-9000 gal All the rest of New England 14800 gal and New York. Gravel stone on a triaxel 73000 permit 76500 salt 67400 non construction on a triaxel truck The state of Conn, just built a new bridge over New Haven harbor cant exceed 73000 We were told the FEDS have to come and inspect it THe state hands out 5k-8k fines for salt truckers for grossing out 76500 not 67400 lbs

[gearhead204]

just a little too little and to late I would say we can go 105,500 on 8 axles if bridge law is met. we have a lot of 4 axle trucks and 4 axle trailers out here! most common application is moving ocean containers and lumber and seams to be the trend in fruit hauling and livestock transport.

[Underdog]

Don't fall for it!!! More responsibility for the driver, more cost to the truck owner and you won't see an increase in your paycheck. The federal government is only trying to mitigate the loss in productivity when they mandate electronic logbooks. Move more freight on the same size fleet.

There is no driver shortage, only a compensation shortage.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Dirtymilkman]

I'm all for it. We haul milk and are paid by the weight. Nothing will change. Our rates wont drop, we just wont get fined as much

[Underdog]

I'm all for it. We haul milk and are paid by the weight. Nothing will change. Our rates wont drop, we just wont get fined as much

Just like the farmers' rates never drop for the price of the milk... The government controls it all.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[kscarbel2]

Private Fleets Back Higher Truck Weight Limit

Heavy Duty Trucking / October 9, 2015

The National Private Truck Council is now throwing its own weight behind the legislative effort to allow individual states to increase the federal vehicle weight limit to 91,000 pounds for tractor-trailers that are equipped with a sixth axle.

Although NPTC is a member of the most active lobby for upping the federal GCW limit, the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, the association that represents some 600 private fleets said on October 9 that it has directly voiced its support for truck-weight reform in a letter sent to the members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

That committee is charged with drawing up the House version of the long-overdue highway bill, which NPTC wants to see incorporate the Safe, Flexible and Efficient (SAFE) Trucking Act (H.R. 3488) introduced in September by Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI).

NPTC contends that Ribble’s measure would give states the “flexibility to safely confront highway capacity issues” by letting carriers run heavier, six-axle trucks on Interstate highways within their borders.

“H.R. 3488 would improve options for enhancing productivity,” wrote Gary Petty, president and CEO of NPTC. He stressed that the association “would not support this legislation if our members thought that it might diminish safety or harm highway or bridge infrastructure.”

Petty also called out the railroad lobby's effort to derail Ribble’s proposal. “We understand that the railroad industry and their surrogates are opposed to this bill,” he wrote. “But railroad interests should not hold a veto over highway transportation policy. They should compete for freight in a free and fair marketplace that allows for productivity enhancements for all modes.”

He also made the point that H.R. 3488 “does not mandate anything. It would merely allow the state governments to permit truck combinations up to 91,000 pounds in a six-axle configuration to use the Interstate highways in their state. State agencies would retain the ability to limit or even prohibit use of these vehicles when safety dictates otherwise. Moreover, use of six-axle vehicles at 91,000 lbs. would not create additional harm for pavement or bridges.”

The NPTC letter is the latest word from a trucking-affiliated group that has publicly stated that it is either for, against, or (for lack of a better word) neutral on Ribble’s SAFE Act.

In a Sept. 16 letter sent to Ribble, the Truckload Carriers Association argued strongly against allowing the increase in the weight limit. Recognizing that the bill “attempts to improve trucking productivity on our highways,” TCA stated that it opposes the measure because “it clearly would only benefit a minority of the industry.”

The truckload group also contended that the cost to properly equip trailers and tractors to take advantage of the higher weight limit would not be compensated by rate increases, yet carriers would be compelled by customers to invest in the more costly equipment.

Like TCA, The Trucking Alliance, a coalition of trucking businesses that lobbies for safety improvements, does not support the bill. “This legislation wasn't written to benefit trucking companies, because it would drive up operating costs, drive down truck driver wages and curtail investments in safety technologies,” Lane Kidd, the Alliance’s Managing Director, told HDT.

When asked by HDT if the American Trucking Associations had any reaction to the bill, ATA spokesperson Sean McNally replied, “No, we don’t.”

NPTC’s letter may be read online.