TCA Implores Congress NOT to Raise Truck Weights

[kscarbel2]

Heavy Duty Trucking  /  April 11, 2017

The Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) reiterated its support of the current five-axle, 80,000-pound federal gross vehicle weight limit for trucks in an April 5  letter to the leaders of both the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Appropriations.

TCA President John Lyboldt wrote the lawmakers that the association and its trucking company members are “concerned about allowing freight-shipping trucks to carry a maximum of 91,000 pounds with the addition of a 6th axle, up from the current 80,000 pounds standard.”

While conceding that this idea is an attempt to improve trucking productivity, he contended that “it clearly would only benefit a minority of carriers, while forcing the rest of the industry either to divert critical resources into these new configurations or risk becoming obsolete.”

Interestingly, that is often the strongest argument put up by truckload carriers that oppose liberalizing federal rules to allow 33-foot-long “turnpike” double trailers to operate on Interstate and other highways— regardless of state laws. T

TCA was among the groups that lobbied Congress successfully to keep a measure allowing twin 33s from being passed in 2015.

As to whether carriers should be allowed to run heavier when rigs are equipped with a 6th axle, about a year ago TCA did opt to ditch a two-policy position it had held since  2011 that called for increasing truck weight limits either by allowing a five-axle, 88,000-pound weight limit or six-axle, 91,000-pound limit.

In the letter, Lyboldt detailed TCA’s concern that changing the weight limit via a 6th axles would drive up both capital and operating costs for truckload carriers while not allowing them to recoup those costs through rate adjustments.

“Truckload’s shift from 48’ trailers to 53’ trailers was exactly this issue, only in reverse,” he pointed out, offering a history lesson. “Shippers who filled trailers by volume before maximizing the allowable weight put pressure on industry to move to 53’ trailers. Like the proposal today, there were pilot programs prior to it being legalized across the nation. Only half of the loads cubed out before they weighed out, yet the entire industry was forced to move.”

Lyboldt said that while “the market demands ultimate flexibility from general freight haulers, those who cannot provide the service simply disappear. As has happened before, maximum capacities become the norm. Carriers are forced to adjust their equipment to accommodate 91,000/6, despite the fact that they will likely never recoup the costs of the adjustment or haul loads requiring the 6th axle.”

He added that truckload carriers “simply cannot afford” a rule that would allow 91,000 pounds on 6 axles. 

“TCA supports a policy of no increase in truck weight,” Lyboldt stated flatly in the letter. “As an association, we will continue to examine components of increasing productivity as they arise.”

Making his message crystal-clear, he added that “TCA reiterates that we are opposed to the stand-alone concept of 91,000 pounds on 6 axles; however, TCA is open to any and all discussions with key stakeholders in regards to improving overall transportation efficiency and productivity on our nation’s highways.”

[TeamsterGrrrl]

No wonder the railroads are more profitable... The trucking "industry" can't even agree on what they want! To make matters worse, the railroads gave more in campaign donations than the trucking "industry" did in the last election cycle.

[Dirtymilkman]

Hmmmm......Who owns BNSF? In MN our lovely Democrats voted down a law to exempt milk trucks from road restrictions. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Why should only milk trucks enjoy regulatory exemptions? Road wear is determined by weight. It doesn't matter what freight the truck is hauling.

[Dirtymilkman]

17 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Why should only milk trucks enjoy regulatory exemptions? Road wear is determined by weight. It doesn't matter what freight the truck is hauling.

Because like it or not, MN is an agricultural state. And MN is one of the larger dairy states. And the condition of the roads is not the trucks fault. The tax dollars were spent in other places and most of the money gets put into the heaviest populated area. So that is why the rural roads are suffering. Milk has to get off farms no matter what, but there are counties that are waiting outside of farms and cheese plants waiting to weigh trucks. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

If the legislature is going to give out, for example, 10% increases in allowable weight, the increases should apply to all trucks regardless of cargo. As for subsidizing particular industries, that's bad policy too. Funding for road building and maintenance has been inadequate for years, and siphoning off the state match for fed transit funding won't make much difference, so I'll kill that failed argument before you try it. Plain and simple, we have been lying to ourselves about the real cost of infrastructure for decades and become a 3rd world country because of it.

[BillyT]

DMM,I assume you are mainly referring to the tankers that pick up raw milk from the farms.Since there is not always anywhere to " axle out" but of course knowing what your equipment weighs and how much your tank will hold you have some idea what your gross is! I suspect that the DOT officers are aware that they can catch the tankers over on their axles! I have little knowledge of the milk tanker operation! I seem to recall that the tanks I've seen are either 10 ft spreads or fixed tandem without adjustment! In Florida as a result of citrus being loaded in the fields, also juice in tankers where there may or may not be scales to axle out, you are allowed 44000 on an axle set instead of the usual 34000 if you are under 80000 gross.There are a lot of rural timber carriers in Florida (stick haulers) who can't scale in the woods where they load and can benefit from from this additional axle weight!

[Dirtymilkman]

2 hours ago, BillyT said:

DMM,I assume you are mainly referring to the tankers that pick up raw milk from the farms.Since there is not always anywhere to " axle out" but of course knowing what your equipment weighs and how much your tank will hold you have some idea what your gross is! I suspect that the DOT officers are aware that they can catch the tankers over on their axles! I have little knowledge of the milk tanker operation! I seem to recall that the tanks I've seen are either 10 ft spreads or fixed tandem without adjustment! In Florida as a result of citrus being loaded in the fields, also juice in tankers where there may or may not be scales to axle out, you are allowed 44000 on an axle set instead of the usual 34000 if you are under 80000 gross.There are a lot of rural timber carriers in Florida (stick haulers) who can't scale in the woods where they load and can benefit from from this additional axle weight!

Yes, the raw milk. MN has a very complex weight chart that makes you legal by one rule and illegal by another rule. But the law that sides with the state supercedes all. You can be under gross weight but be illegal by axle weight or vice versa. You can also be legal gross and axle but fail bridge law. And yes I believe all trucks should be exempt. Why should truck company's productivity be held back because of the states inability to maintain roads? We pay our heavy use tax, our fuel tax and buy permits. But yet they still shackle us. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Maybe you need to pay more to get good roads... Your loaded Titan tanker weights as much as over 20 cars!

[kscarbel2]

TCA urges Congress to forgo any increases to 80,000-pound limit

James Jaillet, Commercial Carrier Journal (CCJ)  /  April 12, 2017

The Truckload Carriers Association has issued a letter to lawmakers in the U.S. House and Senate asking them to retain the current 80,000-pound weight limit for tractor-trailers operating on U.S. roadways.

Responding to an apparent interest by legislators eyeing an increase to a 91,000-pound, six-axle limit, TCA told lawmakers in the letter that an 11,000-pound increase in the country’s truck weight limit would “only benefit a minority of carriers, while forcing the rest of the industry either to divert critical resources into these new configurations or risk becoming obsolete.”

Those in favor of the legislation, such as Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.), say increasing maximum weight limits in the U.S. would boost highway safety, reduce congestion and increase trucking’s efficiency. Ribble introduced a bill in 2015 to bump the maximum weight limit to 91,000 pounds nationally.

The issue has cropped up several times in recent years in both the House and the Senate as either add-ons to larger bills or standalone legislation. It doesn’t appear any new legislation has been introduced yet regarding a weight-limit increase this Congressional term. TCA seemingly is getting ahead of the looming legislative session, during which such legislation could be in play.

TCA argues an increase in allowable weight limits and a sixth axle would become a de facto mandate for all carriers, as they would be pressed by market conditions to retrofit their equipment with a sixth axle and other necessary equipment to haul 91,000-pound loads, TCA says, to keep up with competitors.

Such equipment updates range from $3,000 to $4,800 a trailer, TCA argues, which would cost even mid-size carriers potentially millions. Upfitting would also come with higher ongoing operating costs, the trade group argues, such as on brakes, tires and more.

“Carriers are unlikely to see rate increases that fully offset the cost of moving the additional weight,” TCA argues in its letter. “Certainly no one will pay for the increased cost of fuel associated with a sixth axle, especially if it was not required for the shipment. The cost burden will fall squarely on the carrier.”

[41chevy]

Probably be cost effective to take other look at the Davis- Bacon Act of 1931. Follow it to the letter instead of a union / political pact there would be less money wasted.Course the Unions /  political kick backs won't let that happen.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Wouldn't save a cent, as there's a shortage of skilled construction workers so wages and costs wouldn't drop any.

[Underdog]

13 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Maybe you need to pay more to get good roads... Your loaded Titan tanker weights as much as over 20 cars!

Factor in the registration fees plus the fuel tax based on the amount of fuel purchased, and I guarantee you each semi already pays more than 20 times the road fees of the average car.

[Dirtymilkman]

9 hours ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Maybe you need to pay more to get good roads... Your loaded Titan tanker weights as much as over 20 cars!

My tabs alone are well over $2000. Plus another $1000 in permits plus over $8000 a year per truck in fuel tax. Oh yeah, then all the f.e.t. I pay when I buy tires and the $20,000 in fet I paid the last time I bought a new truck. On my last truck I paid over $30,000 in taxes, that would buy a normal car. In a 5 year span one truck pays over $80,000 in just tax! 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Dirtymilkman
To pissed to type right

[41180]

it's easy for someone that doesn't own a small trucking business to sit behind a screen andtelll someone they're not paying enough in taxes and fees . 

   

[Underdog]

Maybe those possums in Australia should Pony up some taxes and fees to mitigate the closing of the lumber mill.
 

[41180]

😅 well yeah . 

I've been told the same thing by liberal cousins of mine . they see the nice trucks and nice things and get green with envy . go out and earn it . see how easy it is. 

[Underdog]

2 hours ago, logtruckman said:

[emoji28] well yeah . 
I've been told the same thing by liberal cousins of mine . they see the nice trucks and nice things and get green with envy . go out and earn it . see how easy it is. 

They have no idea LOL. All my nieces and nephews are proud that they come out of college with a degree and they're earning $80,000 a year. Then I blow their mind when I tell them I spend $80,000 a year just to put fuel in my truck.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Yup, I know all about FET, HUT, what it costs to license an 80k pound truck, and the five figure numbers sound impressive... Until you figure in the fact that tractor trailer rigs have 20 times the weight of a car and often cover over 10 times the miles! Back to that nickel a ton-mile true cost of providing highways... If you're not paying that, you're freeloading on the highways!

[Underdog]

1 hour ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Yup, I know all about FET, HUT, what it costs to license an 80k pound truck, and the five figure numbers sound impressive... Until you figure in the fact that tractor trailer rigs have 20 times the weight of a car and often cover over 10 times the miles! Back to that nickel a ton-mile true cost of providing highways... If you're not paying that, you're freeloading on the highways!

You're not figuring the true value of trucks on the highway. Without trucks America stops. Think about what all that truck traffic returns to the economy. I have yet to see a Walmart store with a rail siding.
 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Trucks should pay their own way like other modes do instead of freeloading on taxpayer subsidies. Per BNSF's annual report, they're turning a profit on a revenue of 3 cents a ton mile, less than the costs of providing roads for the trucks. Underpriced road use is just the beginning of Walmart's freeloading, they get around a fifth of all food assistance funding and pay such low wages that many of their employees are forced to rely on subsidies like EIC, etc.. If Walmart had to pay the real cost of the highways they use, every Walmart would have a rail siding!

[Underdog]

Trucks should pay their own way like other modes do instead of freeloading on taxpayer subsidies. Per BNSF's annual report, they're turning a profit on a revenue of 3 cents a ton mile, less than the costs of providing roads for the trucks. Underpriced road use is just the beginning of Walmart's freeloading, they get around a fifth of all food assistance funding and pay such low wages that many of their employees are forced to rely on subsidies like EIC, etc.. If Walmart had to pay the real cost of the highways they use, every Walmart would have a rail siding!

If you're going to make up fantasy scenarios in your head that's so well I thought.. If every Walmart had a rail siding then all the truckers would be out of work and then there would be more government assistance. some of us still enjoy working for a living and don't want a government check. There's a certain percentage of the population that take assistance my choice. You couldn't give them a job even if there was one available.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[TeamsterGrrrl]

And back to our original topic... Those double 33s are oddballs that don't fit intermodal well(s), may as well allow double 40s and be done with it. For the truckload carriers, their 53 footers are obsolete with or without another axle, they need to push for LCVs and teach their steering wheel holders how to hook 'em up.

[Dirtymilkman]

26 minutes ago, TeamsterGrrrl said:

Trucks should pay their own way like other modes do instead of freeloading on taxpayer subsidies. Per BNSF's annual report, they're turning a profit on a revenue of 3 cents a ton mile, less than the costs of providing roads for the trucks. Underpriced road use is just the beginning of Walmart's freeloading, they get around a fifth of all food assistance funding and pay such low wages that many of their employees are forced to rely on subsidies like EIC, etc.. If Walmart had to pay the real cost of the highways they use, every Walmart would have a rail siding!

I don't remember the railroad paying their own way. Across the Nation the railroad was given half of the land. They then could use what they needed and sold the rest. 

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Underdog, you're proposing that we subsidize the employment of a couple million truck drivers via subsidizing their workplace rather than being upfront and just giving them welfare. I look at it differently- Why should we waste the talents of a couple million citizens just steering trucks up and down the highways?