Monster trucks for Virginia’s roads? Some lawmakers want to study them; opponents see them as menace.

[kscarbel2]

The Washington Post  /  February 1, 2018

Monster trucks could come to Virginia’s highways if some lawmakers get their way. 

These are not the fun kind of monster trucks that intentionally crush cars, motor homes and other vehicles for the entertainment of fans who crowd into arenas to see them. These would be 18-wheeler trucks rolling down ordinary highways with loads of 91,000 pounds and perhaps more. 

Supporters say the super trucks are important to keep commerce flowing, particularly for enterprises such as the Port of Virginia. They also argue that the heavier trucks would pose no additional threat to highway safety or infrastructure than existing 18-wheelers. Those advocates say they would just like to give Virginia flexibility to test the use and effect of super trucks, regardless of the federal government’s stance.

 “If the feds are going to study it . . . I want to have a seat at that table,” said Del. T. Scott Garrett (R-Lynchburg), who sponsored legislation that would permit the commonwealth to take part in any federal pilot program allowing heavier trucks. “If the feds aren’t going to study it, then the Virginia Department of Transportation ought to study it.” 

Opponents argue, however, that the heavier trucks will inflict more damage to roads and bridges whose maintenance in the state and nationwide has already been neglected. They also say the trucks are more dangerous to surrounding traffic.  

“The laws of physics do not change,” said Shane Reese, a spokesman for the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT).  “Heavier trucks at higher speeds means increased crash severity.”  

CABT and other opponents — several of which are funded by rail interests — argue that opening the nation’s roads to heavier trucks would also mean diverting freight from the nation’s railroads at the expense of taxpayers and the environment. These are factors that Congress took into consideration when it decided against raising the weight limits in November 2015. The trucking industry, they say, has turned to state legislatures to try to get what they couldn’t get in Washington.

There aren’t even any pilot programs or plans for pilot programs at the federal level at the moment. Backers are hoping that by passing state legislation, they could create momentum for action.

“This is an issue that never really goes away,” said Betsy Cantwell, a spokeswoman for GoRail, a nonprofit organization that works on behalf of rail contractors and suppliers. 

Some super-heavy trucks hauling containerized cargo or milk already operate with permits that exempt them from the 80,000-pound maximum weight limit, Garrett said in an interview this week.  

Garrett also said he believes the giant rigs could actually be safer, because they often have additional axles with brakes. He also said that heavier loads per truck inflict less overall damage to highways and bridges because more tonnage would be running on fewer trucks. The point of his bill would be to give Virginia a free hand to test and study the effect of running heavier trucks on the state’s highways.   

An April 2016 report by the U.S. Department of Transportation warned against drawing any conclusions one way or another on the wisdom of permitting heavier trucks on the nation’s roads, given the limited data available and the complexity and number of variables, such as pavement and bridge type.  

But opponents of bigger trucks say some of the study’s findings were cause for concern. In analyzing data from one state where such data were available, the DOT found crash rates were 47 percent higher for trucks weighing 91,000 pounds. It also found higher rates of violations cited for faulty brakes on trucks weighing 91,000 pounds or more.  

Reese said turning heavier trucks in a state where one of its main arteries — Interstate 81 — is already notorious because of its heavy and arguably dangerous levels of truck traffic would be a mistake.  

“It is a treacherous stretch for a motorist,” Reese said.       

The bills — S.B. 1276 sponsored by Garrett and a companion measure sponsored by Sen. Charles W. Carrico Sr. (R-Grayson) — are both in committee.  

[kscarbel2]

Pure ignorance.

[carlotpilot]

5.25 tons heavier than present gross weight makes these monster trucks ??????        b.s. hardly noticeable

[HeavyGunner]

And yet any novice can go buy a new pickup and hook up a forty foot camper or buy a 45' motorhome and there's no perceived danger. Stupid lawmakers who haven't a clue what they are talking about. 

[HeavyGunner]

It really irks me the way media and politicians twist stuff. Instead of stating the facts, trucks will be permitted to carry 5 more tons they twist it to get the response they want. Monster trucks will be causing grave danger to all motorist, you should be scared to death to share the road with them. Time for the media and politicians to simply report accurately instead of spin stories. 

[hatcity]

2 minutes ago, HeavyGunner said:

It really irks me the way media and politicians twist stuff. Instead of stating the facts, trucks will be permitted to carry 5 more tons they twist it to get the response they want. Monster trucks will be causing grave danger to all motorist, you should be scared to death to share the road with them. Time for the media and politicians to simply report accurately instead of spin stories. 

it doesn't agree with their agenda (or rail donations)

[kscarbel2]

Virginia could allow trucks up to 11K pounds heavier than it does now if these bills pass

Katherine Hafner, The Virginian-Pilot  /  February 6, 2018

Trucks traveling Virginia’s roads could get about 10,000 pounds heavier if legislation gets the OK from the General Assembly.

Virginia would be able to take part in a potential federal pilot program that allows for six-axle, 91,000-pound trucks. That’s up from the current weight limit of 80,000 pounds in the commonwealth, though exceptions in many industries like logging have allowed for more.

HB1276 and companion bill SB504 have pitted community organizations, the railroad industry and some truckers against companies that want to load more products into each truck they send out.

“This is incredibly alarming for Virginia motorists,” said Shane Reese with the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, which is based in Alexandria. “These heavier trucks endanger motorists on the highway, damage Virginia’s infrastructure and cost taxpayers money.”

The federal pilot program the bills reference does not yet exist. So far, attempts to create such a program have failed in Congress.

But if the federal government started one, the bills’ proponents argue, Virginia should be able to to vie to participate for up to 15 years.

“We are not here asking you to endorse heavier truck policy today,” an Anheuser Busch representative said at a recent Senate Transportation Committee meeting. “We have nothing to fear from a data-driven process that would evaluate pros and cons.”

The brewing company, along with other corporate entities including WestRock and the Agribusiness Council that represents Smithfield Foods, told lawmakers last week that raising weight limits on trucks would allow them to be more competitive in their industries. And, they add, more products in each truck would lead to fewer vehicles total.

“Common sense would suggest that if we’re efficiently loading our trucks, there are going to be fewer trucks on the road, enhancing public safety,” said the Anheuser Busch spokesman.

Reese strongly disagreed.

“Heavier trucks do not mean fewer. It means more trucks on the highway,” he said. “There’s a handful of special interests pushing this, but the vast majority of the motoring public and taxpayers will end up holding the bags.”

Dale Bennett, president of the Virginia Trucking Association, said the organization’s membership is split 50-50 on the matter, but the main concern is “pure economics.”

“This would require retrofitting of existing trailers or new trailers,” he told Senate committee members. “The experiment’s going to be conducted at our cost without any benefit.”

The House bill’s patron, Del. T. Scott Garrett, R-Lynchburg, said he would like the Virginia Department of Transportation to study the issue, but the department’s policy division administrator, Jo Anne Perry Maxwell, said it would be “very difficult to study a federal pilot we don’t know the parameters for.”

Those for and against the legislation have both cited a 2016 U.S. Department of Transportation report that looked into the issue.

Advocates point to a statistic that the 91,000-pound trucks reduce pavement costs. Objectors highlight a 47 percent increase in crash rates that the federal Transportation Department found during limited testing in Washington state.

Ultimately, the report concluded officials needed more data “to fully understand the impacts of heavier and larger trucks on the transportation system” and advised against making policy changes until those data are collected.

Many in the railroad industry also fear such a change could take away from their own lines of transportation.

Tim Bentley, a government relations specialist for Norfolk Southern Corp., said at the Senate committee meeting that Virginia should not be a “guinea pig” to test whether heavier trucks are beneficial.

He pointed to Norfolk’s Hampton and Terminal boulevards as examples of non-interstate roads that would be affected by more weight.

“That’s ultimately where these heavy trucks would have to go.”

[BillyT]

KSB, they're at it again! The political implications are numerous! There are a couple major breweries in Va,would get their local/regional freight moved more cheaply! How about trailer manufacturers and retrofitters I can picture a third axle "kit" to bolt on some existing trailers. But the additional weight would limit interstate payloads originating in Va! I'd love to see who lobbied for this!

[kscarbel2]

7 hours ago, BillyT said:

KSB, they're at it again! The political implications are numerous! There are a couple major breweries in Va,would get their local/regional freight moved more cheaply! How about trailer manufacturers and retrofitters I can picture a third axle "kit" to bolt on some existing trailers. But the additional weight would limit interstate payloads originating in Va! I'd love to see who lobbied for this!

Micro-breweries aside, the one major brewery in Virginia is Anheuser-Busch, located outside Colonial Williamsburg.

Carrying 97,000 pounds with 3-axle tractors equipped with "road friendly" air rear suspensions and 3-axle trailers is a global norm. The US needs to wake up and move forward.

[41chevy]

Still in effect as far as I know with no major issues, but not 100% sure.

Since 2010 Maine and Vermont truck pilot programs, which replaced Federal commercial-vehicle weight regulations with State limits on Interstate highways in those States. Public Law 111-117 also exempts Maine and Vermont from following Federal Bridge Formula B requirements mandated by Section 127 of Title 23, United States Code.

The DOT organized a team comprised of several Federal and State agencies to assess the impacts of heavier truck weights on Interstate bridges and pavements in Maine and Vermont. The team includes representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT), Maine State Police, the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), and Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (Vermont DMV). The team specifically examined the following highways: Vermont I-89, I-91, and I-93; Maine I-95 from the Maine-New Hampshire border; Maine I-295 beginning at the turnpike south of Portsmouth and paralleling the turnpike until I-295 reconnects with the turnpike south of Augusta; Maine I-95 from the intersection of I-295 and the Maine Turnpike to the Canadian border near Houlton.

As allowed by the statute, Maine and Vermont have chosen to apply their State commercial-vehicle weight laws to the Interstate System. Maine now allows tractors with semitrailers up to 100,000 pounds gross vehicle weight on six axles and tandem axle weights up to a maximum of 46,000 pounds for many commodities on the non-tolled Interstate highways. Tolled Interstate highways and a portion of free Interstate between the southerly terminus of the Maine Turnpike and the New Hampshire border were already exempt. Maine did not choose to allow other non-federally compliant State truck weights onto the Interstate System. Vermont allows all trucks legal on its State highway system onto its Interstate highways, including those that weigh up to a maximum gross vehicle weight of 99,000 pounds on six axles, and trucks with tandem axles that weigh up to a maximum of 36,000 pounds plus a 10 percent additional weight allowance, which allows a total of 39,600 pounds.

Edited February 10, 2018 by 41chevy