STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. ANKNER, Ph.D.
DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this
statement on an issue that has very serious implications for the quality of our
highway infrastructure, and which I understand has already been discussed in
previous hearings before this Committee.
I speak of the issue of truck size and weight and of the
disproportionate amount of pavement and bridge damage caused by heavy trucks –
and more specifically, of the huge increases in infrastructure damage we would
experience if current truck size and weight limits are relaxed, as some are
advocating.
Since 1996 I have had the honor of serving as
Director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. I am also a past president of the Northeast
Association of State Transportation Officials, a past member of the Executive
Committee of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), and a member of the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Executive Committee.
I understand the compelling pressures at issue
in the debate over truck sizes and weights, with some arguing forcefully that
rapidly growing demand for freight transport necessitates legislation to permit
the operation of longer and heavier trucks on our Interstate Highways.
While I appreciate the economic arguments for
larger and heavier trucks, I could not disagree more strongly with the
conclusion. While the advocates of
lifting the current restrictions can cite studies, including a recent TRB
report, which appear to support their arguments in favor of increased truck sizes
and weights, other more authoritative studies and reports – and my own long
experience – convince me that if anything, Congress should strengthen the
existing limits.
The trucking industry has been masterful in
shaping this issue. The incremental increases have been just enough for them to
argue that their impact on safety and the infrastructure is similar to current
conditions. The problem is that the
total culmination of the increases poses a serious threat to safety and the
infrastructure, particularly the aging and design-deficient infrastructure in
the Northeast and Middle Atlantic states.
Congress needs to examine this issue not solely on the basis of what
these impacts are compared to current conditions, but where we have come from
and where we want to go. In my
judgement, the size and weight where we have come from has exceeded the
structural and operational capacity of the highway system in Rhode Island. Similarly, I believe that longer and heavier
trucks should not be our future in the Northeast.
There are three central reasons for maintaining
or strengthening current federal limits on truck size and weight: bigger trucks
would cause massive increases in infrastructure damage, particularly to
bridges; they do not fully pay for the damage they cause; and they would make
our highways more dangerous both for motorists and for truck drivers.
Heavy trucks are already responsible for a
disproportionate amount of pavement damage: at the current federal limit of
80,000-pounds, a five-axle truck does as much damage as 9,600 cars. Adding weight to the same truck will sharply
increase pavement damage: at 100,000 pounds the truck will do as much damage as
27,000 cars. (Calculations are based on
AASHTO’s Road Test.) Bigger trucks will
also cause a massive increase in bridge costs.
According to the 2000 US Department of Transportation Comprehensive
Truck Size and Weight Study (US DOT Study), national operations of longer
combination vehicles – long double and triple trailer trucks – would cost the
country $319 billion ($53 billion in capital costs and $266 billion in user
delay costs). (US DOT Study, August
2000, Vol. III, p. VI-12.)
Even without building new highways, the US will
need to spend $1.132 trillion per year simply to maintain the condition of the
current bridge and highway system. (US
DOT, 1999 Status Report on the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit, Exhibit
7-1, p. 7-5.) The infrastructure damage
and new costs that would result from a weakening of current truck size and
weight limits would add considerably to this already staggering figure.
In Rhode Island, 60% of our bridges are already
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. For FY 2003, we are faced with $110 million of bridge and highway
restoration that we are unable to undertake. Most of my counterparts in other
states are also suffering from a lack of funding to cover necessary road and
bridge repairs.
Moreover, bigger trucks substantially underpay their share of highway costs,
according to the Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study. For example, a five-axle truck registered at
80,000 pounds pays only 80% of its highway costs. Long double trailer trucks and triples pay 70%. Heavier trucks pay even less of their
costs. For example, one 100,000-pound
five-axle truck pays 40% of its costs.
(2000 Addendum to the Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, unpublished
Table 3.)
In addition to these issues of infrastructure
damage and cost underpayment, bigger trucks will be less safe.
In the Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight
Study, USDOT compared the safety of multi-trailer trucks to single trailer
trucks. It found that multi-trailer
trucks “could be expected to experience an 11 percent higher overall fatal
crash rate than single-trailer combinations.” (p. VIII-5.)
Heavier single trailer trucks will also be more dangerous. According to the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute, there is a strong statistical link between
higher weights and a greater risk of fatalities. (US DOT Study, Phase 1,
Working Paper 1 & 2, 1995, p. 37.)
One reason is that heavier singles will tend to have a higher center of
gravity, making them more likely to roll over.
(US DOT Study, p. VIII-8.)
For all of these reasons, I believe it is
imperative that Congress retain jurisdiction over truck size and weight on the
Federal System. Proponents of bigger
trucks have asked for a “state option” plan whereby the states would be able to
set their own truck size and weight limits on the most important part of the
Federal system: the Interstate Highways.
But any law regarding the national transportation system should have
national oversight.
This
state option ploy by the industry has been tried before. The trucking industry is only interested in
a “state option” so that it can then come back and show how harmful states that
have not increased size and weight are to the economy and interstate commerce,
and unfair to the trucking industry that has invested 100’s of millions of
dollars in new equipment that they cannot optimally use. The industry will then call upon Congress to
use the Interstate Commerce Clause to correct the inequities and allow the
bigger trucks. They did with doubles.
They are trying to do it again.
Congress
should reject any proposals to increase truck size and weight. But Congress should also take it one step
further. There are loopholes in the
current law that allow trucks to get longer and heavier, and weights on the National
Highway System (NHS) are being ratcheted up.
The Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, H.R. 3132, which
has been introduced in the House of Representatives, would put a stop to these
backdoor increases. The bill would
freeze truck size and weight limits on the National Highway System and close
loopholes in the law that allow longer and heavier trucks. The Senate should consider a similar
measure.
In
Rhode Island as elsewhere in the nation, highway users have grown all too
accustomed to the delays and hazards that have become commonplace on our aging
highway system. As the Committee
prepares to reauthorize the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century and to reinvest in maintaining and improving the highway
infrastructure, I hope you will also maintain or strengthen the current, common
sense limitations on truck size and weight.