An Update on the Truck Weight Reform Effort

Print this Article | Send to Colleague

CTP’s Truck Weight Language Stricken from Highway Bill
Our two-and-a-half year effort to modernize gross vehicle weight limits was dealt a setback on February 2 when the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee eliminated provisions in the Highway Bill that would have empowered states to allow the use of six-axle, single trailer trucks weighing up to 97,000 pounds on appropriate stretches of interstate highway.

To be sure, getting the heart of the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act (SETA) included in the Highway Bill was a major accomplishment and one for which the Coalition for Transportation Productivity, AgHaul, and all our major supporters can be justifiably proud. Together, we took an issue that has been stuck in neutral for more than 20 years and we put it on the national agenda.

While the effort to conclude action on a Highway Bill will likely drag on for some time, it now appears that, for this Congress at least, the only result of the debate on truck weights this year will be further study and more delay. If work on the Highway Bill is not concluded this year (an outcome many see as increasingly likely), then our effort will start anew in January.

Opponents of increased U.S. trucking productivity may have won the short term battle, but the growing pressure caused by transportation capacity constraints will only intensify in the years ahead. As a nation, we simply must find ways to ship goods more efficiently or we risk continued erosion of markets to international competitors whose governments have figured out better ways to utilize existing transportation networks.

As we consider our next steps, it is important to understand how our opposition achieved this short-term victory. Railroad interests mounted an unprecedented grassroots lobbying campaign through third party groups that mischaracterized SETA as unsafe and essentially charged the shipping and carrier community with a willingness to jeopardize public safety in search of higher profits. The railroads flew dozens of grassroots volunteers to Washington, D.C. in the days before the markup, ran paid advertising in key district media markets and in Washington, D.C. and simply overwhelmed offices with emails, letters and phone calls that created a sense of concern on the part of our base of support. It was a highly effective effort and impossible to overcome with limited resources.

This outcome cannot be the last word on this issue. We must reorganize, refocus and put together an even broader-based campaign that overwhelms policy makers with facts and neutralizes our opponents. We know exactly what we need to do: Improve our direct outreach to local law enforcement officials; develop a stronger base of support among state transportation officials; and, finally, do a more effective job harnessing the grassroots power of U.S. shippers and carriers who are committed to improved transportation productivity.

For perspective, we need to recognize that while the railroads are indeed a powerful lobbying force, the 360 U.S. railroads had a combined annual revenue of $55 billion in 2008. This compares with more than $125 billion in revenue from the U.S. trucking industry and more than $5 trillion in annual revenue from the top 500 U.S. manufacturers in 2011. If shippers and carriers will commit the resources necessary to improve trucking industry productivity, we will prevail.

In the meantime, we continue to explore options for improving the study language and tightening up the study’s parameters and time limit. The House is expected to debate the Highway Bill this week and the Senate debate will continue for at least a week, possibly longer. A House-Senate conference could drag on for months.

AAR-ATA Truce – the Back Story
Many of you heard about a signed agreement between the American Association of Railroads and the American Trucking Associations where both organizations pledged not to support amendments on the House floor that altered the Highway Bill regarding truck size and weight provisions. This agreement was concluded at the behest of the House leadership who wished to avoid a floor fight on this issue, following the outcome of the vote on the truck productivity amendments in the Transportation Committee.

CTP had already concluded that given the loss we suffered in Committee and the unprecedented grassroots effort of the railroads, we were unlikely to prevail on the House floor at this time. We, therefore, had no plans to move forward with a floor amendment. The AAR-ATA truce simply reflected this reality and didn’t affect the fundamental dynamics at work.

Back to the Drawing Boards
As we work to clean up the study language, we have already begun planning for the next round of our campaign to reform the nation’s truck weight limits. CTP accomplished a great deal in a short period of time and that could not have occurred without the outpouring of support and assistance we received from hundreds of organizations. We encourage you to stay engaged on this issue. The CTP leadership will schedule a planning meeting at the conclusion of the Highway Bill deliberations and will be in touch with you soon about next steps. We are in this fight to win it and we hope we can count on your continued support.

Article provided by California for Transportation Productivity

Back to In the View Homepage