maximum flexibility to achieve results in the most cost effective manner, and, 2) concentrate truck safety initiatives on those areas which are most likely to achieve real gains in safety performance. Congress and the federal agencies should refrain from actions that are not performance-based, and cannot be justified on the basis that they will reduce accidents. TESTIMONY OF JOAN CLAYBROOK, CO-CHAIR CITIZENS FOR RELIABLE AND SAFE HIGHWAYS (CRASH) BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D.C. JUNE 14, 1994. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am testifying today as President of Public Citizen and Co-Chair of Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH). CRASH is a nonprofit citizens organization dedicated to highway safety. CRASH has over 30,000 activists nationwide. Our 17-member Board of Directors includes Robert Vagley, President of the American Insurance Association; John S. Hassell, former Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; and James Arena, Chair of the National Association of Governor's Highway Safety Representatives. Since its formation in 1990, CRASH has actively promoted a wide range of highway safety initiatives. Those initiatives related to issues such as truck driver fatigue, truck maintenance standards, the adequacy of truck underride guards, the freeze on Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVS) and ensuring that U.S. truck safety standards are not lowered as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Today we are here to testify in support of H.R. 4496, "The Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act of 1994," introduced by Representative James Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar's bill will save lives and reduce injuries and property damage by stopping the otherwise never-ending ratcheting upward of truck sizes and weights. Moreover, without the Oberstar bill, Congress will spend billions of taxpayer dollars to upgrade National Highway System ("NHS") highways and bridges and then allow heavy trucks to destroy that system. Federal Highway Administrator Rodney Slater is as concerned about this as we are. As he recently noted: "The heavier the trucks, the more damage to our already deteriorated road system." Specifically, H.R. 4496 will: 1. Cap trailer lengths. Will freeze the length of trailers used on the NHS at 53 feet. Existing trailers longer than 53 feet legally in use may continue to operate on the NHS in those states where they are already authorized. All trucks in excess of 80,000 pounds (and trucks in excess Mr. Oberstar's bill will return the authority to the U.S. Department of Transportation to review state claims of grandfather rights. Others supporting a length and weight cap include the American Automobile Association which represents 35 million American motorists, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association which represents the nation's independent truck drivers, the Consumer Federation of America, the American Public Health Association, West Virginia United Mine Workers, the Sierra Club and the 38 other organizations set forth in the list attached to my testimony. Many of these organizations had hoped to be here personally to testify today as well. But in recognition of the Committee's time constraints, some will submit statements for the record. They want the Committee to realize that while this may not be an "inside the beltway" issue, it is an enormously important to citizens all over the country. Last month this Committee reported a bill the NHS on which billions of dollars will be spent. We believe the Committee should follow that action with steps to protect the safety of the motoring public using these highways and the investment of its tax dollars. Mr. Chairman, there are four reasons why we think Congress should freeze truck weights and length. First, over the past 50 years there has been a dangerous pattern of ever increasing truck lengths and weights. A part of the trucking industry has, over the years, successfully exploited the ambiguities in federal weight laws. It has applied pressure on the states to obtain approval for heavier and longer trucks on state highways that are not permitted on federal Interstates. And that part of the trucking industry is never satisfied. virtually every instance in which it has succeeded in obtaining higher length limits, it has followed with pressure to raise the weight limits to accommodate the added trailer capacity. Likewise, the weight increases are invariably followed by demands for greater length to accommodate the additional weight. In Second, heavy trucks cause huge amounts of pavement and bridge damage today. We already have an existing backlog of highway and bridge deficiencies estimated at $212 billion. Without the Oberstar bill, Congress will spend billions of taxpayer dollars to upgrade NHS highways and then allow heavier trucks to destroy that system. Third, studies conclusively show that the heavier the gross weight of a truck, the greater the likelihood of a crash. Fourth, longer trucks are more dangerous trucks. TRUCKS CONTINUOUSLY GET LONGER AND HEAVIER Over the past 50 years, there has been a dangerous pattern of ever-increasing truck weights and lengths. The chart below shows the continuous growth in the length of trucks.' 11990: All but a handful of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states had approved 53 foot trailers by 1990. In 1994, all states except Rhode Island allow 53 foot trailers. 1994: As of June, 1993, 11 states allowed trailers 57 feet or longer. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas allow trailers that are 59.6 feet long. Wyoming allows trailers 60 feet long. In 1987 the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO) adopted a policy calling for a national semitrailer length of no more than 48 feet in order to be compatible with existing highway design and safety needs. "Guide for Maximum Dimensions and Weights of Motor Vehicles and for the Operation of Nondivisible Load Oversize and Overweight Vehicles," AASHTO, April, 1987. |