1 and throughout the nation would be required to operate. 2 additional buses and incur higher costs without carrying any additional passengers; and 3 4 5 WHEREAS, Public transit operators in California are currently unable to comply with maximum axle weight 6 limit laws without incurring substantial additional, 7 operating costs and violating state efficiency and farebox 8 recovery standards; and 9 WHEREAS, The protection of passengers, the 10 preservation of highway pavement, and the safeguard of 11 public funds through efficient transit operation are each 12 of important public concern; now, therefore, be it 13 Resolved by the Senate and Assembly of the State of 14 California, jointly, That state and federal standards and 15 policies should encourage the availability and operation 16 of safe and efficient public transportation to meet 17 mobility and air quality goals; and be it further 18 Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of 19 California respectfully requests the Congress of the 20 United States and the United States Department of 21 Transportation to address the disparity between vehicle 22 axle weight limit standards and publie transit efficieney 23 standards the design and safety weight limits for federally 24 funded transit vehicles, and to resolve the weight limit 25 issues for passenger buses so public transit operators can 26 continue to serve the maximum number of passengers, in 27 an economically efficient manner, without jeopardizing 28 passenger safety or the integrity of road and highway 29 systems; and be it further 30 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit 31 copies of this resolution to the President and Vice 32 President of the United States, to the Speaker of the 33 House of Representatives, to each Senator and 34 Representative from California in the Congress of the 35 United States, and to the United States Secretary of 36 Transportation. 98 120 A freeze on the length and weight of motor carrier vehicles is an attempt to stifle progress and will hinder innovative approaches to gaining economies and efficiencies to compete in a global market. Problems, if they indeed exist, should be solved by such techniques as study, ingenuity, accommodation, but not an irrational ban of a contributing societal asset based on emotions or hidden business interests. The benefits accruing to the economy and citizens through the operation of heavier and longer trucks must be weighed against the cost of an item such as pavement damage. There are also sage ways to accommodate competing interests without an absolute ban of one interest particularly in the absence of evidence of which interest is more beneficial to the economy and the citizens. Single trailers exceeding 53 feet in length are operating safely and efficiently in a minimum of 13 states and in many instances have been doing so since the late 1970's. These vehicles are creating the opportunity for shippers to transport light and bulky freight in a more efficient and economical manner. There have not been any safety problems and, in fact, safety has been enhanced as the 57foot semitrailers have allowed freight to move in fewer vehicles causing less highway exposure which is the single most important cause of accidents. Responsible state officials have the ability to make sensible and informed decisions concerning size and weight issues in factual settings where the specifics as to the vehicle performance characteristics, roadway geometry, and traffic characteristics are present. Clearly this is a more sage way to address the issue than doing so in the abstract such as proposed in H.R. 4496. A vote against H.R. 4496 is a vote for progress and recognition that citizens and legislators have the ingenuity and ability to find more sensible solutions. Donald G. Oren June 14, 1994 Written Testimony of Donald G. Oren My name is Donald G. Oren and my business address is 800 Lone Oak Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55121. I am President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Dart Transit Company and Fleetline, Inc., affiliated for-hire motor carriers. On behalf of these two companies, their 350 employees, and the 1900 independent contractors we engage, I request that you vote against H.R. 4496. The proposed legislation has a serious and basic flaw. It is a bill which is designed to stifle progress. After seeing the difficulties our steel industry and our automobile manufacturing industry suffered in the 1950's because of their failure to progress, it is difficult to conceive that there are still advocates of maintaining an economic status quo and even to retreat to what some apparently feel is a maximum feat. With the global competition our country is facing, it is imperative that we become innovators and seek in each and every industry to create efficiencies, economies, and progressive ways to conduct business. Those who cannot or will not approach business with this sage concept in mind and heart do not deserve legislative protection nor should our citizens be deprived of the benefits of progress by such inappropriate legislative action. We, like all responsible citizens, are concerned about the deterioration of transportation facilities such as pavements, bridges, culverts, and shoulders and we do not deny that such deterioration is caused, in part, by truck movements. However, it must and should be recognized that freezing the load weight of trucks is not an innovative solution. Highway engineers should be seeking new ways to rehabilitate existing highways and build new highways which would accommodate heavier vehicles, just as the industry is has studied new configurations of vehicles to resolve the problem.1 Further, the incremental cost of pavement damage must be weighed against the incremental savings and benefits which flow to shippers, receivers, consumers, and the economy from a more progressive truck service. I am sure that many proponents and opponents of H.R. 4496 will address the weight issue in more depth and therefore I should like to focus on the length issue. 1. In the late 1980's, the Transportation Research Board studied a proposal that would increase the number of axles on a vehicle and limit the weight per axle, but result in the carrier being able to increase gross weight and a reduction in highway maintenance costs. See the Turner Study, Project 20-7/27. This proposal represents a progressive way to approach the subject. A little less than twenty years ago, there were a few motor carriers who envisioned using semitrailers 53 feet in length to transport light and bulky freight in an economical and efficient manner and to compete against the rails and their boxcar service. We fought in the Congress to secure a grandfather clause in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) and in numerous state legislatures to secure 53-foot legislation. We were opposed by groups, including CRASH, who claimed the roads would crumble, safety would be compromised, and that the railroads, allegedly a more safe and efficient mode of transportation, would collapse. In 1994, all 48 contiguous states except Rhode Island allow the use of such semitrailers and they are actually becoming, if they are not already, the standard vehicle moving truckload traffic. They have an enviable safety record and shipper and receivers are moving their light and bulky freight efficiently and economically to markets. LaVern Myers, Global Traffic Manager of Sonoco Products Company of Hartsville, South Carolina and a leader in the logistic community, has stated that the introduction of the 53-foot semitrailers was the single most important contribution in improving the efficiencies of truckload surface transportation in the second half of the century. Now our opponents are willing to concede the use of 53-foot semitrailers, apparently because all of the dire predictions did not occur, but contend that the length should be frozen at 53 feet. They would have you overlook the fact that in many states semitrailers up to 59.6 feet in length have been operating since the late 1970's and early 1980's. Fleetline, Inc. currently operates 400 semitrailers 57 feet in length and has done so since the mid-1980's. This equipment can currently be operated in the states of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming. Some other states allow movements by special permit. See Appendix 1. We are now hearing the same arguments about 57-foot semitrailers as were advanced against 53's. They are equally invalid. Here are some basic facts to consider: 1. There is no competent evidence that trailer length or the overall length of a tractor-trailer combination creates a safety problem.2 The three most common factors associated with truck accidents are speed, driver training, and age of the vehicle. 2. Trailer length is not reported on existing accident data available to the general public. In one study, the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute found that in 6,000 fatal accidents, the factors involved were not appreciably different from trailers in excess of 50 feet as they were from 40-45 foot trailers. Kenneth L. Campbell, Oliver Carsten, Robert H. Schultz, "Truck Accident Trends of Michigan 1978-84", Report No. UMTRIA-86-16 Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan Research Institute, March 1986, p. 8. 2. The Federal Highway Administration in "Truck Size and Weight", 49 Fed. Reg. The factor leading to changes in the number of accidents under The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also concluded that tractor trailer The 57-foot semitrailer enhances safety in this respect. One manufacturer of 3. The length of the semitrailer also does not necessarily determine the length of 4. Likewise, the fear some persons or entities engender about passing these 5. The ability of a vehicle to make turns and handle intersections is controlled by a 6. Any issue about undercarriage or overhang exposure is dissipated by the use of 3. Cabover tractors are normally used with such semitrailers to meet overall length limits on some state highways. The federal government has forbidden overall length limits on the Interstate and Designated Highway System as an unnecessary safety consideration. |