STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR HEARINGS ON MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION June 14, 1994 Mr. Chairman, I sincerely commend you for holding these hearings on motor carrier safety, including my bill, H.R. 4496, the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act of 1994. I believe that H.R. 4496 should be an integral part of the National Highway System Designation Act, which passed the House three weeks ago, and hope it will be able to catch up with that bill prior to enactment. I thus appreciate your very timely hearings, to give us a chance to explain the bill's provisions, and the necessity for its enactment. First let me explain what the bill does and, more important, what it does not do, since it has already been the subject of some mischaracterization. The bill is quite simple. On all roads designated part of the new NHS system, it would: Establish a freeze on existing weight standards and truck lengths. This would preserve current state weight standards including those which exceed the Federal limit, and permit those rigs of more than 53 feet in length now on the road to continue to operate; and Restore to DOT authority to review state claims of grandfathered rights to run trucks heavier than the federal Require DOT to define what a "non-divisible load" really is, and prevent the continued use of these special permits as a subterfuge for routinely running heavy trucks on the NHS. These are important amendments to both the preservation of our investment in the NHS, and to highway safety. It is important that we enact them in conjunction with passage of the NHS bill. -- even one does - Heavy trucks do enormous damage to our highways. According to a study by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) a single heavy truck that meets the federal Interstate standard of 80,000 pounds as much damage as 9,600 cars. And, according to the Federal Highway Administration, a 90,000-pound truck causes approximately 2/3 more wear than one that weighs in at 80,000 pounds. Truck crash rate studies consistently show that heavier trucks are more dangerous and cause more deaths than lighter ones. Extra heavy trucks take more time and distance to merge, and to stop, than lighter trucks. The heavier the truck, the greater its chances of rolling over in a crash. Fatal crash rates for heavier tractor-trailers are consistently higher than for lighter trucks in rear-end collisions. AASHTO has called for a national semi-trailer limit of 48 feet in order to be compatible with existing highway design and safety needs. However, all but one state now allow 53-foot rigs, 11 allow 57-foot or longer, and one state allows trailers 60 feet long. The NHS will include county roads and city streets as well as the Interstate. DO WE REALLY WANT THESE RIGS ON OUR STREETS? History teaches that trucks have gotten heavier and heavier over the years. In 1927, the truck weight limits were pegged at 40,000 pounds. That weight rose to 61,500 pounds in 1949; to 73,000 in 1974, and in 1974 the limit on the Interstate was raised to 80,000 pounds. Truck/trailer lengths have also increased. In 1946 the limit was 46 feet; in 1960 it rose to 40 feet; to 45 feet in 1974; to 48 feet in 1984, to 53 feet in 1990. Many truck/trailer combinations are now 53 feet in length, and there are some at 60 feet. To help put this in perspective, the 1946 Buick was slightly under 18 feet. Today's Ford Escort is only about 15 feet long. Overlength trucks cannot turn safely. When they turn, on city streets, either the back end swings out into on-coming traffic, or the cab has to climb the curb to make the turn. We've all seen signs on trucks, on city streets, saying "Caution, wide turns." These signs are serious. But the trucks aren't over 53 feet in length. Imagine a 60-foot or 77-foot trailer making a turn on a city street! Some single-trailer trucks reach this length now. And they could very well end up on city streets. It is certainly in the interest of the Federal government, which is contributing 80% funding to the new National Highway System, to protect the investment of our taxpayers. And it is certainly in the national interest to protect the automobile drivers on this National Highway System. As we stand at the threshold of a new era, as we launch the National Highway System, we must not allow those weight and length limits to continue their historic trend of increases. It does not make sense to condemn the NHS to premature destruction before the first yard of concrete is poured. Nor does it make sense to deny motorists on this System the highest degree of safety. I believe these changes must be made an integral part of the National Highway System program before we start pouring concrete, to keep faith with the American people who must foot the bills for the NHS and any future repairs; and who must share the NHS with big and heavy trucks. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look forward to working with you, and to making H.R. 4496 part of the law. Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Jim. Do you mind waiting to let us hear from our two colleagues who are also here? Mr. OBERSTAR. Certainly. Mr. RAHALL. I understand Representative Traficant will not be appearing with us but instead has submitted his testimony for the record. [Mr. Traficant's prepared statement follows:] STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR. JUNE 14, 1994 Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today on the issue of highway safety. As a member of the subcommittee, I am pleased that the panel is reviewing this important issue. Since coming to the Congress in 1985, I have worked hard to ensure that the federal government is doing everything it can to promote and ensure that our highways are safe. In 1987 and again in 1991, I authored amendments which are now law that provide full federal funding for state and local highway safety construction projects. Prior to 1987, these types of projects were only eligible for 80 percent federal funding. I pushed for the adoption of this measure because highway safety construction projects not only save lives they save taxpayer dollars. Under my full funding amendment, which is now law under section 120(c) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, projects such as the installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier end treatments, and breakaway utility poles are eligible for full federal funding. I would urge the subcommittee to review other possible highway safety construction projects to ensure that all are eligible for full federal funding. You can't put a price tag on saving lives, but you can put a price tag on the enormous damage that occurs in highway accidents. Highway safety construction projects save lives, reduce insurance costs and limit property damage by reducing the number of highway accidents. Again, I would urge the subcommittee to ensure that all highway safety |