Hopes by shippers and maybe even a few trucking firms for changes in the law to allow heavier and or longer trucks on US Federal Highways were dealt fresh blows in the past two weeks by the government and a major trucking industry association.
For a number of years now, there here have been two proposals in the industry to allow bigger trucks. One to permit gross vehicle weight on trucks to rise from the current 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds, with the addition of a sixth axle and additional breaking system.
Supply Chain Digest Says... |
 |
| On the twin 33's, truckload carriers would see little benefit, as they use single trailers, but it would be an advantage to some less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers. |
 |
What do you say? |
| Click here to send us your comments |
 |
| Click here to see reader feedback |
|
|
The longer truck proposal is to allow twin 33-foot trailers, rather than the limit currently of 28.5 feet.
Proponents say both changes would reduce transport costs, improve safety by taking many trucks off the road, help address the driver shortage, and reduce CO2 emissions. Each proposal is supported by a different lobbying groups. The Coalition for Transportation Productivity was created under the leadership of Kraft Foods and other shippers to push for the heavier truck rule.
The group pushing for the longer twin 33-foot trailers is called Coalition for Efficient and Responsible Trucking, supported by both shipping and some carrier interests.
Neither provision made it into the new long term highway bill that was passed in late 2015. The absence of support for the longer twins was especially surprising at the time.
For example, in a recent interview with Supply Chain Digest, American Trucking Associations CEO Bill Graves noted that "I was one who publicly predicted we would get the twin 33's. It was one of those unfortunate situations where at the 11th hour some within our industry felt that there was some competitive concern relative to the adoption of twin 33's. They were successful in arguing that point."
And that speaks directly to the split within the logistics sector on either change. More on that below, but first, a new report from the Federal Motor Carrier Association (FMCSA) mandated by Congress several years ago as part of the previous highway bill has conclude there simply isn't enough data to make a call for support of either heavier or longer vehicles, the same thing it said in a preliminary report last June.
"The Department stresses that no changes in the relevant Federal truck size and weight laws and regulations should be made until these [data and information] limitations are overcome," the FMCSA states in the report, which was issued April 14.
A central issue is that the several states that do allow longer or heavier trucks on state roads usually aren't recording specific information about longer trailers or heavier weight in truck crashes. So there is simply little data that can be analyzed.
(See More Below)
|
CATEGORY SPONSOR: SOFTEON |
|
|
| |
|
|
And now this week, another sign of the schism within the shipping sector itself, which isn't fully behind either change in the face of strong opposition from various consumer safety groups and in some cases rail interests that are fighting against anything that would give a fresh advantage to truckers.
 During its recent convention in Las Vegas, the Truckload Carrier Association (TCA) officially changed its policy stance. It now says it wants to maintain the current the current five-axle, 80,000-pound weight restriction, even though in recent years it, like the larger ATA, had supported the change for heavier trucks. The TCA is also not backing the twin 33's either.
Why? Truckload carriers are worried that allowing the heavier trucks would in the end result in them simply hauling more freight per load for the same basic cost. On the twin 33's, truckload carriers would see little benefit, as they use single trailers, but it would be an advantage to some less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers, perhaps making their costs and service more competitive with truckload.
Fred Smith, legendary CEO of FedEx, which has of course both a large LTL and parcel business, has been among those leading the charge for the longer twins.
There are also concerns within by carriers that the switch to 33-foot trailers would also result in expensive capital investments in new trailers that few carriers can afford.
"While TCA strongly supports a thoughtful, evolutionary pace for the development and deployment of productivity innovations that benefit the entire trucking industry, the revolutionary change of allowing twin 33-foot trailers on federal-aid highways would have only benefited a small minority of the trucking industry, while the nature and pace of such a change would have been detrimental to the trucking industry in general, and to the truckload carrier segment specifically," the TCA web site says.
So, prospects for heavier and/or longer trucks look grim, but especially so for the weight change, rightly or wrongly perceived as the more dangerous of the two in terms of road safety.
"From my perspective, weight is still a pretty tough sell on Capitol Hill. I don't think that you will see weight changes any time soon, and by that I mean in the next 5 to 10 years," Graves told SCDigest.
On the longer trucks, Graves added that "Unless some in our industry change their opinion, as long as we are fighting among ourselves, it makes success on Capitol Hill very difficult."
The Bottom Line: A number of analyses have shown the benefit of heavier and longer trucks not only on truck productivity but safety as well, as trucks are taken off the road. But in the end, carriers will use any arguments they can find to support their own financial interests, and right now, except for a few large carriers such as FedEx and UPS, that appears to mean most truckers will opposed either change. We're frankly doubtful either of these proposals will make it into law for many years, if ever, so it is probably simply time to move on.
Do you agree the chances for heavier and/or longer trucks is pretty much dead for now? Are carriers smart or stupid to oppose the changes? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback section below.
Your Comments/Feedback
|
