Rail Fights Truck Weight Increases

By: Neil Ward

“What we heard is that Americans simply don’t want bigger, heavier trucks because they’re worried about the safety of these vehicles on the road. Taxpayers also don’t want to be left holding the bag when it comes time to pay for road damage,” is the soundbite the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, a railroad-supported pressure group, sent out to introduce results of a survey it claims shows that 72% of registered voters oppose an increase in truck weights to 97,000 pounds—although CABT has declined to release details of this survey; in addition, according to the May 2 Transport Topics, CABT’s polling organization Hart Reseach Associates “also declined to discuss details or its methodology.” The Coalition for Transportation Productivity likewise points out that CABT had been compelled to retract a previous statement it had made about truck weight impacts which it attributed to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology following revelations that no one at MIT was involved with developing such a finding.

The American Trucking Associations have also weighed in on CABT’s campaign ethics: “In recent months, this railroad front group has misapplied state research, misrepresented the findings of an alleged academic, and misled the public about the benefits of increasing truck productivity,” stated ATA President Bill Graves. Referring to CABT’s tactic of staging press conferences featuring truck-crash victims, he observed, “It is unfortunate that the rail industry has co-opted grieving families and otherwise legitimate organizations into their campaign to stifle competition from the trucking industry.”

Out of motives not quite as transparent, the American Automobile Association has begun placing op-eds in regional newspapers, attributing similar ugly outcomes on the score of danger and road damage to the Safe and Efficient Transportation Act’s 97,000-pound / 6-axle reform. AAA’s New York chapter’s legislative committee chairman, John Corlett, published a commentary in the [Albany, New York] Times Union on May 5 entitled “Future of trucking industry is frightening,” opening with “Today’s behemoth tractor-trailer trucks will soon give way to even bigger, heavier and deadlier monsters if bottom-line-driven corporations and large trucking companies have their way” and so on. On May 12, Kendra Adams of the New York State Motor Truck Association published a well-documented response and debunking, pointing up the reality of trends in truck-related accidents, the actual terms of the SETA proposal, and the facts about “structurally deficient bridges” in New York state, while placing truck-derived highway revenues in context. This excellent response—highly recommended—is archived at www.timesunion.com/default/article/Heavier-trucks-still-can-be-safe-truc....

It’s worth noting that on May 23, Transport Topics published a letter from a South Carolina motorist wishing to thank a “fast-thinking” driver of a Georgia log truck whose “attention to the traffic pattern and considerate (or well-taught) driving” he believes saved at least one life in the course of a May 9 close call—and, lacking the name or any identification of this log trucker—decided that the industry press was the place to offer thanks and acknowledgment. It would be nice to see AAA taking similar pains in speaking for the record.