Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am testifying today as I*resident of I*ublic 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 Adminis-
trator of the Federal Highway Administration; and James Arena, Chair of the Na-
tional Association of Governor's Highway Safety Representatives.
Since its formation in 1990, CRASH has actively promoted a wide range of high-
way safety initiatives. Those initiatives related to issues such as truck driver fa-
tigue, truck maintenance standards, the adequacy of truck underride guards, the
freeze on Ijonger 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 IVeservation Act of 1994," introduced by Representative James Ober-
star. 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 dol-
lars 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. Kxisting trailers longer than 53 feet legally in use may continue to operate on
the NHS in tnose states where they are already authorized.
2. Freeze current weight limits. All trucks in excess of 80,000 pounds (and trucks
in excess of axle weight and bridge formula limits) can continue to operate on the
NHS, but only on those highways and under the same conditions as now allowed.
This provision would not require any trucking company or shipper to change any
currently legal operations. It is not a roll-back. However, no new overweight rights
could be claimed on the NHS.
3. Repeal the Symms Amendment. Mr. Oberstar's bill will return the authority to
the U.S. Department of Transportation to review state claims of grandfather rignts.
Others supporting a length and weight cap include the American Automobile As-
sociation which represents 35 million American motorists, the Owner Operator Inde-
pendent Drivers Association which represents the nation's independent truck driv-
ers, the Consumer Federation of America, the American I\iblic 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 testily today as well. But in recognition of the (^om-
46
mittee'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 iniportant 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 pro-
tect 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
wei^ts and length.
First, over the past 50 years there has been a dangerous pattern of ever increas-
ing 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 pres-
sure on the states to obtain approval for heavier and longer trucks on state high-
ways that are not permitted on federal Interstates. And that part of the trucking
inoustry is never satisfied. In virtually every instance in which it has succeeded in
obtaining higher length limits, it has followed with pressure to raise the weight lim-
its to accommodate the added trailer capacity. Likewise, the weight increases are
invariably followed by demands for greater length to accommodate the additional
weight.
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 sys-
tem.
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.^
Similarly, trucks have become progressively heavier.^
In sharp contrast, automobiles have been getting smaller and lighter since the
1970's.
Mr. Chairman, there is an immediate need to draw the line on further truck
length and weight increases.
^ 1990: 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 de-
sign 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.
2 Source for all years before 1994: Transpwrtation Research Board, Twin Trailer Trucks, Spe-
cial Report 211, p. 30. Source for 1994: Although there is now an 80,000 federal cap, because
of the grandfather clause, many states issue special permits to exceed 80,000 pounds. The Fed- •
eral Highway Administration does not know the number of special permits nor the number of
overweight trip)s run under such permits. A Report to Congress from the Secretary of Transpor-
tation "Overweight Vehicles — Penalties & Permits, US Department of Transportation, April,
1993, p. iv. The maximum truck weight carried pursuant to special permits in Wyoming is
117,000 pounds. Summary of Size and Weight Limits, American Trucking Associations, 1993.
47
1— 10*— ^ 25'
1946
I960
1974
1984
1990
1994
TRUCK
TRAILER
LENGTHS
48
TRUCK WEIGHTS
o
o
Q.
12 0,000
100.000
â– 0.000
•0.000
Tf7.aQ0
40,000
20.000
927 1»*fl I*** 1974 1994
49
:OMPARISrNOF
TRUCK— AUTO LENGTHS
1M6 TRACTOR WITH 25^ TRAILER
1946 BUICK LENGTH m 17 J5 FT.
|-ir-
-so*
1994 TRACTOR WTTW 60' TRAILER
^9^' .^'. .^-.-^ LJL?*^ ; M 3 •;i.:3 FT.
50
FATAL CRASH RATES FOF LOADED
TRACTOR SEMi-TRAILERS
FATAL CRASH
MVOCVEMENT
RATE
M-iOK
10 -MK
«-aoK
OMOSS TWWCK WDCm CATIOORIES
M TMOUSAAl J3 OF POUNDS
HEAVIER TRUCKS ARE MORE DANGEROUS TRUCKS
Truck crash rate studies conclusively show that heavier trucks are more dan-
gerous trucks. The graph below depicts the sharp increase in fatal truck crash rates
as trucks get heavier.^
This graph is based on a study of fatal truck crash involvement rates performed
by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) in 1988.
The UMTRI study shows that if an 80,000 pound truck is operating on the same
highways and under the same conditions as a 65,000 pound truck, the heavier truck
is 47 percent more likely than the lighter truck to be involved in a crash because
of the additional weight.
The American Trucking Association (ATA) would have you believe that the gross
weight of a truck bears no relationship to the likelihood of a crash. In fact, they
would have you believe that the heaviest trucks are the very safest.
In support of this, the ATA cites UMTRI data showing lower crash rates for the
heaviest trucks."* The ATA would hope that your analysis would end at that point.
However, UMTRI concluded that stopping at that point — and not taking into ac-
count the types of roads on which heavy and light trucks travel — misrepresents the
influence of gross weight in causing fatal truck crashes.
UMTRI concluded that in order to provide a comparison of fatal crash involve-
ment rates of trucks with differing gross vehicle weights, one must control for the
influence the different highways travel led and the time of day during which the
travel takes place.
^K.L. Campbell et al., "Analysis of Accident Rates of Heavy- Duty Vehicles", University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Report No. LJMTRI-88-17, Ann Arbor, April, 1988,
p. 65.
"• March 25,1994 letter from Western Highway Institute to the Honorable Nick Joe Rahall, p.
3. The Western Highway Institute was acquired by the American Trucking Associations in Octo-
ber, 1993.
51
Heavier trucks — typically used in long haul over the road operations — travel much
more on the safer limited access, divided highways, and on the safer rural highways
and at night when there is less congestion on the highway. Lightly loaded trucks —
such as used in pickup and delivery service — travel more often on the more dan-
gerous urban roads, on the more dangerous two way, two lane roads and during the
more congested daylight time periods.
UMTRI stated that it is "essential" to control for these factors.^ When UMTRI
controlled for these factors, it found (as shown in the graph on a previous page of
this testimony that the heaviest trucks were significantly overinvolved in crashes.
There a number of factors which make heavier trucks more dangerous. These are
explained in detail in the CRASH white paper I have attached to my testimony. Let
me briefly summarize those reasons now.
First of all, heavier truck weights substantially increase the truck rollover
rate.® Researchers at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research In-
stitute have concluded that the 1974 federal law which increased the maximum
truck weight from 73,280 pounds to 80,000 pounds resulted in a 44 percent in-
crease in the rollover rate of fully loaded trucks.'' Mr. Chairman, I think this
is particularly significant. An increase of less than 7,000 pounds increased the
rollover rate by 44 percent. More recent research shows that increasing gross
weight from 80,000 to 88,000 pounds will again increase the rate of rollovers.
Second, heavier trucks are also more likely to be involved in "runaway" crash-
es® caused by brake failures on steep downhill grades. Interviews with truck
drivers with mountain driving experience show, that one out of every four driv-
ers has lost his brakes at least once during his driving career.^
Third: More weight means that for many trucks it will take longer for the
truck to come to a stop after the brakes are applied.*" The rates of fatal crashes
in which tractor-semitrailers crashed into the rear ends of other vehicles are
consistently higher for more heavily loaded trucks than for more lightly loaded
trucks.**
Fourth: Trucks designed to carry heavier loads have more jackknife crashes
when travelling empty than do trucks designed for lighter loads. *2
Fifth: Heavier trucks are incompatible with other traffic. Heavier trucks trav-
el more slowly on upgrades. These slower speeds are dangerous. Among other
hazards that are created, these slow upgrade speeds on two-lane, two-way high-
ways cause a much higher percentage of illegal passing maneuvers by trailing
passenger cars.*^ One study showed that trucks which travel 15 mph below the
^Campbell et al., supra note 3, p. 67: "To carry out the analysis, it is essential to have both
accident data and travel data that can be cross-classified by the factors of interest, esf)ecially
those categorizing the type of travel. It is not sufTicient to simply know the total miles travelled.
One must also be able to classify the travel by factors related to the accident risk, such as the
type of road and the time of day."
*R.D. Ervin et al., "Influence of Size and Weight Variables on the Stabihty and Control Pro{>-
erties of Heavy Trucks," Final Report, Vol. I, University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, March, 1983, pp. 82-84.
'R.D. Ervin et al., supra note 6, p. 84.
*P.S. Fancher et al., "Retarders for Heavy Vehicles: Evaluation of Performance Characteris-
tics and In-service Costs," Phase I, Technical Report, Highway Safety Research Institute, The
University of Michigan, February, 1981, pp. 90-91.
®P.S. Fancher et al., supra note 8, p. 75.
lOR.D. Ervin et al., supra note 6, at pp. 55-56, determined that for out of adjustment brakes,
the increase in stopping distance is directly proportional to increases in weight. Federal High-
way Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, Accomplishments and Effectiveness, Annual 1992
Report, Attachment 111, p. 7 repiorts that more than 50 percent of all out of service violations
result from out of adjustment brakes. About 30 percent of all truck inspections result in out
of service orders. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, Gearing Up
for Safety, Summary, 100th Congress, p. 5.
11 P.S. Fancher et al., 'Turner Truck Handhng and Stability Properties Affecting Safety,"
Final Report, Vol. I, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, 1989, p. 122.
12 Transportation Research Board, Truck Weight Limits, Special Report 225, 1990, p. 111.
Note that loaded trucks seldom jackknife. Jackknife is usually initiated by premature lockup
of the drive axles of tractors hauling empty trailers. P.S. Fancher et al., "Vehicle Design Impli-
cations of the Turner Proposal," University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Sep-
tember 14, 1989, text accompanying Figure 8. Heavier trucks require more torque capacity than
do lighter trucks. When the torque level applied to tires becomes too great, given the load on
those tire, lockup and loss of control occurs. R. D. Ervin et al., supra note 6, p. 52.
13 Gerald Donaldson, Ph.D., "Large Truck Safety and the Geometric Design of Two-Lane, Two-
Way Roads," ITE Journal, vol. 55, No. 9, September 1985, pp. 41-46, citing Wolton and Gericke.
See Note 17.
52
prevailing speed of other vehicles have crash involvement rates nine times high-
er than those that travel at the same speed as other traffic.^''
Also, because of their length and slow acceleration rates, longer and heavier
trucks take more time and distance to merge into freeway traffic from an
onramp than do smaller and lighter trucks. Acceleration lanes — that is, merge
lanes which allow vehicles coming from onramps to build up enough speed to
easily merge with other vehicles — are designed primarily for cars and, according
to the Transportation Research Board, are already too short for even 80,000
pound trucks. ^^
Mr. Chairman, there is no question that heavier irucks cause more crashes, more
death and injury, or more damage to our highways and bridges. It is therefore es-
sential that the current federal 80,000 pound limit gross vehicle weight limit (in-
cluding the current requirements of 23 U.S.C. section 127) which now applies only
to Interstates be extended to the entire National Highway System. H.R. 4496 would
extend these requirements to the NHS.
OVERLENGTH TRUCKS ARE MORE DANGEROUS TRUCKS
There are a number of reasons why over length trucks are more dangerous. Al-
ready the current situation threatens to get out of hand. For example, in the state
of Oklahoma, a new rule has been proposed by the state DOT to increase the maxi-
mum allowable length of double trailer trucks to 59 feet 6 inches for each trailer.
This is a vehicle nearly 150 feet in length, one-half the length of a football field.
These vehicles are nothing less than "highway trains".
There are a number of concerns about truck length.
Offtracking and Swingout Lane-Encroachment
One of the major hazards of overlength trucks results from a tradeofT which must
be made by truck drivers between the dangers of "offtracking" and "swingout lane-
encroachment". Let me describe these two dangers. ^^
"Offtracking" means that the rear wheels of a trailer do not follow the front
wheels of the tractor when making a turn. In order to make a 90 degree intersection
turn and minimize the encroachment by the trailer into the oncoming lanes of traf-
fic, a driver of an overlength trailer must, as shown below, allow the trailer to leave
the roadway, roll over any curb and plow through whatever stands in its path — from
roadway signs to other objects. This may unintentionally include a pedestrian or a
bicyclist.
i'»C.M. Walton and O. Gericke, "An Assessment of Changes in Truck Dimensions on highway
Geometric Design Principles and Practices," The University of Texas Center for Transportation
Research, Austin, 1981.
16 Transportation Research Board, Truck Weight Limits, Special Report 225, 1990, p. 119.
18 Diagrams on pp. 11-13 are based upon the CRASH computer simulations based upon the
mathematics and geometries set forth in the following two studies:
"Vehicle OfRracking Models", Michael W. Saycrs (UMTRI); in Symposium on Geometric De-
sign for Large Trucks, Transportation Research Record 1052; 1986
"Swept Paths of Large Trucks in Right Turns of Small Radius"; J.R. Billing and W.R.J. Mer-
cer (Ontario Ministry of Transportation); in Symposium on Geometric Design for Large Trucks;
Transportation Research Record 1052; 1986.
53
^wffi of Tractor
L«ft Front Ta9
Mr. Chairman, note that the path of the right rear trailer tires are more than
9 feet ofT the pavement. Note also that the rear of the trailer encroaches two feet
into the lane of oncoming traffic. In 1983, a survey of the states of AASHTO showed
that only about half of existing Interstate ramps could accommodate the offtracking
of a combination truck with a 48-foot long semitrailer.
If the driver tries to prevent the trailer from leaving the road, he must encroach
to a much greater degree into oncoming lanes of traffic in one of the two ways
shown below.
54
You will note that the driver first had to swing his tractor to the left two feet
in the lane of oncoming southbound traflic before beginning his right turn into the
lane of westbound oncoming traffic. This maneuver causes the trailer to "swing-out"
five feet — almost to the middle of the oncoming lane of traffic. The rear end trailer
swing-out is extremely hazardous for oncoming traffic since it is totally unexpected
and the truck driver himself will frequently not realize that the swing-out is going
to occur. He will, therefore, not plan for it.
Note also, that the right rear tires of the trailer still leave the roadway. The driv-
er's only other choice is as shown below:
55
P«tn o< Tr»c»r
LtfT Front Tift
Here the driver avoided moving the tractor into the southbound oncoming lanes
of traffic, but both the tractor and the trailer encroached into oncoming lanes of
traffic on the road onto which they were turning. The trailer also encroaches 3V2
feet into the southbound oncoming lanes of traffic. The left front wheels of the trac-
tor goes over the curb and leaves the pavement on the left and the right rear tires
of the trailer go over the curb and leave the pavement on the right.
Here the tractor and the trailer encroached into oncoming traffic lanes on the
road onto which they were turning.
Severity
Crashes with these overlength trailers are more likely to be severe. In a jackknife
accident, for example, the extra length of the trailer means the over length trailer
is more likely to be thrown into adjacent lanes of traffic and to hit other vehicles.
Lane Changes and Merging
Drivers of overlength trucks find it more difficult to merge into freeway traftic
from an onramp. Thev frequently have to slow or stop to find a gap in traffic which
is large enough to allow them to move into. This results in traltlc backup and dis-
ruption at the interchange. It also creates the potential for following motorists to
hit the rear end of over length trucks which suddenly slow or stop. Moreover, slow-
ing or stopping the truck efiectively shortens the length of the acceleration lane pro-
vided for merging. These lanes are almost always of substandard length even for
trucks attempting mergers at reasonable speeds.
Overlength trucks have the same problem changing lanes.
Heavier Trucks Destroy Our Roads and Bridges
Large trucks are already beating our road pavements and bridges to pieces. Our
existing total backlog of highway and bridge aeficiencies is estimated by the federal
government as $212 billion. The U.S. Department of Transportation in its last re-
port to Congress says that it would take $60 billion a year just to improve our roads
56
and bridges above minimum acceptable standards. ^'^ More than 115,000 federally-
assisted bridges in the U.S. are rated as structurally deficient. ^^
If we do not cap the size and weight of trucks we will be spending billions of dol-
lars to create the NHS and then allow even heavier trucks to destroy that system.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfTicials
("AASHTO") showed many years ago in its road test (the "Road Test") that one
80,000 pound 5-axle tractor-semitrailer will do as much damage to the pavement as
9,600 automobiles. 1^
The ATA has questioned the reliability of the AASHTO 9,600 to 1 ratio of truck
to car pavement damage by asserting that the AASHTO figure has no relationship
to actual pavement wear and is outdated.^o The ATA is wrong that the AASHTO
Road Test has no relationship to actual pavement wear. In fact, the AASHTO Road
Test involved continual driving on test roads until the roads wore out.
The ATA is correct that the AASHTO Road Test completed in the early 1960s is
old and should be updated. The 9,600 to 1 ratio was based on the relative damage
caused by a heavy truck and a 4,000 pound car, about the weight of a minivan car-
rying five passengers and a weekend's worth of luggage. Since most cars today carry
on average 1.3 passengers and weigh about 3,000 pounds, a more accurate average
car weight for today would be 3,200 pounds. Using the updated car weight the
AASHTO ratio for truck to car pavement damage would be closer to 19,000 to 1.
Even the ATA's own report suggests a methodology which results in a truck-to-
car pavement damage ratio of 5,600 to 1.^^ Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is less impor-
tant whether the damage ratio is 19,000, 9,600 or 5,600 to 1. The fact is, no matter
which of the three ratios is right, heavy trucks cause an enormous amount of dam-
age to public highways, and our government policies should be designed to put an
end to the constant escalation of truck weights.
And the rate at which paved surfaces deteriorate increases exponentially in rela-
tion to the weight of the vehicle running over it. This means, for example, that a
20 percent increase in the current weight limit will cause 75 percent more pavement
wear.22 Should we expect the public to pick up the cost of the additional highway
damage from heavy trucks? According to the Federal Highway Administration, the
amount paid by trucking companies in taxes is at most only 60 percent of the cost
of the damage that they cause to our highways and bridges.
ATA claims that there is no need for a gross vehicle weight cap of any level and
urges Congress to "free the private sector and state governments from federal limi-
tations on gross vehicle weight caps and the LCV freeze." ^3 CRASH strongly dis-
agrees.
The gross vehicle weight cap is essential. As we have already shown, the heavier
the gross weight of a truck, the greater the likelihood of a fatal crash. Moreover,
both pavement and bridge damage worsen with increasing gross vehicle weights
with the same vehicle configuration. Existing gross vehicle weight limits are a com-
promise that allow some level of bridge and pavement damage, and raising these