Proposal to increase truck weights creates division at House hearing

The “driver shortage” debate wasn’t the only divisive issue during a House transportation hearing this week. There also was disagreement regarding proposals to increase truck weights.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Truckload Carriers Association all oppose efforts to increase truck size and weight. Meanwhile, the Shippers Coalition and American Farm Bureau Federation supported heavier trucks.

With Congress in the early stages of drafting a new highway bill, the hearing served as an opportunity for the groups to make their pitches to members of the House Highways and Transit Subcommittee.

The current weight limit is 80,000 pounds. In recent years, there have been efforts in Congress to increase the limit to 91,000 pounds.

“Some shippers, large carriers and specific industries continue to claim increasing truck size and weight is good for trucking,” OOIDA Executive Vice President Lewie Pugh said in his testimony. “Make no mistake, these are losing propositions for truckers and highway safety. I want to especially caution new members of the committee about supporting these controversial proposals – one vote to increase today’s limits will have every group that wants special treatment expecting you to support their specific carve-out for the rest of your tenure.”

Cole Scandaglia, the Teamsters’ transportation policy advisor, said that increasing truck weights would create safety concerns and create damage to the nation’s roads and bridges.

“Critically, the Teamsters adamantly oppose efforts to raise maximum allowable gross vehicle weight rating/gross vehicle weight,” Scandaglia said. “Simply put, these proposals threaten safety, increase wear and tear on our nation’s roads and add unnecessary operational difficulties for drivers.”

John Elliott, past chairman of the Truckload Carriers Association, spoke out against proposals for twin 33-foot trailers and increased truck weights.

“There is also the impact on infrastructure,” Elliott said. “The added axle would increase emissions and strain our already overloaded infrastructure. USDOT estimates that the 91,000-pound, six-axle configuration would negatively impact more than 4,800 bridges, costing an estimated $1.1 billion to repair.”

To that point, the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks said that the weight increase would have devastating effects on local bridges across the nation.

A new study from the organization found that an increase would place between 65,157 and 82,457 local bridges at risk. Even more, the study said that replacing those bridges would come with a price tag between $70.6 and $98.6 billion.

“These at-risk bridges represent a sizable portion of the nation’s bridge infrastructure, located on local roads and highways that are critical for everyday transportation and commerce,” the study stated.

Ryan Lindsey, who was representing the Shippers Coalition, characterized an increase from 80,000 to 91,000 pounds as “modest.”

“One such proposal is a pilot program to modestly increasing the gross-vehicle-weight limit on the interstate system from the current limit of 80,000 pounds to 91,000 pounds or the bridge formula limit, whichever is lower, for vehicles while operating in the program,” Lindsey said. “This proposal would impose important conditions on participation that protect the public interest, including the addition of the extra axle, weight distribution requirements of the bridge formula, and per axle limits.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., who has introduced a bill to establish a pilot program that would increase truck weights, aggressively pushed back against opposition and suggested that some companies would pay more for heavier loads.

Pugh cited a 2022 survey that found 68% of truck drivers believed that longer or heavier trucks would make the job more difficult. Many drivers are paid by the mile. LL