HomeMy WebLinkAbout960995.tiff COLORADANS FOR SAFE ROADS
1 355 S. BOULDER RD. #F237
LOUISVILLE, CO 80027
f"_', I4 E + 9, 03 303-673-9620
Fox: 303-673-9612
CLLI Llll(
TO THT DC •
May 10, 1996
Honorable Barbara Kirkmeyer
Chair Weld County Commission
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioner ICirluneyer:
I am writing to apprise you of a potential problem that you might not be aware of that threatens the economic
health of our state,and to enlist your help in writing letters to our two federal Senators on an issue our coalition
feels is important. The trucking industry is proposing an increase in the federal limit for truck size and weight.
Our coalition is concerned about the effects any increases in truck size and weight will have on safety, the
infrastructure and the environment.
As a member of the Governors Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation I applaud the effort put forth by you and
the other participants,but as we move forward to tackle this complex and critical issue of transportation,we must
look closer at some of the underlying problems associated with the decline of our transportation infrastructure.
It is also quite clear that we must become better stewards of our transportation system if we are to maintain our
state's economic viability. We feel that increasing the size and weight of trucks at such a critical time will only
exacerbate the problem of congestion and damage to our roads,bridges and highways. One underlying problem
is that the trucking industry is seriously underpaying it's fair share in cost responsibilities. The most recent state
cost allocation study indicates that some tractor trailer configurations are underpaying their cost responsibility
by as much as 78%. It does not stand to reason why truck size and weight should be increased if this segment
of highway user is not paying it's cost responsibility--this amounts to a taxpayer subsidy for this industry.
Considering the forecasted decline in financial resources needed to fund our transportation system and in the
context of making the hard choices as we search to find ways to adequately finance the maintenance of the system,
this underpayment and push to raise truck size and weight limits merits closer examination.
Safety and congestion are two areas of additional concern. Engineering studies and crash data on single and
double tractor trailer configurations indicate that increases in Gross Vehicle Weight and length of trucks will
increase the chance of fatalities and injury. In 1994 there were 5,112 fatalities attributed to big truck crashes and
another 100,000 people were injured. As the GBRTP report indicates Vehicle Miles Traveled will increase in
this area. A significant amount of that traffic will be trucks. Recent studies on trucks and congestion by Roger
Mingo P.E.,a former Federal Highway Administration engineer,indicate that allowing trucks to become longer
and heavier will significantly impact congestion. The dynamics of growth and a projected healthy economy make
Colorado ripe for an explosion in truck traffic. The current fleet of trucks operate with 300-315 HP engines.
Most trucking companies will not be able to upgrade to some of the more powerful engines that will available
soon because of cost. Therefore by adding additional weight and length,the horsepower to weight ratio becomes
poorer. The result is slower trucks and increased congestion.
Q� �I�(0 de_ ; fat ` Pt.) C'a4 960995
On another front the trucking industry is using ongoing NAFTA negotiations with Mexico and Canada as a"back
door" attempt to raise truck size and weight. The Canadians and Mexicans operate their truck fleets at
significantly higher weights and there is tremendous pressure on our government to raise our federal size and
weight limits. I would like to enlist your help to prevent this. There is currently a letter being circulated in the
U.S. Senate co-sponsored by Senators Chafee and Lautenberg asking Secretary Pena to ensure that the
negotiating process is not used as a lever to raise truck size and weight. We need our two Senators,Brown and
Nighthorse Campbell to sign onto the letter. A letter from your office encouraging them to do so will help to this
end. We have only a couple of weeks left in the letter writing campaign and after meetings with both Senate
offices it was indicated that letters would make the difference in obtaining our two Senators signatures.
I became involved in this issue after working at the U.S. DOT as a member of Secretary Pena's senior staff and
later as a Special Assistant to the Federal Highway Administrator Rodney Slater. I was compelled to get involved
because of the extraordinary access and influence the American Trucking Associations have with our policy
makers in Washington. I am convinced as are others,that the only way we can influence policy on this issue is
at the grassroots level, with help from people like yourself The other reason I became involved was, I am
concerned that public policy is being developed on this issue without regard to public opinion. Overwhelmingly
polls indicate that the public is opposed to making trucks longer and heavier. A 1994 poll of Western cities
which included Denver indicates there is no support for longer,heavier NAFTA standardized trucks in this area.
A more recent national poll conducted by the Tarrance Group indicates that over two third of those interviewed
believed that Congress should maintain the status-quo when it comes to the weight and length of trucks.
One other note,the Colorado Motor Carriers Association has chosen to characterize our organization as a front
for the rail industry. We are in fact supported in part by money from the Association of American Railroads with
the remainder coming from citizens and members of our coalition which include: AAA Colorado,Brain Injury
Association, United Transportation Union, Epilepsy Foundation of Colorado, Clean Water Action, Colorado
Environmental Coalition, and the Gray Panthers of Denver. Obviously the rail industry has a major stake in
allowing wide spread use of double and triple tractor trailers nationwide. This would mean a fundamental change
in how freight is transported in this country. Support from this industry does not diminish the grassroots focus
of our effort. It is our hope that the truck industry will center on a debate of ideas and facts pertaining to this
issue,rather than engaging in negative attacks.
I look forward to discussing the possibility of obtaining a letter from your office soon.
Sincerely,
Jams ay jti
Sta hector
enclosure
COLORADANS FOR SAFE ROADS
MISSION STATEMENT
Coloradans for Safe Roads opposes efforts at the federal and state level of government to make trucks longer
and heavier. The coalition includes public citizen organizations,railroads,senior citizens,highway safety,
environmental and business groups. The Coalition opposes bigger trucks because they raise serious safety,
infrastructure,environmental and economic concerns.
The trucking industry hopes to gain approval for the nationwide use of double and triple trailer trucks,or
what are known as Longer Combination Vehicles (LCVs). Furthermore,the trucking industry is pushing to
increase the interstate weight limit from 80,000 lbs to as high as 95,000 lbs.
The trucking industry is using the ongoing NAFTA harmonization talks with Mexico and Canada and a
Federal Highway Administration study on truck size and weight to push for nationwide use of LCVs and for
heavier trucks. In addition,LCV and heavier truck proponents will use the highway reauthorization bill in
1997 as a vehicle for increasing truck weights and lengths. In order to protect the motoring public,the
nation's infrastructure and the environment,the Coalition has embarked on a grassroots and
congressional campaign to fight the efforts of the trucking industry to increase truck lengths and
weights.
Efforts to increase trucks weights and lengths are deeply unpopular. According to a national poll conducted
in 1993,91 percent of Americans oppose triple trailer combinations and 84 percent oppose twin trailers.
Similarly,proposals to increase single tractor-trailer weights and sizes are unpopular. Almost three quarters
of the people polled said they oppose increasing truck weights from the current federal 80,000 lb limit to
96,000 lbs. The main reason they do not want to see longer and heavier trucks is their fear that bigger trucks
are unsafe.
Heavier trucks are already a serious safety problem. Grim statistics support this contention: In 1994,5112
people were killed in truck-related crashes and over 100,000 were injured. Those numbers represent an
increase of 263 fatalities from 1993. Today,almost all of these trucks are conventional,single trailer trucks
or"18 wheelers."
Now the trucking industry is proposing the nationwide use of LCVs and increasing truck weights. Based on
engineering studies of LCVs,the strong public opposition to LCVs and heavier trucks is completely justified.
Some fads about LCVs:
• LCVs represent one-half of one percent of total truck traffic:LCVs are a very small portion of the
national truck fleet. Safety statistics cited by the trucking industry uses raw data from a limited
database and does not adequately indicate how these vehicles would perform with increased usage
during daylight hours,less experienced drivers and in more densely populated areas.
• More trailers,higher risk: LCVs present a greater safety risk simply because they have more
trailers. As a result,LCVs are subject to increased"rearward amplification"-the"crack the whip"
effect. Adding trailers also increases the risk of"rollovers"and of trailer separation.
(primed on recycled paper)
•
• Acceleration/Deceleration problems: LCVs have problems maintaining speeds on upgrades--and
then have trouble slowing down and braking on downgrades. These speed differentials create
serious safety risks and contribute to highway congestion and delay.
• Incompatibility with the highway system: LCVs are big and slow. As a result, they have trouble
merging or changing lanes. LCVs also have a much larger blind spot or"no-zone"than conventional
trucks. And their sheer size can prevent motorists from seeing signs or potentially hazardous highway
conditions.
• Accident severity:LCVs cause more severe accidents. Even with today's trucks, automobile occupants
are 33 times more likely to be killed than truck occupants in a truck/auto crash. Because LCVs are
heavier,their fatality ratio will be worse.
Increasing truck weights on conventional combination trucks also creates serious safety risks. Both Mexico and
Canada allow single tractor-trailer combinations at weights over 87,000 lbs. Numerous studies have indicated
that heavier, single tractor-trailer trucks face an increased risk of accidents. A 1988 study by the
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute shows that the rate of fatal accidents goes up
directly with increases in truck weight. Trucks in the 65,000 to 80,000 lb range have an accident involvement
rate one-and-half times as great as trucks in the 50,000 to 65,000 range, and two-and-a quarter times as great
as trucks in the 35,000 to 50,00 lb range,provided the truck configuration remains unchanged.
Bigger trucks translate into greater damage to bridges and roads. With tightening budgets at both the federal and
state levels,additional resources for highway maintenance and bridge reconstruction will be hard to obtain. LCVs
cause severe bridge damage. A Texas Research and Development Foundation study of LCV bridge costs
indicates that national operation of LCVs would cost government agencies $14 billion in bridge replacement
costs. That repair would mean$16 billion in lost time and extra fuel burnt by auto drivers stuck in traffic because
of bridge work. Because LCVs can be expected to pay even less of their fair share of highway costs than
trucks do currently, LCVs would compound the funding problems facing state highway departments.
According to a 1985 update to the 1982 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study,on average a heavy truck pays
about 65 percent to the costs associated with its use of the road system. Because LCVs typically pay less in fuel
taxes and registration fees per ton-mile, expanded LCV use will widen the gap between damage to
pavement and bridges and collections for that damage.
For all of the reasons outlined above, I/we, the undersigned individuals/organization, agree to join
Coloradans for Safe Roads.
Signature:
Hello