CAPITOLGains
THE 97,000-POUND WEIGHT LIMIT Good for trucking, good for Texas?
BY STEVE BRAWNER Contributing Writer
Would raising the 80,000-pound
gross vehicle weight limit on Texas state highways be good for Texas trucking, and good for Texas? Speakers and panelists tried to answer
that question during a Heavyweight Container Summit on January 28 in Houston and it's been a hot topic since. The event was sponsored by the Texas Trucking Association and the Texas Coalition for Transportation Productivity. The summit’s topic concerned wheth-
er or not Texas should raise its current standard weight limit on state highways. Many states have raised their limits on state highways, while many have received federal exemptions to carry heavier weights on interstates. TXTA has opposed raising the weight
limit in the past. However, a bill by Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, in the 2015 legislative session caused the association to move its position to neutral and begin reassessing. That bill would have increased the
maximum weight for trucks carrying ocean-going shipping containers on three- axle trailers to 97,000 pounds. It also would have given the Texas Department of Transportation the ability to limit trucks from traveling over roadways and bridges that could not handle the weight. Finally, it would have imposed a $7,000 permit fee, 90 percent of which would have been deposit- ed into the State Highway Fund with the other 10 percent deposited into the Texas
TXTA HAS OPPOSED RAISING THE WEIGHT LIMIT IN THE PAST. HOWEVER, A BILL BY REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA, D-DALLAS, IN
THE 2015 LEGISLATIVE SESSION CAUSED THE ASSOCIATION TO MOVE ITS POSITION TO NEUTRAL AND BEGIN REASSESSING ITS POSITION.
Department of Motor Vehicles Fund. Filed late in the 2015 session, the bill
did not pass. There were too many ques- tions. But the idea will surely surface again during the next legislative session. The Houston summit gave a divided
Texas trucking industry an opportunity to consider whether it will remain neutral or perhaps take another stance. The event included three speakers and four panel dis- cussions. It began with an address by Curtis Whalen with the American Trucking Association’s Intermodal Carriers Conference comparing the nation’s ports, which was followed by an overview of the heavyweight container issue by Brian Fielkow, CEO of Jetco Delivery. The rest of the morning involved four panel discus- sions about issues related to infrastructure, shipping, transportation, and local and state regulations. The day ended with an address about highways by John Woodroofe, former director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute’s Commercial Vehicle Research and Policy Program. Speakers and panelists presented dif-
fering views on the subject. Of course, safe- ty is the primary concern. Heavier trucks potentially create more of a danger, but that
danger could be mitigated by improving safety technology and better driver train- ing. Of particular interest is how increasing the weight limit might affect motor carri- ers’ bottom lines. Raising the limit from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds would represent a 30 percent payload increase. Would heavier weight limits result in fewer hauls, or would it make Texas trucking more competitive and therefore increase business for all? How badly does the Port of Houston need higher weight limits to remain competitive with ports in other states? How will heavier trucks affect Texas’ highway infrastructure? Finally, how will raising the weight limit affect the pub- lic’s perception of trucking? Texas motor carriers were split on
raising truck weight limits before the sum- mit. They still are. The good news is that the summit was evidence that TXTA is working to formulate its position on this important issue. A working group is being planned to continue the conversation. The goal is to be ready before the 2017
session, which starts January 10. As the American Trucking Associations long has pointed out, “Trucks bring it.” That won’t change. How much they bring, and on what? That might. R
Summer 2016 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56