Teamsters President Hoffa Says “NO” to Larger Trucks on America’s Highways
What If They Were Heavier, and Longer?
Had enough of the “big rigs” on the highway? Well, Congress is looking at new weight and size limits, and Teamster President James Hoffa says “no” to bigger trucks.
In a House subcomittee hearing July 9, Hoffa is quoted as saying:
“Bigger trucks are more dangerous trucks. Lifting truck weight and size limits would turn big rigs into time bombs.”
>> Interested in solar power? See if group discounts are available in your city
>> Don’t forget to: Sign up for our electric car interest list.
A background paper prepared by the Subcommittee on Highways and transit staff, the report stated:
“In 2006, nearly 5,000 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks, and an additional 106,000 were injured. Truck size and weight laws impact safety on roads. . . . [M]ultiple factors contribute to truck crashes [but] truck weights and lengths affect stopping distances, braking, and vehicle stability and control.”
The Teamsters Union represents 140,000 truck drivers who operate double-or-triple-trailer rigs in states where permitted.
Rep. Peter A DeFazio (D-Ore), seems to think increase truck sizes on all national highways is a good idea. He’s quoted as saying:
“I don’t think anybody could say the current system makes sense. We have a total failure and we have to look toward the near future.”
And the American Trucking Associations gave a favorable nod to the idea, saying increased trucking productivity will reduce congestion, save fuel and improve safety and air quality.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), has gone on record rejecting the idea of larger trucks with heavier loads, citing dire safety implications, and that heavier loads will hasten the deterioration of the nation’s roads and bridges.
The Railroads Weigh In
The Association of American Railroads disagrees with that notion. President and CEO Michael Sid of YRC North American Transportation is quoted as saying:
“According to the U.S. DOT, trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds pay only about half of their highway cost responsibility. Longer and heavier trucks—unless accompanied by sharp increases in taxes—would exacerbate this inequity and based on a DOT study divert between 100 million and 225 million tons of freight annually from rail to highways”.
A statement from the Association of American Railroads (AAR) said moving all that freight by highway would increase consumption of diesel fuel by 500 million to 1.1 billion additional gallons of diesel fuel and produce 1.6 to 3.8 million tons of additional pollutants and 5.6 to 12.3 million tons of additional carbon dioxide each year.
More than 600 freight railroads are operating on over 173,000 miles of track in the United States, Mexico and Canada. Annual revenues, according to the AAR, top $42 billion, and account for more than 40 percent of all freight transportation.
As for moving freight efficiently, the AAR makes this claim:
“What’s more fuel efficient than the newest hybrid car? A freight train. In 2007, major freight railroads in the United States moved a ton of freight an average of 436 miles on each gallon of fuel. This represents a 3.1 percent improvement over 2006 and an astonishing 85.5 percent improvement since 1980″.
While many diesel locomotives still don’t meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Tier I or Tier II emission standards, retroactive to locomotives built from 1973 and must be applied to all re-manufactured units, the list, according to AAR’s Adam Burns, the list is growing.
Some smaller lines, have been using biodiesel blends in their locomotives, although the larger companies still appear reluctant to try the new fuel, even in small amounts.
Stay tuned.
Posts Relative to Semi-Trailer Trucks and Railroads
- Want to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses by 12 Million Tons A Year? Ship by Rail, Not by Truck, On The Lindberg Report.
- Biodiesel Powers Eastern Washington Railroad Locomotive
- Trucks Reduce Emissions by 83%
Image Credit: blogs.tampabay.com/…/ 2007/08/29/traffic_4.jpg
You Might Also Like
UK To Invest About $45 Billion In High Speed Rail
Ford’s New Super Duty Diesel Pickup Is Its Cleanest Ever
Reading Tea Leaves: Future Biofuels in the Bottom of a Cup?
Breaking Down the Obama Biofuel Plan
July 11th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
They need to put more on trains not less.
Lets help the railroads manage all interstate distribution. Limit all trucks to 1 trailer.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:55 am
… and that’s the infrastructure we should be expanding. Go rail!
July 12th, 2008 at 7:04 am
The gasoline rises in prices causes the global automobile’s masters universal disaffection! In view of such question, that is the petroleum price. The industry development cannot leave the petroleum, each country may through carry on the discussion with the oil producing country, hopes the petroleum price to be able the drop point, and gives in the oil producing country in other trade some preferential policy!
July 12th, 2008 at 7:06 am
The gasoline rises in prices causes the global automobile’s masters universal disaffection! In view of such question, that is the petroleum price. The industry development cannot leave the petroleum, each country may through carry on the discussion with the oil producing country, hopes the petroleum price to be able the drop point, and gives in the oil producing country in other trade some preferential policy! You can do it!
July 12th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Today’s trucks already do enormous damage to the roads, and the tax they pay doesn’t cover it; car drivers subsidize trucking. We need to switch to long distance railroads and local trucking only.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
The amount of trucks on the road is unbelievable even with the energy crisis the number of trucks doesn’t seem to have declined. I don’t think smaller trucks is the answer. As it is drivers are forced to work/drive more miles to make the same amount of money. Smaller trucks will probably compound the problem. Even in Europe the trailers are big.
I’d like to see more happen with rail.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
The total amount of freight carried by all transportation modes is set by the amount of stuff being bought. The only way to reduce freight overall is to get people and industries to buy less stuff or buy from closer nearby. Barring that, we should try as much as possible to ship by rail for as much of the distance as we can. In terms of fuel and money, this is the most efficient method. So, expand the rail system and the number of trucks will fall. Yes, deliveries to individual stores will need to be by truck, but trips from point of production to the warehouse from which that last delivery is made should be by rail for as much of the distance as possible.
Expand the passenger rail system and the number of cars will similarly fall. I have no problem telling you, I’d rather spend my commute reading a book/the paper on a train or even a bus than staring at the road in front of me.
The more we reduce the amount of fuel needed to do everything we do now (via better transportation options and higher efficiency), the easier it will be to replace the oil we use with other energy sources- electric vehicles and/or synthetic (not necessarily bio) fuels.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:05 am
Yes, to more forcefully reiterate what Anthony said, don’t complain about too many trucks on the road. They’re not being driven for fun. They’re being driven to deliver things that YOU buy.
They do damage the roads disproportionately, but to increase tolls would increase shipping charges and that would lead to higher prices for YOU and the things you buy. Trains are more efficient, but they can’t get things to your local store like trucks can.
Longer trucks might not be as safe, but they would reduce congestion and reduce fuel consumption. They could hurt job security for truckers though.
I’m an environmentalist, but having worked at a truck manufacturer, I have a good understanding of what’s behind the industry. There is a lot of opportunity to save more fuel and some companies are doing their part, but it will take more education for owner operators and some trucking companies to get to where we need to be. The even higher price of diesel fuel (relative to gasoline), will make this happen very soon.
For reference, trucks are very efficient. 80,000 lbs at 6.5 mpg is like getting 150 mpg with a 3,500 lb car in terms of lbs transported per gallon of fuel. (That’s why they accelerate so slowly though).
July 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
The only reason trucking is so big is how subsidized roads were. Towns used to spring up next to train stations, now there is massive sprawl simply because trains were cheated via subsidization. Fix the train system, use a hub and spoke system (where central train station locations deliver to trucks that travel MUCH shorter distances), and things will be much better.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I returned recently from Australia where they have monster trucks (called road trains). I counted one with 52 wheels! These vehicles are huge, and the drivers know that they intimidate anyone in front of them.
Believe me, you do not want to share the road with them.
Scary – dangerous – threatening – intimidating. Enough said?
June 14th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I was disappointed to see your article and for the majority of the comments posted here. Your article states, “In 2006, nearly 5,000 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks, and an additional 106,000 were injured.” You failed to mention that “More than 80% of those accidents are the fault of the non-commercial driver.” Over the last 14 years the percentage of accidents involving tractor trailers and non-commercial motor vehicle operators has declined while the percentage of non-commercial motor vehicle operators causing said accidents has increased.
Though weight increases for tractor trailers is not the answer to the problem neither is increasing the volume of freight by railroad. Shippers and Receivers operate in a Just In Time, JIT, freight structure. This means that they ship and receive the inventory that they have instead of stock piling it to ship or use at a later date. This cuts down on labor and storage expenses. Trains can not transpose freight across the country in a timely manner. Trains also idle at over 25 gals of diesel per hour where a tractor trailer idles at only 1 gal of diesel per hour….and with the addition of APU’s, some tractor trailers idle at less than 2 gals of diesel per 8 to 12 hours. With society demanding a Burger King, MY WAY RIGHT AWAY, lifestyle, transporting freight by tractor trailer is still the most efficient means of transportation. Until Shippers & Receivers as well as society changes their attitude, Trucking will remain the most logical choice of freight distribution for many years to come.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
The interstate highway system should be exploited as the right of way for a national railroad network for high-speed and conventional passenger/freight. And to build it, I propose a term (1-2 years) of mandatory national youth service and/or a WPA-style program of employment. A stipend, free dental/medical care, room and board and some college credits would be given in return for labor.
The equivalent of all the oil imported by the USA (70% of the total oil budget) goes out the tailpipes of the US motor vehicle fleet. Seventy-five percent of all goods are shipped by motor truck. Rail is–all things considered–the cheapest, most efficient, safest, and fastest means of transporting people and goods. Since 1910, automobile road crashes have killed 60 million people and injured/disabled over 800 million worldwide. Every year 1.2 million die in road crashes and 40 million are injured/disabled. In the USA, 43 million perish annually and 3.5 million are injured/disabled. If the automobile were invented today, this death machine would not be allowed on any public road.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Hi there,
I work in the transport industry in Australia and we are seeking an image just like the one on this page (semi-trucks.jpg) for use in a brochure that promotes modal shift from road to sea in terms of transport of goods. I am hopeful that you may have this image in a high res format (minimum 1MB file size) and would be willing to grant permission for us to use it in our brochure (circulated only in Australia to MPs and parliamentarians).
Would greatly appreciate any assistance you can offer.
Cheers, Robyn