The U.S. railroad and trucking industries called a truce in their lobbying fight over increasing the size and weight of trucks allowed on interstate highways.
Members of the House of Representatives should “oppose any floor amendments that would modify any of the truck size and weight provisions” in the five-year, $260 billion highway construction bill to be debated next week, Ed Hamberger, Association of American Railroads chief executive officer, and Bill Graves, CEO of the American Trucking Associations, said in a statement yesterday.
“It’s important that you not have two very large, significant sectors of the transportation community at each others’ throats as the bill goes to the floor,” said James Burnley, a former U.S. transportation secretary and now a trucking industry lobbyist. “That undermines support in what is an already very, very difficult situation in passing the bill in either house.”
Representative Bill Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican, brokered the deal to increase the chances of getting enough support to pass the bill, Burnley said. Jeff Urbanchuk, a spokesman for Shuster, declined to provide immediate comment.
The truce doesn’t extend to the Senate, said Sean McNally, a spokesman for the Arlington, Virginia-based trucking group. The Senate is considering a two-year, $109 billion spending plan.
The Senate version calls for the same kind of truck size and weight study that the House transportation committee adopted. That review would assess the effect on highway safety and bridges.
Republican Senators Mike Crapo of Idaho, Susan Collins of Maine and Rob Portman of Ohio, and Democrat Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, sponsored a stand-alone heavy-truck bill last year.
The National Industrial Transportation League, which includes companies such as Cemex Inc. and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., will support bigger-truck amendments on the Senate floor if offered or push changes during a House-Senate conference committee, Peter Gatti, executive vice president of the Arlington, Virginia-based group, said in an interview. The group organized a fly-in of executives of trucking and shipping companies to Washington Jan. 31 and Feb. 1.
The House committee vote was “the first step,” he said.
“The same arguments for inclusion of those provisions are as strong as they were before,” Gatti said. “Trying to reduce congestion, taking more trucks off the highway and doing it in a safe manner all have a great deal of legitimacy.”
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 33-22 on Feb. 2 to delay any expansion in use of trucks weighing more than 80,000 pounds for three years, so the U.S. Transportation Department can study the potential effect on highway safety, roads and bridges.
The measure, as originally written by House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman John Mica, a Florida Republican, would have allowed states to permit more 97,000-pound trucks on U.S. interstate highways and would have expanded use of double-and triple-trailers in states that now allow them.
The language on longer, heavier trucks prompted a lobbying and public-relations blitz before last week’s vote that included a YouTube video, posted by a railroad equipment trade group, that showed triple-trailer trucks weaving on rainy highways. Burnley accused railroad interests at the time of running a “multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign.”
Trucking companies like Con-way Inc. and shippers including Home Depot Inc. and International Paper Co. were pushing for the language to improve efficiency as freight volumes are expected to surge. The rail industry opposed the language, citing a study that showed it would reduce railroad traffic by 19 percent.
Besides the railroads and their suppliers, big-truck opponents included highway safety advocates, truck accident victims, independent truck drivers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and state highway patrols.
Before the deal was announced yesterday, the Railway Supply Institute, which represents makers of railroad equipment and technology such as Wabtec Corp. and Alstom SA, asked its member companies “to help us keep the pressure on your members of Congress by urging your employees to call and ask them to vote ’no’ on bigger trucks,” according to a report in Railway Age, an industry newsletter.
The Washington-based institute told members their employees could call the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks toll-free hotline to be connected to their representative’s office. The coalition, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is a railroad industry-funded group that works with law enforcement, local government, engineers, independent truckers and highway safety advocates to oppose increasing truck size and weights.
“We are obviously disappointed that the weight provisions didn’t survive in the committee vote, but there are significant productivity gains in the bill,” McNally, of the trucking associations, said.
Holly Arthur, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based railroad association, declined to comment.
Highway Trust Fund
The Highway Trust Fund, which finances U.S. road, bridge and mass-transit projects, may become insolvent as soon as October unless lawmakers lock in additional funding sources, the Congressional Budget Office said on Jan. 31. The Senate and House bills both authorize more in spending than the fund’s income from fuel taxes.
Since 2009, U.S. surface-transportation funding has continued through a series of legislative extensions, the latest of which expires March 31.
The House bill is H.R. 7.