Opinion: More Trucks or Bigger Trucks?

Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.

B>By Michael S. Card

I>President

ombined Transport Inc.

What’s it going to be, more trucks or bigger trucks? The United States will have to pick one because, if you look at any economic forecast for freight, the next 20 to 25 years will see twice as much volume being shipped in this country as today. How are we going to move that much freight?

The rail network is limited and is currently experiencing severe equipment shortages and service problems. Nearly 70% of all the freight shipped in this country is on trucks, and that market share is growing. In many areas of the country trucks haul 99.9% of the freight shipped. It looks as if we are going to have twice as many trucks on the road in 2025 than we do today, and automobile traffic will grow substantially as well.

t is also estimated that highway capacity will grow about 3% over the same time period. How are all these cars and trucks going to fit? We are going to have worse congestion, more pollution and fewer safe roads.

Is there a solution? How about trucks with larger carrying capacities? It is an accepted fact that longer combination vehicles — heavy, double- and triple-trailer trucks — are more productive than single, five-axle tractor-trailers. A single tractor and driver can haul much more weight and freight using an LCV — up to 60% by weight and 75% by volume.

Greater use of these vehicles can help solve the driver shortage, increase our existing drivers’ productivity, improve fuel economy, reduce pollution and cut down on truck-related accidents.

A recent study by the American Transportation Research Institute and Cummins Inc. found that engine efficiency often increased with load factors. The ATRI/Cummins study — which analyzed a range of weight impacts, equipment and axle configurations — found that fuel consumption on a ton-mile basis was reduced by up to 27% using various higher-productivity vehicle configurations.

There was a similar improvement in air quality, with decreases in emissions of more than 25%, when looking at freight hauled on a ton-mile basis. How would you like to save 1 billion gallons of diesel a year and have cleaner air?

As for freight being diverted from rail, the Department of Transportation’s 2004 study on LCVs found there would be very little diversion from the rail network. The type of freight currently on the rail network, mostly bulk and intermodal, would remain there because it continues to make economic sense, even if load size increased on the highway network.

The biggest argument against LCVs is safety. The critics say there is no proof that LCVs are as safe as standard vehicles. However, there have been quite a few studies stating that LCVs are not only as safe as standard vehicles, but probably safer.

The Federal Highway Administration, in its 1996 study on accident rates for LCVs, found that “Non-LCVs were more than twice as likely as LCVs to be involved in accidents.” A 2001 study in the Province of Alberta on LCVs found that their use resulted in a 90% reduction in collisions involving trucks.

I am not sure that there will ever be a safety study that answers all the critics’ concerns. However, I find it interesting that the largest truck insurer in the western United States, Great West Casualty Co., said, “We assign no additional premium or rate to LCVs [as opposed to non-LCV combinations].”

Longer combination vehicles are not made for all types of highways. In fact, they are legally limited by many factors, such as time of day, weather and type of highway. Even the drivers who operate them need additional training and a special driver’s license. Certainly all these factors help make these vehicles safer. In many states in the western half of the United States, we are already using them.

LCVs are safe and productive, reduce congestion and help our country compete with the rest of the world. Yet, we can’t modify or expand the current LCV network. Why? Because since 1991 there has been a federal freeze prohibiting states from increasing the size and weight of combination vehicles beyond that already allowed on June 1, 1991.

If you build a new freeway, you can’t use LCVs. In Denver, LCVs continue to drive right through downtown, but can’t use the new bypass because of the freeze. If states want to modify their LCV regulations to match neighboring states, they are precluded from doing so because of the freeze. If you want to reduce congestion on your freeways, become more competitive with lower freight cost, be safer, smarter and cleaner, you can’t do it because of the freeze.

If you want more trucks, do nothing and you are going to get them. In 20 to 25 years you will have twice as many trucks on the roads. But if you want bigger trucks instead of more trucks, get rid of the freeze and let the states determine what works best for themselves.

Combined Transport Inc. of Central Point, Ore., provides flatbed, heavy-haul and specialized trucking services. The writer is also the Oregon vice president of American Trucking Associations, which owns Transport Topics Publishing Group.

This story appeared in the Sept. 13 print edition of Transport Topics. Subscribe today.