Highways On The Hill
Trucks and trains lay down their swords - for the time being.
Oliver B.Patton
Washington Editor
With Congress preparing to reauthorize the federal highway program, tension between trucks and railroads has been building. Hired guns for the railroads have been out in force on Capitol Hill, advocating legislation that would limit growth for trucking. American Trucking Assns. has been firing back, defending the states' right to improve productivity by easing truck size and weight rules. Nothing new: The two have been at each other's throats over this issue for decades.
Then, unexpectedly, peace broke out. On June 25, ATA and the Assn. of American Railroads agreed to suspend hostilities.
ATA promised not to seek longer or heavier trucks, and AAR promised not to push for tighter restrictions than those already in place. The agreement is in effect until Congress finishes work on the new federal highway bill, a six-year program that is supposed to be ready by the end of September. Since Congress typically does not address national size and weight issues apart from highway program reauthorization, it will be at least six years before the issue is revisited.
Officially, the antagonists shook hands because the hostilities were distracting them from shared interests. The agreement signed by ATA President Bill Graves and AAR President Ed Hamberger says that while trucks and rails compete, they also are part of an integrated network, particularly with respect to intermodal transportation.
"Recognizing this cooperation in serving our mutual customers, [ATA and AAR] believe it is essential that the two organizations also seek to focus their efforts on common legislative and policy goals," the agreement says.
"Therefore, ATA and AAR will advocate and support making no changes to current federal truck size and weight laws in the (reauthorization of current highway program) and will oppose proposals to modify the current federal provisions."
Unofficially, the agreement is less about common interests than it is about conflicting interests that have gotten out of hand - to the point that both sides see tactical victory in preservation of the status quo.
The railroad interest has been to keep trucks from taking business that might be available to them.
Trucking's interest has been to let states decide where triple trailers and other longer combination vehicles (LCVs) may operate, and whether to increase weight limits above the federally mandated 80,000 pounds. Under current federal law, states have no say in the matter: The existing network of routes for LCVs cannot be expanded.
This is by no means the desire of all trucking companies - many fleets oppose bigger and longer trucks because they fear they will not recoup the investment in new equipment that they will be forced to make.
But a number of important fleets do want the productivity gains afforded by the larger vehicles, as do many major shippers. ATA's official policy is that LCVs should be permitted at the option of the states, and this policy was not changed by the ATA executive committee's vote to accept the agreement with AAR.
In truth, ATA has not been particularly active in pushing the policy in recent years, said ATA President Bill Graves. Graves, who joined the association just five months ago after two terms as governor of Kansas, attributed this to the split among ATA members over the issue, and to the blunt fact that there is little chance that Congress was going to agree to bigger trucks in this reauthorization cycle.
Graves, and other sources who did not want to be named, indicated that the agreement with AAR came about for business and tactical reasons.
As Congress was gearing up for reauthorization last year, United Parcel Service, FedEx Freight, Con-Way Transportation Services, Yellow Transportation, Roadway Express and ABF Freight formed a coalition to lobby for a pilot project to test more liberal size and weight rules. The project had been suggested by the Transportation Research Board, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It envisioned size and weight issues being managed by a new, independent organization that has the authority to test and evaluate heavier vehicles. TRB's idea was to turn down the volume of emotions about the issue, and build a body of facts to support rules that aid both productivity and safety. It also recommended that states be allowed to sidestep current federal size and weight restrictions and raise the weight limit from 80,000 pounds to 90,000 pounds for six-axle tractor-semis, and allow double trailers.
The coalition did not last, however. Some members made the business decision that there was no reason to invest in an amendment that was not likely to get passed.
"We were being realistic," said David Bolger, director of public relations for UPS. He said the last reauthorization bill was instructive. "Trucking spent a tremendous amount of time and money but did not move the ball - and irritated folks on Capitol Hill."
From Graves' perspective it was not just the money - it was the expenditure of human capital.
"ATA has other goals for reauthorization, such as elimination of the Single State Registration System and an agreement on maintenance of intermodal container chassis, that will take time and effort to promote. It was my opinion that our best opportunity for success . . . was enhanced by not having our attention and our resources diverted [to] an initiative that we didn't view as having a very significant chance of success," Graves said.
There also were tactical issues in play. As part of reauthorization, the Senate Commerce Committee was considering an amendment by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., that would extend the current freeze on LCVs from the 44,000-mile Interstate System to the 156,000-mile National Highway System, and take away states' authority to set length standards on NHS roads. The SHIPA bill, as it is called, would deal a devastating blow to advocates of better truck productivity.
"What we agreed to," Graves explained, "was not to play offense (on the TRB proposal), and the benefit we receive is that we hopefully won't spend a whole lot of our time and resources playing defense on issues like SHIPA."
Shortly after ATA and AAR signed the agreement, a version of the SHIPA amendment cleared the Commerce Committee by a close vote. Under the terms of the agreement, AAR must join with ATA to lobby against SHIPA, just as ATA would have to lobby against any move to ease size and weight restrictions. Graves does not believe that SHIPA will pass, but the outcome remains to be seen.
When the ATA Executive Committee voted on the AAR agreement, the count was 30 to four in favor of the agreement, according to a source. This indicates that size and weight is not a particularly pressing issue for many ATA members. But for some, the decision rankles.
"We are very disappointed with ATA over the issue," said Doug Duncan, president of FedEx Freight. "It is not responsible to customers. It is an important issue that deserves our attention and should not be shuttled aside as irrelevant."
Roadway Express also is disappointed, said Ted Scott, executive director of government relations.
"Graves said he recognizes the problem. With a few members it's a serious issue," he said. "[They] have passionate feelings about size and weight and believe that we should lead the charge. My comment to them is that I need those kinds of members more than ever, because if we are going to bring the industry around to pursuing size and weight at some point, it's clearly going to take the energy and leadership of those kinds of folks."
One ATA member for whom size and weight matters is Steve Williams, president of Maverick Transportation and a vice chairman of ATA.
Williams said that freight is predicted to double over the next 20 years, and that the nation is not going to be able to build its way out of the congestion problem.
"It is incumbent on us as leaders in the industry to do the right thing for our country, our industry and our individual companies," he said.
"In the long term, the reality is that we have a serious, looming problem laying out there," he said. "What in the hell are we going to do about it? I think it is time for us to collectively figure out what is the best long-term strategy to get to where we need to be, and spend our resources trying to get there."
Williams is co-chair of Americans for Safe and Efficient Transportation, a group of carriers, state trucking associations and shippers that has been lobbying for bigger trucks for years. Its most recent attempt was a bill introduced in 2000 that would have allowed states to raise weight limits to 97,000 pounds. It did not succeed.
Williams said he understands the practical reality of the ATA decision, but he will not give up. "I'm not going to quit talking about it until we get it done," he said. "I don't think we have any choice. It's irresponsible of us to do anything short of fighting for that."
He said that the members of ATA have to come to grips with the situation - that there will come a time when more productive trucks are a necessity. And ATA staff is going to have to demonstrate leadership in helping members understand the significance of these events and how to craft a strategy to solve the problem in the long term.
"The agreement also presents problems for some shippers. I am lost as to how this will help," said John A. Gentle, global leader of carrier relations for Owens Corning. "Making these decisions without the consent of the shipping community is really so counterproductive."
As far as Williams and Gentle are concerned, the ultimate goal remains the same. And in fact, Graves agrees: "Personally, I believe that at some point Congress has to recognize that a discussion of size and weight is an appropriate discussion to have. It's obviously not going to happen this go-around. But part of my job is to at least educate and encourage people that there needs to be a time where we can have a more complete dialogue."
UPS, too, is sticking to the idea - if not the immediate realization of improved productivity. Bolger said the company has not changed its policy and continues to talk about the benefits of LCVs. "Going into the legislative season this year, we wanted to make sure that lawmakers and state officials appreciated our position on benefits of LCVs, while at same time appreciating the importance of the status quo."
The agreement does not include special size and weight legislation that already was in play. ATA is free to lobby for bills that would permit heavier trucks on certain roads in Maine, for milk haulers in New Hampshire and for auto haulers - and AAR is free to oppose them if it chooses.
There is one outstanding issue, however. AAR has agreed to lobby against SHIPA, but it has not said whether it will continue to support its long-time surrogate in the lobbying arena, the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks. As far as Williams and Bolger are concerned, it would be a deal-breaker if the rails funnel money to CABT. Graves, on the other hand, is not so sure.
"I think as long as the rails perceive the motor carrier industry as the competitor for freight, that they will stay engaged in whatever activity keeps their competitor from taking business away. I would expect them to continue in efforts like CABT."
It won't be that way forever, he predicts. "Slowly, but surely, motor carriers are becoming more significant customers of the railroads, and the relationship may change," he said.
Meanwhile, he said, "Over on Capitol Hill, I'll take my chances with an AAR statement of opposition against SHIPA over a CABT organization promoting the effort."
More News
